Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2872
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2872
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
07 Jul 2025
| 07 Jul 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Processes driving the regional sensitivities of summertime PM2.5 to temperature across the US: New insights from model simulations
Abstract. The temperature sensitivity of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) critically influences air quality and human health under a warming climate, yet models struggle to accurately reproduce observed sensitivities. This study improves the representation of PM2.5-temperature relationships in the chemical transport model GEOS-Chem through targeted improvements and analyses of the underlying drivers based on simulations across the contiguous US (2000–2022). Our simulations reveal that chemical production processes, particularly isoprene secondary organic aerosols (SOA) and sulfate formation, determine the magnitude of PM2.5 sensitivity in the eastern US. In the Western US, primary emissions drive the increasing PM2.5-temperature sensitivity. Transport processes contribute to interannual variability in PM2.5 sensitivity across all regions. We quantified the contributions from individual temperature-sensitive processes for the first time. Sulfate concentration plays a pivotal role in modulating the sensitivity of isoprene SOA due to its direct influence on isoprene SOA formation. Furthermore, the increased SO2 emissions on warm days dictates both the magnitude and variability of sulfate sensitivity in the Eastern and Central US. In the Western US, however, sulfate sensitivity is primarily controlled by the temperature response of hydroxyl radicals (·OH). These findings highlight the impact of anthropogenic emission reductions on declining PM2.5–temperature sensitivity in the eastern US, improve our understanding of climate-driven air quality changes, and underscore the importance of accurately representing temperature-dependent processes in future air quality projections.
How to cite. Yin, L., Zheng, Y., Bai, B., Zhang, B., Silvern, R., Mao, J., Mickley, L., and Liu, P.: Processes driving the regional sensitivities of summertime PM2.5 to temperature across the US: New insights from model simulations, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2872, 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
(2804 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(20551 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Oct 2025)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2872', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Sep 2025
reply
In this manuscript, the authors build upon previous literature examining relationships between air pollution and climate variability, focusing here on ways in which temperature affects PM2.5 in the United States. Using a wide ranging set of chemical transport model simulations, they attempt to identify key connections and mechanisms linking temperature to PM2.5 through a rolling window of gridded sensitivity calculations. On the whole I find many aspects of this study to be thoughtfully composed and presented, and I see many strengths and valuable elements. At the same time, I am also puzzled by several key elements and decisions, including fundamental model setup and case parameter choices. While I can see core elements of this study that should become valuable additions to the literature on publication, I have some major concerns and suggestions for improvement that I believe are necessary to tighten up the comparisons being made and resolve issues in analysis.
- As one large and general criticism, I find the full set of model simulations, as described in Table 1, to be overly varied and confusingly named. The so-called BASE case has almost nothing in common with any of the other simulations. It uses a significantly older version of model code, with major differences across the board in terms of functionality and operation. Emissions, SOA scheme, and even the range of years modeled are either unique to this case or shared by only one other, which in my mind really stretches the assumed definition of a “BASE” case. MOD in this list does not represent a “modified” version of the BASE case, but rather an entirely new model version with almost entirely new model inputs. Considering the age of the code used in the BASE case (currently over 7 years old representing a gap of three major code releases and numerous smaller fixes and updates relevant to this study topic), I do not see much value in including the BASE simulation at all, unless a more systematic review of all updated components is performed. Since this study is more focused on chemistry/climate sensitivities, and less focused on cataloguing individual modeling improvements that have been made over the past decade, I suggest that the currently named BASE case be removed from the study in the sake of clarity and consistency, and all cases be renamed to better reflect their true roles and points of comparison.
- On a similar note, I think the SIM_BC case (4x5 horizontal resolution global simulation with Simple SOA) is not currently effective as a sensitivity test due to having too many changes relative to the MOD case. It shares a coarse resolution with MOD_BC, but has a unique SOA scheme and (confusingly) a shorter run length. Again, there are too many unique elements to make this an effective and meaningful comparison against the high resolution MOD case that is actually at the heart of the study. If the domain run time were lengthened it could serve as a reasonable comparison against MOD_BC, but grouped together with all cases as it often is in manuscript tables and figures it is somewhat misleading, since it is not clear whether differences against MOD are due to resolution, SOA scheme, temporal domain differences, or some combination of the three.
- I also have concerns related to overall model performance, as shown in Supplementary Figure 4. Considering the proposed importance of OA sensitivities and the mechanisms underlying its formation and fate, the massive overprediction in later years strikes me as especially problematic. The fact that this overprediction appears to have such a strong impact on the sensitivities shown in Figure 2 is even more concerning, and deserves more analysis and discussion. An overabundance of fire emissions from GFED4 is offered as a potential reason for these effects, but this issue and its downstream impacts on resulting sensitivity analyses are far too brief, to my eye. Even assuming that PM overpredictions are being caused by overestimated primary emissions from GFED, what is the reason for the massive and regionally varying impacts on sensitivities (Figure 2, b2-b5)? What does it show about the robustness of this methodology, if one year of overestimated fire emissions can drive such wild swings in calculated sensitivities across over one third of the modeled years, for some regions? And perhaps most importantly, if 2021 fire emissions are indeed so problematic, why include that year at all? Considering how much of the sensitivity time series is apparently dominated or at least heavily impacted by this issue, I am not comfortable putting much weight on final numbers until either the issue is resolved or the impacted years are removed.
- I question the decision and justification for running Complex SOA scheme model simulations without the semivolatile POA option. In defense of this choice, the authors argue that “non-volatile POA treatment more accurately reproduces the low-troposphere POA profile compared to the semi-volatile approach”. However, the cited paper (Pai et al., 2020) appears to offer the exact opposite recommendation, saying that “a semi-volatile treatment of POA is superior to a non-volatile treatment” and “we recommend that POA be modeled as semi-volatile”. The authors here later claim that “since oxidized POA is not included in the SOA mass, disabling the semi-volatile POA scheme does not impact SOA simulation results and helps reduce computational costs”, but again I question this justification, considering the frequent use of overall PM2.5 and total OA in study figures. Turning this option off should be supported by more extensive testing to confirm that key sensitivity metrics are indeed not affected by its omission.
- In section 3.4, model sensitivities are further explored through a breakdown by model process, with a focus on vertical levels within the PBL. I can understand the rationale for zeroing in on near-surface processes, but I would like to at least see what things look like higher up as well, considering the potential for important chemistry and transport at higher altitudes that can influence surface concentrations. Meaningful chemistry impacts aloft should be categorized as such, not folded into mixing or transport.
- Likewise, while isoprene may show up as the strongest SOA signal in the US (Figure 3), it would be worthwhile to see sensitivities of other SOA species as well. Figures 3 and 4 together appear to leave major gaps in understanding temperature sensitivities outside of the sulfate and isoprene dominated regions to the East, and getting a better handle on how SOA appears to behave elsewhere could be useful.
- Early descriptions of the climate penalty with respect to PM2.5 appear to be overly simplistic relative to the cited literature. The authors state that “Higher temperatures are generally associated with exacerbated PM2.5 pollution”, but multiple studies (including some of those immediately cited) have offered a far more mixed message on observed and modeled PM2.5 temperature sensitivities, especially relative to those of tropospheric ozone. Later discussions towards the end of the introduction do go into more depth and detail on some of the disagreements seen in the literature, but I think this nuance and complexity should at least be mentioned earlier on as well, especially if papers showing differing sensitivity results are being cited.
ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2872-RC1
Viewed
Total article views: 658 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 07 Jul 2025)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 599 | 50 | 9 | 658 | 45 | 9 | 12 |
- HTML: 599
- PDF: 50
- XML: 9
- Total: 658
- Supplement: 45
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 631 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 631 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 02 Oct 2025
Lifei Yin
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Yiqi Zheng
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry & Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA
Bin Bai
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Bingqing Zhang
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Rachel Silvern
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
now at: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York, NY, USA
Jingqiu Mao
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry & Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA
Loretta Mickley
John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Short summary
This study improves GEOS-Chem simulations of PM2.5–temperature sensitivity and identifies key processes driving regional variability across the US. We show that chemical production dominates in the east, primary emissions in the west, and transport processes affect interannual variability. Results highlight the need for accurate temperature-dependent process representation in air quality models.
This study improves GEOS-Chem simulations of PM2.5–temperature sensitivity and identifies key...