1. Evaluation of Polyphemus for 2004 Janusz Zyśk, Yelva Roustan, Artur Wyrwa, Denis Quelo. Atelier Polyphemus Champs-sur-Marne, 28th October 2008

2. Outline  Air quality in Poland  Impact studies  Modeling in local scale  Validation of Polyphemus for 2004  Plans for future

3. Introduction Adaptation of EU methodologies for Integrated Impact Assessment of energy scenarios (an Environmental and Human Health) Emission database Atmospheric Transport: SO 2, NO x, PM, HM Critical loads, Dose-response function Benefits Negative impacts Emission reduction Cost savings Avoided costs

4. From emissions estimation... to health and environmental impact Concentration and deposition POLYPHEMUS Population density distributionEnvironment impact ECOSENS, RiskPoll Emission level of different pollutants RAINS

5. Sectors emissions modelling 2005 2010 2020 The annual EMEP emission of SO2 from SNAP 1 [Mg/cell] Average yearly concetration of SO2 from SNAP 1 [µg/m3] Annual costs of loss of life due to SO2 emission, from SNAP1 [x1000 EUR/y]. 0 20 60 110 165 235 390 675 1000

6. Estimation of external cost horizontal resolution of the grid is 0,01 o x 0,01 o with number of the cells 34 x 28 first cell localized in the left lower corner 18.455W, 52.865E Points emitors Surface emission Linear Emission

7. Change in concentration of SO2 in the air [µg/m3], after eliminating domestic emission in The Old Town (60 Mg/y). Change in concentration of PM10 in the air [µg/m3], after eliminating domestic emission in The Old Town (140 Mg/y). 0.03 0.04 0.055 0.075 0.1 0.115 0.01 0.03 0.55 0.09 0.16 0.28 Population of Toruń in different regions of the city People/cell 0 320 880 2400 4000 6900 Avoided external costs about 7 % Estimation of external cost

8. Polyphemus in local scale Measurements stations All stations KrasińskiegoKrowodrzaNowa HutaSkawina SO 2 28.518.416.029.624.7Meas_mean 31.019.326.822.426.7Sim_mean 39.125.931.833.734.9RMSE 54.546.751.731.645.9Correlation [%] NO 2 42.536.726.931.134.3Meas_mean 41.339.140.930.037.8Sim_mean 17.715.820.619.918.5RMSE 57.160.133.536.046.7Correlation [%] PM 10 79.071.273.874.3Meas_mean 34.934.231.833.6Sim_mean 89.484.185.686.3RMSE 44.021.822.629.5Correlation [%] longitude: first 19,70 0, step 0,02 0, 30 cells, latitude: first 49,90 0, step 0,01 0, 25 cells. Simulation for 2005 base on ECMWF The emission inventory consisted of: area emissions 200 by 200km – Krakow in the center with resolution 5 by 5 km, area emissions from Krakow and surroundings (30 by 30 km) with resolution 1 by 1 km, emissions from point sources – 430 main points emitters

9. NO 2 concentration (Krowodrza station) SO 2 concentration (Krowodrza station). Polyphemus in local scale

10. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 over Europe The two simulations over Europe for 2004 were performed. I.longitude from -10.25 W to 30.25 E and latitude from 34,75 N to 57,25 N with resolutions 0,5 x 0,5 (lon/lat) II.longitude from -4,6 W to 27,4 E and latitude from 39,75 N to 56,75 N with resolutions 0,8 x 0,5 (lon/lat). Simulations was done for 5 levels with boundaries 0, 50, 600, 1200, 2000, 3000 m. For meteorological, emission, boundary condition for gases and aerosols inputs the EMCWF, EMEP, Mozart 2 and GOCART data were used respectively

11. Average concetration of SO 2 [µg/m 3 ] in 2004 Results for gaseous species Average concetration of NO 2 [µg/m 3 ] in 2004

12. Average concetration of PM 2.5 [µg/m 3 ] in 2004 Concetration of aerosols Average concetration of PM 10 [µg/m 3 ] in 2004 Average concetration of sea salt [µg/m 3 ] in 2004

13. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 The results from Polyphemus were compared with data from EMEP and AirBase. The red results are coming from: K.N. Sartelet, E. Debry, K. Fahey, Y. Roustan, M. Tombette, B. Sportisse. Simulation of aerosols and gas-phase species over Europe with the Polyphemus system: Part I – Model to data comparison for 2001 Atmosheric Enviroment 41 (2007) The location of EMEP stationsThe location of AirBase stations

14. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 Sym. nr. DatabaseStationsObs. mean Mod. mean RMSECorr. SO 2 IEmep301,75,34,947,2% AirBase9916,37,07,344,0% IIEmep241,96,26,043,7% AirBase9046,37,57,642,9% Emep432,05,24,847,5% AirBase6566,46,96,544,5% SulfateIEmep302,21,51,924,6% AirBase83,62,23,23,7% IIEmep242,31,92,022,9% AirBase83,61,63,211,9% Emep572,52,11,755,8% AirBase111,92,41,651,3%

15. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 Sym. nr. DatabaseStationsObs. mean Mod. mean RMSECorr. NO 2 IEmep256,57,74,750,6% AirBase117323,413,618,841,1% IIEmep207,38,34,850,0% AirBase108223,613,419,041,4% Emep3010,012,310,133,6% AirBase99023,915,318,339,5% NitrateIEmep112,03,42,833,2% AirBase71,63,42,635,2% IIEmep102,13,72,933,6% AirBase71,63,83,130,3% Emep142,64,13,141,4% AirBase83,54,42,771,7%

16. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 Sym. nr. DatabaseStationsObs. mean Mod. mean RMSECorr. NH 3 IEmep31,92,71,745,0% AirBase1816,65,819,017,2% IIEmep31,92,91,744,6% AirBase1816,55,418,617,8% Emep37,46,35,429,5% AirBase912,97,412,928,4% AmmIEmep81,42,41,737,4% IIEmep71,42,71,938,1% Emep91,82,01,351,9%

17. Validation of Polyphemus for 2004 Sym. nr. DatabaseStationsObs. mean Mod. mean RMSECorr. O3O3 IEmep4265,763,125,055,2% AirBase121351,859,127,563,3% IIEmep3664,363,325,953,3% AirBase110951,759,827,664,3% Emep9663,257,024,363,9% AirBase99349,953,226,067,5% PM10IEmep1818,820,917,236,4% AirBase42926,119,724,023,9% IIEmep1219,722,518,525,7% AirBase37425,420,823,421,0% Emep2616,915,612,654,5% AirBase52924,915,416,644,0%

18. Plans for future  Working on developing Polyphemus for simulations of heavy metals – mercury module.  Developing plume in grid model - for the heavy metals particles - for mercury (specific chemistry)  Investigating of behavior of heavy metals in PM (size distribution, deposition)

19. Thank you