%0 journal article %@ 1352-2310 %A Solazzo, E., Biancini, R., Pirovano, G., Matthias, V., Vautard, R., Moran, M.D., Appel, K.W., Bessagnet, B., Brandt, J., Christensen, J.H., Chemel, C., Coll, I., Ferreira, J., Forkel, R., Francis, X.V., Grell, G., Grossi, P., Hansen, A.B., Miranda, A.I., Nopmongcol, U., Prank, M., Sartelet, K.N., Schaap, M., Silver, J.D., Sokhil, R.S., Vira, J., Werhahn, J., Wolke, R., Yarwood, G., Zhang, J., Rao, S.T., Galmarini, S. %D 2012 %J Atmospheric Environment %P 75-92 %R doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.045 %T Operational model evaluation for particulate matter in Europe and North America in the context of AQMEII %U https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.045 %X Analyses of PM10 yearly time series and mean diurnal cycle show a large underestimation throughout the year for the AQ models included in AQMEII. The possible causes of PM bias, including errors in the emissions and meteorological inputs (e.g., wind speed and precipitation), and the calculated deposition are investigated. Further analysis of the coarse PM components, PM2.5 and its major components (SO4, NH4, NO3, elemental carbon), have also been performed, and the model performance for each component evaluated against measurements. Finally, the ability of the models to capture high PM concentrations has been evaluated by examining two separate PM2.5 episodes in Europe and North America. A large variability among models in predicting emissions, deposition, and concentration of PM and its precursors during the episodes has been found. Major challenges still remain with regards to identifying and eliminating the sources of PM bias in the models. Although PM2.5 was found to be much better estimated by the models than PM10, no model was found to consistently match the observations for all locations throughout the entire year.