Fine particle pH during severe haze episodes in northern China
Abstract
Aerosol acidity plays an important role in atmospheric chemistry. China emits large amounts of SO 2 , NO x , and NH 3 into the atmosphere, but aerosol acidity is poorly characterized. In this study, simultaneous 1 h measurements of particulate and gaseous compositions along with the ISORROPIA‐II thermodynamic equilibrium model were used to study aerosol acidity during severe haze episodes in northern China. The summed concentration of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium was 135 ± 51 μg/m 3 with a maximum of 250 μg/m 3 , and the gas‐phase NH 3 mixing ratio was 22 ± 9 ppb. Fine particles were moderately acidic, with a pH range of 3.0–4.9 and an average of 4.2, which was higher than those in the United States and Europe. Excess NH 3 and high aerosol water content are responsible for the relatively lower aerosol acidity. These results suggest that the new pathways for sulfate production in China proposed by recent studies should be revisited.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More recent studies suggest that wintertime urban China fine aerosol particles have a pH range of 3.0-5.0 despite high gaseous NH3.
“However, more recent studies suggest that wintertime fi ne aerosol particles in urban China have a pH range of 3.0 -5.0, despite the very high levels of gaseous NH3 (Guo et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017).”
From Local Arctic Air Pollution: A Neglected but Serious Problem (2018) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Local Arctic Air Pollution: A Neglected but Serious Problem
Schmale, J., Arnold, S. R., Law, K. S., Thorp, T., Anenberg, S., Simpson, W. R., Mao, J., & Pratt, K. A. (2018) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1029/2018ef000952 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
“0, despite the very high levels of gaseous NH3 (Guo et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Liu, M., Song, Y., Zhou, T., Xu, Z., Yan, C., Zheng, M., Wu, Z., Hu, M., Wu, Y., & Zhu, T.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Song, Yu
- Zheng, Mei
- ORCID
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2017-05-21
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 5213-5221
- ISSN
- 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2613120473
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 19.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (91644212, 41571130033)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Industrial Gas Emission Control
- Keywords
- aerosol acidity, haze episodes, northern China, ammonium, aerosol water content, sulfate, nitrate, ammonia, sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxides, ammonia emissions, ISORROPIA II
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
