Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34824572›Full record

ArticleAtmospheric chemistry and physics2021

Technical note: AQMEII4 Activity 1: evaluation of wet and dry deposition schemes as an integral part of regional-scale air quality models.

Stefano Galmarini, Paul Makar, Olivia E Clifton, Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O Bash, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Johannes Bieser, Tim Butler, Jason Ducker and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Sensitivity of air quality to vehicle ammonia emissions in the United States.Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.

Stefano GalmariniJoint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Paul MakarAir Quality Modelling and Integration Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Canada.
Olivia E CliftonNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA.
Christian HogrefeOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Jesse O BashOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Roberto BellasioEnviroware srl, Concorezzo, MB, Italy.
Roberto BianconiEnviroware srl, Concorezzo, MB, Italy.
Johannes BieserInstitute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany.
Tim ButlerInstitute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany.
Jason DuckerEarth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Johannes FlemmingEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK.
Alma HodzicNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA.
Christopher D HolmesEarth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Ioannis KioutsioukisLaboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Physics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Richard KranenburgNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Aurelia LupascuInstitute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany.
Juan Luis Perez-CamanyoTechnical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain.
Jonathan PleimOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Young-Hee RyuPohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, South Korea.
Roberto San JoseTechnical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain.
Donna SchwedeOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Sam SilvaPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.
Ralf WolkeLeibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany.
Environmental Protection Agency · USFlorida State University · USNSF National Center for Atmospheric Research · USResearch Institute for Sustainability at GFZ · DEUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid · ESEnvironment and Climate Change Canada · CAEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts · GBHelmholtz-Zentrum Hereon · DEJoint Research Centre · ITLeibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research · DENetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NLPacific Northwest National Laboratory · USPohang University of Science and Technology · KRUniversity of Patras · GR

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present in this technical note the research protocol for phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). This research initiative is divided into two activities, collectively having three goals: (i) to define the current state of the science with respect to representations of wet and especially dry deposition in regional models, (ii) to quantify the extent to which different dry deposition parameterizations influence retrospective air pollutant concentration and flux predictions, and (iii) to identify, through the use of a common set of detailed diagnostics, sensitivity simulations, model evaluation, and reduction of input uncertainty, the specific causes for the current range of these predictions. Activity 1 is dedicated to the diagnostic evaluation of wet and dry deposition processes in regional air quality models (described in this paper), and Activity 2 to the evaluation of dry deposition point models against ozone flux measurements at multiple towers with multiyear observations (to be described in future submissions as part of the special issue on AQMEII4). The scope of this paper is to present the scientific protocols for Activity 1, as well as to summarize the technical information associated with the different dry deposition approaches used by the participating research groups of AQMEII4. In addition to describing all common aspects and data used for this multi-model evaluation activity, most importantly, we present the strategy devised to allow a common process-level comparison of dry deposition obtained from models using sometimes very different dry deposition schemes. The strategy is based on adding detailed diagnostics to the algorithms used in the dry deposition modules of existing regional air quality models, in particular archiving diagnostics specific to land use-land cover (LULC) and creating standardized LULC categories to facilitate cross-comparison of LULC-specific dry deposition parameters and processes, as well as archiving effective conductance and effective flux as means for comparing the relative influence of different pathways towards the net or total dry deposition. This new approach, along with an analysis of precipitation and wet deposition fields, will provide an unprecedented process-oriented comparison of deposition in regional air quality models. Examples of how specific dry deposition schemes used in participating models have been reduced to the common set of comparable diagnostics defined for AQMEII4 are also presented.

Identifiers

PMID34824572
PMCPMC8609478
OpenAlexW3163645381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.