4.8 Article

Quantifying the Nitrogen Sources and Secondary Formation of Ambient HONO with a Stable Isotopic Method

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 43, Pages 16456-16464

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c04886

Keywords

HONO nitrogen sources; HONO formation; nitrogenisotope; oxygen isotope; Bayesian model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a novel method using stable nitrogen and oxygen isotopes to identify the sources and formation processes of HONO in an urban area. The results showed that secondary formation, particularly the NO2 heterogeneous reaction, was the dominant process contributing to HONO formation during both day and night. Bayesian simulation demonstrated the contributions of coal combustion, biomass burning, vehicle exhaust, and soil emissions to HONO.
Nitrous acid (HONO) is a reactive gas that plays an important role in atmospheric chemistry. However, accurately quantifying its direct emissions and secondary formation in the atmosphere as well as attributing it to specific nitrogen sources remains a significant challenge. In this study, we developed a novel method using stable nitrogen and oxygen isotopes (delta N-15; delta O-18) for apportioning ambient HONO in an urban area in North China. The results show that secondary formation was the dominant HONO formation processes during both day and night, with the NO2 heterogeneous reaction contributing 59.0 +/- 14.6% in daytime and 64.4 +/- 10.8% at nighttime. A Bayesian simulation demonstrated that the average contributions of coal combustion, biomass burning, vehicle exhaust, and soil emissions to HONO were 22.2 +/- 13.1, 26.0 +/- 5.7, 28.6 +/- 6.7, and 23.2 +/- 8.1%, respectively. We propose that the isotopic method presents a promising approach for identifying nitrogen sources and the secondary formation of HONO, which could contribute to mitigating HONO and its adverse effects on air quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available