Articles | Volume 14, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4731-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4731-2021
Model experiment description paper
 | 
29 Jul 2021
Model experiment description paper |  | 29 Jul 2021

Comparison of source apportionment approaches and analysis of non-linearity in a real case model application

Claudio A. Belis, Guido Pirovano, Maria Gabriella Villani, Giuseppe Calori, Nicola Pepe, and Jean Philippe Putaud

Related authors

Air quality and related health impact in the UNECE region: source attribution and scenario analysis
Claudio A. Belis and Rita Van Dingenen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8225–8240, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8225-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8225-2023, 2023
Short summary
Source apportionment and sensitivity analysis: two methodologies with two different purposes
Alain Clappier, Claudio A. Belis, Denise Pernigotti, and Philippe Thunis
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4245–4256, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4245-2017, 2017
Short summary
Variations in the chemical composition of the submicron aerosol and in the sources of the organic fraction at a regional background site of the Po Valley (Italy)
Michael Bressi, Fabrizia Cavalli, Claudio A. Belis, Jean-Philippe Putaud, Roman Fröhlich, Sebastiao Martins dos Santos, Ettore Petralia, André S. H. Prévôt, Massimo Berico, Antonella Malaguti, and Francesco Canonaco
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12875–12896, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12875-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12875-2016, 2016
Short summary
ACTRIS ACSM intercomparison – Part 1: Reproducibility of concentration and fragment results from 13 individual Quadrupole Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitors (Q-ACSM) and consistency with co-located instruments
V. Crenn, J. Sciare, P. L. Croteau, S. Verlhac, R. Fröhlich, C. A. Belis, W. Aas, M. Äijälä, A. Alastuey, B. Artiñano, D. Baisnée, N. Bonnaire, M. Bressi, M. Canagaratna, F. Canonaco, C. Carbone, F. Cavalli, E. Coz, M. J. Cubison, J. K. Esser-Gietl, D. C. Green, V. Gros, L. Heikkinen, H. Herrmann, C. Lunder, M. C. Minguillón, G. Močnik, C. D. O'Dowd, J. Ovadnevaite, J.-E. Petit, E. Petralia, L. Poulain, M. Priestman, V. Riffault, A. Ripoll, R. Sarda-Estève, J. G. Slowik, A. Setyan, A. Wiedensohler, U. Baltensperger, A. S. H. Prévôt, J. T. Jayne, and O. Favez
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 5063–5087, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-5063-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-5063-2015, 2015
Short summary
ACTRIS ACSM intercomparison – Part 2: Intercomparison of ME-2 organic source apportionment results from 15 individual, co-located aerosol mass spectrometers
R. Fröhlich, V. Crenn, A. Setyan, C. A. Belis, F. Canonaco, O. Favez, V. Riffault, J. G. Slowik, W. Aas, M. Aijälä, A. Alastuey, B. Artiñano, N. Bonnaire, C. Bozzetti, M. Bressi, C. Carbone, E. Coz, P. L. Croteau, M. J. Cubison, J. K. Esser-Gietl, D. C. Green, V. Gros, L. Heikkinen, H. Herrmann, J. T. Jayne, C. R. Lunder, M. C. Minguillón, G. Močnik, C. D. O'Dowd, J. Ovadnevaite, E. Petralia, L. Poulain, M. Priestman, A. Ripoll, R. Sarda-Estève, A. Wiedensohler, U. Baltensperger, J. Sciare, and A. S. H. Prévôt
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2555–2576, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2555-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2555-2015, 2015
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modeling below-cloud scavenging of size-resolved particles in GEM-MACHv3.1
Roya Ghahreman, Wanmin Gong, Paul A. Makar, Alexandru Lupu, Amanda Cole, Kulbir Banwait, Colin Lee, and Ayodeji Akingunola
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 685–707, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-685-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-685-2024, 2024
Short summary
Impacts of a double-moment bulk cloud microphysics scheme (NDW6-G23) on aerosol fields in NICAM.19 with a global 14 km grid resolution
Daisuke Goto, Tatsuya Seiki, Kentaroh Suzuki, Hisashi Yashiro, and Toshihiko Takemura
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 651–684, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-651-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-651-2024, 2024
Short summary
Sensitivity of air quality model responses to emission changes: comparison of results based on four EU inventories through FAIRMODE benchmarking methodology
Alexander de Meij, Cornelis Cuvelier, Philippe Thunis, Enrico Pisoni, and Bertrand Bessagnet
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 587–606, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-587-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-587-2024, 2024
Short summary
A simple and realistic aerosol emission approach for use in the Thompson–Eidhammer microphysics scheme in the NOAA UFS Weather Model (version GSL global-24Feb2022)
Haiqin Li, Georg A. Grell, Ravan Ahmadov, Li Zhang, Shan Sun, Jordan Schnell, and Ning Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 607–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-607-2024, 2024
Short summary
On the formation of biogenic secondary organic aerosol in chemical transport models: an evaluation of the WRF-CHIMERE (v2020r2) model with a focus over the Finnish boreal forest
Giancarlo Ciarelli, Sara Tahvonen, Arineh Cholakian, Manuel Bettineschi, Bruno Vitali, Tuukka Petäjä, and Federico Bianchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 545–565, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-545-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-545-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Ansari, A. S. and Pandis, S. N.: Response of Inorganic PM to Precursor Concentrations, Environ. Sci. Technol., 32, 2706–2714, 1998. 
ARIA Technologies and ARIANET: Emission Manager – Processing system for model-ready emission input – User's guide, ARIA/ARIANET R2013.19, Milano, Italy, 2013. 
ARIANET: FARM (Flexible Air quality Regional Model) – Model formulation and user manual – Version 4.13, ARIANET R2018.22, Milano, Italy, 2019. 
Belis, C. A., Cancelinha, J., Duane, M., Forcina, V., Pedroni, V., Passarella, R., Tanet, G., Douglas, K., Piazzalunga, A., Bolzacchini, E., Sangiorgi, G., Perrone, M. G., Ferrero, L., Fermo, P., and Larsen, B. R.: Sources for PM air pollution in the Po Plain, Italy: I. Critical comparison of methods for estimating biomass burning contributions to benzo(a)pyrene, Atmos. Environ., 45, 7266–7275, 2011. 
Download
Short summary
The study presents an in-depth analysis of the implications that using different CTM source apportionment approaches (tagged species and brute force) have for the source allocation of secondary inorganic aerosol, an important component of PM10 and PM2.5. A set of runs combining different emission levels and models was carried out, aiming to describe the situations in which strong non-linearity may lead the two approaches to deliver different results and when they are expected to be comparable.