1 / 36

Folkert Boersma

Dutch OMI NO 2 product DOMINO (www.temis.nl). Folkert Boersma. Collaborators: Daniel J. Jacob, Miri Trainic, Yinon Rudich, Ruud Dirksen, and Ronald van der A. Comparison of NO 2 air pollution in Israeli cities measured from the ground and from SCIAMACHY and OMI. Motivation.

judson
Download Presentation

Folkert Boersma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dutch OMI NO2 product DOMINO (www.temis.nl) Folkert Boersma Collaborators: Daniel J. Jacob, Miri Trainic, Yinon Rudich, Ruud Dirksen, and Ronald van der A Comparison of NO2 air pollution in Israeli cities measured from the ground and from SCIAMACHY and OMI

  2. Motivation • Trends in emissions • Can we use satellite measurements of NO2 to obtain better estimates of NOx emissions? • Monitoring of a target polluter • Is tropospheric NO2 a proxy for near-surface NO2? Boersma et al., Atmos. Environ., 2008

  3. Comparison of surface and satellite NO2 • Different quantities and error budgets: • near-surface concentrations vs. trop. columns • point measurements vs. spatial average • interference from NOz vs. AMF errors • BUT: • Validation still sparse, especially on larger spatial and longer temporal scales • Allows for validation of diurnal cycle Schaub et al., ACP, 2006 • Interference • Ground-based instruments with molybdenum converter overestimate NO2 • Interference from HNO3, PAN, alkyl nitrates • Effect largest in summer (photochemistry) for regions downwind of sources

  4. 8 urban stations in Israel • Half-hourly NO2 & O3 concentrations • Molybdenum converters

  5. Known issues with in situ NO2 Dunlea et al., (ACP, 2007) Summarize Dunlea et al.

  6. What does this mean for urban, in situ NO2 ? • Very little interference at 10:00 (fresh emissions, little photochemical processing yet) • Interference modest at 13:30 • Interference correlates with ambient O3 concentration, but O3 itself does not represent an interference slope = 0.1 Israeli cities: no specific NO2 measurements available, but we have in-situ observed O3

  7. Interference correction based on in situ O3 slope = 0.10 • O3 = O3[13:30] – O3[10:00] • Dunlea et al.: interference = 0.1  O3 • Two limiting cases: • no correction at all • correcting NO2 at 13:45 as follows: slope = 0.09 slope = 0.24

  8. Δlat,lon < 0.1° OMI VZA < 35° fclrad < 50%

  9. r = 0.61 (n=396) RMA: y = -1.28 + 0.90x Δlat,lon < 0.1° OMI VZA < 35° fclrad < 50% No correction

  10. r = 0.54 (n=396) RMA: y = -0.68 + 0.92x Δlat,lon < 0.1° OMI VZA < 35° fclrad < 50% No correction Uniform correction (-8%)

  11. Boundary-layer columns from surface NO2 z (m) 1091 DJF • Assume well-mixed boundary-layer • Extrapolate surface NO2 throughout the BL depth • Seasonal variation in noontime BL depths over Israel from Dayan et al. [1988, 2002] MAM, SON 790 JJA 608 NO2 (ppb) Summertime subtropical high is associated with subsidence of FT air, “capping” the BL.

  12. Boundary-layer columns from surface NO2 Surface – OMI vs. BL column - OMI No correction No correction Column-column comparison No interference correction: y = -0.86 + 0.90 x Interference correction: y = -0.35 + 0.94 x

  13. Seasonal variation in surface and OMI NO2 columns

  14. Weekly cycle in surface and OMI NO2 columns Beirle et al. (ACP, 2004)

  15. Diurnal cycle in NO2 columns? NO2 NO2 : NOx E k NO2+OH+M  HNO3+M Boersma et al., JGR, 2008

  16. Diurnal cycle in surface-based and satellite NO2 n = 26 Δlat,lon < 0.1° fclrad < 50%

  17. Diurnal cycle in surface-based and satellite NO2

  18. MAM

  19. Diurnal cycle in surface-based and satellite NO2

  20. Dutch OMI NO2 product DOMINO (www.temis.nl) END

  21. NOx emission inventories in need of verification • New set of emission inventories • EDGAR (global) • Streets et al. 2006 • EMEP (Europe) Lin Zhang et al. (2008) EMEP (1996-2005) GOME, SCIAMACHY (1996-2005) Konovalov et al., ACPD, 2008

  22. NOx emissions show trends in the Middle East • Trend 1996-2006 from GOME, SCIAMACHY • Figure 1996-2006 Cairo + 1.3%/yr Tehran + 6.1%/yr Calcutta + 2.2%/yr Delhi + 7.4%/yr

  23. NOx emissions show trends in the Middle East Richter et al., 2005 van der A et al., 2008 1996-2002 1996-2006

  24. Effect of averaging kernel a: scattering weights xTM4: TM4 NO2 profile b: forward model parameters GEOS-Chem direct GEOS-Chem with AK MI

  25. GEOS-Chem with AK OMI Effect of averaging kernel GEOS-Chem direct NGC = ∑xGC,l NGC,AK = ∑Al·xGC,l NOMI = ∑Al·xtrue,l

  26. Effect of averaging kernel GEOS-Chem direct GEOS-Chem with AK GEOS-Chem direct r (gc,omi) = 0.71 r (gc_ak,omi) = 0.75 Ngc = 0.87 Ngc_ak = 0.93 (+7%) Nomi = 1.09 OMI

  27. What does NGC,AK > NGC mean? Write NGC,AK > NGC differently: Definition of tropospheric air mass factor: Substitute tropospheric air mass factor: Or ( SGC = scatt. weights · GEOS-Chem NO2 profile ):

  28. What does NGC,AK > NGC mean? Mean NO2 profiles over Middle East for 1-7 February 2006 from TM4 and GEOS-Chem

  29. Correcting for background NO2 Can we simply subtract UT NO2 at mid-latitudes? Rynda Hudman et al., JGR, 2007 Randall Martin, 2006 Lin Zhang et al., 2008

  30. Checking GEOS-Chem background NO2 with OMI

  31. Qinbin paper • Duncan paper

  32. Comparison of ground-based to GOME NO2 • Ordonez et al. (ACP, 2006) • Compares 7 years of data over Po Valley to GOME NO2 • Regional comparison (~10.000 km2) • Struggles with interference for ground-based stations

  33. Comparison of ground-based to SCIAMACHY NO2 • Blond et al. (2006) • Compares 1 year of data over northwestern Europe to SCIAMACHY NO2 • Regional comparison (1.800 km2) • No interference correction for ground-based stations • Best agreement for rural stations Annual mean 2003 All stations Rural stations Differences attributed to (lack of) spatial representativity of stations

  34. Boundary-layer columns from surface NO2 Surface – SCIAMACHY vs. BL column - SCIAMACHY Δlat,lon < 0.25° n = 135 No correction No correction y = -0.35 + 0.70 x If Δlat,lon < 0.1° as for OMI: r = 0.65, n = 32 y = -0.47 + 0.93x y = -0.32 + 0.82 x

More Related