The Vertical Distribution of Ice-Nucleating Particles over the North China Plain: A Case of Cold Front Passage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented a nice case study on the ice nucleating particles over north China plain. They collected the particle samples from two aircraft flights and measured the INP concentrations. In addition, the authors identified part of the INPs and analyzed by ESEM/EDX.  This manuscript provides a unique comparison on the INPs concentrations before and after a cold front. The scope of this manuscript is suitable for this journal. I have a few comments and questions that hope the authors can clear it up and address in the revision. 

Comments:

1.     In the experimental section, line 183-186, what are the cut off size for the isokinetic inlet? Also, what is the size range for the high voltage electrostatic particle collector? In the Figure 11, there is a significant portion of INPs larger than 5 um?

2.     Line 214-218, how long do you wait for the ice to grow before counting the number of ice crystals? Does the ice crystal number change over the time after the valve open?

3.     Line 232-234, I don’t understand the procedure on tracking the INPs. The 11 selected samples were re-activated in FRIDGE instrument? So, these are different sets of experiments?

4.     Line 378-383, the manuscript doesn’t provide sufficient details on how the classification was done for the INPs? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract of the paper has not been well written. The current form of the abstract looks like an introduction to the topic. More detailed analysis of the scientific research issues has to be performed towards. Research significance is not added in the introduction section. The literature review is seem insufficient. Support the introduction with state-of-the-art studies. Can consider suggested studies.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present very interesting data that add more points to the small pool of available INP measurements. However, the manuscript is based entirely on in-situ measurements and this reviewer does not understand why the authors have decided to submit it to Remote Sensing. Atmosphere would be clearly a better fit.

I therefore find the manuscript unsuitable for Remote Sensing and recommend to reject it for publication and for transfer to a more suitable sister journal.

 

Author Response

We really appreciate your time for reading our manuscript. Here we listed several reasons why we submitted this manuscript to Remote Sensing. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript and for the diligent effort you have made in addressing the reviewer's comments. I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to revising the manuscript.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. The whole manuscript has been carefully checked for English grammar and word usage. The revised manuscript with tracked changes has been uploaded.