WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV 2002 12 km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.

Slides:



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

Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.
COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Development of a Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation Mechanism: Comparison with Smog Chamber Experiments and Atmospheric Measurements Luis Olcese, Joyce.
MODELING CHEMICALLY REACTIVE AIR TOXICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA USING CAMx Chris Emery, Greg Yarwood and Ed Tai ENVIRON International Corporation.
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,
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.
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.
A Comparative Dynamic Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modeling Systems Steven Smyth a,b, Michael Moran c, Weimin Jiang a, Fuquan Yang a,
Evaluation of MCM v3, using environmental chamber data P. G. Pinho 1, C.A. Pio 1 and M.E. Jenkin 2 1 Departamento de Ambiente e Ordenamento, Universidade.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Modeling Source Apportionment Gail Tonnesen,
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.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
Yuzhi Chen 13th CMAS Assessment of SAPRC07 with Updated Isoprene Chemistry against Outdoor Chamber Experiments Yuzhi Chen a, Roger Jerry a, Kenneth Sexton.
Comparison of three photochemical mechanisms (CB4, CB05, SAPRC99) for the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model for O 3 during the 2004 ICARTT study Shaocai.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.
Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.
Annual Simulations of Models-3/CMAQ: Issues and Lessons Learned Pat Dolwick, Carey Jang, Norm Possiel, Brian Timin, Joe Tikvart Air Quality Modeling Group.
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.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA)
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.
Modeling of Ammonia and PM 2.5 Concentrations Associated with Emissions from Agriculture Megan Gore, D.Q. Tong, V.P. Aneja, and M. Houyoux Department of.
WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,
GEM/AQ Simulations on Intercontinental Transports Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
Parameterization of Global Monoterpene SOA formation and Water Uptake, Based on a Near-explicit Mechanism Karl Ceulemans – Jean-François Müller – Steven.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
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.
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.
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,
THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,
Status of MOZART-2 Larry W. Horowitz GFDL/NOAA MOZART Workshop November 29, 2001.
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.
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.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division October 21, 2009 Evaluation of CMAQ.
Evaluation of CMAQ Driven by Downscaled Historical Meteorological Fields Karl Seltzer 1, Chris Nolte 2, Tanya Spero 2, Wyat Appel 2, Jia Xing 2 14th Annual.
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.
Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.
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.
Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.
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.
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Rochelle Balmori, Shu-Yun Chen, Prakash Karamchandani and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Justin T. Walters and John J. Jansen.
Understanding the impact of isoprene nitrates and OH reformation on regional air quality using recent advances in isoprene photooxidation chemistry Ying.
SAPRC07T Implementation within the CMAQ model.
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Development of a 2007-Based Air Quality Modeling Platform
Stephen Mueller & Jonathan Mallard Tennessee Valley Authority
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
7th Annual CMAS Conference
RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
Presentation transcript:

WRAP Update

Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model comparisons Boundary Conditions Source Apportionment

WRAP - CMAQ revisions v0301, released in early 2001 –Used as the base case and all sensitivity cases for WRAP’s 309 simulations. v0602, released in June 2002 v4.2.2, released in March 2003 v4.3, released in Sept. 2003

The Classical Period: CMAQ v0301

The Dark Ages: CMAQ v0602 Included aero3 –Added large heterogeneous N2O5 hydrolysis. –Improved SOA –ISORROPIA and updated SO4 nucleation Increased HNO3 production and increased nitrate over prediction.

The Renaissance: CMAQ v4.2.2 v4.2.2, released in March 2003 –Updated aero3 (reduced N2O5 hydrolysis) Full evaluation with all updates and corrections for CMAQ and input data sets discovered during the last two years –MCIP v2.2 corrected layer averaging bug –Monthly adjusted NH3 emissions –Corrected NH3 deposition velocity (0.95 V_HNO3) –Emission updates and corrections (baseh)

Modernity: CMAQ v4.3 Released September Major revisions include: –Zeroed out gas N2O5 hydrolysis –Added reversible SOA –Updated cloud dynamics, time step algorithm Completed annual simulation. Implemented CB4_2002 (ran Jan & July)

Improvement from v to v.4.3

Comparisons based on IMPROVE evaluation

CB4 mechanism update Current regulatory version of CB4 (CB4_89, from Gery et al. 1989) is outdated. New updated CB4, CB4_2002, released by Jeffries et al. in 2002 –Contains 100 principle reactions and 39 model species (excluding secondary organic aerosol precursor species and aqueous species) –Fully re-evaluated with smog chamber data –Better documentation; the old CB4 in which many of the changes since 1989 have not been well documented. –in “Morpho” language format, needs to be converted to CMAQ format

CB4 mechanism update (cont.) Major revisions made in CB4_2002 from old CB4 –Updated photolysis rates; applying 12 photolysis rates, an expansion from 6 photolysis rates used in old CB4. –Reaction rates and product distributions are updated to reflect the most recent research findings; the most significant changes are: Additional N2O5 hydrolysis reaction are added: –N2O5 + H2O + H2O  2HNO3 + H2O New kinetic rate expression for HONO formation (1.5 times higher), and the use of new cross-sections for the HONO dissociations. A 12% lower reaction rate of OH + NO2  HNO3, recommended by NASA is used (30% lower rate recommended by IUPAC). Updated PAN formation and decay kinetics. Revised rates and product yields for reactions of OLE + O3 (NO3, O3P)  to be consistent with current literature. Aromatic chemistry left unchanged.

Additional reactions added to CB4_2002 ADDED RXNS CB4_2002, k Rxn ID N2O5 + H2O + H2O= 2*HNO3 + H2O1.8E-39[IB7] NO3 + OH = NO2 + HO22.2E-11[IB8] NO3+ HO2 = HNO3 + O29.2E-13[IB9] NO3+ NO3 = 2*NO [IB10] O3+ O(3P) = 2058[IC7] HONO = HO2 + NO2J[HONO_NO2][ID6] OH+ HO2 = O [IF6]

Implementation of CB4_2002 with aerosol and aqueous extensions in CMAQ v.4.3 CB4_02_AE3_AQ Followed the changes made in cb4 for new version of CMAQ –New deposition velocity surrogates –New cloud scavenging surrogates –Changed names of aero3/SOA NR species –Eliminated advection and diffusion of fast-reacting species (e.g. OH, HO2) –Modified gas-phase Monoterpene reaction rates (to be consistent with those in SAPRC mechanism): higher rate for OH rxn, lower rate for NO3 and O3 rxns. Except changes in... –Zeroing reaction rate constant for N2O5+H2O  2HNO3

Evaluation of CB4_2002 CMAQ v.4.3 with CB4_02_ae3_aq; smvgear option WRAP 1996 January and July episodes Area differences between CB4_02 vs. CB4 (pave plots) Comparisons against ambient data: ( statistics: MFB%, NMB% ) –AQS (31 sites in Jan., 439 sites in July) –IMPROVE, (44 sites in Jan., 49 sites in July) –CASTNet (3 sites in Jan., 25 sites in July) –NADP (87 sites in Jan.,103 sites in July)

IMPROVE

IMPROVE, January, CB4 vs. CB4_02 SO4NO3 CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, January, CB4 vs. CB4_02 NH4OC CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, January, CB4 vs. CB4_02 PM25RCFM CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, January, CB4 vs. CB4_02 PM10BEXT CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, July, CB4 vs. CB4_02 SO4NO3 CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, July, CB4 vs. CB4_02 NH4OC CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, July, CB4 vs. CB4_02 PM25RCFM CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, July, CB4 vs. CB4_02 PM10BEXT CB4CB4_02CB4CB4_02 NMB(%) MFB(%)

IMPROVE, January, Mean Fractionalized Bias

IMPROVE, July, Mean Fractionalized Bias