Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 29 OF 51

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title International Sulfur Deposition Model Evaluation (ISDME).
Author Clark, T. L. ; Dennis, R. L. ; Seilkop, S. ; Alvo, M. ; Voldner, E. C. ;
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Atmospheric Sciences Research Lab. ;Analytical Sciences, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. ;Ottawa Univ. (Ontario). ;Atmospheric Environment Service, Downsview (Ontario).
Year Published 1987
Report Number EPA/600/D-87/232;
Stock Number PB87-212742
Additional Subjects Mathematical models ; Sulfur inorganic compounds ; North America ; Sulfur dioxide ; Sulfates ; Comparison ; Performance evaluation ; International sulfur deposition models ; Acid rain ; Air pollution sampling
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB87-212742 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 06/21/1988
Collation 25p
Abstract
Eleven linear-chemistry atmospheric models of sulfur deposition were evaluated for each season of 1980. The evaluation data set consisted of sulfur wet deposition amounts calculated from screened precipitation chemistry measurements at 46 sites across eastern North America. The focus of this study differed substantially from those of preceding model evaluation studies in that the ISDME emphasized the ability of the models to replicate, within the uncertainties of the observations, the spatial patterns of observed seasonal amounts. Patterns of the predictions and observations were constructed via an interpolation technique known as simple kriging, which minimizes interpolation errors and estimates uncertainties resulting from the interpolation errors as well as measurement errors. The evaluation results indicated that for all seasons but spring, the models generally did not mimic the observed location of the seasonal maximum amounts of sulfur wet deposition within the uncertainty limits. However, the interpolated predictions of eight models were within the uncertainty limits of the interpolated observations across at least 80% of the evaluation region for at least three seasons.