Ozone Profiles, Precursors, and Vertical Distribution in Urban Lhasa, Tibetan Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In Section 2.1, detailed instruments' explanation is required including measured species and its accuracy. If possible, you would be summarized the table.
- Equation (2) is not required.
- In some points, the unit is written incorrectly.
- In Figure 2, please clarify the respective bar-chart results in same day. In addition, please write the accurate and clear explanation in the caption.
- From Figure 6~8, please add the supplement results to explain the relationship between ozone and trace gas species emissions.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript is much better than previous submission. I recommend publication once the following comments have been addressed.
Line 45: Who are they?
Line 54: Reference is missing.
Line 62-64: Please rephrase the whole sentence. It is hard to read.
Line 83: There is no content in section 2.1 about ground level ozone. The title of section 2.1 and 2.2 should be corrected. QAQC is missing here.
Line 90: As far as I know, there is no Model 7080 in Agilent series.
Line 98: ‘kinds’ should be ‘species.
Line 129-139: This part can be moved to supplementary material.
Line 156: “in the literature” is not a professional way to use.
Line 181: The lidar measurement was carried out in summertime. The analysis of NO2 in winter is not necessary.
Line 192-194: VOC concentration has a clear seasonal variation. Please compare the VOC concentration measured at same season.
Line 205: Here the author reported top ten concentration of VOCs. It is worthwhile to provide the top ten of VOC reactivities. As is known to all, VOC reactivity by OH can be treated as the VOC potential to ozone formation.
Line 214: The longitude of Lhasa is not the same as Beijing. It is interesting to know that the peak value of daily ozone in Lhasa is around 13:00, almost the same as Beijing. The author can pay more attention and provide some discussion.
Line 237: I cannot find Lhasa in the transition zone in Figure 3, which also need a more detailed explanation. I also suggest moving this section to the end of the section 3. The results of lidar measurements fits better after the ground-based measurements.
Line 272: I would suggest adding ground-based ozone measurement in Figure 4 and provide vertical grids for betting understanding the delay of ozone perk. The postpone cannot be recognized now.
Line 275: Figure 3 and Figure 4?
Line 281-285: I cannot get the author’s idea. There is no explanation of Figure 5.
Line 287: I do not think put the data after 5 July in the plot is a good idea. All the figures of Figure 5 need to be improved.
Line 291-293: The first two sentences are not relevant to the rest the paragraph. The context of section 3.3 should also be improved.
Figure 6-8: The ozone profile is not shown clearly in the plots. I would suggest the authors carefully adjust the legends and give more readable plots.
Line 363-373: It is a little redundant here. Could the authors summarize it in one or two sentences?
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author would be improved during the revision process.
However, some typo-error still exists in the revised manuscript.
[(a)Especial to the subscript for the gas species.
(b)It is too confused to read in lines 274-275.]
In addition, I would like to clarify several points of the question.
1) Page 5: Please add the reason for case selections. In the revised manuscript, the author only wrote about "typical conditions". If possible, please write down the characteristics with one phrase.
2) Section 2.2: Why did the author write the "radar"? DIAL is "lidar". Please clarify the reason why the "radar" word was used in the manuscript. In addition, please clarify the ozone "radar system" observation.
3) There are some unnecessary sentences for explaining the reference that would be written. For example, the sentence in lines 188-190 shows the spatial comparison of VOC concentration. However, this comparison sentence is unnecessary because the atmospheric conditions are too different. It is not coincide to the season, nor for locations. Also in discussion section, the paragraph from Line 373 is unncessary because other region's condition is not related to the Lhasa condition.
4) In lines 216-218, please add the reference.
5) Please clarify the EKMA methods. In addition, the sentence in lines 249-250 is hard to understand. Not only for the Lhasa condition, but all ozone formation is also controlled by VOCs and NOx.
6) Line296: Because of the limitation for the data number, it is not adequate up to 4 decimal places as the significant figures of R^2.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
