Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particles deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT): Based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions

Man, Ruiqi; Wu, Zhijun; Zong, Taomou; Voliotis, Aristeidis; Größ, Johannes; van Pinxteren, Dominik; Zeng, Limin; Herrmann, Hartmut; Wiedensohler, Alfred; Hu, Min

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256

Preprints

03 May 2022

| 03 May 2022

Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particles deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT): Based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions

Ruiqi Man, Zhijun Wu, Taomou Zong, Aristeidis Voliotis, Johannes Größ, Dominik van Pinxteren, Limin Zeng, Hartmut Herrmann, Alfred Wiedensohler, and Min Hu

Abstract. The particle hygroscopicity plays a key role in determining the particle deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT). In this study, the effects of hygroscopicity and mixing state on regional and total deposition doses for children, adults, and elderly were quantified using the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry model based on the size-resolved particle hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions (relative humidity = 98 %) performed in the North China Plain. The measured particle population with an external mixing state was dominated by hygroscopic particles (number fraction = (91.5 ± 5.7) %, mean ± standard deviation (SD), the same below). Particle hygroscopic growth in the HRT led to a reduction by around 24 % in the total doses of submicron particles for all age groups. Such reduction was mainly caused by the growth of hygroscopic particles and was more pronounced in the pulmonary and tracheobronchial regions. Regardless of hygroscopicity, the elderly group had the highest total dose among the three age groups. With 270 nm in diameter as the boundary, the total deposition doses of particles smaller than this diameter were overestimated and those of larger particles were underestimated assuming no particle hygroscopic growth in the HRT. From the perspective of the daily variation, the deposition rates of hygroscopic particles with an average of 2.88 × 10⁹ #/h (SD = 8.10 × 10⁸ #/h) during the daytime were larger than those ((2.32 × 10⁹) ± (2.41 × 10⁸) #/h) at night. On the contrary, hydrophobic particles interpreted as freshly emitted soot and primary organic aerosols exhibited higher deposition rates at nighttime ((3.39 ± 1.34) × 10⁸ #/h) than those in the day ((2.58 × 10⁸) ± (7.60 × 10⁷) #/h). The traffic emissions during the rush hours enhanced the deposition rate of hydrophobic particles. This work provides a more explicit assessment of the impact of hygroscopicity and mixing state on the deposition pattern of submicron particles in the HRT.

Received: 26 Apr 2022 – Discussion started: 03 May 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2273 KB)

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 (2273 KB)

Supplement (410 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

21 Sep 2022

Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particle deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT) based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions

Ruiqi Man, Zhijun Wu, Taomou Zong, Aristeidis Voliotis, Yanting Qiu, Johannes Größ, Dominik van Pinxteren, Limin Zeng, Hartmut Herrmann, Alfred Wiedensohler, and Min Hu

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12387–12399, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12387-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12387-2022, 2022

Short summary

Ruiqi Man et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-256', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2022

The study “Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particles deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT): Based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions” by Man et al., examines the impact of considering hygroscopic properties of ambient aerosol into the deposition rates of particles in the HRT. It therefore uses measurements of particle size distribution (PSD) for hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles performed in the North China Plain at a RH of 98 %. The study shows the impact of a changed PSD due to hygroscopic growth of ambient aerosol. The results show the sensitivity on aerosol deposition in the HRT to PSD with a decrease in deposition around 24 % when considering hygroscopic growth of the aerosols in the HRT (with large effect for hygroscopic particles and rather little for hydrophobic).

The study addresses an important topic and provides a promising analysis based on measurement data. In the current version of the manuscript there are no substantially new findings, however, the combination of measurements of size resolved hygroscopic and hydrophobic aerosol with HRT deposition modeling is a nice and interesting study. E.g. Ching and Kajino (2018) show comparable results for hygroscopic changes in the PSD. The study will profit from a more detailed comparison to previous studies, both on ambient aerosol properties and the HRT deposition. This comparison will also allow the authors to clearly define the novelty of their study. Furthermore, the study will benefit from some careful proofreading. Nevertheless, the study is in my opinion worth to be published after addressing the below listed points.

General comments:

A sensitivity analysis on the different deposition mechanisms would be helpful. E.g., by turning off single deposition mechanism in the model to estimate the relative importance of the shift to larger sizes in the PSD due to hygroscopic growth. Also, an extension of the discussion of the results taking the different deposition mechanisms into account will be helpful.

Are there differences between the ICRP and the MPPD models? Why the authors chose the MPPD model rather than ICRP?

How does the K parameter change between previous measurements and studies with lower RH and this study with RH = 98 %. How do the results compare to the previous studies with lower RH measurements? What is the expected impact of the difference between the measurements at 98 % RH and the actual nearly saturated conditions in the lower HRT?

The PSD measurements are performed to an upper limit of 800 nm, but Fig. 1 shows values until 1 µm are these a result of a fit?

May I overread this information, but what hygroscopicity is assumed for the calculation of the adjusted PSDs (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5)?

The deposition dose which is one important quantity in this manuscript is highly sensitive to the exposure time. Since children are associated to a shorter exposure time the lower dose seems to be explained by that simple and rather arbitrary quantity. The deposition rate however, is not influenced by this quantity and thus may serve better to compare the health impacts of sub micrometer particulate air pollution. The exposure time seems quite high in my eyes (for adults and elderly around 4 hours of “resting” outdoors.

Is the time of hygroscopic growth considered in the MPPD modeling? Ching and Kajino (2018) pointed the importance of time in the hydration process of particles in the HRT out. The timescale until the particles reach their equilibrium size depending on RH can range in the scale of few seconds (Chuang 2003) and thus may play an important role in the upper respiratory tract.

Are in Fig. 5 shown deposition rates for “resting” (table 1) only? It would be interesting to combine different human behaviors with the ambient pollution (e.g. physical exercise in the evening hours when pollution is high).

Specific comments:

Fig.1: The figure would profit from including the range of the PSD. Also in the appendix a comparable figure for day and nighttime would be interesting for better understand the ambient aerosol conditions.

Fig.2: The figure would profit from including the range of the deposition fraction (percentiles or SD). I would appreciate a corresponding figure for children and elderly in the supplement.

Fig.3: Is it possible to include the red line (as indicator for the hygroscopic and hydrophobic fraction) in all columns?

Fig.4: Is for this figure the average PSD (Fig. 1) or the daily PSD (corresponding to Fig. 5) used? How does it behave with the particle fraction above 1 µm in the head region? Fig. 2 shows an increasing deposition fraction for larger particles and there is a significant fraction of particles above 1 µm after hygroscopic growth.

Fig.5: NO, CO, BC and OH should be introduced with the corresponding measurement method in the methods section. Is it possible to show a fraction of the BC mass to the mass of hydrophobic aerosol (calculated from the PSD)? This will be helpful in understanding the displayed data. The figure and interpretation would benefit from including the median deposition rate without considering hygroscopic growth as done in the other figures. For interpretation also, the total particle number concentration should be added and included into the discussion.

L40: This sentence reads as life expectancy declines, which is not the case (Haidong et al., 2019).

L.45: A reference for this statement will be beneficial.

L.74: this statement is quite general. There are also many measurements of hygroscopicity with e.g. CCN counters.

L.161: Is deposition and clearance not the output parameter of the MPPD model?

L.165: The particle range in model is until 1 µm but PSD in Fig. 1(b) reaches up to 1.2 µm. What is the expected effect of neglecting the tail of the PSD?

L318 and Fig.2: What is the potential explanation for the underestimation of particles below 20 nm in P?

L.347: The conclusion from the presence of hygroscopic newly formed aerosol is somehow confusing, since the study points out that hygroscopic aerosol is less effective deposited in the HRT. The factor is the larger number concentration, not the aerosol hygroscopicity (as mentioned above including the total number concertation in Fig.5 will make this clearer). I also wonder why the aerosol disappeared in the morning hours (e.g. Fig.S1 2014/06/28 around 8 am)?

L.356: Is the low boundary layer height meant as a general feature of the PBL or is it somehow measured or modeled during the campaign? A reference here would be nice.

L.363: This conclusion cannot be drawn that straight forward. What about the other aerosol during the peak concentrations of BC mass? How does the K value for BC compare to literature studies on the hygroscopicity of BC? An indication in Fig.S2 which are the “5 % highest BC periods” chosen and also the BC fraction compared to all aerosol mass will be beneficial.

L.367: I do not see the benefit of the discussion; the PSD and PNC are not the same for freshly emitted and aged aerosol. Further, hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles can be emitted from the same source.

L.388: The discussion on the atmospheric oxidation capacity could be more addressed in the results section to strengthen this conclusion.

L.390: What are the strong primary emission sources over night?

L.392: This study does not provide insights about aging state, it shows the difference between hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles. Thus, I recommend to rephrase the sentence from “aged aerosol” to hygroscopic.

L.396: I do not see this aspect covered by the manuscript. Maybe a rephrasing closer to the actual research performed will help.

L.399: Data availability – maybe the authors want to consider a publication of the data on an open accessible research data repository after publication.

Technical comments:

There are some citations doubled in single sentences. Some of the cited literature seems to be not the primary literature.

L.140: Consider to reconstruct the sentence.

References:

Chuang, P. Y. (2003), Measurement of the timescale of hygroscopic growth for atmospheric aerosols, , 108, 4282, doi:10.1029/2002JD002757, D9.

Wang, Haidong et al. (2019), Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2019: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, The Lancet, Volume 396, Issue 10258, 1160 - 1203

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhijun Wu, 27 Jul 2022
  
  Dear editors,
  We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading and highly valuable comments that substantially help to raise the discussion depth and quality of our paper. We have made every effort to address their comments and made necessary revisions to the manuscript. We believe the new manuscript addresses reviewers’ concerns and is more rigorous.
  Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the attached PDF.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-256', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Jun 2022

In this work the authors describe measurement of the hygroscopic growth of externally mixed particles from the North China Plain. They use these data in conjunction with a lung deposition model to predict the effect of hygroscopic growth on deposition in the respiratory tract. The results show that in total, dose was reduced when hygroscopic growth effects were considered as the more numerous smaller particles, that deposit via diffusion mechanisms, deposited less effectively. Variations were seen across the size range, with smaller particles showing a reduced likelihood to deposit, while larger particles were more likely to deposit.

Overall, this paper goes some way towards showing the importance of considering hygroscopic growth, but the extent of new insights is limited. The effects are reported to be rather small so an improved sensitivity analysis and consideration of uncertainties is needed to validate and support the conclusions. Some specific points towards this are detailed below:

·      Deposition fraction is on a particle number basis, and the conclusions connect the dose with the number of particles. The authors should considering reporting dose on a mass deposition basis, which will significantly increase the contributions of the larger particles on deposited dose.

·      Does the lung deposition model change the density of the particles as they grow due to water uptake? A density of 1.5 g/cm3 is high for hygroscopic particles at >90% RH. I suggest a sensitivity analysis be performed to compare the difference in deposition for 1.0 and 1.5 g/cm3 particle distributions.

·      How was the dry size of the particles determined in the hygroscopic growth measurements? Were any shape correction factors considered?

·      How accurate is the RH measured in the HTDMA? How stable is the RH? At the high RH of these measurements, even fractions of a % of RH can lead to significant changes in the size of the particles and will introduce uncertainty in the results.

·      On line 103, HH-TDMA is referred to – what does the second “H” stand for?

·      Line 84 – a constant value of kappa with RH does not indicate an ideal solution. It indicates that the effective molar volume of the solute does not vary with RH.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhijun Wu, 27 Jul 2022
  
  Dear editors,
  We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading and highly valuable comments that substantially help to raise the discussion depth and quality of our paper. We have made every effort to address their comments and made necessary revisions to the manuscript. We believe the new manuscript addresses reviewers’ concerns and is more rigorous.
  Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the attached PDF.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-256', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2022

The study “Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particles deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT): Based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions” by Man et al., examines the impact of considering hygroscopic properties of ambient aerosol into the deposition rates of particles in the HRT. It therefore uses measurements of particle size distribution (PSD) for hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles performed in the North China Plain at a RH of 98 %. The study shows the impact of a changed PSD due to hygroscopic growth of ambient aerosol. The results show the sensitivity on aerosol deposition in the HRT to PSD with a decrease in deposition around 24 % when considering hygroscopic growth of the aerosols in the HRT (with large effect for hygroscopic particles and rather little for hydrophobic).

The study addresses an important topic and provides a promising analysis based on measurement data. In the current version of the manuscript there are no substantially new findings, however, the combination of measurements of size resolved hygroscopic and hydrophobic aerosol with HRT deposition modeling is a nice and interesting study. E.g. Ching and Kajino (2018) show comparable results for hygroscopic changes in the PSD. The study will profit from a more detailed comparison to previous studies, both on ambient aerosol properties and the HRT deposition. This comparison will also allow the authors to clearly define the novelty of their study. Furthermore, the study will benefit from some careful proofreading. Nevertheless, the study is in my opinion worth to be published after addressing the below listed points.

General comments:

A sensitivity analysis on the different deposition mechanisms would be helpful. E.g., by turning off single deposition mechanism in the model to estimate the relative importance of the shift to larger sizes in the PSD due to hygroscopic growth. Also, an extension of the discussion of the results taking the different deposition mechanisms into account will be helpful.

Are there differences between the ICRP and the MPPD models? Why the authors chose the MPPD model rather than ICRP?

How does the K parameter change between previous measurements and studies with lower RH and this study with RH = 98 %. How do the results compare to the previous studies with lower RH measurements? What is the expected impact of the difference between the measurements at 98 % RH and the actual nearly saturated conditions in the lower HRT?

The PSD measurements are performed to an upper limit of 800 nm, but Fig. 1 shows values until 1 µm are these a result of a fit?

May I overread this information, but what hygroscopicity is assumed for the calculation of the adjusted PSDs (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5)?

The deposition dose which is one important quantity in this manuscript is highly sensitive to the exposure time. Since children are associated to a shorter exposure time the lower dose seems to be explained by that simple and rather arbitrary quantity. The deposition rate however, is not influenced by this quantity and thus may serve better to compare the health impacts of sub micrometer particulate air pollution. The exposure time seems quite high in my eyes (for adults and elderly around 4 hours of “resting” outdoors.

Is the time of hygroscopic growth considered in the MPPD modeling? Ching and Kajino (2018) pointed the importance of time in the hydration process of particles in the HRT out. The timescale until the particles reach their equilibrium size depending on RH can range in the scale of few seconds (Chuang 2003) and thus may play an important role in the upper respiratory tract.

Are in Fig. 5 shown deposition rates for “resting” (table 1) only? It would be interesting to combine different human behaviors with the ambient pollution (e.g. physical exercise in the evening hours when pollution is high).

Specific comments:

Fig.1: The figure would profit from including the range of the PSD. Also in the appendix a comparable figure for day and nighttime would be interesting for better understand the ambient aerosol conditions.

Fig.2: The figure would profit from including the range of the deposition fraction (percentiles or SD). I would appreciate a corresponding figure for children and elderly in the supplement.

Fig.3: Is it possible to include the red line (as indicator for the hygroscopic and hydrophobic fraction) in all columns?

Fig.4: Is for this figure the average PSD (Fig. 1) or the daily PSD (corresponding to Fig. 5) used? How does it behave with the particle fraction above 1 µm in the head region? Fig. 2 shows an increasing deposition fraction for larger particles and there is a significant fraction of particles above 1 µm after hygroscopic growth.

Fig.5: NO, CO, BC and OH should be introduced with the corresponding measurement method in the methods section. Is it possible to show a fraction of the BC mass to the mass of hydrophobic aerosol (calculated from the PSD)? This will be helpful in understanding the displayed data. The figure and interpretation would benefit from including the median deposition rate without considering hygroscopic growth as done in the other figures. For interpretation also, the total particle number concentration should be added and included into the discussion.

L40: This sentence reads as life expectancy declines, which is not the case (Haidong et al., 2019).

L.45: A reference for this statement will be beneficial.

L.74: this statement is quite general. There are also many measurements of hygroscopicity with e.g. CCN counters.

L.161: Is deposition and clearance not the output parameter of the MPPD model?

L.165: The particle range in model is until 1 µm but PSD in Fig. 1(b) reaches up to 1.2 µm. What is the expected effect of neglecting the tail of the PSD?

L318 and Fig.2: What is the potential explanation for the underestimation of particles below 20 nm in P?

L.347: The conclusion from the presence of hygroscopic newly formed aerosol is somehow confusing, since the study points out that hygroscopic aerosol is less effective deposited in the HRT. The factor is the larger number concentration, not the aerosol hygroscopicity (as mentioned above including the total number concertation in Fig.5 will make this clearer). I also wonder why the aerosol disappeared in the morning hours (e.g. Fig.S1 2014/06/28 around 8 am)?

L.356: Is the low boundary layer height meant as a general feature of the PBL or is it somehow measured or modeled during the campaign? A reference here would be nice.

L.363: This conclusion cannot be drawn that straight forward. What about the other aerosol during the peak concentrations of BC mass? How does the K value for BC compare to literature studies on the hygroscopicity of BC? An indication in Fig.S2 which are the “5 % highest BC periods” chosen and also the BC fraction compared to all aerosol mass will be beneficial.

L.367: I do not see the benefit of the discussion; the PSD and PNC are not the same for freshly emitted and aged aerosol. Further, hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles can be emitted from the same source.

L.388: The discussion on the atmospheric oxidation capacity could be more addressed in the results section to strengthen this conclusion.

L.390: What are the strong primary emission sources over night?

L.392: This study does not provide insights about aging state, it shows the difference between hydrophobic and hygroscopic particles. Thus, I recommend to rephrase the sentence from “aged aerosol” to hygroscopic.

L.396: I do not see this aspect covered by the manuscript. Maybe a rephrasing closer to the actual research performed will help.

L.399: Data availability – maybe the authors want to consider a publication of the data on an open accessible research data repository after publication.

Technical comments:

There are some citations doubled in single sentences. Some of the cited literature seems to be not the primary literature.

L.140: Consider to reconstruct the sentence.

References:

Chuang, P. Y. (2003), Measurement of the timescale of hygroscopic growth for atmospheric aerosols, , 108, 4282, doi:10.1029/2002JD002757, D9.

Wang, Haidong et al. (2019), Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2019: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, The Lancet, Volume 396, Issue 10258, 1160 - 1203

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhijun Wu, 27 Jul 2022
  
  Dear editors,
  We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading and highly valuable comments that substantially help to raise the discussion depth and quality of our paper. We have made every effort to address their comments and made necessary revisions to the manuscript. We believe the new manuscript addresses reviewers’ concerns and is more rigorous.
  Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the attached PDF.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-256', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Jun 2022

In this work the authors describe measurement of the hygroscopic growth of externally mixed particles from the North China Plain. They use these data in conjunction with a lung deposition model to predict the effect of hygroscopic growth on deposition in the respiratory tract. The results show that in total, dose was reduced when hygroscopic growth effects were considered as the more numerous smaller particles, that deposit via diffusion mechanisms, deposited less effectively. Variations were seen across the size range, with smaller particles showing a reduced likelihood to deposit, while larger particles were more likely to deposit.

Overall, this paper goes some way towards showing the importance of considering hygroscopic growth, but the extent of new insights is limited. The effects are reported to be rather small so an improved sensitivity analysis and consideration of uncertainties is needed to validate and support the conclusions. Some specific points towards this are detailed below:

·      Deposition fraction is on a particle number basis, and the conclusions connect the dose with the number of particles. The authors should considering reporting dose on a mass deposition basis, which will significantly increase the contributions of the larger particles on deposited dose.

·      Does the lung deposition model change the density of the particles as they grow due to water uptake? A density of 1.5 g/cm3 is high for hygroscopic particles at >90% RH. I suggest a sensitivity analysis be performed to compare the difference in deposition for 1.0 and 1.5 g/cm3 particle distributions.

·      How was the dry size of the particles determined in the hygroscopic growth measurements? Were any shape correction factors considered?

·      How accurate is the RH measured in the HTDMA? How stable is the RH? At the high RH of these measurements, even fractions of a % of RH can lead to significant changes in the size of the particles and will introduce uncertainty in the results.

·      On line 103, HH-TDMA is referred to – what does the second “H” stand for?

·      Line 84 – a constant value of kappa with RH does not indicate an ideal solution. It indicates that the effective molar volume of the solute does not vary with RH.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhijun Wu, 27 Jul 2022
  
  Dear editors,
  We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading and highly valuable comments that substantially help to raise the discussion depth and quality of our paper. We have made every effort to address their comments and made necessary revisions to the manuscript. We believe the new manuscript addresses reviewers’ concerns and is more rigorous.
  Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the attached PDF.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Zhijun Wu on behalf of the Authors (27 Jul 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Jul 2022) by Thomas Berkemeier

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Aug 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Aug 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comment:
The authors replied most of the reviewer’s questions sufficient and the manuscript is greatly improved, however, there is in Review#1 and Review#2 the open question of the novelty of the study. I.e., in Review#1 “The study will profit from a more detailed comparison to previous studies, both on ambient aerosol properties and the HRT deposition. This comparison will also allow the authors to clearly define the novelty of their study” and in Review#2 “the extent of new insights is limited”. This point is not addressed in the reply and revised manuscript. I recommend the authors to consider these open questions raised by the two reviewers.

Specific comments on the reply to review#1 to comment 3.

Response 1: The statement “only the comparison of κ measured simultaneously at the same sampling site makes sense.” This is not what is the case. Why should the rural airmasses at the measurement site be very different to other rural places. The κ value is a quantity commonly compared between different measurement sites. It only has to be clarified how the measurements were conducted and the RH or supersaturation need to be included into a comparison.

Specific comments on the reply to review#1 to comment 14. L.363:

Response 2: What allows the conclusion that the measured BC is “pure BC”? It is an ambient measurement with many committed species. Thus, I would expect some aging of the BC particles. There are quite some studies focusing on the hygroscopicity of BC. E.g., Liu et al., 2013.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/2015/2013/acp-13-2015-2013.pdf
The statement „The κ of BC with Dp = 50 nm was 0.20 ± 0.12” should be rephrased. It is the κ of the aerosol population, not of BC. The mass ratio can be strongly influenced by relatively few larger particles, whereas κ depends on the whole size distribution.

Fig. S8 BC and hydrophobic particles cannot be used synonymous. There are also other hydrophobic particles. Please be clear.

Comments on the revised manuscript:

253: Are there differences between Figure 2 and S2, S3? They look very comparable so a statement on the comparison will be nice.

Figure 3: I recommend to merge fig. 3 and S5 to one figure. Figure 3 alone gives somehow misleading indications. The driving factor is the exposure time with not corresponding activities. As stated in the authors reply to the review, the activities for the exposure time are not only resting, it should be made clear that this figure represents the literature exposure time to ambient pollution for a certain region not for all activities but only for resting.

453: There are already HHTDMA capable for measurements in nearly saturated conditions (up to 99.6% RH). E.g. Mikhailov and Vlasenko 2020.
https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/2035/2020/

454: I recommend a broader literature research and to extend the literature review to other global regions. There are studies reporting physiological parameters in the HRT and may the authors would need to justify here why physiological parameters in the HRT are significantly different between some rural regions in China and other places.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Aug 2022) by Thomas Berkemeier

AR by Zhijun Wu on behalf of the Authors (20 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Aug 2022) by Thomas Berkemeier

AR by Zhijun Wu on behalf of the Authors (22 Aug 2022)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

21 Sep 2022

Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particle deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT) based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions

Ruiqi Man, Zhijun Wu, Taomou Zong, Aristeidis Voliotis, Yanting Qiu, Johannes Größ, Dominik van Pinxteren, Limin Zeng, Hartmut Herrmann, Alfred Wiedensohler, and Min Hu

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12387–12399, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12387-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12387-2022, 2022

Short summary

Ruiqi Man et al.

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-256-supplement

Ruiqi Man et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 538 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
424	102	12	538	33	3	7

HTML: 424
PDF: 102
XML: 12
Total: 538
Supplement: 33
BibTeX: 3
EndNote: 7

Views and downloads (calculated since 03 May 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2022	223	58	6	287
Jun 2022	85	6	0	91
Jul 2022	64	16	6	86
Aug 2022	33	15	0	48
Sep 2022	19	7	0	26
Oct 2022	0
Nov 2022	0
Dec 2022	0
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 May 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2022	223	58	6	287
Jun 2022	85	6	0	91
Jul 2022	64	16	6	86
Aug 2022	33	15	0	48
Sep 2022	19	7	0	26
Oct 2022	0
Nov 2022	0
Dec 2022	0
Jan 2023	0
Feb 2023	0
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 475 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 475 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 30 Apr 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2273 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Regional and total deposition doses for different age groups were quantified based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements. This work found that particle hygroscopic growth led to a reduction (~24 %) in the total dose. The deposition rate of hygroscopic particles was higher in the daytime, while hydrophobic particles exhibited higher rate at nighttime and rush hours. The results will deepen the understanding of the impact of hygroscopicity and mixing state on deposition pattern in lungs.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0