Text S2. Saturation vapor pressure considerations for amines
Data on the saturation vapor
pressure (p0 ) of an amine at various
temperatures are needed to accurately describe its distribution between
gaseous and condensed phases. However, comprehensive and high-quality
experimental data on p0 of amines are not
always available. Ge et al.3 systematically evaluated
the available experimental data and several theoretical vapor pressure
calculation models for amines and concluded that the method by Moller et
al.4 provides the best estimations. Alcohol amines,
such as MEA, showed the largest difference in calculated and measured
vapor pressure values (up to a factor of 3.56 times). Such discrepancy
was much smaller among monoamines with alkyl groups (a factor of 1.06).
The default p0 values for amines in the E-AIM
models were experimental data and only when these data were missing, the
calculation method by Moller et al.4 was used, with
the exception of MA, DMA, EA, DEA and AN-N (discussed in the next
section). In our study, to provide the most conservative estimation of
the uncertainties caused by errors in p0 of
amines, the vapor pressure of each amine was increased and decreased by
a factor of 3.56, representing the maximum uncertainty range by the
method of Moller et al.,4 while the rest of the
conditions remained the same (initial moles of an amine, sulfuric acid
and nitric acid at 1.11151×10−9,
2.03777×10−11 and 8.86895×10−8,
respectively, initial mole of water at 0.07848 that corresponds to 60 %
RH at 263.15 K and 101,325 Pa). Figure S2(a) illustrates the results of
such error analysis using PZ as an example. The correspondingTc values are summarized in Table S1 and the
relative uncertainties were generally small (± 3%).