4.8 Article

Aqueous Processing of Atmospheric Organic Particles in Cloud Water Collected via Aircraft Sampling

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 14, Pages 8523-8530

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01639

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF [AGS-1228496]
  2. EPA [R835409]
  3. Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S Department of Energy (DOE)
  4. DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute [DE-AC06-76RL0 1830]
  5. University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts
  6. Department of Chemistry
  7. EPA [673397, R835409] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cloudwater and below-cloud atmospheric particle samples were collected onboard a research aircraft during the Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study (SOAS) over a forested region of Alabama in June 2013. The organic molecular composition of the samples was studied to gain insights into the aqueous-phase processing of organic compounds within cloud droplets. High resolution mass spectrometry (HEMS) with nanospray desorption electrospray ionization (nano-DESI) and direct infusion electrospray ionization (ESI) were utilized to compare the organic composition of the particle and cloudwater samples, respectively. Isoprene and monoterpene-derived organosulfates and oligomers were identified in both the particles and cloudwater, showing the significant influence of biogenic volatile organic compound oxidation above the forested region. While the average O:C ratios of the organic compounds were similar between the atmospheric particle and doudwater samples, the chemical composition of these samples was quite different. Specifically, hydrolysis of organosulfates and formation of nitrogen-containing compounds were observed for the doudwater when compared to the atmospheric particle samples, demonstrating that cloud processing changes the composition of organic aerosol.

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