Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Using In-Network Precision Data as a Basis for Cross-Network Comparisons Warren H. White, Nicole P. Hyslop, and Charles E. McDade AAAR Specialty Conference:
Advertisements

Report of the IMPROVE/CSN Organic Carbon Artifact Adjustment Committee Ann M. Dillner, Mark Green Marc Pitchford, Bret Schichtel, Bill Malm, Warren White,
Analysis of 12 years of IMPROVE data in the Columbia River Gorge By Dan Jaffe University of Washington Northwest Air Quality Photo from the Wishram IMPROVE.
STN Carbon Field Blank Analysis, Derived Organic Carbon Analysis and IMPROVE blank corrected artifact analysis Bret Schichtel.
PM 2.5 Carbon Measurements in EPA Region 10 Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. NW-AIRQUEST June, 2011.
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.
EPA Precursor Gas Training Workshop PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) Carbon Conversion Joann Rice.
STN/IMPROVE Comparison Study Preliminary Results Paul Solomon, ORD Tracy Klamser-Williams, ORIA Peter Egeghy, ORD Dennis Crumpler, OAQPS Joann Rice, OAQPS.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style 1 Modeling of 1,3-Butadiene for Urban and Industrial Areas B. Rappenglück and B. Czader.
Template Assessment of the Sources of Organic Carbon at Monitoring Sites in the Southeastern United States using Receptor and Deterministic Models Ralph.
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.
FIRE AND BIOFUEL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANNUAL MEAN AEROSOL MASS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES ROKJIN J. PARK, DANIEL J. JACOB, JENNIFER A. LOGAN AGU FALL.
Biomass Smoke Aerosol: Spatial and Temporal Pattern over the US October 2005
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.
Introduction & Outline Particulate Measurement 1) PM10 – Particulate Matter < 10 microns 2) PM2.5 – Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns - Measured with different.
Section highlights Organic Aerosol and Field Studies.
Source apportionment of Swiss carbonaceous aerosols using radiocarbon analyses of different fractions References: S. Szidat et al., 2007: Dominant impact.
Organic Carbon and Elemental Carbon in Atlanta Area Chao Wu.
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist EMEP Workshop – PM Measurement & Modeling April 22, 2004 Measurement Needs for Evaluating Model Calculations.
Source apportionment of the carbonaceous aerosol – Quantitative estimates based on 14 C- and organic tracer analysis 1.Norwegian Institute for Air Research.
Sample Analysis and Calculations Analyzing concentrations for FLAME and IMPROVE filters Levoglucosan and other sugars measured using High-Performance Anion.
Integration of PMF Data into AoH Analyses AoH Work Group Call June 7, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
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.
IMPROVE Report 2006 L. Debell, K. Gebhart, B. Schichtel and W. Malm.
Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 Mass and Carbon in Seattle using Chemical Mass Balance and Positive Matrix Factorization Naydene Maykut, Puget Sound Clean.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
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.
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.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
25/05/20071 About comparability of measured and modeled metrics Jean-Philippe Putaud Fabrizia Cavalli DG JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
Application of Combined Mathematical and Meteorological Receptor Models (UNMIX & Residence Time Analysis) to IMPROVE Aerosol Data from Brigantine.
MRPO Nitrate and Organic Speciation Special Studies Donna Kenski National RPO Technical Meeting Dallas, Dec. 3-4, 2002.
Chemical Composition of PM2.5 over N. America Big Bend (scale 0-15 ug/m3) G.Smoky Mtn. Yellowstone Mammuth Cave Sequoia ? ?
VISTAS Data / Monitoring Overview Scott Reynolds SC DHEC- Larry Garrison KY DNREP Data Workgroup Co-Chairs RPO National Technical Workgroup Meeting – St.
Estimating the Contribution of Smoke and Its Fuel Types to Fine Particulate Carbon using a Hybrid- CMB Model Bret A. Schichtel and William C. Malm - NPS.
Spatial Pattern of PM2.5 over the US PM2.5 FRM Network Analysis for the First Year: July 1999-June 2000 Prepared for EPA OAQPS Richard Scheffe by Rudolf.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Regional Air Quality Modeling Results for Elemental and Organic Carbon John Vimont, National Park Service WRAP Fire, Carbon, and Dust Workshop Sacramento,
SEARCH & VISTAS Special Studies RPO National Technical Meeting St. Louis, MO November 5, 2003.
Bret A. Schichtel Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend Analysis (CAPITA) Washington University St. Louis, MO, Presented at EPA’s National Exposure.
Estimating PM 2.5 from MODIS and MISR AOD Aaron van Donkelaar and Randall Martin March 2009.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study: Update March 17, 1999 Air & Waste Management Association Conference.
Organo-Sulfur and Receptor Modeling Status/Challenges Christopher Palmer Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
NARSTO PM Assessment NARSTO PM Assessment Chapter 5: Spatial and Temporal Pattern TOC Introduction Data Global Pattern NAM Dust NAM Smoke NAM Haze NAM.
Measurements of light absorption spectra of fine particle aqueous extracts during CalNex at the Pasadena ground site X. Zhang and R. J. Weber Georgia Institute.
Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Photo image area measures.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
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.
Application of Anion Exchange Chromatography with Pulsed Amperometric Detection for Measurement of Levoglucosan.
IMPROVE/STN Comparison & Implications for Visibility and PM2.5
Ann M. Dillner, Mark C. Green
National Wildlife Refuge
Source Apportionment of Water Soluble Elements, EC/OC, and BrC by PMF
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
From a manuscript draft courtesy of Bill Malm, National Park Service
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
Rationalizing the differences between thermo-optical OC/EC methods.
Marc Pitchford NOAA/EPA
Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason
The UC Davis Semi-Annual Report on Quality Assurance IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting October 16, 2018 | Fort Collins, Colorado Xiaolu Zhang*, Katrine.
Presentation transcript:

Fossil vs Contemporary Carbon at 12 Rural and Urban Sites in the United States Bret A. Schichtel (NPS) William C. Malm (NPS) Graham Bench (LLNL) Graham Bench (LLNL) Charles E. McDade (UCD) Judy C. Chow (DRI) Judy C. Chow (DRI) John Watson (DRI)

Urban & Rural Annual Organic Carbon Speciated PM2.5 monitoring networks: IMPROVE – Rural sites STN – Urban/suburban sites

Urban & Rural Annual Organic Carbon

Carbon Isotope ( 14 C/ 12 C) Network Summer: Jun – Aug ‘04; Winter: Dec ’04 – Feb ‘05 Summer: Jun – Aug ‘05; Winter: Dec ’05 – Feb ‘06 Summer: Jul – Aug ‘02 Lake Sugema Brigantine Proctor Maple Puget Sound Mt. Rainier Sula Rocky Mt. Grand Canyon Phoenix Tonto Great Smoky Mt. Yosemite Six day HI-VOL PM2.5 samples

Contemporary (Biogenic) Vs Fossil Carbon C 14 half life ~5700 yr C 14 half life ~5700 yr f M = 0 for fossil C f M = 0 for fossil C f M ~ 1.08 for biogenic C f M ~ 1.08 for biogenic C Fraction Contemporary = f M /1.08 Fraction Contemporary = f M /1.08 Samples corrected for positive organic artifact on filters Samples corrected for positive organic artifact on filters Summer 2004

Seasonal Contemporary and Fossil C (  g/m 3 ) The error bars represent the range in six day concentrations

Seasonal Fraction Contemporary Carbon The error bars represent the fraction contemporary range

Urban Excess Puget Sound, WA (Blue) – Mt. Rainier, WA (Red) Puget Sound fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during winter and summer Puget Sound fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during winter and summer Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed ~40% of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon ~40% of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon Not all biogenic carbon is “natural” Not all biogenic carbon is “natural” Puget Sound Mt Rainier

Urban Excess Phoenix, AZ (Blue) – Tonto, AZ (Red) Phoenix fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during winter and summer Phoenix fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during winter and summer Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed About half of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon About half of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon Not all biogenic carbon is “natural” Not all biogenic carbon is “natural” Phoenix Tonto

IMPROVE Fine Particulate Carbon On average HiVol total carbon was 10-20% greater than IMPROVE On average HiVol total carbon was 10-20% greater than IMPROVE All monitors were collocated with IMPROVE monitors measuring OC and EC using thermal optical reflectance (TOR) All monitors were collocated with IMPROVE monitors measuring OC and EC using thermal optical reflectance (TOR) IMPROVE collects 24-hour PM2.5 samples every third day IMPROVE collects 24-hour PM2.5 samples every third day Total Carbon: SummerTotal Carbon: Winter

Fraction Biogenic Vs EC/TC Summer EC/TC Summer EC/TC Fossil ~ 0.36 Fossil ~ 0.36 Biogenic ~ 0.12 Biogenic ~ 0.12 Winter EC/TC Winter EC/TC Fossil ~ 0.45 Fossil ~ 0.45 Biogenic ~ 0.19 Biogenic ~ 0.19 Winter/Summer Winter/Summer Fossil: 1.25 Fossil: 1.25 Biogenic: 1.58 Biogenic: 1.58 Seasonal Averages 6-Day Averages

EC/TC Ratios from IMPROVE Data Edge Analysis Rural 10 th %-ile edge ~ Biogenic EC/TC Rural 10 th %-ile edge ~ Biogenic EC/TC Summer – 0.07 Summer – 0.07 Winter – 0.16 Winter – 0.16 Urban 90 th %-ile edge ~ Fossil EC/TC Urban 90 th %-ile edge ~ Fossil EC/TC Summer – 0.41 Summer – 0.41 Winter – 0.44 Winter – 0.44

Measured Primary EC/TC Ratios Mobile Sources – Fossil Carbon Mobile Sources – Fossil Carbon Adjusted Roadside: EC/TC = 0.39 (Chow et al., 2004) Adjusted Roadside: EC/TC = 0.39 (Chow et al., 2004) 1996 Sepulveda. CA tunnel study: EC/TC = 0.57 (Gillies et al., 2001) 1996 Sepulveda. CA tunnel study: EC/TC = 0.57 (Gillies et al., 2001) Light duty vehicle: EC/TC = 0.3 (Cadle et al., 1997) Light duty vehicle: EC/TC = 0.3 (Cadle et al., 1997) Heavy Duty Diesel: EC/TC = 0.63 (Lowenthal et al. 1994) Heavy Duty Diesel: EC/TC = 0.63 (Lowenthal et al. 1994) Wood Smoke – Biogenic Carbon (McDonald et al., 2000) Wood Smoke – Biogenic Carbon (McDonald et al., 2000) Softwood in fireplace: EC/TC = 0.2 Softwood in fireplace: EC/TC = 0.2 Hardwood in fireplace: EC/TC = 0.1 Hardwood in fireplace: EC/TC = 0.1 Hardwood in woodstove: EC/TC = 0.11 Hardwood in woodstove: EC/TC = 0.11 Texas grass and soft and hardwood: EC/TC = 0.2 (Chow et al., 2004) Texas grass and soft and hardwood: EC/TC = 0.2 (Chow et al., 2004) Cooking Cooking EC/TC = 0.1 (Chow et al., 2004) EC/TC = 0.1 (Chow et al., 2004) Secondary organic aerosol Secondary organic aerosol EC/TC = 0 EC/TC = 0

Comparison of EC/TC estimates Projected fossil and biogenic EC/TC ratios are in line with other estimates Projected fossil and biogenic EC/TC ratios are in line with other estimates Summer Fossil EC/TC ratio is on low side Summer Fossil EC/TC ratio is on low side Literature summer EC/TC higher than C 12/14 and EC/TC edge analyses Literature summer EC/TC higher than C 12/14 and EC/TC edge analyses Literature examined primary aerosol Literature examined primary aerosol Fossil and Biogenic EC/TC is smaller in the summer than the winter indicating some summertime SOA formation for both Fossil and Biogenic EC/TC is smaller in the summer than the winter indicating some summertime SOA formation for both

Fraction Biogenic - Summer The summer (June-August) IMPROVE carbon data were partitioned into fossil and biogenic carbon using the derived fossil and biogenic EC/TC ratios

Fraction Biogenic - Winter The summer (December - February) IMPROVE carbon data were partitioned into fossil and biogenic carbon using the derived fossil and biogenic EC/TC ratios

Estimating Secondary Organic Carbon (SOC) Assume: Assume: All elemental carbon is primary All elemental carbon is primary Winter organic carbon is primary (PC) Winter organic carbon is primary (PC) Summer organic carbon is primary + secondary Summer organic carbon is primary + secondary

Fraction Secondary Organic Carbon for Summer Months 42% of the summertime organic carbon is secondary 42% of the summertime organic carbon is secondary 32% of the summertime fossil carbon is secondary 32% of the summertime fossil carbon is secondary If some winter organic carbon is secondary than these summer SOC contributions are lower bounds If some winter organic carbon is secondary than these summer SOC contributions are lower bounds

Summary Biogenic carbon accounts for Biogenic carbon accounts for 80-95% of the total carbon at the rural sites 80-95% of the total carbon at the rural sites 70-80% of total carbon at near urban sites 70-80% of total carbon at near urban sites 50% of total carbon at urban sites 50% of total carbon at urban sites Little seasonality and total variation in fraction modern carbon Little seasonality and total variation in fraction modern carbon Urban fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during the winter and summer Urban fossil carbon is primarily due to local sources during the winter and summer Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed Summer biogenic carbon is regionally distributed 40-50% of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon 40-50% of the winter urban excess is biogenic carbon Not all biogenic carbon is “natural” Not all biogenic carbon is “natural”

Summary 42% or more of the summertime organic carbon is secondary 42% or more of the summertime organic carbon is secondary 32% or more of the summertime fossil carbon is secondary 32% or more of the summertime fossil carbon is secondary

Finished