Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

Constraining Anthropogenic Emissions of Fugitive Dust with Dynamic Transportable Fraction and Measurements Chapel Hill, NC October 22, 2009 Daniel Tong.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.
Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist EMEP Workshop – PM Measurement & Modeling April 22, 2004 Measurement Needs for Evaluating Model Calculations.
Angeliki Karanasiou Source apportionment of particulate matter in urban aerosol Institute of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection, Environmental.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence A Comparison of CMAQ Predicted Contributions.
Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
The Use of Source Apportionment for Air Quality Management and Health Assessments Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University Center for Air Resources Engineering.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.
Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist PM Model Performance Workshop February 10, 2004 Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data.
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.
Use of space-based tropospheric NO 2 observations in regional air quality modeling Robert W. Pinder 1, Sergey L. Napelenok 1, Alice B. Gilliland 1, Randall.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
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,
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source.
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.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
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.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston.
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.
1 Preliminary evaluation of the 2002 Base B1 CMAQ simulation: Temporal Analysis A more complete statistical evaluation, including diurnal variations, of.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.
Development and Initial Applications
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division Donna Schwede NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric.
Using Linked Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050 Chris Nolte, Alice Gilliland Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division,
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
7. Air Quality Modeling Laboratory: individual processes Field: system observations Numerical Models: Enable description of complex, interacting, often.
Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way Coupled System: Part II Jonathan.
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.
PREMAQ: A New Pre-Processor to CMAQ for Air Quality Forecasting Tanya L. Otte*, George Pouliot*, and Jonathan E. Pleim* Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S.
IMPROVE/STN Comparison & Implications for Visibility and PM2.5
CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches
Using the MODIS Rapid Response Fire Products to Refine the Wildland Fire Emission Estimates Biswadev Roy1, Alice Gilliland1*, Thomas Pierce1*, Steve Howard1*,
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
Emerging Science EPA’s ORD Supports Regional Haze Program
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ
Innovations in projecting emissions for air quality modeling
Source Apportionment of PM2.5 With CMB8
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.
JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
Update on 2016 AQ Modeling by EPA
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,
Presentation transcript:

Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ Adam H. Reff1, David C. Wong1,2, Shawn Roselle1,2, Prakash V. Bhave1,2 1U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 2On assignment from NOAA, Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Abstract Deleterious health effects are known to be associated with exposure to a number of metals present in PM2.5. Air quality models have historically been designed to simulate only the ionic and carbonaceous fractions of PM2.5, with the remaining mass treated as an inert species. In this work, we created a new version of the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model capable of tracking 94 source-specific fractions of the POA, PEC, and PMFINE aerosol species. A recently developed emissions inventory of PM2.5 trace elements was then input to this new CMAQ model, which, when combined with post-processing of the source-specific portions of PMFINE, allowed us to simulate concentrations of a suite of 42 PM2.5 species and trace elements across the eastern U.S. for what we believe is the first time. In addition, this new version of CMAQ also provides source contributions to each of the simulated PM2.5 species, providing a new source apportionment tool to complement other approaches such as positive matrix factorization (PMF) and chemical mass balance (CMB). In this work, we present some results from an 18 day run of the new CMAQ model for the time period from 5/29/2004 to 6/15/2004. Resulting predictions are evaluated against measurements made at the Allen Park Speciation Trends Network (STN) site, and suggest a range of model biases across PM2.5 species. A comparison of the source composition of emissions and ambient concentrations indicates that the relative contributions of emissions in the inventory are not able to serve as a surrogate for the impact on ambient concentrations. All of these results are preliminary, and further evaluation will be performed using results from a full 90 day run that will be performed upon completion of CMAQ source code debugging. The results of the full simulation will be used to enhance the analysis and interpretation of EPA’s Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS). 3. Evaluation of CMAQ Output 4. Source Apportionment of Detroit Concentrations Left-most column of numbers in the table at right shows mean concentrations from the 18-day (5/29/04 – 6/15/04) simulation using the speciated source apportionment version of CMAQ. The columns on the right show mean concentration measurements and method detection limits (MDL) from the same 18 day period for samples collected by the Speciation Trends Network. All data are from the Allen Park STN sampling site in Detroit, MI Good agreement can be seen for crustal species such as Al, Ca, Si and Ti, as well as EC Elements with typically low concentrations such as Ba, Sn fell below MDL in both the model and measurements. Modeled SO4, NO3, NH4, and OC exhibited large discrepancies with observations The simulated time period was only 18 days, so results are preliminary to a more thorough spatial and temporal analysis Plots at right compare the source breakdown of V emissions and ambient concentrations from CMAQ Data comes from an 18 day run (5/29/04 – 6/15/04) Concentrations are time-averaged from the gridcell containing the Allen Park (Detroit) STN Monitor Emissions are totaled from the 43x43 grid-cell block containing the Detroit MSA These graphs illustrate how the source breakdowns of emissions do not necessarily predict the source breakdowns of concentrations: The contribution of the Agricultural Soil source category to emissions is greater than the contribution to ambient concentrations The contributions of Residual Oil Combustion and Catalytic Cracking source categories to ambient concentrations are substantially larger than their contributions to emissions 1. Emissions Preparation 297 profiles were selected from the EPA SPECIATE database for speciating PM2.5 emissions and concentrations, assigned to source categories, and composited Plot at right shows the distribution of profiles assigned to the Unpaved Road Dust category Medians were used for speciation to minimize outlier influence PM2.5 emissions in the 2001 NEI were obtained from the Sparse Matrix Operating Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) system at the source category code (SCC) level of specificity SCCs were classified into the same source categories as SPECIATE profiles Figure at left schematically illustrates the iterative compositing and mapping process N = 20 2. Instrumenting CMAQ for PM2.5 Source Apportionment 5. Conclusions and Future Directions Selenium Silicon CMAQ v4.6 simulates concentrations of 5 primary aerosol species: PSO4, PNO3, POA, PEC, PMFINE Figure at right below demonstrates the process followed for this work: SMOKE was used to allocate total PM2.5 into each of the 94 source categories using the SCC mapping from Step 1 Each of the 94 PM2.5 fractions was further split into the 5 primary aerosol species using COMBINE CMAQ source code was expanded to process all 94 fractions of each of PEC, POA, and PMFINE PSO4 and PNO3 were not tracked, so source-specific fractions were summed to give usual totals COMBINE was used to speciate CMAQ output into organic species and trace elements Maps at right display concentrations of PM2.5 metals from a 18 day simulation Modeling Details: Chemical mechanism = SAPRC99, Domain = Eastern U.S., 12 km grids A PM2.5 source & species specific version of CMAQ v4.6 has been developed and a preliminary 18 day run has been performed A preliminary evaluation suggests that the performance of this new CMAQ model will vary considerably among species, and this is expected to yield new insights into performance issues of the base model The source apportionment capabilities have shown that the impact of emissions on ambient concentrations and exposures do not necessarily follow from their relative importance in the inventory Next Steps: Finalize debugging to eliminate small differences in total PMFINE (~ 3 mg/m3) between Base and Source Apportionment CMAQ models Perform a 90 day simulation upon completion of debugging Calculate and evaluate Organic PM2.5 Species Compare simulated concentrations against DEARS outdoor residential measurements Predict DEARS exposures and indoor concentrations and evaluation against measurements Base Case CMAQ Processing of PM2.5 Source Apportionment Case Processing of PM2.5 Disclaimer The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW13921548. This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.