| 13 Jul 2026
Method-Dependent Variability in Hygroscopicity Parameter (κ) of Particles from Biomass-Burning Across Fuel Types and Burn Phases
Abstract. The hygroscopicity parameter κ is important for assessing biomass-burning aerosol impacts on visibility, direct radiative forcing, and cloud-related indirect effects. Discrepancies among κ values derived from different methods have been reported, but often separately across fuel types, burn phases, and experimental systems, limiting assessment of their consistency and controlling factors. Here, we compare κ derived from a cloud condensation nuclei counter (CCNC), a hygroscopicity tandem differential mobility analyzer (HTDMA), and AMS–SP2 composition-based predictions within a single laboratory framework. Fresh and aged biomass-burning particles were produced from four representative fuels: hardwood, softwood, peat, and leaves, burned under smouldering or flaming conditions. CCNC-derived κ systematically exceeded HTDMA-derived κ, with discrepancy magnitudes strongly dependent on fuel type and burn phase. Composition-based κ generally fell between CCNC and HTDMA values. Coupled effects of κ size dependence and size representation, together with externally mixed non-hygroscopic black carbon, affected discrepancies among the three approaches but only partly explained them. Using O:C-informed κorg values instead of a constant κorg = 0.1 consistently improved AMS–SP2 prediction accuracy relative to HTDMA values in peat experiments only, by 16–59 %, while substantial residual discrepancies remained. These results suggest the presence of additional controlling factors not tested here, motivating measurements of surface-active species, particle phase state, and co-condensation of soluble gases to potentially explain the remaining discrepancies in future work. They further highlight the need for regime-aware κ parameterizations in atmospheric and climate models, alongside careful treatment of size representation, black-carbon inclusion, and κorg assumptions in composition-based hygroscopicity predictions.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.
