Articles | Volume 10, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2365-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2365-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | Highlight paper
 | 
27 Jun 2017
Methods for assessment of models | Highlight paper |  | 27 Jun 2017

STRAPS v1.0: evaluating a methodology for predicting electron impact ionisation mass spectra for the aerosol mass spectrometer

David O. Topping, James Allan, M. Rami Alfarra, and Bernard Aumont

Related authors

Description and evaluation of the community aerosol dynamics model MAFOR v2.0
Matthias Karl, Liisa Pirjola, Tiia Grönholm, Mona Kurppa, Srinivasan Anand, Xiaole Zhang, Andreas Held, Rolf Sander, Miikka Dal Maso, David Topping, Shuai Jiang, Leena Kangas, and Jaakko Kukkonen
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3969–4026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3969-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3969-2022, 2022
Short summary
JlBox v1.1: a Julia-based multi-phase atmospheric chemistry box model
Langwen Huang and David Topping
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2187–2203, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2187-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2187-2021, 2021
Short summary
PyCHAM (v2.1.1): a Python box model for simulating aerosol chambers
Simon Patrick O'Meara, Shuxuan Xu, David Topping, M. Rami Alfarra, Gerard Capes, Douglas Lowe, Yunqi Shao, and Gordon McFiggans
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 675–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-675-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-675-2021, 2021
Short summary
Quantifying bioaerosol concentrations in dust clouds through online UV-LIF and mass spectrometry measurements at the Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory
Douglas Morrison, Ian Crawford, Nicholas Marsden, Michael Flynn, Katie Read, Luis Neves, Virginia Foot, Paul Kaye, Warren Stanley, Hugh Coe, David Topping, and Martin Gallagher
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 14473–14490, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14473-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14473-2020, 2020
Short summary
Evaluating the use of Facebook's Prophet model v0.6 in forecasting concentrations of NO2 at single sites across the UK and in response to the COVID-19 lockdown in Manchester, England
David Topping, David Watts, Hugh Coe, James Evans, Thomas J. Bannan, Douglas Lowe, Caroline Jay, and Jonathan W. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-270,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-270, 2020
Publication in GMD not foreseen
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Low-level jets in the North and Baltic seas: mesoscale model sensitivity and climatology using WRF V4.2.1
Bjarke T. E. Olsen, Andrea N. Hahmann, Nicolas G. Alonso-de-Linaje, Mark Žagar, and Martin Dörenkämper
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4499–4533, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025, 2025
Short summary
SynRad v1.0: a radar forward operator to simulate synthetic weather radar observations from volcanic ash clouds
Vishnu Nair, Anujah Mohanathan, Michael Herzog, David G. Macfarlane, and Duncan A. Robertson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4417–4432, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4417-2025, 2025
Short summary
Chempath 1.0: an open-source pathway analysis program for photochemical models
Daniel Garduno Ruiz, Colin Goldblatt, and Anne-Sofie Ahm
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4433–4454, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4433-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4433-2025, 2025
Short summary
PALACE v1.0: Paranal Airglow Line And Continuum Emission model
Stefan Noll, Carsten Schmidt, Patrick Hannawald, Wolfgang Kausch, and Stefan Kimeswenger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4353–4398, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4353-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4353-2025, 2025
Short summary
Atmospheric moisture tracking with WAM2layers v3
Peter Kalverla, Imme Benedict, Chris Weijenborg, and Ruud J. van der Ent
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4335–4352, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4335-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4335-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.: Elemental analysis of organic species with electron ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry, Anal. Chem., 79, 8350–8358, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac071150w, 2007.
Alfarra, M. R., Good, N., Wyche, K. P., Hamilton, J. F., Monks, P. S., Lewis, A. C., and McFiggans, G.: Water uptake is independent of the inferred composition of secondary aerosols derived from multiple biogenic VOCs, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11769–11789, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11769-2013, 2013.
Aumont, B., Szopa, S., and Madronich, S.: Modelling the evolution of organic carbon during its gas-phase tropospheric oxidation: development of an explicit model based on a self generating approach, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2497–2517, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2497-2005, 2005.
Aumont, B., Valorso, R., Mouchel-Vallon, C., Camredon, M., Lee-Taylor, J., and Madronich, S.: Modeling SOA formation from the oxidation of intermediate volatility n-alkanes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7577–7589, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7577-2012, 2012.
Download
Short summary
Our ability to model the chemical and thermodynamic processes that lead to secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation is thought to be hampered by the complexity of the system. In this proof of concept study, the ability to train supervised methods to predict electron impact ionisation (EI) mass spectra for the AMS is evaluated to facilitate improved model evaluation. The study demonstrates the use of a methodology that would be improved with more training data and data from simple mixed systems.
Share