the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Photochemistry of the sea-surface microlayer (SML) influenced by a phytoplankton bloom: A mesocosm study
Abstract. The sea-surface microlayer (SML) is the thin boundary interface between the ocean and the atmosphere, and it is expected to play a crucial role in atmospheric chemistry on a global scale. Being a biologically-enriched environment exposed to strong actinic radiation, the SML is potentially a hotspot for photochemical reactions that have relevance in the transformation and cycling of organic compounds. The present study explores the photochemical production and degradation of carbonyl compounds, as well as the photochemical oxidation capacity in both ambient SML and underlying water (ULW) samples. Natural seawater samples were collected during a mesocosm study where a phytoplankton bloom was induced through the controlled addition of inorganic nutrients. To assess the photochemistry of carbonyl compounds, collected SML and ULW samples were irradiated for 5 hours. The photochemical formation and degradation of 17 carbonyl compounds were quantified by monitoring compound-specific changes in concentrations, which varied significantly across the samples. Before irradiation, values in the SML ranged from 201 to 762 nmol L-1 in the pre-bloom phase, 984 to 4591 nmol L-1 in the bloom phase, and 647 to 4894 nmol L-1 in the post-bloom phase; while in the ULW they were significantly lower (e.g., 136 to 366 nmol L-1 in the bloom phase). After 5 hours of irradiation, the concentrations of carbonyl compounds increased further, reaching up to 6026 nmol L-1 in the SML during the bloom phase and 419 nmol L-1 in the ULW. Experimental evidence suggests an enhanced photochemical activity in the SML during the bloom phase for glyoxal, methylglyoxal, methyl vinyl ketone, methacrolein, acrolein, crotonaldehyde, heptanal, biacetyl, hexanal and trans-2-hexenal. The observed photooxidation capacity of the seawater samples indicate a dominant influence of redox active species like metal ions, rather than of the phytoplankton bloom phases. The overall photochemical oxidation capacity was similar for both SML and ULW samples, with average values of 34 μM s-1. Our findings show an influence of biological activity in the photochemistry of carbonyl compounds in the SML and its implications for the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the marine atmosphere, pointing to the complex interaction of biotic and abiotic factors in the air-sea boundary and underscoring the relevance of marine photochemistry in biogeochemical processes.
- Preprint
(1666 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(891 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Dec 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4066', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4066', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Dec 2025
reply
The study investigates the photochemistry of the sea surface microlayer (SML) and underlying water (ULW) collected during a mesocosm-induced phytoplankton bloom. The authors investigate the photochemical production and degradation of 17 specific carbonyl compounds and the overall photooxidation capacity of the samples. They conclude that selective photochemical activity in the SML possibly reflects a link between photochemical reactivity and bloom-driven changes in DOM composition, while the estimated photooxidation rates highlight the potential role of redox-active species, such as metal ions, in controlling photooxidation capacity.
However, several critical issues concerning sample handling, characterization, and data presentation and interpretation require clarification. Addressing the points outlined below is essential to strengthen the main findings, as in their current form the results are not sufficiently convincing and do not appear to make a meaningful contribution to the field.
- The unfiltered SML and ULW samples were frozen immediately after collection, then thawed and irradiated without further filtration. Under such conditions, both DOC and POC fractions—including cells, cellular debris, and particulate biological material released due to freeze–thaw rupture—are subject to photochemical transformations. Despite this, the manuscript interprets carbonyl dynamics solely within the context of the DOC pool, while the potentially substantial contribution of the particulate fraction is not addressed. Without accounting for the POC fraction, the interpretation of carbonyl production and degradation remains incomplete, and the overall experimental design—based on irradiation of unfiltered samples—was inadequately conceived for drawing the conclusions presented. I strongly recommend that the authors revise statements throughout the manuscript that rely on assumptions regarding the DOC pool alone, without considering possible contributions from the particulate fraction.
- The manuscript does not provide essential information about the bloom itself. The authors describe the bloom progression exclusively through chlorophyll a, but do not present phytoplankton cell abundances and community composition. There is also not information about the abundance of heterotrophic bacteria which could be highly enriched in the SML. This lack of biological information raises concerns about how well the biological context of the experiment is constrained. At least, it would be useful to provide more details on this aspect and supplement the data with POC concentrations additionally indicating the pooled biological development during the experiment.
- Figure 3 is central to interpreting photochemical changes in carbonyl compounds. However, presenting only absolute concentrations before and after irradiation provides limited insight and the figure is difficult to read in its current form. I recommend to consider presenting relative changes (e.g., % increase/decrease) instead, which would allow the irradiation-induced effects easier to interpret. Absolute values can remain in the Supporting Information. Moreover, Figure 3 lacks standard deviations, making it hard to assess whether observed differences are statistically meaningful. While I understand that limited SML volume may constrain replication, at least the ULW samples should include variability between the replicates reflecting analytical and sample-handling uncertainty. Both improvements would substantially strengthen the findings, as in their current form they are not sufficiently convincing .
- It is not surprising that higher concentrations of carbonyl compounds were detected during the phytoplankton bloom phase, as overall OM increase during this period as well. It appears that the variability of DOC concentrations resulting from irradiation was not reported. To strengthen the interpretation and conclusion, it would be important to assess changes in the contribution of carbonyls to DOC (%) before and after irradiation. Moreover, it is not surprising that higher photochemical production rates were measured for the SML compared to the ULW due to the SML enrichments in organic matter. Therefore, it is unclear whether and how the authors accounted for initial OC levels when calculating photochemical formation and degradation rates. The same concern applies to the evaluation of photooxidation capacity using the radical probe in the EPR experiments. Because the authors report similar photooxidation rates across bloom phases and between SML and ULW, the influence of differing OC levels on these rates should be discussed. Accounting for above, I strongly recommend that authors reconsider the statements throughout the text, including conclusions.
- The authors should discuss the notable increase in Fe concentrations during the bloom relative to pre-bloom conditions. It would be helpful if the authors could also discuss how trace metal complexation in SML vs ULW may have contributed to the redox activity in the EPR experiments.
- Please specify the temperature at which EPR measurements were performed, as well as the method/approach used to maintain temperature stability. Controlled and constant temperature conditions are crucial because temperature fluctuations influence EPR signal intensity, amplitude, and contributions from molecular rotational dynamics.
- Figure 5 seems to be missing and has likely been replaced inadvertently by a repeat of Figure 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4066-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,823 | 79 | 23 | 1,925 | 35 | 29 | 28 |
- HTML: 1,823
- PDF: 79
- XML: 23
- Total: 1,925
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The article by Jibaja et al. conducted a mesocosm study that investigated the photochemical production of carbonyl compounds influenced by a phytoplankton bloom. The study measured the concentrations of carbonyl compounds in both surface microlayer (SML) and underlaying seawater (ULW), as well as production/loss rates after samples collected from different time points were irradiated after 5 hours. The authors also measured photooxidation capacity and concentrations of two trace metals (Fe and Cu). The experiments and the analysis are well designed and executed, I have several comments for the authors to consider: