Air quality modeling for accountability research: Operational, dynamic, and diagnostic evaluation

Atmospheric Environment

Volumn 166, Issue , 2017, Pages 551-565

  Henneman, Lucas R F ^a   Liu, Cong ^b   Hu, Yongtao ^a   Mulholland, James A ^a   Russell, Armistead G ^a  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

^b SOUTHEAST UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Air pollution accountability; Chemical transport modeling; Model evaluation

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; ATMOSPHERIC MOVEMENTS; MOBILE POWER PLANTS; POLLUTION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; QUALITY CONTROL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK; CHEMICAL TRANSPORT MODELS; COMMUNITY MULTI-SCALE AIR QUALITIES; MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS; MODEL EVALUATION; OPERATIONAL EVALUATION; REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS; STATISTICAL REGRESSION MODEL;

AIR POLLUTION;

AMMONIA; ELEMENT; NITRATE; ORGANIC CARBON; OZONE; SULFATE;

AIR QUALITY; ATMOSPHERIC MODELING; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); EMISSION CONTROL; MODEL TEST; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARTICULATE MATTER; POLLUTANT SOURCE; RESEARCH WORK; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SULFATE; VALUATION;

AIR QUALITY; ARTICLE; BIOMASS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; METEOROLOGY; PARTICULATE MATTER; PHOTOCHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUMMER; UNITED STATES; WINTER;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 85026850518     PISSN: 13522310     EISSN: 18732844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.07.049     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Abrams, J., Klein, M., Henneman, L.R., Russell, A.G., Sarnat, S.E., Chang, H.H., et al. Impacts of Air Pollution Control Policies on Cardiorespiratory Emergency Department Visits. 1999-2013 Atlanta, GA. In Preparation.
2. Banzhaf, S., Schaap, M., Kranenburg, R., Manders, A.M.M., Segers, A.J., Visschedijk, A.J.H., et al. Dynamic model evaluation for secondary inorganic aerosol and its precursors over Europe between 1990 and 2009. Geosci. Model Dev. 8 (2015), 1047–1070, 10.5194/gmd-8-1047-2015.
3. Blanchard, C.L., Hidy, G.M., Effects of changes in sulfate, ammonia, and nitric Acid on particulate nitrate concentrations in the southeastern United States. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 53 (2003), 283–290, 10.1080/10473289.2003.10466152.
4. Blanchard, C.L., Hidy, G.M., Tanenbaum, S., Ozone in the southeastern United States: an observation-based model using measurements from the SEARCH network. Atmos. Environ. 88 (2014), 192–200, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.006.
5. Blanchard, C.L., Hidy, G.M., Tanenbaum, S., Edgerton, E.S., Hartsell, B.E., The southeastern aerosol research and characterization (SEARCH) study: spatial variations and chemical climatology, 1999–2010. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 63 (2013), 260–275, 10.1080/10962247.2012.749816.
6. Boylan, J.W., Russell, A.G., PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), 4946–4959, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.087.
7. Bravo, M.A., Fuentes, M., Zhang, Y., Burr, M.J., Bell, M.L., Comparison of exposure estimation methods for air pollutants: ambient monitoring data and regional air quality simulation. Environ. Res. 116 (2012), 1–10, 10.1016/j.envres.2012.04.008.
8. Brune, W.H., Baier, B.C., Thomas, J., Ren, X., Cohen, R.C., Pusede, S.E., et al. Ozone production chemistry in the presence of urban plumes. Faraday Discuss., 2016, 10.1039/C5FD00204D.
9. Byun, D., Schere, K.L., Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the Models-3 community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl. Mech. Rev., 59, 2006, 51, 10.1115/1.2128636.
10. Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmos. Environ. 41 (2007), 7127–7137, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.04.061.
11. Cohan, D.S., Applicability of CMAQ-DDM to source apportionment and control strategy development. 3rd Annu. C. Model. Users’ Conf., 2004 October 18th–20th, 2004. Chapel Hill, NC.
12. Cohan, D.S., Chen, R., Modeled and observed fine particulate matter reductions from state attainment demonstrations. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 64 (2014), 995–1002, 10.1080/10962247.2014.905509.
13. Cohan, D.S., Hakami, A., Hu, Y., Russell, A.G., Nonlinear response of ozone to emissions: source apportionment and sensitivity analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005), 6739–6748.
14. Cox, W.M., Chu, S.-H., Meteorologically adjusted ozone trends in urban areas: a probabilistic approach. Atmos. Environ. 27 (1993), 425–434, 10.1016/0957-1272(93)90019-3.
15. Daskalakis, N., Tsigaridis, K., Myriokefalitakis, S., Fanourgakis, G.S., Kanakidou, M., Large gain in air quality compared to an alternative anthropogenic emissions scenario. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (2016), 9771–9784, 10.5194/acp-16-9771-2016.
16. Dennis, R., Fox, T., Fuentes, M., Gilliland, A., Hanna, S., Hogrefe, C., et al. A framework for evaluating regional-scale numerical photochemical modeling systems. Environ. fluid Mech. 10 (2010), 471–489, 10.1007/s10652-009-9163-2.
17. Di, Q., Kloog, I., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Schwartz, J., Assessing PM2.5 exposures with high spatiotemporal resolution across the continental United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016), 4712–4721, 10.1021/acs.est.5b06121.
18. Digar, A., Cohan, D.S., Xiao, X., Foley, K.M., Koo, B., Yarwood, G., Constraining ozone-precursor responsiveness using ambient measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118 (2013), 1005–1019, 10.1029/2012JD018100.
19. Emery, C., Liu, Z., Russell, A., Talat Odman, M., Yarwood, G., Kumar, N., Recommendations on statistics and benchmarks to assess photochemical model performance. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 67(5), 2017, 10.1080/10962247.2016.1265027.
20. Fann, N., Lamson, A.D., Anenberg, S.C., Wesson, K., Risley, D., Hubbell, B.J., Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Risk Anal. 32 (2012), 81–95, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01630.x.
21. Fiore, A.M., Dentener, F.J., Wild, O., Cuvelier, C., Schultz, M.G., Hess, P., et al. Multimodel estimates of intercontinental source-receptor relationships for ozone pollution. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114 (2009), 1–21, 10.1029/2008JD010816.
22. Foley, K.M., Dolwick, P., Hogrefe, C., Simon, H., Timin, B., Possiel, N., Dynamic evaluation of CMAQ part II: evaluation of relative response factor metrics for ozone attainment demonstrations. Atmos. Environ. 103 (2015), 188–195, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.12.039.
23. Foley, K.M., Hogrefe, C., Pouliot, G., Possiel, N., Roselle, S.J., Simon, H., et al. Dynamic evaluation of CMAQ part I: separating the effects of changing emissions and changing meteorology on ozone levels between 2002 and 2005 in the eastern US. Atmos. Environ. 103 (2015), 247–255, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.12.038.
24. Foley, K.M., Roselle, S.J., Appel, K.W., Bhave, P.V., Pleim, J.E., Otte, T.L., et al. Incremental testing of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Geosci. Model Dev. 3 (2010), 205–226, 10.5194/gmd-3-205-2010 version 4.7.
25. Friberg, M.D., Zhai, X., Holmes, H.A., Chang, H.H., Strickland, M.J., Sarnat, S.E., et al. Method for fusing observational data and chemical transport model simulations to estimate spatiotemporally resolved ambient air pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016), 3695–3705, 10.1021/acs.est.5b05134.
26. Gégo, E., Gilliland, A., Godowitch, J., Rao, S., Porter, P., Hogrefe, C., Modeling analyses of the effects of changes in nitrogen oxides emissions from the electric power sector on ozone levels in the eastern United States. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 58 (2008), 580–588, 10.3155/1047-3289.58.4.580.
27. Gilliland, A.B., Hogrefe, C., Pinder, R.W., Godowitch, J.M., Foley, K.L., Rao, S.T., Dynamic evaluation of regional air quality models: assessing changes in O3 stemming from changes in emissions and meteorology. Atmos. Environ. 42 (2008), 5110–5123, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.018.
28. Glasius, M., Goldstein, A.H., Recent discoveries and future challenges in atmospheric organic chemistry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016), 2754–2764, 10.1021/acs.est.5b05105.
29. Godowitch, J.M., Gilliam, R.C., Rao, S.T., Diagnostic evaluation of ozone production and horizontal transport in a regional photochemical air quality modeling system. Atmos. Environ. 45 (2011), 3977–3987, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.062.
30. Godowitch, J.M., Gilliland, a. B., Draxler, R.R., Rao, S.T., Modeling assessment of point source NOx emission reductions on ozone air quality in the eastern United States. Atmos. Environ. 42 (2008), 87–100, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.032.
31. Godowitch, J.M., Pouliot, G. a., Trivikrama, Rao S., Assessing multi-year changes in modeled and observed urban NOX concentrations from a dynamic model evaluation perspective. Atmos. Environ. 44 (2010), 2894–2901, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.040.
32. Goldberg, D.L., Vinciguerra, T.P., Anderson, D.C., Hembeck, L., Canty, T.P., Ehrman, S.H., et al. CAMx ozone source attribution in the eastern United States using guidance from observations during DISCOVER-AQ Maryland. Geophys. Res. Lett., 2016, 2249–2258, 10.1002/2015GL067332.
33. Hakami, A., Odman, T., Russell, A.G., Nonlinearity in atmospheric response: a direct sensitivity analysis approach. J. Geophys. Res., 109, 2004, D15303, 10.1029/2003JD004502.
34. Health Effects Institute, Assessing Health Impact of Air Quality Regulations: Concepts and Methods for Accountability Research. 2003.
35. Henneman, L.R., Chang, H.H., Lavoue, D., Mulholland, J.A., Russell, A.G., Accountability assessment of regulatory impacts on ozone and PM2.5 concentrations using statistical and deterministic pollutant sensitivities. Air Qual. Atmos. Heal, 2017, 10.1007/s11869-017-0463-2.
36. Henneman, L.R., Holmes, H.A., Mulholland, J.A., Russell, A.G., Meteorological detrending of primary and secondary pollutant concentrations: method application and evaluation using long-term (2000-2012) data in Atlanta. Atmos. Environ. 119 (2015), 201–210, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.007.
37. Hogrefe, C., Pouliot, G., Wong, D., Torian, A., Roselle, S., Pleim, J., et al. Annual application and evaluation of the online coupled WRF-CMAQ system over North America under AQMEII phase 2. Atmos. Environ. 115 (2015), 683–694, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.12.034.
38. Hu, J., Chen, J., Ying, Q., Zhang, H., One-year simulation of ozone and particulate matter in China using WRF/CMAQ modeling system. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (2016), 10333–10350, 10.5194/acp-16-10333-2016.
39. Hu, Y., Balachandran, S., Pachon, J.E., Baek, J., Ivey, C., Holmes, H., et al. Fine particulate matter source apportionment using a hybrid chemical transport and receptor model approach. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14 (2014), 5415–5431, 10.5194/acp-14-5415-2014.
40. Hubbell, B.J., Crume, R.V., Evarts, D.M., Cohen, J.M., Policy monitor: regulation and progress under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4 (2009), 122–138, 10.1093/reep/rep019.
41. Im, U., Bianconi, R., Solazzo, E., Kioutsioukis, I., Badia, A., Balzarini, A., et al. Evaluation of operational on-line-coupled regional air quality models over Europe and North America in the context of AQMEII phase 2. Part 2: particulate matter. Atmos. Environ. 115 (2015), 404–420, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.072.
42. Im, U., Bianconi, R., Solazzo, E., Kioutsioukis, I., Badia, A., Balzarini, A., et al. Evaluation of operational on-line-coupled regional air quality models over Europe and North America in the context of AQMEII phase 2. Part I Ozone. Atmos. Environ. 115 (2015), 404–420, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.042.
43. Kuebler, J., van den Bergh, H., Russell, A.G., Long-term trends of primary and secondary pollutant concentrations in Switzerland and their response to emission controls and economic changes. Atmos. Environ. 35 (2001), 1351–1363, 10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00401-5.
44. Liu, X.H., Zhang, Y., Xing, J., Zhang, Q., Wang, K., Streets, D.G., et al. Understanding of regional air pollution over China using CMAQ, part II. Process analysis and sensitivity of ozone and particulate matter to precursor emissions. Atmos. Environ. 44 (2010), 3719–3727, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.036.
45. Marmur, A., Liu, W., Wang, Y., Russell, A.G., Edgerton, E.S., Evaluation of model simulated atmospheric constituents with observations in the factor projected space: CMAQ simulations of SEARCH measurements. Atmos. Environ. 43 (2009), 1839–1849, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.12.027.
46. Marmur, A., Park, S.K., Mulholland, J.A., Tolbert, P.E., Russell, A.G., Source apportionment of PM2.5 in the southeastern United States using receptor and emissions-based models: conceptual differences and implications for time-series health studies. Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), 2533–2551, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.12.019.
47. Muller, N., Tong, D., Mendelsohn, R.O., Regulating NOx and SO2 emissions in Atlanta. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy Contrib. Econ. Anal. Policy, 9, 2009.
48. Napelenok, S.L., Cohan, D.S., Hu, Y., Russell, A.G., Decoupled direct 3D sensitivity analysis for particulate matter (DDM-3D/PM). Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), 6112–6121, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.05.039.
49. Napelenok, S.L., Foley, K.M., Kang, D., Mathur, R., Pierce, T., Rao, S.T., Dynamic evaluation of regional air quality model's response to emission reductions in the presence of uncertain emission inventories. Atmos. Environ. 45 (2011), 4091–4098, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.030.
50. Napelenok, S.L., Simon, H., Bhave, P.V., Pye, H.O.T., Pouliot, G.A., Sheesley, R.J., et al. Diagnostic air quality model evaluation of source-specific primary and secondary fine particulate carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (2014), 464–473, 10.1021/es403304w.
51. National Research Council, Air Quality Management in the United States. 2004, National Academies Press.
52. Odman, M.T., Hu, Y., Chang, M.E., Russell, A.G., Chapter 2.14 Forecasting ozone and PM2.5 in southeastern U.S. Dev. Environ. Sci. 6 (2007), 220–229, 10.1016/S1474-8177(07)06214-6.
53. Park, R.J., Jacob, D.J., Field, B.D., Yantosca, R.M., Chin, M., Natural and transboundary pollution influences on sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols in the United States: implications for policy. J. Geophys. Res. D. Atmos., 109, 2004, 10.1029/2003JD00473.
54. Park, S.-K., Evan Cobb, C., Wade, K., Mulholland, J., Hu, Y., Russell, A.G., Uncertainty in air quality model evaluation for particulate matter due to spatial variations in pollutant concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), 563–573, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.11.078.
55. Pye, H.O.T., Luecken, D.J., Xu, L., Boyd, C.M., Ng, N.L., Baker, K.R., et al. Modeling the current and future roles of particulate organic nitrates in the southeastern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015), 14195–14203, 10.1021/acs.est.5b03738.
56. Pye, H.O.T., Murphy, B.N., Xu, L., Ng, N.L., Carlton, A.G., Guo, H., et al. On the implications of aerosol liquid water and phase separation for organic aerosol mass. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 2016, 1–44, 10.5194/acp-2016-719.
57. Rao, S.T., Galmarini, S., Puckett, K., Air quality model evaluation international initiative (AQMEII): advancing the state of the science in regional photochemical modeling and its applications. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92 (2011), 23–30, 10.1175/2010BAMS3069.1.
58. Rao, S.T.S., Zurbenko, I.G., Neagu, R., Porter, P.S., Ku, J.Y., Henry, R.F., Space and time scales in ambient ozone data. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78 (1997), 2153–2166, 10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2153:SATSIA>2.0.CO;2.
59. Reidmiller, D.R., Fiore, A.M., Jaffe, D.A., Bergmann, D., Cuvelier, C., Dentener, F.J., et al. The influence of foreign vs. North American emissions on surface ozone in the US. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9 (2009), 5027–5042, 10.5194/acpd-9-7927-2009.
60. Russell, A.G., Tolbert, P.E., Henneman, L.R., Abrams, J., Liu, C., Klein, M., et al. Impacts of Regulations on Air Quality and Emergency Department Visits in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area., 2017 Health Effects Institute Report. In press.
61. Simon, H., Baker, K.R., Akhtar, F., Napelenok, S.L., Possiel, N., Wells, B., et al. A direct sensitivity approach to predict hourly ozone resulting from compliance with the national ambient air quality standard. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013), 2304–2313, 10.1021/es303674e.
62. Simon, H., Baker, K.R., Phillips, S., Compilation and interpretation of photochemical model performance statistics published between 2006 and 2012. Atmos. Environ. 61 (2012), 124–139, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.012.
63. Simon, H., Reff, A., Wells, B., Xing, J., Frank, N., Ozone trends across the United States over a period of decreasing NOx and VOC emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2014), 186–195, 10.1021/es504514z.
64. Solazzo, E., Bianconi, R., Hogrefe, C., Curci, G., Tuccella, P., Alyuz, U., et al. Evaluation and error apportionment of an ensemble of atmospheric chemistry transport modeling systems: multivariable temporal and spatial breakdown. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17 (2017), 3001–3054, 10.5194/acp-17-3001-2017.
65. Solazzo, E., Galmarini, S., Error apportionment for atmospheric chemistry-transport models - a new approach to model evaluation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (2016), 6263–6283, 10.5194/acp-16-6263-2016.
66. Solazzo, E., Hogrefe, C., Colette, A., Garcia-Vivanco, M., Galmarini, S., Advanced error diagnostics of the CMAQ and Chimere modelling systems within the AQMEII3 model evaluation framework. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2017 (2017), 1–40, 10.5194/acp-2017-257.
67. Souri, A.H., Choi, Y., Jeon, W., Li, X., Pan, S., Diao, L., et al. Constraining NOx emissions using satellite NO2 measurements during 2013 DISCOVER-AQ Texas campaign. Atmos. Environ. 131 (2016), 371–381, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.02.020.
68. Travis, K.R., Jacob, D.J., Fisher, J.A., Kim, P.S., Marais, E.A., Zhu, L., et al. Why do models overestimate surface ozone in the Southeast United States?. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (2016), 13561–13577, 10.5194/acp-16-13561-2016.
69. U.S. EPA, Air Markets Program Data. 2016 Available: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
70. U.S. EPA, Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone PM2.5, and Regional Haze. 2014.
71. U.S. EPA, Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model. 1991 doi:EPA-450/4-91-013.
72. U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Final Rule. 2015 40 CFR Parts 50,51,52,53 58 80: 1–7.
73. U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. 2005.
74. U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the NBP. 1998.
75. U.S. EPA, Technical Support Document EPA's 2011 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 2011. 2015.
76. Xie, Y., Elleman, R., Jobson, T., Lamb, B., Evaluation of O3-NOx-VOC sensitivities predicted with the CMAQ photochemical model using Pacific Northwest 2001 field observations. J. Geophys. Res., 116, 2011, D20303, 10.1029/2011JD015801.
77. Xing, J., Mathur, R., Pleim, J., Hogrefe, C., Gan, C.M., Wong, D.C., et al. Can a coupled meteorology-chemistry model reproduce the historical trend in aerosol direct radiative effects over the Northern Hemisphere?. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 (2015), 9997–10018, 10.5194/acp-15-9997-2015.
78. Yang, Y.-J., Wilkinson, J.G., Russell, A.G., Fast, direct sensitivity analysis of multidimensional photochemical models. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31 (1997), 2859–2868, 10.1021/es970117w.