the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Aerosol hygroscopicity over the South-East Atlantic Ocean during the biomass burning season: Part II – Influence of burning conditions on CCN hygroscopicity
Abstract. Biomass burning (BB) is an important source of cloud condensation nuclei in the Southeast Atlantic (SEA). The formation of cloud droplets depends on aerosol hygroscopicity (κ), but its variations during the BB season are poorly understood. In this study, we investigate κ during the 2016 and 2017 BB seasons using 18 months of in situ observations on Ascension Island. The results show that κ varied monthly, reaching a low in August and increasing from September to October. The mean κ was 0.33 in 2016 and 0.55 in 2017, showing a significant difference. The changes in κ were mainly associated with differences in the mass fraction of sulfate aerosol. Source attribution showed that about 67 % of the sulfate-containing particles originated from BB, suggesting that BB is the main driver of the changes in sulfate aerosol. The ratio of black carbon to excess carbon monoxide (BC/ΔCO), used to indicate BB combustion conditions, correlated well with κ and the sulfate mass fraction: higher ratios (more flaming combustion) reduced the sulfate mass fraction and thus a lower κ. Therefore, the observed lower BC/ΔCO ratios in 2017 explain the higher κ values, suggesting less flaming combustion in that year. Meteorological changes in 2017, including lower wind speeds and higher relative humidity in Africa, may contributed to the altered combustion conditions, explaining the lower BC/ΔCO and higher κ in 2017. Overall, this study highlights the critical role of BB in understanding the sulfate budget, aerosol hygroscopicity, and CCN concentration in the marine boundary of the SEA.
- Preprint
(2194 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(383 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3304', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jan 2025
reply
This study presented the long-term measurement results of particle number size distribution, CCN, chemical composition and hygroscopicity at an island observatory in Southeast Atlantic. It highlights how the biomass burning, sea salt aerosols influencing the particle hygroscopicity, as well the relationship between meteorological parameters, providing valuable datasets and scientific insights in understanding the aerosol-cloud interaction in marine boundary layer. This paper is well prepared. However, more robust analysis and comprehensive data are needed to enhance the credibility of the conclusion. For example, as there are a lot assumptions made to derive k values, why not use the chemical composition date to calculate a κ to constrain your method. More detailed comments are given below:
- In section 2.1, please listed all the instrument model and manufacture in the experiment setup.
- Line 100, the size range of SMPS is 10-500 nm, but you derive PNSD of 3-1000 nm by extrapolation, that will cause large bias especially on new particle formation cases. I think the comparison between 10-500 nm and 3-1000 nm is necessary. And with the large discrepancy caused by dp<10 nm and dp>500 nm, the reason should be analyzed and make sure if the extrapolation is reasonable. Otherwise, I recommend only 10-500 nm should be discussed.
- In section 2.2, it shows the CCN at ss of 1% was 30% higher than SMPS, it the counting efficiency of CPC is 1?
- Figure 1. Would you please lower down the x- and y- axis to (0, 0), which helps to know if the blues dots at the bottom are zero. The zero data doesn’t make sense.
- As you mentioned you also have ACSM measurement, why don’t you use chemical composition to estimate κ , or validate the method you modified?
- In section 3.1, would you please give more detailed information about the mass fraction of sulfate corresponding to the extremely low and high κ , such as 0.3 and 0.78?
- It is recommend giving the time series or the means of CCN and PNSD, as well as BC, for the both campaign in 2016 and 2017, respectively, to make the readers easily understood the general aerosol background level. It could be provided in the supplementary materials. As the observatory get more influence from sea salt aerosols in 2017, does the PNSD shifted to larger size as compared that of 2016?
- In section 3.6, as the authors analyzed how the meteorological factors influencing the BB and sea salt transport, have you exclude the influence by precipitation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3304-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
110 | 22 | 5 | 137 | 15 | 5 | 2 |
- HTML: 110
- PDF: 22
- XML: 5
- Total: 137
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1