Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Development and Application of PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios to Account for PM2.5 Secondary Formation in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia.
Advertisements

A Web-based Community Approach to Model Evaluation using AMET Saravanan Arunachalam 1, Nathan Rice 2 and Pradeepa Vennam 1 1 Institute for the Environment.
Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.
CO budget and variability over the U.S. using the WRF-Chem regional model Anne Boynard, Gabriele Pfister, David Edwards National Center for Atmospheric.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
Cost-effective dynamical downscaling: An illustration of downscaling CESM with the WRF model Jared H. Bowden and Saravanan Arunachalam 11 th Annual CMAS.
Modeled Trends in Impacts of Landing and Takeoff Aircraft Emissions on Surface Air-Quality in U.S for 2005, 2010 and 2018 Lakshmi Pradeepa Vennam 1, Saravanan.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Spatial Variability of Seasonal PM2.5 Interpollutant Trading Ratios in Georgia James Boylan and Byeong-Uk Kim Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch 2014.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody, Jeffrey Rissman, Frank Binkowski,
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.
Operational Air Quality and Source Contribution Forecasting in Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Yongtao Hu 1, M. Talat Odman 1, Michael E. Chang.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling Division, Applied Modeling Research Branch October 8, 2008.
Modeling the Co-Benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants STI-6102 Stephen Reid, Ken Craig, Garnet Erdakos Sonoma Technology, Inc. Jonathan.
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.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Prakash Karamchandani Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA 3rd Annual CMAS Models-3 Conference October 18-20, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory Atmospheric Modeling Division, Research Triangle Park, NC September 17, 2015 Annmarie.
Examination of the impact of recent laboratory evidence of photoexcited NO 2 chemistry on simulated summer-time regional air quality Golam Sarwar, Robert.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
Land Processes Group, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL Response of Atmospheric Model Predictions at Different Grid Resolutions Maudood.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC/DOD/EPA-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody 1, Saravanan Arunachalam.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence A Comparison of CMAQ Predicted Contributions.
Further Development and Application of the CMAQ Ozone and Particle Precursor Tagging Methodologies (OPTM & PPTM) 7 th Annual CMAS Conference Chapel Hill,
INCORPORATING UNCERTAINTY INTO AIR QUALITY MODELING & PLANNING – A CASE STUDY FOR GEORGIA 7 th Annual CMAS Conference 6-8 th October, 2008 Antara Digar,
1 Neil Wheeler, Kenneth Craig, and Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, California Presented at the Sixth Annual Community Modeling and.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence MCIP2AERMOD: A Prototype Tool for Preparing.
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.
Impacts of MOVES2014 On-Road Mobile Emissions on Air Quality Simulations of the Western U.S. Z. Adelman, M. Omary, D. Yang UNC – Institute for the Environment.
PM 2.5 Response to Different Emissions Reductions Scenarios Over São Paulo State, Brazil. Taciana T. de A. Albuquerque a, J. Jason West b, Rita Yuri Ynoue.
Application of the CMAQ Particle and Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) to Support Water Quality Planning for the Virginia Mercury Study 6 th Annual.
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.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Georgia Institute of Technology Assessing the Impacts of Hartsfield- Jackson Airport on PM and Ozone in Atlanta Area Alper Unal, Talat Odman and Ted Russell.
Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.
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.
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
GOING FROM 12-KM TO 250-M RESOLUTION Josephine Bates 1, Audrey Flak 2, Howard Chang 2, Heather Holmes 3, David Lavoue 1, Mitchel Klein 2, Matthew Strickland.
May 22, UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIONS IN LOWERING 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard Envair 12.
Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.
1 Prakash Karamchandani 1, David Parrish 2, Lynsey Parker 1, Thomas Ryerson 3, Paul O. Wennberg 4, Alex Teng 4, John D. Crounse 4, Greg Yarwood 1 1 Ramboll.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Multiscale Predictions of Aircraft-Attributable PM 2.5 Modeled Using CMAQ-APT enhanced with an Aircraft-Specific 1-D Model for U.S. Airports Matthew Woody,
Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:
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.
Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.
Impact assessment of anthropogenic emission control upon aerosol mass burden during heavy pollution episodes over North China Plain Meigen Zhang, Xiao.
Template Comparison of PM Source Apportionment and Sensitivity Analysis in CAMx Bonyoung Koo, Gary Wilson, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON Alan Dunker.
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.
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
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.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.
Fine Scale Modeling of Ozone Exposure Estimates using a Source Sensitivity Approach Cesunica E. Ivey, Lucas Henneman, Cong Liu, Yongtao T. Hu, Armistead.
Georgia Institute of Technology Air Quality Impacts from Airport Related Emissions: Atlanta Case Study M. Talat Odman Georgia Institute of Technology School.
Advances in Support of the CMAQ Bidirectional Science Option for the Estimation of Ammonia Flux from Agricultural cropland Ellen Cooter U.S. EPA, National.
February 11, 2016 Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) Emissions from U.S. Shale Plays using an Integrated Top-down and Bottom-up Approach Speaker: Andy Chang, PhD.
Understanding the impact of isoprene nitrates and OH reformation on regional air quality using recent advances in isoprene photooxidation chemistry Ying.
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
Improving an Air Quality Decision Support System through the Integration of Satellite Data with Ground-Based, Modeled, and Emissions Data Demonstration.
FUTURE PREDICTION OF SURFACE OZONE OVER EAST ASIA UP TO 2020
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, M. Talat Odman and Armistead G. Russell
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
Improving an Air Quality Decision Support System through the Integration of Satellite Data with Ground-Based, Modeled, and Emissions Data Demonstration.
CMAQ model as a tool for generating input data for HM and POP modeling
Presentation transcript:

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute for the Environment, UNC Chapel Hill October 19-21, th Annual CMAS User’s Conference, Chapel Hill, NC Secondary Organic Aerosol Produced from Aircraft Emissions at the Atlanta Airport – An Advanced Diagnostic Investigation Using Process Analysis

2 Overall Motivation for FAA Research Aviation activities have emissions of CO, NO x, VOC, SO x, PM 2.5 and numerous hazardous air pollutants –Critical to understand exposure to these to protect public health Compared to all other sources that impact air quality, aviation emissions are usually small –For e.g. in the U.S., NO x from aviation contributes < 1% in 77% of counties, PM 2.5 contributes < 1% in 94% of counties –However, in some counties, airport contribution could be significant Concerns about potential growth of aviation emissions in the future Aviation emissions vary in 4-D (in space and time), undergo complex chemical transformation in the atmosphere –Need to be characterized accurately for better understanding their atmospheric impacts

3 Background Emissions at ATL airport CMAQ modeling performed to determine effects of aircraft emissions on air quality at 3 airports –Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL), Chicago O’Hare (ORD) and Providence T.F. Green (PVD) airports MM5-SMOKE-CMAQ (v4.6) modeling system used along with the FAA Emissions Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS) –Emissions from Landing- TakeOff cycle (LTO) up to 10,000 ft –Aircraft emissions processed through SMOKE using EDMS2INV interface (Baek et al, 2007)

4 Background CMAQ Modeling Scenarios –base02 (NEI-2002 based emissions for non-aviation sources) –sens_airc (above plus aircraft emissions from ATL, ORD, and PVD) June and July modeled at 36k, 12k, and 4k resolutions Contributions from aircraft computed from the difference of sens_airc (with aircraft emissions) minus base02 (without) Model performance evaluated using AMET for PM 2.5 data from various networks (Arunachalam et al, 2008) Modeling Domains

5 Monthly Average Change in PM 2.5 due to Aircraft Emissions at ATL 0.50% 1.47% 5.66% 0.51% 1.18% 5.61% Overall, aircraft emissions increase PM 2.5 concentrations at the grid- cell containing the airport. However, aircraft emissions reduce SOA concentrations at 36k and 12k grid resolutions while SOA concentrations increase at the 4k resolution.

6 Overall Goals Determine the chemical and physical processes behind the changing concentrations of SOA at the various grid resolutions –SOA reduced at 36k and 12k, increase at 4k –Focus on grid-cell containing airport Test modeling updates in CMAQ v4.7 (aero5) with new SOA pathways and precursors, and determine the impacts of changes in SOA concentrations due to aircraft emissions, relative to CMAQ v4.6 (aero4)

7 Process Analysis Approach Chose the 2 days from June and July which exhibited the largest reduction of SOA concentrations in the 12k and 36k grid resolutions –June 6 and 7, 2002 Two days rerun in CMAQ v4.6 with Process Analysis –Integrated Process Rates –Integrated Reaction Rates 04-km grid-cell 12-km grid-cell 36-km grid-cell JST Compare results at 3 resolutions (36k, 12k, and 4k) for the single grid-cell containing the airport and for the 9 grid-cells (at 12k resolution) and 81 grid-cells (at 4k resolution) that match the spatial extents of the 36k grid-cell

8 Changes in SOA Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL 36k 4k 12k SOA changes due to aircraft are driven by aerosol process. Since aircraft emissions do not contain SOA precursors, what is happening to free radical budgets that oxidize SOA precursors?

9 Changes in NO 3 Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL 36k 4k 12k Aircraft emissions cause reductions in NO 3, hindering oxidation of SOA precursors. Vertical diffusion drives the changes in NO 3.

10 Changes in NO 3 Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL – Layers 1 through 14 36k 4k 12k Reductions of NO 3 concentrations from aircraft in lower 14 lowers driven by chemistry. NO x emissions from aircraft react to reduce NO 3 concentrations (not shown)

11 Changes in Primary Organic Aerosol Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL 36k 4k 12k Increase in Primary Organic Aerosol (POA) from direct aircraft emissions at the 4k resolution provide additional surface area for SOA to partition onto.

12 Changes in POA Emissions Due to Aircraft at ATL Concentration ( μ g/m 3 ) Based Emissions Mass Per Time (g/s) Based Emissions Emissions are equivalent on a mass basis but are diluted over larger grid cells at coarse resolution.

13 Changes in SOA Concentrations – Analysis for Equivalent Areas 36k, 12k, and 4k resolutions Equivalent Areas at 36k, 12k (3x3), and 4k (9x9) resolutions Equivalent spatial extents at 3 grid resolutions exhibit similar patterns – gas phase chemistry dominates change in SOA concentrations due to aircraft SOA

14 Changes in SOA Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL – v4.6 vs. v4.7 36k 12k 4k Solid lines indicate v4.6 Dotted lines indicate v4.7 Change in SOA concentrations follow similar diurnal patterns in v4.6 and v4.7, but with differing magnitudes

15 Changes in NO 3 and POA Concentrations Due to Aircraft at ATL – v4.6 vs. v4.7 Solid lines = v4.6 Dotted lines = v4.7 No change in NO 3 or POA from v4.6 to v4.7 (expected) NO 3 POA 36k 4k 12k

16 Comparison of Total Carbon Against Jefferson Street (JST) SEARCH Monitor 36k 12k 4k CMAQ v4.7 performs better at the 4k resolution while performance at 36k and 12k resolutions remains relatively unchanged

17 Conclusions Used Process Analyses to explain CMAQ sensitivity to aircraft emissions at different grid resolutions –SOA changes due to aircraft emissions are dependent on grid resolution, and the relative magnitude of POA and radical budgets At 36k and 12k, SOA concentrations are reduced at the grid-cell containing the airport due to gas phase chemistry –NO x emissions react with NO 3, preventing NO 3 from oxidizing SOA precursors At the 4k grid resolution, SOA concentrations increase due to POA emissions from aircraft at the airport –POA provides additional surface area for SOA to partition onto Changes in SOA concentrations exhibit similar diurnal patterns in CMAQ v4.6 and v4.7 –Smaller magnitude of changes in SOA concentrations due to aircraft in v4.7 Comparison against Total Carbon at JST indicates v4.7 performs better at 4k resolution than 4.6 while performance remains relatively unchanged at 36k and 12k resolutions

18 Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA, NASA or Transport Canada. This work was funded by FAA and Transport Canada under FAA Award Nos.: 07-C-NE-UNC, Amendment Nos. 001, 002, 003 and 004 The Investigation of Aviation Emissions Air Quality Impacts project is managed by Christopher Sequeira. Acknowledgements CSSI, Inc. for EDMS outputs Jim Boylan, GA DNR for providing ATL 4k input datasets Barron Henderson, for assistance with PERM