the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Oct 2022
Understanding the variations and sources of CO, C2H2, C2H6, H2CO and HCN columns based on three years of new ground-based FTIR measurements at Xianghe, China
Abstract. Carbon monoxide (CO), acetylene (C2H2), ethane (C2H6), formaldehyde (H2CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are important trace gases in the atmosphere. They are highly related to biomass burning, fossil fuel combustion, and biogenic emissions globally, affecting air quality and climate change. However, the variations and correlations among these species are not well known in North China, due to limited measurements. In June 2018, we installed a new ground-based Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer (Bruker IFS 125HR) recording mid-infrared high spectral resolution solar-absorption spectra at Xianghe (39.75° N, 116.96° E), China. In this study, we use the latest SFIT4 code, together with advanced a priori profile and spectroscopy, to retrieve these five species from the FTIR spectra measured between June 2018 and November 2021. The retrieval strategies, retrieval information, and retrieval uncertainties are presented and discussed. For the first time, the time series, variations, and correlations of these five species are analyzed at a typical polluted site in North China. The seasonal variations of C2H2 and C2H6 total columns show a maximum in winter-spring and a minimum in autumn, whereas the seasonal variations of H2CO and HCN show a maximum in summer and a minimum in winter. Unlike the other four species, the FTIR measurements show that there is almost no seasonal variation in the CO column. The correlation coefficients (R) between the synoptic variations of CO and the other four species (C2H2, C2H6, H2CO, and HCN) are between 0.68 and 0.80, indicating that they are affected by common sources. Using the FLEXPART model backward simulations and satellite fire measurements, we find that the variations of CO, C2H2, C2H6, and H2CO columns are mainly dominated by the local anthropogenic emissions, while HCN column observed at Xianghe is a good tracer to identify fire emissions.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(5464 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5464 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1071', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Nov 2022
This paper by Zhou et al. shows the Carbon monoxide (CO), acetylene (C2H2), ethane (C2H6), formaldehyde (H2CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) column retrievals derived from the ground-based FTIR measurements at Xianghe, China. Such new ground-based FTIR datasets, following NDACC protocol with high precision and accuracy, are very important to understand these atmospheric components in this region. Until now, the variations and correlations among these species are not well known in North China, since limited or even no column measurements are available. The measurement and retrieval techniques of the ground-based FTIR dataset are nicely presented and well discussed. The seasonal variations of C2H2, C2H6, H2CO, and HCN are similar to other places (previous studies), while there is almost no seasonal variation of CO at Xianghe, which is different from other places. The paper shows that this weak seasonal variation of the CO column is also observed by co-located TROPOMI satellite and ground-based TCCON measurements. The HCN columns observed at Xianghe are also applied to identify the fire emission in Russia and Kazakhstan. In general, the paper is well-written, and the results are summarized well with novel scientific founds. Therefore, I would like to recommend it to AMT after addressing the following minor comments.
Minor comments:
- P5,Eq1, change the ‘.’ to ‘,’ ‘Where’ to ‘where’
- P10 line 13-14 “The daily mean std of each species within ±1 hour around local noon with at least 2 measurements is calculated to represent the variability of the retrieval. ” I guess I understand what the authors did, but it is confusing from this sentence. Please rewrite it.
- Eq 7, please add an uncertainty component in the formula.
- line 27 – 34. As the uncertainty of the trend is very large due to limited time coverage, and the trend of these species is not the key point of this paper. I would suggest removing this paragraph.
- Please check the reference carefully, as some references are not correctly formatted. For example, P30 line 20. This reference has two times of doi.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1071-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1071/egusphere-2022-1071-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1071', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2022
Comment on “Understanding the variations and sources of CO, C2H2, C2H6, H2CO and HCN columns based on three years of new ground-based FTIR measurements at Xianghe, China” by Minqiang Zhou et al.
General:
This paper describes the variations and sources of CO, C2H2, C2H6, H2CO and HCN columns observed with ground-based FTIR at Xianghe in North China along with the retrieval methods. The paper is well described, and it should be published after some minor revisions.
Comments and questions:
1
p3, l7
Please add the altitude of the Xianghe site.
2.1
p3, l25-28
If you want to describe only InSb measurements, the number of the optical filter should be 5. I think it is better to describe MCT measurements even you don’t use the spectra in this paper.
2.2
p5, l2
Please add the version of SFIT4.
l3-4
Full name of NDACC-IRWG was already described in section 1.
l29
What kind of a priori profiles were used for H2O, HDO, H217O and H218O?
Table 3
Wavenumbers for the retrieval windows of H2CO and HCN are incorrect.
Figure 3
Don’t you show the observed spectra?
3.1
p11, l10
1019 should be 1018.
Figure 5
The yellow shaded area is hard to see because it is almost covered by gray dots.
The box plots become narrow at the median value (Only the box plot for XCO in Figure A1 is box shape).
As for outliers, did you exclude them in the correlation analysis? I think you used them because they have strong information of the local anthropogenic emissions. So, the word ‘outliers’ is misleading.
p13 l6
42% maybe wrong. 62%?
l27-33
Is this paragraph worth writing in this paper?
3.2
p14 l16
less --> smaller?
3.3
p17, l4
southeast --> southwest?
l17
south-east --> southwest?
3.4
p18 l3
trace --> tracer
l5-6
Schroeder et al.(2014) --> (Schroeder et al., 2014)
l9
Cao et al. (2014) --> (Cao et al., 2014)
p20 l1
are summed up before each airmass releasing day --> before each airmass releasing day are summed up
3.5
p21 l20
‘Emission estimation for C2H2 and C2H6’ maybe better.
p22
Figure 13
It is better to put year in figure (b) and (c).
l6-7
Is this mean that you used the slopes shown in Figure 6? Is it better than using data in categories B and C (or only C)?
p23
Can you add some more discussion for the difference of the C2H2 and C2H6 emissions between the inventories and your estimations? The emissions of the two species are nearly the same in two inventories while fossil fuel/biofuels source for C2H6 is twice larger than that of C2H2 in Table 1. The source values in Table 1 seems to be consistent with your estimations.
4
p23, l20
1019 should be 1018.
l21
0.92 --> 0.91?
p24 l5-7
Is this sentence important conclusion? I think it is enough to put this sentence in section 3.1.
l14-15
‘come from local anthropogenic emissions’ is explained in the next sentence.
Appendix A
p26 l3
‘Since’ should be removed.
Figure A1
Dashed line is hard to see.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1071-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1071/egusphere-2022-1071-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1071', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Nov 2022
This paper by Zhou et al. shows the Carbon monoxide (CO), acetylene (C2H2), ethane (C2H6), formaldehyde (H2CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) column retrievals derived from the ground-based FTIR measurements at Xianghe, China. Such new ground-based FTIR datasets, following NDACC protocol with high precision and accuracy, are very important to understand these atmospheric components in this region. Until now, the variations and correlations among these species are not well known in North China, since limited or even no column measurements are available. The measurement and retrieval techniques of the ground-based FTIR dataset are nicely presented and well discussed. The seasonal variations of C2H2, C2H6, H2CO, and HCN are similar to other places (previous studies), while there is almost no seasonal variation of CO at Xianghe, which is different from other places. The paper shows that this weak seasonal variation of the CO column is also observed by co-located TROPOMI satellite and ground-based TCCON measurements. The HCN columns observed at Xianghe are also applied to identify the fire emission in Russia and Kazakhstan. In general, the paper is well-written, and the results are summarized well with novel scientific founds. Therefore, I would like to recommend it to AMT after addressing the following minor comments.
Minor comments:
- P5,Eq1, change the ‘.’ to ‘,’ ‘Where’ to ‘where’
- P10 line 13-14 “The daily mean std of each species within ±1 hour around local noon with at least 2 measurements is calculated to represent the variability of the retrieval. ” I guess I understand what the authors did, but it is confusing from this sentence. Please rewrite it.
- Eq 7, please add an uncertainty component in the formula.
- line 27 – 34. As the uncertainty of the trend is very large due to limited time coverage, and the trend of these species is not the key point of this paper. I would suggest removing this paragraph.
- Please check the reference carefully, as some references are not correctly formatted. For example, P30 line 20. This reference has two times of doi.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1071-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1071/egusphere-2022-1071-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1071', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2022
Comment on “Understanding the variations and sources of CO, C2H2, C2H6, H2CO and HCN columns based on three years of new ground-based FTIR measurements at Xianghe, China” by Minqiang Zhou et al.
General:
This paper describes the variations and sources of CO, C2H2, C2H6, H2CO and HCN columns observed with ground-based FTIR at Xianghe in North China along with the retrieval methods. The paper is well described, and it should be published after some minor revisions.
Comments and questions:
1
p3, l7
Please add the altitude of the Xianghe site.
2.1
p3, l25-28
If you want to describe only InSb measurements, the number of the optical filter should be 5. I think it is better to describe MCT measurements even you don’t use the spectra in this paper.
2.2
p5, l2
Please add the version of SFIT4.
l3-4
Full name of NDACC-IRWG was already described in section 1.
l29
What kind of a priori profiles were used for H2O, HDO, H217O and H218O?
Table 3
Wavenumbers for the retrieval windows of H2CO and HCN are incorrect.
Figure 3
Don’t you show the observed spectra?
3.1
p11, l10
1019 should be 1018.
Figure 5
The yellow shaded area is hard to see because it is almost covered by gray dots.
The box plots become narrow at the median value (Only the box plot for XCO in Figure A1 is box shape).
As for outliers, did you exclude them in the correlation analysis? I think you used them because they have strong information of the local anthropogenic emissions. So, the word ‘outliers’ is misleading.
p13 l6
42% maybe wrong. 62%?
l27-33
Is this paragraph worth writing in this paper?
3.2
p14 l16
less --> smaller?
3.3
p17, l4
southeast --> southwest?
l17
south-east --> southwest?
3.4
p18 l3
trace --> tracer
l5-6
Schroeder et al.(2014) --> (Schroeder et al., 2014)
l9
Cao et al. (2014) --> (Cao et al., 2014)
p20 l1
are summed up before each airmass releasing day --> before each airmass releasing day are summed up
3.5
p21 l20
‘Emission estimation for C2H2 and C2H6’ maybe better.
p22
Figure 13
It is better to put year in figure (b) and (c).
l6-7
Is this mean that you used the slopes shown in Figure 6? Is it better than using data in categories B and C (or only C)?
p23
Can you add some more discussion for the difference of the C2H2 and C2H6 emissions between the inventories and your estimations? The emissions of the two species are nearly the same in two inventories while fossil fuel/biofuels source for C2H6 is twice larger than that of C2H2 in Table 1. The source values in Table 1 seems to be consistent with your estimations.
4
p23, l20
1019 should be 1018.
l21
0.92 --> 0.91?
p24 l5-7
Is this sentence important conclusion? I think it is enough to put this sentence in section 3.1.
l14-15
‘come from local anthropogenic emissions’ is explained in the next sentence.
Appendix A
p26 l3
‘Since’ should be removed.
Figure A1
Dashed line is hard to see.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1071-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1071/egusphere-2022-1071-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', minqiang zhou, 19 Dec 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 199 | 70 | 12 | 281 | 2 | 5 |
- HTML: 199
- PDF: 70
- XML: 12
- Total: 281
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 91 | 33 |
| China | 2 | 38 | 13 |
| Germany | 3 | 22 | 8 |
| Japan | 4 | 15 | 5 |
| France | 5 | 14 | 5 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 91
Minqiang Zhou
Bavo Langerock
Pucai Wang
Corinne Vigouroux
Qichen Ni
Christian Hermans
Bart Dils
Nicolas Kumps
Weidong Nan
Martine De Mazière
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5464 KB) - Metadata XML