2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.049
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surface tensions of solutions containing dicarboxylic acid mixtures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These parametrizations come from several independent measurements 47 51 but we use the parameters of the Szyszkowski equation for each that are summarized in Lee and Hildemann. 49 In addition, we show results from the AFM approach only for a w close to the saturation limit, which is closest to our measured concentrations. Overall, our experimental results agree very well with bulk measurements.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…These parametrizations come from several independent measurements 47 51 but we use the parameters of the Szyszkowski equation for each that are summarized in Lee and Hildemann. 49 In addition, we show results from the AFM approach only for a w close to the saturation limit, which is closest to our measured concentrations. Overall, our experimental results agree very well with bulk measurements.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In both cases, the underlying parameters (a 1 and b 2 ) for both fits to the macroscopic solution data (provided in SI Appendix, Table S2) agree with those given by Zdziennicka et al (54) for the Szyszkowski-Langmuir equation within reported uncertainties for the limiting case of binary water-Triton X-100 solution (i.e., primary solute concentration = 0 M). At the limit of a water-glutaric acid solution (i.e., surfactant concentration = 0 mM), a 1 and b 2 agree with literature values (56). At the limit of a water-NaCl solution, the fit function predicts a linear dependence of surface tension on salt concentration with the resulting coefficient a 2 b 1 slightly below literature values (57).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…56,67 Instead, the reaction with other (primary and secondary) RO 2 • favorably (k ≈ 10 9 M −1 s −1 ) produces corresponding alcohols, carbonyls, and alkoxy radicals 56 that would proceed β-scission to emit neutral CH 3 − C(O)• radical 68 and the observed ketone at m/z = 155 (Scheme 2). We consider the m/z = 155 species as an important intermediate that may lead to the formation of 3-methyl-1,2,3butanetricarboxylic acid (MBTCA) 14,17,[31][32][33][34]69 as shown in Scheme 3. 15,18,69−72 A carboxylic acid group −C(O)OH formation during the reactions would occur via the acyl peroxyl radical + HO 2 •/RO 2 • reaction.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the hydrophobic character of CPA drives them to the surface of aqueous media such as fog and cloud droplets, as demonstrated by molecular dynamics (MD) calculation and surface-tension data, it is critical to investigate the oxidation of aqueous CPA by ·OH­(g) at the air–water interface. ,, The MD study reveals that all 144 CPA molecules are partitioned to the surface (thickness ≤1 nm) of a 2000 water molecules droplet with the carbonyl and carboxylic groups pointing to the bulk phase . Thus, the oxidation of aqueous CPA by ·OH­(g) is necessarily interfacial and may be different from that of gas or liquid phase. , We recently found surface-active C ≥4 dicarboxylic acids (DCAs) react with gas phase ·OH-radical via an air–water interface specific mechanism . The products from the reactions HOOC–R n –COO – ( n = 2–6) + ·OH always include ( n – 1) products, that is, OC­(H)–R n –1 –COO – and HOOC–R n –1 –COO – , implying that α-CH 2 groups of undissociated terminal HOOC moieties residing at the topmost layers of the water surfaces would react selectively with interfacial ·OH, followed by conversion into alkoxy −C–O· radicals that split HOCO· radical .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%