the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jan 2024
First measurements of ecosystem-scale biogenic volatile organic compound fluxes over rapeseed reveal more significant terpenoid emissions than expected
Abstract. Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) play a large role in atmospheric chemistry as they are precursors of ozone and secondary organic aerosols. However, the analysis of their emission in croplands is scarce. This work constitutes, to our knowledge, the first quantification of ecosystem-scale biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) fluxes exchanged over a rapeseed crop field. The experimental campaign took place at the FR-Gri ICOS site (near Paris, France) between spring and summer 2017, during which the BVOC fluxes were measured continuously by the eddy-covariance method with a proton-transfer quad-injection time-of-flight mass-spectrometer instrument (PTR-Qi-TOF-MS). Standard emission factors (SEF) and OH reactivity fluxes were computed from the measured fluxes, and compared to the widely used model MEGAN2.1. Fifty-three BVOCs were significantly emitted or deposited during the campaign. Methanol was by far the most emitted one (83 to 91 % of summed emissions), followed by ethanol (1.5 to 11 %) and monoterpenes (1.2 to 1.6 %). Methanol SEF appeared to be overestimated during vegetation stages in MEGAN2.1. In addition, a 4-fold increase of emissions during the late senescence stage confirmed the necessity to use the ageing factor to represent methanol emissions in MEGAN2.1. Most noticeably, monoterpenes SEF computed in this study were 3 to 90 times larger than with MEGAN2.1. Consequently, this study shows that the share of OH reactivity represented by terpenoid compounds was underestimated in previous studies, pointing out the potentially more significant contribution of croplands to secondary organic aerosol formation.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(951 KB)
-
Supplement
(15 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(951 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(15 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
Review of “First measurements of ecosystem-scale biogenic volatile organic compound fluxes over rapeseed reveal more significant terpenoid emissions than expected”:
This manuscript presents BVOC Eddy covariance fluxes, measured by PTR-Qi-TOF-MS, above a rapeseed field in France. It resulted in measuring 53 VOCs that showed exchange, where the main 20 and their temporal variations over the growing season are discussed in detail. Methanol was clearly dominating the emissions (molar units), while formic acid was the most deposited compound. Acetic acid was the only compound (out of the main BVOCs), whose exchange changed from emission to deposition during the periods. Additionally, the standard emission factors were calculated and compared to the modeled emission factors from MEAGAN2.1 and the implications of the differences were discussed with a focus on the calculated OH reactivity.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and the results containing approximately four weeks of BVOC fluxes from rapeseed are very interesting for the scientific community. I am divided about this manuscript, as the results and discussion are well done, however, the underlying methods used are not up to the standards in the field and resulting shortcomings are not discussed. Therefore, I recommend the paper to be reconsidered after a revision.
Major comment:
- The used methods are the major flaw in this manuscript, which cause a huge uncertainty that affects all results and discussion. Calibrating none of the major VOCs, just using the toluene sensitivity for all compounds and disregarding fragmentation or proton affinity problems without (much) discussion really weakens the overall value of this manuscript. It is the standard in the field to use multi compound VOC mixtures to calibrate the expected main compounds. This standard helps to keep uncertainties low and well defined, to see instrumental problems and errors, and additionally it corrects for fragmentation and losses in the instrument. Especially after the first month of the presented measurements, where the sensitivity of the instrument dropped by 50% indicating significant instrumental problems, a calibration using BVOCs would have been very valuable.
Finally, the shortcomings and uncertainty of the used method are not discussed at all in this manuscript.
Detailed comments by line numbers:
L 16: delete (BVOC); already defined in line 15
L 21: Fifty-three BVOCs were… ; How many BVOCs were measured overall (i.e. how many BVOCs did not show significant exchange)?
L 25: … OH reactivity represented by terpenoid compounds was underestimated in previous studies …;
not sure what is meant: previous studies over rapeseed or all studies, which used MEAGAN to calculate the VOC emission and OH reactivity? As it is now, it sounds like all studies with OH reactivities underestimate OH reactivity by terpenoid emissions (which includes measured OH reactivity, e.g. CRM, or calculated OH reactivities from measured VOC fluxes). Please rephrase.L 66: Is a new paragraph needed here?
L 66-68: Recent developments…; Please rephrase, this publication (Sulzer et al., (2014) is now almost 10 years old, and the next generation of PTR-MS instruments (PTR3 and VOCUS) are commercially available since years, therefore please refrain from using “recent”.
L 68-69: When integrated … field scale (Loubet et al., 2022): This sounds like Loubet et al. (2022) was the first publication using this setup; Please refer to Ruuskanen et al. (2011) if your emphasis lies on EC fluxes with PTR-TOF, or the first publication using PTR-Qi-TOF if your emphasis is on this instrument (at least there is Millet et al., 2018; DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.8b00061; However, please verify that there is no earlier publication).
L 71: The objectives…; maybe a new paragraph?
L 97: …a 50 m heated PTFE tube…; what was the temperature?
L 110: … to synchronize the output from the Tofdaq software with the ultrasonic data at 20 Hz; Just to be sure, the sonic data was averaged to match the PTR data at 10Hz?
L 122-123: The calibrated… Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019); In principle, when calculating EC fluxes, there is no need to correct for the background (as only the concentration fluctuations are used), however, it is also correct to calculate the concentrations before, as long as, a constant background is subtracted for the same time period as one flux data point spans. Here you cite Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019), where the background correction was performed every 30 min, while you calculate 1 h fluxes. Does this mean that your 1h flux data (one data point) had two different backgrounds subtracted (one the first 30 min and another the second 30 min)?
L 124 & L125: It is very confusing that S and Si seem to be used without difference (already in the cited literature). Either it is S like in Eq. 3 (same value for all compounds), or Si like in L125 (different values for different compounds). Please correct.
L 129-130: The calibration factor… Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019):
- please clarify why in your manuscript only toluene was used (in contrary to the cited literature)
- please clarify what S was used for methanol (that of toluene like stated in this manuscript or 15 like in the cited literature)
- Finally, what is the expected error of this method (toluene sensitivity for all VOCs)? In the SI of Loubet et al (2022) “Loubet-COV3ER-wheat-2016-EC-Supp.pdf” the S/Stoluene is stated and gives a factor of 2.7 for methanol, 8.7 for formaldehyde, 4 for the monoterpenes and so on. If I understand your manuscript correctly, these known shortcomings of the used method were disregarded? If that should really be the case, the value of your results and conclusions diminishes quite a bit, as the uncertainties of the presented results are huge.L 130-131: S as equal to 4.87 …..2.47 and remained pretty constant (2.46 ± 0.03 on 16 August):
- could the reason be found for this drastic sensitivity loss?
- did all other calibration compounds see a similar decrease of sensitivity?
- could the reason for the loss be detector aging (see: Mueller et al., 2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2013.12.008)L 153: would it be possible to show a figure of the measurement site with the total footprint?
Table 1: would it be possible to add a line to the table which states the total emission and deposition of each period? This would make it easier to compare this study to other flux studies and increase the chance that it is cited.
Figure 2: I would recommend to move this figure to the supplement/appendix, as it does not show the evolution of the main BVOCs over the four investigated periods very well (Table 1 and Fig. 5 show this well though).
Figure 5: could you add all remaining emitted/deposited compounds (53) as one bar to A and B. Then the reader could see in one glimpse the total emission / deposition of the rapeseed during all periods.
L 377: (Brilli et al., 2016; Gallagher et al., 2000; Park et al., 2013, 2014): could you also add more recent publications?
L 391: Bachy et al. (2018), 2020; is it Bachy et al. (2018, 2020)?
L 410-411: However, formaldehyde fluxes should be considered with caution due to uncertainties in its response to air humidity (Loubet et al., 2022); this should be discussed in the methods and could be explained more detailed, for readers who are not familiar with the challenges when measuring VOCs with PAs close to water. Also please estimate these uncertainties in your presented fluxes.
L 499-500: …potentially making it more difficult to detect it using the PTR-MS technique adequately; I would deem this to be quiet an understatement. Measuring formaldehyde with reasonable uncertainties is a very challenging task. Please add literature to your claim (potentially).
L 513: … implication for modelling studies and OH reactivity; please rephrase, maybe: modelling studies and modeled OH reactivities (again, OH reactivity can also be measured, or calculated from measurements).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-RC1 - The used methods are the major flaw in this manuscript, which cause a huge uncertainty that affects all results and discussion. Calibrating none of the major VOCs, just using the toluene sensitivity for all compounds and disregarding fragmentation or proton affinity problems without (much) discussion really weakens the overall value of this manuscript. It is the standard in the field to use multi compound VOC mixtures to calibrate the expected main compounds. This standard helps to keep uncertainties low and well defined, to see instrumental problems and errors, and additionally it corrects for fragmentation and losses in the instrument. Especially after the first month of the presented measurements, where the sensitivity of the instrument dropped by 50% indicating significant instrumental problems, a calibration using BVOCs would have been very valuable.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Feb 2024
This research provides the first ecosystem-scale quantification of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) fluxes over a rapeseed field, utilizing eddy-covariance techniques and PTR-Qi-TOF-MS for continuous monitoring. During the campaign, it was found that 53 BVOC species were emitted or deposited, with methanol, ethanol, and monoterpenes being the most significant. The study's comparison of standard emission factors (SEFs) and OH reactivity against predictions by the MEGAN2.1 model revealed notable discrepancies, especially in the emissions of methanol and monoterpenes. These findings point to the need for model adjustments, suggesting that the contribution of cropland emissions to atmospheric chemistry and the formation of secondary organic aerosols might be more substantial than previously believed.
Regarding the PTR-MS measurements of BVOCs, I have some reservations about the post-calibration process. Specifically, my concern is that the calibration factors were determined based on m/z 93 alone. Given that the authors utilized multiple gases in the calibration standards, I wonder why they didn't calculate the factor S using the other gases. Have they evaluated how the results might vary with the use of different gases for calibration? Aside from this major point, I find the manuscript to be clearly written.
Line16. You have defined BVOC already in the previous lines.
Line 24. Consider mentioning that the 4-fold increase was methanol
Line 36. A recent study has been published that more directly investigates the impact of BVOCs on the lifetime of methane. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00292-0
Line 37. Up to 90%
Line 53. While the authors correctly note the scarcity of studies on BVOC emissions from rapeseed plants, I would like to highlight that emissions of methyl halides (halogenated VOCs) from rapeseed have been relatively more researched. Rapeseed is acknowledged as a significant terrestrial source of atmospheric methyl halides. It would be beneficial if this point could mentioned.
Line 66. Consider removing “recent”.
Line 89. Please consider mentioning the variety of the plant in the abstract, as the VOC emission profiles may vary among different varieties.
Line 110. Could you explain how the 10Hz BVOC data was synchronized with the 20Hz anemometer data?
Line 117. Consider citing equation (2) in the text.
Equation (3): S or Si?
Line 143-144. So you have heated the sampling tube? At what temperature?
Line 163 suggests that the juvenile phase of the rapeseed was not included in your study. Further, according to Line 240, it appears the flowering period was also missed. Given this, it might be worthwhile to specify the plant life stages covered during your sampling period in the abstract. This is important as the juvenile and flowering periods could exhibit significantly different emission profiles.
Line 168. Please define BBCH for its first appearance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Pauline Buysse, 19 Feb 2024
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We are currently preparing a full answer to these comments, and wish particularly to address the important remark about the calibration methodology and the loss of toluene sensitivity during the field campaign.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-AC1 -
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Pauline Buysse, 16 Apr 2024
Dear Handling Editor, Editorial Board and Reviewers,
I regret to inform you that we will eventually not be able to provide a revised version of the manuscript and would like to withdraw the manuscript. Despite numerous discussions among the co-authors, and attempts to get to a consolidated and more robust dataset in reply to reviewers’ comments about the calibration and quantification methodology, it appeared that the dataset lacks the necessary robustness and consistency for a rigorous publication. The main issue that we actually see is due to the large variability in PTR-MS sensitivity over the 4 months timeframe of the original measurement campaign, which appeared to be due to a series of PTRMS configuration settings modifications as a result of technical issues. All of this prevents us from eventually delivering a complete and trustful dataset with a low uncertainty. We are grateful to the reviewers for their precise and attentive reading which allowed to detect those issues.
In the next few months we will work on a shorter version of the dataset, focused on a period when the PTRMS configuration was stable, and which includes the period considered by Gonzaga-Gomez et al. (2019), in which chamber measurements were carried out during the same experimental campaign, in parallel to the eddy-covariance flux measurements shown in the present study.
We feel sorry for the time you spent on this too-early version of the manuscript. Nevertheless, all comments received will be carefully used in the preparation of the new manuscript. We do hope you will understand our decision in light of the elements exposed here above.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Buysse, on behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-AC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
Review of “First measurements of ecosystem-scale biogenic volatile organic compound fluxes over rapeseed reveal more significant terpenoid emissions than expected”:
This manuscript presents BVOC Eddy covariance fluxes, measured by PTR-Qi-TOF-MS, above a rapeseed field in France. It resulted in measuring 53 VOCs that showed exchange, where the main 20 and their temporal variations over the growing season are discussed in detail. Methanol was clearly dominating the emissions (molar units), while formic acid was the most deposited compound. Acetic acid was the only compound (out of the main BVOCs), whose exchange changed from emission to deposition during the periods. Additionally, the standard emission factors were calculated and compared to the modeled emission factors from MEAGAN2.1 and the implications of the differences were discussed with a focus on the calculated OH reactivity.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and the results containing approximately four weeks of BVOC fluxes from rapeseed are very interesting for the scientific community. I am divided about this manuscript, as the results and discussion are well done, however, the underlying methods used are not up to the standards in the field and resulting shortcomings are not discussed. Therefore, I recommend the paper to be reconsidered after a revision.
Major comment:
- The used methods are the major flaw in this manuscript, which cause a huge uncertainty that affects all results and discussion. Calibrating none of the major VOCs, just using the toluene sensitivity for all compounds and disregarding fragmentation or proton affinity problems without (much) discussion really weakens the overall value of this manuscript. It is the standard in the field to use multi compound VOC mixtures to calibrate the expected main compounds. This standard helps to keep uncertainties low and well defined, to see instrumental problems and errors, and additionally it corrects for fragmentation and losses in the instrument. Especially after the first month of the presented measurements, where the sensitivity of the instrument dropped by 50% indicating significant instrumental problems, a calibration using BVOCs would have been very valuable.
Finally, the shortcomings and uncertainty of the used method are not discussed at all in this manuscript.
Detailed comments by line numbers:
L 16: delete (BVOC); already defined in line 15
L 21: Fifty-three BVOCs were… ; How many BVOCs were measured overall (i.e. how many BVOCs did not show significant exchange)?
L 25: … OH reactivity represented by terpenoid compounds was underestimated in previous studies …;
not sure what is meant: previous studies over rapeseed or all studies, which used MEAGAN to calculate the VOC emission and OH reactivity? As it is now, it sounds like all studies with OH reactivities underestimate OH reactivity by terpenoid emissions (which includes measured OH reactivity, e.g. CRM, or calculated OH reactivities from measured VOC fluxes). Please rephrase.L 66: Is a new paragraph needed here?
L 66-68: Recent developments…; Please rephrase, this publication (Sulzer et al., (2014) is now almost 10 years old, and the next generation of PTR-MS instruments (PTR3 and VOCUS) are commercially available since years, therefore please refrain from using “recent”.
L 68-69: When integrated … field scale (Loubet et al., 2022): This sounds like Loubet et al. (2022) was the first publication using this setup; Please refer to Ruuskanen et al. (2011) if your emphasis lies on EC fluxes with PTR-TOF, or the first publication using PTR-Qi-TOF if your emphasis is on this instrument (at least there is Millet et al., 2018; DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.8b00061; However, please verify that there is no earlier publication).
L 71: The objectives…; maybe a new paragraph?
L 97: …a 50 m heated PTFE tube…; what was the temperature?
L 110: … to synchronize the output from the Tofdaq software with the ultrasonic data at 20 Hz; Just to be sure, the sonic data was averaged to match the PTR data at 10Hz?
L 122-123: The calibrated… Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019); In principle, when calculating EC fluxes, there is no need to correct for the background (as only the concentration fluctuations are used), however, it is also correct to calculate the concentrations before, as long as, a constant background is subtracted for the same time period as one flux data point spans. Here you cite Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019), where the background correction was performed every 30 min, while you calculate 1 h fluxes. Does this mean that your 1h flux data (one data point) had two different backgrounds subtracted (one the first 30 min and another the second 30 min)?
L 124 & L125: It is very confusing that S and Si seem to be used without difference (already in the cited literature). Either it is S like in Eq. 3 (same value for all compounds), or Si like in L125 (different values for different compounds). Please correct.
L 129-130: The calibration factor… Gonzaga Gomez et al. (2019):
- please clarify why in your manuscript only toluene was used (in contrary to the cited literature)
- please clarify what S was used for methanol (that of toluene like stated in this manuscript or 15 like in the cited literature)
- Finally, what is the expected error of this method (toluene sensitivity for all VOCs)? In the SI of Loubet et al (2022) “Loubet-COV3ER-wheat-2016-EC-Supp.pdf” the S/Stoluene is stated and gives a factor of 2.7 for methanol, 8.7 for formaldehyde, 4 for the monoterpenes and so on. If I understand your manuscript correctly, these known shortcomings of the used method were disregarded? If that should really be the case, the value of your results and conclusions diminishes quite a bit, as the uncertainties of the presented results are huge.L 130-131: S as equal to 4.87 …..2.47 and remained pretty constant (2.46 ± 0.03 on 16 August):
- could the reason be found for this drastic sensitivity loss?
- did all other calibration compounds see a similar decrease of sensitivity?
- could the reason for the loss be detector aging (see: Mueller et al., 2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2013.12.008)L 153: would it be possible to show a figure of the measurement site with the total footprint?
Table 1: would it be possible to add a line to the table which states the total emission and deposition of each period? This would make it easier to compare this study to other flux studies and increase the chance that it is cited.
Figure 2: I would recommend to move this figure to the supplement/appendix, as it does not show the evolution of the main BVOCs over the four investigated periods very well (Table 1 and Fig. 5 show this well though).
Figure 5: could you add all remaining emitted/deposited compounds (53) as one bar to A and B. Then the reader could see in one glimpse the total emission / deposition of the rapeseed during all periods.
L 377: (Brilli et al., 2016; Gallagher et al., 2000; Park et al., 2013, 2014): could you also add more recent publications?
L 391: Bachy et al. (2018), 2020; is it Bachy et al. (2018, 2020)?
L 410-411: However, formaldehyde fluxes should be considered with caution due to uncertainties in its response to air humidity (Loubet et al., 2022); this should be discussed in the methods and could be explained more detailed, for readers who are not familiar with the challenges when measuring VOCs with PAs close to water. Also please estimate these uncertainties in your presented fluxes.
L 499-500: …potentially making it more difficult to detect it using the PTR-MS technique adequately; I would deem this to be quiet an understatement. Measuring formaldehyde with reasonable uncertainties is a very challenging task. Please add literature to your claim (potentially).
L 513: … implication for modelling studies and OH reactivity; please rephrase, maybe: modelling studies and modeled OH reactivities (again, OH reactivity can also be measured, or calculated from measurements).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-RC1 - The used methods are the major flaw in this manuscript, which cause a huge uncertainty that affects all results and discussion. Calibrating none of the major VOCs, just using the toluene sensitivity for all compounds and disregarding fragmentation or proton affinity problems without (much) discussion really weakens the overall value of this manuscript. It is the standard in the field to use multi compound VOC mixtures to calibrate the expected main compounds. This standard helps to keep uncertainties low and well defined, to see instrumental problems and errors, and additionally it corrects for fragmentation and losses in the instrument. Especially after the first month of the presented measurements, where the sensitivity of the instrument dropped by 50% indicating significant instrumental problems, a calibration using BVOCs would have been very valuable.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Feb 2024
This research provides the first ecosystem-scale quantification of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) fluxes over a rapeseed field, utilizing eddy-covariance techniques and PTR-Qi-TOF-MS for continuous monitoring. During the campaign, it was found that 53 BVOC species were emitted or deposited, with methanol, ethanol, and monoterpenes being the most significant. The study's comparison of standard emission factors (SEFs) and OH reactivity against predictions by the MEGAN2.1 model revealed notable discrepancies, especially in the emissions of methanol and monoterpenes. These findings point to the need for model adjustments, suggesting that the contribution of cropland emissions to atmospheric chemistry and the formation of secondary organic aerosols might be more substantial than previously believed.
Regarding the PTR-MS measurements of BVOCs, I have some reservations about the post-calibration process. Specifically, my concern is that the calibration factors were determined based on m/z 93 alone. Given that the authors utilized multiple gases in the calibration standards, I wonder why they didn't calculate the factor S using the other gases. Have they evaluated how the results might vary with the use of different gases for calibration? Aside from this major point, I find the manuscript to be clearly written.
Line16. You have defined BVOC already in the previous lines.
Line 24. Consider mentioning that the 4-fold increase was methanol
Line 36. A recent study has been published that more directly investigates the impact of BVOCs on the lifetime of methane. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00292-0
Line 37. Up to 90%
Line 53. While the authors correctly note the scarcity of studies on BVOC emissions from rapeseed plants, I would like to highlight that emissions of methyl halides (halogenated VOCs) from rapeseed have been relatively more researched. Rapeseed is acknowledged as a significant terrestrial source of atmospheric methyl halides. It would be beneficial if this point could mentioned.
Line 66. Consider removing “recent”.
Line 89. Please consider mentioning the variety of the plant in the abstract, as the VOC emission profiles may vary among different varieties.
Line 110. Could you explain how the 10Hz BVOC data was synchronized with the 20Hz anemometer data?
Line 117. Consider citing equation (2) in the text.
Equation (3): S or Si?
Line 143-144. So you have heated the sampling tube? At what temperature?
Line 163 suggests that the juvenile phase of the rapeseed was not included in your study. Further, according to Line 240, it appears the flowering period was also missed. Given this, it might be worthwhile to specify the plant life stages covered during your sampling period in the abstract. This is important as the juvenile and flowering periods could exhibit significantly different emission profiles.
Line 168. Please define BBCH for its first appearance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Pauline Buysse, 19 Feb 2024
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We are currently preparing a full answer to these comments, and wish particularly to address the important remark about the calibration methodology and the loss of toluene sensitivity during the field campaign.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-AC1 -
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2438', Pauline Buysse, 16 Apr 2024
Dear Handling Editor, Editorial Board and Reviewers,
I regret to inform you that we will eventually not be able to provide a revised version of the manuscript and would like to withdraw the manuscript. Despite numerous discussions among the co-authors, and attempts to get to a consolidated and more robust dataset in reply to reviewers’ comments about the calibration and quantification methodology, it appeared that the dataset lacks the necessary robustness and consistency for a rigorous publication. The main issue that we actually see is due to the large variability in PTR-MS sensitivity over the 4 months timeframe of the original measurement campaign, which appeared to be due to a series of PTRMS configuration settings modifications as a result of technical issues. All of this prevents us from eventually delivering a complete and trustful dataset with a low uncertainty. We are grateful to the reviewers for their precise and attentive reading which allowed to detect those issues.
In the next few months we will work on a shorter version of the dataset, focused on a period when the PTRMS configuration was stable, and which includes the period considered by Gonzaga-Gomez et al. (2019), in which chamber measurements were carried out during the same experimental campaign, in parallel to the eddy-covariance flux measurements shown in the present study.
We feel sorry for the time you spent on this too-early version of the manuscript. Nevertheless, all comments received will be carefully used in the preparation of the new manuscript. We do hope you will understand our decision in light of the elements exposed here above.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Buysse, on behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2438-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 423 | 156 | 49 | 628 | 22 | 19 | 21 |
- HTML: 423
- PDF: 156
- XML: 49
- Total: 628
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Pauline Buysse
Benjamin Loubet
Raluca Ciuraru
Florence Lafouge
Brigitte Durand
Olivier Zurfluh
Céline Décuq
Olivier Fanucci
Lais Gonzaga Gomez
Jean-Christophe Gueudet
Sandy Bsaibes
Nora Zannoni
Valérie Gros
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(951 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(15 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote