Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), Vienna, Austria.
European Commission - Joint Research Center (JRC), Ispra VA, Italy.
J Environ Radioact. 2022 Dec;255:106968. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2022.106968. Epub 2022 Sep 20.
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.
2015 年和 2016 年,在全面禁止核试验条约(CTBT)核查的背景下进行了大气传输建模挑战,然而,与排放清单、模拟期和相关样本数量(即高于最小可检测浓度(MDC)的样本)相比,其范围更有限。因此,2019 年组织了一次更全面的大气传输建模挑战。氙-133 的烟囱排放数据由比利时国家放射元素研究所/IRE 和加拿大核实验室/CNL 提供,并在模拟中涵盖了三个(强制性)或六个月(可选)的时间段。北半球其他设施(放射性药物生产和核研究设施、商业反应堆或相关研究反应堆)的最佳估计排放量也包括在内。模型结果与位于欧洲和北美的四个国际监测系统(IMS)站观测到的大气活动浓度进行了比较,IRE 和/或 CNL 的排放对评估参与者的运行结果有很大影响。鼓励参与者使用受控和协调的模型设置来使运行更具可比性,但也要增加多样性。结果发现,如果考虑所有有效观测样本的所有站点的总体得分,则使用每日分辨率的 IRE 和 CNL 的烟囱排放并不会比从文献中分解这两个设施的年度排放带来更好的结果。对于至少受 IRE 和/或 CNL 影响的 50%的样本,统计分数可以看到 10%左右的适度收益,对于个别样本,可能会有相当大的收益。传输误差、未正确描述的剩余排放源以及 IMS 较长的采样时间(12-24 小时)的影响无疑与高质量 IRE 和 CNL 烟囱数据的收益形成对比,并降低了其收益。与仅考虑 IRE 和 CNL 排放相比,对剩余排放源的最佳估计补充将分数提高了 18%。尽管已经付出了努力,但构建的完整多模型集合仍然高度冗余。基于少数任意运行的集合就足以模拟所研究站点的氙-133 背景。有效集合的大小低于五个。与完整集合相比,每个站点的优化集合的技能平均略有提高。然而,技能的提高(均方根误差的最大值为 20%,最小值为 3%)可能太小,无法在独立期间利用。