v:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt crgaqs: initial camx results presentation to the gorge study...

$: V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October$
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt

CRGAQS:Initial CAMx Results

Presentation to theGorge Study Technical Team

ByENVIRON International Corporation

October 31, 2006 (boo!)


Today’s Presentation

• Describe initial CAMx simulations– Model configuration– Performance evaluation metrics

• Performance for PM and light extinction

• Next Steps


Model Configuration

-2520 -1800 -1080 -360 360 1080 1800 2520

-1800

-1080

-360

360

1080

1800

SW C AA C olum bia R iver G orge D om ain

36 km 148 x 112 (-2736, -2088) to ( 2592, 1944)12 km 131 x 116 (-2640, 168) to (-1068, 1560)04 km 146 x 137 (-2164, 644) to (-1580, 1192)

36 km

12 km

04 km


Model Configuration

• CAMx version 4.40

• “Run 1” configuration– Maximize model speed

• Mechanism 4 – CF (static 2-mode PM chemistry)

• Bott advection solver

• No PiG

• OMP parallel processing on Linux quad-CPU

– O’Brien Kv profile with 0.1 m2/s minimum– 10-day model spin-up period

• 36-km grid only first 8 days

• 36/12-km grid last 2 days


Model Configuration

• Episodes– August 10-22, 2004

• Meteorology from MM5 Run 6, 36/12-km grids• Flexi-nesting to the 4-km grid

– November 4-18, 2004 • Meteorology from MM5 Run 3, all grids

• Identified issues– Small temporal profile problem for fires– No on-road vehicle ammonia emissions in

4-km grid


Performance Evaluation

• Review spatial plots

• Review statistical performance– Species

• Individual PM species

• Total PM2.5 and PM10

• Light scattering/extinction

– Monitors• IMPROVE, Gorge sites, FRM/STN

• Focus on sites along Gorge



– Metrics• Fractional bias and gross error

• Regression and correlation

– Need to develop time series of scattering and extinction



-2100 -2000 -1900 -1800 -1700800

900

1000

B onnev illeM t.Z ion M em aloose

Sauvie Is land

Tow al R dW ishramCO G O 1

CO RI1

M O H O 1

7 M ile H ill

S te igerw aldStrunk R d

G orge m onitors (9)C ASTN ET (0)IM PR OVE (3)EP A FR M (7)EP A STN (1)



August 14, noon Pristine


Statistics – IMPROVEAugust NO3 August SO4


Statistics – IMPROVEAugust NH4 August OC


Statistics – IMPROVEAugust EC August Primary Fine


Statistics – IMPROVEAugust Primary Coarse August Total PM2.5


Statistics – IMPROVEAugust Total PM10 August Bext


Statistics – GorgeAugust NO3 August SO4


Statistics – GorgeAugust NH4 August OC


Statistics – GorgeAugust EC August Bscat

Bscat (1/Mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100Gorge Nephalometer

CA

Mx

04A

ug

.ru

n1

Rec

on

stru

cted


Statistics – STNAugust NO3 August SO4


Statistics – GorgeAugust NH4 August OC


Statistics – GorgeAugust EC August FRM PM2.5


Initial August Modeling

• NO3, SO4, and NH4 were mostly under predicted– CAMx predictions higher at Gorge sites

later in episode, but data were not available

– More NH3 may increase NO3 and NH4

• OC was mostly over predicted at IMPROVE and Gorge sites– Driven by fires



• EC was over predicted at IMPROVE but under predicted at Gorge sites– Reasons not clear – is Gorge EC backed

out from aetholometer readings?

• Total PM2.5 looks good– Balance of component over and under

predictions

• CM and PM10 were mostly under predicted at IMPROVE site



• Reconstructed scattering and extinction look good– Due to good PM2.5 predictions and dry

conditions• Contribution from under predicted

hygroscopic salts just about balance contribution from over predicted carbon

– CM doesn’t play a large role in visibility



November 10, noon Pristine


Statistics – IMPROVENovember NO3 November SO4


Statistics – IMPROVENovember NH4 November OC


Statistics – IMPROVENovember EC November Primary Fine


Statistics – IMPROVENovember Primary Coarse November Total PM2.5


Statistics – IMPROVENovember Total PM10 November Bext


Statistics – GorgeNovember NO3 November SO4


Statistics – GorgeNovember NH4 November OC


Statistics – GorgeNovember EC November Bscat

Bext scattering [1/Mm]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Nephalometer Data [1/Mm]

04

no

v.r

un

1 R

ec

on

str

uc

ted


Statistics – STNNovember NO3 November SO4


Statistics – GorgeNovember NH4 November OC


Statistics – GorgeNovember EC November FRM PM2.5


Initial November Modeling

• More NO3 and SO4 was observed and predicted than in the August episode.

• OC and PM2.5 were much lower over domain than in August since wildfire season was over



• SO4 performed well at IMPROVE sites, but was under predicted at the GORGE and STN sites

• NO3 performance was scattered

• NH4 was mostly under predicted

• OC and EC performance OK, but there were some over prediction outliers



• Primary fine and coarse (soil) was over predicted at all IMPROVE sites on all dates– Fine PM emissions may not reflect

squelching effect of recent rains

• Reconstructed total PM2.5 and PM10 slightly over predicted– Driven by carbon and primary over

predictions



• Extinction at IMPROVE sites was generally too low, while scattering at Gorge sites exhibits little skill– Under predicted salts are not contributing

sufficient scattering– More NH3 might not help– Lack of modeled fog probably is not

generating enough sulfates and nitrates


Moving Forward

• Sensitivity/Diagnostic runs– Revised emissions (fix identified

problems)– Kv sensitivity

• CMAQ approach• Alternative minimum Kz

– Met sensitivity for August? (use Run 3)– Increase NH3 emissions– Reduce primary fine/coarse emissions in

November

v:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt crgaqs: initial camx results presentation to the gorge study...

Documents