1 / 16

Comparison of Two Annual PM 2.5 Modeling Results for the South Coast Air Basin

Comparison of Two Annual PM 2.5 Modeling Results for the South Coast Air Basin. 7 th Annual CMAS Conference October 8, 2008 Bong Mann Kim and Joe Cassmassi. Annual PM 2.5 Simulations. CAMx and CMAQ January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 Same input files Emissions Meteorological data

janettea
Download Presentation

Comparison of Two Annual PM 2.5 Modeling Results for the South Coast Air Basin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Two Annual PM2.5 Modeling Results for the South Coast Air Basin 7th Annual CMAS Conference October 8, 2008 Bong Mann Kim and Joe Cassmassi

  2. Annual PM2.5 Simulations • CAMx and CMAQ • January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 • Same input files • Emissions • Meteorological data • Boundary and initial files • Compared with 2005 PM2.5 data measured for the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES III)

  3. Modeling Domain

  4. Input Files • Emissions • Monthly weekday, Saturday, Sunday • Monthly biogenic emissions • Meteorological data • MM5 initialized from NCEP w/ one-day “ramp up” period and run for 5-day w/o FDDA • Boundary and initial files • Generated from WRAP visibility global modeling results

  5. Ambient Data • PM2.5 sampling conducted as part of MATES III program • PM2.5 data collected once every 3 days • Sampled from April 2004 to Mach 2006 at ten locations • PM2.5 mass, ions, carbon, metals • PM2.5 data from eight sites are used in the model performance evaluation

  6. Model Comparison

  7. Comparison of Model Performance • PM2.5 mass, NH4, NO3, SO4, OC, EC, Others • Statistics • Mean bias (MB) • Mean error (ME) • Normalized mean bias (NMB) • Normalized mean error (NME) • Graphics • Error plots • Scatter plots • Time series plots

  8. Error Plots CAMx CMAQ

  9. Performance Statistics

  10. Scatter Plots for each species at Los Angeles CAMx CMAQ

  11. Scatter Plots for each species at Rubidoux CAMx CMAQ

  12. Scatter Plots for each species at Long Beach CAMx CMAQ

  13. Scatter Plots for each species at Los Angeles CAMx CMAQ

  14. Scatter Plots for each species at Rubidoux CAMx CMAQ

  15. Scatter Plots for each species at Long Beach CAMx CMAQ

  16. Conclusions • CAMx and CMAQ produced similar results • Both models tend to over-predict NH4, NO3, OC, others, and PM2.5 mass • CAMx predicted better for OC, others and PM2.5 mass • CMAQ predicted better for NH4, NO3, and SO4 • CAMx is about 2 times faster than CMAQ • CAMx takes ~3 days with one CPU • CMAQ takes ~7 days with one CPU

More Related