ACPAtmospheric Chemistry and PhysicsACPAtmos. Chem. Phys.1680-7324Copernicus PublicationsGöttingen, Germany10.5194/acp-17-8757-2017Boundary layer and free-tropospheric dimethyl sulfide in the Arctic spring and summerGhahremanRoyahttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-8571NormanAnn-Lisealnorman@ucalgary.caCroftBettyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7009-1767MartinRandall V.PierceJeffrey R.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4241-838XBurkartJuliaRempilloOfeliaBozemHeikohttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2412-9864KunkelDanielhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9652-0099ThomasJennie L.AliabadiAmir A.WentworthGregory R.LevasseurMauriceStaeblerRalf M.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6372-0414SharmaSangeetaLeaitchW. RichardDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, CanadaDepartment of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USADepartment of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaInstitute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Mainz, Mainz, GermanySorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ. Paris 06, Université Versailles St-Quentin, CNRS/INSU,
UMR8190, LATMOS-IPSL, Paris, FranceEnvironmental Engineering Program, School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, CanadaDepartment of Biology, Laval University, Québec, CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, CanadaAnn-Lise Norman (alnorman@ucalgary.ca)18July201717148757877012January201716January20179June201714June2017This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/8757/2017/acp-17-8757-2017.htmlThe full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/8757/2017/acp-17-8757-2017.pdf
Vertical distributions of atmospheric dimethyl sulfide (DMS(g)) were
sampled aboard the research aircraft Polar 6 near Lancaster
Sound, Nunavut, Canada, in July 2014 and on pan-Arctic flights in April 2015 that started from Longyearbyen, Spitzbergen, and
passed through Alert and Eureka, Nunavut, and Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Larger mean DMS(g) mixing ratios were present during
April 2015 (campaign mean of 116±8pptv) compared to July 2014 (campaign mean of 20±6pptv). During
July 2014, the largest mixing ratios were found near the surface over the ice edge and open water. DMS(g) mixing ratios
decreased with altitude up to about 3 km. During April 2015, profiles of DMS(g) were more uniform with height and some
profiles showed an increase with altitude. DMS reached as high as 100 pptv near 2500 m.
Relative to the observation averages, GEOS-Chem (www.geos-chem.org) chemical transport model simulations were higher during July and lower during
April. Based on the simulations, more than 90 % of the July DMS(g) below 2 km and more than 90 % of the
April DMS(g) originated from Arctic seawater (north of 66∘ N). During April, 60 % of the DMS(g), between 500 and
3000 m originated from Arctic seawater. During July 2014, FLEXPART (FLEXible PARTicle dispersion model) simulations locate the sampled air mass over Baffin
Bay and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago 4 days back from the observations. During April 2015, the locations of the air masses
4 days back from sampling were varied: Baffin Bay/Canadian Archipelago, the Arctic Ocean, Greenland and the Pacific Ocean.
Our results highlight the role of open water below the flight as the source of DMS(g) during July 2014 and the influence of long-range transport
(LRT) of DMS(g) from further afield in the Arctic above 2500 m during April 2015.
Introduction
The Arctic has experienced rapid climate change in recent decades (IPCC, 2013). Its high climate sensitivity distinguishes the
Arctic from the rest of the world. The Arctic Ocean moderates Arctic climate and has variable surface temperature and salinity as
ice cover melts and freezes (Bourgain et al., 2013). This ocean is an important source of atmospheric gases and particles
(e.g. dimethyl sulfide, as well as sea salt, organic and biogenic particles) (e.g. Bates et al., 1987; Andreae, 1990; Yin et al.,
1990; Leck and Bigg, 2005a, b; Barnes et al., 2006; Ayers and Cainey, 2007; Sharma et al., 2012). Aerosols affect the climate by
scattering/reflecting sunlight (direct effects), changing the number/size of cloud droplets and altering precipitation efficiency
(indirect effects) (Twomey, 1974; Albrecht, 1989). Shupe et al. (2013) provided the evidence for the formation of clouds and
transport of moisture and aerosol particles, likely accompanied by warm air masses, from lower latitudes into the central Arctic
during summer. The study of these particles has been of interest for numerous researchers because of their importance in Arctic
climate change. Najafi et al. (2015) estimated that the net effect of aerosol is cooling the Arctic. However, there are many
uncertainties related to the estimation of effects and sources of aerosol particles. In this study, we focus on one of those
sources: DMS(g) (atmospheric dimethyl sulfide).
Atmospheric oxidation of DMS(g) is the main source of biogenic sulfate aerosols in the
Arctic (Norman et al., 1999). DMS(aq) (DMS in aqueous phase) is produced by the breakdown of dimethylsulfonopropionate (DMSP) by oceanic phytoplankton and bacteria DMSP lyases (Levasseur, 2013)
and transported to the atmosphere via turbulence, diffusion and advection (Lunden et al., 2010). Sulfur compounds from atmospheric
DMS(g) oxidation are able to form new particles and condense on pre-existing aerosols in the atmosphere (Chang et al., 2011). If
sufficient condensable vapours are available, the particles may grow large enough to act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), and
Charlson et al. (1987) hypothesised that DMS could provide a negative feedback to stabilise the global warming
(CLAW hypothesis). Although no evidence in support of the hypothesis has been found (Quinn and Bates, 2011), DMS(g) emissions may play
an important role in the climate of remote areas with low aerosol concentrations, such as in the Arctic (Carslaw et al., 2013;
Leaitch et al., 2013; Levasseur, 2013; Croft et al., 2016a).
Dimethyl sulfide production and emission to the atmosphere vary seasonally. Production and emission are particularly strong
during the Arctic summertime due to high temperature, biological activity, and the amount of ice-free surface area. Melting ice
in the marginal ice zone, ice edge and under-ice are favourable for the production of DMSP and aqueous DMS(aq) by oceanic
phytoplankton (Leck and Persson, 1996; Matrai and Vernet, 1997; Levasseur, 2013). After summer, aqueous phase DMS(aq)
concentrations decrease by about 3 orders of magnitude between August and October in the central Arctic Ocean (Leck and
Persson, 1996).
Dimethyl sulfide oxidation in the atmosphere occurs by the radical addition pathway (by hydroxyl radicals OH and halogen oxides)
and by the H abstraction pathway (by the nitrate radical NO3, OH and halogens) (Barnes et al., 2006; von Glasow and
Crutzen, 2004). In general, the DMS(g) oxidation rate and pathway depends on the available oxidants and temperature. The final
products of DMS(g) oxidation by the addition pathway are dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and methanesulfonic acid (MSA). DMSO oxidises in cloud droplets to methanesulfonic acid,
due to its high solubility, and MSA likely condenses onto pre-existing aerosols (von Glasow and Crutzen, 2004). On the other hand,
DMS(g) oxidation by the abstraction pathway leads to the formation of SO2. Some of SO2 removes from the atmosphere via
dry and wet deposition, and the remaining SO2 may form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) in the gas and aqueous phases (Pierce
et al., 2013). Sulfuric acid formed in the gas phase is a key atmospheric nucleation component which is able to form new particles
that may grow to the size of CCN and affect climate (Kulmala et al., 2004).
Previous measurements of DMS(g) in the Arctic atmosphere are limited to a few studies and field campaigns at different locations
(e.g. Sharma et al., 1999; Rempillo et al., 2011; Mungall et al., 2016). The study of the vertical distribution of DMS(g) in the
Arctic atmosphere is also limited to a few observations. Ferek et al. (1995) reported the first measurements of DMS(g) vertical
profiles over the Arctic Ocean near Barrow in early summer 1990 and spring 1992. They reported low DMS(g) mixing ratios (a few
pptv) during spring and relatively high ones (a few tens pptv with some peaks around 100 to 300 pptv) during summer. They
concluded that the Arctic Ocean is the potential source of DMS(g), and DMS(g) ocean–atmosphere exchange is more important in early
summer due to sea ice melt.
Observations of the NASA DC-8 during ARCTAS (https://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/cgibin/ArcView/arctas) showed low DMS mixing
ratios in spring (below the detection limit to a few pptv in the boundary layer and a maximum of 1 pptv in the free
troposphere) (Simpson et al., 2010; Lathem et al., 2013).
Kupiszewski et al. (2013) measured atmospheric DMS(g) on board a helicopter and observed large variability in DMS(g) mixing ratios
over the central Arctic Ocean during summer. The median (mean) values were around 7 (34) pptv near the surface <200m, 11 (22) pptv for altitudes between 200 and 1000 m, and 4 (5) pptv above 1000 m.
Lunden et al. (2010) presented model results for the vertical distribution of DMS(g) in the Arctic (north of 70∘ N)
during summer. They reported a variable vertical profile for DMS(g) concentrations above open water, with the highest
concentrations near the surface (around 115 and 365 pptv for the median and 95th percentiles, respectively) and an exponential
decrease with height. In contrast, over the pack ice, DMS(g) concentrations were higher above the local boundary layer than at the
surface. Also, Lunden et al. (2010) showed that DMS(g) can be mixed downward by turbulence into the local boundary layer to
provide a DMS source over the pack ice. In addition, they compared modelling results with measurements from the Arctic Ocean
Expedition 2001 (AOE-2001; Leck et al., 2004; Tjernström et al., 2004) and reported that DMS(g) was present above the local
boundary layer in both the model and observations.
For our study, atmospheric DMS(g) samples were collected onto Tenax tubes during Polar 6 aircraft flights in the Arctic. We
compared these DMS(g) measurements to GEOS-Chem (www.geos-chem.org) chemical transport model simulations and conducted sensitivity simulations to
examine the local vs. long-range transport (LRT) DMS(g) sources for both the spring and summer. In addition, FLEXPART (FLEXible PARTicle dispersion model) was applied
in back trajectory mode in order to investigate the DMS(g) source regions based on potential emission sensitivity
simulations. Field and sampling locations, as well as measurement and modelling methods are described in Sect. 2. Section 3 includes
DMS(g) measurement data. Section 4 presents discussion of results, and comparison of measurement with modelling results (GEOS-Chem
and FLEXPART) are in Sect. 5. The summary and conclusion of this study are reported in Sect. 6.
Polar 6 aircraft routes from 12 to 21 July 2014. Colour
bars indicate altitudes, and sampling locations are shown with black dots.
Polar 6 aircraft routes from 5 to 20 April 2015.
Colour bars indicate altitudes, and sampling locations are shown with black dots.
DMS mixing ratio values, sampling/analysis dates and sampling locations for July 2014 and April 2015.
a Examples of DMS samples concurrent with ozone depletion events (<1 ppbv) during
April.
b Numbers in parentheses show the boundary layer heights in Resolute Bay from Aliabadi et al. (2016b).
Field description and methodsMeasurementsDMS
DMS(g) was collected aboard the research aircraft Polar 6 in the Arctic during July 2014 and April 2015, as part of the NETCARE
(Network on Climate and Aerosols: Addressing Key Uncertainties in Remote Canadian Environments) project. The Polar 6 aircraft
routes and sampling locations from 12 to 21 July 2014 and from 5 to 20 April 2015 are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The
Polar 6 campaign was based in Resolute Bay, Nunavut, and covered the Lancaster Sound area in July 2014. In April 2015, the
flights started from Longyearbyen, Spitzbergen, and passed through Alert and Eureka, Nunavut, and Inuvik, Northwest
Territories. DMS sampling locations, altitude, latitude and longitude are reported in Table 1.
Atmospheric DMS(g) was collected on cartridges packed with Tenax TA®. Mass flow was controlled at
approximately 200±20mLmin-1, and a KI-treated 47 mm quartz Whatman filter was fitted at the intake of
the cartridge to remove all oxidants. Two Teflon valves were placed before and after the Tenax tube to control the sampling period,
and Teflon tubing was used to transfer the sample from outside the aircraft to the sampler. The samples were stored in an
insulated container with a freezer pack after collection and in a freezer after the flight. Sampling collection time was 300±5 s (for few samples the sampling time was shorter or longer than 300 s, leading to different volume of samples).
A glass gas chromatograph (GC) inlet liner was used to pack 170±2mg of Tenax. The Tenax packed in glass tubes was
cleaned by heating to 200 ∘C in an oven with a constant He flow of around 15 mLmin-1 for 5 h. The DMS samples
were analysed using a Hewlett Packard 5890 gas chromatograph (GC) fitted with a Sievers Model 355 sulfur chemiluminescence
detector (SCD). Two DMS(g) certified standards from Praxair (1 and 50 ppmv) were used to calibrate the GC-SCD and to
determine the accuracy of the measurements by checking the standards against each other (for example, 1 µL of
50 ppmv vs. 50 µL of 1 ppmv). Collection and analysis of samples were based on methods described by
Sharma (1997), Sharma et al. (1999) and Rempillo et al. (2011). Precision of analysis was ±12 pptv and was determined
based on the SD (σ) of triplicate measurements of DMS(g) standards. The detection limit for this method is approximately
7 pptv.
DMS mixing ratios vs. Tenax storage days. Error bars indicate the SD for each test.
Additional tests were performed to determine if there was significant loss of DMS(g) over time after collection. An experiment was
performed to determine how long Tenax is able to store DMS(g) with no significant loss of concentration. This experiment was
conducted in triplicate by the loading of 50 µL of 1 ppmv DMS(g) standard and by storing it in a freezer at
-25 ∘C. In general, Tenax storage tests at -25 ∘C showed that DMS losses were approximately 5 and 15 %
after 10 and 20 days, respectively (Fig. 3). The DMS(g) mixing ratios summarised in Table 1 are adjusted according to the result
of this test.
Meteorological measurements
Meteorological measurements were performed by an AIMMS-20 (Aircraft Integrated Meteorological Measurement System) instrument,
manufactured by Aventech Research Inc., Barrie, Ontario, Canada. This instrument was used to measure the three-dimensional,
aircraft-relative flow vector (true air speed, angle of attack, and sideslip), temperature, relative humidity, turbulence and
horizontal/vertical wind speeds. Accuracy and resolution were 0.30 and 0.01 ∘C, respectively, for temperature and 2.0 and
0.1 %, respectively, for relative humidity. More details of the instrument and corresponding aircraft measurements were
recently published in other studies from the same campaign (e.g. Leaitch et al., 2016; Aliabadi et al., 2016b; Willis et al.,
2016).
Model descriptionGEOS-Chem chemical transport model
The GEOS-Chem chemical transport model was used to interpret the vertical profile of DMS(g). We used
GEOS-Chem version 9-02 at 2×2.5∘ resolution with 47 vertical layers between the surface and 0.01 hPa. The
assimilated meteorology is taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Global Modeling and Assimilation
Office (GMAO) Goddard Earth Observing System version 5.7.2 (GEOS-FP) assimilated meteorology product, which includes both hourly
surface fields and 3-hourly 3-D fields. Our simulations used 2014 and 2015 meteorology following a 1-month spin-up prior to the
simulation of July 2014 and April 2015.
The GEOS-Chem model includes a detailed oxidant-aerosol tropospheric chemistry mechanism as originally described by Bey
et al. (2001). DMS(g) emissions are based on the Liss and Merlivat (1986) sea–air flux formulation and oceanic DMS(g)
concentrations from Lana et al. (2011). In our simulations, DMS(g) emissions occurred only in the fraction of the grid box that is
covered by seawater and also free of sea ice. Simulated DMS(g) oxidation occurs by reaction with OH and NO3. The model
also includes natural and anthropogenic sources of SO2 and NH3 (Fisher et al., 2011). Oxidation of SO2
occurs in clouds by reaction with H2O2 and O3 and in the gas phase with OH (Alexander et al., 2009). Reaction
rates and the yields of SO2 and MSA from DMS(g) oxidation are determined by DeMore et al. (1997) and Chatfield and
Crutzen (1990), respectively. The simulated aerosol species include sulfate–nitrate–ammonium (Park et al., 2004, 2006),
carbonaceous aerosols (Park et al., 2003; Liao et al., 2007), dust (Fairlie et al., 2007, 2010) and sea salt (Alexander
et al., 2005). The sulfate–nitrate–ammonium chemistry uses the ISORROPIA II thermodynamic model (Fountoukis et al., 2007), which
partitions ammonia and nitric acid between the gas and aerosol phases. Climatological biomass burning emissions are from the
Global Fire Emissions Dataset (GFED3).
The GEOS-Chem model has been extensively applied to study the Arctic atmosphere, with regard to aerosol acidity (Wentworth et al.,
2016; Fisher et al., 2011), carbonaceous aerosol (Wang et al., 2011), aerosol number (Leaitch et al., 2013; Croft et al., 2016a,
b), aerosol absorption (Breider et al., 2014), mercury (Fisher et al., 2012) and recently surface-layer DMS(g) (Mungall
et al., 2016).
FLEXPART-ECMWF
For this study, the Lagrangian particle distribution model, FLEXPART (Stohl et al., 2005; website:
https://www.flexpart.eu/), is driven by global meteorological analysis data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts (ECMWF) for July 2014 and April 2015. For the ECMWF data a horizontal grid spacing of 0.25∘was used along with
137 hybrid sigma-pressure levels in the vertical from the surface up to 0.01 hPa. FLEXPART was operated in backward mode
to estimate potential emission sources and transport pathways influencing Polar 6 DMS(g) measurements in summer 2014 and spring
2015. For this, plumes of a passive tracer with properties of air (i.e. molar mass of dry air, no removal) were released along the
flight paths every minute. These plumes were traced back for several days to study the potential origin of the air masses sampled
during the flights with the Polar 6.
Sampling altitudes (m) vs. DMS mixing ratios (pptv) for
July 2014 (a) and April 2015 (b).
DMS measurement and discussion
DMS(g) concentrations as a function of altitude are shown in Fig. 4 for the July 2014 and April 2015 flights. The campaign-mean
DMS(g) mixing ratios were 20±6pptv (maximum of 114 pptv) for July 2014 and 116±8pptv
(maximum of 157 pptv) for April 2015.
The 2014 sampling locations focused on the Lancaster Sound, Nunavut region, in July 2014, whereas sampling in April 2015 occurred
over a broad region of the Arctic: Longyearbyen, Spitzbergen; Alert and Eureka, Nunavut; and Inuvik, Northwest
Territories. Observations on individual flights in July 2014 indicate either decreasing DMS(g) mixing ratios with increasing
altitude or relatively uniform DMS(g) mixing ratios (independent of altitude below 3 km). During spring of the following
year (April 2015), DMS(g) mixing ratios on individual flights were more uniform with altitude below 4 km and in some cases
increased with altitude.
Figure S1 in the Supplement shows the ice fraction for July 2014 flights. During July 2014, the highest DMS(g) mixing ratios were measured near
ice edges and above open waters (e.g. samples >40pptv; 12, 20 and 21 July). That and the decrease in atmospheric
DMS(g) with altitude suggest that the atmospheric DMS(g) was locally sourced (Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay) during the month of
July, consistent with the findings of Mungall et al. (2016) from the icebreaker CCGS Amundsen. Mungall et al. (2016)
also suggested LRT of DMS from marine regions outside Baffin Bay and the Lancaster Sound area and observed that an episode of elevated
DMS(g) mixing ratios with values of 400 pptv or above occurred on 18–20 July. The airborne measurement, showed a decline in DMS(g) mixing ratios with height during 17 July and relatively low DMS mixing ratios during 19 and 20 July (see Table 1). The
decline in DMS(g) mixing ratios with height may be due to a combination of weak vertical mixing and photochemical reactions.
Previous observations of seasonal variations in DMS(aq) in the Arctic Ocean found that the maximum DMS(aq) occurred in July and August
(e.g. Bates et al., 1987; Leck and Persson, 1996; Levasseur, 2013). After the August peak, DMS(aq) declined due to lower
biological activity (Leck and Persson, 1996). From DMS concentrations in both the surface ocean and in the atmosphere just above
the ocean surface (median DMS(g) of 186 pptv), Mungall et al. (2016) estimated the air–sea DMS(g) flux as ranging from
0.02–12 µmolm-2d-1 in July 2014 in the same location as the present measurements (Lancaster Sound). For the
same campaign, Ghahremaninezhad et al. (2016) showed that the dominant source for fine aerosol and SO2 measured onboard
the Amundsen at the same location and about 30 m above the ocean's surface was biogenic sulfur, arising from DMS(g)
oxidation. Atmospheric oxidation of DMS(g) is expected to proceed more readily in the summertime Arctic atmosphere than in spring,
due to higher temperatures and more sunlight. However, relatively high DMS mixing ratios (>15pptv) were observed for 12 July at high altitudes (>800m), and FLEXPART results show influence from a local source, Lancaster Sound, for that
day (mentioned in Sect. 4.2). On this day, NETCARE results do not follow the usual DMS vertical pattern of high DMS at the surface
declining with altitude to near zero above the marine boundary layer (MBL). Instead, high concentrations aloft on 12 July imply convective transport into
the free troposphere and potentially an extended photochemical lifetime due to reduced water vapour or limited sunlight.
During April, DMS(g) samples were collected above ice and snow surfaces, and heat fluxes were negligible. Figure S3 shows the ice
fraction during the April 2015 campaign. The higher DMS(g) mixing ratios in April, in the free troposphere over ice-covered
regions (Fig. 4b), stability of the Arctic atmosphere, and limited vertical mixing, suggest that DMS(g) can be
transported to the sampling locations from other regions within the Arctic and/or from lower latitudes (except for 4 April when
DMS(g) sampling was above open water). These results contrast with results from Ferek et al. (1995) where lower DMS(g) mixing
ratios (a few pptv) were found over the Arctic Ocean near Barrow during spring 1992. Andrea et al. (1988) presented vertical
profiles of DMS(g) mixing ratios measured over the northeast Pacific Ocean during May 1985 (with a maximum ∼30pptv
in the mixed layer and also 3600 m). They found that DMS(g) mixing ratios depend on the stability of the atmosphere and
air mass sources and that long-range transport at mid-tropospheric levels was important in remote areas of the Northern
Hemisphere.
The relatively larger observed DMS(g) away from open-water sources in springtime relative to summer suggests longer DMS(g) lifetimes
in April than July, possibly due to lower OH mixing ratios enabling more long-range transport of DMS(g) (Li et al.,
1993). Lower water vapour and higher DMS mixing ratios during the spring compared with the summer (Fig. S2) suggests that more of
the April DMS(g) originated from open-water sources further away from the observations point than in summertime. The greater ice
cover and increased presence of DMS(g) at higher altitudes during April suggest an origin from further south than in
summertime. More water vapour will initially accompany that DMS(g), but the Arctic is cold in April, especially aloft, and the low
water vapour indicates significant loss via cloud processes during transport. Some of the water vapour loss will occur via the ice
phase, and DMS oxidation in the aqueous phase was likely relatively insignificant during this time (Henry's Law constant for DMS
is relatively small: 0.14 mol L-1 atm-1) or the DMS(g) values at their origin were much higher than the present observations.
The campaign-mean vertical profile of DMS from the GEOS-Chem simulation (red line) and measurements (black line) for July 2014 and April 2015. Simulations for zero ocean DMS at latitudes south of 66∘ N (SimZeroBelow66) are shown as cyan dashed line. The 20th and 80th percentiles are shown by horizontal bars
Ozone depletion during spring was observed within the boundary layer (Fig. S2) and is well documented in the literature
(e.g. Barrie et al., 1988). Ozone depletion may further decrease OH near the surface and enhance DMS(g) lifetimes in the boundary
layer due to reduced oxidation rates, contributing to the relatively larger springtime DMS(g) in our measurements. However, if DMS
is present in the ozone-depleted boundary layer, halogen oxides, such as BrO radical, can be more important during winter and spring
than summer and could oxidise DMS(g) (von Glasow and Crutzen, 2004; Chen et al., 2016).
DMS(g) vertical profiles are sensitive to the boundary layer height. For the July 2014 campaign, Aliabadi et al. (2016b) reported
an average boundary layer height of 275±164m. They showed that the profiles of the potential temperature exhibited
a positive vertical gradient throughout the aircraft campaign (their Fig. 4). In addition, using vertical profiles of wind speed,
they derived a positive gradient Richardson number (Ri) with a median of 2.5 (their Fig. 7) throughout the aircraft campaign. The
magnitude of the positive gradient Richardson number is an indicator of the strength of thermal stability in the atmospheric
boundary layer. Due to the strong thermally stable conditions during the field campaign, mixing was weaker compared to well-mixed
boundary layers at midlatitudes. As a result, the summertime measurements show a strong decrease in DMS(g) above the boundary
layer. Although there is no reference for the April 2015 campaign boundary layer, we expect similar boundary layer characteristics
in the stable Arctic boundary layer at high latitudes due to the even more reduced thermal forcing with large sun angles in the
month of April compared to the month of July. The springtime measurements show a more uniform vertical profile suggesting
transport in the free troposphere from open-water sources that were a relatively farther distance from the observation point in
springtime than in summer.
Aerosol number concentrations and size distributions during the July 2014
study are discussed by Willis et al. (2016) and Burkart et al. (2017), who
show that increases in the number concentrations of smaller particles
(5–20 nm), believed to reflect new particle formation (NPF),
occurred principally near the surface during 12 July 2014. The highest levels
of DMS(g) during the July study also occurred near the surface (Fig. 4a), and
both Willis et al. (2016) and Burkart et al. (2017) noted increased MSA near
the surface associated with two case studies of NPF. In the clean conditions
of the Arctic summer (e.g. CO in Fig. S2), the low-level DMS may contribute
to NPF. The springtime Arctic differs in that the aerosol mass near the
surface is much higher, resulting in a higher condensation sink that, in
addition to other potential factors, inhibits NPF. During the springtime
flights, there was no evidence for NPF near the surface and only a few
instances aloft. Unfortunately, no sampling for DMS coincided with those few
events, and we cannot say if they were connected with the DMS(g) aloft.
FLEXPART-ECMWF potential emissions sensitivity simulation plots for
4-day back trajectories for column from 0 to 1000 m on (a) 12 July
(20:40:00 UTC) and (b) 19 July (17:00:00 UTC) 2014. The colour
bars indicate air mass residence time (s) before arriving at the aircraft
location. The blue lines show Polar 6 aircraft
routes.
FLEXPART-ECMWF potential emissions sensitivity simulation plots for 4-day back trajectories for column from 0 to 1000 m
on (a) 9 April (14:45:00 UTC), (b) 11 April (18:55:00 UTC), (c) 13 April (18:27:00 UTC) and (d) 20 April (22:26:00 UTC) 2015. The colour bars indicate air mass residence time (seconds) before arriving at the aircraft location. The blue lines show Polar 6 aircraft routes.
Chemical transport model simulations and discussionGEOS-Chem
We simulated the vertical profile of DMS(g) mixing ratios with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model, and the model was
co-sampled along the Polar 6 aircraft tracks. Recently, GEOS-Chem was used to interpret DMS(g) measurements in the Arctic
surface-layer atmosphere (Mungall et al., 2016). However, despite the significant influence of DMS(g) on the Arctic climate
relative to lower latitudes and the importance of where DMS(g) oxidation occurs vertically (Woodhouse et al., 2013), measurements
of DMS(g) vertical profiles are rare in the Arctic atmosphere.
Figure 5 shows the campaign-mean vertical profile of DMS(g) for the co-sampled GEOS-Chem simulation and our measurements for both
July 2014 and April 2015. Caution should be used in interpreting the model–measurement comparisons since these comparisons are
conducted over a very limited number of measurement periods and the spatial and temporal resolution of these measurements is
a challenge for a global model to simulate. In July 2014, both the measurements and simulation show a strong decrease in DMS(g)
mixing ratios with altitude in the lowest 300 m. Aliabadi et al. (2016a, b) estimated the boundary layer height as
275±164m, using data from radiosondes launched at Resolute Bay and the Amundsen icebreaker, during the 2014
campaign. Aliabadi et al. (2016b) indicated that the magnitude of turbulent fluxes of momentum, heat and the associated diffusion
coefficients are significantly reduced above the boundary layer height during the 2014 campaign. Thus, we find the strongest
vertical gradient between the boundary layer and above. In the boundary layer, the GEOS-Chem simulation over-predicts the
measurements but is within a factor of 2 to 3. Hoffmann et al. (2016) showed that DMS chemistry should be considered in the
aqueous phase as well as the gas phase to improve modelling predictions. This chemistry is not included in our model but could
contribute to the model's over-prediction of the measurements at these lower altitudes. Above 1500 m, the simulation under-predicts the measurements. Overall, the simulations and observations agree within their respective variabilities.
The April 2015 campaign mean shows a more gradual decrease with altitude (Fig. 5b). Mixing ratios are also greater
than during the July campaign. Both the simulated and the measured DMS(g) profiles during spring (∼ 30 to > 50 pptv)
show more variability at all altitudes below 4 km than in summer (∼20 to 40 pptv at low altitudes and <10pptv at higher altitudes). Ozone depletion not represented by the simulation is one potential explanation for the
underestimated DMS(g) in the simulations since the oxidation rates may be too high. Surface layers depleted of ozone were observed
on several occasions during April 2015: three of five samples collected at 60 m above ice surfaces were concurrent with measured
ozone depletion events (<1ppbv) during the April campaign (shown in Table 1). If the DMS(g) oxidation potential is
reduced by ozone depletion, the lifetime of DMS(g) in the region of ozone depletion may increase. Another reason for
underestimation by the model may be errors in the simulated source strength. The monthly mean seawater DMS field used in our
simulations is based on very limited observations from this region (Lana et al., 2011). Datasets of seawater DMS with higher
spatial and temporal resolution are needed but are still under development.
Simulated campaign-mean percent contribution of DMS from oceans
north of 66∘ N to the GEOS-Chem-simulated DMS at the sampling
locations for the July 2014 and April 2015 flight tracks.
We conducted a sensitivity simulation to identify the latitude-dependent contribution of the oceans to the simulated DMS(g) at the
sampling points along the flight tracks. In Fig. 5, the “SimZeroBelow66” simulation has no ocean DMS(g) for all latitudes south
of 66∘ N. This simulation compared with the standard simulation suggests that a large majority of the campaign-mean
DMS(g) for both April and July arises from the oceans north of 66∘ N.
As given in Table 2, SimZeroBelow66 simulates 97 % or more of the DMS(g) below 500 m during July coming from
waters north of 66∘ N. The fractional contribution from
north of 66∘ is about 90 % for April and at the
same altitudes although different regions were sampled at that time. The simulations attribute about 60 and 90 % of the
DMS(g) at altitudes of 500 to 3000 m to seawater north of 66∘ N in April and July, respectively. This 30 %
difference indicates a greater contribution from long-range transport from lower latitudes in the springtime.
FLEXPART
FLEXPART-ECMWF modelling was used to explore the origin of air samples
measured along the Polar 6 flight tracks. Figures 6 and 7 show the
potential source regions of these air samples 4 days before the releases
along the flight path. More specifically, the response function is shown to
all releases of a passive tracer, which in this case has
properties of dry air. If this response function were folded with an emission
flux of the tracer, the concentration of this tracer at the release location
along the flight paths could be calculated. We chose to show the potential
emission sensitivity after 4 days. Sharma et al. (1999) showed that
atmospheric DMS(g) lifetime was 2.5 to 8 days in the high Arctic. More
details about FLEXPART and the potential emissions sensitivity (PES) can be
found in Stohl et al. (2005) and references therein.
Figure 6 shows two examples of FLEXPART-ECMWF PES for 4-day back trajectories in July 2014: an influence from a broad area,
especially Lancaster Sound (local region), and northwards on 12 July (Fig. 6a), and Hudson Bay, and Baffin Bay (south) on
19 July (Fig. 6b). A more detailed analysis of PES reveals that the measured air mass descended from >1500m on 19 July, which may explain the low DMS(g) mixing ratios.
Figure 7 shows some examples of FLEXPART-ECMWF PES simulations for 4-day back trajectories during April 2015. For the flights
near Alert and Eureka on 9 and 11 April, some DMS may have originated from ice-free areas of the Nares Strait and Baffin Bay
(Fig. 7a and b, respectively). For the 13 April flight, the Norwegian Sea, North Atlantic Ocean and Hudson
Bay are additional potential source regions (Fig. 7c). The highest DMS, measured on 20 April near Inuvik is
associated with the north Pacific Ocean (Fig. 7d).
Assuming a DMS atmospheric lifetime of 1 to 4 days, these results suggest that the DMS(g) measured during July 2014 originated
primarily from the local region over Baffin Bay and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. For spring 2015, the DMS(g) sampled was from
a range of sources, including Baffin Bay, possibly the Norwegian Sea, the North Atlantic Ocean and the north Pacific Ocean.
Conclusions
Atmospheric samples for DMS(g) measurements were collected at different altitudes aboard the Polar 6 aircraft expeditions during
July 2014 and April 2015, as part of the NETCARE project. In this study, we present vertical profile measurements of DMS(g),
together with model simulations to interpret these profiles. This study includes a very limited spatial and temporal extent, and
further vertical profile measurements of Arctic DMS(g) are recommended. Vertical variations in DMS(g) mixing ratios are important
since DMS(g) can influence aerosol concentrations via new particle formation and growth. In addition, further DMS vertical
measurements could be useful to have a robust comparison with global models such as GEOS-Chem.
Our measured vertical profiles of DMS(g) suggest differences between the main sources and lifetime of DMS(g) during the Arctic
summer and spring. For the summertime flights near Lancaster Sound, Nunavut, Canada, DMS(g) mixing ratios were higher near the
surface (maximum >110pptv) and lower at higher altitudes up to 3 km. The highest mixing ratios were found
above ice edges and open waters suggesting that the Arctic Ocean in the vicinity of the aircraft was the main source of
DMS(g). Oxidation and/or limited vertical mixing could contribute to the decline in DMS(g) mixing ratios with altitude. During the
springtime pan-Arctic flights from Svalbard to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago ending near Inuvik, Northwest Territories, the
measured DMS(g) mixing ratios were unusually high (>100pptv), and more uniform with altitude than during summer.
DMS(g) mixing ratios in samples collected in the free troposphere (>2000m) during April ranged from
60 to 134 pptv. Transport of DMS(g) to the high Arctic from other regions of the Arctic and/or lower latitudes
along with a reduced oxidising potential in springtime relative to summer may explain these observations.
The DMS(g) vertical profile along the flight tracks was simulated with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model. The measurement and
simulated co-sampled campaign-mean DMS(g) vertical profile agreed within a factor of 3 for both July 2014 and
April 2015. A sensitivity test indicated that the oceans north of 66∘ N contributed about 97 and 90 % of simulated
DMS(g) at altitudes below 500 m at the measurement sampling times in July and April, respectively. For the April flights,
about 60 % of the simulated DMS at altitudes between 500 and 3000 m was attributed to water north of
66∘ N. Potential emission sensitivity from FLEXPART analysis for the aircraft tracks showed that local sources (Lancaster
Sound and Baffin Bay) primarily contributed to air sampled during July 2014. On the other hand, LRT from the northern tip of
Greenland of air that originated over the waters to the northwest of Greenland as well as the north Pacific Ocean were important
contributors to air masses sampled during April 2015.
In short, this study suggests a dominant role of the Arctic Ocean for DMS(g) in the Arctic during summer and a significant
contribution from LRT to DMS(g) in spring.
Data are available by email request (alnorman@ucalgary.ca). The
GEOS-Chem model is freely available for download from www.geos-chem.org (Breider et al., 2017).
The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
This article is part of the special issue “NETCARE (Network on
Aerosols and Climate: Addressing Key Uncertainties in Remote Canadian
Environments) (ACP/AMT/BG inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a
conference.
The Supplement related to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8757-2017-supplement.
Acknowledgements
This study was part of the NETCARE (Network on Climate and Aerosols: Addressing Key Uncertainties in Remote Canadian
Environments, http://www.netcare-project.ca/) and was supported by funding from NSERC. The authors would also like to
thank the crew of the Polar 6 and fellow scientists.
Edited by: Lynn M. Russell
Reviewed by: five anonymous referees
ReferencesAlexander, B., Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Li, Q., Yantosca, R. M., Savarino, J., Lee, C., and Thiemens, M.: Sulfate
formation in sea-salt aerosols: constraints from oxygen isotopes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D10307,
10.1029/2004JD005659, 2005.Alexander, B., Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., and Gong, S.: Transition metal-catalyzed oxidation of atmospheric sulfur:
global implications for the sulfur budget, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D02309, 10.1029/2008JD010486, 2009.Aliabadi, A. A., Staebler, R. M., de Grandpreì, J., Zadra, A., and Vaillancourt, P.: Comparison of estimated
atmospheric boundary layer mixing height in the Arctic and Southern Great Plains under statically stable conditions:
experimental and numerical aspects, Atmos. Ocean, 54, 60–74, 10.1080/07055900.2015.1119100, 2016a.Aliabadi, A. A., Staebler, R. M., Liu, M., and Herber, A.: Characterization and parametrization of Reynolds stress and
turbulent heat flux in the stably-stratified lower arctic troposphere using aircraft measurements, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 161,
99–126, 10.1007/s10546-016-0164-7, 2016b.
Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–30, 1989. Andreae, M. O.: Ocean–atmosphere interactions in the global biogeochemical sulfur cycle, Mar. Chem., 30, 1–29, 1990. Andreae, M. O., Berresheim, H., Andreae, T. W., Kritz, M. A., Bates, T. S., and Merrill, J. T.: Vertical distribution
of dimethylsulfide, sulfur dioxide, aerosol ions, and radon over the
northeast Pacific Ocean, J. Atmos. Chem., 6, 1–2,
1988. Ayers, G. P. and Cainey, J. M.: The CLAW hypothesis: a review of the major developments, Environ. Chem., 4, 366–374,
2007. Barrie, L. A., Bottenheim, J. W., Schnell, R. C., Crutzen, P. J., and Rasmussen., R. A.: Ozone destruction and
photochemical reactions at polar sunrise in the lower Arctic atmosphere, Nature, 334, 138–141, 1988. Barnes, I., Hjorth, J., and Mihalopoulos, N.: Dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl sulfoxide and their oxidation in the
atmosphere, Chem. Rev., 106, 940–975, 2006. Bates, T. S., Charlson, R. J., and Gammon, R. H.: Evidence for climate role of marine biogenic sulphur, Nature, 329,
319–321, 1987.Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore, A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J.,
and Schultz, M. G.: Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: model description and evaluation,
J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23073, 10.1029/2001JD000807, 2001.Bourgain, P., Gascard, J. C., Shi, J., and Zhao, J.: Large-scale temperature and salinity changes in the upper
Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean at a time of a drastic Arctic Oscillation inversion, Ocean Sci., 9, 447–460,
10.5194/os-9-447-2013, 2013.Breider, T. J., Mickley, L. J., Jacob, D. J., Wang, Q., Fisher, J. A., Chang, R. Y.-W., and Alexander, B.: Annual
distributions and sources of Arctic aerosol components, aerosol optical depth, and aerosol absorption, J. Geophys. Res-Atmos.,
119, 4107–4124, 10.1002/2013JD020996, 2014.Breider, T. J., Mickley, L. J., Jacob, D. J., Ge, C., Wang, J., Sulprizio, M. P.,
Croft, B., Ridley, D. A., McConnell, J. R., Sharma, S., Husain, L., Dutkiewicz, V. A.,
Eleftheriadis, K., Skov, H., and Hopke, P. K.: Multi-decadal trends in aerosol
radiative forcing over the Arctic: contribution of changes in anthropogenic
aerosol to Arctic warming since 1980, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122,
3573–3594, 10.1002/2016JD025321, 2017 (data available at: www.geos-chem.org).Burkart, J., Willis, M. D., Bozem, H., Thomas, J. L., Law, K., Hoor, P.,
Aliabadi, A. A., Köllner, F., Schneider, J., Herber, A., Abbatt, J. P.
D., and Leaitch, W. R.: Summertime observations of elevated levels of
ultrafine particles in the high Arctic marine boundary layer, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 17, 5515–5535, 10.5194/acp-17-5515-2017, 2017. Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A., Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W.,
Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L. A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty in
indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 67–71, 2013. Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E., Andreae, M. O., and Warren, S. G.: Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur,
cloud albedo and climate, Nature, 326, 655–661, 1987. Chatfield, R. B. and Crutzen, P. J.: Are there interactions of iodine and sulfur species in marine air
photochemistry?, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 22319–22341, 1990.Chang, R. Y.-W., Sjostedt, S. J., Pierce, J. R., Papakyriakou, T. N., Scarratt, M. G., Michaud, S., Levasseur, M.,
Leaitch, W. R., and Abbatt, J. P. D.: Relating atmospheric and oceanic DMS levels to particle nucleation events in the Canadian
Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D00S03, 10.1029/2011JD015926, 2011.Chen, Q., Geng, L., Schmidt, J. A., Xie, Z., Kang, H., Dachs, J., Cole-Dai, J., Schauer, A. J., Camp, M. G., and
Alexander, B.: Isotopic constraints on the role of hypohalous acids in sulfate aerosol formation in the remote marine boundary
layer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11433–11450, 10.5194/acp-16-11433-2016, 2016.Croft, B., Martin, R. V., Leaitch, W. R., Tunved, P., Breider, T. J., D'Andrea, S. D., and Pierce, J. R.: Processes
controlling the annual cycle of Arctic aerosol number and size distributions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3665–3682,
10.5194/acp-16-3665-2016, 2016a.Croft, B., Wentworth, G. R., Martin, R. V., Leaitch, W. R., Murphy, J. G., Murphy, B. N., Kodros, J. K.,
Abbatt, J. P., and Pierce, J. R.: Contribution of Arctic seabird-colony ammonia to atmospheric particles and cloud-albedo
radiative effect, Nature Commun., 7, 13444, 10.1038/ncomms13444, 2016b. DeMore, W. B., Sander, S. P., Golden, D. M., Hampson, R. F., Kurylo, M. J., Howard, C. J., Ravishankara, A. R.,
Kolb, C. E., and Molina, M. J.: Chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in stratospheric modeling, JPL Publ. 97-4, Let
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1–278, 1997. Fairlie, T. D., Jacob, D. J., and Park, R. J.: The impact of transpacific transport of mineral dust in the United
States, Atmos. Environ., 41, 1251–1266, 2007.Fairlie, T. D., Jacob, D. J., Dibb, J. E., Alexander, B., Avery, M. A., van Donkelaar, A., and Zhang, L.: Impact of
mineral dust on nitrate, sulfate, and ozone in transpacific Asian pollution plumes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 3999–4012,
10.5194/acp-10-3999-2010, 2010.Fountoukis, C. and Nenes, A.: ISORROPIA II: a computationally efficient thermodynamic equilibrium model for
K+–Ca2+–Mg2+–NH4+–Na+–SO42-–NO3-–Cl-–H2O
aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4639–4659, 10.5194/acp-7-4639-2007, 2007.Ferek, R. J., Hobbs, P. V., Radke, L. F., Herring, J. A., Sturges, W. T., and Cota, G. F.: Dimethyl sulfide in the
Arctic atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 26093–26104, 10.1029/95JD02374, 1995.Fisher, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Wang, Q., Bahreini, R., Carouge, C. C., Cubison, M. J., Dibb, J. E., Diehl, T.,
Jimenez, J., L., Leibensperger, E. M., Lu, Z., Meinders, M. B. J., Pye, H. O. T., Quinn, P. K., Sharma, S., Streets, D. G., van
Donkelaar, A., and Yantosca, R. M.: Sources, distribution, and acidity of sulfate-ammonium aerosol in the Arctic in
winter-spring, Atmos. Environ., 45, 7301–7318, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.030, 2011. Fisher, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Soerensen, A. L., Amos, H. M., Steven, A., and Sunderland, E. M.: Riverine source of
Arctic Ocean mercury inferred from atmospheric observations, Nat. Geosci., 5, 499–504, 2012.Ghahremaninezhad, R., Norman, A.-L., Abbatt, J. P. D., Levasseur, M., and Thomas, J. L.: Biogenic, anthropogenic and
sea salt sulfate size-segregated aerosols in the Arctic summer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5191–5202,
10.5194/acp-16-5191-2016, 2016.Hoffmann, E. H., Tilgner, A., Schrödner, R., Bräuer, P., Wolke, R., and Herrmann, H.: An advanced modeling
study on the impacts and atmospheric implications of multiphase dimethyl sulfide chemistry, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113,
11776–11781, 10.1073/pnas.1606320113, 2016. IPCC, “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”,
Christensen, J. H.: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate change, in: Climate Change. The Physical Science
Basis, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Quin, D., Pattner, G. K.,
Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A.,
Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M. , Chapt. 14, IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013.Kulmala, M., Laakso, L., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Riipinen, I., Dal Maso, M., Anttila, T., Kerminen, V.-M., Hõrrak,
U., Vana, M., and Tammet, H.: Initial steps of aerosol growth, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2553–2560, 10.5194/acp-4-2553-2004,
2004.Kupiszewski, P., Leck, C., Tjernström, M., Sjogren, S., Sedlar, J., Graus, M., Müller, M., Brooks, B.,
Swietlicki, E., Norris, S., and Hansel, A.: Vertical profiling of aerosol particles and trace gases over the central Arctic
Ocean during summer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12405–12431, 10.5194/acp-13-12405-2013, 2013.Lana, A., Bell, T. G., Simó, R., Vallina, S. M., Ballabrera-Poy, J., Kettle, A. J., Dachs, J., Bopp, L.,
Saltzman, E. S., Stefels, J., Johnson, J. E., and Liss, P. S.: An updated climatology of surface dimethlysulfide concentrations
and emission fluxes in the global ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 25, GB1004, 10.1029/2010GB003850, 2011.Lathem, T. L., Beyersdorf, A. J., Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E. L., Cubison, M. J., Hecobian, A., Jimenez, J. L.,
Weber, R. J., Anderson, B. E., and Nenes, A.: Analysis of CCN activity of Arctic aerosol and Canadian biomass burning during
summer 2008, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2735–2756, 10.5194/acp-13-2735-2013, 2013.Leaitch, W. R., Sharma, S., Huang, L., Macdonald, A. M., Toom-Sauntry, D., Chivulescu, A., von Salzen, K.,
Pierce, J. R., Shantz, N. C., Bertram, A., Schroder, J., Norman, A.-L., and Chang, R. Y.-W.: Dimethyl sulphide control of the
clean summertime Arctic aerosol and cloud, Elementa: Science of the
Anthropocene, 1, 17,
10.12952/journal.elementa.000017, 2013.Leaitch, W. R., Korolev, A., Aliabadi, A. A., Burkart, J., Willis, M., Abbatt, J. P. D., Bozem, H., Hoor, P.,
Köllner, F., Schneider, J., Herber, A., Konrad, C., and Brauner, R.: Effects of 20–100 nanometre particles on liquid clouds
in the clean summertime Arctic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11107–11124, 10.5194/acp-2015-999, 2016. Leck, C. and Bigg, E. K.: Biogenic particles in the surface microlayer and overlaying atmosphere in the central
Arctic Ocean during summer, Tellus B, 57, 305–316, 2005a. Leck, C. and Bigg, E. K.: Source and evolution of the marine aerosol – a new perspective, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
1–4, 2005b. Leck, C. and Persson, C.: The central Arctic Ocean as a source of dimethyl sulfide – seasonal variability in
relation to biological activity, Tellus B, 48, 156–177, 1996. Levasseur, M.: Impact of Arctic meltdown on the microbial cycling of sulfur, Nat. Geosci., 6, 691–700, 2013. Li, S. M., Barrie, L. A., Talbot, R. W., Harriss, R. C., Davidson, C. I., and Jaffrezo, J. L.: Seasonal and
geographic variations of methanesulphonic acid in the Arctic troposphere, Atmos. Environ., 27, 3011–3024, 1993.Liao, H., Henze, D. K., Seinfeld, J. H., Wu, S., and Mickley, L. J.: Biogenic secondary organic aerosol over the
United States: comparison of climatological simulations with observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D06201,
10.1029/2006JD007813, 2007. Liss, P. S. and Merlivat, L.: Air–sea gas exchange rates: introduction and synthesis, in: The Role of Air–Sea
Exchange in Geochemical Cycling, Springer, edited by: Buatmenard, P., Reidel, , 113–127, 1986.Lunden, J., Svensson, G., Wisthaler, A., Tjernstrom, M., Hansel, A., and Leck, C.: The vertical distribution of
atmospheric DMS in the high Arctic summer, Tellus B, 62,
160–171, 10.12952/journal.elementa.000017, 2010. Matrai, P. A. and Vernet, M.: Dynamics of the vernal bloom in the marginal ice zone of the Barents Sea: dimethyl
sulfide and dimethylsulfoniopropionate budgets, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 22965–22979, 1997.Mungall, E. L., Croft, B., Lizotte, M., Thomas, J. L., Murphy, J. G., Levasseur, M., Martin, R. V., Wentzell,
J. J. B., Liggio, J., and Abbatt, J. P. D.: Dimethyl sulfide in the summertime Arctic atmosphere: measurements and source
sensitivity simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 6665–6680, 10.5194/acp-16-6665-2016, 2016. Najafi, M. R., Zwiers, F. W., and Gillett, N. P.: Attribution of Arctic temperature change to greenhouse-gas and
aerosol influences, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 246–249, 2015.Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Chin, M., and Martin, R. V.: Sources of carbonaceous aerosols over the United States and
implications for natural visibility, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4355, 10.1029/2002JD003190, 2003.Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Field, B. D., Yantosca, R. M., and Chin, M.: Natural and transboundary pollution
influences on sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols in the United States: implications for policy, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109,
D15204, 10.1029/2003JD004473, 2004. Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Kumar, N., and Yantosca, R. M.: Regional visibility statistics in the United States:
natural and transboundary pollution influences, and implications for
the Regional Haze Rule, Atmos. Environ., 40, 5405–5423,
2006.Pierce, J. R., Evans, M. J., Scott, C. E., D'Andrea, S. D., Farmer, D. K., Swietlicki, E., and Spracklen, D. V.: Weak
global sensitivity of cloud condensation nuclei and the aerosol indirect effect to Criegee + SO2 chemistry,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3163–3176, 10.5194/acp-13-3163-2013, 2013.Quinn, P. K. and Bates, T. S.: The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulfur emissions, Nature, 480,
51–56, 10.1038/nature10580, 2011.Rempillo, O., Seguin, A. M., Norman, A.-L., Scarratt, M., Michaud, S., Chang, R., Sjostedt, S., Abbatt, J., Else, B.,
Papakyriakou, T., Sharma, S., Grasby, S., and Levasseur, M.: Dimethyl sulfide air–sea fluxes and biogenic sulfur as a source of
new aerosols in the Arctic fall, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D00S04, 10.1029/2011JD016336, 2011. Sharma, S.: Fluxes of dimethyl sulphide from the lakes of the Canadian Boreal Shield to the atmosphere, M.Sc. thesis,
York Univ., Toronto, Ont., Canada, 1997. Sharma, S., Barrie, L. A., Plummer, D., McConnell, J. C., Brickell, P. C., Levasseur, M., Gosselin, M., and
Bates, T. S.: Flux estimation of oceanic dimethyl sulfide around North America, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 21327–21342, 1999.Sharma, S., Chan, E., Ishizawa, M., Toom-Sauntry, D., Gong, S. L., Li, S. M., Leaitch, W. R., Norman, A.,
Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Levasseur, M., Barrie, L. A., and Maenhaut, W.: Influence of transport and ocean ice extent on
biogenic aerosol sulfur in the arctic atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D12209, 10.1029/2011JD017074, 2012.Shupe, M. D., Persson, P. O. G., Brooks, I. M., Tjernström, M., Sedlar, J., Mauritsen, T., Sjogren, S., and Leck,
C.: Cloud and boundary layer interactions over the Arctic sea ice in late summer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9379–9399,
10.5194/acp-13-9379-2013, 2013.Simpson, I. J., Blake, N. J., Barletta, B., Diskin, G. S., Fuelberg, H. E., Gorham, K., Huey, L. G., Meinardi, S.,
Rowland, F. S., Vay, S. A., Weinheimer, A. J., Yang, M., and Blake, D. R.: Characterization of trace gases measured over Alberta
oil sands mining operations: 76 speciated C2–C10 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CO2,
CH4, CO, NO, NO2, NOy, O3 and SO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11931–11954,
10.5194/acp-10-11931-2010, 2010.Stohl, A., Forster, C., Frank, A., Seibert, P., and Wotawa, G.: Technical note: The Lagrangian particle dispersion
model FLEXPART version 6.2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2461–2474, 10.5194/acp-5-2461-2005, 2005.
Tjernström, M., Leck, C., Persson, P. O. G., Jensen, M. L., Oncley, S. P., Targino, A.: The summertime Arctic
atmosphere: meteorological measurements during the Arctic Ocean Experiment 2001 (AOE-2001), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85,
1305–1321, 2004. Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8, 1251–1256, 1974.von Glasow, R. and Crutzen, P. J.: Model study of multiphase DMS
oxidation with a focus on halogens, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 589–608, 10.5194/acp-4-589-2004, 2004.Wang, Q., Jacob, D. J., Fisher, J. A., Mao, J., Leibensperger, E. M., Carouge, C. C., Le Sager, P., Kondo, Y.,
Jimenez, J. L., Cubison, M. J., and Doherty, S. J.: Sources of carbonaceous aerosols and deposited black carbon in the Arctic in
winter-spring: implications for radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 12453–12473, 10.5194/acp-11-12453-2011,
2011.Wentworth, G. R., Murphy, J. G., Croft, B., Martin, R. V., Pierce, J. R., Côté, J.-S., Courchesne, I.,
Tremblay, J.-É., Gagnon, J., Thomas, J. L., Sharma, S., Toom-Sauntry, D., Chivulescu, A., Levasseur, M., and Abbatt,
J. P. D.: Ammonia in the summertime Arctic marine boundary layer: sources, sinks, and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16,
1937–1953, 10.5194/acp-16-1937-2016, 2016.Willis, M. D., Burkart, J., Thomas, J. L., Köllner, F., Schneider, J., Bozem, H., Hoor, P. M., Aliabadi, A. A.,
Schulz, H., Herber, A. B., Leaitch, W. R., and Abbatt, J. P. D.: Growth of nucleation mode particles in the summertime Arctic: a
case study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7663–7679, 10.5194/acp-16-7663-2016, 2016.Woodhouse, M. T., Mann, G. W., Carslaw, K. S., and Boucher, O.: Sensitivity of cloud condensation nuclei to regional
changes in dimethyl-sulphide emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2723–2733, 10.5194/acp-13-2723-2013,
2013. Yin, F., Grosjean, D., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Photooxidation of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide. I. Mechanism
development, J. Atmos. Chem., 11, 309–364, 1990.