Measurement of interferences associated with the detection of the hydroperoxy radical in the atmosphere using laser-induced fluorescence

Lew, Michelle M.; Dusanter, Sebastien; Stevens, Philip S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-95-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-95-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-95-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 1

Research article

|

10 Jan 2018

Research article |

| 10 Jan 2018

Measurement of interferences associated with the detection of the hydroperoxy radical in the atmosphere using laser-induced fluorescence

Michelle M. Lew, Sebastien Dusanter, and Philip S. Stevens

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 Jan 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Aug 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments on 'Measurement of interferences associated with the detection of the hydroperoxy radical in the atmosphere using laser-induced fluorescence'', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Aug 2017
- AC1: 'Response to referee #2', Philip Stevens, 31 Oct 2017
RC2: 'Review of “Measurements of interferences associated with the detection of the hydroperoxy radical in the atmosphere using laser-induced fluorescence”.', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2017
- AC2: 'Response to referee #1', Philip Stevens, 31 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Philip Stevens on behalf of the Authors (08 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Nov 2017) by Andreas Richter

Dear Philip Stevens,

As you know, the original editor is unfortunately no longer available to guide the review of your manuscript and therefore I have taken over at this late point in the process although that's certainly not ideal.

Having said that, I'm pleased to accept your manuscript "Measurement of interferences associated with the detection of the hydroperoxy radical in the atmosphere using laser-induced fluorescence" for publication in AMT subject to minor revisions as listed below.

Most of the points addressed by the reviewers have been dealt with, but some minor clarifications are needed:

* Even after your revisions, I'm confused by the discussion of NO flow rates. While you explain in the replies to the reviewers, that the nominal flow rate during MCMA was the same as used in your tests, the last paragraph on page 20 as well as the last sentence on page 21 appear to state something different. Can you please clarify?

* Why is NO concentration given in table 1? In all other places you discuss NO flow so I'm wondering if you did this intentionally to provide additional information. I assume that these values are just computed from the measured NO flow?

* I'm not convinced that there is a difference in error propagation between adding modelled interferences to modelled HO2 or subtracting modelled interferences from measured HO2* as stated on page 21. I would expect that there is actually no difference either way. Please comment.

* page 16, line 12: Thus is possible => Thus it is possible

* page 18, line 19: duplicate "possible"

* page 21, line 22: We estimate that ... to be => We estimate ... to be

Best regards, and thank you for choosing AMT to publish your study,

Andreas Richter

Hide

AR by Philip Stevens on behalf of the Authors (21 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Nov 2017) by Andreas Richter

AR by Philip Stevens on behalf of the Authors (27 Nov 2017)

Short summary

This paper describes measurements of the conversion efficiency of several organic peroxy radicals upon reaction with nitric oxide to the hydroperoxy radical, which can interfere with measurements of the latter. This interference could explain some of the discrepancies between measurements and model predictions of the hydroperoxy radical. Previous measurements of the hydroperoxy radical during the Mexico City Metropolitan Area campaign in 2006 are reanalyzed to account for the interference.