Presentation on theme: "Characterization of gas and particle emissions in the greater Houston area using the Aerodyne mobile laboratory Ezra Wood, Scott Herndon, Luwi Oluwole,"— Presentation transcript:
Characterization of gas and particle emissions in the greater Houston area using the Aerodyne mobile laboratory Ezra Wood, Scott Herndon, Luwi Oluwole, Simon Albo T. Onasch 1, E. Fortner 1, J. Jayne 1, J. Wormhoudt 1, P. Massoli 1, C. Kolb 1, H. B. Lee 2, M. Zavala 3, L. T. Molina 3, and W. B. Knighton 4 6/21/2011 FLAIR workshop, Austin TX Acknowledgments: TCEQ Aerodyne Research, Inc., Harvard University, Molina Center for Energy & Environment, Montana State University
CO, NO 2, C 2 H 4, HCHO (QC-TILDAS) aromatic VOCs, 1,3-butadiene, OVOCs (PTR-MS/NO+MS) O 3, NO, CO 2, SO 2 PAN (GC), VOCs (canisters) (UH) Size and chemically-speciated PM (Aerosol Mass Spectrometer) Particle number (CPC) Black Carbon (MAAP), extinction PM size distribution (SMPS) Wind speed/direction Actinic flux GPS position Instrumentation
Goal: Conduct measurements that support emissions characterization quantification (pounds/hr) location identification Mobile sampling: Texas City, Mont Belvieu, Ship Channel Stationary sites: Texas City Mont Belvieu U. Houston
Quantification of emissions from traditional combustion source: fuel-based emission factors Ship Channel May 28, 2009
Carbon balance method 58 g NO x /kg fuel 18 ppb NO x / ppm CO 2 x total fuel consumption Emission Inventory
Ship emission factors Plume time Vessel name/type NO x g/kg fuel dO x / dNO x HCHO g/kg CO g/kg SO 2 g/kg 10:04 Izumo Princess 58 0.1 10:26 Vega Spring 6121 10:59 Odfjell Seachem 54 0.06 1225 11:04 UBC Bremen? 80 0.08 11:05 Eitzen Chemical 50 0.11 0.194834 11:17 Leyte Spirit 89 0.07 0.171037 11:24 tug/ferry 55 0.12 0.40121.2 11:36 tug/ferry 30 0.09 – 0.15 0.13 11:54 Petropavlovsk 44 0.07 0.161730 Williams MSD c 61.50.1511.06.3 Williams SSD b 79.60.1511.827.8 HONO/NO x : 0.7 to 1.4% (similar to on-road diesel vehicles) -based on comparison with UCLA iDOAS HONO/NO 2 ratios
Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) vs. fuel-based emission factors Assumption that most C ends up as CO, CO 2 not valid Flares: use carbon balance method … …with a few complications TCEQs Comprehensive Flare Study September 2010:
Emissions observed with ARI mobile laboratory during FLAIR 2009: 1) Useful correlations between combustion tracers (CO, CO 2 ) and VOCs 2) Obvious fugitive emissions 3) Unclear – no obvious correlation between combustion tracers and VOCs, but cant rule it out
1. (Useful VOC-CO x correlations) Flare Emission Capture from Mobile Laboratory Known Plant Flare P-200 Mobile Lab Maneuvered Here Prevailing Wind
Flare Emission Capture from Mobile Laboratory Known Plant Flare P-200 Prevailing Wind
Flare Emission Capture from Mobile Laboratory Known Plant Flare P-200 Prevailing Wind Carbon balance methods with a guess about vent gas composition: DRE = 94% (88% - 96%)
Large ethene leak, Winfree Rd ·Localized (<10 m) · no CO/CO 2 /NO x 2) obvious fugitive emissions / non-combustion source
3) No obvious correlation between combustion tracers and VOCs, but cant rule out low DRE flare vs. leak
3) No obvious correlation between VOCs and CO x – low DRE flares?
The Aerodyne Inverse Modeling System (AIMS) Given knowledge of the wind history, determine emission source parameters that when applied in atmospheric dispersion model yield pollutant concentration profiles that are most consistent with observed profiles Driver SCIPUFF SCIPUFF TL/Adjoint Minimization algorithm Obs. Data (MET, Sensors) Aerodyne Research, Inc. # of sources, Emission rates, Locations, Start and End times.
WIND 15 pounds/hr benzene source identified by inversion model Inversion model results
Stationary data: SO 2 upwind from courthouse site (TC)
HCHO: same spatial signature filtered day/night
P(OH) = L(OH) Total OH loss rate = 47.3 s -1, and is dominated by reaction with C 2 H 4. This yields an OH concentation of 1.6 × 10 5 molecules/cm 3. Since the HO 2 + NO term is obviously not zero, this number should be considered a lower limit to the true OH concentration. This value is likely higher than the [OH] in non alkene plume air considering the time of day (06:12 local time). Further analysis will address the likely range of values for the HO 2 + NO term.