the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How humidity makes HONO the dominant sink of alkyl substituted Criegee intermediates and a key nocturnal source of OH radicals
Abstract. Criegee intermediates (CIs) play a key role in the production of OH radicals in the nocturnal environment. It is known that only the unimolecular decomposition of CIs leads to the formation of OH radicals, whereas bimolecular reactions are key for the formation of secondary organic aerosols. In the present work, we have investigated the reactions of CIs (CH2OO, (CH3)2COO, anti-CH3CHOO, and syn-CH3CHOO) with HONO in the presence of water using quantum chemical calculations and kinetic modelling. The investigation reveals that H2O catalyzed CI + HONO reactions become a major atmospheric sink for methyl substituted CIs and a prominent source of OH radicals. In the presence of water, CIs loss via CI + HONO reaction is found to be several orders of magnitude higher compared to other traditional sinks such as water and SO2. For (CH3)2COO, the H2O catalysed CI + HONO reaction was found to be ∼ 7 orders of magnitude faster than the H2O/(H2O)2/SO2 reactions. Similarly, for syn-CH3CHOO, the H2O catalyzed CI + HONO reaction was found to be ∼ 8 orders of magnitude faster than the corresponding H2O/(H2O)2/SO2 reactions. The present study reveals that, in the presence of humidity, CI + HONO can control the fate of CIs and act as an efficient route for converting HONO into OH radicals in the absence of light. Incorporation of the kinetics into a global chemical transport model indicates that the water-catalyzed CI + HONO reaction constitutes a major sink (HONO) for Criegee intermediates (CIs), accounting for ∼ 60 – 95 % of CI loss depending on atmospheric conditions. Globally, this reaction contributes ∼ 60 % of CH3CHOO removal, while in the Antarctic winter it dominates CI loss, ∼ 95 % consumption. In addition, this reaction acts as a source of OH radicals, leading to enhancements of ∼ 10 % under nocturnal conditions and a global mean increase by ∼ 1.6 % in OH concentrations.
- Preprint
(8379 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(344 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Referee comment on egusphere-2026-1928', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 May 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pradeep Kumar, 05 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1928', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 May 2026
This manuscript describes calculations of the water effect in the reactions of carbonyl oxide Criegee intermediates with HONO, and proposes that humidity can make this reaction the dominant removal for some Criegee intermediates. Water effects can indeed substantially alter the importance of atmospheric reactions, so this is an important topic. There are some aspects of the present work that confuse me, however, and I ask the authors to clarify them.
First, the construction of the rate coefficients for these reactions as a quasi-equilibrium for the three possible pairwise complexes followed by a reaction of that complex with the third species makes some assumptions about the kinetics of the initial complex that may not be realized. Take for example, the initial complex of the Criegee intermediate with HONO (path A). One common fate of that complex is to simply proceed to products; the uncatalyzed reaction is relatively facile, so it need not wait around for a water molecule. How do the authors treat that competition? It is surprising to me that the enhancement factors are so large (factor of 10), when other water enhancement factors in the atmosphere are smaller and then only when the uncatalyzed reaction is slower than the reactions with HONO are. The third-order rate coefficients are several orders of magnitude larger than for reactions of Criegee intermediates with water and NH3 or with water dimer (e.g., J. Phys. Chem 2019, 123, 39, 8336–8348). Relatedly, I don’t completely understand the keff values as they end up being really large compared to collisional rates. Because the rate coefficients are so unusually large I would like to see more context for these calculated rate coefficients relative to other Criegee reactions and to collision rates, with discussion of the physical reasons for why they differ.
Second, the discussion of the branching is confusing (line 239). Under some conditions, other processes (like unimolecular decomposition) definitely contribute (fig 5), so why not list those in the equation? Also, Figure 5, where the catalyzed reaction with HONO is the third largest keff at the highest temperature for acetone oxide, is hard to reconcile with the statement “, for (CH3)2COO, the WM catalyzed reaction with HONO becomes the dominant atmospheric sink over the entire temperature range (213–320K) under both low and high humidity conditions” (lines 308-310). Also, describing this catalyzed reaction as dominant by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude, which the authors do in many places, seems at best to be true only in a narrowly defined set of conditions. I would welcome some clarification.
Third, is there any reason to think other water catalyzed reactions could be similarly large? What is special about HONO above other trace species? Could future investigations of other reactions be expected to potentially change the authors’ conclusions about dominance of this reaction?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1928-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pradeep Kumar, 05 Jul 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 301 | 55 | 16 | 372 | 19 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 55
- XML: 16
- Total: 372
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Editor and Authors,
Please find my reviewer comments in the attached pdf file.