Observations of organic and inorganic chlorinated compounds and their contribution to chlorine radical concentrations in an urban environment in northern Europe during the wintertime

Priestley, Michael; le Breton, Michael; Bannan, Thomas J.; Worrall, Stephen D.; Bacak, Asan; Smedley, Andrew R. D.; Reyes-Villegas, Ernesto; Mehra, Archit; Allan, James; Webb, Ann R.; Shallcross, Dudley E.; Coe, Hugh; Percival, Carl J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13481-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 18

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13481-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13481-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 18

Research article

|

21 Sep 2018

Research article |

| 21 Sep 2018

Observations of organic and inorganic chlorinated compounds and their contribution to chlorine radical concentrations in an urban environment in northern Europe during the wintertime

Michael Priestley, Michael le Breton, Thomas J. Bannan, Stephen D. Worrall, Asan Bacak, Andrew R. D. Smedley, Ernesto Reyes-Villegas, Archit Mehra, James Allan, Ann R. Webb, Dudley E. Shallcross, Hugh Coe, and Carl J. Percival

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Sep 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 07 Mar 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Observations of organic and inorganic chlorinated compounds and their contribution to chlorine radical concentrations in an urban environment in Northern Europe during the wintertime." by M. Priestley et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2018
RC2: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Mar 2018
AC1: 'Author Comment', Michael Priestley, 28 Jun 2018
AC2: 'Author Comment', Michael Priestley, 28 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Michael Priestley on behalf of the Authors (27 Jul 2018) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Aug 2018) by Steven Brown

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Aug 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Aug 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of “Observations of organic and inorganic chlorinated
compounds and their contribution to chlorine radical concentrations in
an urban environment in Northern Europe during the wintertime.” by M.
Priestley et al.
ACP-2018-236
Anonymous Referee Comments
The improvements to the manuscript provide a sufficient change relative to previous versions
to warrant publication of this manuscript to ACP. I have only minor comments which should be
addressed prior to publications.
Detailed Comments:
I still remain apprehensive about the robustness of the zero determinations. The authors cite
stability in instrumental mass calibration parameters and lack of IH2O changes as evidence of a
stable background. The background however is a function of what has been previous sampled
as well as instrumental parameters. As to figure 3 in the response, the authors should color the
data by date/time and the correlations with ambient humidity will stand out. The jumps
observed and scatter are most likely due to changes in tuning or sensitivity throughout the
project, e.g. single ion current adjustments. I am happy to concede as the authors clearly state
how backgrounds were performed in the manuscript for the readers.
I would like to see more information of the actual sensitivities included in the body of the
manuscript, perhaps in the individual molecule sections in 3.1…
If the detection limit for CH2Cl2 is 143 ppb and CHCl3 is 11ppb you could at most be missing
150ppb of Cl from those sources. How would that effect your budget? In the conclusion you
should be explicit in saying those levels were below detection limit and removing the phrase
“were not detected”.
On page 9, section 3.1 you are comparing CL2 observations to C2H4O5 and C10H14O4 to imply
photochemical formation or lack thereof. How can you interpret the source of a compound that
you have not identified and only have a molecular formula for?
I do not see why the section on the newer ClNO2 calibration method is included here if the
conclusion is that the approximations are incorrect and the sensitivity determined is wrong.
Why not just drop that portion, use the Kercher 2009 method here and work on the method for
a future publication?
In your response, page 2. Where does the idea that formic acid has one of the strongest
humidity dependences known for iodide adduct CIMS come from?
Abstract line 30, add space after contributing
Page 3, line 87, There seems to be a word missing in the last sentence.
Page 5 and 6, remove the quotes from this paragraph.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (28 Aug 2018) by Steven Brown

AR by Michael Priestley on behalf of the Authors (07 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript