the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementation of the reduced complexity model InMAP at urban scale using a high-resolution WRF-Chem simulation
Abstract. Most of the population globally lives in areas exceeding prior and current WHO guidelines for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), highlighting the persisting need for implementing emission reduction strategies. Given the complex transport and transformation processes that airborne species undergo in the atmosphere, chemical transport models can aid in designing and prioritizing air pollution mitigation actions. However, detailed chemical transport models often require substantial computational power and expertise. For that reason, reduced complexity models have emerged as an alternative, incorporating some of the information from chemical transport models while drastically reducing the technical complexity and computational demand. In this work, we build a local implementation of the Intervention Model For Air Pollution, InMAP, at high spatial resolution for a large urban area, in Bogotá, Colombia. As input for the reduced complexity model, we carried out a detailed 12-month simulation with the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) version 4.1. To achieve sufficiently high spatial-resolution for urban air quality, the model was configured with three nested domains of 27x27 km, 9x9 km, and 3x3 km respectively. When compared with surface station data, the modeled annual mean PM2.5 showed a +3.3 % overestimation at the city-scale. Furthermore, the WRF-Chem simulation accurately captured the structure of the observed PM2.5 time series at daily, weekly and seasonal time-scales. The InMAP base fields showed a slight under-prediction relative to WRF-Chem, but overall, the correlation between the WRF-Chem and InMAP modeled PM2.5 fields was high, with R2 = 0.92. InMAP sensitivity was tested for three emission reduction scenarios of varying complexity, by comparing the marginal concentrations against simulations with the full chemical transport model. The scenarios ranged in complexity, from primary-PM reductions only, to scenarios exploring moderate and severe city-wide emissions reductions from diesel powered mobile sources. Although InMAP marginal PM2.5 fields were linearly correlated with the corresponding WRF-Chem sensitivities, a strong overestimation in predicted PM2.5 variations were shown for all emission reduction scenarios considered. For the simpler scenarios where only primary PM was reduced InMAP sensitivity was a factor of 2 that of WRF-Chem, while for the more complex emission reduction scenarios involving also reduction in gas-phase emissions, InMAP overestimated PM2.5 concentrations by a factor of 5. The driver in InMAPs overestimated PM2.5 sensitivity in the scenarios involving gas-phase precursors was a large overestimation of secondary organic aerosols and particulate nitrate. The results of this work suggest that InMAP can be used to scan for potential emission reduction scenarios at the urban-scale, specially when those scenarios involve mostly primary PM emission reductions. However, our analysis indicates that studies aiming to carry out assessments using the absolute reductions in concentration from InMAP should first calibrate its sensitivities against a full chemical transport model run.
- Preprint
(1780 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 May 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-797 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ricardo Morales, 30 Mar 2026
reply
Dear Editor.
We fully regret having missed that specific guideline. We, as authors, made a best effort to comply with the guidelines. Furthermore, the manuscript submission process to GMD involves an editorial revision and quality-assurance step before any manuscript is published for discussions. Our manuscript, of course, went through the same scrutiny as all the others submitted to the journal. Unfortunately, the issues pointed out in your comment were not brought to our attention during that phase and we are now confronted with this time-constrained situation. Had we been made aware of these issues prior to the public discussion phase, we would have acted to correct them without rushing the process.
Our manuscript was submitted as a "development and technical paper". In the GMD description for this type of manuscript states: “In the case where new code is described in the paper, this is subject to the same availability requirements as for complete model descriptions.” Since our manuscript does not indeed describe new code per-se, we erroneously interpreted the statement as implying that it was not necessary to publish the codes. Now that we have been pointed towards this oversight, we will of course, correct it.
Moving on, and to ensure that we can correct these issues properly, we would appreciate clarity on two specific points:
(1) The editor comment states that we (the authors) will be allowed “a short time to solve the situation”. Could the Editor be more specific about the time constraints on this? We want to ensure that there are no mishaps in the process, and for that we would appreciate at least a two-week period to comply with it, while ensuring the quality and traceability of the process.
(2) On the suitability or lack thereof of the institutional data repository from Universidad de los Andes: With the purpose of reducing these types of barriers to publication often caused by the lack of access to quality data repositories, University of the Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, a few years ago made available to its researchers exactly that: a reliable, high quality, free of charge, repository which is managed by the Library System of the institution. As such, authors do not have access to edit, add, or remove files from that repository, and the process is done entirely by personnel of the Library System. Although we would much prefer the data to be stored in a system such as that one, we will be looking for alternatives that are accessible to us, given financial and geographical constraints. We, however, consider that these types of barriers will most definitely not help in closing the persistent gaps between research produced in the Global South and will instead likely prevent that type of research from reaching these great forums, such as the one provided by GMD. Within the two-week framework stated above, we aim to either provide GMD with assurances of the suitability of the UniAndes repository, or find another one, if possible.
We look forward to your clear answers to the questions above.
On behalf of the co-authors,
Ricardo Morales (corresponding author).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-797-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Apr 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for your reply. We fully understand the constraints to make available all the code and data requested, and we are happy to grant you the two weeks period that you mention to solve the situation. We can be flexible on this.
We are aware of many institutions around the world that along the last years have created storage systems to facilitate sharing the assets they produce. Unfortunately, often, they do not meet the necessary requirements for long-term preservation of assets linked to scientific papers. Our policy list examples of repositories that can be used and we can accept, and all of them are free of charge. If you want that we consider the Universidad de los Andes as acceptable, it must meet the requirements expressed in my previous comment, with a policy clearly published addressing the mentioned issues (including evidence of funding secured for long-term operation).
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-797-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Ricardo Morales, 07 Apr 2026
reply
Dear editor,
Regarding the preservation and data use policies of the DataHub of Universidad de los Andes, we would like to point you towards the published policy (available online) that includes the guidelines and conditions of use for the mentioned digital repository. The guidelines can be found in the Library System webpage here: https://biblioteca.uniandes.edu.co/es/repositorio-de-datos
The PDF document with the full description of the policy, can be found here: https://biblioteca.uniandes.edu.co/sites/default/files/Lineamientos_acceso_abierto_datahub_uniandes.pdf
Key aspects from the published guidelines are highlighted here:
Section 2 (page 1): It states that the repository aligns with TRUST and FAIR principles for digital repositories.
Section 3 (page 2): Among the list of commitments stated by the University regarding the repository: “To preserve, secure, and maintain perpetual access to research data associated with the scientific and academic output of the University of the Andes, published in the Research Data Repository - DataHub”
Regarding the conditions for removal of data from the repository, the document states (Section 4, page 3): “The University reserves the right to exclude from the repository any files containing the following data: Data containing confidential information; Data that, due to its nature, cannot be published or does not meet the quality standards required by the institution; Other data for which there is no express authorization from the data owner”.
In Section 7 (page 4), the policy states also which documents the documents and conditions to which the author should agree to before submitting the data to the repository: “Deposit License: Is a document through which the author submits research data to the Library System via the Research Data Publication Support Service (SAPDI) and expressly authorizes its publication, dissemination, and access.”
Given this information, and before moving forward, we would appreciate a response, hopefully consistent with the original comment, regarding whether this repository is acceptable to GMD.
Best regards,
Ricardo Morales (on behalf of all the co-authors)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-797-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Apr 2026
reply
Dear authors,
We checked the mentioned policy before commenting on your manuscript. Unfortunately, it does not address the points that I mentioned in my first comment. It does not include information on funding secured for their maintenance, minimum preservation time or policy regarding the removal by the authors. Therefore, we kindly request you to store the assets necessary to replicate your work in an acceptable repository according to the policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-797-CEC3
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Apr 2026
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Ricardo Morales, 07 Apr 2026
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Apr 2026
reply
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC1', Ricardo Morales, 20 Apr 2026
reply
Dear editor,
We apologize for this oversight in our original submission. We have now modified the manuscript to include a Code and Data Availability Section, with citations to suitable data repositories, in which we have deposited the source code for InMAP (including configuration files) and similarly for the specific WRF-Chem version used in the study, together with the necessary data.
References for both datasets and code repositories can be found here:
Morales Betancourt, R., Rojas Neisa, D. R., Piracoca Mayorga, A., & Espitia-Cano, S. (2026). InMAP-Bog - Input data and configuration files for InMAP [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19654867
Rojas Neisa, D. R., Morales Betancourt, R., & Espitia Cano, S. O. (2026). WRF-Chem_v3.9.1 - Northern South America run for year 2018: Source code and configuration files [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19655777
We have also produced a track-changes version of the manuscript to facilitate the process for the editors and reviewers.
Please, let us know the following steps to proceed with the peer review process.
Best regards,
Ricardo Morales
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-797-AC3
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ricardo Morales, 30 Mar 2026
reply
Data sets
WRF-Chem D03 2018 base simulation R. Morales Betancourt et al. https://doi.org/10.71590/9RESNN
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 132 | 92 | 16 | 240 | 25 | 28 |
- HTML: 132
- PDF: 92
- XML: 16
- Total: 240
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
First, your manuscript does not contain a Code Availability section, which is mandatory for manuscripts submitted to our journal. I am, but this is something unacceptable, forbidden by our policy, and your manuscript should have never been accepted for Discussions given such violation of the policy. Our policy clearly states that all the code and data necessary to replicate a manuscript must be published openly and freely to anyone before submission. In this regard you need to provide a repository containing the WRF-Chem model and the InMAP model and the local implementation that you have developed.
In addition, you have archived the data used and produced in your work in datahub.uniandes.edu.co/ ; however, such site does not fulfil GMD’s requirements for a persistent data archive because:
- It does not appear to have a published policy for data preservation over many years or decades (some flexibility exists over the precise length of preservation, but the policy must exist).
- It does not appear to have a published mechanism for preventing authors from unilaterally removing material. Archives must have a policy which makes removal of materials only possible in exceptional circumstances and subject to an independent curatorial decision,
If we have missed a published policy which does in fact address this matter satisfactorily, please post a response linking to it. If you have any questions about this issue, please post them in a reply.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Therefore, we are granting you a short time to solve this situation. Please, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
The 'Code and Data Availability’ section must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor