Results for “maritime monitoring” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2022

Explicit quantification of residence and flushing times in the Salish Sea using a sub-basin scale shoreline resolving model

The Salish Sea, located in the Pacific Northwest region of North America has complex currents and circulation features distributed over numerous interconnected deep basins with islands. Increased risk of exposure to oil spills and untreated wastewater from maritime emergencies and treatment plant failures have led to a need for quantifying residence and flushing characteristics at a sub-basin scale using a shoreline resolving hydrodynamic model. An unstructured grid model of the Salish Sea was developed using FVCOM with a ≈75-100m shoreline resolution. In addition to 7 tides and 23 salinity and temperature monitoring stations, an extensive currents data set from 135 stations collected over a span of three years was used for skill assessment and validation. Explicit forward computations were then conducted to define and quantify residence and flushing times in various sub-basins of interest using (a) Lagrangian particles and (b) Numerical/virtual dye experiments. The results in most basins show expected seasonal variability with longer flushing time associated with summer lower tides and lower freshwater inflows. However, contrary to expectation, flushing time is significantly longer in wintertime in large fjord-like basins such as Hood Canal (≈138 days), likely due to increased stratification and reduced mixing. The flushing time for the Puget Sound region of the Salish Sea is ≈115 days, while Georgia Basin is 240 days when analyzed as stand-alone basins with zero background concentrations. When examined as part of the flushing of the entire Puget Sound filled with virtual dye, the compounded flushing times for embedded sub-basins can be significantly longer in order of magnitudes and largely dictated by the flushing time of Puget Sound. The computed residence and flushing time scales tabulated over 36 sub-basins provide an improved understanding of water renewal in the system, informing pollution management actions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Texas A&M University Mobile Facility Measurements during TRACER (Field Campaign Report)

One of the main goals of the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER) near Houston, Texas is to improve understanding of how meteorology and aerosols impact storm dynamical and microphysical processes in deep convection to better constrain and improve their model representation. The Houston area is strongly influenced by sea- and bay-breeze circulations that generate convergence and help to initiate and organize deep convection. To properly isolate and understand the roles of varied meteorological conditions and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and ice nucleation particles (INP) distributions in different air masses, co-located thermodynamic, kinematic, and aerosol vertical profile observations are needed. The focus of this campaign was to provide key measurements in air masses both in front of and behind sea/bay breeze fronts moving through the greater Houston area to sample the airmass heterogeneity. The overarching scientific goal of this campaign is to understand how the vertical distributions of both CCN and INP correspond to the inflow layer of deep convection in maritime, background continental, and polluted continental air masses, and how these variations influence deep convection. To fully sample the heterogeneity in both meteorological conditions and aerosols across the sea-breeze front (SBF), Texas A&M University (TAMU) deployed a InterMet 3050A 403 MHz mobile unit launching iMet-4 radiosondes and the new Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurement Van (ROAM-V) for aerosol sampling during the TRACER intensive operational period (IOP) from June to September 2022. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a condensation particle counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A differential mobility analyzer), cloud condensation nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN counter), micropulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies micropulse lidar [miniMPL]), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the Global Positioning System (GPS) on the phone application “My Altitude”. The DRUM data were collected as part of a closely related ARM field campaign and also supported by DOE Atmospheric System Research grant DE-SC0021047. The TAMU team sampled these airmass heterogeneities by strategically choosing deployment sites in a different airmass than the ARM fixed sites in La Porte and Guy, Texas. On days when the sea/bay breeze boundary was pushing inland, the TAMU team would usually sample the airmass on the maritime side of the SBF at a coastal site in Galveston, Texas in the early afternoon (1730-1900 UTC) and then move inland ahead of the SBF to sample the airmass on the continental side during late afternoon (2030-2230). Figure 1 shows the Galveston maritime site and the array of sites for the late afternoon continental measurements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

CPC data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston, TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

SMPS data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow, 1.0 LPM, is directed through TSI's 0.071 cm impactor attached to the classifier of the SMPS setup. The SMPS’s DMA and CPC are connected through a 20.3 cm length of 0.48 cm diameter tubing. Measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate size-dependent particle losses for each SMPS scan. Particle losses from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949) and inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977) were included in the loss calculation. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Mini-Micropulse Lidar data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (mini-MPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. The mini-MPL deployed with ROAM-V is a 532 nm elastic and polarization lidar. The mini-MPL outputs normalized relative backscatter (NRB) derived from raw signal after after-pulse, overlap, and dead-time correction calibration. The depolarization ratio is calculated from the co-polarized and cross-polarized NRB (Flynna et al., 2007). The NRB and depolarization ratio data are resampled from the original data at 1-minute intervals. The vertical resolution of the mini-MPL data is 15 meters. The mini-MPL data can be used to determine the boundary layer, cloud top, and cloud bottom height and can be used to retrieve aerosol type and concentration profile. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu . Flynna, C. J., Mendozaa, A., Zhengb, Y., & Mathurb, S. (2007). Novel polarization-sensitive micropulse lidar measurement technique. Optics express, 15(6), 2785-2790.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Projected changes in cross-equatorial northerly surges and their hydrological impacts in the near future

Recent decades have witnessed unprecedented extreme precipitation and catastrophic flooding in some of the most populated regions in Southeast Asia during boreal winter. These extreme events are often influenced by the cross-equatorial northerly surge (CENS), characterized by a strengthening of northerly moist monsoon winds south of the equator in the western Maritime Continent. However, the potential future changes in CENS and its hydrological impacts remain underexplored. Here, using an ensemble of high-resolution climate model simulations (CMIP6 HighResMIP), we show that the regional impacts of CENS on the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events are projected to significantly increase in the near future (2030–2050), particularly over the adjacent coastal regions of southern Indonesia and northwestern Australia. More specifically, the risk of CENS-related extreme precipitation is projected to increase by up to 39 ± 1.2% relative to the seasonal probability, despite no apparent changes in the CENS characteristics in the near future. Such stronger impact is attributed to the enhanced moistening efficiency and moist static instability due to a more humid and warmer environment, which leads to more intense CENS convection. Our results suggest the need for effective monitoring and disaster managements to respond to the increasing severity of such events in the near future.

Climate sciences↗

DOE OSTI2023

Ice Nucleation Measurements during TRACER (Field Campaign Report)

This campaign, Ice Nucleation Measurements during TRACER, was conducted during the TRacking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER) in Houston, Texas during June-September, 2022. Specifically, our ice nucleation campaign was designed to improve understanding of ice nucleating particles (INPs) and their role in deep convective clouds across the Houston region. Summertime deep convection in southeast Texas is regularly tied to the sea-breeze front (SBF) that pushes inland from the Gulf of Mexico across the region. During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for offline ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) first Mobile Facility (AMF1) in La Porte, at the ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the newly developed Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). Aerosol at the main ARM TRACER site, ARM1, is expected to arise from local urban, industrial, and ship channel sources. In contrast, the ANC is isolated and rural, and can therefore provide a continental background aerosol population. On select days when convective development was forecast to be probable, ROAM-V commuted from College Station, Texas to Galveston, sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast, and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. Sampling from the ROAM-V allowed us to capture aerosol and meteorological differences between maritime and continental airmasses by strategically positioning the ROAM-V near the coast in the morning in the opposite airmass from the AMF1 site.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Measurement report: A comparison of ground-level ice-nucleating-particle abundance and aerosol properties during autumn at contrasting marine and terrestrial locations

Abstract. Ice-nucleating particles (INPs) are an essential class of aerosols found worldwide that have far-reaching but poorly quantified climate feedback mechanisms through interaction with clouds and impacts on precipitation. These particles can have highly variable physicochemical properties in the atmosphere, and it is crucial to continuously monitor their long-term concentration relative to total ambient aerosol populations at a wide variety of sites to comprehensively understand aerosol–cloud interactions in the atmosphere. Hence, our study applied an in situ forced expansion cooling device to measure ambient INP concentrations and test its automated continuous measurements at atmospheric observatories, where complementary aerosol instruments are heavily equipped. Using collocated aerosol size, number, and composition measurements from these sites, we analyzed the correlation between sources and abundance of INPs in different environments. Toward this aim, we have measured ground-level INP concentrations at two contrasting sites, one in the Southern Great Plains (SGP) region of the United States with a substantial terrestrially influenced aerosol population and one in the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean (ENA) region with a primarily marine-influenced aerosol population. These measurements examined INPs mainly formed through immersion freezing and were performed at a ≤ 12 min resolution and with a wide range of heterogeneous freezing temperatures (Ts above −31 °C) for at least 45 d at each site. The associated INP data analysis was conducted in a consistent manner. We also explored the additional offline characterization of ambient aerosol particle samples from both locations in comparison to in situ data. From our ENA data, on average, INP abundance ranges from ≈ 1 to ≈ 20 L−1 (−30 °C ≤ T ≤ −20 °C) during October–November 2020. Backward air mass trajectories reveal a strong marine influence at ENA with 75.7 % of air masses originating over the Atlantic Ocean and 96.6 % of air masses traveling over open water, but analysis of particle chemistry suggests an additional INP source besides maritime aerosols (e.g., sea spray aerosols) at ENA. In contrast, 90.8 % of air masses at the SGP location originated from the North American continent, and 96.1 % of the time, these air masses traveled over land. As a result, organic-rich SGP aerosols from terrestrial sources exhibited notably high INP abundance from ≈ 1 to ≈ 100 L−1 (−30 °C ≤ T ≤ −15 °C) during October–November 2019. The probability density function of aerosol surface area-scaled immersion freezing efficiency (ice nucleation active surface site density; ns) was assessed for selected freezing temperatures. While the INP concentrations measured at SGP are higher than those of ENA, the ns(T) values of SGP (≈ 105 to ≈ 107 m−2 for −30 °C ≤ T ≤ −15 °C) are reciprocally lower than ENA for approximately 2 orders of magnitude (≈ 107 to ≈ 109 m−2 for −30 °C ≤ T ≤ −15 °C). The observed difference in ns(T) mainly stems from varied available aerosol surface areas, Saer, from two sites (Saer,SGP > Saer,ENA). INP parameterizations were developed as a function of examined freezing temperatures from SGP and ENA for our study periods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗