<?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 \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
  <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 Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-17-7345-2017</article-id><title-group><article-title>Global-scale combustion sources of organic aerosols:<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> sensitivity to
formation and removal mechanisms</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Global-scale combustion sources of organic aerosols}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~P.~Tsimpidi et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tsimpidi</surname><given-names>Alexandra P.</given-names></name>
          <email>a.tsimpidi@mpic.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Karydis</surname><given-names>Vlassis A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Pandis</surname><given-names>Spyros N.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff4">
          <name><surname>Lelieveld</surname><given-names>Jos</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-3846</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Chemistry, Max Planck Institute for
Chemistry, Mainz, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, Patras,
Greece</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Energy, Environment and Water Research Center, Cyprus Institute,
Nicosia, Cyprus</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Alexandra P. Tsimpidi (a.tsimpidi@mpic.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>20</day><month>June</month><year>2017</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>7345</fpage><lpage>7364</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>5</day><month>January</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>11</day><month>January</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>2</day><month>May</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>3</day><month>May</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Organic compounds from combustion sources such as biomass burning
and fossil fuel use are major contributors to the global atmospheric load of
aerosols. We analyzed the sensitivity of model-predicted global-scale organic
aerosols (OA) to parameters that control primary emissions, photochemical
aging, and the scavenging efficiency of organic vapors. We used a
computationally efficient module for the description of OA composition and
evolution in the atmosphere (ORACLE) of the global chemistry–climate model
EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry).
A global dataset of aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS) measurements was used to
evaluate simulated primary (POA) and secondary (SOA) OA concentrations. Model
results are sensitive to the emission rates of intermediate-volatility
organic compounds (IVOCs) and POA. Assuming enhanced reactivity of
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and IVOCs with OH substantially
improved the model performance for SOA. The use of a hybrid approach for the
parameterization of the aging of IVOCs had a small effect on predicted SOA
levels. The model performance improved by assuming that freshly emitted
organic compounds are relatively hydrophobic and become increasingly
hygroscopic due to oxidation.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Organic aerosol (OA) is an important constituent of the atmosphere,
contributing about 50 % of the total submicron dry aerosol mass (Zhang et
al., 2011) with major impacts on human health and climate (IPCC, 2013;
Lelieveld et al., 2015). OA comprises a large number of compounds with a wide
range in volatility and oxidation states. The material that is in the
particulate phase upon emission is called primary organic aerosol (POA). The
co-emitted organic vapors can undergo one or more chemical transformations,
which can alter their volatility due to functionalization (reducing their
volatility) or fragmentation (increasing their volatility). The oxidation
products with lower volatility can be transferred to the particulate phase,
forming secondary organic aerosol (SOA).</p>
      <p>Several regional-scale modeling studies have accounted for the semi-volatile
nature and chemical aging of organic compounds by using the volatility basis
set (VBS) approach (Donahue et al., 2006), demonstrating
improvements in the accuracy of the predicted concentrations of organic
aerosols and their chemical properties (Robinson et al., 2007;
Shrivastava et al., 2008; Murphy and Pandis, 2009; Hodzic et al., 2010;
Tsimpidi et al., 2010, 2011; Fountoukis et al., 2011, 2014; Li et al., 2011;  Bergstrom et al., 2012; Athanasopoulou et al., 2013; Zhang et
al., 2013). However, only a few global modeling
studies have adopted the VBS approach (Pye and Seinfeld, 2010; Jathar et
al., 2011; Jo et al., 2013; Tsimpidi et al., 2014). According to these
studies, the modeled global tropospheric burden of POA is 0.03–0.23 Tg and
of SOA 1.61–2.77 Tg, with semi-volatile (SVOCs) and intermediate-volatility
(IVOCs) organic compounds contributing 0.71–1.57 Tg to the
total.</p>
      <p>The VBS approach is a flexible framework for simulating OA formation and
removal; however, there are several uncertainties in the parameters used. The
first source of uncertainty is related to the emissions of organic particles
and vapors (Kanakidou et al., 2005). The volatility distribution of the fresh
POA is important in the VBS approach as it determines the initial evaporation of POA.
Part of the IVOC emissions is not included in conventional inventories, even
if it is important for the predicted SOA (Shrivastava et al., 2008; Grieshop
et al., 2009; Tsimpidi et al., 2010). Several studies have assumed a 50 %
addition to the traditional emission inventory (e.g., Shrivastava et al.,
2008; Jathar et al., 2011; Tsimpidi et al., 2014) for IVOC emissions, but
enhancements up to a factor of 6.5 have been used in the literature (e.g.,
Shrivastava et al., 2011). Furthermore, most previous modeling studies
typically assumed the same volatility distributions of all emissions
independent of their source (e.g., Robinson et al., 2007). However, recent
investigations reported significant differences in the volatility
distribution of particles emitted from biomass burning, diesel, and gasoline
vehicle exhausts (May et al., 2013a, b, c).</p>
      <p>The second source of uncertainty is related to the oxidation of the emitted
SVOCs and IVOCs. The parameters used by the VBS approach to simulate this process are
the oxidation rate constant, the volatility distribution of the products, and
the oxygen mass added per generation of oxidation. The VBS volatility
resolution used to represent the SVOC–IVOC volatility range
(3.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" 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> &lt; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 3.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
affects these parameters as well. A coarse volatility resolution requires a
lower effective oxidation rate constant and a more rapid addition of oxygen
and reduction in volatility than a finer volatility resolution. A common
representation for the oxidation of SVOCs and IVOCs, mainly used by regional
models (e.g., Murphy and Pandis, 2009; Tsimpidi et al., 2010, 2011; Fountoukis
et al., 2011, 2014; Bergstrom et al., 2012; Athanasopoulou et al., 2013), is
based on the work of Robinson et al. (2007) and Shrivastava et al. (2008) and
includes nine volatility bins with saturation concentrations ranging from
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" 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 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" 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>, an oxidation rate constant of
4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" 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 id="M18" 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> based on Atkinson
and Arey (2003), a reduction in volatility by 1 order of magnitude after
each reaction, and a 7.5 % net increase in mass to account for the added
oxygen. This formulation is rather conservative compared to other studies
which have assumed a higher reduction in volatility and/or increase in mass.
Shrivastava et al. (2011) assumed a 15 % increase in mass due to the
added oxygen, while Grieshop et al. (2009) and Hodzic et al. (2010) assumed a
40 % increase in mass and a 2 orders of magnitude reduction in volatility
in each reaction step. Pye and Seinfeld (2010) simulated the POA emissions
using two SVOCs (with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equal to 20 and 1646 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" 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>)
and one IVOC (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" 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>) and used an oxidation rate
constant of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" 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 id="M29" 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>, a 2
orders of magnitude reduction in volatility in each reaction, and a 50 %
increase in mass per reaction. Shrivastava et al. (2011) used only two
surrogate species (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equal to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" 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
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, an oxidation rate constant of
0.57 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" 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 id="M39" 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>, a 7 orders of
magnitude reduction in volatility, and a 50 % increase in mass per
reaction. Tsimpidi et al. (2014) used a lower resolution VBS scheme with four
surrogate species (with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" 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>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, an oxidation rate constant of
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" 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 id="M51" 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>, a 2 orders of
magnitude reduction in volatility, and a 15 % increase in mass per
reaction. All of the above schemes should be viewed as parameterizations of
the complex reactions that actually take place; the oxidation products can be
up to 4 orders of magnitude lower in volatility than the precursor (Kroll
and Seinfeld, 2008). To address this limitation, Jathar et al. (2012)
developed a hybrid method to represent the formation of SOA from
non-speciated SVOC and IVOC vapors. According to this framework, the first
generation of oxidation of SVOCs and IVOCs is parameterized by fitting to SOA
data from smog chamber experiments. Subsequently, the generic
multigenerational oxidation scheme of Robinson et al. (2007) was used for
the subsequent generation steps.</p>
      <p>The third source of uncertainty is related to the scavenging efficiency of
gas-phase oxidized SVOCs and IVOCs. The water solubility of these organic
vapors is largely unknown, and in most OA modeling studies a fixed effective
Henry's law constant (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used for all
organic compounds. However, organic vapors become increasingly more
hydrophilic during their atmospheric lifetime. Pye and Seinfeld (2010)
treated the freshly emitted gas-phase SVOCs as relatively hydrophobic
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.5 M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and their oxidation products as moderately
hydrophilic (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Hodzic et al. (2014) argued that
Henry's law constants have a strong negative correlation with the saturation
vapor pressures and depend on the precursor species, the extent of
photochemical processing, and the NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels during the formation.</p>
      <p>In this work we use ORACLE, a computationally efficient module for the
description of OA composition and evolution in the atmosphere (Tsimpidi et
al., 2014), to quantify the impact of the main VBS parameters on the model OA
predictions. Our main focus is the formation of OA from anthropogenic
combustion and open biomass burning sources. We conducted different tests to
study the sensitivity of the model predictions to emissions, photochemical
aging, and scavenging efficiency of LVOCs (low-volatility organic compounds), SVOCs, and IVOCs. The results are
compared to the reference simulation and aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS)
measurements at multiple locations worldwide following Tsimpidi et al.
(2016a). Results from these sensitivity tests help identify the major
uncertainties of the VBS formulations and give rise to suggestions about
potential model improvements.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Schematic of the VBS resolution and the formation of SOA from
SVOCs and IVOCs in the <bold>(a)</bold> reference simulation, <bold>(b)</bold> alternative aging
scheme, and <bold>(c)</bold> hybrid aging scheme. SOA from LVOCs (SOA-lv) is only formed in the
alternative aging scheme <bold>(b)</bold>. Red indicates that the organic compound is in
the vapor phase and blue in the particulate phase. The circles correspond to
primary organics emitted as gases or particles. Diamonds symbolize the
formation of SOA from LVOC emissions by fuel combustion and biomass burning.
Triangles indicate SOA formation from SVOC emissions by fuel combustion and
biomass burning, while the squares show SOA from IVOCs by the same sources.
Gas–aerosol partitioning, aging reactions, and names of species are also
shown.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Reference model description and application</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>EMAC Model</title>
      <p>The ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) model is a numerical chemistry
and climate simulation system that includes sub-models describing lower and
middle atmosphere processes and their interaction with oceans, land, and human
influences (Jöckel et al., 2006). EMAC includes sub-models that describe
gas-phase chemistry (MECCA; Sander et al., 2011), inorganic aerosol
microphysics (GMXe; Pringle et al., 2010), cloud microphysics (CLOUD;
Jöckel et al., 2006), aerosol optical properties (AEROPT; Lauer et al.,
2007), dry deposition and sedimentation (DRYDEP and SEDI; Kerkweg et al.,
2006a), cloud scavenging (SCAV; Tost et al., 2006), emissions (ONLEM and
OFFLEM; Kerkweg et al., 2006b), and organic aerosol formation and growth
(ORACLE; Tsimpidi et al., 2014). The EMAC model has been extensively described
and evaluated against in situ observations and satellite retrievals (Pozzer
et al., 2012; Karydis et al., 2016, 2017; Tsimpidi et al., 2016b). The
spectral resolution used in this study is T63L31, corresponding to a
horizontal grid spacing of 1.875<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.875<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 31
vertical layers extending to 25 km altitude. The thickness of the first
vertical layer is 68 m. The 11-year period between 2000 and 2010 is
simulated, with the 1st year used as spin-up.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Volatility distribution for fuel combustion (black) and biomass
burning OA (red) for the <bold>(a)</bold> reference, <bold>(b)</bold> low-volatility, <bold>(c)</bold> high
IVOCs,
and <bold>(d)</bold> alternative aging scheme simulations. The reference emission factors
are from Robinson et al. (2007) for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA (anthropogenic POA from fossil fuel and biofuel combustion) and May et al. (2013) for
bbPOA (natural POA from open biomass burning)
emissions. The emission rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA and bbPOA are also shown on the right
axis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>ORACLE module</title>
      <p>ORACLE is a computationally efficient sub-model for the description of OA
composition and evolution in the atmosphere (Tsimpidi et al., 2014).
ORACLE simulates a wide variety of semi-volatile organic products, separating
them into bins of logarithmically spaced effective saturation concentrations.
In this study, primary organic emissions from biomass burning and fuel
combustion sources are taken into account using separate surrogate species
for each source category. These surrogates are subdivided into three groups
of organic compounds: LVOCs
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SVOCs
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>* <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and IVOCs
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>* <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These organic
compounds are allowed to partition between the gas and aerosol phases
resulting in the formation of POA. Anthropogenic and biogenic VOCs are
simulated separately, and their oxidation results in products distributed in
four volatility bins with effective saturation concentrations of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" 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>. Gas-phase
photochemical reactions that modify the volatility of the organics are taken
into account, and the oxidation products (SOA-sv, SOA-iv, and SOA-v) of each
group of precursors (SVOCs, IVOCs, and VOCs) are simulated separately in the
module to keep track of their origin. We have assumed that functionalization
and fragmentation processes result in a net average decrease in volatility
for SOA produced by SVOC–IVOC and anthropogenic VOC, without a net average
change of volatility for SOA produced by biogenic VOCs (Murphy et al., 2012).
The volatilities of SVOCs and IVOCs are reduced by a factor of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as a
result of the OH reaction with a rate constant of
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" 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 id="M94" 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> and a 15 %
increase in mass to account for two added oxygen atoms (Tsimpidi et al.,
2014). LVOCs are not allowed to participate in photochemical reactions since
they are already in the lowest volatility bin. In total 52 organic compounds
are simulated explicitly (26 in each of the gas and aerosol phases). The
model setup and the different aerosol types and chemical processes that
were simulated by ORACLE in this study are illustrated in Fig. 1a. More details
about ORACLE can be found in Tsimpidi et al. (2014).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Parameters used in the sensitivity simulations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.83}[.83]?><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <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:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3">Emission </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5">Emission    </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Reduction in</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Stoichiometric</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Oxidation rate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col10" nameend="col11">Henry's law </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3">factor </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5">rate </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">bins</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">coefficient of</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">constant</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col10" nameend="col11">constant </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5">(Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">aging reactions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" 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 id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col10" nameend="col11">(mol L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" 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>atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">bbPOA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">bbPOA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Freshly</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">Aged</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">emitted</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High IVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">70.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">28.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">37.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POA emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High reaction</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rate constant</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.075</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">aging scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hybrid aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">SVOCs : 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">SVOCs : 1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">SVOCs : 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">IVOCs : 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">IVOCs : 1.115–0.71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">IVOCs : 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Emission inventory</title>
      <p>The CMIP5 RCP4.5 emission inventory (Clarke et al., 2007) is used for the
anthropogenic POA emissions from fuel combustion and
biomass burning. The open biomass burning emissions from savanna and forest
fires are based on the Global Fire Emissions Database version 3.1 (GFED v3.1; van der
Werf et al., 2010). In order to convert the emitted organic carbon (OC) to
organic mass (OM), OM/OC factors of 1.3 and 1.6 have been used for the
anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions, respectively (Aiken et al.,
2008; Canagaratna et al., 2015). Furthermore, emission fractions are used to
distribute the OM to the volatility bins used by ORACLE. The sum of the
emission fractions used for the volatility bins with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is
unity, since current emission inventories are based on samples collected at
aerosol concentrations up to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" 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> (Shrivastava et
al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2010). Additional emission fractions can be
assigned to the volatility bins with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> based
on dilution experiments (Robinson et al., 2007).</p>
      <p>In this study we assume that anthropogenic fuel (fossil and biofuel)
combustion emissions cover a range of volatilities from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" 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
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" 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> and the additional IVOC emissions are 1.5
times the traditional POA emissions (Robinson et al., 2007); therefore, the
sum of the emission fractions for the fuel combustion emissions is 2.5
(Fig. 2a). Biomass burning emissions are assumed to cover a range of
volatilities from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" 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 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (May et al., 2013a), and no additional
IVOC emissions are assumed from biomass burning sources. Therefore, the sum
of their emission factors is unity (Fig. 2a). Overall, the decadal average
global emission flux of primary organic emissions is 44 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" 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> from
anthropogenic combustion sources and 28 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" 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> from open biomass
burning sources.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Sensitivity simulations</title>
      <p>All sensitivity calculations are conducted for the same 11-year period as the
reference simulation, the results of which have been analyzed by Tsimpidi et
al. (2016a). Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the
sensitivity simulations. A detailed description is provided below.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Sensitivities to emissions</title>
      <p>The emissions of LVOCs, SVOCs, and IVOCs are a key input for the accurate
description of atmospheric OA. To quantify the sensitivity of the reference
case results to the LVOC, SVOC, and IVOC emissions, three simulation tests
have been designed. Figure 2 summarizes the emission factors used for the
volatility distribution of the emissions, the emission rate of each
volatility bin for the reference simulation, and the sensitivity tests. These are more
specifically described in the following.</p>
      <p>Low volatility: in this sensitivity simulation, we assume zero emissions of
IVOCs to quantify their contribution to the formation of global SOA.
Therefore, the fuel combustion and biomass burning emissions are distributed
only in the LVOC (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SVOC (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> volatility bins, and the sum of their
emission fractions is equal to unity (Fig. 2b). The decadal average global
emission flux of primary organic emissions in this test is 18 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" 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>
from anthropogenic combustion sources and 28 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" 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> from open biomass
burning sources (Table 1).</p>
      <p>High IVOCs: to estimate an upper limit of the IVOC contribution to the
formation of SOA, a sensitivity simulation is conducted in which the
emissions of IVOCs are increased by 1.5 times the original POA emissions.
These emissions are distributed in the volatility bins with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" 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> (Fig. 2c) by applying an
additional emission factor of 0.5 and 1, respectively. The LVOC and SVOC
emissions are the same as in the reference simulation. Overall, the total
anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions are 4 and 2.5 times higher,
respectively, than the original POA emission inventory. The decadal average
global emission flux of primary organic emissions in this sensitivity test is
71 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" 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 both anthropogenic and open biomass burning sources
(Table 1).</p>
      <p>Alternative POA emissions: to investigate the sensitivity of the model
results to the magnitude of the POA emissions, we have utilized the AEROCOM
database for the POA emissions from anthropogenic combustion sources
(Dentener et al., 2006) and the CMIP5 RCP4.5 emission inventory for the POA
emissions from open biomass burning sources. These emission inventories
include 36 % lower POA emissions from anthropogenic combustion sources
and 33 % higher POA emissions from open biomass burning sources on
average over the 2000–2010 decade compared to the reference simulation. The
assumed volatility distributions are the same as in the reference simulation.
The decadal average global emission flux of primary organic emissions in this
case is 29 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" 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> from anthropogenic combustion sources and
38 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" 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> from open biomass burning sources (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Predicted average surface concentrations (in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<bold>(a)</bold> total OA (sum of POA, SOA-sv, SOA-iv, and SOA-v), <bold>(b)</bold> POA and <bold>(c)</bold> SOA
from the oxidation of SVOCs (SOA-sv), and <bold>(d)</bold> SOA from the oxidation of IVOCs
(SOA-iv) for the reference simulation during the 2001–2010 period.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Sensitivity to chemistry</title>
      <p>The photooxidation of SVOCs and IVOCs emitted from fuel combustion and
biomass burning sources can lead to the formation of substantial SOA mass on
a global scale (Jathar et al., 2011; Tsimpidi et al., 2014). To evaluate the
sensitivity of the model to the parameters used to describe the aging
process, we have conducted three sensitivity simulations described below.</p>
      <p>High reaction rate constant: in this simulation we investigate the
sensitivity of the results to the rate constant used for the gas-phase
photooxidation of SVOCs and IVOCs with OH. We assume that the corresponding
oxidation rate constant is twice that of the reference simulation and equal
to 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" 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 id="M190" 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>. All other
parameters remained the same as in the reference simulation (Table 1).</p>
      <p>Alternative aging scheme: to quantify the sensitivity of the results to the
aging scheme, we designed a sensitivity case in which the aging scheme of
Robinson et al. (2007) is used (Fig. 1b). Based on this implementation, we
are using nine volatility bins (compared to five in the reference simulation) to
distribute the primary emissions into LVOCs (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" 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
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SVOCs (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and IVOCs (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This model set up is based on the
formulation proposed by Shrivastava et al. (2008). The volatility
distribution of anthropogenic combustion and open biomass burning emissions
is shown in Fig. 2d. The sum of these emission factors is the same as in the
reference simulation (2.5 for fuel combustion and 1 for biomass burning).
However, the relative importance of SVOCs and IVOCs to total OA emissions is
changed compared to the reference simulation. In the sensitivity simulation
the fraction of SVOCs to the total emissions is 20 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA (anthropogenic OA from fossil fuel and biofuel combustion) and 60 %
for bbOA (natural OA form open biomass burning; Fig. 2d), compared to 32 and 70 %, respectively, in the
reference simulation (Fig. 2a). Furthermore, the saturation concentration of
the organic vapors reacting with OH is reduced by a factor of 10 (instead of
100 in the reference simulation), with a rate constant of
4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" 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> (double the value used in the
reference simulation) and a 7.5 % increase in mass to account for one
added oxygen (half the value used in the reference simulation). The formation
of SOA from LVOCs is possible in this configuration (contrary to the
reference simulation) due to the presence of two species in the LVOC
volatility range
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 3.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
Overall, in this simulation, 46 surrogate OA species are used to
track the source- and volatility-resolved OA components compared to 26
aerosol species in the reference simulation.</p>
      <p>Hybrid aging scheme: the reference and alternative aging scheme simulations
assume that the volatility of the organic vapor precursors is reduced by 2
and 1 orders of magnitude, respectively, after each oxidation step.
However, photooxidation reactions of IVOCs can create products with a
volatility 1 to 4 orders of magnitude lower (Kroll and Seinfeld, 2008).
Furthermore, recent experiments indicate that the reduction in volatility due
to oxidation reactions changes as the organic molecules become more
oxygenated and fragmentation becomes important (Chacon-Madrid et al., 2013).
To investigate the effect of these assumptions on the predicted global SOA
burden, we have modified the OA chemistry mechanism to include a hybrid
method to calculate the SOA formation from the oxidation of IVOCs based on
the approach of Jathar et al. (2012). The SVOC oxidation scheme remains the
same as in the reference simulation. The hybrid aging scheme distributes the IVOC first
generation oxidation products over a range of volatilities, with larger
reductions in volatility compared to the reference simulation. The oxidation
of each IVOC is assumed to result in the formation of two condensable organic
gases with 4 and 6 orders of magnitude lower volatility and aerosol
yields equal to 0.71 and 0.115, respectively (Jathar et al., 2014) (Fig. 1c).
Then, the reference oxidation scheme is used for subsequent oxidation of
these products assuming a factor of 100 reduction in volatility with a 15 %
increase in mass. The photooxidation of SVOCs and IVOCs in the hybrid aging
scheme is described by the following reactions:


                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered reaction"><mml:math id="M216" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SVOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.15</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-sv</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-sv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.15</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-sv</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-sv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>↔</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOA-sv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IVOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.71</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.115</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.15</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOG-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>↔</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOA-iv</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the original volatility bin and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, are the volatility bins
with saturation concentrations reduced by a factor of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.
The term SOG corresponds to secondary organic gas.
This representation is more consistent with SOA formation from
VOCs and provides in principle at least a more realistic representation of
SOA formation from IVOCs.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Sensitivities to scavenging</title>
      <p>The wet and dry removal of the organic vapors from the atmosphere depends on
their ability to partition into water which is commonly expressed by their
Henry's law constant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Two sensitivity simulations where performed to
investigate the effect of this uncertain parameter.</p>
      <p>Low solubility: to test the sensitivity of the results to the solubility of
the SVOC and IVOC vapors, we have conducted a simulation using a Henry's law
constant 2 orders of magnitude lower than the reference simulation and equal to
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" 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 both primary and secondary SVOCs and IVOCs.</p>
      <p>Variable solubility: the photochemical aging of organic vapors results on
average in less volatile and more hydrophilic products (Jimenez et al.,
2009). To quantify the effect of this change on the model results, we have
conducted a sensitivity simulation in which the fresh SVOCs and IVOCs are
hydrophobic with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" 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> and become more hydrophilic after
their photochemical oxidation with an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> M atm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" 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>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Reference simulation results and evaluation</title>
      <p>The predicted decadal average surface concentrations of total OA, POA,
SOA-sv, and SOA-iv for the reference simulation are shown in Fig. 3. High
POA concentrations are predicted over regions affected by biomass burning
(i.e., the tropical and boreal forests) as well as over the industrialized
regions of the Northern Hemisphere where strong fossil and biofuel
combustion sources are located (i.e., eastern and southern Asia, central and
eastern Europe, and the western and eastern US). Further downwind of the sources,
the POA concentration decreases substantially due to dilution and
evaporation (Fig. 3b). On the other hand, the predicted SOA-sv and SOA-iv
concentrations are high over a wide area downwind of the polluted urban
areas and the major rainforests (Fig. 3c, d) due to the transport of
IVOCs and SVOCs and their continued chemical transformations. Since IVOC
emissions from anthropogenic sources are assumed to be 2 times higher than
SVOC emissions (Fig. 1a), the predicted SOA-iv is higher than SOA-sv over
populated areas (Fig. 3c, d). On the other hand, over the tropical
rainforests, SOA-sv and SOA-iv concentrations are similar due to the low
fraction of IVOCs assumed for the open biomass burning OA emissions.
Overall, the reference simulation yields a tropospheric OA burden of 1.98 Tg
consisting of 12 % POA, 18 % SOA-sv, 32 % SOA-iv, and 38 % SOA-v.
More details about the reference case results can be found in Tsimpidi et
al. (2016).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Statistical evaluation of EMAC POA (sum of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA and bbPOA) against
AMS POA (sum of HOA and bbOA) using 61 datasets in urban-downwind and rural
areas during 2001–2010.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">MAGE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">MB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NME</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">NMB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RMSE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">observed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">predicted</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">( %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">( %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.51</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.02</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.46</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.64</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High IVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.51</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POA emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High reaction</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.49</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rate constant</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.42</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hybrid aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">72</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">72</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.51</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Statistical evaluation of EMAC SOA against AMS OOA using 61 datasets in downwind urban and rural areas during 2001–2010.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">MAGE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">MB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NME</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">NMB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RMSE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">observed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">predicted</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.91</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.02</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.69</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.46</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High IVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.47</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.05</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.55</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.12</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.15</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POA emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High reaction</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">-0.62</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">-22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.97</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rate constant</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.49</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.05</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.09</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hybrid aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.46</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.08</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.08</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.68</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.98</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.97</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>A comprehensive AMS dataset from field campaigns performed in the Northern
Hemisphere during 2001–2010 (Tsimpidi et al., 2016) has been used to
evaluate the model performance for each simulation. The mean bias (MB), mean
absolute gross error (MAGE), normalized mean bias (NMB), normalized mean
error (NME), and the root mean square error (RMSE) are used to assess the
model performance for POA (versus AMS hydrocarbon-like aerosol, HOA;
Table 2) and SOA (versus AMS oxygenated organic aerosol, OOA; Table 3).
Tsimpidi et al. (2016) have shown that, as expected, the model underestimates
the concentrations of POA and SOA over urban locations due to its coarse
resolution and missing sources in the emission database (e.g., cold vehicle
start and wood burning emissions in winter). Therefore, urban locations are
excluded from our analysis in order to avoid misinterpretation of the
sensitivity results and their effects on OA model performance. A
comprehensive analysis of the model evaluation based on the reference
scenario results can be found in Tsimpidi et al. (2016) and will be used here
as a reference for analyzing the effect of each sensitivity scenario on the
performance of the model. EMAC reproduces POA levels with very little bias
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 %; Table 2). On the other hand, OOA concentrations are
underpredicted (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %; Table 3), indicating that the model may be
missing an important source or formation pathway of SOA especially in winter
(Tsimpidi et al., 2016) or may be removing the corresponding pollutants
faster. Another possible reason for the underprediction of OOA is the
uncertainty in SOA yields due to wall losses in laboratory chambers. Zhang et
al. (2014) demonstrated that while the particle losses are routinely
accounted for, losses of semi-volatile vapors are not well evaluated and can
lead to substantial underestimations of the SOA formation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Sensitivity to emission factors</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Low volatility</title>
      <p>In the first sensitivity test, the IVOC emissions are set to zero and only
semi-volatile organic compounds are emitted. This is accompanied by an
increase in SVOC emissions from anthropogenic and open biomass burning
sources by 100 and 40 %, respectively. This initial partitioning of the
emissions favors the particulate phase, resulting in an increase in POA
compared to the reference scenario (Fig. 4a). The largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA and bbPOA
increases are predicted over eastern China (4.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" 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>) and
the Congo Basin (3.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" 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>), respectively. The higher SVOC
emissions in the sensitivity simulation result in an increase in the
simulated SOA-sv concentrations as well (Fig. 5a). However, since a large
fraction of the emitted SVOCs remains in the particle phase, the SOA-sv
concentration increase is smaller than the corresponding changes in POA.
Relatively strong <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv and bbSOA-sv increases are found over the
Indo-Gangetic Plane (IGP) (0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" 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>) and the Congo Basin
(1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" 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>), respectively. The “low-volatility” simulation
does not predict any SOA-iv as it assumes zero IVOC emissions. Therefore,
SOA-iv concentrations are zero around the globe, resulting in substantial
decreases in areas where the reference simulation predicts high SOA-iv levels
(Figs. 3d, c and 6a).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Absolute changes (in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the average surface POA
concentrations between the reference and the <bold>(a)</bold> low-volatility, <bold>(b)</bold> high
IVOCs, <bold>(c)</bold> alternative POA emissions, <bold>(d)</bold> high reaction rate constant, <bold>(e)</bold>
alternative aging scheme, <bold>(f)</bold> hybrid aging scheme, <bold>(g)</bold> low-solubility, and
<bold>(h)</bold> variable solubility simulations during the period 2001–2010. A positive
change indicates an increase in the sensitivity test.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Absolute changes (in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the average surface
SOA concentrations from SVOCs (SOA-sv) between the reference and the
<bold>(a)</bold> low-volatility, <bold>(b)</bold> high IVOCs, <bold>(c)</bold>
alternative POA emissions, <bold>(d)</bold> high reaction rate constant,
<bold>(e)</bold> alternative aging scheme, <bold>(f)</bold> hybrid aging scheme,
<bold>(g)</bold> low-solubility, and <bold>(h)</bold> variable solubility simulations
during the period 2001–2010. A positive change indicates an increase in the
sensitivity test.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Absolute changes (in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the average surface
SOA concentrations from IVOCs (SOA-iv) between the reference and the
<bold>(a)</bold> low-volatility, <bold>(b)</bold> high IVOCs, <bold>(c)</bold>
alternative POA emissions, <bold>(d)</bold> high reaction rate constant,
<bold>(e)</bold> alternative aging scheme, <bold>(f)</bold> hybrid aging scheme,
<bold>(g)</bold> low-solubility, and <bold>(h)</bold> variable solubility simulations
during the period 2001–2010. A positive change indicates an increase in the
sensitivity test.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The significant decrease in organic emissions from anthropogenic sources
(Table 1) due to the lack of IVOC emissions results in an overall decrease in
total OA concentrations by up to 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" 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> over
anthropogenically polluted regions (Fig. 7a). On the other hand, organic
emissions from open biomass burning sources remain at the same level as the
reference simulation (Table 1); however, they are assumed to have lower
volatility. This results in an increase in total OA concentrations in the
sensitivity simulation by up to 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" 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> over the tropical
and boreal forests. Overall, the calculated tropospheric burden of POA in the
sensitivity simulation increases by around 50 % due to the increase in
the SVOC emissions (Table 2). For the same reason, the tropospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv
and bbSOA-sv burdens increase by 14 and 39 %, respectively. Nevertheless,
the absence of IVOC emissions, and thus the significant decrease in
anthropogenic organic compound emissions, results in a decrease in the total
OA tropospheric burden by 23 %. This result emphasizes the importance of
the volatility distributions used in the simulation and the contribution of
IVOC emissions to SOA formation on a global scale.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Absolute changes (in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the average surface
total OA concentrations between the reference and the <bold>(a)</bold>
low-volatility, <bold>(b)</bold> high IVOCs, <bold>(c)</bold> alternative POA emissions,
<bold>(d)</bold> high reaction rate constant, <bold>(e)</bold> alternative aging
scheme, <bold>(f)</bold> hybrid aging scheme, <bold>(g)</bold> low-solubility, and
<bold>(h)</bold> variable solubility simulations during the period 2001–2010. A
positive change indicates an increase in the sensitivity test.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Average <bold>(a)</bold> POA and <bold>(b)</bold> SOA concentrations (in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured and predicted in the reference and
sensitivity simulations during winter, spring, summer, and autumn in
urban-downwind and rural areas of the continental Northern Hemisphere.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/7345/2017/acp-17-7345-2017-f08.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The simulated POA in the reference model configuration is very close to the
average HOA concentrations derived from the AMS measurements (Table 3).
Therefore, assuming lower volatility of the organic emissions results in
overprediction (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 43 %). However, the performance of the model is
significantly improved during winter (Fig. 8), since POA concentrations during
that season were underpredicted (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>37 %; Tsimpidi et al.,
2016). On the other hand, during spring the overestimate of POA increases in
the sensitivity simulation (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 86 %) compared to the
reference simulation
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 26 %). For summer and autumn, the performance of the model
changes from a slight underestimation of POA in the reference simulation
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 %) to a slight overprediction in the sensitivity test
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %). The performance of the model in reproducing the OOA
concentrations worsens in this sensitivity simulation (Table 4). OOA was
underpredicted by the model reference simulation (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %);
therefore, neglecting SOA formation from IVOC emissions in the sensitivity
run results in an even larger OOA underestimation (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52 %).
The performance of the model does not change significantly during winter
(Fig. 8) since the simulated SOA formation during this season is low
(Tsimpidi et al., 2016). The highest change in model performance occurs
during spring when SOA is predicted to reach the annual maximum (Tsimpidi et
al., 2016); the predicted underestimation of OOA increases from 20 % in
the reference simulation to 50 % in the sensitivity simulation. These results
indicate that the omission of IVOCs as a source of SOA in atmospheric models
can result in a significant underestimation of OA concentrations, especially
during periods where formation of SOA is strong.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>High IVOCs</title>
      <p>In the second sensitivity simulation, the increased IVOC emissions result in
an increase in total organics by 60 % and 150 % from anthropogenic
and open biomass burning sources, respectively (Table 1). These additional
organic emissions are distributed only in the intermediate-volatility bins;
therefore, their impact on the simulated POA and SOA-sv levels is marginal
(Figs. 4b and 5b, respectively). POA increases up to
0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" 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> over eastern China, while SOA-sv decreases up to
0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" 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> over the Congo Basin. This effect can be explained
by the assumption that SOA-sv and SOA-iv form a pseudo-ideal solution. As a
result, the increased SOA-iv concentrations calculated in the sensitivity
simulation favor the partitioning of the fresh SVOCs into the aerosol phase,
forming additional POA. At the same time, SVOCs decrease in the gas phase and
therefore the formation of SOA-sv is reduced in the sensitivity simulation.
As expected, the largest effect is found for SOA-iv (Fig. 6b). The
significant increase in IVOC emissions results in large changes of SOA-iv
over areas close to anthropogenic sources (up to 5.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" 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>
over the IGP) and biomass burning regions (up to 5.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" 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>
over the Congo Basin). The increase in SOA-iv dominates the effect on total
OA concentrations that increase up to 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" 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> (Fig. 7b).
Overall, the predicted changes of the tropospheric burden of POA and SOA-sv
are small (Table 2). However, the tropospheric burdens of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv and
bbSOA-iv increase by 88 and 115 %, respectively, resulting in an increase
in the total OA burden by 38 %.</p>
      <p>The additional IVOC emissions assumed in this sensitivity test do not affect
the performance of the model for POA. On the other hand, these additional
emissions bring the predicted SOA concentrations closer to the measured OOA
levels (Table 4; Fig. 8). The NMB improves from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 % in the reference
simulation to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %. With the exception of winter, where the model
still underpredicts OOA levels (MB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" 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>, Fig. 8),
the performance of the model for SOA improves, with seasonal NMB ranging from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16 (during summer) to 11 % (during spring), compared to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33 and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % for the reference model, respectively. The improved performance of
the model due to the increase in IVOC emissions supports the hypothesis that
the IVOC emissions may have been underestimated in previous modeling studies
that assumed IVOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> POA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 (Ots et al., 2016).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Alternative POA emissions</title>
      <p>The final emission sensitivity test is used to estimate the uncertainty
introduced by the choice of emission database. The inventories used in the
sensitivity simulation assume 36 % lower fuel combustion OA emissions and
33 % higher biomass burning OA emissions compared to the reference
simulation, while the total OA emissions are only reduced by 9 %. Since
the volatility distribution of the emissions is identical to the reference
simulation, the fractional changes of the calculated POA, SOA-sv, and SOA-iv are
also similar (Table 4). The tropospheric burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA (the sum of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv) decreases by 34 %. On the other hand, bbOA (the sum
of bbPOA, bbSOA-sv, and bbSOA-iv) increases by 11 %. Overall, the total
tropospheric OA burden increases by only 4 %. The changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA and bbOA
concentrations, however, are not spatially uniform. Over Europe, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA
decreases everywhere, up to 3.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" 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>, except in Paris where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA increases by 0.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" 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>. Over the US <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA slightly
increases (mostly over the northeast by up to 0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
while it decreases over Mexico by as much as 1.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" 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>. The
largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA change is predicted over Asia, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA decreases significantly,
up to 8.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" 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>, mostly over East Asia and the IGP. Here,
bbOA
decreases over the boreal forests (up to 3.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while
it increases significantly over the Southeast Asia tropical forests by up to
14 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" 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>. Over the Amazon and Congo forests, bbOA
concentrations change significantly (the bbOA changes vary from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.4 to
3.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" 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> in the Amazon and from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.3 to
7.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" 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> in Congo), but the average bbOA concentration over
both regions remains the same. Overall, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA and bbOA emission changes
lead to total OA increases over the tropical and boreal forests and decreases
over anthropogenic areas (Fig. 7c).</p>
      <p>The lower OA emissions used in the sensitivity simulation (especially over
China and Europe) result in a reduction of both total POA and SOA
concentrations (Tables 2 and 3). Consequently, the model now underestimates
POA with NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25 and SOA with NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40 %. These results
suggest that the use of the CMIP5 RCP4.5 emission inventory in EMAC results
in OA concentrations that agree more closely with the measurements compared to
the AEROCOM database. It also underscores the large uncertainty associated
with primary OA emissions.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Percentage change of the tropospheric burden of OA
components for each sensitivity simulation relative to the reference
simulation during the 2001–2010 decade. Positive change corresponds to an
increase. The predicted tropospheric burden in Tg of the reference
simulation is also shown.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">bbPOA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">bbSOA-sv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">bbSOA-iv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Total OA</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropospheric burden</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.06</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.13</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.44</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.98</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">of reference (Tg)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col8" align="center">Percentage change (%) from reference simulation </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low volatility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>100</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>100</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High IVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">165</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POA emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">High reaction</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rate constant</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alternative aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>65</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>68</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>47</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hybrid aging</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">scheme</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Low solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable solubility</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Sensitivity to aging reactions</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <title>Higher aging reaction rate</title>
      <p>In this sensitivity simulation, the photochemical reaction rate constant for
SVOCs and IVOCs has been doubled compared to the reference simulation. This results in
an increase in SOA-sv and SOA-iv concentrations worldwide (Figs. 5d and 6d).
SOA-sv increases, by up to 0.65 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" 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>, mostly over the tropics
and the polluted regions of eastern China and the IGP (Fig. 5d). The effect
on SOA-iv concentrations is even more significant, since IVOCs undergo more
oxidation steps before forming SOA than SVOCs. SOA-iv increased by up to
2.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" 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> mostly over the IGP and eastern China (Fig. 6d).
The SOA-iv increase over the tropics is smaller (up to
0.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the assumed low fraction of IVOCs in
biomass burning emissions. Overall, the tropospheric burdens of SOA-sv and
SOA-iv both increase by 0.04 Tg (or 11 and 7 %, respectively). POA is not
expected to be affected directly by the change of the reaction rate constant.
However, the substantial reduction of gas-phase SVOCs (due to their increased
reactivity) results in the re-evaporation of POA to achieve equilibrium,
reducing its concentration (Fig. 4d) mainly over the tropics (up to
0.21 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This results in an overall decrease in the
tropospheric POA burden by 8 %. Following the significant increase in
both SOA-sv and SOA-iv, total OA increases worldwide by up to
3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" 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> (Fig. 7d). Overall, the tropospheric burden of total
OA increases by 4 %.</p>
      <p>The model performance for POA is not affected by the change of the reaction
rate constant (Table 2), since POA remains largely unchanged over the Northern
Hemisphere (Fig. 4d). On the other hand, the performance of the model
regarding SOA is significantly improved (Table 3). The underestimation of SOA
by the model is reduced (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22 %) compared to the
reference simulation
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %). The best performance is found during spring
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 %) when the calculated SOA is almost unbiased. However,
during winter, the model still severely underestimates SOA
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>77 %), which indicates that the gas-phase oxidation of
SVOCs and IVOCs does not suffice to explain the underprediction of SOA in
winter.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <title>Alternative aging scheme</title>
      <p>In this sensitivity simulation we used the chemical aging scheme of Robinson
et al. (2007), which is currently the most commonly used in VBS models. This
aging scheme is accompanied by changes in the number of volatility bins used
and the assigned emission factors, the oxidation rate constant, the
volatility reductions after each oxidation step, and the increase in mass due
to added oxygen (as discussed in Sect. 3.2). The changes in the number of
volatility bins and the emission factors used for the SVOCs (Fig. 2d) result
in reduced condensation of SVOCs into the particulate phase during the
initial partitioning and therefore in a significant decrease in POA
(Fig. 4e). The decrease in POA is global and most prominent over eastern
China (up to 9.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This reflects a significant change
in the tropospheric burdens of both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA and bbPOA by 65 and 38 %,
respectively.</p>
      <p>Furthermore, the reduced fraction of SVOCs to total OA emissions (see
Sect. 3.2) results in a worldwide decrease in SOA-sv (Fig. 5e) and an
increase in SOA-iv (Fig. 6e). SOA-sv decreases up to
1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" 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> over the Congo Basin and the IGP. Similar to POA,
the tropospheric burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv and bbSOA-sv decreases by 68 and 47 %,
respectively. On the other hand, the increase in SOA-iv, due to the increase
in the IVOC fraction of the emissions, is not as strong as the decrease in
SOA-sv (Table 4). This is due to the slower aging in the sensitivity
simulation (Fig. 1b), compared to the reference simulation (Fig. 1a), which limits the
formation of SOA from IVOCs. SOA-iv increases up to
0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" 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> over the Congo Basin and the IGP, while it locally
decreases by 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" 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> over Beijing, for example. The
tropospheric burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv and bbSOA-iv increases by 14 and 30 %,
respectively. Overall, the sum of SOA-sv and SOA-iv decreases by 7 % due
to the slower aging in this sensitivity simulation. Following the
simultaneous decrease in both POA and SOA, total OA decreases worldwide by up
to 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" 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> (Fig. 7e), and its tropospheric burden is reduced
by 0.2 Tg (or 10 %).</p>
      <p>The reduction of both modeled POA and SOA results in reduced agreement of
the model with AMS measurements. For POA, especially, the modeled
concentrations decrease by 67 % in the sensitivity simulation, resulting
in a significant underprediction of AMS–HOA (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>67 %). Modeled
SOA also decreases (by 10 %) in the sensitivity simulation, which
degrades the model agreement with AMS–OOA measurements
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>38 %). This sensitivity test underscores the significance
of the volatility distribution of the organic emissions and the associated
aging scheme.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS3">
  <title>Hybrid aging scheme</title>
      <p>The final chemistry sensitivity simulation focuses on the photochemical aging
of IVOCs and assumptions regarding the first oxidation step. The approach
used here is similar to the oxidation of the traditional VOCs, in contrast
with the reference simulation where the oxidation of IVOCs produces only one product
with a 2 orders of magnitude reduced volatility. However, the stoichiometric
coefficient used in the reference simulation (equal to 1.15) is higher than the aerosol
yields used in the sensitivity simulation (Sect. 3.2). This results in a
reduction of SOA-iv concentrations by up to 2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" 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>
(Fig. 6f). Since the chemical scheme for SVOCs is identical in both the
reference and the sensitivity simulations, no significant change is found in
either SOA-sv or POA (Figs. 5f and 4f, respectively). The decrease in SOA-iv
concentrations has a marginal effect on the initial partitioning of SVOC
emissions, resulting in slightly less POA and more SOA-sv (by up to
0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" 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> in either case). Therefore, total OA
concentrations are reduced worldwide following the decrease in SOA-iv.
Overall, the tropospheric burden of SOA-iv decreases by 37 % in the
sensitivity simulation, resulting in a decrease in total OA by 13 %
(Table 4).</p>
      <p>The simulated POA concentrations remain almost unchanged in the sensitivity
simulation; therefore, similar to the reference simulation, the calculated POA is
unbiased compared to measurements (Table 2). On the other hand, the lower
SOA-iv concentrations calculated by the model in this sensitivity test
aggravate the underestimation of OOA by the model (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>39 %).
The decrease in modeled SOA-iv concentrations is larger during spring
(13 %), and the calculated NMB for SOA deteriorates from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % in
the reference simulation to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % in the sensitivity simulation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <title>Sensitivity to wet and dry removal of organic vapors</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS1">
  <title>Reduced Henry's law constant</title>
      <p>In this sensitivity test we used a Henry's law constant that is 2 orders of
magnitude lower than in the reference simulation (see Sect. 3.3) for the
gas-phase SVOCs and IVOCs. This change decreases their removal rate, thus
increasing their lifetime and the concentrations of both POA (due to the
condensation of the fresh SVOCs) and SOA (due to the condensation of the
chemically aged SVOCs and IVOCs). POA increases up to
0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" 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> over eastern China (Fig. 4g) where POA
concentrations are relatively high (Fig. 3b); however, the increase in POA in
the rest of the world is less than 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" 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> (Fig. 4g).
SOA-sv increases up to 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" 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> mostly over the Congo Basin
and the IGP (Fig. 5g). The most significant change is calculated for SOA-iv.
SOA-iv is formed from gases (i.e., IVOCs) that need to go through more than
two oxidation steps to be able to condense to the aerosol phase (in
comparison to only one oxidation step for SVOCs). Therefore, by lowering the
Henry's law constant of IVOCs we prolong the lifetime of SOA-iv precursors
and their ability to undergo multiple oxidation steps and produce aerosols.
This results in a significant increase in SOA-iv by up to
1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" 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> (Fig. 6g). Total OA increases by up to
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" 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> due to the simultaneous increase in both POA and SOA
(Fig. 7g). Overall, the tropospheric burden of SOA-iv increases by 17 %
and that of total OA by 8 %. It is also worth noting that the tropospheric
burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>OA (sum of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>POA, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-sv, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv) increases by 18 %
compared to an increase of 5 % of the bbOA (sum of bbPOA, bbSOA-sv, and
bbSOA-iv). The above results emphasize the significance of the removal of
organic vapors for the calculated OA concentrations and corroborate the
importance of constraining the Henry' law constants of SVOCs and more
importantly of IVOCs.</p>
      <p>The change in the Henry's law constant of SVOCs does not affect the model
performance for POA significantly. POA slightly increases (by 4 %),
eliminating the already low model bias (Table 2). The SOA increase (by
12 %) in the sensitivity simulation (mainly due to the increased SOA-iv)
results in reduced SOA underestimation (Table 2). In both POA and SOA cases
the effect is more important during winter, when wet removal is most
efficient, and lower during summer. POA increases during winter by 10 %
while during summer it remains unchanged. SOA increases during winter by
26 % and during summer by only 3 %, with spring and autumn in between
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12 %). Despite the wintertime POA and SOA increase in this
sensitivity simulation, the model still underestimates POA
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %) and SOA (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>78 %) during this season
(Fig. 8).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS2">
  <title>Different Henry's law constant for POA and SOA</title>
      <p>In the last sensitivity test we assume that the freshly emitted SVOCs and
IVOCs are hydrophobic (with the Henry's law constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> being 4 orders of
magnitude lower than the reference), while after photochemical aging <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
increases to match the value used in the reference simulation (see Sect. 3.3). POA
increases up to 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" 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>, mostly over eastern China and to
a lesser degree over eastern Europe and Russia (Fig. 4h). SOA-sv increases up
to 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" 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>, mostly over the tropical forests of Central
Africa and southeastern Asia as well as over eastern China and the IGP
(Fig. 5h). SOA-iv also increases by up to
1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(Fig. 6h) because fresh IVOCs are more
hydrophobic in the sensitivity simulation; therefore, the time available to
react with OH is extended, forming additional SOA-iv. Total OA concentrations
increase by up to 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" 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> over eastern China (Fig. 7h). The
tropospheric burden of total OA increases by 8 % in this sensitivity test
with the strongest increase coming from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SOA-iv (21 %).</p>
      <p>Both the predicted POA and SOA increase in the sensitivity simulation by 6
and 12 %, respectively. This results in a small overprediction of POA
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 %), compared to a small underprediction in the
reference simulation
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 %). For SOA, NMB improves in the sensitivity simulation
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23 %) compared to the reference simulation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %). Similar to the
previous sensitivity test (Sect. 7.1), the effect is more relevant during
winter (POA and SOA increase by 9 and 36 %, respectively), followed by
spring (POA and SOA increase by 8 and 16 %, respectively) and autumn (POA
and SOA increase by 7 and 10 %, respectively), and is small during summer
(POA and SOA increase by 2 and 5 %, respectively; Figs. 8). This results
in an improved model performance for both POA and SOA during all seasons. The
highest improvement is found for SOA during spring when the NMB is reduced to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % in the reference simulation. Despite the significant
increase in SOA concentrations during winter (by 36 %), the model still
strongly underestimates SOA (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>76 %), indicating that the
model underprediction of OOA cannot be attributed solely to errors in the
simulation of removal processes. Therefore, we expect that the discrepancy in
this season is related to sources that are missing or underestimated in
emission inventories (e.g., residential wood combustion in winter, Denier van
der Gon et al., 2015), to additional oxidation pathways (e.g., aqueous-phase
and heterogeneous oxidation reactions), and to uncertainties in SOA yields
due to wall losses in laboratory chambers.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p>We investigated the effect of parameters and assumptions that control the
emissions, photochemical aging, and scavenging efficiency of LVOCs, SVOCs,
and IVOCs on the simulated OA concentrations. We used the organic aerosol
module ORACLE, based on the VBS framework, in the EMAC global
chemistry–climate model. A global dataset of AMS measurements has been used
to evaluate the predicted POA and SOA concentrations, based on a number of
sensitivity tests.</p>
      <p>The results show that total OA concentrations are sensitive to the emissions
of IVOCs. By neglecting these emissions, the model produces unrealistically
low SOA concentrations, resulting in the poorest model performance
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52 %) compared to the other eight simulations conducted
(Table 3). Conversely, increasing the IVOC emissions substantially improved
the SOA model results, leading to the best model performance
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %). These results emphasize the need to accurately
estimate the IVOC emissions independently. The use of a more accurate POA
emission inventory is found to be of prime importance for the model
performance, especially to improve simulated POA concentrations in winter. In
our tests, using an alternative POA emission inventory led to an NMB of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25 % compared to a low bias in the performance of the reference model.</p>
      <p>Sensitivity tests of the photochemical aging of SVOCs and IVOCs indicate the
importance of the OH-reaction rate. Assuming an increased reactivity of SVOCs
and IVOCs with OH improves the model results for SOA (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22 %).
This is even more important for the IVOCs, which participate in a larger
number of photochemical reactions during atmospheric transport compared to
the SVOCs. Another assumption tested is that oxidation reactions of IVOCs are
similar to many other VOCs and produce partly oxidized compounds with
several orders of magnitude lower volatilities. Despite the strong volatility
reduction of the IVOC oxidation products, the performance of the model was
similar to the reference simulation, since the IVOC aerosol yields were lower
compared to the stoichiometric coefficient used in the reference simulation. The use of
an alternative aging scheme (based on Robinson et al., 2007) resulted in
lower SOA concentrations, since the photochemical aging of SVOCs and IVOCs was
less effective. This led to a slight reduction in model performance for SOA
(Table 3). In this sensitivity test the fraction of SVOCs to total OA
emissions was lower compared to the reference simulation, resulting in a significant
reduction of POA and reduced model performance (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>67 %).
This underscores the significance of the assumed volatility distribution of
OA emissions.</p>
      <p>The calculated OA concentrations are highly sensitive to the scavenging
efficiency of the gas-phase SVOCs and IVOCs, expressed by the Henry's law
constant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Reducing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> resulted in an increase in both POA and SOA
concentrations, especially from the oxidation of IVOCs. This increase yielded
improved model performance, particularly for SOA (Table 3). Assuming
different hygroscopicity for the freshly emitted and the photochemically
processed SVOCs and IVOCs resulted in a similar improvement of the model
results (Tables 2 and 3). In this sensitivity test, the simulated POA
improved substantially during winter (NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>29 %), during which the
model has difficulties reproducing AMS observations (Tsimpidi et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, SOA was still underpredicted during winter
(NMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>76 %), indicating that other processes (e.g., seasonally
dependent residential wood combustion emissions, aqueous-phase oxidation
paths, uncertainties in SOA yields due to wall losses in chambers) are a main
cause of the inadequate performance.</p>
      <p>Our results indicate that IVOCs can be major contributors to OA formation on
a global scale. However, their abundance and physicochemical properties are
poorly known, and more research is needed to determine the parameters that
control their emissions, chemistry, and atmospheric removal. According to
the model results, a combination of increased IVOC emissions, enhanced
photochemical aging of IVOCs, and decreased hygroscopicity of the freshly
emitted IVOCs can help reduce discrepancies between simulated SOA and
observed OOA concentrations.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p>The data in the study are available from the authors upon request (a.tsimpidi@mpic.de).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>A. P. Tsimpidi acknowledges support from a DFG individual grand programme
(project reference TS 335/2-1), and V. A. Karydis acknowledges support from
an
FP7 Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (project reference 618349).
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
The
article processing charges for this open-access <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> publication
were covered by the Max Planck Society. <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: M. C. Facchini<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Aiken, A. C., Decarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Baltensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> C and
OM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OC ratios of primary, secondary, and ambient organic aerosols with
high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry, Environmen. Sci.
Tech., 42, 4478–4485, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Athanasopoulou, E., Vogel, H., Vogel, B., Tsimpidi, A. P., Pandis, S. N.,
Knote, C., and Fountoukis, C.: Modeling the meteorological and chemical
effects of secondary organic aerosols during an EUCAARI campaign, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 13, 625–645, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-625-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-625-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Atkinson, R. and Arey, J.: Atmospheric degradation of volatile organic
compounds, Chem. Rev., 103, 4605–4638, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bergstrom, R., van der Gon, H. A. C. D., Prevot, A. S. H., Yttri, K. E., and
Simpson, D.: Modelling of organic aerosols over Europe (2002–2007) using a
volatility basis set (VBS) framework: application of different assumptions
regarding the formation of secondary organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
8499–8527, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Ruiz, L. H., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K. R.,
Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: Elemental
ratio measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass spectrometry:
characterization, improved calibration, and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
15, 253–272, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chacon-Madrid, H. J., Henry, K. M., and Donahue, N. M.: Photo-oxidation of
pinonaldehyde at low NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: from chemistry to organic aerosol formation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3227–3236, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3227-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-3227-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J., and Richels,
R.: Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations
(Part A) and review of integrated scenario development and application (Part
B), A report by the U.S. climate change science program and the subcommittee
on global change research, Department of Energy, Office of Biological &amp;
Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Robinson, A. L., Stanier, C. O., and Pandis, S. N.: Coupled
partitioning, dilution, and chemical aging of semivolatile organics, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 40, 2635–2643, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Fountoukis, C., Racherla, P. N., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Polymeneas,
P., Charalampidis, P. E., Pilinis, C., Wiedensohler, A., Dall'Osto, M.,
O'Dowd, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of a three-dimensional chemical
transport model (PMCAMx) in the European domain during the EUCAARI May 2008
campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10331–10347,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10331-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10331-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E.,
Pilinis, C., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Canonaco, F., Mohr,
C., Prévôt, A. S. H., Allan, J. D., Poulain, L., Petäjä, T.,
Tiitta, P., Carbone, S., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Nemitz, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Swietlicki, E., and Pandis, S. N.: Organic aerosol concentration and
composition over Europe: insights from comparison of regional model
predictions with aerosol mass spectrometer factor analysis, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 9061–9076, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Grieshop, A. P., Logue, J. M., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.:
Laboratory investigation of photochemical oxidation of organic aerosol from
wood fires 1: measurement and simulation of organic aerosol evolution, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 9, 1263–1277, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Hodzic, A., Jimenez, J. L., Madronich, S., Canagaratna, M. R., DeCarlo, P.
F., Kleinman, L., and Fast, J.: Modeling organic aerosols in a megacity:
potential contribution of semi-volatile and intermediate volatility primary
organic compounds to secondary organic aerosol formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
10, 5491–5514, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5491-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5491-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Hodzic, A., Aumont, B., Knote, C., Lee-Taylor, J., Madronich, S., and
Tyndall, G.: Volatility dependence of Henry's law constants of condensable
organics: Application to estimate depositional loss of secondary organic
aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4795–4804, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Jathar, S. H., Farina, S. C., Robinson, A. L., and Adams, P. J.: The
influence of semi-volatile and reactive primary emissions on the abundance
and properties of global organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7727–7746,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Jathar, S. H., Miracolo, M. A., Presto, A. A., Donahue, N. M., Adams, P. J.,
and Robinson, A. L.: Modeling the formation and properties of traditional and
non-traditional secondary organic aerosol: problem formulation and
application to aircraft exhaust, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9025–9040,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9025-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-9025-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Jathar, S. H., Gordon, T. D., Hennigan, C. J., Pye, H. O. T., Pouliot, G.,
Adams, P. J., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Unspeciated organic
emissions from combustion sources and their influence on the secondary
organic aerosol budget in the United States, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
10473–10478, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken, A.
C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A. M.,
Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E., Baltensperger,
U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
Science, 326, 1525–1529, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Jo, D. S., Park, R. J., Kim, M. J., and Spracklen, D. V.: Effects of chemical
aging on global secondary organic aerosol using the volatility basis set
approach, Atmos. Environ., 81, 230–244, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Jöckel, P., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Bruehl, C., Buchholz, J., Ganzeveld,
L., Hoor, P., Kerkweg, A., Lawrence, M. G., Sander, R., Steil, B., Stiller,
G., Tanarhte, M., Taraborrelli, D., Van Aardenne, J., and Lelieveld, J.: The
atmospheric chemistry general circulation model ECHAM5/MESSy1: consistent
simulation of ozone from the surface to the mesosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
6, 5067–5104, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5067-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5067-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J. H., Pandis, S. N., Barnes, I., Dentener, F. J.,
Facchini, M. C., Van Dingenen, R., Ervens, B., Nenes, A., Nielsen, C. J.,
Swietlicki, E., Putaud, J. P., Balkanski, Y., Fuzzi, S., Horth, J., Moortgat,
G. K., Winterhalter, R., Myhre, C. E. L., Tsigaridis, K., Vignati, E.,
Stephanou, E. G., and Wilson, J.: Organic aerosol and global climate
modelling: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1053–1123,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Karydis, V. A., Tsimpidi, A. P., Pozzer, A., Astitha, M., and Lelieveld, J.:
Effects of mineral dust on global atmospheric nitrate concentrations, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 16, 1491–1509, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1491-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-1491-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Karydis, V. A., Tsimpidi, A. P., Bacer, S., Pozzer, A., Nenes, A., and
Lelieveld, J.: Global impact of mineral dust on cloud droplet number
concentration, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5601–5621,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5601-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-5601-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Kerkweg, A., Buchholz, J., Ganzeveld, L., Pozzer, A., Tost, H., and
Jöckel, P.: Technical Note: An implementation of the dry removal
processes DRY DEPosition and SEDImentation in the Modular Earth Submodel
System (MESSy), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4617–4632,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4617-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-4617-2006</ext-link>, 2006a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Kerkweg, A., Sander, R., Tost, H., and Jöckel, P.: Technical note:
Implementation of prescribed (OFFLEM), calculated (ONLEM), and
pseudo-emissions (TNUDGE) of chemical species in the Modular Earth Submodel
System (MESSy), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3603–3609,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3603-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-3603-2006</ext-link>, 2006b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kroll, J. H. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Chemistry of secondary organic aerosol:
Formation and evolution of low-volatility organics in the atmosphere, Atmos.
Environ., 42, 3593–3624, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Joeckel, P., and Lohmann, U.: Global
model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and
the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5061–5079,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Li, G., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N.,
Canagaratna, M. R., and Molina, L. T.: Simulations of organic aerosol
concentrations in Mexico City using the WRF-CHEM model during the
MCMA-2006/MILAGRO campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3789–3809,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3789-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-3789-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Levin, E. J. T., Hennigan, C. J., Riipinen, I., Lee, T., Collett,
J. L., Jimenez, J. L., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle
partitioning of primary organic aerosol emissions: 3. Biomass burning, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11327–11338, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Presto, A. A., Hennigan, C. J., Nguyen, N. T., Gordon, T. D., and
Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle partitioning of primary organic aerosol
emissions: (1) Gasoline vehicle exhaust, Atmospheric Environment, 77,
128–139, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Presto, A. A., Hennigan, C. J., Nguyen, N. T., Gordon, T. D., and
Robinson, A. L.: Gas-Particle Partitioning of Primary Organic Aerosol
Emissions: (2) Diesel Vehicles, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 8288–8296,
2013c.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, B. N. and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the formation of semivolatile
primary and secondary organic aerosol in a regional chemical transport model,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4722–4728, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, B. N., Donahue, N. M., Fountoukis, C., Dall'Osto, M., O'Dowd, C.,
Kiendler-Scharr, A., and Pandis, S. N.: Functionalization and fragmentation
during ambient organic aerosol aging: application of the 2-D volatility basis
set to field studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10797–10816,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10797-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-10797-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Ots, R., Young, D. E., Vieno, M., Xu, L., Dunmore, R. E., Allan, J. D., Coe,
H., Williams, L. R., Herndon, S. C., Ng, N. L., Hamilton, J. F.,
Bergström, R., Di Marco, C., Nemitz, E., Mackenzie, I. A., Kuenen, J. J.
P., Green, D. C., Reis, S., and Heal, M. R.: Simulating secondary organic
aerosol from missing diesel-related intermediate-volatility organic compound
emissions during the Clean Air for London (ClearfLo) campaign, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 6453–6473, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-6453-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-6453-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Pozzer, A., de Meij, A., Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Doering, U. M., van
Aardenne, J., and Lelieveld, J.: Distributions and regional budgets of
aerosols and their precursors simulated with the EMAC chemistry-climate
model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 961–987, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-961-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-961-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Message, S., Steil, B., Giannadaki, D., Nenes, A.,
Fountoukis, C., Stier, P., Vignati, E., and Lelieveld, J.: Description and
evaluation of GMXe: a new aerosol submodel for global simulations (v1),
Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 391–412, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-391-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-391-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Pye, H. O. T. and Seinfeld, J. H.: A global perspective on aerosol from
low-volatility organic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4377–4401,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4377-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-4377-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, A. L., Donahue, N. M., Shrivastava, M. K., Weitkamp, E. A., Sage,
A. M., Grieshop, A. P., Lane, T. E., Pierce, J. R., and Pandis, S. N.:
Rethinking organic aerosols: Semivolatile emissions and photochemical aging,
Science, 315, 1259–1262, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, A. L., Grieshop, A. P., Donahue, N. M., and Hunt, S. W.: Updating
the conceptual model for fine particle mass emissions from combustion
systems, J. Air Waste Manage., 60, 1204–1222, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Sander, R., Baumgaertner, A., Gromov, S., Harder, H., Jöckel, P.,
Kerkweg, A., Kubistin, D., Regelin, E., Riede, H., Sandu, A., Taraborrelli,
D., Tost, H., and Xie, Z.-Q.: The atmospheric chemistry box model
CAABA/MECCA-3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 373–380, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-373-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-4-373-2011</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Shrivastava, M., Fast, J., Easter, R., Gustafson Jr., W. I., Zaveri, R. A.,
Jimenez, J. L., Saide, P., and Hodzic, A.: Modeling organic aerosols in a
megacity: comparison of simple and complex representations of the volatility
basis set approach, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6639–6662,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6639-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-6639-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Shrivastava, M. K., Lane, T. E., Donahue, N. M., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson,
A. L.: Effects of gas particle partitioning and aging of primary emissions on
urban and regional organic aerosol concentrations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
113, D18301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009735" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009735</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Tost, H., Jöckel, P., Kerkweg, A., Sander, R., and Lelieveld, J.:
Technical note: A new comprehensive SCAVenging submodel for global
atmospheric chemistry modelling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 565–574,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-565-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-565-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Molina, L., Ulbrich, I.
M., Jimenez, J. L., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of the volatility basis-set
approach for the simulation of organic aerosol formation in the Mexico City
metropolitan area, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 525–546,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-525-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-525-2010</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Bei, N., Molina, L.,
and Pandis, S. N.: Sources and production of organic aerosol in Mexico City:
insights from the combination of a chemical transport model (PMCAMx-2008) and
measurements during MILAGRO, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5153–5168,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5153-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-5153-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pozzer, A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld,
J.: ORACLE (v1.0): module to simulate the organic aerosol composition and
evolution in the atmosphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 3153–3172,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</ext-link>, 2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</ext-link>, 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Mu, M.,
Kasibhatla, P. S., Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Jin, Y., and van Leeuwen,
T. T.: Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna,
forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
11707–11735, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q., Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Ulbrich, I. M., Ng, N. L.,
Worsnop, D. R., and Sun, Y. L.: Understanding atmospheric organic aerosols
via factor analysis of aerosol mass spectrometry: a review, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem., 401, 3045–3067, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Q. J., Beekmann, M., Drewnick, F., Freutel, F., Schneider, J., Crippa,
M., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Poulain, L., Wiedensohler, A.,
Sciare, J., Gros, V., Borbon, A., Colomb, A., Michoud, V., Doussin, J. F.,
van der Gon, H. A. C. D., Haeffelin, M., Dupont, J. C., Siour, G., Petetin,
H., Bessagnet, B., Pandis, S. N., Hodzic, A., Sanchez, O., Honore, C., and
Perrussel, O.: Formation of organic aerosol in the Paris region during the
MEGAPOLI summer campaign: evaluation of the volatility-basis-set approach
within the CHIMERE model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 5767–5790,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X., Cappa, C. D., Jathar, S. H., McVay, R. C., Ensberg, J. J.,
Kleeman, M. J., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Influence of vapor wall loss in
laboratory chambers on yields of secondary organic aerosol, P. Natl. Acad.
USA, 111, 5802–5807, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

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

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Global-scale combustion sources of organic aerosols: sensitivity to formation and removal mechanisms</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Organic compounds from combustion sources such as biomass burning
and fossil fuel use are major contributors to the global atmospheric load of
aerosols. We analyzed the sensitivity of model-predicted global-scale organic
aerosols (OA) to parameters that control primary emissions, photochemical
aging, and the scavenging efficiency of organic vapors. We used a
computationally efficient module for the description of OA composition and
evolution in the atmosphere (ORACLE) of the global chemistry–climate model
EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry).
A global dataset of aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS) measurements was used to
evaluate simulated primary (POA) and secondary (SOA) OA concentrations. Model
results are sensitive to the emission rates of intermediate-volatility
organic compounds (IVOCs) and POA. Assuming enhanced reactivity of
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and IVOCs with OH substantially
improved the model performance for SOA. The use of a hybrid approach for the
parameterization of the aging of IVOCs had a small effect on predicted SOA
levels. The model performance improved by assuming that freshly emitted
organic compounds are relatively hydrophobic and become increasingly
hygroscopic due to oxidation.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aiken, A. C., Decarlo, P. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., Huffman, J. A.,
Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Mohr, C., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Sun,
Y., Zhang, Q., Trimborn, A., Northway, M., Ziemann, P. J., Canagaratna, M.
R., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Prevot, A. S. H., Dommen, J., Duplissy,
J., Metzger, A., Baltensperger, U., and Jimenez, J. L.: O ∕ C and
OM ∕ OC ratios of primary, secondary, and ambient organic aerosols with
high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry, Environmen. Sci.
Tech., 42, 4478–4485, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Athanasopoulou, E., Vogel, H., Vogel, B., Tsimpidi, A. P., Pandis, S. N.,
Knote, C., and Fountoukis, C.: Modeling the meteorological and chemical
effects of secondary organic aerosols during an EUCAARI campaign, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 13, 625–645, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-625-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-625-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Atkinson, R. and Arey, J.: Atmospheric degradation of volatile organic
compounds, Chem. Rev., 103, 4605–4638, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bergstrom, R., van der Gon, H. A. C. D., Prevot, A. S. H., Yttri, K. E., and
Simpson, D.: Modelling of organic aerosols over Europe (2002–2007) using a
volatility basis set (VBS) framework: application of different assumptions
regarding the formation of secondary organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
8499–8527, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Canagaratna, M. R., Jimenez, J. L., Kroll, J. H., Chen, Q., Kessler, S. H.,
Massoli, P., Ruiz, L. H., Fortner, E., Williams, L. R., Wilson, K. R.,
Surratt, J. D., Donahue, N. M., Jayne, J. T., and Worsnop, D. R.: Elemental
ratio measurements of organic compounds using aerosol mass spectrometry:
characterization, improved calibration, and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
15, 253–272, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-253-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-253-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Chacon-Madrid, H. J., Henry, K. M., and Donahue, N. M.: Photo-oxidation of
pinonaldehyde at low NO<sub><i>x</i></sub>: from chemistry to organic aerosol formation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3227–3236, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3227-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-3227-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J., and Richels,
R.: Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations
(Part A) and review of integrated scenario development and application (Part
B), A report by the U.S. climate change science program and the subcommittee
on global change research, Department of Energy, Office of Biological &amp;
Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Robinson, A. L., Stanier, C. O., and Pandis, S. N.: Coupled
partitioning, dilution, and chemical aging of semivolatile organics, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 40, 2635–2643, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Fountoukis, C., Racherla, P. N., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Polymeneas,
P., Charalampidis, P. E., Pilinis, C., Wiedensohler, A., Dall'Osto, M.,
O'Dowd, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of a three-dimensional chemical
transport model (PMCAMx) in the European domain during the EUCAARI May 2008
campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10331–10347,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10331-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-10331-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E.,
Pilinis, C., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Canonaco, F., Mohr,
C., Prévôt, A. S. H., Allan, J. D., Poulain, L., Petäjä, T.,
Tiitta, P., Carbone, S., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Nemitz, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Swietlicki, E., and Pandis, S. N.: Organic aerosol concentration and
composition over Europe: insights from comparison of regional model
predictions with aerosol mass spectrometer factor analysis, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 9061–9076, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Grieshop, A. P., Logue, J. M., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.:
Laboratory investigation of photochemical oxidation of organic aerosol from
wood fires 1: measurement and simulation of organic aerosol evolution, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 9, 1263–1277, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Hodzic, A., Jimenez, J. L., Madronich, S., Canagaratna, M. R., DeCarlo, P.
F., Kleinman, L., and Fast, J.: Modeling organic aerosols in a megacity:
potential contribution of semi-volatile and intermediate volatility primary
organic compounds to secondary organic aerosol formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
10, 5491–5514, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5491-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-5491-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Hodzic, A., Aumont, B., Knote, C., Lee-Taylor, J., Madronich, S., and
Tyndall, G.: Volatility dependence of Henry's law constants of condensable
organics: Application to estimate depositional loss of secondary organic
aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4795–4804, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Jathar, S. H., Farina, S. C., Robinson, A. L., and Adams, P. J.: The
influence of semi-volatile and reactive primary emissions on the abundance
and properties of global organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7727–7746,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Jathar, S. H., Miracolo, M. A., Presto, A. A., Donahue, N. M., Adams, P. J.,
and Robinson, A. L.: Modeling the formation and properties of traditional and
non-traditional secondary organic aerosol: problem formulation and
application to aircraft exhaust, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9025–9040,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9025-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-9025-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Jathar, S. H., Gordon, T. D., Hennigan, C. J., Pye, H. O. T., Pouliot, G.,
Adams, P. J., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Unspeciated organic
emissions from combustion sources and their influence on the secondary
organic aerosol budget in the United States, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
10473–10478, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken, A.
C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A. M.,
Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E., Baltensperger,
U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
Science, 326, 1525–1529, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Jo, D. S., Park, R. J., Kim, M. J., and Spracklen, D. V.: Effects of chemical
aging on global secondary organic aerosol using the volatility basis set
approach, Atmos. Environ., 81, 230–244, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Jöckel, P., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Bruehl, C., Buchholz, J., Ganzeveld,
L., Hoor, P., Kerkweg, A., Lawrence, M. G., Sander, R., Steil, B., Stiller,
G., Tanarhte, M., Taraborrelli, D., Van Aardenne, J., and Lelieveld, J.: The
atmospheric chemistry general circulation model ECHAM5/MESSy1: consistent
simulation of ozone from the surface to the mesosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
6, 5067–5104, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5067-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-5067-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J. H., Pandis, S. N., Barnes, I., Dentener, F. J.,
Facchini, M. C., Van Dingenen, R., Ervens, B., Nenes, A., Nielsen, C. J.,
Swietlicki, E., Putaud, J. P., Balkanski, Y., Fuzzi, S., Horth, J., Moortgat,
G. K., Winterhalter, R., Myhre, C. E. L., Tsigaridis, K., Vignati, E.,
Stephanou, E. G., and Wilson, J.: Organic aerosol and global climate
modelling: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1053–1123,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Karydis, V. A., Tsimpidi, A. P., Pozzer, A., Astitha, M., and Lelieveld, J.:
Effects of mineral dust on global atmospheric nitrate concentrations, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 16, 1491–1509, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1491-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-1491-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Karydis, V. A., Tsimpidi, A. P., Bacer, S., Pozzer, A., Nenes, A., and
Lelieveld, J.: Global impact of mineral dust on cloud droplet number
concentration, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5601–5621,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5601-2017" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-17-5601-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kerkweg, A., Buchholz, J., Ganzeveld, L., Pozzer, A., Tost, H., and
Jöckel, P.: Technical Note: An implementation of the dry removal
processes DRY DEPosition and SEDImentation in the Modular Earth Submodel
System (MESSy), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4617–4632,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4617-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-4617-2006</a>, 2006a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kerkweg, A., Sander, R., Tost, H., and Jöckel, P.: Technical note:
Implementation of prescribed (OFFLEM), calculated (ONLEM), and
pseudo-emissions (TNUDGE) of chemical species in the Modular Earth Submodel
System (MESSy), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3603–3609,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3603-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-3603-2006</a>, 2006b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kroll, J. H. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Chemistry of secondary organic aerosol:
Formation and evolution of low-volatility organics in the atmosphere, Atmos.
Environ., 42, 3593–3624, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Joeckel, P., and Lohmann, U.: Global
model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and
the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5061–5079,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Li, G., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N.,
Canagaratna, M. R., and Molina, L. T.: Simulations of organic aerosol
concentrations in Mexico City using the WRF-CHEM model during the
MCMA-2006/MILAGRO campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3789–3809,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3789-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-3789-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Levin, E. J. T., Hennigan, C. J., Riipinen, I., Lee, T., Collett,
J. L., Jimenez, J. L., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle
partitioning of primary organic aerosol emissions: 3. Biomass burning, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11327–11338, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Presto, A. A., Hennigan, C. J., Nguyen, N. T., Gordon, T. D., and
Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle partitioning of primary organic aerosol
emissions: (1) Gasoline vehicle exhaust, Atmospheric Environment, 77,
128–139, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Presto, A. A., Hennigan, C. J., Nguyen, N. T., Gordon, T. D., and
Robinson, A. L.: Gas-Particle Partitioning of Primary Organic Aerosol
Emissions: (2) Diesel Vehicles, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 8288–8296,
2013c.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, B. N. and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the formation of semivolatile
primary and secondary organic aerosol in a regional chemical transport model,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4722–4728, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, B. N., Donahue, N. M., Fountoukis, C., Dall'Osto, M., O'Dowd, C.,
Kiendler-Scharr, A., and Pandis, S. N.: Functionalization and fragmentation
during ambient organic aerosol aging: application of the 2-D volatility basis
set to field studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10797–10816,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10797-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-10797-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Ots, R., Young, D. E., Vieno, M., Xu, L., Dunmore, R. E., Allan, J. D., Coe,
H., Williams, L. R., Herndon, S. C., Ng, N. L., Hamilton, J. F.,
Bergström, R., Di Marco, C., Nemitz, E., Mackenzie, I. A., Kuenen, J. J.
P., Green, D. C., Reis, S., and Heal, M. R.: Simulating secondary organic
aerosol from missing diesel-related intermediate-volatility organic compound
emissions during the Clean Air for London (ClearfLo) campaign, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 6453–6473, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-6453-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-6453-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Pozzer, A., de Meij, A., Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Doering, U. M., van
Aardenne, J., and Lelieveld, J.: Distributions and regional budgets of
aerosols and their precursors simulated with the EMAC chemistry-climate
model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 961–987, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-961-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-961-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Message, S., Steil, B., Giannadaki, D., Nenes, A.,
Fountoukis, C., Stier, P., Vignati, E., and Lelieveld, J.: Description and
evaluation of GMXe: a new aerosol submodel for global simulations (v1),
Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 391–412, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-391-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-3-391-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Pye, H. O. T. and Seinfeld, J. H.: A global perspective on aerosol from
low-volatility organic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4377–4401,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4377-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-4377-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, A. L., Donahue, N. M., Shrivastava, M. K., Weitkamp, E. A., Sage,
A. M., Grieshop, A. P., Lane, T. E., Pierce, J. R., and Pandis, S. N.:
Rethinking organic aerosols: Semivolatile emissions and photochemical aging,
Science, 315, 1259–1262, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, A. L., Grieshop, A. P., Donahue, N. M., and Hunt, S. W.: Updating
the conceptual model for fine particle mass emissions from combustion
systems, J. Air Waste Manage., 60, 1204–1222, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Sander, R., Baumgaertner, A., Gromov, S., Harder, H., Jöckel, P.,
Kerkweg, A., Kubistin, D., Regelin, E., Riede, H., Sandu, A., Taraborrelli,
D., Tost, H., and Xie, Z.-Q.: The atmospheric chemistry box model
CAABA/MECCA-3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 373–380, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-373-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-4-373-2011</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Shrivastava, M., Fast, J., Easter, R., Gustafson Jr., W. I., Zaveri, R. A.,
Jimenez, J. L., Saide, P., and Hodzic, A.: Modeling organic aerosols in a
megacity: comparison of simple and complex representations of the volatility
basis set approach, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6639–6662,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6639-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-6639-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Shrivastava, M. K., Lane, T. E., Donahue, N. M., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson,
A. L.: Effects of gas particle partitioning and aging of primary emissions on
urban and regional organic aerosol concentrations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
113, D18301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009735" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007JD009735</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Tost, H., Jöckel, P., Kerkweg, A., Sander, R., and Lelieveld, J.:
Technical note: A new comprehensive SCAVenging submodel for global
atmospheric chemistry modelling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 565–574,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-565-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-565-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Molina, L., Ulbrich, I.
M., Jimenez, J. L., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of the volatility basis-set
approach for the simulation of organic aerosol formation in the Mexico City
metropolitan area, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 525–546,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-525-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-525-2010</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Bei, N., Molina, L.,
and Pandis, S. N.: Sources and production of organic aerosol in Mexico City:
insights from the combination of a chemical transport model (PMCAMx-2008) and
measurements during MILAGRO, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5153–5168,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5153-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-5153-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pozzer, A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld,
J.: ORACLE (v1.0): module to simulate the organic aerosol composition and
evolution in the atmosphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 3153–3172,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</a>, 2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</a>, 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Mu, M.,
Kasibhatla, P. S., Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Jin, Y., and van Leeuwen,
T. T.: Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna,
forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
11707–11735, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q., Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Ulbrich, I. M., Ng, N. L.,
Worsnop, D. R., and Sun, Y. L.: Understanding atmospheric organic aerosols
via factor analysis of aerosol mass spectrometry: a review, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem., 401, 3045–3067, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q. J., Beekmann, M., Drewnick, F., Freutel, F., Schneider, J., Crippa,
M., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Poulain, L., Wiedensohler, A.,
Sciare, J., Gros, V., Borbon, A., Colomb, A., Michoud, V., Doussin, J. F.,
van der Gon, H. A. C. D., Haeffelin, M., Dupont, J. C., Siour, G., Petetin,
H., Bessagnet, B., Pandis, S. N., Hodzic, A., Sanchez, O., Honore, C., and
Perrussel, O.: Formation of organic aerosol in the Paris region during the
MEGAPOLI summer campaign: evaluation of the volatility-basis-set approach
within the CHIMERE model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 5767–5790,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X., Cappa, C. D., Jathar, S. H., McVay, R. C., Ensberg, J. J.,
Kleeman, M. J., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Influence of vapor wall loss in
laboratory chambers on yields of secondary organic aerosol, P. Natl. Acad.
USA, 111, 5802–5807, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
