Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

Evaluation of receptor and chemical transport models for PM10 source apportionment

C.A. Belis 1, * D. Pernigotti 1 G. Pirovano 2 O. Favez 3 J.L. Jaffrezo 4 J. Kuenen 5 H. Denier van der Gon 5 M. Reizer 6 V. Riffault 7, 8 L.Y. Alleman 7, 8 M. Almeida 9 F. Amato 10 A. Angyal 11 G. Argyropoulos 12 S. Bande 13 I. Beslic 14 Jean-Luc Besombes 15 M.C. Bove 16 P. Brotto 16 Giuseppe Calori 17 D. Cesari 18 C. Colombi 19 D. Contini 18 G. de Gennaro 20 A. Di Gilio 20 E. Diapouli 21 I. El Haddad 22 H. Elbern 23 K. Eleftheriadis 21 J. Ferreira 24 M. Garcia Vivanco 25 S. Gilardoni 18 B. Golly 26 S. Hellebust 27 P.K. Hopke 28 Y. Izadmanesh 10, 29 H. Jorquera 30 K. Krajsek 23 R. Kranenburg 31 P. Lazzeri 32 F. Lenartz 33 F. Lucarelli 34 K. Maciejewska 6 A. Manders 31 M. Manousakas 21 M. Masiol 28 M. Mircea 35 D. Mooibroek 36 S. Nava 34 D. Oliveira 7, 8, 3 M. Paglione 18 M. Pandolfi 10 M. Perrone 37 E. Petralia 35 A. Pietrodangelo 38 S. Pillon 39 P. Pokorna 28 P. Prati 16 D. Salameh 4 C. Samara 40 L. Samek 41 D. Saraga 21 S. Sauvage 7, 8 M. Schaap 31 F. Scotto 42 K. Sega 14 G. Siour 43 R. Tauler 10 G. Valli 44 R. Vecchi 44 E. Venturini 45 M. Vestenius 46 A. Waked 4, 7, 8 E. Yubero 47
* Corresponding author
15 LCME_CE - Laboratoire LCME / Equipe Chimie de l'Environnement
LCME - Laboratoire de Chimie Moléculaire et Environnement
Abstract : In this study, the performance of two types of source apportionment models was evaluated by assessing the results provided by 40 different groups in the framework of an intercomparison organised by FAIRMODE WG3 (Forum for air quality modelling in Europe, Working Group 3). The evaluation was based on two performance indicators: z-scores and the root mean square error weighted by the reference uncertainty (RMSEu), with pre-established acceptability criteria. By involving models based on completely different and independent input data, such as receptor models (RMs) and chemical transport models (CTMs), the intercomparison provided a unique opportunity for their cross-validation. In addition, comparing the CTM chemical profiles with those measured directly at the source contributed to corroborate the consistency of the tested model results. The most commonly used RM was the US EPA- PMF version 5. RMs showed very good performance for the overall dataset (91% of z-scores accepted) while more difficulties were observed with the source contribution time series (72% of RMSEu accepted). Industrial activities proved to be the most difficult sources to be quantified by RMs, with high variability in the estimated contributions. In the CTMs, the sum of computed source contributions was lower than the measured gravimetric PM10 mass concentrations. The performance tests pointed out the differences between the two CTM approaches used for source apportionment in this study: brute force (or emission reduction impact) and tagged species methods. The sources meeting the z-score and RMSEu acceptability criteria tests were 50% and 86%, respectively. The CTM source contributions to PM10 were in the majority of cases lower than the RM averages for the corresponding source. The CTMs and RMs source contributions for the overall dataset were more comparable (83% of the z-scores accepted) than their time series (successful RMSEu in the range 25% - 34%). The comparability between CTMs and RMs varied depending on the source: traffic/exhaust and industry were the source categories with the best results in the RMSEu tests while the most critical ones were soil dust and road dust. The differences between RMs and CTMs source reconstructions confirmed the importance of cross validating the results of these two families of models.
Complete list of metadata
Contributor : Jean-Luc Besombes <>
Submitted on : Friday, February 14, 2020 - 3:13:28 PM
Last modification on : Tuesday, April 6, 2021 - 1:56:02 PM

Links full text



C.A. Belis, D. Pernigotti, G. Pirovano, O. Favez, J.L. Jaffrezo, et al.. Evaluation of receptor and chemical transport models for PM10 source apportionment. Atmospheric environment: X, Elsevier, 2020, 5, pp.100053. ⟨10.1016/j.aeaoa.2019.100053⟩. ⟨hal-02479476⟩



Record views