An evaluation of real-time air quality forecasts and their urban emissions over eastern Texas during the summer of 2006 Second Texas Air Quality Study field study

被引:48
|
作者
McKeen, S. [1 ,2 ]
Grell, G. [1 ,7 ]
Peckham, S. [1 ,7 ]
Wilczak, J. [5 ]
Djalalova, I. [1 ,5 ]
Hsie, E. -Y. [1 ,2 ]
Frost, G. [1 ,2 ]
Peischl, J. [1 ,2 ]
Schwarz, J. [1 ,2 ]
Spackman, R. [1 ,2 ]
Holloway, J. [1 ,2 ]
de Gouw, J. [2 ]
Warneke, C. [1 ,2 ]
Gong, W. [6 ]
Bouchet, V. [3 ]
Gaudreault, S. [3 ]
Racine, J. [3 ]
McHenry, J. [10 ]
McQueen, J. [11 ]
Lee, P. [8 ]
Tang, Y. [11 ]
Carmichael, G. R. [4 ]
Mathur, R. [9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Cooperat Inst Res Environm Sci, Boulder, CO 80309 USA
[2] NOAA, Div Chem Sci, Earth Syst Res Lab, Boulder, CO 80305 USA
[3] Environm Canada, Meteorol Serv Canada, Dorval, PQ H9P 1J3, Canada
[4] Univ Iowa, Ctr Global & Reg Environm Res, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[5] NOAA, Div Phys Sci, Earth Syst Res Lab, Boulder, CO 80305 USA
[6] Environm Canada, Sci & Technol Branch, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada
[7] NOAA, Global Sci Div, Earth Syst Res Lab, Boulder, CO 80305 USA
[8] NOAA, Air Resources Lab, Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
[9] US EPA, Natl Exposure Res Lab, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27711 USA
[10] N Carolina Supercomp Ctr, Baron Adv Meteorol Syst, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[11] NOAA, Environm Modeling Ctr, Natl Ctr Environm Predict, Natl Weather Serv, Camp Springs, MD 20746 USA
关键词
SECONDARY ORGANIC AEROSOL; CHEMICAL-TRANSPORT MODEL; MULTISCALE GEM MODEL; OZONE FORMATION; UNITED-STATES; TRACE-P; PART I; HOUSTON; CHEMISTRY; ENSEMBLE;
D O I
10.1029/2008JD011697
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Forecasts of ozone (O-3) and particulate matter (diameter less than 2.5 mu m, PM2.5) from seven air quality forecast models (AQFMs) are statistically evaluated against observations collected during August and September of 2006 (49 days) through the Aerometric Information Retrieval Now (AIRNow) network throughout eastern Texas and adjoining states. Ensemble O-3 and PM2.5 forecasts created by combining the seven separate forecasts with equal weighting, and simple bias-corrected forecasts, are also evaluated in terms of standard statistical measures, threshold statistics, and variance analysis. For O-3 the models and ensemble generally show statistical skill relative to persistence for the entire region, but fail to predict high-O-3 events in the Houston region. For PM2.5, none of the models, or ensemble, shows statistical skill, and all but one model have significant low bias. Comprehensive comparisons with the full suite of chemical and aerosol measurements collected aboard the NOAA WP-3 aircraft during the summer 2006 Second Texas Air Quality Study and the Gulf of Mexico Atmospheric Composition and Climate Study (TexAQS II/GoMACCS) field study are performed to help diagnose sources of model bias at the surface. Aircraft flights specifically designed for sampling of Houston and Dallas urban plumes are used to determine model and observed upwind or background biases, and downwind excess concentrations that are used to infer relative emission rates. Relative emissions from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999 National Emission Inventory (NEI-99) version 3 emissions inventory (used in two of the model forecasts) are evaluated on the basis of comparisons between observed and model concentration difference ratios. Model comparisons demonstrate that concentration difference ratios yield a reasonably accurate measure (within 25%) of relative input emissions. Boundary layer height and wind data are combined with the observed up-wind and downwind concentration differences to estimate absolute emissions. When the NEI-99 inventory is modified to include observed NOy emissions from continuous monitors and expected NOx decreases from mobile sources between 1999 and 2006, good agreement is found with those derived from the observations for both Houston and Dallas. However, the emission inventories consistently overpredict the ratio of CO to NOy. The ratios of ethylene and aromatics to NOy are reasonably consistent with observations over Dallas, but are significantly underpredicted for Houston. Excess ratios of PM2.5 to NOy reasonably match observations for most models but the organic carbon fraction of PM2.5 is significantly underpredicted, pointing to compensating error between secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation and primary emissions within the models' photochemistry and emissions. Rapid SOA formation associated with both Houston and Dallas is inferred to occur within 1 to 3 h downwind of the urban centers, and none of the models reproduce this feature.
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rural Southeast Texas Air Quality Measurements during the 2006 Texas Air Quality Study
    Schade, Gunnar W.
    Khan, Siraj
    Park, Changhyoun
    Boedeker, Ian
    JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2011, 61 (10) : 1070 - 1081
  • [2] Impacts of background ozone production on Houston and Dallas, Texas, air quality during the Second Texas Air Quality Study field mission
    Pierce, R. Bradley
    Al-Saadi, Jassim
    Kittaka, Chieko
    Schaack, Todd
    Lenzen, Allen
    Bowman, Kevin
    Szykman, Jim
    Soja, Amber
    Ryerson, Tom
    Thompson, Anne M.
    Bhartia, Pawan
    Morris, Gary A.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2009, 114
  • [3] Evaluation of urban surface parameterizations in the WRF model using measurements during the Texas Air Quality Study 2006 field campaign
    Lee, S. -H.
    Kim, S. -W.
    Angevine, W. M.
    Bianco, L.
    McKeen, S. A.
    Senff, C. J.
    Trainer, M.
    Tucker, S. C.
    Zamora, R. J.
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2011, 11 (05) : 2127 - 2143
  • [4] Deciphering the Role of Radical Precursors during the Second Texas Air Quality Study
    Olaguer, Eduardo P.
    Rappenglueck, Bernhard
    Lefer, Barry
    Stutz, Jochen
    Dibb, Jack
    Griffin, Robert
    Brune, William H.
    Shauck, Maxwell
    Buhr, Martin
    Jeffries, Harvey
    Vizuete, William
    Pinto, Joseph P.
    JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2009, 59 (11) : 1258 - 1277
  • [5] Regional and local background ozone in Houston during Texas Air Quality Study 2006
    Langford, A. O.
    Senff, C. J.
    Banta, R. M.
    Hardesty, R. M.
    Alvarez, R. J., II
    Sandberg, Scott P.
    Darby, Lisa S.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2009, 114
  • [6] Airborne cloud condensation nuclei measurements during the 2006 Texas Air Quality Study
    Asa-Awuku, Akua
    Moore, Richard H.
    Nenes, Athanasios
    Bahreini, Roya
    Holloway, John S.
    Brock, Charles A.
    Middlebrook, Ann M.
    Ryerson, Thomas B.
    Jimenez, Jose L.
    DeCarlo, Peter F.
    Hecobian, Arsineh
    Weber, Rodney J.
    Stickel, Robert
    Tanner, Dave J.
    Huey, Lewis G.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2011, 116
  • [7] Measurement of hydroperoxides during the Texas 2000 Air Quality Study
    Zheng, J
    Alaouie, A
    Weinstein-Lloyd, JB
    Springston, SR
    Nunnermacker, LJ
    Lee, YN
    Brechtel, F
    Kleinman, L
    Daum, P
    FOURTH CONFERENCE ON ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY: URBAN, REGIONAL AND GLOBAL SCALE IMPACTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS, 2002, : 218 - 223
  • [8] Analysis of motor vehicle emissions in a Houston tunnel during the Texas Air Quality Study 2000
    McGaughey, GR
    Desai, NR
    Allen, DT
    Seila, RL
    Lonneman, WA
    Fraser, MP
    Harley, RA
    Pollack, AK
    Ivy, JM
    Price, JH
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2004, 38 (20) : 3363 - 3372
  • [9] An observational and modeling strategy to investigate the impact of remote sources on local air quality: A Houston, Texas, case study from the Second Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS II)
    McMillan, W. W.
    Pierce, R. B.
    Sparling, L. C.
    Osterman, G.
    McCann, K.
    Fischer, M. L.
    Rappenglueck, B.
    Newsom, R.
    Turner, D.
    Kittaka, C.
    Evans, K.
    Biraud, S.
    Lefer, B.
    Andrews, A.
    Oltmans, S.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2010, 115
  • [10] Evaluation of WRF-Chem model (v3.9.1.1) real-time air quality forecasts over the Eastern Mediterranean
    Georgiou, George K.
    Christoudias, Theodoros
    Proestos, Yiannis
    Kushta, Jonilda
    Pikridas, Michael
    Sciare, Jean
    Savvides, Chrysanthos
    Lelieveld, Jos
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2022, 15 (10) : 4129 - 4146