High-resolution air quality simulations of ozone exceedance events during the Lake Michigan Ozone Study
-
Published:2023-08-30
Issue:16
Volume:23
Page:9613-9635
-
ISSN:1680-7324
-
Container-title:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmos. Chem. Phys.
Author:
Pierce R. Bradley, Harkey Monica, Lenzen Allen, Cronce Lee M., Otkin Jason A.ORCID, Case Jonathan L., Henderson David S., Adelman Zac, Nergui Tsengel, Hain Christopher R.
Abstract
Abstract. We evaluate two high-resolution Lake Michigan air quality simulations during the 2017 Lake Michigan Ozone Study campaign. These air quality simulations employ identical chemical configurations but use different input meteorology. The AP-XM configuration follows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended modeling practices, whereas the YNT_SSNG employs different parameterization schemes and satellite-based inputs of sea surface temperatures, green vegetative fraction, and soil moisture and temperature. Overall, we find a similar performance in the model simulations of hourly and maximum daily average 8 h (MDA8) ozone, with the AP-XM and YNT_SSNG simulations showing biases of −11.42 and −13.54 ppbv (parts per billion by volume), respectively, during periods when the observed MDA8 was greater than 70 ppbv. However, for the two monitoring sites that observed high-ozone events, the AP-XM simulation better matched observations at Chiwaukee Prairie, and the YNT_SSNG simulation better matched observations at the Sheboygan Kohler-Andrae (KA) State Park. We find that the differences between the two simulations are largest for column amounts of ozone precursors, particularly NO2. Across three high-ozone events, the YNT_SSNG simulation has a lower NO2 column bias (0.17×1015 mol cm−2) compared to the AP-XM simulation (0.31×1015 mol cm−2). The YNT_SSNG simulation also has an advantage in that it better captures the structure of the boundary layer and lake breeze during the 2 June high-ozone event, although the timing of the lake breeze is about 3 h too early at Sheboygan. Our results are useful for informing an air quality modeling framework for the Lake Michigan area.
Funder
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Atmospheric Science
Reference71 articles.
1. Abdi-Oskouei, M., Carmichael, G., Christiansen, M., Ferrada, G.,
Roozitalab, B., Sobhani, N., Wade, K., Czarnetzki A., Pierce, R. B., Wagner,
T., and Stanier, C.: Sensitivity of Meteorological Skill to Selection of
WRF-Chem Physical Parameterizations and Impact on Ozone Prediction During
the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031971,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031971, 2020. 2. Adams, E.: 2017 v1 NEI Emissions Modeling Platform (Premerged CMAQ-ready
Emissions), UNC Dataverse, V1, https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/TCR6BB 2020. 3. Adelman, Z.: LADCO public issues, https://www.ladco.org/public-issues/ (last access: 27 August 2023),
2020. 4. Appel, K. W., Gilliam, R. C., Pleim, J. E., Pouliot, G., Wong, D. C.,
Roselle, S. J., and Mathur, R.: Improvements to the WRF-CMAQ modeling system
for fine-scale air quality applications to the DISCOVER-AQ
Baltimore/Washington D.C. campaign, EM: Air and Waste Management
Associations Magazine for Environmental Managers, Air & Waste Management
Association, September 2014 Issue, 16–21, 2014. 5. Appel, K. W., Napelenok, S. L., Foley, K. M., Pye, H. O. T., Hogrefe, C., Luecken, D. J., Bash, J. O., Roselle, S. J., Pleim, J. E., Foroutan, H., Hutzell, W. T., Pouliot, G. A., Sarwar, G., Fahey, K. M., Gantt, B., Gilliam, R. C., Heath, N. K., Kang, D., Mathur, R., Schwede, D. B., Spero, T. L., Wong, D. C., and Young, J. O.: Description and evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 5.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1703–1732, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1703-2017, 2017.
|
|