Geoscientific Model Development
Geoscientific Model Development
GMD
Articles | Volume 10, issue 11
Articles | Volume 10, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 10, issue 11
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
24 Nov 2017
Methods for assessment of models |  | 24 Nov 2017

Source apportionment and sensitivity analysis: two methodologies with two different purposes

Alain Clappier, Claudio A. Belis, Denise Pernigotti, and Philippe Thunis

Viewed

Total article views: 5,563 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
3,510 1,913 140 5,563 192 259
  • HTML: 3,510
  • PDF: 1,913
  • XML: 140
  • Total: 5,563
  • BibTeX: 192
  • EndNote: 259
Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jul 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jul 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,563 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 5,231 with geography defined and 332 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 05 Dec 2025
Download
Short summary
This work demonstrates that when the relationship between emissions and concentrations is nonlinear, sensitivity approaches, generally used for air quality planning, are not suitable to retrieve source contributions and source apportionment methods are not appropriate to evaluate the impact of abatement strategies on air quality. A simple theoretical example is used highlighting differences and potential implications for policy.
Read more
Share