Summary of PM_2.5 measurement artifacts associated with the Teledyne T640 PM Mass Monitor under controlled chamber experimental conditions using polydisperse ammonium sulfate aerosols and biomass smoke

References

• Aguilera, R., T. Corringham, A. Gershunov, and T. Benmarhnia. 2021. Wildfire smoke impacts respiratory health more than fine particles from other sources: Observational evidence from Southern California. Nat. Commun. 12 (1):1493. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21708-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AIRNow. Accessed September, 2022. https://www.airnow.gov.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, G., P. Babich, and R. Poirot. 2004. Evaluation of a new approach for real time assessment of Wood Smoke PM. Proceedings of Air & Waste Management Association Visibility Specialty Conference on Regional and Global Perspectives on Haze: Causes, Consequences and Controversies, Asheville, NC, October.
   Google Scholar
• Bi, J., L. Wallace, J. A. Sarnat, and Y. Liu. 2021. Characterizing outdoor infiltration and indoor contribution of PM2.5 with citizen-based low-cost monitoring data. Environ. Pollut. 276:116793. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bi, J., A. Wildani, H. H. Chang, and Y. Liu. 2020. Incorporating low-cost sensor measurements into high-resolution PM2.5 modeling at a large spatial scale. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (4):2152–62. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b06046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappa, C. D., X. Zhang, L. M. Russell, S. Collier, A. K. Y. Lee, C. -L. Chen, R. Betha, S. Chen, J. Liu, D. J. Price, et al. 2019. Light absorption by ambient black and brown carbon and its dependence on black carbon coating state for two California, USA, cities in winter and summer. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 124 (3):1550–77. doi:10.1029/2018JD029501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y.-H., Y.-C. Huang, A. S. Pipal, M.-Y. Jian, and Z.-S. Liu. 2022. Source apportionment of black carbon using light absorption measurement and impact of biomass burning smoke on air quality over rural central Taiwan: A yearlong study. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 13 (1):13. doi:10.1016/j.apr.2021.101264.
   Google Scholar
• Chow, F. K., K. A. Yu, A. Young, E. James, G. A. Grell, I. Csiszar, M. Tsidulko, S. Freitas, G. Pereira, L. Giglio, et al. 2022. High-resolution smoke forecasting for the 2018 camp fire in California. Bull. Am. Meteorol. 103 (6):E1531–52. Accessed September 13, 2022. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/103/6/BAMS-D-20-0329.1.xml.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christian, T. J., B. Kleiss, R. J. Yokelson, R. Holzinger, P. J. Crutzen, W. M. Hao, B. H. Saharjo, and D. E. Ward. 2004. Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of open-path FTIR, PTR-MS, and GC- MS/FID/ECD. J. Geophys. Res.; Atmos. 109 (D2). doi:10.1029/2003JD003874.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, D. B., M. Aycibin, M. A. Young, V. H. Grassian, and P. D. Kleiber. 2007. Simultaneous measurement of light-scattering properties and particle size distribution for aerosols: Application to ammonium sulfate and quartz aerosol particles. Atmos. Environ. 41 (22):4748–58. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.03.020.
   Google Scholar
• Drinovec, L., G. Moˇcnik, P. Zotter, A. S. H. Prévôt, C. Ruckstuhl, E. Coz, M. Rupakheti, J. Sciare, T. Müller, A. Wiedensohler, et al. 2015. The “dual-spot” Aethalometer: An improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading compensation. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 8 (5):1965–79. doi:10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, W. W. 1959. Attenuation of light by wood smoke. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 10 (9):416. doi:10.1088/0508-3443/10/9/309.
   Google Scholar
• Franchin, A., D. L. Fibiger, L. Goldberger, E. E. McDuffie, A. Moravek, C. C. Womack, E. T. Crosman, K. S. Docherty, W. P. Dube, S. W. Hoch, et al. 2018. Airborne and ground-based observations of ammonium-nitrate dominated aerosols in a shallow boundary layer during intense winter pollution episodes in northern Utah. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18 (23):17259–76. doi:10.5194/acp-18-17259-2018.
   Google Scholar
• Gan, R. W., B. Ford, W. Lassman, G. Pfister, A. Vaidyanathan, E. Fisher, J. Volckens, J. R. Pierce, and S. Magzamen. 2017. Comparison of wildfire smoke estimation methods and associations with cardiopulmonary-related hospital admissions. GeoHealth 1 (3):122–36. doi:10.1002/2017GH000073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg, S., B. P. Chandra, V. Sinha, R. Sarda-Esteve, V. Gros, and B. Sinha. 2016. Limitation of the use of the absorption angstrom exponent for source apportionment of equivalent black carbon: A case study from the North West Indo-Gangetic Plain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2):814–24. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b03868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghio, A. J., J. M. Soukup, M. Case, L. A. Dailey, J. Richards, J. Berntsen, R. B. Devlin, S. Stone, and A. Rappold. 2012. Exposure to wood smoke particles produces inflammation in healthy volunteers. Occup Environ Med 69 (3):170–75. doi:10.1136/oem.2011.065276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, H., and D. J. Eatough. 2009. Aerosol measurement: The use of optical light scattering for the determination of particulate size distribution, and particulate mass, including the semi-volatile fraction. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 59 (1):101–07. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.59.1.101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gupta, P., P. Doraiswamy, R. Levy, O. Pikelnaya, J. Maibach, B. Feenstra, A. Polidori, F. Kiros, and K. C. Mills. 2018. Impact of California fires on local and regional air quality: The role of a low-cost sensor network and satellite observations. GeoHealth 2 (6):172–81. doi:10.1029/2018GH000136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyot, A., J. Pudashine, R. Uijlenhoet, A. Protat, V. R. N. Pauwels, V. Louf, and J. P. Walker. 2021. Wildfire smoke particulate matter concentration measurements using radio links from cellular communication networks. AGU Adv. 2 (1). doi:10.1029/2020AV000258.
   Google Scholar
• Hagler, G., T. Hanley, B. Hassett-Sipple, R. Vanderpool, M. Smith, J. Wilbur, T. Wilbur, T. Oliver, D. Shand, V. Vidacek, et al. 2022. Evaluation of two collocated federal equivalent method PM2.5 instruments over a wide range of concentrations in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 13 (4):101374. doi:10.1016/j.apr.2022.101374.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, R. M., J. M. Wang, C. -H. Jeong, A. K. Y. Lee, M. D. Willis, E. Jaroudi, N. Zimmerman, N. Hilker, M. Murphy, S. Eckhardt, et al. 2015. Light-absorbing properties of ambient black carbon and brown carbon from fossil fuel and biomass burning sources. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 120 (13):6619–33. doi:10.1002/2015JD023382.
   Google Scholar
• Heaney, A., J. D. Stowell, J. C. Liu, R. Basu, M. Marlier, and P. Kinney. 2021. Impacts of fine particulate matter for wildland fire smoke on respiratory and cardiovascular health in California. GeoHealth 6 (6). doi:10.1029/2021GH000578.
   Google Scholar
• Holder, A. L., A. K. Mebust, L. A. Maghran, M. R. McGown, K. E. Stewart, D. M. Vallano, R. A. Elleman, and K. R. Baker. 2020. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors for measuring wildfire smoke. Sensors 20 (17):4796. doi:10.3390/s20174796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseini, S., L. Qi, D. Cocker, D. Weise, A. Miller, M. Shrivastava, J. Miller, S. Mahalingam, M. Princevac, and H. Jung. 2010. Particle size distributions from laboratory-scale biomass fires using fast response instruments. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 10:8065–76. doi:10.5194/acpd-10-8595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, S., C. Quinn, D. Miller-Lionberg, and J. Volckens. 2018. A low-cost particulate matter (PM2.5) monitor for wildland fire smoke. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 11 (2):1087–97. doi:10.5194/amt-11-1087-2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, K. E., J. Whitaker, A. Petty, C. Widmer, A. Dybwad, D. Sleeth, R. Martin, and A. Butterfield. 2017. Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter sensor. Environ. Pollut. 221:491–500. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchstetter, T. W., T. Novakov, and P. V. Hobbs. 2004. Evidence that the spectral dependence of light absorption by aerosols is affected by organic carbon. J. Geophys. Res. 109 (D21):D21208. doi:10.1029/2004JD004999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krug, J., R. Long, M. Colón, A. Habel, S. Urbanski, and M. S. Landis. 2021. Evaluation of small form factor, filter-based PM2.5 samplers for temporary non-regulatory monitoring during wildland fire smoke events. Atmos. Environ. 265:118718. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lack, D. A., M. S. Richardson, D. Law, J. M. Langridge, C. D. Cappa, R. J. McLaughlin, and D. M. Murphy. 2012. Aircraft instrument for comprehensive characterization of aerosol optical properties, Part 2: Black and brown carbon absorption and absorption enhancement measured with photo acoustic spectroscopy. Aerosol. Sci. Technol. 46 (5):555–68. doi:10.1080/02786826.2011.645955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laing, J. R., and D. A. Jaffe. 2019. Wildfires and PM concentrations in the Western United. EM, June.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, M. S., E. S. Edgerton, E. M. White, G. R. Wentworth, A. P. Sullivan, and A. M. Dillner. 2018. The impact of the 2016 Fort McMurray horse river wildfire on ambient air pollution levels in the Athabasca oil sands region, Alberta, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 618:1665–76. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, M. S., R. W. Long, J. Krug, M. Colon, R. Vanderpool, A. Habel, and S. Urbanski. 2021. The U.S. EPA wildland fire sensor challenge: Performance and evalution of solver submitted multi-pollutant sensor systems. Atmos. Environ. 247:1016. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laskin, A., J. Laskin, and S. A. Nizkorodov. 2015. Chemistry of atmospheric brown carbon. Chem. Rev. 115 (10):4335–82. doi:10.1021/cr5006167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le, T. C., K. K. Shukla, Y. T. Chen, S. C. Chang, T. Y. Lin, Z. Li, D. Y. H. Pui, and C. J. Tsai. 2020. On the concentration differences between PM2.5 FEM monitors and FRM samplers. Atmosph. Environ. 222:117138. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, Y., D. Sengupta, M. J. Campmier, D. M. Lunderberg, J. S. Apte, and A. Goldstein. 2021. Wildfire smoke impacts on indoor air quality assessed using crowdsourced data in California. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (36), November 18. doi:10.1073/pnas.2106478118.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., K. D. Lamb, J. P. Schwarz, V. Selimovic, R. J. Yokelson, G. R. McMeeking, and A. A. May. 2019. Inter-comparison of black carbon measurement methods for simulated open biomass burning emissions. Atmos. Environ. 206:156–69. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J. C., G. Pereira, S. A. Uhl, M. A. Bravo, and M. L. Bell. 2015. A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ. Res. 136:120–32. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, R. W., A. Whitehill, A. Habel, S. Urbanski, H. Halliday, M. Colón, S. Kaushik, and M. S. Landis. 2021. Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: An evaluation under field and laboratory conditions. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14 (3):1783–800. doi:10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lurmann, F., E. Avol, and F. Gilliland. 2015. Emissions reduction policies and recent trends in Southern California’s ambient air quality. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 65 (3):324–35. doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.991856.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyamani, H., F. J. Olmo, and L. Alados-Arboledas. 2008. Light scattering and absorption properties of aerosol particles in the urban environment of Granada, Spain. Atmos. Environ. 42 (11):2630–42. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.070.
   Google Scholar
• Mallia, D. V., A. K. Kochanski, K. E. Kelly, R. Whitaker, W. Xing, L. E. Mitchell, A. Jacques, A. Farguell, J. Mandel, P. -E. Gaillardon, et al. 2020. Evaluating wildfire smoke transport within a coupled fire-atmosphere model using a high-density observation network for an episodic smoke event along Utah’s Wasatch Front. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 125 (20). doi: 10.1029/2020JD032712.
   Google Scholar
• Martinsson, J., H. A. Azeem, M. K. Sporre, R. Bergström, E. Ahlberg, E. Öström, A. Kristensson, E. Swietlicki, and K. E. Stenström. 2017. Carbonaceous aerosol source apportionment using the Aethalometer model – Evaluation by radiocarbon and levoglucosan analysis at a rural background site in southern Sweden. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17 (6):4265–81. doi:10.5194/acp-17-4265-2017.
   Google Scholar
• Martinsson, J., A. C. Eriksson, I. E. Nielsen, V. B. Malmborg, E. Ahlberg, C. Andersen, R. Lindgren, R. Nyström, E. Z. Nordin, W. H. Brune, et al. 2015. Impacts of Combustion conditions and photochemical processing on the light absorption of biomass combustion aerosol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (24):14663–71. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b03205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure, C. D., and D. A. Jaffe. 2018. US particulate matter air quality improves except in wildfire-prone areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 (31):7901–06. doi:10.1073/pnas.1804353115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMeeking, G. R., E. Fortner, T. B. Onasch, J. W. Taylor, M. Flynn, H. Coe, and S. M. Kreidenweis. 2014. Impacts of nonrefractory material on light absorption by aerosols emitted from biomass burning. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 119 (12): 272– 12,286. doi:10.1002/2014JD021750.
   Google Scholar
• Mehadi, A., H. Moosmüller, D. E. Campbell, W. Ham, D. Schweizer, L. Tarnay, and J. Hunter. 2020. Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and near real-time PM2.5 smoke monitors. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 70 (2):158–79. doi:10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Met One Instruments, Inc. 2021. BAM-1022 particulate monitor operation manual. BAM 1020-9805 REV F.
   Google Scholar
• Met One Instruments, Inc. 2022. BAM-1020 particulate monitor operation manual. BAM 1022-9805 REV F.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, C. A., R. W. Vanderpool, T. M. Peters, F. F. McElroy, D. B. Gemmill, and R. W. Wiener. 2001. Federal reference and equivalent methods for measuring fine particulate matter. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 34 (5):457–64. doi:10.1080/02786820121582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’neill, S. M., M. Diao, S. Raffuse, M. Al-Hamdan, M. Barik, Y. Jia, S. Reid, Y. Zou, D. Tong, J. J. West, et al. 2021. A multi-analysis approach for estimating regional health impacts from the 2017 Northern California wildfires. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 71 (7):791–814. doi:10.1080/10962247.2021.1891994.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peñaloza-Murillo, M. 1998. An alternative method for obtaining the optical properties of monodisperse spherical non-absorbing aerosol using a cell-transmissometer. J. Aerosol Sci. 29:560–66. doi:10.1016/S0021-8502(98)00560-6.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, T. M., G. A. Norris, R. W. Vanderpool, D. B. Gemmill, R. W. Wiener, R. W. Murdoch, F. F. Mcelroy, and M. Pitchford. 2001. Field performance of PM2.5 federal reference method samplers. Aerosol Sci. & Technol 34 (5):433–43. doi:10.1080/02786820116873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, T. M., D. Ott, and P. T. O’Shaughnessy. 2006. “Comparison of the GRIMM 1.108 and 1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the TSI 3321 Aerodynamic particle sizer for dry particles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 50 (8):843–50. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, J. S., R. Koppmann, T. F. Eck, and D. P. Eleuterio. 2005. A review of biomass burning emissions Part II: Intensive physical properties of biomass burning particles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 5 (3):799–825. doi:10.5194/acp-5-799-2005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleh, R., C. J. Hennigan, G. R. McMeeking, W. K. Chuang, E. S. Robinson, H. Coe, N. M. Donahue, and A. L. Robinson. 2013. Absorptivity of brown carbon in fresh and photo-chemically aged biomass-burning emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13 (15):7683–93. doi:10.5194/acp-13-7683-2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, I. N. 1996. Chemical and size effects of hygroscopic aerosols on light scattering coefficients. J. Geophys. Res. 101 (D14):19245–50. doi:10.1029/96JD03003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teledyne-API. 2019. The model T640 PM mass monitor specifications sheet. https://www.teledyne-api.com/prod/Downloads/SAL000090E%20-%20T640.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. Forest health monitoring: National status, trends, and analysis 2015. Asheville, NC: Forest Service Research & Development, Southern Research Station, SRS-213.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. United States forest resource facts and historical trends, FS-1035. Washington, DC. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017 Utah winter fine particulate study final report, March 2018. Accessed September, 2022. https://csl.noaa.gov/groups/csl7/measurements/2017uwfps/finalreport.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Reference method for the determination of fine particulate matter as PM_2.5 in the atmosphere, 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix L.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. National Ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, final rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 10, January 15.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Teledyne advanced pollution instrumentation model T640 PM mass monitor. Automatic equivalent method: EQPM-0516-236. Federal Register: Vol. 81, page 45285, August 28.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. Studies advance air monitoring during wildfires and improve forecasting of smoke. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/studies-advance-air-monitoring-during-wildfires-and-improve-forecasting-smoke, July 30.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Met One Instruments, Inc. 2015. BAM-1022 real time beta attenuation mass monitor-outdoor PM2.5 FEM configuration. Automated equivalent method: EQPM-1013-209. Federal Register: Vol. 80, page 51802, August 26.
   Google Scholar
• Urbanski, S. P. 2013. Combustion efficiency and emission factors for wildfire-season fires in mixed conifer forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, US. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13 (14):7241–62. doi:10.5194/acp-13-7241-2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbanski, S. P., S. M. O Neill, A. L. Holder, S. A. Green, and R. L. Graw. 2022. Emissions. In Wildland fire smoke in the United States: A scientific assessment, D. L. Peterson, S. M. McCaffrey, and T. Patel-Weynand. ed., 121–65. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Chapter 5. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87045-4_5.
   Google Scholar
• Urbanski, S. P., M. C. Reeves, R. E. Corley, R. P. Silverstein, and W. M. Hao. 2018. Contiguous United States wildland fire emission estimates during 2003–2015. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10 (4):2241–74. doi:10.5194/essd-10-2241-2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volckens, J., and T. M. Peters. 2005. Counting and particle transmission efficiency of the aerodynamic particle sizer. J Aerosol Sci 36 (12):1400–08. doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2005.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, L., J. Bi, W. R. Ott, J. A. Sarnat, and Y. Liu. 2021. Calibration of low-cost PurpleAir outdoor monitors using an improved method of calculating PM2.5. Atmos. Environ. 256:118432. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, L. A., T. Zhao, and N. E. Klepeis. 2022a. Indoor contribution to PM2.5 exposure using all PurpleAir sites in Washington, Oregon, and California. Indoor Air 32 (9):13105. doi:10.1111/ina.13105.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, L., T. Zhao, and N. E. Klepeis. 2022b. Calibration of PurpleAir PA-I and PA-II monitors using daily mean PM2.5 concentrations measured in California, Washington, and Oregon from 2017 to 2021. Sensors 22 (13):4741. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s22134741.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, Y., P. K. Hopke, O. V. Rattigan, X. Xia, D. C. Chalupa, and M. J. Utell. 2011a. Characterization of residential wood combustion particles using the two-wavelength Aethalometer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17):7387–93. dx. doi:10.1021/es2013984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., P. K. Hopke, O. V. Rattigan, and Y. Zhu. 2011b. Characterization of ambient black carbon and wood burning particles in two urban areas. J. Environ. Monit. 13 (7):1919–26. doi:10.1039/c1em10117j.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, Y., J. Huang, T. J. Zananski, P. K. Hopke, and T. M. Holsen. 2010. Impacts of the Canadian forest fires on atmospheric mercury and carbonaceous particles in northern New York. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (22):8435–40. doi:10.1021/es1024806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinert, D. W., T. G. Cleary, G. W. Mulholland, and P. F. Beever. 2003. Light scattering characteristics and size distribution of smoke and nuisance aerosols. In Fire Safety Science. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, 209–20, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Westerling, A. L. 2016. Increasing western U.S. forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 371 (1696):20150178. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerling, A., T. Brown, T. Schoennagel, T. Swetnam, M. Turner, and T. Veblen. 2014. Briefing: Climate and wildfire in western U.S. forests. In Forest conservation and management in the Anthropocene: Conference proceedings. Proceedings. RMRS-P-71, ed. V. A. Sample and R. P. Bixler, 81–102. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehill, A., R. Long, A. Habel, and M. S. Landis. 2022. Evaluation of Cairpol and Aeroqual sensors in wildland fire plumes. Atmosphere 13 (6):877. doi:10.3390/atmos13060877.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Q., A. L. Westerling, A. Notohamiprodjo, C. Wiedinmyer, J. J. Picotte, S. A. Parks, M. D. Hurteau, M. E. Marlier, C. A. Kolden, J. A. Sam, et al. 2022. Wildfire burn severity and emissions inventory: An example implementation over California. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (8):085008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac80d0.
   Google Scholar
• Ye, X. X., P. Arab, R. Ahmadov, E. James, G. A. Grell, B. Pierce, A. Kumar, P. Makar, J. Chen, D. Davignon, et al. 2021. Evaluation and intercomparison of wildfire smoke forecasts from multiple modeling systems for the 2019 Williams Flats fire. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21 (18):14427–69. doi:10.5194/acp-21-14427-2021.
   Google Scholar
• Yue, X., L. J. Mickley, J. A. Logan, and J. O. Kaplan. 2013. Ensemble projections of wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over the western United States in the mid-21st century. Atmos. Environ. 77:767–80. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, T., M. H. Bergin, K. K. Johnson, S. N. Tripathi, S. Shirodkar, M. S. Landis, R. Sutaria, and D. E. Carlson. 2018. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors in high- and low-concentration environments. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 11 (8):4823–46. doi:10.5194/amt-11-4823-2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar