Articles | Volume 25, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12629-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.A diagnostic intercomparison of modeled ozone dry deposition over North America and Europe using AQMEII4 regional-scale simulations
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 10 Oct 2025)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 06 Feb 2025)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-225', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Mar 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Christian Hogrefe, 05 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-225', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Mar 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Christian Hogrefe, 05 May 2025
- AC3: 'Correction to AC2', Christian Hogrefe, 12 May 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Christian Hogrefe, 05 May 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Christian Hogrefe on behalf of the Authors (05 May 2025)
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 May 2025) by Joshua Fu
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 May 2025)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (01 Jun 2025)
ED: Publish as is (15 Jun 2025) by Joshua Fu

AR by Christian Hogrefe on behalf of the Authors (16 Jun 2025)
Post-review adjustments
AA: Author's adjustment | EA: Editor approval
AA by Christian Hogrefe on behalf of the Authors (29 Aug 2025)
Author's adjustment
Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (08 Oct 2025) by Joshua Fu
The article "A Diagnostic Intercomparison of Modeled Ozone Dry Deposition Over North America and Europe using AQMEII4 Regional-Scale Simulations" by Hogrefe et al. is another of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative model comparisons, this one focused on dry deposition of ozone. The paper analyzes the ozone dry deposition fluxes and velocities from simulations over North America and Europe for 12 different model configurations.
The article is well written and presented and should be published with only very minor revisions. In fact, this reviewer had a difficult time finding much of anything to comment on. Corrections or suggestions for minor improvements are listed below:
- Throughout the article there are several places where "O3" occurs rather than the "O3".
- p. 3, line 75: "A companion paper in this issue .." ... I believe this refers to the previously cited Schwede et al., 2018, but it might also refer to a companion paper in the current issue. This ambiguity should be resolved.
- p. 17, line312: should be "... averaged over only those grid cells where a given model ..."
- pp. 22-24: The discussion here concerning Figure 10 is somewhat confusing because of the shorthand names given to the regional-scale simulation results vs the single point model results. For example, on p. 22, lines 369-370, single point models are referred to as "GEM-MACH Zhang" and "GEM-MACH Wesely", while in Figure 10 these models are labeled "SP GM Zhang BF/SP GM Zhang HF" and "SP GM Wesely BF/SP GM Wesely HF". Some additional thought should be given to making the names more consistent between the text and Figure 10.
- p. 36, line 587: should be "between 0.4 and 1.0 cm s-1 ..." (i.e., superscript "-1").
- Section " 4 Summary": The authors have done an excellent job of disentangling the effects of different LU types and LU datasets on the deposition results in this work. However, given the importance of the underlying LU data, I would think a general call for improved, commonly available high-resolution LU datasets would be appropriate. With the plethora of satellite datasets available today, a concerted effort to create better, publicly available LU datasets would reap significant benefits for air quality, weather and land surface models.
- Figures S12 an S13 in the supplement are of very poor quality and should be improved.