Impact of aerosol particle sources on optical properties in urban, regional and remote areas in the north-western Mediterranean

Ealo, Marina; Alastuey, Andrés; Pérez, Noemí; Ripoll, Anna; Querol, Xavier; Pandolfi, Marco

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1149-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1149-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1149-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 2

Research article

|

30 Jan 2018

Research article |

| 30 Jan 2018

Impact of aerosol particle sources on optical properties in urban, regional and remote areas in the north-western Mediterranean

Marina Ealo, Andrés Alastuey, Noemí Pérez, Anna Ripoll, Xavier Querol, and Marco Pandolfi

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Jan 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Apr 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comments of Ealo et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 May 2017
RC2: 'Review of “From air quality to climate; Impact of aerosol sources on optical properties at urban, regional and continental levels in the north-western Mediterranean”', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2017
AC1: 'Reply to reviewers', Marina Ealo, 09 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Marina Ealo on behalf of the Authors (09 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Oct 2017) by Leiming Zhang

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (31 Oct 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (05 Nov 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

In this paper, the authors investigate the mass scattering and absorption efficiencies (MSE and MAE) of different aerosol particles sources at urban (BCN), regional (MSY) and remote (MSA) backgrounds in the Northwestern Mediterranean using PM10 chemical speciation and particles optical properties. The authors propose a new approach aiming to apportion the PM10 source contributions, identified by means of the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF), to the measured particle sp and ap coefficients. This approach has the advantage that the computed MSE and MAE take into account the internal mixing of atmospheric particles. The paper is interesting for ACP, and the introduction, methodology, discussion and results are well documented, but requires corrections.
Specific Comments:
-The authors use acronyms in text that are not defined previously. As example: P.3 Line 20 (NWM), P.5 Line 10 (WMB), P.10 Line 10. Also, sometime the authors use in text the acronyms and sometimes the words of these acronyms. Please, check the text carefully.
-P.6, 2.2 Section. Please, include a Table containing sampling sites, measurement period, measured parameter, … there is confusion in text and it’s not easy to follow the measured variables in each measurement station, as well as the measurement period. As example: P.6, Line 4, measurement period from MSY. P.6, Line 13, measurement period at BCN, MSY and MSA from aerosol absorption coefficient. The same from gravimetric PM10 mass concentrations. P.6, Line 5: “sp measurements at BCN are not available”, but in Line 31: “Optical measurements were considered for the periods 2009-14 at BCN…”. Please, clarify.
-P.8 Line 10: Please, explain more clearly in text the equation term [source] and their units.
-P.8 Line 18: the influence of the inlet change (PM2.5 by PM10) may be important, and may affects the measured sp values and the regression models.
-P. 9 and followings. Results section. The authors show average concentrations, and so on, but they do not include standard deviations in values. As example: Line 21. Please, include standard deviations, or an indication of errors, in all values included in Results section and Tables.
-P.14, Section 3.3.1, Table 2. The scattering Angström exponents (SAE), are computed using the values in Table 2? Or are computed for each 3 MSE measurements, and value in Table 2 is the average (include standard deviations)? Also from SSA. What physical interpretation do the SAE negative values have?, and the high value 3.549 at MSA for aged organics? This last value is close to the Rayleigh scattering (=4).
-Figure 7. Maybe it's better to show the reconstruction only for the independent subset (January-December 2015), and no the period 2004-2014 were the data values are used to the reconstruction model.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (08 Nov 2017) by Leiming Zhang

AR by Marina Ealo on behalf of the Authors (22 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (24 Nov 2017) by Leiming Zhang

AR by Marina Ealo on behalf of the Authors (27 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This study aims to quantify the mass scattering and absorption efficiencies of different aerosol sources at urban (Barcelona), regional (Montseny) and remote (Montsec) background sites in the NW Mediterranean by analysing a source apportionment, first to PM₁₀ and then to scattering and absorption coefficients. With this approach we addressed both the effect that aerosol sources have on air quality and their potential effect on light extinction.