Advertisement

How does upgrading an emissions inventory affect air quality simulations?

  • M. A. RussoEmail author
  • C. Gama
  • A. Monteiro
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Each year, all Member States (MS) have to deliver their national emissions inventory to the European Union for all activity sectors, following the requirements of the CLRTAP programme. Recently, the specifications of this emissions report changed, MS emissions data had to be reported in grid cells with a resolution of 0.5° × 0.5°, and now, from 2015 forward, they must use a higher resolution grid (0.1° × 0.1°). The purpose of this study is to investigate the main differences found between these two emissions inventories for Europe, focusing on Portugal as a case study, using their available common year (2015). Differences on emissions values and their spatial distribution were analysed per sector and pollutant. Additionally, to evaluate and compare the accuracy of both datasets, air quality modelling simulations were performed, and the resulting pollutant concentrations were validated using data from observations. The results found indicated major differences in several MS (e.g. France, Italy, Germany and Spain). Portugal was not one of the delta hotspots but significant differences were still found, mainly for NOx emissions for the transport sectors, both emissions and concentrations in urban areas, as well as NO2 concentrations throughout the study domain. The analysis of the air quality modelling outputs indicates that the EMEP0.1 inventory does not improve model performance, which suggests that the methodology to build EMEP0.1 was not adequate. This work highlights the importance of accurately estimating emissions data and confirms what other studies already indicated regarding uncertainties: solely improving the emissions inventory resolution does not necessarily imply higher accuracy in the results.

Keywords

Atmospheric emissions EMEP inventory Inventory resolution Air quality modelling Portugal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due for the financial support to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017/2019), to FCT/MCTES through national funds. This work is a contribution to project AIRSHIP (PTDC/AAG-MAA/2569/2014 - POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016752) funded by FEDER, through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional.

References

  1. Basart S, Pay MT, Jorba O, Pérez C, Jiménez-Guerrero P, Schulz M, Baldasano JM (2012) Aerosols in the CALIOPE air quality modelling system: evaluation and analysis of PM levels, optical depths and chemical composition over Europe. Atmos Chem Phys 12:3363–3392.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3363-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borrego C, Monteiro A, Ferreira J, Miranda AI, Costa AM, Carvalho AC, Lopes M (2008) Procedures for estimation of modelling uncertainty in air quality assessment. Environ Int 34:613–620.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borrego C, Monteiro A, Martins H, Ferreira J, Fernandes AP, Rafael S, Miranda AI, Guevara M, Baldasano JM (2016) Air quality plan for ozone: an urgent need for North Portugal. Air Qual Atmos Health 9:447–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-015-0352-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrego C, Monteiro A, Pay MT, Ribeiro I, Miranda AI, Basart S, Baldasano JM (2011) How bias-correction can improve air quality forecasts over Portugal. Atmos Environ 45:6629–6641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs DJ (1995) Environmental statistics for environmental policy: genealogy and data quality. J Environ Manag 44:39–54.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1995.0029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvalho A, Miranda AI, Valente J et al (2009) Contribution of residential wood combustion to PM10 levels in Portugal. Atmos Environ 44:642–651.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.11.020 Google Scholar
  7. Chang JC, Hanna SR (2004) Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorog Atmos Phys 87:167–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson EA, Kanter D (2014) Inventories and scenarios of nitrous oxide emissions. Environ Res Lett 9:105012.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105012
  9. European Environment Agency (2017) Air quality in Europe – 2017 Report. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2017
  10. Gama C, Monteiro A, Pio C, Miranda AI, Baldasano JM, Tchepel O (2018) Temporal patterns and trends of particulate matter over Portugal: a long-term analysis of background concentrations. Air Qual Atmos Health 11:397–407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0546-8. Accessed 4 Aug 2019
  11. Hong S-Y, Lim J-OJ (2006) The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). J Korean Meteor Soc 42:129–151Google Scholar
  12. Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res Atmos 113.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944
  13. Kain JS, Kain J (2004) The Kain - Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J Appl Meteorol 43:170–181.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2
  14. Kuenen JJP, Visschedijk AJH, Jozwicka M, Denier Van Der Gon HAC (2014) TNO-MACC-II emission inventory; a multi-year (2003–2009) consistent high-resolution European emission inventory for air quality modelling. Atmos Chem Phys 14:10963–10976.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10963-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. La Notte A, Tonin S, Lucaroni G (2018) Assessing direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases in road transportation, taking into account the role of uncertainty in the emissions inventory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 69:82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindley SJ, Conlan DE, Raper DW, Watson AFR (2000) Uncertainties in the compilation of spatially resolved emission inventories - evidence from a comparative study. Atmos Environ 34:375–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00325-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mailler S, Menut L, Khvorostyanov D, Valari M, Couvidat F, Siour G, Turquety S, Briant R, Tuccella P, Bessagnet B, Colette A, Létinois L, Markakis K, Meleux F (2017) CHIMERE-2017: from urban to hemispheric chemistry-transport modeling. Geosci Model Dev 10:2397–2423.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2397-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthias V (2008) The aerosol distribution in Europe derived with the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model: comparison to near surface in situ and sunphotometer measurements. Atmos Chem Phys 8:5077–5097.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5077-2008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menut L, Bessagnet B, Khvorostyanov D, Beekmann M, Blond N, Colette A, Coll I, Curci G, Foret G, Hodzic A, Mailler S, Meleux F, Monge JL, Pison I, Siour G, Turquety S, Valari M, Vautard R, Vivanco MG (2013) CHIMERE 2013: a model for regional atmospheric composition modelling. Geosci Model Dev 6:981–1028.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-981-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milne AE, Glendining MJ, Bellamy P, Misselbrook T, Gilhespy S, Rivas Casado M, Hulin A, van Oijen M, Whitmore AP (2014) Analysis of uncertainties in the estimates of nitrous oxide and methane emissions in the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory for agriculture. Atmos Environ 82:94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mobley JD, Saeger M (1996) Procedures for verification of emissions inventories. Report Number EPA-454/R-96-003Google Scholar
  22. Monteiro A, Miranda AI, Borrego C, Vautard R, Ferreira J, Perez AT (2007) Long-term assessment of particulate matter using CHIMERE model. Atmos Environ 41:7726–7738.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monteiro A, Russo M, Gama C, Borrego C (2018) How important are maritime emissions for the air quality: at European and national scale. Environ Pollut 242:565–575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pacyna JM, Graedel TE (1995) Atmospheric emissions inventories: status and prospects. Annu Rev Energy Environ 20:265–300.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.20.110195.001405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pay MT, Piot M, Jorba O, Gassó S, Gonçalves M, Basart S, Dabdub D, Jiménez-Guerrero P, Baldasano JM (2010) A full year evaluation of the CALIOPE-EU air quality modeling system over Europe for 2004. Atmos Environ 44:3322–3342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.05.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pisoni E, Albrecht D, Mara TA, Rosati R, Tarantola S, Thunis P (2018) Application of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis to the air quality SHERPA modelling tool. Atmos Environ 183:84–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pleim JE (2007) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: model description and testing. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1383–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2539.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quilcaille Y, Gasser T, Ciais P, Lecocq F, Janssens-Maenhout G, Mohr S (2018) Environmental research letters uncertainty in projected climate change arising from uncertain fossil-fuel emission factors uncertainty in projected climate change arising from uncertain fossil-fuel emission factors. Environ Res Lett 13:044017.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab304
  29. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB (2008) A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J Comput Phys 227:3465–3485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of model. Phys Geogr 2:219–232.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213
  31. Winiwarter W, Rypdal K (2001) Assessing the uncertainty associated with national greenhouse gas emission inventories. Atmos Environ 35:5425–5440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00171-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zachariadis T, Samaras Z (1997) Comparative assessment of European tools to estimate traffic emissions. Int J Veh Des 18:312–325.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.1997.062056 Google Scholar
  33. Zheng B, Zhang Q, Tong D, Chen C, Hong C, Li M, Geng G, Lei Y, Huo H, He K (2017) Resolution dependence of uncertainties in gridded emission inventories: a case study in Hebei, China. Atmos Chem Phys 17:921–933.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-921-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zheng J, Zhang L, Che W, Zheng Z, Yin S (2009) A highly resolved temporal and spatial air pollutant emission inventory for the Pearl River Delta region, China and its uncertainty assessment. Atmos Environ 43:5112–5122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CESAM & Department of Environment and PlanningUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations