Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States

In this study, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the Community Multi‐scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method. Over a 30 day test period in July 2011, three assimilatio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres 2017-05, Vol.122 (10), p.5399-5415
Hauptverfasser: Chai, Tianfeng, Kim, Hyun‐Cheol, Pan, Li, Lee, Pius, Tong, Daniel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5415
container_issue 10
container_start_page 5399
container_title Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres
container_volume 122
creator Chai, Tianfeng
Kim, Hyun‐Cheol
Pan, Li
Lee, Pius
Tong, Daniel
description In this study, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the Community Multi‐scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method. Over a 30 day test period in July 2011, three assimilation configurations were used in which MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously. The background error covariance is estimated using both the National Meteorological Center approach and the Hollingsworth‐Lönnberg method. The AOD observations from Terra are assimilated at 17Z and the Aqua AOD observations are assimilated at 20Z each day. AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated 4 times a day at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z. Model performances are measured by the daily averaged and domain‐averaged biases and the root‐mean‐square errors (RMSEs) obtained by comparing the predictions with the AirNow PM2.5 observations that were not assimilated. Either assimilating the MODIS AOD or assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 alone helps PM2.5 predictions over the entire 30 days. The case that assimilates the observations from both sources has the best performance. While the CMAQ PM2.5 results exhibit exaggerated diurnal variations compared to the AirNow measurements, this is not as severe at rural sites as at urban or suburban sites. It was also found that assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 measurements every 6 h. While the simple approach of applying the AOD scaling factors uniformly throughout the vertical columns proved effective, it is liable to produce substantial errors. This is demonstrated by a high‐AOD event. Key Points MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the CMAQ model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously over a 30 day period Assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating PM2.5
doi_str_mv 10.1002/2016JD026295
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1909294975</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1909294975</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j2930-105d9919f4c30d005f44b1916d5cad2f5652633ccca42b037db0d68912b762223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUc1qGzEQXkoKDWlueYCBnp2MpJVsHY2dpA5x0uYHeltkSevI7K62krbGtzxCHqvP0SepnITSYWAG5vsZ-IrihOApQaRnFIm4miMVVPIPxSElQo4mUoqDf_v4x6fiOMYN5pogK3l5WPxetL3SCXwNS29sUMnCnY2-GZLzHSxatXbdGu57q1PwQRnnW5tsgKkNPsPgtk9Oqwbmtk9PoDoDUxdu_Ba-LekpBxWja12jXtVyz3zbDp1LO1gOTXJ_nl9iZts9Cb4Pqtlf1Lt0H6xxes-M4H9lz_RkQfsuufXghwiPWccauE_56fi5-FirJtrj93lUPF6cP8y-jq5vLxez6fVoQyXDEUFupCSyLjVDg8jrslwRSYThWhlac8GpYExrrUq6QjY2KzRiIgldjQWllB0VX950--B_DjamauOH0GXLikiUVJZyzDOKvaG2rrG7qg-uVWFXEaz2WVX_Z1VdXd7NOZtQZH8BTC-Mtw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1909294975</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chai, Tianfeng ; Kim, Hyun‐Cheol ; Pan, Li ; Lee, Pius ; Tong, Daniel</creator><creatorcontrib>Chai, Tianfeng ; Kim, Hyun‐Cheol ; Pan, Li ; Lee, Pius ; Tong, Daniel</creatorcontrib><description>In this study, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the Community Multi‐scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method. Over a 30 day test period in July 2011, three assimilation configurations were used in which MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously. The background error covariance is estimated using both the National Meteorological Center approach and the Hollingsworth‐Lönnberg method. The AOD observations from Terra are assimilated at 17Z and the Aqua AOD observations are assimilated at 20Z each day. AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated 4 times a day at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z. Model performances are measured by the daily averaged and domain‐averaged biases and the root‐mean‐square errors (RMSEs) obtained by comparing the predictions with the AirNow PM2.5 observations that were not assimilated. Either assimilating the MODIS AOD or assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 alone helps PM2.5 predictions over the entire 30 days. The case that assimilates the observations from both sources has the best performance. While the CMAQ PM2.5 results exhibit exaggerated diurnal variations compared to the AirNow measurements, this is not as severe at rural sites as at urban or suburban sites. It was also found that assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 measurements every 6 h. While the simple approach of applying the AOD scaling factors uniformly throughout the vertical columns proved effective, it is liable to produce substantial errors. This is demonstrated by a high‐AOD event. Key Points MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the CMAQ model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously over a 30 day period Assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating PM2.5</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-897X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-8996</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2016JD026295</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aerosol optical depth ; Aerosols ; Air ; Air quality ; Air quality models ; Airborne particulates ; Assimilation ; CMAQ ; Communities ; Covariance ; Depth ; Diurnal variations ; Errors ; Geophysics ; Imaging ; Imaging techniques ; Interpolation ; MODIS ; MODIS AOD ; Multiscale analysis ; Optical analysis ; optimal interpolation ; Optimization ; Particulate matter ; PM2.5 ; Resolution ; Root-mean-square errors ; Scale (ratio) ; Scaling ; Scaling factors ; Suburban areas ; Test procedures</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres, 2017-05, Vol.122 (10), p.5399-5415</ispartof><rights>2017. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-1806-5414 ; 0000-0003-3968-6145 ; 0000-0002-1348-1072 ; 0000-0002-4255-4568 ; 0000-0003-3520-2641</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F2016JD026295$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F2016JD026295$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chai, Tianfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyun‐Cheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Pius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Daniel</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</title><description>In this study, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the Community Multi‐scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method. Over a 30 day test period in July 2011, three assimilation configurations were used in which MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously. The background error covariance is estimated using both the National Meteorological Center approach and the Hollingsworth‐Lönnberg method. The AOD observations from Terra are assimilated at 17Z and the Aqua AOD observations are assimilated at 20Z each day. AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated 4 times a day at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z. Model performances are measured by the daily averaged and domain‐averaged biases and the root‐mean‐square errors (RMSEs) obtained by comparing the predictions with the AirNow PM2.5 observations that were not assimilated. Either assimilating the MODIS AOD or assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 alone helps PM2.5 predictions over the entire 30 days. The case that assimilates the observations from both sources has the best performance. While the CMAQ PM2.5 results exhibit exaggerated diurnal variations compared to the AirNow measurements, this is not as severe at rural sites as at urban or suburban sites. It was also found that assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 measurements every 6 h. While the simple approach of applying the AOD scaling factors uniformly throughout the vertical columns proved effective, it is liable to produce substantial errors. This is demonstrated by a high‐AOD event. Key Points MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the CMAQ model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously over a 30 day period Assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating PM2.5</description><subject>Aerosol optical depth</subject><subject>Aerosols</subject><subject>Air</subject><subject>Air quality</subject><subject>Air quality models</subject><subject>Airborne particulates</subject><subject>Assimilation</subject><subject>CMAQ</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Covariance</subject><subject>Depth</subject><subject>Diurnal variations</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Imaging techniques</subject><subject>Interpolation</subject><subject>MODIS</subject><subject>MODIS AOD</subject><subject>Multiscale analysis</subject><subject>Optical analysis</subject><subject>optimal interpolation</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Particulate matter</subject><subject>PM2.5</subject><subject>Resolution</subject><subject>Root-mean-square errors</subject><subject>Scale (ratio)</subject><subject>Scaling</subject><subject>Scaling factors</subject><subject>Suburban areas</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><issn>2169-897X</issn><issn>2169-8996</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNUc1qGzEQXkoKDWlueYCBnp2MpJVsHY2dpA5x0uYHeltkSevI7K62krbGtzxCHqvP0SepnITSYWAG5vsZ-IrihOApQaRnFIm4miMVVPIPxSElQo4mUoqDf_v4x6fiOMYN5pogK3l5WPxetL3SCXwNS29sUMnCnY2-GZLzHSxatXbdGu57q1PwQRnnW5tsgKkNPsPgtk9Oqwbmtk9PoDoDUxdu_Ba-LekpBxWja12jXtVyz3zbDp1LO1gOTXJ_nl9iZts9Cb4Pqtlf1Lt0H6xxes-M4H9lz_RkQfsuufXghwiPWccauE_56fi5-FirJtrj93lUPF6cP8y-jq5vLxez6fVoQyXDEUFupCSyLjVDg8jrslwRSYThWhlac8GpYExrrUq6QjY2KzRiIgldjQWllB0VX950--B_DjamauOH0GXLikiUVJZyzDOKvaG2rrG7qg-uVWFXEaz2WVX_Z1VdXd7NOZtQZH8BTC-Mtw</recordid><startdate>20170527</startdate><enddate>20170527</enddate><creator>Chai, Tianfeng</creator><creator>Kim, Hyun‐Cheol</creator><creator>Pan, Li</creator><creator>Lee, Pius</creator><creator>Tong, Daniel</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1806-5414</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-6145</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1348-1072</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-4568</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3520-2641</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170527</creationdate><title>Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States</title><author>Chai, Tianfeng ; Kim, Hyun‐Cheol ; Pan, Li ; Lee, Pius ; Tong, Daniel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j2930-105d9919f4c30d005f44b1916d5cad2f5652633ccca42b037db0d68912b762223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aerosol optical depth</topic><topic>Aerosols</topic><topic>Air</topic><topic>Air quality</topic><topic>Air quality models</topic><topic>Airborne particulates</topic><topic>Assimilation</topic><topic>CMAQ</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Covariance</topic><topic>Depth</topic><topic>Diurnal variations</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Imaging techniques</topic><topic>Interpolation</topic><topic>MODIS</topic><topic>MODIS AOD</topic><topic>Multiscale analysis</topic><topic>Optical analysis</topic><topic>optimal interpolation</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Particulate matter</topic><topic>PM2.5</topic><topic>Resolution</topic><topic>Root-mean-square errors</topic><topic>Scale (ratio)</topic><topic>Scaling</topic><topic>Scaling factors</topic><topic>Suburban areas</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chai, Tianfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyun‐Cheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Pius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Daniel</creatorcontrib><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chai, Tianfeng</au><au>Kim, Hyun‐Cheol</au><au>Pan, Li</au><au>Lee, Pius</au><au>Tong, Daniel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</jtitle><date>2017-05-27</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>5399</spage><epage>5415</epage><pages>5399-5415</pages><issn>2169-897X</issn><eissn>2169-8996</eissn><abstract>In this study, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the Community Multi‐scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method. Over a 30 day test period in July 2011, three assimilation configurations were used in which MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously. The background error covariance is estimated using both the National Meteorological Center approach and the Hollingsworth‐Lönnberg method. The AOD observations from Terra are assimilated at 17Z and the Aqua AOD observations are assimilated at 20Z each day. AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated 4 times a day at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z. Model performances are measured by the daily averaged and domain‐averaged biases and the root‐mean‐square errors (RMSEs) obtained by comparing the predictions with the AirNow PM2.5 observations that were not assimilated. Either assimilating the MODIS AOD or assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 alone helps PM2.5 predictions over the entire 30 days. The case that assimilates the observations from both sources has the best performance. While the CMAQ PM2.5 results exhibit exaggerated diurnal variations compared to the AirNow measurements, this is not as severe at rural sites as at urban or suburban sites. It was also found that assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating the AirNow PM2.5 measurements every 6 h. While the simple approach of applying the AOD scaling factors uniformly throughout the vertical columns proved effective, it is liable to produce substantial errors. This is demonstrated by a high‐AOD event. Key Points MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements are assimilated into the CMAQ model using an optimal interpolation (OI) method MODIS AOD and AirNow PM2.5 measurements were first assimilated separately before being assimilated simultaneously over a 30 day period Assimilating the total AOD observations is more beneficial for correcting the PM2.5 underestimations than directly assimilating PM2.5</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/2016JD026295</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1806-5414</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-6145</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1348-1072</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-4568</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3520-2641</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2169-897X
ispartof Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres, 2017-05, Vol.122 (10), p.5399-5415
issn 2169-897X
2169-8996
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1909294975
source Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aerosol optical depth
Aerosols
Air
Air quality
Air quality models
Airborne particulates
Assimilation
CMAQ
Communities
Covariance
Depth
Diurnal variations
Errors
Geophysics
Imaging
Imaging techniques
Interpolation
MODIS
MODIS AOD
Multiscale analysis
Optical analysis
optimal interpolation
Optimization
Particulate matter
PM2.5
Resolution
Root-mean-square errors
Scale (ratio)
Scaling
Scaling factors
Suburban areas
Test procedures
title Impact of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Aerosol Optical Depth and AirNow PM2.5 assimilation on Community Multi‐scale Air Quality aerosol predictions over the contiguous United States
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T14%3A20%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20Moderate%20Resolution%20Imaging%20Spectroradiometer%20Aerosol%20Optical%20Depth%20and%20AirNow%20PM2.5%20assimilation%20on%20Community%20Multi%E2%80%90scale%20Air%20Quality%20aerosol%20predictions%20over%20the%20contiguous%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Atmospheres&rft.au=Chai,%20Tianfeng&rft.date=2017-05-27&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=5399&rft.epage=5415&rft.pages=5399-5415&rft.issn=2169-897X&rft.eissn=2169-8996&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2016JD026295&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E1909294975%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1909294975&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true