Why Representative precursor measurements in NCore Level 2 Sites

1
Why?Representative precursor measurements in
NCore Level 2 Sites
2
Design Drivers

• Air program management framework trends
• Future Technical Assessment Trends
• Multiple objectives/data uses and applications
• Spatial/geographic attributes
• Clients and partnerships

3
Changes In Air Management Program framework

• Historical and current
• Implementing 1990 CAAA requirements
• Single pollutant program focus
• Air only, little consideration for secondary or
  ecosystem welfare impacts (other than
  visibility).
• Major emphasis on using data for compliance
  (NAAQS comparisons) and front loading strategy
  assessment efforts (e.g., relying on building of
  an emission reduction strategy through modeling
  with little effort on checking progress

4
Changes In Air Management Program framework, cont.

• Drivers for future AQ management practices
• National Academy of Sciences 2004 report Air
  Quality Management in the United States
• Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC)
  technical workgroup recommendations
• Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
  subcommittee on ambient monitoring
• Build a multiple pollutant air management
  framework, along with
• Muti-media Include ecosystems and rural impacts
• Emphasis on program accountability
• Implies detecting meaningful signals associated
  with program implementation

5
Technical Assessment Trends

• Linking Air Quality models and observations as a
  basis for assessment and benefits analysis
• EPA-CDC EPHT/PHASE program
• Merging remote sensing and land based data to
  fill in spatial (horizontal and vertical) and
  temporal gaps
• Merging all observations systems with air quality
  models to fill in space, time and composition gaps

6
Combining Air Quality Data
July 21, 2001 Ozone LevelsKriging vs Combined
Data (CMAQ and Observations)
Combined Data Surface
Cat
Kriged Surface
Cat
7
Partnerships in Characterizing Air Quality
8
Future Air Quality Predictions Will Likely
Benefit from Assimilation of Satellite
Observations to provide Modeling Constraints and
Merging of Global and Regional Chemical Transport
Models
Public Impact
CMAQ Regional Prediction
Global Assimilation
Scientific Understanding
Satellite Data Products
Current research is being conducted with a
nested global- to regional-scale meteorological
and chemical modeling system for assimilating and
predicting the chemical state of the atmosphere
(air quality).
9
Linking Satellite optical depth, LIDAR scattering
and land based PM mass observations Sulfate
transport to Maryland24 August 2004
10
Satellites Track Long Range TransportAsian Dust
Storm Event April 2001

(4/7)
(4/9)
(4/11)
(4/12)
(4/13)
(4/14)
NASA TOMS
11
Quantifying Impacts
Szykman et al., 2002, U.S. EPA 2004
12
Existing NASA Satellite Tropospheric Column Data
Provides a Multi-Pollutant Synoptic Scale View
Present state Varying scales (greater spatial
resolution in near future) Once daily (temporal
resolution) Total column (vertical
resolution) Tropospheric column is calculated
using multiple types of measurements.
13
NAS, CAAAC CASAC, OMB
GEOSS
NOAA
PM research
EPA
NASA
Eco-informatic Test beds
PHASE
CDC
Organizations
Private Sector
NPS
AQ forecasting
Programs
Risk/exposure assessments
States/Tribes/RPOs Interstate orgs.
USDA
Accountability/ indicators
NAAQS setting
DOE
NARSTO
Coordination Cluster Mess
Enviros
SIPs, nat. rules designations
Academia
NADP
Satellite data
Intensive studies
IMPROVE, NCore PM monit, PAMS
PM centers
Supersites
Data sources
CASTNET
Health/mort. records
Other networks SEARCH, IADN..
Lidar systems
Emissions Meteorology
CMAQ GEOS-CHEM
14
Brief Background Strategy objectives

• Overall Create a more responsive and value added
  network
• Specific Transition to a true multiple pollutant
  measurement (aerosols, gases, precursors and end
  products, criteria and non criteria) framework
  emphasizing rapid, near continuous data
  delivery.that supports (equally)
• AIRNow (and general delivery of data to public)
• Review/Development of NAAQS/related health
  studies
• Accountability for IAQR and other major programs
  (and AQ trends)
• Strategy development (SIPs, IAQR, etc.), e.g.,
  model evaluation
• Compliance (e.g., NAAQS comparisons for
  attainment/nonattainment)
• Science support.(methods, atm. processes, health
  research)
• Ecosystem assessment (new)
• From, a historically layered single pollutant
  design emphasizing (and strongly perceived) as
  only serving a compliance objective.

15
NCore Measurements
Level 1. 3-10 Master Sites Comprehensive
Measurements, Advance Methods Serving Science and
Technology Transfer Needs
Level 2 75 Multi-pollutant (MP) Sites,Core
Species Plus Leveraging from PAMS, Speciation
Program, Air Toxics
L1
Level 3 Single Pollutant Sites (e.g.gt 500 sites
each for O3 and PM2.5 Mapping Support
Minimum Core Level 2 Measurements PM2.5 FRM,
HNO3, NH3, Continuous N,SO2,CO, PM2.5, PM10, O3
Meteorology (T,RH,WS,WD)
16
Geographic/Spatial considerations

• Emphasis on representative, not local scale
  locations
• Better to detect signal change (less influenced
  by major nearby sources)..
• program accountability
• Linkage with remote sensing systems
• Appropriate for model evaluation and integration
• Reflects recent basis for health studies design
  used in setting national standards
• Logical role for national program
• Applies to urban and rural/regional locations
• Diversity in air quality and population regimes
• Adds statistical power to health effects studies
  attempting to tease out confouding pollutants
• Representative regional locations
• Intra- and inter-regional transport
• Intra- and intercontinental transport
• Important background/gap information
• Support ecosystem assessments

17
Why co-located multiple-pollutants

• Air program management
• Monitoring leads development of a multiple
  pollutant framework by developing necessary
  infrastructure
• Health effects studies
• CO, SO2, O3, PM, N may/may not have interacting
  effects thus need to delineate individual and
  combined effects through multiple air quality
  regimes
• Air quality model evaluation and SA modeling
• Multiple, co-located species restricts degrees of
  freedom in model evaluation-more
• SA techniques are based on original source
  emissions which are multiple pollutant in nature
• Program assessment/accountability
• Groupings of species indicative of emission
  reduction patterns
• E.g., CO/NOy (and/or SO2)for stationary vs.mobile
  combustion sources

18
Why specific pollutants at representative
levelsthe planet (its atmosphere, organisms
and surfaces) is made of carbon, nitrogen,sulfur
and hydrogen

• NOy
• Best indicator for NOx reduction strategies
  (Includes transformation products)
• Valuable for ecosystem assessments as it allows
  (with particle nitrate and precip-N) mass balance
  accounting
• Key for model evaluation and critical parameter
  for observation based models
• Supports NO2 estimates for health effects studies
  (With NO and HNO3)
• CO
• Key for model evaluation
• Surrogate for many combustion related HAPs
  (Provides diurnal patterns)
• Included in health effects studies
• General indicator for program assessment,
  emission changes
• SO2
• Key for model evaluation, especially SO2 to
  sulfate formation characterization
• Included in health effects studies
• Indicator for program accountability with othe
  species (CO, NOy)
• HNO3
• Key model evaluation parameter
• Indicator for observational based models
• NH3

?
19
(No Transcript)