the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of the uncertainty of the spectral UV irradiance measured by double- and single-monochromator Brewer spectroradiometers
Abstract. Brewer spectroradiometers are robust, widely used instruments that have been monitoring global solar ultraviolet (UV) irradiance since the 1990s, playing a key role in solar UV research. Unfortunately, the uncertainties of these measurements are rarely evaluated due to the difficulties involved in the uncertainty propagation. This evaluation is essential to determine the quality of the measurements as well as their comparability to other measurements. In this study, eight double- and two single-monochromator Brewers are characterised and the uncertainty of their global UV measurements is estimated using the Monte Carlo method. This methodology is selected as it provides reliable uncertainty estimations and considers the nonlinearity of the UV processing algorithm. The combined standard uncertainty depends on the Brewer, varying between 2.5 % and 4 % for the 300–350 nm region. For wavelengths below 300 nm, the differences between single- and double-monochromator Brewers increase, due to stray light and dark counts. For example, at 295 nm, the relative uncertainties of single Brewers range between 11–14 % while double Brewers have uncertainties of 4–7 %. These uncertainties arise primarily from radiometric stability, the application of cosine correction, and the irradiance of the lamp used during the instrument calibration. As the intensity of the UV irradiance measured decreases, dark counts, stray light (for single Brewers), and noise become the dominant sources of uncertainty. These results indicate that the overall uncertainty of a Brewer spectroradiometer could be greatly reduced by increasing the frequency of radiometric calibration and improving the traditional entrance optics.
- Preprint
(1289 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-490', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2025
reply
The paper presents a methodology to evaluate uncertainties in spectral UV irradiance measurements by Brewer spectroradiometers. The methodology considers most of the possible sources of uncertainty and has been applied on several instruments. In this respect, the study is innovative and useful for the uncertainty evaluation of the global Brewer network. However, it is alarming that the evaluation for one spectrum takes so long (8 hours), making the method impractical for evaluating large numbers of spectra.
The presentation is generally clear, but there are several places where clarifications are needed. See specific comments below.
The language can certainly be improved. There are many typographical, syntax and grammar errors that can easily be corrected by careful reading. In my Technical Comments section below I have listed a few, but there are many more.
Therefore, my recommendation is that the paper would be suitable for publication in ACP, after addressing by comments below.
Specific comments:
27: The difference between single and double monochromators is mainly due to stray light and not due to dark signal. I suggest deleting "and dark count".
29-30: How the “irradiance of the calibration lamp” is involved in the uncertainty? I think you mean the uncertainty associated with the reference lamp calibration, therefore I suggest replacing "irradiance" with "uncertainty". The same applies to lines 418 and 618.
153-155: I am not sure what you mean here: First you say that some uncertainties are considered int eh analysis and then that you prefer to ignore them. Please clarify.
157: Replace "counts" with "signal". It is better to use “signal” when you are referring generally to what is measured. This applies, for example, also to lines 159 and 160 and elsewhere.
157: What do you mean by unprocessed? To what does this differ from (1)? My understanding after reading the next sections is that this category refers to uncertainties related to absolute irradiance, specifically to wavelength shifts, angular response and temperature dependence. All three affect the absolute irradiance rather than the raw (or unprocessed) irradiance.
202: Does “40” refers to all dark signal measurements (which I think is too low) or to measurements at each temperature? Please specify.
242, 245, 477: To which period do these drifts refer?
251: Since the spectral range is defined from short to long wavelengths, the irradiance is increasing rather than declining. You could cope with it more easily by saying "marked variability".
269: It appears that not all uncertainties were considered for all instruments. You might consider summarizing in a table the types of uncertainties considered in each instrument.
333-335: Why were spectra corrected for shifts only if they were measured at SZAs<90°?
I think the second sentence complicates the discussion. You can simply say: "Only spectra recorded at SZA's smaller than 90° were used in this study."359: What about cloudy conditions? Other sources of uncertainty are also involved. Maybe you could discuss briefly what happens under cloudy conditions.
371: Good agreement cannot be assessed by this figure. If ratios were shown against one instrument (e.g., the QASUME or the average / median of all instruments) the level of agreement would have been more evident.
378: I am not sure if Figure 2 is necessary. It is expected that the standard uncertainty will increase with wavelength and solar elevation since the irradiance increases. In contrast Figure 3 is more meaningful to discuss.
393: Better say, at the end of the sentence: "... and some Brewers showed almost no SZA dependency, as shown later in Figure 4".
406: In fact, half of the 10 Brewers considered show some SZA dependency and half are not; so, I wouldn't say "most Brewers".
416: In this section, a table summarizing the ranges of uncertainties due to different factors together with the combined uncertainty would be useful.
417-418: The relative contribution to the combined uncertainty is based (or at least it is shown in Figure 5) by the two example spectra. I think it would be more representative to show average contributions from a larger number of spectra recorded for several days in a narrow range of SZAs.
424: You might consider including a table with individual and total uncertainties for each of the Brewers considered.
452: How your results on Dead Time compare with those derived by Fountoulakis et al., 2016? https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/9/1799/2016/
506: Caption of Fig. 7: This figure shows the relative standard uncertainty (not the combined). Please correct the axis title and caption.
517-525: Although the contents of this paragraph are correct, they are not very relevant to the topic of the paper. The authors have already published a work on the TCO uncertainties using the same methodology.
556-562: I am afraid that the uncertainty in quantifying the effects of UV radiation on materials is much higher than the uncertainty in UV measurements.
581-586: Note that photolysis frequencies are estimated from actinic flux measurements which are not measured by Brewer spectroradiometers. However, generally speaking, the estimation of uncertainties of relevant instruments can benefit from this study.
591: In the conclusions section, I suggest discussing the uncertainties against those reported in previous studies. Does this study show significantly different results from the uncertainties in spectral UV irradiance usually quoted in the literature?
623: Apart from the need to monitor the wavelength shifts, it is essential to reduce them through accurate determination of the instrument’s wavelength scale and frequent wavelength calibrations.
Technical comments:
30: Rephrase to "measured UV irradiance decreases, the dark signal"
99: Replace "using" with "by"
177: Please rephrase to: "These values are deemed reliable as they were derived by analyzing data from over 20 single Brewers."
191: replace "was" with "is"
289: Insert “by” before “integrating”
294: Replace “diffuser error” with “diffuse error”
295: “derived for inhomogeneous sky radiance distribution”
377: Replace “displaying” with “display”
445: Delete “those of”
456: Replace “as SZAs decrease” with “at small SZAs”
603: Replace “depended on the wavelength and SZA, increasing as wavelength rose and SZA declined.” with “increases with increasing wavelength and decreasing SZA”.
604: Replace “tripled” with “are triple”
624: Replace "committed in” with “associated with”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-490-RC1
Data sets
European Brewer Network Agencia Estatal de Meteorología https://eubrewnet.aemet.es/eubrewnet
Model code and software
GUM uncertainty framework, Unscented transformation, and Monte Carlo approaches for the uncertainty evaluation of Brewer UV measurements C. González et al. https://zenodo.org/records/12790742
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
35 | 10 | 3 | 48 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 35
- PDF: 10
- XML: 3
- Total: 48
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 25 | 39 |
Spain | 2 | 9 | 14 |
Greece | 3 | 4 | 6 |
Australia | 4 | 3 | 4 |
Netherlands | 5 | 3 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 25