<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-14-12455-2014</article-id><title-group><article-title>Modeling of gaseous methylamines in the global atmosphere: impacts
of oxidation and aerosol uptake</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Modeling of gaseous methylamines in the global atmosphere}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{F.~Yu~and~G.~Luo}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name>
          <email>fyu@albany.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8862-4835</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9588-7008</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, 251
Fuller Road, Albany, New York 12203, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">F. Yu (fyu@albany.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>November</month><year>2014</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>22</issue>
      <fpage>12455</fpage><lpage>12464</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>June</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>2</day><month>July</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17</day><month>October</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>18</day><month>October</month><year>2014</year></date>
           
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>

      <self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
<abstract>
    <p>Gaseous amines have attracted increasing attention due to
their potential role in enhancing particle nucleation and growth and
affecting secondary organic aerosol formation. Here we study with a
chemistry transport model the global distributions of the most common and
abundant amines in the air: monomethylamine (MMA), dimethylamine (DMA), and
trimethylamine (TMA). We show that gas phase oxidation and aerosol uptakes
are dominant sinks for these methylamines. The oxidation alone (i.e., no
aerosol uptake) leads to methylamine lifetimes of 5–10 h in most parts
of low and middle latitude regions. The uptake by secondary species with
uptake coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 0.03 (corresponding to the uptake by
sulfuric acid particles) reduces the lifetime by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % over
oceans and much more over the major continents, resulting in a methylamine
lifetime of less than 1–2 h over central Europe, eastern Asia, and eastern
US. With the estimated global emission flux, from the literature, our
simulations indicate that [DMA] in the model surface layer over major
continents is generally in the range of 0.1–2 ppt (parts per trillion) when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03
and 0.2–10 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, and decreases quickly with altitude.
[DMA] over oceans is below 0.05 ppt and over polar regions it is below 0.01 ppt.
The simulated [MMA] is about a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 higher
while [TMA] is a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 higher than [DMA]. The modeled
concentrations of methylamines are substantially lower than the limited
observed values available, with normalized mean bias ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>57
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>88 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) for MMA and TMA, and
from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>78  (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>93 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) for DMA.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>In recent years, gaseous amines have attracted increasing attention due to
theoretical, laboratory, and field measurements indicating that amines may
considerably enhance particle formation and growth (Kurtén et al., 2008;
Nadykto et al., 2011, 2014; Almeida et al., 2013; Berndt et al., 2010; Zhao
et al., 2011; Erupe et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2010a; Yu
et al., 2012) and affect secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation (De Haan
et al., 2009, Myriokefalitakis et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2010). Amines
are organic compounds and derivatives of ammonia wherein one or more
hydrogen atoms are replaced by a substituent such as an alkyl or aryl group.
About 150 amines have been identified in the atmosphere; the most common and
abundant amines being the low-molecular-weight methylamines such as
monomethylamine (MMA), dimethylamine (DMA), and trimethylamine (TMA) (Ge et
al., 2011a). Concentrations of amines can exceed several
parts-per-billion by volume (ppbv) near their sources (Ge et al., 2011a; Schade
and Crutzen, 1995) but are expected to be low farther away as a result of
their short lifetime due to oxidation by OH (Carl and Crowley, 1998) and
uptake by particles (Qiu and Zhang, 2013).</p>
      <p>While amines are stronger bases than ammonia and ternary
H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O-amine clusters are more stable (Kurtén et al.,
2008; Nadykto et al., 2011, 2014; Almeida et al., 2013), the relative role
of amines versus ammonia in enhancing particle formation in the atmosphere
is yet to be determined (Zollner et al., 2012). This is because the
concentration of amines in the atmosphere is generally much lower than that
of ammonia (by 2–3 orders of magnitude or more) (Ge et al., 2011a; Hanson et
al., 2011). Recent measurements taken during the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving
Outdoor Droplets) chamber experiments at CERN (European Council for Nuclear Research; Almeida et al., 2013)
indicate that a [DMA] of above <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 parts-per-trillion by volume
(pptv) enhances nucleation substantially, but enhancement drops
significantly as [DMA] decreases below that level.</p>
      <p>In order to determine the contribution of ternary nucleation involving
amines to atmospheric particle production, it is critical to know the
concentrations of key amines and their variations in the atmosphere. Due to
their high reactivity and low concentrations, measurements of gaseous amines
in the background atmosphere are very limited (Ge et al., 2011a). Several
studies show [DMA] is below 1 pptv in urban areas (Grönberg et al.,
1992a, b) while a couple of other studies observed [DMA] around a few pptv
in rural and coastal areas (Hanson et al., 2011; VandenBoer et al., 2011,
2012; Van Neste et al., 1987; Gibb et al., 1999). Although TMA is generally
more abundant (Ge et al., 2011a), the concentration of TMA needed to
substantially enhance nucleation remains to be studied.</p>
      <p>In addition to in situ measurements, numerical modeling is also needed to
integrate the various processes controlling amine concentrations and
ultimately assess the impact of amines on global nucleation, aerosol
properties, and climate. While limited measurements of amines are available,
modeling of global amines is basically nonexistent. Myriokefalitakis et
al. (2010) explored the potential contribution of amines emitted from oceans to
SOA formation, assuming total amine  emissions to be one-tenth of the
oceanic ammonia emissions. Myriokefalitakis et al. (2010) neither considered
amines from continental sources nor presented concentrations of gaseous
amines over oceans. In the present work, we aim to simulate the global
distributions of gaseous amines in the air with a global chemistry transport
model. The key processes controlling amine concentrations (including
emission, transport, oxidation, deposition, and aerosol uptake) are
considered and the simulated results are compared to the limited
measurements available.</p>
      <p>The methods of the present study (including sources, sinks, and model
representation) are described in Sect. 2. The modeling results,
comparisons with measurements, and sensitivity studies are given in Sect. 3.
Section 4 contains the summary and discussion.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Sources and fluxes</title>
      <p>Amines are ubiquitous atmospheric organic bases, and are emitted from a wide
range of sources including animal husbandry, biomass burning, motor
vehicles, industry, meat cooking, fish processing, sewage treatment and
waste incineration, protein degradation, vegetation, soils, and ocean
organisms (Ge et al., 2011a). On a global scale, little is known about the
flux of most amines, especially various aromatic amines (Ge et al., 2011a).
Among about 150 amines identified in the atmosphere, methylamines (MMA, DMA,
and TMA) are most common and abundant. Schade and Crutzen (1995) estimated
the global emission fluxes of MMA, DMA, and TMA to be 83 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 26,
33 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19, and 169 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The total
methylamine flux of 285 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 78 Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is more than 2 orders of
magnitude smaller than the estimated global ammonia flux of
50 000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 000 Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schade and Crutzen, 1995).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Calculated global annual mean emissions, sinks, and burdens of
ammonia, MMA, DMA, and TMA. Sinks and burdens under four different uptake
coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03, 0.01, 0.001, and 0) are given.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Emission</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Oxidation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uptake</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Dry and wet deposition</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Burden</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(Gg N)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ammonia</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">79.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.03</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">96.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>65.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.07</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">96.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>48.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>19.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">96.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>51.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.22</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">96.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>61.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.27</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.03</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.05</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.08</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">38.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>28.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.08</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.03</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">196.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>49.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>122.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.24</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">196.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>75.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>85.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">196.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>122.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.63</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TMA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">196.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>140.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>56.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.72</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Sinks</title>
      <p>The main sinks of amines emitted into the atmosphere include dry and wet
deposition, gas phase reactions, and heterogeneous uptake. Since most of the
amines are highly soluble, wet deposition is an important process to bring
amines in the air to the surface. As organic compounds, gaseous amines
undergo oxidation reactions with OH, NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>x</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, or O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Nielsen et al.,
2012; Lee and Wexler, 2013). The lifetimes of amines with respect to OH
oxidation are typically a couple of hours, much shorter than those by
reactions with O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>x</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The gaseous methylamines, which are
strong bases, may also undergo rapid acid–base reactions to form salt
particles in the presence of inorganic acids (HCl, HNO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Murphy et al., 2007). In addition, amines may react with
organic acids to form amides (Barsanti and Pankow, 2006). A detailed
discussion of the chemistry of amines in the atmosphere can be found in
several recent review articles (Nielsen et al., 2012; Lee and Wexler, 2013).</p>
      <p>Owing to their high aqueous solubility and strong basicity, gaseous amines
can efficiently enter into a particulate phase via direct dissolution and
acid–base reactions. The importance of amines with regard to gas/particle
partitioning has been supported by the reactive uptake of TMA into ammonium
nitrate particles (Lloyd et al., 2009) and amine exchange into ammonium
bisulfate and nitrate nuclei (Bzdek et al., 2011). Laboratory studies show
that heterogeneous reactions of gaseous alkylamines on H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
nanoparticles resulted in the formation of alkyl ammonium sulfates and
particle growth (Wang et al., 2010a, b). It has also been observed that
methylamine could react with glyoxal in drying cloud droplets to form SOA
(De Haan et al., 2009) and stable aminium salts could be formed by amine and
organic acids in the aerosols (Williams et al., 2010). The thermodynamic
properties of amines that control their partitioning between the gas and the
particle phase in the atmosphere are examined in a review paper (Ge et al.,
2011b). An overview of laboratory progress in the multiphase chemistry of
amines can be found in Qiu and Zhang (2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Model representation</title>
      <p>A numerical model is needed to integrate the various processes influencing
the concentrations of amines in the atmosphere. In the present study  we
employ GEOS-Chem, a global 3-D model of atmospheric composition driven by
assimilated meteorological data from the NASA Goddard Earth Observing
System 5 (GEOS-5) (e.g., Bey et al., 2001). The GEOS-Chem model has been developed
and used by many research groups and contains a number of state-of-the-art
modules treating various chemical and aerosol processes with up-to-date key
emission inventories (for details, see the model web page
<uri>http://geos-chem.org/</uri>). Global ammonia emissions are based on the inventory
developed by the Global Emission Inventory Activity (GEIA) (Bouwman et al.,
1997) and national emission estimates are used for the US (NEI05), Canada
(CAC), Europe (EMEP), and eastern Asia (Streets2000). While ammonia is
simulated in detail in GEOS-Chem, amines are not considered prior to this
study. Here, to represent gas phase methylamines, we add three tracers (MMA,
DMA, and TMA) in GEOS-Chem v8.3.2 with an advanced particle microphysics
(APM) model incorporated (Yu and Luo, 2009).</p>
      <p>There exist large uncertainties in the estimated emission fluxes of amines,
and detailed emission inventories of amines from various sources are
currently not available. In the present study, we use the ratios of
methylamines to ammonia fluxes given in Schade and Crutzen (1995) but
approximate the spatial distribution and seasonal variations of amine
emissions following those of ammonia. Such a first-order approximation
enables us to simulate the typical concentrations of amines in the global
atmosphere. The dry and wet deposition, as well as horizontal and vertical
transport of amines, is also considered in GEOS-Chem, following the
approaches for ammonia.</p>
      <p>In the present study, we only take into account the oxidation of
methylamines by OH as the oxidation of amines by NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
much smaller. There have been limited measurements of the kinetics of OH
reactions with simple alkyl amines (Ge et al., 2011a; Nielsen et al., 2012;
Lee and Wexler, 2013). In this study we use the reaction coefficients
reported by Carl and Crowley (1998): 1.79 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
6.49 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 3.58 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molecule<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
for MMA, DMA, and TMA, respectively. For
comparison, the reaction coefficient of NH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with OH is
1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molecule<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Atkinson et al., 1997), more
than 2 orders of magnitude smaller. The uptake of amines by particles is
considered, using the particle surface areas calculated from particle size
distributions predicted by GEOS-Chem APM. One key uncertainty about the
heterogeneous uptake is the uptake coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, defined as the
ratio of gas surface collisions that result in loss of the amines onto the
surface to the total gas surface collisions. Lloyd et al. (2009) reported a
reactive uptake coefficient of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the uptake of TMA
by ammonium nitrate aerosols at 20 % RH (relative humidity). Wang et al. (2010b) studied the
uptake of alkylamines (MMA, DMA and TMA) on sulfuric acid surfaces and found
uptake coefficients in the range of (2.0–4.4) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. In a
laboratory study of the heterogeneous reactions between alkylamines (MMA,
DMA and TMA) and ammonium salts (ammonium sulfate and ammonium bisulfate),
Qiu et al. (2011) found that, for the three alkylamines, the initial uptake
coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) range from 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
3.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the steady-state uptake coefficients
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ss</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) range from 6.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 2.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
decrease as the number of methyl groups on the alkylamine increases. It is
clear from these laboratory studies that the values of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depend on
the particle compositions. The secondary components of particles in the
atmosphere (sulfate, nitrate, SOA, and ammonium), which are likely to play
an important role in the uptake of amines, are generally internally mixed.
The uptake coefficients of amines by these mixed particles, under different
atmospheric conditions (especially RH), are not yet known. In the present
study, the sensitivity of predicted amine concentrations to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values
ranging from 0 (no uptake) to 0.03 is studied. We assume no uptake of amines
by pure dust, black carbon, and primary organic carbon. We do not consider
the uptake of amines by sea salt particles due to lack of information with
regard to the uptake coefficients. The gaseous phase reactions of amines
with HNO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HCl, and organic acids are not considered, since oxidation
and aerosol uptake likely dominate the loss of amines. In the present study,
we also do not consider the re-evaporation of amines after uptake by
secondary particles as laboratory studies indicate that amines can react
with various acids to form stable aminium salts (e.g., Qiu and Zhang, 2013).
For example, recent laboratory measurements show that sulfate particles act
as an almost perfect sink (negligible evaporation) for amines (Almeida et
al., 2013).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p>The results presented below are based on a 1 yr simulation
(October 2005–December 2006, with the first 3 months as spin up) using GEOS-Chem
v8.3.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> APM, with the kinetic condensation of low, volatile secondary
organic gases from successive oxidation aging taken into account (Yu, 2011).
The horizontal resolution (latitude by longitude) is 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
and there are 47 vertical layers in the model (surface to 0.01 hpa).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Available measurements of MMA, DMA, and TMA concentrations (in
pptv) and site information.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.89}[.89]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="100pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="65pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="justify" colwidth="92pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Site information <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(latitude, longitude)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Site type</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Observation period</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">[MMA]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">[DMA]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">[TMA]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">References</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">A. Gothenburg, Sweden <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(57.73, 11.97)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Urban</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24–26 August 1991</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Grönberg et al. (1992a)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">B. Lund, Sweden <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(55.71, 13.19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Urban</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">July 1991</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Grönberg et al. (1992b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">C. Atlanta, GA <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(33.85, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>84.41)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Urban</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">23 June–25 August 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.5–2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4–15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Hanson et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">D. Vallby, Sweden<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(59.55, 17.13)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rural</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">July 1991</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">41 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Grönberg et al. (1992b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">E. Toronto, ON <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(43.67, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>79.39)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rural</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27 June–5 July 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.2–2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">VandenBoer et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">F. Egbert, ON <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(44.23, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>79.79)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Agricultural and <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>semiforested</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15 October–2 November 2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.0–10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">VandenBoer et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">G. Coastal Sweden<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(Malmö) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(55.62, 13.00)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Coast</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13–15 August 1991</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Grönberg et al. (1992a)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">H. Oahu, Hawaii <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(21.48, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>158.00)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Coast</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">July–August 1985</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Van Neste et al. (1987)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">I. Narragansett, Rhode<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Island (41.45, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>71.45)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Coast</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Van Neste et al. (1987)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">J. Arabian Sea <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(14, 63)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Arabian Sea</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27 August–4 October 1994</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.02</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Gibb et al. (1999)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">K. Arabian Sea <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(14, 63)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Arabian Sea</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16 November–19 December 1994</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Gibb et al. (1999)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L. NW Atlantic <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(13.2, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>66.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Marine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">28 February 1986</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Mopper and Zika (1987)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Table 1 shows global annual mean emissions, sinks (due to oxidation, uptake,
and dry/wet deposition), and burdens for ammonia, MMA, DMA, and TMA. Sinks
and burdens of methylamines under four different uptake coefficients
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03, 0.01, 0.001, and 0) are given. The global ammonia emission
flux for 2006 based on GEOS-Chem is 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
about 15 % higher than the estimation of Schade and Crutzen (1995). The
MMA, DMA, and TMA emissions fluxes assumed in the present study (96.2, 38.3,
and 196.0 Gg N yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively) are also 15 % higher, as the same
ratios of methylamines to ammonia emission fluxes given in Schade and
Crutzen (1995) are used. The 15 % difference is within the estimated
methylamine  emission  uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % (Schade and
Crutzen, 1995).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Horizontal distributions of annual mean DMA emissions assumed in
the present study.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f01.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Simulated horizontal distributions of annual mean DMA oxidation
and uptake lifetime and concentration ([DMA]) in the model surface layer (0–150 m
above surface) under two aerosol uptake coefficients:
<bold>(a, b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 (i.e., oxidation only) and
<bold>(c, d)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 (uptake by sulfuric
acid particles).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f02.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Same as Fig. 2 but for zonally averaged values. Vertical axis is
the ratio of pressure (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the model layer to the pressure at the surface
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>surf</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f03.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>As an example for the spatial distribution of emission fluxes, Fig. 1
presents the horizontal distributions of DMA emissions assumed in the
present study. As mentioned earlier, we approximate the spatial distribution
and seasonal variations of methylamine emissions following those of
ammonia. Again, this should be considered as a first-order approximation, as
the emission rates of amines from various sources may be quite different
from those of ammonia. With the understanding of this limitation, we can see
in Fig. 1 that DMA emission rates are in the range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.2–10 kg N km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over major continents and below
0.2 kg N km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over oceans. For MMA and TMA, the absolute emission
fluxes are a factor of 2.5 and 5.1 higher (Table 1). In Fig. 1 we also
marked the locations of sites where some kind of methylamine measurements
are available, as summarized in Table 2. It should be noted that sites A, B,
D, and G are close to each other and overlap in Fig. 1. Similarly, sites E
and F overlap in Fig. 1. Sites J and K are the same location but
measurements were taken during different time periods. A comparison of
simulated and observed methylamine concentrations is discussed later.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Horizontal distributions of [MMA] in the surface layer <bold>(a, c)</bold> and
its zonally averaged values <bold>(b, d)</bold> under two different uptake coefficients
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03, and 0).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=349.968898pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f04.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Same as Fig. 4 except for [TMA].</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=349.968898pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f05.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>A comparison of simulated and measured [MMA], [DMA], and [TMA] at
the sites listed in Table 2 and marked in Fig. 1 by letters. Model results
correspond to the months of the observations, and vertical bars define the
simulated ranges of monthly mean values.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=162.180709pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12455/2014/acp-14-12455-2014-f06.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>It can be seen from Table 1 that gas phase oxidation and aerosol uptakes are
dominant sinks for methylamines (Table 1). As expected, the uptake sinks are
sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.001
and the oxidation becomes more important when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller.
The change of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from 0.03 to 0.001 increases the
modeled global burdens of methylamines by a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.7.
Further decrease of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from 0.001 to 0 has relatively small effects
on the predicted burdens. Dry and wet deposition accounts for 11–14 % and
25–35 % of the sinks when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0,
respectively. The global burdens of MMA, DMA, and TMA are respectively from
0.07 to 0.27 Gg N, 0.03 to 0.08 Gg N, and 0.24 to 0.72 Gg N as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
changes from 0.03 to 0. The ratios of ammonia burden to that of methylamines
(MMA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DMA <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> TMA) range from 74 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to 236 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03).
The burdens are roughly but not strictly proportional to emission fluxes
because of the difference in the oxidation rates and deposition velocities
(which also depend on molecular weights).</p>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the simulated horizontal distributions of the annual mean DMA
oxidation and uptake lifetime (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, calculated as the ratio of the
burden in each gird box to the corresponding sinks associated with oxidation
and uptake) and concentration ([DMA]) in the model surface layer (0–150 m
above surface) under two aerosol uptake coefficients: (a, b) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0
(i.e., oxidation only) and (c, d) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 (uptake by sulfuric acid
particles). The corresponding zonally averaged vertical distributions of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and [DMA] are given in Fig. 3. The oxidation only condition (i.e.,
no aerosol uptake) leads to a DMA lifetime of 5–10 h in most parts of
lower and middle latitude regions, from the surface to the upper
troposphere. The oxidation lifetime is relatively long (from 10 to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>200 h) over the high latitude regions due to low OH
concentrations there. The aerosol uptake with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 (upper limit,
corresponding to the uptake by sulfuric acid particles) shortens the
lifetime of DMA by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % over oceans and much more over the
major continents, resulting in a DMA lifetime of less than 1–2 h over
central Europe, eastern Asia, and the eastern US (Fig. 2c). Our sensitivity
study indicates that <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values decrease with increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.001 but become relatively insensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.001, as oxidation dominates the lifetime under
this condition.</p>
      <p>As a result of a short lifetime, high values of [DMA] are generally confined
to the source regions (Figs. 1, 2b, d). Depending on the uptake
coefficients, [DMA] in the surface layer over major continents is in the
range of 0.1–2 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 (Fig. 2d) and 0.2–10 ppt
when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 (Fig. 2b). [DMA] decreases quickly with altitudes, with
zonally averaged values dropping below 0.1 ppt a few hundred meters above
the surface (Fig. 3b, d). [DMA] over oceans are below 0.05 ppt and these
DMA are emitted from marine organisms (Fig. 1) rather than transported from
continents. [DMA] over polar regions is below 0.01 ppt (Figs. 2, 3) due
to the lack of emissions there (Fig. 1).</p>
      <p>The annual mean horizontal and vertical distributions of MMA and TMA
concentrations ([MMA], [TMA]) under two <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (0.03, and 0) are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. As a result of identical emission spatial distributions
(assumed) and short lifetimes, [MMA] and [TMA] have similar spatial
distributions as those of [DMA]. [MMA] is generally a factor of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 higher than [DMA], reaching 0.2–5 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03
(Fig. 4c) and 0.5–20 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 (Fig. 4a) in the
surface layer over major continents. While the oxidation rate of MMA is
smaller than that of DMA, its deposition velocity is larger. As a result,
the [MMA] to [DMA] ratio is close to the ratio of the corresponding global
emission fluxes. In contrast, both the oxidation and deposition velocities of TMA
are smaller than those of DMA, leading to a larger [TMA] to [DMA] ratio
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8) than the corresponding ratio of emission fluxes
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5). [TMA] in the surface layer over major continents
reaches 1–10 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 (Fig. 5c) and 2–50 ppt when
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 (Fig. 5a). Similar to [DMA], [MMA] and [TMA] decrease
quickly with altitudes, down to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.1 ppt above <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>800 mb (Figs. 4b, d, 5b, d).</p>
      <p>Figure 6 compares the simulated [MMA], [DMA], and [TMA] with measurements at
the sites listed in Table 2 and marked in Fig. 1. The modeling results under
four <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (0.03, 0.01, 0.001, and 0) are given. It should be
noted that the model results in Figs. 2–5 are annual mean values, while most
of the methylamine data are from various field measurements that lasted
everywhere from less than 1 day to a few months (Table 2). Owing to large seasonal
variations, the model results corresponding to the months of the observations
are used for comparisons with observations in Fig. 6. The vertical bars in
Fig. 6 (for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and 0 cases only) define the simulated ranges
of monthly mean concentrations of methylamines.</p>
      <p>Based on very limited measurements currently available (Table 2), [DMA]
in urban areas is smaller than those in rural and coastal areas while
[MMA] and [TMA] in these regions do not show a systematic difference.
Over the Arabian Sea, measurements of two periods
differ by a factor of 5 for [DMA] and by a factor of 10 for [TMA],
indicating a large temporal variation in [DMA] and [TMA] concentrations at
some locations. It is clear in Fig. 6 that the model predictions of
methylamines are substantially lower than the limited observed values
available, with normalized mean bias (NMB) ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>57
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>88 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) for MMA and TMA, and from
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>78  (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>93 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) for DMA. [MMA] and [TMA] are
relatively closer to observed values, especially when
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.001. It appears that the simulated [DMA] values are close to the
measured values for the three urban sites (A, B, and C) (Fig. 6b).</p>
      <p>It is unclear how much the underestimation is associated with the spatial
(2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> model grid box with a depth of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>150 m
versus measurements at given sites near the surface) and temporal (model monthly
mean versus measurements of a few days to a few weeks) average. The seasonal
variations of simulated concentrations of methylamines are generally within
a factor of 2–5. As we can see in Figs. 2–5 and Table 1, concentrations
of methylamines are roughly proportional to the emission fluxes.
Methylamine  emissions in certain regions could be much larger, while in
other regions  much lower than those shown in Fig. 1. Due to the short
lifetime of these amines, long-range transport is not important, and thus the
observed amine  concentrations (together with their lifetime) can be used to
estimate the emission strength in the region. If the measurements are
representative and reflect the real methylamine  concentrations, the
underprediction of methylamines by 1–2 orders of magnitude in some
sites (Fig. 6) may indicate that the methylamine  emissions in these regions
are 1–2 orders of magnitude larger than those assumed in this study
(Fig. 1, Table 1), at least around the sites of the measurements.
Apparently, long-term measurements of amines at more locations are needed to
evaluate the potential importance of amines.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and discussion</title>
      <p>As a result of the substitution by one or more organic functional groups,
amines have a stronger basicity than ammonia and may participate in new
particle formation in the atmosphere. To integrate the various processes
controlling amine  concentrations and understand the concentrations of key
amines and their spatiotemporal variations in the atmosphere, we simulate
the global distributions of amines in the air with a global chemistry
transport model (GEOS-Chem), focusing on methylamines (MMA, DMA, and TMA) in
this study.</p>
      <p>We showed that gas phase oxidation and aerosol uptakes are dominant sinks
for methylamines. The uptake sinks are sensitive to  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>  when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.001 and the
oxidation becomes more important when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller. The oxidation
only (i.e., no aerosol uptake) leads to a methylamine  lifetime of 5–10 h
in most part of low and middle latitude regions, from the surface to
the upper troposphere. The oxidation lifetime is relatively longer
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10–50 h) over the high latitude regions due to low OH
concentrations there. The aerosol uptake with  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
of 0.03 reduces the lifetime of methylamines by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % over
oceans and much more over the major continents, resulting in methylamine
lifetimes as short as 1–2 h over central Europe, eastern Asia, and eastern
US. Depending on <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, [DMA] in the surface layer over major
continents is in the range of 0.1–2 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and
0.2–10 ppt when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, and much smaller than over oceans are polar regions
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.01–0.05 ppt). Compared to [DMA], [MMA] is generally a factor
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 higher while [TMA] is a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8
higher. Concentrations of methylamines decrease quickly with altitudes, with
zonally averaged values dropping below 0.1 ppt above the boundary layer.</p>
      <p>The simulated concentrations of methylamines are substantially lower than
the limited observed values available, with normalized mean bias (NMB)
ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>57  (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>88 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03) for
MMA and TMA, and from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>78  (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>93 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03)
for DMA. The underestimation cannot be explained by the possible uncertainty
in the uptake coefficients and long-range transport. The concentrations of
methylamines are roughly proportional to their emission fluxes, and thus the
model underprediction by 1–2 orders of magnitude at some sites may
indicate that the methylamine  emissions in these regions are 1–2
orders of magnitude higher than those assumed in this study. It should be
noted that methylamine  measurements are very limited and subject to large
uncertainty as well because of their low concentrations and short lifetime.</p>
      <p>Amines have been suggested to be the most likely compound to sequester
carbon dioxide and there exists concern about the potential impacts of
substantial increases in future amine emissions (Nielsen et al., 2012). Our
study indicates that the impact of amine emissions from carbon sequestration
is likely to be local rather than global as a result of their short
lifetime. The low concentrations of amines away from source regions
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.1–1 ppt) suggest that the impact of amines on global new
particle formation may be quite limited. Nevertheless, amines can exceed a
few ppt over the main source regions and thus may substantially enhance new
particle formation. It should be noted that about 150 amines have been
identified in the atmosphere and amines of different kinds are likely to
have different abilities in stabilizing prenucleation clusters. It is
important to identify those amines with abundant concentrations in the
atmosphere and study their ability in enhancing new particle formation. We
would like to emphasize that the present global simulations of methylamines
are subject to uncertainties associated with emissions, uptake coefficients,
and chemistry. Further laboratory study, field measurement, and numerical
modeling are needed to advance our understanding of spatiotemporal
distributions of key amines and to evaluate their contributions to new
particle formation and growth in the global atmosphere.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was supported by NASA under grant
NNX13AK20G. The GEOS-Chem model is managed by the Atmospheric Chemistry
Modeling Group at Harvard University with support from NASA's Atmospheric
Chemistry Modeling and Analysis Program.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline\newline}?>Edited by: K. Tsigaridis</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Almeida, J., Schobesberger, S., Kürten, A., Ortega, I. K.,
Kupiainen-Määttä, O., Praplan, A. P., Adamov, A., Amorim, A., Bianchi, F.,
Breitenlechner, M., David, A., Dommen, J., Donahue, N. M., Downard, A., Dunne, E.,
Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S., Flagan, R. C., Franchin, A., Guida, R., Hakala, J., Hansel, A.,
Heinritzi, M., Henschel, H., Jokinen, T., Junninen, H., Kajos, M., Kangasluoma, J.,
Keskinen, H., Kupc, A., Kurtén, T., Kvashin, A. N., Laaksonen, A., Lehtipalo, K.,
Leiminger, M., Leppä, J., Loukonen, V., Makhmutov, V., Mathot, S., McGrath, M. J.,
Nieminen, T., Olenius, T., Onnela, A., Petäjä, T., Riccobono, F., Riipinen, I.,
Rissanen, M., Rondo, L., Ruuskanen, T., Santos, F. D., Sarnela, N., Schallhart, S.,
Schnitzhofer, R., Seinfeld, J. H., Simon, M., Sipilä, M., Stozhkov, Y., Stratmann, F.,
Tomé, A., Tröstl, J., Tsagkogeorgas, G., Vaattovaara, P., Viisanen, Y.,
Virtanen, A., Vrtala, A., Wagner, P. E., Weingartner, E., Wex, H., Williamson, C., Wimmer
D., Ye, P., Yli-Juuti, T., Carslaw, K. S., Kulmala, M., Curtius, J., Baltensperger, U.,
Worsnop, D. R., Vehkamäki, H., and Kirkby, J.: Molecular understanding of sulphuric
acid–amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere, Nature, 502, 359–363,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Atkinson, R., Baulch, D. L., Cox, R. A., Hampson Jr., R. F., Kerr, J. A., Rossi,
M. J., and Troe, J.: Evaluated kinetic, photochemical, and heterogeneous data
for atmospheric chemistry. V-IUPAC subcommittee on gas kinetic data
evaluation for atmospheric chemistry, J. Phys. Chem.
Ref. Data, 26, 521–1011, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Barsanti, K. C. and  Pankow, J. F.: Thermodynamics of the formation of atmospheric
organic particulate matter by accretion reactions-part 3: carboxylic and
dicarboxylic acids, Atmos. Environ., 40, 6676–6686, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Berndt, T., Stratmann, F., Sipilä, M., Vanhanen, J., Petäjä, T.,
Mikkilä, J., Grüner, A., Spindler, G., Lee Mauldin III, R., Curtius,
J., Kulmala, M., and Heintzenberg, J.: Laboratory study on new particle
formation from the reaction OH <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: influence of experimental
conditions, H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O vapour, NH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and the amine tert-butylamine on the
overall process, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7101–7116,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7101-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7101-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore,
A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schultz M. G.: Global
modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model
description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23073–23095,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD000807</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bouwman, A. F., Lee, D. S., Asman, W. A. H., Dentener, F. J., Van Der Hoek, K.
W., and Olivier, J. G. J.: A global high-Â-resolution emission inventory for
ammonia, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 11, 561–587, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bzdek, B. R., Ridge, D. P., and Johnston, M. V.: Amine reactivity with charged
sulfuric acid clusters, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 8735–8743,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-8735-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-8735-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Carl, S. A. and Crowley, J. N.: Sequential two(blue) photon absorption by
NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the presence of H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a source of OH in pulsed photolysis
kinetic studies: rate constants for reaction of OH with CH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>NH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
(CH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>NH, (CH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>N, and C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>NH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at 295 K,
J. Phys. Chem. A, 102, 8131–8141, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, M., Titcombe, M., Jiang, J., Kuang, C., Fischer, M. L., Edgerton, E.,
Eisele, F. L., Siepmann, J. I., Hanson, D. H., Zhao, J., and McMurry, P. H.:
Acid-base chemical reaction model for nucleation rates in the polluted
boundary layer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 18713–18718, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
De Haan, D. O., Tolbert, M. A., and Jimenez, J. L.: Atmospheric condensed-phase
reactions of glyoxal with methylamine, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L11189, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Erupe, M. E., Viggiano, A. A., and Lee, S.-H.: The effect of
trimethylamine on atmospheric nucleation involving H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4767–4775, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4767-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4767-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Ge, X. L., Wexler, A. S., and Clegg, S. L.: Atmospheric amines – Part I. A
review, Atmos. Environ., 45, 524–546, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Ge, X. L., Wexler, A. S., and Clegg, S. L.: Atmospheric amines – Part II.
Thermodynamic properties and gas/particle partitioning, Atmos. Environ., 45, 561–577, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Gibb, S. W., Mantoura, R. F. C., and Liss, P. S.: Ocean-atmosphere exchange and
atmospheric speciation of ammonia and methylamines in the region of the NW
Arabian Sea, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 13, 161–178, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Grönberg, L., Lovkvist, P., and Jönsson, Å, J.: Measurement of
aliphatic amines in ambient air and rainwater, Chemosphere, 24, 1533–1540,
1992a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Grönberg, L., Lovkvist, P., and  Jönsson Å, J.: Determination of
aliphatic amines in air by membrane enrichment directly coupled to a gas
chromatograph, Cromatographia, 33, 77–82, 1992b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hanson, D. R., McMurry, P. H., Jiang, J., Tanner, D., and Huey, L. G.: Ambient
pressure proton transfer mass spectrometry: detection of amines and ammonia,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 8881–8888, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Kurtén, T., Loukonen, V., Vehkamäki, H., and Kulmala, M.: Amines are likely to
enhance neutral and ion-induced sulfuric acid-water nucleation in the
atmosphere more effectively than ammonia, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 4095–4103,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-4095-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-4095-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, D. and Wexler, A. S.: Atmospheric amines – Part III: Photochemistry and
toxicity, Atmos. Environ., 71, 95–103, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Lloyd, J. A., Heaton, K. J., and Johnston, M. V.: Reactive uptake of trimethylamine
into ammonium nitrate particles, J. Phys. Chem. A, 113,
4840–4843, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, S. M., Sorooshian, A., Kroll, J. H., Ng, N. L., Chhabra, P., Tong,
C., Surratt, J. D., Knipping, E., Flagan, R. C., and Seinfeld, J. H.:
Secondary aerosol formation from atmospheric reactions of aliphatic amines,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2313–2337, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2313-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-2313-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Myriokefalitakis, S., Vignati, E., Tsigaridis ,K., Papadimas, C., Sciare,
J., Mihalopoulos, N., Facchini, M. C., Rinaldi, M., Dentener, F. J.,
Ceburnis, D., Hatzianastasiou, N., O'Dowd, C. D., van Weele, M., and
Kanakidou, M.: Global modelling of the oceanic source of organic aerosols,
Adv. Meteorol., 2010, 939171, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/939171" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1155/2010/939171</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Nadykto, A. B., Yu, F., Yakovleva, M., Herb, J., and Xu, Y.: Amines in the
Earth's Atmosphere: A DFT Study of the Thermochemistry of Pre-Nucleation
Clusters, Entropy, 13, 554–569, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Nadykto, A. B., Herb, J., Yu, F., and Xu, Y.: Enhancement in the production
of nucleating clusters due to dimethylamine and large uncertainties in the
thermochemistry of amine-enhanced nucleation, Chem. Phys. Lett., 609, 42–49,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2014.03.036" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cplett.2014.03.036</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Nielsen, C. J., Herrmann, H., and Weller, C.: Atmospheric chemistry and
environmental impact of the use of amines in carbon capture and storage
(CCS), Chem. Soc. Rev., 41, 6684–6704, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Qiu, C. and Zhang, R.: Multiphase chemistry of atmospheric amines, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 15, 5738–5752, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Qiu, Q., Wang, L., Lal, V., Khalizov, A. F., and Zhang, R.: Heterogeneous
Chemistry of Alkylamines on Ammonium Sulfate and Ammonium Bisulfate,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 4748–4755, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Schade, G. W. and Crutzen, P. J.: Emission of aliphatic amines from animal
husbandry and their reactions: potential source of N<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O and HCN, J.
Atmos. Chem., 22, 319–346, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Van Neste, A., Duce, R. A., and Lee, C.: Methylamines in the marine atmosphere,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 7, 711–714, 1987.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>VandenBoer, T. C., Petroff, A., Markovic, M. Z., and Murphy, J. G.: Size
distribution of alkyl amines in continental particulate matter and their
online detection in the gas and particle phase, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
4319–4332, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4319-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4319-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
VandenBoer, T. C., Markovic, M. Z., Petroff, A., Czar, M. F., Borduas, N.,
and Murphy, J. G.: Ion chromatographic separation and quantitation of alkyl
methylamines and ethylamines in atmospheric gas and particulate matter using
preconcentration and suppressed conductivity detection, J.
Chromatogr. A, 1252, 74–83, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, L., Khalizov, A. F., Zheng, J., Xu, W., Ma, Y., Lal, V., and Zhang, R.:
Atmospheric nanoparticle formed from heterogeneous reactions of organics,
Nat. Geosci., 3, 238–242, 2010a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, L., Lal, V., Khalizov, A. F., and Zhang, R.: Heterogeneous chemistry of
alkylamines with sulfuric acid: implications for atmospheric formation of
alkylaminium sulfates, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 2461–2465, 2010b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Williams, B. J., Goldstein, A. H., Kreisberg, N. M., Hering, S. V.,
Worsnop, D. R., Ulbrich, I. M., Docherty, K. S., and Jimenez, J. L.: Major
components of atmospheric organic aerosol in southern California as
determined by hourly measurements of source marker compounds, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 10, 11577–11603, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11577-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11577-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Yu, F.: A secondary organic aerosol formation model considering successive
oxidation aging and kinetic condensation of organic compounds: global scale
implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1083–1099,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1083-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1083-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Yu, F. and Luo, G.: Simulation of particle size distribution with a global
aerosol model: contribution of nucleation to aerosol and CCN number
concentrations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 7691–7710,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-7691-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Yu, H., McGraw, R., and Lee S.-H.: Effects of amines on formation of
atmospheric sub-3 nm particles and their subsequent growth, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 39, L02807, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/2011GL050099" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/2011GL050099</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, J., Smith, J. N., Eisele, F. L., Chen, M., Kuang, C., and McMurry, P.
H.: Observation of neutral sulfuric acid-amine containing clusters in
laboratory and ambient measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10823–10836,
2011, <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><ext-link xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/10823/2011/">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/10823/2011/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Zollner, J. H., Glasoe, W. A., Panta, B., Carlson, K. K., McMurry, P. H.,
and Hanson, D. R.: Sulfuric acid nucleation: power dependencies, variation
with relative humidity, and effect of bases, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
4399–4411, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4399-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-4399-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
