000034363 001__ 34363
000034363 005__ 20240712101038.0
000034363 0247_ $$2DOI$$a10.1029/2002JD002797
000034363 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000184868600001
000034363 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0141-8637
000034363 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/20582
000034363 037__ $$aPreJuSER-34363
000034363 041__ $$aeng
000034363 082__ $$a550
000034363 084__ $$2WoS$$aMeteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
000034363 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aVautard, R.$$b0
000034363 245__ $$aParis emission inventory diagnostics from ESQUIF airborne measurements and a chemistry transport model
000034363 260__ $$aWashington, DC$$bUnion$$c2003
000034363 300__ $$a17
000034363 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article
000034363 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000034363 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000034363 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000034363 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000034363 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000034363 440_0 $$06393$$aJournal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres$$v108$$x0148-0227
000034363 500__ $$aRecord converted from VDB: 12.11.2012
000034363 520__ $$aDuring the Atmospheric Pollution Over the Paris Area (ESQUIF) experiment a series of airborne measurements were collected in the vicinity of the city of Paris during smog episodes. They are used in combination with an air quality photochemical model in order to diagnose uncertainties in the current emission inventory. Diagnostics are made by comparing simulated with observed concentrations for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and primary hydrocarbons, taking into account the chemistry and transport processes of these compounds. An emphasis is put on the uncertainty of the results, taking into account the finiteness of the measurement samples, possible errors in the model transport, and chemistry and measurement errors. We examine, in particular, possible sources of bias in the model. For instance, we show that boundary layer depth is underestimated by at most 30% on average. However, sensitivity experiments showed that these model biases, taken individually, cannot alter the qualitative aspects of our results. Only a conspiracy of these biases could possibly shift all our diagnostics toward significantly different results. There is reasonable consistency between simulated and measured concentrations. NOy simulations agree with measured concentrations to within 35%; CO concentrations agree to within a factor of 2. There are significant underestimations and overestimations in some individual primary hydrocarbons. However, the total mass and reactivity of the measured hydrocarbon mixture, which accounts for only about half of the total emitted mass, agree with modeled values to within an estimated uncertainty of 40%. The analysis of results provides clues for improving emission inventories. It is found, for instance, that temperature dependence, which is not considered here, can be a key factor and that hydrocarbon emissions from solvent use may suffer from inaccurate totals or speciation. Another source of uncertainties may be the temporal or spatial distributions of solvent activities.
000034363 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK257$$2G:(DE-HGF)$$aChemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre$$cU01$$x0
000034363 588__ $$aDataset connected to Web of Science
000034363 650_7 $$2WoSType$$aJ
000034363 65320 $$2Author$$aemissions
000034363 65320 $$2Author$$aairborne measurements
000034363 65320 $$2Author$$aphotochemistry
000034363 65320 $$2Author$$aNMVOC melting
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aMartin, D.$$b1
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBeekmann, M.$$b2
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aDobronski, P.$$b3
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aFriedrich, R.$$b4
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aJaubertie, A.$$b5
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)16204$$aKley, D.$$b6$$uFZJ
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aLattuati, M.$$b7
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aMoral, P.$$b8
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aNeininger, B.$$b9
000034363 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aTheloke, J.$$b10
000034363 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2016800-7 $$a10.1029/2002JD002797$$gVol. 108, p. 17$$p17$$q108<17$$tJournal of geophysical research / Atmospheres  $$tJournal of Geophysical Research$$v108$$x0148-0227$$y2003
000034363 8567_ $$uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002797
000034363 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/34363/files/2002JD002797.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000034363 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/34363/files/2002JD002797.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yOpenAccess
000034363 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:34363$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
000034363 9131_ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK257$$bEnvironment (Umwelt)$$kU01$$lChemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre$$vChemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre$$x0
000034363 9141_ $$y2003
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0010$$2StatID$$aJCR/ISI refereed
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer review
000034363 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000034363 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)VDB48$$d31.12.2006$$gICG$$kICG-II$$lTroposphäre$$x0
000034363 970__ $$aVDB:(DE-Juel1)4259
000034363 9801_ $$aFullTexts
000034363 980__ $$aVDB
000034363 980__ $$aConvertedRecord
000034363 980__ $$ajournal
000034363 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013
000034363 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000034363 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)ICE-3-20101013
000034363 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013