the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Enhanced discrimination of vertical aerosol types based on multi-wavelength Mie-Raman-fluorescence lidar at a high-altitude background site
Abstract. Accurate classification of the vertical distribution of tropospheric aerosols is critical for reducing uncertainties in climate effect assessments. To address the challenge of aerosol classification uncertainties inherent in traditional lidar retrievals under complex mixed scenarios, this study leverages the unique locational advantage of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer Eco-Environment Shanghuang Observatory (ABLES) to develop an advanced synergistic retrieval algorithm based on a multi-wavelength Mie-Raman-fluorescence lidar system. The proposed scheme establishes a seven-parameter synergistic constraint, integrating fluorescence capacity, particle depolarization ratios (PDR), backscatter-related Ångström exponents (BÅE), and lidar ratios (LR). By combining Monte Carlo simulations with least squares minimization, the algorithm achieves a quantitative decomposition of scattering contribution fractions for smoke, urban, pollen, and dust. A key advantage is the robust physical constraint system, which ensures classification relies on intrinsic microphysical properties rather than signal intensity alone, thereby avoiding biases from backscatter anomalies. Multi-platform cross-validation confirms the high reliability of the algorithm across a wide dynamic range, with the coefficient of determination between near-surface retrieval results and in situ monitoring data exceeding 0.6. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis indicates that the multi-parameter scheme effectively captures the differential microphysical responses of aerosols across seasons and altitudes. This physically decouples meteorologically driven optical enhancement from actual mass concentration fluctuations, providing strong technical support for high-precision, high-spatiotemporal-resolution aerosol typing and mass retrieval at high-altitude background stations.
- Preprint
(2258 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(342 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2017', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2017/egusphere-2026-2017-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-2017-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ting Yang, 15 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2017/egusphere-2026-2017-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ting Yang, 15 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2017', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2026
General comment
This manuscript presents an inversion algorithm for the classification and quantitative retrieval of vertical aerosol distributions using a multiwavelength Mie–Raman–fluorescence lidar system deployed at a high-altitude background site in eastern China. The algorithm uses seven macroscopic optical constraints — fluorescence capacity, dual-wavelength particle depolarization ratios (PDR₃₅₅ and PDR₅₃₂), dual-wavelength color ratios (Cr₃₅₅/₅₃₂ and Cr₁₀₆₄/₅₃₂), and dual-wavelength lidar ratios (LR₃₅₅ and LR₅₃₂) — combined with Monte Carlo sampling, to decompose the 532 nm backscatter coefficient into contributions from smoke, urban, pollen, and dust aerosols. The subject is aligned with the scope of AMT, and the methodology is an extension of the prior work of Veselovskii et al. (2024). However, I have significant concerns regarding several key aspects of the methodology, validation, and presentation. Addressing these issues would require substantial revisions, and I recommend that the authors carefully rework the paper before resubmission.
(1) Insufficient clarity in the description of retrieval algorithm. Several important questions should be clearly discussed: Why the reference data, coupled with Monte Carlo method, can reduce the uncertainty resulted from the variability of pure aerosol properties in nature?
How is the constrained least-squares problem numerically resolved?
How to invert 4 unknowns from 7 constraints?
Additionally, the authors use a single set of aerosol fractions, defined as the relative contributions to backscatter at 532 nm, and then use them to constrain other optical parameters and at other wavelengths. I am not convinced that the algorithm's mixing equations are mathematically self-consistent under a single external-mixing assumption.
For example, in Equation 6, do the authors consider the backscatter Angstrom exponents for the wavelength pair 355-532 and 532-1064 to be the same?
(2) The presentation of observations does not adequately support the reliability of the results . The authors did not show any multi-spectral lidar profiles, i.e., extinction, backscatter, lidar ratios, depolarization ratios and Angstrom exponent-- that would let readers assess the quality of the underlying measurements. Instead, results are shown only as heavily smoothed color maps, from which it is basically impossible to see the quality of the measurements or retrievals.
(3) The validation against CALIPSO and airborne measurements is not convincing. Figures 2 and 3, as presented, actually illustrate discrepancies rather than agreement between the ground-based lidar and the reference datasets. In Figure 3, for example, the bioaerosol number concentration scales differ by roughly two orders of magnitude between the lidar-derived and UAV-derived panels (in the last two panels), yet this comparison is presented as a validation of the fluorescence channel. The authors should either explain and reconcile this discrepancy quantitatively.
(4) Sensitivity analysis in the manuscript was conducted for different altitude ranges and reasons, however, these two quantities are just proxies driven by aerosol compositions -- the total concentration and the fractions of each aerosol types. A rigorous sensitivity analysis should be conducted directly as a function of these governing parameters rather than through the indirect and site-specific proxies of altitude and season.
(5) The manuscript contains language and presentation issues that reduce clarity and should be addressed in revision.
Specific comment
L30: serve as some of --> among
L97: “the blind zone…”? What do you mean by ‘blind zone’? what is the cause of this blind zone? Is it the “incomplete overlap” (which is used more often in the lidar community) due to limited aperture? Is the lidar system co-axial or bi-axial? Please clarify.
Table 1: Please add the laser energy at each wavelength.
L110: Which method do you use to calibrate the fluorescence channel?
L151-154: “acknowledging that the optical… this parameter uncertainty” . I do not think you can address these uncertainties by doing Monte Carlo simulation unless the reference dataset contains sufficient information.
L155-157: Please add your reference of your dataset
Caption of Figure 1: 355 plotted with circle, 532 with square? Some error bars are too short to show whether they are plotted with solid line or dashed line.
Table 2: Please add the reference for aerosol density.
L185: I am surprised that CALIPSO data are used for the validation of ground-based lidar, I would expect the reverse.
L188: “across multiple dimensions”, what do you mean?
L193: Basic information about the bioaerosol monitor should be provide.
L228: which type of aerosol was this fluorescence cross-section defined for?
L232: “The airborne measurements….are seamlessly integrated…”. “Seamlessly” sounds too promotional, subjective and also not true in this case. Please avoid unnecessary subjectivity.
Figure 3(d): what is the Y-axis? Height ? altitude ? what are the plots (profiles and color maps) in different panels? They should be described in the caption.
L244: “both show favorable agreement”, remove favorable or change it to ‘reasonable’.
L250-254: The analysis is confusing. “…due to complex aerosol mixing involving dust and pollen”, do you mean the presence of aerosol mixture affect the result? If yes, in which way, through miss-classification?
“This is attributed to the presence of intact pollen grains…” Is it an assumption or based on the results of the aerosol classification?
Figure 4: The figure is not fully described in the caption. Important information like the observation time and the vertical range which was selected from lidar profile to compare with in-situ data are not presented in the text or the caption. Please check the guidelines for scientific writing.
L380-384: I do not see how the observations support this analysis about physiochemical interaction, aging and coagulation. In addition, this positive correlation looks surprisingly high. What data did you use for the correlation analysis? What are the time resolutions of the observation and the wind data? How many data points do you have?
Section 3.1.1
Comparison with CALIPSO
(1) The presentation of comparison between CALIPSO and ground-based lidar (in Figure 2) does not allow the readers to see their consistencies. On the contrary, the observations during the overpass, indicated by the magenta stars and triangles (I am not sure if the symbols represent the overpass, please add description in the caption), show significant inconsistency. Please improve the presentation of data, maybe plot only the comparison of profiles. (2) Again, I do not see the value of using CALIPSO data as validation of ground-based observations, especially when the comparisons are not good.
Comparison with airborne measurements
(1) Important information is missing. How does the bioaerosol monitor work? Does it sample all the particle sizes, or only a PM2.5 or PM10? (2) The results in Figure 3 are not sufficiently analyzed. What is the detected bioaerosol type? Why is there a difference of 2 orders of magnitude between airborne (in the order of 104) and lidar data (in the order of 106)?
Section 3.2.1
(1) The authors explained well why the method based on two parameters cannot resolve the effect of humidity, but did not explain why the method (presented in this study) incorporating more parameters can do it. (2) Figure 5 is VERY difficult to read and does not seem to contain information that can support the authors’ arguments.
Section 3.2.2 sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity tests were performed for different vertical ranges and seasons; however, I do not see the reason to do so. To my knowledge, vertical ranges and seasons are just intermediate parameters, which influence the fractions of each aerosol types, as well as their concentrations. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis should deal with the sensitivity of the retrieval results to different aerosol loading and combinations of aerosol types, instead of altitudes and seasons, which are just proxies.
Figure 9
(1) The color maps do not provide quantitative information, due to low figure resolution or over smoothing. And, these color maps are difficult to read and do not allow the readers to see the consistencies between Figure (a, (b) and (c). (2) The data on 10 April look very strange. Below 1.2 km, the atmosphere seems very clean, with very low beta_R and weak PDR_532, but over 50% contribution of dust was found, shown in Figure 9(b) bottom panel. It is difficult to believe that, for example, the pixels at 0.5 km before the 2nd white dashed line (the morning of 11 April), representing the strongest fluorescence capacity, are attributed to dust pixels. Similarly, high dust contribution was found at 1.5 km at 23 h, 12 April. Please show spectral measurements and profiles to prove, quantitatively, that these are dust. (3) The PDR_532 colormap looks especially problematic, since the features it reveals do not correspond to those showed in the color map of Beta_R, maybe that is the main reason that makes the results difficult to interpret. (4) The white dashed lines represent the temporal discontinuity, but an obvious continuity of beta_R, beta_F, G_F and PDR_532 across the white lines is observed. Why? Do you smooth the figures? Do you apply any extra constraint to the retrieval to assure this temporal continuity? is the time resolution still 15 min?
L390-395: This part discussed about the “observed enhancement in scattering contribution”, but during the discussed time interval, which is 00:00 --08:00, 11 April, the beta_R was so low in Figure 9(a), and I do not get which enhancement the authors are referring to. Additionally, the retrieval error can be very high in this condition.
L396-407: (1) If Figure S2 and S3 are discussed in the main text, they should be included in the main text, rather than in the supplementary materials. (2) There is not enough evidence showing there is either hygroscopic growth or cloud-- Figure 9(a) shows white and saturated beta_R and strange PDR in the period described. Please profiles of optical properties to prove your argument. (3) Please indicate clearly in the figure the time periods discussed in the manuscript, otherwise, it is difficult to follow the analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2017-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 258 | 61 | 25 | 344 | 26 | 26 | 30 |
- HTML: 258
- PDF: 61
- XML: 25
- Total: 344
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1