Predicting Liquid–Liquid Phase Separation of Submicrometer Proxies for Atmospheric Secondary Aerosol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) of atmospheric aerosols can significantly impact climate, air quality, and human health. However, their complex composition, small size, and history-dependent properties result in great uncertainty in the modeling of aerosol phase state and atmospheric processes. Herein, using cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM), we examined model submicron aerosols composed of organic compounds and ammonium sulfate and established a parametrization for the separation relative humidity (SRH) that accounts for chemical composition, particle size, and equilibration time. We evaluated different variables that describe chemical composition: O/C ratio, partition coefficient, solubility, molar mass, and polarizability. The O/C ratio fits the SRH of micrometer droplets best, and by using a scaling factor to translate the micrometer SRH parametrization to submicron aerosols, we incorporate the effects of size and equilibration time. The measured scaling factor for the submicron mean SRH (30 nm–1 μm, 20 min equilibration times) is 0.80, and the factor becomes 1 with equilibration time over 1 h and is equal to 0, meaning that SRH is absent, when the aerosol dry diameter is smaller than 30 nm. Our parametrization will aid in universal SRH modeling, potentially leading to more accurate predictions of aerosol mass, optical properties, hygroscopicity, and heterogeneous chemistry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".