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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 25, 2011 Prakash Bhave, Golam Sarwar, Havala Pye, George Pouliot, Heather Simon, Jeffrey Young, Chris.

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.

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

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,

An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.

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

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

Tanya L. Otte and Robert C. Gilliam NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with U.S. EPA National Exposure Research.

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.

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

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

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.

O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.

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

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.

Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.

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,

Evaluation of the CMAQ Model for Size-Resolved PM Composition Prakash V. Bhave, K. Wyat Appel U.S. EPA, Office of Research & Development, National Exposure.

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.

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

Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.

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

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.

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

Impact of high resolution modeling on ozone predictions in the Cascadia region Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of.

Use of space-based tropospheric NO 2 observations in regional air quality modeling Robert W. Pinder 1, Sergey L. Napelenok 1, Alice B. Gilliland 1, Randall.

U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA

William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.

Jonathan Pleim 1, Shawn Roselle 1, Prakash Bhave 1, Russell Bullock 1, William Hutzell 2, Deborah Luecken 2, Chris Nolte 1, Golam Sarwar 2, Ken Schere.

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,

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MADRID: A NEW AEROSOL MODULE IN MODELS-3/CMAQ Yang Zhang*, Betty Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shiang-Yuh Wu and Christian.

Evaluating temporal and spatial O 3 and PM 2.5 patterns simulated during an annual CMAQ application over the continental U.S. Evaluating temporal and spatial.

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.

Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.

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.

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

Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.

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,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Implementation of an Online Photolysis Module in CMAQ 4.7 Christopher G. Nolte.

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,

Jonathan Pleim NOAA/ARL* RTP, NC A NEW COMBINED LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL PBL MODEL FOR METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY MODELING * In Partnership with the U.S. Environmental.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division Donna Schwede NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric.

Using Linked Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050 Chris Nolte, Alice Gilliland Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division,

Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way Coupled System: Part II Jonathan.

Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.

Preliminary Evaluation of the June 2002 Version of CMAQ Brian Eder Shaocai Yu Robin Dennis Jonathan Pleim Ken Schere Atmospheric Modeling Division* National.

PREMAQ: A New Pre-Processor to CMAQ for Air Quality Forecasting Tanya L. Otte*, George Pouliot*, and Jonathan E. Pleim* Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S.

Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ

Using the MODIS Rapid Response Fire Products to Refine the Wildland Fire Emission Estimates Biswadev Roy1, Alice Gilliland1*, Thomas Pierce1*, Steve Howard1*,

Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,

Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.

Performance of CMAQ for Inorganic Aerosol Compounds in Greater Tokyo

Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7

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

SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH

Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL

Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan

The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.

JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim

Presentation transcript:

Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory October 19, 2004

Acknowledgements Prakash Bhave Robin Dennis K. Max Zhang Tony Wexler Lucille Bender Charles Chang

Outline Characteristics of the CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM aerosol modules Approach Results Conclusions & Future Work

Comparison between CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM FeatureCMAQCMAQ-AIM Size representation Modal (3 lognormal modes) Sectional (currently 9 sections) Mass transfer to fine PM Instantaneous equilibrium Dynamic Mass transfer to coarse PM NoneDynamic ThermodynamicsISORROPIAAIM

Comparison between CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM (continued) FeatureCMAQCMAQ-AIM Equilibrium StateMetastableStable Sea saltNoYes N 2 O 5 → HNO 3 heterogeneous conversion No CoagulationYesNo

Approach Model to model comparison Continental US domain, 32 km grid cell size, 24 vertical layers, SAPRC 99 chemical mechanism Summer (Jun 24 – Jul 31, 2001) and winter (Dec 24 – Jan 31, 2002) modeling periods

Results: O3 Average ozone concentrations are identical in the two models.

Results: O3 Average ozone concentrations are identical in the two models.

Excellent agreement in average SO 4 concentrations Results: SO4

Excellent agreement in average SO 4 concentrations Results: SO4

O 3 and SO 4 Difference Plots (CMAQ-AIM minus CMAQ)

Results: Total NO 3

TNO 3 Difference Plots (CMAQ-AIM minus CMAQ)

Results: Fine NO 3

Fine NO 3 Difference Plots (CMAQ-AIM minus CMAQ)

Results: HNO 3

HNO 3 Difference Plots (CMAQ-AIM minus CMAQ)

Results: NH 4

NH 4 Difference Plots (CMAQ-AIM minus CMAQ)

Conclusions Initial comparisons of CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM show good agreement. Differences in nitrate partitioning may be due to: (1) Equilibrium assumption vs. dynamic mass transfer (2) Different thermodynamics - activity coefficients (3) Coarse mode sink for NO 3 Future work will involve trying to evaluate these differences independently (1) Run CMAQ-AIM without sea-salt emissions (2) Run CMAQ-AIM with ISORROPIA The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.