Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation

Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman

USEPA/OAQPS

October 22, 2002

Introduction

USEPA has performed an annual simulation of CMAQ and REMSAD for a 1996 base year

An operational evaluation has been completed for both models Model performance is difficult to summarize due to the

lack of ambient PM2.5 data (from 1996) Performance varies by season and by PM2.5 component

1996 National CMAQ and REMSAD- Model Setup

CMAQ- May 2001 release w/MEBI solver REMSAD- Version 7.01 Model Setup:

– Domain: CMAQ and REMSAD: 36km, 12 layers, ~38 m surface layer

– Emissions: CMAQ and REMSAD: 1996 NEI w/adjustments, processed via SMOKE

– Meteorology: 1996 MM5– Chemistry:

CMAQ: CB-IV chemical mechanism w/ fast solver (MEBI) REMSAD: micro-CB-IV chemical mechanism

CMAQ Modeling Domain

Nationwide Modeling Domains

REMSAD Modeling Domain

CMAQ National domain is a Lambert conformal projection from 100°W, 40°NREMSAD uses a lat-long projection

Notes on Emission Inventory

Base Year 1996 NEI w/adjustments Removal of wildfires, wind blown dust, and residential

on-site incineration Removal of commercial wood-fired combustion

– Maryland and Maine PM Transport Factor

– 75% reduction in fugitive dust sources Adjusted CA NOx and VOC (non-EGU)

Notes on Emission Inventory (con’t)

Revised Temporal Data– Prescribed burning– Animal husbandry

Used results from ORD inverse modeling (monthly reductions of 20-60%)

Annual NH3 inventory reduced by ~30%

– Crop fertilization / agricultural burning CMU NH3 inventory USDA Crop Calendar

Biogenic Emissions– BEIS 3.09

Model Performance- Ambient Data Issues

PM2.5 data is collected from a variety of networks with different measurement protocols and analysis techniques

– FRM PM2.5 – IMPROVE– Urban speciation sites– CASTNET dry deposition network– CASTNET visibility network– Continuous PM2.5 and speciation monitors– NADP wet deposition network

Certain measurements are highly uncertain It is a challenge to determine how to match model output to ambient

data– “Draft” data mapping will be provided

CMAQ and REMSAD Model Performance

Completed statistical comparison against observations for 12 layer REMSAD and CMAQ

Data sources: IMPROVE network; CASTNET dry dep. Network; NADP wet deposition network; CASTNET visibility network

All comparisons paired in time/space Statistics and scatterplots for seasonal and annual averages

– Calculated performance statistics by year and season for each monitoring site

Thousands of individual numbers; only presenting gross summary

Limited data base (in 1996) makes conclusive statements re: model performance difficult

Annual Average PM2.5

IMPROVE Annual Average Performance Statistics- REMSAD

IMPROVE PM Species National East WestPM2.5 -32% -15% -49%Sulfate Ion -19% -10% -39%Nitrate Ion 5% 82% -55%Elemental Carbon 1% 23% -20%Organic Aerosols -45% -42% -47%Soil/Other 38% 225% -18%

-Modeled PM2.5 is compared to measured PM2.5 fine mass

-Organic aerosols includes a 1.4 multiplication factor

-East/West is defined by 100th meridian

-Annual mean predicted/annual mean observed

-Negative numbers are underpredictions

IMPROVE Annual Average Performance Statistics- CMAQ

-Modeled PM2.5 is compared to measured PM2.5 fine mass

-Organic aerosols includes a 1.4 multiplication factor

-Annual mean predicted/annual mean observed

-Negative numbers are underpredictions

IMPROVE PM Species National East WestPM2.5 8% 3% 16%Sulfate Ion -2% 5% -19%Nitrate Ion 200% 262% 150%Elemental Carbon 14% -2% 28%Organic Aerosols 1% -30% 26%Soil/Other 80% 204% 43%

Seasonal Average Sulfate Performance

Seasonal Average Sulfate- IMPROVEAnnual REMSAD 1996 Modeling (nrd96)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

RE

MS

AD

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Sulfate- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

July Average Sulfate

Seasonal Average Particulate Nitrate Performance

Seasonal Average Nitrate- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Nitrate- IMPROVEAnnual REMSAD 1996 Modeling (nrd96)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

RE

MS

AD

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(u

g/m

3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Total Nitrate Performance

Seasonal Average Total Nitrate Concentration- CASTNET

(dry dep. Network)Annual REMSAD 1996 Modeling (nrd96)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CASTNET Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Total Nitrate Concentration- CASTNET

(dry dep. Network)Annual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CASTNET Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

January Average Particulate Nitrate

Differences in Winter Nitrate

Much of the difference in winter nitrate predictions between CMAQ and REMSAD can be traced to different implementations of the dry deposition routines

Nitrate concentrations were found to be sensitive to dry deposition of NH3, HNO3, and NO2

Improvements and adjustments are needed in both CMAQ and REMSAD, particularly in the areas of:

– Treatment of snowcover and freezing temperatures– Specification of land use and surface roughness – Treatment of soluble species when canopies are wet

January nitrate concentrations agreed to within ~25% after the dry deposition routines were made more similar to each other through a series of sensitivity runs (with REMSAD)

January Nitrate Comparison After Dry Deposition Sensitivities

Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols Performance

Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols- IMPROVEAnnual REMSAD 1996 Modeling (nrd96)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

RE

MS

AD

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Organic Aerosols- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

July Average Organic Aerosols

Seasonal Average Elemental Carbon Performance

Seasonal Average Elemental Carbon- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

RE

MS

AD

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Elemental Carbon- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

January Average Elemental Carbon

Seasonal Average Crustal/Other PM2.5 Performance

Seasonal Average Soil/Other PM2.5- IMPROVEAnnual REMSAD 1996 Modeling (nrd96)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

RE

MS

AD

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

Seasonal Average Soil/Other PM2.5- IMPROVEAnnual CMAQ 1996 Modeling (nrd96_vae2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Improve Observations (ug/m3)

CM

AQ

Pre

dic

tio

ns

(ug

/m3)

Summer

Fall

Spring

Winter

July Average Crustal/Other PM2.5

Winter Average NitrateCMAQ 1996 vs. Observed 2001-2002 (IMPROVE and Urban Speciation)

Qualitative comparison of spatial patterns with more recent urban speciation data

Model Performance- Summary of Individual Species

CMAQ tends to predict higher concentrations than REMSAD; especially in the West

REMSAD slightly underpredicts sulfate in the East; CMAQ slightly overpredicts sulfate

Nitrate is overpredicted in the East– Total nitrate (particulate + nitric acid) is overpredicted in all seasons

Indicates an overestimation of nitric acid

REMSAD underpredicts organic carbon; CMAQ is relatively unbiased– Large uncertainty in the primary organic inventory (no wildfires), the organic

measurements, and the secondary organic chemistry– CMAQ is predicting much more biogenic SOA; but it is using an aerosol yield approach

(AE2) Much of the biogenic SOA in REMSAD is being partitioned into the gas phase

Model Performance- Individual Species

Elemental carbon is generally unbiased– Large uncertainty in measurement of elemental carbon (EC/OC split)

IMPROVE sites have very low EC concentrations

Soil/other concentrations are overpredicted– Inventory issues

Fugitive dust, unspeciated emissions from construction, paved roads, etc. in urban areas

NADP wet concentration comparisons– Sulfate

CMAQ overpredicts in the East; REMSAD underpredicts – Nitrate

Both models overpredict in the East; REMSAD underpredicts in the West– Ammonium

REMSAD underpredicts; CMAQ slightly overpredicts in the East

Next Steps

Additional evaluation techniques can be applied– Further comparisons to more recent urban speciation data– Closer look at individual sites, days, seasons, regions

Time series plots 20% best/worst days for visibility

Plan to model 2001 base year – Significantly more ambient data available

Continue to look at PM monitoring issues and how they affect model performance evaluation

– Uncertainty in nitrate observed data– EC/OC split– Monitoring network protocol differences