2016): Comment on "The effects of molecular weight and thermal decomposition on the sensitivity of a thermal desorption aerosol mass spectrometer", Aerosol Science and Technology, ) by D. M. Murphy, entitled, -The effects of molecular weight and thermal decomposition on the sensitivity of a thermal desorption aerosol mass spectrometer.‖ That manuscript presents a simple model (hereinafter -M16 model‖) for the vaporization and ionization of molecules in a vacuum system, similar to the processes occurring in the Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS). The idealized model is based on the dispersion of molecules in the free molecular regime and predicts an additional square root dependence of the ionization efficiency on the molecular weight (MW) of the molecule of interest. This model correctly accounts for only one of the many complex processes that affect AMS sensitivity to aerosol chemical components.The AMS instrument is widely used in the international atmospheric sciences community. As experienced AMS users, we find the Murphy (2016) conclusions regarding AMS data quality to be inconsistent with our understanding of and findings on AMS performance. This inconsistency and the seriousness of the conclusions make it imperative to us to present a response providing a more balanced perspective to our atmospheric science colleagues inside and outside the AMS user community.We present here a variety of evidence and reasoning demonstrating the inadequacy of the M16 model to represent important aspects of AMS performance. In the following, we use previously published results to address key issues raised in Murphy (2016) associated with basic AMS features (vaporization temperature, single-particle timescales, ionization efficiencies), AMS calibration (relative ionization efficiency) and evaluation of possible biases on organic aerosol field data. Rather than being an exhaustive review, the evidence put Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:41 27 June 2016 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4forth in this letter is representative of the AMS performance experienced by the large and varied AMS users community. We conclude that the generalizations and assertions based on the M16 model are not consistent with many experimental AMS results and, hence, this model cannot be used to draw conclusions about the sensitivity of the AMS as a function of MW and the accuracy of ambient AMS measurements.
Evidence that the M16 model is inconsistent with AMS measurements1.1. The M16 model is not consistent with measured AMS vaporizer temperature dependences AMS detection is based on impaction of the particles on a heated vaporizer (typically operating at a temperature, T v , of 600C) under vacuum followed by vaporization, electron ionization of the resulting gas-phase molecules, and mass spectrometric detection of the ions (Jayne et al., 2000; Jimenez et al., 2003;Canagaratna et al., 2007). Murphy (2016) proposes that the intensity of the ion signal (I) produced from an individual chemical species vaporizing from an ...