Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source.

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.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Sulfur & Nitrogen Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference.
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.
Georgia Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference: Improved Air Quality Modeling for Predicting the Impacts of Controlled Forest.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Halûk Özkaynak US EPA, Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, RTP, NC Presented at the CMAS Special Symposium on Air.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.
Quantifying CMAQ Simulation Uncertainties of Particulate Matter in the Presence of Uncertain Emissions Rates Wenxian Zhang, Marcus Trail, Alexandra Tsimpidi,
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.
Using field campaigns results to reduce uncertainties in inventories Wenche Aas, Knut Breivik and Karl Espen Yttri And material from: Eiko Nemitz (CEH,
Source apportionment of Swiss carbonaceous aerosols using radiocarbon analyses of different fractions References: S. Szidat et al., 2007: Dominant impact.
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Source apportionment of the carbonaceous aerosol – Quantitative estimates based on 14 C- and organic tracer analysis 1.Norwegian Institute for Air Research.
Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Burning Karsten Baumann, PhD. Polly Gustafson.
THE IMPACTS OF TRANS-BOUNDARY TRANSPORT OF AEROSOLS ON THE REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: A case study of Mexican wildland fire on May 1998 Hee-Jin In 1, Daewon.
WRAP Status + Fire Emissions Inventory Protocol for Regional Air Quality Analysis and Planning Support in the WRAP regionWRAP Tom Moore WRAP/Western Governors’
J. Zhou 1, X. Zhu 1, T. Wang 1, and X. Zhang 2 J. Zhou 1, X. Zhu 1, T. Wang 1, and X. Zhang 2 1 College of Resources and Information Tech., China University.
Angeliki Karanasiou Source apportionment of particulate matter in urban aerosol Institute of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection, Environmental.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory Atmospheric Modeling Division, Research Triangle Park, NC September 17, 2015 Annmarie.
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.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Mercury Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference Research.
1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement: Transboundary PM Science Assessment Report to the Air Quality Committee June, 2004.
The Use of Source Apportionment for Air Quality Management and Health Assessments Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University Center for Air Resources Engineering.
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.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.
8th annual CMAS conference, Chapel Hill, October 19-21, 2009 Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences / ITU IMPACTS OF ISTANBUL EMISSIONS ON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY:
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Application and Evaluation of CMAQ in the United States: Air Quality Forecasting and Retrospective Modeling Shawn J. Roselle NOAA Atmospheric Science Modeling.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Using Dynamical Downscaling to Project.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
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.
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.
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,
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.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,
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.
Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia Sangil Lee.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 26 October 2011 Diagnostic Evaluation.
Organo-Sulfur and Receptor Modeling Status/Challenges Christopher Palmer Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
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.
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.
CHARACTERIZING IMPACTS OF WILD AND PRESCRIBED FIRES ON AMBIENT FINE PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS CSU Atmospheric Science Department National Park Service/CIRA.
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.
Source apportionment of submicron organic aerosols at an urban site by linear unmixing of aerosol mass spectra V. A. Lanz 1, M. R. Alfarra 2, U. Baltensperger.
Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Photo image area measures.
EPA’s SPECIATE 4.4 Database: Development and Uses Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention.
Introduction Experimental Methods Conclusions Emissions of volatile organic compounds and particulate matter from small-scale peat fires I. George 1, R.
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
Havala O. T. Pye1 With contributions from:
Organics Analyses and Results
Sources of the PM10 aerosol in Flanders, Belgium, and re-evaluation of the contribution from wood burning Willy Maenhaut1,2, Reinhilde Vermeylen2, Magda.
17th Annual CMAS Conference Sadia Afrin and Fernando Garcia Menendez
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
Longer Term Aerosol Chemical speciation monitoring data during ACTRIS/EMEP activities ACSM Teams across Europe Many slides from Michael Bressi, JRC Italy.
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Presentation transcript:

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source and receptor models for the purpose of emissions inventory improvement: Application to residential wood combustion in the Southeast. Sergey L. Napelenok, Ram Vedantham, George A. Pouliot, Prakash V. Bhave, Roger Kwok U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 11 th Annual CMAS Conference

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Why Residential Wood Combustion? 1 Primary carbon emissions from this source contribute significantly to PM 2.5. This sector has been identified by NEI developers as one of their top concerns. Our own modeling shows room for improvement in total carbon (TC) predictions. Winter bias = 0.10 Summer bias = Spring bias = Autumn bias = -0.91

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Why Southeast? Region with highest concentration of carbonaceous PM 2.5 in the U.S. Extensive measurement campaign in 2007 –PM, trace metals, organic tracers, etc. 15 EPA FRM sites available with a fairly complete record of observations of levoglucosan (n samples = 817) 2 Zhang, X., Hecobian, A., Zheng, M., Frank, N. H., Weber, R. J. (2010). Biomass burning impact on PM(2.5) over the southeastern US during 2007: integrating chemically speciated FRM filter measurements, MODIS fire counts and PMF analysis. Atmos Chem Phys 10(14):

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Summary of Current NEI Total Carbon Emissions 3 The 2008 NEI has nine distinguishable sources of biomass-combustion-produced carbon emissions. Fires (wildland + prescribed) dominate the emissions from all 3 states of interest. AlabamaGeorgiaSouth Carolina TC Emissions in 2007 (kg/day)

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Air Quality Model: CMAQ-ISAM CMAQ v4.7.1 has been equipped with Integrated Source Apportionment Method (ISAM) –Tracks primary and inorganic secondary particulate matter species by sector, geographical region, and/or chemical precursor. –Performs very well for primary sources like EC/OC –Presentation by Roger Kwok – Wednesday 11:20. Simulation information –Episode: 1 January – 31 December –Inputs: Standard WRF, 2008 NEI, GEOS-Chem boundaries. –Track the nine carbon sources using CMAQ-ISAM. 4

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Levoglucosan Source Profiles To approximate levoglucosan concentrations from CMAQ TC, speciation profiles from emission source tests are used: –Wood Bark –Industrial μg levoglucosan / μg C –Wood Stove (Fine et al., 2002) –Fire Place –Waste Leaf –Land Clear μg levoglucosan / μg C –House Waste(Lee et al., 2005) –Fire –Crop Residue μg levoglucosan / μg C (Hays et al., 2002) 5

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 6 CMAQ-ISAM Apportioned Levoglucosan

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division CMAQ-ISAM Apportioned Levoglucosan (2) 7

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Evaluation of Model Predicted Levoglucosan Mean Obs (ng/m 3 ) Mean CMAQ (ng/m 3 ) Mean Bias (ng/m 3 ) Winter (DJF) Spring (MAM) Summer (JJA) Autumn (SON) Model appears to consistently under predict total PM 2.5 from biomass combustion sources at most sites It would be helpful to split the bias among the various categories of biomass combustion – in other words to apportion the observations

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Unmix 6.0 Receptor models apportion observations to sources. Unmix version 6.0. –Constrained multivariate receptor model. –Input: speciated concentrations. –Output: source profiles, source contributions, diagnostics, and uncertainties. –Local, urban, and regional sources. Traditional applications of Unmix focus on identifying source types with the goal of maximally explaining total PM mass. –Inputting measured concentrations of levoglucosan and other species (mannosan, galactosan, xylose, potassium, magnesium, nitrate, sulfate, oxalate, WSOC) in a standard application results in one or two sources that can only be explained as “Biomass related.” Not too helpful… –Need to distinguish different sources of biomass burning without source specific molecular markers. 9

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Unmix Application We can use CMAQ-ISAM apportioned levoglucosan in addition to total observed levoglucosan as independent species in Unmix to see what the distribution of sources might look like: Unmix is able to apportion the majority of the observed levoglucosan using 7 distinct factors Sources of WoodStove and FirePlace are indistinguishable as one factor (1) Sources of WasteLeaf, LandClear, and HouseWaste are indistinguishable and split between two sources (5 + 7) The other 4 sources appear to be independent of one another as resolved by Unmix 10 SourceFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5Factor 6Factor 7 WoodBark WasteLeaf LandClear Industrial WoodStove HouseWaste FirePlace CropResidue Fire

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Bias in Sector Specific Levoglucosan Predictions 11

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Bias in Sector Specific Levoglucosan Predictions (2) 12

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Bias in Sector Specific Levoglucosan Predictions (3) 13

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Bias in Sector Specific Levoglucosan Predictions (4) 14

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Summary A new approach for evaluating sector specific emissions –Combines AQM source apportionment and observation-based source apportionment. –Allows to further explore possible refinement to various categories of biomass burning in the NEI. Results are very preliminary, but the method looks promising. –Too early to make recommendations –Quantify uncertainty in Unmix output –Gain confidence in the results by applying other SA models (PMF) 15

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Contact information: 16

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Appendix: Unmix Application 17 samples species samples sources species Standard Unmix Current Application obs Src Cont Source Profile ISAM Src Cont Source Factors levo obs