the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Kinetics of the reactions of OH with CO, NO, NO2 and of HO2 with NO2 in air at 1 atm pressure, room temperature and tropospheric water vapour concentrations
Abstract. The termolecular reactions of hydroxyl radicals (OH) with carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxides (NO2) and the termolecular reaction of hydroperoxyl radicals (HO2) with NO2 greatly impact the atmospheric oxidation efficiency. Few studies have directly measured the pressure dependent rate coefficients in air at 1 atm pressure and water vapour as third collision partners. In this work, rate coefficients were measured with a high accuracy (<5 %) at 1 atm pressure, room temperature and in humidified air using laser flash photolysis and detection of the radical decay by laser-induced fluorescence. The rate coefficients derived in dry air are: (2.39±0.11) · 10-13 cm3 s-1 for the OH reaction with CO, (7.3±0.4) · 10-12 cm3 s-1 for the OH reaction with NO, (1.23±0.04) · 10-11 cm3 s-1 for the OH reaction with NO2, and (1.56±0.05) · 10-12 cm3 s-1 for the HO2 reaction with NO2. For the OH reactions with CO and NO, no dependence on water vapour was observed for the range of water partial pressures tested (3 to 22 hPa), and for NO2, only a weak increase of 3 % was measured in agreement with the study by Amedro et al. (2020). For the rate coefficient of HO2 with NO2 an enhancement of up to 25 % was observed. This can be explained by a faster rate coefficient of the reaction of the HO2-water complex with NO2 having a value of (3.4±1.1) · 10-12 cm3 s-1.
- Preprint
(4519 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3550', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Dec 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3550/egusphere-2024-3550-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3550', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2024
reply
The manuscript describes a study of the kinetics of OH radical reactions with CO, NO, and NO2 and of HO2 + NO2 using a modified instrument designed for field measurements of OH reactivity. Experiments were performed at 1 atm and room temperature, and as a function of relative. The experiments are well described and results are presented well. Comparisons are made to previous studies under similar conditions, and the high precision of the experimental approach is noted. In some cases, discrepancies were found between results of this work and some previous studies, and between current IUPAC and JPL-NASA recommendations, but the discussion of such discrepancies is somewhat limited and suggestions are made for further measurements.
The manuscript provides useful data for the atmospheric modelling community. I have only minor comments, listed below, which should be addressed prior to publication.
Line 2: ‘hydroperoxy’ is generally preferred over ‘hydroperoxyl’.
Line 9 (and elsewhere): It would be helpful to give the relative humidity as well as the partial pressure of water.
Line 14: ‘reactions of the OH’ to ‘reactions of the OH radical’ or ‘reactions of OH’.
Line 17: ‘HO2)’.
Line 49: HOx has already been defined.
Line 67: What are the uncertainties in the recommendations? Do the factors of 1.3 and 1.8 fall within the combined uncertainties?
Lines 83-93: Are the details regarding OH reactivity relevant to this work beyond the dual use of the instrument?
Lines 107 & 177: A residence time of 1.8 s and 266 nm pulse repetition frequency of 1 Hz will result in gas mixtures being photolysed more than once, leading to potential for photolysis of reaction products. Please comment on any tests or model simulations that were performed to ensure there was no impact of photolysis of reaction products.
Line 133: The Q1(3) line is less intense than Q1(2), is there any specific reason the Q1(3) transition was selected?
Line 141: Please quantify ‘almost the same detection sensivity’.
Line 147: Is the sensitivity of 1 min measurements relevant here? What is the sensitivity for the time resolution and number of averages typically used in this study?
Line 204: What is the cause of the deviation from single exponential behaviour for t < 10 ms in experiments measuring OH and not HO2? There appears to be some growth in signal in the examples given in Figure 2, although the scale makes this difficult to see, is there any growth evident and, if so, what is the cause?
Lines 215-218: Do the observed k0 values show agreement with values expected from diffusion?
Line 220: The dynamic range is relatively low compared to those typically used in other studies. While the potential advantages of low reactant/reagent concentrations are discussed, are there any potential disadvantages that are introduced by a low dynamic range?
Line 403: While the change in NO2 concentration may be relatively small, is there any potential impact of the NO or O formed by photolysis of NO2?
Figure 11: The caption refers to OH reactivity, should this be HO2 reactivity here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3550-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
197 | 44 | 7 | 248 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 197
- PDF: 44
- XML: 7
- Total: 248
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1