Real-time detection of airborne fluorescent bioparticles in Antarctica

Crawford, Ian; Gallagher, Martin W.; Bower, Keith N.; Choularton, Thomas W.; Flynn, Michael J.; Ruske, Simon; Listowski, Constantino; Brough, Neil; Lachlan-Cope, Thomas; Fleming, Zoë L.; Foot, Virginia E.; Stanley, Warren R.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14291-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 23

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14291-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14291-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 23

Research article

|

01 Dec 2017

Research article |

| 01 Dec 2017

Real-time detection of airborne fluorescent bioparticles in Antarctica

Ian Crawford, Martin W. Gallagher, Keith N. Bower, Thomas W. Choularton, Michael J. Flynn, Simon Ruske, Constantino Listowski, Neil Brough, Thomas Lachlan-Cope, Zoë L. Fleming, Virginia E. Foot, and Warren R. Stanley

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Dec 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 May 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Calibration needed', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #1', Ian Crawford, 09 Aug 2017
RC2: 'Synopsis "Real Time Detection of Airborne Bioparticles in Antarctica" (Crawford et al.)', Mr Tobias Könemann, 15 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to M. T. Könemann', Ian Crawford, 09 Aug 2017
RC3: 'Crawford et al. review', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Jun 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #3', Ian Crawford, 09 Aug 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Ian Crawford on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (29 Aug 2017) by Alex Huffman

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (12 Sep 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have clarified their selection of time periods to analyze, however their responses to other comments by myself and other reviewers are rather minimal and unsatisfying (i.e. I don't see where they have amended anything in response to reviewer 2's questions about the back trajectory analysis).

Additionally, now that the authors have included the number of particles observed in each cluster, I wonder if this might be a bit of over-analysis given the low statistics. Especially given that it seems like a single anthropogenic source from a ship could be responsible for quite a lot of what seemed to be PBAP. Even before this addition, multiple reviewers had commented about the robustness and applicability of these measurements and, in response, the authors have added one sentence at the end calling for more work in the future. In my opinion a larger and more thoughtful re-write would have been appropriate.

I am still uncomfortable with the flux calculation as presented though I suppose the main conclusion is just that the local source, if there is one, is tiny. In response to my comment the authors say that they show that previous methods are overly simplistic but that's not at all how I read that section of the paper. To me it seems like the authors take these very simplistic tools and apply them to a scenario where it's not clear that they apply or give useful information but present it as the best that can be done.

I also think there could be much more thoughtful additions regarding the variable performance of the clustering algorithm and the impacts of that on the conclusions. For example, if the asymmetry factor cannot distinguish the "fine detail" between biological particles and dust (which should actually look very different from each other) then I think it is wrong to try to interpret small variations in that measurement as indicative of different clusters. What happens if that piece of information is omitted?

In general, though the authors have at least responded to some of the larger comments, it still feels like the dataset is a bit oversold and the conclusions are simply not completely convincing or particularly interesting.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Sep 2017)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (05 Oct 2017) by Alex Huffman

AR by Ian Crawford on behalf of the Authors (11 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (17 Oct 2017) by Alex Huffman

AR by Ian Crawford on behalf of the Authors (23 Oct 2017) Manuscript

Short summary

We present the first real-time detection of bioparticles on the Antarctic continent using a novel UV-LIF technique. The high time resolution of the technique allowed us to examine the relationships between bioparticle concentrations and airmass history and local winds, which would not have been possible with conventional high-volume filter sampling techniques. We also show evidence of episodic long-range transport of pollen from coastal South America to the continent.