Articles | Volume 15, issue 18
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Atmospherically Relevant Chemistry and Aerosol box model – ARCA box (version 1.2)
- Final revised paper (published on 29 Sep 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 22 Mar 2022)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-55', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 May 2022
- RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2022-55', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 May 2022
- AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-55', PETRI CLUSIUS, 01 Jul 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by PETRI CLUSIUS on behalf of the Authors (01 Jul 2022)  Author's response Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Jul 2022) by Christoph Knote
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Jul 2022)
ED: Publish as is (05 Aug 2022) by Christoph Knote
In their article, Clusius et al. present the Atmospherically Relevant Chemistry and Aerosol box model (ARCA) representing atmospheric gas-phase chemistry and submicron aerosol processes. Its processes representation is mainly based on earlier model implementations but distinguishes itself by an extensive GUI and its focus on ease of use for scientists that have little experience in aerosol and chemical box modelling. Although the current manuscript provides already a good overview on the model itself, further elaborations are necessary before publication in GMD.
L20: Stating that “any compatible chemistry scheme” is ambiguous since currently the model is limited to gas-phase chemistry.
L109: Is the user notified of this if the time step is selected too large by the user? Is there an upper limit of the time step length?
Figure 1: The definition of PSD is missing in the caption.
L271: The last sentence seems to be out of place. Shouldn’t this be specified in the introduction?
L285: Is the user made aware (e.g., in the GUI) that he is responsible to select the PSD size range? Is an error raised if he fails to do so? This could be used by the authors as an example for the error management (see general comment 3).
L397: What is your justification to select the same value for all compounds? Can the user change this value for single compounds? This would make it easier to tailor ARCA to individual chambers.
L432: The online user manual is nice. Adding a link to it here would be helpful.
L439: This statement is ambiguous, unspecific, and misleading. What distinguishes “good” and “better” science? I suggest rephrasing this statement focusing e.g. the avoidance of systematical errors when performing simulations or similar.
Section 5.3: In addition to the model code, please provide the modelling data of the simulations used in the verification section (e.g., using Zenodo).
Section 6: In Sect. 1.1, you state that organic liquid phase chemistry is not considered in ARCA but may be important (e.g., on the thermodynamics, formation of secondary organic aerosols). Is there a reason why you currently do not plan to include this chemistry in future model versions? In the case when using MCM, the coupling to CLEPS (Mouchel-Vallon et al., 2017) should be strait forward.
Mouchel-Vallon, C., Deguillaume, L., Monod, A., Perroux, H., Rose, C., Ghigo, G., Long, Y., Leriche, M., Aumont, B., Patryl, L., Armand, P., and Chaumerliac, N.: CLEPS 1.0: A new protocol for cloud aqueous phase oxidation of VOC mechanisms, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1339–1362, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1339-2017, 2017.