1 / 13

Improving EMEP Model with Intensive Measurement Periods

This article discusses how intensive measurement periods can help improve the modeling of acidification, eutrophication, O3, and PM. It covers topics such as the uncertainty in dry deposition fluxes, reasons for underestimation, co-ordination with other European projects, vertical profiles, spatial measurement data coverage, and the measurement of VOCs and PM.

jeaniea
Download Presentation

Improving EMEP Model with Intensive Measurement Periods

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. EMEP/MSC-W How can EMEP Intensive measurement periods help to improve modelling of acidification, eutrophication, O3 and PM? Views from MSC-W H. Fagerli and MSC-W team, TFMM, Paris 15-17th June 2009

  2. EMEP/MSC-W Large uncertainty – dry deposition fluxes I • The EMEP model is evaluated using wet deposition measurements and concentrations in air, but to have the full budget we need to evaluate the dry deposition. • Too high dry deposition would imply too short long range transport: S-R matrices

  3. EMEP/MSC-W Large uncertainty – dry deposition fluxes I • What is the reason for the underestimation? • Gas-particle distribution? • Dry deposition? • Vertical distribution of components? • ?

  4. EMEP/MSC-W Large uncertainty – dry deposition fluxes II • Co-ordination with other European projects (NEU?)? • Co-locate measurements of air concentrations to sites where flux measurements are undertaken? (CarboEurope, FluxNet?) Micro meteorology + concentrations would help to evaluate if dry deposition is reasonable

  5. EMEP/MSC-W Vertical profiles • To help interpreting processes (dynamic and chemistry)

  6. ns EU NA EA SA Import into target regions as compared to domestic contribution Credibility of model results? Courtesy Michael Schulz

  7. EMEP/MSC-W Spatial measurement data coverage • Much less data for Mediterrenean and South-East Europe. • Could sites that only have partially coverage of the program have additional measurements during the measurement period? • Could countries/sites that not report to EMEP be involved for e.g. level 1 type measurements?

  8. EMEP/MSC-W SOA and O3 • BVOC difficult? Co-operation with other projects? • Measurements of VOC, possibly co-located with OC/EC and tracers (levoglucosan, 14C) in a summer campaign? Isoprene, terpene ? • Products; HCHO, Methyl-vinyl ketone, machroein ?

  9. EMEP/MSC-W PM • Full chemical speciation (mass closure) • Dust • Fine versus coarse nitrate • Gas versus particle phase

  10. What have we learned? NH3 HNO3 Improving diurnal variation of ammonia emissions helps – but does not solve the problem Site: Auchencort (GB48) NO3-(PM25)

  11. Coarse nitrate in standard EMEP model, june 2006 Dots: measurements Field: EMEP model

  12. New parametrisation of formation of coarse nitrate based (on dust and sea salt) Montelibretti (IT01), june 2006

  13. EMEP/MSC-W Wish list • Dry deposition • Vertical profiles • VOC’s • Spatial coverage • Mass closure (chemical speciation) • Coarse versus fine nitrate • Gas-particle

More Related