Development of a unit-based industrial emission inventory in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region and resulting improvement in air quality modeling

Zheng, Haotian; Cai, Siyi; Wang, Shuxiao; Zhao, Bin; Chang, Xing; Hao, Jiming

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3447-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3447-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Regional assessment of air pollution and climate change over...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3447-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 6

Research article

|

19 Mar 2019

Research article |

| 19 Mar 2019

Development of a unit-based industrial emission inventory in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region and resulting improvement in air quality modeling

Haotian Zheng, Siyi Cai, Shuxiao Wang, Bin Zhao, Xing Chang, and Jiming Hao

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Mar 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Oct 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer comments to acp-2018-858', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Nov 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Shuxiao Wang, 28 Jan 2019
RC2: 'Review of "Development of a unit-based industrial emission inventory in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and resulting improvement in air quality modeling"', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Dec 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to RC2', Shuxiao Wang, 28 Jan 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Shuxiao Wang on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Feb 2019) by Yafang Cheng

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (14 Feb 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Feb 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript has been significantly improved. The additional simulation is quite helpful to understand influences of horizontal and vertical distributions separately. The result is what I expected. I just have a few more comments on the part which has been revised. I would suggest accepting this manuscript after minor revisions are made based on the comments below.

Page 4, Line 5-6
Please show the table number in SI.

Page 4, Line 17-
This part is still confusing. Iron and steel production are mentioned as an example in the line 18. However, it seems that the explanation of the symbols in the equation (2) is for cement production. Please reconsider rephrasing.
In addition, these sentences have been added.
“The production processes represented by the first and second terms of equation (2) are frequently performed in different enterprises. For example, for cement production, clinker may be produced in one enterprise and subsequently processed in another enterprise, which is very common.”
I agree that. However, the equation (2) is for the enterprise j, isn’t it? If processes are divided to multiple enterprises, equation should be also divided.
It is not clear that how to apply information of stacks and locations in the equation (2). Are individual information of stacks and locations applied to each m process in the first term and the second term?

Page 5, Line 20-
How to interpret emission standards and permits for stack parameters?

Page 8, Line 2-
Was plume-in-grid utilized?

Page 10, Line 4-
Do the authors think uncertainties in these factors are dominant? Are there no remaining problems in emission inventory for industries? SO2 is overestimated by 100 ug/m3 in winter. If they are converted to PM through chemical processes listed here, overestimation of PM2.5 would become even much larger.
SO2 emission factors are determined by sulfur contents. They should be relatively reliable. I suppose it may not be so easy to obtain accurate removal efficiencies from each enterprise. Do the authors expect little uncertainties in them?

Page 12, Line 26
Page 13, Line 4
Table 2 -> Table 3

SI Page 4, Figure S2
Abbreviations of sectors are not known.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 Feb 2019) by Yafang Cheng

Dear Authors,

There are still a few comments (attached here) need to be addressed before we could decide for the publication of this study.

Thanks and bests,
Yafang Cheng

Page 4, Line 5-6
Please show the table number in SI.

Page 4, Line 17-
This part is still confusing. Iron and steel production are mentioned as an example in the line 18. However, it seems that the explanation of the symbols in the equation (2) is for cement production. Please reconsider rephrasing.
In addition, these sentences have been added.
“The production processes represented by the first and second terms of equation (2) are frequently performed in different enterprises. For example, for cement production, clinker may be produced in one enterprise and subsequently processed in another enterprise, which is very common.”
I agree that. However, the equation (2) is for the enterprise j, isn’t it? If processes are divided to multiple enterprises, equation should be also divided.
It is not clear that how to apply information of stacks and locations in the equation (2). Are individual information of stacks and locations applied to each m process in the first term and the second term?

Page 5, Line 20-
How to interpret emission standards and permits for stack parameters?

Page 8, Line 2-
Was plume-in-grid utilized?

Page 10, Line 4-
Do the authors think uncertainties in these factors are dominant? Are there no remaining problems in emission inventory for industries? SO2 is overestimated by 100 ug/m3 in winter. If they are converted to PM through chemical processes listed here, overestimation of PM2.5 would become even much larger.
SO2 emission factors are determined by sulfur contents. They should be relatively reliable. I suppose it may not be so easy to obtain accurate removal efficiencies from each enterprise. Do the authors expect little uncertainties in them?

Page 12, Line 26
Page 13, Line 4
Table 2 -> Table 3

SI Page 4, Figure S2
Abbreviations of sectors are not known.

Hide

AR by Shuxiao Wang on behalf of the Authors (28 Feb 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Mar 2019) by Yafang Cheng

AR by Shuxiao Wang on behalf of the Authors (04 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (10183 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

The heavy air pollution in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) region is a global hot topic. We established a unit-based industrial emission inventory for the BTH region. The inventory significantly improved air quality modeling results; this improvement subsequently contributes to an accurate source apportionment of haze pollution and more precisely targeted decision making.