Breakout Summary Report
ARM/ASR User and PI Meeting
ARM Aerosol Measurement Activities and Plans
24 June 2021
11:00 AM - 1:00 PM
75
Jim Mather, Allison McComiskey, Qi Zhang, John Shilling, Gannet Hallar, and Tim Onasch
24 June 2021
11:00 AM - 1:00 PM
75
Jim Mather, Allison McComiskey, Qi Zhang, John Shilling, Gannet Hallar, and Tim Onasch
Breakout Description
This session provided an overview of current activities related to aerosol measurements and data products, a summary of outcomes from recent aerosol-related meetings, and then focused on several issues that emerged from those meetings: measurement priorities at the Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow) observatory, a need to enhance the understanding and future usage of the DOE aerosol chemistry data (with a focus on long-term data at the SGP and ENA), and discussion of a strategy to implement coordinated aerosol intensive operational periods.Main Discussion
This breakout session included a series of presentations to communicate the status of activities focused on advancing ARM aerosol measurements and associated data products. Jim Smith and Nicole Riemer kicked off the session with an update on the standards document being developed by ARM mentors and ASR scientists. Allison McComiskey provided an overview of the Aerosol Measurements and Science Group (AMSG) 2019 Workshop. Jim Mather provided an overview of development activities related to ARM aerosol measurements. The Aerosol Translator, John Shilling, gave a presentation updating the aerosol-related data products that are available. Four presentations were given to report various issues related to aerosol chemistry measurements using Aerodyne aerosol chemical speciation monitors (ACSM) deployed at ARM permanent sites. The session concluded with presentations on a pair of topics that emerged from the 2019 AMSG workshop.A full breakout session report can be viewed here.
Key Findings
The audience was very receptive and positive toward the proposed idea of a themed intensive operational strategy for aerosol measurements at the fixed ARM site. For example, Jose-Luis Jimenez from the University of Colorado stated “the structured IOP idea that was described is outstanding, and has the potential to solve what (in my opinion) has been for at least a decade a core problem in how to combine the ARM sites, the more complex instruments at those, and the intensives with research-grade instruments.” Jerome Fast from PNNL stated “… a structured IOP methodology is the only way to go to provide new data needed for advance aerosol research, particularly on SOA (Secondary Organic Aerosol).” Shantanu Jathar from CSU: “With my modeling hat on, I think high-quality data for a few weeks (perhaps a month) are better for manageable model-measurement comparisons with respect to learning about aerosol process/properties... I am thinking of the insight offered by similar exercises during CalNex, CARES, GoAmazon, etc. In general, it is very tedious to do longer model-measurement comparisons.” No comments (either verbal or written) in opposition to the idea were received.There was also a positive response to expanding aerosol measurements at Utqiagvik with specific calls for size distributions and filter measurements, including support for analysis of existing samples obtained by Patricia Quinn.
The audience showed a strong interest in ARM ACSM data products and asked a large number of questions about ACSM data processing, analysis, and usage.