<?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-26-9779-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Relaxed Eddy Accumulation based Flux Measurement of Atmospheric Inorganic Acidic Species over Cropland under the Long-Term Exposure to Chemical Industry Emissions in a Chinese Megacity</article-title><alt-title>REA Flux Measurement of Inorganic Acidic Species</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hua</surname><given-names>Jingya</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Xinyu</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wei</surname><given-names>Yulian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Jieya</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Zongjun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Zhongliang</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Qiongqiong</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8258-7201</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>Huan</given-names></name>
          <email>yuhuan@cug.edu.cn</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6078-8192</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Science, School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Huan Yu (yuhuan@cug.edu.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>13</day><month>July</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>26</volume>
      <issue>13</issue>
      <fpage>9779</fpage><lpage>9792</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>19</day><month>April</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>22</day><month>April</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>23</day><month>June</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day><month>June</month><year>2026</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Jingya Hua 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/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e142">Industrial emissions in China's densely populated regions turn surrounding lands into high-deposition-load hotspots, alter physicochemical properties of soils and vegetation, and lead to complex sink-source transitions of land surface. The lack of local flux data impedes integrated air-soil pollution control. We developed a Relaxed Eddy Accumulation (REA) system capable of simultaneous flux measurements of eight inorganic species (HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, SO<sub>2</sub>, HCl, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, chloride). System characterization showed detection limits of 6.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−4</sup>–2.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup> and flux precisions of 5.4 %–32.3 %, with uncertainties dominated by mass analysis, lag time error, and sonic-temperature-derived proportionality coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Flux measurements conducted in winter at a vegetable cropland adjacent to chemical industry facilities revealed that HONO and nitrate fluxes at this site were 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than those reported in the literature. Bidirectional fluxes of the species indicate the cropland acts as both source and sink; but winter averages showed net emission fluxes only for HONO and nitrite (mean daily 2.49 and 0.53 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>). Gross upward emission fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO were 1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9 and 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, respectively, with HNO<sub>3</sub> emissions enhanced by turbulence and HONO promoted at low temperatures. Such emissions are expected to enhance atmospheric nitrate aerosol formation and atmospheric oxidative capacity. These results provide critical observational constraints for acidic species exchange parameterization in industrial-influenced regions, advancing understanding of reactive nitrogen cycling and supporting air pollution control and agro-ecological protection strategies.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Key Research and Development Program of China</funding-source>
<award-id>2023YFC3709801</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>National Natural Science Foundation of China</funding-source>
<award-id>42175131</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs3">
<funding-source>Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities</funding-source>
<award-id>G1323523063</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="d2e344">Atmospheric inorganic acidic species mainly include gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>), nitric acid (HNO<sub>3</sub>), nitrous acid (HONO), and hydrogen chloride (HCl), as well as their particulate-phase counterparts: sulfate (SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), nitrate (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), nitrite (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and chloride (Cl<sup>−</sup>). Dry deposition is a key removal pathway for these acidic pollutants, reducing their ambient concentrations and attenuating regional transport. Atmospheric dry deposition of sulfur and nitrogen species provides a pivotal nutrient supply for crop growth and ecosystems (Galloway, 1995; Poor et al., 2001; Shen et al., 2018; Vitousek and Howarth, 1991). However, high deposition flux induces physiological stress in crops (Aber et al., 1998), disrupts their normal metabolism, photosynthesis and respiration. Furthermore, the deposition of acidic species may exacerbate soil acidification and trigger eutrophication of surface water and groundwater (van Breemen and van Dijk, 1988).</p>
      <p id="d2e414">Most existing measurements on dry deposition fluxes of atmospheric inorganic acidic species were conducted in forest (Xu et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2015; Farmer et al., 2011, 2013; Meyers et al., 1989; Sievering et al., 2001; Pryor et al., 2001, 2002; Gordon et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012; Ren et al., 2011), grassland (Nemitz et al., 2009; Myles et al., 2007; Huebert and Robert, 1985; Huebert et al., 1988; von der Heyden et al., 2022; Rumsey and Walker, 2016; Nemitz et al., 2004; Rattray and Sievering, 2001), and agricultural ecosystems (Meyers et al., 1998, 2006; Shaw et al., 1998; Laufs et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2022). Wuhan, a megacity in central China, hosts a large number of iron, steel and petrochemical industry facilities in its urban and suburban areas, which are closely interspersed with extensive farmland. Industrial processes discharge large amounts of pollutants, rendering adjacent farmlands high-deposition-load zones of acidic species. In addition to potential adverse human health risks from dietary and respiratory exposures, long-term exposure to industrial emissions may alter the physicochemical properties of vegetation and soil, making deposition pathways and resistances of atmospheric acidic species differ from those over natural farmlands. With long-term exposure to industrial emissions, farmlands may shift from sinks to potential emission sources of acidic species, e.g., fugitive dust from farmlands and widely known HONO release from soil (Su et al., 2011). The co-occurrence of deposition, surface emissions and possible near-ground chemical reactions complicates the sink and source dynamics of acidic species in farmlands and brings large uncertainties to the development of deposition resistance parameterizations for this type of ecosystem. To date, no quantitative measurement on acidic species fluxes has been conducted in this specific habitat. The lack of relevant flux data constrains the development of effective air pollution control strategies and agro-ecological protection practices in such regions.</p>
      <p id="d2e417">Eddy covariance (EC) (Farmer et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015), relaxed eddy accumulation (REA) (Matsuda et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2021; Hansen et al., 2015; von der Heyden et al., 2022), gradient measurement (Rumsey and Walker, 2016; Nemitz et al., 2009), and flux chamber methods (Scharko et al., 2015) are widely used for atmospheric inorganic acidic species flux determination. The REA is a conditional sampling technique to measure trace atmospheric components for which fast response sensors (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 Hz) required for EC are not available. The REA has notable advantages for field applications: simultaneous multi-species flux measurements and lower cost than the EC method. In this study, we developed an REA system and conducted a flux measurement campaign in a cropland immediately adjacent to an urban chemical industrial park in winter, the typical haze season of Wuhan. The main objectives of this study were: (1) to characterize the flux measurement uncertainty and detection limit and precision of the REA system; (2) to determine the flux of atmospheric acidic species over the farmland ecosystem under the long-term influence of chemical industry emissions; (3) to estimate the gross emission fluxes of HONO and HNO<sub>3</sub> from the farmland based on mass conservation and dry deposition resistance model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Experimental section</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Relaxed eddy accumulation technique</title>
      <p id="d2e451">First proposed by Businger and Oncley (1990), the REA method measures the vertical flux of atmospheric species by separating air into updraft and downdraft sampling reservoirs based on high-frequency vertical wind velocity measurements. Flux is derived from the difference of average concentrations between the two reservoirs and the bulk weighting of two turbulence statistics that can be stably measured over a sampling interval:

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M28" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the average concentrations in updraft and downdraft, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of vertical wind speed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a dimensionless proportionality coefficient universal for scalars, which can be calculated from sonic anemometer measurements of sensible heat flux <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This framework enables stable and controllable flux calculations, with results highly consistent with EC measurements(Karl et al., 2005; Gaman et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Pryor et al., 2007).</p>
      <p id="d2e578">We built an REA sampling system for simultaneous sampling of gaseous and particulate inorganic acidic species (Fig. 1). High-frequency (10 Hz) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured by a 3D sonic anemometer (CSAT3B, Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, Utah, USA). Each of three sampling channels (updraft, downdraft, dead-band) was equipped with an annular denuder (URG-2000-30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 242-3CSS, URG, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA) for gaseous HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, SO<sub>2</sub> and HCl collection and a filter cartridge with a 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" 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 (Whatman 7592-104, 46.2 mm, PP ring-supported) installed downstream for particulate NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and Cl<sup>−</sup> collection. The three sampling channels shared a single PM<sub>2.5</sub> cyclone inlet (URG-2000-30EH, URG, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA), a 1.35 m stainless steel inlet tube and a sampling pump (KNF N026.1ANE, KNF Neuberger GmbH, Freiburg, Germany). Notably, the system features expandable sorbent tube channels for simultaneous VOC flux measurements, but only its performance for inorganic acidic species is reported herein. The sampling flow rate was set to a nominal 10 standard liters per minute with a mass flow controller (MFC, No. 12 in Fig. 1) mounted on the inlet side of the pump. The flow in the inlet tube was in the laminar regime (the Reynolds number <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200), which is essential for the denuders to work properly (i.e., efficient gas-particle separation). The lag time for air to travel from the inlet to the sampling filter membrane was calculated according to total internal volume of air tubing and volumetric flow rate at the onset of each sampling run. For example, it was 3.1 s at ambient temperature 15 °C.</p>

      <fig id="F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e690">Schematic diagram of the REA flux sampling device for atmospheric inorganic gas and particles. (1) Power supply; (2) 3D sonic anemometer; (3) Denuder tube; (4) Filter-pack cartridge; (5) Cyclone inlet; (6) Vaisala Weather Transmitter; (7) Thermocouple; (8) Data logger; (9) Relay; (10) Terminal block for signal and power distribution; (11) Fast switching valves; (12) Mass flow controller (MFC); (13) Pump; (14) 500 ml buffer bottle; (15) Mass flow meter (MFM) used in test runs only.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e700">A CR1000X data logger (Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, Utah, USA) served as the system central controller, responsible for data acquisition, storage, and conditional sampling logic execution. Conditional switching between the sampling channels was checked at 2 Hz to balance high-frequency flux loss and perturbations to the laminar flow in the denuders. Three-minute running mean (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>) and standard deviation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were calculated in real time to trigger the actuation of three solenoid valves (Numatics LS02M6F00B, Emerson Electric Co., St. Louis, Missouri, USA): updraft sampling at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, downdraft sampling at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and dead-band airflow within the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range. Wind speed triggering threshold selection involves a trade-off between the precision of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements and sample representativeness. As an empirical threshold commonly used in REA studies, 0.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been demonstrated to provide reliable flux estimates (Bowling et al., 1998; Desjardins, 1977; Velentini et al., 1997; Businger and Oncley, 1990).</p>
      <p id="d2e855">Lag time was taken into account to determine the precise timing of solenoid valve switching. The CSAT3B sonic anemometer had a minimum response time of 0.7 ms, with effectively zero signal latency to the data logger. The total end-to-end system time delay was 17.9 ms, including 10–15 ms for solenoid valve response, 1.4 ms for relay actuation, and 4 ms for real-time calculation and command execution. This short delay time minimized temporal misalignment between wind measurements and the sampling, reducing updraft/downdraft mixing and flux result distortion.</p>
      <p id="d2e858">The REA device was mounted on a 4 m high flux tower. The sonic anemometer was installed at the tower top, oriented due north (the prevailing local winter wind direction). The inlet of the PM<sub>2.5</sub> cyclone was vertically aligned with the anemometer, with a horizontal separation of 0.3 m. The sampling enclosure housing the sampling unit and solenoid valves was fixed on the tower 0.7 m below the anemometer to minimize airflow disturbance around the anemometer. A Vaisala Weather Transmitter WXT536 was also installed near the top of tower to provide supporting measurements of air pressure, air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction. The pump and other REA components were mounted at the tower base.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Sample collection and chemical analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e878">The Wuhan Chemical Industrial Park (WCIP) is located northeast to the urban area of Wuhan. The WCIP covers 71.64 km<sup>2</sup> and hosts petrochemical, fine chemical, and building material industries. Since its full operation in 2013, the WCIP has been identified as a major industrial emission source influencing atmospheric composition in the surrounding region. The flux tower (114.53° E, 30.65° N) was installed at the center of a vegetable cropland within the 7.3 km<sup>2</sup> Beihu Farm, which is immediately adjacent to the WCIP. The nearest petrochemical emission source lies approximately 1.0 km north of the tower (Fig. S1 in the Supplement). The cropland was cultivated with <italic>Raphanus sativus L. var. longipinnatus</italic> (white radish), a typical cold-season vegetable in this region. The tower is situated on flat terrain with no obstructing buildings or trees within a 500 m radius of the tower, ensuring undisturbed airflow measurements.</p>
      <p id="d2e902">Field sampling was performed from 29 October to 30 December 2025, with 11 valid sampling days in cloudy or sunny rain-free weather. Each sampling day included three 4 h sampling periods (morning: 08:00–12:00; afternoon: 12:30–16:30; early night: 17:00–21:00; all times are UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8). The sampling was conducted during the vegetative growth and harvest periods of <italic>R. sativus</italic>, and no fertilization activities were conducted throughout the sampling period. Flux footprints were calculated using the FFP online tool developed by (Kljun et al., 2015). Input wind and site information for the model included sampling time, measurement height, zero-plane displacement, wind speed, wind direction, Obukhov length, and friction velocity. The cumulative flux footprint over the entire sampling campaign is presented in Fig. S1.</p>
      <p id="d2e915">One set of denuders and filter samples, plus field blanks, was collected per one sampling period. The annular denuders were freshly coated with a sorbent layer for inorganic acidic gases collection prior to sampling, in accordance with the U.S. EPA standard protocol (Fitz, 2002). The coating solution 1 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) sodium carbonate in water and 1 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) glycerol in a methanol-water mixture (1:1, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was prepared fresh immediately before use. For coating, 10 mL of the solution was injected into the denuder, which was then sealed at both ends, inverted and rotated repeatedly to ensure uniform inner-wall coating, and purged with 99.999 % high-purity nitrogen until complete methanol and water evaporation. Theoretically, the sodium carbonate sorbent layer has an absorption capacity of 6 mg SO<sub>2</sub>, even assuming that only 10 % of the sodium carbonate solution was effectively coated onto the inner wall of the annular denuder. The total cumulative ambient air volume sampled by each denuder during a 4 h measurement was 0.6 m<sup>3</sup>, which would contain a maximum of only 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SO<sub>2</sub> based on the highest ambient SO<sub>2</sub> concentration documented in local air monitoring records. Even when accounting for coexisting acidic gaseous species, the 0.6 m<sup>3</sup> sampling volume is still well below the breakthrough volume of the denuder. Coated denuders were sealed with PTFE caps until use.</p>
      <p id="d2e1010">After each 4 h sampling run, annular denuders and filters were disassembled for subsequent offline chemical composition analysis. The inorganic salts formed by absorbed acidic gases in the denuder sorbent layer were eluted with 10 mL of 0.05 % (v/v) H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> aqueous solution, which oxidizes sulfite (SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the product of SO<sub>2</sub> absorption) to the more stable SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Particulate-phase inorganic ions collected on the filters were ultrasonically extracted into 10 mL of ultrapure deionized water. Then, the inorganic ions were analyzed with ion chromatography (Dionex, ICS-1100, Thermo Scientific, Massachusetts, USA). Before running analysis, the system was calibrated using standard solutions. Inorganic ions in a sample solution were identified by comparing with the chromatographic peaks of the known standards and quantified using calibration curves after field blank substraction.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Uncertainties and detection limit of flux measurement</title>
      <p id="d2e1086">High-frequency flux losses may occur from two sources: (1) valve switching frequency below 10 Hz, and (2) laminar flow in the inlet tubing. These two effects combine to cause non-negligible mixing between consecutive air samples. However, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> coefficient was explicitly determined using temperature measurements from the sonic anemometer (No. 14 in Fig. 1), calculated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula>, where<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were derived from sonic temperatures sampled under the same switching frequency and 0.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dead-band conditions. This empirically derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> calibration approach provided a correction for high-frequency losses (Skov et al. 2006). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> coefficients for 33 4 h sampling periods fell within the typical range of 0.47 to 0.62. While a single <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> coefficient was used for each 4 h sampling period, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibited intra-period variability. We therefore calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at 30 min intervals, and used <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within each 4 h period as the relative uncertainty of the corresponding period-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The relative uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the 33 sampling periods ranged from 2.80 % to 26.14 % (Table S1).</p>
      <p id="d2e1238">The remaining source of uncertainty in REA flux measurements arises from the potential biases of the concentration difference of target species between updraft and downdraft samples (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the core term in Eq. (1). Concentrations are calculated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> denote the collected analyte mass and the total air sample volume, respectively, for each reservoir. Next, we evaluated the uncertainties associated with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> determination, from which the precisions and detection limits of flux measurement were derived for each species.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Uncertainty in air sample volume</title>
      <p id="d2e1349">The stability of the sampling flow rate is critical for accurate sampling control of the REA system. Rapid solenoid valve switching between updraft and downdraft sampling inevitably caused transient flow fluctuations. A buffer bottle (No. 14 in Fig. 1) was installed to mitigate such fluctuations, and a calibrated mass flow meter (MFM) was added temporarily for 6 replicate 60 min tests at the sampling inlet to measure actual flow rates through the denuders/filters. Flow rate fluctuations at switching frequencies of 10, 2, and 1 Hz were evaluated, showing that higher switching frequencies induced stronger transient flow disturbances, but all transient flow rate fluctuations recorded by the MFM were within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % of the MFC reading (Fig. S2).</p>
      <p id="d2e1359">To quantify the overall error in MFC-derived sample volumes, we calculated the standard deviation (SD) of the relative deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MFC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MFM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MFM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MFC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sample volume calculated from flow rate readings recorded by the on-board MFC, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MFM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the actual sample volume calculated from actual flow rates recorded by the calibrated MFM. This metric corresponds to the relative uncertainty of the sample volume, accounting for both the precision of MFC readings and their accuracy relative to actual sample volume. Values were 0.32 % at 10 Hz, 0.16 % at 2 Hz, and 0.08 % at 1 Hz (Table 1), confirming that the buffer bottle effectively reduced the impact of flow fluctuations on sample volume accuracy. The 2 Hz switching frequency used in our field sampling yields a final sample volume relative uncertainty of 0.14 % (updraft) and 0.17 % (downdraft).</p>

<table-wrap id="T1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d2e1413">Relative uncertainty of air sample volume induced by valve switching flow fluctuations and relative uncertainty of collected analyte mass induced by lag time inaccuracy</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Updraft</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Downdraft</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Valve Switching Frequency</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Relative Uncertainty of </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Sample Volume </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10 Hz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.33 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.31 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2 Hz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.14 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.17 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1 Hz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.08 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.07 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lag Time Inaccuracy</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Relative Uncertainty of </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Collected Analyte </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Mass </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.1 s</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.64 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.64 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.3 s</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.67 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.72 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.0 s</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16.12 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.52 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>3.1.2</label><title>Uncertainty in Collected Analyte Mass Induced by Lag Time Inaccuracy</title>
      <p id="d2e1568">The lag time, a key parameter for REA sampling, was pre-calculated prior to each sampling run at the onset of the sampling run. Flow rate variations during sampling (e.g., due to ambient temperature changes) induce a time offset <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the pre-set and actual lag time, which results in a mass mismatch <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the target analyte between the updraft events and the updraft reservoir (or between the downdraft events and the downdraft reservoir). The relative deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the random error in collected analyte mass induced by lag time inaccuracy, which propagates directly into final flux results. The magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases with larger updraft-downdraft concentration difference (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), longer time offset <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and more valve switching cycles during sampling.</p>
      <p id="d2e1648">To quantify the relative deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> induced by lag time inaccuracy, a 4 h time series of HNO<sub>3</sub> concentration and vertical wind was obtained from simultaneous measurements of an iodide-adduct chemical ionization mass spectrometer (I-CIMS) and the sonic anemometer at the site. The I-CIMS recorded HNO<sub>3</sub> at 10 Hz resolution, while the anemometer was used to classify updraft/downdraft events at 10 Hz. We uniformly scaled updraft and downdraft HNO<sub>3</sub> concentrations to match the average updraft-downdraft concentration differences observed in the 33 sampling runs in the campaign, generating 33 HNO<sub>3</sub> concentration time series for the simulation. A time offset <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was then introduced between reservoir sampling windows and actual vertical flow events (updraft or downdraft) to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each reservoir. Simulation results of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 , 0.3, and 1.0 s for the 33 runs are showed in Table S1. The SD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated to quantify the relative uncertainty of collected analyte mass induced by lag time inaccuracy and presented in Table 2. The maximum ambient temperature variation recorded in a sample run was 8 °C, corresponding to a maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.1 s; thus, the relative uncertainty at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s (2.64 % for both updraft and downdraft) were adopted for the final flux uncertainty estimation. The above simulation was performed using HNO<sub>3</sub> data only due to the lack of 10 Hz measurements for other species, and we assumed the lag time-induced relative deviations are identical for all target acidic species. This assumption is valid because all target species are sampled through identical tubing and valve systems, so their lag time errors are dominated by the same flow dynamics.</p>

<table-wrap id="T2" specific-use="star"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d2e1803">Concentration and flux detection limits, mass analysis precision and flux measurement precision of the acidic species.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Concentration detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mass analysis</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Flux measurement</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Flux detection limit</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">limit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">precision (RSD, %)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">precision (RSD, %)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HNO<sub>3</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.027</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.5–37.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−2</sup>–2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HONO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.034</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.8–28.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−2</sup>–1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SO<sub>2</sub></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.121</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.1–30.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−3</sup>–1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HCl</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.047</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11.6–32.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−3</sup>–1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.027</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.3–31.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−2</sup>–2.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.034</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.4–26.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−4</sup>–2.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−2</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.121</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.7–28.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−2</sup>–1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cl<sup>−</sup></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.047</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.1–21.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−3</sup>–1.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>3.1.3</label><title>Uncertainty in mass analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e2428">The overall uncertainty in mass analysis of gaseous target species (HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, SO<sub>2</sub>, HCl) consists of two components: the random error in ion chromatography (IC) analysis and the uncertainty associated with denuder collection efficiency.</p>
      <p id="d2e2449">For SO<sub>2</sub>, the uncertainty in mass analysis was determined from six replicate tests using a 2 ppbv SO<sub>2</sub> calibration gas standard, under sampling conditions identical to those used for ambient sampling (e.g., sampling flow rate, sampling duration, and denuder coating). All replicate samples were pretreated and analyzed in a single IC batch, giving a mean recovery of 92 % and a relative standard deviation (RSD, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 5.8 %. The measured mass of SO<sub>2</sub> collected by the denuder was corrected using the recovery. The IC analytical precision (denoted RSD<sub>IC</sub>) was determined to be 4.6 % from six replicate injections of a sulfate standard solution with a concentration matching that of typical ambient sample eluents. The RSD<sub>denuder</sub> component arising from variability in denuder collection efficiency was then calculated to be 3.5 % via Gaussian error propagation RSD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> RSD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IC</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> RSD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">denuder</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e2554">Certified standard gases for HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, and HCl were not readily available, so the SO<sub>2</sub>-derived mean recovery and RSD<sub>denuder</sub> of 3.5 % were adopted to these species. The IC analytical precisions RSD<sub>IC</sub> for HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, and HCl were determined from six replicate injections of NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and Cl<sup>−</sup> standard solutions, yielding values of 2.7 %, 3.0 %, and 3.2 %, respectively. The overall mass analysis precisions (RSD) of HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, and HCl were calculated to be 4.4 %, 4.6 %, and 4.7 %, respectively, via Gaussian error propagation.</p>
      <p id="d2e2645">For the four particulate ionic species (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Cl<sup>−</sup>), the variability in filter collection efficiency was deemed sufficiently small to be negligible. Therefore, the IC analytical precision RSD<sub>IC</sub> was used to quantify the overall uncertainty of mass analysis. The final precisions (RSD) of mass analysis for all eight gaseous and particulate species are summarized in Table 2.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>3.1.4</label><title>Flux measurement precision and detection limit</title>
      <p id="d2e2714">Uncertainties in the derived flux were quantified via the Gaussian error propagation. For both updraft and downdraft, the relative variance of concentration was calculated as:

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M189" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total relative uncertainty of analyte mass measurements, incorporating contributions from lag time inaccuracy and mass analysis, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the relative uncertainty of air sample volume induced by transient flow fluctuations during valve switching. The variance of the updraft-downdraft concentration difference (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was then derived as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">up</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">down</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each measurement. The SD of flux <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated for each measurement and presented as error bars of flux values in Fig. S3.</p>
      <p id="d2e2938">The Method Detection Limit (MDL) of single-measurement flux was calculated via <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-test method. The total effective degree of freedom (df<sub>eff</sub>) of the combined uncertainty was calculated using the Welch-Satterthwaite equation. Combined with the pre-set significance level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 (two-tailed test), the corresponding critical value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">df</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was obtained from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-distribution table. The minimum detectable concentration difference was calculated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">df</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was then substituted into Eq. (1) to obtain the single-measurement flux detection limit: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The flux measurement precision <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RSD</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was therefore calculated only for those measurements with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The ranges of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and precisions for the eight species are shown in Table 2. For a given analyte, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOD</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and precision vary with atmospheric concentration and flux in the sampling periods.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Concentrations of acidic species during the campaign</title>
      <p id="d2e3157">The diurnal variations of inorganic acidic gases (HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, SO<sub>2</sub>, HCl) and particulate ions (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Cl<sup>−</sup>) in morning, afternoon and early night during the observation campaign are shown in Fig. 2 (top two rows). In this study, diurnal variation is defined as changes occurring during photochemically active daytime and fully dark early nighttime. At the sampling site, the mean concentration of total nitrogen-containing acidic species (gaseous <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> particulate) was 8.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.0 <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:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup> (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation; the same applies hereinafter). This value was higher than that of sulfur-containing (3.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) and chlorine-containing acidic species (2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>), indicating that atmospheric acidic species at the site were dominated by nitrogen species.</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e3331">Box-and-whisker plots with overlaid data points for eight inorganic species, grouped by diurnal time intervals. Top two rows: diurnal concentration variations of gaseous (HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, SO<sub>2</sub>, HCl) and particulate (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Cl<sup>−</sup>) species. Bottom two rows: REA-measured fluxes of the same species, with flux points color-coded by horizontal wind speed. Horizontal lines mark means, and boxes denote interquartile ranges.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e3407">Gaseous HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO showed similar diurnal patterns of higher concentrations in morning and nighttime than at noon. The diurnal pattern is mainly driven by the diurnal evolution of the atmospheric boundary layer (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 1999; Lin et al., 2006). HONO has multiple sources including combustion (Nie et al., 2015) and soil emissions (Su et al., 2011), as well as secondary formation from gas-phase NO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OH reaction and heterogeneous NO<sub>2</sub> reaction on moist surfaces (Villena et al., 2011; Wong et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Baergen and Donaldson, 2016). Its low noontime levels are mainly due to rapid daytime photolytic loss. In contrast, SO<sub>2</sub> and HCl showed slightly higher daytime mean concentrations (SO<sub>2</sub>: 2.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>; HCl: 2.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) than nighttime (SO<sub>2</sub>: 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>; HCl: 2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>), being likely related to daytime industrial emissions, as both species are mainly emitted from the combustion of sulfur- and chlorine-containing coal and wastes.</p>
      <p id="d2e3582">Particulate NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and Cl<sup>−</sup> showed higher concentrations in the morning (15.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10.1, 3.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.9, 1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.4 <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:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) and nighttime (18.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11.9, 4.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.7, 2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>), and lower levels in afternoon (12.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.9, 3.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2, 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>). This pattern is mainly controlled by their formation pathways and diurnal boundary layer variation, consistent with previous studies (Chang et al., 2011; Trebs et al., 2004; Young et al., 2022). Particulate NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had the lowest concentration (0.1–0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) among the four ions, with lower concentrations in the morning (0.13 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.19 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) than afternoon (0.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.27 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>) and nighttime (0.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.32 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−3</sup>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Observed flux of acidic species during the campaign</title>
      <p id="d2e3884">Bottom two rows of Fig. 2 shows the diurnal variations and horizontal wind speed (WS) dependence of REA-measured fluxes for the eight acidic inorganic species, grouped by three diurnal time intervals. Figure 3a summarizes the flux detection rate (the percentage of flux events above the detection limit relative to the total number of measurements) and the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation (SD) of flux values above the detection limits for each target species. The flux detection rates of the acidic species, ranked from highest to lowest, were 88 % for HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO, 82 % for NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 79 % for SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 61 % for SO<sub>2</sub> and Cl<sup>−</sup>, 48 % for HCl, and 36 % for NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. All investigated species showed bidirectional flux behavior, which were also observed in nearly all prior REA measurements from remote forest to urban grassland (Fig. 4). If this is not an intrinsic artifact of the REA method, this demonstrates that surfaces across all atmospheric environments and land types in these studies are capable of emitting these inorganic acidic species into the atmosphere, rather than only serving as a deposition sink. The observed apparent fluxes presented here are modulated by deposition, emission, and probably chemical production/loss and the storage change below the 4 m measurement height, therefore cannot be simply regarded as emission flux from the cropland or directly used to derive dry deposition velocity. HNO<sub>3</sub> recorded the highest count of downward flux events (48 % of the measurements) and the largest downward flux values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.7 nmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, equivalent to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.47 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) across all species, whereas NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had the lowest count (9 %) and smallest values of downward flux (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.87 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65 nmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, equivalent to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.040 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.030 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>). The downward fluxes of HONO (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.19 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.29 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) at our site were 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than all prior measurements at rural/remote forest or grassland sites, while the negative fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub>, SO<sub>2</sub>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are comparable with prior reports (Fig. 4). This points to substantial nitrogen deposition (specifically, HONO and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at this site, driven by industrial emissions in the surrounding area.</p>

      <fig id="F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e4315"><bold>(a)</bold> Flux detection rates (percentages of measurement above the detection limit) and mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation of flux values for the eight target species. <bold>(b)</bold> Campaign-averaged net flux per day for the eight target species. Fluxes are presented in molar units to facilitate direct cross-species comparisons.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e4338">The comparison of the fluxes observed in this study and those reported in the literature. We primarily compiled REA-measured fluxes from the literature, supplementing with EC and GM measurements due to the limited availability of REA flux data for NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SO<sub>2</sub>. Downward fluxes are represented as positive values in blue to simplify plotting, while upward fluxes are shown in red. (1) Pryor et al. (2002), (2) Hansen et al. (2015), (3) Xu et al. (2021), (4) Myles et al. (2007), (5) Meyers et al. (1998), (6) Zhou et al. (2011), (7) Ren et al. (2011), (8) von der Heyden et al. (2022), (9) Zhang et al. (2012), (10) Huebert et al. (1988), (11) Rattray and Sievering (2001), (12) Meyers et al. (2006), (13) Matsuda et al. (2015).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e4369">We focus specifically on the upward fluxes showing emissions of atmospheric acidic species from this cropland under the long-term influence of chemical industrial emissions. Key findings are summarized below: (1) HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO recorded far more upward flux events (39 % and 48 %) and upward flux values (6.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.2 and 6.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.7 nmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, equivalent to 0.40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.33 and 0.30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.27 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) than SO<sub>2</sub> and HCl, indicating significant production of both species below the measurement height. Furthermore, their counts of upward flux events and flux values were higher in the morning than in the afternoon and night (Fig. 2). This pattern points to strong nocturnal production pathways for both species: HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO accumulate in the surface layer overnight under weak turbulent mixing, and result in pronounced upward fluxes in the next morning as turbulence intensifies. (2) In terms of particulate species, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had more upward flux events (36 %) and higher upward flux values (4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.8 nmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, equivalent to 0.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) than other three species. The most likely NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sources are in-situ formation of ammonium nitrate near the surface layer from ammonia emitted by the cropland or wind-blown particles from agricultural soils. (3) Like downward flux, upward fluxes of HONO (0.30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.27 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) are again one or two orders of magnitude higher at our site than all prior measurements, while those of HNO<sub>3</sub>, SO<sub>2</sub>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are comparable with prior reports (Fig. 4).</p>
      <p id="d2e4713">On the windy day of 24 December (highest mean horizontal wind speed 3.8 m s<sup>−1</sup> in the campaign), exceptionally high upward fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were recorded, exceeding those from all other measurement days by one order of magnitude. After excluding this outlier, net fluxes over the entire observation period were upward for HONO and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean daily 2.49 and 0.53 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>, respectively), and negative for all other species: HNO<sub>3</sub> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.24 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), Cl<sup>−</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.36 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.34 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.29 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), SO<sub>2</sub> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.24 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), and HCl (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.817 mg m<sup>−2</sup> d<sup>−1</sup>), which are shown in Fig. 3b as molar units to facilitate direct cross-species comparisons.</p>
      <p id="d2e5045">Analysis of wind speed (WS), ambient temperature (Ta), relative humidity (RH), and ultraviolet-A radiation (UV-A) meteorological parameters (Fig. S4) identified wind speed as a key regulator of flux magnitude. Under low wind speeds, all target species exhibited predominantly downward or weak upward fluxes (Fig. 2), while pronounced upward fluxes occurred almost exclusively at wind speeds <inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.1 m s<sup>−1</sup>. Notably, apparent deposition velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was correlated with friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for both upward and downward fluxes (Fig. 5), demonstrating that turbulence intensity directly drives flux magnitude.</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e5094">Apparent deposition velocities (calculated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for downward fluxes and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for upward fluxes) of inorganic acidic gases and particles versus friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Red and blue symbols denote upward and downward fluxes, respectively.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Gross upward fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO</title>
      <p id="d2e5158">The land surface is a well-documented source of HONO, which could originate from direct soil emission, heterogeneous NO<sub>2</sub> reactions on diverse wet surfaces (e.g., bare ground, building exteriors, urban grime, aerosol particles), and the photolysis of nitric acid/nitrate on leaf surfaces (Zhou et al., 2011). Upward HNO<sub>3</sub> emissions have been widely observed over forests and grasslands (Hansen et al., 2015; Myles et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2021; Pryor et al., 2002; Nemitz et al., 2009). For example, Hansen et al. (2015) reported that about 70 % of the total samples showed HNO<sub>3</sub> emission during late summer/autumn in a mixed deciduous forest site in the USA. Xu et al. (2021) showed about 30 % of the total samples showed apparent HNO<sub>3</sub> emissions at a suburban forest site in Japan. HNO<sub>3</sub> is thought to deposit with a zero resistance even over slightly wet surfaces, where it can also be formed via NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>(surface)</sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> HONO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> HNO<sub>3</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>(surface)</sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2HNO<sub>3</sub>. Potential upward HNO<sub>3</sub> fluxes probably arise from decomposition of NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> aerosols near warm surfaces and deposited NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> on the ground or leaf surfaces as water layers evaporate.</p>
      <p id="d2e5372">The gross upward flux (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) can be calculated from the apparent flux observed at the measurement height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the surface deposition (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) via <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schobesberger et al., 2016). Unlike the apparent flux that is confounded by concurrent atmospheric deposition, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reflects more accurately the actual emission from the near-surface layer to the atmosphere. In this study, we estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO, owing to not only the pronounced positive apparent fluxes of these two species (Fig. 3) but also the feasibility of approximating their dry deposition velocities given their relatively high water solubility.</p>
      <p id="d2e5451">According to Wesely (2007) resistance model, physical deposition velocity of a molecule from the atmosphere to the surface is calculated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are aerodynamic resistance, molecular diffusion resistance and surface resistance, respectively. For highly water-soluble HNO<sub>3</sub>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is near zero; for water-soluble HONO, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over slight wet surfaces (like vegetable surface in the cropland) is also far smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Harrison et al., 1996). Thus, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for both species can be simplified to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Substituting the standard formulations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ln</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into the simplified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equation yields

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M441" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ln</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the von Karman constant, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is friction velocity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is measurement height, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is roughness length, which is constant at a winter underlying surface, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Businger dimensionless momentum stability function, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Schmidt number. Our sampling conditions (4 m measurement height, cloudy winter days, 5–20 °C temperature range) resulted in only 3 %–4 % diurnal variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.0–1.1 variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The corresponding 10 %–14 % relative variation in the denominator of Eq. (3) justifies a linear approximation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is an empirical constant. Substituting surface deposition <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> definition gives

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M455" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          From Eq. (4), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the slopes of the data points in Fig. 5. We calculated the empirical constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, for HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO separately, from the maximum slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the downward-flux data points in Fig. 5, when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 (that is, no upward emission and apparent flux equals deposition). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was then substituted into Eq. (4) to calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all the sampling periods. Please note that according to the mass balance equation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> includes joint contributions from surface emission (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), net chemical production below the measurement height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the storage change flux below the measurement height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which are not distinguishable in our estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M471" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gross</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Based on the calculation from Eq. (4), the diurnal variations in upward gross fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO, along with their dependence on horizontal wind speed or ambient temperature, are presented in Fig. 6. Overall, HNO<sub>3</sub> gross fluxes (1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) were higher than those of HONO (0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>). HNO<sub>3</sub> gross fluxes were higher in the morning (1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) than in the afternoon (0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) and nighttime (0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>). Fluxes under high wind speeds (WS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.1 m s<sup>−1</sup>, 1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) were significantly greater than those under low wind speeds (0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), indicating that upward gross fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub> below the measurement height were accelerated under elevated wind speed.</p>

      <fig id="F6" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e6558">Box-and-whisker plots overlaid with individual data points (coded by horizontal wind speed and ambient temperature) showing upward gross fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO, grouped by diurnal time intervals. Horizontal lines mark medians, and boxes denote interquartile ranges.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/9779/2026/acp-26-9779-2026-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e6576">Similar to HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO gross fluxes were higher in the morning (0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) than in the afternoon (0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) and nighttime (0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>). In contrast to HNO<sub>3</sub>, HONO emission fluxes showed no significant correlation with wind speed, solar radiation, or relative humidity (Fig. S5); instead, the fluxes were significantly higher under low temperatures (T<sub><italic>a</italic></sub> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 °C, 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) than under high temperatures (0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), as further illustrated by the scatter plots of temperature dependence for both HONO and HNO<sub>3</sub> fluxes (Fig. S6). This behavior is likely attributed to the dependence of HONO surface production from aqueous-phase reactions in soil pore water or surface water films (Wu et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2020). High temperatures reduce soil and surface moisture, thereby suppressing HONO production.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d2e6840">In this study, we developed a Relaxed Eddy Accumulation system capable of simultaneous flux measurement of eight gaseous and particulate inorganic acidic species, targeting urban cropland under long-term exposure to chemical industry emissions. The system achieved a relative uncertainty of air sample volume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 %, a lag time-induced analyte mass uncertainty of 2.64 %, and a relative uncertainty of mass analysis ranging from 2.7 % to 5.8 %. Using Gaussian error propagation and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-test method, we determined that the flux measurement precision of the system ranges from 5.4 % to 32.3 %, and the flux detection limits span from 6.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−4</sup> to 2.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<sup>−1</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>, depending on the chemical species, ambient atmospheric concentrations and flux magnitudes during the sampling periods.</p>
      <p id="d2e6930">Our results provide critical observational data and mechanistic insights into acidic species exchange over cropland under the long-term influence of chemical industrial emissions in an urban environment. All inorganic acidic species exhibited bidirectional fluxes, demonstrating that cropland can act as a source of atmospheric inorganic acidic species rather than solely a deposition sink. Such bidirectional fluxes are not unique to this industrial-zone cropland, as they have been documented in nearly all prior REA measurements across sites from remote forests to urban grasslands. However, the notable difference is that the fluxes of HONO and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at our site, both upward and downward, were 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than those values reported in the literature, while the fluxes of HNO<sub>3</sub>, SO<sub>2</sub>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are comparable with prior reports. This magnitude difference reveals a previously underquantified HONO and nitrate flux hotspot in peri-industrial regions, which has been missing in regional flux inventories.</p>
      <p id="d2e6978">The discrepancy with prior field observations is largely attributable to the long-term cumulative effect of adjacent industrial NO<sub><italic>X</italic></sub> emissions that elevate surface nitrogen loading and alter surface exchange properties. Under high NO<sub><italic>X</italic></sub> conditions, upward HNO<sub>3</sub> fluxes may arise from heterogeneous surface reactions of NO<sub>2</sub>, decomposition of NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> aerosols near warm surfaces or deposited NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> on the ground or leaf surfaces as water layers evaporate. These processes render cropland an HNO<sub>3</sub> emission source that contributes to atmospheric nitrate aerosol formation. HONO emissions from cropland stem from direct soil release, heterogeneous NO<sub>2</sub> reactions on wet surfaces, and nitric acid/nitrate photolysis on leaf surfaces, thus enhancing atmospheric oxidative capacity.</p>
      <p id="d2e7072">The diurnal pattern points to strong nocturnal production in the surface layer overnight under weak turbulent mixing, and pronounced upward fluxes in the next morning as turbulence intensifies. The apparent deposition velocities of all species were positively correlated with friction velocity for both upward and downward fluxes, highlighting the key regulatory role of turbulent mixing in acidic species exchange. Based on the mass balance equation and resistance in-series model, we estimated the gross upward fluxes of water-soluble HNO<sub>3</sub> and HONO. The gross flux of HNO<sub>3</sub> was accelerated under elevated turbulence, while HONO gross flux was enhanced at lower ambient temperatures, likely due to elevated soil and surface moisture. The quantified fluxes offer empirical constraints for improving deposition and emission parameterizations in chemical transport models, a scientific basis for formulating targeted industrial emission control and farmland ecological protection policies in densely populated industrial megacities.</p>
      <p id="d2e7094">Some limitations should be noted. First, measurements were conducted only in winter. Seasonal variations in flux magnitudes and driving mechanisms will be characterized in our future measurement. Second, the gross flux estimation cannot distinguish between direct surface emissions, near-surface chemical production, and storage changes, requiring further fine-scale vertical profiling to partition these contributions. Third, the results are based on a single vegetable cropland site, and generalizability to other crop types and industrial contexts requires additional multi-site observations.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e7102">The data used in this article are available from the corresponding author Huan Yu (yuhuan@cug.edu.cn) on request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d2e7105">The supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9779-2026-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9779-2026-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e7114">HY designed the study. HY, XW, and JS built the REA system. JH, XW, and HY characterized the system. JH, XW, YW, ZL, ZH, and QW contributed to field measurement. JH and HY analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e7120">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="d2e7126">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><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e7132">This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2023YFC3709801), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 42175131), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (grant no. G1323523063).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e7138">This paper was edited by Chiara Giorio and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Aber, J., McDowell, W., Nadelhoffer, K., Magill, A., Berntson, G., Kamakea, M., McNulty, S., Currie, W., Rustad, L., and Fernandez, I.: Nitrogen Saturation in Temperate Forest Ecosystems, Bioscience, 48, 921–934, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1313296" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2307/1313296</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Baergen, A. M. and Donaldson, D. J.: Formation of reactive nitrogen oxides from urban grime photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 6355–6363, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-6355-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-6355-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bowling, D. R., Turnipseed, A. A., Delany, A. C., Baldocchi, D. D., Greenberg, J. P., and Monson, R. K.: The use of relaxed eddy accumulation to measure biosphere-atmosphere exchange of isoprene and other biological trace gases, Oecologia, 116, 306–315, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050592" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s004420050592</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Businger, J. A. and Oncley, S. P.: Flux Measurement with Conditional Sampling, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 7, 349–352, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1990)007&lt;0349:FMWCS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(1990)007&lt;0349:FMWCS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chang, L. T.-C., Tsai, J.-H., Lin, J.-M., Huang, Y.-S., and Chiang, H.-L.: Particulate matter and gaseous pollutants during a tropical storm and air pollution episode in Southern Taiwan, Atmos. Res., 99, 67–79, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.09.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.09.002</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Desjardins, R. L.: Description and evaluation of a sensible heat flux detector, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 11, 147–154, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02166801" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF02166801</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Farmer, D. K., Kimmel, J. R., Phillips, G., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop, D. R., Sueper, D., Nemitz, E., and Jimenez, J. L.: Eddy covariance measurements with high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry: a new approach to chemically resolved aerosol fluxes, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1275–1289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1275-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-1275-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Farmer, D. K., Chen, Q., Kimmel, J. R., Docherty, K. S., Nemitz, E., Artaxo, P. A., Cappa, C. D., Martin, S. T., and Jimenez, J. L.: Chemically Resolved Particle Fluxes Over Tropical and Temperate Forests, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 47, 818–830, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.791022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2013.791022</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and Pitts, J. J. N.: Chemistry of the Upper and Lower Atmosphere: Theory, Experiments and Applications, Elsevier, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-257060-5.x5000-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/b978-0-12-257060-5.x5000-x</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation> Fitz, D. R.: Evaluation of diffusion denuder coatings for removing acid gases from ambient air, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Galloway, J. N.: Acid deposition: Perspectives in time and space, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 85, 15-24, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00483685" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00483685</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Gaman, A., Rannik, Ü., Aalto, P., Pohja, T., Siivola, E., Kulmala, M., and Vesala, T.: Relaxed Eddy Accumulation System for Size-Resolved Aerosol Particle Flux Measurements, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 21, 933–943, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0933:REASFS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0933:REASFS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Gordon, M., Staebler, R. M., Liggio, J., Vlasenko, A., Li, S.-M., and Hayden, K.: Aerosol flux measurements above a mixed forest at Borden, Ontario, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6773–6786, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6773-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-6773-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Hansen, K., Pryor, S. C., Boegh, E., Hornsby, K. E., Jensen, B., and Sørensen, L. L.: Background concentrations and fluxes of atmospheric ammonia over a deciduous forest, Agric. For. Meteorol., 214–215, 380–392, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.004</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Harrison, R. M., Peak, J. D., and Collins, G. M.: Tropospheric cycle of nitrous acid, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 14429–14439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD00341" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JD00341</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Huebert, B. J. and Robert, C. H.: The dry deposition of nitric acid to grass, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 90, 2085–2090, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD01p02085" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JD090iD01p02085</ext-link>, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Huebert, B. J., Luke, W. T., Delany, A. C., and Brost, R. A.: Measurements of concentrations and dry surface fluxes of atmospheric nitrates in the presence of ammonia, J. Geophys. Res., 93, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD06p07127" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JD093iD06p07127</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Karl, T., Harley, P., Guenther, A., Rasmussen, R., Baker, B., Jardine, K., and Nemitz, E.: The bi-directional exchange of oxygenated VOCs between a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantation and the atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 3015–3031, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-3015-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-3015-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Kljun, N., Calanca, P., Rotach, M. W., and Schmid, H. P.: A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for Flux Footprint Prediction (FFP), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3695–3713, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Laufs, S., Cazaunau, M., Stella, P., Kurtenbach, R., Cellier, P., Mellouki, A., Loubet, B., and Kleffmann, J.: Diurnal fluxes of HONO above a crop rotation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6907–6923, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6907-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-6907-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Lee, A., Schade, G. W., Holzinger, R., and Goldstein, A. H.: A comparison of new measurements of total monoterpene flux with improved measurements of speciated monoterpene flux, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 505–513, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-505-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-505-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Lin, Y.-C., Cheng, M.-T., Ting, W.-Y., and Yeh, C.-R.: Characteristics of gaseous HNO<sub>2</sub>, HNO<sub>3</sub>, NH<sub>3</sub> and particulate ammonium nitrate in an urban city of Central Taiwan, Atmos. Environ., 40, 4725–4733, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.037</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Costabile, F., Amoroso, A., Zhao, C., Huey, L. G., Stickel, R., Liao, J., and Zhu, T.: Evidence of Aerosols as a Media for Rapid Daytime HONO Production over China, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 14386–14391, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es504163z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es504163z</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Matsuda, K., Watanabe, I., Mizukami, K., Ban, S., and Takahashi, A.: Dry deposition of PM<sub>2.5</sub> sulfate above a hilly forest using relaxed eddy accumulation, Atmos. Environ., 107, 255–261, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.050" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.050</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Meng, F., Qin, M., Fang, W., Duan, J., Tang, K., Zhang, H., Shao, D., Liao, Z., Feng, Y., Huang, Y., Ni, T., Xie, P., Liu, J., and Liu, W.: Measurement of HONO flux using the aerodynamic gradient method over an agricultural field in the Huaihe River Basin, China, J. Environ. Sci., 114, 297–307, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.09.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jes.2021.09.005</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Meyers, T. P., Huebert, B. J., and Hicks, B. B.: HNO<sub>3</sub> deposition to a deciduous forest, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 49, 395–410, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123651" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00123651</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Meyers, T. P., Finkelstein, P., Clarke, J., Ellestad, T. G., and Sims, P. F.: A multilayer model for inferring dry deposition using standard meteorological measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 22645–22661, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01564" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD01564</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Meyers, T. P., Luke, W. T., and Meisinger, J. J.: Fluxes of ammonia and sulfate over maize using relaxed eddy accumulation, Agric. For. Meteorol., 136, 203–213, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.10.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.10.005</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Myles, L., Meyers, T. P., and Robinson, L.: Relaxed eddy accumulation measurements of ammonia, nitric acid, sulfur dioxide and particulate sulfate dry deposition near Tampa, FL, USA, Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 034004, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/3/034004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/2/3/034004</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Nemitz, E., Sutton, M. A., Wyers, G. P., Otjes, R. P., Mennen, M. G., van Putten, E. M., and Gallagher, M. W.: Gas-particle interactions above a Dutch heathland: II. Concentrations and surface exchange fluxes of atmospheric particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1007–1024, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-1007-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-4-1007-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Nemitz, E., Dorsey, J. R., Flynn, M. J., Gallagher, M. W., Hensen, A., Erisman, J. W., Owen, S. M., Dämmgen, U., and Sutton, M. A.: Aerosol fluxes and particle growth above managed grassland, Biogeosciences, 6, 1627–1645, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1627-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-6-1627-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Nguyen, T. B., Crounse, J. D., Teng, A. P., St Clair, J. M., Paulot, F., Wolfe, G. M., and Wennberg, P. O.: Rapid deposition of oxidized biogenic compounds to a temperate forest, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 112, E392–E401, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418702112" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1418702112</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Nie, W., Ding, A. J., Xie, Y. N., Xu, Z., Mao, H., Kerminen, V.-M., Zheng, L. F., Qi, X. M., Huang, X., Yang, X.-Q., Sun, J. N., Herrmann, E., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., and Fu, C. B.: Influence of biomass burning plumes on HONO chemistry in eastern China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 1147–1159, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1147-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-1147-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Poor, N., Pribble, R., and Greening, H.: Direct wet and dry deposition of ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium and nitrate to the Tampa Bay Estuary, FL, USA, Atmos. Environ., 35, 3947–3955, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00180-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00180-7</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., Sørensen, L. L., and Jensen, B.: Ammonia concentrations and fluxes over a forest in the midwestern USA, Atmos. Environ., 35, 5645–5656, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00259-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00259-X</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., Jensen, B., Jensen, N. O., and Sørensen, L. L.: HNO<sub>3</sub> fluxes to a deciduous forest derived using gradient and REA methods, Atmos. Environ., 36, 5993–5999, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00765-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00765-3</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Pryor, S. C., Larsen, S. E., Sørensen, L. L., Barthelmie, R. J., Grönholm, T., Kulmala, M., Launiainen, S., Rannik, Ü., and Vesala, T.: Particle fluxes over forests: Analyses of flux methods and functional dependencies, J. Geophys. Res., 112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008066" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD008066</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Rattray, G. and Sievering, H.: Dry deposition of ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium, and nitrate to alpine tundra at Niwot Ridge, Colorado, Atmos. Environ., 35, 1105–1109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00276-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00276-4</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Ren, X., Sanders, J. E., Rajendran, A., Weber, R. J., Goldstein, A. H., Pusede, S. E., Browne, E. C., Min, K.-E., and Cohen, R. C.: A relaxed eddy accumulation system for measuring vertical fluxes of nitrous acid, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 2093–2103, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-2093-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-2093-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Ren, Y., Stieger, B., Spindler, G., Grosselin, B., Mellouki, A., Tuch, T., Wiedensohler, A., and Herrmann, H.: Role of the dew water on the ground surface in HONO distribution: a case measurement in Melpitz, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13069–13089, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13069-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-13069-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Rumsey, I. C. and Walker, J. T.: Application of an online ion-chromatography-based instrument for gradient flux measurements of speciated nitrogen and sulfur, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 2581–2592, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-2581-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-2581-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Scharko, N. K., Schütte, U. M. E., Berke, A. E., Banina, L., Peel, H. R., Donaldson, M. A., Hemmerich, C., White, J. R., and Raff, J. D.: Combined Flux Chamber and Genomics Approach Links Nitrous Acid Emissions to Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria and Archaea in Urban and Agricultural Soil, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 13825–13834, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00838" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.5b00838</ext-link> 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Schobesberger, S., Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Taipale, D., Millet, D. B., D'Ambro, E. L., Rantala, P., Mammarella, I., Zhou, P., Wolfe, G. M., Lee, B. H., Boy, M., and Thornton, J. A.: High upward fluxes of formic acid from a boreal forest canopy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9342–9351, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069599" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL069599</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Shaw, W. J., Spicer, C. W., and Kenny, D. V.: Eddy correlation fluxes of trace gases using a tandem mass spectrometer, Atmos. Environ., 32, 2887–2898, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00036-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00036-3</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Shen, Jianlin, Chen, Deli, Bai, Mei, Sun, Jianlei, Lam, and Shu: Spatial variations in soil and plant nitrogen levels caused by ammonia deposition near a cattle feedlot, Atmos. Environ., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.022</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Sievering, H., Kelly, T., McConville, G., Seibold, C., and Turnipseed, A.: Nitric acid dry deposition to conifer forests:: Niwot Ridge spruce–fir–pine study, Atmos. Environ., 35, 3851–3859, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00156-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00156-X</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Su, H., Cheng, Y., Oswald, R., Behrendt, T., Trebs, I., Meixner, F. X., Andreae, M. O., Cheng, P., Zhang, Y., and Pöschl, U.: Soil Nitrite as a Source of Atmospheric HONO and OH Radicals, Science, 333, 1616–1618, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207687" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1207687</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Trebs, I., Meixner, F. X., Slanina, J., Otjes, R., Jongejan, P., and Andreae, M. O.: Real-time measurements of ammonia, acidic trace gases and water-soluble inorganic aerosol species at a rural site in the Amazon Basin, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 967–987, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-967-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-4-967-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>van Breemen, N. and van Dijk, H. F. G.: Ecosystem effects of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in The Netherlands, Environ. Pollut., 54, 249–274, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(88)90115-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0269-7491(88)90115-7</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Velentini, R., Greco, S., Seufert, G., Bertin, N., Ciccioli, P., Cecinato, A., Brancaleoni, E., and Frattoni, M.: Fluxes of biogenic VOC from Mediterranean vegetation by trap enrichment relaxed eddy accumulation, Atmos. Environ., 31, 229–238, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00085-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00085-X</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Villena, G., Kleffmann, J., Kurtenbach, R., Wiesen, P., Lissi, E., Rubio, M. A., Croxatto, G., and Rappenglück, B.: Vertical gradients of HONO, NO<sub><italic>X</italic></sub> and O<sub>3</sub> in Santiago de Chile, Atmos. Environ., 45, 3867–3873, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.073" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.073</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Vitousek, P. M. and Howarth, R. W.: Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: How can it occur?, Biogeochemistry, 13, 87–115, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00002772" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00002772</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>von der Heyden, L., Wißdorf, W., Kurtenbach, R., and Kleffmann, J.: A relaxed eddy accumulation (REA) LOPAP system for flux measurements of nitrous acid (HONO), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 1983–2000, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-1983-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-15-1983-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 41, 52–63, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.058" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.058</ext-link>, 2007. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Wong, K. W., Tsai, C., Lefer, B., Haman, C., Grossberg, N., Brune, W. H., Ren, X., Luke, W., and Stutz, J.: Daytime HONO vertical gradients during SHARP 2009 in Houston, TX, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 635–652, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-635-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-635-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Wu, D., Horn, M. A., Behrendt, T., Müller, S., Li, J., Cole, J. A., Xie, B., Ju, X., Li, G., Ermel, M., Oswald, R., Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J., Hoor, P., Hu, C., Liu, M., Andreae, M. O., Pöschl, U., Cheng, Y., Su, H., Trebs, I., Weber, B., and Sörgel, M.: Soil HONO emissions at high moisture content are driven by microbial nitrate reduction to nitrite: tackling the HONO puzzle, ISME J., 13, 1688–1699, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0379-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41396-019-0379-y</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Xu, M., Kasahara, K., Sorimachi, A., and Matsuda, K.: Nitric acid dry deposition associated with equilibrium shift of ammonium nitrate above a forest by long-term measurement using relaxed eddy accumulation, Atmos. Environ., 256, 118454, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118454" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118454</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Young, L.-H., Hsiao, T.-C., Griffith, S. M., Huang, Y.-H., Hsieh, H.-G., Lin, T.-H., Tsay, S.-C., Lin, Y.-J., Lai, K.-L., Lin, N.-H., and Lin, W.-Y.: Secondary inorganic aerosol chemistry and its impact on atmospheric visibility over an ammonia-rich urban area in Central Taiwan, Environ. Pollut., 312, 119951, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119951" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119951</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, N., Zhou, X., Bertman, S., Tang, D., Alaghmand, M., Shepson, P. B., and Carroll, M. A.: Measurements of ambient HONO concentrations and vertical HONO flux above a northern Michigan forest canopy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8285–8296, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8285-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-8285-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, X., Zhang, N. TerAvest, M., Tang, D., Hou, J., Bertman, S., Alaghmand, M., Shepson, P. B., Carroll, M. A., Griffith, S., Dusanter, S., and Stevens. P. S.: Nitric acid photolysis on forest canopy surface as a source for tropospheric nitrous acid, Nat. Geosci., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1164" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1164</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Relaxed Eddy Accumulation based Flux Measurement of Atmospheric Inorganic Acidic Species over Cropland under the Long-Term Exposure to Chemical Industry Emissions in a Chinese Megacity</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Aber, J., McDowell, W., Nadelhoffer, K., Magill, A., Berntson, G., Kamakea,
M., McNulty, S., Currie, W., Rustad, L., and Fernandez, I.: Nitrogen
Saturation in Temperate Forest Ecosystems, Bioscience, 48, 921–934,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1313296" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2307/1313296</a>, 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Baergen, A. M. and Donaldson, D. J.: Formation of reactive nitrogen oxides from urban grime photochemistry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 6355–6363, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-6355-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-6355-2016</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Bowling, D. R., Turnipseed, A. A., Delany, A. C., Baldocchi, D. D.,
Greenberg, J. P., and Monson, R. K.: The use of relaxed eddy accumulation to
measure biosphere-atmosphere exchange of isoprene and other biological trace
gases, Oecologia, 116, 306–315, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050592" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050592</a>, 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Businger, J. A. and Oncley, S. P.: Flux Measurement with Conditional
Sampling, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 7, 349–352,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1990)007&lt;0349:FMWCS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1990)007&lt;0349:FMWCS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1990.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chang, L. T.-C., Tsai, J.-H., Lin, J.-M., Huang, Y.-S., and Chiang, H.-L.:
Particulate matter and gaseous pollutants during a tropical storm and air
pollution episode in Southern Taiwan, Atmos. Res., 99, 67–79,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.09.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.09.002</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Desjardins, R. L.: Description and evaluation of a sensible heat flux
detector, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 11, 147–154,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02166801" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02166801</a>, 1977.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Farmer, D. K., Kimmel, J. R., Phillips, G., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop, D. R., Sueper, D., Nemitz, E., and Jimenez, J. L.: Eddy covariance measurements with high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry: a new approach to chemically resolved aerosol fluxes, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1275–1289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1275-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1275-2011</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
Farmer, D. K., Chen, Q., Kimmel, J. R., Docherty, K. S., Nemitz, E., Artaxo,
P. A., Cappa, C. D., Martin, S. T., and Jimenez, J. L.: Chemically Resolved
Particle Fluxes Over Tropical and Temperate Forests, Aerosol Sci. Technol.,
47, 818–830, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.791022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.791022</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and Pitts, J. J. N.: Chemistry of the Upper and Lower
Atmosphere: Theory, Experiments and Applications, Elsevier,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-257060-5.x5000-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-257060-5.x5000-x</a>, 1999.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fitz, D. R.: Evaluation of diffusion denuder coatings for removing acid gases from ambient air, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, 2002.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Galloway, J. N.: Acid deposition: Perspectives in time and space, Water,
Air, Soil Pollut., 85, 15-24, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00483685" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00483685</a>, 1995.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gaman, A., Rannik, Ü., Aalto, P., Pohja, T., Siivola, E., Kulmala, M.,
and Vesala, T.: Relaxed Eddy Accumulation System for Size-Resolved Aerosol
Particle Flux Measurements, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 21, 933–943,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0933:REASFS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0933:REASFS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gordon, M., Staebler, R. M., Liggio, J., Vlasenko, A., Li, S.-M., and Hayden, K.: Aerosol flux measurements above a mixed forest at Borden, Ontario, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6773–6786, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6773-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6773-2011</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hansen, K., Pryor, S. C., Boegh, E., Hornsby, K. E., Jensen, B., and
Sørensen, L. L.: Background concentrations and fluxes of atmospheric
ammonia over a deciduous forest, Agric. For. Meteorol., 214–215, 380–392,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.004</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Harrison, R. M., Peak, J. D., and Collins, G. M.: Tropospheric cycle of
nitrous acid, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 14429–14439,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD00341" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD00341</a>, 1996.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Huebert, B. J. and Robert, C. H.: The dry deposition of nitric acid to
grass, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 90, 2085–2090,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD01p02085" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD01p02085</a>, 1985.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Huebert, B. J., Luke, W. T., Delany, A. C., and Brost, R. A.: Measurements
of concentrations and dry surface fluxes of atmospheric nitrates in the
presence of ammonia, J. Geophys. Res., 93,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD06p07127" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD06p07127</a>, 1988.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
Karl, T., Harley, P., Guenther, A., Rasmussen, R., Baker, B., Jardine, K., and Nemitz, E.: The bi-directional exchange of oxygenated VOCs between a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantation and the atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 3015–3031, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-3015-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-3015-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kljun, N., Calanca, P., Rotach, M. W., and Schmid, H. P.: A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for Flux Footprint Prediction (FFP), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3695–3713, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
Laufs, S., Cazaunau, M., Stella, P., Kurtenbach, R., Cellier, P., Mellouki, A., Loubet, B., and Kleffmann, J.: Diurnal fluxes of HONO above a crop rotation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6907–6923, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6907-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6907-2017</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lee, A., Schade, G. W., Holzinger, R., and Goldstein, A. H.: A comparison of new measurements of total monoterpene flux with improved measurements of speciated monoterpene flux, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 505–513, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-505-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-505-2005</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lin, Y.-C., Cheng, M.-T., Ting, W.-Y., and Yeh, C.-R.: Characteristics of
gaseous HNO<sub>2</sub>, HNO<sub>3</sub>, NH<sub>3</sub> and particulate ammonium nitrate in
an urban city of Central Taiwan, Atmos. Environ., 40, 4725–4733,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.037</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Costabile, F., Amoroso, A., Zhao, C., Huey, L. G.,
Stickel, R., Liao, J., and Zhu, T.: Evidence of Aerosols as a Media for
Rapid Daytime HONO Production over China, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48,
14386–14391, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es504163z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es504163z</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Matsuda, K., Watanabe, I., Mizukami, K., Ban, S., and Takahashi, A.: Dry
deposition of PM<sub>2.5</sub> sulfate above a hilly forest using relaxed eddy
accumulation, Atmos. Environ., 107, 255–261,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.050" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.050</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
Meng, F., Qin, M., Fang, W., Duan, J., Tang, K., Zhang, H., Shao, D., Liao,
Z., Feng, Y., Huang, Y., Ni, T., Xie, P., Liu, J., and Liu, W.: Measurement
of HONO flux using the aerodynamic gradient method over an agricultural
field in the Huaihe River Basin, China, J. Environ. Sci., 114, 297–307,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.09.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.09.005</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Meyers, T. P., Huebert, B. J., and Hicks, B. B.: HNO<sub>3</sub> deposition to a
deciduous forest, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 49, 395–410,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123651" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123651</a>, 1989.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
Meyers, T. P., Finkelstein, P., Clarke, J., Ellestad, T. G., and Sims, P.
F.: A multilayer model for inferring dry deposition using standard
meteorological measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 22645–22661,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01564" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01564</a>, 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Meyers, T. P., Luke, W. T., and Meisinger, J. J.: Fluxes of ammonia and
sulfate over maize using relaxed eddy accumulation, Agric. For. Meteorol.,
136, 203–213, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.10.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.10.005</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Myles, L., Meyers, T. P., and Robinson, L.: Relaxed eddy accumulation
measurements of ammonia, nitric acid, sulfur dioxide and particulate sulfate
dry deposition near Tampa, FL, USA, Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 034004,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/3/034004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/3/034004</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Nemitz, E., Sutton, M. A., Wyers, G. P., Otjes, R. P., Mennen, M. G., van Putten, E. M., and Gallagher, M. W.: Gas-particle interactions above a Dutch heathland: II. Concentrations and surface exchange fluxes of atmospheric particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1007–1024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-1007-2004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-1007-2004</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Nemitz, E., Dorsey, J. R., Flynn, M. J., Gallagher, M. W., Hensen, A.,
Erisman, J. W., Owen, S. M., Dämmgen, U., and Sutton, M. A.: Aerosol fluxes and particle growth above managed grassland, Biogeosciences, 6, 1627–1645, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1627-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1627-2009</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Nguyen, T. B., Crounse, J. D., Teng, A. P., St Clair, J. M., Paulot, F.,
Wolfe, G. M., and Wennberg, P. O.: Rapid deposition of oxidized biogenic
compounds to a temperate forest, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 112,
E392–E401, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418702112" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418702112</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Nie, W., Ding, A. J., Xie, Y. N., Xu, Z., Mao, H., Kerminen, V.-M., Zheng, L. F., Qi, X. M., Huang, X., Yang, X.-Q., Sun, J. N., Herrmann, E., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., and Fu, C. B.: Influence of biomass burning plumes on HONO chemistry in eastern China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 1147–1159, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1147-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1147-2015</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
Poor, N., Pribble, R., and Greening, H.: Direct wet and dry deposition of
ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium and nitrate to the Tampa Bay Estuary, FL,
USA, Atmos. Environ., 35, 3947–3955,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00180-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00180-7</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., Sørensen, L. L., and Jensen, B.: Ammonia
concentrations and fluxes over a forest in the midwestern USA, Atmos.
Environ., 35, 5645–5656, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00259-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00259-X</a>,
2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., Jensen, B., Jensen, N. O., and Sørensen,
L. L.: HNO<sub>3</sub> fluxes to a deciduous forest derived using gradient and REA
methods, Atmos. Environ., 36, 5993–5999,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00765-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00765-3</a>, 2002.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pryor, S. C., Larsen, S. E., Sørensen, L. L., Barthelmie, R. J.,
Grönholm, T., Kulmala, M., Launiainen, S., Rannik, Ü., and Vesala,
T.: Particle fluxes over forests: Analyses of flux methods and functional
dependencies, J. Geophys. Res., 112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008066" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008066</a>,
2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Rattray, G. and Sievering, H.: Dry deposition of ammonia, nitric acid,
ammonium, and nitrate to alpine tundra at Niwot Ridge, Colorado, Atmos.
Environ., 35, 1105–1109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00276-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00276-4</a>,
2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ren, X., Sanders, J. E., Rajendran, A., Weber, R. J., Goldstein, A. H., Pusede, S. E., Browne, E. C., Min, K.-E., and Cohen, R. C.: A relaxed eddy accumulation system for measuring vertical fluxes of nitrous acid, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 2093–2103, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-2093-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-2093-2011</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ren, Y., Stieger, B., Spindler, G., Grosselin, B., Mellouki, A., Tuch, T., Wiedensohler, A., and Herrmann, H.: Role of the dew water on the ground surface in HONO distribution: a case measurement in Melpitz, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13069–13089, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13069-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13069-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Rumsey, I. C. and Walker, J. T.: Application of an online ion-chromatography-based instrument for gradient flux measurements of speciated nitrogen and sulfur, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 2581–2592, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-2581-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-2581-2016</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Scharko, N. K., Schütte, U. M. E., Berke, A. E., Banina, L., Peel, H.
R., Donaldson, M. A., Hemmerich, C., White, J. R., and Raff, J. D.: Combined
Flux Chamber and Genomics Approach Links Nitrous Acid Emissions to Ammonia
Oxidizing Bacteria and Archaea in Urban and Agricultural Soil, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 49, 13825–13834, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00838" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00838</a> 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Schobesberger, S., Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Taipale, D., Millet, D. B.,
D'Ambro, E. L., Rantala, P., Mammarella, I., Zhou, P., Wolfe, G. M., Lee, B.
H., Boy, M., and Thornton, J. A.: High upward fluxes of formic acid from a
boreal forest canopy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9342–9351,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069599" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069599</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Shaw, W. J., Spicer, C. W., and Kenny, D. V.: Eddy correlation fluxes of
trace gases using a tandem mass spectrometer, Atmos. Environ., 32,
2887–2898, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00036-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00036-3</a>, 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Shen, Jianlin, Chen, Deli, Bai, Mei, Sun, Jianlei, Lam, and Shu: Spatial
variations in soil and plant nitrogen levels caused by ammonia deposition
near a cattle feedlot, Atmos. Environ.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.022</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sievering, H., Kelly, T., McConville, G., Seibold, C., and Turnipseed, A.:
Nitric acid dry deposition to conifer forests:: Niwot Ridge
spruce–fir–pine study, Atmos. Environ., 35, 3851–3859,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00156-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00156-X</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      
Su, H., Cheng, Y., Oswald, R., Behrendt, T., Trebs, I., Meixner, F. X.,
Andreae, M. O., Cheng, P., Zhang, Y., and Pöschl, U.: Soil Nitrite as a
Source of Atmospheric HONO and OH Radicals, Science, 333, 1616–1618,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207687" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207687</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      
Trebs, I., Meixner, F. X., Slanina, J., Otjes, R., Jongejan, P., and Andreae, M. O.: Real-time measurements of ammonia, acidic trace gases and water-soluble inorganic aerosol species at a rural site in the Amazon Basin, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 967–987, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-967-2004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-967-2004</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
      
van Breemen, N. and van Dijk, H. F. G.: Ecosystem effects of atmospheric
deposition of nitrogen in The Netherlands, Environ. Pollut., 54, 249–274,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(88)90115-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(88)90115-7</a>, 1988.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
      
Velentini, R., Greco, S., Seufert, G., Bertin, N., Ciccioli, P., Cecinato,
A., Brancaleoni, E., and Frattoni, M.: Fluxes of biogenic VOC from
Mediterranean vegetation by trap enrichment relaxed eddy accumulation,
Atmos. Environ., 31, 229–238, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00085-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00085-X</a>,
1997.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
      
Villena, G., Kleffmann, J., Kurtenbach, R., Wiesen, P., Lissi, E., Rubio, M.
A., Croxatto, G., and Rappenglück, B.: Vertical gradients of HONO,
NO<sub><i>X</i></sub> and O<sub>3</sub> in Santiago de Chile, Atmos. Environ., 45, 3867–3873,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.073" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.073</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vitousek, P. M. and Howarth, R. W.: Nitrogen limitation on land and in the
sea: How can it occur?, Biogeochemistry, 13, 87–115,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00002772" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00002772</a>, 1991.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
      
von der Heyden, L., Wißdorf, W., Kurtenbach, R., and Kleffmann, J.: A relaxed eddy accumulation (REA) LOPAP system for flux measurements of nitrous acid (HONO), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 1983–2000, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-1983-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-1983-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry
deposition in regional-scale numerical models, Atmos. Environ., 41, 52–63,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.058" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.058</a>, 2007.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wong, K. W., Tsai, C., Lefer, B., Haman, C., Grossberg, N., Brune, W. H., Ren, X., Luke, W., and Stutz, J.: Daytime HONO vertical gradients during SHARP 2009 in Houston, TX, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 635–652, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-635-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-635-2012</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wu, D., Horn, M. A., Behrendt, T., Müller, S., Li, J., Cole, J. A., Xie,
B., Ju, X., Li, G., Ermel, M., Oswald, R., Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J., Hoor,
P., Hu, C., Liu, M., Andreae, M. O., Pöschl, U., Cheng, Y., Su, H.,
Trebs, I., Weber, B., and Sörgel, M.: Soil HONO emissions at
high moisture content are driven by microbial nitrate reduction to nitrite:
tackling the HONO puzzle, ISME J., 13, 1688–1699,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0379-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0379-y</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
      
Xu, M., Kasahara, K., Sorimachi, A., and Matsuda, K.: Nitric acid dry
deposition associated with equilibrium shift of ammonium nitrate above a
forest by long-term measurement using relaxed eddy accumulation, Atmos.
Environ., 256, 118454, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118454" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118454</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
      
Young, L.-H., Hsiao, T.-C., Griffith, S. M., Huang, Y.-H., Hsieh, H.-G.,
Lin, T.-H., Tsay, S.-C., Lin, Y.-J., Lai, K.-L., Lin, N.-H., and Lin, W.-Y.:
Secondary inorganic aerosol chemistry and its impact on atmospheric
visibility over an ammonia-rich urban area in Central Taiwan, Environ.
Pollut., 312, 119951, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119951" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119951</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, N., Zhou, X., Bertman, S., Tang, D., Alaghmand, M., Shepson, P. B., and Carroll, M. A.: Measurements of ambient HONO concentrations and vertical HONO flux above a northern Michigan forest canopy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8285–8296, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8285-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8285-2012</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhou, X., Zhang, N. TerAvest, M., Tang, D., Hou, J., Bertman, S., Alaghmand, M., Shepson, P. B., Carroll, M. A., Griffith, S., Dusanter, S., and Stevens. P. S.: Nitric acid photolysis on forest
canopy surface as a source for tropospheric nitrous acid, Nat. Geosci.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1164" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1164</a>, 2011.

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