The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global transformation and fate of SOA: Implications of low‐volatility SOA and gas‐phase fragmentation reactions
Open accessAbstract
Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) are large contributors to fine‐particle loadings and radiative forcing but are often represented crudely in global models. We have implemented three new detailed SOA treatments within the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) that allow us to compare the semivolatile versus nonvolatile SOA treatments (based on some of the latest experimental findings) and to investigate the effects of gas‐phase fragmentation reactions. The new treatments also track SOA from biomass burning and biofuel, fossil fuel, and biogenic sources. For semivolatile SOA treatments, fragmentation reactions decrease the simulated annual global SOA burden from 7.5 Tg to 1.8 Tg. For the nonvolatile SOA treatment with fragmentation, the burden is 3.1 Tg. Larger differences between nonvolatile and semivolatile SOA (up to a factor of 5) exist in areas of continental outflow over the oceans. According to comparisons with observations from global surface Aerosol Mass Spectrometer measurements and the U.S. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network measurements, the FragNVSOA treatment, which treats SOA as nonvolatile and includes gas‐phase fragmentation reactions, agrees best at rural locations. Urban SOA is underpredicted, but this may be due to the coarse model resolution. All three revised treatments show much better agreement with aircraft measurements of organic aerosols (OA) over the North American Arctic and sub‐Arctic in spring and summer, compared to the standard CAM5 formulation. This is mainly due to the oxidation of SOA precursor gases from biomass burning, not included in standard CAM5, and long‐range transport of biomass burning OA at high altitudes. The revised model configurations that include fragmentation (both semivolatile and nonvolatile SOA) show much better agreement with MODerate resolution Imaging Spectrometers (MODIS) aerosol optical depth data over regions dominated by biomass burning during the summer compared to standard CAM5, and predict biomass burning and biofuel as the largest global source of OA, followed by biogenic and fossil fuel sources. The large contribution of biomass burning OA in the revised treatments is supported by these measurements, but the emissions and aging of SOA precursors and POA are uncertain, and need further investigation. The nonvolatile and semivolatile configurations with fragmentation predict the direct radiative forcing of SOA as −0.5 W m−2 and −0.26 W m−2 respectively, at top of the atmosphere, which are higher than previously estimated by most models, but in reasonable agreement with a recent constrained modeling study. This study highlights the importance of improving process‐level representation of SOA in global models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolution of Organic Aerosols in the Atmosphere
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang, Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1180353 · Cited by 4,167
Self-citationLamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., et al. (2010) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010 · Cited by 2,105
Warneke, C., Bahreini, R., Brioude, J., Brock, C. A., de Gouw, J. A., Fahey, D. W., Froyd, K. D., Holloway, J. S., Middlebrook, A., Miller, L., et al. (2009) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2008gl036194 · Cited by 260
Cited by
Review on recent progress in observations, source identifications and countermeasures of PM2.5
Liang, C.-S., Duan, F.-K., He, K.-B., & Ma, Y.-L. (2016) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.016 · Cited by 375
Hodshire, A. L., Akherati, A., Alvarado, M. J., Brown-Steiner, B., Jathar, S. H., Jimenez, J. L., Kreidenweis, S. M., Lonsdale, C. R., Onasch, T. B., Ortega, A. M., et al. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b02588 · Cited by 286
Self-citationClimate Forcing and Trends of Organic Aerosols in the Community Earth System Model (CESM2)
Tilmes, S., Hodzic, A., Emmons, L. K., Mills, M. J., Gettelman, A., Kinnison, D. E., Park, M., Lamarque, J. ‐., Vitt, F., Shrivastava, M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001827 · Cited by 246
Self-citationHuang, W., Saathoff, H., Pajunoja, A., Shen, X., Naumann, K.-H., Wagner, R., Virtanen, A., Leisner, T., & Mohr, C. (2018) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-18-2883-2018 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Shrivastava, M., Easter, R. C., Liu, X., Zelenyuk, A., Singh, B., Zhang, K., Ma, P., Chand, D., Ghan, S., Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Fast, J., Rasch, P. J., & Tiitta, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2015-05-11
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 4169-4195
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-897X
- 2169-8996
- OpenAlex
- W2167514515
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global transformation and fate of SOA: Implications of low‐volatility SOA and gas‐phase fragmentation reactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2014jd022563
- The paper
- Shrivastava, M., Easter, R. C., Liu, X., Zelenyuk, A., Singh, B., Zhang, K., Ma, P., Chand, D., Ghan, S., Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Fast, J., Rasch, P. J., & Tiitta, P. (2015). Global transformation and fate of SOA: Implications of low‐volatility SOA and gas‐phase fragmentation reactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd022563
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.