the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Hygroscopic growth obscures actual variation in anthropogenic aerosol optical depth over central China during 2010–2024
Abstract. Particle bulk optical property parameters play an essential role in evaluating air quality, however, both parameters can be substantially enhanced under humid atmospheric conditions via hygroscopic growth. Here we use 532-nm polarization lidar observations and ERA5 humidity data during 2010–2024 to retrieve vertical profiles of ambient and dry aerosol backscatter and extinction coefficients of anthropogenic pollution over central China. Particle hygroscopic growth led to enhanced particle backscatter coefficient by 11–46% below 2 km on an annual basis for the considered time frame. Anthropogenic Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) was 30.7% higher under ambient atmospheric conditions. We found values of AODamb=0.404 and AODdry=0.309. During China’s rapid air-cleaning period of 2010–2017, AODamb declined significantly by −0.068 yr-1; in contrast, the rate of decrease of AODdry was −0.049 yr-1 which is 28% slower, but the decrease of the dry aerosols more accurately captures aerosol emission reductions. Hygroscopic-growth-induced net AOD ( ΔAODRH) dropped sharply in 2011–2014, most likely as a result of emission mitigation and drier atmospheric conditions, then rebounded in 2014–2019 as rising humidity conditions and the presence of hydrophilic aerosols. Since 2020, ΔAODRH has remained high attributing to rising humidity conditions but weakening hygroscopicity. While AODamb suggests peak pollution in summer, AODdry identifies winter as the true air-pollution maximum. These results highlight the significant impact of aerosol water uptake on its optical properties; therefore, it must be accounted for to ensure accurate air quality assessments.
- Preprint
(1244 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Feb 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6360', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jan 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6360/egusphere-2025-6360-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6360-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6360', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2026
reply
The paper of He et al. has too much similarity with the paper of Jing et al. (2026) (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-389-2026)., which is not properly disclaimed. Thus, it cannot be accepted. Thus, my decision is to reject the current manuscript, but encourage the authors to work on the structure and then re-submit. Further details are given below.
Many results are given which seem to come from the current study, but in fact they come from the paper of Jing et al. (2026), however, this it is not always clearly stated.
One example: In the abstract you state:
"During China’s rapid air-cleaning period of 2010-2017, AODamb declined significantly by -0.068 yr-1; in contrast, the rate of decrease of AODdry was -0.049 yr-1 which is 28% slower, but the decrease of the dry aerosols more accurately captures aerosol emission reductions."
But the -0.068 per year do come from the study of Jing et al. (2026) (where you are of course co-authoring) and only the -0.049 per year are the result the novel study which I review here.
This is just one example, but is valid for most of the manuscript. You need to make clear, what is new in this studyà this is investigation of the dry AOD over a longer time and the differences and so on. Everything which was resulting from Jing et al, should be clearly stated and not repeated until really needed.
You could, for example, state in the abstract:” Jing et al. (2026), found a decrease of the ambient AOD by -0.068 per year. We used the same lidar data set to estimate the dry AOD and contrast it to the ambient AOD. Doing so, we find a decrease of -0.049 per year”. Or similar.
One more example:
Figure 3a of He et al. is completely similar to Fig. 5a of Jing et al. (2026), but also here this is not properly stated and also not needed for this work.
As a consequence, I would propose the authors rework on the manuscript, which has indeed interesting and new results, but clearly make it a follow-up paper from Jing et al. (2026), stating that they use the same data set and build on the results of the previous publication.
Due to these severe issues, I also did not yet review the results part, because a clear restructuring of the manuscript needs to be done first.
However, some few comments already:
The authors need to discuss the uncertainty introduced by applying one fixed lidar ratio of 50 sr for all aerosols and all humidity conditions.
Figure 2 is not clear to me. For example, in my understanding beta_nd is needed also in the grey box, but this is not shown in this figure. Thus, please properly overwork the flowchart. Also, state when you sue radiosonde data and when ERA5.
Reference:
Jing, D., He, Y., Yin, Z., Müller, D., Huang, K., and Yi, F.: Hygroscopic growth characteristics of anthropogenic aerosols over central China revealed by lidar observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 19, 389–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-389-2026, 2026.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6360-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 233 | 89 | 15 | 337 | 12 | 17 |
- HTML: 233
- PDF: 89
- XML: 15
- Total: 337
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1