4.6 Article

Measurements of hydroxyl and hydroperoxy radicals during CalNex-LA: Model comparisons and radical budgets

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 121, 期 8, 页码 4211-4232

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024358

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AGS-0612738, AGS-1104880]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of hydroxyl (OH) and hydroperoxy (HO2*) radical concentrations were made at the Pasadena ground site during the CalNex-LA 2010 campaign using the laser-induced fluorescence-fluorescence assay by gas expansion technique. The measured concentrations of OH and HO2* exhibited a distinct weekend effect, with higher radical concentrations observed on the weekends corresponding to lower levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The radical measurements were compared to results from a zero-dimensional model using the Regional Atmospheric Chemical Mechanism-2 constrained by NOx and othermeasured trace gases. The chemical model overpredicted measured OH concentrations during the weekends by a factor of approximately 1.4 +/- 0.3 (1 sigma), but the agreement was better during the weekdays (ratio of 1.0 +/- 0.2). Model predicted HO2* concentrations underpredicted by a factor of 1.3 +/- 0.2 on the weekends, while measured weekday concentrations were underpredicted by a factor of 3.0 +/- 0.5. However, increasing the modeled OH reactivity to match the measured total OH reactivity improved the overall agreement for both OH and HO2* on all days. A radical budget analysis suggests that photolysis of carbonyls and formaldehyde together accounted for approximately 40% of radical initiation with photolysis of nitrous acid accounting for 30% at the measurement height and ozone photolysis contributing less than 20%. An analysis of the ozone production sensitivity reveals that during the week, ozone production was limited by volatile organic compounds throughout the day during the campaign but NOx limited during the afternoon on the weekends.

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