Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE): emissions of particulate matter from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires, garbage and crop residue burning, brick kilns, and other sources

Jayarathne, Thilina; Stockwell, Chelsea E.; Bhave, Prakash V.; Praveen, Puppala S.; Rathnayake, Chathurika M.; Islam, Md. Robiul; Panday, Arnico K.; Adhikari, Sagar; Maharjan, Rashmi; Goetz, J. Douglas; DeCarlo, Peter F.; Saikawa, Eri; Yokelson, Robert J.; Stone, Elizabeth A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2259-2018

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

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

Research article

|

15 Feb 2018

Research article |

| 15 Feb 2018

Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE): emissions of particulate matter from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires, garbage and crop residue burning, brick kilns, and other sources

Thilina Jayarathne, Chelsea E. Stockwell, Prakash V. Bhave, Puppala S. Praveen, Chathurika M. Rathnayake, Md. Robiul Islam, Arnico K. Panday, Sagar Adhikari, Rashmi Maharjan, J. Douglas Goetz, Peter F. DeCarlo, Eri Saikawa, Robert J. Yokelson, and Elizabeth A. Stone

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 Feb 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Jun 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: 'Review for Jayarathne et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jul 2017
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1', Elizabeth Stone, 14 Sep 2017
RC2: 'Review of source measurement paper', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jul 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Elizabeth Stone, 14 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Elizabeth Stone on behalf of the Authors (14 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Sep 2017) by James Allan

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Oct 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for responding to my comments. I have read through the revised manuscript and still believe this paper should be accepted and published in ACP. Below are a few comments and thoughts I had while reviewing the paper.

Minor Comments:

Page 8, line 24: “These tests die” die should be did

Section 2.2.3: A sub sample of QFF were analyzed for WSOC. Was the backup QFF also analyzed using this method to determine the positive gas-phase absorption artifact? (Kristensen et al., 2016) has shown that considerable amounts of organic acids absorb onto QFF which would show up in WSOC analysis.

Page 13, line 23: no comma after blank subtracted

Page 14, line 21: Sentence beginning with “Notably…” is a run-on sentence and confusing.

Page 19, line 3: The authors state that the uncertainity could be from absorption of semi-volatile compounds onto the filter (I assume they mean QFF). However, I was under the impression that the OC:EC measurements were subtracted by the OC:EC amounts detected on the back filter. (1) This subtraction approach seems imperfect as gaseous compounds could break through both filters and/or be absorbed by different amounts on the front filter compared to the back filter. But I do admit, this method is likely the best way to “correct” for gas-phase artifacts. What I am more confused about is why the authors claim the 11% difference could be caused by SVOC absorption when they supposedly corrected for it? It would be less confusing if the authors just pointed out the inherent errors in correcting for SVOC absorption.

Page 21, line 3: “…of PM2.5 reply…” should be rely

Page 21, line 20: the semi-colon should be a comma

Page 23, line 24: “nor sulfate was” should be were

Page 28, line 5: “contribute to the greater emissions…” greater seems awkward

Page 28, line 13: perhaps consider adding reduced between the worlds the and global

Page 29, line 9: see comment I wrote above about gas absorption. Was gas absorption not corrected for? The methods indicate that it was.

Page 32, line 5: It is a bit to add a sentence that summarizes a point from a paper that is in preparation and was not talked about in detail in this paper. It would be more logical to remove this sentence.

Works cited in this review

Kristensen, K., Bilde, M., Aalto, P. P., Petaja, T. and Glasius, M.: Denuder/filter sampling of organic acids and organosulfates at urban and boreal forest sites: Gas/particle distribution and possible sampling artifacts, Atmospheric Environment, 130, 36, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.046, 2016.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Oct 2017)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (10 Oct 2017) by James Allan

AR by Elizabeth Stone on behalf of the Authors (16 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Oct 2017) by James Allan

Download

Article (4492 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Emissions of fine particulate matter and its constituents were quantified for a variety of under-sampled combustion sources in South Asia: wood and dung cooking fires, generators, groundwater pumps, brick kilns, trash burning, and open burning of biomasses. Garbage burning and three-stone cooking fires were among the highest emitters, while servicing of motor vehicles significantly reduced PM. These data may be used in source apportionment and to update regional and global emission inventories.