ZTZhining Tao

Zhining Tao

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Zhining Tao has a total of 24 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Potential effects of climate and emissions changes on surface ozone in the Chicago area

    by Jin-Tai Lin, Donald J. Wuebbles, Ho-Chun Huang, Zhining Tao, Michael Caughey, Xin-Zhong Liang, Jin-Hong Zhu, Tracey Holloway


  • Open Access

    Sensitivity of Surface Ozone Simulation to Cumulus Parameterization

    by Zhining Tao, Allen Williams, Ho-Chun Huang, Michael Caughey, Xin-Zhong Liang

    Different cumulus schemes cause significant discrepancies in simulated precipitation, cloud cover, and temperature, which in turn lead to remarkable differences in simulated biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emissions and surface ozone concentrations. As part of an effort to investigate the impact (and its uncertainty) of climate changes on U.S. air quality, this study evaluates the sensitivity of BVOC emissions and surface ozone concentrations to the Grell (GR) and Kain–Fritsch (KF) cumulus parameterizations. Overall, using the KF scheme yields less cloud cover, larger incident solar radiation, warmer surface temperature, and higher boundary layer height and hence generates more BVOC emissions than those using the GR scheme. As a result, the KF (versus GR) scheme produces more than 10 ppb of summer mean daily maximum 8-h ozone concentration over broad regions, resulting in a doubling of the number of high-ozone occurrences. The contributions of meteorological conditions versus BVOC emissions on regional ozone sensitivities to the choice of the cumulus scheme largely offset each other in the California and Texas regions, but the contrast in BVOC emissions dominates over that in the meteorological conditions for ozone differences in the Midwest and Northeast regions. The result demonstrates the necessity of considering the uncertainty of future ozone projections that are identified with alternative model physics configurations.


  • A socio-economic method for estimating future air pollutant emissions—Chicago case study

    by Zhining Tao, Allen Williams, Kieran Donaghy, Geoffrey Hewings


  • Open Access

    Sensitivity of U.S. surface ozone to future emissions and climate changes

    by Zhining Tao, Allen Williams, Ho‐Chun Huang, Michael Caughey, Xin‐Zhong Liang

    The relative contributions of projected future emissions and climate changes to U.S. surface ozone concentrations are investigated focusing on California, the Midwest, the Northeast, and Texas. By 2050 regional average ozone concentrations increase by 2–15% under the IPCC SRES A1Fi (“dirty”) scenario, and decrease by 4–12% under the B1 (relatively “clean”) scenario. However, the magnitudes of ozone changes differ significantly between major metropolitan and rural areas. These ozone changes are dominated by the emissions changes in 61% area of the contiguous U.S. under the B1 scenario, but are largely determined by the projected climate changes in 46% area under the A1Fi scenario. In the ozone responses to climate changes, the biogenic emissions changes contribute strongly over the Northeast, moderately in the Midwest, and negligibly in other regions.


  • Open Access

    A summer simulation of biogenic contributions to ground‐level ozone over the continental United States

    by Zhining Tao, Susan M. Larson, Donald J. Wuebbles, Allen Williams, Michael Caughey

    The role of biogenic emissions in the production of ground‐level ozone has been the subject of considerable scientific investigation. However, because existing studies generally draw their conclusions from simulations of episodes lasting days to a week, there is a need to evaluate the biogenic impact over a relatively long timescale. Moreover, the magnitude of synergistic interaction between anthropogenic and biogenic emissions should be carefully quantified, and this issue is not accounted for in most previous investigations. In this study, we performed a summer seasonal (June to August 1995) model evaluation of surface ozone across the continental United States. A three‐dimensional regional climate, emissions, and air quality modeling system was used to do the simulations. The factor separation (FS) technique was applied to quantify the contributions from biogenic emissions alone and those from the synergy between anthropogenic and biogenic emissions. In the first step of this study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Emission Trends (NET) 1996 and 2020 “control case” raw anthropogenic emissions inventories were processed through Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE), an emissions model, to generate the speciated, gridded, and hourly emissions data needed for the air quality model. Next, six air quality simulations were carried out assuming zero emissions, biogenic only emissions, 1995 anthropogenic only emissions, biogenic plus 1995 anthropogenic emissions, 2020 anthropogenic only emissions, and biogenic plus 2020 anthropogenic emissions. The model results show that ground‐level ozone concentrations decrease moderately under the EPA's 2020 emissions scenario for many areas within the continental United States, with large reductions in vast areas of the eastern United States. They also show that the 1995 summer average “total biogenic contribution” to daily maximum surface ozone concentrations can reach 34 ppb. Biogenic emissions are associated with at least 20% of surface ozone concentrations for the most areas of the continental United States, with the peaks reaching more than 40% in California coastal areas, the southeastern states, and northeastern areas. A sizable portion of this “total biogenic contribution,” however, (up to 80% in some areas) is due to the synergy between anthropogenic and biogenic emissions and would thus be influenced by controls on anthropogenic source emissions.


  • Global warming potential assessment for CF3OCF = CF2

    by Zhuangjie Li, Zhining Tao, Vaishali Naik, David A. Good, Jaron C. Hansen, Gill‐Ran Jeong, Joseph S. Francisco, Atul K. Jain, Donald J. Wuebbles