the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Chemical characterization and source apportionment of PM₁₀ in Belgrade, Serbia: influence of local and regional anthropogenic and natural sources
Abstract. Substantial efforts and improvements in air quality across Europe lowered levels of air pollutants including particulate matter (PM) in the last decades. However, significant proportion of the European population still lives in areas exceeding WHO recommendations, especially in Northern Italy, Balkans and Eastern Europe, including Serbia. Targeted PM mitigation strategies require extensive air quality monitoring and modelling including source apportionment (SA) studies. In the past, numerous SA studies were conducted for Belgrade city, capital of Serbia. Nevertheless, comparisons across the results are difficult, as they encompass different datasets of pollutants contained in PM fractions such as elements and/or ions and/or PAHs. Here, the aim is to offer a broader insight on PM10 sources at an urban background site in Belgrade by including 34 species as input variables for SA (carbonous aerosols, elements, ions and specific organic tracers). For SA, the USEPA PMF 5.0 software was applied. The factor that dominated PM10 mass was biomass burning (21%), primarily during heating season, followed by ammonium sulphate (18%) and mineral dust (17%). A mixed traffic and industrial activity accounted for 15% of PM10 mass while contribution of factors from biological origin, primary biological aerosol particles and biogenic secondary organic aerosols from isoprene, was 10% each. Mixed factor of long-range transport and road salt/local combustion contributed to the PM10 mass 9%. This analysis provides more detailed perspective on the composition and sources of PM10 in Belgrade, both from anthropogenic and natural, including biological origin. These findings are valuable for defining targeted PM10 mitigation strategies.
- Preprint
(1487 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1319 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2112', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2112', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2026
The authors are presenting a source apportionment study based on the PM10 chemical composition data obtained at an urban background site in Belgrade, Serbia. There were numerous source apportionment studies conducted for the city in the past covering the sampling period from 2003 to 2015. Therefore, the presented study aims to identify the PM10 using recent filter samples collected between June 2023 and May 2024, and a broader spectra of the tracers. However, it is a solid work, the used approach of collecting 24h PM10 filter samples even not every day for a year and analyse them for the standard compounds/tracers is not very innovative and up-to-date. Additionally, this approach doesn’t allow a precise differentiation of the PM sources. Therefore, further work for better understanding of PM sources in Belgrade will be needed.
2. Material and methods
The section is quite brief and some information/parts are missing e.g. detailed information about filter sampling as duration and frequency, meteorological measurements, FLEXPART and HYSPLIT model description and settings.
2.6. PMF model
The section has to be revised.
- First and only equation of the paper quoted with number “4”.
- Glojek et al., 2024 is not an original paper see Glojek et al., 2024.
- Table S2 not cited at all in the main text.
- Table S4 cite earlier than Table S3 in the main text.
- Sentence 151-151 is not easy to follow.
Questions:
What are the S/N ratios and LODs for Rb, Sr, Cd, Sb and Sn?
How was the PM10 uncertainty calculated?
Was the total variable (PM10) considered as “weak”?
3. Result and discussion
I recommend to present the average values with SD and use same number of decimal numbers in the whole manuscript.
Fig. 2 I recommend to change y axis to μg/m3. Please discuss the difference in “unaccounted” part during the seasons.
Fig. S1 is analogue to Tab. S4.
Fig. 3 and 4 used abbreviations, which should be clarified in the figure’s legend.
Questions:
How was “mineral dust” calculated?
What represent the whiskers in the Fig. 4?
4. Conclusion
Most of the text is rather summary than conclusion(s).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2112-RC2
Data sets
OC/EC at Beograd Ada Marina Milena Jovasević-Stojanović et al. https://doi.org/10.48597/J32C-ZYJW
Inorganics in air and particle phase at Beograd Ada Marina Milena Jovasević-Stojanović et al. https://doi.org/10.48597/5JNE-638V
Heavy metals and inorganics in air and particle phase at Beograd Ada Marina Milena Jovasević-Stojanović et al. https://doi.org/10.48597/8TQV-HXDA
Organic tracers at Beograd Ada Marina Karl E. Yttri https://doi.org/10.48597/AJ4A-EZ64
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 223 | 81 | 17 | 321 | 38 | 20 | 21 |
- HTML: 223
- PDF: 81
- XML: 17
- Total: 321
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
-General comments
The manuscript describes a PM10 source apportionment study in Belgrade. The methodology is briefly described and the factor/sources are presented in detail. It is not clear why the study focuses on PM10 while it is well known that PM2.5 is a better indicator of health impacts. More effort is needed to emphasize the scientific added value of this study compared to previous work and to place it in the broader context.
-Introduction
The most appropriate citations for PMF are:
Paatero P. and Tapper U.,1994 Envirometrics;
Paatero P. and Hopke P., 2009 J. Chemometrics
The objective of the study should be clearly indicated in the introduction.
-Methodology
The authors should explain more clearly in the methodological section the procedure they followed to establishing the number of factors and attributing factors to sources including the model diagnostics and the use of independent external evidence (e.g. results from other studies) used to support their choices.
Also the way in which polar plots and backward trajectories is used should be explained in the methodological section.
-Results and discussion
Important publications regarding the study area should be considered in the discussion of results (e.g. Almeida et al., 2020 Environmental Pollution)
-Conclusions
The conclusion section should be revised to match ACP guidelines for authors