use of a radar wind profiler and sodar to characterize pm 2.5 air pollution in cleveland, ohio
Post on 09-Feb-2016
32 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Use of a Radar Wind Profiler and Sodar to Characterize PM2.5 Air Pollution in Cleveland, Ohio
Clinton P. MacDonald1, Adam N. Pasch1, Robert Gilliam2, Charley A. Knoderer1, Paul T. Roberts1, and Gary Norris2
1Sonoma Technology, Inc.2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Presented at the National Air Quality ConferencesMarch 7-10, 2011
San Diego, CA
4070
2
About Cleveland
• Geography• Population
~430,000 Cleveland• Emissions
– Large power plants, steel mills, marine vessels, and on-road vehicles
• Non-attainment for PM2.5
Regional scale
Cleveland
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
Complex PM2.5 Concentrations
Urban PM2.5
Upwind PM2.5
Hourly PM2.5 Concentrations
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour (EST)
Con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/m
3)
BARRMEDINAST_THEODOS
5
Understand the Role of Meteorology
• Radar wind profiler (RWP)
• Radio acoustic sounding system (RASS)
• Mini-sodar• Surface
meteorology
6
Special Meteorological Measurements
6
Meteorological tower
Mini-sodar RWP RASS
7
Methods
• Case Studies• Episodes* versus non-episodes:
– Diurnal PM2.5
– 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 PM2.5 concentrations > 34.4 μg/m3 at St. Theodosis or G.T. Craig
Episode Date
Maximum 24-hr Average PM2.5
Concentration (μg/m3)
8/9/2009 37
8/15/2009 54
8/16/2009 51
2/2/2010 41
2/3/2010 45
2/20/2010 39
2/21/2010 38
3/8/2010 42
3/9/2010 62
3/10/2010 39
3/11/2010 42
8
Case Study Example: August 15, 2009 (1 of 3)
8
54 μg/m3
Lake breeze
Mixing heightsPM2.5
9
Case Study Example: August 15, 2009 (2 of 3)
9
54 μg/m3
Southerly winds aloft
Mixing height Lake boundary layer
CBL
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/m3
24-hr backward trajectories ending 6:00 PM EST
11
Case Study Example: March 08, 2010High ventilation driven by moderate winds, but recirculation. 42 μg/m3
12
Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: PM2.5
12
13
Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Peak Mixing
Summer
Winter
Episode
Non-Episode
14
Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Ventilation
Summer
Winter
Episode
Non-Episode
15
Results: Episode vs. Non-episode: Transport
Episode Date RWP/Sodar NAM WRF Concensus Local Carryover of
Upwind AQI
8/9/2009 M S S/M Mod
8/15/2009 S S M S Mod
8/16/2009 M M M M Mod
2/2/2010 M S S S Mod
2/3/2010 M M S M Mod
2/20/2010 M M M M Good/Mod
2/21/2010 S S S S Mod
3/8/2010 M M M Good/Mod
3/9/2010 M S S/M Mod
3/10/2010 L L L Mod/USG
3/11/2010 L M M/L Mod
S = 24-hr transport < ~100 kmM = 24-hr transport between ~100 and 350 kmL = 24-hr transport > ~400 km
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
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
top related