Secondary organic aerosol contributes to the atmospheric particle burden with implications for air quality and climate. Biogenic volatile organic compounds such as terpenoids emitted from plants are important secondary organic aerosol precursors with isoprene dominating the emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds globally. However, the particle mass from isoprene oxidation is generally modest compared to that of other terpenoids. Here we show that isoprene, carbon monoxide and methane can each suppress the instantaneous mass and the overall mass yield derived from monoterpenes in mixtures of atmospheric vapours. We find that isoprene ‘scavenges’ hydroxyl radicals, preventing their reaction with monoterpenes, and the resulting isoprene peroxy radicals scavenge highly oxygenated monoterpene products. These effects reduce the yield of low-volatility products that would otherwise form secondary organic aerosol. Global model calculations indicate that oxidant and product scavenging can operate effectively in the real atmosphere. Thus highly reactive compounds (such as isoprene) that produce a modest amount of aerosol are not necessarily net producers of secondary organic particle mass and their oxidation in mixtures of atmospheric vapours can suppress both particle number and mass of secondary organic aerosol. We suggest that formation mechanisms of secondary organic aerosol in the atmosphere need to be considered more realistically, accounting for mechanistic interactions between the products of oxidizing precursor molecules (as is recognized to be necessary when modelling ozone production).
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All data used are shown as figures or tables in the manuscript or in Supplementary Information. Raw data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The EMEP modelling work was funded partially by EMEP under UNECE. Computer time for EMEP model runs was supported by the Research Council of Norway through the NOTUR project EMEP (NN2890K) for the central processing unit (CPU) time, and NorStore project European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (NS9005K) for storage of data. The research presented is a contribution to the Swedish strategic research area ‘ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system’ (MERGE). This work was supported by Formas (grant numbers 214-2010-1756 and 942-2015-1537); the Swedish Research Council (grant number 2014-5332) and the European Research Council (Starting grant number 638703, ‘COALA’). Å.M.H. acknowledges Formas (grant number 214-2013-1430) and Vinnova, Sweden’s Innovation Agency (grant number 2013-03058), including support for her research stay at Forschungszentrum Jülich. The participation of the Manchester group was facilitated by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)-funded CCN-Vol project (NE/L007827/1) and National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) funding. J.A.T. was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science: DE-SC0018221.
Nature thanks F. Yu, P. Ziemann and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.