the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mechanistic insight into the kinetic fragmentation of Norpinonic Acid in the gas phase: An experimental and DFT study
Abstract. Norpinonic acid has been known as an important α-pinene athmospheric SOA (Secondary Organic Aerosol) component. It is formed in the reaction of α-pinene, β-pinene or verbenone with atmospheric oxidizing reagents, such as ozone (O3) and hydroxy radicals. In the presented studies, tandem mass spectrometry techniques were used to determine the exact norpinonic acid fragmentation pathway in the gas phase. The precursor anion – deprotonated norpinonic acid (m/z 169) generated in an electrospray (ESI) source were subjected into the collision cell of the mass spectrometer and fragmented using CIE (Energy-Resolved Collision Induced Dissociation) technique. Based on the analysis of the breakdown curves, the experimental energy values required to initiate the gas – phase degradation processes were determined. Quantum chemical calculations of the reaction models for observed fragmentation processes were also constructed, including calculation of all transition states presented in the reaction mechanism. Comparison between the experimental and the theoretical threshold energies calculated at ωB97XD/6-311+G(2d,p) level of theory has shown a very good correlation. Two basic pathways of the fragmentation of the parent anion [M-H]− (m/z 169) were observed. A first, lead to the decarboxylation product (m/z 125) and second to the loss of neutral molecule (C4H6O) together with the formation of anion m/z 99. Loss of C3H6 or C2H4O molecules and formation of the anion m/z 41, together with anion m/z 55, were found for fragment anion m/z 99. Further breaks down of anion m/z 125 give a rise of 69, 57 and 55 m/z ions. To confirm structures formed during ER-CID experiments, the gas-phase proton transfer reactions were examined of all Norpinonic acid anionic fragments with a series of neutral reagents, characterized by different Proton Affinity (PA) values. It was found that only m/z 55 and m/z 69 anionic fragmentation products have higher PA values and accept the proton from all neutral reagents. Based on PA differences analysis, the most possible chemical structures were proposed for the observed fragment anions.
- Preprint
(1776 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4883 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-679', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2024
reply
General comments:
Organic aerosol (OA) constitutes a large fraction of particulate matter, impacting human health and global climate. Molecular-level insights into OA are crucial for understanding its formation and evolution in the atmosphere. The authors present an interesting study on the potential fragmentation pathways of deprotonated norpinonic acid, combining lab experiments with quantum chemical computations to elucidate the main fragments and their formation pathways. As mass spectrometry, e.g. tandem MS-MS, plays an increasingly crucial role in OA studies, insights into the fragmentation patterns of deprotonated organic acids can greatly aid in interpreting these datasets.
However, potential readers would benefit a lot from further refinement in writing and discussions of the manuscript. There are a few typos as well as inconsistencies and arithmetic errors in discussions and figures. Nevertheless, the manuscript is well-organized scientifically, and I anticipate that the results will be of interest to many readers in the community. Therefore, I recommend publication following minor revisions outlined below.
Minor comments:
- Page 1, line 8. According to EGU standards, abbreviations need to be defined at the first instance of use. Here, it should be “Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA)”. Please also check other abbreviations, e.g. in the abstract, “CIE” was used the same way as SOA, and “ER-CID” was used without a definition.
- Page 1, line 10. “O3” with subscript.
- Page 1, line 29. “Primary organic aerosols” are emitted directly into the atmosphere.
- Page 2, line 40. “a few”?
- Page 2, line 56. Since “O3” has already been defined, it can be used directly here. Please also check other abbreviations used in this manuscript.
- Page 2, line 58. “0.2 – 1.1 ng∙m-3” is not significant compared to the total organic mass (e.g. <5 µg m-3 in clean areas or ~15 µg m-3 in the paper you referred). In either case, norpinonic acid contributes less than 0.1%. You may want to mention that mono-/di- carboxylic acids are identified in SOA in large amounts, and norpinonic acid (containing one carbonyl and one carboxylic acid functional group) is chosen as an example to investigate how organic acids fragment to rationalize why you focused on this specific compound.
- Page 3, line 79. Can you provide/estimate the purity of the synthesized cis-norpinonic acid used in this study? In addition, do you think that there would be any potential by-products or contamination during the synthesis process that might affect the analysis in this study?
- Page 4, Section 2.3. Can you explain in detail how you deal with conformers, e.g., the criteria for potential duplicates based on electronic energy or electric dipole, so that others may reproduce the calculations if they want?
- Page 4, subtitle 3.1. Fragmentation pathway of “Norpinonic acid anion”.
- Page 5, line 127. Is Supplementary Information (SI) Section 2 related to this discussion? Please specify which section and/or figure you refer to in the manuscript, as it's hard for readers to find relevant parts within the 59-page supplementary material. Try to avoid simply stating "Please consult the SI". Check other parts in the manuscript (e.g., lines 161, 248, 256…) that refer to supplementary material without specifying which part(s).
- Figure S3, “m/z 57” should be “m/z 41”.
- Figure 3. Can you add which neutral part has been lost along with the arrows? For example, the arrow from m/z 169 to m/z 125 represents the loss of CO2. This clarification may help non-chemist readers follow the process more easily.
- Page 7, lines 141 and 142. Are “237” and “245” correct? Or should they be swapped? In line 179, you used “245” for the pathway that forms m125, while in line 211, you also used “245” for the pathway that forms m99. It is very confusing. Also, in line 153, the onset energies “171” seem to contradict the values in Figure 3 (there was no “171” in Figure 3). Please double-check all these values in the figures, tables, and corresponding discussions.
- Page 7, line 152. Please change “followed by” to “along with”.
- Page 7, line 160. Why do you think “the ωB97XD hybrid density functional method reproduces the experimental observation the most accurately” than other methods?
- Page 8, line 173. Is “58” correct?
- Page 10, line 212. Should “P_99B” be “IC_99”?
- Page 13, line 257. “fragmentat”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-679-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Izabela Kurzydym, 18 Apr 2024
reply
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your substantive and very useful comments. Please find attached the revised article, SI and the document with responses to all comments.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
189 | 32 | 17 | 238 | 20 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 189
- PDF: 32
- XML: 17
- Total: 238
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1