the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An improved Bayesian inversion to estimate daily NOx emissions of Paris from TROPOMI NO2 observations between 2018–2023
Abstract. We present a comprehensive quantification of daily NOx emissions from Paris using an inverse analysis of tropospheric NO2 columns measured by the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) over a 5-year period (May 2018–August 2023). Our analysis leverages a superposition column model that captures the relationship between the increase in NO2 with distance over an urban source region to underlying NOx emissions, accounting for chemical transformations and wind in the urban boundary layer. To evaluate the robustness of the superposition column model, we tested it against high-resolution (300 m) Large Eddy Simulations (LES) using MicroHH with atmospheric chemistry, confirming that the model’s simplifying assumptions introduce uncertainties below 10 %. Building on this foundation, we develop a new Bayesian inversion method that incorporates prior knowledge on NOx emissions and lifetimes and accounts for model and prior uncertainties. Compared to a previous look-up table approach, which relied on least-squares minimization without prior constraints, the Bayesian method demonstrated superior performance. In controlled tests, it reproduced known NOx emissions within 5 %. Applying Bayesian inversion to TROPOMI data in Paris, we observed a significant reduction in NOx emissions from 44 mol s−1 in 2018 to 32 mol s−1 in 2023, representing a 18 % decrease. This decline exceeds the 12 % reduction predicted by the TNO-MACC-III bottom-up inventory, indicating limited accuracy of current inventories. Seasonal analysis revealed higher posterior emissions in winter, possibly highlighting the role of residential heating or vehicle cold starts, which may be underrepresented in bottom-up estimates. Our improved Bayesian framework delivers accurate NOx emission estimates that align well with independent data sets. This approach provides a valuable tool for monitoring urban NOx emissions and assessing the efficacy of air quality policies.
- Preprint
(10789 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(189 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-49', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2025
reply
This article presents an new, improved method for estimating NOx emissions over urban areas based on TROPOMI or other high-resolution spaceborne NO2 data. The method builds on a previous method (Lorente et al. 2019) but introduces a well-thought Bayesian framework for the optimization of NOx emissions and lifetimes. In this way, the various uncertainties are taken into consideration, and overfitting is avoided. The advantages of the method are shown by tests (OSSE) using synthetic observations generated by a high-resolution model. Next, the method is applied to the estimation of NOx emissions over Paris using TROPOMI data. The results lead to several interesting insights on the emissions, including their trends, seasonal and weekly cycles, and variability due to covid-19 lockdowns. Overall, the manuscript is well-written, the methodology is clearly presented, with a few minor reservations (see below), and the results appear robust and useful to the top-down emission community. I see no reason why this method could be applied to many other cities and industrial centers worldwide. I recommend publication in this journal, provided that the authors address the following minor comments listed below.
Minor comments
l. 11-12 and l. 321: The decrease is -27% based on the 2018 and 2023 totals, not 17.5 or 18%. Please clarify.
Abstract and Conclusions: Can this method be applied to other large cities or industrial centers? A bit of discussion would be welcome.
l. 23 NO2+OH is not the only major sink, also formation of PAN (for example) might be important in VOC-rich areas. PAN and other compounds may play the role of NOx reservoirs, which might partly invalidate the assumptions of the superposition model. I think that this issue should be mentioned and possibly discussed.
l. 24 Dry and wet deposition of HNO3 are about equally important sinks (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029133)
l. 90 Why not adopt a temperature-dependent rate for NO2+OH? The rate is higher in cold conditions (~10% higher at 283K compared to 298K)
l. 206-208 Based on Fig. 4, the prior is very close to the truth. Why is that? This might contribute to explain why the Bayesian inversion results are closer to the truth, due to the constraint from the first term of the cost function (Eq. 3). What would happen if the prior was more different from the truth?
l. 247 Some more explanation (or maybe a reference) might be needed regarding the rotation and re-scaling step.
l. 264 CAMS NOx data are used for the domain average NOx/NO2 ratio. At what altitude above ground?
l. 275 "The NO2 concentrations (...) never completely decreased to the original levels": I do not follow here. Do you mean "increased"?
l. 288 What altitude for CAMS OH? Or is it an average weighted by the NO2 profile?
l. 319-320 The higher variability of posterior emissions is expected due to uncertainties in their derivation.
l. 345 and elsewhere in this paragraph: are the weekdend reduction calculated relative to the weekly (7-day) average, or relative to Mon-Fri average?
l. 350-351 I don't see how the higher cold start emissions in winter would reduce the weekend effect. It would be the other way around since traffic emissions are (expected to be) more strongly reduced during weekends. Therefore, only residential heating would have to explain the much weaker weekly cycle in winter compared to summer. Is this reasonable? What are the relative shares of the different sectors in the Paris area?
Technical / language comments
l. 6 MicroHH: what does the name stands for?
l. 49 "to estimate the NOx and predict CO2 emissions...": not clear why one is estimated and the other predicted. You could replace by "estimate NOx and CO2 emissions".
Legend of Fig. 1: why "grey arrow"? There are several (apparently) black arrows.
l. 95 Delete second "on"
Fig. 3 Use same distance units (preferably km) for all panels
l. 139 "the observed NO2 columns"
l. 152 Make a new sentence "It amounts to..."
l. 210 Figure 4b,d (not 4c,d)
l. 243 "Computation of..."
l. 244 Remove the first sentence since this step is elaborated in the following paragraph.
l. 275 "in between"
l. 317 Missing dot after parenthesis.
l. 340 Did you really filter data for weekdays? Isn't it for weekends?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-49-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
122 | 21 | 8 | 151 | 23 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 122
- PDF: 21
- XML: 8
- Total: 151
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 61 | 38 |
Netherlands | 2 | 21 | 13 |
China | 3 | 14 | 8 |
Germany | 4 | 11 | 6 |
France | 5 | 8 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 61