Summertime formaldehyde at a high‐elevation site in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of formaldehyde were made during the summer of 1996 at a high‐elevation site in Quebec as part of the North American Research Strategy on Tropospheric Ozone‐Canada East (NARSTO‐CE) measurement program. Gas phase mixing ratios were determined continuously by removing formaldehyde from the air in a glass coil scrubber, and producing a fluorescent dimer through the Hantzsch reaction. Average mixing ratios of formaldehyde were 1.3 and 0.8 ppbv for dry and wet periods, respectively. Highest values of HCHO were observed July 1–2 with a maximum mixing ratio of 4.6 ppbv. Fog water samples were also collected and analyzed for HCHO on five afternoon periods. Comparison of HCHO in the gas and aqueous phases shows reasonable agreement with Henry's law equilibrium. For dry periods July 1–12, relationships were examined between formaldehyde and other chemical species also measured at the site. Data were segregated based on the ratio of NOx to NOy and on the level of anthropogenic hydrocarbons present in the air mass. For the majority of the data, formaldehyde increased with both ozone and products of NOx oxidation (NOz) and was inversely related to the NOx/NOy, ratio. During the high HCHO episode July 1–2, HCHO was correlated with neither ozone nor NOz illustrating the different chemistry at the site on these days. A chemical box model was used to examine sources of HCHO July 1–4. The model suggests that biogenic hydrocarbons contribute on average 53% of the locally produced formaldehyde, the remainder resulting from the oxidation of methane (19%), anthropogenic VOCs (16%), acetaldehyde (7%), and organic peroxides (3%). The model cannot account for the July 1–2 formaldehyde mixing ratios from the chemistry measured at the site. This implies that an additional HCHO source not included in the model was responsible for the high levels on those days.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".