the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The impact multi-decadal of changes in VOCs speciation on urban ozone chemistry: A case study in Birmingham, United Kingdom
Abstract. Anthropogenic non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the United Kingdom have been substantial reduced since 1990, partly attributed to controls on evaporative and vehicle tailpipe emissions. Over time other sources with a different speciation, for example alcohols from solvent use and industry processes, have grown in both relative importance and in some cases in absolute terms. The impact of this change in speciation and the resulting photochemical reactivities of VOCs are evaluated using a photochemical box model constrained by observational data during a summertime ozone event (Birmingham, UK), and speciation and apportionment of sources based on the UK national atmospheric emission inventory (NAEI) data over the period 1990–2019. Despite road transport sources representing only 3.3 % of UK VOC emissions in 2019, it continued as the sector with the largest influence on local O3 production rate (P(O3)). Under case study conditions, the 96 % reduction in road transport VOC emissions that has been achieved between 1990–2019 has likely reduced daytime P(O3) by ~1.67 ppbv h-1. Further abatement of fuel fugitive emissions was modeled to have had less impact on P(O3) reduction than abatement of VOCs from industrial processes and solvent emissions. The long-term trend of increased emissions of ethanol and methanol have somewhat weakened the benefits of reducing road transport emissions, increasing P(O3) by ~0.19 ppbv h-1 in the case study. Abatement of VOC emissions from multiple sources has been a notable technical and policy success in the UK, but some future benefits (from an ozone perspective) of the phase out of internal combustion engine passenger cars may be offset if domestic and commercial solvent emissions of VOCs were to continue to increase.
-
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
(1127 KB)
-
Supplement
(499 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1127 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(499 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2294', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2023
I think that the presentation quality requires substantial improvements in three aspects, as follows.
1) The VOC observed datasets are poorly presented. This manuscript did not thoroughly discuss the trend of speciated VOCs but lumped the species into functional groups. It is impossible to evaluate the model evaluation processes without VOC-specific information. In addition, FID is not a common analytical tool to quantify oxygenated VOCs, which requires a thorough description of the analytical characteristics.
2) The emission inventory's speciation information is not thorough enough. All inventory information is presented in a lumped fashion except for alkane. It is vague how this information was integrated into the box model framework.
3) The sensitivity tests of the box model need to be conducted and thoroughly discussed. The oxidation product accumulation in the box model frame must be verified by comparing it with the observed value. This is particularly important as this study concludes that OVOCs play an important role in ozone production. Therefore, it is important to present a quantitative discussion of how much of OVOCs in the studied area is coming from direct emission vs photochemical production.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2294-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer#1:
We very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments. We have incorporated changes in responding to all your valuable comments and suggestions. Revised texts
within the revised manuscript have been marked by red color, and newly added Table/Figure captions have been highlighted by yellow.Here the supplement is a point-by point response to your comments.
Best Regards,
Jianghao Li (on behalf of all co-authors)
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2294', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Dec 2023
The manuscript entitled " The impact multi-decadal of changes in VOCs speciation on urban ozone chemistry: A case study in Birmingham, United Kingdom" aimed to quantify the impacts of the real-world changes in VOCs sources on urban O3 production rate, and also evaluate the relative importance of different VOCs functional group classes on the O3 production. The manuscript provides some valuable advice for the pollution control of O3 in the area with relative clean air quality. I therefore suggest a necessary revision of this manuscript before final publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
- The innovation of the paper needs further unearthing, as there are already many similar literatures;
- In this study only 38 VOCs species were detected, which was much less than the photochemical species requirements of PAMS and also not conducive to the operation of the OBM model. It is also necessary for the author to explain the quality control of the online VOCs monitoring instrument.
- Is the research based on case study representative in evaluating photochemical pollution in a certain region?
- The research result showed that road transport played the most important VOC role in the case study ozone photochemistry despite it only contributing 3.3% of national VOCs emissions in 2019. Since the proportion of emissions from road transportation is so limited, how to further control?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2294-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer#2:
We appreciate the your efforts in recognizing the contribution of our results to the research field of urban ozone pollution. We have been able to incorporate changes in responding to the your valuable feedbacks. Revised texts within the manuscript have been marked by red color, and newly added Table/Figure captions have been highlighted by yellow.
Here the supplement is a point-by point response to your comments.
Best Regards,
Jianghao Li (on behalf of all co-authors)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2294', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2023
I think that the presentation quality requires substantial improvements in three aspects, as follows.
1) The VOC observed datasets are poorly presented. This manuscript did not thoroughly discuss the trend of speciated VOCs but lumped the species into functional groups. It is impossible to evaluate the model evaluation processes without VOC-specific information. In addition, FID is not a common analytical tool to quantify oxygenated VOCs, which requires a thorough description of the analytical characteristics.
2) The emission inventory's speciation information is not thorough enough. All inventory information is presented in a lumped fashion except for alkane. It is vague how this information was integrated into the box model framework.
3) The sensitivity tests of the box model need to be conducted and thoroughly discussed. The oxidation product accumulation in the box model frame must be verified by comparing it with the observed value. This is particularly important as this study concludes that OVOCs play an important role in ozone production. Therefore, it is important to present a quantitative discussion of how much of OVOCs in the studied area is coming from direct emission vs photochemical production.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2294-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer#1:
We very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments. We have incorporated changes in responding to all your valuable comments and suggestions. Revised texts
within the revised manuscript have been marked by red color, and newly added Table/Figure captions have been highlighted by yellow.Here the supplement is a point-by point response to your comments.
Best Regards,
Jianghao Li (on behalf of all co-authors)
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2294', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Dec 2023
The manuscript entitled " The impact multi-decadal of changes in VOCs speciation on urban ozone chemistry: A case study in Birmingham, United Kingdom" aimed to quantify the impacts of the real-world changes in VOCs sources on urban O3 production rate, and also evaluate the relative importance of different VOCs functional group classes on the O3 production. The manuscript provides some valuable advice for the pollution control of O3 in the area with relative clean air quality. I therefore suggest a necessary revision of this manuscript before final publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
- The innovation of the paper needs further unearthing, as there are already many similar literatures;
- In this study only 38 VOCs species were detected, which was much less than the photochemical species requirements of PAMS and also not conducive to the operation of the OBM model. It is also necessary for the author to explain the quality control of the online VOCs monitoring instrument.
- Is the research based on case study representative in evaluating photochemical pollution in a certain region?
- The research result showed that road transport played the most important VOC role in the case study ozone photochemistry despite it only contributing 3.3% of national VOCs emissions in 2019. Since the proportion of emissions from road transportation is so limited, how to further control?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2294-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jianghao li, 03 Feb 2024
Dear reviewer#2:
We appreciate the your efforts in recognizing the contribution of our results to the research field of urban ozone pollution. We have been able to incorporate changes in responding to the your valuable feedbacks. Revised texts within the manuscript have been marked by red color, and newly added Table/Figure captions have been highlighted by yellow.
Here the supplement is a point-by point response to your comments.
Best Regards,
Jianghao Li (on behalf of all co-authors)
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
536 | 145 | 27 | 708 | 47 | 18 | 19 |
- HTML: 536
- PDF: 145
- XML: 27
- Total: 708
- Supplement: 47
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jianghao Li
Alastair C. Lewis
Jim R. Hopkins
Stephen J. Andrews
Tim Murrells
Neil Passant
Ben Richmond
William Bloss
Roy Harrison
Zongbo Shi
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1127 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(499 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper