the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
On the potential use of highly oxygenated organic molecules (HOM) as indicators for ozone formation sensitivity
Abstract. Ozone (O3), an important and ubiquitous trace gas, protects lives from harm of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the stratosphere but is toxic to living organisms in the troposphere. Additionally, tropospheric O3 is a key oxidant, and source of other oxidants (e.g, OH and NO3 radicals) for various volatile organic compounds (VOC). Recently, highly oxygenated organic molecules (HOM) were identified as a new compound group formed from oxidation of many VOC, making up a significant source of secondary organic aerosol (SOA). The pathways forming HOM from VOC involve autoxidation of peroxy radicals (RO2), formed ubiquitously in many VOC oxidation reactions. The main sink for RO2 is bimolecular reactions with other radicals, HO2, NO or other RO2, and this largely determines the structure of the end products. Organic nitrates form solely from RO2 + NO reactions while accretion products (“dimers”) solely from RO2 + RO2 reactions. The RO2 + NO reaction also converts NO into NO2, making it a net source for O3 through NO2 photolysis.
There is a highly nonlinear relationship between O3, NOx, and VOC. Understanding the O3 formation sensitivity to changes in VOC and NOx is crucial for making optimal mitigation policies to control O3 concentrations. However, determining the specific O3 formation regimes (either VOC-limited or NOx-limited) remains challenging in diverse environmental conditions. In this work we assessed whether HOM measurements can function as a real-time indicator for the O3 formation sensitivity based on the hypothesis that HOM compositions can describe the relative importance of NO as a terminator for RO2. Given the fast formation and short lifetimes of the low-volatile HOM (timescale of minutes), they describe the instantaneous chemical regime of the atmosphere. In this work, we conducted a series of monoterpene oxidation experiments in our chamber while varying the concentrations of NOx and VOC under different NO2 photolysis rates. We also measured the relative concentrations of HOM of different types (dimers, nitrate-containing monomers, and non-nitrate monomers) and used ratios between these to estimate the O3 formation sensitivity. We find that for this simple system, the O3 sensitivity could be described very well based on the HOM measurements. Future work will focus on determining to what extent this approach can be applied in more complex atmospheric environments. Ambient measurements of HOM have become increasingly common during the last decade, and therefore we expect that there already are a large amount groups with available data for testing this approach.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13744 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13744 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1959', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2023
General comments
This work details on how HOM can function as an indicator for determining the sensitivity of O3 formation. The authors have clearly communicated their approach, results, and the potential limitations of the study. In general, the manuscript is well-written and of good scientific quality. Therefore, I would recommend this manuscript for publication with the minor re-works and additions outlined below.
Specific comments
How the photolysis rate of NO2 was determined? Maybe a brief discussion (used expressions) can be included in the manuscript.
It was not clear from the discussion (Section 2.3) and Table A2, whether wall losses have been accounted for or not. A discussion on these losses could be interesting to see the nature of the effect on indicating ratios.
There can be a discussion on why IR1 holds a better potential than IR2 for indicating O3 formation sensitivity.
It is specified that this chamber study can estimate indicating ratios in determining O3 formation sensitivity, both qualitatively as well as quantitatively. I suggest adding a table that shows the estimated and measured values of O3 concentration as well as the indicating ratios, which will make it easier for the readers to refer to the values.
Technical comments
Line 205: Despite showing a faster decay compared to HOMON, O≤8, non-nitrate HOM monomers with fewer than 9 oxygen atoms (HOMMono, O≤8) also showed overall slow decays (Fig. 3). – This sentence needs to be rewritten.
After Table A1, the line ‘The figures are shown....’ should be deleted or completed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1959-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1959/egusphere-2023-1959-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1959', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Nov 2023
The authors conducted chamber experiments to evaluate whether HOM can function as a real-time indicator of the O3 production regime. They classified different types of HOM, and showed that the O3 sensitivity can be estimated from the composition of HOM (nitrate-containing and non-nitrate compounds) in a single VOC system.
Overall, this manuscript is well written, and the results are useful to researchers working on the O3 formation mechanism. However, there are several concerns as below.General comments:
(1) The authors used the ratios of non-nitrate HOM and nitrate-containing HOM as the indicating ratios. The reason for using HOM (not oxygenated VOC) is not clear to me. In general, HOM compounds have lower volatility than most OVOC compounds, and thus, they have more uncertainty factors, such as higher aerosol formation (for both ambient air and chamber experiments) and wall deposition (for chamber experiments). In this study, I guess the authors measured only gaseous HOM by CIMS, and thus, the production yield of HOM cannot be fully measured. The volatilities of HOM compounds varied widely, and thus, the fractions of HOM in a particulate phase or deposited on walls are different among compounds. The application of the OVOC/organic nitrate ratio as the indicating ratio seems more straightforward than the HOM ratio proposed in this manuscript. The reason for using HOM should be clearly stated.
(In a similar context, I do not understand why compounds with O<=8 are not included in this analysis. Compounds with O>8 have lower volatility, and thus, aerosol formation or wall deposition would be expected to interfere with the estimation of the HOM production yields).(2) Is there the aerosol formation in this experimental system? If large fractions of the produced HOM are in a particulate phase, then, the interpretation of the derived indicating ratio becomes complicated. The information on aerosol formation in this experimental system is useful to readers.
(3) The estimated threshold values of the indicating ratios are the key findings of this study, whereas the derivation of the thresholds is not explained in the main text. The derivation of these threshold values (shown in Lines 307-309) should be clearly explained.
Technical comments:
Figure 5: “Measured” should be removed from the labels of the x and y axes, because the results of EKMA are also shown in this figure.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1959-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1959/egusphere-2023-1959-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1959', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2023
General comments
This work details on how HOM can function as an indicator for determining the sensitivity of O3 formation. The authors have clearly communicated their approach, results, and the potential limitations of the study. In general, the manuscript is well-written and of good scientific quality. Therefore, I would recommend this manuscript for publication with the minor re-works and additions outlined below.
Specific comments
How the photolysis rate of NO2 was determined? Maybe a brief discussion (used expressions) can be included in the manuscript.
It was not clear from the discussion (Section 2.3) and Table A2, whether wall losses have been accounted for or not. A discussion on these losses could be interesting to see the nature of the effect on indicating ratios.
There can be a discussion on why IR1 holds a better potential than IR2 for indicating O3 formation sensitivity.
It is specified that this chamber study can estimate indicating ratios in determining O3 formation sensitivity, both qualitatively as well as quantitatively. I suggest adding a table that shows the estimated and measured values of O3 concentration as well as the indicating ratios, which will make it easier for the readers to refer to the values.
Technical comments
Line 205: Despite showing a faster decay compared to HOMON, O≤8, non-nitrate HOM monomers with fewer than 9 oxygen atoms (HOMMono, O≤8) also showed overall slow decays (Fig. 3). – This sentence needs to be rewritten.
After Table A1, the line ‘The figures are shown....’ should be deleted or completed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1959-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1959/egusphere-2023-1959-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1959', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Nov 2023
The authors conducted chamber experiments to evaluate whether HOM can function as a real-time indicator of the O3 production regime. They classified different types of HOM, and showed that the O3 sensitivity can be estimated from the composition of HOM (nitrate-containing and non-nitrate compounds) in a single VOC system.
Overall, this manuscript is well written, and the results are useful to researchers working on the O3 formation mechanism. However, there are several concerns as below.General comments:
(1) The authors used the ratios of non-nitrate HOM and nitrate-containing HOM as the indicating ratios. The reason for using HOM (not oxygenated VOC) is not clear to me. In general, HOM compounds have lower volatility than most OVOC compounds, and thus, they have more uncertainty factors, such as higher aerosol formation (for both ambient air and chamber experiments) and wall deposition (for chamber experiments). In this study, I guess the authors measured only gaseous HOM by CIMS, and thus, the production yield of HOM cannot be fully measured. The volatilities of HOM compounds varied widely, and thus, the fractions of HOM in a particulate phase or deposited on walls are different among compounds. The application of the OVOC/organic nitrate ratio as the indicating ratio seems more straightforward than the HOM ratio proposed in this manuscript. The reason for using HOM should be clearly stated.
(In a similar context, I do not understand why compounds with O<=8 are not included in this analysis. Compounds with O>8 have lower volatility, and thus, aerosol formation or wall deposition would be expected to interfere with the estimation of the HOM production yields).(2) Is there the aerosol formation in this experimental system? If large fractions of the produced HOM are in a particulate phase, then, the interpretation of the derived indicating ratio becomes complicated. The information on aerosol formation in this experimental system is useful to readers.
(3) The estimated threshold values of the indicating ratios are the key findings of this study, whereas the derivation of the thresholds is not explained in the main text. The derivation of these threshold values (shown in Lines 307-309) should be clearly explained.
Technical comments:
Figure 5: “Measured” should be removed from the labels of the x and y axes, because the results of EKMA are also shown in this figure.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1959-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1959/egusphere-2023-1959-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhao, 13 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
398 | 170 | 29 | 597 | 11 | 15 |
- HTML: 398
- PDF: 170
- XML: 29
- Total: 597
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Yuanyuan Luo
Valter Mickwitz
Douglas Worsnop
Mikael Ehn
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13744 KB) - Metadata XML