the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Revisiting the critical role of stabilized Criegee intermediates (sCIs) in sulfuric acid formation: coupling mechanistic updates with interpretable machine learning
Abstract. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is a key driver of atmospheric new particle formation and subsequent growth, playing a critical role in the formation of sulfate aerosols. While stabilized Criegee intermediates (sCIs) are recognized to be one of the free radicals oxidated sulfur dioxide (SO2), alongside the dominant hydroxyl radical (OH), their role in the formation of H2SO4 remains poorly understood due to uncertainties in current chemical mechanisms. Here, we quantify the impact of updated sCIs chemistry within the MCM v3.3.1 mechanism using an XGBoost-SHAP model, revealing that the updated mechanism significantly amplifies the contribution of precursor species to the sCIs oxidation rate by a factor of 1.97–10.75. To identify scenarios where sCIs effectively compete with OH, sensitivity analysis highlights ozone (O3) and alkenes as the primary synergistic drivers promoting the fractional contribution of sCIs to H2SO4 (μsCIs%). Furthermore, nitrogen oxides (NOx) exert a distinct diurnal regulatory effect: lower NOx levels enhance μsCIs% during the day by limiting OH propagation, whereas high NOx promotes μsCIs% at night by accelerating OH termination. To assess ambient atmosphere implications, we used a Random Forest model to identify a period where gas-phase pathways dominated sulfate formation. Constrained AtChem simulations demonstrate the updated mechanism elevates sCIs contributions to H2SO4 from 1.11 % to 7.13 % by day and 2.95 % to 15.72 % by night. These findings underscore the significance of sCIs for H2SO4 production, especially in urban environments with high O3 from imbalanced VOC/NOx reductions, and under nighttime conditions with low photolysis-dependent OH.
- Preprint
(1938 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(35 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6276', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6276/egusphere-2025-6276-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6276-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6276', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2026
The authors present the results of a study to investigate the significance of stabilized Criegee intermediate (sCI) chemistry for the production of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere using model calculations. While investigation of the role of such chemistry does warrant attention, there are a number of significant flaws in the study that should be addressed before publication can be considered.
In general, the paper is poorly written and details of the aims, methods, and results are unclear. The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT “to proofread and refine the English expression of the manuscript”, but the result is a manuscript that lacks specific detail relating to the study undertaken. The aims and use of the machine learning method and the analysis of the data needs to be explained much more clearly, with the descriptions specifically linked to the study in question. The descriptions given are too generic to be useful. It is not clear what analysis has been performed and what is being assessed.
The manuscript refers to uncertainties in the mechanisms used in models, Examples or details of the uncertainties should be given. Do the main uncertainties relate to rate coefficients, product yields, or missing reactions in the mechanisms? Do the results of the study help to clarify what we need to know better in order to better understand the production of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere?
Importantly, the study described in the manuscript is an incomplete assessment of sCI chemistry. The authors compare the results from model calculations using the MCM v3.3.1 with those from model calculations using an updated mechanism with rate coefficient recommendations taken from Cox et al. which was published in 2020. However, there have been a number of studies since the Cox et al. recommendation that should be considered. The authors note the potential impact of temperature, but all calculations have been performed using rate coefficients obtained at ~298 K. Measurements of the temperature and pressure dependence of sCI reactions with SO2 and water have been reported in the literature since 2020 and these should be considered in the study to enable a more complete assessment. The study also neglects Z-isomers for sCIs where E/Z isomers are possible, and studies have shown that sCI reactivity is very different for E and Z isomers.
In addition, the study assumes that all sCI reactions with SO2 produce SO3 and thus lead to production of sulfuric acid. The reaction of the sCI CH2OO with SO2 has been shown to produce SO3, but this is not the case for other sCIs at atmospheric pressure and there is evidence that larger sCIs may produce secondary ozonides at atmospheric pressure rather than SO3. The impact of the assumption that all sCI reactions with SO2 produce SO3 and lead to sulfuric acid production should be investigated.
Minor comments
Line 15: sCIs are not free radicals and ‘oxidated’ should be changed to ‘capable of oxidising’.
Line 17: No apostrophe in sCIs.
Line 18: Clarify the meaning of the factor reported.
Line 32: ‘Fine particles … are …’ rather than ‘fine particles … is’, and ‘its’ to ‘their’.
Line 37: Which of the formation routes described is the primary route?
Line 45: The reference to ‘anon’ should be changed to reference the WHO.
Line 50: The reference to ‘anon’ should be changed to Mauldin et al. 2012
Line 62: There are earlier references to the production of Criegee intermediates.
Line 69: Clarify the description of gas phase sulfate ions.
Line 70: Ozone is not formed through direct reactions between VOCs and NOx. The statement should be clarified.
Line 101: Subscript in O3.
Line 106: Clarify the meaning of ‘bimolecular water’. Should this refer to water dimers, (H2O)2? If the statement is intended to refer to water dimers the following statement regarding the relative concentration to H2O (monomers) is incorrect. How were water dimer concentrations calculated?
Line 110: Some of the rate coefficients given are for unimolecular processes.
Line 112: No rate coefficients are given in the table.
Line 130: ‘Elements … were determined …’ should be changed to ‘elemental analysis … was performed …’, but it’s not clear that the elemental analysis is relevant.
Line 186 (and elsewhere): Check the units given for rates, is ‘mole’ rather than ‘molecule’ correct?
Line 200: Subscripts in CH3CHOO and CH2OO.
Line 206 (and elsewhere): The text in the figures is too small to read.
Line 237: Why were these values chosen?
Line 321: Subscript in O3.
Line 328: It would be helpful to provide a summary of the input data. As a minimum, the mean, standard deviation, and median values should be reported for each input parameter.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6276-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 173 | 62 | 19 | 254 | 38 | 41 | 35 |
- HTML: 173
- PDF: 62
- XML: 19
- Total: 254
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 41
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1