Observable indicators of the sensitivity of PM2.5 nitrate to emission reductions—Part II: Sensitivity to errors in total ammonia and total nitrate of the CMAQ-predicted non-linear effect of SO2 emission reductions

Abstract The inorganic aerosol system of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium can respond non-linearly to changes in precursor sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The potential increase in nitrate, when sulfate is reduced and the associated ammonia is released, can negate the sulfate mass reduction. Current regional-scale air quality models do not reproduce the present-day levels of total ammonia and total nitrate, leading to possible errors in the air quality model predictions of future nitrate concentrations. The objective of this study is to quantify the effects of errors in the total-ammonia and total-nitrate budgets on nitrate relative response (RR), defined as the percent change in particulate nitrate stemming from reductions in SO2 emissions. This objective is addressed through three sensitivity studies using the Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ). These studies assess the sensitivity of the nitrate RR (%) to (1) errors in ammonia emissions, (2) errors in the heterogeneous production of nitrate from N2O5, and (3) errors in the NOX emissions. The results indicate that nitrate RRs due to SO2 emission reductions are much more sensitive to errors in the total-ammonia budget than to errors in the total-nitrate budget. The sensitivity of the nitrate RR to NOX emissions is only moderate and is due primarily to the effect of NOX changes on sulfate production, rather than on total nitrate. Also, a strong relationship was found between the nitrate RR and the Adjusted Gas Ratio (free ammonia adjusted for the degree of sulfate neutralization divided by total nitrate).

[1]  A. Ravishankara,et al.  Variability in Nocturnal Nitrogen Oxide Processing and Its Role in Regional Air Quality , 2006, Science.

[2]  B. Vogel,et al.  Impact of the heterogeneous hydrolysis of N2O5 on chemistry and nitrate aerosol formation in the lower troposphere under photosmog conditions , 2003 .

[3]  Carlos Borrego,et al.  Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XVII , 2006 .

[4]  Daniel J. Jacob,et al.  Seasonal transition from NOx‐ to hydrocarbon‐limited conditions for ozone production over the eastern United States in September , 1995 .

[5]  Richard T. McNider,et al.  Development of a comprehensive, multiscale ''one-atmosphere'' modeling system: application to the Southern Appalachian Mountains , 2002 .

[6]  Spyros N. Pandis,et al.  Response of Inorganic PM to Precursor Concentrations , 1998 .

[7]  W. Godwin.  Article in Press , 2000 .

[8]  Jenise L. Swall,et al.  An assessment of the ability of 3-D air quality models with current thermodynamic equilibrium models to predict aerosol NO 3 - , 2004 .

[9]  F. Binkowski,et al.  Models-3 community multiscale air quality (cmaq) model aerosol component , 2003 .

[10]  C. Davidson,et al.  Modeling the diurnal variation of nitrate during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study , 2004 .

[11]  Robin L. Dennis,et al.  Observable indicators of the sensitivity of PM2.5 nitrate to emission reductions—Part I: Derivation of the adjusted gas ratio and applicability at regulatory-relevant time scales , 2008 .

[12]  R. Pinder,et al.  Seasonal NH3 emissions for the continental united states: Inverse model estimation and evaluation , 2006 .

[13]  H. Singh,et al.  Composition, chemistry, and climate of the atmosphere , 1995 .

[14]  Robin L. Dennis,et al.  Seasonal NH3 emission estimates for the eastern United States , 2003 .

[15]  T. Toyama,et al.  Photochemical air pollution: its effects on respiratory function of elementary school children. , 1975, Archives of environmental health.

[16]  C. Stanier,et al.  Water content of ambient aerosol during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study : Particulate matter supersites , 2005 .

[17]  B. Thrush.  Photochemical Air Pollution , 1962, Nature.

[18]  Dimitrios V. Vayenas,et al.  Simulation of the thermodynamics and removal processes in the sulfate-ammonia-nitric acid system during winter: Implications for PM2.5 control strategies , 2005 .

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

[20]  T. Larson,et al.  Ubiquitous nature of ambient metastable aerosol , 1989, Nature.

[21]  J. Mobley,et al.  Improving Emission Inventories for Effective Air-Quality Management Across North America , 2005 .

[22]  S. Pandis,et al.  Marginal PM25: Nonlinear Aerosol Mass Response to Sulfate Reductions in the Eastern United States. , 1999, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[23]  High Time-Resolved Comparisons for In-Depth Probing of CMAQ Fine-Particle and Gas Predictions , 2007 .

[24]  Christian Seigneur,et al.  Current Status of Air Quality Models for Particulate Matter , 2001, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[25]  S. Solberg,et al.  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics , 2002 .

[26]  Robert C. Gilliam,et al.  New methods for evaluating meteorological models used in air quality applications , 2006 .

[27]  The use of ambient measurements to identify which precursor species limit aerosol nitrate formation. , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[28]  Jenise L. Swall,et al.  An assessment of the ability of three‐dimensional air quality models with current thermodynamic equilibrium models to predict aerosol NO3− , 2005 .