Abstract
In this work, we simulate the dispersion of oil-fire aerosols from the accident at Abqaiq oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia during 14–16 September 2019 using the Lagrangian dispersion model FLEXPART-WRF (version 3.1) to investigate the sensitivity of local and nonlocal turbulence parameterization schemes on the dispersion dynamics. The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF version 4.0) model is used to simulate the meteorological parameters over the 2-day release period at a resolution of 2 km. Two Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) schemes (MYNN level 2.5 and YSU) are used to simulate the boundary layer structure during the fire episode. Comparison with available surface and upper-air observations indicate fairly similar results, showing good agreement between simulation and observations. The FLEXPART-WRF v3.1 model is run with two turbulence diffusion schemes, Hanna and Hanna-TKE Hybrid. Meteorological predictions of WRF-YSU are coupled with Hanna diffusion scheme (hereafter YSU-Hanna) and predictions of MYNN2.5 are coupled with Hanna-TKE Hybrid scheme (hereafter MYNN-TKE). Simulated plume dispersion patterns are compared with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)/Terra and LANDVIWER Earth Observing System imagery. Though, in general the simulated plumes compare well with the satellite observed plume, MYNN-TKE simulates a wider plume beyond 20 km and YSU-Hanna produces more accurate plume pattern and plume width. Both schemes could reproduce the downwind variation of concentration. While YSU-Hanna slightly overestimates the concentration at all distances, MYNN-TKE underestimates for an initial 5 km and then closely follows observation derived data. While both schemes produces nearly similar behaviour of vertical concentration variation in both daytime and nighttime conditions, YSU-Hanna overestimates the concentration profile in the lower level region by approximately 25% compared to MYNN-TKE. Overall, YSU-Hanna performs slightly better than MYNN-TKE in reproducing the observed plume behaviour.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
FNL data used in the study is available at https://rda.ucar.edu/. Station Observation data is available at www.weather.uwyo.edu. Satellite imageries used in the study are available at www.eos.com/landviewer and www.zoom.earth/
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
The Advanced Research WRF v4.0 is available at https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/releases/tag/v4.0. The FLEXPART version 3.1 was obtained from https://www.flexpart.eu/
References
Brioude J, Arnold D, Stohl A, Cassiani M, Morton D, Seibert P, Angevine W, Evan S DingwellA, Fast JD, et al. (2013) The Lagrangian particle dispersion model FLEXPART-WRF version 3.1.Geosci.Model. Dev. 2013, 6, 1889–1904. 10.5194/gmd-6-1889-2013
Bright DR, Mullen SL (2002) The sensitivity of the numerical simulation of the southwest monsoon boundary layer to the choice of PBL turbulence scheme in MM5. Weather Forecast 17:99–114. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017%3C0099:TSOTNS%3E2.0.CO;2
Cassiani M, Stohl A, Brioude J (2015) Lagrangian stochastic modelling of dispersion in the convective boundary layer with skewed turbulence conditions and vertical density gradient: Mathematical formulation and implementation in the FLEXPART Model. Bound Layer Meteorol 154:367–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-014-9976-5
Chen SH, Sun WY (2002) A one-dimensional time dependent cloud model. J Meteor Soc Japan 80(1):99–118. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.80.99
Doran JC, Fast JD, Barnard JC, Laskin A, Desyaterik Y, Gilles MK, Hopkins RJ (2008) Application of Lagrangian dispersion modelling to the analysis of changes in the specific absorption of elemental carbon. Atmos Chem Phys 8:1377–1389. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/1377/2008/
Eager RE, Raman S, Wootten A, Westphal DL, Reid JS, Al MA (2008) A climatological study of the sea and land breezes in the Arabian Gulf region. J Geophys Res 113:D15106. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009710
Fast JD, O’Steen BL, Addis RP (1995) Advanced atmospheric modelling for emergency response. J Appl Meteorol 34(3):626–649. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1995)034%3C0626:AAMFER%3E2.0.CO;2
Fast JD, Easter RC (2006) A Lagrangian particle dispersion model compatible with WRF. In: 7th WRF Users’ Workshop NCAR June 19–22. Boulder CO USA. P 6.2
Garratt JR (1994) The atmospheric boundary layer. Camb Atmos Space Sci Ser pp- 316
Giannakopoulou EM, Toumi R (2011) The Persian Gulf summertime low-level jet over sloping terrain. Q J R Meteorol Soc 138:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.901
Gunwani P, Mohan M (2017) Sensitivity of WRF model estimates to various PBL parameterizations in different climatic zones over India. Atmos Res 194:43–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.04.026
Han Z, Ueda H, An J (2008) Evaluation and inter-comparison of meteorological predictions by five MM5-PBL parameterizations in combination with three land-surface models. Atmos Environ 42, 233–249. 10.1016%2Fj.atmosenv.2007.09.053
Hanna SR (1984) Applications in air pollution modeling. In: Nieuwstadt FTM, van Dop H (Eds) Atmospheric turbulence and air pollution modelling. Atmos Sci Library, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9112-1_7
Hariprasad KBRR, Srinivas CV, Bagavath Singh A, Vijaya Bhaskara Rao S, Baskaran R, Venkatraman B (2014) Numerical simulation and intercomparison of boundary layer structure with different PBL schemes in WRF using experimental observations at a tropical site. Atmos Res 145–146:27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.03.023
Hong SY, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134:2318–2341. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1
Hu XM, Nielson-Gammon JW, Zhang F (2010) Evaluation of three planetary boundary layer schemes in the WRF model. J Appl Meteorol 49:1831–1844. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAMC2432.1
Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res 113:D13103. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944
Jimenez P, Jorba O, Parra R, Baldasano JM (2006) Evaluation of MM5 EMICAT2000-CMAQ performance and sensitivity in complex terrain: high resolution application to the northeastern Iberian Peninsula. Atmos Environ 40:5056–5072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.12.060
Kain JS (2004) The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: An update. J Appl Meteorol 43:170–181. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043%3c0170:TKCPAU%3e2.0.CO;2
Karagulian F, Temimi M, Ghebreyesus D, Weston M, Kondapalli NK, Valappil VK, Aldababesh A, Lyapustin A, Chaouch N, Hammadis FAl, Abdoolis AAl, (2019) Analysis of a severe dust storm and its impact on air quality conditions using WRF-Chem modelling, satellite imagery and ground observations. Air Qual Atmos Health 12:453–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00674-z
Kiefer M, Charney J, Zhong S, Heilman W, Bian X, Mathewson TO (2020) A multiscale numerical modelling study of smoke dispersion and the ventilation index in Southwestern Colorado. Atmosphere 11:846. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080846
Kumar A (2016) Natural hazards of the arabian peninsula: their causes and possible remediation. Sinha R, Ravindra R (Eds.), Earth system processes and disaster management. Soc Earth Sci Ser 1 Chapter 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28845-6_12
Legg BJ, Raupach MR (1982) Markov-Chain simulation of particle dispersion in homogeneous flows: the mean drift velocity induced by gradient in Eulerian velocity variance. Bound Layer Meteorol 24:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00121796
Lin YL, Farley RD, Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model.J. Climate Appl Meteor 22:1065–1092. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022%3C1065:BPOTSF%3E2.0.CO;2
Liu YQ (2005) Atmospheric response and feedback to radiative forcing from biomass burning in tropical South America. Agric for Meteorol 133:40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.03.011
Madala S, Prasad KH, Srinivas CV, Satyanarayana ANV (2016) Air quality simulation of NOx over the tropical coastal city Chennai in Southern Indian with FLEXPART-WRF. Atmos Environ 128:65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.12.052
McNider RT, Morn MD, Pielke RA (1998) Influence of diurnal and internal boundary layer oscillations on large scale dispersion. Atmos Environ 22:2445–2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(88)90476-3
Meagher JF, Cowling EB, Feshenfeld FC, Parkhurst WJ (1998) Ozone formation and transport in southeastern United States: overview of the SOS Nashville/Middle Tennessee Ozon Study. J Geophys Res 103(D17):22213–22223. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01693
Miao Y, Liu S, Zheng Y, Wang S, Chen B, Zheng H, Zhao J (2015) Numerical study of the effects of local atmospheric circulations on a pollution event over Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, China. J Environ Sci 30:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2014.08.025
Miller STK, Keim BD, Talbot RW, Mao H (2003) Sea breeze: Structure, forecasting and impacts. Rev Geophys 41:1011. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000124
Misenis C, Zhang Y (2010) An examination of sensitivity of WRF/Chem predictions to physical parameterizations, horizontal grid spacing and nesting options. Atmos Res 97:315–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.04.005
Nakanishi M, Niino H (2006) An improved Mellor-Yamada level 3 model: its numerical stability and application to a regional prediction of advecting fog. Bound Layer Meteorol 119:397–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9030-8
Nakanishi M, Niino H (2009) Development of an improved turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. J Meteorol Soc Japan 87:895–912. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.87.895
Rakesh PT, Venkatesan R, Srinivas CV (2013) Formulation of TKE based empirical diffusivity relations from turbulence measurements and incorporation in a Lagrangian particle dispersion model. Environ Fluid Mech 13:353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-013-9273-8
Sandeepan BS, Panchang VG, Nayak S, Krishna KK, Kaihatu JM (2018) Performance of the WRF model for surface wind prediction around Quatar. Am Meteorol Soc. https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0125
Simpson JE (1994) Sea Breeze and Local Wind. CambUniv Press pp 234. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712152315
Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Baker DM, Duda MG, Huang XY, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF Version 3. NCAR technical note NCAR/TN-475+STR. Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA. https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH
Skamarock C, Klemp B, Dudhia J, Gill O, Liu Z, Berner J, Wang W, Powers G, Duda G, Barker DM, Huang X (2019) A description of the advanced research WRF Model Version 4. https://doi.org/10.5065/1DFH-6P97
Solomos S, Amiridis V, Zanis P, Gerasopoulos E, Sofiou FI, Herekakis T, Brioude J, Stohl A, Kahn R, Kontoes C (2015) Smoke dispersion modelling over complex terrain using high resolution meteorological data and satellite observations – The FireHub platform. Atmos Environ 119:348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2015.08.066
Srinivas CV, Venkatesan R, Bagavath Singh A (2007) Sensitivity of mesoscale simulations of land-sea breeze to boundary layer turbulence parameterization. Atmos Environ 41:2534–2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.11.027
Srinivas CV, Subramanyan V, Kumar A, Usha P, Sujatha N, Bagavath Singh A, Rakesh PT, Baskaran R, Venkatraman B (2019) Modeling of atmospheric dispersion of sodium fire aerosolsfor environmental impact analysis during accidental leaks. J Aerosol Sci 137:105432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2019.105432
Srinivas CV, Rakesh PT, Hari prasad KBRR, Venkatesan R, Baskaran R, Venkatraman B (2014) Assessment of atmospheric dispersion and radiological impact from the Fukushima accident in a 40 km range using a simulation approach. Air Qual Atmos Health https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-014-02441-3
Srinivas CV, Bagavath Singh A, Rakesh PT, Gopalakrishnan V, Joshi Sailesh, Baskaran , Venkatraman B (2016) Atmospheric dispersion experiments using SF6 tracer and validation of dispersion models at Kalpakkam site during a summer synoptic condition. IGC Research Report IGC-338. Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603102, India.
Steinhoff DF, Bruintjes R, Hacker J, Keller T, Williams C, Jensen T, Al Mandous A, Al Yazeedi OA (2018) Influences of the monsoon trough and Arabian heat low on summer rainfall over the United Arab Emirates. Mon Weather Rev 146(5):1383–1403. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0296.1
Parameterization Schemes: Keys to understanding Numerical Weather Prediction models. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812590
Stohl A, Thomson DJ (1999) A density correction for Lagrangian Particle dispersion model. Bound Layer Meteorol 90:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1001741110696
Stohl A, Forster C, Frank A, Seibert P, Wotawa G (2005) Technical note: The Lagrangian particle dispersion model FLEXPART version 6.2. Atmos Chem Phys Disc 5:4739–4799. https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-5-4739-2005
Stull RB (1988) An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston and London, 666 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3027-8
Tewari M, Chen F, Wang W, Dudhia J, LeMone MA, Mitchell K, Ek M, Gayno G, Wegiel J, Cuenca RH (2004) Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model. 20th conference on weather analysis and forecasting/16th conference on numerical weather prediction pp. 11–15. http://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7fb523p
Thomson DJ (1987) Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 180:529–556. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112087001940
Wei X, Liu Y, Liu Y, Li L (2019) Numerical study of a local PM2.5 pollution event under the typhoon Neoguri (1408) background over a coastal metropolitan city, Shenzhen, China. Phys Chem Earth 110:99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2019.01.001
Xiao-bing G, XieZ ZL (2017) Influence of emission rate on atmospheric dispersion modeling of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Atmos Pollut Res 8:439–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2016.10.013
Yu Y, Notaro M, Kalashnikova O, Garay MJ (2015) Climatology of summer Shamal wind in the Middle East. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:289–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024063
Zhang DL, Zheng WZ (2004) Diurnal cycles of surface winds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary-layer parameterizations. J Appl Meteor 43:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043%3C0157:DCOSWA%3E2.0.CO;2
Zhang Y, Liu P, Pun B, Seigneur C (2006) A comprehensive performance evaluation of MM5-CMAQ for the summer 1999 southern oxidants study episode-Part I: evaluation protocols, databases and meteorological predictions. Atmos Environ 40:4825–4838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.12.043
Zhong S, In H, Clements C (2007) Impact of turbulence, land surface, and radiation parameterizations on Simulated boundary layer properties in a coastal environment. J Geo-Phys Res 112:D13110. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008274
Zhu M, Atkinson BW (2004) Observed and modelled climatology of the land-sea breeze circulation over the Persian Gulf. Int J Climatol 24:883–905. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1045
Zhu Q, Liu Y, Jia R, Hua S, Shao T, Wang B (2018) A numerical simulation study on the impact of smoke aerosols from Russian forest fires on the air pollution over Asia. Atmos Environ 182:263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.03.052
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Dr. A. K. Bhaduri, Director, IGCAR, for the encouragement in carrying out the study. We are thankful to University of Wyoming for the public access of observation data from their weather information page www.weather.uwyo.edu. We are also thankful to NCEP/NOAA for the public access of FNL Research Data Archive (https://rda.ucar.edu/), used in the WRF model study. We also extend our thanks to NCAR, USA in making the WRF-ARW model accessible. We are thankful to www.eos.com/landviewer, https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov and www.zoom.earth/ for providing access to the satellite images. Authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable technical comments which greatly helped to improve the content of the paper.
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. No funding was received for conducting this study. No funds, grants, or other support was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NA.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Silvia Trini Castelli.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karmakar, S., Srinivas, C.V., Rakesh, P.T. et al. A WRF-FLEXPART simulation study of oil-fire plume dispersion- sensitivity to turbulent diffusion schemes. Meteorol Atmos Phys 134, 32 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-022-00866-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-022-00866-w