<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">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-26-11047-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city</article-title><alt-title>Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>Lixu</given-names></name>
          <email>lixu.jin@umontana.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1346-5352</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tan</surname><given-names>Lu</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6009-6304</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ketcherside</surname><given-names>Damien T.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Selimovic</surname><given-names>Vanessa</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Nauman</surname><given-names>Keri</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yokelson</surname><given-names>Robert J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8415-6808</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hu</surname><given-names>Lu</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4892-454X</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>b</label><institution>now at: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, MT, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Lixu Jin (lixu.jin@umontana.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>7</day><month>August</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>26</volume>
      <issue>15</issue>
      <fpage>11047</fpage><lpage>11066</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>8</day><month>January</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>6</day><month>July</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>20</day><month>July</month><year>2026</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Lixu Jin et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e149">We report hourly surface observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 75 speciated VOCs in Missoula, Montana, during a strong smoke event in 2020. This study tests our current understanding of wildfire emissions, chemistry, and health effects as implemented in the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model. Three-or-more-day-old smoke transported from California and the Pacific Northwest increased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and total measured VOCs by factors of 2–8, with hourly maxima of 800 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 120 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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 85 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> levels were not elevated compared to the urban background. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed a non-monotonic response to wildfire smoke: MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased under light smoke but flattened or declined when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceeded <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30–40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, a feature that GEOS-Chem failed to reproduce. A 2020-style wildfire season recurring annually would yield an excess lifetime cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or approximately 7 times the non-smoke baseline. The chronic non-cancer hazard index (HI) would reach 3.0, indicating appreciable potential for chronic non-cancer effects. About 90 % of cancer risks are from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> whereas non-cancer risks are dominated by formaldehyde, benzene, acrolein, and acetaldehyde. GEOS-Chem captured major smoke intrusions but underestimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and VOCs by 30 %–90 %. These model biases propagate to health metrics, with GEOS-Chem underestimating smoke-attributable cancer risk by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 % and chronic HI by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 times. We attribute the model errors to underpredicted fire emissions and unrepresented VOC chemistry, which together led to an overestimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and insufficient secondary production.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Science Foundation</funding-source>
<award-id>AGS-2144896</award-id>
<award-id>AGS-1748266</award-id>
<award-id>EPSCoR-2242802</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration</funding-source>
<award-id>NA16OAR4310100</award-id>
<award-id>NA20OAR4310296</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e381">Wildfires are the second largest source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the western US (Hoesly et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2023). Some VOCs are designated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) due to their carcinogenicity and potential for acute or chronic health effects (Naeher et al., 2007; Reid et al., 2016). Lengthening and intensified fire seasons in recent decades have posed direct air quality risks to rural populations and the inhabitants of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 million US homes that already lie within the fire-prone wildland–urban interface (WUI), a figure expected to grow by one million every three years (Burke et al., 2021). Moreover, recent years have shown that western US and Canadian biomass burning (BB) smoke frequently impacts cities in western North America and can reach population centers thousands of kilometers downwind on the East Coast (Yu et al., 2024). Despite the growing threat of more frequent and intense wildfires, the health effects of HAPs emitted from wildfires are not well documented, and residents often lack chemically resolved data on the pollutants to which they are exposed, because of limited ground-level measurements. Here, we combine hourly ground-based observations of VOCs and criteria pollutants with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model (CTM) to characterize the composition, chemical evolution, and health implications of aged wildfire smoke.</p>
      <p id="d2e391">Past observational efforts have provided valuable yet incomplete insights into the health risks associated with wildfire smoke exposure (Gould et al., 2024). For example, some studies have targeted near-source fireline PM (Navarro et al., 2021), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Semmens et al., 2021), or high-altitude plumes sampled by aircraft (O'Dell et al., 2020), and others have examined speciated VOCs and/or aerosol composition (Akagi et al., 2014; Fiddler et al., 2024; Joo et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2022). Speciated, near-surface data where the majority of human exposure to fresh and aged smoke actually occurs are still seriously under sampled. The lack of sufficient measurements also limits the evaluation of CTMs, which are widely used for smoke forecasting and health-risk assessments. Recent aircraft observations show that GEOS-Chem (a commonly used CTM) underestimates BB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and key HAPs such as formaldehyde by a factor of three or more (Jin et al., 2023). However, analogous ground-based validation remains absent. Because near-surface chemistry differs fundamentally from lofted plumes (e.g., ambient temperature, nighttime oxidants, boundary layer mixing) (Decker et al., 2019; Pagonis et al., 2023), ground observations are urgently needed to improve model validation and exposure assessments.</p>
      <p id="d2e410">The western US fire season of 2020 produced some of the most extreme smoke levels on record in OR, WA, and CA (Albores et al., 2023; Reilly et al., 2022), with September standing out as the peak month (Abatzoglou et al., 2021; Mass et al., 2021). More than 1.6 million ha burned in California alone, releasing an estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 127 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Tg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-equivalent, nearly twice the state's cumulative 2003–2019 greenhouse-gas reductions (Jerrett et al., 2022). These BB events provide an ideal natural laboratory for quantifying the composition of aged smoke, and testing CTM capabilities for representing regional smoke and assessing the continental-scale impacts of wildfires.</p>
      <p id="d2e434">In this study, we present hourly ground-based measurements of 75 VOCs (including 15 HAPs), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> collected in aged (mostly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) regional wildfire smoke during September 2020 in Missoula, Montana – a representative northwestern US city frequently impacted by regional wildfire smoke. Leveraging this comprehensive dataset, we (i) characterize the temporal evolution of VOCs and criteria pollutants (Sect. 4), (ii) quantify species-specific BB enhancements (Sect. 5), (iii) investigate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships (Sect. 6), (iv) assess public health risks using regulatory exposure metrics for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and HAPs (Sect. 7), and  (v) evaluate GEOS-Chem simulations against observations to diagnose model biases in BB emissions and chemistry, and their implications for health-risk estimates (Sect. 8).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Missoula Science Observatory</title>
      <p id="d2e542">Missoula, MT (46.8721° N, 113.9940° W) lies in a mountain valley in the northern Rocky Mountains with a population of approximately 120 000. Missoula has been studied in the past for its frequent impacts from both local (Montana and Idaho) and regional wildfires, including long-range smoke transport from the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest, such as California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Selimovic et al., 2019, 2020). Its frequent exposure to surface smoke makes it a representative site for evaluating human exposure and air quality under real-world wildfire conditions.</p>
      <p id="d2e545">Long-term air quality monitoring at the Missoula Science Observatory (MSO) began in 2017 with measurements including four criteria pollutants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and aerosol optical properties (Selimovic et al., 2019, 2020). In 2020, the monitoring scope expanded to include 75 individual VOCs, of which 15 are classified as HAPs by the U.S. EPA. The University of Montana (UM) campus serves as the primary site for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and VOC measurements. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> inlet was located 12.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the Charles H. Clapp Building; the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and VOCs inlet was initially located 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the Chemistry Building, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> away.</p>
      <p id="d2e724">Measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were obtained from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality site at Boyd Park, roughly 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> southwest of the UM campus. Despite the spatial separation between measurement sites, previous studies have validated the temporal and spatial agreement in pollutant concentrations between the two sites for 2017–2019 summers (Selimovic et al., 2019, 2020); we confirm similar agreement among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured at the Boyd Park and other tracers measured at the UM campus for this study (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9), supporting the use of combined datasets in this analysis.</p>
      <p id="d2e775">Hourly meteorological data were obtained from the MesoWest database and accessed via the Synoptic Data API (<uri>https://synopticdata.com/</uri>, last access:  30 July 2026). Incoming shortwave radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was obtained from the Blue Mountain site (station ID: BLMM8; 46.73° N, 114.09° W), while air temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">°</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), relative humidity (%), and precipitation accumulation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were obtained from the Missoula Valley site (station ID: E0591; 46.86° N, 114.02° W). These stations were selected as the closest available meteorological observations to the MSO (10 and 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> away, respectively). We used broadband shortwave (SW) as a first-order proxy for actinic flux and photolysis as they were not measured; we note that the SW (200–4000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) can diverge from the near-UV range relevant to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300–420 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) under smoke. Planetary boundary layer (PBL) mixing height (m) was obtained from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR, 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), an operational forecast and analysis system developed by NOAA with hourly updates at 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal resolution (Dowell et al., 2022). We also obtained the mixing height data from the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System Forward Processing system (GEOS-FP, 0.25° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3125°, hourly) as it serves as one of the inputs for GEOS-Chem.</p>
      <p id="d2e909">Figure 1 illustrates the climatology of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, defined here as the multi-year statistical distribution of daily-mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the wildfire season (June–October) over 2010–2024 in Missoula. Despite large interannual variability, a clear seasonal progression is evident. The multi-year daily average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations remain below 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> throughout June, increase steadily during July, and peak from mid-August to occasionally mid-September, coincident with increases in wildfire smoke episodes. Peak hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> even reached <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 470 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> in 2017. Reflecting this chronic smoke burden, in 2024, Missoula ranked 14th among 223 US metropolitan areas for 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> particle pollution, measured by the weighted annual average number of unhealthy 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 29th for annual particle pollution, measured by the annual average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration (American Lung Association, 2024). In this study, we focus specifically on September 2020, when regional smoke transport led to one of the most prolonged and chemically distinct episodes of aged wildfire smoke observed at the surface (blue line in Fig. 1; Sect. 4).</p>

      <fig id="F1" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e1042">Wildfire smoke over the western US and climatological <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Missoula, Montana. <bold>(A)</bold> Cropped GOES-17 GeoColor satellite image (15 September 2020) over the Western United States, with the location of Missoula, Montana indicated by the red dot. <bold>(B)</bold> Daily-mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations at Missoula during the 2020 fire season (blue) compared with the 2010–2024 climatology (black line; grey box plots give the interquartile range and whisker range (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>IQR; vertical lines) for each calendar day). Dashed horizontal lines indicate 15 and 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, as the WHO 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> guideline and the U.S. EPA 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> standard, respectively.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>VOC measurements</title>
      <p id="d2e1137">Ambient mixing ratios of 75 VOCs were measured as 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averages using a custom-built Proton Transfer Reaction Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS; PTR-ToF-4000, Ionicon Analytik GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria). Instrument operation followed protocols developed in our previous campaigns (Cope et al., 2024; Permar et al., 2021; Selimovic et al., 2022), with drift tube conditions set to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 130 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Td</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 3.00 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mbar</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">°</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 800 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e1202">Air was continuously sampled from an inlet <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of heated (60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">°</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) 6.35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">in</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) outer diameter (O.D.) PTFE tubing. The PTR-ToF-MS then subsampled via <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.59 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">in</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) O.D. PEEK tubing, also maintained at 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">°</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The sampling inlet featured a 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PTFE filter to prevent particle intrusion. Filters were replaced every 2 weeks, or more frequently during high pollution periods. Instrument backgrounds were quantified every 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by sampling VOC-free air generated via a heated platinum catalyst (375 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">°</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Sigma-Aldrich, 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wt</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d2e1385">In this work, we included 75 VOC species measured by PTR-ToF-MS in the analysis. Calibrations were conducted every other day using two compressed gas standard cylinders for 25 individual VOCs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 % at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppmv</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Apel-Riemer Environmental, Inc.). Among them, isomers calibrated at the same <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., methyl vinyl ketone and methacrolein at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 71.049; ethylbenzene and o-xylene at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107.086; 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 121.101), which used a weighted average sensitivity based on the corresponding isomeric contributions (Permar et al., 2021). A third standard gas cylinder containing 10 species was calibrated after the campaign (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 % at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppmv</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Apel-Riemer Environmental, Inc.). The overall measurement uncertainty for these species is estimated to be less than 15 %. Formaldehyde was calibrated after the campaign using a gas standard cylinder (stated accuracy 5 % at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Airgas USA LLC, Plumsteadville, PA, USA). Gases were mixed in a Liquid Calibration Unit (LCU, Ionicon Analytik GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria) to derive the dependence of instrument sensitivity on changing humidity. Formic and acetic acids were calibrated after the campaign using LCU, which also applied humidity dependence. Uncertainty for these species is estimated at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % (Permar et al., 2021). For 40 uncalibrated species, instrument sensitivities were estimated using theoretical methods (Sekimoto et al., 2017) refined by field comparisons (Permar et al., 2021), yielding overall uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %. Sensitivity of all compounds used in this study ranges from 0.9 to 14 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ncps</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppbv</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>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ncps</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes normalized counts per second. The background signal of all compounds ranges from 0.05 to 10.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ncps</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d2e1593"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured every <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using a Reducing Compound Photometer (Peak Performer 1, PEAK Laboratories, Mountain View, CA, USA), which separates <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by gas chromatography and detects it via photometric absorption of mercury vapor produced from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reduction of HgO. The instrument was calibrated weekly via <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> standard in a compressed standard gas cylinder, with a detection limit of 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The instrument shared the inlet with PTR-ToF-MS and sampled ambient air at 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sccm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 3.175 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">in</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) O.D. PTFE tubing.</p>
      <p id="d2e1697"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were measured every 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using a model 405 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitor (2B Technologies, Boulder, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, USA), which directly quantifies <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by measuring optical extinction at 405 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> strongly absorbs. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is measured by adding excess ozone into the optical cell, which quantitatively converts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The instrument was calibrated by the manufacturer with a detection limit of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Ambient air was drawn at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</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> through <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 6.35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">in</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) O.D. tubing and passed through a 47 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PTFE filter (Savillex), which was replaced biweekly or upon visible loading.</p>
      <p id="d2e1927"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were obtained from the hourly measurements at the Montana DEQ site at Boyd Park. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements were conducted using a Met One BAM-1020 with VSCC inlet (Volumetric Size-Selective Cyclone), which determines particle mass by measuring the attenuation of beta radiation through the filter tape as particles accumulate. The instrument has a detection limit of 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> for hourly measurements. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured using an ultraviolet photometric analyzer (Thermo Scientific Model 49i UV photometric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> analyzer), which quantifies absorption of UV radiation at 254 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and with a detection limit of 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We note that the Thermo 49i instrument can exhibit positive interferences in wildfire smoke (Bernays et al., 2022; Long et al., 2021). This interference would not affect our conclusion and would, if anything, make the inferred <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suppression and model ozone biases more conservative.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>GEOS-Chem chemical transport model</title>
      <p id="d2e2039">We use the nested-grid GEOS-Chem CTM over North America (version 13.3.0; 10–70° N, and 140–60° W) to interpret Missoula ground-based measurements. The model is driven by the NASA GEOS-FP meteorological data, with 0.25° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3125° horizontal resolution (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; latitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude) and 47 vertical layers extending up to 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Kim et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2004). Boundary conditions were updated every 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from a 4° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5° global simulation. Transport and convection time steps were 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; emission and chemistry time steps were 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Model spin-up included a 1-year global simulation followed by a 1-week nested simulation to reduce the influence of initial conditions prior to 1 September 2020.</p>
      <p id="d2e2126">The chemical mechanism included detailed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VOC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-ozone-halogen-aerosol chemistry with fully coupled troposphere and stratosphere (Eastham et al., 2014; Mao et al., 2010; Park et al., 2004; Schmidt et al., 2016). Dry deposition used a resistance-in-series approach (Wesely, 1989), and wet deposition included scavenging of soluble tracers in convective updrafts, as well as rainout and washout of soluble tracers (Liu et al., 2001). GEOS-Chem uses the non-local scheme for PBL mixing (Lin and McElroy, 2010). As a sensitivity test, we also conducted simulations using the “full mixing” scheme, assuming instantaneous vertical mixing of tracers evenly through the mixing depth, which did not affect the conclusions we derived.</p>
      <p id="d2e2159">Emissions were computed using the HEMCO module (Keller et al., 2014). These include biogenic VOC emissions from MEGANv2.1 (Guenther et al., 2012) as implemented in GEOS-Chem (Hu et al., 2015). Anthropogenic emissions are from the CEDS global emission inventory, overwritten with the 2011 EPA NEI inventory for the US (Hoesly et al., 2018). Daily BB emissions were taken from the Global Fire Assimilation System (GFAS) version 1.2, chosen for its relatively better VOC performance when compared to other commonly used BB inventories over the western US (Jin et al., 2023; van der Werf et al., 2017). Following previous work (Jin et al., 2023), we expanded the default GFAS VOC speciation by adding lumped <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aldehydes (RCHO), MEK, formic acid, and acetic acid by scaling <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> BB emissions with corresponding emission ratios reported from temperate forest burns (1.01, 0.73, 9.5, and 8.61 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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>, respectively) (Permar et al., 2021). All fire emissions followed a climatological diurnal profile, which allocates <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 85 % of daily fire emissions to the afternoon (local time) (Western Regional Air Partnership, 2005).</p>
      <p id="d2e2212">Biomass burning injection heights are prescribed with the daily 0.1° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1° mean altitude of maximum injection (“mami”) product derived from a satellite-constrained plume rise model (Freitas et al., 2007; Latham, 1994; Rémy et al., 2017). For each GEOS-Chem grid cell, we computed emission-flux-weighted “mami” values to correct the grid-dependence inherent in the standard model (Jin et al., 2023). BB emissions were then distributed evenly from the surface up to this “mami”.</p>
      <p id="d2e2223">Overall, four nested simulations were conducted for September 2020: (i) a base run using default GFAS emissions and non-local PBL mixing scheme, (ii) a sensitivity run as the base but without fire emissions (noBB), (iii) a second sensitivity run as the base but with GFAS VOC and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions tripled (3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB), and (iv) a third sensitivity run using GFAS and the full instantaneous mixing within the PBL mixing height.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Identification of smoke-impacted events</title>
      <p id="d2e2250">Wildfire smoke at ground level is often detected using particle-based diagnostics, for example: (i) satellite-derived aerosol products such as the overhead information from the NOAA Hazard Mapping System (HMS) (Jaffe et al., 2022; O'Dell et al., 2021), (ii) column-integrated aerosol optical depth from AERONET, (iii) sustained elevations in surface <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the general urban background (Selimovic et al., 2019, 2020), and (iv) combinations of these metrics (Kaulfus et al., 2017; McClure and Jaffe, 2018). Many studies also incorporate gas-phase tracers – initially <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), acetonitrile (ACN), and more recently, furan and maleic anhydride (MA) (Coggon et al., 2019; de Gouw et al., 2003, 2006; Li et al., 2000). Among these VOCs, furan is a sensitive indicator of fresh BB smoke due to its short lifetime and smaller emission amount from anthropogenic sources. In addition, MA is an oxidation product of furan and its derivatives, with a longer lifetime; thus, it has been proposed as a tracer of aged smoke (Coggon et al., 2019).</p>
      <p id="d2e2272">Here, we evaluate some current BB-impacted identification metrics in the context of our MSO case study and examine whether our VOC measurements provide additional value in identifying BB events in the urban setting. We first derive the hourly median diurnal urban background for BB tracers and other species using HMS “no-fire” days for September 2020. Any enhancement (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 times the background is considered BB-impacted, and a provisional smoke day is defined when at least six such hours occur. We also tested the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> criterion (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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>) proposed for urban smoke identification (Jaffe et al., 2022). However, at MSO this threshold classified nearly all days as smoke-impacted, consistent with the limitation that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> becomes non-discriminating when background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are low (Jaffe et al., 2022). We therefore do not use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a standalone classifier for this site.</p>
      <p id="d2e2402">Figure 2 summarizes the various daily BB classifications for September 2020 in Missoula. HMS alone identifies 20 smoke days (the greatest number among the diagnostics), but it can flag a day as smoke-impacted even when surface concentrations remain low if smoke is primarily aloft. For example, HMS triggers on 2 and 30 September (daily average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is 8.5 and 5.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, respectively), which likely reflect elevated plumes that were not mixed down to the surface (Liu et al., 2024). By comparison, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> criterion identifies 16 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Its diagnostic power depends strongly on aerosol loading at the surface.</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e2459">Wildfire smoke identification in Missoula, Montana, during September 2020. Rows show the six individual smoke metrics evaluated in this study. A filled marker indicates that HMS smoke was detected, or that the enhancement of a biomass burning (BB) indicator (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) exceeded 1.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> its diurnal background for at least 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on that calendar day. Gray bars (right axis) show the daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e2504">When daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceeded 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7; 13–19 September), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> approach aligned with HMS and with all gas-phase tracers considered here (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, ACN, furan, and MA), indicating concentrated smoke that coupled large aerosol mass with gaseous enhancements. A <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-means clustering analysis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3: smoke, no-smoke, uncertain) applied to pairwise combinations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and each tracer corroborated this classification, reinforcing that at high aerosol loadings, routine ground-level <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> alone can reliably identify smoke during summer in Missoula. We therefore classify these seven days as a high-confidence BB period.</p>
      <p id="d2e2625">At intermediate daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 20 and 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5; 5–6, 11–12, and 23 September), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> still overlaps at least two gas-phase tracers but not all, signaling moderately aged or dispersed smoke and therefore medium diagnostic confidence. When the daily-mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> falls below 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4; 7, 21–22, and 24), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> overlaps with at most one gas tracer, and HMS does not indicate smoke on 24 September, so these low-load cases warrant only low-to-medium confidence. One additional case (21 September) meets the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> threshold but lacks corroboration from the gas-phase tracers, suggesting a potential false positive, although HMS indicates overhead smoke. Across September (a total of 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the remaining 14 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> do not meet the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> criterion and are classified as non-smoke by this approach.</p>
      <p id="d2e2782">Gas-phase tracers extend the detectability of wildfire smoke beyond what is captured by HMS and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> alone, particularly during precipitation events. For example, on 20 September, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and furan enhancements were observed in the absence of corroborating HMS smoke or elevated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A rain event from the preceding day into the afternoon of 20 September efficiently scavenged aerosol mass, resulting in a sharp decrease of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, whereas gas-phase species were less affected and their enhancements persisted in the boundary layer.</p>
      <p id="d2e2853">Because no single tracer is definitive, we adopt a balanced multi-indicator rule: an hour is classified as smoke-impacted when at least three independent smoke indicators support smoke influence, based on HMS smoke detection and/or BB-associated species exceeding 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> their background values for at least 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on that day. Applied to September 2020, this criterion identified 14 smoke days (5–7, 11–19, and 22–23 September). For subsequent sections, we describe the three smoke events, and we focus on the high-confidence BB period of 13–19 September to analyze its enhancement ratios, thereby minimizing uncertainties from marginal or non-BB sources.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Overview of BB smoke in September 2020</title>
      <p id="d2e2879">Wildfires across the Pacific Northwest and northern California were exceptionally active in 2020 (Albores et al., 2023; Higuera and Abatzoglou, 2021; Neyra-Nazarrett et al., 2025; Reilly et al., 2022), and September delivered strong smoke signatures in Missoula. Applying the three-tracer classification described in Sect. 3, we identified 16 smoke-impacted days across confidence levels.</p>
      <p id="d2e2882">Figures 3 and S1 in the Supplement show three distinct multi-day smoke episodes affecting Missoula identified using the criteria described in Sect. 3, including 5–7 September (Event 1), 11–20 September (Event 2), and 22–24 September (Event 3). Because each episode involved multiple overlapping plumes from different fires with varying transport times, we refer to them as “events” rather than discrete “plumes”. Analysis of GOES-17 and VIIRS satellite imagery, and synoptic meteorological conditions indicates that these events were predominantly driven by southwesterly transport of wildfire smoke from Oregon, Idaho, and California, with likely influence from local smaller fires.</p>

      <fig id="F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e2887">Time series of selected VOCs and criteria pollutants in Missoula, Montana, during September 2020. Time is shown in local time (MDT, UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6). <bold>(A)</bold> Hourly measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (black; left axis), carbon monoxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; green, right axis), total measured VOCs (blue, right axis), acetonitrile (red, right axis), and maleic anhydride (orange, right axis). <bold>(B)</bold> Concurrent hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (black; left axis), furan (purple; right axis), and ozone (orange, right axis). Gray shading indicates smoke days based on the criteria in Sect. 3.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e2941">Event 1 (5–7 September) resulted from the California Creek Fire (United States Forest Service, 2020), which started on 4 September mixing with a localized, narrow plume moving east-northeast over the Bitterroot Mountains toward Missoula, as captured by GOES-17 imagery. Correspondingly, hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased rapidly from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 to 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> by 06:00 Mountain Daylight Time (MDT, UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6) on 6 September and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 100 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by 09:00 MDT the same day, with brief spikes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppt</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the fresh-smoke tracer furan at 01:00 MDT. Pollutant concentrations returned to the urban background within 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> after a post-frontal north-westerly wind flushed the valley.</p>
      <p id="d2e3035">Event 2 (11–20 September) was the longest and strongest impact on Missoula from the Oregon–California “megafire” complex that ignited in August and erupted on 7 September (Abatzoglou et al., 2021). Intense smoke on 8 September was advected westward offshore, where it became entrained into a cut-off low over the NE Pacific (around 42° N, 135° W), and subsequently advected eastward inland, mixing with smoke freshly emitted by the megafire complex and fires in Idaho. By 11 September, dense smoke formed a clearly visible “smoke river” that stretched across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho into western Montana. Back-trajectory analyses indicate that air parcels reaching Missoula had aged for at least two days. Consistently, smoke-impacted hours during this event exhibited pollutant enhancements of four- to fifteen-fold for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, acetonitrile, and total measured VOCs (TVOCs), reaching peak values of 800 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 120 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> acetonitrile, and 85 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> TVOCs in mid-September. Strong correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. S2) among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured at the Boyd Park and other tracers measured at the UM campus indicates spatially coherent smoke influence across Missoula at the surface. Brief furan spikes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) on 12–13 and 18–19 September suggest additional influence from local fires. Overall, this event accounts for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80 % of smoke hours in this month and is the focus of the enhancement ratio analysis (Sect. 5).</p>
      <p id="d2e3169">Event 3 (22–24 September) was a weaker resurgence of smoke from the same Oregon–California fires in Event 2. A preceding rain event on 20 September coincided with a rapid decrease in the 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 40 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, whereas most gas-phase species decreased less, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> declining from 500 to 350 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and total VOCs from 50 to 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This pattern suggests preferential particle removal via precipitation scavenging and may provide a physical explanation for “smoke-present but low-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>” days. It also highlights that smoke identification based on column indicators (e.g., HMS) may not always reflect surface PM exposure when precipitation occurs. Subsequent south-westerly flow reintroduced the residual, aged smoke into the region. As a result, 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations reached 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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 hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> peaked at 350 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> before a front cleared the valley, which was especially evident for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but still leaving fire influences for trace gases.</p>
      <p id="d2e3312">Figure 4 compares pollutant concentrations during smoke-impacted and background periods in September 2020. On average, MDA8 ozone increased by 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (7 %) during smoke episodes, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed no visible change. In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and TVOCs were significantly elevated, with hourly concentrations increasing by a factor of 3–8 compared to urban background. Average hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations increased from 160 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD of hourly data) to 420 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 205 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on smoke days. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed even larger enhancements, rising from 6.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.5 to 43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 34 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>. The background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations agree with typical western US urban levels (150–200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 5–10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>) (Cope et al., 2024; Lill et al., 2022; Lopez-Coto et al., 2020; Pfister et al., 2011).</p>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e3493">Enhanced surface-level pollutant concentrations during smoke-impacted periods. Boxplots show <bold>(A)</bold> maximum daily 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> average ozone (MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and hourly concentrations of <bold>(B)</bold> nitrogen oxides (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(C)</bold> carbon monoxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(D)</bold> fine particulate matter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <bold>(E)</bold> total measured volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) during smoke-impacted (red) and background (blue) periods in Missoula, Montana, during September 2020. Boxes represent interquartile ranges (25th–75th percentiles) with medians shown as center lines; whiskers extend to 1.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> the interquartile range. Black diamonds and error bars indicate mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation for each group. The right-hand summary block lists mean enhancement factors (smoke-impacted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> background) for each pollutant.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e3590">Measured hourly TVOCs tripled from 23 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 to 55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with individual species enhancements summarized in Table S2 in the Supplement. Ten VOCs increased by factors of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4–7, five of which were furanoids or their derivatives. These species included furfural, methylfurfural, 2-furanmethanol, 2-furanone, 5-hydroxy-2-furfural/2-furoic acid, maleic anhydride, acrylonitrile, methyl benzoic acid, methyl methacrylate, and anisole. Forty-eight VOCs increased by a factor of 2–4, while 16 species increased by a factor of 1–2. Fifteen of the 75 measured VOCs are on the EPA's list of HAPs, and they collectively represented 51 % of TVOCs by average molar mixing ratio. During smoke events, total HAPs (THAPs) increased threefold relative to background periods (28 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 13 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), with individual species exhibiting enhancements ranging from 40 % (dichlorobenzene) to nearly fivefold (acrylonitrile and maleic anhydride). Figure S3 shows that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reactivity (OHR) from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and TVOCs approximately doubled during smoke-impacted days compared to background (13.4 vs. 6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</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>). During background periods, isoprene was the largest individual contributor to OHR (0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</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>; 13.6 % of total OHR), followed by monoterpenes (10.4 %), formaldehyde (9.0 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (8.8 %), and other individual VOCs. During smoke-impacted days, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> became the largest combustion-related contributor (1.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</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>; 10.7 %), and the relative contribution of monoterpenes fell to 5.9 %, consistent with previous urban smoke OHR analyses in Boise, ID (Permar et al., 2023). Other VOC groups show similar contributions to OHR in both periods. Together, these enhancements underscore the strong influence of regional wildfire smoke on western US air quality and motivate continued monitoring of smoke exposure in communities such as Missoula.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Smoke enhancement ratios (EnRs) and emission ratios (ERs)</title>
      <p id="d2e3737">We further apply a photochemical-age framework to determine whether VOC enhancement ratios (EnRs) measured in aged smoke reaching Missoula still preserve interpretable source information after multi-day transport and mixing (Fig. 5). Originally developed for urban plumes, this framework provides a useful diagnostic for separating direct emissions, chemical removal and formation (de Gouw et al., 2017). Here, photochemical age is an oxidation-based metric inferred from the VOC ratio clock and should not be interpreted as the exact physical time since emission. Negative values occur when the observed toluene-to-benzene enhancement ratio exceeds the assumed initial ratio and indicate that the clock assumptions are not fully satisfied for those observations, and large uncertainty exists (Sect. S1 in the Supplement). For primary VOCs, linear fits of ln(EnR) versus photochemical age yield back-extrapolated time-zero emission ratios (ERs) and effective <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rate constants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) under the assumption of plume-integrated aging. For oxygenated VOCs (OVOCs), the same relationships are interpreted qualitatively because secondary formation can offset chemical loss. We provide methodological details in Sect. S1.</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e3762">Observed and modeled enhancement ratios (EnR) of key volatile organic compounds (VOCs) versus photochemical age. Panels show ln(EnR) versus photochemical age for <bold>(A)</bold> benzene, <bold>(B)</bold> toluene, <bold>(C)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics, <bold>(D)</bold> methanol, <bold>(E)</bold> formaldehyde, <bold>(F)</bold> acetaldehyde, where EnR is defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VOC</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Observations are shown as black circles and results from GEOS-Chem driven by GFAS fire emissions are shown as red circles. Points represent consecutive 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> binned data during the main aged-smoke event. Photochemical age is derived from the toluene-to-benzene ratio clock (Sect. S1).</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e3847">For relatively long-lived primary aromatics, the framework-inferred ERs are physically reasonable, indicating that aged smoke arriving in Missoula still retains measurable source signatures for these species, though the high general urban background, the initial fire emission ratio, and the potential mixing of different sources during transport introduce uncertainties that are hard to resolve. Nevertheless, if we infer back-extrapolated time-zero ERs, this approach estimates 2.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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> for benzene and 1.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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> for toluene relative to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These values agree with near-source ranges reported from the WE-CAN and FIREX-AQ campaigns within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % (benzene: 1.8–2.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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>; toluene: 1.2–1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppm</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>) (Gkatzelis et al., 2024; Permar et al., 2021), and are the same as what we inputted for the photochemical age calculation (benzene/toluene fire emission ratio of 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</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>; Sect. S1; Eq. S1). This agreement indicates that the framework can recover plausible source-like ERs for relatively unreactive primary species even after multi-day transport. However, inferred ERs for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics are higher than published near-source wildfire values by roughly a factor of 2–3, suggesting that these species were substantially influenced by non-fire sources during transport. Urban mixing is a likely contributor, consistent with city-based measurements showing elevated aromatics relative to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during wildfire-smoke periods (Cope et al., 2024).</p>
      <p id="d2e3997">Beyond ER derivation, the ln(EnR)-age framework also provides insight into the net photochemical evolution of VOCs and is not sensitive to an accurate time-zero estimate, unlike ERs. For primary VOCs, EnRs decreased significantly with photochemical age (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), and the relative decay rates broadly tracked their <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rate constants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For example, benzene exhibited only modest decay over 1 week of photochemical aging, whereas toluene and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics decayed more rapidly, consistent with their higher reactivity. The inferred <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values (Sect. S1; Eq. S7) were (9.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−13</sup> and (5.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−12</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">molec</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><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">s</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> for benzene and toluene, respectively. These values agree with the literature within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %–20 % and, again, agree with our photochemical age estimates. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics, the inferred <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (7.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−12</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">molec</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</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>) lies between those of ethylbenzene and the xylene isomers, as expected for a lumped mixture.</p>
      <p id="d2e4219">The framework becomes less robust for more reactive hydrocarbons and OVOCs. Effective kOH values inferred for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics and small alkenes are lower than literature values by factors of 3 or more, indicating that simple plume-integrated first-order loss does not adequately describe these compounds in aged smoke. A likely reason is that the most reactive species were already preferentially removed during the earliest, OH-rich stage of plume evolution, before the smoke reached Missoula. Additional uncertainty likely arises from dilution, urban mixing, background correction, and species lumping. OVOCs such as methanol, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde, exhibited weaker and often statistically insignificant ln(EnR)-age trends (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02–0.21), and in several cases the relationships flattened with age. Such behavior is consistent with secondary production partially offsetting chemical loss, while additional contributions from non-fire sources such as biogenic emissions may further obscure the relationships. Together, these results show that the ln(EnR)-age framework remains informative for relatively long-lived primary VOCs, but becomes progressively less diagnostic for reactive hydrocarbons and especially OVOCs in regionally aged smoke.</p>
      <p id="d2e4258">To complement the age-framework analysis, we also calculated event-integrated EnRs of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 27 VOCs relative to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as bulk descriptors of the aged-smoke event. These values provide an observational reference for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VOC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-to-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships in regionally aged smoke and are also used for model evaluation in Sect. 8. Species-level values and literature comparisons are provided in Table S3  and Fig. S4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Non-monotonic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e4327">Figure 6 shows the relationship between maximum daily 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> average (MDA8) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and daytime mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at Missoula during September 2020. During the strongest smoke episodes, observed MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was suppressed by up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., 6–7 September; Fig. 6A). These decreases coincide with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % reductions in downwelling shortwave radiation (SW) (Fig. S5A), a first-order proxy for actinic flux and photolysis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, consistent with reduced radical production and in situ <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> formation. Consistent with Fig. 4, MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (7 %) higher during smoke-impacted periods than during the September 2020 background, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed no discernible enhancement. In addition, heavy smoke was associated with lower observed daytime maximum temperature and a shallower planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) (Fig. S5B–C), which may further reduce surface ozone by slowing reaction rates and weakening entrainment of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-rich air aloft.</p>

      <fig id="F6" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e4492">Temporal evolution and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dependence of maximum daily 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> average ozone during September 2020. <bold>(A)</bold> Time series of daily maximum 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> average ozone (MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from surface observations (black), GEOS-Chem driven by GFAS fire emissions (red), and the AIRPACT forecast system (blue). Shaded bars (right axis) show observed daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>), providing context for smoke influence. <bold>(B)</bold> Relationship between MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and daytime <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for observations (circles), GEOS-Chem (triangles), and AIRPACT (squares). Open gray symbols show individual daily values for observations and model simulations. Solid curves denote locally weighted regression (LOWESS) fits applied consistently across datasets (smoothing fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5; robust iteration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3). AIRPACT data were obtained from the Washington State University AIRPACT data portal (<uri>https://airpact.wsu.edu/</uri>, last access: 30 July 2026). LOWESS curves are shown as descriptive guides.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e4624">Across the limited number of BB days, the relationship between MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and daytime mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is non-monotonic (Fig. 6B). A locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) curve suggests that MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases at low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>), but decreases at moderate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20–60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>). The non-monotonic relationship may reflect limited local <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> production in the absence of a concurrent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> enhancement, together with reduced photochemistry at higher aerosol loadings.</p>
      <p id="d2e4766">The non-monotonic behavior is not unique to Missoula but is also evident across other northwestern sites during the same September 2020 period. At Cheeka Peak (WA) and Eugene (OR), both of which were near BB sources during that month, daily <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reached up to 250 and 450 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> similarly increased with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under low smoke but leveled off or declined at higher aerosol loadings (Fig. S6). Similar nonlinear <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships have been reported in multi-year, multi-site analyses across the western US, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increasing with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under light-to-moderate smoke and decreasing under heavier smoke (Buysse et al., 2019; McClure and Jaffe, 2018).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <label>7</label><title>Chronic and acute health risks</title>
      <p id="d2e4874">Figure 7 summarizes the upper-limit chronic inhalation risks from wildfire smoke, assuming that a 2020-style wildfire season were to recur annually over a 70-year lifetime. We do not seek to estimate the total public-health burden of wildfire smoke, but instead use several well-defined screening metrics for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and HAPs with available toxicity values as a transparent basis for comparison. Methodological details are described in Sect. S2. Over lifetime exposure (70 years), the total excess cancer risk attributable to wildfire smoke is 100 cases per million people. Roughly 90 % of this smoke-driven risk is attributed to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the remaining 10 % arising from HAPs combined. Among HAPs, the major contributors are formaldehyde (42 % of HAP cancer risk), benzene (34 %), acetaldehyde (8 %), acrylonitrile (9 %), and naphthalene (6 %). These relative contributions agree with recent aircraft observations of lofted plumes and confirm that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dominates cancer risk both aloft and at ground level (Pye et al., 2024).</p>

      <fig id="F7" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d2e4912">Chronic health risk from fine particulate matter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). <bold>(A)</bold> Estimated excess cancer risk (cases per million people) attributed to ambient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> versus all combined HAPs. <bold>(B)</bold> Noncancer hazard index (HI) attributed to ambient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> versus combined HAPs. In each panel, slices are exploded for clarity, and labels show the percentage of total risk contributed by each component. The bottom annotation reports the overall risk magnitude: total cancer cases per million for panel <bold>(A)</bold> and HI for panel <bold>(B)</bold>.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e4967">For context, the climatological annual-mean of non-smoke background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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> in Missoula. If the same BB-impacted days had instead experienced typical non-smoke background concentrations, the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-attributable excess cancer risk would be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 cases per million people. Thus, the 2020-style wildfire season increases the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-attributable cancer risk by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the PM-related baseline. Even using a 10-fold lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> unit-risk estimate (4.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−5</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> still accounts for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % of the total cancer risk, with the total risk remaining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 cases per million people (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % higher than the baseline). Thus, even when the community's exposure to wildfire smoke is annualized and a lower-bound <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> unit-risk estimate is used,  aged wildfire smoke at the level experienced in September 2020 in Missoula still shows a quantifiable carcinogenic burden.</p>
      <p id="d2e5148">Non-cancer chronic risk is expressed as a hazard index (HI), with the dominant effects in this study associated with respiratory and cardiopulmonary systems. The full calculation framework is provided in Sect. S2. The calculated HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 indicates appreciable potential for adverse effects. HAPs account for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 % of this index, driven by acrolein (60 % of HAP non-cancer risk), formaldehyde (24 %), acetaldehyde (3 %), and all other species (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 % each). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> contributes to the remaining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %. The result contrasts with aircraft-based assessments, in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dominated non-cancer risk (O'Dell et al., 2020; Pye et al., 2024). The lower relative contribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed here likely reflects the evaporation of semi-volatile particulate mass as plumes descend from aloft to the surface (Pagonis et al., 2023; Selimovic et al., 2019, 2020). If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were assumed 10 times more toxic, it would instead contribute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 % of the HI.</p>
      <p id="d2e5231">No acute reference exposure levels (RELs) are available for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, so the acute HI analysis was restricted to HAPs. During September 2020, 719 of 720 one-hour windows exhibited HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, implying negligible acute non-cancer concern. A single exceedance (19 September, HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.05) was apportioned to acrolein (52 %), formaldehyde (32 %), benzene (12 %), and other HAPs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 %). Expanding to eight-hour windows (Fig. S7), 49 % of periods remained below the HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 threshold, whereas 51 % exceeded it, aligned with smoke incursions. Of the exceedances, 30 % fell within HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1–2 and 21 % reached up to HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5. The 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> hazards were driven by formaldehyde (38 %), acrolein (31 %), and benzene (29 %), with all other HAPs contributing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 %.</p>
      <p id="d2e5303">The recurrence of the same three drivers across acute and chronic metrics highlights two practical needs. First, smoke-impacted communities would benefit from continuous, high-time-resolution monitoring of formaldehyde, acrolein, and benzene to track rapidly evolving exposures and guide advisories. Second, because particle-only strategies do not address these gases, indoor interventions should pair particle filtration (HEPA or MERV 13+ for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with sorbent media (e.g., activated carbon) when using indoor air cleaners during smoke events (Maximoff et al., 2022; May et al., 2021).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8">
  <label>8</label><title>Model evaluation</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS1">
  <label>8.1</label><title>Model uncertainties in fire emissions and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exposure</title>
      <p id="d2e5341">Figure 8 compares hourly observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and four representative VOCs with model simulations; additional VOC comparisons are shown in Fig. S8. The default GEOS-Chem simulation captures the timing of smoke-impacted enhancements during the first two events (5–7 and 11–20 September), with high correlations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8–0.9 for hourly measurements). The agreement indicates that the model generally captures the timing, transport, and location of fire smoke. However, the model fails to reproduce the observed enhancements during Event 3 (22–24 September), likely reflecting overly efficient modeled wet scavenging during the 21 September rainout and/or unresolved smoke transport pathways discussed in Sect. 4.</p>

      <fig id="F8" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d2e5383">Time series of observed and modeled concentrations for key pollutants during September 2020 in Missoula, Montana. Observations (black lines) are compared with the base GEOS-Chem simulation (red). Also shown are two model sensitivity tests: one with tripled biomass burning emissions (GEOS-Chem <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB; blue) and one with biomass-burning emissions turned off (GEOS-Chem <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> noBB; gray). Panels show hourly averaged concentrations of <bold>(A)</bold> carbon monoxide (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(B)</bold> fine particulate matter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(C)</bold> benzene, <bold>(D)</bold> methanol, <bold>(E)</bold> formaldehyde, and <bold>(F)</bold> acetaldehyde. Model outputs are sampled at the observational location and time. Gray shading indicates smoke-impacted days based on the criteria in Sect. 3. The modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated offline from the SpeciesConc diagnostic as the sum of inorganic ions (1.10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), black carbon (BCPI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BCPO), organic matter ((OCPO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OCPI) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OM</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), fine dust (DST1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DST2), sea salt (1.86 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SALA), and secondary organic aerosol (1.05 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOAS</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOAP</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOAIE</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOAGX</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/11047/2026/acp-26-11047-2026-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e5607">Even during Events 1–2, GEOS-Chem underestimates the magnitude of fire impacts, with low biases of 30 %–40 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 60 %–80 % for primary aromatics, and 50 %–90 % for most OVOCs. Model performance during background periods is notably better, suggesting BB-related emissions and/or chemistry drive the majority of these underestimations under smoky conditions. MEK is the only exception, showing an average high bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %, reflecting overestimated anthropogenic or biogenic emissions, as pointed out in earlier studies (Chen et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2023).</p>
      <p id="d2e5637">GEOS-Chem systematically underestimates event-integrated VOC EnRs by 35 % for benzene and 60 %–80 % for other VOCs (Fig. S9), despite ERs being reproduced within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %–40 % in Fig. 5 and other work (Jin et al., 2023). This ER–EnR decoupling points to chemistry-related biases: the model overpredicts plume photochemical age (Fig. 5) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exposure (by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 %; Fig. S10), which over-oxidizes VOCs relative to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and depresses EnRs. For OVOCs, the negative bias of EnRs likely also reflects missing secondary production, particularly for methanol, formaldehyde, and acetone, which exhibit multi-day growth in aged smoke in Fig. 5 and previous work (Alvarado et al., 2020; Bates et al., 2021; Holzinger et al., 2005; Jin et al., 2023). By contrast, GEOS-Chem overestimates the event-integrated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> EnR by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 %, implying excessive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> produced (or retained) per unit <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, consistent with the reported biases in the simplified GEOS-Chem SOA scheme used here (Oak et al., 2022; Pai et al., 2019).</p>
      <p id="d2e5708">Our previous study using airborne observations to constrain total western wildfire emissions showed that GFAS likely underestimates the fuel consumed in these fires by a factor of three (Jin et al., 2023). Thus, we conducted a 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB sensitivity test, which improved overall model agreement with 2020 MSO measurements and reduced modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>. This lowered the OH-exposure positive bias from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % during Missoula smoke episodes. The remaining modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> positive bias likely reflects missing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reactivity from unrepresented compounds such as furanoids (Coggon et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2026; Permar et al., 2023). Correspondingly, gas-phase NMBs improve on average across smoke-impacted periods (CO: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 %; benzene: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>70 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %; toluene: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50 %), although <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> appears to be overcorrected during some periods, especially Event 2. Several OVOCs remain substantially underestimated (e.g., methanol <inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50 %; formaldehyde <inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>70 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 %; acetaldehyde <inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>75 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 %; acetic acid <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>45 %; acetone <inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>60 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 %), consistent with missing secondary production as a likely cause of the persistent OVOC low bias. Meanwhile, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shifts from a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % bias to a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 % bias, indicating that a uniform BB scaling cannot reconcile gases and aerosol. It also points to limitations in the default GEOS-Chem “simple SOA” fire treatment, where the SOA precursor tracer (SOAP) is parameterized proportional to BB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; scaling fire <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> therefore scales SOAP and can over-amplify OA and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during smoke events.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS2">
  <label>8.2</label><title>Model uncertainties in ozone formation under high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d2e5966">GEOS-Chem overestimates MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in September of 2020 by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on average and fails to capture the observed day-to-day variability (Fig. S11), regardless of the BB emission scenario (noBB, base, or 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB). The persistent positive bias in the noBB simulation suggests an overestimate of background MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Biases further increase on smoke days, reaching up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at Missoula and scaling with observed daytime <inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the base model (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7) (Fig. S12). Similar smoke-amplified positive ozone biases have been reported in other CTMs (e.g., CMAQ-based simulations; Fig. 6A) and in prior CTM work (Baker et al., 2016, 2018; Zhang et al., 2014), suggesting that regional-to-global CTMs may systematically overestimate background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and/or net <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> production under BB influence.</p>
      <p id="d2e6077">However, the main value of this analysis is not simply to document another case of positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias in smoke. Rather, Fig. 6B shows that GEOS-Chem does not reproduce the observed non-monotonic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship. At Missoula, the model captures the initial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increase when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30–40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>, but it predicts increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, whereas observations flatten or decline beyond this threshold. A similar failure is evident in AIRPACT, a publicly available regional air quality forecasting system (Chen et al., 2008; Vaughan et al., 2004). Across Missoula and other western US sites (e.g., Eugene, OR; Yreka, CA; Cheeka Peak, WA; Fig. S6), observations show strong <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suppression under heavy smoke, while AIRPACT predicts a monotonic increase of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Together, these consistent biases across two independent CTM frameworks point to a shared model limitation in representing the nonlinear ozone response under intense BB smoke, which may partly explain the positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bias commonly seen in CTMs under wildfire influence.</p>
      <p id="d2e6229">Part of the positive model bias may reflect errors in meteorological processes under smoke conditions. First, GEOS-Chem captures the relative reduction in broadband shortwave radiation on smoke days, suggesting reduced photolysis (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), but it still overestimates the absolute downwelling shortwave flux by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 % during smoke-impacted periods (versus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % during non-BB periods) (Fig. S5). These “over-sunny” conditions likely result in excessive radical production, although we lack observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for a direct photolysis evaluation. Second, model temperature is biased high by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.13 °C on smoke days (implying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % faster PAN thermal loss at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 289 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which could favor enhanced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> recycling and contribute to higher modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Third, model PBLH tracks the temporal variability of assimilated products (e.g., HRRR, 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) but is higher by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (33 %) during smoke. The elevated PBLH can increase entrainment of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-rich air from aloft and thereby contribute to higher modeled background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, heterogeneous <inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss in BB plumes may be too weak (Decker et al., 2019, 2021), which could prolong <inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lifetime and contribute to overproduction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under smoke (Shen et al., 2025). We cannot attribute the discrepancy to a single process, but collectively these factors provide a plausible explanation for the spurious modeled MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases during heavy smoke and the growth of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> error with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8.SS3">
  <label>8.3</label><title>Model uncertainties in health-risk estimates</title>
      <p id="d2e6476">GEOS-Chem captures the order of magnitude of the smoke-attributable excess lifetime cancer risk but still underestimates it by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 % (63 vs. 100 per million), primarily due to its low bias in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because cancer risk is dominated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> whereas HI is driven by a small number of high-potency HAPs, model errors in HAP composition have a much larger impact on HI than on cancer risk. Accordingly, the base simulation substantially underestimates chronic non-cancer risk (HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M586" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> lower than observed). For acute risk, GEOS-Chem predicts no 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI exceedances (max 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2) and only limited 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceedances (15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1; max 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2), far fewer and weaker than observed (476 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M595" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; max 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.3).</p>
      <p id="d2e6615">In the 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB sensitivity run, the modeled cancer risk increases to 155 per million (exceeding the observation-based estimate), highlighting the uncertainty in modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under smoke conditions. Acute non-cancer risk increases in the 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB run (135 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1; max 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M604" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.4), but the model still predicts no 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceedances (max 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5). This low bias in HI is driven by incomplete BB VOC representation, including underestimated BB VOC burdens (by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M610" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>), missing secondary sources, and missing high-potency HAPs (e.g., acrolein, which accounts for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % of the observed HI). Overall, CTMs such as GEOS-Chem can provide a first-order estimate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-driven cancer burden, but the predicted HI is much less reliable without improved HAP speciation, secondary production, and inclusion of high-potency compounds.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S9" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>9</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d2e6747">Missoula, Montana (46.9° N, 114.0° W), experienced persistent and chemically complex wildfire smoke during September 2020, reflecting the widespread influence of wildfires across California and the Pacific Northwest. We report hourly surface observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 75 speciated VOCs in Missoula during the wildfire-smoke-impacted month of September 2020. Of the 75 measured VOCs, 15 were classified as HAPs by the EPA. Leveraging comprehensive measurements, we quantified EnRs of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and VOCs relative to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in smoke aged for several days, and characterized the temporal evolution of criteria pollutants and VOCs under smoke-impacted and no-/low-smoke conditions. We performed nested GEOS-Chem simulations and compared them with observations to constrain BB emissions and photochemistry in the model. Finally, we assessed public health risks based on regulatory exposure metrics for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and HAPs.</p>
      <p id="d2e6822">We find that combining gas-phase tracers with conventional particle-based diagnostics improves the identification of surface-level wildfire smoke in urban environments. While traditional aerosol-based smoke diagnostics (HMS, AERONET, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) remain useful for detecting dense, optically thick plumes, they often misclassify events when plumes are aloft, optically thin, or when rainfall removes aerosols. In contrast, VOC tracers, especially furan and maleic anhydride (MA), provide complementary value: furan identifies fresh smoke, while MA captures more aged plumes. We thus develop a balanced multi-indicator rule that requires concurrent enhancements in at least three independent tracers, thereby capturing smoke episodes with higher confidence. Three major smoke events driven by long-range transport resulted in multi-day elevations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and total VOC abundances by factors of 2–3, while ozone increased only modestly and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed little to no change. In addition, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and total HAPs (which comprised approximately half of the measured TVOCs by molar fraction) increased by factors of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3–8 during smoke periods. Concurrently, the total measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reactivity approximately doubled (13.4 vs. 6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</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>), shifting the relative OHR contributions from biogenic tracers in background conditions toward <inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and BB VOCs during smoke. These results highlight the strong influence of regional wildfire smoke on air quality in the western US.</p>
      <p id="d2e6904">Photochemical-clock analysis constrains ERs for a wide range of primary VOCs in aged BB smoke, yielding values consistent with those reported for western US wildfires. The observed decay patterns of primary VOCs broadly follow their known <inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rate constants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Some underestimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M630" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (by factors of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3) for reactive VOCs likely arises from rapid depletion, dilution, or background contamination. OVOCs such as methanol, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde also decrease with age, but their shallow slopes indicate substantial secondary production offsetting primary decay.</p>
      <p id="d2e6946">Intense smoke episodes in Missoula suppressed surface ozone, with MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> declining by up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (6–7 September), coincident with 50 % reductions in solar radiation and lower planetary boundary layer heights (PBLH), confirming that reduced photolysis and weaker mixing limit in situ ozone formation. Across smoke-impacted days, the MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship was non-monotonic: ozone increased under light smoke (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M638" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>) but tended to flatten or decrease at higher smoke loadings (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≳</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M642" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>).</p>
      <p id="d2e7069">Chronic and acute health assessments indicate that prolonged exposure to 2020-level wildfire smoke in Missoula poses quantifiable health risks. If a season of similar intensity were to recur annually, the smoke-attributable excess lifetime cancer risk would be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 cases per million people (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> the non-smoke baseline of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 per million for the same days), with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> accounting for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 % of the cancer burden. The chronic non-cancer hazard index (HI) is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 % attributable to HAPs (driven primarily by acrolein and formaldehyde) and the remaining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M651" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For acute non-cancer risk, 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI exceedances are rare, but 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averaging reveals frequent smoke-aligned exceedances (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 51 % of periods with HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1). Across both chronic and acute metrics, the repeated importance of the same few HAP drivers (notably acrolein, formaldehyde, and benzene) indicates that mitigating wildfire-related health impacts should extend beyond particle-only strategies to include gas-phase toxics.</p>
      <p id="d2e7182">The GEOS-Chem simulation reproduces the timing and transport of major smoke plumes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8–0.9) but underestimates the magnitude of smoke enhancements, with model low biases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M659" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %–40 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 %–90 % for most VOCs. The model overestimates <inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exposure by roughly 100 %, leading to excessive chemical loss and artificially low EnRs for reactive VOCs. Persistent low EnRs for oxygenated VOCs further suggest missing secondary production during multi-day aging, whereas the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M664" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33 % bias in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> EnR points to overly efficient secondary aerosol formation and/or retention in the GEOS-Chem simplified “simple SOA” treatment. Tripling BB emissions (3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB) largely improves the modeled primary compounds (e.g., benzene from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>70 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M668" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %) and reduces the model bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exposure to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % within smoke-impacted periods, but the modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is worse (from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 %), demonstrating that uniform emission scaling cannot reconcile errors in both gases and aerosol. Together, these results highlight that reducing model biases in smoky environments requires not only better fire emission magnitudes but also improved representation of missing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reactivity (e.g., furanoids), secondary OVOC formation, and smoke SOA parameterizations.</p>
      <p id="d2e7334">GEOS-Chem exhibits a persistent positive bias in September MDA8  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Missoula (+15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on average) and fails to reproduce observed day-to-day variability, regardless of the BB emissions scenario (base, 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BB, or noBB). This is in part due to the modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being too high for general urban background, and the model bias further amplifies on smoke days, reaching <inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M680" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and increasing with observed daytime <inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7). More importantly, the model fails to reproduce the observed non-monotonic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> response, where observations flatten or decline beyond <inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30–40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</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>. Instead, GEOS-Chem continues to increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The same monotonic behavior is also present in the independent CMAQ-based AIRPACT forecast system across Missoula and other western US sites, pointing to a shared CTM limitation in representing nonlinear ozone responses under intense BB smoke. These model biases are likely related to overestimated radiation, warm temperature biases, PBLH/entrainment errors, and potentially too-weak heterogeneous <inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss in CTMs, although isolating the dominant drivers will require additional observational constraints.</p>
      <p id="d2e7511">GEOS-Chem underpredicts the smoke-attributable lifetime excess cancer risk by 40 % (63 vs. 100 cases per million), due to the underestimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The model's capability to predict non-cancer HI is even worse (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 in GEOS-Chem vs. 3 in observations). The model also underrepresents acute hazards, predicting limited 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceedances (15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1; max 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2), far fewer and weaker than observed (476 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; max 8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M700" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> HI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M701" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6). Overall, these results indicate that GEOS-Chem can provide a defensible screening-level estimate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M702" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-dominated cancer burden, whereas HI estimates remain unreliable without improved BB VOC speciation, secondary production pathways, and inclusion of high-potency toxics such as acrolein.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e7618">The data and analysis code supporting this study are publicly available and enable full reproduction of the figures and results presented here. The processed data archive is available at Zenodo (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18209324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.18209324</ext-link>, Jin, 2026b). The analysis code is available on GitHub at <uri>https://github.com/jinlx/Aged-wildfire-smoke-emission-chemistry-health</uri> (last access: 24 March 2026; <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21703742" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.21703742</ext-link>, Jin, 2026a). Raw air-quality observations were obtained from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and are included in the Zenodo archive. Meteorological and ancillary datasets were obtained from publicly available sources cited in the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d2e7631">The supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-11047-2026-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-11047-2026-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e7640">LJ: investigation; conceptualization; methodology; simulations; formal analysis; visualization; writing (original draft); data curation. LT: investigation; data curation; writing (review and editing). DTK: investigation; data curation; writing (review and editing). KN: investigation; data curation. VS: investigation; writing (review and editing). RJY: supervision; conceptualization; writing (review and editing). LH: supervision; conceptualization; writing (review and editing); funding acquisition. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e7646">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e7652">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e7658">High-performance computing was provided by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement no. 1852977, and by the Hellgate High-Performance Computing Cluster at the University of Montana. Air-quality observations were obtained from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and meteorological observations were obtained from the MesoWest network via the Synoptic Data API. We thank the Laboratory for Atmospheric Research at Washington State University for providing publicly available AIRPACT operational forecast output used in this study, and Dr. Jun Meng for clarifying details of the operational AIRPACT configuration. We also acknowledge the GEOS-Chem developer community for maintaining an open-source chemical transport model.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e7663">This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation (grant nos. AGS-2144896, AGS-1748266, and EPSCoR-2242802) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Program Office (grant nos. NA16OAR4310100 and NA20OAR4310296).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e7669">This paper was edited by Carsten Warneke and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Abatzoglou, J. T., Rupp, D. E., O'Neill, L. W., and Sadegh, M.: Compound Extremes Drive the Western Oregon Wildfires of September 2020, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092520, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092520" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021GL092520</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Akagi, S. K., Burling, I. R., Mendoza, A., Johnson, T. J., Cameron, M., Griffith, D. W. T., Paton-Walsh, C., Weise, D. R., Reardon, J., and Yokelson, R. J.: Field measurements of trace gases emitted by prescribed fires in southeastern US pine forests using an open-path FTIR system, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 199–215, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-199-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-199-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Albores, I. S., Buchholz, R. R., Ortega, I., Emmons, L. K., Hannigan, J. W., Lacey, F., Pfister, G., Tang, W., and Worden, H. M.: Continental-scale Atmospheric Impacts of the 2020 Western U.S. Wildfires, Atmos. Environ., 294, 119436, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119436" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119436</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Alvarado, L. M. A., Richter, A., Vrekoussis, M., Hilboll, A., Kalisz Hedegaard, A. B., Schneising, O., and Burrows, J. P.: Unexpected long-range transport of glyoxal and formaldehyde observed from the Copernicus Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite during the 2018 Canadian wildfires, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2057–2072, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2057-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-2057-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>American Lung Association: Missoula, MT, <uri>https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/msas/missoula-mt</uri> (last access: 16 August 2024), 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Tonnesen, G. S., Hutzell, W., Pye, H. O. T., Beaver, M. R., Pouliot, G., and Pierce, T.: Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M703" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> air quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches, Atmos. Environ., 140, 539–554, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Valin, L., Szykman, J., Yates, E. L., Iraci, L. T., Choi, H. D., Soja, A. J., Koplitz, S. N., Zhou, L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Jimenez, J. L., and Hair, J. W.: Photochemical model evaluation of 2013 California wild fire air quality impacts using surface, aircraft, and satellite data, Sci. Total Environ., 637–638, 1137–1149, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.048" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.048</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bates, K. H., Jacob, D. J., Wang, S., Hornbrook, R. S., Apel, E. C., Kim, M. J., Millet, D. B., Wells, K. C., Chen, X., Brewer, J. F., Ray, E. A., Commane, R., Diskin, G. S., and Wofsy, S. C.: The global budget of atmospheric methanol: new constraints on secondary, oceanic, and terrestrial sources, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,  e2020JD033439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033439" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020jd033439</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Bernays, N., Jaffe, D. A., Petropavlovskikh, I., and Effertz, P.: Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Burke, M., Driscoll, A., Heft-Neal, S., Xue, J., Burney, J., and Wara, M.: The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2011048118,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2011048118" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/PNAS.2011048118</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Buysse, C. E., Kaulfus, A., Nair, U., and Jaffe, D. A.: Relationships between Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Oxides during Urban Smoke Events in the Western US, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 12519–12528, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.9B05241" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ACS.EST.9B05241</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Chen, J., Vaughan, J., Avise, J., O'Neill, S., and Lamb, B.: Enhancement and evaluation of the AIRPACT ozone and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M704" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forecast system for the Pacific Northwest, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D14305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009554" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009554</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Chen, X., Millet, D. B., Singh, H. B., Wisthaler, A., Apel, E. C., Atlas, E. L., Blake, D. R., Bourgeois, I., Brown, S. S., Crounse, J. D., de Gouw, J. A., Flocke, F. M., Fried, A., Heikes, B. G., Hornbrook, R. S., Mikoviny, T., Min, K.-E., Müller, M., Neuman, J. A., O'Sullivan, D. W., Peischl, J., Pfister, G. G., Richter, D., Roberts, J. M., Ryerson, T. B., Shertz, S. R., Thompson, C. R., Treadaway, V., Veres, P. R., Walega, J., Warneke, C., Washenfelder, R. A., Weibring, P., and Yuan, B.: On the sources and sinks of atmospheric VOCs: an integrated analysis of recent aircraft campaigns over North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9097–9123, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9097-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-9097-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Coggon, M. M., Lim, C. Y., Koss, A. R., Sekimoto, K., Yuan, B., Gilman, J. B., Hagan, D. H., Selimovic, V., Zarzana, K. J., Brown, S. S., Roberts, J. M., Müller, M., Yokelson, R., Wisthaler, A., Krechmer, J. E., Jimenez, J. L., Cappa, C., Kroll, J. H., de Gouw, J., and Warneke, C.: OH chemistry of non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) emitted from laboratory and ambient biomass burning smoke: evaluating the influence of furans and oxygenated aromatics on ozone and secondary NMOG formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14875–14899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14875-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-14875-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Cope, E. M., Ketcherside, D. T., Jin, L., Tan, L., Mansfield, M., Jones, C., Lyman, S., Jaffe, D., and Hu, L.: Sources of Atmospheric Volatile Organic Compounds During the Salt Lake Regional Smoke, Ozone and Aerosol Study (SAMOZA) 2022, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2024JD041640, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041640" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2024JD041640</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Decker, Z. C. J., Zarzana, K. J., Coggon, M., Min, K. E., Pollack, I., Ryerson, T. B., Peischl, J., Edwards, P., Dubé, W. P., Markovic, M. Z., Roberts, J. M., Veres, P. R., Graus, M., Warneke, C., De Gouw, J., Hatch, L. E., Barsanti, K. C., and Brown, S. S.: Nighttime Chemical Transformation in Biomass Burning Plumes: A Box Model Analysis Initialized with Aircraft Observations, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 2529–2538, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05359" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.8b05359</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Decker, Z. C. J., Robinson, M. A., Barsanti, K. C., Bourgeois, I., Coggon, M. M., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Flocke, F. M., Franchin, A., Fredrickson, C. D., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hall, S. R., Halliday, H., Holmes, C. D., Huey, L. G., Lee, Y. R., Lindaas, J., Middlebrook, A. M., Montzka, D. D., Moore, R., Neuman, J. A., Nowak, J. B., Palm, B. B., Peischl, J., Piel, F., Rickly, P. S., Rollins, A. W., Ryerson, T. B., Schwantes, R. H., Sekimoto, K., Thornhill, L., Thornton, J. A., Tyndall, G. S., Ullmann, K., Van Rooy, P., Veres, P. R., Warneke, C., Washenfelder, R. A., Weinheimer, A. J., Wiggins, E., Winstead, E., Wisthaler, A., Womack, C., and Brown, S. S.: Nighttime and daytime dark oxidation chemistry in wildfire plumes: an observation and model analysis of FIREX-AQ aircraft data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16293–16317, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16293-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-16293-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>de Gouw, J. A., Warneke, C., Parrish, D. D., Holloway, J. S., Trainer, M., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.: Emission sources and ocean uptake of acetonitrile (CH3CN) in the atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4329, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002897" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002897</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>de Gouw, J. A., Warneke, C., Stohl, A., Wollny, A. G., Brock, C. A., Cooper, O. R., Holloway, J. S., Trainer, M., Fehsenfeld, F. C., Atlas, E. L., Donnelly, S. G., Stroud, V., and Lueb, A.: Volatile organic compounds composition of merged and aged forest fire plumes from Alaska and western Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D10303, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006175" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006175</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>de Gouw, J. A., Gilman, J. B., Kim, S. W., Lerner, B. M., Isaacman-VanWertz, G., McDonald, B. C., Warneke, C., Kuster, W. C., Lefer, B. L., Griffith, S. M., Dusanter, S., Stevens, P. S., and Stutz, J.: Chemistry of Volatile Organic Compounds in the Los Angeles basin: Nighttime Removal of Alkenes and Determination of Emission Ratios, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 11,843-11,861, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027459" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JD027459</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Dowell, D. C., Alexander, C. R., James, E. P., Weygandt, S. S., Benjamin, S. G., Manikin, G. S., Blake, B. T., Brown, J. M., Olson, J. B., Hu, M., Smirnova, T. G., Ladwig, T., Kenyon, J. S., Ahmadov, R., Turner, D. D., Duda, J. D., and Alcott, T. I.: The High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR): An Hourly Updating Convection-Allowing Forecast Model. Part I: Motivation and System Description, Weather Forecast., 37, 1371–1395, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0151.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-21-0151.1</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Eastham, S. D., Weisenstein, D. K., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Development and evaluation of the unified tropospheric-stratospheric chemistry extension (UCX) for the global chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem, Atmos. Environ., 89, 52–63, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.001</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Fiddler, M. N., Thompson, C., Pokhrel, R. P., Majluf, F., Canagaratna, M., Fortner, E. C., Daube, C., Roscioli, J. R., Yacovitch, T. I., Herndon, S. C., and Bililign, S.: Emission Factors From Wildfires in the Western US: An Investigation of Burning State, Ground Versus Air, and Diurnal Dependencies During the FIREX-AQ 2019 Campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2022JD038460, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD038460" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2022JD038460</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Freitas, S. R., Longo, K. M., Chatfield, R., Latham, D., Silva Dias, M. A. F., Andreae, M. O., Prins, E., Santos, J. C., Gielow, R., and Carvalho Jr., J. A.: Including the sub-grid scale plume rise of vegetation fires in low resolution atmospheric transport models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 3385–3398, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-3385-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-3385-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Gkatzelis, G. I., Coggon, M. M., Stockwell, C. E., Hornbrook, R. S., Allen, H., Apel, E. C., Bela, M. M., Blake, D. R., Bourgeois, I., Brown, S. S., Campuzano-Jost, P., St. Clair, J. M., Crawford, J. H., Crounse, J. D., Day, D. A., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Gilman, J. B., Guo, H., Hair, J. W., Halliday, H. S., Hanisco, T. F., Hannun, R., Hills, A., Huey, L. G., Jimenez, J. L., Katich, J. M., Lamplugh, A., Lee, Y. R., Liao, J., Lindaas, J., McKeen, S. A., Mikoviny, T., Nault, B. A., Neuman, J. A., Nowak, J. B., Pagonis, D., Peischl, J., Perring, A. E., Piel, F., Rickly, P. S., Robinson, M. A., Rollins, A. W., Ryerson, T. B., Schueneman, M. K., Schwantes, R. H., Schwarz, J. P., Sekimoto, K., Selimovic, V., Shingler, T., Tanner, D. J., Tomsche, L., Vasquez, K. T., Veres, P. R., Washenfelder, R., Weibring, P., Wennberg, P. O., Wisthaler, A., Wolfe, G. M., Womack, C. C., Xu, L., Ball, K., Yokelson, R. J., and Warneke, C.: Parameterizations of US wildfire and prescribed fire emission ratios and emission factors based on FIREX-AQ aircraft measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 929–956, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-929-2024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-24-929-2024</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Gould, C. F., Heft-Neal, S., Johnson, M., Aguilera, J., Burke, M., and Nadeau, K.: Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure, Annu. Rev. Med., 75, 277–292, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052422-020909" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev-med-052422-020909</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Guenther, A. B., Jiang, X., Heald, C. L., Sakulyanontvittaya, T., Duhl, T., Emmons, L. K., and Wang, X.: The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1471–1492, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Higuera, P. E. and Abatzoglou, J. T.: Record-setting climate enabled the extraordinary 2020 fire season in the western United States, Glob. Change Biol., 27, 1–2, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15388" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/GCB.15388</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T. C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z., Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.: Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 369–408, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Holzinger, R., Williams, J., Salisbury, G., Klüpfel, T., de Reus, M., Traub, M., Crutzen, P. J., and Lelieveld, J.: Oxygenated compounds in aged biomass burning plumes over the Eastern Mediterranean: evidence for strong secondary production of methanol and acetone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 39–46, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-39-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-39-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Hu, L., Millet, D. B., Baasandorj, M., Griffis, T. J., Turner, P., Helmig, D., Curtis, A. J., and Hueber, J.: Isoprene emissions and impacts over an ecological transition region in the U.S. Upper Midwest inferred from tall tower measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 3553–3571, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022732" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022732</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Jaffe, D. A., Schnieder, B., and Inouye, D.: Technical note: Use of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M705" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PM</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to CO ratio as an indicator of wildfire smoke in urban areas, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12695–12704, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12695-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-22-12695-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Jerrett, M., Jina, A. S., and Marlier, M. E.: Up in smoke: California's greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires, Environ. Pollut., 310, 119888, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119888" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119888</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Jin, L.: Analysis code for 'Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city', version 1.0.1, Zenodo [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21703742" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.21703742</ext-link>, 2026a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Jin, L.: Missoula 2020 wildfire air quality observations and model simulations supporting: Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city, Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18209324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.18209324</ext-link>, 2026b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Jin, L., Permar, W., Selimovic, V., Ketcherside, D., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Apel, E. C., Ku, I.-T., Collett Jr., J. L., Sullivan, A. P., Jaffe, D. A., Pierce, J. R., Fried, A., Coggon, M. M., Gkatzelis, G. I., Warneke, C., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.: Constraining emissions of volatile organic compounds from western US wildfires with WE-CAN and FIREX-AQ airborne observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5969–5991, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5969-2023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-23-5969-2023</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Jin, L., Coggon, M. M., Permar, W., Juncosa Calahorrano, J. F., Palm, B. B., Gkatzelis, G. I., Robinson, M. A., Bourgeois, I., Hall, S. R., Peischl, J., Ullmann, K., Thornton, J. A., Warneke, C., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., Yokelson, R. J., and Hu, L.: Ozone photochemistry in fresh biomass burning smoke over the United States, Sci. Adv., 12, eads2157, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ads2157" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.ads2157</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Joo, T., Rogers, M. J., Soong, C., Hass-Mitchell, T., Heo, S., Bell, M. L., Ng, N. L., and Gentner, D. R.: Aged and Obscured Wildfire Smoke Associated with Downwind Health Risks, Environ. Sci. Tech. Let., 11, 1340–1347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.4C00785" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.4C00785</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Kaulfus, A. S., Nair, U., Jaffe, D., Christopher, S. A., and Goodrick, S.: Biomass Burning Smoke Climatology of the United States: Implications for Particulate Matter Air Quality, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 11731–11741, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03292" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.7b03292</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Keller, C. A., Long, M. S., Yantosca, R. M., Da Silva, A. M., Pawson, S., and Jacob, D. J.: HEMCO v1.0: a versatile, ESMF-compliant component for calculating emissions in atmospheric models, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1409–1417, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1409-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-1409-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Kim, P. S., Jacob, D. J., Fisher, J. A., Travis, K., Yu, K., Zhu, L., Yantosca, R. M., Sulprizio, M. P., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Froyd, K. D., Liao, J., Hair, J. W., Fenn, M. A., Butler, C. F., Wagner, N. L., Gordon, T. D., Welti, A., Wennberg, P. O., Crounse, J. D., St. Clair, J. M., Teng, A. P., Millet, D. B., Schwarz, J. P., Markovic, M. Z., and Perring, A. E.: Sources, seasonality, and trends of southeast US aerosol: an integrated analysis of surface, aircraft, and satellite observations with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10411–10433, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10411-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-10411-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Latham, D. J.: PLUMP: a plume predictor and cloud model for fire managers, General Technical Report INT-GTR-314, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 15 pp., <uri>https://archive.org/details/CAT10687456</uri> (last access: 30 July 2026), 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Li, Q., Jacob, D. J., Bey, I., Yantosca, R. M., Zhao, Y., Kondo, Y., and Notholt, J.: Atmospheric hydrogen cyanide (HCN): Biomass burning source, ocean sink?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 357–360, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010935" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999GL010935</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Liang, Y., Weber, R. J., Misztal, P. K., Jen, C. N., and Goldstein, A. H.: Aging of Volatile Organic Compounds in October 2017 Northern California Wildfire Plumes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 56, 1557–1567, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05684" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.1c05684</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Lill, E., Lindaas, J., Juncosa Calahorrano, J. F., Campos, T., Flocke, F., Apel, E. C., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A., Jarnot, A., Blake, N., Permar, W., Hu, L., Weinheimer, A., Tyndall, G., Montzka, D. D., Hall, S. R., Ullmann, K., Thornton, J., Palm, B. B., Peng, Q., Pollack, I., and Fischer, E. V.: Wildfire-driven changes in the abundance of gas-phase pollutants in the city of Boise, ID during summer 2018, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 13, 101269, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APR.2021.101269" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.APR.2021.101269</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Lin, J. T. and McElroy, M. B.: Impacts of boundary layer mixing on pollutant vertical profiles in the lower troposphere: Implications to satellite remote sensing, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1726–1739, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.02.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.02.009</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Liu, H., Jacob, D. J., Bey, I., and Yantosca, R. M.: Constraints from 210Pb and 7Be on wet deposition and transport in a global three-dimensional chemical tracer model driven by assimilated meteorological fields, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 12109–12128, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900839" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900839</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Liu, T., Panday, F. M., Caine, M. C., Kelp, M., Pendergrass, D. C., Mickley, L. J., Ellicott, E. A., Marlier, M. E., Ahmadov, R., and James, E. P.: Is the smoke aloft? Caveats regarding the use of the Hazard Mapping System (HMS) smoke product as a proxy for surface smoke presence across the United States, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 33, WF23148, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1071/WF23148" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1071/WF23148</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Long, R. W., Whitehill, A., Habel, A., Urbanski, S., Halliday, H., Colón, M., Kaushik, S., and Landis, M. S.: Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1783–1800, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Lopez-Coto, I., Ren, X., Salmon, O. E., Karion, A., Shepson, P. B., Dickerson, R. R., Stein, A., Prasad, K., and Whetstone, J. R.: Wintertime <inline-formula><mml:math id="M706" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>2, CH4, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M707" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Emissions Estimation for the Washington, DC-Baltimore Metropolitan Area Using an Inverse Modeling Technique, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 2606–2614, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06619" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.9b06619</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Mao, J., Jacob, D. J., Evans, M. J., Olson, J. R., Ren, X., Brune, W. H., St. Clair, J. M., Crounse, J. D., Spencer, K. M., Beaver, M. R., Wennberg, P. O., Cubison, M. J., Jimenez, J. L., Fried, A., Weibring, P., Walega, J. G., Hall, S. R., Weinheimer, A. J., Cohen, R. C., Chen, G., Crawford, J. H., McNaughton, C., Clarke, A. D., Jaeglé, L., Fisher, J. A., Yantosca, R. M., Le Sager, P., and Carouge, C.: Chemistry of hydrogen oxide radicals <inline-formula><mml:math id="M708" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HO</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Arctic troposphere in spring, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5823–5838, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5823-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5823-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Mass, C. F., Ovens, D., Conrick, R., and Saltenberger, J.: The September 2020 Wildfires over the Pacific Northwest, Weather Forecast., 36, 1843–1865, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0028.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-21-0028.1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Maximoff, S. N., Mittal, R., Kaushik, A., and Dhau, J. S.: Performance evaluation of activated carbon sorbents for indoor air purification during normal and wildfire events, Chemosphere, 304, 135314, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2022.135314" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2022.135314</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>May, N. W., Dixon, C., and Jaffe, D. A.: Impact of Wildfire Smoke Events on Indoor Air Quality and Evaluation of a Low-cost Filtration Method, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 21, 210046, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4209/AAQR.210046" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4209/AAQR.210046</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>McClure, C. D. and Jaffe, D. A.: Investigation of high ozone events due to wildfire smoke in an urban area, Atmos. Environ., 194, 146–157, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2018.09.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2018.09.021</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Naeher, L. P., Brauer, M., Lipsett, M., Zelikoff, J. T., Simpson, C. D., Koenig, J. Q., and Smith, K. R.: Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, Inhal. Toxicol., 19, 67–106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370600985875" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/08958370600985875</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Navarro, K. M., Clark, K. A., Hardt, D. J., Reid, C. E., Lahm, P. W., Domitrovich, J. W., Butler, C. R., and Balmes, J. R.: Wildland firefighter exposure to smoke and COVID-19: A new risk on the fire line, Sci. Total Environ., 760, 144296, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.144296" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.144296</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Neyra-Nazarrett, O. A., Miyazaki, K., Bowman, K. W., and Saide, P. E.: An Assessment of TROPESS CrIS and TROPOMI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M709" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Retrievals and Their Synergies for the 2020 Western U.S. Wildfires, Remote Sens., 17, 1854, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/RS17111854" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/RS17111854</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Oak, Y. J., Park, R. J., Jo, D. S., Hodzic, A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Kim, H., Kim, H., Ha, E. S., Song, C. K., Yi, S. M., Diskin, G. S., Weinheimer, A. J., Blake, D. R., Wisthaler, A., Shim, M., and Shin, Y.: Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) Simulations for Seoul, Korea, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002760, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002760" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021MS002760</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>O'Dell, K., Hornbrook, R. S., Permar, W., Levin, E. J. T., Garofalo, L. A., Apel, E. C., Blake, N. J., Jarnot, A., Pothier, M. A., Farmer, D. K., Hu, L., Campos, T., Ford, B., Pierce, J. R., and Fischer, E. V.: Hazardous Air Pollutants in Fresh and Aged Western US Wildfire Smoke and Implications for Long-Term Exposure, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 11838–11847, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04497" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.0c04497</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>O'Dell, K., Bilsback, K., Ford, B., Martenies, S. E., Magzamen, S., Fischer, E. V., and Pierce, J. R.: Estimated Mortality and Morbidity Attributable to Smoke Plumes in the United States: Not Just a Western US Problem, Geohealth, 5, e2021GH000457, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000457" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021GH000457</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Pagonis, D., Selimovic, V., Campuzano-Jost, P., Guo, H., Day, D. A., Schueneman, M. K., Nault, B. A., Coggon, M. M., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fortner, E. C., Gargulinski, E. M., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hair, J. W., Herndon, S. C., Holmes, C. D., Katich, J. M., Nowak, J. B., Perring, A. E., Saide, P., Shingler, T. J., Soja, A. J., Thapa, L. H., Warneke, C., Wiggins, E. B., Wisthaler, A., Yacovitch, T. I., Yokelson, R. J., and Jimenez, J. L.: Impact of Biomass Burning Organic Aerosol Volatility on Smoke Concentrations Downwind of Fires, Environ. Sci. Technol., 57, 17011–17021, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.3C05017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ACS.EST.3C05017</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Pai, S. J., Heald, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Farina, S. C., Marais, E. A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Coe, H., Shilling, J. E., Bahreini, R., Dingle, J. H., and Vu, K.: An evaluation of global organic aerosol schemes using airborne observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2637–2665, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2637-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-2637-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Field, B. D., Yantosca, R. M., and Chin, M.: Natural and transboundary pollution influences on sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols in the United States: implications for policy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D15204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004473" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD004473</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Permar, W., Wang, Q., Selimovic, V., Wielgasz, C., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A. J., Apel, E. C., Ku, I., Zhou, Y., Sive, B. C., Sullivan, A. P., Collett, J. L., Campos, T. L., Palm, B. B., Peng, Q., Thornton, J. A., Garofalo, L. A., Farmer, D. K., Kreidenweis, S. M., Levin, E. J. T., DeMott, P. J., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.: Emissions of trace organic gases from western U.S. wildfires based on WE-CAN aircraft measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  126, e2020JD033838,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033838" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020jd033838</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Permar, W., Jin, L., Peng, Q., O'Dell, K., Lill, E., Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A. J., Apel, E. C., Ku, I.-T., Zhou, Y., Sive, B. C., Sullivan, A. P., Collett, J. L., Palm, B. B., Thornton, J. A., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.: Atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M710" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reactivity in the western United States determined from comprehensive gas-phase measurements during WE-CAN, Environ. Sci. Atmos., 3, 97–114, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00063F" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/D2EA00063F</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Pfister, G. G., Avise, J., Wiedinmyer, C., Edwards, D. P., Emmons, L. K., Diskin, G. D., Podolske, J., and Wisthaler, A.: CO source contribution analysis for California during ARCTAS-CARB, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7515–7532, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7515-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7515-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Pye, H. O. T., Xu, L., Henderson, B. H., Pagonis, D., Campuzano-Jost, P., Guo, H., Jimenez, J. L., Allen, C., Skipper, T. N., Halliday, H. S., Murphy, B. N., D'Ambro, E. L., Wennberg, P. O., Place, B. K., Wiser, F. C., McNeill, V. F., Apel, E. C., Blake, D. R., Coggon, M. M., Crounse, J. D., Gilman, J. B., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hanisco, T. F., Huey, L. G., Katich, J. M., Lamplugh, A., Lindaas, J., Peischl, J., St Clair, J. M., Warneke, C., Wolfe, G. M., and Womack, C.: Evolution of Reactive Organic Compounds and Their Potential Health Risk in Wildfire Smoke, Environ. Sci. Technol., 58,  19785–19796,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06187" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.4c06187</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Reid, C. E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F. H., Jerrett, M., Balmes, J. R., and Elliott, C. T.: Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure, Environ. Health Perspect., 124, 1334–1343, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP.1409277" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1289/EHP.1409277</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Reilly, M. J., Zuspan, A., Halofsky, J. S., Raymond, C., McEvoy, A., Dye, A. W., Donato, D. C., Kim, J. B., Potter, B. E., Walker, N., Davis, R. J., Dunn, C. J., Bell, D. M., Gregory, M. J., Johnston, J. D., Harvey, B. J., Halofsky, J. E., and Kerns, B. K.: Cascadia Burning: The historic, but not historically unprecedented, 2020 wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, USA, Ecosphere, 13, e4070, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4070" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ecs2.4070</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Rémy, S., Veira, A., Paugam, R., Sofiev, M., Kaiser, J. W., Marenco, F., Burton, S. P., Benedetti, A., Engelen, R. J., Ferrare, R., and Hair, J. W.: Two global data sets of daily fire emission injection heights since 2003, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2921–2942, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Schmidt, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Horowitz, H. M., Hu, L., Sherwen, T., Evans, M. J., Liang, Q., Suleiman, R. M., Oram, D. E., Le Breton, M., Percival, C. J., Wang, S., Dix, B., and Volkamer, R.: Modeling the observed tropospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M711" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BrO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> background: Importance of multiphase chemistry and implications for ozone, OH, and mercury, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 11819–11835, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024229" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024229</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Sekimoto, K., Li, S. M., Yuan, B., Koss, A., Coggon, M., Warneke, C., and de Gouw, J.: Calculation of the sensitivity of proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) for organic trace gases using molecular properties, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 421, 71–94, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMS.2017.04.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.IJMS.2017.04.006</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.: In situ measurements of trace gases, PM, and aerosol optical properties during the 2017 NW US wildfire smoke event, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3905–3926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.: Aerosol Mass and Optical Properties, Smoke Influence on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M712" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and High <inline-formula><mml:math id="M713" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Production Rates in a Western U.S. City Impacted by Wildfires, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032791, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032791" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD032791</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Selimovic, V., Ketcherside, D., Chaliyakunnel, S., Wielgasz, C., Permar, W., Angot, H., Millet, D. B., Fried, A., Helmig, D., and Hu, L.: Atmospheric biogenic volatile organic compounds in the Alaskan Arctic tundra: constraints from measurements at Toolik Field Station, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14037–14058, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14037-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-22-14037-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Semmens, E. O., Leary, C. S., West, M. R., Noonan, C. W., Navarro, K. M., and Domitrovich, J. W.: Carbon monoxide exposures in wildland firefighters in the United States and targets for exposure reduction, J. Expo. Sci. Env. Epid., 31, 923–929, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/S41370-021-00371-Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/S41370-021-00371-Z</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Shen, J., Cohen, R. C., Wolfe, G. M., and Jin, X.: Impacts of wildfire smoke aerosols on near-surface ozone photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 8701–8718, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8701-2025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-25-8701-2025</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>United States Forest Service: Sierra National Forest Declares the Creek Fire 100 % contained, Forest Service, <uri>https://web.archive.org/web/20260122133611id_/https://www.fs.usda.gov/r05/sierra/newsroom/releases/sierra-national-forest-declares-creek-fire-100-contained</uri> (last access: 30 July 2026), 2020. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., Mu, M., van Marle, M. J. E., Morton, D. C., Collatz, G. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Kasibhatla, P. S.: Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 697–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-9-697-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Vaughan, J., Lamb, B., Frei, C., Wilson, R., Bowman, C., Figueroa-Kaminsky, C., Otterson, S., Boyer, M., Mass, C., Albright, M., Koenig, J., Collingwood, A., Gilroy, M., and Maykut, N.: A Numerical Daily Air Quality Forecast System for The Pacific Northwest, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85, 549–562, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-4-549" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-85-4-549</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y. X., McElroy, M. B., Jacob, D. J., and Yantosca, R. M.: A nested grid formulation for chemical transport over Asia: Applications to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M714" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109,  D22307,   <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005237" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005237</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 23, 1293–1304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Western Regional Air Partnership: 2002 fire emission inventory for the WRAP region – Phase II, Project No. 178-6, prepared for the Western Governors' Association/Western Regional Air Partnership by Air Sciences Inc., Denver, CO, 22 July 2005, <uri>https://web.archive.org/web/20191023232343id_/https://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/WRAP_2002_PhII_EI_Report_20050722.pdf</uri> (last access: 30 July 2026), 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Yu, M., Zhang, S., Ning, H., Li, Z., and Zhang, K.: Assessing the 2023 Canadian wildfire smoke impact in Northeastern US: Air quality, exposure and environmental justice, Sci. Total Environ., 926, 171853, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2024.171853" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2024.171853</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Jacob, D. J., Yue, X., Downey, N. V., Wood, D. A., and Blewitt, D.: Sources contributing to background surface ozone in the US Intermountain West, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 5295–5309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5295-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-5295-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abatzoglou, J. T., Rupp, D. E., O'Neill, L. W., and Sadegh, M.:
Compound Extremes Drive the Western Oregon Wildfires of September 2020, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092520, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092520" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092520</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Akagi, S. K., Burling, I. R., Mendoza, A., Johnson, T. J., Cameron, M., Griffith, D. W. T., Paton-Walsh, C., Weise, D. R., Reardon, J., and Yokelson, R. J.:
Field measurements of trace gases emitted by prescribed fires in southeastern US pine forests using an open-path FTIR system, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 199–215, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-199-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-199-2014</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Albores, I. S., Buchholz, R. R., Ortega, I., Emmons, L. K., Hannigan, J. W., Lacey, F., Pfister, G., Tang, W., and Worden, H. M.:
Continental-scale Atmospheric Impacts of the 2020 Western U.S. Wildfires, Atmos. Environ., 294, 119436, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119436" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119436</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Alvarado, L. M. A., Richter, A., Vrekoussis, M., Hilboll, A., Kalisz Hedegaard, A. B., Schneising, O., and Burrows, J. P.:
Unexpected long-range transport of glyoxal and formaldehyde observed from the Copernicus Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite during the 2018 Canadian wildfires, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2057–2072, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2057-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2057-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
American Lung Association: Missoula, MT, <a href="https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/msas/missoula-mt" target="_blank"/> (last access: 16 August 2024), 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Tonnesen, G. S., Hutzell, W., Pye, H. O. T., Beaver, M. R., Pouliot, G., and Pierce, T.:
Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and PM<sub>2.5</sub> air quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches, Atmos. Environ., 140, 539–554, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Valin, L., Szykman, J., Yates, E. L., Iraci, L. T., Choi, H. D., Soja, A. J., Koplitz, S. N., Zhou, L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Jimenez, J. L., and Hair, J. W.:
Photochemical model evaluation of 2013 California wild fire air quality impacts using surface, aircraft, and satellite data, Sci. Total Environ., 637–638, 1137–1149, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.048" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.048</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
Bates, K. H., Jacob, D. J., Wang, S., Hornbrook, R. S., Apel, E. C., Kim, M. J., Millet, D. B., Wells, K. C., Chen, X., Brewer, J. F., Ray, E. A., Commane, R., Diskin, G. S., and Wofsy, S. C.:
The global budget of atmospheric methanol: new constraints on secondary, oceanic, and terrestrial sources, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,  e2020JD033439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033439" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033439</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Bernays, N., Jaffe, D. A., Petropavlovskikh, I., and Effertz, P.:
Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Burke, M., Driscoll, A., Heft-Neal, S., Xue, J., Burney, J., and Wara, M.:
The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2011048118,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2011048118" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2011048118</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Buysse, C. E., Kaulfus, A., Nair, U., and Jaffe, D. A.:
Relationships between Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Oxides during Urban Smoke Events in the Western US, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 12519–12528, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.9B05241" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.9B05241</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chen, J., Vaughan, J., Avise, J., O'Neill, S., and Lamb, B.:
Enhancement and evaluation of the AIRPACT ozone and PM<sub>2.5</sub> forecast system for the Pacific Northwest, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D14305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009554" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009554</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chen, X., Millet, D. B., Singh, H. B., Wisthaler, A., Apel, E. C., Atlas, E. L., Blake, D. R., Bourgeois, I., Brown, S. S., Crounse, J. D., de Gouw, J. A., Flocke, F. M., Fried, A., Heikes, B. G., Hornbrook, R. S., Mikoviny, T., Min, K.-E., Müller, M., Neuman, J. A., O'Sullivan, D. W., Peischl, J., Pfister, G. G., Richter, D., Roberts, J. M., Ryerson, T. B., Shertz, S. R., Thompson, C. R., Treadaway, V., Veres, P. R., Walega, J., Warneke, C., Washenfelder, R. A., Weibring, P., and Yuan, B.:
On the sources and sinks of atmospheric VOCs: an integrated analysis of recent aircraft campaigns over North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9097–9123, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9097-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9097-2019</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Coggon, M. M., Lim, C. Y., Koss, A. R., Sekimoto, K., Yuan, B., Gilman, J. B., Hagan, D. H., Selimovic, V., Zarzana, K. J., Brown, S. S., Roberts, J. M., Müller, M., Yokelson, R., Wisthaler, A., Krechmer, J. E., Jimenez, J. L., Cappa, C., Kroll, J. H., de Gouw, J., and Warneke, C.:
OH chemistry of non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) emitted from laboratory and ambient biomass burning smoke: evaluating the influence of furans and oxygenated aromatics on ozone and secondary NMOG formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14875–14899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14875-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14875-2019</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Cope, E. M., Ketcherside, D. T., Jin, L., Tan, L., Mansfield, M., Jones, C., Lyman, S., Jaffe, D., and Hu, L.:
Sources of Atmospheric Volatile Organic Compounds During the Salt Lake Regional Smoke, Ozone and Aerosol Study (SAMOZA) 2022, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2024JD041640, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041640" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041640</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Decker, Z. C. J., Zarzana, K. J., Coggon, M., Min, K. E., Pollack, I., Ryerson, T. B., Peischl, J., Edwards, P., Dubé, W. P., Markovic, M. Z., Roberts, J. M., Veres, P. R., Graus, M., Warneke, C., De Gouw, J., Hatch, L. E., Barsanti, K. C., and Brown, S. S.:
Nighttime Chemical Transformation in Biomass Burning Plumes: A Box Model Analysis Initialized with Aircraft Observations, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 2529–2538, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05359" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05359</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Decker, Z. C. J., Robinson, M. A., Barsanti, K. C., Bourgeois, I., Coggon, M. M., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Flocke, F. M., Franchin, A., Fredrickson, C. D., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hall, S. R., Halliday, H., Holmes, C. D., Huey, L. G., Lee, Y. R., Lindaas, J., Middlebrook, A. M., Montzka, D. D., Moore, R., Neuman, J. A., Nowak, J. B., Palm, B. B., Peischl, J., Piel, F., Rickly, P. S., Rollins, A. W., Ryerson, T. B., Schwantes, R. H., Sekimoto, K., Thornhill, L., Thornton, J. A., Tyndall, G. S., Ullmann, K., Van Rooy, P., Veres, P. R., Warneke, C., Washenfelder, R. A., Weinheimer, A. J., Wiggins, E., Winstead, E., Wisthaler, A., Womack, C., and Brown, S. S.:
Nighttime and daytime dark oxidation chemistry in wildfire plumes: an observation and model analysis of FIREX-AQ aircraft data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16293–16317, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16293-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16293-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
de Gouw, J. A., Warneke, C., Parrish, D. D., Holloway, J. S., Trainer, M., and Fehsenfeld, F. C.:
Emission sources and ocean uptake of acetonitrile (CH3CN) in the atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4329, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002897" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002897</a>, 2003.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
de Gouw, J. A., Warneke, C., Stohl, A., Wollny, A. G., Brock, C. A., Cooper, O. R., Holloway, J. S., Trainer, M., Fehsenfeld, F. C., Atlas, E. L., Donnelly, S. G., Stroud, V., and Lueb, A.:
Volatile organic compounds composition of merged and aged forest fire plumes from Alaska and western Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D10303, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006175" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006175</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
de Gouw, J. A., Gilman, J. B., Kim, S. W., Lerner, B. M., Isaacman-VanWertz, G., McDonald, B. C., Warneke, C., Kuster, W. C., Lefer, B. L., Griffith, S. M., Dusanter, S., Stevens, P. S., and Stutz, J.:
Chemistry of Volatile Organic Compounds in the Los Angeles basin: Nighttime Removal of Alkenes and Determination of Emission Ratios, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 11,843-11,861, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027459" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027459</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dowell, D. C., Alexander, C. R., James, E. P., Weygandt, S. S., Benjamin, S. G., Manikin, G. S., Blake, B. T., Brown, J. M., Olson, J. B., Hu, M., Smirnova, T. G., Ladwig, T., Kenyon, J. S., Ahmadov, R., Turner, D. D., Duda, J. D., and Alcott, T. I.:
The High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR): An Hourly Updating Convection-Allowing Forecast Model. Part I: Motivation and System Description, Weather Forecast., 37, 1371–1395, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0151.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0151.1</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Eastham, S. D., Weisenstein, D. K., and Barrett, S. R. H.:
Development and evaluation of the unified tropospheric-stratospheric chemistry extension (UCX) for the global chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem, Atmos. Environ., 89, 52–63, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.001</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fiddler, M. N., Thompson, C., Pokhrel, R. P., Majluf, F., Canagaratna, M., Fortner, E. C., Daube, C., Roscioli, J. R., Yacovitch, T. I., Herndon, S. C., and Bililign, S.:
Emission Factors From Wildfires in the Western US: An Investigation of Burning State, Ground Versus Air, and Diurnal Dependencies During the FIREX-AQ 2019 Campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2022JD038460, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD038460" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD038460</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Freitas, S. R., Longo, K. M., Chatfield, R., Latham, D., Silva Dias, M. A. F., Andreae, M. O., Prins, E., Santos, J. C., Gielow, R., and Carvalho Jr., J. A.:
Including the sub-grid scale plume rise of vegetation fires in low resolution atmospheric transport models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 3385–3398, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-3385-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-3385-2007</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gkatzelis, G. I., Coggon, M. M., Stockwell, C. E., Hornbrook, R. S., Allen, H., Apel, E. C., Bela, M. M., Blake, D. R., Bourgeois, I., Brown, S. S., Campuzano-Jost, P., St. Clair, J. M., Crawford, J. H., Crounse, J. D., Day, D. A., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Gilman, J. B., Guo, H., Hair, J. W., Halliday, H. S., Hanisco, T. F., Hannun, R., Hills, A., Huey, L. G., Jimenez, J. L., Katich, J. M., Lamplugh, A., Lee, Y. R., Liao, J., Lindaas, J., McKeen, S. A., Mikoviny, T., Nault, B. A., Neuman, J. A., Nowak, J. B., Pagonis, D., Peischl, J., Perring, A. E., Piel, F., Rickly, P. S., Robinson, M. A., Rollins, A. W., Ryerson, T. B., Schueneman, M. K., Schwantes, R. H., Schwarz, J. P., Sekimoto, K., Selimovic, V., Shingler, T., Tanner, D. J., Tomsche, L., Vasquez, K. T., Veres, P. R., Washenfelder, R., Weibring, P., Wennberg, P. O., Wisthaler, A., Wolfe, G. M., Womack, C. C., Xu, L., Ball, K., Yokelson, R. J., and Warneke, C.:
Parameterizations of US wildfire and prescribed fire emission ratios and emission factors based on FIREX-AQ aircraft measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 929–956, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-929-2024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-929-2024</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gould, C. F., Heft-Neal, S., Johnson, M., Aguilera, J., Burke, M., and Nadeau, K.:
Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure, Annu. Rev. Med., 75, 277–292, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052422-020909" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052422-020909</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
Guenther, A. B., Jiang, X., Heald, C. L., Sakulyanontvittaya, T., Duhl, T., Emmons, L. K., and Wang, X.:
The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1471–1492, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Higuera, P. E. and Abatzoglou, J. T.:
Record-setting climate enabled the extraordinary 2020 fire season in the western United States, Glob. Change Biol., 27, 1–2, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15388" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15388</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T. C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z., Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.:
Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 369–408, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Holzinger, R., Williams, J., Salisbury, G., Klüpfel, T., de Reus, M., Traub, M., Crutzen, P. J., and Lelieveld, J.:
Oxygenated compounds in aged biomass burning plumes over the Eastern Mediterranean: evidence for strong secondary production of methanol and acetone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 39–46, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-39-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-39-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hu, L., Millet, D. B., Baasandorj, M., Griffis, T. J., Turner, P., Helmig, D., Curtis, A. J., and Hueber, J.:
Isoprene emissions and impacts over an ecological transition region in the U.S. Upper Midwest inferred from tall tower measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 3553–3571, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022732" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022732</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jaffe, D. A., Schnieder, B., and Inouye, D.:
Technical note: Use of PM<sub>2.5</sub> to CO ratio as an indicator of wildfire smoke in urban areas, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12695–12704, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12695-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12695-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jerrett, M., Jina, A. S., and Marlier, M. E.:
Up in smoke: California's greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires, Environ. Pollut., 310, 119888, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119888" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119888</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jin, L.: Analysis code for 'Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city', version 1.0.1, Zenodo [code], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21703742" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21703742</a>, 2026a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jin, L.: Missoula 2020 wildfire air quality observations and model simulations supporting: Characterizing emissions, chemistry, and health impacts of aged wildfire smoke in a western US city, Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18209324" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18209324</a>, 2026b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jin, L., Permar, W., Selimovic, V., Ketcherside, D., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Apel, E. C., Ku, I.-T., Collett Jr., J. L., Sullivan, A. P., Jaffe, D. A., Pierce, J. R., Fried, A., Coggon, M. M., Gkatzelis, G. I., Warneke, C., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.:
Constraining emissions of volatile organic compounds from western US wildfires with WE-CAN and FIREX-AQ airborne observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5969–5991, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5969-2023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5969-2023</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jin, L., Coggon, M. M., Permar, W., Juncosa Calahorrano, J. F., Palm, B. B., Gkatzelis, G. I., Robinson, M. A., Bourgeois, I., Hall, S. R., Peischl, J., Ullmann, K., Thornton, J. A., Warneke, C., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., Yokelson, R. J., and Hu, L.:
Ozone photochemistry in fresh biomass burning smoke over the United States, Sci. Adv., 12, eads2157, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ads2157" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ads2157</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Joo, T., Rogers, M. J., Soong, C., Hass-Mitchell, T., Heo, S., Bell, M. L., Ng, N. L., and Gentner, D. R.:
Aged and Obscured Wildfire Smoke Associated with Downwind Health Risks, Environ. Sci. Tech. Let., 11, 1340–1347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.4C00785" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.4C00785</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kaulfus, A. S., Nair, U., Jaffe, D., Christopher, S. A., and Goodrick, S.:
Biomass Burning Smoke Climatology of the United States: Implications for Particulate Matter Air Quality, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 11731–11741, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03292" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03292</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Keller, C. A., Long, M. S., Yantosca, R. M., Da Silva, A. M., Pawson, S., and Jacob, D. J.:
HEMCO v1.0: a versatile, ESMF-compliant component for calculating emissions in atmospheric models, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1409–1417, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1409-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1409-2014</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kim, P. S., Jacob, D. J., Fisher, J. A., Travis, K., Yu, K., Zhu, L., Yantosca, R. M., Sulprizio, M. P., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Froyd, K. D., Liao, J., Hair, J. W., Fenn, M. A., Butler, C. F., Wagner, N. L., Gordon, T. D., Welti, A., Wennberg, P. O., Crounse, J. D., St. Clair, J. M., Teng, A. P., Millet, D. B., Schwarz, J. P., Markovic, M. Z., and Perring, A. E.:
Sources, seasonality, and trends of southeast US aerosol: an integrated analysis of surface, aircraft, and satellite observations with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10411–10433, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10411-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10411-2015</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Latham, D. J.: PLUMP: a plume predictor and cloud model for fire managers, General Technical Report INT-GTR-314, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 15 pp., <a href="https://archive.org/details/CAT10687456" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 July 2026), 1994.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Li, Q., Jacob, D. J., Bey, I., Yantosca, R. M., Zhao, Y., Kondo, Y., and Notholt, J.:
Atmospheric hydrogen cyanide (HCN): Biomass burning source, ocean sink?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 357–360, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010935" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010935</a>, 2000.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liang, Y., Weber, R. J., Misztal, P. K., Jen, C. N., and Goldstein, A. H.:
Aging of Volatile Organic Compounds in October 2017 Northern California Wildfire Plumes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 56, 1557–1567, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05684" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05684</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lill, E., Lindaas, J., Juncosa Calahorrano, J. F., Campos, T., Flocke, F., Apel, E. C., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A., Jarnot, A., Blake, N., Permar, W., Hu, L., Weinheimer, A., Tyndall, G., Montzka, D. D., Hall, S. R., Ullmann, K., Thornton, J., Palm, B. B., Peng, Q., Pollack, I., and Fischer, E. V.:
Wildfire-driven changes in the abundance of gas-phase pollutants in the city of Boise, ID during summer 2018, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 13, 101269, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APR.2021.101269" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APR.2021.101269</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lin, J. T. and McElroy, M. B.:
Impacts of boundary layer mixing on pollutant vertical profiles in the lower troposphere: Implications to satellite remote sensing, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1726–1739, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.02.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.02.009</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liu, H., Jacob, D. J., Bey, I., and Yantosca, R. M.:
Constraints from 210Pb and 7Be on wet deposition and transport in a global three-dimensional chemical tracer model driven by assimilated meteorological fields, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 12109–12128, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900839" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900839</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liu, T., Panday, F. M., Caine, M. C., Kelp, M., Pendergrass, D. C., Mickley, L. J., Ellicott, E. A., Marlier, M. E., Ahmadov, R., and James, E. P.:
Is the smoke aloft? Caveats regarding the use of the Hazard Mapping System (HMS) smoke product as a proxy for surface smoke presence across the United States, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 33, WF23148, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/WF23148" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1071/WF23148</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
      
Long, R. W., Whitehill, A., Habel, A., Urbanski, S., Halliday, H., Colón, M., Kaushik, S., and Landis, M. S.:
Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1783–1800, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1783-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lopez-Coto, I., Ren, X., Salmon, O. E., Karion, A., Shepson, P. B., Dickerson, R. R., Stein, A., Prasad, K., and Whetstone, J. R.:
Wintertime CO2, CH4, and CO Emissions Estimation for the Washington, DC-Baltimore Metropolitan Area Using an Inverse Modeling Technique, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 2606–2614, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06619" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06619</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mao, J., Jacob, D. J., Evans, M. J., Olson, J. R., Ren, X., Brune, W. H., St. Clair, J. M., Crounse, J. D., Spencer, K. M., Beaver, M. R., Wennberg, P. O., Cubison, M. J., Jimenez, J. L., Fried, A., Weibring, P., Walega, J. G., Hall, S. R., Weinheimer, A. J., Cohen, R. C., Chen, G., Crawford, J. H., McNaughton, C., Clarke, A. D., Jaeglé, L., Fisher, J. A., Yantosca, R. M., Le Sager, P., and Carouge, C.:
Chemistry of hydrogen oxide radicals (HO<sub>x</sub>) in the Arctic troposphere in spring, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5823–5838, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5823-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5823-2010</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mass, C. F., Ovens, D., Conrick, R., and Saltenberger, J.:
The September 2020 Wildfires over the Pacific Northwest, Weather Forecast., 36, 1843–1865, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0028.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0028.1</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
      
Maximoff, S. N., Mittal, R., Kaushik, A., and Dhau, J. S.:
Performance evaluation of activated carbon sorbents for indoor air purification during normal and wildfire events, Chemosphere, 304, 135314, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2022.135314" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2022.135314</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
      
May, N. W., Dixon, C., and Jaffe, D. A.:
Impact of Wildfire Smoke Events on Indoor Air Quality and Evaluation of a Low-cost Filtration Method, Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 21, 210046, <a href="https://doi.org/10.4209/AAQR.210046" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4209/AAQR.210046</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
      
McClure, C. D. and Jaffe, D. A.:
Investigation of high ozone events due to wildfire smoke in an urban area, Atmos. Environ., 194, 146–157, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2018.09.021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2018.09.021</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
      
Naeher, L. P., Brauer, M., Lipsett, M., Zelikoff, J. T., Simpson, C. D., Koenig, J. Q., and Smith, K. R.:
Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, Inhal. Toxicol., 19, 67–106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370600985875" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370600985875</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
      
Navarro, K. M., Clark, K. A., Hardt, D. J., Reid, C. E., Lahm, P. W., Domitrovich, J. W., Butler, C. R., and Balmes, J. R.:
Wildland firefighter exposure to smoke and COVID-19: A new risk on the fire line, Sci. Total Environ., 760, 144296, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.144296" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.144296</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
      
Neyra-Nazarrett, O. A., Miyazaki, K., Bowman, K. W., and Saide, P. E.:
An Assessment of TROPESS CrIS and TROPOMI CO Retrievals and Their Synergies for the 2020 Western U.S. Wildfires, Remote Sens., 17, 1854, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/RS17111854" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/RS17111854</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
      
Oak, Y. J., Park, R. J., Jo, D. S., Hodzic, A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Kim, H., Kim, H., Ha, E. S., Song, C. K., Yi, S. M., Diskin, G. S., Weinheimer, A. J., Blake, D. R., Wisthaler, A., Shim, M., and Shin, Y.:
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) Simulations for Seoul, Korea, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002760, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002760" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002760</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
      
O'Dell, K., Hornbrook, R. S., Permar, W., Levin, E. J. T., Garofalo, L. A., Apel, E. C., Blake, N. J., Jarnot, A., Pothier, M. A., Farmer, D. K., Hu, L., Campos, T., Ford, B., Pierce, J. R., and Fischer, E. V.:
Hazardous Air Pollutants in Fresh and Aged Western US Wildfire Smoke and Implications for Long-Term Exposure, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 11838–11847, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04497" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04497</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
      
O'Dell, K., Bilsback, K., Ford, B., Martenies, S. E., Magzamen, S., Fischer, E. V., and Pierce, J. R.:
Estimated Mortality and Morbidity Attributable to Smoke Plumes in the United States: Not Just a Western US Problem, Geohealth, 5, e2021GH000457, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000457" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000457</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pagonis, D., Selimovic, V., Campuzano-Jost, P., Guo, H., Day, D. A., Schueneman, M. K., Nault, B. A., Coggon, M. M., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fortner, E. C., Gargulinski, E. M., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hair, J. W., Herndon, S. C., Holmes, C. D., Katich, J. M., Nowak, J. B., Perring, A. E., Saide, P., Shingler, T. J., Soja, A. J., Thapa, L. H., Warneke, C., Wiggins, E. B., Wisthaler, A., Yacovitch, T. I., Yokelson, R. J., and Jimenez, J. L.:
Impact of Biomass Burning Organic Aerosol Volatility on Smoke Concentrations Downwind of Fires, Environ. Sci. Technol., 57, 17011–17021, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.3C05017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.3C05017</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pai, S. J., Heald, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Farina, S. C., Marais, E. A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Coe, H., Shilling, J. E., Bahreini, R., Dingle, J. H., and Vu, K.:
An evaluation of global organic aerosol schemes using airborne observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2637–2665, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2637-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2637-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
      
Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Field, B. D., Yantosca, R. M., and Chin, M.: Natural and transboundary pollution influences on sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols in the United States: implications for policy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D15204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004473" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004473</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
      
Permar, W., Wang, Q., Selimovic, V., Wielgasz, C., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A. J., Apel, E. C., Ku, I., Zhou, Y., Sive, B. C., Sullivan, A. P., Collett, J. L., Campos, T. L., Palm, B. B., Peng, Q., Thornton, J. A., Garofalo, L. A., Farmer, D. K., Kreidenweis, S. M., Levin, E. J. T., DeMott, P. J., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.:
Emissions of trace organic gases from western U.S. wildfires based on WE-CAN aircraft measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  126, e2020JD033838,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033838" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033838</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
      
Permar, W., Jin, L., Peng, Q., O'Dell, K., Lill, E., Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A. J., Apel, E. C., Ku, I.-T., Zhou, Y., Sive, B. C., Sullivan, A. P., Collett, J. L., Palm, B. B., Thornton, J. A., Flocke, F., Fischer, E. V., and Hu, L.:
Atmospheric OH reactivity in the western United States determined from comprehensive gas-phase measurements during WE-CAN, Environ. Sci. Atmos., 3, 97–114, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00063F" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00063F</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pfister, G. G., Avise, J., Wiedinmyer, C., Edwards, D. P., Emmons, L. K., Diskin, G. D., Podolske, J., and Wisthaler, A.:
CO source contribution analysis for California during ARCTAS-CARB, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7515–7532, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7515-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7515-2011</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pye, H. O. T., Xu, L., Henderson, B. H., Pagonis, D., Campuzano-Jost, P., Guo, H., Jimenez, J. L., Allen, C., Skipper, T. N., Halliday, H. S., Murphy, B. N., D'Ambro, E. L., Wennberg, P. O., Place, B. K., Wiser, F. C., McNeill, V. F., Apel, E. C., Blake, D. R., Coggon, M. M., Crounse, J. D., Gilman, J. B., Gkatzelis, G. I., Hanisco, T. F., Huey, L. G., Katich, J. M., Lamplugh, A., Lindaas, J., Peischl, J., St Clair, J. M., Warneke, C., Wolfe, G. M., and Womack, C.:
Evolution of Reactive Organic Compounds and Their Potential Health Risk in Wildfire Smoke, Environ. Sci. Technol., 58,  19785–19796,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06187" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06187</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
      
Reid, C. E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F. H., Jerrett, M., Balmes, J. R., and Elliott, C. T.:
Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure, Environ. Health Perspect., 124, 1334–1343, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP.1409277" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP.1409277</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
      
Reilly, M. J., Zuspan, A., Halofsky, J. S., Raymond, C., McEvoy, A., Dye, A. W., Donato, D. C., Kim, J. B., Potter, B. E., Walker, N., Davis, R. J., Dunn, C. J., Bell, D. M., Gregory, M. J., Johnston, J. D., Harvey, B. J., Halofsky, J. E., and Kerns, B. K.:
Cascadia Burning: The historic, but not historically unprecedented, 2020 wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, USA, Ecosphere, 13, e4070, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4070" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4070</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
      
Rémy, S., Veira, A., Paugam, R., Sofiev, M., Kaiser, J. W., Marenco, F., Burton, S. P., Benedetti, A., Engelen, R. J., Ferrare, R., and Hair, J. W.:
Two global data sets of daily fire emission injection heights since 2003, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2921–2942, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
      
Schmidt, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Horowitz, H. M., Hu, L., Sherwen, T., Evans, M. J., Liang, Q., Suleiman, R. M., Oram, D. E., Le Breton, M., Percival, C. J., Wang, S., Dix, B., and Volkamer, R.:
Modeling the observed tropospheric BrO background: Importance of multiphase chemistry and implications for ozone, OH, and mercury, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 11819–11835, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024229" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024229</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sekimoto, K., Li, S. M., Yuan, B., Koss, A., Coggon, M., Warneke, C., and de Gouw, J.:
Calculation of the sensitivity of proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) for organic trace gases using molecular properties, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 421, 71–94, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMS.2017.04.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMS.2017.04.006</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
      
Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.:
In situ measurements of trace gases, PM, and aerosol optical properties during the 2017 NW US wildfire smoke event, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3905–3926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
      
Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.:
Aerosol Mass and Optical Properties, Smoke Influence on O<sub>3</sub>, and High NO<sub>3</sub> Production Rates in a Western U.S. City Impacted by Wildfires, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032791, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032791" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032791</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
      
Selimovic, V., Ketcherside, D., Chaliyakunnel, S., Wielgasz, C., Permar, W., Angot, H., Millet, D. B., Fried, A., Helmig, D., and Hu, L.:
Atmospheric biogenic volatile organic compounds in the Alaskan Arctic tundra: constraints from measurements at Toolik Field Station, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14037–14058, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14037-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14037-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
      
Semmens, E. O., Leary, C. S., West, M. R., Noonan, C. W., Navarro, K. M., and Domitrovich, J. W.:
Carbon monoxide exposures in wildland firefighters in the United States and targets for exposure reduction, J. Expo. Sci. Env. Epid., 31, 923–929, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/S41370-021-00371-Z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/S41370-021-00371-Z</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
      
Shen, J., Cohen, R. C., Wolfe, G. M., and Jin, X.:
Impacts of wildfire smoke aerosols on near-surface ozone photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 8701–8718, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8701-2025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8701-2025</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
      
United States Forest Service:
Sierra National Forest Declares the Creek Fire 100&thinsp;% contained, Forest Service, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260122133611id_/https://www.fs.usda.gov/r05/sierra/newsroom/releases/sierra-national-forest-declares-creek-fire-100-contained" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 July 2026), 2020.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
      
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., Mu, M., van Marle, M. J. E., Morton, D. C., Collatz, G. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Kasibhatla, P. S.:
Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 697–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vaughan, J., Lamb, B., Frei, C., Wilson, R., Bowman, C., Figueroa-Kaminsky, C., Otterson, S., Boyer, M., Mass, C., Albright, M., Koenig, J., Collingwood, A., Gilroy, M., and Maykut, N.:
A Numerical Daily Air Quality Forecast System for The Pacific Northwest, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85, 549–562, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-4-549" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-4-549</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wang, Y. X., McElroy, M. B., Jacob, D. J., and Yantosca, R. M.:
A nested grid formulation for chemical transport over Asia: Applications to CO, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109,  D22307,   <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005237" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005237</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 23, 1293–1304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90153-4</a>, 1989.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
      
Western Regional Air Partnership: 2002 fire emission inventory for the WRAP region – Phase II, Project No. 178-6, prepared for the Western Governors' Association/Western Regional Air Partnership by Air Sciences Inc., Denver, CO, 22 July 2005, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191023232343id_/https://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/WRAP_2002_PhII_EI_Report_20050722.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 July 2026), 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yu, M., Zhang, S., Ning, H., Li, Z., and Zhang, K.:
Assessing the 2023 Canadian wildfire smoke impact in Northeastern US: Air quality, exposure and environmental justice, Sci. Total Environ., 926, 171853, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2024.171853" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2024.171853</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, L., Jacob, D. J., Yue, X., Downey, N. V., Wood, D. A., and Blewitt, D.:
Sources contributing to background surface ozone in the US Intermountain West, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 5295–5309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5295-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-5295-2014</a>, 2014.

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