Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


Main Title Correcting RADM's Sulfate Underprediction: Discovery and Correction of Model Errors and Testing the Corrections Through Comparisons against Field Data.
Author Dennis, R. L. ; McHenry, J. N. ; Barchet, W. R. ; Binkowski, F. S. ; Byun, D. W. ;
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Lab. ;National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Research Triangle Park, NC. Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Div. ;Computer Sciences Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC. Applied Technology Div. ;Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs., Richland, WA. Atmospheric Sciences Dept.
Publisher 1993
Year Published 1993
Report Number EPA/600/J-93/481;
Stock Number PB94-119963
Additional Subjects Sulfates ; Air pollution ; Error analysis ; Deposition ; Seasonal variations ; Regional analysis ; Comparison ; Decision making ; Clouds(Meteorology) ; Acidification ; Revisions ; Pollution sources ; Wind direction ; Field tests ; Regional Acid Deposition Model ; Acid Deposition and Oxidant Model ; Eulerian Model Evaluation Field Study
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB94-119963 Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. 07/26/2022
Collation 24p
A serious underprediction of ambient sulfate SO4(sup -2) by two comprehensive, Eulerian models of acid deposition, the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) and the Acid Deposition and Oxidant Model (ADOM), was found in the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program phase of the Eulerian Model Evaluation Field Study (EMEFS) model evaluation. Two hypotheses were proposed to explain the cause of the underprediction in RADM: insufficient SO4(sup -2) production by nonprecipitating convective clouds and insufficient primary SO4(sup -2) emissions. Modifications of the RADM cloud and scavenging module to better simulate nonprecipitating cumulus clouds are described in detail. Three contrasting pairs of tests using data from the EMEFS were applied to these hypotheses: source vs. downwind regions; mid summer vs. late summer seasons, sunny-dry vs. cloudy-wet synoptic types. The SO4(sup -2) emissions hypothesis, tested by artificially boosting SO4(sup -2) emissions, fared better than expected but was rejected because of its poor performance on the regional and seasonal contrast tests. The RADM nonprecipitating cumulus modification successfully captured the seasonal and the late summer synoptic contrasts but improvement is still needed for the regional and mid summer synoptic contrasts.