Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1767-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1767-2017
Model evaluation paper
 | 
27 Apr 2017
Model evaluation paper |  | 27 Apr 2017

Spatiotemporal evaluation of EMEP4UK-WRF v4.3 atmospheric chemistry transport simulations of health-related metrics for NO2, O3, PM10, and PM2. 5 for 2001–2010

Chun Lin, Mathew R. Heal, Massimo Vieno, Ian A. MacKenzie, Ben G. Armstrong, Barbara K. Butland, Ai Milojevic, Zaid Chalabi, Richard W. Atkinson, David S. Stevenson, Ruth M. Doherty, and Paul Wilkinson

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Mathew Heal on behalf of the Authors (15 Dec 2016)  Author's response   Manuscript 
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Dec 2016) by Volker Grewe
RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (05 Jan 2017)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (05 Jan 2017) by Volker Grewe
AR by Mathew Heal on behalf of the Authors (14 Feb 2017)  Author's response   Manuscript 
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Feb 2017) by Volker Grewe
RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (10 Mar 2017)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (14 Mar 2017) by Volker Grewe
AR by Mathew Heal on behalf of the Authors (23 Mar 2017)  Author's response   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (29 Mar 2017) by Volker Grewe
AR by Mathew Heal on behalf of the Authors (29 Mar 2017)
Download
Short summary
We evaluated EMEP4UK-WRF v4.3 atmospheric chemistry transport simulations at 5 km horizontal resolution over the UK for use in air pollution epidemiology and health burden assessment. Model-measurement comparison focused on daily and annual means for NO2, O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Important statistics for evaluation of air-quality model output against policy (and hence health)-relevant standards – correlation, bias, and root mean square error – were evaluated by site type, year, month and day-of-week.