# PM numerical simulation results are incorrect

**URL:** <https://forum.cmascenter.org/t/pm-numerical-simulation-results-are-incorrect/5656>\
**Category:** CMAQ\
**Tags:** cmaq\
**Created:** [March 9, 2025, 5:35am UTC](https://forum.cmascenter.org/t/pm-numerical-simulation-results-are-incorrect/5656 "2025-03-09T05:35:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hogrefe.christian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/74df32/32.png) [@hogrefe.christian](https://forum.cmascenter.org/u/hogrefe.christian)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 4:10pm UTC](https://forum.cmascenter.org/t/pm-numerical-simulation-results-are-incorrect/5656/3 "2025-03-09T16:10:38Z")

</div>

Hello @Bailey ,

there is too little information in your post to provide a specific answer. As noted by my colleague @cgnolte in [another thread](https://forum.cmascenter.org/t/extreme-low-simulated-o3-concentration/1575/29) where another user reported unexpectedly lower simulation results

> What is different in your case compared to others who have used CMAQ to simulate air quality in China? Are you using the same emissions data successfully used by others, or is it a new dataset you have created? If so, how was it prepared? Are you using meteorological data that have been used previously, or is this a new dataset? If so, how was it prepared? … While there are other possibilities, the problem is usually emissions.

Your log file indicates that your input files contain some emitted species that are not being used, and that there are some expected emitted species that aren’t contained in your emission files. Not all of these mismatches would be impactful, but you would want to investigate them further.

> CHECKING COMPATABILITY BETWEEN INTERNAL SPECIES LIST AND EMISSIONS INPUTS  
> The following tables list the chemical species present  
> on each emission file or from each online emission source.

This is the list of species in your input files:

> Gas and Aerosol Gridded Area Emissions: 66 Species  
> AACD ACET ACYE ALK1  
> ALK2 ALK3 ALK4 ALK5  
> ARO1 ARO2 BACL BALD  
> BENZ CCHO CH4 CRES  
> ETHE FACD GLY HCHO  
> IPRD ISOP MACR MEK  
> MEOH MGLY MVK OLE1  
> OLE2 PACD PRD2 RCHO  
> RNO3 TERP SO2 SULF  
> NH3 CO PMC NO  
> NO2 HONO PEC POC  
> PAL PCA PCL PFE  
> PH2O PK PMG PMN  
> PMOTHR PNA PNCOM PNH4  
> PNO3 PSI PSO4 PTI  
> SESQ HCN CH3BR CH3CL  
> CH3I N2O

This is the list of emitted species expected by the CCTM

> The following tables list the emission surrogate species  
> present in each namelist or in the aerosol data table.  
> GC Namelist: 63 Species  
> NO2 NO HONO CO  
> SO2 SULF HCHO MEOH  
> AACD PACD RNO3 ACET  
> CRES CCHO RCHO MEK  
> FACD PRD2 MGLY IPRD  
> GLY BACL BALD MACR  
> MVK ACRO ETHE PRPE  
> 13BDE ISOP APIN ACYE  
> BENZ TOLU MXYL OXYL  
> PXYL B124 ETOH ALK1  
> ALK2 ALK3 ALK4 ALK5  
> SOAALK OLE1 OLE2 ARO1  
> ARO2MN NAPH TERP SESQ  
> CL2 HCL HCHO CCHO  
> ACRO POC POC POC  
> POC POC POC
> 
> AeroData Table: 22 Species  
> PSO4 PNO3 PCL PNH4  
> PNA PMG PK PCA  
> PEC PFE PAL PSI  
> PTI PMN PH2O PMOTHR  
> PMC POC POC POC  
> POC POC
> 
> NR Namelist: 1 Species  
> NH3

This is the list of expected species not present in your input file:

> The following GAS emission surrogate species are  
> not present from any of the Area, Point, Biogenic,  
> Marine Gas, or Lightning emissions sources  
> ACRO PRPE 13BDE APIN TOLU  
> MXYL OXYL PXYL B124 ETOH  
> SOAALK ARO2MN NAPH CL2 HCL  
> ACRO

And this is the list of species in your input file not used by the model:

> ATTENTION: The following emission species are available  
> from the inputs but are not used: 8 Species  
> ARO2 CH4 PNCOM HCN  
> CH3BR CH3CL CH3I N2O

The presence of PNCOM might be relevant, though I am not familiar with saprc07tc\_ae6\_aq to really judge its importance.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.cmascenter.org/t/pm-numerical-simulation-results-are-incorrect/5656)._