the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Description and Validation of a Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxide Instrument for High-Altitude Airborne Science (COMA)
Abstract. In this work, we describe development of the Carbon monOxide Measurement from Ames (COMA) instrument for measurement of carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrous oxide (N2O) aboard NASA's WB-57 high altitude research aircraft. While COMA has previously flown in the cabin of the NASA P-3 platform, here the instrument was modified to operate in a significantly different environment- an unpressurized pallet flying primarily above 12 km (40,000 ft). Modifications were made to the laser to allow for detection of CO and N2O, ruggedization and thermal management were addressed, and a calibration system was designed to quantify the measurement stability in-flight. Testing was conducted in a thermal vacuum chamber to mimic anticipated ambient conditions experienced inside the WB-57 pallet bay and found electronic components remained within thermal limits. COMA successfully operated during nine unattended transit flights to and from South Korea and fifteen research flights during NASA’s Asian summer monsoon Chemical & CLImate Project (ACCLIP) 2022 campaign, which was focused on studying the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone in the Western Pacific. The CO measurement has an overall uncertainty ranging between 4.1 ppb (at 50 ppb CO) and 5.9 ppb (at 200 ppb CO). N2O has an overall uncertainty of 2.7 ppb (at 320 ppb N2O). In addition, COMA observations were compared with two other in-situ CO instruments co-located on the WB-57: Carbon Monoxide Laser Detector (COLD) 2 and Airborne Carbonic Oxides and Sulfide Spectrometer (ACOS). Comparisons for 15 flights during the ACCLIP campaign indicate a range in slope of 1.10–1.15 for COLD2 vs. COMA and 0.94–1.10 for ACOS vs COMA.
- Preprint
(7010 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1081', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Apr 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1081/egusphere-2025-1081-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1081', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1081/egusphere-2025-1081-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1081', Anonymous Referee #3, 25 Apr 2025
reply
Yates et al. present an instrument to measure CO and N2O aboard high altitude aircraft. They describe the modifications they made to a commercial analyzer in order for it to perform on an aircraft platform that samples up to 18 km in the atmosphere and in very cold and warm/humid conditions. They compare their CO measurements from one campaign on a NASA WB-57 platform to two other instruments that measured CO. Correlation slopes between the other two instruments vs. the instrument described in depth in this manuscript had slopes that ranged from 1.10–1.15 and 0.94–1.10, respectively, depending on the flight that was compared.
Overall, this paper described modifications to a commercial instrument that could be helpful to the scientific community aboard high-altitude aircraft. However, I think the authors should go into more details on both the modifications and for the other CO instruments that were compared to. Therefore, I think major revisions are necessary.
First, more detail is needed for the inlet diaphragm pump assembly. For example, the I was surprised that the calibration bottles were not inserted into the sample flow upstream of the diaphragm pump. Were any tests done in the lab to show that this pump did not affect the CO or N2O measurement? What material were the diaphragm parts and seals made of?
Along those lines, I am not aware of people using Teflon FEP tubing to measure CO and N2O. Are there any lab tests the authors can point to that show that this material does not affect CO and N2O?
I also had some questions about the flow diagram in Figure 3. What is the purpose of Port 1? Is it the default flow path?
line 68-73, how was cell pressure maintained? Were the authors using the slow flow path that originally comes with an LGR/ABB instrument? What was the flow rate in flight?
Figure 2, how are the “Solenoid” and “Ext front” temperatures below the ambient temperature? Also, the text suggests this is in flight data, but the figure caption says the black trace is the environmental chamber pressure altitude?
line 173, I’m not sure why calibrations that differed by more than 4 standard deviations were removed? Wouldn’t this reflect instrument performance and need to be retained?
Figure 7, why the switch from NOAA standards to Matheson standards? Could the authors discuss this switch?
Figure 9, could the authors use a different color for COMA? It is hard to distinguish the dark blue from the light blue and/or black trace
line 229, could the authors add a short description of which groups operate COLD 2 and ACOS? And how were they calibrated? Did they get their standards from NOAA?
line 236, since the authors use two decimal places for the overall comparison, it is probably best to use two to describe the August 29 comparison
Typos/Grammar suggestions
line 115, NOAA ESRL no longer exists, and it is misspelled “ERSL”. I would use “NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory”.
line 121, the URL is missing “a.”. Should be …gml.noaa.gov…
lines 93 and 129, don’t need to hyphenate “in-flight”
line 178, perhaps say “equally comprised of the residuals…”
line 217, remove comma after “N2O”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1081-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
123 | 17 | 6 | 146 | 2 | 0 |
- HTML: 123
- PDF: 17
- XML: 6
- Total: 146
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1