the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Apr 2026
Drivers of aerosol variability in the high Arctic: insights from integrated observations at Gruvebadet and Zeppelin (Ny-Ålesund)
Abstract. This paper summarizes the main results from the scientific project “Boundary layer Evolution Through Harmonization of Aerosol measurements at Ny-Ålesund research stations” (BETHA-NyÅ), in which aerosol measurements of two Arctic atmospheric observatories located near Ny-Ålesund (Svalbard) at different elevations were harmonized: at the Gruvebadet atmospheric laboratory (61 m a.s.l.) and Zeppelin observatory (472 m a.s.l.). This approach allows for a better understanding of how atmospheric layering may affect the variability of aerosol observations in the Ny-Ålesund area. From February 2022 to March 2023, a coordinated sampling campaign enabled a direct comparison of optical, chemical, and physical aerosol properties, integrated with meteorological data from the Amundsen-Nobile Climate Change Tower. Results reveal a strong seasonal coherence between the two sites for two topical markers such as sulfate and ammonium, with clear evidence of the winter–spring Arctic Haze phenomenon. Local differences emerged mainly for biogenic tracers (e.g., arabitol and mannitol) which were detected at higher concentrations at Gruvebadet compared to Zeppelin observatory, highlighting the role of near-surface sources and aerosol stratification. The analysis of trace elements, lead isotopic ratios, and organic markers helped us to distinguish natural from anthropogenic contributions, confirming the dominant role of long-range transport and the persistence of isotopic signatures consistent with Eurasian sources. The systematic comparison across the two observatories demonstrates the robustness of the harmonized protocol and emphasizes the importance of an integrated monitoring network for evaluating the evolution of atmospheric processes in the Arctic.
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.- Preprint
(2140 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3719 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1467', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1467/egusphere-2026-1467-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1467-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1467', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Aug 2026
GENERAL REMARKS
This manuscript reports on a 1-year study of aerosol chemical composition measured at the observatories Gruvebadet (GAL), located at an altitude of 61 metres above sea level, and Zeppelin (ZEP), located at an altitude of 472 metres above sea level, both in Ny Ålesund, Svalbard. Additional meteorological information on boundary layer properties such as turbulence or stratification, were provided by the Amundsen-Nobile Climate Change Tower.
The rich data set contains information on aerosol optical properties, ion composition, trace elements, lead isotopes, meteorological data, and air mass back trajectories from February 2022 to March 2023. The analysis of the simultaneously taken measurements focused on the identification of the main drivers of aerosol variability in the Arctic atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). In that context the study makes a significant contribution to this field of research, because it presents the most comprehensive analysis of aerosol chemical and physical properties at the two Ny Ålesund observatories, combined with detailed information on atmospheric dynamics.
From its scientific topic, significance and quality, the study deserves publication, and it fits well into the scope of ACP. However, the presentation of results needs major revisions before being acceptable for publication. Detailed comments are given in the following section.
Of general concern is the selection of figures shown in the main text, and those shown in the supplementary material. In the current version, the main text contains mainly presentations of time series or occurrence of elements while the plots showing information from statistical analysis are shifted to the supplementary material. This distribution of information makes the manuscript very difficult to read. Re-thinking the places where the figures are shown, is strongly recommended.
Another major difficulty is related to the use of language. There are so many places where the language needs to be improved that I can only give a few examples. In summary, manuscript revision by a native English-speaking person is strongly recommended.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1| Section 2 on Materials and methods is well written and contains all necessary information to assess the quality of the performed analyses and the corresponding results. In contrast, the results section is very descriptive with lots of text which makes it difficult for the reader to get the important points. Furthermore, mostly time series and plots like a sequence of occurrences of various elements (e.g. Figure 4) are shown. However, from these types of plots no conclusions can be drawn which support the important results of the paper on the study shown in Figure 10. Compared to other figures, Figure 10 is really relevant and should be presented in a more illustrative manner.
2| The panels of Figure 11 also contain important results of the study. However, this is hidden by naming the axes as “Factor 1” and Factor 2” This naming is meaningless, and even worse, the title axis descriptions have been used for both panels but with a different meaning of Factor 1 and Factor 2. This needs to be changed by giving the axes meaningful titles.
3| The paragraph starting on line 389 presents an important result of the study, but this is neither supported by a graph another piece of information providing the evidence of the drawn conclusions. This is only one example of the fair presentation quality of the manuscript. There are more examples of that kind.
4| The Conclusions section is not in line with the current requirements of ACP. The guidelines for authors (https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html) state that the concluding section needs to contain a summary of the main results, synthesis and interpretation, comparison and context, caveats and limitations and finally a section on implications where the authors should discuss what the results mean for our understanding of the state and/or behaviour of the atmosphere and climate, which is the main requirement for publication in ACP.
Please rework the conclusions section accordingly.
MINOR ISSUES
Section 2: sometimes company names include a country of origin, sometimes not. This should be hamronized.
Line 153: What does “(2.195 10-4) (Hans Wedepohl, 1995)” mean? Furthermore, the reference is not included in the list.
Line 168: Were the quartz fibre filters used for aerosol carbonacous matter analysis pre-treated before being exposed, e.g. by a thermal pre-treatment?
Line 227: Do the authors mean PM2.6 or is this a typo and it should be PM2.5?
Results section: The colours for data from GAL and ZEP should be similar. Actually GAL data are mostly shown in red, while ZEP data are sometimes shown in grey, and sometimes in blcak.
Line 370: in the sentence “Among the REE (Fig. S10c), Lu showed …“ is the term “Lu” referring to a person or to the element Lutetium. I am sure the latter is the case, but then it should be made clear, e.g., by adding “the element” before “Lu”.
TYPOS AND LANGUAGE USE (not comprehensive)
Line 42: The sentence “In particular, the Arctic near-surface temperature is increasing about 2-3 times faster than the global average and it is called “Arctic Amplification” … sounds unusual and might be changed to “ …. faster than the global average. This phenomenon is called “Arctic Amplification” …”.
Line 46: “… because ABL can impact on the transport of …” needs to be rephrased. One suggestion is:” … because processes in the ABL can affect the transport of …”.
Line 68: The sentence “ZEP is less likely to be affected by local anthropogenic sources than GAL due to its location and by local air flow phenomena such as katabatic winds” is difficult to understand. One easy-to-understand option is: “Due to its location, ZEP is less likely to be affected by local anthropogenic sources than GAL and by local air flow phenomena such as katabatic winds.” It is only changing the structure of the sentence to make it easier to understand.
Line 74: “The sequence “… plays a relevant role on climate …” needs to be rephrased. One suggestion is “Aerosols play an important role in the climate …”.
Line 78/79: TH term “but limited information … were produced” sounds unusual. It should be rephrased as, e.g., “but only limited information … is available.”
Line 88: The phrase “to assess how vertical gradient effects aerosol composition in the Arctic” is difficult to understand. It should probably be “to assess how vertical gradients of boundary layer properties driving horizontal and vertical transport may affect aerosol composition in the Arctic.”
Line 216: remove “so”.
Line 226: Correct as “Ion Chromatography”.
I stop here but recommend a careful language check.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1467-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 360 | 286 | 45 | 691 | 55 | 38 | 43 |
- HTML: 360
- PDF: 286
- XML: 45
- Total: 691
- Supplement: 55
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 43
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1