MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160785582 · doi:10.5194/acp-15-1975-2015

Investigation of secondary formation of formic acid: urban environment vs. oil and gas producing region

2015· article· en· W2160785582 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Yuan, Patrick R. Veres, C. Warneke, J. M. Roberts, J. B. Gilman, Abigail R. Koss, P. M. Edwards, M. Graus, W. C. Kuster, Shao‐Meng Li, R. J. Wild, Steven S. Brown, W. P. Dubé, B. M. Lerner, E. J. Williams, J. E. Johnson, Patricia K. Quinn, T. S. Bates, B. L. Lefer, Patrick L. Hayes, J. L. Jiménez, Rodney J. Weber, R. J. Zamora, Barbara Ervens, Dylan B. Millet, Bernhard Rappenglück, J. A. de Gouw

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersClimate Program OfficeNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFormic acidOzonolysisIsopreneFormaldehydeChemistryOzoneAcetaldehydeAcetoneEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistryEthanol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Formic acid (HCOOH) is one of the most abundant carboxylic acids in the atmosphere. However, current photochemical models cannot fully explain observed concentrations and in particular secondary formation of formic acid across various environments. In this work, formic acid measurements made at an urban receptor site (Pasadena) in June–July 2010 during CalNex (California Research at the Nexus of Air Quality and Climate Change) and a site in an oil and gas producing region (Uintah Basin) in January–February 2013 during UBWOS 2013 (Uintah Basin Winter Ozone Studies) will be discussed. Although the VOC (volatile organic compounds) compositions differed dramatically at the two sites, measured formic acid concentrations were comparable: 2.3 ± 1.3 in UBWOS 2013 and 2.0 ± 1.0 ppb in CalNex. We determine that concentrations of formic acid at both sites were dominated by secondary formation (> 99%). A constrained box model using the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM v3.2) underestimates the measured formic acid concentrations drastically at both sites (by a factor of > 10). Compared to the original MCM model that includes only ozonolysis of unsaturated organic compounds and OH oxidation of acetylene, when we updated yields of ozonolysis of alkenes and included OH oxidation of isoprene, vinyl alcohol chemistry, reaction of formaldehyde with HO2, oxidation of aromatics, and reaction of CH3O2 with OH, the model predictions for formic acid were improved by a factor of 6.4 in UBWOS 2013 and 4.5 in CalNex, respectively. A comparison of measured and modeled HCOOH/acetone ratios is used to evaluate the model performance for formic acid. We conclude that the modified chemical mechanism can explain 19 and 45% of secondary formation of formic acid in UBWOS 2013 and CalNex, respectively. The contributions from aqueous reactions in aerosol and heterogeneous reactions on aerosol surface to formic acid are estimated to be 0–6 and 0–5% in UBWOS 2013 and CalNex, respectively. We observe that air–snow exchange processes and morning fog events may also contribute to ambient formic acid concentrations during UBWOS 2013 (~ 20% in total). In total, 53–59 in UBWOS 2013 and 50–55% in CalNex of secondary formation of formic acid remains unexplained. More work on formic acid formation pathways is needed to reduce the uncertainties in the sources and budget of formic acid and to narrow the gaps between measurements and model results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207