Articles | Volume 19, issue 1
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dimethyl sulfide cycling in the sea surface microlayer in the southwestern Pacific – Part 1: Enrichment potential determined using a novel sampler
- Final revised paper (published on 11 Jan 2023)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 22 Jun 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-499', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexia Saint-Macary, 24 Aug 2022
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-499', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexia Saint-Macary, 25 Aug 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Alexia Saint-Macary on behalf of the Authors (25 Aug 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Sep 2022) by Mario Hoppema
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Oct 2022)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (17 Oct 2022) by Mario Hoppema
AR by Alexia Saint-Macary on behalf of the Authors (21 Oct 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Oct 2022) by Mario Hoppema
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (24 Oct 2022)
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (18 Nov 2022) by Mario Hoppema
Thank you for asking me to review the manuscript entitled "DMS cycling in the Sea Surface Microlayer in the South West Pacific:1. Enrichment potential determined using a novel sampler". This study was conducted well and I found the paper to be very well written. I think it will be a very useful study for researchers interested in ocean DMS cycling, and is a nice contribution to the growing body of literature on Sampling of the SML. It is concise and all the sections seem to be about the right length to me. In particular, I thought the authors did a good job interpreting their results and looking forward to future research without getting carried away. I think that everything that they have presented is worth reporting. So I really don't have too many criticisms for this paper, which is a refreshing experience.
Sections ‘2.6 DMS air-sea flux calculation’ and ‘3.5 Air-sea flux’: DMS concentrations in the SML were determined using the gas-permeable tube, the plate and the sipper techniques. Thus, DMS air-sea flux estimates can be obtained using DMS concentrations from three different sampling methods. Please point out detailed DMS concentrations which were used in DMS air-sea flux calculation. DMS measurements with the gas-permeable tube, or with the plate, or with the sipper?
Section ‘3.4 Correlations between variables’: I thought DMS measurements with the plate, or with the sipper, were used to the Pearson test. Please point out it clearly. Moreover, a novel gas-permeable tube technique approach gave accurate measurements of DMS concentrations in the SML. Why did not choose DMS measurements with the gas-permeable in the SML to analyze correlations between variables?