Regional-scale simulations of fungal spore aerosols using an emission parameterization adapted to local measurements of fluorescent biological aerosol particles

Hummel, M.; Hoose, C.; Gallagher, M.; Healy, D. A.; Huffman, J. A.; O'Connor, D.; Pöschl, U.; Pöhlker, C.; Robinson, N. H.; Schnaiter, M.; Sodeau, J. R.; Stengel, M.; Toprak, E.; Vogel, H.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6127-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6127-2015

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6127-2015

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

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

Research article

|

04 Jun 2015

Research article |

| 04 Jun 2015

Regional-scale simulations of fungal spore aerosols using an emission parameterization adapted to local measurements of fluorescent biological aerosol particles

M. Hummel, C. Hoose, M. Gallagher, D. A. Healy, J. A. Huffman, D. O'Connor, U. Pöschl, C. Pöhlker, N. H. Robinson, M. Schnaiter, J. R. Sodeau, M. Stengel, E. Toprak, and H. Vogel

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Jun 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Apr 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2129: 'Review of Hummel et al', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2014
- AC C5138: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Matthias Hummel, 21 Jul 2014
RC C2281: 'Review of Hummel et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 May 2014
- AC C5139: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Matthias Hummel, 21 Jul 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Matthias Hummel on behalf of the Authors (07 Aug 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Sep 2014) by Maria Kanakidou

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Sep 2014)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (24 Oct 2014) by Maria Kanakidou

AR by Matthias Hummel on behalf of the Authors (26 Jan 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Feb 2015) by Maria Kanakidou

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (03 Mar 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

1. The explanation for the derivation of tau_PBL (p. 18, l. 7-24) is still unclear. First, isn't this actually an estimate of the boundary layer residence time, and not a PBL "mixing time" as stated in the text? Second, I think it is not surprising that the PBL mixing time is far shorter than the overall residence time, and I don't think this needs such a detailed explanation. But, it is still not clear in the revised text how this particular value was arrived at. This is rather important since the emissions are determined by linear regression of Eq. (7) against the concentrations. Choosing a different value for tau will result in a different overall scaling of the emission equation as given in Eq. 8, correct?

I have the impression that tau was arrived at by tuning the overall emissions up or down until the concentrations approximately matched the concentrations produced by the model. Given the amount of uncertainty in this problem, this is probably a "good enough" optimization procedure, but please clarify whether this is the case and explain clearly in the text.

2. p. 15, l. 29-30: "These competing effects are impossible to separate when only point measurements are available." I disagree with this statement, although I would agree that it is likely that more measurements and/or further analysis (for instance, further model sensitivity tests) would be needed. With enough measurements and careful analysis, it should be possible to tease apart some of these effects. (measurements of vertical profiles, and accompanying measurements of meteorological variables, would be helpful, too)

3. Incidentally, I disagree strongly with the previous reviewer's implication that "simply eliminat[ing] bias" does not constitute an improvement in model skill. Bias is generally considered to be an important component of model skill (e.g., Murphy and Epstein, 1989), and reducing bias is valuable and important!

Hide

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (11 Mar 2015) by Maria Kanakidou

AR by Matthias Hummel on behalf of the Authors (21 Mar 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (03 Apr 2015) by Maria Kanakidou

ED: Publish as is (04 May 2015) by Maria Kanakidou

AR by Matthias Hummel on behalf of the Authors (06 May 2015)