a review of time integrated pm2.5 monitoring data in the united states
DESCRIPTION
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States. Kenneth L. Demerjian Atmospheric Sciences Research Center University at Albany – SUNY United Nations Economic Commission for European (UNECE) European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (EMEP) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
Kenneth L. Demerjian
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
University at Albany – SUNYUnited Nations Economic Commission for European (UNECE)
European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (EMEP)
Workshop on Particulate Matter (PM) Measurement and ModelingApril 20-23, 2004
New Orleans, LA
U.S. EPA PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Standard/Type
Particulate Matter
(PM 10)
50 g/m3 annual mean /P&S
150 g/m3 24-hr /P&S
Particulate Matter
(PM 2.5)
15 g/m3 annual mean /P&S
65 g/m3 24-hr /P&S
Daily Distribution of 24-hr PM2.5 Mass from 17 NYC FRM Monitors
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002
0
20
40
60
80
PM
2.5
FR
M m
ass
, u
g/m
3PM2.5 FRM Network Data New York 2002
Quebec FF Smoke July 7, 2002
NYC 2002 FRM MonitorsAnnual Distribution of 24-hr PM Mass
Canal
St.
PO
I.S.
52
I.S.
52 -
DP
J.H.S
. 12
6
J.H.S
. 45
Morri
sania
II
N.Y.B
otG
P.S.
19
P.S.
214
P.S.
314
P.S.
321
P.S.
59
P.S.
59 -
DP
P.S. 2
14
Port Ric
h. PO
QCII-PS 2
19
SWHS
0
20
40
60
80
FR
M P
M_
ma
ss,
ug
/m3
Trends (54)
Supplemental (~215 sites currently known)
Supersites
Daily Sites
IMPROVE
IMPROVE Protocol Castnet conversion Deploy in 2002 Deploy in 2003
Current/Planned Urban & Rural PM2.5 Speciation Networks
SS SS
SS
01/02
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
PM Speciation Network Samplers
Speciation Sampler
24-hr Sample Volume (m3)
OC Blank Correction Factor (ug/m3)
Met One SASS 9.6 1.4
Anderson RASS 10.4 1.28
R&P 2300 14.4 0.93
URG MASS 16.7 0.56
IMPROVE 32.8 0.4
STN: 1 in three day operation; three simultaneous filtersNylon – IC, Teflon – XRF, Quartz – OC/EC
MET ONE Spiral Aerosol Speciation Sampler (SASSTM)
-130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70
Longitude
25
30
35
40
45
La
titu
de
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Reno, NV
Bakersfield, CA
Riverside, CA
San Diego, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Salt Lake City, UT
El Paso, TX
Adams, CO
Dallas, TX
Fargo, ND
Tulsa, OK
Deer Park, TX
Minn.-St. Paul, MN
Baton Rouge, LA
St. Louis, MO
Stoddard, MO
Memphis, TN
Biloxi, MS
Milwaukee, WS
Chicago, IL
Birmingham, AL
Indianapolis, IN
Atlanta, GA
Allen Park, MI
Tampa, FL
Cleveland, OH
Charlotte, NC
Pittsburgh, PA
Charleston, SC
Rochester, NY
Richmond, VA
Washington, DCBaltimore, MD
Philadelphia, PACamden, NJ
Elizabeth, NJBronx, NYQueens, NY
Burlington, VT
STN Monitoring Sites: October 2001 – September 2002
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Reno, NV MSA
Adams, CO
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
Tampa, FL
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN
El Paso, TX
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Milwaukee, WS
Dallas, TX
Queens, NYBronx, NYElizabeth, NJ
Richmond, VA
Memphis, TN
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
St. Louis, MO
Cleveland, OHAllen Park, MIChicago, IL Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PAIndianapolis, IN
San Diego, CA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bakersfield, CA
Riverside, CA
Spatial Distribution of STN/FRM Annual PM2.5 Mass October 2001 – September 2002
STN Annual PM2.5 Mass FRM vs. STN
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.-St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
5
10
15
20
25
30
PM
2.5
, ug
/m3
pm2.5frmpm2.5mass
October 2001 - September 2002
STN Annual Composition
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.-St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
0
10
20
30
PM
2.5
Sp
eci
es
Co
mp
osi
tion
, ug
/m3
m.nh4m.so4m.no3ec.nioshocm.adjcrustal
October 2001 - September 2002
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Reno, NV MSA
Adams, CO
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
Tampa, FL
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN
El Paso, TX
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Milwaukee, WS
Dallas, TX
Queens, NYBronx, NYElizabeth, NJRichmond, VA
Memphis, TN
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
St. Louis, MO
Cleveland, OHAllen Park, MI
Chicago, IL
Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PA
Indianapolis, IN
San Diego, CA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bakersfield, CA
Riverside, CA
Atlanta, GA
Biloxi, MS
Stoddard, MO
Deer Park, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Spatial Distribution of STN Annual PM2.5_SO4 Mass October 2001 – September 2002
Annual Sulfate Fraction of PM2.5 Mass
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
sulfa
te
STN Annual October 2001 - September 2002
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Reno, NV MSA
Adams, CO
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
Tampa, FL
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN
El Paso, TX
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Milwaukee, WS
Dallas, TX
Queens, NYBronx, NYElizabeth, NJ
Richmond, VA
Memphis , TN
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
St. Louis, MO
Cleveland, OH
Allen Park, MI
Chicago, IL
Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PAIndianapolis, IN
San Diego, CA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bakersf ield, CA
Riverside, CA
Atlanta, GA
Biloxi, MS
Stoddard, MO
Deer Park, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Spatial Distribution of STN Annual PM2.5_NO3 Mass October 2001 – September 2002
Annual Nitrate Fraction of PM2.5 Mass
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
nitr
ate
STN Annual October 2001 - September 2002
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Reno, NV
Adams, CO
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
T ampa, FL
Minn.-St. Paul, MN
El Paso, TX
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Milwaukee, WS
Dallas, TX
Queens, NYBronx, NYElizabeth, NJ
Richmond, VA
Memphis, TN
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
St. Louis, MO
Cleveland, OHAllen Park, MI
Chicago, IL Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PA
Indianapolis, IN
San Diego, CA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bakersfield, CA
Riverside, CA
Atlanta, GA
Biloxi, MS
Stoddard, MO
Deer Park, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Spatial Distribution of STN Annual PM2.5_NH4 Mass October 2001 – September 2002
Annual Ammonium Fraction of PM2.5 Mass
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
am
mo
niu
m
STN Annual October 2001 - September 2002
Fargo, ND
Seattle, WA
Portland, ORReno, NV MSA
Adams, CO
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
Tampa, FL
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN
El Paso, TX
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ
Baton Rouge, LA
Milwaukee, WS
Dallas, TX
Queens, NY
Bronx, NY
Elizabeth, NJ
Richmond, VA
Memphis, TN
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
St. Louis, MO
Cleveland, OHAllen Park, MI
Chicago, IL
Washington, DCPittsburgh, PA
Indianapol is, IN
San Diego, CA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bakersfield, CARiverside, CA Atlanta, GA
Biloxi, MS
Stoddard, MO
Deer Park, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Spatial Distribution of STN Annual PM2.5_OC*1.4 Mass October 2001 – September 2002
Annual Total Carbon Fraction of PM2.5 Mass
Portlan
d, OR
Seattl
e, W
A
Reno, N
V
Baker
sfie
ld, C
A
River
side,
CA
San D
iego, C
A
Phoenix
, AZ
Salt L
ake
City, U
T
El Pas
o, TX
Adams,
CO
Dalla
s, T
X
Fargo, N
D
Tulsa,
OK
Deer P
ark,
TX
Min
n.-St.
Paul,
MN
Baton R
ouge, L
A
St. Louis
, MO
Stoddar
d, MO
Mem
phis, T
N
Biloxi
, MS
Milw
auke
e, W
S
Chicag
o, IL
Birmin
gham, A
L
India
napolis
, IN
Atlanta
, GA
Allen P
ark,
MI
Tampa,
FL
Cleve
land, O
H
Charlo
tte, N
C
Pittsb
urgh, P
A
Charle
ston, S
C
Roches
ter,
NY
Richm
ond, VA
Was
hingto
n, DC
Baltim
ore, M
D
Philadel
phia, P
A
Camden
, NJ
Elizab
eth, N
J
Bronx,
NY
Queens,
NY
Burlingto
n, VT
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PM
2.5
Ma
ss F
ract
ion
as
To
tal C
arb
on
STN Annual October 2001 - September 2002
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as Carbon Botanical Garden - Bronx, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fra
ctio
n o
f T
ota
l PM
2.5
ma
ss a
s C
arb
on
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
NY Botanical Garden
0.422
0.394
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as SulfateBotanical Garden - Bronx, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.60.0
0.2
0.4
0.60.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
su
lfate
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
NY Botanical Garden
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as NitrateBotanical Garden - Bronx, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.40.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.40.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
nitr
ate
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
NY Botanical Garden
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as CarbonPinnacle State Park - Addison, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.80.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.80.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
carb
on
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
Pinnacle State Park
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as SulfatePinnacle State Park - Addison, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.80.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.80.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
sulfa
te
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
Pinnacle State Park
PM2.5 Mass Fraction as NitratePinnacle State Park - Addison, NY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
month
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.40.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.40.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
PM
2.5
ma
ss f
ract
ion
as
nitr
ate
year: 2001
year: 2002
year: 2003
Pinnacle State Park
PM_EC vs. PM_OC*1.4 Seasonal CorrelationBotanical Garden, Bronx, NY
0 1 2 3 4
PM2.5_EC, ug/m3
02468
10
02468
10
02468
10
PM
2.5
_O
C*1
.4,
ug
/m3
month: 1.0 to 4.0
month: 4.0 to 8.0
month: 8.0 to 12.1
Botanical Garden, NY
PM_EC vs. PM_OC*1.4 Seasonal CorrelationPinnacle State Park Addison, NY
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PM2.5_EC, ug/m3
3
8
3
8
3
8
PM
2.5
_O
C*1
.4,
ug
/m3
month: 1.0 to 4.0
month: 4.0 to 8.5
month: 9.0 to 12.1
Pinnacle State Park: Feb. 2001- Mar. 2003
Winter PM2.5 OC vs. EC – Queens College
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
PM2..5_EC, ug/m3
-2
2
6
10
PM
2.5
_O
C*1
.4,
ug
/m3
Queens College PS 219 Winter Months: December-February 2001-2003
0.1448 + 3.803*x
Jan ’96 NEI POA/PEC 1.27
Jan ’99 NEI POA/PEC 2.35
Summer PM2.5 OC vs. EC – Queens College
0.05 0.30 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.30 1.55
PM2.5_EC, ug/m3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
PM
2.5
_O
C*1
.4,
ug
/m3
Queens College PS 219 Summer Months: June-August 2001-2002
0.2312 + 6.114*x
Jul ’96 NEI POA/PEC 1.03
Jul ’99 NEI POA/PEC 0.96
Time-Integrated Measurements
• What have we learned about the PM air quality issues from time-integrated measurements?– Distribution of major PM composition varies regionally
• Sulfates greater in the east, nitrates greater in the west
• Organics show limited spatial variability
• Seasonal variations indicated more nitrates in the winter and more sulfate and organics in the summer
Time-Integrated Measurements
• What sort of hypothesis testing is being supported by these measurements? – Provide long term time series of PM2.5 components
• Accountability for control strategies and health comes
– Fuel sulfur rule
– 2007 diesel emission standard
– NOx regulation
• PM nitrate/sulfate changes with reductions in SO2
– Process related production of PM components
Time-Integrated Measurements
• What are the advantages of time-integrated measurements?– Provide long term PM speciation data with modest field technician
support and modest overall cost (compared to alternatives)
– Centralized laboratory analyses and QA/QC procedures improves data quality
Time-Integrated Measurements• What are the most serious issues by way of
representing what is actually in the air?– Carbon blank issues and VOC adsorption
– MDL for metals
– Time resolution
– Loss of volatile PM (nitrates and organics)
Time-Integrated Measurements• Which issues confound our ability to test
hypotheses, to explain PM concentrations? – Water and volatility of nitrates and SOA
• Are critical variables missing that are needed for the support of hypothesis testing/interpretation of mass and species composition measurements?– MDL for critical trace elements will limit source apportionment
applications
– EC blanks corrections and MDL will likely limit tracking EC perturbations resulting from diesel emission controls
Time-Integrated Measurements• Are the issues/problems intractable in the near
term?– ICP/MS analysis techniques can provide improved
MDLs for trace metals (as compared to XRF)
• How is confidence in the values created in lieu of standards?– Instrument laboratory and field intercomparisons
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperative agreement # R828060010
• New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), contract # 4918ERTERES99,
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), contract # C004210.
Thanks for your attention.