the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quality assessment of aerosol lidars at 1064 nm in the framework of the MEMO campaign
Longlong Wang
Zhichao Bu
Anzhou Wang
Song Mao
Detlef Müller
Yubao Chen
Xuan Wang
Abstract. Aerosol lidar network can play an important role on revealing structural characteristics of atmospheric boundary layer, urban heat island effect, spatial distribution of aerosols, especially monitoring atmospheric pollution in a megacity. To fulfill the need of monitoring and numerical forecast of atmospheric pollution, an aerosol lidar network is proposed by China Meteorological Administration, which serves as an important part of "MegaCity Experiment on Integrated Meteorological Observation in China" (MEMO). To ensure high standard of data quality and traceability of measurement error, an inter-comparison campaign, dedicated for quality assessment of lidar systems from different institutes and manufacturers, was designed and performed at Beijing Southern Suburb Observatory in September 2021. Six Mie-Rayleigh lidar systems at 1064 nm were involved in this campaign. The strategies for lidar self-evaluations and inter-comparisons were predefined. A lidar system at 1064 nm, which was developed by Atmospheric Remote Sensing group at Wuhan University, was selected as the reference lidar system after passing all self-evaluations quality checks in a strict way. The reference lidar system serves as the corner stone for evaluating the performance of other lidar systems. After using the self-test of Rayleigh fit and signalto- noise evaluation for each individual lidar system to fast check the data quality, the range-corrected signal and backscatter coefficient obtained from all the lidar systems were inter-compared with a reference lidar system. In the end, the lidar systems were quality assured, of which the standard deviation of range-corrected signal can be controlled within 5 % at 500–2000 m while 10 % at 2000–5000 m. For the derived aerosol backscatter coefficients, standard deviations can be controlled within 10 % at 500–2000 m and 2000–5000 m. The quality assurance strategy lays down a solid basis for atmospheric lidar at near-infrared wavelength and will be applied in Chinese lidar network development.
- Preprint
(2889 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Longlong Wang et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-23', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-23/amt-2023-23-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and helpful comments and suggestions, which have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the paper. We have considered all the comments and questions posed by the reviewer. They are listed one by one in this letter and implemented in the manuscript as text in blue color.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-23', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2023
The Wang et al manuscript entitled “Quality assessment of aerosol lidars at 1064 nm in the framework of the MEMO campaign” presents the quality assessment of lidar performances at 1064 nm in order to gain the confidence for establishing lidar network in China. The experiment and results in this study could be a useful experience for regularly lidar quality assessment in a large lidar network, in particular the 1064 nm lidar have been widely used however there is very few reports regarding on their hardware assessment a lidar network. Therefore, to my opinion, it can be published in AMT after minor revision. I have some comments as following.
The specific comments are listed below:
- I recommend the authors to provide the differences in the calibration procedures between 532 nm and 1064 nm channels.
- If possible, the dark noise test, telecover test, detection range test and Rayleigh fitting test of the six lidars should also be summarized and compared in the paragraph.
- The Discussion section should be omitted and the dark measurements results should be analyzed in the self-test section.
The technical corrections:
P3L70: “at 532 nm ” to “at 355 nm and 532 nm ”
P3L74: “instruments, calibration for 1064 nm attenuated total backscatter (ATB) calibration are...” remove one “calibration ”
P3L80: reference missing?
P4L111: “Cirrus is” to “Cirrus was”
P4L113: “infrared channels” to “infrared Mie-Rayleigh channels”
P4L115: please check the grammer with the sentence
P5L130: the results of “telecover test” is missing
P5L131: please define the abbreviation of “CMA”
P6L138: since the authors uploaded the automatic “Atmospheric Lidar Evaluation program (ALiE, https://gitee.com/mualidar/cma-lidar-comparison)” somewhere, I suggest also document this work into AMT’s supplement if possible, so that it could be more benefit for the lidar community.
P6L147: what does “system efficiencies” indicate?
P7L153-154: re-write this sentence
P7L160: should symbol S be indicates not only “lidar signal” but also backscatter coefficient?
Equation 3: “δ” to “δi”
P7L173: it is unclear what does “signal issue” mean?
P8L178: “can be” to “can not be”?
P8L189: define “CST”
P10L194: unclear description
P11L203: “it is” to “they are”
P12L224: “got severe distortion” means?
P13L249: “2017” to “2021”?
Reference L347-348:
Please update the preprint to the published one:
Mamouri, R.-E. and Ansmann, A.: Potential of polarization/Raman lidar to separate fine dust, coarse dust, maritime, and anthropogenic aerosol profiles, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 3403–3427, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3403-2017, 2017.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-23-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and helpful comments and suggestions, which have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the paper. We have considered all the comments and questions posed by the reviewer. They are listed one by one in this letter and implemented in the manuscript as text in blue color.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-23', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-23/amt-2023-23-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and helpful comments and suggestions, which have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the paper. We have considered all the comments and questions posed by the reviewer. They are listed one by one in this letter and implemented in the manuscript as text in blue color.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-23', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2023
The Wang et al manuscript entitled “Quality assessment of aerosol lidars at 1064 nm in the framework of the MEMO campaign” presents the quality assessment of lidar performances at 1064 nm in order to gain the confidence for establishing lidar network in China. The experiment and results in this study could be a useful experience for regularly lidar quality assessment in a large lidar network, in particular the 1064 nm lidar have been widely used however there is very few reports regarding on their hardware assessment a lidar network. Therefore, to my opinion, it can be published in AMT after minor revision. I have some comments as following.
The specific comments are listed below:
- I recommend the authors to provide the differences in the calibration procedures between 532 nm and 1064 nm channels.
- If possible, the dark noise test, telecover test, detection range test and Rayleigh fitting test of the six lidars should also be summarized and compared in the paragraph.
- The Discussion section should be omitted and the dark measurements results should be analyzed in the self-test section.
The technical corrections:
P3L70: “at 532 nm ” to “at 355 nm and 532 nm ”
P3L74: “instruments, calibration for 1064 nm attenuated total backscatter (ATB) calibration are...” remove one “calibration ”
P3L80: reference missing?
P4L111: “Cirrus is” to “Cirrus was”
P4L113: “infrared channels” to “infrared Mie-Rayleigh channels”
P4L115: please check the grammer with the sentence
P5L130: the results of “telecover test” is missing
P5L131: please define the abbreviation of “CMA”
P6L138: since the authors uploaded the automatic “Atmospheric Lidar Evaluation program (ALiE, https://gitee.com/mualidar/cma-lidar-comparison)” somewhere, I suggest also document this work into AMT’s supplement if possible, so that it could be more benefit for the lidar community.
P6L147: what does “system efficiencies” indicate?
P7L153-154: re-write this sentence
P7L160: should symbol S be indicates not only “lidar signal” but also backscatter coefficient?
Equation 3: “δ” to “δi”
P7L173: it is unclear what does “signal issue” mean?
P8L178: “can be” to “can not be”?
P8L189: define “CST”
P10L194: unclear description
P11L203: “it is” to “they are”
P12L224: “got severe distortion” means?
P13L249: “2017” to “2021”?
Reference L347-348:
Please update the preprint to the published one:
Mamouri, R.-E. and Ansmann, A.: Potential of polarization/Raman lidar to separate fine dust, coarse dust, maritime, and anthropogenic aerosol profiles, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 3403–3427, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3403-2017, 2017.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-23-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Longlong Wang, 06 Aug 2023
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and helpful comments and suggestions, which have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the paper. We have considered all the comments and questions posed by the reviewer. They are listed one by one in this letter and implemented in the manuscript as text in blue color.
Longlong Wang et al.
Longlong Wang et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
482 | 98 | 25 | 605 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 482
- PDF: 98
- XML: 25
- Total: 605
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1