Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and  laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021)

Bernays, Noah; Jaffe, Daniel A.; Petropavlovskikh, Irina; Effertz, Peter

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 10

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, 2022

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, 2022

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 10

Peer-reviewed comment

25 May 2022

Peer-reviewed comment | 25 May 2022

Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021)

Noah Bernays et al.

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 May 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Jan 2022)
Corresponding article

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on amt-2022-11', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-11/amt-2022-11-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-11-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', D.A.J. Jaffe, 26 Mar 2022
  
  All response comments are in the combined pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-11-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on amt-2022-11', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Mar 2022

Table 1 in Long et al. lists the Thermo Scientific model 49i monitor that was used in their study as having been equipped with a MnO₂ catalyst. This is also mentioned in their text, section 2.1.2. first sentence. To the best of my knowledge, this has been and still currently is the default, and only configuration, in which this monitor can be purchased from Thermo Scientific. I cannot trace from where Bernays et al. got the information that the monitor used by Long et al. had a different, i.e. a MnCl₂ scrubber. I don’t remember ever seeing an ozone UV absorption monitor that used an MnCl₂ scrubber. This is an important piece of missing information. This certainly needs to be clarified by Bernays et al. before their comment should be accepted for final publication. Furthermore, Long et al. should be given an opportunity to comment on this question.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-11-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', D.A.J. Jaffe, 26 Mar 2022
  
  Table 1 in Long et al. lists the Thermo Scientific model 49i monitor that was used in their study as having been equipped with a MnO₂ catalyst. This is also mentioned in their text, section 2.1.2. first sentence. To the best of my knowledge, this has been and still currently is the default, and only configuration, in which this monitor can be purchased from Thermo Scientific. I cannot trace from where Bernays et al. got the information that the monitor used by Long et al. had a different, i.e. a MnCl₂ scrubber. I don’t remember ever seeing an ozone UV absorption monitor that used an MnCl₂ scrubber. This is an important piece of missing information. This certainly needs to be clarified by Bernays et al. before their comment should be accepted for final publication. Furthermore, Long et al. should be given an opportunity to comment on this question.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-11-AC1

Peer review completion

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

AR by D.A.J. Jaffe on behalf of the Authors (01 Apr 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Apr 2022) by Glenn Wolfe

Short summary

Ozone is an important pollutant that impacts millions of people worldwide. It is therefore important to ensure accurate measurements. A recent surge in wildfire activity in the USA has resulted in significant enhancements in ozone concentration. However given the nature of wildfire smoke, there are questions about our ability to accurately measure ozone. In this comment, we discuss possible biases in the UV measurements of ozone in the presence of smoke.