Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2376
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2376
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
18 Sep 2024
| 18 Sep 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Measurement report: The variation properties of aerosol hygroscopic growth related to chemical composition during new particle formation days in a coastal city of southeast China
Abstract. The scattering of solar radiation by aerosol is significantly affected by relative humidity (RH) due to the aerosol hygroscopicity. In order to better understand the characteristics of aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth and its influencing factors during new particle formation (NPF) days, we conducted the in-situ campaign from February to April 2022 in Xiamen, a coastal city in southeastern China. The aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth factor (f(RH)), commonly used to describe the aerosol hygroscopicity, varies greatly due to the influence of chemical composition and so on. In the relatively clean atmosphere of Xiamen, NPF occurs frequently and has an obvious effect on f(RH). In this study, we investigated the features and influencing factors of f(RH) in the NPF days. The research results emphasized that f(RH) differed significantly between NPF and Non-NPF days, mainly impacted by the aerosol chemical compositions, especially sulfate and nitrate. In the NPF days, sulfate was the dominant contributor to f(RH), distinguishing from the Non-NPF days. Aerosol hygroscopicity-chemical composition closure demonstrated that NH4HSO4 was the main source (30.78 %) of the hygroscopicity parameter κf(RH) when NPF events happened, while NH4NO3 played a dominant role in κf(RH) (up to 35 %) for Non-NPF days. Although the uncertainty of the organic aerosol (OA) to hygroscopicity might exist due to the varieties of chemical components and oxidation level, it was the crucial driving factor for the variation in aerosol hygroscopicity. The findings of this study would be helpful for the further understanding about the properties of aerosol hygroscopicity in the coastal area, as well as complementing the hygroscopic growth factors to the models of air quality and climate change.
How to cite. Li, L., Li, M., Fan, X., Chen, Y., Lin, Z., Hou, A., Zhang, S., Zheng, R., and Chen, J.: Measurement report: The variation properties of aerosol hygroscopic growth related to chemical composition during new particle formation days in a coastal city of southeast China, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2376, 2024.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Download & links
- Preprint
(1587 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1202 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Oct 2024)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2376', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2024
reply
Li et al. studied the aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth factor (f(RH)) in a Chinese coastal city and compared f(RH) between NPF and non-NPF days. Based on the ACSM measurement, some analyses and explanations have been provided. The difference in f(RH) between NPF and non-NPF days is due to the variations in SO42-, NO3- and the oxidation degree of OA.
The study falls into the scope of ACP. But, compared with existing work, I do not see too much novelty in the current version of the manuscript. The quality of the work has been significantly weakened by but not limited to 1) no detailed composition analysis from the ACSM data (e.g., no PMF analysis), 2) no systematic comparison with literature on f(RH), 3) too brief discussion many times, 4) inconsistency throughout the manuscript and 5) the use of language. The manuscript will require major revisions, and the comments below need to be fully addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.
Major Comments
- Lines 215 – 219: It is not straightforward to visualize the comparison in a table. It is recommended that the author use a figure to illustrate the comparison. If necessary, the figure should be considered to be placed in the main text. In addition, the author compares f(80%), f(85%), and f(70%) between studies. This needs to be clarified. What are the reasons behind the differences between f(RH) from different studies? The author needs to discuss that.
- Lines 316 – 318: Was the wind direction from the major roads near the site? How might the increasing fraction of OM be attributed to the emission from heavy trucks? Did the authors observe any increase in traffic-related marker ions or PMF factors on ACSM?
- Lines 320 – 323: The authors claim that the compared to non-NPF days, a higher mass fraction of sulfate on NPF days was possibly due to the nucleation of sulfuric acid. Have the authors considered other possibilities, e.g., the increased sulfate fraction can be attributed to the increase in other species? Have the authors observed in any absolute increase in SO2 on NPF days?
- Section 3.3: As Xiamen is a coastal city, the influence of sea air masses and the contribution of sea salt are expected to be considerable. As far as I know, the ACSM is not good at quantifying the refractory components (e.g., sea salt). When discussing the relationship between f(RH) and aerosol chemical composition, a thorough discussion on the influence of sea salt must be provided as well.
- Lines 332 – 337: The author speculated on the condensation of large quantities of sulfuric acid and organic vapors on NPF days. Unless there was CIMS measurement, this statement is speculative and can be misleading.
- Lines 338 -353: Nitrate was assumed to be the driving factor for the aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth. This is supported by a significant decline in f(RH) when both nitrate content and NOR were low. When NOR and RH were shown in Figure 4, there was no data for nitrate content and f(RH) in the same figure.
- Lines 351 – 353: I understand that the SOR and NOR were higher on non-NPF days compared with NPF days. However, it is unclear to me how the enhanced SOR and NOR were possibly driven by aqueous phase reaction. A detailed analysis needs to be provided to support the statement.
- Lines 384 – 386: The main drive for aerosol hygroscopicity on NPF days is ambiguous. In lines 345 – 347, nitrate was suggested to be essential for aerosol hygroscopicity on NPF days. Here, the sulfate was suggested to be important in the aerosol hygroscopicity on NPF days. Consistent statements need to be provided through the whole manuscript.
- Lines 488 – 493: What are the reported kOA values in other studies? Could the author use a table or figure to summarize the comparison? How different are the organic aerosol composition between studies?
Minor Comments
- Lines 46-47 and Lines 49 -50 : How does the aerosol hygroscopicity alter particle size and refractive index? How does the aerosol hygroscopicity affect chemical processes and air quality? This is difficult for readers without little background knowledge of hygroscopicity. Could the author give a better explanation of that?
- How were the two nephelometers compared when operated under dry conditions?
- Please give more information about the ACSM. Is it a ToF-ACSM or Q-ACSM? What are the RIEs used for different species?
- Lines 177 – 181 should be rearranged into a place where γ and F0 were in use. I suggest they should be moved closed to the paragraph in lines 403 – 417.
- Lines 239-242: Why was hygroscopicity at RH >90% was lower than that at 80%<RH<90% in Zhao et al., (2019)? But why was it the same case in this study? More discussion need to be provided.
- Lines 242 -244: To support the sentence “Secondly, the characteristics of f(RH)… were minor”, a statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA) needs to be conducted.
- Lines 249 – 252: Could the authors provide qualitative analysis about the fluctuations of f(RH) and the dramatic increase in particle number conc., variations in chemical composition?
- Lines 262 -266: Why is the Eq. (1) the most suitable for the analysis? What is it based on? R2?
- Lines 274 – 275: What are more complex factors? More complex to what? What was compared to?
- Lines 301 – 302: The data showed in Deng et al., 2016 is one-year data but not decade-long data. The sentence needs to be rewritten to avoid misunderstanding.
- Line 303: What are the control measures?
- Line 304 -306: The statement “the prominent nitrate pollution” is based on a comparison between this study and another study focusing on winter in 2013. In my opinion, the statement completely lacks supporting evidence, unless the cited study focused on the long-term data.
- Lines 328-329: The sentence “This illuminates that fewer hygroscopic particles were born during the NPF event in Xiamen” is not clear and needs revision.
- Line 331: What were the difference precursors? Please give a brief explanation.
- Line 376: What is uncertainty range for the linear regression? Please show the range as shaded areas in Figure 5. Same applies for Figure 6.
- Lines 415 – 417: What are these studies about? Please provide more background information.
- Line 457: What is the density used for organic when converting the mass fraction into volume fraction?
- Lines 456 – 478: What is the defined RH for kf(RH)?
Technical Comments
- Please use “non-NPF days” instead of “Non-NPF days”.
- To increase the readability, it will be good to use a large font size and put labels of “NPF” and “Non-NPF” in figures.
- Line 52: What RH is classified as high ambient humidity? Could the author define a range?
- Line 62: Lower than what? What is compared with mineral dust and biomass combustion aerosols here?
- Lines 63 – 66: “Hydrophilic species such…”. Please add references.
- Lines 70 – 71: “For a fixed chemical composition,”. Fierz-Schmidhauser et al., 2010b only measured the f(RH) of ammonium sulfate and sodium chloride. Please clarify the sentence.
- Line 80: What does a relatively low level mean? Relative to what?
- Line 96: I assume these studies point to studies conducted in China. If so, Titos et al., 2014 are miscited here.
- Line 112: What is the meaning of enhanced observation?
- Lines 132 -134: Instead of just citing a couple of papers, I suggest the author describe the principle and operation and include them in the supplement.
- Line 138: What are the objectives of this study?
- Line 156: Now the sentence reads like “In a 3-month observation, there are 85 days on which NPF can be identified”. This is a very high NPF frequency. In other words, only a few days are classified as non-NPF or unidentified days. Please rewrite the sentence to avoid misunderstanding.
- Lines 182 -185: The sentence is too long and difficult to follow. Instead of just citing a paper, the calculation procedure must be detailed in the supplement.
- Line 206: Please clarify the definition of low PM 2.5 pollution in the Chinese AQI standard.
- Lines 208 – 209: “standard deviation” is redundant. The format needs to be consistent with other places in the manuscript, e.g., line 205.
- Lines 232- 233: Standard deviation must be provided here for consistency.
- Line 234: Please use “total number concentration”.
- Figure 1: The diverging colour messes up the trend of f(RH) with increasing RH. Please use sequential colour for better visualization. What are the meanings of whisker and error bars? Can the median be included as well?
- Lines 238 – 239: Reference(s) is needed for “… the interval of which was the most beneficial to the aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth.”
- Line 264: Is Eq (1) in Chen et al., 2014 or in this study?
- Eq (2): Is “a” or “α” in the equation? Is the same α as the one expressed in Eq (1)?
- Lines 284 – 286: The sentence “It should be noted that the aerosol scattering… with relatively low levels of particle pollution.” is too hard to follow. What is the meaning of the diminishment of aerosol scattering hygroscopic growth?
- Line 296: The sentence “Aerosol chemical compositions play a vital role in the aerosol hygroscopic growth” is redundant here.
- Line 304: Where is the data for winter in 2013?
- Line 312: What is the other event?
- Figure 6: Why is the regression line in d) in red?
- Please add the uncertainty ranges for the linear regression as shaded areas in Figures 2, 5, 6 and 7.
- Lines 418 – 420: Please provide references for the sentence “Over the recent decades, the Chinese…”
- Line 431: Please rephrase “that of Li’s report”.
- Line 468: What does the word “donation” mean?
- Lines 494 – 497: Please provide references for the sentence about f44.
- Line 502: “uplift of oxidation degree of OA” is unclear.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2376-RC1
Data sets
Measurement report: The variation properties of aerosol hygroscopic growth related to chemical composition during new particle formation days in a coastal city of southeast China Lingjun Li, Mengren Li, and Jinsheng Chen https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13756825
Viewed
Total article views: 104 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 18 Sep 2024)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 82 | 15 | 7 | 104 | 12 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 82
- PDF: 15
- XML: 7
- Total: 104
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 97 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 97 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 05 Oct 2024
Lingjun Li
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Mengren Li
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Xiaolong Fan
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Yuping Chen
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Ziyi Lin
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Anqi Hou
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Siqing Zhang
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Ronghua Zheng
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
Fujian Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Ozone Pollution Prevention, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China
Short summary
Aerosol hygroscopicity has a great impact on regional and global climate, air quality. Here, we show differences and variations in f(RH) between NPF and Non-NPF days and the effect of aerosol chemical compositions on f(RH) in Xiamen, the coastal city of southeast China by in situ observations. The findings are helpful for the further understanding about aerosol hygroscopicity in the coastal city, and the use of hygroscopic growth factors in the models of air quality and climate change.
Aerosol hygroscopicity has a great impact on regional and global climate, air quality. Here, we...