Articles | Volume 8, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2877-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2877-2015
Development and technical paper
 | 
15 Sep 2015
Development and technical paper |  | 15 Sep 2015

Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v5.0 against size-resolved measurements of inorganic particle composition across sites in North America

C. G. Nolte, K. W. Appel, J. T. Kelly, P. V. Bhave, K. M. Fahey, J. L. Collett Jr., L. Zhang, and J. O. Young

Related authors

The Detailed Emissions Scaling, Isolation, and Diagnostic (DESID) module in the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 5.3.2
Benjamin N. Murphy, Christopher G. Nolte, Fahim Sidi, Jesse O. Bash, K. Wyat Appel, Carey Jang, Daiwen Kang, James Kelly, Rohit Mathur, Sergey Napelenok, George Pouliot, and Havala O. T. Pye
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3407–3420, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3407-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3407-2021, 2021
Short summary
The Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model versions 5.3 and 5.3.1: system updates and evaluation
K. Wyat Appel, Jesse O. Bash, Kathleen M. Fahey, Kristen M. Foley, Robert C. Gilliam, Christian Hogrefe, William T. Hutzell, Daiwen Kang, Rohit Mathur, Benjamin N. Murphy, Sergey L. Napelenok, Christopher G. Nolte, Jonathan E. Pleim, George A. Pouliot, Havala O. T. Pye, Limei Ran, Shawn J. Roselle, Golam Sarwar, Donna B. Schwede, Fahim I. Sidi, Tanya L. Spero, and David C. Wong
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2867–2897, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2867-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2867-2021, 2021
Short summary
The potential effects of climate change on air quality across the conterminous US at 2030 under three Representative Concentration Pathways
Christopher G. Nolte, Tanya L. Spero, Jared H. Bowden, Megan S. Mallard, and Patrick D. Dolwick
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 15471–15489, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15471-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15471-2018, 2018
Short summary
Southeast Atmosphere Studies: learning from model-observation syntheses
Jingqiu Mao, Annmarie Carlton, Ronald C. Cohen, William H. Brune, Steven S. Brown, Glenn M. Wolfe, Jose L. Jimenez, Havala O. T. Pye, Nga Lee Ng, Lu Xu, V. Faye McNeill, Kostas Tsigaridis, Brian C. McDonald, Carsten Warneke, Alex Guenther, Matthew J. Alvarado, Joost de Gouw, Loretta J. Mickley, Eric M. Leibensperger, Rohit Mathur, Christopher G. Nolte, Robert W. Portmann, Nadine Unger, Mika Tosca, and Larry W. Horowitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2615–2651, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2615-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2615-2018, 2018
Short summary
The effects of global change upon United States air quality
R. Gonzalez-Abraham, S. H. Chung, J. Avise, B. Lamb, E. P. Salathé Jr., C. G. Nolte, D. Loughlin, A. Guenther, C. Wiedinmyer, T. Duhl, Y. Zhang, and D. G. Streets
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 12645–12665, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-12645-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-12645-2015, 2015

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
An enhanced emission module for the PALM model system 23.10 with application for PM10 emission from urban domestic heating
Edward C. Chan, Ilona J. Jäkel, Basit Khan, Martijn Schaap, Timothy M. Butler, Renate Forkel, and Sabine Banzhaf
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1119–1139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1119-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1119-2025, 2025
Short summary
Identifying lightning processes in ERA5 soundings with deep learning
Gregor Ehrensperger, Thorsten Simon, Georg J. Mayr, and Tobias Hell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1141–1153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1141-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1141-2025, 2025
Short summary
Sensitivity of predicted ultrafine particle size distributions in Europe to different nucleation rate parameterizations using PMCAMx-UF v2.2
David Patoulias, Kalliopi Florou, and Spyros N. Pandis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1103–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1103-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1103-2025, 2025
Short summary
Explaining neural networks for detection of tropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers in gridded atmospheric simulation data
Tim Radke, Susanne Fuchs, Christian Wilms, Iuliia Polkova, and Marc Rautenhaus
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1017–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1017-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1017-2025, 2025
Short summary
Accurate space-based NOx emission estimates with the flux divergence approach require fine-scale model information on local oxidation chemistry and profile shapes
Felipe Cifuentes, Henk Eskes, Enrico Dammers, Charlotte Bryan, and Folkert Boersma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 621–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, D. J., Pickering, K. E., Pinder, R. W., Henderson, B. H., Appel, K. W., and Prados, A.: Impact of lightning-NO on eastern United States photochemistry during the summer of 2006 as determined using the CMAQ model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1737–1758, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1737-2012, 2012.
Appel, K. W., Bhave, P. V., Gilliland, A. B., Sarwar, G., and Roselle, S. J.: Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: sensitivities impacting model performance; Part II – Particulate matter, Atmos. Environ., 42, 6057–6066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.03.036, 2008.
Appel, K. W., Pouliot, G. A., Simon, H., Sarwar, G., Pye, H. O. T., Napelenok, S. L., Akhtar, F., and Roselle, S. J.: Evaluation of dust and trace metal estimates from the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 883–899, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-883-2013, 2013.
Asgharian, B., Hofmann, W., and Bergmann, R.: Particle deposition in a multiple-path model of the human lung, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 34, 332–339, 2001.
Baker, K. R. and Foley, K. M.: A nonlinear regression model estimating single source concentrations of primary and secondarily formed PM2.5, Atmos. Environ., 45, 3758–3767, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.074, 2011.
Download
Short summary
This study is the most comprehensive evaluation of CMAQ inorganic aerosol size-composition distributions conducted to date. We compare two methods of inferring PM2.5 concentrations from the model: (1) based on the sum of the masses in the fine aerosol modes, as is most commonly done in CMAQ model evaluation; and (2) computed using the simulated size distributions. Differences are generally less than 1 microgram/m3, and are largest over the eastern USA during the summer.
Share