The impact of GEM and MM5 modeled meteorological conditions on CMAQ air quality modeling results in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

Volumn 45, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1525-1541

  Smyth, Steven C ^a   Yin, Dazhong ^a,c   Roth, Helmut ^a   Jiang, Weimin ^a   Moran, Michael D ^b   Crevier, Louis Philippe ^b  

^a NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

^b ENVIRONMENT CANADA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION; ATMOSPHERIC HUMIDITY; ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GAS EMISSIONS; STATISTICS;

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MULTISCALE (GEM); METEOROLOGICAL MODEL; PARTICULATE MATTER (PM);

METEOROLOGY;

AEROSOL; AIR QUALITY; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; BIOGENIC EMISSION; DATA SET; EXHAUST EMISSION; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PARTICULATE MATTER; RELATIVE HUMIDITY; TEMPERATURE EFFECT; WIND VELOCITY;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845992521     PISSN: 15588424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1175/JAM2420.1     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bélair, S., A. Méthot, J. Mailhot, B. Bilodeau, A. Patoine, G. Pellerin, and J. Côté, 2000: Operational implementation of the Fritsch-Chappell convective scheme in the 24-km Canadian regional model. Wea. Forecasting, 15, 257-274.
2. Binkowski, F. S., and S. J. Roselle, 2003: Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model aerosol component. 1. Model description. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4183, doi:10.1029/2001JD001409.
3. Byun, D. W., 1999: Dynamically consistent formulations in meteorological and air quality models for multiscale atmospheric studies. Part II: Mass conservation issues. J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 3808-3820.
4. Byun, D. W., and J. K. S. Ching, 1999: Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. U.S. EPA Rep. EPA/600/R-99/030, 727 pp.
5. Colella, P., and P. L. Woodward, 1984: The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174-201.
6. Colle, B. A., J. B. Olson, and J. S. Tongue, 2003: Multiseason verification of the MM5. Part I: Comparison with the Eta Model over the central and eastern United States and impact of MM5 resolution. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 431-457.
7. Côté, J., J.-G. Desmarais, S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 1998a: The operational CMC-MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part II: Results. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 1397-1418.
8. Côté, J., S. Gravel, A. Méthot, A. Patoine, M. Roch, and A. Staniforth, 1998b: The operational CMC-MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part I: Design considerations and formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 1373-1395.
9. Dudhia, J., D. Gill, K. Manning, W. Wang, and C. Bruyere, cited 2004: PSU/NCAR mesoscale modeling system tutorial class notes and user's guide: MM5 modeling system version 3. [Available online at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/documents/tutorial-v3-notes.html.]
10. Hogrefe, C., and Coauthors, 2001a: Evaluating the performance of regional-scale photochemical modeling systems: Part I - Meteorological predictions. Atmos. Environ., 35, 4159-4174.
11. Hogrefe, C., S. T. Rao, P. Kasibhatla, W. Hao, G. Sistla, R. Mathur, and J. McHenry, 2001b: Evaluating the performance of regional scale photochemical modeling systems: Part II - Ozone predictions. Atmos. Environ., 35, 4175-4188.
12. Houyoux, M., J. Vukovich, J. E. Brandmeyer, C. Seppanen, and A. Holland, cited 2003: SMOKE user manual version 2.0. [Available online at http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/products/smoke/version2/manual.pdf.]
13. x software package for converting CMAQ modal particulate matter results into size-resolved quantities. Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology Tech. Rep. PET-1497-01S, 44 pp.
14. Jiang, W., and H. Roth, 2003: A detailed review and analysis of science, algorithms, and code in the aerosol components of Models-3/CMAQ. I. Kinetic and thermodynamic processes in the AERO2 module. Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology Tech. Rep. PET-1534-03S, 118 pp.
15. Jiang, W., É. Giroux, H. Roth, and D. Yin, 2004: Evaluation of CMAQ PM results using size-resolved field measurement data: The particle diameter issue and its impact on model performance assessment. Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XVII, C. Borrego and A.-L. Norman, Eds., Springer, 770 pp.
16. Jiang, W., S. Smyth, É. Giroux, H. Roth, and D. Yin, 2005: Differences between CMAQ fine mode particle and PM2.5 concentrations and their impact on model performance in the Lower Fraser Valley. Atmos. Environ., 40, 4973-4985.
17. Lee, S.-M., and H. J. S. Fernando, 2004: Evaluation of the meteorological models MM5 and HOTMAC using PAFEX-I data. J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 1133-1148.
18. Lehmann, E., 1998: Evaluation of the predictive performance of the photochemical grid models UAM-V and CAMx for the Northeast corridor. Proc. Air and Waste Management Association's 91st Annual Meeting and Exhibition, San Diego, CA, Air and Waste Management Association, CD-ROM, 98-WP76A.07.
19. 10 data as measured by TEOM for compliance with the European Air Quality Standard. Atmos. Environ., 34, 3209-3212.
20. Nenes, A., C. Pilinis, and S. N. Pandis, 1998: ISORROPIA: A new thermodynamic model for inorganic multicomponent atmospheric aerosols. Aquat. Geochem., 4, 123-152.
21. Ortega, S., M. R. Soler, J. Beneito, and D. Pino, 2004: Evaluation of two ozone air quality modeling systems. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1389-1398.
22. Pandis, S. N., R. A. Harley, G. R. Cass, and J. H. Seinfeld, 1992: Secondary organic aerosol formation and transport. Atmos. Environ., 26A, 2269-2282.
23. Peckham, S. E., G. A. Grell, S. A. McKeen, and R. Schmitz, 2004: Comparisons between observations made during NEAQS and air quality forecasts from MM5 and WRF chemistry models. Preprints, Sixth Conf. on Atmospheric Chemistry: Air Quality in Megacities, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, J2.15.
24. Pierce, T., C. Geron, L. Bender, R. Dennis, G. Tonnesen, and A. Guenther, 1998: Influence of increased isoprene emissions on regional ozone modeling. J. Geophys. Res., 103 (D19), 25 611-25 629.
25. Pleim, J., S. Roselle, J. Young, D. Schwede, R. Mathur, and P. Bhave, cited 2005: New developments in CMAQ model physics. [Available online at http://www.cmascenter.org/html/2005_conference/ppt/1_1.pdf.]
26. RWDI, 2002: CMAQ air quality modeling and evaluation for July 11 to 19, 1999. Rep. 02-1268B, 20 pp.
27. Schell, B., I. J. Ackermann, H. Hass, F. S. Binkowski, and A. Ebel, 2001: Modeling the formation of secondary organic aerosol within a comprehensive air quality modeling system. J. Geophys. Res., 106 (D22), 28 275-28 293.
28. Seinfeld, J. H., and S. N. Pandis, 1998: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley and Sons, 1326 pp.
29. SENES/AIR, 2002: Updated estimate of Canadian on-road vehicle emissions for the years 1995-2020. SENES Consultants Limited and Air Improvement Resources, 435 pp.
30. Sistla, G., W. Hao, J.-Y. Ku, G. Kallos, K. Zhang, H. Mao, and S. T. Rao, 2001: An operational evaluation of two regional-scale ozone air quality modeling systems over the eastern United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82, 945-964.
31. Smyth, S., D. Yin, H. Roth, and W. Jiang, 2005: A study of the impact of GEM and MM5 meteorology on CMAQ modelling results in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology Tech. Rep. PET-1561-04S, 77 pp.
32. Sousounis, P. J., T. A. Hutchinson, and S. F. Marshall, 2004: A comparison of MM5, WRF, RUC and ETA performance for Great Plains heavy precipitation events during the spring of 2003. Preprints, 20th Conf. on Weather Analysis and Foecasting/16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 24.6.
33. Stockwell, W. R., P. Middleton, and J. S. Chang, 1990: The second generation Regional Acid Deposition Model chemical mechanism for regional air quality modeling. J. Geophys. Res., 95, 16 343-16 367.
34. Suppan, P., and A. N. Skouloudis, 2003: Inter-comparison of two air quality modeling systems for a case study in Berlin. Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 20 (1-6), 75-84.
35. Taylor, B., Air Improvement Resource Inc., SENES Consultants Ltd., and J. Heiken, 2005: The development of the MOBILE6.2C model. Environment Canada Tech. Rep. M6C-06-E, 37 pp.
36. U.S. EPA, 2003: User's guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile source emission factor model. U.S. EPA Rep. EPA420-R-03-010, 261 pp.
37. Yin, D., W. Jiang, H. Roth, and É. Giroux, 2004: Improvement of biogenic estimation in the Canadian Lower Fraser Valley and its impact on particulate matter modeling results. Atmos. Environ., 38, 507-521.