chemical ionization of clusters formed from sulfuric acid and ......12514 c. n. jen et al.: chemical...

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12513–12529, 2016www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12513/2016/doi:10.5194/acp-16-12513-2016© Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Chemical ionization of clusters formed from sulfuric acidand dimethylamine or diaminesCoty N. Jen1,a, Jun Zhao1,b, Peter H. McMurry1, and David R. Hanson21Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 111 Church St. SE,Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA2Department of Chemistry, Augsburg College, 2211 Riverside Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55454, USAanow at: Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley,Hilgard Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USAbnow at: Institute of Earth Climate and Environment System, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 West Xingang Road,510275 Guangzhou, China

Correspondence to: Coty N. Jen ([email protected])

Received: 9 June 2016 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 1 July 2016Revised: 13 September 2016 – Accepted: 21 September 2016 – Published: 7 October 2016

Abstract. Chemical ionization (CI) mass spectrometers areused to study atmospheric nucleation by detecting clustersproduced by reactions of sulfuric acid and various basicgases. These instruments typically use nitrate to deprotonateand thus chemically ionize the clusters. In this study, wecompare cluster concentrations measured using either nitrateor acetate. Clusters were formed in a flow reactor from va-pors of sulfuric acid and dimethylamine, ethylene diamine,tetramethylethylene diamine, or butanediamine (also knownas putrescine). These comparisons show that nitrate is unableto chemically ionize clusters with high base content. In ad-dition, we vary the ion–molecule reaction time to probe ionprocesses which include proton-transfer, ion–molecule clus-tering, and decomposition of ions. Ion decomposition upondeprotonation by acetate/nitrate was observed. More studiesare needed to quantify to what extent ion decomposition af-fects observed cluster content and concentrations, especiallythose chemically ionized with acetate since it deprotonatesmore types of clusters than nitrate.

Model calculations of the neutral and ion cluster forma-tion pathways are also presented to better identify the clustertypes that are not efficiently deprotonated by nitrate. Com-parison of model and measured clusters indicate that sulfu-ric acid dimers with two diamines and sulfuric acid trimerswith two or more base molecules are not efficiently chemicalionized by nitrate. We conclude that acetate CI provides bet-

ter information on cluster abundancies and their base contentthan nitrate CI.

1 Introduction

Atmospheric nucleation is an important source of globalatmospheric particles (IPCC, 2014). In the atmosphericboundary layer, sulfuric acid often participates in nucleation(Weber et al., 1996; Kuang et al., 2008; Kulmala et al.,2004; Riipinen et al., 2007) by reacting with other tracecompounds to produce stable, electrically neutral molec-ular clusters; these compounds include ammonia (Kirkbyet al., 2011; Coffman and Hegg, 1995; Ball et al., 1999),amines (Almeida et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2011; Glasoeet al., 2015), water (Leopold, 2011), and oxidized organ-ics (Schobesberger et al., 2013). The primary instrumentsused for detecting freshly nucleated, sulfuric-acid-containingclusters are atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization massspectrometers (CIMS) such as the Cluster CIMS (Zhaoet al., 2010; Chen et al., 2012) and the chemical ioniza-tion (CI) atmospheric-pressure interface–time-of-flight massspectrometer (CI-APi-ToF; Jokinen et al., 2012). Both massspectrometers use nitrate to chemically ionize neutral sulfu-ric acid clusters. Depending upon conditions, NO−3 core ionsgenerally have one or more HNO3 and possibly several H2Oligands The signal ratio of the ion cluster to the reagent ion

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

12514 C. N. Jen et al.: Chemical ionization of clusters

translates to the neutral cluster concentration (Berresheimet al., 2000; Hanson and Eisele, 2002; Eisele and Hanson,2000).

The amounts and types of ions detected by the mass spec-trometer are affected by four key processes: the abundance ofneutral clusters, their ability to be chemically ionized, prod-uct ion decomposition, and clustering reactions of the prod-uct ions (ion-induced clustering, IIC). The first process, neu-tral cluster formation, follows a sequence of acid–base re-actions (Chen et al., 2012; Jen et al., 2014; Almeida et al.,2013; McGrath et al., 2012) whereby sulfuric acid vapor andits subsequent clusters react with basic molecules to produceclusters that are more stable than aqueous sulfuric acid clus-ters. The concentration of a specific cluster type depends onits stability (i.e., evaporation rates of the neutral cluster) andthe concentrations of precursor vapors (i.e., the formationrate).

Neutral clusters then need to be ionized to be detectedwith a mass spectrometer. In most prior work, this has beenaccomplished by chemical ionization with the nitrate ionwhereby the neutral clusters are exposed to nitrate for a setamount of time known as the chemical ionization reactiontime (or ion–molecule reaction time). CI can be conceptu-alized as another acid–base reaction where an acid (sulfuricacid) donates a proton to the basic reagent ion (nitrate, theconjugate base of nitric acid). To illustrate, the CI reaction ofan aminated sulfuric acid dimer, (H2SO4)2 qDMA, is shownin Reaction (R1).

(H2SO4)2 qDMA q(H2O)x +HNO3 qNO−3 k2→HSO−4

qH2SO4 qDMA+ 2HNO3+ x (H2O) (R1)This dimer of sulfuric acid contains a dimethylamine (DMA)molecule and x water molecules. At room temperature, watermolecules evaporate upon ionization or entering the vacuumregion and are assumed to not significantly affect chemicalionization rates. The forward rate constant, k2, is assumed tobe the collisional rate coefficient of 1.9× 10−9 cm3 s−1 (Suand Bowers, 1973), while the reverse rate constant is 0.

Reaction (R1) can be extended to CI reactions for largerneutral clusters of sulfuric acid, with the assumption thatevery collision between nitrate and a sulfuric acid clus-ter results in an ionized cluster. However, Hanson andEisele (2002) presented evidence that some clusters of sul-furic acid and ammonia were not amenable to ionization by(HNO3)1−2 qNO−3 . Acetate CI has been used previously todetect organic acids less acidic than sulfuric acid in the at-mosphere, providing evidence that its higher proton affin-ity could chemically ionize more basic clusters (Veres etal., 2008). Subsequently, Jen et al. (2015) showed that CIwith (HNO3)1−2 qNO−3 leads to significantly lower neutralconcentrations of clusters with three or more sulfuric acidmolecules and varying numbers of DMA molecules com-pared to results using acetate reagent ions. Furthermore, neu-

tral cluster concentrations detected using acetate CI are inoverall better agreement with values measured using a di-ethylene glycol mobility particle sizer (DEG MPS). As noother experimental conditions changed except the CI reagention, we hypothesized that nitrate’s proton affinity, which islower than that of acetate, renders it less able to chemicallyionize clusters that contain nearly equal amounts of sulfu-ric acid and base. Poor CI efficiency reduces the amount andtypes of ions detected by the mass spectrometer.

After neutral clusters are ionized, the resulting ion maydecompose. Experimental studies have shown ion decompo-sition in the ammonia–sulfuric acid system at 275 K (Han-son and Eisele, 2002), and computational chemistry studiespresent evaporation rates of ion clusters of sulfuric acid withvarious bases on the order of the CI reaction time used here(Kurtén et al., 2011; Lovejoy and Curtius, 2001; Ortega etal., 2014). For example, these studies predict an evaporationrate, Ed (Reaction R2), of DMA from a sulfuric acid dimerion with one DMA molecule of ∼ 100 s−1 at 298 K (Ortegaet al., 2014).

HSO−4qH2SO4 qDMA Ed−→ HSO−4 qH2SO4+DMA (R2)

Experimental observations at room temperature have neverseen the aminated sulfuric acid dimer ion, even at CI reac-tion times as short as a few milliseconds. Thus, the decom-position rate is likely even faster than the computed value of∼ 100 s−1 at 298 K (Ortega et al., 2014).

Ion clusters can also be produced by ion-induced cluster-ing (IIC) whereby the bisulfate ion (HSO−4 ), formed by CIof sulfuric acid monomer, further reacts with H2SO4 (withligands) and larger clusters. Charged clusters can also clusterwith neutrals to form larger ion clusters. The signal due tothese IIC products must be subtracted from the observed sig-nals to determine neutral cluster concentrations. Specifically,the sulfuric dimer ion can be formed via the IIC pathwaygiven in Reaction (R3), with ligands not shown.

HSO−4 +H2SO4k21−→ HSO−4

qH2SO4 (R3)The forward rate constant, k21, is the collisional rate constantof 2× 10−9 cm3 s−1 because this reaction involves switch-ing ligands between the two clusters. Both reactants alsocontain water, nitrate, and/or base ligands that detach dur-ing measurement. The IIC-produced dimer signal interfereswith the CI-detected neutral dimer but can be calculated frommeasured sulfuric acid vapor concentrations and CI reactiontimes (Chen et al., 2012; Hanson and Eisele, 2002).

IIC can also produce larger clusters, but in general its con-tribution is less than for the dimer, even if all rates are as-sumed to be collisional. Furthermore, bisulfate may not effi-ciently cluster with chemically neutralized sulfate salt clus-ters formed by reactions of sulfuric acid and basic com-pounds. If so, assuming the collisional rate constant for all

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12513–12529, 2016 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12513/2016/

C. N. Jen et al.: Chemical ionization of clusters 12515

IIC-type reactions would lead to an overcorrection of theneutral cluster concentrations.

Measured CIMS signals reflect the combined influencesof all these processes, with each occurring on timescales thatdepend on the chemistry, experimental parameters, and tech-niques. Assuming a process is either dominant or negligiblecan lead to large errors in reported neutral cluster compo-sitions and concentrations. Here, neutral cluster formation,chemical ionization, IIC, and ion decomposition are exam-ined experimentally and theoretically to determine the influ-ence of each process on the abundance of ion clusters com-posed of sulfuric acid and various bases. These bases includeDMA, ethylene diamine (EDA), trimethylethylene diamine(TMEDA), and butanediamine (also known as putrescine,Put). The diamines, recently implicated in atmospheric nu-cleation, react with sulfuric acid vapors to very effectivelyproduce particles compared to monoamines (Jen et al., 2016).We present observations that (1) show a clear difference be-tween acetate and nitrate CI for all clusters larger than thesulfuric acid dimer with any of the bases, (2) provide evi-dence of ion decomposition, and (3) identify specific basesthat influence the detectability of the dimer neutral clusters.Also presented are modeling results that help elucidate spe-cific processes that influence measurement: neutral clusterformation pathways, cluster types that do not undergo nitrateCI, and clusters that are formed by IIC.

2 Method

Sulfuric acid clusters containing either DMA, EDA,TMEDA, or Put were produced in a flow reactor that al-lows for highly repeatable observations (see Jen et al., 2014;Glasoe et al., 2015). Glasoe et al. (2015) showed that thesystem has a high cleanliness level: 1 ppqv level or below foramines. Each amine was injected into the flow reactor at apoint to yield ∼ 3 s reaction time between the amine and sul-furic acid (see Jen et al., 2014, for a schematic). The initialsulfuric acid concentration ([A1]o) before reaction with ba-sic gas was controlled at specified concentrations. The baseconcentration, [B], was measured by the Cluster CIMS inpositive ion mode (see the Supplement of Jen et al., 2014, forfurther details) and confirmed with calculated concentrations(Zollner et al., 2012; Freshour et al., 2014). The dilute amineswere produced by passing clean nitrogen gas over either apermeation tube (for DMA and EDA) or a liquid reservoir(TMEDA and Put) and further diluted in a process describedin Zollner et al. (2012). The temperature of the flow reac-tor was held constant throughout an experiment but variedday-to-day from 296 to 303 K to match room temperature.This was done to minimize thermal convection, which in-duces swirling near the Cluster CIMS sampling region. Therelative humidity was maintained at ∼ 30 %, and measure-ments were done at ambient pressure (∼ 0.97 atm). The total

reactor N2 flow rate was 4.0 L min−1 at standard conditionsof 273 K and 1 atm.

Two types of experiments were conducted: one set wherespecific base, base concentration ([B]), and [A1]o were var-ied at constant CI reaction time (similar to those in Jen etal., 2014) and the second set where CI reaction time wasvaried for a subset of reactant conditions (see Hanson andEisele, 2002; Zhao et al., 2010). The resulting concentrationswere measured with the Cluster CIMS using either nitrate oracetate as the CI reagent ion. Nitrate and acetate were pro-duced by passing either nitric acid or acetic anhydride va-por over Po-210 sources. Separate Po-210 sources and gaslines were used for the acetate and nitrate to avoid cross-contamination. The measured reagent ions for nitrate CIwas (HNO3)1−2 qNO−3 , and the reagent ions for acetate CIwere H2O qCH3CO−2 , CH3CO2H qCH3CO−2 , and CH3CO−2(in order of abundance). The nitrate dimer and trimer are as-sumed to chemically ionize at equal rate constants, and thethree acetate ions are assumed to chemically ionize in identi-cal manners. The inferred neutral cluster concentrations werecalculated from the CI reaction time, measured and extrapo-lated mass-dependent sensitivity (see the Supplement), andthe assumed collisional rate constant between CI ion andsulfuric acid clusters (see Jen et al., 2014, 2015, for a dis-cussion on the data inversion process). The CI reaction time,tCI, was determined from the inlet dimensions and electricfield strength inside the sampling region; for this set of ex-periments, tCI was fixed at 18 ms for nitrate and 15 ms foracetate.

Varying tCI at fixed [B] and [A1]o was achieved by chang-ing the electric field used to draw ions across the sampleflow into the inlet. Similar experiments have been performedwith other atmospheric-pressure, CI mass spectrometer in-lets (Hanson and Eisele, 2002; Zhao et al., 2010; Chen et al.,2012) with the detailed mathematical relationship betweentCI and ion signal ratios developed more in depth in the fol-lowing sections and the Supplement.

3 Acetate vs. nitrate comparison

Figure 1a and c compare inferred cluster concentrationsderived from measured signals (assuming the collisionalrate constant, kc, and no ion breakup) using acetate (redsquares) and nitrate (black triangles) reagent ions at a con-stant [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3 for two different [DMA]. Thegrouped points represent clusters that contain an equiva-lent number of sulfuric acid molecules (N1 is the monomer,N2 is the dimer, etc.) but with a different number of DMAmolecules (e.g., A−4

qDMA0−3, where A is sulfuric acid).The number of base molecules in each cluster is given bythe grouping bracket. Since the tetramers and pentamershave similar mass ranges, N4 clusters are given as half-filled symbols and N5 clusters as outlined symbols. Note thatN1 is detected at different masses between the two reagent

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12513/2016/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12513–12529, 2016


Figure 1. (a, c) Comparison of specific cluster concentrations ([Am qBj ]) using acetate (red squares) and nitrate (black triangles) reagentions at two different [DMA] and a constant initial sulfuric acid concentration, [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. Each cluster species is shown at its ionmass. The brackets represent the number of DMA molecules in a cluster with a given number of sulfuric acid. The half-filled symbols showthe tetramers, and the outlined symbols are the pentamers. Bar graphs (b) and (d) compare total cluster concentration of a given size ([Nm])between acetate (red) and nitrate (black) for the same [DMA] and [A1]o as (a) and (b), respectively.

ions, with nitrate at 160 amu=HSO−4qHNO3 and acetate

at 97 amu=HSO−4 . The total cluster concentrations, [Nm],compared between the two CI ions are shown in Fig. 1band d. The notation used here differs slightly from Jen etal. (2014) such that [Nm] denotes the total concentrationfor clusters that contain m sulfuric acids molecules (i.e.,[Nm]= [Am]+[Am qB1]+[Am qB2]. . .) and Am qBj repre-sents a specific cluster type with m sulfuric acid moleculesand j basic molecules (B). The measured [N1] and [N2] ob-tained using nitrate and acetate are in good agreement forDMA. In the set of bases studied in Jen et al. (2014) (ammo-nia, methylamine, DMA, and trimethylamine), DMA is thestrongest clustering agent, and these results reaffirm the ac-curacy of previously reported values of [N1] and [N2] in Jenet al. (2014) at high [A1]o.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the acetate and nitrate compar-ison for EDA, TMEDA, and Put, respectively. Although ni-trate appears to consistently detect less [N1] than acetate, theestimated systematic uncertainty of acetate-detected [N1] ishigher than with nitrate due to higher background signals de-tected by acetate, sensitivity to the low masses (see the Sup-plement), and the possible influence of diamines on the ionthroughput in the mass spectrometer. Other factors that may

influence the detected [N1] are discussed in the Supplement.The true acetate [N1] could be up to a factor of 5 lower.Therefore, for monomer clusters formed from diamines, itis difficult to conclude that acetate and nitrate lead to signifi-cant differences in measured [N1].

Unlike the other bases, Put was observed in the monomerusing either nitrate or acetate CI (Fig. 4). The presenceof A−1

qPut indicates that its binding energy must behigher than monomers containing the other bases. How-ever, this ion still decomposes in roughly the tCI = 15 msas it is ∼ 0.1 % of [N1]. Elm et al. (2016) have shownthat the binding energy of A1 qEDA is −11.1 kcal mol−1and A1 qPut is −15.4 kcal mol−1, with A1 qDMA closelymatching A1 qEDA at −11.38 kcal mol−1 (Nadykto et al.,2014; Bork et al., 2014). The higher neutral binding ener-gies of A1 qPut may translate to stronger ion binding ener-gies than the other aminated monomers, though more studiesare needed to confirm this. Both acetate and nitrate primarilydetect the bare dimer, with [N2] up to a factor of 5 higherwith acetate CI than nitrate. The systematic uncertainties ofthe acetate measurement have similar reasons as those for[N1] and could lead to a factor of 2–3 times lower [N2] thanreported here. These comparisons suggest that for clusters



Figure 2. (a, c) Comparison of specific cluster concentrations ([Am qBj ]) using acetate (red squares) and nitrate (black triangles) reagentions at two different [EDA] and a constant initial sulfuric acid concentration, [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. Each cluster species is shown at its ionmass. The brackets represent the number of EDA molecules in a cluster with a given number of sulfuric acid. The half-filled symbols showthe tetramers, outlined symbols as the pentamers, and crossed symbols as hexamer. Bar graphs (b) and (d) compare total cluster concentrationof a given size ([Nm]) between acetate (red) and nitrate (black) for the same [EDA] and [A1]o as (a) and (b), respectively.

formed from diamines, nitrate does not detect as many typesof N2 as does acetate; however, the large uncertainty in ac-etate [N2] prevents a definitive conclusion as to whether ornot nitrate chemically ionizes all types of dimers. More in-formation is gained from experiments that vary tCI as theyare more sensitive to the various formation pathways. Theseresults are presented in the subsequent sections.

Figures 1 through 4b and d clearly show that more of thelarger clusters (N3 and higher) were detected by acetate CIthan nitrate. For all bases, the [N3] measured by acetate is 2to 100 times higher than concentrations measured by nitrateCI. Nitrate detected small amounts of N4 and no N5, likelydue to the ionizable fraction of [N4] and [N5] falling belowdetection limits (< 105 cm−3). In addition as [B] increases,the differences between acetate and nitrate cluster concentra-tions become more pronounced. This likely occurs becausesulfuric acid clusters become more chemically neutral as [B]increases, thereby decreasing their tendencies to donate pro-tons to nitrate ions. The differences between acetate- andnitrate-measured cluster concentrations cannot be explainedonly by the larger uncertainties in the acetate measurements.The systematic uncertainties in acetate-detected larger clus-ters is at most a factor of 2 below reported concentrations.

Thus, acetate is more efficient than nitrate at chemically ion-izing the larger cluster population.

The large differences between nitrate- and acetate-measured [N3] and [N4] provide information to better under-stand recent atmospheric and chamber measurements. Chenet al. (2012) and Jiang et al. (2011) published [N3] and [N4]measured in the atmosphere using a larger version of theCluster CIMS (Zhao et al., 2010). For both studies, the mea-surements were conducted using nitrate CI and only at theclusters’ bare masses (A3 and A4). Trimers and tetramersmay have been under-detected, though this is uncertain be-cause the atmosphere contains numerous compounds thatmay behave differently than DMA and diamines. If the ac-tual concentrations of trimers and tetramers were higher thanthose reported by Jiang et al. (2011), then the fitted evapora-tion rate of E3 =0.4± 0.3 s−1 from Chen et al. (2012) is toohigh and the true value would be closer to 0 s−1 (collision-controlled or kinetic limit) that was reported by Kürten etal. (2014) at 278 K. In addition, Kürten et al. (2014) mea-sured [N3] and [N4] about a factor of 10 lower than thecollision-controlled limit. They attribute this discrepancy todecreased sensitivity to the larger ions, but it could also bedue to inefficient CI by nitrate.



Figure 3. (a, c) Comparison of specific cluster concentrations ([Am qBj ]) using acetate (red squares) and nitrate (black triangles) reagentions at two different [TMEDA] and a constant initial sulfuric acid concentration, [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. Each cluster species is shown at itsion mass. The brackets represent the number of TMEDA molecules in a cluster with a given number of sulfuric acid. The half-filled symbolsshow the tetramers and outlined symbols as the pentamers. Bar graphs (b) and (d) compare total cluster concentration of a given size ([Nm])between acetate (red) and nitrate (black) for the same [TMEDA] and [A1]o as (a) and (b), respectively.

Comparing our results to the CLOUD (Cosmics LeavingOUtdoor Droplets) experiments, the amount of clusters de-tected via nitrate CI using the Cluster CIMS differ fromthose detected by nitrate using the CI-APi-ToF (Kürten etal., 2014). They observed more ion clusters that containednearly equal number of sulfuric acid and DMA molecules(e.g., A3 qDMA2). Our experiments suggest that such highlyneutralized clusters are not efficiently ionized by our nitratecore ions. We do not fully understand this difference butlonger acid–base reaction times, the amount of ligands onthe nitrate core ions, various inlet designs (e.g., corona dis-charge vs. our Po-210 or high vs. our low flow rates), temper-ature (278 K compared to our 300 K), and ion breakup uponsampling may all play a role.

Chemical ionization efficiency clearly plays a role in boththe types and amounts of clusters that can be detected. How-ever, the concentrations in Figs. 1 through 4 were calculatedby assuming negligible contributions of IIC and ion decom-position. The validity of these assumptions was tested by ex-amining the ion behavior with CI reaction time (tCI) for avariety of bases. Presented in the following sections are ionsignal variations with tCI and a discussion of possible scenar-ios that explain these observations. To help understand thesemeasurements, we developed a model to describe these com-

plex series of reactions that govern neutral cluster formation,chemical ionization, IIC, and ion decomposition. The modelcombines two box models: one for neutral cluster formationand one for the ion processes. When compared to observa-tions, the model was useful in identifying the controlling pro-cess for the monomers and dimers but, due to the numerousreactions, only provided general scenarios to explain obser-vations for the larger clusters.

4 Monomer, N1

Over the 3 s neutral reaction time in this flow reactor (i.e.,the reaction time between neutral sulfuric acid vapor and thebasic gas), initial monomer concentration ([N1]) is depletedas it forms larger clusters/particles and is lost to walls; N1may reenter the gas phase by evaporation of larger clusters.Two types of N1 may have significant abundances in the sul-furic acid and DMA system: A1 and A1 qDMA. One compu-tational chemistry study predicts that the latter has an evap-oration rate of 10−2 s−1 (all computed rates at 298 K unlessotherwise stated; Ortega et al., 2012), with others suggestingan evaporation rate closer to 10 s−1 (Nadykto et al., 2014;Bork et al., 2014).



Figure 4. (a, c) Comparison of specific cluster concentrations ([Am qBj ]) using acetate (red squares) and nitrate (black triangles) reagentions at two different [Put] and a constant initial sulfuric acid concentration, [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. Each cluster species is shown at its ionmass. The brackets represent the number of Put molecules in a cluster with a given number of sulfuric acid. The half-filled symbols show thetetramers and outlined symbols as the pentamers. Bar graphs (b) and (d) compare total cluster concentration of a given size ([Nm]) betweenacetate (red) and nitrate (black) for the same [Put] and [A1]o as (a) and (b), respectively.

Following the neutral clustering reactions, the remainingmonomer is readily chemically ionized and the product ioncan decompose and undergo IIC with the monomer or clus-ters. For example, the decomposition rate of A−1

qDMA ispredicted to be 109 s−1 (Ortega et al., 2014). Therefore,whether or not A1 qDMA is a significant fraction of the totalmonomer concentration, A−1 is the only ion with significantabundance. This agrees with our experimental observations.

Neutral [N1] can be estimated from mass spectrometry sig-nals because there is negligible ion breakup in the ClusterCIMS that leads to A−1 . As discussed above, a number of ex-periments and the current results have shown this to be thecase (Hanson and Eisele, 2002; Eisele and Hanson, 2000;Lovejoy and Bianco, 2000). The signal ratio of the sulfuricacid monomer at 160 amu for nitrate (S160) to the nitrate ionat 125 amu (S125) can be converted to neutral [N1] follow-ing Eq. (1) (Eisele and Hanson, 2000), where tCI is the CIreaction time.

S160

S125= k1 [N1] tCI (1)

For N1+HNO3 qNO−3 , k1 = 1.9× 10−9 cm3 s−1 (Viggianoet al., 1997), which is assumed to not depend on whetherwater or bases are attached to the monomer. Equation (1)was derived for short tCI where reagent ion and neutral N1

are not depleted. These assumptions are tenuous at longtCI; however, the rigorous analytical solution to the popula-tion balance equations (derived in the Supplement and givenin Eq. S6) shows that Eq. (1) is a good approximation: attCI =15 or 18 ms, the differences between Eqs. (1) and (S6)are ∼ 1 %.

Figure 5a and b show the signal ratios as a function oftCI for DMA and EDA as detected by nitrate CI at equiv-alent [A1]o = 4× 109 cm−3. TMEDA and Put graphs lookvery similar to EDA (see the Supplement). The green pointsshown in this figure and subsequent figures provide measure-ments at a base concentration of 0 pptv from eight differ-ent days and offer a useful guide for the measurement un-certainty. For all base concentrations as tCI increases, more[N1] is chemically ionized, leading to higher S160 / S125. As[B] increases, the signal ratios and therefore the slopes of thelines decrease. This indicates that [N1] is depleted during the3 s neutral reaction time via uptake into large clusters thatincrease with [B].

The model, as mentioned above, was used to interpret theresults presented in Fig. 5 and subsequent graphs. The neu-tral cluster concentrations after [A1]o and [B] react over the3 s neutral reaction time are modeled first. This portion of themodel also takes into account base dilution from its injectionpoint in the flow reactor (see Jen et al., 2014), wall loss, andparticle coagulation. However, the model does not take into



Figure 5. Measured (a, b) and modeled (c, d) sulfuric acid monomer to nitrate signal ratio (S160 / S125) as a function of CI reaction timefor DMA (a, c) and EDA (b, d). The measurements were conducted with nitrate as the reagent ion and at [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. Each colorrepresents a different [B] with the linear regressions for the measurements given in colored text.

Table 1. Summary of possible pathways for neutral monomer for-mation and chemical ionization.

Neutral formation Nitrate CI and ion decomposition

DMA and diamines DMA

A1+B↔ A1.B A1+NO−

3kc→ HNO3 qA−1

A1 qB+NO−3 kc→ HNO3 qA−1 qBHNO3 qA−1 qB fast→ HNO3 qA−1 +BDiamines

A1+NO−

3kc→ HNO3 qA−1

A1 qB+NO−3 ?→ HNO3 qA−1 qBHNO3 qA−1 qB fast→ HNO3 qA−1 +B

account the possible dilution of N1 by the base addition flow,which may affect measured [N1] as explained in the Supple-ment. The neutral model is then coupled to the ion model,which simulates chemical ionization and IIC. Ion decompo-sition is implicitly included by assuming that certain clustertypes instantly decompose into the observed ion.

For the monomer, the model has identical neutral clusterformation pathways for all sulfuric acid and base systems.The acetate vs. nitrate comparison suggests that monomerscontaining various bases are chemically ionized similarly,with a slight possibility that nitrate may not chemically ion-ize sulfuric acid monomers that contain a diamine. The mod-eled reactions pertaining to the monomer are given in Ta-ble 1, where kc is 2× 10−9 cm3 s−1. The full list of modeledreactions, including loss of monomer to form larger clusters,is given in the Supplement.

Figure 5c and d display the modeled results for DMA andEDA at the same [B] and [A1]o as the measurements pre-sented in panels a and b. The model predicts the linear depen-dence of S160 / S125 on tCI as seen in Eq. (1). In addition, thepredicted values of S160 / S125 and their dependence on [B]are in good qualitative agreement with observations. Includ-ing or excluding nitrate CI of A1 qdiamine has little effect onS160 / S125 because [B] is typically less than [A1]o in theseexperiments. As a result, the majority of monomers will re-main as A1 even if the evaporation rate of the A1 qB (E1) isvery small. Further experiments that quantify the fraction ofA1 qdiamine in N1 are needed to definitively conclude on theefficacy of nitrate in chemically ionizing all N1.



5 Dimer, N2

Neutral dimers (N2) largely form by collision of thetwo types of monomers (A1 and A1 qB) and, to a muchlesser extent, decomposition of larger clusters. For sulfu-ric acid+DMA, the N2 likely exists as A2 qDMA andA2 qDMA2, with both clusters predicted to have low evap-oration rates of∼ 10−5 s−1 (Ortega et al., 2012) with anotherstudy suggesting a higher evaporation rate of A2 qDMA2which is ∼ 104 times higher (Leverentz et al., 2013). Chemi-cally ionizing these dimers results in ions that undergo IICand ion decomposition. Computational chemistry predictsthat A−2

qDMA2 and A−2 qDMA have DMA evaporationrates of 108 and 102 s−1, respectively (Ortega et al., 2014).However, the computed evaporation rate of A−2

qDMA maybe too low because during the 18 ms CI reaction time usedhere, all N2 are detected as A−2 (195 amu). Similarly, the di-amine molecule is lost from A−2

qdiamine as all dimers weredetected as A−2 .

A−2 can also be created from IIC between A−

1 and N1(see Reaction R2), which proceeds with a rate coefficient ofk21. Including both processes in the cluster balance equa-tions leads to the ratio of sulfuric acid dimer (195 amu)to monomer (160 amu) signal intensities shown in Eq. (2).This relationship includes a time-independent term (thetCI = 0 s intercept) that is proportional to the neutral dimer-to-monomer ratio in the sampled gas and a term due to IICthat increases linearly with tCI (Chen et al., 2012; Hansonand Eisele, 2002).

S195

S160=

k2

k1

[N2][N1]+

12k21 [N1] tCI (2)

The rate constant, k21, is the collisional rate constant of2× 10−9 cm3 s−1. Equation (2) was also derived from the as-sumption of short tIC. The relation for S195 / S160 vs. tCI forlong tCI is also derived in the Supplement. Equation (2) isa good approximation of the more rigorous solution even atlong tIC.

Figure 6a, b, and c show measured S195 / S160 as a func-tion of tCI for DMA, EDA, and TMEDA, respectively, as de-tected by nitrate CI at [A1]o = 4× 109 cm−3. Put is similarto EDA and is presented in Fig. 7 (left). For all bases, in-creasing the CI reaction time leads to more IIC dimers. Theobserved linear increase in the S195 / S160 ratio for all basesprovides evidence for the influence of IIC on dimer mea-surements (Eq. 2). However, the y intercepts for DMA ex-hibit a pattern that is distinctly different from those observedfor the diamines, indicating different trends for the neutral-monomer-to-dimer concentration ratios. For DMA, the y in-tercept increases with increasing [B]. This is due to higherconcentrations of base depleting the monomer and enhancingdimer concentrations. A different trend was observed for thediamines, with the intercepts showing no clear dependenceon diamine concentration.

There are a number of scenarios that could partly ex-plain the diamine trends. First, the neutral trimer evaporationrate(s) could be very low such that the formation of trimerand larger clusters will deplete both [N2] and [N1]. The A1evaporation rate from A3 qDMA is predicted to be ∼ 1 s−1(Ortega et al., 2012) and likely lower for clusters with di-amines (Jen et al., 2016). The second possibility is that A−2could be the decomposition product of larger ions such asA−3

qdiamine forming A−2 +A1 qdiamine. A third possibil-ity is that A2 qdiamine2 cannot be readily ionized by nitrateas compared to A2 qDMA2, possibly due to differences incluster configurations and dipole moments. As [diamine] in-creases, the fraction of dimers containing two diamines in-creases, resulting in a growing fraction of N2 that may notbe ionizable by nitrate. For example, the model predicts that[A2 qEDA] is 10 % of [A2 qEDA2] when [EDA]= 90 pptv.

The dimer (S195)-to-monomer signal (S97) ratio for sulfu-ric acid+Put dimers measured using acetate CI as a func-tion of tCI was examined to better understand which of theseexplanations is the most relevant. As mentioned previously,acetate detects the sulfuric acid monomer as 97 amu, but thedetected dimer is at 195 amu for both nitrate and acetate. Fig-ure 7 shows the ratio of these signals for Put between ni-trate (a) and acetate (c). At [Put]= 40 pptv, acetate showsa S195 / S97 y intercept 25 times higher than the interceptsshown in the nitrate graph. The higher y intercepts are mostlikely due to improved CI efficiency. A decreased detectionefficiency of 97 amu and an increased contribution due toA−3

qdiamine decomposition due to better CI of N3 by ac-etate may also contribute (although high [A−3

qdiamine] inFig. 4 suggests that these ions are stable enough during theacetate tCI = 15 ms). More acetate results similar to Fig. 7care needed to draw a more definitive conclusion, but thesecomparisons do suggest that dimers containing 1–2 diaminesare not efficiently chemically ionized by nitrate in these ex-periments.

The model adds more clarity on why N2-containing di-amines behave differently than DMA using nitrate CI. ForDMA, the best fit to the observations was achieved by as-suming all clusters can undergo nitrate ionization and canbe formed by IIC. In addition, base evaporation rates fromA2 qB2 and sulfuric acid evaporation rates from the trimerwere set to 0 s−1; increasing these evaporation rates (up to 10and 5 s−1) had little effect on the ratio trends. The model alsoassumed that A−3

qB does not decompose into A−2 . Figure 6dshows modeling results for DMA. To reproduce S195 / S160trends of EDA and Put, the model followed that of DMA ex-cept that A2 qB2 cannot be ionized by nitrate. For TMEDA,the model also assumed that A2 qTMEDA2 does not form.Modeled results are shown in Fig. 6e and f for EDA andTMEDA, respectively, and Fig. 7b for Put. The modeledpathways for N2 are listed in Table 2. For all three diamines,we were unable to reproduce the observations with othercombinations of reactions and evaporation rates. The model



Figure 6. Measured sulfuric acid dimer to monomer signal ratio (S195 / S160) as a function of tCI for DMA (a), EDA (b), and TMEDA (c)measured by nitrate CI at [A1]o∼ 4× 109 cm−3. The tables in (a)–(c) provide the measured [A1] at that [B] after the 3 s acid–base reactiontime. Observations were fitted according to Eq. (2) with the y intercept shown by the dashed line. Panels (d)–(f) present modeled results foreach base.

Figure 7. Measured dimer-to-monomer signal ratios (S195 / S160 for nitrate or S97 for acetate) as a function of CI reaction time using nitrate(a) and acetate CI (c). In both cases, [A1]o was held constant at 4× 109 cm−3. Panel (b) shows the modeled results for Put. The tables inside(a) and (c) provide the measured [A1] after the 3 s acid–base reaction time.

only matched the observed trends by turning off the CI orformation of A2 qdiamine2.

However, several of the modeled reactions are simpli-fied versions of multistep reactions. For example, prevent-ing the formation of A2 qTMEDA2 could also mean thatA2 qTMEDA2 forms at the collision rate but instantly de-composes into A2 qTMEDA. Furthermore, differences be-tween DMA and diamine observations could instead be ex-plained by semi-efficient nitrate CI of A2 qdiamine becausethe existence of high [A2 qdiamine2] is unlikely due to itshigh basicity. Preventing A2 qdiamine2 from forming and

semi-efficient CI of A2 qdiamine could lead to identical re-sults as shown in the model for EDA and TMEDA. Addi-tional thermochemical data (e.g., from more targeted experi-ments and computational chemistry) are needed to better in-form the model. Regardless, our observations and modelingshow that a dimer’s neutral formation pathways and/or thenitrate CI differs between the DMA and diamine systems.

The model also provides an estimate of the fraction of[A−2 ] formed by IIC at tCI = 18 ms (used for the nitrate CIexperiments). For base concentration of 0 pptv, the model isvery similar to what was measured in Fig. 6, indicating that



Table 2. Summary of possible pathways for neutral and ion dimer formation.

Neutral formation Nitrate CI and ion decomposition reactions IIC reactions (only A−1 )

DMA, Put, EDA DMA All bases

A1 qB+A1 k→ A2 qB A2 qB+NO−3 kc→ A−2 qB+HNO3 A−1 +A1 kc→ A−2A1 qB+A1 qB k→ A2 qB2 A−2 qB fast→ A−2 +B A−1 +A1 qB kc→ A−2 qBA2 qB+B k→ A2 qB2 A2 qB2+NO−3 kc→ A2 qB−2 +HNO3A2 qB2 E2B→ A2 qB+B A−2 qB2 fast→ A−2 qBTMEDA Diamines

A1 qB+A1 k→ A2 qB A2 qB+NO−3 kc→ A−2 qBA1 qB+A1 qB

15/20

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.080.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

a) [DMA] (pptv)

8

24

70

SA

3.B

/S160

b) [EDA] (pptv)

5

8

15

90

CI Reaction Time, tCI

(s)

c) [TMEDA] (pptv)

20

25

35

50

433 Figure 9 Nitrate measured signal ratio between A3•B and sulfuric acid monomer (SA3•B/S160) as a function of tCI for DMA 434 (a), EDA (b), and TMEDA (c) at [A1]o=4x109 cm-3. 435

Scenarios deduced from these trimer ion observations and previous computational chemistry studies for the 436

sulfuric acid and DMA system are summarized in Table 3. These reactions have little effect on the modeled dimer 437

results since they introduce minor sources of dimer ions. In contrast, each trimer pathway adds large uncertainty to 438

the modeled trimer behavior. For example, including ion decomposition reactions of larger ions (tetramer and larger), 439

postulated from the acetate CI results, may greatly influence concentration of smaller trimer ions which already exhibit 440

very low signals using nitrate CI. In addition, nitrate inefficient ionization of neutral trimers leads to large uncertainties 441

in modeling the unobserved trimer types. More detailed observations of the chemically neutral trimers and 442

computational chemistry studies on evaporation rates for sulfuric acid+diamine systems will improve future efforts to 443

model these processes. 444

Table 3 Summary of possible pathways for neutral and ion trimers formed from sulfuric acid and DMA, excluding 445 decomposition of tetramer and larger ions 446

Neutral formation Nitrate CI and ion decomposition

reactions

IIC reactions (only A1-)

2 1 3

3 3 2

3 2 3 3

2 2 1 3 2

2 1 3 2

2 2 1 3 3

k

k

k

k

k

k

A B A A B

A B B A B

A B B A B

A B A A B

A B A B A B

A B A B A B

3 3 3 3

ck

A B NO A B HNO

3 2 1

dE

A B A A B

3 3 3 3 3 3A B NO A B HNO

3 2 3 3 2 3A B NO A B HNO

2 1 3

1 2 3

c

c

k

k

A A A

A A B A B

447

Tetramer, N4: 448

Nitrate CI leads to very low amounts of tetramer ions and primarily as A4-•DMA1-3 and A4-•diamine1,2. 449

Computational chemistry suggests that the sulfuric acid+DMA tetramer likely exists as A4•DMA2-4, with A4•DMA4 450

dominating the population (Ortega et al., 2012). The acetate data appears to confirm this with A4-•DMA3 as the most 451

abundant tetramer ion which likely predominately originated from the decomposition of A4•DMA4 upon ionization 452

(Ortega et al., 2014). Nitrate may efficiently chemically ionize A4•DMA1-2, however their concentrations after the 3 s 453

neutral reaction time are likely below the detection limit of the Cluster CIMS (


Figure 8. Measured bare sulfuric acid trimer to monomer signal ratio (S293 / S160) as a function of tCI for DMA (a), EDA (b), andTMEDA (c) detected by nitrate CI at [A1]o = 4× 109 cm−3.

Acetate CI results help shed light on these processes withmuch higher [A−3

qDMA1,2] than with nitrate CI (Fig. 1),which could be due to the decomposition of larger ion clus-ters. The acetate CI results depicted in Fig. 1 show thatA−3

qDMA2 is the most abundant type of trimer ion, sug-gesting that the dominant neutral clusters are A3 qDMA2−3,with any A−3

qDMA3 quickly decomposing into A−3 qDMA2.Neutral A3 qDMA3 is predicted by our model to be dominantat high [DMA]. This picture is consistent with our postu-late that nitrate cannot ionize A3 qDMA3 (and also, possibly,A3 qDMA2) and thus little A−3 qDMA1,2 is observed usingnitrate CI.

The trimer ions observed using acetate CI may have con-tributions from the decomposition of large clusters. For ex-ample, A−3

qDMA2 could be formed by the decomposition ofA−4

qDMA2 or A−4 qDMA3 via the loss of A1 or A1 qDMA,respectively. If these types of processes are significant, theymight explain some of the differences in the trimer ion ob-servations between nitrate and acetate CI. Highly aminatedtetramer neutrals would be more readily ionized by acetateand result in larger contributions to the trimer ion signals thancompared nitrate CI. Thus, this may be one drawback to ac-etate CI: a possible shift downwards in sulfuric acid contentin the distribution of ions vs. the neutrals.

The sulfuric acid+ diamine system shows the nitrate CIdetection of A−3

qdiamine0−2 but at much lower abundancesthan acetate CI, particularly for EDA. Interestingly, the mostabundant trimer ions after acetate CI contain on average onediamine molecule compared to two in the DMA system.This is consistent with particle measurements that show onediamine molecule is able to stabilize several sulfuric acidmolecules and thus form a stable particle, while at least twoDMA molecules are required for the same effect (Jen et al.,2016). The two amino groups on the diamine molecule canboth effectively stabilize trimers, and this size is stable for therelevant timescales in this flow reactor (Glasoe et al., 2015;Jen et al., 2016). Therefore, larger clusters can be producedwith higher acid-to-base ratios.

To better understand the trimer ion behaviors, we moni-tored the bare trimer signal (A−3 , S293) and monomer sig-nal (S160) as a function of CI reaction time, tCI. Figure 8shows S293 / S160 for nitrate CI for DMA, EDA, and TMEDAat [A1]o =4× 109 cm−3. Note that equivalent measurementsfor Put are similar to those of EDA. Low values of S293 / S160for all conditions indicate minimal creation of A−3 from theCI of N3. Thus, IIC-produced A−3 can be a significant frac-tion of observed A−3 . Without base present, IIC is the onlyway to produce detectable amounts of A−3 (green circles inFig. 8).

A−3 can also be formed by the decomposition of larger ionssuch as A−3

qB. Evidence of this decomposition can be seenin Fig. 9, where SA3 qB / S160 measured using nitrate CI isshown as a function of tCI. For diamines at high concentra-tions and short tCI, SA3 qB / S160 decrease with tCI and can beattributed to the decomposition of this ion. Shorter tCI allowsthe instrument to capture short-lived ions. A−3

qdiamine de-composes at longer times and could form A−3 , thereby de-creasing SA3 qB / S160 and increasing S293 / S160. However,S293 / S160 for the diamines does not increase with tCI, in-dicating that A−3

qdiamine likely decomposes into productsother than A−3 . The DMA system also exhibits a very smalldecrease in SA3 qB / S160 at short tCI, but ratio values arewithin measurement uncertainties. Thus, no conclusion canbe drawn from this decrease of SA3 qDMA / S160 at short tCI.

Another, more likely scenario to explain these time de-pendent behaviors for the trimer ion signals is if A−3

qB de-cays into A−2 and a neutral A1

qB at short tCI. Assuming wehave captured most of the initial A−3

qB signal at the short-est tCI = 15 ms in Fig. 9a–c, the increase in A−2 due to thismechanism would be small compared to the observed A−2signal. Acetate data for Put (Fig. 7c) provide some evidencesupporting this because the slope of the [Put]=2 pptv is 3.7and is higher than the 2.6 slope of [B]= 0 pptv case. SinceA−2 when [B]= 0 pptv is primarily produced by IIC, a higher



Figure 9. Nitrate-measured signal ratio between A3 qB and sulfuric acid monomer (SA3 qB / S160) as a function of tCI for DMA (a), EDA (b),and TMEDA (c) at [A1]o =4× 109 cm−3.

Figure 10. Nitrate-measured signal ratio between A4 qB and sulfuric acid monomer (SA4.diamine / S160) as a function of CI reaction timefor EDA (a), Put (b), and TMEDA (c).

slope when [Put]= 2 pptv indicates larger ion decompositioncontributing to the A−2 signal.

Scenarios deduced from these trimer ion observations andprevious computational chemistry studies for the sulfuricacid and DMA system are summarized in Table 3. These re-actions have little effect on the modeled dimer results sincethey introduce minor sources of dimer ions. In contrast, eachtrimer pathway adds large uncertainty to the modeled trimerbehavior. For example, including ion decomposition reac-tions of larger ions (tetramer and larger), postulated fromthe acetate CI results, may greatly influence concentrationof smaller trimer ions which already exhibit very low sig-nals using nitrate CI. In addition, nitrate inefficient ioniza-tion of neutral trimers leads to large uncertainties in model-ing the unobserved trimer types. More detailed observationsof the chemically neutral trimers and computational chem-istry studies on evaporation rates for sulfuric acid+diaminesystems will improve future efforts to model these processes.

7 Tetramer, N4

Nitrate CI leads to very low amounts of tetramer ions andprimarily as A−4

qDMA1−3 and A−4 qdiamine1,2. Compu-

tational chemistry suggests that the sulfuric acid+DMAtetramer likely exists as A4 qDMA2−4, with A4 qDMA4dominating the population (Ortega et al., 2012). The ac-etate data appear to confirm this, with A−4

qDMA3 as themost abundant tetramer ion, which likely originated predom-inately from the decomposition of A4 qDMA4 upon ioniza-tion (Ortega et al., 2014). Nitrate may efficiently chemi-cally ionize A4 qDMA1−2; however, their concentrations af-ter the 3 s neutral reaction time are likely below the detec-tion limit of the Cluster CIMS (< 105 cm−3). Furthermore,the A−4

qDMA1,2 ions may be subject to the eliminationof A1 qDMA. Nitrate CI results show ∼ 100 times higher[A−4

qdiamine] than [A−4 qDMA] at about equivalent ini-tial reactant concentrations. This suggests that the most sta-ble neutral tetramers contain fewer diamine molecules thanDMA. In addition, the acetate CI results for the diaminesshow that the majority of N4 contain one diamine, furthersupporting the conclusions drawn in Jen et al. (2016) thatonly one diamine molecule is needed to form a stable parti-cle.

Due to the very low observed concentration of A−4qDMA,

we focus on the ions of the diamine systems. The stabil-ity and behavior of A−4

qdiamine can be examined by look-www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12513/2016/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12513–12529, 2016


ing at nitrate-detected signal ratios of A−4 qdiamine and themonomer (SA4 qdiamine / S160) as a function of CI reactiontime, given in Fig. 10. Similar to A−3

qEDA, SA4 qEDA / S160and SA4 qPut / S160 decreases with time at short tCI, indicatingthat they decompose with a lifetime shorter than a few tensof milliseconds. SA4 qTMEDA / S160 also shows a decrease atshort tCI, but it is less evident. It could have a fast decay rateleading to a lifetime of a few milliseconds, and our measure-ments would have mostly missed them. Nonetheless, decom-position of A−4

qdiamine likely entails the evaporation of N1or N2 instead of a lone diamine from the cluster as [A−4 ] wasbelow the detection limit of the Cluster CIMS using nitrate.At long CI reaction time, SA4 qEDA / S160 remained constant,indicating a negligible contribution of IIC to the A−4

qEDAsignal. In contrast, SA4 qPut / S160 and SA4 qTMEDA / S160 in-crease at long tCI. This could be due to IIC or larger ion de-composition.

8 Pentamer, N5

Nitrate CI did not detect any pentamer (N5), but pen-tamer was detected using acetate CI. In the diamine sys-tem, acetate detected N5 with fewer diamine molecules (1–2) than DMA (4). However, A−5

qEDA>3, A−5 qTMEDA>1,and A−5

qPut>2 fall outside the Cluster CIMS mass rangeof 710 amu. Thus, we may not have measured the completepentamer population. The most abundant N5 is A−5

qDMA4,and it increases in both concentration and in fraction ofN5 population with increasing [DMA]. This ion could bethe result of the loss of a DMA molecule after CI ofA5 qDMA5. This would follow similar trends predicted bycomputation chemistry for smaller clusters. However, since[DMA]� [A1]o (i.e., [B] / [A1]o is high) and stable particlesneed ∼ 2 DMA to form (Glasoe et al., 2015), [A5 qDMA5]as high as 107 cm−3 would not be expected. The presence ofA−5

qDMA4 could also then be the result of large ion decom-position via the evaporation of A1 or A1 qDMA. Measure-ments of ions larger than 700 amu are needed to better under-stand how they evaporate upon acetate CI and what fractionof the pentamers are not ionizable by nitrate.

9 Conclusions

This study presents measurements of the behavior of neu-tral and ionized sulfuric acid clusters containing variousbases. The results show the complexities of the coupled neu-tral cluster formation pathways with the ion processes (e.g.,chemical ionization, ion-induced clustering, and ion decom-position). We provide various scenarios to describe the ob-served trends. Our most definitive conclusions are as follows.

1. Nitrate very likely does not chemically ionize all typesof sulfuric acid dimers containing diamines. The modelindicates that A2 qdiamine2 cannot be chemically ion-

ized by nitrate. However, the model did not considersemi-efficient nitrate CI of A2 qdiamine, which couldalso explain our observations.

2. Nitrate only chemically ionizes a small fraction oftrimer and larger clusters in both the DMA and diaminewith sulfuric acid systems. Measurements suggest thatthe more chemically neutral clusters are not chemicallyionized by nitrate but are by acetate.

3. Acetate and nitrate CI measurements of sulfuricacid+DMA clusters generally agree with the qualitativetrends of neutral and ion cluster predicted from com-putational chemistry (Ortega et al., 2012, 2014). How-ever, these measurements suggest that A−3

qB decom-poses into A−2 and A1

qB.Nitrate measurements of A−3

qB and A−4 qB show thatthese ions decompose at roughly the same timescales asthe CI reaction time at room temperature. In principle,ionization of neutral clusters leads to potentially largeartifacts even before they are sampled into a vacuumsystem. These decomposition reactions will likely affectthe calculated concentrations of the neutral clusters.

4. In an acid-rich environment where [B] / [A1]< 1, A−2and A−3 are primarily produced via IIC pathways andcontribute negligible amounts to overall dimer andtrimer signals when any of these bases are present and atour 18 ms CI reaction time. If some fraction of the dimeris not chemically ionized by nitrate, then IIC-producedA−2 is a significant fraction of the dimer signal.

Additional computed neutral and ion evaporation rates and amore complex model combined with multivariable parame-ter fitting would provide more clarity to these results. In ad-dition, more acetate CI measurements of ion signal ratios as afunction of CI reaction time are needed to provide more de-tails on specific ion behaviors. However, measurements us-ing the acetate ion (which includes acetate, acetate qwater,and acetic acid qacetate) exhibit high backgrounds in the lowmasses, leading to up to a factor of 5 uncertainty in measuredmonomer concentration ([N1]) and a factor of 2–3 for dimerconcentration ([N2]). A higher-resolution mass spectrometeris needed to resolve the background signals and reduce theuncertainties.

10 Data availability

All data presented in this study are available upon requestfrom the corresponding author.

The Supplement related to this article is available onlineat doi:10.5194/acp-16-12513-2016-supplement.


http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12513-2016-supplement


Author contributions. Coty N. Jen designed and performed the ex-periments, analyzed the results, developed the model, and pre-pared the paper. Jun Zhao provided useful comments on the paper.David R. Hanson helped with performing the experiments, inter-preting the data, and providing comments on the paper. Peter H. Mc-Murry assisted with data interpretation and paper preparation.

Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no conflictof interest.

Acknowledgements. Support from NSF Awards AGS1068201,AGS1338706, and AGS0943721 is gratefully acknowledged.Coty N. Jen acknowledges support from NSF GRFP award00006595, UMN DDF, and NSF AGS Postdoctoral Fellowshipaward 1524211. Jun Zhao acknowledges support from SYSU 100Talents Program.

Edited by: A. LaskinReviewed by: three anonymous referees

References

Almeida, J., Schobesberger, S., Kurten, A., Ortega, I. K.,Kupiainen-Maatta, O., Praplan, A. P., Adamov, A., Amorim, A.,Bianchi, F., Breitenlechner, M., David, A., Dommen, J., Don-ahue, N. M., Downard, A., Dunne, E., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S.,Flagan, R. C., Franchin, A., Guida, R., Hakala, J., Hansel, A.,Heinritzi, M., Henschel, H., Jokinen, T., Junninen, H., Kajos, M.,Kangasluoma, J., Keskinen, H., Kupc, A., Kurten, T., Kvashin,A. N., Laaksonen, A., Lehtipalo, K., Leiminger, M., Leppa,J., Loukonen, V., Makhmutov, V., Mathot, S., McGrath, M. J.,Nieminen, T., Olenius, T., Onnela, A., Petaja, T., Riccobono, F.,Riipinen, I., Rissanen, M., Rondo, L., Ruuskanen, T., Santos, F.D., Sarnela, N., Schallhart, S., Schnitzhofer, R., Seinfeld, J. H.,Simon, M., Sipila, M., Stozhkov, Y., Stratmann, F., Tome, A.,Trostl, J., Tsagkogeorgas, G., Vaattovaara, P., Viisanen, Y., Vir-tanen, A., Vrtala, A., Wagner, P. E., Weingartner, E., Wex, H.,Williamson, C., Wimmer, D., Ye, P., Yli-Juuti, T., Carslaw, K.S., Kulmala, M., Curtius, J., Baltensperger, U., Worsnop, D. R.,Vehkamaki, H., and Kirkby, J.: Molecular understanding of sul-phuric acid-amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere, Nature,502, 359–363, doi:10.1038/nature12663, 2013.

Ball, S. M., Hanson, D. R., Eisele, F. L., and McMurry, P. H.: Lab-oratory studies of particle nucleation: Initial results for H2SO4,H2O, and NH3 vapors, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 23709–23718, doi:10.1029/1999JD900411, 1999.

Berresheim, H., Elste, T., Plass-Dülmer, C., Eisele, F. L., and Tan-ner, D. J.: Chemical ionization mass spectrometer for long-termmeasurements of atmospheric OH and H2SO4, Int. J. Mass Spec-trom., 202, 91–109, doi:10.1016/s1387-3806(00)00233-5, 2000.

Bork, N., Elm, J., Olenius, T., and Vehkamäki, H.: Methane sul-fonic acid-enhanced formation of molecular clusters of sulfu-ric acid and dimethyl amine, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 12023–12030, doi:10.5194/acp-14-12023-2014, 2014.

Chen, M., Titcombe, M., Jiang, J., Jen, C., Kuang, C., Fischer, M.L., Eisele, F. L., Siepmann, J. I., Hanson, D. R., Zhao, J., and Mc-Murry, P. H.: Acid–base chemical reaction model for nucleationrates in the polluted atmospheric boundary layer, P. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA, 109, 18713–18718, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210285109,2012.

Coffman, D. J. and Hegg, D. A.: A preliminary study ofthe effect of ammonia on particle nucleation in the marineboundary layer, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 100, 7147–7160,doi:10.1029/94JD03253, 1995.

Eisele, F. L. and Hanson, D. R.: First Measurement of Prenu-cleation Molecular Clusters, J. Phys. Chem. A, 104, 830–836,doi:10.1021/jp9930651, 2000.

Elm, J., Jen, C. N., Kurtén, T., and Vehkamäki, H.: Strong Hydro-gen Bonded Molecular Interactions between Atmospheric Di-amines and Sulfuric Acid, J. Phys. Chem. A, 120, 3693–3700,doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.6b03192, 2016.

Freshour, N. A., Carlson, K. K., Melka, Y. A., Hinz, S., Panta,B., and Hanson, D. R.: Amine permeation sources characterizedwith acid neutralization and sensitivities of an amine mass spec-trometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3611–3621, doi:10.5194/amt-7-3611-2014, 2014.

Glasoe, W. A., Volz, K., Panta, B., Freshour, N., Bachman,R., Hanson, D. R., McMurry, P. H., and Jen, C.: Sul-furic Acid Nucleation: An Experimental Study of the Ef-fect of Seven Bases, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 1933–1950,doi:10.1002/2014JD022730, 2015.

Hanson, D. R. and Eisele, F. L.: Measurement of prenucleationmolecular clusters in the NH3, H2SO4, H2O system, J. Geophys.Res., 107, AAC 10-11–AAC 10-18, doi:10.1029/2001jd001100,2002.

Hanson, D. R. and Lovejoy, E. R.: Measurement of the Thermody-namics of the Hydrated Dimer and Trimer of Sulfuric Acid, J.Phys. Chem. A, 110, 9525–9528, doi:10.1021/jp062844w, 2006.

IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnera-bility, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, in: Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Bar-ros, V. R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir,T. E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C.,Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy, A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastran-drea, and White, L. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp., 2014.

Jen, C. N., McMurry, P. H., and Hanson, D. R.: Stabilization ofsulfuric acid dimers by ammonia, methylamine, dimethylamine,and trimethylamine, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7502–7514,doi:10.1002/2014JD021592, 2014.

Jen, C. N., Hanson, D. R., and McMurry, P. H.: Towards Recon-ciling Measurements of Atmospherically Relevant Clusters byChemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry and Mobility Classifica-tion/Vapor Condensation, Aerosol Sci. Technol., ARL, 49, i–iii,doi:10.1080/02786826.2014.1002602, 2015.

Jen, C. N., Bachman, R., Zhao, J., McMurry, P. H., and Han-son, D. R.: Diamine-sulfuric acid reactions are a potent sourceof new particle formation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 867–873,doi:10.1002/2015GL066958, 2016.

Jiang, J., Zhao, J., Chen, M., Eisele, F. L., Scheckman, J., Williams,B. J., Kuang, C., and McMurry, P. H.: First Measurements ofNeutral Atmospheric Cluster and 1–2 nm Particle Number Size


http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12663http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900411http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1387-3806(00)00233-5http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-12023-2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210285109http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/94JD03253http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp9930651http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.6b03192http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3611-2014http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3611-2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022730http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001jd001100http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp062844whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021592http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2014.1002602http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066958


Distributions During Nucleation Events, Aerosol Sci. Technol.,45, ii–v, doi:10.1080/02786826.2010.546817, 2011.

Jokinen, T., Sipilä, M., Junninen, H., Ehn, M., Lönn, G., Hakala,J., Petäjä, T., Mauldin III, R. L., Kulmala, M., and Worsnop,D. R.: Atmospheric sulphuric acid and neutral cluster measure-ments using CI-APi-TOF, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 4117–4125,doi:10.5194/acp-12-4117-2012, 2012.

Kirkby, J., Curtius, J., Almeida, J., Dunne, E., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart,S., Franchin, A., Gagne, S., Ickes, L., Kurten, A., Kupc, A., Met-zger, A., Riccobono, F., Rondo, L., Schobesberger, S., Tsagko-georgas, G., Wimmer, D., Amorim, A., Bianchi, F., Breitenlech-ner, M., David, A., Dommen, J., Downard, A., Ehn, M., Fla-gan, R. C., Haider, S., Hansel, A., Hauser, D., Jud, W., Junni-nen, H., Kreissl, F., Kvashin, A., Laaksonen, A., Lehtipalo, K.,Lima, J., Lovejoy, E. R., Makhmutov, V., Mathot, S., Mikkila, J.,Minginette, P., Mogo, S., Nieminen, T., Onnela, A., Pereira, P.,Petaja, T., Schnitzhofer, R., Seinfeld, J. H., Sipila, M., Stozhkov,Y., Stratmann, F., Tome, A., Vanhanen, J., Viisanen, Y., Vrtala,A., Wagner, P. E., Walther, H., Weingartner, E., Wex, H., Win-kler, P. M., Carslaw, K. S., Worsnop, D. R., Baltensperger, U.,and Kulmala, M.: Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galac-tic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature, 476,429–433, doi:10.1038/nature10343, 2011.

Kuang, C., McMurry, P. H., McCormick, A. V., and Eisele, F. L.:Dependence of nucleation rates on sulfuric acid vapor concentra-tion in diverse atmospheric locations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,113, D10209, doi:10.1029/2007jd009253, 2008.

Kulmala, M., Vehkamäki, H., Petäjä, T., Dal Maso, M., Lauri,A., Kerminen, V. M., Birmili, W., and McMurry, P. H.:Formation and growth rates of ultrafine atmospheric parti-cles: a review of observations, J. Aerosol Sci., 35, 143–176,doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003, 2004.

Kürten, A., Jokinen, T., Simon, M., Sipilä, M., Sarnela, N., Jun-ninen, H., Adamov, A., Almeida, J., Amorim, A., Bianchi, F.,Breitenlechner, M., Dommen, J., Donahue, N. M., Duplissy, J.,Ehrhart, S., Flagan, R. C., Franchin, A., Hakala, J., Hansel, A.,Heinritzi, M., Hutterli, M., Kangasluoma, J., Kirkby, J., Laakso-nen, A., Lehtipalo, K., Leiminger, M., Makhmutov, V., Mathot,S., Onnela, A., Petäjä, T., Praplan, A. P., Riccobono, F., Rissa-nen, M. P., Rondo, L., Schobesberger, S., Seinfeld, J. H., Steiner,G., Tomé, A., Tröstl, J., Winkler, P. M., Williamson, C., Wim-mer, D., Ye, P., Baltensperger, U., Carslaw, K. S., Kulmala, M.,Worsnop, D. R., and Curtius, J.: Neutral molecular cluster forma-tion of sulfuric acid–dimethylamine observed in real time underatmospheric conditions, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 15019–15024, doi:10.1073/pnas.1404853111, 2014.

Kurtén, T., Petäjä, T., Smith, J., Ortega, I. K., Sipilä, M., Junni-nen, H., Ehn, M., Vehkamäki, H., Mauldin, L., Worsnop, D. R.,and Kulmala, M.: The effect of H2SO4 – amine clustering onchemical ionization mass spectrometry (CIMS) measurementsof gas-phase sulfuric acid, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3007–3019,doi:10.5194/acp-11-3007-2011, 2011.

Leopold, K. R.: Hydrated Acid Clusters, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.,62, 327–349, doi:10.1146/annurev-physchem-032210-103409,2011.

Leverentz, H. R., Siepmann, J. I., Truhlar, D. G., Loukonen, V., andVehkamäki, H.: Energetics of Atmospherically Implicated Clus-ters Made of Sulfuric Acid, Ammonia, and Dimethyl Amine, J.Phys. Chem. A, 117, 3819–3825, doi:10.1021/jp402346u, 2013.

Lovejoy, E. R. and Bianco, R.: Temperature Dependence of ClusterIon Decomposition in a Quadrupole Ion Trap, J. Phys. Chem. A,104, 10280–10287, doi:10.1021/jp001216q, 2000.

Lovejoy, E. R. and Curtius, J.: Cluster Ion Thermal Decomposition(II): Master Equation Modeling in the Low-Pressure Limit andFall-Off Regions, Bond Energies for HSO4-(H2SO4)x (HNO3)y ,J. Phys. Chem. A, 105, 10874–10883, doi:10.1021/jp012496s,2001.

McGrath, M. J., Olenius, T., Ortega, I. K., Loukonen, V., Paaso-nen, P., Kurtén, T., Kulmala, M., and Vehkamäki, H.: Atmo-spheric Cluster Dynamics Code: a flexible method for solution ofthe birth-death equations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2345–2355,doi:10.5194/acp-12-2345-2012, 2012.

Nadykto, A. B., Herb, J., Yu, F., and Xu, Y.: Enhancementin the production of nucleating clusters due to dimethy-lamine and large uncertainties in the thermochemistry ofamine-enhanced nucleation, Chem. Phys. Lett., 609, 42–49,doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2014.03.036, 2014.

Ortega, I. K., Kupiainen, O., Kurtén, T., Olenius, T., Wilkman, O.,McGrath, M. J., Loukonen, V., and Vehkamäki, H.: From quan-tum chemical formation free energies to evaporation rates, At-mos. Chem. Phys., 12, 225–235, doi:10.5194/acp-12-225-2012,2012.

Ortega, I. K., Olenius, T., Kupiainen-Määttä, O., Loukonen, V.,Kurtén, T., and Vehkamäki, H.: Electrical charging changes thecomposition of sulfuric acid-ammonia/dimethylamine clusters,Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 7995–8007, doi:10.5194/acp-14-7995-2014, 2014.

Riipinen, I., Sihto, S.-L., Kulmala, M., Arnold, F., Dal Maso, M.,Birmili, W., Saarnio, K., Teinilä, K., Kerminen, V.-M., Laak-sonen, A., and Lehtinen, K. E. J.: Connections between atmo-spheric sulphuric acid and new particle formation during QUESTIII-IV campaigns in Heidelberg and Hyytiälä, Atmos. Chem.Phys., 7, 1899–1914, doi:10.5194/acp-7-1899-2007, 2007.

Schobesberger, S., Junninen, H., Bianchi, F., Lönn, G., Ehn, M.,Lehtipalo, K., Dommen, J., Ehrhart, S., Ortega, I. K., Franchin,A., Nieminen, T., Riccobono, F., Hutterli, M., Duplissy, J.,Almeida, J., Amorim, A., Breitenlechner, M., Downard, A. J.,Dunne, E. M., Flagan, R. C., Kajos, M., Keskinen, H., Kirkby,J., Kupc, A., Kürten, A., Kurtén, T., Laaksonen, A., Mathot,S., Onnela, A., Praplan, A. P., Rondo, L., Santos, F. D., Schall-hart, S., Schnitzhofer, R., Sipilä, M., Tomé, A., Tsagkogeorgas,G., Vehkamäki, H., Wimmer, D., Baltensperger, U., Carslaw, K.S., Curtius, J., Hansel, A., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., Donahue,N. M., and Worsnop, D. R.: Molecular understanding of atmo-spheric particle formation from sulfuric acid and large oxidizedorganic molecules, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 17223–17228,doi:10.1073/pnas.1306973110, 2013.

Su, T. and Bowers, M. T.: Theory of ion-polar molecule col-lisions, Comparison with experimental charge transfer reac-tions of rare gas ions to geometric isomers of difluoroben-zene and dichloroethylene, J. Chem. Phys., 58, 3027–3037,doi:10.1063/1.1679615, 1973.

Veres, P., Roberts, J. M., Warneke, C., Welsh-Bon, D., Zahniser,M., Herndon, S., Fall, R., and de Gouw, J.: Development ofnegative-ion proton-transfer chemical-ionization mass spectrom-etry (NI-PT-CIMS) for the measurement of gas-phase organicacids in the atmosphere, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 274, 48–55,doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2008.04.032, 2008.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.546817http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4117-2012http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10343http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009253http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.10.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404853111http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3007-2011http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-032210-103409http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp402346uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp001216qhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp012496shttp://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2345-2012http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2014.03.036http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-225-2012http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-7995-2014http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-7995-2014http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1899-2007http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306973110http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1679615http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2008.04.032


Viggiano, A. A., Seeley, J. V., Mundis, P. L., Williamson, J. S., andMorris, R. A.: Rate Constants for the Reactions of XO−3 (H2O)n(X =C, HC, and N) and NO−3 (HNO3)n with H2SO4: Implica-tions for Atmospheric Detection of H2SO4, J. Phys. Chem. A,101, 8275–8278, doi:10.1021/jp971768h, 1997.

Weber, R. J., Marti, J. J., McMurry, P. H., Eisele, F. L., Tanner, D.J., and Jefferson, A.: Measured atmospheric new particle forma-tion rates: implications for nucleation mechanisms, Chem. Eng.Commun., 151, 53–64, doi:10.1080/00986449608936541, 1996.

Zhao, J., Eisele, F. L., Titcombe, M., Kuang, C., and McMurry, P.H.: Chemical ionization mass spectrometric measurements of at-mospheric neutral clusters using the cluster-CIMS, J. Geophys.Res., 115, D08205, doi:10.1029/2009jd012606, 2010.

Zhao, J., Smith, J. N., Eisele, F. L., Chen, M., Kuang, C., andMcMurry, P. H.: Observation of neutral sulfuric acid-aminecontaining clusters in laboratory and ambient measurements,Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10823–10836, doi:10.5194/acp-11-10823-2011, 2011.

Zollner, J. H., Glasoe, W. A., Panta, B., Carlson, K. K., McMurry,P. H., and Hanson, D. R.: Sulfuric acid nucleation: power de-pendencies, variation with relative humidity, and effect of bases,Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 4399–4411, doi:10.5194/acp-12-4399-2012, 2012.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp971768hhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986449608936541http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009jd012606http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10823-2011http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10823-2011http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4399-2012http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4399-2012

AbstractIntroductionMethodAcetate vs. nitrate comparisonMonomer, N1Dimer, N2Trimer, N3Tetramer, N4Pentamer, N5ConclusionsData availabilityAuthor contributionsCompeting interestsAcknowledgementsReferences

chemical ionization of clusters formed from sulfuric acid and ......12514 c. n. jen et al.: chemical...

Documents