The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards closing the gap between hygroscopic growth and activation for secondary organic aerosol: Part 1 – Evidence from measurements
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) studied in previous laboratory experiments generally showed only slight hygroscopic growth, but a much better activity as a CCN (Cloud Condensation Nucleus) than indicated by the hygroscopic growth. This discrepancy was examined at LACIS (Leipzig Aerosol Cloud Interaction Simulator), using a portable generator that produced SOA particles from the ozonolysis of α-pinene, and adding butanol or butanol and water vapor during some of the experiments. The light scattering signal of dry SOA-particles was measured by the LACIS optical particle spectrometer and was used to derive a refractive index for SOA of 1.45. LACIS also measured the hygroscopic growth of SOA particles up to 99.6% relative humidity (RH), and a CCN counter was used to measure the particle activation. SOA-particles were CCN active with critical diameters of e.g. 100 nm and 55 nm at super-saturations of 0.4% and 1.1%, respectively. But only slight hygroscopic growth with hygroscopic growth factors ≤1.05 was observed at RH<98% RH. At RH>98%, the hygroscopic growth increased stronger than would be expected if a constant hygroscopicity parameter for the particle/droplet solution was assumed. An increase of the hygroscopicity parameter by a factor of 4–6 was observed in the RH-range from below 90% to 99.6%, and this increase continued for increasingly diluted particle solutions for activating particles. This explains an observation already made in the past: that the relation between critical super-saturation and dry diameter for activation is steeper than what would be expected for a constant value of the hygroscopicity. Combining measurements of hygroscopic growth and activation, it was found that the surface tension that has to be assumed to interpret the measurements consistently is greater than 55 mN/m, possibly close to that of pure water, depending on the different SOA-types produced, and therefore only in part accounts for the discrepancy between hygroscopic growth and CCN activity observed for SOA particles in the past.
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
Cites
Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness
Albrecht, B. A. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.245.4923.1227 · Cited by 4,422
Cited by
An interfacial mechanism for cloud droplet formation on organic aerosols
Ruehl, C. R., Davies, J. F., & Wilson, K. R. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad4889 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Wex, H., Petters, M. D., Carrico, C. M., Hallbauer, E., Massling, A., McMeeking, G. R., Poulain, L., Wu, Z., Kreidenweis, S. M., & Stratmann, F.
- Venue
- Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2009-06-18
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3987-3997
- ISSN
- 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
- 1680-7324
- OpenAlex
- W2121905409
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.88
- 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: Towards closing the gap between hygroscopic growth and activation for secondary organic aerosol: Part 1 – Evidence from measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-9-3987-2009
- The paper
- Wex, H., Petters, M. D., Carrico, C. M., Hallbauer, E., Massling, A., McMeeking, G. R., Poulain, L., Wu, Z., Kreidenweis, S. M., & Stratmann, F. (2009). Towards closing the gap between hygroscopic growth and activation for secondary organic aerosol: Part 1 – Evidence from measurements. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-3987-2009
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.