<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/inc/acpd/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7367</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7375</eissn>
		<volume_number>6</volume_number>
		<issue_number>5</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2006</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acpd-6-8871-2006</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/8871/2006/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/8871/2006/acpd-6-8871-2006.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/8871/2006/acpd-6-8871-2006.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>8871</start_page>
	<end_page>8915</end_page>
	<publication_date>2006-09-21</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">First comparison of a global microphysical aerosol model with size-resolved observational aerosol statistics</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1,3">
			<name>D. V. Spracklen</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="1,4">
			<name>K. J. Pringle</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="1">
			<name>K. S. Carslaw</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="1">
			<name>G. W. Mann</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="1">
			<name>P. Manktelow</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="2">
			<name>J. Heintzenberg</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Institute for Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Leibniz-Institute for Tropospheric Research, Permoserstr., 04318 Leipzig, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">now at: Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, USA</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">now at: Met Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">A statistical synthesis of marine aerosol measurements from
experiments in four different oceans is used to evaluate a global
aerosol microphysics model (GLOMAP). We compare the model against
observed size resolved particle concentrations, probability
distributions, and the temporal persistence of different size
particles. We attempt to explain the observed size distributions in
terms of sulfate and sea spray and quantify the possible contributions
of anthropogenic sulfate and carbonaceous material to the number and
mass distribution.  The model predicts a bimodal size distribution
that agrees well with observations as a grand average over all
regions, but there are large regional differences. Notably, observed
Aitken mode number concentrations are more than a factor 10 higher
than in the model for the N Atlantic but a factor 7 lower than the
model in the NW Pacific. We also find that modelled Aitken mode and
accumulation mode geometric mean diameters are generally smaller in
the model by 10&amp;ndash;30%. Comparison with observed free tropospheric
Aitken mode distributions suggests that the model underpredicts growth
of these particles during descent to the MBL. Recent observations of a
substantial organic component of free tropospheric aerosol could
explain this discrepancy.  We find that anthropogenic continental
material makes a substantial contribution to N Atlantic marine boundary layer (MBL) aerosol,
with typically 60&amp;ndash;90% of sulfate across the particle size range
coming from anthropogenic sources, even if we analyse air that has
spent an average of &amp;gt;120 h away from land. However, anthropogenic
primary black carbon and organic carbon particles do not explain the
large discrepancies in Aitken mode number. Several explanations for
the discrepancy are suggested. The lack of lower atmospheric particle
formation in the model may explain low N Atlantic particle
concentrations. However, the observed and modelled particle
persistence at Cape Grim in the Southern Ocean, does not reveal a
diurnal cycle consistent with a photochemically driven local particle
source. We also show that a physically based cloud drop activation
scheme is needed to explain the observed change in accumulation mode
geometric mean diameter with particle number.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

