Compilation and interpretation of photochemical model performance statistics published between 2006 and 2012

Atmospheric Environment

Volumn 61, Issue , 2012, Pages 124-139

  Simon, Heather ^a   Baker, Kirk R ^a   Phillips, Sharon ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

CAMx; CMAQ; Mercury; Model performance evaluation; Operational evaluation; Ozone; Particulate matter; PM 2.5; Wet deposition

Indexed keywords

CAMX; CMAQ; MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS; OPERATIONAL EVALUATION; PARTICULATE MATTER; WET DEPOSITION;

OZONE;

MERCURY (METAL);

AMMONIA; MERCURY; NITRATE; OZONE; SULFATE;

AMMONIUM; ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION; ATMOSPHERIC MODELING; INORGANIC SALT; MERCURY (ELEMENT); OZONE; PARTICULATE MATTER; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

AIR QUALITY; CANADA; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PARTICLE SIZE; PARTICULATE MATTER; PEER REVIEW; PHOTOCHEMISTRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SEASONAL VARIATION; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; WET DEPOSITION;

EID: 84864527582     PISSN: 13522310     EISSN: 18732844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.012     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Appel K.W., Bhave P.V., Gilliland A.B., Sarwar G., Roselle S.J. Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: sensitivities impacting model performance; part II - particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment 2008, 42:6057-6066.
2. Appel K.W., Foley K.M., Bash J.O., Pinder R.W., Dennis R.L., Allen D.J., Pickering K. A multi-resolution assessment of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 wet deposition estimates for 2002-2006. Geoscientific Model Development 2011, 4:357-371.
3. Appel K.W., Gilliland A.B., Sarwar G., Gilliam R.C. Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: sensitivities impacting model performance. Part I - ozone. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:9603-9615.
4. Appel K.W., Roselle S.J., Gilliam R.C., Pleim J.E. Sensitivity of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 results for the eastern United States to MM5 and WRF meteorological drivers. Geoscientific Model Development 2010, 3:169-188.
5. Arnold J.R., Dennis R.L. Testing CMAQ chemistry sensitivities in base case and emissions control runs at SEARCH and SOS99 surface sites in the southeastern US. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:5027-5040.
6. 3 at background monitor locations in the central and eastern United States. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:6185-6195.
7. 2.5 ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate in the central United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2008, 47:2395-2404.
8. Baker K.R., Bash J.O. Regional scale photochemical model evaluation of total mercury wet deposition and speciated ambient mercury. Atmospheric Environment 2012, 49:151-162.
9. Baker K.R., Simon H., Kelly J.T. Challenges to modeling " Cold Pool" meteorology associated with high pollution episodes. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45:7118-7119.
10. Bigelow D.S. Comparability of wet-only precipitation chemistry measurements from the United States National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) to those of the Canadian network for sampling acid precipitation (CANSAP). Environmental Science & Technology 1991, 25:1867-1875.
11. Boylan J.W., Russell A.G. PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4946-4959.
12. Bullock O.R., Atkinson D., Braverman T., Civerolo K., Dastoor A., Davignon D., Ku J.Y., Lohman K., Myers T.C., Park R.J., Seigneur C., Selin N.E., Sistla G., Vijayaraghavan K. An analysis of simulated wet deposition of mercury from the North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2009, 114:D08301.
13. Byun D.W., Kim S.-T., Kim S.-B. Evaluation of air quality models for the simulation of a high ozone episode in the Houston metropolitan area. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:837-853.
14. Carlton A.G., Baker K.R. Photochemical modeling of the Ozark isoprene volcano: MEGAN, BEIS, and their impacts on air quality predictions. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45:4438-4445.
15. Carlton A.G., Bhave P.V., Napelenok S.L., Edney E.D., Sarwar G., Pinder R.W., Pouliot G.A., Houyoux M. Model representation of secondary organic aerosol in CMAQv4.7. Environmental Science & Technology 2010, 44:8553-8560.
16. 2.5 forecast system for the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2008, 113:D14305.
17. Cho S., Makar P.A., Lee W.S., Herage T., Liggio J., Li S.M., Wiens B., Graham L. Evaluation of a unified regional air-quality modeling system (AURAMS) using PrAIRie2005 field study data: the effects of emissions data accuracy on particle sulphate predictions. Atmospheric Environment 2009, 43:1864-1877.
18. Chow J.C., Watson J.G., Crow D., Lowenthal D.H., Merrifield T. Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH carbon measurements. Aerosol Science and Technology 2001, 34:23-34.
19. de Gouw J., Jimenez J.L. Organic aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere. Environmental Science & Technology 2009, 43:7614-7618.
20. Docherty K.S., Stone E.A., Ulbrich I.M., DeCarlo P.F., Snyder D.C., Schauer J.J., Peltier R.E., Weber R.J., Murphy S.M., Seinfeld J.H., Grover B.D., Eatough D.J., Jimenez J.L. Apportionment of primary and secondary organic aerosols in southern California during the 2005 Study of Organic Aerosols in Riverside (SOAR-1). Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42:7655-7662.
21. Dunlea E.J., Herndon S.C., Nelson D.D., Volkamer R.M., San Martini F., Sheehy P.M., Zahniser M.S., Shorter J.H., Wormhoudt J.C., Lamb B.K., Allwine E.J., Gaffney J.S., Marley N.A., Grutter M., Marquez C., Blanco S., Cardenas B., Retama A., Villegas C.R.R., Kolb C.E., Molina L.T., Molina M.J. Evaluation of nitrogen dioxide chemiluminescence monitors in a polluted urban environment. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2007, 7:2691-2704.
22. Eder B., Kang D., Mathur R., Pleim J., Yu S., Otte T., Pouliot G. A performance evaluation of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability for the summer of 2007. Atmospheric Environment 2009, 43:2312-2320.
23. Eder B., Kang D., Mathur R., Yu S., Schere K. An operational evaluation of the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4894-4905.
24. Eder B., Yu S. A performance evaluation of the 2004 release of Models-3 CMAQ. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4811-4824.
25. El-Zanan H.S., Lowenthal D.H., Zielinska B., Chow J.C., Kumar N. Determination of the organic aerosol mass to organic carbon ratio in IMPROVE samples. Chemosphere 2005, 60:485-496.
26. ENVIRON User's Guide Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 2010, ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, California.
27. Foley K.M., Roselle S.J., Appel K.W., Bhave P.V., Pleim J.E., Otte T.L., Mathur R., Sarwar G., Young J.O., Gilliam R.C., Nolte C.G., Kelly J.T., Gilliland A.B., Bash J.O. Incremental testing of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7. Geoscientific Model Development 2010, 3:205-226.
28. Frank N.H. Retained nitrate, hydrated sulfates, and carbonaceous mass in Federal Reference Method fine particulate matter for six eastern US cities. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2006, 56:500-511.
29. Gaydos T.M., Pinder R., Koo B., Fahey K.M., Yarwood G., Pandis S.N. Development and application of a three-dimensional aerosol chemical transport model, PMCAMx. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:2594-2611.
30. Gego E., Porter P.S., Hogrefe C., Irwin J.S. An objective comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD performances. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4920-4934.
31. Goldstein A.H., Galbally I.E. Known and unexplored organic constituents in the earth's atmosphere. Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41:1514-1521.
32. Gong W., Dastoor A.P., Bouchet V.S., Gong S., Makar P.A., Moran M.D., Pabla B., Menard S., Crevier L.-P., Cousineau S., Venkatesh S. Cloud processing of gases and aerosols in a regional air quality model (AURAMS). Atmospheric Research 2006, 82:248-275.
33. Gorline J.L., Lee P. Performance evaluation of NOAA-EPA developmental aerosol forecasts. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 2009, 9:109-120.
34. Grell G.A., Emeis S., Stockwell W.R., Schoenemeyer T., Forkel R., Michalakes J., Knoche R., Seidl W. Application of a multiscale, coupled MM5/chemistry model to the complex terrain of the VOTALP valley campaign. Atmospheric Environment 2000, 34:1435-1453.
35. Grell G.A., Peckham S.E., Schmitz R., McKeen S.A., Frost G., Skamarock W.C., Eder B. Fully coupled " online" chemistry within the WRF model. Atmospheric Environment 2005, 39:6957-6975.
36. Hogrefe C., Civerolo K.L., Hao W., Ku J.-Y., Zalewsky E.E., Sistla G. Rethinking the assessment of photochemical modeling systems in air quality planning applications. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2008, 58:1086-1099.
37. Hogrefe C., Hao W., Civerolo K., Ku J.Y., Sistla G., Gaza R.S., Sedefian L., Schere K., Gilliland A., Mathur R. Daily simulation of ozone and fine particulates over New York State: findings and challenges. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2007, 46:961-979.
38. Hogrefe C., Hao W., Zalewsky E.E., Ku J.Y., Lynn B., Rosenzweig C., Schultz M.G., Rast S., Newchurch M.J., Wang L., Kinney P.L., Sistla G. An analysis of long-term regional-scale ozone simulations over the Northeastern United States: variability and trends. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2011, 11:567-582.
39. Jin L., Brown N.J., Harley R.A., Bao J.-W., Michelson S.A., Wilczak J.M. Seasonal versus episodic performance evaluation for an Eulerian photochemical air quality model. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2010, 115:D09302.
40. 2.5 air quality index forecasts and their performance evaluations over the continental United States. Atmospheric Environment 2010, 44:2203-2212.
41. Karamchandani P., Vijayaraghavan K., Chen S.-Y., Seigneur C., Edgerton E.S. Plume-in-grid modeling for particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:7280-7297.
42. x emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2009, 114:D11301.
43. Kim Y., Fu J.S., Miller T.L. Improving ozone modeling in complex terrain at a fine grid resolution - part II: influence of schemes in MM5 on daily maximum 8-h ozone concentrations and RRFs (Relative Reduction Factors) for SIPs in the non-attainment areas. Atmospheric Environment 2010, 44:2116-2124.
44. Kleeman M.J., Cass G.R. A 3D Eulerian source-oriented model for an externally mixed aerosol. Environmental Science & Technology 2001, 35:4834-4848.
45. Lee D., Byun D.W., Kim H., Ngan F., Kim S., Lee C., Cho C. Improved CMAQ predictions of particulate matter utilizing the satellite-derived aerosol optical depth. Atmospheric Environment 2011, 45:3730-3741.
46. Lin C.J., Pongprueks P., Rusell Bulock O., Lindberg S.E., Pehkonen S.O., Jang C., Braverman T., Ho T.C. Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models II: sensitivity analysis in the CONUS domain. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:6544-6560.
47. Lin C.J., Shetty S.K., Pan L., Pongprueksa P., Jang C., Chu H. Source attribution for mercury deposition in the contiguous United States: regional difference and seasonal variation. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2012, 62:52-63.
48. Liu X.-H., Zhang Y., Olsen K.M., Wang W.-X., Do B.A., Bridgers G.M. Responses of future air quality to emission controls over North Carolina, part I: model evaluation for current-year simulations. Atmospheric Environment 2010, 44:2443-2456.
49. Makar P.A., Gong W., Mooney C., Zhang J., Davignon D., Samaali M., Moran M.D., He H., Tarasick D.W., Sills D., Chen J. Dynamic adjustment of climatological ozone boundary conditions for air-quality forecasts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2010, 10:8997-9015.
50. Malm W.C., Hand J.L. An examination of the physical and optical properties of aerosols collected in the IMPROVE program. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:3407-3427.
51. Marmur A., Liu W., Wang Y., Russell A.G., Edgerton E.S. Evaluation of model simulated atmospheric constituents with observations in the factor projected space: CMAQ simulations of SEARCH measurements. Atmospheric Environment 2009, 43:1839-1849.
52. Misenis C., Zhang Y. An examination of sensitivity of WRF/Chem predictions to physical parameterizations, horizontal grid spacing, and nesting options. Atmospheric Research 2010, 97:315-334.
53. Molders N., Porter S.E., Cahill C.F., Grell G.A. Influence of ship emissions on air quality and input of contaminants in southern Alaska National Parks and Wilderness Areas during the 2006 tourist season. Atmospheric Environment 2010, 44:1400-1413.
54. Morris R.E., Koo B., Guenther A., Yarwood G., McNally D., Tesche T.W., Tonnesen G., Boylan J., Brewer P. Model sensitivity evaluation for organic carbon using two multi-pollutant air quality models that simulate regional haze in the southeastern United States. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4960-4972.
55. Napelenok S.L., Foley K.M., Kang D., Mathur R., Pierce T., Rao S.T. Dynamic evaluation of regional air quality model's response to emission reductions in the presence of uncertain emission inventories. Atmospheric Environment 2011, 45:4091-4098.
56. Otte T.L. The impact of nudging in the meteorological model for retrospective air quality simulations. Part I: evaluation against national observation networks. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2008, 47:1853-1867.
57. 2.5 on air quality in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2010, 115:D16210.
58. Pudykiewicz J.A., Koziol A.S. The application of Eulerian models for air quality prediction and the evaluation of emission control strategies in Canada. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 2001, 16:425-438.
59. Pun B.K., Seigneur C., Vijayaraghavan K., Wu S.Y., Chen S.Y., Knipping E.M., Kumar N. Modeling regional haze in the BRAVO study using CMAQ-MADRID: 1. Model evaluation. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2006, 111:D06302.
60. Queen A., Zhang Y. Examining the sensitivity of MM5-CMAQ predictions to explicit microphysics schemes and horizontal grid resolutions, part II - PM concentrations and wet deposition predictions. Atmospheric Environment 2008, 42:3856-3868.
61. Queen A., Zhang Y. Examining the sensitivity of MM5-CMAQ predictions to explicit microphysics schemes and horizontal grid resolutions, part III - the impact of horizontal grid resolution. Atmospheric Environment 2008, 42:3869-3881.
62. Rodriguez M.A., Barna M.G., Gebhart K.A., Hand J.L., Adelman Z.E., Schichtel B.A., Collett J.L., Malm W.C. Modeling the fate of atmospheric reduced nitrogen during the Rocky Mountain Atmospheric Nitrogen and Sulfur Study (RoMANS): performance evaluation and diagnosis using integrated processes rate analysis. Atmospheric Environment 2011, 45:223-234.
63. Rodriguez M.A., Barna M.G., Moore T. Regional impacts of oil and gas development on ozone formation in the western United States. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2009, 59:1111-1118.
64. Roy B., Mathur R., Gilliland A.B., Howard S.C. A comparison of CMAQ-based aerosol properties with IMPROVE, MODIS, and AERONET data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2007, 112:D14301.
65. SAI Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) 2002, Systems Applications International, San Rafael, CA.
66. Sakulyanontvittaya T., Guenther A., Helmig D., Milford J., Wiedinmyer C. Secondary organic aerosol from sesquiterpene and monoterpene emissions in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42:8784-8790.
67. Seigneur C., Lohman K., Vijayaraghavan K., Jansen J., Levin L. Modeling atmospheric mercury deposition in the vicinity of power plants. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2006, 56:743-751.
68. Simon H., Bhave P.V., Swall J.L., Frank N.H., Malm W.C. Determining the spatial and seasonal variability in OM/OC ratios across the US using multiple regression. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2011, 11:2933-2949.
69. Simpson D., Yttri K.E., Klimont Z., Kupiainen K., Caseiro A., Gelencser A., Pio C., Puxbaum H., Legrand M. Modeling carbonaceous aerosol over Europe: analysis of the CARBOSOL and EMEP EC/OC campaigns. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2007, 112:D23s14.
70. Slemr F., Baumbach G., Blank P., Corsmeier U., Fiedler F., Friedrich R., Habram M., Kalthoff N., Klemp D., Kuhlwein J., Mannschreck K., Mollmann-Coers M., Nester K., Panitz H.J., Rabl P., Slemr J., Vogt U., Wickert B. Evaluation of modeled spatially and temporarily highly resolved emission inventories of photosmog precursors for the city of Augsburg: the experiment EVA and its major results. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 2002, 42:207-233.
71. Smyth S.C., Jiang W., Roth H., Moran M.D., Makar P.A., Yang F., Bouchet V.S., Landry H. A comparative performance evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ air-quality modelling systems. Atmospheric Environment 2009, 43:1059-1070.
72. 2.5 performance using Pacific 2001 measurement data. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:2735-2749.
73. Spak S.N., Holloway T. Seasonality of speciated aerosol transport over the Great Lakes region. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2009, 114:D08302.
74. Stroud C.A., Makar P.A., Moran M.D., Gong W., Gong S., Zhang J., Hayden K., Mihele C., Brook J.R., Abbatt J.P.D., Slowik J.G. Impact of model grid spacing on regional- and urban- scale air quality predictions of organic aerosol. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2011, 11:3107-3118.
75. Tang W., Cohan D.S., Morris G.A., Byun D.W., Luke W.T. Influence of vertical mixing uncertainties on ozone simulation in CMAQ. Atmospheric Environment 2011, 45:2898-2909.
76. Tarasick D.W., Moran M.D., Thompson A.M., Carey-Smith T., Rochon Y., Bouchet V.S., Gong W., Makar P.A., Stroud C., Menard S., Crevier L.P., Cousineau S., Pudykiewicz J.A., Kallaur A., Moffet R., Menard R., Robichaud A., Cooper O.R., Oltmans S.J., Witte J.C., Forbes G., Johnson B.J., Merrill J., Moody J.L., Morris G., Newchurch M.J., Schmidlin F.J., Joseph E. Comparison of Canadian air quality forecast models with tropospheric ozone profile measurements above midlatitude North America during the IONS/ICARTT campaign: evidence for stratospheric input. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2007, 112:D12s22.
77. Tesche T.W. Accuracy of ozone air-quality models. Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE 1988, 114:739-752.
78. Tesche T.W., Morris R., Tonnesen G., McNally D., Boylan J., Brewer P. CMAQ/CAMx annual 2002 performance evaluation over the eastern US. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4906-4919.
79. Tong D.Q., Mauzerall D.L. Spatial variability of summertime tropospheric ozone over the continental United States: implications of an evaluation of the CMAQ model. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:3041-3056.
80. 2.5 mass concentrations: revisiting common assumptions for estimating organic mass. Aerosol Science and Technology 2001, 35:602-610.
81. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, Research Triangle Park. EPA-454/B-07-002.
82. Vermette S., Lindberg S., Bloom N. Field-tests for a regional mercury deposition network - sampling design and preliminary test-results. Atmospheric Environment 1995, 29:1247-1251.
83. Vijayaraghavan K., Karamchandani P., Seigneur C., Balmori R., Chen S.-Y. Plume-in-grid modeling of atmospheric mercury. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2008, 113:D24305.
84. Vijayaraghavan K., Seigneur C., Karamchandani P., Chen S.Y. Development and application of a multipollutant model for atmospheric mercury deposition. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2007, 46:1341-1353.
85. Volkamer R., Jimenez J.L., San Martini F., Dzepina K., Zhang Q., Salcedo D., Molina L.T., Worsnop D.R., Molina M.J. Secondary organic aerosol formation from anthropogenic air pollution: rapid and higher than expected. Geophysical Research Letters 2006, 33:L17811.
86. Wu S.-Y., Krishnan S., Zhang Y., Aneja V. Modeling atmospheric transport and fate of ammonia in North Carolina - part I: evaluation of meteorological and chemical predictions. Atmospheric Environment 2008, 42:3419-3436.
87. 2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model - part I. Base case model results. Atmospheric Environment 2008, 42:8954-8966.
88. Yu S., Mathur R., Kang D., Schere K., Eder B., Pleim J. Performance and diagnostic evaluation of ozone predictions by the Eta-community multiscale air quality forecast system during the 2002 New England Air Quality Study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2006, 56:1459-1471.
89. 3, its related precursors, and meteorological parameters during the 2004 ICARTT study. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2007, 112:D12s14.
90. 2.5 formation over the eastern United States using the Eta-CMAQ forecast model during the 2004 ICARTT study. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2008, 113:D06204.
91. Zhang L.M., Moran M.D., Makar P.A., Brook J.R., Gong S.L. Modelling gaseous dry deposition in AURAMS: a unified regional air-quality modelling system. Atmospheric Environment 2002, 36:537-560.
92. Zhang Y., Huang J.-P., Henze D.K., Seinfeld J.H. Role of isoprene in secondary organic aerosol formation on a regional scale. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2007, 112:D20207.
93. Zhang Y., Liu P., Queen A., Misenis C., Pun B., Seigneur C., Wu S.-Y. A comprehensive performance evaluation of MM5-CMAQ for the Summer 1999 Southern Oxidants Study episode - part II: gas and aerosol predictions. Atmospheric Environment 2006, 40:4839-4855.
94. Zhang Y., Pan Y., Wang K., Fast J.D., Grell G.A. WRF/Chem-MADRID: incorporation of an aerosol module into WRF/Chem and its initial application to the TexAQS2000 episode. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2010, 115:D18202.
95. Zhang Y., Vijayaraghavan K., Wen X.-Y., Snell H.E., Jacobson M.Z. Probing into regional ozone and particulate matter pollution in the United States: 1. A 1 year CMAQ simulation and evaluation using surface and satellite data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 2009, 114:D22304.