4.8 Review

Atmospheric nanoparticle growth

期刊

REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the research progress in nanoparticle growth, focusing on the mismatch between experimental and modeling studies and suggesting specific directions for future research.
coagulation, and sink processes. It is linked to thermodynamics, cluster-and phase-transition physics. Nanoparticle growth rates measured from the evolution of the particle-size distribution describe growth as a collective phenomenon, while models often interpret them on a single-particle level and incorporate it into highly simplified size-distribution representations. Recent atmospheric observa-tions show that sulfuric acid together with ammonia and amines, iodic acid, and oxidized organic species can contribute to nanoparticle growth, whereas most models describe the growth effects from a limited subset of this variety of condensable vapors. Atmospheric simulation chamber experiments have clarified the role of ions, intermolecular forces, the interplay of acids and bases, and the contribution of different types of organic vapors. Especially in the complex thermodynamics of organic vapor condensation, the field has had noteworthy advances over the last decade. While the experimental field has achieved significant progress in methodology and process level understanding, this has not led to a similar improvement in the description of the climate impact of nanoparticle formation in large-scale models. This review sets the basis to better align experimental and modeling studies on nanoparticle growth, giving specific guidance for future studies aiming to resolve the questions as to why the climate response in large-scale models seems to be buffered against high survival probabilities and why the global growth observations herein show surprisingly low variation.

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

4.8
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