Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,

Slides:



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

1 Policies for Addressing PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Rich Damberg EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards June 20, 2007.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
N emissions and the changing landscape of air quality Rob Pinder US EPA Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
FIRE AND BIOFUEL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANNUAL MEAN AEROSOL MASS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES ROKJIN J. PARK, DANIEL J. JACOB, JENNIFER A. LOGAN AGU FALL.
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.
SECONDARY ORGANIC AEROSOLS WORKSHOP OVERVIEW John G. Watson Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV February 5, 2002.
1 The Asian Aerosol Contribution to North American PM Pollution: Recognizing Asian Transport Composition and Concentration Modeling Regional Aerosol Burdens.
Technical Support System Review / / RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup Conference.
Investigating the Sources of Organic Carbon Aerosol in the Atmosphere Colette L. Heald NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellow University of.
Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham.
Organic Carbon Aerosol Colette L. Heald University of California, Berkeley NOAA Summer Institute, Steamboat Springs, CO July 12, 2006.
Weight of Evidence Checklist Review AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
IMPROVE Corrects OC and EC for a Positive Artifact The positive artifact correction causes the organic and elemental carbon to approach zero as fine mass.
IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.
WRAP Status + Fire Emissions Inventory Protocol for Regional Air Quality Analysis and Planning Support in the WRAP regionWRAP Tom Moore WRAP/Western Governors’
NATURAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY INFLUENCES ON PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULE Rokjin J. Park ACCESS VII,
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
Air Quality Impact Analysis 1.Establish a relationship between emissions and air quality. AQ past = a EM past + b 2.A change in emissions results in an.
Go After the Causes What are the principal causes of haze in each area? WRAP emissions WRAP modeling WRAP monitoring (causes of haze) Other studies How.
Reason for Doing Cluster Analysis Identify similar and dissimilar aerosol monitoring sites so that we can test the ability of the Causes of Haze Assessment.
Results of Ambient Air Analyses in Support of Transport Rule Presentation for RPO Workshop November 2003.
2004 Technical Summit Overview January 26-27, 2004 Tempe, AZ.
AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Title Progress in the development and results of the UNIFIED EMEP model Presented by Leonor Tarrason EMEP/MSC-W 29 th TFIAM meeting, Amiens, France,
UC Riverside FEJF Meeting, Las Vegas, NV Dec 8, 2004 UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. WRAP/RMC Fire Sensitivity Modeling Project Mohammad Omary, Gail Tonnesen WRAP.
WRAP COHA Update Seattle, WA May 25, 2006 Jin Xu.
WRAP CAMx-PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results Implementation Workgroup Meeting August 29, 2006.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
1 Options for Estimating Natural Background Visibility in the VISTAS Region Ivar Tombach with benefit of material prepared by Jim Boylan and Daniel Jacob.
Estimating the Contribution of Smoke and Its Fuel Types to Fine Particulate Carbon using a Hybrid- CMB Model Bret A. Schichtel and William C. Malm - NPS.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Future climate change drives increases in forest fires and summertime Organic Carbon Aerosol concentrations in the Western U.S. Dominick Spracklen, Jennifer.
Atmospheric Particulate Matter: Chemical Composition and Basics of Concentration Estimation Mike Bergin, Ted Russell, Jim Mullholland, Sangil Lee CEE 6319:
Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.
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.
OVERVIEW OF ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES: Daniel J. Jacob Ozone and particulate matter (PM) with a global change perspective.
Regional Haze Rule Promulgated in 1999 Requires states to set RPGs based on 4 statutory factors and consideration of a URP URP = 20% reduction in manmade.
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Overview of WRAP FEJF Work Products WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 23-24, 2006 Sacramento, CA Darla Potter (WDEQ) & Mark Fitch (USFS)
Weight of Evidence Discussion AoH Meeting – Tempe, AZ November 16/17, 2005.
Implementation Workgroup Meeting December 6, 2006 Attribution of Haze Workgroup’s Monitoring Metrics Document Status: 1)2018 Visibility Projections – Alternative.
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.
Recent and predicted changes in atmospheric composition over the United States from climate, emissions and bark beetles Fall AGU Meeting December 6, 2012.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
Reasonable Progress Demonstration Case Study for Saguaro Wilderness Area Arizona Regional Haze Stakeholder Meeting January 22, 2007.
Regional Haze Rule Promulgated in 1999 Requires states to set RPGs based on 4 statutory factors and consideration of a URP URP = 20% reduction in manmade.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Sulfate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Regional Haze SIP Template: Mobile Sources Edie Chang California Air Resources Board WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 2002.
Weight of Evidence Approach: Soil and Coarse Mass Case Studies WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 24, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists,
Informed NPS Air Quality Management Decisions in Response to a Changing Climate.
Nitrate Discussion WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning
Tom Moore (WESTAR and WRAP) and Pat Brewer (NPS ARD)
Adjusting the Regional Haze Glide path using Monitoring and Modeling Data Trends Natural Conditions International Anthropogenic Contributions.
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Western Regional Haze Planning and
PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
New CoHA Product Access Page & Representativeness Analysis
On-going developments of SinG: particles
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Presentation transcript:

Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento, CA May 23, 2006

Outline How well does the model perform for EC and OC? What changes are predicted in EC and OC concentrations on the worst visibility days between the 2002 and 2018 base cases? What is the influence of natural emissions in the 2002 base case and projections? Conclusions

CMAQ Model Performance By Month Across All WRAP IMPROVE Sites

CRLA

ROMO

CMAQ Model Performance for Elemental Carbon Rocky Mountain – July 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Organic Carbon Rocky Mountain – July 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Elemental Carbon Rocky Mountain – February 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Organic Carbon Rocky Mountain – February 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Elemental Carbon Badlands – July 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Organic Carbon Badlands – July 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Elemental Carbon Badlands – February 2002

CMAQ Model Performance for Organic Carbon Badlands – February 2002

+ += Primary Secondary Bio Secondary Anthro Total OC

Primary Organic Carbon Concentrations (2002 Annual Average) Resulting From Natural Sources (Primarily Wildfire)

Primary Organic Carbon Concentrations (2002 Annual Average) Resulting From All Sources

Secondary Organic Carbon Concentrations (2002 Annual Average) Resulting From Non-Fire Biogenic VOCs and No Anthro Emissions

Secondary Organic Carbon Concentrations (2002 Annual Average) Resulting From Non-Fire Biogenic VOCs Plus Anthro Emissions

Change in Biogenic Organics

Relative Concentrations and Future Changes In Organic Carbon Sources At these six sites … 2 nd Anthro: Contribution is small, but generally decreases 2 nd Biogen: Contribution is large, varies significantly, but generally decreases Primary: Contribution is also large, but changes are more variable

Major Caveats of CMAQ-Based Carbon Source Identification These results based on annual averages –Results likely different on 20% best and worst visibility days Based solely on 2002 emissions –Not necessarily representative of long-term (2064) natural conditions –Lead to very site-specific results Contributions vary across the region, even for non-fire biogenic sources

Percent Change in Annual Average Anthropogenic Secondary Organic Carbon Concentrations

Percent Change in Annual Average Biogenic Secondary Organic Carbon Concentrations

Percent Change in Annual Average Primary Organic Carbon Concentrations

Elemental Carbon Percent Reduction on 20% Worst Visibility Days (2002 to 2018 Base Case)

Organic Carbon Percent Reduction on 20% Worst Visibility Days (2002 to 2018 Base Case)

YOSE Natural sources dominated total, and the variability in particulate organic mass concentrations summer 2002 Carbon isotope analyses of fine aerosol filter samples from Turtleback Dome determined a constant contribution for fossil fuel sources of 0.7 ± 0.1 µg/m 3 to POM. Contemporary (biogenically derived) carbon represented 2-9 µg/m 3. Sources of contemporary aerosol carbon include emissions from fires and vegetative emissions of reactive gases that subsequently form condensable species, both particulate primary emissions and volatile organic aerosol precursors that are later oxidized to secondary organic aerosols.

Conclusions Based on comparisons to ambient monitoring data, CMAQ performs adequately for EC and OC at Class I areas for purposes of assessing the impact of emission changes on the 20% best and worst visibility days. EC concentrations are expected to decrease significantly in 2018, commensurate with mobile source and some smoke controls.

Conclusions Smaller improvements in OC are expected due to large influence of natural sources. A significant portion of the OC originates from non-fire biogenic VOC emissions, but is enhanced by anthropogenic sources. Natural source contributions are large, vary substantially by site and year, and limit the progress that can be made, but … –OC is not entirely natural and can benefit directly or indirectly from emission controls

Conclusions Fire emissions dominate extreme organic values Actual future organic emissions from fire are unpredictable in terms of where and when they occur - The model has constrained wildland fires to be in the same between current and future years The model can be used to examine different scenarios – limited utility

Conclusions Real trick is to account for the dominance of organic concentrations at sites with fire impacts and still show reasonable progress