Effect of wind speed on the size distribution of gel particles in the sea surface microlayer: insights from a wind–wave channel experiment

Sun, Cui-Ci; Sperling, Martin; Engel, Anja

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3577-2018

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3577-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3577-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 11

Research article

|

15 Jun 2018

Research article |

| 15 Jun 2018

Effect of wind speed on the size distribution of gel particles in the sea surface microlayer: insights from a wind–wave channel experiment

Cui-Ci Sun, Martin Sperling, and Anja Engel

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 Jun 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Oct 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comment on bg-2017-419', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2017
- AC1: 'Authors' responses to anonymous referee#1', Anja Engel, 29 Jan 2018
RC2: 'Review Cui-CI Sun et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Authors' responses to referee #2', Anja Engel, 30 Jan 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (09 Feb 2018) by Gerhard Herndl

AR by Anja Engel on behalf of the Authors (13 Mar 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Mar 2018) by Gerhard Herndl

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (10 Apr 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors addressed most of my comments from the first round of revisions. I now have a much better understanding of the wave tank experiments and the presentation of the results which, in my opinion, can still be shortened. I suggest focusing the results on the wind experiments in which the wind was stepwise increased over time (strategy I) and delete those from strategy II as they do not add much to the discussion (strategy I has the bubbling effect as well). I also strongly encourage the authors to add more detail on sample volume and possible replicates (see below and my comments in the first round of the revision).
Methods:
p. 6: I do not think that the results from the experiments in which the wind speed was kept constant (strategy II) add much to the conclusions of the paper, or do they? I suggest taking them out. If the results need to be kept in the paper, you need to justify in the methods why the two different strategies were chosen (strategy I vs II).
p.6, l. 23 – p.7, l.3: This text needs to be moved into the results section.
p.7, l.7 – l. 10: Same thing: results, not methods.
p.7 – Sampling
The authors need to add more info on the quantity of samples taken from the SML and bulk water (I already mentioned that in the first round of revisions). I still don’t know how much water was taken with the glass plate each sampling. You mention the numbers of dips but not the volume. Was the water from the 25 dips pooled into one sample or were those replicate samples? How about the bulk water samples? How much water was taken out? Replicates?
p. 8 - Analytical methods
How many replicate filters were prepared for the TEP and CSP analysis?
p. 9, l. 17: Average values of n = ?
Results:
Text on page 10: these results are not necessary and should be taken out. They do not add anything to the conclusions of the manuscript. Focus your manuscript on the results of the 7 wind experiments (i.e. days 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, 22, 24 - strategy I).
Discussion
p. 14, l.6 – 11: this was already mentioned in the intro – shorten the text here.
p. 16, l. 6 – 10: this info is mainly introduction – needs to be shortened.
p. 18: l. 11 – 14: as above, needs to be shortened.

Typos/wording:
p. 2, l. 9-10: change to ‘smaller sizes’
l. 10-11: delete ‘of the experiment’
l. 17: change to ‘during low wind speeds.’
p. 3, l. 25: delete both ‘the’
p. 4, l.2: ‘Gel PSD …’, new line
l. 14: change ‘the’ to ‘a’
l. 19: ‘TEP enrichment …’, new line
p. 5, l. 15-17: delete this sentence
l. 23: change to ‘… Poseidon: ~14000 L …’
p. 6, l. 3: change to ‘Aeolotron (Heidelberg, Germany)’
p. 9, l. 14: add space between ‘distribution’ and ‘after’
l. 15: delete ‘from a previous experiment’
l. 16-17: change to ‘assuming a normal distribution of the data.’
p. 11, l. 8: change ‘excluding’ to ‘except for’ (and hereafter)
l. 21: change ‘speed wind’ to ‘wind speed’
p. 12, l. 9: change ‘identified also as’ to ‘the’
p.19, l. 2: change to ‘gel particles’

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Apr 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (14 May 2018) by Gerhard Herndl

AR by Svenja Lange on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (29 May 2018) by Gerhard Herndl

Download

Article (2993 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Biogenic gel particles such as transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) and Coomassie stainable particles (CSP) are important components in the sea-surface microlayer (SML). Their potential role in air–sea gas exchange and in primary organic aerosol emission has generated considerable research interest. Our wind wave channel experiment revealed how wind speed controls the accumulation and size distribution of biogenic gel particles in the SML.