% 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”.
@ARTICLE{Vautard:34363,
author = {Vautard, R. and Martin, D. and Beekmann, M. and Dobronski,
P. and Friedrich, R. and Jaubertie, A. and Kley, D. and
Lattuati, M. and Moral, P. and Neininger, B. and Theloke,
J.},
title = {{P}aris emission inventory diagnostics from {ESQUIF}
airborne measurements and a chemistry transport model},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research},
volume = {108},
issn = {0148-0227},
address = {Washington, DC},
publisher = {Union},
reportid = {PreJuSER-34363},
pages = {17},
year = {2003},
note = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
abstract = {During 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.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-II},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB48},
pnm = {Chemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK257},
shelfmark = {Meteorology $\&$ Atmospheric Sciences},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000184868600001},
doi = {10.1029/2002JD002797},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/34363},
}