Articles | Volume 14, issue 7
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4731–4750, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4731-2021
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4731–4750, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4731-2021

Model experiment description paper 29 Jul 2021

Model experiment description paper | 29 Jul 2021

Comparison of source apportionment approaches and analysis of non-linearity in a real case model application

Claudio A. Belis et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-410 --> very good comparison', Richard Kranenburg, 24 Mar 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2020-410', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Apr 2021
  • AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-410', Claudio Belis, 19 May 2021

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Claudio Belis on behalf of the Authors (19 May 2021)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (22 Jun 2021) by Axel Lauer

Post-review adjustments

AA: Author's adjustment | EA: Editor approval
AA by Claudio Belis on behalf of the Authors (16 Jul 2021)   Author's adjustment   Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (26 Jul 2021) by Axel Lauer
Download
Short summary
The study presents an in-depth analysis of the implications that using different CTM source apportionment approaches (tagged species and brute force) have for the source allocation of secondary inorganic aerosol, an important component of PM10 and PM2.5. A set of runs combining different emission levels and models was carried out, aiming to describe the situations in which strong non-linearity may lead the two approaches to deliver different results and when they are expected to be comparable.