Next Article in Journal
Megacity-Induced Mesoclimatic Effects in the Lower Atmosphere: A Modeling Study for Multiple Summers over Moscow, Russia
Next Article in Special Issue
Refinement of Modeled Aqueous-Phase Sulfate Production via the Fe- and Mn-Catalyzed Oxidation Pathway
Previous Article in Journal
Variability of Rainfall Erosivity and Erosivity Density in the Ganjiang River Catchment, China: Characteristics and Influences of Climate Change
Previous Article in Special Issue
Overview of Model Inter-Comparison in Japan’s Study for Reference Air Quality Modeling (J-STREAM)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development and Evaluation of a Comprehensive Atmospheric Emission Inventory for Air Quality Modeling in the Megacity of Bogotá

1
Centro Lasallista de Investigación y Modelación Ambiental, CLIMA, Universidad de La Salle, Carrera 2 # 10-70, Bogotá C.P. 111711, Colombia
2
Facultad de Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad Piloto de Colombia, Bogotá C.P. 110311, Colombia
3
Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Grupo de Plan Decenal, Bogotá C.P. 110231, Colombia
4
Department of Environmental Engineering and Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32612, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2018, 9(2), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9020049
Submission received: 27 November 2017 / Revised: 16 January 2018 / Accepted: 1 February 2018 / Published: 3 February 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Regional Scale Air Quality Modelling)

Abstract

:
We built an emission inventory (EI) for the megacity of Bogotá, Colombia for 2012, which for the first time augments traditional industrial and mobile sources by including commercial sources, biogenic sources, and resuspended dust. We characterized the methodologies for estimating each source annually, and allocated the sources to hourly and 1 km2 spatial resolution for use as inputs for air quality modeling purposes. A resuspended particulate matter (RPM) emission estimate was developed using the first measurements of road dust loadings and silt content for the city. Results show that mobile sources dominate emissions of CO2 (80%), CO (99%), VOC (68%), NOx (95%), and SO2 (85%). However, the newly estimated RPM comprises 90% of total PM10 emissions, which are at least onefold larger than the PM10 emissions from combustion processes. The 2012 EI was implemented in a chemical transport model (CTM) in order to understand the pollutants’ fate and transport. Model evaluation was conducted against observations from the city’s air quality monitoring network in two different periods. Modeling results for O3 concentrations showed a good agreement, with mean fractional bias (MFB) of +11%, and a mean fractional error (MFE) of +35% with observations, but simulated PM10 concentrations were strongly biased high (MFB +57%, MFE +68%), which was likely due to RPM emissions being overestimated. NOx, CO, and SO2 were also biased high by the model, which was probably due to emissions not reflecting current fleet conditions. Future work aims to revise emission factors for mobile sources, which are the main sources of pollutants to the atmosphere.

1. Introduction

Air quality is of particular concern in developing countries, where a large portion of the population is exposed to high levels of pollutants [1]. In Latin America, it’s estimated that over 100 million people are exposed to pollution levels, exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines [2]. A recent report about the cost of environmental degradation in Colombia indicated that air quality in urban centers is responsible for 10,527 deaths and 67.8 million hospital visits, which together represent 5.1 billion USD (1.93% of Colombia’s gross domestic product (GDP) for 2015) [3].
Bogotá, Colombia’s largest city, is located in a plateau at approximately 2600 meters above sea level with an area of 1587 km2. The region has a bimodal annual rain cycle, with increased rain in April and October (Figure S1). The city is home to approximately eight million people, with 1.8 million vehicles reported in 2012. Since 1997, the city has operated an air quality monitoring network; its Spanish acronym is RMCAB. Currently, RMCAB is composed of 13 sites measuring pollutants including PM10, PM2.5, CO, NOx, SO2, and O3, along with the meteorological variables of wind speed and direction, temperature, solar radiation, precipitation, and relative humidity (Figure 1).
Most of the pollutants are generally below the Colombian air quality standards, but PM10 exceedance is still common during the first three months and the last two months of each year, especially in the south and southwest regions of the city [4]. Nevertheless, PM10 concentrations have significantly declined in the 2002–2012 period. The months of June, July, and August display a drop in ambient air concentrations of all pollutants, due to increased wind speed caused by the change of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (Figure S1) [4].
Emission inventories (EI) are a key component in the air quality management of urban areas, but they have been pointed out as the most uncertain input in the air quality modeling process [5]. Emissions are generally estimated with the use of emission factors (EFs) and activity data, which are both subjected to large uncertainties. While activity data are generally obtained from local information, EFs are usually estimated with emission models such as the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) [6] or the International Vehicle Emissions (IVE) [7], or acquired from international databases, such as the US-EPA AP-42 document [8], the Core Inventory AIR emissions CORINAIR database [9], and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC [10], among others.
Several projects that have aimed to construct EIs for the main urban centers in South America have been conducted, such as Bogotá (Colombia), Medellin (Colombia), Santiago (Chile), Buenos Aires (Argentina), and Sao Paulo (Brazil) [11,12,13,14,15,16], and consolidate a regional inventory combining local and global inventories (such as RETRO and EDGAR) [17,18].
EIs in Bogotá have traditionally included emissions for industrial and mobile sources. A compendium of studies is included in the Supplementary material (Table S1). An analysis of emission estimates prior to 2010 can be found in Pachón [19]. Briefly, emissions from point sources were consistent among different inventories due to the use of common databases of industrial activity and fuel consumption. Emission factors have been compiled from local measurements [20] and international references [8]. On the other hand, emissions from mobile sources have displayed large variability, especially for PM10. This is mainly due to the use of different emission factors obtained from local measurements [21], international databases (Copert, Corinair, AP-42), and emission models such as IVE [7]. In general, mobile sources contribute more than 90% of CO and NOx emissions, while PM10 from combustion activities can be almost equally emitted by mobile (46%) and point sources (54%). CO and NOx emission estimates show a consistent and growing trend throughout the years, which is explained by the dramatic increase in vehicles from approximately 600,000 in 2002 to 1.7 million in 2012 [22].
Resuspended dust has been identified as a major component of PM10 in Bogotá, surpassing PM10 emissions from combustion sources by at least one order of magnitude [23,24]. This situation is also found in other cities [11,25,26]. Consistently, PM10 chemical composition studies conducted in Bogotá have observed dust fractions between 25–45% [27,28,29].
This project constructs a comprehensive emission inventory for Bogotá including many sources: mobile (top-down and bottom-up), industrial, commercial (restaurants, grilling, and street vendors), biogenic, gas stations and gas storage tanks, and resuspended dust (from paved and unpaved roads, material extraction, and building and road construction). This manuscript describes the process and results of constructing this emission inventory estimated for 2012 and its use in an air quality modeling platform implemented in the city. A preliminary modeling evaluation is also discussed.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Mobile Sources (On-Road)

Mobile source emissions were calculated using two approaches: top-down and bottom-up, as described in Carmona et al. [30]. Briefly, in the top-down approach (Equation (1)), fleet size and vehicular activity were obtained from annual fleet registrations available at the city’s government, while the emission factors were collected from different studies previously conducted in the city.
E i = j = 0 n EF i j × AF j × N j
  • Ei (g/year): total emissions of pollutant i (PM2.5, CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs)
  • EFij (g/km): emission factor for pollutant i for vehicular category j
  • AFj (km/year): average vehicle activity factor for vehicular category j
  • Nj (#): number of vehicles for category j
In the bottom-up approach (Equation (2)), vehicular activity was obtained from traffic counts available at 46 points throughout the city (Figure 2). Emission factors were the same as the ones used in the top-down approach.
E i = j = 0 n EF i j × F j k × L k
  • Ei (g/h): total emissions of pollutant i (PM2.5, CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs)
  • EFij (g/km): emission factor for pollutant i for vehicular category j
  • Fjk (#/h): vehicular flux for category j in the road link k
  • Lk (km): length of road link category k

2.2. Point Sources (Industrial, Commercial)

The EI includes stationary source emissions from combustion processes, including boilers, heaters, and ovens used in industrial activities. For 2012, local databases reported 975 industries with 1681 stacks or emission points. Fuel consumption was distributed between natural gas (72%), coal (12%), fuel–oil (8%), LPG (4%), and others (4%). Emissions were estimated without emission controls (Equation (3)), due to the lack of information about control equipment. Emission factors were adopted from the AP-42 database [8] and local studies [16].
E i = j = 0 n EF i j × AF j × N j
  • Ei (g/year): total emissions of pollutant i (PM10, CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs)
  • EFij (g/kg or g/m3): emission factor for pollutant i for fuel j
  • AFj (kg/year or m3/year): fuel j consumption
  • Nj: number of point sources that consume fuel j
Commercial activities were also included as stationary emission sources in 2012 [31]. Briefly, a database of commercial sources was provided by the Bogota’s environmental authority (SDA), with 843 establishments (51% restaurants, 44% grilling, and 5% street vendors), which is expected to underestimate (at least four times) the real number of commercial sources. Fuels used in commercial activities are charcoal (75%), wood (13%), and a combination of both (12%). EFs for PM10, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, and VOCs were given per amount of fuel consumed, with the exception that the EFs for charcoal are given as the mass of pollutant per mass of fuel and meat consumed (e.g., g CO/(kg fuel + kg meat)) [32]. EFs for wood combustion were obtained from the AP-42 database [8].

2.3. Gas Stations and Gas Storage Tanks

VOC emissions were quantified for gas storage and distribution. Local databases accounted for 464 gas stations distributed throughout the city and three gas storage facilities located at the industrial zone in Bogotá. Activities prone to emit VOCs in gas stations are storage, distribution, the filling of underground containers, and spills. Storage emissions were estimated using the TANKS software [33]. For the other activities, EFs were obtained from the AP-42 database [8]. Information and conditions to execute TANKS are described in Fajardo et al. [31]. Briefly, information on gas stations was obtained from SDA local records, including the location in the city, number of tanks and capacity, type of fuels distributed, and fuel monthly sales. Information on tank material was obtained by consulting with tank suppliers. Meteorological information (i.e., temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind velocity) to run the model was obtained from RMCAB.

2.4. Biogenic Emissions

The estimation of biogenic emissions (i.e., isoprene, monoterpene, and other VOCs) was conducted using two models: the Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System (GloBEIS) and the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN). The MEGAN’s set-up and results are described in Nedbor-Gross et al. [34]. The GloBEIS model that was implemented here is similar to previous work [35]. Bogotá’s vegetation density is significantly low in comparison to other Latin American cities. However, Bogotá is surrounded by dense forest at high and low altitudes that permanently emit VOCs, and can potentially be transported into the city.
The main inputs for the model were meteorological information (i.e., hourly temperature, relative humidity, cloudiness, and solar radiation) from Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) modeling [36], land use (i.e., fraction of vegetation coverage) from local databases [37,38], vegetation type from Bogotá’s botanical garden [39], and emission factors (default from GloBEIS). Vegetation types were processed to apply emission factors from GloBEIS, CORINAIR, EPA AP-42, and the European Environmental Agency (EEA) [9].
Urban and rural land cover layers were adjusted to the modeling domain, and the fraction of vegetation within each cell was estimated. Emissions were estimated as the product of the covered area and the emission factors (g/m2). One typical day was modeled during a dry season (February) and one day during a rainy season (October) in 2012.

2.5. Resuspended Dust

Resuspended dust was estimated from three major sources: roads (paved and unpaved), building and road construction, and material (sands, clays) extraction. In this manuscript, we describe resuspended particulate matter (RPM) estimations only from roads, given the significance of emission from this source. The methods of the AP-42 database (Chapter 13.2) were applied for this purpose. Emissions are the product of an emission factor (g PM10/VKT) multiplied by the vehicular activity (VKT). This method required conducting an extensive field campaign to quantify silt loadings, and use them to estimate EFs for paved (Equation (4)) and unpaved roads (Equations (5) and (6)).
EF = q × SL0.67 × W0.85
where EF is the emission factor for paved roads (g/VKT), q is a particle size specific multiplier, SL is slit loading (g/m2), and W is the average weight of vehicles (ton).
For vehicles traveling on unpaved surfaces at industrial sites:
EF = g ( s 12 ) a ( W 3 ) b
and, for vehicles traveling on unpaved publicly accessible roads (generally light vehicles):
EF = g ( s 12 ) a ( v 30 ) d ( M 0.5 ) c C
where EF is the emission factor for unpaved roads (g/VKT); g, a, b, c and d are empirical constants; s is the surface material silt content (%); W is the mean vehicle weight; v is the mean vehicle speed; M is the surface material moisture content, and C is the emission factor for brake and tire wear.
Field work was performed in 30 points on paved roads, and 15 points on unpaved roads (Figure 2). The points on paved roads were collocated with some of the traffic count sites. For unpaved roads, it was necessary to record traffic at the same time the sampling was conducted. Field samples were transported to the laboratory for humidity content and granulometry analysis. Silt loadings (SL) and silt content (s) were determined for each sample.

2.6. Spatial and Temporal Allocation

For air quality modeling purposes, emissions need to be processed on a temporal and spatial basis. A modeling domain was set up on a grid size of 55 × 55 km, with 1 × 1 km cells for two modeling periods: February and October 2012. Emissions for all of the sectors were distributed in the cells within Bogotá’s political boundaries using different surrogates. Additionally, emissions were estimated under different temporal patterns: for all of the sectors, hourly disaggregation was conducted, and for some sectors, daily (weekday, weekend) or monthly disaggregation was also performed (Table 1).

2.7. Chemical Speciation

Air quality modeling requires the chemical speciation of emissions in addition to their spatial and temporal disaggregation. Chemical speciation for non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) and particulate matter (PM10) was conducted for point and mobile sources following the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA methodology [40]. Chemical profiles from international databases and publications including EMEP/EEA [9], and EPA’s SPECIATE database [41] were applied for the industrial sector, vehicular category, and point sources [42]. As local profiles [41] become available, they can be incorporated in future modeling exercises.
The results were subsequently transformed to the categorization of defined species for modeling according to the chemical mechanism Carbon Bond 05 [42]. For PM10, the species considered were elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), nitrates, sulfates, ammonia, and PM other. PM other is an aggregated fine mode of primary PM. For NMOC, speciation was conducted using the SpecDB tool [43].

2.8. Modeling Set-Up

The full description of the modeling system is found in Nedbor-Gross et al. [34]. Briefly, meteorological modeling has been performed for Bogotá using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model [44]. Four modeling domains have been set up centered over Bogotá (4.5° N, 74.1° W) and using a 3-to-1 parent to child nesting ratio, similar to Kumar et al. [45]. Meteorological simulations have been performed for two 25-day periods in 2012—one for February and one for October—coinciding with high pollution episodes that occurred for a dry season and a rainy season [36].
According to the RMCAB information considering all of the stations with available data for the identified periods, 8 h-ozone maximum values presented a wider variability in the observed period corresponding to the dry season, ranging from nearly 10 ppbv to 70 ppbv; for the wet period, these values are more stable, ranging from 20 ppbv to 60 ppbv. On the other hand, PM10 24-h average concentrations at standard conditions varied for the dry season period from 70 μg/m3 to 160 μg/m3; meanwhile, the wet period developed smoother daily changes, with concentrations scaling from about 40 μg/m3 to 120 μg/m3. For both of the selected periods, the spatial distribution of observed O3 tended to show greater mixing ratio values at the east and northeast of the city, following the mountain range (Figure 1). Measurements of PM10 concentration indicated that the higher values are mainly located at the southwest side of the city, where an important aspect of industrial and heavy diesel vehicle traffic is present.
Air quality modeling simulations were performed using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ v5.0.1) model [46], using the same periods and domain configuration as the meteorological simulations. The model simulates aerosols using ISORROPIA (v2.1) for inorganic thermodynamic partitioning, and AERO6 treatment for organic aerosols [47]. The full description of the modeling system is found in Nedbor-Gross et al. [34]. The anthropogenic emissions for the outer domains were from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGARv3). Biogenic emissions were developed using the Model of Emissions, Gases, and Aerosols from Nature—MEGANv2 [48]. The local emissions inventories discussed previously were used to drive the innermost domain for the 2012 simulations. The CMAQ simulations were evaluated for pollutants of concern, including PM10 and O3, using model performance metrics [49,50].
For an initial assessment of modeling performance using the emissions inventory, we evaluated the bias and error for the criteria pollutants for the combined simulation periods. The evaluation included qualitative analysis using graphics and examines the mean fractional bias (MFB) and error (MFE), which are considered the best indicators of model performance [49,50]. For each pollutant of concern, there is a criteria value and a goal value for the MFB and MFE, where meeting the criteria indicates that the model performance is suitable for regulatory applications, and meeting the goal indicates that the model is performance is ideal.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Mobile Sources (On-Road)

Local transport registrations for 2012 show approximately 1.8 million vehicles in Bogotá, from which 75% are passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks, 20% are motorcycles, 3% are taxis, 1.2% are heavy trucks, and less than 1% are buses. In contrast, most of the motorized trips in the city are made using public transportation (30%), private vehicles (11%), taxis (3%), and motorcycles (2%). Non-motorized trips (pedestrian and bicycle) constitute approximately 50% of travel in the city [51]. This distribution of fleet and trips implies that there is an intensive use of passenger vehicles and motorcycles, with a subsequent impact on emissions.
For CO, CO2, NOx, VOC, and SO2 emissions, the contribution from private vehicles constitute between 40–70% of mobile emissions. This large contribution is due to the rapid increase in the number of automobiles and pick-up trucks, from approximately 400,000 in 2002 to more than 1 million in 2012. Motorcycles (M) have also shown this growth trend (approximately 35,000 units in 2002 to 350,000 in 2012), which adds significant emissions of CO and VOCs. For PM2.5, the largest emissions are associated with traditional public transportation and freight vehicles that operate with diesel engines (Figure 3). The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Transmilenio (TM) generates less PM2.5 emissions than other buses. Details of the results for mobile sources can be found in Carmona et al. [30].
In comparison to other emission sources (e.g., industrial, commerce, biogenic), vehicles contribute 99% of the CO, 80% of the CO2, 68% of the VOCs, 95% of the NOx, and 85% of the SO2, which is similar to other South American cities [52,53]. The contribution to PM10 emissions is 58% from only combustion processes (Table 2), but non-exhaust PM10 is much larger than any other source.

3.2. Point Sources (Industrial, Commercial)

PM10 emissions from industrial sources are comparable to those from mobile sources. The contribution of the gaseous pollutants coming from industrial sources is much less significant. Emissions from commercial sources constitute a small percentage of industrial emissions (4% NOx, 11% SO2, 12% PM10), with the exception of CO, which exceeds industrial emissions by 337% (Table 2). This is due to the incomplete combustion conditions that are prevalent in restaurants, grilling, and street vendors.

3.3. Gas Storage and Distribution

Fuel sales reported for the city were approximately 450 million gallons in 2012 (56% regular gasoline, 40% diesel, 4% premium gasoline). VOC emissions are associated with gas storage (three tanks) and gas distribution (464 stations). The gas storage represents 77% of VOC emissions, while the remaining 23% is associated with gas stations. The filling of underground tanks and gas distribution represent the activities with largest emissions. Spills are relatively low, because of the economic costs implied, should they occur. The analysis of fuels indicates that 67% of VOC emissions come from gasoline, and 33% come from diesel.

3.4. Biogenic

VOCs from biogenic sources were relatively low compared to anthropogenic emissions (Table 3). This can be explained by several factors: (i) at least 7% of the modeling domain had zero vegetation cover (i.e., zero biogenic emissions); (ii) vegetation within the urban area is located at elevated heights (2600 masl to 3200 masl) and low temperatures (15 ± 5 °C); (iii) meteorological patterns likely advect pollutants away from the city [36]; (iv) Bogotá’s cloudiness is constant throughout the year, affecting direct solar radiation. Additionally, the EFs for local vegetation species used in MEGAN and BEIS have not been thoroughly validated in Colombia, which adds an element of uncertainty that should be addressed in future studies. The typical diurnal pattern for biogenic emissions indicate an increase of emissions during the daytime, with maximum emissions at midday.
Analysis of VOC emissions indicate that most of the VOCs are anthropogenic (only 2.5% biogenic), with 92% directly (tail pipe) or indirectly (gas storage and distribution) emitted by vehicles (Table 3). The VOC contribution from point sources and waste facilities is approximately the same (3%).

3.5. Resuspended Dust

Dust loadings (mass per area) estimated through field work according to AP-42 methods [8] in paved roads were very heterogeneous in the city, with a range 0.1–10.6 g/m2. The largest values were observed towards Bogotá’s surroundings given poor road conditions and the presence of unpaved roads and quarrying sites. The silt contents observed in unpaved roads were also diverse (range 3.0–30%) (Figure 4).
Estimates of RPM from paved and unpaved roads (Table 4) were significantly larger than the PM10 emitted from combustion processes (Table 2). This result highlights the magnitude of a fraction of PM10 that has not been considered in previous inventories, and has a potentially large impact in ambient PM10 concentrations.
In 2012, Bogotá had 7305 km of paved roads and 1300 km of unpaved roads. The contribution of unpaved roads to RPM is significantly larger than paved roads when emissions are expressed per km of road (Table 4). In effect, unpaved roads emit approximately five times more PM10 and twice as much PM2.5 than paved roads. This result is consistent with the larger emission factors in unpaved roads (average 194 g/VKT PM10 and 19.4 g/VKT PM2.5) than in paved roads (average 1.68 g/VKT PM10 and 0.56 g/VKT PM2.5). It is apparent that the pavement of roads can have a large effect on reducing RPM in the city.

3.6. Temporal and Spatial Disaggregation of Emissions

PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources are ubiquitous in the modeling domain, with large emission levels and “hot spots” in areas with heavy-duty fleet predominance, such as industrial and commercial zones, food transfer stations, and construction sites (Figure 5a).
Unlike mobile sources, PM10 from industrial sources is more localized towards the south and western parts of the city, where fuels are burned in ovens, heaters, and industrial processes (Figure 5b). PM10 from commercial sources is spread throughout the city, since restaurants and street vendors are present everywhere (Figure 5c).
Spatial plots for CO, NOx, SO2, and VOCs for mobile and stationary sources are available in the Supplementary Information (Figures S2 and S3).
RPM emissions from paved and unpaved roads are distributed in a different way. The emissions from paved roads tend to follow traffic distribution as well as mobile source emissions (Figure 6a), but they are also affected by dust loadings (Figure 4). RPM emissions are particularly large towards the south and western parts of the city (Figure 6a) for several reasons: (i) heavy-duty vehicle transit is dense, because roads in this area of the city exchange freight with the rest of the country; (ii) heavily populated areas are observed; (iii) dust loadings observed in field campaigns are large in these areas; (iv) unpaved roads and roads without proper sidewalks in the area contribute to dust in the streets; and (v) the cleaning and sweeping of roads is practically non-existent. The emissions from unpaved roads are denser towards the city’s surroundings, where most of the roads are still unpaved (Figure 6b).
VOC emissions from gas storage and distribution are particularly large at the industrial zone, where storage tanks are located. The rest of the emissions correspond to gas stations distributed throughout the city (Figure S4a). The VOCs from biogenic sources are large in areas with vegetation cover (Figure S4b). Given that both anthropogenic and biogenic emissions are represented in the same scale, it is apparent how VOCs from gas storage dominate over biogenic VOCs.

3.7. Chemical Speciation

PM2.5 speciation in Bogotá is dominated by carbonaceous material (EC, OC), followed by PM other and secondary material (Figure 7). For mobile sources, EC represents about 70% of the PM2.5 mass, which is mainly associated with diesel engines operating in heavy-duty trucks and buses. Figure S5 in the Supplementary Information displays the PM2.5 chemical composition by vehicular category. In point sources, OC comprises a larger mass fraction (50%) of the inventory (Figure 7).
For point sources, emissions of PM10 are composed mostly of organic carbon (OC), PM other, elemental carbon (EC), sulfate (SO4), and nitrate (NO3) (Figure S6 in the Supplementary Information).

3.8. Evaluation of Modeling Results

The model evaluation for the combined dry–wet periods shows that PM10 concentrations are drastically over predicted. The model evaluation for each simulated period is available elsewhere [34]. Figure 8a shows a quantile–quantile (QQ) plot for 24-h average PM10 concentrations. A QQ plot demonstrates the model bias by pairing the low and high values and plotting them. For perfect model performance, all of the points in a QQ plot would fall along a 1-to-1 line. Figure 8a shows that the modeled values for PM10 are up to three times higher than what is observed. Figure 9a shows the spatial aspect of the modeled and observed average PM10 concentrations, and includes “donuts” at the RMCAB monitor locations, with the observational values as the outer ring and modeled values on the inside. Figure 9a also shows that at RMCAB monitor locations, PM10 concentrations are overpredicted on average. Table 5 shows that the overall MFB and MFE for the model compared to RMCAB observations are just barely within the criteria values for suitability for regulatory applications [49,50]. However, it is clear from the QQ plot and spatial plot that emissions for PM10 are too high. Given that RPM constitutes 90% of PM10 emissions, it is likely that RPM emissions are overestimated using the AP-42 (Chapter 13) methodology. Further research is underway to design and apply an adjustment factor that considers the effects of precipitation, relative humidity, and land use in the reduction of RPM emissions [34,55]. Additionally, the model evaluation of the specific PM10 components is desirable, but currently, no PM10 chemical composition is available for the city.
Criteria values are provided below the evaluation metrics MFB and MFE from Boylan et al. [49] and Simon et al. [50].
Ozone estimation by CMAQ successfully reproduced ambient observations (Figure 8b and Figure 9b); evaluation metrics can be found in Table 5. The QQ plot in Figure 8b shows how the model is relatively unbiased for maximum daily 8-h O3 concentrations, as the points nearly fall perfectly along a 1-to-1 line. The spatial plot in Figure 9b shows that at the RMCAB monitor locations, the model represents the O3 concentrations well. The overall MFB shown in Table 5 meets the goal value (±10%); however, the MFE is just outside of the criteria (30%). Therefore, on the basis of the MFB strength and closeness to the criteria for the MFE, we consider the O3 model performance strong. The ozone in Bogotá has been identified as a VOC-limited regime.
For CO, NOx, and SO2, model values are biased high (Table 5). For CO and NOx, the MFB and MFE meet the criteria value, but for SO2, they do not. The overestimation of these gas-phase species is likely due to using emission factors that do not reflect current fleet and fuel conditions. In effect, the sulfur content in diesel was lowered to 50 ppm in 2008, a situation that is not contemplated in EFs for SO2. At the same time, the passenger fleet has been rapidly renovated in the last few years, and therefore, CO and NOx emissions are expected to decrease. This situation is not considered in the EFs for CO and NOx.

4. Conclusions

The authors have constructed a comprehensive emission inventory for air quality modeling purposes in Bogotá for 2012 that includes more emission sectors and processes than have historically been available. Commercial sources, biogenic sources, and resuspended dust were included in the inventory, in addition to traditional industrial and mobile sources. The newly estimated RPM constitutes 90% of total PM10 emissions, and they are at least onefold larger than PM10 emissions from combustion processes in mobile and stationary sources.
The emissions are chemically speciated and disaggregated in space and time. This EI was used in the implementation of the WRF–CMAQ modeling system. Model results suggest a high bias for PM10, SO2, NOx, and CO ambient concentrations, while O3 values were successfully predicted. The large PM10 values estimated by the model are likely due to RPM emissions being overestimated. This first RPM inventory for the city is prone to high uncertainties.
The areas of the city with the largest emission levels observed are the south and the southwest, where industrial and commercial activities are concentrated, as well as important highways that connect with the rest of the country. In addition, resuspended dust is of great magnitude due to large dust loadings and unpaved roads. The model successfully captures large concentrations of PM10 in these areas.
Traditionally, EIs in Bogotá were only compared among themselves, with a relative consistency in emissions from stationary sources, and some variability in mobile source estimates. This work advances in the evaluation of emission levels using air quality modeling results as an additional quality assurance step.
Future works include the revision of the RPM inventory considering the effect of precipitation, relative humidity, and land use in the resuspension of PM10. Emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO need also to be revised in order to consider recent changes in fuel composition and fleet renovation. PM10 chemical compositions are also necessary to validate modeling results.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/9/2/49/s1.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by Secretaria de Ambiente de Bogotá (SDA) under contract 1467 of 2013 with Universidad de La Salle. The viewpoint of the authors does not necessarily reflect the official thoughts of the SDA. We thank all the institutions and persons who provided information for this project. A special acknowledgment to the students who supported the field work in this project and the anonymous reviewers who significantly contributed with this manuscript with their comments.

Author Contributions

All authors made great contributions to the work. Jorge Pachon and Boris Galvis conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the article. Oscar Lombana and Sandra Meneses performed the resuspended dust emission inventory, Gabriel Carmona and Rafael Chaparro the mobile source emissions, Sandra Fajardo the point source inventory. Barron Henderson led the air quality modeling section and Alexander Rincon and Robert Nedbor-Gross performed the air quality simulations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Romieu, I.; Gouveia, N.; Cifuentes, L.; De Leon, A.; Junger, W.; Vera, J.; Strappa, V.; Hurtado-Díaz, M.; Miranda-Soberanis, V.; Rojas-Bracho, L.; et al. Multicity Study of Air Pollution and Mortality in Latin America (the ESCALA Study); Health Effects Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, M.L.; Cifuentes, L.A.; Davis, D.L.; Cushing, E.; Gusman Telles, A.; Gouveia, N. Environmental health indicators and a case study of air pollution in Latin American cities. Environ. Res. 2011, 111, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP). The Costs of Environmental Degradation in Colombia. Available online: https://www.dnp.gov.co/Paginas/Los-costos-en-la-salud-asociados-a-la-degradación-ambiental-en-Colombia-ascienden-a-$20,7-billones-.aspx (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  4. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA). Informe Anual de Calidad de Aire de Bogotá Para el 2012. Available online: http://oab.ambientebogota.gov.co/es/con-la-comunidad/ES/informe-anual-calidad-del-aire-de-bogota-ano-2012 (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  5. Russell, A.; Dennis, R. NARSTO critical review of photochemical models and modeling. Atmos. Environ. 2000, 34, 2283–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES): User Guide. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), 2010. Available online: https://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nv_sweis/appendixD/EPA%202009.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  7. IVE User Manual. International Sustainable Systems Research Center (ISSRC), 2008. Available online: http://www.issrc.org/ive/downloads/manuals/UsersManual.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  8. AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA). Available online: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  9. European Environment Agency (EEA). EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook-2013; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Actualización del Inventario de Emisiones de Contaminantes Atmosféricos en la Región Metropolitana. Available online: https://www.cepal.org/ilpes/noticias/paginas/3/36023/DICTUC2007-Inventario2010.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  12. Boian, C.; Andrade, M.F. Characterization of ozone transport among metropolitan regions. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 2012, 27, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vivanco, M.G.; Andrade, M.F. Validation of the emission inventory in the Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area of Brazil, based on ambient concentrations ratios of CO, NMOG and NOx and on a photochemical model. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Puliafito, E.; Allende, D.; Panigatti, C. Contaminación Atmosférica e Hídrica en Argentina; Universidad Tecnológica Nacional de Argentina: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; ISBN 978-950-42-0150-2. [Google Scholar]
  15. Area Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá AMVA. Inventario de Emisiones Atmosféricas del Valle de Aburrá, año base 2011. Convenio de Asociación No. 243 de 2012; AMVA: Medellin, Colombia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  16. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA). Plan Decenal de Descontaminación del Aire para Bogotá; SDA: Bogota, Colombia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Crippa, M.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Dentener, F.; Guizzardi, D.; Sindelarova, K.; Muntean, M.; Van Dingenen, R.; Granier, C. Forty years of improvements in European air quality: Regional policy-industry interactions with global impacts. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 3825–3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Alonso, M.F.; Longo, K.M.; Freitas, S.R.; Mello da Fonseca, R.; Marécal, V.; Pirre, M.; Klenner, L.G. An urban emissions inventory for South America and its application in numerical modeling of atmospheric chemical composition at local and regional scales. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 5072–5083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pachon, J.E. Revisión de metodologías usadas para la elaboración de inventarios de emisiones atmosféricas en Colombia: Caso de estudio Bogotá. In Contaminación Atmosférica e Hídrica en Argentina: Contribuciones del la IV Reunión Anual PROIMCA y II Reunión Anual PRODECA; Universidad Tecnológica Nacional de Argentina: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; pp. 367–384. ISBN 978-950-42-0150-2. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fandiño, M.; Behrentz, E. Actualización del Inventario de Emisiones Atmosféricas Provenientes de Fuentes Fijas en Bogotá. Available online: http://oab.ambientebogota.gov.co/es/con-la-comunidad/ES/actualizacion-del-inventario-de-emisiones-atmosfericas-provenientes-de-fuentes-fijas-en-bogota (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  21. Rodríguez, P.; Behrentz, E. Actualización del Inventario de Emisiones de fuentes Móviles Para la Ciudad de Bogotá, a Través de Mediciones Directas; Universidad de Los Andes: Bogota, Colombia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA). Observatorio Ambiental de Bogotá. Available online: oab.ambientebogota.gov.co (accessed on 15 Februaty 2015).
  23. Beltran, D.; Belalcázar, L.C.; Rojas, N. Emisiones vehiculares de material particulado (PM2.5 y PM10) por resuspensión de polvo y abrasion de Bogotá. Rev. Ing. Sanit. y Ambient. 2012, 231, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ballesteros, M.; Contreras, Y. Estimación de Emisiones por Resuspensión de Material Particulado de vehículos En Vías Pavimentadas y no Pavimentadas de Bogotá; Universidad de La Salle: Bogota, Colombia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pant, P.; Harrison, R.M. Estimation of the contribution of road traffic emissions to particulate matter concentrations from field measurements: A review. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 77, 78–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vega, E.; Eidels, S.; Ruiz, H.; López-Veneroni, D.; Sosa, G.; Gonzalez, E.; Gasca, J.; Mora, V.; Reyes, E.; Sánchez-Reyna, G.; et al. Particulate Air Pollution in Mexico City: A Detailed View. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2010, 10, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pachon, J.E.; Russell, A.G.; Sarmiento, H.; Galvis, B. Identification of secondary aerosol formation in Bogota: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the Papers from the 101st A&WMA Annual Conference & Exhibition, Portland, OR, USA, 24–27 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
  28. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA). Elementos Tecnicos del Plan Decenal de Descontaminación del Aire de Bogotá; Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente: Bogota, Colombia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vargas, F.; Rojas, N.Y.; Pachon, J.E.; Russell, A.G. PM10 characterization and source apportionment at two residential areas in Bogota. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2012, 3, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carmona, L.G.; Rincon, A.; Castillo, A.; Galvis, B.; Saenz, H.; Manrique, R.; Pachon, J.E. Conciliación de inventarios top-down y bottom-up de emisiones de fuentes móviles en Bogotá. Tecnura 2016, 20, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fajardo, S.; Zambrano, D.; Pachón, J.E. Estimación de las emisiones atmosféricas provenientes de asaderos, restaurantes, estaciones de servicio y centros de almacenamiento de combustible en Bogotá. In Construyendo Investigación: Semilleros Generadores de Ideas; Ediciones Unisalle: Bogota, Colombia, 2016; pp. 223–239. ISBN 978-958-8939-61-2. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, S. Emisiones de Los Aparatos de Cocina de Los Vendedores Ambulantes (Asadores al Carbón). Available online: https://mafiadoc.com/emisiones-de-los-aparatos-de-cocina-us-environmental-_59feb88d1723dde48456f3e9.html (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA). User’s Guide to Tanks 4.0. 1999. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/tanks/tank4man.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  34. Nedbor-Gross, R.; Henderson, B.; Perez-Peña, M.; Pachon, J.E. Air quality modeling in Bogotá, Colombia using local emissions and natural mitigation factor adjustment for re-suspended particulate matter. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2018, 9, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cárdenas, P. Desarrollo de un Inventario Geo-Referenciado de Emisiones Biogénicas Para el Dominio de Modelación Meso-Escala de Bogotá; Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogota, Colombia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nedbor-Gross, R.; Henderson, B.H.; Davis, J.R.; Pachón, J.E.; Rincón, A.; Guerrero, O.J.; Grajales, F. Comparing Standard to Feature-Based Meteorological Model Evaluation Techniques in Bogotá, Colombia. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2017, 56, 391–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM); Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC); Corporación Autónoma Regional del Río Grande de La Magdalena (CORMAGDALENA). Mapa de Cobertura de la Tierra Cuenca Magdalena-Cauca: Metodología CORINE Land Cover Adaptada Para Colombia a Escala 1:100.000; IDEAM: Bogota, Colombia; IGAC: Bogota, Colombia; CORMAGDALENA: Bogota, Colombia, 2008; ISBN 978-958-8383-19-0. [Google Scholar]
  38. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA); Conservación Internacional (CI). Política Para la Gestión de la Conservación de la Biodiversidad en el Distrito Capital; Panamericana, E., Ed.; Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA); Conservación Internacional (CI): Bogota, Colombia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  39. Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA); Jardín Botánico. Arbolado Urbano de Bogotá: Identificación, Descripción y Bases Para su Manejo; Gomez, S., Ed.; SDA: Bogota, Colombia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA). Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components. Report No. NR-002d. July 2010; US-EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  41. Hetem, G.I.; Andrade, D.M. Characterization of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from the Resuspension of Road and Pavement Dust in the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo, Brazil. Atmosphere 2016, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yarwood, G.; Rao, S.; Yocke, M.; Whitten, G. Updates to the Carbon Bond Chemical Mechanism: CB05. Final Report to the US EPA, RT-0400675. 2005. Available online: http://www.camx.com/files/cb05_final_report_120805.aspx (accessed on 30 October 2017).
  43. Carter, W. Development of an Improved Chemical Speciation Database for Processing Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds for Air Quality Models. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 1171–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Skamarock, W.C.; Klemp, J.B.; Dudhia, J.; Gill, D.O.; Barker, D.M.; Wang, W.; Powers, J.G. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 2; U.S. Department of Defense: Boulder, CO, USA, 2005.
  45. Kumar, A.; Jimenez, R.; Belalcázar, L.C.; Rojas, N.Y. Application of WRF-Chem Model to Simulate PM10 Concentration over Bogota. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2016, 16, 1206–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nolte, C.G.; Appel, K.W.; Kelly, J.T.; Bhave, P.V.; Fahey, K.M.; Collett, J.L., Jr.; Zhang, L.; Young, J.O. Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v5.0 against size-resolved measurements of inorganic particle composition across sites in North America. Geosci. Model Dev. 2015, 8, 2877–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. CMASWIKI CMAQ. Version 5.0 (February 2012 Release) Technical Documentation. Available online: https://www.airqualitymodeling.org/index.php/CMAQ_version_5.0_(February_2012_release)_Technical_Documentation#Aerosol_Chemistry_and_Speciation (accessed on 1 September 2018).
  48. Washington State University. MEGAN Model, Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature; Washington State University: Pullman, WA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Boylan, J.W.; Russell, A.G. PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 4946–4959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Simon, H.; Baker, K.R.; Phillips, S. Compilation and interpretation of photochemical model performance statistics published between 2006 and 2012. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gómez, J.A.; Obando, C. La motorización, el número de viajes y la distribución modal en Bogotá: Dos caminos posibles. Revista de Ingeniería 2014, 40, 6–13. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gonzalez, C.M.; Gomez, C.D.; Rojas, N.Y.; Acevedo, H.; Aristizabal, B.H. Relative impact of on-road vehicular and point-source industrial emissions of air pollutants in a medium-sized Andean city. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 152, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rozante, R.J.; Rozante, V.; Souza Alvim, D.; Ocimar Manzi, A.; Barboza Chiquetto, J.; Siqueira D’Amelio, T.M.; Moreira, S.D. Variations of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in the Megacity of São Paulo from 2000 to 2015 in Different Time Scales. Atmosphere 2017, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Universidad de Cundinamarca (UDEC); Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA). Caracterización de las Emisiones de Compuestos Orgánicos Volátiles de Bogotá, en el Marco del Proyecto 574 “Control de Deterioro en los Componente Aire y Paisaje”; Universidad de Cundinamarca (UDEC): Fusagasugá, Colombia; Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA): Bogota, Colombia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez-Peña, M.P.; Henderson, B.H.; Nedbor-Gross, R.; Pachon, J.E. Natural mitigation factor adjustment for re-suspended particulate matter emissions inventory for Bogota, Colombia. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2017, 8, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Map of districts in Bogotá and location of the sites of the Spanish air quality monitoring network, known as RMCAB (Gym–Guaymaral, Sub-Suba, Usq-Usaquen, LsF-las Ferias, Fon-Fontibon, PSB-Parque Simon Bolivar, ChL-Chico, MAV-Ministerio de Ambiente, PnA-Puente Aranda, Knn-Kennedy, Czc-Cazuca, Crv-Carvajal, Tnl-Tunal, Usm-Usme, Vti-Vitelma).
Figure 1. Map of districts in Bogotá and location of the sites of the Spanish air quality monitoring network, known as RMCAB (Gym–Guaymaral, Sub-Suba, Usq-Usaquen, LsF-las Ferias, Fon-Fontibon, PSB-Parque Simon Bolivar, ChL-Chico, MAV-Ministerio de Ambiente, PnA-Puente Aranda, Knn-Kennedy, Czc-Cazuca, Crv-Carvajal, Tnl-Tunal, Usm-Usme, Vti-Vitelma).
Atmosphere 09 00049 g001
Figure 2. Traffic monitoring stations in Bogotá. Symbols outside the city’s perimeter correspond to tolls. Sites for paved road dust sampling coincide with traffic monitoring sites. Sites for unpaved road dust sampling are distributed throughout the city. BRT is the Transmilenio bus system in Bogotá.
Figure 2. Traffic monitoring stations in Bogotá. Symbols outside the city’s perimeter correspond to tolls. Sites for paved road dust sampling coincide with traffic monitoring sites. Sites for unpaved road dust sampling are distributed throughout the city. BRT is the Transmilenio bus system in Bogotá.
Atmosphere 09 00049 g002
Figure 3. Mobile source emissions by category (top-down approach).
Figure 3. Mobile source emissions by category (top-down approach).
Atmosphere 09 00049 g003
Figure 4. Interpolation of dust loadings in paved roads (Left) and silt contents in unpaved roads (Right).
Figure 4. Interpolation of dust loadings in paved roads (Left) and silt contents in unpaved roads (Right).
Atmosphere 09 00049 g004
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of particulate matter (PM) emissions from (a) mobile, (b) industrial, and (c) commercial sources. Scales are different given the level of emissions. PM in mobile sources represent PM2.5, while industrial and commercial sources include PM10.
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of particulate matter (PM) emissions from (a) mobile, (b) industrial, and (c) commercial sources. Scales are different given the level of emissions. PM in mobile sources represent PM2.5, while industrial and commercial sources include PM10.
Atmosphere 09 00049 g005
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of RPM emissions from (a) paved roads and (b) unpaved roads.
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of RPM emissions from (a) paved roads and (b) unpaved roads.
Atmosphere 09 00049 g006
Figure 7. Comparison of PM modeling speciation by mobile and stationary sources. PM in mobile sources represent PM2.5, while industrial and commercial sources include PM10.
Figure 7. Comparison of PM modeling speciation by mobile and stationary sources. PM in mobile sources represent PM2.5, while industrial and commercial sources include PM10.
Atmosphere 09 00049 g007
Figure 8. Quantile–quantile plots for all of the stations and the combined simulated periods for (a) 24-h average PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) at standard conditions and (b) maximum daily 8-h O3 concentrations (ppb).
Figure 8. Quantile–quantile plots for all of the stations and the combined simulated periods for (a) 24-h average PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) at standard conditions and (b) maximum daily 8-h O3 concentrations (ppb).
Atmosphere 09 00049 g008
Figure 9. Spatial plots of the mean for the combined dry–wet periods of (a) 24-h average PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) and (b) maximum daily 8-h O3 concentrations (ppb). Values at the RMCAB monitor sites are shown as “donuts” with the observational values as the outer ring and the model values on the inside dot.
Figure 9. Spatial plots of the mean for the combined dry–wet periods of (a) 24-h average PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) and (b) maximum daily 8-h O3 concentrations (ppb). Values at the RMCAB monitor sites are shown as “donuts” with the observational values as the outer ring and the model values on the inside dot.
Atmosphere 09 00049 g009
Table 1. Temporal allocation factors and spatial surrogates used for emission disaggregation.
Table 1. Temporal allocation factors and spatial surrogates used for emission disaggregation.
SectorTemporal Disaggregation *Temporal Allocation Factor (TAF)Spatial Allocation Factor (SAF)
HTWNM
Mobile (bottom-up)X XX Traffic counts from 40 stations two days a weekTraffic volumes interpolated using Thiessen polygons
Point (Industrial)XX XWorking schedule (24/7)Geolocation of point source
Point (commercial)XX XWorking schedule (peak and non-peak hours)Geolocation of commercial source
Gas storage (tanks)XX XDaily temperature profile from observationsGeolocation of storage tanks
Gas distributionXX XFuel sales and traffic allocation factorsGeolocation of gas stations
BiogenicXX Daily temperature profile from meteorological modelLand cover maps
Resuspended particle matter (RPM) from roadsX XX Traffic counts from 40 stations and six tollsDust loadings interpolated using inverse distance weighting
* H: hourly, T: typical day, W: weekday, N: weekend, M: monthly.
Table 2. Comparison of emissions for point and mobiles sources (ton/year).
Table 2. Comparison of emissions for point and mobiles sources (ton/year).
PollutantMobileIndustrialCommercialTotal
CO661,4956742276664,445
CO27,379,087862,81032,4158,274,312
PM1015219921152628
NOx51,77716126053,450
SO211,982154017113,693
Table 3. VOCs emissions from different sectors.
Table 3. VOCs emissions from different sectors.
SourceEmission (ton/year)
Mobile71,378
Point (ind + com)2970 (2875 + 94)
Biogenic2518
Gas storage and distribution23,786
Waste facilities &3127
Total103,779
& PTAR: Bogotá’s wastewater treatment plant El Salitre; RSDJ: Bogotá’s solid waste landfill Doña Juana from [54].
Table 4. Resuspended particulate matter (RPM) emissions from paved and unpaved roads.
Table 4. Resuspended particulate matter (RPM) emissions from paved and unpaved roads.
Emission (ton/year)PM10PM2.5PM10 (ton/year/km)PM2.5 (ton/year/km)
Paved roads32,84710,7864.51.5
Unpaved roads32,680326825.12.5
Total65,52714,054
Table 5. Overall mean fractional bias (MFB) and mean fractional error (MFE) for the combined periods for PM10 and O3.
Table 5. Overall mean fractional bias (MFB) and mean fractional error (MFE) for the combined periods for PM10 and O3.
PM10O3CONOxSO2
Overall MFB (%)56.84%10.38%39.06%49.86%96.74%
<60%<20%<60%<60%<60%
Overall MFE (%)68.54%34.67%63.56%54.07%108.15%
<75%<30%<75%<75%<75%

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pachón, J.E.; Galvis, B.; Lombana, O.; Carmona, L.G.; Fajardo, S.; Rincón, A.; Meneses, S.; Chaparro, R.; Nedbor-Gross, R.; Henderson, B. Development and Evaluation of a Comprehensive Atmospheric Emission Inventory for Air Quality Modeling in the Megacity of Bogotá. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9020049

AMA Style

Pachón JE, Galvis B, Lombana O, Carmona LG, Fajardo S, Rincón A, Meneses S, Chaparro R, Nedbor-Gross R, Henderson B. Development and Evaluation of a Comprehensive Atmospheric Emission Inventory for Air Quality Modeling in the Megacity of Bogotá. Atmosphere. 2018; 9(2):49. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9020049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pachón, Jorge E., Boris Galvis, Oscar Lombana, Luis Gabriel Carmona, Sandra Fajardo, Alexander Rincón, Sandra Meneses, Rafael Chaparro, Robert Nedbor-Gross, and Barron Henderson. 2018. "Development and Evaluation of a Comprehensive Atmospheric Emission Inventory for Air Quality Modeling in the Megacity of Bogotá" Atmosphere 9, no. 2: 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9020049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop