NO y lifetimes and O3 production efficiencies in urban and power plant plumes: Analysis of field data
Article first published online: 21 SEP 2012
Copyright 2000 by the American Geophysical Union.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Volume 105, Issue D7, pages 9165–9176, 16 April 2000
How to Cite
2000), NO y lifetimes and O3 production efficiencies in urban and power plant plumes: Analysis of field data, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D7), 9165–9176, doi:10.1029/1999JD900753., , , , , , , , and (
- Issue published online: 21 SEP 2012
- Article first published online: 21 SEP 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 12 JUL 1999
- Manuscript Received: 1 FEB 1999
In an effort to describe and characterize power plant plumes in the Nashville region, emissions from a small power plant (Gallatin) and a large power plant (Paradise) were examined using data obtained on the Department of Energy G-1 airborne sampling platform. Observations made on July 3, 7, 15, 17, and 18, 1995, were compiled, and a kinetic analysis of the chemical evolution of the power plant plumes was performed. Analysis of the power plant plume data revealed a very active photochemistry, as had been determined previously for the urban plume. Ozone production efficiencies (OPE), defined as the number of molecules of O3 formed per NOx molecule consumed, were found to be 3 for Gallatin and 2 for Paradise. Lifetimes for NOx (2.8 and 4.2 hours) and NOy (7.0 and 7.7 hours) were determined for Gallatin and Paradise, respectively. These NOx and NOy lifetimes imply rapid loss of NOz (NOz is assumed to be primarily HNO3). Lifetimes for NOz are calculated to be 3 and 2.5 hours for Gallatin and Paradise, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicates that the Gallatin NOz lifetime could be as long as 5 hours, bringing it into agreement with the value determined for the Nashville urban plume. It is unlikely that the Paradise NOz lifetime is as long as 4 hours. If NOz loss is attributed to dry deposition, a 3 hour lifetime implies a deposition velocity greater than 10 cm s−1, which is much faster than expected based on accepted theory. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.