Comparison and evaluation of anthropogenic emissions of SO <sub>2</sub> and NO <sub> <i>x</i> </sub> over China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Bottom-up emission inventories provide primary understanding of sources of air pollution and essential input of chemical transport models. Focusing on SO2 and NOx, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of two widely used anthropogenic emission inventories over China, ECLIPSE and MIX, to explore the potential sources of uncertainties and find clues to improve emission inventories. We first compared the activity rates and emission factors used in two inventories and investigated the reasons of differences and the impacts on emission estimates. We found that SO2 emission estimates are consistent between two inventories (with 1 % differences), while NOx emissions in ECLIPSE's estimates are 16 % lower than those of MIX. The FGD (flue-gas desulfurization) device penetration rate and removal efficiency, LNB (low-NOx burner) application rate and abatement efficiency in power plants, emission factors of industrial boilers and various vehicle types, and vehicle fleet need further verification. Diesel consumptions are quite uncertain in current inventories. Discrepancies at the sectorial and provincial levels are much higher than those of the national total. We then examined the impacts of different inventories on model performance by using the nested GEOS-Chem model. We finally derived top-down emissions by using the retrieved columns from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) compared with the bottom-up estimates. High correlations were observed for SO2 between model results and OMI columns. For NOx, negative biases in bottom-up gridded emission inventories (−21 % for MIX, −39 % for ECLIPSE) were found compared to the satellite-based emissions. The emission trends from 2005 to 2010 estimated by two inventories were both consistent with satellite observations. The inventories appear to be fit for evaluation of the policies at an aggregated or national level; more work is needed in specific areas in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of outcomes at finer spatial and also technological levels. To our knowledge, this is the first work in which source comparisons detailed to technology-level parameters are made along with the remote sensing retrievals and chemical transport modeling. Through the comparison between bottom-up emission inventories and evaluation with top-down information, we identified potential directions for further improvement in inventory development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".