MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079519611 · doi:10.1029/2004jd005402

Measurements of HO<sub>2</sub> uptake to aqueous aerosol: Mass accommodation coefficients and net reactive loss

2005· article· en· W2079519611 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel A. Thornton, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAerosolAqueous solutionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SulfateRelative humidityChemistryHydrogenMeteorologyChromatographyPhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present room temperature measurements of HO2 uptake to aqueous submicron aerosol obtained with an entrained aerosol flow tube coupled to a chemical ionization mass spectrometer. Two aqueous aerosol types were examined, H2SO4 at 35–40% relative humidity (RH) and (NH4)2SO4 at 40–45% RH. By doping the aerosol with Cu(II) (∼0.1 M in aerosol) to create an efficient aerosol sink, we determine lower limits to the mass accommodation coefficient, αHO2, to be 0.8 ± 0.3 for H2SO4 and 0.5 ± 0.1 for (NH4)2SO4 particles. In the absence of Cu(II), net reactive loss of HO2 on H2SO4 aerosol was slow, and we measured a reaction probability, γHO2, less than 0.01. In contrast, loss of HO2 to (NH4)2SO4 aerosol, buffered to pH = 5.1 but without Cu(II), was efficient in our experiment. For this system, aerosol‐induced loss of gas‐phase HO2 was observed to follow second‐order kinetics, and we infer from our measurements a second‐order aqueous phase reaction rate coefficient of 1 ± 0.25 × 107M−1 s−1 in good agreement with an estimate of 2 ± 1 × 107M−1 s−1 based on literature values of HO2 aqueous‐phase chemical parameters. These results imply that heterogeneous loss of HO2 to submicron aqueous sulfate aerosol will be strongly temperature dependent with negligible contribution to odd hydrogen radical (HOx) removal rates at temperatures warmer than ∼270 K, but potentially large contributions to HOx loss (e.g., >50% of total HOx loss) in colder regions of the troposphere depending on the available aqueous aerosol volume.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207