Characteristics of snowpack chemistry on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet facing the North Water

Kurosaki, Yutaka; Matoba, Sumito; Matsumoto, Mai; Yamasaki, Tetsuhide; Hendriksen, Ilannguaq; Iizuka, Yoshinori

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560

Preprints

28 May 2025

| 28 May 2025

Characteristics of snowpack chemistry on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet facing the North Water

Yutaka Kurosaki, Sumito Matoba, Mai Matsumoto, Tetsuhide Yamasaki, Ilannguaq Hendriksen, and Yoshinori Iizuka

Abstract. In the North Water, the opening of sea ice due to polynya formation influences the surrounding water and aerosol circulation. We conducted glaciological observations from seacoast to inland on the western side of Prudhoe Land, which is located in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet close to the North Water, to elucidate water and aerosol circulation around the North Water. The spatial variations in δ¹⁸O and chemical substances in surface snow showed that water vapor and aerosols were directly transported from the southern North Water to northern inland of areas on the western side of Prudhoe Land. Unlike the inland area of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the snowpack on the western side of Prudhoe Land contained signals of ocean biological and sea ice conditions in the North Water. The methanesulfonic acid identified in the summer snowpack originated from a phytoplankton bloom in the North Water. NH₄⁺ in autumn–winter snowpacks could originate from ammonia gas emissions from organisms in the North Water. The Na⁺, Cl⁻, K⁺, Mg²⁺, SO₄²⁻, and Ca²⁺ concentrations in the snowpack rapidly increased in winter, which could be attributed to the emission of frost flowers from the newly formed sea ice surface into the atmosphere due to intense storm activity in the North Water. We suggest that the chemical substances identified in the snowpack or ice core from the western side of Prudhoe Land can be used to better understand past changes in ocean biological and sea ice conditions in the North Water.

Received: 02 Apr 2025 – Discussion started: 28 May 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Yutaka Kurosaki, Sumito Matoba, Mai Matsumoto, Tetsuhide Yamasaki, Ilannguaq Hendriksen, and Yoshinori Iizuka

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1560', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jun 2025
In this paper entitled “Characteristics of snowpack chemistry on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet facing the North Water”, authors present an interesting observation of the effect that polynia North water (NOW) has on aerosol circulation and precipitation. the results are obtained from measurements of major ions, MSA and water isotopic analyses at 9 surface snow sampling sites, 2 snow-pit sites and 1 ice core. The text is well structured a detailed introduction, however the drafting in general should be improved as there are numerous repetitions and in some parts the reading is difficult to understand. In particular, the section 3.2 has to be improved. The conclusions have to be focused on the main goals obtained in this paper. It is very long and I suggest to summarize, avoiding to repeat the results and discussion.
On lines105-106: “The snow sampling intervals at St. 3 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.20 to 1.01 m, and the snow sampling intervals at St. 9 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.30 to 1.08 m.” Why was the sampling interval changed?

Lines 104, 108, 110. The authors told of precleaned materials and tools, but the cleaning procedure is not described.

On line 107: Why was the ice core only sampled at one site? could be used for comparison at least with st3.

Line 115: “methane sulfonate− (hereafter referred to as MSA)” already defined in the introduction

Lines 116-118. Please add several details about the analytical methods or some references. In particular, the authors declared only the columns used for cations and anions without any specific important details such as dimensions. Other important details are flows, injection volumes, instruments used, suppressors, detectors. No specific details about the quantification methods are reported. I suppose that you used external calibration curves, but which are the linear ranges, and which are the RCM used for quantification. In summary, please improve the method and quality control section about the ionic analysis.

Lines 117-119: Has the ion chromatography method used been validated in previous works? If yes, indicate them, if not, insert a section on validation.

Lines 119-120: “The samples exhibiting large peak were measured multiple times, to confirm that any large peak in ion concentration was not caused by analytical errors.” What is meant?

Lines 156-165 Text is not clear

Section 3.2. Following stratigraphic analysis and evaluation of snowpack density, it may be more informative to express data in terms of fluxes rather than concentrations, so in the subsequent data analysis one could avoid distinguishing peaks attributed to atmospheric deposition from those of melting and refreezing

Lines 188–190: Introducing all figures at the beginning of the section may lead to confusion. Since the discussion begins with Fig. 5, it would be more effective to present the figures sequentially, in alignment with the narrative.

Line 194: “We applied the concentration unit as μeq L−” Information that is already made explicit in the following graphs

Line 201: “We suggest that the spatial variation in the δ18O results from water vapor transport from the southern coast to the northern inland area by southerly winds.” Might it be useful to indicate figure 9 by referring to the direction of the prevailing winds?

Line 210. Please add “(figure 6)” to help readers or start the sentence introducing the Figure 6 and its meaning.

Figure 6: I suggest using the season and year instead of Roman numerals, as this would facilitate interpretation. This recommendation may also apply to the other figures. It is somewhat difficult to follow the discussion, as it requires frequently switching between different figures.

Figure 6c, it is not clear why the authors used the difference between St3 and St.9, instead of a ratio.

Line 217-218: “We suggest that the altitude gradient of the surface air temperature in winter was greater than that in summer in the western region of Prudhoe Land.” could this statement also be confirmed using atmospheric models for specific sites?

Lines 306-309: there are many repetitions of “the concentration of MSA”. Same in the conclusions with “The snowpack on the western side of Prudhoe Land”.

General comment on the conclusions: from figure 1 sampling sites 1 to 5 (or 6) are in a valley. has this aspect been taken into consideration? could it have an impact on the final considerations?

Other comments:
In figure 1b it might be useful to include a dimensional scale to give an idea of the distances.

Similarly, in figure 2, in addition to the distance expressed in latitude, could a conversion to km be useful?

In figure 5, in addition to changing colours between total and nss values, it would also be useful to change the symbols
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yutaka Kurosaki, 21 Aug 2025
  
  Thank you for your valuable comments. Our responses and the changes we plant to make in the revised manuscript are explained in an attachment file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1560', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1560/egusphere-2025-1560-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yutaka Kurosaki, 21 Aug 2025
  
  Thank you for your valuable comments. Our responses and the changes we plant to make in the revised manuscript are explained in an attachment file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-AC2

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1560', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jun 2025
In this paper entitled “Characteristics of snowpack chemistry on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet facing the North Water”, authors present an interesting observation of the effect that polynia North water (NOW) has on aerosol circulation and precipitation. the results are obtained from measurements of major ions, MSA and water isotopic analyses at 9 surface snow sampling sites, 2 snow-pit sites and 1 ice core. The text is well structured a detailed introduction, however the drafting in general should be improved as there are numerous repetitions and in some parts the reading is difficult to understand. In particular, the section 3.2 has to be improved. The conclusions have to be focused on the main goals obtained in this paper. It is very long and I suggest to summarize, avoiding to repeat the results and discussion.
On lines105-106: “The snow sampling intervals at St. 3 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.20 to 1.01 m, and the snow sampling intervals at St. 9 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.30 to 1.08 m.” Why was the sampling interval changed?

Lines 104, 108, 110. The authors told of precleaned materials and tools, but the cleaning procedure is not described.

On line 107: Why was the ice core only sampled at one site? could be used for comparison at least with st3.

Line 115: “methane sulfonate− (hereafter referred to as MSA)” already defined in the introduction

Lines 116-118. Please add several details about the analytical methods or some references. In particular, the authors declared only the columns used for cations and anions without any specific important details such as dimensions. Other important details are flows, injection volumes, instruments used, suppressors, detectors. No specific details about the quantification methods are reported. I suppose that you used external calibration curves, but which are the linear ranges, and which are the RCM used for quantification. In summary, please improve the method and quality control section about the ionic analysis.

Lines 117-119: Has the ion chromatography method used been validated in previous works? If yes, indicate them, if not, insert a section on validation.

Lines 119-120: “The samples exhibiting large peak were measured multiple times, to confirm that any large peak in ion concentration was not caused by analytical errors.” What is meant?

Lines 156-165 Text is not clear

Section 3.2. Following stratigraphic analysis and evaluation of snowpack density, it may be more informative to express data in terms of fluxes rather than concentrations, so in the subsequent data analysis one could avoid distinguishing peaks attributed to atmospheric deposition from those of melting and refreezing

Lines 188–190: Introducing all figures at the beginning of the section may lead to confusion. Since the discussion begins with Fig. 5, it would be more effective to present the figures sequentially, in alignment with the narrative.

Line 194: “We applied the concentration unit as μeq L−” Information that is already made explicit in the following graphs

Line 201: “We suggest that the spatial variation in the δ18O results from water vapor transport from the southern coast to the northern inland area by southerly winds.” Might it be useful to indicate figure 9 by referring to the direction of the prevailing winds?

Line 210. Please add “(figure 6)” to help readers or start the sentence introducing the Figure 6 and its meaning.

Figure 6: I suggest using the season and year instead of Roman numerals, as this would facilitate interpretation. This recommendation may also apply to the other figures. It is somewhat difficult to follow the discussion, as it requires frequently switching between different figures.

Figure 6c, it is not clear why the authors used the difference between St3 and St.9, instead of a ratio.

Line 217-218: “We suggest that the altitude gradient of the surface air temperature in winter was greater than that in summer in the western region of Prudhoe Land.” could this statement also be confirmed using atmospheric models for specific sites?

Lines 306-309: there are many repetitions of “the concentration of MSA”. Same in the conclusions with “The snowpack on the western side of Prudhoe Land”.

General comment on the conclusions: from figure 1 sampling sites 1 to 5 (or 6) are in a valley. has this aspect been taken into consideration? could it have an impact on the final considerations?

Other comments:
In figure 1b it might be useful to include a dimensional scale to give an idea of the distances.

Similarly, in figure 2, in addition to the distance expressed in latitude, could a conversion to km be useful?

In figure 5, in addition to changing colours between total and nss values, it would also be useful to change the symbols
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yutaka Kurosaki, 21 Aug 2025
  
  Thank you for your valuable comments. Our responses and the changes we plant to make in the revised manuscript are explained in an attachment file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1560', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1560/egusphere-2025-1560-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yutaka Kurosaki, 21 Aug 2025
  
  Thank you for your valuable comments. Our responses and the changes we plant to make in the revised manuscript are explained in an attachment file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1560-AC2

Yutaka Kurosaki, Sumito Matoba, Mai Matsumoto, Tetsuhide Yamasaki, Ilannguaq Hendriksen, and Yoshinori Iizuka

Viewed

Total article views: 776 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
698	53	25	776	13	31

HTML: 698
PDF: 53
XML: 25
Total: 776
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 31

Views and downloads (calculated since 28 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	43	10	3	56
Jun 2025	77	14	11	102
Jul 2025	43	10	3	56
Aug 2025	134	8	4	146
Sep 2025	375	9	3	387
Oct 2025	26	2	1	29

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	43	10	3	56
Jun 2025	77	14	11	102
Jul 2025	43	10	3	56
Aug 2025	134	8	4	146
Sep 2025	375	9	3	387
Oct 2025	26	2	1	29

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 762 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 762 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 25 Oct 2025

Short summary

We conducted snow observations on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet close to the North Water. The snowpack on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet contained aerosols originated from ocean biological activity and frost flowers in the North Water. The chemical substances in an ice core from the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet could help explain past changes in ocean biological and sea ice conditions in the North Water.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0