Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4707-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.Interferences in photolytic NO2 measurements: explanation for an apparent missing oxidant?
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 15 Apr 2016)
- Preprint (discussion started on 23 Oct 2015)
Interactive discussion
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/039f6/039f6da721b86099c29e4868aec817f8c53462ec" alt="Printer-friendly Version"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e3a5d/e3a5d2bbe99ae74ab92156d27b7280e707784b46" alt="Supplement"
-
RC C11305: 'Review of Reed et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 28699–28747, 2015', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Jan 2016
-
AC C13378: 'Authors response to anonymous reviewer #1', Chris Reed, 31 Mar 2016
-
AC C13378: 'Authors response to anonymous reviewer #1', Chris Reed, 31 Mar 2016
-
RC C12508: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2016
-
AC C13373: 'Authors response to anonymous reviewer #2', Chris Reed, 31 Mar 2016
-
AC C13373: 'Authors response to anonymous reviewer #2', Chris Reed, 31 Mar 2016
Peer-review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Chris Reed on behalf of the Authors (01 Apr 2016)
Author's response
ED: Publish as is (06 Apr 2016) by V. Faye McNeill
AR by Chris Reed on behalf of the Authors (06 Apr 2016)