Articles | Volume 22, issue 10
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Measurement report: Optical properties and sources of water-soluble brown carbon in Tianjin, North China – insights from organic molecular compositions
- Final revised paper (published on 19 May 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 17 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-2021-1045', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jan 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pingqing Fu, 30 Mar 2022
RC2: 'Brown carbon in Tianjin, China', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Feb 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pingqing Fu, 30 Mar 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Pingqing Fu on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Apr 2022) by Qiang Zhang
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (14 Apr 2022)
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (23 Apr 2022) by Qiang Zhang
AR by Pingqing Fu on behalf of the Authors (24 Apr 2022)  Author's response Manuscript
This manuscript investigated the optical properties, sources and radiative impacts of water-soluble brown carbon in Tianjin, a representative megacity in the North China Plain. Daytime and nighttime samples were collected during winter and summer, and analyzed for aerosol compositions, light absorption spectra and fluorescence properties. Based on the measurement results, connections between the chemical compositions and optical characteristics of aerosols were explored; in addition, radiative impacts of brown carbon were estimated using different approaches. My overall assessment is that this manuscript could be considered for publication as a Measurement Report after a minor revision. My detailed comments are given below.
Line 16. Suggest change “aerosols” to “particles”.
Lines 19-20. Check this sentence.
Line 21. I guess something was missing after “44.6 ± 13.9 %”, e.g., were the two values for different seasons?
Line 45. It should be “On one hand”.
Line 48. Secondary BrC could also be formed through gas-phase (i.e., photochemical) reactions.
Section 2.1 The number of samples should be clarified. This information is important for the reliability of the PMF results.
Lines 107-108. Details on the EC-tracer method should be provided, e.g., determination of the OC/EC ratio representative of primary emissions.
Line 133 and elsewhere in the manuscript. Check the unit of MAE (m2/g or m2/gC).
Equation (4). Check whether the WSOC mass has been converted to that of water-soluble organic matter.
Lines 197-199. Was the difference in AAE statistically significant?
Lines 240-243. Were these values calculated by the same methodology?
Line 315 and elsewhere in the manuscript. Maybe it is better to use “r” (in italic) instead of “R”.
Lines 403-404. Check the units of levoglucosan.
Section 3.5. I would like to see the relationship between SOC estimated by the EC-tracer method and that derived from PMF analysis.