Air quality modeling for accountability research: Operational, dynamic, and diagnostic evaluation

被引:27
|
作者
Henneman, Lucas R. F. [1 ]
Liu, Cong [2 ]
Hu, Yongtao [1 ]
Mulholland, James A. [1 ]
Russell, Armistead G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Georgia Inst Technol, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA
[2] Southeast Univ, Sch Energy & Environm, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
关键词
Air pollution accountability; Model evaluation; Chemical transport modeling; SECONDARY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS; DIRECT SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; SOUTHEASTERN UNITED-STATES; PARTICULATE MATTER; SOURCE APPORTIONMENT; EMISSION REDUCTIONS; ERROR APPORTIONMENT; SPATIAL VARIATIONS; SURFACE OZONE; URBAN AREAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.07.049
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Photochemical grid models play a central role in air quality regulatory frameworks, including in air pollution accountability research, which seeks to demonstrate the extent to which regulations causally impacted emissions, air quality, and public health. There is a need, however, to develop and demonstrate appropriate practices for model application and evaluation in an accountability framework. We employ a combination of traditional and novel evaluation techniques to assess four years (2001-02, 2011-12) of simulated pollutant concentrations across a decade of major emissions reductions using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. We have grouped our assessments in three categories: Operational evaluation investigates how well CMAQ captures absolute concentrations; dynamic evaluation investigates how well CMAQ captures changes in concentrations across the decade of changing emissions; diagnostic evaluation investigates how CMAQ attributes variability in concentrations and sensitivities to emissions between meteorology and emissions, and how well this attribution compares to empirical statistical models. In this application, CMAQ captures O-3 and PM2.5 concentrations and change over the decade in the Eastern United States similarly to past CMAQ applications and in line with model evaluation guidance; however, some PM2.5 species-EC, OC, and sulfate in particular-exhibit high biases in various months. CMAQ-simulated PM2.5 has a high bias in winter months and low bias in the summer, mainly due to a high bias in OC during the cold months and low bias in OC and sulfate during the summer. Simulated O-3 and PM2.5 changes across the decade have normalized mean bias of less than 2.5% and 17%, respectively. Detailed comparisons suggest biased EC emissions, negative wintertime SOi-sensitivities to mobile source emissions, and incomplete capture of OC chemistry in the summer and winter. Photochemical grid model simulated 03 and PM2.5 responses to emissions and meteorologically across the decade match results from receptor-based, statistical regression models. PM2.5 sensitivities to mobile source emissions in the summertime have decreased substantially, but wintertime mobile sensitives remain largely unchanged because decreases in negative SOi- sensitivities match decreases in positive sensitivities from other constituents. Similarly, NOx emissions have led to decreased summertime O-3 and increased wintertime O-3 because of opposite sensitivities. Overall, results show that emissions reductions improved air quality across the domain and remain a viable option for improving future air quality. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:551 / 565
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Use of Air Quality Modeling Results in Health Effects Research
    Russell, Armistead
    Holmes, Heather
    Friberg, Mariel
    Ivey, Cesunica
    Hu, Yongtao
    Balachandran, Siv
    Mulholland, James
    Tolbert, Paige
    Sarnat, Jeremy
    Sarnat, Stefanie
    Strickland, Matt
    Chang, Howard
    Liu, Yang
    AIR POLLUTION MODELING AND ITS APPLICATION XXIII, 2014, : 1 - 5
  • [2] A database and tool for boundary conditions for regional air quality modeling: description and evaluation
    Henderson, B. H.
    Akhtar, F.
    Pye, H. O. T.
    Napelenok, S. L.
    Hutzell, W. T.
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2014, 7 (01) : 339 - 360
  • [3] Operational Evaluation of a Wildfire Air Quality Model from a Forecaster Point of View
    Ainslie, Bruce
    So, Rita
    Chen, Jack
    WEATHER AND FORECASTING, 2022, 37 (05) : 681 - 698
  • [4] An operational evaluation of the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model
    Eder, Brian
    Kang, Daiwen
    Mathur, Rohit
    Yu, Shaocai
    Schere, Ken
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2006, 40 (26) : 4894 - 4905
  • [5] A full year evaluation of the CALIOPE-EU air quality modeling system over Europe for 2004
    Pay, M. T.
    Piot, M.
    Jorba, O.
    Gasso, S.
    Goncalves, M.
    Basart, S.
    Dabdub, D.
    Jimenez-Guerrero, P.
    Baldasano, J. M.
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2010, 44 (27) : 3322 - 3342
  • [6] Evaluation of air quality using the CMAQ modeling system
    Luo, Xi
    Cao, Han
    2011 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOL 12, PT A, 2012, 12 : 159 - 165
  • [7] Indicators to support the dynamic evaluation of air quality models
    Thunis, P.
    Clappier, A.
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 98 : 402 - 409
  • [8] Evaluation of an operational air quality model using large-eddy simulation
    Grylls, Tom
    Le Cornec, Clemence M. A.
    Salizzoni, Pietro
    Soulhac, Lionel
    Stettler, Marc E. J.
    van Reeuwijk, Maarten
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT-X, 2019, 3
  • [9] Air quality modeling for Warsaw agglomeration
    Holnicki, Piotr
    Kaluszko, Andrzej
    Nahorski, Zbigniew
    Stankiewicz, Krystyna
    Trapp, Wojciech
    ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 2017, 43 (01) : 48 - 64
  • [10] Multicity accountability and uncertainty assessment of the impacts of regulations on air quality in Atlanta, New York City, and Southern California
    Gao, Ziqi
    Mei, Eric J.
    He, Xin
    Hopke, Philip K.
    Ebelt, Stefanie
    Rich, David Q.
    Russell, Armistead G.
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2025, 342