From the journal Environmental Science: Atmospheres Peer review history

06-Jul-2022

Dear Dr Ariya:

Manuscript ID: EA-CRV-06-2022-000067
TITLE: Snow Particles Physiochemistry: Feedback on Air Quality, Climate Change, and Human Health

Thank you for your submission to Environmental Science: Atmospheres, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.

After careful evaluation of your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, I will be pleased to accept your manuscript for publication after revisions.

Please revise your manuscript to fully address the reviewers’ comments. When you submit your revised manuscript please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made. Full details of the files you need to submit are listed at the end of this email.

Please submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible using this link :

*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos?link_removed

(This link goes straight to your account, without the need to log in to the system. For your account security you should not share this link with others.)

Alternatively, you can login to your account (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos) where you will need your case-sensitive USER ID and password.

You should submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible; please note you will receive a series of automatic reminders. If your revisions will take a significant length of time, please contact me. If I do not hear from you, I may withdraw your manuscript from consideration and you will have to resubmit. Any resubmission will receive a new submission date.

The Royal Society of Chemistry requires all submitting authors to provide their ORCID iD when they submit a revised manuscript. This is quick and easy to do as part of the revised manuscript submission process. We will publish this information with the article, and you may choose to have your ORCID record updated automatically with details of the publication.

Please also encourage your co-authors to sign up for their own ORCID account and associate it with their account on our manuscript submission system. For further information see: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/processes-policies/#attribution-id

Environmental Science: Atmospheres strongly encourages authors of research articles to include an ‘Author contributions’ section in their manuscript, for publication in the final article. This should appear immediately above the ‘Conflict of interest’ and ‘Acknowledgement’ sections. I strongly recommend you use CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy from CASRAI, https://casrai.org/credit/) for standardised contribution descriptions. All authors should have agreed to their individual contributions ahead of submission and these should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Please refer to our general author guidelines http://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/author-responsibilities/ for more information.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

************

Reviewer 1

This paper comprehensively reviewed the current investigations and findings concerning snow-borne particles from their microphysical and chemical properties to potential atmospheric and climatic forcing they may have on the whole Earth system. The authors also further proposed future research directions of these particles, from which improvement of the understandings of snow-borne particles could be achieved. In general, this paper is scientifically sound, which provide information at the forefront of the knowledge of snow-borne particles. I am in favor of the publications of this manuscript after the following comments are addressed.
1. The aims and purposes of this paper could be listed together in an individual paragraph at the end of Introduction. They are separated into different paragraphs now, which may be hard for readers to remember.
2. Line 157, what is “model urban sites”?
3. Line 242-243. “Biogenic sources dominate the production of these precursors by about 5.5 times”, this sentence is not clear, please rewrite it.
4. Line 255, why shallow snowpack releases small quantities of chemicals and particles over a long period? Shouldn’t it melt quicker and release these substances in a short time?
5. Line 327, 38-78% of the total number or mass of particles?
6. Based on field measurements, a recent study reveals that black carbon with larger size could be preferentially scavenged by cloud droplets and released back to atmosphere due to Wegener‐Bergeron‐Findeisen process when snows or ice phases exist during wet scavenging process (doi: 10.1029/2019GL083171). This could be a good supplement to this review.
7. Line 424-425, you should give a clearer definition of snow metamorphism.
8. Line 433-436, some explanations need to be given here for the change in concentration of dissolved organic carbon as the transformation of snow.
9. Sec.5, a recently published review article regarding the LACs (doi: 10.1038/s41612-020-00145-8) synthesizes up-to-date knowledge on key processes during the lifecycle of LACs from emission to scavenging, which could be a good complement to this part especially for BC activation mechanisms in liquid and ice. I suggest going through this paper and extending the discussion.
10. For future directions concerning BC ice activation processes, the size distribution of BC could be also significant as size-resolved information of BC is still lacking but crucial for better model predictions.

Reviewer 2

The authors present a very complete and well written document regarding the physical and chemical properties of snow particle with a good focus on how they connect to potential effects over human health and ecosystems.
I recommend this article for publication after minor revisions, including the condensation and removal of some subsections, improving the quality of figures and tables, and provide a new section dedicated to instrumental and analytical methods used in the literature.
I also get a little curious about knowing if the southern hemisphere does not have enough studies on snow,or the authors are focusing on the north? please clarify

additional comments:
It will be a good idea to extend the name “oil sands” to “Canadian oil sands”, or “oil sands in Alberta, Canada”, just to give a little context to readers that might not be familiar with the site.

The introduction section needs better organization. There are a bunch of ideas that sometimes are hard to connect. I suggest dividing the intro subsections that talk about snow properties, anthropogenic factors affecting snow, etc. It would be easier to read.
The order in which all figures appear in the text is a little confusing. I suggest either combining figures, or reducing the number of figures, to make the document easier to read.
I am not sure if section 4.1 is needed for this type of review. It feels a little off considering the rest of the document.

Line 73: IPPC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Line 120-129: I suggested re-writing this paragraph, as it seems like a collection of independent ideas without proper connectors. All the information shown is good, but it just need to be better connected.

Line 175-185: There are many references to Tables 1 2 and 3 in this section of the document, but the authors do not make a clear statement of what the tables contain. This forces the reader to see the entire tables, probably loosing important information in the process. It will be better if the authors refer to the tables, but at the same time give a brief description of the main take-home messages derived from them.
Line 186: spatial variability? Please describe it briefly for the readers
Line 192: figure 6 shows up here, but figure 3 appears a few lines after. Please organize figures
Line 202: instrumental analytical details are described in these lines, but the transition is not smooth. I suggest putting all the analytical techniques used in a whole new section.
Line 220: There are many other PAHs besides the traditional 16 from the EPA. I know of some studies by Environment and Climate Change Canada that identified hundreds of nitrogen and sulfur containing PAHs (although, to be fair the name should be PACs: aromatic compounds). The authors should include these reports, as they show that the variety of PAHs found in snow could be used for source apportionment studies in industrial and remote areas.
Line 383: It might be important to mention the potential acute effects of these pulses of pollutants once snow melts and its content reaches rivers and other water bodies. Also many reports on this from the ECCC folks

From: Prof. P. A. Ariya
Department of Chemistry & Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
McGill University, 801 Sherbrooke St. W.,
Montreal, PQ, H3A 2K6, CANADA
Tel: (514) 398-6931; Fax: (514) 398-3797
Email: parisa.ariya@mcgill.ca
To: Dr Nønne Prisle, Associate Editor
RSC, Environmental Science: Atmosphere
RE: Revision to manuscript - EA-CRV-06-2022-000067
July 17, 2022
Dear Dr. Prisle,
Please find attached the revised manuscript entitled "Snow Particles Physiochemistry: Feedback
on Air Quality, Climate Change, and Human Health" by R. Rangel, H. Li, and P. A. Ariya.
• We have considered all comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Thereby we addressed
them accordingly.
• We have also included point-to-point responses to the reviewers.
• We believe that we addressed all the suggestion, questions, and concerns of both reviewers.
On behalf of all the co-authors, we sincerely thank you and both reviewers for your time and
consideration. We a appreciate it and we trust that it has improved the manuscript.
Cordially,
P. A. Ariya
James McGill Professor of Chemistry & Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Reply
We would like to thank both reviewers for their time, considerations, and contributions. As seen
below, we have addressed all of them. For your convenience, we have put reviewers’ comments in
italic and our responses in regular fonts.
Reviewer: 1
“Comments to the Author
This paper comprehensively reviewed the current investigations and findings concerning snow-borne
particles from their microphysical and chemical properties to potential atmospheric and climatic
forcing they may have on the whole Earth system. The authors also further proposed future research
directions of these particles, from which improvement of the understandings of snow-borne particles
could be achieved. In general, this paper is scientifically sound, which provide information at the
forefront of the knowledge of snow-borne particles. I am in favor of the publications of this
manuscript after the following comments are addressed.”
Response: Thank you for your comments.
1. The aims and purposes of this paper could be listed together in an individual paragraph at the
end of Introduction. They are separated into different paragraphs now, which may be hard for
readers to remember.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We have now divided them under a few categories to facilitate
reading it.
2. Line 157, what is “model urban sites”?
Response: Thanks for your question. We meant a representative or example of urban site. We
have modified it in the manuscript.
3. Line 242-243. “Biogenic sources dominate the production of these precursors by about 5.5
times”, this sentence is not clear, please rewrite it.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We have modified this sentence, as suggested. We hope it is
clearer now.
4. Line 255, why shallow snowpack releases small quantities of chemicals and particles over a
long period? Shouldn’t it melt quicker and release these substances in a short time?
Response: Thanks for your question. You are correct. We meant that this process occurs throughout
winter as new snow falls. We changed “over a long period of time” to “throughout wintertime” in the
manuscript.
5. Line 327, 38-78% of the total number or mass of particles?
Response: By number. By mass, smaller particles indeed make up a smaller fraction of the total
particles. We clarified this in the manuscript.
6. Based on field measurements, a recent study reveals that black carbon with larger size could
be preferentially scavenged by cloud droplets and released back to atmosphere due to Wegener‐
Bergeron‐Findeisen process when snows or ice phases exist during wet scavenging process (doi:
10.1029/2019GL083171). This could be a good supplement to this review.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added the reference as suggested on line 460.
7. Line 424-425, you should give a clearer definition of snow metamorphism.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We tried a clearer definition.
8. Line 433-436, some explanations need to be given here for the change in concentration of
dissolved organic carbon as the transformation of snow.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We added an explanation for the change of concentration.
9. Sec.5, a recently published review article regarding the LACs (doi: 10.1038/s41612-020-
00145-8) synthesizes up-to-date knowledge on key processes during the lifecycle of LACs from
emission to scavenging, which could be a good complement to this part especially for BC activation
mechanisms in liquid and ice. I suggest going through this paper and extending the discussion.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added the reference and discussed it as suggested on
lines 818-823, 898-899.
10. For future directions concerning BC ice activation processes, the size distribution of BC could
be also significant as size-resolved information of BC is still lacking but crucial for better model
predictions.
Response: We would like to thank your suggestion. We added this point into the manuscript on
1007-1010.
Referee: 2
“Comments to the Author
The authors present a very complete and well written document regarding the physical and chemical
properties of snow particle with a good focus on how they connect to potential effects over human
health and ecosystems.
I recommend this article for publication after minor revisions, including the condensation and
removal of some subsections, improving the quality of figures and tables, and provide a new section
dedicated to instrumental and analytical methods used in the literature.
I also get a little curious about knowing if the southern hemisphere does not have enough studies on
snow,or the authors are focusing on the north? please clarify”
Response: Thanks for your comment. One of our aims was to study urban site with significant
snowfall, which are limited in the southern hemisphere, as well as make comparison between sites,
therefore we focus on the northern hemisphere. We provided additional references for limited
Southern Hemisphere data. See references in this document 1-4.
additional comments:
It will be a good idea to extend the name “oil sands” to “Canadian oil sands”, or “oil sands in
Alberta, Canada”, just to give a little context to readers that might not be familiar with the site.
The introduction section needs better organization. There are a bunch of ideas that sometimes are
hard to connect. I suggest dividing the intro subsections that talk about snow properties,
anthropogenic factors affecting snow, etc. It would be easier to read.
The order in which all figures appear in the text is a little confusing. I suggest either combining
figures, or reducing the number of figures, to make the document easier to read.
I am not sure if section 4.1 is needed for this type of review. It feels a little off considering the rest of
the document.
Line 73: IPPC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected the mistake.
Line 120-129: I suggested re-writing this paragraph, as it seems like a collection of independent
ideas without proper connectors. All the information shown is good, but it just need to be better
connected.
Response: We rewrote this paragraph as suggested.
Line 175-185: There are many references to Tables 1 2 and 3 in this section of the document, but the
authors do not make a clear statement of what the tables contain. This forces the reader to see the
entire tables, probably loosing important information in the process. It will be better if the authors
refer to the tables, but at the same time give a brief description of the main take-home messages
derived from them.
Response: Thanks for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we added some further information
about the Tables.
Line 186: spatial variability? Please describe it briefly for the readers
Response: Thanks for your comment. We mean different locations.
Line 192: figure 6 shows up here, but figure 3 appears a few lines after. Please organize figures
Response: We decided to remove the mention of Figure 6 in this section as we believe Figure 6 is
essential part of its current section (section 2.3).
Line 202: instrumental analytical details are described in these lines, but the transition is not
smooth. I suggest putting all the analytical techniques used in a whole new section.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We divided this paragraph in two and added another line to
provide the transition in a smoother manner on lines 216-238.
Line 220: There are many other PAHs besides the traditional 16 from the EPA. I know of some
studies by Environment and Climate Change Canada that identified hundreds of nitrogen and sulfur
containing PAHs (although, to be fair the name should be PACs: aromatic compounds). The authors
should include these reports, as they show that the variety of PAHs found in snow could be used for
source apportionment studies in industrial and remote areas.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We expanded this section to include the requested
information, as suggested on lines 246-260. See references in this document 5-10.
Line 383: It might be important to mention the potential acute effects of these pulses of pollutants
once snow melts and its content reaches rivers and other water bodies. Also many reports on this
from the ECCC folks
Response: Thanks for your comment. We expanded this section to include the requested information
including some of ECCC colleagues on lines 424-430. See references in this document 10-14.
Once again, we would like to thank both reviewers and the editor for their comments and suggestions.
Additional References:
1. Kinase, T.; Adachi, K.; Oshima, N.; Goto-Azuma, K.; Ogawa-Tsukagawa, Y.; Kondo, Y.; Moteki, N.;
Ohata, S.; Mori, T.; Hayashi, M., Concentrations and size distributions of black carbon in the surface snow of
Eastern Antarctica in 2011. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2020, 125 (1), e2019JD030737.
2. Kukučka, P.; Lammel, G.; Dvorská, A.; Klánová, J.; Möller, A.; Fries, E., Contamination of Antarctic snow
by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons dominated by combustion sources in the polar region. Environmental
Chemistry 2010, 7 (6), 504-513.
3. Aves, A. R.; Revell, L. E.; Gaw, S.; Ruffell, H.; Schuddeboom, A.; Wotherspoon, N. E.; LaRue, M.;
McDonald, A. J., First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow. The Cryosphere 2022, 16 (6), 2127-2145.
4. Chang, C.; Han, C.; Han, Y.; Hur, S. D.; Lee, S.; Motoyama, H.; Hou, S.; Hong, S., Persistent Pb
pollution in central East Antarctic snow: A retrospective assessment of sources and control policy implications.
Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (22), 12138-12145.
5. Kelly, E. N.; Schindler, D. W.; Hodson, P. V.; Short, J. W.; Radmanovich, R.; Nielsen, C. C., Oil sands
development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010, 107 (37), 16178-16183.
6. Harner, T.; Rauert, C.; Muir, D.; Schuster, J. K.; Hsu, Y.-M.; Zhang, L.; Marson, G.; Watson, J. G.;
Ahad, J.; Cho, S., Air synthesis review: polycyclic aromatic compounds in the oil sands region. Environmental Reviews
2018, 26 (4), 430-468.
7. Berthiaume, A.; Galarneau, E.; Marson, G., Polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in the Canadian
environment: Sources and emissions. Environmental Pollution 2021, 269, 116008.
8. Glozier, N.; Donald, D.; Crosley, R.; Halliwell, D., Wood Buffalo National Park Water Quality: Status and
trends from 1989-2006 in three major rivers; Athabasca, Peace and Slave. Environment Canada. Saskatoon, SK
2009.
9. Schuster, J. K.; Harner, T.; Su, K.; Mihele, C.; Eng, A., First results from the oil sands passive air monitoring
network for polycyclic aromatic compounds. Environmental science & technology 2015, 49 (5), 2991-2998.
10. Program, O. S. M. Oil Sands Monitoring Program: Annual Report for 2018-19.
Retrieved from: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2562-9182; 2019.
11. Bartlett, A.; Rochfort, Q.; Brown, L.; Marsalek, J., Causes of toxicity to Hyalella azteca in a stormwater
management facility receiving highway runoff and snowmelt. Part I: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals.
Science of the Total Environment 2012, 414, 227-237.
12. Wallace, S. J.; De Solla, S. R.; Head, J. A.; Hodson, P. V.; Parrott, J. L.; Thomas, P. J.; Berthiaume, A.;
Langlois, V. S., Polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in the Canadian environment: Exposure and effects on wildlife.
Environmental Pollution 2020, 265, 114863.
13. Alexander, A.; Chambers, P.; Jeffries, D., Episodic acidification of 5 rivers in Canada's oil sands during
snowmelt: A 25-year record. Science of the Total Environment 2017, 599, 739-749.
14. Patterson, S. A. The Toxic Effects of Oil Sands Contaminants on Developing Amphibians. Queen's University
(Canada), 2019.

31-Jul-2022

Dear Dr Ariya:

Manuscript ID: EA-CRV-06-2022-000067.R1
TITLE: Snow Particles Physiochemistry: Feedback on Air Quality, Climate Change, and Human Health

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Environmental Science: Atmospheres. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in its current form. I have copied any final comments from the reviewer(s) below.

You will shortly receive a separate email from us requesting you to submit a licence to publish for your article, so that we can proceed with the preparation and publication of your manuscript.

You can highlight your article and the work of your group on the back cover of Environmental Science: Atmospheres. If you are interested in this opportunity please contact the editorial office for more information.

Promote your research, accelerate its impact – find out more about our article promotion services here: https://rsc.li/promoteyourresearch.

We will publicise your paper on our Twitter account @EnvSciRSC – to aid our publicity of your work please fill out this form: https://form.jotform.com/211263048265047

How was your experience with us? Let us know your feedback by completing our short 5 minute survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/RSC-author-satisfaction-energyenvironment/

By publishing your article in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, you are supporting the Royal Society of Chemistry to help the chemical science community make the world a better place.

With best wishes,

Dr Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

Reviewer 1

Accept as is.