Abstract
Previous estimates of aviation contributions to ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations have either offered domain- and sector-wide estimates or focused on a few airports. Using the decoupled direct method (DDM), an advanced sensitivity analysis module for the CMAQ air quality modeling suite, we calculate per-airport sensitivity coefficients allowing quantification of 66 individual airports’ impact on air quality in the United States. Preliminary results show that these airports, collectively representing about 76 % of aviation activity by fuel burn in the US, are responsible for about 0.04 % of nationwide PM2.5 concentrations; near-airport concentrations are proportionately much higher. Peak annual average contributions from individual airports vary from 0.018 to 0.0001 μg/m3; secondary PM2.5 has effects at distances of up to 700 km downwind while primary PM2.5 affects only the immediate vicinity of the airport. Complete results detailing specific air quality and health impacts of each airport will be presented at the ITM conference in May.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arunachalam S (2011) Effect of chemistry-transport model scale and resolution on population exposure to PM2.5 from aircraft emissions during landing and takeoff. Atmos Environ 45(19):3294–3300
Arunachalam S, Holland A, Do B, Abraczinskas M (2006) A quantitative assessment of the influence of grid resolution on predictions of future-year air quality in North Carolina, USA. Atmos Environ 40(26):5010–5016
Baek BH, Arunachalam S, Woody M, Vennam P, Omary M, Binkowski F, Fleming G (2012) A new interface to model global commercial aircraft emissions from the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) in air quality models. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual CMAS conference
Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New Jersey
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2014) National transportation statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/. Accessed May 2014
Byun D, Schere KL (2006) Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the models-3 community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl Mech Rev 2:51–77
Dunker AM (1984) The decoupled direct method for calculating sensitivity coefficients in chemical kinetics. J Chem Phys 81:2385–2393
Koo B, Wilson G, Morris R, Dunker A, Yarwood G (2009) Comparison of source apportionment and sensitivity analysis in a particulate matter air quality model. Envir Sci Tech 43:6669–6675
Kwok R, Napelenok S, Baker K (2013) Implementation and evaluation of PM2.5 source contribution analysis in a photochemical model. Atmos Environ 80:398–407
Lee K, Ashok A, Yim S, Barrett S (2012) Response surface model (RSM) v.3: CMAQ performance evaluation and hypotheses test results
Levy J, Woody M, Baek BH, Shankar U, Arunachalam S (2012) Current and future particulate-matter-related mortality risks in the United States from aviation emissions during landing and takeoff. Risk Anal 32:237–249
Napelenok S, Cohan DS, Odman M, Tonse S (2008) Extension and evaluation of sensitivity analysis capabilities in a photochemical model. Environ Modell Softw 23(8):994–999
Napelenok S, Cohan DS, Hu Y, Russell AG (2006) Decoupled direct 3D sensitivity analysis for particulate matter (DDM-3D/PM). Atmos Environ 40(32):6112–6121
Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9):1132–1141
Rienecker MM, Suarez MJ, Gelaro R, Todling R, Bacmeister J, Liu E, Bosilovich MG, Schubert SD, Takacs L, Kim GK (2011) MERRA: NASA’s Modern-Era retrospective analysis for research and applications. J Climate 24(14):3624–3648
Roof C, Hansen A, Fleming G, Thrasher T, Nguyen A, Hall C, Grandi F, Kim B, Usdrowski S, Hollingsworth P (2007) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) system architecture. Doc# AEDT-AD-01
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) National Emissions Inventory (NEI). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html
Wilkerson JT, Jacobson MZ, Malwitz A, Balasubramanian S, Wayson R, Fleming G, Naiman AD, Lele SK (2010) Analysis of emission data from global commercial aviation: 2004 and 2006. Atmos Chem Phys 10(13):6391–6408
Woody M, Baek BH, Adelman Z, Omary M, Lam YF, West J, Arunachalam S (2011) An assessment of aviation’s contribution to current and future fine particulate matter in the United States. Atmos Environ 45:3424–3433
Acknowledgments
The authors thank M Reed, UNC ITS; C Coats, BH Baek, M Woody, P Vennam and SY Chang, UNC IE; and M Serre, UNC ESE. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1053575. This work was funded by PARTNER under grants to UNC. PARTNER is funded by FAA, NASA, Transport Canada, US DOD, and EPA. The aviation emissions inventories used for this work were provided by US DOT Volpe Center and are based on data provided by the US FAA and EUROCONTROL in support of the objectives of the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Projection CO2 Task Group. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US DOT, Volpe Center, the US FAA, EUROCONTROL, ICAO or PARTNER.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Questions and Answers
Questions and Answers
Questioner: Peter Builtjes, Talat Oldman
Question: What is the rationale behind using 3000 ft as a kind of average mixing height? In reality the mixing height varies in time and space. How do you allocate take-off emissions in the vertical? Do you consider ground equipment emissions?
Answer: The 3,000 ft emissions cutoff is not meant to correspond to any atmospheric condition; rather, it is an operations-based distinction between landing and takeoff (LTO) operations and cruise operations. The emissions processing sequence is primarily based on the operations mode provided as part of the aviation activity and emissions inventory from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)™s Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). In this dataset, spatiotemporal aircraft activity is provided from which emissions are calculated and gridded (in three dimensions) for use in CMAQ. One attribute of this database is emissions mode, which corresponds to one of ten sequential aircraft operation types, from taxiing to takeoff to climb to cruise, and finally descent to landing. Modes 1–3 correspond to taxi and takeoff modes and assigned to the departure airport, while modes 7–10 correspond to arrival and taxi modes and assigned to the arrival airport. Modes 4–6, corresponding to cruise activity, are not included in the modeling process. These chorded segments by activity mode for each flight path are then gridded into the corresponding CMAQ grid-cells based upon the relevant flight paths that fall in each grid-cell, as described in Baek et al. (2012). The AEDT only provides activity information for aircraft, and thus non-aircraft emissions (such as those from airport ground service vehicles) are not included. Thus, while a hard ceiling of 3,000 ft is built into the system, a soft cap based on aircraft operation mode limits emissions to a much lower altitude. And finally, EDMS (the precursor model to AEDT for preparing airport emissions inventories) uses a value of 3,000 ft as the default mixing height and the vertical extent of aircraft operations during LTO activities, and this provided the key motivation for us to define LTO activity in the vertical. However, the mixing height used in CMAQ predictions is based upon the WRF model, and truly varies in time and space.
Questioner: Talat Odman
Question: Would you consider verifying your results for one large and one small airport by modeling their domain of influence with higher resolution (e.g., 4-km grid size)?
Answer: One of the primary challenges of this work was balancing model runtime (CPU-hours) and quantity of disk space required against domain size. Certainly, a 4-km grid (a grid with 81 times the resolution of our 36-km grid) would provide a higher-resolution idea of the sensitivities caused by aircraft operations, which would give a more spatially-resolved indication of where impacts are located. Arunachalam et al. (2006) gives a good overview of the impact of grid size on model performance, with statistically significant differences between 36- and 4-km grid cells; further in a subsequent airport-specific grid-resolution investigation of air quality and health impacts, Arunachalam et al. (2011) showed that in spite of significant differences in maximum concentrations attributable to aviation emissions due to differing grid resolutions, total population health risks over the entire model domain were largely unaffected by model resolution. Thus, the need for higher model resolution is dependent on the objective of the study.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Boone, S., Penn, S., Levy, J., Arunachalam, S. (2016). Calculation of Sensitivity Coefficients for Individual Airport Emissions in the Continental UnitedStates Using CMAQ-DDM3D/PM. In: Steyn, D., Chaumerliac, N. (eds) Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XXIV. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24478-5_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24478-5_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24476-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24478-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)