the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Jan 2024
Laser Ablation – ICP-MS measurements for high resolution chemical ice core analyses with a first application to an ice core from Skytrain Ice Rise (Antarctica)
Abstract. For many ice core related scientific questions, like the analysis of fast changing climate signals, the depth resolution of conventional methods of analysis is not sufficient. In this study we present a setup of Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) for high resolution glacier ice impurity analysis to the sub-millimetre scale. This setup enables chemical impurity ice core analysis to a depth resolution of ~ 80 μm while consuming only minimal amounts of ice. The system was used for simultaneous analysis of sodium, magnesium and aluminium incorporated in the ice structure. In a first case study within the framework of the WACSWAIN (WArm Climate Stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet in the last INterglacial) project, the method was applied to a selection of samples from Skytrain ice core (West Antarctica), on a total length of 6.7 m consisting of about 130 single samples. The main goal of this study was to use the new LA-ICP-MS method to extract meaningful climate signals on a depth resolution level beyond the limits of Continuous Flow Analysis (CFA). A comparison between low resolution CFA data and the high resolution LA-ICP-MS data reveals generally good agreement on the decimetre scale. Stacking of parallel laser measurements together with frequency analysis is used to analyse the high resolution LA-ICP-MS data on the millimetre scale. Spectral analysis revealed that despite effects of impurity accumulation in ice crystal grain boundaries, periodic concentration changes in the Skytrain ice core on the millimetre scale can be identified in ice from 26 ka BP (kilo years before present; 1950 CE) and also from the Last Interglacial (LIG). These findings can open new possibilities for climate data interpretation with respect to fast changes in the last glacial and beyond.
- Preprint
(11638 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3071', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Feb 2024
General comments
Hoffmann et al. present a new laser ablation inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) setup for ice core analysis, established at the University of Cambridge. They analyzed several meters of the Skytrain ice core from coastal Antarctica in order to demonstrate the capability of the setup to detect layers thinned beyond the resolution of continuous flow analysis. Setups for LA-ICP-MS ice core analysis have now been established by several groups following an early pioneering phase in the 2000s. The interpretation of the high-resolution LA-ICP-MS ice core signals is not straight-forward but by now the technique has demonstrated to offer new means to investigate both, highly thinned stratigraphic signals and the ice-impurity interaction at the grain scale. However, compared to meltwater analyses only limited data exists so far and clearly there is still much to be learned from ice core analysis by LA-ICP-MS. It is thus of interest to the ice core community to see another group invest in this technique, in the hope that additional data obtained with different setups will also provide additional insight for various ice conditions. To fully demonstrate that the new setup can meet this expectation the work presented here could, and should, be much improved. In its present state the manuscript is not able to fully capitalize on the data, since substantial ambiguities remain about the production of the data and the interpretation. Considering the amount of work that very obviously has gone into the measurements, this is regrettable and hopefully can be remedied. In the following I am trying to provide concrete suggestions on where further work is needed in order to strengthen the manuscript. I will primarily focus on two main areas and neglect other smaller issues at this stage.
The first main area concerns the LA-ICP-MS setup and the analytical details regarding the measurement of ice core samples. Since this is the first paper about this system the analytical components matter and need to be well documented. The following points need to be addressed and clarified:
A fundamental issue seems to be that, based on the statement made in line 160, the laser did not couple reliably to the ice and that settings had to be constantly adjusted in order to achieve ablation. Is this why not one set of parameters by many were used for analysis? One would expect just one settings of ablation parameters being used (apart from preablation) like in previous studies targeting line profiles (e.g. Della Lunga et al., 2017).
In the manuscript the reported fluences vary strikingly between spot sizes: 6-8 J cm-2 (Table 2 states 6 J cm-2) for the “round” spot versus 36-55 J cm-2 (Table 2 states 36-50 J cm-2) for the rectangular spot. Is the laser really capable of providing 36-55 J cm-2 or is this a mistake? How could such a large difference in fluence needed for ablation be caused by the choice of the spot geometry, isn’t the beam homogenized and filtered by a mask to generate various spot sizes and geometries?
There are many instances throughout the manuscript where it is not clear for the reader what was done precisely and how. This needs to be made more traceable in order to understand which settings were actually used for data production. Section 2.3 is an example in this regard, with predominant use of reporting ranges (e.g. 20 – 150 Hz) and “typical” settings (“round spot of typically 150 µm”). These statements do not match the values reported in Table 2, which adds to the confusion.
Considering that fluences of 6-8 J cm-2 were needed for the “round” spot, this is significantly higher compared to previous LA-ICP-MS ice core analysis using a 193 nm excimer laser, where only 2-4 J cm-2 were required (e.g. Müller et al., 2011). This is an interesting point that deserves more attention: Is the large fluence needed due to the setup, or due to the ice? What happens if comparable settings to previous studies are used: No ablation visible or some ablation but not enough signal in the ICP-MS?
A related important point concerns the complete absence of any optical close-up images taken with the laser on-board camera (which should exist in this setup). Considering the general importance of such images, it is hard to understand why they are not mentioned here. Optical close-up images would not only help significantly also for data interpretation (see below) but should also demonstrate how ablation craters look like, in particular when using such high fluences and large spots. In addition, the optical appearance of the surface would be important to show with regards to sample preparation, where interesting differences exist compared to previous studies. After sample preparation in the cold room, the samples seem to be actually stored for a significant amount of time until they are measured. There are some hints that contamination could not be fully avoided (see below). Moreover, it would be of interest how much the ice surface changes visually after the final preparation step until measurement, e.g. by sublimation and associated widening of the grain boundaries on the surface? This could be important to better assess the impact of such matrix-related features on the signals obtained. The overview photos do not provide enough detail for this purpose.
There are discrepancies in the presentation of the washout time. Regarding the wide range in ablation settings used it should be addressed what effect these parameters had on the washout time, e.g. depending on element, spot size, geometry, fluence, etc. The so-called single pulse response (SPR) is typically measured as FW0.1M or FW0.01M (full-width at 10% of the maximum, or 1%, respectively) of single laser shots. In Figure 4, all peaks from a single spot show a FW0.1M in the range of 300-400 ms or more. This is inconsistent with the values reported in Table 3. Why does the DCI change the peak shape into a slow uptake (it seems 238U is almost going into saturation?). Further attention should be devoted to the fact that the washout times differ greatly between 238U and 23Na – what could be causing this, are the washout times different for all elements? It is stated in line 148 that the washout time was determined with a 50 µm spot – the rectangular one with fluence >36 J cm-2? What fluence was actually used for the SPR experiments on NIST glass, the same as for ice?
The calculation of the spatial resolution is important but in spite of making a serious effort, I was unable to understand how this was done. Scan speed seems to have be held constant for different spot sizes and repetition rates. Since a quadrupole ICP-MS was used, was there consideration of synchronization issues, e.g. between acquisition time and repetition rate (van Elteren et al., 2019)? A 1D line profile would be a map with just one line, but can be affected by imaging artifacts nonetheless. This is an additional issue to having a reliable estimate of the washout time, for each element (if different in washout) and ablation parameters used for data production. Then please carefully explain how the resolution was calculated for all settings.
The experiment with the blank ice is important but needs clarification. Again, one would expect this experiment to be conducted with all relevant ablation parameters that were used for data production, because they are likely to influence sensitivity in analysis. Here the “laser settings for the lowest depth resolution” (what are those?) were used. It would be important to show data for all analytes, not just Na. The initial peak (Figure 5) should not be caused by residual material in the sample line, if the helium is already flowing through the sample lines to the ICP-MS with the laser off? Figure 5 shows clear differences in baseline intensity levels, which are not discussed. Is this due to instrumental drift or, if the setup is used for analysis of other, Na-rich matrices, could this be due to remaining contamination within the ablation chamber? Relatedly, was there any correction for instrumental drifts, e.g. by ablating a line on the NIST glass standard before and after each acquisition. If not, how were drifts treated for constructing a single dataset from individual lines measured?
The discussion of the sharp peaks in the blank ice Na data needs to be clarified. If they were noise as proposed by the authors, what is the cause of this noise? They are unlikely caused by the ICP-MS because peaks are absent in gas blank but present when ablating: Evidence for the peaks being related to the ice. The authors speculate that microscopic particles could be the origin, but what about the grain boundaries? Especially relevant for Na. Carefully co-registering the signal in the ICP-MS together with the visual path of the laser crossing a boundary would be immediately helpful to answer this, even if watched by eye only. Considering these peaks, how does the blank ice signal look for the “higher depth resolution” settings? Regarding a potential cause, could it be contamination or an effect of storage and aging of the ice surface? How long has the MQ ice been stored between preparation and analysis? Maybe the occurrence of these peaks could be avoided by decontaminating the sample just before analysis. In line 192, the authors write “The average intensity of the signal retrieved from the blank ice is barely distinguishable from the one with just helium” and then in line 196 onwards “The median of the Na signals from MQ ice is on average about 9% higher than the one of the helium stream”, which is contradictory.
Ultimately, it cannot be ruled out that the peaks are related to remaining contamination on the ice, which is detectable due to the high resolution of LA-ICP-MS analysis. The removal as outliers is not convincingly justified. Visual images taken during ablation could help to test the hypothesis that these features are related to the ice.
The second area concerns signal interpretation as evidence for stratigraphic (annual) layering and the comparison with continuous flow analysis (CFA). The following points need to be addressed and clarified:
To my understanding the manuscript does not show any raw data, but only smoothed datasets. There should be generally showing of raw data (for multiple elements) and the effect of the applied smoothing.
If the goal was to identify annual layers in the LA-ICP-MS line profiles, one would have expected to see data covering a section where CFA is able to clearly resolve them. This data exists for the Skytrain ice core (Hoffmann et al., 2022). There, the LA-ICP-MS vs CFA comparison could show that i) annual layers exist for the investigated element and ii) provide guidance on how to identify them in the LA-ICP-MS data, in particular which elements, and ultimately the demonstration that annual layer detection is possible with this LA-ICP-MS data.
I think the authors have tried something similar but am not certain. Figure 6 shows an exemplary comparison between LA-ICP-MS and CFA data for a section between 83.2 and 84 m depth. On the one hand, this is below the depth of 60-70 m until which the identification of annual layers in Na was possible in CFA (Hoffmann et al., 2022). However, the authors write later in line 275 “The age model in this core section is based on annual layer counting of the CFA Na and Ca signals constrained by absolute age markers, mainly volcanic eruptions at this depth” – so was it possible to count annual layers at this depth in CFA? If so, where are they in Figure 6? On the other, the manuscript states that the expected annual layer thickness based on the age model at this depth is 11 cm, which should be within the range of Na depth resolution (3.8 – 4.7 cm, Hoffmann et al., 2022) and, the CFA Na data in fact shows 7-8 peaks within 80 cm of Figure 6. Yet the authors state in line 220 “This finding indicates, that even at this shallow core depth the sodium CFA signal might not be able to resolve seasonal variations present in the ice.” and in line 228 “This is surprising because, according to the spatial resolution of 4 cm of the CFA ICP-MS, it should in principle be possible to identify features smaller than the roughly 10 cm variations that are visible in the Na data. We attribute this remarkable smoothing of the CFA data mainly to turbulent mixing effects in the sample lines and the ion source of the CFA ICP-MS.”. This would mean that annual layers remain obscure at this depth 83.2 – 84 m and that the CFA resolution previously reported in Hoffmann et al. (2022) was overestimated? I find this confusing and tried to highlight the ambiguities.
Figure 8 is related to this issue, but shows fluorescence Ca from CFA, which has a higher depth resolution of 1.4 cm (Hoffmann et al., 2022). In Figure 8 it is compared to LA-ICP-MS Na, however. I would expect to see the direct comparison to LA-ICP-MS Ca which exists in Figure 6? Notably, also in Figure 8, CFA Ca shows about 8 peaks within 83.2 – 84 m depth.
To reiterate, showing the raw LA-ICP-MS data together with the smoothing is important. At present the smoothing levels appear arbitrary. E.g. in line 235 the authors write “The theoretical expected annual layer thickness at this depth is about 2.1 mm and therefore much smaller than the resolution of the CFA data. Again, to increase readability the LA data were smoothed using a running average of 4.5 mm.” This would mean you are eliminating a potential annual layer signal by smoothing, which could not have been what you intended?
The reasoning that spectral analysis can reveal periodic signals in the LA-ICP-MS data that correspond to annual layer predictions by the present age model is not convincing due to the following reasons: a) the annual layers are unlikely periodic over small depth intervals. The reality is much more complex, some layers can be spaced at smaller, some at greater distance (some could be missing entirely). The mentioned peaks in Figure 8 are illustrating this uneven spacing. b) the age model predictions (especially in the deeper parts) can have large uncertainties (which are not quantified in the text, however), c) it is not clear if the annual layers have even survived interactions with the ice matrix, e.g. given the potential imprint of grain boundaries on the Na signal. An in-depth test case from more shallow depth with annual layers in CFA and some indication on the imprint of the ice matrix (optical laser camera) would help to establish this approach, because at present it is not justified enough. The ambiguity regarding deep ice conditions remains regardless of this, however.
The authors are aware of these limitations and write in the conclusions “Nevertheless, the frequency analysis cannot conclusively and unrelated to other information be used to identify horizontal layering.”, but then one wonders why no other information was used here? The same goes for a more extended use of the parallel line approach. In one case, 8 parallel lines were measured and compared. Figure 10 shows the results, which are encouraging, but the “clear correlation” with a sine wave is an overstatement. There is one section with higher Na intensities and one section with lower intensities, at the bottom and the top section of the 8 lines (Figure 10, left). A longer profile would have been needed to discuss signal periodicity. A second case with 3 parallel lines is mentioned but the original profiles not shown. I would strongly recommend to extend this type of experiment with parallel lines, because it could bring much more clarity to the data especially in the deep ice. Note that I am not asking for full 2D imaging, which was clearly not within the scope of this work or maybe not possible. The importance of measuring parallel lines has been shown before (e.g. Della Lunga et al. (2017) stated that “the averaging of the LA signal between two or more parallel tracks spaced by a few millimetres is not only desirable, but necessary”). The subsampling of 2D images done by Bohleber et al. (2021) showed that the grain boundary imprint can remain dominant to parallel lines up to a resolution of a few 100 microns.
For the parallel line experiment in Figure 10 the data was filtered according to the “theoretical depth resolution of 185 µm”. Some high-frequency variations remain in the stack. The authors write in line 300: “These small scale variations can be caused by (i) incomplete decontamination of the sample surface, (ii) particles that show up as sharp peaks in the ICP-MS signal (iii) actual small scale intensity variations e.g. caused by accumulation of Na in crystal grain boundaries. Based solely on the line data presented here, which of these possible sources is the most dominant cannot be determined.” This could be very problematic, because it would mean that it cannot be ruled out that the signals are influenced by contamination? (See comments on blank ice above).
Section 3.4 greatly suffers from the initially mentioned remaining ambiguities in the data and needs to be revised carefully. In Figure 11, it is not clear how much smoothing was applied, but in any case, the low-pass filtered signal suggests close to twice as many maxima as the sine curve. It is unclear to the reader what these maxima may mean and it is unclear what uncertainty the “theoretical annual layer thickness” has for this 10 cm section. Then line 322 reads “Comparing the 2-4 mm periodicity to the sample picture in Fig. 11, suggests that this periodicity is likely to correlate with the estimated average crystal grain size in this depth. The 2-4 mm periodicity therefore probably does not represent layering in the sense of larger scale horizontal features, but accumulation of sodium in the crystal grain boundaries.” None of this is actually shown. Again, in the absence of imaging the parallel line approach could shed light on the grain boundary imprint, especially if combined with optical images of the laser camera. Notably this imprint could vary distinctly between sections and ice conditions and hence it is not sufficient to discuss this exemparily.
Just one other example of the ambiguity is the discussion of Magnesium in line 334 onwards. After noting detected areas of enhanced power in the spectral analysis, it is stated that “Magnesium is known to show a similar seasonality as sodium (e.g. Curran et al. (1998)).” However, Figure 6 shows no evidence of this potential seasonality. Then it is noted that “During the glacial, the total magnesium content contains a large fraction originating from mineral dust particles (de Angelis et al., 2013), which is not the case for sodium. The maxima in the fourier spectra at very small wavelengths of about 250 μm could hint to effects generated by ablation of such single particles. The soluble magnesium fraction can migrate into crystal grain boundaries (e.g. (Bohleber et al., 2021)). We therefore attribute the larger periods (3-6 mm and 8-12 mm) again to grain boundary effects.” The last sentence is speculative and not supported by data. Observing the laser cross grain boundaries and simultaneously recording Mg intensities would have provided important information here. The text goes on to say that ”It is remarkable, that the magnesium data shows an additional area of enhanced, although as well strongly intermittent power, around ∼ 1.5 mm period length and thus in the range of the annual layer thickness from the age model. In summary, these findings could be an indication that the magnesium is less affected by grain boundary effects than the sodium. In consequence, magnesium might be better suited for identification of annual layers, but this needs to be confirmed by more detailed analysis (parallel lines and signal stacking) in the future.” Also here, no proof for these statements referring to Mg being a better annual layer indicator are presented in the data.
This illustrates how the manuscript suffers from not having established well how an annual layer looks like in the different chemical species observed by LA-ICP-MS and discussing more thoroughly the differences between the chemical species shown in Figure 6. Based on CFA in Figure 8, Ca shows the most promising annual signal, in line with the findings by Hoffmann et al. (2022), although a better comparison with LA-ICP-MS Ca should be made in Figure 8. The “striking alignment” between CFA Ca and LA-ICP-MS Na in Figure 8 is an overstatement. Unfortunately, there is little Ca data presented due to a technical issue, line 241: “The LA-ICP-MS calcium signal suffered from a contamination issue in the ICP-MS at the time of these measurements.” How could a Ca-specific contamination in the ICP-MS have happened? This needs to be explained. Later on in the conclusions, the authors write “The calcium signal however was lost in the noise for most measurements.”
With all this taken into consideration, it is strange that no parallel lines were measured for the deepest ice samples with arguably the most complex conditions, line 362 onwards. This section is again mostly speculative about the origin of the features in the spectral analysis and needs better support by data. The conclusions need to be carefully rewritten with special emphasis on replacing speculative statements with statements that are actually supported by the results.
Specific comments
Considering the amount of major comments, I am only including a few specific comments below. This mostly concerns how references are made to existing literature, which should be extended and placed more carefully.
- Line 155: This needs to be rewritten after a more careful assessment of the washout times, although it is not entirely clear what the authors intend to show with the comparison of washout times to previous studies. Consider that the washout time as single pulse response is determined as FW0.1M or FW0.01M, and not by a single flank of the pulse signal. Otherwise you cannot compare these values to other studies.
- Line 349: Regarding the role of Aluminium and its relationship to particles, the actual relationship between a specific element and features like particles needs to be shown first and should not be assumed a-priori, e.g. some recent data by Bohleber et al. (2023).
- This is not the first study showing that heavily smoothed LA-ICP-MS signals agree with what is measured by CFA. The LA-ICP-MS vs CFA agreement has been shown and exploited in previous works (Sneed et al., 2015; Della-Lunga et al., 2017; Spaulding et al., 2017). The previous studies need to be credited accordingly in the respective statements in the text, of which there are several instances (e.g. lines 226).
References
Bohleber, P., Roman, M., Šala, M., Delmonte, B., Stenni, B., & Barbante, C. (2021). Two-dimensional impurity imaging in deep Antarctic ice cores: snapshots of three climatic periods and implications for high-resolution signal interpretation. The Cryosphere, 15(7), 3523-3538.
Bohleber, P., Stoll, N., Rittner, M., Roman, M., Weikusat, I., & Barbante, C. (2023). Geochemical Characterization of Insoluble Particle Clusters in Ice Cores Using Two‐dimensional Impurity Imaging. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 24(2), e2022GC010595.
Della Lunga, D., Müller, W., Rasmussen, S. O., Svensson, A., & Vallelonga, P. (2017). Calibrated cryo-cell UV-LA-ICPMS elemental concentrations from the NGRIP ice core reveal abrupt, sub-annual variability in dust across the GI-21.2 interstadial period. The Cryosphere, 11(3), 1297-1309.
Hoffmann, H. M., Grieman, M. M., King, A. C., Epifanio, J. A., Martin, K., Vladimirova, D., ... & Wolff, E. W. (2022). The ST22 chronology for the Skytrain Ice Rise ice core–Part 1: A stratigraphic chronology of the last 2000 years. Climate of the Past, 18(8), 1831-1847
Müller, W., Shelley, J. M. G., & Rasmussen, S. O. (2011). Direct chemical analysis of frozen ice cores by UV-laser ablation ICPMS. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 26(12), 2391-2395
Sneed, S. B., Mayewski, P. A., Sayre, W. G., Handley, M. J., Kurbatov, A. V., Taylor, K. C., ... & Spaulding, N. E. (2015). New LA-ICP-MS cryocell and calibration technique for sub-millimeter analysis of ice cores. Journal of glaciology, 61(226), 233-242.
Spaulding, N. E., Sneed, S. B., Handley, M. J., Bohleber, P., Kurbatov, A. V., Pearce, N. J., ... & Mayewski, P. A. (2017). A new multielement method for LA-ICP-MS data acquisition from glacier ice cores. Environmental science & technology, 51(22), 13282-13287.
van Elteren, J. T., Šelih, V. S., & Šala, M. (2019). Insights into the selection of 2D LA-ICP-MS (multi) elemental mapping conditions. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 34(9), 1919-1931.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3071-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3071', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Feb 2024
General comments
Paper by H.Hoffmann et al. presents the laser Ablation - ICP-MS measurements for high resolution chemical ice core analyses with a first application to an ice core from Skytrain Ice Rise (Antarctica). The new Cambridge LA-ICP-MS ice measurement system was applied to selection 130 samples over 6.7 m of the Skytrain Ice Rise ice core. Authors claim that that periodic concentration changes on the millimetre scale can be identified in ice from 26 ka BP.
LA-ICP-MS is a relatively new, promissing and challenging technique that offers ultra-high resolution data. Clear method descriptions and in-depth discussions are essential for such studies, as some challenges, such as elevated concentrations at crystal boundaries and contamination, can only be addressed experimentally.
The section on ablation settings and resolution needs further clarification. It appears from the text that the settings were optimized in each measurement session, but it's not clear how many measurement sessions there were. It seems from Table 4 that this was based on depth/age-dependent resolution requirements, but the text states that it depends also on ice sample surface conditions. The adjustments made for each sample and why they were made is not clearly outlined.
Regarding the low-resolution value mentioned in the text (182 µm) versus Table 4 (185 µm), there seems to be a discrepancy. Were any images taken during ablation? This could help understand the source of noise and peaks detected in MQ ice.
My major concern is the annual dating section and comparison to CFA. It's indeed an important point. It would be better to see the initial raw data and then the results of different smoothing techniques. Some statements in this section are not fully supported by the data/figures.
L.215-217 should be included in the figure caption.
The statement at L.220-221 about the higher frequency fluctuations detected by LA-ICP-MS compared to CFA is somewhat subjective and depends on the criteria used for annual counting. It's not clear how annual layers were identified before at this depth using CFA. Could you plot annual boundaries?
L.222 Regarding the statement about the correlation being less obvious but still visible, it might require further explanations or additional smoothing. At some places, correlation seems to be negative. The dip in concentration around 83.7 m is not well seen in the same place in LA-ICP-MS data. Further smoothing of the LA-ICP-MS data could make it visually comparable however, the raw data should be provided as well.
From Section 3.2, I'm not convinced that the conclusion holds true for all the elements mentioned at L.248. L.260, why compare calcium to sodium and not to 43Ca measured with LA-ICP-MS? The "striking alignment" mentioned might be overstated.
The section on spectral analysis is not very convincing since although overall periodicity for annual layers may be expected, we are looking at 1 m of the core and annual layers of approximately 10 cm. It's just ten years, and in this case, you can simply plot suggested boundaries and discuss discrepancies in CFA vs. LA-ICP-MS and differences for specific measured species.
Section 3.3.2 Needs clarification and possibly extension.
“Based on the conclusion here, which of these possible sources is the most dominant cannot be determined.” I would have expect similar experiment for other sections of the core with different grain size and different annual layer thickness in order to assess. The sources and level of contamination should be explained in this regard too.
At L.291, why was this section of the core chosen for the experiment? Did you perform line staking for other sections? Please comment and explain in the text.
Section 3.4 is rather speculative at the moment, which is also stated by the authors. I would recommend shortening it and reporting the main findings, with most of the Wavelet spectra and Fourier spectra put into supplementary materials since they show similar features.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3071-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 244 | 68 | 16 | 328 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 244
- PDF: 68
- XML: 16
- Total: 328
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1