Sensitivity analyses of factors influencing CMAQ performance for fine particulate nitrate

Figures & data

Figure 1. Common modeling domains and locations of observation sites for UMICS2.

Table 1. Statistical comparisons between observations by JMA and common meteorological fields produced by WRF for UMICS2 at the meteorological observatories in D3

		Winter 2010	Summer 2011
Temperature	Sample number	5712 (336–336)	5712 (336–336)
	Mean Obs. (°C)	11.1 (3.1–14.2)	24.0 (17.1–25.7)
	Mean WRF (°C)	10.7 (3.1–15.3)	23.3 (17.5–24.7)
	r	0.90 (0.79–0.94)	0.90 (0.79–0.93)
	MAE (°C)	1.7 (1.2–2.9)	1.4 (0.9–2.3)
	IA	0.95 (0.76–0.97)	0.94 (0.82–0.95)
Humidity	Sample number	5712 (336–336)	5711 (335–336)
	Mean Obs. (g kg^−1)	5.7 (4.2–7.3)	15.4 (13.1–17.1)
	Mean WRF (g kg^−1)	5.9 (4.2–7.5)	15.3 (12.9–16.5)
	r	0.92 (0.86–0.95)	0.88 (0.78–0.93)
	MAE (g kg^−1)	0.7 (0.5–1.0)	1.1 (0.8–1.5)
	IA	0.95 (0.89–0.97)	0.94 (0.86–0.96)
Wind speed	Sample number	5711 (335–336)	5712 (336–336)
	Mean Obs. (m sec^−1)	3.0 (1.2–6.0)	3.3 (1.4–6.2)
	Mean WRF (m sec^−1)	3.9 (1.9–7.0)	3.8 (2.1–6.2)
	r	0.68 (0.42–0.87)	0.63 (0.22–0.89)
	RMSE (m sec^−1)	2.4 (1.4–4.5)	2.1 (1.3–4.1)
	IA	0.79 (0.48–0.93)	0.78 (0.41–0.90)

Notes: Parenthetical values show ranges of values for the individual observatories. r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Obs.: observed. MAE: mean absolute error. IA: index of agreement of Willmott (1981). RMSE: root mean square error.

Figure 2. Time series comparisons between observations by JMA and common meteorological fields produced by WRF for UMICS2 in winter 2010 (left panels) and summer 2011 (right panels). Hourly meteorological variables are averaged for all the meteorological observatories in D3.

Figure 3. Horizontal distributions of mean (a) SO₂, (b) NO_X, and (c) NH₃ emission rates in common emission data for UMICS2 in summer 2011 in D3.

Table 2. Configurations of models participating in UMICS2

	M0	M1	M2	M3	M4
AQM	CMAQ v4.7.1	CMAQ v4.7.1	CMAQ v4.6	CMAQ v4.7.1	CMAQ v5.0
Domain	D1, D2, D3	D3^a	D3^a	D1, D2, D3	D3^a
Horizontal advection	Yamartino	Yamartino	Yamartino	PPM^b	Yamartino
Vertical advection	Yamartino	Yamartino	Yamartino	PPM^b	WRF
Horizontal diffusion	Multiscale	Multiscale	Multiscale	Multiscale	Multiscale
Vertical diffusion	ACM2	ACM2	ACM2	ACM2	ACM2
Photolysis rate	Lookup table	In-line calculation^c	Lookup table	In-line calculation^c	In-line calculation^c
Gas phase	SAPRC99 (EBI)	SAPRC99 (EBI)	SAPRC99 (ROS3)	SAPRC99 (EBI)	SAPRC99 (EBI)
Aerosol phase	AERO5	AERO5	AERO4	AERO5	AERO5
Aqueous phase	ACM	ACM	RADM	ACM	ACM
Dry deposition	Models-3	Models-3	Models-3	Models-3	Models-3

Notes: ^aBoundary concentrations were derived from D2 of M0;

^bThe piecewise-parabolic method (Colella and Woodward, 1984);

^cBinkowski et al. (2007).

Figure 4. Time series of observed and M0-simulated hourly concentrations of O₃, NO, NO₂, and PM_2.5 at Kisai in winter 2010 (left panels) and summer 2011 (right panels).

Table 3. Comparisons of observed and M0-simulated concentrations of PM_2.5 SO₄²⁻, NO₃⁻, and NH₄⁺, and gaseous HNO₃ and NH₃

		Winter 2010			Summer 2011
		Komae^b	Kisai	Maebashi^b	Komae	Kisai	Maebashi
SO4^2−	Sample number	42	42	36	30	30	30
	Mean Obs. (μg m^−3)^a	2.0 (1.1)	1.7 (1.1)	2.2 (1.2)	5.2 (2.8)	4.6 (2.2)	4.4 (2.7)
	Mean M0 (μg m^−3)^a	2.6 (1.5)	2.4 (1.6)	2.3 (1.9)	3.8 (2.3)	4.3 (2.9)	3.8 (2.5)
	r	0.64**	0.60**	0.80**	0.01	0.51**	0.69**
	NMB (%)	29	39	3	−28	−5	−14
NO3^−	Sample number	–	42	–	30	30	30
	Mean Obs. (μg m^−3)^a	–	4.7 (5.4)	–	2.3 (4.1)	1.6 (1.8)	1.1 (1.1)
	Mean M0 (μg m^−3)^a	7.2 (7.4)	7.1 (7.0)	5.2 (5.4)	3.1 (3.5)	5.4 (6.1)	5.2 (4.6)
	r	–	0.37*	–	−0.27	−0.17	0.42*
	NMB (%)	–	50	–	36	237	375
NH4^+	Sample number	–	42	–	30	30	30
	Mean Obs. (μg m^−3)^a	–	3.1 (2.6)	–	3.1 (2.6)	2.3 (0.9)	2.3 (1.2)
	Mean M0 (μg m^−3)^a	3.2 (2.6)	3.1 (2.5)	2.4 (2.1)	2.3 (1.6)	3.3 (2.8)	3.0 (2.1)
	r	–	0.25	–	−0.30	0.02	0.63**
	NMB (%)	–	1	–	−24	43	30
HNO3	Sample number	–	42	–	30	30	30
	Mean Obs. (μg m^−3)^a	–	0.3 (0.3)	–	3.3 (3.3)	2.8 (2.7)	1.5 (2.2)
	Mean M0 (μg m^−3)^a	1.0 (1.2)	0.7 (1.1)	0.6 (0.9)	2.0 (1.7)	2.9 (3.6)	1.1 (1.6)
	r	–	0.89**	–	0.25	0.75**	0.79**
	NMB (%)	–	169	–	−40	2	16
NH3	Sample number	–	42	–	30	30	30
	Mean Obs. (μg m^−3)^a	–	2.3 (2.1)	–	2.8 (1.6)	5.1 (1.6)	7.9 (5.3)
	Mean M0 (μg m^−3)^a	4.7 (2.7)	5.7 (3.0)	6.4 (4.6)	9.6 (6.0)	13.6 (9.5)	32.4 (20.4)
	r	–	0.29	–	0.62**	0.47**	0.48**
	NMB (%)	–	151	–	241	165	309

Notes: Obs.: observed. r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient; significant differences: *p < .05, **p < .01. NMB: normalized mean bias;

^aParenthetical values show standard deviations;

^bMean values of M0-simulated concentrations are calculated for periods in which the observation data at Kisai are available.

Figure 5. Time series of observed and M0-simulated 4-hr concentrations of PM_2.5 SO₄²⁻, NO₃⁻, and NH₄⁺, and gaseous HNO₃ and NH₃ at Komae (left panels), Kisai (middle panels), and Maebashi (right panels) in summer 2011.

Figure 6. Mean diurnal variations of M0-simulated contributions of various individual physical and chemical processes to changes of ground-level HNO₃ and PM_2.5 NO₃⁻ concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2. The processes include advection (ADV), diffusion (DIF), primary emission (EMIS), dry deposition (DDEP), aqueous process (CLDS), gas-phase chemistry (CHEM), and aerosol process (AERO).

Figure 7. Percentage differences between M0 and CMAQ runs with different configurations for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 8. Percentage differences between M0 and sensitivity runs with modified temperature or relative humidity for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 9. Percentage differences between M0 and sensitivity runs with modified NO_X emissions for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 10. Seasonal variations of NH₃ emissions from livestock solid wastes and agricultural fields fertilized by manures used in common emission data and sensitivity runs.

Figure 11. Percentage differences between M0 and sensitivity runs with modified NH₃ emissions for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 12. Percentage differences between M1 and sensitivity runs with modified HNO₃ and NH₃ dry deposition velocities for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 13. Percentage differences between M1 and sensitivity runs with modified HNO₃ and NH₃ dry deposition velocities for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011 plotted against ratio of HNO₃ and NH₃ dry deposition velocities in sensitivity runs to those in M1.

Figure 14. Percentage differences between M0 and sensitivity runs with modified N₂O₅ reaction probability for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Figure 15. Percentage differences between M0 and Mmod for mean concentrations in the target area during the target periods of UMICS2 in (a) winter 2010 and (b) summer 2011.

Table 4. Comparisons of observed and Mmod-simulated concentrations of PM_2.5 SO₄²⁻, NO₃⁻, and NH₄⁺, and gaseous HNO₃ and NH₃

		Winter 2010			Summer 2011
		Komae^b	Kisai	Maebashi^b	Komae	Kisai	Maebashi
SO4^2−	Mean Mmod (μg m^−3)^a	2.4 (1.4)	2.2 (1.5)	2.1 (1.6)	3.4 (1.9)	3.8 (2.6)	3.6 (2.4)
	r	0.63**	0.58**	0.80**	0.03	0.50**	0.68**
	NMB (%)	21	31	−6	−35	−17	−17
NO3^−	Mean Mmod (μg m^−3)^a	4.6 (5.6)	4.6 (5.3)	3.4 (4.2)	1.1 (2.0)	1.7 (2.8)	2.0 (2.6)
	r	–	0.40**	–	−0.21	−0.17	0.48**
	NMB (%)	–	−3	–	−51	8	102
NH4^+	Mean Mmod (μg m^−3)^a	2.3 (2.0)	2.3 (1.9)	1.8 (1.6)	1.6 (1.1)	1.9 (1.6)	2.0 (1.3)
	r	–	0.24	–	−0.28	−0.01	0.62**
	NMB (%)	–	−26	–	−49	−17	−14
HNO3	Mean Mmod (μg m^−3)^a	0.6 (0.5)	0.5 (0.7)	0.2 (0.3)	1.2 (0.8)	2.3 (2.0)	2.0 (1.6)
	r	–	0.91**	–	0.17	0.60**	0.76**
	NMB (%)	–	77	–	−65	−18	36
NH3	Mean Mmod (μg m^−3)^a	3.4 (2.1)	4.9 (2.7)	6.7 (4.7)	3.9 (2.3)	2.6 (1.7)	11.0 (7.5)
	r	–	0.40**	–	0.53**	0.46*	0.47**
	NMB (%)	–	119	–	40	−50	39

Notes: r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient; significant differences: *p < .05, **p < .01. NMB: normalized mean bias.

^aParenthetical values show standard deviations.

^bMean values of Mmod-simulated concentrations are calculated for periods in which the observation data at Kisai are available.

Figure 16. Time series of observed, M0-simulated and Mmod-simulated 4-hr concentrations of PM_2.5 SO₄²⁻, NO₃⁻, and NH₄⁺, and gaseous HNO₃ and NH₃ at Komae (left panels), Kisai (middle panels), and Maebashi (right panels) in summer 2011.

Willmott, C.J. 1981. On the validation of models. Phys. Geogr. 2:184–94.

 Google Scholar

Colella, P., and P.L. Woodward. 1984. The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gasdynamical simulations. J. Comput. Phys. 54:174–201. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Binkowski, F.S, S. Arunachalam, Z. Adelman, and J. Pinto. 2007. Examining photolysis rates with a prototype on-line photolysis module in CMAQ. J. Appl. Meteor. Clim. 46:1252–56. doi:10.1175/JAM2531.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar