A phenomenology of new particle formation (NPF) at 13 European sites

Bousiotis, Dimitrios; Pope, Francis D.; Beddows, David C. S.; Dall'Osto, Manuel; Massling, Andreas; Nøjgaard, Jakob Klenø; Nordstrøm, Claus; Niemi, Jarkko V.; Portin, Harri; Petäjä, Tuukka; Perez, Noemi; Alastuey, Andrés; Querol, Xavier; Kouvarakis, Giorgos; Mihalopoulos, Nikos; Vratolis, Stergios; Eleftheriadis, Konstantinos; Wiedensohler, Alfred; Weinhold, Kay; Merkel, Maik; Tuch, Thomas; Harrison, Roy M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11905-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 15

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11905-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-11905-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 15

Research article

|

10 Aug 2021

Research article |

| 10 Aug 2021

A phenomenology of new particle formation (NPF) at 13 European sites

Dimitrios Bousiotis, Francis D. Pope, David C. S. Beddows, Manuel Dall'Osto, Andreas Massling, Jakob Klenø Nøjgaard, Claus Nordstrøm, Jarkko V. Niemi, Harri Portin, Tuukka Petäjä, Noemi Perez, Andrés Alastuey, Xavier Querol, Giorgos Kouvarakis, Nikos Mihalopoulos, Stergios Vratolis, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Alfred Wiedensohler, Kay Weinhold, Maik Merkel, Thomas Tuch, and Roy M. Harrison

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 Aug 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Sep 2020)
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 of acp-2020-414', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Oct 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Feb 2021
AC1: 'Author Comment on acp-2020-414', Roy M. Harrison, 18 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Roy M. Harrison on behalf of the Authors (18 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (31 Mar 2021) by Neil M. Donahue

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (20 Apr 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for their extensive revisions to the manuscript. The improvement to the structure makes the manuscript much easier to read and the addition of the separate discussion section more clearly articulates the findings of the manuscript. I recommend publication after consideration of the following minor details. Line numbers refer to the track changes version of the manuscript.

Lines 215-225: Thank you for the addition of this description. I find the information it presents to be helpful, however, the presentation of the information could be improved. For instance, in the second sentence “such formation still occurs” I believe is about traffic related npf, but the wording is unclear. I am also unsure what is meant by “using average conditions for comparison would lead to negative values” negative values of what? It isn’t clear to me why the comparison would have a definitive sign. Finally, the last sentence would benefit from being broken into 2 sentences to increase readability.

Table S6: I typically think of ND as standing for “not detected.” Since here no measurements were made, it isn’t exactly the same thing. I suggest a different abbreviation. The abbreviation should be defined in the caption.

Line 1123-1124: “The most consistent result found throughout the areas studied, regardless of the geographical location, was the higher frequency of NPF events at rural background sites compared to roadsides.” I wonder how consistent this result truly is. I suggest reconsidering the phrase “most consistent result…regardless of geographical region” for comparing rural background and roadsides. From Figure 2, only 3 of the countries had measurements at roadsides. For Finland, the results for urban background and roadside are quite similar. So that leaves 2 out of the 5 countries.

Lines 1151-1153 “Finally, it should be noted that no clear interannual trend…” I think this statement should be made significantly earlier in the manuscript so that the reader isn’t wondering throughout the long manuscript what role trends might play. I think a slightly revised version of this sentence would be appropriate at the beginning of section 3.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (24 May 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 May 2021) by Neil M. Donahue

AR by Roy M. Harrison on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Jun 2021) by Neil M. Donahue

AR by Roy M. Harrison on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (4748 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Formation of new particles is a key process in the atmosphere. New particle formation events arising from nucleation of gaseous precursors have been analysed in extensive datasets from 13 sites in five European countries in terms of frequency, nucleation rate, and particle growth rate, with several common features and many differences identified. Although nucleation frequencies are lower at roadside sites, nucleation rates and particle growth rates are typically higher.