Regarding the data inconsistency from different data sources on emissions and ground-level pollutants’ concentrations in the atmospheric air over Ukraine

The development of action plans and strategies to reduce atmospheric air pollution requires the use of emissions and concentration data over extended periods. At such scales, the role of uncertainties increases, potentially leading to the development of ineffective measures. This article presents a study of the consistency of data from various sources, including official emissions inventories, modeled emissions data from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), pollutant concentration data measured at stationary monitoring stations of hydrometeorological organizations, and ground-level content data from CAMS reanalysis for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The research revealed significant inconsistencies among different datasets, often reflecting entirely different interannual variability and trends. While emissions predominantly show a declining trend, concentrations in most cities continue to rise based on observational data and often show no significant changes according to reanalysis data. Notably, agreement between emissions data from different sources was found in only 12 cases across citypollutant pairs. Consistency in pollutant concentration data was identified in only 3 cities for CO and 4 cities for SO2. The differences in emission volumes, even where high correlations exist, can vary by an order of magnitude for certain cities. The article provides a list of cities for each of the studied pollutants where consistency between different data sources is observed, identifying cases where the data can be complementary or interchangeable. The study emphasized that this inconsistency has negative implications for the ability to assess interannual changes, the quality of modeling and data interchangeability, the verification of evaluation results regarding the effectiveness of air quality management measures, and a wide range of other consequences.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Метеорологія. Гідрологія. Моніторинг довкілля.
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15407/meteorology2024.06.017
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Air Quality and Health Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Regarding the data inconsistency from different data sources on emissions and ground-level pollutants’ concentrations in the atmospheric air over Ukraine

K. M. Komisar, Tetiana Kozlenko, Natalia Zhemera, Liudmyla Nadtochii et al.
1 citations
Метеорологія. Гідрологія. Моніторинг довкілля.
Air Quality and Health Impacts
1.20
article

Regarding the data inconsistency from different data sources on emissions and ground-level pollutants’ concentrations in the atmospheric air over Ukraine

K. M. Komisar, Tetiana Kozlenko, Natalia Zhemera, Liudmyla Nadtochii, A. P. Umanets, Mykhailo Savenets
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The development of action plans and strategies to reduce atmospheric air pollution requires the use of emissions and concentration data over extended periods. At such scales, the role of uncertainties increases, potentially leading to the development of ineffective measures. This article presents a study of the consistency of data from various sources, including official emissions inventories, modeled emissions data from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), pollutant concentration data measured at stationary monitoring stations of hydrometeorological organizations, and ground-level content data from CAMS reanalysis for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The research revealed significant inconsistencies among different datasets, often reflecting entirely different interannual variability and trends. While emissions predominantly show a declining trend, concentrations in most cities continue to rise based on observational data and often show no significant changes according to reanalysis data. Notably, agreement between emissions data from different sources was found in only 12 cases across citypollutant pairs. Consistency in pollutant concentration data was identified in only 3 cities for CO and 4 cities for SO2. The differences in emission volumes, even where high correlations exist, can vary by an order of magnitude for certain cities. The article provides a list of cities for each of the studied pollutants where consistency between different data sources is observed, identifying cases where the data can be complementary or interchangeable. The study emphasized that this inconsistency has negative implications for the ability to assess interannual changes, the quality of modeling and data interchangeability, the verification of evaluation results regarding the effectiveness of air quality management measures, and a wide range of other consequences.

Метеорологія. Гідрологія. Моніторинг довкілля.Vol. 2024(6)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Air Quality and Health Impacts
1.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.