What chemical species are responsible for new particle formation and growth in the Netherlands? A hybrid positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis using aerosol composition (ACSM) and size (SMPS)

Nursanto, Farhan R.; Meinen, Roy; Holzinger, Rupert; Krol, Maarten C.; Liu, Xinya; Dusek, Ulrike; Henzing, Bas; Fry, Juliane L.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554

Preprints

05 Apr 2023

| 05 Apr 2023

What chemical species are responsible for new particle formation and growth in the Netherlands? A hybrid positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis using aerosol composition (ACSM) and size (SMPS)

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Abstract. Aerosol formation acts as a sink for gas-phase atmospheric species that controls their atmospheric lifetime and environmental effects. To investigate aerosol formation and evolution in the Netherlands, a hybrid positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis has been conducted using observations from May, June, and September 2021 collected in a rural site of Cabauw in Central Netherlands. The hybrid input matrix consists of the full organic mass spectrum acquired from a time-of-flight aerosol chemical speciation monitor (ToF-ACSM), ACSM species concentrations, and binned particle size distribution concentrations from a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). These hybrid PMF analyses discerned six factors that describe aerosol composition variations: four size-driven factors that are related to new particle formation and growth (F6, F5, F4, and F3), and two bulk factors driven by composition, not size (F2, F1). The smallest-diameter size factor (F6) contains ammonium sulfate and organics, and typically occurs during the daytime. Newly formed particles, represented by F6, are correlated with wind from the southwesterly-westerly, northerly, and easterly sectors that transport sulfur oxides (SO_x), ammonia (NH₃), and organic precursors to Cabauw. As the particles grow from F6 to F3, nitrate plays an increasing role, and the particle loading diurnal cycle shifts from daytime to a nighttime maximum. The inorganic ion balance and organics composition in the bulk atmosphere affects the chemical composition variation across factors and seasons. Changing ammonium-sulfate-nitrate equilibrium shifts inorganic species among factors, and greater organics availability makes secondary organic aerosol (SOA) more influential in summertime aerosol growth, principally due to volatility differences produced by seasonal variation in photooxidation and temperature.

Received: 23 Mar 2023 – Discussion started: 05 Apr 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1488 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 (1488 KB)

Supplement (1954 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

08 Sep 2023

What chemical species are responsible for new particle formation and growth in the Netherlands? A hybrid positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis using aerosol composition (ACSM) and size (SMPS)

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10015–10034, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10015-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10015-2023, 2023

Short summary

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-554', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2023

Nursanto et al. utilize three months of observations collected in Cabauw, Netherlands, to investigate what aerosols control new particle formation (NPF). Using an Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) and scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) with positive matrix factorization (PMF), the authors found four distinct factors associated with the start and growth of new particles and two factors associated with background, large particles. The factors found by the authors were generally similar across the three different months. They generally found sulfate was associated with the beginning of an NPF event and nitrate was observed during the condensational growth. Further, organics were both associated with NPF and condensation. The authors also associate the events with different relative chemical composition of aerosol (organic rich, nitrate rich, sulfate rich, ammonium rich) and back trajectories for where the air masses originated.
Though this article is potentially of interest to the ACP community, and the authors have done a good job in setting up the scientific quesiton and premise, there are many technical aspects and analysis that either needs further discussion and/or evaluation, which are detailed below, prior to publication to ACP.
Major
1) In general, much more details are needed in the measurements. There are many key details that are necessary in evaluating the science that have not been addressed. These include:

1.1) What size particle lens was used? It is not clear if a PM1 or PM2.5 particle lens was used, which is both important in the flow rates for the cyclone and the aerosol diameter cut-offs (further discussed below).

1.2) What was the flow rate throughout the system? Was there an external pull for the ACSM to reduce residence times? What type of tubing was used? Was the inlet heated or not? Any concern about temperature gradients between inlet outside and instrument inside?

1.3) Were the SMPS and ACSM on same or different inlets? If different, how far apart were the two inlets?

1.4) Was a drier used for either or both instruments?

1.5) More information needs to be included about the SMPS, as it is one of the key instruments. This includes type of DMA and CPC, resolution, type of column, software for analysis, type of neutralizer source, etc.

1.6) What are the limits of detection for everything? E.g., were any of the measurements at or below LOD for when trying to investigate NPF?
2) Some further discussion or details also needs to be included for PMF. This includes:

2.1) Why were the total mass concentration for the inorganics instead of their ions used?

2.2) Why was potassium used? It is generally related with surface ionization of the vaporizer. Evidence that the potassium was from aerosols and not surface ionization should be included in the SI.

2.3) Why were the 18 bins selected for the SMPS? Was this due to the software, or did this provide the optimal data for analysis? Would fewer bins be better or worse? Further, some more discussion about the weighting of the SMPS data and errors in the SI would be beneficial.
3) Looking at the PMF organic profiles for all seasons, many of the profiles look very similar and/or like they are split solutions. E.g., in Fig. 3, the mass spectra for organics for solution F6, F4, F2, and F1 look nearly identical, and there are mass spectra for organics that look nearly identical in the SI. Should these solutions be combined? Also, the profiles are generally surprising looking as they do not look like profiles expected for ambient aerosol. Since there can be a potential bias in the CO2+ signal from CV, was m/z 44 (and associated ions) downweighted the similar amount as is typical for SV or downweighted more? Inclusion of the time series of each profile and SMPS data associated with that factor in the SI would also be extremely beneficial here in further evaluating and understanding if each solution is unique and real.
4) One very large concern is what aerosol diameters are being observed with the ACSM. If it is using a PM1 lens, any aerosol below 40 nm is not observed, and aerosol between 40 and 70 to 100 nm is only fractionally observed (e.g., approximate linear growth in the amount of aerosol observed with diameter to 70 - 100 nm). However, if it is PM2.5 lens, the ACSM will only observe 100% of aerosol for diameter > 110 nm. Thus, any aerosol observed for most of the solutions/modes for NPF are very surprising. Since many of the figures show potential contribution of "large" particles (>100 nm diameter) showing small contribution to the factor, how much volume is the small, large particle, contribution adding? E.g., is the volume large enough that that is what is leading to the aerosol being observed by the ACSM?
5) Looking at the progession of the NPF with the ACSM data is very surprising and needs further discussions. Some specific questions that need to be addressed are listed below:

5.1) How does the composition shift entirely from sulfate to organics or sulfate/organics to nitrate between F6 to F5? What happened to the sulfate? Looking at the solutions, it appears that F6 --> F4 and may be F5 --> F3; however, as it is presented and discussed, it appears the NPF event goes from F6 --> F5 --> F4 --> F3.

5.2) Similarly, what happened to f(CO2)? Highly oxyenated material may be necessary for the initiation of NPF; however, it should not completely disappear as compounds with higher volatility, lower f(CO2) condenses onto the aeorosol.
6) Looking at the time series of SMPS number concentration vs time (Fig 5 & SI), it is not clear what has lead to some events being specifically selected as NPF and other times where there is what appears to be rapid particle formation not being selected as an NPF. For example, in Fig. 5, why was the third event selected as it appears it only went to 30-40 nms and stoppped but later times (after 5/30) not selected?
7) Fig 6 and associated figures in SI, it is surprising how the normalized mass spans what appears to be a larger time frame than the NPF event. E.g., Fig. S4 shows that the events are ~ 4 - 6 hours; however, looking at Fig. 6 (and associated figures), it seems that it takes a full 12 hrs to go from F6 --> F3. Clairification in how this figure/results are related to NPF needs to be further detailed.
8) Section S2. Further clarification needs to be added in this section to discuss the thermodynamics vs kinetics that may be controlling NPF and the aerosol composition in general. It is recommended that Weber et al. (2016) and Pye et al. (2020) are reviewed and incoporated in the discussions here, for the following reasons.

8.1) Are the values 0.99 and 0.98 statistically different, considering the overall uncertainties with the ACSM?

8.2) It is nearly impossible to say anything about aerosol acidity in the boundary layer just with charge balance calculated with the ACSM/AMS. E.g., it was not until the ammonium balance dropped below 0.65 could aerosol acidity be directly related to the charge balance measured on the AMS (ACSM) (Schueneman et al., 2021).

8.3) Though NO3 and SO4 would be with other cations, generally, both the cations and anions would be not easily observable due to the higher boiling point and the aerosol being more refractory. It would be recommended to say that both the cations and anions from these salts would be slowly detected and not "not detected." (Line 939 SI).

8.4) Line 945 - 950. This needs to be rephrased as both the association of sulfate with a base is both kinetically and thermodynamically controlled (see Weber et al., 2016 and Pye et al., 2020). Sulfuric acid will first react with a base (either ammonia or an amine) very quickly; then, it will more slowly form the ammonium sulfate or double-amine sulfate. E.g., > 100 ug m^-3 NH3 was estimated to be needed to make pure ammonium sulfate. Instead, it will be a combination of ammonium sulfate and bisulfate in the aerosol phase. Further, a combination of factors (temperature, relative humidity, ammonia, and ammonium) will play in the role to start having ammonium nitrate in the aerosol phase, which is best explained with a thermodynamic model. Even at "low" pH (~2), ammonium nitrate will be present even though the sulfate is not pure ammonium sulfate. Thus, it is not as straightforward that all the ammonia reacts with sulfate to form ammonium sulfate and the remainder then reacts with nitrate.

8.5) The terms "nitrate excess" and "sulfate-rich" also are hard to follow for the reasons discussed in 8.4.
9) What does an "orgnaic-rich" period mean, in that it was related to ammonium? Why was ammonium used to normalize and determine organic rich vs poor? Clarification in what this chemically means should be addressed.
Minor
1) Line 333, believe September should be fall instead of summer?
2) line 364, what is quiet NPF?
3) Sect 3.3 Title should be F6, F5, F4, F3 and not F7, F6, F5, F4
4) Line 225. A discussion about what happened to the sulfate and why it is suddenly poor in Sept should be included

References:

Pye et al. The Acidity of Atmospheric Particles and Clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 4809 - 4888. doi:10.5194/acp-20-4809-2020, 2020.
Schueneman et al. Aerosol pH Indicator and Organosulfate Detectability from Aerosol Mass Spectrometry Measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 4, 2237 - 2260. doi:10.5194/amt-14-2237-2021, 2021.
Weber et al. High Aerosol Acidity Despite Declining Atmospheric Sulfate Concentrations Over the Past 15 Years. Nature Geosci. 9, 282-285. doi:10.1038/ngeo2665

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-554', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2023
Nursanto et al. provided insights in new particle formation of different chemical species by combining organic aerosol mass spectrum, inorganic mass concentration from ACSM, and 18 particle size bins from SMPS. It suggests that the small-size particles are related to the transport of SOx, NH3, and some organic precursors. Moreover, nitrate plays an important role while particle size grows. However, there are still some fundamental questions that need to be addressed to draw such conclusions.
General comments:
PM_2.5 inlet of ACSM is subject to a significant loss for particles that have a small size, do you believe SMPS and ACSM are measuring the same thing? Do you believe these small particles in F6 were actually measured by ACSM?

A more detailed description of how to balance the estimated error from different instruments is required (in this case, since mass conc. of inorganic were used, it’s like combining three different datasets).

A more detailed description of the number of factor decisions is required.

Why only up to m/z 100 were used? ToF-ACSM has data up to m/z 200 that potentially can increase the capability of better PMF factor separations.

The PMF solutions, especially the OA factors are not convincing, even with CV-ACSM, literature has shown successful PMF analyses with reasonable solutions in both China and Atalanta. The PMF factors are not well-separated and seems like the authors define the factors heavily based on the SMPS data. Authors need to show that factors are not mixed from time series, diurnal, and mass spectrums. Currently, the mass spectrum from OA suggests they are mixed. In addition, bootstrap should be conducted to demonstrate that current results are robust and stable.

How do PMF results look like when you only use the OA mass spectrum? Does it also provide a 6-factor solution that supports your current conclusions (e.g., K related to biomass burning)

Specific comments:
Line 101: Would be great if you can provide the average temperature of May when you say it was characterized as moderate spring temperatures in the text. Same for the highest temperature for June and the warm temperature for Sep.
Line 124: These citations are rather for collection efficiency correction based on SV. I feel like it’s better if you can explain the CE in your word instead of citing this literature since you are not using their methods to apply CE correction.
Line 129: Please cite James Allen’s paper for the fragmentation table you used.
Line 133: How confident are you about your potassium signals from ToF-ACSM, I’ve barely seen any of the other studies report it. Did you also conduct RIE calibration for it?
Line 146: mass-to-charge ratio?
Line 153: It’s great that the authors considered balancing the variables from the different instruments, but the detailed description and how well the weighting should be discussed in this study. Because it is the key to ensuring the quality of the results.
Line 161: As the most subjective part of the PMF, it would need more detailed descriptions and illustrations to justify your selection of the number of factors. Also, did you bootstrap your final solution to make sure your results are stable? This step is also important to make sure the solution is representative and robust.
Line 198-199: This statement of lower f44 and higher f43 is often referred to as HOA is simply false. There are lots of primary sources that could have this feature. Please rephrase.
Line 200-203: There are quite a few studies of PMF using CV ACSM already, therefore, I think the authors cannot simply say that your results are not comparable with other works e.g., Joo et al., 2021 and Zheng et al., 2020. I’m still convinced that the CV ACSM should provide sufficient information to resolve reasonable PMF factors based on literature and some ongoing studies.
Line 258-259: I have a hard time believing that OA correlates with K signal leads to biomass burning origin, not to mention how trustworthy the K signal is from the ACSM. If the K signal is so pronounced and you believe it is from biomass burning, you shall be able to resolve a biomass burning OA factor in Sep. I wonder if that’s the case, otherwise, it is difficult to believe your statement.
Figure 3, S1 and S2:
The diurnal plots for each factor shall be displayed side by side with the factor profiles for all three months to have a better comparison among factors to conclude F1 seems to be aged.
Figure 1:
Perhaps it’s better to combine Fig 1 and 2 to have a better visualization of where the wind comes from.

References
Joo, T., Chen, Y., Xu, W., Croteau, P., Canagaratna, M. R., Gao, D., Guo, H., Saavedra, G., Kim, S. S., Sun, Y., Weber, R., Jayne, J., & Ng, N. L. (2021). Evaluation of a New Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) System at an Urban Site in Atlanta, GA: The Use of Capture Vaporizer and PM 2.5 Inlet. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 5(10), 2565–2576. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00173
Zheng, Y., Cheng, X., Liao, K., Li, Y., Li, Y. J., Huang, R.-J., Hu, W., Liu, Y., Zhu, T., Chen, S., Zeng, L., Worsnop, D. R., & Chen, Q. (2020). Characterization of anthropogenic organic aerosols by TOF-ACSM with the new capture vaporizer. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 13(5), 2457–2472. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2457-2020
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-RC2
AC1: 'Author response to reviewers egusphere-2023-554', Juliane Fry, 19 Jun 2023

See attached.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-554', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2023

Nursanto et al. utilize three months of observations collected in Cabauw, Netherlands, to investigate what aerosols control new particle formation (NPF). Using an Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) and scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) with positive matrix factorization (PMF), the authors found four distinct factors associated with the start and growth of new particles and two factors associated with background, large particles. The factors found by the authors were generally similar across the three different months. They generally found sulfate was associated with the beginning of an NPF event and nitrate was observed during the condensational growth. Further, organics were both associated with NPF and condensation. The authors also associate the events with different relative chemical composition of aerosol (organic rich, nitrate rich, sulfate rich, ammonium rich) and back trajectories for where the air masses originated.
Though this article is potentially of interest to the ACP community, and the authors have done a good job in setting up the scientific quesiton and premise, there are many technical aspects and analysis that either needs further discussion and/or evaluation, which are detailed below, prior to publication to ACP.
Major
1) In general, much more details are needed in the measurements. There are many key details that are necessary in evaluating the science that have not been addressed. These include:

1.1) What size particle lens was used? It is not clear if a PM1 or PM2.5 particle lens was used, which is both important in the flow rates for the cyclone and the aerosol diameter cut-offs (further discussed below).

1.2) What was the flow rate throughout the system? Was there an external pull for the ACSM to reduce residence times? What type of tubing was used? Was the inlet heated or not? Any concern about temperature gradients between inlet outside and instrument inside?

1.3) Were the SMPS and ACSM on same or different inlets? If different, how far apart were the two inlets?

1.4) Was a drier used for either or both instruments?

1.5) More information needs to be included about the SMPS, as it is one of the key instruments. This includes type of DMA and CPC, resolution, type of column, software for analysis, type of neutralizer source, etc.

1.6) What are the limits of detection for everything? E.g., were any of the measurements at or below LOD for when trying to investigate NPF?
2) Some further discussion or details also needs to be included for PMF. This includes:

2.1) Why were the total mass concentration for the inorganics instead of their ions used?

2.2) Why was potassium used? It is generally related with surface ionization of the vaporizer. Evidence that the potassium was from aerosols and not surface ionization should be included in the SI.

2.3) Why were the 18 bins selected for the SMPS? Was this due to the software, or did this provide the optimal data for analysis? Would fewer bins be better or worse? Further, some more discussion about the weighting of the SMPS data and errors in the SI would be beneficial.
3) Looking at the PMF organic profiles for all seasons, many of the profiles look very similar and/or like they are split solutions. E.g., in Fig. 3, the mass spectra for organics for solution F6, F4, F2, and F1 look nearly identical, and there are mass spectra for organics that look nearly identical in the SI. Should these solutions be combined? Also, the profiles are generally surprising looking as they do not look like profiles expected for ambient aerosol. Since there can be a potential bias in the CO2+ signal from CV, was m/z 44 (and associated ions) downweighted the similar amount as is typical for SV or downweighted more? Inclusion of the time series of each profile and SMPS data associated with that factor in the SI would also be extremely beneficial here in further evaluating and understanding if each solution is unique and real.
4) One very large concern is what aerosol diameters are being observed with the ACSM. If it is using a PM1 lens, any aerosol below 40 nm is not observed, and aerosol between 40 and 70 to 100 nm is only fractionally observed (e.g., approximate linear growth in the amount of aerosol observed with diameter to 70 - 100 nm). However, if it is PM2.5 lens, the ACSM will only observe 100% of aerosol for diameter > 110 nm. Thus, any aerosol observed for most of the solutions/modes for NPF are very surprising. Since many of the figures show potential contribution of "large" particles (>100 nm diameter) showing small contribution to the factor, how much volume is the small, large particle, contribution adding? E.g., is the volume large enough that that is what is leading to the aerosol being observed by the ACSM?
5) Looking at the progession of the NPF with the ACSM data is very surprising and needs further discussions. Some specific questions that need to be addressed are listed below:

5.1) How does the composition shift entirely from sulfate to organics or sulfate/organics to nitrate between F6 to F5? What happened to the sulfate? Looking at the solutions, it appears that F6 --> F4 and may be F5 --> F3; however, as it is presented and discussed, it appears the NPF event goes from F6 --> F5 --> F4 --> F3.

5.2) Similarly, what happened to f(CO2)? Highly oxyenated material may be necessary for the initiation of NPF; however, it should not completely disappear as compounds with higher volatility, lower f(CO2) condenses onto the aeorosol.
6) Looking at the time series of SMPS number concentration vs time (Fig 5 & SI), it is not clear what has lead to some events being specifically selected as NPF and other times where there is what appears to be rapid particle formation not being selected as an NPF. For example, in Fig. 5, why was the third event selected as it appears it only went to 30-40 nms and stoppped but later times (after 5/30) not selected?
7) Fig 6 and associated figures in SI, it is surprising how the normalized mass spans what appears to be a larger time frame than the NPF event. E.g., Fig. S4 shows that the events are ~ 4 - 6 hours; however, looking at Fig. 6 (and associated figures), it seems that it takes a full 12 hrs to go from F6 --> F3. Clairification in how this figure/results are related to NPF needs to be further detailed.
8) Section S2. Further clarification needs to be added in this section to discuss the thermodynamics vs kinetics that may be controlling NPF and the aerosol composition in general. It is recommended that Weber et al. (2016) and Pye et al. (2020) are reviewed and incoporated in the discussions here, for the following reasons.

8.1) Are the values 0.99 and 0.98 statistically different, considering the overall uncertainties with the ACSM?

8.2) It is nearly impossible to say anything about aerosol acidity in the boundary layer just with charge balance calculated with the ACSM/AMS. E.g., it was not until the ammonium balance dropped below 0.65 could aerosol acidity be directly related to the charge balance measured on the AMS (ACSM) (Schueneman et al., 2021).

8.3) Though NO3 and SO4 would be with other cations, generally, both the cations and anions would be not easily observable due to the higher boiling point and the aerosol being more refractory. It would be recommended to say that both the cations and anions from these salts would be slowly detected and not "not detected." (Line 939 SI).

8.4) Line 945 - 950. This needs to be rephrased as both the association of sulfate with a base is both kinetically and thermodynamically controlled (see Weber et al., 2016 and Pye et al., 2020). Sulfuric acid will first react with a base (either ammonia or an amine) very quickly; then, it will more slowly form the ammonium sulfate or double-amine sulfate. E.g., > 100 ug m^-3 NH3 was estimated to be needed to make pure ammonium sulfate. Instead, it will be a combination of ammonium sulfate and bisulfate in the aerosol phase. Further, a combination of factors (temperature, relative humidity, ammonia, and ammonium) will play in the role to start having ammonium nitrate in the aerosol phase, which is best explained with a thermodynamic model. Even at "low" pH (~2), ammonium nitrate will be present even though the sulfate is not pure ammonium sulfate. Thus, it is not as straightforward that all the ammonia reacts with sulfate to form ammonium sulfate and the remainder then reacts with nitrate.

8.5) The terms "nitrate excess" and "sulfate-rich" also are hard to follow for the reasons discussed in 8.4.
9) What does an "orgnaic-rich" period mean, in that it was related to ammonium? Why was ammonium used to normalize and determine organic rich vs poor? Clarification in what this chemically means should be addressed.
Minor
1) Line 333, believe September should be fall instead of summer?
2) line 364, what is quiet NPF?
3) Sect 3.3 Title should be F6, F5, F4, F3 and not F7, F6, F5, F4
4) Line 225. A discussion about what happened to the sulfate and why it is suddenly poor in Sept should be included

References:

Pye et al. The Acidity of Atmospheric Particles and Clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 4809 - 4888. doi:10.5194/acp-20-4809-2020, 2020.
Schueneman et al. Aerosol pH Indicator and Organosulfate Detectability from Aerosol Mass Spectrometry Measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 4, 2237 - 2260. doi:10.5194/amt-14-2237-2021, 2021.
Weber et al. High Aerosol Acidity Despite Declining Atmospheric Sulfate Concentrations Over the Past 15 Years. Nature Geosci. 9, 282-285. doi:10.1038/ngeo2665

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-554', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2023
Nursanto et al. provided insights in new particle formation of different chemical species by combining organic aerosol mass spectrum, inorganic mass concentration from ACSM, and 18 particle size bins from SMPS. It suggests that the small-size particles are related to the transport of SOx, NH3, and some organic precursors. Moreover, nitrate plays an important role while particle size grows. However, there are still some fundamental questions that need to be addressed to draw such conclusions.
General comments:
PM_2.5 inlet of ACSM is subject to a significant loss for particles that have a small size, do you believe SMPS and ACSM are measuring the same thing? Do you believe these small particles in F6 were actually measured by ACSM?

A more detailed description of how to balance the estimated error from different instruments is required (in this case, since mass conc. of inorganic were used, it’s like combining three different datasets).

A more detailed description of the number of factor decisions is required.

Why only up to m/z 100 were used? ToF-ACSM has data up to m/z 200 that potentially can increase the capability of better PMF factor separations.

The PMF solutions, especially the OA factors are not convincing, even with CV-ACSM, literature has shown successful PMF analyses with reasonable solutions in both China and Atalanta. The PMF factors are not well-separated and seems like the authors define the factors heavily based on the SMPS data. Authors need to show that factors are not mixed from time series, diurnal, and mass spectrums. Currently, the mass spectrum from OA suggests they are mixed. In addition, bootstrap should be conducted to demonstrate that current results are robust and stable.

How do PMF results look like when you only use the OA mass spectrum? Does it also provide a 6-factor solution that supports your current conclusions (e.g., K related to biomass burning)

Specific comments:
Line 101: Would be great if you can provide the average temperature of May when you say it was characterized as moderate spring temperatures in the text. Same for the highest temperature for June and the warm temperature for Sep.
Line 124: These citations are rather for collection efficiency correction based on SV. I feel like it’s better if you can explain the CE in your word instead of citing this literature since you are not using their methods to apply CE correction.
Line 129: Please cite James Allen’s paper for the fragmentation table you used.
Line 133: How confident are you about your potassium signals from ToF-ACSM, I’ve barely seen any of the other studies report it. Did you also conduct RIE calibration for it?
Line 146: mass-to-charge ratio?
Line 153: It’s great that the authors considered balancing the variables from the different instruments, but the detailed description and how well the weighting should be discussed in this study. Because it is the key to ensuring the quality of the results.
Line 161: As the most subjective part of the PMF, it would need more detailed descriptions and illustrations to justify your selection of the number of factors. Also, did you bootstrap your final solution to make sure your results are stable? This step is also important to make sure the solution is representative and robust.
Line 198-199: This statement of lower f44 and higher f43 is often referred to as HOA is simply false. There are lots of primary sources that could have this feature. Please rephrase.
Line 200-203: There are quite a few studies of PMF using CV ACSM already, therefore, I think the authors cannot simply say that your results are not comparable with other works e.g., Joo et al., 2021 and Zheng et al., 2020. I’m still convinced that the CV ACSM should provide sufficient information to resolve reasonable PMF factors based on literature and some ongoing studies.
Line 258-259: I have a hard time believing that OA correlates with K signal leads to biomass burning origin, not to mention how trustworthy the K signal is from the ACSM. If the K signal is so pronounced and you believe it is from biomass burning, you shall be able to resolve a biomass burning OA factor in Sep. I wonder if that’s the case, otherwise, it is difficult to believe your statement.
Figure 3, S1 and S2:
The diurnal plots for each factor shall be displayed side by side with the factor profiles for all three months to have a better comparison among factors to conclude F1 seems to be aged.
Figure 1:
Perhaps it’s better to combine Fig 1 and 2 to have a better visualization of where the wind comes from.

References
Joo, T., Chen, Y., Xu, W., Croteau, P., Canagaratna, M. R., Gao, D., Guo, H., Saavedra, G., Kim, S. S., Sun, Y., Weber, R., Jayne, J., & Ng, N. L. (2021). Evaluation of a New Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) System at an Urban Site in Atlanta, GA: The Use of Capture Vaporizer and PM 2.5 Inlet. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 5(10), 2565–2576. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00173
Zheng, Y., Cheng, X., Liao, K., Li, Y., Li, Y. J., Huang, R.-J., Hu, W., Liu, Y., Zhu, T., Chen, S., Zeng, L., Worsnop, D. R., & Chen, Q. (2020). Characterization of anthropogenic organic aerosols by TOF-ACSM with the new capture vaporizer. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 13(5), 2457–2472. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2457-2020
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-RC2
AC1: 'Author response to reviewers egusphere-2023-554', Juliane Fry, 19 Jun 2023

See attached.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-AC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by Juliane Fry on behalf of the Authors (19 Jun 2023) Author's response Manuscript

EF by Polina Shvedko (23 Jun 2023) Author's tracked changes

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Jun 2023) by Veli-Matti Kerminen

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (30 Jun 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Nursanto et al. utilize 3 months of aerosol observations collected in the Cabauw, Netherlands, ground site to investigate what controls new particle formation (NPF) and aerosol growth, using the aerosol chemical speciation monitor (ACSM), scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS), and positive matrix factorization (PMF). They find that sulfate and secondary organic aerosol contributes to NPF, primary organic aerosol and nitrate contributes to particle growth, and that the "background" aerosol is a combination of inorganic and organic aerosol.

The authors have done an exemplary job in taking all the comments from the reviewers into account and revising their manuscript. Overall, the revisions have made the paper much easier to follow and to understand with a very nice story about NPF that occurs in Cabauw, Netherlands.

After reviewing the responses and rereading the paper, there are three minor comments the authors should address prior to publication:

1) The authors interchange MO-OOA and LO-OOA for the F4 factor for NPF. Please check which one it is. Further, it would be good to explain, if it is LO-OOA, why it is less-oxidized, as it is typically thought that very low volatility compounds are needed NPF. As it is not straight-forward to say that LO-OOA means it is semi- or low-volatile, understand this can be complicated, but would be beneficial for the story to reduce confusion or provide motivation for future studies.

2) The explanation about F4 and F3 starting at line 429 is extremely appreciated. I almost wish it was sooner, as seeing Fig. 3, Fig. 5, and the description about the factors prior to the explanation is occurring. I understand this may impact the flow of the paper, but not discussing why F3 does not looking like F4 with nitrate will cause confusion until the reader gets to line 429.

3) Comment 2) may be rectified by incorporating Fig (2) from the responses. I really appreciate the updated figures, including the Fig (1) from responses that is now Fig (3) in manuscript. Inclusion of Fig (2) provides a great summary and cartoon of the results and hypothesis the authors are discussing. Introduction of this Figure potentially before Fig (3) in the manuscript and a quick "overview" or something along that line could be of use for the readers.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Jul 2023) by Veli-Matti Kerminen

AR by Juliane Fry on behalf of the Authors (10 Jul 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Jul 2023) by Veli-Matti Kerminen

AR by Farhan Ramadzan Nursanto on behalf of the Authors (20 Jul 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Sep 2023

What chemical species are responsible for new particle formation and growth in the Netherlands? A hybrid positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis using aerosol composition (ACSM) and size (SMPS)

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10015–10034, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10015-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10015-2023, 2023

Short summary

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-554-supplement

Farhan R. Nursanto, Roy Meinen, Rupert Holzinger, Maarten C. Krol, Xinya Liu, Ulrike Dusek, Bas Henzing, and Juliane L. Fry

Viewed

Total article views: 765 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
536	216	13	765	67	6	10

HTML: 536
PDF: 216
XML: 13
Total: 765
Supplement: 67
BibTeX: 6
EndNote: 10

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	291	90	8	389
May 2023	73	37	1	111
Jun 2023	44	34	2	80
Jul 2023	66	23	1	90
Aug 2023	34	24	0	58
Sep 2023	28	8	1	37
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0
Oct 2024	0
Nov 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Apr 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2023	291	90	8	389
May 2023	73	37	1	111
Jun 2023	44	34	2	80
Jul 2023	66	23	1	90
Aug 2023	34	24	0	58
Sep 2023	28	8	1	37
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0
Oct 2024	0
Nov 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 757 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 757 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 21 Nov 2024

Download

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

Preprint (1488 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Particulate matter (PM) is a harmful air pollution that depends on the complex mixture of natural and anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere. Thus, in different regions and seasons, the way that PM is formed and grows can differ. In this study, we use a combined statistical analysis of the chemical composition and particle size distribution to determine what drives particle formation and growth, across seasons and using varying wind directions to elucidate the role of different sources.


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