1 / 30

PM Study Status Report

PM Study Status Report. Policy Committee Meeting November 7, 2003. Presentation Overview. CRPAQS Symposium Highlights Modeling Proposal Review Consent Calendar Items. CRPAQS AAAR Symposium Highlights. 9 talks and 10 posters were presented at the AAAR conference

tavita
Download Presentation

PM Study Status Report

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. PM Study Status Report Policy Committee Meeting November 7, 2003

  2. Presentation Overview • CRPAQS Symposium Highlights • Modeling Proposal Review • Consent Calendar Items

  3. CRPAQS AAAR Symposium Highlights • 9 talks and 10 posters were presented at the AAAR conference • Common themes of presentations: • Episodes are prolonged, widespread, dominated by PM2.5 • Meteorology is stagnant, limited mixing • Ammonium nitrate and carbon are major constituents • Role of wood smoke contributions • Initial modeling results

  4. Episode Strength and Duration

  5. PM Episodes and Duration

  6. PM2.5 ConcentrationsJanuary 4-7, 2001 S13 SRF BTI SOH LVR1 PAC SNFH FSF HELM KCW BAC FEL

  7. Winter 24-hour bsp vs. PM2.5 Filter Mass November through April data from sites in the San Joaquin Valley • Strong correlation (R2 = 0.88) during the winter, the season when PM2.5 concentrations are highest. • The 24-hour Federal PM2.5 standard, 65 µg/m3, is exceeded often in the data shown. • Average scattering efficiency of 4.6+0.07 m2/g.

  8. Meteorological Factors

  9. Winter Analysis In winter, there is a dependence on stability, relative humidity, and minimum temperature Fall Analysis In fall, stability is most important; there appears to be no dependence on wind speeds Summary of CART AnalysisMeteorological Variables Influencing PM Concentrations

  10. Hourly PM2.5 Concentration at Fresno (FSF) and Mixing Depth at Chowchilla Day Night Day Night Day Case Study Example – Mixing Depth vs. PM2.5

  11. Major PM Constituents

  12. PM2.5 ConcentrationsBakersfield-Residential

  13. PM2.5 Ammonium NitrateJanuary 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2001 BTI LVR1 M14 Legend FREM SELM COP BRES

  14. PM2.5 Total CarbonJanuary 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2001 BTI LVR1 M14 Legend FREM SELM COP BRES

  15. PM2.5 Chemical CompositionAverage for 10 Exceedance Days

  16. PM Constituent Contributions to Light Extinction

  17. Wet Deposition of PM Constituents During Fog Events

  18. Wood Combustion Contributions

  19. Kveg Concentrations at Three Fresno SitesLarge Temporal Variation/Small Spatial Variation

  20. Aerosol Time of Flight (ATOFMS) Data PAH and Biomass Particles: January 9-February 4, 2001 PAH mass ATOFMS Counts Date/Time

  21. Preliminary IMS95 Modeling

  22. Regional PM10 PerformanceMeasured (Blue), Modeled (Black) Jan 04 Jan 05 Jan 06 Jan 04 Jan 05 Jan 06

  23. PM2.5 Source Contributions from IMS95 Modeling Max scale 32 µg/m3 Max scale 10 µg/m3

  24. PM2.5 Nitrate Isopleths at Fresno

  25. Acknowledgements • Rich Hackney, Theresa Najita, Kasia Turkiewicz, ARB • Sonoma Technology • Desert Research Institute • Colorado State University • ENSR Corporation • Aerosol Dynamics • Technical & Business Systems • Tracer Technology • RJ Lee Group • U.C. San Diego • U.C. Davis

  26. Modeling Proposal Review • RFP released July 29, 2003 • RFP contains 8 tasks (1 already funded) • Budget is $750,000 • Work will be carried out over 24 months • 7 proposals submitted September 10, 2003 • TC has reviewed proposals and prepared recommendations

  27. Modeling Proposal Review Issues • Initial costs greater than budget available • Focus on episodic base case, performance evaluation, and control strategy evaluation • Pursue two air quality modeling approaches • Tasks dealing with emissions evaluation, boundary conditions, annual modeling, and visibility assessment will need to be addressed through data analysis, in-house efforts • Limited funding is available for modeling wrap-up and integration

  28. Modeling Proposals Contractor Recommendations Contractor Task(s) Funding Sonoma Technology Meteorological modeling $124,948 U.C. Davis Air quality modeling $ tbd AER Air quality modeling $271,000 Envair (Steve Reynolds) Performance evaluation $ 11,780 (phase 1) TOTAL ~$750,000

  29. CRPAQS Consent Calendar • Surplus Computer Equipment • Fresno Wood Smoke Sample Analysis • Data Analysis Contract Extensions

More Related