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,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

POMI Po Valley Model Intercomparison Exercise CAMx model overview In cooperation with AMA - MI.

Advertisements

Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.

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

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

UC Riverside Attribution of Haze Meeting, June 22, 2005, Seattle, WA UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. Spatial Processing and Display of WRAP Emissions Data, and Source.

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

Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.

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

Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,

Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA

1 Modelling Activities at LAC (PSI) in Switzerland Ş. Andreani-Aksoyo ğ lu, J. Keller, I. Barmpadimos, D. Oderbolz, A.S.H. Prévôt Laboratory of Atmospheric.

CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.

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

Colette Heald Fangqun Yu Aerosol Processes Working Group.

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.

October 17, 20065th Annual CMAS Conference1 Photochemical Modeling Investigation of an Extended Winter PM Episode in Central California 1. Air Resources.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

BRAVO Results of CMAQ-MADRID Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto 10 October 2002.

November 15, 2006CRPAQS TC Meeting1 Photochemical Modeling Investigation of an Extended Winter PM Episode in Central California 1. Air Resources Board,

EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF GAS/PARTICLE MASS TRANSFER TREATMENTS FOR 3-D AEROSOL SIMULATION AND FORECAST Xiaoming Hu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State.

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.

Synergisms in the Development of the CMAQ and CAMx PM/Ozone Models Ralph E. Morris, Greg Yarwood Chris Emery, Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation.

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.

Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VISTA Technical Lead for Air.

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.

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.

Comparing Modal and Sectional Approaches in Modeling Particulate Matter in Northern California K. Max Zhang 1, Jinyou Liang 2, Anthony S. Wexler 1 and.

WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,

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.

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.

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.

Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.

An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

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.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.

Georgia Institute of Technology SAMI Aerosol Modeling: Performance Evaluation & Future Year Simulations Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology SAMI.

A New Version of CMAQ-MADRID and Comparison with CMAQ Christian Seigneur, Betty Pun, Prakash Karamchandani, Krish Vijayaraghavan, and Shu-Yun Chen AER.

Development of the CMAQ-UCD Sectional Aerosol Model K. Max Zhang and Anthony S. Wexler University of California Davis University of California Davis.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Results from January/July CMAQ Source Apportionment Modeling Gail Tonnesen,

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.

VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at Riverside Data Needs for Evaluation of Radical and.

Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,

A Comparison Study of CMAQ Aerosol Prediction by Two Thermodynamic Modules: UHAERO V.S. ISORROPIA Case study for January 2002 episode Fang-Yi Cheng 1,

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

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.

Krish Vijayaraghavan, Rochelle Balmori, Shu-Yun Chen, Prakash Karamchandani and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Justin T. Walters and John J. Jansen.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.

Understanding the impact of isoprene nitrates and OH reformation on regional air quality using recent advances in isoprene photooxidation chemistry Ying.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

Single-Source Impacts with SCICHEM and CAMx

Evaluations of CMAQ Simulations in southern Taiwan

VISTAS Grid Resolution Sensitivity

Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7

Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Presentation transcript:

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, Steven Lau, Bongyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation T.W. Tesche, Dennis McNally and Greg Stella Alpine Geophysics RPO Meeting, Denver, CO, May 25, 2004

Sectional PM Models CMAQ-AIMCAMx4CMAQ-MADRID1CMAQ-MADRID2 Gas-PhaseSAPRC99CB4, SAPRC99 CB4, RADM2 RADM2_CI4 RADM2 with four-product isoprene chemistry CACM Caltech Atmospheric Chemistry Mechanism InorganicAIMISORROPIA Organic Dynamic Partit. (UC Davis) SOAP Odum/Griffin Algorithm AER/EPRI/Caltech (AEC) Algorithm AqueousRADM CMU, RADM SizeNine-Section Two-Section (Fine/Coarse) Two-Section (Fine/Coarse) Multiple-Section (>2)

CMAQ-AIM Aerosol Inorganic Module (AIM) Clegg et al. CMAQ-AIM uses simplified AIM thermodynamics to reduce computation cost. Sectional aerosol algorithm (9 sections). Uses SAPRC99 gas chemistry.

SOA in CMAQ-AIM Simplified SOA speciation: uses 1 anthropogenic and 1 biogenic SOA. Dynamic gas-particle partitioning:

NaCl Thermodynamics Forms coarse mass NaNO3 –Should give reduced fine NO3 in CMAQ-AIM CMAQ includes Sea salt species but chemistry is not yet implemented in ISORROPIA. CMAQ-AIM includes sea salt.

Sea Salt Emissions Used EPA code for sea salt emissions: –Only represented open ocean emissions. Added new code to represent surf zone emissions. Simple approximations of surf zone area: –100 m width –If cell is between 20 and 80% water use cell full length as coast.

CMAQ-AIM Evaluation CMAQ-AIM is still under development. Initial Comparison of CMAQ-AIM to CMAQ was presented to VISTAS February More recent results still being analyzed

SO4 (IMPROVE); CMAQ-AIM vs. CMAQ US (FB, -14% vs. -2%)Vistas States (FB, -30% vs.-15%)

CMAQ-AIM Summary CMAQ-AIM tends to have lower predictions larger negative bias compared to CMAQ Should we look at the size bins that are being included in PM2.5? Does CMAQ-AIM have some SO4 and NO3 mass in larger size bins? Still need to look at sea salt for recent simulation.

Comparison and Diagnostic Evaluation of Air Quality Models for Particulate Matter: CAMx, CMAQ, CMAQ-MADRID Zion Wang, Chao-Jung Chien and Gail Tonnesen University of California, Riverside Eladio M. Knipping and Naresh Kumar EPRI

Modeling Episode Southern Oxidant Study (SOS) –June 29 to July 10, 1999 Meteorology processed from MM5 Simulations –MCIP2.2: CMAQ, CMAQ-MADRID –mm5camx: CAMx Emissions files courtesy of TVA Simulation –32-km horizontal resolution without nesting Sensitivity Simulation –Increase ammonia emissions by 50% across-the-board

Summary of EPRI Study No single model is the “performance winner”. All models over-estimated aerosol sulfate concentrations. CAMx showed a higher tendency to over-estimate aerosol sulfate concentration across a wide region of the domain compared to CMAQ and CMAQ-MADRID. CMAQ under-estimated aerosol nitrate concentrations by a factor of ~2.5, whereas CMAQ-MADRID and CAMx over-estimated nitrate by a factor of ~3. However, CAMx exhibited a higher propensity to over-estimate nitrate in the southeast than CMAQ-MADRID. All models under-estimated organic mass. However, CMAQ predicted the least organic mass of all three model The models responded differently to changes in ammonia emissions.