the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Nov 2024
The role of surface-active macromolecules in the ice nucleating ability of lignin, Snomax, and agricultural soil extracts
Abstract. Organic matter in agricultural soil dust can enhance dust's ice-nucleating ability relative to mineral dust, and thus impact local cloud formation. But how is this organic matter able to nucleate ice? We hypothesised that hydrophobic interfaces, such as the air-water interface, influence how organic matter nucleates ice, which can be quantified by measuring surface tension. Here, we investigated correlations between surfactant properties and ice-nucleating activities of amphiphilic macromolecules common in agricultural soils and known ice nucleators, namely lignin and macromolecules from Snomax. Lignin and Snomax solutions were analysed using our droplet freezing technique, FINC, and using an optical contact angle tensiometer. Results showed that lignin and Snomax solutions of increasing concentrations had increasing ice-nucleating activity and decreasing surface tension. In addition, high-speed cryo-microscopy of the same solutions revealed a preference for freezing at the air-water interface, consistent with these proxies being ice-active surfactants preferentially residing at the air-water interface, and thus hydrophobic surfaces. We then tested this relationship in field-collected agricultural soil extracts from the UK and Canada. Despite the trend observed for lignin and Snomax, there was no clear correlation between surface tension and freezing temperature of the soil extracts. This discrepancy may arise from the high complexity of the soil solutions, where hydrophobic interfaces in the bulk potentially compete with the air-water interface. Overall, we present further evidence of the role of hydrophobic interfaces in the heterogeneous ice nucleation of organic aerosols with implications for aerosol-cloud interactions.
-
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
(738 KB)
-
Supplement
(26877 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(738 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(26877 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2827', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2024
This manuscript is well-written in general. While this reviewer is not 100% sure about the atmospheric implication of the study outcomes, this paper discusses an important negative result regarding potential ambient ice nucleation – surface active macromolecules do not dominate INPs in bulk soil samples. The study topic is relevant to the journal scope of ACP. This reviewer supports the publication of this paper in AMT after addressing several questions below.
===
Questions
(1) Can surface tension and micelle formation of heated soil extracts be measured? If yes, can they be reported in this manuscript? Doing so might clarify the next question.
(2) Can heat-treated soil extracts show what the authors find in lignin (an increase in conc is proportional to an increase in IN activity and a reciprocal decrease in surface tension)? Adding discussions regarding surface properties of heat-treated soil suspensions at this stage might be worth to shed light on the relative importance of surface active MMs to IN active protein in soil samples. Recently, as the authors discuss in L35-37, some heat-sensitive proteins/enzymes commonly found in soil, such as Rubisco, have been found to be IN active. Heat treatment presumably removes these proteins, and the remaining soil organics can show lignin-like surface properties?
Comments
P1L4: Why the impact needs to be on only ‘local’ cloud formation?
P4L119-121: How long the tube was opened to sample ambient air? Quantitatively clarifying the blank handling protocol in the manuscript will be helpful for the reader and whoever may follow up on your study.
P5L132: Not SA water?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2827-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2827', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Dec 2024
The study presented in the manuscript was motivated by the hypothesis that hydrophobic interfaces might have an influence on how organic macromolecules nucleate ice. To test this hypothesis, dilutions of lignin and snomax were tested for surface tension and ice nucleation properties. Increasing concentrations of these compounds in water resulted in decreasing surface tension and an increasing number of ice active sites. In contrast, soil extracts were reduced by dilution in the number of ice active sites with little unsystematic changes in surface tension.
All laboratory work was done with great attention to detail. Overall, the study is clearly written and its results offer new insights, as far as the comparison of lignin and snomax with soil extracts is concerned. Regarding the correlation between surface tension and ice active sites observed in dilutions of lignin and snomax, I wonder whether this is not a foregone conclusion. The substances tested were already known before the experiment to have ice nucleating and surfactant properties at the same time. That both properties are less expressed at higher dilution levels is revealing the obvious. More interesting would be to have a closer look and discuss trends in T50 within dilution ranges where surface tension did not change (lignin <10^2 mgC/L; snomax <10 mgC/L), but T50 tended to increase with increasing concentration of C.
Fig 2: Considering the counting error, is the number of freezing events at AWI significantly different from that in other compartments? If I counted correctly, 11 events occurred at the AWI, 3 in the neighbouring shell, and 6 in each of the three inner compartments. The difference between counts in AWI and in the three inner compartments does not appear to be significant because these low numbers of counts are associated with a relatively large uncertainty. Their standard deviation is roughly equivalent to the square root of counts. In identical replications of this experiment, AWI counts might well turn out to be the same (11 -√11) as in inner compartments (6 + √6).
Line 270: replace 'step-wide' with 'step-wise'
Line 347 replace 'heat-label' with 'heat-labile'
Figure 6: Consider using the same unit in the y-axis label as in Figure 7 ([(mg C)^-1] instead of [mg C^-1]).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2827-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply to both reviewer comments', Nadine Borduas-Dedekind, 20 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2827/egusphere-2024-2827-AC1-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2827', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2024
This manuscript is well-written in general. While this reviewer is not 100% sure about the atmospheric implication of the study outcomes, this paper discusses an important negative result regarding potential ambient ice nucleation – surface active macromolecules do not dominate INPs in bulk soil samples. The study topic is relevant to the journal scope of ACP. This reviewer supports the publication of this paper in AMT after addressing several questions below.
===
Questions
(1) Can surface tension and micelle formation of heated soil extracts be measured? If yes, can they be reported in this manuscript? Doing so might clarify the next question.
(2) Can heat-treated soil extracts show what the authors find in lignin (an increase in conc is proportional to an increase in IN activity and a reciprocal decrease in surface tension)? Adding discussions regarding surface properties of heat-treated soil suspensions at this stage might be worth to shed light on the relative importance of surface active MMs to IN active protein in soil samples. Recently, as the authors discuss in L35-37, some heat-sensitive proteins/enzymes commonly found in soil, such as Rubisco, have been found to be IN active. Heat treatment presumably removes these proteins, and the remaining soil organics can show lignin-like surface properties?
Comments
P1L4: Why the impact needs to be on only ‘local’ cloud formation?
P4L119-121: How long the tube was opened to sample ambient air? Quantitatively clarifying the blank handling protocol in the manuscript will be helpful for the reader and whoever may follow up on your study.
P5L132: Not SA water?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2827-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2827', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Dec 2024
The study presented in the manuscript was motivated by the hypothesis that hydrophobic interfaces might have an influence on how organic macromolecules nucleate ice. To test this hypothesis, dilutions of lignin and snomax were tested for surface tension and ice nucleation properties. Increasing concentrations of these compounds in water resulted in decreasing surface tension and an increasing number of ice active sites. In contrast, soil extracts were reduced by dilution in the number of ice active sites with little unsystematic changes in surface tension.
All laboratory work was done with great attention to detail. Overall, the study is clearly written and its results offer new insights, as far as the comparison of lignin and snomax with soil extracts is concerned. Regarding the correlation between surface tension and ice active sites observed in dilutions of lignin and snomax, I wonder whether this is not a foregone conclusion. The substances tested were already known before the experiment to have ice nucleating and surfactant properties at the same time. That both properties are less expressed at higher dilution levels is revealing the obvious. More interesting would be to have a closer look and discuss trends in T50 within dilution ranges where surface tension did not change (lignin <10^2 mgC/L; snomax <10 mgC/L), but T50 tended to increase with increasing concentration of C.
Fig 2: Considering the counting error, is the number of freezing events at AWI significantly different from that in other compartments? If I counted correctly, 11 events occurred at the AWI, 3 in the neighbouring shell, and 6 in each of the three inner compartments. The difference between counts in AWI and in the three inner compartments does not appear to be significant because these low numbers of counts are associated with a relatively large uncertainty. Their standard deviation is roughly equivalent to the square root of counts. In identical replications of this experiment, AWI counts might well turn out to be the same (11 -√11) as in inner compartments (6 + √6).
Line 270: replace 'step-wide' with 'step-wise'
Line 347 replace 'heat-label' with 'heat-labile'
Figure 6: Consider using the same unit in the y-axis label as in Figure 7 ([(mg C)^-1] instead of [mg C^-1]).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2827-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply to both reviewer comments', Nadine Borduas-Dedekind, 20 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2827/egusphere-2024-2827-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 317 | 123 | 23 | 463 | 125 | 12 | 21 |
- HTML: 317
- PDF: 123
- XML: 23
- Total: 463
- Supplement: 125
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Paul Bieber
Anna J. Miller
Nicole Link
Benjamin J. Murray
Nadine Borduas-Dedekind
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(738 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(26877 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper