Development of Wildland Smoke Marker Emissions Maps for the Conterminous United States Leigh Patterson 06/15/09 M.S. Defense.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Black carbon aerosol in emissions from biomass burning in the laboratory and field G.R. McMeeking 1, J.W. Taylor 1, A.P. Sullivan 2, M.J. Flynn 1, S.K.

Advertisements

1st of 3 Part Training Series Christopher Woodall INTRODUCTION TO THE P2+ DOWN WOODY MATERIALS INDICATOR.

Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.

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.

Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.

Fire Modeling issues: fire effects on regional air quality under a changing climate Douglas G. Fox

RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta

Source apportionment of the carbonaceous aerosol – Quantitative estimates based on 14 C- and organic tracer analysis 1.Norwegian Institute for Air Research.

Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.

Recent Finnish PM studies / 2 examples. Characterizing temporal and spatial patterns of urban PM10 using six years of Finnish monitoring data Pia Anttila.

Improving Wildland Fire Models Mark Jarvis Supervisor: Dr. John Daily Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder Introduction.

Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham.

F.O.F.E.M. 5 First Order Fire Effects Module Adapted from: Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory Systems for Environmental Management.

Sample Analysis and Calculations Analyzing concentrations for FLAME and IMPROVE filters Levoglucosan and other sugars measured using High-Performance Anion.

VII. How might current analysis methods be enhanced or combined to obtain more information about the nature of OC, EC, and other carbon fractions in filter.

The Role of Aerosols in Climate Change Eleanor J. Highwood Department of Meteorology, With thanks to all the IPCC scientists, Keith Shine (Reading) and.

Introduction to Air Pollution John Atkinson and Dr. Mark Rood Environmental Engineering and Science Program Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Recent advances in understanding the characteristics, impacts, and fate of biomass burning emissions Sonia M. Kreidenweis Professor Department of Atmospheric.

System and Data Requirements for Fire and Air Planning Janice Peterson.

National Fire & Air Workshop January 28-30, 2003 Westward Look Resort Tucson, AZ Emission Inventory for Prescribed and Wildland Fire: –What we mean by.

J. Zhou 1, X. Zhu 1, T. Wang 1, and X. Zhang 2 J. Zhou 1, X. Zhu 1, T. Wang 1, and X. Zhang 2 1 College of Resources and Information Tech., China University.

Oct-03FOFEM 5 Overview An Overview of FOFEM 5 Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory Systems for Environmental Management.

Angeliki Karanasiou Source apportionment of particulate matter in urban aerosol Institute of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection, Environmental.

Surface-Atmosphere Fluxes Part II Christine Wiedinmyer

Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.

Sources and Processes Affecting the Chemical and Physical Properties of Denver Aerosol during DISCOVER-AQ FRAPPÉ/DISCOVER-AQ Science Team Meeting 4 May.

Developing a High Spatial Resolution Aerosol Optical Depth Product Using MODIS Data to Evaluate Aerosol During Large Wildfire Events STI-5701 Jennifer.

Estimates of Biomass Burning Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Emissions from the GOES Imager Xiaoyang Zhang 1,2, Shobha Kondragunta 1, Chris Schmidt 3 1 NOAA/NESDIS/Center.

A 2012 NASA-CMS Phase 2 study Lead Investigators: Nancy HF French, MTRI Don McKenzie, US Forest Service, PNW, FERA Eric Kasischke, University.

Alex Cuclis Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) Particulate Matter: What Floats in the Air?

COHA Update Jin Xu. Update 2003 and 2004 back-trajectories – done PMF modeling by groups using 2000 to 2004 IMPROVE data – done Analysis of PMF results.

FireCAMMS Fire Consortia for Advanced Modeling of Meteorology and Smoke

Fire and Fuels 8/31/2010. OXYGEN HEAT FUEL THE FIRE TRIANGLE FIRE.

Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.

Estimating the Contribution of Smoke and Its Fuel Types to Fine Particulate Carbon using a Hybrid- CMB Model Bret A. Schichtel and William C. Malm - NPS.

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.

Abstract:  Estimated percentages of cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin, and other minor proximate components in biomass materials.  Analyzed by elemental.

Causes of Haze Assessment Update for Fire Emissions Joint Forum -12/9/04 Meeting Marc Pitchford.

Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.

Wildland Fire Impacts on Surface Ozone Concentrations Literature Review of the Science State-of-Art Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. Rocky Mountain Center USDA FS Rocky.

Estimating the radiative impacts of aerosol using GERB and SEVIRI H. Brindley Imperial College.

Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,

Continued improvements of air quality forecasting through emission adjustments using surface and satellite data & Estimating fire emissions: satellite.

OVERVIEW OF ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES: Daniel J. Jacob Ozone and particulate matter (PM) with a global change perspective.

Pollutant Emissions from Large Wildfires in the Western United States Shawn P. Urbanski, Matt C. Reeves, W. M. Hao US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source.

Roger Ottmar Research Forester Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory USDA Forest Service Research—PNW.

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.

C OUPLING C HEMICAL T RANSPORT M ODEL S OURCE A TTRIBUTIONS WITH P OSITIVE M ATRIX F ACTORIZATION : A PPLICATION TO TWO IMPROVE SITES IMPACTED BY WILDFIRES.

Using combined Lagrangian and Eulerian modeling approaches to improve particulate matter estimations in the Eastern US. Ariel F. Stein 1, Rohit Mathur.

Uncertainties in Wildfire Emission Estimates Workshop on Regional Emissions & Air Quality Modeling July 30, 2008 Shawn Urbanski, Wei Min Hao, Bryce Nordgren.

Wildfire Emissions Updated Methodology Neva Sotolongo Emission Inventory Branch.

Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia Sangil Lee.

Organo-Sulfur and Receptor Modeling Status/Challenges Christopher Palmer Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

Wildfire activity as been increasing over the past decades Cites such as Salt Lake City are surrounded by regions at a high risk for increased wildfire.

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.

CHARACTERIZING IMPACTS OF WILD AND PRESCRIBED FIRES ON AMBIENT FINE PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS CSU Atmospheric Science Department National Park Service/CIRA.

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.

Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.

Eun-Su Yang and Sundar A. Christopher Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville Shobha Kondragunta NOAA/NESDIS Improving Air Quality.

Application of Anion Exchange Chromatography with Pulsed Amperometric Detection for Measurement of Levoglucosan.

Leigh Patterson 06/15/09 M.S. Defense

Sources of the PM10 aerosol in Flanders, Belgium, and re-evaluation of the contribution from wood burning Willy Maenhaut1,2, Reinhilde Vermeylen2, Magda.

Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason

11th ICCPA, Berkeley, CA, USA

Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning

Models of emissions from savannas

On-going developments of SinG: particles

Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason

Presentation transcript:

Development of Wildland Smoke Marker Emissions Maps for the Conterminous United States Leigh Patterson 06/15/09 M.S. Defense

Acknowledgements Advisor: Dr. Jeff Collett Committee: Drs. Kreidenweis, Schichtel, and Rocca FLAME Partners: Cyle Wold, Dr. Wei Min Hao, Dr. Bill Malm Sample Analysis: Amy Sullivan, Mandy Holden Funding: Joint Fire Science Program, National Park Service, American Meteorological Society Friends and family

Outline Introduction & motivation Fire Lab at Missoula Experiment (FLAME) Relationship between smoke marker emissions and vegetation type Fuel Characteristic Classification System Smoke marker emissions maps Biomass burning carbon apportionment

Fire Impacts Radiative budget ▫OC – reflective ▫EC – absorptive Visibility ▫Regulated by Clean Air Act  Wildfires – natural  Prescribed fires – manmade Health effects ▫Ultra-fine particles provoke alveolar inflammation (Seaton 1995) ▫During a fire episode in California, 117 hospital admissions for smoke reactions (Shusterman et. al., 1993)

Total TC – IMPROVE measurements TC enhancement Effects of fires on air pollution Debell et. al., 2006Park et. al, 2007 TC, µ g m -3

What are smoke markers? Chemical compounds used to fingerprint smoke ▫K +  Produced from loss of potassium in plant matter (Arianoutsou and Margaris, 1981) ▫Anhydrosugars  Includes levoglucosan, mannosan, and galactosan  Produced from combustion of cellulose and hemicellulose Marker criteria: unique, constant, inert, and measurable (Khalil and Rasmussen, 2003)

Why do we need accurate source profiles? MM-CMB models use profiles to apportion wildfire smoke ▫CMB models attempt to apportion 100% of the PM to various sources ▫If one source is incorrectly apportioned, the apportionment of other sources will be misestimated Correct geographic profiles are most important to determine wildfire smoke contribution (Sheesley et. al., 2007)

Why do we need accurate source profiles? MM-CMB models use profiles to apportion wildfire smoke ▫CMB models attempt to apportion 100% of the PM to various sources ▫If one source is incorrectly apportioned, the apportionment of other sources will be misestimated Correct geographic profiles are most important to determine wildfire smoke contribution (Sheesley et. al., 2007)

FLAME Study Burned over 33 fuels in over 100 burns in two campaigns in a burn chamber in Missoula, MT Mostly single component burns Measured physical, optical and chemical properties Picture courtesy of Gavin McMeeking

Vegetation Relationship Levoglucosan/OCCellulose dry mass Hoch, 2007 Sullivan et. al., 2008

Vegetation composition & anhydrosugar relationship Levoglucosan & Cellulose Mannosan/Galactosan & Hemicellulose

Vegetation source profiles FLAME groupsNon-FLAME groups Separate vegetation groups Source profile = median profile of each group ▫Averages have outlier problems Problem: The FLAME study does not sample all different types of vegetation in the U.S. Identify source profiles in lit Take median of each study Average the medians to calculate final source profile

Fuel Characteristic Classification System Fully descriptive fuelbed model Defines 113 fuelbeds across U.S. Assigns characteristics for six strata in each fuelbed Maps fuelbeds across conterminous U.S. with 1 km resolution Ottmar et. al., 2007

Emissions Algorithm B j = fuel loading CE j = combustion efficiency e ij = emissions factor (source profile) Emission i = Emissions i = Canopy (3 stories): Hardwood branches Softwood branches Hardwood leaves Softwood needles Shrubs Shrub branches Shrub leaves Non-woody vegetation Grasses Litter Duff

Source Profiles Litter Type Assigned by FCCSEmissions Type Assigned NeedlesSoftwood Needles Broadleaf DeciduousHardwood Leaves Broadleaf EvergreenShrub Leaves Palm FrondSaw Palmetto Leaves Grasses Litter: 5 different categories are multiplied with weightings Duffs are assigned same source profile as litters

Duff: Calculated vs. Measured Calculated levoglucosan yields match measured Mannosan and galactosan are underestimated K+ is grossly overestimated ▫Burn conditions ▫Correction factor of 2.65 is applied

Spatial Distribution of fuelbeds

Levoglucosan/OC Map

Mannosan/OC Map

Galactosan/OC Map

K+/OC Map

Can a national source profile apply? Levoglucosan/OCMannosan/OC

Source Apportionment Samples from IMPROVE site in Rocky Mountain National Park ▫Weekly: 06/28/05 – 08/16/05 Attempts to apportion carbon resulted in overestimation of biomass burning carbon concentrations Carbon concentrations and biomass burning carbon concentration courtesy of Amanda Holden

Simple Fire Model Fires identified by MODIS thermal anomalies Seven 48 hour HYSPLIT back trajectories were calculated Source profiles of fires within 2 degrees latitude and 2 degrees longitude of a trajectory were averaged No accounting for fire size, distance to sampler, or dispersion

New Source Apportionment Estimates using levoglucosan source profile improved K+ and galactosan source profiles yield reasonable results Mannosan too high Uncertainty can be assessed

New Source Apportionment Estimates using levoglucosan source profile improved K+ and galactosan source profiles yield reasonable results Mannosan too high Uncertainty can be assessed

In summary Vegetation composition & anhydrosugar relationship Differences in means of different vegetation types Source profiles ▫Vegetation ▫Fuelbed Fuelbed profile maps Source apportionment

Any Q uestions ?

Kuo et. al Figure

Grouping vegetation types Sullivan et. al. – 6 groups ▫Grasses ▫Leaves ▫Needles ▫Branches ▫Straws ▫Duffs Shrub Leaves Hardwood Leaves Shrub Branches Softwood Branches

Physical Fuel Loadings Canopy: ▫Split into hardwoods and softwoods  Hardwoods: 84% wood, 16% leaves (Wiedenmyer et. al., 2006)  Softwoods: 79% wood, 21% needles (Wiedenmyer et. al., 2006) Shrub: ▫39% wood, 61% leaves (Wiedenmyer et. al., 2006)

Smoke Contribution Canopy: ▫Combustion efficiencies: 30% for wood, 90% for leaves/needles (Wiedenmyer et. al., 2006)  Hardwoods: 64% wood, 36% leaves  Softwoods: 56% wood, 44% needles Shrub: ▫Combustion efficiency: 30% for wood, e (-.013*TCP) for leaves (Wiedenmyer et. al., 2006)  For 50% shrub coverage: 27% wood, 73% leaves

Combustion efficiencies Canopy: Total trees available to fire depends on fire characteristics. Combustion efficiency: 0.9 for leaves, 0.3 for wood (Wiedenmyer et. al. 2006) Shrub: 0.3 for wood, CE = exp(-0.013*TCP) for leaves (Wiedenmyer et. al. 2006) Non-woody vegetation: 0.98 (Wiedenmyer et. al.,2006) Litter-lichen-moss: 1 (Reinhardt et. al. 2003) Ground fuels: CE = (26.1 – * DM * DEPTH)/DEPTH (Brown et. al. 1985)

Source Profiles Sheesley et. al. 2007