the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The differences between remote sensing and in situ air pollutants measurements over the Canadian Oil Sands
Abstract. Ground-based remote sensing instruments have been widely used for atmospheric research but applications for air quality monitoring remain limited. Compared to an in situ instrument that provides air quality conditions at the ground level, most remote sensing instruments are sensitive to a broad range of altitudes, often providing only integrated column observations. These column data can be more difficult to interpret and to relate to surface values and hence to “nose-height-level” health factors. This research utilized ground-based remote sensing and in situ air quality observations in the Canadian Oil Sands Region to investigate some of their differences.
Vertical column densities (VCDs) of SO2 and NO2 retrieved by Pandora spectrometers located at the Oski-Otin site at Fort McKay, (Alberta, Canada), from 2013–2019 were analyzed along with measurements of SO2 and NO2 surface concentrations and meteorological data. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) observations by CIMEL sunphotometer were compared with surface PM2.5 data. The Oski-Otin site is surrounded by several large bitumen mining operations within the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR) with significant NO2 emissions from the mining fleet. Two major bitumen upgraders that are 20 km south-east of the site have total SO2 and NO2 emissions of about 40 kt yr-1 and 20 kt yr-1 respectively. It was demonstrated that remote sensing data from Pandora and CIMEL combined with high vertical resolution wind profiles can provide information about pollution sources and plume characteristics. Elevated SO2 VCDs are clearly observed for times with south and south-eastern winds, particularly at 200–300 m altitude (above ground level). High NO2 VCD values were observed from other directions (e.g., north-west) with less prominent impacts from 200–300 m winds. In situ ground observations of SO2 and NO2 show a different sensitivity with wind profiles, indicating they are less sensitive to elevated plumes than remote sensing instruments. In addition to measured wind data and lidar observed boundary layer height (BLH), modelled wind profiles and BLH from ERA-5 have been used to further examine the correlation between column and surface observations. The results show that the ratio of measured column and surface concentration values could show positive or negative correlation with BLH, which depends on the height of emission sources (e.g., emissions from high stacks or near surface).
This study explores differences between remote sensing and in situ instruments in terms of their vertical, horizontal, and temporal sampling differences. Understanding and resolving these differences are critical for future analyses linking satellite, ground-based remote sensing, and in situ observations in air quality monitoring and research.
- Preprint
(2458 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-27', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2024
This study compares the difference between in situ and remote sensing observations for air pollutants in from different perspectives over Canadian Oil Sands. The manuscript is pretty informative. However, the key contribution and findings are not clear, the large number of acronyms are difficult to follow, and the text is really long and it is suggested to keep it succinct. Detailed comments are given below:
Abstract
Line starting with ‘Compared to an in situ instrument that provides…’, that applies to nadir sensors, limb and occultation sensors provide vertical profiles.
Line starting with ‘Elevated SO2 VCDs are clearly observed…’, are observed or were observed?
Do not mix-use British or American English, like analyzed and modelled, keep consistency
Line starting with ‘In addition to measured wind…’ Maybe not all readers across the world know what ERA-5 reanalysis is, it is a good practice to give its full form at the first appearance.
Line starting with ‘The results show that…’ The findings are not significantly strong or exciting to intrigue the readers.
Introduction
Maybe not ‘even’ in polluted urban areas, my guess is relatively high correlation is expected in un- or less polluted areas for NO2, SO2, except for O3.
Authors may want to use acronyms less to help readers follow the storyline clearly instead of wondering the meaning of individual acronyms.
Ln 15, we compare or compared?
Ln 20, the cause of what?
Ln 20 again, what is the major difference of definitions on ground-level and in situ observations?
Ln 25, this bit ‘integration period differences’ comes out of sudden, readers may want to know why do we care about the integration period.
Section 2
It would be lovely to have a map of the study area that makes the paper more illustrative.
Ln 5 What would the inspiration of this study be as the Fort McKay is a very small town? How would people be informed and apply the findings here to other polluted regions, as most heavy pollution that threatens people’s life occur at densely populated urban areas.
Ln 5 I do suggest the authors use acronyms less to make the life of readers easier.
Section 2.1
Just curious, would it be considered as a ‘recently developed’ instrument as it has at least ten years of history?
Ln 30 What is U340 bandpass filter? What is ECCC? What is PGN?
Ln 5 no. 104, does this serial number really matter?
Ln 10 ‘…is given by (Herman et al., 2009)’ is not a good format for reference.
Ln 10 How does this Pratmo box model work and why it can remove NO2 in the stratosphere? Sometimes it’s not the case the more information the merrier.
Ln 15 What does the retrieved SO2 refer to? Is it from OMI? If it’s from a project, we need a reference to it.
Section 2.4
What is Q-switch Nd:YAG?
Section 3
What are coincident observations? Do the authors mean overlapped observations?
P9 Ln 5 What are selected wind directions? How did the authors do the selection, do you mean upwind or prevalent direction?
Conclusion
It would be better to have a concise conclusion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-27-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-27', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-27/amt-2024-27-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-27', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2024
This study compares the difference between in situ and remote sensing observations for air pollutants in from different perspectives over Canadian Oil Sands. The manuscript is pretty informative. However, the key contribution and findings are not clear, the large number of acronyms are difficult to follow, and the text is really long and it is suggested to keep it succinct. Detailed comments are given below:
Abstract
Line starting with ‘Compared to an in situ instrument that provides…’, that applies to nadir sensors, limb and occultation sensors provide vertical profiles.
Line starting with ‘Elevated SO2 VCDs are clearly observed…’, are observed or were observed?
Do not mix-use British or American English, like analyzed and modelled, keep consistency
Line starting with ‘In addition to measured wind…’ Maybe not all readers across the world know what ERA-5 reanalysis is, it is a good practice to give its full form at the first appearance.
Line starting with ‘The results show that…’ The findings are not significantly strong or exciting to intrigue the readers.
Introduction
Maybe not ‘even’ in polluted urban areas, my guess is relatively high correlation is expected in un- or less polluted areas for NO2, SO2, except for O3.
Authors may want to use acronyms less to help readers follow the storyline clearly instead of wondering the meaning of individual acronyms.
Ln 15, we compare or compared?
Ln 20, the cause of what?
Ln 20 again, what is the major difference of definitions on ground-level and in situ observations?
Ln 25, this bit ‘integration period differences’ comes out of sudden, readers may want to know why do we care about the integration period.
Section 2
It would be lovely to have a map of the study area that makes the paper more illustrative.
Ln 5 What would the inspiration of this study be as the Fort McKay is a very small town? How would people be informed and apply the findings here to other polluted regions, as most heavy pollution that threatens people’s life occur at densely populated urban areas.
Ln 5 I do suggest the authors use acronyms less to make the life of readers easier.
Section 2.1
Just curious, would it be considered as a ‘recently developed’ instrument as it has at least ten years of history?
Ln 30 What is U340 bandpass filter? What is ECCC? What is PGN?
Ln 5 no. 104, does this serial number really matter?
Ln 10 ‘…is given by (Herman et al., 2009)’ is not a good format for reference.
Ln 10 How does this Pratmo box model work and why it can remove NO2 in the stratosphere? Sometimes it’s not the case the more information the merrier.
Ln 15 What does the retrieved SO2 refer to? Is it from OMI? If it’s from a project, we need a reference to it.
Section 2.4
What is Q-switch Nd:YAG?
Section 3
What are coincident observations? Do the authors mean overlapped observations?
P9 Ln 5 What are selected wind directions? How did the authors do the selection, do you mean upwind or prevalent direction?
Conclusion
It would be better to have a concise conclusion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-27-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-27', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-27/amt-2024-27-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoyi Zhao, 18 Aug 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
411 | 136 | 36 | 583 | 30 | 26 |
- HTML: 411
- PDF: 136
- XML: 36
- Total: 583
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1