Is secondary organic aerosol yield governed by kinetic factors rather than equilibrium partitioning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The numerical description of the formation of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) in the atmosphere relies on the use of particle yields, which are often determined in chamber experiments. What is sometimes not appreciated is that such yields (i) can be defined in different ways and (ii) depend on atmospheric conditions. Here we show with the help of hypothetical scenario simulations that the differential SOA yield upon addition of oxidation products to an atmosphere already containing such products and SOA is more relevant in the ambient atmosphere than the commonly used integrative yield from chamber studies. Furthermore, we suggest that the SOA formation scenarios that have been studied so far comprise merely a subset of possible atmospheric situations. In particular, while in the standard scenarios factors such as volatility and aerosol loading are important, scenarios can be envisaged where these factors become less important while the differential yield approaches unity for all oxidation products. Finally, we suggest aerosol growth in the atmosphere should be seen as being determined by a dynamic situation arising from many simultaneously occurring kinetic processes rather than a thermodynamic equilibrium process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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 teacher head, 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".