I have been working on ADMS-Urban to model the emissions of various air pollutants including particulate matter (especially PM10 and PM2.5).
The results show under-estimation of the pollutant concentrations. I was wondering whether you had the same experience?
Any ref or any comments?
Hi Said,
Regarding the general performance of ADMS-Urban, we have a list of references on our website, covering a wide range of validation studies: http://www.cerc.co.uk/environmental-software/model-validation.html
More specifically, it's generally non-exhaust emissions (road, brake and tyre wear; resuspension) and background contributions that make up the bulk of particulate concentrations. So we often find that these areas are the key to accurately predicting particulate matter concentrations.
Best regards,
Catheryn
Dear Catheryn,
Thank you very much for your comments and for providing a link to some useful studies. I agree with you on the fact that PM from various sources are not well quantified in the emission inventory which could lead to under prediction by the model. However, I can see in many studies that ADMS-Urban does have the tendency toward under- estimation of NO2 and PM.
Anyway, we need to keep working on improving emission inventory and fine tuning the model.
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Annealing
- Metallurgy
- Metals