Articles | Volume 15, issue 15
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulations of aerosol pH in China using WRF-Chem (v4.0): sensitivities of aerosol pH and its temporal variations during haze episodes
- Final revised paper (published on 04 Aug 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 21 Mar 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-62', Shaojie Song, 25 Apr 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xueyin Ruan, 04 Jun 2022
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2022-62', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xueyin Ruan, 04 Jun 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Xueyin Ruan on behalf of the Authors (05 Jun 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Jun 2022) by Fiona O'Connor
RR by Mary Barth (11 Jul 2022)
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (12 Jul 2022) by Fiona O'Connor
AR by Xueyin Ruan on behalf of the Authors (17 Jul 2022)  Author's response Manuscript
Geoscientific Model Development Discussions: “On the simulations of aerosol pH in China using WRF-Chem (v4.0): sensitivities of aerosol pH and its temporal variations in haze episodes”. Ruan et al. investigates the aerosol pH simulations in WRF-Chem model focusing on haze episodes in Beijing. Overall, the paper is scientifically sound, clearly written and easy-to-follow. I only have a few minor comments:
Section4.1.1: I think the minimal response to elevated NVCs in the nearly neutral cases may be related to the role of carbonate. At least in E-AIM and ISORROPIA, the aerosol pH cannot get very high (8 or 10) because of the buffer role of carbonate.
Section4.3: It is interesting to see a systematic difference between ISORROPIA and MOSAIC even when the model inputs are the same. The authors list several possible contributing factors including AWC, phase-partitioning method, activity coefficients and solution method. I suggest the authors to investigate this issue further: (1) is there any difference in the predicted gas-phase ammonia concentrations between the two models? This can give some clues on the contribution of phase partitioning method; (2) the authors note the large difference in AWC in the paper. It seems that both ISORROPIA and MOSAIC use the ZSR method. ISORROPIA uses a look-up table for hygroscopic curves of different electrolytes. One possible way to further examine the role of AWC calculation method is to replace the hygroscopic curves in ISORROPIA by the ones from WRF-Chem.
Figure5&6: it is good to show the different subplots in the same vertical scale or write a note to remind the different scales.