the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Toolbox for accurate estimation and validation of PMF solutions in PM source apportionment
Abstract. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) is the most commonly used approach for particulate matter source apportionment; however, the implementation steps of the model require considerable user experience. Most studies apply PMF according to the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Commission, while relatively few studies focus on further developing the PMF methodology. This study aims to develop a systematic method that reduces some subjective aspects when performing a PMF study, providing recommendations and tools for its application and validation. A total of 13 targeted tests were conducted to address key sources of subjectivity in PMF, categorized into three critical aspects: preparation of the input matrix, selecting the number of sources, and validation of the PMF solution. The results of the first step highlighted that using a single source tracer reduces the tracer's dispersion into other sources, leading to more accurate results. The second stage tests suggested that the selection of a source tracer should be based on low uncertainty and specific temporal evolution, in order to facilitate the determination of a new source without compromising the PMF solution. Finally, the validation step was set up as an advanced comparison of the PMF-derived source profiles with those in the literature, including SPECIEUROPE database, using the ratio of chemicals and distance metrics. All outcomes of this study are compiled into a Python package providing essential tools to support the work from PMF implementation to solution validation, leading to less subjective solutions and more rigorous and reliable source apportionment.
- Preprint
(1254 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(942 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1968', Anonymous Referee #3, 05 Jul 2025
reply
This study develops an approach to reduce subjectivity in PM source apportionment using PMF. Three key challenges including input matrix preparation, selection of the number of sources, and validation of PMF solutions were addressed. The results find that using single-source tracers (e.g., levoglucosan alone) minimizes tracer dispersion and improves accuracy. For source separation, tracers should have low uncertainty (S/N ≥ 3) and distinct temporal patterns. Validation is enhanced by comparing PMF-derived profiles with literature data using chemical ratios and distance metrics. Finally, the methodology is compiled into a Python package to standardize PMF implementation and improve reliability. Overall, the results of the manuscript are interesting and valuable to the literature. However, there are several aspects requiring further clarification.
- Line 96: Please define OC*
- Line 221: Should the S/N value be greater than 3? Please clarify.
- Line 234: What is the additional coefficient “a”? Please define.
- Lines 256-260: Why did the authors use 11 factors? Please clarify. How would the results change if the number of factors were reduced?
- Line 268: The reasoning is clear. Since levoglucosan and mannosan are isomers and likely share the same source, their high correlation should not distort PMF results, as they would be grouped into a single factor. The critical point here should stress that excessive use of highly correlated inputs risks biasing the model outcomes.
- Lines 279-287: Should the first step be a correlation analysis to filter out highly correlated input parameters?
- Table 4: What are the differences between lines 5 and 6 in the table?
- Line 375: Should it be 99%?
- Lines 384-387: Given that higher S/N ratios improve PMF separation, what specific recommendations follow? For instance, should priority be given to filter the tracer species with both high concentrations and elevated S/N ratios?
- Lines 467-468: Building a source library is a great idea. However, sources may vary due to factors such as material, location, and environmental conditions. For example, for biomass burning, as shown in Figure 6, burning different wood types yields different source profiles. Different burning conditions may also contribute to varying results. Are there suggestions to address this diversity, such as using ratios of certain tracer species to determine these variables? The PD/SID metrics are useful, but the manuscript should address how missing data (e.g., non-overlapping species between profiles) affects the comparison.
- Line 492: Some parts of the manuscript use S/N > 2, while others use S/N > 3, which is confusing. Please clarify.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1968-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
133 | 24 | 7 | 164 | 9 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 133
- PDF: 24
- XML: 7
- Total: 164
- Supplement: 9
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1