Figures & data
FIG. 1 Chromatogram of typical ambient atmospheric sample from TAG. The sample is composed of resolved peaks (compounds), column bleed from the column phase (shown here in a system blank), and the remainder of the sample signal is the Unresolved Complex Mixture (UCM) that is composed of hundreds of co-eluting compounds.
![FIG. 1 Chromatogram of typical ambient atmospheric sample from TAG. The sample is composed of resolved peaks (compounds), column bleed from the column phase (shown here in a system blank), and the remainder of the sample signal is the Unresolved Complex Mixture (UCM) that is composed of hundreds of co-eluting compounds.](/cms/asset/73c941d8-fc23-43b1-92c3-55b383bd2376/uast_a_967832_f0001_b.gif)
FIG. 2 The binning method for TAG chromatograms is to evenly divide the chromatogram by time including both the resolved peaks and the UCM. Using this method, the UCM dominates the signal.
![FIG. 2 The binning method for TAG chromatograms is to evenly divide the chromatogram by time including both the resolved peaks and the UCM. Using this method, the UCM dominates the signal.](/cms/asset/db3fbd1a-59d3-4928-84bc-b663bb7f3271/uast_a_967832_f0002_b.gif)
FIG. 3 Schematic of the TAG binning data matrix [X] for use in PMF analysis: n is the number of chromatogram for each hour; b is bin number for each chromatogram bin; m is the index of m/z.
![FIG. 3 Schematic of the TAG binning data matrix [X] for use in PMF analysis: n is the number of chromatogram for each hour; b is bin number for each chromatogram bin; m is the index of m/z.](/cms/asset/63c76a04-957c-49c4-9055-46389fc85979/uast_a_967832_f0003_b.gif)
Table 1 PMF Q/Qexp value of TAG-400Bin-Ambient dataset for different PMF error methods: IC and MDL error methods
FIG. 5 Correlations (R) of TAG-400Bin-Ambient time series with AMS HOA and OOA time series. Comparison was made among different PMF error methods: ion counting (IC) error method, which is the PMF error method for AMS data; and MDL error method. Different percentage in MDL method is the TAG measurement standard deviation, which is different for different compound.
![FIG. 5 Correlations (R) of TAG-400Bin-Ambient time series with AMS HOA and OOA time series. Comparison was made among different PMF error methods: ion counting (IC) error method, which is the PMF error method for AMS data; and MDL error method. Different percentage in MDL method is the TAG measurement standard deviation, which is different for different compound.](/cms/asset/e970a4cf-d977-4fcd-ad4e-7f20fa202cc8/uast_a_967832_f0005_oc.jpg)
FIG. 6 Correlations (R) of TAG-Bin-Ambient and TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre time series with AMS HOA and OOA time series. Comparison was made among different bins: from 20 to 5200 bin. MDL-2% error method was used here.
![FIG. 6 Correlations (R) of TAG-Bin-Ambient and TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre time series with AMS HOA and OOA time series. Comparison was made among different bins: from 20 to 5200 bin. MDL-2% error method was used here.](/cms/asset/1b9ef604-aa86-490d-aea5-02effe1f7a40/uast_a_967832_f0006_oc.jpg)
FIG. 7 Scatter plot of TAG versus AMS: (a) HOA; (b) OOA. Comparisons were made among TAG three choices: TAG-Bin-Ambient, TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre, and TAG-Integrated-Particle. 5200 bin and MDL-2% were used for TAG-Bin-Ambient and TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre.
![FIG. 7 Scatter plot of TAG versus AMS: (a) HOA; (b) OOA. Comparisons were made among TAG three choices: TAG-Bin-Ambient, TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre, and TAG-Integrated-Particle. 5200 bin and MDL-2% were used for TAG-Bin-Ambient and TAG-Bin-Particle-Pre.](/cms/asset/d3d11c90-f91c-4dea-ba62-917d9fd3c7c5/uast_a_967832_f0007_oc.jpg)
FIG. 8 (1–20) Averaged chromatograms for Factor 1–20 (F1-F20) in PMF 20 factor solution on TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre with MDL 2% error method.
![FIG. 8 (1–20) Averaged chromatograms for Factor 1–20 (F1-F20) in PMF 20 factor solution on TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre with MDL 2% error method.](/cms/asset/fdaa5c05-d244-4c4a-a438-b44afef14a09/uast_a_967832_f0008a_b.gif)
FIG. 9 (1–20) Mass spectra for Factor 1–20 (F1-F20) in PMF 20 factor solution on TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre with MDL 2% error method.
![FIG. 9 (1–20) Mass spectra for Factor 1–20 (F1-F20) in PMF 20 factor solution on TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre with MDL 2% error method.](/cms/asset/d306bec2-4df3-41e7-83e8-14fca889baf9/uast_a_967832_f0009a_b.gif)
FIG. 10 Correlations (R) of time series from comparison of 20 factor solution of TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre (Figures 8 and 9) with 6 factors of AMS: HOA (Hydrocarbon-like OA), LOA-AC (Amine-Containing Local-OA), LOA-2 (Local-OA 2), MV-OOA (Medium-Volatility Oxygenated-OA), SV-OOA (Semi-Volatile Oxygenated-OA), and cLV-OOA (composite Low-Volatility Oxygenated-OA).
![FIG. 10 Correlations (R) of time series from comparison of 20 factor solution of TAG-400Bin-Particle-Pre (Figures 8 and 9) with 6 factors of AMS: HOA (Hydrocarbon-like OA), LOA-AC (Amine-Containing Local-OA), LOA-2 (Local-OA 2), MV-OOA (Medium-Volatility Oxygenated-OA), SV-OOA (Semi-Volatile Oxygenated-OA), and cLV-OOA (composite Low-Volatility Oxygenated-OA).](/cms/asset/3407a7bc-29d8-40c4-b520-ab5c0ddf270c/uast_a_967832_f0010_b.gif)