Analysis of chemical kinetics at the gas-aqueous interface for submicron aerosols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of kinetics of chemical reactions in the gas-liquid interface between atmospheric gases and reactive solute in dilute aqueous aerosols is analysed in order to see if such processes will affect the overall uptake rate. Accordingly, a parameterization of such heterogeneous reactions was derived, taking into account interfacial reactions. Gibbs surface excess concentration of both reactive compounds and stable compounds leads to higher heterogeneous reaction rates in comparison to aqueous phase bulk reactions. An analytical formulation shows that the surface reactions may be of considerable importance for the uptake process in the case of small liquid aerosols even in the absence of organic film on the surface. In particular, we demonstrate that the uptake rate of atmospheric gas-phase oxidants (such as OH, NO(3) or O(3)) reacting with volatile organic compounds (such as ethanol or methanol) is increased by more than 10% for atmospheric aerosols with diameters lower than 0.1 microm. This effect is in addition intensified in the case of reactions of atmospheric oxidants with liquid aerosols containing organic surfactants, such as semi-volatile organic compounds, i.e., the chemical reactions at the gas-liquid interface may be dominant in the main uptake process for atmospheric submicron aerosols.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".