{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.046908315565031986, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04477611940298507, 'mean_word_length': 4.818181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 2, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Comment by Peng and Bi on “Retrieval of Atmospheric Fine Particulate Density Based on Merging Particle Size Distribution Measurements: Multi‐instrument Observation and Quality Control at Shouxian”

This is a reply to the comment of Peng and Bi (2019) on the paper of Li et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028956), which introduced a method to estimate aerosol effective density (ρe) based on a joint use of measurements of the scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) and the aerodynamic particle sizer (APS). In this reply, we describe the extension of the Cunningham slip correction factor (Cc) to the expression of the ρe and analyzed the useful but incomplete expression of ρe equation on Cc in Peng and Bi (2019) resulting from neglecting aerodynamic diameter. Meanwhile, in order to estimate Cc‐related error on ρe, Peng and Bi (2019) used an unreasonable scheme and an overestimated shape factor, which leads to a large overestimation (55.5%) of the error. We modify the error budget scheme and perform a theoretical error analysis on neglecting Cc during the ρe measurement in practice. The results suggest an average bias of 17.68% on ρe resulting from Cc. Together with other error sources presented in Li et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028956), the typical uncertainty on ρe based on this “SMPS‐APS” joint‐use method is 21.06%, which is still reasonable in practice.