the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Jun 2023
Aerosol optical depth climatology from the high–resolution MAIAC product over Europe: differences between major European cities and their surrounding environments
Abstract. The aerosol optical depth (AOD) is a derived measurement useful to investigate the aerosol load and its distribution at different spatio–temporal scales. In this work we use long–term (2000–2021) MAIAC (Multi–Angle Implementation of Atmospheric Correction) retrievals with 1 km resolution to investigate the climatological AOD variability and trends at different scales in Europe: a continental (30–60° N; 20° W–40° E), a regional (100x100 km2) and an urban local scale (3x3 km2). The AOD climatology at the continental scale shows the highest values during summer (JJA) and the lowest during winter (DJF) seasons. Regional and urban local scales are investigated for twenty–one cities in Europe including capitals and large urban agglomerations. Analyses show AOD average (550 nm) values between 0.06 and 0.16 at the urban local scale, while also displaying a strong north–south gradient. This gradient corresponds to a similar one in the European background, with higher AOD being located over the Po–Valley, the Mediterranean basin, and Eastern Europe. Average enhancements of the local with respect to regional AOD of 57 %, 55 %, 39 % and 32 % are found for large metropolitan centers such as Barcelona, Lisbon, Paris and Athens respectively, suggesting a non–negligible enhancement to the aerosol burden through local emissions. Negative average deviations are observed for other cities, such as Amsterdam (–17 %) and Brussels (–6 %) indicating higher regional background signal and suggesting a heterogeneous aerosol spatial distribution that conceals the urban local signal. Finally, negative statistically significant AOD trends for the entire European continent are observed. A stronger decrease rate at the regional scale with respect to the local scale one occurs for most of the cities under investigation.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2887 KB)
-
Supplement
(1362 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2887 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1362 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023
General comments
In this study by Di Antonio et al. the aerosol load variability and trends are investigated at different scales in Europe (from continental to urban scale for 21 cities), relying on a very fine aerosol optical depth product. The objectives of the study are quite straightforward and are addressed by a thorough analysis. The AOD climatology and trends that the authors provide here for Europe is of significance for assessing the local emissions and transported aerosols affecting cities’ air quality. I consider the topic and results of this manuscript to fit the scope of ACP and it could be published if the minor comments listed below are addressed.
Specific comments
Lines 132-133: This minimum limit is for both local and regional scale, right?
Lines 132-135: Before this calculation, which type of aggregation was performed to the daily values of the two scales considered here? Inside the local and inside the regional scale?
Lines 149-153: To my opinion the MAIAC AOD retrievals uncertainty could be discuss better when you first introduce the MAIAC product in the first paragraph of the 2.1 Section.
Lines 160: Please check again formula 2, in the numerator you mean 550nm?
Line 165: I don't follow here why the area from the MAIAC product is expressed in deg x deg and not only in km x km? As has already been mentioned in the previous section.
Line 186: Could you please provide this equation before this sentence, elaborating a little how it is extracted?
Lines 199 & 201: The “EE is …%”? could you please rephrase according to lines 189-199?
Line 200: Could you provide any relevant reference for the limit use here for marine and dust dominated aerosol scenes?
Lines 203-205: Could you elaborate or rephrase this sentence because it is a little bit confusing?
Line 278: Instead of “the extra” better “the different AOD levels” since lower values of AOD have been found for the local scale?
Line 293: Could you please quantify here most of the time?
Lines 301-302: I would recommend changing the order of factors explaining the negative LTRR values, starting from inhomogeneity of AOD at the regional domain.
Lines 310-313: Another recommendation is to add here as reason of inhomogeneity in AOD at the regional domain the spatial extent of the city (also related to topography, but not always), different location of sources like industrial areas etc. which in combination with the meteorological conditions could lead to different spatial patterns inside the 100 x 100km^2 domain.
Lines 338-339: Repetition with what is inside parenthesis in lines 337-338
Line 360: The 0.83 value here is the coefficient of determination R^2 of the regression and this value is different from Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.89 shown in figure 5?
Line 1021: I recommend here to add “… cities (not metropolitan regions) with more than 1 million…”. It is something that is also different in the Eurostat database.
Technical corrections
Line 986: In Fig.2 explain red lines and dashed green lines in a, c,d, e.
Line 990: In Fig.2 “times x”? Expressed in percentage you mean?
Line 990: In Fig.2 “EE” instead of “EE5”
Line 1009: In Fig 5. please explain solid and dashed lines and it is messing AOD nest to local versus regional.
Line 1006: Perhaps “mean AOD” better than “mean of the boxplot”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Alexei Lyapustin, 18 Jul 2023
A review of manuscript “Aerosol optical depth climatology from the high–resolution MAIAC product over Europe: differences between major European cities and their surrounding environments” by L. Di Antonio et al.
In this study, a long-term MAIAC MODIS record for 2000-2021 was analyzed over Europe. The MAIAC AOD was, first, validated against AERONET, and then used to analyze annual and seasonal AOD patterns and trends at a local (city), regional (100x100 km2) and European sub-continent scales. The obtained results, e.g., decreasing AOD trend over Europe, generally agree and complement previous studies. Novel is analysis of AOD level in the city with respect to the regional background performed for 21 selected cities with population over 1 million. In most cases, cities are found to be sources of aerosol emission, whereas over three cities (Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin) the regional AOD was found higher than that over the city.
Overall, the study is well-designed and results are well presented and clear. My only reservation is language – editing is required throughout the paper. I suggest some editing below (up to line 135). My final evaluation is “accept with minor revision”.
Alexei.
Specific suggestions:
- Remove “one” from the last sentence of the Abstract.
Ln. 35: Replace “still huge” with “large remaining”
Ln. 38: Replace “are everyday exposed to significant aerosol levels” with “experience a significant particulate matter exposure”
Ln. 42: Correct to “ and last for several consecutive days”
Ln. 43: Delete “If such episodes occur frequently”. Visibility and air quality deteriorate even if it happens once.
Ln. 48: “to potentially”
Ln. 51: “and is a matter”
Ln. 53 Re-phrase “properties”. AOD alone does not give much information about aerosol properties.
Ln. 68: Please, add reference to Hammer et al., 2020 (Global Estimates and Long-Term Trends of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations (1998–2018) Ln. 72: remove “aerosol”
Ln. 84: “and distinguish between smoke and dust scenes.” Add reference to Lyapustin et al., 2012 (Lyapustin, A., S. Korkin, Y. Wang, B. Quayle, and I. Laszlo, 2012b: Discrimination of biomass burning smoke and clouds in MAIAC algorithm, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9679–9686, doi:10.5194/acp-12-9679-2012.)
Ln. 86: I recommend adding the latest reference to most comprehensive DB, DT, MAIAC and NOAA AOD comparison and validation analysis (Su, X., M. Cao, L. Wang, X. Gui, M. Zhang, Y. Huang, Y. Zhao, Validation, inter-comparison, and usage recommendation of six latest VIIRS and MODIS aerosol products over the ocean and land on the global and regional scales, Science of The Total Environment, v. 884, 2023, 163794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163794)
Ln. 90: I recommend adding two important missed references: a) van Donkelaar, A., et al. (2021). Monthly Global Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter and Their Uncertainty. Environmental science & technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c05309, and b) Wei, J. et al., 2021: Reconstructing 1-km-resolution high-quality PM2.5 data records from 2000 to 2018 in China: spatiotemporal variations and policy implications. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2021, 252, 112136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112136
Ln. 95: “In the Paris area”
Ln. 96: Change to “aims to achieve”
Ln. 122: Replace “taking into account available observations in the day” with “using available cloud-free observations”
Ln. 130: Replace “was chosen large enough in order to avoid effects due to the city and its plume” with “was chosen large enough to minimize effects of city’s pollution”
Ln. 205: A similar analysis and conclusion over Israel was just published in (Irina Rogozovsky, Kevin Ohneiser, Alexei Lyapustin, Albert Ansmann, Alexandra Chudnovsky, The impact of different aerosol layering conditions on the high-resolution MODIS/MAIAC AOD retrieval bias: The uncertainty analysis, Atmospheric Environment, V. 309, 2023, 119930, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119930.
…
Ln. 435: “indicates an average local–to– regional ratio of 39%,” Please add “local-to-regional excess ratio” to indicate that the ratio >1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Ludovico Di Antonio, 08 Aug 2023
The response to reviewers' comments is attached.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alexei Lyapustin, 08 Aug 2023
My suggestions were taken into account - I don't have any further comments.
Alexei.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC3
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alexei Lyapustin, 08 Aug 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023
General comments
In this study by Di Antonio et al. the aerosol load variability and trends are investigated at different scales in Europe (from continental to urban scale for 21 cities), relying on a very fine aerosol optical depth product. The objectives of the study are quite straightforward and are addressed by a thorough analysis. The AOD climatology and trends that the authors provide here for Europe is of significance for assessing the local emissions and transported aerosols affecting cities’ air quality. I consider the topic and results of this manuscript to fit the scope of ACP and it could be published if the minor comments listed below are addressed.
Specific comments
Lines 132-133: This minimum limit is for both local and regional scale, right?
Lines 132-135: Before this calculation, which type of aggregation was performed to the daily values of the two scales considered here? Inside the local and inside the regional scale?
Lines 149-153: To my opinion the MAIAC AOD retrievals uncertainty could be discuss better when you first introduce the MAIAC product in the first paragraph of the 2.1 Section.
Lines 160: Please check again formula 2, in the numerator you mean 550nm?
Line 165: I don't follow here why the area from the MAIAC product is expressed in deg x deg and not only in km x km? As has already been mentioned in the previous section.
Line 186: Could you please provide this equation before this sentence, elaborating a little how it is extracted?
Lines 199 & 201: The “EE is …%”? could you please rephrase according to lines 189-199?
Line 200: Could you provide any relevant reference for the limit use here for marine and dust dominated aerosol scenes?
Lines 203-205: Could you elaborate or rephrase this sentence because it is a little bit confusing?
Line 278: Instead of “the extra” better “the different AOD levels” since lower values of AOD have been found for the local scale?
Line 293: Could you please quantify here most of the time?
Lines 301-302: I would recommend changing the order of factors explaining the negative LTRR values, starting from inhomogeneity of AOD at the regional domain.
Lines 310-313: Another recommendation is to add here as reason of inhomogeneity in AOD at the regional domain the spatial extent of the city (also related to topography, but not always), different location of sources like industrial areas etc. which in combination with the meteorological conditions could lead to different spatial patterns inside the 100 x 100km^2 domain.
Lines 338-339: Repetition with what is inside parenthesis in lines 337-338
Line 360: The 0.83 value here is the coefficient of determination R^2 of the regression and this value is different from Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.89 shown in figure 5?
Line 1021: I recommend here to add “… cities (not metropolitan regions) with more than 1 million…”. It is something that is also different in the Eurostat database.
Technical corrections
Line 986: In Fig.2 explain red lines and dashed green lines in a, c,d, e.
Line 990: In Fig.2 “times x”? Expressed in percentage you mean?
Line 990: In Fig.2 “EE” instead of “EE5”
Line 1009: In Fig 5. please explain solid and dashed lines and it is messing AOD nest to local versus regional.
Line 1006: Perhaps “mean AOD” better than “mean of the boxplot”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Alexei Lyapustin, 18 Jul 2023
A review of manuscript “Aerosol optical depth climatology from the high–resolution MAIAC product over Europe: differences between major European cities and their surrounding environments” by L. Di Antonio et al.
In this study, a long-term MAIAC MODIS record for 2000-2021 was analyzed over Europe. The MAIAC AOD was, first, validated against AERONET, and then used to analyze annual and seasonal AOD patterns and trends at a local (city), regional (100x100 km2) and European sub-continent scales. The obtained results, e.g., decreasing AOD trend over Europe, generally agree and complement previous studies. Novel is analysis of AOD level in the city with respect to the regional background performed for 21 selected cities with population over 1 million. In most cases, cities are found to be sources of aerosol emission, whereas over three cities (Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin) the regional AOD was found higher than that over the city.
Overall, the study is well-designed and results are well presented and clear. My only reservation is language – editing is required throughout the paper. I suggest some editing below (up to line 135). My final evaluation is “accept with minor revision”.
Alexei.
Specific suggestions:
- Remove “one” from the last sentence of the Abstract.
Ln. 35: Replace “still huge” with “large remaining”
Ln. 38: Replace “are everyday exposed to significant aerosol levels” with “experience a significant particulate matter exposure”
Ln. 42: Correct to “ and last for several consecutive days”
Ln. 43: Delete “If such episodes occur frequently”. Visibility and air quality deteriorate even if it happens once.
Ln. 48: “to potentially”
Ln. 51: “and is a matter”
Ln. 53 Re-phrase “properties”. AOD alone does not give much information about aerosol properties.
Ln. 68: Please, add reference to Hammer et al., 2020 (Global Estimates and Long-Term Trends of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations (1998–2018) Ln. 72: remove “aerosol”
Ln. 84: “and distinguish between smoke and dust scenes.” Add reference to Lyapustin et al., 2012 (Lyapustin, A., S. Korkin, Y. Wang, B. Quayle, and I. Laszlo, 2012b: Discrimination of biomass burning smoke and clouds in MAIAC algorithm, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9679–9686, doi:10.5194/acp-12-9679-2012.)
Ln. 86: I recommend adding the latest reference to most comprehensive DB, DT, MAIAC and NOAA AOD comparison and validation analysis (Su, X., M. Cao, L. Wang, X. Gui, M. Zhang, Y. Huang, Y. Zhao, Validation, inter-comparison, and usage recommendation of six latest VIIRS and MODIS aerosol products over the ocean and land on the global and regional scales, Science of The Total Environment, v. 884, 2023, 163794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163794)
Ln. 90: I recommend adding two important missed references: a) van Donkelaar, A., et al. (2021). Monthly Global Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter and Their Uncertainty. Environmental science & technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c05309, and b) Wei, J. et al., 2021: Reconstructing 1-km-resolution high-quality PM2.5 data records from 2000 to 2018 in China: spatiotemporal variations and policy implications. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2021, 252, 112136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112136
Ln. 95: “In the Paris area”
Ln. 96: Change to “aims to achieve”
Ln. 122: Replace “taking into account available observations in the day” with “using available cloud-free observations”
Ln. 130: Replace “was chosen large enough in order to avoid effects due to the city and its plume” with “was chosen large enough to minimize effects of city’s pollution”
Ln. 205: A similar analysis and conclusion over Israel was just published in (Irina Rogozovsky, Kevin Ohneiser, Alexei Lyapustin, Albert Ansmann, Alexandra Chudnovsky, The impact of different aerosol layering conditions on the high-resolution MODIS/MAIAC AOD retrieval bias: The uncertainty analysis, Atmospheric Environment, V. 309, 2023, 119930, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119930.
…
Ln. 435: “indicates an average local–to– regional ratio of 39%,” Please add “local-to-regional excess ratio” to indicate that the ratio >1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1280', Ludovico Di Antonio, 08 Aug 2023
The response to reviewers' comments is attached.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alexei Lyapustin, 08 Aug 2023
My suggestions were taken into account - I don't have any further comments.
Alexei.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1280-RC3
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alexei Lyapustin, 08 Aug 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 311 | 114 | 21 | 446 | 31 | 7 | 10 |
- HTML: 311
- PDF: 114
- XML: 21
- Total: 446
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ludovico Di Antonio
Claudia Di Biagio
Gilles Foret
Paola Formenti
Guillaume Siour
Jean-François Doussin
Matthias Beekmann
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2887 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1362 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper