a comparative performance evaluation of the aurams and cmaq air quality modelling systems steven c....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems
Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan YangICPET, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Michael D. Moran and Paul A. MakarMSC, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario
Véronique S. Bouchet and Hugo LandryCMC, Environment Canada, Dorval, Québec
![Page 2: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 2
Outline
• Introduction• AURAMS vs. CMAQ – Differences in science,
input file preparation, etc.
• O3, total PM2.5, and speciated PM2.5 performance comparison
• Summary and Conclusions
![Page 3: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 3
Introduction
• Many aspects of the AURAMS and CMAQ simulations were “aligned” to reduce some of the common sources of differences:– same input meteorology from Environment Canada’s GEM
model– same raw emissions inventories processed by SMOKE– same biogenic emissions model– same grid resolution
• Confidence that the differences in model results are caused by the AQ models themselves rather than by meteorological and/or emissions inputs
![Page 4: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 4
Modelling Systems
• CMAQ v4.6– SAPRC-99 chemical mechanism; AERO4; NRC PMx post-
processor
• AURAMS v1.3.1b– A Unified Regional Air-quality Modelling System– AQ modelling system with size- and composition-resolved PM– Designed to be a “one” atmosphere or “unified” model in order
to address a variety of interconnected tropospheric air pollution problems ranging from ground level O3 to PM to acid rain
![Page 5: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 5
AURAMS v1.3.1b (cont.)
• 9 PM species/components: sulphate (SU), nitrate (NI), ammonium (AM), black carbon (EC), primary organic aerosols (PC), secondary organic aerosols (OC), crustal material (CM), sea-salt (SE), and particle bound water (WA)
• 12 PM size distribution bins: 0.01 to 40.96 µm in diameter– Bins 1 thru 8 – PM2.5
– Bins 9 and 10 – PMC; where PM10-PM2.5 = PMC– Bins 11 and 12 – PM greater than 10 µm in diameter
• Gas phase chemistry – modified version of ADOM-II
• Includes sea-salt emissions but not chemistry at this time
• Zero-gradient lateral boundary conditions
![Page 6: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 6
Domains and Simulation period
• AURAMS - Polar Stereographic; true scale at 60°N; 150 x 106 grid; 42-km resolution
• CMAQ - Lambert conformal conic; standard parallels of 50°N and 70°N; 139 x 99 grid; 42-km resolution
• 01:00 July 1, 2002 to 00:00 July 30, 2002 UTC
![Page 7: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 7
Model Inputs - Meteorology
• GEM v3.2– AURAMS meteorological
pre-processor– GEM-MCIP (based on
MCIP v3.1)
• Overlapping grid cell comparison of surface fields – NMEs of 0.25% for pressure; 0.4% for temperature; 3.8% for specific humidity (HU)
![Page 8: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 8
Model Inputs - Emissions
• SMOKE v2.2
• Canadian Emissions– 2000 CAC inventory
• U.S. Emissions– 2001 CAIR
• Mexican Emissions– 1999 inventory
• Biogenic Emissions– BEISv3.09
• AURAMS – online• CMAQ – offline using
SMOKE
![Page 9: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 9
Model Inputs - Emissions (cont.)
• Point source processing– AURAMS – plume-rise of major point sources calculated within
CTM– CMAQ – meteorological data used to calculate plume rise
within SMOKE• Emissions files
– AURAMS: grams/sec• representative week of emissions for each month of simulation• 3 emissions files (non-mobile, mobile, minor-point) in RPN format• 1 emissions file (major-point sources) in ASCII format
– CMAQ: gaseous - moles/sec; PM - grams/sec• daily emissions files• single comprehensive file in I/O API format
![Page 10: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 10
Measurement Data
• O3 - hourly measurements from: the EC NAPS network (190 sites) and U.S. EPA AQS network (1087 sites)
• PM2.5 - hourly measurements from: NAPS (92 sites) and AQS (262 sites)
• Speciated PM2.5 - daily averaged measurements from: NAPS (17 sites) and U.S. EPA STN network (205 sites)
O3 Measurement Sites PM Measurement Sites
![Page 11: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 11
O3 Performance
statisticsO3 (ppb) daily peak O3 (ppb) daily low O3 (ppb)
AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ
meas. mean 35.6 35.6 60.8 60.7 11.7 11.7
mod. mean 42.0 51.4 66.7 70.2 16.4 32.7
MB 6.4 15.8 5.9 9.4 4.6 20.9
NMB (%) 18 % 44 % 10 % 16 % 39 % 178 %
ME 16.2 18.8 16.4 14.3 11.0 21.9
NME (%) 46 % 53 % 27 % 24 % 94 % 187 %
r2 0.393 0.438 0.350 0.505 0.104 0.077• AURAMS lower bias• Similar levels of error• CMAQ over prediction mainly due to inability in predicting daily lows
![Page 12: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 12
O3 Performance (cont.)
• Both AURAMS and CMAQ over-predict daily peaks
• AURAMS much better at predicting daily lows
• Both models show correct diurnal patterns and overall trends in concentration level
![Page 13: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 13
Total PM2.5 Performance
statistics
total PM2.5
(µg m-3)
daily peak PM2.5
(µg m-3)
AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ
meas. mean 14.4 14.4 28.3 28.1
mod. mean 12.2 5.1 21.6 9.1
MB -2.2 -9.3 -6.6 -19.0
NMB - 15 % - 64 % - 23 % - 68 %
ME 9.7 10.2 16.3 19.5
NME 67 % 71 % 58 % 69 %
r2 0.074 0.151 0.040 0.086
• AURAMS lower bias
• Similar levels of error
![Page 14: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 14
Total PM2.5 Performance (cont.)
• Both models under-predict PM2.5
• Forest-fires not included in emissions contributes to under-prediction in both models
• Much more PM2.5 sea-salt in AURAMS
![Page 15: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 15
PM2.5 Species Performance
statistics
PM2.5 SO4
(µg m-3)
PM2.5 NO3
(µg m-3)
PM2.5 NH4
(µg m-3)
AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ
meas. mean 5.0 0.90 1.6
mod. mean 5.3 2.4 2.0 0.26 1.6 0.82
MB 0.3 -2.6 1.1 -0.64 0.0 -0.81
NMB (%) 6 % -51 % 121 % -71 % 1 % -50 %
ME 3.0 2.8 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.9
NME (%) 60 % 56 % 175 % 79 % 54 % 57 %
r2 0.367 0.524 0.397 0.437 0.428 0.458• AURAMS better bias for SO4 and NH4; similar levels of error• CMAQ better correlation
![Page 16: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 16
PM2.5 Species Performance (cont.)
statistics
PM2.5 EC
(µg m-3)
PM2.5 TOA
(µg m-3)
AURAMS CMAQ AURAMS CMAQ
meas. mean 0.52 10.6
mod. mean 0.28 0.34 3.9 0.9
MB -0.24 -0.18 -6.6 -9.6
NMB - 46 % - 36 % - 63 % - 91 %
ME 0.30 0.30 6.9 9.6
NME 58 % 58 % 66 % 91 %
r2 0.166 0.204 0.0005 0.007
• CMAQ better bias for EC; similar levels of error
• AURAMS much better performance for TOA– Due to difference
in SOA algorithms
• Poor TOA correlation for both models impacts overall correlation for total PM2.5 (AURAMS – 0.074; CMAQ = 0.151)
![Page 17: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 17
PM2.5 Species – Temporal Comparison
SO4
SOAPOA
NO3
EC
NH4
Other PM2.5
Sea-salt
![Page 18: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 18
PM2.5 Species – Spatial Comparison
![Page 19: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 19
PM2.5 Species – Spatial Comparison
(cont.)
• Similar spatial and temporal patterns for most species
• Sea-salt aerosols vastly different
• Concentration levels quite different
![Page 20: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 20
PM Composition
• PM2.5 sea-salt contributes over half to AURAMS total PM2.5 mass for all grid cells; only 5% in CMAQ
• For land grid cells only, PM2.5 sea-salt contributes 15% in AURAMS and 2% in CMAQ
• If sea-salt is excluded from model results, total PM2.5 performance still better in AURAMS results
PM composition avg. over all grid cells
PM composition avg. over land grid cells only
![Page 21: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 21
Discussion and Summary
• Similar levels of error for O3, total PM2.5, and most PM2.5 species
• AURAMS better bias for all species except PM2.5 nitrate and elemental carbon
• Enhanced AURAMS bias due to cancellation of positive and negative biases
• Sea-salts contribute much more to overall PM composition in AURAMS than CMAQ
– Does not impact overall conclusions regarding relative PM2.5 performance of the models
• Spatial and temporal patterns similar, but overall concentration levels quite different
![Page 22: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 22
Acknowledgements
• Radenko Pavlovic and Sylvain Ménard of Environment Canada– transfer of AURAMS code and help in understanding and compiling
various AURAMS related material• Wanmin Gong of EC
– help in identifying problem in AURAMS land-use file• Pollution Data Division of EC
– 2000 Canadian raw emissions inventories• U.S. EPA and CMAS
– U.S. emissions data, SMOKE, CMAQ, MCIP• Colorado State University
– VIEWS database for measurement data• Meteorological Service of Canada
– NAtChem database for measurement data• Environment Canada and the Program of Energy Research and
Development (PERD) for funding support
![Page 23: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ Air Quality Modelling Systems Steven C. Smyth, Weimin Jiang, Helmut Roth, and Fuquan Yang ICPET,](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5697bf831a28abf838c86585/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
6th Annual Models-3 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC, October 1-3, 2007 23