Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 211

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Chemically-Resolved Volatility Measurements of Organic Aerosol from Different Sources

Huffman, J. A., Docherty, K. S., Mohr, C., Cubison, M. J., Ulbrich, I. M., Ziemann, P. J., Onasch, T. B., Jimenez, J. L.·2009·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

A newly modified fast temperature-stepping thermodenuder (TD) was coupled to a High Resolution Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometer for rapid determination of chemically resolved volatility of organic aerosols (OA) emitted from individual sources. The TD-AMS system was used to characterize primary OA (POA) from biomass burning, trash burning surrogates (paper and plastic), and meat cooking as well as chamber-generated secondary OA (SOA) from alpha-pinene and gasoline vapor. Almost all atmospheric models represent POA as nonvolatile, with no allowance for evaporation upon heating or dilution, or condensation upon cooling. Our results indicate that all OAs observed show semivolatile behavior and that most POAs characterized here were at least as volatile as SOA measured in urban environments. Biomass-burning OA (BBOA) exhibited a wide range of volatilities, but more often showed volatility similar to urban OA. Paper-burning resembles some types of BBOA because of its relatively high volatility and intermediate atomic oxygen-to-carbon (O/C) ratio, while meat-cooking OAs (MCOA) have consistently lower volatility than ambient OA. Chamber-generated SOA under the relatively high concentrations used intraditional experiments was significantly more volatile than urban SOA, challenging extrapolation of traditional laboratory volatility measurements to the atmosphere. Most OAs sampled show increasing O/C ratio and decreasing H/C (hydrogen-to-carbon) ratio with temperature, further indicating that more oxygenated OA components are typically less volatile. Future experiments should systematically explore a wider range of mass concentrations to more fully characterize the volatility distributions of these OAs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es803539d

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 211

Metadata

Authors
Huffman, J. A., Docherty, K. S., Mohr, C., Cubison, M. J., Ulbrich, I. M., Ziemann, P. J., Onasch, T. B., & Jimenez, J. L.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2009-06-12
Volume
43
Issue
14
Pages
5351-5357
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2054230234
Cited by
211
References
0
FWCI
11.74
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: Chemically-Resolved Volatility Measurements of Organic Aerosol from Different Sources. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es803539d
The paper
Huffman, J. A., Docherty, K. S., Mohr, C., Cubison, M. J., Ulbrich, I. M., Ziemann, P. J., Onasch, T. B., & Jimenez, J. L. (2009). Chemically-Resolved Volatility Measurements of Organic Aerosol from Different Sources. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803539d

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.