Abstract. This work reviews the existing methodologies for source apportionment and sensitivity analysis to identify key differences and stress their implicit limitations. The emphasis is laid on the differences between source "impacts" (sensitivity analysis) and "contributions" (source apportionment) obtained by using four different methodologies: brute-force top-down, brute-force bottom-up, tagged species and decoupled direct method (DDM). A simple theoretical example to compare these approaches is used highlighting differences and potential implications for policy. When the relationships between concentration and emissions are linear, impacts and contributions are equivalent concepts. In this case, source apportionment and sensitivity analysis may be used indifferently for both air quality planning purposes and quantifying source contributions.However, this study demonstrates that when the relationship between emissions and concentrations is nonlinear, sensitivity approaches are not suitable to retrieve source contributions and source apportionment methods are not appropriate to evaluate the impact of abatement strategies. A quantification of the potential nonlinearities should therefore be the first step prior to source apportionment or planning applications, to prevent any limitations in their use. When nonlinearity is mild, these limitations may, however, be acceptable in the context of the other uncertainties inherent to complex models.Moreover, when using sensitivity analysis for planning, it is important to note that, under nonlinear circumstances, the calculated impacts will only provide information for the exact conditions (e.g. emission reduction share) that are simulated.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A new methodology to assess source apportionment model performance in intercomparison exercises, encompassing the preparation of real-world and synthetic datasets and the evaluation of the source apportionment results reported by participants, is described. The evaluation consists of three types of tests: complementary tests, preliminary tests, and performance tests. The complementary tests provide summary information about the source apportionment results as a whole. The preliminary tests check whether source/factors belong to a given source category. Three types of indicators: Pearson Correlation (Pearson), Standardized Identity Distance (SID), and Weighted Difference (WD) are used to test factor/source chemical profiles, while factor/source time series and contribution-to-species values are tested only using the Pearson. The performance tests, based on international standards for proficiency testing, are targeted at evaluating whether the reported biases in the quantification of the factor/source contribution estimates (SCEs) and uncertainties are consistent with previously established quality standards in a fitness-for-purpose approach. Moreover, the consistency of the SCE time series is evaluated using a variant of the RMSE normalised by the reference standard uncertainty.The described methodology facilitates a thorough evaluation of the source apportionment output. The new indicator to compare source or factor profiles presented in this study (SID) is more robust and provides additional information compared to the existing ones.

The contribution of main PM pollution sources and their geographic origin in three urban sites of the Danube macro-region (Zagreb, Budapest and Sofia) were determined by combining receptor and Lagrangian models. The source contribution estimates were obtained with the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) receptor model and the results were further examined using local wind data and backward trajectories obtained with FLEXPART. Potential Source Contribution Function (PSCF) analysis was applied to identify the geographical source areas for the PM sources subject to long-range transport. Gas-to-particle transformation processes and primary emissions from biomass burning are the most important contributors to PM in the studied sites followed by re-suspension of soil (crustal material) and traffic. These four sources can be considered typical of the Danube macro-region because they were identified in all the studied locations. Long-range transport was observed of: a) sulphate-enriched aged aerosols, deriving from SO2 emissions in combustion processes in the Balkans and Eastern Europe and b) dust from the Saharan and Karakum deserts. The study highlights that PM pollution in the studied urban areas of the Danube macro-region is the result of both local sources and long-range transport from both EU and no-EU areas.