Modelling the Life&ndash;Cycle Impacts of Air Pollution on Tropospheric Ozone and Methane

Wilson, Calum P.; Prather, Michael J.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-6012

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6012

Preprints

05 Dec 2025

| 05 Dec 2025

Modelling the Life–Cycle Impacts of Air Pollution on Tropospheric Ozone and Methane

Calum P. Wilson and Michael J. Prather

Abstract. We calculate the global change in the production of tropospheric ozone (O₃) and loss of methane (CH₄) caused by 45 days of summertime South Korean anthropogenic emissions during the Korea-US Air Quality (KORUS-AQ) mission. Our modelling system consists of three stages: the boundary layer-residual layer (BL-RL) stage processes the emissions, photochemistry, deposition, aerosol reactivity, and transport over terrestrial South Korea at 0.1° x 0.1° with hourly resolution. The plume (PL) stage continues to integrate the chemistry of air masses from the BL-RL stage as they are transported offshore, simulating offshore pollution plumes observed by aircraft. After three days of chemical aging in non-diluting plumes, the pollution remnants are dispersed (DP stage) into the background atmosphere and integrated until the pollution disappears. Net O₃ production is diagnosed in each stage using the integrated ozone change and our calculated perturbation lifetimes. In total, these 45 days of South Korean emissions create an excess CH₄ sink of 4.3 Gmol and a net O₃ source of 31.2 Gmol. Scaling these values to annual global emissions suggests around 10 % of CH₄ loss and 30 % of net O₃ production is attributable to anthropogenic air pollution, but our Korean summertime case may exaggerate the proportions. Reducing plume aging time to 2 days increases these terms by about 10 %, and immediate dispersion (no plume aging) more than doubles them. Our model supports the typical result that rapid dispersion of pollution, e.g. through coarse resolution, overestimates its impact on tropospheric O₃ and CH₄.

Received: 03 Dec 2025 – Discussion started: 05 Dec 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, 1458 KB)

Supplement (1018 KB)

Download & links

Calum P. Wilson and Michael J. Prather

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6012', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jan 2026
The manuscript by Wilson and Prather describes a quasi-three-dimensional modeling approach and employs the model to quantify the global net O₃ production and CH₄ loss from South Korean air pollution over 45 days in May-June 2016 during the KORUS-AQ campaign. The model consists of three stages: (1) a boundary layer-residual layer (BL-RL) stage, (2) an isolated pollution plume integration (PL) stage, and (3) a dispersed pollution (DP) stage. Taking a test case with South Korean air pollutant emissions compared to a control case with no anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions, the relative global CH₄ loss and O₃ production due to South Korean air pollution is diagnosed over the three model stages. Global modeling studies have typically diagnosed O₃ production and loss from reaction rates for the odd-oxygen family. Here, the model developed by the authors explicitly resolves O₃ perturbation lifetimes to more accurately calculate the O₃ production term. This study offers a useful demonstration of this alternative approach to deriving O₃ budget diagnostics. Further, the sensitivity of O₃ and CH₄ reactivity to plume aging times is assessed, providing valuable insight on the potential degree of overestimation of the anthropogenic contribution to global O₃ and CH₄ budgets resulting from rapid dispersion of air pollution in course resolution models.
I find that the manuscript is well written overall, provides a thorough detailing of the model, and fits well within the scope of ACP. I recommend publication of the manuscript after the authors address the following comments.
Comments:
Can the manuscript title be made more specific to say “Impacts of South Korean Air Pollution”? Is there a reason why this is unspecified?

While the motivation for studying the KORUS-AQ period is made clear in the introduction, the motivation behind developing the new modeling approach (to explicitly calculate O₃ perturbation lifetime to correctly quantify the O₃ production term) is not introduced until Section 3. Overall clarity would be strengthened by moving the background discussed in lines 265-272 to the main introduction, as this is a key motivation and focus of the conclusions.

The authors should choose consistent language of either BL-RL/PL/DP “stage” or “model” for improved clarity.

Can the authors elaborate on the choice to assess the impact of biomass burning emissions and anthropogenic emissions simultaneously? If computationally feasible/reasonable, it would be highly valuable to attribute O₃ and CH₄ changes to anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions separately (e.g., perform another case with only GFED and MEGAN emissions and difference from full emission test case).

Line 433 and 532: There are a few places in the manuscript where biomass burning emissions from GFED are implied to be anthropogenic. It is unclear to me if this is a wording issue or if it is the case that most of the biomass burning emissions from South Korea are from anthropogenic sectors. Unless the latter is true, the authors should be careful not to label GFED as anthropogenic.

Section 2.1: Have the authors quantified the total GFED and MEGAN emissions that are cut off at the coastlines? How sensitive are the results to the inclusion of the full emissions from those grid cells?

Section 2.2: Since Section 2 is said to describe the “data and tools” (line 46) used in the study, the authors might consider titling Section 2.2 as “In-situ observations” rather than “Atmospheric composition”. Then, the subheadings 2.2.1-2.2.3 could be labeled more broadly as e.g. “KORUS-AQ airborne observations”, “ATom airborne observations”, and “NIER surface pollution maps”. This would provide a centric section to list all variables and their uses from each in-situ dataset (not just those used for deriving atmospheric composition). For example, J-values and LAS measurements are used from the KORUS-AQ mission for F0AM but are not mentioned until sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. The authors could provide a brief paragraph or sentence describing these variables in Section 2.2.1 and cite the respective photochemical box model sections where more detail will be provided.

The Section 3 title “Models” is quite vague and is not specifically representative of its subsections.

Figure S8: Would the authors consider moving this figure to the main text? It is a very useful visualization of the modeling process and timeline. There are currently many tables in the main text, so I think this could be swapped with one if concerned for space.

Technical corrections:
Line 126: The section titled “Surface pollution maps” is labeled 2.2.2 but should be section 2.2.3.

Line 141: In the title of Section 2.3.1, the “M” in mechanism should be lower case.

Line 160: “For” should be “far”.

Figure 4: First, the panels are listed as (a-c) in the figure caption, but the figure panels are not labeled with letters. Second, the order that the NO_x and O₃ panels are presented is flipped in the figure caption. There is an inconsistent use of labeling multi-panel figures alphabetically across the manuscript.

Figure 1 and Figure 4: Can the panel labels (NO_x, CO, Cover class, NO₂, and O₃) either be made bigger or placed as titles?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6012-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6012', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jan 2026

The study frames an important question in respect of chemistry vs dilution in ozone production and methane loss on country scale outflows. The modelling approach which is explained in detail, allows separation of emissions, chemical transport and dilution and looks like a powerful tool to assess country-scale export. The study is clearly set-out and rigorous.
If I where to be critical, I would have loved to see the counterfactual and what would have happened if the more usual approach was applied.
Probably worth in introduction presenting the difference to the usual way models of this type would represent the dynamics and chemistry. This occurs later on (Section 3 – models) but we would benefit from a better framing in the introduction.
In the chemical modelling, it would be good to know the nature of the spurious results, that required the 1^st order loss of the peroxide and HNO3. Where they any measurements of NOy or H2O2 to support these losses?
Did the approach lead to any mass conservation issues with the ghost cells?
Is it possible to make an assessment of the uncertainties of the modelling approach? The overall budget figures lack uncertainties.
Given the nature of the conclusions, how should these results/methods be incorporated into the more classical approach outlined in e.g. Griffiths et al (2021).
The authors have produced an intriguing piece of work, where all the assumptions and the model are well laid out. The authors should be complimented on a nice piece of work that has a clear impact on our understanding of tropospheric ozone and methane.

Minor comments
Title is too general and needs to tell the reader why they should read this.
Abstract – given the nature of the scaling (discussed in conclusion) worth adding “Simplistic scaling …. “
Intro – Need to give a better explanation of Zhao et al (2025), not clear the point you are making.
Section 3 – needs a better title.
Line 285 – is the assumption first-order or pseudo first-order?
Line 309 – what does “A careful budget is kept of chemical species entering the model domain via the FT” mean?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6012-RC2

Calum P. Wilson and Michael J. Prather

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6012-supplement

Calum P. Wilson and Michael J. Prather

Viewed

Total article views: 371 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
223	126	22	371	39	34	29

HTML: 223
PDF: 126
XML: 22
Total: 371
Supplement: 39
BibTeX: 34
EndNote: 29

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	117	87	14	218
Jan 2026	99	28	7	134
Feb 2026	7	11	1	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	117	87	14	218
Jan 2026	99	28	7	134
Feb 2026	7	11	1	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 356 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 356 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 05 Feb 2026

Short summary

Air pollution impacts global warming by changing atmospheric chemistry, effectively producing ozone and destroying methane (greenhouse gases). We quantify these greenhouse gas changes with a specialized model that tracks the chemical impact of air pollutants over their lifetime. Our summertime Korean results, scaled to all air pollution, estimate that up to 30 % of tropospheric ozone production and 10 % of methane loss is caused by air pollutants, but this scaling overrates wintertime pollution.


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