Abstract. Aerosol pH is often calculated based on different standard states
thus making it inappropriate to compare aerosol acidity parameters derived
thereby. However, such comparisons are routinely performed in the atmospheric
science community. This study attempts to address this issue by comparing
PM2.5 aerosol pH based on different scales (molarity, molality and mole
fraction) on the basis of theoretical considerations followed with a set of
field data from Guangzhou, China as an example. The three most widely used
thermodynamic models (E-AIM-IV, ISORROPIA-II, and AIOMFAC) are employed for
the comparison. Established theory dictates that the difference between
pHx (mole fraction based) and pHm (molality based) is always a
constant (1.74, when the solvent is water) within a thermodynamic model
regardless of aerosol property. In contrast, pHm and pHc
(molarity based) are almost identical with a minor effect from temperature
and pressure. However, when the activity coefficient is simplified as unity
by thermodynamic models, the difference between pHm and pHc ranges
from 0.11 to 0.25 pH units, depending on the chemical composition and the
density of hygroscopic aerosol. Therefore, while evaluating aerosol acidity
(especially, trend analysis) when the activity coefficient is simplified as
1, considering the pH scale is important. The application of this pH
standardization protocol might influence some conclusions on aerosol acidity
reported by past studies, and thus a clear definition of pH and a precise
statement of thermodynamic model parameters are recommended to avoid bias
when pH comparisons are made across studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.