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
NAQPMS-PDAF v2.0: a novel hybrid nonlinear data assimilation system for improved simulation of PM2.5 chemical components
Hongyi Li, Ting Yang, Lars Nerger, Dawei Zhang, Di Zhang, Guigang Tang, Haibo Wang, Yele Sun, Pingqing Fu, Hang Su, and Zifa Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8495–8519, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Source-specific bias correction of US background and anthropogenic ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8373–8397, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024, 2024
Short summary
Observational operator for fair model evaluation with ground NO2 measurements
Li Fang, Jianbing Jin, Arjo Segers, Ke Li, Ji Xia, Wei Han, Baojie Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Lei Zhu, Song Liu, and Hong Liao
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8267–8282, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8267-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8267-2024, 2024
Short summary
Valid time shifting ensemble Kalman filter (VTS-EnKF) for dust storm forecasting
Mijie Pang, Jianbing Jin, Arjo Segers, Huiya Jiang, Wei Han, Batjargal Buyantogtokh, Ji Xia, Li Fang, Jiandong Li, Hai Xiang Lin, and Hong Liao
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8223–8242, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8223-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8223-2024, 2024
Short summary
An updated parameterization of the unstable atmospheric surface layer in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) modeling system
Prabhakar Namdev, Maithili Sharan, Piyush Srivastava, and Saroj Kanta Mishra
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8093–8114, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8093-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8093-2024, 2024
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.