Compilation and interpretation of photochemical model performance statistics published between 2006 and 2012

Abstract Regulatory and scientific applications of photochemical models are typically evaluated by comparing model estimates to measured values. It is important to compare quantitative model performance metrics to a benchmark or other studies to provide confidence in the modeling results. Since strict model performance guidelines may not be appropriate for many applications, model evaluations presented in recent literature have been compiled to provide a general assessment of model performance over a broad range of modeling systems, modeling periods, intended use, and spatial scales. Operational model performance is compiled for ozone, total PM2.5, speciated PM2.5, and wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and mercury. The common features of the model performance compiled from literature are photochemical models that have been applied over the United States or Canada and use modeling platforms intended to generally support research, regulatory or forecasting applications. A total of 69 peer-reviewed articles which include operational model evaluations and were published between 2006 and March 2012 are compiled to summarize typical model performance. The range of reported performance is presented in graphical and tabular form to provide context for operational performance evaluation of future photochemical model applications. In addition, recommendations are provided regarding which performance metrics are most useful for comparing model applications and the best approaches to match model estimates and observations in time and space for the purposes of metric aggregations.

[1]  Kirk Baker,et al.  Assessing Meteorological Variable and Process Relationships to Modeled PM2.5 Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Sulfate in the Central United States , 2008 .

[2]  Tracey Holloway,et al.  Seasonality of speciated aerosol transport over the Great Lakes region , 2009 .

[3]  Srinath Krishnan,et al.  Modeling atmospheric transport and fate of ammonia in North Carolina—Part I: Evaluation of meteorological and chemical predictions , 2008 .

[4]  Stefan Emeis,et al.  Application of a multiscale, coupled MM5/chemistry model to the complex terrain of the VOTALP valley campaign , 2000 .

[5]  Ling Jin Seasonal versus Episodic Performance Evaluation for an Eulerian PhotochemicalAir Quality Model , 2010 .

[6]  K. Baker,et al.  Photochemical modeling of the Ozark isoprene volcano: MEGAN, BEIS, and their impacts on air quality predictions. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Christian Seigneur,et al.  A comprehensive performance evaluation of MM5-CMAQ for the Summer 1999 Southern Oxidants Study episode—Part II: Gas and aerosol predictions , 2006 .

[8]  Jeffrey Young,et al.  Incremental testing of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7 , 2009 .

[9]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Determination of the organic aerosol mass to organic carbon ratio in IMPROVE samples. , 2005, Chemosphere.

[10]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Plume-in-grid modeling for particulate matter , 2006 .

[11]  C. Rosenzweig,et al.  An analysis of long-term regional-scale ozone simulations over the Northeastern United States: variability and trends , 2010 .

[12]  Marco A. Rodríguez,et al.  Regional Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Ozone Formation in the Western United States , 2009, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[13]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH Carbon Measurements , 2001 .

[14]  D. Bigelow Comparability of wet-only precipitation chemistry measurements from the United States' national atmospheric deposition program (NADP) to those of the Canadian network for sampling acid precipitation (CANSAP) , 1991 .

[15]  Seungbum Kim,et al.  Evaluation of air quality models for the simulation of a high ozone episode in the Houston metropolitan area , 2007 .

[16]  John H Seinfeld,et al.  Apportionment of primary and secondary organic aerosols in southern California during the 2005 study of organic aerosols in riverside (SOAR-1). , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Weimin Jiang,et al.  Evaluation of CMAQ O3 and PM2.5 performance using Pacific 2001 measurement data , 2006 .

[18]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  A detailed evaluation of the Eta-CMAQ forecast model performance for O3, its related precursors, and meteorological parameters during the 2004 ICARTT study , 2007 .

[19]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  Daily Simulation of Ozone and Fine Particulates over New York State: Findings and Challenges , 2007 .

[20]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Plume‐in‐grid modeling of atmospheric mercury , 2008 .

[21]  K. Wyat Appel,et al.  Evaluation of the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5: Sensitivities impacting model performance; Part II—particulate matter , 2008 .

[22]  James F. Gleason,et al.  NO2 columns in the western United States observed from space and simulated by a regional chemistry model and their implications for NOx emissions , 2009 .

[23]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Responses of future air quality to emission controls over North Carolina, Part I: Model evaluation for current-year simulations , 2010 .

[24]  Barbara J. Turpin,et al.  Species Contributions to PM2.5 Mass Concentrations: Revisiting Common Assumptions for Estimating Organic Mass , 2001 .

[25]  Wei Liu,et al.  Evaluation of model simulated atmospheric constituents with observations in the factor projected space: CMAQ simulations of SEARCH measurements , 2009 .

[26]  C. Seigneur,et al.  Development and Application of a Multipollutant Model for Atmospheric Mercury Deposition , 2007 .

[27]  Marco A. Rodríguez,et al.  Modeling the fate of atmospheric reduced nitrogen during the Rocky Mountain Atmospheric Nitrogen and Sulfur Study (RoMANS): Performance evaluation and diagnosis using integrated processes rate analysis , 2011 .

[28]  K. Wyat Appel,et al.  Evaluation of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 4.5 : Sensitivities impacting model performance Part I-Ozone , 2007 .

[29]  D. Byun,et al.  Improved CMAQ predictions of particulate matter utilizing the satellite-derived aerosol optical depth , 2011 .

[30]  N. Frank,et al.  Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Sulfates, and Carbonaceous Mass in Federal Reference Method Fine Particulate Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[31]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Examining the sensitivity of MM5–CMAQ predictions to explicit microphysics schemes and horizontal grid resolutions, Part II—PM concentrations and wet deposition predictions , 2008 .

[32]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  A performance evaluation of the National Air Quality Forecast Capability for the summer of 2007 , 2009 .

[33]  T. Tesche Accuracy of Ozone Air Quality Models , 1988 .

[34]  Jerome D. Fast,et al.  WRF/Chem‐MADRID: Incorporation of an aerosol module into WRF/Chem and its initial application to the TexAQS2000 episode , 2010 .

[35]  Robin L. Dennis,et al.  A multi-resolution assessment of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 wet deposition estimates for 2002–2006 , 2010 .

[36]  S. H. Park,et al.  Relative impact of windblown dust versus anthropogenic fugitive dust in PM2.5 on air quality in North America , 2010 .

[37]  Daniel Tong,et al.  Spatial variability of summertime tropospheric ozone over the continental United States: Implications of an evaluation of the CMAQ model , 2006 .

[38]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  Dynamic evaluation of regional air quality model’s response to emission reductions in the presence of uncertain emission inventories , 2011 .

[39]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  A comparison of CMAQ‐based aerosol properties with IMPROVE, MODIS, and AERONET data , 2007 .

[40]  C. Seigneur,et al.  Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in the Vicinity of Power Plants , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[41]  M. Kleeman,et al.  Modeling air quality during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model -Part I. Base case model results , 2008 .

[42]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  Real-time bias-adjusted O3 and PM2.5 air quality index forecasts and their performance evaluations over the continental United States , 2010 .

[43]  J. Pudykiewicz,et al.  The application of Eulerian models for air quality prediction and the evaluation of emission control strategies in Canada , 2001 .

[44]  J. D. de Gouw,et al.  Organic aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[45]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Examining the sensitivity of MM5-CMAQ predictions to explicit microphysics schemes and horizontal grid resolutions, Part III—The impact of horizontal grid resolution , 2008 .

[46]  R. Mathur,et al.  Evaluation of real‐time PM2.5 forecasts and process analysis for PM2.5 formation over the eastern United States using the Eta‐CMAQ forecast model during the 2004 ICARTT study , 2008 .

[47]  M. Newchurch,et al.  Comparison of Canadian Air Quality Forecast Models With Tropospheric Ozone Profile Measurements Above Midlatitude North America During the IONS/ICARTT Campaign: Evidence for Stratospheric Input , 2007 .

[48]  C. Jang,et al.  Source attribution for mercury deposition in the contiguous United States: Regional difference and seasonal variation , 2012, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[49]  Paul A. Makar,et al.  Evaluation of a unified regional air-quality modeling system (AURAMS) using PrAIRie2005 field study data: The effects of emissions data accuracy on particle sulphate predictions , 2009 .

[50]  Robert C. Gilliam,et al.  Sensitivity of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model v4.7 results for the eastern United States to MM5 and WRF meteorological drivers , 2009 .

[51]  Jianping Huang,et al.  Role of isoprene in secondary organic aerosol formation on a regional scale , 2007 .

[52]  Performance evaluation of NOAA-EPA developmental aerosol forecasts , 2009 .

[53]  David D. Nelson,et al.  Evaluation of nitrogen dioxide chemiluminescence monitors in a polluted urban environment , 2007 .

[54]  Joshua S. Fu,et al.  Improving ozone modeling in complex terrain at a fine grid resolution – Part II: Influence of schemes in MM5 on daily maximum 8-h ozone concentrations and RRFs (Relative Reduction Factors) for SIPs in the non-attainment areas , 2010 .

[55]  Kaarle Kupiainen,et al.  Modeling carbonaceous aerosol over Europe: Analysis of the CARBOSOL and EMEP EC/OC campaigns , 2007 .

[56]  Susan M. O’Neill,et al.  Enhancement and evaluation of the AIRPACT ozone and PM2.5forecast system for the Pacific Northwest , 2008 .

[57]  Catherine F. Cahill,et al.  Influence of ship emissions on air quality and input of contaminants in southern Alaska National Parks and Wilderness Areas during the 2006 tourist season , 2010 .

[58]  M. Molina,et al.  Secondary organic aerosol formation from anthropogenic air pollution: Rapid and higher than expected , 2006 .

[59]  P. S. Porter,et al.  An objective comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD performances , 2006 .

[60]  Che-Jen Lin,et al.  Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models II: Sensitivity analysis in the CONUS domain , 2007 .

[61]  Paul A. Makar,et al.  A comparative performance evaluation of the AURAMS and CMAQ air-quality modelling systems , 2009 .

[62]  K. Baker,et al.  Regional scale photochemical model evaluation of total mercury wet deposition and speciated ambient mercury , 2012 .

[63]  J. Milford,et al.  Secondary organic aerosol from sesquiterpene and monoterpene emissions in the United States. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[64]  Yang Zhang,et al.  An examination of sensitivity of WRF/Chem predictions to physical parameterizations, horizontal grid spacing, and nesting options , 2010 .

[65]  G. Sistla,et al.  An analysis of simulated wet deposition of mercury from the North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study , 2009 .

[66]  Gail S. Tonnesen,et al.  CMAQ/CAMx annual 2002 performance evaluation over the eastern US , 2006 .

[67]  Paul A. Makar,et al.  Cloud processing of gases and aerosols in a regional air quality model (AURAMS) , 2006 .

[68]  Mark Z. Jacobson,et al.  Probing into regional ozone and particulate matter pollution in the United States: 1. A 1 year CMAQ simulation and evaluation using surface and satellite data , 2009 .

[69]  Heather Simon,et al.  Challenges to modeling "cold pool" meteorology associated with high pollution episodes. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[70]  D. Tarasick,et al.  Dynamic adjustment of climatological ozone boundary conditions for air-quality forecasts , 2010 .

[71]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Modeling regional haze in the BRAVO study using CMAQ‐MADRID: 1. Model evaluation , 2006 .

[72]  Bonyoung Koo,et al.  Development and application of a three-dimensional aerosol chemical transport model, PMCAMx , 2007 .

[73]  Jenise L. Swall,et al.  Determining the spatial and seasonal variability in OM/OC ratios across the US using multiple regression , 2010 .

[74]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Modeling regional haze during the BRAVO study using CMAQ-MADRID: 2. Source region attribution of particulate sulfate compounds , 2006 .

[75]  C. Hogrefe,et al.  Rethinking the Assessment of Photochemical Modeling Systems in Air Quality Planning Applications , 2008, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[76]  Paul A. Makar,et al.  Impact of model grid spacing on regional- and urban- scale air quality predictions of organic aerosol , 2010 .

[77]  A. Goldstein,et al.  Known and Unexplored Organic Constituents in the Earth's Atmosphere , 2007 .

[78]  Gary A. Morris,et al.  Influence of vertical mixing uncertainties on ozone simulation in CMAQ , 2011 .

[79]  Golam Sarwar,et al.  Model representation of secondary organic aerosol in CMAQv4.7. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[80]  S. Vermette,et al.  Field tests for a regional mercury deposition network—sampling design and preliminary test results , 1995 .

[81]  Shaocai Yu,et al.  A performance evaluation of the 2004 release of Models-3 CMAQ , 2006 .

[82]  D. Klemp,et al.  Evaluation of Modeled Spatially and Temporarily Highly Resolved Emission Inventories of Photosmog Precursors for the City of Augsburg: The Experiment EVA and Its Major Results , 2002 .

[83]  Rohit Mathur,et al.  An operational evaluation of the Eta-CMAQ air quality forecast model , 2005 .

[84]  Robin L. Dennis,et al.  Testing CMAQ chemistry sensitivities in base case and emissions control runs at SEARCH and SOS99 surface sites in the southeastern US , 2006 .

[85]  R. Mathur,et al.  Performance and Diagnostic Evaluation of Ozone Predictions by the Eta-Community Multiscale Air Quality Forecast System during the 2002 New England Air Quality Study , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[86]  A. Russell,et al.  PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models , 2006 .

[87]  Tanya L. Otte,et al.  The Impact of Nudging in the Meteorological Model for Retrospective Air Quality Simulations. Part I: Evaluation against National Observation Networks , 2008 .

[88]  Paul A. Makar,et al.  Modelling gaseous dry deposition in AURAMS: a unified regional air-quality modelling system , 2002 .

[89]  Greg Yarwood,et al.  Model sensitivity evaluation for organic carbon using two multi-pollutant air quality models that simulate regional haze in the southeastern United States , 2006 .

[90]  Jenny L. Hand,et al.  An examination of the physical and optical properties of aerosols collected in the IMPROVE program , 2007 .

[91]  Georg A. Grell,et al.  Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the WRF model , 2005 .

[92]  M. Kleeman,et al.  A 3D Eulerian source-oriented model for an externally mixed aerosol. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[93]  Kirk Baker,et al.  Photochemical model performance for PM2.5 sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and precursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at background monitor locations in the central and eastern United States , 2007 .