Daily PM 2.5 : Feb, 2000 – Feb., 2001 Mass: by Partisol FRM Ions: SO4, NO3, NH4, K, Na, Cl, PO4 by IC Elements: by ICP-AES and ICP-MS Carbon by TOT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
STN Carbon Field Blank Analysis, Derived Organic Carbon Analysis and IMPROVE blank corrected artifact analysis Bret Schichtel.
Advertisements

Esther Coz 1,2, Gary Casuccio 3, Traci L. Lersch 3, Teresa Moreno 2 and Begoña Artíñano 1 5th DAURE Science Meeting Barcelona, May 26 DAURE Microscopy.
Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 in the Southeastern US Sangil Lee 1, Yongtao Hu 1, Michael Chang 2, Karsten Baumann 2, Armistead (Ted) Russell 1 1 School.
Carbon artifact adjustments for the IMPROVE and CSN speciated particulate networks Mark Green, Judith Chow, John Watson Desert Research Institute Ann Dillner.
Chemical speciation of PM and mass closure David Green, Gary Fuller & Anja Tremper King’s College London.
Inventory Issues and Modeling- Some Examples Brian Timin USEPA/OAQPS October 21, 2002.
Atmospheric Aerosol From the Source to the Receptor Insights from the Pittsburgh Supersite Spyros Pandis, Allen Robinson, and Cliff Davidson Department.
Modification of Network Sampling Systems for Measurement of NH 3 Derek Day, Misha Schurman, Katie Beam, Jeff Collett, William Malm MOTIVATION Ammonia (NH.
Overview of CSN Data Relevant to OC/EC Artifact Adjustments presented by James Flanagan RTI International Davis, CA January 22-23, 2008.
Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.
P. D. Hien, V. T. Bac, N. T. H. Thinh Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission.
Carbon Measurements and Adjustments Measurement of organics by IMPROVE & STN networks, Use of blank data to correct carbon concentration measurements,
1 Recent PM 2.5 Trends in Georgia André J. Butler Mercer University EVE 290L 14 April, 2008.
Use of National PM2.5 and Speciation Network Measurements for Model Evaluation For presentation at PM Model Performance Workshop February 10-11, 2004:
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.
The semi-volatile nature of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area November 2, 2007 EAS Graduate Student Symposium Christopher.
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
From Ammonia to PM 2.5 Brent Auvermann Texas Cooperative Extension Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Amarillo, TX.
IMPROVE Corrects OC and EC for a Positive Artifact The positive artifact correction causes the organic and elemental carbon to approach zero as fine mass.
Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 Mass and Carbon in Seattle using Chemical Mass Balance and Positive Matrix Factorization Naydene Maykut, Puget Sound Clean.
Air Quality Impact Analysis 1.Establish a relationship between emissions and air quality. AQ past = a EM past + b 2.A change in emissions results in an.
Angeliki Karanasiou Source apportionment of particulate matter in urban aerosol Institute of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection, Environmental.
Size-segregated analysis of PM10 at a tandem urban – rural site combination J. K. Gietl 1*, T. Tritscher 1,2, and O. Klemm 1 1 University of Münster, Institute.
Preparation of Fine Particulate Emissions Inventories Lesson 1 Introduction to Fine Particles (PM 2.5 )
IMPROVE Ion Study Plan Presented by Marc Pitchford to the RPO Technical Groups Dallas, TX 12/3/02.
Is there need to collect routine ammonia/ammonium measurements in ambient air monitoring networks? Perspectives of a Data Analyst from a Small State Air.
Results of Ambient Air Analyses in Support of Transport Rule Presentation for RPO Workshop November 2003.
Sources and Processes Affecting the Chemical and Physical Properties of Denver Aerosol during DISCOVER-AQ FRAPPÉ/DISCOVER-AQ Science Team Meeting 4 May.
25/05/20071 About comparability of measured and modeled metrics Jean-Philippe Putaud Fabrizia Cavalli DG JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
SEASONAL VARIABILITY OF ORGANIC MASS CONTRIBUTION TO PM2.5 WITHIN METRO ATLANTA AND FURTHER DOWNWIND K. Baumann 1, M.E. Chang 1, A.G. Russell 2, E.S. Edgerton.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
CATT (Comparative Aerosol Trajectory Tool) CAPITA Web-based Tool for Ensemble Trajectory Analysis, MANE-VU & MW RPO funding support, Currently functional.
Application of Combined Mathematical and Meteorological Receptor Models (UNMIX & Residence Time Analysis) to IMPROVE Aerosol Data from Brigantine.
Urban vs. Rural Atlanta An assessment of : 1)PM2.5 composition and trends 2)The Atlanta Urban Heat Island Effect.
MRPO Nitrate and Organic Speciation Special Studies Donna Kenski National RPO Technical Meeting Dallas, Dec. 3-4, 2002.
Online measurements of chemical composition and size distribution of submicron aerosol particles in east Baltic region Inga Rimšelytė Institute of Physics.
“Quick Look” Trajectory Assessment of Phase 1 Battelle PMF Sources at Lye Brook Wilderness IMPROVE Site P. Wishinski & R. Poirot, VT DEC ° 9 PMF Sources.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Identification of Transportation Contributions to Urban PM Levels AQRB Mid-Term Review 2004 J.R. Brook + many contributors MSC.
Eric Edgerton, ARA, Inc. PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel Hill, NC February 10, 2004 SEARCH: Overview of Data for Model Performance Evaluation Photo.
SEARCH & VISTAS Special Studies RPO National Technical Meeting St. Louis, MO November 5, 2003.
11 September 2015 On the role of measurements and modelling in Dutch air quality policies Guus Velders The Netherlands (RIVM)
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source.
2018 Emission Reductions from the Base 18b Emission Inventory Lee Gribovicz Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Diego, California February 22-23, 2007.
NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
Ambient Monitoring & Reporting Forum Plans for 2005 Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Planning Team Meeting (3/9 – 3/10/05)
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
Source apportionment of submicron organic aerosols at an urban site by linear unmixing of aerosol mass spectra V. A. Lanz 1, M. R. Alfarra 2, U. Baltensperger.
Source Contribution to PM 2.5 and Visibility Impairment in Two Class I Areas Using Positive Matrix Factorization Keith Rose EPA, Region 10 June 22, 2005.
Elements of a Weight of Evidence Determination
IMPROVE/STN Comparison & Implications for Visibility and PM2.5
Donna Kenski Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, Des Plaines, IL
Brian Timin- EPA/OAQPS
Source Apportionment of Water Soluble Elements, EC/OC, and BrC by PMF
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
K. Baumann, M.E. Chang, V. Dookwah, S. Lee, A.G. Russell
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
New CoHA Product Access Page & Representativeness Analysis
PM modelling assessment in Northern Italy
Longer Term Aerosol Chemical speciation monitoring data during ACTRIS/EMEP activities ACSM Teams across Europe Many slides from Michael Bressi, JRC Italy.
19th TFMM Meeting, Geneva May 3rd 2018
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
Advanced Receptor Modeling for Source Identification and Apportionment
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Presentation transcript:

Daily PM 2.5 : Feb, 2000 – Feb., 2001 Mass: by Partisol FRM Ions: SO4, NO3, NH4, K, Na, Cl, PO4 by IC Elements: by ICP-AES and ICP-MS Carbon by TOT (O1, O2, O3, O4, EC) Organic Acids: by Capillary Electrophoresis Sampling Schedule: 9 AM – 9 AM (reduces volatile losses?) Ions on (NH3 & HNO3-denuded) Teflon with backup Nylon for volatile NO3 (what happens to NH4 from NH4NO3 on nylon?) Carbon on quartz by “modified TOT (NIOSH+TOR) and with OP quantified at each thermal stage on subset of samples, with ratios used to disaggregate OP among O1 – O4 (& with no blank subtract?)

Phase 1: “Blind” Receptor Modeling Comparison A. PMF run by Jeff & Pat (initial 8-source solution) B. UNMIX run by VT DEC (initial 7-Source solution) Phase 2: “Illuminated” Receptor Modeling Analysis A. Exchange/Compare Phase 1 Results (5 “similar” Sources) B. Re-model – based on inter-comparison results C. Add Meteorological Analyses (Surface Met & Trajectories) Phase 3: Interpretation & Synthesis A. Interpret Sources, Identify “Convergent Results” and B. Explore “Divergent Results” (areas of greatest uncertainty)

Comparing (quartz filter TOT) carbon data with independently measured species shows substantial offset (y intercept) for all TOT fractions --- suggesting positive carbon artifact on quartz. Carbon values were reduced by subtracting small constant = to lowest observed value for each TOT fraction (for UNMIX modeling).

4 small sources (smelter 1, smelter 2, road dust & primary coal) were “moderately similar” (R=0.5 to 0.7) between PMF & UNMIX phase 1. Large Carbonaceous Sources were Totally Uncorrelated Large (but vague) “Secondary Nitrate” & “Secondary Coal” Sources were in nearly perfect agreement between the 2 model runs

Phase I UNMIX compositions: 4 small “trace element”sources explain almost none of the mass 3 “big mass” sources are vague

4 Small Sources (Primary Coal, Road Dust and 2 Smelters) which account for Most (> 90%) of the Trace Elements (As, Se, Fe, Zn, Mn) but Almost None (<10%) of the Major Mass-Contributing Species. 3 Large Sources (Secondary Sulfates, Nitrates, & “Mot. Veh.”) which account for Most (> 90%) of all the Major Mass-Contributing Species (SO4, NO3, NH4, C) but Almost None (<10%) of the Trace Elements. So for Phase 2 UNMIX modeling, the 4 small sources were retained, their (small) masses subtracted from total mass and the “explained” trace elements were excluded as model input in a “Re-run” which included new Mass, SO4, NO3, NH4, PO4, O1, O2, O3, O4, EC & Oxalic Acid as input.

UNMIX Re-Modeling yields 5 “New” Sources (plus 4 Retained Sources) = 9 Sum of 9 new sources reproduces measured mass (slope = 1.05, R 2 =0.93) “Perfectly” reproduces “reconstructed mass” (sum of all species + O & H) Original UNMIX & PMF “Secondary Nitrate” source remains “unchanged” Other New Sources: “(NH4)2SO4, 2ndary Acids, Gas MV & Diesel MV”

Interpretation of “final” PMF & UNMIX Sources: PMF divides Road-Related Sources into 2: MV + Road Dust & MV + Road Salt UNMIX divides Same into 3: Gasoline MV, Diesel MV & Road Dust…? “Smelter-Zn” source may be fugitive emissions from temporary local construction

“Ammonium Sulfate” source: 75% SO4, 29% NH4, 7% NO3, and about 1% each of O4 & oxalic acid “Secondary Acids” source: 40% SO4 and about 10% each of NH4, O1, 2, 3, 4; 4% Oxal & EC; & 1% PO4 Ammonium Sulfate (& Ammonium nitrate) sources are both “neutral”: SO4 + NO3 = NH4 (in ueq/m3) Secondary Acid source has 2:1 SO4:NH4 ratio (in ueq/m3) consistent with ammonium bisulfate. Why do PO4 & some organics co-vary with acidic SO4? “Gasoline MV” source is 80% carbon & has OC:EC ratio (O1 +O2 + O3 + O4):EC of 50:1 “Diesel MV” source is 84% carbon & has OC:EC ratio (O1 +O2 + O3 + O4):EC of 3:1 Both Gas & Diesel “MV sources include small amounts (2-5%) of SO4 & NO3 (but no NH4?) Relative abundances of O1 - EC are opposite in gas & diesel sources. How come?

UNMIX % Source Compositions for Major Mass-Contributing Species

For Similar PMF & UNMIX Secondary Sulfate Sources: NH4/SO4 Ratios are consistent with (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 in “Neutral” Sources, and NH 4 HSO 4 in “Acidic” Sources (for which High OC is consistent with “Acid Catalyzed SOA” observed by Jang et al. (2002) Science, 25:814

(NH4)2SO4 has both Summer & Winter Maxima Acid Sulfates show 3:1 Summer:Winter ratio Carbonaceous Gasoline & Diesel MV Sources Don’t show consistent Seasonal Variations (NH4)2SO4 & Acid Sulfate Sources Don’t show Any distinct Day-of-Week Variations Gas MV source increases Sunday through Friday Diesel MV source shows 3:1 Weekday:Weekend

For 3 UNMIX MV-related sources, DOW is strongest for Diesel, weakest for Gas & intermediate for Road Dust. Unlike UNMIX sources, PMF MV-related sources show strong opposite seasonality, but DOW means are similar for 2 PMF’s vs. 3 UNMIX’s.

UNMIX sources by local surface met (averaged from 2 Airports) Source concentrations averaged by 22.5 deg. sectors, expressed as % by which sector mean deviates from all-sector mean (-100 to 100%) 2ndary NO3 > 50% > average with surface winds from SW & WSW, 3 “coal-related” sources > 50% > average from SSE through SSW, 3 “MV-related” sources don’t show strong directional tendencies.

Slow vs Fast WS: MV sources all decrease with increasing WS. Coal sources all decrease with increasing WS except with winds from the South (slight W offset for primary coal?) 2ndary NO3 also increases with increasing WS from WSW, SW

HY-SPLIT back trajectories (24/day at 3 start heights: 250, 500, 750m) used to calculate “everyday”, “high day” & “low day” Probability Fields 1. Everyday 2. High Day (top 10%) 3. Low Day (low 10%) 4. Hi Inc. Prob. (2–1) 5. “Not Low” Inc Prob (3-1) 6. Hi & Not Low ((4-5)/2) 2ndary NO3 source Blue = NegativeBlue = Positive 2ndary NO3 source Blue = Negative

Incremental Probabilities for 3 “Similar” UNMIX & PMF Sources

Incremental Probabilities for 3 UNMIX & 2 PMF MV-related Sources

Incremental Probabilities for 3 UNMIX & PMF “Coal-related” Sources

“Local” MV-Related & Smelter Sources Dominate on Cleanest Days, Secondary Ammonium Nitrate Dominates on Moderate Days, and “Coal-Related” Secondary Sulfate Sources Dominate on Worst Days.

Aerosol Nitrate at Toronto and many other Eastern sites appears to be associated with flows passing over the “Corn Belt” region of high ammonia emissions density from agricultural sources.