the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Insights into new particle formation in Siberian boreal forest from nanoparticle ranking analysis
Abstract. New particle formation (NPF) plays a critical role in atmospheric processes and climate dynamics. Its mechanisms and impacts remain poorly understood in remote regions like Siberia. In this study, we used the data set from a long-term campaign (2019–2021) employing particle spectrometers (NAIS and DMPS) to investigate NPF at a boreal forest site in Western Siberia. So far, this is the longest dataset for statistics of Siberian NPF. We classified NPF events, calculated formation and growth rates, and performed nanoparticle ranking analysis. Similar to other boreal sites, spring is the most favorable period for NPF events in Siberia. We observed a seasonal variability in growth rates, with the higher values in summer and the lower values in winter. We showed that the results of the ranking analysis can be used to identify the days with high or low NPF event probability, similar to the previous results obtained on the data set from the Finnish boreal forest (SMEAR II station).Nanoparticle ranking analysis introduces aa new metric, ∆N2.5–5, which is the daily maximum concentration of particles in 2.5–5 nm range with subtracted background concentration and is linked with both probability and intensity of NPF. In order to identify the factors influencing NPF in Siberia, we analyzed the correlation between ∆N2.5–5 and concentrations of trace gases, such as SO2, O3, NO, NO2, as well as global solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity (RH), and wind speed. We investigated the dependence of particle formation rate (J3) on ΔN2.5−5, finding a strong positive correlation confirmingconfirming the connection of ΔN2.5−5 with the probability and intensity of NPF. SO₂, linked to anthropogenic pollution, played a significant role in spring when most of NPF events wewere observed. Ozone correlated positively with ΔN2.5−5 in spring and summer, likely due to VOC oxidation. NOx showed seasonally variable effects, with NO positively influencing NPF in autumn and NO2 showing both positive and negative correlations depending on the season. Global solar radiation significantly enhanced NPF by driving photochemical reactions leading toto sulfuric acid production. Temperature suppressed NPF in spring and summer, aligning with the SMEAR II findings. RH had a negative influence across seasons, while condensation sink suppressed NPF, particularly in winter when its values peaked. Sulfuric acid calculated via proxy, critical for nucleation and growth, was a key driver of NPF in winter, spring, and autumn. These findings provide a comprehensive understanding of NPF processes in Siberia and highlight the importance of long-term datasets for uncovering regional and seasonal patterns in aerosol formation and growth.
Competing interests: Markku Kulmala is a member of the editorial board of Aerosol Research journal
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(2432 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(11374 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on ar-2025-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2025
This manuscript presents a thorough and valuable investigation of new particle formation (NPF) in the Siberian boreal forest using a long-term dataset (2019–2021) from the Fonovaya station. The authors combine traditional NPF event classification with a newer, more quantitative approach: nanoparticle ranking analysis. This dual-method analysis adds significant depth to the understanding of regional and seasonal NPF drivers in a relatively under-studied environment. The work offers high relevance to the atmospheric science community and fits well within the scope of Aerosol Research. With minor revisions, this manuscript is suitable for publication.
General Comments:
- There are occasional grammatical or typographical issues (e.g., duplicated words like “confirmingconfirming”, “wewere”, “thethe”), which should be corrected for improved readability.
- Given the anomalously high number of NPF events in spring 2020 due to the heatwave, could the authors comment more explicitly on how this year may skew the percentile ranking thresholds?
- While sulfuric acid is rightly emphasized, the role of biogenic VOCs could be further discussed. Recent literature emphasizes interactions between oxidized organics and nucleation. Could the authors speculate or propose follow-up measurements?
- The value of comparing Fonovaya to other global sites is evident. Authors may consider citing recent cross-regional studies such as: García-Marlés et al., 2024, Environmental International 194, 109149, which presents a synthesis of NPF events across remote forests globally and Dinoi A. et al., 2023, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 23(3), 2167–2181, which provides insights into organic aerosol contributions to NPF in mid-latitude forests
- Proofread carefully for language and consistency errors (especially in abstract and methods).
- Consider adding citations to the references listed above in the discussion section, especially when discussing global comparisons or VOC contributions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ar-2025-5-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on ar-2025-5', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Apr 2025
The current study is very valuable, well presented. Introduction is well made, and so figures and data analysis. Three minor comments:
1) paper is full of many typo mistakes (line 28 confirming confirming and so so many others line 53, 67,68,77,79 and so on), please check
2) Whilst the author seems to give quite some importance to Table 3 and the poor correlations, I was expecting to find a deeper discussion on how important these unique measurements are. Why is important to measure in these remote sites? Please better compare the results with other studies in Russia-Finland-sub Arctic. Explain what was expected, what was found and why it is important to report these measurements
3) I was expecting a bigger role of VOC and B-VOC in general, maybe expand the discussion and talk about SA and VOC in these regions
Overall congratulation for the diplomacy and the difficulty of having these sorts of measurements in these regions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/ar-2025-5-RC2
Supplement
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
147 | 43 | 6 | 196 | 73 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 147
- PDF: 43
- XML: 6
- Total: 196
- Supplement: 73
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1