<?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-18-3737-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>In situ measurements of angular-dependent light scattering by aerosols over the contiguous United States</article-title><alt-title>Measurements of aerosol light scattering over the US</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Measurements of aerosol light scattering over the US}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{W.~R.~Espinosa et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Espinosa</surname><given-names>W. Reed</given-names></name>
          <email>reedespinosa@umbc.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Martins</surname><given-names>J. Vanderlei</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Remer</surname><given-names>Lorraine A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4333-533X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Puthukkudy</surname><given-names>Anin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7371-2338</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Orozco</surname><given-names>Daniel</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Dolgos</surname><given-names>Gergely</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 5523 Research Park DR,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Baltimore, MD 21228, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Micos Engineering GmbH, Überlandstrasse 129, 8600,  Dübendorf, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">W. Reed Espinosa (reedespinosa@umbc.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>14</day><month>March</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>3737</fpage><lpage>3754</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>9</day><month>October</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>16</day><month>November</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day><month>January</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="d1e141">This work provides a synopsis of aerosol phase function (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
polarized phase function (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) measurements made by the Polarized
Imaging Nephelometer (PI-Neph) during the Studies of Emissions,
Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys
(SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS) and the Deep Convection Clouds and Chemistry (DC3) field
campaigns. In order to more easily explore this extensive dataset, an aerosol
classification scheme is developed that identifies the different aerosol
types measured during the deployments. This scheme makes use of ancillary
data that include trace gases, chemical composition, aerodynamic particle
size and geographic location, all independent of PI-Neph measurements. The
PI-Neph measurements are then grouped according to their ancillary data
classifications and the resulting scattering patterns are examined in detail.
These results represent the first published airborne measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for many common aerosol types. We then explore whether
PI-Neph light-scattering measurements alone are sufficient to reconstruct the
results of this ancillary data classification algorithm. Principal component
analysis (PCA) is used to reduce the dimensionality of the multi-angle
PI-Neph scattering data and the individual measurements are examined as a
function of ancillary data classification. Clear clustering is observed in
the PCA score space, corresponding to the ancillary classification results,
suggesting that, indeed, a strong link exists between the angular-scattering
measurements and the aerosol type or composition. Two techniques are used to
quantify the degree of clustering and it is found that in most cases the
results of the ancillary data classification can be predicted from PI-Neph
measurements alone with better than 85 % recall. This result both
emphasizes the validity of the ancillary data classification as well as the
PI-Neph's ability to distinguish common aerosol types without additional
information.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e213">Atmospheric particulates can directly affect Earth's energy balance through
the scattering and absorption of light <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.1"/>, as well as
serve as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), leading to changes in cloud
properties and precipitation patterns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="paren.2"/>. The most recent
IPCC assessment identifies both aerosols' direct and indirect effects as the
two largest uncertainties of all anthropogenic radiative forcing components
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="paren.3"/>. Space-based remote sensing and model simulations
yield aerosol data with global coverage but the assumptions and validation of
these techniques require additional information. A wide range of methods
exist to provide these additional constraints, with two of the most accurate
approaches being airborne in situ measurements and ground-based remote
sensing <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.4"/>. The latter approach, specifically in the form of a
global array of sun photometers known as the Aerosol Robotic Network
(AERONET), has been used extensively to characterize aerosols and validate
space-based observations. While this method is remarkably accurate, it
inevitably contains limitations that many in situ measurement<?pagebreak page3738?> techniques do not
share. For example, the parameters provided by the AERONET retrieval are
limited at low optical depths <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.5"/> and the technique cannot
provide the vertically resolved aerosol properties that can be obtained by
airborne in situ instrumentation.</p>
      <p id="d1e231">The limited number of angles sampled by typical passive satellite sensors,
along with the need to correct for surface reflectance, means that inversions
designed to retrieve aerosol properties from these measurements require
significant assumptions about the aerosol in question. These assumptions
frequently take the form of a set of aerosol types (desert dust, biomass
burning (BB), urban emissions, etc.) with predefined characteristics that can be
used to estimate the optical properties of the aerosol. While current
algorithms are adequate to retrieve aerosol optical depth (AOD) and a few other parameters, the
results from a wide range of studies have suggested that there may still be
room for significant improvements in the aerosol properties assumed in space-based remote sensing retrievals. For example, localized tests using modified,
more locally appropriate aerosol models have shown significant improvements
in comparisons with AERONET-derived AOD as well as the ability to increase
spatial resolution with little cost to retrieval accuracy
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5 bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx55" id="paren.6"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e237">Models used to calculate aerosol forcing and to estimate climate change also
rely on assumptions regarding aerosol optical properties. In fact, comparison
of nine widely used aerosol forcing models found that the greatest diversity
in model estimates of forcing were not in the representation of aerosol
loading by the models but in the forcing efficiency, the forcing per unit of
loading <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.7"/>. The forcing efficiency is affected by
wide-ranging values of aerosol optical properties found in the models
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.8"/>. A revisit of this model comparison, now
involving 16 models, published 7 years later found no narrowing of model
diversity in estimates of aerosol radiative effects and forcing and
significant diversity when analyzing individual aerosol components
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.9"/>. Again, the reason was traced to a significant range
of values for factors such as forcing efficiency that stem from lack of
constraints in basic aerosol intrinsic properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.10"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e252">The aerosol characteristics used in passive remote sensing algorithms and
climate modeling have been primarily based on inversions of AERONET sky
radiance measurements that produce values of total column ambient aerosol
properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11 bib1.bibx10" id="paren.11"/>. Constructing aerosol models from
these inversion data requires calculating statistics of the quantities for
different groupings of the data corresponding to different aerosol types or
classifications. Classifications can be identified using a priori knowledge
of dominant aerosol types in different locations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38 bib1.bibx37 bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx20" id="paren.12"/>, or by using advanced statistical methods such as
cluster analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34 bib1.bibx28 bib1.bibx56" id="paren.13"/>, recently
utilizing Mahalanobis distances <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx22" id="paren.14"/>. These
techniques have also been applied to other high-quality aerosol remote
sensing datasets such as High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL) or Multiangle
Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) to classify aerosol into dominant types and
to derive aerosol models for each type <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6 bib1.bibx25" id="paren.15"/>.
The advantage of using remote sensing datasets to construct aerosol models
for remote sensing or climate applications is to have a set of aerosol models
producing a radiance at the top of the atmosphere consistent with the
radiance a satellite would measure or that affects the planetary energy
balance. The disadvantage of using such datasets to construct aerosol models
is that detailed particle information is lost due to ambiguities concerning
humidification and height of the particles, and such models cannot be easily
linked to particle composition.</p>
      <p id="d1e271">In situ measurements of aerosol's optical properties have the potential to
provide additional information, like aerosol vertical dependence and particle
hygroscopicity, while maintaining an optical consistency comparable to remote
sensors. In practice, though, the majority of in situ optical measurements
have been limited to parameters, like total scattering, absorption and
extinction, which lack the angular information required for a comprehensive
aerosol model. Polar nephelometers have occasionally been used to measure the
angular dependence of light scattered by ambient aerosols but measurements by
these instruments above ground level have been extremely limited. The first
published measurements from an airborne polar nephelometer were made in the
early 1970s <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.16"/>. These measurements were quite advanced for
the time but the results presented by the authors are limited to only two
phase function averages and lack the context of modern aerosol science. The
next polar nephelometer, designed specifically for the measurement of
aerosols, to be flown aboard an aircraft was the Polarized Imaging
Nephelometer (PI-Neph), which has been active since the fall of 2012
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="paren.17"/>. This instrument has sampled extensively during recent
field campaigns and, through the use of modern technology, is able to make
significantly more advanced measurements than early polar nephelometers. In
addition to the two aerosol instruments, a third polar nephelometer
originally designed for the measurement of cirrus clouds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18 bib1.bibx19" id="paren.18"/> has been flown extensively since the 1990s. Recently, this
instrument has been modified to allow for measurements of some aerosol
particles as well as ice crystals, specifically those with diameters larger
than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" 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 sufficiently higher number concentrations. The
results of these measurements are presented by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.19"/>,
who performed principal component analysis (PCA) on the light-scattering data to
explore the properties of aerosols found in volcanic degassing plumes.</p>
      <p id="d1e296">This work explores recent airborne measurements made by the PI-Neph and
constitutes the first comprehensive analysis of angular-dependent light-scattering measurements<?pagebreak page3739?> made in situ from aboard an aircraft on common
atmospheric aerosol types. The analysis focuses on measurements made during
the Studies of Emissions, Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate
Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS) and the Deep Convection Clouds
and Chemistry (DC3) field campaigns. The light-scattering data include both
phase function (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and linear degree of polarization
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) measurements ranging from 4 to 174<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in scattering
angle. These measurements are separated into 2390 different averaging periods
for which stable, high-quality data were available. A classification strategy
is then developed for the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS data to estimate the dominant aerosol
type for each case, making use of ancillary trace gas measurements,
aerodynamic size distributions and aerosol composition measurements. The data
from the DC3 campaign, which has significantly different objectives from
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS, are classified according to the region where the sample was
taken. PCA is then applied to the PI-Neph
averages to confirm the validity of the ancillary data classification scheme
in a light-scattering context and to explore whether there is enough
information in the PI-Neph measurements to classify aerosol types from light
scattering alone.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methodology</title>
      <p id="d1e373">The dataset used in this work is built from measurements made aboard the DC-8
aircraft during the DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS field campaigns, with a focus on
measurements made by the PI-Neph airborne polar nephelometer. Time averages
are performed on the raw PI-Neph data and the resulting cases are grouped
into one of eight predefined aerosol categories according to a novel aerosol
classification scheme. This classification scheme makes use of measurements
that are independent of aerosol light scattering, including particle
composition, aerodynamic size distribution and gas concentrations.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{DC3 and SEAC${}^{{4}}$RS field campaigns}?><title>DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS field campaigns</title>
      <p id="d1e400">The DC3 field campaign took place over the central United States in May and
June of 2012. The experiment was designed to shed new light on storm dynamics
and the effect of convective systems on the chemical composition of the
troposphere <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.20"/>. Over the course of the experiment three
aircraft flew dozens of flights with a combined payload of over 60
different instruments providing remote sensing and in situ measurements of a
wide range of trace gases, aerosols properties and meteorological parameters.
The majority of flights focused on one of three study regions: northeastern
Colorado (CO), northern Alabama (AL) and a region comprising northern Texas
and southern Oklahoma (TX/OK) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.21"/>. The NASA DC-8 aircraft was
typically used to sample storm inflow, while the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Gulfstream-V (GV) and the German Deutsches
Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) Falcon sampled the outflow regions.
While the DC-8 did occasionally sample convective system outflow, PI-Neph
data corresponding to these periods were infrequent and highly variable. In
order to simplify the analysis no PI-Neph measurements corresponding to storm
outflow in DC3 have been included in this work.</p>
      <p id="d1e409">In August of 2013 the associated SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS campaign began its 2-month-long deployment, with flights covering much of the contiguous United States.
The campaign targeted a variety of atmospheric phenomena including the role
of convection in the distribution of aerosols and gases within the
troposphere, the climatic and meteorological effects of BB and
anthropogenic emissions, and the calibration and validation of space-based
remote sensing instrumentation. The aircraft supporting the airborne portion
of the experiment included the NASA-operated ER-2 and DC-8 as well as the
SPEC Inc. Learjet. These three platforms flew a total of 57 different flights
and had an instrument payload with combined capabilities very similar to DC3.
The PI-Neph sampled from the DC-8 aircraft in both DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS, and
the data used in this work rely primarily on measurements made aboard this
platform. A detailed description of the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS scientific goals,
aircraft and instrumentation, as well as the corresponding implementation can
be found in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="text.22"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Instrumentation</title>
      <p id="d1e448">The PI-Neph uses a wide field-of-view imaging system to measure the angular
dependence of light scattered by aerosols and the surrounding gases
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="paren.23"/>. The sample is illuminated by a high-powered continuous
wave laser, whose beam is folded once within the sample chamber. This folding
of the beam allows the forward and backward-scattering angles to be captured
in parallel volumes that are physically adjacent to each other, reducing the
overall length of the instrument. While this design permits a physical
footprint small enough to fit inside the limited space of an aircraft cabin,
it also introduces the need for separate calibrations of both the forward and
backward-scattering angles <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="paren.24"/>. In DC3 the PI-Neph utilized
only one laser operating at 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Two additional lasers were
incorporated into the instrument prior to SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS, adding measurements
at 473 and 671 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, but in order to keep the datasets consistent
between the two campaigns only 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> data are presented here. The
scattered laser light is imaged with a wide-angle refractive lens and
charge-coupled device (CCD) camera. A single measurement is composed of two
sequential images, one for each of two approximately orthogonal linear
polarization states of the laser.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3740?><p id="d1e488">If the scattering medium is assumed to be macroscopically isotropic and
symmetric, the scattering matrix elements <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> do not
contribute to the total scattered signal and the resulting pair of image
intensities allows for direct measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> representing the zenith scattering angle
(azimuthal symmetry is implied by the assumption of a macroscopically
isotopic and symmetric medium). The incorporation of calibration data derived
from molecular scatterers (CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) that are well characterized
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx57" id="paren.25"/> allows for an angular-dependent calibration
that produces direct measurements of absolute phase function in known units
(e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), free from truncation error. Assumptions
regarding the relative scattering contribution of the extreme angles can then
be used to estimate total integrated scattering (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from
the truncated measurements of absolute phase function.</p>
      <p id="d1e610">The angular resolution of the measurement is limited by the resolution of the
CCD camera, as well as the size of the camera's aperture. The resulting raw
resolution varies as a function of scattering angle (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) but the final results are always binned to 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The angular range of the instrument is limited by stray light
emanating from the points where the laser beam enters and exits the sample
chamber. Stray light can vary significantly with instrument alignment, but
the measurement bounds were typically 4 to 174<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and
5 to 170<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in DC3. The final products are then reported at standard
temperature and pressure, with the Rayleigh scattering contribution from the
surrounding gases subtracted. Additionally, when phase functions are
normalized in this work they are represented by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and are
scaled such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This normalization strategy
avoids the truncation errors produced by other schemes that are based on the
integral of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the full range of zenith scattering angles.</p>
      <p id="d1e727">In both SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and DC3, ambient air was provided to the PI-Neph through
the NASA Langley Aerosol Research Group Experiment (LARGE) shrouded
diffuser inlet, which sampled isokinetically and is known to have a 50 %
passing efficiency at an aerodynamic radius of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.26"/>. A flow of 20 L per minute was maintained through the
PI-Neph's 10 L sample chamber, leading to an aerosol exchange time on the
order of 30 s. The typical raw sampling rate of the instrument was 45 s in
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and 11 s in DC3 but all data shown in this work are averages
composed of multiple raw measurements. The incorporation of the two
additional measurement wavelengths gives rise to the longer PI-Neph sampling
time in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS.</p>
      <p id="d1e774">The scattering properties of hygroscopic aerosols are influenced by the
uptake of water that occurs under sufficiently high relative humidities. The
PI-Neph's sample was conditioned with a temperature-controlled drier that
reduced the sample's RH by heating the incoming ambient air to a temperature
of 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. This approach resulted in an average RH inside the sample
chamber of 24 and only 15 % of individual cases had an RH value above the
40 % threshold that is often used to delineate “dry” particles
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="paren.27"/>. It is important to note though, that some recent studies
suggest common aerosols can uptake meaningful amounts of water at humidities
below 40 % <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58 bib1.bibx59" id="paren.28"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e792">When heating an aerosol, it is possible to evaporate volatile compounds and
perturb the aerosol properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="paren.29"/>, but this effect
is not believed to have played a consequential role on PI-Neph measurements
made during DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS. In order to better understand the biases
produced by the evaporation of volatile compounds PI-Neph total scattering
measurements were compared with dry scattering data from an integrating
nephelometer (model 3563, TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) using a Nafion drier
that did not require sample heating. A strong correlation was observed
between the two instruments (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.995</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and no decrease in PI-Neph
scattering, relative to integrating nephelometer scattering, was observed
during periods corresponding to large temperature gradients between the
PI-Neph's sample chamber and the ambient air. It should be noted that the
PI-Neph and integrating nephelometer sampled from the same inlet so the
results of this comparison do not preclude effects from other heating
mechanisms like ram heating (adiabatic heating associated with decelerating
flow) and heat exchange with the aircraft cabin inside the sample tubing
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54 bib1.bibx3" id="paren.30"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e825">In this work the Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry (PALMS)
instrument was used to aid in the identification of aerosols containing
significant amounts of mineral dust. PALMS uses a strong ultraviolet laser
pulse to ablate particles, the ionized fragments of which are then passed
through a time-of-flight mass spectrometer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.31"/>. The
quantity of alumina and aluminosilicates is then used to identify mineral
dust particles <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="paren.32"/> and the fraction of these particles is
reported over 5 min intervals. In this work dust aerosols are also
classified using information regarding aerodynamic particle size. An
aerodynamic particle sizer (APS model 3321, TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA),
measuring particle time of flight inside an accelerating air flow, was used
to obtain these measurements. APS measurements were made at ambient
humidities during SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and the results were reported in 14 log spaced
bins with midpoint diameters ranging from 0.563 to 6.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e853">Trace gas concentrations are used to identify air masses corresponding to
urban, biogenic and BB emissions. Carbon monoxide volume mixing
ratios were obtained with the differential absorption carbon monoxide monitor
(DACOM; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="altparen.33"/>). Measurements of nitrogen dioxide
(NO<sub>2</sub>) were made by NOAA's NOyO3 instrument using the UV–LED
photolysis–chemiluminescence technique <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.34"/>.
The University of Innsbruck's high-temperature proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.35"/>) was used to
quantify the mixing ratio of the remaining gas species, specifically
acetonitrile (CH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>CN), isoprene (C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and monoterpenes
(C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3741?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Averaging of PI-Neph measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e920">The PI-Neph made more than 10 000 raw measurements over 163 flight
hours during the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS campaign and almost 40 000 raw
measurements over 116 h during DC3. A significant fraction of these
measurements occurred at very low aerosol concentrations, typically during
high-altitude transit legs of the flights, where instrument noise can
overwhelm the scattering signal. Additionally, examination of the measurement
data showed that, while the aerosol concentrations often varied quite
quickly, the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were generally
stable over much longer periods. These facts motivated the decision to
perform averages on the raw PI-Neph data periods corresponding to several
measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e966">The averaging scheme was designed to both reduce random noise as well as
eliminate periods of very low scattering when systematic (i.e., temporally
correlated) sources of error are significant. Only raw PI-Neph measurements
corresponding to high aerosol concentrations and relatively stable optical
properties were included in the averaging scheme. Specifically, only
measurement periods when the total scattering at 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was
consistently above 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the change in integrated scattering
between two adjacent raw measurements was less than 15 % were considered.
If insufficient or unstable scattering led to the removal of a raw data point
the relevant average was discarded and a new potential averaging window was
started (i.e., all averages are composed of consecutive data points). An
averaging period was concluded once at least three raw measurements were
included and the sum of integrated scattering values of each individual data
point summed to greater than 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1004">The process described above resulted in 573 averages in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and
1817 averages from DC3. The mean average time in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS was 152 s
while the mean averaging time during DC3 was 67.6 s. For SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS 93 %
and for DC3 67 % of the averages were made on five raw data points or less. The
smaller quantity of cases (and longer mean averaging times) in the case of
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS is primarily due to the reduced time resolution associated with
the three-wavelength measurement.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1045">The decision tree used to classify aerosol types in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Aerosol classification using ancillary data</title>
      <p id="d1e1070">An aerosol classification scheme was developed to estimate the dominate
source of each aerosol by focusing on the air mass associated with each
PI-Neph average, using ancillary data that include measurements of gases,
aerosol composition and physical properties as well as aircraft location.
Aerosol optical properties were intentionally omitted from all classification
metrics to ensure independence between the classification scheme and the
scattering features measured by the PI-Neph. As convective systems have the
potential to significantly influence aerosol properties
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23 bib1.bibx15 bib1.bibx7" id="paren.36"/> different classification schemes were
applied to the DC3 dataset (near convective systems) and the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS
dataset (generally far from convective systems). The SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS data were
subdivided into five categories corresponding to dust, biogenic, urban,
BB emissions and unclassified samples. This classification
utilized measurements of particle chemical composition from the PALMS
instrument, the aerodynamic size distribution of particles generally
associated with the coarse mode and a range of trace gases. The scheme
developed to categorize the DC3 data was based on aircraft location relative
to three storm domains outlined in the DC3 science objectives
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.37"/> as well as the presence of convective systems over the
course of the corresponding flight. Both the DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS
classification schemes only allow one aerosol type to be assigned to a given
PI-Neph sample.</p>
      <p id="d1e1106">The SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS dust classification requires that the PALMS instrument
identify at least 15 % of the measured particles as mineral dust. It was
found that the PALMS algorithm would often classify a significant fraction of
particles as mineral dust, even when particle size distribution measurements
showed no significant coarse mode. In order to exclude these cases and align
our dust classification with more traditional dust aerosol we imposed a set
of requirements on the coarse mode of the aerodynamic size distributions.
Specifically, the volume concentration measured by the APS (which is
insensitive to particles below 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) must exceed 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><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> and have an effective radius greater than 0.75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
This constraint on the aerodynamic particle size distribution removed several
cases in which no obvious source of dust could be identified.</p>
      <p id="d1e1160">If the dust category was not selected gas tracers and aircraft altitude were
used to screen for the remaining three fine-mode-dominated types.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="text.38"/> used a threshold of 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pptv</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
acetonitrile – or 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pptb</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of carbon monoxide if acetonitrile data
are unavailable – as an indicator of BB emissions. We have modified this
metric to also include cases with acetonitrile values as low as 190 pptv but
only if the sum of the volume mixing ratios of isoprene and monoterpenes is
less than 40 % that of acetonitrile. Since isoprene and monoterpenes are
well correlated with biogenic emissions this condition permits the inclusion
of cases with lower BB concentrations, while still avoiding false positives
that can potentially be triggered by strong biogenic emissions of
acetonitrile. Accordingly, isoprene and monoterpenes are used as gas tracers
for the biogenic category, with a biogenic classification occurring when
their combined concentrations exceed 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppbv</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. When the previous three
categories are not triggered, the aircraft is within or close to the mixing
layer (altitude below 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations are greater
than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppbv</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the urban category is selected. A marine aerosol
classification occurring whenever the aircraft was directly above large
bodies of water was also examined, but the scattering intensity during almost
all corresponding periods was below the PI-Neph's lower limit of detection.
The few remaining marine cases, as well as all cases that failed to trigger
any other classification, are identified as<?pagebreak page3742?> “unclassified”. A decision tree
specifying the requirements for each SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS category is shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1222">The DC3 campaign had significantly different objectives – namely the study
of convective systems – and correspondingly the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS classification
algorithm does not map well to the DC3 dataset. This fact motivated the
decision to classify the DC3 samples by study region (CO, AL or TX/OK) as
opposed to gas and composition data. A PI-Neph sample was associated with a
given study region if the aircraft coordinates were within the corresponding
domain and the corresponding flight path was designed to target active storms
in the region. Additionally, in order to restrict the assigned cases to storm
inflow measurements, the classification was only applied if the observation
was made below 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. This constraint produced much more homogeneous
aerosol properties for each storm domain by eliminating the cases with highly
variable scattering properties found in the higher-altitude outflow aerosols.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><caption><p id="d1e1245">The total number of cases and the number of unique flights for which at least one case was present.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">No. of cases</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">No. of flights</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BB</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">105</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">252</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CO storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">329</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TX/OK storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">535</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AL storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Unclassified</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">986</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All cases</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2390</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">37</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e1388">The results of the air mass classification scheme as a function of
geographic location.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f02.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1397">Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> shows the number of cases the ancillary data
classification scheme assigned to each category, as well as the number of
unique flights containing at least one of the corresponding cases. Of the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS cases, 70 %
received a classification (other than
unclassified) while 55 % of the DC3 cases were classified. In both
campaigns, the majority of the unclassified cases correspond to high-altitude
transit legs that are generally associated with relatively clean air masses.
All categories have cases originating from multiple flight days, increasing
the likelihood that a given category average is representative of the typical
aerosol properties found in that type.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3743?><p id="d1e1411">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> shows the geographic locations of all classified
PI-Neph samples. The extent of the three DC3 study regions can be seen in the
spread of the red, beige and maroon circles corresponding to the CO, TX/OK
and AL storm categories, respectively. In the summer months, biogenic
emissions often dominate the southeastern United States while the
western portion of the country is frequently influenced by wildfire smoke.
While the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS categories are not determined by location, clear
patterns emerge that are in strong agreement with these physical
expectations.</p>
      <p id="d1e1425">The California Rim Fire was one of the dominant sources of BB
emissions during the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS deployment. The fire began on 17 August
in Stanislaus National Forest, California, and continued to burn until after
the end of the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS deployment <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.39"/>. Before the fire was
fully extinguished its total burn area had grown to 104 000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
making it the third largest fire in California's history
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.40"/>. The arch of BB cases that are shown in the
northwestern portion of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> and traverses from
California into southern Canada represents samples dominated by Rim Fire
smoke. Emissions from this fire made up 58 % of all classified BB cases.
The overwhelming majority of the remaining cases came from smaller wildfires
within the United States, primarily from three fires located in Wyoming,
Colorado and Kansas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="paren.41"/>. While many agricultural fires were
sampled in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS these measurements were almost always discarded by
the averaging algorithm described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS3"/> due to the very
short duration, and high variability, of the corresponding measurement.</p>
      <p id="d1e1477">The 15 points that met the requirements of the dust classification are shown
in yellow in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. This type was only observed in early
August over Louisiana and the northern Gulf of Mexico. These cases likely
correspond to a transported Saharan air layer that was present over
this region at the start of the campaign. There is strong evidence, based on
aerosol concentration and composition, that this air mass was relatively
pristine and had not mixed significantly with continental air
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="paren.42"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e1487">Average 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data
for all three DC3 storm domains as well as dust and fine-mode-dominated
aerosol types (biogenic, urban and BB) from SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS. Normalized phase
function data are scaled such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f03.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1574">In August and September biogenic emissions are ubiquitous in the southeastern United States. The classification scheme presented here conveyed this
fact well, with most of the cases in this region falling under the biogenic
category. The second most prevalent category over the southeastern United States is the urban type.
This classification corresponds well to city centers like Houston and Dallas,
Texas, whose emissions were frequently sampled by the DC-8. Additionally, a
large strip of urban cases can be seen around the Ohio River valley, an area
with a very high concentration of fossil-fuel-based power plants. It is shown
in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/> that the optical properties of aerosols associated
with cities are quite different from the industrial emissions of the Ohio
River valley. The possibility of dividing the urban category into two
subgroups was explored, but the already limited number of cases made this
division impractical. It is likely that other datasets, with a larger number
of samples corresponding to urban and industrial emissions, can be more
easily understood by dividing the urban classification described here into
two separated subcategories that are separated by SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations,
for example.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3744?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Measurement of phase matrix elements</title>
      <p id="d1e1595">A robust averaging procedure was applied to all sample averages of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data of a given aerosol type to obtain
curves that are typical of each category. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> shows the
results of this averaging for all three DC3 storm domains as well as the dust
category and the average of all three fine-mode-dominated aerosols (biogenic,
urban and BB) from SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS.</p>
      <p id="d1e1643">A progression in both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averages is
evident as the DC3 storm domain transitions from AL to TX/OK to CO. The
increase in forward-scattering peak through this sequence suggests an
increased scattering contribution from particles in the larger size ranges
that direct the bulk of their scattered energy into the forward angles
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.43"/>. Models have shown that large convective systems can
agitate surface dust, drawing these particles up into the atmosphere and
acting as a significant source of dust aerosol
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46 bib1.bibx50" id="paren.44"/>. The elevated forward-scattering
peaks among the three DC3 categories are likely driven by increasingly arid
surface features, leading to an increased availability of this relatively
large dust aerosol <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.45"/>. Variations in typical storm wind
speeds may have also contributed to variations in the quantity of dust that
was suspended over a given region.</p>
      <p id="d1e1689">The same progression is evident in the backscattering angles of the DC3 storm
categories, with the CO storms having the largest fraction of the total
scattered light that is directed into the scattering angles larger than
90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Mie computations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.46"/> were performed in order to
identify the size, shape and complex refractive index changes that are
potentially driving this progression. In size distribution and refractive
index regimes typical of ambient, fine-mode aerosol
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">150</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" 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="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.38</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) the
backscattering region of the phase function is very sensitive to the diameter
of the particles, suggesting significantly smaller fine-mode particles in the
CO inflow than in the AL inflow. A peak in the fine-mode particle size
distribution that is shifted toward smaller diameters also produces larger
values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at side-scattering angles, although this effect
may be partially moderated by differences in refractive index.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e1782">Average 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data
for the three fine-mode-dominated aerosol classifications in SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS.
Small gaps in the data (e.g., urban points <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 165<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) were removed
due to strong biases from stray light.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f04.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1859">The average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data, corresponding to the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS fine-mode-dominated categories, shows very weak forward scattering and thus
suggests relatively few coarse-mode particles. Mie simulations and inversions
of the angular-scattering measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13 bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx16" id="paren.47"/> suggest that the reduced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> maximum
observed in this fine-mode-dominated data is likely driven primarily by fine-mode particles with slightly larger diameters than those found in the three
DC3 categories. The features of the dust-scattering matrix elements,
specifically the presence of an extremely strong forward-scattering peak, are
typical of an aerosol whose scattering properties are dominated by coarse-mode particles <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.48"/>. While the typical integrating scattering
coefficient for dust was comparable to the other aerosol types, the strong
forward-scattering peak significantly limits the amount of light scattered
into other angles. The combination of this low absolute scattering intensity
and systematic instrument noise resulting from stray light may produce
significant biases in the dust <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurement averages at angles above 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. It should also be noted that
the true forward-scattering peak of the ambient aerosol may be even larger
than the values reported by the PI-Neph, whose sample is subject to inlet
cutoff effects, which disproportionately effect the largest particles.</p>
      <p id="d1e1955">The averages of the three SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS fine-mode cases are examined
individually in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. Visually the averages of the three
types produce very similar angular-scattering patterns, especially the
biogenic and urban averages. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> peak was slightly larger on
average in the BB cases, with this feature most clearly
separating the BB aerosols from the other two types. Additionally, small
differences in the shape of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can also be observed in the
BB averages, where the relative contribution from the forward
and<?pagebreak page3745?> backward-scattering peaks are suppressed relative to the other two types.</p>
      <p id="d1e2003">The variability within a given type's scattering data (not shown) was the
highest in the case of the samples associated with urban emissions. Further
examination of this variability showed two distinct subgroups, with the
conditions around the Ohio River valley differing significantly from
conditions near urban centers. The starkest difference between these two
subgroups occurred in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> maxima, with significantly higher
peaks occurring in measurements made near the Ohio River valley.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>PCA analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e2033">It is evident from the results of the previous section that there are
differences in the averaged scattering data that agree well with the physical
expectations of each aerosol type. While this result is encouraging, the
averages alone do not tell us if these differences are characteristic of the
majority of samples or are driven by a few relatively extreme cases. The
regularity of the geographic patterns observed in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>
does suggest a consistent physical basis for the classification scheme in the
majority of SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS cases but it says nothing about the DC3
classification in which sample location is already the primary classification
metric. Additionally, as none of the properties used by the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS
classification scheme are directly related to aerosol optical measurements,
it is possible that the geographic distributions observed capture patterns in
the air mass properties that are not reflected in the optical features of
the corresponding aerosol populations. In order to confidently say that the
majority of cases have aerosol optical properties that are clearly
characteristic of the corresponding type we must examine PI-Neph measurements
on the level of individual cases. Unfortunately, the subtle differences
between many of the scattering measurements and the high dimensionality of
the dataset complicates a direct analysis of the relevant features. In the
following section, this analysis is simplified by reducing the dimensionality
of the PI-Neph measurements with PCA. This approach
leads to a clear picture of the type-driven clustering of cases that occurs
in scattering element space as well as permits easy identification of the
features that are characteristic of each aerosol category.</p>
      <p id="d1e2056">In this section, PCA is performed on all PI-Neph
measurement averages to simplify the scattering data and more easily explore
its relationship with the classification categories. Intuitively, PCA
transforms the data to a new coordinate system in such a way that the
greatest variance lies along the first coordinate, the next largest variance
lies along the second coordinate and so forth <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.49"/>. This process
allows most of the dataset's variance to be captured in the first few
principal components and in turn the dimensionality of the measurement can be
significantly reduced while still maintaining the bulk of the original
information content. Mathematically, the basis vectors of this new coordinate
system are the eigenvectors of the data's covariance matrix. In this work the
orthonormal basis vectors describing this new coordinate system (i.e., the
normalized eigenvectors of the covariance matrix) are referred to as
“loadings”, and the basis vector coefficients required to represent each
data point are referred to as “scores”. It is important to note that PCA is
an unsupervised technique and the results are therefore independent of any
hypothesis regarding the data, including the ancillary data classification
scheme.</p>
      <p id="d1e2062">PCA was performed on all 532 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> PI-Neph averages from the combined
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and DC3 datasets (2334 samples) simultaneously. While the data
from the two campaigns were merged, the unpolarized and polarized measurements
were kept separate in the final analysis (i.e., the PCA routine was run twice,
once for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and again for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dataset).
Individual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements can often span several orders of
magnitude between the forward-scattering peak and side-scattering angles. To
prevent the first few principal component loadings from being dominated by
the large absolute variations in forward-scattering intensity, the analysis
was performed on the natural logarithm of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values. This
transformation produces a set of principal components in which the first
component, for example, explains the largest possible relative
variance in data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="paren.50"/>. No transformation was applied
to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements. The angular range of the final inputs
to the PCA routine was 5 to 170<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the case of both the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> datasets. This range corresponds to
the angles in which data were present during all measurement periods over both
campaigns. Data points at which instrument noise produced nonphysical (i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo fence="true">|</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo fence="true">|</mml:mo><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
values were excluded from the analysis.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e2273">The resulting PCA loadings of the first three principal components
from both the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data. The percentage of
the data's variance explained by a given component is shown in parentheses.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f05.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page3746?><p id="d1e2317">The decision to treat the intensity and polarization information separately
when performing the PCA was based on two factors. The first stems from the
fact that most modern measurements of the optical properties of atmospheric
aerosol are polarization insensitive. Isolating the polarization information
permits conclusions that are more applicable to polarization-insensitive
instrumentation while simultaneously helping to illuminate the potential
benefits of adding polarization capabilities to future instrumentation. The
second factor results from the fact that PI-Neph data contain sources of
systematic noise that are strongly correlated over time and scattering angle
but are very weakly correlated between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
By separating these datasets, the variability in the data corresponding to
these systematic artifacts can be more effectively isolated, allowing the
remaining components to more accurately capture the physical variation among
the samples. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that some of the
loadings closely matched correlations in angular errors that are known to
result from certain instrumental artifacts. Additionally, a significantly
reduced separation of aerosol types in PCA score space was observed when PCA
was performed on the intensity and polarized measurements simultaneously.
This observation was consistent regardless of the relative weights applied to
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variances.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e2390">The resulting PCA scores, color-coded by type, as a function of the
first two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> principal component scores and the first
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> score. The points are sized according to the effective
radius of the aerosol.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f06.pdf"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>PCA loadings and scores</title>
      <p id="d1e2438">The PCA loadings derived from the combined dataset of all DC3 and
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS measurements are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>. The first
three <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> components explained 84 % of the total variance in
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data, while the corresponding three <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
components were able to explain 65 % of the variance in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements. The second <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loading closely
matched a known measurement artifact that is driven by small variations in
PI-Neph laser power over the course of a given measurement. Similarly, the
fourth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loading (not shown) matched a known artifact produced
by relative drifts in the calibration of the forward- and backward-scattering
angles, often driven by fouling of the beam folding mirror inside the PI-Neph
chamber.</p>
      <p id="d1e2555">A 3-D scatter plot of the scores from the first two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> principal
components and the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component is shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. The points are colored according to the classified
results of the aerosol typing algorithm described in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> (unclassified points are excluded for clarity). A
simple physical interpretation of the individual principal components is not
readily apparent but strong clustering of the points as a function of aerosol
type is evident. The grouping of aerosol types purely by optical means
suggests that the optically independent ancillary data classification
algorithm is capable of capturing significant underlying commonalities in
particle properties that extend beyond the metrics directly used by the
algorithm itself. Conversely, this result shows that aerosol types can be
identified very reliably using only PI-Neph light-scattering measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e2596">In order to quantify the level of clustering by aerosol types in PCA score
space, the success of two different prediction algorithms are evaluated
against the data. These algorithms attempt to predict the results of the
ancillary data classification using only the PCA scores of the corresponding
PI-Neph average by exploiting the clustering of each aerosol type. The
dimensionality of the original data (166 angles in both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is often significantly higher than the number of
measurements available for a given aerosol type. If all principal component
scores were used in the prediction scheme many aerosol types could be
identified with very high fidelity based only on the noise “fingerprints” of
their individual measurements. Reducing the dimensionality of data down to
only a few key variables (i.e., the first few principal components) forces the
classification to rely primarily on physical features of the measured aerosol
that are common to all samples of that type. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5.SS2"/> and
<xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5.SS3"/> describe two prediction schemes used to quantify the degree
of separation between each of these populations, while<?pagebreak page3747?> simultaneously
exploring the distinguishing optical characteristics of each category.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2638">Recall for the clustering based on Mahalanobis distance for each aerosol
type, given different combinations of principal component scores. The PCA combinations that the prediction technique was applied to include
the first two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), the first three <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>),
the first two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores and first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>),
and all four scores simultaneously (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">64.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">51.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">87.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">81.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">90.7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BB</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">72.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">63.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">84.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">83.7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">100.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">100.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">100.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CO storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">72.7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">85.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">76.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">86.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">86.2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TX/OK storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">58.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">48.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">81.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">81.6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AL storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">42.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">47.1 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Identifying types by Mahalanobis distance</title>
      <p id="d1e3321">The first of the two prediction schemes estimates the ancillary data
classification of a given sample based on the Mahalanobis distance between
that sample's point in PCA score space and the corresponding clusters of
points defined by the classification algorithm. Mathematically, the
Mahalanobis distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of a given point
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the mean of a cluster of points
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M193" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the covariance matrix of all points in the cluster and
the superscript <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the transpose of the corresponding vector
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.51"/>. Intuitively, the Mahalanobis distance provides a
metric of the separation between a test point and a cluster of points, scaled
by the dispersion of the cluster along the axis passing though the test point
and the center of cluster. The use of Mahalanobis distance in this prediction
technique permits the algorithm to take the size and shape of each cluster
into account when attempting to discriminate between types and prevents
classification types with more loosely bound clusters from being
“disadvantaged” when evaluating the distance to a given point from the
cluster in question. For example, a point lying halfway between (in Euclidean
space) the dust and AL storm clusters would have a much shorter Mahalanobis
distance to the center of the more disperse dust cluster.</p>
      <p id="d1e3496">Specifically, the predicted ancillary data classification of a given location
in PCA score space is equal to the type whose cluster of points has the
shortest Mahalanobis distance to the point in question. This process
effectively uses the Mahalanobis distance to divide the PCA score space up
into several nonoverlapping regions, with each region corresponding to a
given classification prediction. The classification boundaries of these
regions are recalculated for each measured data point with the relevant test
point excluded (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is never included in the calculation of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when determining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to ensure that
the prediction is made using only information that is independent of the
measurement in question. All points that were identified as urban emission by
the ancillary data classification were excluded from this prediction scheme
due to the limited number of data points and large variability in PCA scores.
Additionally, all unclassified points were excluded as no consistent patterns
are observed in their PCA scores, leaving six remaining categories for which
prediction could be made.</p>
      <p id="d1e3537">The PCA score space, in which the classification procedure described above is
carried out, can be made up of any arbitrary combination of principal
component scores. In this section the Mahalanobis distance prediction
technique is applied to five different combinations of the first three
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PCA scores and first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores. All other PCA
scores were excluded from this analysis because of either clear influences
from known instrument artifacts or their inability to explain a
significant portion of the data's variance. The recall (fraction of cases of
a given type that are correctly identified) is then calculated for all
aerosol types and combinations of PCA scores. These recall values are then
used to asses the ability of this separation technique to predict the
ancillary data classification of the PCA scores derived from PI-Neph light-scattering measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e3574">The resulting recall values for five different combinations of PCA scores is
shown in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>. If a sufficient number of principal
component scores are considered, recall is generally quite high, often
exceeding 85 %. The fact that such a high proportion of individual cases
can be correctly identified is surprising considering the very small
differences observed among the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averages
shown in Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. This result reinforces
the validity of the ancillary data classification scheme. Moreover, it
demonstrates the potential power of the PCA technique when applied to light-scattering measurements with high angular resolution and range to distinguish
aerosol type without the need for ancillary data.</p>
      <p id="d1e3618">The improvements in recall, resulting from the inclusion of additional
components, provides a measure of their relative importance when attempting
to distinguish aerosol types. In the BB and CO storm cases the
addition of the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores always results in an increase
in recall by over 10 %, suggesting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can play an important
role in correctly identifying these types. Conversely, the TX/OK and AL storm
cases showed no meaningful improvement in the prediction ability of the
Mahalanobis distance algorithm when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores were
incorporated. Similar conclusions can be made regarding the different
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> components. For example, the biogenic recall is always
significantly improved with the addition of the second and third
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> principal components.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3712">Confusion matrix comparing the results of the prediction technique based on Mahalanobis distance
for the case in which the first three
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> principal component scores are
used (corresponding to the last column of Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>) against the
actual classification results of the ancillary data classification scheme.
Several rows of the table sum to slightly less than the number of cases shown
in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> because PCA scores could not be calculated for
averages containing nonphysical measurements at one or more angles.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col8" align="center">Predicted classification </oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Biogenic</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">BB</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Dust</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">CO</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">TX/OK</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">AL</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">storms</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">storms</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">storms</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>

         <?xmltex \rotentry?><oasis:entry colname="col1" morerows="5">True classification</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biogenic</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">224</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BB</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">87</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Dust</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CO storms</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">225</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">35</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TX/OK storms</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">72</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">429</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AL storms</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">52</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">65</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3995">The prediction scheme based on Mahalanobis distance is significantly less
successful on the AL storms than the other aerosol types. In order to better
understand this discrepancy, we examine the incorrectly classified cases in
more detail. The confusion matrix detailing the prediction scheme's
performance for the case in which all four principal components are used is
listed in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/>. The rows of this matrix represent
instances of the actual ancillary data classification while the columns show
the corresponding number of cases predicted by the Mahalanobis distance scheme.
It is apparent that the Mahalanobis distance approach has significant
difficulty discriminating the AL storm cases from the biogenic cases. This
result is not surprising given that the AL storm domain corresponds to a
region that was dominated by biogenic emissions during SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS. It is
likely that some of these SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS biogenic cases were even measured
within the vicinity of strong convective systems, further blurring the
boundary between these two types. Additionally, as this is a relatively wet
and vegetated region, dust emissions that are<?pagebreak page3748?> driven by the strong winds
associated with convective systems are expected to be significantly less than
the other two storm domains.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Identifying types with a dividing plane</title>
      <p id="d1e4024">The Mahalanobis distance technique effectively identified types that are
surrounded by other clusters, but clusters lying on the edge of the PCA score
space can potentially be identified more accurately using other techniques.
In this section, a plane is used to divide three-dimensional PCA score spaces
into two regions, representing positive and negative predictions of a given
ancillary data classification. The location of this separating plane is
unique to each aerosol type and is chosen to produce the highest-quality
predictions possible. This technique proves to have stronger predictive power
than the Mahalanobis distance technique for several aerosol types, while
simultaneously providing a more intuitive picture of the characteristic
optical features of a given classification. It also allows for the inclusion
of the urban and unclassified points that were discarded in the Mahalanobis
distance prediction scheme.</p>
      <p id="d1e4027">In this prediction scheme the distance of a given point from the dividing
plane strongly corresponds to the likelihood of this point being a member of
the relevant aerosol type. Similarly, light-scattering features
characteristic of the aerosol type in question can be identified by examining
the basis vector that corresponds to the line normal to the separating plane
in PCA score space. Since the direction of this normal line is determined by
a plane, the scattering features corresponding to this direction in PCA score
space are always the same, regardless of the location of the point in
question. This fact results from the use of a plane to separate the aerosol
types and is not true of the Mahalanobis distance technique for which the
classification boundaries are much more complex. For example, in the
Mahalanobis distance classification scheme, two points that are diametrically
opposite the center of a cluster will require opposite changes in their
scattering patterns to increase their probability of being associated with
the relevant cluster. It should be emphasized though that the separating
plane technique only produces a binary classification (the test point either
is or is not predicted to be of the relevant aerosol type) and the method is
ineffective at identifying points in clusters that are surrounded by other
clusters.</p>
      <p id="d1e4030">The dust, BB and CO storms clusters are especially well suited
for the separating plane technique as their principal component scores lie on
the outer edge of the other datasets<?pagebreak page3749?> in most dimensions. The technique was
applied to each of these aerosol types, once using all three <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
principal component scores and again using only the first two of these scores
as well as the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> score (i.e., the scores plotted in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). Unless otherwise stated the separating plane was
chosen to divide the relevant aerosol type from all other aerosol types,
including the unclassified samples.</p>
      <p id="d1e4069">When using the technique based on Mahalanobis distance each point was only
assigned to one category, so false positives in one aerosol type resulted in a
reduction of the recall value in another type. In the separating plane
technique, each aerosol type is treated as a binary classification problem that
is independent of the other air mass types. Therefore, the percentage of cases
of a given type that were correctly classified is an insufficient metric as a
plane chosen infinitely far from the origin will always result in perfect
recall. In order to address this issue, we also make use of the true negative
rate (TNR), which is defined as the proportion of cases correctly predicted
to not belong to the relevant type out of the total number cases that are not
of the relevant type. For each aerosol type the location and orientation of
the separating plane were chosen to maximize the product of recall and TNR.
This metric – the fraction of cases of the relevant type that were correctly
predicted times the fraction of cases not of the relevant type that were
correctly predicted – takes into account both the sensitivity of the
prediction as well as its ability to exclude cases corresponding to other
types.</p>
      <p id="d1e4073">To further examine the technique's ability to separate different aerosols,
comparisons were made between a given category and subsets of other
categories that only contain types with very similar aerosol properties. The
first of these comparisons was made between the BB samples and
all other fine-mode-dominated aerosol types. The fine-mode-dominated aerosols
used include the BB, biogenic, urban/industrial types, and
convective storm inflow from the Alabama domain. These categories were chosen
based on optical and aerodynamic side distribution measurements as well as
retrievals of PI-Neph data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.52"/> that showed these
categories typically had volume distributions that were dominated by fine-mode particles.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4082">Recall and TNR values resulting from the separating plane
classification prediction technique for two different combinations of
principal component scores. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ contains a parameter
quantifying the role of the first principal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
identifying the corresponding aerosol type.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col6" align="center"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Separated types</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Recall</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TNR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Recall</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">TNR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust vs. all</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">94.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">97.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">93.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">98.3  %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.37</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BB vs. all</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">80.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">90.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">95.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">-0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BB vs. fine</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">74.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">89.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">91.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">91.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">-0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CO storms vs. all</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">91.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">91.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">94.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">81.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.80</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CO vs. AL storms</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">97.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">95.7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">96.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">97.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.83</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4365">Additionally, an attempt was made to separate all the CO storm cases from the
AL storm cases. This comparison serves both to exemplify the significance of
the differences between the storm domains as well as better clarify the
continuum on which the light-scattering properties of all DC3 storm domains
can be projected.</p>
      <p id="d1e4368">Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T4"/> shows the resulting recall and TNR values from the
separating plane prediction technique. In most cases the algorithm can
predict the classification correctly as well as reject cases that are not
of the relevant type with better than 90 % accuracy. The last column of
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T4"/> contains a parameter quantifying the role of the
first principal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in identifying the
corresponding aerosol type. This value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ corresponds to the
projection of the unit vector normal to the separating plane, pointing in the
direction of the desired classification, onto the axis corresponding to the
scores of the first principal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. An absolute
value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ approaching unity indicates that the separation is
completely determined by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while values approaching zero
indicate no sensitivity in the first principal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
to the corresponding type. The sign of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ indicates whether
“more” or “less” of the first principal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
indicative of the type in question.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e4511">Histograms showing the separation of aerosol types along the
direction perpendicular to the corresponding separating plane in the
three-dimensional PCA score space composed of the first two <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> components
and first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the biomass
burning cases (orange) against all other types (grey), while panel
<bold>(b)</bold> shows the BB cases against only the other fine-mode-dominated
types. Panel <bold>(c)</bold> shows the CO storms (red) against all other types,
with panel <bold>(d)</bold> showing the CO storms along with only the AL (maroon)
and OK/TX (beige) storms. The black vertical dashed lines represent the
location of the separating plane and denote the threshold between positive
and negative classification predictions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/3737/2018/acp-18-3737-2018-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page3750?><p id="d1e4567">In all cases in which the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores are included the algorithm
predicts the classification correctly with better than 90 % accuracy and,
with the exception of the CO storms, it shows equivalent skill rejecting
cases that are not of the relevant type. The predictive accuracy of the
scheme when using the third <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component is similar, except in the case
of the BB samples. This is consistent with the results of the Mahalanobis
distance technique of the previous section, in which the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
component was found to be crucial in obtaining high BB recall.
Interestingly, the ability of the dividing plane technique to correctly
reject points that were not of the CO storm classification was significantly
improved when the first <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> principal component was replaced by
the third <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component. This result is somewhat contrary to the very
large values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : PROJ and the conclusion of Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5.SS2"/>.
Investigations of both of these components' PCA scores in the case of the CO
storms showed that this peculiarity resulted from both apparently random
features in the distributions of the PCA scores as well as significant
sensitivity to this type in the third <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> component. The dividing plane
technique also demonstrated strong predictive power in the case of the dust
samples, eliminating many of the false positives shown in
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/>, regardless of the choice of included principal
components.</p>
      <p id="d1e4679">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> is colored by aerosol type and shows the
frequency distribution of the PCA scores' distances from the pertinent
separating plane. Sub-panels (a) and (c) show the distribution of BB and CO storm distances against the distribution of distances for all
other types. In both cases the targeted types separate clearly from the other
cases. The strong separation between the biomass burning samples and other
fine-mode averages shown in sub-panel (b) shows that the distinguishing
features of the BB cases extends significantly beyond the magnitude of the
coarse mode. Sub-panel (d) shows the separation between the AL and CO storms.
The TX/OK storms are also included to illustrate how this type has many
characteristics that fall in between the two other storm domains. The overlap
between TX/OK storm distributions and the AL and CO storm distributions makes
sense in light of the fact that these types are often confused with each
other in the scheme based on Mahalanobis distance (see
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/>) and have clusters that overlap in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4695">In this work PI-Neph measurements from the DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS field
experiments were sub-selected and averaged over periods corresponding to
stable, high-quality data. An optically independent aerosol typing scheme,
making use of ancillary data, was developed and the resulting 2390 cases were
separated into seven classified categories, as well as an eighth unclassified
category corresponding to cases that did not meet any of the classification
criteria. SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS measurements were separated into biogenic, BB, urban and dust types, based on composition measurements from the
PALMS instrument, APS data and the concentrations of various gas tracers. The
geographic distribution of the resulting classification was in strong
agreement with expectations, suggesting a strong physical basis for the
classification metrics. The DC3 dataset was divided into periods
corresponding to convective system inflow over one of three storm domains
located in Colorado, Texas or Oklahoma and Alabama. There were 1307 cases assigned to
one of these seven categories and the remaining 1083 cases, not meeting any
of the other classification criteria, were labeled as unclassified.</p>
      <p id="d1e4716">Phase function and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data are averaged over each aerosol type
to obtain scattering patterns characteristic of each classification. The dust
category produced a significantly stronger forward-scattering peak than all
other types, likely as a result of a comparably large number of coarse-mode
particles. The next strongest forward peak was found in the CO storms,
followed by the storms in TX/OK and then AL. These scattering patterns were
also likely influenced significantly by coarse-mode particles, with the
convective systems likely lofting more large particles as the local
environment became increasingly arid. There were very small differences in
the scattering patterns of the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS fine-mode-dominated aerosols. The
largest differences between these types was observed in the peak values of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, occurring around 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the BB cases
being more strongly polarizing than the other two types.</p>
      <p id="d1e4777">In order to more easily explore the scattering measurements, as well as
further validate the ancillary data aerosol typing scheme, PCA was applied to the PI-Neph measurements and the results
were examined as a function of the ancillary data classification. The first
few principal components of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data and the first principal
component of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data showed very strong relationships with
aerosol type. Two schemes were developed to divide the PCA score space into
regions representing the different classification categories. The first of
these schemes was based on the Mahalanobis distances between points and the
center of the cluster corresponding to each ancillary data classification
category. The second scheme simply used a plane to divide the PCA score space
into two regions predicting positive and negative classifications of a given
type. In both schemes,<?pagebreak page3751?> individual scattering measurements were assigned to
the correct type with very high recall, further supporting the validity of
the ancillary data aerosol typing scheme, and demonstrating that the PI-Neph
data alone are capable of identifying major aerosol types. This conclusion
held even in cases in which differences in single-angle scattering
intensities
between the bulk averages of two different aerosol types was very small,
often much less than the error in an individual measurement. For example, the
dividing plane prediction technique was able to distinguish BB
cases from other fine-mode-dominated aerosols with greater than 90 %
recall and TNR, despite the two categories having extremely similar average
scattering patterns. The characteristics producing this clear separation
between similar aerosol types were subtle and often relied on the
relationships among many angles simultaneously. This fact emphasizes the
value of multi-angle scattering measurements, as well as PCA's ability to reveal the underlying patterns in these datasets.</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e4815">All relevant measurements made during the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS
experiment are available through the SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS data archive at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/missions/seac4rs/">https://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/missions/seac4rs/</ext-link>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="paren.53"/>. The DC3 dataset is also available through the
corresponding archive, which can be found at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/missions/dc3-seac4rs/">https://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/missions/dc3-seac4rs/</ext-link>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.54"/>. Requests for additional data can be made to the
corresponding author at reedespinosa@umbc.edu.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e4852">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4858">We acknowledge funding support from the NASA Earth Science Enterprise for the
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS campaign under grant NNX12AC37G, and under the Atmospheric
Composition Campaign Data Analysis and Modeling Program (ACCDAM) grant
NNX14AP73G, both managed by  Hal Maring. The authors would also like to
thank the members of the LARGE group, particularly Bruce Anderson, Luke
Ziemba and Andreas Beyersdorf for their support incorporating the PI-Neph
into the LARGE instrument package. We are also grateful for the scientific
and technical support of the LACO team at UMBC. Additionally, we would like
to thank the entire DC3 and SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS science teams for providing
supporting data and relevant discussion.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Paul Zieger<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: four anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Anderson et al.(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, T. L., Covert, D. S., Marshall, S. F., Laucks, M. L., Charlson,
R. J., Waggoner, A. P., Ogren, J. A., Caldow, R., Holm, R. L., Quant, F. R.,
Sem, G. J., Wiedensohler, A., Ahlquist, N. A., and Bates, T. S.: Performance
Characteristics of a High-Sensitivity, Three-Wavelength Total
Scattering/Backscatter Nephelometer, J. Atmos. Ocean.
Tech., 13, 967–986, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Barth et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>Barth, M. C., Cantrell, C. A., Brune, W. H., Rutledge, S. A., Crawford, J. H.,
Huntrieser, H., Carey, L. D., MacGorman, D., Weisman, M., Pickering, K. E.,
Bruning, E., Anderson, B., Apel, E., Biggerstaff, M., Campos, T.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., Cohen, R., Crounse, J., Day, D. A., Diskin, G., Flocke,
F., Fried, A., Garland, C., Heikes, B., Honomichl, S., Hornbrook, R., Huey,
L. G., Jimenez, J. L., Lang, T., Lichtenstern, M., Mikoviny, T., Nault, B.,
O'Sullivan, D., Pan, L. L., Peischl, J., Pollack, I., Richter, D., Riemer,
D., Ryerson, T., Schlager, H., St. Clair, J., Walega, J., Weibring, P.,
Weinheimer, A., Wennberg, P., Wisthaler, A., Wooldridge, P. J., and Ziegler,
C.: The Deep Convective Clouds and Chemistry (DC3) Field Campaign, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1281–1309,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00290.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00290.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Baumgardner et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Baumgardner, D., Brenguier, J., Bucholtz, A., Coe, H., DeMott, P., Garrett,
T. J., Gayet, J., Hermann, M., Heymsfield, A., Korolev, A., Krämer, M.,
Petzold, A., Strapp, W., Pilewskie, P., Taylor, J., Twohy, C.,
Wendisch, M., Bachalo, W., and Chuang, P.: Airborne
instruments to measure atmospheric aerosol particles, clouds and radiation: A
cook's tour of mature and emerging technology, Atmos. Res., 102,
10–29, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bellouin et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Haywood, J., and Reddy, M. S.: Global estimate of
aerosol direct radiative forcing from satellite measurements, Nature, 438,
1138–1141, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Bilal et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Bilal, M., Nichol, J. E., Bleiweiss, M. P., and Dubois, D.: A Simplified high
resolution MODIS aerosol retrieval algorithm (SARA) for use over mixed
surfaces, Remote Sens. Environ., 136, 135–145,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.014</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Burton et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Burton, S. P., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler, C. A., Hair, J. W., Rogers, R. R.,
Obland, M. D., Butler, C. F., Cook, A. L., Harper, D. B., and Froyd, K. D.:
Aerosol classification using airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar
measurements – methodology and examples, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 73–98,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-73-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-73-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Corr et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Corr, C. A., Ziemba, L. D., Scheuer, E., Anderson, B. E., Beyersdorf, A. J.,
Chen, G., Crosbie, E., Moore, R. H., Shook, M., Thornhill, K. L., Winstead,
E., Lawson, R. P., Barth, M. C., Schroeder, J. R., Blake, D. R., and Dibb,
J. E.: Observational evidence for the convective transport of dust over the
Central United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
1306–1319, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023789" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023789</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>DC3(2012)</label><mixed-citation>DC3: Deep Convective Clouds and Chemistry Experiment Data Archive,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/DC3/DC8/Aerosol-TraceGas" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Aircraft/DC3/DC8/Aerosol-TraceGas</ext-link> (last access: 1 October 2017), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Dolgos and Martins(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Dolgos, G. and Martins, J. V.: Polarized Imaging Nephelometer for in situ
airborne measurements of aerosol light scattering, Opt. Express, 22,
21972–21990, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.021972" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OE.22.021972</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Dubovik and King(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O. and King, M.: A flexible inversion algorithm for retrieval of
aerosol optical properties from Sun and sky radiance measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 20673–20696, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Dubovik et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Smirnov, a., Holben, B. N., King, M. D., Kaufman, Y. J., Eck,
T. F., and Slutsker, I.: Accuracy assessments of aerosol optical properties
retrieved from Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Sun and sky radiance
measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, 105, 9791–9806,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900040" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900040</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3752?><ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Dubovik et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y., and King, M.:
Variability of absorption and optical properties of key aerosol types
observed in worldwide locations, J. Atmos. Sci., 59,
590–608, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Dubovik et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Herman, M., Holdak, A., Lapyonok, T., Tanré, D.,
Deuzé, J. L., Ducos, F., Sinyuk, A., and Lopatin, A.: Statistically
optimized inversion algorithm for enhanced retrieval of aerosol properties
from spectral multi-angle polarimetric satellite observations, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 4, 975–1018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-975-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-975-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Dubovik et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Lapyonok, T., Litvinov, P., Herman, M., Fuertes, D., Ducos, F.,
Torres, B., Derimian, Y., Huang, X., Lopatin, A., Chaikovsky, A.,
Aspetsberger, M., and Federspiel, C.: GRASP: a versatile algorithm for
characterizing the atmosphere, SPIE Newsroom, 28,   2–5,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/2.1201408.005558" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/2.1201408.005558</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Eck et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Arola, A., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler,
C. A., Crumeyrolle, S. N., Berkoff, T. A., Welton, E. J., Lolli, S.,
Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Schafer, J. S., Giles, D. M., Anderson, B. E.,
Thornhill, K. L., Minnis, P., Pickering, K. E., Loughner, C. P., Smirnov, A.,
and Sinyuk, A.: Observations of rapid aerosol optical depth enhancements in
the vicinity of polluted cumulus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
14, 11633–11656, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11633-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-11633-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Espinosa et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>Espinosa, W. R., Remer, L. A., Dubovik, O., Ziemba, L., Beyersdorf, A.,
Orozco, D., Schuster, G., Lapyonok, T., Fuertes, D., and Martins, J. V.:
Retrievals of aerosol optical and microphysical properties from Imaging Polar
Nephelometer scattering measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 811–824,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-811-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-811-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Fried et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Fried, A., Diskin, G., Weibring, P., Richter, D., Walega, J., Sachse, G.,
Slate, T., Rana, M., and Podolske, J.: Tunable infrared laser instruments for
airborne atmospheric studies, Appl. Phys. B, 92, 409–417, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Gayet et~al.(1997{\natexlab{a}})}}?><label>Gayet et al.(1997a)</label><mixed-citation>
Gayet, J., Crépel, O., Fournol, J., and Oshchepkov, S.: A new airborne
polar Nephelometer for the measurements of optical and microphysical cloud
properties, Part I : Theoretical design, Ann. Geophys., 15, 451–459,
1997a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Gayet et~al.(1997{\natexlab{b}})}}?><label>Gayet et al.(1997b)</label><mixed-citation>
Gayet, J., Fournol, J., and Oshchepkov, S.: A new airborne Polar Nephelometer
for the measurement of optical and microphysical cloud properties, Part II:
Preliminary tests, Ann. Geophys., 15, 460–470, 1997b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Giles et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Giles, D. M., Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Sinyuk, A., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I.,
Dickerson, R. R., Thompson, A. M., and Schafer, J. S.: An analysis of AERONET
aerosol absorption properties and classifications representative of aerosol
source regions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D17203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018127" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018127</ext-link>,  2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Grams et al.(1975)</label><mixed-citation>
Grams, G., Dascher, A., and Wymna, C.: Laser Polar Nephelometer for Airborne
Measurements of Aerosol Optical Properties, Opt. Eng., 14, 85–90,
1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Hamill et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Hamill, P., Giordano, M., Ward, C., Giles, D., and Holben, B.: An AERONET-based
aerosol classification using the Mahalanobis distance, Atmos.
Environ., 140, 213–233,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.002</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Jeong and Li(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Jeong, M.-J. and Li, Z.: Separating real and apparent effects of cloud,
humidity, and dynamics on aerosol optical thickness near cloud edges, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00K32,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013547" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013547</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Jolliffe(2002)</label><mixed-citation>Jolliffe, I. T.: Principal component analysis and factor analysis,
Springer-Verlag New York, 28 pp., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/b98835" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/b98835</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Kahn and Gaitley(2015)</label><mixed-citation>Kahn, R. A. and Gaitley, B. J.: An analysis of global aerosol type as retrieved
by MISR, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 4248–4281,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023322</ext-link>,  2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Lee et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Lee, J., Kim, J., Yang, P., and Hsu, N. C.: Improvement of aerosol optical
depth retrieval from MODIS spectral reflectance over the global ocean using
new aerosol models archived from AERONET inversion data and tri-axial
ellipsoidal dust database, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7087–7102, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7087-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-7087-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Lee et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, S.-H., Murphy, D. M., Thomson, D. S., and Middlebrook, A. M.: Chemical
components of single particles measured with Particle Analysis by Laser Mass
Spectrometry (PALMS) during the Atlanta SuperSite Project: Focus on
organic/sulfate, lead, soot, and mineral particles, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, AAC 1-1–AAC 1-13 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Levy et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., and Dubovik, O.: Global aerosol optical properties
and application to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol
retrieval over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112,
1–15, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007815</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>McLachlan(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
McLachlan, G. J.: Discriminant Analysis and Statistical Pattern Recognition,
Wiley, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>McNaughton et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>McNaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Pinkerton, M., Anderson, B.,
Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C., Winstead, E., Dibb, J. E., Scheuer, E., and
Maring, H.: Results from the DC-8 Inlet Characterization Experiment (DICE):
Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of Mineral Dust and Sea Salt Aerosols,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 41, 136–159,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820601118406</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Mikoviny et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Mikoviny, T., Kaser, L., and Wisthaler, A.: Development and characterization
of a High-Temperature Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometer (HT-PTR-MS),
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 537–544, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-537-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-537-2010</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Mishchenko et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Mishchenko, M. I., Travis, L. D., and Lacis, A. A.: Scattering, absorption,
and emission of light by small particles, Cambridge university press, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Myhre et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.
K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J.,
Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije,
T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H.,
Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of
the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Omar et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Omar, A. H., Won, J. G., Winker, D. M., Yoon, S. C., Dubovik, O., and
McCormick, M. P.: Development of global aerosol models using cluster
analysis of Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) measurements, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, 1–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004874" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004874</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Peterson et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Peterson, D. A., Hyer, E. J., Campbell, J. R., Fromm, M. D., Hair, J. W.,
Butler, C. F., and Fenn, M. A.: The 2013 Rim Fire: Implications for
predicting extreme fire spread, pyroconvection, and smoke emissions, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 229–247, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3753?><ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Pollack et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Pollack, I. B., Lerner, B. M., and Ryerson, T. B.: Evaluation of ultraviolet
light-emitting diodes for detection of atmospheric NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by photolysis –
chemiluminescence, J. Atmos. Chem., 65, 111–125,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10874-011-9184-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10874-011-9184-3</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Remer and Kaufman(1998)</label><mixed-citation>Remer, L. A. and Kaufman, Y. J.: Dynamic aerosol model: Urban/industrial
aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 13859–13871,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00994" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD00994</ext-link>,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Remer et al.(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Gass, S., Hegg, D. A., Kaufman, Y. J., and Holben, B. N.:
Urban/industrial aerosol: Ground-based Sun/sky radiometer, J.
Geophys. Res., 102, 16849–16859, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G. B., O'Dowd, C. D., Kulmala, M., Fuzzi,
S., Reissell, A., and Andreae, M. O.: Flood or drought: how do
aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Russell et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>Russell, P. B., Livingston, J. M., Dubovik, O., Ramirez, S. A., Wang, J.,
Redemann, J., Schmid, B., Box, M., and Holben, B. N.: Sunlight transmission
through desert dust and marine aerosols: Diffuse light corrections to Sun
photometry and pyrheliometry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
109, D08207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004292" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD004292</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Russell et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Russell, P. B., Kacenelenbogen, M., Livingston, J. M., Hasekamp, O. P., Burton,
S. P., Schuster, G. L., Johnson, M. S., Knobelspiesse, K. D., Redemann, J.,
Ramachandran, S., and Holben, B.: A multiparameter aerosol classification
method and its application to retrievals from spaceborne polarimetry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 9838–9863,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD021411</ext-link>,  2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Ryerson et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>Ryerson, T. B., Williams, E. J., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.: An efficient photolysis
system for fast-response NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26447–26461, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900389</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Saide et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>Saide, P. E., Peterson, D. A., da Silva, A., Anderson, B., Ziemba, L. D.,
Diskin, G., Sachse, G., Hair, J., Butler, C., Fenn, M., Jimenez, J. L.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Markovic, M. Z., Russell,
P., Redemann, J., Shinozuka, Y., Streets, D. G., Yan, F., Dibb, J., Yokelson,
R., Toon, O. B., Hyer, E., and Carmichael, G. R.: Revealing important
nocturnal and day-to-day variations in fire smoke emissions through a
multiplatform inversion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3609–3618,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063737" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL063737</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Schulz et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.,
Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A.,
Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura,
T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and
pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>SEAC4RS(2013)</label><mixed-citation>SEAC4RS: Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate
Coupling by Regional Surveys Data Archive,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/SEAC4RS/Aerosol-TraceGas-Cloud" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Aircraft/SEAC4RS/Aerosol-TraceGas-Cloud</ext-link> (last access: 1 October 2017), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Seigel and van den Heever(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Seigel, R. B. and van den Heever, S. C.: Dust lofting and ingestion by
supercell storms, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1453–1473, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Shcherbakov et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Shcherbakov, V., Jourdan, O., Voigt, C., Gayet, J.-F., Chauvigne, A.,
Schwarzenboeck, A., Minikin, A., Klingebiel, M., Weigel, R., Borrmann, S.,
Jurkat, T., Kaufmann, S., Schlage, R., Gourbeyre, C., Febvre, G., Lapyonok,
T., Frey, W., Molleker, S., and Weinzierl, B.: Porous aerosol in degassing
plumes of Mt. Etna and Mt. Stromboli, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11883–11897,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11883-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-11883-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Shingler et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Shingler, T., Crosbie, E., Ortega, A., Shiraiwa, M., Zuend, A., Beyersdorf, A.,
Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P.,
Campazano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Jimenez, J. L., Hair, J. W., Mikoviny, T.,
Wisthaler, A., and Sorooshian, A.: Airborne characterization of subsaturated
aerosol hygroscopicity and dry refractive index from the surface to 6.5 km
during the SEAC4RS campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
121, 4188–4210, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Stocker(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Stocker, T.: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I
contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Takemi et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Takemi, T., Yasui, M., Zhou, J., and Liu, L.: Role of boundary layer and
cumulus convection on dust emission and transport over a midlatitude desert
area, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111,  D11203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006666" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006666</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Thomson et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Thomson, D. S., Schein, M. E., and Murphy, D. M.: Particle analysis by laser
mass spectrometry WB-57F instrument overview, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
33, 153–169, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Toon et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Toon, O. B., Maring, H., Dibb, J., Ferrare, R., Jacob, D. J., Jensen, E. J.,
Luo, Z. J., Mace, G. G., Pan, L. L., Pfister, L., Rosenlof, K. H., Redemann,
J., Reid, J. S., Singh, H. B., Robert Yokelson, Minnis, P., Chen, G.,
Jucks, K. W., and Pszenny, A.: Planning, implementation and scientific goals
of the Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate
Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) field mission, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 121, 4967–5009, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024297" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024297</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Tulet et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>Tulet, P., Crahan-Kaku, K., Leriche, M., Aouizerats, B., and Crumeyrolle, S.:
Mixing of dust aerosols into a mesoscale convective system, Atmos.
Res., 96, 302–314,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.09.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.09.011</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Wendisch et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Wendisch, M., Coe, H., Baumgardner, D., Brenguier, J., Dreiling, V., Fiebig,
M., Formenti, P., Hermann, M., Krämer, M., Levin, Z., Maser, R., Mathieu,
E.,Nacass, P., Noone, K., Osborne, S., Schneider, J., Schütz, L.,
Schwarzenböck, A., Stratmann, F., and Wilson, J. C.: Aircraft
particle inlets: State-of-the-art and future needs, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 85, 89–91, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Wong et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Wong, M. S., Nichol, J. E., and Lee, K. H.: An operational MODIS aerosol
retrieval algorithm at high spatial resolution, and its application over a
complex urban region, Atmos. Res., 99, 579–589,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.12.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.12.015</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Wu and Zeng(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Wu, L. and Zeng, Q.-C.: Classifying Asian dust aerosols and their columnar
optical properties using fuzzy clustering, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2529–2542, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020751" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020751</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Young(1980)</label><mixed-citation>
Young, A. T.: Revised depolarization corrections for atmospheric extinction,
Appl. Opt., 19, 3427–3428, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Zieger et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Zieger, P., Fierz-Schmidhauser, R., Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.:
Effects of relative humidity on aerosol light scattering: results from
different European sites, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
10609–10631, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10609-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10609-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Zieger et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>Zieger, P., Fierz-Schmidhauser, R., Poulain, L., Müller, T., Birmili, W.,
Spindler, G., Wiedensohler, A., Baltensperger, U., and Weingartner, E.:
Influence of water uptake on the aerosol particle light<?pagebreak page3754?> scattering
coefficients of the Central European aerosol, Tellus B, 66, 22716, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.22716" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v66.22716</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>Ziemba et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Ziemba, L. D., Thornhill, K. L., Ferrare, R., Barrick, J., Beyersdorf, A. J.,
Chen, G., Crumeyrolle, S. N., Hair, J., Hostetler, C., Hudgins, C., Obland,
M., Rogers, R., Scarino, A. J., Winstead, E. L., and Anderson, B. E.:
Airborne observations of aerosol extinction by in situ and remote-sensing
techniques: Evaluation of particle hygroscopicity, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 40, 417–422, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL054428</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Ziemba et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Ziemba, L. D., Beyersdorf, A. J., Chen, G., Corr, C. A., Crumeyrolle, S. N.,
Diskin, G., Hudgins, C., Martin, R., Mikoviny, T., Moore, R., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E. L., Wisthaler, A., and Anderson, B. E.:
Airborne observations of bioaerosol over the Southeast United States using a
Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, 121, 8506–8524, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024669" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024669</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>In situ measurements of angular-dependent light scattering by aerosols over the contiguous United States</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>This work provides a synopsis of aerosol phase function (<i>F</i><sub>11</sub>) and
polarized phase function (<i>F</i><sub>12</sub>) measurements made by the Polarized
Imaging Nephelometer (PI-Neph) during the Studies of Emissions,
Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys
(SEAC<sup>4</sup>RS) and the Deep Convection Clouds and Chemistry (DC3) field
campaigns. In order to more easily explore this extensive dataset, an aerosol
classification scheme is developed that identifies the different aerosol
types measured during the deployments. This scheme makes use of ancillary
data that include trace gases, chemical composition, aerodynamic particle
size and geographic location, all independent of PI-Neph measurements. The
PI-Neph measurements are then grouped according to their ancillary data
classifications and the resulting scattering patterns are examined in detail.
These results represent the first published airborne measurements of <i>F</i><sub>11</sub>
and −<i>F</i><sub>12</sub>∕<i>F</i><sub>11</sub> for many common aerosol types. We then explore whether
PI-Neph light-scattering measurements alone are sufficient to reconstruct the
results of this ancillary data classification algorithm. Principal component
analysis (PCA) is used to reduce the dimensionality of the multi-angle
PI-Neph scattering data and the individual measurements are examined as a
function of ancillary data classification. Clear clustering is observed in
the PCA score space, corresponding to the ancillary classification results,
suggesting that, indeed, a strong link exists between the angular-scattering
measurements and the aerosol type or composition. Two techniques are used to
quantify the degree of clustering and it is found that in most cases the
results of the ancillary data classification can be predicted from PI-Neph
measurements alone with better than 85&thinsp;% recall. This result both
emphasizes the validity of the ancillary data classification as well as the
PI-Neph's ability to distinguish common aerosol types without additional
information.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Anderson et al.(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, T. L., Covert, D. S., Marshall, S. F., Laucks, M. L., Charlson,
R. J., Waggoner, A. P., Ogren, J. A., Caldow, R., Holm, R. L., Quant, F. R.,
Sem, G. J., Wiedensohler, A., Ahlquist, N. A., and Bates, T. S.: Performance
Characteristics of a High-Sensitivity, Three-Wavelength Total
Scattering/Backscatter Nephelometer, J. Atmos. Ocean.
Tech., 13, 967–986, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Barth et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Barth, M. C., Cantrell, C. A., Brune, W. H., Rutledge, S. A., Crawford, J. H.,
Huntrieser, H., Carey, L. D., MacGorman, D., Weisman, M., Pickering, K. E.,
Bruning, E., Anderson, B., Apel, E., Biggerstaff, M., Campos, T.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., Cohen, R., Crounse, J., Day, D. A., Diskin, G., Flocke,
F., Fried, A., Garland, C., Heikes, B., Honomichl, S., Hornbrook, R., Huey,
L. G., Jimenez, J. L., Lang, T., Lichtenstern, M., Mikoviny, T., Nault, B.,
O'Sullivan, D., Pan, L. L., Peischl, J., Pollack, I., Richter, D., Riemer,
D., Ryerson, T., Schlager, H., St. Clair, J., Walega, J., Weibring, P.,
Weinheimer, A., Wennberg, P., Wisthaler, A., Wooldridge, P. J., and Ziegler,
C.: The Deep Convective Clouds and Chemistry (DC3) Field Campaign, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1281–1309,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00290.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00290.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Baumgardner et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Baumgardner, D., Brenguier, J., Bucholtz, A., Coe, H., DeMott, P., Garrett,
T. J., Gayet, J., Hermann, M., Heymsfield, A., Korolev, A., Krämer, M.,
Petzold, A., Strapp, W., Pilewskie, P., Taylor, J., Twohy, C.,
Wendisch, M., Bachalo, W., and Chuang, P.: Airborne
instruments to measure atmospheric aerosol particles, clouds and radiation: A
cook's tour of mature and emerging technology, Atmos. Res., 102,
10–29, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Bellouin et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Haywood, J., and Reddy, M. S.: Global estimate of
aerosol direct radiative forcing from satellite measurements, Nature, 438,
1138–1141, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Bilal et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Bilal, M., Nichol, J. E., Bleiweiss, M. P., and Dubois, D.: A Simplified high
resolution MODIS aerosol retrieval algorithm (SARA) for use over mixed
surfaces, Remote Sens. Environ., 136, 135–145,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.04.014</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Burton et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Burton, S. P., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler, C. A., Hair, J. W., Rogers, R. R.,
Obland, M. D., Butler, C. F., Cook, A. L., Harper, D. B., and Froyd, K. D.:
Aerosol classification using airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar
measurements – methodology and examples, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 73–98,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-73-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-73-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Corr et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Corr, C. A., Ziemba, L. D., Scheuer, E., Anderson, B. E., Beyersdorf, A. J.,
Chen, G., Crosbie, E., Moore, R. H., Shook, M., Thornhill, K. L., Winstead,
E., Lawson, R. P., Barth, M. C., Schroeder, J. R., Blake, D. R., and Dibb,
J. E.: Observational evidence for the convective transport of dust over the
Central United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
1306–1319, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023789" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023789</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>DC3(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
DC3: Deep Convective Clouds and Chemistry Experiment Data Archive,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/DC3/DC8/Aerosol-TraceGas" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/DC3/DC8/Aerosol-TraceGas</a> (last access: 1 October 2017), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Dolgos and Martins(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Dolgos, G. and Martins, J. V.: Polarized Imaging Nephelometer for in situ
airborne measurements of aerosol light scattering, Opt. Express, 22,
21972–21990, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.021972" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.021972</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Dubovik and King(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O. and King, M.: A flexible inversion algorithm for retrieval of
aerosol optical properties from Sun and sky radiance measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 20673–20696, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Dubovik et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Smirnov, a., Holben, B. N., King, M. D., Kaufman, Y. J., Eck,
T. F., and Slutsker, I.: Accuracy assessments of aerosol optical properties
retrieved from Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Sun and sky radiance
measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, 105, 9791–9806,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900040" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900040</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Dubovik et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y., and King, M.:
Variability of absorption and optical properties of key aerosol types
observed in worldwide locations, J. Atmos. Sci., 59,
590–608, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Dubovik et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Herman, M., Holdak, A., Lapyonok, T., Tanré, D.,
Deuzé, J. L., Ducos, F., Sinyuk, A., and Lopatin, A.: Statistically
optimized inversion algorithm for enhanced retrieval of aerosol properties
from spectral multi-angle polarimetric satellite observations, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 4, 975–1018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-975-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-975-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Dubovik et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Lapyonok, T., Litvinov, P., Herman, M., Fuertes, D., Ducos, F.,
Torres, B., Derimian, Y., Huang, X., Lopatin, A., Chaikovsky, A.,
Aspetsberger, M., and Federspiel, C.: GRASP: a versatile algorithm for
characterizing the atmosphere, SPIE Newsroom, 28,   2–5,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/2.1201408.005558" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/2.1201408.005558</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Eck et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Arola, A., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler,
C. A., Crumeyrolle, S. N., Berkoff, T. A., Welton, E. J., Lolli, S.,
Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Schafer, J. S., Giles, D. M., Anderson, B. E.,
Thornhill, K. L., Minnis, P., Pickering, K. E., Loughner, C. P., Smirnov, A.,
and Sinyuk, A.: Observations of rapid aerosol optical depth enhancements in
the vicinity of polluted cumulus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
14, 11633–11656, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11633-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11633-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Espinosa et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Espinosa, W. R., Remer, L. A., Dubovik, O., Ziemba, L., Beyersdorf, A.,
Orozco, D., Schuster, G., Lapyonok, T., Fuertes, D., and Martins, J. V.:
Retrievals of aerosol optical and microphysical properties from Imaging Polar
Nephelometer scattering measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 811–824,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-811-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-811-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Fried et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Fried, A., Diskin, G., Weibring, P., Richter, D., Walega, J., Sachse, G.,
Slate, T., Rana, M., and Podolske, J.: Tunable infrared laser instruments for
airborne atmospheric studies, Appl. Phys. B, 92, 409–417, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Gayet et al.(1997a)</label><mixed-citation>
Gayet, J., Crépel, O., Fournol, J., and Oshchepkov, S.: A new airborne
polar Nephelometer for the measurements of optical and microphysical cloud
properties, Part I : Theoretical design, Ann. Geophys., 15, 451–459,
1997a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Gayet et al.(1997b)</label><mixed-citation>
Gayet, J., Fournol, J., and Oshchepkov, S.: A new airborne Polar Nephelometer
for the measurement of optical and microphysical cloud properties, Part II:
Preliminary tests, Ann. Geophys., 15, 460–470, 1997b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Giles et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Giles, D. M., Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Sinyuk, A., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I.,
Dickerson, R. R., Thompson, A. M., and Schafer, J. S.: An analysis of AERONET
aerosol absorption properties and classifications representative of aerosol
source regions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D17203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018127" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018127</a>,  2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Grams et al.(1975)</label><mixed-citation>
Grams, G., Dascher, A., and Wymna, C.: Laser Polar Nephelometer for Airborne
Measurements of Aerosol Optical Properties, Opt. Eng., 14, 85–90,
1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Hamill et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Hamill, P., Giordano, M., Ward, C., Giles, D., and Holben, B.: An AERONET-based
aerosol classification using the Mahalanobis distance, Atmos.
Environ., 140, 213–233,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.002</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Jeong and Li(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Jeong, M.-J. and Li, Z.: Separating real and apparent effects of cloud,
humidity, and dynamics on aerosol optical thickness near cloud edges, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00K32,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013547" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013547</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Jolliffe(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Jolliffe, I. T.: Principal component analysis and factor analysis,
Springer-Verlag New York, 28 pp., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/b98835" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/b98835</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Kahn and Gaitley(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Kahn, R. A. and Gaitley, B. J.: An analysis of global aerosol type as retrieved
by MISR, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 4248–4281,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023322</a>,  2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Lee et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, J., Kim, J., Yang, P., and Hsu, N. C.: Improvement of aerosol optical
depth retrieval from MODIS spectral reflectance over the global ocean using
new aerosol models archived from AERONET inversion data and tri-axial
ellipsoidal dust database, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
7087–7102, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7087-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7087-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Lee et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, S.-H., Murphy, D. M., Thomson, D. S., and Middlebrook, A. M.: Chemical
components of single particles measured with Particle Analysis by Laser Mass
Spectrometry (PALMS) during the Atlanta SuperSite Project: Focus on
organic/sulfate, lead, soot, and mineral particles, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, AAC 1-1–AAC 1-13 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Levy et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., and Dubovik, O.: Global aerosol optical properties
and application to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol
retrieval over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112,
1–15, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>McLachlan(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
McLachlan, G. J.: Discriminant Analysis and Statistical Pattern Recognition,
Wiley, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>McNaughton et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
McNaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Pinkerton, M., Anderson, B.,
Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C., Winstead, E., Dibb, J. E., Scheuer, E., and
Maring, H.: Results from the DC-8 Inlet Characterization Experiment (DICE):
Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of Mineral Dust and Sea Salt Aerosols,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 41, 136–159,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Mikoviny et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Mikoviny, T., Kaser, L., and Wisthaler, A.: Development and characterization
of a High-Temperature Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometer (HT-PTR-MS),
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 537–544, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-537-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-537-2010</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Mishchenko et al.(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Mishchenko, M. I., Travis, L. D., and Lacis, A. A.: Scattering, absorption,
and emission of light by small particles, Cambridge university press, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Myhre et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.
K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J.,
Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije,
T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H.,
Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of
the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Omar et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Omar, A. H., Won, J. G., Winker, D. M., Yoon, S. C., Dubovik, O., and
McCormick, M. P.: Development of global aerosol models using cluster
analysis of Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) measurements, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, 1–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004874" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004874</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Peterson et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Peterson, D. A., Hyer, E. J., Campbell, J. R., Fromm, M. D., Hair, J. W.,
Butler, C. F., and Fenn, M. A.: The 2013 Rim Fire: Implications for
predicting extreme fire spread, pyroconvection, and smoke emissions, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 229–247, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Pollack et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Pollack, I. B., Lerner, B. M., and Ryerson, T. B.: Evaluation of ultraviolet
light-emitting diodes for detection of atmospheric NO<sub>2</sub> by photolysis –
chemiluminescence, J. Atmos. Chem., 65, 111–125,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10874-011-9184-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10874-011-9184-3</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Remer and Kaufman(1998)</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A. and Kaufman, Y. J.: Dynamic aerosol model: Urban/industrial
aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 13859–13871,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00994" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00994</a>,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Remer et al.(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Gass, S., Hegg, D. A., Kaufman, Y. J., and Holben, B. N.:
Urban/industrial aerosol: Ground-based Sun/sky radiometer, J.
Geophys. Res., 102, 16849–16859, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Rosenfeld et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G. B., O'Dowd, C. D., Kulmala, M., Fuzzi,
S., Reissell, A., and Andreae, M. O.: Flood or drought: how do
aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Russell et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Russell, P. B., Livingston, J. M., Dubovik, O., Ramirez, S. A., Wang, J.,
Redemann, J., Schmid, B., Box, M., and Holben, B. N.: Sunlight transmission
through desert dust and marine aerosols: Diffuse light corrections to Sun
photometry and pyrheliometry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
109, D08207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004292" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004292</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Russell et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Russell, P. B., Kacenelenbogen, M., Livingston, J. M., Hasekamp, O. P., Burton,
S. P., Schuster, G. L., Johnson, M. S., Knobelspiesse, K. D., Redemann, J.,
Ramachandran, S., and Holben, B.: A multiparameter aerosol classification
method and its application to retrievals from spaceborne polarimetry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 9838–9863,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411</a>,  2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Ryerson et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Ryerson, T. B., Williams, E. J., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.: An efficient photolysis
system for fast-response NO<sub>2</sub> measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26447–26461, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900389</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Saide et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Saide, P. E., Peterson, D. A., da Silva, A., Anderson, B., Ziemba, L. D.,
Diskin, G., Sachse, G., Hair, J., Butler, C., Fenn, M., Jimenez, J. L.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Markovic, M. Z., Russell,
P., Redemann, J., Shinozuka, Y., Streets, D. G., Yan, F., Dibb, J., Yokelson,
R., Toon, O. B., Hyer, E., and Carmichael, G. R.: Revealing important
nocturnal and day-to-day variations in fire smoke emissions through a
multiplatform inversion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3609–3618,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063737" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063737</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Schulz et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.,
Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A.,
Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura,
T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and
pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>SEAC4RS(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
SEAC4RS: Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate
Coupling by Regional Surveys Data Archive,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/SEAC4RS/Aerosol-TraceGas-Cloud" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aircraft/SEAC4RS/Aerosol-TraceGas-Cloud</a> (last access: 1 October 2017), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Seigel and van den Heever(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Seigel, R. B. and van den Heever, S. C.: Dust lofting and ingestion by
supercell storms, J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1453–1473, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Shcherbakov et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Shcherbakov, V., Jourdan, O., Voigt, C., Gayet, J.-F., Chauvigne, A.,
Schwarzenboeck, A., Minikin, A., Klingebiel, M., Weigel, R., Borrmann, S.,
Jurkat, T., Kaufmann, S., Schlage, R., Gourbeyre, C., Febvre, G., Lapyonok,
T., Frey, W., Molleker, S., and Weinzierl, B.: Porous aerosol in degassing
plumes of Mt. Etna and Mt. Stromboli, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11883–11897,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11883-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11883-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Shingler et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Shingler, T., Crosbie, E., Ortega, A., Shiraiwa, M., Zuend, A., Beyersdorf, A.,
Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P.,
Campazano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Jimenez, J. L., Hair, J. W., Mikoviny, T.,
Wisthaler, A., and Sorooshian, A.: Airborne characterization of subsaturated
aerosol hygroscopicity and dry refractive index from the surface to 6.5&thinsp;km
during the SEAC4RS campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
121, 4188–4210, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Stocker(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Stocker, T.: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I
contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Takemi et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Takemi, T., Yasui, M., Zhou, J., and Liu, L.: Role of boundary layer and
cumulus convection on dust emission and transport over a midlatitude desert
area, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111,  D11203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006666" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006666</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Thomson et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Thomson, D. S., Schein, M. E., and Murphy, D. M.: Particle analysis by laser
mass spectrometry WB-57F instrument overview, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
33, 153–169, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Toon et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Toon, O. B., Maring, H., Dibb, J., Ferrare, R., Jacob, D. J., Jensen, E. J.,
Luo, Z. J., Mace, G. G., Pan, L. L., Pfister, L., Rosenlof, K. H., Redemann,
J., Reid, J. S., Singh, H. B., Robert Yokelson, Minnis, P., Chen, G.,
Jucks, K. W., and Pszenny, A.: Planning, implementation and scientific goals
of the Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate
Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) field mission, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 121, 4967–5009, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024297" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024297</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Tulet et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Tulet, P., Crahan-Kaku, K., Leriche, M., Aouizerats, B., and Crumeyrolle, S.:
Mixing of dust aerosols into a mesoscale convective system, Atmos.
Res., 96, 302–314,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.09.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.09.011</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Wendisch et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Wendisch, M., Coe, H., Baumgardner, D., Brenguier, J., Dreiling, V., Fiebig,
M., Formenti, P., Hermann, M., Krämer, M., Levin, Z., Maser, R., Mathieu,
E.,Nacass, P., Noone, K., Osborne, S., Schneider, J., Schütz, L.,
Schwarzenböck, A., Stratmann, F., and Wilson, J. C.: Aircraft
particle inlets: State-of-the-art and future needs, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 85, 89–91, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Wong et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Wong, M. S., Nichol, J. E., and Lee, K. H.: An operational MODIS aerosol
retrieval algorithm at high spatial resolution, and its application over a
complex urban region, Atmos. Res., 99, 579–589,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.12.015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.12.015</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>Wu and Zeng(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, L. and Zeng, Q.-C.: Classifying Asian dust aerosols and their columnar
optical properties using fuzzy clustering, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2529–2542, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020751" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020751</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Young(1980)</label><mixed-citation>
Young, A. T.: Revised depolarization corrections for atmospheric extinction,
Appl. Opt., 19, 3427–3428, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Zieger et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Zieger, P., Fierz-Schmidhauser, R., Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.:
Effects of relative humidity on aerosol light scattering: results from
different European sites, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
10609–10631, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10609-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10609-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Zieger et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Zieger, P., Fierz-Schmidhauser, R., Poulain, L., Müller, T., Birmili, W.,
Spindler, G., Wiedensohler, A., Baltensperger, U., and Weingartner, E.:
Influence of water uptake on the aerosol particle light scattering
coefficients of the Central European aerosol, Tellus B, 66, 22716, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.22716" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.22716</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>Ziemba et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Ziemba, L. D., Thornhill, K. L., Ferrare, R., Barrick, J., Beyersdorf, A. J.,
Chen, G., Crumeyrolle, S. N., Hair, J., Hostetler, C., Hudgins, C., Obland,
M., Rogers, R., Scarino, A. J., Winstead, E. L., and Anderson, B. E.:
Airborne observations of aerosol extinction by in situ and remote-sensing
techniques: Evaluation of particle hygroscopicity, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 40, 417–422, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054428" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054428</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>Ziemba et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Ziemba, L. D., Beyersdorf, A. J., Chen, G., Corr, C. A., Crumeyrolle, S. N.,
Diskin, G., Hudgins, C., Martin, R., Mikoviny, T., Moore, R., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E. L., Wisthaler, A., and Anderson, B. E.:
Airborne observations of bioaerosol over the Southeast United States using a
Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, 121, 8506–8524, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024669" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024669</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
