Capturing the Relative‐Humidity‐Sensitive Gas–Particle Partitioning of Organic Aerosols in a 2D Volatility Basis Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aerosol water affects the physicochemical properties and mass concentration of organic aerosols (OA), but it is typically omitted by air quality, weather, and climate models. We compare two classes of simplified models to estimate the OA water uptake and gas–particle partitioning of organic compounds. One class uses a single‐hygroscopicity‐parameter ( κ ) approach while the other is based on the reduced‐complexity Binary Activity Thermodynamics (BAT) model. We show that a BAT‐based two‐dimensional volatility basis set (VBS) model always predicts a higher OA mass concentration at elevated relative humidity (RH), for example, ∼16% at 80% RH, than any variation of the κ ‐based method considered—even when BAT‐VBS predicts a lower water uptake. The main reason being that the BAT‐VBS model captures variations in effective saturation mass concentration of organics ( C *) with RH, a feature that other VBS methods lack. The BAT‐VBS framework offers an efficient, RH‐sensitive treatment for reduced‐complexity OA modeling.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".