Articles | Volume 22, issue 18
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating the contribution of the unexplored photochemistry of aldehydes on the tropospheric levels of molecular hydrogen (H2)
- Final revised paper (published on 21 Sep 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jan 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-1052', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Mar 2022
- RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-1052', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2022
- AC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-1052', Maria Paula Perez-Pena, 20 May 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Maria Paula Perez-Pena on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jun 2022) by John Orlando
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (15 Jun 2022)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Jul 2022)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Jul 2022) by John Orlando
AR by Maria Paula Perez-Pena on behalf of the Authors (04 Aug 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (26 Aug 2022) by John Orlando
The authors analyzed the contribution of aldehydes on the chemical production and tropospheric levels of H2 using a box model and a 3-D atmospheric chemical transport model. The authors concluded that their results imply that the previously missing photochemical source is a less significant source of model uncertainty than other components of the H2 budget. Overall, the paper is well written and well organized.
My only concern is that the global model simulations were conducted with a resolution of 4x5. As the authors found in Section 2, the conditions over urban environments and regions with substantial vegetation are very different. Urban size is usually smaller than this scale. Can the model properly represent that with this resolution?
And below are a few minor comments.
Line 95: “The the” to “Then the”?
Line 216: Here it is “GFED4” but later it was denoted “GFEDv4s”. Please make it consistent.
Line 345: Change “difference between observations and predictions” to “difference between observations and model simulations”?
Figure 1. The colors are hard to differentiate especially the orange colors.