Ozone Production Efficiency in the Baltimore/Washington Urban Plume Presentation by Linda Hembeck Co-Authors: Christopher Loughner, Timothy Vinziguerra, Timothy Canty, Russell Dickerson, and Ross Salawitch 13th Annual CMAS Conference October 28th, 2014 Content Motivation Background Ozone Production Efficiency (OPE) in CMAQ and DISCOVER-AQ 2011 Maryland data using BEIS or MEGAN for biogenic emissions Comparisons of trace gas species between model output and data Summary 2 Motivation Elevated levels of tropospheric ozone have a negative impact on human health and crops Comparison of measured and modeled surface O3 is where we begin and end, but accurate representation of surface O3 precursors is vitally important, especially for meaningful guide to policy Ozone production efficiency (OPE) provides a mechanism for quantitatively assessing air quality representation of key components of the photochemical evolution of urban plumes 3 CMAQ-BEIS v.3.14 July 2011; 10am – 7pm J. Hains 6% 2% 86% 6% 4 CMAQ-MEGAN v.2.10 July 2011; 10am – 7pm J. Hains 8% 2% 85% 5% 5 O3 CMAQ-BEIS vs. P3-B J. Stehr CMAQ-BEIS over estimates O3 in the mixed layer 6 O3 CMAQ-MEGAN vs. P3-B J. Stehr CMAQ-MEGAN over estimates O3 in the mixed layer 7 Ozone Production Efficiency (OPE) • OPE: Number of O3 molecules produced per molecule of NOx, before NOx is further oxidized and converted to reservoirs • Slope of Ox (O3+NO2) vs NOz (NOy−NOx) is empirical measure of OPE in an air pollution plume (Kleinman et al., 2002) • OPE often plotted as function OPE: 8.77 R2: 0.71 of maximum NOx in plume 8 Ozone Production Efficiency (OPE) P3-B: Observation J. Stehr BEIS v. 3.14: Model MEAN: 4.23 ±0.66 MEGAN v. 2.10: Model MEAN: 5.08 ±0.43 9 NOx/NOy BEIS v. 3.14 MEGAN v. 2.10 J. Stehr Observation Observation Model Model 10 OMI HCHO CMAQ-BEIS Slide in progress….will show comparison of OMI HCHO to CMAQ-BEIS and CMAQ-MEGAN OMI July 2011 This slide will support the findings from CMAQ comparisons to D-AQ data 11 OMI HCHO CMAQ-MEGAN Slide in progress….will show comparison of OMI HCHO to CMAQ-BEIS and CMAQ-MEGAN CMAQ July 2011 OMI July 2011 This slide will support the findings from CMAQ comparisons to D-AQ data 12 Formaldehyde BEIS v. 3.14 MEGAN v. 2.10 J. Stehr Observation Observation Model Model 13 Isoprene BEIS v. 3.14 MEGAN v. 2.10 J. Stehr Observation Observation Model Model 14 Constraining HO2 and RO2 NO + HO2 NO + RO2 NO₂ + hv NO + O₃ O + O₂ + M → → → → → NO₂ + OH NO₂ + RO NO + O NO₂ + O₂ O₃ + M (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Assume O3 and O to be in Steady State: [O3 ]SS = j3[NO2 ] k4 [NO] Rearrange equation: [NO2 ] k4 [O3 ] = [NO] j3 [ NO2 ] J NO 2 k4 [O3 ] k1 [ HO2 ] k2 [ RO2 ] [ NO] inROx ∑ROx 15 Inferred peroxy radicals inROx BEIS v. 3.14 MEGAN v. 2.10 J. Stehr Observation Observation Model Model 16 Summary NOx/NOy ratio is under-predicted in CMAQ: model places NOx into reservoirs more efficiently than occurs in the atmosphere Observed isoprene and HCHO are underestimated using BEIS 3.14 VOC emissions in CMAQ and overestimated using MEGAN 2.10 VOC emissions: i.e., it seems truth lies in between these two emission scenarios HO2 & RO2 inferred from D-AQ are ~factor of 2 higher than HO2 & RO2 in CMAQ Most importantly: empirical OPE is nearly a factor of 2 higher than in CMAQ, suggesting surface O3 may be more responsive to NOx controls than indicated by CMAQ 17 Work in Progress Assess model performance with a 50% reduction of mobile NOx emissions (Anderson et al. 2014): preliminary results show however most of the problems persist Use a more explicit chemical mechanism for NTR such as introduced by Donna Schwede on Monday Implement the new BEIS mentioned during this conference into CMAQ Assess differences between this work, based on CB05, and CMAQ runs based on CB06 18 Questions? 19 Backup 20 NOx /NOy CMAQ-BEIS vs. P3-B CMAQ over estimates NOx /NOy in the mixed layer J. Stehr 21 NOx /NOy CMAQ-MEGAN vs. P3-B CMAQ over estimates NOy J. Stehr 22 NOy CMAQ-BEIS vs. P3-B CMAQ over estimates NOy J. Stehr 23 NOy CMAQ-BEIS vs. P3-B CMAQ over estimates NOy J. Stehr 24 25 26