Articles | Volume 16, issue 16
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10651-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10651-2016
Research article
 | 
26 Aug 2016
Research article |  | 26 Aug 2016

Evaluating secondary inorganic aerosols in three dimensions

Keren Mezuman, Susanne E. Bauer, and Kostas Tsigaridis

Related authors

The interactive global fire module pyrE (v1.0)
Keren Mezuman, Kostas Tsigaridis, Gregory Faluvegi, and Susanne E. Bauer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3091–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3091-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3091-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Rapid oxidation of phenolic compounds by O3 and HO: effects of the air–water interface and mineral dust in tropospheric chemical processes
Yanru Huo, Mingxue Li, Xueyu Wang, Jianfei Sun, Yuxin Zhou, Yuhui Ma, and Maoxia He
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12409–12423, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12409-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12409-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modeling the contribution of leads to sea spray aerosol in the high Arctic
Rémy Lapere, Louis Marelle, Pierre Rampal, Laurent Brodeau, Christian Melsheimer, Gunnar Spreen, and Jennie L. Thomas
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12107–12132, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12107-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12107-2024, 2024
Short summary
Importance of aerosol composition and aerosol vertical profiles in global spatial variation in the relationship between PM2.5 and aerosol optical depth
Haihui Zhu, Randall V. Martin, Aaron van Donkelaar, Melanie S. Hammer, Chi Li, Jun Meng, Christopher R. Oxford, Xuan Liu, Yanshun Li, Dandan Zhang, Inderjeet Singh, and Alexei Lyapustin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11565–11584, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11565-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11565-2024, 2024
Short summary
The co-benefits of a low-carbon future for PM2.5 and O3 air pollution in Europe
Connor J. Clayton, Daniel R. Marsh, Steven T. Turnock, Ailish M. Graham, Kirsty J. Pringle, Carly L. Reddington, Rajesh Kumar, and James B. McQuaid
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10717–10740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10717-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10717-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assessing the effectiveness of SO2, NOx, and NH3 emission reductions in mitigating winter PM2.5 in Taiwan using CMAQ
Ping-Chieh Huang, Hui-Ming Hung, Hsin-Chih Lai, and Charles C.-K. Chou
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10759–10772, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10759-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10759-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aan de Brugh, J. M. J., Henzing, J. S., Schaap, M., Morgan, W. T., van Heerwaarden, C. C., Weijers, E. P., Coe, H., and Krol, M. C.: Modelling the partitioning of ammonium nitrate in the convective boundary layer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 3005–3023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3005-2012, 2012.
Adams, P. J., Seinfeld, J. H. and Koch, D. M.: Global concentrations of tropospheric sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium aerosol simulated in a general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 13791–13823, 1999.
Allan, J. D., Jimenez, J. L., Williams, P. I., Rami Alfarra, M., Bower, K. N., Jayne, J. T., Coe, H., and Worsnop, D. R.: Correction to “Quantitative sampling using an Aerodyne aerosol mass spectrometer: 1. Techniques of data interpretation and error analysis”, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4283, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD001607, 2003.
Anderson, D. C., Loughner, C. P., Diskin, G., Weinheimer, A., Canty, T. P., Salawitch, R. J., Worden, H. M., Fried, A., Mikoviny, T., Wisthaler, A. and Dickerson, R. R.: Measured and modeled CO and NOy in DISCOVER-AQ: An evaluation of emissions and chemistry over the eastern US, Atmos. Environ., 96, 78–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.004, 2014.
Bauer, S. E. and Koch, D.: Impact of heterogeneous sulfate formation at mineral dust surfaces on aerosol loads and radiative forcing in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005870, 2005.
Download
Short summary
We test new parameterizations for secondary inorganic aerosols in GISS ModelE. To evaluate the model performance, we use measurements of these aerosols and gaseous precursors from surface and aircraft measurements over the USA and Europe. We show that considering the size distribution of these particles, as well as a variety of formation pathways, is important. Overall, our model underestimates the aerosol mass compared to measurements, while gaseous precursors are overestimated.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint