Atmospheric reactivity and oxidation capacity during summer at a suburban site between Beijing and Tianjin

Yang, Yuan; Wang, Yonghong; Zhou, Putian; Yao, Dan; Ji, Dongsheng; Sun, Jie; Wang, Yinghong; Zhao, Shuman; Huang, Wei; Yang, Shuanghong; Chen, Dean; Gao, Wenkang; Liu, Zirui; Hu, Bo; Zhang, Renjian; Zeng, Limin; Ge, Maofa; Petäjä, Tuukka; Kerminen, Veli-Matti; Kulmala, Markku; Wang, Yuesi

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8181-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 13

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8181-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8181-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 13

Research article

|

15 Jul 2020

Research article |

| 15 Jul 2020

Atmospheric reactivity and oxidation capacity during summer at a suburban site between Beijing and Tianjin

Yuan Yang, Yonghong Wang, Putian Zhou, Dan Yao, Dongsheng Ji, Jie Sun, Yinghong Wang, Shuman Zhao, Wei Huang, Shuanghong Yang, Dean Chen, Wenkang Gao, Zirui Liu, Bo Hu, Renjian Zhang, Limin Zeng, Maofa Ge, Tuukka Petäjä, Veli-Matti Kerminen, Markku Kulmala, and Yuesi Wang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 Jul 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Dec 2019)
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: 'Parameterized reactivity of hydroxy radical, ozone, nitrate radical and atmospheric oxidation capacity during summer at a suburban site between Beijing and Tianjin', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Dec 2019
- AC1: 'responses to the reviewers', Yonghong Wang, 27 Apr 2020
RC2: 'Comments to Yang et al.', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Jan 2020
- AC2: 'responses to the reviewers', Yonghong Wang, 27 Apr 2020
RC3: 'Interactive comment on “Parameterized reactivity of hydroxy radical, ozone, nitrate radical and atmospheric oxidation capacity during summer at a suburban site between Beijing and Tianjin” By Anonymous referee 1.', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jan 2020
- AC3: 'responses to the reviewers', Yonghong Wang, 27 Apr 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Yonghong Wang on behalf of the Authors (27 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 May 2020) by Qiang Zhang

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (27 May 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors revised the manuscript with improvements, but massive problems, mainly language issue, still exist and need to be revised before publication.
1. As the author replaced the OH and NO3 radical concentrations by model calculation rather than parameterization, the title of the manuscript may not appropriate.
2. The reviewer is still missing an argument why all OH, NO3 and O3 reactivity are calculated and compared if OH reactivity dominated 98.2% of the AOC. In the Line 141-144, the authors say previous study has analyzed OH reactivity but not NO3 or O3. Isn’t it one of the reasons that AOC is dominated by OH oxidation? In the abstract and conclusion, the authors claimed that the present study provide useful suggestions for VOC pollution control in North China Plain. Maybe the combined integration of OH, NO3 and O3 reactivity analysis could shed light on this topic but it’s hidden in the current manuscript.
3. The manuscript needs proofreading, especially for Introduction section. It is difficult to follow the writing, and there are some obvious mistakes and contradictions in the context. For instance, in line 343-345, why it is ‘as expected’? and it said ‘with the accumulation of NMVOCs’ in the first part of the sentence, but followed by ‘the concentration of NMVOCs gradually decreases’ in the second part. This sentence is confusing. In line 407, it said ‘the majority of OH reactivity towards total NMVOCs values were below 2 s-1’, but it was not the case for OH reactivity towards total NMVOCs. The expressions and collocations of some sentences need to be considered again. For instance, in line 610-612, ‘….., which even dominated the photochemical loss of NO3 ’. It is confusing of the ‘dominated’.
4. The manuscript still needs a significant reduction to be concise and informative before reconsidering. For instance, the manuscript introduced the O3 formation regime analysis in Sect. 2.6 and Sect. 3.3, but it seems to be irrelevant to the subject and context of this article. The manuscript also analyzed the frequency distributions and cumulative frequency distributions of kOH, kO3 and kNO3, but it not discussed in detail enough nor expressing a clear conclusion.

5. Line 91-93: The OH reactivity is calculated by a global model in Ferracci et al. (2018) and by a box model based on Master Chemical Mechanism in Whalley et al. (2016)
6. Line 325-327, it compared the temperature in this study to the four cities in Tan et al., 2019 without any introduction.
7. Figure 10. The y-axis covers 10 orders of magnitude and its difficulty for me to read out the number. It’s only mentioned once in the text and not really discussed.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Jun 2020) by Qiang Zhang

AR by Yonghong Wang on behalf of the Authors (13 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Jun 2020) by Qiang Zhang

Download

Article (3968 KB)
Full-text XML