<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-15-7777-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{0.4cm}}?>Seasonal and diurnal trends in concentrations and fluxes of volatile organic
compounds in central London</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Trends in concentrations and fluxes of volatile organic compounds}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~C.~Valach et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Valach</surname><given-names>A. C.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4782-5766</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Langford</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Nemitz</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1765-6298</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>MacKenzie</surname><given-names>A. R.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8227-742X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hewitt</surname><given-names>C. N.</given-names></name>
          <email>n.hewitt@lancaster.ac.uk</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7973-2666</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Centre for Ecology &amp; Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">C. N. Hewitt (n.hewitt@lancaster.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>July</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>14</issue>
      <fpage>7777</fpage><lpage>7796</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>6</day><month>February</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>6</day><month>March</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Concentrations and fluxes of seven volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
measured between August and December 2012 at a rooftop site in central
London as part of the ClearfLo project (Clean Air for London). VOC
concentrations were quantified using a proton transfer reaction mass
spectrometer (PTR-MS) and fluxes were calculated using a virtual disjunct
eddy covariance technique. The median VOC fluxes, including
aromatics, oxygenated compounds and isoprene, ranged from 0.07 to 0.33 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Median mixing ratios were 7.3 ppb for methanol and
&lt; 1 ppb for the other compounds. Strong relationships were observed
between the fluxes and concentrations of some VOCs with traffic density and
between the fluxes and concentrations of isoprene and oxygenated compounds
with photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and temperature. An estimated
50–90 % of the fluxes of aromatic VOCs were attributable to traffic
activity, which showed little seasonal variation, suggesting that boundary
layer effects or possibly advected pollution may be the primary causes of
increased concentrations of aromatics in winter. Isoprene, methanol and
acetaldehyde fluxes and concentrations in August and September showed high
correlations with PAR and temperature, when fluxes and concentrations were
largest suggesting that biogenic sources contributed to their fluxes.
Modelled biogenic isoprene fluxes from urban vegetation using the Guenther
et al. (1995) algorithm agreed well with measured fluxes in August and
September. Comparisons of estimated annual benzene emissions from both the London
and the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventories agreed well with measured
benzene fluxes. Flux footprint analysis indicated emission sources were
localised and that boundary layer dynamics and source strengths were
responsible for temporal and spatial VOC flux and concentration variability
during the measurement period.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Currently over 50 % of the global population lives in urban areas, and
with increasing migration to urban centres, air quality remains a high
public health priority. In the European Union, including in the UK, volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions are subject to control under the European
Commission Directive 2008/50/EC and emission reducing technologies have been
implemented, yet urban air pollution continues to be a concern. VOCs from
both anthropogenic and biogenic sources impact urban air quality and climate
through their contribution to tropospheric ozone and aerosol particle
formation. Some VOCs, including benzene and 1,3-butadiene are also
carcinogens that can directly affect human health
(Kim et al., 2001). Most VOCs in urban areas are
assumed to come from fuel combustion or evaporative emissions
(Kansal, 2009; Srivastava et
al., 2005). However, in summer urban vegetation may act as an additional
source of VOCs such as methanol, isoprene and monoterpenes, even in cities
with a temperate climate and little green space such as London or
Manchester (Langford et
al., 2009, 2010b).</p>
      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Emission inventories such as the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI,
<uri>http://www.cleanerairforlondon.org.uk/londons-air/air-quality-data/london-emissions-laei/road-traffic-emissions</uri>)
and the National Atmospheric Emissions
Inventory (NAEI, <uri>http://naei.defra.gov.uk/data/</uri>) use a “bottom-up” approach based on activity
data and emission factors to estimate emission rates from pollutant sources.
Micrometeorologically based eddy covariance techniques allow a “top-down”
approach to quantify fluxes and these measurements can be compared with
modelled emission inventory estimates. Such comparisons are essential as
“bottom-up” emission inventories may inadvertently not include specific
pollutant sources or may use unrepresentative emission factors or activity
profiles. “Top-down” approaches using Earth observation data from
satellites are also available for a few chemicals
(Lamsal et al., 2011) but not for primary VOCs.
There have been few studies on VOC fluxes in urban areas, and these have
been limited in spatial and temporal extent
(Langford
et al., 2009, 2010b; Park et al., 2010, 2011; Velasco et al., 2005, 2009).
Due to the high technical demands of VOC flux measurements, it is difficult
to increase spatial coverage or to make measurements for long periods of
time. Making further measurements of this kind is therefore a high priority
in studies of air quality.</p>
      <p>In this study we present flux and concentration measurements of seven
selected volatile organic compounds made over 5 months in central London
using the virtual disjunct eddy covariance method. The aims of this study
were to (i) quantify VOC fluxes above an urban canopy using proton transfer
reaction mass spectrometry and virtual disjunct eddy covariance; (ii) investigate
seasonal, diurnal and spatial differences in VOC fluxes and concentrations;
(iii) examine possible major source contributions of speciated VOCs in
central London; and (iv) compare measured fluxes with those estimated by both
the LAEI and the NAEI.</p>
      <p>These observations were made as part of the ClearfLo (Clean air for London)
project, which provided integrated short-term and long-term measurements of
meteorology, gas phase and particulate pollutants over London and
surrounding areas during 2011 and 2012 (Bohnenstengel et al., 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Measurement site</title>
      <p>Micrometeorological flux measurements were made during the period 7 August–19 December 2012 from a flux tower located on the roof of
a building belonging to King's College, University of London
(51.511667<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
0.116667<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W; ground altitude 30 m a.s.l.), on the Strand in central London.
Although the site is within the London Congestion Charge Zone (an area
encompassing central London requiring road tolls to be paid and hence an
area with reduced traffic density), surrounding roads supported a medium to
high traffic volume (annual average of 50 000–80 000 vehicles per day;
Department for Transport, 2014) with the River Thames situated 200 m to
the south. This site is classified as a local climate zone class 2
compact midrise according to Stewart and Oke (2012) (i.e. dense mix of
midrise buildings; 3–9 stories; few or no trees; land cover mostly paved;
stone, brick, tile and concrete construction materials). Land cover types
(in %) were calculated based on the Ordnance Survey map for the surrounding 9 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area (Fig. 1) encompassing the site and are roads (37 %),
buildings (31 %), other paved areas (14 %), unpaved/vegetation (11 %) and water bodies (7 %).</p>
      <p>The sampling inlet and sonic anemometer were mounted on a triangular mast
(Aluma T45-H) at approx. 60.9 m (2.3 times mean building height, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
above ground level. The mean building height was around 25 m and
the mast was located on an elevated area in the centre of the roof. A street
canyon was located to the NW and an enclosed parking area to the SE, but
generally surrounding buildings were of equal height. The sampling point
(which we call KCL) is located 37 m west of a sampling point (KSS) that has
been used for long-term energy and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux measurements
(Kotthaus and Grimmond, 2012). Although the site is not
optimal for micrometeorological flux measurements due to the heterogeneity
of the urban canopy, its suitability has been assessed in detail by Kotthaus
and Grimmond (2014a, b). This study describes in detail the measurement
area and investigates the influence of source area characteristics on
long-term radiation and turbulent heat fluxes for the KSS site. They
conclude that the site can yield reasonable data on surface-to-atmosphere
fluxes.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Map of central London overlaid with the Ordnance Survey
grid including the measurement site (KCL) at King's College (green point)
with references to the geography of Greater London and Great Britain.
Outlines of the areas that contribute the maximum (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as well as 75, 90 and 99 % to the flux footprint using overall median
meteorological values are shown as black contour lines with their respective
labels laid out according to the median wind direction.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The weather in 2012 was somewhat cooler than the 1981 to 2010 long-term mean
for London during summer and autumn, with several cold fronts bringing up to
twice as much precipitation and associated winds as average, suppressing
pollution levels. However, during the period of the Olympic and Paralympic
games (27 July–12 August and 29 August–9 September 2012) the weather was hot and dry, causing sustained pollution
peaks. Winter 2012/2013 was generally warmer and drier in London than the
1981–2010 mean (Met Office, 2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Instrumentation and data acquisition</title>
      <p>The CSAT3 sonic anemometer (Campbell Scientific Inc., Utah, USA) and inlet were faced toward
the predominant wind direction (SW) to minimise flow distortion. Data from
the sonic anemometer were logged at a frequency of 10 Hz and flux
measurements were calculated using 25 min averaging periods. The rotation
angle theta (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), used to correct measurements of the vertical wind
velocity for minor misalignment of the sonic anemometer, showed no
significant disturbance of the turbulence from interactions with the
building when plotted against wind direction. Data were recorded in UTC
(universal time coordinated), which is 1 h earlier than local time in
summer and coincident with Greenwich mean time in winter. However, all
analyses used local time.</p>
      <p>VOC concentrations were measured using a high-sensitivity proton transfer
reaction (quadrupole) mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) (Ionicon Analytik GmbH,
Innsbruck, Austria) with three Varian turbomolecular pumps
(see for example de Gouw and Warneke, 2007;
Hayward et al., 2002; Lindinger et al., 1998, for more detailed description of
the instrument). Air was drawn through an inlet co-located with the sonic
anemometer. Sample air was purged through a <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 m <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> OD (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ID) PTFE tube at a flow rate of 81 L min<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
the PTR-MS, which was housed in a utility room below. The high flow rate
ensured turbulent flow was maintained and signal attenuation minimised
(Reynolds number, <italic>Re</italic> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>11177</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). During the campaign, PTR-MS operating
parameters were maintained at 1.95 mbar, 510 V and 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for
drift tube pressure, voltage and temperature respectively to achieve an
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the electric field strength and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the buffer gas number density) ratio of 123 Td
(1 Td <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> V cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). This field strength forms a compromise
between reagent ion clustering and fragmentation suppression
(Hewitt et al., 2003). Further instrument parameters and
meteorological conditions are summarised in Table 1. The inlet flow rate
into the instrument was 0.25–0.3 L min<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Summary of instrument operating parameters and average
meteorological conditions during the measurements in central London,
August–December 2012.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unit</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean (range)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Normalised sensitivity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ncps ppb<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11.5 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33), 13.3 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45), 10 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59), 4 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69),</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.6 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79), 2.5 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 93), 1.5 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Primary ion (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Cps</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.31 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (6.14 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water cluster (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 37)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Cps</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.92 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (9.15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–3.86 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">% of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.3 (1.5–3.4)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">% of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">&lt; 1.45 (1.11–2.01)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.0 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.81–30.39)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Relative humidity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">%</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">76 (50–97)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pressure</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mbar</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1004.27 (968.71–1023.27)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wind speed<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.35 (0.12–14.96)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5 (0.01–1.50)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SD of vertical wind speed (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.65 (0.15–1.62)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: normalised sensitivity as calculated using
Taipale et al. (2008).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Derived from measurements from the CSAT3 sonic anemometer (Campbell
Scientific).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>The logging program was written in LabVIEW (National Instruments, Austin,
Texas, USA) and operated the PTR-MS in multiple ion detection (MID) and SCAN
modes for VOC concentrations of nine selected masses and a range of the
protonated mass spectrum <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 21–206 respectively. The sonic anemometer was not
directly interfaced with the LabVIEW logging program, requiring the
measurements to be synchronised during post-processing through the use of a
cross-correlation function between the vertical wind velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the VOC
ion counts <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. A valve system controlled the measurement cycle, which
consisted of 5 min zero air (ZA), 25 min MID followed by 5 min SCAN
of sample air and 25 min MID mode. During the ZA cycle, air was pumped
through a custom-made gas calibration unit fitted with a platinum
catalyst heated to 200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C to provide instrument background values
at ambient humidity. In MID mode the quadrupole scanned nine predetermined
protonated masses with a dwell time of 0.5 s,  to which each of the following
compounds were ascribed: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 21 (indirectly quantified <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 19 primary ion count
via [H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mn>18</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 (methanol), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 39 (indirectly quantified
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 37 first cluster [H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 42 (acetonitrile,
results not shown), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45 (acetaldehyde), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59 (acetone/propanal), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69
(isoprene/furan), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79 (benzene), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 93 (toluene), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107 (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes) and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 121 (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes, results not shown). The total cycle time was 5.5 s.
Secondary electron multiplier voltage, as well as O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 32)
and photon “dark counts” (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 25) signals, were monitored weekly.</p>
      <p>The PTR-MS cannot distinguish between different compounds with the same
integer mass; therefore, isobaric interference can occur. For example, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107
may result from several contributing C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> aromatics: ethyl benzene,
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)-xylene, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-xylene and some benzaldehyde
(Warneke et al., 2003). Further interferences
at measured <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from additional compounds and fragmentation for this instrument
in an urban environment are discussed in Valach et
al. (2014). Although the O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and water cluster ions were kept
&lt; 2 % of the primary ion, interferences from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
isotopes at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 were taken into account.</p>
      <p>Single point calibrations were performed on-site once a month using a
certified multiple component VOC gas standard (Ionimed, part of Ionicon
Analytik GmbH, Austria), which was validated by cross-calibration with a
second independent VOC standard (Apel Riemer Environmental Inc., CO, USA).
Before and after the campaign, multistep calibrations were performed with
both standards. Standards were diluted with catalytically converted zero
air, since cylinder concentrations were approx. 1 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 %
uncertainty (Ionimed Analytik) and 0.5 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % (Apel Riemer).
Error propagation resulted in a total calibration uncertainty of &lt; 20 %. Measured normalised instrument sensitivities (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Table 1)
based on Taipale et al. (2008) were used to
convert normalised count rates (ncps) of protonated masses (RH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to
volume mixing ratios (Langford et al., 2010a).
Only the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-xylene isomer was present in the Ionimed standard, which was used
to determine instrument sensitivities for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107, but sensitivities agreed
well when compared with sensitivities for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-xylene present in the Apel
Riemer standard. Any remaining humidity effects on calibrations were
previously investigated for this instrument and were found to be within the
overall calibration uncertainty (Valach et al.,
2014). Detection limits of VOC concentrations (Table 2) were calculated
according to Taipale et al. (2008).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Summary of 25 min VOC fluxes and mixing ratios above central London
during August–December 2012.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Compound</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Methanol</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Acetaldehyde</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Acetone/propanal</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Isoprene/furan</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Benzene</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Toluene</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 93)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col8" align="center">Fluxes (mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lifetime (OH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12 d</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.8 h</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">53 d</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.4 h</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">9.4 d</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.9 d</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5.9 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2920</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2811</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2945</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2119</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1908</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2315</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2053</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Min.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.91</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.27</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">First quartile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.12</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.06</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.02</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.002</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.08</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.04</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.33</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.29</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.13</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.41</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Third quartile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.42</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.91</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Max.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.59</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">8.63</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.34</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.86</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Skew</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.08</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.33</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Kurtosis</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20.37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.57</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.76</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14.48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col8" align="center">Mixing ratios (ppb) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4834</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4834</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Min.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">&lt; LoD (0.14)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; LoD (0.02)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">&lt; LoD (0.03)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; LoD (0.04)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; LoD (0.05)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">&lt; LoD (0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1. quartile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.82</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.59</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; LoD (0.65)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">&lt; LoD (0.16)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; LoD (0.18)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; LoD (0.38)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">&lt; LoD (0.57)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.82</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.95</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">&lt; LoD (0.22)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; LoD (0.24)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; LoD (0.54)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.94</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.29</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; LoD (0.65)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.87</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3. quartile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.13</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.34</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Max.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.06</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4.96</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.12</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.45</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Skew</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.65</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.97</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.79</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Kurtosis</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.83</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.06</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.27</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">12.37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">12.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LoD<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.96</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.45</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Atmospheric lifetimes with regard to OH for a 12 h daytime average OH
concentration of 2.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molecules cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Atkinson,
2000).<?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LoD: limit of detection calculated using
Taipale et al. (2008).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Flux calculations and quality assessment</title>
      <p>Fluxes were calculated according to
Karl et al. (2002) and Langford
et al. (2009, 2010b) using
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lag</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tw</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the instantaneous fluctuations around the mean vertical wind
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and mean VOC concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of
VOC concentration measurements per 25 min averaging period (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>273</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lag</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the lag time between the wind and PTR-MS measurement due to the
transit through the sampling line and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tw</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sampling
interval of the vertical wind speed measurements of the sonic anemometer (10 Hz <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 s). Langford et al. (2015) recently demonstrated that the
method used to determine the time lag becomes important where the
signal-to-noise ratio of the analyser is poor, showing that methods that
systematically search for a maximum in the cross-correlation function within
a given window (MAX method) can bias the calculated fluxes towards more
extreme (positive or negative) values. Their study recommends the use of a
prescribed lag time determined either through the use of a monitored sample
flow rate or by using the typical lag time derived by searching for a
maximum. Here the prescribed lag times were determined by fitting a running
mean to the time series of daytime lag times calculated using the MAX method
for acetone, which had large fluxes and the clearest time lags.
Prescribed lag times for all other compounds were set relative to that of
acetone, accounting for the offset introduced by the sequential sampling of
the PTR-MS.</p>
      <p>Flux losses due to the attenuation of high and low frequency eddies were
estimated for our measurement setup. High frequency flux attenuation was
estimated to be on average 11 % using the method of Horst (1997), and a
correction was applied. Attenuation from low frequency fluctuations for a 25 min flux period was investigated by reanalysing the sensible heat fluxes
for longer averaging periods of 60, 90, 120 and 150 min. The coordinate
rotation was applied to the joined files, which acted as a high pass filter
to the three wind vectors, confirming that fluctuations of eddies with a
longer time period than the averaging time did not contribute to the flux
measurement (Moncrieff et al., 2004). The fluxes were compared to the
25 min average fluxes, which had the coordinate rotation applied before
joining, again to ensure only turbulent fluctuations of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 min
contributed to the flux (Fig. A1 in the Supplement). Flux losses
due to low frequency attenuation were estimated to be &lt; 1.5 %
and, therefore, no corrections were deemed necessary. The error due to the
disjunct sampling was estimated by comparing the sensible heat fluxes
calculated from the continuous data series with those calculated from a
disjunct data series using a set sampling interval of 5.5 s. The continuous
data were averaged to match the sampling frequency of the disjunct data
(i.e. 2 Hz). The difference between the eddy covariance and DEC sensible
heat fluxes was minimal (0.01 %) and thus no additional corrections were
applied.</p>
      <p>Many of the 25 min resolved flux measurements were close to the limit of
detection (LoD), based on 1 standard deviation using the method of
Spirig et al. (2005), with an average fail rate of 82 %.
Various techniques to statistically analyse or replace values below the LoD
have been developed (Clarke, 1998). However, they often result in
significant bias, either high or low depending on the value substituted,
because values tend to be below the LoD when fluxes are indeed small (Helsel
and Hirsch, 1992). In this study, our analysis focused on diurnally averaged
flux profiles and we decided not to filter out individual flux values on the
basis of being &lt; LoD in order to avoid this bias. When averaging the
25 min flux data it is appropriate to also average the LoD which, as shown
by Langford et al. (2015), decreases with the square root of the number
of samples averaged (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Therefore, although the majority of the individual
25 min flux measurements were below the LoD, their diurnal average profiles
may exceed the LoD for the average and thus still yield important data on
the net exchange of VOCs above the city.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LoD</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LoD</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The following describes the additionally applied filter criteria. 25 min
flux values with a friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) &lt; 0.15 m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
were rejected (3.4 % of total data) due to insufficient turbulence. The
stationarity test and data quality rating methods of Foken and Wichura (1996) and Velasco et al. (2005) were used,
and 47 % of the data files were rejected on this basis. The high number
of files rejected in the stationarity test is to be expected for eddy
covariance measurements over highly heterogeneous canopies, although
horizontally averaged canopy morphology recovers some surface homogeneity.
Furthermore, the low measurement height used can cause an increased
sensitivity towards canopy roughness features resulting in non-stationarity.
Since urban environments are inherently not ideal for micrometeorological
flux measurements due to their heterogeneity, integral turbulence
characteristics of this site were assessed by comparing the measured
standard deviation of the vertical wind velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
normalised by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the parameters of a modelled ideal turbulence
(Foken et al., 2004). Results showed that 99.6 % of all the data was
rated category six or better and 0.4 % was rejected using the criteria
of Foken et al. (2004). This large pass rate gives further confidence that
the measurements were not unduly affected by wake turbulence generated from
the structure of the building. Erroneous meteorological data (2.6 % of
total) were removed around wind directions of 14–15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> due to
minor turbulence interferences from the presence of other sensors on the
mast. Depending on the compound, between 40 and 61 % of flux data (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1934–2949) passed all of the above quality controls. Exactly 2014 h of
concentration data (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>4834</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was obtained. For consistency, regression
coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were used throughout.</p>
      <p>The traffic densities used for the analysis were obtained from a nearby site
at Marylebone Road (approx. 3 km to the NW) and consisted of hourly vehicle
counts covering the period 7–22 August 2012. The major roads
of the Strand and the Thames Embankment surrounding the measurement site support a
comparable traffic volume with an annual average of 50 000–80 000 vehicles
per day (Department for Transport, 2014) and diurnal patterns in traffic are
likely to be similar across central London.</p>
      <p>Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements used in
the analysis were part of the long-term micrometeorological measurements at
the same site and covered the period from August to September for PAR and
from August to December for CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Average diurnal profiles
were calculated for the boundary layer mixing height, which was measured
using three LiDARs located on rooftops within central London during an
approx. 2-week period in summer and winter 2012 (Bohnenstengel et al.,
2015).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Flux footprint calculations</title>
      <p>Although there are no operational footprint models for urban environments
that take the complex topography and spatial variability in building height
and surface heat fluxes into account, the analytical footprint model of
Kormann and Meixner (2001) has previously been applied in
non-homogeneous terrain (Helfter et
al., 2011; Neftel et al., 2008). The Kormann–Meixner (KM) model determines
the 2-D footprint density function explicitly from micrometeorological
parameters, which are provided by the eddy covariance measurements, i.e.
friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), measurement height (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), Obukhov length
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), horizontal wind velocity at the measurement height (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
standard deviation of the lateral wind (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The flux
footprints were calculated for each 25 min flux period.
Neftel et al. (2008) developed a Microsoft Excel-based
tool that allows the footprint contributions (%) of user-defined
spatial elements to be mapped. In this case we used a total of nine 1 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid squares to match the Ordnance Survey (OS) grid (Fig. 1),
centred on the measurement site. This grid resolution was validated using a
simple parameterisation model (Kljun et al., 2004) with average diurnal
cycle parameters for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and boundary layer
height (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) during the campaign, which calculated the distance of the
maximum flux contribution (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the extent of the 90 % flux
footprint (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p> </p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=432.48189pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f02-part01.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p>The KM footprint calculation requires the Monin–Obukhov stability parameter
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) to be within the interval [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3, 3], where
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 16.7 m) being the displacement height estimated as a
fraction of the canopy height (Garrat, 1992). The footprint estimation for
cases of extreme stability is of lower quality but still provides useful
information. The vertical turbulent flux <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(0,0,<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) measured at the
height <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is related to the corresponding surface flux area
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is upwind of the measurement point, such that

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Φ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the measurement height and the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis is aligned with the
mean horizontal wind direction. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Φ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
footprint function and includes a weighting function to describe the
influence of a unit point source on the flux from any surface location
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In order to compare VOC fluxes with estimated emissions from the LAEI, a 9 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> section of the 1 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution OS grid
system was used, which on average included 90 % of the footprint contribution to all measured fluxes. This area was
limited to central London and partially included the following boroughs:
Westminster (squares 1, 4, 5 and 7), Southwark (2, 3 and 6), Camden (8) and
the City of London (9) (Fig. 1).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Diurnal profiles of VOC fluxes and concentrations</title>
      <p>Average diurnal cycles of measured VOC fluxes and mixing ratios are shown in
Fig. 2 with descriptive statistics for all the data summarised in
Table 2. Largest median (interquartile range in parenthesis) fluxes per day
were from C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes and toluene, with 7.86 (0.92–21.8) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 7.26 (1.83–15.3) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively, followed
by oxygenated compounds, i.e. methanol with 6.37 (2.99–10.0) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, acetaldehyde 3.29 (1.52–5.62) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and acetone
5.24 (2.33–9.62) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Isoprene and benzene showed the smallest
median fluxes with 2.14 (0.56–4.85) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 1.78 (0.06–4.34) kg km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively. The highest median mixing
ratios were of the oxygenated compounds methanol (7.3 (6.8–7.9) ppb),
acetone (0.95 (&lt; LoD–1.36) ppb) and acetaldehyde (0.82 (0.59–1.13) ppb), followed by aromatics (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes, toluene and benzene), and
isoprene.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Part 1: average diurnal profiles in local time for selected VOC
fluxes (mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) separated into all days, weekdays (red
dashed line) and weekends (blue dotted line) with traffic density (vehicles h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), detection limit (patterned area) and upper and lower confidence
intervals (shaded area). Traffic density (with weekday and weekend) and
boundary layer mixing height (for summer and winter) are shown in separate
panels. Compounds are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 (methanol), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45 (acetaldehyde), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59
(acetone/propanal), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69 (isoprene/furan), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79 (benzene), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 93 (toluene) and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107 (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes).
Part 2: average diurnal profiles in local time for selected VOC
mixing ratios (ppb) separated into all days, weekdays (red dashed line) and
weekends (blue dotted line) with detection limit (dotted line) and upper
and lower confidence intervals (shaded area). Traffic density (with weekday
and weekend) and boundary layer mixing height (for summer and winter) are
shown in separate panels. Compounds are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 (methanol), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45 (acetaldehyde),
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59 (acetone/propanal), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69 (isoprene/furan), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79 (benzene), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 93 (toluene)
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 107 (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes). The mixing ratio axes start from 0 apart
from that of methanol, which begins at 6.4 ppb due to the high atmospheric
background.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\addtocounter{figure}{-1}}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=432.48189pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f02-part02.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Oxygenated compounds commonly have relatively long atmospheric lifetimes and
widespread origin including anthropogenic and biogenic sources and
photochemistry, resulting in elevated concentrations and less pronounced
diurnal profiles (Atkinson, 2000). Most VOC fluxes and
concentrations were comparable to or lower than those previously observed in
London (Langford et al., 2010b) and
other UK cities (Langford et al.,
2009), although C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzene fluxes and concentrations, as well as
isoprene and benzene concentrations, were slightly higher. The discrepancy in
isoprene and benzene concentrations is consistent with photochemical loss
during transport to the higher measurement height of the previous studies.
Compared to other cities such as Houston Texas (Park et al., 2010) and
Mexico City (Velasco et al., 2005), VOC fluxes
and concentrations were lower with the exception of C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes, which were
comparable or higher; however, it must be noted that C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes in
this study represent the sum of multiple VOC species. Unlike the other
studies cited, Park et al. (2010) use relaxed eddy accumulation to measure
VOC fluxes and hence the data obtained are not directly comparable with
measurements made by EC-based methods.</p>
      <p>Diurnal profiles of aromatic fluxes and concentrations presented two clear
rush hour peaks during the morning and evening (07:00–10:00 and
17:00–20:00 local time). Concentration peaks are thought to be linked to
additional advection of traffic-related pollution from larger commuter roads
outside of the city centre, as well as boundary layer effects and
photochemistry. VOC concentration measurements at canopy height can be
affected by boundary layer depth (Vilà-Guerau de Arellano et al., 2009).
The rush hour emission peaks mostly coincide with the boundary layer
expansion and collapse and therefore the effect of each factor cannot be
separated. The morning concentration peak was slightly higher than the
evening peak across traffic-related species even though fluxes tended to be
larger during the evening rush hour. Morning emissions enter a shallow
nocturnal boundary layer leading to relatively larger concentrations
compared to higher afternoon emissions entering a developed boundary
layer leading to relatively lower concentrations. This enhanced dilution
effect is found more often during summer when the boundary layer mixing
height is higher (Fig. 2). Therefore, the regression analyses below only
refer to data from August (cf. Sect. 3.1.2 for comparisons with winter).
Furthermore, increased photochemical degradation during the day removes
VOCs, further contributing to the midday minimum in mixing ratios. The
diurnal flux profiles of methanol, acetone, isoprene and to a smaller
extent acetaldehyde showed one large peak just after midday (approx. 13:00
local time), which was only reflected in the concentration profiles of
acetone and isoprene. Acetaldehyde concentrations presented a slight double
peak similar to mixing ratios of aromatics. Methanol has a relatively long
atmospheric lifetime and therefore high background concentrations, and hence
mixing ratios showed no distinct diurnal profile.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <title>Correlations with possible controlling variables of VOC fluxes and
concentrations</title>
      <p>Aromatic compound fluxes closely followed the diurnal profile of traffic
density with good correlations (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.51–0.92, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05)
and slightly lower fluxes observed on the weekends. In central urban areas
in the UK, traffic densities – and therefore traffic-related VOC fluxes –
increase steadily throughout the day, with discernible peaks during morning,
midday and evening (Nemitz et al., 2002), which was also observed in this
study. Previous studies have shown that the Marylebone Road traffic count
point can be used as a proxy representative of traffic flows throughout
central London (Helfter et al., 2011).</p>
      <p>The aforementioned concentration dilution due to boundary layer expansion
resulted in negative correlations between boundary layer height and aromatic
mixing ratios in August (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.33–0.56, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). As
aromatic compound fluxes slightly dipped around midday, the mixing ratios
were further diluted by the deep boundary layer. The above evidence suggests that
traffic-related emissions were the main contributors to fluxes and mixing
ratios of aromatic compounds. Acetone and isoprene showed peak midday
fluxes, which maintained daytime mixing ratios and produced positive
correlations with boundary layer height (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16 and 0.59
respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). De Gouw et al. (2005) reported that changes
in boundary layer meteorology could result in greater effects on observed
concentrations of methanol and acetone due to their high background values.
The mixing ratios of these compounds are, therefore, likely dominated by
advected pollution rather than the local flux. Possibly a combination of
boundary layer and photochemical effects were seen with methanol mixing
ratios wherein correlations with mixing height were negative (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01), whereas acetone and isoprene fluxes seemed to be
sufficiently high during the day to maintain peak midday mixing ratios
(Fig. 3 example of isoprene). Vehicle emissions may have contributed to
acetaldehyde and isoprene levels directly or indirectly (Fig. 3 example of
isoprene), because correlations of fluxes with traffic density were fairly
high (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.46 respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05). The diurnal
concentration profile of acetaldehyde to some degree mimicked those of
traffic-related compounds reflecting a slight double peak.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p>Examples, using isoprene, of averaged VOC fluxes (left)
and mixing ratios (right) as a function of photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR) (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C),
traffic density (vehicles h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and boundary layer mixing height (m)
based on 25 min VOC means with linear or exponential regressions, formulae,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values and detection limit (shaded area for fluxes and dashed line
for mixing ratios).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f03.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Diurnal profiles by month with confidence intervals and
bar charts showing hourly averages for the respective month and
representative compound (top) fluxes (mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 45, 69 and
79) and (bottom) mixing ratios (ppb) (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 59, 69 and 79). Letters (a–d)
indicate statistically significant subgroups using Tukey's Honestly
Significant Difference post hoc test.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f04.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p>VOC fluxes and concentrations plotted as a function of PAR showed strong daytime (defined as 06:00 to 18:00
local time) correlations for methanol, acetaldehyde and isoprene fluxes
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.71–0.78, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) and concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.66–0.83, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Plotted as a function of temperature, high
correlations with methanol, acetaldehyde and isoprene fluxes were seen
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.75, 0.63 and 0.94 respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), whereas
only methanol and acetone concentrations showed higher correlations with
temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64 and 0.81 respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001).
Methanol fluxes correlated linearly with temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.75,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), but acetaldehyde and isoprene fluxes (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64 and
0.94; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01) and mixing ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.45 and 0.55;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01) had exponential relationships with temperature (Fig. 3
example of isoprene). The relationships of mixing ratios with PAR and
temperature for these compounds improved greatly when night-time values were
excluded (defined as PAR &lt; 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and when
times of low temperature (&lt; 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) were excluded. This
indicates either separate source contributions or effects of boundary layer
meteorology in these instances, whereby increased mixing ratios of these
compounds with low PAR and temperature likely result from reduced dilution
within a shallow boundary layer, e.g. at night or in winter, or from
possible contributions of anthropogenic sources such as exhaust emissions,
which are largely independent of light and temperature. Increases in
concentrations due to high PAR and temperature suggest biogenic sources,
increased evaporative emissions and/or secondary atmospheric formation
driven by oxidation of precursor hydrocarbons (Singh et al., 1994).
Oxygenated compounds have a variety of different source contributions such
as tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions from fuel and solvents, direct
emissions from plants, leaf decomposition and secondary atmospheric
production (Langford et al., 2009,
and references therein).</p>
      <p>Modelling studies have indicated that the contribution of secondary
atmospheric formation to VOC concentrations could be more significant,
especially in urban areas, during summer, i.e. with high PAR and
temperatures (de Gouw et al., 2005; Harley and Cass,
1994). Acetone fluxes reached a maximum when PAR and temperature were around
1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 15–20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C respectively
before declining, whereas mixing ratios increased exponentially with light
and temperature. These observations resemble measurements over forest
canopies (e.g. Schade and Goldstein, 2001). Aromatic compound concentrations
and fluxes showed no correlations with PAR. Weak negative correlations were
seen between aromatic concentrations and temperature, and weak positive
correlations were seen between fluxes and temperature likely due to increased thermal
mixing. The observed light and temperature responses associated with
isoprene fluxes and mixing ratios in August and September can be explained
by biogenic sources (cf. Sect. 3.1.3).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Summary of site meteorology by month in central London during 2012.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Data coverage</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Median</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Wind speed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Dominant wind</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Footprint<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Footprint</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">stability (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">direction (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">length (m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">width (m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aug</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0086</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S (54)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2417</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1355</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sep</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">83</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0154</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">W (48)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1285</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">880</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Oct</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S (29)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2624</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1327</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nov</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">51</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0037</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">S (53)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2329</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1156</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dec</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0047</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N (32)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1804</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">990</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Calculated 2-D description of the oval footprint according
to the KM model. Length parameter is the length between the point nearest to
the sensor where the crosswind-integrated footprint function reaches 1 %
of its maximum value to the point where it drops below 1 % of the maximum
value.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <title>Seasonal variability of VOC sources and meteorology</title>
      <p>Most compounds showed larger fluxes in August and September than in October,
November and December with the exception of acetaldehyde, which also showed
increased fluxes in December (Fig. 4 top). Increased acetaldehyde fluxes
in December may have resulted from an additional source, such as domestic
biomass burning (Andreae and Merlet, 2001; Lipari et al., 1984),
although there are only few residential buildings in this area of London.
Only toluene fluxes in September were significantly higher than in other
months and benzene fluxes showed no significant seasonal differences.
Seasonal variability in fluxes was likely due to increased emissions in
summer, especially for compounds with biogenic and secondary atmospheric
sources. Average monthly meteorological parameters are summarised in Table 3.</p>
      <p>Mixing ratios of aromatics were generally lower in summer and highest in
December (Fig. 4 bottom). This is likely due to less dilution effects in
winter when the boundary layer is shallow or from advection of additional
sources such as heating, since there was no increase in fluxes. Generally,
in summer the boundary layer mixing height is higher and collapses later in
the evening which maintains the dilution effect for VOC concentrations. In
winter the average boundary layer mixing height is lower. It develops later
in the morning and collapses earlier in the afternoon, which could increase
not only
overall VOC mixing ratios but also individual maxima, e.g. during rush
hours. Comparing average diurnal profiles of compound mixing ratios with
boundary layer height during summer and winter shows that aromatic compound
concentrations were associated with negative correlations in summer (cf.
Sect. 3.1.1) which became positive during winter (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.10–0.33,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01), while fluxes maintained positive correlations with boundary
layer height regardless of season. This suggests that boundary layer effects may
be an important driver of increased concentrations in winter. Furthermore,
traffic counts for the Congestion Charge Zone in central London indicate
lower monthly average vehicle counts in December (Department for Transport,
2014). Oxygenated compounds and isoprene mixing ratios were highest in
summer with the exception of acetone, which increased in December likely
from boundary layer effects, reduced photochemical degradation or
advection. Correlations of mixing ratios and fluxes with boundary layer
height were positive for acetone and isoprene during summer and winter,
whereas methanol and acetaldehyde presented negative correlations during
summer, indicating stronger dilution effects (cf. Sect. 3.1.1).</p>
      <p>Increased summer mixing ratios of oxygenated compounds and isoprene
indicated a temperature dependent, possibly biogenic source contribution.
While biogenic emissions may be advected from outside of the city, the
concurrent increase in isoprene fluxes suggests the source to be largely
local to the flux footprint. The temperature-dependent fraction of observed
isoprene mixing ratios, which may include advected pollution, was estimated
using the isoprene temperature response function from Fig. 9 in Langford
et al. (2010b), which estimated a 30 and 20 % contribution in August
and September respectively. These values were significantly higher than for
isopentane, a non-biogenic compound available from the Automatic
Hydrocarbon Network, to which the same analysis was applied. The temperature-dependent component of isoprene in October, November and December showed no
significant difference to that of isopentane, suggesting the biogenic
component was reduced or absent at lower temperatures. High correlations of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69 with light and temperature during August and September indicate that
isoprene was the likely major component during these months; however, during the
rest of the period the contribution of additional compounds such as furan
and other alkenes at that mass may have increased, thereby overestimating
the isoprene signal (Yuan et al., 2014).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Time series of both measured (grey) and modelled (black)
fluxes, as well as PAR and temperature measurements for August and September 2012. <bold>(b)</bold> Correlation between modelled and measured isoprene
fluxes (mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) by wind direction using the G95 algorithm with
temperature as a third variable, ordinary least squares regression
lines, 99th confidence intervals, formulae and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <title>Modelling the biogenic isoprene contribution in London</title>
      <p>An attempt was made to model the biogenic isoprene component during August
and September using the light and temperature algorithms of Guenther et al. (1995), hereafter termed G95. The foliar-emissions-based model calculates
VOC fluxes as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the foliar density (kg dry matter m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is an
ecosystem-dependent base emission rate (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
normalised to a PAR flux of 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and leaf
temperature of 303.15 K) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a dimensionless activity
adjustment factor accounting for the effects of PAR and leaf
temperature. Ambient air temperature and PAR measurements were used to
calculate the light- and temperature-controlled parameters <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            The slope of the linear regression of the measured total isoprene flux and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> provided an emission factor in mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was
converted to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g g<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> by dividing by the foliar density
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.129 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The foliar density was estimated using the
total tree leaf area as seen from visible satellite imagery within the flux
footprint and tree leaf dry weight for representative species commonly
planted in the area, such as <italic>Platanus x acerifolia </italic>(City of
Westminster, 2009), that are also high isoprene emitters (Geron et al.,
1994). The resulting base emission rate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the measured
fluxes was 6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g g<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which compares well with the
figure given in the literature (5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g g<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for
cities in a cool climate (Guenther et al., 1995). For details of this
calculation, see Sect. B in the Supplement. These estimates are
representative of the biogenic isoprene fluxes from a highly heterogeneous
canopy within the flux footprint, including both high- and
low-isoprene-emitting species as well as low average foliar density due to
the sparse distribution of urban roadside and park trees. Green areas, as
defined on the OS map, comprised 9 % of the total grid area and were
evenly distributed across the 9 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Only grid square 1 included a
large green area of 23 ha (St. James' Park). The National Forest Inventory
(NFI,
<uri>http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-54pg9u</uri>)
of England only included 4.4 % green areas within the grid selection
(NFI). The NFI excluded individual trees in parks and avenues, which can
encompass up to 50 % of trees maintained by the local authority in
central London (City of Westminster, 2009).</p>
      <p>Figure 5 shows that the modelled isoprene fluxes using the calculated
base emission rate compared well with the measured fluxes by wind direction.
Linear regressions from wind directions that have a strong anthropogenic
component are lower, e.g. W (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.13, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), than
from those areas dominated by biogenic sources, e.g. SE (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.81</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), due to the nearby Temple Gardens. Modelled emissions
seemingly underestimated observed isoprene fluxes since these included the
traffic component; however, it appears that biogenic isoprene represents a
detectable source contribution in summer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Selected scatter plots of representative correlations of
VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VOC fluxes (top) and mixing ratio (bottom) with temperature as a third
variable showing an example of bimodal, strong linear and medium linear
correlations as commonly seen in the mixing ratio correlations with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values, 1 : 1 line, 1 : 2 and 2 : 1 lines for the bimodal example in the
bottom left panel.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f06.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{VOC\,$/$\,VOC correlations and ratios}?><title>VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VOC correlations and ratios</title>
      <p>Correlations of VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VOC fluxes (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.40–0.62, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001)
indicated two groups of compounds with good correlations within each group,
i.e. compounds related to traffic sources, such as aromatics, and oxygenated
and biogenic compounds, such as methanol, acetone and isoprene (Fig. 6
top). Correlations of VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VOC concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.13–0.84,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) showed the highest correlations between traffic-related
compounds (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.45–0.84, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) and good correlations
between the oxygenated and biogenic compounds (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.55–0.69,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) (Fig. 6 bottom). High correlations between oxygenated
VOCs could indicate source commonality or formation mechanisms that depend
on similar environmental factors. Scatter plots between aromatic compounds
and isoprene/oxygenated compounds tend to show bimodal distributions
indicating separate source contributions. Using temperature or, to a smaller
extent, PAR as a third variable highlights a temperature or light dependency
of the second source supporting the existence of additional biogenic and/or
atmospheric sources. In the example of isoprene against benzene the
relationship changes with temperature from 2 : 1 to 1 : 2.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Benzene to toluene ratios</title>
      <p>Benzene to toluene (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) ratios can help identify source types and changes
in ratios can indicate the photochemical age of an air mass as toluene
reacts at a faster rate with OH in the atmosphere, assuming sufficient OH
concentrations to drive the reaction
(Warneke et al., 2007). Median (and
interquartile range, IQR) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios were 0.21 (0.02–0.43) and median
(IQR) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration ratios were 0.45 (0.39–0.48). Individual maxima and
minima were seen in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration ratios, examples of which are
discussed below.</p>
      <p>The observed ratios compared well with those of other European cities, which
showed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration ratios of 0.35 in Zurich (Heeb et al., 2000), 0.57
in Manchester (Langford et al., 2009), 0.57–0.63 in London (Valach et al.,
2014) and 0.1 at 190 m above London (Langford et al., 2010b). Traffic-related emissions are considered to be an important source of benzene and
toluene in London. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exhaust emission ratios based on derived yearly
emissions in other megacities, such as Mexico City, were found to be 0.4
(Zavala et al., 2006), which agreed well with observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
ratios in this study. Airborne flux measurements over Mexico City have shown
average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios of 0.31 with lower ratios of 0.07 to 0.1 over
industrial areas due to increased toluene emissions from industrial
processes (Karl et al., 2009; Velasco et al., 2007). Evaporative emissions
from gasoline or direct industrial toluene emissions may have contributed to
the lower <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios in London. Furthermore, low <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
ratios of 0.26 from diesel emissions have been reported (Corrêa and
Arbilla, 2006). The widespread use of diesel fuel in London (buses, taxis
and some cars and trains) and diesel emissions from roads which exclude
passenger cars, such as Oxford Street (approx. 1.3 km W from the measurement
site), or central railway nodes, such as Waterloo railway station (1 km S), may have affected <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>Top: 24 h back trajectories from the NOAA HYSPLIT
trajectory model during selected days in August 2012 corresponding to
periods of low (left) and high (right) benzene/toluene concentration ratios.
Daily release in 3 h intervals (10 m height) for 24 h prior. Bottom:
scatter plots showing benzene-to-toluene concentration ratios during
9 August 2012 (left) and 12 August 2012 (right) with linear
regression with 95th confidence interval, regression equation and
coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f07.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p>Wind speed and direction can play a role for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration ratios by
transporting pollution over longer distances allowing more time to react with
or exposure to higher OH concentrations, thus increasing the ratio. An
example of this (Fig. 7) was seen on 12 August when median (IQR) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration ratios reached 0.5 (0.45–0.56) with stronger SE winds (mean
3.67 m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) possibly advecting pollution from Benelux/northern Europe,
whereas on 9 August median <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios were 0.34 (0.30–0.38) with low
wind speeds (mean 1.28 m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), indicating higher contributions of
local sources (i.e. 60 % London influence) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2015).
On both days OH concentrations above London were around
1.25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> molecules cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios were not
significantly different, making pollution advection a likely cause of the
observed difference (L. Whalley, personal communication 2014). Calculated
back trajectories using the HYSPLIT trajectory model (Hybrid Single Particle
Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model; Draxler and Rolph,
2008) were run at 3 h intervals starting at
ground-level (10 m) from London and propagated 24 h backwards in time.
During periods of high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios the back trajectories indicated that air
had passed over continental Europe in the past 24 h, during which freshly emitted
pollutants would have been entrained.</p>
      <p>The median monthly <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratio during the measurement period stayed
between 0.18 and 0.26, which is to be expected since only local fluxes were
detected; however, the median (IQR) monthly <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio for concentrations
steadily increased from 0.41 (0.36–0.47) to 0.62 (0.55–0.70) from August to
December. Advected pollution from mainland Europe may be common in winter or
biomass burning may play a greater role in colder months, as this is
associated with higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios, e.g. 1.67 (Lemieux et al., 2004), due to
the different fuel combustion emission profile. Furthermore, OH
concentrations in London are often below the detection limit during winter
(Bohnenstengel et al., 2015), resulting in less local photochemical removal
during the winter months.</p>
      <p>Median (IQR) concentration ratios for benzene to C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes were 0.31 (0.28–0.33) and toluene to C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes were 0.72 (0.63–0.81), which both
agree with previous values and suggest that these masses are indeed the
ascribed traffic-related compounds (Heeb et al., 2000;
Warneke et al., 2001).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{VOC-to-CO${}_{{2}}$ correlations and ratios}?><title>VOC-to-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> correlations and ratios</title>
      <p>Good correlations were found among averaged VOC fluxes plotted as a
function of averaged CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes, which were measured concurrently at the
site (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.81, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Traffic-related
compounds were initially among the lowest correlations with CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.48, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). However, when points of peak
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes were removed, the correlations with traffic-related VOC fluxes
increased significantly to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65–0.91 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001).
Presumably, the initial poor correlations resulted from an additional strong
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> source, such as vents from gas-fired boilers in nearby buildings,
which have a lower source commonality with aromatic VOCs, i.e. a lower
VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission ratio than that of traffic emissions for aromatic
compounds. The LAEI indicates that
VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios for benzene are higher for traffic emission
sources (i.e. 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) than gas sources (i.e.
0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) within the flux footprint.
The improved correlations are greater for traffic-related compounds due to
the limited range of source types contributing to this group compared with
oxygenated/biogenic compounds. The regression coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of
benzene with CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes increased from 0.48 to 0.91, whereas for
isoprene fluxes the increase was small, i.e. 0.68 to 0.70 (Fig. 8), as
isoprene has a range of different sources of which only a few are commonly
shared sources with CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The presence of a strong separate CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> source within the flux footprint
is supported by the high averaged VOC-to-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration correlations
for traffic-related compounds (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.92–0.96, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001).
This differs from the fluxes, which are influenced only by sources in the
flux footprint, where one strong point source with a different emission ratio
may have a larger effect on emission rates of one compound but not the other.
Concentrations are influenced by advected pollution from outside the flux
footprint for both CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and VOCs, where shared emission sources with
relatively higher VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios are more widespread. Averaged VOC
to CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration correlations were lower with the
oxygenated/biogenic compounds (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.71–0.90,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>Scatter plots showing averaged flux and concentration
regressions of isoprene and benzene as a function of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes and
concentrations based on 25 min VOC means with linear regressions, formulae,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values and detection limit (shaded area for fluxes and dashed line
for mixing ratios).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f08.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p>Median VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux ratios ranged from 1.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 7.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) with
isoprene and benzene showing low ratios due to their low fluxes and toluene
and C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzenes showing high ratios. Highest flux ratios for all compounds were
with W winds, whereas lowest for biogenic compounds with N and for
traffic-related compounds S wind directions. Flux ratios declined towards
December as CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes increased and VOC fluxes decreased. Similarly,
VOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration ratios were between 0.45 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
14.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (ppb/ppb) with isoprene and benzene representing
the lowest and methanol and acetone the highest ratios. Highest
concentration ratios were seen in August for oxygenated compounds/isoprene
and December for traffic-related species.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Wind direction and flux footprint analysis</title>
      <p>Polar annulus and polar plots were constructed for VOC fluxes and mixing
ratios respectively and representative compounds are shown (Fig. 9). Polar
plots use a generalized additive model to interpolate between wind
direction and wind speed averaged data points within the OpenAir package in
R (see Carslaw and Ropkins, 2012; Hastie and Tibshirani, 1990; Wood, 2006).
Polar annulus plots averaged by time of day instead of wind speed show
diurnal variability with wind direction. The majority of the time (83 %),
unstable and near neutral conditions prevailed (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.2),
although the frequency varied between months with 87, 89, 82,
84 and 69 % during August, September, October, November and
December respectively. Wind directions with mostly unstable conditions were
with W and S winds and near neutral with N or E winds. Mixing ratios were on
average highest with low wind speeds (showing a negative correlation) when
pollutants accumulate due to reduced mixing, indicating local emissions
(Fig. 9, bottom).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p>Polar annulus and polar plots for isoprene (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69) and
benzene (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 79) fluxes (top) and mixing ratios (bottom) (colour scale) by
time of day (top), wind speed (bottom) and wind direction.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f09.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Largest fluxes for all compounds were from the NW with either one daytime
peak (e.g. isoprene) or two distinct rush hour peaks (e.g. benzene) (Fig. 9, top). On average, fluxes were largest from the W &gt; E <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> N &gt; S (<italic>F </italic>statistic <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60.37–227.06, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) because of increased
emission rates of specific compound sources. Separated by month, fluxes were
largest from W &gt; N &gt; E <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> S in August and September,
whereas during October, November and December fluxes followed the pattern
W &gt; E <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> N &gt; S. The flux footprint in this study was
relatively small compared to that of measurements previously made at 190 m
height from the BT Tower in central London (Langford et al., 2010b). Due to
the relatively low measurement height in this study, flux measurements were
always closely coupled with the surface layer, unlike measurements by
Langford et al. (2010b) that were at times disconnected from the surface
layer during stable night-time conditions.</p>
      <p>The average length of the maximum flux footprint contribution (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was
around 330 m and 90 % of all the fluxes (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) originated from within 900 m. The median footprint area was 1.8 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This established that the
majority of emission sources contributing to the measured fluxes must have
been local. Additionally, the selected emission grid (cf. Sect. 2.3.1
above) encompassed 97 % of the footprint with S and W wind directions
but only 80 and 84 % during E and N winds. Grid square 5 represented
the maximum contribution area because it encompassed the measurement point.
Average footprint contributions (mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD) comprised of grid squares
1 (2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 %), 2 (5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 %), 4 (4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 %) and 5 (52 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 31 %) during S and W wind conditions,
squares 6 (4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 %) and 9 (4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %) indicated E
wind conditions and square 8 (18 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 27 %) N wind conditions.
During October contributions from square 9 increased to 10 % and were
more frequent at 30 % in December. Squares 3 (0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 %)
and 7 (0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 %) provided minimal average contributions.</p>
      <p>The River Thames to the S may have caused the low fluxes associated with S
winds (i.e. squares 1, 2 and 3). Contributions of traffic-related compound
fluxes were statistically significant from the W (i.e. squares 4, 5, and 7),
followed by the N (square 8) and E (squares 6 and 9) likely from the nearby
heavily trafficked roads (Kingsway, Charing Cross, Strand and Blackfriars
areas respectively). Biogenic compound fluxes were highest from the W and E,
which coincides with significant nearby green areas within the flux
footprint.</p>
      <p>Correlations of fluxes with grid square contributions in the footprint can
also give information on emission source strengths within the respective
grid square (Fig. 1). Generally positive correlations with fluxes across
most compounds were seen from the W (squares 4, 5 and 7), confirming that
high emission rates from sources within these grid squares were driving the
large fluxes. The strongest correlations of fluxes with contributions from
squares 4, 5 and 7 were seen during October and November (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.40–0.46, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), especially for masses associated with biogenic
sources (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 33, 45, 59 and 69). Square 8 showed positive correlations for
benzene and only in August for all compounds. Correlations of fluxes with
contributions from squares 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 were negative, indicating weaker
emission sources in these squares or increased VOC deposition.</p>
      <p>Highest mixing ratios with wind direction were from E &gt; N <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> W &gt; S for traffic-related compounds, whereas oxygenated
compounds/isoprene followed a similar pattern as the fluxes of W <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> E &gt; N <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> S (<italic>F </italic>statistic <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 47.49–86.95, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Easterly winds
in London are often associated with synoptic conditions that bring European
continental air masses to the UK, resulting in higher background
concentrations. Furthermore, since the boundary layer was on average more
stably stratified and mixing heights were lowest (640 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80 m) with E
wind conditions, it is likely that pollutant concentrations were allowed to
build up, resulting in the observed higher concentrations to the E for the
more ubiquitous compounds, whereas concentrations of compounds with biogenic
contributions additionally had strong sources to the W, such as several
green areas (St. James' Park, Hyde Park and Regents Park; total 331 ha).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Comparisons with LAEI and NAEI</title>
      <p>The LAEI and NAEI produce
yearly emission estimates over the 1 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> OS grid for a range of
pollutants and emission sources. Total VOC emission estimates are provided,
but only benzene and 1,3-butadiene are estimated separately. Measured
emissions were compared with annual estimated emissions for the above OS grid
area selection from 2012 for benzene using the LAEI and indirectly speciated
VOCs of the NAEI. Using the average flux footprint, the grid square estimates
were compared with the scaled flux measurements from the equivalent area
(Fig. 10).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><caption><p>Bar chart showing scaled comparisons of LAEI and NAEI
estimates against measured fluxes in t km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> a<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for speciated VOCs
with error bars.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/7777/2015/acp-15-7777-2015-f10.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>LAEI emission estimates included contributions from major (69 %) and
minor roads (4 %) as well as evaporative emissions (27 %) (LAEI).
No data were available on cold start emissions for benzene. The calculated
standard errors provided some uncertainty approximation. Measured fluxes
compared well with emission estimates, although the LAEI predicted slightly
smaller benzene fluxes. Comparisons of fluxes with wind directions
(Sect. 3.3) agreed well with the LAEI emission estimates for the respective
grid squares with highest emissions from squares 4, 5, 7 and 8 (i.e. W and N
directions). This comparison assumes that the benzene fluxes during the
measurement period were representative of annual emissions with any
significant seasonal variation in benzene emission rates captured in this
5-month period. Section 3.1.2 confirmed that there was little
month-to-month variability in the benzene flux.</p>
      <p>Using speciated VOC emission contributions (percent of total VOC emissions) for
2006 (Bush et al., 2006) and emission maps from 2012 for total non-methane
VOC emissions, speciated estimates could be compared with observations
(Fig. 10). The NAEI includes a wide range of emission sources divided into
11 SNAP (Selected Nomenclature for sources of Air Pollution) sectors
including industrial, commercial and residential processes, transport, waste
treatment, solvent use, point sources, agriculture and nature, although the
latter two were unavailable for the London urban area. NAEI estimates for
benzene exceed the LAEI due to the inclusion of a wider range of sources
beyond traffic-related emissions. Total C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-benzene emission estimates
consisted of ethyl benzene, (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)-xylene and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-xylene. Benzene and
methanol emissions agreed very well; however, for all the other compounds,
estimated emissions were significantly lower than the measured fluxes.
Uncertainties related to the measurements, such as isobaric interferences
within the PTR-MS could have contributed to measurement overestimation,
whereas uncertainties within the modelled emissions and the use of older
speciation values may have impacted the estimates. In the case of isoprene,
only minimal emissions are assumed, which do not include the biogenic
sources that contributed to the measured fluxes. It is also likely that some
of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 69 signal could be attributed to cyclic alkenes, but Sect. 3.1.3
showed that biogenic isoprene provided a significant contribution during
August and September in central London.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Our measurements show that vehicle emissions are the dominant source of the
fluxes and concentrations of VOCs in central London, although biogenic
sources and secondary atmospheric formation may make a significant
contribution, particularly in summer for some compounds. There were
observable spatial variations in flux rates, which result from the varying
spatial distribution of emission types and strengths of emission sources,
such as vegetation and traffic. Temporal variations in relative source
strengths can be seen in the diurnal and seasonal profiles, reflecting the
diurnality and seasonality of some of the driving factors. The measured VOC
fluxes mostly originated from an area within a 1 km radius around the
measurement site but some instances of pollution advection were seen to
affect concentrations at the site. However many of the spatio-temporal
differences in the observed mixing ratios were attributable to changes in
emission sources and strengths combined with effects of meteorological
conditions. The diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the boundary layer mixing
height are significant drivers of changes in observed VOC concentrations at
the site.</p>
      <p>The biogenic component of isoprene emissions was modelled using the G95
algorithm, and the calculated base emission rate closely matched previous
published values for urban areas. Even in this central urban
area with a temperate climate there is a detectable biogenic component to
isoprene emissions. Because of the relative importance of isoprene in
atmospheric chemistry, its inclusion in photochemical pollution models is
essential.</p>
      <p>Close agreement between the flux footprint contributions and the LAEI for
benzene emissions, a compound which is thought to be accurately estimated in
the inventory but associated with high measurement uncertainty, gives
confidence in the PTR-MS measurements. Good agreement was also seen with
methanol estimated from the NAEI, but other compounds were all greatly
underestimated in the emissions inventory.</p>
      <p>This study provides further evidence for the successful implementation of
VOC flux measurements in heterogeneous urban landscapes when measurement
sites fulfil basic eddy covariance criteria. Further VOC flux observations
are essential for the validation of “bottom-up” emission inventories,
especially as the latter are widely used for regulatory and compliance
purposes.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7777-2015-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/acp-15-7777-2015-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p>E. Nemitz and B. Langford planned the measurement campaign; A. Valach made the measurements with
the help of B. Langford and E. Nemitz; A. Valach processed the data and completed the analyses with
the help of B. Langford. C. N. Hewitt designed the study,
obtained funding and supervised the work. A. Valach prepared the manuscript with support from all the co-authors.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
through the ClearfLo project (Clean Air for London; NERC grant NE/H003169/1)
and the National Capability function of the Centre for Ecology &amp;
Hydrology. Amy Valach thanks NERC for a PhD studentship. David Carslaw
(King's College London) and the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) provided
the HYSPLIT back trajectories. Lisa Whalley (University of Leeds) provided
the OH data. Sue Grimmond (University of Reading), Simone Kotthaus
(University of Reading) and the urban meteorology research group at King's
College London provided site access, meteorology and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> data. E. House, M. Shaw, W. J. Acton and B. Davison provided technical assistance.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: A. Pozzer</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Merlet, P.: Emission of trace gases and aerosols from
biomass burning, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 955–966,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000GB001382</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Atkinson, R.: Atmospheric chemistry of VOCs and NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, Atmos.
Environ., 34, 2063–2101, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00460-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00460-4</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bohnenstengel, S. I., Belcher, S. E., Allan, J. D., Allen, G., Bacak, A.,
Bannan, T. J., Barlow, J. F., Beddows, D. C. S., Bloss, W. J., Booth, A. M.,
Chemel, C., Coceal O., Di Marco, C. F., Faloon, K. H., Fleming, Z. L.,
Furger, M., Geitl, J. K., Graves, R. R., Green, D. C., Grimmond, C. S. B.,
Halios, C., Hamilton, J. F., Harrison, R. M., Heal, M. R., Heard, D. E.,
Helfter, C., Herndon, S. C., Holmes, R. E., Hopkins, J. R., Jones, A. M.,
Kelly, F. J., Kotthaus, S., Langford, B., Lee, J. D., Leigh, R. J., Lewis, A.
C., Lidster, R. T., Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D., McQuaid, J. B., Mohr, C., Monks,
P. S., Nemitz, E., Ng, N. L., Percival, C. J., Prévôt, A. S. H.,
Ricketts, H. M. A., Sokhi, R., Stone, D., Thornton, J. A., Tremper, A. H.,
Valach, A. C., Visser, S., Whalley, L. K., Williams, L. R., Xu, L., Young, D.
E., and Zotter, P.: Meteorology, air quality, and health in London: The
ClearfLo project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 779–804, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00245.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00245.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bush, T., Tsagatakis, I., King, K., and Passant, N.: NAEI UK Emission,
Mapping Methodology, NAEI Reference: 45321001/0/AO6069/NP, AEA Technology
plc, Harwell, Oxfordshire, UK, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Carslaw, D. C. and Ropkins, K.: Openair – an R package for air quality data
analysis, Environ. Model. Softw., 27–28, 52–61, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
City of Westminster: Trees and the Public Realm (Draft), London: City of
Westminster, City Planning Delivery Unit, London, UK, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, J. U.: Evaluation of censored data methods to allow statistical
comparisons among very small samples with below detection limit observations,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 32, 177–183, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Corrêa, S. M. and Arbilla, G.: Aromatic hydrocarbons emissions in diesel
and biodiesel exhaust, Atmos. Environ., 40, 6821–6826, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
de Gouw, J. A. and Warneke, C.: Measurements of volatile organic compounds in
the Earth's atmosphere using proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry, Mass
Spectrom. Rev., 26, 223–257, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>de Gouw, J. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Warneke, C., Goldan P. D., Kuster, W. C.,
Roberts, J. M., Fehsenfeld, F. C., Worsnop, D. R., Canagaratna, M. R.,
Pszenny, A. A. P., Keene, W. C., Marchewka, M., Bertman, S. B., and Bates, T.
S.: Budget of organic carbon in a polluted atmosphere: Results from the New
England Air Quality Study in 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D16305,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005623" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005623</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Department for Transport: Traffic count data for the City of London,
available at:
<uri>http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=London</uri>, last
access: 05 August 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Draxler, R. R. and Rolph, G. D.: HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian
Integrated Trajectory) Model, available at:
<uri>http://www.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT_info.php</uri> (last access: 13 August 2014,
retrieved 12 September 2014), from NOAA ARL READY, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Foken, T. and Wichura, B.: Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux
measurements, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 78, 83–105,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(95)02248-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0168-1923(95)02248-1</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Foken, T., Göckede, M., Mauder, M., Mahrt, L., Amiro, B., and Munger, W.:
Post-field data quality control, in: Handbook of micrometeorology, edited by:
Lee, X. M., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 181–208,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Garrat, J.: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Geron, C. D., Guenther, A. B., and Pierce, T. E.: An improved model for
estimating emissions of volatile organic compounds from forests in the
eastern United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99, 12773–12791, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Guenther, A., Hewitt, C. N., Erickson, D., Fall, R., Geron, C., Graedel, T.,
Harley, P., Klinger, L., Lerdau, M., McKay, W. A., Pierce, T., Scholes, B.,
Steinbrecher, R., Tallamra, R., Taylor, J., and Zimmerman, P.: A global model
of natural volatile organic compound emissions, J. Geophys. Res., 100,
8873–8892, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/94JD02950" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JD02950</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Harley, R. A. and Cass, G. R.: Modeling the Concentrations of Gas-Phase Toxic
Organic Air Pollutants: Direct Emissions and Atmospheric Formation, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 28, 88–98, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hastie, T. J. and Tibshirani, R.: Generalized additive models, Chapman and
Hall, London, UK, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Hayward, S., Hewitt, C. N., Sartin, J. H., and Owen, S. M.: Performance
characteristics and applications of a proton transfer reaction-mass
spectrometer for measuring volatile organic compounds in ambient air,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 36(7), 1554–60, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Heeb, N. V, Forss, A., Bach, C., Reimann, S., Herzog, A., and Ja, H. W.: A
comparison of benzene, toluene and C-benzenes mixing ratios in automotive
exhaust and in the suburban atmosphere during the introduction of catalytic
converter technology to the Swiss Car Fleet, Atmos. Environ., 34, 3103–3116,
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Helfter, C., Famulari, D., Phillips, G. J., Barlow, J. F., Wood, C. R.,
Grimmond, C. S. B., and Nemitz, E.: Controls of carbon dioxide concentrations
and fluxes above central London, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1913–1928,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1913-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1913-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Helsel, D. R. and Hirsch, R. M.: Statistical methods in water resources,
Elsevier, New York, USA, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Hewitt, C. N., Hayward, S., and Tani, A.: The application of proton transfer
reaction-mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) to the monitoring and analysis of
volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, J. Environ. Monitor., 5, 1–7,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b204712h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/b204712h</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Horst, T. W.: A simple formula for attenuation of eddy fluxes measured with
first-order-response scalar sensors, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 82, 219–233,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Kansal, A.: Sources and reactivity of NMHCs and VOCs in the atmosphere: a
review, J. Hazard. Mater., 166, 17–26, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.048" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.048</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Karl, T. G., Spirig, C., Rinne, J., Stroud, C., Prevost, P., Greenberg, J.,
Fall, R., and Guenther, A.: Virtual disjunct eddy covariance measurements of
organic compound fluxes from a subalpine forest using proton transfer
reaction mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2, 279–291,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-2-279-2002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-2-279-2002</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Karl, T. G., Apel, E., Hodzic, A., Riemer, D. D., Blake, D. R., and
Wiedinmyer, C.: Emissions of volatile organic compounds inferred from
airborne flux measurements over a megacity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 271–285,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-271-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-271-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, Y. M., Harrad, S., and Harrison, R. M.: Concentrations and sources of
VOCs in urban domestic and public microenvironments, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
35, 997–1004, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Kljun, N., Calanca, P., Rotachhi, M.W., and Schmid, H. P.: A simple
parameterisation for flux footprint predictions, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol.,
503–523, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kormann, R. and Meixner, F. X.: An analytical footprint model for non-neutral
stratification, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 99, 207–224, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Kotthaus, S. and Grimmond, C. S. B.: Identification of Micro-scale
Anthropogenic CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, heat and moisture sources – Processing eddy
covariance fluxes for a dense urban environment, Atmos. Environ., 57,
301–316, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.04.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.04.024</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Kotthaus, S. and Grimmond, C. S. B.: Energy exchange in a dense urban
environment – Part I: Temporal variability of long-term observations in
central London, Urban Climate, 10, 261–280, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.002</ext-link>,
2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Kotthaus, S. and Grimmond, C. S. B.: Energy exchange in a dense urban
environment – Part II: Impact of spatial heterogeneity of the surface, Urban
Climate, 10, 281–307, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.001</ext-link>, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Lamsal, L. N., Martin, R. V., Padmanabhan, A., van Donkelaar, A., Zhang, Q.,
Sioris, C. E., Chance, K., Kurosu, T.P., and Newchurch, M. J.: Application of
satellite observations for timely updates to global anthropogenic NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emission inventories, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05810,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046476" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL046476</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Langford, B., Davison, B., Nemitz, E., and Hewitt, C. N.: Mixing ratios and
eddy covariance flux measurements of volatile organic compounds from an urban
canopy (Manchester, UK), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 1971–1987,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1971-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-1971-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Langford, B., Misztal, P. K., Nemitz, E., Davison, B., Helfter, C., Pugh, T.
A. M., MacKenzie, A. R., Lim, S. F., and Hewitt, C. N.: Fluxes and
concentrations of volatile organic compounds from a South-East Asian tropical
rainforest, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 8391–8412, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8391-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-8391-2010</ext-link>,
2010a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Langford, B., Nemitz, E., House, E., Phillips, G. J., Famulari, D., Davison,
B., Hopkins, J. R., Lewis, A. C., and Hewitt, C. N.: Fluxes and
concentrations of volatile organic compounds above central London, UK, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 627–645, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-627-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-627-2010</ext-link>, 2010b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Langford, B., Acton, W., Ammann, C., Valach, A., and Nemitz, E.:
Eddy-covariance data with low signal-to-noise ratio: time-lag determination,
uncertainties and limit of detection, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., 8,
2913–2955, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amtd-8-2913-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amtd-8-2913-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Lemieux, P. M., Lutes, C. C., and Santoianni, D. A.: Emissions of organic air
toxics from open burning: a comprehensive review, Prog. Energ. Combust., 30,
1–32, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Lindinger, W., Hansel, A., and Jordan, A.: On-line monitoring of VOCs at pptv
levels by means of PTR-MS. Medical applications, food control and
environmental research, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 173, 191–241,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0015-1882(95)90197-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0015-1882(95)90197-3</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Lipari, F., Dasch, J. M., and Scruggs, W. F.: Aldehyde emissions from
wood-burning fireplace, Environ. Sci. Technol., 18, 326–330, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Met Office UK: UK Climate summaries, available at:
<uri>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2012</uri>, last access:
09 October 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Moncrieff, J., Finnigan, R. C. J., and Meyers, T.: Averaging, detrending, and
filtering of eddy covariance time series, in: Handbook of Micrometeorology,
edited by: Lee, W. M., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands, 7–30, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Neftel, A., Spirig, C., and Ammann, C.: Application and test of a simple tool
for operational footprint evaluations, Environ. Pollut., 152, 644–652,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.062" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.062</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Nemitz, E., Hargreaves, K. J., McDonald, A. G., Dorsey, J. R., and Fowler,
D.: Meteorological measurements of the urban heat budget and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions on a city scale, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 3139–3146, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Park, C., Schade, G. W., and Boedeker, I.: Flux measurements of volatile
organic compounds by the relaxed eddy accumulation method combined with a
GC-FID system in urban Houston, Texas, Atmos. Environ., 44, 2605–2614,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.016</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Park, C., Schade, G. W., and Boedeker, I.: Characteristics of the flux of
isoprene and its oxidation products in an urban area, J. Geophys. Res., 116,
D21303, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015856" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD015856</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Schade, G. W. and Goldstein, A. H.: Fluxes of oxygenated volatile organic
compounds from a ponderosa pine plantation, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
3111–3123, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Singh, H. B., O'Hara, D., Herlth, D., Sachsse, W., Blake, D. R., Bradshaw, J.
D., Kanakidou, M. and Crutzen, P. J.: Acetone in the atmosphere:
Distribution, source, and sinks, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 1805–1819, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Spirig, C., Neftel, A., Ammann, C., Dommen, J., Grabmer, W., Thielmann, A.,
Schaub, A., Beauchamp, J., Wisthaler, A., and Hansel, A.: Eddy covariance
flux measurements of biogenic VOCs during ECHO 2003 using proton transfer
reaction mass spectrometry, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 465–481,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-465-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-465-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Srivastava, A., Sengupta, B., and Dutta, S. A.: Source apportionment of
ambient VOCs in Delhi City, Sci. Total Environ., 343, 207–220, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Stewart, I. D. and Oke, T. R.: Local Climate Zones for Urban Temperature
Studies, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1879–1900,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Taipale, R., Ruuskanen, T. M., Rinne, J., Kajos, M. K., Hakola, H., Pohja,
T., and Kulmala, M.: Technical Note: Quantitative long-term measurements of
VOC concentrations by PTR-MS – measurement, calibration, and volume mixing
ratio calculation methods, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 6681–6698,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6681-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-6681-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Valach, A. C., Langford, B., Nemitz, E., MacKenzie, A. R., and Hewitt, C. N.:
Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds at kerbside and
background sites in central London, Atmos. Environ., 95, 456–467,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.052</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Velasco, E., Lamb, B., Pressley, S., Allwine, E., Westberg, H., and Jobson,
B. T.: Flux measurements of volatile organic compounds from an urban
landscape, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, 2–5, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023356" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL023356</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Velasco, E., Lamb, B., Westberg, H., Allwine, E., Sosa, G., Arriaga-Colina,
J. L., Jobson, B. T., Alexander, M. L., Prazeller, P., Knighton, W. B.,
Rogers, T. M., Grutter, M., Herndon, S. C., Kolb, C. E., Zavala, M., de Foy,
B., Volkamer, R., Molina, L. T., and Molina, M. J.: Distribution, magnitudes,
reactivities, ratios and diurnal patterns of volatile organic compounds in
the Valley of Mexico during the MCMA 2002 &amp; 2003 field campaigns, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 7, 329–353, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-329-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-329-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Velasco, E., Pressley, S., Grivicke, R., Allwine, E., Coons, T., Foster, W.,
Jobson, B. T., Westberg, H., Ramos, R., Hernández, F., Molina, L. T., and
Lamb, B.: Eddy covariance flux measurements of pollutant gases in urban
Mexico City, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 7325–7342, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-7325-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-7325-2009</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, J., van den Dries, K., and Pino, D.: On
inferring isoprene emission surface flux from atmospheric boundary layer
concentration measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 3629–3640,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-3629-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-3629-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Warneke, C., van der Veen, C., de Gouw, J. A., and Kok, A.: Measurements of
benzene and toluene in ambient air using proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry: calibration, humidity dependence, and field intercomparison,
Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 207, 167–182, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Warneke, C., de Gouw, J. A., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P. D., and Fall, R.:
Validation of atmospheric VOC measurements by proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry using a gas-chromatographic pre-separation method, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 37, 2494–501, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Warneke, C., McKeen, S. A., de Gouw, J. A., Goldan, P. D., Kuster, W. C.,
Holloway, J. S., Williams, E.J., Lerner, B.M., Parrish, D.D., Trainer, M.,
Fehsenfeld, C., Kato, S., Atlas, E.L., Baker, A., and Blake, D. R.:
Determination of urban volatile organic compound emission ratios and
comparison with an emissions database, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D10S47,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007930" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007930</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, S.: Generalized Additive Models: An introduction with R. Chapman and
Hall/CRC, CRC Press, Taylor &amp; Francis Group LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Yuan, B., Warneke, C., Shao, M., and de Gouw, J. A.: Interpretation of
volatile organic compound measurements by proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry over the deepwater horizon oil spill, Int. J. Mass Spectrom.,
358, 43–48, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2013.11.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijms.2013.11.006</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Zavala, M., Herndon, S. C., Slott, R. S., Dunlea, E. J., Marr, L. C.,
Shorter, J. H., Zahniser, M., Knighton, W. B., Rogers, T. M., Kolb, C. E.,
Molina, L. T., and Molina, M. J.: Characterization of on-road vehicle
emissions in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area using a mobile laboratory in
chase and fleet average measurement modes during the MCMA-2003 field
campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5129–5142, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5129-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5129-2006</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
