Near-Time Measurement of Aerosol Optical Depth and Black Carbon Concentration at Socheongcho Ocean Research Station: Aerosol Episode Case Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have modified the manuscript and can be accepted
Author Response
I have attached the reviewer's response. Please check it.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Soi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, authors examined the seasonal variations and influencing factors for black carbon (BC) concentrations and aerosol optical depth (AOD) at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station (SORS) on the Korean Peninsula from July 2019 to December 2020 and concluded that long-range transport and local BC sources played a critical role at the SORS. The manuscript is adequately written, well organized, and illustrated by good figures and tables. It can be considered to publish in the journal if the minor revisions are made to address a few of issues listed below.
Specific comments:
In the section of Abstract, the authors stated that “BC concentrations were primarily affected by increased PM2.5 and CO levels during fall and winter (lines 26-27)” and in the section of “4. Conclusions”, the authors mentioned again that “BC concentrations were strongly affected by PM2.5 and CO, both of which are primary gaseous pollutants (lines 841-842). In my opinion, the statements must be reconsidered. Firstly, BC particles are the primary pollutants which are generated from combustion of fossil fuels, various types of biomass and biofuels, and exhaust from automobiles and aircraft, and other combustion process. During combustion, the levels of BC, PM2.5 and CO are increased together. It is the combustion source that results in high concentrations of BC rather than PM2.5 and CO. Thus, it is worth thinking over the descriptions that “BC concentrations were primarily (strongly) affected by increased PM2.5 and CO levels”. Secondly, we must be careful to say “PM2.5 and CO (both of which) are primary gaseous pollutants”. We understand that BC and CO are primary pollutants but in PM2.5, lots of secondary substance, such as NH4NO3, (NH4)2SO4, and NH4Cl, are included. So, the authors must check the text carefully and consider which is proper for the description “BC concentrations were primarily affected by increased PM2.5 and CO levels” or “the PM2.5 concentrations were primarily affected by increased BC”. In fact, in fall and winter, BC contributes a lot to the increased PM2.5 concentration.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have attached the reviewer's response. Please check it.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Soi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is appropriate for Remote Sensing. Aerosol optical depth and black carbon concentration at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station on the Korean Peninsula were analyzed. Satellite observations were used.
The manuscript was significantly improved in comparison with the previous version.
However, one of the major questions was not answered.
L. 213-217. "Algorithm was developed". Is this algorithm developed by the authors and described in the present paper for the first time? If yes, this novelty should be written explicetely. If no, this must be state clearly, and the previous papers must be referenced, in which this algorithm was described.
If this algorithm was not developed and described in the presented study for the first time, the authors should not write "the developed GK-2A AOD retrieval algorithm" in the Conclusions.
In the previous "author_response" the authors wrote:
"6.
L. 877-880. The algorithm was described in previous papers. What is new in this conclusion?
âž”
In the previous paper, the model was run by specifying only Dust among AOD, but this time, the model was run by using all aerosols without specifying the aerosol type. There is a difference
âž”
AOD has both scattering and absorption characteristics, and the absorption characteristics among the entire aerosol were analyzed in more detail through comparison with the small-scale BC."
So, this is novelty? Not "developed algorithm?" Please make it clear in the text.
L. 54. Integration of what?
Author Response
I have attached the reviewer's response. Please check it.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Soi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, the authors did not answer my questions and did not change the text properly. The authors still use statements like "An algorithm was developed..." (L. 213). It is not clear who developed the algorithm. I can see previous papers that describe similar algorithms. The novelty is not clarified.
L. 54. AOD is not defined correctly. AOD is not "distribution".
Author Response
I have attached the reviewer's response. Please check it.
Thank you
Best regards,
Soi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper titled Near-time Measurement of Aerosol Optical Depth and Black Carbon at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station: Aerosol Episode Case Analysis provides valuable insights into the seasonal variation and factors influencing aerosol optical depth (AOD) and black carbon (BC) concentration at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station (SORS). The use of satellite data from Geo-KOMPSAT-2A (GK-2A) to assess the AOD levels and its comparison with AERONET and other satellites strengthens the study. The analysis of meteorological parameters such as temperature, humidity, and gaseous substances influencing AOD and BC concentrations adds depth to the research.
The structure is clear, with a well-defined focus on specific aerosol episodes and seasonal trends.
The inclusion of a SHAP-based feature importance analysis to interpret the contribution of different factors on the AOD and BC provides a modern and insightful approach. Overall, the study presents a thorough analysis of the data collected over the research period and highlights the significant meteorological influences on aerosol loadings in the region.
Comments for Improvement:
ï‚· While the methodology section discusses the application of the GK-2A algorithm for
AOD retrieval and its validation with AERONET, more specific details on the algorithms
and data processing steps would benefit readers unfamiliar with these procedures. A
flowchart or schematic could visually enhance the description.
ï‚· The SHAP-based feature importance analysis is briefly mentioned but could be expanded. A more detailed discussion of how SHAP was applied, and the interpretation of its results would help the reader better understand the specific contributions of each factor to the AOD and BC variations. Including visuals, clear and readable SHAP value plots, would also be useful.
ï‚· The paper mentions the influence of long-range transport and local sources of BC, but the distinction between the two could be more clearly delineated. Further discussion on how the study distinguishes between local emissions and long-range transport could strengthen the conclusions about source contributions.
ï‚· It would be helpful to include a more thorough error analysis regarding the comparison of GK-2A AODs with AERONET and other satellites. A detailed discussion of potential uncertainties and limitations in the dataset would provide a more nuanced understanding of the study accuracy and reliability.
Overall Assessment
The study makes a valuable contribution to understanding aerosol behaviors in the Korean Peninsula region, especially at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station. Strengthening methodological details, expanding SHAP analysis, and providing more detailed conclusions could further enhance the paper’s clarity and impact.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please comfirm the attached file for replies to reviewer comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study analyzed the seasonal variations and influencing factors of black carbon (BC) and aerosol optical depth (AOD) at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station (SORS) on the Korean Peninsula from July 2019 to December 2020. The analysis of the high aerosol loadings case showed an increase in the fine-mode fraction during the analysis period, indicating the momentous long-range transport and local source of BC at SORS. The manuscript is adequately written, well organized, and illustrated by good figures and tables. It can be considered to publish in the journal if minor revisions are made to address a few of issues listed below
General comments:
In this study, the authors did a lot of experimental works and gave the detailed analysis with a large number of graphs. But some graphs as well as words in them are not visually clear due to lack of enough pixel, such as Figure 1, Figures 7-10, Figure 16 and Figure 17. It is suggested to increase the pixel or enlarge the text in those figures. In addition, the paper is lack of timeliness to some extent because the authors did cite the newly published papers in 2023 and 2024. Perhaps, the authors will have new ideas and supplement on the subject after they read the related papers recently published in the field.
Specific comments:
1. Line 18-20: Regarding that 0.75 ± 0.55 µg m−3 is larger than 0.52 ± 0.20 µg m−3, why the wet summer (0.75 ± 0.55 µg m−3 ) is followed by the dry summer (0.52 ± 0.20 µg m−3 ) in the sentence “The seasonal average BC concentration was the highest in winter (0.91 ± 0.80 µg m−3 ), followed by fall (0.80 ± 0.66 µg m−3 ), dry summer (0.52 ± 0.20 µg m−3 ) and wet summer (0.75 ± 0.55 µg m−3 )”?
2. In the header of the manuscript, why is it shown “Remote Sens. 2022” ? Now the time is almost the end of 2024, what is the meaning of “2022”?
3. In the section of “4. Conclusions”, please check and correct the serial number in lines 806-842. Why does it begin from 3?
4. In the section of “References”, I didn’t see any of references published after 2023. It is suggested that the newly published articles in 2024 be cited more.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please comfirm the attached file for replies to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is appropriate for Remote Sensing.
However, the manuscript should be improved.
The paper is written vaguely. I would suggest to rewrite the manuscript carefully.
The introduction does not provide sufficient background. There exist articles that use GK-2 data to evaluate AOD. There exist articles that describe retrieval algorithms for GK-2 instruments. There exist articles that investigate AOD and BC over Korea. These studies should be mentioned and referenced in Introduction.
The novelty of the study should be clearly presented. It is not clear what is the novelty of the algorithm developed by the authors of the manuscript (L. 68-69).
The method is not sufficiently described.
Almost all references in Introduction are inappropriate. The authors should check carefully the references.
L. 2, 13, 23, 25. It is not clear what physical quantity for black carbon is considered. Concentration?
L. 15-16. How an algorithm can be developed by a satellite? What does mean "applied to AOD"? AOD retrieval or what?
L. 16-17. How AOD can show performance?
L. 17. What is "validation results"? How "results" can be compared with "satellites"?
L. 18. The abbreviation LEO should be defined.
L. 18-20. This seasonal average BC concentration was obtained from what?
L. 23. The abbreviation SHAP should be defined.
L. 29. The abbreviation SORS should be defined.
L. 33. It seems strange to use [1] as a reference for the statement that "Aerosols have significant effects on Earth’s radiation balance and hydrological and biogeochemical cycles". [1] describes the role of the Swiss scientific community in IPCC. There is nothing about hydrological and biogeochemical cycles in [1].
L. 36-39. The references [2, 3] are not fully appropriate here. [2] is about VOCs. In [3] only two years were analyzed, not from preindustrial time.
L. 39-40. I can not find anything about tropopause in [4]. [5] is not about BC at all. [5] is about rainfall.
L. 41-43. The reference [6] is not appropriate here.
L. 46-48. The reference [7] is not appropriate here.
L. 49-53. AOD can not be defined as simply vertically integrated extinction. AOD characterises the extinction by aerosols. Vertically integrated extinction includes extinction by gases.
L. 58-60. The reference [9] is not about AOD.
L. 92-94. Which data were used from January, 2016? Which data were used from July, 2019?
L. 99-113. The multiangle absorption photometry is not properly described.
L. 115-132. The description of AERONET is outdated and inadeqate.
L. 134-135. The method is not described.
L. 142-148. Is this algorithm developed by the authors?
L. 147-148. What is "accuracy" here? What is tau and delta tau?
L. 175. What is "AOD property"?
L. 810. How AODs can be developed?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper is written vaguely.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please confirm the attached file for replies to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of “Near-time Measurement of Aerosol Optical Depth and Black Carbon at the Socheongcho Ocean Research Station: Aerosol Episode Case Analysis”
General comments:
This study designed an algorithm to retrieve GK-2A AOD and results were validated with AEROENT measurements. The temporal variation of AOD and BC concentration at SORS were analyzed and the influencing factors were investigated. In general, authors did much work and conclusions were important. My major concerns are organization and writing of this manuscript.
Specific comments:
1. This study presented an AOD retrieval algorithm while the introduction section did not include any review of satellite AOD retrieval. It is important to review the advantages and disadvantages of current AOD retrieval algorithm for GK-2A.
2. It’s better to put AOD validation at the beginning of the result section and then analyze the temporal variation of AOD retrievals.
3. The writing should be significantly improved before the consideration of the publication. An abstract is the most important part of a manuscript. For this manuscript, it is even full of grammatic errors and incorrect sentences in the abstract. For example, “An algorithm developed by the Geo-KOMPSAT-2A (GK-2A) satellite was applied to the AODs”. The authors rather than the Geo-KOMPSAT-2A (GK-2A) satellite developed an algorithm. “The validation results were compared with LEO satellites” is also incorrect. There are just two examples. The manuscript is full of grammatic errors and incorrect sentences. The whole manuscript need to be checked and corrected carefully.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe writing should be significantly improved before the consideration of the publication. An abstract is the most important part of a manuscript. For this manuscript, it is even full of grammatic errors and incorrect sentences in the abstract. For example, “An algorithm developed by the Geo-KOMPSAT-2A (GK-2A) satellite was applied to the AODs”. The authors rather than the Geo-KOMPSAT-2A (GK-2A) satellite developed an algorithm. “The validation results were compared with LEO satellites” is also incorrect. There are just two examples. The manuscript is full of grammatic errors and incorrect sentences. The whole manuscript need to be checked and corrected carefully.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please confirm the attached file for replies to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunatly, the manuscript is still not clearly written.
The description of AERONET is very weak.
The definition of AOD is incorrect.
The novelty should be emphasized.
There are many articles that describe the retrieval algorithms for GK-2 instruments, not only [19]. They should be mentioned and referenced in Introduction.
L. 56-59. What exactly is integrated?
L. 137. 0.01-0.02 is "uncertainty", not "accuracy".
L. 164. It is not clear wether the algorithm was developed in the presented paper on in previous papers.
L. 877-880. The algorithm was described in previous papers. What is new in this conclusion?
L. 881-884. If something was developed in the presented study, the novelty should be clearly described in comparison with previous studies.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe text is difficult to read and understand.
For example:
L. 2, 13. It is not clear from the text what physical quantity for black carbon is considered.
L. 15-17. AOD algorithm was developed using a satellite? Accuracy was evaluated using a satellite?
L. 20-23. BC concentration was highest in winter using the photometer?
L. 881-884. How AODs can "be developed"?
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your review
Please see the attached file for answers to your questions
Best regards,
Soi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your revision. I shall recommend its publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
This is Soi, Thank you for your review.
Best regards,
Soi
