the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Characterization of reactive nitrogen in the global upper troposphere using recent and historical commercial and research aircraft campaigns and GEOS-Chem
Abstract. Reactive nitrogen (NOy) in the upper troposphere (UT; ~8–12 km) influences global climate, air quality, and tropospheric oxidants, but this is informed by limited knowledge of the relative contribution of individual NOy components in this undersampled layer. Here we use sporadic NASA DC-8 aircraft campaign observations, after screening for plumes and stratospheric influence, to characterise UT NOy composition and evaluate current knowledge of UT NOy as simulated with the GEOS-Chem model. Use of DC-8 data follows confirmation that these sporadic data reproduce NOy seasonality from routine commercial aircraft observations (2003–2019), supporting use of DC-8 data to characterize UT NOy. We find that peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) dominates UT NOy (30–64 % of NOy), followed by nitrogen oxides (NOx ≡ NO + NO2) (6–18 %), peroxynitric acid (HNO4) (6–13 %), and nitric acid (HNO3) (7–11 %). Methyl peroxy nitrate (MPN) makes an outsized contribution to NOy (24 %) over the Southeast US relative to the other regions sampled (2–7 %). GEOS-Chem, sampled along DC-8 flights, exhibits much weaker seasonality than DC-8, underestimating summer and spring NOy and overestimating winter and autumn NOy. The model consistently overestimates peroxypropionyl nitrate (PPN) by up to 16 pptv and underestimates NO2 by 6–36 pptv, as the model is missing PPN photolysis. An ~80 pptv (20-fold) underestimate in modelled MPN over the Southeast US results from uncertainties in processes that sustain MPN production as air ages. Our findings highlight that greater understanding of UT NOy is critically needed to determine its role in the nitrogen cycle, air pollution, climate, and abundance of oxidants.
- Preprint
(1660 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2024-3388', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Jan 2025
reply
Wei et al. characterize the distribution, seasonality, and speciation of reactive oxidized nitrogen (NOy) in the upper troposphere using measurements from research campaigns and commercial flights and compare them to a global model simulation to test our understanding of NOy sources & chemistry. They analyze the similarities and differences in the NOy speciation in different regions and seasons and identify discrepancies between the observations and the model. This study tackles an important topic since the cycling of oxidized nitrogen in the global troposphere affects tropospheric ozone and OH, and thus climate and tropospheric oxidant levels. The paper is very well-written and the conclusions, for the most part, are well supported by the data and analysis presented.
Here are some points that need to be clarified further:
(1) The UT is defined as 8- 12 km. This is appropriate for the mid-latitudes. but not the tropics. I understand this might be because the DC8 has a ceiling of 12 km, but this should be clarified.
(2) Lines 159-185: The authors use NO2 calculated from the photochemical steady state instead of the measurements because of interference in the chemiluminescence instrument. The SEAC4RS TD-LIF NO2 measurements may also be biased high (Silvern et al. 2018, Shah et al. 2023) and this could affect the TD-LIF measurements of the sum of PANs, etc. which are calculated by subtracting the measured NO2. Is a correction to TD-LIF measurements of these NOy species needed?
(3) One of the paper's conclusions is that GEOS-Chem underestimates MPN during SEAC4RS. MPN seems to make up an unexpectedly large fraction of the observed NOy during SEAC4RS, and including it in the sum of the NOy species degrades the correlation with the total NOy measurements (Figure 4). This leads me to suspect that the MPN measurements may be biased high. It would be valuable if the authors could dig in a little more to find further support for the MPN measurements, and the conclusion that our understanding of MPN sources is rather poor. They could, for example, look at the ATom data downwind of the southeast US to see if there is a substantial difference between the total NOy and the sum of the NOy species. Do other studies show a significant underestimate of VOCs in GEOS-Chem during SEAC4RS?
(4) Lines 54 - 75 I presume nighttime NOy chemistry in the UT is slow enough to be ignored, but it would be good to describe it briefly and state why it is not important, if that is the case.
(5) Lines 365- 372: The paragraph discusses the minor NOy species not included in the analysis, but it does not discuss particulate nitrates (organic & inorganic). Shouldn’t these aerosol species be included in NOy, even if they are minor in the UT?
(6) I suggest that NOy be called “reactive oxidized nitrogen” instead of “reactive nitrogen,” which includes reduced nitrogen (NH3, etc.). And also that in this work NOy does not include N2O.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3388-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
175 | 47 | 5 | 227 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 175
- PDF: 47
- XML: 5
- Total: 227
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1