Fog Water: A General Review of Its Physical and Chemical Aspects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a quite complete paper about fog. Fog types are introduced together with forecasting radiation and valley fogs. Moreover, microphysics processes in the fog are considered. Another key feature is that devoted to the fog impacts on air quality, human health, transportation and economy, and benefits. Fog collectors are considered in a specific section, which may useful at sites with lack of water. The paper ends with a summary of the fog water chemistry. The current research in this topic is covered by the paper. Moreover, references are noticeable. Consequently, the paper may be accepted for publication in Environments after the introduction of some minor changes.

A way to improve the paper may be the inclusion of measurement procedures. Moreover, description of available databases could be a useful information for readers interested in this topic. Are there satellite or gridded free databases that are available? Moreover, modelling is considered, although a specific section could be, perhaps, introduced. Are models a useful tool?

Minor remarks.

References should follow the journal style, in both citations and the final list.

L. 207. Revise the sentence.

Some references should be distributed along the text, for instance L. 234-237, or L. 755-758.

L. 469. Replace “M.C.A.” and “D.C.A.” by “MCA” and “DCA”, respectively.

Author Response

Q0. A way to improve the paper may be the inclusion of measurement procedures. Moreover, description of available databases could be a useful information for readers interested in this topic. Are there satellite or gridded free databases that are available? Moreover, modelling is considered, although a specific section could be, perhaps, introduced. Are models a useful tool?

A0.

 I included some of the field studies about fogwater at the end of the article, and I directed the readers towards the publications regarding the measurement procedures. Up to our knowledge there no available databases regarding fogwater.

 Concerning modeling, I directed the readers to a full review article has been recently published about modeling in the mpdi (Bari, D.; Bergot, T.; Tardif, R. Fog Decision Support Systems: A Review of the Current Perspectives. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14081314). I added as suggested a concise regarding this topic (highlighted in the section).

I clarify in the same section to what extent the model is useful.

 

Q1. References should follow the journal style, in both citations and the final list.

A1.

 Modified, as suggested.

  

Q2. L. 207. Revise the sentence.

A3.

Revised, as suggested.

 

Q4. Some references should be distributed along the text, for instance L. 234-237, or L. 755-758

A4.

Modified, as suggested.

 

Q5. L. 469. Replace “M.C.A.” and “D.C.A.” by “MCA” and “DCA”, respectively.

A5.

Modified as suggested.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the physical and chemical properties of fog water, encompassing its formation, lifecycle and chemistry. It also examines the correlation between fog formation and atmospheric aerosols, alongside the influence of aerosols on fog composition. 

This work emphasizes the detrimental effects of fog on human activities, including transportation and air quality, as well as the beneficial impacts on water-supply applications, agriculture and ecosystems.  

This review report outlines the distinguishing characteristics of various forms of fog such as radiation fog, advection fog, upslope fog, and others. 

It delves into the research and development of operational fog prediction models, underscoring the need for further research in this field. Additionally, the report examines key chemical processes implicated in fog water analysis and emphasises the significance of understanding fog's chemical composition.

The paper recognises the necessity for more research on predicting fog, highlighting that there are still uncertainties in this field. The authors offer a broad and detailed overview of fog's physical and chemical characteristics but refrains from providing particular criticisms or thorough analysis of fog.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that will be taken into account for future work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number; environments-2745637

 

Title; Fog Water: A General Review of its Physical and Chemical Aspects

 

Evaluation; Minor Revision.

 

Dear authors,

 

I think the paper is an interesting review of physical and chemical aspects of fog water. However, to improve the clarity and quality of the paper, I would suggest to extend literature review. Moreover, conclusion is too short.  The findings could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.

 

-       Abstract: This could be done in a better way. The authors should make it more comprehensive and integrated. Although the grammar is ok, sentence structures are so bad. It is difficult to understand.

-       Line 463-464; “Very high concentrations have been measured in biomass burning impacted atmosphere varying between 100 to 200 ppm”

         Could you please explain this sentence?  What types of biomass burning?     e.g., forest fires, crop residue burning and grassland fires.  These biomass

         types always difference chemical properties.

-       Line 476; Humic-like substances (HULIS) is one of the organic carbon species. How to linked it in fog water?

-       If it is possible, the authors should prepare table to compare any information, e.g. human health. To better understand for conclusion in Table.

-       The conclusions could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.

-       What are the future research directions and limitations of this study?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Q1.  Abstract: This could be done in a better way. The authors should make it more comprehensive and integrated. Although the grammar is ok, sentence structures are so bad. It is difficult to understand.

A1.

The abstract is modified, as suggested.

 

Q2.  Line 463-464 “Very high concentrations have been measured in biomass burning impacted atmosphere varying between 100 to 200 ppm” Could you please explain this sentence ?  What types of biomass burning ? e.g., forest fires, crop residue burning and grassland fires.  These biomass types always difference chemical properties

A2.

 The high DOC levels reported in the text are coming from intensive agricultural combustion. It is clarified in the text.

 

Q3.   Line 476; Humic-like substances (HULIS) is one of the organic carbon species. How to linked it in fog water?

A3.

It is proved in a study performed by KrivaHcsy et al. 2000 that HULIS they can play a role in the formation of the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) which is the driving force for fog formation due to their good water solubility.

 

Q4.  If it is possible, the authors should prepare table to compare any information, e.g. human health. To better understand for conclusion in Table.

A4.

 

Thank you for your suggestion, but I prefer not to include tables in this review. It will be taken into considerations for future review articles. 

 

Q5.  The conclusions could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.

A5.

The conclusion is modified, as suggested.

 

Q6.   What are the future research directions and limitations of this study?

A6.

 They are added in the conclusion, as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx