MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246616995 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-14953

Seasonal aerosol acidity and liquid water content: impact on aerosol concentration and nitrogen deposition fluxes in a urban Canadian environment.

2021· preprint· en· W4246616995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Athanasios Nenes, Andrea M. Arangio, Pourya Shahpoury, Ewa Dąbek-Złotorzyńska

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolAmmoniaChemistryNitrogenAmmoniumNitrateDeposition (geology)Nitric acidEnvironmental chemistryInorganic chemistryBiochemistryOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerosol acidity and liquid water content (LWC) affect aerosol concentration and composition as well as the fate of the precursor compounds ammonia (NH3) and nitric acid (HNO3) [1,2]. Together with temperature, aerosol acidity and LWC determine the gas-particle partitioning of such precursors. In warm seasons, high aerosol acidity and low LWC promote the partitioning of NH3 to particulate phase as ammonium, while at the same time drive aerosol nitrate to the gas phase as HNO3. In cold seasons, the opposite effect can be observed. Given that the dry deposition rate of gaseous NH3 and HNO3 is up to 10 times faster than the particle phase, the conditions that favour the partitioning of these species to the gas phase also determine the dry deposition rates of reduced and oxidized nitrogen. This process has consequences for the accumulation of aerosols in the boundary layer, as well as the transport and deposition flux of nitrogen species[2]. In the present work, we explore the seasonal variation of aerosol acidity and liquid water content and their estimated effect on nitrogen dry deposition velocity using data collected over three years in Toronto, Canada, from January 2016 to December 2018. Aerosol acidity, in terms of H+ concentration, has large inter- and intra-seasonal variability, ranging between 5 and almost 3 orders of magnitude, respectively. By applying the framework developed in Nenes et al. 2020 [1], aerosol formation during winter is sensitive to HNO3 levels (pH range ~3 and ~6, LWC range ~0.4 and ~ 35.0 μg m-3), whereas in summer it tends to be insensitive to both NH3 and HNO3 (pH range ~1.4 and ~ 4, LWC range ~0.04 and ~10.0 μg m-3) This insensitive regime indicates that emissions of other precursors such as SOx and organic aerosol are major sources of aerosol variability in summer. In terms of nitrogen dry deposition, the seasonal variation experiences two regimes: in winter, the deposition is fast for NH3 and slow for HNO3, whereas in summer, both deposition of NH3 and HNO3 are fast. In conclusion, the analysis of ambient aerosol data using aerosol pH and liquid water content suggest that in Toronto, emission controls of NOx in winter and of SOx in summer would be most beneficial for air quality. [1] Nenes A., Pandis S., Weber R.J., Russell A., ACP, 20, 3249–3258, 2020 [2] Nenes A., Pandis S., Kanakidou M., Russell A., Song S., Vasilakos P., Weber R.J., ACPD, 20, 266, 2020

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→