Articles | Volume 18, issue 20
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-5705-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Developing A Custom-Built Metal Aerosol Processing Chamber: Analysis of Aerosol Coagulation at Low Humidities
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 22 Oct 2025)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 21 May 2025)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1503', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jun 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kyle Gorkowski, 15 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1503', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jun 2025
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kyle Gorkowski, 15 Aug 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1503', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Jul 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Kyle Gorkowski, 15 Aug 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Kyle Gorkowski on behalf of the Authors (15 Aug 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Aug 2025) by Zamin A. Kanji
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Aug 2025)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (31 Aug 2025)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Sep 2025) by Zamin A. Kanji
AR by Kyle Gorkowski on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (03 Sep 2025) by Zamin A. Kanji
AR by Kyle Gorkowski on behalf of the Authors (03 Sep 2025)
Manuscript
Franco et al. designed and developed a cloud chamber at LANL and characterized the wall loss and coagulation correction factors of sodium chloride, sucrose, and soot. Their results show similar wall loss across all particle types, while the coagulation correction factor of soot is higher than others. This manuscript is overall well written and provides many useful information for chamber design, making it good fit for AMT journal. However, before the publication, I would like the authors to address the following issues.
1. For soot experiments, the authors generated them from biomass combustion, which produces complex emissions of both gas and particles. How do the authors ensure that only soot particles were injected into the LANL chamber? For example, biomass combustion emits abundant SOA, how might these SOA contribute to or interfere with soot growth in the chamber? Additionally, VOCs and SVOCs can also play a role in particle growth, thus change particle size. How do authors account for the influence of these gas species on the observed soot behavior in the authors’ soot experiments?
2. The manuscript presents particle number size distributions, but volume distributions are not discussed. Could the authors provide and discuss volume distribution? For example, have the dilution and wall loss corrections been validated using measured volume distributions, by quantifying the volume fraction of particles lost due to these processes?
3. Since no size selection was applied before aerosol injected into the chamber, how do the authors expect larger particles (e.g. PM>1) to influence coagulation and wall loss behavior of submicron particles? Also, would it be possible for the authors to size-select particles to a specific mode prior to chamber injections to compare the size mode at the chamber outlet? Such an approach could help elucidate the role of coagulation in shifting size distributions.