Source and variability of formaldehyde (HCHO) at northern high latitudes: an integrated satellite, aircraft, and model study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we use satellite observations of formaldehyde (HCHO) vertical column densities (VCD) from the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), aircraft measurements, combined with a nested regional chemical transport model (GEOS-Chem at 0.5×0.625∘ resolution), to better understand the variability and sources of summertime HCHO in Alaska. We first evaluate GEOS-Chem with in-situ airborne measurements during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission 1 (ATom-1) aircraft campaign. We show reasonable agreement between observed and modeled HCHO, isoprene, monoterpenes and the sum of methyl vinyl ketone and methacrolein (MVK+MACR) in the continental boundary layer. In particular, HCHO profiles show spatial homogeneity in Alaska, suggesting a minor contribution of biogenic emissions to HCHO VCD. We further examine the TROPOMI HCHO product in Alaska in summer, reprocessed by GEOS-Chem model output for a priori profiles and shape factors. For years with low wildfire activity (e.g., 2018), we find that HCHO VCDs are largely dominated by background HCHO (58 %–71 %), with minor contributions from wildfires (20 %–32 %) and biogenic VOC emissions (8 %–10 %). For years with intense wildfires (e.g., 2019), summertime HCHO VCD is dominated by wildfire emissions (50 %–72 %), with minor contributions from background (22 %–41 %) and biogenic VOCs (6 %–10 %). In particular, the model indicates a major contribution of wildfires from direct emissions of HCHO, instead of secondary production of HCHO from oxidation of larger VOCs. We find that the column contributed by biogenic VOC is often small and below the TROPOMI detection limit, in part due to the slow HCHO production from isoprene oxidation under low NO x conditions. This work highlights challenges for quantifying HCHO and its precursors in remote pristine regions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".