Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20918-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Lagrangian particle dispersion (HYSPLIT) model analysis of the sea

breeze case with extreme mean daily PM10 concentration in Split,
Croatia
Tanja Trošić Lesar1   · Anita Filipčić2

Received: 5 December 2021 / Accepted: 13 May 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
The case of a sea breeze where the mean daily PM10 concentration reached the recommended limit value for human health
for the period from 2007 to 2009 at the air quality station AMS3 Split-1 in Split, Croatia, is analysed. The Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) atmospheric model MM5 and the Hybrid Single-
Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model are used to simulate the lower atmospheric flow and dispersion
within 100 km from the coast. The simulation is made with four point sources in the hinterland of Split: Kaštel-Sućurac,
Solin and Klis, where the local cement plants are located, and Vranjic, where an asbestos-cement plant is located. Statistical
analysis and rotational statistics showed good agreement of the measurement data with the modelled wind speed and direc-
tion at 10 m and temperature at 2 m height. The backward trajectories show that the pollutants are caught in the sea breeze
circulation from all sources and in the early afternoon the plume is placed over parts of Split from all sources. From the peak
concentrations during the selected day, it can be concluded that pollution from Kaštel-Sućurac had the greatest impact on
the high PM10 concentrations measured at the Split-1 station.

Keywords  Central Adriatic Sea · HYSPLIT model · Orographic influence · PM10 concentrations · Split urban area · Sea
breeze

Introduction
A sea breeze is a thermally induced local circulation caused
by differential heating between land and sea (Atkinson
1981). There are some studies that have focused on the
influence of sea breezes on atmospheric aerosols (Rodríguez
et al. 2002, 2008; Viana et al. 2005; Rimetz-Planchon et al.
2008; Crumeyrolle et al. 2019; Augustin et al. 2020; Di
Bernardino et al. 2021). PM10 particles (particulate mat-
ter with aerodynamic diameter below 10 μm) are among
the most dangerous pollutants that enter the lower respira-
tory tract and cause serious health problems (Dockery et al.
Responsible Editor: Gerhard Lammel
* Tanja Trošić Lesar
trosic@cirus.dhz.hr
1
Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service, Zagreb,
Croatia
2
Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Zagreb,
Croatia
1993; Pope et al. 1995; 2002). PM2.5 particles refer to those
with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less, which are
even more dangerous for human health. Studies performed
in urban areas of Eastern Spain showed that sea breeze
has a strong influence on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations
(Viana et al. 2005). Tsai et al. (2011) showed that the sea
breeze has the greatest influence on PM10 concentrations,
stronger than other regional winds in Taiwan. Crumeyrolle
et al. (2019) show a strong influence of sea breeze on aero-
sol properties. Recently, Di Bernardino et al. (2021) found
two characteristic sea breeze patterns: frontal days, where
the sea breeze front develops within a few minutes as the
aerosol optical depth (AOD) increases during the onset of
a sea breeze, and gentle breeze days, where the onset of the
front is gradual and the AOD does not increase significantly.
The Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajec-
tory (HYSPLIT) model developed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been used
to identify pathways for PM10 particles, and their sources
(Wang et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011), particularly for dust
storms and intrusions (Stein et al. 2011; Ashrafi et al. 2014).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

HYSPLIT model analyses related to PM10 particle transport
in sea breezes are quite rare. For example, Challa et al. (2007)
used the HYSPLIT model for sea breezes to show the high-
est concentrations during the sea breeze lulls. However, the
HYSPLIT model has been successfully used in other regional
PM10 pollution studies (e.g. Wang et al. 2004, 2010; Xu
et al. 2008; Nwosisi et al. 2021). For example, the identifica-
tion of PM10 pathways by Wang et al. (2010) shows a very
large influence of the mountain breeze, which is a thermally
driven circulation like the sea breeze, on the high PM10
levels in Beijing. More recently, Nwosisi et al. (2021) used
the HYSPLIT model to demonstrate the strong influence of
background gas flaring on PM10 levels in the Nigeria region.
The transport of pollutants by sea breezes is influenced
by the topography of coastal areas, as well as the shape of
the coastline and the location of industrial facilities (e.g.
Estoque 1962; Pielke et al. 1983; Arritt 1989, 1993; Gri-
sogono et al. 1998; Nitis et al. 2005; Grossi et al. 2000). For
the HYSPLIT model and the sea breeze, Yerramilli et al.
(2008) used the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)
model simulations for the HYSPLIT model to simulate ­SO2
concentrations from four point sources during a sea breeze
and concluded that the highest concentrations occurred dur-
ing stable conditions in the morning and afternoon. Mon-
teiro et al. (2015) studied ozone episodes during sea breezes
using HYSPLIT and concluded that high ozone levels are
transported inland. Ship emissions were also found to affect
pollution in the sea breeze (Shang et al. 2019). Studies show
that pollutants that enter the coastal circulation subsequently
circulate in the vertical plane (Lyons and Olsson 1973; Keen
and Lyons 1978; Simpson 1994). Pollutant transfer under the
sea breeze is under the influence of orography (e.g. Clappier
et al. 2000), and pollutant levels are higher inland (Simpson
1994; Clappier et al. 2000; Evtyugina et al. 2006; Ohashi
and Kida 2002; Monteiro et al. 2015). The highest ­SO2 con-
centrations are measured during the sea breeze lulls accord-
ing to the backward trajectories used (Bouchlaghem et al.
2007; Yerramilli et al. 2008). However, Tsai et al. (2011)
report the highest S ­ O2 and ­NO2 concentrations during day-
time for sea breeze in Taiwan.
The sea breeze development is influenced by various syn-
optic flows (e.g. Estoque 1962; Atkins and Wakimoto 1997;
Gilliam et al. 2004; Azorin-Molina and Chen 2009).
Studies of sea breeze in the Croatian part of the Adri-
atic coast show a strong orographic influence on sea breeze
development (e.g. Trošić et al. 2006; Telišman Prtenjak et al.
2008; Bencetić Klaić et al. 2009). The development of sea
breezes also depends on altitude and soil type (Filipčić 1994;
Perica and Orešić 1997). Local bura has also been found
to influence the development of local sea breeze (Telišman
Prtenjak et al. 2010), which is strongly influenced by local
orography (e.g. Belušić and Bencetić Klaić 2006; Trošić and
Trošić 2010; Trošić 2015). Recently, Trošić Lesar and Filipčić
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
(2021) applied a multiple linear regression model (MLR)
for hourly simulation of PM2.5 particle concentrations for
selected sea breeze days, and have concluded that air tempera-
ture difference to the temperature at the time of the morning
sea breeze lull and wind speed are significant predictors for
Split. Similar results, but for PM10 particles, were obtained
by Trošić Lesar and Filipčić (2017) for the Split region.
The main objective of this study is to simulate the trans-
fer of PM10 particles from four sources in the Kaštela Bay
area and to estimate the PM10 concentrations at the Split-1
station in the case of a sea breeze when the limit value
for the mean daily PM10 concentration for human health
(50 μg ­m−3) was reached at the Split-1 station (see Fig. 1),
and to identify possible sources of pollution.
The PSU/NCAR high-resolution mesoscale model MM5
is used to simulate the flow and vertical structure of the
atmosphere in the Split area and the HYSPLIT model is used
for backward trajectory and dispersion calculation. Based on
the simulated peak concentrations during the day, possible
sources are investigated.
The selected sea breeze day characteristics
and the settings of the numerical model
The air quality monitoring station AMS3 Split-1 is located
in a commercial and residential area near the highway with
moderate traffic in the centre of Split. The primary purpose
of the station is to monitor air pollution caused by traffic and
industry. There are three cement plants, St. Juraj in Kaštel-
Sućurac, St. Kajo in Solin and 10 August in Klis, and an
asbestos-cement plant Salonit was in operation in Vranjic
until 2009. In the hinterland of Split and Kaštela, there are
high mountains, Kozjak in the northwest-southeast direction
and Mount Mosor in the east direction (see Fig. 1). Total
suspended particulate matter is measured using a sampling
method of Verewa F701 high-volume analyser, with one
measurement every 15 min.
The available measurements of PM10 particle concentra-
tions and atmospheric measurements at the Split-1 station
are from 2007 to 2009, and the days with sea breeze were
selected when the influence of unfavourable atmospheric
conditions on the development of sea breeze was low. The
favourable direction from sea to land was selected for the
sea breeze, when the wind direction was more than 130°
and less than 310°, depending on the coastal position. The
wind speed during the sea breeze lulls is not allowed to
exceed 0.9 m ­s−1 and the selected days had to have low val-
ues of the land breeze wind speed (less than 6 m ­s−1) and
the difference in air temperature between the morning and
evening lulls must not exceed 1 °C (Trošić 2002). Cloudi-
ness in the climatological sense was not allowed to exceed
4/10. The synoptic upper and surface charts at 1200 UTC
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 1  The position of the

automatic station for pollut-
ant measurements AMS3
Split-1 (marked with a • sign)
and the position of the three
cement plants in Kaštel-
Sućurac (“Kaštel-S”), Solin and
Klis and the asbestos-cement
plant in Vranjic (marked with
a + sign). The topography of
the MM5 model domain at
1-km horizontal resolution is
indicated (shaded with 20-m
increments). The leg A1-A2
indicates the position of the
cross-section. The position of
the islands Šolta, Čiovo and
Brač and the position of moun-
tains Kozjak and Mosor in the
hinterland of the city of Split
are shown

showed small synoptic pressure gradients for selected days
over the Central Adriatic (from the German Weather Report
(DWD) 2007–2009). For selected days with the sea breeze,
the daily mean limit value corresponding to 50 μg ­m−3 was
reached on 02 April 2007 and therefore this sea breeze case
will be examined using the HYSPLIT model. For this day,
there were no available PM10 concentration measurements
at the Kaštel-Sućurac and Solin air quality stations, near the
cement plants St. Juraj and St. Kajo in Kaštel-Sućurac and
Solin, respectively.
Figure 2a shows the surface chart for 02 April 2007 at 12
UTC. The surface chart shows an almost non-gradient and
elevated pressure field at sea level over Central Europe. The
upper level analysis shows contours of geopotential height
and wind vector at 850 hPa according to the National Centre
for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Final (FNL) analysis
(Fig. 2b). It shows no closed baric systems over southern
Europe and the weak geostrophic wind (up to 10 m ­s−1) has
a northeasterly direction favourable for the development of
a sea breeze over the Eastern Adriatic.
Setup of the MM5 model and simulation of the sea
breeze case
The limited area, non-hydrostatic MM5 numerical model in
the vertical sigma coordinate system (Grell et al. 1995) was
used to simulate the selected sea breeze case. The NCEP
FNL data model output, available every 6 h at a horizontal
resolution of 1°⨯1°, was used for the boundary and initial
conditions. The model was run with the five nested hori-
zontal resolutions, 81, 27, 9, 3 and 1 km, and with 23 verti-
cal levels. The modelled planetary boundary layer (PBL) is
parameterized with the Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 scheme.
Reisner graupel is used as the microphysical scheme. The
surface energy budget is calculated using a 5-layer soil
model. A rapid radiative transfer model was used for the
shortwave and longwave calculations.
The modelled wind at 1-km resolution at 0800 UTC, 1400
UTC and 1900 UTC is shown in Fig. 3. At 0800 UTC, the
sea breeze lull is visible at sea, and valley wind and land
breeze with wind speeds up to 4 m ­s−1 are still blowing
from the hills in the hinterland of the city of Split. At 1400
UTC, the sea breeze blows in the characteristic southwest-
erly direction, with the highest wind speeds near the channel
between the islands of Šolta and Brač (see Fig. 1). The island
of Brač also has its coastal circulation due to its size (e.g.
Lukšić 1991), as can be seen at 1400 UTC. At 1900 UTC,
wind speeds over the Split area are below 2 m ­s−1, which
coincides with the time of the evening sea breeze lull.
Figure 4 shows a vertical cross-section (at the leg A1-A2 in
Fig. 1) of the wind vector and potential temperature, as well as
vertical wind speed, on 02 April 2007 at 1400 UTC. The coastal
air-circulation is confined within the first 1500 m of the PBL
over Split and extends horizontally about 300 m since Kozjak
and Mosor are located in the hinterland of the city and do not
allow further penetration of the sea breeze over the land. It is
dominated by southwesterly flow to the heights of 500 m above
ground level (AGL). The vertical wind speed (bold black line for

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research
◂Fig. 2  The synoptic situation on 02 April 2007, 1200 UTC: surface
analysis (a) and contours of geopotential height (increment of 20
gpm) and wind vector (see lower-left corner for reference vector) at
850 hPa according to the National Centre for Environmental Predic-
tion (NCEP) Final (FNL) analysis (b). The boxes in (b) indicate the
five domains in the MM5 model simulations with horizontal resolu-
tions of 81, 27, 9, 3 and 1 km
positive and dashed line for negative values) is also shown. In
the zone of strong vertical wind speed which reached -0.4 m ­s−1,
the formation of a sea breeze front is evident. The sea breeze
front (SBF) is the landward edge of the sea breeze circulation,
often associated with sharp changes in temperature, moisture and
wind (e.g. Miller et al. 2003). The turbulent kinetic energy (TKE)
modelled with MM5 is used in the dispersion calculations of the
HYSPLIT model. The TKE cross-section is shown in Fig. 5 on
02 April 2007 at 1400 UTC and shows high turbulence values up
to 0.8 ­m2s−2 at the position of the SBF 230 m inland.
Fig. 3  The MM5 model simulated wind speed (shaded with 1 m ­s−1 increment) and wind vector (every second vector is drawn, see upper-left
corner for reference vector) at 1-km resolution on 02 April 2007 at 0800 UTC, 1400 UTC and 1900 UTC​
Fig. 4  The vertical cross-section of horizontal wind (shaded with
1 m ­s−1 increment) with wind vectors (every second vector is drawn,
see upper-left corner for reference vector) and potential tempera-
Figure 6 shows the comparison of the modelled and meas-
ured wind speed and direction at 10 m height and tempera-
ture at 2 m height for the Split-1 station. Modelled and meas-
ured wind speeds and temperatures are statistically compared
using the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error
(RMSE), index of agreement (IA) and correlation coefficient
(R). The temperature at a height of 2 m is well simulated
with a slight underestimation during midday and afternoon
(see Fig. 6). However, the statistics show very good agree-
ment with measurements (MAE = 1.88, RMSE = 2.20 and
IA = 0.75) and correlation coefficient R = 0.9. The modelled
wind speed in the morning hours up to the time of the morn-
ing sea breeze lull has lower statistics due to the nighttime
increase in wind speed (MAE = 1.87, RMSE = 2.11 and
IA =  − 0.87) with R = 0.5; however, during sea breeze and
evening land breeze, the statistics show good agreement
(MAE = 0.70, RMSE = 0.89 and IA = 0.7) and R = 0.6, with
ture (right) and vertical wind speed (bold black line for positive and
dashed line for negative values) (left), on 02 April 2007 at 1400 UTC.
The position of the cross-section is given in Fig. 1
13

Fig. 5  The MM5 model modelled turbulent kinetic energy (TKE)
cross-section on 02 April 2007 at 1400 UTC. The position of the
cross-section is indicated in Fig. 1
slightly better statistics during the sea breeze (IA = 0.8 and
R = 0.7). The modelled and measured wind directions at the
Split-1 station are compared using the rotational statistics
(Berens 2009). The circular-circular correlation coefficient
(Jammalamadaka and Sengupta 2001) of the rotational sta-
tistics between the modelled and measured wind direction
shows well agreement with R = 0.7 and p value 1.7×10−4
which indicates very high statistical significance. The mean
resultant vectors in rotational statistics from the MM5 model
and the measurements agree well and indicate the southwest-
erly direction during sea breeze (not shown).
Results
The HYSPLIT model (Draxler and Hess 1997, 1998; Drax-
ler 1999; Stein et al. 2015) is used to simulate the dispersion
of pollutant releases. HYSPLIT computes simple trajectories
up to complex dispersion and deposition simulations with
puff or particle approaches.
Trajectories
The backward trajectories are simulated with the HYSPLIT
model, starting from point sources at 10 m, 80 m and 200 m
height AGL (see Fig. 7). The backward trajectories from
2300 UTC, with a restart every 6 h, on 02 April 2007 with
two domains at 3-km and 1-km resolution included in the
HYSPLIT model run show the influence of the coastal
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
circulation which traps the particles inside, separately for
four sources. The trajectories show that the daily transfer of
pollution takes place across Kaštela bay, the Split area and
the islands. The trajectories are confined to the heights of
1.5 km, and even to a lower altitude during the sea breeze,
since the coastal circulation develops within the first
800–1000 m during the day. Yerramilli et al. (2008) show
for the sea breeze in the Mississippi Gulf that the trajectories
are confined to a height of 2 km.
Dispersion of PM10 particles and their
concentration
The dispersion computation consists of three components:
particle transport by mean wind, a turbulent transport com-
ponent and air concentration calculation. The pollutant
particles are released at the source locations and passively
follow the wind field. The mean particle trajectory is the
integration of the particle position vector in space and time.
The turbulent component of the motion defines the disper-
sion of the pollutant cloud and is calculated by adding a
random component to the mean advection velocity in each
of the three-dimensional wind component directions. The
vertical turbulence is computed from the modelled TKE
field. The meteorological fields required in the model are
u,v,w (horizontal and vertical wind components), T (tem-
perature), Z (height) or P (pressure), surface pressure (Po)
and the optional moisture and vertical motion fields. These
gridded three-dimensional fields are linearly interpolated in
space and time to the particle position. The advection of a
particle or puff is computed from the grid scale 3-D velocity
vectors which come from the mesoscale model. A random
component to the motion is added at each step according to
the atmospheric turbulence at that time. The ratio of verti-
cal to horizontal turbulence is set to a default value of 0.18
(Draxler 1999; Draxler and Hess 1997; Stein et al. 2015).
Pollutant concentrations are estimated as the integrated mass
of individual particles as they pass through the concentra-
tion grid, which is a matrix of cells, each with a volume
defined by its dimensions. The dispersion simulation is per-
formed within a radius of 100 km around the sources. In the
HYSPLIT dispersion model, a horizontal grid with a resolu-
tion of 0.01° × 0.01° (roughly 1 km × 1 km) and with seven
vertical levels of 50 m, 100 m, 200 m, 400 m, 750 m, 1000 m
and 3000 m AGL is considered. Ground-level concentra-
tions are computed as averages for the lowest 50 m within
each horizontal grid cell, and 6 × ­105 particles or puffs are
released every 3 h during one release cycle for four sources
individually: Kaštel-Sućurac, Solin, Klis and Vranjic sources
(see Fig. 1). A maximum of 1­ 07 particles was permitted for
all simulations to be carried out at any time during the simu-
lation. The release starts at 2300 UTC, or 24 h local time, to
catch the local sea breeze circulation.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Dispersion calculation is made for four point sources

with the HYSPLIT particle dispersion model using the
meteorological fields simulated by the model MM5 at 3-km
and 1-km resolution and dry deposition with default setup
C137. The term dry deposition refers to the depletion of
pollutant mass from PM10 particles when they interact with
the ground surface in the absence of precipitation (Draxler
1999; Draxler and Hess 1997). The dispersion simulation
is performed within 100 km of the release points. Particles
are released at regular intervals in the HYSPLIT model, and
they are presented only for the releases of 6 × ­105 particles
from the Kaštel-Sućurac and Solin sources.
The vertical cross-sections of the integrated particle posi-
tions over Split are shown in Fig. 8 with the release of par-
ticles from Kaštel-Sućurac and Solin. During the night and
stable conditions that occur during the sea breeze lulls, ver-
tical mixing is low, and during the day, the boundary layer
grows vertically and during convective conditions, there is
increased mixing and vertical spreading up to the heights
of about 4000 m AGL (Fig. 8). Similar results were also
obtained by Yerramilli et al. (2008) who used the HYSPLIT
model for the sea breeze and ­SO2 particle dispersion. The
particles are densely distributed within a layer of 2000
m AGL. For the Vranjic and Klis sources, the HYSPLIT
vertical cross-sections of the integrated particle positions
over Split show the same layer of vertical spreading up to
an altitude of 4000 m AGL during the day and their dense
distribution within about 2000 m AGL.
Figure 9 shows the PM10 concentration measurements at
the Split-1 station (see Fig. 1). Figure 10 shows the variations
in PM10 particle concentration per hour resulting from the
release of PM10 particles from four point sources from 0400
to 2100 UTC. The emission cycle was every 3 h. Accord-
ing to the simulation, the Vranjic source is more dominant
than the other sources. However, the peak PM10 concentra-
tions from Vranjic and Klis sources in the early afternoon
are not observed in the measurements at the Split-1 station
(Fig. 9). Also in the evening, at the time of the evening sea
breeze lull, the maximum pollution from the Vranjic and
Solin sources is at 1900 UTC and from the Klis source at
1800 UTC, while from the Kaštel-Sućurac source, it is at
2000 UTC, which is consistent with the measurements at
the Split-1 station (Fig. 9). A similar analysis was performed
by Grossi et al. (2000) to find the sources of ozone pollu-
tion in Athens and they concluded that the high pollution of
Athens during the sea breeze is due to nocturnal emissions
from the inland area. Yerramilli et al. (2008) determine the
peak ­SO2 concentrations for the Mississippi coast during a
stable morning and afternoon for the sea breeze. He found
that the concentration peaks occur at slightly different times
at different locations due to the variation in the visiting time
Fig. 6  The MM5 model modelled wind speed and wind direction at
of plume. The same approach, but for S ­ O2 and ­NO2 and 10 m height and temperature at 2 m height compared to the measure-
the local sea breeze near the Mississippi Gulf, was used by ments at the AMS3 Split-1 measurement station

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 7  Backward trajectories of the particles from the emission with  squares)  above ground level (AGL), with 6-h restart ending on
source in Kaštel-Sućurac, Solin, Vranjic and Klis at the heights 10 m 02 April 2007 at 23 00 UTC​
(red with triangles), 80  m (blue with squares) and 200  m (green

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 8  HYSPLIT model particle positions on 02 April 2007 at 0900 UTC and 1500 UTC from backward trajectories with the release of particles
from Kaštel-Sućurac and Solin on 02 April 2007 at 2300 UTC​
Yerramilli et al. (2012), when they found that the meas-
ured values per hour corresponded well to the simulated
HYSPLIT concentrations from only two local plants iden-
tified as possible significant contributors to the observed
PM2.5 concentrations. For Taiwan, Tsai et al. (2011) showed
the highest PM10 pollution levels during sea breeze at inland
sites, while nighttime concentrations were low.
It can be concluded that the highest pollution originates
from the cement plant in Kaštel-Sućurac, while pollution
from other sources is possible, especially from St. Kajo
in Solin, and low from other sources. The early afternoon
peaks from the Vranjic source (1300 UTC) and Klis source
(1400 UTC) were not observed in the measurements at
the Split-1 station, so it can be concluded that the largest
13

Fig. 9  PM10 concentration measurements at the Split-1 station (red
line) and the black line indicates the daily mean limit value (LV) for
PM10 concentrations recommended for human health (50  μg  ­m−3).
The position of the station is denoted in Fig. 1
pollution was not emanating from these sources. Monteiro
et al. (2015) show an increase in O­ 3 concentrations for the
inland stations using HYSPLIT at midday for the coastal sta-
tions when the sea breeze starts in the afternoon and for the
other case of sea breeze during the morning sea breeze lull.
The asbestos-cement plant in Vranjic was closed in 2009 and
the cement plant in Klis was working with a smaller capacity
and was temporarily closed in 2008, and completely closed
in 2020.
Figure 11 shows the PM10 particle concentration averaged
between 0 and 50 m integrated from 0800 to 0700 UTC and
Fig. 11  PM10 particle concentration averaged between 0 and 50 m integrated from 0800 to 0700 UTC and from 2000 to 1900 UTC on 02 April
2007, from the backward trajectories with the release of particles from Kaštel-Sućurac source with release start on 02 April 2007 at 2300 UTC​
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 10  PM10 concentrations of HYSPLIT simulations from four
point sources (Kaštel-Sućurac, Solin, Vranjic and Klis) on 02 April
2007 from 0400 to 2300 UTC using 6 × ­105 particles released in one
release cycle every 3 h
from 2000 to 1900 UTC on 02 April 2007, from the backward
trajectories with the release of particles from Kaštel-Sućurac
(release of 6 × ­105 particles every 3 h) on 02 April 2007 at
2300 UTC, and the same for all four sources in Fig. 12, but
from 1500 to 1400 UTC.
The integration from 0800 to 0700 UTC shows the
plume particle transport from the cement plant in Kaštel-
Sućurac towards the Kaštela Bay and the Split area. During
the stable morning conditions, it disperses over a large
area when changing from land to sea breeze. During the
development of the sea breeze, the plumes are narrow and
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 12  PM10 particle concentration averaged between 0 and 50  m
integrated from 1500 to 1400 UTC on 02 April 2007, from the
backward trajectories with the release of particles from four sources
initially remain mainly in Kaštela Bay. In the early after-
noon, the plume is placed over the city of Split caught by the
sea breeze in a southwesterly direction for all sources (see
Fig. 12). The concentration peak is in stable morning con-
ditions and in the afternoon. This differs from other studies
(e.g. Yerramilli et al. 2008; Grossi et al. 2000; Tsai et al.
2011) because the inland orography prevents the pollutants
from moving inland and the highest PM10 pollution from the
cement plants in the Kaštela Bay area during the sea breeze
occurs first over Kaštela bay and in the early afternoon, at the
time of the strongest sea breeze, over part of Split. At the time
of the morning and evening sea breeze lulls, the highest PM10
pollution is over Kaštela Bay and Split. Grossi et al. (2000)
also show that nighttime emissions from inland areas affect
the pollution in Athens, while daytime pollution is observed
(Kaštel-Sućurac, Solin, Vranjic and Klis) with release start on 02
April 2007 at 2300 UTC​
in the inland mountainous area. Clappier et al. (2000) also
show that the daily ozone pollution in the Athens inland area
depends on the penetration of the sea breeze over the land
and that the sea breeze development strongly influences the
transport of pollutants.
In the morning and evening hours, i.e. during the sea breeze
lulls, the releases take place within a stable boundary layer and
the ground-level concentration are all close to the release sites
(< 1 km) and fall to concentrations as low as 40 μg ­m−3 in the
Split urban area. As shown in Fig. 11, plume remains inland
and over Kaštela Bay in the evening, as shown by the integra-
tion from 2000 to 1900 UTC when the evening sea breeze
lull occurs (see Fig. 3). During the sea breeze on 02 April
2007 from 1500 to 1400 UTC, the concentration falls to a low
value in a range of about 6 km in the direction of the plume for
13

all four sources (see Fig. 12), with the highest concentrations
occurring within the plume during the strongest sea breeze.
Conclusion
Due to the particular location of the nearby inland industrial
plants and the inland orography, the local characteristics of
the coastal circulation have a great influence on the trans-
port of pollutants in the urban area of Split. The backward
trajectories show that the pollutants are captured by the sea
breeze from all four point sources.
The results show that the releases from the cement plant
in Kaštel-Sućurac had the greatest influence on the trans-
fer of pollutants on 02 April 2007, when the limit value
of PM10 particles for human health was reached. The
releases from the Vranjic and Klis sources would have an
even greater impact on the morning, midday and evening
concentrations. However, the early afternoon increase was
not observed in the measurements, and the evening peak
concentration coming from these sources did not agree with
the measurements at the Split-1 station. The releases coming
from the Kaštel-Sućurac source showed the best agreement
with the measurements and the HYSPLIT model of this
source captured well the highest concentrations of PM10
particles measured in the morning hours and the timing of
the other peak in the evening hours. This method of iden-
tifying sources of high pollution can be used in all indus-
trial areas, especially in areas near the sea and in thermally
induced circulations.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank the Croatian
Environment Agency for pollutant measurements used in this paper
and Cemex Croatia d.d. for the information on the measurements pro-
vided. The authors thank the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) for the Final (FNL) analysis data used in the simulations. The
authors acknowledge the public National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) Hybrid Sin-
gle-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) dispersion
code used in the study. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for
constructive comments which have improved the paper.
Author contribution  All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were
performed by Tanja Trošić Lesar and supervision and editing by Anita
Filipčić. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Tanja Trošić
Lesar and all authors commented on previous versions of the manu-
script. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials  The data are available on reasonable
request and with approval of the Croatian Environment Agency.
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
Not applicable.
Consent for publication.
Not applicable.
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Declarations 
Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Arritt RW (1989) Numerical modelling of the offshore extent of sea
breezes. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 115:547–570. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/​qj.​49711​548707
Arritt RW (1993) Effects of the large-scale flow of characteristic fea-
tures of the sea breeze. J Appl Meteorol 32:116–125. https://​doi.​
org/1​ 0.1​ 175/1​ 520-0​ 450(1993)0​ 32%3​ c0116:E
​ OTLSF%3​ e2.0.C
​ O;2
Ashrafi K, Shafiepour-Motlagh M, Aslemand A, Ghader S (2014) Dust
storm simulation over Iran using HYSPLIT. J Environ Health Sci
Engin 12:9–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​2052-​336X-​12-9
Atkins N, Wakimoto R (1997) Influence of the synoptic-scale flow on
sea breezes observed during CAPE. Mon Wea Rev 125:2112–
2130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​1520-​0493(1997)​125%​3c2112:​
IOTSSF%​3e2.0.​CO;2
Atkinson BW (1981) Meso-scale atmospheric circulations. Academic
Press, pp 495
Augustin P, Billet S, Crumeyrolle S, Deboudt K, Dieudonné E, Fla-
ment P, Fourmentin M, Guilbaud S, Hanoune B, Landkocz
Y, Méausoone C, Roy S, Schmitt FG, Sentchev A, Sokolov A
(2020) Impact of sea breeze dynamics on atmospheric pollutants
and their toxicity in industrial and urban coastal environments.
Remote Sensing 12(4):648. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs120​40648
Azorin-Molina C, Chen D (2009) A climatological study of the influ-
ence of synoptic-scale flows on sea breeze evolution in the Bay of
Alicante (Spain). Theor Appl Climatol 96:249–260. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s00704-​008-​0028-2
Belušić D, Bencetić Klaić Z (2006) Mesoscale dynamics, structure and
predictability of a severe Adriatic bora case. Meteorologische Z
15:157–168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1127/​0941-​2948/​2006/​0116
Bencetić Klaić Z, Pasarić Z, Tudor M (2009) On the interplay between
sea-land breezes and Etesian winds over the Adriatic. J Mar Syst
78:s101–s118.
Berens P (2009) CircStat: a MATLAB toolbox for circular statistics. J
Stat Soft 31:1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18637/​jss.​v031.​i10
Bouchlaghem K, Mansour FB, Elouragini S (2007) Impact of a sea
breeze event on air pollution at the Eastern Tunisian Coast. Atmos
Res 86:162–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​atmos​res.​2007.​03.​010
Challa VS, Indracanti J, White LD, Huck Patrick C, Young J, Hughes
R, Yerramilli A (2007) Simulation of transport and dispersion
of pollutants from elevated point sources in Mississippi Gulf
coast using a Mesoscale atmospheric dispersion modeling sys-
tem. Seventh Conference on Coastal Atmospheric and Oceanic
Prediction and Processes, San Diego, California
Clappier A, Martilli A, Grossi P, Thunis P, Pasi F, Krueger BC,
Calpini B, Graziani G, Van den Bergh H (2000) Effect of sea
breeze on air pollution in the Greater Athens Area. Part I:
Numerical simulations and field observations. J Appl Meteorol
39:546–562. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 175/​1 520-​0 450(2000)​0 39%​
3c0546:​EOSBOA%​3e2.0.​CO;2
Crumeyrolle S, Augustin P, Rivellini LH, Choël M, Riffault V,
Deboudt K, Fourmentin M, Dieudonné E, Delbarre H, Derim-
ian Y et al (2019) Aerosol variability induced by atmospheric
dynamics in a coastal area of Senegal, North-Western Africa.
Atmos Environ 203:228–241. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​atmos​
env.​2019.​01.​041
Di Bernardino A, Iannarelli AM, Casadio S, Mevi G, Campanelli
M, Casasanta G, Cede A, Tiefengraber M, Siani AM, Spinei E,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Cacciani M (2021) On the effect of sea breeze regime on aero-
sols and gases properties in the urban area of Rome. Italy Urban
Climate 37:100842. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​uclim.​2021.​100842
Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengle J, Ware J, Fay M, Ferris B,
Speizer F (1993) An association between air pollution and mortal-
ity in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med 329:1753–1759. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1056/​NEJM1​99312​09329​2401
Draxler RR, Hess GD (1997) Description of the HYSPLIT_4 mod-
eling system. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-224, NOAA Air
Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, 24 pp
Draxler RR, Hess GD (1998) An overview of the HYSPLIT_4 mod-
eling system of trajectories, dispersion, and deposition. Aust
Meteor Mag 47:295–308.
Draxler RR (1999) HYSPLIT4 user’s guide. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL
ARL-230, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD
Estoque MA (1962) The sea breeze as a function of the prevailing syn-
optic situation. J Atmos Sci 19:244–250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​
1520-​0469(1962)​019%​3c0244:​TSBAAF%​3e2.0.​CO;2
Evtyugina MG, Nunes T, Pio C, Costa S (2006) Photochemical pol-
lution under sea breeze conditions, during summer, at the Portu-
guese West Coast. Atmos Environ 40:6277–6293. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​atmos​env.​2006.​05.​046
Filipčić A (1994) Air temperature anomaly in Croatia. Acta Geograph
Croat 29: 45–56. https://​hrcak.​srce.​hr/​84468
Gilliam R, Raman S, Niyogi D (2004) Observational and numerical
study on the influence of large-scale flow direction and coastline
shape on sea-breeze evolution. Bound-Layer Meteorol 111:275–
300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/B:​BOUN.​00000​16494.​99539.​5a
Grell GA, Dudhia J, Stauffer DR (1995) A description of the fifth-
generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR
Technical Note, NCAR/TN-398+STR
Grisogono B, Ström L, Tjernström M (1998) Small scale variability in
the coastal atmospheric boundary layer. Bound-Layer Meteorol
88: 23–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10009​33822​432
Grossi P, Thunis P, Martilli A, Clappier A (2000) Effect of sea breeze
on air pollution in the Greater Athens Area. Part II: Analysis
of Different Emission Scenarios. J Appl Meteorol 39:563–575.
https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 175/​1 520-​0 450(2000)​0 39%​3 c0563:​E OS-
BOA%​3e2.0.​CO;2
Jammalamadaka SR, Sengupta A (2001) Topics in circular statistics.
World Scientific Press, pp 336. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1142/​97898​
12779​267
Keen CS, Lyons WA (1978) Land/lake breeze circulations on the
western shore of Lake Michigan. J Appl Meteorol 17:1843–
1855. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​1520-​0450(1978)​017%​3c1843:​
LBCOTW%​3e2.0.​CO;2
Liu N, Yu Y, Chen JB, He JJ, Zhao SP (2011) Identification of poten-
tial sources and transport pathways of atmospheric PM10 using
HYSPLIT and hybrid receptor modelling in Lanzhou, China. WIT
Trans Ecol Environ 147:59–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​AIR11​0061
Lukšić I (1991) Obalna cirkulacija u Sutivanu na otoku Braču. Priroda
8:31–33.
Lyons WA, Olsson LE (1973) Detailed mesometeorological studies of
air pollution dispersion in the Chicago Lake Breeze. Mon Wea
Rev 101:387–403
Miller STK, Keim BD, Talbot RW, Mao H (2003) Sea breeze: struc-
ture, forecasting, and impacts. Rev Geophys 41:1011. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1029/​2003R​G0001​24,3
Monteiro A, Gama C, Cândido M, Ribeiro I, Carvalho D, Lopes M
(2015) Investigating ozone high levels and the role of sea breeze
on its transport. Atmos Poll Res 7:339–347. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​apr.​2015.​10.​013
Nitis T, Kitsiou D, Bencetić Klaić Z, Telišman Prtenjak M, Mous-
siopoulos N (2005) The effects of basic flow and topography
on the development of the sea breeze over a complex coastal
environment. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc 131:305–328. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1256/​qj.​04.​42
Nwosisi MC, Oguntoke O, Taiwo AM (2021) Dispersion modeling
of ­PM10 from selected flow stations in the Niger Delta, Nigeria:
implications on soot pollution. Environ Syst Res 10. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1186/​s40068-​020-​00207-z
Ohashi Y, Kida H (2002) Local circulations developed in the vicinity
of both coastal and inland urban areas: a numerical study with a
mesoscale atmospheric model. J Appl Meteorol 41:30–45
Perica D, Orešić D (1997) Addition to the climatological character-
istics of Velebit. Acta Geograph Croat 32:45–68. https://​hrcak.​
srce.​hr/​41550
Pielke RA, Mcnider RT, Segal M, Mahrer Y (1983) The use of a
mesoscale numerical model for evaluations of pollutant trans-
port and diffusion in coastal regions and over irregular terrain.
Bull Am Meteorol Soc 64:243–249
Pope CA, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Spei-
zer FE, Heath CW (1995) Particulate air pollution as a predictor
of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir
Crit Care Med 151:669–674. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1164/​ajrccm/​
151.3_​Pt_1.​669
Pope CA, Burnett R, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewskik D, Ito K, Thurs-
ton GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and
long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J Am Med
Assoc 287:1132–1141. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1001/​jama.​287.9.​1132
Rimetz-Planchon J, Perdrix E, Sobanska S, Brémard C (2008) PM10
air quality variations in an urbanized and industrialized harbor.
Atmos Environ 42:7274–7283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​atmos​
env.​2008.​07.​005
Rodríguez S, Querol X, Alastuey A, Mantilla E (2002) Origin of high
summer PM10 and TSP concentrations at rural sites in Eastern
Spain. Atmos Environ 36:3101–3112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S1352-​2310(02)​00256-X
Rodríguez S, Cuevas E, González Y, Ramos R, Romero PM, Pérez N,
Querol X, Alastuey A (2008) Influence of sea breeze circulation
and road traffic emissions on the relationship between particle
number, black carbon, PM1, PM2.5 and PM2.5–10 concentra-
tions in a coastal city. Atmos Environ 42:6523–6534. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​atmos​env.​2008.​04.​022
Shang F, Chen D, Guo X, Lang J, Zhou Y, Li Y, Fu X (2019) Impact
of sea breeze circulation on the transport of ship emissions in
Tangshan Port. China Atmosphere 10:723. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​atmos​10110​723
Simpson JE (1994) Sea breeze and local winds. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
Stein A, Wang Y, Rosa JD, Campa ASDL, Castell N, Draxler R
(2011) Modeling PM10 originating from dust intrusions in the
Southern Iberian Peninsula using HYSPLIT. Weat and Forecast
26:236–242. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​WAF-D-​10-​05044.1
Stein AF, Draxler RR, Rolph GD, Stunder BJB, Cohen MD, Ngan F
(2015) NOAA’s HYSPLIT atmospheric transport and dispersion
modeling system. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96:2059–2077. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1175/​BAMS-D-​14-​00110.1
Telišman Prtenjak M, Pasarić Z, Orlić M, Grisogono B (2008)
Rotation of sea/land breezes along the northeastern Adriatic
coast. Ann Geophys 26:1711–1724. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​5 194/​
angeo-​26-​1711-​2008
Telišman Prtenjak M, Viher M, Jurković J (2010) Sea/land breeze
development during a summer bora event along the north-east-
ern Adriatic coast. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 136:1554–1571.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​qj.​649
Trošić T (2002) Climatological characteristics of the lower branch of
coastal circulation along the Eastern Croatian coast. Croat Mete-
orol J 37:27–36.
13

Trošić T (2015) The onset of a severe summer bora episode near
Oštarijska Vrata Pass in the Northern Adriatic. Meteorol Atmos
Phys 127:649–658. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00703-​015-​0393-1
Trošić T, Trošić Ž (2010) Numerical simulation and observational anal-
ysis of the bora of Pag’s Ribs. Bound-Lay Meteorol 134:353–366.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10546-​009-​9439-6
Trošić T, Šinik N, Trošić Ž (2006) Available potential energy of the
daily coastal circulation at Zadar (Croatia). Meteorol Atmos Phys
93:211–220. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00703-​005-​0179-y
Trošić Lesar T, Filipčić A (2017) Multiple linear regression (MLR)
model simulation of hourly PM10 concentrations during sea
breeze events in the Split area. Naše More 64:77–85. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​17818/​NM/​2017/3.1.
Trošić Lesar T, Filipčić A (2021) The hourly simulation of PM2.5 par-
ticle concentrations using the multiple linear regression (MLR)
model for sea breeze in Split, Croatia. Water Air Soil Pollut 232:
261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11270-​021-​05209-w
Tsai HH, Yuan CS, Hung CH, Lin C, Lin YC (2011) Influence of sea-
land breezes on the tempospatial distribution of atmospheric aero-
sols over coastal region. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 61:358–376.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3155/​1047-​3289.​61.4.​358
Viana M, Perez C, Querol X, Alastuey A, Nickovic S, Baldasano JM
(2005) Spatial and temporal variability of PM levels and composi-
tion in a complex summer atmospheric scenario in Barcelona (NE
Spain). Atmos Environ 39:5343–5361. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
atmos​env.​2005.​05.​039
Wang YQ, Zhang XY, Arimoto R, Cao JJ, Shen ZX (2004) The trans-
port pathways and sources of PM10 pollution in Beijing during
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Spring 2001, 2002 and 2003. Geophys Res Lett 31:L14110.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2004G​L0197​32
Wang F, Chen DS, Cheng SY, Li JB, Li MJ, Ren ZH (2010) Identifi-
cation of regional atmospheric PM10 transport pathways using
HYSPLIT, MM5-CMAQ and synoptic pressure pattern analysis.
Environ Model Softw 25:927–934
Xu X, Barsha NAF, Li J (2008) Analyzing regional influence of par-
ticulate matter on the City of Beijing, China. Aerosol Air Qual Res
8:78–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4209/​aaqr.​2007.​09.​0038
Yerramilli A, Challa VS, Indracanti J, Dasari H, Baham J, Patrick C,
Young J, Hughes R, White LD, Hardy MG, Swanier S (2008)
Some observational and modeling studies of the atmospheric
boundary layer at Mississippi gulf coast for air pollution disper-
sion assessment. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 5:484–497. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h5050​484
Yerramilli A, Dodla VBR, Challa VS, Myles L, Pendergrass WR,
Vogel CA, Dasari HP, Tuluri F, Baham JM, Hughes RL, Patrick
C, Young JH, Swainer SJ, Hardy MG (2012) An integrated WRF/
HYSPLIT modeling approach for the assessment of PM2.5 source
regions over the Mississippi Gulf Coast region. Air Qual Atmos
Health 5:401–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11869-​010-​0132-1
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.