4.7 Article

Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) and peroxyacetic acid (PAA) measurements by iodide chemical ionisation mass spectrometry: first analysis of results in the boreal forest and implications for the measurement of PAN fluxes

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 1129-1139

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-1129-2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community - Research Infrastructure Action under the FP6 Structuring the European Research Area Programme, EUSAAR [RII3-CT-2006-026140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe measurements of peroxyacetyl nitrate (CH3C(O)O2NO2, PAN) and peroxyacetic acid (CH3C(O)OOH, PAA) in the Boreal forest using iodide chemical ionization mass spectrometry (ICIMS). The measurements were made during the Hyytiala United Measurement of Photochemistry and Particles - Comprehensive Organic Particle and Environmental Chemistry (HUMPPA-COPEC-2010) measurement intensive. Mixing ratios of PAN and PAA were determined by measuring the acetate ion signal (CH3C(O)O-, m/z = 59) resulting from reaction of CH3C(O)O-2 (from the thermal dissociation of PAN) or CH3C(O) OOH with iodide ions using alternatively heated and ambient temperature inlet lines. During some periods of high temperature (similar to 30 degrees C) and low NOx (< 1 ppbv), PAA mixing ratios were similar to, or exceeded those of PAN and thus contributed a significant fraction of the total acetate signal. PAA is thus a potential interference for ICIMS measurements of PAN, and especially eddy covariance flux measurements in environments where the PAA flux is likely to be a significant proportion of the (short timescale) acetate ion variability. Within the range of mixing ratios of NOx measured during HUMPPA-COPEC, the modelled ratio of PAA-to-PAN was found to be sensitive to temperature (through the thermal decomposition rate of PAN) and the HO2 mixing ratio, thus providing some constraint to estimates of photochemical activity and oxidation rates in the Boreal environment.

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