Predicting the glass transition temperature and viscosity of secondary organic material using molecular composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) account for a large fraction of submicron particles in the atmosphere. SOA can occur in amorphous solid or semi-solid phase states depending on chemical composition, relative humidity (RH), and temperature. The phase transition between amorphous solid and semi-solid states occurs at the glass transition temperature (Tg). We have recently developed a method to estimate Tg of pure compounds containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms (CHO compounds) with molar mass less than 450 g mol−1 based on their molar mass and atomic O : C ratio. In this study, we refine and extend this method for CH and CHO compounds with molar mass up to ~ 1100 g mol−1 using the number of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. We predict viscosity from the Tg-scaled Arrhenius plot of fragility (viscosity vs. Tg / T) as a function of the fragility parameter D. We compiled D values of organic compounds from literature, and found that D approaches a lower limit of ~ 10 (±1.7) as the molar mass increases. We estimated viscosity of α-pinene and isoprene SOA as a function of RH by accounting for hygroscopic growth of SOA and applying the Gordon-Taylor mixing rule, reproducing previously published experimental measurements very well. Sensitivity studies were conducted to evaluate impacts of Tg, D, hygroscopicity parameter (κ), and the Gordon-Taylor constant on viscosity predictions. Viscosity of toluene SOA was predicted using the elemental composition obtained by high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), resulting in a good agreement with the measured viscosity. We also estimated viscosity of biomass burning particles using the chemical composition measured by HRMS with two different ionization techniques: electrospray ionization (ESI) and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI). Due to differences in detected organic compounds and signal intensity, predicted viscosities at low RH based on ESI and APPI measurements differ by 2–5 orders of magnitude. Complementary measurements of viscosity and chemical composition are desired to further constrain RH-dependent viscosity in future studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".