the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring HONO production from particulate nitrate photolysis in Chinese representative regions: characteristics, influencing factors and environmental implications
Abstract. The production mechanism of atmospheric nitrous acid (HONO), an important precursor of hydroxyl radical (OH), was still controversial. Few studies have explored the effects of particulate nitrate photolysis on HONO sources in different environment conditions across China. Here, the photolysis rate constants of particulate nitrate for HONO production (JHONO) were determined through photochemical reaction system with PM2.5 samples collected from five representative sites in China. To eliminate the “shadowing effect” — potential light extinction within aerosol layers at heavy PM2.5 loadings on the filters, the relationship between light screening coefficient and EC, the dominant light-absorbing component in PM2.5, was established (R2=0.73). The corrected JHONO values varied with sampling period and location over a wide range, distributing from 1.6×10−6 s−1 to 1.96×10−4 s−1, with a mean (± 1 SD) of (1.71±2.36)×10−5 s−1. Chemical compositions, specifically nitrate loading and organic component, affected the production of HONO through particulate nitrate photolysis: high JHONO values were generally associated with the PM2.5 samples with high OC/NO3− ratio (R2=0.86). We suggested that the parameterization equation between JHONO and OC/NO3− established in this work can be used to estimate JHONO in different aerosol chemical conditions, thus reducing the uncertainty in exploring HONO daytime sources. This study confirms that the photolysis of particulate nitrate can be a potential HONO daytime source in rural or southern urban sites, which were characterized by high proportion of organic matter in PM2.5, while the contribution of this process to HONO daytime formation was still limited.
- Preprint
(1608 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1555 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Sep 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2141', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2024
reply
General comments:
The authors of this manuscript estimated the photolysis rate constants of particulate nitrate for HONO production (JNO3-®HONO) through photolysis of PM2.5 samples collected from five typical sites in China. They smartly revealed the “shadowing effect” of PM2.5 filter samples on nitrate photolysis through investigating the difference of HONO production rates through photolysis of the PM2.5 samples collected on a whole day and those sampled in both daytime and nighttime, finding that OC and EC played key roles in the “shadowing effect”. Additionally, the authors further derived a parameterization equation of JNO3-®HONO for atmospheric PM2.5 based on significantly positive correlation between JNO3-®HONO of PM2.5 and OC/NO3- ratio,which will be useful for precisely estimating JNO3-®HONO in different areas with different aerosol chemical composition. In general, this manuscript is well organized, containing useful information about daytime HONO source from photolysis of atmospheric PM2.5. This reviewer recommends the manuscript to be published in the journal.
Specifics:
The symbol used for indicating photolysis rate constant of particulate nitrate for HONO production is suggested to be JNO3-®HONO, rather than J(HONO) because J(HONO) is prevailingly adopted to represent the photolysis rate constant of HONO.
The information of the five sampling sites are suggested to cite corresponding references.
The derived JNO3-®HONO values strongly depended on the irradiation time, light intensity and RH according to Eq. (1)- (2) and Fig. 2, and thus it is better to mention about the key information for comparison of the J values with previous studies, e.g., the experiments with irradiation time of ~10 min for Ye et al. (2017), 15min for Bao et al. (2018), whereas 20 min for your experiments. Additionally, the J values derived by Ye et al. (2017) were based on production of the sum of HONO and NO2.
Did you measure the particulate nitrate concentration after the irradiation? How much did the formed HONO account for the consumed nitrate?
Technical corrections:
Lines 173-174, the description of “the consumption of reactive electron donors, such as acidic proton” is not correct because acidic proton is a proton donor, rather than a reactive electron donor;
Lines 190-192, “PHONO does not increase” should be “PHONO didn’t increase”;
Line 207, the meaning of the second item in Eq. (4) is not clear.
Lines 271-273, the values of various parameters for clean and polluted should present in a range, rather than fix values, or you have to mention the representatives of the values, e.g., the mean or average.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2141-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2141', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2024
reply
This work studied HONO production from particulate nitrate photolysis in PM2.5 at five Chinese cities. The method is well-designed and the shadowing effect of the artificial filter samples is corrected to some degree. This work provided good evidence to show the important role of OC/NO3- in determining the JNO3-. The parameterization of corrected jNO3 using the OC/NO3⁻ could improve the atmospheric relevance of laboratory studies conducted with aerosol filter samples and better quantify of HONO production from the photochemical reduction of nitrate. In general, this work is of high quality and significant importance to atmospheric chemistry and physics. I recommend the manuscript be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
Comments:
1. Jhono can be confused with the photolysis of HONO. I suggest using 'jno3-_hono' instead
2. I suggest NO3- be considered and normalized while studying pH influence.
3. line 17, the light screening coefficient needs to be determined before use.
4. line 17, EC may be determined before use.
5. line 18, what is “corrected” Jhono?
6. line 25- 28, I am confused by the sentence, is the contribution of photolysis of nitrate potentially important or limited? and why?
7. line 67-69, How do mechanisms and dominant factors contribute to accurately estimating contributions?
8. line 74, why is the shadowing effect significant only under haze conditions? Are the authors assuming that all samples were collected within 24 hours? is this true?
9. line 80, NO3- changed over time or location?
10. line 190, I understand that the shadowing effect causes a lower j at higher nitrate loading. How could it lead to a lower P at higher nitrate loading?
11. Line 195: should the underestimation of the p or J value primarily depend on the loading time or the amount of light-absorbing species? Is it not necessarily related to whether the environment is polluted or not?
12. line 337, I can hardly see a clear dependence of OC/NO3- on PM2.5 levels.
13. More details should be added to the caption of Fig. 9, such as an explanation of how these values were obtained.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2141-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
184 | 65 | 7 | 256 | 19 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 184
- PDF: 65
- XML: 7
- Total: 256
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1