4.5 Article

The impact of US wildland fires on ozone and particulate matter: a comparison of measurements and CMAQ model predictions from 2008 to 2012

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 684-698

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/WF18053

关键词

air pollution; air quality modelling; Community Multiscale Air Quality; National Emissions inventory; wildland fire emissions

类别

资金

  1. National Park Service
  2. US EPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wildland fire emissions are routinely estimated in the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Emissions Inventory, specifically for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and precursors to ozone (O-3); however, there is a large amount of uncertainty in this sector. We employ a brute-force zero-out sensitivity method to estimate the impact of wildland fire emissions on air quality across the contiguous US using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modelling system. These simulations are designed to assess the importance of wildland fire emissions on CMAQ model performance and are not intended for regulatory assessments. CMAQver. 5.0.1 estimated that fires contributed 11% to the mean PM2.5 and less than 1% to the mean O-3 concentrations during 2008-2012. Adding fires to CMAQ increases the number of 'grid-cell days' with PM2.5 above 35 mu g m(-3) by a factor of 4 and the number of grid-cell days with maximum daily 8-h average O-3 above 70 ppb by 14%. Although CMAQ simulations of specific fires have improved with the latest model version (e.g. for the 2008 California wildfire episode, the correlation r = 0.82 with CMAQ ver. 5.0.1 v. r = 0.68 for CMAQ ver. 4.7.1), the model still exhibits a low bias at higher observed concentrations and a high bias at lower observed concentrations. Given the large impact of wildland fire emissions on simulated concentrations of elevated PM2.5 and O-3, improvements are recommended on how these emissions are characterised and distributed vertically in the model.

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

4.5
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