English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We examine the parameterized model of Stuart et al. (2013)  vis-à-vis a diffusion-basedmodel proposed by us earlier (Anand and Mayya, 2011) to estimate thefraction of aerosol particles surviving coagulation in a dispersing plume.While the Stuart et al. approach is based on the solutions to thecoagulation problem in an expanding plume model, the diffusion-basedapproach solves the diffusion–coagulation equation for a steady-statestanding plume to arrive at the survival fraction correlations. We discussthe differences in the functional forms of the survival fraction expressionsobtained in the two approaches and compare the results for the case studiespresented in Stuart et al. (2013) involving different particle emissionrates and atmospheric stability categories. There appears to be a betteragreement between the two models at higher survival fractions as compared tolower survival fractions; on the whole, the two models agree with each otherwithin a difference of 10%. The diffusion-based expression involves asingle exponent fit to a theoretically generated similarity variablecombining the parameters of the problem with inbuilt exponents and henceavoids the multi-exponent parameterization exercise. It also possesses awider range of applicability in respect of the source and atmosphericparameters as compared to that based on parameterization. However, in thediffusion model, the choice of a representative value for the coagulationcoefficient is more prescriptive than rigorous, which has been addressed ina more satisfactory manner by the parameterization method. The presentcomparative exercise, although limited in scope, confirms the importance ofaerosol microphysical processes envisaged by Stuart et al. for cloudbrightening applications. In a larger context, it seems to suggest thateither of the two forms of expressions might be suitable for incorporationinto global-/regional-scale air pollution models for predicting thecontribution of localized sources to the particle number loading in theatmosphere

atmospheric chemistry and physics

Comment on &amp;quot;Reduced efficacy of marine cloud brightening geoengineering due to in-plume aerosol coagulation: parameterization and global implications&amp;quot; by Stuart et al. (2013)