the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Challenges of high-fidelity air quality modeling in urban environments – PALM sensitivity study during stable conditions
Abstract. The urban air quality is an important part of human well-being and its detailed and precise modeling is important for efficient urban planning. In this study the potential sources of errors in LES runs of the PALM model in stable conditions for a high-traffic residential area in Prague, Czech Republic with focus to street canyon ventilation are investigated. The evaluation of the PALM model simulations against observations obtained during a dedicated campaign revealed unrealistically high concentrations of modeled air pollutants for a short period during a winter inversion episode. To identify potential reasons, the sensitivities of the model to changes of meteorological boundary conditions and adjustments of model parameters were tested. The model adaptations included adding the anthropogenic heat from cars, setting a bottom limit of the subgrid-scale TKE, adjusting the profiles of parameters of the Synthetic Turbulence Generator in PALM and limiting the model time step. The study confirmed the crucial role of the correct meteorological boundary conditions for realistic air quality modeling during stable conditions. Besides this, the studied adjustments of the model parameters proved to have a significant impact in these stable conditions, resulting in a decrease of concentration overestimation in range 30–66 % while exhibiting negligible influence on model results during the rest of the episode. This suggested that the inclusion or improvement of these processes in PALM is desirable despite their negligible impact in most other conditions. Moreover, the time step limitation test revealed numerical inaccuracies caused by discretization errors which occurred during such extremely stable conditions.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(18731 KB)
-
Supplement
(28944 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18731 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(28944 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1231', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 May 2024
This paper is valuable in that it utilizes the PALM LES model to perform air quality modeling in Prague, Czech Republic under stable condition, identifying and presenting potential factors can cause simulation errors. The research is based on various efforts, including elaborated experimental designs and observation campaign, and the structure is well organized. Based on the manuscript, the following comments are proposed:
- Major comments:
1) This study focuses on PM10 verification at a single point, even though the scale of the experiment and observation sites is quite large. It would be good to first discuss the overall chemical or meteorological field simulation performane of the PALM.
2) How can we discuss the accuracy of the emission data prescribed in the model, and what IC/BC selection criteria can be presented since the accuracy of it will vary from point to point?
- Specific comments:
1) P2. L20: “and” is omitted between radiation and wind field.
2) P9. L201: The observation site name of “Praha 2-Libus” is written with various names like “Praha C-Libus(P8 of supplements) or Praha 4-Libus(Most of the paper)”, causing confusion.
3) P13, L298: maximal should be changed to ‘minimal’ because it is the lowest limit.
4) P13, L300: It seems correct that Fig. 8 is cited, not Fig. 7
5) P21, L415: I couldn’t catch up on what the cycle means in the sentence.
6) Fig. 4 and 7: Captions should be written consistently because the two figures handled similar information. I don’t understand why the observed values were drawn differently in both figures even though it was the same time. Additionally, I don’t agree with the statement that the results generally follows the BC profiles in P15, L365.
7) Fig. 4, 5, 7: It would be nice if time was added not only to the captions but also to each figure
8) Fig. S01-04 in Supplements: In my opinion, the terrain height plotted in yellow is not that important information in those figures. Instead, it would be better to recognize the map if the ocean was colored in skyblue like the lake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1231-RC1 -
RC2: 'RC2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1231/egusphere-2024-1231-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'RC2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2024
-
AC1: 'Author comments on egusphere-2024-1231', Jaroslav Resler, 12 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1231/egusphere-2024-1231-AC1-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1231', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 May 2024
This paper is valuable in that it utilizes the PALM LES model to perform air quality modeling in Prague, Czech Republic under stable condition, identifying and presenting potential factors can cause simulation errors. The research is based on various efforts, including elaborated experimental designs and observation campaign, and the structure is well organized. Based on the manuscript, the following comments are proposed:
- Major comments:
1) This study focuses on PM10 verification at a single point, even though the scale of the experiment and observation sites is quite large. It would be good to first discuss the overall chemical or meteorological field simulation performane of the PALM.
2) How can we discuss the accuracy of the emission data prescribed in the model, and what IC/BC selection criteria can be presented since the accuracy of it will vary from point to point?
- Specific comments:
1) P2. L20: “and” is omitted between radiation and wind field.
2) P9. L201: The observation site name of “Praha 2-Libus” is written with various names like “Praha C-Libus(P8 of supplements) or Praha 4-Libus(Most of the paper)”, causing confusion.
3) P13, L298: maximal should be changed to ‘minimal’ because it is the lowest limit.
4) P13, L300: It seems correct that Fig. 8 is cited, not Fig. 7
5) P21, L415: I couldn’t catch up on what the cycle means in the sentence.
6) Fig. 4 and 7: Captions should be written consistently because the two figures handled similar information. I don’t understand why the observed values were drawn differently in both figures even though it was the same time. Additionally, I don’t agree with the statement that the results generally follows the BC profiles in P15, L365.
7) Fig. 4, 5, 7: It would be nice if time was added not only to the captions but also to each figure
8) Fig. S01-04 in Supplements: In my opinion, the terrain height plotted in yellow is not that important information in those figures. Instead, it would be better to recognize the map if the ocean was colored in skyblue like the lake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1231-RC1 -
RC2: 'RC2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1231/egusphere-2024-1231-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'RC2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2024
-
AC1: 'Author comments on egusphere-2024-1231', Jaroslav Resler, 12 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1231/egusphere-2024-1231-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
392 | 131 | 33 | 556 | 51 | 20 | 24 |
- HTML: 392
- PDF: 131
- XML: 33
- Total: 556
- Supplement: 51
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Petra Bauerová
Michal Belda
Martin Bureš
Kryštof Eben
Vladimír Fuka
Jan Geletič
Radek Jareš
Jan Karel
Josef Keder
Pavel Krč
William Patiño
Jelena Radović
Hynek Řezníček
Matthias Sühring
Adriana Šindelářová
Ondřej Vlček
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18731 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(28944 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper