Six global biomass burning emission datasets: intercomparison and application in one global aerosol model

Abstract. Aerosols from biomass burning (BB) emissions are poorly constrained in global and regional models, resulting in a high level of uncertainty in understanding their impacts. In this study, we compared six BB aerosol emission datasets for 2008 globally as well as in 14 regions. The six BB emission datasets are (1) GFED3.1 (Global Fire Emissions Database version 3.1), (2) GFED4s (GFED version 4 with small fires), (3) FINN1.5 (FIre INventory from NCAR version 1.5), (4) GFAS1.2 (Global Fire Assimilation System version 1.2), (5) FEER1.0 (Fire Energetics and Emissions Research version 1.0), and (6) QFED2.4 (Quick Fire Emissions Dataset version 2.4). The global total emission amounts from these six BB emission datasets differed by a factor of 3.8, ranging from 13.76 to 51.93 Tg for organic carbon and from 1.65 to 5.54 Tg for black carbon. In most of the regions, QFED2.4 and FEER1.0, which are based on satellite observations of fire radiative power (FRP) and constrained by aerosol optical depth (AOD) data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), yielded higher BB aerosol emissions than the rest by a factor of 2–4. By comparison, the BB aerosol emissions estimated from GFED4s and GFED3.1, which are based on satellite burned-area data, without AOD constraints, were at the low end of the range. In order to examine the sensitivity of model-simulated AOD to the different BB emission datasets, we ingested these six BB emission datasets separately into the same global model, the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) model, and compared the simulated AOD with observed AOD from the AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) and the Multiangle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) in the 14 regions during 2008. In Southern Hemisphere Africa (SHAF) and South America (SHSA), where aerosols tend to be clearly dominated by smoke in September, the simulated AOD values were underestimated in almost all experiments compared to MISR, except for the QFED2.4 run in SHSA. The model-simulated AOD values based on FEER1.0 and QFED2.4 were the closest to the corresponding AERONET data, being, respectively, about 73 % and 100 % of the AERONET observed AOD at Alta Floresta in SHSA and about 49 % and 46 % at Mongu in SHAF. The simulated AOD based on the other four BB emission datasets accounted for only ∼50  % of the AERONET AOD at Alta Floresta and ∼20  % at Mongu. Overall, during the biomass burning peak seasons, at most of the selected AERONET sites in each region, the AOD values simulated with QFED2.4 were the highest and closest to AERONET and MISR observations, followed closely by FEER1.0. However, the QFED2.4 run tends to overestimate AOD in the region of SHSA, and the QFED2.4 BB emission dataset is tuned with the GEOS model. In contrast, the FEER1.0 BB emission dataset is derived in a more model-independent fashion and is more physically based since its emission coefficients are independently derived at each grid box. Therefore, we recommend the FEER1.0 BB emission dataset for aerosol-focused hindcast experiments in the two biomass-burning-dominated regions in the Southern Hemisphere, SHAF, and SHSA (as well as in other regions but with lower confidence). The differences between these six BB emission datasets are attributable to the approaches and input data used to derive BB emissions, such as whether AOD from satellite observations is used as a constraint, whether the approaches to parameterize the fire activities are based on burned area, FRP, or active fire count, and which set of emission factors is chosen.

[1]  Mohd Talib Latif,et al.  New estimate of particulate emissions from Indonesian peat fires in 2015 , 2019, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[2]  M. Chin,et al.  Six Global Biomass Burning Emission Datasets: Inter-comparison and Application in one Global Aerosol Model , 2019 .

[3]  M. Andreae.  Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment , 2019, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[4]  A. Robinson,et al.  Production of Secondary Organic Aerosol During Aging of Biomass Burning Smoke From Fresh Fuels and Its Relationship to VOC Precursors , 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[5]  Jasper R. Lewis,et al.  Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements , 2019, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[6]  P. Artaxo,et al.  Biomass burning aerosol over the Amazon: analysis of aircraft, surface and satellite observations using a global aerosol model , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[7]  M. Fromm,et al.  Wildfire-driven thunderstorms cause a volcano-like stratospheric injection of smoke , 2018, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science.

[8]  Mian Chin,et al.  Connecting Indonesian Fires and Drought With the Type of El Niño and Phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole During 1979–2016 , 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[9]  Yi Wang,et al.  Mitigating Satellite‐Based Fire Sampling Limitations in Deriving Biomass Burning Emission Rates: Application to WRF‐Chem Model Over the Northern sub‐Saharan African Region , 2018 .

[10]  M. Chin,et al.  Refined Use of Satellite Aerosol Optical Depth Snapshots to Constrain Biomass Burning Emissions in the GOCART Model , 2017 .

[11]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016 , 2017 .

[12]  Johannes W. Kaiser,et al.  Historic global biomass burning emissions for CMIP6 (BB4CMIP) based on merging satellite observations with proxies and fire models (1750-2015) , 2017 .

[13]  C. Flynn,et al.  The MERRA-2 Aerosol Reanalysis, 1980 - onward, Part I: System Description and Data Assimilation Evaluation. , 2017, Journal of climate.

[14]  William M. Putman,et al.  The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2). , 2017, Journal of climate.

[15]  Jun Wang,et al.  Mesoscale modeling of smoke transport from equatorial Southeast Asian Maritime Continent to the Philippines: First comparison of ensemble analysis with in situ observations , 2017 .

[16]  Jun Wang,et al.  Impact of Southeast Asian smoke on aerosol properties in Southwest China: First comparison of model simulations with satellite and ground observations , 2017 .

[17]  Jun Wang,et al.  Fire and Smoke Remote Sensing and Modeling Uncertainties:Case Studies in Northern Sub‐Saharan Africa , 2016 .

[18]  Andrew A. May,et al.  Secondary organic aerosol formation in biomass-burning plumes: theoretical analysis of lab studies and ambient plumes , 2016 .

[19]  Shahid Habib,et al.  Biomass burning, land-cover change, and the hydrological cycle in Northern sub-Saharan Africa , 2016 .

[20]  P. Artaxo,et al.  Analysis of particulate emissions from tropical biomass burning using aglobal aerosol model and long-term surface observations , 2016 .

[21]  S. Freitas,et al.  Assessment of fire emission inventories during the South American Biomass Burning Analysis (SAMBBA) experiment , 2016 .

[22]  Michael Brauer,et al.  Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure , 2016, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  R. Koster,et al.  The Quick Fire Emissions Dataset (QFED): Documentation of Versions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4. Volume 38; Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation , 2015 .

[24]  Glenn S. Diskin,et al.  Revealing important nocturnal and day‐to‐day variations in fire smoke emissions through a multiplatform inversion , 2015 .

[25]  F. Siegert,et al.  Biomass burning fuel consumption rates: a field measurement database , 2014 .

[26]  Jun Wang,et al.  Sensitivity of mesoscale modeling of smoke direct radiative effect to the emission inventory: a case study in northern sub-Saharan African region , 2014 .

[27]  Mian Chin,et al.  A multi-model evaluation of aerosols over South Asia: common problems and possible causes , 2014 .

[28]  David G. Streets,et al.  Multi-decadal aerosol variations from 1980 to 2009: a perspective from observations and a global model , 2014 .

[29]  Jun Wang,et al.  Mesoscale modeling and satellite observation of transport and mixing of smoke and dust particles over northern sub‐Saharan African region , 2013 .

[30]  C. Ichoku,et al.  Global top-down smoke aerosol emissions estimation using satellite fire radiative power measurements , 2013 .

[31]  Max J. Suarez.  Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation , 2013 .

[32]  B. DeAngelo,et al.  Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment , 2013 .

[33]  Boon N. Chew,et al.  Mesoscale modeling of smoke transport over the Southeast Asian Maritime Continent: Interplay of sea breeze, trade wind, typhoon, and topography , 2013 .

[34]  J. Randerson,et al.  Analysis of daily, monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth‐generation global fire emissions database (GFED4) , 2013 .

[35]  Jun Wang,et al.  A sub-pixel-based calculation of fire radiative power from MODIS observations: 2. Sensitivity analysis and potential fire weather application , 2013 .

[36]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires , 2012 .

[37]  Harshvardhan,et al.  The use of satellite‐measured aerosol optical depth to constrain biomass burning emissions source strength in the global model GOCART , 2012 .

[38]  M. Chin,et al.  Satellite contributions to the quantitative characterization of biomass burning for climate modeling , 2012 .

[39]  Mian Chin,et al.  Source Attributions of Pollution to the Western Arctic During the NASA ARCTAS Field Campaign , 2012 .

[40]  P. Bhave,et al.  Simulating the degree of oxidation in atmospheric organic particles. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[41]  S. K. Akagi,et al.  Airborne and ground-based measurements of the trace gases and particles emitted by prescribed fires in the United States , 2011 .

[42]  M. Razinger,et al.  Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power , 2011 .

[43]  S. K. Akagi,et al.  Trace gas and particle emissions from open biomass burning in Mexico , 2011 .

[44]  S. Schubert,et al.  MERRA: NASA’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications , 2011 .

[45]  S. K. Akagi,et al.  The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN): a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning , 2010 .

[46]  Alexander Smirnov,et al.  Multiangle Imaging SpectroRadiometer global aerosol product assessment by comparison with the Aerosol Robotic Network , 2010 .

[47]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997-2009) , 2010 .

[48]  S. K. Akagi,et al.  Emission factors for open and domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models , 2010 .

[49]  P. V. Velthoven,et al.  Updated African biomass burning emission inventories in the framework of the AMMA-IDAF program, with an evaluation of combustion aerosols , 2010 .

[50]  J. Reid,et al.  An over-land aerosol optical depth data set for data assimilation by filtering, correction, and aggregation of MODIS Collection 5 optical depth retrievals , 2010 .

[51]  M. Chin,et al.  Online simulations of global aerosol distributions in the NASA GEOS‐4 model and comparisons to satellite and ground‐based aerosol optical depth , 2010 .

[52]  M. Chin,et al.  Multiscale carbon monoxide and aerosol correlations from satellite measurements and the GOCART model: Implication for emissions and atmospheric evolution , 2010 .

[53]  Hans Moosmüller,et al.  Observations of OM/OC and specific attenuation coefficients (SAC) in ambient fine PM at a rural site in central Ontario, Canada , 2010 .

[54]  J. Randerson,et al.  Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products , 2009 .

[55]  David G. Streets,et al.  Light absorption by pollution, dust, and biomass burning aerosols: a global model study and evaluation with AERONET measurements , 2009 .

[56]  E. Hyer,et al.  Baseline uncertainties in biomass burning emission models resulting from spatial error in satellite active fire location data , 2009 .

[57]  K. Tansey,et al.  Relationship between MODIS fire hot spot count and burned area in a degraded tropical peat swamp forest in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia , 2008 .

[58]  G. Roberts,et al.  Annual and diurnal african biomass burning temporal dynamics , 2008 .

[59]  M. Chin,et al.  Sensitivity of aerosol optical thickness and aerosol direct radiative effect to relative humidity , 2008 .

[60]  L. Remer,et al.  Global characterization of biomass-burning patterns using satellite measurements of fire radiative energy , 2008 .

[61]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  Detection rates of the MODIS active fire product in the United States , 2008 .

[62]  Qi Zhang,et al.  O/C and OM/OC ratios of primary, secondary, and ambient organic aerosols with high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometry. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[63]  R. Hoff,et al.  Estimating smoke emissions over the US Southern Great Plains using MODIS fire radiative power and aerosol observations , 2008 .

[64]  Charles Ichoku,et al.  Relationships between energy release, fuel mass loss, and trace gas and aerosol emissions during laboratory biomass fires , 2008 .

[65]  M. Chin,et al.  Sensitivity of global CO simulations to uncertainties in biomass burning sources , 2007 .

[66]  M. Bae,et al.  Seasonal estimation of organic mass to organic carbon in PM2.5 at rural and urban locations in New York state , 2006 .

[67]  Olga V. Kalashnikova,et al.  Ability of multiangle remote sensing observations to identify and distinguish mineral dust types: 2. Sensitivity over dark water , 2006 .

[68]  Sundar A. Christopher,et al.  Mesoscale modeling of Central American smoke transport to the United States: 1. “Top‐down” assessment of emission strength and diurnal variation impacts , 2006 .

[69]  Y. Kaufman,et al.  Retrieval of biomass combustion rates and totals from fire radiative power observations: FRP derivation and calibration relationships between biomass consumption and fire radiative energy release , 2005 .

[70]  D. R. Worsnop,et al.  Hydrocarbon-like and oxygenated organic aerosols in Pittsburgh: insights into sources and processes of organic aerosols , 2005 .

[71]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  Critical assessment of the current state of scientific knowledge, terminology, and research needs concerning the role of organic aerosols in the atmosphere, climate, and global change , 2005 .

[72]  Yoram J. Kaufman,et al.  A method to derive smoke emission rates from MODIS fire radiative energy measurements , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[73]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Determination of the organic aerosol mass to organic carbon ratio in IMPROVE samples. , 2005, Chemosphere.

[74]  T. Eck,et al.  A review of biomass burning emissions part III: intensive optical properties of biomass burning particles , 2004 .

[75]  G. Brasseur,et al.  Global Wildland Fire Emission Model (GWEM): Evaluating the use of global area burnt satellite data , 2004 .

[76]  P. Crutzen,et al.  Comprehensive Laboratory Measurements of Biomass-Burning Emissions: 1. Emissions from Indonesian, African, and Other Fuels , 2003 .

[77]  M. Wooster,et al.  Fire radiative energy for quantitative study of biomass burning: derivation from the BIRD experimental satellite and comparison to MODIS fire products. , 2003 .

[78]  Teruyuki Nakajima,et al.  Tropospheric aerosol optical thickness from the GOCART model and comparisons with satellite and sun photometer measurements , 2002 .

[79]  M. Andreae,et al.  Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning , 2001 .

[80]  Alexander Smirnov,et al.  Characterization of the optical properties of biomass burning aerosols in Zambia during the 1997 ZIBBEE field campaign , 2001 .

[81]  Barbara J. Turpin,et al.  Species Contributions to PM2.5 Mass Concentrations: Revisiting Common Assumptions for Estimating Organic Mass , 2001 .

[82]  C. Justice,et al.  Potential global fire monitoring from EOS‐MODIS , 1998 .

[83]  A. Smirnov,et al.  AERONET-a federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol Characterization , 1998 .

[84]  C. Frantzidis,et al.  Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1 , 2010 .

[85]  M. G. Schultz,et al.  The MACC Global Fire Assimilation System : First Emission Products ( GFASv 0 ) , 2009 .

[86]  S. Ghan,et al.  © Author(s) 2006. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics , 2005 .

[87]  P. T. Roberts,et al.  On the nature and origins of visibility-reducing aerosols in the los angeles air basin , 1977 .

[88]  G. Janssens‑Maenhout,et al.  Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Htap_v2: a Mosaic of Regional and Global Emission Gridmaps for 2008 and 2010 to Study Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution Acpd Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Acpd Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion This Compilation of D , 2022 .

[89]  M. Suárez,et al.  Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation a Thermal Infrared Radiation Parameterization for Atmospheric Studies Iv Table of Content , 2022 .