Articles | Volume 10, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017
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

Related authors

Emission ensemble approach to improve the development of multi-scale emission inventories
Philippe Thunis, Jeroen Kuenen, Enrico Pisoni, Bertrand Bessagnet, Manjola Banja, Lech Gawuc, Karol Szymankiewicz, Diego Guizardi, Monica Crippa, Susana Lopez-Aparicio, Marc Guevara, Alexander De Meij, Sabine Schindlbacher, and Alain Clappier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3631–3643, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024, 2024
Short summary
A multi-pollutant and multi-sectorial approach to screening the consistency of emission inventories
Philippe Thunis, Alain Clappier, Enrico Pisoni, Bertrand Bessagnet, Jeroen Kuenen, Marc Guevara, and Susana Lopez-Aparicio
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5271–5286, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5271-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5271-2022, 2022
Short summary
Why is the city's responsibility for its air pollution often underestimated? A focus on PM2.5
Philippe Thunis, Alain Clappier, Alexander de Meij, Enrico Pisoni, Bertrand Bessagnet, and Leonor Tarrason
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 18195–18212, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18195-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18195-2021, 2021
Short summary
Non-linear response of PM2.5 to changes in NOx and NH3 emissions in the Po basin (Italy): consequences for air quality plans
Philippe Thunis, Alain Clappier, Matthias Beekmann, Jean Philippe Putaud, Cornelis Cuvelier, Jessie Madrazo, and Alexander de Meij
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9309–9327, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9309-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9309-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
NeuralMie (v1.0): an aerosol optics emulator
Andrew Geiss and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1809–1827, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulation performance of planetary boundary layer schemes in WRF v4.3.1 for near-surface wind over the western Sichuan Basin: a single-site assessment
Qin Wang, Bo Zeng, Gong Chen, and Yaoting Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1769–1784, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1769-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1769-2025, 2025
Short summary
FootNet v1.0: development of a machine learning emulator of atmospheric transport
Tai-Long He, Nikhil Dadheech, Tammy M. Thompson, and Alexander J. Turner
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1661–1671, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1661-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1661-2025, 2025
Short summary
Updates and evaluation of NOAA's online-coupled air quality model version 7 (AQMv7) within the Unified Forecast System
Wei Li, Beiming Tang, Patrick C. Campbell, Youhua Tang, Barry Baker, Zachary Moon, Daniel Tong, Jianping Huang, Kai Wang, Ivanka Stajner, and Raffaele Montuoro
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1635–1660, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1635-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1635-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying the analysis uncertainty for nowcasting application
Yanwei Zhu, Aitor Atencia, Markus Dabernig, and Yong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1545–1559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1545-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1545-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Belis, C. A., Karagulian, F., Larsen, B. R., and Hopke, P. K.: Critical review and meta-analysis of ambient particulate matter source apportionment using receptor models in Europe, Atmos. Environ., 69, 94–108, 2013.
Bhave, P. V., Pouliot, G. A., and Zheng, M.: Diagnostic model evaluation for carbonaceous PM2.5 using organic markers measured in the southeastern U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 1577–1583, 2007.
Blanchard, C. L.: Methods for attributing ambient air pollutants to emission sources, Annu. Rev. Ener. Env., 24, 329–365, 1999.
Burr, M. J. and Zhang, Y.: Source-apportionment of fine particulate matter over the Eastern U.S. Part II: source apportionment simulations using CAMx/PSAT and comparisons with CMAQ source sensitivity simulations, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 2, 318–336, 2011a.
Burr, M. J. and Zhang, Y.: Source-apportionment of fine particulate matter over the Eastern U.S. Part II: source sensitivity simulations using CMAQ with the Brute Force method, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 2, 300–317, 2011b.
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.
Share