<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-10-2303-2017</article-id><title-group><article-title>Constraining a hybrid volatility basis-set model for aging of wood-burning
emissions using smog chamber experiments: a box-model study based on the VBS
scheme of the CAMx<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> model (v5.40)</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Constraining a hybrid volatility basis-set model for aging of wood-burning emissions}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{G. Ciarelli et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Ciarelli</surname><given-names>Giancarlo</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>El Haddad</surname><given-names>Imad</given-names></name>
          <email>imad.el-haddad@psi.ch</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bruns</surname><given-names>Emily</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Aksoyoglu</surname><given-names>Sebnem</given-names></name>
          <email>sebnem.aksoyoglu@psi.ch</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5356-5633</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Möhler</surname><given-names>Ottmar</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Baltensperger</surname><given-names>Urs</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Prévôt</surname><given-names>André S. H.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Laboratoire Inter-Universitaire des Systèmes Atmosphériques (LISA), UMR CNRS 7583,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Université Paris Est Créteil
et Université Paris Diderot, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Créteil, France</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Imad El Haddad (imad.el-haddad@psi.ch) and Sebnem Aksoyoglu (sebnem.aksoyoglu@psi.ch)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>23</day><month>June</month><year>2017</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>10</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>2303</fpage><lpage>2320</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>24</day><month>June</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>11</day><month>August</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>10</day><month>March</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>March</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>In this study, novel wood combustion aging experiments performed at different
temperatures (263 and 288 K) in a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> smog chamber were
modelled using a hybrid volatility basis set (VBS) box model, representing
the emission partitioning and their oxidation against OH. We combine
aerosol–chemistry box-model simulations with unprecedented measurements of
non-traditional volatile organic compounds (NTVOCs) from a high-resolution
proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) and with organic aerosol
measurements from an aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS). Due to this, we are
able to observationally constrain the amounts of different NTVOC aerosol
precursors (in the model) relative to low volatility and semi-volatile
primary organic material (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is partitioned based on
current published volatility distribution data. By comparing the
NTVOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios at different temperatures, we determine
the enthalpies of vaporization of primary biomass-burning organic aerosols.
Further, the developed model allows for evaluating the evolution of oxidation
products of the semi-volatile and volatile precursors with aging. More than
30 000 box-model simulations were performed to retrieve the combination of
parameters that best fit the observed organic aerosol mass and O : C
ratios. The parameters investigated include the NTVOC reaction rates and
yields as well as enthalpies of vaporization and the O : C of secondary
organic aerosol surrogates. Our results suggest an average ratio of NTVOCs to
the sum of non-volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.75.
The mass yields of these compounds determined for a wide range of
atmospherically relevant temperatures and organic aerosol (OA) concentrations
were predicted to vary between 8 and 30 % after 5 h of continuous aging.
Based on the reaction scheme used, reaction rates of the NTVOC mixture range
from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The average enthalpy of
vaporization of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) surrogates was determined to
be between 55 000 and 35 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which implies a yield increase
of 0.03–0.06 % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with decreasing temperature. The improved VBS
scheme is suitable for implementation into chemical transport models to
predict the burden and oxidation state of primary and secondary
biomass-burning aerosols.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>The fact that some semi-volatile compounds can exist in either gaseous or
particulate form results in considerable uncertainties in the emission
inventories for primary organic aerosol (POA). Emissions of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are
generally based on emission factors (EF) of POA,
which may be over- or under-predicted depending on the measurement method
used (Lipsky and Robinson, 2006; Nussbaumer et al., 2008a, b).</p>
      <p>In Europe, residential wood-burning emissions constitute one of the main
anthropogenic sources of POA and potentially secondary organic aerosol (SOA),
especially during winter periods with a contribution from 15 to 50 % of the total organic mass (Crippa
et al., 2013; Waked et al., 2014). Thus, great effort was devoted in the past
to better constrain the uncertainties related to wood-burning emissions and
their evolution in the atmosphere (Denier van der Gon et al., 2015; May et
al., 2013). Recent year-long source-apportionment studies based on ACSM
(aerosol chemical speciation monitor) measurements in central Europe suggest
that winter SOA fingerprints resembles those measured during chamber studies
of biomass-burning emission aging (Canonaco et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>One of the main complications when dealing with organic aerosol (OA) is
imposed by the semi-volatile and highly reactive nature of organic material
(Robinson et al., 2007). Depending on ambient conditions freshly emitted
primary organic particles can undergo evaporation. Once emitted
to the atmosphere, organic compounds
are highly reactive towards various oxidants such as the hydroxyl radical
(OH), ozone (O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the nitrate radical (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These oxidants can
strongly alter the chemical structure of the reacted precursors by generating
secondary products with lower or higher volatilities. Linking partitioning
and oxidation processes of thousands of emitted organic compounds is one of
the main challenges in atmospheric chemistry. The volatility basis set (VBS)
scheme can delineate the transformation of the surrogates upon their
functionalization or fragmentation, by changing the compounds' volatility and
O : C ratios, consistently with the dominant representative species in that
part of the parameter space. Regional and global chemical transport models
(CTMs) have been increasingly updated with a VBS scheme with varying
complexities (Bergström et al., 2012; Ciarelli et al., 2016; Hodzic et
al., 2016; Jathar et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2011; Shrivastava et al.,
2015; Tsimpidi et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2013). A recent landmark paper
within the international AeroCom initiative (Tsigaridis et al., 2014) gave a
comprehensive audit of the status of organic aerosol schemes in global
models, brought together several benchmark observational datasets and
intercompared and evaluated the OA simulated by a large number of global
aerosol models against them. Results indicate that simulated OA greatly
varies between models in terms of POA emissions, SOA formation and complexity
of OA parameterizations, but the amount of OA remains under-predicted. In the
latest EURODELTA III (ED-III) European model intercomparison, seven different
regional models were applied in the European domain during different periods
(Bessagnet et al., 2016). All models under-predicted the total measured
organic fraction during the February–March 2009 winter episode mainly
due to the uncertainties in SOA
representation (Bessagnet et al., 2014). Knote et al. (2011) used the
COSMO-ART model to investigate its performance as online-coupled
chemistry–climate model. In their study domestic wood-burning emissions were
not included and POA was assumed to be non-volatile, which resulted in a
severe under-prediction of OA over the studied domain (Knote et al., 2011).
Fountoukis et al. (2014) were among the first to implement the VBS approach
into a large-scale aerosol model, following the multiple distribution
framework approach proposed by Tsimpidi et al. (2010). They found that the
approach considerably improved the model result for OA when compared to a
range of observations from the EUCAARI field campaign (Kulmala et al., 2009,
2011) and from EMEP monitoring network (Tørseth et al., 2012).
Bergström et al. (2012) used the EMEP model for the period of 2002–2007
to compare different partitioning and aging schemes. Their results indicate
the importance, although potential underestimation, of wood-burning emissions
in Europe, in line with other studies (Kostenidou et al., 2013; Fountoukis et
al., 2016; Tsimpidi et al., 2016). Recently, an important new initiative to
provide improved information on residential wood combustion (RWC) emission
inventory for Europe was carried out by Denier van der Gon et al. (2015) and
used as input in two CTMs (PMCAMx and EMEP MSC-W) for the EUCAARI winter
periods (February–March 2009). The new RWC emissions, which are higher by a
factor of 2–3 compared to previous emission inventories, improved the model
performance for total OA (Denier van der Gon et al., 2015). On the other
hand, radiocarbon dating (Mohr et al., 2012; Zotter et al., 2014) and
measurements of specific molecular markers, including methyl-nitrocatechols
(Iinuma et al., 2010; El Haddad et al., 2013), during winter reveal the
importance of residential wood burning for SOA formation. However, parameters
needed for the simulation of the aging of biomass smoke remain not well
constrained. These novel investigations highlight the critical need for a
representation of semi-volatile organic species and their evolution in
chemical transport models.</p>
      <p>In this study we perform extensive box-model simulations of wood-burning
combustion aging experiments performed in a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> smog chamber
at different temperatures. Most uncertain parameters namely enthalpies of
vaporization of SOA, NTVOCs (non-traditional volatile organic compounds)
reaction rates and their yields were investigated by means of
a brute force approach, and a
best-fitting solution, within acceptable physical limits and error ranges,
was retrieved.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Experimental method</title>
      <p>Beech (<italic>Fagus sylvatica</italic>) logs were combusted in a residential wood
burner (model type: Avant, Attika from 2009), following the procedure
described in Heringa et al. (2012) and Bruns et al. (2015). The resulting
emissions were sampled from the chimney through a heated line (473 K),
diluted by a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8–10 using an ejector diluter (473 K,
DI-1000, Dekati Ltd.) and injected into the smog chamber (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
through a heated line (423 K). Emissions were only sampled during the stable
flaming phase of the burn, for 11–21 min and total dilution factors ranged
from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 to 200. Four replicate experiments were conducted at 288 K
and another four experiments at 263 K. The smog chamber had an average
relative humidity (RH) of 50 % over all eight experiments. Another three
experiments were conducted at 90 % relative humidity and 263 K. After
the characterization of the primary emissions, a single dose of d9-butanol
(butanol-D9, 98 %, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories) was injected into the
chamber, to trace the OH concentration (Barmet et al., 2012). A continuous
flow of nitrous acid (2.3–2.6 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 99.999 %, Air
Liquide) into the chamber served as an OH precursor. The chamber was then
irradiated with UV light (40 lights, 90–100 W, Cleo Performance, Philips)
for 4.5–6 h (Platt et al., 2013). The evolution of the gas-phase and
particulate phase composition and concentration were monitored in real time
throughout aging. Non-refractory primary and secondary particulate emissions
were characterized using a high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass
<?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?>spectrometer<?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?> (AMS). Equivalent black carbon
(eBC) was quantified using a 7-wavelength aethalometer (AE33 Magee Scientific
Company, flow rate 2 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Drinovec et al., 2015). Non-methane
organic gases with a proton affinity greater than that of water were measured
using a high-resolution proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer
(PTR-ToF-MS 8000, Ionicon Analytik G.m.b.H.). The PTR-ToF-MS was operated
with hydronium ([H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> H]<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as reagent, a drift tube pressure
of 2.2 mbar, a drift tube voltage of 543 V and a drift tube temperature of
90 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C leading to a ratio of the electric field (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the density
of the buffer gas (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the drift tube (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 137 Townsend. The
analysis of PTR-ToF-MS data and the identification of the precursors'
chemical nature are described in Bruns et al. (2016). The elemental
composition of the detected gases was analysed using the Tofware
post-processing software (version 2.4.5), running in the Igor Pro 6.3
environment (version 6.3, Wavemetrics Inc.). More than 95 % of the
detected peaks could be assigned to a molecular formula. Approximately
70 % of the compounds' chemical structures could be assigned to the
observed ions guided by previously reported compounds emitted during the
residential wood combustion. Here, the lumped sum of the precursors' molar
concentrations will be used to constrain the total amount of NTVOCs (Table S1
in the Supplement) in the model. Their weighted average O : C ratio,
volatility, reaction rate and carbon number will also be presented.</p>
      <p>Particle wall loss rates in the chamber were determined using the decay of
eBC assuming all particles were lost equally to the walls and condensable
material partitions only to suspended particles. The average particle
half-life in the chamber was 3.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 h. NTVOCs were stable in the
chamber prior to aging, indicating that the chamber walls are not an
effective sink for NTVOCs (Bruns et al., 2016). This is because NTVOCs acting
as SOA precursors are largely composed of volatile compounds (see below). By
contrast, the NTVOC oxidation products are expected to be semi-volatile and
partition to both the walls and the particles. Zhang et al. (2014) showed
that the bias created by the wall loss is inversely proportional to
the seed aerosol concentration and OH
concentration, both of which were relatively high in the current experiments
(Bruns et al., 2016). Therefore, under our experimental conditions, wall
losses of NTVOC oxidation products are not expected to be large and thus this
effect was not corrected for and yields presented should be considered as the
lowest estimates.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Model description</title>
      <p>The representation of SOA formation is based on the absorptive partitioning
theory of Pankow (1994), assuming instantaneous reversible
absorptive equilibrium. In this representation, the critical parameters
driving the partitioning of a compound <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between the gas and the condensed
phases are its effective saturation concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
the total concentration of organic aerosol, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M37" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:munder><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the partitioning coefficient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(condensed-phase mass fraction). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a semi-empirical
property (inverse of the Pankow-type partitioning coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
reflecting not only the saturation vapour pressure of the pure constituents
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but also the way they interact with the
organic mixture (effectively including liquid phase activities). This
formulation essentially implies that at high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> almost all
semi-volatile organic aerosols are in the condensed phase with only species
with the highest vapour pressures remaining in the gas phase.</p>
      <p>The VBS approach proposed by Donahue et al. (2006) provides a
framework for the representation of both the chemical aging and the
associated volatility of particulate organic matter evolving in the
atmosphere. The approach separates the organics into logarithmically spaced
bins of effective saturation concentrations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, at 298 K.
This has been later extended (Donahue et al., 2011, 2012) by introducing
surrogate compounds with different carbon and oxygen numbers following the
group contribution approach based on the SIMPOL method (Pankow and Asher, 2008) (Eq. 2).
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M45" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Log</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represent the
carbon–carbon and oxygen–oxygen interactions, respectively,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> describes the non-ideal solution behaviour and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, equal to 25, represents the
reference point for pure hydrocarbons (1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of alkene).
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the carbon and oxygen numbers,
respectively, for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th saturation concentration, at 298 K. In
this configuration, the model becomes two-dimensional (2D-VBS), capable of
tracking the volatility and oxidation state (O : C ratios) (Donahue
et al., 2011, 2012) of oxidation products arising from functionalization and
fragmentation of their precursors.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Properties of the VBS space. Oxygen numbers for each volatility bin
were calculated using the group contribution of Donahue et al. (2011).
Hydrogen numbers were calculated from the van Krevelen relation (Heald et
al., 2010).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Log (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Oxygen</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Carbon</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Hydrogen</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">O : C</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Molecular</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Emission</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">number</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">number</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">number</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">ratio</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">weight</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">factors</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POA set 1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.11</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">17.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">216</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20.07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.29</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">216</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">85 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–70 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">22.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">216</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">81 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–59 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">24.49</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">216</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">77 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–48 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">215</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">73 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–37 000<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SOA set 2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.47</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">194</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">14.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">189</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">15.60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">184</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.83</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16.67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.29</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">179</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SOA set 3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.05</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">149</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.76</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">140</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.65</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">135</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.00</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">131</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35 000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NTVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">113</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4.75(OMsv)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>Here, we have used the VBS scheme proposed by Koo et al. (2014), referred to
as a hybrid 1.5D-VBS and adapted for regional models. In this framework, the
molecular space is not discretized according to the species saturation
concentration and oxidation state, but rather every SOA surrogate is given an
average molecular composition (C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – as a function of its
volatility and the precursor it derives from. While a further simplification
of the system compared to the 2D-VBS, this approach significantly decreases
the degree of freedom of the model, while still providing means to evaluate
the bulk aerosol oxidation state based on the knowledge of the surrogate
molecular composition. This is especially suitable given the limited
constraints available, namely the
precursor composition, the precursor concentration, the POA concentration,
the aged OA concentration and the O : C ratios.</p>
      <p>In practice, five volatility bins ranging from 0.1 to
1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in saturation concentration were used to model
the partitioning of the POA and SOA fractions. The weighted average carbon
and oxygen numbers of the NTVOCs mixture retrieved from
the PTR-ToF-MS measurements were used in
combination with the group contribution approach (Eq. 2) to estimate the
average saturation concentration for SOA precursors yielding
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is at the high end of the
intermediate volatility organic compound (IVOC) saturation concentration
range (Donahue et al., 2012; Koo et al., 2014; Murphy and Pandis, 2009)
(Table 1).</p>
      <p>A total number of three sets were used to describe the organic material. The
first set was used to distribute the primary emissions (set 1). Two other
sets were used to model the formation and evolution of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Oxidation
products of SVOC material arising from primary emissions were allocated to
set 2, whereas oxidation products from NTVOCs were allocated to set 3 (Fig. 1).
The specific molecular structures for each of the sets and bins were
retrieved using the group contribution approach and the Van Krevelen
relation, as shown in Table 1 (Donahue et al., 2011; Heald et al., 2010).</p>
      <p>Primary wood-burning emissions were placed to range from 14 to 11 carbons
(set 1) in line with previous studies (Donahue et al., 2012; Koo et al.,
2014) and appropriate numbers of oxygen atoms were retrieved using Eq. (2).
The distribution of the primary organic material in the low-volatility
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and semi-volatile ranges
(OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.1 &lt; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in set 1 (Table 1) is based on
the work of May et al. (2013). This work revealed that the majority of the
emitted primary organic mass is semi-volatile, with 50 to 80 % of the POA
mass evaporating when diluted from plume to ambient concentrations or when
heated up to 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in a thermodenuder.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Proposed oxidation scheme: an average mixture of NTVOCs compounds
are allowed to react with the hydroxyl radical following a naphthalene kernel
mass distribution. Secondary products in the SOA set (set 3) are allowed to
further react with a reaction rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Oxidation products from
semi-volatile vapours from the POA set (set 1) are allowed for further aging
in set 2. The numbers on the red arrows indicate the NTVOCs yields for each
bin for the best-fitting solution (ppm ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>The oxidation of semi-volatile material would tend on average to increase the compounds' oxygen number and decrease their
volatility and carbon number, due to functionalization and fragmentation. We
assume that the oxidation of the primary semi-volatile compounds with
C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases their volatility by 1 order of magnitude and
yields C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> surrogates, placed in set 2, based on the work of
Donahue et al. (2011, 2012). Based on these assumptions and using the group
contribution approach, the oxygen numbers for set 2 is predicted to vary
between 2.26 and 4.56 (Table 1). Thus, the model implicitly accounts for the
addition of 1.1 to 1.5 oxygen atoms and the loss of 2.75 to 4.25 carbon
atoms, with one oxidation step.</p>
      <p>Set 3 was constrained based on the proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer
(PTR-MS) data. The measurements suggested an average NTVOC carbon and oxygen
number of about 7 and 1, respectively. Based on reported molecular speciation
data (e.g. Kleindienst et al., 2007), we expect the products of C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
compounds to have a C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon backbone. These products were
placed in set 3 following a kernel function based on the distribution of
naphthalene oxidation products. At least two oxygen atoms were added to the
NTVOC mixture upon their oxidation (Table 1). The
overall O : C ratio in the whole
space roughly spans the range of 0.1–1.0.</p>
      <p>Multi-generation chemistry (aging) is also accounted for by the model. Unlike
the 2D-VBS, the 1.5D-VBS does not use different kernel functions, to
discretize the distribution of the oxidation products according to their
log(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and O : C ratios, when functionalization and fragmentation
occur. Instead, to reduce the computational burden of the simulations, the
model assumes that the oxidation of a given surrogate yields one other
surrogate with lower volatility, higher oxygen number and lower carbon
number. These properties should be considered as a weighted average of those
relative to the complex mixture of compounds arising from functionalization
and fragmentation processes. Accordingly, the 1.5D-VBS approach may
represent the functionalization and
fragmentation processes, while reducing the parameter space and the
computational burden. Gas-phase products in the semi-volatile range in set 2
and set 3, once formed, can further react with a rate constant of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as proposed by previous studies
(Donahue et al., 2013; Grieshop et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2007), further
lowering the volatility of the products by 1 order of magnitude. This implies
that for every additional oxidation step, the organic material receives
around 0.5 oxygen atoms (Table 1). According to Donahue et al. (2013), while
the rate of increase in oxygen atoms does not decrease with the oxidation
generation number, the compounds' fragmentation significantly increases. The
fragmentation branching ratio has often been parameterized as a function of
the compounds' O : C ratios (e.g. fragmentation
ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(O : C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a positive
integer often between 3 and 6 (Jimenez et al., 2009). This results in a
general decrease in the OA compounds' carbon number and hence the number of
oxygen added per molecule, but not in the O : C ratio or the carbon
oxidation state. Therefore, the oxidation of moderately oxygenated NTVOCs,
during the first oxidation step, leads to significant functionalization
(addition of at least two oxygen atoms) compared to fragmentation, while the
further aging of the resulting oxidation products leads to both
functionalization and fragmentation. Representing both processes by only one
compound imposes a decrease by only one volatility bin and hence a gain of
only half an oxygen atom per oxidation. As the modelled species' average
carbon number systematically decreases with aging, this approach effectively
takes into consideration the compounds' fragmentation. In parallel, the
addition of oxygen reflects the compounds' functionalization with aging and
the increase in the measured O : C ratio. Therefore, unlike previous 2D-VBS
schemes where functionalization and fragmentation are disentangled, the
approach of decreasing the number of carbon atoms and increasing the number
of oxygen atoms adopted here simultaneously describes both processes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Parameterization methodology</title>
      <p>The modelling approach involves two steps.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i.</label><p>First, we modelled the partitioning of POA for the 11 smog chamber
experiments (eight experiments at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % and three experiments at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 %)
before aging begins. This step enables constraining the amounts of primary
semi-volatile organic matter (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the different volatility bins
(OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist) and the enthalpy of vaporization of the different
surrogates (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Combinations of
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist and OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of primary
biomass-burning semi-volatile compounds are reported in May et al. (2013), obtained
based on thermodenuder data. Several combinations of OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist were tested. The amount of OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was
varied until the measured POA mass at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was reached and the
resulting NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated for the different experiments. The
average NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated at high and low temperatures were then
compared and only combinations of OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist that yielded similar NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios at low and
high temperatures were considered to fit our data within our experimental
variability.</p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label><p>Second, the obtained volatility distributions were used to model the
aging of the emissions and SOA formation within the hybrid 1.5D-VBS
framework. The time-dependent OA mass and O : C ratios were used as model
constraints and the NTVOC reaction rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and yields (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) as
well as average enthalpy of evaporation for secondary material in set 2 and
3 (SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were retrieved. In section 6 we will discuss how
other a priori assumed parameters influence the results. For the second
step, only experiments performed at RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % were used, as high RH might
favour further uptake of oxygenated secondary organic material into the bulk
phase, effectively increasing aerosol yields (Zuend and Seinfeld,
2012). Such effects are beyond the scope of this study.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Inferred OMsv and NTVOCs/OMsv ratios from measurements and partitioning
theory</title>
      <p>Based on the PTR-ToF-MS and AMS measurements of gas and particle phase
organic material at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we seek to determine the ratio NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and the OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> that represent best the observations
at high and low temperatures. Combinations of enthalpies of vaporization and
volatility distributions of primary biomass-burning semi-volatile compounds
are reported in May et al. (2013), based on thermodenuder data. We note that
in the current version of the 1.5D-VBS the volatility distribution (Table 1), subsequently referred to as OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">REF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, is used in
combination with OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, based on the recommendations of
May et al. (2013). Here, several combinations of OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> functions and OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist were tested.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" orientation="landscape"><caption><p>Modelled and experimental data for 11 wood-burning experiments. The
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass at the beginning of each chamber experiment is reported
together with the measured OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and the initial NTVOCs concentration.
NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ratio between the measured NTVOCs and
the calculated OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass at the beginning of each experiment for
the two different OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> functions:
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, used in combination with
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">REF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> presented in Table 1.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.98}[.98]?><oasis:tgroup cols="12">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Exp1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Exp2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Exp3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Exp4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Exp5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Exp6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Exp7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Exp8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Exp9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">Exp10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">Exp11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">263</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">288</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">288</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">288</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">288</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Measured NTVOCs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">185.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">79.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">143.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">91.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">68.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">121.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">190.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">174.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">195.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">[<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Measured OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">12.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">17.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">6.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">22.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">17.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">18.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">18.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">[<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Modelled OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">22.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">16.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">23.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">9.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">46.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">37.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">39.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">39.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">[<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Modelled OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">22.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">29.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">17.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">22.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">31.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">12.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">49.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">40.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">42.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">42.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">[<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(NTVOCs) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">7.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">5.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">4.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">4.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(NTVOCs) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">4.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">4.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Solutions used for primary organic aerosol enthalpies of
vaporization with averages and standard deviations of the
(NTVOCs) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vapPOA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(NTVOCs) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(NTVOCs) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Average High-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Average Low-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(288 K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(263 K)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Partitioning of wood-burning POA before the start of the aging for
11 smog chamber experiments (SOL2). Gas phase in red and particle phase in
blue.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In Table 2, the measured OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for all the 11 experiments, which ranges
from 6.0 to 22.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, are reported. The OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
values that match the measured OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are shown as an example for the
cases when OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">85</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> were used in combination with
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">REF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The average
NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios obtained using both
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> functions are compared at high and
low temperatures in Table 3. OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> reduced the
observed difference in the average NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios at
the two temperatures. In general, functions with lowest
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> better explained the change in the
measured OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with temperature, with OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> best fitting our data. The
volatility distributions that could explain our observation have an aggregate
contribution in the volatility bins <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 and 2 smaller than
or equal to 0.3. In the following, OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> shall be used
in combination with OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">REF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as model inputs
and in Sect. 6 we assess the sensitivity of the resulting
NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios and SOA formed on the chosen
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist.</p>
      <p>Using these model parameters, the overall NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio was
determined to be around 4.75. Figure 2 shows the resolved equilibrium phase
partitioning (Eq. 1) between the gas and particle phase at the beginning of
each of the 11 smog chamber experiments (OA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. As expected, most of
the material is found in the gas phase at high temperatures, while at lower
temperature only part of the compounds with saturation concentrations (at
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) between 100 and 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> would reside in the
gas phase.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Wood-burning aging at low and high temperatures</title>
      <p>In this section, we will focus on emission aging. Using the
NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio and the enthalpies of vaporization
retrieved in the previous sections, we modelled the eight different smog
chamber experiments: nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (low temperature) and nos. 8, 9, 10,
and 11 (high temperature) performed at the same relative humidity
(RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 %). For each of the eight experiments, we injected an
average mixture of NTVOCs equal to 4.75 times the OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mass
before the start of the aging. NTVOCs react solely with OH, whose
concentration was retrieved from PTR-MS measurements. The temperature
dependence of the reaction rates was also taken into account through the
Arrhenius equation. The reaction rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and yields
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the NTVOCs as well as enthalpies of vaporization of SOA (SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in set 2 and set 3 were varied within specific physically
realistic ranges that were already proposed in the literature (Koo et al.,
2014; Donahue et al., 2013; Grieshop et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2007). We
varied <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 2 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in steps of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and yields between 0.1 and
0.4 ppm ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in steps of 0.01 ppm ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The yields refer to
the sum of the aerosol yields of the four volatility bins. A naphthalene
kernel mass distribution with increasing contribution as a function of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used to distribute the products in the four bins (Murphy
and Pandis, 2009). Values for SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are still highly
uncertain. In this study, we explored a wide range of values from 15 000 to
115 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in steps of 20 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The model
performance for each combination of SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was evaluated by calculating the root mean square error
(RMSE) on both the O : C ratio and OA mass (giving the same weight
to both quantities) for the eight
experiments (giving the same weight to all
experiments), and the best-fitting solution is the one that minimized the
RMSE. We performed a total number of 31 248 simulations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Total error on the OA mass (left side) and on the O : C ratio
(right side). White regions have an error larger than 60 % for the OA
mass and 26 % for the O : C ratio. The number of simulations per
experiment is 3906. The red diamonds indicate the likelihood-ratio test
results for solutions within 10 % error from the best one (yellow
diamond).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=270.301181pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 3 shows the total errors for the OA mass (left side) and O : C ratio
(right side) for different SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The error on the OA mass varies from a minimum of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 % up
to more than 60 %, whereas the errors on the O : C ratio are lower, ranging
from approximately 15 % up to more than 30 %. For the OA mass,
distinct regions with lower errors are visible in the central part of each
panel with different SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, representing the models that
best fit the measured OA. While a similar observation can be made for the
O : C ratios, models with high SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> tend to reproduce the
data less faithfully. The diamonds in Fig. 3 indicate the absolute best-fitting
solution (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">35</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, in
yellow), and the ones retrieved with a likelihood-ratio test allowing for
10 % error form the best fit (red diamonds). Regions with lower errors are
localized for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> between SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 35 000 and 55 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Modelled and observed OA mass for low-temperature experiments (left
side) and high-temperature experiments (right side). The model
results are for the best-fitting
solution (yellow diamond in Fig. 3). SOA from NTVOCs and SVOCs as well as POA
are reported in green, red and blue, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 4 shows the modelled and measured OA mass for all eight experiments.
The primary organic aerosol fraction is reported as well as the SOA fraction
from SVOCs and higher volatility NTVOCs. All the low-temperature experiments
(nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, left side of the panel) were reproduced very well along
with the concentration gradients at the end of each
experiment even though the model
generally tends to slightly over-predict the final OA concentration and to
under-predict the production rate. The POA fraction slightly increases at the
very beginning of the aging phase, upon the increase in OA mass. As the
experiments proceed, POA decreases as a result of its partitioning to the gas
phase and subsequent oxidation. Most of the SOA was predicted to be formed
from NTVOCs precursors (78–82 %) and only a minor amount from SVOCs
(18–22 %). Meanwhile, at high temperatures, SVOCs contribute more
significantly to SOA formation compared to low-temperature experiments,
although the majority of SOA still arises from NTVOCs. We note that at higher temperatures the OA mass was
slightly under-predicted for experiment nos. 9, 10, and 11, but largely
over-predicted for experiment no. 8 (see also Fig. S1). We do not have any
experimental evidence to discard experiment no. 8 as an outlier, but
sensitivity analysis with excluding this experiment yielded slightly lower
SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 000–35 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Modelled (black lines) and observed (red lines) O : C ratio for
low-temperature experiments (left side) and high-temperature experiments
(right side).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Comparisons between measured and modelled O : C ratios are reported in
Fig. 5. Model and observation results match very well, especially upon aging.
However, we note on the one hand that significant differences between
measured and modelled O : C ratios at the beginning of the experiments can
be observed, without any systematic correlation with the chamber conditions
(e.g. OA mass or temperature). These differences may be due to the variable
nature of primary biomass smoke emissions, which cannot be accounted for in
the model. On the other hand, it is noticeable that the model generally
under-predicts the measured POA O : C ratios, suggesting that the
parameters describing the O : C of primary emissions are suboptimal. These
parameters include mainly the carbon and oxygen numbers of species in set 1,
and to a lesser extent the OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist and the
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, which are all adopted from
previously published data. While this observation suggests the presence of
compounds with lower carbon number (higher oxygen number) in the primary
aerosols (e.g. C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> anhydrous sugars, which contribute
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 % of the POA; Ulevicius et al., 2016), we believe that we do
not have suitable data (e.g. analysis at the molecular level) to propose a
more accurate representation of the POA
compounds. In addition, the average bias in the POA O : C ratios is
&lt; 30 %, well within the experimental uncertainties.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Discussions and major conclusions</title>
      <p>We performed extensive box-model simulations of wood-burning smog chamber
experiments conducted at two different temperatures (263 and 288 K). By
combining new NTVOCs and organic aerosol measurements we constrained the
amounts of NTVOCs that act as SOA precursors. Our estimates indicate that
NTVOCs are approximately 4.75 times the amount of total organic material in
the 0.1 and 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> saturation concentration range
(OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This ratio can be directly used in CTMs in combination
with the proposed aging scheme, in the absence of explicit NTVOCs emissions
from wood burning. Our results suggest that only the lowest enthalpies of
evaporation of primary SVOCs reported by May et al. (2013) could reproduce
the NTVOCs and organic aerosol measurements at both temperatures. These
calculations were performed using a single volatility distribution function.</p>
      <p>Parameters required for representing SOA formation, such as NTVOCs reaction
rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SOA yields (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and enthalpies of vaporization of
secondary organic aerosol (SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, were varied within
physically realistic ranges and parameters best fitting the observed OA mass
and O : C ratios were retained. The use of time-resolved data and performing
the experiments at two different temperatures significantly aided
constraining these parameters. Based on the reaction scheme used, best-fitting
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>OH-NTVOCs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranged between 3.5 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of semi-volatile SOA surrogates
ranged between 0.3 and 0.35 ppm ppm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
was determined to be between 35 000 and 55 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The model predicted that the majority of the SOA formed during the
aging phase arose from NTVOCs and only a small amount from SVOCs.</p>
      <p>Many parameters were not varied within the fitting procedure, but a priori
assumed. In the following, we discuss the approach used for the selection of
these parameters and their influence on the model results. Our results
suggest that only the lowest enthalpies of evaporation of primary SVOCs
reported by May et al. (2013) could reproduce the NTVOCs and organic aerosol
measurements at both temperatures. These low values are consistent with those
obtained for SOA (SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [35 000–55 000] J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. weighted average of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 000 J mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Results presented here including
the average NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OMsv ratios and parameters required for representing
SOA formation are all based on the use of one OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist. In
Fig. S3, we performed a sensitivity analysis where several
OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist were tested in combination with the same
SOA.<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">vap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> function and the same reaction scheme. This
analysis shows that the NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges between 3.9 and
4.8, which encompasses the value reported here (4.75) and that the resulting
SOA is only slightly sensitive to the assumed OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.Vol.dist used,
especially at low temperature. This is because the OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
predicted to contribute to a lesser extent to the measured SOA compared to
NTVOCs.</p>
      <p>The parameters describing the molecular characteristics (e.g. oxygen and
carbon numbers) of the primary SVOCs and their oxidation products (set 1 and
2) were identical to those proposed by Donahue et al. (2012) and Koo et al. (2014).
As SVOCs contributed less than NTVOCs to SOA, the modelled OA mass
and O : C ratios were not very sensitive to the assumed parameters. Therefore,
these assumptions could not be tested and additional measurements at the
molecular level would be necessary for better constraining these parameters.</p>
      <p>Meanwhile, we have assumed that the volatility distribution of the NTVOCs
oxidation products follows the same function as that of naphthalene oxidation
products, scaled to fit the total yield <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of these products in the
semi-volatility range. Initial tests indicated that the measurements used as
constraints did not allow for the determination of the exact shape of this
function, due to the limited concentration span during our experiments
(within only 1 order of magnitude). Therefore, the function was fixed during
the fitting procedure and only the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was varied. Further experiments
spanning a larger range of concentrations would be required for better
constraining the volatility distribution of the biomass-burning NTVOCs
oxidation products, with a special focus on lower concentrations (between 1
and 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, representative of moderately polluted
atmospheres, e.g. in Europe.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Predicted OA mass (upper panels, note different scales), POA mass,
SOA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> POA ratio (middle panels) and yields (lower panels) at different
OMsv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NTVOCs initial load and atmospheric conditions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2303/2017/gmd-10-2303-2017-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>The carbon number of the NTVOCs oxidation products was based on the
characterization of the chemical nature of these precursors by the PTR-ToF-MS
(Bruns et al., 2016), mostly comprising benzene and naphthalene and their
methylated derivatives, oxygenated aromatic products and furans with an
average carbon number of around 7. Based on Donahue et al. (2013), we have
assumed that the oxidation of moderately oxygenated NTVOCs leads to
significant functionalization (addition of three oxygens on average), while
the further aging of the resulting oxidation products leads to both
functionalization and fragmentation. Representing both processes by only one
compound in the 1.5D-VBS approach imposed a decrease by only one volatility
bin and hence a gain of only one-half oxygen atom per oxidation. This
oxidation scheme is different from the one proposed by Donahue et al. (2013), where significant fragmentation
occurs with aging combined with the gain of more oxygen atoms. Initial tests
showed that a higher increase in the oxygen number with aging would yield a
significant decrease of
the compounds' volatility
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> bins per oxygen atom) and hence an overestimation of the increase in SOA
yields with aging. An increase of one oxygen atom per oxidation step while
decreasing the compounds' volatility by only one bin would imply significant
fragmentation with the loss of up to two carbon atoms, impossible in the case
of C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> compounds, especially for low-volatility bins. We have attempted a
further increase in the fragmentation compared to the current scheme and the
result was an overestimation in the increase of the bulk O : C ratio with
aging. We note that the traditional functionalization and fragmentation
scheme in the initial VBS was developed by considering SOA precursors to
comprise mostly long chain hydrocarbons (e.g. C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> alkanes and
alkenes), which are expected to be much more subject to fragmentation than
aromatics. Therefore, we consider the scheme proposed here to be more
suitable for C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatic and furan oxidation products.</p>
      <p>In the present study, the bulk micro-physical properties of the condensed
phase were not measured. Therefore, for all calculations, we assumed
instantaneous reversible absorptive equilibrium of semi-volatile organic
species into a well-mixed liquid phase; i.e. the model does not invoke
diffusion limitations within the condensed phase. These assumptions may
influence our results, especially at lower temperatures; e.g. if diffusion
limitations were to be considered, higher reaction rates would be required
to explain the observations. However, the same assumptions are considered in
CTMs and therefore we expect that resulting biases will partially cancel
out, providing that the bulk phase properties and condensational sinks of
chamber and ambient aerosols are not significantly different.</p>
      <p>Based on our best-fitting solutions, the OA mass and composition can be
predicted at any given temperature, emission load and OH exposure. This is
illustrated in Fig. 6 for three different OM emission loads (OMsv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NTVOCs)
of 6, 60 and 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and for a wide range of
atmospherically relevant temperatures (from 253.15 to 313.15 K).
Partitioning of POA depends on the temperature and the ambient
concentrations.</p>
      <p>The POA mass decreases with temperature by 0.5 % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on average with higher effects predicted at higher
loads (0.7 % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. 0.3 % at 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
partitioning coefficient of the primary material increases by about a factor
of 1.5 for a 10-fold increase in the emissions. As aging proceeds, POA mass
slightly increases as a result of additional partitioning, but after an OH
exposure of (1.0–1.5) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h, the trend is
inverse and POA mass decreases due to the oxidation of semi-volatile
primary compounds. This effect is more pronounced at high loads.</p>
      <p>From Fig. 6, we can also assess the impact of temperature, OH exposure and
emission concentrations on SOA yields. The temperature effect on SOA yields
is a function of OH exposure, aerosol load and temperature; i.e.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. SOA yields increase 0.03, 0.06 and
0.05 % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on average for 6, 60 and 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, with higher effects predicted in general at lower
temperatures. The temperature effect on the yields is also larger at higher
OH exposures (except for very high loads). An analysis typically performed
to estimate the volatility distribution of SOA products is based on SOA
yields from chamber data performed at different precursor concentrations. We
investigated the impact of the OA concentration on the yield at different
temperatures and OH exposure. In Fig. S2, an average change in the yield
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is shown at the different conditions:
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. An increase in SOA yields with the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed as expected, which is not
solely due to additional partitioning, but is also related to changes in the
actual chemical composition and hence volatility distribution of the SOA
surrogates, as they age to different extents at different concentrations and
temperatures. We determined a yield increase of 4–9 percentage points for a
10-fold increase in emissions, with a higher effect at higher OH exposures
and lower temperatures.</p>
      <p>From Fig. 6, one may also evaluate the minimum OH exposure values required
for SOA to exceed POA. SOA is predicted to exceed POA after <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h,
for typical ambient concentrations and
temperatures. At low temperatures (263 K) and high loads, SOA might exceed
POA at an OH exposure of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h, or in 2–10 h
(at OH concentrations of (1–5) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ), in line with
previously estimated values for biomass-burning emissions for the typical
conditions of haze events (Huang et al., 2014). Comparatively, at 288.15 K an
OH exposure of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h would be required for SOA to
exceed POA, which might be reached within 2 h or less at typical summer
OH concentrations, i.e. (5–10) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. These results
confirm previous observations during haze events in China that SOA formation
is very rapid and SOA mass might exceed primary emissions within timescales
of hours, even during haze events (Huang et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Mounting evidence underlines the importance of accurately assessing the
emission and evolution of wood-burning emission in the CTMs in order to
properly predict the SOA levels retrieved from ambient measurements (Ciarelli
et al., 2016; Denier van der Gon et al., 2015; Shrivastava et al., 2015).
The simplified VBS scheme proposed here allows for including a mixture of
NTVOCs retrieved from latest state-of-the-art wood-burning smog chamber
experiments (Bruns et al., 2016). The amount of the new NTVOCs material
included in the model was found to be in the range of estimates proposed by
previous biomass-burning studies (Shrivastava et al., 2015; Yokelson et al.,
2013; Dzepina et al., 2009) and to reproduce most of the chamber experiments
successfully. Including the fragmentation and multi-generation chemistry of
SOA precursors allows for a reasonable description of the chemical
properties of the SOA species including their volatility distribution and
their O : C ratios.</p>
      <p>The applicability of the parameters to other burning conditions and other
emission types should be evaluated in future studies. It has to be noticed
that the scheme relies exclusively on chamber experiments conducted with only
one type of wood (Beech, <italic>Fagus sylvatica</italic>). Even though the effects
of temperature, OH exposure and different emission loads on the predicted OA
concentrations were presented in this study, differences in the nature of the
emitted organic species (e.g. NTVOCs <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> OM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sv</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NTVOC
composition) might be expected depending on the different burning conditions
and biomass used. Therefore, special care is required when extrapolating the
results to a global scale, including more detailed emission information
related to the wood-burning habits of the different countries. An application
of the proposed scheme, limited to the European scale, can be found in
Ciarelli et al. (2017).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability">

      <p>The VBS box model was written in Fortran and was compiled using the Portland
group compilers. Simulations were performed under Scientific Linux SL
distribution using C shell scripts in order to brute force the chemical and
physical parameters. Model output was written in tab-separated text format.
Routines to perform the oxidation reactions of SOA precursors and
partitioning between particle and gas-phase organic material were
taken from the CAMx model (available at <uri>http://www.camx.com/</uri>) and based on
the work of Koo et al. (2014). Please contact the corresponding authors of
this publication if you are interested in the model code or applications
and/or scientific collaboration.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2303-2017-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2303-2017-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was financially supported by the Swiss Federal Office of
Environment (FOEN). I. El Haddad was financially supported by the Swiss
National Science Foundation. We appreciate the availability of
the VBS framework in CAMx and support of
RAMBOLL ENVIRON.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: G.
Mann<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Barmet, P., Dommen, J., DeCarlo, P. F., Tritscher, T., Praplan, A. P., Platt,
S. M., Prévôt, A. S. H., Donahue, N. M., and Baltensperger, U.: OH
clock determination by proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry at an
environmental chamber, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 647–656,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-647-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-647-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bergström, R., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Yttri, K. E., and Simpson, D.: Modelling of organic aerosols over Europe
(2002–2007) using a volatility basis set (VBS) framework: application of
different assumptions regarding the formation of secondary organic aerosol,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8499–8527, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bessagnet, B., Colette, A., Meleux, F., Rouïl, L., Ung, A., Favez, O.,
Thunis, P., Cuvelier, C., Tsyro, S., Stern, R., Manders, A., Kranenburg, R.,
Aulinger, A., Bieser, J., Mircea, M., Briganti, G., Cappelletti, A., Calori,
G., Finardi, S., Silibello, C., Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., Prévot, A.,
Pay, M.-T., Baldasano, J., García Vivanco, M., Garrido, J. L., Palomino,
I., Martín, F., Pirovano, G., Roberts, P., Gonzalez, L., White, L.,
Menut, L., Dupont, J.-C., Carnevale, C., and Pederzoli, A.: The EURODELTA III
exercise – Model evaluation with observations issued from the 2009 EMEP
intensive period and standard measurements in Feb/Mar 2009, Technical EMEP
report 1/2014, Oslo, Norway, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bessagnet, B., Pirovano, G., Mircea, M., Cuvelier, C., Aulinger, A., Calori,
G., Ciarelli, G., Manders, A., Stern, R., Tsyro, S., García Vivanco, M.,
Thunis, P., Pay, M.-T., Colette, A., Couvidat, F., Meleux, F., Rouïl,
L., Ung, A., Aksoyoglu, S., Baldasano, J. M., Bieser, J., Briganti, G.,
Cappelletti, A., D'Isidoro, M., Finardi, S., Kranenburg, R., Silibello, C.,
Carnevale, C., Aas, W., Dupont, J.-C., Fagerli, H., Gonzalez, L., Menut, L.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Roberts, P., and White, L.: Presentation of the
EURODELTA III intercomparison exercise –evaluation of the chemistry
transport models' performance on criteria pollutants and joint analysis with
meteorology, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12667–12701,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12667-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-12667-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bruns, E. A., Krapf, M., Orasche, J., Huang, Y., Zimmermann, R., Drinovec,
L., Mocnik, G., El-Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Baltensperger, U.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization of primary and secondary wood
combustion products generated under different burner loads, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 2825–2841, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bruns, E. A., El Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Kilic, D., Klein, F.,
Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Identification of
significant precursor gases of secondary organic aerosols from residential
wood combustion, Sci. Rep., 6, 27881, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27881" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep27881</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Canonaco, F., Slowik, J. G., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.:
Seasonal differences in oxygenated organic aerosol composition: implications
for emissions sources and factor analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
6993–7002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6993-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-6993-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., Crippa, M., Jimenez, J.-L., Nemitz, E.,
Sellegri, K., Äijälä, M., Carbone, S., Mohr, C., O'Dowd, C.,
Poulain, L., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Evaluation of
European air quality modelled by CAMx including the volatility basis set
scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 10313–10332,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10313-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-10313-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., El Haddad, I., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M.,
Poulain, L., Äijälä, M., Carbone, S., Freney, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Modelling winter organic
aerosol at the European scale with CAMx: evaluation and source apportionment
with a VBS parameterization based on novel wood burning smog chamber
experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7653–7669,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7653-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-7653-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Crippa, M., DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Mohr, C., Heringa, M. F., Chirico,
R., Poulain, L., Freutel, F., Sciare, J., Cozic, J., Di Marco, C. F.,
Elsasser, M., Nicolas, J. B., Marchand, N., Abidi, E., Wiedensohler, A.,
Drewnick, F., Schneider, J., Borrmann, S., Nemitz, E., Zimmermann, R.,
Jaffrezo, J.-L., Prévôt, A. S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: Wintertime
aerosol chemical composition and source apportionment of the organic fraction
in the metropolitan area of Paris, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 961–981,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-961-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-961-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Bergström, R., Fountoukis, C., Johansson,
C., Pandis, S. N., Simpson, D., and Visschedijk, A. J. H.: Particulate
emissions from residential wood combustion in Europe – revised estimates and
an evaluation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6503–6519,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6503-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-6503-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Donahue, N. M., Robinson, A. L., Stanier, C. O., and Pandis, S. N.: Coupled
Partitioning, Dilution, and Chemical Aging of Semivolatile Organics, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 40, 2635–2643, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es052297c" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es052297c</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Donahue, N. M., Epstein, S. A., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson, A. L.: A
two-dimensional volatility basis set: 1. organic-aerosol mixing
thermodynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3303–3318,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3303-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-3303-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Donahue, N. M., Kroll, J. H., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson, A. L.: A
two-dimensional volatility basis set – Part 2: Diagnostics of
organic-aerosol evolution, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 615–634,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-615-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-615-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Donahue, N. M., Chuang, W., Epstein, S. A., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R.,
Robinson, A. L., Adams, P. J., and Pandis, S. N.: Why do organic aerosols
exist? Understanding aerosol lifetimes using the two-dimensional volatility
basis set, Environ. Chem., 10, 151–157, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1071/EN13022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1071/EN13022</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Drinovec, L., Močnik, G., Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Ruckstuhl, C., Coz, E., Rupakheti, M., Sciare, J., Müller, T.,
Wiedensohler, A., and Hansen, A. D. A.: The “dual-spot” Aethalometer: an
improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading
compensation, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1965–1979, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Dzepina, K., Volkamer, R. M., Madronich, S., Tulet, P., Ulbrich, I. M.,
Zhang, Q., Cappa, C. D., Ziemann, P. J., and Jimenez, J. L.: Evaluation of
recently-proposed secondary organic aerosol models for a case study in Mexico
City, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 5681–5709, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5681-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-5681-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
El Haddad, I., Marchand, N., D'Anna, B., Jaffrezo, J.-L., and Wortham, H.:
Functional group composition of organic aerosol from combustion emissions and
secondary processes at two contrasted urban environments, Atmos. Environ.,
75, 308–320, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E.,
Pilinis, C., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Canonaco, F., Mohr,
C., Prévôt, A. S. H., Allan, J. D., Poulain, L., Petäjä, T.,
Tiitta, P., Carbone, S., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Nemitz, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Swietlicki, E., and Pandis, S. N.: Organic aerosol concentration and
composition over Europe: insights from comparison of regional model
predictions with aerosol mass spectrometer factor analysis, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 9061–9076, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E., Denier
van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Prévôt, A. S. H., Fachinger, F.,
Wiedensohler, A., Pilinis, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the formation of
carbonaceous aerosol in a European Megacity (Paris) during the MEGAPOLI
summer and winter campaigns, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3727–3741,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3727-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-3727-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Grieshop, A. P., Logue, J. M., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.:
Laboratory investigation of photochemical oxidation of organic aerosol from
wood fires 1: measurement and simulation of organic aerosol evolution, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 9, 1263–1277, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Heald, C. L., Kroll, J. H., Jimenez, J. L., Docherty, K. S., DeCarlo, P. F.,
Aiken, A. C., Chen, Q., Martin, S. T., Farmer, D. K., and Artaxo, P.: A
simplified description of the evolution of organic aerosol composition in the
atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L08803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042737" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL042737</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Heringa, M. F., DeCarlo, P. F., Chirico, R., Tritscher, T., Clairotte, M.,
Mohr, C., Crippa, M., Slowik, J. G., Pfaffenberger, L., Dommen, J.,
Weingartner, E., Prévôt, A. S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: A new
method to discriminate secondary organic aerosols from different sources
using high-resolution aerosol mass spectra, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
2189–2203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2189-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-2189-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Hodzic, A., Kasibhatla, P. S., Jo, D. S., Cappa, C. D., Jimenez, J. L.,
Madronich, S., and Park, R. J.: Rethinking the global secondary organic
aerosol (SOA) budget: stronger production, faster removal, shorter lifetime,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7917–7941, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Slowik, J. G., Platt, S. M., Canonaco, F., Zotter, P.,
Wolf, R., Pieber, S. M., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M., Ciarelli, G., Piazzalunga,
A., Schwikowski, M., Abbaszade, G., Schnelle-Kreis, J., Zimmermann, R., An,
Z., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., Haddad, I. E., and Prévôt, A. S.
H.: High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze
events in China, Nature, 514, 218–222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13774" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13774</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Iinuma, Y., Böge, O., Gräfe, R., and Herrmann, H.:
Methyl-Nitrocatechols: Atmospheric Tracer Compounds for Biomass Burning
Secondary Organic Aerosols, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 8453–8459,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es102938a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es102938a</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Jathar, S. H., Farina, S. C., Robinson, A. L., and Adams, P. J.: The
influence of semi-volatile and reactive primary emissions on the abundance
and properties of global organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7727–7746,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken, A.
C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A. M.,
Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E., Baltensperger,
U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
Science, 326, 1525–1529, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1180353" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1180353</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Kleindienst, T. E., Lewandowski, M., Offenberg, J. H., Jaoui, M., and Edney,
E. O.: Ozone-isoprene reaction: Re-examination of the formation of secondary
organic aerosol, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01805, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027485" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL027485</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Knote, C., Brunner, D., Vogel, H., Allan, J., Asmi, A., Äijälä,
M., Carbone, S., van der Gon, H. D., Jimenez, J. L., Kiendler-Scharr, A.,
Mohr, C., Poulain, L., Prévôt, A. S. H., Swietlicki, E., and Vogel,
B.: Towards an online-coupled chemistry-climate model: evaluation of trace
gases and aerosols in COSMO-ART, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1077–1102,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1077-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-4-1077-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Koo, B., Knipping, E., and Yarwood, G.: 1.5-Dimensional volatility basis set
approach for modeling organic aerosol in CAMx and CMAQ, Atmos. Environ., 95,
158–164, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.031</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Kostenidou, E., Kaltsonoudis, C., Tsiflikiotou, M., Louvaris, E., Russell, L.
M., and Pandis, S. N.: Burning of olive tree branches: a major organic
aerosol source in the Mediterranean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8797–8811,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8797-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-8797-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Kulmala, M., Asmi, A., Lappalainen, H. K., Carslaw, K. S., Pöschl, U.,
Baltensperger, U., Hov, Ø., Brenquier, J.-L., Pandis, S. N., Facchini, M.
C., Hansson, H.-C., Wiedensohler, A., and O'Dowd, C. D.: Introduction:
European Integrated Project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality
interactions (EUCAARI) – integrating aerosol research from nano to global
scales, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2825–2841, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2825-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-2825-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Kulmala, M., Asmi, A., Lappalainen, H. K., Baltensperger, U., Brenguier,
J.-L., Facchini, M. C., Hansson, H.-C., Hov, Ø., O'Dowd, C. D.,
Pöschl, U., Wiedensohler, A., Boers, R., Boucher, O., de Leeuw, G.,
Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Feichter, J., Krejci, R., Laj, P., Lihavainen,
H., Lohmann, U., McFiggans, G., Mentel, T., Pilinis, C., Riipinen, I.,
Schulz, M., Stohl, A., Swietlicki, E., Vignati, E., Alves, C., Amann, M.,
Ammann, M., Arabas, S., Artaxo, P., Baars, H., Beddows, D. C. S.,
Bergström, R., Beukes, J. P., Bilde, M., Burkhart, J. F., Canonaco, F.,
Clegg, S. L., Coe, H., Crumeyrolle, S., D'Anna, B., Decesari, S., Gilardoni,
S., Fischer, M., Fjaeraa, A. M., Fountoukis, C., George, C., Gomes, L.,
Halloran, P., Hamburger, T., Harrison, R. M., Herrmann, H., Hoffmann, T.,
Hoose, C., Hu, M., Hyvärinen, A., Hõrrak, U., Iinuma, Y., Iversen,
T., Josipovic, M., Kanakidou, M., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Kirkevåg, A.,
Kiss, G., Klimont, Z., Kolmonen, P., Komppula, M., Kristjánsson, J.-E.,
Laakso, L., Laaksonen, A., Labonnote, L., Lanz, V. A., Lehtinen, K. E. J.,
Rizzo, L. V., Makkonen, R., Manninen, H. E., McMeeking, G., Merikanto, J.,
Minikin, A., Mirme, S., Morgan, W. T., Nemitz, E., O'Donnell, D., Panwar, T.
S., Pawlowska, H., Petzold, A., Pienaar, J. J., Pio, C., Plass-Duelmer, C.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Pryor, S., Reddington, C. L., Roberts, G.,
Rosenfeld, D., Schwarz, J., Seland, Ø., Sellegri, K., Shen, X. J.,
Shiraiwa, M., Siebert, H., Sierau, B., Simpson, D., Sun, J. Y., Topping, D.,
Tunved, P., Vaattovaara, P., Vakkari, V., Veefkind, J. P., Visschedijk, A.,
Vuollekoski, H., Vuolo, R., Wehner, B., Wildt, J., Woodward, S., Worsnop, D.
R., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Zardini, A. A., Zhang, K., van Zyl, P. G.,
Kerminen, V.-M., S Carslaw, K., and Pandis, S. N.: General overview: European
Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality interactions
(EUCAARI) – integrating aerosol research from nano to global scales, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 13061–13143, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-13061-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-13061-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Lipsky, E. M. and Robinson, A. L.: Effects of Dilution on Fine Particle Mass
and Partitioning of Semivolatile Organics in Diesel Exhaust and Wood Smoke,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 155–162, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es050319p" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es050319p</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>May, A. A., Levin, E. J. T., Hennigan, C. J., Riipinen, I., Lee, T., Collett,
J. L., Jimenez, J. L., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle
partitioning of primary organic aerosol emissions: 3. Biomass burning, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11327–11338, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50828</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Mohr, C., DeCarlo, P. F., Heringa, M. F., Chirico, R., Slowik, J. G.,
Richter, R., Reche, C., Alastuey, A., Querol, X., Seco, R., Peñuelas, J.,
Jiménez, J. L., Crippa, M., Zimmermann, R., Baltensperger, U., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: Identification and quantification of organic
aerosol from cooking and other sources in Barcelona using aerosol mass
spectrometer data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1649–1665,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1649-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-1649-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, B. N. and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the Formation of Semivolatile
Primary and Secondary Organic Aerosol in a Regional Chemical Transport Model,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4722–4728, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es803168a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es803168a</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, B. N., Donahue, N. M., Fountoukis, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating
the oxygen content of ambient organic aerosol with the 2D volatility basis
set, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7859–7873, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7859-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7859-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Nussbaumer, T., Czasch, C., Klippel, N., Johansson, L., and Tullin, C.:
Particulate Emissions from Biomass Combustion in IEA Countries, Survey on
Measurements and Emission Factors, International Energy Agency (IEA)
Bioenergy Task 32, Zurich, Switzerland, 2008a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Nussbaumer, T., Klippel, N., and Johansson, L.: Survey on Measurements and
Emission Factors on Particulate Matter from Biomass Combustion in IEA
Countries, 16th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 2–6 June 2008,
Valencia, Spain, Oral Presentation OA 9.2, 2008b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Pankow, J. F.: An absorption model of gas/particle partitioning of organic
compounds in the atmosphere, Atmos. Environ., 28, 185–188,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)90093-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/1352-2310(94)90093-0</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Pankow, J. F. and Asher, W. E.: SIMPOL.1: a simple group contribution method
for predicting vapor pressures and enthalpies of vaporization of
multifunctional organic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2773–2796,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-2773-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-2773-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Platt, S. M., El Haddad, I., Zardini, A. A., Clairotte, M., Astorga, C.,
Wolf, R., Slowik, J. G., Temime-Roussel, B., Marchand, N., Ježek, I.,
Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G., Möhler, O., Richter, R., Barmet, P., Bianchi,
F., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Secondary organic
aerosol formation from gasoline vehicle emissions in a new mobile
environmental reaction chamber, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9141–9158,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9141-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-9141-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Robinson, A. L., Donahue, N. M., Shrivastava, M. K., Weitkamp, E. A., Sage,
A. M., Grieshop, A. P., Lane, T. E., Pierce, J. R., and Pandis, S. N.:
Rethinking Organic Aerosols: Semivolatile Emissions and Photochemical Aging,
Science, 315, 1259–1262, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1133061</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Shrivastava, M. K., Easter, R., Liu, X., Zelenyuk, A., Singh, B., Zhang, K.,
Ma, P.-L., Chand, D., Ghan, S., Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Fast, J., Rasch,
P., and Tiitta, P.: Global transformation and fate of SOA: Implications of
low volatility SOA and gasphase fragmentation reactions, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 120, 4169–4195, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022563" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022563</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Tørseth, K., Aas, W., Breivik, K., Fjæraa, A. M., Fiebig, M.,
Hjellbrekke, A. G., Lund Myhre, C., Solberg, S., and Yttri, K. E.:
Introduction to the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) and
observed atmospheric composition change during 1972–2009, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 5447–5481, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5447-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-5447-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Tsigaridis, K., Daskalakis, N., Kanakidou, M., Adams, P. J., Artaxo, P.,
Bahadur, R., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Bellouin, N., Benedetti, A.,
Bergman, T., Berntsen, T. K., Beukes, J. P., Bian, H., Carslaw, K. S., Chin,
M., Curci, G., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Gong, S. L., Hodzic,
A., Hoyle, C. R., Iversen, T., Jathar, S., Jimenez, J. L., Kaiser, J. W.,
Kirkevåg, A., Koch, D., Kokkola, H., Lee, Y. H., Lin, G., Liu, X., Luo,
G., Ma, X., Mann, G. W., Mihalopoulos, N., Morcrette, J.-J., Müller,
J.-F., Myhre, G., Myriokefalitakis, S., Ng, N. L., O'Donnell, D., Penner, J.
E., Pozzoli, L., Pringle, K. J., Russell, L. M., Schulz, M., Sciare, J.,
Seland, Ø., Shindell, D. T., Sillman, S., Skeie, R. B., Spracklen, D.,
Stavrakou, T., Steenrod, S. D., Takemura, T., Tiitta, P., Tilmes, S., Tost,
H., van Noije, T., van Zyl, P. G., von Salzen, K., Yu, F., Wang, Z., Wang,
Z., Zaveri, R. A., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Zhang, Q., and Zhang, X.: The
AeroCom evaluation and intercomparison of organic aerosol in global models,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10845–10895, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Molina, L., Ulbrich, I.
M., Jimenez, J. L., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of the volatility basis-set
approach for the simulation of organic aerosol formation in the Mexico City
metropolitan area, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 525–546,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-525-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-525-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pozzer, A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld,
J.: ORACLE (v1.0): module to simulate the organic aerosol composition and
evolution in the atmosphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 3153–3172,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Ulevicius, V., Byčenkiene, S., Bozzetti, C., Vlachou, A.,
Plauškaitė, K., Mordas, G., Dudoitis, V., Abbaszade, G., Remeikis,
V., Garbaras, A., Masalaite, A., Blees, J., Fröhlich, R., Dällenbach,
K. R., Canonaco, F., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Zimmermann, R.,
Schnelle-Kreis, J., Salazar, G. A., Agrios, K., Szidat, S., El Haddad, I.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Fossil and non-fossil source contributions to
atmospheric carbonaceous aerosols during extreme spring grassland fires in
Eastern Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5513–5529,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5513-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-5513-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Waked, A., Favez, O., Alleman, L. Y., Piot, C., Petit, J.-E., Delaunay, T.,
Verlinden, E., Golly, B., Besombes, J.-L., Jaffrezo, J.-L., and
Leoz-Garziandia, E.: Source apportionment of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in a north-western
Europe regional urban background site (Lens, France) using positive matrix
factorization and including primary biogenic emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
14, 3325–3346, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3325-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-3325-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Yokelson, R. J., Burling, I. R., Gilman, J. B., Warneke, C., Stockwell, C.
E., de Gouw, J., Akagi, S. K., Urbanski, S. P., Veres, P., Roberts, J. M.,
Kuster, W. C., Reardon, J., Griffith, D. W. T., Johnson, T. J., Hosseini, S.,
Miller, J. W., Cocker III, D. R., Jung, H., and Weise, D. R.: Coupling field
and laboratory measurements to estimate the emission factors of identified
and unidentified trace gases for prescribed fires, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
89–116, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-89-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-89-2013</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Q. J., Beekmann, M., Drewnick, F., Freutel, F., Schneider, J., Crippa,
M., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Poulain, L., Wiedensohler, A.,
Sciare, J., Gros, V., Borbon, A., Colomb, A., Michoud, V., Doussin, J.-F.,
Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Haeffelin, M., Dupont, J.-C., Siour, G.,
Petetin, H., Bessagnet, B., Pandis, S. N., Hodzic, A., Sanchez, O.,
Honoré, C., and Perrussel, O.: Formation of organic aerosol in the Paris
region during the MEGAPOLI summer campaign: evaluation of the
volatility-basis-set approach within the CHIMERE model, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
13, 5767–5790, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X., Cappa, C. D., Jathar, S. H., McVay, R. C., Ensberg, J. J.,
Kleeman, M. J., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Influence of vapor wall loss in
laboratory chambers on yields of secondary organic aerosol, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 111, 5802–5807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404727111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1404727111</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Zotter, P., Ciobanu, V. G., Zhang, Y. L., El-Haddad, I., Macchia, M.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Salazar, G. A., Huang, R.-J., Wacker, L., Hueglin, C.,
Piazzalunga, A., Fermo, P., Schwikowski, M., Baltensperger, U., Szidat, S.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Radiocarbon analysis of elemental and organic
carbon in Switzerland during winter-smog episodes from 2008 to 2012 –
Part 1: Source apportionment and spatial variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
13551–13570, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13551-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-13551-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Zuend, A. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Modeling the gas-particle partitioning of
secondary organic aerosol: the importance of liquid-liquid phase separation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 3857–3882, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3857-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-3857-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Constraining a hybrid volatility basis-set model for aging of wood-burning emissions using smog chamber experiments: a box-model study based on the VBS scheme of the CAMx model (v5.40)</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">In this study, novel wood combustion aging experiments performed at different
temperatures (263 and 288 K) in a  ∼  7 m<sup>3</sup> smog chamber were
modelled using a hybrid volatility basis set (VBS) box model, representing
the emission partitioning and their oxidation against OH. We combine
aerosol–chemistry box-model simulations with unprecedented measurements of
non-traditional volatile organic compounds (NTVOCs) from a high-resolution
proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) and with organic aerosol
measurements from an aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS). Due to this, we are
able to observationally constrain the amounts of different NTVOC aerosol
precursors (in the model) relative to low volatility and semi-volatile
primary organic material (OM<sub>sv</sub>), which is partitioned based on
current published volatility distribution data. By comparing the
NTVOC ∕ OM<sub>sv</sub> ratios at different temperatures, we determine
the enthalpies of vaporization of primary biomass-burning organic aerosols.
Further, the developed model allows for evaluating the evolution of oxidation
products of the semi-volatile and volatile precursors with aging. More than
30 000 box-model simulations were performed to retrieve the combination of
parameters that best fit the observed organic aerosol mass and O : C
ratios. The parameters investigated include the NTVOC reaction rates and
yields as well as enthalpies of vaporization and the O : C of secondary
organic aerosol surrogates. Our results suggest an average ratio of NTVOCs to
the sum of non-volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds of  ∼  4.75.
The mass yields of these compounds determined for a wide range of
atmospherically relevant temperatures and organic aerosol (OA) concentrations
were predicted to vary between 8 and 30 % after 5 h of continuous aging.
Based on the reaction scheme used, reaction rates of the NTVOC mixture range
from 3. 0 × 10<sup>−11</sup> to 4. 0 × 10<sup>−11</sup> cm<sup>3</sup> molec<sup>−1</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>. The average enthalpy of
vaporization of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) surrogates was determined to
be between 55 000 and 35 000 J mol<sup>−1</sup>, which implies a yield increase
of 0.03–0.06 % K<sup>−1</sup> with decreasing temperature. The improved VBS
scheme is suitable for implementation into chemical transport models to
predict the burden and oxidation state of primary and secondary
biomass-burning aerosols.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Barmet, P., Dommen, J., DeCarlo, P. F., Tritscher, T., Praplan, A. P., Platt,
S. M., Prévôt, A. S. H., Donahue, N. M., and Baltensperger, U.: OH
clock determination by proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry at an
environmental chamber, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 647–656,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-647-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-5-647-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bergström, R., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Yttri, K. E., and Simpson, D.: Modelling of organic aerosols over Europe
(2002–2007) using a volatility basis set (VBS) framework: application of
different assumptions regarding the formation of secondary organic aerosol,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8499–8527, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-8499-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bessagnet, B., Colette, A., Meleux, F., Rouïl, L., Ung, A., Favez, O.,
Thunis, P., Cuvelier, C., Tsyro, S., Stern, R., Manders, A., Kranenburg, R.,
Aulinger, A., Bieser, J., Mircea, M., Briganti, G., Cappelletti, A., Calori,
G., Finardi, S., Silibello, C., Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., Prévot, A.,
Pay, M.-T., Baldasano, J., García Vivanco, M., Garrido, J. L., Palomino,
I., Martín, F., Pirovano, G., Roberts, P., Gonzalez, L., White, L.,
Menut, L., Dupont, J.-C., Carnevale, C., and Pederzoli, A.: The EURODELTA III
exercise – Model evaluation with observations issued from the 2009 EMEP
intensive period and standard measurements in Feb/Mar 2009, Technical EMEP
report 1/2014, Oslo, Norway, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bessagnet, B., Pirovano, G., Mircea, M., Cuvelier, C., Aulinger, A., Calori,
G., Ciarelli, G., Manders, A., Stern, R., Tsyro, S., García Vivanco, M.,
Thunis, P., Pay, M.-T., Colette, A., Couvidat, F., Meleux, F., Rouïl,
L., Ung, A., Aksoyoglu, S., Baldasano, J. M., Bieser, J., Briganti, G.,
Cappelletti, A., D'Isidoro, M., Finardi, S., Kranenburg, R., Silibello, C.,
Carnevale, C., Aas, W., Dupont, J.-C., Fagerli, H., Gonzalez, L., Menut, L.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Roberts, P., and White, L.: Presentation of the
EURODELTA III intercomparison exercise –evaluation of the chemistry
transport models' performance on criteria pollutants and joint analysis with
meteorology, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12667–12701,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12667-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-12667-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bruns, E. A., Krapf, M., Orasche, J., Huang, Y., Zimmermann, R., Drinovec,
L., Mocnik, G., El-Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Baltensperger, U.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Characterization of primary and secondary wood
combustion products generated under different burner loads, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 2825–2841, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-2825-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bruns, E. A., El Haddad, I., Slowik, J. G., Kilic, D., Klein, F.,
Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Identification of
significant precursor gases of secondary organic aerosols from residential
wood combustion, Sci. Rep., 6, 27881, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27881" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/srep27881</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Canonaco, F., Slowik, J. G., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.:
Seasonal differences in oxygenated organic aerosol composition: implications
for emissions sources and factor analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
6993–7002, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6993-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-6993-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., Crippa, M., Jimenez, J.-L., Nemitz, E.,
Sellegri, K., Äijälä, M., Carbone, S., Mohr, C., O'Dowd, C.,
Poulain, L., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Evaluation of
European air quality modelled by CAMx including the volatility basis set
scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 10313–10332,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10313-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-10313-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Ciarelli, G., Aksoyoglu, S., El Haddad, I., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M.,
Poulain, L., Äijälä, M., Carbone, S., Freney, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Modelling winter organic
aerosol at the European scale with CAMx: evaluation and source apportionment
with a VBS parameterization based on novel wood burning smog chamber
experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7653–7669,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7653-2017" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-17-7653-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Crippa, M., DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Mohr, C., Heringa, M. F., Chirico,
R., Poulain, L., Freutel, F., Sciare, J., Cozic, J., Di Marco, C. F.,
Elsasser, M., Nicolas, J. B., Marchand, N., Abidi, E., Wiedensohler, A.,
Drewnick, F., Schneider, J., Borrmann, S., Nemitz, E., Zimmermann, R.,
Jaffrezo, J.-L., Prévôt, A. S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: Wintertime
aerosol chemical composition and source apportionment of the organic fraction
in the metropolitan area of Paris, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 961–981,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-961-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-961-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Bergström, R., Fountoukis, C., Johansson,
C., Pandis, S. N., Simpson, D., and Visschedijk, A. J. H.: Particulate
emissions from residential wood combustion in Europe – revised estimates and
an evaluation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6503–6519,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6503-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-6503-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Robinson, A. L., Stanier, C. O., and Pandis, S. N.: Coupled
Partitioning, Dilution, and Chemical Aging of Semivolatile Organics, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 40, 2635–2643, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es052297c" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/es052297c</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Epstein, S. A., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson, A. L.: A
two-dimensional volatility basis set: 1. organic-aerosol mixing
thermodynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3303–3318,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3303-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-3303-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Kroll, J. H., Pandis, S. N., and Robinson, A. L.: A
two-dimensional volatility basis set – Part 2: Diagnostics of
organic-aerosol evolution, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 615–634,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-615-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-615-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Donahue, N. M., Chuang, W., Epstein, S. A., Kroll, J. H., Worsnop, D. R.,
Robinson, A. L., Adams, P. J., and Pandis, S. N.: Why do organic aerosols
exist? Understanding aerosol lifetimes using the two-dimensional volatility
basis set, Environ. Chem., 10, 151–157, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/EN13022" target="_blank">doi:10.1071/EN13022</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Drinovec, L., Močnik, G., Zotter, P., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Ruckstuhl, C., Coz, E., Rupakheti, M., Sciare, J., Müller, T.,
Wiedensohler, A., and Hansen, A. D. A.: The “dual-spot” Aethalometer: an
improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading
compensation, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1965–1979, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-8-1965-2015</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Dzepina, K., Volkamer, R. M., Madronich, S., Tulet, P., Ulbrich, I. M.,
Zhang, Q., Cappa, C. D., Ziemann, P. J., and Jimenez, J. L.: Evaluation of
recently-proposed secondary organic aerosol models for a case study in Mexico
City, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 5681–5709, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5681-2009" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-9-5681-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
El Haddad, I., Marchand, N., D'Anna, B., Jaffrezo, J.-L., and Wortham, H.:
Functional group composition of organic aerosol from combustion emissions and
secondary processes at two contrasted urban environments, Atmos. Environ.,
75, 308–320, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E.,
Pilinis, C., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Canonaco, F., Mohr,
C., Prévôt, A. S. H., Allan, J. D., Poulain, L., Petäjä, T.,
Tiitta, P., Carbone, S., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Nemitz, E., O'Dowd, C.,
Swietlicki, E., and Pandis, S. N.: Organic aerosol concentration and
composition over Europe: insights from comparison of regional model
predictions with aerosol mass spectrometer factor analysis, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 9061–9076, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-9061-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Fountoukis, C., Megaritis, A. G., Skyllakou, K., Charalampidis, P. E., Denier
van der Gon, H. A. C., Crippa, M., Prévôt, A. S. H., Fachinger, F.,
Wiedensohler, A., Pilinis, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the formation of
carbonaceous aerosol in a European Megacity (Paris) during the MEGAPOLI
summer and winter campaigns, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3727–3741,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3727-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-3727-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Grieshop, A. P., Logue, J. M., Donahue, N. M., and Robinson, A. L.:
Laboratory investigation of photochemical oxidation of organic aerosol from
wood fires 1: measurement and simulation of organic aerosol evolution, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 9, 1263–1277, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-9-1263-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Heald, C. L., Kroll, J. H., Jimenez, J. L., Docherty, K. S., DeCarlo, P. F.,
Aiken, A. C., Chen, Q., Martin, S. T., Farmer, D. K., and Artaxo, P.: A
simplified description of the evolution of organic aerosol composition in the
atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L08803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042737" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010GL042737</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Heringa, M. F., DeCarlo, P. F., Chirico, R., Tritscher, T., Clairotte, M.,
Mohr, C., Crippa, M., Slowik, J. G., Pfaffenberger, L., Dommen, J.,
Weingartner, E., Prévôt, A. S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: A new
method to discriminate secondary organic aerosols from different sources
using high-resolution aerosol mass spectra, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
2189–2203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2189-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-2189-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Hodzic, A., Kasibhatla, P. S., Jo, D. S., Cappa, C. D., Jimenez, J. L.,
Madronich, S., and Park, R. J.: Rethinking the global secondary organic
aerosol (SOA) budget: stronger production, faster removal, shorter lifetime,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7917–7941, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Slowik, J. G., Platt, S. M., Canonaco, F., Zotter, P.,
Wolf, R., Pieber, S. M., Bruns, E. A., Crippa, M., Ciarelli, G., Piazzalunga,
A., Schwikowski, M., Abbaszade, G., Schnelle-Kreis, J., Zimmermann, R., An,
Z., Szidat, S., Baltensperger, U., Haddad, I. E., and Prévôt, A. S.
H.: High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze
events in China, Nature, 514, 218–222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13774" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nature13774</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Iinuma, Y., Böge, O., Gräfe, R., and Herrmann, H.:
Methyl-Nitrocatechols: Atmospheric Tracer Compounds for Biomass Burning
Secondary Organic Aerosols, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 8453–8459,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es102938a" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/es102938a</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Jathar, S. H., Farina, S. C., Robinson, A. L., and Adams, P. J.: The
influence of semi-volatile and reactive primary emissions on the abundance
and properties of global organic aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7727–7746,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-7727-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang,
Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., Aiken, A.
C., Docherty, K. S., Ulbrich, I. M., Grieshop, A. P., Robinson, A. L.,
Duplissy, J., Smith, J. D., Wilson, K. R., Lanz, V. A., Hueglin, C., Sun, Y.
L., Tian, J., Laaksonen, A., Raatikainen, T., Rautiainen, J., Vaattovaara,
P., Ehn, M., Kulmala, M., Tomlinson, J. M., Collins, D. R., Cubison, M. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Huffman, J. A., Onasch, T. B., Alfarra, M. R., Williams, P.
I., Bower, K., Kondo, Y., Schneider, J., Drewnick, F., Borrmann, S., Weimer,
S., Demerjian, K., Salcedo, D., Cottrell, L., Griffin, R., Takami, A.,
Miyoshi, T., Hatakeyama, S., Shimono, A., Sun, J. Y., Zhang, Y. M., Dzepina,
K., Kimmel, J. R., Sueper, D., Jayne, J. T., Herndon, S. C., Trimborn, A. M.,
Williams, L. R., Wood, E. C., Middlebrook, A. M., Kolb, C. E., Baltensperger,
U., and Worsnop, D. R.: Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
Science, 326, 1525–1529, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1180353" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1180353</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kleindienst, T. E., Lewandowski, M., Offenberg, J. H., Jaoui, M., and Edney,
E. O.: Ozone-isoprene reaction: Re-examination of the formation of secondary
organic aerosol, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01805, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027485" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006GL027485</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Knote, C., Brunner, D., Vogel, H., Allan, J., Asmi, A., Äijälä,
M., Carbone, S., van der Gon, H. D., Jimenez, J. L., Kiendler-Scharr, A.,
Mohr, C., Poulain, L., Prévôt, A. S. H., Swietlicki, E., and Vogel,
B.: Towards an online-coupled chemistry-climate model: evaluation of trace
gases and aerosols in COSMO-ART, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1077–1102,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1077-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-4-1077-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Koo, B., Knipping, E., and Yarwood, G.: 1.5-Dimensional volatility basis set
approach for modeling organic aerosol in CAMx and CMAQ, Atmos. Environ., 95,
158–164, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.031" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.031</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kostenidou, E., Kaltsonoudis, C., Tsiflikiotou, M., Louvaris, E., Russell, L.
M., and Pandis, S. N.: Burning of olive tree branches: a major organic
aerosol source in the Mediterranean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8797–8811,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8797-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-8797-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Kulmala, M., Asmi, A., Lappalainen, H. K., Carslaw, K. S., Pöschl, U.,
Baltensperger, U., Hov, Ø., Brenquier, J.-L., Pandis, S. N., Facchini, M.
C., Hansson, H.-C., Wiedensohler, A., and O'Dowd, C. D.: Introduction:
European Integrated Project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality
interactions (EUCAARI) – integrating aerosol research from nano to global
scales, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2825–2841, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-2825-2009" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-9-2825-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Kulmala, M., Asmi, A., Lappalainen, H. K., Baltensperger, U., Brenguier,
J.-L., Facchini, M. C., Hansson, H.-C., Hov, Ø., O'Dowd, C. D.,
Pöschl, U., Wiedensohler, A., Boers, R., Boucher, O., de Leeuw, G.,
Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Feichter, J., Krejci, R., Laj, P., Lihavainen,
H., Lohmann, U., McFiggans, G., Mentel, T., Pilinis, C., Riipinen, I.,
Schulz, M., Stohl, A., Swietlicki, E., Vignati, E., Alves, C., Amann, M.,
Ammann, M., Arabas, S., Artaxo, P., Baars, H., Beddows, D. C. S.,
Bergström, R., Beukes, J. P., Bilde, M., Burkhart, J. F., Canonaco, F.,
Clegg, S. L., Coe, H., Crumeyrolle, S., D'Anna, B., Decesari, S., Gilardoni,
S., Fischer, M., Fjaeraa, A. M., Fountoukis, C., George, C., Gomes, L.,
Halloran, P., Hamburger, T., Harrison, R. M., Herrmann, H., Hoffmann, T.,
Hoose, C., Hu, M., Hyvärinen, A., Hõrrak, U., Iinuma, Y., Iversen,
T., Josipovic, M., Kanakidou, M., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Kirkevåg, A.,
Kiss, G., Klimont, Z., Kolmonen, P., Komppula, M., Kristjánsson, J.-E.,
Laakso, L., Laaksonen, A., Labonnote, L., Lanz, V. A., Lehtinen, K. E. J.,
Rizzo, L. V., Makkonen, R., Manninen, H. E., McMeeking, G., Merikanto, J.,
Minikin, A., Mirme, S., Morgan, W. T., Nemitz, E., O'Donnell, D., Panwar, T.
S., Pawlowska, H., Petzold, A., Pienaar, J. J., Pio, C., Plass-Duelmer, C.,
Prévôt, A. S. H., Pryor, S., Reddington, C. L., Roberts, G.,
Rosenfeld, D., Schwarz, J., Seland, Ø., Sellegri, K., Shen, X. J.,
Shiraiwa, M., Siebert, H., Sierau, B., Simpson, D., Sun, J. Y., Topping, D.,
Tunved, P., Vaattovaara, P., Vakkari, V., Veefkind, J. P., Visschedijk, A.,
Vuollekoski, H., Vuolo, R., Wehner, B., Wildt, J., Woodward, S., Worsnop, D.
R., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Zardini, A. A., Zhang, K., van Zyl, P. G.,
Kerminen, V.-M., S Carslaw, K., and Pandis, S. N.: General overview: European
Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality interactions
(EUCAARI) – integrating aerosol research from nano to global scales, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 13061–13143, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-13061-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-13061-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Lipsky, E. M. and Robinson, A. L.: Effects of Dilution on Fine Particle Mass
and Partitioning of Semivolatile Organics in Diesel Exhaust and Wood Smoke,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 155–162, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es050319p" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/es050319p</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
May, A. A., Levin, E. J. T., Hennigan, C. J., Riipinen, I., Lee, T., Collett,
J. L., Jimenez, J. L., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Gas-particle
partitioning of primary organic aerosol emissions: 3. Biomass burning, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11327–11338, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50828" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/jgrd.50828</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Mohr, C., DeCarlo, P. F., Heringa, M. F., Chirico, R., Slowik, J. G.,
Richter, R., Reche, C., Alastuey, A., Querol, X., Seco, R., Peñuelas, J.,
Jiménez, J. L., Crippa, M., Zimmermann, R., Baltensperger, U., and
Prévôt, A. S. H.: Identification and quantification of organic
aerosol from cooking and other sources in Barcelona using aerosol mass
spectrometer data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1649–1665,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1649-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-1649-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, B. N. and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating the Formation of Semivolatile
Primary and Secondary Organic Aerosol in a Regional Chemical Transport Model,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4722–4728, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es803168a" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/es803168a</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, B. N., Donahue, N. M., Fountoukis, C., and Pandis, S. N.: Simulating
the oxygen content of ambient organic aerosol with the 2D volatility basis
set, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7859–7873, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7859-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-7859-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Nussbaumer, T., Czasch, C., Klippel, N., Johansson, L., and Tullin, C.:
Particulate Emissions from Biomass Combustion in IEA Countries, Survey on
Measurements and Emission Factors, International Energy Agency (IEA)
Bioenergy Task 32, Zurich, Switzerland, 2008a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Nussbaumer, T., Klippel, N., and Johansson, L.: Survey on Measurements and
Emission Factors on Particulate Matter from Biomass Combustion in IEA
Countries, 16th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 2–6 June 2008,
Valencia, Spain, Oral Presentation OA 9.2, 2008b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pankow, J. F.: An absorption model of gas/particle partitioning of organic
compounds in the atmosphere, Atmos. Environ., 28, 185–188,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)90093-0" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/1352-2310(94)90093-0</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pankow, J. F. and Asher, W. E.: SIMPOL.1: a simple group contribution method
for predicting vapor pressures and enthalpies of vaporization of
multifunctional organic compounds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2773–2796,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-2773-2008" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-8-2773-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Platt, S. M., El Haddad, I., Zardini, A. A., Clairotte, M., Astorga, C.,
Wolf, R., Slowik, J. G., Temime-Roussel, B., Marchand, N., Ježek, I.,
Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G., Möhler, O., Richter, R., Barmet, P., Bianchi,
F., Baltensperger, U., and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Secondary organic
aerosol formation from gasoline vehicle emissions in a new mobile
environmental reaction chamber, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9141–9158,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9141-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-9141-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, A. L., Donahue, N. M., Shrivastava, M. K., Weitkamp, E. A., Sage,
A. M., Grieshop, A. P., Lane, T. E., Pierce, J. R., and Pandis, S. N.:
Rethinking Organic Aerosols: Semivolatile Emissions and Photochemical Aging,
Science, 315, 1259–1262, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133061" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1133061</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Shrivastava, M. K., Easter, R., Liu, X., Zelenyuk, A., Singh, B., Zhang, K.,
Ma, P.-L., Chand, D., Ghan, S., Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Fast, J., Rasch,
P., and Tiitta, P.: Global transformation and fate of SOA: Implications of
low volatility SOA and gasphase fragmentation reactions, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 120, 4169–4195, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022563" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2014JD022563</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Tørseth, K., Aas, W., Breivik, K., Fjæraa, A. M., Fiebig, M.,
Hjellbrekke, A. G., Lund Myhre, C., Solberg, S., and Yttri, K. E.:
Introduction to the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) and
observed atmospheric composition change during 1972–2009, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 5447–5481, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5447-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-5447-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Tsigaridis, K., Daskalakis, N., Kanakidou, M., Adams, P. J., Artaxo, P.,
Bahadur, R., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Bellouin, N., Benedetti, A.,
Bergman, T., Berntsen, T. K., Beukes, J. P., Bian, H., Carslaw, K. S., Chin,
M., Curci, G., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Gong, S. L., Hodzic,
A., Hoyle, C. R., Iversen, T., Jathar, S., Jimenez, J. L., Kaiser, J. W.,
Kirkevåg, A., Koch, D., Kokkola, H., Lee, Y. H., Lin, G., Liu, X., Luo,
G., Ma, X., Mann, G. W., Mihalopoulos, N., Morcrette, J.-J., Müller,
J.-F., Myhre, G., Myriokefalitakis, S., Ng, N. L., O'Donnell, D., Penner, J.
E., Pozzoli, L., Pringle, K. J., Russell, L. M., Schulz, M., Sciare, J.,
Seland, Ø., Shindell, D. T., Sillman, S., Skeie, R. B., Spracklen, D.,
Stavrakou, T., Steenrod, S. D., Takemura, T., Tiitta, P., Tilmes, S., Tost,
H., van Noije, T., van Zyl, P. G., von Salzen, K., Yu, F., Wang, Z., Wang,
Z., Zaveri, R. A., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Zhang, Q., and Zhang, X.: The
AeroCom evaluation and intercomparison of organic aerosol in global models,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10845–10895, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Zavala, M., Lei, W., Molina, L., Ulbrich, I.
M., Jimenez, J. L., and Pandis, S. N.: Evaluation of the volatility basis-set
approach for the simulation of organic aerosol formation in the Mexico City
metropolitan area, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 525–546,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-525-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-525-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pozzer, A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld,
J.: ORACLE (v1.0): module to simulate the organic aerosol composition and
evolution in the atmosphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 3153–3172,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-7-3153-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., Pandis, S. N., and Lelieveld, J.: Global
combustion sources of organic aerosols: model comparison with 84 AMS
factor-analysis data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8939–8962,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-8939-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Ulevicius, V., Byčenkiene, S., Bozzetti, C., Vlachou, A.,
Plauškaitė, K., Mordas, G., Dudoitis, V., Abbaszade, G., Remeikis,
V., Garbaras, A., Masalaite, A., Blees, J., Fröhlich, R., Dällenbach,
K. R., Canonaco, F., Slowik, J. G., Dommen, J., Zimmermann, R.,
Schnelle-Kreis, J., Salazar, G. A., Agrios, K., Szidat, S., El Haddad, I.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Fossil and non-fossil source contributions to
atmospheric carbonaceous aerosols during extreme spring grassland fires in
Eastern Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5513–5529,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5513-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-5513-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Waked, A., Favez, O., Alleman, L. Y., Piot, C., Petit, J.-E., Delaunay, T.,
Verlinden, E., Golly, B., Besombes, J.-L., Jaffrezo, J.-L., and
Leoz-Garziandia, E.: Source apportionment of PM<sub>10</sub> in a north-western
Europe regional urban background site (Lens, France) using positive matrix
factorization and including primary biogenic emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
14, 3325–3346, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3325-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-3325-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Yokelson, R. J., Burling, I. R., Gilman, J. B., Warneke, C., Stockwell, C.
E., de Gouw, J., Akagi, S. K., Urbanski, S. P., Veres, P., Roberts, J. M.,
Kuster, W. C., Reardon, J., Griffith, D. W. T., Johnson, T. J., Hosseini, S.,
Miller, J. W., Cocker III, D. R., Jung, H., and Weise, D. R.: Coupling field
and laboratory measurements to estimate the emission factors of identified
and unidentified trace gases for prescribed fires, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
89–116, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-89-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-89-2013</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q. J., Beekmann, M., Drewnick, F., Freutel, F., Schneider, J., Crippa,
M., Prevot, A. S. H., Baltensperger, U., Poulain, L., Wiedensohler, A.,
Sciare, J., Gros, V., Borbon, A., Colomb, A., Michoud, V., Doussin, J.-F.,
Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Haeffelin, M., Dupont, J.-C., Siour, G.,
Petetin, H., Bessagnet, B., Pandis, S. N., Hodzic, A., Sanchez, O.,
Honoré, C., and Perrussel, O.: Formation of organic aerosol in the Paris
region during the MEGAPOLI summer campaign: evaluation of the
volatility-basis-set approach within the CHIMERE model, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
13, 5767–5790, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-5767-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X., Cappa, C. D., Jathar, S. H., McVay, R. C., Ensberg, J. J.,
Kleeman, M. J., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Influence of vapor wall loss in
laboratory chambers on yields of secondary organic aerosol, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 111, 5802–5807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404727111" target="_blank">doi:10.1073/pnas.1404727111</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Zotter, P., Ciobanu, V. G., Zhang, Y. L., El-Haddad, I., Macchia, M.,
Daellenbach, K. R., Salazar, G. A., Huang, R.-J., Wacker, L., Hueglin, C.,
Piazzalunga, A., Fermo, P., Schwikowski, M., Baltensperger, U., Szidat, S.,
and Prévôt, A. S. H.: Radiocarbon analysis of elemental and organic
carbon in Switzerland during winter-smog episodes from 2008 to 2012 –
Part 1: Source apportionment and spatial variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
13551–13570, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13551-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-13551-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Zuend, A. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Modeling the gas-particle partitioning of
secondary organic aerosol: the importance of liquid-liquid phase separation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 3857–3882, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3857-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-3857-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
