Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_11-17-03.ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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.

Ozone Modeling over the Western U.S. -- Impact of National Controls on Ozone Trends in the Future Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States -- March.

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,

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.

1 The Asian Aerosol Contribution to North American PM Pollution: Recognizing Asian Transport Composition and Concentration Modeling Regional Aerosol Burdens.

Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.

PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,

Regional Haze Modeling RPO Update Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM National RPO Meeting, Dallas, TX December 3, 2002.

2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.

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

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.

Lessons Learned: One-Atmosphere Photochemical Modeling in Southeastern U.S. Presentation from Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative to Meeting of Regional.

Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,

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

Template Evaluation of an Advanced Reactive Puff Model using Aircraft-based Plume Measurements Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani, Bart Brashers,

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

Modelling U.K. Atmospheric Aerosol Using the CMAQ Models-3 Suite Michael Bane and Gordon McFiggans Centre for Atmospheric Science University of Manchester.

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.

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

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.

PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.

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

Impacts of MOVES2014 On-Road Mobile Emissions on Air Quality Simulations of the Western U.S. Z. Adelman, M. Omary, D. Yang UNC – Institute for the Environment.

PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.

Representation of Sea Salt Aerosol in CAM coupled with a Sectional Aerosol Microphysical Model CARMA Tianyi Fan, Owen Brian Toon LASP/ATOC, University.

Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.

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.

Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.

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.

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.

Georgia Institute of Technology Estimation of NH 4 + /SO 4 2- Molar Ratios Using URM Modeling Outputs Jim Boylan, Talat Odman, Ted Russell April 10, 2001.

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.

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

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting Comparison of CMAQ and CAMx for an Annual Simulation over the South Coast Air Basin Jin Lu 1, Kathleen Fahey.

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

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 CAMx Model Performance Evaluation University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

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

1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.

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

Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain Data Warehouse (IWDW) Model Performance Evaluation CAMx and CMAQ 2011b University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

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.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling

Dynamic Evaluation of CMAQ-Modeled Ozone Response to Emission Changes in The South coast air Basin Prakash Karamchandani1, Ralph Morris1, Andrew Wentland1,

Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs

VISTAS Grid Resolution Sensitivity

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

7th Annual CMAS Conference

WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Presentation transcript:

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, CA National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, Colorado May 24-25, 2004

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Outline Introduction Previous Results in SoCal WRAP 1996 Western US Modeling Conclusions

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt CAMx4+ PM Treatment PM Size Distribution > Mechanism 4 (M4) 2-section (fine/coarse) > Sectional (N-Section, N=10, 4,…) Allows side-by-side comparisons of Sectional versus fine/coarse PM size distribution treatment in same platform Aqueous-Phase Chemistry > RADM Bulk Module > Variable Size Resolution Module (VSRM) Allows analysis of the effects of treating PM size distribution in aqueous-phase chemistry (buffering issues) Aerosol Thermodynamics > ISORROPIA PM Size Distribution > Equilibrium, Dynamic, Hybrid Secondary Organic Aerosol > SOAP

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Sectional vs. Fine/Coarse Comparisons in Southern California (presented previously) South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) of Southern California October 17-19, 1995 PTEP episode > High NO3 Episode Analyze Effect of PM Size Resolution in VSRM Aqueous-phase Chemistry > CMU 1-section Bulk Module > CMU Variable Size Resolution Model (VSRM) Analyze Effects of 10-Section Versus 2-Section (Fine/Coarse) Representation on PM Size Resolution > M4 = Mechanism 4 Fine/Coarse > EQUI = 10-Section PM Representation

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt VSRM (Multi-Section) vs. Bulk Aqueous Chemistry Percent Increase in Sulfate (%) By second day, VRSM estimates ~15-30% more sulfate across the SoCAB with > 50% increase offshore and around Long Beach

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt VSRM (Multi-Section) vs. Bulk Aqueous Chemistry VRSM can form significantly more sulfate than the bulk 1-section aqueous-phase chemistry module

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt 24-Hour Nitrate (  g/m 3 ) October 18, 1995 M4 peak NO 3 83  g/m 3 EQUI peak NO 3 54  g/m 3 Observed NO 3 peak at Riverside ~40  g/m 3 Differences due to assuming all nitrate is fine vs. PM nitrate represented by 10 size sections (EQUI) M4 EQUI

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Differences in 24-Hour Nitrate (  g/m 3 ) October 18, 1995 M4 peak NO 3 83  g/m 3 EQUI peak NO 3 54  g/m 3 EQUI 10-Section grows PM NO 3 into coarser sections where it dry deposits faster than M4 NO 3 that is assumed to be fine Result is less NO 3 in downwind Riverside area that agrees better with observations M4 M4 - EQUI

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt WRAP/CRC Modeling Analysis km Western US > (Section 309 Database) Evaluate Four Models: > CMAQ V4.3 > REMSAD V7 > CAMx_M4 – Mechanism 4 Fine/Coarse > CAMx_4sec – 4-Sections, Section 4 is Coarse Use same emissions, IC/BC, vertical layers, etc. No Sea Salt or Explicit Calcium Emissions in WRAP 1996 Database How much SO4 and NO3 in Coarse Model?

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Example SO4 Model Performance Yellow = 1996 Annual Blue = January 1996 Red = July 1996 Fractional Bias Fractional Gross Error Winter overestimation compensates for summer underestimation results in annual bias < 10%

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Average 1996 PM Concentrations Across IMPROVE Monitors (Section 4 = Coarse)

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Conclusions Western US Sectional vs. Fine Coarse PM Distribution Representation Sectional 1996 Annual Modeling (4-Sections) Estimates that 10% of the Sulfate and 5% of the Nitrate is in the Coarse Mode (PM ) SoCal Analysis Suggests: > Sectional Approach Affects Aqueous-Phase Chemistry > Biggest Effect is on Dry Deposition Rates Several Caveats Should be Mentioned: > Sea Salt was not included in the WRAP 1996 database which is known to form coarse Sodium Nitrate Important at Coastal Sites and Desert Areas > Other Soil buffering compounds (e.g., Calcium) were not explicitly treated