Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33762335›Full record

ArticleScience advances2021

Large contribution to secondary organic aerosol from isoprene cloud chemistry.

Houssni Lamkaddam, Josef Dommen, Ananth Ranjithkumar, Hamish Gordon, Günther Wehrle, Jordan Krechmer, Francesca Majluf, Daniil Salionov, Julia Schmale, Saša Bjelić and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Sulfur radical formation from the tropospheric irradiation of aqueous sulfate aerosols.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

13 authors.

Houssni LamkaddamLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland. houssni.lamkaddam@psi.ch imad.el-haddad@psi.ch urs.baltensperger@psi.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5166-6353
Josef DommenLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0006-0009
Ananth RanjithkumarSchool of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6780-456X
Hamish GordonEngineering Research Accelerator, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh 15213, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1822-3224
Günther WehrleLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland.
Jordan KrechmerAerodyne Research Inc., Billerica, MA 01821, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3642-0659
Francesca MajlufAerodyne Research Inc., Billerica, MA 01821, USA.
Daniil SalionovBioenergy and Catalysis Laboratory, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland.
Julia SchmaleLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1048-7962
Saša BjelićBioenergy and Catalysis Laboratory, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9805-3201
Kenneth S CarslawSchool of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6800-154X
Imad El HaddadLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland. houssni.lamkaddam@psi.ch imad.el-haddad@psi.ch urs.baltensperger@psi.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2461-7238
Urs BaltenspergerLaboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland. houssni.lamkaddam@psi.ch imad.el-haddad@psi.ch urs.baltensperger@psi.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0079-8713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aerosols still present the largest uncertainty in estimating anthropogenic radiative forcing. Cloud processing is potentially important for secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation, a major aerosol component: however, laboratory experiments fail to mimic this process under atmospherically relevant conditions. We developed a wetted-wall flow reactor to simulate aqueous-phase processing of isoprene oxidation products (iOP) in cloud droplets. We find that 50 to 70% (in moles) of iOP partition into the aqueous cloud phase, where they rapidly react with OH radicals, producing SOA with a molar yield of 0.45 after cloud droplet evaporation. Integrating our experimental results into a global model, we show that clouds effectively boost the amount of SOA. We conclude that, on a global scale, cloud processing of iOP produces 6.9 Tg of SOA per year or approximately 20% of the total biogenic SOA burden and is the main source of SOA in the mid-troposphere (4 to 6 km).

Identifiers

PMID33762335
PMCPMC7990335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.