4.7 Article

Improved PM2.5 predictions of WRF-Chem via the integration of Himawari-8 satellite data and ground observations

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 263, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114451

Keywords

Data assimilation; Air quality forecast; Remote sensing; WRF-Chem; GOCART

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41971285, 41701381]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2042019kf0192]
  3. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0212600]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The new-generation geostationary satellites feature higher radiometric, spectral, and spatial resolutions, thereby making richer data available for the improvement of PM2.5 predictions. Various aerosol optical depth (AOD) data assimilation methods have been developed, but the accurate representation of the AOD-PM2.5 relationship remains challenging. Empirical statistical methods are effective in retrieving ground-level PM2.5, but few have been evaluated in terms of whether and to what extent they can help improve PM2.5 predictions. Therefore, an empirical and statistics-based scheme was developed for optimizing the estimation of the initial conditions (ICs) of aerosol in WRF-Chem (Weather Research and Forecasting/Chemistry) and for improving the PM2.5 predictions by integrating Himawari-8 data and ground observations. The proposed method was evaluated via two one-year experiments that were conducted in parallel over eastern China. The contribution of the satellite data to the model performance was evaluated via a 2-week control experiment. The results demonstrate that the proposed method improved the PM2.5 predictions throughout the year and mitigated the underestimation during pollution episodes. Spatially, the performance was highly correlated with the amount of valid data. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available