4.6 Article

Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment Ozonesonde Network Study (IONS) 2004: 2. Tropospheric ozone budgets and variability over northeastern North America

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2006JD007670

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] Daily ozone soundings taken from the R/V Ronald H. Brown from 7 July through 11 August 2004 as part of the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment (INTEX) Ozonesonde Network Study ( IONS) are used to investigate the vertical structure of ozone over the Gulf of Maine and to characterize variability in sources of tropospheric ozone: stratosphere, regional convection and lightning, advection, and local boundary layer pollution. These soundings were part of a network of twelve IONS (http://croc.gsfc.nasa.gov/intex/ions.html) stations that launched ozonesonde-radiosonde packages over the United States and maritime Canada during the INTEX/ International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation (ICARTT)/New England Air Quality Study (NEAQS) project from 1 July to 15 August 2004. Four of the IONS stations were in mid-Atlantic and northeast United States; four were in southeastern Canada. Although the INTEX/ ICARTT goal was to examine pollution influences under stable high-pressure systems, northeastern North America ( NENA) during IONS was dominated by weak frontal systems that mixed aged pollution and stratospheric ozone with ozone from more recent pollution and lightning. These sources are quantified to give tropospheric ozone budgets for individual soundings that are consistent with tracers and meteorological analyses. On average, for NENA stations in July-August 2004, tropospheric ozone was composed of the following: 10 - 15% each local boundary layer and regional sources ( the latter including that due to lightning-derived NO) and 20 - 25% stratospheric ozone, with the balance ( similar to 50%) a mixture of recently advected ozone and aged air of indeterminate origin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据