Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.
Advertisements

Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Natural Background Visibility Feb. 6, 2004 Presentation to VISTAS State Air Directors Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtn. National Park.
BRAVO - Results Big Bend Regional Aerosol & Visibility Observational Study Bret Schichtel National Park Service,
Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham.
Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;
1 Estimates of worst 20% natural condition deciview: application of the new IMPROVE algorithm and a revised statistical approach Rodger Ames, CIRA
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Integration of PMF Data into AoH Analyses AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.
Illumination Independent Aerosol Optical Properties n Extinction Scattering Absorption n Volume scattering function (phase) n Transmittance.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,
Effects of Pollution on Visibility and the Earth’s Radiation Balance John G. Watson Judith C. Chow Desert Research Institute Reno,
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.
Aerosol Extinction Assessment and Impact on Regional Haze Rule Implementation Douglas Lowenthal Desert Research Institute Pat Ryan Sonoma Technology, Inc.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
Incorporating Monitoring, Modeling, and EI Data into AoH Analysis AoH Meeting, Salt Lake City September 21-22, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Update on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural Conditions Estimates Tom Moore, WRAP Technical Coordinator May 23, 2006.
Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.
Properties of Particulate Matter Physical, Chemical and Optical Properties Size Range of Particulate Matter Mass Distribution of PM vs. Size: PM10, PM2.5.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
MANE-VU states, Virginia and West Virginia Regional Haze Trend Analyses Latest available (December 2011) IMPROVE DATA (for TSC 5/22/2012) Tom.
Jenny Hand CIRA Acadia National Park, ME Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
Brief Description of CALPUFF Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
AoH Conference Call October 8, 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION INFLUENCES ON AEROSOL CONCENTRATIONS AND VISIBILITY DEGRADATION IN THE UNITED STATES Rokjin J. Park, Daniel J. Jacob,
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction Draft Recommendations to the IMPROVE Steering Committee.
Natural Background Conditions: Items for discussion with the Inter-RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Naresh Kumar EPRI 5 March 2004.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia Sangil Lee.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.
Draft, 5 June NATURAL HAZE LEVELS SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 2. Critical Evaluation of Current Approach for Estimating Natural Conditions Ivar Tombach.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update Jin Xu. Update Visibility trends analysis (under revision) Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002 (modeling.
Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring Data Summary: Dust WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Properties of Particulate Matter
Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists,
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Source Contribution to PM 2.5 and Visibility Impairment in Two Class I Areas Using Positive Matrix Factorization Keith Rose EPA, Region 10 June 22, 2005.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
National Wildlife Refuge
Monitoring/Data Analysis Discussion Group June 10, 2005
Brian Timin- EPA/OAQPS
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL: suspension of condensed-phase particles in air
BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association
Attribution Of Haze Case Study for Nevada Jarbidge Wilderness Area
Using dynamic aerosol optical properties from a chemical transport model (CTM) to retrieve aerosol optical depths from MODIS reflectances over land Fall.
Proposed PM NAAQS and Regional Haze
AoH Phase 2 Update AoH Meeting – San Diego, CA January 25, 2006
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
Causes of Haze Assessment Brief Overview and Status Report
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Regional Haze Rule: Natural Conditions Concepts & Approaches
PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Species-Specific Data Trends
Presentation transcript:

Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc. Review of New IMPROVE Extinction Algorithm AoH Meeting – San Diego January 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.

Overview Review of proposed changes to the IMPROVE extinction algorithm Size fractions for sulfate/nitrate/carbon Effect of sea salt Comparison of aerosol vs. measured light scattering Comparison of old and new algorithm for selected WRAP sites

Old IMPROVE Algorithm Assumptions include that Six particle component terms plus a constant Rayleigh scattering term are sufficient for a good estimate of light extinction; Constant dry extinction efficiency terms for each of the six particle components works adequately for all locations and times; and Light extinction by the individual particle components can be adequately estimated as separate terms (like externally mixed components).

New or Revised Terms Variable extinction efficiencies and two additional f(RH) terms for sulfate, nitrate, and organic mass – a mixture of small and large particles is assumed Organic Compound Mass to Organic Carbon Mass Ratio changed from 1.4 to 1.8 Addition of Sea Salt = 1.8 x [Chloride] and has its own water growth term fSS(RH) Rayleigh Scattering is calculated for the monitoring site elevation and annual mean temperature and integer rounded. Ranges from 8 Mm-1 at 10,000’ to 12 Mm-1 at sea level Addition of NO2 light absorption in the visible is included for sites that have such data (not routinely available at IMPROVE sites)

New IMPROVE Algorithm where and nitrate and organic are split using the same process

Relative Humidity Enhancement Factors

Large/Small Species Fractions Ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and particulate organic matter are divided into “Small” and “Large” fractions: “Small” fraction extinction efficiency less than half that of “Large” fraction f(RH) for “Small” fraction slightly higher “Small” fraction dominates mass up to about 5 ug/m3 “Large” fraction dominates mass above about 12 ug/m3 Review of WRAP data shows that while high concentrations do occur, nearly all samples of these species are below 5 ug/m3

Large/Small Species Split Small fraction dominates Large fraction dominates

Distribution of Sulfate Concentrations

Distribution of Sulfate – Sequoia

Distribution of Sulfate – Agua Tibia

Distribution of Sulfate – Crater Lake

Distribution of Sulfate – Jarbidge

Distribution of Nitrate Concentrations

Distribution of Nitrate – Sequoia

Distribution of Nitrate – Agua Tibia

Distribution of Nitrate – Crater Lake

Distribution of Nitrate – Jarbidge

Distribution of Organic Mass Conc.

Distribution of OM – Sequoia

Distribution of OM – Agua Tibia

Distribution of OM – Crater Lake

Distribution of OM – Jarbidge

Review of IMPROVE Sea Salt Term Sea salt estimated from Chloride ion measurement, Chlorine can be used as a back up Review of 2004 data shows significant effect only at coastal sites Review of 2000 – 2004 data timelines shows problems with Chloride measurements prior to 2004, but Chlorine appears to be a reliable back up

Annual Avg. Chloride Mass, 2004

Chloride/Chlorine Mass Timelines Baseline\2004: median UNC ~ 0.04\0.006; median MDL ~ 0.07\0.01 Baseline: median UNC ~ <0.001; median MDL ~ 0.001

Chloride/Chlorine Mass Timelines Baseline\2004: median UNC ~ 0.04\0.006; median MDL ~ 0.07\0.01 Baseline: median UNC ~ <0.001; median MDL ~ 0.001

Chloride/Chlorine Mass Timelines Baseline\2004: median UNC ~ 0.08\0.05; median MDL ~ 0.07\0.01 Baseline: median UNC ~ <0.03; median MDL ~ 0.001

Estimated vs. Measured Light Scattering Nephelometers provide a direct measurement of particle light scattering (extinction without elemental carbon absorption and Rayleigh scattering terms) Comparison of estimated (aerosol) vs. measured (nephelometer) scattering possible at many IMPROVE sites Typically, the Old IMPROVE equation underestimates extinction on very dirty days and overestimates extinction on very clean days At most sites the New equation reduces this bias, though network-wide there is additional uncertainty Change more dramatic with dirtier sites Urban site (Phoenix) shows significant deviation from 1 to 1 line, may be due to poor characterization of urban haze, influence of NO2, or measurement errors Following slides taken from work done by NPS

Old IMPROVE Algorithm: Estimated vs Old IMPROVE Algorithm: Estimated vs. Observed Light Scattering for 21 Nephelometer Monitoring Sites

New IMPROVE Algorithm: Estimated vs New IMPROVE Algorithm: Estimated vs. Observed Light Scattering for 21 Nephelometer Monitoring Sites

Site Comparison – Grand Canyon ▲ Old Equ. ● New Equ.

Site Comparison – Gila Gila ▲ Old Equ. ● New Equ.

Site Comparison – Great Smoky Mtns. ▲ Old Equ. ● New Equ.

Site Comparisons – Pacific Northwest Snoqualmie Pass Mt. Rainier Columbia River Gorge Three Sisters

Site Comparisons – Southwest Sycamore Canyon Ike’s Backbone Phoenix Big Bend

Site Comparisons – Central Jarbidge Lone Peak

Summary of New Algorithm The New algorithm incorporates new terms to more completely account for haze, incorporates updated information, and reduces know biases Performance tests of the New algorithm show it reduces bias compared to the Old algorithm at the extremes it has as somewhat greater uncertainty that causes it to mis-select hazy days a little more frequently little sensitivity to which algorithm is used with regards to composition on the extreme days Following slides illustrate the difference between the 20% worst/best days calculated with the Old and New algorithm for selected sites

Selected Monitoring Locations

Comparison – 20% Worst Days, 2002

Comparison – 20% Worst Days, 2002

Comparison – 20% Best Days, 2002

Comparison – 20% Best Days, 2002

Implementation Steps for Regional Haze Rule Application IMPROVE Steering Committee has approved (12/05) Calculation of water growth functions for monthly & annual averaged conditions for each monitoring site has been completed (01/06) Recalculation of current (5-year baseline) and natural haze levels – VIEWS – by March ??? EPA modifies the regional haze guidance, so states can choose – 6 to 12 months VIEWS will support both versions of the algorithm for the foreseeable future