4.7 Review

Review of experimental studies of secondary ice production

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
Volume 20, Issue 20, Pages 11767-11797

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-11767-2020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
  2. Transport Canada (TC)
  3. US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds (FAAECCC Memorandum of Cooperation) [NAT-I-3444]
  4. Helmholtz Association under the Atmosphere and Climate Program (ATMO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Secondary ice production (SIP) plays a key role in the formation of ice particles in tropospheric clouds. Future improvement of the accuracy of weather prediction and climate models relies on a proper description of SIP in numerical simulations. For now, laboratory studies remain a primary tool for developing physically based parameterizations for cloud modeling. Over the past 7 decades, six different SIP-identifying mechanisms have emerged: (1) shattering during droplet freezing, (2) the rime-splintering (Hallett-Mossop) process, (3) fragmentation due to ice-ice collision, (4) ice particle fragmentation due to thermal shock, (5) fragmentation of sublimating ice, and (6) activation of ice-nucleating particles in transient supersaturation around freezing drops. This work presents a critical review of the laboratory studies related to secondary ice production. While some of the six mechanisms have received little research attention, for others contradictory results have been obtained by different research groups. Unfortunately, despite vast investigative efforts, the lack of consistency and the gaps in the accumulated knowledge hinder the development of quantitative descriptions of any of the six SIP mechanisms. The present work aims to identify gaps in our knowledge of SIP as well as to stimulate further laboratory studies focused on obtaining a quantitative description of efficiencies for each SIP mechanism.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available