<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/inc/acp/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7316</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7324</eissn>
		<volume_number>4</volume_number>
		<issue_number>3</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2004</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acp-4-839-2004</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/839/2004/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/839/2004/acp-4-839-2004.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/839/2004/acp-4-839-2004.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>839</start_page>
	<end_page>856</end_page>
	<publication_date>2004-06-14</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">OH and HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; chemistry in clean marine air during SOAPEX-2</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>R. Sommariva</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="2">
			<name>A.-L. Haggerstone</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="2">
			<name>L. J. Carpenter</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="3">
			<name>N. Carslaw</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="1,5">
			<name>D. J. Creasey</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="1">
			<name>D. E. Heard</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="1,6">
			<name>J. D. Lee</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="1,6">
			<name>A. C. Lewis</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="1">
			<name>M. J. Pilling</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="10" affiliations="4">
			<name>J. Zádor</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Department of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">Environment Department, University of York, York, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Department of Physical Chemistry, Ëotvös University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">Now at Photonic Solutions plc., Gracemount Business Pavilions Unit A2/A3, 40 Captains Rd., Edinburgh, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="6" content_type="html">Now at Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, UK</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">Model-measurement comparisons of HO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; in extremely clean
air ([NO]&amp;lt;3 ppt) are reported. Measurements were
made during the second Southern Ocean Photochemistry Experiment
(SOAPEX-2), held in austral summer 1999 at the Cape Grim Baseline
Air Pollution Station in north-western Tasmania, Australia.

&lt;P  style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;&gt;
The free-radical chemistry was studied using a zero-dimensional
box-model based upon the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM). Two
versions of the model were used, with different levels of chemical
complexity, to explore the role of hydrocarbons upon free-radical
budgets under very clean conditions. The &amp;quot;detailed&amp;quot; model was
constrained to measurements of CO, CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; and 17
NMHCs, while the &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; model contained only the CO and
CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; oxidation mechanisms, together with inorganic
chemistry. The OH and HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (HO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)
concentrations predicted by the two models agreed to within
5&amp;ndash;10%.

&lt;P  style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;&gt;
The model results were compared with the HO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;
concentrations measured by the FAGE (Fluorescence Assay by Gas
Expansion) technique during four days of clean Southern Ocean
marine boundary layer (MBL) air. The models overestimated
OH concentrations by about 10% on two days and about 20%
on the other two days. HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentrations were measured
during two of these days and the models overestimated the measured
concentrations by about 40%. Better agreement with measured
HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; was observed by using data from several MBL aerosol
measurements to estimate the aerosol surface area and by
increasing the HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; uptake coefficient to unity. This
reduced the modelled HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; overestimate by ~40%, with
little effect on OH, because of the poor HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to
OH conversion at the low ambient NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; concentrations.

&lt;P  style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;&gt;
Local sensitivity analysis and Morris One-At-A-Time analysis were
performed on the &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; model, and showed the importance of
reliable measurements of j(O&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;D) and [HCHO] and of
the kinetic parameters that determine the efficiency of
O(&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;D) to OH and HCHO to HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;
conversion. A 2&amp;sigma; standard deviation of 30&amp;ndash;40% for
OH and 25&amp;ndash;30% for HO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; was estimated for the model
calculations using a Monte Carlo technique coupled with Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS).</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

