Experimental results comparative analysis of pollutant distribution and transport by different kinds of Lidar
GAO Xiao-rong1, TAN Hao-bo2, DENG Tao3, LI Fei3, WANG Chun-lin4, Mai Bo-ru3
1. Guangzhou Meteorological Observatory, Guangzhou 5114301, China;
2. Guangdong Ecological Meteorological Center, Guangzhou 510080, China;
3. Guangzhou Institute of Tropical and Marine Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration, Guangzhou 510080, China;
4. Guangzhou Climate and Agro-meteorological Center, Guangzhou 511430, China
This study aerosol extinction profiles at Guangzhou were measured with three commercially available lidars which were collocated at Guangzhou Panyu site. The measurement was carried out from November 17 through November 30, 2014. The AOD (aerosol optical depth) retrieved from different instruments were highly correlated with that from AERONET (aerosol robotic network), and the retrieved and measured surface extinction coefficient provided comparable results (R > 0.7), indicating that the algorithm for the extinction coefficient profiles is reliability. Also, the retrieved MLH (mixing layer height) was compared with model results from National Centers for NCEP-GDAS (environmental prediction global data assimilation system). The results showed that the MLH from the three types of lidar were consistent with that of the NCEP-GDAS model, but the model result had no obvious response to the intermittent turbulent mixing at night, suggesting that the lidar result was more effective for the inversion of MLH. Finally, several cases were analyzed to reveal the characteristics of pollution under different weather circulation types. Results show that the three lidars can be used to monitor the transport and local accumulation of pollutants consistently. Two cases under weak cold-air weather pattern (November 21~22, 24~25, 2014) serve as examples for pollutants transport. For the first case, particulates were trapped above 0.8km and passed through the site quickly. For the second case, particulates were trapped whole layer, resulting high PM2.5 at surface layer. Under the weather pattern of the cold High pressure gone to sea, a local accumulation pollution episode (Nove
高晓荣, 谭浩波, 邓涛, 李菲, 王春林, 麦博儒. 三种激光雷达监测污染物分布和输送对比[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018, 38(2): 444-454.
GAO Xiao-rong, TAN Hao-bo, DENG Tao, LI Fei, WANG Chun-lin, Mai Bo-ru. Experimental results comparative analysis of pollutant distribution and transport by different kinds of Lidar. CHINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCECE, 2018, 38(2): 444-454.
Clemtishaw K C. A review of instrumentation and measurement techniques for ground-based and airborne field studies of gas-phase tropospheric chemistry[J]. Critical reviewers in Environmental Science and Technology, 2004,43(1):1-108.
[2]
Olofson K F G, Andersson P U, Hallquist M, et al. Urban aerosol evolution and particle formation during wintertime temperature inversions[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2009,43(2):340-346.
[3]
Badarinath K V S, Kharol S K, Sharma A R. Long-range transport of aerosols from agriculture crop residue burning in Indo-Gangetic Plains-A study using LIDAR, ground measurements and satellite data[J].Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2009,71(1):112-120.
[4]
Lopes F J S, Landulfo E, Vaughan M A. Assessment of the CALIPSO Lidar 532nm version 3lidar ratio models using a ground-based lidar and AERONET sun photometers in Brazil[J]. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques Discussions, 2013,6(1):1143-1199.
[5]
Welton E J, Voss K J, Quinn P K, et al. Measurements of aerosol vertical profiles and optical properties during INDOEX 1999using micropulse lidars[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2002,107(D19):8019-8041.
[6]
Welton E J, K J Voss, Gordon H R, et al. Ground-based lidar measurements of aerosols during ACE-2:Instrument description, results, and comparisons with other ground-based and airborne measurements[J]. Tellus, 2000,(52B):636-651.
[7]
Piironen A K, Eloranta E W. Convective boundary layer mean depths and cloud geometrical properties obtained from volume imaging lidar data[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1995, 100:25569-25576.
[8]
Pahlow M, Kleissl J, Parlange M, et al. Atmospheric boundary-layer structure observed during a haze event due to forest-fire smoke[J]. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2005,114:53-70.
Fernald F G. Analysis of atmospheric lidar observations:comments[J]. Applied Optics, 1984,23:652-653.
[16]
Takamura T, SasanoY. Ratio of aerosol backscatter to extinction coefficients as determined from angular scattering measurements for use in atmospheric lidar applications[J]. Optical and Quantum Electronics, 1987,19:293-302.
[17]
Sasano Y, Nakane H. Significance of the extinction/backscatter ratio and the boundary value term in the solution for the two-component lidar equation[J]. Applied Optics, 1984,23(1):11-13.
[18]
Sasano Y, Nakane H. Quantitative analysis of RHI lidar data by an iterative adjustment of the boundary condition term in the lidar solution[J]. Applied Optics, 1987,26(4):615-616.
Holben B N, Eck T F, Slutsker I, et al. AERONET-A federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol characterization[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 1998,66:1-16.
[21]
Nakajima T, Tonna G, Rao R, et al. Use of sky brightness measurements from ground for remote sensing of particulate polydispersions[J]. Applied Optics, 1996,35:2672-2686.
[22]
Dubovik O, King M D. A flexible inversion algorithm for retrieval of aerosol optical properties from sun and sky radiance measurements[J]. Geophysical Research, 2000,105:1072-1087.
[23]
Eck T F, Holben B N, Dubovik O, et al. Wavelength dependence of the optical depth of biomass burning, urban and desert dust aerosols[J]. Geophysical Research, 1999,104,31:333-350.
