Title Performance of the EMEP aerosol model: current results and further needs Presented by Svetlana Tsyro (EMEP/MSC-W) EMEP workshop on Particulate Matter.

Slides:



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

EC Regional Air Quality Deterministic Prediction System (RAQDPS) Mike Moran Air Quality Research Division Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario Mtg on AQ.
Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.
Proposed Aerosol Treatment for CAM4 Steve Ghan, Richard Easter, Xiaohong Liu, Rahul Zaveri Pacific Northwest National Laboratory precursor emissions coagulation.
Section highlights Organic Aerosol and Field Studies.
INDIRECT AEROSOL EFFECTS
Title PM2.5: Comparison of modelling and measurements Presented by Hilde Fagerli SB, Geneva, September 7-9, 2009.
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.
1 Non-linear effects in modelling PM 10 and PM 2,5 contributions from anthropogenic sources Clemens Mensink, Felix Deutsch, Jean Vankerkom and Liliane.
Recent Finnish PM studies / 2 examples. Characterizing temporal and spatial patterns of urban PM10 using six years of Finnish monitoring data Pia Anttila.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
1 High Time-Resolution Size- Resolved Aerosol Predictions: Learning about CCN from Aerosol Field Campaigns Win Trivitayanurak GEOS-CHEM Meeting Harvard.
The robustness of the source receptor relationships used in GAINS Hilde Fagerli, EMEP/MSC-W EMEP/MSC-W.
The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,
/tfmm3 EMEP Chemical Coordinating Centre Measurements of particulate matter in EMEP Current implementation Kjetil Tørseth, Wenche Aas, Michael.
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
TFMM & TFEIP Workshop, Dublin, 2007 Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E.
Aerosol Microphysics: Plans for GEOS-CHEM
Title Progress in the development and results of the UNIFIED EMEP model Presented by Leonor Tarrason EMEP/MSC-W 29 th TFIAM meeting, Amiens, France,
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER 1 Lecture 2: Aerosol sources and sinks Ken Carslaw.
Modelled results vs. emission estimates S.Dutchak, I.Ilyin, O.Travnikov, O.Rozovskaya, M.Varygina EMEP/MSC-East Modelled results vs. emission estimates.
Page1 PAGE 1 The influence of MM5 nudging schemes on CMAQ simulations of benzo(a)pyrene concentrations and depositions in Europe Volker Matthias, GKSS.
EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF GAS/PARTICLE MASS TRANSFER TREATMENTS FOR 3-D AEROSOL SIMULATION AND FORECAST Xiaoming Hu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State.
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.
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006 TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006.
WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,
Title Atmospheric Modelling at MSC-W David Simpson and Leonor Tarrason TFIAM - Haarlem, 7-9 May 2003.
Capacity building regarding data inventory and air pollution modelling with the EMEP and GAINS models - applied on Oblasts of the Russian Federation Presentation.
GEM/AQ Simulations on Intercontinental Transports Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada.
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.
Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.
TEMIS user workshop, Frascati, 8-9 October 2007 TEMIS – VITO activities Felix Deutsch Koen De Ridder Jean Vankerkom VITO – Flemish Institute for Technological.
EVALUATION OF THE CMAQ5.0 IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CALIOPE AIR QUALITY FORECASTING SYSTEM OVER EUROPE M.T. Pay 1. J. M. Baldasano 1,2, S. Gassó.
Introduction 1. Advantages and difficulties related to the use of optical data 2. Aerosol retrieval and comparison methodology 3. Results of the comparison.
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.
A ir Quality Research Branch Meteorological Service of Canada Environment Environnement Canada Performance Evaluation of AURAMS for Multiple Cases Michael.
EMEP Steering Body, Geneva, 2011 Co-operation between EMEP/MSC-E and WGE Oleg Travnikov, Ilia Ilyin Meteorological Synthesizing Centre East of EMEP (EMEP/MSC-E)
PREAMBLE In the last years, many studies have shown that the aerosols besides of changing climate, also affect health. The inhalation of particulate matter.
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.
Aerosol simulation with coupled meteorology-radiation- chemistry model WRF/Chem over Europe.
EMEP WGSR, EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006  Review and evaluation of the MSCE-HM model (TFMM)  Atmospheric pollution in 2004 (emissions, monitoring.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
Joint thematic session on B(a)P pollution: main activities and results
A model of sea salt aerosol for Cape Grim Preliminary investigations
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrasón
A. Aulinger, V. Matthias, M. Quante, Institute for Coastal Research
Alison Redington* and Derrick Ryall* Dick Derwent**
Multi-model and Observed PM Trends
Title Effect of horizontal resolution on PM calculations:
PM modelling assessment in Northern Italy
TFMM PM Assessment Report
Title Inorganic PM at selected sites during intensive period 2008:
Modelling atmospheric transport of Benzo(a)Pyrene with CMAQ
Empa, Air Pollution/Environmental Technologies
Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment
Michael Moran Air Quality Research Branch
H. Fagerli, TFMM Bordeux, april 2008
Title Why do we underestimate Elemental Carbon in PM?
19th TFMM Meeting, Geneva May 3rd 2018
Lessons learnt from the EMEP intensive measurements
Current Research on 3-D Air Quality Modeling: wildfire!
Title Recent developments of the EMEP/MSC-W model aiming at PM improvement Work by MSC-W modelling group presented by Svetlana Tsyro TFMM.
First use of satellite AOD data for EMEP model validation for PM
EMEP/MSC-W How can EMEP Intensive measurement periods help to improve modelling of acidification, eutrophication, O3 and PM? Views from MSC-W H. Fagerli.
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Presentation transcript:

Title Performance of the EMEP aerosol model: current results and further needs Presented by Svetlana Tsyro (EMEP/MSC-W) EMEP workshop on Particulate Matter Measurements & Modelling, New Orleans, April 20-23, 2004

Outline Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Short description of the aerosol model Model performance evaluation Comparison with observations of calculated : PM10 and PM2.5 masses PM chemical composition, particle-bound water particle numbers Identified needs for the model further improvement and validation Summary / conclusions

EMEP Aerosol model (UNI-AERO): Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Aerosol components: SO 4 2-, NO 3 -, NH 4 +, OC, EC, dust, sea salt + aerosol water (not yet included: SOA, primary biogenic OC, wind blown dust) Aerosol size distribution - 4 monodisperse size modes: nucleation, Aitken, accumulation, coarse Assumption: particles in the same mode have the same size and the same chemical composition (internally mixed) Accounts for aerosol dynamics (MM32) : nucleation, condensation, coagulation, ‘mode merging’ Output: size resolved aerosol mass and number concentrations Resolution : 50 x 50 km 2, 20 layers up to 100 hPa

SO 4, HNO 3 / NO 3 NH 4 / NH 3, Na, Cl PM emissions Gas emissions aerosolgases OC EC Dust Aitken, accum. Dust coarse N, M, D H 2 SO 4 SO x NO x Irreversible chemistry (gaseous and aqueous) EQSAM Gas/aerosol & aerosol water NH 3 Aerosol dynamics (MM32) Nucleation H 2 SO 4 -H 2 O  SO 4 Condensation H 2 SO 4  SO 4 Coagulation Mode merging Coarse PM PM 2.5 sea salt Dry deposition Wet scavenging PM-bound water Output: number and mass size distribution, chemical composition, PM 2.5, PM 10 (PM 1 ) Schematic computational structure of UNI-AERO Meteorologisk Institutt met.no

Annual mean concentrations of PM in 2001 Meteorologisk Institutt met.no PM2.5 PM10 Aerosol model EMEP obs  Systematic underestimation Measure- ments spatial coverage

Annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 (2001, EMEP) Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Spain: bias = - 67%, corr = 0.44 wind eroded & Saharan dust N=17 Bias=-46% Corr=0.61 N=25 Bias=-51% Corr=0.15 The model underestimates measured PM10 and PM2.5 PM10 – complex pollutant. To explain the discrepancies between calculated and measured PM10 verification of the individual components is needed. elevated C. Europe: bias = - 41% corr = 0.59

Annual mean SIA (2001, EMEP) Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Bias=-19% Corr=0.81 Bias= 15% Corr=0.89 Sites without PM10 measurements Does not help to explain the discrepancy between modelled and measured PM Sites with PM10 measurements For that, co-located and concurrent measurements of ‘all’ aerosol components is needed

SIA (2001): model vs. EMEP measurements Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Bias = 9% Corr = 0.71 Bias = 19% Corr = 0.91 Bias = 7% Corr = 0.84

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no What is needed: “component-wise” verification of modelled PM EXAMPLE for Birkenes, Norway (2001)

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no PM10 components

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no PM10 components PM emissions validation

One more example: Vienna Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Daily PM2.5 (June June 2000) :

Daily series of SO 4, NO 3 and NH 4 in PM2.5 Meteorologisk Institutt met.no NO3 NH4 SO4 OC EC Na EC PM emissions validation

Chemical composition of PM2.5 and PM10 (1): Meteorologisk Institutt met.no  Non-C atoms in organic aerosol  Particle-bound water  Measurement artefacts Full chemical mass closure is rarely achieved. Unaccounted PM mass - up to 35-40% Gravimetric method (Reference, EU and EMEP) for determining PM mass requires 48-h conditioning of dust-loaded filters at T=20C and Rh=50% - does not remove all water! At Rh=50% particles can contain 10-30% water Gravimetrically measured PM mass does not represent dry PM mass!!!

Chemical composition of PM2.5 and PM10 (2): To what extend can particle-bound water explain the model underestimation of measured PM? Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Unaccounted PM mass in obs Aerosol water in model results ViennaStreithofen PM2.5 Austria,1-6/2000 (AUPHEP) PM10PM25

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Modelled dry PM 2.5 vs. Identified PM 2.5 mass Modelled water in PM 2.5 vs. Unaccounted PM 2.5 mass

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Model calculated dry PM2.5 (blue) and PM2.5 including aerosol water (black) vs. measured PM2.5 (red) Accounting for water in modelled PM2.5 gives better agreement with measurements BUT: verification of model calculated aerosol water with measurements is needed

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Accounting for particle-bound water in PM2.5 Model calculations vs. gravimetric PM2.5 (EMEP, 2001) Dry PM 2.5 N=13 Bias=- 47% Corr=0.69 N=13 Bias=-28% Corr=0.68 Dry PM water Smaller negative bias

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Dry PM10 N=13 Bias=- 64% Corr=0.26 N=13 Bias=-38% Corr=0.29 Dry PM10 + water Smaller negative bias Slightly improved correlation Accounting for particle-bound water in PM 10 Model calculations vs. gravimetric PM10 (EMEP, 2001)

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Verification of daily PM2.5 with EMEP measurements SitesObs.Mean Bias dry PM 2.5 Bias PM 2.5 +water Correlation PM 2.5 +water AT02 Illmitz DE02 Langenbrügge DE03 Schauinsland DE04 Deuselbach CH02 Payerne CH04 Chaumont IT04 Ispra NO01 Birkenes ES07 Viznar ES08 Niembro ES09 Campisabalos ES10 Cabo de Creus ES11 Barcarrota ES12 Zarra ES13 Penausende ES14 Els Torms ES15 Risco Llano

Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Daily PM2.5 vs. EMEP measurements Hourly PM2.5 Aspvreten, SE 2000

Aitken number (10 2 /cm 3 ) at Hyytiälä, Finland, 2000 Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Hourly Daily Hourly, october Hourly, december

Hourly Aitken number : nucleation effect Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Nucleation events (June 10-22, 2000) No nucleation (July 12-17, 2000)  Prediction of nucleation events  Number of nucleated particles  Growth of newly formed particles Hyytiälä, Finland BIOFOR

Accumulation (0.1 – 0.5 μm) particle number, 2000 (10 -2 /cm 3 ) Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Aspvreten, hourly Värriö, hourly Aspvreten, daily Värriö, daily

Daily total particle number, Austria (AUPHEP) Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Vienna urban Streithofen rural Emissions + meteorology

Summary on the model performance Meteorologisk Institutt met.no The EMEP aerosol model underestimates PM2.5 and PM10 ( SOA and natural dust not yet included) Accounting for particle-bound water improves the agreement between model calculated and gravimetrically determined PM mass Verification of model calculated aerosol water Largest discrepancy: OC, EC, mineral dust Implementation of SOA, wind blown dust. Emissions chemical speciation! Particle number – more difficult (esp. Aitken): Emissions size disaggregation! Aerosol dynamics

Measurement needs Meteorologisk Institutt met.no Information on PM chemical composition is essential for further improvement of PM mass calculations Co-located concurrent measurements are needed: (process understanding, source allocation) Particle-bound water Particle number concentration : size distribution Particle fluxes (dry deposition) over different land-use types, size resolved Wet scavenging Vertical profiles