Cargando…

Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ

Accurate fire emissions inventories are crucial to predict the impacts of wildland fires on air quality and atmospheric composition. Two traditional approaches are widely used to calculate fire emissions: a satellite‐based top‐down approach and a fuels‐based bottom‐up approach. However, these method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wiggins, E. B., Anderson, B. E., Brown, M. D., Campuzano‐Jost, P., Chen, G., Crawford, J., Crosbie, E. C., Dibb, J., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fenn, M., Gallo, F., Gargulinski, E. M., Guo, H., Hair, J. W., Halliday, H. S., Ichoku, C., Jimenez, J. L., Jordan, C. E., Katich, J. M., Nowak, J. B., Perring, A. E., Robinson, C. E., Sanchez, K. J., Schueneman, M., Schwarz, J. P., Shingler, T. J., Shook, M. A., Soja, A. J., Stockwell, C. E., Thornhill, K. L., Travis, K. R., Warneke, C., Winstead, E. L., Ziemba, L. D., Moore, R. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9286562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35865864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035692
_version_ 1784748040714715136
author Wiggins, E. B.
Anderson, B. E.
Brown, M. D.
Campuzano‐Jost, P.
Chen, G.
Crawford, J.
Crosbie, E. C.
Dibb, J.
DiGangi, J. P.
Diskin, G. S.
Fenn, M.
Gallo, F.
Gargulinski, E. M.
Guo, H.
Hair, J. W.
Halliday, H. S.
Ichoku, C.
Jimenez, J. L.
Jordan, C. E.
Katich, J. M.
Nowak, J. B.
Perring, A. E.
Robinson, C. E.
Sanchez, K. J.
Schueneman, M.
Schwarz, J. P.
Shingler, T. J.
Shook, M. A.
Soja, A. J.
Stockwell, C. E.
Thornhill, K. L.
Travis, K. R.
Warneke, C.
Winstead, E. L.
Ziemba, L. D.
Moore, R. H.
author_facet Wiggins, E. B.
Anderson, B. E.
Brown, M. D.
Campuzano‐Jost, P.
Chen, G.
Crawford, J.
Crosbie, E. C.
Dibb, J.
DiGangi, J. P.
Diskin, G. S.
Fenn, M.
Gallo, F.
Gargulinski, E. M.
Guo, H.
Hair, J. W.
Halliday, H. S.
Ichoku, C.
Jimenez, J. L.
Jordan, C. E.
Katich, J. M.
Nowak, J. B.
Perring, A. E.
Robinson, C. E.
Sanchez, K. J.
Schueneman, M.
Schwarz, J. P.
Shingler, T. J.
Shook, M. A.
Soja, A. J.
Stockwell, C. E.
Thornhill, K. L.
Travis, K. R.
Warneke, C.
Winstead, E. L.
Ziemba, L. D.
Moore, R. H.
author_sort Wiggins, E. B.
collection PubMed
description Accurate fire emissions inventories are crucial to predict the impacts of wildland fires on air quality and atmospheric composition. Two traditional approaches are widely used to calculate fire emissions: a satellite‐based top‐down approach and a fuels‐based bottom‐up approach. However, these methods often considerably disagree on the amount of particulate mass emitted from fires. Previously available observational datasets tended to be sparse, and lacked the statistics needed to resolve these methodological discrepancies. Here, we leverage the extensive and comprehensive airborne in situ and remote sensing measurements of smoke plumes from the recent Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX‐AQ) campaign to statistically assess the skill of the two traditional approaches. We use detailed campaign observations to calculate and compare emission rates at an exceptionally high‐resolution using three separate approaches: top‐down, bottom‐up, and a novel approach based entirely on integrated airborne in situ measurements. We then compute the daily average of these high‐resolution estimates and compare with estimates from lower resolution, global top‐down and bottom‐up inventories. We uncover strong, linear relationships between all of the high‐resolution emission rate estimates in aggregate, however no single approach is capable of capturing the emission characteristics of every fire. Global inventory emission rate estimates exhibited weaker correlations with the high‐resolution approaches and displayed evidence of systematic bias. The disparity between the low‐resolution global inventories and the high‐resolution approaches is likely caused by high levels of uncertainty in essential variables used in bottom‐up inventories and imperfect assumptions in top‐down inventories.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9286562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92865622022-07-19 Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ Wiggins, E. B. Anderson, B. E. Brown, M. D. Campuzano‐Jost, P. Chen, G. Crawford, J. Crosbie, E. C. Dibb, J. DiGangi, J. P. Diskin, G. S. Fenn, M. Gallo, F. Gargulinski, E. M. Guo, H. Hair, J. W. Halliday, H. S. Ichoku, C. Jimenez, J. L. Jordan, C. E. Katich, J. M. Nowak, J. B. Perring, A. E. Robinson, C. E. Sanchez, K. J. Schueneman, M. Schwarz, J. P. Shingler, T. J. Shook, M. A. Soja, A. J. Stockwell, C. E. Thornhill, K. L. Travis, K. R. Warneke, C. Winstead, E. L. Ziemba, L. D. Moore, R. H. J Geophys Res Atmos Research Article Accurate fire emissions inventories are crucial to predict the impacts of wildland fires on air quality and atmospheric composition. Two traditional approaches are widely used to calculate fire emissions: a satellite‐based top‐down approach and a fuels‐based bottom‐up approach. However, these methods often considerably disagree on the amount of particulate mass emitted from fires. Previously available observational datasets tended to be sparse, and lacked the statistics needed to resolve these methodological discrepancies. Here, we leverage the extensive and comprehensive airborne in situ and remote sensing measurements of smoke plumes from the recent Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX‐AQ) campaign to statistically assess the skill of the two traditional approaches. We use detailed campaign observations to calculate and compare emission rates at an exceptionally high‐resolution using three separate approaches: top‐down, bottom‐up, and a novel approach based entirely on integrated airborne in situ measurements. We then compute the daily average of these high‐resolution estimates and compare with estimates from lower resolution, global top‐down and bottom‐up inventories. We uncover strong, linear relationships between all of the high‐resolution emission rate estimates in aggregate, however no single approach is capable of capturing the emission characteristics of every fire. Global inventory emission rate estimates exhibited weaker correlations with the high‐resolution approaches and displayed evidence of systematic bias. The disparity between the low‐resolution global inventories and the high‐resolution approaches is likely caused by high levels of uncertainty in essential variables used in bottom‐up inventories and imperfect assumptions in top‐down inventories. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-12-10 2021-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9286562/ /pubmed/35865864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035692 Text en © 2021. The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wiggins, E. B.
Anderson, B. E.
Brown, M. D.
Campuzano‐Jost, P.
Chen, G.
Crawford, J.
Crosbie, E. C.
Dibb, J.
DiGangi, J. P.
Diskin, G. S.
Fenn, M.
Gallo, F.
Gargulinski, E. M.
Guo, H.
Hair, J. W.
Halliday, H. S.
Ichoku, C.
Jimenez, J. L.
Jordan, C. E.
Katich, J. M.
Nowak, J. B.
Perring, A. E.
Robinson, C. E.
Sanchez, K. J.
Schueneman, M.
Schwarz, J. P.
Shingler, T. J.
Shook, M. A.
Soja, A. J.
Stockwell, C. E.
Thornhill, K. L.
Travis, K. R.
Warneke, C.
Winstead, E. L.
Ziemba, L. D.
Moore, R. H.
Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title_full Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title_fullStr Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title_full_unstemmed Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title_short Reconciling Assumptions in Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Approaches for Estimating Aerosol Emission Rates From Wildland Fires Using Observations From FIREX‐AQ
title_sort reconciling assumptions in bottom‐up and top‐down approaches for estimating aerosol emission rates from wildland fires using observations from firex‐aq
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9286562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35865864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035692
work_keys_str_mv AT wigginseb reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT andersonbe reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT brownmd reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT campuzanojostp reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT cheng reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT crawfordj reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT crosbieec reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT dibbj reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT digangijp reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT diskings reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT fennm reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT gallof reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT gargulinskiem reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT guoh reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT hairjw reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT hallidayhs reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT ichokuc reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT jimenezjl reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT jordance reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT katichjm reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT nowakjb reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT perringae reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT robinsonce reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT sanchezkj reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT schuenemanm reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT schwarzjp reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT shinglertj reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT shookma reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT sojaaj reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT stockwellce reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT thornhillkl reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT traviskr reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT warnekec reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT winsteadel reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT ziembald reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq
AT moorerh reconcilingassumptionsinbottomupandtopdownapproachesforestimatingaerosolemissionratesfromwildlandfiresusingobservationsfromfirexaq