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.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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.

Advertisements

1 Policies for Addressing PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Rich Damberg EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards June 20, 2007.

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.

Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.

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.

Source apportionment of Swiss carbonaceous aerosols using radiocarbon analyses of different fractions References: S. Szidat et al., 2007: Dominant impact.

RECEPTOR MODELLING OF UK ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham and National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

Fossil and modern sources of aerosol carbon in the Netherlands – A year-long radiocarbon study Fossil and modern sources of aerosol carbon in the Netherlands.

Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta

PM in Sweden HC Hansson and Christer Johansson ITM, Stockholm University.

Prakash V. Bhave, Ph.D. Physical Scientist EMEP Workshop – PM Measurement & Modeling April 22, 2004 Measurement Needs for Evaluating Model Calculations.

SECONDARY ORGANIC AEROSOLS WORKSHOP OVERVIEW John G. Watson Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV February 5, 2002.

Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 Mass and Carbon in Seattle using Chemical Mass Balance and Positive Matrix Factorization Naydene Maykut, Puget Sound Clean.

Fine Particle Characterisation and Source Apportionment in Manila and Hanoi from Using Nuclear Techniques David Cohen ANSTO, Australia.

Intervention Strategies for Woodstove Homes Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health Sciences June 16, 2011.

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 )

Results of Ambient Air Analyses in Support of Transport Rule Presentation for RPO Workshop November 2003.

Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,

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.

Alex Cuclis Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) Particulate Matter: What Floats in the Air?

COHA Update Jin Xu. Update 2003 and 2004 back-trajectories – done PMF modeling by groups using 2000 to 2004 IMPROVE data – done Analysis of PMF results.

Properties of Particulate Matter Physical, Chemical and Optical Properties Size Range of Particulate Matter Mass Distribution of PM vs. Size: PM10, PM2.5.

MRPO Nitrate and Organic Speciation Special Studies Donna Kenski National RPO Technical Meeting Dallas, Dec. 3-4, 2002.

The Use of Source Apportionment for Air Quality Management and Health Assessments Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University Center for Air Resources Engineering.

Analysis Examples and Issues: Identifying Sources Policy Analysis Tools for Air Quality and Health A workshop hosted by NERAM and Pollution Probe Jeffrey.

Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA) Update. Current and near-future Major Tasks Visibility trends analysis Assess meteorological representativeness of 2002.

Prakash Bhave, Shawn Roselle, Frank Binkowski, Chris Nolte, Shaocai Yu, Jerry Gipson, & Ken Schere CMAS Conference – Paper #6.8 Chapel Hill, NC, October.

Eric Edgerton, ARA, Inc. PM Model Performance Workshop Chapel Hill, NC February 10, 2004 SEARCH: Overview of Data for Model Performance Evaluation Photo.

Measurable Outcomes of a Woodstove Changeout on the Nez Perce Reservation Tuiaana Moliga – Student Intern for Nez Perce Tribe’s Environmental Restoration.

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division 16 October 2012 Integrating source.

F. Lucarelli 1, S. Becagli 2, G. Calzolai 1, M. Chiari 1, T. Martellini 2, S. Nava 1, L. Paperetti 1, R. Udisti 2 and E. Yubero 3 1. INFN and Dept. of.

NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.

Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia Sangil Lee.

Organo-Sulfur and Receptor Modeling Status/Challenges Christopher Palmer Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

June 15, 2011 Bob Dulla Sierra Research. Fairbanks PM 2.5 Design Values* ( ) * 98 th Percentile Concentrations 2.

Using Aethalometer Data to Examine Ambient Particulate Matter Sources: Fairbanks, AK Jay Turner Washington University in St. Louis June 15, 2010 Photo.

CHARACTERIZING IMPACTS OF WILD AND PRESCRIBED FIRES ON AMBIENT FINE PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS CSU Atmospheric Science Department National Park Service/CIRA.

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.

Dr. James Conner Fairbanks North Star Borough November 8, 2012 Dr. James Conner Fairbanks North Star Borough November 8, 2012.

EPA’s SPECIATE 4.4 Database: Development and Uses Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention.

Properties of Particulate Matter

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.

IMPROVE/STN Comparison & Implications for Visibility and PM2.5

Simulation of PM2.5 Trace Elements in Detroit using CMAQ

Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025

Source Apportionment of Water Soluble Elements, EC/OC, and BrC by PMF

Organics Analyses and Results

Sunil Kumar TAC, COG July 9, 2007

Sources of the PM10 aerosol in Flanders, Belgium, and re-evaluation of the contribution from wood burning Willy Maenhaut1,2, Reinhilde Vermeylen2, Magda.

COPERT 4 Training 6. Exhaust and non-exhaust PM

Aerosol chemistry studies at the SMEARIII station in Kumpula

Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason

Source Apportionment of PM2.5 With CMB8

Source Attribution AB 617 Community Air Protection Program

Wenche Aas and Karl Espen Yttri (EMEP/CCC)

ACTRIS Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) Network and new filter off-line techniques to measure PM chemical composition and determine organic aerosol.

A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States

New Approaches to Air Measurements in AOSR

Time-Integrated Sampling

U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone

Longer Term Aerosol Chemical speciation monitoring data during ACTRIS/EMEP activities ACSM Teams across Europe Many slides from Michael Bressi, JRC Italy.

RECEPTOR MODELLING OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER

Advanced Receptor Modeling for Source Identification and Apportionment

Svetlana Tsyro, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason

Presentation transcript:

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 Sciences January 10, 2012

Goal of the Fairbanks CMB Project Complement the PM 2.5 source apportionment work already completed with additional analytical and modeling strategies. 1) Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling. 2) 14 C. 3) Chemical markers of wood smoke.

Fairbanks CMB Sampling Program Four sites, including: 1) State Office Building. 2) Peger Road. 3) North Pole. 4) RAMS Mobile site. Met One Spiral Ambient Speciation Sampler (SASS) at each site. Sampling every 3 days during winters of 2008/2009, 2009/2010, and 2010/ hour (midnight to midnight).

1)Teflon Filter* Mass Elements (36) 3) Quartz Filter* OC/EC 4) Quartz Filter 2) Nylon Filter* Ions (5) 14 C Univ Arizona Levoglucosan Univ Montana PM 2.5 Speciation Analyses *Analyzed by Research Triangle Institute.

CMB Modeling EPA CMB receptor model, Version 8.2 was used to apportion the sources of PM 2.5 at each of the sites. CMB model inputs 1) Ambient PM 2.5 concentrations and uncertainties -mass -elements -ions -OC/EC 2) Sources of PM 2.5 (source profiles) in the airshed.

CMB Model The CMB model consists of a solution to linear equations that expresses each receptor chemical concentration as a linear sum of products of source fingerprint abundances and contributions. where C i is the ambient concentration of specie i, a ij is the fractional concentration of specie i in the emissions from source j, S j is the total mass concentration contributed by the source.

Fairbanks Source Profiles Street sand and road dust. Pure secondary emissions (SO 4, (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4, NH 4 NO 3 ). Gasoline and diesel exhaust emissions. Tire and brake wear. Wood combustion (residential, fireplaces, slash, prescribed). Meat cooking. Distillate oil / residual oil combustion. Taken from SPECIATE 4.0 and a Missoula CMB source library.

14 C – University of Arizona Samples were analyzed by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory at The University of Arizona. If 14 C is present at atmospheric levels, the molecule must derive from a recent plant product. If a molecule contains no detectable 14 C, it must derive from a petrochemical or some other ancient source. Results from this analysis will enable us to calculate the % wood smoke component of the PM 2.5.

Chemical Markers of Wood Smoke Known molecular marker for biomass combustion. Analysis performed with a method developed at UM. Levoglucosan

Results

PM 2.5 Speciation Results Out of the 36 elements quantified, only 14 were consistently measured at or above their reported MDLs. Sulfur had the highest concentration of the measured elements, with the highest overall program levels measured at the State Building site. Sulfate had the highest concentration of any of the measured ions, while TC was heavily enriched with OC.

State Building CMB Results (November 11, 2008 – April 7, 2009)

State Building Site Season:Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 Dates:11/8/08-4/7/0911/3/09-3/15/1011/1/10-2/8/11 CMB Source Estimates (ug/m 3, and % of Total PM 2.5 Measured) Sulfate5.1 (20.0 %)5.2 (18.1 %)3.5 (17.3 %) Ammonium Nitrate2.1 (8.1 %)2.5 (8.9 %)1.7 (8.4 %) Diesel0.3 (1.1 %)0.6 (2.2 %)None Detected Automobiles1.7 (6.8 %)0.7 (2.5 %)0.4 (1.9 %) Wood smoke16.0 (63.1 %)19.5 (67.8 %)14.6 (72.4 %) Unexplained0.2 (0.8 %)0.2 (0.6 %)0.04 (0.02 %) PM 2.5 Mass (ug/m3)

North Pole CMB Results (January 25, 2009 – April 7, 2009)

North Pole Site Season:Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 Dates:1/25/09-4/7/0911/3/09-3/15/101/9/11-2/5/11 CMB Source Estimates (ug/m 3, and % of Total PM 2.5 Measured) Sulfate1.9 (9.8 %)2.6 (7.8 %)2.1 (8.0 %) Ammonium Nitrate1.0 (5.1 %)1.2 (3.6 %)0.9 (3.5 %) Diesel0.2 (0.8 %)0.8 (2.5 %)0.9 (3.4 %) Automobiles0.7 (3.7 %)1.3 (3.8 %)1.4 (5.1 %) Wood smoke15.0 (79.8 %)27.1 (81.2 %)21.3 (79.4 %) Unexplained0.2 (0.8 %)0.3 (1.0 %)0.2 (0.6 %) PM 2.5 Mass (ug/m3)

RAMS CMB Results (January 25, 2009 – April 7, 2009 )

RAMS (Mobile) Site Season:Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 Dates:1/25/09-4/7/0911/15/09-3/15/10No Sampling. CMB Source Estimates (ug/m 3, and % of Total PM 2.5 Measured) Sulfate1.1 (13.0 %)4.0 (10.9 %)No Sampling. Ammonium Nitrate0.9 (10.5 %)0.9 (2.5 %)No Sampling. DieselND2.5 (6.8 %)No Sampling. AutomobilesND2.3 (6.2 %)No Sampling. Wood smoke6.3 (76.0 %)26.9 (73.5 %)No Sampling. Unexplained0.04 (0.5 %)0.04 (0.1 %)No Sampling. PM 2.5 Mass (ug/m3) No Sampling.

Peger Road CMB Results (January 25, 2009 – April 7, 2009)

Peger Road Site Season:Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 Dates:1/25/09-4/7/0911/3/09-3/15/101/9/11-2/5/11 CMB Source Estimates (ug/m 3, and % of Total PM 2.5 Measured) Sulfate2.8 (16.7 %)4.8 (16.5 %)4.8 (16.6 %) Ammonium Nitrate1.5 (8.9 %)2.1 (7.4 %)2.0 (7.1 %) Diesel1.2 (7.3 %)2.8 (9.6 %)0.8 (2.9 %) Automobiles0.7 (3.9 %)0.4 (1.3 %)0.7 (2.5 %) Wood smoke10.6 (62.7 %)18.6 (64.4 %)20.2 (70.6 %) Unexplained0.1 (0.5 %)0.3 (0.9 %)0.1 (0.3 %) PM 2.5 Mass (ug/m3)

Wood smoke (CMB and 14 C) Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 State BuildingCMB: 63.1 %CMB: 67.8 %CMB: 72.4 % 14 C: % PM 2.5 from wood smoke % n= – 83.5% n= % % n=7 North PoleCMB: 79.8 %CMB: 81.2 %CMB: 79.4 % 14 C: % PM 2.5 from wood smoke 49.7 – 59.9 % n= – 87.1 % n= – 93.8 % n=7

Wood smoke (CMB and 14 C) Winter 2008/2009Winter 2009/2010Winter 2010/2011 RAMSCMB: 76.0 %CMB: 73.5 %No Sampling. 14 C: % PM 2.5 from wood smoke 44.1 – 53.2 % n=2 None n=0 None Peger RoadCMB: 62.7 %CMB: 64.4 %CMB: 70.6 % 14 C: % PM 2.5 from wood smoke 27.1 – 32.6 % n= % n= – 56.9 % n=7

Summary Wood smoke (likely residential wood combustion) was the major source of PM 2.5 during the winter months, contributing 60% - 80% PM C and levoglucosan findings confirm these results. 14 C results showed that an average of 45-90% of the measured ambient PM 2.5 came from a wood smoke source.

Summary Secondary sulfate another large component: % of PM 2.5 mass. Need to investigate this fraction more (chemical marker work with Chris Palmer).

Next Steps CMB modeling (as well as 14 C and levoglucosan analyses) for the winter of 2011/2012. CMB modeling for past years (2005/2006, 2006/2007, and 2007/2008). Utilize more representative profiles for Fairbanks wood burning, coal burning, and residential fuel oil combustion in CMB models.

Thank you. Questions?