Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.414
IF5.414
IF 5-year value: 5.958
IF 5-year
5.958
CiteScore value: 9.7
CiteScore
9.7
SNIP value: 1.517
SNIP1.517
IPP value: 5.61
IPP5.61
SJR value: 2.601
SJR2.601
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 191
Scimago H
index
191
h5-index value: 89
h5-index89
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-537
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-537
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  22 Jun 2020

22 Jun 2020

Review status
A revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal ACP and is expected to appear here in due course.

Review of experimental studies on secondary ice production

Alexei Korolev1 and Thomas Leisner2 Alexei Korolev and Thomas Leisner
  • 1Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canada
  • 2Karlsruhe Instituteof Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract. Secondary ice production (SIP) plays a key role in the formation of ice particles in tropospheric clouds. Future improvement of the accuracy of the weather predictions and climate models relies on a proper description of SIP in numerical simulations. For now, laboratory studies remain a primary tool for developing physically based parameterizations for cloud modeling. Over the past seven decades, six different SIP-identifying mechanisms have emerged: (1) shattering during droplet freezing; (2) the rime splintering (Hallett-Mossop) process; (3) fragmentation due to ice-ice collision; (4) ice particle fragmentation due to thermal shock; (5) fragmentation of sublimating ice; (6) activation of ice nucleating particles in transient supersaturation around freezing drops. This work presents a critical review of the laboratory studies related to secondary ice production. While some of the six mechanisms have received little research attention, others consist of contradictory results obtained by different research groups. Unfortunately, despite past investigative efforts, the lack of consistency and the gaps in the accumulated knowledge hinder the development of quantitative descriptions of any of the six SIP mechanisms. The present work is aimed at identifying gaps in our knowledge on SIP and on stimulating further laboratory studies in obtaining a quantitative description of efficiencies for each of SIP mechanism.

Alexei Korolev and Thomas Leisner

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Alexei Korolev and Thomas Leisner

Alexei Korolev and Thomas Leisner

Viewed

Total article views: 220 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
132 82 6 220 9 11
  • HTML: 132
  • PDF: 82
  • XML: 6
  • Total: 220
  • BibTeX: 9
  • EndNote: 11
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 378 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 378 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 29 Sep 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Altmetrics