Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

VISTAS Modeling Overview May 25, 2004 Mt. Cammerer, Great Smoky Mtns. National Park.

Advertisements

Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 in the Southeastern US Sangil Lee 1, Yongtao Hu 1, Michael Chang 2, Karsten Baumann 2, Armistead (Ted) Russell 1 1 School.

Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of CMAQ with FAQS Episode of August 11 th -20 th, 2000 Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Maudood Khan and Armistead.

COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.

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

Quantifying CMAQ Simulation Uncertainties of Particulate Matter in the Presence of Uncertain Emissions Rates Wenxian Zhang, Marcus Trail, Alexandra Tsimpidi,

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

Organic Carbon and Elemental Carbon in Atlanta Area Chao Wu.

Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta

Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.

The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,

Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.

Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.

Operational Air Quality and Source Contribution Forecasting in Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang.

Plume-in-Grid Modeling for PM & Mercury Prakash Karamchandani, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shu-Yun Chen & Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 5th Annual CMAS.

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,

National/Regional Air Quality Modeling Assessment Over China and Taiwan Using Models-3/CMAQ Modeling System Joshua S. Fu 1, Carey Jang 2, David Streets.

Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.

Comparison of NO X emissions and NO 2 concentrations from a regional scale air quality model (CMAQ-DDM/3D) with satellite NO 2 retrievals (SCIAMACHY) over.

Remote Sensing and Modeling of the Georgia 2007 Fires Eun-Su Yang, Sundar A. Christopher, Yuling Wu, Arastoo P. Biazar Earth System Science Center University.

1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Formation and Emission Control Responses using High-order Sensitivities Di Tian,

Supermodel, Supermodel, Can I Breathe Tomorrow? Talat Odman* and Yongtao Hu Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil & Environmental Engineering.

On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.

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.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,

PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.

Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.

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:

PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.

CMAQ APPLICATION TO OZONE POLLUTION IN THE PEARL RIVER DELTA OF CHINA Wei Zhou 1,2,Yuanghang Zhang 1,Xuesong Wang 1,Daniel Cohan 2 1.College of Environmental.

Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.

Classificatory performance evaluation of air quality forecasting in Georgia Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang 2 and Armistead G. Russell.

Regional Modeling Joseph Cassmassi South Coast Air Quality Management District USA.

Impact of high resolution modeling on ozone predictions in the Cascadia region Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of.

Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.

Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.

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.

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Impacts of Ethanol Fuel on PM Concentrations in Northern California during a Winter Episode 1 Planning and Technical.

SEARCH & VISTAS Special Studies RPO National Technical Meeting St. Louis, MO November 5, 2003.

Effects of Emission Adjustments on Peak Ground-Level Ozone Concentration in Southeast Texas Jerry Lin, Thomas Ho, Hsing-wei Chu, Heng Yang, Santosh Chandru,

GOING FROM 12-KM TO 250-M RESOLUTION Josephine Bates 1, Audrey Flak 2, Howard Chang 2, Heather Holmes 3, David Lavoue 1, Mitchel Klein 2, Matthew Strickland.

1 Aika Yano, Yongtao Hu, M. Talat Odman, Armistead Russell Georgia Institute of Technology October 15, th annual CMAS conference.

Georgia Institute of Technology Comprehensive evaluation on air quality forecasting ability of Hi-Res in southeastern United States Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat.

Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

Evaluating temporal and spatial O 3 and PM 2.5 patterns simulated during an annual CMAQ application over the continental U.S. Evaluating temporal and spatial.

Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.

Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Mercury, Ozone, and Particulate Matter US EPA / OAQPS / AQAD / AQMG Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang,

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.

Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao.

Coupling a sub-grid scale plume model for biomass burns with adaptive grid CMAQ: part 2 Aika Yano Fernando Garcia-Menendez Yongtao Hu M. Talat Odman Gary.

Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston.

Sensitivity of PM 2.5 Species to Emissions in the Southeast Sun-Kyoung Park and Armistead G. Russell Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of PM.

Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.

Fine Scale Modeling of Ozone Exposure Estimates using a Source Sensitivity Approach Cesunica E. Ivey, Lucas Henneman, Cong Liu, Yongtao T. Hu, Armistead.

Georgia Institute of Technology Air Quality Impacts from Airport Related Emissions: Atlanta Case Study M. Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology School.

15th Annual CMAS Conference

RD Evaluation and Comparison OF Methods to Construct Air Quality Fields for Exposure Assessment haofei yu, jim mulholland, howard chang, ran huang,

Forecasting the Impacts of Wildland Fires

Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs

Analysis of Vertical Fire Emissions Distribution in CMAQ

Sensitivity Analysis of Ozone in the Southeast

Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, M. Talat Odman and Armistead G. Russell

J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

Georgia Institute of Technology

Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)

K. Baumann, M.E. Chang, V. Dookwah, S. Lee, A.G. Russell

Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,

Presentation transcript:

Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan Cobb, Amy Sullivan, Armistead G. Russell School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology CMAS conference, October 18 th, 2006 Acknowledgements: Eric S. Edgerton and John Jansen ARA and Southern Company

Background

Speciated particulate matter monitored at two sites in Georgia Tech's campus, 500m away from each other

Measurements at neighboring sites HYW and ROF Frequency: twice per day of 12-hr average compositions of PM2.5 for daytime (10am~10pm) and nighttime (10pm~10am). Items: ions, EC/OC, organic compounds and metals. Periods: Jun. 15~18, 2006 and Jan. 19~26, Findings: Compare two sites: ROF is cleaner; SO4 and NH4: no significant difference; NO3: ROF is higher, but both very low; EC and OC: HYW is significantly higher. Compare day and night: Higher percentage of OC at night; Higher percentage of SO4 during day.

Other PM2.5 composition monitors in Atlanta Met 1.3-km Grid - 56 km -

SEARCH stations: JST and YRK, hourly composition of PM2.5, as well as daily 24-hr averages ASACA stations: FTM, TUC, SDK, YGP, daily 24-hr average composition of PM2.5 STN site: South De Kalb (same location as SDK), every third day 24-hr average composition of PM2.5 Sampling frequency

Can CMAQ capture the observed gradient of the EC/OC concentration at the two closely neighboring sites? Can CMAQ capture the observed diurnal changes of PM2.5 and its components? Questions:

Objectives of this work Simulating PM2.5 speciation using CMAQ at very fine scale. Characterize emissions from freeway. Compare fine scale CMAQ results to observations using detailed speciation of organics and metals (just have EC/OC and ions for now). Next to freeway, nearby (500m), 2km away, within the region. Mutual calibration with receptor modeling results. Reconcile differences: Improve emission characterization, emissions distributions, dispersion, etc.

CMAQ v4.5 simulation Four nesting domains down to 1.3-km resolution. Thirteen vertical layers, first layer ~18 meters. Simulating summer episode currently: June 12-20, SAPRC99 mechanism plus aero4 module. MM5 and SMOKE provide meteorology and emission rate fields. OSU land surface model plus 4DDA (only for 36-km and 12-km grids) used in MM5. VISTAS 2002 emissions inventory projected to 2005, CEM data used for EGU sources.

Brute force sensitivity simulations sensitivity fields = air quality fields basecase - air quality fields reduced case 20 sensitivity runs

Modeling Domains 36-km 1.3-km 4-km 12-km

Basecase 1.3-km Grid Emissions NOx POAPEC CO

Simulated Spatial Distributions on 1.3-km Grid (basecase) O3 ECOCNO3 NH4SO4

First Concern: Is 1.3-km grid performance worse than coarse grid?

MM5 Performance: 1.3-km grid vs. other resolutions Compare with TDL hourly surface observations

Compare with Network measurements from: AIRNOW, STN, CASTNet (O 3 only), IMPROVE, SEARCH and ASACA CMAQ Performance: 1.3-km grid vs. other resolution

Further Concern: Is PM2.5 performance becoming worse when compared to measurements in higher temporal resolution?

1.3-km grid PM2.5 performance Compare with 24-, 12- and 1-hr measurements, respectively

Limited EC/OC gradient was captured between HYW and ROF HIGHWAY ROOF

EC Sensitivity results show a higher contribution from traffic emissions at HIWAY HIGHWAY ROOF Non-road EC Mobile EC

Diurnal Changes: captured OK for SO4, NH4 and EC, not OK for OC Jefferson Street (urban) Yorkville (rural)

OC performance: diurnal change Jefferson Street (urban) Yorkville (rural)

OC Sensitivity: does it make sense? Jefferson Street (urban) Yorkville (rural) BVOC OAPOA NPOA MPOA FPOA DPOA OAVOC OAPOA NPOA MPOA MNOX FPOA DPOA BVOC

Estimate Secondary OC from OC measurements When EC was well reproduced Assume Pri OC obs = Pri OC sim, then, we have SOA obs = OC obs - PriOC sim ROOF Yorkville Secondary OC was not captured by CMAQ, both mechanism and precursor emissions need improvements.

Summary Performance of 1.3-km grid is as good as other resolutions. This is encouraging. Limited EC/OC gradient was captured at neighboring sites. Link-base VMT is necessary to allocate the mobile emissions more accurately. Utilize modeled primary OC to split SOA from observed OC. With uncertainty. OC diurnal change was not captured. SOA prediction needs to be improved. Problems are from both mechanism and precursor emissions.

4-km grid PM2.5 performance Compare with 24-, 12- and 1-hr measurements, respectively

EC performance

SO4 performance