Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Sounds and Other Water Bodies O. Russell Bullock, Jr. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (On assignment to the.
Advertisements

Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
Air Pollution and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Shannon Capps April 22, Mercury cycling From
MODELING CHEMICALLY REACTIVE AIR TOXICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA USING CAMx Chris Emery, Greg Yarwood and Ed Tai ENVIRON International Corporation.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009.
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
Proposed Aerosol Treatment for CAM4 Steve Ghan, Richard Easter, Xiaohong Liu, Rahul Zaveri Pacific Northwest National Laboratory precursor emissions coagulation.
Atmospheric modelling activities inside the Danish AMAP program Jesper H. Christensen NERI-ATMI, Frederiksborgvej Roskilde.
METO 621 Lesson 24. The Troposphere In the Stratosphere we had high energy photons so that oxygen atoms and ozone dominated the chemistry. In the troposphere.
Ultrafine Particles and Climate Change Peter J. Adams HDGC Seminar November 5, 2003.
METO 637 Lesson 16.
Atmospheric Mercury Simulation with CMAQ Version Russ Bullock - NOAA Air Resources Laboratory* Kathy Brehme - Computer Sciences Corp. 5 th Annual.
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.
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.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER 1 Lecture 2: Aerosol sources and sinks Ken Carslaw.
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.
WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Biosphere/Atmosphere Interactions in the Tropics.
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.
Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
Sensitivity Evaluation of Gas-phase Reduction Mechanisms of Divalent Mercury Using CMAQ-Hg in a Contiguous US Domain Pruek Pongprueksa a, Che-Jen Lin a,
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.
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.
Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.
Model & Chemistry Intercomparison CMAQ with CB4, CB4-2002, SAPRC99 Ralph Morris, Steven Lau, Bongyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation Gail Tonnesen,
Evaluation of sulfate simulations using CMAQ version 4.6: The role of cloud Chao Luo 1, Yuhang Wang 1, Stephen Mueller 2, and Eladio Knipping 3 1 Georgia.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation with the.
An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.
Jonathan Pleim 1, Shawn Roselle 1, Prakash Bhave 1, Russell Bullock 1, William Hutzell 2, Deborah Luecken 2, Chris Nolte 1, Golam Sarwar 2, Ken Schere.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division Photo image area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,
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.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
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.
Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:
Office of Research and Development | National Exposure Research Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling and Analysis Division |Research Triangle Park,
Simulation of the indirect radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols by the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model over the continental United States: Preliminary.
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.
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)
Chien Wang Massachusetts Institute of Technology A Close Look at the Aerosol-Cloud Interaction in Tropical Deep Convection.
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.
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,
Understanding the impact of isoprene nitrates and OH reformation on regional air quality using recent advances in isoprene photooxidation chemistry Ying.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way Coupled System: Part II Jonathan.
CONSTRAINTS FROM RGM MEASUREMENTS ON GLOBAL MERCURY CHEMISTRY Noelle Eckley Selin 1 Daniel J. Jacob 1, Rokjin J. Park 1, Robert M. Yantosca 1, Sarah Strode,
SAPRC07T Implementation within the CMAQ model.
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
Impacts of Dust Mixing State on Cloud Microphysics
A model of sea salt aerosol for Cape Grim Preliminary investigations
Performance of CMAQ for Inorganic Aerosol Compounds in Greater Tokyo
Policy-driven priorities for improvements to the CMAQ photochemical modeling system Heather Simon, Kristen Foley, Sharon Phillips, Norm Possiel, Shawn.
Impact on Recent North American Air Quality Forecasts of Replacing a Retrospective U.S. Emissions Inventory with a Projected Inventory Michael Moran1,
Stephen Mueller & Jonathan Mallard Tennessee Valley Authority
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
7th Annual CMAS Conference
Particle formation and growth
CMAQ model as a tool for generating input data for HM and POP modeling
Atmospheric modelling of HMs Sensitivity study
Presentation transcript:

Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7 William T. Hutzell, Shawn J. Roselle, Annmarie G. Carlton, and O. Russell Bullock Atmospheric Modeling Division US EPA November 28, 2018

Background: Multi-Pollutant Model Developed to simulate criteria and hazardous air pollutants in a single modeling study examine co-benefits of emission reductions over multiple interest O3, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Roselle et al. (2007) presented a prototype of the Multi-Pollutant Model mechanism called CB05TXHG_AE4_AQ Based on CB05 mechanisms for mercury and other HAPs in CMAQ version 4.6

Multi-Pollutant Model in version 4.7 Updates prototype in Roselle et al (2007) photochemical production of Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) aerosol physics for SOA and interactive coarse mode cloud chemistry of organic compounds and SOA In-calculations for dry deposition and emission processes New mechanism called CB05TXHG_AE5_AQ Specific settings needed to build and run the Multi-Pollutant model. Consult release notes on building and running the model.

Goals of this Presentation Describe major changes to new science options for Multi-Pollutant Model Present differences in predictions from CMAQ using CB05CL_AE5_AQ, the standard version Highlight differences in predictions from the prototype of the Multi-Pollutant Model

Gas Chemistry Adds to CB05CL_AE5_AQ the species and reactions for Hg compounds and other HAPs from CB05HG_AE4_AQ and CB05CLTX_AE4_AQ Two methods compute the chemical transformation of gas phase Hg and other HAPs One participates in ozone and radical photochemistry Other does not affect ozone and radical concentrations and serves as reactive tracers. Changes from CB05TXHG_AE4_AQ adds a new reaction, HG + CL → HGIIGAS This reaction should produce Hg(I) HGIIGAS redefined as reactive gaseous mercury i.e., Hg(I) + Hg(II). Hg(I) assumed to quickly convert into Hg(II) the oxidation process not explicitly represented

Aerosols Adds aerosol species representing mercury and other toxic metals They do not affect aerosol microphysics and deposition rates These aerosols species do coagulate and mode merge Mercury species differ from the other metallic aerosols photochemical source of particulate mercury goes directly into the accumulation mode assumes accumulation mode dominates condensation onto the three aerosol modes unlike version 4.6 where fine modes divided condensation based on their surface area

In-Cloud Chemistry Adds in-scavenging for mercury and other metallic aerosols. Adds cloud chemistry for atmospheric mercury Based on Bullock and Brehme (2002) Indirectly affects other aqueous species modifies the minimum time step used in the numerical solution when the mercury species have the fastest rate of change. mercury chemistry requires using the gas phase HO2, HOCl and Cl2 based on Lin et al. (1998). affects pH and ion balance in cloud droplets

In-Cloud Chemistry (cont.) Possible effects from changes change particulate sulfate wet deposition of HO2, HOCl and Cl2 can produce HOCl from clouds with low or no participation.

Inline Vertical Diffusion Aerosol emissions includes routines for particulate mercury and other metals Emissions includes source of Cl2 over open oceans. Set off by default Set on with the environment variable, CTM_CL2_SEAEMIS Source mimics implied heterogeneous production for sea salt aerosols (Spicer et al. 1998) Knipping and Dadbub (2002 and 2003) proposed a mechanism but not used reaction efficiencies are not well defined CB05CL_AE5_AQ does not include ClNO2 and ClONO2.

Comparison to Standard CMAQ, i.e.,CB05CL_AE5_AQ Using two weekly periods in January and July 2002 Domain covered Continental US grid cell had 36X36 km2 horizontal dimensions 14 vertical layers in s pressure coordinates Comparison used the weekly averages tile plots of differences from CB05CL_AE5_AQ, i.e., standard model scatter plots showing difference versus standard’s prediction

HOCl Higher HOCl production appears higher in January

Ozone Ozone higher in winter and correlate with HOCL but generally within the accuracy of the chemistry solver.

Impact of Ozone Difference: Benzene January’s ozone differences alter OH thereby Benzene

Particulate Sulfate January’s ozone differences also have small effect on sulfate production

Hg Changes between CB05TXHG version 4.6 and 4.7

Areas for further improvement Gas Phase Chemistry for Mercury explicitly representing products Oceanic Cl2 source representing heterogeneous production possible with the proposed SAPRC07 mechanism Bi-Directional Surface Flux for Mercury addressed science model release in version 4.7 see release notes by Jesse Bash Cloud chemistry does not include Cr(III) and Cr(VI) redox reactions Disclaimer: Although this work has been reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.