Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements

Zhu, Fang; Liu, Xiaoping; Li, Suwen; Si, Fuqi

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580

Preprints

01 Dec 2025

| 01 Dec 2025

Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements

Fang Zhu, Xiaoping Liu, Suwen Li, and Fuqi Si

Abstract. This study describes a retrieval algorithm combining wavelength pairing and the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) to process Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) limb observations for vertical ozone profiles. The retrieval algorithm employs scattered solar radiance measurements from the OMPS limb profiler, focusing on the visible spectral range, normalizes this radiance to that at the upper tangent height, and retrieves ozone concentrations between 12–40 km (∼ 1 km vertical resolution). Additionally, it enables the identification of cloud-contaminated measurements at specific altitudes within the instrument's field of view. The retrieval error in the upper troposphere attributed to the prior profile is estimated to be 10–25 %, while a 30 % uncertainty in the aerosol extinction coefficient causes ~ 5 % error at 15–25 km. OMPS data spanning the entire year of 2021 are processed, and the results are evaluated through comparisons with multiple independent datasets, including NASA official products, passive satellite observations, and in-situ measurements from balloon-borne ozonesondes. At 17–36 km, deviations from OMPS/LP v2.6 data are ≤5 %; at 18–35 km, consistency with Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) v5.0 data ranges from 5–10 %; at 20–35 km, most deviations from OSIRIS v7.3 data are ≤5 % (except near 23 km). Comparisons with ozonesonde measurements reveal that differences in the 13–30 km range over northern mid-to-high latitudes are mostly <10 % (with 10–15% differences at 22–25 km in polar regions). Over southern mid-latitudes, the consistency within the same altitude range is 2–10%. Notably, deviations between the retrieved profiles and comparison products increase significantly in low-altitude tropical regions.

Received: 11 Nov 2025 – Discussion started: 01 Dec 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

Preprint (PDF, 3730 KB)

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 (3730 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Jul 2026

Retrieving stratospheric ozone profiles from OMPS limb profiler measurements

Fang Zhu, Xiaoping Liu, Suwen Li, and Fuqi Si

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 19, 4441–4457, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-4441-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-4441-2026, 2026

Short summary

Fang Zhu, Xiaoping Liu, Suwen Li, and Fuqi Si

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jan 2026

General comments:
The authors present a retrieval algorithm that combines wavelength pairing with the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) and apply it to OMPS-LP L1G data to obtain ozone profiles. The results derived from this algorithm are validated using multiple ozone profile observations. However, wavelength pairing and MART are well-established and commonly used techniques in limb sounding. This study essentially applied these mature methods to a different dataset, thus offering limited novelty. Furthermore, the authors do not clearly articulate the advantages of their algorithm over the official OMPS-LP algorithm. In terms of retrieval accuracy, the presented algorithm does not demonstrate sufficient improvement over the official OMPS-LP retrievals, which diminishes the practical significance of this work.
Specific comments:
Line 122: Tangent height normalization can reduce absolute calibration errors to some extent. However, the impact of wavelength shifts on retrieval results is unlikely to be eliminated through normalization. This is because wavelength shift affects the calculation of ozone absorption cross-sections.
Line 221: SCIATRAN v2.2 is a relatively old version. Has the new version made improvements in computational accuracy?
Line 512: How significant is the impact of a priori profiles on retrieval accuracy in the official OMPS-LP algorithm? The current algorithm appears to be highly dependent on the a priori profile, which raises concerns regarding the credibility of the retrieval results.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.
  
  We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.
  
  A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.
  
  Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2026

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.
  
  We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.
  
  A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.
  
  Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Lars Hoffmann, 16 Feb 2026

Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to AMT. Your effort in developing and presenting this study is appreciated, as is your interest in contributing to the journal.
I have now carefully considered your manuscript in light of the detailed reports provided by the two reviewers. Both reviewers recognize the extensive work involved in developing and validating your retrieval approach. At the same time, they raise substantial concerns regarding the novelty and scientific significance of the study, as well as major issues related to the error analysis, interpretation of averaging kernels, and methodological presentation.
In particular, the reviewers express the view that the manuscript, in its present form, does not yet demonstrate sufficiently clear advantages over existing OMPS-LP retrievals, and that addressing the concerns raised would likely require substantial reworking of both the analysis and the overall framing of the study.
At this stage, you are of course welcome to submit a response to the reviewers’ comments and, if you wish, a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration. However, I would like to be transparent in noting that, in my assessment, fully addressing the reviewers’ main concerns may require a very extensive revision, potentially involving significant methodological developments and a strengthened demonstration of originality and impact.
For this reason, you may wish to carefully consider whether proceeding with a major revision at this point is the most effective use of your time, or whether it might be preferable to further develop the work before resubmission at a later stage or submission to another journal.
I hope that the reviewers’ detailed comments will be helpful as you consider possible next steps.
Thank you again for considering AMT for the dissemination of your work.
Best regards,
Lars Hoffmann
Handling Editor

Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-EC1
- AC3:
  'Reply on EC1', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Dr. Hoffmann,
  
  Thank you for your thoughtful and transparent assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the extensive work involved and the constructive feedback provided by both reviewers. We have carefully considered all comments and have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to address the concerns raised.
  
  We recognize that the original submission had significant weaknesses, particularly in the error analysis and the framing of our study's contributions. However, we believe that our thorough revisions now bring the manuscript to a standard comparable published in AMT. We summarize below the major revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments.
  
  1. Repositioning the Paper's Narrative
  
  Both reviewers raised concerns regarding the novelty of our work. In response, we have fundamentally reframed the manuscript to emphasize that our contribution lies not in inventing a new algorithm, but in providing an independent retrieval pathway that serves as a benchmark for validating the official NASA product, a diagnostic framework for understanding uncertainty structures in limb ozone retrievals, and a methodological bridge towards harmonizing OMPS and OSIRIS datasets for long-term climate studies. These points are now clearly articulated in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.
  
  2. Complete Rewriting of the Error Analysis
  
  Following Reviewer 2's detailed and constructive critique, we have completely rewritten Section 4.1. We have replaced the misleading terminology of "prior averaging kernel" with "prior sensitivity analysis" to accurately reflect our perturbation-based approach. For the prior sensitivity analysis, we replaced the original comparison of two climatological priors with a uniform +5% perturbation experiment, which now shows prior-induced errors of approximately 5% in the tropical lower stratosphere. For absorption cross-sections, we replaced the original 223K versus 243K comparison with a +2% uniform perturbation following the reviewer's suggestion, referencing Arosio et al. (2022). For measurement noise, we replaced the original single perturbation that produced unphysical negative artifacts with a 100-run Monte Carlo simulation using 1% Gaussian noise, which now demonstrates that random uncertainty remains low (<10%) at most latitudes within the 20–33 km mid‑stratosphere. We have also clarified the distinction between vertical sampling and effective vertical resolution, and we now explicitly acknowledge that our MART-based retrieval does not produce formal averaging kernels. All figures in this section have been regenerated with revised methodologies and clearer captions.
  
  3. Aerosol Treatment
  
  We acknowledge Reviewer 2's concern that using a climatological aerosol profile is a limitation of our current algorithm. While implementing a full aerosol retrieval is beyond the scope of this revision, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in Sections 3.4 and 5, and added a discussion in the Conclusions stating our intention to integrate operational aerosol products from NASA in future work, as suggested by the reviewer.
  
  4. Validation Figures
  
  Following the reviewer's suggestion regarding the validation figures, we have retained the annual mean profile panels in Figs. 7, 9, 12, and 15 as they provide essential context, but revised the captions to clarify that the relative difference panels show pairwise relative differences calculated for each collocated measurement using Eq. 7, not the difference between the mean curves. We have removed the mean profile sub-panels from Figs. 8, 10, 13, and 16, which now show only enlarged latitude-band relative difference plots. All relative differences are explicitly stated as being calculated pairwise for each collocated measurement and then averaged.
  
  5. References and Terminology
  
  All references have been thoroughly checked and updated following the reviewers' suggestions. Key references have been added, including Rodgers (2000), von Clarmann et al. (2020), and Zawada et al. (2018). Terminology has been corrected throughout the manuscript, including the definition of tangent point and the distinction between vertical resolution and vertical sampling. All minor comments from both reviewers have been addressed point-by-point in the accompanying response letters.
  
  6. Response to Concerns on Novelty and Practical Significance
  
  In response to Reviewer 1's general comments regarding novelty and practical significance, we have reframed the manuscript to articulate our contributions more clearly. As stated in the Abstract and Introduction, this study presents an independent retrieval algorithm that applies the MART method—originally developed for OSIRIS—to OMPS/LP observations. The novelty lies in its tailored adaptation to OMPS/LP's specific characteristics, detailed in Sections 2.2 and 3. We reposition the value of our algorithm as a complementary tool for validation and uncertainty diagnosis, not a competitor to the official product. The strong agreement (≤5%) with NASA OMPS/LP v2.6 in the 20-36 km range provides independent validation of the official product, while the systematic differences identified (e.g., above 35 km and in the tropical UTLS) offer diagnostic insights into retrieval uncertainties (Sections 4.2–4.5). Furthermore, this work serves as a foundational step toward multi-mission data harmonization. Applying a consistent retrieval core to both OSIRIS and OMPS/LP lays the groundwork for minimizing algorithm-induced discontinuities in combined long-term climate records. We respectfully submit that an independent algorithm need not outperform the official product to have scientific value; its value lies in providing a complementary perspective, validating operational products, and enabling consistent long-term records.
  
  We believe that with these substantial revisions, the manuscript now meets the high standards of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. Our study provides an independent retrieval pathway that will enable the merging of OMPS and OSIRIS ozone records for long-term climate studies. We respectfully request that you consider this revised manuscript for publication in AMT. We are confident that the revisions address the reviewers' concerns and would welcome the opportunity to respond to any remaining issues.
  
  Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC3
  - EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Lars Hoffmann, 16 Mar 2026
    
    Dear Authors,
    Thank you for your detailed response to the reviewers’ comments and for outlining the revisions you have undertaken. Based on your response and the scope of the changes described, you are welcome to submit a revised version of the manuscript.
    If a revised manuscript is submitted, I plan to send it back to the original reviewers so that they can assess whether their major concerns, particularly regarding the error analysis, methodological presentation, and the framing of the study’s contribution, have been adequately addressed.
    Please ensure that all changes in the manuscript are clearly indicated and that the point-by-point responses are included with the submission.
    I look forward to receiving your revision should you decide to proceed.
    Best regards
    
    Lars Hoffmann
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-EC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (07 Apr 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Apr 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Apr 2026)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I congratulate the authors of the manuscript for the extensive re-work implemented in the paper and for positively accepting the comments provided in the first round. I think the quality of the manuscript has been improved with respect to the first submission. I still have two major points that need to be addressed and some minor/technical considerations that you can find below.

Major points
• The errors analysis has been substantially improved but the paragraphs from line 262 to 279 needs a major revision. First, if the objective is to assess the sensitivity to the a-priori, then you could skip lines 262-264, as AK are meant to assess, as you say, the sensitivity to the true profile and not to the a-priori. I suggest to move this to the description of MART, mentioning that the algorithm doesn’t explicitly provide AK and directly start with “We assess the sensitivity of the retrieval to the prior….”.
Fig. 4a is still not consistent with 4b: according to the right panel, the error from perturbing the a-priori profiles is small outside the tropical UTLS. As a consequence, the sensitivity of the retrieved profile to the a-priori is small in the middle stratosphere and A0 should also show close to zero peaks above 15 km. The sensitivity to the a-priori gets larger in the lowermost altitudes and above 35 km, as your retrieval has not enough information from Vis radiance. Unfortunately, Fig. 4a shows the opposite. The only reason I can think of, is that you are plotting the wrong quantities: can you specify what is δx and δx0 in Eq.6? In my opinion the correct quantity for δx is the difference between the profile retrieved with the perturbed a-priori and the profile retrieved with the unperturbed a-priori. This should be small in the middle stratosphere and getting larger at the altitude boundaries.
• It is not clear to me what has been done with the profiles affected by clouds.
Especially in the conclusion, the authors stress that the lower stratospheric biases are linked to the presence of clouds and that the profile is constrained to the a-priori. For the validation, have you included values at altitudes affected by cloud? In case you have, I strongly suggest to filter out these values in the validation, to avoid obvious biases that come from the impossibility to actually retrieve ozone at those altitudes. This might already reduce some of the biases in the tropics. Why do you expect ozone abundances above the cloud top to be also overestimated by 25 % (as you say at line 547)? Other than aerosols, another source of biases could be the usage of an outdated ozone cross-section, and not having taken into consideration NO2 in the forward modelling.

Minor considerations
I still don’t find really informative the plots 7, 9, 12, 15, but I leave it to the discretion of the authors. I also point out the fact that using Eq. 7 would inflate the resulting values in panels (b) of these pictures, as the very large relative differences in the tropical UTLS are possibly having a large weight in the annual mean relative difference that you are plotting. If you use the mean of the absolute differences and then divide by the mean profile this would be reduced.

The description of Fig. 11 raises a couple of questions. First, the positive bias at southern high latitudes is attributed to surface albedo biases: have you retrieved surface albedo as well? I haven’t found this information in the retrieval description. If you haven’t, then the missing albedo retrieval can also cause biases in the lower stratosphere. Second, why is here introduced the transition between UV and Vis ranges if you only used the visible range? I think that the positive bias above 35 km is simply related to the lack of sensitivity of the visible range at these altitudes.

Technical corrections
L14-15: You could introduce first limb profiler (LP) at line 14 and then use it at line 15.
L30: “in low-altitude tropical regions.” → ”in the tropics at low altitudes.”
L60: What does “with operations” mean?
L154: “adheres” → “corresponds”
L155: Add “ensuring” before consistency
L161: The first sentence of this paragraph is not really informative, I would remove it.
L173: Add “perturbed” after “aerosol extinction profiles”
L174: “When the aerosol varies… the radiance profiles is…” → “We perturbed the aerosol extinction profiles with factors from 0.1 to 10 and we found that the radiance profile is…”
L182: I suggest “Variations in radiance and CTV due to perturbed aerosol extinction coefficients as reported in the legend”.
L199: Add “the” before “cloud top height”
L217: I would remove “During the ozone retrieval process,” and leave the rest of the sentence.
L226: “as the forward modelling” → “as forward model”
L233: “referenced from the research results of” → “taken from”
I would remove the last sentence at line 244-245.
L251: “achievements” → “studies”
L309: “relative to” → “with respect to”
L358: “lower boundaries of retrieval” → “lower retrieval boundaries”
L369: “may be caused” → “is caused”
L385: “The MLS obtained” → “MLS provides”
L400: “with in altitude” → “with altitude”
L419: Can you please better describe what is shown in Fig. 11? The sentence is hard to read.
L425: “retrieval uncertainties.” → “the discrepancies in relative values.”
L451: “(/cm3)” → “(molecule/cm3)”
L512: “bias are” → “bias is”
L523: “applies the ozone…” → “applies an ozone…”

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (29 Apr 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (21 May 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Jun 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (07 Jun 2026)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jan 2026

General comments:
The authors present a retrieval algorithm that combines wavelength pairing with the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) and apply it to OMPS-LP L1G data to obtain ozone profiles. The results derived from this algorithm are validated using multiple ozone profile observations. However, wavelength pairing and MART are well-established and commonly used techniques in limb sounding. This study essentially applied these mature methods to a different dataset, thus offering limited novelty. Furthermore, the authors do not clearly articulate the advantages of their algorithm over the official OMPS-LP algorithm. In terms of retrieval accuracy, the presented algorithm does not demonstrate sufficient improvement over the official OMPS-LP retrievals, which diminishes the practical significance of this work.
Specific comments:
Line 122: Tangent height normalization can reduce absolute calibration errors to some extent. However, the impact of wavelength shifts on retrieval results is unlikely to be eliminated through normalization. This is because wavelength shift affects the calculation of ozone absorption cross-sections.
Line 221: SCIATRAN v2.2 is a relatively old version. Has the new version made improvements in computational accuracy?
Line 512: How significant is the impact of a priori profiles on retrieval accuracy in the official OMPS-LP algorithm? The current algorithm appears to be highly dependent on the a priori profile, which raises concerns regarding the credibility of the retrieval results.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.
  
  We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.
  
  A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.
  
  Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2026

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements” (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-5580). We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.
  
  We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The modifications have been made to address each of the points you raised, and we believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and impact of the paper.
  
  A point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the Supplement letter.
  
  Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Lars Hoffmann, 16 Feb 2026

Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to AMT. Your effort in developing and presenting this study is appreciated, as is your interest in contributing to the journal.
I have now carefully considered your manuscript in light of the detailed reports provided by the two reviewers. Both reviewers recognize the extensive work involved in developing and validating your retrieval approach. At the same time, they raise substantial concerns regarding the novelty and scientific significance of the study, as well as major issues related to the error analysis, interpretation of averaging kernels, and methodological presentation.
In particular, the reviewers express the view that the manuscript, in its present form, does not yet demonstrate sufficiently clear advantages over existing OMPS-LP retrievals, and that addressing the concerns raised would likely require substantial reworking of both the analysis and the overall framing of the study.
At this stage, you are of course welcome to submit a response to the reviewers’ comments and, if you wish, a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration. However, I would like to be transparent in noting that, in my assessment, fully addressing the reviewers’ main concerns may require a very extensive revision, potentially involving significant methodological developments and a strengthened demonstration of originality and impact.
For this reason, you may wish to carefully consider whether proceeding with a major revision at this point is the most effective use of your time, or whether it might be preferable to further develop the work before resubmission at a later stage or submission to another journal.
I hope that the reviewers’ detailed comments will be helpful as you consider possible next steps.
Thank you again for considering AMT for the dissemination of your work.
Best regards,
Lars Hoffmann
Handling Editor

Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-EC1
- AC3:
  'Reply on EC1', Fang Zhu, 12 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Dr. Hoffmann,
  
  Thank you for your thoughtful and transparent assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the extensive work involved and the constructive feedback provided by both reviewers. We have carefully considered all comments and have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to address the concerns raised.
  
  We recognize that the original submission had significant weaknesses, particularly in the error analysis and the framing of our study's contributions. However, we believe that our thorough revisions now bring the manuscript to a standard comparable published in AMT. We summarize below the major revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments.
  
  1. Repositioning the Paper's Narrative
  
  Both reviewers raised concerns regarding the novelty of our work. In response, we have fundamentally reframed the manuscript to emphasize that our contribution lies not in inventing a new algorithm, but in providing an independent retrieval pathway that serves as a benchmark for validating the official NASA product, a diagnostic framework for understanding uncertainty structures in limb ozone retrievals, and a methodological bridge towards harmonizing OMPS and OSIRIS datasets for long-term climate studies. These points are now clearly articulated in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.
  
  2. Complete Rewriting of the Error Analysis
  
  Following Reviewer 2's detailed and constructive critique, we have completely rewritten Section 4.1. We have replaced the misleading terminology of "prior averaging kernel" with "prior sensitivity analysis" to accurately reflect our perturbation-based approach. For the prior sensitivity analysis, we replaced the original comparison of two climatological priors with a uniform +5% perturbation experiment, which now shows prior-induced errors of approximately 5% in the tropical lower stratosphere. For absorption cross-sections, we replaced the original 223K versus 243K comparison with a +2% uniform perturbation following the reviewer's suggestion, referencing Arosio et al. (2022). For measurement noise, we replaced the original single perturbation that produced unphysical negative artifacts with a 100-run Monte Carlo simulation using 1% Gaussian noise, which now demonstrates that random uncertainty remains low (<10%) at most latitudes within the 20–33 km mid‑stratosphere. We have also clarified the distinction between vertical sampling and effective vertical resolution, and we now explicitly acknowledge that our MART-based retrieval does not produce formal averaging kernels. All figures in this section have been regenerated with revised methodologies and clearer captions.
  
  3. Aerosol Treatment
  
  We acknowledge Reviewer 2's concern that using a climatological aerosol profile is a limitation of our current algorithm. While implementing a full aerosol retrieval is beyond the scope of this revision, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in Sections 3.4 and 5, and added a discussion in the Conclusions stating our intention to integrate operational aerosol products from NASA in future work, as suggested by the reviewer.
  
  4. Validation Figures
  
  Following the reviewer's suggestion regarding the validation figures, we have retained the annual mean profile panels in Figs. 7, 9, 12, and 15 as they provide essential context, but revised the captions to clarify that the relative difference panels show pairwise relative differences calculated for each collocated measurement using Eq. 7, not the difference between the mean curves. We have removed the mean profile sub-panels from Figs. 8, 10, 13, and 16, which now show only enlarged latitude-band relative difference plots. All relative differences are explicitly stated as being calculated pairwise for each collocated measurement and then averaged.
  
  5. References and Terminology
  
  All references have been thoroughly checked and updated following the reviewers' suggestions. Key references have been added, including Rodgers (2000), von Clarmann et al. (2020), and Zawada et al. (2018). Terminology has been corrected throughout the manuscript, including the definition of tangent point and the distinction between vertical resolution and vertical sampling. All minor comments from both reviewers have been addressed point-by-point in the accompanying response letters.
  
  6. Response to Concerns on Novelty and Practical Significance
  
  In response to Reviewer 1's general comments regarding novelty and practical significance, we have reframed the manuscript to articulate our contributions more clearly. As stated in the Abstract and Introduction, this study presents an independent retrieval algorithm that applies the MART method—originally developed for OSIRIS—to OMPS/LP observations. The novelty lies in its tailored adaptation to OMPS/LP's specific characteristics, detailed in Sections 2.2 and 3. We reposition the value of our algorithm as a complementary tool for validation and uncertainty diagnosis, not a competitor to the official product. The strong agreement (≤5%) with NASA OMPS/LP v2.6 in the 20-36 km range provides independent validation of the official product, while the systematic differences identified (e.g., above 35 km and in the tropical UTLS) offer diagnostic insights into retrieval uncertainties (Sections 4.2–4.5). Furthermore, this work serves as a foundational step toward multi-mission data harmonization. Applying a consistent retrieval core to both OSIRIS and OMPS/LP lays the groundwork for minimizing algorithm-induced discontinuities in combined long-term climate records. We respectfully submit that an independent algorithm need not outperform the official product to have scientific value; its value lies in providing a complementary perspective, validating operational products, and enabling consistent long-term records.
  
  We believe that with these substantial revisions, the manuscript now meets the high standards of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. Our study provides an independent retrieval pathway that will enable the merging of OMPS and OSIRIS ozone records for long-term climate studies. We respectfully request that you consider this revised manuscript for publication in AMT. We are confident that the revisions address the reviewers' concerns and would welcome the opportunity to respond to any remaining issues.
  
  Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Fang Zhu
  
  On behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-AC3
  - EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Lars Hoffmann, 16 Mar 2026
    
    Dear Authors,
    Thank you for your detailed response to the reviewers’ comments and for outlining the revisions you have undertaken. Based on your response and the scope of the changes described, you are welcome to submit a revised version of the manuscript.
    If a revised manuscript is submitted, I plan to send it back to the original reviewers so that they can assess whether their major concerns, particularly regarding the error analysis, methodological presentation, and the framing of the study’s contribution, have been adequately addressed.
    Please ensure that all changes in the manuscript are clearly indicated and that the point-by-point responses are included with the submission.
    I look forward to receiving your revision should you decide to proceed.
    Best regards
    
    Lars Hoffmann
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-EC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (07 Apr 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Apr 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Apr 2026)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (29 Apr 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (21 May 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Jun 2026) by Lars Hoffmann

AR by Fang Zhu on behalf of the Authors (07 Jun 2026)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Jul 2026

Retrieving stratospheric ozone profiles from OMPS limb profiler measurements

Fang Zhu, Xiaoping Liu, Suwen Li, and Fuqi Si

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 19, 4441–4457, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-4441-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-4441-2026, 2026

Short summary

Fang Zhu, Xiaoping Liu, Suwen Li, and Fuqi Si

Viewed

Total article views: 2,741 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
1,646	918	177	2,741	96	102

HTML: 1,646
PDF: 918
XML: 177
Total: 2,741
BibTeX: 96
EndNote: 102

Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	535	295	80	910
Jan 2026	405	205	15	625
Feb 2026	219	189	25	433
Mar 2026	379	159	48	586
Apr 2026	73	30	1	104
May 2026	22	16	3	41
Jun 2026	3	1	1	5
Jul 2026	10	17	2	29
Aug 2026	6	2	8

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	535	295	80	910
Jan 2026	405	205	15	625
Feb 2026	219	189	25	433
Mar 2026	379	159	48	586
Apr 2026	73	30	1	104
May 2026	22	16	3	41
Jun 2026	3	1	1	5
Jul 2026	10	17	2	29
Aug 2026	6	2	8

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,728 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,728 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 14 Aug 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3730 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We developed a new satellite method to map Earth's protective ozone layer. Testing it against other reliable sources shows it accurately tracks ozone, especially in key atmospheric regions. This new tool is crucial for scientists to consistently monitor the ozone layer's recovery and its role in our climate system, ensuring we can effectively safeguard this vital environmental shield for the future.


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