1. Use of a Radar Wind Profiler and Sodar to Characterize PM 2.5 Air Pollution in Cleveland, Ohio Clinton P. MacDonald 1, Adam N. Pasch 1, Robert Gilliam 2, Charley A. Knoderer 1, Paul T. Roberts 1, and Gary Norris 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presented at the National Air Quality Conferences March 7 - 10, 2011 San Diego, CA 4070

2. 2 About Cleveland Geography Population ~430,000 Cleveland Emissions – Large power plants, steel mills, marine vessels, and on-road vehicles Non-attainment for PM 2.5 Regional scale Cleveland

3. 3 About EPA’s CMAPS Cleveland Multiple Air Pollutant Study from August 2009 to August 2010 –identify particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) sources –characterize emissions –understand the role of meteorology –characterize the spatial and temporal variability of multi- pollutant exposures Two five-week intensives EPA Principal Investigators include Gary Norris, Matthew Landis, and Ian Gilmour

4. 4 Complex PM 2.5 Concentrations Urban PM 2.5 Upwind PM 2.5

5. 5 Understand the Role of Meteorology Radar wind profiler (RWP) Radio acoustic sounding system (RASS) Mini-sodar Surface meteorology

6. 6 Special Meteorological Measurements 6 Meteorological tower Mini-sodar RWP RASS

7. 7 Methods Case Studies Episodes* versus non-episodes: –Diurnal PM 2.5 –Large-scale meteorology –Mixing height –Boundary layer winds RWP, RASS, and mini-sodar WRF 4-km backward trajectories (EPA) Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) backward trajectories Representativeness of CMAPS 7 *24-hr PM 2.5 concentrations > 34.4 μg/m 3 at St. Theodosis or G.T. Craig Episode Date Maximum 24-hr Average PM 2.5 Concentration (μg/m 3 ) 8/9/200937 8/15/200954 8/16/200951 2/2/201041 2/3/201045 2/20/201039 2/21/201038 3/8/201042 3/9/201062 3/10/201039 3/11/201042

8. 8 Case Study Example: August 15, 2009 (1 of 3) 8 54 μg/m 3 Lake breeze Mixing heights PM 2.5

9. 9 Case Study Example: August 15, 2009 (2 of 3) 9 54 μg/m 3 Southerly winds aloft Mixing height Lake boundary layer CBL

10. 10 Case Study Example: August 15, 2009 (3 of 3) 10 24-hr backward trajectories ending 12:00 PM EST Trajectory heights were 10 (black), 500 (gray), and 1,300 m agl (light gray). 54 μg/m 3 24-hr backward trajectories ending 6:00 PM EST

11. 11 Case Study Example: March 08, 2010 High ventilation driven by moderate winds, but recirculation. 42 μg/m 3

12. 12 Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: PM 2.5 12

13. 13 Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Peak Mixing Summer Winter Episode Non-Episode

14. 14 Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Ventilation Summer Winter Episode Non-Episode

15. 15 Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Transport Episode Date RWP/ Sodar NAMWRFConcensus Local Carryover of Upwind AQI 8/9/2009MS S/M Mod 8/15/2009SSM S Mod 8/16/2009MMM M Mod 2/2/2010MSS S Mod 2/3/2010MMS M Mod 2/20/2010MMM M Good/Mod 2/21/2010SSS S Mod 3/8/2010MM M Good/Mod 3/9/2010MS S/M Mod 3/10/2010LL L Mod/USG 3/11/2010LM M/L Mod S = 24-hr transport < ~100 km M = 24-hr transport between ~100 and 350 km L = 24-hr transport > ~400 km

16. 16 Summary of Episodes (1 of 2) Moderate AQI carryover or transport on all days Summer episodes (3): high ventilation –High mixing heights and moderate boundary layer winds from the southwest (2) –High mixing heights, but light winds with a lake breeze (1) 16

17. 17 Summary of Episodes (2 of 2) Winter episodes (7): wide variety of conditions –High ventilation driven by moderate winds, but recirculation (3) –Moderate ventilation driven by moderate west winds (2) –Low ventilation (low mixing and light winds) (2) 17