Cited by 26Atmospheric Ozone and ClimateAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

Surface erythemal UV irradiance in the continental United States derived from ground-based and OMI observations: quality assessment, trend analysis and sampling issues

Open access
Zhang, Huanxin, Wang, Jun, Castro García, Lorena, Zeng, Jing, Dennhardt, Connor, Liu, Yang, Krotkov, Nickolay A.·2019·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Surface full-sky erythemal dose rate (EDR) from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) at both satellite overpass time and local noon time is evaluated against ground measurements at 31 sites from the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) UV-B Monitoring and Research Program (UVMRP) over the period of 2005–2017. We find that both OMI overpass and solar noon time EDR are highly correlated with the measured counterparts (with a linear correlation coefficient of 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). Although the comparison statistics are improved with a longer time window (0.5–1.0 h) for pairing surface and OMI measurements, both OMI overpass and local noon time EDRs have 7 % overestimation that is larger than 6 % uncertainty in the ground measurements and show different levels of dependence on solar zenith angle (SZA) and to lesser extent on cloud optical depth. The ratio of EDR between local noon and OMI overpass time is often (95 % in frequency) larger than 1 with a mean of 1.18 in the OMI product; in contrast, the same ratio from surface observation is normally distributed with 22 % of the times less than 1 and a mean of 1.38. This contrast in part reflects the deficiency in the OMI surface UV algorithm that assumes constant atmospheric conditions between overpass and noon time. The probability density functions (PDFs) for both OMI and ground measurements of noontime EDR are in statistically significant agreement, showing dual peaks at ∼20 and ∼200 mW m −2 , respectively; the latter is lower than 220 mW m −2 , the value at which the PDF of daily EDR from ground measurements peaks, and this difference indicates that the largest EDR value for a given day may not often occur at local noon. Lastly, statistically significant positive trends of EDR are found in the northeastern US in OMI data, but opposite trends are found within ground-based data (regardless of sampling for either noontime or daily averages). While positive trends are consistently found between OMI and surface data for EDR over the southern Great Plains (Texas and Oklahoma), their values are within the uncertainty of ground measurements. Overall, no scientifically sound trends can be found among OMI data for aerosol total and absorbing optical depth, cloud optical depth and total ozone to explain coherently the surface UV trends revealed either by OMI or ground-based estimates; these data also cannot reconcile trend differences between the two estimates (of EDR from OMI and surface observations). Future geostationary satellites with better spatiotemporal resolution data should help overcome spatiotemporal sampling issues inherent in OMI data products and therefore improve the estimates of surface UV flux and EDR from space.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/acp-19-2165-2019

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Trend estimates of ultraviolet irradiance showed no significant difference during study periods.

    “The authors substantiated this by reporting that trend estimates of ultraviolet irradiance showed no significant difference during study periods”

    From Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al. 2019

    Section 4.4 (page unavailable) reports statistically significant positive surface-UV trends in some regions and significant negative trends at ground-observation sites in the Northeast and Ohio River Valley. The Conclusion and discussion (page unavailable) also says estimated trends differ by sampling method. This contradicts the unqualified claim that trend estimates showed no significant difference. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sun protection factors 15, 30, 45 and 50 block or absorb UV-B light at 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8% and 98.0%, respectively.

    “For example, sun protection factors 15, 30, 45 and 50 block/absorb the UV-B light 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8% and 98.0%, respectively (Wilson et al. 2012).”

    From Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review (2024) · cites this paper as Wilson et al. 2012

    The Introduction discusses surface UV radiation and its health impacts, but does not discuss sunscreen. Searches for SPF, sunscreen, and the four stated UV-B blocking percentages found no supporting passage in our copy. The citing sentence names Wilson et al. (2012), but our copy does not identify that work as the source of these figures. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Arola, A., Kazadzis, S., Krotkov, N., Bais, A., Gröbner, J., and Herman, J. R.: Assessment of TOMS UV bias due to absorbing aerosols, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110, 2005.
  2. Arola, A., Kazadzis, S., Lindfors, A., Krotkov, N., Kujanpää, J., Tamminen, J., Bais, A., di Sarra, A., Villaplana, J. M., Brogniez, C., Siani, A. M., Janouch, M., Weihs, P., Webb, A., Koskela, T., Kouremeti, N., Meloni, D., Buchard, V., Auriol, F., Ialongo, I., Staneck, M., Simic, S., Smedley, A., and Kinne, S.: A new approach to correct for absorbing aerosols in OMI UV, Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 10.1029/2009GL041137, 2009. · DOI
  3. Bernhard, G., and Seckmeyer, G.: Uncertainty of measurements of spectral solar UV irradiance, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 104, 14321-14345, 1999.
  4. Bigelow, D. S., Slusser, J., Beaubien, A., and Gibson, J.: The USDA ultraviolet radiation monitoring program, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 601-615, 1998.
  5. Bornman, J. F., and Teramura, A. H.: Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on terrestrial plants, in: Environmental UV photobiology, Springer, 427-471, 1993.
  6. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-720 Manuscript under review for journal Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discussion started: 3 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. · DOI
  7. Cede, A., Luccini, E., Nuñez, L., Piacentini, R. D., Blumthaler, M., and Herman, J. R.: TOMS-derived erythemal irradiance versus measurements at the stations of the Argentine UV Monitoring Network, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 109, 2004.
  8. Chubarova, N. Y., Yurova, A. Y., Krotkov, N. A., Herman, J. R., and Bhartia, P. K.: Comparisons between ground measurements of UV irradiance 290 to 380nm and TOMS UV estimates over Moscow for 1979-2000, Opt. Eng. 0001 41 (12), 3070-3081, 2002.
  9. Eck, T. F., Bhartia, P. K., and Kerr, J. B.: Satellite estimation of spectral UVB irradiance using TOMS derived total ozone and UV reflectivity, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 611-614, 10.1029/95GL00111, 1995. · DOI
  10. Fioletov, V., Bodeker, G., Miller, A., McPeters, R., and Stolarski, R.: Global and zonal total ozone variations estimated from ground-based and satellite measurements: 1964-2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 107, 2002.
  11. Herman, J., Krotkov, N., Celarier, E., Larko, D., and Labow, G.: Distribution of UV radiation at the Earth's surface from TOMS-measured UV-backscattered radiances, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 104, 12059-12076, 1999.
  12. Janjai, S., Wisitsirikun, S., Buntoung, S., Pattarapanitchai, S., Wattan, R., Masiri, I., and Bhattarai, B.: Comparison of UV index from Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) with multi-channel filter radiometers at four sites in the tropics: effects of aerosols and clouds, International Journal of Climatology, 34, 453-461, 2014.
  13. Kalliskota, S., Kaurola, J., Taalas, P., Herman, J. R., Celarier, E. A., and Krotkov, N. A.: Comparison of daily UV doses estimated from Nimbus 7/TOMS measurements and ground-based spectroradiometric data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 105, 5059-5067, 2000.
  14. Kazantzidis, A., Bais, A., Gröbner, J., Herman, J., Kazadzis, S., Krotkov, N., Kyrö, E., Den Outer, P., Garane, K., and Görts, P.: Comparison of satellite-derived UV irradiances with ground-based measurements at four European stations, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 111, 2006.
  15. Kinne, S.: Climatologies of cloud-related aerosols. Part 1: Particle number and size, in: Clouds in the perturbed climate system, MIT Press, 37-57, 2009.
  16. Krotkov, N. A., Bhartia, P. K., Herman, J. R., Fioletov, V., and Kerr, J.: Satellite estimation of spectral surface UV irradiance in the presence of tropospheric aerosols: 1. Cloud-free case, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 103, 8779-8793, 10.1029/98JD00233, 1998. · DOI
  17. Krotkov, N. A., Herman, J. R., Bhartia, P. K., Fioletov, V., and Ahmad, Z.: Satellite estimation of spectral surface UV irradiance: 2. Effects of homogeneous clouds and snow, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106, 11743-11759, 10.1029/2000JD900721, 2001. · DOI
  18. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-720 Manuscript under review for journal Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discussion started: 3 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. · DOI
  19. Lantz, K. O., Disterhoft, P., DeLuisi, J. J., Early, E., Thompson, A., Bigelow, D., and Slusser, J.: Methodology for deriving clear-sky erythemal calibration factors for UV broadband radiometers of the US Central UV Calibration Facility, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 16, 1736-1752, 1999.
  20. Lemus-Deschamps, L., and Makin, J. K.: Fifty years of changes in UV Index and implications for skin cancer in Australia, International journal of biometeorology, 56, 727-735, 2012.
  21. Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H., Dobber, M. R., Malkki, A., Visser, H., de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O., and Saari, H.: The ozone monitoring instrument, IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, 44, 1093-1101, 2006.
  22. McKenzie, R., Seckmeyer, G., Bais, A., Kerr, J., and Madronich, S.: Satellite retrievals of erythemal UV dose compared with ground-based measurements at northern and southern midlatitudes, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106, 24051-24062, 2001.
  23. McKinlay, A., and Diffey, B.: A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet erythema in human skin, CIE journal, 6, 17-22, 1987.
  24. Sabburg, J., Rives, J., Meltzer, R., Taylor, T., Schmalzle, G., Zheng, S., Huang, N., Wilson, A., and Udelhofen, P.: Comparisons of corrected daily integrated erythemal UVR data from the US EPA/UGA network of Brewer spectroradiometers with model and TOMS-inferred data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 107, 2002.
  25. Tanskanen, A., Krotkov, N. A., Herman, J. R., and Arola, A.: Surface ultraviolet irradiance from OMI, IEEE transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44, 1267-1271, 2006.
  26. Tanskanen, A., Lindfors, A., Määttä, A., Krotkov, N., Herman, J., Kaurola, J., Koskela, T., Lakkala, K., Fioletov, V., and Bernhard, G.: Validation of daily erythemal doses from Ozone Monitoring Instrument with ground-based UV measurement data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112, 2007.
  27. Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106, 7183-7192, 2001.
  28. Torres, O., Tanskanen, A., Veihelmann, B., Ahn, C., Braak, R., Bhartia, P. K., Veefkind, P., and Levelt, P.: Aerosols and surface UV products from Ozone Monitoring Instrument observations: An overview, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112, 2007.
  29. UNEP: Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: 2006 assessment, Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 6, 201-332, 10.1039/b700016b, 2007. · DOI
  30. Walls, A. C., Han, J., Li, T., and Qureshi, A. A.: Host risk factors, ultraviolet index of residence, and incident malignant melanoma in situ among US women and men, American journal of epidemiology, 177, 997-1005, 2013.
  31. Wang, J., and Christopher, S. A.: Mesoscale modeling of Central American smoke transport to the United States: 2. Smoke radiative impact on regional surface energy budget and boundary layer evolution, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 111, 2006.
  32. Weatherhead, E. C., Tiao, G. C., Reinsel, G. C., Frederick, J. E., DeLuisi, J. J., Choi, D., and Tam, W. k.: Analysis of long- term behavior of ultraviolet radiation measured by Robertson-Berger meters at 14 sites in the United States, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 102, 8737-8754, 1997.
  33. Weatherhead, E. C., Reinsel, G. C., Tiao, G. C., Meng, X. L., Choi, D., Cheang, W. K., Keller, T., DeLuisi, J., Wuebbles, D. J., and Kerr, J. B.: Factors affecting the detection of trends: Statistical considerations and applications to environmental data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 103, 17149-17161, 1998.
  34. Weatherhead, E. C., Reinsel, G. C., Tiao, G. C., Jackman, C. H., Bishop, L., Frith, S. M. H., DeLuisi, J., Keller, T., Oltmans, S. J., and Fleming, E. L.: Detecting the recovery of total column ozone, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 105, 22201-22210, 2000.
  35. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-720 Manuscript under review for journal Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discussion started: 3 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. Weihs, P., Blumthaler, M., Rieder, H., Kreuter, A., Simic, S., Laube, W., Schmalwieser, A., Wagner, J., and Tanskanen, A.: Measurements of UV irradiance within the area of one satellite pixel, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8, 5615-5626, 2008. · DOI
  36. Wilks, D. S.: Chapter 5 -Frequentist Statistical Inference, in: International Geophysics, edited by: Wilks, D. S., Academic Press, 133-186, 2011.
  37. Zhang, L., Henze, D. K., Grell, G. A., Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Lamsal, L. N.: What factors control the trend of increasing AAOD over the United States in the last decade?, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122, 1797-1810, 2017.
  38. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-720 Manuscript under review for journal Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discussion started: 3 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Wang, J., Castro García, L., Zeng, J., Dennhardt, C., Liu, Y., & Krotkov, N. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • NOAA National Weather Service (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Huanxin
  • Wang, Jun
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2019-02-19
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
2165-2181
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2915544419
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Atmospheric chemistry and physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Biogeosciences (European Geosciences Union) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX14AG01G)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Keywords
Ozone Monitoring Instrument, solar zenith angle dependence, cloud optical thickness, aerosol optical depth, total ozone, probability density function, continental United States, northeastern United States, Southern Great Plains

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