由於南台灣臭氧污染情形逐年嚴重，因此如何有效控管臭氧前驅物以達有效降低臭氧濃度便越趨重要。本研究探討光化指標判斷臭氧敏感性物種能力之一致性及對時空變化之一致性是否優良。綜合2000-2006年之觀測與2003及2005年模擬結果同時由觀測與模擬進行兩方向探討；針對觀測結果解析界定比值之表現，並搭配以Models-3/CMAQ模擬求得界定比值範圍，分析指標間與對時空變化之一致性，相互驗證光化指標之表現。
不同指標對於臭氧峰值形成與前後時段界定比值的表現整體來說皆顯現無顯著差異。利用一致性分析對觀測所得光化指標之界定比值進行檢驗，顯示界定比值範圍會因為不同時空背景之周界臭氧前驅物濃度，及其排放特徵改變而有些微偏移現象。對模擬所得進行一致性分析發現不同指標間之判斷能力，以相同原理依據之指標可發現O3/NOz v.s.O3/HNO3以及H2O2/NOz v.s. H2O2/HNO3為一致性佳之指標；以不同原理依據之兩指標在一致性判斷下，O3/NOy v.s.H2O2/NOy、O3/NOy v.s NOy、O3/NOy v.s.HCHO/NOy以及Ox/NOy、Ox/(NOy-NO)對應其他指標一致性最佳，O3/HNO3 v.s.H2O2/HNO3則次之。利用t-test進行分析發現對空間變化具優良一致性之指標以O3/NOz、H2O2/NOy、H2O2/(NOy-NO)、HCHO/NOy之指標對不同空品區及不同特性所顯示之差異最不顯著。不同時間一致性最高的指標則為O3/NOz、H2O2/NOz、H2O2/(NOy-NO)、NOy，在下風處各光化指標對時間的變異性有較顯著之差異存在。
綜合觀測及模式模擬所得之結果可以發現指標間一致性優良並且其界定比值範圍對時空變異具一致性，為O3/NOy、O3/NOz、H2O2/(NOy-NO)，若再以H2O2/NOy、HCHO/NOy與 H2O2/HNO3、O3/HNO3等指標作為輔助判斷，即可以明顯凸顯其判斷能力，因此這些指標對南台灣在應用判斷臭氧敏感性物種為適用性優良之指標。

Because the air pollution of ozone in southern Taiwan is more serious, how to control the ozone precursors efficiently to lower the concentration of ozone is more important. This study combines measured data and simulated results of Model-3/CMAQ to investigate whether the assessment of ozone sensitivity of one photochemical indicator is different from another, and whether the indicators are consistently associated with tempora1 and spatial variation.
There is no significant difference between ozone peak time and before or after the ozone peak time for the transition value of different kinds of indicators. By the consistent analysis of measured results, it shows the threshold value would change slightly with ambient concentration of ozone precursors and emission characteristics. The consistent analysis of simulated results presents the assessment ability of different indicators. O3/NOz v.s.O3/HNO3 and H2O2/NOz v.s. H2O2/HNO3 shows the best consistency of assessment ability based on the same theory. Based on different theories, O3/NOy v.s. H2O2/NOy、O3/NOy v.s. NOy、O3/NOy v.s. HCHO/NOy and Ox/NOy, Ox/(NOy-NO) coinciding with other indicators shows better assessment ability respectively. The consistency of assessment of O3/HNO3 v.s. H2O2/HNO3 presents second rate ability.
O3/NOz, H2O2/NOy, H2O2/(NOy-NO), and HCHO/NOy show the good consistency with spatial variation by t-test. There are no significant difference with different air quality features. The best indicators of consistently associated with temporal variation are O3/NOz, H2O2/NOz, H2O2/(NOy-NO), and NOy. However there is significant difference for almost all indicator species at the downwind sites.
The combinations of measured and simulated results present that there are good consistency between different indicators and are consistently associated with temporal and spatial variation of O3/NOy, O3/NOz, and H2O2/(NOy-NO). So, to assess the ozone sensitivity well , we can use the above indicators and adopt the other indicators such as H2O2/NOy, HCHO/NOy, H2O2/HNO3, and O3/HNO3 to improve the ability of assessment of ozone sensitivity. Consequently, these indicators are used to assess the ozone precursors well in southern Taiwan.

Beaver, S. and A. Palazoglu , “A cluster aggregation scheme for ozone episode selection in the San Francisco, CA Bay Area”, Atmospheric Enviroment, V40, pp713-725, 2006.

Chen T.F. and K.H. Chang , “Formulating the relationship between ozone pollution features and the transition value of photochemical indicators.” Atmospheric Environment ,V40, pp1816-1827 ,2006.

Hidy, G. M.,” Ozone process insights from field experiments Part I: overview”, Atmospheric Environment, V34, pp2001-2022, 2000.

Hsieh, C.C and J.H .Tsai , “VOC concentration characteristics in Southern Taiwan.”, Chemosphere ,V50, pp545-556 , 2003.

Lu, C.H. and J. S. Chang , “On the indicator-based approach to assess ozone sensitivities and emissions features.” J. Geophys. Res., V103, pp3453-3462 , 1998.

Seinfeld, J.H. and S.N. Pandis, “Atmospheric chemistry and physics.” , 1998.

Milford, J.B., D.Gao, S. Sillman, P. Blossey, and A.G. Russell, ” Total reactive nitrogen (NOy) as an indicator for the sensitivity of ozone to NOx and hydrocarbons.” J. Geophys. Res, V99, pp3533-3542, 1994.

Sillman S.,” The use of NOy, H2O2 and HNO3 as indicators for O3-NOx-ROG sensitivity in urban locations.” J. Geophys. Res. V100, pp14175-14188, 1995.

Sillman S., “Evaluating the relation between ozone, NOx and hydrocarbons: the method of photochemical indicators” , EPA/600/R-98/022, US Environmental Protection Agency , 1998.

Andreani-Aksoyoglu S., C.H. Lu, J. Keller, A. Prevot and J.S. Chang, “Variability of indicator values for ozone production sensitivity: a model study in Switzerland and San Joaquin Valley (California)”, Atmospheric Environment , V35 , pp5593–5604 , 2001.

Sillman S. and D.He,“Some theoretical results concerning O3-NOx-VOC chemistry and O3-VOC indicators.” J. Geophys. Res., V107, pp4659-4673 , 2002.

US EPA,”User Manual for the EPA Third-Generation Air Quality Modeling System(Models-3 Version 3.0)”, EPA/600/R-99/030 , 1999.

Peng Y.P., K.S. Chen, C.H. Lai, P.J. Lu, and J.H.Kao, “Concentrations of H2O2 and HNO3 and O3-VOC-NOx sensitivity in ambient air in southern Taiwan” Atmospheric Environment ,V40 ,pp6741-6751 , 2006.

行政院環保署網站
http://www.epa.gov.tw/main/index.asp

行政院環保署,”空氣污染物排放量推估手冊(TEDS 5.1版) ”

蔡德明、林勇明、吳義林，”臭氧敏感性指標物種與臭氧生成相關性之研究”， 第十六屆空氣污染控制技術研討會論文集，第13-18頁，1999。

莊桓齊，”台灣地區臭氧敏感性光化指標之建立與探討” ，國立台灣大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2001。

陳幸芬，”台南縣臭氧敏感性物種之調查研究”，國立成功大學環境醫學研究所碩士論文，2001。

彭彥彬，”屏東地區臭氧敏感性物種與光化指標之研究探討”，國立中山大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2003。

陳杜甫，”臭氧光化指標之定量及其變異研究”，國立雲林科技大學工程科技研究所博士論文，2006。

林勇名，”大氣中氣相H2O2 量測方法及光化學反應機制之研究”，國立成功大學環境工程學系碩士論文，1998。

吳義林、陳明妮、溫育勇，”H2O2 採樣方法之影響”，第十七屆空氣污染控制技術研討會論文集，第584-589 頁，2000。

陳明妮，” Fenton法應用於大氣中氣相H2O2採樣之研究”，國立成功大學環境工程學系碩士論文，2000。

陳森豐，”高高屏地區空氣污染物之三度空間分佈”，國立成功大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2004。

張能復、蔡俊鴻、吳義林，”都會區臭氧污染趨勢分析及防制之研究”，行政院環境保護署期末報告，1996、1997、1998。

吳義林、賴進興、林清和、賴信志、林博雄、林沛練，”高屏地區氣象與空氣品質三度空間觀測與分析計畫”，第一年、第二年環保署專案計畫期末報告，2006、2006。

林清和，”高屏空品區臭氧空氣品質不良成因探討與前驅污染物質來源分析，子計畫一：臭氧前驅物排放與氣象因數對於高屏地區臭氧濃度之影響分析”，環保署期末報告，2005。

陳順宇、鄭碧娥，”統計學”第四版第九章，華泰書局，2004。