Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Third international challenge to model the medium- to long-range transport of radioxenon to four Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty monitoring stations.
Maurer, C; Galmarini, S; Solazzo, E; Kusmierczyk-Michulec, J; Baré, J; Kalinowski, M; Schoeppner, M; Bourgouin, P; Crawford, A; Stein, A; Chai, T; Ngan, F; Malo, A; Seibert, P; Axelsson, A; Ringbom, A; Britton, R; Davies, A; Goodwin, M; Eslinger, P W; Bowyer, T W; Glascoe, L G; Lucas, D D; Cicchi, S; Vogt, P; Kijima, Y; Furuno, A; Long, P K; Orr, B; Wain, A; Park, K; Suh, K-S; Quérel, A; Saunier, O; Quélo, D.
Affiliation
  • Maurer C; Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christian.maurer@zamg.ac.at.
  • Galmarini S; European Commission - Joint Research Center (JRC), Ispra VA, Italy.
  • Solazzo E; European Commission - Joint Research Center (JRC), Ispra VA, Italy.
  • Kusmierczyk-Michulec J; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna, Austria.
  • Baré J; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna, Austria.
  • Kalinowski M; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna, Austria.
  • Schoeppner M; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna, Austria.
  • Bourgouin P; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna, Austria.
  • Crawford A; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory (NOAA-ARL), College Park, MD, USA.
  • Stein A; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory (NOAA-ARL), College Park, MD, USA.
  • Chai T; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory (NOAA-ARL), College Park, MD, USA.
  • Ngan F; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory (NOAA-ARL), College Park, MD, USA.
  • Malo A; Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Meteorological Service of Canada, Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC), Environmental Emergency Response Section, RSMC Montréal, Dorval, Québec, Canada.
  • Seibert P; University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Institute of Meteorology and Climatology, Vienna, Austria.
  • Axelsson A; Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Ringbom A; Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Britton R; Atomic Weapons Establishment/United Kingdom-National Data Center (AWE/UK-NDC), Aldermaston, Reading, United Kingdom.
  • Davies A; Atomic Weapons Establishment/United Kingdom-National Data Center (AWE/UK-NDC), Aldermaston, Reading, United Kingdom.
  • Goodwin M; Atomic Weapons Establishment/United Kingdom-National Data Center (AWE/UK-NDC), Aldermaston, Reading, United Kingdom.
  • Eslinger PW; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA.
  • Bowyer TW; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA.
  • Glascoe LG; National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA.
  • Lucas DD; National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA.
  • Cicchi S; National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA.
  • Vogt P; National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA.
  • Kijima Y; Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Tokai, Ibaraki, Japan.
  • Furuno A; Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Tokai, Ibaraki, Japan.
  • Long PK; Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute (VINATOM), Hanoi, Vietnam.
  • Orr B; Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Yallambie/Miranda, Australia.
  • Wain A; Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), Melbourne, Australia.
  • Park K; Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
  • Suh KS; Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
  • Quérel A; French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
  • Saunier O; French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
  • Quélo D; French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
J Environ Radioact ; 255: 106968, 2022 Dec.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36148707
ABSTRACT
In 2015 and 2016, atmospheric transport modeling challenges were conducted in the context of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) verification, however, with a more limited scope with respect to emission inventories, simulation period and number of relevant samples (i.e., those above the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC)) involved. Therefore, a more comprehensive atmospheric transport modeling challenge was organized in 2019. Stack release data of Xe-133 were provided by the Institut National des Radioéléments/IRE (Belgium) and the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories/CNL (Canada) and accounted for in the simulations over a three (mandatory) or six (optional) months period. Best estimate emissions of additional facilities (radiopharmaceutical production and nuclear research facilities, commercial reactors or relevant research reactors) of the Northern Hemisphere were included as well. Model results were compared with observed atmospheric activity concentrations at four International Monitoring System (IMS) stations located in Europe and North America with overall considerable influence of IRE and/or CNL emissions for evaluation of the participants' runs. Participants were prompted to work with controlled and harmonized model set-ups to make runs more comparable, but also to increase diversity. It was found that using the stack emissions of IRE and CNL with daily resolution does not lead to better results than disaggregating annual emissions of these two facilities taken from the literature if an overall score for all stations covering all valid observed samples is considered. A moderate benefit of roughly 10% is visible in statistical scores for samples influenced by IRE and/or CNL to at least 50% and there can be considerable benefit for individual samples. Effects of transport errors, not properly characterized remaining emitters and long IMS sampling times (12-24 h) undoubtedly are in contrast to and reduce the benefit of high-quality IRE and CNL stack data. Complementary best estimates for remaining emitters push the scores up by 18% compared to just considering IRE and CNL emissions alone. Despite the efforts undertaken the full multi-model ensemble built is highly redundant. An ensemble based on a few arbitrary runs is sufficient to model the Xe-133 background at the stations investigated. The effective ensemble size is below five. An optimized ensemble at each station has on average slightly higher skill compared to the full ensemble. However, the improvement (maximum of 20% and minimum of 3% in RMSE) in skill is likely being too small for being exploited for an independent period.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Radiation Monitoring / Air Pollutants, Radioactive Type of study: Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: J Environ Radioact Year: 2022 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Radiation Monitoring / Air Pollutants, Radioactive Type of study: Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: J Environ Radioact Year: 2022 Document type: Article