Lea Hildebrandt
Carnegie Mellon University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Lea Hildebrandt.
Aerosol Science and Technology | 2008
Jeffrey R. Pierce; G. J. Engelhart; Lea Hildebrandt; Emily A. Weitkamp; Ravi K. Pathak; Neil M. Donahue; Allen L. Robinson; Peter J. Adams; Spyros N. Pandis
A goal of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) experiments performed in smog chambers is to determine the condensation of SOA onto suspended particles. Complicating the calculation of the condensation rate are uncertainties in particle wall-loss rates. Wall-loss rates generally depend on particle size, turbulence in the bag, the size and shape of the bag, and particle charge. In analyzing smog-chamber data, some or all of the following assumptions are commonly made regarding the first-order wall-loss rate constant: (a) that it is constant during an experiment; (b) that it is constant between experiments; and (c) that it is not a strong function of particle size for the relatively narrow size distributions in smog chamber experiments. Each of these assumptions may not be justified in some circumstances. We present the development and evaluation of the Aerosol Parameter Estimation (APE) model. APE is an inverse model that solves the aerosol general dynamic equation to determine best estimates for the size-dependent condensation rate and size-dependent wall-loss rate as a function of time. Size distribution measurements from a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) provide time boundary conditions that constrain the general dynamic equation. The APE model is tested using data from a smog chamber experiment with dry ammonium sulfate particles in which no condensation occurred. Finally, we assess the variability in predicted SOA production between different wall-loss correction methods for relatively-fast-chemistry limonene-ozonolysis experiments and relatively-slow-chemistry toluene-oxidation experiments. In the fast limonene experiments, wall-loss correction methods agree within 10% for SOA production, and in the slow toluene experiments, wall-loss correction methods disagree up to a factor of 2.
Environmental Science & Technology | 2011
Lea Hildebrandt; Kaytlin M. Henry; Jesse H. Kroll; Douglas R. Worsnop; Spyros N. Pandis; Neil M. Donahue
According to the pseudo-ideal mixing assumption employed in practically all chemical transport models, organic aerosol components from different sources interact with each other in a single solution, independent of their composition. This critical assumption greatly affects modeled organic aerosol concentrations, but there is little direct experimental evidence to support it. A main experimental challenge is that organic aerosol components from different sources often look similar when analyzed with an aerosol mass spectrometer. We developed a new experimental method to overcome this challenge, using isotopically labeled compounds ((13)C or D) and a high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS). We generated mixtures of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) from isotopically labeled toluene and from unlabeled α-pinene and used the HR-ToF-AMS data to separate these different SOA types. We evaluated their interaction by comparing the aerosol mass yields of toluene and α-pinene when the SOA was formed in these mixtures to their yields when the SOA was formed in isolation. At equilibrium, our results are consistent with pseudo-ideal mixing of anthropogenic and biogenic SOA components from these chemically dissimilar precursors.
Geophysical Research Letters | 2016
Astrid Kiendler-Scharr; A. A. Mensah; E. Friese; David Topping; E. Nemitz; André S. H. Prévôt; Mikko Äijälä; J. D. Allan; F. Canonaco; Manjula R. Canagaratna; Samara Carbone; Monica Crippa; M. Dall’Osto; Douglas A. Day; P. De Carlo; C. Di Marco; H. Elbern; Axel Eriksson; Evelyn Freney; Liqing Hao; Hartmut Herrmann; Lea Hildebrandt; R. Hillamo; Jose L. Jimenez; Ari Laaksonen; Gordon McFiggans; Claudia Mohr; Colin D. O'Dowd; R. Otjes; Jurgita Ovadnevaite
In the atmosphere night time removal of volatile organic compounds (VOC) is initiated to a large extent by reaction with the nitrate radical (NO3) forming organic nitrates which partition between gas and particulate phase. Here we show based on particle phase measurements performed at a suburban site in the Netherlands that organic nitrates contribute substantially to particulate nitrate and organic mass. Comparisons with a chemistry transport model (CTM) indicate that most of the measured particulate organic nitrates are formed by NO3 oxidation. Using aerosol composition data from three intensive observation periods at numerous measurement sites across Europe, we conclude that organic nitrates are a considerable fraction of fine particulate matter (PM1) at the continental scale. Organic nitrates represent 34% to 44% of measured submicron aerosol nitrate and are found at all urban and rural sites, implying a substantial potential of PM reduction by NOx emission control.In the atmosphere nighttime removal of volatile organic compounds is initiated to a large extent by reaction with the nitrate radical (NO3) forming organic nitrates which partition between gas and particulate phase. Here we show based on particle phase measurements performed at a suburban site in the Netherlands that organic nitrates contribute substantially to particulate nitrate and organic mass. Comparisons with a chemistry transport model indicate that most of the measured particulate organic nitrates are formed by NO3 oxidation. Using aerosol composition data from three intensive observation periods at numerous measurement sites across Europe, we conclude that organic nitrates are a considerable fraction of fine particulate matter (PM1) at the continental scale. Organic nitrates represent 34% to 44% of measured submicron aerosol nitrate and are found at all urban and rural sites, implying a substantial potential of PM reduction by NOx emission control.
Science | 2006
U. Dusek; Göran Frank; Lea Hildebrandt; Joachim Curtius; Johannes Schneider; Saskia Walter; D. Chand; Frank Drewnick; Silke S. Hings; D Jung; Stephan Borrmann; Meinrat O. Andreae
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2010
Nga L. Ng; Manjula R. Canagaratna; Qi Zhang; Jose L. Jimenez; Jian Tian; Ingrid M. Ulbrich; Jesse H. Kroll; Kenneth S. Docherty; P. S. Chhabra; Roya Bahreini; Shane M. Murphy; John H. Seinfeld; Lea Hildebrandt; Neil M. Donahue; P. F. DeCarlo; V. A. Lanz; André S. H. Prévôt; E. Dinar; Yinon Rudich; D. R. Worsnop
Journal of Physical Chemistry A | 2006
Jason D. Surratt; Shane M. Murphy; Jesse H. Kroll; Nga L. Ng; Lea Hildebrandt; Armin Sorooshian; Rafal Szmigielski; Reinhilde Vermeylen; Willy Maenhaut; M. Claeys; John H. Seinfeld
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2009
Lea Hildebrandt; Neil M. Donahue; Spyros N. Pandis
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2010
Lea Hildebrandt; G. J. Engelhart; Claudia Mohr; Evangelia Kostenidou; V. A. Lanz; A. Bougiatioti; P. F. DeCarlo; André S. H. Prévôt; U. Baltensperger; Nikos Mihalopoulos; Neil M. Donahue; Spyros N. Pandis
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2010
G. J. Engelhart; Lea Hildebrandt; Evangelia Kostenidou; N. Mihalopoulos; Neil M. Donahue; Spyros N. Pandis
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2010
Michalis Pikridas; A. Bougiatioti; Lea Hildebrandt; G. J. Engelhart; Evangelia Kostenidou; Claudia Mohr; André S. H. Prévôt; G. Kouvarakis; P. Zarmpas; J. F. Burkhart; Byong-Hyoek Lee; Magda Psichoudaki; N. Mihalopoulos; Christodoulos Pilinis; Andreas Stohl; Urs Baltensperger; Markku Kulmala; Spyros N. Pandis