4.7 Article

Elemental ratio measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass spectrometry: characterization, improved calibration, and implications

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 253-272

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-253-2015

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [CHE-1012809, AGS-1243354]
  2. NASA [NNX12AC03G]
  3. NOAA [NA13OAR4310063]
  4. National Science Foundation [ATM-1238109, AGS1136479]
  5. Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  6. Department of Energy, Office of Science Early Career Research Program
  7. US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-03ER83599, DE-FG02-05ER84269, DE-FG02-07ER84890]
  8. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  9. Directorate For Geosciences [1243354, 1238109, 1136479] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Division Of Chemistry
  11. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1307664, 1307934] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elemental compositions of organic aerosol (OA) particles provide useful constraints on OA sources, chemical evolution, and effects. The Aerodyne high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS) is widely used to measure OA elemental composition. This study evaluates AMS measurements of atomic oxygen-to-carbon (O : C), hydrogen-to-carbon (H : C), and organic mass-to-organic carbon (OM : OC) ratios, and of carbon oxidation state ((OS) over bar (C))for a vastly expanded laboratory data set of multifunctional oxidized OA standards. For the expanded standard data set, the method introduced by Aiken et al. (2008), which uses experimentally measured ion intensities at all ions to determine elemental ratios (referred to here as Aiken-Explicit), reproduces known O: C and H: C ratio values within 20% (average absolute value of relative errors) and 12%, respectively. The more commonly used method, which uses empirically estimated H2O+ and CO+ ion intensities to avoid gas phase air interferences at these ions (referred to here as Aiken-Ambient), reproduces O: C and H: C of multifunctional oxidized species within 28 and 14% of known values. The values from the latter method are systematically biased low, however, with larger biases observed for alcohols and simple diacids. A detailed examination of the H2O+, CO+, and CO2+ fragments in the high-resolution mass spectra of the standard compounds indicates that the Aiken-Ambient method underestimates the CO C and especially H2O+ produced from many oxidized species. Combined AMS-vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) ionization measurements indicate that these ions are produced by dehydration and decarboxylation on the AMS vaporizer (usually operated at 600 degrees C). Thermal decomposition is observed to be efficient at vaporizer temperatures down to 200 degrees C. These results are used together to develop an Improved-Ambient elemental analysis method for AMS spectra measured in air. The Improved-Ambient method uses specific ion fragments as markers to correct for molecular functionality-dependent systematic biases and reproduces known O : C (H : C) ratios of individual oxidized standards within 28% (13 %) of the known molecular values. The error in Improved-Ambient O : C (H : C) values is smaller for theoretical standard mixtures of the oxidized organic standards, which are more representative of the complex mix of species present in ambient OA. For ambient OA, the Improved-Ambient method produces O : C (H : C) values that are 27% (11 %) larger than previously published Aiken-Ambient values; a corresponding increase of 9% is observed for OM : OC values. These results imply that ambient OA has a higher relative oxygen content than previously estimated. The (OS) over bar (C) values calculated for ambient OA by the two methods agree well, however (average relative difference of 0.06 (OS) over bar (C) units). This indicates that (OS) over bar (C) is a more robust metric of oxidation than O : C, likely since (OS) over bar (C) is not affected by hydration or dehydration, either in the atmosphere or during analysis.

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