Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation and intercomparison of ozone simulations by Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx over the Pearl River Delta

  • Articles
  • Published:
Science China Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ozone pollution over the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in October 2004 has been simulated using the regional air quality models Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx. The results from both models were evaluated and compared with the observed concentrations from 12 monitoring stations. By integrated process rate analysis, the influences of different physical and chemical processes were quantified, and the causes of the deviations between the two models were investigated. Both CMAQ and CAMx reproduced the magnitudes and variations of ozone at most stations over the PRD. The correlation coefficients (R) between the simulated results and monitoring data were 0.73 for CMAQ and 0.74 for CAMx. The normalized mean bias (NMB) for CMAQ and CAMx over the 12 sites was − 8.5% and 8.8% on average, respectively. The normalized mean error (NME) for CMAQ and CAMx was 36.7% and 37.9%, respectively. The correlation between the results of two models was very high (R = 0.92), and their simulated ozone spatial distributions exhibited common features. But the values obtained using CMAQ simulation were about 17% lower than those obtained using CAMx on average. The results of simulations using the two models were not identical in certain regions, or for different types of monitoring stations. The differences in dry deposition, reaction parameters and vertical transport near the Pearl River Estuary can account for the discrepancies in the results obtained using the two models. In the upwind areas, the discrepancy in the boundary concentration of the finest nest was the main cause of the higher values obtained using CAMx compared with those obtained using CMAQ. There is a need for CAMx to provide more choices of dry deposition algorithms. Improvement of the calculation methods for photolysis rates would also improve the ozone simulation of CMAQ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Byun D, Schere KL. Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl Mech Rev, 2006, 59: 51–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ENVIRON International Corporation. User’s Guide, Comprehensive Air QualityModel with Extensions (CAMx), Version 5.00, 2009

  3. Hass H, Jakobs HJ, Memmesheimer M. Analysis of a regional model (EURAD) near surface gas concentration predictions using observations from networks. Meteor Atmos Phys, 1995, 57: 173–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt H, Derognat C, Vautard R, Beekmann M. A comparison of simulated and observed ozone mixing ratios for the summer of 1998 in Western Europe. Atmos Environ, 2001, 35: 6277–62

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kukkonen J, Klein T, Karatzas K, Torseth K, Vik A F, José R S, Balk T, Sofiev M. COST ES0602: Towards a European network on chemical weather forecasting and information systems. Adv Sci Res, 2009, 3: 27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vautard R, Builtjes PHJ, Thunis P, Cuvelier C, Bedogni M, Bessagnet B, Honore C, Moussiopoulos N, Pirovano G, Schaap M, Stern R, Tarrason L, Wind P. Evaluation and intercomparison of ozone and PM10 simulations by several chemistry transport models over four European cities within the CityDelta project. Atmos Environ, 2007, 41: 173–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang ZF, Xie FY, Wang XQ, An JL, Zhu J. Development and application of nested air quality prediction modeling system (in Chinese). J Environ Sci-China, 2006, 30: 778–790

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wang TJ, Li ZK, Nan F. Numerical modeling of regional acid deposition. Part I. Model (in Chinese). Sci Atmos Sinica, 1996, 20: 606–614

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang M, Han Z, Zhu L. Simulation of atmospheric aerosols in East Asia using modeling system RAMS-CMAQ: Model evaluation. China Particuology, 2007, 5: 321–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li L, Chen CH, Huang C, Huang HY, Li ZP, Fu JS, Jang CJ, Streets DG. Regional air pollution characteristics simulation of O3 and PM10 over Yangtze River Delta Region (in Chinese). J Environ Sci-China, 2008, 29: 237–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao XY, Cheng SY, Chen DS, Guo XY, Wang HY. Simulating the effect of Shijingshan emissions on Beijing by coupling models ARPS-CMAQ (in Chinese). Acta Sci Circums, 2007, 27: 2074–2079

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang YB, Fei JF, Huang XG. A preliminary research on application of Models-3/CMAQ model to a strong dust in North China (in Chinese). Meteor Monthly, 2009, 35: 46–53

    Google Scholar 

  13. Liu F, Zhang Y, Su H, Hu J. Adjoint model of atmospheric chemistry transport model CAMx: Construction and application (in Chinese). Acta Sci Nat Univ Pekin, 2007, 43: 764–770.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang XS, Li JL. A case study of ozone source apportionment in Beijing (in Chinese). Acta Sci Nat Univ Pekin 2003, 39: 244–254

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang XS, Li JL, Zhang YH, Xie SD, Tang XY. Ozone source attribution during a severe photochemical smog episode in Beijing, China (in Chinese). Sci China Ser B-Chem, 2009, 39: 548–559

    Google Scholar 

  16. Russell A, Dennis R. NARSTO critical review of photochemical models and modeling. Atmos Environ, 2000, 34: 2283–2334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Z, Xie F, Sakurai T, Ueda H, Han Z, Carmichael G R, Streets D, Engardt M, Holloway T, Hayami H, Kajino M, Thongboonchoo N, Bennet C, Park S U, Fung C, Chang A, Sartelet K, Amann M. MICS-Asia II: Model inter-comparison and evaluation of acid deposition. Atmos Environ, 2008, 42: 3528–3542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Touma JS, Isakov V, Ching J. Air quality modeling of hazardous pollutants: Current status and future directions. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2006, 56: 547–558

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tesche TW, Morris R, Tonnesen G, McNally D, Boylan J, Brewer P. CMAQ/CAMx annual 2002 performance evaluation over the eastern US. Atmos Environ, 2006, 40: 4906–49

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chan CK, Yao X. Air pollution in mega cities in China. Atmos Environ, 2008, 42: 1–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang X, Zhang Y, Hu Y, Zhou W, Lu K, Zhong L, Zeng L, Shao M, Hu M, Russell AG. Process analysis and sensitivity study of regional ozone formation over the Pearl River Delta, China, during the PRIDE-PRD2004 campaign using the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system. Atmos Chem Phys, 2010, 10: 4423–44

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang YH, Hu M, Zhong LJ, Wiedensohler A, Liu SC, Andreae MO, Wang W, Fan SJ. Regional integrated experiments on air quality over Pearl River Delta 2004 (PRIDE-PRD2004): Overview. Atmos Environ, 2008, 42: 6157–61

    Google Scholar 

  23. Colella P, Woodward PR. The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. J Comput Phys, 1984, 54: 174–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pleim J, Xiu A. Development and testing of a surface flux and planetary boundary layer model for application in mesoscale models. J Appl Meteor, 1995, 34: 16–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wesely ML. Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models. Atmos Environ, 1989, 23: 1293–1304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Carter WPL. Documentation of the SAPRC-99 Chemical Mechanism for VOC Reactivity Assessment. Final report of the California Air Resources Board. 2000

  27. Hertel O, Berkowicz R, Christensen J, Hov ø. Test of two numerical schemes for use in atmospheric transport-chemistry models. Atmos Environ Part A. Gen Top, 1993, 27: 2591–2611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ENVIRON International Corporation. User’s guide to the comprehensive air quality model with extensions (CAMx), Version 4.02, 2003

  29. Streets DG, Bond TC, Carmichael GR, Fernandes SD, Fu Q, He D, Klimont Z, Nelson SM, Tsai NY, Wang MQ, Woo JH, Yarber KF. An inventory of gaseous and primary aerosol emissions in Asia in the year 2000. J Geophys Res, 2003, 108(D21): 88

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yu S, Mathur R, Kang D, Schere K, Tong D. A study of the ozone formation by ensemble back trajectory-process analysis using the Eta-CMAQ forecast model over the northeastern U.S. during the 2004 ICARTT period. Atmos Environ, 2009, 43: 355–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang Y, Wen XY, Wang K, Vijayaraghavan K, Jacobson MZ. Probing into regional O3 and particulate matter pollution in the United States: 2. An examination of formation mechanisms through a process analysis technique and sensitivity study. J Geophys Res, 2009, 114: D22305

    Google Scholar 

  32. Goncalves M, Jiménez-Guerrero P, Baldasano JM. Contribution of atmospheric processes affecting the dynamics of air pollution in South-Western Europe during a typical summertime photochemical episode. Atmos Chem Phys, 2009, 9: 849–864

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang M, Uno I, Zhang R, Han Z, Wang Z, Pu Y. Evaluation of the Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system with observations obtained during the TRACE-P experiment: Comparison of ozone and its related species. Atmos Environ, 2006, 40: 4874–4882

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Smyth SC, Jiang W, Roth H, Moran MD, Makar PA, Yang F, Bouchet VS, Landry H. A comparative performance evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ air-quality modelling systems. Atmos Environ, 2009, 43: 1059–1070

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Yu S, Rohit M, Schere K, Kang D, Pleim J, Otte TL. A detailed evaluation of the Eta-CMAQ forecast model performance for O3, its related precursors, and meteorological parameters during the 2004 ICARTT study. J Geophys Res, 2007, 112: D12S

    Google Scholar 

  36. Appel KW, Gilliland AB, Sarwar G, Gilliam RC. Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance. Part I-Ozone. Atmos Environ, 2007, 41: 9603–9615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Eder B, Yu S. A performance evaluation of the 2004 release of Models-3 CMAQ. Atmos Environ, 2006, 40: 4811–4824

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang Y, Pun B, Wu SY, Vijayaraghavan K, Yelluru GK, Seigneur C. Modeling protocol for the performance evaluation of CMAQ and PM-CAMx for the July 1999 SOS Episode. Coordinating Research Council Document No. CP131-03-02, 2003

  39. Zheng J, Zhang L, Che W, Zheng Z, Yin S. A highly resolved temporal and spatial air pollutant emission inventory for the Pearl River Delta region, China and its uncertainty assessment. Atmos Environ, 2009, 43: 5112–5122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Byun DW, Kim ST, Kim SB. Evaluation of air quality models for the simulation of a high ozone episode in the Houston metropolitan area. Atmos Environ, 2007, 41: 837–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang Y, Pun B, Wu SY, Vijayaraghavan K, Seigneur C. Application and evaluation of two air quality models for particulate matter for a southeastern U.S. episode. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2004, 54: 1478–1493

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fan S, Wang B, Tesche M, Engelmann R, Althausen A, Liu J, Zhu W, Fan Q, Li M, Ta N, Song L, Leong K. Meteorological conditions and structures of atmospheric boundary layer in October 2004 over Pearl River Delta area. Atmos Environ, 2008, 42: 6174–6186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wesely ML, Hicks BB. A review of the current status of knowledge on dry deposition. Atmos Environ, 2000, 34: 2261–2282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Foley KM, Roselle SJ, Appel KW, Bhave PV, Pleim JE, Otte TL, Mathur R, Sarwar G, Young JO, Gilliam RC, Nolte CG, Kelly JT, Gilliland AB, Bash JO. Incremental testing of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7. Geosci Model Dev, 2010, 3: 205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control; College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

    Jin Shen, XueSong Wang, JinFeng Li, YunPeng Li & YuanHang Zhang

Authors
  1. Jin Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. XueSong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JinFeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. YunPeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. YuanHang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to XueSong Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shen, J., Wang, X., Li, J. et al. Evaluation and intercomparison of ozone simulations by Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx over the Pearl River Delta. Sci. China Chem. 54, 1789–1800 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-011-4390-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-011-4390-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation