the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
NO3 reactivity during a summer period in a temperate forest below and above the canopy
Abstract. We present direct measurements of BVOC-induced nitrate radical (NO3) reactivity (kVOC) through the diel cycle in the suburban, temperate forest of Rambouillet near Paris (France). The data were obtained in a six-week summer period in 2022 as part of the ACROSS campaign (Atmospheric ChemistRy Of the Suburban foreSt). kVOC was measured in a small (700 m2) clearing mainly at a height of 5.5 m above ground level, but also at 40 m (for 5 days/nights). At nighttime, mean values of knightVOC(5.5 m) = (0.24 ± 0.27) s-1 and knightVOC(40 m) = (0.016 ± 0.007) s-1 indicate a significant vertical gradient and low NO3 reactivity above the canopy, whereas knightVOC(5.5 m) showed peak values of up to 2 s-1 close to the ground. The strong vertical gradient in NO3 reactivity could be confirmed by measurements between 0 and 24 m on one particular night characterised by a strong temperature inversion, and is a result of the decoupling of air masses aloft from the ground- and canopy-level sources of BVOCs (and NO). No strong vertical gradient was observed in the mean daytime NO3 reactivity with kdayVOC(5.5 m) = (0.12 ± 0.04) s-1 for the entire campaign and kdayVOC(40 m) = (0.07 ± 0.02) s-1 during the 5-day period.
Within the clearing, the fractional contribution of VOCs to the total NO3 loss rate (LNO3, determined by photolysis, reaction with NO and VOCs) was 80–90 % during the night and ~50 % during the day. In terms of chemical losses of α-pinene below canopy height in the clearing, we find that at nighttime OH and O3 dominate with NO3 contributing “only” 17 %, which decreases further to 8.5 % during the day. Based on OH, O3 and NO3 concentrations, the chemical lifetime of BVOCs at noon is about one hour and is likely to be longer than timescales of transport out of the canopy (typically in the order of minutes), thus significantly reducing the importance of daytime, in-canopy processing. Clearly, in forested regions where sufficient NOX is available, the role of NO3 and OH as initiators of BVOC oxidation are not strictly limited to the night and to the day, respectively, as often implied in e.g. atmospheric chemistry text-books.
-
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
(2555 KB)
-
Supplement
(1423 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2555 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1423 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1223', Zachary Decker, 14 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1223', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2024
General comments
The paper by Dewald et al. describes a summer-season field study of NO3 reactivities measured in a temperate forest in France. Measurements were made in a small clearing close to ground and on a 40 m tower. The results are discussed in terms of diurnal variations of contributions from VOCs, NO and photolysis to the overall NO3 reactivity, with VOC reactivities found to be significant during night and day. Based on measured and estimated concentrations of OH, O3 and NO3, the relative importance of these reactants for the oxidation of selected BVOCs is estimated, revealing a significant contribution of oxidation through NO3, again during night and day, at least close to ground.
The paper is relevant, well written and structured and therefore suitable for publication in ACP. However, the work would gain relevance if information on the BVOC composition were available and if there is any missing NO3 reactivity. In other words: how well is the kVOC understood in this environment?
Below are some comments that may be considered in a revised version of the paper.
Specific comments
Line 22: Given the strong variability and peak values of the kVOC at night, an arithmetic mean and a standard deviation are not useful to summarize the results. Consider using a range instead or percentiles.
Line 28: The “total loss rate” LNO3 is later defined (Eq. 1) as the total NO3 reactivity, i.e. a (pseudo first-order) loss rate coefficient. Loss and production rates are usually named L and P but defined as products of concentrations and rate constants resulting in units of cm-3s-1 (or ppb h-1, dependent on context). kTOT would be a better choice (see technical comments).
Line 30: Perhaps clarify that the conclusions regarding the contribution of NO3 to α-pinene degradation and the chemical lifetimes of BVOCs are based on measured OH and O3 concentrations and estimated steady-state NO3 concentrations.
Line 60: Both photolysis reactions recycle NOx but only (R7b) recycles NO2. Consequently, (R7b) also regenerates Ox (NO2 + O3) but (R7a) is a net daytime loss of Ox, another perhaps underestimated daytime effect of NO3 chemistry.
Line 120: Was the transmittance of BVOCs through the combination of sampling lines, filter, and glass flask tested? BVOCs with low volatility and high reactivity may get lost on the way to the flow tube.
Line 132: Your correction subtracts the remaining NO reactivity from the measured reactivity to derive kVOC. Under conditions with low kVOC and [NO]>[O3] the uncertainties are probably greater than the stated average 26%. Does your numerical simulation and correction procedure provide realistic, condition dependent uncertainty estimates?
Line 154: “Photolysis rates” should be named photolysis rate coefficients or photolysis frequencies consistently throughout the text.
Line 157: The paper of Meusel et al., contains no information on NO3 absorption cross sections. I assume you used IUPAC or NASA-JPL recommendations for quantum yields and cross section which should be cited here.
Line 246: A future publication on NO3 measurements? In Sect. 3.6 it is stated that NO3 mixing ratios were always below the LOD which is consistent with the steady-state estimates < 0.2 ppt in Fig. 8.
Technical comments
Line 95: Specify where the wind measurements were made in the caption of the figure in the Supplement (5 m, 40 m?)
Line 137: “LNO3 which is the loss term” maybe better: “kTOT which is the total reactivity”
Line 231, Eq. (1): kTOT would fit better throughout the text with the upper index reserved for reactants, i.e. kTOT, kVOC, kNO but τNO3, JNO3 with the lower index reserved for the target species if necessary. Define kNO = k5[NO] and JNO3 = k7a + k7b
Line 297 ff: Better kVOC + kNO
Line 320 ff: Better “kα-pinene” than “Lα-pinene”
Line 325: Better “…the ratio of production rates k2[NO2][O3] and overall loss rate coefficients kTOT”
Figs. 4, 5, 6, 8: How was the nighttime period 03:30-19:30 determined? Local noontime is close to 12:00 UTC. The night ends before sunrise and starts before sunset (checked for July 10th).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1223-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1223', Zachary Decker, 14 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1223', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2024
General comments
The paper by Dewald et al. describes a summer-season field study of NO3 reactivities measured in a temperate forest in France. Measurements were made in a small clearing close to ground and on a 40 m tower. The results are discussed in terms of diurnal variations of contributions from VOCs, NO and photolysis to the overall NO3 reactivity, with VOC reactivities found to be significant during night and day. Based on measured and estimated concentrations of OH, O3 and NO3, the relative importance of these reactants for the oxidation of selected BVOCs is estimated, revealing a significant contribution of oxidation through NO3, again during night and day, at least close to ground.
The paper is relevant, well written and structured and therefore suitable for publication in ACP. However, the work would gain relevance if information on the BVOC composition were available and if there is any missing NO3 reactivity. In other words: how well is the kVOC understood in this environment?
Below are some comments that may be considered in a revised version of the paper.
Specific comments
Line 22: Given the strong variability and peak values of the kVOC at night, an arithmetic mean and a standard deviation are not useful to summarize the results. Consider using a range instead or percentiles.
Line 28: The “total loss rate” LNO3 is later defined (Eq. 1) as the total NO3 reactivity, i.e. a (pseudo first-order) loss rate coefficient. Loss and production rates are usually named L and P but defined as products of concentrations and rate constants resulting in units of cm-3s-1 (or ppb h-1, dependent on context). kTOT would be a better choice (see technical comments).
Line 30: Perhaps clarify that the conclusions regarding the contribution of NO3 to α-pinene degradation and the chemical lifetimes of BVOCs are based on measured OH and O3 concentrations and estimated steady-state NO3 concentrations.
Line 60: Both photolysis reactions recycle NOx but only (R7b) recycles NO2. Consequently, (R7b) also regenerates Ox (NO2 + O3) but (R7a) is a net daytime loss of Ox, another perhaps underestimated daytime effect of NO3 chemistry.
Line 120: Was the transmittance of BVOCs through the combination of sampling lines, filter, and glass flask tested? BVOCs with low volatility and high reactivity may get lost on the way to the flow tube.
Line 132: Your correction subtracts the remaining NO reactivity from the measured reactivity to derive kVOC. Under conditions with low kVOC and [NO]>[O3] the uncertainties are probably greater than the stated average 26%. Does your numerical simulation and correction procedure provide realistic, condition dependent uncertainty estimates?
Line 154: “Photolysis rates” should be named photolysis rate coefficients or photolysis frequencies consistently throughout the text.
Line 157: The paper of Meusel et al., contains no information on NO3 absorption cross sections. I assume you used IUPAC or NASA-JPL recommendations for quantum yields and cross section which should be cited here.
Line 246: A future publication on NO3 measurements? In Sect. 3.6 it is stated that NO3 mixing ratios were always below the LOD which is consistent with the steady-state estimates < 0.2 ppt in Fig. 8.
Technical comments
Line 95: Specify where the wind measurements were made in the caption of the figure in the Supplement (5 m, 40 m?)
Line 137: “LNO3 which is the loss term” maybe better: “kTOT which is the total reactivity”
Line 231, Eq. (1): kTOT would fit better throughout the text with the upper index reserved for reactants, i.e. kTOT, kVOC, kNO but τNO3, JNO3 with the lower index reserved for the target species if necessary. Define kNO = k5[NO] and JNO3 = k7a + k7b
Line 297 ff: Better kVOC + kNO
Line 320 ff: Better “kα-pinene” than “Lα-pinene”
Line 325: Better “…the ratio of production rates k2[NO2][O3] and overall loss rate coefficients kTOT”
Figs. 4, 5, 6, 8: How was the nighttime period 03:30-19:30 determined? Local noontime is close to 12:00 UTC. The night ends before sunrise and starts before sunset (checked for July 10th).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1223-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1223/egusphere-2024-1223-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Patrick Dewald, 13 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
ACROSS Data Set Patrick Dewald, Tobias Seubert, Simone T. Andersen, Gunther N. T. E. Türk, Jan Schuladen, Max R. McGillen, Cyrielle Denjean, Jean-Claude Etienne, Olivier Garrouste, Marina Jamar, Sergio Harb, Manuela Cirtog, Vincent Michoud, Mathieu Cazaunau, Antonin Bergé, Christopher Cantrell, Sebastien Dusanter, Bénédicte Picquet-Varrault, Alexandre Kukui, Chaoyang Xue, Abdelwahid Mellouki, Jos Lelieveld, John N. Crowley, and the ACROSS team https://across.aeris-data.fr/catalogue/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
298 | 94 | 27 | 419 | 42 | 14 | 15 |
- HTML: 298
- PDF: 94
- XML: 27
- Total: 419
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Patrick Dewald
Tobias Seubert
Simone T. Andersen
Gunther N. T. E. Türk
Jan Schuladen
Max R. McGillen
Cyrielle Denjean
Jean-Claude Etienne
Olivier Garrouste
Marina Jamar
Sergio Harb
Manuela Cirtog
Vincent Michoud
Mathieu Cazaunau
Antonin Bergé
Christopher Cantrell
Sebastien Dusanter
Bénédicte Picquet-Varrault
Alexandre Kukui
Chaoyang Xue
Abdelwahid Mellouki
Jos Lelieveld
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2555 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1423 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper