Reply to the 'Comment on 'Instantaneous secondary organic aerosol yields and their comparison with overall aerosol yields for aromatic and biogenic hydrocarbons'', by Knipping et al. (2004)

摘要

Knipping et al. (2004) (hereafter Knipping et al.) raised two issues: 1. Uncertainties of using smog chamber-based results in the ambient atmosphere, due to the differences in smog chamber and atmospheric conditions; 2. Inappropriateness of aerosol yield approaches in comparison with direct-partitioning based approaches for "describing the reversible partitioning process in the atmosphere". Jiang (2003) was focused on the comparative analysis of IAY vs. OAY. Both issues raised by Knipping et al. are outside the focus of and are not specific to Jiang (2003). Their arguments can be widely applied to any literature that uses smog chamber-generated aerosol yields and parameters or utilizes aerosol yield-based approaches for organic aerosol estimation and modelling in the atmosphere. The only discussion in Knipping et al. that was specific to Jiang (2003) is related to some scientific details about the aerosol yield e'quations. The following reply addresses the scientific details about the aerosol yield equations first. This is followed by discussions on the two generic issues and comments on the concluding remarks of Knipping et al.