Articles | Volume 23, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6613-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6613-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An intercomparison study of four different techniques for measuring the chemical composition of nanoparticles
Lucía Caudillo
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Mihnea Surdu
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Brandon Lopez
Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Mingyi Wang
Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
Markus Thoma
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Steffen Bräkling
TOFWERK AG, 3600 Thun, Switzerland
Angela Buchholz
Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio,
Finland
Mario Simon
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Andrea C. Wagner
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Tatjana Müller
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Atmospheric Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry,
55128 Mainz, Germany
Manuel Granzin
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Martin Heinritzi
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Antonio Amorim
CENTRA, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Campo
Grande, 1749–016, Lisbon, Portugal
David M. Bell
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Zoé Brasseur
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Lubna Dada
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Jonathan Duplissy
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Helsinki Institute of Physics, University of Helsinki, 00014
Helsinki, Finland
Henning Finkenzeller
Department of Chemistry, CIRES, University of Colorado Boulder,
Boulder, CO 80309-0215, USA
Xu-Cheng He
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Houssni Lamkaddam
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Naser G. A. Mahfouz
Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Vladimir Makhmutov
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119991,
Moscow, Russia
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, 117303, Russia
Hanna E. Manninen
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Guillaume Marie
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Ruby Marten
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Roy L. Mauldin
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of
Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Bernhard Mentler
Institute for Ion and Applied Physics, University of Innsbruck, 6020
Innsbruck, Austria
Antti Onnela
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Tuukka Petäjä
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Joschka Pfeifer
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Maxim Philippov
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119991,
Moscow, Russia
Ana A. Piedehierro
Finnish Meteorological Institute, 00560 Helsinki, Finland
Birte Rörup
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Wiebke Scholz
Institute for Ion and Applied Physics, University of Innsbruck, 6020
Innsbruck, Austria
Jiali Shen
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Dominik Stolzenburg
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Christian Tauber
Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Ping Tian
Beijing Weather Modification Office, 100089 Beijing, China
António Tomé
IDL, Universidade da Beira Interior, R. Marquês de Ávila e
Bolama, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
Nsikanabasi Silas Umo
Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
Dongyu S. Wang
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Yonghong Wang
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Stefan K. Weber
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
André Welti
Finnish Meteorological Institute, 00560 Helsinki, Finland
Marcel Zauner-Wieczorek
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Urs Baltensperger
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Richard C. Flagan
Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
Armin Hansel
Institute for Ion and Applied Physics, University of Innsbruck, 6020
Innsbruck, Austria
Ionicon Analytik GmbH, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Jasper Kirkby
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Markku Kulmala
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Helsinki Institute of Physics, University of Helsinki, 00014
Helsinki, Finland
Aerosol and Haze Laboratory, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for
Soft Matter Science and Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical
Technology, 100029 Beijing, China
Katrianne Lehtipalo
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Finnish Meteorological Institute, 00560 Helsinki, Finland
Douglas R. Worsnop
Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR)/Physics,
Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Aerodyne Research, Billerica, MA 01821, USA
Imad El Haddad
Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232
Villigen, Switzerland
Neil M. Donahue
Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Alexander L. Vogel
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Andreas Kürten
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Joachim Curtius
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Goethe
University Frankfurt, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 15 Jun 2023)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 26 Aug 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucía Caudillo Murillo, 17 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-498/acp-2022-498-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucía Caudillo Murillo, 17 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Dec 2022
Caudillo et al. performed an intercomparison of four widely used techniques for analyzing sub-100 nm particle chemical compositions based on the dataset from the same CLOUD experiment. The manuscript is full of technical details and the discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of TD-DMA, FIGAERO, EESI-TOF, and UHPLC-HESI-HRMS are comprehensive. I think it will be more acceptable to enclose some discussion on what's new about science from the experiment that the intercomparison can bring to us before the manuscript is suitable for publication in ACP. I only have the following four major concerns:
- About time resolution: since the four techniques have very significantly different time resolutions, it should be very careful to compare the chemical compositions obtained, especially for a typical nucleation experiment, where the particle size (mass) distributions and gas-phase chemistry are always changing. I could argue that the different observations from the four techniques may be simply because they are looking at different samples. Of course, there is no perfect instrument, so how to align the timelines of the four techniques to make more direct intercomparisons should be discussed.
- About aerosol size: I think more details should be provided about how TD-DMA collects all sub-100 nm particles since DMA is designed to do size selection. Also, from Fig. S1, it looks like about 4 hours later, the particle size distribution has two modes. How does the sampling work during this period?
- About PMF analysis and scientific findings: what are the samples analyzed by PMF? Are they from the same experiment (Fig. S1) or are they complied from different experiments (-50 C, -30 C, -10 C)? Are the PMFs different in different experiments? What new science can be learned from them? This is a very technical manuscript with few discussions about the science that we can learn from the intercomparison. It is better to make some conclusive scientific statements at the end of Section 3.2.1, just like the paragraph in Line 317.
- About positive and negative modes: the ionization efficiency depends on the ion polarity and the molecular property. For example, (-)ESI can be more sensitive to those molecules tending to denote protons, thus the mass spectrum cannot represent the complete information of chemical composition. It will be beneficial to add some discussion about the effects of the ionization efficiency and the polarity on the completeness of aerosol chemical composition detection when comparing the fractions of compounds with different carbon numbers and volatilities.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-498-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lucía Caudillo Murillo, 17 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-498/acp-2022-498-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Lucía Caudillo-Plath on behalf of the Authors (31 Mar 2023)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (03 May 2023) by John Liggio
AR by Lucía Caudillo-Plath on behalf of the Authors (13 May 2023)
Manuscript
Short summary
In this study, we present an intercomparison of four different techniques for measuring the chemical composition of nanoparticles. The intercomparison was performed based on the observed chemical composition, calculated volatility, and analysis of the thermograms. We found that the methods generally agree on the most important compounds that are found in the nanoparticles. However, they do see different parts of the organic spectrum. We suggest potential explanations for these differences.
In this study, we present an intercomparison of four different techniques for measuring the...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint
“An intercomparison study of four different techniques for measuring the chemical composition of nanoparticles,” by Caudillo et al., compares measurements made by 4 different methods that have, to a varying degree, sensitivity that allow them to measure sub-100 nm diameter particle chemical composition. Such intercomparisons are rare, as many involve specialized instruments that are not often available for side-by-side intercomparisons. It is, however, important to point of the unique sensitivities that are inevitable with any measurement technique. Therefore, this manuscript represents a potentially important contribution to measurement science and therefore might eventually be suitable for publication in ACP. I have several concerns that I would like to authors to address before I consider this manuscript suitable.
Major comments.
Hildebrandt Ruiz, 2018). Please discuss and reference relevant studies.
D'Ambro, E. L., Schobesberger, S., Gaston, C. J., Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Lee, B. H., Liu, J., Zelenyuk, A., Bell, D., Cappa, C. D., Helgestad, T., Li, Z., Guenther, A., Wang, J., Wise, M., Caylor, R., Surratt, J. D., Riedel, T., Hyttinen, N., Salo, V.-T., Hasan, G., Kurtén, T., Shilling, J. E., and Thornton, J. A.: Chamber-based insights into the factors controlling epoxydiol (IEPOX) secondary organic aerosol (SOA) yield, composition, and volatility, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 11253–11265, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11253-2019, 2019.
Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Mohr, C., Ehn, M., Rubach, F., Kleist, E., Wildt, J., Mentel, Th. F., Carrasquillo, A. J., Daumit, K. E., Hunter, J. F., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R., and Thornton, J. A.: Phase partitioning and volatility of secondary organic aerosol components formed from α-pinene ozonolysis and OH oxidation: the importance of accretion products and other low volatility compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 7765–7776, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7765-2015, 2015.
Stark, H., Yatavelli, R. L. N., Thompson, S. L., Kang, H., Krechmer, J. E., Kimmel, J. R., Palm, B. B., Hu, W., Hayes, P. L., Day, D. A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Canagaratna, M. R., Jayne, J. T., Worsnop, D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Impact of Thermal Decomposition on Thermal Desorption Instruments: Advantage of Thermogram Analysis for Quantifying Volatility Distributions of Organic Species, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 8491–8500, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00160, 2017.
Wang, D. S. and Hildebrandt Ruiz, L.: Chlorine-initiated oxidation of n-alkanes under high-NOx conditions: insights into secondary organic aerosol composition and volatility using a FIGAERO–CIMS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 15535–15553, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15535-2018, 2018.
Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., Iyer, S., Mohr, C., Lee, B. H., D'Ambro, E. L., Kurtén, T., and Thornton, J. A.: Constraining the sensitivity of iodide adduct chemical ionization mass spectrometry to multifunctional organic molecules using the collision limit and thermodynamic stability of iodide ion adducts, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1505–1512, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1505-2016, 2016.
Modeling the Detection of Organic and Inorganic Compounds Using Iodide-Based Chemical Ionization, Siddharth Iyer, Felipe Lopez-Hilfiker, Ben H. Lee, Joel A. Thornton, and Theo Kurtén, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2016 120 (4), 576-587, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b09837
Minor corrections: