the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Aug 2026
Relative roles of aerosol size and hygroscopicity in modulating marine liquid-phase cloud responses under the winter monsoon
Abstract. How aerosol physicochemical properties affect aerosol-cloud interactions (ACI) and when these impacts are most pronounced represent an important source of ACI uncertainty. Targeting a representative liquid-phase cloud case over the Eastern China Ocean (ECO) under the winter monsoon featuring abundant meteorological, aerosol, and cloud variations, this study investigates the impacts of changes in aerosol size (volume-mean radius increased by 1.2 times and decreased by 45 %) and hygroscopicity (volume-mean hygroscopicity increased by 2.2 times and decreased by 62 %) using a spectral-bin cloud model. Results indicate that increased aerosol size and hygroscopicity generally enhance cloud development, raising the ECO-averaged cloud droplet number concentration (Nd) by 92 % and 53 %, respectively. These impacts peak under moderate aerosol concentrations (Na) and cold advection, where Nd increases up to 10-fold. Concurrently, increased aerosol size raises cloud water by 1.3 times and extends cloud lifetime by 85 %, whereas increased hygroscopicity has a much weaker effect. By contrast, decreased aerosol size and hygroscopicity generally suppress cloud development, reducing the ECO-averaged Nd by 49 % and 43 %, respectively. The former has a relatively strong impact, which is most notable in moderate-to-high Na environments under cold advection, reducing Nd and cloud water by over 80 % and 50 %, respectively. While changes in aerosol size generally exert a stronger overall impact than changes in hygroscopicity, specific conditions reveal the opposite. Notably, the enhancement of Nd by increased hygroscopicity under high Na, and the preservation of cloud and rainwater through evaporation suppression by decreased hygroscopicity, both surpass the effects caused by corresponding aerosol size changes.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.
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.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(15913 KB)
-
Supplement
(3929 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15913 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3929 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Aug 2026
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments, which have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript. Regarding the figures, we have carefully reviewed all figures and revised the figure captions throughout the manuscript to make the content of each figure clearer and easier to interpret.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Rahul Ranjan, 03 Sep 2026
In lines 66-72, you specifically mention the importance of chemical composition at lower supersaturation. Is there a possible explanation for not including higher supersaturation values? Is it that composition is irrelevant in those cases?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jianqi Zhao, 07 Sep 2026
Thank you for raising this excellent point. Yes, the exact reason we did not include higher supersaturation values is that the chemical composition becomes irrelevant in those cases.
The literature well documents this supersaturation-dependent behavior. Zhang et al. (2012) demonstrated that the effect of chemical composition on CCN activity is pronounced at low supersaturations but diminishes as supersaturation rises (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3783-2012). Furthermore, Patel and Jiang (2021) highlighted that while composition is vital for aerosol activation at low supersaturations, it ceases to be a critical factor under high supersaturation conditions (http://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac0e0b).
In this paragraph, our review mainly concentrated on contexts where chemical composition plays a major role. We appreciate your feedback, and to provide a more comprehensive overview, we will explicitly include an explanation of this weakened impact at high supersaturations in our next revision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jianqi Zhao, 07 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2026
Relative roles of aerosol size and hygroscopicity in modulating cloud responses under varying environments
Line 15-18, I wonder if the increase of aerosol size and/or hygroscopicity cause occurrence of precipitation and then reduce cloud water, while the effect could depend on the status of initial cloud/environment status.
Line 26-27, I would suggest adding some recent review studies as supporting references.
Line 34-36, In addition to these early studies, recent studies should be briefly mentioned, such as Niu et al. (2026, doi: 10.1007/s11430-025-1794-7) and Li et al. (2025, doi: 10.1029/2024JD042649) for impact of meteorological conditions, Zhao et al. (2025, doi: 10.1007/s00376-024-4165-z) and Liang et al. (2026, doi: 10.1029/2025JD045635) and for aerosol properties. Particularly, the latter study is also for roles of aerosol size, and the authors may discuss the same or different findings between them.
Line 59, Personally, I wonder if the supersaturation is high over the Arctic. Please help explain, thanks.
Line 65, “show” should be “showed”?
Figure 1, the location of EC is not highlighted as ECO?
Line 153-155, What do the authors mean for “NCEP et al., 2015”, “NCEP et al., 2014” and “Satellite Services Division et al., 2004”?
Line 208-209, There are some of most recent studies regarding the importance of aerosol size, which are worthy to mention and compare.
Figure 3 caption, meanings for each panel should be given.
Line 281-283, the definition of clouds here uses different threshold values form many previous studies, an explanation or sensitivity analysis should be given to indicate the reliability.
Line 302-304, For low to medium Na conditions, Nd increase of up to 2000 cm-3 seems too large to me, while it is somehow possible for extreme cases.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
Peer review completion
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Aug 2026
The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily. The revisions to the title, abstract, and model description resolve the main points I raised, and the remaining items (figure readability and captions) are minor and can be finalized during revision. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments, which have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript. Regarding the figures, we have carefully reviewed all figures and revised the figure captions throughout the manuscript to make the content of each figure clearer and easier to interpret.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Rahul Ranjan, 03 Sep 2026
In lines 66-72, you specifically mention the importance of chemical composition at lower supersaturation. Is there a possible explanation for not including higher supersaturation values? Is it that composition is irrelevant in those cases?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jianqi Zhao, 07 Sep 2026
Thank you for raising this excellent point. Yes, the exact reason we did not include higher supersaturation values is that the chemical composition becomes irrelevant in those cases.
The literature well documents this supersaturation-dependent behavior. Zhang et al. (2012) demonstrated that the effect of chemical composition on CCN activity is pronounced at low supersaturations but diminishes as supersaturation rises (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3783-2012). Furthermore, Patel and Jiang (2021) highlighted that while composition is vital for aerosol activation at low supersaturations, it ceases to be a critical factor under high supersaturation conditions (http://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac0e0b).
In this paragraph, our review mainly concentrated on contexts where chemical composition plays a major role. We appreciate your feedback, and to provide a more comprehensive overview, we will explicitly include an explanation of this weakened impact at high supersaturations in our next revision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Jianqi Zhao, 07 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3954', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2026
Relative roles of aerosol size and hygroscopicity in modulating cloud responses under varying environments
Line 15-18, I wonder if the increase of aerosol size and/or hygroscopicity cause occurrence of precipitation and then reduce cloud water, while the effect could depend on the status of initial cloud/environment status.
Line 26-27, I would suggest adding some recent review studies as supporting references.
Line 34-36, In addition to these early studies, recent studies should be briefly mentioned, such as Niu et al. (2026, doi: 10.1007/s11430-025-1794-7) and Li et al. (2025, doi: 10.1029/2024JD042649) for impact of meteorological conditions, Zhao et al. (2025, doi: 10.1007/s00376-024-4165-z) and Liang et al. (2026, doi: 10.1029/2025JD045635) and for aerosol properties. Particularly, the latter study is also for roles of aerosol size, and the authors may discuss the same or different findings between them.
Line 59, Personally, I wonder if the supersaturation is high over the Arctic. Please help explain, thanks.
Line 65, “show” should be “showed”?
Figure 1, the location of EC is not highlighted as ECO?
Line 153-155, What do the authors mean for “NCEP et al., 2015”, “NCEP et al., 2014” and “Satellite Services Division et al., 2004”?
Line 208-209, There are some of most recent studies regarding the importance of aerosol size, which are worthy to mention and compare.
Figure 3 caption, meanings for each panel should be given.
Line 281-283, the definition of clouds here uses different threshold values form many previous studies, an explanation or sensitivity analysis should be given to indicate the reliability.
Line 302-304, For low to medium Na conditions, Nd increase of up to 2000 cm-3 seems too large to me, while it is somehow possible for extreme cases.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3954-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jianqi Zhao, 12 Oct 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 346 | 178 | 68 | 592 | 95 | 62 | 66 |
- HTML: 346
- PDF: 178
- XML: 68
- Total: 592
- Supplement: 95
- BibTeX: 62
- EndNote: 66
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jianqi Zhao
Hailing Jia
Tong Yang
Peili Zou
Yingying Ku
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15913 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3929 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily. The revisions to the title, abstract, and model description resolve the main points I raised, and the remaining items (figure readability and captions) are minor and can be finalized during revision. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.