Articles | Volume 21, issue 13
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Secondary aerosol formation from dimethyl sulfide – improved mechanistic understanding based on smog chamber experiments and modelling
- Final revised paper (published on 02 Jul 2021)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 08 Feb 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on acp-2020-1324', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Apr 2021
- AC1: 'Comment on acp-2020-1324', Robin Wollesen de Jonge, 07 Apr 2021
- RC2: 'Comments on acp-2020-1324', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2021
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Robin Wollesen de Jonge on behalf of the Authors (04 May 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes
ED: Publish as is (06 May 2021) by Harald Saathoff
Wollesen et al. studied the OH-oxidation of DMS in the AURA smog chamber, using the gas and particle phase chemistry model for laboratory chamber studies (ADCHAM). They investigated the role of some products (and oxidation-pathways, such as HPMTF and addition reaction of MSIA-OH) on secondary aerosol mass yield in the chamber. DMS is an important source of sulfate particles in the atmosphere, and there are many uncertainties and key questions left on its oxidation pathways and products.
This study aims to address some questions in this area. It is a great project, and in general, the topic and the approach are within the ACP scope. However, I think this study can benefit from re-writing (re-structur). The results in the different sections are mentioned without reporting the quantitative values, which makes this difficult to follow the manuscript - see the “specific comments” below for some examples.
(Abstract - There are some terms such as “strong dependence”, ”important”, “a decrease in the secondary aerosol mass yield”, “a strong sink” and “less important than” without any quantitative support.
Line 300: “Initially the model overestimated”
Line 302: “significantly underestimated”
Line 331: “minor importance”
There are many other examples on different sections including “Conclusions”. Even if you display results on figures/tables, it would be helpful to report them in the main body of the manuscript).
Abstract: Define abbreviations such as MSA.
Page 2 – Line 40: Add space HOOCH2SCHO) - (Wu et al.,
Some examples of typographical corrections:
Page 1 – Line 5: Move “both” - DMS oxidation mechanism, capable of “both” reproducing smog chamber and atmospheric relevant conditions.
Page 2 – Line 37: details
Page 2 – Line 37: “mechanism remains” or “mechanisms remain” – I think the second one here is correct.
Page 2 – Line 50: “MSA formation in the gas-phase does, however, remain uncertain, and early studies have suggested alternative production pathways via the MSIA intermediate.”
Page 3 – Line 66: mean
Page 3 – Line 67: compares
Page 3 – Line 72: instrumentations