Indoor Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation Initiated from Reactions between Ozone and Surface-Sorbed <scp>d</scp>-Limonene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactions between ozone and terpenoids produce numerous products, some of which may form secondary organic aerosol (SOA). This work investigated the contribution to gas-phase SOA formation of ozone reactions with surface-sorbed D-limonene, which is common indoors. A model framework was developed to predict SOA mass formation because of ozone/terpenoid surface reactions, and it was used with steady state experiments in a 283 L chamber to determine the aerosol mass fraction of SOA resulting from surface reactions, ξs (the ratio of mass of SOA formed and mass of ozone consumed by ozone/terpenoid surface reactions), for ozone/D-limonene reactions on stainless steel. The ξs = 0.70-0.91, with lower relative humidity leading to both higher mass and number formation. Also, surface reactions promoted nucleation more than gas-phase reactions, and number formation due to surface reactions and gas-phase reactions were 126-339 and 51.1-60.2 no./cm(3) per μg/m(3) of formed SOA, respectively. We also used the model framework to predict that indoor spaces in which ozone/D-limonene surface reactions would likely lead to meaningful gas-phase SOA formation are those with surfaces that have low original reactivity with ozone, such as glass, sealed materials, or smooth metals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".