EUBREWNET RBCC-E Huelva 2015 Ozone Brewer Intercomparison

Redondas, Alberto; Carreño, Virgilio; León-Luis, Sergio F.; Hernández-Cruz, Bentorey; López-Solano, Javier; Rodriguez-Franco, Juan J.; Vilaplana, José M.; Gröbner, Julian; Rimmer, John; Bais, Alkiviadis F.; Savastiouk, Vladimir; Moreta, Juan R.; Boulkelia, Lamine; Jepsen, Nis; Wilson, Keith M.; Shirotov, Vadim; Karppinen, Tomi

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9441-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 13

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9441-2018

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

Special issue:

Quadrennial Ozone Symposium 2016 – Status and trends...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9441-2018

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

Articles | Volume 18, issue 13

Research article

|

06 Jul 2018

Research article |

| 06 Jul 2018

EUBREWNET RBCC-E Huelva 2015 Ozone Brewer Intercomparison

Alberto Redondas, Virgilio Carreño, Sergio F. León-Luis, Bentorey Hernández-Cruz, Javier López-Solano, Juan J. Rodriguez-Franco, José M. Vilaplana, Julian Gröbner, John Rimmer, Alkiviadis F. Bais, Vladimir Savastiouk, Juan R. Moreta, Lamine Boulkelia, Nis Jepsen, Keith M. Wilson, Vadim Shirotov, and Tomi Karppinen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Jul 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Jan 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'acp-2017-1210-manuscript-version2.pdf', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jan 2018
- AC1: 'Response to the Referee', Alberto Redondas, 09 May 2018
RC2: 'Review of Redondas et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Feb 2018
- AC2: 'Answer to Anonymous Referee #2', Alberto Redondas, 09 May 2018
AC3: 'Revised Version of the Paper', Alberto Redondas, 09 May 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Alberto Redondas on behalf of the Authors (04 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Jun 2018) by Stefan Reis

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Jun 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Minor revisions/technical corrections must be addressed before the paper is ready for publication.

p. 1 l. 6: can you explain better what areas still require attention? Reformulate the sentence to be grammatically consistent;
p. 1 l. 7: could you add a chart of the filter non-linearity effect in the paper? It is mentioned in the abstract as an important point, however only a text description is provided in the paper;
p. 1 l. 8: "its effects" refers to stray-light or non-linearity? "its" or "their"?
p. 3 l. 11: "also"..."also" - remove one recurrence;
p. 3 l. 15: "the" results;
p. 4 l. 8: "measurements" -> "measurement";
p. 4 l. 14: add comma ("filter, a");
p. 4 l. 18: "because of using a unique grating". I would say "monochromator", not grating, which is only one component of the monochromator;
p. 5 l. 2: Eq. 1 was not corrected. It should read (ETC-F)/alpha*mu;
p. 5 l. 4: "ozone differential absorption coefficient";
p. 5 l. 9-18: those lines are confusing. The authors talk about weights (SO2 and aerosol), then about the wavelength choice (and the dispersion test is only described at p. 6 l. 4-6 - by the way, F0 at line 12 is not defined), then again about the weights (wavelength-independent factors and aerosol). Please re-order this paragraph;
p. 6 l. 6: "... Langley method (Redondas et al., 2014b; Leon-Luis et al., 2018), in case of reference Brewers, or by comparison with a reference instrument in the case of the other Brewers of the network". Moreover, I would eliminate l. 14-18, since the Langley technique is not a topic of this paper;
p. 6 l. 26: the ozone coefficient is not derived from the dispersion test itself, but from calculations based on spectroscopic datasets and the wavelengths chosen from the dispersion test;
p. 6 l. 29: "iterative process, i.e. changes..." and reformulate the sentence, which is too long. Also, could you explain what are "some instrumental characteristics revealed during the ETC transfer" that require full reprocessing?
p. 7 l. 5: "The calibrations are maintained between transfer" -> do you mean that changes in the spectral sensitivity are monitored and tracked using the internal quartz halogen lamp? Please, reformulate;
p. 7 l. 19-22: I wouldn't go into details about the FOV straylight, since this is not addressed in the present paper. Just remove the lines after the bibliographic reference to Josefsson;
p. 7 l. 24: "such as" -> "so that"?
p. 8 Fig. 3: the label of the y-axis is not understandable by the inexperienced reader. Caption: "0.6 cm". "Compared with the 1 point calibration": where are the results?
p. 8 l. 6: the mathematical notation is inconsistent throughout the paper. In the previous text, F was the linear combination of the measured counts, now it represent the true counts and Fm the combination of the measured counts. Please, chose a notation and keep it throughout the paper. Also, F are NOT the true counts, but the linear combination of the true counts. Finally, mention that k<0;
p. 8 l. 8: "This is equivalent to correcting the extraterrestrial constant, i.e.";
p. 8 l. 11: "... ozone calibration, as explained in the text below.";
p. 9 l. 14: "OSC free region" -> "straylight-free region". Additionally, what does "starts" mean here?
p. 9 l. 15: can you quantify "enough"?
p. 10 l. 8: if you mention the "model from Karppinen", please first define it;
p. 10 l. 8: can you quantify "significant"?
p. 10 l. 10: how can the authors use the empirical correction as the reference term for the comparison at those OSCs? This is a point that I raised previously: first the authors say that "getting observations to 1600 DU is enough", but then they extrapolate the correction for comparison up to 2000 DU. Taking as an example the k and s values from Fig. 4, the straylight correction doubles from 1600 to 2000 DU (-232 to -466), so extrapolating above 1600 DU is very dangerous. Please, clarify this fundamental point;
p. 11 l. 2: who is the subject of "has"? Please correct;
p. 11 l. 6: F0 was never defined before;
p. 11 l. 10: "test" -> "tests";
p. 13 Fig. 7: I can't understand to what the x-axis refers. Brewers #157 and #183 are not listed in Table 1;
p. 15 both figure caption and l. 7: the text was not updated to clarify my previous question why Brewer #151 cannot be considered an "operative instrument";
p. 15 l. 21: "Sec" -> "Sect";
p. 16 l. 12-27: why is a new topic (two parameters vs 1 parameter method) introduced in the conclusions?? I would suggest the authors to simply summarise the main topic of the paper, mentioning some quantitative results, instead of introducing new concepts. (Anyway, l. 21: "base" -> "based")
p. 22 Fig. 11: the x-axis label of the upper panel is missing and the axis is not the same as the one below;
p. 22 caption of Fig. 11: "campaing" -> "campaign";
p. 25 table 2: Brewer #145 is missing in Table 1, therefore you must explain which Brewer is.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Jun 2018) by Stefan Reis

AR by Alberto Redondas on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (25 Jun 2018) by Stefan Reis

AR by Alberto Redondas on behalf of the Authors (25 Jun 2018) Manuscript

Short summary

This work shows an overview of the total ozone comparison of the Brewer instrument during the 10th RBCC-E campaign in a joint effort with the EUBREWNET COST 1207 action. The status of the network after 2 years of calibration shows 16 out of the 21 participating Brewer instruments (76 %) agreed within better than ±1 %, and 10 instruments (50 %) agreed within better than ±0.5 %. After applying the final calibration and the stray light correction all working instruments agreed at the ±0.5 % level.