crgaqs: revised camx results

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt

CRGAQS:Revised CAMx Results

Presentation to theGorge Study Technical Team

ByENVIRON International Corporation

December 6, 2006


Today’s Presentation

• Recap modeling performance issues

• Describe latest CAMx simulations– Model and emission changes

• Performance for PM and light scattering

• Next Steps


Modeling Issues

• Episodes– August 10-22, 2004 – November 4-18, 2004

• Identified issues from sensitivity runs– Primary fine/coarse PM over predicted in

both episodes• Dominating modeled light scattering

• Windblown dust vs. fires?

• Nope: construction + agricultural fugitive dust


Modeling Issues

– OC over predicted in both episodes• SOA is dominant in Aug (mainly biogenic)

• POA (+EC) is dominant in Nov near Portland (wood smoke)

– Why is modeled scattering nearly zero in mid-November in the Mt Zion area?• Easterly winds accelerate through Gorge and

send Portland emissions offshore


Modeling Issues

– Why is modeled scattering so low at the eastern sites in November?• No speciated data at Gorge study sites

• IMPROVE data on Nov 11 indicates dominance of NO3 and OC

– OC, EC, and SO4 performance is good in east– NO3 is under predicted in east

• We rely on modeled RH to generate the nitrate (complex process)

• We use observed RH to translate nitrate mass to nitrate scattering (simple process)


Revised Model Configuration

• SOA– Historically under predicted by CMAQ

and CAMx in the western U.S. (e.g., WRAP)• Attributed to the biogenic component

– We employed a chemical improvement in CAMx for biogenic SOA• Same as put into CMAQ for the RPOs• Terpene 2-product mechanism: higher yields,

higher volatility• Should reduce biogenic SOA


Revised Model Configuration

• Fugitive dust– 2 SMOKE problems:

• WRAP speciation profiles caused a double-counting of OR/WA dust estimates

– This also impacted OR/WA woodsmoke emissions

• No county-level “canopy escape factor” was applied (as developed and applied in WRAP)

– Both have been fixed and SMOKE re-run• Significant coarse PM reductions

– Note: WRAP has chosen to completely disregard primary coarse PM predictions


Performance Evaluation

-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 Performance Evaluation

Bscat. 04aug.run7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Observed [1/Mm]

Gorge

Sauvie Island Bscat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

Bscat [1/M

m]

Bscat, observed Bscat, 04aug.run7

Mt Zion Bscat

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

Bscat [1/M

m]


Bonneville Bscat

0102030405060708090

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

Bscat [1/M

m]


Wishram Bscat

0102030405060708090

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

Bscat [1/M

m]


Gorge Site Bscat

East Portland


SO4. 04aug.run7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

August Performance EvaluationNO3. 04aug.run7

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

FINE. 04aug.run7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6

Observed ug/m̂ 3

IMPROVE

PM25. 04aug.run7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30

Observed ug/m̂ 3

IMPROVE FRM

Bonneville

OC. 04aug.run7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

EC. 04aug.run7

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1 2 3

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

Mt. Zion

Wishram


August Performance Statistics

August SO4 NO3 OC EC Fine PM2.5 Improve FB -54 -151 30 25 -64 -7 Improve FE 54 151 55 39 74 30 Gorge FB -72* -83 30 82 Gorge FE 80* 119 43 82 STN FB -57 -111 -37 14 STN FE 57 111 57 45 FRM FB -1 FRM FE 26


August Performance EvaluationSO4 at Bonneville

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7

NO3 at Bonneville

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[u

g/m

^3]

Observed 04aug.run7

OC at Bonneville

0

5

10

15

20

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7

EC at Bonneville

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[u

g/m

^3]

Observed 04aug.run7


August Performance EvaluationSO4 at Mt Zion

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7

NO3 at Mt Zion

0

0.51

1.52

2.5

33.5

4

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7

OC at Mt Zion

0

5

10

15

20

25

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7

EC at Mt Zion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04aug.run7


Gorge Study vs. IMPROVEAt Mt. Zion

Gorge vs. IMPROVE OC at Mt Zion

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

232 310 313 316 319 322

2004 Julian Date

[ug

/m^3

]

Gorge OC

IMPROVE

Gorge vs. IMPROVE EC at Mt Zion

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

232 310 313 316 319 322

2004 Julian Date

[u

g/m

^3]

Gorge EC

IMPROVE

Organic and Elemental Carbon


Gorge Study vs. IMPROVEAt Mt. Zion

Sulfate and Nitrate

Gorge vs. IMPROVE SO4 at Mt Zion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

232 310 313 316 319 322

2004 Julian Date

[ug

/m^

3]

Gorge SO4

IMPROVE SO4

Gorge vs. IMPROVE NO3 at Mt Zion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

232 310 313 316 319 322

2004 Julian Date

[ug

/m^

3]

Gorge NO3

IMPROVE NO3


August Summary

• Overall good performance for– Total PM2.5– Light scattering

• Low SO4/NH4 and primary fine– Questionable Gorge measurements– NO3 insufficient to worry about

• High carbon– SOA modification ineffective– What is underlying cause?

• Model over predicts diurnal variation


November Performance Evaluation

Gorge Site Bscat

Bscat. 04nov.run7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 100 200 300 400 500

Observed [1/Mm]

Gorge

Sauvie Island Bscat

050

100150200250300350400450

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

Bscat [1/M

m]

Bscat, observed Bscat, 04nov.run7

Mt Zion Bscat

0

100

200

300

400

500

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

Bscat [1/M

m]


Bonneville Bscat

020406080

100120140160180

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

Bscat [1/M

m]


Wishram Bscat

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

Bscat [1/M

m]


Portland

Eastern Gorge


EC. 04nov.run7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

OC. 04nov.run7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

NO3. 04nov.run7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

SO4. 04nov.run7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10

Observed [ug/m̂ 3]

Gorge IMPROVE STN

November Performance Evaluation

Bonneville

Mt. Zion

Mt. Zion

FINE. 04nov.run7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15

Observed ug/m̂ 3

IMPROVE

PM25. 04nov.run7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100

Observed ug/m̂ 3

IMPROVE FRM


November Performance Statistics

November SO4 NO3 OC EC Fine PM2.5 Improve FB 11 5 -3 25 144 30 Improve FE 35 105 51 67 144 55 Gorge FB -70* 25 14 67 Gorge FE 80* 113 59 71 STN FB -24 2 54 107 STN FE 57 86 54 107 FRM FB 47 FRM FE 66


November Performance EvaluationSO4 at Bonneville

0123456789

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

NO3 at Bonneville

0

2

4

6

8

10

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

OC at Bonneville

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

EC at Bonneville

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7


November Performance EvaluationSO4 at Mt Zion

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

NO3 at Mt Zion

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

OC at Mt Zion

0102030405060708090

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7

EC at Mt Zion

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

[ug

/m^

3]

Observed 04nov.run7


November Summary

• Generally high total PM2.5– Dominated by carbon and primary fine

• Bifurcated performance for light scattering– Over predicted in Portland area: high carbon

and primary fine– Under predicted in eastern Gorge: low

SO4/NO3/NH4

• Need more humidity/clouds:– Generate more SO4– Condense more NO3


Next Steps

• Recommendations:– Focus on August episode

• 2018 Case

• PSAT

• “What-if” scenarios

• Use model trends in relative sense to scale IMPROVE observations

– Relegate November episode• Revisit with possible follow-on funding?

crgaqs: revised camx results

Documents