The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of tropospheric gas-phase chemistry schemes for use within global models
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Methane and ozone are two important climate gases with significant tropospheric chemistry. Within chemistry-climate and transport models this chemistry is simplified for computational expediency. We compare the state of the art Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM) with six tropospheric chemistry schemes (CRI-reduced, GEOS-CHEM and a GEOS-CHEM adduct, MOZART-2, TOMCAT and CBM-IV) that could be used within composition transport models. We test the schemes within a box model framework under conditions derived from a composition transport model and from field observations from a regional scale pollution event. We find that CRI-reduced provides much skill in simulating the full chemistry, yet with greatly reduced complexity. We find significant variations between the other chemical schemes, and reach the following conclusions. 1) The inclusion of a gas phase N2O5+H2O reaction in one scheme and not others is a large source of uncertainty in the inorganic chemistry. 2) There are significant variations in the calculated concentration of PAN between the schemes, which will affect the long range transport of reactive nitrogen in global models. 3) The representation of isoprene chemistry differs hugely between the schemes, leading to significant uncertainties on the impact of isoprene on composition. 4) Differences are found in NO3 concentrations in the nighttime chemistry. Resolving these four issues through further investigative laboratory studies will reduce the uncertainties within the chemical schemes of global tropospheric models.
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
Young, P. J., Archibald, A. T., Bowman, K. W., Lamarque, J.-F., Naik, V., Stevenson, D. S., Tilmes, S., Voulgarakis, A., Wild, O., Bergmann, D., et al. (2013) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013 · Cited by 677
Nighttime radical observations and chemistry
Brown, S. S., & Stutz, J. (2012) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c2cs35181a · Cited by 637
Tropospheric OH and HO2 radicals: field measurements and model comparisons
Stone, D., Whalley, L. K., & Heard, D. E. (2012) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c2cs35140d · Cited by 599
Young, P. J., Naik, V., Fiore, A. M., Gaudel, A., Guo, J., Lin, M. Y., Neu, J. L., Parrish, D. D., Rieder, H. E., Schnell, J. L., et al. (2018) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.265 · Cited by 444
High winter ozone pollution from carbonyl photolysis in an oil and gas basin
Edwards, P. M., Brown, S. S., Roberts, J. M., Ahmadov, R., Banta, R. M., deGouw, J. A., Dubé, W. P., Field, R. A., Flynn, J. H., Gilman, J. B., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13767 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- Emmerson, K. M., & Evans, M. J.
- Venue
- Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2009-03-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1831-1845
- ISSN
- 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
- 1680-7324
- OpenAlex
- W2124193573
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Comparison of tropospheric gas-phase chemistry schemes for use within global models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-9-1831-2009
- The paper
- Emmerson, K. M., & Evans, M. J. (2009). Comparison of tropospheric gas-phase chemistry schemes for use within global models. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1831-2009
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.