Ozone pollution over the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in October 2004 has been simulated using the regional air quality models Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx. The results from both models were evaluated and compared with the obser...Ozone pollution over the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in October 2004 has been simulated using the regional air quality models Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx. The results from both models were evaluated and compared with the observed concentrations from 12 monitoring stations. By integrated process rate analysis, the influences of different physical and chemical processes were quantified, and the causes of the deviations between the two models were investigated. Both CMAQ and CAMx repro- duced the magnitudes and variations of ozone at most stations over the PRD. The correlation coefficients (R) between the sim- ulated results and monitoring data were 0.73 for CMAQ and 0.74 for CAMx. The normalized mean bias (NMB) for CMAQ and CAMx over the 12 sites was ?8.5% and 8.8% on average, respectively. The normalized mean error (NME) for CMAQ and CAMx was 36.7% and 37.9%, respectively. The correlation between the results of two models was very high (R = 0.92), and their simulated ozone spatial distributions exhibited common features. But the values obtained using CMAQ simulation were about 17% lower than those obtained using CAMx on average. The results of simulations using the two models were not identical in certain regions, or for different types of monitoring stations. The differences in dry deposition, reaction parameters and vertical transport near the Pearl River Estuary can account for the discrepancies in the results obtained using the two models. In the upwind areas, the discrepancy in the boundary concentration of the finest nest was the main cause of the higher values obtained using CAMx compared with those obtained using CMAQ. There is a need for CAMx to provide more choices of dry deposition algo- rithms. Improvement of the calculation methods for photolysis rates would also improve the ozone simulation of CMAQ.展开更多
文摘为揭示成都市区臭氧污染气象条件特征,通过欧盟COST733天气客观分型软件对成都市区2016—2019年夏半年(5—9月)海平面气压场和500 hPa位势高度场进行大气环流形势分型,并结合同期臭氧监测数据、地面气象观测数据以及总云量实况分析产品,分析成都市区夏半年臭氧超标天气及气象要素特征.结果表明:成都市区2016—2019年夏半年共出现臭氧超标日数为159 d,超标率为26.0%,超标日主要集中于5—8月,小时超标多出现于14:00—17:00.臭氧污染日数最多的海平面气压场为弱低压型,其后依次为低压前部型、低压型、高压后部型.臭氧超标率最高的海平面气压场为低压前部型,其后依次为弱低压型、低压型、高压后部型.500 hPa位势高度场平直西风气流型臭氧超标日数最多,青藏高压型臭氧超标日数最少.青藏高压型是臭氧超标率最高的500 hPa位势高度场型,平直西风气流型臭氧超标率最低.成都市区臭氧超标日多出现在偏西北风下,近地面气象要素特征一般表现为风速1.2~1.6 m s,气温在25℃以上,相对湿度多集中在70%左右,总云量和降水概率多低于60%,降水量级以小雨为主,太阳辐射和日照时数分别位于20.5~23.2 MJ m 2和6.0~7.8 h区间.小时臭氧超标近地面气象要素特征为气温和总辐射曝辐量相对较高,二者分别在30~36℃和0~3.5 MJ m 2之间,相对湿度在60%以下,总云量低于40%,以偏南风影响为主.研究显示,成都市区海平面气压场为低压型,500 hPa位势高度场为青藏高压型时,易发生臭氧污染.
基金supported by theNational High Technology Research and Development Program of China (2006AA06A306 & 2006AA06A308)a special fund of the State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Controlthe European Commission Framework Program 7 Project CityZen (212095)
文摘Ozone pollution over the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in October 2004 has been simulated using the regional air quality models Models-3/CMAQ and CAMx. The results from both models were evaluated and compared with the observed concentrations from 12 monitoring stations. By integrated process rate analysis, the influences of different physical and chemical processes were quantified, and the causes of the deviations between the two models were investigated. Both CMAQ and CAMx repro- duced the magnitudes and variations of ozone at most stations over the PRD. The correlation coefficients (R) between the sim- ulated results and monitoring data were 0.73 for CMAQ and 0.74 for CAMx. The normalized mean bias (NMB) for CMAQ and CAMx over the 12 sites was ?8.5% and 8.8% on average, respectively. The normalized mean error (NME) for CMAQ and CAMx was 36.7% and 37.9%, respectively. The correlation between the results of two models was very high (R = 0.92), and their simulated ozone spatial distributions exhibited common features. But the values obtained using CMAQ simulation were about 17% lower than those obtained using CAMx on average. The results of simulations using the two models were not identical in certain regions, or for different types of monitoring stations. The differences in dry deposition, reaction parameters and vertical transport near the Pearl River Estuary can account for the discrepancies in the results obtained using the two models. In the upwind areas, the discrepancy in the boundary concentration of the finest nest was the main cause of the higher values obtained using CAMx compared with those obtained using CMAQ. There is a need for CAMx to provide more choices of dry deposition algo- rithms. Improvement of the calculation methods for photolysis rates would also improve the ozone simulation of CMAQ.
