
We analyzed the unique episode of long-range dust/sand atmospheric aerosol transport from the arid zones of the southern European territory of Russia, i.e. the Northern Caspian and Astrakhan regions and the Kalmykia Republic, to the Moscow region during fall 2020. Intensive complex experiments were carried out at the A.M. Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciencesin the center of Moscow through different seasons during 2020–2021 to study the composition of near-surface aerosols in the Moscow megacity. The experimental data are considered to take into account the synoptic features and meteorological conditions. Abnormally high values of near-surface aerosol mass concentrations in Moscow were registered during the period from 6 to 14 of October 2020 under stable anti-cyclonic conditions, with calm or quiet/light wind (1–2 m/s), and under the conditions of the dominance of southeastern air mass transport. At the same time, the average daily mass concentration of aerosol particles PM10 exceeded the Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) value (60 µg/m3) by 1.5–4.5 times, and the number of large (micron) particles increased by an order or more. Comparative analysis of aerosol elemental composition in Moscow (during this episode) and in Kalmykia (according to observations in July 2020) showed high correlation for terrigenous elements' patterns. The aerosol origin for this episode was confirmed by performing long-range trajectory analysis of air mass transport (HYSPLIT model), and by using MERRA-2 reanalysis data for dust aerosol spatial distribution.
Citation: Dina Gubanova, Otto Chkhetiani, Anna Vinogradova, Andrey Skorokhod, Mikhail Iordanskii. Atmospheric transport of dust aerosol from arid zones to the Moscow region during fall 2020[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(2): 277-302. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022017
[1] | Hongwei Zheng, Yujuan Tian . Exponential stability of time-delay systems with highly nonlinear impulses involving delays. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2025, 5(1): 103-120. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2025008 |
[2] | Bangxin Jiang, Yijun Lou, Jianquan Lu . Input-to-state stability of delayed systems with bounded-delay impulses. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(2): 44-54. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022006 |
[3] | Gani Stamov, Ekaterina Gospodinova, Ivanka Stamova . Practical exponential stability with respect to h−manifolds of discontinuous delayed Cohen–Grossberg neural networks with variable impulsive perturbations. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(1): 26-34. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021003 |
[4] | Hongyu Ma, Dadong Tian, Mei Li, Chao Zhang . Reachable set estimation for 2-D switched nonlinear positive systems with impulsive effects and bounded disturbances described by the Roesser model. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(2): 152-162. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024014 |
[5] | Yanchao He, Yuzhen Bai . Finite-time stability and applications of positive switched linear delayed impulsive systems. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(2): 178-194. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024016 |
[6] | Yangtao Wang, Kelin Li . Exponential synchronization of fractional order fuzzy memristor neural networks with time-varying delays and impulses. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2025, 5(2): 164-179. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2025012 |
[7] | Weisong Zhou, Kaihe Wang, Wei Zhu . Synchronization for discrete coupled fuzzy neural networks with uncertain information via observer-based impulsive control. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(1): 17-31. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024003 |
[8] | Biresh Kumar Dakua, Bibhuti Bhusan Pati . A frequency domain-based loop shaping procedure for the parameter estimation of the fractional-order tilt integral derivative controller. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(4): 374-389. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024030 |
[9] | Tengda Wei, Xiang Xie, Xiaodi Li . Persistence and periodicity of survival red blood cells model with time-varying delays and impulses. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(1): 12-25. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021002 |
[10] | Yunhao Chu, Yansheng Liu . Approximate controllability for a class of fractional semilinear system with instantaneous and non-instantaneous impulses. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(3): 273-285. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024022 |
We analyzed the unique episode of long-range dust/sand atmospheric aerosol transport from the arid zones of the southern European territory of Russia, i.e. the Northern Caspian and Astrakhan regions and the Kalmykia Republic, to the Moscow region during fall 2020. Intensive complex experiments were carried out at the A.M. Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciencesin the center of Moscow through different seasons during 2020–2021 to study the composition of near-surface aerosols in the Moscow megacity. The experimental data are considered to take into account the synoptic features and meteorological conditions. Abnormally high values of near-surface aerosol mass concentrations in Moscow were registered during the period from 6 to 14 of October 2020 under stable anti-cyclonic conditions, with calm or quiet/light wind (1–2 m/s), and under the conditions of the dominance of southeastern air mass transport. At the same time, the average daily mass concentration of aerosol particles PM10 exceeded the Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) value (60 µg/m3) by 1.5–4.5 times, and the number of large (micron) particles increased by an order or more. Comparative analysis of aerosol elemental composition in Moscow (during this episode) and in Kalmykia (according to observations in July 2020) showed high correlation for terrigenous elements' patterns. The aerosol origin for this episode was confirmed by performing long-range trajectory analysis of air mass transport (HYSPLIT model), and by using MERRA-2 reanalysis data for dust aerosol spatial distribution.
Earthquakes are monitored by using seismic stations that record digitally the motion of the ground and represent it as a function of time in seismograms. However, the seismic signals generated by some anthropogenic activities, including explosions, are frequently misinterpreted as natural earthquakes. Several methods to discriminate between earthquakes and explosions have been proposed. Commonly used methods compare in the time-domain the seismic phases recorded in seismograms. For example, in [1] the authors compared the phases Pg and Lg and found that in the tectonically stable eastern USA, the mean Pg/Lg ratios are 0.5 for earthquakes and 1.25 for explosions. In southern Russia, the Pg/Lg ratio for earthquakes was found to be about 1.3, and for explosions 3.2. However, current discriminating methods are not always successful. A data from the Powder River Basin in the western USA and the Altai-Sayan region in Russia suggest that a simple time-domain Lg/P amplitude ratio analysis does not separate signals originating from earthquakes and explosions consistently enough to provide a reliable discrimination [2]. Also, the S/P amplitude ratio does not reliably separate explosions from locally recorded natural seismicity in Southern California [3].
In 2014, a 5.2 magnitude earthquake struck in Arizona USA, triggering a large number of aftershocks. A few years before, a sequence of mining explosions were carried out in the same region, where subsequently the 5.2 magnitude earthquake and its aftershocks occurred. A nearby seismic station located about 160 km away, recorded all these events, thus providing an important data set of earthquake and explosion seismograms that makes it possible to apply and investigate different seismic discriminating techniques (see e.g. [7]). In this study, we use a data set originating from these explosions and the aftershocks of the 5.2 magnitude earthquake, in order to investigate the Dynamic Fourier Analysis (DFA) as a discriminating method.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the background of the analyzed data. Section 3 is devoted to an introduction of the Dynamic Fourier Analysis and its application for discriminating signals originating from natural earthquakes and mining explosions. Results and a discussion on the suitability of the Dynamic Fourier Analysis technique are presented in section 4. Conclusions are given in section 5.
The earthquakes in this study represent a set of aftershocks of the June 26,2014, 5.2 magnitude intraplate earthquake. That is, this earthquake located between the sates of Arizona and New Mexico in the USA (Figure 1) occurred far from active tectonic boundaries. The explosions analyzed were carried out in a large surface copper mine, as part of quarry blasts activities. We selected earthquakes and explosions with similar local magnitude, in the range 3.0−3.3, and occurring close to each other, within a 10 km radius. The magnitude used in this study is measured by the Richter scale (ML) that assigns a number to quantify the size of an earthquake or an explosion. We collected seismograms of earthquakes and explosions recorded at seismic station TUC of the IU network. We also downloaded broadband seismograms from the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Centers (IRIS DMC). The instrument response was removed and windows of data were selected using the Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) software. We analyzed the seismograms representing the displacement of the ground (in nm) in the vertical direction (Z-component). Information about the seismic station and the selected events is presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Figure 2 shows examples of seismograms recorded at the TUC stations from one earthquake and one explosion.
Station | Network | Latitude | Longitude | Average distance to events | Average Azimuth |
TUC | IU | 32.3∘ | −110.8∘ | 161 km | 76∘ |
Events | Magnitude (ML) | Date | Time (UTC) | Latitude | Longitude |
Explosion 1 | 3.1 | 12/27/99 | 20:58:33 | 32.59∘ | −109.05∘ |
Explosion 2 | 3.0 | 01/24/00 | 22:10:15 | 32.67∘ | −109.08∘ |
Explosion 3 | 3.1 | 04/12/00 | 19:39:04 | 32.65∘ | −109.09∘ |
Explosion 4 | 3.2 | 03/19/01 | 21:29:02 | 32.64∘ | −109.15∘ |
Earthquake 1 | 3.3 | 06/29/14 | 15:40:10 | 32.59∘ | −109.12∘ |
Earthquake 2 | 3.2 | 07/11/14 | 6:15:55 | 32.64∘ | −109.11∘ |
Earthquake 3 | 3.0 | 07/12/14 | 7:12:53 | 32.58∘ | −109.08∘ |
Earthquake 4 | 3.0 | 07/17/14 | 9:12:27 | 32.53∘ | −109.06∘ |
A physical process can be described either in the time domain, by the values of some quantity h as a function of time t, e.g., h(t), or in the frequency domain, where the process is specified by giving its amplitude H (generally a complex number) as a function of frequency f, that is H(f), with −∞<f<∞. For many purposes it is useful to consider h(t) and H(f) as two different representations of the same function. It is possible to go back and forth between these two representations by means of the Fourier transform formulas:
h(t)=∫∞−∞H(f)e−2πiftdf |
H(f)=∫∞−∞h(t)e2πiftdt |
The Fourier transform H(f) converts waveform data in the time domain into the frequency domain. The Inverse Fourier transform h(t) converts the frequency domain components back into the original time-domain signal. A frequency-domain plot shows how much of the signal lies within each given frequency band over a range of frequencies.
In order to analyze a statistical time series, it must be assumed that the structure of the statistical or stochastic process generating the observations is essentially invariant through time. The conventional assumptions are summarized in the condition of stationarity as follows, if a time series xt is stationary, its second-order behavior remains the same, regardless of the time t. Based on the Spectral Representation Theorem [8,9], a stationary series is represented through the superposition of sines and cosines that oscillate at various frequencies. Therefore, a stationary time series can be represented with combination of sine and cosine series.
Next, we introduce definitions that will be used when applying the DFA.
A Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) is used for discrete time series with a finite number of samples from a process that is continuous in time. When discontinuity occurs, the signal value abruptly jumps, yielding spectral leakage i.e. the input signal does not complete a whole number of cycles within the DFT time window. Consequently, it is required to multiply finite sampled time series by a windowing function, or a taper that decreases and approaches zero. Tapering is a process that reduces spectral leakage by multiplying the original time sequence by a function of time, such that the time series decreases and approaches zero, thus avoiding sudden discontinuities at the first and last point of the time series.
A stationary process Xt can be defined by using linear combinations of the form:
Xt=m∑j=1(Ajcos(2πλjt)+Bjsin(2πλjt)), | (3.1) |
where 0≤λ≤12 is a fixed constant and Aj, Bj for (j=1,m) are all uncorrelated random variables with a mean =0 and
var(Aj)=var(Bj)=σ2j. |
We assume ∑mj=1σ2j=σ2, so that the variance of the process Xt is σ2, where the spectral density f(λ) satisfies:
∫12−12f(λ)dλ=σ2. |
Then for large values of m the process given in (3.1) approximates the stationary process with spectral density f.
To estimate the spectral density, we define the estimators as weighted averages of periodogram values (I) for frequencies in the range (j−m)/n to (j+m)/n. In particular:
ˆf(j/n)=m∑k=−mWm(k)I(j+kn), |
where the Daniell kernel Wm(k) with parameter m is a centered moving average which creates a smoothed value at time t by averaging all values between times t−m and t+m (inclusive). We define:
Wm(k)=12m+1 for −m≤k≤m, ∑kWm(k)=1, and ∑kkWm(k)=0. |
The smoothing formula {ut} for a Daniell kernel with m=1 corresponds to the three weights (13,13,13) and is given by:
ˆut=13(ut−1+ut+ut+1). |
Applying the Daniell kernel again the smoothed values {ˆut} results in more extensive smoothing, averaging over a wider time interval
^^ut=ˆut−1+ˆut+ˆut+13=19ut−2+19ut−2+39ut+29ut+1+19ut+2. | (3.2) |
Consequently, applying the Daniell kernel transforms the spectral windows into a form of Gaussian probability density function; for more details see [10].
In this subsection we discuss a unit root methodology that is often used to test long memory behavior, the so-called Augmented Dickey Fuller Test (ADF).
The geophysical time series discussed in this study has a complicated dynamic structure that is not easily captured by traditional methods, such as a simple first-order linear autoregressive (AR(1)) models (see [4]). Therefore, there is a need for models that can capture such a unique dynamic structure. It is possible to augment the basic autoregressive unit root test to accommodate general autoregressive moving-average (ARMA(p,q)) models with unknown orders [5] and their test is referred to as the augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test (see [6]). The ADF is a very powerful test that can handle more complex models. It tests the null hypothesis that a time series yt is a unit root against the alternative that it is stationary, assuming that the data dynamics has an ARMA structure. The ADF test is based on estimating the test regression:
yt=βDt+ϕyt−1+p∑j=1ψjΔyt−j+ϵt, | (3.3) |
where Dt is a vector of deterministic term. The p lagged difference terms, Δyt−j, are used to approximate the ARMA structure of the errors, and the value of p is set so that the error ϵt is serially uncorrelated. An alternative formulation of (3.3) is
Δyt=βDt+πϕyt−1+p∑j=1ψjΔyt−j+ϵt, | (3.4) |
where π=ϕ−1. In practice, the test regression (3.4) is used since the ADF t-statistic is the usual t-statistic reported for testing the significance of the coefficient yt−1. An important practical issue for the implementation of the ADF test is the specification of the lag length p. If p is too small then the remaining serial correlation in the errors will bias the test. If p is too large, the power of the test will suffer. For the Augmented Dickey Fuller t-statistic test, small p-values suggest the data is stationary. Usually, small p-values are those that are smaller than a 5% level of significance.
We begin this subsection by using the ADF tests to test for a unit root in the seismic waves generated by the earthquake and explosion time series. To illustrate the ADF test procedure, we consider the seismograms of earthquake and the explosion time series as recorded by the seismic station TUC of the IU network. Figure 2 shows the seismograms recorded for earthquake 1 and explosion 1 from Table 2.
The ADF test was performed for all events (explosions and earthquakes) listed in Table 2. The summary statistics of the ADF results are shown in Table 3.
Events | Test statistic | p-value |
Earthquake 1 | -42.018 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 2 | -41.400 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 3 | -37.389 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 4 | -39.088 | 0.01 |
Explosion 1 | -40.298 | 0.01 |
Explosion 2 | -36.349 | 0.01 |
Explosion 3 | -40.830 | 0.01 |
Explosion 4 | -41.936 | 0.01 |
The ADF tests the following:
H0: There is a unit root for the time series, or
Ha: There is no unit root for the time series and the series is stationary.
Because the computed p-values are lower than the significance level α=0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H0 for all 8 events, and accept the alternative hypothesis Ha. Thus all studied events represent stationary time series.
As observed from the ADF test (Table 3) and the analyzed seismograms, the seismic signals are stationary. Thus the recorded seismograms represent a stationary process and therefore a dynamic stationary Fourier analysis is needed.
The purpose of the dynamic series analysis is to depict the spectral behavior of the seismic signals as they evolve over time. The Fourier Transform is used to extract this information by calculating a base 2 logarithm (log2); in that case it is required that the length or range of the time series to be evaluated contains a total number of data points equal to 2m, where m is a positive integer. If the total number of data points is not a power of two, it is also possible to express the Fourier transform of length n in terms of several shorter Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFT). The Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT), an algorithm for calculation of the DFT, is applied in the present analysis. We obtain the spectral series from a short segment of the data using the DFT. After characterization of the first segment, the spectral analysis is performed on a new segment that is shifted from the first segment. This process is repeated until the end of the data. We assume that xt represents the series of interest, where t=1,......,6016. The analyzed data segments are {xtk+1,......,xtk+256}, for tk=128k, where k=0,1,......,45. Therefore, the first segment analyzed is {x1,.....,x256}, the second segment analyzed is {x129,.......,x384}, and so on. Each segment of 256 observations was tapered using a cosine bell, and spectral estimation is performed using a repeated Daniell kernel with weights 19{1,2,3,2,1}. These coefficients are obtained with the R software by applying the kernel option.
One interpretation of the results of the time-frequency analysis presented above is to consider it based on local transforms of the data xt, given by:
dj,k=n−1/2n∑t=1xtψj,k(t), | (3.5) |
where
ψj,k(t)={(n/m)1/2hte−2πitj/mift∈[tk+1,tk+m],0ifotherwise. | (3.6) |
In the above formula ht is a taper and m is a fraction of n. In this study, the number of observations is n=6016, window size m=256, overlap tk=128k for k=0,1,....,45, and ht is a cosine bell taper over 256 points. In equations (1) and (2) above, j indexes the frequency ωj=j/m, for j=1,2.......[m/2] and k indexes the location, or time shift of the transform. We recall that the transforms are based on tapered cosines and sines that are zeroed out over various time intervals.
The DFA technique was applied to the recorded seismograms of the events listed in Table 2, and the results are presented in Figures 3 and 4 for the natural earthquakes and the explosions, respectively. The results are also presented numerically as percentages of the total power spectra for 50− seconds time windows, and 2− Hz frequency windows in Table 4.
Time (seconds) |
Frequency (Hz) |
Earthquakes | Explosions | ||||||
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
||
0-50 | 0-2 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
2-4 | 7.0 | 37.8 | 29.2 | 36.5 | 67.0 | 60.5 | 55.2 | 17.3 | |
4-6 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 13.0 | 7.9 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 7.5 | 4.8 | |
6-8 | 2.5 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 19.1 | 3.0 | 8.7 | 4.7 | 2.0 | |
8-10 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 11.4 | 8.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 |
The power spectra were evaluated by first estimating the periodograms [10], which indicate large and small periodic components of seismic signals in the respective frequencies. This estimation was performed using DFT with a 256 window size. In order to obtain a stable estimation, we computed the smoothed periodograms by using the Daniell kernel window (see subsection 3.2). Furthermore, we used the tapering process to avoid the spectral leakage of the power spectrum for earthquakes and explosions used in this study [11].
There is a considerable difference in the percentage of total power for the time series from earthquakes and explosions; see Figures 3, 4, 5 and Table 4. The results are shown in terms of estimated spectra for frequencies up to 10 Hz (the folding frequency is 20 Hz) for starting (time) tk=128k with k=0,1...........45. The spectral analyses were performed using R and Python.
The power spectrum of the earthquake S-waves starts from low frequencies and may remain strong for a long time window. On the other hand, the explosion power spectrum is strong at lower frequencies and gradually tapers off at high frequencies, especially at those greater than about 2 to 4 Hz; see Figures 3, 4, 5 and Table 4.
Specifically, for both earthquakes and explosions, P-waves and S-waves are identifiable from the power spectra (see Figures 3 and 4) as sequences of picks occurring at around 25 seconds for the P-waves and 50 seconds for the S-waves. For both type of events, the P-waves are with very-low amplitudes at all frequencies. There is no evidence that is possible to discriminate between earthquakes and explosions based on P-wave spectra. On the other hand, the S-waves exhibit a high-amplitude pick between 2 and 4 Hz for both type of events. More interestingly, the S-waves show characteristic peak frequencies (∼ 6-8 Hz) that is present for earthquakes but not for explosions. In order to further explore this characteristic peak in the S-wave frequency content, the values corresponding to the percentages of power in 2−Hz frequency windows were plotted in Figure 5. It can be noticed that for frequencies between 2 and 4 Hz explosions present higher values than earthquakes (Figure 5), and that tendency is reversed for frequencies between 6 and 8 Hz, where earthquakes present higher values than explosions.
Identifying the physical mechanisms that cause this notable difference in the frequency content of the S-waves of earthquakes and explosions is beyond the scope of this paper. However, we observe that the 6−8 Hz S-wave's peak detected for earthquakes but not for explosions, could be the a direct result from different source mechanisms. In general, it is still not well understood how explosions generate S-waves; while natural earthquakes simply shear slip on a fault plane. Explosions are modeled as pressure pulses on a sphere, which in theory should generate only P-waves [12]. The source depth could also play for this difference; while earthquakes occur deep underground, explosions are generally carried out at much shallower depths, which has an effect on how seismic waves propagate and interfere.
A simple, but very effective discriminant is the power spectrum spike. Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate that the typical earthquake series always has more than one spikes in the power spectrum, whereas the explosion series do not have consistently for more than one spike.
The algorithm implemented in this paper is different from "spectogram" and "fft" functions used with the SAC seismological program and MATLAB software. SAC computes a spectrogram using all of the data in memory. The spectra are calculated from a truncated autocorrelation function by using the maximum likelihood, maximum entropy, or Power Density Spectral statistical methodologies. The fft (in MATLAB) is a faster implementation of the DFT which reduces an n-point Fourier transform to about (n/2)log2n complex multiplications from n2 multiplications, providing an increase of speed for large data sets. However, the fft is not suitable for non periodic time series or non commensurate frequency (see subsection 3.1). The Dynamic Fourier methodology is a more reliable approach, since tapering is utilized to fix the spectral leakage by minimizing the effect of the discontinuity between the beginning and the end of the time series.
In this study we investigate the use of the Dynamic Fourier method as a tool to discriminate between seismic signals generated by natural earthquakes and mining explosions. The earthquakes analyzed correspond to a group of small-magnitude aftershocks generated by a 5.2 magnitude intraplate earthquake in Arizona. The mining explosions were selected such that they occurred very close to the earthquakes and were cataloged with similar magnitude as the earthquakes. We used seimograms from earthquakes and explosions recorded by a seismic station located about 160 km west from the epicenters of these events. Our results suggest that S-waves frequency content can be used as a discriminant tool. In particular, a high-amplitude peak in the S-waves spectra for frequencies ∼ 6-8 Hz is present for the earthquakes but not for the explosions. Further analysis is suggested in order to investigate how epicentral distance and the magnitude of the events affect these results.
Fourier transform is widely used in digital signal processing for frequency analysis of both stationary and non stationary signals. In the case of transient signals, the characteristics of the signals to be analyzed are strongly time-dependent. This imposes restrictions on the use of the Fourier transform, since the recorded earthquakes and mining explosions do not necessarily fulfill the stationary condition. To overcome this issue we used a short-time Fourier transform where the input signal is a Fourier transform analyzed in a short time window which shifts along the input signal length with some overlap. In addition to dynamic Fourier analysis as a method to overcome the restriction of stationarity, researchers have also sought wavelet methods to discriminate seismic events [7].
The earthquake data used in this study were provided by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center (IRIS DMC).
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the careful reading of the manuscript and the fruitful suggestions that helped to improve this work.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | Seinfeld J, Pandis S (2006) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd Ed., New York: Wiley. |
[2] |
Cess R, Potter G, Ghan S, et al. (1985) The climatic effects of large injections of atmospheric smoke and dust: A study of climate feedback mechanisms with one- and three-dimensional climate models. J Geophys Res 90: 12937–12950. https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD07p12937 doi: 10.1029/JD090iD07p12937
![]() |
[3] |
Schepanski K (2018) Transport of mineral dust and its impact on climate. Geosciences 8: 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8050151 doi: 10.3390/geosciences8050151
![]() |
[4] |
Chaibou S, Ma A, Sha T (2020) Dust radiative forcing and its impact on surface energy budget over West Africa. Sci Rep 10: 12236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69223-4 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69223-4
![]() |
[5] | Budyko M, Golitsyn G, Izrael Y (1988) Global climatic catastrophes, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag. |
[6] |
Brinkman A, McGregor J (1983) Solar radiation in dense Saharan aerosol in northern Nigeria. Quart J Roy Met Soc 109: 831–847. https://doi.org/10.1256/smsqj.46209 doi: 10.1256/smsqj.46209
![]() |
[7] | Gorchakova I, Mokhov I, Rublev A (2015) Radiation and temperature effects of the intensive injection of dust aerosol into the atmosphere. Izv Atmos Ocean Phys 51: 113–126. |
[8] |
Hu ZY, Huang JP, Zhao C, et al. (2020) Modeling dust sources, transport, and radiative effects at different altitudes over the Tibetan Plateau. Atmos Chem Phys 20: 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1507-2020 doi: 10.5194/acp-20-1507-2020
![]() |
[9] |
Huang JP, Minnis P, Chen B, et al. (2008) Long-range transport and vertical structure of Asian dust from CALIPSO and surface measurements during PACDEX. J Geophys Res 113. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010620 doi: 10.1029/2008JD010620
![]() |
[10] |
Yang L, Shi Z, Sun H, et al. (2021) Distinct effects of winter monsoon and westerly circulation on dust aerosol transport over East Asia. Theor Appl Climatol 144: 1031–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03579-z doi: 10.1007/s00704-021-03579-z
![]() |
[11] |
Vijayakumara K, Devara PCS, Vijaya Bhaskara Rao S, et al. (2016) Dust aerosol characterization and transport features based on combined ground-based, satellite and model-simulated data. Aeolian Res 21: 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.03.003
![]() |
[12] |
Zayakhanov A, Zhamsueva G, Naguslaev S, et al. (2012) Spatiotemporal characteristics of the atmospheric AOD in the Gobi Desert according to data of the ground-based observations. Atmos Ocean Opt 25: 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1024856012050119 doi: 10.1134/S1024856012050119
![]() |
[13] |
Abdullaev S, Maslov V, Nazarov B, et al. (2015) The elemental composition of soils and dust aerosol in the south-central part of Tajikistan. Atmos Ocean Opt 28: 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1024856015040028 doi: 10.1134/S1024856015040028
![]() |
[14] |
Xiong J, Zhao T, Bai Y, et al. (2020) Climate characteristics of dust aerosol and its transport in major global dust source regions. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 209: 105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105415 doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105415
![]() |
[15] |
Ginoux P, Prospero J, Gill T, et al. (2012) Global-scale attribution of anthropogenic and natural dust sources and their emission rates based on MODIS Deep Blue aerosol products. Rev Geophys 50: RG3005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012RG000388 doi: 10.1029/2012RG000388
![]() |
[16] |
Prospero J (1999) Long-range transport of mineral dust in the global atmosphere: Impact of African dust on the environment of the southeastern United States. PNAS 96: 3396–3403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.7.3396 doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.7.3396
![]() |
[17] |
Maring H, Savoie D, Izaguirre M, et al. (2003) Mineral dust aerosol size distribution change during atmospheric transport. J Geophys Res 108: 8592. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002536 doi: 10.1029/2002JD002536
![]() |
[18] |
Zhang YD, Cai YJ, Yu FQ, et al (2021) Seasonal variations and long-term trend of mineral dust aerosols over the Taiwan Region. Aerosol Air Qual Res 21: 200433. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0433 doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0433
![]() |
[19] |
Guedes A, Landulfo E, Montilla-Rosero E, et al. (2018) Detection of Saharan mineral dust aerosol transport over Brazilian northeast through a depolarization lidar. EPJ Web Conf 176: 05036. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201817605036 doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201817605036
![]() |
[20] |
Weinzierl B, Ansmann A, Prospero JM, et al. (2017) The Saharan aerosol long-range transport and aerosol–cloud-interaction experiment: Overview and selected highlights. BAMS 98: 1427–1451. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00142.1 doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00142.1
![]() |
[21] |
Does M, Knippertz P, Zschenderlein P, et al. (2018) The mysterious long-range transport of giant mineral dust particles. Sci Adv 4. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2768 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau2768
![]() |
[22] |
Asher EC, Christensen JN, Post A, et al. (2018) The transport of Asian dust and combustion aerosols and associated ozone to North America as observed from a mountaintop monitoring site in the California coast range. JGR Atmosphere 123: 4890–4909. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028075 doi: 10.1029/2017JD028075
![]() |
[23] |
Akritidis D, Katragkou E, Georgoulias AK, et al. (2020) A complex aerosol transport event over Europe during the 2017 Storm Ophelia in CAMS forecast systems: Analysis and evaluation. Atmos Chem Phys 20: 13557–13578. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13557-2020 doi: 10.5194/acp-20-13557-2020
![]() |
[24] |
Ansmann A, Bösenberg J, Chaikovsky A, et al. (2003) Long-range transport of Saharan dust to northern Europe: The 11–16 October 2001 outbreak observed with EARLINET. J Geophys Res 108: 4783. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003757 doi: 10.1029/2003JD003757
![]() |
[25] |
Conceição R, Silva HG, Mirão SJ, et al. (2018) Saharan dust transport to Europe and its impact on photovoltaic performance: A case study of soiling in Portugal. Sol Energy 160: 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.059 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.059
![]() |
[26] |
Israelevich P, Ganor E, Alpert P, et al. (2012) Predominant transport paths of Saharan dust over the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. JGR Atmosphere 117: 2205. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016482 doi: 10.1029/2011JD016482
![]() |
[27] |
Kaskaoutis D, Kosmopoulos G, Nastos P, et al. (2012) Transport pathways of Sahara dust over Athens, Greece as detected by MODIS and TOMS. Geomathematics Nat Hazards Risk 3: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2011.574296 doi: 10.1080/19475705.2011.574296
![]() |
[28] |
Pey J, Querol X, Alastuey A, et al. (2013) African dust outbreaks over the Mediterranean Basin during 2001–2011: PM10 concentrations, phenomenology and trends, and its relation with synoptic and mesoscale meteorology. Atmos Chem Phys 13: 1395–1410. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1395-2013 doi: 10.5194/acp-13-1395-2013
![]() |
[29] |
Salvador P, Artíñano B, Molero F, et al. (2013) African dust contribution to ambient aerosol levels across central Spain: Characterization of long-range transport episodes of desert dust. Atmos Res 127: 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.12.011 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.12.011
![]() |
[30] |
Filonchyk M (2022) Characteristics of the severe March 2021 Gobi Desert dust storm and its impact on air pollution in China. Chemosphere 287: 132219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132219 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132219
![]() |
[31] |
Filonchyk M, Peterson M (2022) Development, progression, and impact on urban air quality of the dust storm in Asia in March 15–18, 2021. Urban Clim 41: 101080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101080 doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101080
![]() |
[32] |
Filonchyk M, Hurynovich V (2020) Spatial distribution and temporal variation of atmospheric pollution in the South Gobi Desert, China, during 2016–2019. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 26579–26593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09000-y doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09000-y
![]() |
[33] |
Guo JP, Lou MY, Miao YC, et al. (2017) Trans-Pacific transport of dust aerosols from East Asia: Insights gained from multiple observations and modeling. Environ Pollut 230: 1030–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.062 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.062
![]() |
[34] | Wu M, Liu X, Luo T, et al. (2017) Trans-Pacific transport of Asian dust: The CESM model analysis and comparison with satellite observations. Amer Geophys Union. Available from: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFM.A33F2441W/abstract |
[35] |
Yumimoto K, Eguchi K, Uno IR, et al. (2010) Summertime trans-Pacific transport of Asian dust. Geophys Res Lett 37. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043995 doi: 10.1029/2010GL043995
![]() |
[36] |
Han Y, Fang X, Zhao T, et al. (2008) Long range trans-Pacific transport and deposition of Asian dust aerosols. J Environ Sci 20: 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1001-0742(08)62074-4 doi: 10.1016/s1001-0742(08)62074-4
![]() |
[37] |
Wuebbles DJ, Lei H, Lin JT (2007) Intercontinental transport of aerosols and photochemical oxidants from Asia and its consequences. Environ Pollut 150: 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.066 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.066
![]() |
[38] |
Huang Z, Huang J, Hayasaka T, et al. (2015) Short-cut transport path for Asian dust directly to the Arctic: A case study. Environ Res Lett 10: 114018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114018 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114018
![]() |
[39] | Kondratyev I, Kachur A, Yurchenko S, et al. (2005) Synoptic and geochemical aspects of abnormal dust transfer in south Primorskii krai. Vestn Far East Branch Russ Acad Sci 3: 55–65. (In Russian) |
[40] |
Kalinskaya D, Papkova A, Varenik A (2021) The case of absorbing aerosol anomalous transport over the Black Sea in the spring of 2020. Sovr Probl DZZ Kosm 18: 287–298. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21046/2070-7401-2021-18-2-287-298 doi: 10.21046/2070-7401-2021-18-2-287-298
![]() |
[41] |
Kutuzov S, Mikhalenko V, Shahgedanova M, et al. (2014) Ways of far-distance dust transport onto Caucasian glaciers and chemical composition of snow on the Western plateau of Elbrus. Ice Snow 54: 5–15. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15356/2076-6734-2014-3-5-15 doi: 10.15356/2076-6734-2014-3-5-15
![]() |
[42] |
Sokhi R, Singh V, Querolet X, et al. (2021) A global observational analysis to understand changes in air quality during exceptionally low anthropogenic emission conditions. Environ Intern 157: 106818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106818 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106818
![]() |
[43] | Mosecomonitoring. Measuring stations. Available from: https://mosecom.mos.ru/measuring-stations/ |
[44] | Ogorodnikov B (1996) Parameters of aerosols in the atmospheric boundary layer over Moscow. Izv RAN Fizika Atmosfery i Okeana 32: 163–171. (In Russian) |
[45] |
Gubanova DP, Belikov IB, Elansky NF, et al. (2018) Variations in PM2.5 surface concentration in Moscow according to observations at MSU meteorological observatory. Atmos Ocean Opt 31: 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1024856018030065 doi: 10.1134/S1024856018030065
![]() |
[46] |
Trefilova AV, Artamonova MS, Kuderina TM, et al. (2013) Chemical composition and microphysical characteristics of atmospheric aerosol over Moscow and its vicinity in June 2009 and during the fire peak of 2010. Izv Atmos Ocean Phys 49: 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433813070062 doi: 10.1134/S0001433813070062
![]() |
[47] |
Kasimov N, Vlasov DV, Kosheleva NE (2020) Enrichment of road dust particles and adjacent environments with metals and metalloids in eastern Moscow. Urban Clim 32: 100638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100638 doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100638
![]() |
[48] |
Chubarova N, Androsova Y, Lezina Y (2021) The dynamics of the atmospheric pollutants during the Covid-19 pandemic 2020 and their relationship with meteorological conditions in Moscow. GES 14: 168–182. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2021-012 doi: 10.24057/2071-9388-2021-012
![]() |
[49] |
Gubanova DP, Elansky NF, Skorokhod AI, et al. (2020) Physical and chemical properties of atmospheric aerosols in Moscow and its suburb for climate assessments. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 606: 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/606/1/012019 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/606/1/012019
![]() |
[50] |
Gubanova DP, Iordanskii MA, Kuderina TM, et al. (2021) Elemental composition of aerosols in the ground air of Moscow: Seasonal changes in 2019 and 2020. Atmos Ocean Opt 34: 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1024856021050122 doi: 10.1134/S1024856021050122
![]() |
[51] |
Shukurov K, Shukurova L (2019) Aral's potential sources of dust for Moscow region. E3S Web Conf 99: 02015. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20199902015 doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/20199902015
![]() |
[52] |
Shukurov KA, Shukurova LM (2017) Source regions of ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and natural silicates in the surface aerosols of Moscow oblast. Izv Atmos Ocean Phys 53: 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433817030136 doi: 10.1134/S0001433817030136
![]() |
[53] |
Shukurov K, Chkhetiani O (2017) Probability of transport of air parcels from the arid lands in the southern Russia to Moscow region. Proc SPIE 10466. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2287932 doi: 10.1117/12.2287932
![]() |
[54] | HYSPLIT. Available from: www.arl.noaa.gov |
[55] | MERRA-2. Available from: https://giovanni.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/ |
[56] | Erhardt H (1985) Rentgenofluorescentnyj Analiz. Primenenie v Zavodskih Laboratorijah, Moscow: Metallurgija. (In Russian). |
[57] | Kudryashov V (1997) Analysis of the elemental composition atmospheric aerosols by physical methods. In Problemy Fiziki Atmosfery: Mezhvuzovskii Sbornik[Problems of Atmospheric Physics: Interuniversity Transactions], Saint-Petersburg: SPbGU, 97–130. (In Russian) |
[58] | Karandashev V, Turanov A, Orlova T, et al. (2007) Use of mass spectrometry with inductively coupled plasma method for element analysis of surrounding medium objects. Russ Zavod Lab Diagn Mater 73: 12–22. (In Russian). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9470754 |
[59] | Reliable prognosis. (In Russian). Available from: https://rp5.ru |
[60] | Windy. (In Russian). Available from: https://www.windy.com/ru. |
[61] | Weatherarchive. (In Russian). Available from: http://weatherarchive.ru/Pogoda/Moscow. |
[62] |
Gubanova DP, Vinogradova AA, Iordanskii MA, et al. (2021) Time variations in the composition of atmospheric aerosol in Moscow in spring 2020. Izv Atmos Ocean Phys 57: 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433821030051 doi: 10.1134/S0001433821030051
![]() |
[63] |
Gubanova DP, Vinogradova AA, Iordanskii MA, et al. (2022) Variability of near-surface aerosol composition in Moscow in 2020–2021: Episodes of extreme air pollution of different genesis. Atmosphere 13: 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13040574 doi: 10.3390/atmos13040574
![]() |
[64] |
Gubanova DP, Vinogradova AA, Skorokhod A, et al. (2021) Abnormal aerosol air pollution in Moscow near the local anthropogenic source in July 2021. Hydrometeorological Res Forecast 4: 134–148. https://doi.org/10.37162/2618-9631-2021-4-134-148 doi: 10.37162/2618-9631-2021-4-134-148
![]() |
[65] | Vinogradov A (1962) Srednie soderzhaniya khimicheskikh elementov v glavnykh tipakh izverzhennykh gornykh porod zemnoy kory[Average content of chemical elements in major types of erupted rocks of the Earth crust]. Geokhimiya [Geochemistry] 7: 555–571. |
[66] | Kasimov NS, Vlasov DV, Kosheleva NE, et al. (2016) Geochemistry of landscapes of eastern Moscow, Moscow: APR. (In Russian). |
1. | Maria C. Mariani, Md Al Masum Bhuiyan, Osei K. Tweneboah, Hector Gonzalez-Huizar, Ionut Florescu, Volatility models applied to geophysics and high frequency financial market data, 2018, 503, 03784371, 304, 10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.167 | |
2. | Sachin Sawantt, Purva Golegaonkar, Prayas Gondane, Rushikesh Gole, Srushti Gole, Aniruddha Gondkar, Aditya Gorave, Rupali Deshpande, A.C. Sumathi, N. Yuvaraj, N.H. Ghazali, Earthquake prognosis using machine learning, 2023, 56, 2271-2097, 05017, 10.1051/itmconf/20235605017 | |
3. | Sangkyeum Kim, Kyunghyun Lee, Kwanho You, Seismic Discrimination between Earthquakes and Explosions Using Support Vector Machine, 2020, 20, 1424-8220, 1879, 10.3390/s20071879 |
Station | Network | Latitude | Longitude | Average distance to events | Average Azimuth |
TUC | IU | 32.3∘ | −110.8∘ | 161 km | 76∘ |
Events | Magnitude (ML) | Date | Time (UTC) | Latitude | Longitude |
Explosion 1 | 3.1 | 12/27/99 | 20:58:33 | 32.59∘ | −109.05∘ |
Explosion 2 | 3.0 | 01/24/00 | 22:10:15 | 32.67∘ | −109.08∘ |
Explosion 3 | 3.1 | 04/12/00 | 19:39:04 | 32.65∘ | −109.09∘ |
Explosion 4 | 3.2 | 03/19/01 | 21:29:02 | 32.64∘ | −109.15∘ |
Earthquake 1 | 3.3 | 06/29/14 | 15:40:10 | 32.59∘ | −109.12∘ |
Earthquake 2 | 3.2 | 07/11/14 | 6:15:55 | 32.64∘ | −109.11∘ |
Earthquake 3 | 3.0 | 07/12/14 | 7:12:53 | 32.58∘ | −109.08∘ |
Earthquake 4 | 3.0 | 07/17/14 | 9:12:27 | 32.53∘ | −109.06∘ |
Events | Test statistic | p-value |
Earthquake 1 | -42.018 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 2 | -41.400 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 3 | -37.389 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 4 | -39.088 | 0.01 |
Explosion 1 | -40.298 | 0.01 |
Explosion 2 | -36.349 | 0.01 |
Explosion 3 | -40.830 | 0.01 |
Explosion 4 | -41.936 | 0.01 |
Time (seconds) |
Frequency (Hz) |
Earthquakes | Explosions | ||||||
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
||
0-50 | 0-2 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
2-4 | 7.0 | 37.8 | 29.2 | 36.5 | 67.0 | 60.5 | 55.2 | 17.3 | |
4-6 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 13.0 | 7.9 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 7.5 | 4.8 | |
6-8 | 2.5 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 19.1 | 3.0 | 8.7 | 4.7 | 2.0 | |
8-10 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 11.4 | 8.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 |
Station | Network | Latitude | Longitude | Average distance to events | Average Azimuth |
TUC | IU | 32.3∘ | −110.8∘ | 161 km | 76∘ |
Events | Magnitude (ML) | Date | Time (UTC) | Latitude | Longitude |
Explosion 1 | 3.1 | 12/27/99 | 20:58:33 | 32.59∘ | −109.05∘ |
Explosion 2 | 3.0 | 01/24/00 | 22:10:15 | 32.67∘ | −109.08∘ |
Explosion 3 | 3.1 | 04/12/00 | 19:39:04 | 32.65∘ | −109.09∘ |
Explosion 4 | 3.2 | 03/19/01 | 21:29:02 | 32.64∘ | −109.15∘ |
Earthquake 1 | 3.3 | 06/29/14 | 15:40:10 | 32.59∘ | −109.12∘ |
Earthquake 2 | 3.2 | 07/11/14 | 6:15:55 | 32.64∘ | −109.11∘ |
Earthquake 3 | 3.0 | 07/12/14 | 7:12:53 | 32.58∘ | −109.08∘ |
Earthquake 4 | 3.0 | 07/17/14 | 9:12:27 | 32.53∘ | −109.06∘ |
Events | Test statistic | p-value |
Earthquake 1 | -42.018 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 2 | -41.400 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 3 | -37.389 | 0.01 |
Earthquake 4 | -39.088 | 0.01 |
Explosion 1 | -40.298 | 0.01 |
Explosion 2 | -36.349 | 0.01 |
Explosion 3 | -40.830 | 0.01 |
Explosion 4 | -41.936 | 0.01 |
Time (seconds) |
Frequency (Hz) |
Earthquakes | Explosions | ||||||
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
1 (%) |
2 (%) |
3 (%) |
4 (%) |
||
0-50 | 0-2 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
2-4 | 7.0 | 37.8 | 29.2 | 36.5 | 67.0 | 60.5 | 55.2 | 17.3 | |
4-6 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 13.0 | 7.9 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 7.5 | 4.8 | |
6-8 | 2.5 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 19.1 | 3.0 | 8.7 | 4.7 | 2.0 | |
8-10 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 11.4 | 8.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 |