Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Tale of Two Extremes: Contrasting NH 3 at the Bakersfield and Pasadena Supersites Jennifer Murphy Milos Markovic Trevor VandenBoer Raluca Ellis Department.
Advertisements

An Investigation of Ammonia and Inorganic Particulate Matter in California during the CalNex Campaign AGU Fall Meeting 5 December 2012 Luke D. Schiferl,
COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
Modification of Network Sampling Systems for Measurement of NH 3 Derek Day, Misha Schurman, Katie Beam, Jeff Collett, William Malm MOTIVATION Ammonia (NH.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.
Improving the Representation of Atmospheric Chemistry in WRF William R. Stockwell Department of Chemistry Howard University.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
1 Modelling Activities at LAC (PSI) in Switzerland Ş. Andreani-Aksoyo ğ lu, J. Keller, I. Barmpadimos, D. Oderbolz, A.S.H. Prévôt Laboratory of Atmospheric.
4-km AIRPACT vs 12-km AIRPACT Both with dynamic boundary conditions from MOZART-4 Figures created on 5/29/2011 (corrected corrupted JPROC input file)
CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Does ozone model performance vary as a function of synoptic meteorological type? Pat Dolwick, Christian Hogrefe, Mark Evangelista, Chris Misenis, Sharon.
Trends in the Wet and Dry Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur Species
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
1 1 Model studies of some atmospheric aerosols and comparisons with measurements K. G e o r g i e v I P P – B A S, S o f i a, B u l g a r i a.
PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,
Modeling Aerosol Formation and Transport in the Pacific Northwest with the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Susan M. O'Neill Fire.
Comparison of three photochemical mechanisms (CB4, CB05, SAPRC99) for the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model for O 3 during the 2004 ICARTT study Shaocai.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
MRPO Nitrate and Organic Speciation Special Studies Donna Kenski National RPO Technical Meeting Dallas, Dec. 3-4, 2002.
Annual Simulations of Models-3/CMAQ: Issues and Lessons Learned Pat Dolwick, Carey Jang, Norm Possiel, Brian Timin, Joe Tikvart Air Quality Modeling Group.
Utah Wintertime PM2.5 Modeling Lance Avey Utah Division of Air Quality.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.
PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.
WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,
EANET activities and the applicability to model development Kazuhide Matsuda ADORC.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
A detailed evaluation of the WRF-CMAQ forecast model performance for O 3, and PM 2.5 during the 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS study Shaocai Yu $, Rohit Mathur +,
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Time-Resolved & In-Depth Evaluation of PM and PM Precursors using CMAQ Robin L. Dennis Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S. EPA/ORD:NOAA/ARL PM Model Performance.
Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada M. Lepage, J.W. Boulton, X. Qiu and M. Gauthier RWDI AIR Inc. C. di Cenzo Environment Canada, P&YR.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MADRID: A NEW AEROSOL MODULE IN MODELS-3/CMAQ Yang Zhang*, Betty Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shiang-Yuh Wu and Christian.
Extending Size-Dependent Composition to the Modal Approach: A Case Study with Sea Salt Aerosol Uma Shankar and Rohit Mathur The University of North Carolina.
Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman.
Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division October 21, 2009 Evaluation of CMAQ.
Evaluation of CMAQ Driven by Downscaled Historical Meteorological Fields Karl Seltzer 1, Chris Nolte 2, Tanya Spero 2, Wyat Appel 2, Jia Xing 2 14th Annual.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
Photochemical grid model estimates of lateral boundary contributions to ozone and particulate matter across the continental United States Kirk Baker U.S.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 CAMx Model Performance Evaluation University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)
Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.
W. T. Hutzell 1, G. Pouliot 2, and D. J. Luecken 1 1 Atmospheric Modeling Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling.
A Comparison Study of CMAQ Aerosol Prediction by Two Thermodynamic Modules: UHAERO V.S. ISORROPIA Case study for January 2002 episode Fang-Yi Cheng 1,
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.
Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain Data Warehouse (IWDW) Model Performance Evaluation CAMx and CMAQ 2011b University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)
BACKGROUND AEROSOL IN THE UNITED STATES: NATURAL SOURCES AND TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION Daniel J. Jacob and Rokjin J. Park with support from EPRI, EPA/OAQPS.
Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.
ADAGIO (Atmospheric Deposition Analysis Generated by optimal Interpolation from Observations): Project plans and status A.S. Cole1, A. Robichaud2, M.D.
Donna Kenski Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, Des Plaines, IL
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
CMAS Annual Conference, October 24-26, 2016, Chapel Hill, NC
Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D.
Nitrogen Deposition: Measurement Techniques and Field Studies
Photochemical Model Performance and Consistency
Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan
7th Annual CMAS Conference
Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA
Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 Estimated 8-hr Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations Kirk Baker Donna Kenski Lake Michigan.
Presentation transcript:

Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the Central and Eastern United States Kirk Baker October 2006 Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium University of Illinois - Chicago

Ammonia Monitor Network 9 rural and 1 urban (MI) Measure SO4, SO2, NH4, NH3, NO3, HNO3 24-hr average sample every 6 days Samples at most sites use URG manual Data collected and validated for entire year of 2004

Horizontal Grid Domains Meteorological Domain 36 km Photochemical Domain 36 km Vertical atmosphere up to 100 mb (~15 km) is modeled with 16 layers Most vertical layer resolution is in the boundary layer

Photochemical Model The emissions are based on 2002 emission inventories developed for O3/PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (2004 biogenics) Boundary and initial concentrations are monthly averages from a global photochemical model simulation (GEOS-CHEM model) MM5 v3.6.X CAMx 4.30: mechanism 4; CB4+ gas-phase; ISORROPIA inorganic; RADM aqueous phase Snow cover; palmer drought index; BELD3 landuse

Model Performance Metrics Metrics consistent with EPA modeling guidance: –Bias –Error –Fractional Bias –Fractional Error –r 2 Model performance using daily average measurements: SO2, SO4, NH3, NH4, NO3, HNO3 Bias Error Fractional Bias Fractional Error

SO2 SO4 NH3 NH4 HNO3 NO3

NH3 PM2.5 NH4 NHX Fractional Bias (%)

SO2 PM2.5 SO4 Fractional Bias (%) SO2+ PM2.5 SO4

HNO3 PM2.5 NO3 Fractional Bias (%) HNO3+ PM2.5 NO3

Fractional Bias (%) by Site

SO2 HNO3 Monthly average HNO3 and SO2 concentrations at 24 Midwest CASTNET stations (blue dots) CASTNET samples are 7 day averages No cyclone inlet at CASTNET monitor so concentrations should be a little higher CASTNET stations are clustered around the Ohio Valley

The DON (degree of sulfate neutralization) is estimated to determine if sulfate is completely acidic, totally neutralized, or in- between: DON=2 indicates ammonium sulfate; DON=1 indicates ammonium bisulfate; DON=0 indicates particulate sulfuric acid Eliminated data where DON>3 and DON<0 for these plots An indicator of whether PM2.5 nitrate ion formation is limited by the availability of nitric acid or ammonia is the excess ammonia indicator (EA) (Blanchard et al., 2000) Excess Ammonia (µmoles) = [NH3] + [NH4] – 2*[SO4] – [NO3] – [HNO3] When EA<0 then PM2.5 ammonium nitrate formation is ammonia limited When EA>0 then PM2.5 ammonium nitrate formation is nitric acid limited

Model SO4 tends to be fully neutralized much more often than observations Model tends to be more ammonia limited than the observations Model performance for DON (left) and excess ammonia (right)

Remarks PM2.5 SO4, NO3, and NH4 ion performance good Pre-cursor species are well estimated, but not as well as the PM2.5 ions Is HNO3 under-measured, over-predicted, or both? SO2 is systematically over-predicted, but SO4 is well estimated by the model NH3 is under-predicted in the winter Model and observations agree that these sites tend to be limited by HNO3 in PM2.5 ammonium nitrate formation Sulfate is usually fully neutralized in the model which does not always agree well with observation data

Model-Observation and co-located observation error (ug/m 3 ) and fractional error (%) metrics

Wet Deposition (kg/km 2 ) – NADP sites SO 4 = NO 3 - NH 4 +

Quarter 4 Seasonal Average Difference Plot: SO2MOD-BASE Model predictions with SO2 deposition velocity*2 (red) and without (blue) SO2 & SO4 performance metrics SO2SO4