the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Measurement report: Summertime and wintertime VOCs in Houston: Source apportionment and spatial distribution of source origins
Abstract. The seasonal variations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was studied in the Houston metropolitan area in the summertime and wintertime of 2018. The analysis of hourly measurements obtained from the automated gas chromatograph (auto-GC) network showed the total VOC average concentrations of 28.68 ppbC in the summertime and 33.92 ppbC in the wintertime. The largest contributions came from alkane compounds, which accounted for 61 % and 82 % of VOCs in the summer and winter, respectively. We performed principal component analysis (PCA) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) and identified seven factors in the summertime and six factors in the wintertime, among which alkane species formed three factors according to their rate of reactions in both seasons: (1) the emissions of long-lived tracers from oil and natural gas (ONG long-lived species), (2) fuel evaporation, and (3) the emissions of short-lived tracers from oil and natural gas (ONG short-lived species). Two other similar factors were (4) emissions of aromatic compounds and (5) alkene tracers of ethylene and propylene. Summertime factor 6 was associated with acetylene, and one extra summertime factor 7 was influenced by the biogenic emissions. The factor 6 of wintertime was affected by vehicle exhaust. Higher nighttime and lower daytime values of the ethylene/acetylene ratios during the summertime indicated the stronger impacts of ethylene photochemical degradation. Also, the exploration of the photochemical processes of the VOCs showed that the ethylene and propylene had the highest contributions to the summertime and wintertime ozone formation as well as the emissions of the isoprene, which showed a high impact on summertime ozone. Our results acknowledged that ethylene and propylene continue to be significant emissions of VOCs, and their emissions control would help the mitigation of the ozone of Ship Channel. Based on trajectory analysis, we identified main VOC emission sources in Houston Ship Channel (HSC) local industrial areas and regions south of the HSC. Ambient VOC concentrations measured at the HSC were influenced by the emissions from the petrochemical sectors and industrial complexes, especially from the Baytown refinery and Bayport industrial district next to the HSC and Galveston Bay refineries at the south of the study area.
- Preprint
(2471 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(657 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-565', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2021
General comments
The research about the local VOC properties is basically interesting and fits into the scope of ACP. To be published, however, a dense revision
looks required.(1) To derive some essential key points of this study looks necessary. This is a study at a certain region (Houston). In this kind of study,
readers would like to see why we need to understand the VOC pattern in Houston, meaning that what is similar to / or different from VOC
properties in other regions. That is a very important information for making a study about the local air quality suggesting some generalized
lessons to the readers.(2) Please add some more efforts to have a better organization. It is difficult to find a main flow of this work (A lot of findings are
scatterred so it is hard to catch what is important.(3) Please include deeper discussion with previous findings. It is hard to see what is the specialty of study and how this work has the
discriminated merits compared to previous VOC works.(4) The research motivation was not clarified in the introduction.
(5) Several statements were provided without references. Please proofread whole manuscript again and reinforce the references.
(6) Results are too peripheral. I do not know how to apply/generalize these results for the advanced understanding of VOC chemistry.
(7) I agree that the results are interesting and informative for the local air quality study. But the dataset is not very something new and most analyses is so qualitative based on simple PMF and backtrajectory calculation (As authors mentioned in the manuscript, results usually supports the previous findings. New lessons or arguments cannot be found much). The final decision is not sure but therefore it seems better to submit this manuscript to other journals if serious revision is not guaranteed (For example, Atmospheric Environment).
Specific comments
line 78-80: Not well connected to the previous statements (Suddenly VOC inflence is connected to the VOC source)line 94-103: It seems that there are already deep studies about VOCs at Houston area. Considering past findings, what do we need to know more?
What is the missing points in the previous works. There things are not shown in this introduction parts.line 147-151: A reference is required about the shorter lifetime of atmospheric alkene/aromatics than alkan + longer lifetime of ethane and
propane.line 149-150: => Differences of alkane concentrations
line 247-248: This should be confirmen with some data analysis in Houston. Different from the convective mixing and photochemical activity
(discussed after this statement), energy demand pattern can has a larger regional difference, so it is hard to generalized simply without the
specific clue.line 300-304: Important information to compare between C2-C5 and C8-C10 isomers. But how to obtain these OH reaction rate constant is not clear
here. Any related figure or table is not found in this manuscript.line 307: 'in Figs. 4 and 5.' => 'in Figs. 4 and 5, for summertime and wintertime, respectively'
line 308: What are 3 ONG species factors? (Factor 1, 3, and which? Clearly indicate the factors)
line 309-310: How to justify this statement?
line 307-314: Most interpretations are not connected to clues. At least the references should be added.
line 319-356: Please write this part again matching to the findings in Fig. 4 and 5. Different from Factor 1, 2, and, 3, analysis about factor
4, 5, 6 looks only based on Fig. 3. There is no examination about the diurnal cycle. Organization of paragraphs look problematic. This part
should be significantly improved.line 344-346: What is the clue to support this statement? I cannot figure out this, even based on Fig. 3.
line 393-395: How to justify this interpretation?
line 486-493: Overall summary is so ambiguous. Specific lessons to make summer-winter difference are necessary.
Whole results: The reason only focusing on summer and winter is not clear, while the full year measurement data exist. Is there any specific reason not to see the spring and autumn. It is also worth to investigate other seasons (For example, Hurricane effect is also huge in autumn).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-565-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunsoo Choi, 08 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-565', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2021
This manuscript addressed source apportionment of VOCs in Houston, a petrochemistry condensed region in US, by using measurement data in 2018. It reads a quite routine source apportionment report, I regret to suggest a rejection of current version due to three points:
1 The current version discussed only the data obtain in their monitoring site, with some discussion on roles of VOCs chemsitry and transportation. I consider that an evaluation on trends of VOCs levels, chemical compositions and source, or features of source chenges for petrochemical industries in US ( Houston as an example) would be of more interest to community rather than a local study ;
2 The methods used in the MS, PCA, PMF, OFP, ratio analysis and backward trajectory are sort of routine. And the dataset is for 2018, the reviewer didnot see measurements on OVOCs which cuold be important for petrochemical emissions. Therefore from methodological perspective, I didnot found see something new for VOCs source understanding;
3 There is an important issue to discuss with the authors. The authors showed quite string chemical oxidation processes by using ratios of VOCs, e.g. Benzene/Toluene, and etc, this clearly means that conventional PCA and PMF could not be deployed for source apportionment in Houston, the authors needs to use chemical-loss correction to do reliable source apportionment. This problem is not discussed in the current version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-565-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yunsoo Choi, 08 Oct 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-565', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2021
General comments
The research about the local VOC properties is basically interesting and fits into the scope of ACP. To be published, however, a dense revision
looks required.(1) To derive some essential key points of this study looks necessary. This is a study at a certain region (Houston). In this kind of study,
readers would like to see why we need to understand the VOC pattern in Houston, meaning that what is similar to / or different from VOC
properties in other regions. That is a very important information for making a study about the local air quality suggesting some generalized
lessons to the readers.(2) Please add some more efforts to have a better organization. It is difficult to find a main flow of this work (A lot of findings are
scatterred so it is hard to catch what is important.(3) Please include deeper discussion with previous findings. It is hard to see what is the specialty of study and how this work has the
discriminated merits compared to previous VOC works.(4) The research motivation was not clarified in the introduction.
(5) Several statements were provided without references. Please proofread whole manuscript again and reinforce the references.
(6) Results are too peripheral. I do not know how to apply/generalize these results for the advanced understanding of VOC chemistry.
(7) I agree that the results are interesting and informative for the local air quality study. But the dataset is not very something new and most analyses is so qualitative based on simple PMF and backtrajectory calculation (As authors mentioned in the manuscript, results usually supports the previous findings. New lessons or arguments cannot be found much). The final decision is not sure but therefore it seems better to submit this manuscript to other journals if serious revision is not guaranteed (For example, Atmospheric Environment).
Specific comments
line 78-80: Not well connected to the previous statements (Suddenly VOC inflence is connected to the VOC source)line 94-103: It seems that there are already deep studies about VOCs at Houston area. Considering past findings, what do we need to know more?
What is the missing points in the previous works. There things are not shown in this introduction parts.line 147-151: A reference is required about the shorter lifetime of atmospheric alkene/aromatics than alkan + longer lifetime of ethane and
propane.line 149-150: => Differences of alkane concentrations
line 247-248: This should be confirmen with some data analysis in Houston. Different from the convective mixing and photochemical activity
(discussed after this statement), energy demand pattern can has a larger regional difference, so it is hard to generalized simply without the
specific clue.line 300-304: Important information to compare between C2-C5 and C8-C10 isomers. But how to obtain these OH reaction rate constant is not clear
here. Any related figure or table is not found in this manuscript.line 307: 'in Figs. 4 and 5.' => 'in Figs. 4 and 5, for summertime and wintertime, respectively'
line 308: What are 3 ONG species factors? (Factor 1, 3, and which? Clearly indicate the factors)
line 309-310: How to justify this statement?
line 307-314: Most interpretations are not connected to clues. At least the references should be added.
line 319-356: Please write this part again matching to the findings in Fig. 4 and 5. Different from Factor 1, 2, and, 3, analysis about factor
4, 5, 6 looks only based on Fig. 3. There is no examination about the diurnal cycle. Organization of paragraphs look problematic. This part
should be significantly improved.line 344-346: What is the clue to support this statement? I cannot figure out this, even based on Fig. 3.
line 393-395: How to justify this interpretation?
line 486-493: Overall summary is so ambiguous. Specific lessons to make summer-winter difference are necessary.
Whole results: The reason only focusing on summer and winter is not clear, while the full year measurement data exist. Is there any specific reason not to see the spring and autumn. It is also worth to investigate other seasons (For example, Hurricane effect is also huge in autumn).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-565-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunsoo Choi, 08 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-565', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2021
This manuscript addressed source apportionment of VOCs in Houston, a petrochemistry condensed region in US, by using measurement data in 2018. It reads a quite routine source apportionment report, I regret to suggest a rejection of current version due to three points:
1 The current version discussed only the data obtain in their monitoring site, with some discussion on roles of VOCs chemsitry and transportation. I consider that an evaluation on trends of VOCs levels, chemical compositions and source, or features of source chenges for petrochemical industries in US ( Houston as an example) would be of more interest to community rather than a local study ;
2 The methods used in the MS, PCA, PMF, OFP, ratio analysis and backward trajectory are sort of routine. And the dataset is for 2018, the reviewer didnot see measurements on OVOCs which cuold be important for petrochemical emissions. Therefore from methodological perspective, I didnot found see something new for VOCs source understanding;
3 There is an important issue to discuss with the authors. The authors showed quite string chemical oxidation processes by using ratios of VOCs, e.g. Benzene/Toluene, and etc, this clearly means that conventional PCA and PMF could not be deployed for source apportionment in Houston, the authors needs to use chemical-loss correction to do reliable source apportionment. This problem is not discussed in the current version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-565-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yunsoo Choi, 08 Oct 2021
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
916 | 460 | 60 | 1,436 | 118 | 40 | 48 |
- HTML: 916
- PDF: 460
- XML: 60
- Total: 1,436
- Supplement: 118
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 48
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1