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
Accurate space-based NOx emission estimates with the flux divergence approach require fine-scale model information on local oxidation chemistry and profile shapes
Felipe Cifuentes, Henk Eskes, Enrico Dammers, Charlotte Bryan, and Folkert Boersma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 621–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025, 2025
Short summary
Exploring a high-level programming model for the NWP domain using ECMWF microphysics schemes
Stefano Ubbiali, Christian Kühnlein, Christoph Schär, Linda Schlemmer, Thomas C. Schulthess, Michael Staneker, and Heini Wernli
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 529–546, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying uncertainties in satellite NO2 superobservations for data assimilation and model evaluation
Pieter Rijsdijk, Henk Eskes, Arlene Dingemans, K. Folkert Boersma, Takashi Sekiya, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 483–509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025, 2025
Short summary
ML-AMPSIT: Machine Learning-based Automated Multi-method Parameter Sensitivity and Importance analysis Tool
Dario Di Santo, Cenlin He, Fei Chen, and Lorenzo Giovannini
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 433–459, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025, 2025
Short summary
Coupling the urban canopy model TEB (SURFEXv9.0) with the radiation model SPARTACUS-Urbanv0.6.1 for more realistic urban radiative exchange calculation
Robert Schoetter, Robin James Hogan, Cyril Caliot, and Valéry Masson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 405–431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025, 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