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.

Slides:



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

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ETA - CMAQ AIR QUALITY FORECAST MODEL FOR THE SUMMER OF 2004 CMAS Workshop Chapel Hill, NC 20 October, 2004.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style 1 Modeling of 1,3-Butadiene for Urban and Industrial Areas B. Rappenglück and B. Czader.
MODELING CHEMICALLY REACTIVE AIR TOXICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA USING CAMx Chris Emery, Greg Yarwood and Ed Tai ENVIRON International Corporation.
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
Atmospheric modelling activities inside the Danish AMAP program Jesper H. Christensen NERI-ATMI, Frederiksborgvej Roskilde.
Ultrafine Particles and Climate Change Peter J. Adams HDGC Seminar November 5, 2003.
Atmospheric Mercury Simulation with CMAQ Version Russ Bullock - NOAA Air Resources Laboratory* Kathy Brehme - Computer Sciences Corp. 5 th Annual.
Next Gen AQ model Need AQ modeling at Global to Continental to Regional to Urban scales – Current systems using cascading nests is cumbersome – Duplicative.
CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.
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.
1 CCOS Seasonal Modeling: The Computing Environment S.Tonse, N.J.Brown & R. Harley Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University Of California at Berkeley.
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory | Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division| A Tale of Two Models: A Comparison.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Mercury Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference Research.
CONCEPTUAL MODELING PROTOCOL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.
Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.
Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System CMAQ Air Quality Data Summit February 2008.
Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.
Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
Modeling of Ammonia and PM 2.5 Concentrations Associated with Emissions from Agriculture Megan Gore, D.Q. Tong, V.P. Aneja, and M. Houyoux Department of.
Preliminary Study: Direct and Emission-Induced Effects of Global Climate Change on Regional Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter K. Manomaiphiboon 1 *, A.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
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.
Icfi.com April 30, 2009 icfi.com © 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved. AIR TOXICS IN MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA: A MONITORING AND MODELING STUDY WEBINAR:
Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.
Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.
October 1-3, th Annual CMAS Meeting1 Effects of Liquid Water on Secondary Inorganic Aerosol in Central California During a Winter Episode 1 Planning.
Application of the CMAQ Particle and Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) to Support Water Quality Planning for the Virginia Mercury Study 6 th Annual.
Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.
Statewide Protocol: Regional Application August 27, 2003 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Luis F. Woodhouse.
Use of space-based tropospheric NO 2 observations in regional air quality modeling Robert W. Pinder 1, Sergey L. Napelenok 1, Alice B. Gilliland 1, Randall.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
William G. Benjey* Physical Scientist NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC Fifth Annual CMAS.
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,
THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,
Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,
Extending Size-Dependent Composition to the Modal Approach: A Case Study with Sea Salt Aerosol Uma Shankar and Rohit Mathur The University of North Carolina.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
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 Office of Research and Development.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
1 DRAFT Report for Air Quality Analysis on Cumulative Emissions, Barrio Logan Tony Servin, P.E. Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support.
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.
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,
Jonathan Pleim NOAA/ARL* RTP, NC A NEW COMBINED LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL PBL MODEL FOR METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY MODELING * In Partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Using Linked Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050 Chris Nolte, Alice Gilliland Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division,
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.
PREMAQ: A New Pre-Processor to CMAQ for Air Quality Forecasting Tanya L. Otte*, George Pouliot*, and Jonathan E. Pleim* Atmospheric Modeling Division U.S.
Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ
SAPRC07T Implementation within the CMAQ model.
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
Simulation of primary and secondary (biogenic and anthropogenic) organic aerosols over the United States by US EPA Models-3/CMAQ: Evaluation and regional.
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Stephen Mueller & Jonathan Mallard Tennessee Valley Authority
Air Monitoring Trends in New Jersey
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
J. Burke1, K. Wesson2, W. Appel1, A. Vette1, R. Williams1
The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.
JEHN-YIH JUANG, Donna Schwede, and Jon Pleim
Atmospheric modelling of HMs Sensitivity study
Presentation transcript:

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 Division, Air Resources Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric October 16, 2006 Changes to the Chemical Mechanisms for Hazardous Air Pollutants in CMAQ version 4.6

Background CMAQ version 4.5 has two different mechanisms for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).  CB4TX1P  SAPRC99TX2P Each includes a specific type of HAPs.  identified to produce large health risks over urban areas  treated because they can be simulated as gas phase compounds. Each omits toxic components in Particulate Matter (PM)  Also linked to large risks to health over urban areas.

Background (cont.) Version 4.6 introduces two new mechanisms for several HAPs. Each includes HAPs in CMAQ version 4.5. They also include more gas phase HAPs, As well as aerosol phase HAPs that represent several toxic metals and diesel emissions. One mechanism, called SAPRC99TX3, builds upon SAPRC99TX2P. The other, called CB05CLTX, adapts the Carbon Bond 05 (CB05) mechanism.

Gas Phase HAPs New HAPs in CMAQ version 4.6

Aerosol Phase HAPs

General Treatment in Chemical Transport Model All HAPs undergo advection and diffusion. Wet deposition is determined by the HAP’s phase  modal scavenging rate if aerosol phase  the Henry's Law Constant if gas phase Dry deposition also depends on the HAP’s phase  modal deposition velocity if aerosol phase  nonzero deposition velocity if gas phase when screening implies dry deposition as important

Gas Phase HAP Chemistry Two methods calculate photochemical destruction and production. First method adds species and reactions to O 3 and radical chemistry. HCHO, CH 3 CHO, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein and several emission tracers reactions can affect numerical solution for O 3 and radicals Second method estimates destruction based on O 3 and radical solution. calculation does not affect O 3 and radicals Why use this approach? emissions are already accounted in lumped species low reactivity or emissions imply small effect on O 3 and radicals

Aerosol Phase HAP Processes They track emissions of toxic components within PM. Microphysical processing is similar to elemental carbon and unidentified coarse mode PM.  do not affect microphysical processes and deposition due to their tracking function. They also do not affect cloud chemistry. Last point is not valid for two HAPs.  “Cr(VI) + 3e -  Cr(III)” can occur via chemistry within cloud droplets.  Shortcoming is an avenue for model developers within CMAS.

Simulation Details Domain covered the continental US and spanned from surface to 100 mb. Horizontal grid size was 36X36 km 2 Emissions came form the combined 1999 NEI and Air Toxics database. Meteorology represented January and July 2001 based on MM5 simulations.

Gas Phase Destruction Differences: Summary, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 January 2001 July 2001 ug/m^3, 1,3-Butadiene from SAPRC99TX3 ug/m^3, Beenzene SAPRC99TX3

Gas Phase Destruction Differences: Examples, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 1,3-Butadiene Benzene

OH, 24 hour Averages: CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 July 2001January 2001 ppmV, OH from SAPRC99TX3 ppmV, Difference OH ppmV, OH from SAPRC99TX3 ppmV, Difference OH

Gas Phase Production Differences: Summary, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 January 2001 July 2001 ug/m^3, Difference Photochemical HCHO ug/m^3, Secondary CH 3 CHO from CB05CLTX ug/m^3, Difference Photochemical CH3CHO ug/m^3, Difference Photochemical HCHO ug/m^3, Secondary HCHO from CB05CLTX ug/m^3, Secondary CH 3 CHO from CB05CLTX

Gas Phase Production Differences: Examples, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde

Aerosol Phase Differences: Summary, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 January 2001 July 2001 ng/m^3, Cr(III) Accumulation Mode from SAPRC99TX3 ug/m^3, Diesel Tracer Coarse Mode from SAPRC99TX3 ng/m^3, Difference Cr(III) Accumulation Mode ug/m^3, Difference Diesel Tracer Coarse Mode ug/m^3, Diesel Tracer Coarse Mode from SAPRC99TX3

Aerosol Differences: Examples, CB05CLTX – SAPRC99TX3 Cr(III), Accumulation Mode Diesel PM, Coarse Mode

What does CL in CB05CLTX mean? CB05CLTX contains additional species and reactions not in SAPRC99TX3.  Six species track emissions from anthropogenic and biogenic sources (see version 4.6 release notes).  Other species simulate the fate and transport of Cl 2 and HCl. Additional reactions represent how chlorine compounds affect ozone.  Reactions are based on Yarwood et al. (2005).  We added the reaction, “HCl + OH  Cl.” NOTE, current mechanism settings omit Cl 2 and HCl emissions.

Closing Points New HAP mechanisms have not been evaluated against observations. Each gives results consistent to the mechanisms from that they were derived, i.e., CB05 or SAPRC99. The new mechanisms then allow simultaneously studying criteria and numerous toxic pollutants. Disclaimer: The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.