1 / 23

Final conference – Venice, 8 th November 2012

Risks, challenges and mitigation actions in the APICE partners’ area: between the scientific findings and new governance models - Genoa M.C. Bove, P. Brotto,F. Cassola, E. Cuccia, D. Massabò, A. Mazzino, P. Prati Department of Physics – University of Genoa.

tryna
Download Presentation

Final conference – Venice, 8 th November 2012

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. Risks, challenges and mitigation actions in the APICE partners’ area: between the scientific findings and new governance models - Genoa M.C. Bove, P. Brotto,F. Cassola, E. Cuccia, D. Massabò, A. Mazzino, P. Prati Department of Physics – University of Genoa Final conference – Venice, 8th November 2012

  2. APICE scientific issues: the case of Genoa Main goal: to provide Authorities and Stakeholders with a reliable tool to study and forecast air quality: a “Chemical Transport Model, CTM” Methodology (shared with all the Partners): • “picture” of air quality (i.e. PM2.5) with a 1-year monitoring campaign  Source Apportionment (SA). • CTM assessment with updated emission data • Check of CTM vs. real-world measured data • Comparison of SA by CTM and monitoring campaign

  3. Monitoring campaign Site3: Bolzaneto Intensive campaign (May-Oct 2011) after prevailing meteo conditons analysis Site2: Multedo Site1: C.So Firenze PORT

  4. PM2.5 levels B M F • The PM2.5 level is almost the same in the three sites • The correlation between PM2.5 time series is stronger for the sites much closer to the port Main PM2.5 sources: at “regional” scale

  5. PM2.5 averageapportionment: Corso Firenze (14 ± 5) %

  6. PM2.5 averageapportionment: Multedo (12 ± 4) %

  7. PM2.5 averageapportionment: Bolzaneto (9 ± 3) %

  8. PM2.5 apportionment at a glance Basically: ship emissions

  9. Temporalbehaviourofshipemissions Many ferries to the Islands

  10. Meteorological preprocessor: WRF 3-domain configuration (10 km + 3.3 + 1.1 km) Simulations driven by NCEP GFS fields (0.5°) 24-hr-long simulations, hourly outputs, year 2011 10

  11. Chemical transport model: CAMx Outer domain covering Western and Central Europe (10 km resolution) City area 2-way nesting procedure Inner domain – focus on local area 47x47 grid points 1.1 km resolution Harbor area Pollutants: NOx, SOx, CO, PM…. • Maritime sector (harbour activities) • Road transport • Industry • Non-industrial combustion plants • Other sources (including natural emissions) PM source apportionment approaches: Zero-out CAMx PSAT routine 11

  12. Emission data • Large-scale anthropogenic emission data provided by AUTH (TNO data processed through the MOSESS code) • Natural emissions obtained processing WRF outputs with the NEMO code (developed by AUTH) • Updated (2010) harbour emission data calculated by Techne Srl (provider of Province of Genoa) according to CORINAIR Guidebook 2011 (no disaggregation for different harbour activities contribution available) • Local gridded emission data provided by Liguria Region (reference year 2008): • 1 km spatial resolution • hourly temporal resolution • SNAP sectors disaggregation

  13. Model validation – comparison with observed data (PM2.5)

  14. Model validation – comparison with observed data (Sulfates)

  15. Model validation – comparison with observed data (NOx)

  16. CTM source apportionment results (zero-out) NOx PM2.5 Contribution of harbour activities (%)Summer 2011 Contribution restricted to the area around the harbour (expecially for PM2.5) 16

  17. CTM source apportionment results (zero-out) PM2.5 NOx Contribution of road transport (%)Summer 2011 Contribution to concentrations over the whole city 17

  18. SA of PM2.5: June- August 2011 - Intercomparison ± ???

  19. Harbor activities contribution to PM2.5 concentrations CTM vs Receptor models

  20. Future scenario analysis: PM2.5 Scenario 1 – 2020 without mitigation actions +2 % -20 %

  21. Future scenario analysis: PM2.5 Scenario 2 – 2020 with S % reduction in fuels - 5 % - 35 %

  22. Future scenario analysis: PM2.5 Scenario 3 – 2020 with S % reduction in fuels and cold ironing of container and ferries terminal - 5 % - 40 %

  23. Summary A quite complete picture of PM2.5 levels and sources for the year 2011 has been obtained thanks to a considerable experimental effort A CTM model has been implemented and put in operation: validation vs. measured data pretty good Source apportionment by real-world data + receptor model (PMF) and CTM (WRF+CAMx) in fair agreement Future scenarios according to stakeholders inputs and APICE methodology completed (reference year 2020)

More Related