Hygroscopicity of Different Types of Aerosol Particles: Case Studies Using Multi-Instrument Data in Megacity Beijing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manyscript submited by Wu et al. depicts an interesting work on a hot topic of hygroscopic properties of aerosol. Two aerosol types are considered, mineral dust and pollution, both having rather strong response altering radiation transfer in the atmosphere. The results reported are of high interest to the community. Work is relevant and manuscript should be considered for publication.

Manuscript is well written and easy to read. Authors well focus on the merit!

Although I cannot judge about language I saw some mistakes and a few strangely sounding sentences. Most annoying is use of word: 'aerosols' that in plural should read 'aerosol'. I suggest to correct this.

Equations are not unified, e.g. in Eg. (1) you use indexes 1, 2 but then later on the indexes mol, aer are used eg. in line 157. I suggest to correct this.

The fine mode fraction for both cases is very similar (eg. Fig.8). The is no indication if this difference is statistically significant. There are no uncertainties given in Table 4. I suggest to correct this.

Finally, this paper is discussing certain cases related to hygroscopic growth of particles, which depend on the meteorological situation over the site. I do not find evan a vage description of the meteo conditions during the observations. I find this a weak point of this paper. I suggest to correct this.

 

Below technical comments that could be improved are listed:

l.24 term POLIPHON is well recognized in lidar community, don't be afraid to use it in the abstract

l. 25 specify lambda

1.26 after values of f add: respectively 

l.30-31 add explicate if this differences are statistically significant

general in section 2.2 - are the instruments synchronized?

l. 105 it is unclear what you mean by 5000 laser beams etc., here ref. is not sufficient - add more explanation

l. 107 this lambda configuration is unusual in lidar, add info what was reason for choosing those

l. 118, l.170, l.189 check units 

Eq. (1), line 157 use the indexes as mol and aer not 1,2

l.157 consider adding this equation as Eg. (3)

l. 250, l.305 (and in some other places) add space before [

 

References

List of references in fine. Less known although relevant papers are not cited.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have confirmed that the authors have addressed my review comments. Thank you for your additional work.