Atmospheric conditions and composition that influence PM<sub>2.5</sub> oxidative potential in Beijing, China

Campbell, Steven J.; Wolfer, Kate; Utinger, Battist; Westwood, Joe; Zhang, Zhi-Hui; Bukowiecki, Nicolas; Steimer, Sarah S.; Vu, Tuan V.; Xu, Jingsha; Straw, Nicholas; Thomson, Steven; Elzein, Atallah; Sun, Yele; Liu, Di; Li, Linjie; Fu, Pingqing; Lewis, Alastair C.; Harrison, Roy M.; Bloss, William J.; Loh, Miranda; Miller, Mark R.; Shi, Zongbo; Kalberer, Markus

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5549-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 7

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5549-2021

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

Special issue:

In-depth study of air pollution sources and processes within...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5549-2021

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

Articles | Volume 21, issue 7

Research article

|

12 Apr 2021

Research article |

| 12 Apr 2021

Atmospheric conditions and composition that influence PM_2.5 oxidative potential in Beijing, China

Steven J. Campbell, Kate Wolfer, Battist Utinger, Joe Westwood, Zhi-Hui Zhang, Nicolas Bukowiecki, Sarah S. Steimer, Tuan V. Vu, Jingsha Xu, Nicholas Straw, Steven Thomson, Atallah Elzein, Yele Sun, Di Liu, Linjie Li, Pingqing Fu, Alastair C. Lewis, Roy M. Harrison, William J. Bloss, Miranda Loh, Mark R. Miller, Zongbo Shi, and Markus Kalberer

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Apr 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Oct 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: 'aerosol ROS and aerosol oxidative potential measured with four assays', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to Reviewer 1', Steven Campbell, 19 Jan 2021
RC2: 'Comments to oxidative potential of Beijing PM2.5 (acp-2019-941)', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Nov 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to Reviewer 2', Steven Campbell, 19 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Steven Campbell on behalf of the Authors (25 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Jan 2021) by Maria Cristina Facchini

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Feb 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (18 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

1. Line 33 in page 1: the ‘(APHH-Beijing)’ can be after the ‘campaign’.
2. Line 42 in page 2: why the number of ‘107’ needs to be highlighted? I did not see the importance of this number to the abstract and the manuscript.
3. Line 46 in page 2: the ‘SOA’ should be defined.
4. Line 82 in page 3: change the ‘electron paramagnetic spectroscopy (EPR)’ to ‘electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy’.
5. Line 94 in page 3: suggest to add some more recent publications to the citation.
6. Line 121 in page 4: you may need to cite the work of ‘(Shi et al., 2019)’ to provide more background information about the APHH campaign.
7. Line 125 in page 4: delete the first ‘datasets’, which is surplus.
8. Line 128 in page 4: I am still confused by the number ‘107’.
9. Line 196 in page 7: add ‘in this study’ after the ‘source apportionment’.
10. Line 200-201 in page 7: the phrase ‘PMF would not ultimately give useful models’ is confusing. It is clear that a model will not give another model.
11. Line 264 in page 9: the ‘PM2.5 OPv’ looks strange.
12. Line 265 in page 9: the unit format of ‘nM [DHA] m-3’ is different from the one in Figure 1. Keep them to be uniform in the manuscript.
13. Line 279-297 in page 10: change the ‘Figure 2B, 2C and 2D’ to ‘Figure 2b, 2c, and 2d’ and the same for other figures. Recent studies found that peroxide-containing highly oxygenated organic compounds (HOMs) associate with the radical formation by PM2.5 in water (Chowdhury et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 23, 13949-13958, 2019; Tong et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 21, 12506-12518, 2019; Wei et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 55, 1, 260-270, 2021). Thus, what is the potential contribution of HOM to the observed superoxide radicals in Figure 2d?
14. Line 374: why the summer data points are n=33? Because it is shown that n=34 for summer in line 141.
15. Line 409: add a full stop after the ‘secondary organic aerosol’.
16. Line 509: suggest to cite: Tong et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 1761-1771, 2016.
17. Line 567-568: there are different meanings of the ‘models’ here. I suggest not use ‘assay’ rather than ‘model’ for describing AA and DTT.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish as is (18 Feb 2021) by Maria Cristina Facchini

AR by Steven Campbell on behalf of the Authors (26 Feb 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (3638 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

In this study, we quantify PM_2.5 oxidative potential (OP), a metric widely suggested as a potential measure of particle toxicity, in Beijing in summer and winter using four acellular assays. We correlate PM_2.5 OP with a comprehensive range of atmospheric and particle composition measurements, demonstrating inter-assay differences and seasonal variation of PM_2.5 OP. Using multivariate statistical analysis, we highlight specific particle chemical components and sources that influence OP.

Atmospheric conditions and composition that influence PM2.5 oxidative potential in Beijing, China

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Atmospheric conditions and composition that influence PM_2.5 oxidative potential in Beijing, China