Eric Edgerton, ARA, Inc. PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel Hill, NC February 10, 2004 SEARCH: Overview of Data for Model Performance Evaluation Photo.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 in the Southeastern US Sangil Lee 1, Yongtao Hu 1, Michael Chang 2, Karsten Baumann 2, Armistead (Ted) Russell 1 1 School.
Advertisements

Carbon artifact adjustments for the IMPROVE and CSN speciated particulate networks Mark Green, Judith Chow, John Watson Desert Research Institute Ann Dillner.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Atmospheric Aerosol From the Source to the Receptor Insights from the Pittsburgh Supersite Spyros Pandis, Allen Robinson, and Cliff Davidson Department.
An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,
Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.
Carbon Measurements and Adjustments Measurement of organics by IMPROVE & STN networks, Use of blank data to correct carbon concentration measurements,
1 Recent PM 2.5 Trends in Georgia André J. Butler Mercer University EVE 290L 14 April, 2008.
Use of National PM2.5 and Speciation Network Measurements for Model Evaluation For presentation at PM Model Performance Workshop February 10-11, 2004:
Section highlights Organic Aerosol and Field Studies.
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Organic Carbon and Elemental Carbon in Atlanta Area Chao Wu.
Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Imperial College London Friday, 23.
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
1 The Asian Aerosol Contribution to North American PM Pollution: Recognizing Asian Transport Composition and Concentration Modeling Regional Aerosol Burdens.
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.
IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.
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.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
Plume-in-Grid Modeling for PM & Mercury Prakash Karamchandani, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shu-Yun Chen & Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 5th Annual CMAS.
Chemistry of Particles and Selected Trace Gases at Whistler, BC A.M. Macdonald, K.G. Anlauf and W.R. Leaitch.
Preparation of Fine Particulate Emissions Inventories Lesson 1 Introduction to Fine Particles (PM 2.5 )
Is there need to collect routine ammonia/ammonium measurements in ambient air monitoring networks? Perspectives of a Data Analyst from a Small State Air.
Results of Ambient Air Analyses in Support of Transport Rule Presentation for RPO Workshop November 2003.
MODELS3 – IMPROVE – PM/FRM: Comparison of Time-Averaged Concentrations R. B. Husar S. R. Falke 1 and B. S. Schichtel 2 Center for Air Pollution Impact.
25/05/20071 About comparability of measured and modeled metrics Jean-Philippe Putaud Fabrizia Cavalli DG JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Lessons Learned: One-Atmosphere Photochemical Modeling in Southeastern U.S. Presentation from Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative to Meeting of Regional.
SEASONAL VARIABILITY OF ORGANIC MASS CONTRIBUTION TO PM2.5 WITHIN METRO ATLANTA AND FURTHER DOWNWIND K. Baumann 1, M.E. Chang 1, A.G. Russell 2, E.S. Edgerton.
Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
Properties of Particulate Matter Physical, Chemical and Optical Properties Size Range of Particulate Matter Mass Distribution of PM vs. Size: PM10, PM2.5.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
MRPO Nitrate and Organic Speciation Special Studies Donna Kenski National RPO Technical Meeting Dallas, Dec. 3-4, 2002.
The Use of Source Apportionment for Air Quality Management and Health Assessments Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University Center for Air Resources Engineering.
VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.
PM Model Performance in Southern California Using UAMAERO-LT Joseph Cassmassi Senior Meteorologist SCAQMD February 11, 2004.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Time-Resolved & In-Depth Evaluation of PM and PM Precursors using CMAQ Robin L. Dennis Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S. EPA/ORD:NOAA/ARL PM Model Performance.
SEARCH & VISTAS Special Studies RPO National Technical Meeting St. Louis, MO November 5, 2003.
11 September 2015 On the role of measurements and modelling in Dutch air quality policies Guus Velders The Netherlands (RIVM)
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.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
Measurements of Trace Gases and PM 2.5 Mass and Composition near the Ground and at 254 m agl During TexAQS 2000 and Comparison with Other Regions K. Baumann,
NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.
Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia Sangil Lee.
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
Assessment of the Speciated PM Network (Initial Draft, November 2004 ) Washington University, St. Louis CIRA/NPS VIEWS Team.
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling
National Wildlife Refuge
Brian Timin- EPA/OAQPS
Nitrogen Deposition: Measurement Techniques and Field Studies
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Characterization of Aerosols at Fire Station 8, Atlanta, GA
Continuous measurement of airborne particles and gases
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
K. Baumann, M.E. Chang, V. Dookwah, S. Lee, A.G. Russell
ACTRIS Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) Network and new filter off-line techniques to measure PM chemical composition and determine organic aerosol.
Concentrations of particulate matter in France : results and key findings Olivier Le Bihan, François Mathe, Jean-Luc Houdret, Bertrand Bessagnet, Patrice.
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
TFMM PM Assessment Report
Time-Integrated Particle Measurements : Status in Canada
Continuous Carbon and NHy Measurements
Longer Term Aerosol Chemical speciation monitoring data during ACTRIS/EMEP activities ACSM Teams across Europe Many slides from Michael Bressi, JRC Italy.
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Presentation transcript:

Eric Edgerton, ARA, Inc. PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel Hill, NC February 10, 2004 SEARCH: Overview of Data for Model Performance Evaluation Photo

SEARCH: Southeastern Aerosol Research and Characterization Study Oak Grove (OAK) Centreville (CTR) Pensacola (PNS) Yorkville (YRK) Jefferson Street (JST) North Birmingham (BHM) Gulfport (GFP) Outlying Landing Field #8 (OLF) rural urban suburban

SEARCH Objectives  Develop a Particulate Matter Climatology for 8 Sites  Understand Composition and its Variability –Year to Year, Season to Season ( ) –Rural vs. Urban –Coastal vs. Inland  Test, Improve, and Deploy Measurement Methods for Pollutant Gases and Continuous PM Components  Estimate Source Contributions Understand Formation Processes  Provide Comprehensive Data Set for Use in SIP Development  Collaborate with States and Others

SEARCH Measurements - Continuous CategoryObservables Temporal Resolution Trace GasesO 3, NO, NO 2, HNO 3, NH x, NOy, CO, SO 2, CO 2 1 min. Fine ParticlesMass, BC, B scat SO 4 2-,NO 3, NH 4 + TC 1 min. or 60 min. (TC) Surface Met. T, RH, BP, WS, WD SR, precip. 1 min.

SEARCH Measurements - Discrete CategoryAnalytes Frequency ( ) PM 2.5 MassDaily PM 2.5 SO 4 2-,NO 3 -, NH 4 + OC, EC, Trace Elem. 1/3 PM coarse Mass1/3 PM coarse SO 4 2-,NO 3 -, NH 4 + Trace Elem. 1/6 PM coarse OC, EC1/6 (2 sites) Trace GasNH 3 (started 10/1/03)1/3

Need to Benchmark Continuous Data with Filter Data

Example of SEARCH Continuous PM Data Validation Process – Raw Scatter

Example of SEARCH Continuous PM Data Validation Process – Raw Ratio Cont./Flt.

Example of SEARCH Continuous PM Data Validation Process – Adjusted Scatter

Example of SEARCH Continuous PM Data Validation Process – Adjusted Time Series

Time Series of Hourly SO 4 2- JST – August /23/02 0:00 8/23/02 12:00 8/24/02 0:00 8/24/02 12:00 8/25/02 0:00 8/25/02 12:00 8/26/02 0:00 8/26/02 12:00 8/27/02 0:00 8/27/02 12:00 8/28/02 0:00 8/28/02 12:00 8/29/02 0:00 8/29/02 12:00 8/30/02 0:00 8/30/02 12:00 8/31/02 0:00 8/31/02 12:00 9/1/02 0:00 9/1/02 12:00 9/2/02 0:00 9/2/02 12:00 9/3/02 0:00 9/3/02 12:00 9/4/02 0:00 9/4/02 12:00 9/5/02 0:00 9/5/02 12:00 9/6/02 0:00 9/6/02 12:00 9/7/02 0:00 9/7/02 12:00 9/8/02 0:00 ARA SO4PILS SO4 SO4 (ug/m3)

Time Series of Hourly NO 3 - JST – August /23/02 0:00 8/23/02 12:00 8/24/02 0:00 8/24/02 12:00 8/25/02 0:00 8/25/02 12:00 8/26/02 0:00 8/26/02 12:00 8/27/02 0:00 8/27/02 12:00 8/28/02 0:00 8/28/02 12:00 8/29/02 0:00 8/29/02 12:00 8/30/02 0:00 8/30/02 12:00 8/31/02 0:00 8/31/02 12:00 9/1/02 0:00 9/1/02 12:00 9/2/02 0:00 9/2/02 12:00 9/3/02 0:00 9/3/02 12:00 9/4/02 0:00 9/4/02 12:00 9/5/02 0:00 9/5/02 12:00 9/6/02 0:00 9/6/02 12:00 9/7/02 0:00 9/7/02 12:00 9/8/02 0:00 ARA NO3PILS NO3 NO3 (ug/m3)

Continuous vs. Filter Data 24-Hr Averages (JST) MAE = median abs. error; MAPE = median abs. % error

Filter-based and Continuous PM coarse JST: March-April 2003 (units are µg/m 3 )

Filter-based and Continuous PM coarse JST: October 2003 (units are µg/m3)

Diurnal CO, NOy, O3 Profiles at Jefferson Street January 2002 (left), August 2002 (right)

Diurnal PM 2.5 Profiles at Jefferson Street January 2002 (left), August 2002 (right)

SO2 Oxidation Rates

/53 CFPPs in Vicinity of Yorkville (distances in km)

SO2 and NOy 8/20/02 Event

SO2 vs. NOy 8/20/02 Event

Trajectory and CEM data point to Plant Bowen Plant Bowen CEM Data Bowen

SO2 and SO4 8/20/02 Event

SO4 vs. SO2, 8/20/02 Event Estimated transit time of 2.8 hours yields conversion rate of 2.5%/hour

Mean SO 2 conversion rate by season and time of day

Urban vs. Biomass (ER) CO NOy (ppb/ppm) PM2.5 (ug/m3/ppm) TC (ug/m3/ppm) Urban137 (12)38 (9)11(2) Biomass23 (13)220 (60)69 (19) U/B Urban data from Jefferson Street, Atlanta, GA SEARCH Site

Comparison of ERs with Literature Values

Ammonia First Look (4 th Quarter 2003)

SEARCH NH 3 Measurements Oak Grove Centreville Pensacola Yorkville Jefferson St. N.Birmingham Gulfport OLF rural urban suburban 24-hour denuder (1/3 day) all sites Starting 10/1/03 Continuous at Yorkville (9/15/03) and Oak Grove (7/1/04)

SEARCH NH 3 and %NHy 4 th Quarter 2003 urban- industrial urban-res./ind. rural- forested rural- forested rural- agricultural urban- residential urban- residential suburban

Hourly NH 3 and particulate-NH 4 + Yorkville, GA – November 2003

Continuous NH 3 vs. Wind Direction Yorkville, GA – November 2003

The Smoking Chicken 2 km 1 km Poultry operations within several km of Yorkville (crosshair) line up with NH 3 spikes.

Continuous NH 4 + and NO 3 - vs. Wind Direction Yorkville, GA - November 2003

Continuous NH 4 + and NO 3 - Oak Grove 11/11/03

Comparison of ERs with Literature Values

HMS Fire and Smoke Summary for /21/03 Emissions from Biomass Burning Oak Grove

Bsp (m -1 ) WD and B sp for Oak Grove – 10/21/03

Comparison of ERs with Literature Values

Ammonium Sulfate

Continuous PM at Jefferson Street August 16, 2001

SO4, xsNH4 and Molar Ratio

Background adjusted Molar Ratio

Sources of Carbon

Emission Ratios for CO2 and NOy JST 11/16-17/01

Emission Ratios for PM 2.5, TC and BC JST 11/16-17/01

Summary of Observed (ER) CO JST, Atlanta NOyPM2.5TCBC ppb/ppmug/m3-ppm n18 Mean s.d CV (%)

Simplified Carbon Source Matrix and Applicable Tools

Sources of Primary OC in PM 2.5 (F) (F/M ?) (F) (M) (Secondary F/M?)

Primary Carbon Speciation Sites SEARCH & EPA-STN STN-Urban STN-Rural STN-Suburban SEARCH-Urban SEARCH Rural SEARCH-Suburban

Carbon-14 and OC Data Atlanta, GA (JST) /1/20017/4/20017/7/2001 7/10/20017/13/20017/16/20017/19/20017/22/20017/25/20017/28/20017/31/20018/21/ /13/200111/17/200111/18/ /4/200112/5/ /17/200112/20/200112/26/200112/29/2001 1/4/20021/7/2002 1/10/20021/13/20021/16/20021/19/2002 OC (ug/m3) F Modern OCF Modern

OC Source Matrix Atlanta, GA – January * 2000 Data: Zheng et al., ES&T, Primary* Secondary Total # Modern 64 <5 61 +/-5 Fossil 36 <5 39 +/-5 # from 14 Cdata

OC Source Matrix Atlanta, GA – July 2001 * Zheng et al. Source Apportionment of Fine Particles at Atlanta, GA, AAAR 2002 Primary* Secondary Total # Modern <5 > /-5 Fossil 40* <5 41 +/-5 # from 14 C data

Five-year Trends

Annual Average Speciated PM 2.5

PMcoarse at Jefferson Street, GA (Inorganic Species Account for < 50% of Mass)

Plant (Carbon) Material in PMcoarse Sample Centreville, AL 3700x

PMcoarse Speciation with OC and EC OM= OC*1.4, or OC*1.7, or OC*2.0

Continuous NOy, PM 2.5, TEOM PM coarse JST: January 21, 2004

FRM versus Best Estimate: Composition Recipes FRM Equivalent –Include Field Blank (0.3 µg/m 3 ) –Use components from Teflon filter (PCM1) and front Quartz filter (PCM3) Best Estimate –Blank correct all components –Add volatile NO3 –Add volatile NH4 (equiv. to NO3) –Add estimated volatile OC (backup Quartz)

SEARCH FRM Equivalent and Best Estimate PM 2.5 Composition (percent) Jefferson Street, Atlanta, GA Average FRM Equivalent mass = 17.7 ug/m 3 Average Best Estimate mass = 19.0 ug/m 3

Use Of SEARCH “Best Estimate” Fractions For DV Calculations Future-year PM 2.5 design values are calculated using a combination of observed data and PM modeling results For this analysis, RRFs were calculated based on 1996 and 2010 IAQR modeling results from REMSAD To examine the uncertainties associated with the use of speciation measurements we calculated the 2010 DVs using –FRM base values and fractions –FRM base values and “best estimate” fractions

Use of SEARCH “Best Estimate” Fractions For DV Calculations FDVs calculated for all 8 SEARCH sites, with and without assumption that 50% of “other” is PBW associated with nitrates and sulfates Over the four combinations, 2010 FDVs differ by as much as 0.5  gm -3 For example: Pensacola Yorkville Atlanta Birmingham FRMBEOBSFRM PBW BE PBW

Use of SEARCH “Best Estimate” Fractions For DV Calculations Considering the best estimate fraction for each species separately, the largest differences come from nitrate For the Birmingham site: FRMBE Sulfate only Nitrate only Organics only16.6 Black carbon only Other inorganics only Unattributed mass only

Summary SEARCH network will provide comprehensive PM/trace gas data through 2005 Filter data needed to characterize continuous PM technologies –Data adjustments –Data uncertainty Carbon speciation work underway (primary vs.secondary, Modern vs. Fossil) NH3 measurements begun in the SE –Primary species: high and variable near sources, expect lower and less variable near sinks Combination of continuous PM and Gas measurements shows promise –SO4 neutralization variability –Contributions from biomass burning –gas/particle conversion Differences between FRM Equivalent and Best Estimate are Significant and Need to be Understood –Model Evaluation –FDVs