4.6 Article

New particle formation and growth from methanesulfonic acid, trimethylamine and water

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 17, 期 20, 页码 13699-13709

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5cp00838g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0909227, 1443140]
  2. Department of Energy [ER65208]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0909227] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1443140] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Chemistry [0909227] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New particle formation from gas-to-particle conversion represents a dominant source of atmospheric particles and affects radiative forcing, climate and human health. The species involved in new particle formation and the underlying mechanisms remain uncertain. Although sulfuric acid is commonly recognized as driving new particle formation, increasing evidence suggests the involvement of other species. Here we study particle formation and growth from methanesulfonic acid, trimethylamine and water at reaction times from 2.3 to 32 s where particles are 2-10 nm in diameter using a newly designed and tested flow system. The flow system has multiple inlets to facilitate changing the mixing sequence of gaseous precursors. The relative humidity and precursor concentrations, as well as the mixing sequence, are varied to explore their effects on particle formation and growth in order to provide insight into the important mechanistic steps. We show that water is involved in the formation of initial clusters, greatly enhancing their formation as well as growth into detectable size ranges. A kinetics box model is developed that quantitatively reproduces the experimental data under various conditions. Although the proposed scheme is not definitive, it suggests that incorporating such mechanisms into atmospheric models may be feasible in the near future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据