the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A New Parameterization of Photolysis Rates for Oxygenated Volatile Organic Compounds (OVOCs)
Abstract. Oxygenated volatile organic compounds (OVOCs) play a crucial role in atmospheric chemistry, significantly influencing radical production and VOC degradation through photolysis. However, current research on OVOC photolysis is limited by insufficient species coverage in the mechanisms and incomplete understanding from a species-specific perspective. In this study, the photolysis frequencies of 109 OVOCs were compiled into a photolysis dataset. Based on their molecular structures, a parameterization for the photolysis frequencies of carbon- and nitrogen-containing OVOCs was developed. By establishing a relationship between species structure and photolysis frequency, this approach avoids the limitation of insufficient quantum yield data, enabling the estimation of photolysis rates for compounds lacking experimental measurements. Photolysis frequencies for the dataset species were successfully reproduced with 21 reference values and 10 adjustment coefficients. Using an automated program based on this method, photolysis rates for 3039 OVOCs were predicted, and the MCM v3.3.1 chemical mechanism was updated and expanded to include photolysis for 714 additional species. The introduction of the new photolysis mechanism has altered both the concentrations of photodegradable OVOCs and the relative proportions of their removal pathways. Non-HCHO OVOCs, particularly multifunctional species with carbonyl groups, contribute significantly to ROx radical production. At three different sites, non-HCHO OVOCs photolysis accounts for 25 %&nash;45 % of ROx production, surpassing HCHO photolysis. The importance of oxidation products from aromatics and alkenes is highlighted, offering new insights into OVOCs photolysis from a species-specific perspective.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(4749 KB)
-
Supplement
(14449 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4749 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14449 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1649', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 May 2025
Comment on "A New Parameterization of Photolysis Rates for Oxygenated Volatile Organic Compounds (OVOCs)"
This work presented a novel method to estimate photolysis rates for OVOCs and uses an observational based box model to evaluate the contribution of OVOCs photolysis to the production rate of total radicals. However, the manuscript requires the inclusion of additional information to help readers understand and potentially further apply the proposed method. I recommend that the authors provide additional explanations and make minor revision to clarify their methods prior to publication. The authors may consider the following suggestions:
- Line 104: The authors only provided an overview of the three methods without summarizing and comparing their respective advantages and disadvantages. It is recommended to include a comparative discussion to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the existing approaches, thereby better motivating the new method proposed in this study.
- The newly proposed photolysis mechanism was only compared with the results from MCM. Could the authors also compare it with other chemical mechanisms? If not, please explain the reason.
- The method developed in this study is based on the ratio j(OVOC)/j(NO2). Given the wavelength-dependent absorption cross-sections of different species and functional groups, would using j(NO2) as a reference introduce potential biases under varying environmental conditions?
- Line 469: After incorporating the new photolysis mechanism, the model simulations still significantly overestimate the observed values. What might be the possible reasons for this discrepancy?
- Figure 7, I would suggest to add sub panels to compare the non-HCHO OVOC photolysis between this work and MCM calculation with error bars to show the potential difference. Similarly, Â error bars should be added in Figure 8.
- Figure 8 and Figure 9 (a, c, e)were not refered in the text.
- The evaluation of the newly developed method could be further strengthened. As shown in Figure S5, the results from this study differ significantly from those estimated by previous approaches. Please include more explanation and discussion on this aspect in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1649-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1649/egusphere-2025-1649-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1649', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1649/egusphere-2025-1649-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1649', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 May 2025
Comment on "A New Parameterization of Photolysis Rates for Oxygenated Volatile Organic Compounds (OVOCs)"
This work presented a novel method to estimate photolysis rates for OVOCs and uses an observational based box model to evaluate the contribution of OVOCs photolysis to the production rate of total radicals. However, the manuscript requires the inclusion of additional information to help readers understand and potentially further apply the proposed method. I recommend that the authors provide additional explanations and make minor revision to clarify their methods prior to publication. The authors may consider the following suggestions:
- Line 104: The authors only provided an overview of the three methods without summarizing and comparing their respective advantages and disadvantages. It is recommended to include a comparative discussion to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the existing approaches, thereby better motivating the new method proposed in this study.
- The newly proposed photolysis mechanism was only compared with the results from MCM. Could the authors also compare it with other chemical mechanisms? If not, please explain the reason.
- The method developed in this study is based on the ratio j(OVOC)/j(NO2). Given the wavelength-dependent absorption cross-sections of different species and functional groups, would using j(NO2) as a reference introduce potential biases under varying environmental conditions?
- Line 469: After incorporating the new photolysis mechanism, the model simulations still significantly overestimate the observed values. What might be the possible reasons for this discrepancy?
- Figure 7, I would suggest to add sub panels to compare the non-HCHO OVOC photolysis between this work and MCM calculation with error bars to show the potential difference. Similarly, Â error bars should be added in Figure 8.
- Figure 8 and Figure 9 (a, c, e)were not refered in the text.
- The evaluation of the newly developed method could be further strengthened. As shown in Figure S5, the results from this study differ significantly from those estimated by previous approaches. Please include more explanation and discussion on this aspect in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1649-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1649/egusphere-2025-1649-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1649', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1649/egusphere-2025-1649-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bin Yuan, 12 Jun 2025
Peer review completion




Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
302 | 61 | 17 | 380 | 18 | 15 | 27 |
- HTML: 302
- PDF: 61
- XML: 17
- Total: 380
- Supplement: 18
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Yuwen Peng
Sihang Wang
Zhe Peng
Wenjie Wang
Suxia Yang
Jipeng Qi
Xianjun He
Yibo Huangfu
Xiao-Bing Li
Min Shao
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4749 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14449 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper