Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A critical evaluation of proxy methods used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles

Open access
Hennigan, C. J., Izumi, J., Sullivan, A. P., Weber, R. J., Nenes, A.·2015·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Abstract

Abstract. Given significant challenges with available measurements of aerosol acidity, proxy methods are frequently used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles. In this study, four of the most common aerosol acidity proxies are evaluated and compared: (1) the ion balance method, (2) the molar ratio method, (3) thermodynamic equilibrium models, and (4) the phase partitioning of ammonia. All methods are evaluated against predictions of thermodynamic models and against direct observations of aerosol–gas equilibrium partitioning acquired in Mexico City during the Megacity Initiative: Local and Global Research Objectives (MILAGRO) study. The ion balance and molar ratio methods assume that any deficit in inorganic cations relative to anions is due to the presence of H+ and that a higher H+ loading and lower cation / anion ratio both correspond to increasingly acidic particles (i.e., lower pH). Based on the MILAGRO measurements, no correlation is observed between H+ levels inferred with the ion balance and aerosol pH predicted by the thermodynamic models and NH3–NH4+ partitioning. Similarly, no relationship is observed between the cation / anion molar ratio and predicted aerosol pH. Using only measured aerosol chemical composition as inputs without any constraint for the gas phase, the E-AIM (Extended Aerosol Inorganics Model) and ISORROPIA-II thermodynamic equilibrium models tend to predict aerosol pH levels that are inconsistent with the observed NH3–NH4+ partitioning. The modeled pH values from both E-AIM and ISORROPIA-II run with gas + aerosol inputs agreed well with the aerosol pH predicted by the phase partitioning of ammonia. It appears that (1) thermodynamic models constrained by gas + aerosol measurements and (2) the phase partitioning of ammonia provide the best available predictions of aerosol pH. Furthermore, neither the ion balance nor the molar ratio can be used as surrogates for aerosol pH, and previously published studies with conclusions based on such acidity proxies may need to be reevaluated. Given the significance of acidity for chemical processes in the atmosphere, the implications of this study are important and far reaching.

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 · 10.5194/acp-15-2775-2015

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Hennigan, C. J., Izumi, J., Sullivan, A. P., Weber, R. J., & Nenes, A.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
2775-2790
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2021872914
Cited by
382
References
1
FWCI
20.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A critical evaluation of proxy methods used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-15-2775-2015
The paper
Hennigan, C. J., Izumi, J., Sullivan, A. P., Weber, R. J., & Nenes, A. (2015). A critical evaluation of proxy methods used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2775-2015

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.