modelling soa in emep: experiments with the vbs approach robert bergström(1,2) and david...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Modelling SOA in EMEP: Experiments with the VBS Approach
Robert Bergström(1,2) and David Simpson(3,4)Robert.Bergstrom@smhi.se, David.Simpson@met.no
(1) Department of Chemistry, University of Gothenburg, Sweden(2) Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SE-601 76 Norrköping, Sweden (3) The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway (4) Dept of Radio and Space Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Outline
•Earlier EMEP SOA models
•Evaluation (using smog chamber data)
•EMEP VBS-model
•Preliminary results
History of EMEP-SOA – Kamens et al., 1999
Kamens et al., 1999 aerosol from -pinene +O3
Kamens et al., 1999
First EMEP-SOA – Andersson-Sköld & Simpson 2001
Based on Kamens et al., 1999Added NOx-chemistry, photolysis, dimer formation (from gas phase reaction of pinic and norpinic acid) Implementation in 3d-model (EMEP)
First EMEP-SOA “Kam-2” – Andersson-Sköld & Simpson 2001
Added ca 17 species and 30 reactions to the standard EMEP photochemistry scheme
Simpson et al., JGR 2007 (Kam2-X)
Kamens & Jaoui, 2001
Li et al., 2007 “Kamens 2007”
Updating the Kamens 2001 scheme, exploratory “oligomerization” reactions introduced
A new EMEP-SOA model needed(?) Testing:
Kamens 2001
Kamens 2007
Volatility Basis Set - based methods (Donahue et al., Lane et al.)
Example of Evaluation (dark ozonolysis, SOA yield)
Kamens2007
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
de
l SO
A p
rod
uc
tio
n (
ug
/m3
)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
de
l SO
A p
rod
uc
tio
n (
ug
/m3
)
K model by Svendby et al., 2008
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
de
l SO
A p
rod
uc
tio
n (
ug
/m3
)
VBS model by Pathak et al., 2007
Evaluation of gas/particle SOA mechanisms for -pinene for the EMEP modelRobert Bergström (1,2) and David Simpson (3,4)(1) Department of Chemistry, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, (2) Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SE-601 76 Norrköping, Sweden Robert.Bergstrom@smhi.se
(3) The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, (4) Dept of Radio and Space Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden David.Simpson@met.no
References – models
Andersson-Sköld, Y. & Simpson, D. (2001), Secondary organic aerosol formation in Northern Europe: A model study, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7357-7374.
Kamens, R.; Jang, M.; Chien, C. & Leach, K. (1999), Aerosol Formation from the Reaction of -Pinene and Ozone Using a Gas-Phase Kinetics-Aerosol Partitioning Model, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 1430-1438.
Kamens, R.M. & Jaoui, M. (2001), Modeling Aerosol Formation from -Pinene + NOx in the Presence of Natural Sunlight Using Gas-Phase Kinetics and Gas-Particle Partitioning Theory, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 1394-1405.
Li, Q.; Hu, D.; Leungsakul, S. & Kamens, R.M. (2007), Large outdoor chamber experiments and computer simulations: (I) Secondary organic aerosol formation from the oxidation of a mixture of d-limonene and -pinene, Atmos. Environ., 41, 9341-9352.
Pathak, R.K.; Presto, A.A.; Lane, T.E.; Stanier, C.O.; Donahue, N.M. & Pandis, S.N. (2007), Ozonolysis of -pinene: parameterization of secondary organic aerosol mass fraction, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 3811-3821.
Simpson, D.; Yttri, K. E.; Klimont, Z.; Kupiainen, K.; Caseiro, A.; Gelencsér, A.; Pio, C. & Legrand, M. (2007), Modeling carbonaceous aerosol over Europe: Analysis of the CARBOSOL and EMEP EC/OC campaigns, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D23S14.
Svendby, T.M.; Lazaridis, M. & Tørseth, K. (2008), Temperature dependent secondary organic aerosol formation from terpenes and aromatics, J. Atmos.
Chem., 59, 25-46.
measurementsCocker III, D.R.; Clegg, S.L.; Flagan, R.C. & Seinfeld, J.H. (2001), The effect of water on gas-particle partitioning of secondary organic aerosol. Part I: -pinene/ozone system , Atmos. Environ., 35, 6049-6072.
Griffin, R.J.; Cocker III, D.R.; Flagan, R.C. & Seinfeld, J.H. (1999), Organic aerosol formation from the oxidation of biogenic hydrocarbons, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3555-3567.
Hallquist, M.; Wängberg, I.; Ljungström, E.; Barnes, I. & Becker, K.-H. (1999), Aerosol and Product Yields from NO3 Radical-Initiated Oxidation of Selected Monoterpenes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 553-559.
Hoffmann, T.; Odum, J.R.; Bowman, F.; Collins, D.; Klockow, D.; Flagan, R.C. & Seinfeld, J.H. (1997), Formation of Organic Aerosols from the Oxidation of Biogenic Hydrocarbons, J. Atmos. Chem., 26, 189-222.
Jang, M. & Kamens, R.M. (1999), Newly characterized products and composition of secondary aerosols from the reaction of -pinene with ozone, Atmos. Environ., 33, 459-474.
Pathak, R.K.; Stanier, C.O. Donahue, N.M. & Pandis, S.N. (2007), Ozonolysis of -pinene at atmospherically relevant concentrations: Temperature dependence of aerosol mass fractions (yields), J. Geophys. Res., 112, D03201.
Presto, A.A.; & Donahue, N. M. (2006), Investigation of -pinene + Ozone Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation at Low Total Aerosol Mass, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 3536-3543.
Presto, A.A.; Huff Hartz, K.E. & Donahue, N. M. (2005), Secondary Organic Aerosol Production from Terpene Ozonolysis. 2. Effect of NOx Concentration, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 7046-7054.
Saathoff, H.; Naumann, K.-H.; Möhler, O.; Jonsson, Å.M.; Hallquist, M.; Kiendler-Scharr, A.; Mentel, Th.F.; Tillmann, R. & Schurath, U. (2009), Temperature dependence of yields of secondary organic aerosols from the ozonolysis of -pinene and limonene, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 1551-1577.
Shilling, J.E.; Chen, Q.; King, S.M.; Rosenoern, T.; Kroll, J.H.; Worsnop, D.R.; McKinney, K.A. & Martin, S.T. (2008), Particle mass yield in secondary organic aerosol formed by the dark ozonolysis of -pinene, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2073-2088.
Yu, J.; Cocker III, D.R.; Griffin, R.J.; Flagan, R.C. & Seinfeld, J.H. (1999), Gas-Phase Ozone Oxidation of Monoterpenes: Gaseous and Particulate Products, J. Atmos. Chem., 34, 207-258.
Acknowledgement This work was funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, as part of the Swedish Clean Air Research Programme (SCARP) and by EU, as part of the European Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions (EUCAARI).
SummaryThe EMEP MSC-W model for secondary organic aerosol (SOA) has so far made use of a semi-explicit gas/particle partitioning scheme for -pinene, in which -pinene chemistry is represented by 30 reactions between 17 species. The mechanism, described in Andersson-Sköld and Simpson (2001), was based upon a dark-chemistry scheme for -pinene presented by Kamens et al. (1999). The original EMEP SOA model was tested against 11 smog-chamber experiments in 2001, and found to reproduce observed SOA quite well across a wide-range of temperature and -pinene levels.
In recent years a number of new studies have become available which necessitate revisions and new testing of the EMEP SOA scheme. As shown in Simpson et al. (2007), assumptions concerning the vapour pressure of specific compounds can have pronounced effects on predicted SOA amounts. The Kamens group has also presented new ideas for the -pinene mechanism (e.g., Li et al., 2007).
The EMEP SOA scheme is being re-written in the light of these new developments, and here we present some preliminary results for revised SOA schemes compared to recent smog-chamber data and to some modern parameterised -pinene SOA models (Two-product, -K, model by Svendby et al., 2008 and Volatility Basis Set models by Pathak et al., 2007)
• High NOx experiments are poorly modelled (by the EMEP/Kamens schemes)
• Many of the Kamens-based schemes have a tendency to underestimate SOA at high temperatures and at low (measured) OA levels
• The box model version of the Kam2X scheme overestimates SOA substantially for most experiments
•The 2-product model of Svendby et al. (2008) and the VBS model by Pathak et al. (2007) are both giving SOA concentrations in better agreement with measurements in most cases
NO3 reaction
Sensitivity to NOx/VOC ratio
SOA from ozonolysis - Model / Measurement - K / VBS schemes
0.1
1
10
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8NOx/VOC_C ratio (ppb NOx / ppb C)
Mo
del
SO
A /
Mea
sure
d S
OA
Svendby08 Pathak07dry
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8NOx/VOC_C ratio (ppb NOx / ppb C)
Mo
del
SO
A /
Mea
sure
d S
OA
K01 K07 AS01e S07a S07b S07x
EMEP / Kamens type schemes
K & VBS models
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Low NOx Experiments with OH scavenger (2-butanol) - SOA Mass (measured)
Mo
del
SO
A /
Mea
sure
d S
OA
K01 K07 AS01e S07a S07b S07x
SOA from ozonolysis - Model / Measurement - K / VBS schemes
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Low NOx Experiments with OH scavenger (2-butanol) - SOA Mass (measured)
Mo
del
SO
A /
Mea
sure
d S
OA
Svendby08 Pathak07dry
Results – dark ozonolysis studies
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
K07 – Li et al., 2007 scheme
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
AS01e – Andersson-Sköld & Simpson, 2001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
S07a –box-v of Kam2 fr Simpson et al., 2007
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
S07x –box-v of Kam2X fr Simpson et al., 2007
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
Svendby08 – K model by Svendby et al., 2008
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured SOA production (ug/m3)
Mo
del
SO
A p
rod
uct
ion
(u
g/m
3)
Pathak07dry – VBS model by Pathak et al., 2007
SOA from ozonolysis - Model / Measurement - Kamens/EMEP schemes
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330Temperature (K)
Mo
del
SO
A /
Mea
sure
d S
OA
K01 K07 AS01e S07a S07b S07x
Sensitivity to Temperature
SOA from ozonolysis - Model / Measurement - K / VBS schemes
0.1
1
10
100
240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330Temperature (K)
Mo
de
l S
OA
/ M
ea
su
red
SO
A
Svendby08 Pathak07dry
Low-NOx studies
SOA from -pinene + NO3 reaction (experiment by Hallquist et al., 1999)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%
Experimental yield (mass fraction, assuming density in the interval 1.0-1.7 g cm -3)
Mo
del
SO
A y
ield
Svendby08K01K07AS01eS07aS07bS07x
The Volatility Basis Set (VBS) approach to (S)OA modelling
VBS: Gas – Particle partitioningDefine a partitioning coefficient i, for compound i
where
Ci* = effective saturation concentration
COA= mass concentration of OA
VBS: The basis set
Use a fixed set of effective saturation concentrations, i.e., only i values are free parameters when fitting experimental data, e.g.,
{Ci*} = {0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000} g m-3
{Ci*} = {1, 10, 100, 1000} g m-3
[From Neil Donahue]
Temperature dependence
Clausius-Clapeyron equation for saturation concentration
Reactive / Aging POA emissions
Shrivastava et al. (2008) use a VBS-approach for treating primary organic aerosol (POA) emissions
Assume a lot of the POA emissions are of intermediate volatility and that chemical processing of these gas phase components lead to a lowering of the volatility and increased partitioning into the particle phase
Total POA/IVOC emissions are assumed to be 2.5 times larger than the “traditional” estimates for “inert” POA but most of the direct emissions are in the gaseous phase
Aging POA emissions
Shrivastava et al., 2008
EMEP – VBSVBS-chemistry based on Lane et al., 2008
EMEP – VBS-SOA•Standard EMEP photochemistry model with added VBS treatment of SOA (and POA)
•EUCAARI/TNO emissions for EC/OC used (Denier van der Gon et al., 2009)
•Vegetation fire emissions from Global Fire Emission Database (GFEDv2), 8day time resolution (2001-2007) (van der Werf et al., 2006, Giglio
et al., 2003) http://ess1.ess.uci.edu/%7Ejranders/data/GFED2/
EMEP – VBS-SOAIncluding VBS-SOA schemes for
•Monoterpenes (BSOA)
•Isoprene (BSOA)
•Alkanes (ASOA)
•Alkenes (ASOA)
•Aromatics (ASOA)
EMEP – VBS - POADifferent assumptions regarding the POA emissions are tested:
•Traditional inert (nonvolatile) POA emissions
•Emissions distributed into nine volatility bins and using the same assumptions as Shrivastava et al. (2008) regarding “missing” IVOC emissions in the POA inventories
EMEP – VBS - agingDifferent assumptions regarding the aging reactions (by OH) are tested:
•No aging
•Only aging of the primary emissions
•Aging of both POA (k=4×10-11 cm3 molecule-1 s-1) and SOA (k=4×10-12 cm3 molecule-1 s-1)
– see Lane et al., Atmos. Environ. 42 (2008) p7439-7451 for a test of SOA aging reactions using the PMCAMx VBS model
EMEP – VBS preliminary resultsFour different model versions have been run for the years 2002-2003, 2006, 2007
•Validation just started
Inert POA emissions
Age POA
VBS-POA(no aging)
Age POA + SOA
OC – yearly average conc 2003 (g C / m3)
Inert POA emissions
VBSPOA-aging
Fresh POA
VBS-POA(no aging)
VBSPOA-aging
Oxidised POA
POA & OPOA (from FFUEL)–2007 (g C / m3)
Inert POA emissions
Age POA
VBS-POA(no aging)
Age POA + SOA
ASOA – yearly average conc 2003 (g C / m3)
Inert POA emissions
Age POA
VBS-POA(no aging)
Age POA + SOA
BSOA – yearly average conc 2003 (g C / m3)
(Age POA)Isoprene-BSOA
(Age POA+SOA)Isoprene-BSOA
(Age-POA)Terpene-BSOA
(Age POA + SOA)Terpene-BSOA
BSOA – yearly average conc 2003 (g C / m3)
Source-apportionment K-Puszta (Hungary), Summer 2002-2003 Obs.-
Derived(1)
EMEP-VBS Models
Sources (5–95th %ile)
Inert POA
VBS-POA(2)
Age POA(2)
Age POA(2)+SOA
OCff 0.15 – 0.49 0.33 0.17 0.48 0.49 OCbb 0.27 – 0.52 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 OCbio 0.13 – 0.46 - - - - ASOA 0.05 – 0.77 0.27 0.25 0.28 1.02 SOAnf 2.85 – 3.58 0.44 0.41 0.45 2.18 BGNDOC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (1) From Gelencsér et al., JGR 2007, vol 112 D23S04 CARBOSOL project (2) Primary emissions distributed as in Shrivastava et al., JGR 2008
Units: g C m-3
Source-apportionment Hurdal (Norway), Summer 2006 (SORGA) Obs.-
Derived(1)
EMEP-VBS Models
Sources (5–95th %ile)
Inert POA
VBS-POA(2)
Age POA(2)
Age POA(2)+SOA
OCff 0.10 – 0.15 0.14 0.065 0.19 0.20 ASOA 0.017 – 0.20 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.42 OCnf 0.99 – 1.14 1.07 1.05 1.08 2.57 PBAP 0.017 – 0.05 - - - - BGNDOC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (1) Yttri et al., EGU 2009 (2) Primary emissions distributed as in Shrivastava et al., JGR 2008
Units: g C m-3
Source-apportionment Gothenburg (Sweden), Summer (Göte-2006) Obs.-
Derived(1)
EMEP-VBS Models
Sources (5–95th %ile)
Inert POA
VBS-POA(2)
Age POA(2)
Age POA(2)+SOA
OCfossil 0.65 – 1.0 0.42 0.22 0.46 0.88 OCff 0.19 – 0.30 0.28 0.09 0.32 0.33 ASOA 0.38 – 0.78 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.56 OCnf 0.95 – 1.35 0.49 0.47 0.49 2.14 BGNDOC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (1) Szidat et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 1521-1535, 2009 (2) Primary emissions distributed as in Shrivastava et al., JGR 2008
Units: g C m-3
Preliminary results
On-going work…
Evaluation against EUCAARI measurements (AMS, etc) – to be presented at IAC Helsinki (August 2010)
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
•Swedish Clean Air Research Programme (SCARP)
•EMEP project
•EU EUCAARI project
•Norwegian SORGA project
Next generation VBS-2D?
2D-VBS: Keep track of O:C ratios as well as volatility
VBS-2d discussion
VBS: Gas – particle partitioning
VBS details US studies – emissions ageing etc
VBS-2d discussion
[Taken from Neil Donahue]
top related