Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station
<p>In this study we apply and compare two algorithms for the automated aerosol-type characterization of the aerosol layers derived from Raman lidar measurements over the EARLINET station of Thessaloniki, Greece. Both automated aerosol-type characterization methods base their typing on lidar-de...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2019-08-01
|
| Series: | Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics |
| Online Access: | https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/10961/2019/acp-19-10961-2019.pdf |
| _version_ | 1819102345838985216 |
|---|---|
| author | K. A. Voudouri N. Siomos K. Michailidis N. Papagiannopoulos N. Papagiannopoulos L. Mona C. Cornacchia D. Nicolae D. Balis |
| author_facet | K. A. Voudouri N. Siomos K. Michailidis N. Papagiannopoulos N. Papagiannopoulos L. Mona C. Cornacchia D. Nicolae D. Balis |
| author_sort | K. A. Voudouri |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>In this study we apply and compare two algorithms for the automated aerosol-type characterization
of the aerosol layers derived from Raman lidar measurements
over the EARLINET station of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Both automated aerosol-type characterization methods
base their typing on lidar-derived aerosol-intensive properties. The methodologies are briefly described and their application to three distinct cases is demonstrated and evaluated.
Then the two classification schemes were applied in the automatic mode to a more extensive dataset.
The dataset analyzed corresponds to ACTRIS/EARLINET (European Aerosol Research Lidar NETwork)
Thessaloniki data acquired during the period
2012–2015. Seventy-one layers out of 110 (percentage of 65 %) were typed by both techniques, and 56 of these 71 layers (percentage of 79 %) were attributed to the same aerosol type. However, as shown, the identification rate of both typing algorithms can be changed regarding the selection of appropriate threshold criteria. Four major types of aerosols are considered in this study:
Dust, Maritime, PollutedSmoke and CleanContinental.
The analysis showed
that the two algorithms, when applied to real atmospheric conditions, provide
typing results that are in good agreement regarding the automatic
characterization of PollutedSmoke, while there are some differences between
the two methods regarding the characterization of Dust and CleanContinental.
These disagreements are mainly attributed to differences in the definitions
of the aerosol types between the two
methods, regarding the intensive properties used and their range.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T01:33:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8836e1bf89c14f798aba0c769e8d6d34 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1680-7316 1680-7324 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T01:33:06Z |
| publishDate | 2019-08-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics |
| spelling | doaj.art-8836e1bf89c14f798aba0c769e8d6d342022-12-21T18:43:27ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics1680-73161680-73242019-08-0119109611098010.5194/acp-19-10961-2019Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET stationK. A. Voudouri0N. Siomos1K. Michailidis2N. Papagiannopoulos3N. Papagiannopoulos4L. Mona5C. Cornacchia6D. Nicolae7D. Balis8Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Physics Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GreeceLaboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Physics Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GreeceLaboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Physics Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GreeceConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Tito Scalo (PZ), ItalyCommSensLab, Dept. of Signal Theory and Communications, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, SpainConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Tito Scalo (PZ), ItalyConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Tito Scalo (PZ), ItalyNational Institute of R&D for Optoelectronics (INOE2000), Magurele, RomaniaLaboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Physics Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece<p>In this study we apply and compare two algorithms for the automated aerosol-type characterization of the aerosol layers derived from Raman lidar measurements over the EARLINET station of Thessaloniki, Greece. Both automated aerosol-type characterization methods base their typing on lidar-derived aerosol-intensive properties. The methodologies are briefly described and their application to three distinct cases is demonstrated and evaluated. Then the two classification schemes were applied in the automatic mode to a more extensive dataset. The dataset analyzed corresponds to ACTRIS/EARLINET (European Aerosol Research Lidar NETwork) Thessaloniki data acquired during the period 2012–2015. Seventy-one layers out of 110 (percentage of 65 %) were typed by both techniques, and 56 of these 71 layers (percentage of 79 %) were attributed to the same aerosol type. However, as shown, the identification rate of both typing algorithms can be changed regarding the selection of appropriate threshold criteria. Four major types of aerosols are considered in this study: Dust, Maritime, PollutedSmoke and CleanContinental. The analysis showed that the two algorithms, when applied to real atmospheric conditions, provide typing results that are in good agreement regarding the automatic characterization of PollutedSmoke, while there are some differences between the two methods regarding the characterization of Dust and CleanContinental. These disagreements are mainly attributed to differences in the definitions of the aerosol types between the two methods, regarding the intensive properties used and their range.</p>https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/10961/2019/acp-19-10961-2019.pdf |
| spellingShingle | K. A. Voudouri N. Siomos K. Michailidis N. Papagiannopoulos N. Papagiannopoulos L. Mona C. Cornacchia D. Nicolae D. Balis Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics |
| title | Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station |
| title_full | Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station |
| title_short | Comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an EARLINET station |
| title_sort | comparison of two automated aerosol typing methods and their application to an earlinet station |
| url | https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/10961/2019/acp-19-10961-2019.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kavoudouri comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT nsiomos comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT kmichailidis comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT npapagiannopoulos comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT npapagiannopoulos comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT lmona comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT ccornacchia comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT dnicolae comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation AT dbalis comparisonoftwoautomatedaerosoltypingmethodsandtheirapplicationtoanearlinetstation |