<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="data-paper">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESSD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth System Science Data</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESSD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Syst. Sci. Data</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1866-3516</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/essd-14-2129-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Observations of the lower atmosphere from the <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> 2021 WiscoDISCO campaign</article-title><alt-title>Observations of the lower atmosphere from the 2021 WiscoDISCO campaign</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Observations of the lower atmosphere from the 2021 WiscoDISCO campaign}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{P. A. Cleary et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Cleary</surname><given-names>Patricia A.</given-names></name>
          <email>clearypa@uwec.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-5166</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>de Boer</surname><given-names>Gijs</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4652-7150</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Hupy</surname><given-names>Joseph P.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Borenstein</surname><given-names>Steven</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Hamilton</surname><given-names>Jonathan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3056-5315</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Kies</surname><given-names>Ben</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Lawrence</surname><given-names>Dale</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Pierce</surname><given-names>R. Bradley</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tirado</surname><given-names>Joe</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Voon</surname><given-names>Aidan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Wagner</surname><given-names>Timothy</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire,
Eau Claire, WI 54701, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado Boulder,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Boulder, CO 80309, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Physical Sciences Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Boulder, CO 80305, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Integrated Remote and In Situ Sensing, University of Colorado
Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>School of Aviation and Transportation Technology, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Research and Engineering Center for Unmanned Vehicles, University
of Colorado Boulder,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Boulder, CO 80309, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Patricia A. Cleary (clearypa@uwec.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>5</day><month>May</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>2129</fpage><lpage>2145</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>September</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>4</day><month>November</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>8</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 Patricia A. Cleary et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</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://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022.html">This article is available from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e220">The mesoscale meteorology of lake breezes along Lake Michigan
impacts local observations of high-ozone events. Previous manned aircraft
and UAS observations have demonstrated non-uniform ozone concentrations
within and above the marine layer over water and within shoreline
environments. During the 2021 Wisconsin's Dynamic Influence of Shoreline
Circulations on Ozone (WiscoDISCO-21) campaign, two UAS platforms, a
fixed-wing (University of Colorado RAAVEN) and a multirotor (Purdue
University DJI M210), were used simultaneously to capture lake breeze during
forecasted high-ozone events at Chiwaukee Prairie State Natural Area in
southeastern Wisconsin from 21–26 May 2021​​​​​​​. The RAAVEN platform (data DOI:
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5142491" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5142491</ext-link>, de Boer et al., 2021) measured temperature, humidity, and 3-D winds during
2 h flights following two separate flight patterns up to three times per day
at altitudes reaching 500 m above ground level (a.g.l.). The M210 platform (data DOI: <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5160346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5160346</ext-link>, Cleary et al., 2021a) measured vertical profiles of temperature, humidity,
and ozone during 15 min flights up to six times per day at altitudes
reaching 120 ma.g.l. near a Wisconsin DNR ground monitoring
station (AIRS ID: 55-059-0019). This campaign was conducted in conjunction
with the Enhanced Ozone Monitoring plan from the Wisconsin DNR that included Doppler
lidar wind profiler observations at the site (data
DOI: <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5213039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5213039</ext-link>, Cleary et al., 2021b).</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e241">WiscoDISCO-21 (Wisconsin's Dynamic Influence on Shoreline Circulations
on Ozone) was designed to capture lake breeze influence on the shoreline
ozone observations and to interrogate the low-altitude dimensionality of the
marine layer as it moves on shore. The lake breeze is a mesoscale phenomenon
driven by differential air temperatures over land and water surfaces, which
in spring and early summer produces a solenoidal circulation in a baroclinic
environment that manifests itself as onshore flow during the day. A strong
inversion develops as a shallow layer of maritime air is advected onshore
and displaces the warmer terrestrial air upward (Holton, 1992; Miller et
al., 2003; Martin, 2006; Wagner et al., 2022). These circulations can act as
a transport mechanism of emissions on land to over water at night and in
early morning hours, then allowing those emissions to not mix when trapped
in cooler temperature-inverted air masses over water, eventually being
driven back on land through a lake breeze. The goals of the campaign were
to (a) characterize lake breeze characteristics of nearshore circulation
onset and vertical shape along the shoreline of Lake Michigan, (b) capture
the development or movement of convergence zones/fine-scale circulations
within the lake-breeze frontal region from offshore to onshore over time, and
(c) monitor ozone gradients, characteristics of chemical circulation patterns
within marine-influenced inversions at the shoreline at low altitudes.</p>
      <p id="d1e244">The influence of lake breeze on shoreline air quality along Lake Michigan
(Keen and Lyons, 1978; Lyons and Cole, 1976; Lyons and Olsson, 1973; Dye
et al., 1995; Foley et al., 2011; Stanier et al., 2021) and other Great
Lakes (Hayden et al., 2011; Levy et al., 2010; Wentworth et al., 2015;
Sills et al., 2011) is well documented by campaigns incorporating ground
(Lyons and Cole, 1976), ferry (Lennartson and Schwartz, 2002;
Cleary et al., 2015), and aircraft observations (Dye et al., 1995; Foley
et al., 2011; Hayden et al., 2011; Stanier et al., 2021). The shoreline
communities of Lake Michigan have historically been in non-attainment of
federal ozone standards. Precursors to ozone production, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), have emission sources
along the Chicago urban corridor, and ozone production can be enhanced when
those emissions are trapped in the marine layer over the lake and get
transported northward from Chicago (Vermeuel et al., 2019; Dye et al.,
1995; Foley et al., 2011). The low-altitude features in ozone gradients over
Lake Michigan have been observed in the recent 2017 Lake Michigan Ozone
Study field campaign (Stanier et al., 2021; Doak et al., 2021). Stanier
et al. (2021) describe observations for the highest measured ozone during
the field campaign existing over water, offshore from Milwaukee and in the
altitude range of 30–100 m above lake level. Air quality models have been
shown to inadequately represent overwater ozone (Cleary et al., 2015;
McNider et al., 2018; Qin et al., 2019) and do not always capture the ozone
gradients at the shoreline (Stanier et al., 2021; Abdi-Oskouei et al.,
2020). The shallow marine layer disruption when crossing a shoreline
boundary during a lake breeze is a unique environment to study the changes
in vertical mixing and pollutant extent.</p>
      <p id="d1e256">WiscoDISCO-21 featured round-based Doppler lidar observations and two
uncrewed aircraft systems (UASs), including the University of Colorado RAAVEN
fixed-wing UAS and Purdue University's DJI M210 quadcopter. These platforms
were deployed to enhance the level of detail and extend the domains of
ground-based measurements to manned aircraft observations with higher
spatial resolution and sustained lower-altitude flight. UASs are well suited
to make observations of a shoreline environment impacted by a shallow marine
layer, where vertical mixing and pollutant transport are key to
understanding pollution events at the surface. UASs have been used in
riverine environments to highlight pollutant transport and nighttime
boundary layer dynamics (Guimaras et al., 2020). During
the Ozone Water-Land Environmental Transition Study (OWLETs), UASs, ozone
sondes, and lidar observations were used to observe ozone titration events
above the Chesapeake Bay shipping channel (Gronoff
et al., 2019). Horel et al. (2016) describe the
use of distributed ground sensors, tethered sondes, and UASs to better
understand the meteorological and pollutant transport factors surrounding
poor air quality in the Salt Lake valley. The incorporation of multi-hole
probes into fixed-wing UASs has allowed for observations of 3-D winds
(Elston et al., 2015) and turbulent fluxes
(Wildmann et al., 2014). The RAAVEN platform
leveraged in WiscoDISCO-21 has recently been used to study the lower
atmosphere across a variety of environmental regimes. This includes nearly a
month of flight operations to investigate the thermodynamic and kinematic
structure of trade winds over the tropical Atlantic Ocean (de Boer et al., 2022a) as well as deployments to the US Midwest to make
measurements of supercell thunderstorms (Frew et al., 2020).
The measurement accuracy of the RAAVEN's instrumentation was recently
evaluated at the US Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) program's Southern Great Plains facility (see de Boer et al., 2022b, for details).</p>
      <p id="d1e259">Such high-resolution UAS observations are well-suited for documenting and
characterizing the dimensions of the lake breeze phenomenon and
corresponding pollutant transport. A combination of UASs and lidar can
provide overlapping domains of observations that scale up to the planetary
boundary layer, with UASs providing detailed insight into nonuniformities in
meteorological observations along the Lake Michigan shoreline. UAS
observations are particularly complementary to Doppler lidar observations,
as such observations are subject to near-field issues that prevent them from
making observations at very low altitudes. Given that the UASs readily
operate between the surface and 100 m, these platforms can fill in this gap
and provide detailed insight into thermodynamic, kinematic, and chemical
properties of this layer. These observations have higher vertical and
temporal resolution than many chemical models, which can provide insight into
model resolution issues at the lake–land interface (Wagner
et al., 2022). The WiscoDISCO-21 field campaign was conducted in conjunction
with the Enhanced Ozone Monitoring initiative from the Wisconsin DNR who housed
added instrumentation for NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> NO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>),
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sum of all reactive nitrogen species), VOC
canisters, and PANDORA instrumentation at the Chiwaukee Prairie air
monitoring station.​​​​​​​ The NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and VOC measurements can give some
indication of the availability of precursors for ozone production and
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements, and some specific VOCs can indicate something
about the past ozone production history of an air parcel. The Wisconsin DNR has
provided a portal for access to data from these sensors through their web
portal
(<uri>https://wi-dnr.widencollective.com/portals/iwvftorq/AirMonitoringData</uri>, last access: 21 April 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e340">These datasets can be used in a variety of ways to better understand the
meteorology and pollution episodes at the Lake Michigan shoreline. The lidar
WindPRO data and RAAVEN data provide complete coverage of the atmospheric
dynamics of the marine layer such that it can be characterized and modeled
(Wagner et al., 2022; Jozef et al., 2022).
Those characterizations could be used to test the fidelity of operational
meteorological models (such as HRRR) in modeling the stable boundary layer
height. The datasets can also be used to test models for the roughness
parameterizations in a shoreline environment using overwater and overland
turbulence. The combination of ozone data with the meteorological data can
be used to constrain air quality models for the chosen mixing volume for
chemical processing in the atmosphere, using the FOAM model
(Vermeuel et al., 2019) or testing vertical
grid-scale sizing of nested high-resolution models for their ability to
reproduce the gradients in ozone as measured using UASs (Abdi-Oskouei et
al., 2020). The lake breeze phenomenon is similar to bay breeze and sea
breeze circulations that complicate modeling efforts in other shoreline
locations impacted by poor air quality (Caicedo et al., 2021; Geddes et
al., 2021), and model fidelity is crucial to the development of appropriate
emissions controls in these environments.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Description of instrumentation and vehicles</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>University of Colorado RAAVEN UAS</title>
      <p id="d1e358">The RAAVEN UAS (Fig. 1) is a fixed-wing UAS with a wingspan of 2.3 m that
has been operated by the University of Colorado Boulder since 2019. The
RAAVEN's airframe is based on a custom-manufactured model from RiteWing RC.
The airframe has been updated to meet the needs of atmospheric science
missions spanning a variety of environments. The RAAVEN leverages the
PixHawk2 autopilot system and employs an 8S 21 000 mAh lithium ion (Li-Ion)
battery pack to offer flight times around 2.5 h, depending on conditions
and executed flight patterns. Specific modifications to the airframe include
the integration of a tail boom to enhance longitudinal stability and improve
the platform's performance. The aircraft has a top airspeed of approximately
130 km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, though operations during WiscoDISCO-21 were almost
exclusively conducted in the 60–70 km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> range.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e387">The University of Colorado RAAVEN being prepared for launch during
WiscoDISCO21 (top) and a closeup of the RAAVEN sensing systems (bottom).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e396">For the WiscoDISCO-21 campaign, the RAAVEN was equipped with an instrument
suite derived from the <italic>miniFlux</italic> payload co-developed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and Integrated Remote and In Situ Sensing
(IRISS) at the University of Colorado. In this configuration, the aircraft
was set up to measure atmospheric and surface properties to support
evaluation of thermodynamic state, kinematic state, and turbulent fluxes of
heat and momentum. This involves a suite of core instrumentation (see Fig. 3), including a multihole pressure probe (MHP) from Black Swift
Technologies, LLC (BST); a pair of RSS421 PTH (pressure, temperature,
humidity) sensors from Vaisala, Inc.; a custom finewire array, developed and
manufactured at the University of Colorado Boulder; a pair of Melexis
MLX90614 IR thermometers; and a VectorNav VN-300 inertial navigation system
(INS). This sensor suite is logged using a custom-designed FlexLogger data
logging system.</p>
      <p id="d1e403">The Vaisala RSS421 sensors are identical to those used in the Vaisala RD41
dropsonde and very similar to the Vaisala RS41 radiosonde. This unit
employs a linear resistive platinum temperature sensor with a resolution of
0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, repeatability of 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and response time
(as measured within the RS41 radiosonde) of 0.5 s at 1000 hPa when moving at
6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For relative humidity (RH), the RSS421 includes a thin-film
capacitor with a resolution of 0.1 % RH and a repeatability of 2 % RH,
with a temperature-dependent response time of better than 0.3 s at 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (again, as measured within the RS41, with 6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> airflow
at 1000 hPa). Finally, the pressure sensor is capacitive with a silicon
diaphragm, having a resolution of 0.01 hPa and a repeatability of 0.4 hPa.
For WiscoDISCO-21, a pair of these sensor modules was mounted to the top of
the RAAVEN's fuselage, between the nose and the tail of the aircraft on the
port side. The sensor mounting angles were offset to ensure that the two
sensors would have different amounts of solar exposure as the aircraft
maneuvers through the atmosphere and to allow for the detection of solar
heating effects since no shading is used. Additional information on
atmospheric thermodynamic state is available from an E<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>E EE-03 sensor that
is integrated into the BST MHP and from a Sensiron SHT-85 sensor that is
integrated in the custom finewire array. The EE-03 has a temperature
accuracy (at 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) of 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, while the humidity
accuracy is stated to be 3 % RH at 21 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The SHT-85 has a
stated temperature accuracy of 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (from 20–50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)
and a repeatability of 0.08 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, while the humidity sensor has a stated
accuracy of 1.5 % RH and a repeatability of 0.15 % RH. Both the EE03
and the SHT-85 sensors have slower response times than the RSS421 sensor
described above and are typically not used for scientific purposes unless
there is a complete failure of the RSS421.</p>
      <p id="d1e520">In addition to the SHT-85 sensor, the finewire array consists of two 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m diameter platinum wires extending over a 2 mm length, suspended in the
free stream by supporting prongs. One wire is operated as a hotwire
anemometer, with approximately 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C overheating compared to the
ambient environmental temperature. The other wire is operated as a coldwire
thermometer, with approximately 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C overheating relative to the
surrounding environment. The wires have thermal time constants of 0.5 ms in
a 15 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> airflow regime and support a sampling frequency of up to
800 Hz to support measurement of turbulent fluctuations in velocity and
temperature. An electronics module converts resistance change in the wires
due to velocity or temperature variability to amplified voltages. For
WiscoDISCO-21, the finewire was logged at 250 Hz by the FlexLogger, which is
equivalent to a 7.2 cm minimum length scale at the RAAVEN's typical cruise
airspeed of 18 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>​​​​​​​. Time series of these recorded data are processed during
post-flight analysis to transform the voltages recorded by the fine-wire
module to velocity and temperature. Additionally, these measured quantities
can be fit to inertial sub-range turbulence models to wavenumber spectra
over suitable time intervals, producing turbulence intensity parameters
epsilon (kinetic energy dissipation rate) and CT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (temperature
structure constant). The resolution (noise floor) of these parameterizations
is 2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for epsilon and 4.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>​​​​​​​ for CT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Resolution of the raw time series is 8.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the hotwire and 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K for the coldwire.</p>
      <p id="d1e719">In addition to the EE-03 PTH measurements, the BST five-hole probe supports
measurement of airspeed, angle of attack (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), and sideslip angle (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).
These measurements are combined with the GPS-based ground velocities and
aircraft altitude from the VectorNav VN-300 to derive the three components
of the inertial wind (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), as discussed in Sect. 4. The VN-300 can be
configured in a dual-Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) mode, under
which the relative positions of two GNSS antennae are used to calculate the
platform yaw. However, this setting was not used during the WiscoDISCO-21
deployment. Under dynamic conditions, the system has a stated accuracy of
0.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in GPS compass heading, 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in pitch and roll, 2.5 m
horizontal position accuracy, 2.5 m vertical position accuracy when
integrating information from the barometric pressure sensor, and 0.05 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> accuracy in inertial velocity. Input from the system's gyroscope,
accelerometer, GNSS receiver, magnetometer, and pressure sensor is filtered
through an extended Kalman filter (EKF) to produce a navigation solution.
VN-300 data were logged at 50 Hz resolution during WiscoDISCO-21.</p>
      <p id="d1e788">Finally, RAAVEN deploys two Melexis MLX90614 IR thermometers: one looking up
from the top of the aircraft and one looking down towards the surface in
level flight. These sensors are factory calibrated to work in operational
temperatures between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 125 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and to measure target brightness
temperatures between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 380 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. They have a high accuracy
(0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) and a measurement resolution of 0.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The
RAAVEN-mounted MLX90614s are not stabilized to maintain a vertical
orientation, meaning that the observed target is perpendicular to the
reference frame of the aircraft. This requires some care when interpreting
measurement from time periods when the aircraft is conducting pitch or
rolling maneuvers. For WiscoDISCO-21, we leveraged the “I” version of this
sensor, which has a 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> field of view. These sensors have a broad
passband range of 5–14 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, meaning that while it covers the infrared
atmospheric window, it is also subject to radiation emitted by water vapor
and other radiatively active gases. This means that there is a significant depth of
atmosphere between the aircraft and a given target (e.g., cloud, surface), and
atmospheric gases influence the temperature reading. Despite this range
spanning the 9.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> band, the relative proximity of the
sensor to targets of interest (e.g., surface, clouds) means that this overlap
is not expected to significantly influence the readings, due to the
integrated path length being relatively small. Therefore, if absolute
accuracy of brightness temperature is important, the sensor should be
operated in close proximity to a target of interest. However, relative
contributions from different surface types or atmospheric conditions can
still be easily distinguished despite a lack of absolute calibration for
extended distance sensing. Such gradient detection can be useful for
detecting surface inhomogeneities, or for understanding whether the aircraft
is operating under cloud or clear sky.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>M210 UAS</title>
      <p id="d1e890">The DJI M210 quadcopter was equipped with a 3-D printed top-mounted bracket
for holding a 2B Technologies personal ozone monitor (POM) and an Intermet
Systems iMET-XQ2 meteorology sensor (Fig. 2). The copter had a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 min flight time with the onboard sensors without a
camera. The POM measures ambient ozone using UV absorption and active
humidity subtraction by measuring a whole-air sample and an ozone scrubbed
sample in a 10 s duty cycle. The POM records data to its internal data
storage at 10 s intervals with a log number and timestamp along with GPS
coordinates and instrumentation metrics (optical cell pressure and
temperature). The iMET system records temperature, humidity, and pressure
along with GPS coordinates and a timestamp to internal data storage. Each
instrument (the POM and iMET) had individual data logging systems and
separate power supplies. Both the POM and the iMET had GPS capabilities with
the POM logging inconsistently and the iMET logging GPS more consistently.
Each instrument and the UAS flight recorder logged timestamps. The iMET
recorded observations of temperature, relative humidity, humidity
temperature, and pressure at a frequency of 10 Hz. The POM recorded ozone
observations at a frequency of 0.1 Hz. The POM, iMET, and M210 timestamps
drifted up to 60 s from the other logged data. The flight log recorded
the M210 positioning (altitude, latitude, longitude) at 100 Hz. The M210
flight logs, iMET data, and POM data were each downloaded separately after
each series of flights.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e902">DJI M210 multirotor UAS with bracket-mounted POM and iMET.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f02.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Chiwaukee lidar system</title>
      <p id="d1e919">A Halo Photonics Stream Line XR Doppler lidar (Pearson et al., 2009) was
deployed on the roof of the Chiwaukee Prairie air monitoring station (Fig. 3), approximately 3 m a.g.l. This is the same system that is regularly
deployed as part of the Space Science and Engineering Center (SSEC) Portable
Atmospheric Research Center, SPARC (Wagner et al., 2019). The
Doppler lidar actively emits pulses of near-infrared radiation at a
wavelength of 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. This wavelength is long enough that molecular
scattering causes little attenuation of the signal, but it is short enough
that it is sensitive to aerosols that are suspended within the planetary
boundary layer.</p>
      <p id="d1e930">The Doppler lidar uses velocity-azimuth display (VAD) scans of the Doppler
lidar to retrieve profiles of wind speed and direction. In VAD, an
instrument capable of measuring along-beam velocity (like a Doppler radar or
lidar) stares at multiple azimuths at a non-zenith elevation angle over a
short period of time and then reconstructs the profile of winds above the
lidar by assessing how the along-beam velocity changes as a function of
azimuth and range. For WiscoDISCO-21, the VAD scans were configured with six
azimuthal stares per profile (at azimuths of 0, 60, 120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and so on) with an elevation angle of 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Range gates were 18 m. VAD scans were conducted every 4 min, and each VAD
took approximately 45 s to complete. Between VADs, the lidar reverted to
vertical stares in order to capture profiles of backscatter and vertical
velocity. Since the lidar depends on the presence of scatterers to have a
detectable signal return, the depth of the retrieved wind profiles varied
significantly throughout the experiment from as shallow as 200 m to as deep
as 2 km.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e953">Roof of the Chiwaukee Prairie air monitoring system, showing the
PANDORA (upper left) and Doppler lidar (right center). The wooden floor
pictured here is approximately 3 m a.g.l.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f03.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Description of measurement location, deployment strategies, and sampling</title>
      <p id="d1e971">The Chiwaukee Prairie State Natural Area is a 1.97 million square meters shoreline prairie
managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WiDNR) located
along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and adjacent to the Wisconsin–Illinois
border. The WiDNR operates an air monitoring station (Airs ID 55-059-0019)
for Kenosha County within this area, located at 11838 First Court in
Pleasant Prairie, WI. This location was chosen due to its suitability for
UAS flight operations and the regular influence of lake breeze circulations
at the site. As a result of these lake breezes, the WiDNR's Chiwaukee
Prairie Monitor regularly observes some of the highest ozone concentrations
in the state
(Stanier et al.,
2021) with a 2015–2017 design value of 78 ppb
(Cleary et al., 2022), where the federal ozone
standard is 70 ppb for an 8 h average. Land use in the region is mixed
suburban housing and farming, with two marinas directly south of the
research site. Chiwaukee Prairie has trail access along Al Kemper Trail and
122nd Street that is isolated from automobile, bicycle, and most pedestrian
traffic. The M210 flights were conducted near the WiDNR Air Monitoring site
(latitude: 42.5045, longitude: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">87.8095</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the RAAVEN flight operations
were conducted on Al Kemper Trail or 122nd St. to provide ample room for
take-off and landing (Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e986">Research site map including Chiwaukee Prairie air monitor and
locations for launch sites for M210 and RAAVEN. Map created using Esri
ArcPro version 2.52 using ArcPro basemap imagery.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f04.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e995">The primary goal for the field campaign was to capture elevated ozone
concentration events resulting from lake breeze circulations at the site.
The deployment strategy for selecting a time window for field operations was
dictated by ozone and meteorological forecasts that predicted light
southerly winds for an extended period that would both (a) increase the
likelihood of onshore lake breeze flow from weaker southerly winds and (b)
drive pollutant transport from the Chicago metro area to the site.</p>
      <p id="d1e999">Forecasts from both the WiDNR and Realtime Air Quality Modeling System
(RAQMS) were used to select an ideal deployment period. The dates of 21–26 May 2021 were chosen as meeting those requirements. The selection of the
time period for the campaign was dictated by capturing a combination of lake
breeze and ozone events. An acceptable window for operations from late 23 May
through mid-June was targeted because of the higher frequency of high-ozone and lake breeze events occurring in this region during late spring/
early summer (see Cleary et al., 2022, Supplement,​​​​​​​ for a list of high ozone events for the
years 2013–2019 at Chiwaukee Prairie). Once the operations window was
approaching, the team used the RAQMS forecast model (Fig. 5) and consulted
with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WiDNR) Air Quality
Division's meteorologist to decide on a “go time” to initiate deployment
from all collaboration partners for an 8 d campaign. The go time required
evidence that synoptic flow would have a southerly component for a few days
(normally brought about by a high-pressure system over the Ohio River
valley) with limited precipitation events. Flights were canceled during days
in which high ozone and southerly-southeasterly lake breeze were not expected
(Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1004">The 8 h ozone concentrations from RAQMS forecast (red) and
observations (black) for 13–26 May 2021 at Chiwaukee Prairie.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1016">UAS flight days and conditions for the WiscoDISCO-21 field
campaign. Flight patterns A and B are depicted in Fig. 6a.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Date (2021)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">M210 (time UTC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">University of Colorado RAAVEN<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(time UTC and flight pattern)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Weather and air quality conditions</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Friday, 21 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">F1 (15:35–15:44) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (16:38–16:47) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (19:08–19:21) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F4 (19:46–19:59)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">F1 (15:01–16:54) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern A <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (18:36–20:40) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SW wind, temps <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, small shift in winds to colder from SSE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saturday, 22 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">F1 (14:22–14:35) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (15:18–15:31) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (17:27–17:41) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F4 (18:26–18:41) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F5 (20:09–20:22) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F6 (20:59–2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>4)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">F1 (13:52–15:55) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern A <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (17:00–19:03) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern A <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (19:30–21:38) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">W wind in AM, temps <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, consistent shift in winds to colder from SSE <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sunday, 23 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">No flights</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">No flights</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">W to NE winds, dropping temperatures, AM showers, PM showers</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Monday, 24 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">F1 (15:08–15:23) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (16:01–16:16) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (18:14–18:29) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F4 (19:12–19:27) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F5 (21:09–2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>9) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F6 (22:04–22:19)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">F1 (14:24–16:30) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (17:41–19:50) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (20:42–22:51) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">S winds, lake breeze, high-ozone event (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppb).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tuesday, 25 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">F1 (14:00–14:15) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (14:49–15:04)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">F1 (13:39–15:42) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SW winds, slight lake breeze in the<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>morning, overtaken by westerlies</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wednesday, 26 May</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">F1 (13:43–13:58) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (14:37–14:52) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (16:47–17:02) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F4 (17:47–18:01) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F5 (19:51–20:06) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F6 (20:48–21:01)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">F1 (13:27–15:24) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F2 (16:31–18:20) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>F3 (19:30–21:22) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Pattern B</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">W wind, steady all day, sunny. After all flights, lake breeze came in from NE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1299">Flights were conducted in the time window 08:00–17:00 local time, CDT
(13:00–22:00 UTC) (Table 1). The RAAVEN platform features 2 h flight
times and was deployed to complete up to three flights per day. The M210 flew
slow ascents to 120 m a.g.l. with an approximate 15 min flight time,
completing up to six flights per day, and the sampling pattern was designated
to achieve maximum overlap with the RAAVEN flight times by conducting two
flights per RAAVEN flight.</p>
      <p id="d1e1302">During WiscoDISCO-21, the RAAVEN completed 12 flights, totaling 25.4 flight
hours, operating under a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the US
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow flights up to 518 m a.g.l. Figure 6a shows a map of the RAAVEN flights, while Fig. 2b includes a histogram
of the altitudes covered by these flights. Flights were designed to follow
two distinct flight patterns: A and B to capture over-prairie profiles using
a circular pattern with holding at altitudes 400, 250, 150, 100, and 50 m a.g.l.
and over-water/over-prairie profiles using an extended racetrack pattern
that traversed the shoreline, with holding altitudes at 400, 250, 150, 100,
and 50 m a.g.l. (see Fig. 6c for the two flight patterns). Figure 7 shows
histograms of the measurements obtained by the RAAVEN over the length of the
campaign, including temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind
direction, air pressure, and surface and sky brightness temperature.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1308">A map showing the flight tracks for the RAAVEN with blue showing
flight pattern A and yellow or green showing flight pattern B <bold>(a)</bold>, a
histogram of altitudes sampled by the RAAVEN <bold>(b)</bold>, and example time–height
plots of the two types of RAAVEN flights <bold>(c)</bold>. The “normalized probability”
presented for a given bin is the number of elements in a given bin divided
by the total number of elements in the input data, so that the integral of
the histogram equals 1. Background maps are © Google Maps 2021,
downloaded through their API.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1328">Histograms of <bold>(a–f)</bold> temperature, relative humidity, wind
direction, wind speed, IR brightness temperatures, and air pressure, as
measured by the RAAVEN during WiscoDISCO-21. As in Fig. 6, the
“normalized probability” presented for a given bin is the number of
elements in a given bin divided by the total number of elements in the input
data, so that the integral of the histogram equals 1.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Data processing and quality control</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>University of Colorado RAAVEN UAS</title>
      <p id="d1e1355">Data collected by the different sensors carried by the RAAVEN during
WiscoDISCO-21 were logged at a variety of different logging rates. The
finewire system was logged at 250 Hz, the fastest rate of all of the
sensors. The BST MHP was logged at 100 Hz and the VectorNav VN-300 at 50 Hz,
the Melexis IR sensors and variables related to finewire status were logged
at 20 Hz, while data collected from the PixHawk autopilot and Vaisala RSS421
sensors were logged at 5 Hz. Each logging event carried out by the
FlexLogger includes a sample time from the logger CPU clock, allowing for
post-collection time alignment between the different sensors. These sample
times, along with artificial 5, 20, 50, 100, and 250 Hz clocks spanning the
sample times between initial GPS lock and the last recorded sample time for
the VN-300, are used to align the different variables to a set of common
clocks, primarily through one-dimensional linear interpolation. One
exception to the linear interpolation is the yaw estimate, which is circular
in nature (ranging between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">180</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and therefore uses a
“nearest” interpolation to ensure that the transition from 360 to 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is not represented as 180. During this interpolation process, a
limited number of points sharing a common sample time with another point are
removed from the record. Once these time variables are established, a
<italic>base_time </italic>variable is established using the 250 Hz timestamp and offsets from
base_time are then calculated for all different logging resolutions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1389">The resampled (in time) dataset includes a variety of derived and measured
quantities. Aircraft positions, including latitude, longitude, and altitude,
are measured by the VN-300. The aircraft altitude is corrected using a
combination of various inputs from onboard GPS and pressure altimeters, as
neither of these altitude estimates can be used reliably as a definite
flight altitude. Pressure altitude is subject to drift over the duration of
a single flight due to atmospheric evolution over a 2.5 h window,
potentially resulting in values at landing that are higher or lower than
those at take-off. Similarly, the accuracy of the GPS altitude is
insufficient to capture the vertical position of the aircraft to the level
of detail required. To calculate a true altitude, a combination of the
autopilot altitude, VN-300 altitude, and VN-300 pressure is used. First, a
<italic>flight_flag</italic> variable is computed using airspeed and altitude information from the
autopilot. Any data points with airspeed exceeding 10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an
altitude exceeding 5 m a.g.l. is flagged as a time when the aircraft is flying
(flight_flag <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1). The point at 200 samples (4 s) prior to the first point in the
record where the aircraft is deemed to be flying is recorded as the initial
take-off index, while the data point at 200 samples (4 s) after the
last point in the record where the aircraft is deemed to be flying is
recorded as the landing index. The difference between the autopilot altitude
at these two indices is added into the flight record on a
time step-by-time step basis, to correct for temporal drift in pressure. A
linear fit is then calculated to relate the VN-300 pressure and the
difference between the VN-300-reported altitude and the autopilot-reported
altitude. This pressure-dependent altitude correction is then applied to the
VN-300-reported altitude to derive a final altitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e1414">Wind estimation from fixed-wing aircraft requires the combination of several
different measurements related to airspeed, aircraft motion, and airflow
over the aircraft (see van den Kroonenberg et al., 2008). These measurements
need to be of sufficient quality, and angular offsets and logging delays
need to be considered and removed. For RAAVEN, true airspeed (TAS) biases
have a large impact on derivation of wind speed, while the angular offsets
between the MHP and INS and time lag between the GPS and in situ
measurements have smaller impacts. These potential sources of error are
corrected for using an optimization technique, where small adjustments are
made to the individual parameters, and the combination that results in the
wind solution with the smallest overall variance is selected as the correct
winds.</p>
      <p id="d1e1417">For the RAAVEN WiscoDISCO-21 dataset, TAS is calculated using measurements
from the MHP and RSS421 probe using Eq. (1) from Brown et
al. (1983):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M78" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TAS</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the density of air calculated using the static pressure
reported from the MHP, temperature from the RSS421, and the specific gas
constant for dry air. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M81" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total aerodynamic angle of the MHP,
calculated using the angle of attack (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and sideslip angle (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) reported by the MHP.</p>
      <p id="d1e1541">Based on testing in a temperature chamber, the pressure sensors used in this
version of the MHP were found to have non-linear temperature dependencies.
This requires the application of an additional temperature-dependent
correction to ensure that an artificial alteration of TAS with altitude was
not present. Additional information on the calculation of airspeed and other
quantities from the MHP can be found in de Boer et al. (2022a).</p>
      <p id="d1e1544">Derivation of the RAAVEN's thermodynamic measurements included multiple
processing steps. First, data from the two RSS421 sensors are averaged to
attempt to reduce the influence of any solar exposure of the sensors.
Previous evaluations of the potential for solar contamination have not
revealed any specific biases on the observation (see de Boer et al., 2022a).
Over the course of the WiscoDISCO-21 campaign, the two sensors varied by
less than 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Fig. 8). The averaged temperature time series
was then used to calibrate the coldwire data by applying a linear fit to the
relationship between the coldwire voltage and the temperature measured by
the RSS421 sensor. The RSS421 relative humidity values were also averaged.
Typically, the RH measurements agreed to within 2 %.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1558">A comparison of temperature <bold>(a)</bold> and relative humidity <bold>(b)</bold>
observations from the two Vaisala RSS-421 sensors on RAAVEN for all flights.
The red dotted lines represent a one-to-one agreement, with the dashed black
lines representing 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (for temperature) and 5 % (for relative
humidity) deviation from perfect agreement.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1582">All quantities measured by the RAAVEN have data quality flags associated
with them. For the RSS421-derived temperature, the flag is set to zero for
good data and set to 1 for times when any of the following occur: (a) the
absolute value of the difference between the temperature from either
individual sensor and the output temperature is greater than 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, (b) the absolute value of the difference between the output temperature
and the temperature from the EE-03 sensor on the MHP exceeds 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, (c) the recorded error flag of either RSS421 sensor is active, or (d) the
aircraft is not flying. For the RH measurement from the RSS421, a similar
set of criteria are used to activate the data quality flag, except the
limits are set to be 6 % between RSS421 sensors and 15 % between the
output RH value and the MHP-provided RH value. The relative humidity values
from the MHP are significantly impacted by the exposure of that sensor to
sunlight and the associated impact on sensor temperature. This is not
corrected for, resulting in large fluctuations in the RH values at times. As
a result, this measurement (from the MHP) only provides a reality check to
ensure that the RSS421 sensors are reporting accurate values, and therefore such a
large offset (15 %) is allowed. The more important comparison is between
the two RSS421 sensors, which should agree much more closely, as they are
the same sensor type and are mounted within close proximity of one another.
The coldwire temperature data quality flag is activated when the difference
between the coldwire temperature and either of the RSS421 temperatures
exceeds 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, when the absolute value of the difference between
the coldwire temperature and the MHP temperature exceeds 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C,
when the coldwire voltage is observed to fall outside of the 0–4 V analog
range, or when the aircraft is not flying. Finally, the pressure quality
control flag for the pressure measurement from the VN-300 is activated if
the absolute value of the difference between the reported VN-300 static
pressure and that measured by either of the RSS421 sensors exceeds 2.5 hPa.
The RSS421 pressure measurements are not used because they are believed to
be biased low due to the airflow passing over their location on the
aircraft.</p>
      <p id="d1e1621">In addition to the flags discussed above, we include a three-stage flag for the
wind measurements, which is set to 0 (good data), 1 (suspect data), or 2 (bad
data). Data are determined to be bad if any of the following conditions were
met.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1626">The measured angle of attack or sideslip exceeds 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with values
between 10–20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> flagged as “suspect”.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1648">The true airspeed (TAS) is below 10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1664">Any of the MHP ports are deemed to be blocked, as determined by the
differential pressure value for any of the sensors falling below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pa.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1678">The moving window variance of the MHP-derived TAS over 40 s is less
than 5.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1682">The aircraft is not flying.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1686">The difference between the MHP TAS and that from the Pitot probe is
greater than 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e1702">Finally, we included two additional flags in the data stream to allow data
users to better understand aircraft flight state and support sampling during
specific phases of flight. These flags include the “Flight_Flag” introduced previously, as well as a “Flight_State”
flag. The Flight_State flag includes information on
whether the craft is flying straight (0) or is turning (1) in the ones place,
whether the aircraft is descending (0), level (1), or ascending (2) in the
tens place, and whether the aircraft is in flight (1) or not (0) in the
hundreds place. If, for example, a data user wanted to analyze straight,
level flight legs, they would search for data with Flight_State equal to 110. These flags are derived from information from a
combination of sensors, including the altitude variable described above, the
aircraft yaw, and the Flight_Flag variable described
earlier on in this paragraph.</p>
      <p id="d1e1705">The accuracy of the RAAVEN observations has been evaluated in previous
studies. For example, a comparison of RAAVEN data with measurements
collected by radiosondes launched from the Barbados Cloud Observatory was
conducted in recent work from de Boer et al. (2022b).
While radiosondes in that evaluation were launched approximately 20 km to
the southeast, the air sampled by both systems was largely representative of
the marine boundary layer, implying limited spatial variability. In that
evaluation, the observations from the RAAVEN were very well correlated with
those from the radiosondes and do not show any positive or negative bias,
supporting the idea that the RAAVEN measurements provide an accurate
depiction of the lower atmosphere. In addition, recent work allowed for
direct comparison of RAAVEN data to observations collected by radiosondes
and a 60 m tower at the US Department of Energy's Southern Great Plains
(SGP) research site. That study, de Boer et al. (2022a), similarly provided
confidence in the RAAVEN observations, showing close statistical agreement
between the different data sources.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>M210 UAS</title>
      <p id="d1e1716">Data from the M210 flight controller, the POM, and the iMET were all logged
to individual instrument internal data storage with independent timestamps.
The average flight time of the M210 was 13.96 min. The POM instrument logged
data at 0.1 Hz. The iMET logged data every 10 Hz, and the M210 flight log
recorded UAS GPS positioning and flight statistics at 100 Hz. The ozone
concentrations from the POM are adjusted to calibrated values, where ozone
calibrations were conducted before every set of two flights for the M210 using
a 2BTech model 306 ozone calibration source (Fig. 9). Data quality flags are
established as 0 being no concern, 1 being time flag, and 2 being calibration and time
flag. The time flag indicates flights where the time offset between the M210
and the instrument time offset is large (iMET <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s or POM
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s). The calibration flag indicates when the POM was not
responsive to the ozone calibration source (Flight 5 on 24 May) after an
over-water flight. All times were averaged to 90 s and compressed to
the time window of observations for a single M210 ascent using the M210
timestamp. A timestamp for 90 s averaged data from all instrumentation on
the M210 was generated by using the M210 timestamp as primary and adjusting
to a time offset in either the POM or the iMET for the start of a flight;
then each variable was averaged for every 90 s interval of the flight. A
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation is presented as the uncertainty for the 90 s
averages. The iMET observations of temperature, relative humidity, pressure,
and humidity temperature are presented using the 90 s averages with
uncertainty as 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviations. Each flight ascent start and
end were determined by observed changes in atmospheric pressure by the iMET
sensor, altitude change in the M210, or noted time of ascent in field
notebook for the POM. The altitudes for each observation were obtained by
averaging the M210 flight log altitude data for the 90 s timestamps. The
flight data timestamps varied slightly for each data source. The POM time
drift was the most pronounced, with an average difference between the iMet
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 24 s. The POM's time was adjusted manually throughout the
campaign as the time would drift over the course of one flight. The average
difference between the iMet and the M210 over 20 flights was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 s. Only 20 % of flights had a time difference between iMET and M210
greater than 10 s. Instrument battery loss occurred for the iMET
system, which resulted in lost data for two flights​​​​​​​ on 26 May 2021.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1770">A sample POM calibration from 24 May 2021. The linear regression
fit gives <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9689</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0061</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.83</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9937</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Each calibration concentration had a 5 min duration with the
POM logging 10 s data.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1838">Intercomparison between observations made via instrumentation on the M210 at
5 m a.g.l. and at the Wisconsin DNR ground station show a linear agreement between the
observations (Fig. 10). The linear agreement is better for the iMET
temperature and the ground station temperature with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.970</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
comparison to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.955</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> observations. The O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> linear
fit, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POM</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.944</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.044</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)​​​​​​​ O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DNR</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), has a negative intercept. The uncertainties in the POM's
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations are much larger than uncertainties in the ground
station instrumentation. The linear agreement between the different
instrumentation on separate observation platforms demonstrates that the M210
platform instrumentation provides an accurate, albeit less precise,
representation of the atmosphere.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1966">Intercomparison between measurements from instrumentation on the
M210 at 5 m a.g.l. and at the Wisconsin DNR ground station for <bold>(a)</bold> O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (ppb)
observations and <bold>(b)</bold> temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). Blue lines depict <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> agreement,
and red lines depict the linear regression best fit with <bold>(a)</bold> O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POM</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.944</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.044</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DNR</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.955</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">iMET</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.929</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.038</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DNR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.93</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.970</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2165">Temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) measured from University of Colorado
RAAVEN (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">○</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the M120 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">□</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) on 22 May 2021. RAAVEN was flying
over-prairie circular spirals in pattern A.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2199">Time–height cross section of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (zonal) component of the
Doppler-lidar-observed horizontal winds (in m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), overlaid with horizontal
wind barbs (in knots) plotted according to the standard convention from 22 May 2021. Wind barbs are thinned by a factor of 5 in the time dimension
and a factor of 2 in the height dimension to aid readability.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2129/2022/essd-14-2129-2022-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Data availability and file structure</title>
      <p id="d1e2237">A community data repository has been established for this field campaign at
<uri>https://zenodo.org/communities/wiscodisco21/</uri> (last access: 21 April 2022​​​​​​​). The datasets in
the repository cover the merged iMET and POM datasets from the M210
(DOI: <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5160346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5160346</ext-link>, Cleary et al., 2021a) as .txt files, the RAAVEN dataset (DOI:
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5142491" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5142491</ext-link>, de Boer et al., 2021) as .cdf files, and the Doppler lidar wind profiler
(DOI: <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5213039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5213039</ext-link>, Cleary et al., 2021b) as .cdf files. M210 files have a naming
convention that includes WiscoDisco_M210_YYYYMMDD_F#, where the flight number for the day is
indicated by F#. RAAVEN files have a naming convention that includes
WiscoDisco_CU-RAAVEN_YYYYMMDD_hhmmss_B1.nc, where YYYYMMDD is the year, month, and day that
the data were collected; hhmmss is the time of power on for the aircraft;
and B1 is the data processing level, where B1 files have had data quality
checks and post-processing (e.g., coldwire calibration and wind estimation)
applied. The Doppler lidar files have a naming convention that includes
chiwaukee_wind_profiles_YYYYMMDD and chiwaukee_stare_YYYYMMDD. All
datasets include geospatial information (latitude, longitude, altitude) and
timestamps in UTC.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Interpreted results</title>
      <p id="d1e2260">The WiscoDISCO-21 project demonstrates how UASs can be used to sample a
complex circulation near the surface without causing major disruption to
people, wildlife, and ecosystems in the area. An example of a
characterization of lake breeze incursion is shown in Figs. 11 and 12,
which include the temperature profiles from the M210 and RAAVEN (Fig. 11)
and Doppler lidar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> wind component (Fig. 12). The temperature profiles from
the M210 and RAAVEN show a notable temperature inversion in the late
afternoon below 150 m, and the Doppler lidar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> wind component shows easterly
winds arriving after 18:00 UTC. The combination of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component winds from
Doppler lidar and the temperature observations from the UAS platforms is
consistent in demonstrating a marine layer incursion with maximum height of
approximately 250 m a.g.l. at 21:00 UTC collapsing to a height of 100 m a.g.l. by
22:00 UTC. The nonuniform start to the lake breeze onset fluctuated, shown
as shifting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component winds from easterly to westerly after 18:00 UTC
(Fig. 12) and disagreement with the lowest-altitude observations from the
M210 and RAAVEN between 18:30–19:00 UTC (Fig. 11). The distance between the
M210 launch site and the RAAVEN landing site complicates the low-altitude
observations of temperatures between 18:00 and 19:00 UTC, which may also
indicate the very limited incursion of the lake breeze at that time.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Summary</title>
      <p id="d1e2299">The 2021 WiscoDISCO field campaign incorporated the use of two UAS platforms
for meteorological and chemical measurements in the atmosphere, a multirotor
completing vertical profiles up to 120 m a.g.l. and a fixed wing executing
flight patterns up to 500 m a.g.l. alongside a lidar WindPro instrument capable
of sensing winds and aerosol backscatter from altitudes of 100–2000 m a.g.l.
The overlapping domains are useful for characterizing low-altitude mesoscale
meteorology of the lake breeze at a shoreline environment that regularly
observes ozone enhancement events during onshore flow. Data from all
instruments and platforms have been compiled, quality-control tested, and
uploaded to a community repository. The collaborative field campaign
involved teams from four different universities and obtained continuous lidar
data in conjunction with 24 flight hours of fixed wing and 6 flight hours of
multi-rotor vertical profiles on days likely impacted by lake breeze.</p>
      <p id="d1e2302">The data from the WiscoDISCO-21 campaign can be used to evaluate the markers
for lake breeze incursion overland in winds, temperatures, chemical
composition, and optical properties (backscatter). The thermodynamic
conditions for lake breeze incursion at a local scale can be determined
through the evaluation of horizontal and vertical winds, atmospheric
stability, and potential temperature. The positioning of pollutants with
respect to the marine layer markers can also be investigated.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2309">PAC is the PI of this project and was responsible for data
collection, overseeing data analysis from the M210, field campaign planning
and logistics, and the writing and editing of this document. BK was
responsible for data collection for the M210 in the field; JT was
responsible for data analysis, quality control, and data formatting for the
repository for the M210; and AV was responsible for data analysis for
the M210. JPH was responsible for piloting the M210 and the writing and
editing of this paper. GdB was responsible for coordination and
execution of the University of Colorado RAAVEN flights and for development,
writing, and editing of the publication. SB and JH contributed to the collection of the RAAVEN dataset as field
operators and supported the development of this paper. DL
supplied instrumentation for the RAAVEN UAS and contributed to the writing
of the paper. TW and RBP were responsible for data
collection, data analysis of the Doppler lidar instrumentation, and writing
and editing this document, and RBP assisted in field planning.​​​​​​​</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2315">Gijs de Boer works as a consultant for Black Swift Technologies, who manufacture the multi-hole pressure probe used in the collection of the RAAVEN dataset.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e2321">Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2330">The UW–Eau Claire team acknowledges support from the
Student Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition program. The University of
Colorado team acknowledges financial support from the University of
Wisconsin–Eau Claire through a sub-contract supported by the US National
Science Foundation, as well as support from the NOAA Physical Sciences
Laboratory.  The authors thank
Nathan Taminger and Paul McKinley for their participation in the
WiscoDISCO-21 field campaign.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2335">This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 1918850).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2342">This paper was edited by Bo Zheng and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abdi-Oskouei, M., Carmichael, G., Christiansen, M., Ferrada, G.,
Roozitalab, B., Sobhani, N., Wade, K., Czarnetzki, A., Pierce, R. B.,
Wagner, T., and Stanier, C.: Sensitivity of Meteorological Skill to
Selection of WRF-Chem Physical Parameterizations and Impact on Ozone
Prediction During the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS), J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031971​​​​​​​, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031971" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019jd031971</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brown, E. N., Friehe, C. A., and Lenschow, D. H.: The use of pressure-fluctuations on the nose of an aircraft for measuring air motion​​​​​​​,
J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 22, 171–180,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022&lt;0171:Tuopfo&gt;2.0.Co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022&lt;0171:Tuopfo&gt;2.0.Co;2</ext-link>, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Caicedo, V., Delgado, R., Luke, W. T., Ren, X. R., Kelley, P., Stratton, P.
R., Dickerson, R. R., Berkoff, T. A., and Gronoff, G.: Observations of
bay-breeze and ozone events over a marine site during the OWLETS-2 campaign,
Atmos. Environ., 263, 118669, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118669" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118669</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cleary, P., Hupy, J., Kies, B., Tirado, J., and Voon, A.: UWEC and Purdue M210 Data for WiscoDISCO21 (Version V2), Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5160346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5160346</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cleary, P., Wagner, T. J., and Pierce, R. B.: UW-Madison SSEC Lidar Wind Profiler for WiscoDISCO 21 (Version V1), Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5213039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5213039</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cleary, P. A., Fuhrman, N., Schulz, L., Schafer, J., Fillingham, J., Bootsma, H., McQueen, J., Tang, Y., Langel, T., McKeen, S., Williams, E. J., and Brown, S. S.: Ozone distributions over southern Lake Michigan: comparisons between ferry-based observations, shoreline-based DOAS observations and model forecasts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5109–5122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5109-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5109-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cleary, P. A., Dickens, A. J., McIlquham, M., Sanchez, M., Geib, K.,
Hedberg, C., Hupy, J., Watson, M. W., Fuoco, M., Olson, E. R., Pierce, R.
B., Stanier, C., Long, R., Valin, L., Conley, S., and Smith, M.: Impacts of lake breeze meteorology on ozone gradient observations along Lake Michigan shorelines in Wisconsin, Atmos.
Environ., 269, 118834, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118834" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118834</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Borenstein, S., Hamilton, J., Rhodes, M., Choate, C., and Cleary, P.: CU RAAVEN data for WiscoDISCO21, Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5142491" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5142491</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Borenstein, S., Calmer, R., Cox, C., Rhodes, M., Choate, C., Hamilton, J., Osborn, J., Lawrence, D., Argrow, B., and Intrieri, J.: Measurements from the University of Colorado RAAVEN Uncrewed Aircraft System during ATOMIC, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 19–31, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-19-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-14-19-2022</ext-link>, 2022a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Elston, J., Houston, A., Pillar-Little, E., Argrow, B., Bell,
T., Chilson, P., Choate, C., Greene, B., Islam, A., Detweiler, C., Jacob,
J., Natalie, V., Rhodes, M., Rico, D., Stachura, M., Lappin, F., Whyte, S.,
and Wilson, M.: Evaluation and Intercomparison of Small Uncrewed Aircraft
Systems Used for Atmospheric Research,  Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, in preparation, 2022b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Doak, A. G., Christiansen, M. B., Alwe, H. D., Bertram, T. H., Carmichael,
G., Cleary, P., Czarnetzki, A. C., Dickens, A. F., Janssen, M., Kenski, D.,
Millet, D. B., Novak, G. A., Pierce, B. R., Stone, E. A., Long, R. W.,
Vermeuel, M. P., Wagner, T. J., Valin, L., and Stanier, C. O.:
Characterization of ground-based atmospheric pollution and meteorology
sampling stations during the Lake Michigan Ozone Study 2017, J.
Air Waste Manage., 71, 866–889,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2021.1900000" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/10962247.2021.1900000</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dye, T. S., Roberts, P. T., and Korc, M. E.: Observations of transport
processes for ozone and ozone precursors during the 1991 Lake Michigan Ozone
Study, J. Appl. Meteorol., 34, 1877–1889,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034&lt;1877:ootpfo&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034&lt;1877:ootpfo&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Elston, J., Argrow, B., Stachura, M., Weibel, D., Lawrence, D., and Pope,
D.: Overview of Small Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aircraft for Meteorological
Sampling, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 32, 97–115,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech-d-13-00236.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jtech-d-13-00236.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Foley, T., Betterton, E. A., Jacko, P. E. R., and Hillery, J.: Lake Michigan
air quality: The 1994-2003 LADCO Aircraft Project (LAP), Atmos.
Environ., 45, 3192–3202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.033</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Frew, E. W., Argrow, B., Borenstein, S., Swenson, S., Hirst, C. A., Havenga,
H., and Houston, A.: Field observation of tornadic supercells by multiple
autonomous fixed-wing unmanned aircraft, J. Field Robot., 37,
1077–1093, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21947" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/rob.21947</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Geddes, J. A., Wang, B., and Li, D.: Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution in
a Coastal Urban Environment: The Role of Sea Breezes, and Implications of
Their Representation for Remote Sensing of Local Air Quality, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035314, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035314" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021jd035314</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gronoff, G., Robinson, J., Berkoff, T., Swap, R., Farris, B., Schroeder, J.,
Halliday, H. S., Knepp, T., Spinei, E., Carrion, W., Adcock, E. E., Johns,
Z., Allen, D., and Pippin, M.: A method for quantifying near range point
source induced O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> titration events using Co-located Lidar and Pandora
measurements, Atmos. Environ., 204, 43–52,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.052</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guimaras, P., Ye, J. H., Batista, C., Barbosa, R., Ribeiro, I., Medeiros,
A., Zhao, T. N., Hwang, W. C., Hung, H. M., Souza, R., and Martin, S. T.:
Vertical Profiles of Atmospheric Species Concentrations and Nighttime
Boundary Layer Structure in the Dry Season over an Urban Environment in
Central Amazon Collected by an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Atmosphere, 11, 1371,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121371" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos11121371</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hayden, K. L., Sills, D. M. L., Brook, J. R., Li, S.-M., Makar, P. A., Markovic, M. Z., Liu, P., Anlauf, K. G., O'Brien, J. M., Li, Q., and McLaren, R.: Aircraft study of the impact of lake-breeze circulations on trace gases and particles during BAQS-Met 2007, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10173–10192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10173-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10173-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Holton, J.: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, third edn., Academic
Press, San Diego, ISBN-10 012354355X, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Horel, J., Crosman, E., Jacques, A., Blaylock, B., Arens, S., Long, A.,
Sohl, J., and Martin, R.: Summer ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the
Great Salt Lake, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 17, 480–486, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.680" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/asl.680</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jozef, G., Cassano, J., Dahlke, S., and de Boer, G.: Testing the efficacy of atmospheric boundary layer height detection algorithms using uncrewed aircraft system data from MOSAiC, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-383" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2021-383</ext-link>, in review, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Keen, C. S. and Lyons, W. A.: Lake/Land Breeze circulations on the western
shore of Lake Michigan, J. Appl. Meteorol., 17, 1843–1855,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017&lt;1843:lbcotw&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017&lt;1843:lbcotw&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lennartson, G. J. and Schwartz, M. D.: The lake breeze-ground-level ozone
connection in eastern Wisconsin: A climatological perspective, Int.
J. Climatol., 22, 1347–1364, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.802" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.802</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, I., Makar, P. A., Sills, D., Zhang, J., Hayden, K. L., Mihele, C., Narayan, J., Moran, M. D., Sjostedt, S., and Brook, J.: Unraveling the complex local-scale flows influencing ozone patterns in the southern Great Lakes of North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10895–10915, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10895-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10895-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lyons, W. A. and Cole, H. S.: Photochemical oxidant transport – Mesoscale
lake breeze and synoptic-scale aspects, J. Appl. Meteorol., 15,
733–743, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1976)015&lt;0733:potmlb&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1976)015&lt;0733:potmlb&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lyons, W. A. and Olsson, L. E.: Detailed mesometeorological studies of air
pollution dispersion in Chicago lake breeze, Mon. Weather Rev., 101,
387–403, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1973)101&lt;0387:dmsoap&gt;2.3.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0493(1973)101&lt;0387:dmsoap&gt;2.3.co;2</ext-link>, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martin, J. E.: Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Dynamics: A First Course, John Wiley
&amp; Sons, West Sussex, ISBN-10 0470864656, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McNider, R. T., Pour-Biazar, A., Doty, K., White, A., Wu, Y. L., Qin, M. M.,
Hu, Y. T., Odman, T., Cleary, P., Knipping, E., Dornblaser, B., Lee, P.,
Hain, C., and McKeen, S.: Examination of the Physical Atmosphere in the
Great Lakes Region and Its Potential Impact on Air Quality – Overwater
Stability and Satellite Assimilation, J. Appl. Meteorol.
Clim., 57, 2789–2816, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-17-0355.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jamc-d-17-0355.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miller, S. T. K., Keim, B. D., Talbot, R. W., and Mao, H.: Sea breeze:
Structure, forecasting, and impacts, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1011,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003rg000124" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003rg000124</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pearson, G., Davies, F., and Collier, C.:  An Analysis of the Performance of the UFAM Pulsed Doppler Lidar for Observing the Boundary layer, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 240–250, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1128.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JTECHA1128.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Qin, M. M., Yu, H. F., Hu, Y. T., Russell, A. G., Odman, M. T., Doty, K.,
Pour-Biazar, A., McNider, R. T., and Knipping, E.: Improving ozone
simulations in the Great Lakes Region: The role of emissions, chemistry, and
dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 202, 167–179,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.025</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sills, D. M. L., Brook, J. R., Levy, I., Makar, P. A., Zhang, J., and Taylor, P. A.: Lake breezes in the southern Great Lakes region and their influence during BAQS-Met 2007, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7955–7973, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7955-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7955-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stanier, C. O., Pierce, R. B., Abdi-Oskouei, M., Adelman, Z. E., Al-Saadi,
J., Alwe, H. D., Bertram, T. H., Carmichael, G. R., Christiansen, M. B.,
Cleary, P. A., Czarnetzki, A. C., Dickens, A. F., Fuoco, M. A., Hughes, D.
D., Hupy, J. P., Janz, S. J., Judd, L. M., Kenski, D., Kowalewski, M. G.,
Long, R. W., Millet, D. B., Novak, G., Roozitalab, B., Shaw, S. L., Stone,
E. A., Szykman, J., Valin, L., Vermeuel, M., Wagner, T. J., and Whitehill,
A. R.: Overview of the Lake Michigan Ozone Study 2017, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E2207–E2225, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0061.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0061.1</ext-link>, 2021.​​​​​​​</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>van den Kroonenberg, A., Martin, T., Buschmann, M., Bange, J., and Vorsmann, P.: Measuring the Wind Vector Using the Autonomous Mini Aerial vehicle M(2)AV, J.  Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 25, 1969–1982, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1114.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JTECHA1114.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vermeuel, M. P., Novak, G. A., Alwe, H. D., Hughes, D. D., Kaleel, R.,
Dickens, A. F., Kenski, D., Czarnetzki, A. C., Stone, E. A., Stanier, C. O.,
Pierce, R. B., Millet, D. B., and Bertram, T. H.: Sensitivity of Ozone
Production to NOx and VOC Along the Lake Michigan Coastline, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 10989–11006, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030842" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019jd030842</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wagner, T. J., Klein, P. M., and Turner, D. D.: A new generation of ground-based mobile platforms for active and passive profiling of the boundary layer​​​​​​​, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
137–153, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0165.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/bams-d-17-0165.1</ext-link>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wagner, T. J., Czarnetzki, A. C., Christiansen, M., Pierce, R. B., Stanier, C. O., Dickens, A. F., and Eloranta, E. W.:
Observations of the Development and Vertical Structure of the Lake-Breeze Circulation during the 2017 Lake Michigan Ozone Study, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 1005–1020, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0297.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-20-0297.1</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wentworth, G. R., Murphy, J. G., and Sills, D. M. L.: Impact of lake breezes
on ozone and nitrogen oxides in the Greater Toronto Area, Atmos.
Environ., 109, 52–60, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.002</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wildmann, N., Ravi, S., and Bange, J.: Towards higher accuracy and better frequency response with standard multi-hole probes in turbulence measurement with remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1027–1041, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1027-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-1027-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Observations of the lower atmosphere from the  2021 WiscoDISCO campaign</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abdi-Oskouei, M., Carmichael, G., Christiansen, M., Ferrada, G.,
Roozitalab, B., Sobhani, N., Wade, K., Czarnetzki, A., Pierce, R. B.,
Wagner, T., and Stanier, C.: Sensitivity of Meteorological Skill to
Selection of WRF-Chem Physical Parameterizations and Impact on Ozone
Prediction During the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS), J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031971​​​​​​​, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031971" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031971</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Brown, E. N., Friehe, C. A., and Lenschow, D. H.: The use of pressure-fluctuations on the nose of an aircraft for measuring air motion​​​​​​​,
J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 22, 171–180,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022&lt;0171:Tuopfo&gt;2.0.Co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022&lt;0171:Tuopfo&gt;2.0.Co;2</a>, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Caicedo, V., Delgado, R., Luke, W. T., Ren, X. R., Kelley, P., Stratton, P.
R., Dickerson, R. R., Berkoff, T. A., and Gronoff, G.: Observations of
bay-breeze and ozone events over a marine site during the OWLETS-2 campaign,
Atmos. Environ., 263, 118669, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118669" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118669</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Cleary, P., Hupy, J., Kies, B., Tirado, J., and Voon, A.: UWEC and Purdue M210 Data for WiscoDISCO21 (Version V2), Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5160346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5160346</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Cleary, P., Wagner, T. J., and Pierce, R. B.: UW-Madison SSEC Lidar Wind Profiler for WiscoDISCO 21 (Version V1), Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5213039" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5213039</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Cleary, P. A., Fuhrman, N., Schulz, L., Schafer, J., Fillingham, J., Bootsma, H., McQueen, J., Tang, Y., Langel, T., McKeen, S., Williams, E. J., and Brown, S. S.: Ozone distributions over southern Lake Michigan: comparisons between ferry-based observations, shoreline-based DOAS observations and model forecasts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5109–5122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5109-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5109-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Cleary, P. A., Dickens, A. J., McIlquham, M., Sanchez, M., Geib, K.,
Hedberg, C., Hupy, J., Watson, M. W., Fuoco, M., Olson, E. R., Pierce, R.
B., Stanier, C., Long, R., Valin, L., Conley, S., and Smith, M.: Impacts of lake breeze meteorology on ozone gradient observations along Lake Michigan shorelines in Wisconsin, Atmos.
Environ., 269, 118834, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118834" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118834</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Borenstein, S., Hamilton, J., Rhodes, M., Choate, C., and Cleary, P.: CU RAAVEN data for WiscoDISCO21, Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5142491" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5142491</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Borenstein, S., Calmer, R., Cox, C., Rhodes, M., Choate, C., Hamilton, J., Osborn, J., Lawrence, D., Argrow, B., and Intrieri, J.: Measurements from the University of Colorado RAAVEN Uncrewed Aircraft System during ATOMIC, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 19–31, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-19-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-19-2022</a>, 2022a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>de Boer, G., Elston, J., Houston, A., Pillar-Little, E., Argrow, B., Bell,
T., Chilson, P., Choate, C., Greene, B., Islam, A., Detweiler, C., Jacob,
J., Natalie, V., Rhodes, M., Rico, D., Stachura, M., Lappin, F., Whyte, S.,
and Wilson, M.: Evaluation and Intercomparison of Small Uncrewed Aircraft
Systems Used for Atmospheric Research,  Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, in preparation, 2022b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Doak, A. G., Christiansen, M. B., Alwe, H. D., Bertram, T. H., Carmichael,
G., Cleary, P., Czarnetzki, A. C., Dickens, A. F., Janssen, M., Kenski, D.,
Millet, D. B., Novak, G. A., Pierce, B. R., Stone, E. A., Long, R. W.,
Vermeuel, M. P., Wagner, T. J., Valin, L., and Stanier, C. O.:
Characterization of ground-based atmospheric pollution and meteorology
sampling stations during the Lake Michigan Ozone Study 2017, J.
Air Waste Manage., 71, 866–889,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2021.1900000" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2021.1900000</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Dye, T. S., Roberts, P. T., and Korc, M. E.: Observations of transport
processes for ozone and ozone precursors during the 1991 Lake Michigan Ozone
Study, J. Appl. Meteorol., 34, 1877–1889,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034&lt;1877:ootpfo&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034&lt;1877:ootpfo&gt;2.0.co;2</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Elston, J., Argrow, B., Stachura, M., Weibel, D., Lawrence, D., and Pope,
D.: Overview of Small Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aircraft for Meteorological
Sampling, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 32, 97–115,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech-d-13-00236.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech-d-13-00236.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Foley, T., Betterton, E. A., Jacko, P. E. R., and Hillery, J.: Lake Michigan
air quality: The 1994-2003 LADCO Aircraft Project (LAP), Atmos.
Environ., 45, 3192–3202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.033</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Frew, E. W., Argrow, B., Borenstein, S., Swenson, S., Hirst, C. A., Havenga,
H., and Houston, A.: Field observation of tornadic supercells by multiple
autonomous fixed-wing unmanned aircraft, J. Field Robot., 37,
1077–1093, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21947" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21947</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Geddes, J. A., Wang, B., and Li, D.: Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution in
a Coastal Urban Environment: The Role of Sea Breezes, and Implications of
Their Representation for Remote Sensing of Local Air Quality, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035314, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035314" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035314</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Gronoff, G., Robinson, J., Berkoff, T., Swap, R., Farris, B., Schroeder, J.,
Halliday, H. S., Knepp, T., Spinei, E., Carrion, W., Adcock, E. E., Johns,
Z., Allen, D., and Pippin, M.: A method for quantifying near range point
source induced O<sub>3</sub> titration events using Co-located Lidar and Pandora
measurements, Atmos. Environ., 204, 43–52,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.052" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.052</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Guimaras, P., Ye, J. H., Batista, C., Barbosa, R., Ribeiro, I., Medeiros,
A., Zhao, T. N., Hwang, W. C., Hung, H. M., Souza, R., and Martin, S. T.:
Vertical Profiles of Atmospheric Species Concentrations and Nighttime
Boundary Layer Structure in the Dry Season over an Urban Environment in
Central Amazon Collected by an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Atmosphere, 11, 1371,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121371" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121371</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Hayden, K. L., Sills, D. M. L., Brook, J. R., Li, S.-M., Makar, P. A., Markovic, M. Z., Liu, P., Anlauf, K. G., O'Brien, J. M., Li, Q., and McLaren, R.: Aircraft study of the impact of lake-breeze circulations on trace gases and particles during BAQS-Met 2007, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10173–10192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10173-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10173-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Holton, J.: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, third edn., Academic
Press, San Diego, ISBN-10 012354355X, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Horel, J., Crosman, E., Jacques, A., Blaylock, B., Arens, S., Long, A.,
Sohl, J., and Martin, R.: Summer ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the
Great Salt Lake, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 17, 480–486, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.680" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.680</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Jozef, G., Cassano, J., Dahlke, S., and de Boer, G.: Testing the efficacy of atmospheric boundary layer height detection algorithms using uncrewed aircraft system data from MOSAiC, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-383" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-383</a>, in review, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Keen, C. S. and Lyons, W. A.: Lake/Land Breeze circulations on the western
shore of Lake Michigan, J. Appl. Meteorol., 17, 1843–1855,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017&lt;1843:lbcotw&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017&lt;1843:lbcotw&gt;2.0.co;2</a>, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Lennartson, G. J. and Schwartz, M. D.: The lake breeze-ground-level ozone
connection in eastern Wisconsin: A climatological perspective, Int.
J. Climatol., 22, 1347–1364, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.802" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.802</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Levy, I., Makar, P. A., Sills, D., Zhang, J., Hayden, K. L., Mihele, C., Narayan, J., Moran, M. D., Sjostedt, S., and Brook, J.: Unraveling the complex local-scale flows influencing ozone patterns in the southern Great Lakes of North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10895–10915, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10895-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10895-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lyons, W. A. and Cole, H. S.: Photochemical oxidant transport – Mesoscale
lake breeze and synoptic-scale aspects, J. Appl. Meteorol., 15,
733–743, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1976)015&lt;0733:potmlb&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1976)015&lt;0733:potmlb&gt;2.0.co;2</a>, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Lyons, W. A. and Olsson, L. E.: Detailed mesometeorological studies of air
pollution dispersion in Chicago lake breeze, Mon. Weather Rev., 101,
387–403, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1973)101&lt;0387:dmsoap&gt;2.3.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1973)101&lt;0387:dmsoap&gt;2.3.co;2</a>, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Martin, J. E.: Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Dynamics: A First Course, John Wiley
&amp; Sons, West Sussex, ISBN-10 0470864656, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>McNider, R. T., Pour-Biazar, A., Doty, K., White, A., Wu, Y. L., Qin, M. M.,
Hu, Y. T., Odman, T., Cleary, P., Knipping, E., Dornblaser, B., Lee, P.,
Hain, C., and McKeen, S.: Examination of the Physical Atmosphere in the
Great Lakes Region and Its Potential Impact on Air Quality – Overwater
Stability and Satellite Assimilation, J. Appl. Meteorol.
Clim., 57, 2789–2816, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-17-0355.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-17-0355.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Miller, S. T. K., Keim, B. D., Talbot, R. W., and Mao, H.: Sea breeze:
Structure, forecasting, and impacts, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1011,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003rg000124" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003rg000124</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Pearson, G., Davies, F., and Collier, C.:  An Analysis of the Performance of the UFAM Pulsed Doppler Lidar for Observing the Boundary layer, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 240–250, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1128.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1128.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Qin, M. M., Yu, H. F., Hu, Y. T., Russell, A. G., Odman, M. T., Doty, K.,
Pour-Biazar, A., McNider, R. T., and Knipping, E.: Improving ozone
simulations in the Great Lakes Region: The role of emissions, chemistry, and
dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 202, 167–179,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.025</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Sills, D. M. L., Brook, J. R., Levy, I., Makar, P. A., Zhang, J., and Taylor, P. A.: Lake breezes in the southern Great Lakes region and their influence during BAQS-Met 2007, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7955–7973, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7955-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7955-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Stanier, C. O., Pierce, R. B., Abdi-Oskouei, M., Adelman, Z. E., Al-Saadi,
J., Alwe, H. D., Bertram, T. H., Carmichael, G. R., Christiansen, M. B.,
Cleary, P. A., Czarnetzki, A. C., Dickens, A. F., Fuoco, M. A., Hughes, D.
D., Hupy, J. P., Janz, S. J., Judd, L. M., Kenski, D., Kowalewski, M. G.,
Long, R. W., Millet, D. B., Novak, G., Roozitalab, B., Shaw, S. L., Stone,
E. A., Szykman, J., Valin, L., Vermeuel, M., Wagner, T. J., and Whitehill,
A. R.: Overview of the Lake Michigan Ozone Study 2017, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E2207–E2225, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0061.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0061.1</a>, 2021.​​​​​​​
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
van den Kroonenberg, A., Martin, T., Buschmann, M., Bange, J., and Vorsmann, P.: Measuring the Wind Vector Using the Autonomous Mini Aerial vehicle M(2)AV, J.  Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 25, 1969–1982, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1114.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1114.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Vermeuel, M. P., Novak, G. A., Alwe, H. D., Hughes, D. D., Kaleel, R.,
Dickens, A. F., Kenski, D., Czarnetzki, A. C., Stone, E. A., Stanier, C. O.,
Pierce, R. B., Millet, D. B., and Bertram, T. H.: Sensitivity of Ozone
Production to NOx and VOC Along the Lake Michigan Coastline, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 10989–11006, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030842" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030842</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Wagner, T. J., Klein, P. M., and Turner, D. D.: A new generation of ground-based mobile platforms for active and passive profiling of the boundary layer​​​​​​​, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
137–153, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0165.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0165.1</a>, 2019.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Wagner, T. J., Czarnetzki, A. C., Christiansen, M., Pierce, R. B., Stanier, C. O., Dickens, A. F., and Eloranta, E. W.:
Observations of the Development and Vertical Structure of the Lake-Breeze Circulation during the 2017 Lake Michigan Ozone Study, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 1005–1020, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0297.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0297.1</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Wentworth, G. R., Murphy, J. G., and Sills, D. M. L.: Impact of lake breezes
on ozone and nitrogen oxides in the Greater Toronto Area, Atmos.
Environ., 109, 52–60, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.002</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Wildmann, N., Ravi, S., and Bange, J.: Towards higher accuracy and better frequency response with standard multi-hole probes in turbulence measurement with remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1027–1041, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1027-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1027-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
