Articles | Volume 16, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023
Development and technical paper
 | 
28 Apr 2023
Development and technical paper |  | 28 Apr 2023

Comparison of ozone formation attribution techniques in the northeastern United States

Qian Shu, Sergey L. Napelenok, William T. Hutzell, Kirk R. Baker, Barron H. Henderson, Benjamin N. Murphy, and Christian Hogrefe

Related authors

Source specific bias correction of US background ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554, 2024
Short summary
An updated modeling framework to simulate Los Angeles air quality – Part 1: Model development, evaluation, and source apportionment
Elyse A. Pennington, Yuan Wang, Benjamin C. Schulze, Karl M. Seltzer, Jiani Yang, Bin Zhao, Zhe Jiang, Hongru Shi, Melissa Venecek, Daniel Chau, Benjamin N. Murphy, Christopher M. Kenseth, Ryan X. Ward, Havala O. T. Pye, and John H. Seinfeld
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2345–2363, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2345-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2345-2024, 2024
Short summary
Impacts of updated reaction kinetics on the global GEOS-Chem simulation of atmospheric chemistry
Kelvin H. Bates, Mathew J. Evans, Barron H. Henderson, and Daniel J. Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1511–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1511-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1511-2024, 2024
Short summary
Revisiting day-of-week ozone patterns in an era of evolving US air quality
Heather Simon, Christian Hogrefe, Andrew Whitehill, Kristen M. Foley, Jennifer Liljegren, Norm Possiel, Benjamin Wells, Barron H. Henderson, Lukas C. Valin, Gail Tonnesen, K. Wyat Appel, and Shannon Koplitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1855–1871, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Revising VOC emissions speciation improves global simulations of ethane and propane
Matthew James Rowlinson, Lucy Carpenter, Katie Read, Shalini Punjabi, Adedayo Adedeji, Luke Fakes, Ally Lewis, Ben Richmond, Neil Passant, Tim Murrells, Barron Henderson, Kelvin Bates, Deltev Helmig, and Mat Evans
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2557,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2557, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
Jana Fischereit, Henrik Vedel, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Natalie E. Theeuwes, Gregor Giebel, and Eigil Kaas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2855–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Analytical and adaptable initial conditions for dry and moist baroclinic waves in the global hydrostatic model OpenIFS (CY43R3)
Clément Bouvier, Daan van den Broek, Madeleine Ekblom, and Victoria A. Sinclair
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2961–2986, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024, 2024
Short summary
Challenges of constructing and selecting the “perfect” boundary conditions for the large-eddy simulation model PALM
Jelena Radović, Michal Belda, Jaroslav Resler, Kryštof Eben, Martin Bureš, Jan Geletič, Pavel Krč, Hynek Řezníček, and Vladimír Fuka
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2901–2927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024, 2024
Short summary
A machine learning approach for evaluating Southern Ocean cloud radiative biases in a global atmosphere model
Sonya L. Fiddes, Marc D. Mallet, Alain Protat, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Simon P. Alexander, and Kalli Furtado
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2641–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024, 2024
Short summary
Decision Support System version 1.0 (DSS v1.0) for air quality management in Delhi, India
Gaurav Govardhan, Sachin D. Ghude, Rajesh Kumar, Sumit Sharma, Preeti Gunwani, Chinmay Jena, Prafull Yadav, Shubhangi Ingle, Sreyashi Debnath, Pooja Pawar, Prodip Acharja, Rajmal Jat, Gayatry Kalita, Rupal Ambulkar, Santosh Kulkarni, Akshara Kaginalkar, Vijay K. Soni, Ravi S. Nanjundiah, and Madhavan Rajeevan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2617–2640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Atkinson, R.: Atmospheric Chemistry of VOCS and NOx, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2063–2101, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(99)00460-4, 2000. 
Baker, K. R., Woody, M. C., Tonnesen, G. S., Hutzell, W., Pye, H. O. T., Beaver, M. R., Pouliot, G., and Pierce, T.: Contribution of regional-scale fire events to ozone and PM2.5 Air Quality estimated by photochemical modeling approaches, Atmos. Environ., 140, 539–554, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.032, 2016. 
Bash, J. O., Baker, K. R., and Beaver, M. R.: Evaluation of improved land use and canopy representation in BEIS v3.61 with biogenic VOC measurements in California, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2191–2207, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2191-2016, 2016. 
Booker, F., Muntifering, R., McGrath, M., Burkey, K., Decoteau, D., Fiscus, E., Manning, W., Krupa, S., Chappelka, A., and Grantz, D.: The ozone component of Global Change: Potential Effects on agricultural and horticultural plant yield, product quality and interactions with invasive species, J. Integr. Plant Biol., 51, 337–351, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2008.00805.x, 2009. 
Burr, M. J. and Zhang, Y.: Source apportionment of fine particulate matter over the Eastern U. S. Part I: Source sensitivity simulations using CMAQ with the brute force method, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 2, 300–317, https://doi.org/10.5094/apr.2011.036, 2011. 
Download
Short summary
Source attribution methods are generally used to determine culpability of precursor emission sources to ambient pollutant concentrations. However, source attribution of secondarily formed pollutants such as ozone and its precursors cannot be explicitly measured, making evaluation of source apportionment methods challenging. In this study, multiple apportionment approach comparisons show common features but still reveal wide variations in predicted sector contribution and species dependency.