Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission
Abstract Measurements of dust aerosol size usually obtain the optical or projected area‐equivalent diameters, whereas model calculations of dust impacts use the geometric or aerodynamic diameters. Accurate conversions between the four diameter types are thus critical. However, most current conversio...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Geophysical Research Letters |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092054 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850281545439379456 |
|---|---|
| author | Yue Huang Adeyemi A. Adebiyi Paola Formenti Jasper F. Kok |
| author_facet | Yue Huang Adeyemi A. Adebiyi Paola Formenti Jasper F. Kok |
| author_sort | Yue Huang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Measurements of dust aerosol size usually obtain the optical or projected area‐equivalent diameters, whereas model calculations of dust impacts use the geometric or aerodynamic diameters. Accurate conversions between the four diameter types are thus critical. However, most current conversions assume dust is spherical, even though numerous studies show that dust is highly aspherical. Here, we obtain conversions between different diameter types that account for dust asphericity. Our conversions indicate that optical particle counters have underestimated dust geometric diameter (Dgeo) at coarse sizes. We further use the diameter conversions to obtain a consistent observational constraint on the size distribution of emitted dust. This observational constraint is coarser than parameterizations used in global aerosol models, which underestimate the mass of emitted dust within 10 ≤ Dgeo ≤ 20 μm by a factor of ∼2 and usually do not account for the substantial dust emissions with Dgeo ≥ 20 μm. Our findings suggest that models substantially underestimate coarse dust emission. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-baa10e8de1204fcca4f77907dd011eb0 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 0094-8276 1944-8007 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Geophysical Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj-art-baa10e8de1204fcca4f77907dd011eb02025-08-20T01:48:15ZengWileyGeophysical Research Letters0094-82761944-80072021-03-01486n/an/a10.1029/2020GL092054Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust EmissionYue Huang0Adeyemi A. Adebiyi1Paola Formenti2Jasper F. Kok3Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA USADepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA USALaboratoire Interuniversitaire des Systèmes Atmosphériques UMR CNRS 7583 Université Paris Est Créteil Université de Paris Créteil FranceDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA USAAbstract Measurements of dust aerosol size usually obtain the optical or projected area‐equivalent diameters, whereas model calculations of dust impacts use the geometric or aerodynamic diameters. Accurate conversions between the four diameter types are thus critical. However, most current conversions assume dust is spherical, even though numerous studies show that dust is highly aspherical. Here, we obtain conversions between different diameter types that account for dust asphericity. Our conversions indicate that optical particle counters have underestimated dust geometric diameter (Dgeo) at coarse sizes. We further use the diameter conversions to obtain a consistent observational constraint on the size distribution of emitted dust. This observational constraint is coarser than parameterizations used in global aerosol models, which underestimate the mass of emitted dust within 10 ≤ Dgeo ≤ 20 μm by a factor of ∼2 and usually do not account for the substantial dust emissions with Dgeo ≥ 20 μm. Our findings suggest that models substantially underestimate coarse dust emission.https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092054 |
| spellingShingle | Yue Huang Adeyemi A. Adebiyi Paola Formenti Jasper F. Kok Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission Geophysical Research Letters |
| title | Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission |
| title_full | Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission |
| title_fullStr | Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission |
| title_full_unstemmed | Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission |
| title_short | Linking the Different Diameter Types of Aspherical Desert Dust Indicates That Models Underestimate Coarse Dust Emission |
| title_sort | linking the different diameter types of aspherical desert dust indicates that models underestimate coarse dust emission |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092054 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yuehuang linkingthedifferentdiametertypesofasphericaldesertdustindicatesthatmodelsunderestimatecoarsedustemission AT adeyemiaadebiyi linkingthedifferentdiametertypesofasphericaldesertdustindicatesthatmodelsunderestimatecoarsedustemission AT paolaformenti linkingthedifferentdiametertypesofasphericaldesertdustindicatesthatmodelsunderestimatecoarsedustemission AT jasperfkok linkingthedifferentdiametertypesofasphericaldesertdustindicatesthatmodelsunderestimatecoarsedustemission |