the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Jun 2022
Current and future prediction of inter-provincial transport of ambient PM2.5 in China
Abstract. Regional transport is as much important as local sources that contributing to PM2.5 pollution and causing associated environmental inequality. In the context of future climate change, the effect of the responses of regional transport to the warming meteorology has not been thoroughly investigated. Here we establish cross-province PM2.5 source-receptor matrix in China in 2015 and two climate pathways in 2050s (SSP585 and SSP126), using Community Multi-scale Air Quality model embedded with the Integrated Source Apportionment Method. Results suggest that across-regional transport contributes 27 % - 56.8 % of PM2.5 in five severely polluted regions, which is even more important compared to inner transport within the target region (13.2 % - 20.9 %), especially in Chuanyu and Fenwei regions where suffers large PM2.5 transport (over 50 %) from outside regions. Such results imply that joint-control policy should not only focus on neighboring provinces. Future warming scenario (SSP585) will exacerbate PM2.5 pollution (2 - 5 µg/m3) and also enhance its regional transport (> 3 %) mostly by modulating the across-regional transport rather than inner regional transport. Such enhancement of regional transport of PM2.5 can be significantly weaken (approximately by half) under SSP126 pathway, demonstrating the importance of climate change mitigation on weakening the regional transport of PM2.5 to maximize the co-benefits in both air quality and climate.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(3350 KB)
-
Supplement
(4960 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(3350 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4960 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-368', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jul 2022
General comments:
The manuscript entitled “Current and future prediction of inter-provincial transport of ambient PM2.5 in China” presented the current and future states of inter-regional transport (IRT) and across-regional transport (ART) in China. The manuscript title and its content seem to be interesting for many readers at first; however, the modeling configuration which only conducted the fixed emission in 2015 is quite preliminary and will not answer to two questions stated in line 74-77. Without the additional simulation in 2050, the current title, abstract, and introduction will cause misleading. Why were future emissions not used in this study? Because the future emission scenario contains the variability of changes in precursors of PM2.5, I am wondering about the importance of the results drawn from this study. Although this point is discussed in line 325-328 in the conclusion section, this important statement is needed to be carefully introduced. Without the additional simulation in 2050, the title, abstract, and introduction are required to be fully revised. In addition, discussions in future changes are immature at the current presentation quality. The future change of IRT and ART is provided but the reason to cause these changes have not been discussed. What are plausible and/or possible factors to cause these IRT and ART changes in 2050? Please see the following specific points in these general comments.
Specific comments:
Line 82: In my understanding, input data for Plaim-Xiu LSM is limited in the application over the U.S. (https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_sources_wps_geog.html). How did the authors prepare for the necessary input data?
Line 85: But what kind of initial condition is used in this study? Please state. In addition, I guess that the selection of boundary conditions is also an important aspect of this simulation. How did the authors prepare the lateral boundary condition? Are the contributions from the lateral boundary condition (i.e., outside of China) small? If there are some contributions, I am also wondering how can we consider the global change of PM2.5 in future status.
Line 94-95: It should be clearly introduced the limitation of ISAM method to estimate contributions. For example, source sensitivities which are critically important for secondary aerosols were not evaluated by ISAM. Please add the details of the advantages/disadvantages of this method.
Line 99: The term “transport” cannot be followed. How was derived? Please explicitly explain and define.
Line 105: Need the height depth of the lowest layer.
Line 127: The biomass burning sources are not taken in this modeling system? If yes, why?
Line 129-130: The configuration of emission in this study is preliminary because the simulation was only conducted without changing emissions in 2050. In this sense, the title of the manuscript will mislead, and the abstract and introduction section are needed to be carefully written to state that the future change is only derived from the meteorological condition.
Line 141: The recommendation for model performance over China is provided from this reference (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2725-2021). It could be useful.Line 146-147: I can see the severest pollution in winter but differences in other seasons are unclear from Figure 3.
Line 148-149: Are “contribution” here different from what is defined in Eq. (1)? I would like to recommend using the equation to define this term.
Line 236-257 (Section 3.3): I cannot follow the reason for increasing PM2.5 in 2050. Does only the weakened atmospheric circulation attribute to this increase? Is there no impact from other meteorological factors such as temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and wind field? The discussion here is just the provision of model simulation results and is quite immature to understand results.
Line 262-310 (Section 3.4): Similar to the above comment, I cannot understand what causes these future changes in regional PM2.5 transport. Of course, it is hard to seek the explicit reason to lead these changes, but the current discussion lacks plausible and/or possible reasons for future changes.
Line 326: I agree that the emission reduction can further weaken regional transport, but the reduction rate highly depends on provinces/regions. It might not be simple to state so, therefore, I think the explicit simulation in 2050 is necessary within this study.
Technical corrections:
Line 82 and elsewhere in this manuscript: Liu et al. (2021) should be distinguished.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-368-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC5 and its content was therefore removed.
- AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-368', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-AC4-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-368', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jul 2022
General comments:
The manuscript entitled “Current and future prediction of inter-provincial transport of ambient PM2.5 in China” presented the current and future states of inter-regional transport (IRT) and across-regional transport (ART) in China. The manuscript title and its content seem to be interesting for many readers at first; however, the modeling configuration which only conducted the fixed emission in 2015 is quite preliminary and will not answer to two questions stated in line 74-77. Without the additional simulation in 2050, the current title, abstract, and introduction will cause misleading. Why were future emissions not used in this study? Because the future emission scenario contains the variability of changes in precursors of PM2.5, I am wondering about the importance of the results drawn from this study. Although this point is discussed in line 325-328 in the conclusion section, this important statement is needed to be carefully introduced. Without the additional simulation in 2050, the title, abstract, and introduction are required to be fully revised. In addition, discussions in future changes are immature at the current presentation quality. The future change of IRT and ART is provided but the reason to cause these changes have not been discussed. What are plausible and/or possible factors to cause these IRT and ART changes in 2050? Please see the following specific points in these general comments.
Specific comments:
Line 82: In my understanding, input data for Plaim-Xiu LSM is limited in the application over the U.S. (https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_sources_wps_geog.html). How did the authors prepare for the necessary input data?
Line 85: But what kind of initial condition is used in this study? Please state. In addition, I guess that the selection of boundary conditions is also an important aspect of this simulation. How did the authors prepare the lateral boundary condition? Are the contributions from the lateral boundary condition (i.e., outside of China) small? If there are some contributions, I am also wondering how can we consider the global change of PM2.5 in future status.
Line 94-95: It should be clearly introduced the limitation of ISAM method to estimate contributions. For example, source sensitivities which are critically important for secondary aerosols were not evaluated by ISAM. Please add the details of the advantages/disadvantages of this method.
Line 99: The term “transport” cannot be followed. How was derived? Please explicitly explain and define.
Line 105: Need the height depth of the lowest layer.
Line 127: The biomass burning sources are not taken in this modeling system? If yes, why?
Line 129-130: The configuration of emission in this study is preliminary because the simulation was only conducted without changing emissions in 2050. In this sense, the title of the manuscript will mislead, and the abstract and introduction section are needed to be carefully written to state that the future change is only derived from the meteorological condition.
Line 141: The recommendation for model performance over China is provided from this reference (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2725-2021). It could be useful.Line 146-147: I can see the severest pollution in winter but differences in other seasons are unclear from Figure 3.
Line 148-149: Are “contribution” here different from what is defined in Eq. (1)? I would like to recommend using the equation to define this term.
Line 236-257 (Section 3.3): I cannot follow the reason for increasing PM2.5 in 2050. Does only the weakened atmospheric circulation attribute to this increase? Is there no impact from other meteorological factors such as temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and wind field? The discussion here is just the provision of model simulation results and is quite immature to understand results.
Line 262-310 (Section 3.4): Similar to the above comment, I cannot understand what causes these future changes in regional PM2.5 transport. Of course, it is hard to seek the explicit reason to lead these changes, but the current discussion lacks plausible and/or possible reasons for future changes.
Line 326: I agree that the emission reduction can further weaken regional transport, but the reduction rate highly depends on provinces/regions. It might not be simple to state so, therefore, I think the explicit simulation in 2050 is necessary within this study.
Technical corrections:
Line 82 and elsewhere in this manuscript: Liu et al. (2021) should be distinguished.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-368-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC5 and its content was therefore removed.
- AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-368', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shansi Wang, 10 Nov 2022
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Shansi Wang, 11 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-368/acp-2022-368-AC4-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 807 | 252 | 42 | 1,101 | 57 | 23 | 25 |
- HTML: 807
- PDF: 252
- XML: 42
- Total: 1,101
- Supplement: 57
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Shansi Wang
Siwei Li
Jia Xing
Yu Ding
Senlin Hu
Shuchang Liu
Yu Qin
Zhaoxin Dong
Jiaxin Dong
Ge Song
Lechao Dong
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(3350 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4960 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote