PM mapping in Scotland, 2007 Andrew Kent. What are we presenting today? 1) Context to the work 2) Modelling process 3) Model results 4) Future work possibilities.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
Advertisements

Dispersion modelling work at Kings College London David Carslaw Environmental Research Group Kings College London.
UK feedback on Delta V3.0 Presented by: John Stedman, Daniel Brookes, Keith Vincent, Emily Connolly 10 April 2013.
Chemical speciation of PM and mass closure David Green, Gary Fuller & Anja Tremper King’s College London.
S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 1 PM in Europe - State and past trends Emissions and concentration levels Steinar Larssen Norwegian Institute.
MODELLING FUTURE TRENDS IN URBAN NO2 TO 2020: and some questions arising Tim Oxley Helen ApSimon Ayman Elshkaki Tessa Lennartz -Walker UK National Focal.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
Model used in « Source Apportionment of Airborne Particulate Matter in the UK » [Stedman et al., Receptor modelling of PM 10 concentrations at a UK national.
P. D. Hien, V. T. Bac, N. T. H. Thinh Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission.
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.
Preparation of the guidelines for vehicle non-exhaust emission modelling of PM10 and PM2.5 in Latvia Aiga Kāla, Valts Vilnītis SIA Estonian, Latvian &
Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Imperial College London Friday, 23.
Markus Amann The RAINS model: Modelling of health impacts of PM and ozone.
Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.
Modelling urban pollution within the UK scale integrated assessment model, UKIAM Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
The use of the BelEUROS model for policy support at LNE TEMIS-workshop 8/9 October 2007 on behalf of: Mirka Van der Elst Flemish Ministry of the Environment,
WORKING GROUP I MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TFMM Workshop, Paris, 2006, Nov 29 –Dec 1.
1 Source apportionment of PM in the PCM model John Stedman 23 April 2010.
Particle pollution is linked to adverse health effects ~350,000 premature deaths a year within the EU are related to exposure to particulate matter (PM)
The robustness of the source receptor relationships used in GAINS Hilde Fagerli, EMEP/MSC-W EMEP/MSC-W.
10th EIONET Workshop on Air Quality Management and Assessment, Vilnius, October 2005 Air pollution at street level in European cities Nicolas Moussiopoulos,
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
Scottish Pollution Mapping Nicola Brophy
SOURCE APPORTIONMENT of PARTICULATE MATTER Imperial College 23 rd April 2010 APRIL:Air Pollution Research in London.
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
Angeliki Karanasiou Source apportionment of particulate matter in urban aerosol Institute of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection, Environmental.
Title Progress in the development and results of the UNIFIED EMEP model Presented by Leonor Tarrason EMEP/MSC-W 29 th TFIAM meeting, Amiens, France,
Nanoparticles from Road Vehicle Exhaust. An Artifact or a Reality? Background Current emission standards for motor vehicles are mass based. Properties.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) An Integrated Assessment Model for Fine Particulate Matter in Europe Markus Amann, M.
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Ricardo-AEA Yvonne Pang TFEIP/EIONET Annual Meeting - Projections Expert Panel 12 th May 2015 The UK Emissions Projections.
| Folie 1 Investigation of PM10 in Austria Vilnius, Wolfgang Spangl.
25 June 2009, London Impact significance in air quality assessment Application of EPUK criteria to road schemes?
The aim of this work was to create background and roadside maps of pollutant concentrations for Scotland and to compare these with similar maps created.
RAINS Review Review of the RAINS Integrated Assessment Model Contract with CAFE Dec Sept 2004.
Causes of Haze Assessment Update for Fire Emissions Joint Forum -12/9/04 Meeting Marc Pitchford.
| Folie 1 Assessment of Representativeness of Air Quality Monitoring Stations Geneva, Wolfgang Spangl.
Icfi.com April 30, 2009 icfi.com © 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved. AIR TOXICS IN MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA: A MONITORING AND MODELING STUDY WEBINAR:
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Attaining urban air quality objectives- links to transboundary air pollution Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated Assessment.
Improving Local Indicators Project 3 rd Consultation Workshop David Hume Chair of Project Board.
11 September 2015 On the role of measurements and modelling in Dutch air quality policies Guus Velders The Netherlands (RIVM)
Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman.
Senate department for urban development Unit IX D: air pollution and noise control, M. Lutz Integrating particulate matter Integrating particulate matter:
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
Evaluation of pollution levels in urban areas of selected EMEP countries Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov Meteorological Synthesizing Centre - East.
Impact of various emission inventories on modelling results; impact on the use of the GMES products Laurence Rouïl
Joint thematic session on B(a)P pollution: main activities and results
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
The science of urban air quality
SHERPA for e-reporting
Exposure to Air Pollution James Tate and Paul Seakins
C.N.R. Institute of Atmospheric Pollution
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
Alison Redington* and Derrick Ryall* Dick Derwent**
Assessment of Atmospheric PM in the Slovak Republic
Traffic related air pollution : total mass PM10 or Black Carbon (BC) as indicator ? Frans Fierens Scientific staff member of the Flemish Environment.
Correcting TEOM Measurements using the KCL Volatile Correction Model
PM modelling assessment in Northern Italy
TFMM PM Assessment Report
PM observations in Europe a review of AirBase information
EMEP case studies on HMs: State of the art
19th TFMM Meeting, Geneva May 3rd 2018
Summary: TFMM trends analysis
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ilyin I., Travnikov O., Varygina M.
WORK OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AIR QUALITY EXPERT GROUP (AQEG)
Presentation transcript:

PM mapping in Scotland, 2007 Andrew Kent

What are we presenting today? 1) Context to the work 2) Modelling process 3) Model results 4) Future work possibilities

Background 2004 Modelled concentrations for multiple pollutants for Scotland Scotland met data (RAF Leuchars) and Scotland calibration used Model performance no improvement on UK model Too few sites for robust calibration and verification 2005 Remodelling undertaken in hope that more sites would help Concluded that still more sites desireable 2006 No new modelling undertaken but assessed Scottish monitoring against UK model output Performance good

What did we do this year? Modelled PM only Take advantage of new Scottish monitoring campaign – genuine gravimetric PM for direct comparison with legislation Outputs PM 10 and PM 2.5 1x1 km background map Modelled concentrations for major road links Checked calibration performance Assessed outputs against objectives relevant to Scottish Government

Scottish monitoring Scottish Government funded expansion of monitoring campaign in 2007 Used Partisol analysers for daily gravimetric concentration PM sites PM sites Used to calibrate model

Modelling process Generalised description presented here Full details in annual report on UK AQ Archive: Particulate matter Complex pollutant Poorly understood Many components, each with a degree of uncertainty! Contributions to the annual mean model Point sources – big and small point sources Area sources – the largest contribution Long-range transport primary – TRACK model output Sea salt – the only ‘natural’ component in the model SOA – output from HARM model SIA – nitrate, sulphate, ammonium

Point sources Big pointsSmall points

Area sources Dispersed emissions calibrated against monitoring data 1x1km sector specific emission grids Emission footprint - Dispersion model output Invert matrix for dispersion kernel Dispersed using a kernel approach

Area source calibration PM 10 calibrationPM 2.5 calibration Slope of about 6! VCM corrected TEOM data

Area type kernels Formerly used 2 dispersion kernels Road traffic kernel Non-road traffic kernel Multiple calibrations for different land cover Large conurbations Elsewhere Now use multiple kernels for different area types single calibration Better describe dispersion over different terrain Less reliance on empirical relationship

Additional contributions Long range transport primary TRACK model Lagrangian statistical model 10x10km grid Secondary organic aerosol HARM/ELMO model (Lancaster University) Lagrangian model – changing compositions of air parcels en route to designated receptor sites Secondary inorganic aerosol 28 rural sites measuring sulphate, nitrate and ammonium Interpolating using Krigging on a 5x5km grid Split between fine and coarse fractions Fe and Ca rich dusts Emission not included in NAEI so formerly part of residual in model Distribution based on population and vehicle km travelled Sea salt Same method as SIA, using chloride measurements on a 5x5km grid Split between fine (27%) and coarse (73%) – from Harrison & Yin (2006), APEG (1999)

The background map Addition of … Big point sources Small point sources Calibrated area sources Sea salt Long range transport primary SOA Secondary inorganic aerosol Fe and Ca rich dusts

Roadside model Uses scaled emissions from NAEI attributed to each major urban road link in UK Roadside increment derived from roadside monitoring sites measured roadside concentration – modelled background concentration Calibration using roadside increment against traffic-flow adjusted emissions for each road link

Roadside model and calibration PM 10 calibrationPM 2.5 calibration

Calibration checking – background maps PM 2.5 backgroundPM 10 background

Calibration checking – road links PM 2.5 roadsidePM 10 roadside

Exceedences Assessment Model outputs interrogated to calculate exceedence statistics for area and population (from background model) road links and road length (from roadside model) Assessed model results against appropriate values

Exceedences PM 10 No background exceedences Roadside exceedences Scotland annual objective – exceeds over 4 zones Scotland daily mean objective – exceeds over 2 zones UK daily mean objective – no exceedences

Exceedences PM 2.5 No background exceedences Roadside exceedences Scotland 2010 objective – exceeds at 2 zones Scotland 2020 target value – no exceedences

Scotland daily mean objective

UK daily objective… for comparison

Maps - background PM 10 PM 2.5

Maps - roadside PM 10 PM 2.5

Background maps - difference PM 10 PM 2.5

Like pollutants examined in previous years – a Scotland-specific model provides mixed results Difference between Scotland-specific and UK models is not very large and is attributable to calibration rather than met variation Scotland-specific model results in generally lower PM 10 than UK model but are higher PM 2.5. This is due to the calibration factors derived from the monitoring data. Largest differences between models was across urban areas – probably due to greater urban representation in UK model than in Scotland-specific model (predominantly rural calibration) Conclusions

Will need discussion with and direction from Scottish Government No PM mapping possible for 2008 Recommend: Comparison of Scottish monitoring against UK model outputs – Scottish verification Interrogation of UK model outputs for values relevant to Scotland – Scotland AQS values, EU limit values. These will provide confidence in UK outputs for Scotland Help identify areas of exceedence for further policy focus and action Future work

? Questions…