MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287017574 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-7709-2016

The evolution of biomass-burning aerosol size distributions due to coagulation: dependence on fire and meteorological details and parameterization

2016· article· en· W2287017574 on OpenAlexafffund
K. M. Sakamoto, James R. Laing, Robin Stevens, Daniel A. Jaffe, Jeffrey R. Pierce

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsAerosolAtmospheric sciencesPlumeEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)MeteorologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Biomass-burning aerosols have a significant effect on global and regional aerosol climate forcings. To model the magnitude of these effects accurately requires knowledge of the size distribution of the emitted and evolving aerosol particles. Current biomass-burning inventories do not include size distributions, and global and regional models generally assume a fixed size distribution from all biomass-burning emissions. However, biomass-burning size distributions evolve in the plume due to coagulation and net organic aerosol (OA) evaporation or formation, and the plume processes occur on spacial scales smaller than global/regional-model grid boxes. The extent of this size-distribution evolution is dependent on a variety of factors relating to the emission source and atmospheric conditions. Therefore, accurately accounting for biomass-burning aerosol size in global models requires an effective aerosol size distribution that accounts for this sub-grid evolution and can be derived from available emission-inventory and meteorological parameters. In this paper, we perform a detailed investigation of the effects of coagulation on the aerosol size distribution in biomass-burning plumes. We compare the effect of coagulation to that of OA evaporation and formation. We develop coagulation-only parameterizations for effective biomass-burning size distributions using the SAM-TOMAS large-eddy simulation plume model. For the most-sophisticated parameterization, we use the Gaussian Emulation Machine for Sensitivity Analysis (GEM-SA) to build a parameterization of the aged size distribution based on the SAM-TOMAS output and seven inputs: emission median dry diameter, emission distribution modal width, mass emissions flux, fire area, mean boundary-layer wind speed, plume mixing depth, and time/distance since emission. This parameterization was tested against an independent set of SAM-TOMAS simulations and yields R2 values of 0.83 and 0.89 for Dpm and modal width, respectively. The size distribution is particularly sensitive to the mass emissions flux, fire area, wind speed, and time, and we provide simplified fits of the aged size distribution to just these input variables. The simplified fits were tested against 11 aged biomass-burning size distributions observed at the Mt. Bachelor Observatory in August 2015. The simple fits captured over half of the variability in observed Dpm and modal width even though the freshly emitted Dpm and modal widths were unknown. These fits may be used in global and regional aerosol models. Finally, we show that coagulation generally leads to greater changes in the particle size distribution than OA evaporation/formation does, using estimates of OA production/loss from the literature.

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations72
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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