1 / 20

A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria

Courtesy: Zach Allen. A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria. 2008 November 5. Northeast Regional Operational Workshop Presenter: Laura Landry, Plymouth State University. Introduction.

max
Download Presentation

A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria

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. Courtesy: Zach Allen A New Hampshire Ground-Level Ozone Pollution Forecasting Tool Using Meteorological Criteria 2008 November 5 Northeast Regional Operational Workshop Presenter: Laura Landry, Plymouth State University

  2. Introduction • New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has forecasted ozone pollution for over 15 years • Ozone exposure causes a wide range of respiratory problems (AIRNow 2008) • Primarily concerned with Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone • Based on daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration

  3. Introduction • Since March 2008, a new NAAQS for ozone has been implemented, lowered from 84ppb to 75ppb • Previously used forecasting methods have become less accurate • Motivation: To develop a new forecasting guide for predicting the new standard of 75ppb • Results will help answer questions of: • How much variation in meteorological criteria will there be between air monitoring sites? • How will criteria compare when using two different time periods of data?

  4. Introduction • Meteorological conditions behind ozone development • Sunny skies • High surface temperatures • Calm to light winds • Transport of pollution • New Hampshire lies downwind of major pollution sources

  5. Methodology • Selection of air quality monitoring sites • Sites were selected base on: • Locations where most exceedance days occur • More problematic to forecast • Larger sample size on which to base the analysis • Locations not adjacent to each other

  6. Methodology • Southern sites report most of exceedance days • Site elevations range from 0 to 150m • Miller State Park is an exception at about 700m New Hampshire

  7. Methodology • Previous research conducted by Jeffs (2007), a Master’s thesis at Plymouth State University • Created an ozone forecasting guide for 65ppb • Utilized a dataset from 2002-2005 • This study followed similar methodology • EPA suggests an air quality climatology as about 4 years (EPA 1999) • Used two datasets of June-August • 2004-2007 • 2002-2007

  8. Methodology • Ozone data • Daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration • Source: NHDES • Meteorological data • Surface observations from KCON, KEEN, KASH, KPSM, and Miller State Park • Source: National Weather Service, Plymouth State University, NHDES • Radiosonde data from KGYX • Source: Plymouth State University

  9. Methodology • Analysis was done using the Criteria Method • EPA-recommended method for creating air quality forecast guides (EPA 1999) • Subjective analysis that focuses on exceedance days • Determines threshold values

  10. Methodology

  11. Methodology • Meteorological parameters: • Daily maximum surface temperature • 850hPa temperature (12 UTC) • Surface wind speed and direction (12 & 18 UTC) • Cloud cover (12 & 18 UTC) • Times were chosen based on: • 12 UTC: morning conditions prior to a potential high ozone event • 18 UTC: afternoon conditions when ozone typically reaches its daily maximum value

  12. Results

  13. Results • Comparing criteria of air monitoring site to site… • Daily observations • Maximum surface temperature: ≥ 83˚F • 12 UTC observations • 850hPa temperature: ≥ 12˚C • Surface wind speed: ≤ 5 knots • Surface wind direction: Southwesterly to southerly • Cloud cover: ≤ FEW

  14. Results • Comparing criteria of air monitoring site to site… • 18 UTC observations • Surface wind speed: ≤10 knots • Surface wind direction: Westerly to southwesterly • Cloud cover: ≤ SCT • Results from Miller State Park varied most from all other sites

  15. Site to Site Comparison Miller State Park Nashua

  16. Results • Comparing criteria among different time periods of data among the same air monitoring site…

  17. Dataset Comparison Portsmouth

  18. Summary • This study developed an ozone forecasting guide for the NHDES • The criteria method from the EPA • Subjectively analyzed meteorological threshold values • Threshold values indicate a high probability of an exceedance day

  19. Conclusions • Air monitoring site to site comparison: • Similar threshold values among sites • Miller State Park appeared to be an outlier • Could be due to high elevation • Transport may be more of an issue • Dataset to dataset comparison: • No significant variation in threshold values • In this study, the length of the dataset did not have a large effect on results

  20. Questions? References: • AIRNow, accessed 2008: Ozone and Your Health. [http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action= static.ozone2] • EPA, 1999: Guideline for Developing an Ozone Forecasting Program. EPA: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. • Jeffs, Kim, 2007: Development of Meteorological Criteria for Forecasting Air Quality in New Hampshire. Plymouth State University: Master of Science Thesis Project.

More Related