Articles | Volume 18, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-4985-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.Intercomparison of IAGOS-CORE, IAGOS-CARIBIC and WMO/GAW-WCCOS Ozone Instruments at the Environmental Simulation Facility at Jülich, Germany
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 01 Oct 2025)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 07 Jan 2025)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3760', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Herman G.J. Smit, 08 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3760', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 May 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Herman G.J. Smit, 08 Jul 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Herman G.J. Smit on behalf of the Authors (08 Jul 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (31 Jul 2025) by Troy Thornberry

AR by Herman G.J. Smit on behalf of the Authors (06 Aug 2025)
Manuscript
Summary:
This paper provides a summary of a number of experiments conducted at the Forschungszentrum Julich (FZJ) atmospheric profile simulation chamber designed to connect the ozone measurements profile measurements made as part of the In-service Aircraft for a Global Observation System (IAGOS) to those made on balloon sondes using the common, world-standard UV calibration instrument of Proffitt et al. (1982). As such this paper is an important contribution to the literature and will allow a harmonization of in situ ozone profiles across these measurement platforms.
In particular, the experiments conducted examined the performance of two versions of the aircraft O3 instruments (P1-O3 and CAR-O3) against the dual-beam UV-Ozone Photometer (OPM) of the World Calibration Center of Ozone Sondes (WCCOS) at FZJ. The instruments generally showed agreement to within 5-6% over the range of pressures studied. Interestingly, the P1-O3 instrument showed a consistent trend in offset from the OPM, starting at ~+2% at 1000 hPa and changing linearly to ~ -3% by 400 hPa. The paper was uncertain as to the cause, which does need to be identified and reconciled. It mentions that the performance of this instrument might be an artifact of the experimental set-up. That question should be resolved.
Recommendation:
Publish with relatively minor revisions – see my detailed comments below.
While it would be good to have the question of the drift in the offset of the P1-O3 instrument from the WPM resolved, it is worth getting these results into the literature sooner than later. If it is not resolved by the time of publication of this manuscript, a follow-up “note” should be submitted with an answer to the question.
Detailed comments can be found in the attached supplement file.