4.8 Article

Modeling the Impact of Iron-Carboxylate Photochemistry on Radical Budget and Carboxylate Degradation in Cloud Droplets and Particles

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 10, 页码 5652-5659

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es4056643

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To quantify the effects of an advanced iron photochemistry scheme, the chemical aqueous-phase radical mechanism (CAPRAM 3.0i) has been updated with several new Fe(III)-carboxylate complex photolysis reactions. Newly introduced ligands are malonate, succinate, tartrate, tartronate, pyruvate, and glyoxalate. Model simulations show that more than 50% of the total Fe(III) is coordinated by oxalate and up to 20% of total Fe(III) is bound in the newly implemented 1:1 complexes with tartronate, malonate, and pyruvate. Up to 20% of the total Fe(III) is found in hydroxo and sulfato complexes. The fraction of [Fe(oxalate)(2)](-) and [Fe(pyruvate)](2+) is significantly higher during nighttime than during daytime, which points toward a strong influence of photochemistry on these species. Fe(III) complex photolysis is an important additional sink for tartronate, pyruvate, and oxalate, with a complex photolysis contribution to overall degradation of 46, 40, and 99%, respectively, compared to all possible sink reactions with atmospheric aqueous-phase radicals, such as (OH)-O-center dot, NO3 center dot, and SO4 center dot- -. Simulated aerosol particles have a much lower liquid water content than cloud droplets, thus leading to high concentrations of species and, consequently, an enhancement of the photolysis sink reactions in the aerosol particles. The simulations showed that Fe(III) photochemistry should not be neglected when considering the fate of carboxylic acids, which constitute a major part of aqueous secondary organic aerosol (aqSOA) in tropospheric cloud droplets and aqueous particles. Failure to consider this loss pathway has the potential to result in a significant overestimate of aqSOA production.

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