Analysis of Mercury Data A Cooperative Experiment NESCAUM Monitoring & Assessment Committee April, 2007 Charlie Pietarinen NJDEP.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Atmospheric Mercury in the Guadalupe Watershed Andy Lincoff Peter Husby Barbara Bates US EPA Region 9 Laboratory Richmond, CA Richmond, CA.
Advertisements

UPDATE ON DAQS AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS & MERCURY STUDIES NC DENR/DAQ Mercury/CO 2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 19, 2004 Steve Schliesser Todd Crawford NC.
Fong (Fantine) Ngan and DaeWon Byun IMAQS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Houston 7 th Annual CMAS Conference, October 6th, 2008.
Chief Engineer’s Office The Mont Belvieu Puzzle; JJ& RN April 8, 2010 Page 1 Asthma-related Hospital Admissions vs Ozone Concentrations in Texas CEO/AQD.
Modeling the New 1-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS Alan Dresser Research Scientist I October 14, 2011.
2007 Group Meeting Global Climate and Air Pollution (GCAP) at Harvard University Nicky Lam and Joshua Fu University of Tennessee October 12, 2007.
Lecture 24: Thurs., April 8th
Temporal Patterns in OMI NO2 Columns Benjamin de Foy, Saint Louis University AQAST-9, Saint Louis University, 3 June 2015 Cluster 1 (Blue) shows areas.
2009 Ozone Season Summary and Air Quality Trends Jen Desimone and Sunil Kumar MWAQC Meeting, COG September 23, 2009.
TAG Progress Report: Landfill Odors Modeling Research C. D. Cooper, CECE Dept., Univ. of Central Fla. December 16, 2008.
“Soil Wetness Modeling Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems in North Carolina” by Barrett L. Kays, Ph.D., NCCHS Steven Berkowitz, P.E., NCDENR.
Air Quality Impacts from a Potential Shale Gas Emissions Scenario - Photochemical Modeling of Ozone Concentrations in Central North Carolina Presented.
Modeling Overview For Barrio Logan Community Health Neighborhood Assessment Program Andrew Ranzieri Vlad Isakov Tony Servin Shuming Du October 10, 2001.
Science Investigation Discussion of Results to Date & Future Work Red Deer Particulate Matter Information Session Maxwell Mazur
Ramifications of Charlotte Regional Growth and Weekday Activities on Primary and Secondary Emissions Jenny L. Perry and Patrick M. Owens Department of.
Estimate of Air Emissions from Shale Gas Development and Production in North Carolina July 8, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission.
Observations The collection of slope values were plotted against time and box plots show the distribution for each of the six daily trips of the vessel.
Ultra-trace Mercury Monitoring in Air. Company History Founded in 1989 to develop custom instrumentation for environmental analysis Founded in 1989 to.
Modeling the Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury to Lake Champlain (from Anthropogenic Sources in the U.S. and Canada) Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources.
Objectives 2.1Scatterplots  Scatterplots  Explanatory and response variables  Interpreting scatterplots  Outliers Adapted from authors’ slides © 2012.
Techniques for Evaluating Wildfire Smoke Impact on Ozone for Possible Exceptional Events Daniel Alrick 1, Clinton MacDonald 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, Charles.
Ozone Update Ben Wells U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Analysis Group February 11, 2014.
Simple Linear Regression ANOVA for regression (10.2)
WFM 5201: Data Management and Statistical Analysis © Dr. Akm Saiful IslamDr. Akm Saiful Islam WFM 5201: Data Management and Statistical Analysis Akm Saiful.
1 Shale Gas Development/Production Activities and Air Quality Mike Abraczinskas, Deputy Director North Carolina Division of Air Quality Shale Gas Development/Production.
Brad Miller Anna Kelley. National Ambient Air Quality Standard Update New Sulfur Dioxide Non-Attainment Area – Effective October 4, 2013 Ozone Secondary.
1 Wind, Thermal, and Earthquake Monitoring of the Watts Towers Initial Results Ertugrul Taciroglu, UCLA Engineering Bob Nigbor, Jackson English,
Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland
Importance of chemistry-climate interactions in projections of future air quality Loretta J. Mickley Lu Shen, Daniel H. Cusworth, Xu Yue Earth system models.
Spatial distribution of hourly trajectory endpoint frequencies top 10% of daytime RGM vs. total year with estimated 2002 emissions of reactive gaseous.
Fall Weather Unit Your Fall Weather Update! By: Reporter ____________.
Preliminary Analysis by: Fawn Hornsby 1, Charles Rogers 2, & Sarah Thornton 3 1,3 North Carolina State University 2 University of Texas at El Paso Client:
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
Evaluation of pollution levels in urban areas of selected EMEP countries Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov Meteorological Synthesizing Centre - East.
NOAA’s Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Region January 17,
Statewide Compliance Monitoring and Local Monitoring Projects
University of Wisconsin- eau Claire: sand fracking research
Department of Environmental Quality
High Wind Blowing Dust April 29, 2011 Exceptional Event
IBIS Weather generator
Development of a Multipollutant Version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System Shawn Roselle, Deborah Luecken, William Hutzell,
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
Region 4 Air Sensor Projects
A very brief introduction
Climate Graphs What do they tell us?.
Introduction to Hands-on Activities
Air Monitoring Trends in New Jersey
Jenny L. Perry and Patrick M. Owens Department of Chemistry
VO Biophysik | G. Schauberger | Institut für Med. Physik & Biostatistik Reconstruction of airborne emissions by inverse dispersion modelling and.
in US East Coast Using SMAT-CE Software
Examples of 1-Hour NO2 and SO2 Modeling William O’Sullivan Director, Division of Air Quality NJDEP April 28, 2011.
Within-Week Variability and Long-Term Trends in Traffic, Power Plant Emissions, and Ambient CO, NOy and Ozone for the Charlotte Metropolitan Area Jennifer.
Enforcing the NAAQS Case Study Sean Taylor
Preliminary Summary of 2010 Ozone Season in New Jersey
Biogenic Emissions in Southeast Texas
Monitoring Data Sets and Analysis Tools for the VIEWS/TSS Web Sites
TCEQ AMBIENT Air Monitors in Corpus christi
A very brief introduction
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
EQ: What is the impact of climate on Georgia’s growth and development?
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Bell Work – Range, Measures of Center, and Dot Plot
EEMEP ASSESSMENT REPORT
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
Topic 3: Meteorology and data filtering
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 Estimated 8-hr Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations Kirk Baker Donna Kenski Lake Michigan.
JDS International seminar 2018
Iakovos Barmpadimos, André Prévôt, Johannes Keller, Christoph Hüglin
Presentation transcript:

Analysis of Mercury Data A Cooperative Experiment NESCAUM Monitoring & Assessment Committee April, 2007 Charlie Pietarinen NJDEP

“An Analysis of Continuous Mercury Air Pollution Data Collected in Elizabeth and New Brunswick, NJ.” Presented By: Fawn Hornsby & Wilma “Billie” Jackson Client: Mr. Charles Pietarinen NJ Department of Environment

Methodology I An example of “good” data: First, we needed to sort through the measurements to find the “good” data

Methodology I Applied NJDEP criteria to identify “good” data: –Example of “good” data is a two-hour block with measurements recorded every 5 minutes (for 34 measurements) conforming to the following (in order): »2 black or 0 values »12 elemental values > 0 »1 blank value >= 0 »2 blank or 0 values »1 particulate value of 0 »1 particulate value >= 0 »A particulate value <= previous particulate value »A particulate value of 0 »A reactive gas value >= 0 »A reactive gas value <= previous reactive gas value »A reactive gas value of 0

The Combined Distributions of Elemental Mercury: FREQUENCY Ave_z FREQUENCY Elemental Mercury Distribution Without outliers: Elemental Mercury Distribution With outliers:

Reactive Gas Mercury R1 TIMEBLOCK Comparison of Reactive Gas Mercury distributions (omitting outliers), and Ozone measurements: Reactive Gas Mercury Box Plot Without outliers: HOUR FREQUENCY (Donaghy & Sorrell 2002) Box Plot for 1 hour max ozone:

Presented By: Fawn Hornsby, Wilma “Billie” Jackson, Carrie Larsen, & Roberta O’Donnell Client: Mr. Charles Pietarinen NJ Department of Environment "How do Ambient Air Pollution Mercury Levels Compare Between Elizabeth and New Brunswick, NJ?"

Percentage of Particulate Mercury Values Found At Each Site Daily Average of Particulate Measurements Elizabeth: New Brunswick:

Methodology for linking meteorology data with mercury data: (Source: NJDEP) For Particulate and Reactive Gas Mercury Correlated to Wind Speed and Direction: 1.The hourly average of each 15-minute measurement taken for wind speed and direction were paired to these phases of mercury. Elemental Mercury correlated to Wind Speed and Direction: 1.The averages of every set of three 5-minute elemental mercury measurements were computed in order to be compared with 15- minute measurements taken for wind speed and direction. 2.The sets of data were paired together using the last timestamp taken to compute the elemental mercury average. –For example, if the wind speed and direction was observed at 1:15, then the respective speed and direction value would be paired with the elemental mercury measurements taken at 1:05, 1:10, and 1:15.

Elemental Mercury versus Wind Speed at Elizabeth and New Brunswick Elizabeth:New Brunswick: Phase IV Wind Speed

Particle Mercury versus Wind Speed at Elizabeth and New Brunswick Elizabeth:New Brunswick: Wind Speed

Methodology for Finding Direction Graphs Normalized values were computed by multiplying wind speed times the daily average mercury data, then plotted against the wind direction. Direction is given in degrees: Phase V

Normalized Elemental vs. Direction at Elizabeth Highest concentrations from , and degrees Normalized Elemental Mercury Measurements Direction

New Brunswick, NJ New Brunswick NJ Wind Direction Map of High Value Outliers Particulate RGM Elemental Sun Icon: Coal/Oil Fired Power Plants Yellow Icon: Steel remanufacturing/Smelters Green Icon: Sewage Sludge Incinerators Red Icon: WTE Plants

Extreme Outliers in New Brunswick

Preliminary Analysis by: Fawn Hornsby 1, Charles Rogers 2, & Sarah Thornton 3 1,3 North Carolina State University 2 University of Texas at El Paso Client: Mr. Charles Pietarinen NJ Department of Environment Tuesday, July 25, North Carolina State University Graduate Assistant: Mr. Andrew Moore Faculty Mentor: Dr. William Hunt

Elemental Mercury: Highest concentrations from , and degrees Source Graphs For Elizabeth Particulate Mercury: Highest concentrations from and degrees Reactive Gas Mercury: Highest concentrations coming from the directions of: 0-20, , and degrees

Elemental Mercury Values During the Summer Seasons New Brunswick: Elizabeth:

Particulate Hg Day of the Week Effect

Relationship Between Elemental Mercury, Ozone, & Temperature New Brunswick: Elizabeth:

Examining Temperatures versus Particulate Mercury in New Brunswick Scatter Plot: Box Plot:

County Emissions of Mercury and Mercury Compounds Total On-Site Disposal (pounds)

Primary Wind Directions in New Brunswick 90° 180° 270°

Comparison of Correlations By Direction Using 30 degree increments Elemental Mercury Particulate Mercury Reactive Gas Mercury New Brunswick (wind direction) East-Southeast °

Modeling Mercury Concentrations in New Jersey November 28, 2006 Elizabeth Christoph and Sarah Thornton Client: Mr. Charles Pietarinen, NJDEP Mentor: Dr. W. F. Hunt Post-Doc Advisor: Dr. Curtis B. Storlie Graduate Advisor: Andrew S. Moore

The Traditional Model Y = b 0 + b 1 u + b 2 v Y = Mercury Concentration b 0 = Baseline Concentration u = -Wind Speed*cosine (2π*Wind direction / 360) v = -Wind Speed*sine (2π*Wind direction / 360)

The Meteorological Model Y = b 0 + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x b 14 x 14 Y = Mercury Concentration b 0 = Baseline Concentration x 1 = cosine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 2 = sine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 3 = cosine (4π*Wind Direction /360) x 4 = sine (4π*Wind Direction /360) …….. x 11 = Wind Speed x 12 = ( Wind Speed ) ² x 13 = Average Daily Temperature x 14 = Precipitation

The Logarithmic Transformation Y = b 0 + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x b 14 x 14 Y = Natural Log (Mercury Concentration) b 0 = Baseline Concentration x 1 = cosine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 2 = sine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 3 = cosine (4π*Wind Direction /360) x 4 = sine (4π*Wind Direction /360) …….. x 11 = Wind Speed x 12 = ( Wind Speed ) ² x 13 = Average Daily Temperature x 14 = Precipitation

Elizabeth New Brunswick R² = Predicted Values Residuals vs. Predicted Values R² = Predicted Values Residuals vs. Predicted Values

Elizabeth New Brunswick R² = Predicted Values Residuals vs. Predicted Values R² = Predicted Values Residuals vs. Predicted Values

Modeling Mercury Concentrations Interim Briefing March 21, 2007 Liz Christoph Fawn Hornsby

The Normalized Model Y = b 0 + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x b 14 x 14 Y = Mercury Concentration*Wind Speed b 0 = Baseline Concentration x 1 = cosine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 2 = sine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 3 = cosine (4π*Wind Direction /360) x 4 = sine (4π*Wind Direction /360) …….. x 11 = Wind Speed x 12 = ( Wind Speed ) ² x 13 = Average Daily Temperature x 14 = Precipitation

ElemPartRGM Normalized Meteorological Inverse Normalized Logarithmic ElemPartRGM Traditional Meteorological Logarithmic R-squared Values for Elizabeth

Predicted Concentrations vs. Actual Concentrations in Elizabeth: Elemental Previous Model: Normalized Model: Previous Model: METEOROLOGICALLOGARITHMIC

Modeling Mercury Concentrations Final Briefing April 16, 2007 Elizabeth Christoph Fawn Hornsby

The Log Normal Model Y = b 0 + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x b 20 x 20 Y = Natural Log (Mercury Concentration* Wind Speed) b 0 = Baseline Concentration x 1 = cosine (2 π *Wind Direction /360) x 2 = sine (2π*Wind Direction /360) x 3 = cosine (4π*Wind Direction /360) x 4 = sine (4π*Wind Direction /360) …….. x 11 = Wind Speed x 12 = ( Wind Speed ) ² x 13 = Average Daily Temperature x 14 = Precipitation x 15 = ( Average Daily Temperature ) ² x 16 =( Precipitation ) ² x 17 = Wind Speed * Wind Direction x 18 = Wind Speed * Temperature x 19 = Wind Speed * Precipitation x 20 = Precipitation * Temperature Cyclical patterns Meteorological Factors Interactions

ElemPartRGM Normalized Meteorological Normalized Logarithmic R-squared Values in Elizabeth ElemPartRGM Normalized Meteorological Normalized Logarithmic WITH Quality Control:

Predicted Conc. vs. Actual Conc. in Elizabeth: Elemental Previous Model: METEOROLOGICALLOGARITHMIC Normalized Model with QC: