引用本文:卢怡,赵雪芬,赵瑜.不同模式版本对长三角区域大气污染物模拟结果对比评估[J].环境监控与预警,2020,12(3):5-14
LU Yi , ZHAO Xue-fen , ZHAO Yu.The Comparison and Evaluation of Air Pollutant Simulation for the Yangtze River Delta Region with Different Versions of Air Quality Model[J].Environmental Monitoring and Forewarning,2020,12(3):5-14
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 342次   下载 223 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
不同模式版本对长三角区域大气污染物模拟结果对比评估
卢怡,赵雪芬,赵瑜
作者单位
卢怡,赵雪芬,赵瑜* 南京大学环境学院污染控制与资源化研究国家重点实验室江苏 南京 210023 
摘要:
选取2015年1、4、7、10月(分别代表冬、春、夏、秋4季),应用CMAQv4.7.1和CMAQv5.1模式模拟长三角区域的空气质量,对比了NO2、SO2、O3、PM2.54个常规污染物的模拟结果,表明CMAQv5.1对NO2、SO2和PM2.5的模拟效果优于CMAQv4.7.1,而CMAQv4.7.1的O3模拟效果优于CMAQv5.1;CMAQv5.1的NO2模拟值更接近地面观测值,比起不同版本的化学机制对NO2模拟效果的影响,NO2的模拟偏差受排放高估的影响更大;2个版本SO2的模拟值差距较小,且都与地面观测值之间差异较小;CMAQv5.1 PM2.5的模拟值比CMAQv4.7.1更接近观测值,气溶胶模块机制的更新(例如新增细分的PM2.5模式物种和部分二次有机气溶胶生成机制的改进等)对PM2.5模拟效果的改善显著;CMAQv5.1的O3模拟值比CMAQv4.7.1高,CMAQv5.1的O3模拟值在O3观测值的高值时段更接近观测值,而CMAQv4.7.1的O3模拟值在低值时段更接近观测值,CMAQv5.1在日最大8小时平均(MDA8)O3观测浓度超标日的O3模拟效果相比CMAQv4.7.1有一定程度的改善,但在非超标日模拟效果变差,CMAQv5.1的O3模拟效果总体相比CMAQv4.7.1并未得到有效提升。提出,未来针对低值时段和低值区域的O3模拟机制的改进将进一步提升O3模拟效果。
关键词:  区域多尺度空气质量模型  模式评估  长三角地区
DOI:
分类号:X823
文献标识码:B
基金项目:国家自然科学基金委重大联合研究计划重点支持基金资助项目(0211-13001049)
The Comparison and Evaluation of Air Pollutant Simulation for the Yangtze River Delta Region with Different Versions of Air Quality Model
LU Yi , ZHAO Xue-fen , ZHAO Yu
Abstract:
CMAQ v5.1 and CMAQ v4.7.1 were applied to simulating the air quality in Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region in January, April, July and October in 2015 (representing winter, spring, summer and autumn respectively), and the simulation results of regular pollutants (NO2, SO2, O3 and PM2.5) were compared. The results indicated CMAQv5.1 showed a better simulation performance of NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations than CMAQv4.7.1, but worse simulation performance of O3concentration. The simulated NO2 concentrations of CMAQv5.1 were closer to the observed values than that of CMAQv4.7.1. The deviations of NO2 simulations were more affected by the overestimation of emissions instead of chemical mechanisms of different versions. No obvious difference in SO2 between the two versions was observed and both of simulated SO2 concentrations of two versions were close to the observed values. The simulated PM2.5 concentrations of CMAQv5.1 were closer to the observed values. The improvement on PM2.5 simulation was obvious, attributable to the newly added secondary organic aerosols and the emission subdivision species in the updated mechanisms. The simulated O3 concentrations of CMAQv5.1 were higher than that of CMAQv4.7.1.During the period with high O3 concentration level, the simulated O3 concentrations of CMAQv5.1 were closer to the observed values. However, the simulated O3 concentrations of CMAQv4.7.1 were closer to the observed values during the period with low O3 concentration level. CMAQv5.1 performs better than CMAQv4.7.1 during the periods when observed Maximum Daily 8 hour Average (MDA8) O3 concentrations exceed the standard, while CMAQv4.7.1 preforms better during the periods when concentrations do not exceed the standard. In general, the O3 simulation has not been effectively improved. It is recommended that, in the future, the modification of O3 simulation in relatively low level period and region will be helpful for the improvement of O3 simulation.
Key words:  CMAQ  Model evaluation  Yangtze River Delta Region