The quantification of NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> and SO<sub>2</sub> point source emission flux errors of mobile differential optical absorption spectroscopy on the basis of the Gaussian dispersion model: a simulation study

<p>Mobile differential optical absorption spectroscopy (mobile DOAS) has become an important tool for the quantification of emission sources, including point sources (e.g., individual power plants) and area emitters (e.g., entire cities). In this study, we focused on the error budget of mobile...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Y. Huang, A. Li, T. Wagner, Y. Wang, Z. Hu, P. Xie, J. Xu, H. Ren, J. Remmers, X. Fang, B. Dang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2020-11-01
Series:Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Online Access:https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6025/2020/amt-13-6025-2020.pdf
Description
Summary:<p>Mobile differential optical absorption spectroscopy (mobile DOAS) has become an important tool for the quantification of emission sources, including point sources (e.g., individual power plants) and area emitters (e.g., entire cities). In this study, we focused on the error budget of mobile DOAS measurements from point sources, and we also offered recommendations for the optimum settings of such measurements via a simulation with a modified Gaussian plume model. Following the analysis, we conclude that (1) the proper sampling resolution should be between 5 and 50&thinsp;m. (2) When measuring far from the source, undetectable flux (measured slant column densities (SCDs) are under the detection limit) resulting from wind dispersion is the main error source. The threshold for the undetectable flux can be lowered by larger integration time. When measuring close to the source, low sampling frequency results in large errors, and wind field uncertainty becomes the main error source of SO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span> flux (for NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub><i>x</i></sub></span> this error also increases, but other error sources dominate). More measurement times can lower the flux error that results from wind field uncertainty. The proper wind speed for mobile DOAS measurements is between 1 and 4&thinsp;m&thinsp;s<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−1</sup></span>. (3) The remaining errors by [NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub><i>x</i></sub></span>]&thinsp;<span class="inline-formula">∕</span>&thinsp;[NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>] ratio correction can be significant when measuring very close. To minimize the [NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub><i>x</i></sub></span>]&thinsp;<span class="inline-formula">∕</span>&thinsp;[NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>] ratio correction error, we recommend minimum distances from the source, at which 5&thinsp;% of the NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span> maximum reaction rate is reached and thus NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub><i>x</i></sub></span> steady state can be assumed. (4) Our study suggests that emission rates <span class="inline-formula">&lt;</span>&thinsp;30&thinsp;g&thinsp;s<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−1</sup></span> for NO<span class="inline-formula"><sub><i>x</i></sub></span> and <span class="inline-formula">&lt;</span>&thinsp;50&thinsp;g&thinsp;s<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−1</sup></span> for SO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span> are not recommended for mobile DOAS measurements.</p> <p>Based on the model simulations, our study indicates that mobile DOAS measurements are a very well-suited tool to quantify point source emissions. The results of our sensitivity studies are important to make optimum use of such measurements.</p>
ISSN:1867-1381
1867-8548