Vapor Pressure Measurements of Hydroxyacetaldehyde and Hydroxyacetone in the Temperature Range (273 to 356) K

Abstract

Vapour pressures of ethylene glycol, hydroxyacetaldehyde and hydroxyacetone were measured by using a standard closed system equipped with a vacuum line, built recently in our laboratory. First, our vapour pressures measurements of ethylene glycol and their excellent agreement with the literature in the studied temperature range, i.e. (308 to 385) K, permitted us to validate our experimental set-up and procedure. The data obtained in the temperature ranges (296 to 356) K and (273 to 304) K were very satisfactorily (Absolute Relative Deviations (ARD) < 2.5 %) fitted according to the Antoine's equation: log10 (P°hydroxyacetaldehyde / Pa) = 12.96 ± 0.82 -(3657 ± 238) / T/K and log10 (P°hydroxyacetone / Pa) = 10.13 ± 0.06 -(2201 ± 153) / T/K. Then, the resulting vapour pressures of both hydroxyacetaldehyde and hydroxyacetone at 293 K were P° = (3.0 ± 0.2) Pa and P° = (415 ± 20) Pa for hydroxyacetaldehyde and hydroxyacetone, respectively. The quoted errors correspond to 2 obtained from the least square fit analysis and the estimated systematic relative error of 5 %.Finally, these experimental expressions of temperature dependences of P° permitted then to derive the enthalpy of vaporization for both compounds.

Measurement of formic acid, acetic acid and hydroxyacetaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and methyl peroxide in air by chemical ionization mass spectrometry: airborne method development

“…This could have led to potential impurities in the solid, one of which could be HAc, and possibly an overestimation of the vapor pressure. Magneron et al (2005) also reported partial pressure ranges for GA at 298 and 333 K and the value at 298 K was 20 times higher than Petitjean et al (2010). Petitjean et al (2010) suggested that this difference could be from volatile impurities.…”

“…The GA sensitivities determined using the melt vapor pressure source were a factor of 4 and a factor of 10 greater than the sensitivity of HAc at m/z 92 and m/z 187, respectively. Unlike Petitjean et al (2010), we did not purify the GA dimer using a freeze-pump-thaw cycle. This could have led to potential impurities in the solid, one of which could be HAc, and possibly an overestimation of the vapor pressure.…”

“…However, isoprene is also a significant source for peroxy acetyl radical, which reacts with HO 2 to form HAc (Khare et al, 1999;Paulot et al, 2011). In addition, GA is relevant to the tropospheric ozone budget (Y.-N. Petitjean et al, 2010) and HAc directly effects precipitation acidity (Khare et al, 1999;Paulot et al, 2011). Finally, both GA and HAc are participants in the formation and growth of organic aerosols and in aerosol photochemical processing (Carlton et al, 2006;Fuzzi and Andreae, 2006;Lee et al, 2006;Perri et al, 2010;Yu, 2000).…”

“…PCIMS response and sensitivity to GA at m/z 92 (O − 2 (GA)) and m/z 187 (I − (GA)) was determined using two different methods to generate known amounts of GA based upon the literature: (1) Henry's Law constants of Betterton and Hoffmann (1988) and (2) the GA vapor pressure determination over neat GA melt as a function of melt temperature by Petitjean et al (2010) with a serial gas dilution system. GA dimer was used as purchased (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO).…”

“…The water bath temperature was monitored and this temperature was used to evaluate the partial pressure of GA above the melt. Table S3 shows the expected GA reaction cell mixing ratio at different melt temperatures using the data from Petitjean et al (2010).…”