A multi-purpose, multi-rotor drone system for long-range and high-altitude volcanic gas plume measurements

Galle, Bo; Arellano, Santiago; Bobrowski, Nicole; Conde, Vladimir; Fischer, Tobias P.; Gerdes, Gustav; Gutmann, Alexandra; Hoffmann, Thorsten; Itikarai, Ima; Krejci, Tomas; Liu, Emma J.; Mulina, Kila; Nowicki, Scott; Richardson, Tom; Rüdiger, Julian; Wood, Kieran; Xu, Jiazhi

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4255-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4255-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4255-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 6

Research article

|

09 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 09 Jun 2021

A multi-purpose, multi-rotor drone system for long-range and high-altitude volcanic gas plume measurements

Bo Galle, Santiago Arellano, Nicole Bobrowski, Vladimir Conde, Tobias P. Fischer, Gustav Gerdes, Alexandra Gutmann, Thorsten Hoffmann, Ima Itikarai, Tomas Krejci, Emma J. Liu, Kila Mulina, Scott Nowicki, Tom Richardson, Julian Rüdiger, Kieran Wood, and Jiazhi Xu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Jun 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Dec 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer comment', Peter Kelly, 22 Jan 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bo Galle, 06 Mar 2021
RC2: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jan 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bo Galle, 06 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Bo Galle on behalf of the Authors (10 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Mar 2021) by Francis Pope

RR by Peter Kelly (23 Apr 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments on the revised version of “A multi-purpose, multi-rotor drone system for long range and high-altitude volcanic gas plume measurements” by Galle et al. amt-2020-452

The Authors’ revisions have improved the manuscript and it should be suitable for publication after some copy editing and some small technical corrections given below. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the supplementary data files in the AMT package associated with this manuscript. Sorry if I missed them somewhere. The supplementary pdf describing the data files appears to be thorough, but the data files will need to be included in the manuscript package at the journal and should be checked for completeness. I hope these comments are helpful and look forward to seeing this work published.

Peter Kelly
USGS

Comments on revised version of Galle et al. (uploaded 10 Mar 2021)

l.176-183: Can the specs for the equipment used be given? For other groups who may wish to replicate such an interchangeable system additional simple details would be helpful. E.g. part #’s would be most helpful if they are not custom-made. References to, for example, “a special connector” are not sufficiently detailed.

l. 190 Change “hoovering” to “hovering”

l. 935: Shouldn’t all of the data be openly available now? Is this still necessary?

l.971-1020: Thanks for this explanation. It makes a lot more sense now. How did the lab-derived sensor responses compare to those from the field?

l.1035: Should the URL be included in reference?
TableA1: the precision and accuracy of the CO2 sensor is listed as 1 ppm. However, supplement Figure S1 clearly shows about 10 ppm of noise, which is attributed to radio interference. It should be clarified in the manuscript what level of accuracy and precision could be achieved in the field, including interference from the radio or other factors (e.g vibration). The lab measurements show the CO2 signal being much quieter (Figure S2); perhaps this where the data for Table A1 come from?. Nevertheless, the supplementary data appear to show that the lab measurements weren’t necessarily representative of the actual field performance for CO2.

Supplementary data: In the review responses the authors indicate that they created data files. However, I could not locate any in the uploaded files. It’s interesting to note that the described data file for their multigas includes signals for NO and NO2. They’re not described or mentioned elsewhere. I’d recommend removing them from the file, otherwise they’d need to be described.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (26 Apr 2021) by Francis Pope

AR by Bo Galle on behalf of the Authors (04 May 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Measurements of volcanic gases are important for geophysical research, risk assessment and environmental impact studies. Some gases, like SO₂ and BrO, may be studied from the ground at a safe distance using remote sensing techniques. Many other gases require in situ access to the gas plume. Here, a drone may be an attractive alternative. This paper describes a drone specially adapted for volcanic gas studies and demonstrates its use in a field campaign at Manam volcano in Papua New Guinea.