Articles | Volume 10, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2365-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2365-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | Highlight paper
 | 
27 Jun 2017
Methods for assessment of models | Highlight paper |  | 27 Jun 2017

STRAPS v1.0: evaluating a methodology for predicting electron impact ionisation mass spectra for the aerosol mass spectrometer

David O. Topping, James Allan, M. Rami Alfarra, and Bernard Aumont

Related authors

Description and evaluation of the community aerosol dynamics model MAFOR v2.0
Matthias Karl, Liisa Pirjola, Tiia Grönholm, Mona Kurppa, Srinivasan Anand, Xiaole Zhang, Andreas Held, Rolf Sander, Miikka Dal Maso, David Topping, Shuai Jiang, Leena Kangas, and Jaakko Kukkonen
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3969–4026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3969-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3969-2022, 2022
Short summary
JlBox v1.1: a Julia-based multi-phase atmospheric chemistry box model
Langwen Huang and David Topping
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2187–2203, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2187-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2187-2021, 2021
Short summary
PyCHAM (v2.1.1): a Python box model for simulating aerosol chambers
Simon Patrick O'Meara, Shuxuan Xu, David Topping, M. Rami Alfarra, Gerard Capes, Douglas Lowe, Yunqi Shao, and Gordon McFiggans
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 675–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-675-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-675-2021, 2021
Short summary
Quantifying bioaerosol concentrations in dust clouds through online UV-LIF and mass spectrometry measurements at the Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory
Douglas Morrison, Ian Crawford, Nicholas Marsden, Michael Flynn, Katie Read, Luis Neves, Virginia Foot, Paul Kaye, Warren Stanley, Hugh Coe, David Topping, and Martin Gallagher
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 14473–14490, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14473-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14473-2020, 2020
Short summary
Evaluating the use of Facebook's Prophet model v0.6 in forecasting concentrations of NO2 at single sites across the UK and in response to the COVID-19 lockdown in Manchester, England
David Topping, David Watts, Hugh Coe, James Evans, Thomas J. Bannan, Douglas Lowe, Caroline Jay, and Jonathan W. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-270,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-270, 2020
Publication in GMD not foreseen
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
Jana Fischereit, Henrik Vedel, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Natalie E. Theeuwes, Gregor Giebel, and Eigil Kaas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2855–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Analytical and adaptable initial conditions for dry and moist baroclinic waves in the global hydrostatic model OpenIFS (CY43R3)
Clément Bouvier, Daan van den Broek, Madeleine Ekblom, and Victoria A. Sinclair
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2961–2986, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024, 2024
Short summary
Challenges of constructing and selecting the “perfect” boundary conditions for the large-eddy simulation model PALM
Jelena Radović, Michal Belda, Jaroslav Resler, Kryštof Eben, Martin Bureš, Jan Geletič, Pavel Krč, Hynek Řezníček, and Vladimír Fuka
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2901–2927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024, 2024
Short summary
A machine learning approach for evaluating Southern Ocean cloud radiative biases in a global atmosphere model
Sonya L. Fiddes, Marc D. Mallet, Alain Protat, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Simon P. Alexander, and Kalli Furtado
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2641–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024, 2024
Short summary
Decision Support System version 1.0 (DSS v1.0) for air quality management in Delhi, India
Gaurav Govardhan, Sachin D. Ghude, Rajesh Kumar, Sumit Sharma, Preeti Gunwani, Chinmay Jena, Prafull Yadav, Shubhangi Ingle, Sreyashi Debnath, Pooja Pawar, Prodip Acharja, Rajmal Jat, Gayatry Kalita, Rupal Ambulkar, Santosh Kulkarni, Akshara Kaginalkar, Vijay K. Soni, Ravi S. Nanjundiah, and Madhavan Rajeevan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2617–2640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aiken, A. C., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.: Elemental analysis of organic species with electron ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry, Anal. Chem., 79, 8350–8358, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac071150w, 2007.
Alfarra, M. R., Good, N., Wyche, K. P., Hamilton, J. F., Monks, P. S., Lewis, A. C., and McFiggans, G.: Water uptake is independent of the inferred composition of secondary aerosols derived from multiple biogenic VOCs, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11769–11789, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11769-2013, 2013.
Aumont, B., Szopa, S., and Madronich, S.: Modelling the evolution of organic carbon during its gas-phase tropospheric oxidation: development of an explicit model based on a self generating approach, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2497–2517, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2497-2005, 2005.
Aumont, B., Valorso, R., Mouchel-Vallon, C., Camredon, M., Lee-Taylor, J., and Madronich, S.: Modeling SOA formation from the oxidation of intermediate volatility n-alkanes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7577–7589, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7577-2012, 2012.
Download
Short summary
Our ability to model the chemical and thermodynamic processes that lead to secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation is thought to be hampered by the complexity of the system. In this proof of concept study, the ability to train supervised methods to predict electron impact ionisation (EI) mass spectra for the AMS is evaluated to facilitate improved model evaluation. The study demonstrates the use of a methodology that would be improved with more training data and data from simple mixed systems.