Evaluating reduced-form modeling tools for simulating ozone and PM2.5 monetized health impacts

Abstract

Reduced-form modeling approaches are an increasingly popular way to rapidly estimate air quality and human health impacts related to changes in air pollutant emissions. These approaches reduce computation time by making simplifying assumptions about pollutant source characteristics, transport and chemistry. Two reduced form tools used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent assessments are source apportionment-based benefit per ton (SA BPT) and source apportionment-based air quality surfaces (SABAQS). In this work, we apply these two reduced form tools to predict changes in ambient summer-season ozone, ambient annual PM_2.5 component species and monetized health benefits for multiple sector-specific emission control scenarios: on-road mobile, electricity generating units (EGUs), cement kilns, petroleum refineries, and pulp and paper facilities. We then compare results against photochemical grid and standard health model-based estimates. We additionally compare monetized PM_2.5 health benefits to values derived from three reduced form tools available in the literature: the Intervention Model for Air Pollution (InMAP), Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy Analysis (APEEP) version 2 (AP2) and Estimating Air pollution Social Impact Using Regression (EASIUR). Ozone and PM_2.5 changes derived from SABAQS for EGU scenarios were well-correlated with values obtained from photochemical modeling simulations with spatial correlation coefficients between 0.64 and 0.89 for ozone and between 0.75 and 0.94 for PM_2.5. SABAQS ambient ozone and PM_2.5 bias when compared to photochemical modeling predictions varied by emissions scenario: SABAQS PM_2.5 changes were overpredicted by up to 46% in one scenario and underpredicted by up to 19% in another scenario; SABAQS seasonal ozone changes were overpredicted by 34% to 83%. All tools predicted total PM_2.5 benefits within a factor of 2 of the full-form predictions consistent with intercomparisons of reduced form tools available in the literature. As reduced form tools evolve, it is important to continue periodic comparison with comprehensive models to identify systematic biases in estimating air pollution impacts and resulting monetized health benefits.