Supplement of Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 10205–10216, 2019https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10205-2019-supplement© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Supplement of
Summertime aerosol volatility measurements in Beijing, ChinaWeiqi Xu et al.
Correspondence to: Yele Sun ([email protected])
The copyright of individual parts of the supplement might differ from the CC BY 4.0 License.
2
Figure S1. Particle mass loss within the thermal denuder in summer of (a) 2017 and (b) 2018.
Figure S2. Mass spectra of OA factor resolved by (a) MSambient and (c) MSambient+TD using ME-2 analysis. (b) shows a comparison of
time series of OA factor resolved from MSambient and MSambient+TD in summer 2018.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5TD tr
ansm
issi
on e
ffici
ency
300250200150100500TD temperature(º)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
300250200150100500
(a) (b)
86420
86420
1612840
% o
f Tot
al S
igna
l
20151050
120110100908070605040302010m/z (amu)
12840
5/21 5/26 5/31 6/5 6/10 6/15 6/20 6/25Date & Time
20151050
20151050
Mas
s C
onc.
(µg/
m3 )
1086420
86420
86420
1612840
% o
f Tot
al S
igna
l
2520151050
120110100908070605040302010m/z (amu)
H/C: 1.82; O/C: 0.18; N/C: 0.01; OM/OC: 1.40
H/C: 1.76; O/C: 0.28; N/C: 0.01; OM/OC: 1.53
H/C: 1.39; O/C: 0.79; N/C: 0.02; OM/OC: 2.19
H/C: 1.30; O/C: 1.20; N/C: 0.04; OM/OC: 2.71
CxHy+ CxHyO1
+ CxHyO2+ HyO1
+CxHyNp+ CxHyOzNp +
HOA
COA
LO-OOA
MO-OOA
Bypass-Only Bypass+TD
H/C: 1.83; O/C: 0.17; N/C: 0.01; OM/OC: 1.39
H/C: 1.76; O/C: 0.27; N/C: 0.00; OM/OC: 1.52
H/C: 1.44; O/C: 0.76; N/C: 0.02; OM/OC: 2.15
H/C: 1.13; O/C: 1.30; N/C: 0.03; OM/OC: 2.84
(a) (b) (c)
3
Figure S3. Correlation between OA factors and tracers in summer 2018.
Figure S4. Thermograms of aerosol species measured by TD-HR-AMS and TD-SP-AMS in 2017.
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
C6H
6O2+
C2H
4O2+
C2H
3O+
C3H
5O+
C6H
10O
+
C3H
7+
C4H
8+
C4H
7+
C4H
9+
C8H
5+
CH
4N+
C2H
6N+
C3H
8N+
C2H
2O2+
CH
3SO
+
C3H
5O2+
C5H
8O+
CO
2+
SO2
O3
NO
2
CO O
x
SO4
NO
3
NH
4
SIA
Chl BC
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
R2
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
HOA
COA
LO-OOA
MO-OOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.03002001000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.03002001000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.03002001000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
3002001000
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.03002001000
TD temperature(º)
Org SO4 NO3
NH4 Chl
HR-AMS SP-AMS
4
Figure S5. Thermograms of aerosol species and OA factors during four different time periods in 2018.
Figure S6. Thermograms of four different ion families in summer 2018.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
TD temperature(º)
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
LO-OOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
COA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
HOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
Chl
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
NH4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
NO3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
SO4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
Org
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00
MO-OOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
250200150100500
TD temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
250200150100500
CxHyO+
CxHyOz+
CxHy+
CxHyNz+
CxHyONz+
5
Figure S7. Thermograms of OA and OA factors measured by TD-HR-AMS in 2018. The solid circles represent the measurements
and the error bars are one standard deviation. The black lines refer to the best-predicted MFR using the algorithm of Karnezi et al.
(2014)
Figure S8. Predicted absolute OA and four OA factors concentrations at different volatility bins in 2018.
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning OA
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning HOA
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning COA
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning MO-OOA
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning LO-OOA
4
3
2
1
0
Con
c. (μ
g m
-3)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
C* (μg m
-3)
(a) OA1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Con
c. (μ
g m
-3)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
C* (μg m
-3)
(b) HOA1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Con
c. (μ
g m
-3)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
C* (μg m
-3)
(c) COA
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Con
c. (μ
g m
-3)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
C* (μg m
-3)
(d) LO-OOA2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Con
c. (μ
g m
-3)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
C* (μg m
-3)
(e) MO-OOA
6
Figure S9. Average diurnal cycles of Org/rBC ratio, and mass concentrations of ambient and BC-containing OA, POA and SOA.
Figure S10. Thermograms of OA, POA and SOA factors measured by (a,b,c) TD-HR-AMS and (d,e,f) TD-SP-AMS in 2017. The
solid circles represent the measurements, and the error bars are one standard deviation. The black lines refer to the best-predicted
MFR using the algorithm of Karnezi et al. (2014)
16
12
8
4
0Mas
s C
onc.
(µg
m-3
)
24201612840
8
6
4
2
0
24201612840
10
8
6
4
2
0
24201612840
Hours of day
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Org/rBC
HR-AMS SP-AMS OAexCOA in ambient Org/rBC
OA POA SOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
POA
POAexCOA
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning OA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
OA 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
POA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
SOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
SOA
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
7
Figure S11. Thermograms and predicted volatility distributions of four OA factors measured by TD-HR-AMS in 2017. The solid
circles represent the measurements and the error bars are one standard deviation. The black lines refer to the best-predicted MFR
using the algorithm of Karnezi et al. (2014). The error bars in bottom panels are the uncertainties derived using the approach of
Karnezi et al. (2014). Predicted volatility distributions of four OA factors in 2018 are also shown for comparisons.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
mas
s fra
ctio
n
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
log10C* (µg m-3)
HOA Summer2017 Summer2018
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
HOA 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
COA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
mas
s fra
ctio
n
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
log10C* (µg m-3)
COA Summer2017 Summer2018
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
mas
s fra
ctio
n
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
log10C* (µg m-3)
LO-OOA Summer2017 Summer2018
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
LO-OOA
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
mas
s fra
ctio
n
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
log10C* (µg m-3)
MO-OOA Summer2017 Summer2018
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0Mas
s fra
ctio
n re
mai
ning
300250200150100500Temperature(º)
MO-OOA
8
Table S1. Average ambient concentrations, threshold concentrations for PM species and OA factors and corresponding
fraction of the data above the threshold.
Average mass concentration (µg m−3)
Threshold concentration (µg m−3)
% of measurements above threshold
HR-AMS2018 Org 12.7 1.5 99.6% SO4 6.5 0.4 99.7% NO3 7.4 0.06 99.6% NH4 4.3 0.16 99.6% Chl 0.18 0.02 98.6% HOA 1.7 0.05 97.6% COA 2.0 0.04 97.6% LO-OOA 5.8 0.4 97.2% MO-OOA 3.4 0.5 98.5% HR-AMS2017 Org 9.8 2.98 97.6% POA 3.4 0.48 99.5% HOA 1.0 0.19 98.9% COA 2.4 0.16 96.4% SOA 6.4 1.31 98.2% LO-OOA 3.8 1.01 97.6% MO-OOA 2.6 0.12 98.6% SP-AMS2017 Org 5.5 1.3 98.6% POA 2.2 0.41 96.7% SOA 3.3 0.81 97.7%
9
Table S2. Average peak diameters of SOA and POA in summer of 2017 and 2018.
Average peak diameters (nm)
HR-AMS2018 OA 536
POA 485 SOA 600
HR-AMS2017 OA 371
POA 350 SOA 380
SP-AMS2017 OA 235
POA 150 SOA 298
10
Table S3. Best fit OA volatility parameter values in previous field studies.
Species Volatility distribution ∆H am
10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
OAa 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 80 1
OAa 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 80 0.05
HOAb 0.13 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.57 100 1
COAb 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.2 0.08 0.37 100 1
MOAb 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.28 0.42 0.19 100 1
SV-OOAb 0.06 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.34 100 1
LV-OOAb 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.03 100 1
HOAc 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.5 100 1
COAc 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.42 0.11 0.1 100 1
BBOAc 0.2 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.41 100 1
OOAc 0.3 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.1 0.35 100 1
OAd 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.26 100 1
OOAd 0.41 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.2 100 1
HOAd 0.3 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.17 0.11 100 1
BBOAd 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.36 100 1
COAd 0.1 0.52 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.18 100 1
OAe 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.29 0.31 100 0.5
OAf 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.28 0.32 100 0.5
MO-OOAg 0.44 0.14 0.42 89 1
LO-OOAg 0.27 0.19 0.54 58 1
isoprene-OAg 0.41 0.16 0.43 63 1
BBOAg 0.47 0.29 0.24 55 1
OAg 0.54 0.19 0.27 86 1
OAh 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.34 100 1
OAh 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.24 100 1
OAh 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.43 100 0.1
OAh 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.35 100 0.1 a Sampling site is Finokalia, and the sampling time is May, 2008. (Lee et al., 2010). This estimation use the transfer model of Riipinen et al.
(2010) with least-squares minimization. Assumed a priori values for the effective vaporization enthalpy with 80 KJ mol-1 and the mass
accommodation coefficient with 1/0.05. b and C Sampling site is Paris, and the sampling time is July, 2009 and January/February 2010, respectively(Paciga et al., 2016). This
estimation use the transfer model of Riipinen et al. (2010), and the uncertainties are calculated by Karnezi et al. (2014). Assumed a priori
values for the effective vaporization enthalpy with 100 KJ mol-1 and the mass accommodation coefficient with 1. d Sampling site is Athens, and the sampling time is January/February 2013 (Louvaris et al., 2017). This estimation use the transfer model
11
of Riipinen et al. (2010), and the uncertainties are calculated by Karnezi et al. (2014). Assumed a priori values for the effective
vaporization enthalpy with 100 KJ mol-1 and the mass accommodation coefficient with 1. e and f Sampling site is Centreville and Raleigh, and the sampling time is June/July and Nov./Oct. 2013, respectively (Saha et al., 2017). This
estimation use the volatility parameter extraction framework(Saha et al., 2015) to extract a set of volatility parameter (C∗, Hvap, γe) values
via inversion of dual-TD data using an evaporation kinetics model. g Sampling site is Centreville, and the sampling time is June/July 2013 (Kostenidou et al., 2018). This estimation use the transfer model of
Riipinen et al. (2010), and the uncertainties are calculated by Karnezi et al. (2014). The enthalpy of vaporization was also estimated, while
the accommodation coefficient was assumed to be equal to unity. h Sampling site is Mexico City, and the sampling time is March/April 2006(Cappa and Jimenez, 2010)
12
References Cappa, C. D., and Jimenez, J. L.: Quantitative estimates of the volatility of ambient organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
5409-5424, 10.5194/acp-10-5409-2010, 2010. Karnezi, E., Riipinen, I., and Pandis, S. N.: Measuring the atmospheric organic aerosol volatility distribution: a theoretical
analysis, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 7, 2953-2965, 10.5194/amt-7-2953-2014, 2014. Kostenidou, E., Karnezi, E., Hite Jr, J. R., Bougiatioti, A., Cerully, K., Xu, L., Ng, N. L., Nenes, A., and Pandis, S. N.:
Organic aerosol in the summertime southeastern United States: components and their link to volatility distribution, oxidation state and hygroscopicity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5799-5819, 10.5194/acp-18-5799-2018, 2018.
Lee, B. H., Kostenidou, E., Hildebrandt, L., Riipinen, I., Engelhart, G. J., Mohr, C., DeCarlo, P. F., Mihalopoulos, N., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., and Pandis, S. N.: Measurement of the ambient organic aerosol volatility distribution: application during the Finokalia Aerosol Measurement Experiment (FAME-2008), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 12149-12160, 10.5194/acp-10-12149-2010, 2010.
Louvaris, E. E., Florou, K., Karnezi, E., Papanastasiou, D. K., Gkatzelis, G. I., and Pandis, S. N.: Volatility of source apportioned wintertime organic aerosol in the city of Athens, Atmos. Environ., 158, 138-147, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.03.042, 2017.
Paciga, A., Karnezi, E., Kostenidou, E., Hildebrandt, L., Psichoudaki, M., Engelhart, G. J., Lee, B.-H., Crippa, M., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., and Pandis, S. N.: Volatility of organic aerosol and its components in the megacity of Paris, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2013-2023, 10.5194/acp-16-2013-2016, 2016.
Riipinen, I., Pierce, J. R., Donahue, N. M., and Pandis, S. N.: Equilibration time scales of organic aerosol inside thermodenuders: Evaporation kinetics versus thermodynamics, Atmos. Environ., 44, 597-607, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.11.022, 2010.
Saha, P. K., Khlystov, A., and Grieshop, A. P.: Determining Aerosol Volatility Parameters Using a “Dual Thermodenuder” System: Application to Laboratory-Generated Organic Aerosols, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 49, 620-632, 10.1080/02786826.2015.1056769, 2015.
Saha, P. K., Khlystov, A., Yahya, K., Zhang, Y., Xu, L., Ng, N. L., and Grieshop, A. P.: Quantifying the volatility of organic aerosol in the southeastern US, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 501-520, 10.5194/acp-17-501-2017, 2017.