Evolution of aerosol composition and optical properties in the Paris urban plume from coordinated airborne and ground-based observations

Yu, Chenjie; Di Antonio, Ludovico; DeCarlo, Peter F.; Nault, Benjamin A.; Velazquez-Garcia, Alejandra; Aruffo, Eleonora; Di Carlo, Piero; Denjean, Cyrielle; Tinorua, Sarah; Bourrianne, Thierry; Pereira, Diana L.; Tu, Kevin; Pangui, Edouard; Cazaunau, Mathieu; Bauville, Astrid; Grand, Noël; Bergé, Antonin; Di Biagio, Claudia; Gratien, Aline; Beekmann, Matthias; Siour, Guillaume; Foret, Gilles; D'Anna, Barbara; Kammer, Julien; Wu, Huihui; Cantrell, Christopher; Formenti, Paola; Michoud, Vincent

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147

Preprints

25 Jun 2026

| 25 Jun 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Evolution of aerosol composition and optical properties in the Paris urban plume from coordinated airborne and ground-based observations

Chenjie Yu, Ludovico Di Antonio, Peter F. DeCarlo, Benjamin A. Nault, Alejandra Velazquez-Garcia, Eleonora Aruffo, Piero Di Carlo, Cyrielle Denjean, Sarah Tinorua, Thierry Bourrianne, Diana L. Pereira, Kevin Tu, Edouard Pangui, Mathieu Cazaunau, Astrid Bauville, Noël Grand, Antonin Bergé, Claudia Di Biagio, Aline Gratien, Matthias Beekmann, Guillaume Siour, Gilles Foret, Barbara D'Anna, Julien Kammer, Huihui Wu, Christopher Cantrell, Paola Formenti, and Vincent Michoud

Abstract. Aerosols play a critical role in Earth’s climate, but substantial evolution in their physicochemical properties after emission introduces uncertainties in predicting their climate impacts. Observational constraints on how aging modifies aerosol properties remain limited. Here, we investigate the effects of ~2–6 h of aging on aerosol physicochemical properties using coordinated airborne and ground-based measurements in Paris and its downwind regions. Urban plumes contributed modestly to particle number concentrations in the 80–200 nm size range and resulted in a moderate enhancement of submicron particle (PM₁) mass relative to out-plume background levels. Organic aerosol (Org) dominated PM₁ mass both near the urban source and downwind. Aircraft observations showed enhanced Org and non-refractory PM₁ relative to excess CO (CO above surrounding background) in downwind plumes, indicating net secondary organic aerosol production during aging. Aerosol optical properties evolved concurrently. Downwind plume-average single-scattering albedo (SSA) at 450 and 630 nm was higher than near-source values. Consistently, the complex refractive index shifted from lower real (~1.35–1.40) and higher imaginary (~0.03–0.08) components near source to higher real (~1.45–1.50) and lower imaginary (~0.015–0.02) components downwind. The absorption Ångström exponent also increased, indicating a greater fractional contribution of brown carbon to light absorption. These results demonstrate that urban plume aging alters aerosol composition and optical properties and highlight the need to represent evolving aerosol characteristics in atmospheric models and remote-sensing retrievals.

How to cite. Yu, C., Di Antonio, L., DeCarlo, P. F., Nault, B. A., Velazquez-Garcia, A., Aruffo, E., Di Carlo, P., Denjean, C., Tinorua, S., Bourrianne, T., Pereira, D. L., Tu, K., Pangui, E., Cazaunau, M., Bauville, A., Grand, N., Bergé, A., Di Biagio, C., Gratien, A., Beekmann, M., Siour, G., Foret, G., D'Anna, B., Kammer, J., Wu, H., Cantrell, C., Formenti, P., and Michoud, V.: Evolution of aerosol composition and optical properties in the Paris urban plume from coordinated airborne and ground-based observations, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147, 2026.

Received: 01 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 25 Jun 2026

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.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2151 KB)

Supplement (597 KB)

Download & links

Status: open (until 06 Aug 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3147', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jul 2026 reply
This study presents a comprehensive analysis of aerosol evolution in the Paris urban plume using innovative coordinated airborne and ground-based observations. The research addresses an important scientific question regarding how aerosol composition and optical properties evolve during 2-6 hours of atmospheric aging, with significant implications for improving aerosol parameterizations in models and remote sensing retrievals. The manuscript is generally well-written with rigorous methodology, but several aspects of the analysis and interpretation require strengthening to fully support the conclusions. I recommend minor revision before publication.
Specific Comments
Organic aerosol characterization needs strengthening: The manuscript would benefit from more detailed analysis of organic aerosol sources and oxidation states. While the study correctly identifies organic aerosol as the dominant PM1 component, the lack of source apportionment (e.g., PMF analysis) and oxidation state analysis (O:C ratios or f44/f43 ratios from mAMS or ToF-ACSM data) limits the mechanistic understanding of the observed changes. These analyses would better support the conclusions about secondary organic aerosol formation and its role in aerosol evolution.

Quantitative comparison of organic aerosol contributions: At line 393, when comparing with other aircraft studies showing organic aerosol dominance in urban plumes, provide specific percentage contributions of organic aerosol in-plume versus out-plume (background) conditions to facilitate direct comparison and intuitive understanding.

SSA wavelength dependence interpretation requires revision: At line 418, there appears to be confusion between AAE and SAE in the interpretation. More importantly, the attribution of SSA(450nm) < SSA(630nm) solely to BrC influence is problematic. Figure 4 shows this pattern occurs in only 3 of 6 flights (A032, A036, A033), while the other three flights (A027a, A031, A034) show the opposite pattern. The interpretation should consider that SSA wavelength dependence results from the combined effects of SAE (size-dependent scattering) and AAE (composition-dependent absorption). For example, when BC dominates (AAE≈1), SSA increases with wavelength if SAE > 1 (characteristic of small particles). The analysis should examine SAE and AAE variations together and provide flight-specific explanations considering particle size effects.

Particle size distribution interpretation needs stronger evidence: Section 3.2 attributes increased 80-200nm particles in-plume to secondary aerosol formation, but this attribution lacks strong support. The cited literature compares urban versus downwind suburban sites, which is not directly analogous to the in-plume versus out-plume comparison in this study. Since urban emissions naturally contain high concentrations of 80-200nm particles, the observed increase could reflect primary urban emissions. A more appropriate comparison would be with PRG urban site measurements, though instrument detection limits may constrain this approach.

Clarify particle versus gas-phase pollution discrepancies: At line 455, the statement that particle mass increases are less pronounced than gas-phase pollutant increases is puzzling given that Figure 2a shows substantial rBC and NO₂ enhancements (approximately doubling in-plume). This discrepancy warrants discussion of potential mechanisms such as deposition processes, dilution effects, or measurement artifacts, and an explanation of why rBC shows strong enhancement while other particle components do not.

Ensure consistent size ranges for volume-effective radius: At line 457, clarify whether the volume-effective radius calculation uses consistent size ranges for aircraft (80-1000 nm) and ground (30-1000 nm) measurements, and discuss the potential impact of any differences on comparability.

Refine Ox/ΔCO ratio analysis: At lines 474-477, specify whether Flight A027b (noon flight with potentially stronger photochemistry) was excluded from the Ox/ΔCO analysis, and compare in-plume versus out-plume Ox/ΔCO values to better characterize photochemical processing differences.

Validate complex refractive index values: The CRI real parts as low as 1.3 in Figure 8 are unexpectedly low given the chemical composition (~60% organic and 40% inorganic components with CRI=1.53). This suggests either methodological issues or exceptionally low organic aerosol CRI values that require explanation. Correlation with O:C ratios from AMS data would help validate these results and provide insights into organic aerosol aging.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3147', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jul 2026 reply

This study reports on airborne measurements of aerosol properties and gases at various downwind distances from Paris and compares them to a ground site within the city. The topic is well suited for this journal and is of scientific interest. Overall, the findings are that there are relatively minor changes in species concentrations with plume age, and also in comparison to the urban site, which makes the analysis and interpretation of the data more difficult (ie, testing if there are real differences). A major issue is that the interpretation tends to assume a Lagrangian-type of experiment, which is not proven – specifically the comparisons with the ground based urban site.
Although the data are self-consistent, (OA/dCO increases, BrC increases), all these changes are small. The authors use statistical test to decide if there is a difference or not, which is commendable, but it would also be good to include an uncertainty analysis to help with the interpretation. For example, error bars (sensitivity analysis) in Figure 10 added to the CRI (real and imaginary) for this data would be useful. It would also support (or not) some of the conclusions, eg, that including plume changes are needed to correctly assess optical properties of aerosols. Also an uncertainty analysis when comparing parameters from various measurement locations would be helpful, especially for the inferred optical properties, these could be fairly high. Another weakness was specifying the particle size ranges covered for each aerosol measurement, which seemed to be handled rather haphazardly throughout. This includes inlets and instrument measurement size ranges. Maybe this could be added to Table S1.
Overall, these are difficult measurements, and the authors have done a reasonable job presenting them, although the findings are not striking, they are important.

Specific comments.
I would just note that calling the plumes heavy and light pollution could lead to some confusion. Ie, the term light pollution has a specific meaning that differs from how it is used here.
Discuss limitations of one ground site being representative of the Paris metropolitan region emissions to which the downwind data are compared. Ie, how do aircraft data closest to the city compare?
State why is AMS NO3- referred to as pNO3, while none of the other species use a similar type of acronym? (Ie, since not classifying as ions, NO3 could be interpreted as the nitrate radical)?
Line 171, what is the implication of the 0.75 slope of volume from AMS vs number size distribution and density. The slope and correlation is given but there is no interpretation. Does this main AMS mass may be systematically off by 25%?
Give particle size ranges over which the SP2 and A2S2 can measure.
In equations 4 and 5 explicitly state where the absorption coefficients at 630 and 450 comes from – what instrument. Does it come from the measured extinction minus the scattering coefficients. I suspect there is significant uncertainty associated with the calculated absorption coefficients.
Give a possible range of calculated BrC absorption coefficient since it is determined by difference between measurements with associated uncertainties and depends on aerosol properties that can be variable (BC AAE=1 ). Also, the assumption is made that there is no BrC light absorption at 630 nm, which may not be true (see publications on tar BrC or dark BrC (d-BrC)). What are the implications of this assumption?
Discussion on volume increases between lines 450 and 455. Specify what the diameter range is associated with the discussed volume increase.
Line 478 and on. Is it possible to make such a definite statement that because Org/dCO in the plume was higher than at the Paris ground site that it must be due to SOA formation (30%). Same applies for other species discussed in a similar way. This is not a true Lagrangian experiment.
What is the effect of not considering background concentrations when normalizing by CO (in minus out of plume CO, ie y/dCO, where y is the variable of interest)? Normally one also subtracts the out of plume concentrations for the species in both the numerator and denominator (dy/dCO). In this case it is only done for the denominator. A good way to do this is from the slope of the species of interest (y) vs CO. It removes the backgrounds (intercept) and shows how consistent the excess mixing ratio is. Eg, if the correlation is poor, it provides insight on if this number makes much sense if calculated only based on averages.
How was the AAE determined? Seems highly uncertain if just based on absorption measured at two different wavelengths. Could this account for substantial scatter in Fig 9? I suggest that a discussion is needed on how AAE varies with choice of wavelengths.
Line 574 and on. Is there a plot that can show that AAE increased with plume age?
Line 649 states the results show a clear evolution with downwind distance of the Paris plume. Seems an overstatement without a full uncertainty analysis and possible limitations with how excess mixing ratios were determined. This applies to the complete final paragraph.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147-RC2

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3147-supplement

Data sets

ACROSS_LISA_SAFIRE-ATR42_A2S2-Ext-Scatt-450_20220618-20220705 C. Yu and P. Formenti https://doi.org/10.25326/526

ACROSS_LISA_SAFIRE-ATR42_A2S2-Ext-Scatt-630_20220618-20220705 C. Yu and P. Formenti https://doi.org/10.25326/525

ACROSS_LISA_SAFIRE-ATR42_AMS_20220618-20220705 C. Yu et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/686

ACROSS-2022_SAFIRE-ATR42_SAFIRE_CORE_TDYN thermodynamic and dynamic data 1Hz C. Cantrell https://doi.org/10.25326/380

ACROSS_ATR42_SAFIRE_CHEMISTRY_O3TEI49I_5SEC in situ measurements C. Cantrell https://doi.org/10.25326/629

ACROSS_CNRM_SAFIRE-ATR42_rBC A. Velazquez-Garcia et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/504

ACROSS_LCE_PRG_SMPS_5 min_L2 J. Kammer et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/658

ACROSS_LISA_PRG_ACSM-nrPM1comp_6-min_v1_L2 C. Di Biagio et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/775

ACROSS_LISA_PRG_AETH-Abs_PM1_1-Min_L2 L. Di Antonio et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/574

ACROSS_LISA_PRG_NEPH_Scatt-Backscatt_PM1_1-Min_L2 L. Di Antonio et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/538

ACROSS_LISA_PRG_NOx_1-Min_L2 L. Di Antonio et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/859

ACROSS_LISA_PRG_O3_1-Min_L2 L. Di Antonio et al. https://doi.org/10.25326/860

Viewed

Total article views: 30 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
23	7	0	30	4	0	0

HTML: 23
PDF: 7
XML: 0
Total: 30
Supplement: 4
BibTeX: 0
EndNote: 0

Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Jun 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2026	1	0	1
Jul 2026	22	7	0	29

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 25 Jun 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2026	1	0	1
Jul 2026	22	7	0	29

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 9 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 9 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Jul 2026

Short summary

This study used coordinated airborne and ground-based measurements in Paris and its downwind regions to quantify the effects of 2–6 h of urban plume aging on aerosol properties. Aging enhanced secondary organic aerosol production and PM₁ mass and shifted optical properties toward higher SSA, higher real and lower imaginary refractive indices, and stronger brown carbon absorption. These results highlight the need to account for aerosol aging in atmospheric models and remote-sensing retrievals.


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