Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers
description
Transcript of Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers
![Page 1: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model
David CarruthersWorkshop on Source Apportionment of
Particulate Matter
Imperial College LondonFriday, 23 April 2010
![Page 2: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Contents
• Modelling methodology• London • Marylebone Road• Resuspension• Other
![Page 3: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• Models all source groups within the urban area – typically hour by hour calculation
• Explicitly models major road sources, major industrial sources. Includes street canyon model
• Other sources modelled as grid sources (e.g.1km* 1km
• Regional pollution from rural monitoring sites or from larger area model (e.g. WRF/CMAQ or Pre’vair/Chimere)
Model ADMS-Urban Model Methodology
![Page 4: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Measured concentration (µg/m³)
Mod
elle
d co
ncen
trat
ion
(µg/
m³)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Measured concentration (µg/m³)
Mod
elle
d co
ncen
trat
ion
(µg/
m³)
Model verification at AURN Sites – PM10 & PM2.5
London (2001)
PM10
PM2.5
Annual Mean 90.4th percentile
Measured Modelled
Marylebone Road 32.0 32.8 Bloomsbury 17.1 19.2
![Page 5: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
(a) Total PM10 (b) Traffic (Major and minor roads)
(c) Rail (d) Shipping
(e) Domestic Gas (f) Commercial Gas
(g) Industrial (h) Other
PM10 (µg/m³)> 3529 - 3527 - 2925 - 2723 - 2510 - 235 - 101 - 50.5 - 10.1 - 0.50 - 0.1
Contributions of source groups to total PM10 concentrations 2010
![Page 6: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
PM10 (µg/m³)> 3529 - 3527 - 2925 - 2723 - 2510 - 235 - 101 - 50.5 - 10.1 - 0.50 - 0.1
(a) Major Roads (b) Other Roads
(c) Car (d) Taxi
(e) Bus and Coach (f) LGV
(g) Rigid HGV (h) Articulated HGV
Source apportionment
of PM10 from vehicle exhaust emissions 2010
![Page 7: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Source apportionment of PM10 traffic emissions. Mean
all London AURN sites
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Total
exha
ust
CarTa
xiLG
V
Rigid HGV
Articulat
ed H
GVBus
Resus
pens
ion etc
Ann
ual a
vera
ge P
M10
from
traf
fic
at A
URN
site
s (µ
g/m
³)
20102020
Car38%
Taxi11%
LGV31%
Rigid HGV10%
Articulated HGV4%
Bus6%
![Page 8: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0
25
50
75
100
125
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361
Day
PM10
con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
³)
Measured
Modelled
Measured ModelledAnnual average (µg/m³) 43.8 43.4No. exceedences of 50µg/m³ 114 9490.41st percentile of daily averages (equivalent to 35 exceedences) 64.1 57.0
Marylebone Road 2001 – Modelled time series and Number of exceedences of limit values
![Page 9: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Rural background47%Major Road
39%
Rural background
Urban 'coarse'
Roadside 'coarse'
Major Road
Minor road
Industrial
Domestic
Other
Source contributions to modelled annual average PM10 concentration
HGV21%
LGV28%
Taxi25%
Car17%
Bus5%
M'cycle4%
Motorcycle
Car
Taxi
LGV
Bus
HGV
Source contribution of vehicle types
Marylebone Road
![Page 10: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351
Day
24-h
our a
vera
ge P
M10
con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
³)
Other
Industrial
Domestic
Minor road
Major road
Rural background
Urban coarse
Roadside coarse
Modelled source contributions to modelled daily average PM10 concentrations, Marylebone Road 2001
![Page 11: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
24-h
our a
vera
ge P
M10
con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
³) Other
Industrial
Domestic
Minor road
Urban 'coarse'
Roadside 'coarse'
Major road
Rural background
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
24-h
our a
vera
ge P
M10
con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
³)
Other
Industrial
Domestic
Minor road
Urban 'coarse'
Roadside 'coarse'
Rural background
Major road
Source contributions to exceedences of the 50µg/m³ objective value, ordered by background contribution and major road contribution
![Page 12: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Total concentration (µg/m³)
Sour
ce c
ontr
ibut
ion
(µg/
m³)
Rural background
Major road
Major road and background contribution compared to total concentration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rural background (µg/m³)
Maj
or ro
ad c
ontri
butio
n (µ
g/m
³)
Comparison of major road and rural background concentrations
![Page 13: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Non-Exhaust Emissions of PM
• DEFRA Project –TRL, University of Birmingham, CERC
• Review of methodologies for tyre wear, brake wear and road wear
• Focus resuspension
![Page 14: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Non-exhaust study- Resuspension
• Estimated from measurements at Marylebone Road & Bloomsbury.
ETOTAL, NON-EX = ETYRE + E BRAKE + EROAD + ERESUSP
• ETYRE, EBRAKE & EROAD determined using several methods– Existing EMEP method– RAINS database– CEPMEIP database
• PM2.5 = exhaust (94%), PM2.5-10 = non-exhaust + exhaust (6%)
• ERESUSP dominated by HDV 116mg/km,(LDV 0.02mg/km)
x
NOPM NOPMEE
x
1010
![Page 15: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Non-exhaust study - dispersion modelling sites
• 4 TRAMAQ sites (Birmingham Selly Oak, Park Lane, Elephant and Castle, High Holborn)
– PM10 and PM2.5
– Kerbside and background– Chemical component data available
• 9 London DEFRA sites – 2 with PM10 and PM2.5
– 7 with PM10 only
![Page 16: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
PM10 PM2.5 PMcoarse
Emis
sion
s (to
nnes
/yea
r)
Other sourcesExhaustTyreBrakeRoad wearResuspension
Non-exhaust studyRoad Traffic Emission totals 2002 London
![Page 17: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Traffic source contribution to modelled concentrations (London 2002)
PM10
PM2.5
Exhaust55%
Tyre11%
Brake14%
Road wear10%
Resuspension10%
Exhaust76%
Tyre9%
Brake8%
Road wear7% Exhaust
14%
Tyre10%
Brake29%
Road wear15%
Resuspension32%
PMcoarse
![Page 18: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Measured
Mod
elle
d
Defra (resuspension 1A)Defra (resuspension 2A)TRAMAQ Roadside (resuspension 1A)TRAMAQ Roadside (resuspension 2A)TRAMAQ Background (resuspension 1A)TRAMAQ Background (resuspension 2A)Modelled = ObservedModelled within +/- 30% of observed
Non-Exhaust studyDispersion modelling - PM10
Annual average PM10 concentrations
![Page 19: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Annual average PM2.5 concentrations
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40
Measured
Mod
elle
d
DefraTRAMAQ RoadsideTRAMAQ BackgroundModelled = ObservedModelled within +/- 50% of observed
Non Exhaust StudyDispersion modelling - PM2.5
![Page 20: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50B
exle
y
Bre
nt A3
Hill
ingd
on
Har
inge
y R
oads
ide
N K
ensi
ngto
n
Cam
den
Mar
yleb
one
Rd
Blo
omsb
ury
EC
Roa
dsid
e
HH
Roa
dsid
e
PL
Roa
dsid
e
SO
Roa
dsid
e
EC
Bac
kgro
und
HH
Bac
kgro
und
PL
Bac
kgro
und
SO
Bac
kgro
und
Con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
³) Monitored
Modelled:BackgroundOther sourcesExhaustTyreBrakeRoad wearResuspension
Non-exhaust studyDispersion modelling - source apportionment
Annual average PM10
concentrations
![Page 21: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Non-exhaust study: Resuspension – Uncertainty
Dependence on wind speedVariation of hourly median resuspension at Marylebone Road with wind direction at Heathrow, 2001
y = -0.0816x2 + 3.2982x + 5.0374R2 = 0.8223
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Wind speed at Heathrow (knots)
Res
uspe
nsio
n (g
km
-1 h-1
)
![Page 22: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Non-exhaust study Resuspension Uncertainty - source properties
E xh a u s t (1 .5 m fo r h e a v y , 1 m
fo r lig h t)
B ra k e w e a r: (1 m fo r h e a v y , 0 .7 5 fo r lig h t)
T y re w e a r (0 .5 m )
R o a d w e a r (0 .5 m )
R e s u s p e n s io n (0 .5 m )
R e s u s p e n s io n (0 .5 m )
![Page 23: Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051421/568164a0550346895dd68ffa/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Singapore Harrison Chemical Speciation model based on
chemical sampling vs PM measurements
JI YS CS JI YS CS0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PM10-2.5
PM2.5
Minerals
NaCl
NaNO3
NH4NO3
(NH4)2SO4
CaSO4.2H2O
Elemental carbon
Organic carbon
µg/m
³