Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde

Jeong, Daun; Hornbrook, Rebecca S.; Hills, Alan J.; Diskin, Glenn; Halliday, Hannah S.; DiGangi, Joshua P.; Fried, Alan; Richter, Dirk; Walega, James; Weibring, Petter; Hanisco, Thomas F.; Wolfe, Glenn M.; St. Clair, Jason; Peischl, Jeff; Wisthaler, Armin; Mikoviny, Tomas; Nowak, John B.; Piel, Felix; Tomsche, Laura; Holmes, Christopher D.; Soja, Amber; Gargulinski, Emily; Crawford, James H.; Dibb, Jack; Warneke, Carsten; Schwarz, Joshua; Apel, Eric C.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703

Preprints

14 Oct 2025

| 14 Oct 2025

Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde

Daun Jeong, Rebecca S. Hornbrook, Alan J. Hills, Glenn Diskin, Hannah S. Halliday, Joshua P. DiGangi, Alan Fried, Dirk Richter, James Walega, Petter Weibring, Thomas F. Hanisco, Glenn M. Wolfe, Jason St. Clair, Jeff Peischl, Armin Wisthaler, Tomas Mikoviny, John B. Nowak, Felix Piel, Laura Tomsche, Christopher D. Holmes, Amber Soja, Emily Gargulinski, James H. Crawford, Jack Dibb, Carsten Warneke, Joshua Schwarz, and Eric C. Apel

Abstract. Formaldehyde (HCHO) is a ubiquitous atmospheric constituent, originating from primary emissions (natural and anthropogenic) and secondary production via the oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition to being a regulated pollutant, HCHO is a key species used as a tracer of recent photochemical activity due to its short atmospheric lifetime and its role as a source of HO_x radicals. Given its diverse sources and high spatial variability, HCHO is challenging to represent accurately in chemical transport models, often resulting in significant discrepancies with observations. Airborne in-situ measurements of HCHO, especially when combined with VOC precursor data, offer valuable insights into its atmospheric distributions for evaluating models. Here, we present HCHO observations from the NSF NCAR Trace Organic Gas Analyzer with Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF), deployed during the 2019 Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) campaign. While most HCHO instruments target at most a few selected species for measurement, the TOGA-TOF employs a rapid gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) technique and provides discrete VOC measurements—including >100 C₁–C₁₀ species—at a time resolution of less than 2 minutes. We compare TOGA-TOF HCHO data to measurements from three 1-Hz instruments aboard the NASA DC-8: the Compact Atmospheric Multi-species Spectrometer (CAMS), the In Situ Airborne Formaldehyde (ISAF) instrument, and a proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS). The wide dynamic range of observed HCHO concentrations (from < 100 ppt to ~100 ppb) during FIREX-AQ enabled a robust intercomparison. TOGA-TOF HCHO agreed well with CAMS (slope = 1.1), with similar agreement with the PTR-ToF-MS, while larger discrepancies were observed with ISAF (slope = 1.5), likely due to differences in calibrations. Normalized excess mixing ratios (NEMRs) of HCHO relative to CO in wildfire plumes exhibited consistent trends with plume age across instruments. These findings highlight the TOGA-TOF’s capability for highly sensitive and accurate airborne HCHO measurements.

How to cite. Jeong, D., Hornbrook, R. S., Hills, A. J., Diskin, G., Halliday, H. S., DiGangi, J. P., Fried, A., Richter, D., Walega, J., Weibring, P., Hanisco, T. F., Wolfe, G. M., St. Clair, J., Peischl, J., Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Nowak, J. B., Piel, F., Tomsche, L., Holmes, C. D., Soja, A., Gargulinski, E., Crawford, J. H., Dibb, J., Warneke, C., Schwarz, J., and Apel, E. C.: Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703, 2025.

Received: 26 Sep 2025 – Discussion started: 14 Oct 2025

Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3419 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3419 KB)

Supplement (10858 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 May 2026

Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 19, 2985–3000, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-2985-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-2985-2026, 2026

Short summary

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4703', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Nov 2025

Summary Evaluation
This is an excellent and well-prepared paper that presents a valuable intercomparison of airborne formaldehyde (HCHO) measurements from four instruments (TOGA-TOF, CAMS, PTR-ToF, and ISAF) during the FIREX-AQ campaign. The study is well designed and supported by a large dataset of co-located observations, allowing robust statistical analysis across a broad concentration range. The close agreement between TOGA-TOF, CAMS, and PTR-ToF confirms that TOGA-TOF provides what the author’s describe as reliable and accurate in situ HCHO data.
The TOGA-TOF measurements seem especially useful because it can measure both HCHO plus a large suite of precursor VOCs. As they are on the same instrument this can eliminate some of the sources of instrumental and sampling error. It would be nice if some recommendations could be made with regards to maintaining sample integrity and calibration best practise.
The authors’ use of volume-weighted averaging demonstrates careful consideration of the different temporal resolutions among the instruments, rather than simple averaging. This approach can be considered for all instruments taking discrete samples, such as a sample pre-concentration or quite commonly, the capture of whole air samples (where fill rate is not constant across the entire sampling period) and is a useful demonstration of this type of analysis.
The manuscript is clearly written, easy to follow, and provides an important contribution to airborne trace gas measurement science. The results are directly relevant to ongoing efforts to improve instrument consistency and model–measurement comparison
Specific Comments
1. Calibration methodology
Different instruments have different inlets, pumping speeds, pressures etc. Can the authors suggest what might have an effect on HCHO sampling integrity? Is there an understanding of the favourable parameters from each instrument and what would be the optimal sampling strategy for HCHO?
The authors note that differences among instruments (TOGA-TOF, CAMS, ISAF, PTR-ToF) may stem partly from different calibration approaches and standards. What are the pros and cons of the different methods and is there a preferred technique? Is there one instrumental technique that shows the best accuracy, or are certain techniques limited by practicalities?
It is stated that calibration differences likely explain the observed offsets, if possible, it would also be useful to indicate how much of the stated total uncertainty (≈35%) is attributed to calibration versus instrumental variability or sample integrity?
2. Sampling frequency and averaging
The use of volume-weighted averaging is a good way to align the slower TOGA-TOF data (33 s) with the faster instruments (1 Hz). It might be worth adding one or two sentences to acknowledge that while this approach slightly limits the instrument’s ability to resolve rapid plume variability, the time resolution and inherent averaging is actually well suited for model comparison and regional-scale studies, if of course this is the conclusion.
3. Use of CO as a strictly conservative tracer of dilution. CO is useful because it is as separate measurement to all the instruments being compared, but I believe it can have secondary production in the plume from VOC oxidation and could be oxidised itself? perhaps a VOC that TOGA measures could be used for estimating plume aging, perhaps acetonitrile? This would be interesting in future analysis because by being measured by the same instrument, some systematic errors could be eliminated.
technical corrections:
Excellent with just a few inconsistencies such as hypens in situ/ in-situ, 1 Hz /1-Hz and some spacing around parentheses.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Eric C. Apel, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Response uploaded as supplement
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4703', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jan 2026

The manuscript "Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde." presents measurements from a newly designed analytical system that couples a fast GC with a time-of-flight mass analyzer to perform minutes-scale measurements of formaldehyde and near about 100 volatile organic compounds alongside. The instrument was tested during the FIREX-AQ campaign aboard the NASA DC-8 aircraft flying transacts across plumes. The measurements were compared against two other specialized instruments onboard the aircraft that performed targeted measurements of formaldehyde.
I really enjoyed reading this paper. It is very well written, structured and thorough in its comparison of the data obtained from the three instruments. The figures showcase comprehensive analyses and are easy to understand. I do not have any major comments but just a few minor ones. Following their resolution, I am happy to recommend the paper for publication:
1. Lines 192-193: The authors correct the fluctuations in sensitivity by normalizing with ambient tetrachloromethane. It would be good to add a citation for this or provide a rationale for selecting this compound from the broader suite of persistent ambient background species. Would this method work everywhere on the planet with the selected compound?
2. I would like the authors to expand a little more on the 35% uncertainty for HCHO measurements via TOGA-TOF. They attribute this to variability in repeat calibrations. However, a commercially available standard cylinder is used, the outflow from which is dynamically diluted with clean air or N2. So, what should create a variability this high in calibrations?
3. Looking at figure 3a, I would like authors to acknowledge somehow also the limitations of this instrument for measurements on airborne platforms. Minute-scale time-resolution for a GC-TOF setup is great but figure 3a shows that it may still be slow for capturing chemically dynamic environments often experienced on fast moving platforms.
4. I suggest authors explain the volume-weighting in a bit more detail either in the main text or the SI. The current description somehow did not come across clearly to me as a reader.
Other minor points:
- Line 342: Lay out the mathematical description in equations-format for ease of understanding.
- Line 349: "(described in Sect. 2.4). The note is already in section 2.4.
- Lines 487-488: Do the authors mean a reduction in plume heterogeneity with aging is what suppresses the bias? "evolution" is a capture-all sort of a term but does not really tell what the authors intend to say. I acknowledge the explanation provided in subsequent lines.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Eric C. Apel, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Response uploaded as supplement
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4703', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Nov 2025

Summary Evaluation
This is an excellent and well-prepared paper that presents a valuable intercomparison of airborne formaldehyde (HCHO) measurements from four instruments (TOGA-TOF, CAMS, PTR-ToF, and ISAF) during the FIREX-AQ campaign. The study is well designed and supported by a large dataset of co-located observations, allowing robust statistical analysis across a broad concentration range. The close agreement between TOGA-TOF, CAMS, and PTR-ToF confirms that TOGA-TOF provides what the author’s describe as reliable and accurate in situ HCHO data.
The TOGA-TOF measurements seem especially useful because it can measure both HCHO plus a large suite of precursor VOCs. As they are on the same instrument this can eliminate some of the sources of instrumental and sampling error. It would be nice if some recommendations could be made with regards to maintaining sample integrity and calibration best practise.
The authors’ use of volume-weighted averaging demonstrates careful consideration of the different temporal resolutions among the instruments, rather than simple averaging. This approach can be considered for all instruments taking discrete samples, such as a sample pre-concentration or quite commonly, the capture of whole air samples (where fill rate is not constant across the entire sampling period) and is a useful demonstration of this type of analysis.
The manuscript is clearly written, easy to follow, and provides an important contribution to airborne trace gas measurement science. The results are directly relevant to ongoing efforts to improve instrument consistency and model–measurement comparison
Specific Comments
1. Calibration methodology
Different instruments have different inlets, pumping speeds, pressures etc. Can the authors suggest what might have an effect on HCHO sampling integrity? Is there an understanding of the favourable parameters from each instrument and what would be the optimal sampling strategy for HCHO?
The authors note that differences among instruments (TOGA-TOF, CAMS, ISAF, PTR-ToF) may stem partly from different calibration approaches and standards. What are the pros and cons of the different methods and is there a preferred technique? Is there one instrumental technique that shows the best accuracy, or are certain techniques limited by practicalities?
It is stated that calibration differences likely explain the observed offsets, if possible, it would also be useful to indicate how much of the stated total uncertainty (≈35%) is attributed to calibration versus instrumental variability or sample integrity?
2. Sampling frequency and averaging
The use of volume-weighted averaging is a good way to align the slower TOGA-TOF data (33 s) with the faster instruments (1 Hz). It might be worth adding one or two sentences to acknowledge that while this approach slightly limits the instrument’s ability to resolve rapid plume variability, the time resolution and inherent averaging is actually well suited for model comparison and regional-scale studies, if of course this is the conclusion.
3. Use of CO as a strictly conservative tracer of dilution. CO is useful because it is as separate measurement to all the instruments being compared, but I believe it can have secondary production in the plume from VOC oxidation and could be oxidised itself? perhaps a VOC that TOGA measures could be used for estimating plume aging, perhaps acetonitrile? This would be interesting in future analysis because by being measured by the same instrument, some systematic errors could be eliminated.
technical corrections:
Excellent with just a few inconsistencies such as hypens in situ/ in-situ, 1 Hz /1-Hz and some spacing around parentheses.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Eric C. Apel, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Response uploaded as supplement
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4703', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jan 2026

The manuscript "Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde." presents measurements from a newly designed analytical system that couples a fast GC with a time-of-flight mass analyzer to perform minutes-scale measurements of formaldehyde and near about 100 volatile organic compounds alongside. The instrument was tested during the FIREX-AQ campaign aboard the NASA DC-8 aircraft flying transacts across plumes. The measurements were compared against two other specialized instruments onboard the aircraft that performed targeted measurements of formaldehyde.
I really enjoyed reading this paper. It is very well written, structured and thorough in its comparison of the data obtained from the three instruments. The figures showcase comprehensive analyses and are easy to understand. I do not have any major comments but just a few minor ones. Following their resolution, I am happy to recommend the paper for publication:
1. Lines 192-193: The authors correct the fluctuations in sensitivity by normalizing with ambient tetrachloromethane. It would be good to add a citation for this or provide a rationale for selecting this compound from the broader suite of persistent ambient background species. Would this method work everywhere on the planet with the selected compound?
2. I would like the authors to expand a little more on the 35% uncertainty for HCHO measurements via TOGA-TOF. They attribute this to variability in repeat calibrations. However, a commercially available standard cylinder is used, the outflow from which is dynamically diluted with clean air or N2. So, what should create a variability this high in calibrations?
3. Looking at figure 3a, I would like authors to acknowledge somehow also the limitations of this instrument for measurements on airborne platforms. Minute-scale time-resolution for a GC-TOF setup is great but figure 3a shows that it may still be slow for capturing chemically dynamic environments often experienced on fast moving platforms.
4. I suggest authors explain the volume-weighting in a bit more detail either in the main text or the SI. The current description somehow did not come across clearly to me as a reader.
Other minor points:
- Line 342: Lay out the mathematical description in equations-format for ease of understanding.
- Line 349: "(described in Sect. 2.4). The note is already in section 2.4.
- Lines 487-488: Do the authors mean a reduction in plume heterogeneity with aging is what suppresses the bias? "evolution" is a capture-all sort of a term but does not really tell what the authors intend to say. I acknowledge the explanation provided in subsequent lines.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Eric C. Apel, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Response uploaded as supplement
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-AC1

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Eric C. Apel on behalf of the Authors (09 Mar 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Mar 2026) by Anna Novelli

AR by Eric C. Apel on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 May 2026

Trace Organic Gas Analyzer Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (TOGA-TOF) system for airborne observations of formaldehyde

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 19, 2985–3000, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-2985-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-2985-2026, 2026

Short summary

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4703-supplement

Viewed

Total article views: 1,542 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
991	476	75	1,542	268	72	73

HTML: 991
PDF: 476
XML: 75
Total: 1,542
Supplement: 268
BibTeX: 72
EndNote: 73

Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	278	56	14	348
Nov 2025	148	74	18	240
Dec 2025	52	82	8	142
Jan 2026	132	76	8	216
Feb 2026	104	66	6	176
Mar 2026	186	84	18	288
Apr 2026	84	30	3	117
May 2026	7	8	0	15

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	278	56	14	348
Nov 2025	148	74	18	240
Dec 2025	52	82	8	142
Jan 2026	132	76	8	216
Feb 2026	104	66	6	176
Mar 2026	186	84	18	288
Apr 2026	84	30	3	117
May 2026	7	8	0	15

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,542 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,542 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 23 May 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3419 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Formaldehyde is an important atmospheric species that is present at all times throughout the troposphere. Accurately measuring formaldehyde is necessary for understanding key atmospheric chemical cycles. We describe here the first wide-scale demonstration of the gas chromatographic mass spectrometric (GC/MS) technique (NSF NCAR TOGA-TOF) for quantifying formaldehyde in the atmosphere and we show this technique to be highly sensitive and selective.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0