Formation and chemical aging of secondary organic aerosol during the β-caryophyllene oxidation

Tasoglou, A.; Pandis, S. N.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6035-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6035-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6035-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

Research article

|

02 Jun 2015

Research article |

| 02 Jun 2015

Formation and chemical aging of secondary organic aerosol during the β-caryophyllene oxidation

A. Tasoglou and S. N. Pandis

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Jun 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Nov 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C10879: 'Comment on Formation and Chemical Aging of ... byTasoglou and Pandis', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jan 2015
- AC C12643: 'Response to Referee #1', Spyros Pandis, 16 Mar 2015
RC C11804: 'Major Revisions are Suggested', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Feb 2015
- AC C12671: 'Response to Referee #2', Spyros Pandis, 17 Mar 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Spyros Pandis on behalf of the Authors (14 Apr 2015) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Apr 2015) by James B. Burkholder

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Apr 2015)

RR by Qi Chen (25 Apr 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The referee’s comments have been addressed adequately in the revised manuscript, particularly with respect to the added data and discussion. I have rather few comments to make.

1. Line 255-256: The full distributions were also matched quite well in Chen et al. (2012) (Figure S1). I don’t believe this would contribute much.
Instead, I think the bounce in AMS may affect the measured O:C and density considering we don’t have evidence to prove identical composition for all particles. The flow field and geometry of the chamber perhaps make a role in mixing and formation, especially for such fast-oxidation system. That would explain why CEs, O:C, and density are different, although I agree that AMS instrument differences may contribute too.

2. Line 272-277: The proper way to do this is to find out the specific frag-table (CO+org:CO2+org, H2O+org:CO2+org) for the data presented herein and to do corrections. It is not difficult at all given the experimental conditions of dry and mostly without seed. The Improved-Ambient method provided in Canagaratna et al. (2015) leads over-correction for systems like α-pinene, β-caryophyllene, and toluene SOA (Fig. 7). It was recommended in Canagaratna et al. (2015) that only ambient data where the specific corrections are often not possible should use the Improved-Ambient method. I understand the conclusions would remain the same no matter what method is used. But I suggest not confusing non-AMS readers about the methodology.

Technical remarks:
Line 14: “ozone excess” for photooxidation as well? Please clarify.
Line 17: wrong unit for density.
Line 50: add “by ozone” after its oxidation.
Line 89: add references here for studies that have no wall-loss corrections.
Line 165: add a period after “AMS”.

Hide

ED: Publish as is (28 Apr 2015) by James B. Burkholder

AR by Spyros Pandis on behalf of the Authors (29 Apr 2015)