The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Observations of Ozone Formation in Power Plant Plumes and Implications for Ozone Control Strategies
Abstract
Data taken in aircraft transects of emissions plumes from rural U.S. coal-fired power plants were used to confirm and quantify the nonlinear dependence of tropospheric ozone formation on plume NO(x) (NO plus NO(2)) concentration, which is determined by plant NO(x) emission rate and atmospheric dispersion. The ambient availability of reactive volatile organic compounds, principally biogenic isoprene, was also found to modulate ozone production rate and yield in these rural plumes. Differences of a factor of 2 or greater in plume ozone formation rates and yields as a function of NO(x) and volatile organic compound concentrations were consistently observed. These large differences suggest that consideration of power plant NO(x) emission rates and geographic locations in current and future U.S. ozone control strategies could substantially enhance the efficacy of NO(x) reductions from these sources.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Changes in ozone concentrations depend strongly on dispersion of precursor emissions due to nonlinearity in the relationship between ozone production rates and NOx concentration.
“In addition, changes in ozone concentrations depend strongly on dispersion of precursor emissions due to nonlinearity in the relationship between ozone production rates and NO x concentration (Marelle et al., 2016; Ryerson et al., 2001).”
From Local Arctic Air Pollution: A Neglected but Serious Problem (2018) · cites this paper as Ryerson et al., 2001
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Haagen-Smit A. J., Industr. Eng. Chem. 44, 1342 (1952). · DOI
- Crutzen P. J., Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 443 (1979). · DOI
- Fiore A. M., Jacob D. J., Logan J. A., Yin J. H., J. Geophys. Res. 103, 1471 (1998). · DOI
- Trainer M., et al., Nature 329, 705 (1987). · DOI
- Chameides W. L., Lindsay R. W., Richardson J., Kiang C. S., Science 241, 1473 (1988). · DOI
- 10.1126/science.276.5314.916 · DOI
- St. John J. C., Chameides W. L., J. Geophys. Res. 105, 9203 (2000). · DOI
- Liu S. C., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 92, 4191 (1987). · DOI
- Miller D. F., Alkezweeny A. J., Hales J. M., Lee R. N., Science 202, 1186 (1978). · DOI
- Gillani N. V., Pleim J. E., Atmos. Environ. 30, 2043 (1996). · DOI
- Ryerson T. B., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 103, 22569 (1998). · DOI
- Goldan P. D., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 105, 9091 (2000). · DOI
- Jacob D. J., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 101, 24235 (1996). · DOI
- Parrish D. D., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 98, 2927 (1993). · DOI
- Pleim J. E., Chang J. S., Zhang K., J. Geophys. Res. 96, 3065 (1991). · DOI
- Ryerson T. B., Williams E. J., Fehsenfeld F. C., J. Geophys. Res. 105, 26447 (2000). · DOI
- Fahey D. W., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 91, 9781 (1986). · DOI
- 10.1126/science.259.5100.1436 · DOI
- Wofsy S. C., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 99, 1887 (1994). · DOI
- 10.1126/science.959846 · DOI
- Trainer M., et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 18823 (1995). · DOI
- Geron C. D., Guenther A. B., Pierce T. E., J. Geophys. Res. 99, 12773 (1994). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Local Arctic Air Pollution: A Neglected but Serious Problem
Schmale, J., Arnold, S. R., Law, K. S., Thorp, T., Anenberg, S., Simpson, W. R., Mao, J., & Pratt, K. A. (2018) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1029/2018ef000952 · Cited by 221
“linearity in the relationship between ozone production rates and NOx concentration (Marelle et al., 2016; Ryerson et al., 2001).”
BackgroundCleaner air has contributed one-fifth of US maize and soybean yield gains since 1999
Lobell, D. B., & Burney, J. A. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac0fa4 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryerson, T. B., Trainer, M., Holloway, J. S., Parrish, D. D., Huey, L. G., Sueper, D. T., Frost, G. J., Donnelly, S. G., Schauffler, S., Atlas, E. L., Kuster, W. C., Goldan, P. D., Hübler, G., Meagher, J. F., & Fehsenfeld, F. C.
- Affiliations
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
- Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
- Corresponding author
- Ryerson, T. B.
- Trainer, M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2001-04-27
- Volume
- 292
- Issue
- 5517
- Pages
- 719-723
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2101806285
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 12.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
- Keywords
- tropospheric ozone formation, power plant emissions, coal-fired power plants, NOx emissions, isoprene, volatile organic compounds, ozone control strategies, atmospheric dispersion
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