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

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.

Uma Shankar 1 and Prakash Bhave 2 Sixth Annual CMAS Conference October 1-3, UNC Institute for the Environment 2 Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA.

A Tale of Two Extremes: Contrasting NH 3 at the Bakersfield and Pasadena Supersites Jennifer Murphy Milos Markovic Trevor VandenBoer Raluca Ellis Department.

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.

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,

1 Ammonia Regulation – Are We Ready? NADP Ammonia Workshop Washington, DC October 23, 2003 Dave Mitchell Planning Manager San Joaquin Valley APCD.

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

The semi-volatile nature of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area November 2, 2007 EAS Graduate Student Symposium Christopher.

CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Performance and Ongoing Improvements Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS December 3, 2002.

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

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.

Evaluation of Two Numerical Algorithms in Simulating Particle Condensational Growth and Gas/Particle Mass Transfer Yang Zhang and Christian Seigneur Atmospheric.

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 the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.

1 California Dairy Air Emissions Action Plan Presentation for CRPAQS/CCOS POLICY COMMITTEE May 2, 2003 Matthew D. Summers, PE Office of Agriculture and.

Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.

Aerosol Working Group The 7 th International GEOS-Chem User’s Meeting May 4, 2015 Aerosol WG Co-Chairs Colette Heald: Jeff Pierce (outgoing):

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

Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.

Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.

Modelling the Canadian Arctic and Northern Air Quality using GEM-MACH Wanmin Gong and Stephen Beagley Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada.

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.

California Regional PM 10 /PM 2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) Technical Update John G. Watson Philip M. Roth Karen L. Magliano Central California.

Modeling Dynamic Partitioning of Semi-volatile Organic Gases to Size-Distributed Aerosols Rahul A. Zaveri Richard C. Easter Pacific Northwest National.

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

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

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,

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

Thermodynamic characterization of Mexico City Aerosol during MILAGRO 2006 Christos Fountoukis 1, Amy Sullivan 2,7, Rodney Weber 2, Timothy VanReken 3,8,

EANET activities and the applicability to model development Kazuhide Matsuda ADORC.

Coupling between the aerosols and hydrologic cycles Xiaoyan Jiang Climatology course, 387H Dec 5, 2006.

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.

Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Effects of Liquid Water on Secondary Inorganic Aerosol in Central California During a Winter Episode 1 Planning.

TEMIS user workshop, Frascati, 8-9 October 2007 TEMIS – VITO activities Felix Deutsch Koen De Ridder Jean Vankerkom VITO – Flemish Institute for Technological.

Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist PM Model Performance Workshop February 10, 2004 Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data.

Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.

1 Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological Model Yunhee Kim, Joshua S.

October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Impacts of Ethanol Fuel on PM Concentrations in Northern California during a Winter Episode 1 Planning and Technical.

Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

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.

Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman.

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.

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

1 Prepared by Neil J.M. Wheeler and Kenneth J. Craig Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California for the Fifth Annual Community Modeling and Analysis.

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

Template Comparison of PM Source Apportionment and Sensitivity Analysis in CAMx Bonyoung Koo, Gary Wilson, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON Alan Dunker.

California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study: Update March 17, 1999 Air & Waste Management Association Conference.

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,

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.

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.

Status Report on the Role of Ammonia in the San Joaquin Valley December 11, 2003 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Performance of CMAQ for Inorganic Aerosol Compounds in Greater Tokyo

Models-3/CMAQ Applications in California

Impact on Recent North American Air Quality Forecasts of Replacing a Retrospective U.S. Emissions Inventory with a Projected Inventory Michael Moran1,

Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)

PM modelling assessment in Northern Italy

Presentation transcript:

Comparing Modal and Sectional Approaches in Modeling Particulate Matter in Northern California K. Max Zhang 1, Jinyou Liang 2, Anthony S. Wexler 1 and Ajith Kaduwela 1,2 1. University of California at Davis 2. California Air Resources Board

The CRPAQS EPISODE Domain covers Northern and Central CaliforniaDomain covers Northern and Central California An extended winter episode (12/25/ /7/2001)An extended winter episode (12/25/ /7/2001) Spinning up from 12/17/ /24/2000Spinning up from 12/17/ /24/2000 Analysis from 12/25/2000 – 1/7/2001Analysis from 12/25/2000 – 1/7/ X185X15 with 4km by 4 km grid cell185X185X15 with 4km by 4 km grid cell

Anchor Sites BAC: Bakersfield (Urban)BAC: Bakersfield (Urban) FSF: Fresno (Urban)FSF: Fresno (Urban) ANGI: Angiola (Rural)ANGI: Angiola (Rural)

AJITH KADUWELA PRESENTS P ARTICULATE M ATTER M ODELING IN N ORTHERN C ALIFORNIA IN N ORTHERN C ALIFORNIA TIME: 4:00 PM, Wednesday, September 28 LOCATION: Grumman Auditorium

CMAQ-UCD vs. CMAQ EPA-CMAQCMAQ-UCD Composition representation Internally mixed Internally mixed (12 aerosol species) Gas-particle partition method Equilibrium Partitioning Fully dynamic partitioning with three mechanisms: Uncoupled; Coupled and Replacement Integration method N/A Asynchronous time-stepping (ATS) scheme Size distribution representation Modal with 2- 3 modes Sectional with 9 size sections spanning 0.03 to 20 μm Coarse particle nitrate None 3 'coarse' sections (> 2.5 μm) Sea-salt treatment Yes in v4.5 Explicit simulation of Na + and Cl - thermodynamics Source code access Open to public Open to public through CMAS in 2005/2006

Gas-phase Species (BAC)

Gas-phase Species (ANGI)

Gas-phase Species O3: CMAQ - CMAQ-UCD

NH 3 (g) and HNO 3 (g)

Primary Particulate Species OC: CMAQ - CMAQ-UCD

Primary Particulate Species

Secondary Particulate Species NO3: CMAQ - CMAQ-UCD

Secondary Particulate Species NO3: CMAQ - CMAQ-UCD

Secondary Particulate Species Jan 2

Secondary Particulate Species Dec 25 Jan 3 Dec 25 Jan 3 Dec 25 Jan 2Jan 3 Dec 25 Jan 2 Jan 3

Secondary Particulate Species

Summary Comparison between CMAQ and CMAQ-UCD at urban sites shows that gas and particle phases were close to equilibrium during CRPAQS. CMAQ model is competent for SIP simulations but phase-equilibrium may not hold in future less- polluted scenarios. Comparing sectional and modal approaches at rural sites poses challenges. CMAQ-UCD predicted less NO 3 and NH 4 on Dec 25, Jan 2 and Jan 3. N 2 O 5 ?

Acknowledgement California Air Resources BoardCalifornia Air Resources Board San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictSan Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District