English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/218590
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

A new methodology to assess the performance and uncertainty of source apportionment models II: The results of two European intercomparison exercises

AuthorsBelis, C.A.; Karagulian, F.; Amato, Fulvio CSIC ORCID; Almeida, M.; Artaxo, P.; Beddows, D.C.S.; Bernardoni, V.; Bove, M.C.; Carbone, S.; Cesari, D.; Contini, D.; Cuccia, E.; Diapouli, E.; Eleftheriadis, K.; Favez, O.; El Haddad, I.; Harrison, Roy M.; Hellebust, S.; Hovorka, J.; Jang, E.; Jorquera, H.; Kammermeier, T.; Karl, M.; Lucarelli, F.; Mooibroek, D.; Nava, S.; Nøjgaard, J.K.; Paatero, P.; Pandolfi, Marco; Perrone, M.G.; Petit, J.E.; Pietrodangelo, A.; Pokorná, P.; Prati, P.; Prévôt, André S. H.; Quass, U.; Querol, Xavier CSIC ORCID ; Saraga, D.; Sciare, J.; Sfetsos, A.; Valli, G.; Vecchi, R.; Vestenius, M.; Yubero, E.; Hopke, P.K.
Issue Date2015
CitationAtmospheric Environment 123: 240- 250 (2015)
AbstractThe performance and the uncertainty of receptor models (RMs) were assessed in intercomparison exercises employing real-world and synthetic input datasets. To that end, the results obtained by different practitioners using ten different RMs were compared with a reference. In order to explain the differences in the performances and uncertainties of the different approaches, the apportioned mass, the number of sources, the chemical profiles, the contribution-to-species and the time trends of the sources were all evaluated using the methodology described in Belis et al. (2015). In this study, 87% of the 344 source contribution estimates (SCEs) reported by participants in 47 different source apportionment model results met the 50% standard uncertainty quality objective established for the performance test. In addition, 68% of the SCE uncertainties reported in the results were coherent with the analytical uncertainties in the input data. The most used models, EPA-PMF v.3, PMF2 and EPA-CMB 8.2, presented quite satisfactory performances in the estimation of SCEs while unconstrained models, that do not account for the uncertainty in the input data (e.g. APCS and FA-MLRA), showed below average performance. Sources with well-defined chemical profiles and seasonal time trends, that make appreciable contributions (>10%), were those better quantified by the models while those with contributions to the PM mass close to 1% represented a challenge. The results of the assessment indicate that RMs are capable of estimating the contribution of the major pollution source categories over a given time window with a level of accuracy that is in line with the needs of air quality management.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.068
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/218590
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.068
Identifiersdoi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.068
issn: 1873-2844
Appears in Collections:(IDAEA) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S1352231015304854-main.pdf1,63 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.