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

Slides:



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

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Changes in U.S. Regional-Scale Air.
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.
N emissions and the changing landscape of air quality Rob Pinder US EPA Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
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,
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
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.
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
Improving the Representation of Atmospheric Chemistry in WRF William R. Stockwell Department of Chemistry Howard University.
Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.
Tanya L. Otte and Robert C. Gilliam NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with U.S. EPA National Exposure Research.
Trends in the Wet and Dry Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur Species
Muntaseer Billah, Satoru Chatani and Kengo Sudo Department of Earth and Environmental Science Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University,
The 6th CMAS Workshop Using the CMAQ Model to Simulate a Dust Storm in the Southwestern United States Daniel Tong$, George Bowker*, Rohit Mathur+, Tom.
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.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
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.
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.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
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,
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
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.
Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development, Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division Columbus Day 2010 Prakash Bhave U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.
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.
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.
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.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
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.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division October 21, 2009 Evaluation of CMAQ.
GEOS-CHEM Activities at NIA Hongyu Liu National Institute of Aerospace (NIA) at NASA LaRC June 2, 2003.
Simulation of the indirect radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols by the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model over the continental United States: Preliminary.
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.
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.
Development and Initial Applications
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.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Rochelle Balmori, Shu-Yun Chen, Prakash Karamchandani and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Justin T. Walters and John J. Jansen.
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.
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
CMAS Annual Conference, October 24-26, 2016, Chapel Hill, NC
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
A Performance Evaluation of Lightning-NO Algorithms in CMAQ
A model of sea salt aerosol for Cape Grim Preliminary investigations
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
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:

Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6 th CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 3, 2007

Coauthors Prakash BhaveNOAA/EPA Robin DennisNOAA/EPA Jeff ArnoldEPA Max ZhangCornell University Tony WexlerUC Davis

Motivation Certain ecosystems very sensitive to nitrate deposition In coastal environments, coarse sea salt particles may act as sinks for nitric acid: NaCl + HNO 3  NaNO 3 + HCl Most regional air quality models either neglect sea salt aerosol dynamics entirely or have crude estimates of sea salt emissions/boundary conditions

CMAQ-UCD Sectional aerosol module coupled to CMAQ 4.4  9 size bins, – 20  m.  SO 4, NO 3, NH 4, Na, Cl, EC, POA, SOAa, SOAb, dust, H +, H 2 O Dynamic mass transfer between gas/aerosol phases (non-equilibrium) Simplified thermodynamics derived from AIM SOA treatment similar to CMAQ No coagulation, no heterogeneous reaction of N 2 O 5

Application to BRACE Bay Region Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment – assess sources of nitrogen deposition to Tampa Bay Extensive measurements in May 2002—rich data set for this application This evaluation is not intended as a comparison against the CMAQ modal aerosol model!

Modeling Configuration 32 km continental U.S. domain, windowed to 8 km, then 2 km.  Will present results from 8 km only. MM5: 30 layers, Pleim-Xiu PBL and land- surface schemes, Grell microphysics.  Used sea surface temperature from GOES satellite. US EPA 1999 National Emissions Inventory, projected to CMAQ 4.4, SAPRC99, 21 layers April 21 – June 3, 2002

Sea Salt Emissions Size-dependent fluxes of sea salt Na +, Cl -, SO 4 2- over open ocean and surf zone from parameterizations of Gong et al. and de Leeuw et al.  see K.M. Zhang et al., 2005 Initial tests with 100 m surf zone width resulted in too much sea salt  Reduced surf zone width to 50 m

8 km domain (158 x 158) Observational Sites Modeling Domain

Observations Compare against two surface data sets 10- or 12-stage MOUDI (Evans et al., 2004).  23-h samples at 3 sites, 15 sampling days Semi-continuous parallel plate wetted denuder (Dasgupta et al., 2007)  Inlet 50% cut point ~ 12.5  m. See Jeff Arnold’s poster for comparisons against aircraft measurements!

Nitrate is consistently underpredicted Two co-located MOUDIs at Sydney; 2 nd measurement is shown in red.

Size distributions: May 14

Size distributions: May 15

Chloride Displacement by Nitrate NO 3 / (NO 3 + Cl)

Conclusions Modeled size distributions of SO 4, NH 4, Na, and Cl generally in good agreement with obs, but NO 3 too low by a factor of 2.  Missing source of NO 3 ?  Too rapid dry deposition? Though NO 3 is too low, model correctly predicts it is predominantly in the coarse size sections. Cl and Na concentrations are reasonably unbiased, indicating sea salt emissions and transport are correct on average. Frequent overpredictions in early morning Cl (not shown) and underprediction of extent of chloride displacement by nitrate.  Underestimated rate of mass transfer?  Inaccurate thermodynamics?  Other processes?

Acknowledgments Met modeling Lara Reynolds, Nancy Hwang Emissions Charles Chang, Lucille Bender, George Pouliot Observational data Sandy Dasgupta, Ben Hartsell Disclaimer: A portion of 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 This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.