Modeling the Impacts of Volatile Chemical Product Emissions on Atmospheric Photochemistry and Ozone Formation in Los Angeles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dominant fraction of anthropogenic volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions shifted from transportation fuels to volatile chemical products (VCP) in Los Angeles (LA) in 2010. This shift in VOC composition raises the question about the importance of VCP emissions for ozone (O3) formation. In this study, O3 chemistry during the CalNex 2010 was modeled using the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM) version 3.3.1 and a detailed representation of VCP emissions based on measurements combined with inventory estimates. The model calculations indicate that VCP emissions contributed to 23% of the mean daily maximum 8‐hr average O3 (DMA8 O3) during the O3 episodes. The simulated OH reactivity, including the contribution from VCP emissions, aligns with observations. Additionally, this framework was employed using four lumped mechanisms with simplified representations of emissions and chemistry. RACM2‐VCP showed the closest agreement with MCM, with a slight 4% increase in average DMA8 O3 (65 ± 13 ppb), whereas RACM2 (58 ± 13 ppb) and SAPRC07B (59 ± 14 ppb) exhibited slightly lower levels. CB6r2, however, recorded reduced concentrations (37 ± 10 ppb). Although emissions of O3 precursors have declined in LA since 2010, O3 levels have not decreased significantly. Model results ascribed this trend to the rapid reduction in NOX emissions. Moreover, given the impact of COVID‐19, an analysis of 2020 reveals a shift to a NOX‐limited O3 formation regime in LA, thereby diminishing the influence of VCPs. This study provides new insights into the impact of VCP emissions on O3 pollution from an in‐depth photochemical perspective.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".