<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "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">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</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/acp-18-14653-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Speciated online PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from South Asian combustion sources –
Part 1: Fuel-based emission factors and size distributions</article-title><alt-title>PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from South Asian combustion sources</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{PM${}_{{1}}$ from South Asian combustion sources}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.~D.~Goetz et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff8">
          <name><surname>Goetz</surname><given-names>J. Douglas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0824-1215</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Giordano</surname><given-names>Michael R.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6820-6668</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff9">
          <name><surname>Stockwell</surname><given-names>Chelsea E.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3462-2126</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Christian</surname><given-names>Ted J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff10">
          <name><surname>Maharjan</surname><given-names>Rashmi</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Adhikari</surname><given-names>Sagar</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff11">
          <name><surname>Bhave</surname><given-names>Prakash V.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Praveen</surname><given-names>Puppala S.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Panday</surname><given-names>Arnico K.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Jayarathne</surname><given-names>Thilina</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff6">
          <name><surname>Stone</surname><given-names>Elizabeth A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Yokelson</surname><given-names>Robert J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8415-6808</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff7">
          <name><surname>DeCarlo</surname><given-names>Peter F.</given-names></name>
          <email>pfd33@drexel.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6385-7149</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Drexel University, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Philadelphia, PA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>University of Montana, Department of Chemistry, Missoula, MT, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>MinErgy Pvt. Ltd, Lalitpur, Nepal</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Lalitpur, Nepal</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>University of Iowa, Department of Chemistry, Iowa City, IA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>University of Iowa, Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Iowa City, IA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Drexel University, Department of Chemistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>b</label><institution>now at: Chemical Sciences Division, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff10"><label>c</label><institution>now at: Clean Energy Nepal, Lalitpur, Nepal</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff11"><label>d</label><institution>now at: Agricultural Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Peter F. DeCarlo (pfd33@drexel.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>12</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>19</issue>
      <fpage>14653</fpage><lpage>14679</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>9</day><month>April</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>April</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>31</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <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://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e278">Combustion of biomass, garbage, and fossil fuels in South Asia has led to
poor air quality in the region and has uncertain climate forcing impacts.
Online measurements of submicron aerosol (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) emissions were conducted
as part of the Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment
(NAMaSTE) to investigate and report emission factors (EFs) and vacuum
aerodynamic diameter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) size distributions from prevalent but
poorly characterized combustion sources. The online aerosol instrumentation
included a “mini” aerosol mass spectrometer (mAMS) and a dual-spot
eight-channel aethalometer (AE33). The mAMS measured non-refractory PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
mass, composition, and size. The AE33-measured black carbon (BC) mass and
estimated light absorption at 370 nm due to organic aerosol or brown
carbon. Complementary gas-phase measurements of carbon dioxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were collected using a
Picarro Inc. cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS) to calculate fuel-based EFs
using the carbon mass balance approach. The investigated emission sources
include open garbage burning, diesel-powered irrigation pumps, idling
motorcycles, traditional cookstoves fueled with dung and wood, agricultural
residue fires, and coal-fired brick-making kilns, all of which were tested in
the field. Open-garbage-burning emissions, which included mixed refuse and
segregated plastics, were found to have some of the largest PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> EFs
(3.77–19.8 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the highest variability of the investigated
emission sources. Non-refractory organic aerosol (OA) size distributions
measured by the mAMS from garbage-burning emissions were observed to have
lognormal mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values ranging from 145 to 380 nm.
Particle-phase hydrogen chloride (HCl) was observed from open garbage
burning and was attributed to the burning of chlorinated plastics. Emissions
from two diesel-powered irrigation pumps with different operational ages were
tested during NAMaSTE. Organic aerosol and BC were the primary components of
the emissions and the OA size distributions were centered at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The older pump was observed to have significantly larger
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> than the newer pump (5.18 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to
0.45 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and similar EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Emissions from two distinct
types of coal-fired brick-making kilns were investigated. The less advanced,
intermittently fired clamp kiln was observed to<?pagebreak page14654?> have relatively large EFs of
inorganic aerosol, including sulfate (0.48 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and ammonium
(0.17 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), compared to the other investigated emission sources.
The clamp kiln was also observed to have the largest absorption
Ångström exponent (AAE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4) and organic carbon (OC) to BC ratio
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 52). The continuously fired zigzag kiln was
observed to have the largest fraction of sulfate emissions with an
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.96 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Non-refractory aerosol size
distributions for the brick kilns were centered at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The biomass burning samples were all observed to have
significant fractions of OA and non-refractory chloride; based on the
size distribution results, the chloride was mostly externally mixed from the
OA. The dung-fueled traditional cookstoves were observed to emit ammonium,
suggesting that the chloride emissions were partially neutralized. In
addition to reporting EFs and size distributions, aerosol optical properties
and mass ratios of OC to BC were investigated to make comparisons with other
NAMaSTE results (i.e., online photoacoustic extinctiometer (PAX) and off-line
filter based) and the existing literature. This work provides critical field
measurements of aerosol emissions from important yet under-characterized
combustion sources common to South Asia and the developing world.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e545">South Asia is a culturally and geographically diverse region
that is inhabited by nearly 25 % of the world's population (United
Nations, 2014). Although rapid urbanization is occurring throughout South
Asia (Ellis and Roberts, 2016), much of the population lives in rural areas
with limited access to public utilities (Palit and Chaurey, 2011;
Bhattacharyya, 2007). Because of limited or inconsistent utility supplies,
solid biofuels (e.g., wood, charcoal, agricultural residue, dung) are widely
used in the region for residential cooking and heating, often in the
indoor environment (Winijkul and Bond, 2016; Streets et al., 2003; Pandey et
al., 2014; World Health Organization, 2006). Biofuels are also used
throughout South Asia in the industrial sector for brick making, in
agricultural processing, and other activities (Pandey et al., 2014). Because
of the atmospheric emissions from the combustion of solid fuels, heavy
biofuel use in South Asia has air quality implications that range from indoor
exposure (Chen et al., 1990) to regional outflow (Lawrence and Lelieveld,
2010) and leads to uncertain climate forcing impacts (Ramanathan et
al., 2005; Venkataraman et al., 2005). In addition to biofuel, solid and
liquid fossil fuel combustion from on-road vehicles, generators, diesel
pumps, brick kilns, and coal-fired power generation are important trace gas
and aerosol emission sources in the region (Lawrence and Lelieveld, 2010;
Pandey et al., 2014; Reddy and Venkataraman, 2002).</p>
      <p id="d1e548">The combustion of solid fuels (e.g., biomass, dung, coal) is often inefficient
and has been observed to emit varying and often harmful levels of aerosols
and trace gases. Fine aerosol emissions (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) from solid fuel burning
contain organic compounds, black carbon (BC), inorganic ions
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</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>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and trace
metals (Sheesley et al., 2003; Shahid et al., 2015; Roden et al., 2009;
Kortelainen et al., 2015; Jayarathne et al., 2018; Bruns et al., 2015).
Additionally, aerosol emissions from solid fuels contain polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are known carcinogens (Sheesley et al., 2003;
Jayarathne et al., 2018; Bruns et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2005). Gaseous
emissions from solid fuel burning include carbon dioxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
carbon monoxide (CO), methane (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), non-methane organic compounds
(NMOCs), and other compounds such as nitrogen oxides (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and inorganic acids (Stockwell et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). In the indoor
environment the use of solid fuels for cooking and heating leads to high
levels of exposure to the abovementioned aerosols and trace gases (Chen et
al., 1990) and poor indoor air quality from solid fuel burning is one of the
leading factors that contributes to the global burden of disease (Fullerton
et al., 2008; Chafe et al., 2014; Agrawal and Yamamoto, 2015; World Health
Organization, 2006). In South Asia, Lim et al. (2012) ranked household air
pollution from solid fuel burning as the primary risk factor for populations
in the region. The health impacts from poor indoor air quality due to solid
fuel combustion demonstrate the importance of understanding emissions to
quantify and potentially mitigate exposure.</p>
      <p id="d1e647">On the local and regional scale, solid biofuel burning and fossil fuel
combustion, as well as other sources like open garbage burning and mineral
dust, have significantly degraded the air quality in South Asia. For example,
many cities in India greatly exceed the US National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (aerosol <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and nitrogen
dioxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Guttikunda and Goel, 2013; Guttikunda et al., 2014).
In the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal, emissions of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and other pollutants from the abovementioned combustion
sources combined with topography-induced entrapment have led to poor air
quality (Panday and Prinn, 2009; Sarkar et al., 2016) and the formation of
secondary-pollution-like ozone (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Putero et al., 2015). On a
broader scale, the densely populated Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) region is a
major source of atmospheric brown clouds that are formed from persistent
anthropogenic aerosol emissions that are confined from mixing vertically due
to wintertime boundary layer dynamics (Gautam et al., 2007; Nair et
al., 2007). Outflow of wintertime atmospheric brown clouds has atmospheric
impacts throughout South Asia and regions downwind (Gustafsson et al., 2009;
Ramanathan et al., 2005). Lelieveld et al. (2001) found that winter monsoonal
outflow from South Asia affects air quality over an area of
10 million km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Additionally, there is evidence that aerosol outflow
from South Asia impacts regional climate through<?pagebreak page14655?> direct and indirect
radiative forcing, which is thought to lead to stabilization of the
troposphere, changing monsoonal patterns, and the retreat of Himalayan glaciers
(Lawrence and Lelieveld, 2010).</p>
      <p id="d1e720">Regional emission inventories have shown that South Asia is responsible for a
large portion of the aerosol emissions from the Asian continent and that
regional emissions have been increasing. In a recent emission inventory, Li
et al. (2017) estimated that South Asia was responsible for nearly 39 %
of Asian organic aerosol emissions and 35 % of the BC emissions in the
year 2010 and that South Asian emissions of both species increased by
13 % and 25 %, respectively, between 2006 and 2010. Although aerosol
emissions from South Asia are known to be prevalent compared to other parts
of Asia, the relative contributions of different source sectors to the
regional aerosol loading remains uncertain. One of the early Asian emissions
inventories, Streets et al. (2003), found that of the regions in Asia, BC and
organic aerosol emissions from South Asia had the highest percentage of
uncertainty, which resulted from unknowns about biomass burning (e.g.,
biofuels and agricultural residue burning) emissions and liquid fuel
consumption in the region. The unknowns in solid biofuel emissions in South
Asia have produced significant differences between bottom-up and top-down
estimates of BC emissions as well as differences between inventories that
weigh the relative contribution of biomass burning and fossil fuel combustion
to BC emissions (Lawrence and Lelieveld, 2010). Uncertainty concerning
biofuel emissions is largely due to the fact that emission sources that are
prevalent in South Asia are not well characterized either chemically or by
quantity.</p>
      <p id="d1e724">The above background reveals that aerosol emissions from biomass and fossil
fuel combustion associated with prevailing sources in South Asia need to be
further investigated. Better characterizing the emissions from South Asian
combustion sources can aid in understanding the impacts of residential
exposure, provide key insights for local and regional air quality management,
and constrain uncertainty about climate impacts. The goal of this study is to
investigate aerosol emissions from prevalent sources found in South Asia and
to provide some regional context for emission inventories. This study will
focus on speciated submicron aerosol (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) emission factors (EFs) and
size distributions of primary aerosol emissions measured using online
techniques during the Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment
(NAMaSTE) that took place in Nepal in 2015. The results complement other
NAMaSTE works that made measurements simultaneously in the same plumes, but
often without ideal spatial collocation or temporal overlap, at the tested
emission sources. Stockwell et al. (2016) provide fuel-based EFs of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, many other trace gases, BC, aerosol
absorption, and some additional aerosol optical properties. Jayarathne et
al. (2018) collected filter-based PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements and determined EFs
for PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass, organic and elemental carbon, water-soluble organic
carbon, inorganic ions, select metals, and organic molecular markers. In
addition to providing stand-alone results, this work aims to provide some
comparisons of the aerosol EFs and optical properties that will guide the use
of the complex NAMaSTE results as a whole.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
      <p id="d1e791">The NAMaSTE campaign took place in April 2015 in and around the urbanized
Kathmandu Valley and in the rural Tarai region of southern Nepal, which is
part of the IGP. As the name of the experiment suggests, NAMaSTE had two
major components: (i) ambient monitoring of aerosol and trace gases in the
Kathmandu Valley and (ii) characterization of aerosol and gas-phase emissions
from combustion sources prevalent in South Asia. This work is part of the
emissions testing portion of NAMaSTE with in-the-field, online PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements of emission sources. A brief summary of the investigated
emission sources is given in Table 1, while detailed descriptions are
provided by Stockwell et al. (2016). Additional source sampling was planned,
but the campaign was cut short by the Nepal Gorkha earthquake on 25 April
2015. It should be noted that although the sample number is limited and
duplicate tests were not performed for many of the emission sources, this
work provides critical real-world observations to the limited body of
literature that is primarily comprised of laboratory measurements.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e806">Fuel type, location of sampling, and number of samples from tested
emission sources.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Emission source</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Source type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Location</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Fuel type<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Samples<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Brick kilns</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Forced-draft zigzag</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Dhading District</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Coal (bagasse)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Batch-style clamp</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Kavre District</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Coal (sawdust and HW)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Motorcycles</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Four-stroke – idling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Kathmandu Valley</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Gasoline</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Irrigation pump set</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Groundwater</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Diesel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cookstoves</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">One-pot mud stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village, RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HW, sticks, dung</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3(3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Two-pot mud stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HW and dung</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Chimney stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HW, sticks, dung</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Natural-draft stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HW, dung</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Forced-draft stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Charcoal, HW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biolite stove</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Charcoal briquettes</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bhuse chulo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Sawdust</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biogas</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Biogas</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Three-stone heating fire</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village, RETS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HW, sticks, dung</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Open garbage burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mixed garbage</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Kathmandu, Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Metalized plastic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Kathmandu Valley</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Plastic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Kathmandu Valley</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural residue burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mixed<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wheat straw</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Grass</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mustard</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Tarai village</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e809">Note: RETS is the Nepal Renewable Energy Test Station
cookstove lab. HW is hardwood.
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Primary fuel (secondary or starter fuel).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Number of field samples (number of RETS lab samples).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Rice, wheat, mustard, lentil, grasses.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Experimental setup</title>
      <?pagebreak page14656?><p id="d1e1253">Measurements were made by directly sampling the exhaust plume from each
source with an attempt to sample at an adequate distance from the point of
emissions (typically <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) and away from the plume center to collect
cooled and diluted emissions. Emissions were sampled from well-mixed regions
of the plumes instead of directly from the point of emissions in order to
obtain more atmospherically relevant gas–particle partitioning of an emission
plume, in which the semi-volatile and volatile components are at equilibrium, and
for cookstoves to simulate indoor ambient exposure. A similar technique was
used for off-line filter sampling by Jayarathne et al. (2018). For example,
in residences with cookstoves, sampling took place at the far end of the
kitchen or by sampling from an open eave in the building. Sample air was
collected through <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> copper tubing of varying length (1–5 m),
which depended on site accessibility, that was connected to an online
aerosol and gas sampling system. The longest inlet length was implemented at
the forced-draft zigzag kiln to collect emissions from downwind of an 8.5 m
tall chimney. The online sampling system was either set up in the bed of the
truck that transported the equipment or was set up in a safe location near the
emission source. The system was powered using a gasoline generator, which was
placed downwind of the emission source in each experiment, typically at a
distance of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. It should be noted that an effort was made to place
the sampling inlet at each sampling site as close as possible to the sampling
inlets of Jayarathne et al. (2018) and Stockwell et al. (2016). However, due to
the low mobility of the online sampling platform used in this work compared
to the other sampling platforms the inlets were not always collocated, but
there was typically no more than a meter of separation. The separation of the
aerosol inlets could have led to some differences in ambient dilution of the
emission plumes prior to entering the sampling inlets. In addition, the time
period during which the various approaches were deployed was not always
exactly the same. This increased the sampling coverage, but also the
uncertainty in some comparisons.</p>
      <p id="d1e1296">The online sampling system was made up of two major components: the undiluted
flow system and the diluted flow system. A diagram of the sampling system can
be found in Fig. S1 in the Supplement. The undiluted flow system included
aerosol-free <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitoring. The diluted flow system was comprised of
an inline HEPA filter bypass (for periodic zero calibrations), a Dekati Ltd.
axial diluter (DAD-100), and a PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> cyclone, which fed to online
aerosol and gas-phase instrumentation. Excess flow was controlled with a
needle valve and diaphragm pump. The axial diluter was calibrated to provide
15.87 SLPM of dilution air at a pressure of 3500 mbar. All dilution air was
obtained from ambient background air outside the plume at each site and
filtered to remove aerosols prior to injection in the dilution system.
Dilution factors were calculated in the field by monitoring sample and
dilution volumetric flow rates and were later verified using molar ratios of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the undiluted flow systems to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the diluted
flow system. The axial diluter was typically operated at a dilution factor
between a range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with an average of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The large range of dilution factors used in this experiment was
due to the varying downwind distance and source strength between the
investigated emission sources. Lab experiments conducted after NAMaSTE found
that the sampling system has a PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> transmission rate of 97.6 % for
ammonium nitrate aerosol. The measured system transmission rate for dilution
factors was from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Transmission was determined to be
independent of the dilution factor for nonvolatile aerosol. Transmission of
volatile components were not quantified but it is expected that the average
dilution factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, combined with unquantifiable ambient dilution
prior to the inlet, led to lower mass concentrations of semi-volatile
organics (Lipsky and Robinson, 2006) and volatile inorganic components (e.g.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HCl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the aerosol phase compared to if the emissions
were not diluted.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page14657?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Instrumentation</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>mAMS</title>
      <p id="d1e1473">Using a mini aerosol mass spectrometer (mAMS; Aerodyne Research Inc.), the
mass, composition, and size of submicron aerosol that volatilizes under
vacuum at 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (operationally defined as non-refractory species)
were measured. The measured non-refractory aerosol components include
organics, sulfates, nitrates, chlorides, and ammonium. The mAMS is a version
of the Aerodyne Research, Inc. aerosol mass spectrometer that is functionally
similar to the compact time-of-flight-AMS (c-TOF-AMS) (Drewnick et
al., 2005), but with a smaller time-of-flight spectrometer and a smaller
vacuum chamber with a pump system that utilizes a single split-flow turbo
molecular pump. The mAMS has the same vacuum chamber, turbo pump system, and
compact time-of-flight mass spectrometer as the time-of-flight aerosol
chemical speciation monitor (TOF-ACSM) (Fröhlich et al., 2013), but
contains a chopper system (Jayne et al., 2000) for particle time-of-flight
sizing, which requires the ADQ data acquisition card. The data acquisition
software TOF-AMS DAQ version 5 was used during the campaign. The mAMS used in
this work operates with a pseudo-random multi-slit chopper system (ePTOF),
which has an increased signal-to-noise ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % particle
throughput) compared to single-slit chopper systems with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
throughput, and employs the Hadamard transform for signal inversion
(Campuzano Jost et al., 2014). Because of its enhanced throughput, the ePTOF
is ideal for sampling highly transient concentrations like those encountered
during emission source testing. The ePTOF data report the mass concentration
of chemical species as a function of vacuum aerodynamic diameter
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), similar to the PTOF data in other AMS instruments (DeCarlo
et al., 2004; Jimenez et al., 2003).</p>
      <p id="d1e1516">The mAMS operated in both mass spectrum mode (MS) and particle time-of-flight
mode (ePTOF) for the entirety of the source experiments with the exception of
several Nepal Renewable Energy Test Station (RETS) laboratory cooking fires
in which the chopper system was not operational. The MS and ePTOF sampling
alternated every 5 s, and integrated data from both modes were saved every
10 s for an effective sampling rate of 0.10 Hz. Mass spectra were acquired
from 10 to 300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all data collected. For the entirety of the
measurements, the mAMS vaporizer was operated at 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. It should
be noted that although we categorize the aerosol detected by the mAMS as
submicron, transmission of aerosol between 1 and 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through
the aerodynamic lens of the instrument does occur and similar lenses have
been characterized to have 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> transmission efficiencies of
less than 50 % (Zhang et al., 2004).</p>
      <p id="d1e1560">Ion efficiency calibrations were conducted twice in April while the
instrument was in Nepal. Other in-country calibrations of the mAMS were
canceled because of the Gorkha earthquake. Velocity calibrations were
conducted using polystyrene latex spheres (PSLs) at sizes between 50 and
800 nm after the campaign at the Drexel lab at inlet pressures of 0.76 and
1.01 bar. The velocity calibrations were conducted at the above pressures to
simulate particle time-of-flight velocities at the atmospheric pressures
observed in the high-altitude Kathmandu Valley (0.76 bar) and in the Tarai
Plains (1.01 bar).</p>
      <p id="d1e1563">All data processing and analysis was done in Igor Pro 6.3 (Wavemetrics, Lake
Oswego, OR) using the standard TOF-AMS analysis software SQuirreL v1.57I and
Pika v1.16I. The initial mass spectral separation into aerosol components was
performed using the standard fragmentation table (Allan et al., 2004), and
the PAH signal was identified using the method of Dzepina et al. (2007).
Although the mAMS is not a high-resolution mass spectrometer, the resolution
is sufficient for the separation of some key ions at the same nominal mass to
charge (DeCarlo et al., 2006). The mass spectral data were processed using
high-resolution peak fitting in the Pika module to reduce fragmentation table
errors due to high organic loading. High-resolution treatment of raw mass
spectral data from the compact time-of-flight MS has previously been
performed by other researchers using the TOF-ACSM with an estimated resolving
power (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">600</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fröhlich et al., 2013). A collection
efficiency of 0.5 was applied to all of the data sets (Matthew et al., 2008).
Source-test-specific detection limits of the aerosol species measured by the
mAMS were calculated using data from the HEPA bypass filter periods, which
occurred at least twice per emissions test for a period of 10 min each.
Detection limits are defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the combined filter periods for
each source experiment.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Aethalometer</title>
      <?pagebreak page14658?><p id="d1e1606">A Magee Scientific AE33 aethalometer was used to measure light-absorbing,
carbonaceous PM concentrations, absorption coefficients, and absorption
Ångström exponents. The AE33 is a dual-spot, filter-based monitor
that measures light attenuation by particles on a Teflon filter tape at
eight wavelengths (370, 470, 525, 590, 660, 880 and 950 nm); unlike previous
aethalometer models, the AE33 allows for real-time filter-loading
compensation (Drinovec et al., 2015). Light-scattering artifacts, which can
be misinterpreted as light absorption by the filter–attenuation–detection
methods of the AE33, were corrected using a scattering coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
developed by Schmid et al. (2006) and more recently implemented for the
intercomparison of commercial optical instrumentation by Segura et
al. (2014). The scattering correction is shown as a function of wavelength
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) in Eq. (1), where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total scattering coefficient for the
given wavelength, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the multiple scattering coefficient for the
given filter material, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of aerosol scattering
erroneously interpreted as absorption for purely scattering aerosol, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the single scattering albedo (SSA) of the sampled aerosol.

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M89" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each wavelength are taken from work by
Arnott et al. (2005). The SSA was estimated from average photoacoustic
extinctiometer (PAX) measurements of scattering at 405 and 870 nm for each
emission source by Stockwell et al. (2016). Because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was available
at only two wavelengths, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is only implemented at the nearest wavelength
channels measured by the AE33 (370 and 880 nm) to calculate aerosol
absorption for each emissions test. Aerosol absorption at each wavelength was
calculated using Eq. (17) of Drinovec et al. (2015), which is the same
equation used internally by the AE33 to calculate the dual-spot-corrected
mass output.</p>
      <p id="d1e1754">The absorption Ångström exponent (AAE) was calculated for each
emission source using Eq. (2) based on the test-integrated and
scattering-corrected absorption coefficients at 370 and 880 nm.
Source-specific AAE results can be found in Sect. 3.6.

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M94" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mtext>AAE</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">370</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="" open="/"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">880</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">370</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="" open="/"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">880</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The AAE, which is a measurement of the wavelength dependence of light
absorption by aerosols, has been observed to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for externally mixed
pure BC (i.e., soot) emissions and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when there is enhanced absorption at
short wavelengths associated with BrC emissions from biomass burning sources
or from internal mixing with nonabsorbing material (Lack and Langridge,
2013; Olson et al., 2015; Stockwell et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e1838">Absorption at 880 nm (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">880</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was used to quantify black
carbon (BC) or soot aerosol. Following the methodology of Stockwell et
al. (2016), the absorption at 370 nm not attributed to BC was used to
quantify light-absorbing organic carbon aerosol and nonabsorbing organic
coatings on BC (e.g., lensing), here operationally defined as brown carbon
(BrC). Assuming an AAE of 1 for externally mixed BC, for which light absorption
is proportional to frequency, absorption due to BrC at 370 nm
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is therefore computed as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">370</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.37</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">880</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Excess absorption at
370 nm by multichannel aethalometers has previously been attributed to BrC
emissions from biomass burning (Olson et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2012) and
uncertainties in the attribution are discussed elsewhere (Pokhrel et
al., 2017). Mass concentrations were calculated using mass absorption cross
sections of 7.77 and 18.47 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for 880 and 370 nm,
respectively, based on recommendations by Drinovec et al. (2015). HEPA bypass
periods were used to zero-calibrate the BC mass. The AE33 operated at a
sampling rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Hz and was averaged to 0.10 Hz to match the
sampling scheme of the mAMS. All BC detected by the AE33 in this work was
assumed to be submicron particles based on the morphology of fresh
biomass burning and fossil fuel emissions observed in other studies (China et
al., 2013; Gong et al., 2016; Torvela et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <title>Gas-phase instrumentation</title>
      <p id="d1e1946">Gas-phase instrumentation included a Picarro cavity ring-down spectrometer
(CRDS) model G2401, a LI-COR <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (Li840A), a
Vaisala <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (GMP343), and a Gaslab Inc. high-range
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (Fig. S1). The Picarro CRDS was used as our primary
measure of diluted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the Vaisala
was used as a backup measure of diluted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The LI-COR <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
monitor was the primary undiluted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement. It also served as
a calibration reference for the other <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitors because
calibrations with a laboratory standard could not be conducted while the
instruments were in Nepal and the LI-COR monitor had been factory-calibrated
only 2 months before the campaign and only operated with aerosol-free ambient
air. An intercomparison of undiluted sampling by the LI-COR monitor and the
Picarro <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> throughout the campaign (Fig. S2) shows that there was no
significant drift in relative accuracy between the two instruments over the
course of the campaign and that there was no evidence of consistent positive
or negative bias during high loadings. Scatter is mostly due to dynamic
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration that occur during source sampling. In
the more stable overnight monitoring the two instruments showed high
correlation with a 4 % difference in concentration. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements could not be calibrated because of contaminants in the
calibration gases available in Nepal. However, comparisons with the canister
measurements taken at similar times by Stockwell et al. (2016) and during a
collocated ambient sampling period reveal that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
from the Picarro were 1 % lower than the whole air sample values and that
Picarro CO concentrations were up to 30 % higher.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2126">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
the field-tested emission sources.</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="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Emission source</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">uncertainty</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Clamp brick kiln</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.114</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.324</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Zigzag brick kiln</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.142</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mixed garbage</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.015</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.144</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.361</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Metalized plastic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.020</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.167</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.391</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mixed plastic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.162</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.384</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Motorcycles</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.092</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.296</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Irrigation pumps</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.009</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.118</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.329</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hardwood<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.024</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.182</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.409</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.08</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sticks and twigs<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.023</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.177</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.403</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dung<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.137</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.352</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dung and hardwood<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.139</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.355</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.01</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural residues<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.025</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.186</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.415</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.08</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2187"> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Based on the linear relationship to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
Canagaratna et al. (2015) (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.31</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.079</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Functional relationship to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from Canagaratna et al. (2015) (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.12</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.74</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17.77</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Based on the linear relationship to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from Aiken et al. (2008) (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.260</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.180</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Fuel used in single-pot traditional mud stove.
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Fuel used in two-pot traditional mud stove.
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Combined values for mustard, grass, wheat, and mixed residue piles (rice, wheat, mustard, lentil, and grasses).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Estimate of bulk organic density based on the relationship to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from Kuwata et al. (2012)
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.15</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Based on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from zigzag kiln emissions and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from clamp kiln emissions.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Combustion metrics</title>
      <p id="d1e3352">For each source experiment, time-resolved and test-integrated emission
factors (EFs) were calculated in units of g per kg of fuel using the carbon
mass balance approach (Ward, 1990). In Eq.  (3), EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the EF of
aerosol species <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of fuel mass
consisting of carbon, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the excess
concentrations of aerosol species <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and gas-phase species <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively, above the ambient background.

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M200" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mtext>EF</mml:mtext><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          In the denominator of Eq. (3), we implicitly assume that all carbon emitted
in the forms of NMOC and PM during our source tests is minor when compared to
the total carbon emitted in the forms of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Akagi et al., 2011; Stockwell et al., 2016, 2015). For example,
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon mass was estimated to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the
combined carbon mass of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emitted by
the investigated sources. Missing carbon should bias EF upwards by less than
1–2 % in general. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for each fuel (see Tables S1–S4 of<?pagebreak page14659?> the
Supplement) was obtained from fuels collected during NAMaSTE where possible
or the most appropriate literature values otherwise (Stockwell et al., 2016).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3598">Summary of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fuel-based emission factors and compositional
fractions for the investigated emission sources. The colors of the horizontal
bar chart correspond with the species colors designated by markers in the
speciated emission factor panel. In the right panel the closed markers
represent the test-integrated average speciated emission factor, the open
markers represent the median speciated emission factor, and the bars
represent the 25th and 75th percentile speciated emission factors for the
combined observations from each emission source. Mud stove fuel types are
hardwood (Hw), dung (D), and sticks and twigs (Tw).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3616">Another metric used in this work is the modified combustion efficiency (MCE),
defined here as the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This is a useful metric provided that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of
emissions are comprised of CO and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because the Picarro CRDS
measurements of CO consistently exceeded the canister measurements and could
not be calibrated, MCE values shown in this work are from the Fourier
transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) test-integrated measurements made by
Stockwell et al. (2016). Time-resolved MCEs derived from the Picarro CRDS are
therefore only used to fill data gaps or as secondary evidence of trends.</p>
      <p id="d1e3684">Organic carbon (OC) is used to compare our results with studies that measured
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from off-line, filter-based, thermal–optical
methods. Because the OA mass measured with the mAMS includes OC as well as
other non-carbon organic mass (e.g., hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur
atoms), OC in this work is estimated based on oxygenation of the bulk
non-refractory OA. Assuming oxygen comprises the majority of non-carbon
organic mass, the mass fraction of total OA that is detected at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 44
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) has been found to be a useful proxy for the oxygenated organic
mass of aerosol when high-resolution AMS data are not available (Aiken et
al., 2008). Oxygen-to-carbon atomic ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were
estimated based on work by Canagaratna et al. (2015) using test-integrated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values from each emission test. Organic-aerosol-to-organic-carbon
ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which are sometimes referred to elsewhere
in the literature (Simon et al., 2011) as organic-mass-to-carbon ratios
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OM</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), were determined based on the linear relationship
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> found by Aiken
et al. (2008). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for each emission source can be found in
Table 2. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was estimated to have an average
uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % for the investigated emission sources based on
variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each emission source (Table 2). It should be
noted that the large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> associated with the coal-fired zigzag brick
kiln was due to the presence of nitrogen-containing organic ions at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 44
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and not due to oxygenated organics as discussed in the
companion paper Goetz et al. (2018). Because the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
the zigzag kiln emissions could not be determined based on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio from the clamp kiln is used to approximate OC
emission factors for the zigzag kiln emissions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e4070">This work combines the non-refractory PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements from the mAMS with
the black carbon measurements from an aethalometer to determine online PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
fuel-based EFs and size-resolved EFs from the field-tested emission sources
provided in Table 1. Mass spectral profiles of aerosol emissions from the
investigated combustion sources can be found in Part 2 of this study (Goetz
et al., 2018). A summary of the test-integrated, online, fuel-based PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emission factors (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the field-tested emission sources is
given in Fig. 1. Tabulated EFs, including percentiles, average, and<?pagebreak page14660?> standard
deviation, and test-integrated EFs for the field-tested emission sources
shown in Table 1 can be found in Tables S1–S4. The tables also contain MCE
values for each field-tested emission source from Stockwell et al. (2016) and
uncalibrated Picarro CRDS-derived MCE values from this work. Emission factors
from the cookstoves tested at the RETS laboratory are not included in this
work because of poor venting in the RETS lab that elevated background
concentrations and elevated gas-phase concentrations to the dilution system,
which produced unreliable results. The sum of all particulate components
measured by the mAMS and aethalometer (non-refractory primary OA, sulfate,
nitrate, chloride, and ammonium; BC) is reported here collectively as
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not included in the sum
because they are already included as part of the OA total. Emissions of other
refractory aerosol species that were not measured with the mAMS (e.g.,
refractory OA, trace metals, mineral dust) and slow-vaporizing aerosol
species are not included in the PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> calculation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4134">Size-resolved emission factors of <bold>(a)</bold> open garbage burning,
<bold>(b)</bold> agricultural residue burning, and <bold>(c, d)</bold> cooking with a
traditional mud stove. Continuous species-specific mass size distributions
normalized by the test-integrated emission factor are shown as solid lines.
Cumulative binned mass size distributions normalized by the total
non-refractory submicron aerosol mass (NR-PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) are shown as stacked bars.
The distribution bins are 32, 56, 100, 180, 320, 560, 1000,
and 1800 nm. All sizes are shown as vacuum aerodynamic diameters,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f02.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e4172">The largest EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values observed in this study were from open garbage
burning and diesel-powered groundwater pumps. Plastic burning associated
with open garbage burning had EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 19.8 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of
fuel EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from about 2.7 to 7.2 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was
observed from the open burning of other refuse (mixed and chip bags) and
emissions from diesel groundwater pumps. Biomass burning emissions from
the field-tested cookstoves and agricultural residue burning generally had
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values between 2.3 and 4.5 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with the exception
of dung burning in the one-pot traditional mud stove (1.8 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Fig. 1). Generally, the PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from the abovementioned sources
were primarily comprised of OA, followed by BC. The coal-fired brick kilns
were observed to have lower EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to biofuel
burning and to contain lower fractions of OA and BC and significantly larger
fractions of sulfate.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4301">Size-resolved emission factors of <bold>(a)</bold> idling motorcycles,
<bold>(b)</bold> diesel-powered irrigation pumps, and <bold>(c)</bold> brick kilns.
Continuous species-specific mass size distributions normalized by the test-integrated emission factor are shown as solid lines. Cumulative binned mass
size distributions normalized by the total non-refractory submicron aerosol
mass (NR-PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) are shown as stacked bars. The distribution bins are
32, 56, 100, 180, 320, 560, 1000, and 1800 nm. All sizes are shown as
vacuum aerodynamic diameters, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f03.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e4339">Mass size distributions of the aerosol species observed by the mAMS were
calculated at a range of 30 nm to 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
normalized by the test-integrated EF of each source to produce size-resolved
EFs in mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of fuel (Figs. 2 and 3, right axis). The size-resolved
emission factors were also binned into aerodynamic diameter size cuts common
to aerosol impact samplers (32, 56, 100, 180, 320, 560, 1000 nm), plotted as
stacked bars to produce Lundgren-style cumulative size distributions (Kleeman
et al., 1999), and normalized by the total non-refractory PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions
of each source (Figs. 2 and 3, left axis). The Lundgren-style plots provide a
better understanding of aerosol composition at each size and offer more
interpretable results for model inputs compared to the species-segregated
continuous distributions. The size distributions of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions are
important inputs for indoor exposure and lung deposition models, as well as
important parameters for chemical transport models. The size cuts used for
the Lundgren plots do not perfectly correspond to the aerodynamic diameters
measured using impactors due to differences in sizing that are a function of
flow regime and density. The approximate conversions to aerodynamic and
volume equivalent diameters assuming spherical particles are given in
Table S2. However, because we did not have additional aerosol sizing
instrumentation in the field we cannot make any interpretations about
internal vs. external mixing, particle shape, or density. Therefore
conversions from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to other diameter types, such as volume
equivalent or transition regime aerodynamic, given in Table S2 are
approximate and based on assumptions of sphericity and the calculated
densities of the aerosol components (DeCarlo et al., 2004). Organic aerosol
density was approximated for each emission source using elemental ratios
based on work by Kuwata et al. (2012) and can be found in Table 2. The
size-resolved results for open garbage burning, agricultural residue burning,
and field-measured traditional mud stoves can be found in Fig. 2.
Size-resolved emission<?pagebreak page14663?> factors of sources primarily associated with fossil
fuel combustion can be found in Fig. 3. The following subsections contain a
source-type examination of the EF results.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Open garbage burning</title>
      <p id="d1e4410">The three types of open garbage burning that were tested in NAMaSTE include
mixed refuse, plastic, and metalized plastic or “chip bags” (Table 1). We
sampled mixed refuse emissions in two separate burns and both mixes were
comprised of unknown fractions of plastic bags, metalized plastic, food
waste, paper, and yard waste that were collected from local sources. Mix 1,
which was sourced and burned in the Kathmandu Valley, was slightly damp,
producing inefficient burn conditions with an average MCE of 0.937 (Stockwell
et al., 2016). Mix 2 was residential waste burning sampled in the Tarai
Plains at dry conditions and was more efficient than Mix 1 with an average
MCE of 0.980 (Stockwell et al., 2016). The two mixes had a combined average
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 3.99 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with an approximate OA fraction of
0.50 and BC fraction of 0.48 (Fig. 1). Trace aerosol species were found to
have EFs in mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of 66, 3, and 2 for chloride, PAHs, and nitrate,
respectively. The two mixes differed in both OA and BC emissions. Mix 1 had
an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 3.5 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a low fraction of BC emissions
with an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.19. Alternatively, Mix 2 emissions had a lower
OA fraction with an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.35 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 2.67 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The mixes were also found to have
large variability in real-time emissions with combined EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
having a 25th percentile of 0.45 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a 75th percentile of
3.42 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). Similar variability was also observed with
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, with combined interquartile values ranging from 0.20 to
3.55 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). Additionally, the two mixes had distinct OA size
distributions with Mix 1 having a lognormal-mode vacuum aerodynamic diameter,
hereafter named “mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>”, at 260 nm and Mix 2 having a mode
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 145 nm (Fig. 2). The variability in emissions observed
between the mixes and within individual burns demonstrates that open garbage
burning is difficult to characterize as an emission source because of the
inherent heterogeneity of residential garbage and because of the uncontrolled
nature of open burning.</p>
      <p id="d1e4600">Open garbage burning is a globally important source of aerosol pollution, but
there have been limited field measurements of open-garbage-burning EFs
(Wiedinmyer et al., 2014). In NAMaSTE the filter-based measurements of
Jayarathne et al. (2018) found an organic carbon (OC) EF for PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.42</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for Mix 2. Based on the estimated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for open garbage burning (1.361; Table 2) the OC EF
(EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) measured by Jayarathne et al. (2018) for Mix 2 was about 6
times greater than the combined average EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measured in this work of
1.46 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Filter-based measurements of the open burning of landfills in
Mexico, which are used as the primary EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> resource by emissions
inventories, reported MCE-dependent EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 2.13 to
10.9 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with an average of 5.27 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Christian et
al., 2010). Although the EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> range reported by Christian et
al. (2010) is greater than our combined average, the mAMS Mix 1
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was 2.57 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and within the lower limit of the
Mexico garbage-burning values, and the upper percentiles were well within the
upper limit of the literature values. The overlap in variability between the
off-line and online NAMaSTE EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results and Christian et
al. (2010) demonstrate that, although there is likely heterogeneity in MCE
and materials contained in the sampled open-garbage-burning piles, it is
possible that a limited range of EFs exists for garbage burning that can be
applied to regional emission inventories. However, differences in detection
methods (i.e., PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" 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>, sampling procedures, or degrees of
phase partitioning of semi-volatile organics (Lipsky and Robinson, 2006)
cannot be removed as possible factors responsible (or partially responsible)
for the differences observed between the online and off-line results. This
concept is specifically acute in regard to the NAMaSTE results in which
differences in sampling inlet locations and timing as well as differences in
sample dilution could have played a part in the observed EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
discrepancy. Further measurements of open-garbage-burning EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by
online and off-line methods are needed to further explore the role of
detection methods in OC results. Additionally, further measurements of
aerosol emissions from open garbage burning with an emphasis on quantifying
the contents of the garbage are needed to constrain the compositional dependency
of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e4821">In regard to BC emissions from open garbage burning, the online PAX-derived
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from Stockwell et al. (2016) had similar trends between the
two mixes as the EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measured in this work, with a larger
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the higher MCE mix (6.04 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and lower
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the lower MCE and damp mix (0.561 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
PAX damp mix value compares well with observations by Christian et
al. (2010),
who found an average elemental carbon EF of 0.646 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with burn
conditions that produced an average MCE of 0.950. Based on the PAX and Mexico
averages, Stockwell et al. (2016) suggest that an upward revision of the
literature average EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> might be appropriate and we also observed
higher EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, at least in Mix 2. However, given the evidence that
some relationship between the moisture content of the garbage and
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> may exist, any investigation of compositional dependence on
aerosol EFs from open garbage burning should be coupled with an investigation
of moisture content. Finally, EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements should not be
affected by phase partitioning and thus the factor of 10 difference for the
two mixed garbage burns observed by the PAX suggests that natural variability
may be as important as, or more important than, differences in phase partitioning in
understanding the EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> differences. The high variability suggests
that more sampling by any technique is needed to increase coverage and that
the co-collection of fuel details that may help rationalize the variability
should be emphasized.</p>
      <?pagebreak page14664?><p id="d1e4943">As seen in Fig. 1, the segregated plastic burn was observed to have the
largest EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (16.59 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of any source investigated in
the study and contained some of the largest EFs for chloride
(0.502 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and PAHs (23 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Plastic burning had an
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 2.73 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a sulfate EF (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) of
0.015 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). The OA emissions were observed to have a size
distribution with a mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 280 nm (Fig. 2).</p>
      <p id="d1e5050">The metalized plastic, or foil chip bag, burning was observed to have a
median EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 5.8 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and was comprised of 60 %
OA and 40 % BC, with nominal quantities of inorganic aerosol and PAH
(Fig. 1). Unlike the other open-garbage-burning tests there were relatively
low emissions of particulate chloride and Stockwell et al. (2016) did not
observe gas-phase hydrogen chloride (HCl) above detection limits. The size
distribution of the metalized plastic emissions had the largest mode of the
sampled open garbage burning with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 380 nm and large
fraction of aerosol with diameters greater than 560 nm (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %;
Fig. 2).</p>
      <p id="d1e5099">Chloride in the form of gaseous HCl and water-soluble particulate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
has been observed from open garbage burning in Mexico and has been attributed
to the combustion of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic (Christian et
al., 2010). The high levels of chloride observed in the plastic-burning
emissions and mixed refuse emissions that were not observed with metalized
plastic burning are therefore likely from the combustion of PVC plastic.
Analysis of average mass spectra from open garbage burning indicates that the
non-refractory chloride measured by the mAMS was between 80 % and
85 % particle-phase HCl. A comparison with undiluted gas-phase EFs from
Stockwell et al. (2016) shows that the particle-phase HCl EF was 1.2 %,
2.5 %, and 0.4 % gas-phase HCl emission factor for Mix 1, Mix 2, and
plastic burning, respectively. The small quantity of particle-phase chloride
under controlled dilution conditions compared to gas-phase HCl under less
dilute conditions suggests that condensation of HCl to the particle phase, or
the co-condensation of OA internally mixed with HCl, is small in fresh
emissions from open garbage burning, but evidence suggests that HCl gas
migrates to the particles on slightly longer timescales (Liu et al., 2016;
Stockwell et al., 2014). Evidence of the internal mixing of HCl and OA is see
in Fig. 2 from the similar observed size distributions for chloride and OA
with the mixed refuse and plastic-burning samples. There remains the
possibility that some of the chloride signal is from chlorine-containing
organic species; however, this was not observed, and with the
non-high-resolution mass spectrometer, further detailed work is needed to
investigate this possibility.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Engine exhaust</title>
      <p id="d1e5119">Sampling of engine exhaust from idling motorcycles and diesel-powered
groundwater crop irrigation pumps took place during NAMaSTE (Table 1).
Testing of gas and diesel generators also took place during the campaign
(Jayarathne et al., 2018; Stockwell et al., 2016), but the generators were
not sampled by the online sampling system described in this work. Two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kVA irrigation pumps were sampled including a Kirloskar (model unknown)
that had been in operation for 3 years and a Fieldmarshal model R170a that
had been purchased within 3 months of the emissions test. The older pump
(Pump 1) was observed to have an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 7.24 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with
an OA fraction of 0.71 and a BC fraction of 0.29 (Fig. 1). Inorganic aerosol
was not observed from Pump 1. The median organic mass distribution of Pump 1
had a mode diameter of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and nearly 38 % of
the organic emissions were found in the 56 to 100 nm size bin (Fig. 3). The
newer pump, Pump 2, was observed to have a lower EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> than
Pump 1 with a value of 2.71 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Pump 2 emissions had an organic
fraction of 0.16, a BC fraction of 0.83, and a nominal fraction of sulfate
(Fig. 1). The Pump 2 organic size distribution was similar to Pump 1 (mode
diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 75 nm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), but with a larger fraction of aerosol
found in the 56–100 nm bin (Fig. 3). Emissions of PAHs were observed from
Pump 2 with an EF of 6 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and were not observed from Pump 1. The
PAH EF from Pump 2 was approximately equivalent to EFs that have previously
been observed from heavy-duty diesel trucks in the United States (Marr et
al., 1999). Stockwell et al. (2016) found that Pump 1 and Pump 2 had an MCE
of 0.987 and 0.996, respectively. Because the diesel fuel used by both
irrigation pumps was likely sourced from the same depot of the Nepal Oil
Corporation and was therefore similar in composition, the large differences
observed between the investigated pumps were likely due to differences in
efficiency induced by operational age or by model.</p>
      <p id="d1e5234">The filter-based measurements of Jayarathne et al. (2018) observed larger
organic emission factors from both pumps with an average EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
5.45 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to an average of 2.12 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from the
online mAMS measurements. The filter-based results, however, measured
significantly lower EC compared to the online EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in this work
and the 405 nm photoacoustic measurements of Stockwell et al. (2016). The
lower EC may have been because the engine start-up emissions were not sampled
with the filters. Stockwell et al. (2016) did not observe the same
increase in BC with Pump 2 and in fact observed a 13 % decrease in BC
between Pump 1 and Pump 2. The FTIR measurements, however, did observe a
decrease in gas-phase organic EFs from Pump 1 to Pump 2 and there was a
200 % increase in nitric oxide (NO) between the two pumps (Stockwell et
al., 2016). The decreased EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> combined with elevated MCE and
elevated emission factors of NO, BC, and PAHs associated with the newer
irrigation pump suggests that the air quality and climate impacts of
irrigation pumps can likely change over the lifetime of a pump. The
differences among the three NAMaSTE detection and sampling methods for
black carbon were not tested carefully in this work, but can produce
differences in measured mass (Hitzenberger et al., 2006; Watson and Chow,
2002). To our knowledge NAMaSTE is the first to characterize emissions from
diesel-powered irrigation pumps during in-field use. Although there is
uncertainty in the extent of BC and OA emissions, averaging all the NAMaSTE
sampling implies that large EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.17</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)<?pagebreak page14665?> are associated with the tested pumps and that groundwater pumping for
irrigation could be an important source of aerosol
pollution in rural South Asia. This is especially true in countries like
India where the number of diesel-powered pumps has increased over recent
decades (Mukherji, 2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e5328">Four idling, gasoline-powered, four-stroke motorcycles were sampled in this
study. Sampling included two Honda CBZs, a Bajaj Pulsar, and a Bajaj Discover.
The vehicles were sampled directly after servicing. Preservice and post-service
sampling of idling motorcycles was part of the NAMaSTE sampling plan, but the
mAMS was not operational for the preservice period of the experiment.
Information about the reduction of aerosol and gas-phase emissions resulting
from servicing can be found in the NAMaSTE companion papers (Jayarathne et
al., 2018; Stockwell et al., 2016). The combined post-servicing results from
the four motorcycles investigated in this work indicate that organics were
the only aerosol component observed above the background. Although not shown
in Fig. 1, the observed EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values were 2 orders of magnitude lower
than OC observations by Jayarathne et al. (2018) and observations by
US-based motorcycle studies (Bond et al., 2004). The low OA emission
factors observed by this study are thought to be due to large and variable
background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the motorcycle shop
where testing was performed. The large unstable backgrounds were due to poor
venting of emissions from the tested motorcycles and vehicle emissions from
the adjacent, congested Kathmandu road that likely affected the gas-phase
concentrations of the aerosol-free air injected into the dilution system. The
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values for idling motorcycles derived from this work are therefore
not given because of the unreliable gas-phase results needed for the carbon
mass balance. Since we could remove particles but not gases from the
dilution air, the size distributions and mass spectra derived from the mAMS
data could be corrected for unstable backgrounds. The mass size distributions
indicate that the mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the motorcycle emissions was 107 nm
and nearly 53 % of the mass had a diameter between 56 and 180 nm
(Fig. 3). Another study that investigated Asian motorcycle emissions found a
similar size distribution range for PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, but observed a bimodal
distribution with modes above and below 100 nm (Yang et al., 2005). A study
of four-stroke Asian motorcycles found that the PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> size distribution of
idling motorcycles had the largest mode diameter of the operation cycles
investigated and that the distributions shift to smaller sizes when the
motorcycles were operated at 15 and 30 km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Chien and Huang, 2010).
Results from the above studies suggest that the OA size distributions we
observed were at the middle to upper range of OA sizes for motorcycle
emissions and that the mode of the distribution would likely shift to
ultrafine sizes when the motorcycles are operated above idle.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Brick kilns</title>
      <p id="d1e5427">Brick kilns are a poorly characterized but important source of aerosol
emissions in South Asia (Weyant et al., 2014). In NAMaSTE we
investigated emissions from two kilns representing distinct classifications
of brick kilns. In the Kathmandu Valley we sampled emissions from a
batch-style clamp kiln, which is typical of cottage industries across South
Asia. In central Nepal we investigated emissions from a zigzag kiln, which
represents a modern kiln type found in the region. Although we were not able
to obtain a large sampling set, the results presented here and in other
NAMaSTE works are some of the first to characterize the aerosol and
gas-phase composition of brick kiln emissions in South Asia.</p>
      <p id="d1e5430">Clamp kilns are a traditional and inefficient brick-firing technology that
use intermittent firing (single batch per firing) and are not designed with a
chimney or draft system (Manadhar and Dangol, 2013). Because of the design of
the clamp kiln, we sampled fugitive emissions escaping from cracks at the top
of the kiln. The kiln was co-fired with coal and hardwood. Over the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h time span in which mAMS and AE33 sampling took place the
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was 1.759 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). The EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
was comprised of 57 % OA, 28 % sulfate, 9.6 % ammonium, 5.3 %
chloride, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % BC (Fig. 1). PAHs were not observed above detection
limits. The speciated size distributions of the clamp kiln emissions show
that the organic component had the largest mode diameter at 453 nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the mode diameter of each inorganic component decreased
in the same rank order as the fraction of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass (Fig. 3). Chloride,
for example, was found to have the lowest mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 315 or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">140</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm smaller than the OA mode. Regardless of the differences in the
estimated mode diameters between the aerosol species, nearly 87 % of the
non-refractory mass was found in a size range between 180 and 1000 nm.
Additionally, the aerosol mass signal from particles smaller than 100 nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was virtually zero for the clamp kiln (Fig. 3).</p>
      <p id="d1e5544">Zigzag brick kilns are a subset of fixed-chimney Bull's trench kilns (FCBTKs)
and an established kiln type in Nepal (Manadhar and Dangol, 2013). The kilns
utilize continuous firing with bricks stacked in a zigzag pattern to optimize
heat transfer efficiency and they use a forced or natural draft with a fixed
chimney. In NAMaSTE we sampled from a forced-draft zigzag kiln. The kiln was
fired with coal, and sugarcane post-pressing residue (bagasse) was used as a
starter fuel. The kiln was stoked periodically with the addition of coal
through openings above the heated section of the kiln. More details on the
operation of the investigated brick kilns and why they were chosen for
sampling can be found in Stockwell et al. (2016). At the zigzag kiln, the
online sampling system was in operation for an approximate 4 h sampling period,
but unfortunately because of the heat of the kiln, the mAMS was only
operational for a portion of the sampling period (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h). The
sampling period occurred between coal feeding cycles during a continuous
firing period. The online EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the kiln was
1.823 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, comprised of 52 %<?pagebreak page14666?> sulfate, 26 % BC, 16 % OA,
and 6 % ammonium. The zigzag kiln is the only investigated emission
source during NAMaSTE to have sulfate as the largest component of the
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions and one of the few to have more BC than OA. The filter samples
were collected over different time periods than the mAMS operation, but also
found that sulfate was a major component of the PM (Jayarathne et al., 2018).
Additionally, the mass distributions shown in Fig. 3 indicate that sulfate
aerosol with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 180 and 560 nm comprised 63 % of
the sulfate distribution and approximately 36 % of the total measured
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass. The non-refractory species were found to have a mode
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">345</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 3).</p>
      <p id="d1e5633">Similar to the clamp kiln, PAHs were not observed above detection limits from
the zigzag kiln. The PAH detection limit at the zigzag kiln was estimated to
be 42.3 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the clamp kiln PAH detection limit was
90 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The observation of PAH concentrations below detection
limits from the coal-fired kilns is unexpected because PAHs have previously
been observed in coal emissions measured by an AMS in China and were proposed
as tracer compounds for coal burning (Hu et al., 2013). PAH aerosol was also
not readily observed at the zigzag kiln by the NAMaSTE filter-based
measurements, but was observed from the clamp kiln with an EF of
18.7 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Jayarathne et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e5673">Although the two brick kilns had roughly similar EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and size
distributions, the two coal-fired kilns had major differences in efficiency
and in the chemical composition of emissions. The zigzag kiln had lower OA
emissions and markedly enhanced BC and sulfate EFs compared to the clamp
kiln. Additionally, the mass spectral profiles of the brick kiln OA emissions
indicate that significant compositional differences existed between the kiln
emissions, primarily because the zigzag kiln emissions contained
nitrogen-containing organic compounds that were not present in the clamp kiln
emissions (Goetz et al., 2018). The differences in OA and BC between the two
kilns are thought to be due to the enhanced combustion efficiency of the
zigzag kiln (MCE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.994) compared to the clamp kiln (MCE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.950)
(Stockwell et al., 2016). Mass spectral data showing low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (organic
signal at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 ratioed to the total organic signal) indicate that
emissions of levoglucosan, a biomass burning tracer compound, were limited at
the clamp kiln compared to other biofuel sources, suggesting that coal was the
dominant fuel inside the kiln and wood burning was limited at the time
sampling took place (Goetz et al., 2018; Jayarathne et al., 2018). Therefore,
the difference in average MCE between the kilns was likely because of kiln
design rather than differences in fuel type. The role of kiln design on
combustion efficiency was expected as the forced-draft system of the zigzag
kiln is designed for enhanced fuel and production efficiency compared to the
less advanced clamp kiln. Alternatively, fuel quality can explain the
differences in sulfate EF observed between the two fuels. Elemental analysis
indicated that the zigzag kiln coal was composed of 1.28 % sulfur and the
clamp kiln was composed of 0.68 % sulfur (Stockwell et al., 2016). The larger
sulfate EF at the zigzag kiln was therefore likely due to the higher sulfur
content of the coal used at the site.</p>
      <p id="d1e5726">Of the limited reports of brick kiln emissions the results presented above
agree well with what has previously been observed from coal-fired kilns.
Weyant et al. (2014), conducted measurements at three South Asian zigzag
kilns that operated with 100 % coal and found an average PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
fuel-based EF of 0.93 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an average EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
0.43 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Assuming that the PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> observed by Weyant et
al. (2014) is roughly equivalent to PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> based on the observed mass
distributions from this study, the results from this study correspond well
with previous zigzag kiln observations. Observations of biomass-fueled clamp
kilns by Christian et al. (2010) in Mexico found an average EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
of 0.18 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.05 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> produced
under burning conditions with an average MCE of 0.968. The order of magnitude
difference in EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the clamp kiln in NAMaSTE compared to the
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the biomass-fueled clamp kilns in Mexico, combined with
enhanced MCE at the Mexican clamp kilns, suggests that coal-burning kilns
with lower efficiency could produce lower BC aerosol emissions compared to
biofuel-burning kilns on a per-unit-of-fuel basis, though more samples of each
type are needed. The use of coal for brick making in place of biofuels could
therefore potentially reduce the climate impact of inefficient traditional
brick-firing operations. However, the role of other light-absorbing aerosol
emissions from brick kilns needs to be better quantified before fuel
recommendations can be made for the mitigation of short-term climate forcers.
For example, the clamp kiln emissions investigated in this study had strong
ultraviolet absorption (Sect. 3.6) based on the aethalometer and PAX, which
observed high AAE. This demonstrates that the light-absorbing properties of
brick kiln emissions cannot be determined from BC quantification alone.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Crop residue burning</title>
      <p id="d1e5857">Emissions from the open burning of crop residues common in the IGP were
investigated in NAMaSTE. In this work, segregated piles of mustard, grass,
and wheat straw were burned and sampled in addition to a mixture of residues
that included grass, wheat and rice straw, lentils, and mustard. The mixed
residue was found to have an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 3.44 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with
compositional fractions of 0.77 OA, 0.12 BC, 0.10 chloride, and nominal
fractions of nitrate and sulfate (Fig. 1). Mustard and wheat residues were
observed to have larger EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at 4.18 and 4.55 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively, with similar PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> composition (Fig. 1). Additionally, OA
emissions from wheat straw burning had the largest variability of crop
residues with a 10th percentile of 0.42 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a 90th percentile
of 18.78 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Grass burning was observed to have the lowest
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the tested crop residues (2.69 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), but with
an enhanced fraction of chloride emissions at 0.20. Black<?pagebreak page14667?> carbon, nitrate,
chloride, and PAHs were all observed above the background from all crop
residue burns. Those EFs can be found in Fig. 1 and Table S2.</p>
      <p id="d1e5969">The mass distributions for the crop residue burns can be seen in Fig. 2. The
majority of the OA mass from the burns was found in the accumulation mode
(between 0.1 and 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and less than 15 % of the OA mass was
found below 100 nm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Wheat-burning OA was observed to have
the lowest mode diameter of the investigated residues (240 nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and had the largest percentage of mass below 100 nm
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Grass-burning and mixed residue OA emissions were
observed to have a mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 300 nm and mustard-burning OA had a
mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 400 nm. The differences in OA mass distributions are
thought to be due to differences in fuel type and not due to differences in
burn conditions since the average MCEs were roughly equivalent at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.955</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all of the residue burns except for mustard burning, which had an
MCE of 0.920 (Stockwell et al., 2016). Aside from OA, chloride was also
observed to have distinguishable mass distributions from the crop residue
burns and an ammonium distribution was observed from grass burning. The
chloride emissions were found to have a mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that ranged
between 130 to 175 nm and the ammonium distribution from grass-burning
emissions had a roughly equivalent mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the chloride
emissions. Similar chloride mass distributions with modes centered between
100 and 180 nm were also observed from sugarcane residue burning in Brazil
(da Rocha et al., 2005). The significantly lower inorganic mode diameters
compared to the mode diameters of the OA emissions indicate that the aerosol
components were externally mixed. The non-refractory chloride measured by the
mAMS was estimated to be between 82 % and 87 % particle-phase HCl.
Additionally, for grass burning, HCl comprised up to 23 % of the total
non-refractory aerosol mass. Particle-phase chloride emissions were also
observed by the filter-based measurements conducted by Jayarathne et
al. (2018). Similar particle-phase chloride emission factors have also been
observed with grass-burning samples (0.31 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and agricultural
waste samples (0.16 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) from Africa (Keene et al., 2006).
Conversely, gas-phase HCl emissions from crop residue burning were not
observed above detection limits by Stockwell et al. (2016). The preponderance
of externally mixed, particle-phase chloride suggests that the condensation of HCl, or
the nucleation of inorganic salts, is occurring within the crop residue plumes
and, unlike what was observed with garbage burning, the inorganic chlorine
mass is mostly found in the particle phase. If the particle-phase HCL was in
the form of inorganic salts instead of a condensed acid, the neutralizing ion
was likely potassium and to a lesser extent ammonium (Jayarathne et
al., 2018). Organic chlorine, primarily in the form of chloromethane
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), was reported from gas-phase measurements (Stockwell et
al., 2016). The presence of both inorganic and organic chlorine emissions as
large fractions of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass from agricultural residues, combined with
the large emission rates of aerosol produced from residue burning in parts of
South Asia (Pandey et al., 2014), suggests that crop residue burning, along
with garbage burning, are major sources of atmospheric chloride in South Asia
and globally.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Traditional mud stoves</title>
      <p id="d1e6124">We investigated aerosol emissions from three separate traditional mud
cookstoves found in homes within the Tarai region of Nepal (Table 1). The
stoves were operated with local biomass fuels common to South Asia,
including dung and hardwood sticks and twigs. The hardwood sticks were from
local sources and the dried dung logs were provided to the stove operators
by the NAMaSTE team, as dung burning was not common in the particular
location where sampling took place.</p>
      <p id="d1e6127">Emissions from the hardwood-fueled stove were sampled during an evening
cooking cycle during which lentils, rice, and curry were cooked in a pressure cooker
heated by the stove. The hardwood fuel was primarily bakaino (<italic>Melia azedarach</italic>). The hardwood-fueled stove produced an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
2.72 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h burn period (Fig. 1). The PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
was comprised of 87 % OA, 7.7 % BC, 4.5 % chloride, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % sulfate (Fig. 1). The observed EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was
12 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 2 indicates that hardwood burning had an OA mode
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 200 nm and a chloride mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 133 nm.
Like the agricultural residue samples previously discussed, the chloride
aerosol and OA appear to be externally mixed based on the differences in mass
distributions. Nearly 84 % of the OA mass was found in the accumulation
mode. Similar size distributions have been observed elsewhere with oak and
pine wood burning (Kleeman et al., 1999).</p>
      <p id="d1e6231">Emissions from a separate cookstove, fueled with sticks and twigs of
<italic>Shorea robusta</italic> and ignited with plastic, were sampled during a
morning cook cycle (Table 1). During the 1 h long cook cycle lentils, roti,
curry, and rice were prepared. It should be noted that the ignition and
start-up phase of the stick burning started <inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> min prior to sampling
and therefore plastic burning was likely not part of the sampled emissions.
The stick- and twig-burning cookstove produced an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
2.36 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> that was composed of 76 % OA, 22 % BC, 1.5 %
chloride, and nominal fractions of sulfate and nitrate aerosol (Fig. 1). The
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for stick-fueled cooking was 25 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was
the largest PAH emission factor of the emission sources investigated in
NAMaSTE. The large EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from stick and twig burning is possibly
explained by its larger bark content, which has previously been observed to
emit high levels of PAHs (Weimer et al., 2008). Stick burning had the highest
MCE of the tested cookstove fires (0.933; Stockwell et al., 2016), and the
more efficient burn conditions are thought to be responsible for the enhanced
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and reduced EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to the hardwood-fueled
stove. The stick-fueled stove did, however, have larger variability in PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions compared to the hardwood-fueled stove, which was likely because of
the differences in burn<?pagebreak page14668?> cycle due to the low density and inconsistency of
stick fuel compared to hardwood logs (Fig. 1). Although differences in
emission factors existed between the wood-biomass-fueled stoves, the two
burns produced similar mass distributions. Like the hardwood-fuel cooking,
the stick-fueled cooking was found to have an OA mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">190</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and a chloride mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 123 nm (Fig. 2).</p>
      <p id="d1e6363">The single-pot mud stove that was fueled with sticks and twigs was later
separately fueled using cow dung logs. The dung logs were ignited with
kerosene and the stove was operated for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> min without cooking.
The measured dung-burning median EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was 1.79 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
and was composed of 76 % OA, 15 % chloride, 4.8 % BC, 3.9 %
ammonium, and less than 1 % sulfate and nitrate (Fig. 1). Dung burning had
the lowest EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the investigated biomass fuels with a median
of 5 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, a 25th percentile of 2 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and a 75th
percentile of 6 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). Also, it should be noted that
dung burning had the lowest variability in OA emissions of the sampled
biomass in NAMaSTE (Fig. 1). Compositionally, the dung-fueled cookstove
emissions were distinct from the wood-burning emissions because of the lower
BC emissions, the greatly enhanced chloride emissions, and because of the
presence of ammonium in the aerosol. Significant chloride and ammonium
emissions were also sampled by the off-line filter measurements and gas-phase
HCl was not measured above detection limits, indicating that particle-phase
chloride was dominant with dung burning (Jayarathne et al., 2018; Stockwell
et al., 2016). Assuming that all the ammonium measured was a counter ion to
the various anion species (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</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>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), a
predicted ammonium concentration that represents full anionic neutralization
was calculated for the NAMaSTE dung-burning samples (RETS samples included).
Based on the predicted values, anionic mass from dung burning ranged from
35 % to 50 % neutralized and the field samples were 45 %
neutralized. The presence of chloride as the dominant anion in the measured
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, combined with the lack of HCl observed in the gas phase, suggests
that there were chloride-containing organic species present in the
dung-burning aerosol, other non-refractory chloride organic salts, or ionic
potassium (K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Slow-vaporizing K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was not observed by the mAMS,
but was observed in filter samples to make up an average of 15 % of the
chloride mass emitted by dung burning (Jayarathne et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e6516">In addition to having unique emission factors, the dung-fired mud stove was
found to have a unique mass distribution compared to wood burning. The OA
mass distribution was observed to be bimodal with estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
modes at 150 and 270 nm and a trough at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 2). Based on
the 2-D time series of the organic mass distribution found in
Fig. 4 (top panel) it is clear that the two distinct OA distributions
materialize at different time periods during the dung-burning test. The two
distinct distributions appear to correspond with the two identified modes
from the average distribution in Fig. 2, with the larger mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
occurring at the start of the burn and the smaller mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
occurring shortly after ignition of the dung (Fig. 4). Additionally, during
the ignition phase of the burn, the highest OA and BC EFs were observed and
the MCE derived from the uncalibrated Picarro CRDS was at its highest point.
At 2 min after ignition the inorganic components appeared in the
emissions, the OA and BC EFs decreased, and the OA distribution shifted to
smaller sizes (Fig. 4). The MCE, however, did not appear to follow the same
abrupt trend and remained constant with a relative value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.97</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
suggesting that the dung remained in a flaming phase. Because the MCE did not
follow the same trend as the aerosol, it is thought that the kerosene that
was used to ignite the dung was responsible for the larger mode diameter of
the OA distribution and for the absence of inorganic mass at the start of the
burn. However, without further samples, it is unclear if the same trends in
size and mass would occur with different starter fuels.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e6574">Time series of the modified combustion efficiency (bottom panel),
aerosol emission factors, and chloride and organic mass size distributions
(top panels) for the dung-burning emissions from a one-pot traditional
mud stove. The 2-D time distributions are colored by the size-resolved dilute
concentration as indicated by the color ramp.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e6583">Although we did not sample other exclusively dung-fueled cookstoves in the
field, we did sample cooking with a two-pot traditional mud stove that was
co-fired with dung and hardwood and started with hardwood (Table 1). The
two-pot stove was used to cook rice, lentils, and curry during the evening cook
cycle at a village restaurant. The co-fired stove did not show the same
bimodal mass distribution as the single-pot dung-fueled stove and was
observed to have a unimodal distribution that was most similar to the
hardwood-fueled cookstove. Unlike hardwood burning, the co-fired mass
distribution was found to have large fractions of ammonium and chloride
aerosol (Fig. 2). Organic aerosol emitted from the co-fired stove emissions
was estimated to have a mode diameter of 206 nm. Inorganic aerosol was
estimated to have a mode diameter of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">125</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. Again, like the other
cookstove emissions the differences between the organic and inorganic modes
suggest that the aerosol components were externally mixed. Although
differences in mode diameter existed between the aerosol components, the
non-refractory distribution was fairly narrow and 67 % of the mass was
found between 100 and 320 nm. Because the authors are not aware of other
studies that have characterized the aerosol size distributions of
dung-burning emissions in the field, we cannot comment on the universality of
the distributions observed from the NAMaSTE samples. However, under more
dilute conditions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) produced in a lab, Venkataraman and Rao
(2001) found a mass median aerodynamic diameter of dung-fired emissions
between 600 and 780 nm. It is important to note that in NAMaSTE an effort was
made to sample well-mixed emissions from inside the building in which
sampling took place. If our well-mixed assumption holds true then the mass
distributions observed in this study are more representative of residential
exposure.</p>
      <?pagebreak page14669?><p id="d1e6612">The dung- and hardwood-fueled, two-pot traditional mud stove was found to have
enhanced aerosol emission factors compared to the tested single-pot stoves.
With an average MCE of 0.912 (Stockwell et al., 2016), the two-pot stove was
observed to have an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 4.10 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was
composed of 81 % OA, 12 % chloride, 3.9 % BC, 2.6 % ammonium,
and nominal fractions of sulfate and nitrate (Fig. 1). The co-fired cookstove
had an enhanced EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to both single-pot hardwood and
dung burning at 20 mg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The general increase in aerosol emissions
between the dung-fired single-pot stove and the co-fired two-pot stove was
unexpected because few differences between the two sources were observed by
the filter-based measurements of Jayarathne et al. (2018) or the gas-phase
measurements of Stockwell et al. (2016).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e6672"><bold>(a)</bold> Emission factor of aerosol absorption due to brown
carbon detected at 370 nm by the AE33, converted to 405 nm, and at 405 nm
by the PAX system (Stockwell et al., 2016). <bold>(b)</bold> Absorption
Ångström exponent (AAE) for the investigated emission sources.
Cookstove fuel types are hardwood (Hw), dung (D), and sticks and twigs (Tw).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS6">
  <title>BrC absorption and AAE</title>
      <p id="d1e6692">Emission factors of absorption due to BrC (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived
from the scattering- and filter-loading-corrected aethalometer measurements at
370 nm can be found in Fig. 5a. Absorption coefficients measured at 880 and
370 nm and given as emission factors can be found in Table S5. Generally,
BrC absorption at 370 nm was observed from all of the investigated emission
sources with the exception of the idling motorcycles, the zigzag kiln, and
Mix 1 garbage burning, in which BrC was not observed above the background.
The presence of light-absorbing organic aerosol from the biomass burning
samples was expected as BrC has primarily been attributed to biomass burning
(Saleh et al., 2014). Agricultural-residue-burning EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
ranged from 12.0–25.2 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the largest observed
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from wheat and mustard burning (Fig. 5a). The
wood-fueled cookstove BrC emissions were consistent with an average
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 15.2 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from the field-tested
stoves. BrC from the field-tested, dung-fueled cookstoves was found to be
14.8 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the single-pot stove emissions and
10.8 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the two-pot stove. With the exception of Mix 1,
open-garbage-burning emissions were observed to contain
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> equivalent to the biomass burning emissions with EFs
ranging from 9.1–19.5 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Another unexpected source of BrC
was the diesel irrigation pumps. Enhanced light absorption at 370 nm has
predominantly been associated with biomass burning aerosol and not primary
diesel emissions (Olson et al., 2015). Pump 1, the older pump with enhanced
OA emissions, was found to have an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> equivalent to the
biomass burning sources at 12.6 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 5a). Pump 2
emissions were found to have a significantly lower level of BrC
(2.4 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The uncharacteristic observation of BrC from
diesel exhaust could suggest the presence of nonabsorbing organic coatings
on BC, or lensing, as discussed by Pokhrel et al. (2017) instead of the
emission of light-absorbing organics. Similarly low EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
was observed from the clamp kiln (3.6 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). However, unlike
with the irrigation pumps, light-absorbing OA from coal burning has also been
observed by other studies (Bond et al., 2002; Olson et al., 2015; Sun et
al., 2012) and at both brick kilns by the NAMaSTE PAX measurements at 405 nm
(Stockwell et al., 2016). Additionally, BC was observed to be a minor part of
the clamp kiln emissions (Fig. 1), suggesting that the<?pagebreak page14670?> observation of BrC was
likely from light-absorbing organics and not from BC lensing.</p>
      <p id="d1e6974">With the exception of the zigzag kiln emissions, the observed
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values measured with the PAX at 405 nm were an average of
50 % lower than the 370 nm AE33 results from this work. The consistently
enhanced EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values from this work that are partly because the
40 nm difference in wavelength used to measure absorption generated
differing results. Thus, the 370 nm BrC results from this work were
converted to 405 nm using the AE33 AAE to make comparisons to Stockwell et
al. (2016). For the conversion it was assumed that AAE is independent of
wavelength and that the differences in absorption at longer wavelengths are
minor (i.e., 870 nm vs. 880 nm). Based on the converted results there was a
25 % increase in the average agreement between the PAX and AE33 results
(Fig. 5a). Additionally, for crop residue burning and mustard burning, there
was a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % agreement between the 405 nm EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. It
should also be noted that our indirect 405 nm results dramatically decreased
the EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for garbage-burning and irrigation pump
emissions, which produces some nonpositive BrC values for the mixed refuse
2, chip bags, and Pump 2. The observation of excess BrC absorption at 370 nm
compared to 405 nm is expected to be larger at higher AAE and confirms the
general shape of the cross section assumed in the optical model.</p>
      <p id="d1e7047">Absorption Ångström exponents from the investigated emission sources
were generally divided into three groups with low AAE observed for open-garbage-burning,
irrigation pump, and zigzag kiln emissions (0.8–1.4),
moderate AAE observed from agricultural residue burning, wood-fueled
cookstoves, and mixed-fuel stove emissions (2.1–2.9), and high AAE from
dung-fueled cookstove and clamp kiln emissions (3.7–4.1) (Fig. 5b).
Generally, the AAE results from Stockwell et al. (2016) followed similar
trends, but with significantly larger AAE values associated with the zigzag
kiln emissions and wheat straw burning (Fig. 5b). Evidence of outlying
zigzag kiln EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrC</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and AAE compared to the PAX combined
with an AE33 AAE significantly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suggests a possible sampling artifact
associated with the 370 nm zigzag kiln results. For example, the outlying
zigzag kiln results could be due to an underestimation of scattering
associated with the zigzag kiln emissions. With regard to the garbage-burning
and irrigation pump optical results, the AAE values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> provide further
evidence for the presence of some BrC or coated BC (Pokhrel et al., 2017), as
discussed above.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS7">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{{$\protect\chem{OC}$}\,$/$\,{$\protect\chem{BC}$}}?><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e7113">The large instrument suite used in NAMaSTE provided unique insight into the
chemical composition of emissions from prevalent emission sources found in
South Asia, but also generated complex and sometimes diverse results. As
discussed briefly with the above results, some differences in aerosol EFs
were observed between the two online techniques used in NAMaSTE. In
addition, the online EF sometimes differed from EF results found by off-line
analysis.<?pagebreak page14671?> The differences observed between the instrumentation are thought to
be due to the inherent differences between detection methods, including cut
size (i.e., PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), BC, or EC operational definitions
(Hitzenberger et al., 2006; Watson and Chow, 2002), and the mass quantification
of refractory or semi-refractory organic components. This is partly due to sampling
methodology (i.e., controlled dilution vs. ambient dilution) and also the
lack of exact temporal and spatial overlap in dynamic sources. The lack of
exact overlap between the measurements actually represents a beneficial
increase in the total sampling, but nevertheless, other contributions to
differences can be explored. Here we revisit and summarize the mass ratio of
organic carbon to black carbon (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the emission
sources studied in NAMaSTE. The mass ratio provides an internally consistent
parameter to assess the aerosol composition between emission sources and also
offers a metric to make comparisons of aerosol composition across the NAMaSTE
instrumentation and relevant results in the literature. For this analysis AMS
OA data have been converted to OC using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OM</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios as
described previously in Sect. 2.3. The OC-to-BC mass ratios of the
field-tested emission sources can be found in Fig. 6 and are displayed in
rank order. Additionally, the marker for each emission source in Fig. 6 is
colored by the average MCE from Stockwell et al. (2016). Generally, the
lowest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values appear to correspond with the highest
observed MCEs. The trend between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCE matches
observations from biomass burning emissions that have taken place in the
field (Kondo et al., 2011) and in the lab (Christian et al., 2003).</p>
      <p id="d1e7228">The largest online <inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed at the coal-fired
clamp brick kiln with a value of 52.4 (Fig. 6). Conversely, the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed at the zigzag brick kiln was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and the lower zigzag kiln percentiles ranged to below 0.1. Similar results
were observed with other South Asian coal-fired zigzag kilns by off-line
filter-based measurements with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios ranging from
0 to 0.29 (Weyant et al., 2014). Clamp kilns investigated in Mexico saw
similarly low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions with an average of 0.16
(Christian et al., 2010). The lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed with
clamp kilns in Mexico compared to the clamp kiln investigated in this study
could be due to fuel type as discussed in Sect. 3.3.</p>
      <p id="d1e7358">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios did not follow any specific trend based
on source type, although the agricultural-residue-burning samples were
grouped with ratios between 3.7 and 4.5 (Fig. 6). Literature-based results
provide an estimated range of 1.8–58 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for crop
residue burning (Andreae and Merlet, 2001;Cao et al., 2008; Hays et
al., 2005;Liu et al., 2016; Sahai et al., 2007). Additionally, the off-line
filter-based measurements of Jayarathne et al. (2018) are in the range of
literature values with an estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 6.44
(Fig. 6).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e7434">The organic carbon (OC) to black carbon ratio (g <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> g) of the
investigated emission sources from this work and Jayarathne et al. (2018). The
markers are colored by average MCE values from Stockwell et al. (2016); light
blue indicates MCE of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and black indicates an MCE close to 1.
Cookstove fuel designated as D for dung burning, Hw for hardwood burning, and
Tw for stick and twig burning.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e7460">Open garbage burning produced varied results, with Mix 1 and plastic-burning
emissions containing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and Mix 2 and metalized
plastic chip bags containing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6), which
follows the trend of low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from high MCE sources and
high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from lower MCE sources. Based on the EFs, the
differences between Mix 1 and Mix 2 are largely due to enhanced BC emissions
observed from Mix 2. The differences between the plastic-burning samples were
primarily due to enhanced OA emissions from mixed plastic compared to the
chip bags (Fig. 1). Based on the plastic-burning results, it is possible that
Mix 1 was composed of a larger percentage of mixed plastic compared to Mix 2,
although differences in burn conditions are likely also a factor. Christian
et al. (2010) also observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (2.3–28.5) from
open garbage burning in Mexico. The combined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range
from this study and Christian et<?pagebreak page14672?> al. (2010) suggests that considerable
variability in garbage-burning emissions occurs over a range of MCE and
moisture.</p>
      <p id="d1e7594">The diesel-powered irrigation pumps were observed to have the most
consistently low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the source types but emitted
noticeably different ratios (Pump 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.88;
Pump 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.15). As discussed in Sect. 3.2
emissions from Pump 2, the newer more efficient pump, had considerably
reduced OA EFs compared to the older Pump 1 (Fig. 1). Here the reduced OA
associated with Pump 2 is responsible for the lower observed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Other reports of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
diesel irrigation pumps do not exist outside of NAMaSTE, but our observed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M586" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios are close to or within the lower range of
observations from diesel-powered military generators, which emitted an
estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OM</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range of 0.23–6.25 (Zhu et al., 2009).
Additionally, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios observed from US diesel vehicle
primary emissions under dilute conditions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M595" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dilution) were found
to be less than 1 (May et al., 2014) in agreement with the online results
for the newer pump in this work. Although we only sampled two irrigation
pumps in NAMaSTE, the results indicate that the aerosol emissions are similar
to what has been observed from other diesel combustion sources by other
studies. However, a better understanding of inter-pump variability and the
effects of aging and maintenance are needed before emission factors from
other more common (and likely more controlled) emission sources can used as a
supplement for field-tested diesel-powered irrigation pump aerosol emissions.</p>
      <p id="d1e7815">The wood-fueled traditional mud stoves were observed to have emissions with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> close to what was observed from the crop residue
burns and the filter-based measurements of Jayarathne et al. (2018). The
NAMaSTE filter-based EF measurements taken from the same sources at different
times were within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the online-measured values (Fig. 6). The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the hardwood-fueled stove was found to be 8.1
and the stick-burning stove emissions had an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M604" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
2.5. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios observed from the wood-fired
traditional stoves in Nepal are within the estimated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M610" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range of 1.22–11.5 observed from similar
wood-fired stoves investigated in Guatemala (Roden et al., 2006) and Mexico
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Christian et al., 2010). Additionally,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the hardwood-fired cookstoves tested at RETS
ranged from 0.34–4.72 from traditional stoves with and without chimneys,
natural-draft-improved stoves, a bhuse chulo, and a three-stone fire, with
the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed from the three-stone fire.
Another study that investigated South Asian residential biofuels found an
average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.5 for low-burn-rate fuelwood and an
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 3.8 for high-burn-rate fuelwood (Venkataraman et
al., 2005). The results suggest that the NAMaSTE emission results provide
important additional sampling to the aerosol composition results that have
been reported by other studies with larger sample numbers, but far less
chemical detail.</p>
      <p id="d1e8051">The field-tested dung-fueled mud stoves were found to have some of the
largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed in the study. The 100 %
dung-fueled test was observed to have an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M630" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 11.8
and the co-fired dung and hardwood test has an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
15.1 (Fig. 6). The filter-based measurements by Jayarathne et al. (2018) were
found to have a similar trend to the online measurements and the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios from both tests were within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
of the online measurements (Fig. 6). Other studies that have investigated
dung-burning emissions in the lab have observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M638" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
ratios of greater than 20 (Sheesley et al., 2003; Venkataraman et al., 2005).
Therefore, it is possible that the consistently lower
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M642" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios from the field-tested NAMaSTE results are
more representative of authentic dung-fueled cookstove emissions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e8208">Scatter plots of <bold>(a)</bold> off-line thermal–optical-measured
elemental carbon emission factors from Jayarathne et al. (2018);
<bold>(b)</bold> online PAX 870 nm measured black carbon emission factors from
Stockwell et al. (2016) vs. online AE33 aethalometer 880 nm measured black
carbon emission factors in units of g kg of fuel<inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Panel <bold>(c)</bold>
provides a scatter plot of the off-line EC measurements vs. the online PAX
870 nm measurements. Linear regression curves are displayed as solid lines
with the resulting equation and correlation coefficient displayed in each
respective panel. Markers are colored by the AAE for each emission source.
Cookstove fuel types are hardwood (Hw), dung (D), and sticks and twigs (Tw).
The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lines (dotted) are shown in each plot for clarification.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/14653/2018/acp-18-14653-2018-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e8252">With many of the aerosol EF results it has been discussed how differences
exist between the two sets of online EFs from this work and also with the
off-line results in the companion paper by Jayarathne et al. (2018). As
previously discussed many of the large differences in EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> could be due to detection method, sampling overlap, or
differences in dilution. As seen in Fig. 6, there is some agreement in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the online and off-line measurements and
in particular there is agreement with many of the biomass burning emission
sources. However, there are significant differences between online and
off-line <inline-formula><mml:math id="M651" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the sources with high MCE (i.e.,
irrigation pumps and chip bag burning). Additionally, it should be noted
that elemental carbon was not observed above detection limits from the brick
kilns or from garbage Mix 2 by Jayarathne et al. (2018), and a low
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> could inflate the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 7
compares the online EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values to each other and the off-line
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M659" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the NAMaSTE tested sources in which results from the
same tests were available. The figure indicates that there was significant
scatter between the online EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results and the off-line
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results. Many of the high MCE emission sources (i.e.,
irrigation pumps, garbage burning, plastic burning, zigzag kiln) were found
to have lower EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to the EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> results or EC
was not detected by the off-line filter-based methods. A low EF for EC could
help explain why <inline-formula><mml:math id="M664" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was higher than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M668" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for these sources (Fig. 6). Additionally, although
the sample size is limited, emission sources with AAE values significantly
greater than 1 generally had larger off-line-measured EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
compared to the online EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7). Similar results were also
observed when comparing the off-line EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to online PAX
measurements by Stockwell et al. (2016) (Fig. 7). The results suggest that
there could be two processes, in addition to sample timing, that contributed
to the large differences in off-line and online BC EFs and were partially
responsible for inconsistent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: (1) black carbon mass
from high MCE sources was quantified differently between off-line and online
detection methods, and (2) the presence of light-absorbing organic carbon
impacted BC (and/or EC) detection. Similar processes have been observed with
ambient measurements that compared thermal–optical transmittance-derived EC
to BC from an aethalometer, in which urban haze events were found to have larger
aethalometer-measured BC concentrations and<?pagebreak page14673?> biomass burning events were
observed to have larger off-line-measured EC concentrations (Jeong et
al., 2004). In NAMaSTE the online results were better correlated with an
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" 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> of 0.34, but with poor agreement between the dung- and plastic-burning
results from the two instruments (Fig. 7). The general agreement between the
PAX and AE33 indicates that the manufacturer-selected mass absorption cross
section of the AE33 at 880 nm (7.77 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Drinovec et
al., 2015) was likely applied correctly for most sources, but may have been
incorrectly assumed for dung and plastic burning. In summary, ultimately, the
source of variability among the various detection methods cannot be fully
elucidated in this work and further experimental controls that were not
available in the field are needed to fully characterize these differences.
More than likely, all the techniques provided information that is worthy of
incorporating into evolving literature averages.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary</title>
      <p id="d1e8545">Online PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements of emissions from prevalent
but under-characterized emission sources in South Asia using a mAMS and
aethalometer were conducted as part of the NAMaSTE field campaign. With
controlled dilution sampling, fuel-based emission factors of major aerosol
species were derived from the time-resolved measurements of the field-tested
emission sources. Additionally, mAMS-measured average mass size distributions
were generated from each emission source. The field-tested emission sources
included traditional mud stoves, agricultural residue burning, brick kilns,
open garbage burning, groundwater pumps used for irrigation, and idling
motorcycles. Open garbage burning, a globally important but poorly understood
emission source, was found to have some the largest and most variable
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M680" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions of the sources investigated in NAMaSTE. Like previous open-garbage-burning observations, particle-phase chloride was observed from the
combustion of PVC plastic, but based on other complementary measurements
chlorine mass was primarily in the gas phase as HCl. Diesel-powered
irrigation pumps were also observed to have large PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission factors
compared to other investigated sources. The online measurements indicate
that the two sampled groundwater irrigation pumps produced similar OA size
distributions (mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm), but produced
significantly different OA emission factors. Differences in efficiency due to
age or model are thought to be responsible for the different EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
from the pumps. The OA size distributions obtained from the motorcycle
emissions agreed well with what has been observed from emissions of other
Asian motorcycles. The two mainly coal-fired brick-making kilns were observed
to have similar PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions on a per-mass-of-fuel basis but with some
differences in composition that are thought to be due to differences in
design. The traditional and less efficient clamp kiln had a larger
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to the more efficient zigzag kiln and the largest AAE
of the investigated emission sources (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The zigzag kiln was
observed to have a larger sulfate EF due to the higher sulfur content of the
coal used for firing, and the organic aerosol was found to contain
nitrogen-containing species. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were not
observed above the mAMS detection limits from either of the coal-fired brick
kilns. Crop-residue-burning EFs were found to be within the range of other
crop residue experiments found in the literature. Interestingly, chlorine
aerosol emissions externally mixed from organic aerosol were observed from
the crop residue experiments and unlike observations from open garbage
burning, a significant fraction<?pagebreak page14674?> of chloride mass was found in the particle
phase. Aerosol emissions from traditional mud stoves used for cooking and
fueled with hardwoods and dung were investigated in the field. For all of the
cookstove experiments, organic aerosol was the dominant aerosol component in
the emissions with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging between 2.4 and 15.1.
Like crop residue burning, chloride aerosol was observed from all of the
cooking experiments and was externally mixed from the organic aerosol based
on the size distribution data. Ammonium emissions were observed with dung
burning, suggesting that the emissions were neutralized to some extent.
Additionally, the largest EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PAH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed from the single-pot
mud stove fueled with sticks and twigs, which is thought to be due to high bark
content.</p>
      <p id="d1e8662">In addition to examining size distributions and speciated emission factors,
aerosol optical properties and mass ratios of black carbon and organic
aerosol were summarized for the investigated emission sources.
Agricultural residue burning, wood- and dung-fueled cooking, and the clamp
kiln were all observed to have AAE values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The clamp kiln and
dung-burning emissions were observed to have the highest wavelength
dependence (AAE) and a similar trend was observed in the aerosol optical
analysis in a companion paper by Stockwell et al. (2016). Ratios of organic
carbon to black carbon were examined to make comparisons of composition
among the emission sources, the filter-based aerosol measurements in the
companion paper Jayarathne et al. (2018), and literature values. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements made in this work corresponded well
with other studies that have investigated similar sources, indicating that the
online emission factors presented in this work both support and supplement
previous results. Specifically, the aerosol size and composition results from
this work have added important results to the literature for some prevalent
but under-characterized emission sources found in South Asia. The NAMaSTE
results as a whole have expanded the body of knowledge about South Asian
combustion sources and provide key results that will help constrain
uncertainty in emission inventories and indoor exposure models.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e8703">Additional “raw” data not in the tables or Supplement
will be archived and available after the publication of our initial papers.
Contact the corresponding author or consult future NAMaSTE papers for updates or
details.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e8706">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14653-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14653-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e8715">EAS, RJY, AKP, and PFD were the primary investigators of
NAMaSTE. Field measurements were conducted by JDG, MRG, CES, TJC, PVB, and
TJ. In-country support, logistics, and the acquisition of combustion sources
were contributed by RM, SA, PVB, and PSP. Data processing, analysis, and
interpretation was completed by JDG and PFD. All authors contributed to the
discussion of the results and to the writing of the
paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e8721">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e8727">The authors would like to thank the logistics and support team in Nepal,
which included numerous personnel from ICIMOD, MinErgy Pvt. Ltd., and RETS.
We would like to acknowledge the proficiency and expertise of Sanubabu B.
Dangol and the MinErgy team, who were integral to finding and gaining access
to field sites for this study. A special thanks to Karma Sherpa and Nawraj,
who were both central parts of the field team and without whom this work
would not be possible and possibly less enjoyable. We thank the villagers of
Nawalparasi for their generosity and hospitality. Finally, the authors would
like to acknowledge Erin Katz for her excellent contribution to the
post-campaign lab work that provided key results to help characterize the
dilution system. This project was funded by the National Science Foundation
under grant AGS 1461458. Elizabeth A. Stone and Thilina Jayarathne were
supported by NSF grant number AGS 1351616, Robert J. Yokelson and Chelsea E.
Stockwell were supported by AGS 1349967, and Robert J. Yokelson was also
supported by NASA Earth Science Division Award NNX14AP45G.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Gordon McFiggans <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: Gordon McFiggans and one anonymous referee</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Agrawal, S. and Yamamoto, S.: Effect of Indoor air pollution from biomass and
solid fuel combustion on symptoms of preeclampsia/eclampsia in Indian women,
Indoor Air, 25, 341–352, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12144" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ina.12144</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Baltensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O/C and OM/OC Ratios
of Primary, Secondary, and Ambient Organic Aerosols with High-Resolution
Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42,
4478–4485, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es703009q</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Akagi, S. K., Yokelson, R. J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M. J., Reid, J. S.,
Karl, T., Crounse, J. D., and Wennberg, P. O.: Emission factors for open and
domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
11, 4039–4072, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Allan, J. D., Delia, A. E., Coe, H., Bower, K. N., Alfarra, M. R., Jimenez,
J. L., Middlebrook, A. M., Drewnick, F., Onasch, T. B., Canagaratna, M. R.,
Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: A generalised method for the extraction of
chemically resolved mass spectra from Aerodyne<?pagebreak page14675?> aerosol mass spectrometer
data, J. Aerosol Sci., 35, 909–922, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.02.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.02.007</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Merlet, P.: Emission of trace gases and aerosols from
biomass burning, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 955–966,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000GB001382</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Arnott, W. P., Hamasha, K., Moosmüller, H., Sheridan, P. J., and Ogren,
J. A.: Towards Aerosol Light-Absorption Measurements with a 7-Wavelength
Aethalometer: Evaluation with a Photoacoustic Instrument and 3-Wavelength
Nephelometer, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 17–29, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901972" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290901972</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bhattacharyya, S. C.: Power sector reform in South Asia: Why slow and limited
so far?, Energ. Policy, 35, 317–332, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.028</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Covert, D. S., Kramlich, J. C., Larson, T. V., and Charlson, R.
J.: Primary particle emissions from residential coal burning: Optical
properties and size distributions, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 8347,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000571" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD000571</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Nelson, S. M., Woo, J.-H., and
Klimont, Z.: A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon
emissions from combustion, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D14203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003697</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Bruns, E. A., Krapf, M., Orasche, J., Huang, Y., Zimmermann, R., Drinovec,
L., Mocnik, G., El-Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Baltensperger, U.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization of primary and secondary wood
combustion products generated under different burner loads, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 2825–2841, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Campuzano Jost, P., Jimenez, J. L., Kimmel, J., Day, D. A., Hu, W., Sueper,
D., Knochenmuss, R., Worsnop, D. R., and Jayne, J. T.: Particle
Time-of-Flight by Hadamard Transform (ePTOF): A new high-duty-cycle approach
to size-segregated and total aerosol mass measurements for the Aerodyne
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San
Francisco, A21J-3169, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Hildebrandt Ruiz, L., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K.
R., Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.:
Elemental ratio measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass
spectrometry: characterization, improved calibration, and implications,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 253–272, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Cao, G., Zhang, X., Gong, S., and Zheng, F.: Investigation on emission
factors of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants from crop residue
burning, J. Environ. Sci., 20, 50–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60007-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60007-8</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Chafe, Z. A., Brauer, M., Klimont, Z., Van Dingenen, R., Mehta, S., Rao, S.,
Riahi, K., Dentener, F., and Smith, K. R.: Household Cooking with Solid Fuels
Contributes to Ambient PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> Air Pollution and the Burden of Disease,
Environ. Health Persp., 122, 1314–1320, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206340" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1289/ehp.1206340</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, B. H., Hong, C. J., Pandey, M. R., and Smith, K. R.: Indoor air
pollution in developing countries, World Health Statistics Quarterly, 43,
127–138, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Y., Sheng, G., Bi, X., Feng, Y., Mai, B., and Fu, J.: Emission Factors
for Carbonaceous Particles and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from
Residential Coal Combustion in China, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 1861–1867,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es0493650" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es0493650</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Chien, S. M., and Huang, Y. J.: Sizes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
composition distributions of nano, ultrafine, fine, and coarse particulates
emitted from a four-stroke motorcycle, J. Environ. Sci. Heal. A, 45,
1768–1774, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2010.513289" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/10934529.2010.513289</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>China, S., Mazzoleni, C., Gorkowski, K., Aiken, A. C., and Dubey, M. K.:
Morphology and mixing state of individual freshly emitted wildfire
carbonaceous particles, Nat. Commun., 4, 2122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3122" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms3122</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J.,
Hao, W. M., Saharjo, B. H., and Ward, D. E.: Comprehensive laboratory
measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 1. Emissions from Indonesian,
African, and other fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4719,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003704" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003704</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Christian, T. J., Yokelson, R. J., Cárdenas, B., Molina, L. T., Engling,
G., and Hsu, S.-C.: Trace gas and particle emissions from domestic and
industrial biofuel use and garbage burning in central Mexico, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 10, 565–584, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-565-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-565-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>da Rocha, G. O., Allen, A. G., and Cardoso, A. A.: Influence of Agricultural
Biomass Burning on Aerosol Size Distribution and Dry Deposition in
Southeastern Brazil, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 5293–5301,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es048007u" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es048007u</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Worsnop, D. R., Davidovits, P., and Jimenez,
J. L.: Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility
and Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 1: Theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
38, 1185–1205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290903907</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>DeCarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Deployable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ac061249n</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Drewnick, F., Hings, S. S., DeCarlo, P., Jayne, J. T., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K.,
Weimer, S., Jimenez, J. L., Demerjian, K. L., Borrmann, S., and Worsnop, D.
R.: A New Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (TOF-AMS)—Instrument
Description and First Field Deployment, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 637–658,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820500182040" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820500182040</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Drinovec, L., Močnik, G., Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Ruckstuhl, C., Coz, E., Rupakheti, M., Sciare, J., Müller, T.,
Wiedensohler, A., and Hansen, A. D. A.: The “dual-spot” Aethalometer: an
improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading
compensation, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1965–1979,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Dzepina, K., Arey, J., Marr, L. C., Worsnop, D. R., Salcedo, D., Zhang, Q.,
Onasch, T. B., Molina, L. T., Molina, M. J., and Jimenez, J. L.: Detection of
particle-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Mexico City using an
aerosol mass spectrometer, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 263, 152–170,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2007.01.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijms.2007.01.010</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Ellis, P. and Roberts, M.: Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing
Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. : World BankWashington,
DC, © World Bank. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO, 23–40, 2016</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page14676?><ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Fröhlich, R., Cubison, M. J., Slowik, J. G., Bukowiecki, N.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Schneider, J., Kimmel, J. R.,
Gonin, M., Rohner, U., Worsnop, D. R., and Jayne, J. T.: The ToF-ACSM: a
portable aerosol chemical speciation monitor with TOFMS detection, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 6, 3225–3241, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3225-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-3225-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Fullerton, D. G., Bruce, N., and Gordon, S. B.: Indoor air pollution from
biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world, T. Roy.
Soc. Trop. Med. H., 102, 843–851, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Gautam, R., Hsu, N. C., Kafatos, M., and Tsay, S.-C.: Influences of winter
haze on fog/low cloud over the Indo-Gangetic plains, J. Geophys. Res., 112,
D05207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD007036" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD007036</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Goetz, J. D., Giordano, M. R., Stockwell, C. E., Christian, T. J., Maharjan,
R., Adhikari, S., Bhave, P. V., Praveen, P. S., Panday, A. K., Jayarathne,
T., Stone, E. A., Yokelson, R. J., and DeCarlo, P. F.: Speciated On-line
PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from South Asian Combustion Sources: Part II, AMS Mass Spectral
Profiles and Wavelength Dependence, in preparation, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Gong, X., Zhang, C., Chen, H., Nizkorodov, S. A., Chen, J., and Yang, X.:
Size distribution and mixing state of black carbon particles during a heavy
air pollution episode in Shanghai, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5399–5411,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5399-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-5399-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Gustafsson, Ö., Kruså, M., Zencak, Z., Sheesley, R. J., Granat, L.,
Engström, E., Praveen, P. S., Rao, P. S. P., Leck, C., and Rodhe, H.:
Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?, Science,
323, 495–498, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164857" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1164857</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Guttikunda, S. K. and Goel, R.: Health impacts of particulate pollution in a
megacity — Delhi, India, Environmental Development, 6, 8–20,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.12.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envdev.2012.12.002</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Guttikunda, S. K., Goel, R., and Pant, P.: Nature of air pollution, emission
sources, and management in the Indian cities, Atmos. Environ., 95, 501–510,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.006</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Hays, M. D., Fine, P. M., Geron, C. D., Kleeman, M. J., and Gullett, B. K.:
Open burning of agricultural biomass: Physical and chemical properties of
particle-phase emissions, Atmos. Environ., 39, 6747–6764,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.072" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.072</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Hitzenberger, R., Petzold, A., Bauer, H., Ctyroky, P., Pouresmaeil, P.,
Laskus, L., and Puxbaum, H.: Intercomparison of Thermal and Optical
Measurement Methods for Elemental Carbon and Black Carbon at an Urban
Location, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6377–6383, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es051228v" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es051228v</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Hu, W. W., Hu, M., Yuan, B., Jimenez, J. L., Tang, Q., Peng, J. F., Hu, W.,
Shao, M., Wang, M., Zeng, L. M., Wu, Y. S., Gong, Z. H., Huang, X. F., and
He, L. Y.: Insights on organic aerosol aging and the influence of coal
combustion at a regional receptor site of central eastern China, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 10095–10112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10095-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10095-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Jayarathne, T., Stockwell, C. E., Bhave, P. V., Praveen, P. S., Rathnayake,
C. M., Islam, Md. R., Panday, A. K., Adhikari, S., Maharjan, R., Goetz, J.
D., DeCarlo, P. F., Saikawa, E., Yokelson, R. J., and Stone, E. A.: Nepal
Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE): emissions of
particulate matter from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires, garbage and crop
residue burning, brick kilns, and other sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18,
2259–2286, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Jayne, J. T., Leard, D. C., Zhang, X., Davidovits, P., Smith, K. A., Kolb, C.
E., and Worsnop, D. R.: Development of an Aerosol Mass Spectrometer for Size
and Composition Analysis of Submicron Particles, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 33,
49–70, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868200410840" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868200410840</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Jeong, C.-H., Hopke, P. K., Kim, E., and Lee, D.-W.: The comparison between
thermal-optical transmittance elemental carbon and Aethalometer black carbon
measured at multiple monitoring sites, Atmos. Environ., 38, 5193–5204,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.065" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.065</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Shi, Q., Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R., Yourshaw,
I., Seinfeld, J. H., Flagan, R. C., Zhang, X., Smith, K. A., Morris, J. W.,
and Davidovits, P.: Ambient aerosol sampling using the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass
Spectrometer, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8425, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD001213</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Keene, W. C., Lobert, J. M., Crutzen, P. J., Maben, J. R., Scharffe, D. H.,
Landmann, T., Hély, C., and Brain, C.: Emissions of major gaseous and
particulate species during experimental burns of southern African biomass,
J. Geophys. Res., 111, D04301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006319" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006319</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Kleeman, M. J., Schauer, J. J., and Cass, G. R.: Size and Composition
Distribution of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from Wood Burning, Meat
Charbroiling, and Cigarettes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 3516–3523,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es981277q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es981277q</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Kondo, Y., Matsui, H., Moteki, N., Sahu, L., Takegawa, N., Kajino, M., Zhao,
Y., Cubison, M. J., Jimenez, J. L., Vay, S., Diskin, G. S., Anderson, B.,
Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Fuelberg, H. E., Blake, D. R., Huey, G.,
Weinheimer, A. J., Knapp, D. J., and Brune, W. H.: Emissions of black carbon,
organic, and inorganic aerosols from biomass burning in North America and
Asia in 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D08204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015152" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD015152</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Kortelainen, A., Joutsensaari, J., Hao, L., Leskinen, J., Tiitta, P.,
Jaatinen, A., Miettinen, P., Sippula, O., Torvela, T., Tissari, J.,
Jokiniemi, J., Worsnop, D. R., Smith, J. N., Laaksonen, A., and Virtanen, A.:
Real-Time Chemical Composition Analysis of Particulate Emissions from
Woodchip Combustion, Energ. Fuel., 29, 1143–1150, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ef5019548" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ef5019548</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Kuwata, M., Zorn, S. R., and Martin, S. T.: Using Elemental Ratios to Predict
the Density of Organic Material Composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 787–794, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es202525q</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Lack, D. A. and Langridge, J. M.: On the attribution of black and brown
carbon light absorption using the Ångström exponent, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 10535–10543, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Lawrence, M. G. and Lelieveld, J.: Atmospheric pollutant outflow from
southern Asia: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11017–11096,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11017-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11017-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Lelieveld, J., Crutzen, P. J., Ramanathan, V., Andreae, M. O.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Campos, T., Cass, G. R., Dickerson, R. R., Fischer,
H., de Gouw, J. A., Hansel, A., Jefferson, A., Kley, D., de Laat, A. T. J.,
Lal, S., Lawrence, M. G., Lobert, J. M., Mayol-Bracero, O. L., Mitra, A. P.,
Novakov, T., Oltmans, S. J., Prather, K. A., Reiner, T., Rodhe, H., Scheeren,
H. A., Sikka, D., and Williams, J.: The Indian Ocean Experiment: Widespread
Air<?pagebreak page14677?> Pollution from South and Southeast Asia, Science, 291, 1031–1036,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057103" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1057103</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Li, M., Zhang, Q., Kurokawa, J.-I., Woo, J.-H., He, K., Lu, Z., Ohara, T.,
Song, Y., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., Cheng, Y., Hong, C., Huo, H.,
Jiang, X., Kang, S., Liu, F., Su, H., and Zheng, B.: MIX: a mosaic Asian
anthropogenic emission inventory under the international collaboration
framework of the MICS-Asia and HTAP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 935–963,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-935-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani,
H., Amann, M., Anderson, H. R., Andrews, K. G., Aryee, M., Atkinson, C.,
Bacchus, L. J., Bahalim, A. N., Balakrishnan, K., Balmes, J., Barker-Collo,
S., Baxter, A., Bell, M. L., Blore, J. D., Blyth, F., Bonner, C., Borges, G.,
Bourne, R., Boussinesq, M., Brauer, M., Brooks, P., Bruce, N. G., Brunekreef,
B., Bryan-Hancock, C., Bucello, C., Buchbinder, R., Bull, F., Burnett, R. T.,
Byers, T. E., Calabria, B., Carapetis, J., Carnahan, E., Chafe, Z., Charlson,
F., Chen, H., Chen, J. S., Cheng, A. T., Child, J. C., Cohen, A., Colson, K.
E., Cowie, B. C., Darby, S., Darling, S., Davis, A., Degenhardt, L.,
Dentener, F., Des Jarlais, D. C., Devries, K., Dherani, M., Ding, E. L.,
Dorsey, E. R., Driscoll, T., Edmond, K., Ali, S. E., Engell, R. E., Erwin, P.
J., Fahimi, S., Falder, G., Farzadfar, F., Ferrari, A., Finucane, M. M.,
Flaxman, S., Fowkes, F. G., Freedman, G., Freeman, M. K., Gakidou, E., Ghosh,
S., Giovannucci, E., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Grainger, R., Grant, B., Gunnell,
D., Gutierrez, H. R., Hall, W., Hoek, H. W., Hogan, A., Hosgood III, H. D.,
Hoy, D., Hu, H., Hubbell, B. J., Hutchings, S. J., Ibeanusi, S. E., Jacklyn,
G. L., Jasrasaria, R., Jonas, J. B., Kan, H., Kanis, J. A., Kassebaum, N.,
Kawakami, N., Khang, Y. H., Khatibzadeh, S., Khoo, J. P., Kok, C., Laden, F.,
Lalloo, R., Lan, Q., Lathlean, T., Leasher, J. L., Leigh, J., Li, Y., Lin, J.
K., Lipshultz, S. E., London, S., Lozano, R., Lu, Y., Mak, J., Malekzadeh,
R., Mallinger, L., Marcenes, W., March, L., Marks, R., Martin, R., McGale,
P., McGrath, J., Mehta, S., Mensah, G. A., Merriman, T. R., Micha, R.,
Michaud, C., Mishra, V., Mohd Hanafiah, K., Mokdad, A. A., Morawska, L.,
Mozaffarian, D., Murphy, T., Naghavi, M., Neal, B., Nelson, P. K., Nolla, J.
M., Norman, R., Olives, C., Omer, S. B., Orchard, J., Osborne, R., Ostro, B.,
Page, A., Pandey, K. D., Parry, C. D., Passmore, E., Patra, J., Pearce, N.,
Pelizzari, P. M., Petzold, M., Phillips, M. R., Pope, D., Pope III, C. A.,
Powles, J., Rao, M., Razavi, H., Rehfuess, E. A., Rehm, J. T., Ritz, B.,
Rivara, F. P., Roberts, T., Robinson, C., Rodriguez-Portales, J. A., Romieu,
I., Room, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Roy, A., Rushton, L., Salomon, J. A.,
Sampson, U., Sanchez-Riera, L., Sanman, E., Sapkota, A., Seedat, S., Shi, P.,
Shield, K., Shivakoti, R., Singh, G. M., Sleet, D. A., Smith, E., Smith, K.
R., Stapelberg, N. J., Steenland, K., Stockl, H., Stovner, L. J., Straif, K.,
Straney, L., Thurston, G. D., Tran, J. H., Van Dingenen, R., van Donkelaar,
A., Veerman, J. L., Vijayakumar, L., Weintraub, R., Weissman, M. M., White,
R. A., Whiteford, H., Wiersma, S. T., Wilkinson, J. D., Williams, H. C.,
Williams, W., Wilson, N., Woolf, A. D., Yip, P., Zielinski, J. M., Lopez, A.
D., Murray, C. J., Ezzati, M., AlMazroa, M. A., and Memish, Z. A.: A
comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet
(London, England), 380, 2224–2260, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Lipsky, E. M. and Robinson, A. L.: Effects of Dilution on Fine Particle Mass
and Partitioning of Semivolatile Organics in Diesel Exhaust and Wood Smoke,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 155–162, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es050319p" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es050319p</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Liu, J., Mauzerall, D. L., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Song, Y., Peng, W., Klimont,
Z., Qiu, X., Zhang, S., Hu, M., Lin, W., Smith, K. R., and Zhu, T.: Air
pollutant emissions from Chinese households: A major and underappreciated
ambient pollution source, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 7756–7761,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604537113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1604537113</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Manadhar, U. M. and Dangol, S. B.: Study on Evaluating Energy Conservation
Potential of Bricks Production in SAARC Countries: A Report for Nepal, SAARC
Energy Centre, Islamabad, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Marr, L. C., Kirchstetter, T. W., Harley, R. A., Miguel, A. H., Hering, S.
V., and Hammond, S. K.: Characterization of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Motor Vehicle Fuels and Exhaust Emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33,
3091–3099, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es981227l" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es981227l</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Matthew, B. M., Middlebrook, A. M., and Onasch, T. B.: Collection
Efficiencies in an Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer as a Function of
Particle Phase for Laboratory Generated Aerosols, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42,
884–898, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802356797" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820802356797</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>May, A. A., Nguyen, N. T., Presto, A. A., Gordon, T. D., Lipsky, E. M.,
Karve, M., Gutierrez, A., Robertson, W. H., Zhang, M., Brandow, C., Chang,
O., Chen, S., Cicero-Fernandez, P., Dinkins, L., Fuentes, M., Huang, S.-M.,
Ling, R., Long, J., Maddox, C., Massetti, J., McCauley, E., Miguel, A., Na,
K., Ong, R., Pang, Y., Rieger, P., Sax, T., Truong, T., Vo, T.,
Chattopadhyay, S., Maldonado, H., Maricq, M. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-
and particle-phase primary emissions from in-use, on-road gasoline and diesel
vehicles, Atmos. Environ., 88, 247–260,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.046" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.046</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Mukherji, A.: Spatio-temporal analysis of markets for groundwater irrigation
services in India: 1976–1977 to 1997–1998, Hydrogeol. J., 16, 1077–1087,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0287-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10040-008-0287-0</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Nair, V. S., Moorthy, K. K., Alappattu, D. P., Kunhikrishnan, P. K., George,
S., Nair, P. R., Babu, S. S., Abish, B., Satheesh, S. K., Tripathi, S. N.,
Niranjan, K., Madhavan, B. L., Srikant, V., Dutt, C. B. S., Badarinath, K. V.
S., and Reddy, R. R.: Wintertime aerosol characteristics over the
Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP): Impacts of local boundary layer processes and
long-range transport, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13205,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008099" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD008099</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Olson, M. R., Victoria Garcia, M., Robinson, M. A., Van Rooy, P.,
Dietenberger, M. A., Bergin, M., and Schauer, J. J.: Investigation of black
and brown carbon multiple-wavelength-dependent light absorption from biomass
and fossil fuel combustion source emissions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
6682–6697, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022970</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Palit, D. and Chaurey, A.: Off-grid rural electrification experiences from
South Asia: Status and best practices, Energy Sustain. Dev., 15, 266–276,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Panday, A. K. and Prinn, R. G.: Diurnal cycle of air pollution in the
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Observations, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D09305,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009777" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD009777</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page14678?><ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Pandey, A., Sadavarte, P., Rao, A. B., and Venkataraman, C.: Trends in
multi-pollutant emissions from a technology-linked inventory for India:
II. Residential, agricultural and informal industry sectors, Atmo. Environ.,
99, 341–352, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.080" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.080</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Pokhrel, R. P., Beamesderfer, E. R., Wagner, N. L., Langridge, J. M., Lack,
D. A., Jayarathne, T., Stone, E. A., Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., and
Murphy, S. M.: Relative importance of black carbon, brown carbon, and
absorption enhancement from clear coatings in biomass burning emissions,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5063–5078, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5063-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-5063-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Putero, D., Cristofanelli, P., Marinoni, A., Adhikary, B., Duchi, R.,
Shrestha, S. D., Verza, G. P., Landi, T. C., Calzolari, F., Busetto, M.,
Agrillo, G., Biancofiore, F., Di Carlo, P., Panday, A. K., Rupakheti, M., and
Bonasoni, P.: Seasonal variation of ozone and black carbon observed at
Paknajol, an urban site in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
15, 13957–13971, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13957-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-13957-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Ramanathan, V., Chung, C., Kim, D., Bettge, T., Buja, L., Kiehl, J. T.,
Washington, W. M., Fu, Q., Sikka, D. R., and Wild, M.: Atmospheric brown
clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 102, 5326–5333, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500656102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0500656102</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Reddy, M. S. and Venkataraman, C.: Inventory of aerosol and sulphur dioxide
emissions from India: I – Fossil fuel combustion, Atmos. Environ., 36,
677–697, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00463-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00463-0</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., and Pinel, A. B. O.: Emission Factors
and Real-Time Optical Properties of Particles Emitted from Traditional Wood
Burning Cookstoves, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6750–6757,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es052080i" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es052080i</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., Osorto Pinel, A. B., MacCarty, N., and
Still, D.: Laboratory and field investigations of particulate and carbon
monoxide emissions from traditional and improved cookstoves, Atmos. Environ.,
43, 1170–1181, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.041" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.041</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Sahai, S., Sharma, C., Singh, D. P., Dixit, C. K., Singh, N., Sharma, P.,
Singh, K., Bhatt, S., Ghude, S., Gupta, V., Gupta, R. K., Tiwari, M. K.,
Garg, S. C., Mitra, A. P., and Gupta, P. K.: A study for development of
emission factors for trace gases and carbonaceous particulate species from in
situ burning of wheat straw in agricultural fields in india, Atmos. Environ.,
41, 9173–9186, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.054</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Saleh, R., Robinson, E. S., Tkacik, D. S., Ahern, A. T., Liu, S., Aiken, A.
C., Sullivan, R. C., Presto, A. A., Dubey, M. K., Yokelson, R. J., Donahue,
N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Brownness of organics in aerosols from biomass
burning linked to their black carbon content, Nat. Geosci., 7, 647–650,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2220</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Sarkar, C., Sinha, V., Kumar, V., Rupakheti, M., Panday, A., Mahata, K. S.,
Rupakheti, D., Kathayat, B., and Lawrence, M. G.: Overview of VOC emissions
and chemistry from PTR-TOF-MS measurements during the SusKat-ABC campaign:
high acetaldehyde, isoprene and isocyanic acid in wintertime air of the
Kathmandu Valley, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3979–4003,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3979-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-3979-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Schmid, O., Artaxo, P., Arnott, W. P., Chand, D., Gatti, L. V., Frank, G. P.,
Hoffer, A., Schnaiter, M., and Andreae, M. O.: Spectral light absorption by
ambient aerosols influenced by biomass burning in the Amazon Basin.
I: Comparison and field calibration of absorption measurement techniques,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3443–3462, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3443-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-3443-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Segura, S., Estellés, V., Titos, G., Lyamani, H., Utrillas, M. P.,
Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H., Mocnik, G., Alados-Arboledas, L., and
Martínez-Lozano, J. A.: Determination and analysis of in situ spectral
aerosol optical properties by a multi-instrumental approach, Atmos. Meas.
Tech., 7, 2373–2387, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2373-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-2373-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Shahid, I., Kistler, M., Mukhtar, A., Ramirez-Santa Cruz, C., Bauer, H., and
Puxbaum, H.: Chemical composition of particles from traditional burning of
Pakistani wood species, Atmos. Environ., 121, 35–41,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.041" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.041</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Sheesley, R. J., Schauer, J. J., Chowdhury, Z., Cass, G. R., and Simoneit, B.
R. T.: Characterization of organic aerosols emitted from the combustion of
biomass indigenous to South Asia, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4285,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002981" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002981</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Simon, H., Bhave, P. V., Swall, J. L., Frank, N. H., and Malm, W. C.:
Determining the spatial and seasonal variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OM</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
ratios across the US using multiple regression, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
2933–2949, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2933-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-2933-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., Kreidenweis, S. M., Robinson, A. L.,
DeMott, P. J., Sullivan, R. C., Reardon, J., Ryan, K. C., Griffith, D. W. T.,
and Stevens, L.: Trace gas emissions from combustion of peat, crop residue,
domestic biofuels, grasses, and other fuels: configuration and Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) component of the fourth Fire Lab at Missoula
Experiment (FLAME-4), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 9727–9754,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9727-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9727-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, C. E., Veres, P. R., Williams, J., and Yokelson, R. J.:
Characterization of biomass burning emissions from cooking fires, peat, crop
residue, and other fuels with high-resolution proton-transfer-reaction
time-of-flight mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 845-865,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-845-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-845-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Stockwell, C. E., Christian, T. J., Goetz, J. D., Jayarathne, T., Bhave, P.
V., Praveen, P. S., Adhikari, S., Maharjan, R., DeCarlo, P. F., Stone, E. A.,
Saikawa, E., Blake, D. R., Simpson, I. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Panday, A.
K.: Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE):
emissions of trace gases and light-absorbing carbon from wood and dung
cooking fires, garbage and crop residue burning, brick kilns, and other
sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11043–11081,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11043-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-11043-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Streets, D. G., Bond, T. C., Carmichael, G. R., Fernandes, S. D., Fu, Q., He,
D., Klimont, Z., Nelson, S. M., Tsai, N. Y., Wang, M. Q., Woo, J. H., and
Yarber, K. F.: An inventory of gaseous and primary aerosol emissions in Asia
in the year 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8809, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003093" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD003093</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Sun, Y., Wang, Z., Dong, H., Yang, T., Li, J., Pan, X., Chen, P., and Jayne,
J. T.: Characterization of summer organic and inorganic aerosols in Beijing,
China with an Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor, Atmos. Environ., 51,
250–259, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.013</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page14679?><ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Torvela, T., Tissari, J., Sippula, O., Kaivosoja, T., Leskinen, J.,
Virén, A., Lähde, A., and Jokiniemi, J.: Effect of wood combustion
conditions on the morphology of freshly emitted fine particles, Atmos.
Environ., 87, 65–76, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.028</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
United Nations: Demographic Yearbook 2014, Statistics Division, 46 pp., 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>Venkataraman, C. and Rao, G. U. M.: Emission Factors of Carbon Monoxide and
Size-Resolved Aerosols from Biofuel Combustion, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35,
2100–2107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es001603d" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es001603d</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>Venkataraman, C., Habib, G., Eiguren-Fernandez, A., Miguel, A. H., and
Friedlander, S. K.: Residential Biofuels in South Asia: Carbonaceous Aerosol
Emissions and Climate Impacts, Science, 307, 1454–1456,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104359" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1104359</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Hopke, P. K., Rattigan, O. V., Chalupa, D. C., and Utell, M. J.:
Multiple-year black carbon measurements and source apportionment using
Delta-C in Rochester, New York, J. Air Waste Manage., 62, 880–887,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.671792" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/10962247.2012.671792</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, D. E.: Factors Influencing the Emissions of Gases and Particulate
Matter from Biomass Burning, in: Fire in the Tropical Biota: Ecosystem
Processes and Global Challenges, edited by: Goldammer, J. G., Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 418–436, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>Watson, J. G. and Chow, J. C.: Comparison and evaluation of in situ and
filter carbon measurements at the Fresno Supersite, J. Geophys. Res., 107,
8341, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000573" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD000573</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>Weimer, S., Alfarra, M. R., Schreiber, D., Mohr, M., Prévôt, A. S.
H., and Baltensperger, U.: Organic aerosol mass spectral signatures from
wood-burning emissions: Influence of burning conditions and wood type,
J. Geophys. Res., 113, D10304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009309" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009309</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>Weyant, C., Athalye, V., Ragavan, S., Rajarathnam, U., Lalchandani, D.,
Maithel, S., Baum, E., and Bond, T. C.: Emissions from South Asian Brick
Production, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 6477–6483, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es500186g" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es500186g</ext-link>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>Wiedinmyer, C., Yokelson, R. J., and Gullett, B. K.: Global Emissions of
Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Open
Burning of Domestic Waste, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 9523–9530,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es502250z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es502250z</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>Winijkul, E. and Bond, T. C.: Emissions from residential combustion
considering end-uses and spatial constraints: Part II, emission reduction
scenarios, Atmos. Environ., 124, 1–11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.011</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>World Health Organization: Fuel For Life: Houshold Energy and Health,
available at: <uri>http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife/en/</uri>
(last access: September 2017), 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>Wu, G.-M., Cong, Z.-Y., Kang, S.-C., Kawamura, K., Fu, P.-Q., Zhang, Y.-L.,
Wan, X., Gao, S.-P., and Liu, B.: Brown carbon in the cryosphere: Current
knowledge and perspective, Advances in Climate Change Research, 7, 82–89,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.002</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>Yang, H.-H., Chien, S.-M., Chao, M.-R., and Lin, C.-C.: Particle size
distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in motorcycle exhaust
emissions, J. Hazard. Mater., 125, 154–159,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.05.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.05.019</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X., Smith, K. A., Worsnop, D. R., Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Kolb,
C. E., Morris, J., and Davidovits, P.: Numerical Characterization of Particle
Beam Collimation: Part II Integrated Aerodynamic-Lens–Nozzle System, Aerosol
Sci. Tech., 38, 619–638, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820490479833" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820490479833</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>Zhu, D., Nussbaum, N. J., Kuhns, H. D., Chang, M. C. O., Sodeman, D.,
Uppapalli, S., Moosmüller, H., Chow, J. C., and Watson, J. G.: In-Plume
Emission Test Stand 2: Emission Factors for 10- to 100-kW U.S. Military
Generators, J. Air Waste Manage., 59, 1446–1457,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.12.1446" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3155/1047-3289.59.12.1446</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Speciated online PM<sub>1</sub> from South Asian combustion sources – Part 1: Fuel-based emission factors and size distributions</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Combustion of biomass, garbage, and fossil fuels in South Asia has led to
poor air quality in the region and has uncertain climate forcing impacts.
Online measurements of submicron aerosol (PM<sub>1</sub>) emissions were conducted
as part of the Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment
(NAMaSTE) to investigate and report emission factors (EFs) and vacuum
aerodynamic diameter (<i>d</i><sub>va</sub>) size distributions from prevalent but
poorly characterized combustion sources. The online aerosol instrumentation
included a <q>mini</q> aerosol mass spectrometer (mAMS) and a dual-spot
eight-channel aethalometer (AE33). The mAMS measured non-refractory PM<sub>1</sub>
mass, composition, and size. The AE33-measured black carbon (BC) mass and
estimated light absorption at 370&thinsp;nm due to organic aerosol or brown
carbon. Complementary gas-phase measurements of carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>),
carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) were collected using a
Picarro Inc. cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS) to calculate fuel-based EFs
using the carbon mass balance approach. The investigated emission sources
include open garbage burning, diesel-powered irrigation pumps, idling
motorcycles, traditional cookstoves fueled with dung and wood, agricultural
residue fires, and coal-fired brick-making kilns, all of which were tested in
the field. Open-garbage-burning emissions, which included mixed refuse and
segregated plastics, were found to have some of the largest PM<sub>1</sub> EFs
(3.77–19.8&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>) and the highest variability of the investigated
emission sources. Non-refractory organic aerosol (OA) size distributions
measured by the mAMS from garbage-burning emissions were observed to have
lognormal mode <i>d</i><sub>va</sub> values ranging from 145 to 380&thinsp;nm.
Particle-phase hydrogen chloride (HCl) was observed from open garbage
burning and was attributed to the burning of chlorinated plastics. Emissions
from two diesel-powered irrigation pumps with different operational ages were
tested during NAMaSTE. Organic aerosol and BC were the primary components of
the emissions and the OA size distributions were centered at  ∼ 80&thinsp;nm
<i>d</i><sub>va</sub>. The older pump was observed to have significantly larger
EF<sub>OA</sub> than the newer pump (5.18&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup> compared to
0.45&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>) and similar EF<sub>BC</sub>. Emissions from two distinct
types of coal-fired brick-making kilns were investigated. The less advanced,
intermittently fired clamp kiln was observed to have relatively large EFs of
inorganic aerosol, including sulfate (0.48&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>) and ammonium
(0.17&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>), compared to the other investigated emission sources.
The clamp kiln was also observed to have the largest absorption
Ångström exponent (AAE&thinsp; = &thinsp;4) and organic carbon (OC) to BC ratio
(OC&thinsp; : &thinsp;BC&thinsp; = &thinsp;52). The continuously fired zigzag kiln was
observed to have the largest fraction of sulfate emissions with an
EF<sub>SO<sub>4</sub></sub> of 0.96&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>. Non-refractory aerosol size
distributions for the brick kilns were centered at  ∼ 400&thinsp;nm
<i>d</i><sub>va</sub>. The biomass burning samples were all observed to have
significant fractions of OA and non-refractory chloride; based on the
size distribution results, the chloride was mostly externally mixed from the
OA. The dung-fueled traditional cookstoves were observed to emit ammonium,
suggesting that the chloride emissions were partially neutralized. In
addition to reporting EFs and size distributions, aerosol optical properties
and mass ratios of OC to BC were investigated to make comparisons with other
NAMaSTE results (i.e., online photoacoustic extinctiometer (PAX) and off-line
filter based) and the existing literature. This work provides critical field
measurements of aerosol emissions from important yet under-characterized
combustion sources common to South Asia and the developing world.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Agrawal, S. and Yamamoto, S.: Effect of Indoor air pollution from biomass and
solid fuel combustion on symptoms of preeclampsia/eclampsia in Indian women,
Indoor Air, 25, 341–352, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12144" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12144</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Baltensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O/C and OM/OC Ratios
of Primary, Secondary, and Ambient Organic Aerosols with High-Resolution
Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42,
4478–4485, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es703009q</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Akagi, S. K., Yokelson, R. J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M. J., Reid, J. S.,
Karl, T., Crounse, J. D., and Wennberg, P. O.: Emission factors for open and
domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
11, 4039–4072, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Allan, J. D., Delia, A. E., Coe, H., Bower, K. N., Alfarra, M. R., Jimenez,
J. L., Middlebrook, A. M., Drewnick, F., Onasch, T. B., Canagaratna, M. R.,
Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: A generalised method for the extraction of
chemically resolved mass spectra from Aerodyne aerosol mass spectrometer
data, J. Aerosol Sci., 35, 909–922, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.02.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.02.007</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Andreae, M. O. and Merlet, P.: Emission of trace gases and aerosols from
biomass burning, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 955–966,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Arnott, W. P., Hamasha, K., Moosmüller, H., Sheridan, P. J., and Ogren,
J. A.: Towards Aerosol Light-Absorption Measurements with a 7-Wavelength
Aethalometer: Evaluation with a Photoacoustic Instrument and 3-Wavelength
Nephelometer, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 17–29, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901972" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901972</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bhattacharyya, S. C.: Power sector reform in South Asia: Why slow and limited
so far?, Energ. Policy, 35, 317–332, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.028</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Covert, D. S., Kramlich, J. C., Larson, T. V., and Charlson, R.
J.: Primary particle emissions from residential coal burning: Optical
properties and size distributions, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 8347,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000571" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000571</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Nelson, S. M., Woo, J.-H., and
Klimont, Z.: A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon
emissions from combustion, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D14203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003697</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Bruns, E. A., Krapf, M., Orasche, J., Huang, Y., Zimmermann, R., Drinovec,
L., Mocnik, G., El-Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Baltensperger, U.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization of primary and secondary wood
combustion products generated under different burner loads, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 2825–2841, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Campuzano Jost, P., Jimenez, J. L., Kimmel, J., Day, D. A., Hu, W., Sueper,
D., Knochenmuss, R., Worsnop, D. R., and Jayne, J. T.: Particle
Time-of-Flight by Hadamard Transform (ePTOF): A new high-duty-cycle approach
to size-segregated and total aerosol mass measurements for the Aerodyne
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San
Francisco, A21J-3169, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Hildebrandt Ruiz, L., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K.
R., Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.:
Elemental ratio measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass
spectrometry: characterization, improved calibration, and implications,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 253–272, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cao, G., Zhang, X., Gong, S., and Zheng, F.: Investigation on emission
factors of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants from crop residue
burning, J. Environ. Sci., 20, 50–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60007-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60007-8</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Chafe, Z. A., Brauer, M., Klimont, Z., Van Dingenen, R., Mehta, S., Rao, S.,
Riahi, K., Dentener, F., and Smith, K. R.: Household Cooking with Solid Fuels
Contributes to Ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub> Air Pollution and the Burden of Disease,
Environ. Health Persp., 122, 1314–1320, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206340" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206340</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, B. H., Hong, C. J., Pandey, M. R., and Smith, K. R.: Indoor air
pollution in developing countries, World Health Statistics Quarterly, 43,
127–138, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Y., Sheng, G., Bi, X., Feng, Y., Mai, B., and Fu, J.: Emission Factors
for Carbonaceous Particles and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from
Residential Coal Combustion in China, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 1861–1867,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es0493650" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es0493650</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Chien, S. M., and Huang, Y. J.: Sizes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
composition distributions of nano, ultrafine, fine, and coarse particulates
emitted from a four-stroke motorcycle, J. Environ. Sci. Heal. A, 45,
1768–1774, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2010.513289" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2010.513289</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
China, S., Mazzoleni, C., Gorkowski, K., Aiken, A. C., and Dubey, M. K.:
Morphology and mixing state of individual freshly emitted wildfire
carbonaceous particles, Nat. Commun., 4, 2122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3122" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3122</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J.,
Hao, W. M., Saharjo, B. H., and Ward, D. E.: Comprehensive laboratory
measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 1. Emissions from Indonesian,
African, and other fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4719,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003704" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003704</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Christian, T. J., Yokelson, R. J., Cárdenas, B., Molina, L. T., Engling,
G., and Hsu, S.-C.: Trace gas and particle emissions from domestic and
industrial biofuel use and garbage burning in central Mexico, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 10, 565–584, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-565-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-565-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
da Rocha, G. O., Allen, A. G., and Cardoso, A. A.: Influence of Agricultural
Biomass Burning on Aerosol Size Distribution and Dry Deposition in
Southeastern Brazil, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 5293–5301,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es048007u" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es048007u</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Worsnop, D. R., Davidovits, P., and Jimenez,
J. L.: Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility
and Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 1: Theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
38, 1185–1205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
DeCarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Deployable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Drewnick, F., Hings, S. S., DeCarlo, P., Jayne, J. T., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K.,
Weimer, S., Jimenez, J. L., Demerjian, K. L., Borrmann, S., and Worsnop, D.
R.: A New Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (TOF-AMS)—Instrument
Description and First Field Deployment, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 637–658,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820500182040" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820500182040</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Drinovec, L., Močnik, G., Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Ruckstuhl, C., Coz, E., Rupakheti, M., Sciare, J., Müller, T.,
Wiedensohler, A., and Hansen, A. D. A.: The “dual-spot” Aethalometer: an
improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading
compensation, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1965–1979,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Dzepina, K., Arey, J., Marr, L. C., Worsnop, D. R., Salcedo, D., Zhang, Q.,
Onasch, T. B., Molina, L. T., Molina, M. J., and Jimenez, J. L.: Detection of
particle-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Mexico City using an
aerosol mass spectrometer, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 263, 152–170,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2007.01.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2007.01.010</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Ellis, P. and Roberts, M.: Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing
Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. : World BankWashington,
DC, ©&thinsp;World Bank. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO, 23–40, 2016
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Fröhlich, R., Cubison, M. J., Slowik, J. G., Bukowiecki, N.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Schneider, J., Kimmel, J. R.,
Gonin, M., Rohner, U., Worsnop, D. R., and Jayne, J. T.: The ToF-ACSM: a
portable aerosol chemical speciation monitor with TOFMS detection, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 6, 3225–3241, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3225-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3225-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Fullerton, D. G., Bruce, N., and Gordon, S. B.: Indoor air pollution from
biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world, T. Roy.
Soc. Trop. Med. H., 102, 843–851, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Gautam, R., Hsu, N. C., Kafatos, M., and Tsay, S.-C.: Influences of winter
haze on fog/low cloud over the Indo-Gangetic plains, J. Geophys. Res., 112,
D05207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD007036" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD007036</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Goetz, J. D., Giordano, M. R., Stockwell, C. E., Christian, T. J., Maharjan,
R., Adhikari, S., Bhave, P. V., Praveen, P. S., Panday, A. K., Jayarathne,
T., Stone, E. A., Yokelson, R. J., and DeCarlo, P. F.: Speciated On-line
PM<sub>1</sub> from South Asian Combustion Sources: Part II, AMS Mass Spectral
Profiles and Wavelength Dependence, in preparation, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Gong, X., Zhang, C., Chen, H., Nizkorodov, S. A., Chen, J., and Yang, X.:
Size distribution and mixing state of black carbon particles during a heavy
air pollution episode in Shanghai, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5399–5411,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5399-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5399-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Gustafsson, Ö., Kruså, M., Zencak, Z., Sheesley, R. J., Granat, L.,
Engström, E., Praveen, P. S., Rao, P. S. P., Leck, C., and Rodhe, H.:
Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?, Science,
323, 495–498, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164857" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164857</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Guttikunda, S. K. and Goel, R.: Health impacts of particulate pollution in a
megacity — Delhi, India, Environmental Development, 6, 8–20,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.12.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.12.002</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Guttikunda, S. K., Goel, R., and Pant, P.: Nature of air pollution, emission
sources, and management in the Indian cities, Atmos. Environ., 95, 501–510,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.006</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hays, M. D., Fine, P. M., Geron, C. D., Kleeman, M. J., and Gullett, B. K.:
Open burning of agricultural biomass: Physical and chemical properties of
particle-phase emissions, Atmos. Environ., 39, 6747–6764,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.072" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.072</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Hitzenberger, R., Petzold, A., Bauer, H., Ctyroky, P., Pouresmaeil, P.,
Laskus, L., and Puxbaum, H.: Intercomparison of Thermal and Optical
Measurement Methods for Elemental Carbon and Black Carbon at an Urban
Location, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6377–6383, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es051228v" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es051228v</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Hu, W. W., Hu, M., Yuan, B., Jimenez, J. L., Tang, Q., Peng, J. F., Hu, W.,
Shao, M., Wang, M., Zeng, L. M., Wu, Y. S., Gong, Z. H., Huang, X. F., and
He, L. Y.: Insights on organic aerosol aging and the influence of coal
combustion at a regional receptor site of central eastern China, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 10095–10112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10095-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10095-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Jayarathne, T., Stockwell, C. E., Bhave, P. V., Praveen, P. S., Rathnayake,
C. M., Islam, Md. R., Panday, A. K., Adhikari, S., Maharjan, R., Goetz, J.
D., DeCarlo, P. F., Saikawa, E., Yokelson, R. J., and Stone, E. A.: Nepal
Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE): emissions of
particulate matter from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires, garbage and crop
residue burning, brick kilns, and other sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18,
2259–2286, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Jayne, J. T., Leard, D. C., Zhang, X., Davidovits, P., Smith, K. A., Kolb, C.
E., and Worsnop, D. R.: Development of an Aerosol Mass Spectrometer for Size
and Composition Analysis of Submicron Particles, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 33,
49–70, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868200410840" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868200410840</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Jeong, C.-H., Hopke, P. K., Kim, E., and Lee, D.-W.: The comparison between
thermal-optical transmittance elemental carbon and Aethalometer black carbon
measured at multiple monitoring sites, Atmos. Environ., 38, 5193–5204,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.065" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.065</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Shi, Q., Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R., Yourshaw,
I., Seinfeld, J. H., Flagan, R. C., Zhang, X., Smith, K. A., Morris, J. W.,
and Davidovits, P.: Ambient aerosol sampling using the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass
Spectrometer, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8425, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001213</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Keene, W. C., Lobert, J. M., Crutzen, P. J., Maben, J. R., Scharffe, D. H.,
Landmann, T., Hély, C., and Brain, C.: Emissions of major gaseous and
particulate species during experimental burns of southern African biomass,
J. Geophys. Res., 111, D04301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006319" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006319</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Kleeman, M. J., Schauer, J. J., and Cass, G. R.: Size and Composition
Distribution of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from Wood Burning, Meat
Charbroiling, and Cigarettes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 3516–3523,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es981277q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es981277q</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Kondo, Y., Matsui, H., Moteki, N., Sahu, L., Takegawa, N., Kajino, M., Zhao,
Y., Cubison, M. J., Jimenez, J. L., Vay, S., Diskin, G. S., Anderson, B.,
Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Fuelberg, H. E., Blake, D. R., Huey, G.,
Weinheimer, A. J., Knapp, D. J., and Brune, W. H.: Emissions of black carbon,
organic, and inorganic aerosols from biomass burning in North America and
Asia in 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D08204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015152" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015152</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Kortelainen, A., Joutsensaari, J., Hao, L., Leskinen, J., Tiitta, P.,
Jaatinen, A., Miettinen, P., Sippula, O., Torvela, T., Tissari, J.,
Jokiniemi, J., Worsnop, D. R., Smith, J. N., Laaksonen, A., and Virtanen, A.:
Real-Time Chemical Composition Analysis of Particulate Emissions from
Woodchip Combustion, Energ. Fuel., 29, 1143–1150, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ef5019548" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ef5019548</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Kuwata, M., Zorn, S. R., and Martin, S. T.: Using Elemental Ratios to Predict
the Density of Organic Material Composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 787–794, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A. and Langridge, J. M.: On the attribution of black and brown
carbon light absorption using the Ångström exponent, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 10535–10543, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10535-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Lawrence, M. G. and Lelieveld, J.: Atmospheric pollutant outflow from
southern Asia: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11017–11096,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11017-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11017-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Lelieveld, J., Crutzen, P. J., Ramanathan, V., Andreae, M. O.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Campos, T., Cass, G. R., Dickerson, R. R., Fischer,
H., de Gouw, J. A., Hansel, A., Jefferson, A., Kley, D., de Laat, A. T. J.,
Lal, S., Lawrence, M. G., Lobert, J. M., Mayol-Bracero, O. L., Mitra, A. P.,
Novakov, T., Oltmans, S. J., Prather, K. A., Reiner, T., Rodhe, H., Scheeren,
H. A., Sikka, D., and Williams, J.: The Indian Ocean Experiment: Widespread
Air Pollution from South and Southeast Asia, Science, 291, 1031–1036,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057103" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057103</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Li, M., Zhang, Q., Kurokawa, J.-I., Woo, J.-H., He, K., Lu, Z., Ohara, T.,
Song, Y., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., Cheng, Y., Hong, C., Huo, H.,
Jiang, X., Kang, S., Liu, F., Su, H., and Zheng, B.: MIX: a mosaic Asian
anthropogenic emission inventory under the international collaboration
framework of the MICS-Asia and HTAP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 935–963,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani,
H., Amann, M., Anderson, H. R., Andrews, K. G., Aryee, M., Atkinson, C.,
Bacchus, L. J., Bahalim, A. N., Balakrishnan, K., Balmes, J., Barker-Collo,
S., Baxter, A., Bell, M. L., Blore, J. D., Blyth, F., Bonner, C., Borges, G.,
Bourne, R., Boussinesq, M., Brauer, M., Brooks, P., Bruce, N. G., Brunekreef,
B., Bryan-Hancock, C., Bucello, C., Buchbinder, R., Bull, F., Burnett, R. T.,
Byers, T. E., Calabria, B., Carapetis, J., Carnahan, E., Chafe, Z., Charlson,
F., Chen, H., Chen, J. S., Cheng, A. T., Child, J. C., Cohen, A., Colson, K.
E., Cowie, B. C., Darby, S., Darling, S., Davis, A., Degenhardt, L.,
Dentener, F., Des Jarlais, D. C., Devries, K., Dherani, M., Ding, E. L.,
Dorsey, E. R., Driscoll, T., Edmond, K., Ali, S. E., Engell, R. E., Erwin, P.
J., Fahimi, S., Falder, G., Farzadfar, F., Ferrari, A., Finucane, M. M.,
Flaxman, S., Fowkes, F. G., Freedman, G., Freeman, M. K., Gakidou, E., Ghosh,
S., Giovannucci, E., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Grainger, R., Grant, B., Gunnell,
D., Gutierrez, H. R., Hall, W., Hoek, H. W., Hogan, A., Hosgood III, H. D.,
Hoy, D., Hu, H., Hubbell, B. J., Hutchings, S. J., Ibeanusi, S. E., Jacklyn,
G. L., Jasrasaria, R., Jonas, J. B., Kan, H., Kanis, J. A., Kassebaum, N.,
Kawakami, N., Khang, Y. H., Khatibzadeh, S., Khoo, J. P., Kok, C., Laden, F.,
Lalloo, R., Lan, Q., Lathlean, T., Leasher, J. L., Leigh, J., Li, Y., Lin, J.
K., Lipshultz, S. E., London, S., Lozano, R., Lu, Y., Mak, J., Malekzadeh,
R., Mallinger, L., Marcenes, W., March, L., Marks, R., Martin, R., McGale,
P., McGrath, J., Mehta, S., Mensah, G. A., Merriman, T. R., Micha, R.,
Michaud, C., Mishra, V., Mohd Hanafiah, K., Mokdad, A. A., Morawska, L.,
Mozaffarian, D., Murphy, T., Naghavi, M., Neal, B., Nelson, P. K., Nolla, J.
M., Norman, R., Olives, C., Omer, S. B., Orchard, J., Osborne, R., Ostro, B.,
Page, A., Pandey, K. D., Parry, C. D., Passmore, E., Patra, J., Pearce, N.,
Pelizzari, P. M., Petzold, M., Phillips, M. R., Pope, D., Pope III, C. A.,
Powles, J., Rao, M., Razavi, H., Rehfuess, E. A., Rehm, J. T., Ritz, B.,
Rivara, F. P., Roberts, T., Robinson, C., Rodriguez-Portales, J. A., Romieu,
I., Room, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Roy, A., Rushton, L., Salomon, J. A.,
Sampson, U., Sanchez-Riera, L., Sanman, E., Sapkota, A., Seedat, S., Shi, P.,
Shield, K., Shivakoti, R., Singh, G. M., Sleet, D. A., Smith, E., Smith, K.
R., Stapelberg, N. J., Steenland, K., Stockl, H., Stovner, L. J., Straif, K.,
Straney, L., Thurston, G. D., Tran, J. H., Van Dingenen, R., van Donkelaar,
A., Veerman, J. L., Vijayakumar, L., Weintraub, R., Weissman, M. M., White,
R. A., Whiteford, H., Wiersma, S. T., Wilkinson, J. D., Williams, H. C.,
Williams, W., Wilson, N., Woolf, A. D., Yip, P., Zielinski, J. M., Lopez, A.
D., Murray, C. J., Ezzati, M., AlMazroa, M. A., and Memish, Z. A.: A
comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet
(London, England), 380, 2224–2260, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Lipsky, E. M. and Robinson, A. L.: Effects of Dilution on Fine Particle Mass
and Partitioning of Semivolatile Organics in Diesel Exhaust and Wood Smoke,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 155–162, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es050319p" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es050319p</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, J., Mauzerall, D. L., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Song, Y., Peng, W., Klimont,
Z., Qiu, X., Zhang, S., Hu, M., Lin, W., Smith, K. R., and Zhu, T.: Air
pollutant emissions from Chinese households: A major and underappreciated
ambient pollution source, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 7756–7761,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604537113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604537113</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Manadhar, U. M. and Dangol, S. B.: Study on Evaluating Energy Conservation
Potential of Bricks Production in SAARC Countries: A Report for Nepal, SAARC
Energy Centre, Islamabad, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Marr, L. C., Kirchstetter, T. W., Harley, R. A., Miguel, A. H., Hering, S.
V., and Hammond, S. K.: Characterization of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Motor Vehicle Fuels and Exhaust Emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33,
3091–3099, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es981227l" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es981227l</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Matthew, B. M., Middlebrook, A. M., and Onasch, T. B.: Collection
Efficiencies in an Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer as a Function of
Particle Phase for Laboratory Generated Aerosols, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42,
884–898, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802356797" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802356797</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Nguyen, N. T., Presto, A. A., Gordon, T. D., Lipsky, E. M.,
Karve, M., Gutierrez, A., Robertson, W. H., Zhang, M., Brandow, C., Chang,
O., Chen, S., Cicero-Fernandez, P., Dinkins, L., Fuentes, M., Huang, S.-M.,
Ling, R., Long, J., Maddox, C., Massetti, J., McCauley, E., Miguel, A., Na,
K., Ong, R., Pang, Y., Rieger, P., Sax, T., Truong, T., Vo, T.,
Chattopadhyay, S., Maldonado, H., Maricq, M. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-
and particle-phase primary emissions from in-use, on-road gasoline and diesel
vehicles, Atmos. Environ., 88, 247–260,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.046" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.046</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Mukherji, A.: Spatio-temporal analysis of markets for groundwater irrigation
services in India: 1976–1977 to 1997–1998, Hydrogeol. J., 16, 1077–1087,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0287-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0287-0</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Nair, V. S., Moorthy, K. K., Alappattu, D. P., Kunhikrishnan, P. K., George,
S., Nair, P. R., Babu, S. S., Abish, B., Satheesh, S. K., Tripathi, S. N.,
Niranjan, K., Madhavan, B. L., Srikant, V., Dutt, C. B. S., Badarinath, K. V.
S., and Reddy, R. R.: Wintertime aerosol characteristics over the
Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP): Impacts of local boundary layer processes and
long-range transport, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13205,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008099" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008099</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Olson, M. R., Victoria Garcia, M., Robinson, M. A., Van Rooy, P.,
Dietenberger, M. A., Bergin, M., and Schauer, J. J.: Investigation of black
and brown carbon multiple-wavelength-dependent light absorption from biomass
and fossil fuel combustion source emissions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
6682–6697, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022970</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Palit, D. and Chaurey, A.: Off-grid rural electrification experiences from
South Asia: Status and best practices, Energy Sustain. Dev., 15, 266–276,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Panday, A. K. and Prinn, R. G.: Diurnal cycle of air pollution in the
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Observations, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D09305,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009777" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009777</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Pandey, A., Sadavarte, P., Rao, A. B., and Venkataraman, C.: Trends in
multi-pollutant emissions from a technology-linked inventory for India:
II. Residential, agricultural and informal industry sectors, Atmo. Environ.,
99, 341–352, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.080" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.080</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Pokhrel, R. P., Beamesderfer, E. R., Wagner, N. L., Langridge, J. M., Lack,
D. A., Jayarathne, T., Stone, E. A., Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., and
Murphy, S. M.: Relative importance of black carbon, brown carbon, and
absorption enhancement from clear coatings in biomass burning emissions,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5063–5078, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5063-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5063-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Putero, D., Cristofanelli, P., Marinoni, A., Adhikary, B., Duchi, R.,
Shrestha, S. D., Verza, G. P., Landi, T. C., Calzolari, F., Busetto, M.,
Agrillo, G., Biancofiore, F., Di Carlo, P., Panday, A. K., Rupakheti, M., and
Bonasoni, P.: Seasonal variation of ozone and black carbon observed at
Paknajol, an urban site in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
15, 13957–13971, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13957-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13957-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Ramanathan, V., Chung, C., Kim, D., Bettge, T., Buja, L., Kiehl, J. T.,
Washington, W. M., Fu, Q., Sikka, D. R., and Wild, M.: Atmospheric brown
clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 102, 5326–5333, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500656102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500656102</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Reddy, M. S. and Venkataraman, C.: Inventory of aerosol and sulphur dioxide
emissions from India: I – Fossil fuel combustion, Atmos. Environ., 36,
677–697, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00463-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00463-0</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., and Pinel, A. B. O.: Emission Factors
and Real-Time Optical Properties of Particles Emitted from Traditional Wood
Burning Cookstoves, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 6750–6757,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es052080i" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es052080i</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., Osorto Pinel, A. B., MacCarty, N., and
Still, D.: Laboratory and field investigations of particulate and carbon
monoxide emissions from traditional and improved cookstoves, Atmos. Environ.,
43, 1170–1181, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.041" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.041</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Sahai, S., Sharma, C., Singh, D. P., Dixit, C. K., Singh, N., Sharma, P.,
Singh, K., Bhatt, S., Ghude, S., Gupta, V., Gupta, R. K., Tiwari, M. K.,
Garg, S. C., Mitra, A. P., and Gupta, P. K.: A study for development of
emission factors for trace gases and carbonaceous particulate species from in
situ burning of wheat straw in agricultural fields in india, Atmos. Environ.,
41, 9173–9186, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.054" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.054</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Saleh, R., Robinson, E. S., Tkacik, D. S., Ahern, A. T., Liu, S., Aiken, A.
C., Sullivan, R. C., Presto, A. A., Dubey, M. K., Yokelson, R. J., Donahue,
N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Brownness of organics in aerosols from biomass
burning linked to their black carbon content, Nat. Geosci., 7, 647–650,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Sarkar, C., Sinha, V., Kumar, V., Rupakheti, M., Panday, A., Mahata, K. S.,
Rupakheti, D., Kathayat, B., and Lawrence, M. G.: Overview of VOC emissions
and chemistry from PTR-TOF-MS measurements during the SusKat-ABC campaign:
high acetaldehyde, isoprene and isocyanic acid in wintertime air of the
Kathmandu Valley, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3979–4003,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3979-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3979-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Schmid, O., Artaxo, P., Arnott, W. P., Chand, D., Gatti, L. V., Frank, G. P.,
Hoffer, A., Schnaiter, M., and Andreae, M. O.: Spectral light absorption by
ambient aerosols influenced by biomass burning in the Amazon Basin.
I: Comparison and field calibration of absorption measurement techniques,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3443–3462, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3443-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3443-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Segura, S., Estellés, V., Titos, G., Lyamani, H., Utrillas, M. P.,
Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H., Mocnik, G., Alados-Arboledas, L., and
Martínez-Lozano, J. A.: Determination and analysis of in situ spectral
aerosol optical properties by a multi-instrumental approach, Atmos. Meas.
Tech., 7, 2373–2387, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2373-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2373-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Shahid, I., Kistler, M., Mukhtar, A., Ramirez-Santa Cruz, C., Bauer, H., and
Puxbaum, H.: Chemical composition of particles from traditional burning of
Pakistani wood species, Atmos. Environ., 121, 35–41,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.041" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.041</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Sheesley, R. J., Schauer, J. J., Chowdhury, Z., Cass, G. R., and Simoneit, B.
R. T.: Characterization of organic aerosols emitted from the combustion of
biomass indigenous to South Asia, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4285,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002981" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002981</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Simon, H., Bhave, P. V., Swall, J. L., Frank, N. H., and Malm, W. C.:
Determining the spatial and seasonal variability in OM&thinsp;∕&thinsp;OC
ratios across the US using multiple regression, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
2933–2949, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2933-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2933-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., Kreidenweis, S. M., Robinson, A. L.,
DeMott, P. J., Sullivan, R. C., Reardon, J., Ryan, K. C., Griffith, D. W. T.,
and Stevens, L.: Trace gas emissions from combustion of peat, crop residue,
domestic biofuels, grasses, and other fuels: configuration and Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) component of the fourth Fire Lab at Missoula
Experiment (FLAME-4), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 9727–9754,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9727-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9727-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Stockwell, C. E., Veres, P. R., Williams, J., and Yokelson, R. J.:
Characterization of biomass burning emissions from cooking fires, peat, crop
residue, and other fuels with high-resolution proton-transfer-reaction
time-of-flight mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 845-865,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-845-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-845-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Stockwell, C. E., Christian, T. J., Goetz, J. D., Jayarathne, T., Bhave, P.
V., Praveen, P. S., Adhikari, S., Maharjan, R., DeCarlo, P. F., Stone, E. A.,
Saikawa, E., Blake, D. R., Simpson, I. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Panday, A.
K.: Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE):
emissions of trace gases and light-absorbing carbon from wood and dung
cooking fires, garbage and crop residue burning, brick kilns, and other
sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11043–11081,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11043-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11043-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Streets, D. G., Bond, T. C., Carmichael, G. R., Fernandes, S. D., Fu, Q., He,
D., Klimont, Z., Nelson, S. M., Tsai, N. Y., Wang, M. Q., Woo, J. H., and
Yarber, K. F.: An inventory of gaseous and primary aerosol emissions in Asia
in the year 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8809, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003093" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003093</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Sun, Y., Wang, Z., Dong, H., Yang, T., Li, J., Pan, X., Chen, P., and Jayne,
J. T.: Characterization of summer organic and inorganic aerosols in Beijing,
China with an Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor, Atmos. Environ., 51,
250–259, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.013</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Torvela, T., Tissari, J., Sippula, O., Kaivosoja, T., Leskinen, J.,
Virén, A., Lähde, A., and Jokiniemi, J.: Effect of wood combustion
conditions on the morphology of freshly emitted fine particles, Atmos.
Environ., 87, 65–76, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.028</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
United Nations: Demographic Yearbook 2014, Statistics Division, 46 pp., 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Venkataraman, C. and Rao, G. U. M.: Emission Factors of Carbon Monoxide and
Size-Resolved Aerosols from Biofuel Combustion, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35,
2100–2107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es001603d" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es001603d</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Venkataraman, C., Habib, G., Eiguren-Fernandez, A., Miguel, A. H., and
Friedlander, S. K.: Residential Biofuels in South Asia: Carbonaceous Aerosol
Emissions and Climate Impacts, Science, 307, 1454–1456,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104359" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104359</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y., Hopke, P. K., Rattigan, O. V., Chalupa, D. C., and Utell, M. J.:
Multiple-year black carbon measurements and source apportionment using
Delta-C in Rochester, New York, J. Air Waste Manage., 62, 880–887,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.671792" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.671792</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, D. E.: Factors Influencing the Emissions of Gases and Particulate
Matter from Biomass Burning, in: Fire in the Tropical Biota: Ecosystem
Processes and Global Challenges, edited by: Goldammer, J. G., Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 418–436, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Watson, J. G. and Chow, J. C.: Comparison and evaluation of in situ and
filter carbon measurements at the Fresno Supersite, J. Geophys. Res., 107,
8341, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000573" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000573</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Weimer, S., Alfarra, M. R., Schreiber, D., Mohr, M., Prévôt, A. S.
H., and Baltensperger, U.: Organic aerosol mass spectral signatures from
wood-burning emissions: Influence of burning conditions and wood type,
J. Geophys. Res., 113, D10304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009309" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009309</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Weyant, C., Athalye, V., Ragavan, S., Rajarathnam, U., Lalchandani, D.,
Maithel, S., Baum, E., and Bond, T. C.: Emissions from South Asian Brick
Production, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 6477–6483, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es500186g" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es500186g</a>,
2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Wiedinmyer, C., Yokelson, R. J., and Gullett, B. K.: Global Emissions of
Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Open
Burning of Domestic Waste, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 9523–9530,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es502250z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es502250z</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Winijkul, E. and Bond, T. C.: Emissions from residential combustion
considering end-uses and spatial constraints: Part II, emission reduction
scenarios, Atmos. Environ., 124, 1–11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.011</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
World Health Organization: Fuel For Life: Houshold Energy and Health,
available at: <a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife/en/" target="_blank">http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife/en/</a>
(last access: September 2017), 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, G.-M., Cong, Z.-Y., Kang, S.-C., Kawamura, K., Fu, P.-Q., Zhang, Y.-L.,
Wan, X., Gao, S.-P., and Liu, B.: Brown carbon in the cryosphere: Current
knowledge and perspective, Advances in Climate Change Research, 7, 82–89,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.002</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, H.-H., Chien, S.-M., Chao, M.-R., and Lin, C.-C.: Particle size
distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in motorcycle exhaust
emissions, J. Hazard. Mater., 125, 154–159,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.05.019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.05.019</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X., Smith, K. A., Worsnop, D. R., Jimenez, J. L., Jayne, J. T., Kolb,
C. E., Morris, J., and Davidovits, P.: Numerical Characterization of Particle
Beam Collimation: Part II Integrated Aerodynamic-Lens–Nozzle System, Aerosol
Sci. Tech., 38, 619–638, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820490479833" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820490479833</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, D., Nussbaum, N. J., Kuhns, H. D., Chang, M. C. O., Sodeman, D.,
Uppapalli, S., Moosmüller, H., Chow, J. C., and Watson, J. G.: In-Plume
Emission Test Stand 2: Emission Factors for 10- to 100-kW U.S. Military
Generators, J. Air Waste Manage., 59, 1446–1457,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.12.1446" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.12.1446</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
