Articles | Volume 23, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023
Research article
 | 
20 Jul 2023
Research article |  | 20 Jul 2023

An analysis of CMAQ gas-phase dry deposition over North America through grid-scale and land-use-specific diagnostics in the context of AQMEII4

Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Jonathan E. Pleim, Donna B. Schwede, Robert C. Gilliam, Kristen M. Foley, K. Wyat Appel, and Rohit Mathur

Related authors

Source specific bias correction of US background ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-554, 2024
Short summary
Revisiting day-of-week ozone patterns in an era of evolving US air quality
Heather Simon, Christian Hogrefe, Andrew Whitehill, Kristen M. Foley, Jennifer Liljegren, Norm Possiel, Benjamin Wells, Barron H. Henderson, Lukas C. Valin, Gail Tonnesen, K. Wyat Appel, and Shannon Koplitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1855–1871, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1855-2024, 2024
Short summary
A single-point modeling approach for the intercomparison and evaluation of ozone dry deposition across chemical transport models (Activity 2 of AQMEII4)
Olivia E. Clifton, Donna Schwede, Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Sam Bland, Philip Cheung, Mhairi Coyle, Lisa Emberson, Johannes Flemming, Erick Fredj, Stefano Galmarini, Laurens Ganzeveld, Orestis Gazetas, Ignacio Goded, Christopher D. Holmes, László Horváth, Vincent Huijnen, Qian Li, Paul A. Makar, Ivan Mammarella, Giovanni Manca, J. William Munger, Juan L. Pérez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Limei Ran, Roberto San Jose, Sam J. Silva, Ralf Staebler, Shihan Sun, Amos P. K. Tai, Eran Tas, Timo Vesala, Tamás Weidinger, Zhiyong Wu, and Leiming Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9911–9961, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023, 2023
Short summary
Comparison of ozone formation attribution techniques in the northeastern United States
Qian Shu, Sergey L. Napelenok, William T. Hutzell, Kirk R. Baker, Barron H. Henderson, Benjamin N. Murphy, and Christian Hogrefe
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2303–2322, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2303-2023, 2023
Short summary
Long-term regional trends of nitrogen and sulfur deposition in the United States from 2002 to 2017
Sarah E. Benish, Jesse O. Bash, Kristen M. Foley, K. Wyat Appel, Christian Hogrefe, Robert Gilliam, and George Pouliot
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12749–12767, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12749-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12749-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
A bottom-up emission estimate for the 2022 Nord Stream gas leak: derivation, simulations, and evaluation
Rostislav Kouznetsov, Risto Hänninen, Andreas Uppstu, Evgeny Kadantsev, Yalda Fatahi, Marje Prank, Dmitrii Kouznetsov, Steffen Manfred Noe, Heikki Junninen, and Mikhail Sofiev
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 4675–4691, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4675-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4675-2024, 2024
Short summary
European CH4 inversions with ICON-ART coupled to the CarbonTracker Data Assimilation Shell
Michael Steiner, Wouter Peters, Ingrid Luijkx, Stephan Henne, Huilin Chen, Samuel Hammer, and Dominik Brunner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2759–2782, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Extreme weather exacerbates ozone pollution in the Pearl River Delta, China: role of natural processes
Nan Wang, Hongyue Wang, Xin Huang, Xi Chen, Yu Zou, Tao Deng, Tingyuan Li, Xiaopu Lyu, and Fumo Yang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1559–1570, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1559-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1559-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multidecadal ozone trends in China and implications for human health and crop yields: a hybrid approach combining a chemical transport model and machine learning
Jia Mao, Amos P. K. Tai, David H. Y. Yung, Tiangang Yuan, Kong T. Chau, and Zhaozhong Feng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 345–366, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-345-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-345-2024, 2024
Short summary
On the influence of vertical mixing, boundary layer schemes, and temporal emission profiles on tropospheric NO2 in WRF-Chem – comparisons to in situ, satellite, and MAX-DOAS observations
Leon Kuhn, Steffen Beirle, Vinod Kumar, Sergey Osipov, Andrea Pozzer, Tim Bösch, Rajesh Kumar, and Thomas Wagner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 185–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-185-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-185-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Alapaty, K., Cheng, B., Bash, J., Munger, J. W., Walker, J. T., and Arunachalam, S.: Dry deposition methods based on turbulence kinetic energy: 1. Evaluation of various resistances and sensitivity studies using a single-point model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036631, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036631, 2022. 
Appel, K. W., Gilliam, R. C., Davis, N., Zubrow, A., and Howard, S. C.: Overview of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET) v1.1 for evaluating meteorological and air quality models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 434–443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.09.007, 2011. 
Appel, K. W., Chemel, C., Roselle, S. J., Francis, X. V., Hu, R.-M., Sokhi, R. S., Rao, S. T., and Galmarini, S.: Examination of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model Performance over the North American and European Domains, Atmos. Environ., 53, 142–155, 2012. 
Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., Logan, J. A., Field, B. D., Fiore, A. M., Li, Q., Liu, H. Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schultz, M. G.: Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23073–23095, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000807, 2001. 
Download
Short summary
Under the umbrella of the fourth phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), this study applies AQMEII4 diagnostic tools to better characterize how dry deposition removes pollutants from the atmosphere in the widely used CMAQ model. The results illustrate how these tools can provide insights into similarities and differences between the two CMAQ dry deposition options that affect simulated pollutant budgets and ecosystem impacts from atmospheric pollution.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint