1. EMEP intensive measurements, June 2006 and Jan 2007
Karl Espen Yttri and Wenche Aas
Marina Frölich, Rudolf Weber, Robert Gehrig, Rami Alfarra, Milan Vana, Thomas Ellermann, Gerald Spindler, Elke Bieber, Alberto González Ortiz, Xavier Querol, Noemí Perez, Jussi Paatero, Ulla Makkonen, Gyula Kiss, Gerry Jennings, Darius Ceburnis, Cinzia Perriono, Jean-Philippe Putaud, Rene P. Otjes, Hans Christen Hansson, Martin Ferm, Nikos Mihalopoulos, Eiko Nemitz, Hugh Coe

2. Measurement programme

3. Montelibretti, IT01 PM2.5 speciation PM 10 speciation June 2006
12%
15%
19.9 ± 10.7 mg/m3
37.9 ± 25.5 mg/m3
January 2007
12%
15%
27.5 ± 11.2 mg/m3
36.8 ± 12 mg/m3
Crustal
Seasalt
NO3-
NH4+
SO42-
OC*1.7 EC
Unknown

4. Montelibretti, IT01 cont. Major findings:
Higher concentration of PM2.5 in January (27.7 µg m-3) compared to June (19.9 µg m-3); this is not seen for PM10
Summer (PM10): Crustal material (40 %) is the major fraction
Summer (PM2.5): OM and SO42- (~ 30 %) are the major fractions
OM becomes the dominant fraction of PM in winter!
Winter (PM10): OM = 50 %
Winter (PM2.5): OM = 64 %
Close to mass closure: < 85 % (Both for June and January)

5. Melpitz, DE44 PM1 speciation PM2.5 speciation PM 10 speciation
June 2006
37%
49%
43%
10 ± 4.3 mg/m3
13 ± 6.1 mg/m3
18.9 ± 6.3mg/m3
January 2007
29%
37%
28%
7.7 ± 4.4 mg/m3
12.3 ± 7.2 mg/m3
15.6 ± 7.3 mg/m3
Ca2+, K+
Seasalt
NO3-
NH4+
SO42-
OC*1.7 EC
Unknown

6. Melpitz, DE44 cont. Major findings:
NO3- is more important in winter compared to summer for all three size fractions assessed
WINTER
NO3- (PM10) = 19 %
NO3- (PM2.5) = 20 %
NO3- (PM1) = 20 %
SUMMER
NO3- (PM10) = 6 %
NO3- (PM2.5) = 4 %
NO3- (PM1) = 3 %
Higher contribution from seasalts in winter compared to summer
PM10 (Winter) = 11 %
PM10 (Summer) = 2 %
A larger fraction of mass could be explained in winter (63 – 72 %) compared to summer (57–63 %)

7. Montseny, ES31 PM2.5 speciation PM 10 speciation June 2006 16 % 46 %
Sahara dust
16 %
46 %
15.7 mg/m3; 9 sampl
24.5 mg/m3; 15 sampl
January 2007
12.8 µg m-3
10.8 µg m-3
9.7 µg m-3
32 %
~ 5 %
7.6 mg/m3 3 sampl only
8.7 mg/m3; 19 sampl
Fe, SiO2, Al2O2
Seasalt
NO3-
NH4+
SO42-
TC*1.3
Other
Ca2+, K+
Unknown

8. Montseny, ES31 cont. Major findings:
There is a shift towards fine aerosols going from winter to summer
WINTER
PM1/PM2.5 = 0.9
PM1/PM10 = 0.7
PM2.5/PM10 = 0.8
SUMMER
PM1/PM2.5 = 0.7
PM1/PM10 = 0.4
PM2.5/PM10 = 0.6
Higher contribution from crustal material in summer compared to winter, both for PM10 and PM2.5
More NO3- in winter (12-16 %) compared to summer (1-4%) (PM2.5 and PM10)
Considerably more carbonaceous material in PM10 than in PM2.5
More carbonaceous material in winter compared to summer for PM10

9. Birkenes, NO01 (June 2006) PM1 speciation PM2.5 speciation
22%
34%
31%
7.0 ± 4 mg/m3
7.1 ± 4.3 mg/m3
10.2 ± 5.8 mg/m3
Ca2+, K+
Seasalt
NO3-
NH4+
SO42-
OC*1.7 EC
Unknown
OM (PM1) = 31%
OM (PM2.5) = 35%
OM (PM10) = 28%
Minor differences in chemical composition with respect to size

10. EC in PM10 (June 2006)
EC (0.1 – 1.8 µg m-3)

11. TC and TCP in PM10 (June 2006)
TC (1.8 – 7.9 µg m-3) TCP (1.2 – 5.4 µg m-3)

12. OC and OCP in PM10 (June 2006)
OC OCp
Positive artefact
OC (1.7 – 6.6 µg m-3) OCP (1.0 – 4.1 µg m-3)

13. Positive artefacts of OC in PM10 (NO56)
38 ± 7 % (Mean ± SD)
Positive artefact estimated by QBQ-approach

14. Positive artefacts of OC in PM1 (NO56)
52 ± 16 % (Mean ± SD)
Positive artefact estimated by QBQ-approach

15. EC and OC as a function of size and season
DE44 OC EC
IT01 OC EC

16. Hurdal rural background NO56
Hurdal, NO56
Concurrent measurements at the EMEP site (NO56) Hurdal dedicated to advanced analysis of the carbonaceous fraction
14C-analyses (Contemporary C vs fossil C)
Levoglucosan (Biomass burning)
Sugars and sugar-alcohols (PBAP)
Tetrols (BSOA from isoprene)
Oslo Urban background
Hurdal rural background NO56

17. Hurdal, NO56 (June 2006) Results so far:
Day/Night (12 h) concentrations of levoglucosan in PM10
NO56 (Hurdal)
10 ± 4 ng m-3 (Mean ± SD)
Urban background (Oslo):
40 ± 39 ng m-3 Mean ± SD
Carbon from biomass explains
5.4 ± 2.4 % of OCp
Carbon from biomass explains
14 ± 16 % of OCp

18. What to do next... Need to get data from all sites participating
Submission before June 2007
QA/QC
e.g. Intercomparison of the various EC/OC/TC-methodologies used (after everyone have submitted)
EMEP PM reports 2007 and 2008
PM and PM-species to be compared with model output
Nitrogen gas and particulate distribution
Source receptor analysis?
Poster or oral present at ACCENT symposium and EAC 2007
Publication in peer reviewed papers

19. Future intensive measurement periods
When and frequency
2009?
January and June?
Daily and hourly
What
e.g:
PM speciation
Mineral dust
EC/OC
N-containing gases and particulates
VOC
Level 3 (Optical, Physical PM properties) ……
Other matter…