diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Aerosol_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Aerosol_Chapter.tex
index 4f835f175d2..e1cf0725974 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Aerosol_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Aerosol_Chapter.tex
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ \subsection{Gas Condensation}
 
 The total mass evaporated or condensed is added to the bulk mass source terms, $\dot{m}_{{\rm b},\alpha}^{\ppp}$, for the condensed and vapor phase species. The bulk energy source term, $\dot{q}_{\rm b}^{\ppp}$, is taken as the mass source term multiplied by the heat of vaporization, $h_v$ where condensation results in positive energy source term and evaporation results in a negative energy source term.
 
-The contribution to divergence is added to the {\ct D\_SOURCE} term following Eq~(\ref{eq:D_SOURCE_vap}). Since the condensed and vapor phases have the same molecular weight, the first term in the equation is zero.
+The contribution to divergence is added to the \ct{D_SOURCE} term following Eq~(\ref{eq:D_SOURCE_vap}). Since the condensed and vapor phases have the same molecular weight, the first term in the equation is zero.
 
 For the condensed phase, the radiation absorption is computed following Sec.~\ref{droplet-radiation}.
 
@@ -239,5 +239,5 @@ \subsection{Wall Condensation}
 \be
 \dot{q}_{{\rm dep},\alpha}^{\pp} = \dot{m}_{{\rm dep},\alpha}^{\pp} (h_v(T_w)+h_{s,\alpha}(T_g)-h_{s,\alpha}(T_w))
 \ee
-For the {\ct D\_SOURCE} term only the first term in Eq~(\ref{eq:D_SOURCE_vap}) applies since all the phase change energy comes from the wall cell.
+For the \ct{D\_SOURCE} term only the first term in Eq~(\ref{eq:D_SOURCE_vap}) applies since all the phase change energy comes from the wall cell.
 
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Combustion_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Combustion_Chapter.tex
index a4475a25c7d..ff8010d771a 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Combustion_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Combustion_Chapter.tex
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ \subsection{Default Hydrocarbon Combustion Chemistry}
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 
-\noindent The preceding table shows that the addition of carbon monoxide and soot increases the number of primitive species in the reaction from five to seven. The number of lumped species, however, remains at three---the composition of Products has changed to include to the two additional species.  Note that FDS prints the $A$ matrix in the {\ct CHID.out} file so that the user can double check the reaction system.
+\noindent The preceding table shows that the addition of carbon monoxide and soot increases the number of primitive species in the reaction from five to seven. The number of lumped species, however, remains at three---the composition of Products has changed to include to the two additional species.  Note that FDS prints the $A$ matrix in the \ct{CHID.out} file so that the user can double check the reaction system.
 
 
 \clearpage
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ \subsection{Critical Flame Temperature}
 \subsection{Extinction Based Mainly on Oxygen Concentration}
 \label{o2_based_model}
 
-The first of two optional extinction models (referred to as {\ct 'EXTINCTION 1'} in the FDS input file) linearizes Eq.~(\ref{YO2eq}) to form a limiting oxygen concentration\footnote{The extinction model is written in terms of the oxygen {\em volume} fraction, $X_\OTWO$, because usually experimental results are reported as such. However, within the numerical algorithm, all values are converted into mass fraction, $Y_\OTWO$.} that is a piecewise-linear function of the cell bulk temperature, $T_{ijk}$ (see Fig.~\ref{extinction_1_sketch}):
+The first of two optional extinction models (referred to as \ct{'EXTINCTION 1'} in the FDS input file) linearizes Eq.~(\ref{YO2eq}) to form a limiting oxygen concentration\footnote{The extinction model is written in terms of the oxygen {\em volume} fraction, $X_\OTWO$, because usually experimental results are reported as such. However, within the numerical algorithm, all values are converted into mass fraction, $Y_\OTWO$.} that is a piecewise-linear function of the cell bulk temperature, $T_{ijk}$ (see Fig.~\ref{extinction_1_sketch}):
 \be
    X_{\OTWO,\lim}(T_{ijk}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c@{\quad \quad}l} X_{\OI} \, \left( \frac{T_{\OI}-T_{ijk}}{T_{\OI}-T_\infty} \right) & T_{ijk}<T_{\rm fb} \\[.1in]  0 &  T_{ijk} \ge T_{\rm fb} \end{array} \right.  \label{extinction_model}
 \ee
@@ -471,17 +471,17 @@ \subsection{Extinction Based Mainly on Oxygen Concentration}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{FIGURES/extinction_1_sketch}
 \vskip-.2cm
-\caption{Extinction criteria for the {\ct 'EXTINCTION 1'} model.}
+\caption{Extinction criteria for the \ct{'EXTINCTION 1'} model.}
 \label{extinction_1_sketch}
 \end{figure}
 If $X_{\OTWO,ijk}<X_{\OTWO,\lim}$, local extinction is assumed and $\dot{m}_\alpha'''=0$ and $\dot{q}'''=0$ for that grid cell at that time step. At an ambient temperature of 20~$^\circ$C, the default limiting oxygen volume fraction is 0.135.  This value is consistent with the measurements of Morehart et al.~\cite{Morehart:1991}, who measured the oxygen concentration near self-extinguishing flames. They found that flames self-extinguished at oxygen volume fractions of 12.4~\% to 14.3~\%. Note that their results are expressed as volume, not mass, fractions. Beyler's chapter in the SFPE Handbook references other researchers who measured oxygen concentrations at extinction ranging from 12~\% to 15~\%.
 
-The {\ct 'EXTINCTION 1'} model is intended for relatively coarse fire simulations where the grid cell cannot resolve details of the flame structure or capture flame temperatures. The ``free-burn'' temperature, $T_{\rm fb}$, in Eq.~(\ref{extinction_model}) is needed for simulations in which the characteristic grid cell size, $\dx$, is much larger than 1~cm. In such cases, the combustion occurs within a fraction of the grid cell and its energy cannot raise the cell bulk temperature to the critical value. Its default value is 600~$^\circ$C. Measurements of Pitts~\cite{Pitts:1995}, Bundy~\cite{Bundy:1}, and others, have shown that the upper layer oxygen concentration drops to zero in flashover compartment fire experiments when the temperature increases above approximately 600~$^\circ$C.
+The \ct{'EXTINCTION 1'} model is intended for relatively coarse fire simulations where the grid cell cannot resolve details of the flame structure or capture flame temperatures. The ``free-burn'' temperature, $T_{\rm fb}$, in Eq.~(\ref{extinction_model}) is needed for simulations in which the characteristic grid cell size, $\dx$, is much larger than 1~cm. In such cases, the combustion occurs within a fraction of the grid cell and its energy cannot raise the cell bulk temperature to the critical value. Its default value is 600~$^\circ$C. Measurements of Pitts~\cite{Pitts:1995}, Bundy~\cite{Bundy:1}, and others, have shown that the upper layer oxygen concentration drops to zero in flashover compartment fire experiments when the temperature increases above approximately 600~$^\circ$C.
 
 
 \subsection{Extinction Based on Both Fuel and Oxygen}
 
-The second optional extinction model in FDS, referred to as {\ct 'EXTINCTION 2'}, considers both the oxygen and the fuel content of a given grid cell at the start of a time step. If the potential heat release from the reactants cannot raise the temperature of the cell above the empirically determined critical flame temperature, $T_{\rm CFT}$, combustion is suppressed.  Consider the simple reaction $\mbox{Fuel} + \mbox{Air} \rightarrow \mbox{Products}$. The mass fractions of lumped species Fuel, Air, and Products in the mixed portion of the grid cell at the beginning and the end of the reaction part of the time step are $[Z_{\rm F}^0, Z_{\rm A}^0, Z_{\rm P}^0]$ and $[Z_{\rm F}, Z_{\rm A}, Z_{\rm P}]$, respectively. The Products include the products of combustion as well as diluents like argon or water vapor from droplet evaporation. Define a modified form of the equivalence ratio:
+The second optional extinction model in FDS, referred to as \ct{'EXTINCTION 2'}, considers both the oxygen and the fuel content of a given grid cell at the start of a time step. If the potential heat release from the reactants cannot raise the temperature of the cell above the empirically determined critical flame temperature, $T_{\rm CFT}$, combustion is suppressed.  Consider the simple reaction $\mbox{Fuel} + \mbox{Air} \rightarrow \mbox{Products}$. The mass fractions of lumped species Fuel, Air, and Products in the mixed portion of the grid cell at the beginning and the end of the reaction part of the time step are $[Z_{\rm F}^0, Z_{\rm A}^0, Z_{\rm P}^0]$ and $[Z_{\rm F}, Z_{\rm A}, Z_{\rm P}]$, respectively. The Products include the products of combustion as well as diluents like argon or water vapor from droplet evaporation. Define a modified form of the equivalence ratio:
 \be
    \label{eq:dza}
    \tilde{\phi} \equiv  \min \left( \, 1 \, , \, \frac{s \, Z_{\rm F}^0}{Z_{\rm A}^0} \, \right) = \frac{Z_{\rm A}^0-Z_{\rm A}}{Z_{\rm A}^0}
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Complex_Geometry_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Complex_Geometry_Chapter.tex
index 81c991f0dd4..444f61e5525 100755
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Complex_Geometry_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Complex_Geometry_Chapter.tex
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ \chapter{Unstructured Geometry (Beta)}
 
 Unstructured geometry is treated using a ``cut-cell'' (CC) method, following the seminal work of Michael Aftosmis and Marsha Berger \cite{Berger:2012,Berger:2017,May:2017}.  The term cut-cell refers to the gas phase region of a Cartesian grid cell that has been ``cut'' by the unstructured geometry partitioning the cell into gas and solid sub-volumes.  Faces of the cut-cell that have also been carved from cartesian faces and connected to other cut-cells are called \emph{gasphase cut-faces} (these are gas-gas interfaces).  The faces on the boundary of the solid in a cut-cell are \emph{in-boundary cut-faces} (these are gas-solid interfaces).  There are also faces of a cut-cell which are not cut and which connect the cell to a neighboring regular cartesian gas phase cell; these faces are referred to as \emph{regular faces} (also a gas-gas interface).
 
-The introduction of cut-cells surrounding an embedded boundary generates the need for an unstructured solution algorithm.  In particular, the pressure equation is unstructured and so fast trigonometric solvers are not viable (i.e. the {\ct FFT} Poisson solver).  Instead, an unstructured local matrix ({\ct ULMAT}) solver has been developed using the Pardiso and Sparse Cluster Solvers available in the Intel Math Kernel Library (MKL).
+The introduction of cut-cells surrounding an embedded boundary generates the need for an unstructured solution algorithm.  In particular, the pressure equation is unstructured and so fast trigonometric solvers are not viable (i.e. the \ct{FFT} Poisson solver).  Instead, an unstructured local matrix (\ct{ULMAT}) solver has been developed using the Pardiso and Sparse Cluster Solvers available in the Intel Math Kernel Library (MKL).
 
 The following sections describe the finite volume methods used to discretize the governing equations in the unstructured cut-cells surrounding embedded boundaries.
 
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ \subsection{Unsteady Evolution: Explicit Time Integration for Scalars} \label{se
 In general, there will arise \texttt{GASPHASE} cut-cells whose small-size will severely penalize
 the time step. We recall that each cell on the gas phase, including cut-cells, needs to meet CFL and Von Neuman stability constraints. Several different ways have been proposed in the literature to deal with this problem, i.e., cell merging, mixing or linking methods. In general, these lead to ad hoc selection procedures for surrounding cells, having to deal with many special cases, and in some cases potential solution deterioration close to the boundary.
 
-We use a simple and robust procedure to address this problem. Within the scheme for numeration of scalar cell unknowns, a test is performed on cut-cells. If the cut-cell volume is less than the threshold volume $V_{thr}= ${\ct CCVOL\_LINK} $V_{cart}$, where $V_{cart}$ is the local Cartesian cell volume and {\ct CCVOL\_LINK}$<1$ is a threshold factor (default value 0.5), the unknown number this cell takes is the one of an adjacent cell which has a volume larger than $V_{thr}$. This mathematically defines a single control volume of the two linked cells. Cell volumes are added in building the mass matrix for the FV discretization, and fluxes and matrix terms are added with their corresponding signs. Note that, flux quantities corresponding to the common face of these two cells effectively cancel on the single equation for the set.
+We use a simple and robust procedure to address this problem. Within the scheme for numeration of scalar cell unknowns, a test is performed on cut-cells. If the cut-cell volume is less than the threshold volume $V_{thr}= $\ct{CCVOL\_LINK} $V_{cart}$, where $V_{cart}$ is the local Cartesian cell volume and \ct{CCVOL\_LINK}$<1$ is a threshold factor (default value 0.5), the unknown number this cell takes is the one of an adjacent cell which has a volume larger than $V_{thr}$. This mathematically defines a single control volume of the two linked cells. Cell volumes are added in building the mass matrix for the FV discretization, and fluxes and matrix terms are added with their corresponding signs. Note that, flux quantities corresponding to the common face of these two cells effectively cancel on the single equation for the set.
 Alternatively, if after a number of cell numbering iterations (default 2) an unlinked small cell persists in the mesh, this small cell is blocked and its corresponding cartesian cell tagged as solid. % Default 2 link numbering iterations.
 
 \section{Momentum Time Marching and Immersed Boundaries}
@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ \subsection{Momentum-Pressure Coupling}
 
 
 The next component of the scheme involves approximating velocity boundary conditions for immersed solid boundaries. In FDS, velocity field components are staggered on cartesian or cut faces. 
-For complex geometry the projection scheme defined above is applied in the unstructured mesh composed by cut-cells and regular gas cells. Therefore, the Poisson equation is discretized in an unstructured grid and solved by matrix direct solvers, either by FDS mesh ({\ct ULMAT}) or globally ({\ct UGLMAT}). Currently the numerical scheme allows only one cut-cell/face cartesian per cell/face, due to the current need to define a single background pressure per cartesian cell. The blocking treatment of split cells is described in the Users guide. The projection step to obtain final velocities involves grid cell sizes in regular faces and centroid to centroid distance in cut-faces.
+For complex geometry the projection scheme defined above is applied in the unstructured mesh composed by cut-cells and regular gas cells. Therefore, the Poisson equation is discretized in an unstructured grid and solved by matrix direct solvers, either by FDS mesh (\ct{ULMAT}) or globally (\ct{UGLMAT}). Currently the numerical scheme allows only one cut-cell/face cartesian per cell/face, due to the current need to define a single background pressure per cartesian cell. The blocking treatment of split cells is described in the Users guide. The projection step to obtain final velocities involves grid cell sizes in regular faces and centroid to centroid distance in cut-faces.
 
 Cross velocities and tangent stresses and vorticity emanating from the immersed boundary are defined on cartesian faces being intersected by the geometry surface and surrounding cartesian edges. We use a wall modeled stress imposition method (STM) to this end described next.
  
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Equation_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Equation_Chapter.tex
index 684f100e93d..a5e799c7687 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Equation_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Equation_Chapter.tex
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ \subsection{Cell Edges}
 
 \end{tikzpicture}
 }
-\caption[Position of flow variables around a computational edge]{Position of flow variables around a computational edge along the $x$ axis.  The Index of the Edge Component ({\ct IEC}) is 1 in this case.  The orientations of the faces (defined by the directions normal to the faces) that connect to the edge are {\ct IOR} = $\pm2$, $\pm3$.  The vorticity around the edge is $\omega_x = \partial w/\partial y - \partial v/\partial z$.}
+\caption[Position of flow variables around a computational edge]{Position of flow variables around a computational edge along the $x$ axis.  The Index of the Edge Component (\ct{IEC}) is 1 in this case.  The orientations of the faces (defined by the directions normal to the faces) that connect to the edge are \ct{IOR} = $\pm2$, $\pm3$.  The vorticity around the edge is $\omega_x = \partial w/\partial y - \partial v/\partial z$.}
 \label{fig:edge_positions}
 \end{figure}
 
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Mass_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Mass_Chapter.tex
index 471c5581dc3..360836791ae 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Mass_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Mass_Chapter.tex
@@ -209,14 +209,14 @@ \subsubsection{Mesh Interface Boundaries}
 
 \subsubsection{Special Topic: Vertical Mesh Coarsening in Atmospheric Flows}
 
-In atmospheric flows, it may be beneficial to coarsen the mesh in the vertical direction.  Matching the heat flux at the mesh interface is not trivial due to the background pressure stratification and the relative coarse grid resolution usually applied to atmospheric flow calculations.  FDS does not explicitly match the flux.  Instead, it relies on the temperature gradient constructed from the interior ({\ct KKG}) and ghost cell ({\ct KK}) values to be equivalent (additionally, the interpolation of the transport coefficient at the mesh boundary must match, but this is less of a problem than the temperature gradient).  To further complicate matters, FDS always extracts the gas phase temperature value from the ideal gas law, given the cell species composition, density, and background pressure.
+In atmospheric flows, it may be beneficial to coarsen the mesh in the vertical direction.  Matching the heat flux at the mesh interface is not trivial due to the background pressure stratification and the relative coarse grid resolution usually applied to atmospheric flow calculations.  FDS does not explicitly match the flux.  Instead, it relies on the temperature gradient constructed from the interior (\ct{KKG}) and ghost cell (\ct{KK}) values to be equivalent (additionally, the interpolation of the transport coefficient at the mesh boundary must match, but this is less of a problem than the temperature gradient).  To further complicate matters, FDS always extracts the gas phase temperature value from the ideal gas law, given the cell species composition, density, and background pressure.
 
 \begin{equation}
 \label{eq:EOScode}
 T(z) = \frac{P(z) \overline{W}(z)}{\rho(z) \, R} = \frac{\mathtt{PBAR}(z)}{\mathtt{RHO}(z) \, \mathtt{RSUM}(z)}
 \end{equation}
 
-At {\ct INTERPOLATED} boundaries with mesh coarsening (or refinement) the positions of the ghost cell values do not match positions of the interior gas phase cell values from the neighboring mesh.  This is depicted for our problem in Fig.~\ref{fig:vertmeshcoarsening}.  Let $\delta z^{(1)}_{kkg}$ denote the cell height for the interior gas phase cell on Mesh 1, for example.  To match the temperature gradient at the mesh interface we require
+At \ct{INTERPOLATED} boundaries with mesh coarsening (or refinement) the positions of the ghost cell values do not match positions of the interior gas phase cell values from the neighboring mesh.  This is depicted for our problem in Fig.~\ref{fig:vertmeshcoarsening}.  Let $\delta z^{(1)}_{kkg}$ denote the cell height for the interior gas phase cell on Mesh 1, for example.  To match the temperature gradient at the mesh interface we require
 
 \begin{equation}
 \label{eq:TMPatminterp}
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ \subsubsection{Special Topic: Vertical Mesh Coarsening in Atmospheric Flows}
 
 Note that this interpolation may be thought of as a central difference for the temperature gradient.  The corresponding density variation is nonlinear.  The mass fluxes computed by the flux limiter scheme described above still match at the refined mesh interface and therefore do not require adjustment.
 
-This special treatment of the ghost cell density may be accessed in the source code by searching on the logical flag {\ct ATMOSPHERIC\_INTERPOLATION}.  By default, the procedure is invoked at vertical mesh refinement boundaries only if {\ct STRATIFICATION=.TRUE.} and if the vertical cell spacing {\ct DZ} on any mesh exceeds 2 m.  For smaller grid spacing the spurious temperature effect is not noticeable and it is deemed more appropriate to keep the temperature variation consistent with the flux limited interface density.  Setting the developer logical flag {\ct USE\_ATMOSPHERIC\_INTERPOLATION} on the {\ct WIND} line overrides the default behavior.
+This special treatment of the ghost cell density may be accessed in the source code by searching on the logical flag \ct{ATMOSPHERIC\_INTERPOLATION}.  By default, the procedure is invoked at vertical mesh refinement boundaries only if \ct{STRATIFICATION=.TRUE.} and if the vertical cell spacing \ct{DZ} on any mesh exceeds 2 m.  For smaller grid spacing the spurious temperature effect is not noticeable and it is deemed more appropriate to keep the temperature variation consistent with the flux limited interface density.  Setting the developer logical flag \ct{USE\_ATMOSPHERIC\_INTERPOLATION} on the \ct{WIND} line overrides the default behavior.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 
@@ -270,21 +270,21 @@ \subsubsection{Special Topic: Vertical Mesh Coarsening in Atmospheric Flows}
 \put(100,0){\makebox(0,0){Mesh Interface}}
 
 \put(174,-10){\line(1,0){21}}
-\put(225,-10){\makebox(0,0){\ct M(1)\%TMP(KKG)}}
+\put(225,-10){\makebox(0,0){\ct{M(1)\%TMP(KKG)}}}
 \put(253,-10){\vector(1,0){10}}
 \put(272,-10){\makebox(0,0){$T^{(1)}_{kkg}$}}
 \put(174,10){\line(1,0){21}}
-\put(223,10){\makebox(0,0){\ct M(1)\%TMP(KK)}}
+\put(223,10){\makebox(0,0){\ct{M(1)\%TMP(KK)}}}
 \put(253,10){\vector(1,0){10}}
 \put(272,10){\makebox(0,0){$T^{(1)}_{kk}$}}
 
 \put(170,-30){\line(1,0){17}}
-\put(216,-30){\makebox(0,0){\ct M(2)\%TMP(KK)}}
+\put(216,-30){\makebox(0,0){\ct{M(2)\%TMP(KK)}}}
 \put(242,-30){\vector(1,0){10}}
 \put(261,-30){\makebox(0,0){$T^{(2)}_{kk}$}}
 
 \put(170,30){\line(1,0){17}}
-\put(218,30){\makebox(0,0){\ct M(2)\%TMP(KKG)}}
+\put(218,30){\makebox(0,0){\ct{M(2)\%TMP(KKG)}}}
 \put(246,30){\vector(1,0){10}}
 \put(265,30){\makebox(0,0){$T^{(2)}_{kkg}$}}
 
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ \subsection{Mass and Energy Source Terms}
 
 The volumetric source terms in the divergence expression require extended discussion.  The heat release rate per unit volume, $\dq'''$, and the mass generation rate of species $\alpha$ per unit volume, $\dot{m}_\alpha'''$, are detailed in Chapter~\ref{chapter:combustion}, Combustion. The flux term, $\dot{\mathbf{q}}^\pp$, is defined in Eq.~(\ref{bqdot_def}). The radiative source term, $\dq_{\rm r}'''$, that is included in $\nabla \cdot \dot{\mathbf{q}}^\pp$ is discussed in Chapter~\ref{chapter:radiation}, Thermal Radiation.  The bulk heat source from Lagrangian particles, $\dq_{\rm b}'''$, which accounts for convective heat transfer and radiative absorption, is discussed in Chapter~\ref{chapter:lagrangian_particles}, Lagrangian Particles.  The bulk mass source from Lagrangian particles, $\dot{m}_{\rm b,\alpha}'''$, is also found in Chapter~\ref{chapter:lagrangian_particles}.
 
-The source terms are computed in the corrector stage of the time step, following the update of the density and species mass fractions. The terms in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_fdsD1}) involving $\dq_{\rm b}'''$, $\dot{m}_\alpha'''$, and $\dot{m}_{\rm b,\alpha}'''$ are stored in an array called {\ct D\_SOURCE} and applied in the construction of the divergence expression required for the corrected update of the velocity.
+The source terms are computed in the corrector stage of the time step, following the update of the density and species mass fractions. The terms in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_fdsD1}) involving $\dq_{\rm b}'''$, $\dot{m}_\alpha'''$, and $\dot{m}_{\rm b,\alpha}'''$ are stored in an array called \ct{D\_SOURCE} and applied in the construction of the divergence expression required for the corrected update of the velocity.
 
 \subsection{Diffusion Terms}
 \label{div_discret}
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Momentum_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Momentum_Chapter.tex
index 966be8621e4..f054a1d502a 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Momentum_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Momentum_Chapter.tex
@@ -394,11 +394,11 @@ \subsubsection{Open Boundary Conditions (General)}
           \displaystyle \frac{\tp_{\rm ext}}{\rho_\infty} + \ha \left( u_\infty^2 + v_\infty^2 + w_\infty^2 \right)  & {\rm incoming}
           \end{array} \right.  \label{open_general}
 \ee
-{\ct BXS} is the name of the array sent to the pressure solver. The bar over the velocity components indicates an average over the respective faces of the grid cell adjacent to the boundary. The subscript $\infty$ denotes user-specified far field velocity and density values. Typically, the far field velocity is zero, but for simulations involving an external wind, these values can be specified accordingly.
+\ct{BXS} is the name of the array sent to the pressure solver. The bar over the velocity components indicates an average over the respective faces of the grid cell adjacent to the boundary. The subscript $\infty$ denotes user-specified far field velocity and density values. Typically, the far field velocity is zero, but for simulations involving an external wind, these values can be specified accordingly.
 
 \subsubsection{Open Boundary Conditions (Wind)}
 
-If the user specifies a wind {\ct SPEED}, a slightly different {\ct OPEN} boundary condition is invoked. The outflow boundary condition is the same as that shown in Eq.~(\ref{open_general}). At the inflow boundary, the mean viscous and convective forces are assumed small, and a simplified momentum equation is used to develop a boundary value for $H$, namely, $\partial u_i/\partial t = -\partial H/\partial x_i$. For example, the value of $H$ at the lower $x$ boundary, $\cH_{\ha,jk}$, is set so as to approximate a Neumann boundary with a specified velocity component normal to the boundary:
+If the user specifies a wind \ct{SPEED}, a slightly different \ct{OPEN} boundary condition is invoked. The outflow boundary condition is the same as that shown in Eq.~(\ref{open_general}). At the inflow boundary, the mean viscous and convective forces are assumed small, and a simplified momentum equation is used to develop a boundary value for $H$, namely, $\partial u_i/\partial t = -\partial H/\partial x_i$. For example, the value of $H$ at the lower $x$ boundary, $\cH_{\ha,jk}$, is set so as to approximate a Neumann boundary with a specified velocity component normal to the boundary:
 \begin{equation}
 \label{eq:Hin}
 \mathtt{BXS(J,K)} \equiv \cH_{\ha,jk} =  \cH_{1,jk}^n + \frac{\dx}{2}\left[\frac{u_\infty(z,t) - u_{0,jk}^n}{\dt}\right] 
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ \subsubsection{Solid Boundary Conditions}
 {\mathtt{BXF(J,K)}} \equiv \frac{\hp_{I+1,jk}^n-\hp_{I,jk}^n}{\dx} = -F_{x,I,jk}^n - \frac{u_{I,jk}^*-u_{I,jk}^n}{\dt}
 \label{dbc}
 \ee
-where {\ct BXF} is the name of the boundary condition array sent to the pressure solver, $\cH_{I+1,jk}$ lives in the center of the ghost cell to the right of the boundary, $\cH_{I,jk}$ lives in the center of cell to the left of the boundary, $F_{x,I,jk}^n$ is the $x$-component of $\bF$ at the vent or solid wall at the start of the time step, and $u_{I,jk}^*$ is the user-specified value of the $x$-component of velocity at the next time step.
+where \ct{BXF} is the name of the boundary condition array sent to the pressure solver, $\cH_{I+1,jk}$ lives in the center of the ghost cell to the right of the boundary, $\cH_{I,jk}$ lives in the center of cell to the left of the boundary, $F_{x,I,jk}^n$ is the $x$-component of $\bF$ at the vent or solid wall at the start of the time step, and $u_{I,jk}^*$ is the user-specified value of the $x$-component of velocity at the next time step.
 
 Note that for Neumann pressure boundary, there are several options for computing the boundary force term (it could even be set to zero).  What matters is, whatever value is used for the force here, the same value must be used in the velocity predictor and corrector steps, Eqs. (\ref{eqn_RK1}) and (\ref{eqn_RK2}).  We choose to compute the boundary force term using the previous value of the normal pressure gradient, just as we would for an immersed boundary surface:
 \be
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Particle_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Particle_Chapter.tex
index 87a9eef197f..e9a1e9d0414 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Particle_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Technical_Reference_Guide/Particle_Chapter.tex
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ \subsection{Filtered Volumetric Source Terms}
 
 \subsection{Lagrangian Contribution to the Velocity Divergence}
 
-In practice, the filtered mass and energy source term contributions to the velocity divergence constraint are collected in a single term denoted {\ct D\_SOURCE} within the code,
+In practice, the filtered mass and energy source term contributions to the velocity divergence constraint are collected in a single term denoted \ct{D\_SOURCE} within the code,
 \begin{equation}
 D_{\si{\tiny SOURCE}} = \frac{1}{\rho} \sum_\alpha \frac{\overline{W}}{W_\alpha} \, \dot{m}_{{\rm b},\alpha}^{\ppp} + \frac{1}{\rho c_p T} \left( \dot{q}_{\rm b}^{\ppp} - \sum_\alpha \dot{m}_{{\rm b},\alpha}^{\ppp} \, \int_{T_{\rm b}}^T c_{p,\alpha} \d T'  \right)
 \label{eq:D_SOURCE_vap}
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Validation_Guide/Wind_Chapter.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Validation_Guide/Wind_Chapter.tex
index 06faca8c22a..0a4f758395e 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Validation_Guide/Wind_Chapter.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Validation_Guide/Wind_Chapter.tex
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ \section{UWO Wind Tunnel Experiments}
 
 The diagrams in Fig.~\ref{UWO_Drawings} indicate the location of the ``lines'' where the data is compared. The discontinuities in the lines represent the transition from the windward side, to the roof, to the leeward side. The side plots do not include windward or leeward side data.
 
-The simulations are run for approximately one-tenth the time as that of the experiments, which were run for 100~s. The minimum and maximum values for the simulations are extrapolated so that they may be compared to the measured min and max for the 100~s experiment. The procedure is described in the FDS User's Guide~\cite{FDS_Users_Guide}, in the section describing the {\ct TEMPORAL\_STATISTIC} {\ct 'MIN'} and {\ct 'MAX'}.
+The simulations are run for approximately one-tenth the time as that of the experiments, which were run for 100~s. The minimum and maximum values for the simulations are extrapolated so that they may be compared to the measured min and max for the 100~s experiment. The procedure is described in the FDS User's Guide~\cite{FDS_Users_Guide}, in the section describing the \ct{TEMPORAL\_STATISTIC} \ct{'MIN'} and \ct{'MAX'}.
 
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 \centering
diff --git a/Manuals/FDS_Verification_Guide/FDS_Verification_Guide.tex b/Manuals/FDS_Verification_Guide/FDS_Verification_Guide.tex
index 407f3c0f389..d30334d6705 100644
--- a/Manuals/FDS_Verification_Guide/FDS_Verification_Guide.tex
+++ b/Manuals/FDS_Verification_Guide/FDS_Verification_Guide.tex
@@ -4092,7 +4092,7 @@ \section{Single Step and Two Step Chemistry Heat of Combustion}
 \label{1_step_2_step_M}
 \label{1_step_2_step_H}
 
-This verification case checks that single-step and two-step simple chemistry results in the same total heat of combustion. The case consists of four 1 m$^3$ domains with a 20 kW fire in each (one pair defined using {\ct MLRPUA} and the other using {\ct HRRPUA}) that burns for 8.5~s. Each burner is assigned the fuel C$_3$H$_8$ (as a user defined species). In one mesh of each pair, single-step chemistry is used, and in the other mesh, two-step chemistry is used. The total heat released in all meshes should be the same as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1_step_2_step}.
+This verification case checks that single-step and two-step simple chemistry results in the same total heat of combustion. The case consists of four 1 m$^3$ domains with a 20 kW fire in each (one pair defined using \ct{MLRPUA} and the other using \ct{HRRPUA}) that burns for 8.5~s. Each burner is assigned the fuel C$_3$H$_8$ (as a user defined species). In one mesh of each pair, single-step chemistry is used, and in the other mesh, two-step chemistry is used. The total heat released in all meshes should be the same as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1_step_2_step}.
 \begin{figure}[h!]
    \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{lr}
       \includegraphics[height=2.2in]{SCRIPT_FIGURES/1_step_2_step_compare_MLRPUA} &