An Air Pollution Modeling Study Using Three Surface Coverings Near the New International Airport of...

This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 10 November 2014, At: 05:02Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

An Air Pollution Modeling Study Using Three SurfaceCoverings Near the New International Airport ofMexico CityArón D. Jazcilevich a , Agustín R. García a & Luis-Gerardo Ruiz-Suárez aa Center for Atmospheric Sciences , National University of Mexico , Mexico City , Mexico ,USAPublished online: 22 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Arón D. Jazcilevich , Agustín R. García & Luis-Gerardo Ruiz-Suárez (2003) An Air Pollution ModelingStudy Using Three Surface Coverings Near the New International Airport of Mexico City, Journal of the Air & WasteManagement Association, 53:10, 1280-1287

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2003.10466281

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2003.10466281

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An Air Pollution Modeling Study Using Three SurfaceCoverings Near the New International Airport of Mexico City

Aron D. Jazcilevich, Agustın R. Garcıa, and Luis-Gerardo Ruiz-SuarezCenter for Atmospheric Sciences, National University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

ABSTRACTThe dry lakebed of what once was the lake of Texcoco isthe location selected for the New International Airport ofMexico City. This project will generate an important ur-ban development near the airport with regional implica-tions on air quality. Using a prognostic air quality model,the consequences of photochemical air pollution in themetropolitan area of Mexico City resulting from threepossible coverings for the areas of the lakebed that are notoccupied by the runway and terminal building are inves-tigated. These coverings are desert, grassland, and waterand occupy an area of 63 km2. This study is based on arepresentative high pollution episode. In addition to re-ducing the emission of primary natural particles, the wa-ter covering generates a land-water breeze capable ofmaintaining enough ventilation to reduce pollutant con-centrations over a localized region of the metropolitanarea and may enhance the wind speed on the coasts of theproposed lake.

INTRODUCTIONThe Federal Government of Mexico has decided to locatethe New International Airport of Mexico City (NIAMC)on the dry lakebed of Texcoco, situated northeast of theMetropolitan Zone of Mexico City (MZMC). Althoughthis location provides the possibility of three parallel run-ways, enabling a lifespan of 50 years for the project, andis closer to the MZMC than other possible airport loca-tions,1 it is in an arid area with a desertlike climate andwith local dust storms from January to June. Air qualitymonitoring stations in Netzahualcoyotl near that areahave recorded the highest PM10, PM5, and PM2.5 concen-trations in the Valley of Mexico containing geologicalmaterial,2 suggesting that the dry lakebed of Texcoco is an

important particle emitter at a regional level. These cir-cumstances will cause the NIAMC and the expectednearby urban development to be exposed to high airpollution levels. It is clear measures to mitigate this situ-ation as much as possible will be necessary to preserve thehealth of the population and allow a better operation ofthe new airport.

Using a prognostic air quality model called the Mul-tiscale Climatic and Chemistry Model, we investigate theconsequences in the atmospheric gas pollution for theValley of Mexico because of different surface coverings ofthe Texcoco lakebed, not occupied by runways and ter-minal building. We study three different types of surfacecoverings: the present-day cover (desert), a vegetationcover (grassland), and filling the lakebed next to the air-port with water. We call these scenarios, respectively,desert-airport, vegetation-airport, and lake-airport. Effortsto model the particle problem are now underway, but theproposed lake-airport scenario will certainly have a posi-tive impact in the reduction of natural primary particlesemissions.

Although the main purpose of this work is not toproduce a future air pollution scenario for the centralregion of Mexico but to test which surface cover of theTexcoco lakebed is best from the standpoint of air quality,a realistic urban development and its corresponding emis-sions for a fully operational NIAMC were chosen. There-fore, we consider the expected urban development for2020 in the central region of Mexico3 and its correspond-ing anthropogenic gas emissions used in ref 4.

COMPUTATIONAL MODELThe air quality model used in this work is the MultiscaleClimatic and Chemistry Model (MCCM) that has beenimplemented for the central region of Mexico5 and usedto study air pollution impact caused by land use changesin the region.6 A detailed description of the model can befound in ref 7. For completeness, we describe it herebriefly. The model includes modules for meteorology,photolysis, biogenic emissions, radiation, and deposition,among others. The meteorological module of MCCM isbased on the fifth-generation Penn State/National Center

IMPLICATIONSThe advantages and disadvantages discussed here of dif-ferent land use scenarios for the dry Texcoco lakebed thatinfluence the air quality of populated areas provide guide-lines for the urban planning of the metropolitan area ofMexico City.

TECHNICAL PAPER ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 53:1280–1287

Copyright 2003 Air & Waste Management Association

1280 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 53 October 2003

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5).8 It iswidely used by the meteorological community. MM5 isnonhydrostatic with terrain-following coordinates, has amultiscale option, is capable of 4-dimensional data assim-ilation, has an interface with actual weather forecast mod-els (general circulation model and observations), and con-tains explicit cloud schemes and multilevel soil/vegetation parameterization.

An advantage of MCCM is that the meteorologicalmodel is directly coupled with a chemistry-transportmodel and a photolysis module. The biogenic emissionsmodule is coupled with radiation and the Second-Gener-ation Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM2)9 chemi-cal mechanism. Also, a deposition module is coupled withhigher-order closure turbulence parameterization, a Wal-cek aqueous-phase chemistry extension to the RegionalAtmospheric Chemistry Mechanism can be used, and athird-order Smolarkiewicz scheme is used for pollutantadvection. For a detailed description of MCCM, see ref 7.

The gas-phase chemistry used in this study wasRADM2.9 This mechanism considers 14 stable species,four reactive intermediaries, and three abundant-stablespecies for the inorganic part. The organic part considers26 stable species and 16 peroxy radicals. The photochem-istry is based on the aggregated molecular approach forreactivity.9 The photolysis module uses a radiative trans-fer model. This module calculates photolysis frequenciesfor reaction gas-phase chemistry that considers changesin the radiation with height and changes in air composi-tion such as ozone (O3), aerosols, and water vapor. Localmeasurements of albedo found in ref 10 are used.

The biogenic module calculates organic emissions ofisoprene, monoterpenes, and other organic and inorganiccompounds, such as nitrogen soil emissions. This kind ofemissions depends on temperature, radiation, and type ofvegetation. The dry deposition module calculates theelimination of trace compounds from the atmospheredepending on deposition velocity, which is calculatedusing aerodynamic, sublayer, and surface resistance.11

SETUP OF COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTSMCCM has been satisfactorily tested for the region andthe modeling episodes used here by performing a statis-tical error analysis. For example, Table 1 contains theerror statistics for O3 using the local air quality automaticmonitoring network for the same dates used here underpresent urban and emission conditions. It includes theagreement index12 (Ia), whose optimal value is 1. Figure 1shows the locations of the selected stations of the localautomatic monitoring network, Red Automatica de Moni-toreo Ambiental (RAMA), used in the error study. For amore comprehensive error study including meteorology,the reader is referred to refs 4 and 6, and only the

pertinent computational experiments are presented here.Figure 1 also includes the location of the new airport andthe areas where the surface coverings will be tested.

Domain SelectionFigure 2 shows the three-nested domain strategy followedto carry out the computational experiments. The largestdomain has a resolution of 27 km, the next domain 9 km,and the innermost 3 km. The anthropogenic emissionsare placed in the innermost domain.

Date Selection for the ExperimentsThe time period chosen for the computational experi-ment is from February 23 to February 26, 1997, and cor-responds to the season when high-pressure anticyclonicweather prevails in the center of Mexico, causing highpollution episodes. This time period was the same as theone chosen in ref 6, where the effects on air pollution onthe Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City (MZMC) if the lakeof Texcoco is recovered were studied, thus allowing forcomparison of the results. The results obtained here aretypical for high pollution episodes, when light northeastor northwest winds are dominant in the region.

Land Use ScenariosThe three future land use scenarios are shown in Figure 3.Figure 3a shows the desert-airport scenario with the ex-pected urban development for 2020 obtained in ref 3,with the New International Airport of Mexico City(NIAMC) operating two parallel runways placed in thenortheastern area of the lakebed of Texcoco. The rest ofthe lakebed area is dry, and the desert land use op-tion of MCCM is enabled there. Figure 3b shows thevegetation-airport scenario. It is the same as the previousone, but the dry lakebed is covered with grassland. In

Table 1. Error statistics of measured and modeled O3 concentrations using

selected RAMA stations.

Station Ia �o �p RMS RMSb RMSnb

Tacuba 0.96 4.63 4.01 1.85 1.57 0.98

Acatlan 0.95 5.23 3.77 2.06 1.81 0.98

San Agustin 0.96 5.08 4.06 1.71 1.2 1.21

Tlalnepantla 0.97 4.72 3.93 1.39 0.94 1.02

Xalostoc 0.95 4.87 3.74 1.91 1.57 1.08

Merced 0.96 5.55 4.83 2.02 1.39 1.46

Pedregal 0.95 4.56 3.3 1.68 1.41 0.9

C. Estrella 0.97 4.82 4.14 1.42 0.88 1.12

Plateros 0.95 4.48 3.67 1.89 1.24 1.42

Hangares 0.97 4.92 4.28 1.57 0.97 1.23

Note: Ia is the agreement index, �o is the standard deviation for observed values, �p is

the standard deviation for the predicted values, RMS is the root mean square, and RMSb

and RMSnb are the root mean square biased and nonbiased, respectively.

Jazcilevich, Garcıa, and Ruiz-Suarez

Volume 53 October 2003 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Figure 3c, the dry lakebed area is substituted by a lake,enabling the option of water land use. This is the lake-airport scenario. The temperature of the lake water is heldat 15 °C, because this is the average temperature for Feb-ruary of Lake Nabor Carrillo in the Texcoco area.13

Emission InventoryThe emissions used for all land use scenarios for 2020

were the same. They are based on the emission scenarios

used in ref 4. The basic considerations in the design of the

emissions inventory were

• The projection of the future in the emission in-

ventory was done for 2010 to avoid speculation

on new abatement technologies and its degree of

penetration (i.e., only present-day available tech-

nology, such as introduction of cars with three-

way catalytic converters and fuel injection, was

considered together with the removal of old cars).

• Car mobility was considered to remain the same

as today because of road work planned for the

future. The highways planned by the federal gov-

ernment for the outskirts of the MZMC were

taken into account as shown in Figure 4.

• To project the mobile emissions to 2010, intro-

duction to the car pool at a rate of 8% per annum

for new cars with three-way catalytic filter, and

retirement at a rate of 2% per annum for old cars

was used, as stated in information provided by

Figure 1. Map of the metropolitan area of Mexico City and its bor-oughs, location of the new airport, area with new coverings (L shape), andselected RAMA stations used to test the air quality model: Tlalnepantla(TLA), Xalostoc (XAL), San Agustin (SAG), Merced (MER), Hangares(HAN), Plateros (PLA), Pedregal (PED), Cerro de la Estrella (CES), Tacuba(TAC), and Estacion Acatlan (EAC).

Figure 2. Nested domains strategy used for this study. The largestdomain has a resolution of 27 km, the next domain 9 km, and theinnermost 3 km.

Figure 3. Land use for the computational experiments for the thirddomain. Resolution is 3 km. (a) Desert-airport scenario, (b) Vegetation-airport scenario, and (c) Lake-airport scenario. The land use categoriesare (1) urban, (2) agriculture, (3) range-grassland, (4) deciduous forest, (5)coniferous forest, (6) mixed forest and wet land, (7) water, (8) marsh orwet land, (9) desert, (10) tundra, (11) permanent ice, (12) tropical forest,and (13) savannah.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the local government.14 Currently, �60% of carshave catalytic filters.15

The emissions inventory includes mobile, point,and area sources, including the airport emissions. Thesedata were obtained from emissions inventories per-formed by the city government.16 The compounds con-sidered are nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs). The temporal resolution is 1 hr, andthe spatial resolution is 2 km. The domain includes anarea of 32,400 km2.

The emissions were divided in two classes dependingon their source: anthropogenic, caused by human activi-ties, and biogenic, mainly from forests. The data for pointsources was obtained from the database DATGEN of theNational Institute for Ecology’s Environmental Metropol-itan Commission (Comision Ambiental Metropolitana).17

EXPERIMENTS WITH LAND USE SCENARIOSFOR 2020The purpose of these experiments is to investigate theconsequences to the air quality of the central region ofMexico if the land use changes described previously arecarried out. These scenarios have in common the sameurban development and the corresponding emissions, thesame position of the new airport, and expansion of LakeNabor Carrillo in the southern part of the lakebed. Allcomputational experiments use the same boundary con-ditions for the second domain in Figure 1.

Criterion Gases and Associated MetricsTo perform the air quality comparison between the airpollution scenarios, the following criterion gases werechosen: CO, O3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, and form-aldehyde (HCHO). As mentioned before, O3 is the pollut-ant gas that violates the international standard set by theWorld Health Organization (WHO) most often. Otherchemical compounds that include sulfuric acid (H2SO4)and nitric acid (HNO3) together with polar organic com-pounds and that have the potential of forming particleswere considered. Because they have the potential to formparticles, they are called PPs.

To quantify the effect of the criterion gases, a metric� defined as integrated potential exposure in ref 18 isused. Although other metrics also defined there, such aspermissivity and severity, were also calculated, � wasconsidered the most important, because it relates the ex-posure of the population to hazardous pollutant levels. Itis calculated using the formula

� �

�n � 1

72 �i,j�i,jc*i,j,n

72�max(1)

where �i,j is the population (number of people) in cell i,j,�max is the maximum or total population in the region,and ci,j* is the concentration in cell i,j, exceeding a pre-determined value. The integration is taken over 72 hr.

The higher the value of this metric, the worse is theair quality. The values chosen for c* were the hourlystandard local norms, when applicable. In this way, thenorm for O3 is 0.10 parts per million (ppm) and that forSO2 is 0.13 ppm.

RESULTSFigure 5 shows the average surface winds between 10:00a.m. and 5:00 p.m., local standard time, for all threescenarios. A temperature bar in degrees Kelvin appears atthe bottom of each figure, together with a wind scalearrow in m/sec. Figure 5c shows the lake-airport scenario.Even though the airport occupies an important area overthe lakebed, a radial wind pattern emanating from theproposed Texcoco lake is revealed in a similar way as thatshown in ref 6, showing that a land-water breeze withenough strength is generated for this scenario.

Figures 5a and b show the average surface wind forthe same hours for the desert-airport and the vegetation-airport. Both wind fields are very similar and, as expected,no specific wind pattern is revealed around the Texcocoarea. These figures also show the location of a surfaceprobe, P1, which will help to compare the scenarios.

Figure 6 shows the average difference of surface airpollutant concentrations between the vegetation-airport

Figure 4. Urban area and highways planned by the federal governmentfor the center of Mexico. This area corresponds to the third domain.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and lake-airport scenarios. A concentration bar depictingthe differences in parts per million (ppm) appears in thebottom of each figure. The lake-airport scenario reducesconcentrations over the MZMC in a similar way as that

noted in ref 6. Nevertheless, pollutant concentrations in-crease over the lake and its coasts. This is because of alower mixing layer and the presence of a downward con-vective current caused by the cold temperature of the

Figure 5. Average of surface wind fields in the third domain between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for the second day of simulation. The L-shaped areais where the covering changes take place. (a) Desert-airport scenario, (b) Vegetation-airport scenario, and (c) Lake-airport scenario. The wind field patternsfor scenarios desert-airport and vegetation-airport are very similar. For the lake-airport scenario, a radial pattern going out from the lake appears.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

water in the lake. Similar results are found when thedesert and lake scenarios are compared.

Figure 7 shows the time series of pollutants in P1. Thepurpose is to compare the behavior of these gases near thecoast in the different scenarios. Almost all pollutants in-crease in P1 for the lake-airport scenario because of thebehavior of the mixing layer and the downward convec-tive current at this point, as explained.

The explanation about the behavior of the atmo-spheric pollutants described previously is reflected inthe results for the exposition metric �. Figure 8 showsthe exposition results for O3, NO2, PPs, SO2, andHCHO. As expected, the values for � for almost allpollutants are significantly lower for the lake-airportscenario, even though high concentrations are foundnear the lake.

Figure 6. Average concentration difference in ppm between the vegetation and lake-airport scenarios between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for the secondmodeling day. (a) A slight increase of O3 concentrations over the MZMC and a decrease over the Texcoco area. (b) CO concentrations decrease overthe lake and over the MZMC. (c) PPs decrease over the MZMC but increase over the Texcoco area. (d) Concentrations of NO2 decrease over the MZMCbut increase over the southeast of the lake. Also shown is the location of probe point P1.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

An interesting situation stems from the lake-airportscenario. Figure 9 shows the surface average wind inten-sity difference between the lake-airport and desert-airportscenarios for 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. for the second model-ing day. At the bottom is a scale bar in m/sec. Also shownis location P2 near the western coast of the lake. A sub-stantial relative increase in surface wind intensity in thearea of Texcoco is generated by the pressure gradientbecause of the existence of a calm wind period over theregion. Figure 9 shows the time series for surface windintensity in P2 for the different land use scenarios. Al-though more careful studies using specialized surfacelayer schemes and longer time periods are needed, thewinds generated by the lake during calm periods couldenhance the possibilities that location P2 as well as otherlocations near the coasts can be used for wind powergeneration.

CONCLUSIONSBased on the typical high pollution episode used for thisstudy, the lake-airport scenario, which consists of fillingthe basin of Texcoco, except for the area taken by therunways and terminal, with water, is able to generate aland-water breeze, in a similar way as that shown in ref 6.In this situation, almost all pollutants are reduced over

the MZMC. This is the only future scenario that providesthis advantage. It is expected that with this scenario,emissions of natural primary particles in the Texcoco areawill be severely reduced.

Nevertheless, for this scenario, the pollutants are in-creased over the surface of the lake and its coasts, nega-tively affecting this area. If the lake-airport scenario isconstructed, emissions near the lake must be reduced byprohibiting industrial and densely populated areas andfavoring green, recreational, and agriculture areas. If thisis not done, the areas near the lake, including the newairport, will be threatened by high pollution, as was shown.

The desert-airport and vegetation-airport scenariosproduce very similar wind field patterns. For the desert-airport scenario, local dust storms and high concentra-tions of primary particles over the NIAMC and the generalarea of Texcoco can be expected. This could affect thepopulation established near the dry lakebed and the op-eration of the airport. The amount of suspended dustgenerated by the landing, take-off, and taxiing of large jetairplanes under those land use scenario conditions shouldbe investigated.

If the vegetation cover is able to take hold on alarge-enough area, these problems might be mitigated.Nevertheless, the high salinity, especially toward the

Figure 8. Exposition results for (a) O3, (b) NO2, (c) PPs, (d) HCHO, and(e) SO2. For almost all pollutants, exposition is less for the lake-airportscenario.

Figure 7. Time series for surface concentrations at location P1 for thedifferent land use scenarios. Solid line: the lake-airport scenario; and lightlines: the vegetation-airport and desert-airport scenarios. (a) O3 concen-trations are similar for all scenarios. (b) CO concentrations for lake-airportscenarios are higher. (c) PP concentrations for vegetation-airport areslightly larger. (d) NO concentrations are higher for the lake-airport sce-nario. (e) NO2 concentrations are higher for the lake-airport scenario.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

center of the dry lakebed, will make it difficult to growand maintain vegetation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support providedby grant RI-500–1 CONACYT-RED and Futura DesarrolloUrbano, A.C. We also acknowledge the help of DelibesFlores Roman for his technical support. Special thanks toRenate Forkel of the Insitut fur Meteorologie und Klimat-forschung, Btreich Atmospharische Umweltforschung(IMK-IFU), for her assistance running MCCM.

REFERENCES1. Lisker, B.; Swedish, W.J.; Amodeo, F.A.; Friedman, M.S.; Heffron, M.E.;

Kay, M.; Kleinhans, R.; Massimini, S.V.; Tarakan, R. Proyecto Ambien-tal Nuevo Texcoco, Mucho mas que un Aeropuerto para Mexico. ElFuturo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de Mexico. Technical report, MI-TRE, Center for development of advanced aviation systems, Mexico,2001. Presented to Secretarıa de Comunicaciones y Transportes,Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares de Mexico.

2. Edgerton, S.A.; Bian, X.; Doran, J.C; Fast, J.D.; Hubbe, J.M.; Malone,E.L.; Shaw, W.J.; Whiteman, C.D.; Zhong, S.; Arriaga, J.L.; et al.

Particulate Air Pollution in Mexico City: A Collaborative ResearchProject; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1999, 49, 1221-1229.

3. Delgado, J.; Chıas, L.; Sobrino, J.; Tellez, C.; Morales, C.; Zamudio, V.Desarrollo urbano-regional. Estado actual y efectos asociados. Techni-cal report, Programa Universitario del Medio Ambiente (PUMA), Au-gust 2001. Evaluacion comparativa de los sitios para la ubicacion delNuevo Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de Mexico.

4. Jazcilevich, A.; Garcia, R.A.; Ruiz-Suarez, L.G.; Cruz- Nunez, X.; Del-gado, J.C.; Tellez, C., Chias, L.B. An Air Quality Modeling Study Com-paring Two Possible Sites for the New International Airport for MexicoCity; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2003, 53, 366-378.

5. Garcia, R.A.; Schoenemyer, T.; Jazcilevich, D.A.; Ruiz-Suarez, L.G.;Fuentes-Gea, V.G. Implementation of the Multiscale Climate Chem-istry Model (MCCM) for Cental Mexico. In Air Pollution VII; Longhurst,J.W.S., Brebbia, C.A., Power, H, Eds.; WIT Press: Southampton, U.K.,2000, pp. 71-78.

6. Jazcilevich, D.A.; Garcia, A.; Ruiz-Suarez, L.G. A Modeling Study of AirPollution through Land-Use Change in the Valley of Mexico; Atmos.Environ. 2002, 36, 2297-2307.

7. Grell, G.A.; Emei, S.; Stockwell, W.R.; Schoenemeyer, T.; Forkel, R.;Michalakes, J.; Knoche, R.; Seild, W. Application of a Multiscale, Cou-pled MM5/Chemistry Model to the Complex Terrain of the VOLTAPValley Campaign; Atmos. Environ. 2000, 34 (9), 1435-1454.

8. Grell, G.A.; Dudhia, J.; Stauffer, D.R. A Description of the Fifth-Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5); Tech NoteTN-398�SRT; Technical report; National Center for Atmospheric Re-search: Boulder, CO, 1994.

9. Middleton, P.; Stockwell, W.R.; Carter, W.P.L. Aggregation and Anal-ysis of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions for Regional Modeling;Atmos. Env. 1990, 24A, 1107-1133.

10. Castro, T.; Mar, B.; Longoria, R.; Morales, L.; Ruiz-Suarez, L.G. SurfaceAlbedo Measurements in Mexico City Metropolitan Area; Atmosfera2001, 14, (2), 69-74.

11. Wesley, M.L. Parameterization of Surface Resistance to Gaseous DryDeposition in Regional Numerical Models; Atmos. Env. 1989, 16,1293-1304.

12. Willmott, C.J. On the Validation of Models; Phys. Geog. 1981, 2,184-194.

13. Martınez, I. Seguridad Lago Nabor Carrillo, Data Logbook, 1999.14. Inventario de Emisiones Zona Metropolitana del Valle de Mexico; Comi-

sion Ambiental Metropolitana: 1998, 2001; CD-ROM.15. Molina, T.; Molina, M. Air Quality in the Mexico Megacity: An Integrated

Assessment; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 2002; p 234.16. DDF; PCC; AMA; IE. Inventario de Fuentes de Area (precursores de ozono y

monoxido de carbono para la zona metropolitana de la ciudad de Mexico1995), DDF-Subdireccion de Inventario de Emisiones; 1995.

17. Instituto Nacional de Ecologıa. National Information System of PointSources; Database DATGEN 1996.

18. Georgopoulos, P.G.; Arunachalam, S. Alternative Metrics for Assessingthe Relative Effectiveness of NOx and VOC Emission Reductions inControlling Ground-Level Ozone; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1997,47, 838-850.

About the AuthorsAron D. Jazcilevich and Luis-Gerardo Ruiz-Suarez are re-searchers and professors with the Center for AtmosphericSciences at the National University of Mexico in MexicoCity. Agustın R. Garcıa finished his Ph.D. studies at thecenter and has a postdoctoral appointment at the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology. Address correspondenceto: Aron D. Jazcilevich; e-mail: [email protected].

Figure 9. Wind speed difference average for the 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.period between the lake-airport and desert-airport scenarios. The windspeed is incremented over lakebed Texcoco for this calm wind periodbecause of the presence of the lake.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:02

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

An Air Pollution Modeling Study Using Three Surface Coverings Near the New International Airport of...

Documents

Transcript of An Air Pollution Modeling Study Using Three Surface Coverings Near the New International Airport of...