A naming convention for atmospheric organic aerosol
A naming convention for atmospheric organic aerosol
复制标题
DOI：
10.5194/acp-14-5825-2014
复制
发表时间：
2013-11
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
B. Murphy;N. Donahue;A. Robinson;S. Pandis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Murphy;N. Donahue;A. Robinson;S. Pandis
抽象。虽然大气有机气溶胶科学研究领域在过去的半个世纪经历了彻底和深刻的进步，这种进步一直伴随着一个沟通和详细的演变，但有时，复杂和不一致的语言。现在存在的描述大气中有机化合物的详细分类反映了我们现在掌握的丰富的观测技术以及科学仪器提供的丰富信息。然而，传播这些科学成果的术语越来越脱节，以至于可能会牺牲科学界内部和公众的有效沟通。我们建议将有机气溶胶分类的命名规范标准化，这与实验室研究、环境观测、大气模型和空气质量问题的各种利益相关者有关。由于这项工作的一个关键方面是直接将复杂的物理化学现象的本质转化为更广泛的，以政策为导向的受众，我们建议一个框架，最大限度地提高科学家和非科学家之间的理解。例如，要对波动性进行分类，它依赖于简单的字母术语（例如，半挥发性，SV;中等挥发性，IV;等）而不是可能模糊的数字索引。该框架将有机物质分为初级污染物和次级污染物，并区分了对科学和政策问题至关重要的基本特征，包括排放源、化学相和挥发性。还有用的是添加字母后缀，其识别有机材料或其前体的挥发性以用于何时发生排放。有了这个框架，我们希望向社区介绍一个面向公众的通用符号和面向高度专业化讨论的详细术语之间的一致联系。在这样做时，我们试图保持与历史的一致性，熟悉的命名方案，统一最近文献中提出的许多分散的命名法，减少对外部观众的理解障碍，并构建一个支架，可以将未来科学发现的见解纳入其中。
Abstract. While the field of atmospheric organic aerosol scientific research has experienced thorough and insightful progress over the last half century, this progress has been accompanied by the evolution of a communicative and detailed yet, at times, complex and inconsistent language. The menagerie of detailed classification that now exists to describe organic compounds in our atmosphere reflects the wealth of observational techniques now at our disposal as well as the rich information provided by state-of-the-science instrumentation. However, the nomenclature in place to communicate these scientific gains is growing disjointed to the point that effective communication within the scientific community and to the public may be sacrificed. We propose standardizing a naming convention for organic aerosol classification that is relevant to laboratory studies, ambient observations, atmospheric models, and various stakeholders for air-quality problems. Because a critical aspect of this effort is to directly translate the essence of complex physico-chemical phenomena to a much broader, policy-oriented audience, we recommend a framework that maximizes comprehension among scientists and non-scientists alike. For example, to classify volatility, it relies on straightforward alphabetic terms (e.g., semivolatile, SV; intermediate volatility, IV; etc.) rather than possibly ambiguous numeric indices. This framework classifies organic material as primary or secondary pollutants and distinguishes among fundamental features important for science and policy questions including emission source, chemical phase, and volatility. Also useful is the addition of an alphabetic suffix identifying the volatility of the organic material or its precursor for when emission occurred. With this framework, we hope to introduce into the community a consistent connection between common notation for the general public and detailed nomenclature for highly specialized discussion. In so doing, we try to maintain consistency with historical, familiar naming schemes, unify much of the scattered nomenclature presented in recent literature, reduce the barrier of comprehension to outside audiences, and construct a scaffold into which insights from future scientific discoveries can be incorporated.