HOM cluster decomposition in APi-TOF mass spectrometers

Zanca, Tommaso; Kubečka, Jakub; Zapadinsky, Evgeni; Passananti, Monica; Kurtén, Theo; Vehkamäki, Hanna

doi:10.5194/amt-2019-502

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A factor of 1.2 difference in sulphuric acid dimer concentration compared to that expected from ion induced clustering in the chemical ionization source has been shown in a chamber study (Kürten et al, 2015). This is consistent with the high binding energies of the H2SO4HSO4-cluster, in excess of 40 kcal mol-1 (Curtius et al, 2001), around a factor of two higher than other commonly measured ions such as HOM-HSO4 or HOM-NO3clusters (Froyd and Lovejoy, 2012;Kurtén et al, 2007;Zanca et al, 2020). The result of this is an evaporation rate of around 2.7•10-15 s-1 compared to an evaporation rate of DMA out of the (DMA)Âň2H2SO4HSO4-ion of 2.7•10-1 s-1).…”

Section: C22supporting

confidence: 65%

Final response to reviewers' comments

Harrison¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Printer-friendly version Discussion paper bold where text has been inserted into a larger section. Referee 1 Major comment 1: Values for condensation sink (CS), J1.5, J5, growth rates (GR). There is a mistake in CS formula (line 181). The coefficient 4 should be 2, as in Kulmala et al. (2001). J1.5 and J5 are very high, but in line (within some uncertainty) with calculated kinetic limit sulfuric acid nucleation (Kurten et al. 2018). However, during the observed NPF, the temperature is close to 30 degC. At this high temperature, I would expect lower formation rates. Please, check the values and provide a comment on this. It would be beneficial, if more information was included how CoagS and GR were calculated (shortly from which instrument and with which method GR was calculated). Would it be beneficial to include GR values to results as important physical parameter of NPF? Response 1: Equation 14 in Kulmala et al., 2001 states 4πD, this is consistent across more recent publications also (Kulmala et al., 2012). We have included a reference to the latter just before this equation also. We agree our formation rates are very high-these calculations have been double checked for clarity. We note, however, that such high formation rates at high temperatures have been observed previously, examples being from Mexico City ((Iida et al., 2008; Kuang et al., 2008), temperatures of 19.2 and 24.1 oC are quoted in the former, high formation rates relative to sulphuric acid are quoted in the latter. Similarly, Kürten et al, (2016) report high formation rates on days with peak temperatures just below 25 oC. Measurements in Beijing show a rather sharp temperature dependence, but particle formation rates are shown to reach 102 cm-3 s-1 at temperatures similar to our own at comparable sulphuric acid concentrations (Yu et al., 2016). We include the following discussion in the text addressing this. "Model studies of sulphuric acid-amine nucleation show a decline in nucleation rate with temperature (Almeida et al., 2013; Olenius et al., 2017), as the evaporation rate of C2

show abstract

Section: C22supporting

confidence: 65%

Final response to reviewers' comments

Harrison¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

HOM cluster decomposition in APi-TOF mass spectrometers

Cited by 1 publication

References 23 publications

Final response to reviewers' comments

Final response to reviewers' comments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About