Performance criteria to evaluate air quality modeling applications

A set of statistical indicators fit for air quality model evaluation is selected based on experience and literature: The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), the bias, the Standard Deviation (SD) and the correlation coefficient (R). Among these the RMSE is proposed as the key one for the description of the model skill. Model Performance Criteria (MPC) to investigate whether model results are ‘good enough’ for a given application are calculated based on the observation uncertainty (U). The basic concept is to allow for model results a similar margin of tolerance (in terms of uncertainty) as for observations. U is pollutant, concentration level and station dependent, therefore the proposed MPC are normalized by U. Some composite diagrams are adapted or introduced to visualize model performance in terms of the proposed MPC and are illustrated in a real modeling application. The Target diagram, used to visualize the RMSE, is adapted with a new normalization on its axis, while complementary diagrams are proposed. In this first application the dependence of U on concentrations level is ignored, and an assumption on the pollutant dependent relative error is made. The advantages of this new approach are finally described.

[1]  J. Flemming,et al.  Testing model accuracy measures according to the EU directives : examples using the chemical transport model REM-CALGRID , 2007 .

[2]  J. Kindle,et al.  Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment , 2009 .

[3]  F. Meleux,et al.  Predictability of European air quality: Assessment of 3 years of operational forecasts and analyses by the PREV'AIR system , 2008 .

[4]  F. Meleux,et al.  Prev'air: An Operational Forecasting and Mapping System for Air Quality in Europe , 2009 .

[5]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Skill Scores Based on the Mean Square Error and Their Relationships to the Correlation Coefficient , 1988 .

[6]  Michel Gerboles,et al.  Assessment of uncertainty of NO2 measurements by the chemiluminescence method and discussion of the quality objective of the NO2 European Directive. , 2003, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

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

[8]  Jenise L. Swall,et al.  A procedure for inter-comparing the skill of regional-scale air quality model simulations of daily maximum 8-h ozone concentrations , 2008 .

[9]  C Borrego,et al.  Procedures for estimation of modelling uncertainty in air quality assessment. , 2008, Environment international.

[10]  Lagler Friedrich,et al.  A Quality Assurance and Control Program for PM2.5 and PM10 measurements in European Air Quality Monitoring Networks , 2011 .

[11]  S. Hanna,et al.  Air quality model performance evaluation , 2004 .

[12]  R. Sokhi,et al.  Evaluation of a CMAQ simulation at high resolution over the UK for the calendar year 2003 , 2010 .

[13]  John Irwin,et al.  A framework for evaluating regional-scale numerical photochemical modeling systems , 2010, Environmental fluid mechanics.

[14]  C. Stow,et al.  Skill Assessment for Coupled Biological/Physical Models of Marine Systems. , 2009, Journal of marine systems : journal of the European Association of Marine Sciences and Techniques.