Auxiliary Material for
Los Angeles Basin Airborne Organic
Aerosol Characterization during CalNex.
J. S. Craven,1 A. R. Metcalf,2,8 R. Bahreini,3,4,9 A. Middlebrook,3,4 P. L. Hayes,3,5 H. T.
Duong,6 A. Sorooshian,6,7 J. L. Jimenez,3,5 R. C. Flagan,1,2 and J. H. Seinfeld1,2
1.) Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena,CA 91125, USA.
2.) Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena,CA 91125, USA.
3.) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
4.) Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
5.) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado, USA.
6.) Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona, USA.
7.) Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona,
USA.
8.) Now at the Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratories,
Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
9.) Now at the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California,
Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 2013
Introduction
The auxiliary material is a file consisting of text, 3 tables, and 8 figures. The material
is organized in two sections.
Section 1
Section 1 describes an instrument comparison between the airborne compact timeof-flight aerosol mass spectrometer and differential mobility analyzer during the
CalNex 2010 campaign onboard the Navy CIRPAS Twin Otter. See Figures S1 and S2.
Section 2
Section 2 contains the details regarding the positive matrix factorization solution of
the Navy CIRPAS Twin Otter compact time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer data.
See Tables S1-3, and Figures S3-S6.
Tables
1. TableS1.Uncentered r Values for Mass Spectral Profile Comparison of May 25 PMF
Solutions
1.1 Column “Tentative Assignment”, organic aerosol component description from
PMF solution
1.2 Column “Factor Number (p)”, integer, PMF solution factor number
1.3 Column “Seed Number”, integer, PMF solution seed number
1.4-1.30 Columns 4 – 29, name of reference mass spectrum and reference where it
was published.
2. TableS2. Pearson’s r Values for Time Series Comparison of May 25 PMF Solutions
2.1 Column “Tentative Assignment”, organic aerosol component description from
PMF solution
2.2 Column “Factor Number (p)”, integer, PMF solution factor number
2.3 Column “Seed Number”, integer, PMF solution seed number
2.4-2.19 Columns 4 – 19, title of variable that was compared to the scalar
contribution of the PMF solution
3.Table S3. Correlations of Factors with varying fpeak values
3.1 Column “Mass Spectral Profile Correlation” and “Time Series Correlation”, the
two variables compared via pearson’s r or uncentered r correlation
3.2 – 3.6, Column “n=-1” – “n=1”, the value of the fpeak from the PMF solution
Figures
1.Figure S1. The AMS + rBC and DMA volume for each flight versus time.
2.Figure S2. The AMS + rBC volume versus the DMA volume for all 6 flights. The best
fit line is shown, in addition to the 1:1 line and the ± 30% shaded area. The blue dots
that lie outside of this shaded region are from the May 21, 2010 flight.
3.Figure S3. Ratio of Q/Qexpected for p = 1, through p = 4 solutions.
4.Figure S4. HOA, SVOOA, and LVOOA factors on May 25 with rBC, AMS nitrate, and
AMS sulfate.
5.Figure S5. Mass spectrum profile for factors 1, 2, and 3 for varying fpeak values.
The contribution to Q/Qexpected versus fpeak is also inset. The colors correspond
to the different fpeak values. Different markers are used for visual clarity.
6.Figure S6. The time series for factors 1, 2, and 3 for varying fpeak values. The
colors correspond to the different fpeak values, and match that of figure S5.
7.Figure S7. O:C vs longitude for each TO flight.
8.Figure S8. Location of TO and P3 aircraft during airborne mass spectral inter
comparison on May 19. The P3 sampled 15 minutes after the TO.