Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment (한국대기환경학회지)

Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment (한국대기환경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sensitivity Study of the Initial Meteorological Fields on the PM10 Concentration Predictions Using CMAQ Modeling

CMAQ 모델링을 통한 초기 기상장에 대한 미세먼지 농도 예측 민감도 연구

  • Jo, Yu-Jin (Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Lee, Hyo-Jung (Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Chang, Lim-Seok (Air Quality Forecasting Center, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Kim, Cheol-Hee (Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Pusan National University)
  • 조유진 (부산대학교 대기환경과학과) ;
  • 이효정 (부산대학교 대기환경과학과) ;
  • 장임석 (국립환경과학원 대기질 통합예보센터) ;
  • 김철희 (부산대학교 대기환경과학과)
  • Received : 2017.07.31
  • Accepted : 2017.11.07
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Sensitivity analysis on $PM_{10}$ forecasting simulations was carried out by using two different initial and boundary conditions of meteorological fields: NCEP/FNL (National Centers for Environmental Prediction/Final Analysis) reanlaysis data and NCEP/GFS (National Centers for Environmental Prediction/Global Forecast System) forecasting data, and the comparisons were made between two different simulations. The two results both yielded lower $PM_{10}$ concentrations than observations, with relatively lower biased results by NCEP/FNL than NCEP/GFS. We explored the detailed individual meteorological variables to associate with $PM_{10}$ prediction performance. With the results of NCEP/FNL outperforming GFS, our conclusion is that no particular significant bias was found in temperature fields between NCEP/FNL and NCEP/GFS data, while the overestimated wind speed by NCEP/GFS data influenced on the lower $PM_{10}$ concentrations simulation than NCEP/FNL, by decreasing the duration time of high-$PM_{10}$ loaded air mass over both coastal and metropolitan areas. These comparative characteristics of FNL against GFS data such as maximum 3~4 m/s weaker wind speed, $PM_{10}$ concentration control with the highest possible factor of 1.3~1.6, and one or two hour difference of peak time for each case in this study, were also reflected into the results of statistical analysis. It is implying that improving the surface wind speed fluctuation is an important controlling factor for the better prediction of $PM_{10}$ over Korean Peninsula.

Keywords

References

  1. Appel, W., Gilliland, A., Sarwar, G., Gilliam, R.C. (2007) Evaluation of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: sensitivities impacting model performace: part I - ozone, Atmospheric Environment, 41, 9603-9613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.08.044
  2. Borge, R., Lopez, J., Lumbreras, J., Narros, A., Rodriguez, E. (2010) Influence of boundary conditions on CMAQ simulations over the Iberian Peninsula, Atmospheric Environment, 44, 2681-2695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.044
  3. Byun, D.W., Ching, J.K.S. (1999) Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), EPA/600/R-99/030.
  4. Jang, L.S., Lee, D.G., Yu, J.A., Hong, S.C., Son, J.S., Choi, J.Y. (2014) Status of PM forecast and improvement plan, Proceedings of the Spring Meeting of KMS (Korean Meteorological Society), 2-3.
  5. Jang, Y.G., Kim, J., Kim, P.S., Sin, Y.I., Lee, H.J., Choi, M.A. (2009) Comparison of Regional $PM_{10}$ Emission Complemented Fugitive Dust and Biomass burning, Proceeding of the 48th Meeting of KOSAE (Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment), 169-170.
  6. Kim, D.Y. (2009) PM Analysis Using CMAQ in Seoul Metropolitan Area, Gyeonggi Research Institue, 33-42.
  7. Kim, E.H., Cho, J.H., Kim, S.T. (2015) Variation of gas phase simulation and $PM_{10}$ simulated concentration using initial field - February 2014 case, Proceedings of the Spring Meeting of KMS (Korean Meteorological Society), 56-57.
  8. Kim, E.H., Kim, H.C., Cho, J.H., Kim, S.T. (2015) Analysis of air quality simulation concentration change using WRF and UM simulation results, Proceedings of the Autumn Meeting of KMS (Korean Meteorological Society), 837-838.
  9. Kim, J, Jang, Y.K. (2014) Uncertainty Assessment for CAPSS Emission Inventory by DARS, Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment, 30(1), 26-36. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.5572/KOSAE.2014.30.1.026
  10. Koo, Y.S., Kim, S.T., Cho, J.S., Jang, Y.G. (2012) Performance Evaluation of the Updated Air Quality Forecasting System for Seoul Predicting $PM_{10}$, Atmospheric Environment, 58, 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.004
  11. Lee, D.G., Kim, S.T., Kim, H.C., Ngan, F. (2014) Retrospective Air Quality Simulation of The TexAQS-II: Focused on Emissions Uncertainty, Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment, 8(4), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.5572/ajae.2014.8.4.212
  12. Moon, Y.S., Lim, Y.K., Lee, K.Y. (2011) An Estimation of Concentration of Asian dust ($PM_{10}$) using WRFSMOKE-CMAQ (MADRID) During Springtime in the Korean Peninsula, Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 32(3), 276-293. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2011.32.3.276
  13. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2011) Example of air quality modeling report based on air quality modeling guidelines for establishing and evaluating national air policies, 2-6.
  14. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2013) A Study on Improvement and Expansion of Urban Scale PM Forecasting System (IV), 5-13.
  15. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2014) Studies on the optimization method for improving the accuracy of air quality modeling, 47-61.
  16. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2017) The 1st in-depth analysis and information sharing on the controlling factors for low predictability on high $PM_{10}$ episodic cases in 2017 (I), 1-5.
  17. Park, Y.S., Jang, I.S., Cho, S.Y. (2015) An Analysis on Effects of the Initial Condition and Emission on $PM_{10}$ Forecasting with Data Assimilation, Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment, 31(5), 430-436. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.5572/KOSAE.2015.31.5.430
  18. Peng, G. (2014) What's the difference between FNL and GFS?, Atmospheric & Geoscience Research Data Archive, Computational & Information systemp Lab., National Center for Atmospheric Research.
  19. Tombrou, M., Bossioli, E., Protonotariou, A.P., Flocas, H., Giannakopoulos, C., Dandou, A. (2009) Coupling GEOS-CHEM with a regional air pollution model for Greece, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 4793-4804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.003
  20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2007) Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, $PM_{2.5}$, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002.
  21. Wu, Q., Xu, W., Shi, A., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Wang, Z., Li, J., Wang, L. (2014) Air Quality Forecast of $PM_{10}$ in Beijing with Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling (CMAQ) system: Emission and Improvement, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 2243-2259. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2243-2014