The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Secondary Organic Aerosol: A Comparison between Foggy and Nonfoggy Days
Abstract
Carbonaceous species, meteorological parameters, trace gases, and fogwater chemistry were measured during winter in the Indian city of Kanpur to study secondary organic aerosol (SOA) during foggy and clear (nonfoggy) days. Enhanced SOA production was observed during fog episodes. It is hypothesized that aqueous phase chemistry in fog drops is responsible for increasing SOA production. SOA concentrations on foggy days exceeded those on clear days at all times of day; peak foggy day SOA concentrations were observed in the evening vs peak clear day SOA concentrations which occurred in the afternoon. Changes in biomass burning emissions on foggy days were examined because of their potential to confound estimates of SOA production based on analysis of organic to elemental carbon (OC/EC) ratios. No evidence of biomass burning influence on SOA during foggy days was found. Enhanced oxidation of SO(2) to sulfate during foggy days was observed, possibly causing the regional aerosol to become more acidic. No evidence was found in this study, either, for effects of temperature or relative humidity on SOA production. In addition to SOA production, fogs can also play an important role in cleaning the atmosphere of carbonaceous aerosols. Preferential scavenging of water-soluble organic carbon (WSOC) by fog droplets was observed. OC was found to be enriched in smaller droplets, limiting the rate of OC deposition by droplet sedimentation. Lower EC concentrations were observed on foggy days, despite greater stagnation and lower mixing heights, suggesting fog scavenging and removal of EC was active as well.
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
Cited by
A review of biomass burning: Emissions and impacts on air quality, health and climate in China
Chen, J., Li, C., Ristovski, Z., Milic, A., Gu, Y., Islam, M. S., Wang, S., Hao, J., Zhang, H., He, C., et al. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.025 · Cited by 1,262
The acidity of atmospheric particles and clouds
Pye, H. O. T., Nenes, A., Alexander, B., Ault, A. P., Barth, M. C., Clegg, S. L., Collett Jr., J. L., Fahey, K. M., Hennigan, C. J., Herrmann, H., et al. (2020) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-20-4809-2020 · Cited by 785
Sun, Y., Wang, Z., Fu, P., Jiang, Q., Yang, T., Li, J., & Ge, X. (2013) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.019 · Cited by 406
Xu, W., Han, T., Du, W., Wang, Q., Chen, C., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Fu, P., Wang, Z., et al. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b04498 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaul, D. S., Gupta, T., Tripathi, S. N., Tare, V., & Collett, J. L.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-08-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 7307-7313
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2317205298
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Secondary Organic Aerosol: A Comparison between Foggy and Nonfoggy Days. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es201081d
- The paper
- Kaul, D. S., Gupta, T., Tripathi, S. N., Tare, V., & Collett, J. L. (2011). Secondary Organic Aerosol: A Comparison between Foggy and Nonfoggy Days. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201081d
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.
