Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29963078›Full record

ArticleAtmospheric chemistry and physics2018

Coupling of organic and inorganic aerosol systems and the effect on gas-particle partitioning in the southeastern US.

Havala O T Pye, Andreas Zuend, Juliane L Fry, Gabriel Isaacman-VanWertz, Shannon L Capps, K Wyat Appel, Hosein Foroutan, Lu Xu, Nga L Ng, Allen H Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Spatiotemporal trends in PMAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Acidity of Atmospheric Particles and Clouds.Atmospheric chemistry and physics · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Parameterization of heterogeneous reaction of SOAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2019
    Article
  14. Assessing PMAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Havala O T PyeNational Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Andreas ZuendDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Juliane L FryDepartment of Chemistry, Reed College, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Gabriel Isaacman-VanWertzDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Shannon L CappsCivil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
K Wyat AppelNational Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Hosein ForoutanNational Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Lu XuDepartment of Environmental Science and Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
Nga L NgSchool of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Allen H GoldsteinDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several models were used to describe the partitioning of ammonia, water, and organic compounds between the gas and particle phases for conditions in the southeastern US during summer 2013. Existing equilibrium models and frameworks were found to be sufficient, although additional improvements in terms of estimating pure-species vapor pressures are needed. Thermodynamic model predictions were consistent, to first order, with a molar ratio of ammonium to sulfate of approximately 1.6 to 1.8 (ratio of ammonium to 2× sulfate,

Identifiers

PMID29963078
PMCPMC6020690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.