the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Dec 2024
Influence of ambient NO and NO2 on the quantification of total peroxy nitrates (∑PNs) and total alkyl nitrates (∑ANs) by thermal dissociation cavity ring-down spectroscopy (TD-CRDS)
Abstract. Measurement of total peroxy nitrates (∑PNs) and alkyl nitrates (∑ANs) by instruments that use thermal dissociation (TD) inlets to convert the organic nitrate to detectable NO2 may suffer from systematic bias (both positive and negative) resulting from unwanted secondary chemistry in the heated inlets. Here we review the sources of the bias and the methods used to reduce it and/or correct for it and report new experiments using (for the first time) atmospherically relevant, unsaturated, biogenic alkyl nitrates as well as two different peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) sources. We show that the commonly used commercial C3-alkyl-nitrate (isopropyl nitrate, IPN) inlet for characterising the chemistry of ANs is not appropriate for real-air samples that contain longer chain nitrates. ANs generated in the NO3-induced oxidation of limonene are strongly positively biased in the presence of NO. By detecting NOX rather than NO2, we provide a simple solution to avoid the bias caused by the conversion of NO to NO2 by primary and secondary peroxy radicals resulting from the complex chemistry in the thermal degradation of long-chain, alkyl nitrates in air at TD-temperatures. We also show that using a photochemical source of PAN to characterise the TD-inlets can result in a much stronger apparent bias from NO to NO2 conversion than for a diffusion source of synthesised (“pure”) PAN at similar mixing ratios. This is explained by the presence of thermally labile trace gases such as peracetic acid (CH3C(O)OOH) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).
- Preprint
(789 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(329 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3694', Hans Osthoff, 08 Jan 2025
reply
Wüst et al. provide an update on the quantification of total peroxy (ΣPN) and total alkyl nitrate (ΣAN) by thermal-dissociation cavity ring-down spectroscopy (TD-CRDS). New data are presented to show: (1) It is advantageous to oxidize NO to NO2 by adding (excess) O3 to the inlet after the thermal dissociation region. (2) Sampling synthetic PAN from a diffusion source will result in less inlet bias than sampling photochemically generated PAN (in the ΣAN channel). (3) Limonene derived nitrates suffer from different inlet biases than the commercially available isopropyl nitrate. (4) In high concentration, acetone generates an artifact in the ΣAN channel.
Regarding point (1): The authors do a good job convincing of the need to add O3 after the TD region (and measure everything as NOx) but this is not new. The first group to add O3 after the TD region were, as far as I am aware, Wild et al. (Environm. Sci. Technol., 48(16), 9609-9615, doi:10.1021/es501896w, 2014). Our group has implemented the addition of O3 since 2019 (see thesis by N. Gingerysty, doi: 10.11575/PRISM/38580 (2021)). Still, since there are groups quantifying ΣAN who are not adding O3 (e.g., Lin et al. Talanta 270, 125524, 2024) it is worthwhile publishing this.
Regarding point (2): it is well known in the community that photochemical PAN sources co-emit organic by-products (especially formaldehyde) and are “pure” only relative to other nitrogen oxides. The data presented in this manuscript represent a near-worst-case scenario for a photochemical source as a very large acetone concentration and a Hg pen ray lamp were used. I agree with the author's conclusion that PAN from a diffusion source should be used to characterize ΣAN inlet chemistry instead. For the ΣPN channel, photochemical PAN sources are fine, though, as long as acetone concentrations are kept low.
(3) The data on limonene derived nitrates are novel and interesting. I was wondering if the difference to isopropyl nitrate is partially caused by a matrix effect (see specific comments).
I would have liked to see an experiment in which PAN (from the diffusion source) is combined with the chamber/limonene output to verify that 2+2 indeed equals 4 (and not 3.5 or 2.5) in both the ΣPN and ΣAN channels.
(4) As an aside: We have observed a similar and more pronounced effect with acetone in our TD-CRDS NOy inlet (operated at ~850 K). Photochemical PAN sources are definitively no good for that application either!
The paper is written well and very thoughtful. I recommend publication of this article once the authors have addressed my comments (above and below).
Specific comments
Line 14. Correct grammar (“show that the commonly used commercial C3-alkylnitrate (isopropyl nitrate, IPN) inlet for characterising”)
Line 18. Please rephrase “We also show that using a photochemical source of PAN to characterise the TD-inlets can result in a much stronger apparent bias from NO to NO2 conversion …”. As commented on lines 150 – 151, the photochemical source used in this work could have been operated more optimally such that the statement in the abstract comes across as too strong.
Lines 90 - 91. "partial detection of ANs in the PNs channel" It is suggested that glass beads catalyze (i.e., lower the temperature at which) ANs convert to NO2. Please comment on the potential effect of temperature gradients within the inlet (which can also lead to some overlap of the dissociation profiles and hence bias in TD-CRDS measurements of PNs and ANs).
Line 132. “effective absorption cross section”. Consider stating its value (and how it was determined).
Line 150. “4.6 % acetone”. Flocke et al. (2005) ”used a mixture of 10 ppmv acetone and 10 ppmv of CO … to keep the OH mixing ratio in the reaction vessel sufficiently low to almost completely suppress the formation of HNO3, but … found that using 20 ppmv acetone instead was acceptable”. If 4.6% acetone was used, it would not be surprising that this PAN photosource would contain a lot of impurities and result in bias.
Line 151. Phosphor-coated pen-ray lamps can get quite hot (which destroys PAN) and emit much radiation at 254 nm also that may drive unwanted photochemistry (see Furgeson et al. Atmos. Environm.45, 5025,doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.072, 2011; Rider et al. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 8(7), 2737-2748, doi 10.5194/amt-8-2737-2015, 2015).
Line 175. Correct spelling (tridecane). A safety note regarding the potential explosive nature of PAN should be added also.
Line 192. Please change (CAN in 6 M HNO3) to (CAN) in 6 M HNO3 to improve clarity.
Line 200. “ANs mixing ratios between 0.47 and 4.4 ppbv”. How was this determined?
Line 201. “The nitrates generated in this manner from isoprene are a mixture of C5-nitrooxyhydroperoxides, C5-nitrooxycarbonyl, C5hydroxynitrate and also C10-nitrooxyperoxide (ROOR), with the relative concentrations depending on the fate of the initially formed nitrooxyperoxy radicals (IUPAC 2024).” I didn’t find IUPAC in the reference list (only in the SI) - there may be a more suitable reference for this statement anyways.
Lines 239-310 “At 648 K the chemistry is different”. What follows is interesting descriptions of possible reaction pathways. What is missing, though, are numerical simulations to constrain the impact of each of these side reactions. For example, I would be curious how much of the singlet α-lactone forms via (R29) and what the impact of this pathway could be (i.e., by how much does the product distribution shift when this reaction is “turned off” in the mechanism?). In other words, this section could be more quantitative (and thus appear less speculative).
Line 310. “In separate experiments, we observed that the thermal dissociation of acetone also accounts for a small fraction of the overestimation NO2 formed (400 pptv NO2 at 43 ppmv acetone and 16 ppbv NO), which is confirmed by its thermogram (Fig. S2).“ Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms do not convert to nitrogen (and form nitrogen dioxide), so an explanation is needed what causes this effect. My hunch is that heating acetone to these temperatures generates α,β-dicarbonyls (methyl glyoxal or 2,3-butadione) which would absorb at 409 nm.
Line 322. “In summary, the photochemical PAN source is not well suited for characterising the inlet chemistry for alkyl nitrate detection via thermal decomposition to NO2 as it results in significant NO to NO2 conversion owing to the presence of thermally labile trace gases such as peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide”. What if a lower acetone concentration had been used?
Line 330. “The IR spectrum (Fig. S4) of a gas sample eluted from the PAN diffusion source is in good agreement with the literature and does not reveal the presence of high levels of impurities.” Please add more information (to the experimental section or the SI) how this spectrum was obtained.
Line 375. “0.47 or 4.4 ppbv isoprene nitrate” How were these mixing ratios determined?
Line 417-420. “when using biogenic nitrates derived from terpenoids.” The authors sampled biogenic nitrates in a complex mixture containing all kinds of compounds. The conclusions drawn may thus be more due to a matrix effect which would be absent when sampling IPN. In other words, would these results stand if a “pure” sample of limonene nitrate (isolated or synthesized) had been analyzed?
Figure S1. Please state in the caption for what temperature the simulations were run.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3694-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 32 | 5 | 150 | 59 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 113
- PDF: 32
- XML: 5
- Total: 150
- Supplement: 59
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1