4.7 Article

Numerical modeling of a continuous photochemical pollution episode in Hong Kong using WRF-chem

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 42, 期 38, 页码 8717-8727

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.034

关键词

WRF-chem; Ozone; Typhoon Nari; Photochemical pollution

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program [2006AA06A307, 2007BAC03A01]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology
  3. Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A continuous and heavy photochemical pollution episode when Typhoon Nari occurred during Sep. 14-19, 2001 in Hong Kong Was Studied by use of the new generation of regional air quality model WRF-chem V2.1, in which the meteorological model (WRF) and chemical model (chem) are fully coupled on line. In this episode, the regional air quality monitoring stations in Hong Kong recorded high concentrations Of O-3, CO and NOx for six days, the maximum concentration Of O-3 reached 191 ppb, and the atmospheric visibility dropped to 1.8 km. Investigations showed that WRF-chem can basically simulate this continuous photochemical pollution episode, with the best correlation coefficient of the simulated and the observed 03 concentrations being 0.84. The production and loss Of 03 were significant in this episode, and the largest rates were 22.7 and -17.6ppb h(-1), respectively. The simulated meteorological conditions showed high temperature, lower relative humidity, strong solar radiation, northerly airstream, and stable boundary layer structure in Hong Kong during the episode, these weather factors were conducive to formation and maintenance of photochemical pollution. It was also clear that the vertical transport played an important role in this episode. As controlled by downdraft at the Outside of Typhoon system with more stable atmosphere, air pollutants were limited and accumulated in the low level of boundary layer, leading to high 03 concentration from photochemical formation. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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