Accounting for Black Carbon Aging Process in a Two-way Coupled Meteorology &ndash; Air Quality Model

Jin, Yuzhi; Wang, Jiandong; Wong, David C.; Liu, Chao; Sarwar, Golam; Fahey, Kathleen M.; Wu, Shang; Wang, Jiaping; Cai, Jing; Tian, Zeyuan; Zhang, Zhouyang; Xing, Jia; Ding, Aijun; Wang, Shuxiao

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372

Preprints

08 Aug 2024

| 08 Aug 2024

Accounting for Black Carbon Aging Process in a Two-way Coupled Meteorology – Air Quality Model

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, David C. Wong, Chao Liu, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Abstract. Black carbon (BC) exerts significant impacts on both climate and environment. BC aging process alters its hygroscopicity and light absorption properties. Current models, like the Weather Research and Forecasting – Community Multiscale Air Quality (WRF-CMAQ) two-way coupled model, inadequately characterize these alterations. In this study, we accounted for BC aging process in the WRF-CMAQ model (WRF-CMAQ-BCG). We introduced two new species (Bare BC and Coated BC) in the model and implemented a module to simulate the conversion from Bare BC to Coated BC, thereby characterizing the aging process. Furthermore, we improved the cloud chemistry and aerosol optics modules to analyze the effects of BC aging on hydrophobicity and light absorption. The simulated results indicate a spatial distribution pattern with Bare BC prevalent near emission sources and Coated BC more common farther from sources. The average Number Fraction of Coated BC (NF_coated) is approximately 57 %. Temporal variation exhibits a distinct diurnal pattern, with NF_coated increasing during the daytime. The spatial distribution of wet deposition varies significantly between Bare and Coated BC. Bare BC exhibits a point-like deposition pattern, whereas Coated BC displays a zonal distribution. Notably, Coated BC dominates the BC wet deposition process. Additionally, incorporating BC aging process reduces BC wet deposition by 17.7 % and increases BC column concentration by 10.5 %. The simulated Mass Absorption Cross-section (MAC) value improved agreement with observed measurements. Overall, the WRF-CMAQ-BCG model enhances the capability to analyze aging-related variables and BC mixing state, while also improving performance in wet deposition and optical properties.

Received: 26 Jul 2024 – Discussion started: 08 Aug 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2433 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (2433 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Feb 2025

Accounting for the black carbon aging process in a two-way coupled meteorology–air quality model

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, Chao Liu, David C. Wong, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2613–2630, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2613-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2613-2025, 2025

Short summary

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, David C. Wong, Chao Liu, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review Comment on egusphere-2024-2372', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2024
The authors implemented a BC aging scheme into the WRF-CMAQ model and found that accounting for BC aging process improves simulated BC optical properties. They also found that adding the aging process significantly affect BC concentration distribution and wet deposition. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and the study fits well into the journal scope. However, there are a few places that require further descriptions and clarifications. I have a few comments and suggestions below for the authors to consider.
Major comments:
The major concern I have is the insufficient model evaluation. Currently, the authors only evaluated the model simulation at one measurement sites, while all their modeling analysis and conclusions come from regional results. Thus, regional-scale evaluation is needed, such as evaluations using IMPROVE aerosol measurement network, AERONET AOD/AAOD measurement network, EPA AirNow network, and/or MODIS AOD data.

Specific comments:
Lines 87-88: This “limited impact” is not accurate, since different BC mixing states affect aerosol hygroscopicity and hence wet deposition, which subsequently change the mass concentration.

Line 103: “… coated with scattering aerosol component”. This is not very accurate since BC can also be coated by some absorbing organics.

Line 108: Even for two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model, there is no aerosol indirect effect considered? Did the authors mean the standard EPA-version of WRF-CMAQ? There might be a WRF-CMAQ version from individual research group that may already have this capability. Please double check.

In Figures 1 and 2, the authors showed that the model includes aerosol-cloud interaction, but in the description of Section 2.1, it seems that the model does not account for the aerosol indirect effect. This needs further clarification.

Equation (3): Which term is for condensation (fast-aging)? It seems that the first beta*[OH] term represents chemical aging and alpha represents coagulation.

Section 2.3: the use of “cloud chemistry” is confusing since BC does not undergo any chemical process in the cloud droplets in the model. Also, the description of this part is not very clear. How did the authors set the hydrophobicity of coated BC? What scheme did the authors use to compute CCN from aerosol number concentration and hygroscopicity? What equations did the authors use to compute the impact scavenging of BC aerosol? More details are needed.

Section 2.4: It is not clear that how the authors compute the number concentrations of bare and coated BC. (1) Are these number concentrations two new prognostic variables tracked by the model? What are the size distributions of bare and coated BC particles used during the mass-to-number conversion? More clarifications are needed. (2) Another key uncertainty factor related to the calculation of BC optics is the particle structure. Many previous studies have shown that using core-shell assumption for coated BC and spherical shape for bare BC cannot realistically represent BC particle optics (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096437; https://doi-org.cuucar.idm.oclc.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00418; https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11967-2015). It may be challenging to add the particle structure info into the model, but some discussions on this uncertainty factor will be helpful.

Lines 220-221: How sensitive the model results are to the assumption of equal fraction of bare and coated BC in the initial and boundary conditions?

Line 223: “the model assimilated data” Did the authors mean they also used data assimilation in their model simulations? Did the authors conduct 3 different simulations by using these 3 datasets (FNL, NAM, and NARR), respectively?

Figures 4-5: It seems that including BC aging only has negligible benefits on model performance. How to better justify the need to include this aging scheme?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thanks for your comments. Please find our point-to-point reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2372', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Oct 2024

Review of “Accounting for black carbon aging process in a two-way coupled meteorology – air quality model” by Y. Jin et al.

In this study, a BC aging parameterization was implemented into the WRF-CMAQ model. BC aging processes are important for accurately estimating the spatial distribution, atmospheric lifetime, optical properties, and activation to cloud particles of BC. While BC has been treated as internally mixed particles in CMAQ, the authors have classified BC into externally mixed and internally mixed particles and introduced an aging parameterization for converting externally mixed particles to internally mixed particles, as well as a scheme for calculating the differences in cloud activation and optical properties between externally mixed and internally mixed BC particles. This study contains interesting aspects as a BC modeling study. However, many similar studies have been published in the last 15 years, and this study lacks scientific novelty. Considering this point, I cannot recommend this study as an ACP paper.

Major comments:
1) The introduction is generally well structured and covers the important previous studies. However, the model developed in this study has already been developed and used in the papers listed in the introduction, indicating that this study lacks scientific originality. It can be said that the optical property part is relatively new, but there have already been many studies focusing on the differences in light absorption efficiency caused by the mixing state of BC particles.

Is it considered that this research is not new scientifically, but new to the CMAQ model? Or does it contain some new scientific findings? I think this research falls into the former category. In that case, this study is not appropriate for ACP. I strongly recommend that the authors submit this study to another model development journal (e.g., GMD).
2) Related to the comment above, the BC aging parameterization used in this study is the same as that developed and used in previous studies, and there is nothing new about it. In addition, the methods section needs substantial revision because there are many things that are not adequately described. For example, does the model treat aerosols that do not contain BC (BC-free particles) in the accumulation mode? Considering BC-free particles is important for estimating the mixing state and optical properties of BC, but it is not clear from the text how the model distinguishes non-BC species between BC-containing particles (used for coating) and BC-free particles (see comment 4 below).

Other comments:
3) L41: formation or altering -> formation and altering
4) L144: Figure 2: Are BC-free particles considered in the accumulation mode? In Figure 2, it appears that BC-free particles are treated as scattering aerosols. If so, how are scattering aerosols in coated BC and scattering aerosols (BC-free particles) treated in the model? Are they treated as separate aerosol variables?
5) L167-168: It is not correct to assume that the aging speed of coagulation is constant. Coagulation occurs very fast near sources and has a large contribution to BC aging. The speed of coagulation aging is highly dependent on aerosol concentrations.
6) L178: What are the particle size distributions of Bare BC and Coated BC? They should have different dry deposition speed because their particle size distributions are different due to the coating species and water uptake.
7) L181: Do you use “precipitation scavenging” and “impact scavenging” with different meanings or the same meaning?
8) L194: in direct radiative forcing -> in estimating direct radiative effect
9) L221: Are all BC emissions treated as externally mixed particles?
10) L267-269: Figure 6a: Why is this spatial distribution obtained?
11) L278-279: Again, are all BC emissions treated as externally mixed particles?
12) Figure 8: The unit of the vertical axis is unclear. This is only a qualitative evaluation, and a quantitative evaluation is needed.
13) L319-320: This description is probably incorrect. Aerosols are transported over long distances in a few days, so I think the speed of aging is not related to Fig. 9a. I think this is because in-cloud scavenging is not considered (only below-cloud scavenging is considered).
14) Figure 13: Why don't you show the time series plot for MAC?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thanks for your comments. Please find our point-to-point reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2372 from Editor', Pablo Saide, 14 Oct 2024

I advise the authors to provide an extended discussion considering all referees comments, especially considering one of the referee's criticism of novelty associated to BC ageing being previously modeled with similar methods.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thank you for your comments. Please find our reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review Comment on egusphere-2024-2372', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2024
The authors implemented a BC aging scheme into the WRF-CMAQ model and found that accounting for BC aging process improves simulated BC optical properties. They also found that adding the aging process significantly affect BC concentration distribution and wet deposition. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and the study fits well into the journal scope. However, there are a few places that require further descriptions and clarifications. I have a few comments and suggestions below for the authors to consider.
Major comments:
The major concern I have is the insufficient model evaluation. Currently, the authors only evaluated the model simulation at one measurement sites, while all their modeling analysis and conclusions come from regional results. Thus, regional-scale evaluation is needed, such as evaluations using IMPROVE aerosol measurement network, AERONET AOD/AAOD measurement network, EPA AirNow network, and/or MODIS AOD data.

Specific comments:
Lines 87-88: This “limited impact” is not accurate, since different BC mixing states affect aerosol hygroscopicity and hence wet deposition, which subsequently change the mass concentration.

Line 103: “… coated with scattering aerosol component”. This is not very accurate since BC can also be coated by some absorbing organics.

Line 108: Even for two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model, there is no aerosol indirect effect considered? Did the authors mean the standard EPA-version of WRF-CMAQ? There might be a WRF-CMAQ version from individual research group that may already have this capability. Please double check.

In Figures 1 and 2, the authors showed that the model includes aerosol-cloud interaction, but in the description of Section 2.1, it seems that the model does not account for the aerosol indirect effect. This needs further clarification.

Equation (3): Which term is for condensation (fast-aging)? It seems that the first beta*[OH] term represents chemical aging and alpha represents coagulation.

Section 2.3: the use of “cloud chemistry” is confusing since BC does not undergo any chemical process in the cloud droplets in the model. Also, the description of this part is not very clear. How did the authors set the hydrophobicity of coated BC? What scheme did the authors use to compute CCN from aerosol number concentration and hygroscopicity? What equations did the authors use to compute the impact scavenging of BC aerosol? More details are needed.

Section 2.4: It is not clear that how the authors compute the number concentrations of bare and coated BC. (1) Are these number concentrations two new prognostic variables tracked by the model? What are the size distributions of bare and coated BC particles used during the mass-to-number conversion? More clarifications are needed. (2) Another key uncertainty factor related to the calculation of BC optics is the particle structure. Many previous studies have shown that using core-shell assumption for coated BC and spherical shape for bare BC cannot realistically represent BC particle optics (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096437; https://doi-org.cuucar.idm.oclc.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00418; https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11967-2015). It may be challenging to add the particle structure info into the model, but some discussions on this uncertainty factor will be helpful.

Lines 220-221: How sensitive the model results are to the assumption of equal fraction of bare and coated BC in the initial and boundary conditions?

Line 223: “the model assimilated data” Did the authors mean they also used data assimilation in their model simulations? Did the authors conduct 3 different simulations by using these 3 datasets (FNL, NAM, and NARR), respectively?

Figures 4-5: It seems that including BC aging only has negligible benefits on model performance. How to better justify the need to include this aging scheme?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thanks for your comments. Please find our point-to-point reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2372', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Oct 2024

Review of “Accounting for black carbon aging process in a two-way coupled meteorology – air quality model” by Y. Jin et al.

In this study, a BC aging parameterization was implemented into the WRF-CMAQ model. BC aging processes are important for accurately estimating the spatial distribution, atmospheric lifetime, optical properties, and activation to cloud particles of BC. While BC has been treated as internally mixed particles in CMAQ, the authors have classified BC into externally mixed and internally mixed particles and introduced an aging parameterization for converting externally mixed particles to internally mixed particles, as well as a scheme for calculating the differences in cloud activation and optical properties between externally mixed and internally mixed BC particles. This study contains interesting aspects as a BC modeling study. However, many similar studies have been published in the last 15 years, and this study lacks scientific novelty. Considering this point, I cannot recommend this study as an ACP paper.

Major comments:
1) The introduction is generally well structured and covers the important previous studies. However, the model developed in this study has already been developed and used in the papers listed in the introduction, indicating that this study lacks scientific originality. It can be said that the optical property part is relatively new, but there have already been many studies focusing on the differences in light absorption efficiency caused by the mixing state of BC particles.

Is it considered that this research is not new scientifically, but new to the CMAQ model? Or does it contain some new scientific findings? I think this research falls into the former category. In that case, this study is not appropriate for ACP. I strongly recommend that the authors submit this study to another model development journal (e.g., GMD).
2) Related to the comment above, the BC aging parameterization used in this study is the same as that developed and used in previous studies, and there is nothing new about it. In addition, the methods section needs substantial revision because there are many things that are not adequately described. For example, does the model treat aerosols that do not contain BC (BC-free particles) in the accumulation mode? Considering BC-free particles is important for estimating the mixing state and optical properties of BC, but it is not clear from the text how the model distinguishes non-BC species between BC-containing particles (used for coating) and BC-free particles (see comment 4 below).

Other comments:
3) L41: formation or altering -> formation and altering
4) L144: Figure 2: Are BC-free particles considered in the accumulation mode? In Figure 2, it appears that BC-free particles are treated as scattering aerosols. If so, how are scattering aerosols in coated BC and scattering aerosols (BC-free particles) treated in the model? Are they treated as separate aerosol variables?
5) L167-168: It is not correct to assume that the aging speed of coagulation is constant. Coagulation occurs very fast near sources and has a large contribution to BC aging. The speed of coagulation aging is highly dependent on aerosol concentrations.
6) L178: What are the particle size distributions of Bare BC and Coated BC? They should have different dry deposition speed because their particle size distributions are different due to the coating species and water uptake.
7) L181: Do you use “precipitation scavenging” and “impact scavenging” with different meanings or the same meaning?
8) L194: in direct radiative forcing -> in estimating direct radiative effect
9) L221: Are all BC emissions treated as externally mixed particles?
10) L267-269: Figure 6a: Why is this spatial distribution obtained?
11) L278-279: Again, are all BC emissions treated as externally mixed particles?
12) Figure 8: The unit of the vertical axis is unclear. This is only a qualitative evaluation, and a quantitative evaluation is needed.
13) L319-320: This description is probably incorrect. Aerosols are transported over long distances in a few days, so I think the speed of aging is not related to Fig. 9a. I think this is because in-cloud scavenging is not considered (only below-cloud scavenging is considered).
14) Figure 13: Why don't you show the time series plot for MAC?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thanks for your comments. Please find our point-to-point reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2372 from Editor', Pablo Saide, 14 Oct 2024

I advise the authors to provide an extended discussion considering all referees comments, especially considering one of the referee's criticism of novelty associated to BC ageing being previously modeled with similar methods.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Jiandong Wang, 20 Nov 2024
  
  Thank you for your comments. Please find our reply in pdf file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2372-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Jiandong Wang on behalf of the Authors (20 Nov 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Nov 2024) by Pablo Saide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (30 Nov 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Dec 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Based on the authors' revision, I am now more confident that this study is new as CMAQ, but lacks scientific novelty as a study of BC aging processes. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there are already many studies on BC aging processes, and models treating hydrophobic and hydrophilic BC separately are commonly used not only in CAM but also in other models such as GEOS-chem (e.g., Ikeda et al., 2017).
In addition, regarding scientific novelty, I don't think the three points the authors listed in their response are new.
There are already many studies that evaluate the effect of BC aging on BC concentration (e.g., Liu et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2017), the spatial distribution of hydrophobic/hydrophilic BC (e.g., Matsui et al., 2017), and the lensing effect on optical properties and radiative effects (e.g., Fierce et al., 2016; Matsui et al., 2018).
In my opinion, this study is more suitable for GMD than ACP.
However, I would like to leave the decision to the Editor.

# The sentence ‘(coarse mode aerosols without BC component are not considered in this study)’ has been added. Are particles without BC explicitly considered in the accumulation and Aitken modes? As I pointed out in my previous comment, considering particles without BC is important. If particles without BC are not considered, BC coating is overestimated, and this has a large impact on the lifetime and optical properties of BC.

# Coagulation is important, so I do not recommend using a constant aging value with no reasons/discussion.
(Please see Riemer et al., 2019 and references therein)

References:
Fierce et al. (2016), https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12361
Ikeda et al. (2017), https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/10515/2017/
Liu et al. (2016), https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/9/505/2016/
Matsui and Mahowald (2017), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017MS000936
Matsui et al. (2018), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05635-1
Riemer et al. (2019), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018RG000615
Shen et al. (2017), https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/12/jcli-d-16-0580.1.xml

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (11 Dec 2024) by Pablo Saide

The authors revised their manuscript substantially addressing most reviewers concerns. While the BC aging topic has been extensively studied in the past decade and some of the scientific knowledge and processes included in this study is not new (which are some of the remaining major concerns from reviewers), it is new to the WRF-CMAQ coupled model. It is important to advance the WRF-CMAQ modeling capability on this aspect given the wide use of this model and thus I agree to continue considering the manuscript for publication on ACP. Authors, please revise the manuscript for technical correction according to some of the remaining reviewers comments:

# The only one minor thing that requires a further clarification is their response to my previous specific comment #9: The authors mentioned that they used WRFDA to assimilate NAM data. What variables did they assimilate? How frequently did they assimilate (e.g., every 6 hours)? Why did they do the DA using NAM instead of observations? Did the authors mean "meteorological nudging" instead of DA? Some clarification will be useful.

# The sentence ‘(coarse mode aerosols without BC component are not considered in this study)’ has been added. Are particles without BC explicitly considered in the accumulation and Aitken modes? As I pointed out in my previous comment, considering particles without BC is important. If particles without BC are not considered, BC coating is overestimated, and this has a large impact on the lifetime and optical properties of BC.

# Coagulation is important, so I do not recommend using a constant aging value with no reasons/discussion.
(Please see Riemer et al., 2019 and references therein)

References:
Riemer et al. (2019), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018RG000615

Hide

AR by Jiandong Wang on behalf of the Authors (19 Dec 2024) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Feb 2025

Accounting for the black carbon aging process in a two-way coupled meteorology–air quality model

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, Chao Liu, David C. Wong, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2613–2630, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2613-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2613-2025, 2025

Short summary

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, David C. Wong, Chao Liu, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Data sets

The WRF-CMAQ-BCG model data Yuzhi Jin et al. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12798177

Model code and software

The WRF-CMAQ-BCG model code Yuzhi Jin et al. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12798673

Yuzhi Jin, Jiandong Wang, David C. Wong, Chao Liu, Golam Sarwar, Kathleen M. Fahey, Shang Wu, Jiaping Wang, Jing Cai, Zeyuan Tian, Zhouyang Zhang, Jia Xing, Aijun Ding, and Shuxiao Wang

Viewed

Total article views: 817 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
426	196	195	817	19	30

HTML: 426
PDF: 196
XML: 195
Total: 817
BibTeX: 19
EndNote: 30

Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	155	66	6	227
Sep 2024	45	11	3	59
Oct 2024	88	44	4	136
Nov 2024	59	40	9	108
Dec 2024	31	13	77	121
Jan 2025	13	16	90	119
Feb 2025	35	6	6	47

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	155	66	6	227
Sep 2024	45	11	3	59
Oct 2024	88	44	4	136
Nov 2024	59	40	9	108
Dec 2024	31	13	77	121
Jan 2025	13	16	90	119
Feb 2025	35	6	6	47

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 752 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 752 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 28 Feb 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2433 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Black carbon (BC) affects climate and the environment, and its aging process alters its properties. Current models, like WRF-CMAQ, lack full account. We developed the WRF-CMAQ-BCG model to better represent BC aging by introducing Bare/Coated BC species and their conversion. Our findings show that BC mixing states have distinct spatiotemporal distribution characteristics, and BC wet deposition is dominated by Coated BC. Accounting for BC aging process improves aerosol optics simulation accuracy.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0