Advertisement

Modelling Organic Aerosol in Europe: Improved CAMx and Contribution of Anthropogenic and Biogenic Sources

  • Jianhui JiangEmail author
  • Sebnem Aksoyoglu
  • Imad El Haddad
  • Giancarlo Ciarelli
  • Emmanouil Oikonomakis
  • Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon
  • André S. H. Prévôt
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Chemical transport model (CTM) simulation of organic aerosol (OA) is always challenged by numerous sources and complicated formation processes of secondary organic aerosol. In this study, we conducted a source-specific, whole-year (2011) simulation of organic aerosol in Europe using the air quality model CAMx v6.3 with volatility basis set (VBS) scheme after implementing new findings from experimental studies. The VBS module was parameterized based on the latest data for gasoline and diesel vehicles and wood combustion from the smog-chamber experiments. The model performance was evaluated using OA measurements from the ACSM (Aerodyne Chemical Speciation Monitor) and AMS (Aerodyne Aerosol Mass Spectrometer) network and contributions from 6 different anthropogenic (gasoline and diesel vehicles with old or new technologies, biomass burning, and other sources (OP)) and biogenic sources were estimated. The modified VBS scheme improved the model performance on OA simulation during the whole period by reducing the bias between model and measurements by up to 52%. The OA concentrations were dominated by biomass burning in winter, while biogenic emissions were the main sources in summer. The contribution of road traffic was relatively lower compared to studies in the USA. The contribution of new gasoline and diesel vehicles (after Euro IV emission standards or equipped with diesel particle filters) to the total OA was negligible.

Keywords

CAMx Organic aerosol Source apportionment Volatility basis set 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ramboll for help in CAMx modelling, ECMWF, UCAR, NASA for providing data for model input. We thank Canonaco F., O’Dowd C., Ovadnevaite J., Favez O., Gilardoni S., Marchand N., Minguillón MC., and Florou K. for providing ACSM/AMS data.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Hodzic, P.S. Kasibhatla, D.S. Jo et al., Rethinking the global secondary organic aerosol (SOA) budget: stronger production, faster removal, shorter lifetime. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 7917–7941 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Hodzic, J.L. Jimenez, S. Madronich et al., Modeling organic aerosols in a megacity: potential contribution of semi-volatile and intermediate volatility primary organic compounds to secondary organic aerosol formation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 5491–5514 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Koo, E. Knipping, G. Yarwood, 1.5-Dimensional volatility basis set approach for modeling organic aerosol in CAMx and CMAQ. Atmos. Environ. 95, 158–164 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.M. Donahue, A.L. Robinson, C.O. Stanier et al., Coupled partitioning, dilution, and chemical aging of semivolatile organics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2635–2643 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.A. Bruns, I. El Haddad, J.G. Slowik et al., Identification of significant precursor gases of secondary organic aerosols from residential wood combustion. Sci. Rep. 6, 27881 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.M. Platt, I. El Haddad, S.M. Pieber et al., Gasoline cars produce more carbonaceous particulate matter than modern filter-equipped diesel cars. Sci. Rep. 7, 4926 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramboll Environ, User’s Guide: The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) Version 6.3, California, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Andreani-Aksoyoglu, J. Keller, Estimates of monoterpene and isoprene emissions from the forests in Switzerland. J. Atmos. Chem. 20, 71–87 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.H. Jathar, T.D. Gordon, C.J. Hennigan et al., Unspeciated organic emissions from combustion sources and their influence on the secondary organic aerosol budget in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 10473–10478 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Ciarelli, S. Aksoyoglu, I. El Haddad et al., Modelling winter organic aerosol at the European scale with CAMx: evaluation and source apportionment with a VBS parameterization based on novel wood burning smog chamber experiments. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7653–7669 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.L. Robinson, N.M. Donahue, M.K. Shrivastava et al., Rethinking organic aerosols: semivolatile emissions and photochemical aging. Science 315, 1259–1262 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.H. Jathar, M. Woody, H.O.T. Pye et al., Chemical transport model simulations of organic aerosol in Southern California: model evaluation and gasoline and diesel source contributions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 4305–4318 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianhui Jiang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebnem Aksoyoglu
    • 1
  • Imad El Haddad
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Ciarelli
    • 2
  • Emmanouil Oikonomakis
    • 1
  • Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon
    • 3
  • André S. H. Prévôt
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Atmospheric ChemistryPaul Scherrer InstituteVilligenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Laboratoire Inter-Universitaire Des Systèmes Atmosphériques (LISA), Institut Pierre Simon LaplaceUMR CNRS 7583, Université Paris Est Créteil et Université Paris DiderotCréteilFrance
  3. 3.Department of Climate, Air and SustainabilityTNOUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations