Reply to the ‘Comment on “Assessing the atmospheric fate of trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF3CHO) and its potential as a new source of fluoroform (HFC-23) using the AtChem2 box model”’ by O. J. Nielsen, M. P. Sulbaek Andersen and J. Franklin, Environ. Sci.: Atmos., 2025, 5, DOI: 10.1039/D4EA00123K

Abstract

In Pérez-Peña et al. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ea00120b), we used a suite of box model simulations to determine how trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF₃CHO) produced from HFO-1234ze is lost in the atmosphere and how much fluoroform (CHF₃ or HFC-23) could potentially be produced as a result. For the first time in any modelling study, our simulations included both a minor CF₃CHO photolytic loss channel leading to CHF₃ production and physical removal of CF₃CHO via wet and dry deposition. In their comment, Sulbaek Andersen, Nielsen, and Franklin query the assumptions used to simulate these processes. Here, we show that the importance of the photolytic loss pathway remains a matter of community debate and that our results are relatively insensitive to assumptions underlying simulation of deposition. We reiterate the need for measurements of CF₃CHO physical properties to reduce the uncertainties in these processes and pave the way for more sophisticated models.