MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273112858 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-4081-2016

Understanding sources of organic aerosol during CalNex-2010 using the CMAQ-VBS

2016· article· en· W2273112858 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Woody, Kirk R. Baker, Patrick L. Hayes, J. L. Jiménez, Bonyoung Koo, Havala O. T. Pye

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationChina Scholarship CouncilCalifornia Air Resources BoardOffice of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCMAQAerosolEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexAtmospheric sciencesNOxEnvironmental chemistryChemistryMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model simulations utilizing the traditional organic aerosol (OA) treatment (CMAQ-AE6) and a volatility basis set (VBS) treatment for OA (CMAQ-VBS) were evaluated against measurements collected at routine monitoring networks (Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) and Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)) and those collected during the 2010 California at the Nexus of Air Quality and Climate Change (CalNex) field campaign to examine important sources of OA in southern California. Traditionally, CMAQ treats primary organic aerosol (POA) as nonvolatile and uses a two-product framework to represent secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation. CMAQ-VBS instead treats POA as semivolatile and lumps OA using volatility bins spaced an order of magnitude apart. The CMAQ-VBS approach underpredicted organic carbon (OC) at IMPROVE and CSN sites to a greater degree than CMAQ-AE6 due to the semivolatile POA treatment. However, comparisons to aerosol mass spectrometer (AMS) measurements collected at Pasadena, CA, indicated that CMAQ-VBS better represented the diurnal profile and primary/secondary split of OA. CMAQ-VBS SOA underpredicted the average measured AMS oxygenated organic aerosol (OOA, a surrogate for SOA) concentration by a factor of 5.2, representing a considerable improvement to CMAQ-AE6 SOA predictions (factor of 24 lower than AMS). We use two new methods, one based on species ratios (SOA/ΔCO and SOA/O x ) and another on a simplified SOA parameterization, to apportion the SOA underprediction for CMAQ-VBS to slow photochemical oxidation (estimated as 1.5 × lower than observed at Pasadena using −log(NO x : NO y )), low intrinsic SOA formation efficiency (low by 1.6 to 2 × for Pasadena), and low emissions or excessive dispersion for the Pasadena site (estimated to be 1.6 to 2.3 × too low/excessive). The first and third factors are common to CMAQ-AE6, while the intrinsic SOA formation efficiency for that model is estimated to be too low by about 7 × . From source-apportioned model results, we found most of the CMAQ-VBS modeled POA at the Pasadena CalNex site was attributable to meat cooking emissions (48 %, consistent with a substantial fraction of cooking OA in the observations). This is compared to 18 % from gasoline vehicle emissions, 13 % from biomass burning (in the form of residential wood combustion), and 8 % from diesel vehicle emissions. All "other" inventoried emission sources (e.g., industrial, point, and area sources) comprised the final 13 %. The CMAQ-VBS semivolatile POA treatment underpredicted AMS hydrocarbon-like OA (HOA) + cooking-influenced OA (CIOA) at Pasadena by a factor of 1.8 compared to a factor of 1.4 overprediction of POA in CMAQ-AE6, but it did capture the AMS diurnal profile of HOA and CIOA well, with the exception of the midday peak. Overall, the CMAQ-VBS with its semivolatile treatment of POA, SOA from intermediate volatility organic compounds (IVOCs), and aging of SOA improves SOA model performance (though SOA formation efficiency is still 1.6–2 × too low). However, continued efforts are needed to better understand assumptions in the parameterization (e.g., SOA aging) and provide additional certainty to how best to apply existing emission inventories in a framework that treats POA as semivolatile, which currently degrades existing model performance at routine monitoring networks. The VBS and other approaches (e.g., AE6) require additional work to appropriately incorporate IVOC emissions and subsequent SOA formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations119
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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