Practical aspects of using satellite data in air quality modeling

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 42, Issue 22, 2008, Pages 8187-8192

  Vijayaraghavan, Krish ^a   Snell, Hilary E ^b   Seigneur, Christian ^c  

^a ATMOSPHERIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^b AER

^c Air Quality Division   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; ATMOSPHERIC MODELING; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; SATELLITE DATA;

AEROSOL; AIR POLLUTANT; AIR POLLUTION; AIR QUALITY; AIR QUALITY CONTROL; AIR QUALITY STANDARD; ATMOSPHERE; CHEMICAL MODEL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OXIDATION KINETICS; PARAMETER; POLLUTANT; POLLUTION TRANSPORT; REMOTE SENSING; REVIEW; SIMULATION; TELECOMMUNICATION; TROPOSPHERE;

AIR; AIR POLLUTANTS; ATMOSPHERE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS;

EID: 56449099124     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es7031339     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Engel-Cox, J.; et al. Recommendations on the use of satellite remote-sensing data for urban air quality. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2004, 54, 1360-1371.
2. Edwards, D. P. Air quality remote sensing from space. Eos Trans. AGU 2006, 87, 327.
3. Mazzoni, D.; et al. A data-mining approach to associating MISR smoke plume heights with MODIS fire measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 107, 138-148.
4. Heald, C. L. Transpacific transport of Asian anthropogenic aerosols and its impact on surface air quality in the United States. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D14310; DOI 10.1029/2005JD006847.
5. Byun, D.W.; et al. Utilization of satellite measurements at various stages of atmospheric modeling to improve air quality simulations. Presented at Workshop on Air Quality Remote Sensing from Space, Boulder, CO, Feb 21-23,2006; www.acd.ucar.edu/Events/Meetings/Air_Quality_Remote_Sensing/Presentations/3.6. Byun.pdf.
6. Hodzic, A.; et al. Evolution of aerosol optical thickness over Europe during the August 2003 heat wave as seen from POLDER data and CHIMERE model simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2006, 6, 1853-1864.
7. Kondragunta, S.; et al. Air quality forecast verification using satellite data. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol. 2008, 47, 425-442.
8. Rodgers, C. D. Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice. Series on Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Planetary Physics, Vol. 2; World Scientific: Singapore, 2000.
9. Deeter, M. N. Calculation and Application of MOPITT Averaging Kernels; National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): Boulder, CO, 2002; www.eos.ucar.edu/mopitt/data/avg_krnls_app.pdf.
10. Palmer, P.I.; et al. Air mass factor formulation for spectroscopic measurements from satellites: Application to formaldehyde retrievals from the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment. J. Geophys. Res. 2001, 106, 14539-14550.
11. 2 retrieval from space. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109, D04311; DOI 10.1029/2003JD003962.
12. x emissions over the eastern United States and Mexico. Atmos. Environ. 2008 42, 4480-4497.
13. Chin, M.; et al. Tropospheric aerosol optical thickness from the GOCART model and comparisons with satellite and Sun photometer measurements. J. Atmos. Sci. 2002, 59, 461-483.
14. Vukovich, F. M. Application of a regional air quality model to study aspects of the characteristics of the TOMS/SBUV tropospheric ozone residual (TOR), IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2003, 4, 2462-2464; DOI 10.1109/IGARSS.2003.1294476.
15. Pierce, R. B. Chemical data assimilation estimates of continental U.S. ozone and nitrogen budgets during the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment-North America. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D12S21; DOI 10.1029/2006JD007722.
16. Jing, P. Summertime tropospheric ozone columns from Aura OMI/MLS measurements versus regional model results over the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2000, 33, L17817; DOI 10.1029/2006GL026473.
17. Pickering, K.; et al. Exploration of OMI products for air quality applications through comparisons with models and observations. Geophys. Res. Abs. 2006, 8, 02422.
18. Roy, B. A comparison of CMAQ-based aerosol properties with IMPROVE, MODIS, and AERONET data. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D14301; DOI 10.1029/2006JD008085.
19. Vijayaraghavan, K.; et al. Evaluation of a regional air pollution model with satellite measurements. Presented at Workshop on Air Quality Remote Sensing from Space, Boulder, CO, Feb 21-23, 2006.
20. Vijayaraghavan, K.; et al. Evaluation of CMAQ using satellite remote sensing observations. Presented at Fifth Annual CMAS User's Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, Oct 16-18, 2006; www.cmascenter.org/conference/2006/abstracts/ vijayaraghavan_session7.pdf.
21. Zhang, Y.; et al. Evaluation of regional PM predictions with satellite and surface measurements. Presented at AAAR 2005 Annual Conference, Austin, TX, Oct 17-21,2005; www.aaar.org/meetings/05AnnualConf/conf_abstracts_aug30_05.pdf.
22. Ziemke, J. R. Tropospheric ozone determined from Aura OMI and MLS: Evaluation of measurements and comparison with the Global Modeling Initiative's Chemical Transport Model. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D19303; DOI 10.1029/2006JD007089.
23. 3 measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D24S40; DOI 10.1029/2007JD008721.
24. Wittrock, F. Simultaneous global observations of glyoxal and formaldehyde from space. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L16804; DOI 10.1029/2006GL026310.
25. Matsui, T. Regional comparison and assimilation of GOCART and MODIS aerosol optical depth across the eastern U.S. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, L21101; DOI 10.1029/2004GL021017.
26. Liu, X. First directly retrieved global distribution of tropospheric column ozone from GOME: comparison with the GEOS-CHEM model. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D02308; DOI 10.1029/2005JD006564.
27. Blond, N. Intercomparison of SCIAMACHY nitrogen dioxide observations, in situ measurements and air quality modeling results over Western Europe. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D10311; DOI 10.1029/2006JD007277.
28. 3 chemistry. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D15301; DOI 10.1029/2005JD006036.
29. Allen, D. Evaluation of pollutant outflow and CO sources during TRACE-P using model-calculated, aircraft-based, and Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT)-derived CO concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109, D15S03; DOI 10.1029/2003JD004250.
30. Yu, H. Annual cycle of global distributions of aerosol optical depth from integration of MODIS retrievals and GOCART model simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, DOI 10.1029/2002JD002717.
31. Heald, C. L. Asian outflow and trans-Pacific transport of carbon monoxide and ozone pollution: An integrated satellite, aircraft, and model perspective. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, DOI 10.1029/2003JD003507.
32. Zhang, L. Ozone-CO correlations determined by the TES satellite instrument in continental outflow regions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L18804; DOI 10.1029/2006GL026399.
33. 2 columns. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, D17; DOI 10.1029/2003JD003453.
34. Martin, R. V. Evaluation of space-based constraints on global nitrogen oxide emissions with regional aircraft measurements over and downwind of eastern North America. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D15308; DOI 10.1029/2005JD006680.
35. Millet, D. B. Spatial distribution of isoprene emissions from North America derived from formaldehyde column measurements by the OMI satellite sensor. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, D02307; DOI 10.1029/2007JD008950.
36. Kopacz, M.; et al. Comparison of adjoint and analytical Bayesian inversion methods for constraining Asian sources of carbon monoxide using satellite (MOPITT) measurements of CO columns. J. Geophys. Res. 2008; DOI 10.1029/2007JD009264, in press.
37. x emission using the adjoint of CMAQ. Presented at Fifth Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, Oct 16-18, 2006; www.cmascenter.org/conference/2006/ppt/ session7/hakami.ppt.
38. Roustan, Y.; Bocquet, M. Inverse modeling of mercury over Europe. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2006, 6, 3085-3098.
39. 3 using observations from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer. Geophys. Res. Abs. 2006, 8, 05375.
40. 10 ambient concentration. Proc. SPIE, Remote Sens. Clouds Atmos. IX 2004, 5571, 282-292.