MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894008648 · doi:10.5194/acp-15-10411-2015

Sources, seasonality, and trends of southeast US aerosol: an integrated analysis of surface, aircraft, and satellite observations with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model

2015· article· en· W1894008648 on OpenAlexaff
P. S. Kim, Daniel Jacob, Jenny A. Fisher, Katherine R. Travis, Karen Yu, Lei Zhu, Robert M. Yantosca, Melissa P. Sulprizio, J. L. Jiménez, Pedro Campuzano‐Jost, K. D. Froyd, J. Liao, Johnathan W. Hair, Marta A. Fenn, C. F. Butler, N. L. Wagner, T. D. Gordon, André Welti, P. O. Wennberg, John D. Crounse, Jason M. St. Clair, A. P. Teng, Dylan B. Millet, Joshua P. Schwarz, M. Z. Markovic, A. E. Perring

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Eye InstituteOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People's Republic of ChinaOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of EnergyOak Ridge Associated UniversitiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAerosolChemical transport modelAtmospheric sciencesTroposphereIsopreneEnvironmental scienceSulfateSeasonalityClimatologyParticulatesSulfate aerosolSatelliteMeteorologyChemistryGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We use an ensemble of surface (EPA CSN, IMPROVE, SEARCH, AERONET), aircraft (SEAC4RS), and satellite (MODIS, MISR) observations over the southeast US during the summer–fall of 2013 to better understand aerosol sources in the region and the relationship between surface particulate matter (PM) and aerosol optical depth (AOD). The GEOS-Chem global chemical transport model (CTM) with 25 × 25 km2 resolution over North America is used as a common platform to interpret measurements of different aerosol variables made at different times and locations. Sulfate and organic aerosol (OA) are the main contributors to surface PM2.5 (mass concentration of PM finer than 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter) and AOD over the southeast US. OA is simulated successfully with a simple parameterization, assuming irreversible uptake of low-volatility products of hydrocarbon oxidation. Biogenic isoprene and monoterpenes account for 60 % of OA, anthropogenic sources for 30 %, and open fires for 10 %. 60 % of total aerosol mass is in the mixed layer below 1.5 km, 25 % in the cloud convective layer at 1.5–3 km, and 15 % in the free troposphere above 3 km. This vertical profile is well captured by GEOS-Chem, arguing against a high-altitude source of OA. The extent of sulfate neutralization (f = [NH4+]/(2[SO42−] + [NO3−]) is only 0.5–0.7 mol mol−1 in the observations, despite an excess of ammonia present, which could reflect suppression of ammonia uptake by OA. This would explain the long-term decline of ammonium aerosol in the southeast US, paralleling that of sulfate. The vertical profile of aerosol extinction over the southeast US follows closely that of aerosol mass. GEOS-Chem reproduces observed total column aerosol mass over the southeast US within 6 %, column aerosol extinction within 16 %, and space-based AOD within 8–28 % (consistently biased low). The large AOD decline observed from summer to winter is driven by sharp declines in both sulfate and OA from August to October. These declines are due to shutdowns in both biogenic emissions and UV-driven photochemistry. Surface PM2.5 shows far less summer-to-winter decrease than AOD and we attribute this in part to the offsetting effect of weaker boundary layer ventilation. The SEAC4RS aircraft data demonstrate that AODs measured from space are consistent with surface PM2.5. This implies that satellites can be used reliably to infer surface PM2.5 over monthly timescales if a good CTM representation of the aerosol vertical profile is available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations335
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207