Distribution of hydrogen peroxide and formaldehyde over Central Europe during the HOOVER project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this study we report measurements of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), methyl hydroperoxide* (MHP* as a proxy of MHP based on an unspecific measurement of total organic peroxides) and formaldehyde (HCHO) from the HOx OVer EuRope (HOOVER) project (HOx = OH+HO2). HOOVER included two airborne field campaigns, in October 2006 and July 2007. Measurement flights were conducted from the base of operation Hohn (Germany, 54° N, 9° E) towards the Mediterranean and to the subpolar regions over Norway. We find negative concentration gradients with increasing latitude throughout the troposphere for H2O2 and CH3OOH*. In contrast, observed HCHO is almost homogeneously distributed over central and northern Europe and is elevated over the Mediterranean. In general, the measured gradients tend to be steepest entering the Mediterranean region, where we also find the highest abundances of the 3 species. Mixing ratios of these tracers generally decrease with altitude. H2O2 and CH3OOH* show maxima above the boundary layer at 2–5 km, being more distinct over southern than over northern Europe. We also present a comparison of our data with simulations by two global 3-D-models, MATCH-MPIC and EMAC, and with the box model CAABA. The models realistically represent altitude and latitude gradients for both HCHO and hydroperoxides (ROOH). In contrast, the models have problems reproducing the absolute mixing ratios, in particular of H2O2. Large uncertainties about retention coefficients and cloud microphysical parameters suggest that cloud scavenging might be a large source of error for the simulation of H2O2. A sensitivity study with EMAC shows a strong influence of cloud and precipitation scavenging on the budget of H2O2 as simulations improve significantly with this effect switched off.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".