the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Vertical profiling and aerosol typing using fluorescence Raman and depolarization lidar measurements over Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract. In this study, we present the first fluorescence lidar observations over Thessaloniki, Greece, (40.63° N, 22.96° E; 60 m a.s.l.) using a multiwavelength Raman and depolarization lidar with fluorescence capabilities. For the first time in the Eastern Mediterranean fluorescence backscattering coefficient and the spectral fluorescence capacity parameter are retrieved and combined with particle depolarization ratio, lidar ratios, and Ångström exponents to characterize the aerosol load over Thessaloniki, a region influenced by diverse aerosol sources. Representative case studies of biomass-burning smoke, Saharan dust, and mixed pollen event showing distinct fluorescence properties are discussed in detail, while an extended dataset covering the period April 2024 – December 2025 is further analysed, comprising 108 aerosol layers from 50 measurement cases. A sub-dataset is also compared with the EARLINET Mahalanobis distance–based typing algorithm, highlighting the importance and complementarity of fluorescence lidar observations on the aerosol characterization in complex environments. Based on the spectral fluorescence capacity and the particle depolarization ratio, the identified layers are classified into smoke, dust, polluted continental, clean continental and mixed pollen. THELISYS retrievals show that the spectral fluorescence capacity depends on aerosol type, with smoke showing the highest values (3.5 × 10−6 − 12.7 × 10−6 ๐๐−1), followed by mixed pollen (2.3 × 10−6 − 4.8 × 10−6 ๐๐−1), polluted continental (1.0 × 10−6 − 3.3 × 10−6 ๐๐−1), clean continental (0.3 × 10−6 − 1.2 × 10−6 ๐๐−1) and dust (0.6 × 10−6 − 1.3 × 10−6 ๐๐−1). The fluorescence capacity values observed for all aerosol types are comparable with other studies across central and northern Europe, however the linear particle depolarization ratio measurements attributed to pollen differ from those reported at more northern latitudes, possibly reflecting differences in pollen type.
- Preprint
(2027 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 26 Aug 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3856', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3856/egusphere-2026-3856-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3856-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3856', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Aug 2026
reply
Review of Peletidou et al. (2026)
The paper by Peletidou et al. presents fluorescence lidar observations from Thessaloniki, Greece, and introduces a classification scheme that combines the spectral fluorescence capacity, and the aerosol depolarization ratio, and additional contextual information. The results indicate the importance of fluorescence measurement and show how they can elucidate a more accurate assignment of dust, smoke and pollen compared to traditional aerosol typing methods. The methodology and the presentation of the different fluorescence retrieval techniques are well written and help the reader understand the ramifications of the study. The paper fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for publication. However, before final publication, I have listed several general and technical comments below that can help improve the manuscript.
General comments
Line20: Why is there a sub-dataset?
Line31: It is worth including the work of Miri et al. (ACP, 2025) who similarly introduce an aerosol typing model incorporating fluorescence information.
Lines22-26: Do the reported ranges refer to the aerosol type assignment methodology?
Lines51-53: Give more context. What is the โAerosol Remote Sensing requirementsโ?
Line54: What is โLILASโ?
Line119: What is โLIFโ?
Line127: Table 1 is not introduced in the text.
Line163: Why not using the Raman backscatter?
Lines222-223: You mention that the layer is confided within the boundary layer and its top reaches 3.2 km. Given that this is a nighttime measurement, can you elaborate on this assertion?
Line225: Why does not the table report the values for the 14/5/2025 case?
Lines229-231: In this sentence, you mention that the smoke case is presented in Fig. 2b. Figure 2b shows the absolute difference among the two GF for either case. Is this simply a typo here or do I miss something?
Line275: A reference to support this statement is needed.
Lines277-280: To me, the text implies that all layers from Figure 3 are included in HYSPLIT, whereas the HYSPLIT plot actually only reflects layers 3 and 4 from Table 5. Also, why not include layers 1 and 2?
Line296 & 300: What is the value in parentheses?
Line303: Why only 2 days?
Line322: My criticism with this section is the following. The typing of the layer is anchored on the layer mean value of the spectral fluorescence capacity by comparing with literature and excluding other aerosol types. Precisely, this is the added value of a fluorescence lidar when it comes to aerosol typing. However, Hysplit runs do not offer the adequate resolution for this kind of investigation. Do you have access to in situ measurements that might indicate the presence of pollen? It might be helpful also to check pollen forecasting model outputs if available.
Lines357-362: Why not make the colorscale discrete by using the thresholds as discussed in this paragraph? Like this, the cases will be grouped according to the thresholds you highlight in your discussion,
Lines363-372: In this paragraph, you describe the typing procedure that is shown in Figure 6b. All the criteria and thresholds invoked need to be justified and relevant references acknowledged, if any. Furthermore, a flowchart or a table would help the readers.
Lines377-379: Long range transported biomass does not only originate from North America as it is demonstrated by Amiridis et al. (2009). For sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning other source areas.
Lines388-390: If I get it right, figure 7 and table 8 come from the analyzed cases. Why not report a similar table containing the thresholds of your typing procedure?
Line402: You can populate the table with more statistical metrics to help understand better the differences among the aerosol types.
Line407: The differences among the boxes relevant to the work of Veselovskii et al (2002b) and your study are not discussed in this section. Please do so.
Line410: I might have missed the reason behind the selected temporal window (i.e. March 2024 โ April 2025) for the analysis. Can you clarify this point? Also, I found in line 245: โโฆ April 2024โฆโ which further confused me.
Lines412-413: I would leave out the text in parentheses else you need to explain it.
Lines421-422: I see no layers over 8 km. Is it maybe a typo?
Line445: The term โfluorescence typingโ is an oversimplification. I would probably rephrase it.
Technical comments
Line18: Remove โeventโ
Line82: Consider swapping โDamialis et al. (2017)โ with โtheyโ.
Line116: Add โtheโ before โNationalโ.
Line136: It should be โsubscriptsโ.
Line267: The beginning โIn addition, in orderโฆโ is rather awkward. Consider changing it.
Line 278: Change โsixโ to โfiveโ.
Line283: Remove โaerosolโ.
Line320: Remove the first โofโ.
Line389: Remove โwith IFโ.
Line408: Add โEmptyโ before โdashedโ.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3856-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 128 | 62 | 17 | 207 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 128
- PDF: 62
- XML: 17
- Total: 207
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1