4.2 Article

NAQFC Developmental Forecast Guidance for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

期刊

WEATHER AND FORECASTING
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 343-360

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/WAF-D-15-0163.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA's National Air Quality Forecast Capability
  2. U.S. Weather and Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) upgraded its modeling system that provides developmental numerical predictions of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 mm in diameter (PM2.5) in January 2015. The issuance of PM2.5 forecast guidance has become more punctual and reliable because developmental PM2.5 predictions are provided from the same system that produces operational ozone predictions on the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) supercomputers. There were three major upgrades in January 2015: 1) incorporation of real-time intermittent sources for particles emitted from wildfires and windblown dust originating within the NAQFC domain, 2) suppression of fugitive dust emissions from snow-and/or ice-covered terrain, and 3) a shorter life cycle for organic nitrate in the gaseousphase chemical mechanism. In May 2015 a further upgrade for emission sources was included using the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI). Emissions for ocean-going ships and on-road mobile sources will continue to rely on NEI 2005. Incremental tests and evaluations of these upgrades were performed over multiple seasons. They were verified against the EPA's AIRNow surface monitoring network for air pollutants. Impacts of the three upgrades on the prediction of surface PM2.5 concentrations show large regional variability: the inclusion of windblown dust emissions in May 2014 improved PM2.5 predictions over the western states and the suppression of fugitive dust in January 2015 reduced PM2.5 bias by 52%, from 6.5 to 3.1 mu gm(-3) against a monthly average of 9.4 mu gm(-3) for the north-central United States.

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