The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaporation kinetics and phase of laboratory and ambient secondary organic aerosol
Open accessAbstract
Field measurements of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) find significantly higher mass loads than predicted by models, sparking intense effort focused on finding additional SOA sources but leaving the fundamental assumptions used by models unchallenged. Current air-quality models use absorptive partitioning theory assuming SOA particles are liquid droplets, forming instantaneous reversible equilibrium with gas phase. Further, they ignore the effects of adsorption of spectator organic species during SOA formation on SOA properties and fate. Using accurate and highly sensitive experimental approach for studying evaporation kinetics of size-selected single SOA particles, we characterized room-temperature evaporation kinetics of laboratory-generated α-pinene SOA and ambient atmospheric SOA. We found that even when gas phase organics are removed, it takes ∼24 h for pure α-pinene SOA particles to evaporate 75% of their mass, which is in sharp contrast to the ∼10 min time scale predicted by current kinetic models. Adsorption of “spectator” organic vapors during SOA formation, and aging of these coated SOA particles, dramatically reduced the evaporation rate, and in some cases nearly stopped it. Ambient SOA was found to exhibit evaporation behavior very similar to that of laboratory-generated coated and aged SOA. For all cases studied in this work, SOA evaporation behavior is nearly size-independent and does not follow the evaporation kinetics of liquid droplets, in sharp contrast with model assumptions. The findings about SOA phase, evaporation rates, and the importance of spectator gases and aging all indicate that there is need to reformulate the way SOA formation and evaporation are treated by 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
Cited by
Bianchi, F., Kurtén, T., Riva, M., Mohr, C., Rissanen, M. P., Roldin, P., Berndt, T., Crounse, J. D., Wennberg, P. O., Mentel, T. F., et al. (2019) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00395 · Cited by 1,084
Pöschl, U., & Shiraiwa, M. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500487s · Cited by 657
A two-dimensional volatility basis set – Part 2: Diagnostics of organic-aerosol evolution
Donahue, N. M., Kroll, J. H., Pandis, S. N., & Robinson, A. L. (2012) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-12-615-2012 · Cited by 657
Huang, 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
- Vaden, T. D., Imre, D., Beránek, J., Shrivastava, M., & Zelenyuk, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-01-24
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2190-2195
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2078555613
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evaporation kinetics and phase of laboratory and ambient secondary organic aerosol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1013391108
- The paper
- Vaden, T. D., Imre, D., Beránek, J., Shrivastava, M., & Zelenyuk, A. (2011). Evaporation kinetics and phase of laboratory and ambient secondary organic aerosol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013391108
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.