4.6 Article

Comparison of 7 years of satellite-borne and ground-based tropospheric NO2 measurements around Milan, Italy

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006305

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] Tropospheric NO2 vertical column densities (VCDs) over the Lombardy region were retrieved from measurements of the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) spectrometer for the period 1996 - 2002 using a differential optical absorption method. This data set was compared with in situ measurements of NO2 at around 100 ground stations in the Lombardy region, northern Italy. The tropospheric NO2 VCDs are reasonably well correlated with the near-surface measurements under cloud-free conditions. However, the slope of the tropospheric VCDs versus ground measurements is higher in autumn-winter than in spring-summer. This effect is clearly reduced when the peroxyacetyl nitrate and nitric acid (HNO3) interferences of conventional NOx analyzers are taken into account. For a more quantitative comparison, the NO2 ground measurements were scaled to tropospheric VCDs using a seasonal NO2 vertical profile over northern Italy calculated by the Model of Ozone and Related Tracers 2 (MOZART-2). The tropospheric VCDs retrieved from satellite and those determined from ground measurements agree well, with a correlation coefficient R = 0.78 and a slope close to 1 for slightly polluted stations. GOME cannot reproduce the high NO2 amounts over the most polluted stations, mainly because of the large spatial variability in the distribution of pollution within the GOME footprint. The yearly and weekly cycles of the tropospheric NO2 VCDs are similar for both data sets, with significantly lower values in the summer months and on Sundays, respectively. Considering the pollution level and high aerosol concentrations of this region, the agreement is very good. Furthermore, uncertainties in the ground-based measurements, including the extrapolation to NO2 VCDs, might be as important as those of the NO2 satellite retrieval itself.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据