Characterization of satellite-based proxies for estimating nucleation mode particles over South Africa

Sundström, A.-M.; Nikandrova, A.; Atlaskina, K.; Nieminen, T.; Vakkari, V.; Laakso, L.; Beukes, J. P.; Arola, A.; van Zyl, P. G.; Josipovic, M.; Venter, A. D.; Jaars, K.; Pienaar, J. J.; Piketh, S.; Wiedensohler, A.; Chiloane, E. K.; de Leeuw, G.; Kulmala, M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4983-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4983-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Integrated Land Ecosystem-Atmosphere Processes Study (iLEAPS)...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4983-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 9

Research article

|

04 May 2015

Research article |

| 04 May 2015

Characterization of satellite-based proxies for estimating nucleation mode particles over South Africa

A.-M. Sundström, A. Nikandrova, K. Atlaskina, T. Nieminen, V. Vakkari, L. Laakso, J. P. Beukes, A. Arola, P. G. van Zyl, M. Josipovic, A. D. Venter, K. Jaars, J. J. Pienaar, S. Piketh, A. Wiedensohler, E. K. Chiloane, G. de Leeuw, and M. Kulmala

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 May 2015)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Oct 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C9103: 'Review of Sundstrom et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Nov 2014
- AC C12531: 'Answer to Rev. 2', Anu-Maija Sundström, 06 Mar 2015
- AC C12532: 'Answer to Rev.2', Anu-Maija Sundström, 06 Mar 2015
RC C9959: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Dec 2014
- AC C12533: 'Answer to Rev. 1', Anu-Maija Sundström, 06 Mar 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Anu-Maija Sundström on behalf of the Authors (06 Mar 2015) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Mar 2015) by Steffen M. Noe

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 Mar 2015)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (02 Apr 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have done a nice job incorporating my previous comments, and I now support the publication of the manuscript after the following minor corrections are made:

Pg. 3, Line 1: Dp >~ 50 nm

Pg. 5, Line 12: For the current study, they

Pg. 6, Lines 2-5: This list of citations is too long and broad for the statement “more detailed description of the in situ measurements can be found e.g. in”. The authors should parse each of these references out and state exactly which instrument is described in each publication so that the reader knows where to go for more information without having to consult all of them.

Pg. 6, Equations: Define the variables in the text.

Pg. 7, Line 10: After introducing all of these equations, I’d like to see some additional discussion on how these proxies were developed and why they are thought to be good representations. Discussion of the linear and quadratic terms, and their rationale is especially important.

Pg. 7, Lines 18-19: Define “diffusion coefficient” and “transitional correction factor” and add a citation if appropriate. As it is now, I don’t know what these parameters are and what they relate to (aerosol, gas, etc.)

Pg. 8, Line 24: The response of sigma_ext to changes in

Pg. 9, Line 28: Was an impactor or a cyclone or something else used to limit the particle size to < 10 um?

Pg. 10, Lines 6-8: This is a very interesting observation. I wonder why this is. Can the authors discuss or speculate as to why this might be?

Pg. 11, Line 15: What is the lower size limit of the particle counter in Marikana? 3 nm?

Pg. 12, Line 21: “are associated with much higher”

Pg. 12, Line 22-23: “upper limit”. Also, what is meant by “some kind of” upper limit?

Pg. 14, Line 5: did not show a reasonable

Pg. 14, Line 23: comparison

Pg. 15, Line 9: associated assumptions are critically examined

Pg. 15, Line 17: upgraded to the newest Collection 6, three-km product

Pg. 29, Line 29: For the NO2/AOD proxy

Pg. 29, Line 30: is the “o” in most bolded? Perhaps it is an issue with my computer / printer, though.

Figure 6: Explain why the red line stops at 3.25 km in the figure caption

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (06 Apr 2015) by Steffen M. Noe

AR by Anu-Maija Sundström on behalf of the Authors (14 Apr 2015) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (5331 KB)
Metadata XML