Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ESF- MedCLIVAR Workshop Climate Change Modeling for the Mediterranean region, ICTP, Trieste, Italy, Oct 2008 Regional air quality decadal simulations.
Advertisements

Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Croatian Air Quality Monitoring Strategy 2002 − onward Sonja Vidič Meteorological and Hydrological Service of Croatia Zagreb, Grič 3,
IAM activities in the UK comparisons with GAINS & work on emission projections and the road transport sector Helen ApSimon, T Oxley, N Hasnain, A Elshkaki.
MODELLING FUTURE TRENDS IN URBAN NO2 TO 2020: and some questions arising Tim Oxley Helen ApSimon Ayman Elshkaki Tessa Lennartz -Walker UK National Focal.
Quantifying CMAQ Simulation Uncertainties of Particulate Matter in the Presence of Uncertain Emissions Rates Wenxian Zhang, Marcus Trail, Alexandra Tsimpidi,
Title EMEP Unified model Importance of observations for model evaluation Svetlana Tsyro MSC-W / EMEP TFMM workshop, Lillestrøm, 19 October 2010.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
PM mapping in Scotland, 2007 Andrew Kent. What are we presenting today? 1) Context to the work 2) Modelling process 3) Model results 4) Future work possibilities.
Modelling urban pollution within the UK scale integrated assessment model, UKIAM Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
Andrea Fraser – October 2011 Andrea Fraser, Geoff Dollard, Paul Willis, Trevor Davies, Justin Lingard UK Air Quality Forecasting of Particulate Matter.
WORKING GROUP I MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TFMM Workshop, Paris, 2006, Nov 29 –Dec 1.
1 Source apportionment of PM in the PCM model John Stedman 23 April 2010.
Clean air for London: ClearfLo David Green, King’s College London.
MRC-HPA Centre for Environment and Health Imperial College London CMAQ-urban: fine scale air pollution modelling in London Nutthida Kitwiroon and Sean.
1 00/XXXX © Crown copyright URBAN ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY MODELLING AT THE METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE Dick Derwent Climate Research Urban Air Quality Modelling.
The robustness of the source receptor relationships used in GAINS Hilde Fagerli, EMEP/MSC-W EMEP/MSC-W.
UK Air Quality Indicators Janet Dixon Air and Environment Quality Division, Department of Environment, food and Rural Affairs, UK.
SOURCE APPORTIONMENT of PARTICULATE MATTER Imperial College 23 rd April 2010 APRIL:Air Pollution Research in London.
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
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.
National/Regional Air Quality Modeling Assessment Over China and Taiwan Using Models-3/CMAQ Modeling System Joshua S. Fu 1, Carey Jang 2, David Streets.
The Euro- and City-Delta model intercomparison exercises P. Thunis, K. Cuvelier Joint Research Centre, Ispra.
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.
Utah Wintertime PM2.5 Modeling Lance Avey Utah Division of Air Quality.
The aim of this work was to create background and roadside maps of pollutant concentrations for Scotland and to compare these with similar maps created.
A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.
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.
PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.
CMAS Conference 2009 Johannes Bieser, Institute for Coastal Research – GKSS Science Center CMAS Conference 2009 Enhancing SMOKE to create European emissions.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.
Attaining urban air quality objectives- links to transboundary air pollution Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated Assessment.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Simulation of London air quality during June 2006 and the effects of emission control scenarios Andrea Fraser NCAS funded.
INTERCONTINENTAL TRANSPORT OF OZONE AND ITS SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN EUROPE Dick Derwent rdscientific 2 nd ICAP Workshop Chapel Hill, North Carolina October.
CMAS Conference 2011 Comparative analysis of CMAQ simulations of a particulate matter episode over Germany Chapel Hill, October 26, 2011 V. Matthias, A.
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.
Effects of Emission Adjustments on Peak Ground-Level Ozone Concentration in Southeast Texas Jerry Lin, Thomas Ho, Hsing-wei Chu, Heng Yang, Santosh Chandru,
1. How is model predicted O3 sensitive to day type emission variability and morning Planetary Boundary Layer rise? Hypothesis 2.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
PAGE 1 An adaptation of SMOKE for Europe Johannes Bieser Armin Aulinger, Volker Matthias, Markus Quante GKSS Research Center Geesthacht, Germany.
Spatial and temporal dynamics of atmospheric pollutants in London, UK. Carole Helfter, Eiko Nemitz, Chiara Di Marco, Ben Langford, Neil Mullinger, Ute.
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
Response of fine particles to the reduction of precursor emissions in Yangtze River Delta (YRD), China Juan Li 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yang Gao 1, Yun-Fat Lam.
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.
Aerosol simulation with coupled meteorology-radiation- chemistry model WRF/Chem over Europe.
17 th TFMM Meeting, May, 2016 EMEP Case study: Assessment of HM pollution levels with fine spatial resolution in Belarus, Poland and UK Ilia Ilyin,
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
Andrea Fraser DIAC PhD student Supervised by Prof. H ApSimon
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
Influence of climate change on U. S
Performance of CMAQ for Inorganic Aerosol Compounds in Greater Tokyo
A 1-year simulation of atmospheric concentrations and deposition over Europe and UK Alan Cocks, Vicky Lucas, Ian Rodgers, and Ian Teasdale RWEInnogy Environment.
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
Simulation of Ozone and PM in Southern Taiwan
Steve Griffiths, Rob Lennard and Paul Sutton* (*RWE npower)
A. Aulinger, V. Matthias, M. Quante, Institute for Coastal Research
Alison Redington* and Derrick Ryall* Dick Derwent**
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
Assessment of Atmospheric PM in the Slovak Republic
Statistical analysis of the secondary inorganic aerosol in Hungary using background measurements and model calculations Zita Ferenczi   Hungarian Meteorological.
PM modelling assessment in Northern Italy
EURODELTA Preliminary results
Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ Annual Simulation Brian Eder, Shaocai Yu, Robin Dennis, Alice Gilliland, Steve Howard,
rdscientific, Newbury, United Kingdom
Measurement Needs for AQ Models
Update on activities of Bulgaria within/related to EMEP
Presentation transcript:

Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman The response of secondary inorganic particulate matter to precursor emission reductions in south-east England June 2006 Andrea Fraser 1,2, Prof. Helen M ApSimon 1, Prof. Richard G. Derwent 3, 1 Imperial College London 2 AEA, Harwell, Oxfordshire, UK 3 rdscientific

Outline Summary of the CMAQ simulation in south-east England 3 rd June – 9 th July Evaluation of the inorganic PM components with observations at Harwell monitoring site. Spatial interaction of inorganic PM components. Effects of SO 2 NO X or NH 3 emission reductions.

CMAQ simulation south-east England Meteorology Data from the UK Met. Office operational Unified Model (MetUM) are archived at the British Atmospheric Data Centre. Data are processed with a UM-MCIP program to create CMAQ ready files. Emissions European emissions are prepared from the x50km annual EMEP emissions UK emissions are prepared from the x1km annual NAEI emissions European Natural emissions calculated using a Biogenic Potential Inventory CMAQ V CB IV Chemistry

A1 Europe 48 x 48 km resolution 24 layers – 8 below 600m MetUM Global Meteorology 3hr time steps 40x40km (approx) 38 layers Emissions EMEP 2003

A2 Northern Europe 12 x 12 km resolution 24 layers – 8 below 600m MetUM UK Meteorology 1hr time steps 12x12km (approx) 38 layers Emissions EMEP 2003 NAEI 2003

A3 South-East England 4 x 4 km resolution 24 layers – 8 below 600m MetUM UK Meteorology 1hr time steps 12x12km (approx) 38 layers Emissions EMEP 2003 NAEI 2003

A3 South-East England Rural site Harwell Didcot Power station Heathrow Airport Southampton and Refineries on the Solent Power stations in the Thames estuary inc. Tilbury Dover and cross channel shipping lanes Central London M25

Model Evaluation Harwell 39% of model values within a factor of 2 of the observation 40% for 18 sites in SE England varying from 54% (Urban background) to 20% (roadside) Observed (TEOM) and Modelled PM 2.5 (μg m -3 ) 3 rd June to 9 th July 2006

EMEP intensive monitoring program Harwell is one of the EMEP measurement site. During June 2006 there was an intensive European monitoring program when additional PM component measurements were made. SO 4 2- SO 2 NO 3 HNO 3 NH 4 + NH 3 EMEP - Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe. Data were made available by Eiko Nemitz, CEH Edinburgh

Evaluation of SO 2 and SO 4 2- with observations at Harwell SO 4 2- SO 2 + SO 4 2- SO 2 49% within a factor of 2

Evaluation of HNO 3 and NO 3 - with observations at Harwell NO 3 - HNO 3 + NO 3 - HNO 3 18% within a factor of 2 65% within a factor of 2

Evaluation of NH 3 and NH 4 + with observations at Harwell NH 4 + NH 3 + NH 4 + NH 3 54% within a factor of 2 48% within a factor of 2

Spatial interaction of inorganic PM components

Emission reduction scenarios 30% across-the board reduction in SO 2 30% across-the board reduction in NO x 30% across-the board reduction in NH 3 Emission sensitivity coefficient = % change in PM component % change in Emission 1 A 30% reduction in emission gives a 30% reduction in PM component >1 A 30% reduction in emission gives more than a 30% reduction <1 A 30% reduction in emission gives less than a 30% reduction -ve A 30% reduction in emission gives an increase Effects of SO 2 NO X or NH 3 emission reductions.

SE England grid 4x4km resolution Basecase30% less SO 2 30% less NO x 30% less NH 3 PM 2.5 μg m PM fine sulphate mass μg SO 4 m PM fine nitrate mass μg NO 3 m PM fine ammonium μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Mean μg m -3 Sensitivity coefficient

SE England grid 4x4km resolution Basecase30% less SO 2 30% less NO x 30% less NH 3 PM 2.5 μg m PM fine sulphate mass μg SO 4 m PM fine nitrate mass μg NO 3 m PM fine ammonium μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Mean μg m -3 Sensitivity coefficient

SE England grid 4x4km resolution Basecase30% less SO2 30% less NOx 30% less NH3 PM 2.5 μg m PM fine sulphate mass μg SO 4 m PM fine nitrate mass μg NO 3 m PM fine ammonium μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Mean μg m -3 Sensitivity coefficient

Emissions sensitivity coefficient 30% less SO 2 PM μg SO 4 m μg NO 3 m μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Range Range Range

Emissions sensitivity coefficient 30% less NO x PM μg SO 4 m μg NO 3 m μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Range Range

Emissions sensitivity coefficient 30% less NH 3 PM μg SO 4 m μg NO 3 m μg NH 4 m SO HNO NH Difference PM 2.5 Range Range Range Range (-)0.75-(-)0.03

Summary Evaluation of the inorganic PM components with observations at Harwell monitoring site. Results are promising but we need to evaluate more sites and both summer and winter. Spatial interaction of inorganic PM components. NO 3 - is poor but this is dependent on NH 3 emissions. Effect of emission reductions of SO 2 NO x NH 3 SO 2 : has a proportional effect on SO 2 but less effect on SO 4 2- NO x : has less effect on HNO 3 and NO 3 - in urban areas. NH 3 : has the most complex effect with -a greater than 30 % reduction in decrease in NH 3 and NO 3 -, -less than 30% reduction in NH 4 + and -an increase in HNO 3

Acknowledgements PhD funding from NCAS-weather UM-MCIP - G Taylor (Aeolus) funded by NCAS EMEP2CMAQ – Armin Aulinger GKSS

Spatial interaction of inorganic PM components