2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemPrimary versus secondary contributions to particle number concentrations in the European boundary layer(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2011) Reddington, C.L.; Carslaw, K.S.; Spracklen, D.V.; Frontoso, M.G.; Collins, L.; Merikanto, J.; Minikin, A.; Hamburger, T.; Coe, H.; Kulmala, M.; Aalto, P.; Flentje, H.; Plass-Dülmer, C.; Birmili, W.; Wiedensohler, A.; Wehner, B.; Tuch, T.; Sonntag, A.; O'Dowd, C.D.; Jennings, S.G.; Dupuy, R.; Baltensperger, U.; Weingartner, E.; Hansson, H.-C.; Tunved, P.; Laj, P.; Sellegri, K.; Boulon, J.; Putaud, J.-P.; Gruening, C.; Swietlicki, E.; Roldin, P.; Henzing, J.S.; Moerman, M.; Mihalopoulos, N.; Kouvarakis, G.; Ždímal, V.; Zíková, N.; Marinoni, A.; Bonasoni, P.; Duchi, R.It is important to understand the relative contribution of primary and secondary particles to regional and global aerosol so that models can attribute aerosol radiative forcing to different sources. In large-scale models, there is considerable uncertainty associated with treatments of particle formation (nucleation) in the boundary layer (BL) and in the size distribution of emitted primary particles, leading to uncertainties in predicted cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations. Here we quantify how primary particle emissions and secondary particle formation influence size-resolved particle number concentrations in the BL using a global aerosol microphysics model and aircraft and ground site observations made during the May 2008 campaign of the European Integrated Project on Aerosol Cloud Climate Air Quality Interactions (EUCAARI). We tested four different parameterisations for BL nucleation and two assumptions for the emission size distribution of anthropogenic and wildfire carbonaceous particles. When we emit carbonaceous particles at small sizes (as recommended by the Aerosol Intercomparison project, AEROCOM), the spatial distributions of campaign-mean number concentrations of particles with diameter >50 nm (N50) and >100 nm (N100) were well captured by the model (R2≥0.8) and the normalised mean bias (NMB) was also small (−18% for N50 and −1% for N100). Emission of carbonaceous particles at larger sizes, which we consider to be more realistic for low spatial resolution global models, results in equally good correlation but larger bias (R2≥0.8, NMB = −52% and −29%), which could be partly but not entirely compensated by BL nucleation. Within the uncertainty of the observations and accounting for the uncertainty in the size of emitted primary particles, BL nucleation makes a statistically significant contribution to CCN-sized particles at less than a quarter of the ground sites. Our results show that a major source of uncertainty in CCN-sized particles in polluted European air is the emitted size of primary carbonaceous particles. New information is required not just from direct observations, but also to determine the "effective emission size" and composition of primary particles appropriate for different resolution models.
- ItemLessons learnt from the first EMEP intensive measurement periods(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2012) Aas, W.; Tsyro, S.; Bieber, E.; Bergström, R.; Ceburnis, D.; Ellermann, T.; Fagerli, H.; Frölich, M.; Gehrig, R.; Makkonen, U.; Nemitz, E.; Otjes, R.; Perez, N.; Perrino, C.; Prévôt, A.S.H.; Putaud, J.-P.; Simpson, D.; Spindler, G.; Vana, M.; Yttri, K.E.The first EMEP intensive measurement periods were held in June 2006 and January 2007. The measurements aimed to characterize the aerosol chemical compositions, including the gas/aerosol partitioning of inorganic compounds. The measurement program during these periods included daily or hourly measurements of the secondary inorganic components, with additional measurements of elemental- and organic carbon (EC and OC) and mineral dust in PM1, PM2.5 and PM10. These measurements have provided extended knowledge regarding the composition of particulate matter and the temporal and spatial variability of PM, as well as an extended database for the assessment of chemical transport models. This paper summarise the first experiences of making use of measurements from the first EMEP intensive measurement periods along with EMEP model results from the updated model version to characterise aerosol composition. We investigated how the PM chemical composition varies between the summer and the winter month and geographically. The observation and model data are in general agreement regarding the main features of PM10 and PM2.5 composition and the relative contribution of different components, though the EMEP model tends to give slightly lower estimates of PM10 and PM2.5 compared to measurements. The intensive measurement data has identified areas where improvements are needed. Hourly concurrent measurements of gaseous and particulate components for the first time facilitated testing of modelled diurnal variability of the gas/aerosol partitioning of nitrogen species. In general, the modelled diurnal cycles of nitrate and ammonium aerosols are in fair agreement with the measurements, but the diurnal variability of ammonia is not well captured. The largest differences between model and observations of aerosol mass are seen in Italy during winter, which to a large extent may be explained by an underestimation of residential wood burning sources. It should be noted that both primary and secondary OC has been included in the calculations for the first time, showing promising results. Mineral dust is important, especially in southern Europe, and the model seems to capture the dust episodes well. The lack of measurements of mineral dust hampers the possibility for model evaluation for this highly uncertain PM component. There are also lessons learnt regarding improved measurements for future intensive periods. There is a need for increased comparability between the measurements at different sites. For the nitrogen compounds it is clear that more measurements using artefact free methods based on continuous measurement methods and/or denuders are needed. For EC/OC, a reference methodology (both in field and laboratory) was lacking during these periods giving problems with comparability, though measurement protocols have recently been established and these should be followed by the Parties to the EMEP Protocol. For measurements with no defined protocols, it might be a good solution to use centralised laboratories to ensure comparability across the network. To cope with the introduction of these new measurements, new reporting guidelines have been developed to ensure that all proper information about the methodologies and data quality is given.