1
Swedish experiences of applying the Quality Objectives for NO2 and PM10 modelling
• introduction• model evaluation for Swedish
- street/road stations- urban background stations
• discussion and conclusions
by L. Gidhagen, G. Omstedt and S. Andersson
Model quality objectives (uncertainty) as described in the AQ directive
2
Modellinguncertainty
NO2 PM10
Hourly 50 % -Daily average 50 % -Annual average 30 % 50%
p
ppO
MORPEMRPE
max)max(
LVMO
RDEMRDE LVLV max)max(
The uncertainty of modelling estimation is defined as the maximum deviation between the measured and calculated concentration levels for 90 % of individual monitoring points, without taking into account the timing of the events. The average annual modelling uncertaintyfor NO2 is defined as ±30% and for percentiles ±50%
Fairmode http://fairmode.ew.eea.europa.eu/
Op and Mp are the observed and modelled concentrations at the percentile (p)OLV and MLV are the closed observed and measured concentration to the limit valueconcentration (LV)
Indicators for model quality
3
Gidhagen, L., Johansson, H. and Omstedt, G., 2009: SIMAIR - Evaluation tool for meeting the EU directive on air pollution limits. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 1029-1036, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.056.Andersson, S. och Omstedt, G., 2009: Validering av SIMAIR mot mätningar av PM10, NO2 och bensen. Utvärdering för svenska tätorter och trafikmiljöer avseende år 2004 och 2005. SMHI Meteorologi, Nr. 137, 125 pp. (In Swedish).
SIMAIR
Model validation in Sweden
~ 30 road/street stations~ 20 urban background stations
Validation performed using both RPE and RDE Swedish EPA recommends the use of RPE for quality check of hourly (NO2) and
daily (PM10, NO2) values. Swedish EPA supports FAIRMODE recommendation to use, for annual mean
values, the RDE calculation when observed value is low compared to limit value. For high observed annual mean values, RPE can be used.
We are left with some confusion, e.g.:- Not clear when to use RDE or RPE- Not clear how the 90% of the station comparisons are selected: - How big can the area be (entire Sweden)? - Should the comparison include only one specific year or can we include comparisons for the same station but for two different years?- Why is max(RPE) or max(RDE) selected, would not median be more useful? Or both?
4
Validation results from 2004 and 2005
5
Model simulations of PM10 for street level show acceptable quality, even for 98-percentiles
Differences MRPE and MRDE?
Validation PM10 from 2004 and 2005
City/ street/yearmeasured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE
Landskrona/Eriksgatan, 2004 23,8 16,6 0,30 0,18 41,1 26,2 0,36 0,35Landskrona/Eriksgatan, 2005 24,2 19 0,21 0,13 43 28,4 0,34 0,37Helsingborg/Malmöleden, 2005 22,4 18 0,20 0,11 38 27,5 0,28 0,23Kristianstad/V,Boulevard, 2004 26,8 17,1 0,36 0,24 54,9 26,7 0,51 0,50Kristianstad/V,Boulevard, 2005 36,5 22,8 0,38 0,34 81 38,5 0,52 0,45Nässjö/Brogatan, 2004 25,8 21,9 0,15 0,10 64,4 38,9 0,40 0,30Norrköping/Kungsgatan, 2004 17,8 25,7 0,44 0,20 37,7 46,4 0,23 0,14Norrköping/Ö,Promenad, 2004 22,9 24,7 0,08 0,05 52,8 43,2 0,18 0,22Norrköping/Ö,Promenad, 2005 27,7 26,9 0,03 0,02 63 58,1 0,08 0,04Norrköping/Söderleden, 2005 19,3 21,2 0,10 0,05 44,9 40,7 0,09 0,09Göteborg/Gårda, 2005 29,6 32 0,08 0,06 55 61,5 0,12 0,07Karlstad/Hamngatan, 2005 22,8 21,6 0,05 0,03 45,8 47,9 0,05 0,01Västerås/Kopparbergsv, 2005 25,3 19,4 0,23 0,15 51,3 33,7 0,34 0,39Västerås/Stora gatan, 2005 27,5 19,1 0,31 0,21 59,9 34,6 0,42 0,41Västerås/Vasagatan, 2005 23,6 14,5 0,39 0,23 43,5 26,7 0,39 0,44Sollentuna/Turebergsl, 2004 18,5 14,5 0,22 0,10 32,7 25,5 0,22 0,31Sollentuna/Turebergsl, 2005 20,2 14 0,31 0,16 37,6 25,7 0,32 0,29
max RPE/ max RDE 0,39 0,24 0,51 0,45median RPE/ median RDE 0,22 0,13 0,32 0,30
Annual mean 90-percentile daily mean
6
Validation PM10 from 2004 and 2005 using RPE and RDE
With RDE the quality is OK, with RPE it is almost OK (although MRPE for daily PM10 is still not defined)
RPE and RDE for PM10
7
There are often a few “poor” stations where measurement errors or bad siting (low representativeness) can be suspected
Could med(RPE) and med(RDE) be a better alternative?
Same station
8
Examples for PM10: How will RPE differ from RDE?
Annual mean:RPE = 1%RDE = 6%
Annual mean:RPE = 30%RDE = 18%
Annual mean:RPE = 44%RDE = 20%
Hornsgatan/Stockholm year 2000 Kungsgatan/Norrköping year 2004
Eriksgatan/Landskrona year 2004
Graphs illustrate RPE and RDE for daily 90-percentiles
9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N O 2 [µg m -3] uppm ätt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NO
2 [µg
m- 3
] SIM
AIR
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N O 2 [µg m -3] uppm ätt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NO
2 [µg
m- 3
] SIM
AIR
Beräkningar för gaturum
Årsm edelvärde98% -il dygnsm edelvärde98% -il tim m edelvärde
Modell evaluation of NO2 at street/road level
Model simulations of NO2 for street level show acceptable quality, even for hourly values
10
Validation NO2 from 2004 and 2005 using RPE and RDE
City/ street/yearmeasured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE measured modelled RPE RDE
Helsingborg/Drottningg,, 2004 27,9 36,3 0,30 0,21 58,8 80,6 0,38 0,37 80,5 97,6 0,20 0,21Kristianstad/V,Boulevard,, 2004 18,6 22,3 0,20 0,09 35,8 40 0,05 0,12 - - - -Kristianstad/V,Boulevard,, 2005 17,6 20,1 0,14 0,06 46,2 37,8 0,10 0,18 - - - -Göteborg/Gårda, 2004 46,7 34,1 0,27 0,32 84,8 75,6 0,19 0,11 109,4 109,4 0,06 0,00Göteborg/Gårda, 2005 46,6 30,1 0,35 0,41 92 69,9 0,22 0,24 109,4 94,5 0,17 0,14Göteborg/Haga, 2004 42 32,8 0,22 0,23 81,5 66,7 0,16 0,18 104,1 85,2 0,20 0,18Göteborg/Haga, 2005 40,8 29,2 0,28 0,29 86 52,8 0,27 0,39 107,6 66,6 0,34 0,38Göteborg, Mölndal, 2004 28,1 30,3 0,08 0,06 66,2 70,4 0,13 0,06 88,5 101,7 0,14 0,15Uppsala, Kungsgatan 27,2 28,5 0,05 0,03 51 57,1 0,12 69,6 81,7 0,17Uppsala, Kungsgatan2 37,4 37,3 0,00 0,00 64,6 66,9 0,04 88,9 90,4 0,02Malmö, Amiralsgatan 39,4 41,9 0,06 0,06 71,8 72,4 0,01 98 84,1 0,14
RPE max/ RDE max 0,30 0,32 0,38 0,37 0,34 0,38RPE median/ RDE median 0,20 0,09 0,18 0,12 0,19 0,15
Annual mean 98-percentile daily mean 98-percentile hourly mean
Daily and hourly percentiles OK, annual means almost OK
11
Improvements in the model can be demonstrated byimproved RPEThe current quality objectivesare still not fully compliant in urban background annual mean values
BUM new:MRPE annual mean = 0.40MRPE 98-percentile daily mean = 0.48MRPE 90-percentile hourly mean = 0.49
Modell evaluation of NO2 in urban background using RPE
Example: SIMAIR for PM10
12
PM10 annual mean 90-percentil
MRPE 0.39 0.51
MRDE 0.24 0.45
Can we use MRPE and MRDE as uncertainties on the simulated levels?
Example: calculated yearly mean PM10 concentration is 25 µg/m3 and calculated 90-percentil is 45 µg/m3 then the uncertainties are:
MRPE:Yearly mean: 25 +/- 9.8 µg/m3 i.e. between 15.3 - 34.8 µg/m3
90-percentile (daily mean): 45 +/- 23.0 µg/m3 i.e. between 22.1 - 68.0 µg/m3
MRDE:Yearly mean: 25 +/- 9.6 µg/m3 i.e. between 15.4 - 34.6 µg/m3
90-percentile (daily mean): 45 +/- 22.5 µg/m3 i.e. between 22.5 - 67.5 µg/m3
Likely those intervals are too large for a general public?
Can MRPE and MRDE be used as uncertainties?
Are the quality objectives (QA) obtainable and relevant?Answer: Yes, but…
Some confusion on how to calculate MRPE and MRDE which must be eliminated.
The indicator should reflect model uncertainty as much as possible. In our opinion RPE is a better indicator than RDE, especially for Swedish conditions with air quality levels often well below the limited values.
It is unclear if and how these indicators can be used, except for showing compliance of Directive’s “Quality objectives for models”. For describing model uncertainties in a broader sense other and more refined indicators are needed (Delta tool…).
13
Conclusions
Thank you for your attention!
14
Ma
lmö
La
nd
sk
ron
a
He
lsin
gb
org
1
He
lsin
gb
org
2
Jö
nk
öp
ing
Nä
ss
jö
No
rrk
öp
ing
Gö
teb
org
1
Gö
teb
org
2
Ma
rie
sta
d
Ka
rls
tad
Ka
rls
ko
ga
Vä
ste
rås
1
Vä
ste
rås
2
Up
ps
ala
Sto
ck
ho
lm 1
Sto
ck
ho
lm 2
Sto
ck
ho
lm 3
So
llen
tun
a
Gä
vle
Su
nd
sv
all
Ös
ters
un
d
Um
eå
Ly
ck
se
le
Sk
elle
fte
å
0
10
20
30
40
PM
10
års
me
de
lvä
rde
[µ
g/m
3]
Lokalt b idragBakgrundshalterM KNM iljöm ål 2010
Skåne Sydöst Väst M älarda len S tockholm M itt N orr
PM10 in Swedish cities (2004): Importance of local contribution
15
PM10 in Swedish cities (2004): Local – Urban - Regional
0
10
20
30
40
50P
M10
[µ
g m
-3]
års
me
de
l
Mal
mö
, Dal
apla
n
Lan
dsk
ron
a, E
riks
g.
Kri
stia
nst
ad, V
. Bo
ule
vard
en
Gö
teb
org
, E6
vid
Går
da
No
rrkö
pin
g, Ö
. Pro
men
aden
Sto
ckh
olm
, Ho
rnsg
.
Sto
ckh
olm
, No
rrla
nd
sg.
Sto
ckh
olm
, Sve
av.
Sto
ckh
olm
, Ess
ing
eled
en
Up
psa
la, K
un
gsg
.
Um
eå, V
. Esp
lan
and
en
PM10
Reg
Urb
Gatu
Reg
Urb + Gatu
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
PM
2.5
[µg
m-3
]å
rsm
ed
el
Mal
mö
, Dal
apla
n
Kri
stia
nst
ad, V
. Bo
ule
vard
en
Sto
ckh
olm
, Ho
rnsg
.
Sto
ckh
olm
, No
rrla
nd
sg.
Sto
ckh
olm
, Sve
av.
Sto
ckh
olm
, Ess
ing
eled
en
Up
psa
la, K
un
gsg
.
PM2.5
Reg
Urb
Gatu
Reg
Urb + Gatu
PM2.5 in Swedish cities: Local – Urban - Regional