Kinetics of N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> Hydrolysis on Secondary Organic Aerosol and Mixed Ammonium Bisulfate−Secondary Organic Aerosol Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinetics of the hydrolysis reaction of N(2)O(5) on secondary organic aerosol (SOA) produced through the ozonolysis of α-pinene and on mixed ammonium bisulfate-SOA particles was investigated using an entrained aerosol flow tube coupled to a chemical ionization mass spectrometer. We report room temperature uptake coefficients, γ, on ammonium bisulfate and SOA particles at 50% relative humidity of 1.5 × 10(-2) ± 1.5 × 10(-3) and 1.5 × 10(-4) ± 2 × 10(-5), respectively. For the mixed ammonium bisulfate-SOA particles, γ decreased from 2.6 × 10(-3) ± 4 × 10(-4) to 3.0 × 10(-4) ± 3 × 10(-5) as the SOA mass fraction increased from 9 to 79, indicating a strong suppression in γ with the addition of organic material. There is an order-of-magnitude reduction in the uptake coefficient with the smallest amount of SOA material present and smaller additional reductions with increasing aerosol organic content. This newly coated organic layer may either decrease the mass accommodation coefficient of N(2)O(5) onto the particle or hinder the dissolution and diffusion of N(2)O(5) into the remainder of the aerosol after it has been accommodated onto the surface. The former corresponds to a surface effect and the latter to bulk processes. The low value of the uptake coefficient on pure SOA particles will likely make N(2)O(5) hydrolysis insignificant on such an aerosol, but atmospheric chemistry models need to account for the role that organics may play in suppressing the kinetics of this reaction on mixed organic-inorganic particles.
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".