Published November 21, 2024 | Published
Journal Article Open

Comparison of Isoprene Chemical Mechanisms with Chamber and Field Observations

  • 1. ROR icon Pennsylvania State University
  • 2. ROR icon California Institute of Technology
An error occurred while generating the citation.

Abstract

The importance of global isoprene emissions has stimulated studies of oxidation mechanisms that follow the initial reaction of isoprene with atmospheric hydroxyl (OH). A key question involves the speed and pathways by which isoprene products isomerize. Some reactions in these mechanisms generate new hydroxyl, perhaps enough to recycle most hydroxyl. This research examines five different isoprene oxidation mechanisms using observations from a 2013 field study in an Alabama forest and a 2014 companion study in the Caltech Environmental Chamber. Model mechanisms and observations were compared for OH, hydroperoxyl (HO2), and the isoprene oxidation products: isoprene hydroxyhydroperoxide (ISOPOOH), isoprene epoxydiol (IEPOX), hydroxyacetone, formaldehyde, methacrolein, and methyl vinyl ketone. Observed hydroxyl is generally simulated within uncertainties for both the chamber and the field studies, indicating that hydroxyl recycling is well captured by current model mechanisms, although two mechanisms are slightly better than the other three. When the observed and modeled uncertainties are considered, no currently accepted mechanism is clearly superior to the others for simulating isoprene products. For atmospheric conditions typical of forests–abundant isoprene and low nitric oxide–these model mechanisms produce concentrations of isoprene products that can be substantially different from observations and from each other. This result suggests both the common and different parts of the chemical mechanisms need to be reexamined, particularly by observing the later-generation products directly.

Copyright and License

© 2024 American Chemical Society.

Acknowledgement

We thank all those who made both SOAS and FIXCIT possible, especially J. Seinfeld for FIXCIT and A.M. Carlton for SOAS. We also thank L. Zhang for operating GTHOS for both studies and the anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Funding

FIXCIT was supported by grants from NSF (AGS-1240604 (Caltech), AGS-1246918 (PSU)), the US Department of Energy (DE-SC0006626 (Caltech)), and the NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship program for T.B.N. (AGS-1331360).

Contributions

Conceptualization was by T.B.N, P.O.W, J.D.C, and W.H.B. Investigation was by T.B.N., P.O.W, J.D.C, W.H.B., and D.O.M. Data analysis and modeling was by W.H.B. Data visualization was by W.H.B. Manuscript writing of the original draft was by W.H.B. Reviewing and editing had contributions from T.B.N, P.O.W, and W.H.B.

Supplemental Material

Supporting Information:

FIXCIT_HOx_ACS_ESC_v3_SI.pdf Data access information, photograph of the GTHOS experimental setup, time series plots of chemical species for seven experiments, Monte Carlo simulations of the effects of model variables on model-to-observed ratios, a table of measured chemical species, measuring instruments, their properties and references (PDF)

Files

sp4c00196_si_001.pdf
Files (2.6 MB)
Name Size Download all
md5:570f90a6ea6d4a44f953cea8b7304c94
2.6 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
January 16, 2025
Modified:
January 16, 2025