the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ozonolysis of primary biomass burning organic aerosol particles: Insights into reactivity and phase state
Abstract. Biomass burning organic aerosol (BBOA) particles are a major contributor to atmospheric particulate matter with various effects on climate and public health. Quantifying these effects is limited by our understanding of the BBOA particles’ evolving chemical composition during atmospheric aging, driven by their exposure to atmospheric oxidants. This study explores the role of ozone (O3) as atmospheric oxidant in processing primary BBOA particles. We exposed particulate emissions from beech, spruce and pine wood fires to O3 in an oxidative flow reactor, monitoring their chemical evolution using high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry (HR-AMS) and extractive electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (EESI-ToF). We found that the oxidative state of the particles increased with O3 exposure, as shown by the consistent, albeit minor, rise in O/C ratios. Analysis of the EESI-ToF data revealed specific molecular groups containing 18 and 20 carbon atoms, likely mainly abietic, linoleic, and oleic acid, as highly reactive toward O3 and driving the increase in oxidative state. At higher relative humidity, increased oxidation and loss of reactive species indicate that enhanced O3 diffusion into particles allows the ozonolysis to progress further, highlighting humidity's role in overcoming diffusion barriers that limit the ozonolysis in dry conditions. This study provides qualitative insights into the oxidative processing of primary BBOA particles in different phase states, presenting O3 as selective oxidant. Further research could focus on quantifying the progression of the ozonolysis, in particular the change in diffusion rates depending on relative humidity conditions or particle sizes.
- Preprint
(1252 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1777 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-385', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-385', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2025
The manuscript presents a detailed investigation into the aging of biomass burning organic aerosol (BBOA) by ozone, with a focus on how the chemical compositions change across different fuel types and ozone exposure conditions. They also illustrate how humidity affects reactivity, offering useful insights into the underlying processes.
The manuscript is well-written, has a solid experimental design, and clearly presents results that have broader impacts. However, some experimental details require further clarification to strengthen the manuscript for publication. Below are my comments:
L85. Were any light sources used in the experiments, or were they conducted entirely in dark?
L92. In Fig S1-S2, certain labels (for example, “Dekati”) appear in the experiment setup schematics but are not referenced or explained in the main manuscript or SI. Could the authors please clarify these labels?
L95. In Table 1, all of the pine experiments were carried out in open fire. Is there a particular reason for that?
I suggest labeling experiments 1-3 as spruce1, open1, and beech1. I got confused between the experiment labels and the fuel types a few times while reading the paper.
L108. What does “AADCO XX” mean?
L128. The O3 concentration steps are presented in Table S2, but the "step#" column is confusing. The authors should clarify or relabel these steps for better understanding. Additionally, all parameters in the table should include units.
L185. From what I can tell, an exponential fit might work better for the three open fire experiments.
L191. In Fig 1a, the label CHOgt1 is not defined.
L199. The authors introduced the tracer f60 but did not define it.
L223. Since the pine experiments were conducted under different combustion conditions, do the authors think this could affect the results? Does the conclusion regarding fuel type still hold?
L243. In Fig 2c-e, could you label the markers more clearly? It’s hard to tell which marker represents which experiment.
L243. Now that f44 is defined here, I assume f60 is defined similarly. Although these tracers have been used in other studies (Cubison et al., 2011), I suggest that the authors briefly explain what f44 and f60 represent and why these tracers are picked. Providing this clarification would help readers, especially non-experimentalists unfamiliar with these terms, better understand the f44 vs f60 space plots presented here.
L271. I would suggest the authors to add figure numbers here when you talked about the comparison.
L275. I was wondering if the authors have considered whether the fuel types or combustion methods could influence the conclusions here. It would be beneficial to address how these factors might impact the results and whether the findings can be generalized across different conditions.
L320. I appreciate the mechanistic insights presented here; however, they do not fully explain all the observations.
L339. The manuscript does not explain why the remaining fraction of these compounds is lower at 50% relative humidity compared to 80%. Could the authors provide an explanation or potential mechanistic insights for this?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-385-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
179 | 58 | 8 | 245 | 29 | 7 | 4 |
- HTML: 179
- PDF: 58
- XML: 8
- Total: 245
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 104 | 40 |
Switzerland | 2 | 34 | 13 |
China | 3 | 21 | 8 |
France | 4 | 19 | 7 |
Germany | 5 | 16 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 104