the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Atmospheric Oxidizing Capacity in China: Part 2. Sensitivity to emissions of primary pollutants
Abstract. The Atmospheric Oxidation Capacity (AOC), often referred to as the self-cleansing ability of the atmosphere, considerably affects the concentrations of photochemical air pollutants. Despite substantial reductions in anthropogenic emissions of key chemical compounds in China, the mechanisms that determine the changes in the atmospheric oxidation capacity are still not sufficiently understood. Here, a regional chemical transport model is employed to quantify the sensitivity of air pollutants and photochemical parameters to specified emission reductions in China for conditions of January and July 2018 as representative. The model simulations show that, in winter, a 50 % decrease in nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions leads to an 8–10 ppbv (15–20 %) increase in surface ozone concentrations across China. In summer, the ozone concentration decreases by 2–8 ppbv (3–12 %) in NOx-limited areas, while ozone increases by up to 12 ppbv (15 %) in volatile organic compounds (VOCs)-limited areas. This ozone increase is associated with a reduced NOx-titration effect and higher levels of hydroperoxyl (HO2) radical due to decreased aerosol uptake. With an additional 50 % reduction in anthropogenic VOCs emission, the predicted ozone concentration decreases by 5–12 ppbv (6–15 %) in the entire geographic area of China, with an exception in the areas, where the role of BVOCs is crucial to ozone formation. Further, the adopted reduction in NOx emission leads to an increase of AOC by 18 % in VOC-limited areas. This specific increase is associated with the combined effect of enhanced radical cycles associated with the photolysis of oxidized VOCs (OVOCs) and the oxidation of alkenes by hydroxyl (OH) radical and O3. A large reduction of daytime AOC in summer results from the reduction in anthropogenic VOCs emission, with a dominant contribution from the reaction of OH radical with reduced alkenes, followed by the reactions with depleted aromatics and OVOCs. This study highlights that photolysis of OVOCs and oxidation of alkenes in urban areas when NOx emission is reduced leads to an increase in O3. To mitigate ozone rises in urban areas, a joint reduction in the emission of NOx and specific VOCs species, including alkenes and aromatics and photodegradable OVOCs, should be implemented.
- Preprint
(20707 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(17543 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-693', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your efforts in handling and evaluating our submission.
The review comments are very helpful for improving the original manuscript. We have carefully considered them and tried to address all of these comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Attached are the detailed point-by-point responses to the review comments. For clarity, the reviewer’s comments are listed below in black italics, while our responses and changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue and red, respectively.
We look forward to receiving a further evaluation of our work.
Best regards,
Guy Brasseur and co-authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-693', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Apr 2024
Summary
The authors perform four sets of model simulations over China: a base case, a 50% NOx emission reduction, a 50% AVOC emission reduction, and a combined 50% NOx and 50% AVOC emission reduction. The science presented is largely sound. However, the paper currently reads as a lengthy report rather than a scientific manuscript. There is extensive repetition of conclusions in different sections of the paper, and a lot of the more impactful conclusions get lost in the details. I recommend that the authors restructure the paper around their main conclusions and science questions, rather than organizing by metric as is done currently. I also suggest that many of the minor details presented in the main text be moved to the supplement so that only text in support of the main conclusions of the paper is presented in the main text.
Major comments
As it is currently written, a lot of the main conclusions and the primary storyline get lost in the details presented. In addition, a lot of conclusions get repeated in different sections. For example, a lot of the same conclusions are drawn when assessing ozone production regime (Section 3.1), odd oxygen production and destruction (Section 3.2.2), and ozone concentrations (Section 3.3.2). Uniting these sections will reduce the overall manuscript length, help highlight whether these different lines of analysis lead to consistent conclusions, and help to bring the overall conclusions of the study to the forefront.
I wonder if the authors could comment on the relevance of broad NOx and AVOC reductions in China, in contrast to reductions that vary by sector or by region. For example, are transportation sector reductions more/less likely than stationary emissions, and what might this imply for the chemistry discussed? In addition, a lot of the analysis presented highlighted changes in radical cycling related to changes in OVOC emissions. Do we expect AVOC emission reductions to be consistent across classes of VOCs, or could the effectiveness of emission reductions of OVOCs vs hydrocarbons differ? And, similarly, do we expect consistent emission reductions for VOCs with higher and lower HCHO yields? How might this impact the conclusions presented here?
Minor comments
Line 110: typo (nitration vs titration)
Line 236: Zhang et al, 2009 get these numbers from Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000, so Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000 should be cited here as the original citation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-693-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your efforts in handling and evaluating our submission.
The review comments are very helpful for improving the original manuscript. We have carefully considered them and tried to address all of these comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Attached are the detailed point-by-point responses to the review comments. For clarity, the reviewer’s comments are listed below in black italics, while our responses and changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue and red, respectively.
We look forward to receiving a further evaluation of our work.
Best regards,
Guy Brasseur and co-authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-693', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your efforts in handling and evaluating our submission.
The review comments are very helpful for improving the original manuscript. We have carefully considered them and tried to address all of these comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Attached are the detailed point-by-point responses to the review comments. For clarity, the reviewer’s comments are listed below in black italics, while our responses and changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue and red, respectively.
We look forward to receiving a further evaluation of our work.
Best regards,
Guy Brasseur and co-authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-693', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Apr 2024
Summary
The authors perform four sets of model simulations over China: a base case, a 50% NOx emission reduction, a 50% AVOC emission reduction, and a combined 50% NOx and 50% AVOC emission reduction. The science presented is largely sound. However, the paper currently reads as a lengthy report rather than a scientific manuscript. There is extensive repetition of conclusions in different sections of the paper, and a lot of the more impactful conclusions get lost in the details. I recommend that the authors restructure the paper around their main conclusions and science questions, rather than organizing by metric as is done currently. I also suggest that many of the minor details presented in the main text be moved to the supplement so that only text in support of the main conclusions of the paper is presented in the main text.
Major comments
As it is currently written, a lot of the main conclusions and the primary storyline get lost in the details presented. In addition, a lot of conclusions get repeated in different sections. For example, a lot of the same conclusions are drawn when assessing ozone production regime (Section 3.1), odd oxygen production and destruction (Section 3.2.2), and ozone concentrations (Section 3.3.2). Uniting these sections will reduce the overall manuscript length, help highlight whether these different lines of analysis lead to consistent conclusions, and help to bring the overall conclusions of the study to the forefront.
I wonder if the authors could comment on the relevance of broad NOx and AVOC reductions in China, in contrast to reductions that vary by sector or by region. For example, are transportation sector reductions more/less likely than stationary emissions, and what might this imply for the chemistry discussed? In addition, a lot of the analysis presented highlighted changes in radical cycling related to changes in OVOC emissions. Do we expect AVOC emission reductions to be consistent across classes of VOCs, or could the effectiveness of emission reductions of OVOCs vs hydrocarbons differ? And, similarly, do we expect consistent emission reductions for VOCs with higher and lower HCHO yields? How might this impact the conclusions presented here?
Minor comments
Line 110: typo (nitration vs titration)
Line 236: Zhang et al, 2009 get these numbers from Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000, so Tonnesen and Dennis, 2000 should be cited here as the original citation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-693-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your efforts in handling and evaluating our submission.
The review comments are very helpful for improving the original manuscript. We have carefully considered them and tried to address all of these comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Attached are the detailed point-by-point responses to the review comments. For clarity, the reviewer’s comments are listed below in black italics, while our responses and changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue and red, respectively.
We look forward to receiving a further evaluation of our work.
Best regards,
Guy Brasseur and co-authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jianing Dai, 28 Jun 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
470 | 112 | 47 | 629 | 50 | 24 | 24 |
- HTML: 470
- PDF: 112
- XML: 47
- Total: 629
- Supplement: 50
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1