Modelled results vs. Modelled results vs. emission estimatesemission estimates

S.Dutchak, I.Ilyin, O.Travnikov, O.Rozovskaya, S.Dutchak, I.Ilyin, O.Travnikov, O.Rozovskaya, M.VaryginaM.Varygina

EMEP/MSC-EastEMEP/MSC-East

Modelled results vs. Modelled results vs. emission estimatesemission estimates

S.Dutchak, I.Ilyin, O.Travnikov, O.Rozovskaya, S.Dutchak, I.Ilyin, O.Travnikov, O.Rozovskaya, M.VaryginaM.Varygina

EMEP/MSC-EastEMEP/MSC-East

Larnaka, 2010

Some events

Uncertainties in modelling, emissions and measurements

TFEIP - Rovaniemi, 2005

TFEIP - Thessaloniki, 2006

TFEIP/TFMM - Dublin, 2007

2007 – CEIP

Model results vs. observations

(presented in Rovaniemi, 2005)

Underestimation of observed concentrations

by

65-75 % for Pb and Cd

Official emissions data, 2000

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Observed, g/L

Mod

el,

g/L

Mod = 0.35 ObsCorr = 0.70 Pb

TFMM/TFEIP scientific workshops (Dublin, 2007)

Objective Increase the interaction between emissions, monitoring and modelling

Conclusions

natural emissions

finer spatial and temporal resolution

detailed activity data and emission factors

HM model developments, 2007-2010

(after Dublin workshop, 2007)Main directions:

Model sensitivity analysis – most sensitive to the emissions

Model uncertainties – 30-40% for intrinsic parameters

Refinement of vertical structure and size-segregated description – increase of total depositions ~ 2%

HM model developments, 2007-2010

Main directions:

Refinement of meteorological data – increase of wet deposition ~ 3%

Global/regional scale modelling – improvement of boundary conditions

Evaluation of atmospheric transport modelling

TF HTAP model intercomparison, 2008

Vertical profile of CO tracer

MSC-E

MSC-EModels

Average concentration of CO tracer in Europe

Evaluation of atmospheric transport

Re-suspension of HMs

MSC-E estimations (2007)

Re-suspension varies in countries: 15 – 80 %; uncertainties are very high

0

1

2

3

4

5

Gre

ece

Mo

na

coB

elg

ium

Bu

lga

riaF

YR

_M

ace

do

nia

Slo

vaki

a

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

rtu

ga

lP

ola

nd

Cze

ch_

Re

pu

blic

Italy

Ge

rma

ny

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Se

rbia

……

……

Flu

x, k

g/k

m2 /y

Re-suspension (~5 kt)Anthropogenic (~ 7.5 kt)

Pb

0

100

200

300

400

500

FY

R_

Ma

ced

on

iaS

lova

kia

Cyp

rus

Po

lan

dC

zech

_R

ep

ub

licB

elg

ium

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

rtu

ga

lG

ree

ceIta

lyS

pa

inU

kra

ine

Ge

rma

ny

Lu

xem

bo

urg

…..

…..

Flu

x, g

/km

2 /y

Re-suspension (~130 t)Anthropogenic (~ 270 t)

Cd

Countries estimates are of great importance [ECE/EC.AIR/2008/4]

Model development:inclusion of re-suspension (Pb)

Underestimation < 40% Underestimation > 50%

Comparison with observations, 2007

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

CZ

1E

S8

ES

9F

I17

FR

90

HU

2L

V1

0L

V1

6N

O5

6S

K2

FI8

FI2

2F

I36

FI5

3F

I92

FI9

3C

Z3

NO

1N

O5

5

Co

nc

. In

pre

cip

ita

rtio

n, u

g/l Observed

Modelled

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

BE

14

DE

1D

E2

DE

3D

E8

DE

7D

E9

DK

8D

K2

0D

K2

2D

K3

1G

B6

GB

13

GB

17

GB

91

IS9

0IS

91

IT1

NO

39

PL

4P

L5

SE

51

SE

97

SK

4S

K6

SK

7

Co

nc

. In

pre

cip

ita

tio

n, u

g/l Modelled

Observed

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

BE

14

CZ

1C

Z3

DK

31

EE

11

EE

9E

S8

ES

9F

I17

FI2

2F

I36

FI5

3F

I8F

I92

FI9

3F

R1

3F

R9

0H

U2

LV

10

LV

16

NO

1N

O3

9N

O5

5N

O5

6P

L5

SE

97

SK

2S

K4

Co

nc

. In

pre

cip

ita

tio

n, u

g/l

Modelled

Observed

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

DE

1D

E2

DE

3D

E7

DE

8D

E9

DK

20

DK

22

DK

8G

B1

3G

B1

7G

B6

GB

91

IS9

0IS

91

PL

4S

E5

1S

K6

SK

7

Co

nc

. In

pre

cip

ita

tio

n, u

g/l

Modelled

Observed

Underestimation < 40% Underestimation > 50%

CZ1

Model development:inclusion of re-suspension (Cd)

Comparison with observations, 2007

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

22

.04

.05

06

.05

.05

20

.05

.05

03

.06

.05

17

.06

.05

01

.07

.05

15

.07

.05

29

.07

.05

12

.08

.05

26

.08

.05

09

.09

.05

23

.09

.05

07

.10

.05

21

.10

.05

04

.11

.05

18

.11

.05

02

.12

.05

16

.12

.05

Air

con

cen

tra

tion

s, n

g/m

3

ObservedModelled (anthrop.+re-suspension)Modelled (anthrop.)

Back trajectory analysis (CZ1)

Svratouch, Czech Republic (CZ1)

01.09.2005 06.11.2005

Transport from Poland

Transport from Western

Europe

Daily mean Cd concentration in air, 2005

Comparison of emissions in Poland with neighboring

countries(official data, 2008)Total emissions:

Poland – 41.8 t

Slovakia – 11 t

France – 3.8 t

Czech Republic – 3.8 t

Bulgaria – 3.7 t

Germany – 2.7 t

Belgium – 2 t

Austria – 1.1 t

Spatial distributions of emission data (Cd, 2008)

Official gridded data reported by 26 countries -

2005,and 2 countries - 2000

Gridded data for modelling prepared by CEIP differ from official gridded

data (for 17 countries of 28)

BelgiumBulgariaCzech RepublicNorwayPolandSlovakiaSloveniaUnited Kingdom

CroatiaCyprusFinlandFranceHungaryItalyLatviaLithuaniaSweden

According to PM spatial distribution

No explanation

Reported by Poland for 2005

Prepared by CEIP for 2008(based on PM)

Spatial distributions of Cd emissions data (Poland, 2008)

What data should be used for modelling?

EMEP case study on HM

Main purpose

Improvement of pollution assessment based on analysis of discrepancies between modelled and measurement data in close cooperation with national experts on emissions, monitoring, modelling

Input data

National experts (at present 6 countries) will deliver:

- gridded data with 5 x 5 km (10 x 10 km) resolution

- complementary information on measurements, land-use, meteorological data- etc ……

EMEP case study on HM

Detailed discussion on the HM Case Study will be held at the TFMM meeting tomorrow from 9.00 to 12.00

WELCOME !!!

Progress will be reported to the next TFMM and TFEIP meetings

EMEP case study on HM