the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A quantitative decoupling analysis (QDA v1.0) method for assessing the contributions of meteorology, emissions, and chemistry to fine particulate pollution
Abstract. A comprehensive understanding of the effects of meteorology, emissions, and chemistry on severe haze is critical in the mitigation of air pollution. However, such an understanding is greatly hindered by the nonlinearity of atmospheric systems. In this study, we developed the quantitative decoupling analysis (QDA) method to quantify the effects of emissions, meteorology, chemical reactions, and their nonlinear interactions on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution by running built-in scenario simulations in each model step. Different from previous methods, the QDA method achieves a fully decomposed analysis of hourly changes in the PM2.5 concentration during pollution events into seven parts, including the pure meteorological contribution (M), the pure emissions contribution (E), the pure chemistry contribution (C), and the interactions among these processes (i.e., ME, MC, EC, and MCE). Via embedding the QDA method into the Weather Research and Forecasting–Nested Air Quality Prediction Modeling System, we employed this method and combined it with the Integrated Process Rate method to study a typical heavy haze episode in Beijing. We evaluate the model performance against in situ meteorological and air quality observations and describe the QDA analytical factors of this case. Results showed that M varied most significantly at different stages of the episode, from 0.21 µg⋅m−3⋅h−1 during the accumulation stage to −11.82 µg⋅m−3⋅h−1 during the removal stage, indicating that the pure meteorological contribution dominated the hourly fluctuation amplitude of the PM2.5 concentration. M acted as the most important cleaner for PM2.5 in non-polluting periods but stopped being effective at this and instead became a contributor in the accumulation stage such that PM2.5 tended to grow rapidly under the superimposed influence of emissions and chemical processes, which would probably mark the beginning of a heavy pollution event. The contribution of E ranged from 0.63 to 0.88 µg⋅m−3⋅h−1 owing to the diurnal variation of emissions. The pure chemical contribution was shown to increase with the level of haze, becoming the largest (0.37 µg⋅m−3⋅h−1) in the maintenance period, which was 25 % higher than during the pre-contamination period. And C+CE made a significant contribution in the accumulation and maintenance stages, indicating that chemical reactions are more important in the polluted period than in other periods. Nonnegligible nonlinear effects exist among the processes of meteorology, emissions, and chemistry on PM2.5 concentrations (−1.83 to 2.44 µg⋅m−3⋅h−1) – something that has generally been ignored in previous studies and during the development of heavy-pollution control strategies. The nonlinear effects are helpful in eliminating the interference of other processes and obtaining a more purified result of the target process and have important indicative significances. The ratio of CE to C is positively correlated with the chemical speed. For precursors like NH3, the smaller value of CE in the most polluted period indicated that NH3 was more deficient, and thus reducing emissions of it in that period would have had the most efficient controlling effect on the PM2.5. This study highlights that the QDA method can be used to realize an in-depth understanding of the effects of adverse meteorological conditions in haze and to judge whether the precursors are excessive or not. Not only can the QDA method provide researchers and policymakers with valuable information for understanding the key factors behind heavy pollution, but it can also help modelers to identify the sources of uncertainties in numerical models.
- Preprint
(1444 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1383 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2023
This resubmitted manuscript (ID: GMD-2023-22) has been well improved from the previous version (ID: GMD-2021-259), especially in terms of the explanation of the QDA method. Now we can clarify the differences and/or relationship between the QDA method and previous methods such as SAA, FS, and IPR. However, I have fundamental questions about the combination of QDA and IPR as described in Section 2.2. In my understanding, the component of “wetdep” in IPR (I believe this term is corresponded to “CLDS” in CMAQ’s IPR; https://www.cmascenter.org/cmaq/science_documentation/pdf/ch16.pdf) includes wet deposition process and the aqueous-phase chemistry which is highly important in the sulfate aerosol production. If so, it cannot be separated as Eqs. (26) and (27), because “wetdep” term can be attributed both in M and C in QDA. As replied in the previous review process, the aqueous-phase chemistry is included in the “gaschem” in this case, right? The current manuscript is still not clear regarding this point. If the readers know CMAQ IPR, the current description will lead to confusion. In addition, as listed in Table 5, “gaschem” was also continuously zero through this analyzed period. Did this stand for no production via the aqueous-phase chemistry in all four stages? In this case, what is the pathway of sulfate aerosol? The term “ISORR” seems to be the main component of C in QDA; however, I do not follow why the sulfate production is attributed to “ISORR”. At the current quality, it is required for furthermore revisions in Section 2.2 and Table 3 to point out what stands for each IPR component, and a more in-depth discussion of the production process.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Juan Antonio Añel, 15 Jun 2023
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlIn your manuscript, you state that to get access to the model data for the QDA method in NAQPMS, it is necessary to contact you. This is not acceptable according to our policy, and your manuscript is currently in an irregular situation, as it should have not been accepted for Discussions with such shortcomings. You must publish all the code and data used to carry on your work in one of the acceptable repositories stated in our policy.
Also, in your manuscript, you state that you use several other models and datasets, and you have not published their code or even mentioned them in the Code Availability Section. These include CMAQ 4.6, the MEIC data, fields from WRF, etc. Even the link that you provide for MEIC data in the text is broken and the linked webpage does not serve the data. Also, the Zenodo repository that you include with your manuscript does not include an explanation about what is each file, and the names of them do not help.
Moreover, some data in the Zenodo repository is in .xlsx format, which depends on proprietary software to get correct access to it. I recommend you to save and publish such files in OpenDocumentFormat (.ods), which is an ISO standard and relies on free software.
Therefore, please, publish the requested data and code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, with the DOI of the new repositories.
Please, note that if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-CEC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CEC1', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
The paper is quite ambitious, as it presents a novel approach (QDA - quantitative decoupling analysis) to quantify the effects of emissions, meteorology, chemical reactions and nonlinear interactions on PM2.5 concentrations.
As the authors correctly state, in literature there are already existing approaches to perform this task, as IPR (integrated process rate), SAA (scenario analysis approach), FS (factor separation). On this last topic ... I have two main concerns on the current version of the paper
- focus on pros and cons of the different approaches. Even if the authors provide some hints of the pros and cons of the approaches (section 2.1.4) still it is not clear to me why we need another approach (QDA) and why the existing ones are not sufficient. Please better explain this, and also provide a more schematic and syntetic view of pros and cons of the different approaches, i.e. also with a table or graphical view
- also, I would like to see not only theoretically, but also in practice, what you gain using QDA instead of using other approaches. To do so, please apply, on the same data and episode, also other approaches (i.e. SAA, FS ...) to see if you really gain (and what you gain) on the results' quality and interpretation, using the QDA approach
Minor comment
- please move part of the Equations (section 2) in the supplementary material, so that the main concepts you propose remain in the main part of the manuscript, and the more technical part goes in the Annex.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2023
This resubmitted manuscript (ID: GMD-2023-22) has been well improved from the previous version (ID: GMD-2021-259), especially in terms of the explanation of the QDA method. Now we can clarify the differences and/or relationship between the QDA method and previous methods such as SAA, FS, and IPR. However, I have fundamental questions about the combination of QDA and IPR as described in Section 2.2. In my understanding, the component of “wetdep” in IPR (I believe this term is corresponded to “CLDS” in CMAQ’s IPR; https://www.cmascenter.org/cmaq/science_documentation/pdf/ch16.pdf) includes wet deposition process and the aqueous-phase chemistry which is highly important in the sulfate aerosol production. If so, it cannot be separated as Eqs. (26) and (27), because “wetdep” term can be attributed both in M and C in QDA. As replied in the previous review process, the aqueous-phase chemistry is included in the “gaschem” in this case, right? The current manuscript is still not clear regarding this point. If the readers know CMAQ IPR, the current description will lead to confusion. In addition, as listed in Table 5, “gaschem” was also continuously zero through this analyzed period. Did this stand for no production via the aqueous-phase chemistry in all four stages? In this case, what is the pathway of sulfate aerosol? The term “ISORR” seems to be the main component of C in QDA; however, I do not follow why the sulfate production is attributed to “ISORR”. At the current quality, it is required for furthermore revisions in Section 2.2 and Table 3 to point out what stands for each IPR component, and a more in-depth discussion of the production process.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Juan Antonio Añel, 15 Jun 2023
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlIn your manuscript, you state that to get access to the model data for the QDA method in NAQPMS, it is necessary to contact you. This is not acceptable according to our policy, and your manuscript is currently in an irregular situation, as it should have not been accepted for Discussions with such shortcomings. You must publish all the code and data used to carry on your work in one of the acceptable repositories stated in our policy.
Also, in your manuscript, you state that you use several other models and datasets, and you have not published their code or even mentioned them in the Code Availability Section. These include CMAQ 4.6, the MEIC data, fields from WRF, etc. Even the link that you provide for MEIC data in the text is broken and the linked webpage does not serve the data. Also, the Zenodo repository that you include with your manuscript does not include an explanation about what is each file, and the names of them do not help.
Moreover, some data in the Zenodo repository is in .xlsx format, which depends on proprietary software to get correct access to it. I recommend you to save and publish such files in OpenDocumentFormat (.ods), which is an ISO standard and relies on free software.
Therefore, please, publish the requested data and code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, with the DOI of the new repositories.
Please, note that if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-CEC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CEC1', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2023-22', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
The paper is quite ambitious, as it presents a novel approach (QDA - quantitative decoupling analysis) to quantify the effects of emissions, meteorology, chemical reactions and nonlinear interactions on PM2.5 concentrations.
As the authors correctly state, in literature there are already existing approaches to perform this task, as IPR (integrated process rate), SAA (scenario analysis approach), FS (factor separation). On this last topic ... I have two main concerns on the current version of the paper
- focus on pros and cons of the different approaches. Even if the authors provide some hints of the pros and cons of the approaches (section 2.1.4) still it is not clear to me why we need another approach (QDA) and why the existing ones are not sufficient. Please better explain this, and also provide a more schematic and syntetic view of pros and cons of the different approaches, i.e. also with a table or graphical view
- also, I would like to see not only theoretically, but also in practice, what you gain using QDA instead of using other approaches. To do so, please apply, on the same data and episode, also other approaches (i.e. SAA, FS ...) to see if you really gain (and what you gain) on the results' quality and interpretation, using the QDA approach
Minor comment
- please move part of the Equations (section 2) in the supplementary material, so that the main concepts you propose remain in the main part of the manuscript, and the more technical part goes in the Annex.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-22-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Baozhu Ge, 05 Aug 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
602 | 172 | 47 | 821 | 71 | 34 | 39 |
- HTML: 602
- PDF: 172
- XML: 47
- Total: 821
- Supplement: 71
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1