Upload
phillip-simpson
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Swedish experiences of applying the Quality Objectives for NO2 and PM10 modelling
• introduction
• model evaluation for Swedish - street/road stations- urban background stations
• discussion and conclusions
by L. Gidhagen, G. Omstedt and S. Andersson
Model quality objectives (uncertainty) as described in the AQ directive
2
Modelling
uncertainty
NO2 PM10
Hourly 50 % -Daily average 50 % -Annual average 30 % 50%
p
pp
O
MORPEMRPE
max)max(
LV
MORDEMRDE LVLV
max)max(
The uncertainty of modelling estimation is defined as the maximum deviation between the measured and calculated concentration levels for 90 % of individual monitoring points, without taking into account the timing of the events. The average annual modelling uncertaintyfor NO2 is defined as ±30% and for percentiles ±50%
Fairmode http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/
Op and Mp are the observed and modelled concentrations at the percentile (p)OLV and MLV are the closed observed and measured concentration to the limit valueconcentration (LV)
Indicators for model quality
3
Gidhagen, L., Johansson, H. and Omstedt, G., 2009: SIMAIR - Evaluation tool for meeting the EU directive on air pollution limits. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 1029-1036, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.056.Andersson, S. och Omstedt, G., 2009: Validering av SIMAIR mot mätningar av PM10, NO2 och bensen. Utvärdering för svenska tätorter och trafikmiljöer avseende år 2004 och 2005. SMHI Meteorologi, Nr. 137, 125 pp. (In Swedish).
SIMAIR
Model validation in Sweden
~ 30 road/street stations~ 20 urban background stations
Validation performed using both RPE and RDE Swedish EPA recommends the use of RPE for quality check of hourly (NO2) and
daily (PM10, NO2) values.
Swedish EPA supports FAIRMODE recommendation to use, for annual mean values, the RDE calculation when observed value is low compared to limit value. For high observed annual mean values, RPE can be used.
We are left with some confusion, e.g.:- Not clear when to use RDE or RPE- Not clear how the 90% of the station comparisons are selected: - How big can the area be (entire Sweden)? - Should the comparison include only one specific year or can we include comparisons for the same station but for two different years?- Why is max(RPE) or max(RDE) selected, would not median be more useful? Or both?
4
Validation results from 2004 and 2005
5
Model simulations of PM10 for street level show acceptable quality, even for 98-percentiles
Differences MRPE and MRDE?
Validation PM10 from 2004 and 2005
City/ street/yearmeasured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE
Landskrona/Eriksgatan, 2004 23,8 16,6 0,30 0,18 41,1 26,2 0,36 0,35Landskrona/Eriksgatan, 2005 24,2 19 0,21 0,13 43 28,4 0,34 0,37Helsingborg/Malmöleden, 2005 22,4 18 0,20 0,11 38 27,5 0,28 0,23Kristianstad/V,Boulevard, 2004 26,8 17,1 0,36 0,24 54,9 26,7 0,51 0,50Kristianstad/V,Boulevard, 2005 36,5 22,8 0,38 0,34 81 38,5 0,52 0,45Nässjö/Brogatan, 2004 25,8 21,9 0,15 0,10 64,4 38,9 0,40 0,30Norrköping/Kungsgatan, 2004 17,8 25,7 0,44 0,20 37,7 46,4 0,23 0,14Norrköping/Ö,Promenad, 2004 22,9 24,7 0,08 0,05 52,8 43,2 0,18 0,22Norrköping/Ö,Promenad, 2005 27,7 26,9 0,03 0,02 63 58,1 0,08 0,04Norrköping/Söderleden, 2005 19,3 21,2 0,10 0,05 44,9 40,7 0,09 0,09Göteborg/Gårda, 2005 29,6 32 0,08 0,06 55 61,5 0,12 0,07Karlstad/Hamngatan, 2005 22,8 21,6 0,05 0,03 45,8 47,9 0,05 0,01Västerås/Kopparbergsv, 2005 25,3 19,4 0,23 0,15 51,3 33,7 0,34 0,39Västerås/Stora gatan, 2005 27,5 19,1 0,31 0,21 59,9 34,6 0,42 0,41Västerås/Vasagatan, 2005 23,6 14,5 0,39 0,23 43,5 26,7 0,39 0,44Sollentuna/Turebergsl, 2004 18,5 14,5 0,22 0,10 32,7 25,5 0,22 0,31Sollentuna/Turebergsl, 2005 20,2 14 0,31 0,16 37,6 25,7 0,32 0,29
max RPE/ max RDE 0,39 0,24 0,51 0,45median RPE/ median RDE 0,22 0,13 0,32 0,30
Annual mean 90-percentile daily mean
6
Validation PM10 from 2004 and 2005 using RPE and RDE
With RDE the quality is OK, with RPE it is almost OK (although MRPE for daily PM10 is still not defined)
RPE and RDE for PM10
7
There are often a few “poor” stations where measurement errors or bad siting (low representativeness) can be suspected
Could med(RPE) and med(RDE) be a better alternative?
Same station
8
Examples for PM10: How will RPE differ from RDE?
Annual mean:RPE = 1%RDE = 6%
Annual mean:RPE = 30%RDE = 18%
Annual mean:RPE = 44%RDE = 20%
Hornsgatan/Stockholm year 2000 Kungsgatan/Norrköping year 2004
Eriksgatan/Landskrona year 2004
Graphs illustrate RPE and RDE for daily 90-percentiles
9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N O 2 [µg m -3] uppm ätt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NO
2 [µ
g m
- 3] S
IMA
IR
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N O 2 [µg m -3] uppm ätt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NO
2 [µ
g m
- 3] S
IMA
IR
Beräkningar för gaturum
Årsm edelvärde
98% -il dygnsm edelvärde
98% -il tim m edelvärde
Modell evaluation of NO2 at street/road level
Model simulations of NO2 for street level show acceptable quality, even for hourly values
10
Validation NO2 from 2004 and 2005 using RPE and RDE
City/ street/yearmeasured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE
Helsingborg/Drottningg,, 2004 27,9 36,3 0,30 0,21 58,8 80,6 0,38 0,37 80,5 97,6 0,20 0,21Kristianstad/V,Boulevard,, 2004 18,6 22,3 0,20 0,09 35,8 40 0,05 0,12 - - - -Kristianstad/V,Boulevard,, 2005 17,6 20,1 0,14 0,06 46,2 37,8 0,10 0,18 - - - -Göteborg/Gårda, 2004 46,7 34,1 0,27 0,32 84,8 75,6 0,19 0,11 109,4 109,4 0,06 0,00Göteborg/Gårda, 2005 46,6 30,1 0,35 0,41 92 69,9 0,22 0,24 109,4 94,5 0,17 0,14Göteborg/Haga, 2004 42 32,8 0,22 0,23 81,5 66,7 0,16 0,18 104,1 85,2 0,20 0,18Göteborg/Haga, 2005 40,8 29,2 0,28 0,29 86 52,8 0,27 0,39 107,6 66,6 0,34 0,38Göteborg, Mölndal, 2004 28,1 30,3 0,08 0,06 66,2 70,4 0,13 0,06 88,5 101,7 0,14 0,15Uppsala, Kungsgatan 27,2 28,5 0,05 0,03 51 57,1 0,12 69,6 81,7 0,17Uppsala, Kungsgatan2 37,4 37,3 0,00 0,00 64,6 66,9 0,04 88,9 90,4 0,02Malmö, Amiralsgatan 39,4 41,9 0,06 0,06 71,8 72,4 0,01 98 84,1 0,14
RPE max/ RDE max 0,30 0,32 0,38 0,37 0,34 0,38RPE median/ RDE median 0,20 0,09 0,18 0,12 0,19 0,15
Annual mean 98-percentile daily mean 98-percentile hourly mean
Daily and hourly percentiles OK, annual means almost OK
11
Improvements in the model can be demonstrated byimproved RPE
The current quality objectivesare still not fully compliant in urban background annual mean values
BUM new:MRPE annual mean = 0.40MRPE 98-percentile daily mean = 0.48MRPE 90-percentile hourly mean = 0.49
Modell evaluation of NO2 in urban background using RPE
Example: SIMAIR for PM10
12
PM10 annual mean 90-percentil
MRPE 0.39 0.51
MRDE 0.24 0.45
Can we use MRPE and MRDE as uncertainties on the simulated levels?
Example: calculated yearly mean PM10 concentration is 25 µg/m3 and calculated 90-percentil is 45 µg/m3 then the uncertainties are:
MRPE:Yearly mean: 25 +/- 9.8 µg/m3 i.e. between 15.3 - 34.8 µg/m3
90-percentile (daily mean): 45 +/- 23.0 µg/m3 i.e. between 22.1 - 68.0 µg/m3
MRDE:Yearly mean: 25 +/- 9.6 µg/m3 i.e. between 15.4 - 34.6 µg/m3
90-percentile (daily mean): 45 +/- 22.5 µg/m3 i.e. between 22.5 - 67.5 µg/m3
Likely those intervals are too large for a general public?
Can MRPE and MRDE be used as uncertainties?
Are the quality objectives (QA) obtainable and relevant?
Answer: Yes, but…
Some confusion on how to calculate MRPE and MRDE which must be eliminated.
The indicator should reflect model uncertainty as much as possible. In our opinion RPE is a better indicator than RDE, especially for Swedish conditions with air quality levels often well below the limited values.
It is unclear if and how these indicators can be used, except for showing compliance of Directive’s “Quality objectives for models”. For describing model uncertainties in a broader sense other and more refined indicators are needed (Delta tool…).
13
Conclusions
Thank you for your attention!
14
Mal
mö
Land
skro
naH
elsi
ngbo
rg 1
He
lsin
gbo
rg 2
Jönk
öpi
ngN
ässj
öN
orrk
öpi
ngG
öte
borg
1G
öte
borg
2M
arie
stad
Kar
lsta
dK
arls
kog
aV
äste
rås
1V
äste
rås
2U
pps
ala
Sto
ckh
olm
1S
tock
holm
2S
tock
ho
lm 3
So
llent
una
Gä
vle
Su
ndsv
all
Öst
ersu
ndU
me
åL
ycks
ele
Ske
lleft
eå
0
10
20
30
40
PM
10 å
rsm
ede
lvär
de [µ
g/m
3]
Lokalt b idrag
Bakgrundshalter
M KN
M iljöm ål 2010
Skåne Sydöst Väst M älardalen S tockholm M itt N orr
PM10 in Swedish cities (2004): Importance of local contribution
15
PM10 in Swedish cities (2004): Local – Urban - Regional
0
10
20
30
40
50P
M1
0 [µ
g m
-3]
års
med
el
Ma
lmö
, D
ala
pla
n
Lan
dsk
ron
a, E
rik
sg.
Kri
stia
ns
tad
, V
. Bo
ule
vard
en
Gö
teb
org
, E
6 vi
d G
ård
a
No
rrk
öp
ing
, Ö.
Pro
men
ade
n
Sto
ckh
olm
, H
orn
sg.
Sto
ckh
olm
, N
orr
lan
ds
g.
Sto
ckh
olm
, S
veav
.
Sto
ckh
olm
, Es
sin
ge
led
en
Up
psa
la, K
un
gs
g.
Um
eå, V
. E
sp
lan
and
en
PM10
Reg
Urb
Gatu
Reg
Urb + Gatu
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
PM
2.5
[µg
m-3
]å
rsm
ed
el
Ma
lmö
, D
ala
pla
n
Kri
sti
an
sta
d,
V.
Bo
ule
va
rde
n
Sto
ck
ho
lm,
Ho
rns
g.
Sto
ck
ho
lm,
No
rrla
nd
sg
.
Sto
ck
ho
lm,
Sv
ea
v.
Sto
ck
ho
lm,
Es
sin
ge
led
en
Up
ps
ala
, K
un
gs
g.
PM2.5
Reg
Urb
Gatu
Reg
Urb + Gatu
PM2.5 in Swedish cities: Local – Urban - Regional