1
|
Toro C, Sonntag D, Bash J, Burke G, Murphy BN, Seltzer KM, Simon H, Shephard MW, Cady-Pereira KE. Sensitivity of air quality to vehicle ammonia emissions in the United States. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT (OXFORD, ENGLAND : 1994) 2024; 327:1-7. [PMID: 38846931 PMCID: PMC11151733 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2024]
Abstract
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates on-road vehicles emissions using the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). We developed updated ammonia emission rates for MOVES based on road-side exhaust emission measurements of light-duty gasoline and heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The resulting nationwide on-road vehicle ammonia emissions are 1.8, 2.1, 1.8, and 1.6 times higher than the MOVES3 estimates for calendar years 2010, 2017, 2024, and 2035, respectively, primarily due to an increase in light-duty gasoline vehicle NH3 emission rates. We conducted an air quality simulation using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQv5.3.2) model to evaluate the sensitivity of modeled ammonia and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations in calendar year 2017 using the updated on-road vehicle ammonia emissions. The average monthly urban ammonia ambient concentrations increased by up to 2.3 ppbv in January and 3.0 ppbv in July. The updated on-road NH3 emission rates resulted in better agreement of modeled ammonia concentrations with 2017 annual average ambient ammonia measurements, reducing model bias by 5.8 % in the Northeast region. Modeled average winter PM2.5 concentrations increased in urban areas, including enhancements of up to 0.5 μg/m3 in the northeast United States. The updated ammonia emission rates have been incorporated in MOVES4 and will be used in future versions of the NEI and EPA's modeling platforms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Toro
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Darrell Sonntag
- Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
| | - Jesse Bash
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, RTP, NC, USA
| | - Guy Burke
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY, USA
| | - Benjamin N. Murphy
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, RTP, NC, USA
| | - Karl M. Seltzer
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, RTP, NC, USA
| | - Heather Simon
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, RTP, NC, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Clifton OE, Schwede D, Hogrefe C, Bash JO, Bland S, Cheung P, Coyle M, Emberson L, Flemming J, Fredj E, Galmarini S, Ganzeveld L, Gazetas O, Goded I, Holmes CD, Horváth L, Huijnen V, Li Q, Makar PA, Mammarella I, Manca G, Munger JW, Pérez-Camanyo JL, Pleim J, Ran L, Jose RS, Silva SJ, Staebler R, Sun S, Tai APK, Tas E, Vesala T, Weidinger T, Wu Z, Zhang L. A single-point modeling approach for the intercomparison and evaluation of ozone dry deposition across chemical transport models (Activity 2 of AQMEII4). ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 2023; 23:9911-9961. [PMID: 37990693 PMCID: PMC10659075 DOI: 10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
A primary sink of air pollutants and their precursors is dry deposition. Dry deposition estimates differ across chemical transport models, yet an understanding of the model spread is incomplete. Here, we introduce Activity 2 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative Phase 4 (AQMEII4). We examine 18 dry deposition schemes from regional and global chemical transport models as well as standalone models used for impact assessments or process understanding. We configure the schemes as single-point models at eight Northern Hemisphere locations with observed ozone fluxes. Single-point models are driven by a common set of site-specific meteorological and environmental conditions. Five of eight sites have at least 3 years and up to 12 years of ozone fluxes. The interquartile range across models in multiyear mean ozone deposition velocities ranges from a factor of 1.2 to 1.9 annually across sites and tends to be highest during winter compared with summer. No model is within 50 % of observed multiyear averages across all sites and seasons, but some models perform well for some sites and seasons. For the first time, we demonstrate how contributions from depositional pathways vary across models. Models can disagree with respect to relative contributions from the pathways, even when they predict similar deposition velocities, or agree with respect to the relative contributions but predict different deposition velocities. Both stomatal and nonstomatal uptake contribute to the large model spread across sites. Our findings are the beginning of results from AQMEII4 Activity 2, which brings scientists who model air quality and dry deposition together with scientists who measure ozone fluxes to evaluate and improve dry deposition schemes in the chemical transport models used for research, planning, and regulatory purposes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivia E. Clifton
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
- Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia Climate School, Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, NY, USA
| | - Donna Schwede
- Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Christian Hogrefe
- Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Jesse O. Bash
- Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Sam Bland
- Stockholm Environment Institute, Environment and Geography Department, University of York, York, UK
| | - Philip Cheung
- Air Quality Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Canada
| | - Mhairi Coyle
- United Kingdom Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK
- The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Lisa Emberson
- Environment and Geography Department, University of York, York, UK
| | | | - Erick Fredj
- Department of Computer Science, The Jerusalem College of Technology, Jerusalem, Israel
| | | | - Laurens Ganzeveld
- Meteorology and Air Quality Section, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
| | - Orestis Gazetas
- Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy
| | - Ignacio Goded
- Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy
| | - Christopher D. Holmes
- Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
| | - László Horváth
- ELKH-SZTE Photoacoustic Research Group, Department of Optics and Quantum Electronics, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
| | - Vincent Huijnen
- Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, the Netherlands
| | - Qian Li
- The Institute of Environmental Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
| | - Paul A. Makar
- Air Quality Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ivan Mammarella
- Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Giovanni Manca
- Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy
| | - J. William Munger
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | - Jonathan Pleim
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Limei Ran
- Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Greensboro, NC, USA
| | - Roberto San Jose
- Computer Science School, Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain
| | - Sam J. Silva
- Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Ralf Staebler
- Air Quality Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Canada
| | - Shihan Sun
- Earth and Environmental Sciences Programme, Faculty of Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Amos P. K. Tai
- Earth and Environmental Sciences Programme, Faculty of Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- Institute of Environment, Energy and Sustainability, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Eran Tas
- The Institute of Environmental Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
| | - Timo Vesala
- Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Forest Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tamás Weidinger
- Department of Meteorology, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Zhiyong Wu
- ORISE Fellow at Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Leiming Zhang
- Air Quality Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hogrefe C, Bash JO, Pleim JE, Schwede DB, Gilliam RC, Foley KM, Appel KW, Mathur R. An Analysis of CMAQ Gas Phase Dry Deposition over North America Through Grid-Scale and Land-Use Specific Diagnostics in the Context of AQMEII4. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 2023; 23:8119-8147. [PMID: 37942278 PMCID: PMC10631556 DOI: 10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2023]
Abstract
The fourth phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4) is conducting a diagnostic intercomparison and evaluation of deposition simulated by regional-scale air quality models over North America and Europe. In this study, we analyze annual AQMEII4 simulations performed with the Community Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) version 5.3.1 over North America. These simulations were configured with both the M3Dry and Surface Tiled Aerosol and Gas Exchange (STAGE) dry deposition schemes available in CMAQ. A comparison of observed and modeled concentrations and wet deposition fluxes shows that the AQMEII4 CMAQ simulations perform similarly to other contemporary regional-scale modeling studies. During summer, M3Dry has higher ozone (O3) deposition velocities (Vd) and lower mixing ratios than STAGE for much of the eastern U.S. while the reverse is the case over eastern Canada and along the West Coast. In contrast, during winter STAGE has higher O3 Vd and lower mixing ratios than M3Dry over most of the southern half of the modeling domain while the reverse is the case for much of the northern U.S. and southern Canada. Analysis of the diagnostic variables defined for the AQMEII4 project, i.e. grid-scale and land-use (LU) specific effective conductances and deposition fluxes for the major dry deposition pathways, reveals generally higher summertime stomatal and wintertime cuticular grid-scale effective conductances for M3Dry and generally higher soil grid-scale effective conductances (for both vegetated and bare soil) for STAGE in both summer and winter. On a domain-wide basis, the stomatal grid-scale effective conductances account for about half of the total O3 Vd during daytime hours in summer for both schemes. Employing LU-specific diagnostics, results show that daytime Vd varies by a factor of 2 between LU categories. Furthermore, M3Dry vs. STAGE differences are most pronounced for the stomatal and vegetated soil pathway for the forest LU categories, with M3Dry estimating larger effective conductances for the stomatal pathway and STAGE estimating larger effective conductances for the vegetated soil pathway for these LU categories. Annual domain total O3 deposition fluxes differ only slightly between M3Dry (74.4 Tg/year) and STAGE (76.2 Tg/yr), but pathway-specific fluxes to individual LU types can vary more substantially on both annual and seasonal scales which would affect estimates of O3 damages to sensitive vegetation. A comparison of two simulations differing only in their LU classification scheme shows that the differences in LU cause seasonal mean O3 mixing ratio differences on the order of 1 ppb across large portions of the domain, with the differences generally largest during summer and in areas characterized by the largest differences in the fractional coverages of the forest, planted/cultivated, and grassland LU categories. These differences are generally smaller than the M3Dry vs. STAGE differences outside the summer season but have a similar magnitude during summer. Results indicate that the deposition impacts of LU differences are caused both by differences in the fractional coverages and spatial distributions of different LU categories as well as the characterization of these categories through variables like surface roughness and vegetation fraction in look-up tables used in the land-surface model and deposition schemes. Overall, the analyses and results presented in this study illustrate how the diagnostic grid-scale and LU-specific dry deposition variables adopted for AQMEII4 can provide insights into similarities and differences between the CMAQ M3Dry and STAGE dry deposition schemes that affect simulated pollutant budgets and ecosystem impacts from atmospheric pollution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Hogrefe
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Jesse O Bash
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Jonathan E Pleim
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Donna B Schwede
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Robert C Gilliam
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Kristen M Foley
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - K Wyat Appel
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| | - Rohit Mathur
- Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhang L, He Z, Wu Z, Macdonald AM, Brook JR, Kharol S. A database of modeled gridded dry deposition velocities for 45 gaseous species and three particle size ranges across North America. J Environ Sci (China) 2023; 127:264-272. [PMID: 36522058 DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2022.05.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
The dry deposition process refers to the flux loss of an atmospheric pollutant due to uptake of the pollutant by the earth's surfaces. Dry deposition flux of a chemical species is typically calculated as the product of its surface-layer concentration and its dry deposition velocity (Vd). Field measurement based Vd data are very scarce or do not exist for many chemical species considered in chemistry transport models. In the present study, gaseous and particulate dry deposition schemes were applied to generate a database of hourly Vd for 45 gaseous species and three particle size ranges for two years (2016-2017) at a 15 km by 15 km horizontal resolution across North America. Hourly Vd of the 45 gaseous species ranged from < 0.001 to 4.6 cm/sec across the whole domain, with chemical species-dependent median (mean) values being in the range of 0.018-1.37 cm/sec (0.05-1.43 cm/sec). The spatial distributions of the two-year average Vd showed values higher than 1-3 cm/sec for those soluble and reactive species over certain land types. Soluble species have the highest Vd over water surfaces, while insoluble but reactive species have the highest Vd over forests. Hourly Vd of PM2.5 across the whole domain ranged from 0.039 to 0.75 cm/sec with median (mean) value of 0.18 (0.20) cm s-1, while the mean Vd for PM2.5-10 is twice that of PM2.5. Uncertainties in the modeled Vd are typically on the order of a factor of 2.0 or larger, which needs to be considered when applying the dataset in other studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leiming Zhang
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada.
| | - Zhuanshi He
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada
| | - Zhiyong Wu
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada
| | - Anne Marie Macdonald
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada
| | - Jeffrey R Brook
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada; Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2E4, Canada
| | - Shailesh Kharol
- Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON M3H 5T4, Canada
| |
Collapse
|