Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, Volume 221, Issue 1–4, pp 275–286 | Cite as

Have Meteorological Conditions Reduced NO2 Concentrations from Local Emission Sources in Gothenburg?

  • Lin TangEmail author
  • David Rayner
  • Marie Haeger-Eugensson


The risks of exceeding EU limit values for NO2 concentrations have increased in many European cities, and compliance depends strongly on meteorological conditions. This study focuses on meteorological conditions and their influences on urban background NO2 concentrations in the city of Gothenburg for 1999–2008. The relations between observed NO2 concentrations and meteorological conditions are constructed using two modelling approaches: multiple linear regression and synoptic regression. Both approaches assume no trends in emissions over the study period. The multiple linear regression model is established on observed local meteorological variables. The synoptic-regression model first groups days according to synoptic conditions using Lamb Weather Types and then uses linear regression on each group separately. A model comparison shows that linear regression model and synoptic-regression model perform satisfactory. The synoptic-regression model gives higher explained variance (R 2) against observations during the calibration years (1999–2007), in particular for the morning peak and afternoon–evening peak concentrations, but the improvement in the validation period is weak. The annual mean NO2 variations, and their trends during the study period, were assessed using the synoptic-regression model. The synoptic-regression model is able to explain 54%, 42% and 80% of the annual variability of daily mean, morning peak and afternoon–evening peak NO2 concentrations, respectively. The observed and modelled annual means of the daily mean and morning/afternoon–evening peak NO2 concentrations show decreasing trends from 1999 to 2008. All trends, except the trend in annual-average observed morning peak NO2 are statistically significant. The presence of trends in the modelled NO2 concentrations—even though emissions are assumed to be constant—leads us to conclude that weather and climate alone are responsible for a substantial fraction of the recent declines in observed NO2 concentrations in Gothenburg. Favourable meteorological conditions may have mitigated increases in local NO2 emissions during 1999 to 2008.


NO2 concentrations Dispersion conditions Statistic downscaling Linear regression model Synoptic-regression model Gothenburg 



This work was supported by the GMV (Centre for Environment and Sustainability, Gothenburg, Sweden) and GAC (Gothenburg Atmospheric Science Centre) foundations. The authors appreciate the assistance of Mr. Jan Brandberg from Environmental Agency in Gothenburg in providing measured meteorological and air quality data for Femman. We gratefully acknowledge the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, for providing the NCEP Reanalysis data. Finally, we would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for the careful reading and interesting suggestions.


  1. Andre, J-M (2005) Vehicle emission measurement collection of the ARTEMIS database. Artemis 3312 report, Available from
  2. Beirle, S., Platt, U., Wenig, M., & Wagner, T. (2003). Weekly cycle of NO2 by GOME measurements: a signature of anthropogenic sources. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 3, 2225–2232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigi, A., & Harrison, R. M. (2010). Analysis of the air pollution climate at a central urban background site. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 2004–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersma, K. F., Jacob, D. J., Eskes, H. J., Pinder, R. W., Wang, J., & van der A, R. J. (2008). Intercomparison of SCIAMACHY and OMI tropospheric NO2 columns: observing the diurnal evolution of chemistry and emissions from space. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D16S26. doi: 10.1029/2007JD008816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boersma, K. F., Jacob, D. J., Trainic, M., Rudich, Y., DeSmedt, I., Dirksen, R., et al. (2009). Validation of urban NO2 concentrations and their diurnal and seasonal variations observed from the SCIAMACHY and OMI sensors using in situ surface measurements in Israeli cities. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9, 3867–3879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carslaw, D. C., Beevers, S. D., & Bell, M. C. (2007). Risks of exceeding the hourly EU limit value for nitrogen dioxide resulting from increased road transport emissions of primary nitrogen dioxide. Atmospheric Environment, 41, 2073–2082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, D. (2000). A monthly circulation climatology for Sweden and its application to a winter temperature case study. International Journal of Climatology, 20, 1067–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, D., Achberger, C., Räisänen, J., & Hellström, C. (2006). Using statistical downscaling to quantify the GCM-related uncertainty in regional climate change scenarios: a case study of Swedish precipitation. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 23, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng, C. S. Q., Campbell, M., Li, Q., Li, G. L., Auld, H., Day, N., et al. (2007a). A synoptic climatological approach to assess climatic impact on air quality in south-central Canada. Part I: historical analysis. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 182, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, C. S. Q., Campbell, M., Li, Q., Li, G. L., Auld, H., Day, N., et al. (2007b). A synoptic climatological approach to assess climatic impact on air quality in south-central Canada. Part II: future estimates. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 182, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demuzere, M., Trigo, R. M., Vila-Guerau de Arellano, J., & van Lipzig, N. P. M. (2009). The impact of weather and atmospheric circulation on O3 and PM10 levels at a rural mid-latitude site. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9, 2695–2714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demuzere, M., & van Lipzig, N. P. M. (2010a). A new method to assess air quality levels using a synoptic-regression approach. Part I: present analysis for O3 and PM10. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 1341–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demuzere, M., & van Lipzig, N. P. M. (2010b). A new method to assess air quality levels using a synoptic-regression approach. Part II: Future O3 concentrations. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 1356–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flemming, J., Stern, R., & Yamartino, R. J. (2005). A new air quality regime classification scheme for O3, NO2, SO2 and PM10 observations sites. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 6121–6129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giorgi, F., & Mearns, L. O. (1991). Approaches to regional climate change simulation: a review. Review of Geophysics, 29, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giorgi, F., & Meleux, F. (2007). Modelling the regional effects of climate change on air quality. Geoscience, 339, 721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giorgi, F., Hewitson, B., Christensen, J., Fu, C., Jones, R., Hulme, M., et al. (2001). In J. T. Houghton (Ed.), Regional climate information—evaluation and projections, in climate change 2001: The scientific basis (pp. 583–638). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grice, S., Stedman, J., Kent, A., Hobson, M., Norris, J., Abbott, J., et al. (2009). Resent trends and projections of primary NO2 emissions in Europe. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 2154–2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grundström, M., Linderholm, H. W., Klingberg, J., & Pleijel, H. (2011). Urban NO2 and NO pollution in relation to the North Atlantic Oscillation NAO. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanssen-Bauer, I., Achberger, C., Benestad, R., Chen, D., & Førland, E. (2005). Empirical-statistical downscaling of climate scenarios over Scandinavia: A review. Climate Research, 29, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haeger-Engensson, M. (1999). Atmospheric stability and the interaction with local and meso-scale wind systems in an urban area. PhD thesis, Earth Sciences Centre, Gothenburg University, A39.Google Scholar
  22. Haeger-Eugensson, M., Moldanova, J., Ferm, M., Jerksjö, M., & Fridell, E. (2010) On the increasing levels of NO2 in some cities—The role of primary emissions and shipping. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Report B-1886. Available from:
  23. Jacob, D. J., & Winner, A. D. (2009). Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janhäll, S., Olofson, K. F. G., Andersson, P. U., Pettersson, J. B. C., & Hallquist, M. (2006). Evolution of the urban aerosol during winter temperature inversion episodes. Atmospheric Environment, 40, 5355–5366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkinson, A. F. & Collison, B. P. (1977). An initial climatology of gales of the North Sea. Synoptic climatology Branch Memorandum, 62.Google Scholar
  26. Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., et al. (1996). The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 77, 437–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lam, K. C., & Cheng, S. (1998). A synoptic climatological approach to forecast concentrations of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in Hong Kong. Environment Pollution, 101, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Platt, U. F., Winer, A. M., Biermann, H. W., Atkinson, R., & Pitts, J. N., Jr. (1984). Measurement of nitrate radical concentrations in continental air. Environmental Science & Technology, 18, 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pleijel, H., Klingberg, J., & Bäck, E. (2009). Characteristics of NO2 pollution in the city of Gothenburg South-West Sweden– relation to NOx and O3 levels, Photochemistry and monitoring location. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 9, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Riemer, N., Vogel, H., Vogel, B., Schell, B., Ackermann, I., Kessler, C., et al. (2003). Impact of the heterogeneous hydrolysis of N2O5 on chemistry and nitrate aerosol formation in the lower troposphere under photosmog conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(D4), 4144. doi: 10.1029/2002JD002436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidli, J., Goodess, C. M., Frei, C., Haylock, M. R., Hundecha, Y., Ribalaygua, J., et al. (2007). Statistical and dynamical downscaling of precipitation: An evaluation and comparison of scenarios for the European Alps. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D04105. doi: 10.1029/2005JD007026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sen, P. K. (1968). Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63(324), 1379–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spivakovsky, C. M., Logan, J. A., Montzka, S. A., Balkanski, Y. J., Foreman-Bowler, M., Jones, D. B. A., et al. (2000). Three-dimensional climatological distribution of tropospheric OH: Update and evaluation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(D7), 8931–8980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tang, L., Chen, D., Karlsson, P. E., Gu, Y., & Ou, T. (2009). Synoptic circulation and its influence on spring and summer surface ozone concentrations in Southern Sweden. Boreal Environment Research, 14(5), 889–902.Google Scholar
  35. Thorsson, S., Lindberg, F., Björklund, J., Holmera, B., & Rayner, D. (2011). Potential changes in outdoor thermal comfort conditions in Gothenburg, Sweden due to climate change: the influence of urban geometry. International Journal of Climatology, 31, 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Velders, G. J. M., & Matthijsen, J. (2009). Meteorological variability in NO2 and PM10 concentrations in the Netherlands and its relation with EU limit values. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 3858–3866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vestreng, V., Ntziachristos, L., Semb, A., Reis, S., Isaksen, I. S. A., & Tarrasón, L. (2009). Evolution of NOx emissions in Europe with focus on road transport control measures. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9, 1503–1520. doi: 10.5194/acp-9-1503-2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wetterhall, F., Bárdossy, A., Chen, D., Halldin, S., & Xu, C.-Y. (2009). Statistical downscaling of daily precipitation over Sweden using GCM output. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 96, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilby, R. L., & Wigley, T. M. L. (1997). Downscaling general circulation model output: a review of methods and limitation. Progress in Physical Geography, 21, 530–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yue, S., Pilon, P., Phinney, B., & Cavadias, G. (2002). The influence of autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series. Hydrological Processes, 16, 1807–2829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziomas, I. C., Melas, D., Zerefos, C. S., Bais, A. F., & Paliatsos, A. G. (1995). Forecasting peak pollutant levels from meteorological variables. Atmospheric Environment, 29, 3703–3711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin Tang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Rayner
    • 2
  • Marie Haeger-Eugensson
    • 1
  1. 1.IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute LtdGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of Gothenburg, SwedenGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations