the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Introducing the novel concept of cumulative concentration roses for studying the transport of ultrafine particles from an airport to adjacent residential areas
Abstract. Airports are often surrounded by urban residential areas, which is both motivation and challenge for studying their potential impact on local air quality. Airports are a relevant source for ultrafine particles (UFP), which can pose a risk to human health due to their small size (particle diameter Dp ≤ 100 nm). However, in urban environments UFP originate from a multitude of biogenic and anthropogenic sources. Here, we investigate UFP in close proximity to an airport to disentangle its impact on local air quality from other urban sources.
We present observations and analysis of airborne UFP concentrations and size distributions determined at two sites in close proximity to Munich Airport. Therefore, two novel measurement stations were established north and south to the airport, but were neither situated on the axis of prevailing wind directions nor impacted by fly overs. This set-up allowed us to explore a mainly advection driven distribution of UFP into the most populated adjacent residential areas. The observation period covered a full year from August 2021 to July 2022. We analysed the dataset in three steps: (1) First, we derived UFP concentration roses using the wind data as reported in 10 m height at the airport to represent the local wind field. An increase in particle number concentrations and a shift of the modal maximum towards smaller mobility diameters became evident for wind directions including those approaching from the airport. During the airport’s operation hours at daytime median particle number concentrations were 2.2 and 1.6 fold compared to nighttime at the northern and southern station. However, our data had a high variability and the direction-based analysis was uncertain due to other potential UFP sources in the surroundings and the assumption of a homogeneous, local wind field. (2) Next, we derived concentration roses employing the airflow observations from the two measuring stations at 5.3 m height. While the annual concentration rose in principle yielded the same conclusions as the first analysis step, a significant seasonal and diurnal variability of UFP and wind became evident. The influencing factors were likely other urban local UFP sources, an increased surface roughness due to green vegetation, and the atmospheric boundary layer development. (3) In order to assess the possible advection of UFP from the direction of Munich Airport relative to all other directions over the course of the year, we calculated cumulative concentration roses with both local and site-scale wind data. Under the assumption of a homogeneous local wind field, the fraction of all UFP sampled in airflows approaching from the airport’s direction was 21 % (N322) and 40 % (S229). Considering a local background, the range of UFP advection from Munich Airport to the adjacent residential areas was up to 10 % in the North and 14 % in the South. It has to be noted, that these values highlight the relative magnitude of maximum impact of the airport on local air quality, as they do not separate from other UFP sources between airport and measuring sites. Additionally, they integrate over a time period, for which the airport did not reach its full capacity compared to pre-COVID-19 times.
-
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
(3696 KB)
-
Supplement
(1796 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3696 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1796 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1696', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2023
The authors present a carefully done study looking prmarily at the impacts of an airport on nearby residential ultrafine particle concentrations at locations not underneath the flightpaths. Most previous studies have focused on impacts under the flightpaths. Therefore this is a novel study that deserves publication. I had several comments:
line 63: There are also potential ground level impacts from landing aircraft due to lateral dispersion enhanced by wingtip vortices.
Line 81: Yu et al was based on a 4km spatial resolution model that might not account for the finer spatial scale resolution at locations near the airport under the flight path. This is mentioned late in the reference to the Zurich study and also demonstrated initiall futher downwind by Hudda et al.
line 248: Where is the airport parking? This is also relevant to the conclusion on line 569.
line 299: This paragraph could do a better job of simply describing the cumulative method used here, especially starting on line 306. It took me a while to figure out what was going on.
line 330: need a comma rather than a period
line 458: "strong evidence" is a bit too strong. When the wind is coming from the airport, the evidence is clear. It is just that it is not always coming from the airport.
line 550: at site s229 the effect is evident, although not at the other site
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1696-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julius Seidler, 20 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1696', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2023
The manuscript explores a valuable aspect of UFP from airports and its publication is supported. I have a few comments:
lines 174-185 - More detail about the site locations would be helpful. The locations are somewhat compromised by the proximity of local sources. For example, N322 appears to be screened by trees to the south and in the middle of a working gardeners yard. S229 appears to be similarly sheltered by trees and a factory building. As the authors note later in the manuscript, both locations are also influenced by contributions not from the airport.
lines 375-385 - Was any attempt made to correlate departures/arrivals with measurements? Did the airport provide basic aircraft movements and operation modes for the survey periods? This would help to attribute changes in particle diameters to aircraft activity.
line 400 - Given the possible screening of the sites by vegetation, do the authors think that meteorology measurements at 5,3m will be sufficiently representative of the sampling inlets at ca.3,0m? Will winter and summer leaf growth cause any differences?
line 480-484 - Is it possible to disaggregate the contributions of road traffic from the airport related wind direction for N322? Diurnal traffic flow and composition information might help
Figures 6 - 8 suggest that arriving and departing aircraft, once they are airborne and beyond the airfield boundaries, have very little influence on measured ground level UFP. Is it worth mentioning this? It's an important observation that is contrary to many other studies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1696-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julius Seidler, 20 Sep 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1696', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2023
The authors present a carefully done study looking prmarily at the impacts of an airport on nearby residential ultrafine particle concentrations at locations not underneath the flightpaths. Most previous studies have focused on impacts under the flightpaths. Therefore this is a novel study that deserves publication. I had several comments:
line 63: There are also potential ground level impacts from landing aircraft due to lateral dispersion enhanced by wingtip vortices.
Line 81: Yu et al was based on a 4km spatial resolution model that might not account for the finer spatial scale resolution at locations near the airport under the flight path. This is mentioned late in the reference to the Zurich study and also demonstrated initiall futher downwind by Hudda et al.
line 248: Where is the airport parking? This is also relevant to the conclusion on line 569.
line 299: This paragraph could do a better job of simply describing the cumulative method used here, especially starting on line 306. It took me a while to figure out what was going on.
line 330: need a comma rather than a period
line 458: "strong evidence" is a bit too strong. When the wind is coming from the airport, the evidence is clear. It is just that it is not always coming from the airport.
line 550: at site s229 the effect is evident, although not at the other site
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1696-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julius Seidler, 20 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1696', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2023
The manuscript explores a valuable aspect of UFP from airports and its publication is supported. I have a few comments:
lines 174-185 - More detail about the site locations would be helpful. The locations are somewhat compromised by the proximity of local sources. For example, N322 appears to be screened by trees to the south and in the middle of a working gardeners yard. S229 appears to be similarly sheltered by trees and a factory building. As the authors note later in the manuscript, both locations are also influenced by contributions not from the airport.
lines 375-385 - Was any attempt made to correlate departures/arrivals with measurements? Did the airport provide basic aircraft movements and operation modes for the survey periods? This would help to attribute changes in particle diameters to aircraft activity.
line 400 - Given the possible screening of the sites by vegetation, do the authors think that meteorology measurements at 5,3m will be sufficiently representative of the sampling inlets at ca.3,0m? Will winter and summer leaf growth cause any differences?
line 480-484 - Is it possible to disaggregate the contributions of road traffic from the airport related wind direction for N322? Diurnal traffic flow and composition information might help
Figures 6 - 8 suggest that arriving and departing aircraft, once they are airborne and beyond the airfield boundaries, have very little influence on measured ground level UFP. Is it worth mentioning this? It's an important observation that is contrary to many other studies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1696-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julius Seidler, 20 Sep 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
345 | 197 | 21 | 563 | 38 | 10 | 13 |
- HTML: 345
- PDF: 197
- XML: 21
- Total: 563
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Julius Seidler
Markus Norbert Friedrich
Christoph Karl Thomas
Anke Christine Nölscher
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3696 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1796 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper