Spatiotemporal modeling reveals strong meteorological controls on ambient ammonia levels across regional atmospheres, indicating key gaps in agricultural emission inventories.
Atmospheric ammonia (NH 3 ) is an important precursor gas of secondary PM 2 . 5 ; however, sparse ground-based NH 3 monitoring limits the characterization of its spatiotemporal distribution and provides insufficient observational evidence for evaluating emission inventories. To address these gaps, this study developed a spatiotemporal model to estimate monthly ground-level NH 3 concentrations at 15 km resolution across South Korea for 2013–2017. A two-stage framework combining a linear mixed-effects model (LMM) and a generalized additive model (GAM) was applied to refine NH 3 information from Cross-track Infrared Sounder satellite observations. The LMM incorporated meteorological variables and the Clean Air Policy Support System emission inventory, while the GAM characterized residual spatial patterns not fully represented by these predictors. The model demonstrated robust performance, with cross-validation R 2 = 0.73, mean absolute error = 0.15, and root mean squared error = 0.21. Estimated NH 3 concentrations were highest in agricultural areas, increasing from March to June, then declined. In the LMM, all meteorological factors were significantly associated with monthly NH 3 concentrations. Temperature showed the strongest association with NH 3 from March to June, peaking in June (+18.9% per +1 °C), while relative humidity and wind speed had their largest effects in March (+2.1% per +1% RH and −18.7% per +1 m/s). The GAM captured month-specific LMM residual patterns and identified agricultural NH 3 hotspots that may reflect emission inventory gaps. These findings improve understanding of meteorological and emission-related controls on NH 3 concentrations and support refinement of emission inventories, agricultural hotspots identification, and improved future PM 2.5 air pollution assessment under changing environmental conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
You et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: