COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND MODELED SOLAR EUV FLUX AND ITS EFFECT ON THE E-F1 REGION IONOSPHERE

The response of the E-F1 region ionosphere to different solar EUV flux models is investigated theoretically using two different photochemical schemes, and the results are compared with incoherent scatter radar electron density measurements taken at Millstone Hill. The latest EUV flux model (Tobiska, 1991), which incorporates more recent measurements, has generally more flux at short wavelengths compared to the Hinteregger et al. (1981) flux model based on AE-E satellite data. This results in better agreement with the measurements in the E-F1 region and above. The Tobiska flux model, however, gives a smaller E' region peak density, due to the influence of low Lyman beta flux in the November 10, 1988, rocket measurements of Woods and Rottman (1990). The photochemical scheme of Buonsanto (1990) has been improved and now gives results similar to the more comprehensive scheme of (Solomon et al., 1988; Solomon and Abreu, 1989; S. C. Solomon and R. G. Roble, Simulation of the global thermospheric airglow, 1, Methodology, submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, 1992), provided that the ratios of photoelectron impact ionization to photoionization (pe/pi) given by this latter model are included. The pe/pi ratios calculated by this model and by the models of Lilensten et al. (1989) and Richards and Torr (1988) differ significantly, and work is needed to resolve these differences. In general, the photochemical model results underestimate the data, especially in winter. This result agrees with that of the earlier paper by Buonsanto and could be resolved by decreasing MSIS-86 N2 and O2 densities in winter if additional ions were produced in the E region either by photoionization or by photoelectron impact ionization. The photoionization and photoabsorption cross sections of Conway (1988) give results in somewhat better agreement with observations than the cross sections of Torr et al. (1979). For the zenith angles considered (daytime conditions), the Chapman function method for calculating photoabsorption gives results in satisfactory agreement with a more rigorous calculation method using a formula from Rees (1989).