Rapid Communication
CSIRO PUBLISHING
J. Williams et al., Environ. Chem. 2005, 2, 94–95. doi:10.1071/EN05022
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/env
Firework Emissions for Satellite Validation? Jonathan Williams,A,D Frank Drewnick,A Silke S. Hings,A Joachim Curtius,B Gunter Eerdekens,A Thomas Klüpfel,A and Thomas WagnerC A
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, 55020 Mainz, Germany. for Physics of the Atmosphere, University of Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany. C Institute for Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. D Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected] B Institute
Environmental Context. Satellite-based instruments for monitoring the Earth’s atmosphere observe the distribution of many gases and particles of interest. Many common sources of atmospheric gases and particles, such as fires, are geographically widespread and occur over a moderately long period. In contrast, fireworks pollute only a local area and for a brief period, and thus act as an ideal test of satellite instruments.
Keywords.
analysis & instrumentation — atmospheric chemistry — gases — particles
Manuscript received: 8 April 2005. Final version: 26 April 2005. Many communities mark special events with fireworks. In Europe and North America firework use is particularly prolific on New Year’s Eve (31st December). In China, where gunpowder was first developed, fireworks play an important role in the New Year festivities, which occurred in 2005 on 9th February. In India the festival of Divali ‘Festival of Lights’ (7th November) involves the nationwide use of fireworks to celebrate the victory of ‘good’ over ‘evil’. In addition to these major events, fireworks are used on smaller scales to celebrate anniversaries of national importance, weddings, and sporting events. The timing and underlying reason for such celebrations varies but in all cases the use of fireworks results in emission of gases and aerosols to the air.[1–3] The lingering sulfurous smell is familiar to everyone. Between 28th December 2004 and 4th January 2005, aerosols and a selection of trace gases were measured in Mainz, a small city (population 120000) in western Germany. In the centre of the city, a Roman bridge crossing the Rhine is a natural focal point for New Year’s celebrations and towards midnight people gather to set off fireworks at the riverside. The gases and aerosols produced by fireworks were monitored using mass spectrometry techniques and a condensation nucleus counter (CNC). A proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) was used to quantify trace gases such as methanol, acetone, benzene, and toluene,[4] and chemically resolved aerosol mass concentrations and size distributions were determined using an Aerodyne time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer (TOF-AMS).[5] The instruments were secreted in a maintenance section of the bridge for this experiment. Traces of methanol and acetone are shown in Fig. 1 together with traces of mass concentrations of various © CSIRO 2005
non-refractory aerosol components and with the total aerosol number concentrations. At precisely midnight the concentrations of methanol and acetone as well as the aerosol components (with the exception of nitrate) and the aerosol number concentration increased suddenly and dramatically, by more than a factor of ten. The elevated concentrations of trace gases, aerosol components, and aerosol number persists for several hours before being advected away by light winds. Taking methanol as an example, we may estimate the net firework input of this species to the atmosphere. Assuming an area of 4 km2 is affected to a height of 1 km, and that ambient mixing ratios increased on average by 2 ppbv (nmol/mol), we estimate that ∼11 kg of methanol was released in Mainz. By assuming a relationship between population and emission we can extrapolate a total emission from Germany (population 82.5 million) of about 7 Mg methanol. Making the bold assumption that the Mainz emissions are globally representative, we can roughly estimate based on a global population of 6.3 billion an annual firework emission of 0.6 Gg methanol. This is miniscule in comparison with the estimated global biogenic input of ∼100 Tg.[6] For some aerosol components (e.g. phosphorus), such emissions may be a more significant fraction of the global budget, however for the gas-phase species sampled here the contribution from fireworks can be neglected in annual emission budgets. Despite not been significantly large in the annual average, the emissions from fireworks may be of use for future validation experiments of satellite measurements. From the results above it can be seen that large concentrations of many species are injected into the atmosphere within a well defined timeframe. Furthermore, the emission strength will be related to population density so both the temporal and spatial extent of 94
1448-2517/05/020094
12
Methanol Acetone
10
10 8
8 6
6 4
4
2
2
0 120
Particulate phase
Sulfate Organics Nitrate Particle conc.
100 80
0 500⫻103 400 300
60 200 40 100
20 0
Particle concentration/cm⫺3
Mass concentration/µg m⫺3
Gas phase
Acetone (m/z 59)/nmol mol⫺1
Methanol (m/z 33)/nmol mol⫺1
Firework Emissions for Satellite Validation?
0 6:00 PM 31 December 2004
12:00 AM
6:00 AM 1 January 2005
12:00 PM
Date and time
Fig. 1.
Gas (methanol, acetone) and particulate (sulfate, nitrate, organics) measured from firework emissions.
resolution.[7] If, in the future we can validate satellite instrumentation for firework emissions we will have reached a stage where satellite measurements can be linked directly to societal behaviour on small spatial and temporal scales. To achieve an understanding of such links will be an important step in the future global monitoring of anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere.
the emission is well constrained. This is in contrast to biomass burning emissions that are highly variable in time, space, and species. Possible target species for validation experiments that can be measured by present satellites include NO2 , CO, SO2 , and HCHO. A further advantage for satellite validation experiments by fireworks is that ground-based measurement networks are already in place for many candidate species. Species such as CO and NO2 are often routinely measured in cities∗ and can be detected from space. The vertical distribution could be examined by a small aircraft pursuing the polluted ‘patch’. Therefore this well-orchestrated intense emission of short duration from the ground would seem to be an ideal test for satellite systems. Several potential limitations exist. Firstly the spatial extent of firework plumes might be too small to fill a complete ground pixel (30 × 60 km2 for SCIAMACHY, 13 × 24 km2 for OMI), and secondly the smoke will shield at least part of the trace gas absorptions. On the other hand, multiple scattering due to high aerosol concentrations can also increase the satellite’s sensitivity. Indications of the effects of fireworks on satellite observations should therefore be first sought in the densely populated and affluent regions such as south-east China during the New Year’s celebrations. Even if the identification of such emissions is not possible with current satellite measurement systems it can represent a challenge to the satellite community for the future. Such links may be in particular possible from geostationary satellites located over continents. Although located much further from the Earth’s surface, compared to present Earth-orbiting satellites these systems will have much higher spatial and temporal ∗
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr Xiaobin Xu and Vinayak Sinha for cultural information regarding China and India. The Rheinland-Pfaiz water quality authority in Mainz are thanked for the cooperation in housing the experiment. Peter DeCarlo and José-Luis Jimenez are gratefully acknowledged for the new data aquisition software used for the aerosol mass spectrometer. S.S.H. was funded by an IMPRS studentship. References [1] A. K. Attri, U. Kumar, V. K. Jain, Nature 2001, 411, 1015. doi:10.1038/35082634 [2] K. Ravindra, S. Mor, C. P. Kaushik, J. Environ. Monit. 2003, 5, 260. doi:10.1039/B211943A [3] P. M. Lemieux, C. C. Lutes, D. A. Santoianni, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2004, 30, 1. doi:10.1016/J.PECS.2003.08.001 [4] W. Lindinger, A. Hansel, A. Jordan, Chem. Soc. Rev. 1998, 27, 347. [5] F. Drewnick, S. S. Hings, P. F. DeCarlo, J. T. Jayne, M. Gonin, K. Fuhrer, S. Weimer, J. L. Jimenez, K. L. Demerjian, S. Borrmann, D. R. Worsnop, Aerosol Sci. Technol., submitted. [6] I. E. Galbally, W. Kirstine, J. Atmos. Chem. 2002, 43, 195. doi:10.1023/A:1020684815474 [7] H. Bovensmann, S. Noël, P. Monks, A. P. H. Goede, J. P. Burrows, Adv. Space Res. 2002, 1849. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(02)00104-7
For example, www.luft-rlp.de/aktuell/messwerte
95
