Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.
Advertisements

N emissions and the changing landscape of air quality Rob Pinder US EPA Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
Biocomplexity Project: N-deposition Model Evaluation UCR, CE-CERT, Air Quality Modeling Group Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains.
Preliminary Results CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM with SAPRC99 Gail Tonnesen, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, UC Riverside Max Zhang, Tony Wexler, UC Davis Ralph Morris,
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.
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)
METO 637 Lesson 15. Polar meteorology In the winter months the poles are in perpetual darkness. This causes extremely cold temperatures in the stratosphere.
CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.
This Week—Tropospheric Chemistry READING: Chapter 11 of text Tropospheric Chemistry Data Set Analysis.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Operational Air Quality and Source Contribution Forecasting in Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang.
CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.
The Sensitivity of Aerosol Sulfate to Changes in Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds Ariel F. Stein Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania.
Application of synoptic typing to an investigation of nocturnal ozone concentration at a maritime location, New Zealand B. A. Khan 1, C.R. de Freitas 1.
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.
Beta Testing of the SCICHEM-2012 Reactive Plume Model James T. Kelly and Kirk R. Baker Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards US Environmental Protection.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.
A Modeling Investigation of the Climate Effects of Air Pollutants Aijun Xiu 1, Rohit Mathur 2, Adel Hanna 1, Uma Shankar 1, Frank Binkowski 1, Carlie Coats.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
Examination of the impact of recent laboratory evidence of photoexcited NO 2 chemistry on simulated summer-time regional air quality Golam Sarwar, Robert.
WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.
Tore Flatlandsmo Berglen EACE workshop June 2007 Air quality, ozone and aerosols in Asia. A model study Tore Flatlandsmo Berglen 1,2, Terje K. Berntsen.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 Source Apportionment Modeling Results and RMC Status report Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA)
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.
WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,
Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON International Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center Overview of WRAP Regional Haze Modeling Activities.
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
The GEOS-CHEM Simulation of Trace Gases over China Li ZHANG and Hong LIAO Institute of Atmospheric Physics Chinese Academy of Sciences April 24, 2008.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Classificatory performance evaluation of air quality forecasting in Georgia Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang 2 and Armistead G. Russell.
Model & Chemistry Intercomparison CMAQ with CB4, CB4-2002, SAPRC99 Ralph Morris, Steven Lau, Bongyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation Gail Tonnesen,
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation with the.
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
10-11 October 2006HYMN kick-off TM3/4/5 Modeling at KNMI HYMN Hydrogen, Methane and Nitrous oxide: Trend variability, budgets and interactions with the.
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ I. Results from the 2003 Release II. Plans for the 2004 Release Model Evaluation Team Members Prakash Bhave, Robin Dennis,
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
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.
New Features of the 2003 Release of the CMAQ Model Jonathan Pleim 1, Gerald Gipson 2, Shawn Roselle 1, and Jeffrey Young 1 1 ASMD, ARL, NOAA, RTP, NC 2.
Yunseok Im and Myoseon Jang
Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
___________________________________________________________________________CMAQ Basics ___________________________________________________Community Modeling.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at Riverside Data Needs for Evaluation of Radical and.
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.
Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.
METO 621 CHEM Lesson 4. Total Ozone Field March 11, 1990 Nimbus 7 TOMS (Hudson et al., 2003)
MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.
Visualizing Winter Nitrate Formation Using CMAQ Process Analysis Charles Stanier – University of Iowa CENTER FOR.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of.
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.
Uncertainties in isoprene-NO x -O 3 chemistry: Implications for surface ozone over the eastern United States TEMP PAR Leaf Area ISOPRENE + NO x  O 3 Arlene.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Evaluations of CMAQ Simulations in southern Taiwan
Andrea Fraser DIAC PhD student Supervised by Prof. H ApSimon
Recent Changes in Eastern U.S. Forests: Implications for Air Quality
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Presentation transcript:

Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N 2 O 5 Chemistry in Two Versions of CMAQ Chao-Jung Chien, Gail S. Tonnesen, Bo Wang, Zion S. Wang and Mohammad Omary OVERVIEW The impact of tropospheric dinitrogen pentoxide (N 2 O 5 ) on the global distribution of nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O 3 ) and hydroxyl radical (OH) has been well recognized (Dentener et al. JGR, v101, p.22869, 1996). Gaseous N 2 O 5 reacts with water to form nitric acid (HNO 3 ) both in the gas phase and on surfaces (reactions and ). While the reaction of N 2 O 5 in the gas phase is relatively slow, with rate constant of ~ cm 3 molecule -1 s -1, it has been shown the heterogeneously hydrolyzed N 2 O 5 could release up to 70% of HNO3 into the gas phase (Wahner et al., JGR., v.103, p.31103, 1998). N 2 O 5 + H 2 O  2 HNO 3 N 2 O 5 + H 2 O (aerosol)  2 HNO 3 US EPA has recently released its latest version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system in June, Unlike the previous version (released in March, 2001, v.0301) which treats hydrolysis of N 2 O 5 exclusively in the gas phase, the new release (v.0602) includes heterogeneous conversion of N 2 O 5 to HNO 3 on aerosol surfaces. In this study, we evaluate CMAQ performance against available ambient measurements, and compare the contributing chemical processes using process analysis for both versions of CMAQ. Other major reactions ( and ) that convert NOx to HNO 3, the major sink for reactive NOx, are also examined. OH + NO 2  HNO 3 VOC + NO 3  RO 2 + HNO 3 CONCLUSIONS New CMAQ shows more overproduction of nitrate than previous version in both January and July. Time-series plots for each reaction indicate diurnal changes for each processes: dominant nighttime production of HNO 3 from heterogeneous conversion of N 2 O 5. Nocturnal heterogeneous conversion of N 2 O 5 to HNO 3 on aerosols accounts for up to 70% and 30% of the diurnal HNO 3 formation for New CMAQ in January and July, respectively (generally consistent with Dentener et al.). New CMAQ model performance is worse. It is uncertain whether the new N 2 O 5 chemistry is wrong or if errors in other model inputs or ambient data are responsible for the poor model performance. Method 1.Model description and comparisons: Modified rate constant for reaction in new CMAQ. Implementation of heterogeneous conversion of N 2 O 5 to nitric acid in new CMAQ (reaction ):  Based on studies by Dentener and Crutzen (JGR, v.98, p.7149, 1993): N 2 O 5 + H 2 O  2HNO 3 where k is the pseudo-first order reaction coefficient (s -1 ); r is the aerosol radius (cm); D g (cm 2 s -1 ) is the gas phase diffusion coefficient, calculated according to Fuller et al. (J. Phys. Chem., v.75, p.3679, 1969);  is the reaction probability on surface particles ( r =0.1 for N2O5); v is the mean molecular speed (cm s -1 ); and A is the aerosol surface, (cm 2 aerosol)/(cm3 air). RESULTS 3.Integrated reaction rate (IRR) analysis of two CMAQs: Comparing process analysis outputs from CMAQs in mass based units (moles) on cumulative results (each day or 14 days total) Codes modified in new CMAQ (aero_subs.f) to extract information of HNO3 production from heterogeneous conversion of N 2 O 5. 2.CMAQ Simulations: WRAP domain: 85 columns, 95 rows, 18 layers, 36km grid cells horizontally; 68 variables Meteorology: MM simulation, processed with MCIP v.2 Modeling period: January: July: (Julian dates ) Spin-up periods Jan 1-13 & July 1-17 k aerosol 2.Model Evaluation with Ambient Database Database:  IMPROVE: 49 stations in January and July, 1996  CASTNET: 25 stations in July, 1996 (limited data in January) CMAQ species:  ANO 3 (IMPROVE, CASTNET), HNO 3 (CASTNET), Total nitrates (CASTNET) Scatter plots  AllSites_AllDays (Figures)  Statistical analysis: Regression (r-squared), Mean normalized bias (MNB%) and error (MNE%) Model predictions vs. IMPROVE for Aerosol NO3 in JanuaryModel predictions vs. IMPROVE for Aerosol NO3 in July Model predictions vs. CASTNET for Gaseous HNO3 in JulyModel predictions vs. CASTNET for total nitrate (ANO3+HNO3) in July Time series plots for major chemical pathways contributing to HNO 3 production. Summary of total HNO 3 production for full domain on each day and for both versions of CMAQ IRR total HNO 3 production summed for full domain and all days for both versions of CMAQ. Difference in HNO 3 production between conversion of N 2 O 5 from New CMAQ (gas + aerosol phases) and Old CMAQ (gas phase only). Plots are cumulative for one day in January and July. Jan.July Jan.July Emissions processing: SMOKE: Mobil: version D; Area, Point, Biogenic: version E CCTM modules: QSSA with Process Analysis (Procan) Chem: CB-IV with aqueous and aerosol extensions: CB4_AE2_AQ (old CMAQ) vs. CB4_AE3_AQ (new CMAQ) 1.Difference plots in mixing ratio (ppbv) between new and old CMAQs for model species: O 3, HNO 3, and aerosol nitrate (ANO 3 ) in both January and July. Old New Old New