the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
CCN estimations at a high-altitude remote site: role of organic aerosol variability and hygroscopicity
Abstract. High-altitude remote sites are unique places to study aerosol-cloud interactions since they are located at the altitude where clouds may form. At these remote sites, organic aerosols (OA) are the main constituents of the overall aerosol population, playing a crucial role in defining aerosol hygroscopicity (κ). To estimate the CCN budget at OA dominated sites, it is crucial to accurately characterize OA hygroscopicity (κOA) and how its temporal variability affects the CCN activity of the aerosol population since κOA is not well established due to complex nature of ambient OA. In this study, we performed CCN closures at a high-altitude remote site during summer season to investigate the role of κOA in predicting CCN concentrations under different atmospheric conditions. In addition, we performed an OA source apportionment using Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF). Three OA factors were identified from the PMF analysis: hydrocarbon-like OA (HOA), less-oxidized oxygenated OA (LO-OOA) and more-oxidized oxygenated OA (MO-OOA), with average contributions of 5 %, 36 % and 59 % of the total OA, respectively. This result highlights the predominance of secondary organic aerosol with high degree of oxidation at this high-altitude site. To understand the impact of each OA factor on the overall OA hygroscopicity we defined three κOA schemes that assume different hygroscopicity values for each OA factor. Our results show that the different κOA schemes lead to similar CCN closure results between observations and predictions (slope and correlation ranging between 1.08–1.40 and 0.89–0.94, respectively). However, the predictions were not equally accurate across the day. During nighttime, CCN predictions underestimated observations by 6–16 %, while during morning and midday hours, when the aerosol was influenced by vertical transport of particles and/or new particle formation events, CCN concentrations were overestimated by 0–20 %. To further evaluate the role of κOA in CCN predictions, we established a new OA scheme that uses the OA oxidation level (parameterized by the f44 factor) to calculate κOA and predict CCN. This method also shows a large bias, especially during midday hours (up to 40 %), indicating that diurnal information about the oxygenation degree does not improve CCN predictions. Finally, we used a neural network model with four inputs: N80 (number concentration of particles with diameter >80 nm), OA fraction, f44 and surface global radiation) to predict CCN. This model matched the observations better than the previous approaches, with a bias within ±10 % and with no daily variation, reproducing the CCN variability along the day. Therefore, neural network models seem to be an appropriate tool to estimate CCN concentrations using ancillary parameters accordingly.
-
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
(2564 KB)
-
Supplement
(495 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2564 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(495 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1059', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 May 2024
General comments:
This study deals with the complex dependence of CCN activity on the hygroscopicity of organic aerosols. Since CCN activity determines the indirect effect of aerosols on radiative forcing, the subject is of great interest. Using chemical and size distribution measurements, the authors study the role of OA hygroscopicity on CCN activity, for different atmospheric conditions. The positive matrix factorisation method was used to recover the relative contribution of OA with different oxidation levels, showing that medium and low oxidised OA are predominant, and that their contribution varies as a function of the vertical transport of PBL to the site. The originality of this study lies in the use of a neural network model to predict the amount of CCN using aerosol size distribution data, the fraction of OA and a factor of PMF, and radiation. This innovative tool gave the best results compared with assumptions about global chemical composition. The authors conclude by stressing the importance of taking into account the complexity of the aerosol and in particular its internal/external mixing. The manuscript is well structured and well written. The conclusion is clear and the message to be retained is correctly underlined. I consider that the manuscript can be published, after minor revision and responses to the following points.
Specific comments:
Please add the equation which links κ, Dcrit and SS at the CCN activation in section 3.2 (κ -Kohler theory). You could then cite it after (eg. L 435).
L 281. Could you explain why the eBC increase starts earlier than the inorganics and OA increase during the day ?
L 324. What are the wind direction and speed like during the two identified periods ?
L 365. What about the solar radiation diurnal profile role in the photochemical oxidation ?
L 413. What do you mean by “Time-dependent” ? If I’ve well understood, you described previously that in Scheme 3 specific κ values for LO-OOA and MO-OOA have been used to take into account their relative contribution at SNS, but these values are fixed, and not varying as a function of the time. Could you please clarify this ?
L 443. Could you add the Dcrit values for SS= 0.2 and 0.6 % to compare it with Dcrit = 72 nm ?
L 451 to 461. Did you observe a difference in the agreement between NCCN observed and NCCN calculated when considering the two time period separately (before and after June 26th )?
Technical corrections:
Please check the units notation in the text and the figures (eg. µg m-3 instead of µg/m3)
Figure 4 : please add a note on the shaded areas representing the PDF of each variable
L 489. “is associated with”
Figure 6: Please add a) and b) on the different panels.
L 513.: please give the values used for κIA and κBC
Figure 8a. : Could you sort data by f44 values such that the points with the lowest f44 are plotted in first and the points with the highest f44 and plotted over (ie. yellow points overlapping the blue points) ?
L 588. Slopes and correlation coefficients don’t correspond to the ones in Fig. 9a.
L 603. R2 = 0.88 or 0.94 (cf. Fig. 9a) ?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1059-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Rejano Martínez, 27 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1059', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Jun 2024
Please find my comments in the attached file.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Rejano Martínez, 27 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1059', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 May 2024
General comments:
This study deals with the complex dependence of CCN activity on the hygroscopicity of organic aerosols. Since CCN activity determines the indirect effect of aerosols on radiative forcing, the subject is of great interest. Using chemical and size distribution measurements, the authors study the role of OA hygroscopicity on CCN activity, for different atmospheric conditions. The positive matrix factorisation method was used to recover the relative contribution of OA with different oxidation levels, showing that medium and low oxidised OA are predominant, and that their contribution varies as a function of the vertical transport of PBL to the site. The originality of this study lies in the use of a neural network model to predict the amount of CCN using aerosol size distribution data, the fraction of OA and a factor of PMF, and radiation. This innovative tool gave the best results compared with assumptions about global chemical composition. The authors conclude by stressing the importance of taking into account the complexity of the aerosol and in particular its internal/external mixing. The manuscript is well structured and well written. The conclusion is clear and the message to be retained is correctly underlined. I consider that the manuscript can be published, after minor revision and responses to the following points.
Specific comments:
Please add the equation which links κ, Dcrit and SS at the CCN activation in section 3.2 (κ -Kohler theory). You could then cite it after (eg. L 435).
L 281. Could you explain why the eBC increase starts earlier than the inorganics and OA increase during the day ?
L 324. What are the wind direction and speed like during the two identified periods ?
L 365. What about the solar radiation diurnal profile role in the photochemical oxidation ?
L 413. What do you mean by “Time-dependent” ? If I’ve well understood, you described previously that in Scheme 3 specific κ values for LO-OOA and MO-OOA have been used to take into account their relative contribution at SNS, but these values are fixed, and not varying as a function of the time. Could you please clarify this ?
L 443. Could you add the Dcrit values for SS= 0.2 and 0.6 % to compare it with Dcrit = 72 nm ?
L 451 to 461. Did you observe a difference in the agreement between NCCN observed and NCCN calculated when considering the two time period separately (before and after June 26th )?
Technical corrections:
Please check the units notation in the text and the figures (eg. µg m-3 instead of µg/m3)
Figure 4 : please add a note on the shaded areas representing the PDF of each variable
L 489. “is associated with”
Figure 6: Please add a) and b) on the different panels.
L 513.: please give the values used for κIA and κBC
Figure 8a. : Could you sort data by f44 values such that the points with the lowest f44 are plotted in first and the points with the highest f44 and plotted over (ie. yellow points overlapping the blue points) ?
L 588. Slopes and correlation coefficients don’t correspond to the ones in Fig. 9a.
L 603. R2 = 0.88 or 0.94 (cf. Fig. 9a) ?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1059-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fernando Rejano Martínez, 27 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1059', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Jun 2024
Please find my comments in the attached file.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fernando Rejano Martínez, 27 Sep 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
459 | 135 | 208 | 802 | 47 | 21 | 14 |
- HTML: 459
- PDF: 135
- XML: 208
- Total: 802
- Supplement: 47
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Andrea Casans
Marta Via
Juan Andrés Casquero-Vera
Sonia Castillo
Hassan Lyamani
Alberto Cazorla
Elisabeth Andrews
Daniel Pérez-Ramírez
Andrés Alastuey
Francisco Javier Gómez-Moreno
Lucas Alados-Arboledas
Francisco José Olmo
Gloria Titos
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2564 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(495 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper