Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC/DOD/EPA-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody 1, Saravanan Arunachalam.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Philip D. Whitefield, Donald E. Hagen, Prem Lobo and Richard Miake-Lye; Missouri S&T COE and ARI Inc. Emissions from Alternate Aviation Fuels and their.
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.
Cost-effective dynamical downscaling: An illustration of downscaling CESM with the WRF model Jared H. Bowden and Saravanan Arunachalam 11 th Annual CMAS.
Modeled Trends in Impacts of Landing and Takeoff Aircraft Emissions on Surface Air-Quality in U.S for 2005, 2010 and 2018 Lakshmi Pradeepa Vennam 1, Saravanan.
Havala O. T. Pye 1, Rob Pinder 1, Ying Xie 1, Deborah Luecken 1, Bill Hutzell 1, Golam Sarwar 1, Jason Surratt 2 1 US Environmental Protection Agency 2.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody, Jeffrey Rissman, Frank Binkowski,
CAEP Working Group 3 Emissions Technical Issues Robert J. Shuter Rapporteur WG 3.
1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.
1 Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Powered Aircraft: EPA Activities & Next Steps For National Tribal Forum on Air Quality Meredith Pedde May 21, 2015.
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
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.
Background Air Quality in the United States Under Current and Future Emissions Scenarios Zachariah Adelman, Meridith Fry, J. Jason West Department of Environmental.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
Muntaseer Billah, Satoru Chatani and Kengo Sudo Department of Earth and Environmental Science Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University,
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.
Sub-Grid Scale Modeling of Air Toxics Concentrations Near Roadways Prakash Karamchandani, Kristen Lohman & Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 6th Annual.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory Atmospheric Modeling Division, Research Triangle Park, NC September 17, 2015 Annmarie.
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
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.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory | Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division| A Tale of Two Models: A Comparison.
1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence A Comparison of CMAQ Predicted Contributions.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,
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.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence MCIP2AERMOD: A Prototype Tool for Preparing.
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 2.5 Response to Different Emissions Reductions Scenarios Over São Paulo State, Brazil. Taciana T. de A. Albuquerque a, J. Jason West b, Rita Yuri Ynoue.
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.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
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 the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Georgia Institute of Technology Assessing the Impacts of Hartsfield- Jackson Airport on PM and Ozone in Atlanta Area Alper Unal, Talat Odman and Ted Russell.
Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada M. Lepage, J.W. Boulton, X. Qiu and M. Gauthier RWDI AIR Inc. C. di Cenzo Environment Canada, P&YR.
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health J. Jason West Department of Environmental Sciences &
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
1 Prakash Karamchandani 1, David Parrish 2, Lynsey Parker 1, Thomas Ryerson 3, Paul O. Wennberg 4, Alex Teng 4, John D. Crounse 4, Greg Yarwood 1 1 Ramboll.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Multiscale Predictions of Aircraft-Attributable PM 2.5 Modeled Using CMAQ-APT enhanced with an Aircraft-Specific 1-D Model for U.S. Airports Matthew Woody,
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.
Response of fine particles to the reduction of precursor emissions in Yangtze River Delta (YRD), China Juan Li 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yang Gao 1, Yun-Fat Lam.
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.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.
Georgia Institute of Technology Air Quality Impacts from Airport Related Emissions: Atlanta Case Study M. Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology School.
Understanding the impact of isoprene nitrates and OH reformation on regional air quality using recent advances in isoprene photooxidation chemistry Ying.
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
Assessment of Air Quality Impacts from the 2013 Rim Fire
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs
Matthew J. Alvarado, Benjamin Brown-Steiner,
EASIUR: A Reduced-Complexity Model Derived from CAMx
Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, M. Talat Odman and Armistead G. Russell
Fernando Garcia-Menendez
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
Current Research on 3-D Air Quality Modeling: wildfire!
Presentation transcript:

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC/DOD/EPA-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody 1, Saravanan Arunachalam 1, J. Jason West 1, Francis S. Binkowski 1, B.H. Baek 1, Shantanu Jathar 2, Allen Robinson 2 1 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2 Carnegie Mellon University October 15-17, th Annual CMAS User’s Conference, Chapel Hill, NC Aircraft Emissions Contribution to Organic Aerosols using the Volatility Basis Set

2 Background 725 million passengers, 67 million tons of cargo, 18 million flights in the U.S. in 2011 (FAA, 2012a). 3.1% per year passenger growth from 2011 to 2032 (FAA, 2012b) 1 billion passengers in 2024 (FAA, 2012b) PM 2.5 Non-attainment areas (1997 Standard) and Major U.S. Airports Aircraft emissions include CO, NO x, SO 2, VOCs (SOA precursors) and PM 2.5 (primary organics, elemental carbon, sulfate aerosol)

3 Local and U.S.-Wide PM 2.5 Contributions from Aircraft At Atlanta Airport: Aircraft emissions increased monthly average PM 2.5 concentrations at the grid-cell containing the airport. However, aircraft emissions reduced SOA concentrations at 36k and 12k grid resolutions but increased concentrations at the 4k resolution. Arunachalam et al., 2011 Atlanta Airport (Monthly Average) U.S.-Wide: Majority of PM 2.5 speciated contributions from aircraft emissions were to ammonium (ANH4), nitrate (ANO3), and sulfate (ASO4) Woody et al., 2011 U.S.-Wide (Annual Average)

4 Organics from Aircraft - Measurements Miracolo, % Measurements Measurements vs. Box Model Green = measured OA (with uncertainty) Red, blue, yellow = modeled OA White = gap in modeled vs. measured OA 85% Significant portion of Aircraft PM at low power settings from SOA Box model with 78 traditional precursors using the volatility basis set unable to accurately capture SOA formation from aircraft (right) –Suggests missing precursors

5 Aircraft Non-Traditional SOA (NTSOA) Jathar et al. (2012) box model results (right) using new aircraft-specific NTSOA parameterization improves upon previous model estimates (left). (Miracolo et al., 2011) (Jathar et al., 2012) Idle Takeoff

6 Motivation Organics comprise significant fraction of total PM in atmosphere Measurements suggest significant SOA formation from aircraft exhaust which models are unable to reproduce Objective Update CMAQ and its inputs to use VBS and include missing precursors to close the gap between measured and modeled SOA formed from aircraft emissions

7 CMAQ with VBS Research version of CMAQ v4.7 with VBS provided by EPA –Includes VBS treatment for traditional SOA from all sources VBS yields mapped to SAPRC-99 chemical mechanism (Murphy and Pandis, 2010) –Required coding changes to work, including issues with EBI solver and various other bugs –Updated to include NTSOA precursors and products from aircraft (Jathar et al., 2012) Separate yields for idle and non-idle NTSOA precursors Modeling will focus on assessing contributions of organic aerosols from aircraft emissions at the Atlanta airport –SAPRC-99 chemical mechanism –January and July, 2002 at 12-km grid resolution –For base case configuration see Hutzell et al. (2012)

8 CMAQ with VBS – Aircraft Emissions Full Flight 2006 global aircraft emission database (Wilkerson et al., 2010) –High resolution flight specific information Includes engine type, detailed spatial location, and emission estimates for all airports –Generated using FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) FAA recommended model to provide aircraft emission estimates Uses First Order Approximation 3 (FOA3) for PM –Extracted LTO emissions at Atlanta airport below 1 km –Allocated using AEDTproc (see BH Baek’s presentation tomorrow) NTSOA emissions –Estimated using load specific emission factors for CFM56-2B engine (Jathar et al.) scaled to other engines using International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) engine databank CFM56 engine family account for ~12% of engines in use at ATL

9 Model Evaluation CMAQ_VBS (VBS) improves PM 2.5 performance but for the right reasons? CMAQ_VBS OC/TC performance not a clear improvement Jan Jul

10 Model Performance – JST and YRK CMAQ_VBS generally improves performance of PM 2.5 in both Jan and Jul at JST and in Jan at YRK Jan Jul

11 Aircraft Contributions to PM 2.5 : CMAQ vs. CMAQ_VBS Jan Jul CMAQCMAQ_VBS Higher impacts predicted by CMAQ_VBS, particularly during Jul.

12 Average Hourly Contributions to PM 2.5 from Aircraft Emissions at ATL JanJul CMAQ_VBS predicts higher contributions from aircraft in both Jan (0.101 vs µg/m 3 ) and Jul (0.263 vs µg/m 3 ) Non-typical SOA (NTSOA) contributes µ g/m 3 in Jan (33% of PM 2.5 contributions from aircraft) and µg/m 3 in Jul (24% of total PM 2.5 contributions)

13 Hourly Contributions to PM 2.5 from Aircraft Emissions at ATL Jan 7 Jul 7 CMAQ CMAQ_VBS NTSOA contributions persist throughout the day in Jan and Jul CMAQ_VBS predicts higher contributions from SOA during daytime hours on Jul 7 compared to CMAQ

14 Average Hourly Contributions to PM 2.5 from Aircraft Emissions at JST and YRK JST YRK JanJul CMAQ_VBS predicts higher contributions of AORGA near the airport (JST) and downwind of it (YRK) in Jul and leads to higher overall contributions at YRK

15 Select PM Measurements from Aircraft StudyPM MeasurementsAircraft Engines Measured Measurement Distance from Aircraft PM Emission Index (g PM per kg fuel burn) Lobo et al. (2012) Primary/SecondaryTakeoff and landings at Oakland Airport m Kinsey et al. (2010) Volatile/Nonvolatile PM 5 engines15-43 m Herndon et al. (2008) Total Particle Number and BC Takeoff and landings at Atlanta Airport 500 m Agrawal et al. (2008) Total PM, Organic Carbon, Elemental Carbon 4 engines (stationary) 1 m Mazaheri et al. (2008) Total PMTakeoff and landings at Brisbane Airport (Australia) 80 m 0.03−0.72 Herndon et al. (2005) Total Particle Number 100 aircraft plumes (various airports) 200 m Limited measurements of aircraft PM available for evaluation purposes. Currently no measurement standards in place and values typically reported as emission indices.

16 Conclusions CMAQ_VBS base case (somewhat) improves PM 2.5 performance Framework developed to predict NTSOA from aircraft in CMAQ using VBS –CMAQ_VBS increases total aircraft contributions to PM 2.5 primarily due to contributions from NTSOA 33% increase in PM 2.5 in Jan (0.032 µg/m 3 ) –NTSOA contribution = µg/m 3 23% increase in PM 2.5 in Jul (0.060 µg/m 3 ) –NTSOA contribution = µg/m 3 Enhance aircraft PM and NTSOA precursor emission estimates using Aerosol Dynamics Simulation Code (ADSC) Use PinG to model aircraft plumes at sub-grid scales Next Steps

17 Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of PARTNER sponsor organizations. The Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction is an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada/US DOD/EPA-sponsored Center of Excellence. This work was funded by FAA and Transport Canada under 07-C-NE-UNC Amendment Nos. 001 to 004, and 09-CE-NE-UNC Amendment Nos The Investigation of Aviation Emissions Air Quality Impacts project is managed by Christopher Sequeira. Acknowledgements Hsi-Wu Wong, Aerodyne Research Sergey Napelenok, EPA William Hutzell, EPA The emissions inventories used for this work were provided by US DOT Volpe Center and are based on data provided by the US Federal Aviation Administration and EUROCONTROL in support of the objectives of the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Projection CO2 Task Group. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US DOT, Volpe Center, the US FAA, EUROCONTROL or ICAO.