% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@PHDTHESIS{Mannschreck:34309,
      author       = {Mannschreck, Katja},
      title        = {{E}xperimentelle {B}estimmung von städtischen {E}missionen
                      anhand von {K}onzentrationsmessungen im {L}ee einer {S}tadt
                      - {U}ntersuchungen zum {B}eitrag verschiedener {Q}uelltypen
                      und {V}ergleich mit einem {E}missionsberechnungsmodell},
      volume       = {3846},
      issn         = {0944-2952},
      school       = {Univ. - Ges.-Hochsch. Wuppertal},
      type         = {Dr. (Univ.)},
      address      = {Jülich},
      publisher    = {Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-34309, Juel-3846},
      series       = {Berichte des Forschungszentrums Jülich},
      pages        = {193 p.},
      year         = {2001},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012; Wuppertal, Univ. -
                      Ges.-Hochsch., Diss., 2001},
      abstract     = {For the evaluation of an emission inventory measurements of
                      specific trace gases downwind of the city of Augsburg were
                      performed during two field campaigns in March and October
                      1998 . These long-term ground based measurements were part
                      of an integrated experiment (EVA-Experiment) which also
                      included airborne measurements and tracer experiments on
                      some selected days (intensive phases) . From the long-term
                      measurements the composition of the urban emissions was
                      determined taking into account mixing with background air
                      masses and chemical degradation during transport from the
                      emission source to the measurement site. The data were
                      analysed with respect to differences between the two
                      campaigns and between weekdays and weekends. The composition
                      of emission sources was investigated . The results were
                      compared with the results of an emission inventory with the
                      aim to assess the correctness and to determine the
                      uncertainties of the inventory. The composition of the
                      hydrocarbon mixture varies significantly between weekdays
                      and weekends resulting in a higher mean reactivity with
                      respect to ozone formation on weekdays than on weekends. In
                      October the contribution of aromatics is higher than in
                      March whereas the contribution of C2-C4-alkanes is lower.
                      ;H/NOC,- and HC;/CO-ratios are lower in March than in
                      October which is mainly due to higher CO- and NOxemissions
                      in March. The comparison of the measured hydrocarbon mixture
                      with clearly traffic dominated measurements shows that the
                      prevailing source of hydrocarbon emissions is traffic. In
                      contrast the contribution of solvent emissions is small. For
                      the intensive phases in October calculated and measured
                      absolute CO-emissions agree within the uncertainty ranges.
                      For March the model tends to underestimate both parameters .
                      Considering only hydrocarbons, which can be specified by the
                      emission model, calculated and measured composition of
                      hydrocarbon mixtures as well as ;H/NO,,-Cratios agree rather
                      well. These specified compounds are mainly due to traffic
                      emissions . However, the differences in the composition of
                      hydrocarbon mixtures between March and October are not found
                      by the emission model. The percentage of hydrocarbons
                      specified by the emission model is only between 50 and 60
                      °Io of the hydrocarbons which are detectable by the used
                      GC-System and included in the results . Considering these
                      additional hydrocarbon emissions, which are exclusively due
                      to solvent use, calculated ;.H/N-CO and HC;/CO-ratios
                      (ppbC/ppb) are up to a factor of 3 higher than measured
                      ones. The most important result from the evaluation of the
                      emission model by the measurements is that the model
                      overpredicts the contribution of solvent emissions by far
                      whereas traffic emissions are underestimated. The effects of
                      the discrepancies between experimentally determined and
                      calculated emissions were investigated with a photochemical
                      boxmodel. The ozone production in the case of modelled
                      emissions was almost a factor of two higher than in the case
                      of measured emissions . This shows that shortcomings in
                      emission inventories lead to incorrect predictions of ozone
                      concentrations . Since it was shown that Augsburg is a
                      typical German city with respect to its emissions the
                      results obtained within this work can be generalised},
      cin          = {ICG-II},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB48},
      pnm          = {Chemie der Belasteten Atmosphäre},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK72},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)11 / PUB:(DE-HGF)3},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/34309},
}