1 / 7

Refinement and evaluation of the suspension emission model

Refinement and evaluation of the suspension emission model. Mari Kauhaniemi Research Scientist Finnish meteorological Institute, Air Quality, Dispersion modelling. NORTRIP meeting (Arlanda) 16.11.2010. Background. Based on the PM emission model developed by Omstedt et al. (2005).

joseph-brewer
Download Presentation

Refinement and evaluation of the suspension emission model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Refinement and evaluation of the suspension emission model Mari Kauhaniemi Research Scientist Finnish meteorological Institute, Air Quality, Dispersion modelling NORTRIP meeting (Arlanda) 16.11.2010

  2. Background • Based on the PM emission model developed by Omstedt et al. (2005). • Aim is to use it also in forecasting  slightly modified. • Paper in progress: • Refinement and evaluation of a road dust suspension model for predicting the concentrations of PM10 in street canyon in Helsinki. • Kauhaniemi, Kukkonen, Härkönen, Nikmo, Kangas, Omstedt, Ketzel, Kousa, Haakana, and Karppinen • No measured suspension emissions available • Evaluated against observed PM10concentrations • PM10 concentration computed by a street canyon model (OSPM) • Study period: 8.1.-2.5.2004 • Study site: Runeberg Street

  3. Measurement sites Runeberg Street Kaisaniemi Urban background measurement station Wind mast Air quality measurement station Meteorological station

  4. Sensitivity analysis Influence of precipitation studied with: • Kaisaniemi precipitation data (0-3.8 mm/h) • No precipitation • Maximum precipitation of Kaisaniemi data (3.8 mm/h) • SF (Kaisaniemi data) is occasionally higher than SF (no precipitation) max 48%.

  5. Sensitivity analysis Influence of sanding studied with: • 20 sanding days • 11 sanding days If Kaisaniemi precipitation data or no precipitation is used: • SF (20 sanding days) max about 15 % higher than SF (11 sanding days) If maximum precipitation data is used: • SF calculated with 20 or 11 sanding days have no difference.

  6. FMI vs. SMHI suspension emission factors Suspension emission factor (SF) IA = 0.94 SF (FMI) is max 67% lower than SF (SMHI) Normalised sand dust layer (ls) SF (SMHI) is systematically higher than SF (FMI) because: • LSincrese is greater (SMHI: 0.048, FMI: 0.029) • LS is increased more often (SMHI: 885 times, FMI: 20 times) • LS is increased on different days and hours (e.g. SMHI: 2 Feb at 0, FMI: 1 Feb at 23)  reduction factors may influence differently on dust layer.

  7. Daily PM10 concentrations Over-prediction: due to the snowing/raining. • No on-site meteorological data  suspension emission factors over-estimated? • Precipitation too light to be taken into account in the suspension model. IA = 0.87 FB = 0.03 F2 = 94% Cleaning & dust binding predicted (µg/m3) observed (µg/m3) Under-prediction due to the cleaning of road surfaces. • Can rise dust into the air in short time periods. • Not taken into account in the suspension model. Under-prediction: possible because • pedestrian ways cleaned after car lines, • traffic volume under-estimated? • No on-site meteorological data  suspension emission factors under-estimated?

More Related