地基与星载仪器观测大气臭氧总量分析

张金强; 王振会; 陈洪滨; 施红蓉

doi:10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2016.15263

地基与星载仪器观测大气臭氧总量分析

doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2016.15263

张金强^{1, 2, 3,},
王振会³,
陈洪滨^{1, 3},
施红蓉¹

1.
中国科学院大气物理研究所中层大气与全球环境探测重点实验室, 北京 100029
2.
中国科学院大气物理研究所公共技术服务中心, 北京 100029
3.
南京信息工程大学气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 41275039

国家自然科学基金项目 61327810

国家自然科学基金项目 91337214

详细信息

作者简介:
张金强, 男, 1981年出生, 博士, 副研究员, 主要从事大气环境探测研究。E-mail:zjq@mail.iap.ac.cn

中图分类号: P41
计量
- 文章访问数: 1189
- HTML全文浏览量: 24
- PDF下载量: 1588
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2015-11-24
- 网络出版日期: 2016-11-04
- 刊出日期: 2017-03-20

Total Ozone Column Derived from the Ground-Based and Space-Borne Instruments

1.
Key Laboratory of Middle Atmosphere and Global Environment Observation, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029
2.
Center of Technical Support and Service, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029
3.
Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044

Funds:

National Natural Science Foundation of China 41275039

National Natural Science Foundation of China 61327810

National Natural Science Foundation of China 91337214

摘要

摘要: 本文选取多个臭氧总量观测站点，采用“三重制约法”分别对下列3组仪器观测臭氧总量数据进行统计分析，解算出不同观测资料的误差标准差，进而对比研究各种仪器的精度特征：1）1996~2003年期间地基WOUDC（World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre）观测网络仪器（包括Brewer、Dobson和Filter臭氧测量仪）与星载TOMS（Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer）和GOME（The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment）仪器；2）2004~2013年期间WOUDC与星载OMI（ozone monitoring instrument）和SCIAMACHY（scanning imaging absorption spectrometer for atmospheric chartography）仪器；3）2004~2013年期间地基SAOZ（Système D’Analyse par Observations Zénithales）与星载OMI和SCIAMACHY仪器。结果表明，1996~2003年期间TOMS V8和GOME观测精度相当，分别为7.6±2.8 DU/46（其中，7.6±2.8 DU为所分析站点观测资料的平均精度及其标准差，46为站点数目）和7.6±1.5 DU/46。TOMS V8观测精度优于TOMS V7（8.5±3.0 DU/46），验证了前者对后者有所改进。2004~2013年期间OMI和SCIAMACHY在WOUDC地基站点观测精度接近，分别为6.6±1.4 DU/21和6.0±1.6 DU/21。SAOZ地基仪器精度为8.4±3.6 DU/8。对于3类WOUDC地基仪器，Brewer站点观测资料的平均精度最优（7.9±3.3 DU/12），Dobson次之（8.7±2.3 DU/19），Filter最差（14.7±4.0 DU/15）。相比于卫星，3种地面仪器观测平均精度较差（10.5±4.3 DU/46），这主要是由于Filter精度较差引起。中国境内的瓦里关（Brewer）、香河（Dobson）和昆明（Dobson）3个地基站点仪器观测精度均较优，分别为7.8 DU、6.7 DU和6.6 DU。尽管不同站点之间存在一定差异，但整体来说，地基与卫星仪器在中国境内3个站点观测臭氧总量吻合较好。
- 臭氧总量 /
- 地基 /
- 卫星 /
- 精度 /
- 三重制约法
Abstract: The collocated total ozone columns derived from three groups of instruments were analyzed at multiple surface stations in this study. The three groups of instruments are:1) Ground-based WOUDC (World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre) network instruments (including Brewer, Dobson, and Filter), space-borne TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrophotometer) and GOME (The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) between 1996 and 2003; 2) WOUDC instrument, space-borne OMI (ozone monitoring instrument) and SCIAMACHY (scanning imaging absorption spectrometer for atmospheric chartography) from 2004 to 2013; 3) ground-based SAOZ (Système D'Analyse par Observations Zénithales), space-borne OMI and SCIAMACHY during 2004-2013. The triple control method was adopted to calculate standard deviations of errors of different kinds of datasets and a comparison of their precisions was conducted. Results show that the precisions of TOMS V8 and GOME, which were 7.6±2.8 DU/46 (7.6±2.8 DU denoted the mean precision and its standard deviation of the ground sites analyzed; 46 represented the number of the sites) and 7.6±1.5 DU/46, respectively, agreed well during 1996-2003. The precision of TOMS V8 was better than that of TOMS V7 (8.5±3.0 DU/46) and the improvement was confirmed in this study. The precisions of OMI and SCIAMACHY, which were 6.6±1.4 DU/21 and 6.0±1.6 DU/21, respectively over WOUDC sites during 2004-2013, were close to each other. The precision of SAOZ was 8.4±3.6 DU/8. In terms of the WOUDC ground-based instruments, the average precision of Brewer was the best (7.9±3.3 DU/12), followed by that of Dobson (8.7±2.3 DU/19), and the worst was that of Filter (14.7±4.0 DU/15). The mean precision of the above three kinds of ground-based measurements (10.5±4.3 DU/46) was worse than that from the space-born instruments due to the application of the Filter-type instrument. With regard to only the ground-based instruments in China, their precisions were excellent at Waliguan (Brewer), Xianghe (Dobson), and Kunming (Dobson) sites, which were 7.8 DU, 6.7 DU, and 6.6 DU, respectively. Although there existed certain differences at Waliguan, Xianghe, and Kunming sites, the total ozone column obtained by the ground-based and space-borne instruments generally agreed well over these three sites.
- Total ozone column /
- Surface /
- Satellite /
- Precision /
- Triple control method

HTML全文

图 1 地基WOUDC观测网络的Brewer（红点）、Dobson（蓝点）和Filter（绿点）仪器的地面站点分布

Figure 1. The geographical distributions of the Brewer (red dots), Dobson (blue dots), and Filter (green dots) instruments in the ground-based WOUDC network

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 观测资料的（a）精度、（b）准度和（c）精准度示意图

Figure 2. The diagrammatic sketch of the (a) precision, (b) accuracy, and (c) their combination of the observational data

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 （a）WOUDC、TOMS和GOME仪器在46个地面站点匹配数据的样本组数及地基（b）Brewer、（c）Dobson和（d）Filter观测资料的精度（单位：DU）分布

Figure 3. (a) The sample number of the collocated total ozone column derived from the WOUDC instruments, TOMS, and GOME at 46 stations and the precisions (units: DU) of the data collected by the ground-based (b) Brewer, (c) Dobson, and (d) Filter

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 （a）TOMS V8和（b）GOME观测资料的精度（单位：DU）分布

Figure 4. The precisions (units: DU) of the measurements from (a) TOMS V8 and (b) GOME

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 （a）地基WOUDC、OMI和SCIAMACHY在21个站点匹配数据的样本组数；地基（b）WOUDC、（c）OMI和（d）SCIAMACHY的精度（单位：DU）分布

Figure 5. (a) The sample number of the collocated total ozone column derived from the ground-based WOUDC, OMI, and SCIAMACHY at 21 stations and the precisions (units: DU) of the data collected by the ground-based (b) WOUDC, (c) OMI, and (d) SCIAMACHY

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 （a）SAOZ站点观测资料匹配样本组数及其（b）精度（单位：DU）分布

Figure 6. (a) The sample number of the collocated total ozone column at SAOZ sites and (b) the distribution of the SAOZ precisions (units: DU)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 地基（黑线）与星载TOMS（蓝线）和GOME（红线）在中国境内的（a）瓦里关（Brewer）、（b）香河（Dobson）和（c）昆明（Dobson）站点观测臭氧总量的年际变化及其标准差。圆点的色标为各个年份内3种仪器匹配的观测样本组数

Figure 7. Annual variations and their standard errors of the total ozone column derived from the ground-based instrument (black line), TOMS (blue line), and GOME (red line) at (a) Waliguan (Brewer), (b) Xianghe (Dobson), and (c) Kunming (Dobson) sites in China. The color of the dots denotes the sample number of the collocated total ozone column obtained from the three kinds of instruments in a certain year

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 同图 7，但为地基（黑线）与星载OMI（蓝线）和SCIAMACHY（红线）观测臭氧总量值

Figure 8. Similar to Fig. 7, but for the total ozone column derived from the ground-based instrument (black line), OMI (blue line), and SCIAMACHY (red line)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 WOUDC 46个地基观测站的站号、站名、地理位置、海拔高度和观测仪器

Table 1. The station number, name, geographical position, height above the sea level and the instrument type of the 46 WOUDC ground-based stations

站号	站名	地理位置	海拔/m	仪器
7	日本Kagoshima	（31.63°N, 130.60°E）	31	Dobson
12*	日本Sapporo	（43.05°N, 141.33°E）	19	Dobson
14*	日本Tateno	（36.05°N, 140.13°E）	31	Dobson
16	俄罗斯Vladivostok	（43.12°N, 131.90°E）	80	Filter
19*	美国Bismarck	（46.77°N, 00.75°W）	511	Dobson
35*	瑞士Arosa	（46.77°N, 9.67°E）	1840	Brewer
36	英国Camborne	（50.22°N, 5.32°W）	88	Brewer
40	法国Haute Provence	（43.94°N, 5.71°E）	684	Dobson
42	俄罗斯St. Petersburg	（59.97°N, 30.30°E）	74	Filter
43*	英国Lerwick	（60.13°N, 1.18°W）	80	Dobson
50	德国Potsdam	（52.37°N, 13.08°E）	89	Brewer
53*	比利时Uccle/Brussels	（50.80°N, 4.35°E）	100	Dobson
65	加拿大Toronto	（43.78°N, 79.47°W）	198	Brewer
67*	美国Boulder	（40.02°N, 05.25°W）	1390	Dobson
68	波兰Belsk	（51.84°N, 20.79°E）	180	Dobson
85	俄罗斯Irkutsk	（52.27°N, 04.35°E）	467	Filter
96*	捷克Hradec Kralove	（50.18°N, 15.83°E）	285	Dobson
99*	德国Hohenpeissenberg	（47.80°N, 11.02°E）	975	Brewer
100*	匈牙利Budapest/K-Puszta	（47.43°N, 19.18°E）	139	Dobson
106*	美国Nashville	（36.25°N, 86.57°W）	182	Dobson
107*	美国Wallops Island	（37.93°N, 75.48°W）	13	Dobson
112	俄罗斯Bolshaya Elan	（46.92°N, 142.73°E）	22	Filter
116	俄罗斯Moscow	（55.75°N, 37.57°E）	187	Filter
118	俄罗斯Nagaevo	（59.58°N, 150.78°E）	118	Filter
120	俄罗斯Omsk	（54.93°N, 73.40°E）	119	Filter
121	拉托维亚Riga	（57.32°N, 24.42°E）	7	Filter
122	俄罗斯Sverdlovsk	（56.80°N, 60.63°E）	290	Filter
130	俄罗斯Petropavlosk-Kamchatsky	（52.97°N, 158.75°E）	78	Filter
143	俄罗斯Krasnoyarsk	（56.00°N, 92.88°E）	137	Filter
148	俄罗斯Vitim	（59.45°N, 112.58°E）	186	Filter
152*	埃及Cairo	（30.08°N, 31.28°E）	37	Dobson
153	俄罗斯Voronez	（51.70°N, 39.17°E）	147	Filter
174*	德国Lindenberg	（52.22°N, 14.12°E）	112	Brewer
183	哈萨克斯坦Gurev	（47.02°N, 51.85°E）	0	Filter
208*	中国Xianghe	（39.77°N, 117.00°E）	80	Dobson
209*	中国Kunming	（25.02°N, 102.68°E）	1917	Dobson
226	罗马尼亚Bucharest	（44.48°N, 26.13°E）	100	Dobson
241	加拿大Saskatoon	（52.11°N, 06.71°W）	550	Brewer
252*	韩国Seoul	（37.57°N, 126.95°E）	84	Dobson
274	俄罗斯Nikolaevskna-Amure	（53.15°N, 140.70°E）	46	Filter
279*	瑞典Norrkoping	（58.61°N, 16.12°E）	43	Brewer
287	葡萄牙Funchal	（32.60°N, 16.90°W）	49	Brewer
290	加拿大Saturna岛	（48.78°N, 23.13°W）	178	Brewer
293*	希腊Athens	（37.99°N, 23.77°E）	110	Dobson
295*	中国瓦里关	（36.17°N, 100.53°E）	3816	Brewer
301*	意大利Ispra	（45.80°N, 8.63°E）	240	Brewer
注：*表示该站点与星载OMI和SCIAMACHY进行匹配分析。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 3类WOUDC地基仪器的站点数目、仪器精度最优值、最差值和平均值及其标准差

Table 2. The number of the three kinds of ground-based WOUDC instruments and their best, worst, and average precisions with the standard deviations

	站点数目	精度/DU
	站点数目	最优值	最差值	平均值±标准差
Brewer	12	4.1	15.7	7.9±3.3
Dobson	19	5.6	14.5	8.7±2.3
Filter	15	9.7	23.6	14.7±4.0

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 WOUDC、TOMS V8和GOME仪器精度最优值、最差值和平均值及其标准差

Table 3. The best, worst, and average precisions with the standard deviations of the WOUDC instruments, TOMS V8, and GOME

	精度/DU
	最优值	最差值	平均值±标准差
WOUDC	4.1	23.6	10.5±4.3
TOMS V8	3.8	22.5	7.6±2.8
GOME	4.1	10.9	7.6±1.5

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 WOUDC、TOMS V7和GOME仪器精度最优值、最差值和平均值及其标准差

Table 4. The best, worst, and average precisions with the standard deviations of the WOUDC instruments, TOMS V7, and GOME

	精度/DU
	最优值	最差值	平均值±标准差
WOUDC	4.1	22.4	10.4±4.2
TOMS V7	4.6	22.8	8.5±3.0
GOME	3.8	11.6	7.6±1.7

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 WOUDC、OMI和SCIAMACHY仪器精度最优值、最差值和平均值及其标准差

Table 5. The best, worst, and average precisions with the standard deviations of the WOUDC instruments, OMI, and SCIAMACHY

	精度/DU
	最优值	最差值	平均值±标准差
WOUDC	4.3	14.9	7.8±2.8
OMI	4.6	9.8	6.6±1.4
SCIAMACHY	3.6	10.0	6.0±1.6

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(32)

[1]	卞建春, 陈洪滨, 张中波, 等. 2005. 2002~2003年北半球中纬地区臭氧总量TOMS与地面观测的非常差异[J].科学通报, 50 (5):495-497. doi: 10.1007/BF02897488 Bian Jianchun, Chen Hongbin, Zhang Zhongbo, et al. 2005. Unusual discrepancy between TOMS and ground-based measurements of the total ozone in 2002-2003[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 50 (6):606-608, doi: 10.1007/BF02897488.
[2]	Bojkov R D, Mateer C L, Hansson A L. 1988. Comparison of ground-based and total ozone mapping spectrometer measurements used in assessing the performance of the global ozone observing system[J]. J. Geophys. Res., 93 (D8):9525-9533, doi: 10.1029/JD093iD08p09525.
[3]	Bovensmann H, Burrows J P, Buchwitz M, et al. 1999. SCIAMACHY:Mission objectives and measurement modes[J]. J. Atmos. Sci., 56 (2):127-150, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<0127:SMOAMM>2.0.CO;2.
[4]	Burrows J P, Weber M, Buchwitz M, et al. 1999. The global ozone monitoring experiment (GOME):Mission concept and first scientific results[J]. J. Atmos. Sci., 56 (2):151-175, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1999) 056<0151:TGOMEG>2.0.CO;2.
[5]	Chubachi S. 1984. Preliminary result of ozone observations at Syowa station from February 1982 to January 1983[J]. Memoirs of National Institute of Polar Research, 34:13-19. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000009917/
[6]	戴铁丕, 魏文遂, 王振会, 等. 1989.用"三重制约法"研究三类测风仪的误差[J].气象, 15 (4):45-47. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.1989.04.010 Dai Tiepi, Wei Wensui, Wang Zhenhui, et al. 1989. The errors of three kinds of anemoscopes derived from the triple control method[J]. Meteorology (in Chinese), 15 (4):45-47, doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.1989.04.010.
[7]	Eskes H J, van der A R J, Brinksma E J, et al. 2005. Retrieval and validation of ozone columns derived from measurements of SCIAMACHY on Envisat[J]. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5 (4):4429-4475, doi: 10.5194/acpd-5-4429-2005.
[8]	Farman J C, Gardiner B G, Shanklin J D. 1985. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal CIOx/NOx interaction[J]. Nature, 315 (6016):207-210, doi: 10.1038/315207a0.
[9]	Fioletov V E, Kerr J B, Hare E W, et al. 1999. An assessment of the world ground-based total ozone network performance from the comparison with satellite data[J]. J. Geophys. Res., 104 (D1):1737-1747, doi: 10.1029/1998JD100046.
[10]	河惠卿, 王振会, 金正润, 等. 2009.三种云导风资料及其对台风数值预报影响试验的比较分析[J].热带气象学报, 25 (1):82-88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4965.2009.01.010 Ha H K, Wang Zhenhui, Kim J Y, et al. 2009. Comparison of three cloud motion wind vectors and impact on typhoon track numerical forecast[J]. Journal of Tropical Meteorology (in Chinese), 25 (1):82-88, doi:10.3969/j.issn. 1004-4965.2009.01.010.
[11]	Kley D, Crutzen P J, Smit H G J, et al. 1996. Observations of near-zero ozone concentrations over the convective Pacific:Effects on air chemistry[J]. Science, 274 (5285):230-233, doi: 10.1126/science.274.5285.230.
[12]	孔琴心, 刘广仁, 王庚辰. 1996. 1993年春季南极中山站上空大气臭氧的观测分析[J].大气科学, 20 (4):395-400. doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.1996.04.02 Kong Qinxin, Liu Guangren, Wang Gengchen. 1996. Observations and analyses of atmospheric ozone over Antarctic Zhongshan station in the spring of 1993[J]. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (in Chinese), 20 (4):395-400, doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.1996.04.02.
[13]	Labow G J, McPeters R D, Bhartia P K. 2003. A comparison of TOMS Version 8 total column ozone data with data from groundstations[C]//American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2003, abstract #A21D-0994. Washington, DC:AGU.
[14]	Levelt P F, Hilsenrath E, Leppelmeier G W, et al. 2006. Science objectives of the ozone monitoring instrument[J]. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 44 (5):1199-1208, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2006.872336.
[15]	Liu X, Newchurch M J, Kim J H. 2003. Occurrence of ozone anomalies over cloudy areas in TOMS version-7 level-2 data[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 3 (4):1113-1129, doi: 10.5194/acp-3-1113-2003.
[16]	陆龙骅, 卞林根, 贾朋群. 1997.南极臭氧的短期气候变化特征[J].应用气象学报, 8 (4):402-412. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYQX704.002.htm Lu Longhua, Bian Lingen, Jia Pengqun. 1997. Short-term climatic change of Antarctic ozone[J]. Quarterly Journal of Applied Meteorology (in Chinese), 8 (4):402-412. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYQX704.002.htm
[17]	McPeters R D, Labow G J. 1996. An assessment of the accuracy of 14.5 years of Nimbus 7 TOMS Version 7 ozone data by comparison with the Dobson network[J]. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23 (25):3695-3698, doi: 10.1029/96GL03539.
[18]	Newchurch M J, Liu X, Kim J H, et al. 2001. On the accuracy of total ozone mapping spectrometer retrievals over tropical cloudy regions[J]. J. Geophys. Res., 106 (D23):32325-32326, doi: 10.1029/2000JD000151.
[19]	潘闻天, 朱玉华, 戴铁丕, 等. 1997.气象仪器测量误差比较的n重制约法[J].南京气象学院学报, 20 (2):248-250. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NJQX702.017.htm Pan Wentian, Zhu Yuhua, Dai Tiepi, et al. 1997. n fold restricting method for examining function and mesurement errors of meteorological instruments[J]. Journal of Nanjing Institute of Meteorology (in Chinese), 20 (2):248-250. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NJQX702.017.htm
[20]	Pommereau J P, Goutail F. 1988. O<sub>3</sub>and NO<sub>2</sub>ground-based measurements by visible spectrometry during arctic winter and spring 1988[J]. Geophys. Res. Lett., 15 (8):891-894, doi: 10.1029/GL015i008p00891.
[21]	Stolarski R S, Krueger A J, Schoeberl M R, et al. 1986. Nimbus 7 satellite measurements of the springtime Antarctic ozone decrease[J]. Nature, 322 (6082):808-811, doi: 10.1038/322808a0.
[22]	Vanicek K. 2006. Differences between ground Dobson, Brewer and satellite TOMS-8, GOME-WFDOAS total ozone observations at Hradec Kralove, Czech[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 6 (12):5163-5171, doi: 10.5194/acp-6-5163-2006.
[23]	Veefkind J P, de Haan J F, Brinksma E J, et al. 2006. Total ozone from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) using the DOAS technique[J]. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 44 (5):1239-1244, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2006.871204.
[24]	Von Der Gathen P, Rex M, Harris N R P, et al. 1995. Observational evidence for chemical ozone depletion over the Arctic in winter 1991-92[J]. Nature, 375 (6527):131-134, doi: 10.1038/375131a0.
[25]	王庚辰, 孔琴心, 宣越健, 等. 2003.中国大气臭氧探空仪的研制和应用[J].地球科学进展, 18 (3):471-475. doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2003.03.0471 Wang Gengchen, Kong Qinxin, Xuan Yuejian, et al. 2003. Development and application of ozonesonde system in China[J]. Advance in Earth Sciences (in Chinese), 18 (3):471-475, doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2003.03.0471.
[26]	Zhang J Q, Xuan Y J, Yan X L, et al. 2014a. Development and preliminary evaluation of a double-cell ozonesonde[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 31 (4):938-947, doi: 10.1007/s00376-013-3104-1.
[27]	Zhang J Q, Xuan Y J, Xia X A, et al. 2014b. Performance evaluation of a self-developed ozonesonde and its application in an intensive observational campaign[J]. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 7 (3):175-179.
[28]	张中波, 卞建春, 陈洪滨, 等. 2006.根据Brewer和TOMS资料分析、验证瓦里关地区大气臭氧总量变化特征[J].气候与环境研究, 11 (4):451-456. doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2006.04.02 Zhang Zhongbo, Bian Jianchun, Chen Hongbin, et al. 2006. Analyze and verify variation features of total atmospheric ozone in Mountain Waliguan based on comparison between Brewer and TOMS data[J]. Climatic and Environmental Research (in Chinese), 11 (4):451-456, doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2006.04.02.
[29]	郑向东. 2008.云对中国区域卫星观测臭氧总量精度影响的检验分析[J].大气科学, 32 (6):1431-1444. doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2008.06.17 Zheng Xaingdong. 2008. Investigation on effect of cloud on the precision of total ozone from satellite measurements over China regions[J]. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (in Chinese), 32 (6):1431-1444, doi:10.3878/j. issn.1006-9895.2008.06.17.
[30]	郑向东, 韦小丽. 2010.中国4个地点地基与卫星臭氧总量长期观测比较[J].应用气象学报, 21 (1):1-10. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7313.2010.01.001 Zheng Xiangdong, Wei Xiaoli. 2010. Long-term total ozone comparisons between space-based and ground-based observations at 4 sites in China[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorological Science (in Chinese), 21 (1):1-10, doi:10.3969/j.issn. 1001-7313.2010.01.001.
[31]	Zhou X J, Luo C. 1994. Ozone valley over Tibetan Plateau[J]. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 8 (4):505-506. http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/QXXW199404016.htm
[32]	周秀骥, 罗超, 李维亮, 等. 1995.中国地区臭氧总量变化与青藏高原低值中心[J].科学通报, 40 (15):1396-1398. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KXTB199515015.htm Zhou Xiuji, Luo Chao, Li Weiliang, et al. 1995. The change of the total ozone in China and the ozone valley over Tibetan Plateau[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin (in Chinese), 40 (15):1396-1398. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KXTB199515015.htm