13
Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist PM Model Performance Workshop February 10, 2004 Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist PM Model Performance Workshop February 10, 2004. Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data. Air Quality Model. Photo- chemistry. Input. Cloud Processing. Chemical Reactions. Model Output. Horizontal Transport. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D.

Physical Scientist

PM Model Performance Workshop

February 10, 2004

Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Page 2: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

HorizontalTransport

Cloud Processing

Chemical Reactions

Photo-chemistry

DepositionGas-Phase Emissions

Aerosol Emissions

Condensation&

Evaporation

VerticalMixing

Air Quality Model

Gridded Values of:

Aerosol ConcentrationParticle Size DistributionChemical Composition

Model Output

Emissions Model

Meteorology Model

Input

AmbientSampling

Point Values of:

PM2.5 Mass ConcPM2.5 Chemical Comp.

ObservationsLaboratoryAnalysis

Mo

del

Evalu

ation

Traditional PM Model EvaluationsAir Quality Model

AmbientSampling

Laboratory Analysis

Input

Page 3: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Model Tuning Model Postprocessing

Modification of model inputs or atmospheric chemical & physical formulae to improve agreement between model results and observations.

e.g., multiply NH3 emissions by 2 and rerun the model

e.g., raise or lower the minimum eddy diffusivity and rerun the model

e.g., modify a rate constant and/or reaction probability and rerun the model

Modification of model outputs to simulate ambient sampling conditions, sampling artifacts, and analytical biases.

Notes:• Inputs are unchanged• Atmospheric processing is

unchanged• No need to rerun the air

quality model

Page 4: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Emissions Model

Meteorology Model

Input

HorizontalTransport

Cloud Processing

Chemical Reactions

Photo-chemistry

DepositionGas-Phase Emissions

Aerosol Emissions

Condensation&

Evaporation

VerticalMixing

Air Quality Model

AmbientSampling

Point Values of:

PM2.5 Mass ConcPM2.5 Chemical Comp.

ObservationsLaboratory

Analysis

Enhancing PM Model Evaluations

- Adjust for site T,RH - Inlet Collection - Substrate Artifacts - Lab Analyses

Postprocessing

PM2.5 Mass ConcPM2.5 Chemical Comp.

Output for Eval.

Mo

del

Evalu

ation

Page 5: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

H2O

NO3

SVOC

Nonvolatile Material

• Models predict both gas and particle-phase concentrations

• Gas/particle partitioning of semi-volatile species is a function of T, RH

• What if the met model provides a gridded temperature field that is warmer than at the site?i.e., Tmodel > Tambient

Ambient Equilibration

Page 6: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Model Results at Nashville - July 2, 1999 1100EST

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-5 -2 0 +2 +5

Temperature Bias in Met Model [K]

PM

2.5

[mg

/ m

3 ]

Sec Organics

Nitrate

Ammonium

Nonvolatile

Ambient Equilibration

Page 7: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

PM2.5 Inlet Simulation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.1 1.0 10.0

Particle Diameter [mm]

Ae

ros

ol C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

[mg

/m3 ]

Model Output

PM2.5 = 16.7 mg/m3

Page 8: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

PM2.5 Inlet Simulation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.1 1.0 10.0

Particle Diameter [mm]

Ae

ros

ol C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

[mg

/m3 ]

Model Output

Aerodynamic

PM2.5 = 15.5 mg/m3

Page 9: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

PM2.5 Inlet SimulationEPA PM2.5 Well Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS)

Peters, Vanderpool, and Wiener, AS&T 34:389-397, 2001, Eq.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.1 1.0 10.0

Aerodynamic Diameter [mm]

Penetration %

Page 10: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

PM2.5 Inlet Simulation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.1 1.0 10.0

Particle Diameter [mm]

Ae

ros

ol C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

[mg

/m3 ]

Model Output

Aerodynamic

FRM Inlet

PM2.5 = 14.9 mg/m3

Page 11: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Other Postprocessing Steps• Substrate Artifacts

Adsorption/desorption from substrate during sampling Have been characterized experimentally Can be estimated with moderate difficulty

• Chemical Analyses Lab conditions = 20-23 ºC, 30-40% RH Exceeds CRH of NH4HSO4, NH4NO3, NaHSO4, Aerosol water content can be estimated

• Organic Mass/Carbon Ratio Measurements reported as Organic Carbon Models assume some ratio (e.g., POA = 1.2 in NEI,

SOAb = 1.475 in CMAQ, SOAa = 1.67 in CMAQ)

Page 12: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

AcknowledgementsPete Finkelstein, ORD

John Irwin, OAQPS

Brian Timin, OAQPS

Rob Gilliam, ORD

Brian Eder, ORD

Ken Schere, ORD

S.T. Rao, ORD

Disclaimer Notice:• This work has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection

Agency. It has been subjected to Agency review and approved for presentation.

Page 13: Postprocessing Model Output for Comparison to Ambient Data

Atmospheric Processes Modeling

HorizontalTransport

Cloud Processin

g

Chemical Reactions

Photo-chemistry

DepositionGas-Phase Emissions

Aerosol Emissions

Condensation&

Evaporation

VerticalMixing