Estimating real driving emissions from multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) measurements at the A60 motorway near Mainz, Germany

Lauster, Bianca; Dörner, Steffen; Beirle, Steffen; Donner, Sebastian; Gromov, Sergey; Uhlmannsiek, Katharina; Wagner, Thomas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-769-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-769-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-769-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 1

Research article

|

01 Feb 2021

Research article |

| 01 Feb 2021

Estimating real driving emissions from multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) measurements at the A60 motorway near Mainz, Germany

Bianca Lauster, Steffen Dörner, Steffen Beirle, Sebastian Donner, Sergey Gromov, Katharina Uhlmannsiek, and Thomas Wagner

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Feb 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Jun 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Lauster et al. 'Estimating real driving emissions from MAX-DOAS measurements at the A60 motorway near Mainz, Germany''', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jul 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee comment #1', Bianca Lauster, 10 Sep 2020
RC2: 'Review to Lauster et al. 2020', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jul 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to Referee comment #2', Bianca Lauster, 10 Sep 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Bianca Lauster on behalf of the Authors (10 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Oct 2020) by Michel Van Roozendael

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (15 Nov 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have answered all questions and performed according corrections. There are some remaining points.

There are corrections made in the according sections, but they were not included in the abstract or other sections:

1. line 6 : “the measured emissions exceed the maximum expected emissions calculated from
the European emission standards by a factor of …” - here it must state “emissions exceed the maximum emissions calculated from the European emission standard for lab test cycle by a factor of…”. The theoretical expected emission value would be the HBEFA calculated emission value. Same need to be corrected in line 256.

2. line 22: Here it also should be noted (like in chapter 3.4) that the description is for light duty vehicles.

Added information need correction:
3. l. 229: RDE conformity is applied since “EURO 6d-temp”, not since “EURO 6”.

4. The authors included a HBEFA emission (chapter 3.5) which give a good theoretical expected emission value. It would be helpful for the reader if the HBEFA calculation is described in the appendix.

Some points still remain unclear:
5. chapter 2.3: The authors added information on the error estimation. From comparing the given error in line 105, with Fig. 2, it is still unclear how the deviation from the plot with a range from 0.9 to 1.7x10^14 result in the error of 0.4x10^14 molec cm-2.

6. Chapter 3.1: The author show that the spectral NO2 fit is mainly shot noise dominated. But this does not exclude that there are systematic errors included. For the calculation of the final error the author apply shot noise standard error propagation. But the authors still did not demonstrate that also the same results and same errors are achieved if first the spectra are averaged to achieve lower NO2 DSCD errors. The high temporal resolution of the NO2 measurement is not needed for the data analysis but lower NO2 DSCD errors would be more convincing.

7. What is the NO2 DSCD error from the fit in Figure A1? The fit is very noisy and not convincing to derive a small DSCD difference from two of these noisy fits. How does a fit look like of an averaged spectrum over a longer time?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Dec 2020) by Michel Van Roozendael

AR by Bianca Lauster on behalf of the Authors (17 Dec 2020) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Dec 2020) by Michel Van Roozendael

Short summary

In urban areas, road traffic is a dominant source of nitrogen oxides. In this study, two multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) instruments on opposite sides of a motorway were used to measure the nitrogen dioxide absorption near Mainz, Germany. Total nitrogen oxide emissions are estimated for the occurring traffic flux. We show that the measured emissions systematically exceed the maximum expected emissions calculated from the European emission standards.