Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A method for quantifying bias in modeled concentrations and source impacts for secondary particulate matter

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) estimates of sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, and organic carbon are highly influenced by uncertainties in modeled secondary formation processes, such as chemical mechanisms, volatilization, and condensation rates. These compounds constitute the majority of PM2.5 mass, and reducing bias in estimated concentrations has benefits for policy measures and epidemiological studies. In this work, a method for adjusting source impacts on secondary species is developed that provides estimates of source contributions and reduces bias in modeled concentrations compared to observations. The bias correction adjusts concentrations and source impacts based on the difference between modeled concentrations and observations while taking into account uncertainties at the location of interest; and it is applied both spatially and temporally. We apply the method over the US for 2006. The mean bias for initial CMAQ concentrations compared to observations is −0.28 (OC), 0.11 (NO3), 0.05 (NH4), and −0.08 (SO4). The normalized mean bias in modeled concentrations compared to observations was effectively zero for OC, NO3, NH4, and SO4 after applying the secondary bias correction. Ten-fold cross-validation was conducted to determine the performance of the spatial application of the bias correction. Cross-validation performance was favorable; correlation coefficients were greater than 0.69 for all species when comparing observations and concentrations based on kriged correction factors. The methods presented here address model uncertainties by improving simulated concentrations and source impacts of secondary particulate matter through data assimilation. Secondary-adjusted concentrations and source impacts from 20 emissions sources are generated for 2006 over continental US.

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. Binkowski F S, Roselle S J. Models-3 community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model aerosol component-1. Model description. Journal of Geophysical Research, D, Atmospheres, 2003, 108(D6): 4183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nenes A, Pandis S N, Pilinis C. ISORROPIA: a new thermodynamic equilibrium model for multiphase multicomponent inorganic aerosols. Aquatic Geochemistry, 1998, 4(1): 123–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Foley KM, Roselle S J, Appel KW, Bhave P V, Pleim J E, Otte T L, Mathur R, Sarwar G, Young J O, Gilliam R C, Nolte C G, Kelly J T, Gilliland A B, Bash J O. Incremental testing of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7. Geoscientific Model Development, 2010, 3(1): 205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly J T, Bhave P V, Nolte C G, Shankar U, Foley KM. Simulating emission and chemical evolution of coarse sea-salt particles in the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. Geoscientific Model Development, 2010, 3(1): 257–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shrivastava M, Fast J, Easter R, Gustafson W I, Zaveri R A, Jimenez J L, Saide P, Hodzic A. Modeling organic aerosols in a megacity: comparison of simple and complex representations of the volatility basis set approach. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2011, 11(13): 6639–6662

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim S W, Heckel A, Frost G J, Richter A, Gleason J, Burrows J P, Mc Keen S, Hsie E Y, Granier C, Trainer M. NO2 columns in the western United States observed from space and simulated by a regional chemistry model and their implications for NOx emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research, D, Atmospheres, 2009, 114 (D11): 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fountoukis C, Nenes A. ISORROPIA II: a computationally efficient thermodynamic equilibrium model for K+-Ca2+-Mg2+-NH +4 -Na+-SO 2–4 NO3–Cl–H2O aerosols. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2007, 7(17): 4639–4659

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pandis S N, Harley R A, Cass G R, Seinfeld J H. Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation and Transport. Atmospheric Environment. Part A, General Topics, 1992, 26(13): 2269–2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Russell A G, Mcrae G J, Cass G R. Mathematical-Modeling of the Formation and Transport of Ammonium-Nitrate Aerosol. Atmospheric Environment, 1983, 17(5): 949–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hildemann L M, Cass G R, Mazurek M A, Simonelt B R T. Mathematical-Modeling of Urban Organic Aerosol-Properties Measured by High-Resolution Gas-Chromatography. Environmental Science & Technology, 1993, 27(10): 2045–2055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Simon H, Baker K R, Phillips S. Compilation and interpretation of photochemical model performance statistics published between 2006 and 2012. Atmospheric Environment, 2012, 61: 124–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanakidou M, Seinfeld J H, Pandis S N, Barnes I, Dentener F J, Facchini M C, Van Dingenen R, Ervens B, Nenes A, Nielsen C J, Swietlicki E, Putaud J P, Balkanski Y, Fuzzi S, Horth J, Moortgat G K, Winterhalter R, Myhre C E L, Tsigaridis K, Vignati E, Stephanou E G, Wilson J. Organic aerosol and global climate modelling: a review. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2005, 5(4): 1053–1123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bessagnet B, Hodzic A, Vautard R, Beekmann M, Cheinet S, Honore C, Liousse C, Rouil L. Aerosol modeling with CHIMEREpreliminary evaluation at the continental scale. Atmospheric Environment, 2004, 38(18): 2803–2817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Malm W C, Schichtel B A, Pitchford M L. Uncertainties in PM2.5 gravimetric and speciation measurements and what we can learn from them. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2011, 61(11): 1131–1149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Napelenok S L, Cohan D S, Hu Y T, Russell A G. Decoupled direct 3D sensitivity analysis for particulate matter (DDM-3D/PM). Atmospheric Environment, 2006, 40(32): 6112–6121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 2006, 59(1–6): 51–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cohan D S, Hakami A, Hu Y, Russell A G. Nonlinear response of ozone to emissions: source apportionment and sensitivity analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, 39(17): 6739–6748

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pleim J E, Xiu A. Development and testing of a surface flux and planetary boundary-layer model for application in mesoscale models. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1995, 34(1): 16–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xiu A J, Pleim J E. Development of a land surface model. Part I: Application in a mesoscale meteorological model. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 2001, 40(2): 192–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. CEP. Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE) User Manual, edited. In The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hu Y, Balachandran S, Pachon J E, Baek J, Ivey C, Holmes H, Odman M T, Mulholland J A, Russell A G. Fine particulate matter source apportionment using a hybrid chemical transport and receptor model approach. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2014, 14(11): 5415–5431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ivey C E, Holmes H A, Hu Y T, Mulholland J A, Russell A G. Development of PM2.5 source impact spatial fields using a hybrid source apportionment air quality model. Geoscientific Model Development, 2015, 8(7): 2153–2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Geocounts Georgia Department of Transportation. Traffic Counts in Georgia. http://geocounts.com/gdot/

  24. US Energy Information Administration. California: State Profile and Energy Estimates. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid = CA

  25. US Energy Information Administration. Pennsylvania: State Profile and Energy Estimates. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid = PA

  26. National Emissions Inventory. 2005-Based Modeling Platform. U.S. Evironmental Protection Agency,2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 311 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Cesunica E. Ivey, Yongtao Hu, James A. Mulholland & Armistead G. Russell

  2. Department of Physics, University of Nevada Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Reno, NV, 89557, USA

    Heather A. Holmes

Authors
  1. Cesunica E. Ivey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather A. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yongtao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James A. Mulholland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Armistead G. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesunica E. Ivey.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ivey, C.E., Holmes, H.A., Hu, Y. et al. A method for quantifying bias in modeled concentrations and source impacts for secondary particulate matter. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 10, 14 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0866-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0866-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation