4.7 Article

Hydroxy nitrate production in the OH-initiated oxidation of alkenes

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 4297-4316

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-4297-2015

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [AGS-1240604]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [NNX12AC06G, NNX14AP46G-ACCDAM]
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1240604] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alkenes are oxidized rapidly in the atmosphere by addition of OH and subsequently O-2 leading to the formation of beta-hydroxy peroxy radicals. These peroxy radicals react with NO to form beta-hydroxy nitrates with a branching ratio alpha. We quantify alpha for C-2-C-8 alkenes at 295K +/- 3 and 993 hPa. The branching ratio can be expressed as alpha = (0.045 +/- 0.016) x N - (0.11 +/- 0.05) where N is the number of heavy atoms (excluding the peroxy moiety), and listed errors are 2 sigma. These branching ratios are larger than previously reported and are similar to those for peroxy radicals formed from H abstraction from alkanes. We find the isomer distributions of beta-hydroxy nitrates formed under NO-dominated peroxy radical chemistry to be different than the isomer distribution of hydroxy hydroperoxides produced under HO2-dominated peroxy radical chemistry. Assuming unity yield for the hydroperoxides implies that the branching ratio to form beta-hydroxy nitrates increases with substitution of RO2. Deuterium substitution enhances the branching ratio to form hydroxy nitrates in both propene and isoprene by a factor of similar to 1.5. The role of alkene chemistry in the Houston region is re-evaluated using the RONO2 branching ratios reported here. Small alkenes are found to play a significant role in present-day oxidant formation more than a decade (2013) after the 2000 Texas Air Quality Study identified these compounds as major contributors to photochemical smog in Houston.

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

4.7
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