4.8 Article

Effects of Precursor Concentration and Acidic Sulfate in Aqueous Glyoxal-OH Radical Oxidation and Implications for Secondary Organic Aerosol

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 21, 页码 8105-8112

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es901742f

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [000433435]
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [NA07OAR4310279]
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [R833751]
  4. NSF [OCE-0619608]
  5. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  6. EPA [150141, R833751] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous experiments demonstrated that aqueous OH radical oxidation of glyoxal yields low-volatility compounds. When this chemistry takes place in clouds and fogs, followed by droplet evaporation (or if it occurs in aerosol water), the products are expected to remain partially in the particle phase, forming secondary organic aerosol (SOA). Acidic sulfate exists ubiquitously in atmospheric water and has been shown to enhance SOA formation through aerosol phase reactions. In this work, we investigate how starting concentrations of glyoxal (30-3000 mu M) and the presence of acidic sulfate (0-840 mu M) affect product formation in the aqueous reaction between glyoxal and OH radical. The oxalic acid yield decreased with increasing precursor concentrations, and the presence of sulfuric acid did not after oxalic acid concentrations significantly. A dilute aqueous chemistry model successfully reproduced oxalic acid concentrations, when the experiment was performed at cloud-relevant concentrations (glyoxal <300 mu M), but predictions deviated from measurements at increasing concentrations. Results elucidate similarities and differences in aqueous glyoxal chemistry in clouds and in wet aerosols. They validate for the first time the accuracy of model predictions at cloud-relevant concentrations, These results suggest that cloud processing of glyoxal could be an important source of SOA.

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