the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jan 2024
Aerosol composition, air quality, and boundary layer dynamics in the urban background of Stuttgart in winter
Abstract. Aerosol distribution is of great relevance for air quality especially for the cities like Stuttgart which is located in a basin. To understand the impact of boundary layer mixing processes on local air quality and to validate the large eddy simulation (LES) model PAML-4U, we collected a comprehensive set of data from remote sensing, in-situ methods including radiosondes for the urban background of downtown Stuttgart. Stagnant meteorological conditions caused accumulation of aerosols during winter. Case studies show that clouds during previous nights can weaken temperature inversion and accelerate boundary layer mixing after sunrise. This is important for ground-level aerosol dilution during morning rush hours. Furthermore, our observations validate results of the LES model PALM-4U in terms of boundary layer heights and aerosol mixing for 48 hours. The simulated aerosol concentrations follow the trend of our observations but are still underestimated by a factor of 4.5 ± 2.1. This underestimation is mainly due to uncertainties of emissions and boundary conditions of the model. This paper firstly evaluates the PALM-4U model performance in simulating aerosol temporal-spatial distribution, which can help to improve the LES model and to better understand sources and sinks for air pollution as well as the role of horizontal and vertical transport.
-
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
(5827 KB)
-
Supplement
(2013 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5827 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2013 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Pleae find my comments in the attaached file.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
We would like to thank reviewer for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing valuable, constructive feedback and corresponding suggestions that helped us to further improve the manuscript. Our detailed replies to each of the raised concerns are in the supplementary material. Our point-to-point replies are marked by “R” and are in blue, changes to the manuscript text are in green.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-90', I. Pérez, 13 Jun 2024
This is a quite complete paper about the evolution of the planetary boundary layer and its relationship with the recorded concentrations at a polluted site in Germany. Stuttgart was the selected site and the period investigated extended for February 5th to March 5th in 2018. Although this period is short, the equipment used is formed by a scanning aerosol lidar, an aerosol mass spectrometer, an aethalometer, a condensation particle counter, an optical particle counter, trace gas sensors and meteorological sensors. Measurements of these devices are presented. Moreover, experimental observations are contrasted with model simulations. The paper focused on the planetary boundary layer evolution during certain days and the role played by clouds. Additionally, a longer database, which extended form January 1st 2020 to January 1st 2022, was used to present the daily evolution of PM10 concentrations and the boundary layer height. Consequently, the paper merits to be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after the introduction of the following minor changes.
Since the period investigated is short, only one month, the results representativeness could be questioned. Hence, the authors should indicate if their results are robust enough.
Moreover, some orographic features are in the surroundings. The authors should comment the influence of such features on the planetary boundary layer evolution following varied wind directions. A short comment about possible processes such as anabatic or katabatic winds would increase the value of this paper.
Daily evolution of PM10 and boundary layer is presented by a two-year database. The authors should explain discrepancies between this evolution and that observed in their one-month period.
The authors should indicate the reasons to select some specific days, such as February 13th or 14th.
Finally, future research lines could be introduced at end of conclusions.
Minor remarks.
Figure 1. Indicate if 1 km and 10 m are the network resolutions. Moreover, magnitudes and units in scales must be introduced.
L. 148. Replace “haar” by “Haar”.
L. 154. Replace “Zmin” by “zmin”.
L. 250, Replace “labled” by “labeled”.
L. 301. Replace “conclud” by “conclude”.
Figure 9. Labels should be introduced.
References should follow the journal style.
L. 716. Replace “Fro¨hlich” by “Fröhlich”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-90-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
We would like to thank reviewer for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing valuable, constructive feedback and corresponding suggestions that helped us to further improve the manuscript. Our detailed replies to each of the raised concerns are in the supplementary material. Our point-to-point replies are marked by “R” and are in blue, changes to the manuscript text are in green.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2024
Pleae find my comments in the attaached file.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
We would like to thank reviewer for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing valuable, constructive feedback and corresponding suggestions that helped us to further improve the manuscript. Our detailed replies to each of the raised concerns are in the supplementary material. Our point-to-point replies are marked by “R” and are in blue, changes to the manuscript text are in green.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-90', I. Pérez, 13 Jun 2024
This is a quite complete paper about the evolution of the planetary boundary layer and its relationship with the recorded concentrations at a polluted site in Germany. Stuttgart was the selected site and the period investigated extended for February 5th to March 5th in 2018. Although this period is short, the equipment used is formed by a scanning aerosol lidar, an aerosol mass spectrometer, an aethalometer, a condensation particle counter, an optical particle counter, trace gas sensors and meteorological sensors. Measurements of these devices are presented. Moreover, experimental observations are contrasted with model simulations. The paper focused on the planetary boundary layer evolution during certain days and the role played by clouds. Additionally, a longer database, which extended form January 1st 2020 to January 1st 2022, was used to present the daily evolution of PM10 concentrations and the boundary layer height. Consequently, the paper merits to be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after the introduction of the following minor changes.
Since the period investigated is short, only one month, the results representativeness could be questioned. Hence, the authors should indicate if their results are robust enough.
Moreover, some orographic features are in the surroundings. The authors should comment the influence of such features on the planetary boundary layer evolution following varied wind directions. A short comment about possible processes such as anabatic or katabatic winds would increase the value of this paper.
Daily evolution of PM10 and boundary layer is presented by a two-year database. The authors should explain discrepancies between this evolution and that observed in their one-month period.
The authors should indicate the reasons to select some specific days, such as February 13th or 14th.
Finally, future research lines could be introduced at end of conclusions.
Minor remarks.
Figure 1. Indicate if 1 km and 10 m are the network resolutions. Moreover, magnitudes and units in scales must be introduced.
L. 148. Replace “haar” by “Haar”.
L. 154. Replace “Zmin” by “zmin”.
L. 250, Replace “labled” by “labeled”.
L. 301. Replace “conclud” by “conclude”.
Figure 9. Labels should be introduced.
References should follow the journal style.
L. 716. Replace “Fro¨hlich” by “Fröhlich”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-90-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
We would like to thank reviewer for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing valuable, constructive feedback and corresponding suggestions that helped us to further improve the manuscript. Our detailed replies to each of the raised concerns are in the supplementary material. Our point-to-point replies are marked by “R” and are in blue, changes to the manuscript text are in green.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hengheng Zhang, 24 Jul 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 563 | 209 | 32 | 804 | 52 | 19 | 20 |
- HTML: 563
- PDF: 209
- XML: 32
- Total: 804
- Supplement: 52
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Wei Huang
Xiaoli Shen
Ramakrishna Ramisetty
Junwei Song
Olga Kiseleva
Christopher Claus Holst
Basit Khan
Thomas Leisner
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5827 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2013 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper