the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Boosting aerosol surface effects: Strongly Enhanced Cooperative Surface Propensity of Atmospherically Relevant Organic Molecular Ions in Aqueous Solution
Abstract. The effects of atmospheric aerosols are key uncertainties in climate models. One reason is the complex aerosol composition which includes a relatively large fraction of organics. Another reason is the small size of aerosols, which makes surface effects and processes important. These two factors make surface-active organics important for atmospheric aerosols, as they can affect important processes, such as chemical aging and water accommodation, as well as properties such as the surface tension, which drives droplet formation. Two important types of atmospherically relevant organics are carboxylic acids and alkyl amines, and often both are found together within aerosols. In the most atmospherically relevant pH range, these exist as alkyl carboxylate ions and alkyl ammonium ions, Using liquid-jet photoelectron spectroscopy, tuned to high surface sensitivity, we measured the alkyl carboxylate cations and the alkyl ammonium anions of alkyl chain lengths 1 to 6 carbon atoms, both as single-component and mixed-component aqueous solutions. This enabled us to systematically study how their surface propensity is affected by the length of the alkyl chains, and how cooperative ion–ion interactions result in strongly increased surface propensity. An exponential increase in surface propensity is found for the single-species solutions, with cooperative solute-solute effects in mixed solutions drastically increasing the number of molecules present at the solutions' surfaces up to a factor of several hundred. This cooperative surface propensity is shown to strongly affect the amounts of organics at the surface, with pronounced chain length-dependent variations. Our results demonstrate that the surface composition of these water-organics systems can be very different from the bulk composition, and that the surface compositions of organic mixtures cannot be directly inferred from the behaviour of the single components. For aerosols containing these or similar species, this means that all surface-related properties and processes will be enhanced, and implications for atmospherically relevant processes such as water accommodation, droplet formation, and chemical aging, are discussed.
- Preprint
(3579 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1732 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2609', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2609/egusphere-2024-2609-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2609', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Oct 2024
Summary
In the paper Strongly Enhanced Cooperative Surface Propensity of Atmospherically Relevant Organic Molecular Ions in Aqueous Solution by Kaur et al., the authors use liquid jet photoelectron spectroscopy that is tuned specifically to the interfacial region of the liquid to study the cooperative effects of different organic acids and bases dissolved in solution. The authors use the salt versions of both the acid and base species with counter ions of sodium and bromide, respectively, and create neat and mixed solutions of each species to study whether there is enhancement of either species near the interface. They use the relative ratios between the distinct carbon species (C1 is the carboxyl group on the acid while C1 is attached to the amine on the base) to argue that there is enhancement of the groups at the surface – of which the impact and implications for atmospheric reactions that rely on specific ions or molecules near the interface is significant due to the overwhelming amount of carbon that now resides near the surface blocking the ions that are needed to carry out these reactions further into the bulk of the solution.
Comments and Questions
There are several questions and comments I would like the authors to address:
- The authors rely heavily on ratios of ratios to make their arguments throughout the manuscript. There is limited discussion on the error that would be propagated throughout these measurements until Table 6. Can the authors comment on the relative error of the ratios they are taking? The fits do look very good but there seems to be, by eye, a larger error in the fit especially in the A6 spectra, which seem to have the highest enhancements.
- Given the authors use multiple ratios, why have they not taken a ratio of the C1s to O1s at similar probe depths? This would be a direct measure of the concentration which could be compared to the solution bulk concentration. Are there possible pitfalls in this ratio where the authors are more confident in their method over this for investigating the enhancement?
- The authors argue that a deviation larger than the ideal is related to the orientation of the molecular species being perpendicular to the interface while a lower deviation is due to a parallel orientation. Have the authors considered that this could also be due to the negative and positive charges that are present on the functional groups rather than an orientation effect? The solvation of the negative charge of the carboxyl group would be different in aqueous solution compared with the positive charge of the amine group. The hydrogen bonding at these functional groups may be the cause of the deviation from ideal rather than the orientation.
- The authors say that the small counter ions would be impacted by the organic groups at the surface. Did they look into this during their experiments? The counter ions of both Na+ and Br- were used with Br being very atmospherically relevant.
- The authors did not discuss much about the binding energy shifts in the C1s region. Although the absolute energies are difficult to pin down, the relative binding energy shifts between the carbons might be useful. Did the authors look into this at all? A concern of mine is that there may be pH shifts between the carboxyl and amine groups that could show up in the relative binding energy shifts even though the salts version of the organics is used. Can the authors comment on this? Did the authors take a bulk pH measurement of each solution prior to the experiment?
- Do the authors believe that the enhancement of the mixed long chain organics (C6/A6) is due to the change in orientation of the A6 molecule near the interface?
- Have the authors done a concentration dependence measurement to look for saturation of any of the organics they studied?
- I found some of the language used in the manuscript to create a lot of skepticism in the assertions. The authors use a lot of approximates and relative terms rather than stating what they have and discussing the errors. Perhaps with more thought in their error analysis they will feel more comfortable using stronger language in their observations and fits. This a minor comment to strengthen the manuscript overall.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2609-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
209 | 35 | 9 | 253 | 16 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 209
- PDF: 35
- XML: 9
- Total: 253
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1