Authors Response

Abstract

The full response is attached as a pdf file with figures. RESPONSES to REFEREE #1 The paper summarizes results on optical properties of aerosols generated by burning of 3 common fuels in Africa. Some measurements were carried out on fresh BBOA, some on BBOA aged in the dark, some on photooxidized BBOA in the presence or absence of additional VOCs (typical urban aromatics). Fuels were burned at low (500 C) and high (800 C) temperatures. Non-refractory chemical composition of the aerosol was also measured, although not really discussed here. Single scattering albedo data, determined on size-selected aerosols, at mid-visible confirmed production of more ab-C1 ACPD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper sorbing aerosols under high temperatures. There was not a strong wavelength dependence to SSA between 500-570 nm. Dark aging of the BBOA resulted in increase in SSA possibly due to condensation of SOA and increase in the scattering cross section. The novelty of the experiment is in the selection of the fuels. However, I see some flaws in the approach (contribution of multiply charged particles was not corrected for in Mie calculations); the paper does not seem complete without the description of the compositional measurements (some conclusions are drawn on the composition of SOA without providing any support; there were no measurements of BC, yet overall refractive indices were estimated to use in Mie calculations); last the chamber oxidation experiments in the presence of additional VOCs don't seem to have worked. There were also several sentences that were confusing and need to be rephrased/clarified. Overall, I don't find the quality of this paper appropriate for ACP and cannot support any revisions. AUTHORS RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for valuable and helpful suggestions. Embarrassing grammatical errors and sentences that seemed confusing will be corrected in the revision and changes made to the manuscript are provided here. Detailed responses are provided on the scientific questions raised. The authors feel that the reviewer either misunderstood our descriptions and overlooked some aspects of the paper. We will show this is indeed true in our detailed responses with relevant references to each question and comment. We feel that there is rush to dismiss and devalue the work and undermine the paper instead of giving us a chance to respond and clarify our claims. We hope our responses and explanations will convince the referee to make a different final determination. Three main issues raised by the reviewer in his/her the first paragraph is discussed below: A. "Non-refractory chemical composition of the aerosol was also measured, although not really discussed here"