1. AURAMS, a regional air-quality model, has been developed with an upgraded parameterization scheme for gaseous dry-deposition velocities.
2. The well-known resistance analogy to dry deposition is adopted in the scheme, with both O3 and SO2 taken as base species.
3. Dry-ground, wet-ground, dry-cuticle, and wet-cuticle resistances for 31 gaseous species are scaled to the resistances of O3 and SO2 based on published measurements of their dry deposition and/or their aqueous solubility and oxidizing capacity.
The article discusses the development of an upgraded parameterization scheme for gaseous dry-deposition velocities in a new regional air-quality model called AURAMS. The article explains that the well-known resistance analogy to dry deposition is adopted in the present scheme, with both O3 and SO2 taken as base species. Stomatal resistances are calculated for all dry-depositing species using a “sunlit/shaded big-leaf” canopy stomatal resistance submodel. Dry-ground, wet-ground, dry-cuticle, and wet-cuticle resistances for O3 and SO2, and parameters for calculating canopy stomatal resistance and aerodynamic resistance for these two base species are given as input parameters for each of the 15 land-use categories and/or five seasonal categories considered by the scheme.
The article provides a detailed explanation of the formulation of various resistance components used in the model. However, it does not provide any information on potential biases or sources of bias in the model. It also does not discuss any counterarguments or limitations of the model.
The article appears to be focused on promoting the new AURAMS model rather than providing a balanced analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. It does not provide any evidence to support its claims about the effectiveness of the new parameterization scheme or how it compares to other existing models.
Overall, while the article provides useful information on the development of a new regional air-quality model with an upgraded parameterization scheme for gaseous dry-deposition velocities, it lacks critical analysis and may be biased towards promoting the new model without considering its limitations or potential biases.