the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Short-term Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter with Time-dependent Profiles Using SoFi: Exploring the Reliability of Rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) Applied to Bihourly Molecular and Elemental Tracer Data
Abstract. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) has been widely used to apportion the sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by utilizing PM chemical speciation data measured at receptor site(s). Traditional PMF, which typically relies on long-term observational datasets of daily or lower time resolution to meet the required sample size, has its reliability undermined by changes in source profiles, thus it is inherently ill-suited for apportioning sporadic sources or ephemeral pollution events. In this study, we explored short-term source apportionment of PM2.5 using a set of hourly chemical speciation data over a period of thirty-seven days in the winter of 2019–2020. PMF run with campaign-wide data as input (PMFref) was initially conducted to obtain reference profiles for the primary source factors. Subsequently, short-term PMF analysis was performed using the Source Finder Professional (SoFi Pro). The analysis sets a window length as the first 18 d of the campaign and constrained the primary source profiles using the a-value approach embedded in SoFi software. Rolling PMF was then conducted with a fixed window length of 18 d and a step of 1 d using the remaining dataset. By applying the a-value constraints to the primary sources, the rolling PMF effectively reproduced the individual primary sources, as evidenced by the slope values close to unity (i.e., 0.9–1.0). However, the estimation for the firework emission factor in the rolling PMF was lower compared with the PMFref (slope: 0.8). These results suggest the unique advantage of short-term PMF analysis in accurately apportioning sporadic sources. Although the total secondary sources were well-modelled (slope: 1.0), larger biases were observed for individual secondary sources. The variation in source profiles indicated higher variability for the secondary sources, with average relative differences ranging from 42 % to 173 %, while the primary source profiles exhibited much smaller variabilities (relative differences of 8–26 %). This study suggests that short-term PMF analysis with the a-value constraints in SoFi can be utilized to apportion primary sources accurately, while future efforts are needed to improve the prediction of individual secondary sources.
-
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
(1083 KB)
-
Supplement
(706 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1083 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(706 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1846', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2023
I thoroughly reviewed this manuscript. The manuscript titled “Short-term Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter with Time-dependent Profiles Using SoFi: Exploring the Reliability of Rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) Applied to Bihourly Molecular and Elemental Tracer Data” suggests that short-term PMF analysis with the a-value constraints in SoFi can be utilized to apportion primary sources accurately. This may have implications for short-term pollution episodes management. The topic is interesting and meaningful. However, there are some problems in the article. I would recommend authors concerns on the following comments. Minor revision is recommended.
- Line 35, “The implementation of stringent control measures since 2013 has led to declining concentrations of PM5 in many megacities in China”, it is recommended to provide specific data on the decrease in PM2.5.
- Line 55, “This limitation explains the common observation that PMF with robust mode tends to underestimate the high concentration data while overestimating the low concentration data.”, it is recommended to modify this sentence to make it coherent with the preceding and following sentences.
- Line 99, please define SOA when it first appears in the text.
- Line 121, it is recommended to explain what the meaning of k and j in Eq 4.
- Line 170, Do you think these “18 days” must be continuous? Does discontinuity have an impact on the results?
- Line 121, please define Q/Qexp.
- Line 221, please explain what Nfirework_data
- Line 240, pleasedefine
- Line 273, “Secondary nitrate, SOA_I and SOA_II showed large variations, with an average relative difference of 173%, 162%, and 75%, respectively.”, it is recommended to provide a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the significant differences.
- Abstract and conclusion of the work can be improved as per the methods applied.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1846-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1846/egusphere-2023-1846-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1846', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2023
The manuscript titled "Short-term Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter with Time-dependent Profiles Using SoFi: Exploring the Reliability of Rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) Applied to Bihourly Molecular and Elemental Tracer Data" presents extensive datasets of real-time chemical characterization to employ both traditional and rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) techniques utilizing the SoFi software. The comparative analysis between traditional and rolling PMF methodologies is particularly intriguing, primarily in the context of effectively modeling primary sources, which exhibit relatively minor variabilities. Conversely, the study reveals substantial variations in the case of secondary factors. This result deserves more explanation and details regarding the relative differences. Furthermore, from what has been presented in the paper, the rolling PMF should always be based on source profiles from traditional PMF (Conclusion lines 300-302). This prompts the question of how to address scenarios where no source profiles are available, such as for newly emerging sources or in regions lacking local source profiles.
I recommend major revisions before considering the manuscript for acceptance:
Introduction: It is imperative to clarify that the traditional PMF was conducted using the US EPA PMF, as indicated in your prior publication (Wang et al., 2022b). This should be explicitly mentioned unless this is not the case.
Section 2.2: This section is lacking essential details regarding the specific species incorporated into the model, the total number of data utilized for traditional and rolling PMF, and the temporal resolution applied (e.g., 2-hour or 1-hour intervals). These specifics are fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of the methodology.
Line 128: The choice of an 18-day duration for data inclusion needs further justification. Is this duration adequate for achieving robust and optimal a-values?
Line 147: The difference in the correlation is clear for K and levoglucosan but what about K and Pb? They're still well correlated even in the CNY period?
Line 150: A discrepancy is noted between the number of factors reported in the paper by Wang et al., 2022b (14 factors) and the present manuscript (10 factors). The differences in PMF methodologies should be thoroughly explained and supported with additional details, either integrated into the main text or provided as supplementary information. Additionally, the manuscript should incorporate validation results for traditional PMF, includingo Bootstrap analysis, DISP analysis, reconstruction of species, Q/Qexp... .
Section 3.2: What is the reason behind not adding an a-value to the secondary sources?
Section 3.4: The variabilities observed in secondary profiles demand a more in-depth exploration. Possible explanations, including the potential impact of poorly resolved profiles in traditional PMF, should be examined and discussed in greater detail.
In the SoFi software, what are the validation methods in order to ensure that you have good results?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1846-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1846/egusphere-2023-1846-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1846', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2023
I thoroughly reviewed this manuscript. The manuscript titled “Short-term Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter with Time-dependent Profiles Using SoFi: Exploring the Reliability of Rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) Applied to Bihourly Molecular and Elemental Tracer Data” suggests that short-term PMF analysis with the a-value constraints in SoFi can be utilized to apportion primary sources accurately. This may have implications for short-term pollution episodes management. The topic is interesting and meaningful. However, there are some problems in the article. I would recommend authors concerns on the following comments. Minor revision is recommended.
- Line 35, “The implementation of stringent control measures since 2013 has led to declining concentrations of PM5 in many megacities in China”, it is recommended to provide specific data on the decrease in PM2.5.
- Line 55, “This limitation explains the common observation that PMF with robust mode tends to underestimate the high concentration data while overestimating the low concentration data.”, it is recommended to modify this sentence to make it coherent with the preceding and following sentences.
- Line 99, please define SOA when it first appears in the text.
- Line 121, it is recommended to explain what the meaning of k and j in Eq 4.
- Line 170, Do you think these “18 days” must be continuous? Does discontinuity have an impact on the results?
- Line 121, please define Q/Qexp.
- Line 221, please explain what Nfirework_data
- Line 240, pleasedefine
- Line 273, “Secondary nitrate, SOA_I and SOA_II showed large variations, with an average relative difference of 173%, 162%, and 75%, respectively.”, it is recommended to provide a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the significant differences.
- Abstract and conclusion of the work can be improved as per the methods applied.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1846-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1846/egusphere-2023-1846-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1846', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2023
The manuscript titled "Short-term Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter with Time-dependent Profiles Using SoFi: Exploring the Reliability of Rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) Applied to Bihourly Molecular and Elemental Tracer Data" presents extensive datasets of real-time chemical characterization to employ both traditional and rolling Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) techniques utilizing the SoFi software. The comparative analysis between traditional and rolling PMF methodologies is particularly intriguing, primarily in the context of effectively modeling primary sources, which exhibit relatively minor variabilities. Conversely, the study reveals substantial variations in the case of secondary factors. This result deserves more explanation and details regarding the relative differences. Furthermore, from what has been presented in the paper, the rolling PMF should always be based on source profiles from traditional PMF (Conclusion lines 300-302). This prompts the question of how to address scenarios where no source profiles are available, such as for newly emerging sources or in regions lacking local source profiles.
I recommend major revisions before considering the manuscript for acceptance:
Introduction: It is imperative to clarify that the traditional PMF was conducted using the US EPA PMF, as indicated in your prior publication (Wang et al., 2022b). This should be explicitly mentioned unless this is not the case.
Section 2.2: This section is lacking essential details regarding the specific species incorporated into the model, the total number of data utilized for traditional and rolling PMF, and the temporal resolution applied (e.g., 2-hour or 1-hour intervals). These specifics are fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of the methodology.
Line 128: The choice of an 18-day duration for data inclusion needs further justification. Is this duration adequate for achieving robust and optimal a-values?
Line 147: The difference in the correlation is clear for K and levoglucosan but what about K and Pb? They're still well correlated even in the CNY period?
Line 150: A discrepancy is noted between the number of factors reported in the paper by Wang et al., 2022b (14 factors) and the present manuscript (10 factors). The differences in PMF methodologies should be thoroughly explained and supported with additional details, either integrated into the main text or provided as supplementary information. Additionally, the manuscript should incorporate validation results for traditional PMF, includingo Bootstrap analysis, DISP analysis, reconstruction of species, Q/Qexp... .
Section 3.2: What is the reason behind not adding an a-value to the secondary sources?
Section 3.4: The variabilities observed in secondary profiles demand a more in-depth exploration. Possible explanations, including the potential impact of poorly resolved profiles in traditional PMF, should be examined and discussed in greater detail.
In the SoFi software, what are the validation methods in order to ensure that you have good results?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1846-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1846/egusphere-2023-1846-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jian Zhen Yu, 26 Sep 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
339 | 135 | 22 | 496 | 41 | 15 | 19 |
- HTML: 339
- PDF: 135
- XML: 22
- Total: 496
- Supplement: 41
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Qiongqiong Wang
Shuhui Zhu
Shan Wang
Cheng Huang
Yunsen Duan
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1083 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(706 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper