Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM<sub>2.5</sub> over the North China Plain in early winter

An, Xiadong; Chen, Wen; Ma, Tianjiao; Sheng, Lifang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285

Preprints

18 Mar 2025

| 18 Mar 2025

Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM_2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Abstract. The North China Plain (NCP) experiences severe air pollution, with PM_2.5 (fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 μm) as the primary pollutant, especially in early winter (November to December). The PM_2.5 concentrations in this period is significantly modulated by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In this study, we have found that the stratospheric Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) exerts a nonlinear impact on the relationship between ENSO and PM_2.5 concentrations over the NCP in early winter. During the easterly QBO (EQBO) phase, ENSO’s influence on PM_2.5 concentration is stronger compared to the westerly QBO (WQBO) phase. In El Niño and EQBO years, PM_2.5 concentrations rise due to meteorological factors like a shallower boundary layer, higher relative humidity, and intensified southerly wind anomalies. Conversely, during La Niña and EQBO years, PM_2.5 levels decrease due to opposite meteorological conditions. The study attributes these changes to planetary wave dynamics. During El Niño and EQBO years, upward-propagating planetary waves in mid-latitudes enhance upper-level divergence over Eurasia, strengthening westerlies. These westerlies guide Rossby wave trains into Northeast Asia, forming a strong anomalous anticyclone that worsens air pollution over the NCP. In La Niña and EQBO years, downward-propagating planetary waves induce divergence in sub-polar regions, strengthening westerlies that facilitate La Niña-related wave trains. These wave trains trigger cyclonic circulation over Northeast Asia, improving air quality in the NCP. These findings underscore the complex interplay between ENSO, QBO, and atmospheric dynamics in shaping regional air pollution.

Received: 21 Jan 2025 – Discussion started: 18 Mar 2025

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3275 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 (3275 KB)

Supplement (608 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

22 Oct 2025

Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi-Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM_2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13343–13357, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13343-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13343-2025, 2025

Short summary

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-285', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jun 2025

The paper "Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter" by An et al. investigates the combined effect of the QBO and ENSO on the PM2.5 concentration over the North China Plain. Main findings are that PM2.5 is enhanced for El Nino and westward QBO conditions, while PM2.5 is reduced for La Nina and eastward QBO. This effect is explained by variations in wind speed and direction, boundary layer height, and humidity.
Overall, the paper is a thorough study, it is well written, and of interest and relevance for the readership of ACP.

The paper is therefore recommended for publication in ACP after minor revisions.
My main comments are:
(1) the authors should include the model equations they assume for their multivariate linear regressions
(2) you should explain a bit why enhanced humidity would lead to enhanced PM2.5, but not to precipitation that would wash out air pollution
Please find more Specific and Technical comments below.

Specific comments:
(1) Fig.1d: what is the source of the SST data?

(2) l.116 onward:

You should state more clearly in the text that multivariate regression analyses are performed. The underlying linear models should be given as additional equations.

(3) l.120: In the text you should add the information that the regression coefficients in Figs.2b and 2d have opposite sign in most regions of China, while in the North China Plain (NCP), which is the main focus of your work, PM2.5 anomalies do not change much.

(4) l.153: The point with the humidity was not completely clear to me!

If humidity is high enough, precipitation would form and wash out air pollution.

Please clarify whether or not this is a relevant mechanism during conditions of enhanced humidity in November/December over the NCP.

This should also be clarified in the discussion around l.246.

(5) l.442: In addition to the white dots, there are also stippled areas in Fig.2. Do these areas refer to another different level of significance?

I would suppose that the white dots refer to 80%, and the black grid areas to 90% of significance, like in Fig.5.

Please explain and correct!

(6) Fig.3: to avoid confusion, please use same notation as in Fig.2

(ENSO- instead of ENSO^-1 and QBO- instead of QBO^-1)

(7) Fig.6, Fig.7: Green lines represent the Yellow River and the Yangtze River? Please add this information.

Technical corrections:
(1) l.40:

Given its the crucial in shaping global weather and climate

->

Given its crucial role in shaping global weather and climate

(2) reference Austin and Tu (2004) is missing in the References list

(3) l.105: Palmer -> Palm

(4) l.107: reference Chen et al. (2013) is not in the references list, did you mean Chen et al. (2003) ?

(5) l.117: It is clearly -> It is evident

(6) l.119:

whether is La Nina or El Nino, these is no

->

whether ENSO is in the La Nina or El Nino phase, there is no

(7) l.130: The now question is -> The question now is

(8) l.138: Fig.3 -> Fig.4

(9) l.142: (Fig. 4a and 4c) -> (Fig. 5a and 5c)

(10) l.148: 4e and 4g -> 5e and 5g

(11) l.155: remining -> remaining

(12) l.199: 9c 9e and 9g) -> 9c, 9e, and 9g)

(13) l.203: OBO -> QBO

(14) l.442: areas of significant -> areas of significance

(15) Caption of Fig.7: Is interval = 1, or 0.5? Please check!

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiadong An, 02 Jul 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-285/egusphere-2025-285-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-285', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2025

The authors analyze the effects of the QBO on the ENSO influence on

North China Plains pollution. The present work would benefit from substantial

improvements, namely in the methodology, quality of presentation and

level of discussion.
My impression is that the ENSO is the leading factor, and the QBO importance

is secondary. This needs to be quantified numerically, beyond the simple Fig. 3

analysis.
The description and selection of data needs improvement (see detailed comments).

The use of a fairly dated reanalysis product is not justified; while it may be useful

to retain it as a reference for other studies, the study should mainly rely

on up-to-date datasets, such as ERA5 (already used, partially).

Please move the legacy reanalysis contents to the supplement, or remove;

any difference should anyway be explained.

The period of analysis needs to be given, currently many dates are provided

for the various products, which is confusing.

The authors mention using two PM2.5 products, but the results seems to

agree only qualitatively. How do the the products differ?
The methodology should be improved, as it is unclear why the authors

selected the Nov-Dec season. In the introduction, Nov-Jan is also mentioned.

Given that nonlinear diagnostics are computed, the authors need to

explain if high-resolution data (e.g., at least daily) were used,

as signals would otherwise be smoothed.
The authors ascribe PM2.5 changes to changes in atmospheric circulation. However, my understanding

is that haze conditions can be extremely local, e.g. due to the presence of urban settlements

in valleys. The discussion needs to be enhanced to explain relevant local features, including sources.

Relevant analysis should be included, to understand the relative contributions of

meteorology but also of primary and secondary sources.
The motivation of section 4 is lacking. Why do these diagnostics matter?
The authors need to clarify how their work is distinct from previous

papers (several papers from the first author are cited) and what is the new understanding,

see e.g. the non-exhaustive list of works below (none cited, as far as I can see).

Based on a simple online search, a number of references seem missing:
An et al. 2018 https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1863/2018/ on ENSO and winter pollution in China
Jiang et al. 2017 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-017-6412-z on drivers on haze in China
Li et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1533-2023 on summer ozone pollution in China and QBO
Lu et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036938 on ENSO and EASM and summer ozone pollution in China
Ray et al. 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0507-3 on QBO and trace gases
Sun et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028534 on ENSO and winter pollution in East China
Zhang et al. 2025 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041825 for a model study of QBO/ENSO influence on ozone transport
Zhao et al. 2016 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27424 on decadal variability of haze in China and tropical Pacific
The authors are advised to revised the text with care to correct various typos and unsupported statements,

a few reported in the list below. Also the text structure could be improved to avoid long paragraphs

and focus the discussion.

Comments by line
L32 This reference is not suitable. Are there peer-reviewed papers on this 'comprehensiveness'?

E.g. comparing in-situ or satellite-based emissions/concentrations?

L40 unclear 'its the crucial'

L44 I don't get this, which would be a review?

L47 You cannot expect the reader to know in detail the regional geography. Please include a maps

with all the relevant names and features mentioned, perhaps in the supplement.

L64 typo 'underling'

L70 there is virtually no description of the data. Is it in-situ? Satellite? Model? The zenodo

repository does not show the information neither. The link should be given elsewhere, while

here readable information.

L80 The expression 'Fifth major global reanalysis' makes no sense. Is there a minor version as well?

The information on the spatial resolution and temporal coverage are both incorrect,

You probably refer to what you retrieved. Also the reference is to the website, not the paper.

L86 10 hPa is quite high, and here you are looking at instantaneous signals.

Why not using 50 or 70 hPa to characterize a tropospheric process?

Moreover, periods 2015/16 and 2019/20 showcase distinct QBO evolutions,

which should be acknowledged

L87 Based on the plots, there is one point per year. Is this an average of Nov-Dec? This

needs to be explained, and points added in Fig. 1 b/c

L89 The methodology of "Jan Null" is not explained. Please use some method justified in the

literature

Table 1 caption: period should be lowercase

Fig.1 are the units of regression coefficient degC as reported?

L104 The period used should be explained

L117 typo 'clearly'

Fig. 2 one among g or h should be for the QBO?

Fig. 3 I do not understand why you have "-1" subscripts. Are these referring to lagged values?

L142 You are presumably referring to Fig. 5

Fig. 5 Units are not indicated anywhere

L165 by whom?

Fig. 6 This figure definitely differs from Fig. 4. Verify

Fig. 7 'disturbed' in what sense?

L187 A similar statement was already done before

Fig. 8 is hard to read and needs to be improved graphically

L203 what's OBO now?

L211 Unclear sentence

L226 The 'Eurasia hinterland' sounds odd

L237 All this discussion does not seem relevant.

L252 What do you mean? What numerical model? A transport model?

L260 the link for the QBO has moved, verify. Links have been visited one year ago or more!

L263 I can't locate experimental results in this work

Fig. S2 Since all terms have an 'I', it could be safely omitted. What is the 'forecast data' mentioned?

Is it again ERA5?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiadong An, 02 Jul 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-285/egusphere-2025-285-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-285', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jun 2025

The paper "Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter" by An et al. investigates the combined effect of the QBO and ENSO on the PM2.5 concentration over the North China Plain. Main findings are that PM2.5 is enhanced for El Nino and westward QBO conditions, while PM2.5 is reduced for La Nina and eastward QBO. This effect is explained by variations in wind speed and direction, boundary layer height, and humidity.
Overall, the paper is a thorough study, it is well written, and of interest and relevance for the readership of ACP.

The paper is therefore recommended for publication in ACP after minor revisions.
My main comments are:
(1) the authors should include the model equations they assume for their multivariate linear regressions
(2) you should explain a bit why enhanced humidity would lead to enhanced PM2.5, but not to precipitation that would wash out air pollution
Please find more Specific and Technical comments below.

Specific comments:
(1) Fig.1d: what is the source of the SST data?

(2) l.116 onward:

You should state more clearly in the text that multivariate regression analyses are performed. The underlying linear models should be given as additional equations.

(3) l.120: In the text you should add the information that the regression coefficients in Figs.2b and 2d have opposite sign in most regions of China, while in the North China Plain (NCP), which is the main focus of your work, PM2.5 anomalies do not change much.

(4) l.153: The point with the humidity was not completely clear to me!

If humidity is high enough, precipitation would form and wash out air pollution.

Please clarify whether or not this is a relevant mechanism during conditions of enhanced humidity in November/December over the NCP.

This should also be clarified in the discussion around l.246.

(5) l.442: In addition to the white dots, there are also stippled areas in Fig.2. Do these areas refer to another different level of significance?

I would suppose that the white dots refer to 80%, and the black grid areas to 90% of significance, like in Fig.5.

Please explain and correct!

(6) Fig.3: to avoid confusion, please use same notation as in Fig.2

(ENSO- instead of ENSO^-1 and QBO- instead of QBO^-1)

(7) Fig.6, Fig.7: Green lines represent the Yellow River and the Yangtze River? Please add this information.

Technical corrections:
(1) l.40:

Given its the crucial in shaping global weather and climate

->

Given its crucial role in shaping global weather and climate

(2) reference Austin and Tu (2004) is missing in the References list

(3) l.105: Palmer -> Palm

(4) l.107: reference Chen et al. (2013) is not in the references list, did you mean Chen et al. (2003) ?

(5) l.117: It is clearly -> It is evident

(6) l.119:

whether is La Nina or El Nino, these is no

->

whether ENSO is in the La Nina or El Nino phase, there is no

(7) l.130: The now question is -> The question now is

(8) l.138: Fig.3 -> Fig.4

(9) l.142: (Fig. 4a and 4c) -> (Fig. 5a and 5c)

(10) l.148: 4e and 4g -> 5e and 5g

(11) l.155: remining -> remaining

(12) l.199: 9c 9e and 9g) -> 9c, 9e, and 9g)

(13) l.203: OBO -> QBO

(14) l.442: areas of significant -> areas of significance

(15) Caption of Fig.7: Is interval = 1, or 0.5? Please check!

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiadong An, 02 Jul 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-285/egusphere-2025-285-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-285', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2025

The authors analyze the effects of the QBO on the ENSO influence on

North China Plains pollution. The present work would benefit from substantial

improvements, namely in the methodology, quality of presentation and

level of discussion.
My impression is that the ENSO is the leading factor, and the QBO importance

is secondary. This needs to be quantified numerically, beyond the simple Fig. 3

analysis.
The description and selection of data needs improvement (see detailed comments).

The use of a fairly dated reanalysis product is not justified; while it may be useful

to retain it as a reference for other studies, the study should mainly rely

on up-to-date datasets, such as ERA5 (already used, partially).

Please move the legacy reanalysis contents to the supplement, or remove;

any difference should anyway be explained.

The period of analysis needs to be given, currently many dates are provided

for the various products, which is confusing.

The authors mention using two PM2.5 products, but the results seems to

agree only qualitatively. How do the the products differ?
The methodology should be improved, as it is unclear why the authors

selected the Nov-Dec season. In the introduction, Nov-Jan is also mentioned.

Given that nonlinear diagnostics are computed, the authors need to

explain if high-resolution data (e.g., at least daily) were used,

as signals would otherwise be smoothed.
The authors ascribe PM2.5 changes to changes in atmospheric circulation. However, my understanding

is that haze conditions can be extremely local, e.g. due to the presence of urban settlements

in valleys. The discussion needs to be enhanced to explain relevant local features, including sources.

Relevant analysis should be included, to understand the relative contributions of

meteorology but also of primary and secondary sources.
The motivation of section 4 is lacking. Why do these diagnostics matter?
The authors need to clarify how their work is distinct from previous

papers (several papers from the first author are cited) and what is the new understanding,

see e.g. the non-exhaustive list of works below (none cited, as far as I can see).

Based on a simple online search, a number of references seem missing:
An et al. 2018 https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1863/2018/ on ENSO and winter pollution in China
Jiang et al. 2017 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-017-6412-z on drivers on haze in China
Li et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1533-2023 on summer ozone pollution in China and QBO
Lu et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036938 on ENSO and EASM and summer ozone pollution in China
Ray et al. 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0507-3 on QBO and trace gases
Sun et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028534 on ENSO and winter pollution in East China
Zhang et al. 2025 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041825 for a model study of QBO/ENSO influence on ozone transport
Zhao et al. 2016 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27424 on decadal variability of haze in China and tropical Pacific
The authors are advised to revised the text with care to correct various typos and unsupported statements,

a few reported in the list below. Also the text structure could be improved to avoid long paragraphs

and focus the discussion.

Comments by line
L32 This reference is not suitable. Are there peer-reviewed papers on this 'comprehensiveness'?

E.g. comparing in-situ or satellite-based emissions/concentrations?

L40 unclear 'its the crucial'

L44 I don't get this, which would be a review?

L47 You cannot expect the reader to know in detail the regional geography. Please include a maps

with all the relevant names and features mentioned, perhaps in the supplement.

L64 typo 'underling'

L70 there is virtually no description of the data. Is it in-situ? Satellite? Model? The zenodo

repository does not show the information neither. The link should be given elsewhere, while

here readable information.

L80 The expression 'Fifth major global reanalysis' makes no sense. Is there a minor version as well?

The information on the spatial resolution and temporal coverage are both incorrect,

You probably refer to what you retrieved. Also the reference is to the website, not the paper.

L86 10 hPa is quite high, and here you are looking at instantaneous signals.

Why not using 50 or 70 hPa to characterize a tropospheric process?

Moreover, periods 2015/16 and 2019/20 showcase distinct QBO evolutions,

which should be acknowledged

L87 Based on the plots, there is one point per year. Is this an average of Nov-Dec? This

needs to be explained, and points added in Fig. 1 b/c

L89 The methodology of "Jan Null" is not explained. Please use some method justified in the

literature

Table 1 caption: period should be lowercase

Fig.1 are the units of regression coefficient degC as reported?

L104 The period used should be explained

L117 typo 'clearly'

Fig. 2 one among g or h should be for the QBO?

Fig. 3 I do not understand why you have "-1" subscripts. Are these referring to lagged values?

L142 You are presumably referring to Fig. 5

Fig. 5 Units are not indicated anywhere

L165 by whom?

Fig. 6 This figure definitely differs from Fig. 4. Verify

Fig. 7 'disturbed' in what sense?

L187 A similar statement was already done before

Fig. 8 is hard to read and needs to be improved graphically

L203 what's OBO now?

L211 Unclear sentence

L226 The 'Eurasia hinterland' sounds odd

L237 All this discussion does not seem relevant.

L252 What do you mean? What numerical model? A transport model?

L260 the link for the QBO has moved, verify. Links have been visited one year ago or more!

L263 I can't locate experimental results in this work

Fig. S2 Since all terms have an 'I', it could be safely omitted. What is the 'forecast data' mentioned?

Is it again ERA5?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiadong An, 02 Jul 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-285/egusphere-2025-285-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Xiadong An on behalf of the Authors (02 Jul 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Jul 2025) by Marco Gaetani

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (15 Jul 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Jul 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors performed several changes to their original manuscript, but the current version
still needs a number of improvements for clarity.

My comment on nonlinear diagnostics was probably unclear; I am referring
to the reanalysis-based quantities (e.g. EP fluxes).
I believe daily PM2.5 cannot be regarded as "high resolution" (please
revise L140 accordingly). The meaning of "high resolution" at L282
is also unclear: what do you mean? High frequency PM2.5 measurements?

My comment on current Fig. 9 (previous Fig. 8) was not addressed.

Given the use of ERA5 across several places, the information on
data availability needs to be revised.

Specific comments
L31 The Silver's work gives a different message than yours, please revise
L77 It seems that a "For" is missing, but I am not sure what you mean.
At least the period of the dataset should be given.
L78 I don't see how detrending removes the influence of emissions;
or do you mean doing a regression?
L80 still missing a reference
L88 BLH is a surface variable, hence no pressure level
L124 This paragraph does not seem motivated, provide context
L127 "NAAA" should be a subscript of "re". I do not understand
what are both terms. I understand "re-NAAA" has units of concentration,
as PM2.5? Please explain how these coefficients are identified.
L280 I don't think models can be used for validation, maybe for further analysis?
L300 "research" is singular, and "it out"
L303 who is XD?

Text S1 I still can't understand why you can just refer to NOAA
Fig.S1 caption is not grammatically correct
Fig.S2 I do not understand if, as stated, this uses a different dataset from the paper
Fig.S6 I have the impression some plots for the main are repeated. This is confusing;
results for the bottom plots are quite different from those in the paper,
so these cannot be dismissed as currently done.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (21 Jul 2025) by Marco Gaetani

AR by Xiadong An on behalf of the Authors (15 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Aug 2025) by Marco Gaetani

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (04 Sep 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Sep 2025) by Marco Gaetani

AR by Xiadong An on behalf of the Authors (11 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (15 Sep 2025) by Marco Gaetani

AR by Xiadong An on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Oct 2025

Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi-Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM_2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13343–13357, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13343-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13343-2025, 2025

Short summary

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-285-supplement

Xiadong An, Wen Chen, Tianjiao Ma, and Lifang Sheng

Viewed

Total article views: 737 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
646	70	21	737	22	15	31

HTML: 646
PDF: 70
XML: 21
Total: 737
Supplement: 22
BibTeX: 15
EndNote: 31

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	49	30	6	85
Apr 2025	24	6	1	31
May 2025	21	1	2	24
Jun 2025	46	13	6	65
Jul 2025	40	14	4	58
Aug 2025	96	4	0	100
Sep 2025	353	2	355
Oct 2025	17	2	0	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	49	30	6	85
Apr 2025	24	6	1	31
May 2025	21	1	2	24
Jun 2025	46	13	6	65
Jul 2025	40	14	4	58
Aug 2025	96	4	0	100
Sep 2025	353	2	355
Oct 2025	17	2	0	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 749 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 749 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 22 Oct 2025

Download

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

Preprint (3275 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Air pollution in the North China Plain is tends to be influenced by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and stratospheric Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). During El Niño and easterly QBO, pollution rises, while La Niña and easterly QBO improve air quality through changes in atmospheric circulation and weather conditions.


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

Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Nonlinear effects of the stratospheric Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation on ENSO modulating PM_2.5 over the North China Plain in early winter