Logo image
Back
Why do models perform differently on particulate matter over East Asia? A multi-model intercomparison study for MICS-Asia III
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Why do models perform differently on particulate matter over East Asia? A multi-model intercomparison study for MICS-Asia III

Jiani Tan, Joshua S Fu, Gregory R Carmichael, Syuichi Itahashi, Zhining Tao, Kan Huang, Xinyi Dong, Kazuyo Yamaji, Tatsuya Nagashima, Xuemei Wang, …
Atmospheric chemistry and physics, Vol.20(12), pp.7393-7410
06/25/2020
DOI: 10.5194/acp-20-7393-2020
url
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7393-2020View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

This study compares the performance of 12 regional chemical transport models (CTMs) from the third phase of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia (MICS-Asia III) on simulating the particulate matter (PM) over East Asia (EA) in 2010. The participating models include the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Community Multiscale Air Quality (WRF-CMAQ; v4.7.1 and v5.0.2), the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System coupled with CMAQ (RAMS-CMAQ; v4.7.1 and v5.0.2), the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with chemistry (WRF-Chem; v3.6.1 and v3.7.1), Goddard Earth Observing System coupled with chemistry (GEOS-Chem), a non-hydrostatic model coupled with chemistry (NHM-Chem), the Nested Air Quality Prediction Modeling System (NAQPMS) and the NASA-Unified WRF (NU-WRF). This study investigates three model processes as the possible reasons for different model performances on PM. (1) Models perform very differently in the gas–particle conversion of sulfur (S) and oxidized nitrogen (N). The model differences in sulfur oxidation ratio (50 %) are of the same magnitude as that in SO42- concentrations. The gas–particle conversion is one of the main reasons for different model performances on fine mode PM. (2) Models without dust emission modules can perform well on PM10 at non-dust-affected sites but largely underestimate (up to 50 %) the PM10 concentrations at dust sites. The implementation of dust emission modules in the models has largely improved the model accuracies at dust sites (reduce model bias to −20 %). However, both the magnitude and distribution of dust pollution are not fully captured. (3) The amounts of modeled depositions vary among models by 75 %, 39 %, 21 % and 38 % for S wet, S dry, N wet and N dry depositions, respectively. Large inter-model differences are found in the washout ratios of wet deposition (at most 170 % in India) and dry deposition velocities (generally 0.3–2 cm s−1 differences over inland regions).

Details

Metrics

1 File views/ downloads
33 Record Views
24 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image