Characterisation of the filter inlet system on the FAAM BAe-146 research aircraft and its use for size-resolved aerosol composition measurements

Sanchez-Marroquin, Alberto; Hedges, Duncan H. P.; Hiscock, Matthew; Parker, Simon T.; Rosenberg, Philip D.; Trembath, Jamie; Walshaw, Richard; Burke, Ian T.; McQuaid, James B.; Murray, Benjamin J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5741-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5741-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5741-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 11

Research article

|

30 Oct 2019

Research article |

| 30 Oct 2019

Characterisation of the filter inlet system on the FAAM BAe-146 research aircraft and its use for size-resolved aerosol composition measurements

Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, Duncan H. P. Hedges, Matthew Hiscock, Simon T. Parker, Philip D. Rosenberg, Jamie Trembath, Richard Walshaw, Ian T. Burke, James B. McQuaid, and Benjamin J. Murray

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Oct 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 24 May 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Sanchez-Marroquin et al."', Konrad Kandler, 12 Jun 2019
- AC2: 'Response to referee comments (R1)', Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, 13 Sep 2019
RC2: 'Review to Sanchez-Marroquin et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2019
- AC1: 'Response to referee (R2)', Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin, 12 Sep 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Alberto Sanchez Marroquin on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Sep 2019) by Mingjin Tang

RR by Konrad Kandler (17 Sep 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of the revision of the manuscript of Sanchez-Marroquin et al., dealing with the characterization of an aircraft inlet frequently used in the British BAE-146 research aircraft

The scope and overall writing quality of the paper remain unchanged, therefore the reader is asked to refer to the original review.

The authors have carefully incorporated many changes requested by the reviewers. Many thanks for that.
Apart from some minor suggestion below, publication is recommended.

Suggestions / comments:

original remark to line 636-637: “All calculation were done under standard conditions”...: The authors have nicely shown that my concerns about the use of standard conditions were unjustified, as the impact is apparently small in comparison to other uncertainties. I suggest adding the first figure of the response document to the electronic supplement, as others may share my original skepticism. A phrase like “, as shown in Fig. X in the electronic supplement.” could be added to line 582.

original remark “The section 8 and 9 appear...”: The authors show here, that the impact of the chosen peak significance limit on the particle classification is low, so it does not affect the interpretation. This is good news for comparison with other publications, where this limit might have been set differently or remains unknown.

original remark “110: Particles are not necessarily lost (to the wall), but can be diluted (i.e. not entering the inlet).”, answer “It is not clear how aerosol would be diluted in this inlet.”: What was meant here is that a “particle loss” is frequently understood as a deposition in the inlet system. In the case of an inlet, efficiency below one may be either due to this deposition on the walls, or due to the particles simply not entering the inlet due to inertia, while the according gas phase does (what was meant with the “dilution”). Some people would consider the latter effect not as a “loss”. However, this disambiguation doesn’t seem to be important enough to modify the manuscript.

original remark “648-650: This approach appears to be questionable, ...”, answer the addition of “This approach does not account for the additional inertial losses that could occur as a consequence of the enlargement of the flow in the conical section.”: The sentence might not be understood without mentioning turbulence creation by the cross section increase as cause. I suggest adding this to the sentence, and also adding this sentence from your answer to the manuscript: “However, the angle of enlargement is small (5.7°). It was designed to be below 7° in order to avoid flow separation (Andreae et al., 1988).”

original remark “707” on bluntness: thanks for the clarification.

In the manuscript there is twice a section 6, without a section 7 or 8 before section 9.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (27 Sep 2019)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (27 Sep 2019) by Mingjin Tang

Short summary

Sampling coarse-mode aerosol from a fast-moving research aircraft is challenging and can be subject to substantial losses and enhancements. We characterise these losses and enhancements for an inlet system designed to collect aerosol onto filters. We go on to present an application of this inlet system where we use electron microscopy to study the size and composition of the collected aerosol particles.