the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Unlocking the Potential of Melting Calorimetry: A Field Protocol for Liquid Water Content Measurement in Snow
Abstract. Melting calorimetry, a classic experiment often conducted in high school chemistry laboratories, holds significant untapped potential for scientific applications beyond its educational context. Traditionally, this technique has been applied to measure the liquid water content in snow using two different formulations: melting calorimetry and freezing calorimetry. In contrast to freezing calorimetry, which is considered as the reference method for measuring liquid water content, melting calorimetry has been perceived as prone to generate significant inaccuracies. This research revisits the formulations for both melting and freezing calorimeters to assess volumetric liquid water content in snow. By incorporating the calorimetric constant, we account for heat exchange with the calorimeter, a critical factor often neglected in melting calorimetry experiments. This paper identifies the most effective and least uncertain method for determining this constant. A central contribution of this work is the introduction of a framework for estimating uncertainty in volumetric liquid water content measurements, adhering to established guidelines for uncertainty expression. This novel framework allows us to revisit past mathematical analyses and demonstrate that melting calorimetry delivers reliable measurements with an uncertainty 0.25 % greater than freezing calorimetry. Notably, despite this slightly higher uncertainty, melting calorimetry offers significant practical advantages for field applications. Moreover, we show how the proposed uncertainty framework can be expanded beyond instrumental uncertainty and take into account also the variability from environmental factors and operators, providing a more comprehensive characterization of the uncertainty. By exploiting the proposed uncertainty framework, we finally conduct an in-depth analysis for the optimal tuning of the experimental parameters. This analysis culminates in a robust field protocol for melting calorimetry that transcends commonsense procedural guidelines. Strict adherence to this protocol will maximize measurement accuracy. Applied in field tests in Italy and Switzerland, the melting calorimetry demonstrated to accurately tracking the wet front penetration in the snowpacks, producing results comparable to independent dielectric measurements. These findings highlight the accuracy and the practical advantages of melting calorimetry as a reliable field tool for quantifying snowpack liquid water content. Melting calorimetry can potentially serve as a valuable tool for independent calibration and validation of proximal and remote sensing techniques used for liquid water content retrieval.
-
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
(18041 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18041 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1708', Ryan Webb, 22 Jul 2024
I was unable to open the online resources for review. I tried twice and am not sure where the error is occurring so this is not currently part of my review.
The manuscript by Barella et al. describes a detailed analysis of errors in melt calorimetry for snow liquid water content (LWC) calculations. They compare this to that of freezing calorimetry and additionally conduct experiments to determine some of the random user uncertainties associated with the method. The authors present some melt calorimetry field protocol and conduct field investigations to show the utility of the methods.
Overall, I really like the concept of this study as I stated in my previous review of an earlier version of this manuscript. I think that this study adds a great contribution to the use and application of melt calorimetry. However, many of my primary concerns in the previous review have been addressed. I suggested that this may be more appropriate as a technical note somewhere since it is an advancement on existing methods and equations. Making the code available helps bring this towards a research article and the addition of the calorimeter constant and experiments are an excellent addition. This will greatly improve my own work and the manuscript rightfully points out the high errors resulting from methods published in my own work. However, in my opinion it needs to be re-organized to be a research article. I would like to emphasize that I really like the project and that these comments are meant to be constructive and helpful in producing a more readable and impactful final paper.
I think more background as to why LWC in snow is important could be included, as stated in my previous review. Here are some of those papers. This is a minor point that I wish the authors to re-consider.
examples of possible background papers for consideration:
Valence et al., 2022: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/16/3843/2022/
Donahue et al., 2022: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/16/43/2022/
Eiriksson et al., 2013: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.9666
Leroux et al., 2020: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027466
Schlumpf et al., 2024: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165232X23002872
Major comments:
- The frequent mention of how significant of an improvement is made by this work makes it appear more like an argument/perspective manuscript. I think the tone of the writing could be improved. The math is solid and I think the work stands on it’s own quite well without the need to argue for how much of an improvement on previous work. With how frequent this is done it lengthens some of the paragraphs and I think those familiar with the literature will see the impact of this improvement.
- There is a lot going on and the writing jumps around quite a bit. I think that the manuscript needs to be re-organized for readability. In the current form, the writing is difficult to interpret what is methods, results, or discussion/interpretation. The manuscript would benefit from having distinct Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. As it is currently written, the manuscript bounces around quite a bit and is hard to follow.
More specific Comments (by line number):
326-328: This is one example of the type of statement that is repeated multiple times in the paper. Once the results are shown, the work stands on its own and this argument can be made once in a discussion or conclusion.
457-465: This seems like the methods for the experiments, but not enough details are given to re-produce this work. Some details are given later, but still not quite enough.
489: Were these conditions in the field or in a cold lab?
530: The current flow of the manuscript is odd. The protocol comes after discussion of the user experiments, even though much of the protocol is based on the uncertainty points made prior to the experiment sections. This is where a more clear methods, results, discussion could clarify much of this. The discussion of the uncertainty results would lead into the protocol discussion quite well.
571: How did you dry the calorimeter? I assume using a rag or something, but perhaps you learned something that could be useful here to reduce uncertainty with any moisture left in the container.
581: The SSA and IR seem to add little to this paper that is so focused on calorimetry.
591-598: This is a lot of details about the dates and max snow depth when only a single day was used. If only one of the 36 days were used, then only details from that one day are necessary.
638-641: I do not see the justification for not including the two depths that had different values. Yes, the LWC can vary significantly but then so could the values that you did compare. If the same volume of snow is not being tested and compared using the different methods, then all results should be used for comparison. Also, with 36 days you could have many more than 16 or 18 measurements for comparison that would be better for comparison statistically.
672-673: “very similar” and “good stability” are not defined. At the previous site % values are given but not here. Please be consistent in quantitative comparisons.
967: Please use the appropriate reference as given in my previous review: Webb et al., 2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/22/4617
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1708-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1708', Christian Mätzler, 23 Jul 2024
My comments for editor and authors, see attached pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Errata corrige - Answer to the Referee #2 – Manuscript tc-2024-1708', Riccardo Barella, 04 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1708', Ryan Webb, 22 Jul 2024
I was unable to open the online resources for review. I tried twice and am not sure where the error is occurring so this is not currently part of my review.
The manuscript by Barella et al. describes a detailed analysis of errors in melt calorimetry for snow liquid water content (LWC) calculations. They compare this to that of freezing calorimetry and additionally conduct experiments to determine some of the random user uncertainties associated with the method. The authors present some melt calorimetry field protocol and conduct field investigations to show the utility of the methods.
Overall, I really like the concept of this study as I stated in my previous review of an earlier version of this manuscript. I think that this study adds a great contribution to the use and application of melt calorimetry. However, many of my primary concerns in the previous review have been addressed. I suggested that this may be more appropriate as a technical note somewhere since it is an advancement on existing methods and equations. Making the code available helps bring this towards a research article and the addition of the calorimeter constant and experiments are an excellent addition. This will greatly improve my own work and the manuscript rightfully points out the high errors resulting from methods published in my own work. However, in my opinion it needs to be re-organized to be a research article. I would like to emphasize that I really like the project and that these comments are meant to be constructive and helpful in producing a more readable and impactful final paper.
I think more background as to why LWC in snow is important could be included, as stated in my previous review. Here are some of those papers. This is a minor point that I wish the authors to re-consider.
examples of possible background papers for consideration:
Valence et al., 2022: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/16/3843/2022/
Donahue et al., 2022: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/16/43/2022/
Eiriksson et al., 2013: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.9666
Leroux et al., 2020: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027466
Schlumpf et al., 2024: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165232X23002872
Major comments:
- The frequent mention of how significant of an improvement is made by this work makes it appear more like an argument/perspective manuscript. I think the tone of the writing could be improved. The math is solid and I think the work stands on it’s own quite well without the need to argue for how much of an improvement on previous work. With how frequent this is done it lengthens some of the paragraphs and I think those familiar with the literature will see the impact of this improvement.
- There is a lot going on and the writing jumps around quite a bit. I think that the manuscript needs to be re-organized for readability. In the current form, the writing is difficult to interpret what is methods, results, or discussion/interpretation. The manuscript would benefit from having distinct Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. As it is currently written, the manuscript bounces around quite a bit and is hard to follow.
More specific Comments (by line number):
326-328: This is one example of the type of statement that is repeated multiple times in the paper. Once the results are shown, the work stands on its own and this argument can be made once in a discussion or conclusion.
457-465: This seems like the methods for the experiments, but not enough details are given to re-produce this work. Some details are given later, but still not quite enough.
489: Were these conditions in the field or in a cold lab?
530: The current flow of the manuscript is odd. The protocol comes after discussion of the user experiments, even though much of the protocol is based on the uncertainty points made prior to the experiment sections. This is where a more clear methods, results, discussion could clarify much of this. The discussion of the uncertainty results would lead into the protocol discussion quite well.
571: How did you dry the calorimeter? I assume using a rag or something, but perhaps you learned something that could be useful here to reduce uncertainty with any moisture left in the container.
581: The SSA and IR seem to add little to this paper that is so focused on calorimetry.
591-598: This is a lot of details about the dates and max snow depth when only a single day was used. If only one of the 36 days were used, then only details from that one day are necessary.
638-641: I do not see the justification for not including the two depths that had different values. Yes, the LWC can vary significantly but then so could the values that you did compare. If the same volume of snow is not being tested and compared using the different methods, then all results should be used for comparison. Also, with 36 days you could have many more than 16 or 18 measurements for comparison that would be better for comparison statistically.
672-673: “very similar” and “good stability” are not defined. At the previous site % values are given but not here. Please be consistent in quantitative comparisons.
967: Please use the appropriate reference as given in my previous review: Webb et al., 2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/22/4617
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1708-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1708', Christian Mätzler, 23 Jul 2024
My comments for editor and authors, see attached pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Errata corrige - Answer to the Referee #2 – Manuscript tc-2024-1708', Riccardo Barella, 04 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1708/egusphere-2024-1708-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Barella, 03 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
289 | 117 | 124 | 530 | 14 | 12 |
- HTML: 289
- PDF: 117
- XML: 124
- Total: 530
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Riccardo Barella
Mathias Bavay
Francesca Carletti
Nicola Ciapponi
Valentina Premier
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18041 KB) - Metadata XML