• Avissar, R., and R. A. Pielke, 1989: A parameterization of heterogeneous land surfaces for atmospheric numerical models and its impact on regional meteorology. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 2113–2136.

  • Bonan, G. B., D. Pollard, and S. L. Thompson, 1993: Influence of subgrid-scale heterogeneity in leaf area index, stomatal resistance, and soil moisture on grid-scale land–atmosphere interactions. J. Climate,6, 1882–1897.

  • Businger, J. A., 1973: Turbulent transfer in the atmospheric surface layer. Workshop on Micrometeorology, D. A. Haugen, Ed., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 67–100.

  • Claussen, M., 1990: Area-averaging of surface fluxes in a neutrally stratified, horizontally inhomogeneous atmospheric boundary layer. Atmos. Environ.,24A, 1349–1360.

  • ENSR, 1993: Intercomparison of ADOM and RADM dry deposition modules. Document 0780-004-400, prepared for Battelle Northwest Laboratories by ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Camarillo, CA, 55 pp. [Available from ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1220 Avenida Acaso, Camarillo, CA 93012.].

  • Erisman, J. W., and Coauthors, 1997: Particle deposition to forests—Summary of results and application. Atmos. Environ.,31, 321–332.

  • Hicks, B. B., D. D. Baldocchi, T. P. Meyers, R. P. Hosker Jr., and D. R. Matt, 1987: A preliminary multiple resistance routine for deriving dry deposition velocities from measured quantities. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.,36, 311–330.

  • Högström, U., 1996: Review of some basic characteristics of the atmospheric surface layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,78, 215–246.

  • Kosta, R. D., and M. J. Suarez, 1992: A comparative analysis of two land surface heterogeneity representations. J. Climate,5, 1379–1390.

  • Ma, J., and S. M. Daggupaty, 1998: Stability dependence of height scales and effective roughness lengths of momentum and heat transfer over roughness changes. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,88, 145–160.

  • Mason, P. J., 1988: The formation of areally averaged roughness lengths. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,114, 399–420.

  • Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., and P. G. Duynkerke, 1996: Turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer. Atmos. Res.,40, 111–142.

  • Padro, J., 1993: Seasonal contrasts in modeled and observed dry deposition velocities of O3, SO2 and NO2 over three surfaces. Atmos. Environ.,27, 807–814.

  • Pitman, A. J., 1994: Assessing the sensitivity of a land-surface scheme to the parameter values using a single column model. J. Climate,7, 1856–1869.

  • Pleim, J., A. Venkatram, and R. Yamartino, 1984: ADOM/TADAM model development program. ERT P-b980-520, prepared for OME AES of Canada and the Umweltbundesamt, West Germany, 111 pp. [Available from Air Quality Research Branch, Meteorological Service of Canada, 4905 Dufferin St., Downsview, ON M3H 5T4, Canada.].

  • Ruijgrok, W., C. I. Davidson, and K. W. Nicholson, 1995: Dry deposition of particles—implications and recommendations for mapping of deposition over Europe. Tellus,47B, 587–601.

  • Sellers, P. J., D. A. Randall, J. G. Collatz, J. A. Berry, C. B. Field, D. A. Dazlich, G. D. Collelo, and L. Bounoua, 1996: A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part I: Model formulations. J. Climate,9, 676–705.

  • Sheih, C. M., M. L. Wesely, and B. B. Hicks, 1979: Estimated dry deposition velocities of sulfur over the eastern United States and surrounding regions. Atmos. Environ.,13, 1361–1368.

  • Slinn, W. G. N., 1982: Predictions for particle deposition to vegetative surfaces. Atmos. Environ.,16, 1785–1794.

  • Taylor, P. A., 1987: Comments and further analysis on effective roughness lengths for use in numerical three-dimensional models. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,39, 403–418.

  • Venkatram, A., P. K. Karamchandani, and P. K. Misra, 1988: Testing a comprehensive acid deposition model. Atmos. Environ.,22, 737–747.

  • Walcek, C. J., R. A. Brost, J. S. Chang, and M. L. Wesely, 1986: SO2, sulfate and HNO3 deposition velocities computed using regional landuse and meteorological data. Atmos. Environ.,20, 949–964.

  • Wesely, M. L., 1989: Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models. Atmos. Environ.,23, 1293–1304.

  • Wesely, M. L., and B. B. Hicks, 1977: Some factors that affect the deposition rates of sulfur dioxide and similar gases on vegetation. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc.,27, 1110–1116.

  • Wesely, M. L., D. R. Cook, and R. L. Hart, 1985: Measurements and parameterization of particulate sulfur dry deposition over grass. J. Geophys. Res.,90, 2131–2143.

  • Wood, N., and P. J. Mason, 1991: The influence of static stability on the effective roughness lengths for momentum and heat transfer. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,117, 1025–1056.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 426 175 9
PDF Downloads 277 131 2

Effective Dry Deposition Velocities for Gases and Particles over Heterogeneous Terrain

View More View Less
  • 1 Air Quality Modeling and Integration Research Division, Meteorological Service of Canada, Downsview, Ontario, Canada
Restricted access

Abstract

Dry deposition velocities of gases and particles are highly dependent on surface type. In a numerical model, each grid cell may contain multiple surface types, each with a different deposition velocity. Therefore, some kind of averaging technique generally is used to compute the average of the subgrid-scale deposition velocities within a grid cell. In this paper, effective surface parameters are suggested to relate the mean properties of concentration and wind speed to the mean surface fluxes. An effective deposition velocity is computed subject to these effective surface parameters and a weighted-average technique. This effective deposition velocity is compared with an alternate weighted-average deposition velocity that has been used widely in numerical air quality models. For particles, the effective deposition velocity can be significantly different from the weighted-average deposition velocity. For some gases, for which biological factors often control the deposition process, the difference between these two average deposition velocities can still be distinguished for typical gases and surface properties.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Jianmin Ma, ARQI, Air Quality Research Branch, Meteorological Service of Canada, 4905 Dufferin St., Downsview, ON M3H 5T4, Canada.

jianmin.ma@ec.gc.ca

Abstract

Dry deposition velocities of gases and particles are highly dependent on surface type. In a numerical model, each grid cell may contain multiple surface types, each with a different deposition velocity. Therefore, some kind of averaging technique generally is used to compute the average of the subgrid-scale deposition velocities within a grid cell. In this paper, effective surface parameters are suggested to relate the mean properties of concentration and wind speed to the mean surface fluxes. An effective deposition velocity is computed subject to these effective surface parameters and a weighted-average technique. This effective deposition velocity is compared with an alternate weighted-average deposition velocity that has been used widely in numerical air quality models. For particles, the effective deposition velocity can be significantly different from the weighted-average deposition velocity. For some gases, for which biological factors often control the deposition process, the difference between these two average deposition velocities can still be distinguished for typical gases and surface properties.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Jianmin Ma, ARQI, Air Quality Research Branch, Meteorological Service of Canada, 4905 Dufferin St., Downsview, ON M3H 5T4, Canada.

jianmin.ma@ec.gc.ca

Save