Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The European Aerosol Budget in 2006|
|Authors:||AAN DE BRUGH J.m.; SCHAAP Martijn; VIGNATI Elisabetta; DENTENER Franciscus; KANHERT M; SOFIEV M; HUIJNEN V.; KROL M|
|Citation:||ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS vol. 11 no. 3 p. 1117-1139|
|Publisher:||COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||This paper presents the aerosol budget over Europe in 2006 calculated with the global transport model TM5 coupled to the size-resolved aerosol module M7. Comparison with ground observations indicates that the model reproduces the observed concentrations quite well with 5 an expected slight underestimation of PM10 due to missing emissions (e.g. resuspension). We observe that a little less than half of the anthropogenic aerosols emitted in Europe are exported and the rest is removed by deposition. The anthropogenic aerosols are removed mostly by rain (95%) and only 5% is removed by dry deposition. For the larger natural aerosols, especially sea salt, a larger fraction is removed by dry processes (sea salt: 70%, mineral dust: 35%). We 10 observe transport of aerosols in the jet stream in the higher atmosphere and an import of Sahara dust from the south at high altitudes. Comparison with optical measurements shows that the model reproduces the A° ngstro¨m parameter very well, which indicates a correct simulation of the aerosol size distribution. However, we observe an underestimation of the aerosol optical depth. Because the surface concentrations are close to the observations, the shortage of aerosol 15 in the model is probably at higher altitudes. We show that the discrepancies are mainly caused by an overestimation of wet-removal rates. To match the observations, the wet-removal rates have to be scaled down by a factor of about 5. In that case the modelled ground-level concentrations of sulphate and sea salt increase by 50% (which deteriorates the match), while other components stay roughly the same. Finally, it is shown that in particular events, improved fire 20 emission estimates may significantly improve the ability of the model to simulate the aerosol optical depth. We stress that discrepancies in aerosol models can be adequately analysed if all models would provide (regional) aerosol budgets, as presented in the current study|
|JRC Institute:||Institute for Environment and Sustainability|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.