the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Jun 2024
Multi-year gradient measurements of sea spray fluxes over the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean
Abstract. Ship-based measurements of sea spray aerosol (SSA) gradient fluxes in the size range 0.5–47 µm diameter were conducted between 2009–2017 in both the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean. Measured total SSA fluxes varied between 8.9⸱103 ± 6.8⸱105 m-2 s-1 for the Baltic Sea, and 1.0⸱104 ± 105 m-2 s-1. for the Atlantic Ocean. The analysis uncovered a significant decrease (by a factor of 2.2 in wind speed range 10.5 m s-1–14.5 m s-1) in SSA fluxes with chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) concentration higher than 3.5 mg m-3 in the Baltic Sea area. We found statistically significant correlations for both regions of interest between SSA fluxes and various environmental factors including wind speed, wind acceleration, wave age, significant wave height, and wave Reynolds number. Using these factors, we developed separate parameterizations and compared them with previous studies. Additionally, in both measurement regions we observed weak correlations between SSA fluxes and air and water temperature, as well as atmospheric stability. Comparing the Baltic Sea and North Atlantic, we noted distinct emission behaviours, with higher emissions in the Baltic Sea at low wave age values compared to the Atlantic Ocean. This study represents the first comparative analysis of SSA flux measurements using the same methodology in these contrasting marine environments.
-
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
(2429 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2429 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1254-Mehta', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2024
The authors have presented an excellent work here and I approve this as such with out any reservations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Piotr Markuszewski, 18 Jun 2024
Thank you very much for such a kind comment. We have done our best to prepare a good paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Piotr Markuszewski, 18 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1254', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jun 2024
General comments:
This paper provides a valuable dataset of the ship-based measurements of sea spray aerosol gradient fluxes. Then, it also conducted a statistical analysis to find the correlation between the SSA flux and several meteorological parameters. This study provides useful observations for understanding the SSA flux in different regions. The paper is well-written and very informative. Here are several comments to further strengthen this paper:
- Please provide more information about aerosol measurements. It is the foundation of this study. Does the CSASP sample at a 10 s sampling rate? What is the detection limit of this instrument? What is the sizing and concentration accuracy of this instrument?
- When studying the influential factors of SSA fluxes, I noticed that the author used the parameters from global atmospheric reanalysis. The resolution of those parameters is in 1-hour temporal resolution and a spatial resolution of 0.5*0.5 degrees. How do those resolutions match with the ship-based measurements? Is it too big spatially? What is the cruise speed of the ship? Are those parameters relevant to the ship measurements? If so, Do the reanalysis parameters cause any uncertainty in the correlation? There is a wind speed measurement on the ship. Why do authors use U10 in the correlation, not the ship measurements? I wonder if we will also find a weak correlation using ship-based sea surface and air temperatures.
Specific comments:
Abstract: Do the SSA fluxes have large standard deviation values? Is it caused by yearly differences or seasonal variations? After “we developed separate parameterizations and compared them with previous studies”, maybe specify “What do we learn from it? Or major takeaway?”
Section 3.3, line 258, “A single measurement on a single level last at least 2 minutes.” Does that mean the CSASP measures one size distribution in the 2 minutes? Later, in line 303, the paper stated, “The single measurement was 10 s”. Please clarify.
Line 260, it said, “ flux was determined … based on vertical aerosol gradient, friction, velocity, and stability”. Please specify the friction velocity and stability source. Is it from the global reanalysis or in situ measurements?
Section 3.5, what are the aerosol concentrations and size distributions of the ship-based measurement? Do you see any seasonal variation in those data?
In line 304, n represents the aerosol counts, right? If so, the unit is wrong. In addition, the value of n is closely related to the instrument sampling rate, aerosol flow rate, and typical ambient sea salt aerosol concentration. Providing those data is critical for the community to understand the phenomena and this error propagation. If the typical total number concentration (between 0.5 – 47 micron aerosol) is around 10 #/cc, then for 2 mins sampling, with 12.6 cc/s sampling flowrate, we will get 10*12.6*2*60= 15120 particles. With 10 seconds of sampling, we will get 10*12.6*10=1260 particles.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Piotr Markuszewski, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1254/egusphere-2024-1254-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1254-Mehta', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2024
The authors have presented an excellent work here and I approve this as such with out any reservations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Piotr Markuszewski, 18 Jun 2024
Thank you very much for such a kind comment. We have done our best to prepare a good paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Piotr Markuszewski, 18 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1254', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jun 2024
General comments:
This paper provides a valuable dataset of the ship-based measurements of sea spray aerosol gradient fluxes. Then, it also conducted a statistical analysis to find the correlation between the SSA flux and several meteorological parameters. This study provides useful observations for understanding the SSA flux in different regions. The paper is well-written and very informative. Here are several comments to further strengthen this paper:
- Please provide more information about aerosol measurements. It is the foundation of this study. Does the CSASP sample at a 10 s sampling rate? What is the detection limit of this instrument? What is the sizing and concentration accuracy of this instrument?
- When studying the influential factors of SSA fluxes, I noticed that the author used the parameters from global atmospheric reanalysis. The resolution of those parameters is in 1-hour temporal resolution and a spatial resolution of 0.5*0.5 degrees. How do those resolutions match with the ship-based measurements? Is it too big spatially? What is the cruise speed of the ship? Are those parameters relevant to the ship measurements? If so, Do the reanalysis parameters cause any uncertainty in the correlation? There is a wind speed measurement on the ship. Why do authors use U10 in the correlation, not the ship measurements? I wonder if we will also find a weak correlation using ship-based sea surface and air temperatures.
Specific comments:
Abstract: Do the SSA fluxes have large standard deviation values? Is it caused by yearly differences or seasonal variations? After “we developed separate parameterizations and compared them with previous studies”, maybe specify “What do we learn from it? Or major takeaway?”
Section 3.3, line 258, “A single measurement on a single level last at least 2 minutes.” Does that mean the CSASP measures one size distribution in the 2 minutes? Later, in line 303, the paper stated, “The single measurement was 10 s”. Please clarify.
Line 260, it said, “ flux was determined … based on vertical aerosol gradient, friction, velocity, and stability”. Please specify the friction velocity and stability source. Is it from the global reanalysis or in situ measurements?
Section 3.5, what are the aerosol concentrations and size distributions of the ship-based measurement? Do you see any seasonal variation in those data?
In line 304, n represents the aerosol counts, right? If so, the unit is wrong. In addition, the value of n is closely related to the instrument sampling rate, aerosol flow rate, and typical ambient sea salt aerosol concentration. Providing those data is critical for the community to understand the phenomena and this error propagation. If the typical total number concentration (between 0.5 – 47 micron aerosol) is around 10 #/cc, then for 2 mins sampling, with 12.6 cc/s sampling flowrate, we will get 10*12.6*2*60= 15120 particles. With 10 seconds of sampling, we will get 10*12.6*10=1260 particles.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1254-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Piotr Markuszewski, 29 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1254/egusphere-2024-1254-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 294 | 73 | 124 | 491 | 15 | 14 |
- HTML: 294
- PDF: 73
- XML: 124
- Total: 491
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
E. Douglas Nilsson
Julika Zinke
E. Monica Mårtensson
Matthew Salter
Przemysław Makuch
Małgorzata Kitowska
Iwona Niedźwiecka-Wróbel
Violetta Drozdowska
Dominik Lis
Tomasz Petelski
Luca Ferrero
Jacek Piskozub
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2429 KB) - Metadata XML