05.01.2013 Views

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>PM2.5</strong> <strong>in</strong> the UK<br />

164<br />

A2.6: Photochemical Trajectory Model (PTM)<br />

43. The PTM mov<strong>in</strong>g air parcel trajectory model has been used to estimate the<br />

mid-afternoon mass concentrations of a number of suspended <strong>particulate</strong><br />

<strong>matter</strong> (PM) components for each day of 2006 at a rural location <strong>in</strong> Harwell,<br />

Oxfordshire, southern UK. A large number of equally probable and randomlyselected<br />

96-hour three-dimensional air mass trajectories were used to describe<br />

the variability of the atmospheric transport paths dur<strong>in</strong>g each day. A chemical<br />

k<strong>in</strong>etic description was given for the major PM formation processes. Further<br />

details are given <strong>in</strong> Derwent et al. (2009b).<br />

<strong>PM2.5</strong> Component, µg/m 3<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

January<br />

DEVELOPMENT OF A MASS CLOSURE SCHEME FOR THE PTM<br />

February<br />

March<br />

April<br />

May<br />

Biomass fires <strong>in</strong> Russian<br />

Federation<br />

June<br />

July<br />

August<br />

September<br />

October<br />

Number<br />

December<br />

Harwell, Oxfordshire 2006<br />

PM OC<br />

PM EC<br />

PM NH4<br />

PM NO3<br />

PM SO4<br />

Partisol <strong>PM2.5</strong><br />

Figure A2.6.1: Mass closure for <strong>PM2.5</strong> as predicted by PTM for Harwell,<br />

Oxfordshire, 2006.<br />

44. The PTM output comprised the histories of the chemical development of the 51<br />

model species along the 30 randomly-selected 96-hour trajectories arriv<strong>in</strong>g at<br />

Harwell, Oxfordshire, at 15:00 (GMT) on each day of 2006. Exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the<br />

30 sets of results for each day and each model species revealed the presence<br />

of a significant amount of scatter about the average result for the arrival po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />

There was evidence that this scatter <strong>in</strong>creased dramatically on more polluted<br />

days compared with cleaner days. There was apparently much more variability<br />

<strong>in</strong> the model description of air mass orig<strong>in</strong>s on polluted days compared with<br />

clean days. This reflected the <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g stagnation and decreas<strong>in</strong>g w<strong>in</strong>d speeds<br />

associated with pollution episodes. The arithmetic mean of the 30 sets of results<br />

was taken as the best estimate of the model result for that day and these<br />

estimates have also been evaluated aga<strong>in</strong>st observations for 15:00 (GMT) (see<br />

Figure A2.6.1).<br />

45. Model performance requirements have focused on achiev<strong>in</strong>g mean fractional<br />

biases <strong>in</strong> the range ±0.2 and 50% of the model results with<strong>in</strong> a factor of two<br />

of the observations. On this basis, model performance aga<strong>in</strong>st observations was<br />

found to be satisfactory for NOx, NH3, HNO3, PM ammonium, PM sulphate, PM<br />

nitrate and <strong>PM2.5</strong>. The lack of adequate observations precluded a satisfactory<br />

evaluation of model performance for EC and OM.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!