The DOI matches its Crossref record.
North African dust export and deposition: A satellite and model perspective
Open accessAbstract
We use a suite of satellite observations (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR), Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar With Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP)) to investigate the processes of long‐range transport of dust represented in the global GEOS‐Chem model in 2006–2008. A multiyear mean of African dust transport is developed and used to test the representation of the variability in the model. We find that both MODIS and MISR correlate well with the majority of Aerosol Robotic Network observations in the region (r> 0.8). However, MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) appears to be biased low (>0.05) relative to MISR in Saharan regions during summer. We find that GEOS‐Chem captures much of the variability in AOD when compared with MISR and MODIS (r> 0.6) and represents the vertical structure in aerosol extinction over outflow regions well when compared to CALIOP. Including a realistic representation of the submicron‐size distribution of dust reduces simulated AOD by ∼25% over North Africa and improves agreement with observations. The lifetime of the simulated dust is typically a few days (25%–50%) shorter than inferred from MODIS observations, suggesting overvigorous wet removal, confirmed by comparison with rain rate observations from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite. The simulation captures the seasonality of deposition in Florida and the observed magnitude and variability of dust concentrations at Barbados from 2006 to 2008 (r = 0.74), indicating a good simulation of the impacts of North African dust on air quality in North America. We estimate that 218 ± 48 Tg of dust is annually deposited into the Atlantic and calculate a lower estimate for the dust deposited in the Caribbean and Amazon to be 26 ± 5 Tg yr−1 and 17 ± 5 Tg yr−1, respectively. This suggests that the dust deposition in the Amazon derived from satellites may be an upper limit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Brauer, M., Hsu, N. C., Kahn, R. A., Levy, R. C., Lyapustin, A., Sayer, A. M., & Winker, D. M. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b05833 · Cited by 1,206
Yu, H., Chin, M., Yuan, T., Bian, H., Remer, L. A., Prospero, J. M., Omar, A., Winker, D., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2015) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2015gl063040 · Cited by 409
Prospero, J. M., Collard, F., Molinié, J., & Jeannot, A. (2014) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1002/2013gb004802 · Cited by 344
Wang, X., Heald, C. L., Ridley, D. A., Schwarz, J. P., Spackman, J. R., Perring, A. E., Coe, H., Liu, D., & Clarke, A. D. (2014) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-14-10989-2014 · Cited by 323
Self-citationvan Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Spurr, R. J. D., & Burnett, R. T. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b02076 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Ridley, D. A., Heald, C. L., & Ford, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2012-01-20
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- D2
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979319111
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: North African dust export and deposition: A satellite and model perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2011jd016794
- The paper
- Ridley, D. A., Heald, C. L., & Ford, B. (2012). North African dust export and deposition: A satellite and model perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016794
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.