International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-018-0164-1

RESEARCH PAPER

Numerical Simulation of a Severe Dust Storm over Ahvaz Using

the HYSPLIT Model
Reza Khalidy1 · Hesam Salmabadi1 · Mohsen Saeedi1 

Received: 14 June 2018 / Revised: 19 November 2018 / Accepted: 15 December 2018 / Published online: 1 January 2019
© University of Tehran 2019

Abstract
In this paper, numerical simulation of a severe dust storm over Ahvaz on 16–18 June 2016 was performed using the HYSPLIT.
To that end, the HYSPLIT model has been configured for different model setups to determine the most desirable suite
of parameters to represent the measured concentrations better. Among several model parameters, meteorological dataset
(GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5), friction velocity (P10F) and particle numbers (NumPar) were detected as the most influential
parameters on the simulation results. Accordingly, with P10F = 0.6, NumPar = 5000, and GDAS1.0 configurations, the
model has reproduced the most precise results, and the correlation coefficient between the measured and the simulated ­PM10
concentration was as high as 0.9. Since the threshold friction velocity influences the results significantly, it is suggested to
calculate the P10F coefficient for each distinct dust storm meticulously. Once the best model parameters have been obtained,
the HYSPLIT has been run for 33 possible sources separately to estimate the contribution from each sub-region to the levels
of the measured ­PM10 concentration of Ahvaz during 16–18 June 2016. According to the results, central Iraq, northern Syria,
western Iraq, and Al-Hawzieh/Al-Azim wetland account for 71, 19, 6, and 4%, respectively.

Article Highlights
• A severe dust storm in 2016 over Ahvaz city was simulated quantitatively.
• Validation of simulation results was accomplished using ground-based data and satellite observations.
• Determination of the Middle East dust origins contribution in the dust storm was performed.
• Western and central parts of Iraq were detected as the main sources of the dust storm.

Keywords  HYSPLIT · Source apportionment · Middle East dust storms · Ahvaz · Numerical simulation · Satellite
observation

Introduction
Numerous dust particles from world’s arid regions are trans-
ported over long distances during sand and dust storms
(SDS) annually (Lee et al. 2010). It has been estimated that
1000–3000-million tons of dust particles are transported
per year globally (Choobari et al. 2014). SDS affect Earth
system through alteration in radiation and energy budget,
biochemical cycles of oceans and climate processes (Huang
* Mohsen Saeedi
msaeedi@iust.ac.ir
1
Environment Research Laboratory, School of Civil
Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Narmak, Tehran, Iran
et al. 2013; Middleton 2017; Rashki et al. 2017) and are det-
rimental to human health and cause a wide of variety of dis-
orders including cardiovascular diseases, asthma, eye infec-
tions and meningitis (Goudie and Middleton 2006; Khaefi
et al. 2017; Maleki et al. 2016; Shahsavani et al. 2012).
The Middle East has been identified as one of the most
notable dust origins in the world (Ginoux et al. 2012; Pros-
pero et al. 2002). The main factors forming dust storms
in the Middle East region are the “Shamal winds” during
summer and also pre-frontal and post-frontal winds during
winter (Kaskaoutis et al. 2015). Ahvaz, the capital city of
Khuzestan province and located in the southwest of Iran, has
been declared as the most polluted city in the world by an
average ­PM10 concentration of 372 µg/m3 in 2013 (Maleki
et al. 2016; Broomandi et al. 2017). Due to the proximity

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

162
to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq desert lands, the city has
been exposed to severe dust storms in recent years (Shahsa-
vani et al. 2012).
One of the most severe dust storms Ahvaz has experi-
enced in recent years had occurred in June 2016. The dust
storm that lingered in the city for 44 h had the average and
the maximum ­PM10 concentration 987 and 2322 µg/m3,
respectively (DOE 2016), and the horizontal visibility less-
ened to less than 500 m during the dust period.
Several studies have considered different meteorological
parameters and conditions in dust transport and dispersion.
Most of these studies are confined to trajectory calculations
(McGowan and Clark 2008; Notaro et  al. 2013; Rashki
et al. 2017). To visualize a precise spatial and temporal dis-
tribution of dust concentration in the atmosphere, a com-
prehensive simulation considering advection, dispersion,
and deposition is required. The HYSPLIT, developed by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
is a Lagrangian model which has been widely used for air
parcel dispersion, transportation, and deposition simula-
tion (Hemond and Fechner 2014; Stein et al. 2015). The
model calculations are hybrid between Lagrangian and
Eulerian approaches (Draxler et al. 2001; Stein et al. 2015).
Advection and diffusion calculations are performed in a
Lagrangian framework, while pollutant air concentration
calculations are computed on the fixed grid using Eulerian
methodology (Draxler et al. 2001; Stein et al. 2015; Salma-
badi and Saeedi 2018). Many studies have been carried out
using the HYSPLIT for backward trajectory analysis (Cus-
pilici et al. 2017; Hernández-Ceballos et al. 2014; Lee et al.
2010; Notaro et al. 2013; Xin et al. 2016), forward trajectory
analysis (Ge et al. 2016; McGowan and Clark 2008; Rashki
et al. 2017; Salmabadi and Saeedi 2018), and aerosol con-
centration calculations (Ashrafi et al. 2014; Draxler et al.
2001; Escudero et al. 2006; Givehchi et al. 2013). In this
respect, Escudero et al. (2006) identified different Saharan
desert segments contribution on the ­PM10 level elevation
in Spain cities. The results indicated Mauritania, Western
Sahara, and Mali are the main origins of the studied dust
Fig. 1  Ahvaz daily P
­ M10
concentration in June 2016. The
study period has been defined
PM10 Concentra on (ug/m3)
with a red-dashed rectangle.
Yellow dots represent the dusty
days based on WMO report.
The gap in P
­ M10 concentration
data is owing to monitoring
defect at AQM stations
13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174
outbreaks. Givehchi et al. (2013) simulated four dust epi-
sodes using the HYSPLIT which occurred in 2009 and 2010
over Tehran. They determined central Iraq and northern and
eastern Syria (Tigris and Euphrates zone) as the chief Mid-
dle East dust sources impacting Tehran P ­ M10 concentration
level. The same methodology was employed for the same
dust episodes to determine the contribution of Middle East
dust sources on the P­ M10 level of other cities of Iran (Sotou-
deheian et al. 2016).
In this paper, first, the HYSPLIT model was employed
for numerical simulation of the mentioned dust storm with
a full description of model parameters. Furthermore, source
apportionment of the dust storm was quantitatively deter-
mined. Finally, the model results were further validated with
ground-based observations and satellite images.
Methodology
Dust Episode
PM10 concentration data of Ahvaz urban zone was acquired
from the Department of Environment (DOE) of Khuzestan.
By analyzing the observed P ­ M10 data from Air Quality
Monitoring (AQM) stations of Ahvaz (called “measured
data” from now on), June 16–18, 2016 was chosen as the
dusty period for modeling. ­PM10 concentration in selected
period recorded in AQM stations of Ahvaz has been shown
in Fig. 1. Owing to lack of AQM station out of Ahvaz urban
area, background ­PM10 concentration of Ahvaz had to be
calculated to separate P­ M10 concentration related to the dust
storm from P ­ M10 concentration due to anthropogenic activi-
ties. To this end, non-dusty days were identified based on the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) hourly report
over Ahvaz (https​://www.ncei.noaa.gov/), and the back-
ground concentration was determined by averaging normal
days concentration (non-dusty days) of June 2016. Figure 1
shows the fluctuation of ­PM10 concentration over Ahvaz in
June 2016 and the dusty days are shown with yellow dots.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
31 May 2016 05 June 2016 10 June 2016 15 June 2016 20 June 2016 25 June 2016 30 June 2016
Date
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 163
According to the calculations, 139 µg/m3 was determined
as the background concentration which was subtracted from
recorded concentration in AQM station to assess the P ­ M10
level due to the dust storm. It should be mentioned that
some errors might occur in this approach, as meteorologi-
cal parameters and the anthropogenic activities are likely to
be varied on different days.
Model Description
There are two different algorithms (primary and revised
algorithms) for dust simulation embedded in the HYSPLIT
model. The primary algorithm was developed for Iraq, part
of Syria, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi
Arabia in the Middle East by Draxler et al. (2001), and it was
examined over Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Draxler et al.
2001). The ­PM10 dust flux in this algorithm is calculated as
follows:
𝜌 (
Q = K U∗ U∗2 − U∗t
2
)
g
A.
The soil texture coefficient K and the friction threshold
velocity U∗t were calculated for southwest Asia with regard
to the area’s soil texture (Draxler et al. 2001). Since U∗t and
K were calculated only for the mentioned regions, another
equation (Eq. 2) is also embedded in the HYSPLIT model
which is applicable to other areas that are defined in the
HYSPLIT’s land use map as desert land. In this mode, the
flux injections are defined by:
Q = 0.01U∗4 A.
Another algorithm (revised algorithm) was also devel-
oped by Draxler et al. (2010) using MODIS AOD and mete-
orological data. The revised algorithm, initially, has been
developed for North America and then for the dust origins
all over the world. The dust emissions in the revised algo-
rithm are computed as follows:
(3)
( )
Q = KA U∗ − U∗t ,
where K is the dust density, A the emission area, U∗t the
threshold friction velocity and U∗ the friction velocity. This
equation is not dependent on soil’s characteristics. In the
revised algorithm, Draxler et  al. (2010) have identified
global dust origins and their characteristics (K and U∗t ) with
the horizontal resolution of 0.25° for different months of
the year by using AOD measurements of MODIS satellite
and meteorological data. All the values of K and U∗t are
accessible online through the following link: https​://www.
ready.​ noaa.gov/docume​ nts/Tutori​ al/dust/dust_global​ .zip. To
perform the simulation of this study, the revised algorithm
was chosen as it has been developed recently and engenders
more precise results (Givehchi et al. 2013).
Model Parameters
Meteorological Input
Previous studies have shown that the HYSPLIT calcu-
lations are sensitive to input meteorological parameters
(Gebhart et al. 2005; Hernández-Ceballos et al. 2014; Su
et al. 2015). Several meteorological datasets are applica-
ble for the HYSPLIT model simulations including GDAS,
NARR, NCAR REANALYSES, EDAS, and NAM (Stein
et al. 2015). Among the mentioned meteorological data-
sets, the spatial resolution of GDAS and REANALYSES
is worldwide and could be used in this study. Since the
horizontal resolution of REANALYSES data is overly
coarse (2.5°), the dataset is not appropriate for dust storm
modeling. The Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS),
known as one of the operating systems developed by the
National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP),
is an atmospheric model providing 3-hourly meteorologi-
cal data. There are two forms of GDAS datasets avail-
(1) able for the HYSPLIT calculations, namely GDAS1.0
and GDAS0.5. GDAS1.0 has been archiving data in a
weekly format from December 2004 with 1° horizontal
resolution (1° = 100 km). It provides data at 23 different
vertical levels within a vertical interval starting from sea
level (1000 hPa) to height about 26 km (20 hPa) (ARL
2018). GDAS0.5 has been archiving data in daily format
from November 2007 with 0.5° horizontal resolution. It
provides data at 55 vertical levels from 1000 to 13 hPa
(~ 31 km) (ARL 2018). Despite using the same observed
data for rendering GDAS meteorological data, discrepan-
(2)
cies (different horizontal and vertical resolution) between
GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5 could lead to varied results (Su
et al. 2015). Therefore, both forms of GDAS meteorologi-
cal datasets were included in this study.
Backward Trajectory
Considering wind as the primary avenue for a dust storm
formation, to determine the primary dust storm origins,
wind rose of Ahvaz was plotted during the dust episode,
and backward trajectory calculation was accomplished
in different fractions (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1) of planetary
boundary layer height (PBLH) starting from Ahvaz in 3 h
interval and using GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5 meteorological
datasets. To ensure that all the aerosols had been traced,
the simulation period was selected from 16 June at 00:00
to 18 June at 21:00. In the long run, based on the backward
airflows calculations and wind rose plot, the potential dust
origins of selected dust storm were determined.
13

164
Source Assignment
The trajectory analysis is only inclusive of particles path-
way and is not applicable for source apportionment solitary.
Hence, further must be executed to determine the contri-
bution of each of dust origins to PM10 level at a specific
receptor. As mentioned in the introduction, several dust
sources have been identified in the Middle East (Cao et al.
2015a; Ginoux et al. 2012; Prospero et al. 2002). Draxler
et al. (2010) provided global dust sources map for differ-
ent months based on AOD value obtained from the MODIS
instrument. The Middle East dust sources map in June has
been plotted in Fig. 2. As evident in Fig. 2, there are numer-
ous dust origins in the study area.
Threshold Friction Velocity Calibration
In the HYSPLIT model, threshold friction velocity has
been calculated according to May 2008–April 2009 (Drax-
ler et al. 2010) climatological data and may fluctuate over
time. Consequently, the available friction velocities may
not represent the precise values for 2016 when the studied
dust storm occurred. The P10F coefficient is included in
the model to modify friction velocity by multiplying with
measured friction velocity. Regarding result sensibility to
friction threshold velocity, acquiring the most appropriate
value for P10F is a matter of significance. To that end, differ-
ent P10F coefficients were examined in the simulation. The
multiplication factor leading to the most desirable results of
Fig. 2  Middle Eastern dust
sources map in June provided
by Draxler et al. (2010)
13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174
PM10 concentration simulated by the HYSPLIT model was
determined, and the proposed threshold friction velocities
were all multiplied by this factor.
Wet and Dry Deposition
As the dust storm occurred in a dry season, the wet deposi-
tion was excluded. The dry deposition rate was determined
considering 3 µm as the region particle diameter average
size, the density of 2.5 g/cm3 and a spherical shape (Draxler
et al. 2001).
Vertical Simulation Height
PM10 average concentration related to the dust event was
calculated on the spatial interval of the Earth’s surface (0
m) and an average of the PBLH during the modeling period
in Ahvaz (Givehchi et al. 2013). To calculate the PBLH,
GDAS0.5, GDAS1.0, and the HYSPLIT software were used.
The PBLH was extracted every 3 h between 16 June 00:00
and 18 June 21:00 from meteorological data. Due to mete-
orological datasets’ resolution, the time interval of 3 h was
selected (Tables 1, 2).
Other Parameters
Other parameters influencing simulation results are model
type, number of particles per cycle (NumPar), and maxi-
mum number of particles. There are three model types
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 165

Table 1  Fluctuation of the PBLH over Ahvaz during 16, 17, and 18 June 2016 using GDAS1.0 data
Hour date 00.00 (m) 03.00 (m) 06.00 (m) 09.00 (m) 12.00 (m) 15.00 (m) 18.00 (m) 21.00 (m) Daily avg. (m)

16 June 150 39 65 918 2478 3229 3738 683 1412.5

17 June 530 33 64 1878 2700 2764 2746 56 1346.3
18 June 90 25 57 1883 2750 2755 2499 94 1269.1
Total avg. ≈ 1340 m

Table 2  Fluctuation of the PBLH over Ahvaz during 16, 17, and 18 June 2016, using GDAS0.5 data
Hour date 00.00 (m) 03.00 (m) 06.00 (m) 09.00 (m) 12.00 (m) 15.00 (m) 18.00 (m) 21.00 (m) Daily avg. (m)

16 June 156 39 33 854 2254 3165 3867 683 1381.3

17 June 434 33 32 2230 2796 2956 2810 56 1418.3
18 June 122 25 25 1819 3038 3011 2883 30 1369.1
Total avg. ≈ 1390 m

available for the dust simulation where only 3D particle type
is compatible with the revised algorithm. Since Escudero
et al. (2006) investigated 500, 5000 and 50,000 number of
particles released per cycle for the primary algorithm, the
same values were set in this study and the best one was
determined. The last parameter which should be taken into
account is the maximum number of particles in the simula-
tion period. The magnitude of this parameter should be large
enough to ensure no error will occur during the simulation.
Hence, the maximum number of particles was set to 5 mil-
lion, and no error happened during the simulations.
Validation
To determine the best suite of parameters for dust simulation
in the region and identify sources of dust episode, simulation
results were compared with the observed data using the cor-
relation coefficient. For further validation, aerosol index (AI)
maps of the ozone monitoring instrument (OMI) sensor and
Deep Blue aerosol optical depth (AOD) products of Moder-
ate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor
were employed. AI is a parameter which identifies the occur-
rence of aerosol with a threshold limit of 0.65 (Hsu et al.
1999). MODIS AOD representing aerosol abundance is a
significant remote sensing parameter (Namdari et al. 2018).
MODIS AOD products have been utilized to identify dust
sources as well as track dust plumes in the myriad of studies
(Beegum et al. 2018; Ginoux et al. 2012; Moridnejad et al.
2015a; Notaro et al. 2013). Global level-3 Deep Blue AOD
at 550 nm data and global level-3 AI data of June 15–19,
2016 were employed in this study to track the dust mass and
validate the source identification of the selected dust storm.
These data (OMI AI and MODIS AOD) load in daily tem-
poral resolution and are accessible through Giovanni online
software developed and maintained by the NASA Goddard
Earth Sciences (GES) Data and Information Services Center
(DISC) (https​://giova​nni.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/).
Results and Discussion
As the wind is the principal agent for generating dust storms,
right apprehension of wind pathways could help to find pri-
mary sources of a dust event. Initially, Ahvaz wind rose
was plotted using WRPLOT software for the dusty period.
Regarding dominant wind direction arriving in Ahvaz, it
could be concluded that sources of the dust storm are located
on the west of the city. The 48-h backward trajectory was
executed using the HYSPLIT software to figure out explicit
wind pathways arriving in Ahvaz during the dusty period.
Wind pathways that came in Ahvaz in the dusty period were
utterly traced using the HYSPLIT backward calculations and
are shown in Fig. 4. As it is conspicuous, backward calcula-
tions results are in accord with the plotted wind rose for the
study interval, and it is clear that wind pathways traversed
the west regions of Iran, mainly Iraq and Syria. Hence, it
could be concluded that the origins of the dust storm are
located in the mentioned regions.
Based on backward calculations and the wind rose plot
(Figs. 3 and 4), the emissions from dust origins located in
the west and near Ahvaz (including Iraq, Syria, Jordan,
Lebanon, most of Kuwait, southwest of Iran, and northern
part of Saudi Arabia) were included in the simulations.
The extent of the study area and the potential dust sources
are indicated in Fig. 5. 835 dust origin cells were selected
out of approximately 2500 cells in the Middle East includ-
ing Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan,
Lebanon, and southwest of Iran. As each cell’s area is
625 km2, the 835 cells represent an area of ~ 520,000 km2.
For further calculation, the study zone was gridded into

13

166
Fig. 3  Three-day wind rose of Ahvaz during 16, 17, and 18 June 2016
33 sub-regions with an area of 200 × 200 km2, and once
the model parameters were set the contribution of each of
these sub-regions was determined.
The performance of different meteorological datasets,
P10F coefficient variation, and the number of particles
released per cycle were assessed by defining 54 different
scenarios (Table 3), and the most desirable set of param-
eters were selected using correlation coefficient.
The results of the all investigated scenarios have been
depicted in Fig. 6. The black, gray, and red lines indicate
the results of scenario number 1–27, scenario number
28–54, and the observed data in Ahvaz, respectively. The
Fig. 4  Two-day backward trajectories initiating from the 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 HPBL fraction of Ahvaz, during the dusty days using a GDAS1.0,
b GDAS0.5
13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174
correlation coefficients of different scenarios outputs with
observed data are also shown in Fig. 7.
Regarding the results, no variation was observed when
NumPar parameter altered from 500 to 5000. Hence, the
results of scenarios corresponding to NumPar = 500 are not
shown in Figs. 6 and 7. As it is obvious in Fig. 6, altering the
NumPar does not affect the simulation results significantly.
The NumPar is less influential as the P10F value increases.
This is due to the fact that fewer particles are released in
higher friction velocities. Consequently, as the increment
of NumPar slightly reduces the simulation speed, it is sug-
gested that NumPar = 5000 is chosen. NumPar = 5000 was
also found to be the optimum value in previous studies
(Escudero et al. 2006; Givehchi et al. 2013; Sotoudeheian
et al. 2016).
As it is obvious in Fig. 6, the effect of meteorological
dataset alteration is significant. Based on the results, a huge
discrepancy is discernible between results obtained from
GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5 datasets. Although the spatial
resolution of GDAS0.5 is better than that of GDAS1.0, in
most scenarios it does not show a desirable performance.
The correlation results (Fig. 7) also delineate that in all sce-
narios, the correlation coefficient between results obtained
from GDAS1.0 and the measured data is profoundly higher
than that of the results obtained from GDAS0.5. The maxi-
mum correlation coefficient in the scenarios with GDAS0.5
dataset is not higher than 0.79, while the maximum correla-
tion coefficient in the scenarios with GDAS1.0 dataset is as
high as 0.9. Generally, the use of GDAS1.0 is recommended
rather than GDAS0.5, due to time efficiency in simulations.
GDAS1.0 does not require vertical motion calculation as it
is a built-in parameter for the dataset, while this parameter
has to be calculated for GDAS0.5 data by the model from
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 167
Fig. 5  Study zone and the pos-
sible dust origins (black signs)
of June (Draxler et al. 2010).
The blue dot represents the
geographical location of Ahvaz.
Dust origins placed in the yel-
low rectangle are included in
the simulations
the vertical integration of the horizontal velocity divergence
(Su et al. 2015).
The alteration of P10F will notably change the simulation
results. As mentioned before, the threshold friction veloc-
ity was calculated with regard to long-term synoptic data
(Draxler et al. 2010), is a function of different parameters
including soil moisture and vegetation cover (Givehchi
et al. 2013; Sotoudeheian et al. 2016), and may fluctuate
over time. The significance of P10F coefficient variation was
also investigated in previous studies (Givehchi et al. 2013;
Sotoudeheian et al. 2016). For example, in a study conducted
by Givehchi et al. (2013), the P10F = 0.5 was assigned to
Iraq and Syria in 2009 and 2010. Consequently, in this
study different P10F values (0.4, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7,
0.8, 0.9, and 1.0) were examined to find the most expedient
value. Based on Fig. 6, less dust particles were generated
when P10F = 1.0 was set. It means that the threshold friction
velocity has changed since it was first calculated. There-
fore, the P10F value has been reduced to find the best value.
In all scenarios with P10F = 0.9, the simulation results are
highly underestimated. The correlation coefficient for these
scenarios is not greater than 0.32. Although the correlation
coefficient of scenarios with P10F = 0.7 and 0.8 increased
greatly, the huge difference between the simulated P ­ M10
concentration values and measured ­PM10 concentration
remained. The correlation coefficient results denote that the
most fitted results are obtained with P10F = 0.6 (R2 = 0.9) for
GDAS1.0 meteorological dataset and both NumPar = 5000
and 50,000. Although the maximum concentration occurring
on 17 June was slightly underestimated, P10F = 0.6 will give
the most reliable results as the errors are minor at the end of
the simulation period compared with the other scenarios. As
Fig. 6 indicates, in P10F = 0.6 scenarios, GDAS0.5 highly
underestimated ­PM10 concentration over the studied period.
When P10F was reduced to 0.55, the model predicted the
maximum ­PM10 concentration precisely (with GDAS1.0),
but the overprediction notably increased at the end of the
simulation period. In P10F = 0.5 scenarios, the maximum
­PM10 concentration was slightly overpredicted, and for both
GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5, there was a huge overestimation
in the ­PM10 concentration level at the ending date of the
simulation period. In P10F = 0.4, the results of all scenarios
(NumPar = 5000 and 50,000 of both GDAS1.0 and GDAS0.5
meteorological data) were overestimated. This overesti-
mation was intensified at the ending dates. As P10F was
reduced from 0.6 to 0.4, the correlation coefficient for all
scenarios also decreased and the overestimation in the simu-
lation results increased. The mentioned errors and the dis-
crepancy between the simulation results and measured data
were due to the model’s profound sensitivity to threshold
friction velocity, and the difficulty in precisely representing
this parameter in the model (Draxler et al. 2001).
As the best-fitted parameters were configured
(NumPar = 5000, P10F = 0.6, and GDAS1.0) in the
13

168 International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174

Table 3  54 sets of the Scenario # Meteorological data NumPar P10F Scenario # Meteorological data NumPar P10F
configuration used for model
calibration in this study 1 GDAS 1.0 500 0.4 28 GDAS 0.5 500 0.4
2 GDAS 1.0 500 0.5 29 GDAS 0.5 500 0.5
3 GDAS 1.0 500 0.55 30 GDAS 0.5 500 0.55
4 GDAS 1.0 500 0.6 31 GDAS 0.5 500 0.6
5 GDAS 1.0 500 0.65 32 GDAS 0.5 500 0.65
6 GDAS 1.0 500 0.7 33 GDAS 0.5 500 0.7
7 GDAS 1.0 500 0.8 34 GDAS 0.5 500 0.8
8 GDAS 1.0 500 0.9 35 GDAS 0.5 500 0.9
9 GDAS 1.0 500 1.0 36 GDAS 0.5 500 1.0
10 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.4 37 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.4
11 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.5 38 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.5
12 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.55 39 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.55
13 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.6 40 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.6
14 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.65 41 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.65
15 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.7 42 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.7
16 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.8 43 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.8
17 GDAS 1.0 5000 0.9 44 GDAS 0.5 5000 0.9
18 GDAS 1.0 5000 1.0 45 GDAS 0.5 5000 1.0
19 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.4 46 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.4
20 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.5 47 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.5
21 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.55 48 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.55
22 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.6 49 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.6
23 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.65 50 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.65
24 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.7 51 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.7
25 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.8 52 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.8
26 GDAS 1.0 50,000 0.9 53 GDAS 0.5 50,000 0.9
27 GDAS 1.0 50,000 1.0 54 GDAS 0.5 50,000 1.0

HYSPLIT, the model was separately run from determined
sub-regions (Fig. 5) located in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Cyprus,
Lebanon, northern part of Saudi Arabia, parts of Kuwait,
and southwest of Iran to calculate the precise contribution
of each region. The contribution of each area on Ahvaz
­PM10 concentration has been determined in Fig. 8. Results
delineated Iraq (Sr9, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25 in Fig. 5), Syria
(Sr3, 8 in Fig. 5), and limited parts of Iran (Parts of Sr25 in
Fig. 5) as the sources of the dust storm with ~ 78, 20, and
2% contribution, respectively. The results also revealed that
the central and western parts of Iraq (Sr16, 23, 24 in Fig. 5)
are the primary dust storm origins and contribute to ~ 65%
of the ­PM10 concentration level of Ahvaz during the dusty
period. The mentioned regions were also identified as one of
the main dust sources in the Middle East (Cao et al. 2015a;
Ginoux et al. 2012; Givehchi et al. 2013; Hamidi et al. 2017;
Moridnejad et al. 2015a). All these sources are placed in
summer and winter Shamal wind pathways, flowing all year
long (Francis et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2016). Moridnejad et al.
(2015b) specified abandoned agricultural lands, desiccated
lakes and wetlands, and desert regions as the main contribu-
tors in dust storm generation in the areas above (Sr9, 16, 23,
24). The other sources which are relatively minor include
western Iraq (Sr14, 15), the northern part of Syria (Sr3, 8),
and Iraq– Khuzestan province boundary zone (Sr25). The
latter encompasses Al-Azim/Al-Hawizeh marshland which
has been desiccated due to dam construction, war, and cli-
mate change in recent years (Cao et al. 2015b).
With regard to the MODIS true color images, OMI AI
maps, and MODIS AOD during 15–19 June, there was not
any considerable dust mass over the study area on June 15
(Fig. 11a–c). According to simulation results (Fig. 9a), few
minor dust plumes were discernible over Syria and Jor-
dan and a significant dust mass over Kuwait, but there was
not any dust storm over central Iraq. True color images of
MODIS, OMI AI map, and MODIS AOD map of June 16
show that a significant dust plume emerged over Iraq on
this day (Fig. 11d–f). As evident in Fig. 9b, the simulation
result of June 16 indicates the emergence of this plume as
well. The plume expands and moves to the east and, finally,
reaches Ahvaz (Fig. 11g–i). Based on the hourly P ­ M10 con-
centration data of Ahvaz (Fig. 10), the dust mass arrival
time is 16 June at about 18:00 (local time) (Fig. 10). The
simulation results (Fig. 9c) and the satellite measurements

13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 169

Fig. 6  PM10 level at Ahvaz 2500 P10F=0.4

GDAS1.0 NumPar=5000
P10F=0.5
GDAS1.0 NumPar=50000
derived from the HYSPLIT GDAS0.5 NumPar=5000
1600
simulations versus measured

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

2000 GDAS0.5 NumPar=50000 1400
(red line) ­PM10 of the dust out- Measured Data
1200
break that originated from the 1500
1000
regional dust which occurred on
16–18 June 2016. The simula- 1000
800

tions were carried out altering 600

the number of particles emitted 500

400

per cycle (5000 and 50,000) of 200

simulation, P10F (0.4, 0.5, 0.55, 0 0
0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0), and 13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16 13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16

meteorological data (GDAS1.0, Date Date

GDAS0.5). The dashed black 1200 P10F=0.55 P10F=0.6
lines represent the results 1000

obtained with GDAS1.0 mete- 1000

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

orological data, and the gray 800
800

lines are associated with results

600
calculated with GDAS0.5 600

400
400

200 200

0 0
13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16 13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16
Date Title
P10F=0.65 1100 P10F=0.7
1000
900
PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

800
700

600
500

400
300

200 100

0 13-Jun-16
-100 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16
13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16
Date
Date
P10F=0.8 P10F=0.9
1000 1000
PM10 Concentration 9ug/m3)

PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16 13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16
Date Date
P10F=1.0
1000
PM10 Concentration (ug/m3)

800

600

400

200

0
13-Jun-16 15-Jun-16 17-Jun-16 19-Jun-16 21-Jun-16
Date

13

170 International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174

Fig. 7  The correlation coef-

ficient between simulated and 1
measured ­PM10 concentration.
Black columns correspond 0.9
to GDAS1.0 meteorological
data, and red columns cor- 0.8
respond to GDAS0.5 meteoro-
logical data. The columns with 0.7
transparency are associated
with NumPar = 5000, and the 0.65
opaque columns are related to
NumPar = 50,000 0.6

0.55

0.5

0.4

-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

NumPar=50000 NumPar=5000 NumPar=50000 NumPar=5000

(Fig. 11g–i) well depict the spatial coverage of the dust
storm on June 17. As the MODIS AOD map and true color
images of MODIS suggest (Fig. 11j–l), the dust mass had
been lingering over Ahvaz till June 18 and as the plume
dispersed the P­ M10 concentration decreased over Ahvaz
(Fig. 10). Finally, a significant proportion of dust particles
vanished after 44 h at about 18:00 on June 18 (Fig. 10).
Conclusion
In this study, a severe dust storm in the Middle East that
occurred on June 2016 was simulated using the HYSPLIT
model, and the source apportionment of this dust storm was
studied. Backward trajectory simulations were employed for
primary source identification. According to primary source
assignment, out of 2500 Middle Eastern dust source cells, it
Sr25
4% Sr3
Sr24
16% 16%
was determined that about 835 cells might contribute to dust
storm generation in the study period. 54 different scenarios
were examined to obtain the most precise results. To that
end, the simulation results were compared with the observed
data. Correlation coefficients between simulation results
and observed data indicate that the best results is obtained
with NumPar = 5000, GDAS1.0 meteorological data, and
P10F = 0.6 configuration. Although the best P10F is calculated
to be 0.6 in this study, it should be meticulously computed for
each distinct dust storm as it is the most influential parameter
in the simulation process.
Results indicate that central Iraq accounts for ~ 71% of the
­PM10 level of Ahvaz during 16–18 June. The minor sources
include the northern parts of Syria (19%), the western parts of
Iraq (6%), and Al-Azim/Al-Hawizeh marshlands (4%).
If the methodology above is applied to a multiplicity of
dust storms affecting the Ahvaz in the recent years, the source
apportionment will be reliable enough to be used as a guide-
line for the authorities to curb the dust crisis in the region.

Sr8
3%

Sr9
8%
Sr23
14% Sr14
1%
Sr15
5%

Sr16
33%

Fig. 8  The contribution of identified sub-regions in the dust storm

generation

13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 171

Fig. 9  Evolution of dust plumes originating from Iraq, Syria Jordan, Cyprus, Lebanon, the northern part of Saudi Arabia, parts of Kuwait, and
southwestern Iran on a 15 June, b 16 June 2016, c 17 June 2017, and d 18 June 2016

2500
15 June 16 June 17 June 18 June 19 June
PM10 Concentration(ug/m3)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
3:00:00
6:00:00

0:00:00

6:00:00

0:00:00
3:00:00

9:00:00

3:00:00

9:00:00

3:00:00
6:00:00
9:00:00
12:00:00
15:00:00
18:00:00
21:00:00

12:00:00
15:00:00
18:00:00
21:00:00

12:00:00
15:00:00
18:00:00
21:00:00

12:00:00
15:00:00
18:00:00
21:00:00

12:00:00
15:00:00

21:00:00
18:00:00
0:00:00

9:00:00

3:00:00

9:00:00

6:00:00

0:00:00

6:00:00

0:00:00

Fig. 10  Hourly ­PM10 concentration (μg/m3) recorded at AQM stations of Ahvaz during 15–19 June 2016

13

172 International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174

Fig. 11  Daily map of MODIS AOD, OMI AI, and MODIS true color images over the study area during 15–18 June 2016

13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174 173
Acknowledgements  The authors are grateful to the Atmospheric
Research Center (ARC) of Iran University of Science and Technol-
ogy for its support to this research. The authors also acknowledge the
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) and NCEI for the provision of
the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion model, and hourly meteorologi-
cal observation data, respectively. The MODIS and OMI products were
acquired through GIOVANNI online software of NASA. We also would
like to express our thanks to Mr. Alireza Azarnia of DOE- Khuzestan
branch for providing the hourly ­PM10 concentration data.
References
ARL (2018) Global data assimilation system (GDAS1) archive infor-
mation. https​://www.ready​.noaa.gov/gdas1​.php. Accessed June
2018
Ashrafi K, Shafiepour-Motlagh M, Aslemand A, Ghader S (2014)
Dust storm simulation over Iran using HYSPLIT. J Environ
Health Sci 12:9
Beegum SN, Gherboudj I, Chaouch N, Temini M, Ghedira H (2018)
Simulation and analysis of synoptic scale dust storms over the
Arabian Peninsula. Atmos Res 199:62–81
Broomandi P, Dabir B, Bonakdarpour B, Rashidi Y (2017) Mineral-
ogical and chemical characterization of suspended atmospheric
particles in Ahvaz. Int J Environ Res 11:55–62
Cao H, Amiraslani F, Liu J, Zhou N (2015a) Identification of dust
storm source areas in West Asia using multiple environmental
datasets. Sci Total Environ 502:224–235
Cao H, Liu J, Wang G, Yang G, Luo L (2015b) Identification of sand
and dust storm source areas in Iran. J Arid Land 7:567–578
Choobari OA, Zawar-Reza P, Sturman A (2014) The global distri-
bution of mineral dust and its impacts on the climate system: a
review. Atmos Res 138:152–165
Cuspilici A, Monforte P, Ragusa M (2017) Study of Saharan dust
influence on PM10 measures in Sicily from 2013 to 2015. Ecol
Indic 76:297–303
DOE (2016) Department of Environment, Khuzestan Division. http://
khzdo​e.ir/rha/. Accessed June 2018
Draxler RR, Gillette DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Heller J (2001) Estimating
PM10 air concentrations from dust storms in Iraq, Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia. Atmos Environ 35:4315–4330
Draxler RR, Ginoux P, Stein AF (2010) An empirically derived
emission algorithm for wind-blown dust. J Geophys Res Atmos
115:D16212. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2009J​D0131​67
Escudero M, Stein A, Draxler R, Querol X, Alastuey A, Castillo S,
Avila A (2006) Determination of the contribution of northern
Africa dust source areas to PM10 concentrations over the cen-
tral Iberian Peninsula using the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagran-
gian Integrated Trajectory model (HYSPLIT) model. J Geophys
Res Atmos 111:D06210. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2005J​D0063​95
Francis DBK, Flamant C, Chaboureau J-P, Banks J, Cuesta J, Brind-
ley H, Oolman L (2017) Dust emission and transport over
Iraq associated with the summer Shamal winds. Aeolian Res
24:15–31
Ge Y, Abuduwaili J, Ma L, Wu N, Liu D (2016) Potential transport
pathways of dust emanating from the playa of Ebinur Lake,
Xinjiang, in arid northwest China. Atmos Res 178:196–206
Gebhart KA, Schichtel BA, Barna MG (2005) Directional biases in
back trajectories caused by model and input data. J Air Waste
Manag 55:1649–1662
Ginoux P, Prospero JM, Gill TE, Hsu NC, Zhao M (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/10.1029/2012R​G0003​88
Givehchi R, Arhami M, Tajrishy M (2013) Contribution of the Mid-
dle Eastern dust source areas to PM10 levels in urban receptors:
case study of Tehran, Iran. Atmos Environ 75:287–295
Goudie AS, Middleton NJ (2006) Desert dust in the global system.
Springer, Heidelberg
Hamidi M, Kavianpour MR, Shao Y (2017) A quantitative evalu-
ation of the 3–8 July 2009 Shamal dust storm. Aeolian Res
24:133–143
Hemond HF, Fechner EJ (2014) Chemical fate and transport in the
environment. Acaemic, New York
Hernández-Ceballos M, Skjøth C, García-Mozo H, Bolívar J, Galán
C (2014) Improvement in the accuracy of back trajectories using
WRF to identify pollen sources in southern Iberian Peninsula.
Int J Biometeorol 58:2031–2043
Hsu NC, Herman JR, Torres O, Holben BN, Tanre D, Eck TF,
Smirnov A, Chatenet B, Lavenu F (1999) Comparisons of
the TOMS aerosol index with Sun-photometer aerosol opti-
cal thickness: results and applications. J Geophys Res Atmos
104(D6):6269–6279
Huang XX, Wang TJ, Jiang F, Liao JB, Cai YF, Yin CQ, Zhu JL,
Han Y (2013) Studies on a severe dust storm in East Asia and
its impact on the air quality of Nanjing, China. Aerosol Air Qual
Res 13:179–193
Kaskaoutis DG, Rashki A, Houssos EE, Mofidi A, Goto D, Bartzo-
kas A, Francois P, Legrand M (2015) Meteorological aspects
associated with dust storms in the Sistan region, southeastern
Iran. Clim Dyn 45:407–424
Khaefi M, Geravandi S, Hassani G, Yari AR, Soltani F, Dobaradaran
S, Moogahi S, Mohammadi MJ, Mahboubi M, Alavi N, Farhadi
M (2017) Association of particulate matter impact on preva-
lence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Ahvaz, south-
west Iran during 2009–2013. Aerosol Air Qual Res 17:230–237
Lee Y, Yang X, Wenig M (2010) Transport of dusts from East Asian
and non-East Asian sources to Hong Kong during dust storm
related events 1996–2007. Atmos Environ 44:3728–3738
Maleki H, Sorooshian A, Goudarzi G, Nikfal A, Baneshi MM (2016)
Temporal profile of PM10 and associated health effects in one
of the most polluted cities of the world (Ahvaz, Iran) between
2009 and 2014. Aeolian Res 22:135–140
McGowan H, Clark A (2008) Identification of dust transport path-
ways from Lake Eyre, Australia using Hysplit. Atmos Environ
42:6915–6925
Middleton N (2017) Desert dust hazards: a global review. Aeolian
Res 24:53–63
Moridnejad A, Karimi N, Ariya PA (2015a) A new inventory for
Middle East dust source points. Environ Monit Assess 187:582
Moridnejad A, Karimi N, Ariya PA (2015b) Newly desertified
regions in Iraq and its surrounding areas: significant novel
sources of global dust particles. J Arid Environ 116:1–10
Namdari S, Karimi N, Sorooshian A, Mohammadi G, Sehat-
kashani S (2018) Impacts of climate and synoptic fluctuations
on dust storm activity over the Middle East. Atmos Environ
173:265–276
Notaro M, Alkolibi F, Fadda E, Bakhrjy F (2013) Trajectory
analysis of Saudi Arabian dust storms. J Geophys Res Atmos
118:6028–6043
Prospero JM, Ginoux P, Torres O, Nicholson SE, Gill TE (2002)
Environmental characterization of global sources of atmos-
pheric soil dust identified with the Nimbus 7 Total Ozone
Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) absorbing aerosol product. Rev
Geophys 40(1):1002. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2000R​G0000​95
13

174
Rashki A, Arjmand M, Kaskaoutis D (2017) Assessment of dust
activity and dust-plume pathways over Jazmurian Basin, south-
east Iran. Aeolian Res 24:145–160
Salmabadi H, Saeedi M (2018) Determination of the transport routes
of and the areas potentially affected by ­SO 2 emanating from
Khatoonabad copper smelter (KCS), Kerman province, Iran
using HYSPLIT. Atmos Pollut Res. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apr.2018.08.008
Shahsavani A et al (2012) Characterization of ionic composition of
TSP and PM 10 during the Middle Eastern Dust (MED) storms
in Ahvaz, Iran. Environ Monit Assess 184:6683–6692
Sotoudeheian S, Salim R, Arhami M (2016) Impact of Middle
Eastern dust sources on PM10 in Iran: highlighting the impact
of Tigris-Euphrates basin sources and Lake Urmia desicca-
tion. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:14018–14034. https​: //doi.
org/10.1002/2016J​D0251​19
13
International Journal of Environmental Research (2019) 13:161–174
Stein A, Draxler RR, Rolph GD, Stunder BJ, Cohen M, Ngan F
(2015) NOAA’s HYSPLIT atmospheric transport and dispersion
modeling system. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96:2059–2077
Su L, Yuan Z, Fung JC, Lau AK (2015) A comparison of HYSPLIT
backward trajectories generated from two GDAS datasets. Sci
Total Environ 506:527–537
Xin Y, Wang G, Chen L (2016) Identification of long-range transport
pathways and potential sources of PM10 in Tibetan Plateau uplift
area: case study of Xining, China in 2014. Aerosol Air Qual Res
16:1044–1054
Yu Y, Notaro M, Kalashnikova OV, Garay MJ (2016) Climatology of
summer Shamal wind in the Middle East. J Geophys Res Atmos
121:289–305