Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-146
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-146
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
12 Mar 2026
| 12 Mar 2026
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.
Vertical observations of aerosol properties in the Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine atmospheric boundary layers with a tethered balloon
Abstract. Information on vertical profiles of aerosols in the lowermost kilometer of the atmosphere is still scarce in general, and particularly in polar regions and complex terrain due to observational limitations. However, the vertical distribution of various aerosol properties, such as the particle number size distributions, are essential climate variables, because aerosols influence Earth’s radiation budget and their vertical position in the atmosphere matters. Specifically for aerosol-cloud interactions, the presence and properties of particles able to act as cloud condensation nuclei and ice nucleating particles at cloud level, is critical information. With this data descriptor we aim to start filling the observational gaps systematically, and introduce datasets of vertical aerosol properties from nearly 300 tethered balloon flights between 2022 and 2025 in the Arctic, Antarctica and alpine terrain in Europe. Flights up to 900 m above ground describe various boundary layer conditions throughout all seasons. We describe the processing from raw to level 2 data, provide processing and quick look codes, and give examples of how data may be used and analyzed by the community. All data and code are openly accessible.
How to cite. Schmale, J., Pohorsky, R., Temel, Y., Lonardi, M., Alden, J., Calmer, R., Thomas, E., Baccarini, A., Bergner, N., Dönmez, B., Favre, L., Helmig, H., Heutte, B., Hirschy, M. L., Phan, R., Solidakis, O., Streltsova, A., Surdu, M., and Tabary, A.: Vertical observations of aerosol properties in the Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine atmospheric boundary layers with a tethered balloon, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-146, in review, 2026.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Download & links
Download & links
- Preprint
(2915 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-146', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Apr 2026
General comments:Schmale et al. present valuable new datasets from balloon-borne meteorological, aerosol, and trace gas measurements across multiple campaigns in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine regions. These observations from remote areas are challenging to obtain and represent an important contribution to the field. The scientific community stands to benefit from such data to improve process understanding, evaluate models, and achieve closure with remote sensing. However, there are some essential elements missing from the data descriptor document and the data itself that should be addressed prior to publication.One key area for improvement is the inclusion of calibration procedures and data validation. Could the authors clarify the calibration procedure for each sensor and the frequency with which it was performed? Additionally, were common standards used for calibration and comparison? Information on how the mobile measurements compared to stationary, full-size instrumentation would also be valuable. For variables acquired by different instruments, a discussion on their agreement in flight (e.g., total N by CPC vs mSEMS) would strengthen the manuscript.It would be helpful to provide error estimates and discuss sources of error for each variable. This information is important for understanding the accuracy of the sensors in the field and their limitations under certain conditions. For example, the Partector is known to exhibit increased uncertainty at low particle concentrations and sizes, which is particularly relevant in the clean Arctic environment.The missing data sets from the CHOPIN and CLAVIER campaigns must be made available. To ensure reusability, all datasets should be stored in an official data archive that ensures quality assurance, findability, and long-term availability (rather than only on Zenodo) is recommended. Additionally, please clarify how the filter samples can be accessed. It was also noted that the LOAC data is missing from the ArtOfMelt dataset, and a random check of the PaCE campaign dataset showed unexpectedly high mSEMS_total_N values compared to the Partector and POPS.What makes me suspicious is the assumption of a constant flow rate for the POPS and miniCDA throughout the flight in the particle concentration calculations. Under changing ambient pressure and temperature, the sample flow is unlikely to remain constant, especially given the pump-control loop dynamics of these instruments. A clarification of how this was addressed or a discussion of the potential implications would help align the methodology with general standards.The example analysis section currently focuses primarily on POPS and mSEMS data, with several approaches to plotting number concentration profiles. It may strengthen the manuscript to include examples or references to other instruments and variables. Additionally, the analysis presented may go beyond the intended scope of a data descriptor and could be simplified or supplemented with more background information for clarity.Given the current length of the paper and the need to include the essential elements mentioned above, it may be advisable to consider removing the entire data example analysis section 4.2.Finally, please provide some more details on the Helikite operations and how they were embedded into other measurements. Where were the launch sites located in relation to local stations or adjacent measurements? It would also be very useful if you could link to other datasets or publications that are related to your data.Detailed comments:L31 – 33: The sentence has weird grammar, which gives it the wrong meaning.Table 1:
- Add “above ground” to the maximum flight altitude, as the elevation of the launch sites differs
- The coordinates of CLAVIER are wrong: the longitude has to be 16.641 W
L 115: introduce abbreviation EERLL 116 – 120: Are all instruments installed inside MoMuCAMS? Are the different inlets connected to the main inlet, or are they separate? If separate, please provide details on the cloud droplet sampler inlets.L127: Which type of particle charge neutralizer was used with the mSEMS?L154 – 167: Are the cloud droplet probes installed inside the heated MoMuCAMS compartment? If so, how do you treat the effect of droplet evaporation?L 169 – 174: Which type of filter was used with the STAP?L 204: Please remove the TriSonica if it is not contained in any of the data sets. This gives data users the wrong impression.L 238: The Wiedensohler inversion is for bipolar diffusion chargers e.g. „radioactive sources”. A different charge distribution has to be used for other neutralizers (see question above)L 266: The CPC 3007 provides inlet pressure readings.L 292: On which pressure sensor is the altitude calculation based?L 304 – 309: Please remove the sonic if it is not contained in any data setL 318 – 322: The detection limit of the CPC 3007 is known to be sensitive to ambient temperatures (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105877). How did you ensure adequate working temperatures?L 321 – 322: How did you derive counting efficiencies, and how did you correct them?L 328: The dN/dlogDp should be derived from the normalized bin width using the upper and lower bin limits.L 333- 334: How did you differentiate larger aerosol particles from cloud droplets? Why is the LOAC data not mentioned here?L 355 – 357: Please consider general relative humidity effects on filter-based absorption photometers (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5879-2019). The spikes in humidity inversions must be excluded before processing with the manufacturer's software. Otherwise, artificial spikes at humidity inversions affect all values within the 2 min moving-average window, resulting in negative values (as seen in Figure A1). The STAP data probably needs reprocessing.L 376 – 378: How did you treat pollution flagging for an mSEMS scan? Is the entire scan flagged when a part of the scan shows pollution influence identified with the POPS at a higher time resolution?L 397: typo: multiplayer instead of multilayerTable 3:- Pressure was taken from which sensor?
- What are the correction factors for POPS, and where are they from?
- mSEMS range is inconsistent with the text and plots (8 to 280 nm)
- MA200: How do you derive 10s data from a raw file of 1 min resolution?
- Please add the measurement uncertainty for all variables!
- What about the LOAC, and how did you treat its 30s resolution?
L 436-437: The sentence is slightly inaccurate. The temperature profile is insufficient to quantify vertical aerosol transport.Section 4.2.2- The plot and normalization, as well as their interpretation, go beyond the scope of a data descriptor.
- More background and accompanying material would be necessary to comprehensively.
L 470: slightly incorrect: on 7 June, the accumulation mode is visible above and below the cloud, so it’s not “additional”.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-146-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-146', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2026
General Comments
The manuscript titled "Vertical observations of aerosol properties in the Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine atmospheric boundary layers with a tethered balloon" presents a multi-year observational effort to fill the data gap regarding vertical aerosol distributions in the lowermost kilometer of the atmosphere. Utilizing the Modular Multiplatform Compatible Atmospheric Measurement System (MoMuCAMS) aboard a Helikite platform, the authors provide a dataset from approximately 300 flights across nine polar and mountain regions between 2021 and 2025.
By documenting the "hElikite dAta proceSsing codE" (EASE), the manuscript offers a traceable, standardized workflow for processing heterogeneous atmospheric data into quality-controlled products. The manuscript follows the Earth System Science Data (ESSD) technical descriptor format, logically transitioning from scientific motivation to campaign logistics and instrument specifications. The organization of campaigns into Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine clusters provides a useful framework for comparative analysis. The technical workflow, particularly the clear definition of data levels (L0 to L2) according to EBAS standards, ensures high interoperability.
Minor Revisions
Page 7, Line 155 (Sampling Inlet Efficiency): At low flow rates, inertial losses for particles larger than 1 µm can be substantial, particularly if the platform is not perfectly aligned with the wind. The manuscript would benefit from a theoretical estimate or a discussion of the aspiration efficiency for the largest POPS and miniCDA bins under typical campaign wind speeds and orientation misalignments.
Table 1:
- CLAVIER Longitude: Correct the longitude for CLAVIER to 16.641° W.
- Elevation Labeling: Clarify if "elevation" refers to the station's base height above sea level (a.s.l.) and specify if "maximum flight altitude" is recorded in a.s.l. or above ground level (a.g.l.).
References
- DOIs: Where possible, please add a DOI to every reference. Specifically, provide more information for Patel and Divecha and Lenschow et al. to ensure these references are discoverable.
- Peer-Reviewed Sources: Please prioritize peer-reviewed publications where available. For example, update the citation for Pasquier et al. to the following: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0034.1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-146-RC2
Viewed
Total article views: 258 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 12 Mar 2026)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 173 | 74 | 11 | 258 | 17 | 15 |
- HTML: 173
- PDF: 74
- XML: 11
- Total: 258
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 257 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 257 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 20 Apr 2026
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Roman Pohorsky
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Yolanda Temel
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Michael Lonardi
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Joanna Alden
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
now at: Centre Alpin de Recherche sur les Réseaux Trophiques et Écosystèmes Limniques, Université Savoie Mont Blanc: Chambéry, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, FR
Radiance Calmer
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Evan Thomas
École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL Valais Wallis, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Andrea Baccarini
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
now at: Aerospec, Lausanne, Switzerland
Nora Bergner
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Berkay Dönmez
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Lionel Favre
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Henrik Helmig
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Benjamin Heutte
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Marie Lou Hirschy
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Romain Phan
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Orpheas Solidakis
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Aleksandrina Streltsova
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Mihnea Surdu
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Arthur Tabary
Extreme Environments Research Laboratory, École Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, 1951, Switzerland
Short summary
We present a new database of aerosol, trace gas and atmospheric boundary layer thermodynamic data from the Arctic, Antarctica and European mountains. The article describes how data are processed from raw to final, provides user guidance and example analyses. The presented data fill a critical gap in availability of essential climate variables and are useful for model evaluation and satellite cal/val. They also provide unique insights into sparsely observed regions.
We present a new database of aerosol, trace gas and atmospheric boundary layer thermodynamic...
Altmetrics