4.2 Article

Sensitivity analysis of surface ozone to emission controls in Beijing and its neighboring area during the 2008 Olympic Games

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 50-61

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60728-6

关键词

chemical smoke; tropospheric ozone; emission control; CMAQ; process analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20937001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The regional air quality modeling system RAMS (Regional Atmospheric Modeling System)-CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality modeling system) is applied to analyze temporal and spatial variations in surface ozone concentration over Beijing and its surrounding region from July to October 2008. Comparison of simulated and observed meteorological elements and concentration of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ozone at one urban site and three rural sites during Olympic Games show that model can generally reproduce the main observed feature of wind, temperature and ozone, but NOx concentration is overestimated. Although ozone concentration decreased during Olympics, high ozone episodes occurred on 24 July and 24 August with concentration of 360 and 245 mu g/m(3) at Aoyuncun site, respectively. The analysis of sensitive test, with and without emission controls, shows that emission controls could reduce ozone concentration in the afternoon when ozone concentration was highest but increase it at night and in the morning. The evolution of the weather system during the ozone episodes (24 July and 24 August) indicates that hot and dry air and a stable weak pressure field intensified the production of ozone and allowed it to accumulate. Process analysis at the urban site and rural site shows that under favorable weather condition on 24 August, horizontal transport was the main contributor of the rural place and the pollution from the higher layer would be transported to the surface layer. On 24 July, as the wind velocity was smaller, the impact of transport on the rural place was not obvious.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据