Evaluation of an urban modelling system against three measurement campaigns in London and Birmingham

Abstract

Copyright ?? 2016 Turkish National Committee for Air Pollution Research and Control. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).The results of three measurement campaigns are presented in this study. The campaigns have been undertaken at an urban roadside site in London, for more than a year and three months in 2003e2004 and for a year in 2008, and at an urban background site in Birmingham, U.K, for about four months in 2002. The concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, NOx and NO2 were predicted using the roadside dispersion model CAR-FMI, combined with a national U.K. emission model, a meteorological pre-processor, and measured values at urban background stations. The agreement of the predicted and measured hourly and daily time-series has been assessed statistically for all of the campaigns and pollutants. For instance, the Indices of Agreement (IA) in all the campaigns ranged from 0.68 to 0.78, 0.87, from 0.70 to 0.80, and from 0.61 to 0.83 for PM2.5, PM10, NOx and NO2, respectively. However, in case of the campaigns in London, both the PM fractions and the nitrogen oxide concentrations were under-predicted. The model performance in terms of atmospheric stability, wind speeds and other factors was analysed, and reasons for the disagreement of predictions and measurements have been discussed. It is useful to consider the model performance statistics for several measurement campaigns simultaneously as some of the results were found to be specific only to one or two campaigns. The spatial concentration distribution of NOx in London for 2008 has also been presented

The influence of residential wood combustion on the concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> in four Nordic cities

“…The modelling system containing the CAR-FMI model has been evaluated against the measured data of urban measurement networks for gaseous pollutants and particulate matter in the HMA, London and Birmingham, UK (e.g. Karppinen et al, 2000b;Kousa et al, 2001;Kauhaniemi et al, 2008;Aarnio et al, 2016;Sokhi et al, 2008;Singh et al, 2014;Srimath et al, 2017), and for gaseous pollutants against the results of a field measurement campaign and other roadside dispersion models as well (Kukkonen et al, 2001;Ottl et al, 2001;Levitin et al, 2005). Overall, the model performance for predicting the PM 2.5 concentrations has been either fairly good or good.…”

Modelling of the urban concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> on a high resolution for a period of 35 years, for the assessment of lifetime exposure and health effects

“…Karppinen et al, 2000c;Kousa et al, 2001) and for PM 2.5 , PM 10 and particle number concentrations in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (Kauhaniemi et al, 2008;Aarnio et al, 2016;. The model has also been evaluated against both gaseous and particulate pollutant measurements in London (Sokhi et al, 2008;Singh et al, 2014;Srimath et al, 2017) and in Birmingham, UK (Srimath et al, 2017). The performance of the CAR-FMI model has also been evaluated for gaseous pollutants against the results of field measurement campaigns and inter-compared with other models (Kukkonen et al, 2001;Öttl et al, 2001;Levitin et al, 2005;Srimath et al, 2017).…”

Modelling of the urban concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> on a high resolution for a period of 35 years, for the assessment of lifetime exposure and health effects

“…The model has also been evaluated both against gaseous and particulate pollutant measurements in London (Sokhi et al, 2008, and Singh et al, 2013and Srimath et al, 2016 and in Birmingham, U.K. (Srimath et al, 2016). The performance of the CAR-FMI model has also been evaluated for gaseous pollutants against the results…”

“…of field measurement campaigns and inter-compared with other models , Oettl et al, 2001, Levitin et al, 2005, Srimath et al, 2016.…”