Measurements and Modeling of Regional Air Quality in three Southeast United States National Parks

  • Daiwen Kang
  • Viney P. Aneja
  • Rohit Mathur
  • John D. Ray
Conference paper

Abstract

Since the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), regulatory efforts to comply with the 0.12-ppmv National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for O3 have proved inadequate [(NRC); Dimitriades, 1989]. O3 nonattainment continues to be a problem, especially in the southeast United States. This is attributed to the oxidation of NOx in the presence of excessive amounts of biogenically emitted VOCs such as isoprene [Trainer et al., 1987; Chameides et al., 1988]. The new 8- hour O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (0.08 ppm) is likely to bring more suburban and rural locations into noncompliance [Chameides et al., 1997]. Biogenic VOCs emitted by vegetation [Fuentes et al., 2000; Fehsenfeid et al., 1992; Lamb et al., 1993] and anthropogenic VOCs emitted by human activities are both widely present in rural aTeas [Kang et al., 2001; Hagerman et al., 1997]. Previous studies indicate that the influence of these VOCs on important aspects of atmospheric chemistry such as O3 production can be significant [Trainer et al., 1987; Chameides et al., 1988]. Clearly, if O3 concentrations are to be successfully controlled by implementation of control on primary pollutant emissions, the roles of both natural and anthropogenic VOCs in these rural areas must be thoroughly understood. However, our understanding of O3 and VOC budgets in rural areas is still very limited. Emissions of biogenic VOCs as well as the roles of both biogenic and anthropogenic VOCs in O3 production in rural areas are largely uncharacterized [Guenther et al., 2000].

Keywords

Ozone Hydrocarbon Carbonmonoxide Terpene Isoprene 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Byun, D.W. and Ching J.K.S., Eds.,: Science algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system, EPA/600/R-99/030, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. W.L. Chameides, R. W. Lindsay, J. Richardson and C.S. Kiang, The role of biogenic hydrocarbons in urban photochemical smog: Atlanta as a case study, Science, 241, 1473–1474, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. W.L. Chameides, R.D. Saylor, and E.B. Cowling, Ozone pollution in the rural united states and the new NAAQS, Science, 276, 916, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dimitriades, B., Photochemical oxidant formation: overview of current knowledge and emerging issues. In Atmospheric Ozone Research and its Policy Implications, ed. T. Schneider et al. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. R.M. Fehsenfeld, J. Calvert, R. Fall, P. Goldan, A. Guenther, B. Lamb, S. Liu., M. Trainer, H. Westberg and P. Zimmerman, Emissions of volatile organic compounds from vegetation and the implications for atmospheric chemistry, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 6, 389–430, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. J.D. Fuentes, M. Lerdau, R. Atkinson, D. Baldocchi, J.W. Bottenheim, P. Ciccioli, B. Lamb, C. Geron, L. Gu, A. Guenther, T.D. Sharkey, and W. Stockwell, Biogenic hydrocarbons in the atmospheric boundary layer: A review, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81, 1537–1575, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. M. W. Gery, G. Z. Whitten, J. P. Killus, and M. C. Dodge, A photochemical kinetics mechanism for urban and regional scale computer modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 12, 925-12, 956, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Guenther, C. Geron, T. Pierce, B. Lamb, R. Harley, and R. Fall, Natural emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen from north America, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2205–2230, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. L. M. Hagerman, V. P. Aneja, and W. A. Lonneman, Characterization of non-methane hydrocarbons in the rural Southeast United States. Atmos. Environ., 31, 4017–4038, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. M.R. Houyoux, C.J. Coats, A. Eyth, and S.C.Y. Lo, Emissions modeling for SMRAQ: A seasonal and regional example using SMOKE, paper presented at AMWA Computing in Environmental Resources and Management Conference, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Dec. 2 to Dec. 4, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. D Kang., V. P. Aneja, R. G. Zika, C. Farmer, and J. D. Ray, Nonmethane hydrocarbons in the rural southeast United States national parks, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3133–3155, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Kasibhatla, W. L. Chameides, B. Duncan, M. Houyoux, C. Jang, R. Mathur, T. Odman, and A. Xiu, Impact of inert organic nitrate formation on ground-level ozone in a regional air quality model using the carbon bond mechanism 4, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 3205–3208, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. B. Lamb, D. Gay, H. Westberg, and T. Pierce, A biogenic hydrocarbon emission inventory for the USA using a simple forest canopy model, Atmos. Environ., 27, 1709–1713, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Mathur, K. L. Schere, and A. Nathan, Dependencies and sensitivity of tropospheric oxidants precursor concentrations over the Northeast United States: A model study, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 10, 535–10, 552, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. T. Odman and C. L. Ingram, Multiscale air quality simulation platform (MAQSIP): Source code documentation and validation, MCNC Technical Report, ENV-96TR002-v1.0, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. M. Trainer, E. J. Williams, D. D. Parrish, M. P. Buhr, E. J. Allwine, H. H.Westberg, F.C. Fehsenfeld, and S. C. Liu, Models and observations of the impact of natural hydrocarbons on rural ozone, Nature, 329, 705–707, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daiwen Kang
    • 1
  • Viney P. Aneja
    • 2
  • Rohit Mathur
    • 3
  • John D. Ray
    • 4
  1. 1.NERL, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRTPUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Carolina Environmental ProgramUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Air Resources DivisionNational Park ServiceDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations