the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fine Particle Liquid Water and Acidity over North American Cities during the Summer of 2023
Abstract. Fine aerosol liquid water content (ALWC) and acidity (pH) are co-determined, pH primarily reflects the ratio of hydrogen-ion concentrations in air (H+air) to ALWC. Inorganic ions dominate H+air and often ALWC, whereas organic aerosol (OA) mainly adds water. Added OA water, however, shifts gas–particle partitioning of semi-volatile species, altering H+air itself, and thus pH and the aqueous-phase processes it governs. We characterize PM1 ALWC and pH over four North American cities using airborne AEROMMA measurements (June–August 2023), including periods influenced by aged wildfire smoke with high OA but little effect on inorganic species. ALWC and pH were predicted with ISORROPIA-Lite, which includes OA water, and evaluated against measured partitioning of NH3–NH4+ and HNO3–NO3-. Predicted ammonia partitioning agreed with observations (R2 > 0.75, within ~±10 %), whereas nitrate was systematically over-predicted by ~27 %. Outside smoke, inorganic ions dominated ALWC despite being a minor mass fraction; within smoke, organic water dominated (45–65 %). Across all cities, pH remained low and varied little (1.5–2.5, 10th–90th percentile). Particle-phase fractions were 0.17–0.56 for NH4+ but only 0.1–0.22 for NO3-, giving nitrate less redistribution and pH-buffering capacity than NH4+. Including OA water raised pH during smoke by at most 0.62 units and improved HNO3–NO3- agreement. Summertime PM1 acidity thus remains persistently low and thermodynamically stabilized across diverse composition regimes, with wide-ranging implications for regulatory, environmental, and human-health impacts.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(12581 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5535 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4960', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Sep 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 212 | 130 | 59 | 401 | 72 | 56 | 57 |
- HTML: 212
- PDF: 130
- XML: 59
- Total: 401
- Supplement: 72
- BibTeX: 56
- EndNote: 57
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Mohan et al. presents observations of airborne particulate matter composition and its role towards aerosol liquid water (ALW) and aerosol acidity from a recent airborne campaign across the United States and Canada. Mohan et al. found that even though there were differences in composition and ALW, the aerosol acidity, or pH, remained relatively constant across all the urban areas across the sampling regime. They determined that that combination of temperature and relative humidity, impacting the partitioning of of ammonia and nitric acid to ammonium and nitrate. The paper is extremely well written and the findings are important for improving our understanding emissions and controls on aerosol acidity, ALW, and particulate matter mass.
After the authors address the following comments, the paper will be ready for ACP:
1) Please reference the author's guidelines for ACP (https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html). The conclusion currently does not adequately address the guidelines.
2) Methods. The following aspects need to be addressed:
a) Is ram heating assumed for the aerosol to have it drop below 40% RH for collection efficiency?
b) What calibrations were conducted for the AMS and how frequently? If assumed RIEs are used, especially for ammonium and sulfate, how much uncertainty does that introduce for the calculations?
c) What RIE was assumed for organics?
d) What flow rates and residence times for all instruments? How were they time sync? Was 1 s or 1 min data used? If 1 min, how was the data averaged?
3) Throughout the paper, it is assumed that the sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium are the inorganic ions. Prior work has demonstrated that from forest fires, a large fraction of sulfate is organic (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15603-2022) and at low nitrate mass concentration, a larger fraction of it is organic instead of inorganic (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-459-2022). Furthermore, the authors discuss the inorganic aerosol as ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, assuming(?) full neutralization of sulfate at the pHs calculated. Both are surprising. Have the authors looked at the NO-to-NO2 ratio to determine if there was any organic nitrate? Have the authors looked at high resolution data for organic sulfate ions or the potential ratios discussed in previous work (10.1021/acs.est.9b00884)? Did ISORROPIA really solve the sulfate to be pure ammonium sulfate instead a mixture of ammonium sulfate and ammonium bisulfate, which is what would be more expected at the lower pH?
4) Currently, the authors are assuming internally mixed aerosol and minimal hysteresis impacts. As the wildfire smoke is being transported to the urban areas, is there indication that the wildfire smoke is fully mixing with the urban pollution or if the urban and wildfire aerosol are different sizes? How does internal vs external mixing impact the assumptions? Further, the authors go into detail about how sulfate is more sensitive to RH than nitrate until high RH, but that is looking at the instantaneous RH the particulate matter was observed at at the time. It is understood that metastable assumption includes some aspects of hysteresis, e.g., RH does not have to be above deliquescence point for sulfate and/or nitrate to start uptaking water and growing in size. However, does the aerosol experiencing a difference / drying out impact this interpretation of compositional relationship to RH / ALW?
Minor
Fig 9. The binning of the data and having lines drawn between the binned points is confusing for interpretation. How is the data binned? Does a line have to be drawn across the data points?