the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Measurement report: A multi-year, high-resolution, county-scale atmospheric NH3 dataset from the North China Plain
Abstract. Ammonia (NH3) is a critical precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. However, long-term observations at the county scale with high temporal resolution remain scarce. We present a four‑year (2021–2025) hourly NH3 dataset from 10 monitoring sites across Quzhou County, a typical intensive agricultural county on the North China Plain. To address missing values caused by instrumental interruptions, we evaluated three machine learning models and selected XGBoost for data imputation. The reconstructed dataset reveals that the annual mean NH3 concentration in Quzhou County exhibited an overall decreasing trend following an initial rise, increasing from 31 ppb in 2021–2022 to a peak of 36.8 ppb in 2022–2023, and subsequently declining to 26.8 ppb by 2024–2025. A persistent north–south gradient highlights substantial spatial heterogeneity, with mean concentrations ranging from 20.9 ppb at northern cropland sites to 52.8 ppb at southern livestock hotspots. Temporally, NH3 exhibits a bimodal seasonal cycle peaking in March and June, and a diurnal maximum between 07:00 and 10:00 local time. SHAP analysis identified water vapor pressure, air temperature, and wind speed as the primary meteorological controls. NH3 concentrations were elevated when vapor pressure exceeded 1.03 kPa and air temperature surpassed 12.4 °C, and were suppressed when wind speed exceeded 1.12 m s⁻¹. This dataset provides a robust observational foundation for evaluating emission reductions, validating satellite products, and informing air quality models.
- Preprint
(1387 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(721 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2742', Anonymous Referee #3, 16 Aug 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wen Xu, 09 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2742', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Sep 2026
This work constructs a four‑year hourly ammonia dataset with ten ground‑monitoring sites at county scale in Quzhou County (North China Plain). Three tree‑based machine‑learning models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM) are compared for gap‑filling, and XGBoost is selected. The manuscript analyses spatial‑temporal patterns and meteorological thresholds of NH₃ using SHAP interpretation. The major comments are as followed.
- The introduction lacks systematic comparison with existing ground‑based NH₃ networks over the North China Plain. Please clarify how your 10‑site dense county network complements previous regional sparse monitoring networks. Readers cannot easily tell the novelty boundary between your dataset and published in‑situ datasets.
- When discussing satellite NH₃ products (IASI, CrIS), the manuscript only mentions their footprint and overpass limitations. It is better to briefly summarise typical bias characteristics of these satellite retrievals over intensive agricultural regions, to further emphasise why high‑quality ground reference data like this study is urgently required.
- Section 2.1 mentions monitoring sites but provides very limited details of NH₃ analysers: instrument model, measurement principle, detection limit, calibration frequency, filter maintenance schedule and uncertainty range of raw hourly NH₃ observations are missing. These critical metadata are essential for a measurement-report-style paper.
- The study uses ERA5‑Land precipitation to fill rain‑gauge gaps. Although it gives statistical metrics (\(R^2=0.7\), bias and RMSE), it does not discuss potential impacts of ERA5‑Land precipitation uncertainty on subsequent machine‑learning imputation for NH₃ concentrations.
- Machine‑learning input features include station ID as a categorical spatial variable. Please explicitly explain how you encoded the station ID for Random Forest/XGBoost/LightGBM models. Is one‑hot encoding applied? Different encoding strategies may affect model performance.
- Model comparison focuses on test‑set statistical metrics and extreme‑value residuals. However, there is no cross‑site evaluation: the authors did not perform site‑held‑out cross‑validation (leave‑one‑site‑out test). This cannot fully verify whether XGBoost can generalise to unseen sites within this county, which weakens the robustness of model selection conclusion.
- The manuscript does not report hyper‑parameter tuning details: search range, grid‑search space, final optimal hyper‑parameters for three tree‑based models. For a measurement report providing public dataset, these model configuration details should be supplied either in main text or supplementary materials.
- Figure 2: Panel (a‑f) compares model performance of training and test datasets. The colour bar uses log‑scale point density, but no description about point count distribution. I suggest adding sample numbers for training/test subsets in figure caption. Besides, high‑NH₃ samples (>60 ppb) are critical for agricultural hotspot research; please mark the number count of these high‑concentration samples in caption or supplementary table.
- Figure 3: Radial plot visualises inter‑annual station mean values. This graphic style is not conventional in atmospheric‑science publications; many readers may struggle to interpret the orange segment representing excess concentration above county mean. Consider supplementing a conventional grouped bar chart in supplementary materials for easier reading.
- Figure 4: Monthly time series for ten sites. The four monitoring periods overlap in one subplot without distinct marker styles; some lines are visually tangled. Please optimise line colour/marker differentiation or simplify visualisation. In addition, the caption should define the exact time windows of four monitoring periods concisely.
- Section 3.2 observes a county‑scale trend: NH₃ rose first then decreased, and authors link the decline to fertiliser reduction and livestock manure management policies. However, the dataset cannot provide direct causal proof. Please moderate your statement and explicitly acknowledge other confounding factors (inter‑annual meteorological variability) that may also contribute to concentration trends.
- North‑south spatial gradient is attributed to cropland versus livestock sources. Yet the manuscript lacks quantitative source apportionment (e.g. correlation between site‑level NH₃ and local livestock density / fertiliser application statistics). Supporting statistical analysis would strengthen the argument of source‑driven spatial heterogeneity.
- Section 3.3 reports bimodal seasonal peaks (March and June) linked to fertilisation events. Southern livestock‑dominated sites maintain high NH₃ in autumn‑winter. The discussion could go deeper: compare your seasonal pattern with previous published NH₃ observations from other North‑China agricultural counties, to discuss similarities and discrepancies.
- Diurnal cycle analysis mentions morning peak around 08:00 local time. Please note: local standard time (Beijing time) vs solar time difference in this region should be mentioned; boundary‑layer height observational evidence is absent when explaining diurnal variation mechanism.
- SHAP analysis shows spatial‑temporal features contribute up to 59.3% of total importance, much higher than meteorological variables. The discussion should elaborate what this implies: NH₃ variability in this county is dominated by emission source timing and location rather than meteorology alone. This key conclusion is not sufficiently highlighted.
- The nonlinear meteorological thresholds (vapour pressure, temperature, wind speed) are derived from gap‑filled dataset. Please add a short discussion on the uncertainty of these threshold values induced by machine‑learning gap‑filling.
- In Conclusions section, limitations are briefly mentioned (only valid for Quzhou County, uncertainty for long data gaps). Please expand this part: discuss representativeness limitation when extrapolating these thresholds and spatial‑temporal features to other counties of the North China Plain.
- The dataset is shared via Figshare repository. Please briefly note what quality‑control levels the published dataset contains: raw observational data only, or the final gap‑filled hourly product? Users need clear guidance on dataset usage.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2742-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wen Xu, 09 Oct 2026
Data sets
Measurement report: A multi-year, high-resolution, county-scale atmospheric NH3 dataset from the North China Plain Jiyang Lyu et al. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32232129
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 253 | 136 | 38 | 427 | 56 | 38 | 40 |
- HTML: 253
- PDF: 136
- XML: 38
- Total: 427
- Supplement: 56
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 40
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents a four-year (2021–2025) high-resolution, county-scale atmospheric ammonia (NH3) dataset from Quzhou County on the North China Plain, utilizing the XGBoost model for missing data imputation and the SHAP method to analyze meteorological driving factors. Although long-term, high-frequency observations at the county scale hold certain value for data accumulation and filling ground monitoring gaps, this manuscript suffers from a fatal lack of scientific depth for a research article submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal. The study relies almost entirely on pure statistics and machine learning, lacking substantive investigation into atmospheric chemical and physical processes, and completely omitting regional-scale transport dynamics. Additionally, there are already many studies on constructing high spatiotemporal resolution atmospheric composition datasets based on multi-source observations (e.g., reanalysis data, ground-based observation, satellite observation), this study only focuses on a small region. It would be more valuable if the data are expanded to the entire North China region or even China.