ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Historical Changes in Seasonal Aerosol Acidity in the Po Valley (Italy) as Inferred from Fog Water and Aerosol Measurements
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Anthropogenic Impacts on the Atmosphere

Historical Changes in Seasonal Aerosol Acidity in the Po Valley (Italy) as Inferred from Fog Water and Aerosol Measurements
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Marco Paglione*
    Marco Paglione
    Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, Greece
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    *Email: [email protected]. Phone: +390516399560.
  • Stefano Decesari
    Stefano Decesari
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Matteo Rinaldi
    Matteo Rinaldi
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Leone Tarozzi
    Leone Tarozzi
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Marine Sciences (CNR-ISMAR), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Francesco Manarini
    Francesco Manarini
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Stefania Gilardoni
    Stefania Gilardoni
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Polar Sciences (CNR-ISP), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Maria Cristina Facchini
    Maria Cristina Facchini
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
  • Sandro Fuzzi
    Sandro Fuzzi
    Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    More by Sandro Fuzzi
  • Dimitri Bacco
    Dimitri Bacco
    Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (ARPAE) of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna 40122, Italy
  • Arianna Trentini
    Arianna Trentini
    Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (ARPAE) of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna 40122, Italy
  • Spyros N. Pandis
    Spyros N. Pandis
    Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, Greece
    Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, Patras 26504, Greece
  • Athanasios Nenes*
    Athanasios Nenes
    Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, Greece
    School of Architecture, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
    *Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 11, 7307–7315
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00651
Published May 17, 2021

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Acidity profoundly affects almost every aspect that shapes the composition of ambient particles and their environmental impact. Thermodynamic analysis of gas-particle composition datasets offers robust estimates of acidity, but they are not available for long periods of time. Fog composition datasets, however, are available for many decades; we develop a thermodynamic analysis to estimate the ammonia in equilibrium with fog water and to infer the pre-fog aerosol pH starting from fog chemical composition and pH. The acidity values from the new method agree with the results of thermodynamic analysis of the available gas-particle composition data. Applying the new method to historical (25 years) fog water composition at the rural station of San Pietro Capofiume (SPC) in the Po Valley (Italy) suggests that the aerosol has been mildly acidic, with its pH decreasing by 0.5–1.5 pH units over the last decades. The observed pH of the fog water also increased 1 unit over the same period. Analysis of the simulated aerosol pH reveals that the aerosol acidity trend is driven by a decrease in aerosol precursor concentrations, and changes in temperature and relative humidity. Currently, NOx controls would be most effective for PM2.5 reduction in the Po valley both during summer and winter. In the future, however, seasonal transitions to the NH3-sensitive region may occur, meaning that the NH3 reduction policy may become increasingly necessary.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Synopsis

Please provide a synopsis

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Aerosol acidity is a key driver of many important atmospheric processes, (1,2) affecting partitioning of semivolatile species, SOA formation, and solubilization of trace metals, with important implications for air quality, the health of human and ecosystems, and climate. Despite its importance, the direct measurement of the pH of atmospheric aerosol is highly challenging, with only a few techniques available for its determination. (3−5) Indirect proxies (e.g., aerosol ionic molar ratios) have been used extensively in the past to represent particle acidity, although their link with pH is largely qualitative. (2,6,7) The most reliable estimates of aerosol acidity to date are obtained by thermodynamic analysis of ambient observations. (6−8) In this approach, aerosol thermodynamic models (such as ISORROPIA-II (9)) are applied to determine the concentrations of species in the gas and aerosol phases that control the water uptake of the aerosol. If the observed gas-particle partitioning of species sensitive to aerosol pH (e.g., NH3(g)/NH4+, HNO3(g)/NO3) and liquid water content (W) are sufficiently captured by the thermodynamic model, the pH calculated from the thermodynamic model would be a good estimate of the true value. (5)
Using thermodynamic analysis, datasets of aerosol acidity are appearing with increasing frequency (see the review by Pye et al. (2)); however, their number and temporal span are limited compared to a large number of PM composition datasets available because the required concurrent measurements of the gas-phase concentrations of NH3 and/or HNO3 are often unavailable. In most cases, even if it may not be the case for dust or sea salt particles, NH3 concentration is enough to derive aerosol acidity, as it acts as a buffer that controls aerosol pH. (1,10) In the absence of NH3 data, one can still obtain robust pH estimates if NO3/HNO3 observations are available. (11) If neither HNO3 nor NH3 observations are available, the pH estimates can still be obtained, albeit with a constrained (but non-negligible) bias. (8,12)
To date, thermodynamic analysis has been applied exclusively to aerosol–gas-phase composition data. This approach is the most straightforward, as the observations provide the direct input required by the thermodynamic models to calculate semivolatile partitioning and the aerosol pH. Other nonconventional datasets, however, may provide aerosol pH with an appropriately formulated thermodynamic analysis. Fog water data offer such potential, as fogs—which act like natural “mist chamber” samplers—tend to scavenge significant fractions of aerosol mass and soluble vapors such as NH3, HNO3, and HCl. Gilardoni et al. (13) showed that aerosol down to about 100 nm was scavenged by fog droplets in the Po Valley—so most of the mass that controls aerosol pH was contained in the fog water. The fog water pH and liquid water content can also be directly measured, allowing for estimations of gas-phase aerosol precursors (the main ones being NH3, HNO3, and HCl (14)). Combining this fog water and gas-phase information allows for a thermodynamic analysis that can be used to constrain the pre-fog aerosol acidity. A combined aerosol–fog water thermodynamic analysis is also important to understand the role of aerosols in fogs as media for the production of secondary organic aerosol, especially during intense haze events. (15)
In this study, we evaluate the potential of using the fog water ionic composition data to estimate the pH of the preexisting aerosol. The method is evaluated using the data collected in the Po Valley of Italy. Concurrent measurements of aerosol and gas-phase composition before fog events are also used to estimate the aerosol pH and are compared against the fog-water-derived values. The fog-water-based method is then applied to the full dataset, which covers a period of over 25 years. (12) The resulting aerosol pH trend is then compared against the fog water pH trend, and its links to the emissions of aerosol precursors (i.e., SO2, NOx, and NH3) and meteorological parameters (T and RH) are explored.

2. Experimental Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Fog Water Collection and Analysis

Fog water is collected systematically at the field station of San Pietro Capofiume (SPC) since 1989 (from November to March). A series of intensive fog campaigns also took place in SPC during the 1980s. (17−20) Fog water is sampled using an automated active string collector, extensively described by Fuzzi et al. (21) The collector consists of a system in which fog droplets, carried by the air stream created by a fan located at the rear part of a short wind tunnel, are forced to impact on a series of strings. The impacted droplets then coalesce with each other and drain off the stainless-steel strings into a funnel to eventually be collected in a sampling bottle. The airflow through the tunnel is approximately 17 m3 min–1 with a 50% collection efficiency of individual string at approximately 3 mm droplet radius.
A Particulate Volume Monitor PVM-100 is used to measure the liquid water content of the fog (LWCf) with a time resolution of 1 min. This monitor is used to activate the string collector when LWCf exceeds 0.08 g m–3. This threshold corresponds to visibility of approximately 200 m (22) and the fog is considered dense (the meteorological definition of fog is visibility less than 1 km).
Direct pH measurements of the liquid fog samples are carried out using a Crison micropH 2002 pH meter: this measurement is done in the laboratory of ISAC-CNR (at Bologna, about 40 km from SPC) as soon as the sample arrives from the field; usually, a short trip by car (30–40 min of transport). If for any reason the time is longer, the fog sample is refrigerated in the fridge or directly outside (stored in a corked sampling bottle, on the terrace of the laboratory) for at least 60 min to rebalance the temperature as much as possible with that of the ambient air. Fog water samples are filtered (47 mm quartz-fiber filters) within a few hours after collection to remove any suspended particles. The samples are then stored frozen until the chemical analysis. Liquid samples are analyzed for inorganic ions (NH4+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl, NO3, SO42–) and low molecular weight organic acids (acetate, formate, methanesulfonate, and oxalate) by ion chromatography. (23) The results of this chemical characterization and the temporal trends in the observed chemical and physical parameters were presented by Giulianelli et al. (16) As reported in Giulianelli et al., (16) analytical problems affected the chromatographic data from 1989/1990 to 1992/1993 and these samples were excluded from our analysis. A total of 577 fog water samples were analyzed from November 1993 to December 2018, with an annual median number of samples of 23 (4–37). The smallest number of samples corresponds to the central years of the time series (2004–2006), for which the statistics should be considered less robust.

2.2. PM2.5 and Ammonia Measurements

Daily PM2.5 and gaseous ammonia (NH3) measurements are carried out by the Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment, and Energy (ARPAE) of Emilia-Romagna, Italy. The PM2.5 filter sampling started in the framework of the Supersito project (www.arpae.it/supersito) from November 2011 and continues to date following the protocol described by Ricciardelli et al. (24) PM2.5 daily samples are collected at SPC on quartz fiber filters (PALL Tissu Quartz 2500 QAO-UP 2500 47 mm filters) for the analysis of the major inorganic ions (NH4+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl, NO3, SO42–). After the collection with a Single Channel Monitor (SWAM FAI Rome, Italy) operating at the standard flow rate of 38.3 L min–1 (EN12341), the samples are extracted in 10 mL of MilliQ water, sonicated for 15 min, filtered through 0.45 mm cellulose acetate filters, and then injected into an Ion Chromatography system (DIONEX, California). Gaseous ammonia (NH3) hourly measurements are available at SPC starting from August 2017, thanks to a chemiluminescence ammonia analyzer (model 201E, Teledyne-API, San Diego, CA) of the air quality network of ARPAE Emilia-Romagna (following a standard certified QA/QC procedure ISO9001:2015, www.arpae.it, Section S1).

2.3. Meteorological Data

Daily maximum, minimum, and mean values for T and RH are available at SPC since 1993. Since 2007, hourly data are available by the Hydro-Meteo-Climate Service of ARPAE-ER (simc.arpae.it/dext3r/). T and RH measurements are validated against the data measured at SPC continuously by a VAISALA meteorological station.

3. Modeling Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Thermodynamic Analysis of Fog Water Composition to Obtain Pre-Fog Aerosol pH

The ISORROPIA-II (version 2.3) aerosol thermodynamic model (6) (http://isorropia.epfl.ch) is used to calculate the composition and phase state of a K+–Ca2+–Mg2+–NH4+–Na+–SO42––NO3–Cl–water inorganic aerosol in thermodynamic equilibrium with gas-phase precursors. ISORROPIA-II has been extensively used to predict the liquid water content and pH for inorganic aerosol. (1,8,12,25−27) Similar to previous studies, the definition of pH used here is
(1)
where γH+ is the hydronium ion activity coefficient (here, assumed unity), Haq+ (mol L–1) is the hydronium ion concentration in the aqueous phase of the aerosol, Hair+ (μg m–3) is the hydronium ion concentration per volume of air, and Wi and Wo (μg m–3) are particle water concentrations associated with the aerosol-inorganic and -organic species, respectively. The pH used here is consistent with the pHF definition of Pye et al. (2) In this work, we neglect the contribution of water from the organic species and their overall effect on the water activity and pH. Guo et al., (8) Song et al., (7) Vasilakos et al., (28) and Battaglia et al. (29) evaluated this assumption and found the organic species to have a secondary effect on the aerosol pH, being somewhere between 0.15 and 0.3 pH units. So, since the organic aerosol hygroscopicity is not measured in our study and given that neglecting Wo appears to have only a minor impact on the pH characterization, we determine pH only considering Wi.
We used ISORROPIA-II in the partitioning (“forward”) mode for metastable aerosol. In this configuration, the model is used to calculate the equilibrium partitioning given the total concentration (gas plus particles) of various species together with RH and T as input. Considering that the fog scavenging efficiency of inorganic species is generally higher than 70% and shows little variability, (13,30) here we apply the partitioning mode using the ionic composition of fog water (as a proxy of the particle composition and amount) and the corresponding gaseous ammonia concentrations, as estimated in Section 3.2.
The total (gas and aerosol) concentration of species i in the pre-fog atmosphere (Ci,air, μg m–3) is obtained by multiplying their concentration in fog water (Ci,fog, μg mL–1) with the liquid water content of the fog (LWCair, mL m–3)
(2)
Given the relatively high pH of the fog water, some ammonia is present in the gas phase; its concentration is estimated based on its measured fog water concentration and pH (Section 3.2). This is added to the concentration calculated using eq 2. A similar inference of gas-phase HNO3 and HCl is deemed unnecessary in this case, given the high value of pH and LWCf of fogs in SPC. (26)
We test in Section 4.1 the reliability of our approach on a limited subset of data for which parallel measurements of PM2.5 and NH3(g) are available, comparing NH3(g)/NH4+(p) predictions with the measured ammonia gas-particle partitioning. We also evaluate the impact of neglecting gaseous ammonia from the calculation, applying the model even with just aerosol-phase data as already done in previous studies. (6)

3.2. Estimating Gaseous Ammonia in Fogs

Although fogs scavenge most of the aerosol and a large fraction of the water-soluble gases of interest for pH determination (namely, NH3 and HNO3), a portion remains in the gas phase in quasiequilibrium with the fog water. If the atmospheric concentration of gaseous ammonia in fog (NH3(fog)) is known, it can be included in the thermodynamic analysis. To determine NH3(fog), we first assume that NH3 is in equilibrium with the fog water NH4+, and then correct to account for any apparent departure from this equilibrium because we use the pH of the bulk fog water. (31) Following Guo et al., (26) the fraction of available NH3 that partitions to the fog water at equilibrium, εNH4, is given by
(3)
where T is the measured temperature in K, LWCf is the measured liquid water content of the air in g m–3, R (=0.082 atm L mol–1 K–1) is the ideal-gas constant, and HNH3* is the effective Henry’s law constant calculated at the measured fog water pH
(4)
where HNH3 (=62 M atm–1) is the Henry law constant for NH3 at 298 K, Ka1 = 1.7 × 10–5 M, and [H+] is the hydronium ion concentration in the fog water.
Given that the fog water pH and concentration of ammonium and liquid water are known, eqs 3 and 4 can be combined to give NH3(fog)eq
(5)
where NH3(fog)eq is the equilibrium concentration of ammonia in the fog, and NH4(fog)+ is the ammonium concentration of the fog water.
Ricci et al., (32) investigating the uptake of soluble gases by fog droplets, showed that deviations from bulk equilibrium can occur and thus should be accounted for, at least approximately. For this, we define an equilibrium deviation ratio, Dr = NH3(fog)/NH3(fog)eq, as the ratio between the estimated (NH3(fog)) and bulk equilibrium gas-phase ammonia concentration. If Dr is constrained from observations, it can then be used together with eq 5 to provide the estimated concentration of ammonia in the fog
(6)
Given that our analysis refers to the bulk composition of fog water (in which we cannot keep track of the size and pH of the single droplets), actually, the deviation ratio (Dr) can change depending on the duration and characteristics of the fog event (as already hypothesized and empirically measured by Pandis and Seinfeld (31) and by Ricci et al. (32)), and especially, depending on the pH of the fog water solution. Pandis and Seinfeld (31) proved that for all fogs the difference in pH among droplets of different sizes (larger droplets tend to be more alkaline as they form on alkaline dust particles), even if the system is in equilibrium, leads to supersaturation of the bulk aqueous phase compared to the gas phase. To account for this effect too, using the available measured data (referring to the last 2 years analyzed, 2017–2018), we estimate (following the steps described in the Supporting Information, Section S1) the possible range of Dr values due to different fog events (Figure S1) and we explicitly determine the relationship between Dr and the measured fog-pH for the 25-year dataset (Figure S2).
We tested consequently different Dr values in the range suggested by our analysis as well as the uncorrected estimation (i.e., Dr = 1) corresponding to the equilibrium (Supporting Information, Section S1). In particular, we compare the performance of the different Dr estimations in terms of the agreement between (a) simulated and observed ammonia/ammonium concentrations at SPC and (b) estimated NH3(fog) concentrations and NH3(g) measurements available also in other places of the Po Valley, like Lombardy (where NH3(g) is measured since 2003).
The results of this comparison suggest that Dr expressed as a function of fog-pH is more appropriate, as it corresponds and correlates well with the available parallel PM2.5 and NH3(g) measurements at SPC (Figure S3) and leads to the estimated NH3(fog) concentrations, which are comparable with other Po Valley background sites (Figure S4).

4. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

4.1. Model Evaluation

The ability of the thermodynamic analysis of fog water composition to estimate aerosol pH is tested first for a subset of data collected from August 2017 to October 2018 focusing on ammonia partitioning. For this period, measurements of both fog and PM2.5 compositions as well as NH3(g) concentrations are available. ISORROPIA-II was used to simulate the partitioning in the system using the fog composition and the estimated NH4(fog)+ + NH3(fog) as inputs for the total ammonia. These predictions are then compared against the measurements of PM2.5 NH4+ and NH3(g) concentrations.
The predictions of ISORROPIA-II for the ammonia/ammonium concentrations obtained from the fog water composition and the estimated NH3 inside the fog are quite consistent with those using the measured NH3(g) and PM2.5 aerosol composition (Figure 1) as inputs. The differences in concentrations are, on average, −1 ± 3% for the gas-phase ammonia and 8 ± 3% for the particulate ammonium (Figure S2). The two approaches also result in consistent pH values with an average difference of 0.06 ± 0.27 pH units (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Evaluation of the ISORROPIA-II ammonia/ammonium concentrations: simulated concentrations of ammonia (a) and ammonium (b) are plotted against the corresponding observed/estimated values. Red markers refer to the measured NH3(g) and PM2.5 aerosol composition; green markers represent the partitioning obtained from the fog water composition and the estimated NH3 inside the fog.

Figure 2

Figure 2. pH values calculated using ISORROPIA-II from the PM2.5 composition (AerPM2.5 pH) and from the fog water composition (AerFOG pH). (a) Time series of AerPM2.5 (dashed lines) and AerFOG pH (markers) for the evaluation dataset. (b) The pH values of AerPM2.5 (y-axis) and AerFOG (x-axis) for parallel samples. The dashed lines indicate ΔpH = 1, 0, and −1. In both panels, black line and markers represent the calculation made without gaseous ammonia (NH3(g)) as input, while red line and markers represent the results using particle/fog NH4(p)+ + gaseous ammonia measured (NH3(g)) or estimated by fog composition (NH3(fog)), respectively.

Moreover, a direct comparison of the fog water and PM2.5 composition for all of the parallel available samples (63 samples spanning from 2011 up to 2018) is also reported in Table S1 and Figure S6, and shows a general agreement. This confirms that the fog water thermodynamic analysis provides a consistent alternative for predicting the pH in the ambient aerosol with reasonable accuracy.
If we do not include the observed gas-phase NH3, the predicted pH decreases by 1.01 ± 0.12 units using PM2.5 composition (Figure 2). This difference (hereinafter, defined as ΔpH AerPM) is consistent with the findings of previous studies (6,8,33) that neglect considering the gas-phase NH3 when inferring aerosol pH. The difference of the fog-water-based pH predictions (AerFOG pH) with and without the estimated gas-phase ammonia (ΔpH AerFOG) is slightly higher at 1.09 ± 0.34, respectively (Figure 2). The calculation of ammonia concentration from the fog water composition is unambiguous and leads to considerably improved pH estimates.

4.2. Aerosol pH Trend in the Last 25 Years

The aerosol pH was estimated using the proposed approach based on the 577 fog water samples collected at SPC over the last 25 years. To investigate typical conditions, the daily mean values of RH and T (calculated as the average of the 24 h of each corresponding day) were used for the ISORROPIA-II calculations, considering them as the best approximation of the average conditions that particles were exposed to before the onset of fog.
The trend of the estimated aerosol pH over the last 25 years is shown in Figure 3. We used annual averages to help to ensure that errors are independent and identically distributed, as suggested by Hess et al. (34) The variability of the aerosol pH during each year is considerable. In 1997, for instance, the calculated pH ranged from 1.38 to 5.51. The variability among years is also remarkable with the highest annual average of 5.18 in 1993 and the lowest of 3.66 in 2010. Given this high variability, the general trend of the aerosol pH over time is identified by applying an interquartile-range rule to remove the extreme values from the annual averages (see the Supporting Information, Section S3), and we obtain a net pH decreasing trend for the whole period 1993–2018 at a 99% confidence interval (Figures 3, S7, and S8). The calculated means from applying the interquartile-range rule show that during 1993–2002, the average aerosol pH was 4.62 (with the highest annual average of 5.18 in 1993) while from 2003–2012 it was 4.53 (with the highest value of 5.10 in 2004) dropping to an average value of 4.27 over the 6 years between 2013 and 2018 (with a maximum value of 4.31 in 2016).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Fog and aerosol pH trends as measured directly in fog water or calculated using ISORROPIA-II. Black circles are the annual average of the pH measured; red squares are the annual average values of the aerosol pH calculated using ISORROPIA-II starting from the fog ionic composition with the gaseous estimated NH3(fog) as input (pH AerFOG + NH3(fog)). Green triangles are the annual average values of the aerosol pH calculated using ISORROPIA-II starting from PM2.5 ionic composition with the measured gaseous NH3 as input (pH AerPM2.5 + NH3(g)). Error bars represent the standard deviations of the measured/calculated pH values.

Given the importance of the gas-phase ammonia concentration inside the fog layer, NH3(fog), in the determination of the aerosol pH trend over time, an additional evaluation of the pH variability due to different possible estimations of the gaseous ammonia concentrations is shown in the Supporting Information (Sections S4 and S5, Figures S9–S11). All tests confirm the decreasing trend of the aerosol pH based on the fog composition (AerFOG pH) within a limited range of variability depending on the chosen gaseous ammonia estimation. Aerosol acidity has increased by approximately 0.5–1 pH units over the examined 25-year period.
The fog water pH is also shown in Figure 3, which shows an increasing trend at a 99% confidence interval (using least-squares regression). Giulianelli et al. (16) had already analyzed this increasing trend of the fog pH at SPC and related it to the decreasing concentrations of the major acidic species NO3 and SO42– (Figure S12). SO2 and NOx emissions have been reduced in Italy but also throughout Europe—without a concurrent decrease in the fog water content during episodes. This behavior is consistent with other European and American datasets (see Pye et al. (2) and references therein).
These different trends, although counterintuitive at first glance, are consistent with the thermodynamics of the fog and aerosol systems. The water concentration in the fog is not driven by the amount of aerosol but rather only by the meteorological conditions, especially the cooling rate when fog is being formed. In contrast, the aerosol liquid water scales with the amount of aerosol. As a result, the aerosol pH tends to change much less with the aerosol amount (because liquid water changes accordingly). (1,10) At the same time, there is the potential for a small decrease in the pH with reduced aerosol because relatively larger amounts of ammonium need to volatilize to establish equilibrium between the gas and particulate phases. (1) As this ammonium leaves the particles, the main cation that neutralizes the acids is depleted. This means that the aerosol pH tends to become more acidic even if the strong acidic components (sulfate and nitrate formed from SO2 and NOx) are reduced. Another factor that can reduce aerosol pH is the change of meteorological parameters (RH and T) observed at SPC over the 25-year period (Figure S13). The role of the different drivers of the observed trends will be discussed in a subsequent section.

4.3. Effect of RH and T Variability on pH Predictions

In our analysis, as already mentioned, we considered daily mean values of relative humidity and temperature as the best approximation of the conditions that particles were exposed to before the onset of fog. To understand how predicted aerosol pH varies throughout each day depending on the RH and T, we repeat the simulation using the RH and T continuously measured during the fog-events and averaged over the fog-sampling time periods, which possibly represents the atmospheric conditions closest to the fog-scavenging.
The resulting pH also shows a decreasing annual average trend (Figure S14), with a reduction of ∼1.5 pH units over the 25-year period. The difference between the two trends is indicative of the effect of the diurnal variability in meteorology on the predicted aerosol pH. Taking these differences into account, we can state that the aerosol pH has decreased by 0.5–1.5 units over the last 25 years.
The different slope of the two pH trends in Figure S14 indicates the important role of RH in determining the aerosol pH by influencing the aerosol liquid water content. To further investigate this effect, we used a constant RH value equal to 99, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, and 70% and repeated the pH calculation. The aerosol pH values calculated using RH = 99% are systematically higher than all the others (Figure S15). For lower values of the RH, the trend becomes weaker, highlighting the importance of RH in pH determination at least in a region such as Po Valley, characterized by high RH.

4.4. Drivers of Aerosol pH Reduction

To understand the drivers of the observed aerosol pH reduction, we apply a multiple linear regression analysis on the simulated aerosol pH, following the approach of Rosenfeld et al. (35) A first regression is applied to the aerosol pH with all of the independent variables (ionic composition and meteorological parameters) used by ISORROPIA-II to calculate the total R2. The regression is then repeated, sequentially omitting one variable at a time to retrieve the contribution of each individual variable to the total variance explained (or R2). The strongest contribution is by the total ammonium (NH4TOT, i.e., gas plus particle phase), representing, alone, 35% of the total variance explained, followed by sulfate (SO42–) and RH contributing 17 and 16% each, respectively, and calcium (Ca2+) contributing 11% (Table S2). Grouping the variables by category, we find that the major ions (NH4TOT, NO3, SO42–, and Cl) are responsible for 61% of the variability, the meteorological parameters (RH and T) for another 23%, and the nonvolatile cations (K+, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+) for the remaining 16%.
These findings confirm the importance of the aerosol chemical composition changes over the years, but point out the important contribution of decreasing RH and increasing T already observed at SPC (Figure S13) in determining the pH trend. This influence should be accounted for when considering future climate change and its interaction with air quality.

4.5. Relationship between Wintertime/Fog-Related pH and Other Seasons

Our analysis shows a decreasing trend in aerosol pH based on the fog water chemical composition. However, the fog composition is representative only of the period between November and March when fog events actually occur, and in particular only of the days in which fog occurs. Nevertheless, based on the pH sensitivity to RH (Figure S15) and on the difference between the average RH during foggy days and during all winter (Table S3), we can expect a change in pH estimation of about 0.2–0.3 units due to the variability of RH in wintertime (which never drops below 80% on a seasonal average basis). Regarding seasons without fog events, the 7 years (2011–2018) of available aerosol data (24) allow a robust characterization of the SPC aerosol pH seasonality over the recent past. The strong seasonality of aerosol pH (calculated using the monthly average of the available gaseous ammonia measurements for constraining the model, as described in the Supporting Information, Section S9, Figure S16) is recognizable, with the highest average values of 4.19 during winter (in good agreement with the pH calculated from fog composition in the same period 2011–2018) and the lowest of 2.61 during summer (Figure S17). The variation of more than 1.5 pH units between winter and summer can be the result of the seasonal changes in meteorological conditions (mean wintertime temperature and RH are 276 K and 85%, while the summertime ones are 297 K and 62%, respectively) but also of the changing emissions like biomass burning in the wintertime, agricultural activities and photochemical processes during summer. (36) These seasonal ranges are consistent with the seasonality reported in other locations (e.g., Pye et al., (2) and references therein).

5. Implications

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Information on aerosol pH trends over time is limited in Europe as well as around the world, owing to the scarcity of relevant data. Long-term monitoring programs for cloud/fog composition and acidity are also limited, but there are locations around the world where such measurements have been made routinely, or at least periodically, over periods of a decade or more. Our analysis suggests a novel way to calculate the pre-fog aerosol pH using fog compositional data in a thermodynamically consistent way, which can be useful to evaluate long-term trend of particle acidity also in other regions of the world for which data are available (e.g., Central Valley in CA; Whiteface mountain, NY; etc. (2)).
The Po Valley dataset used in this work shows an increasing trend of the fog water pH. (16) We show for the first time that this increasing pH of cloud/fog water may not be indicative of the trend in aerosol acidity. In the case of the Po Valley, the fog and the aerosol have opposite trends during the last 25 years. We demonstrate that this aerosol pH reduction trend is thermodynamically robust and it is driven by the contemporary decrease of the corresponding air pollutants due to the environmental policies and by the changing meteorological parameters (RH and T), possibly a result of regional climate change. The Po Valley is dominated by ammonia emissions and its aerosol is characterized by pH and liquid water content levels similar to those in E. Asia during haze episodes. (26)
The Po Valley is a well-known air quality hotspot characterized by particulate matter (PM) levels well above the limit set by the European Air Quality Directive and by the World Health Organization. These high concentrations are dominated during the cold season (almost half of the year) by ammonium nitrate (which during winter represents 26–43% of total PM2.5 mass (20)). Given their semivolatility and their acid–base activity, nitrate, and ammonium are the aerosol species most sensitive to pH. Nenes et al. (37) developed a new conceptual framework explicitly considering pH, aerosol liquid water content, and temperature as the main parameters controlling secondary inorganic PM sensitivity. Figure 4 places the Po Valley aerosol pH (both based on fog and aerosol data) in this framework. Based on this, the SPC area from November to March (fog season) is in the regime in which aerosol nitrate formation is highly efficient. This is true for the aerosol pH calculated both by fog water (i.e., referring to foggy days) and by PM2.5 composition (i.e., including both foggy and non-foggy wintertime days of 2017–2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Distribution of aerosol pH versus aerosol liquid water content from both fog composition (blue points) and PM2.5 composition (brown points) inside the chemical domains of aerosol sensitivity to NH3 and NOx emissions as introduced by Nenes et al. (37) The blue line defines the characteristic pH when the aerosol is sensitive to changes in the available nitrate and the red line in ammonia. These are calculated for the average temperature of the winter periods (280 K). PM2.5 data are for 2017–2018 wintertime samples for which both NH4(p)+ and NH3(g) measurements are available. Bigger markers indicate the average values of the corresponding multiyear period reported below each of them: white symbols refer to calculations based on the fog water data and the orange circles refer to the aerosol and gas-phase ammonia data.

Considering the definitions of Nenes et al. (37) and the average values of temperature and aerosol liquid water content corresponding to the PM2.5 samples collected at SPC during the cold season (280 K and 28.8 μg m–3, respectively), we calculate the threshold for the change of acidity regime to be at a pH of ∼0.5. This pH value is well below the lowest observed pH values (3.76 as an annual average for 2010). However, if the decreasing trend of aerosol pH continues in the future and the pH drops to the threshold level, aerosol nitrate will remain almost exclusively in the gas phase as HNO3, regardless of the amount present. If and when this change happens depends on the rate of future reduction in emissions of NH3 and NOx (precursors of aerosol ammonium and nitrate) and on the changes of T and RH. Increasing T and decreasing RH will tend to shift the threshold to higher pH values as the effect of the liquid water content decreases. For the time being, the wintertime composition has been gradually moving along the years from the top right (HNO3/NH3-sensitive regimes) toward the top left side of the graph (HNO3-sensitive regime) (Figure 4), mostly because the aerosol liquid water content, in particular, has decreased significantly due to changes in PM concentrations and also to decreasing RH (Figure S13). pH has seen less of a drop because of these changes.
Currently, the PM sensitivity regime remains in the HNO3-sensitive area throughout the year, with a tendency however to be close to the NH3-sensitive regime during summer (Figure 5). This seasonality of the PM sensitivity in the Po Valley is important for effective pollution control policies. This means that, currently, NOx controls would be most effective for PM2.5 reduction in the Po Valley both during summer and winter. In the future, however, seasonal transitions to the NH3-sensitive region may occur, meaning that the NH3 reduction policy may become increasingly necessary. Future work will focus on the implications of the emission and meteorological trends for the deposition of reactive nitrogen. (38)

Figure 5

Figure 5. Seasonality of the distribution of aerosol pH versus liquid water content inside the chemical domains of aerosol sensitivity introduced by Nenes et al. (37) Characteristic pH for defining when the aerosol is sensitive to changes in the available nitrate (blue lines) and ammonia (red lines) are calculated for the annual average temperature (=287 K, solid lines) ± its standard deviation (=295 K, dotted lines, and =278 K, dashed lines, respectively).

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c00651.

  • Deeper descriptions of the modeling methods (e.g., estimation of gaseous ammonia from fog water composition; NH3 estimation effect on the aerosol pH variability and RH sensitivity test); statistical analysis of the pH trend; details on the trends of pollutants and meteorological parameters; details on the results of the multiple linear regression analysis to study the drivers of aerosol pH reduction (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Marco Paglione - Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, GreeceItalian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, ItalyOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4423-2570 Email: [email protected]
    • Athanasios Nenes - Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, GreeceSchool of Architecture, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, SwitzerlandOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3873-9970 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Stefano Decesari - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, ItalyOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-3786
    • Matteo Rinaldi - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    • Leone Tarozzi - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, ItalyItalian National Research Council—Institute of Marine Sciences (CNR-ISMAR), Bologna 40129, Italy
    • Francesco Manarini - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    • Stefania Gilardoni - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, ItalyItalian National Research Council—Institute of Polar Sciences (CNR-ISP), Bologna 40129, ItalyOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-5571
    • Maria Cristina Facchini - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    • Sandro Fuzzi - Italian National Research Council—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC), Bologna 40129, Italy
    • Dimitri Bacco - Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (ARPAE) of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna 40122, Italy
    • Arianna Trentini - Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (ARPAE) of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna 40122, Italy
    • Spyros N. Pandis - Institute for Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Patras 26504, GreeceDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, Patras 26504, Greece
  • Author Contributions

    M.P. and A.N. developed the acidity inference method and designed the research; S.D., L.T., S.F., and M.C.F. managed the fog-sampling campaigns; M.P., S.D., S.G., M.R., and F.M. contributed to the chemical analyses; D.B. and A.T. performed aerosol sampling and ammonia measurements; M.P., A.N., S.N.P., and S.D. wrote the paper; S.N.P., M.R., S.F., M.C.F., S.G., and S.D. contributed to the scientific discussion and paper correction. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding

    This research was supported by the European Commission (project PyroTRACH, grant no. 726165; project BACCHUS, grant no. 603445; and project FORCES, grant no. 821205) and by the Regione Emilia-Romagna (project SUPERSITO, grant nos. DRG 428/10 and DGR 1971/2013).

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors are grateful to all the ARPAE Emilia-Romagna co-workers for their support and collaboration in aerosol sample analysis. ISAC-CNR is particularly grateful to Giordano Orsi, Valeriana Mancinelli, Lara Giulianelli, Francescopiero Calzolari, and all the other colleagues who collaborated in the preparation of the fog campaigns, the functioning of the instruments, and the fog and aerosol sampling in the field over 25 years.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 38 other publications.

  1. 1
    Weber, R. J.; Guo, H.; Russell, A. G.; Nenes, A. High aerosol acidity despite declining atmospheric sulfate concentrations over the past 15 years. Nat. Geosci. 2016, 9, 282285,  DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2665
  2. 2
    Pye, H. O. T.; Nenes, A.; Alexander, B.; Ault, A. P.; Barth, M. C.; Clegg, S. L.; Collett, J. L., Jr.; Fahey, K. M.; Hennigan, C. J.; Herrmann, H.; Kanakidou, M.; Kelly, J. T.; Ku, I.-T.; McNeill, V. F.; Riemer, N.; Schaefer, T.; Shi, G.; Tilgner, A.; Walker, J. T.; Wang, T.; Weber, R.; Xing, J.; Zaveri, R. A.; Zuend, A. The acidity of atmospheric particles and clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 48094888,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-4809-2020
  3. 3
    Jang, M.; Sun, S.; Winslow, R.; Han, S.; Yu, Z. In situ aerosol acidity measurements using a UV–Visible micro-spectrometer and its application to the ambient air. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 446461,  DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2020.1711510
  4. 4
    Lei, Z.; Bliesner, S. E.; Mattson, C. N.; Cooke, M. E.; Olson, N. E.; Chibwe, K.; Albert, J.N.L.; Ault, A. P. Aerosol acidity sensing via polymer degradation. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92, 65026511,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b05766
  5. 5
    Wei, H.; Vejerano, E. P.; Leng, W.; Huang, Q.; Willner, M. R.; Marr, L. C.; Vikesland, P. J. Aerosol microdroplets exhibit a stable pH gradient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 72727277,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1720488115
  6. 6
    Hennigan, C. J.; Izumi, J.; Sullivan, A. P.; Weber, R. J.; Nenes, A. A critical evaluation of proxy methods used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 27752790,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-2775-2015
  7. 7
    Song, S. J.; Gao, M.; Xu, W. Q.; Shao, J. Y.; Shi, G. L.; Wang, S. X.; Wang, Y. X.; Sun, Y. L.; McElroy, M. B. Fine-particle pH for Beijing winter haze as inferred from different thermodynamic equilibrium models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 74237438,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-7423-2018
  8. 8
    Guo, H.; Xu, L.; Bougiatioti, A.; Cerully, K. M.; Capps, S. L.; Hite, J. R.; Carlton, A. G.; Lee, S. H.; Bergin, M. H.; Ng, N. L.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine-particle water and pH in the southeastern United States. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 52115228,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-5211-2015
  9. 9
    Fountoukis, C.; Nenes, A. ISORROPIA II: a computationally efficient thermodynamic equilibrium model for K+–Ca2+–Mg2+–NH4+–Na+–SO42––NO3––Cl––H2O aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, 46394659,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-7-4639-2007
  10. 10
    Song, S.; Nenes, A.; Gao, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, P. F.; Shao, J. Y.; Ye, D. C.; Xu, W. Q.; Lei, L.; Sun, Y. L.; Liu, B. X.; Wang, S. X.; McElroy, M. B. Thermodynamic modeling suggests declines in water uptake and acidity of inorganic aerosols in Beijing winter haze events during 2014/2015–2018/2019. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 752760,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00621
  11. 11
    Ibikunle, I.; Beyersdorf, A.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Corr, C.; Crounse, J. D.; Dibb, J.; Diskin, G.; Huey, G.; Jimenez, J.-L.; Kim, M. J.; Nault, B. A.; Scheuer, E.; Teng, A.; Wennberg, P. O.; Anderson, B.; Crawford, J.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A. Fine particle pH and sensitivity to NH3 and HNO3 over summertime South Korea during KORUS-AQ. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2020, 142,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-2020-501
  12. 12
    Bougiatioti, A.; Nikolaou, P.; Stavroulas, I.; Kouvarakis, G.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A.; Kanakidou, M.; Mihalopoulos, N. Particle water and pH in the eastern Mediterranean: source variability and implications for nutrient availability. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 45794591,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-16-4579-2016
  13. 13
    Gilardoni, S.; Massoli, P.; Giulianelli, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Paglione, M.; Pollini, F.; Lanconelli, C.; Poluzzi, V.; Carbone, S.; Hillamo, R.; Russell, L. M.; Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S. Fog scavenging of organic and inorganic aerosol in the Po Valley. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 69676981,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-14-6967-2014
  14. 14
    Young, A. H.; Keene, W. C.; Pszenny, A. A. P.; Sander, R.; Thornton, J. A.; Riedel, T. P.; Maben, J. R. Phase partitioning of soluble trace gases with size-resolved aerosols in near-surface continental air over northern Colorado, USA, during winter. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 2013, 118, 94149427,  DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50655
  15. 15
    Wang, G. H.; Zhang, R. Y.; Gomez, M. E.; Yang, L. X.; Zamora, M. L.; Hu, M.; Lin, Y.; Peng, J. F.; Guo, S.; Meng, J. J.; Li, J. J.; Cheng, C. L.; Hu, T. F.; Ren, Y. Q.; Wang, Y. S.; Gao, J.; Cao, J. J.; An, Z. S.; Zhou, W. J.; Li, G. H.; Wang, J. Y.; Tian, P. F.; Marrero-Ortiz, W.; Secrest, J.; Du, Z. F.; Zheng, J.; Shang, D. J.; Zeng, L. M.; Shao, M.; Wang, W. G.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y. J.; Li, Y. X.; Hu, J. X.; Pan, B.; Cai, L.; Cheng, Y. T.; Ji, Y. M.; Zhang, F.; Rosenfeld, D.; Liss, P. S.; Duce, R. A.; Kolb, C. E.; Molina, M. J. Persistent sulfate formation from London Fog to Chinese haze. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 1363013635,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616540113
  16. 16
    Giulianelli, L.; Gilardoni, S.; Tarozzi, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Decesari, S.; Carbone, C.; Facchini, M.; Fuzzi, S. Fog occurrence and chemical composition in the Po valley over the last twenty years. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 98, 394401,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.080
  17. 17
    Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Mariotti, M. Radiation fog liquid water acidity at a field station in the Po Valley. J. Aerosol Sci. 1983, 14, 135138,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-8502(83)90037-X
  18. 18
    Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Mariotti, M. Wet deposition due to fog in the Po Valley, Italy. J. Atmos. Chem. 1985, 3, 289296,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00210501
  19. 19
    Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Nardini, G.; Facchini, M. C.; McLaren, S.; McLaren, E.; Mariotti, M. Heterogeneous processes in the Po Valley radiation fog. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 1988, 93, 1114111151,  DOI: 10.1029/JD093iD09p11141
  20. 20
    Winiwarter, W.; Puxbaum, H.; Fuzzi, S.; Facchini, M. C.; Orsi, G.; Beltz, N.; Enderle, K.; Jaeschke, W. Organic acid gas and liquid-phase measurements in Po Valley fall-winter conditions in the presence of fog. Tellus B 1988, 40B, 348357,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.1988.tb00109.x
  21. 21
    Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Bonforte, G.; Zardini, B.; Franchini, P. L. An automated fog water collector suitable for deposition networks: design, operation and field tests. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 1997, 93, 383394,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02404768
  22. 22
    Tomasi, C.; Tampieri, F. Features of the proportionality coefficient in the relationship between visibility and liquid water content in haze and fog. Atmosphere 1976, 6176,  DOI: 10.1080/00046973.1976.9648403
  23. 23
    Matta, E.; Facchini, M. C.; Decesari, S.; Mircea, M.; Cavalli, F.; Fuzzi, S.; Putaud, J. P.; Dell’Acqua, A. Mass closure on the chemical species in size-segregated atmospheric aerosol collected in an urban area of the Po Valley, Italy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2003, 3, 623637,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-3-623-2003
  24. 24
    Ricciardelli, I.; Bacco, D.; Rinaldi, M.; Bonafe, G.; Scotto, F.; Trentini, A.; Bertacci, G.; Ugolini, P.; Zigola, C.; Rovere, F.; Maccone, C.; Pironi, C.; Poluzzi, V. A three-year investigation of daily PM2:5 main chemical components in four sites: the routine measurement program of the Supersito Project (Po Valley, Italy). Atmos. Environ. 2017, 152, 418430,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.12.052
  25. 25
    Guo, H.; Sullivan, A. P.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Schroder, J. C.; Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D.; Dibb, J. E.; Jimenez, J. L.; Thornton, J. A.; Brown, S. S.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine particle pH and the partitioning of nitric acid during winter in the northeastern United States. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 2016, 121, 1035510376,  DOI: 10.1002/2016jd025311
  26. 26
    Guo, H.; Liu, J.; Froyd, K. D.; Roberts, J. M.; Veres, P. R.; Hayes, P. L.; Jimenez, J. L.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine particle pH and gas–particle phase partitioning of inorganic species in Pasadena, California, during the 2010 CalNex campaign. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, 57035719,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-17-5703-2017
  27. 27
    Guo, H.; Otjes, R.; Schlag, P.; Kiendler-Scharr, A.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Effectiveness of ammonia reduction on control of fine particle nitrate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 1224112256,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-12241-2018
  28. 28
    Vasilakos, P.; Russell, A.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A. Understanding nitrate formation in a world with less sulfate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 1276512775,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-12765-2018
  29. 29
    Battaglia, M. A., Jr.; Weber, R. J.; Nenes, A.; Hennigan, C. J. Effects of water-soluble organic carbon on aerosol pH. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019, 19, 1460714620,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-14607-2019
  30. 30
    Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S.; Zappoli, S.; Andracchio, A.; Gelencsér, A.; Kiss, G.; Krivácsy, Z.; Mészáros, E.; Hansson, H.-C.; Alsberg, T.; Zebühr, Y. Partitioning of the organic aerosol component between fog droplets and interstitial air. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 1999, 104, 2682126832,  DOI: 10.1029/1999JD900349
  31. 31
    Pandis, S. N.; Seinfeld, J. H. Should bulk cloudwater samplesobey Henry’s law?. J. Geophys. Res. 1991, 96, 1079110798,  DOI: 10.1029/91JD01031
  32. 32
    Ricci, L.; Fuzzi, S.; Laj, P.; Lazzari, A.; Orsi, G.; Berner, A.; Günther, A.; Jaeschke, W.; Wendisch, M.; Arends, B. Gas-liquid equilibria in polluted fog. Contrib. Atmos. Phys. 1998, 71, 159
  33. 33
    Fountoukis, C.; Nenes, A.; Sullivan, A.; Weber, R.; Van Reken, T.; Fischer, M.; Matías, E.; Moya, M.; Farmer, D.; Cohen, R. C. Thermodynamic characterization of Mexico City aerosol during MILAGRO 2006. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, 21412156,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-9-2141-2009
  34. 34
    Hess, A.; Iyer, H.; Malm, W. Linear trend analysis: a comparison of methods. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 52115222,  DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00342-9
  35. 35
    Rosenfeld, D.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zheng, Y.; Goren, T.; Yu, S. Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds. Science 2019, 363, eaav0566  DOI: 10.1126/science.aav0566
  36. 36
    Paglione, M.; Gilardoni, S.; Rinaldi, M.; Decesari, S.; Zanca, N.; Sandrini, S.; Giulianelli, L.; Bacco, D.; Ferrari, S.; Poluzzi, V.; Scotto, F.; Trentini, A.; Poulain, L.; Herrmann, H.; Wiedensohler, A.; Canonaco, F.; Prévôt, A. S. H.; Massoli, P.; Carbone, C.; Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S. The impact of biomass burning and aqueous-phase processing on air quality: a multi-year source apportionment study in the Po Valley, Italy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 12331254,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-1233-2020
  37. 37
    Nenes, A.; Pandis, S. N.; Weber, R. J.; Russell, A. Aerosol pH and liquid water content determine when particulate matter is sensitive to ammonia and nitrate availability. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 32493258,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-3249-2020
  38. 38
    Nenes, A.; Pandis, S. N.; Kanakidou, M.; Russell, A.; Song, S.; Vasilakos, P.; Weber, R. J. Aerosol acidity and liquid water content regulate the dry deposition of inorganic reactive nitrogen. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2020, 125,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-2020-266

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 7 publications.

  1. Ruijun Dang, Daniel J. Jacob, Shixian Zhai, Laura Hyesung Yang, Drew C. Pendergrass, Pierre Coheur, Lieven Clarisse, Martin Van Damme, Jin-soo Choi, Jin-soo Park, Zirui Liu, Peifu Xie, Hong Liao. A Satellite-Based Indicator for Diagnosing Particulate Nitrate Sensitivity to Precursor Emissions: Application to East Asia, Europe, and North America. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (45) , 20101-20113. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c08082
  2. Yunfei Wei, Shuodi Wang, Nan Jiang, Ruiqin Zhang, Qi Hao. Comparative multi-model study of PM2.5 acidity trend changes in ammonia-rich regions in winter: Based on a new ammonia concentration assessment method. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023, 458 , 131970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131970
  3. Theodora Nah, Yin Hau Lam, Junwei Yang, Le Yang. Long-term trends and sensitivities of PM2.5 pH and aerosol liquid water to chemical composition changes and meteorological parameters in Hong Kong, South China: Insights from 10-year records from three urban sites. Atmospheric Environment 2023, 302 , 119725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119725
  4. Maria Chiara Pietrogrande, Dimitri Bacco, Giorgia Demaria, Mara Russo, Fabiana Scotto, Arianna Trentini. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their oxygenated derivatives in urban aerosol: levels, chemical profiles, and contribution to PM2.5 oxidative potential. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29 (36) , 54391-54406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16858-z
  5. Zemin Feng, Yongchun Liu, Feixue Zheng, Chao Yan, Peng Fu, Yusheng Zhang, Chaofan Lian, Weigang Wang, Jing Cai, Wei Du, Biwu Chu, Yonghong Wang, Juha Kangasluoma, Federico Bianchi, Tuukka Petäjä, Markku Kulmala. Highly oxidized organic aerosols in Beijing: Possible contribution of aqueous-phase chemistry. Atmospheric Environment 2022, 273 , 118971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.118971
  6. Alex R. Baker, Maria Kanakidou, Athanasios Nenes, Stelios Myriokefalitakis, Peter L. Croot, Robert A. Duce, Yuan Gao, Cécile Guieu, Akinori Ito, Tim D. Jickells, Natalie M. Mahowald, Rob Middag, Morgane M. G. Perron, Manmohan M. Sarin, Rachel Shelley, David R. Turner. Changing atmospheric acidity as a modulator of nutrient deposition and ocean biogeochemistry. Science Advances 2021, 7 (28) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd8800
  7. Adam Milsom, Adam M. Squires, Jacob A. Boswell, Nicholas J. Terrill, Andrew D. Ward, Christian Pfrang. An organic crystalline state in ageing atmospheric aerosol proxies: spatially resolved structural changes in levitated fatty acid particles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2021, 21 (19) , 15003-15021. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15003-2021

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 11, 7307–7315
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00651
Published May 17, 2021

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

2436

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Evaluation of the ISORROPIA-II ammonia/ammonium concentrations: simulated concentrations of ammonia (a) and ammonium (b) are plotted against the corresponding observed/estimated values. Red markers refer to the measured NH3(g) and PM2.5 aerosol composition; green markers represent the partitioning obtained from the fog water composition and the estimated NH3 inside the fog.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. pH values calculated using ISORROPIA-II from the PM2.5 composition (AerPM2.5 pH) and from the fog water composition (AerFOG pH). (a) Time series of AerPM2.5 (dashed lines) and AerFOG pH (markers) for the evaluation dataset. (b) The pH values of AerPM2.5 (y-axis) and AerFOG (x-axis) for parallel samples. The dashed lines indicate ΔpH = 1, 0, and −1. In both panels, black line and markers represent the calculation made without gaseous ammonia (NH3(g)) as input, while red line and markers represent the results using particle/fog NH4(p)+ + gaseous ammonia measured (NH3(g)) or estimated by fog composition (NH3(fog)), respectively.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Fog and aerosol pH trends as measured directly in fog water or calculated using ISORROPIA-II. Black circles are the annual average of the pH measured; red squares are the annual average values of the aerosol pH calculated using ISORROPIA-II starting from the fog ionic composition with the gaseous estimated NH3(fog) as input (pH AerFOG + NH3(fog)). Green triangles are the annual average values of the aerosol pH calculated using ISORROPIA-II starting from PM2.5 ionic composition with the measured gaseous NH3 as input (pH AerPM2.5 + NH3(g)). Error bars represent the standard deviations of the measured/calculated pH values.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Distribution of aerosol pH versus aerosol liquid water content from both fog composition (blue points) and PM2.5 composition (brown points) inside the chemical domains of aerosol sensitivity to NH3 and NOx emissions as introduced by Nenes et al. (37) The blue line defines the characteristic pH when the aerosol is sensitive to changes in the available nitrate and the red line in ammonia. These are calculated for the average temperature of the winter periods (280 K). PM2.5 data are for 2017–2018 wintertime samples for which both NH4(p)+ and NH3(g) measurements are available. Bigger markers indicate the average values of the corresponding multiyear period reported below each of them: white symbols refer to calculations based on the fog water data and the orange circles refer to the aerosol and gas-phase ammonia data.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Seasonality of the distribution of aerosol pH versus liquid water content inside the chemical domains of aerosol sensitivity introduced by Nenes et al. (37) Characteristic pH for defining when the aerosol is sensitive to changes in the available nitrate (blue lines) and ammonia (red lines) are calculated for the annual average temperature (=287 K, solid lines) ± its standard deviation (=295 K, dotted lines, and =278 K, dashed lines, respectively).

  • References


    This article references 38 other publications.

    1. 1
      Weber, R. J.; Guo, H.; Russell, A. G.; Nenes, A. High aerosol acidity despite declining atmospheric sulfate concentrations over the past 15 years. Nat. Geosci. 2016, 9, 282285,  DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2665
    2. 2
      Pye, H. O. T.; Nenes, A.; Alexander, B.; Ault, A. P.; Barth, M. C.; Clegg, S. L.; Collett, J. L., Jr.; Fahey, K. M.; Hennigan, C. J.; Herrmann, H.; Kanakidou, M.; Kelly, J. T.; Ku, I.-T.; McNeill, V. F.; Riemer, N.; Schaefer, T.; Shi, G.; Tilgner, A.; Walker, J. T.; Wang, T.; Weber, R.; Xing, J.; Zaveri, R. A.; Zuend, A. The acidity of atmospheric particles and clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 48094888,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-4809-2020
    3. 3
      Jang, M.; Sun, S.; Winslow, R.; Han, S.; Yu, Z. In situ aerosol acidity measurements using a UV–Visible micro-spectrometer and its application to the ambient air. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 446461,  DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2020.1711510
    4. 4
      Lei, Z.; Bliesner, S. E.; Mattson, C. N.; Cooke, M. E.; Olson, N. E.; Chibwe, K.; Albert, J.N.L.; Ault, A. P. Aerosol acidity sensing via polymer degradation. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92, 65026511,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b05766
    5. 5
      Wei, H.; Vejerano, E. P.; Leng, W.; Huang, Q.; Willner, M. R.; Marr, L. C.; Vikesland, P. J. Aerosol microdroplets exhibit a stable pH gradient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 72727277,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1720488115
    6. 6
      Hennigan, C. J.; Izumi, J.; Sullivan, A. P.; Weber, R. J.; Nenes, A. A critical evaluation of proxy methods used to estimate the acidity of atmospheric particles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 27752790,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-2775-2015
    7. 7
      Song, S. J.; Gao, M.; Xu, W. Q.; Shao, J. Y.; Shi, G. L.; Wang, S. X.; Wang, Y. X.; Sun, Y. L.; McElroy, M. B. Fine-particle pH for Beijing winter haze as inferred from different thermodynamic equilibrium models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 74237438,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-7423-2018
    8. 8
      Guo, H.; Xu, L.; Bougiatioti, A.; Cerully, K. M.; Capps, S. L.; Hite, J. R.; Carlton, A. G.; Lee, S. H.; Bergin, M. H.; Ng, N. L.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine-particle water and pH in the southeastern United States. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 52115228,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-5211-2015
    9. 9
      Fountoukis, C.; Nenes, A. ISORROPIA II: a computationally efficient thermodynamic equilibrium model for K+–Ca2+–Mg2+–NH4+–Na+–SO42––NO3––Cl––H2O aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, 46394659,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-7-4639-2007
    10. 10
      Song, S.; Nenes, A.; Gao, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, P. F.; Shao, J. Y.; Ye, D. C.; Xu, W. Q.; Lei, L.; Sun, Y. L.; Liu, B. X.; Wang, S. X.; McElroy, M. B. Thermodynamic modeling suggests declines in water uptake and acidity of inorganic aerosols in Beijing winter haze events during 2014/2015–2018/2019. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 752760,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00621
    11. 11
      Ibikunle, I.; Beyersdorf, A.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Corr, C.; Crounse, J. D.; Dibb, J.; Diskin, G.; Huey, G.; Jimenez, J.-L.; Kim, M. J.; Nault, B. A.; Scheuer, E.; Teng, A.; Wennberg, P. O.; Anderson, B.; Crawford, J.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A. Fine particle pH and sensitivity to NH3 and HNO3 over summertime South Korea during KORUS-AQ. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2020, 142,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-2020-501
    12. 12
      Bougiatioti, A.; Nikolaou, P.; Stavroulas, I.; Kouvarakis, G.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A.; Kanakidou, M.; Mihalopoulos, N. Particle water and pH in the eastern Mediterranean: source variability and implications for nutrient availability. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 45794591,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-16-4579-2016
    13. 13
      Gilardoni, S.; Massoli, P.; Giulianelli, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Paglione, M.; Pollini, F.; Lanconelli, C.; Poluzzi, V.; Carbone, S.; Hillamo, R.; Russell, L. M.; Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S. Fog scavenging of organic and inorganic aerosol in the Po Valley. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 69676981,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-14-6967-2014
    14. 14
      Young, A. H.; Keene, W. C.; Pszenny, A. A. P.; Sander, R.; Thornton, J. A.; Riedel, T. P.; Maben, J. R. Phase partitioning of soluble trace gases with size-resolved aerosols in near-surface continental air over northern Colorado, USA, during winter. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 2013, 118, 94149427,  DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50655
    15. 15
      Wang, G. H.; Zhang, R. Y.; Gomez, M. E.; Yang, L. X.; Zamora, M. L.; Hu, M.; Lin, Y.; Peng, J. F.; Guo, S.; Meng, J. J.; Li, J. J.; Cheng, C. L.; Hu, T. F.; Ren, Y. Q.; Wang, Y. S.; Gao, J.; Cao, J. J.; An, Z. S.; Zhou, W. J.; Li, G. H.; Wang, J. Y.; Tian, P. F.; Marrero-Ortiz, W.; Secrest, J.; Du, Z. F.; Zheng, J.; Shang, D. J.; Zeng, L. M.; Shao, M.; Wang, W. G.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y. J.; Li, Y. X.; Hu, J. X.; Pan, B.; Cai, L.; Cheng, Y. T.; Ji, Y. M.; Zhang, F.; Rosenfeld, D.; Liss, P. S.; Duce, R. A.; Kolb, C. E.; Molina, M. J. Persistent sulfate formation from London Fog to Chinese haze. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 1363013635,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616540113
    16. 16
      Giulianelli, L.; Gilardoni, S.; Tarozzi, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Decesari, S.; Carbone, C.; Facchini, M.; Fuzzi, S. Fog occurrence and chemical composition in the Po valley over the last twenty years. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 98, 394401,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.080
    17. 17
      Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Mariotti, M. Radiation fog liquid water acidity at a field station in the Po Valley. J. Aerosol Sci. 1983, 14, 135138,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-8502(83)90037-X
    18. 18
      Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Mariotti, M. Wet deposition due to fog in the Po Valley, Italy. J. Atmos. Chem. 1985, 3, 289296,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00210501
    19. 19
      Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Nardini, G.; Facchini, M. C.; McLaren, S.; McLaren, E.; Mariotti, M. Heterogeneous processes in the Po Valley radiation fog. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 1988, 93, 1114111151,  DOI: 10.1029/JD093iD09p11141
    20. 20
      Winiwarter, W.; Puxbaum, H.; Fuzzi, S.; Facchini, M. C.; Orsi, G.; Beltz, N.; Enderle, K.; Jaeschke, W. Organic acid gas and liquid-phase measurements in Po Valley fall-winter conditions in the presence of fog. Tellus B 1988, 40B, 348357,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.1988.tb00109.x
    21. 21
      Fuzzi, S.; Orsi, G.; Bonforte, G.; Zardini, B.; Franchini, P. L. An automated fog water collector suitable for deposition networks: design, operation and field tests. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 1997, 93, 383394,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02404768
    22. 22
      Tomasi, C.; Tampieri, F. Features of the proportionality coefficient in the relationship between visibility and liquid water content in haze and fog. Atmosphere 1976, 6176,  DOI: 10.1080/00046973.1976.9648403
    23. 23
      Matta, E.; Facchini, M. C.; Decesari, S.; Mircea, M.; Cavalli, F.; Fuzzi, S.; Putaud, J. P.; Dell’Acqua, A. Mass closure on the chemical species in size-segregated atmospheric aerosol collected in an urban area of the Po Valley, Italy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2003, 3, 623637,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-3-623-2003
    24. 24
      Ricciardelli, I.; Bacco, D.; Rinaldi, M.; Bonafe, G.; Scotto, F.; Trentini, A.; Bertacci, G.; Ugolini, P.; Zigola, C.; Rovere, F.; Maccone, C.; Pironi, C.; Poluzzi, V. A three-year investigation of daily PM2:5 main chemical components in four sites: the routine measurement program of the Supersito Project (Po Valley, Italy). Atmos. Environ. 2017, 152, 418430,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.12.052
    25. 25
      Guo, H.; Sullivan, A. P.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Schroder, J. C.; Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D.; Dibb, J. E.; Jimenez, J. L.; Thornton, J. A.; Brown, S. S.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine particle pH and the partitioning of nitric acid during winter in the northeastern United States. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 2016, 121, 1035510376,  DOI: 10.1002/2016jd025311
    26. 26
      Guo, H.; Liu, J.; Froyd, K. D.; Roberts, J. M.; Veres, P. R.; Hayes, P. L.; Jimenez, J. L.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Fine particle pH and gas–particle phase partitioning of inorganic species in Pasadena, California, during the 2010 CalNex campaign. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, 57035719,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-17-5703-2017
    27. 27
      Guo, H.; Otjes, R.; Schlag, P.; Kiendler-Scharr, A.; Nenes, A.; Weber, R. J. Effectiveness of ammonia reduction on control of fine particle nitrate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 1224112256,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-12241-2018
    28. 28
      Vasilakos, P.; Russell, A.; Weber, R.; Nenes, A. Understanding nitrate formation in a world with less sulfate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 1276512775,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-12765-2018
    29. 29
      Battaglia, M. A., Jr.; Weber, R. J.; Nenes, A.; Hennigan, C. J. Effects of water-soluble organic carbon on aerosol pH. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019, 19, 1460714620,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-14607-2019
    30. 30
      Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S.; Zappoli, S.; Andracchio, A.; Gelencsér, A.; Kiss, G.; Krivácsy, Z.; Mészáros, E.; Hansson, H.-C.; Alsberg, T.; Zebühr, Y. Partitioning of the organic aerosol component between fog droplets and interstitial air. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 1999, 104, 2682126832,  DOI: 10.1029/1999JD900349
    31. 31
      Pandis, S. N.; Seinfeld, J. H. Should bulk cloudwater samplesobey Henry’s law?. J. Geophys. Res. 1991, 96, 1079110798,  DOI: 10.1029/91JD01031
    32. 32
      Ricci, L.; Fuzzi, S.; Laj, P.; Lazzari, A.; Orsi, G.; Berner, A.; Günther, A.; Jaeschke, W.; Wendisch, M.; Arends, B. Gas-liquid equilibria in polluted fog. Contrib. Atmos. Phys. 1998, 71, 159
    33. 33
      Fountoukis, C.; Nenes, A.; Sullivan, A.; Weber, R.; Van Reken, T.; Fischer, M.; Matías, E.; Moya, M.; Farmer, D.; Cohen, R. C. Thermodynamic characterization of Mexico City aerosol during MILAGRO 2006. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, 21412156,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-9-2141-2009
    34. 34
      Hess, A.; Iyer, H.; Malm, W. Linear trend analysis: a comparison of methods. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 52115222,  DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00342-9
    35. 35
      Rosenfeld, D.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zheng, Y.; Goren, T.; Yu, S. Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds. Science 2019, 363, eaav0566  DOI: 10.1126/science.aav0566
    36. 36
      Paglione, M.; Gilardoni, S.; Rinaldi, M.; Decesari, S.; Zanca, N.; Sandrini, S.; Giulianelli, L.; Bacco, D.; Ferrari, S.; Poluzzi, V.; Scotto, F.; Trentini, A.; Poulain, L.; Herrmann, H.; Wiedensohler, A.; Canonaco, F.; Prévôt, A. S. H.; Massoli, P.; Carbone, C.; Facchini, M. C.; Fuzzi, S. The impact of biomass burning and aqueous-phase processing on air quality: a multi-year source apportionment study in the Po Valley, Italy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 12331254,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-1233-2020
    37. 37
      Nenes, A.; Pandis, S. N.; Weber, R. J.; Russell, A. Aerosol pH and liquid water content determine when particulate matter is sensitive to ammonia and nitrate availability. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 32493258,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-3249-2020
    38. 38
      Nenes, A.; Pandis, S. N.; Kanakidou, M.; Russell, A.; Song, S.; Vasilakos, P.; Weber, R. J. Aerosol acidity and liquid water content regulate the dry deposition of inorganic reactive nitrogen. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2020, 125,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-2020-266
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c00651.

    • Deeper descriptions of the modeling methods (e.g., estimation of gaseous ammonia from fog water composition; NH3 estimation effect on the aerosol pH variability and RH sensitivity test); statistical analysis of the pH trend; details on the trends of pollutants and meteorological parameters; details on the results of the multiple linear regression analysis to study the drivers of aerosol pH reduction (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.