摘要
利用2019年沈阳市采暖期环境空气质量监测数据,分析沈阳市采暖期空气质量状况及PM_(2.5)污染特征,同时对CAMQ、NAQPMS模式等级、范围和首要污染物及PM_(2.5)浓度24、48和72 h预报能力评估。结果表明,采暖期环境空气质量污染程度重于非采暖期,首要污染物以PM_(2.5)为主。对比不同时效预报效果,24 h预报准确率高于48和72 h;CAMQ模式在不同预报时效中等级、范围和首要污染物准确率均高于NAQPMS模式。2种预报模式均能合理预测沈阳市PM_(2.5)浓度的时空变化,但2种模式均存在预报结果偏高情况,NAQPMS模式预报偏高程度高于CAMQ模式。CAMQ模式预报效果可达到理想范围(-30%≤MFB≤30%、MFE≤50%),NAQPMS模式预报效果在合理范围(-60%≤MFB≤60%、MFE≤75%)。
Based on the ambient air quality monitoring data of the heating period in Shenyang in 2019,the air quality status and PM_(2.5) pollution characteristics were analyzed.In addition,the prediction abilities of CAMQ and NAQPMS in the level,range,primary pollutants and PM_(2.5) concentration with 24 hours,48 hours and 72 hours were evaluated.The results showed that the pollution degree of air quality in the heating period was more serious than that in non-heating period,and the main pollutant was PM_(2.5).Comparing with the prediction effect of different aging time,the prediction accuracy of 24 hours was higher than that of 48 and 72 hours.The predicting accuracy of CAMQ model was higher than NAQPMS model in the grade,range and primary pollutants in different time periods.Two air quality models could reasonably predict temporal and spatial variations of PM_(2.5) concentrations in Shenyang.However,both of the two models had high prediction results,and the NAQPMS model was higher than the CAMQ model.The prediction effect of CAMQ model could reach an ideal level(-30%≤MFB≤30%,MFE≤50%),and the prediction effect of NAQPMS model was in the reasonable range(-60%≤MFB≤60%,MFE≤75%).
作者
王闯
于晓东
WANG Chuang;YU Xiaodong(Shenyang Environmental Monitoring Center,Shenyang 110167,China;Shenyang Academy of Environmental Sciences,Shenyang 110167,China)
出处
《环境保护科学》
CAS
2022年第3期105-110,共6页
Environmental Protection Science
关键词
采暖季
预报模式
评估
环境空气
heating period
prediction model
assessment
ambient air
作者简介
王闯(1985−),女,硕士、工程师。研究方向:环境空气质量分析及预报。E-mail:ail>476381714@qq.com;通信作者:于晓东(1985−),男,硕士、高级工程师。研究方向:环境风险防控技术与对策。E-mail:yuxiaodong@syhky.com。
