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%).