A new hampshire ground level ozone pollution forecasting tool using meteorological criteria
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 110 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Courtesy: Zach Allen. A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria. 2008 November 5. Northeast Regional Operational Workshop Presenter: Laura Landry, Plymouth State University. Introduction.

Download Presentation

A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


A new hampshire ground level ozone pollution forecasting tool using meteorological criteria

Courtesy: Zach Allen

A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria

2008 November 5

Northeast Regional Operational Workshop

Presenter: Laura Landry, Plymouth State University


Introduction

Introduction

  • New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has forecasted ozone pollution for over 15 years

    • Ozone exposure causes a wide range of respiratory problems (AIRNow 2008)

  • Primarily concerned with Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone

    • Based on daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration


Introduction1

Introduction

  • Since March 2008, a new NAAQS for ozone has been implemented, lowered from 84ppb to 75ppb

    • Previously used forecasting methods have become less accurate

  • Motivation: To develop a new forecasting guide for predicting the new standard of 75ppb

  • Results will help answer questions of:

    • How much variation in meteorological criteria will there be between air monitoring sites?

    • How will criteria compare when using two different time periods of data?


Introduction2

Introduction

  • Meteorological conditions behind ozone development

    • Sunny skies

    • High surface temperatures

    • Calm to light winds

  • Transport of pollution

    • New Hampshire lies downwind of major pollution sources


Methodology

Methodology

  • Selection of air quality monitoring sites

    • Sites were selected base on:

      • Locations where most exceedance days occur

        • More problematic to forecast

        • Larger sample size on which to base the analysis

      • Locations not adjacent to each other


Methodology1

Methodology

  • Southern sites report most of exceedance days

  • Site elevations range from 0 to 150m

    • Miller State Park is an exception at about 700m

New Hampshire


Methodology2

Methodology

  • Previous research conducted by Jeffs (2007), a Master’s thesis at Plymouth State University

    • Created an ozone forecasting guide for 65ppb

    • Utilized a dataset from 2002-2005

  • This study followed similar methodology

    • EPA suggests an air quality climatology as about 4 years (EPA 1999)

    • Used two datasets of June-August

      • 2004-2007

      • 2002-2007


Methodology3

Methodology

  • Ozone data

    • Daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration

      • Source: NHDES

  • Meteorological data

    • Surface observations from KCON, KEEN, KASH, KPSM, and Miller State Park

      • Source: National Weather Service, Plymouth State University, NHDES

    • Radiosonde data from KGYX

      • Source: Plymouth State University


Methodology4

Methodology

  • Analysis was done using the Criteria Method

    • EPA-recommended method for creating air quality forecast guides (EPA 1999)

    • Subjective analysis that focuses on exceedance days

    • Determines threshold values


Methodology5

Methodology


Methodology6

Methodology

  • Meteorological parameters:

    • Daily maximum surface temperature

    • 850hPa temperature (12 UTC)

    • Surface wind speed and direction (12 & 18 UTC)

    • Cloud cover (12 & 18 UTC)

  • Times were chosen based on:

    • 12 UTC: morning conditions prior to a potential high ozone event

    • 18 UTC: afternoon conditions when ozone typically reaches its daily maximum value


Results

Results


Results1

Results

  • Comparing criteria of air monitoring site to site…

    • Daily observations

      • Maximum surface temperature: ≥ 83˚F

    • 12 UTC observations

      • 850hPa temperature: ≥ 12˚C

      • Surface wind speed: ≤ 5 knots

      • Surface wind direction: Southwesterly to southerly

      • Cloud cover: ≤ FEW


Results2

Results

  • Comparing criteria of air monitoring site to site…

    • 18 UTC observations

      • Surface wind speed: ≤10 knots

      • Surface wind direction: Westerly to southwesterly

      • Cloud cover: ≤ SCT

  • Results from Miller State Park varied most from all other sites


Site to site comparison

Site to Site Comparison

Miller State Park

Nashua


Results3

Results

  • Comparing criteria among different time periods of data among the same air monitoring site…


Dataset comparison

Dataset Comparison

Portsmouth


Summary

Summary

  • This study developed an ozone forecasting guide for the NHDES

  • The criteria method from the EPA

    • Subjectively analyzed meteorological threshold values

    • Threshold values indicate a high probability of an exceedance day


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Air monitoring site to site comparison:

    • Similar threshold values among sites

    • Miller State Park appeared to be an outlier

      • Could be due to high elevation

      • Transport may be more of an issue

  • Dataset to dataset comparison:

    • No significant variation in threshold values

    • In this study, the length of the dataset did not have a large effect on results


Questions

Questions?

References:

  • AIRNow, accessed 2008: Ozone and Your Health. [http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action= static.ozone2]

  • EPA, 1999: Guideline for Developing an Ozone Forecasting Program. EPA: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

  • Jeffs, Kim, 2007: Development of Meteorological Criteria for Forecasting Air Quality in New Hampshire. Plymouth State University: Master of Science Thesis Project.


  • Login