the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Organic Acids and Cloud Droplet Acidity in Recent Years at Whiteface Mountain, with Focus on Wildfire Smoke Influence
Abstract. Clouds facilitate the transformation of atmospheric gases and particles, yet the impact of cloud processing on organic compounds remains poorly understood due to the paucity of routine measurements within aqueous samples (e.g., cloud water and precipitation). This study presents seven years (2018–2024) of routine summertime measurements of three major Low Molecular Weight Organic Acids (LMWOA: formate, acetate and oxalate) in cloud water samples collected from the summit of Whiteface Mountain in the northeastern United States, including their contributions to Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), ion balance, and cloud water acidity, with critical evaluation of sample handling procedures to minimize volatilization, microbial degradation and contamination. Formate and acetate were the dominant monocarboxylic acids, exhibiting seasonal variability consistent with changes in biogenic emissions, whereas oxalate showed higher concentrations in smoke-impacted clouds. A growing fraction of samples exhibit surplus ammonium relative to sulfate and nitrate concentrations, which previous research hypothesized results from unmeasured organic acids, consistent with the positive relationship between surplus ammonium and LMWOA concentrations observed in the current study. An observed correlation between oxalate and DOC, with higher slope at higher ozone concentrations, supports enhanced in-cloud secondary production of oxalate under high oxidant levels. A comparison of "Aged" versus "Fresh" wildfire smoke-influenced samples suggest that aging can enhance ammonium, with heavier organic acids dominating the DOC pool and acidity, whereas fresh plumes were primarily influenced by directly emitted LMWOA. This study highlights the need for continued monitoring of the evolving cloud water chemistry to better understand the broader impacts on atmospheric chemistry.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
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.-
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
(5013 KB)
-
Supplement
(953 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5013 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(953 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4983', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Nov 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4983', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4983', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Nov 2025
This study presents a comprehensive seven-year summertime dataset of three major Low Molecular Weight Organic Acids (LMWOA, i.e., formate, acetate and oxalate) in cloud water collected via semi-automated sampling from atop Whiteface Mountain (WFM) 2018-2024. The sampling and sample treatment methodologies adopted are robust. I particularly appreciate the tests performed on sampling and storage (filtered/unfiltered, cool or frozen, …). I hope that these results will be used in the future to establish guidelines for cloud water sampling.
I have few remarks on this work but I globally appreciate the results presented and it deserves publication.
- The introduction section lacks of novelty. The references are old, except for the articles published by the group. No mention of studies in other part of the globe, despite the possibility to enrich the discussion, such as Shen et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171775)
- The collector used is a passive sampler, while most of the collectors used on other sites are active (Schmucke, puy de Dôme, ….). Do the authors have an idea of the comparability of the samplers in term of cut-off diameter of cloud droplets and concentrations of ions in the samples?
- How is pH measured? Could the author report the error on pH measurement in Fig. 7? I think everything is reported in Lawrence’s paper, but it would be better to have access to the details directly in the text.
- The comparison of the sample treatment methodologies is very interesting but I wonder how oxalate is depleted in cloud synthetic solution filtered with 0.2 µm mesh. The authors explain that acetate and formate are prone to reach the equilibrium with the gas phase and explain their lower concentration, but oxalate is not volatile and I don’t see any explanation in the text.
- “However, the aged filtered sample exhibited 45% higher acetate concentration than the aged unfiltered sample. This difference was not due to loss of acetate in the unfiltered sample, since the aged unfiltered sample had 11% higher acetate concentrations than the fresh unfiltered sample.” If I understand well, the fresh sample has concentration x, the aged unfiltered had concentration x+11% and the aged filtered sample (x+11%)+45%. This means that the concentration of acetate is increasing. I think that the explanation of a possible microbial contamination with Acetobacter strains is insufficient: this puzzling result needs to be checked in light of the concentration of acetate. For concentration of the order of 1-2 micromolar and considering the potential coelution with lactic and glycolic acid, this difference could be not significant. I would suggest giving the actual concentration and not just the normalized value.
- Line 268: growing season à late spring, early summer, canopy bloom…
- Lines 279-280: reduced photochemical activity or reduced emission of precursors from vegetation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4983-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4983', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4983/egusphere-2025-4983-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sara Lance, 14 Feb 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Air quality dataset from Whiteface Mountain William May https://zenodo.org/records/4394567
Cloud water chemistry dataset from Whiteface Mountain Archana Tripathy and Sara Lance http://atmoschem.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/~cloudwater/pub/Data.htm
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 570 | 247 | 45 | 862 | 61 | 41 | 48 |
- HTML: 570
- PDF: 247
- XML: 45
- Total: 862
- Supplement: 61
- BibTeX: 41
- EndNote: 48
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Archana Tripathy
Haider A. Khwaja
Mirza M. Hussain
Elizabeth Yerger
Daniel Kelting
Christopher E. Lawrence
Paul Casson
Phil Snyder
Sara Lombardo
Noah Pittman
Kathleen DeMarle
Rudra Patel
Lily Hammond
Eric C. Apel
Rebecca S. Hornbrook
Alan J. Hills
Richard Brandt
Scott McKim
Jim Schlemmer
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5013 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(953 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
This study presents a comprehensive seven-year summertime dataset of three major Low Molecular Weight Organic Acids (LMWOA, i.e., formate, acetate and oxalate) in cloud water collected via semi-automated sampling from atop Whiteface Mountain (WFM) 2018-2024. The sampling and sample treatment methodologies adopted are robust. I particularly appreciate the tests performed on sampling and storage (filtered/unfiltered, cool or frozen, …). I hope that these results will be used in the future to establish guidelines for cloud water sampling.
I have few remarks on this work but I globally appreciate the results presented and it deserves publication.