<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-17-6073-2024</article-id><title-group><article-title>Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles using low-cost optical particle counters</article-title><alt-title>Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Wei-Chieh</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hung</surname><given-names>Hui-Ming</given-names></name>
          <email>hmhung@ntu.edu.tw</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6755-6359</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Chu</surname><given-names>Ching-Wei</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hwang</surname><given-names>Wei-Chun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Lung</surname><given-names>Shih-Chun Candice</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Sciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 106319, Taiwan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Research Center for Environmental Changes, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 115201, Taiwan</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Hui-Ming Hung (hmhung@ntu.edu.tw)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>17</day><month>October</month><year>2024</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>20</issue>
      <fpage>6073</fpage><lpage>6084</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>6</day><month>March</month><year>2024</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>March</month><year>2024</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>7</day><month>August</month><year>2024</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day><month>August</month><year>2024</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2024 Wei-Chieh Huang et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2024</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e125">This study investigates the chemical composition and physical properties of aerosols, which play a crucial role in influencing human health, cloud physics, and local climate. Our focus centers on the hygroscopicity of ambient aerosols, a key property reflecting the ability to take up moisture from the atmosphere and serve as cloud condensation nuclei. Employing home-built air quality box (AQB) systems equipped with low-cost sensors, we assess the ambient variability of particulate matter (PM) concentrations to determine PM hygroscopicity. The AQB systems effectively captured meteorological parameters and most pollutant concentrations, showing high correlations with data from the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (TW-EPA). With the application of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation and certain assumptions, AQB-monitored PM concentrations are converted to dry particle mass concentration, providing optical particle counter sensitivity correction and resulting in improved correlation with TW-EPA data. The derived single hygroscopicity parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) range from 0.15 to 0.29 for integrated fine particles (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) and 0.05 to 0.13 for coarse particles (PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>), consistent with results of ionic chromatography analysis from a previous winter campaign nearby. Moreover, the analysis of PM<sub>10</sub> division into PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, considering composition heterogeneity, provided improved dry PM<sub>10</sub> concentration as the sensitivity coefficients for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> were notably higher than for PM<sub>2.5</sub>. Our methodology provides a comprehensive approach to assess ambient aerosol hygroscopicity, with significant implications for atmospheric modeling, particularly in evaluating aerosol efficiency as cloud condensation nuclei and in radiative transfer calculations. Overall, the AQB systems proved to be effective in monitoring air quality and deriving key aerosol properties, contributing valuable insights into atmospheric science.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Science and Technology Council</funding-source>
<award-id>111-2111-M-002-009</award-id>
<award-id>112-2111-M-002-014</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e239">In an era of increased industrialization, individuals face growing exposure to poor air quality, elevating the risks of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (Chen et al., 2017; Brook et al., 2010; Heus et al., 2010). Within the realm of air pollutants, atmospheric aerosols emerge as critical components, playing a vital role in Earth's climate system. They influence radiative balance, cloud formation, and precipitation patterns, while significantly impacting human health, visibility, and ecosystems (Pöschl et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2010; Brook et al., 2010; Hamanaka and Mutlu, 2018). Their ability to scatter and absorb solar radiation, coupled with their role as cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs), emphasizes their significance in shaping both climate dynamics and air quality (Andreae and Rosenfeld, 2008; Rosenfeld et al., 2014; Lohmann and Feichter, 2005). However, understanding the complex interplay between aerosols and these processes requires the physical and chemical properties of aerosols, including hygroscopicity. The hygroscopic growth of aerosol particles, indicating their ability to take up moisture from the ambient air, alters their size distribution, mass, optical properties, and CCN activity, thereby impacting climate dynamics and air quality (Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007). The traditional methods such as hygroscopic tandem differential mobility analyzers and cloud condensation nuclei counters (Chan and Chan, 2005; Hung et al., 2016; Bian et al., 2014) have provided valuable insights into the hygroscopic properties of various aerosol types. However, their complexity and cost often limit their applicability for extensive, long-term measurements.</p>
      <p id="d2e242">Over the past decade, the rise in popularity of low-cost optical particle counters (OPCs) can be attributed to their simplicity, portability, and affordability (Sá et al., 2022; Crilley et al., 2018; Samad et al., 2021). OPCs provide real-time data on particle size distributions and mass concentrations with high temporal resolution for monitoring ambient particles. However, challenges arise in ensuring the accuracy of OPCs, necessitating additional constraints or calibrations for optimal performance. The measurement principle of OPCs relies on the dependence of Mie scattering on particle size, yet this dependence is non-monotonic across all sizes. Additionally, particle composition influences light scattering, leading to varying scattering efficiencies (Kaliszewski et al., 2020; Formenti et al., 2021). Variations in particle density directly affect the mass concentration derived from the monitored number size concentration (Hagan and Kroll, 2020; Dacunto et al., 2015). A particularly challenging issue involves the removal of liquid water from ambient particles. Several studies have attempted to derive the dry mass concentration of ambient particles using OPC, employing calibration methods linked to the hygroscopic growth factor (HGF) under controlled relative humidity (RH) conditions. Notably, Crilley et al. (2018) improved OPC mass concentration correction by applying the derived hygroscopicity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) values of 0.38–0.41 and 0.48–0.51 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, respectively, achieving a 33 % improvement. Similarly, Di Antonio et al. (2018) and Venkatraman Jagatha et al. (2021) elevated calibration from a moderate to a high correlation by assuming a constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.40. Furthermore, the chemical composition and physical properties of aerosols exhibit high temporal–spatial variation, making the analysis and correction of observational data from a physical perspective crucial. The widespread adoption of low-cost sensors, attributed to their affordability, enables more extensive use as users find them more accessible (Castell et al., 2017). This increased utilization enhances spatial resolution in environmental monitoring, deepening our understanding of pollution evolution. However, it is essential to emphasize that regular maintenance and calibration are necessary for accurate results (Concas et al., 2021; Sá et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d2e277">In this study, we evaluate the performance of our home-built monitoring system, air quality box (AQB), through a comprehensive analysis and calibration by co-locating the two AQB systems with the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (TW-EPA) station. Our primary focus is on OPCs, for which we employed a physical model to elucidate the hygroscopic characteristics of ambient particles during the determination of dry particle mass concentrations for integrated fine particles (PM<sub>2.5</sub>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and coarse particles (PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m). Additionally, we discuss various factors contributing to errors in hygroscopicity estimates, aiming to gain valuable insights into using low-cost sensors for extensive and prolonged monitoring applications.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Air quality box (AQB) system</title>
      <p id="d2e378">Two home-built AQB systems (AQB no. 1 and AQB no. 2) consist of multiple sensors that monitor meteorological parameters such as temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), relative humidity (RH), and pressure (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), as well as gaseous species and particulate matter (PM) with a temporal resolution of seconds as shown in Fig. 1 with sensor information summarized in Table S1. The gas sensors include five Alphasense amperometric B4 series sensors that measure CO, NO, NO<sub>2</sub>, O<sub><italic>x</italic></sub> (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<sub>2</sub>), and SO<sub>2</sub>; a photo-ionization detector (PID-AH2, Alphasense) monitoring volatile organic compounds; and a non-dispersive infrared CO<sub>2</sub> sensor from Amphenol Advanced Sensors (T6713-5K). The PID sensor, equipped with a krypton lamp providing a photon energy of about 10.6 eV, cannot detect methane, which has a higher ionization potential of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 13.7 eV (Glockler, 1926). Therefore, the data of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) from TW-EPA are more comparable to PID data in our analysis. The PM sensor (OPC-N2, Alphasense), an optical particle counter, monitors the number size distribution between 0.38 and 17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, divided into 16 bins based on Mie scattering, with a sampling flow rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 mL s<sup>−1</sup> and a refractive index of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, the mass concentration of PM<sub>1</sub>, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and PM<sub>10</sub> could be calculated from the number size distribution, assuming a particle density of 1.65 g cm<sup>−3</sup>. These sensors were controlled by a small single-board computer, Raspberry Pi Zero W, at a time resolution of 3 s with data stored in a microSD card and uploaded to cloud storage via 4G LTE. The entire system is housed in a remodeled enclosure with a dimension of 25 cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 16 cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 cm (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and has well-ventilated openings for sampling and exhaust. The sampling flow rate is primarily controlled by an installed fan at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.6 L min<sup>−1</sup>, corresponding to a residence time of approximately 34 s in the box. This configuration allows the system to effectively monitor ambient air quality independently without the need of additional inlets.</p>

      <fig id="Ch1.F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e614">The design of the AQB system.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Calibration campaign and reference data</title>
      <p id="d2e631">The calibration of AQB sensors was carried out by co-locating them with the TW-EPA Nanzi station (Fig. S1) in Kaohsiung, Taiwan (22°44<sup>′</sup>12<sup>′′</sup> N, 120°19<sup>′</sup>42<sup>′′</sup> E) from 4 to 19 February 2021. Nanzi station is situated on the roof of a 15 m high building in a well-ventilated environment. The primary gaseous components, dry PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations, and basic meteorological parameters are continuously monitored using standard instruments, as summarized in Table S1. For electrochemical sensors in AQB, the performance can be influenced by environmental parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, and other chemical species that have high cross sensitivity (Concas et al., 2021; Karagulian et al., 2019; Mead et al., 2013). Therefore, in this study, a linear regression with a multivariate function of voltage and the environmental temperature was applied to retrieve concentrations for gas species. For PM, the reported values by beta attenuation mass monitor (BAM) in the TW-EPA station reflect the dry-state PM concentration by controlling the measurement at RH less than 50 % (i.e., a heating device applied to reduce the sampling flow to 35 % water saturation when the ambient RH is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %). On the contrary, the optical particle counter (OPC) in AQB directly monitors ambient PM concentration. The difference between BAM and OPC data reflects the amount of liquid water content in ambient conditions. A simple linear regression between them might not completely reveal the influence of hygroscopicity. Therefore, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation (Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007) was applied to derive the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as discussed in the following section.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Sensitivity coefficients of OPCs and particle hygroscopicity</title>
      <p id="d2e724">To bridge the PM concentration gap between BAM and OPC, the sensitivity correction of OPC and the conversion of ambient particles to dry particles are required. The sensitivity coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) was evaluated as the mass concentration ratio of BAM and OPC data at low RH (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) having limited water content, as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M60" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OPC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OPC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are PM mass concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup>) measured by BAM and OPC, respectively. RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % was applied as the threshold criteria for data selection to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as the mass concentration of ambient particles might have significant water uptake at higher RH. The statistical distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OPC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % was analyzed to assign <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the mean value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: standard deviation) to prevent high-concentration data points from dominating the statistical result.</p>
      <p id="d2e885">The particle size growth with the water saturation ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) for a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be evaluated using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation as follows (Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M77" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the diameters (m) of the ambient and dry particulate matter, respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface tension of the particle (J m<sup>−2</sup>); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the molecular weight of water (g mol<sup>−1</sup>); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gas constant (J mol<sup>−1</sup> K<sup>−1</sup>); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the temperature; and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the density of liquid water (1.0 g cm<sup>−3</sup>). The first term is the solute effect, while the second is the Kelvin effect. As the mass is dominated by the larger particles, the Kelvin effect in Eq. (2) is assumed to be negligible for simplification. The derived dry mass concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">derived</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the measured ambient particles from OPC data can be expressed as follows (Pope et al., 2010; Crilley et al., 2018):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M91" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">derived</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OPC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the density of dry aerosol particles and is assumed to be 1.20 g cm<sup>−3</sup> in this study. With the determined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (Eq. 1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be derived from the data points of aqueous particles at RH above 70 %, and the deliquescence RH (DRH) can be verified using ion chromatography (IC) analyzed composition with the Extended Aerosol Inorganics Model (E-AIM) model. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) parameter between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">derived</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was used to assess the appropriate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M99" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MAPE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">derived</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of data points. With the restricted range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be derived under the minimum MAPE. The detailed process description for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> derivation is provided in the Supplement. Due to the heterogeneity between particles, PM<sub>10</sub> was divided into integrated fine particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and coarse particles (2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) to evaluate the individual sensitivity coefficient and hygroscopicity.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Composition analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e1489">Hygroscopicity can also be determined using the volume fraction of the major components. Based on an earlier field campaign, the ion chromatography (IC) method was applied to quantify water-soluble components for samples (both PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>) collected at Fooyin University (22°36<sup>′</sup>09.8<sup>′′</sup> N, 120°23<sup>′</sup>23.1<sup>′′</sup> E) in Kaohsiung from 15 to 28 January 2013. Ambient aerosol samples were collected using a pair of dichotomous aerosol samplers (model RP-2025, R&amp;P Co., Inc., Albany, New York) to collect integrated fine and coarse particles on Teflon filters with sampling flow rates of 15.0 and 16.7 L min<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The samples were categorized into daytime and nighttime. Daytime samples were collected from 08:00 to 20:00 LT, and nighttime samples were collected from 20:00 to 08:00 LT the next day. The samplers were equipped with Teflon filters deployed for the measurement of water-soluble ions (Na<sup>+</sup>, Mg<sup>2+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>, Ca<sup>2+</sup>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Cl<sup>−</sup>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) via ion chromatography (model ICS-1000, Dionex). More information on the chemical analysis method can be found in Salvador and Chou (2014).</p>
      <p id="d2e1656">To derive the hygroscopicity from samplings, the ions from IC analysis were converted to chemical components via the following sequence: ammonium sulfate, ammonium bisulfate, ammonium nitrate (when there is residual ammonium), sodium nitrate, and sodium chloride. With the assumption of the hygroscopicity of insoluble components as zero and negligible residual ion contribution (less than 5 % of total mass), the overall hygroscopicity can be derived by the volume fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) weighted hygroscopicity from individual soluble component (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species) as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M127" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the hygroscopicity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the volume of particles, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the volume of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species. The conversion of particle mass to volume is based on a density of 1.20 g cm<sup>−3</sup>. The applied hygroscopicity, molecular weight, and density for the related chemical species are summarized in Table S2. With the assumption that these ions dissolve completely in the aqueous phase, which represents the maximum estimation, the hygroscopicity contributed by the residual ions were found to be approximately up to 1.8 % and 6.4 % of the overall <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value for integrated fine particles (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) and coarse particles (PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>), respectively. Given their limited impact on the hygroscopic behavior of the particles, the contribution of the residual ions was not taken into account in the calculation. Additionally, other PM<sub>2.5</sub> IC data for samples collected at the National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology (22°46<sup>′</sup>22.4<sup>′′</sup> N, 120°24<sup>′</sup>03.4<sup>′′</sup> E) in Kaohsiung for the period of 8–18 December 2021 samples were also applied for further comparison (no PM<sub>10</sub> collection for that campaign). We opted for the 2013 dataset for more discussion due to its comprehensive analysis encompassing both PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>. Furthermore, the composition data obtained from IC analysis was applied to E-AIM Model III (for systems containing H<sup>+</sup>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Na<sup>+</sup>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Cl<sup>−</sup>, and H<sub>2</sub>O) to evaluate the characteristics of volume variation as a function of RH in the range of 30 % to 90 % (Clegg et al., 1998). The partitioning of selected trace gases (HNO<sub>3</sub>, HCl, NH<sub>3</sub>, and H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>) into the vapor phase was disabled to keep a consistent quantity of applied chemical species in the particle phase. The growth factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, above DRH, was applied to retrieve the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value using Eq. (2) but without the Kelvin effect term (Luo et al., 2020). Both the individual sample concentrations and the overall averaged composition conditions were analyzed to evaluate the hygroscopic behavior of the particles.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Performance of AQB systems</title>
      <p id="d2e2056">Figure 2 shows the time series of the meteorological parameters and pollutant concentrations between calibrated AQB and TW-EPA data from 14 to 17 February 2021. T, RH, CO, and O<sub><italic>x</italic></sub> showed a good correlation with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while NO, NO<sub>2</sub>, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and PM<sub>10</sub> had a moderate correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The high correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.976</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for CO (with a lifetime of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 months) indicates a similar air parcel sampled by both AQB and the instrumentation in TW-EPA. The PID sensor had consistent peaks with high NMHC concentrations and could not reveal temporal variation at low concentrations, resulting in a low correlation. Overall, the AQB system performs well in capturing the ambient variability of pollutants stated above. The low correlation of SO<sub>2</sub> was due to the cross sensitivity of this SO<sub>2</sub> sensor, which was highly sensitive to O<sub>3</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> (about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>120 % reported in the technical specifications of Alphasense). O<sub>3</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> generally have higher concentrations than SO<sub>2</sub> and cause a significant contribution to the response of the SO<sub>2</sub> sensor. However, if high-SO<sub>2</sub>-concentration events occur, the SO<sub>2</sub> sensor might reflect the variation in SO<sub>2</sub> concentration. The PM concentration shown in Fig. 2 was calibrated using a simple linear regression, which roughly reflects the trend of mass concentration but shows more significant deviations at higher RH due to more water uptake in particles, as discussed in Sect. 3.2. Most gas species showed a high correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between different AQB systems except for NMHC (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.675</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as summarized in Table S3. Further results and discussions focus on the PM analysis using AQB no. 1, which has a more consistent sampling rate during the observation period, unless stated otherwise.</p>

      <fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e2273">The temporal profiles of calibrated AQB data (red lines) and the TW-EPA measurement (gray lines) for <bold>(a)</bold> temperature, <bold>(b)</bold> relative humidity, <bold>(c)</bold> CO, <bold>(d)</bold> NO, <bold>(e)</bold> NO<sub>2</sub>, <bold>(f)</bold> O<sub><italic>x</italic></sub> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≡</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> O<sub>3</sub>), <bold>(g)</bold> non-methane hydrocarbon, <bold>(h)</bold> SO<sub>2</sub>, <bold>(i)</bold> PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and <bold>(j)</bold> PM<sub>10</sub> during the period of 14–17 February 2021 (4 of 16 d in period). All the species were calibrated using linear regression.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Comparison between OPC and BAM data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Sensitivity coefficient of OPC</title>
      <p id="d2e2403">Figure 3a and c show the scatter distribution of the mass concentrations between OPC (with no calibration) and BAM data for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, respectively. Overall, the PM mass concentrations measured by OPC have a similar trend to those measured by BAM but exhibit some variability. The results reveal an apparent influence of ambient RH, indicating the contribution of water content. The red-shaded area represents a regression line with a slope corresponding to the inverse of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from data points at ambient RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % (17 out of 356 points, 5 %). The notable deviation of the red-shaded area from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> line towards the right side indicates the requirement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> corrections, contributed by the different measurement principles and calibration techniques, which may result from the assumed particle density and refractive index (RI) (dust, density: 1.65 g cm<sup>−3</sup>; RI: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, as summarized in Table 1, are higher for PM<sub>10</sub> than for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, i.e., 2.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.34 vs. 1.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16, and are reasonably conclusive as tested with more data points selected at higher RH thresholds (Fig. S2). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> difference between PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> might be attributed to the complex composition of ambient particles, which differs from the samples used for instrument calibration, as well as possible sensitivity variations in OPC over time. With sensitivity calibration, the performance at ambient RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % exhibits a strong correlation with MAPE at 12.8 % and 18.5 % as well as a root mean squared error (RMSE) at 3.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup> and 10.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup> for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, respectively, as summarized in Table 2 excluding the two significant outliers (shown as hollow circles in Fig. 3). The results confirm the effectiveness of OPCs in capturing PM concentrations after proper calibration, consistent with other real-time outdoor field studies, reporting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0.34 to 0.97, RMSE ranging from 0.52 to 12.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup>, and MAPE about 22 % (Gillooly et al., 2019; Demanega et al., 2021; Sá et al., 2022; Crilley et al., 2018). Additionally, the OPC sampling flow rate has an impact on measurement performance. AQB no. 1 maintained a steady rate at 3.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 L min<sup>−1</sup>, whereas AQB no. 2 exhibits two distinct periods with sampling flow rates of 3.6–4.2 L min<sup>−1</sup> for the first period and 3.2–3.6 L min<sup>−1</sup> for the second period. The distinctive sampling flow rates result in a non-linear change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, suggesting the need to separate the data into two parts to estimate the individual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S3).</p>

      <fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e2713">The correlation of mass concentration between BAM and OPC in AQB no. 1 (raw data or calibrated data): <bold>(a, d)</bold> PM<sub>2.5</sub>, <bold>(b, e)</bold> PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, <bold>(c, f)</bold> PM<sub>10</sub>, and <bold>(f)</bold> separated calibration PM<sub>10</sub>. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> are the raw data, while panels <bold>(d)</bold>–<bold>(g)</bold> are the calibrated data. The marker color corresponds to relative humidity. The hollow points are the two significant outliers under conditions of RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %. The shaded region represents the data associated with the sensitivity coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). The value in parentheses is the MAPE in percentage.</p></caption>
            <graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d2e2806">The sensitivity coefficients and the hygroscopicity for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>10</sub>, and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Sensitivity coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col7" align="center">Hygroscopicity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AQB no. 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">AQB no. 2<sup>b</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">AQB no. 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AQB no. 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">IC (species)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">IC (E-AIM)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.44 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.18–0.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.15–0.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.14–0.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.14–0.26</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>10</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.20–0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.18–0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.13–0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.11–0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5−10</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.37 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.58 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.07–0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.05–0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.06–0.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.08–0.21</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d2e2841"><sup>a</sup> The hygroscopicity derived using different sensitivity coefficients for different size ranges. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are sensitivity coefficients for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively. More details are provided in the description of the Supplement. <sup>b</sup> The sensitivity of AQB no. 2 presents the value in the period of sampling flow rates at 3.6–4.2 L min<sup>−1</sup>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d2e3239">Performance metrics of different calibration methods for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, and PM<sub>10</sub>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">PM<sub>2.5</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">PM<sub>2.5−10</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col8" nameend="col11" align="center">PM<sub>10</sub></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">All data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">(PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">only<sup>a</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(no <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.29</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">only<sup>a</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(no <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">only<sup>a</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(no <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.36</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>)<sup>c</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Applied <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.37 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">13.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MAPE (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21.3 (12.8)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">48.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">24.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">15.9 (11.5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">37.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">31.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">32.8 (18.5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">62.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">29.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">18.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RMSE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g cm<sup>−3</sup>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20.5 (3.7)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.9 (2.8)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">9.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42.6 (10.3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">54.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">26.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">15.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.55 (0.51)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.31 (0.78)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.18 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.58)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.51</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d2e3274"><sup>a</sup> Only for data points at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %. The value in parentheses is the performance result without two significant outliers shown in Fig. 3. <sup>b</sup> Coefficient of determination (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is calculated as the proportion of variation in the calibrated dry mass concentration. <sup>c</sup> The combination of calibrated data from PM<sub>2.5</sub> all data (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.29</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> all data (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Hygroscopicity derivation</title>
      <p id="d2e3908">With the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the hygroscopicities were retrieved using Eq. (3), resulting in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0.18 to 0.29 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and 0.20 to 0.39 for PM<sub>10</sub> during the studied period, as summarized in Table 1. Figure 3d and f show the scatter distribution of the derived dry concentration vs. BAM concentration for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, respectively. The results from the two OPCs exhibit slight differences but are consistent overall. Considering both the sensitivity coefficient and hygroscopicity, the performance of OPC in deriving dry PM concentration is significantly improved with lower MAPE, RMSE, and higher R<sup>2</sup> than the results obtained using only the sensitivity coefficient, as summarized in Table 2. With a similar methodology,  Crilley et al. (2018) applied the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation to compare measured data between OPC-N2 and tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) and derived the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0.38 to 0.41 and 0.48 to 0.51 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, respectively, which is within the range for Europe (i.e., 0.36 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16)  (Pringle et al., 2010).</p>
      <p id="d2e4011">Due to the heterogeneity of composition among different sizes, PM<sub>10</sub> can be divided into PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> for further analysis. The estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, as summarized in Table 1, is approximately 1 order of magnitude higher than that for PM<sub>2.5</sub>. The lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> might suggest a significant contribution from dust or other less hygroscopic species, consistent with the IC analyses in Table 3 and discussed further in Sect. 3.3. With the retrieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, Fig. 3e shows the scatter distribution between the derived dry PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> from OPC and BAM data, exhibiting a MAPE of 31.8 %, which is more significant than the 24.8 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub>. The higher MAPE might result from the low particle number concentration in the coarse mode, with only about 0.01 to 0.1 particles per bin per cubic centimeter in the size range of 3.0 to 10.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. The results are consistent with the findings of  Kaliszewski et al. (2020), which showed that the correlation between OPC-N3 (a newer version of OPC-N2) and AeroTrak 8220 (TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA) measurement data decreases with particle size, from 0.3–0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to 5–10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.74</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The dry PM<sub>10</sub> derived from OPC through the divided PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> analysis demonstrates better consistency with the reported BAM data than the direct calibration method. This is evidenced by a lower MAPE in Fig. 3g (18.2 %) compared to Fig. 3f (29.2 %) and a significant improvement than the simple linear regression method, which has a higher MAPE at 62.5 % (Table 2). Moreover, the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>10</sub> with the size-dependent sensitivity coefficient correction ranges from 0.13 to 0.23 (Table 1). This value falls between those for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> and is more reasonable compared to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> derived with a fixed sensitivity coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–0.39, higher than those for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>). The results substantiate the importance of considering composition heterogeneity among particle sizes for accurate dry PM derivation.</p>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d2e4326">The total mass concentration, major water-soluble composition, and concentration (mean value and standard deviation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup>) of winter PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> in Kaohsiung by ion chromatography (“Others” represents the insoluble composition).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ion species</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Total</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Na<sup>+</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mg<sup>2+</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">K<sup>+</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Ca<sup>2+</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Cl<sup>−</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">Others</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">67.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.06 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.08 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.21 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13.63 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">11.89 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">31.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5−10</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">36.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.21 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.74 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.07 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.28 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.87 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4.35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">25.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Hygroscopicity derivation using IC data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>3.3.1</label><title>Composition analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e4777">The major soluble composition and concentrations obtained from the IC analysis are summarized in Table 3. The mean concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> are 67 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19 and 36 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<sup>−3</sup>, respectively. The determined soluble composition of PM<sub>2.5</sub> constitutes approximately 53 % of the mass fraction and is predominantly composed of NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which are formed through chemical reactions involving industrial and agricultural emissions. In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % of PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> is soluble components, including NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Na<sup>+</sup>, Cl<sup>−</sup>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and some alkaline earth metal ions (Ca<sup>2+</sup> and Mg<sup>2+</sup>), with a more significant proportion being insoluble components (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 %), likely attributed to dust, metallic elements, and unanalyzed organic components. The higher portion of sea salt (Na<sup>+</sup> and Cl<sup>−</sup>) in PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> than in PM<sub>2.5</sub> is likely transported by the sea breeze during the daytime, while the increased fractions of Ca<sup>2+</sup> and Mg<sup>2+</sup> might correspond to sand or dust particles (Li et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d2e5063">The temporal variation of derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, based on the IC soluble composition analysis, ranges from 0.14 to 0.26 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and 0.06 to 0.21 for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, as shown in Fig. S4a and summarized in Table 1. A similar analysis for the winter of 2021 showed a similar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> range for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, as illustrated in Fig. S5. This consistency across distinct study periods indicates typical winter hygroscopic characteristics for ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub> in Kaohsiung, applicable for further discussion with the OPC data. For PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, the more significant variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to PM<sub>2.5</sub> can be attributed to substantial fluctuations of soluble composition in coarse particles, primarily driven by significant quantities of thenardite (Na<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>) and halite (NaCl) (Tang et al., 2019). Due to the dominance of the northeast monsoon wind during the filter sampling period, the influence of the sea–land breeze was too relatively weak to cause apparent diurnal variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e5178">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values derived from IC analysis reflect the temporal variation, while those from OPC analysis indicate the overall physical properties of ambient aerosols for the studied period. Factors such as spatial and temporal variations in aerosols, different campaign years and locations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 km apart, as shown in Fig. S1), and technique uncertainties, such as ammonia and nitrate sampling evaporation during filter sampling (Hering and Cass, 1999; Chen et al., 2021), as well as OPC detection uncertainties and assumption required for calculation, can influence comparisons. However, the results (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.22 (OPC) vs. 0.14–0.27 (IC) for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.09 (OPC) vs. 0.06–0.21 (IC) for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>) summarized in Table 1 and Fig. 4a suggest that the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values from OPC data likely reflect the mean hygroscopicity for the integrated fine and coarse particles during winter in Kaohsiung.</p>

      <fig id="Ch1.F4"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e5243">The hygroscopicities of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> derived based on data from OPCs and ion chromatography with the assumption particle density of <bold>(a)</bold> 1.2 g cm<sup>−3</sup> and <bold>(b)</bold> 1.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and 1.34 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07 g cm<sup>−3</sup> for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively, based on analyzed composition. The average value is shown as a red diamond.</p></caption>
            <graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>3.3.2</label><title>E-AIM analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e5351">With the measured composition, the hygroscopicity can be derived from the growth pattern. The particle growth might follow the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation (Eq. 2) when all soluble species are fully dissolved, typically occurring above the DRH. Using the averaged soluble composition determined from the IC analysis, HGF as a function of RH calculated using E-AIM is shown in Fig. 5. For PM<sub>2.5</sub>, partial deliquescence initiates at 60 % RH with some residual solid components such as ((NH<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> and  2NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<sub>4</sub>). Complete dissolution occurs at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 72 %. In the case of PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, water uptake begins at 42 % RH, leaving a residual solid composed of 3NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub>(NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<sub>4</sub>, NH<sub>4</sub>Cl, and NaNO<sub>3</sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Na<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> H<sub>2</sub>O  until reaching 68 % RH. The daily DRH happens at 71.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.9 % and 67.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.4 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively, as shown in Fig. S4b and c. In the OPC data analysis, an RH threshold of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % was applied to determine the sensitivity. At this threshold, PM<sub>2.5</sub> particles have not yet deliquesced, and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> shows minimal volume growth, indicating the applicability of the selected RH threshold for sensitivity calculation. A DRH threshold of 70 % was applied to ensure sufficient data points for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> calculation but slightly lower than the DRH of PM<sub>2.5</sub>.</p>

      <fig id="Ch1.F5"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e5658">The volume ratio of a given soluble composition as a function of RH under thermodynamic equilibrium calculated using E-AIM at 298.15 K (composition is the averaged IC data with a molarity ratio of Na<sup>+</sup> : NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : Cl<sup>−</sup> : SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">229</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">94</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">59</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">19</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>).</p></caption>
            <graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/17/6073/2024/amt-17-6073-2024-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d2e5796">To assess the potential bias associated with the selected DRH threshold, Fig. S6 shows the HGF of mean soluble composition as a function of RH estimated using E-AIM. With Eq. (2) (without the Kelvin effect term) and the assumption of volume additivity between the particle and the water taken up, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values derived using 70 % and 75 % thresholds show less than 1 % difference for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> compositions but 13 % and 6 % less than that estimated from the composition calculation (Eq. 5) for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively. As the selected DRH threshold decreases, the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases slightly due to the interference of adding data points with incompletely dissociated composition to the fitting analysis. However, the temporal composition variation in the applied OPC dataset (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 16 d of observation) might lead to a higher variation (Fig. S7), making the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> deviation due to the applied DRH threshold appear negligible in this study. Furthermore, the lower derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for E-AIM compared to the composition estimation is likely due to the applied individual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values in composition estimation being based on CCN activation measurement, which was reported to be 10 % to 17 % higher than that derived from the growth factor analysis (Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007). During the particle growth process, the partial dissociation leads to the RH-dependent van't Hoff factor, as noted by Petters and Kreidenweis (2007). Similar findings were reported by Kreidenweis et al. (2008) regarding the differences in derived water contents between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation and E-AIM to be within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % under the condition of approximately 85 % RH, which might cause differences for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> evaluation. Overall, the differences in derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> among methods are primarily due to the given hygroscopicity of chemical species, likely due to the fixed van't Hoff factor and the assumptions of volume additivity in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Sensitivity of assumed parameters on derived hygroscopicity</title>
      <p id="d2e5933">For simplicity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was derived from OPC and BAM data without considering the Kelvin effect and under an assumed particle density. Neglecting the Kelvin effect may result in minor differences for particles larger than 100 nm under sub-saturated conditions (Pope et al., 2010; Topping et al., 2005; Crilley et al., 2018). To confirm the appropriateness, we assessed biases for particles at 0.1 and 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m without considering the Kelvin effect, as shown in Fig. S8. For particles with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.3 under RH ranging from 70 % to 95 %, the deviation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> due to neglecting the Kelvin effect is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % for 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m particles and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 % for 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m particles, decreasing with particle diameter. The particle diameter is overestimated under the same RH conditions because the positive Kelvin effect is ignored. To compensate for the deficiency in saturation, the balanced particle diameter needs to be larger with a more significant solute effect. However, the average mass-weighted mean diameter for PM<sub>2.5</sub> is about 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. Therefore, neglecting the Kelvin effect in our analysis has limited influence on the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e6020">Furthermore, the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from OPC data (using Eq. 3) and IC data (using Eq. 5) are notably influenced by the assumed particle density. Assuming that the undetermined composition mainly consists of secondary organic species with a density of 1.2 g cm<sup>−3</sup>, within the reported densities ranging from 0.9 to 1.6 g cm<sup>−3</sup> depending on the formation process (Malloy et al., 2009; Kostenidou et al., 2007; Zelenyuk et al., 2008), along with the properties of analyzed soluble chemical species summarized in Table S2, the calculated densities are 1.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and 1.34 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 g cm<sup>−3</sup> for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively (Fig. S9). These calculated densities are about 15 % and 10 % higher than the assumed fixed density (1.2 g cm<sup>−3</sup>) for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively. Consequently, the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from OPC data increases by approximately 17 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and 9 % for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, while the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from IC data is proportional to density (i.e., 15 % and 10 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, respectively) as shown in Fig. 4b. This influence is particularly noticeable for components with a high portion of higher-density species, such as black carbon (a non-hygroscopic species with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) having a high density of about 1.8 g cm<sup>−3</sup> (Park et al., 2004; Shiraiwa et al., 2008). Despite the potential uncertainties associated with particle density, the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibits consistency between the OPC and IC analyses.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d2e6242">In this study, we evaluated the performances of home-built air quality box (AQB) systems equipped with low-cost sensors and focused on the ambient variability of particulate matter (PM) concentrations to derive the hygroscopicity of PM and the conversion to dry particle concentrations. The AQB systems revealed their effectiveness in capturing meteorological parameters and most pollutant concentrations with high correlations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for temperature, relative humidity, CO, and O<sub><italic>x</italic></sub> (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<sub>2</sub>) and moderate correlations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for NO<sub><italic>x</italic></sub> and PM, as compared to TW-EPA data. In the PM analysis, PM<sub>10</sub> was divided into PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> to account for compositional heterogeneity among different particle sizes. Comparing the OPC-monitored ambient PM data and the BAM data (for dry particles) at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %, the derived sensitivity coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> (10.58–12.37) were higher than those for PM<sub>2.5</sub> (1.26–1.44), likely due to the significant sensitivity variation in the OPC over time. By considering hygroscopicity with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Köhler equation and assuming a constant composition density for sensitivity-corrected OPC data, the derived dry particle mass concentrations show improved consistency with BAM data compared to the simple linear regression approach. The derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values range from 0.15 to 0.29 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and 0.05 to 0.13 for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>, consistent with those from IC soluble composition analysis (0.14 to 0.27 for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and 0.06 to 0.21 for PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>) and primarily influenced by the proportion of soluble components, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 53 % in PM<sub>2.5</sub> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % in PM<sub>2.5−10</sub>. The sensitivity analysis of various parameters showed that the effects of the chosen deliquescence relative humidity (DRH) thresholds and Kelvin effect have a minor impact on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (less than 1 %). Conversely, recalculating particle densities for PM<sub>2.5</sub> (1.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 g cm<sup>−3</sup>) and PM<sub>2.5−10</sub> (1.34 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07 g cm<sup>−3</sup>) led to higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values by approximately 17 % and 9 %, respectively, compared to the results assuming a density of 1.2 g cm<sup>−3</sup>. Overall, the AQB systems are potentially helpful in understanding the temporal and spatial variability of air quality by effectively monitoring pollutant concentrations and providing the capability for hygroscopicity derivation. This study also emphasizes the need for careful consideration of uncertainties and calibration techniques to interpret low-cost sensor data accurately in atmospheric research.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <label>Appendix A</label><title>List of symbols and abbreviations</title>
      <p id="d2e6581"><table-wrap id="Taba" position="anchor"><oasis:table><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AQB</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">air quality box</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">sensitivity coefficient</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">beta attenuation mass monitor</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">cloud condensation nuclei</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">diameters of the ambient particulate matter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">diameters of the dry particulate matter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DRH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">deliquescence relative humidity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">E-AIM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Extended Aerosol Inorganics Model</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">volume fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HGF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">hygroscopic growth factor</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">IC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ion chromatography</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">hygroscopicity (single hygroscopicity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">parameter)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">hygroscopicity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">density of dry aerosol particles</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">density of liquid water</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">particulate matter mass concentrations</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">measured by BAM</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">derived</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">derived dry mass concentration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">molecular weight of water</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OPC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">particulate matter mass concentrations</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">measured by optical particle counter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MAPE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mean absolute percentage error</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NMHC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">non-methane hydrocarbons</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OPC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">optical particle counter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">pressure</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">particulate matter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">integrated fine particles with</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">a diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PM<sub>2.5−10</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">coarse particles with a diameter in a range</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">of 2.5 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">gas constant (8.314 J mol<sup>−1</sup> K<sup>−1</sup>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">relative humidity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">refractive index</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RMSE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">root mean squared error</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">water saturation ratio</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">surface tension of the particle</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">temperature</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TW-EPA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Taiwan Environmental Protection</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Administration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">volume of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> species</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">total volume of particles</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap></p>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e7223">The code is not publicly accessible, but readers can contact Hui-Ming Hung (hmhung@ntu.edu.tw) for more information. The observation data for AQBs and TW-EPA, the E-AIM model output, and the hygroscopicity derivation result used in this study can be accessed online at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13896790" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.13896790</ext-link> (Huang et al., 2024).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d2e7230">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6073-2024-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6073-2024-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e7239">WCH carried out the calibration campaign, analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript draft. HMH supervised the project, which included data discussion and manuscript editing. CWC and WCH designed the home-built AQB system and performed the database generation. SCCL supervised the field study in 2013 and conducted the aerosol composition analysis in 2021.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e7245">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e7251">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e7257">We appreciate the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration for providing the minute-averaged data of meteorological parameters and chemical species for calibration and comparison as well as Shih-Chieh Hsu at the Research Center for Environmental Changes, Academia Sinica, Taipei, for composition data of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> in Kaohsiung (2013).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e7280">This research has been supported by the National Science and Technology Council (grant nos. 111-2111-M-002-009 and 112-2111-M-002-014).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e7286">This paper was edited by Albert Presto and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Rosenfeld, D.: Aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions, Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols, Earth-Sci. Rev., 89, 13–41, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bian, Y. X., Zhao, C. S., Ma, N., Chen, J., and Xu, W. Y.: A study of aerosol liquid water content based on hygroscopicity measurements at high relative humidity in the North China Plain, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6417–6426, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6417-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-6417-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., Diez-Roux, A. V., Holguin, F., Hong, Y., Luepker, R. V., Mittleman, M. A., Peters, A., Siscovick, D., Smith, S. C., Whitsel, L., and Kaufman, J. D.: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease, Circulation, 121, 2331–2378, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Castell, N., Dauge, F. R., Schneider, P., Vogt, M., Lerner, U., Fishbain, B., Broday, D., and Bartonova, A.: Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates?, Environ. Int., 99, 293–302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chan, M. N. and Chan, C. K.: Mass transfer effects in hygroscopic measurements of aerosol particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2703–2712, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2703-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-2703-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chen, C. L., Chen, T. Y., Hung, H. M., Tsai, P. W., Chou, C. C. K., and Chen, W. N.: The influence of upslope fog on hygroscopicity and chemical composition of aerosols at a forest site in Taiwan, Atmos. Environ., 246, 118150, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118150" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118150</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Chen, S. Y., Chan, C. C., and Su, T. C.: Particulate and gaseous pollutants on inflammation, thrombosis, and autonomic imbalance in subjects at risk for cardiovascular disease, Environ. Pollut., 223, 403–408, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.037</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Clegg, S. L., Brimblecombe, P., and Wexler, A. S.: Thermodynamic model of the system H<sup>+</sup>-NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-Na<sup>+</sup>-SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-Cl<sup>−</sup>-H<sub>2</sub>O at 298.15 K, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102, 2155–2171, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp973043j" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/jp973043j</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Concas, F., Mineraud, J., Lagerspetz, E., Varjonen, S., Liu, X. L., Puolamaki, K., Nurmi, P., and Tarkoma, S.: Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration: A Survey and Critical Analysis, ACM Trans. Sens. Netw., 17, 1–44, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3446005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1145/3446005</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Crilley, L. R., Shaw, M., Pound, R., Kramer, L. J., Price, R., Young, S., Lewis, A. C., and Pope, F. D.: Evaluation of a low-cost optical particle counter (Alphasense OPC-N2) for ambient air monitoring, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 709–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-709-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-709-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Dacunto, P. J., Klepeis, N. E., Cheng, K.-C., Acevedo-Bolton, V., Jiang, R.-T., Repace, J. L., Ott, W. R., and Hildemann, L. M.: Determining PM<sub>2.5</sub> calibration curves for a low-cost particle monitor: common indoor residential aerosols, Environ. Sci., 17, 1959–1966, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00365b" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c5em00365b</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Demanega, I., Mujan, I., Singer, B. C., Andelkovic, A. S., Babich, F., and Licina, D.: Performance assessment of low-cost environmental monitors and single sensors under variable indoor air quality and thermal conditions, Build. Environ., 187, 107415, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107415" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107415</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Di Antonio, A., Popoola, O. A. M., Ouyang, B., Saffell, J., and Jones, R. L.: Developing a Relative Humidity Correction for Low-Cost Sensors Measuring Ambient Particulate Matter, Sensors, 18, 2790, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092790" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s18092790</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Formenti, P., Di Biagio, C., Huang, Y., Kok, J., Mallet, M. D., Boulanger, D., and Cazaunau, M.: Look−up tables resolved by complex refractive index to correct particle sizes measured by common research−grade optical particle counters, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-403" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2021-403</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Gillooly, S. E., Zhou, Y., Vallarino, J., Chu, M. T., Michanowicz, D. R., Levy, J. I., and Adamkiewicz, G.: Development of an in-home, real-time air pollutant sensor platform and implications for community use, Environ. Pollut., 244, 440–450, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.064" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.064</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Glockler, G.: The ionization potential of methane, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 48, 2021–2026, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01419a002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ja01419a002</ext-link>, 1926.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Hagan, D. H. and Kroll, J. H.: Assessing the accuracy of low-cost optical particle sensors using a physics-based approach, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 6343–6355, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Hamanaka, R. B. and Mutlu, G. M.: Particulate Matter Air Pollution: Effects on the Cardiovascular System, Front. Endocrinol., 9, 680, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00680" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fendo.2018.00680</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Hering, S. and Cass, G.: The Magnitude of Bias in the Measurement of PM<sub>25</sub> Arising from Volatilization of Particulate Nitrate from Teflon Filters, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc., 49, 725–733, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/10473289.1999.10463843</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Heus, T., van Heerwaarden, C. C., Jonker, H. J. J., Siebesma, A. P., Axelsen, S., van den Dries, K., Geoffroy, O., Moene, A. F., Pino, D., de Roode, S. R., and de Arellano, J. V. G.: Formulation of the Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation (DALES) and overview of its applications, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 415–444, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-415-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-415-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Huang, W.-C., Hung, H.-M., Chu, C.-W., Hwang, W.-C., and Lung, S.-C. C.: Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles using low-cost optical particle counters, Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13896790" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.13896790</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Hung, H.-M., Hsu, C.-H., Lin, W.-T., and Chen, Y.-Q.: A case study of single hygroscopicity parameter and its link to the functional groups and phase transition for urban aerosols in Taipei City, Atmos. Environ., 132, 240–248, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.008</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Kaliszewski, M., Włodarski, M., Młyńczak, J., and Kopczyński, K.: Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown, Sensors, 20,  7290, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247290" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s20247290</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Karagulian, F., Barbiere, M., Kotsev, A., Spinelle, L., Gerboles, M., Lagler, F., Redon, N., Crunaire, S., and Borowiak, A.: Review of the Performance of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring, Atmosphere, 10, 506, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090506" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos10090506</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Kostenidou, E., Pathak, R. K., and Pandis, S. N.: An algorithm for the calculation of secondary organic aerosol density combining AMS and SMPS data, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 41, 1002–1010, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701666270" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820701666270</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Kreidenweis, S. M., Petters, M. D., and DeMott, P. J.: Single-parameter estimates of aerosol water content, Environ. Res. Lett., 3, 035002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035002</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Li, J., Liu, W. Y., Castarede, D., Gu, W. J., Li, L. J., Ohigashi, T., Zhang, G. Q., Tang, M. J., Thomson, E. S., Hallquist, M., Wang, S., and Kong, X. R.: Hygroscopicity and Ice Nucleation Properties of Dust/Salt Mixtures Originating from the Source of East Asian Dust Storms, Front. Environ. Sci., 10, 897127, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.897127" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fenvs.2022.897127</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Q., Hong, J., Xu, H., Han, S., Tan, H., Wang, Q., Tao, J., Ma, N., Cheng, Y., and Su, H.: Hygroscopicity of amino acids and their effect on the water uptake of ammonium sulfate in the mixed aerosol particles, Sci. Total Environ., 734, 139318, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139318" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139318</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Malloy, Q. G. J., Nakao, S., Qi, L., Austin, R., Stothers, C., Hagino, H., and Cocker, D. R.: Real-Time Aerosol Density Determination Utilizing a Modified Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer – Aerosol Particle Mass Analyzer System, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 43, 673–678, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820902832960" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820902832960</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Mead, M. I., Popoola, O. A. M., Stewart, G. B., Landshoff, P., Calleja, M., Hayes, M., Baldovi, J. J., McLeod, M. W., Hodgson, T. F., Dicks, J., Lewis, A., Cohen, J., Baron, R., Saffell, J. R., and Jones, R. L.: The use of electrochemical sensors for monitoring urban air quality in low-cost, high-density networks, Atmos. Environ., 70, 186–203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.060" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.060</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Pöschl, U., Martin, S. T., Sinha, B., Chen, Q., Gunthe, S. S., Huffman, J. A., Borrmann, S., Farmer, D. K., Garland, R. M., Helas, G., Jimenez, J. L., King, S. M., Manzi, A., Mikhailov, E., Pauliquevis, T., Petters, M. D., Prenni, A. J., Roldin, P., Rose, D., Schneider, J., Su, H., Zorn, S. R., Artaxo, P., and Andreae, M. O.: Rainforest aerosols as biogenic nuclei of clouds and precipitation in the Amazon, Science, 329, 1513–1516, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191056" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1191056</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Park, K., Kittelson, D. B., Zachariah, M. R., and McMurry, P. H.: Measurement of Inherent Material Density of Nanoparticle Agglomerates, J. Nanopart. Res., 6, 267–272, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NANO.0000034657.71309.e6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1023/B:NANO.0000034657.71309.e6</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Petters, M. D. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1961–1971, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Pope, F. D., Dennis-Smither, B. J., Griffiths, P. T., Clegg, S. L., and Cox, R. A.: Studies of Single Aerosol Particles Containing Malonic Acid, Glutaric Acid, and Their Mixtures with Sodium Chloride. I. Hygroscopic Growth, J. Phys. Chem. A, 114, 5335–5341, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp100059k" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/jp100059k</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., and Lelieveld, J.: Global distribution of the effective aerosol hygroscopicity parameter for CCN activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5241–5255, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan, D. P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekas, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt, K. S., Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52, 750–808, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013rg000441" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013rg000441</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Salvador, C. M. and Chou, C. C. K.: Analysis of semi-volatile materials (SVM) in fine particulate matter, Atmos. Environ., 95, 288–295, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.046" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.046</ext-link>, 2014. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Samad, A., Mimiaga, F. E. M., Laquai, B., and Vogt, U.: Investigating a Low-Cost Dryer Designed for Low-Cost PM Sensors Measuring Ambient Air Quality, Sensors, 21, 804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030804" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s21030804</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Shiraiwa, M., Kondo, Y., Moteki, N., Takegawa, N., Sahu, L. K., Takami, A., Hatakeyama, S., Yonemura, S., and Blake, D. R.: Radiative impact of mixing state of black carbon aerosol in Asian outflow, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24210,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010546" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010546</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Sá, J. P., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M., Martins, F. G., and Sousa, S. I. V.: Application of the low-cost sensing technology for indoor air quality monitoring: A review, Environ. Technol. Innov., 28, 102551, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102551" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.eti.2022.102551</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Tang, M. J., Zhang, H. H., Gu, W. J., Gao, J., Jian, X., Shi, G. L., Zhu, B. Q., Xie, L. H., Guo, L. Y., Gao, X. Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, G. H., and Wang, X. M.: Hygroscopic Properties of Saline Mineral Dust From Different Regions in China: Geographical Variations, Compositional Dependence, and Atmospheric Implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 10844–10857, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031128" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019jd031128</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Topping, D. O., McFiggans, G. B., and Coe, H.: A curved multi-component aerosol hygroscopicity model framework: Part 1 – Inorganic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1205–1222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1205-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-1205-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Venkatraman Jagatha, J., Klausnitzer, A., Chacón-Mateos, M., Laquai, B., Nieuwkoop, E., van der Mark, P., Vogt, U., and Schneider, C.: Calibration Method for Particulate Matter Low-Cost Sensors Used in Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Research, Sensors, 21, 3960, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s21123960" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s21123960</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Wu, C. F., Kuo, I. C., Su, T. C., Li, Y. R., Lin, L. Y., Chan, C. C., and Hsu, S. C.: Effects of Personal Exposure to Particulate Matter and Ozone on Arterial Stiffness and Heart Rate Variability in Healthy Adults, Am. J. Epidemiol., 171, 1299–1309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq060" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/aje/kwq060</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Zelenyuk, A., Yang, J., Song, C., Zaveri, R. A., and Imre, D.: A new real-time method for determining particles' sphericity and density: application to secondary organic aerosol formed by ozonolysis of alpha-pinene, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 8033–8038, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es8013562" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es8013562</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles using low-cost optical particle counters</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Andreae, M. O. and Rosenfeld, D.: Aerosol–cloud–precipitation
interactions, Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols,
Earth-Sci. Rev., 89, 13–41, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Bian, Y. X., Zhao, C. S., Ma, N., Chen, J., and Xu, W. Y.: A study of
aerosol liquid water content based on hygroscopicity measurements at high
relative humidity in the North China Plain, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
6417–6426, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6417-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6417-2014</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A.,
Diez-Roux, A. V., Holguin, F., Hong, Y., Luepker, R. V., Mittleman, M. A.,
Peters, A., Siscovick, D., Smith, S. C., Whitsel, L., and Kaufman, J. D.:
Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease, Circulation,
121, 2331–2378, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Castell, N., Dauge, F. R., Schneider, P., Vogt, M., Lerner, U., Fishbain,
B., Broday, D., and Bartonova, A.: Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms
contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates?, Environ. Int.,
99, 293–302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chan, M. N. and Chan, C. K.: Mass transfer effects in hygroscopic
measurements of aerosol particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2703–2712,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2703-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2703-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chen, C. L., Chen, T. Y., Hung, H. M., Tsai, P. W., Chou, C. C. K., and
Chen, W. N.: The influence of upslope fog on hygroscopicity and chemical
composition of aerosols at a forest site in Taiwan, Atmos. Environ., 246, 118150,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118150" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118150</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chen, S. Y., Chan, C. C., and Su, T. C.: Particulate and gaseous pollutants
on inflammation, thrombosis, and autonomic imbalance in subjects at risk for
cardiovascular disease, Environ. Pollut., 223, 403–408,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.037</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
Clegg, S. L., Brimblecombe, P., and Wexler, A. S.: Thermodynamic model of
the system
H<sup>+</sup>-NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-Na<sup>+</sup>-SO<sub>4</sub><sup>2−</sup>-NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>-Cl<sup>−</sup>-H<sub>2</sub>O
at 298.15&thinsp;K, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102, 2155–2171, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp973043j" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/jp973043j</a>, 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Concas, F., Mineraud, J., Lagerspetz, E., Varjonen, S., Liu, X. L.,
Puolamaki, K., Nurmi, P., and Tarkoma, S.: Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality
Monitoring and Sensor Calibration: A Survey and Critical Analysis, ACM
Trans. Sens. Netw., 17, 1–44, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3446005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1145/3446005</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Crilley, L. R., Shaw, M., Pound, R., Kramer, L. J., Price, R., Young, S.,
Lewis, A. C., and Pope, F. D.: Evaluation of a low-cost optical particle
counter (Alphasense OPC-N2) for ambient air monitoring, Atmos. Meas. Tech.,
11, 709–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-709-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-709-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dacunto, P. J., Klepeis, N. E., Cheng, K.-C., Acevedo-Bolton, V., Jiang,
R.-T., Repace, J. L., Ott, W. R., and Hildemann, L. M.: Determining
PM<sub>2.5</sub> calibration curves for a low-cost particle monitor: common indoor
residential aerosols, Environ. Sci., 17, 1959–1966,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00365b" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00365b</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
Demanega, I., Mujan, I., Singer, B. C., Andelkovic, A. S., Babich, F., and
Licina, D.: Performance assessment of low-cost environmental monitors and
single sensors under variable indoor air quality and thermal conditions,
Build. Environ., 187, 107415, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107415" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107415</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Di Antonio, A., Popoola, O. A. M., Ouyang, B., Saffell, J., and Jones, R.
L.: Developing a Relative Humidity Correction for Low-Cost Sensors Measuring
Ambient Particulate Matter, Sensors, 18, 2790, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092790" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092790</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Formenti, P., Di Biagio, C., Huang, Y., Kok, J., Mallet, M. D., Boulanger, D., and Cazaunau, M.: Look−up tables resolved by complex refractive index to correct particle sizes measured by common research−grade optical particle counters, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-403" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-403</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gillooly, S. E., Zhou, Y., Vallarino, J., Chu, M. T., Michanowicz, D. R.,
Levy, J. I., and Adamkiewicz, G.: Development of an in-home, real-time air
pollutant sensor platform and implications for community use, Environ.
Pollut., 244, 440–450,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.064" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.064</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Glockler, G.: The ionization potential of methane, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 48, 2021–2026, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01419a002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01419a002</a>, 1926.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hagan, D. H. and Kroll, J. H.: Assessing the accuracy of low-cost optical
particle sensors using a physics-based approach, Atmos. Meas.
Tech., 13, 6343–6355, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hamanaka, R. B. and Mutlu, G. M.: Particulate Matter Air Pollution: Effects
on the Cardiovascular System, Front. Endocrinol., 9, 680,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00680" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00680</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hering, S. and Cass, G.: The Magnitude of Bias in the Measurement of
PM<sub>25</sub> Arising from Volatilization of Particulate Nitrate from Teflon
Filters, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc., 49, 725–733,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463843" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463843</a>, 1999.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
Heus, T., van Heerwaarden, C. C., Jonker, H. J. J., Siebesma, A. P.,
Axelsen, S., van den Dries, K., Geoffroy, O., Moene, A. F., Pino, D., de
Roode, S. R., and de Arellano, J. V. G.: Formulation of the Dutch
Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation (DALES) and overview of its applications,
Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 415–444, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-415-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-415-2010</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Huang, W.-C., Hung, H.-M., Chu, C.-W., Hwang, W.-C., and Lung, S.-C. C.: Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles using low-cost optical particle counters, Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13896790" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13896790</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hung, H.-M., Hsu, C.-H., Lin, W.-T., and Chen, Y.-Q.: A case study of single
hygroscopicity parameter and its link to the functional groups and phase
transition for urban aerosols in Taipei City, Atmos. Environ., 132, 240–248,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.008</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kaliszewski, M., Włodarski, M., Młyńczak, J., and Kopczyński,
K.: Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air
Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown, Sensors, 20,  7290, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247290" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247290</a>,
2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Karagulian, F., Barbiere, M., Kotsev, A., Spinelle, L., Gerboles, M.,
Lagler, F., Redon, N., Crunaire, S., and Borowiak, A.: Review of the
Performance of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring, Atmosphere, 10, 506,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090506" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090506</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kostenidou, E., Pathak, R. K., and Pandis, S. N.: An algorithm for the
calculation of secondary organic aerosol density combining AMS and SMPS
data, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 41, 1002–1010, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701666270" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701666270</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kreidenweis, S. M., Petters, M. D., and DeMott, P. J.: Single-parameter
estimates of aerosol water content, Environ. Res. Lett., 3, 035002,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/035002</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
Li, J., Liu, W. Y., Castarede, D., Gu, W. J., Li, L. J., Ohigashi, T.,
Zhang, G. Q., Tang, M. J., Thomson, E. S., Hallquist, M., Wang, S., and
Kong, X. R.: Hygroscopicity and Ice Nucleation Properties of Dust/Salt
Mixtures Originating from the Source of East Asian Dust Storms, Front.
Environ. Sci., 10, 897127, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.897127" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.897127</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Luo, Q., Hong, J., Xu, H., Han, S., Tan, H., Wang, Q., Tao, J., Ma, N.,
Cheng, Y., and Su, H.: Hygroscopicity of amino acids and their effect on the
water uptake of ammonium sulfate in the mixed aerosol particles, Sci. Total
Environ., 734, 139318, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139318" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139318</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Malloy, Q. G. J., Nakao, S., Qi, L., Austin, R., Stothers, C., Hagino, H.,
and Cocker, D. R.: Real-Time Aerosol Density Determination Utilizing a
Modified Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer – Aerosol Particle Mass Analyzer
System, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 43, 673–678, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820902832960" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820902832960</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mead, M. I., Popoola, O. A. M., Stewart, G. B., Landshoff, P., Calleja, M.,
Hayes, M., Baldovi, J. J., McLeod, M. W., Hodgson, T. F., Dicks, J., Lewis,
A., Cohen, J., Baron, R., Saffell, J. R., and Jones, R. L.: The use of
electrochemical sensors for monitoring urban air quality in low-cost,
high-density networks, Atmos. Environ., 70, 186–203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.060" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.060</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pöschl, U., Martin, S. T., Sinha, B., Chen, Q., Gunthe, S. S., Huffman,
J. A., Borrmann, S., Farmer, D. K., Garland, R. M., Helas, G., Jimenez, J.
L., King, S. M., Manzi, A., Mikhailov, E., Pauliquevis, T., Petters, M. D.,
Prenni, A. J., Roldin, P., Rose, D., Schneider, J., Su, H., Zorn, S. R.,
Artaxo, P., and Andreae, M. O.: Rainforest aerosols as biogenic nuclei of
clouds and precipitation in the Amazon, Science, 329, 1513–1516,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191056" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191056</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Park, K., Kittelson, D. B., Zachariah, M. R., and McMurry, P. H.:
Measurement of Inherent Material Density of Nanoparticle Agglomerates, J.
Nanopart. Res., 6, 267–272, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NANO.0000034657.71309.e6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NANO.0000034657.71309.e6</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
Petters, M. D. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A single parameter representation of
hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 7, 1961–1971, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pope, F. D., Dennis-Smither, B. J., Griffiths, P. T., Clegg, S. L., and Cox,
R. A.: Studies of Single Aerosol Particles Containing Malonic Acid, Glutaric
Acid, and Their Mixtures with Sodium Chloride. I. Hygroscopic Growth, J.
Phys. Chem. A, 114, 5335–5341, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp100059k" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/jp100059k</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., and Lelieveld, J.:
Global distribution of the effective aerosol hygroscopicity parameter for
CCN activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5241–5255, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010</a>,
2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan, D.
P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekas, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt, K. S.,
Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52,
750–808, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013rg000441" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013rg000441</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Salvador, C. M. and Chou, C. C. K.: Analysis of semi-volatile materials
(SVM) in fine particulate matter, Atmos. Environ., 95, 288–295, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.046" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.046</a>, 2014.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Samad, A., Mimiaga, F. E. M., Laquai, B., and Vogt, U.: Investigating a
Low-Cost Dryer Designed for Low-Cost PM Sensors Measuring Ambient Air
Quality, Sensors, 21, 804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030804" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030804</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Shiraiwa, M., Kondo, Y., Moteki, N., Takegawa, N., Sahu, L. K., Takami, A.,
Hatakeyama, S., Yonemura, S., and Blake, D. R.: Radiative impact of mixing
state of black carbon aerosol in Asian outflow, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
113, D24210,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010546" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010546</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sá, J. P., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M., Martins, F. G., and Sousa, S. I. V.:
Application of the low-cost sensing technology for indoor air quality
monitoring: A review, Environ. Technol. Innov., 28, 102551, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102551" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102551</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Tang, M. J., Zhang, H. H., Gu, W. J., Gao, J., Jian, X., Shi, G. L., Zhu, B.
Q., Xie, L. H., Guo, L. Y., Gao, X. Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, G. H., and Wang, X.
M.: Hygroscopic Properties of Saline Mineral Dust From Different Regions in
China: Geographical Variations, Compositional Dependence, and Atmospheric
Implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 10844–10857,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031128" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031128</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Topping, D. O., McFiggans, G. B., and Coe, H.: A curved multi-component aerosol hygroscopicity model framework: Part 1 – Inorganic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1205–1222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1205-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1205-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Venkatraman Jagatha, J., Klausnitzer, A., Chacón-Mateos, M., Laquai, B.,
Nieuwkoop, E., van der Mark, P., Vogt, U., and Schneider, C.: Calibration
Method for Particulate Matter Low-Cost Sensors Used in Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring and Research, Sensors, 21, 3960, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s21123960" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s21123960</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wu, C. F., Kuo, I. C., Su, T. C., Li, Y. R., Lin, L. Y., Chan, C. C., and
Hsu, S. C.: Effects of Personal Exposure to Particulate Matter and Ozone on
Arterial Stiffness and Heart Rate Variability in Healthy Adults, Am. J.
Epidemiol., 171, 1299–1309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq060" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq060</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zelenyuk, A., Yang, J., Song, C., Zaveri, R. A., and Imre, D.: A new
real-time method for determining particles' sphericity and density:
application to secondary organic aerosol formed by ozonolysis of
alpha-pinene, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 8033–8038, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es8013562" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es8013562</a>,
2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
