the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modeling the drivers of fine PM pollution over Central Europe: impacts and contributions of emissions from different sources
Abstract. Air pollution nowadays represents the most significant environmental health risk in Europe, with fine particulate matter (PM2.5) being among the pollutants with the most critical threat to the human health, especially in urban areas. Identifying and quantifying the sources of PM2.5 components are essential prerequisites for designing effective strategies to mitigate this kind of air pollution. In this study, we utilized the numerical weather prediction model WRF (Weather Research and Forecast Model) coupled with the chemistry transport model CAMx (Comprehensive Air quality Model with Extensions) to investigate the relationships between emissions (with a primary focus on emissions covering a wide range of anthropogenic activities) and the concentrations of total PM2.5 and its secondary components (ammonium, nitrate, sulfate, and secondary organic aerosol (SOA)) in the region of Central Europe (with a more detailed focus on six large cities in this region, namely Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Prague, Budapest, and Warsaw) during the period 2018–2019 using the PSAT (Particulate Source Apportionment Technology) tool implemented in CAMx and the zero-out method (an extreme case of the brute-force method), which makes this study, taking into account the differentiation of individual GNFR sectors of anthropogenic activity, the only one of its kind for this region.
The use of the PSAT tool showed, among other things, that during the winter seasons, emissions from other stationary combustion (including residential combustion), boundary conditions, road transport, and agriculture-livestock contribute most extensively to the average PM2.5 concentrations (their domain-wide average contributions are 3.2, 2.1, 1.4, and 0.9 μg m-3, respectively), while during the summer seasons, the average PM2.5 concentrations are mainly contributed by biogenic emissions, followed by emissions from road transport, industrial sources, and boundary conditions (their domain-wide average contributions are 0.57, 0.31, 0.28, and 0.27 μg m-3, respectively). In contrast, the most considerable average seasonal impacts on the concentration of PM2.5 when modeling with the SOAP mechanism activated (i.e., with the same SOA formation mechanism that is implemented when using the PSAT tool; we named this sensitivity experiment as the SOAP experiment) are caused by the overall reduction of emissions from other stationary combustion, agriculture-livestock, road transport, and agriculture-other during the winter seasons (their domain-wide averages are 3.4, 2.9, 1.4, and 1.1 μg m-3, respectively), while during the summer seasons, they are induced by emissions from agriculture-livestock, road transport, industrial sources, and other stationary combustion (0.46, 0.45, 0.34, and 0.29 μg m-3, respectively).
Further, we revealed that the differences between the contributions of emissions from anthropogenic sectors to PM2.5 concentration and the impacts of these emissions on PM2.5 concentration in the SOAP experiment are predominantly caused by the secondary aerosol components (due to the acting of oxidation-limiting and/or indirect effects). Moreover, the most substantial of these differences, in terms of daily averages in the cities (reaching up to ≈15 μg m-3 in some of them during winter time) and seasonal averages for the winter and summer seasons (reaching up to 4.5 and 1.25 μg m-3, respectively), are associated with emissions from agriculture-livestock, mainly due to differences in nitrate concentrations.
Finally, we performed one more sensitivity experiment (named the VBS experiment) based on the zero-out method, in which gas-aerosol partitioning and chemical aging of organic aerosol were activated using the 1.5-D VBS scheme, and we also added the estimates of intermediate-volatility and semivolatile organic compounds. We found that their application, in comparison with the results of the SOAP experiment, mainly increases the average seasonal impacts on the concentration of PM2.5 caused by the overall reduction of emissions from other stationary combustion and road transport during the winter seasons (the increases reach up to 12 and 4 μg m-3, respectively) and mainly by increasing the average seasonal impact on the concentration of PM2.5 produced by the overall reduction of emissions from road transport during the summer seasons (the increase reach up to 2.25 μg m-3).
-
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
(16405 KB)
-
Supplement
(13031 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(16405 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13031 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1919', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2023
General comments
The paper “Modeling the drivers of fine PM pollution over Central Europe: impacts and contributions of emissions from different sources“ presents a detailed and comprehensive comparison of a source apportionment modelling study based on both brute force and tagging methods.
The paper provides a lot of quantitative results reported in terms of maps and tables that help the reader to evaluate the role of the different sources as well as to understand the differences among the methods.
Therefore, the paper fits the scope of ACP. The paper is also well written, with concise and clear statements, and it does not require any substantial review of syntax and language.
The paper could be published considering just a couple of integrations:
- The model performance evaluation could be supported by a few additional analysis (also in terms of reference) that should consider:
- PM precursors (e.g. NOX, NO2, SO2,…)
- PM chemical composition (EC, OC, NH4, NO3, SO4,…)
- Meteorological variables
This would allow to better investigate the reason of CAMx underestimation, particularly during the summer season
- The analysis at the receptor shown in table S1-6 could be extended to a few PM compounds both primary and secondary to better highlight which compounds and which processes give rise to corresponding discrepancies between contributions and impacts shown for PM2.5.
Such analysis could represent an interesting complement to all the maps and could maybe allow to remove some maps (for example some maps with relative contributions that are not so informative)
Specific comments and Technical corrections
P8 – R250 – which are the differences respect to the setup of “SOAP base case” and “PSAT simulations”?
P10-R301- Figure 2 – standard deviation bars for modelled results are almost not visible, is it correct?
P10-R302 – SOAP base case and PSAT should provide the same result, isn’t it?
P10 – Validation – Which are, according to the authors, the main reason of the discrepancies between modelled and observed PM2.5 values, taking place particularly during the summer season? Are they related to meteorology, lacking in emission inventories?
Authors provide some discussion in the final section but keeping it rather generic.
P11-R292-293 – Did authors expect a larger difference in solvents contribution, with respect to SOAP when applying VBS?
P13-R393 – Did author also perform a simulation where “all remaining sources “(and boundary conditions, maybe) are removed? This would allow to check if the sum of all impacts is equal or not to the total concentration of the base case (probably not…)
P13-R426 – This was expected because impacts and contributions are identical for primary non-reactive compounds.
P15 -R492-496 – from Figure 12 captions and title it seems that maps show the relative fraction with respect to total PNH4 and not to total PM2.5, where the latter seems more reasonable, looking at the maps
P22 -R718-721 – This statement is reasonable, but it would require additional analysis for example a comparison of modelled and observed PM chemical composition
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1919-RC1 - The model performance evaluation could be supported by a few additional analysis (also in terms of reference) that should consider:
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1919', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1919/egusphere-2023-1919-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Author's Final Response to both Referees', Lukáš Bartík, 19 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1919/egusphere-2023-1919-AC1-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1919', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2023
General comments
The paper “Modeling the drivers of fine PM pollution over Central Europe: impacts and contributions of emissions from different sources“ presents a detailed and comprehensive comparison of a source apportionment modelling study based on both brute force and tagging methods.
The paper provides a lot of quantitative results reported in terms of maps and tables that help the reader to evaluate the role of the different sources as well as to understand the differences among the methods.
Therefore, the paper fits the scope of ACP. The paper is also well written, with concise and clear statements, and it does not require any substantial review of syntax and language.
The paper could be published considering just a couple of integrations:
- The model performance evaluation could be supported by a few additional analysis (also in terms of reference) that should consider:
- PM precursors (e.g. NOX, NO2, SO2,…)
- PM chemical composition (EC, OC, NH4, NO3, SO4,…)
- Meteorological variables
This would allow to better investigate the reason of CAMx underestimation, particularly during the summer season
- The analysis at the receptor shown in table S1-6 could be extended to a few PM compounds both primary and secondary to better highlight which compounds and which processes give rise to corresponding discrepancies between contributions and impacts shown for PM2.5.
Such analysis could represent an interesting complement to all the maps and could maybe allow to remove some maps (for example some maps with relative contributions that are not so informative)
Specific comments and Technical corrections
P8 – R250 – which are the differences respect to the setup of “SOAP base case” and “PSAT simulations”?
P10-R301- Figure 2 – standard deviation bars for modelled results are almost not visible, is it correct?
P10-R302 – SOAP base case and PSAT should provide the same result, isn’t it?
P10 – Validation – Which are, according to the authors, the main reason of the discrepancies between modelled and observed PM2.5 values, taking place particularly during the summer season? Are they related to meteorology, lacking in emission inventories?
Authors provide some discussion in the final section but keeping it rather generic.
P11-R292-293 – Did authors expect a larger difference in solvents contribution, with respect to SOAP when applying VBS?
P13-R393 – Did author also perform a simulation where “all remaining sources “(and boundary conditions, maybe) are removed? This would allow to check if the sum of all impacts is equal or not to the total concentration of the base case (probably not…)
P13-R426 – This was expected because impacts and contributions are identical for primary non-reactive compounds.
P15 -R492-496 – from Figure 12 captions and title it seems that maps show the relative fraction with respect to total PNH4 and not to total PM2.5, where the latter seems more reasonable, looking at the maps
P22 -R718-721 – This statement is reasonable, but it would require additional analysis for example a comparison of modelled and observed PM chemical composition
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1919-RC1 - The model performance evaluation could be supported by a few additional analysis (also in terms of reference) that should consider:
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1919', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1919/egusphere-2023-1919-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Author's Final Response to both Referees', Lukáš Bartík, 19 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1919/egusphere-2023-1919-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
294 | 104 | 23 | 421 | 36 | 17 | 16 |
- HTML: 294
- PDF: 104
- XML: 23
- Total: 421
- Supplement: 36
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Peter Huszár
Jan Karlický
Ondřej Vlček
Kryštof Eben
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(16405 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13031 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper