Linking Seawater Biogeochemistry to the Chemical and Biological Signatures of Nascent Marine Aerosol
Abstract. Interactions between the ocean and atmosphere are a key component in the Earth's climate system. Oceans represent an important source of aerosol particles in the atmosphere. However, uncertainties are still associated with our understanding of the complex processes involved in these interactions. This work presents a unique set of in-situ measurements focusing on the relationship between marine biogeochemistry and nascent marine aerosols over the Southern Ocean. These measurements were performed on nascent seawater aerosols generated, in an enclosed tank, from a continuous flow of seawater, during the Sea2Cloud cruise. This experimental set up provided the opportunity to study the interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere without the influence of background transported aerosols. These nascent seawater aerosols were characterised for their physical, biological, and chemical properties, using a combination of aerosol mass spectrometry and fluorescence spectroscopy. In parallel, detailed measurements of seawater biogeochemistry provided concentrations of different bacterial species, amino acids, and sugars in the seawater, enabling us to make links between organic aerosol types and seawater biochemistry.
Organic aerosol contributed 34–46 % of the nascent sea spray. We observed that the contribution of oxidized organic aerosol dominated the nascent organic sea spray, indicating a large contribution of chemically or biologically processed organic matter already in the seawater. The contribution of organic material was highest at the start of the campaign in biologically active waters (>40 %) and decreased to <40 % later in the campaign. The contributions of the different type of OA changed across the seawater types showing that a marine OA evolves with the biogeochemical composition of seawater. The POA signature in the nascent sea spray was suspected to be less of a signature of biological debris and more representative of the biologically refractory and aged background organic matter of the ocean. The fluorescent aerosol particles (FAP) were logically proportional to most microorganism cell numbers but represented only 3 % of the total aerosol nascent sea spray, and less than 10 % of the total organic matter. Among these fluorescing particles, type A dominated with correlations with MOA, bacteria, but also with nanophytoplankton, diatoms and in general to total Chl-a. Classes B and C were uncorrelated to any microorganism but instead were sensitive to the presence of OOA and to a lesser extend MOA.
Review of Freney et al. (2026)
This study investigates how variations in seawater biogeochemistry influence the chemical and biological characteristics of nascent marine aerosol. Using a shipborne chamber deployed during the Sea2Cloud campaign, the authors isolate freshly generated sea spray aerosol and relate its composition to contemporaneous seawater biological and chemical properties. The results indicate substantial organic contributions to the aerosol, dominated by oxidized material already present in seawater, and a relatively small contribution from biological particles. The multi-instrument approach is a clear strength of the study; however, interpretation of the fluorescence measurements remains challenging, underscoring ongoing uncertainties in attributing aerosol biological signatures. Overall, the study addresses an important topic and presents a valuable dataset. Clarifying terminology, improving figure descriptions, and addressing potential contamination and interpretation issues detailed below, particularly related to POA and biological aerosol signals, will substantially strengthen the manuscript and make it suitable for publication in this journal.
Line numbers refer to the preprint version.
Major Comments
Description of factors and POA definition (Lines 251–259)
Descriptions of all identified aerosol factors, particularly primary organic aerosol (POA), are missing and this substantially hampers interpretation of the results. The manuscript should briefly describe each factor, including POA, its defining mass spectral features, and its assumed sources. Only after this initial explanation should the authors refer readers to Freney et al. (2021) for additional detail. The manuscript should be self-contained, and readers should not need to consult previous papers to understand the core results.
POA spikes, data gaps, and contamination concerns (Figure 3; Lines 265–269)
POA concentrations frequently spike immediately before or after periods with missing data. These gaps are not explained, and the temporal behaviour strongly suggests contamination. If these gaps correspond to periods of contamination, this should be explicitly stated in the Methods section. The Results section should then discuss whether POA could originate from ambient air or water contamination, particularly given the possibility of interference from high ship-emission concentrations creeping into the chamber or ship contamination of underwater sampling. Later in the manuscript, POA is attributed to marine sources. This attribution needs to be reconciled with the presence of anthropogenic mass spectral signatures (e.g. m/z 55 and 57). Contamination, either from ambient air or seawater, would be consistent with the reported lack of correlation between POA and fluorescent channels or biological parameters (Lines 370–371). Additionally, further discussion is needed on how marine organic aerosol (MOA) containing MSA signatures appears in bubble-bursting experiments that explicitly exclude secondary particle formation.
Fluorescent aerosol population (FAP) quantification (Line 304; Figure 4)
It is not clear how the authors derive the stated value of 4% for FAP. Please explicitly refer to the relevant figure and panel and describe how this fraction was calculated.
Terminology and interpretation of “biological origin” (Lines 306–307)
The term “biological origin” is confusing and requires clarification. Does this refer exclusively to intact, fluorescing cells detected by WIBS? If so, this should be stated explicitly. The statement that “~30%” refers to biological particles appears to contradict the conclusion that the biological fraction is small. Please clarify what quantity this 30% refers to. Additionally, it should be clearly stated whether MOA and OOA are considered part of the “biological origin” category, and the terminology should be used consistently throughout the manuscript.
Comparison with previous WIBS-based studies (Lines 338–339)
The discussion referencing previous WIBS studies is very brief. Please expand this section to describe what was observed in earlier marine and coastal WIBS measurements and clearly compare those findings with the current results.
Photochemically produced organic aerosol (Line 388 and elsewhere)
The term “photochemically produced organic” requires clarification. Does this refer to photochemical processing occurring within the seawater prior to aerosolization? If so, please discuss the relevant pathways (e.g. photochemical oxidation of dissolved organic matter) and provide appropriate references. This will help contextualize the interpretation of oxidized organic aerosol in the chamber measurements.
Specific and Technical Comments