Data Analysis/Monitoring SessionOAQPS Updates
Neil Frank
RPO National Workgroup Meeting
Dallas TX
December 3-4, 2002
Topics
• Reconciliation of IMPROVE/STN data and 6 sites Study (5 minutes)
• Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments (20 minutes)
• Status of Draft Guidance Documents (5 minutes)
• Access to Canadian Data (5 minutes)
• Discussion (10 minutes)
IMPROVE/STN Intercomparisons
The 6 Site Intercomparison
• Collocated sampling at 6 sites– 12 months sampling completed Oct 20 02– To continue most sites through July 03
• One additional site operated by NYS
• Data will be compared for all “common” analytes– 1st year data analyses ready in March 2003
IMPROVE/STN Monitoring Intercomparison SitesThrough October 2002
Seattle-Beacon HillMt. Rainier NP
Phoenix
Tonto National Monument
Haines Point, NPS Washington, DCUSDA FS Dolly Sods
Wildersness
Official or designated STN site, host to IMPROVE samplerOfficial IMPROVE site, host to STN sampler
Anderson RAAS 401 STN Samplers
Met One SASS STN Samplers
URG MASS STN Samplers
Pinnacles St Park, NY R&P Sampler
IMPROVE and STN PM-2.5 Nitrate
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
4/13
/200
1
4/27
/200
1
5/11
/200
1
5/25
/200
1
6/8/
2001
6/22
/200
1
7/6/
2001
7/20
/200
1
8/3/
2001
8/17
/200
1
8/31
/200
1
9/14
/200
1
9/28
/200
1
10/1
2/20
01
10/2
6/20
01
11/9
/200
1
11/2
3/20
01
ug
/m3
Improve STN
IMPROVE = 0.89STN - 0.00 R2 = 0.88
New York PM-2.5 Species Data (April – Nov 01: STN vs. IMPROVE(provided by Dirk Felton, NYSDEC)
What else will help us understand IMPROVE vs. STN?
• Inter-lab comparison of the same quartz filters– Carbon measurements associated with the different
DRI and STN analytical procedures– Detailed analysis of data and the thermograms– With help from EPA/ORD, will look for
• Seasonal or site differences • Potential effect of predominant emission sources ?
• Study of shipping procedures during spring/summer ’03
• Study of blank filter corrections for STN– Current focus on carbon
Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments
From: Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 2001 Status and Trends
Ambient PM2.5 Composition in Rural Areas SO4 and associated NH4 are prevalent in Rural Eastern PM2.5
IMPROVE network, 1999
From: Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 2001 Status and Trends
Ambient PM2.5 Composition in Urban Areas More Carbon and Nitrates in Urban Areas vs. Rural Areas
EPA STN network, 2001
What Data are Selected for Comparison of Urban STN and Rural IMPROVE Sites?
• Time Period: Mar 2001-Feb 2002 • Air Quality: 12-month average concentrations• Measurements to account for PM2.5 mass
– Sulfates, Ammonium, Nitrates– Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon(EC)– Certain Elements: Al, Si Ca, Fe, Ti
• To estimate crustal component
• Required data completeness – For each calendar quarter
• 50% of observations (i.e. > 15)
Data Handling Protocols How did we treat Ammonium (NH4
+) ?
• Although STN measures NH4 at all sites, NH4+
for STN and IMPROVE are estimated – from sulfate (SO4
-) & nitrate (NO3-) concentrations,
assuming• Sulfates are ammonium sulfate, (NH4)2SO4
• Nitrates are ammonium nitrate, NH4NO3
• For consistency with IMPROVE
Data Handling Protocols How did we treat carbon?
• OC and EC data are not separately presented
• IMPROVE and STN use different thermo-optical techniques to measure carbon
• Total Carbonaceous Mass is estimated as• TCM = k* OC +EC, • Range of TCM is considered, with k= 1.4 and 1.8• OC is blank corrected
– for STN using network-wide estimates– IMPROVE data is already corrected
Preliminary OC Blank Correction for STN
• Derived from network average quartz filter field blanks
• Appropriate to adjust annual averages
• Varies by 24-hr sampler volume– MetOne (SASS): 9.6 m3
– Anderson (RASS): 10.4 m3
– R&P: 14.4 m3
– URG (MASS): 24 m3
– IMPROVE: 32.8 m3
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
SASS
RA
AS
R&
P
MA
SS
IMP
RO
VE
Avg OC blank, ug/m3
OC wo Blank adjustment
y = 0.26x + 0.92
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
OC w Blank Adjustment has smaller intercept
y = 0.23x + 0.12
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
PM2.5 Mass Concentration, ug/m3
OC concentration, ug/m3
Evaluation of STN OC blank correction for 12-month averages using measured OC vs PM2.5 mass
Data Handling Protocols How did we estimate “crustal” component?
• Crustal (fine soil)
= 2.2[Al]+2.49[Si]+1.63[Ca]+2.42[Fe]+1.94[Ti]
– For consistency with IMPROVE
What sites are considered?
• Selected Urban Sites– From EPA’s PM2.5 Speciation Trends’
Network (STN)– 13 of 35 sites with complete data
• Selected Rural Sites– From IMPROVE Network (including protocol
sites)• 98 sites to describe spatial patterns• 16 sites paired with the urban sites for urban-rural
comparisons
EPA Speciation Trends Network
35 complete sites initially selected for analysis
35 STN sites
IMPROVE Network, 200298 Sites with “complete” data, Mar 01-Feb 02
13 Selected Urban Sites are Paired with Rural Sites for “Urban PM2.5 Excess” Calculations
Fresno IndyS.L.
Tulsa
Missoula
SLC Bronx
Charlotte
Baltimore
Atlanta
Cleveland
Richmond
Birmingham
16 rural IMPROVE sites
13 urban STN sites
Are the Rural IMPROVE Sites Indicative of Regional Background
for Comparison to Urban Sites?
Let’s look at Spatial Patterns for SO4, NO3 and Carbon
Sulfate
0 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.7
0.7 - 1
1 - 1.3
1.3 - 1.7
1.7 - 2.2
2.2 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.2
4.2 - 5
Rural Sulfates: March 01 – Feb 02
Nitrate
0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 1
1 - 1.5
1.5 - 2.5
Rural Nitrates : March 01 – Feb 02
??
Total Carbon Mass
0.7 - 1
1 - 1.3
1.3 - 1.5
1.5 - 1.8
1.8 - 2
2 - 2.6
2.6 - 3.3
3.3 - 4.2
4.2 - 5.4
5.4 - 7.0
Rural Total Carbonaceous Mass: March 01 – Feb 02
TCM=1.8*OC+EC
Now, lets estimate urban excess
First in terms of gravimetric mass
Then, specific species
Fre
sno
/PIN
N
Mis
sou
la/M
ON
T
SLC
/GR
BA
Tuls
a/W
IMO
St.
Lou
is/3
Sit
es
Bir
min
gha
m/S
IP
Indy
/LIV
O
Atl
ant
a/2
Sit
es
Cle
vel
and
/MK
GO
Cha
rlot
te/L
IGO
Ric
hm
ond
/JA
RI
Bal
tim
ore
/DO
SO
Bro
nx/B
RIG
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
ug
/m3
Urban Increment Regional Contribution
Gravimetric Mass
Bottom: Regional ContributionTop: Urban Increment
Urban PM2.5 is Higher than Nearby Rural Concentrations
Top: Urban Bottom: Rural
12-month average PM2.5 mass with speciation samplers
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
Dolly Sods, WV
Rural IMPROVE site
(background)
Baltimore MD
STN urban site
Rural Concentrations Superimposed on Urban
Rural Concentrations Adjusted for Elevation differential
“Urban Excess” = Urban – Rural concentrations
Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
Top bars are urban concentrations
Bottom bars are nearby rural concentration
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
0
3
6
9
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM1.8 Crustal
Elevation adjustment is a small technical correction to the “Urban Excess” calculation
Urban excess after
elevation adjustment
Concentration, ug/m3
Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD
Concentration at 1158m (Dolly Sods) is 12% lower than sea level
Sulfate
0 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.7
0.7 - 1
1 - 1.3
1.3 - 1.7
1.7 - 2.2
2.2 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.2
4.2 - 5
Focus on Dolly Sods, WV Average Sulfate
March 01 – Feb 02
Elevation adjustment increases average DOSO sulfate to 4.8 ug/m3
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM (k=1.8) Crustal0
2
4
6
8
10
ug/m
3
ST. LOUIS/INVERSE-DISTANCE WEIGHTING OF 3 SITES (CADI, HEGL, & BOND)
Top: Urban IncrementBottom: Regional Contribution
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM (k=1.8) Crustal0
2
4
6
8
10
ug/m
3
BRONX/BRIG
Top: Urban IncrementBottom: Regional Contribution
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM (k=1.8) Crustal0
2
4
6
8
10
ug/m
3
CHARLOTTE/LIGO
Top: Urban IncrementBottom: Regional Contribution
Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate TCM (k=1.8) Crustal0
5
10
15
20
ug/m
3
FRESNO/PINN
Top: Urban IncrementBottom: Regional Contribution
Examples of Other Urban-Rural Pairings
Fresno
Missoula
SLC
Tulsa
Birmingham
Indy
Cleveland
Charlotte
Richm ond
Baltim ore
Bronx
St Louis
Atlanta
Sulfa te :
0 .0 0.4 0.9
Am m onium :
0.0 0.9 1.9
N itra te :
0 .4 3.5 6.5
TC M (k=1.8):
2 .9 8.1 13.2
C rusta l:
0 .0 0.4 0.8
Range of TCM based on “k”= 1.4 to 1.8
(k=1.4)
Ambient Urban Excess Concentrations for 13 example areas
“Urban Excess” = urban concentration – regional background
2.4 6.4
TCM (k=1.4):
10.5
0
2
46
8
10
12
1416
18
20
Fre
sno
Mis
sou
la
SL
C
Tu
lsa
St
Lo
uis
Bir
min
gh
am
Ind
y
Atla
nta
Cle
vela
nd
Ch
arl
ott
e
Ric
hm
on
d
Ba
ltim
ore
Bro
nx
PM2.5 Mass
Sulfate
Ammonium
Nitrate
TCM (k=1.8)
TCM (k=1.4)
Crustal
Concentration, ug/m3
PM2.5 Urban Excess is Mostly Carbon
12-month average PM2.5 mass and components with speciation samplers
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Fre
sno
Mis
sou
la
SL
C
Tu
lsa
St L
ou
is
Bir
min
gh
am
Ind
y
Atla
nta
Cle
vela
nd
Ch
arl
otte
Ric
hm
on
d
Ba
ltim
ore
Mass (using STN)
Crustal
Nitrate
Ammonium
Sulfate
TCM (k=1.4)
TCM (k=1.8)
Mass(using FRM)
w. FRM massw. STN mass
Carbon Excess Percentage is even higher when FRM mass is used
Status of Draft RH Guidance Documents
Regional Haze Guidance
• Two guidance documents prepared to support States in preparing SIPs
– Draft Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule
– Draft Guidance for Estimating Natural Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule
Chronology of the Guidance Review
• Distributed for public review in October, 2001
• Notice of availability in Federal Register in December 2001 to spur additional comments
• Distributed for technical peer review in April, 2002
• Responses in preparation by EPA/State/RPO/NPS working group (contract related delays)
• Revised Guidance expected January 2003
Technical Peer Review Committee
– Bruce Hill• Clean Air Task Force
– Rich Poirot• Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
– Ivar Tombach• Environmental Consultant
– James Watson• Desert Research Institute
– Warren White• Washington University
Response to Commentssome key points
• Technical peer review and public comment addressing scientific issues– Substantial rewriting of several sections and new
technical appendices for clarification (not new science)
– Refinements to substitution procedures
0
24
68
10
1214
1618
20
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Relative Humidity (percent)
We
igh
tin
g F
ac
tor,
f(R
H)
-- Sensitivity analyses with new f(RH)
• Many editorial changes and clarifications
-- Revised monthly avg f(RH)
Access to Canadian Data
North American Particulate Matter Database
• North American Atmospheric Chemistry (NAAtChem) Database is under development– Collaboration of National Atmospheric Chemistry
(NAtChem) Database and Analysis Facility (operated by Environment Canada) and Clean Air Markets Division (EPA)
• with full web-based data access• likely to be completed in about 6 to 12 months.• In the meantime, data available by request
• Contacts: – Bob Vet (EC)– Gary Lear (CAMD/EPA)
What data is in NATChem?
• NAtChem archives 3 types of data from regional scale networks in the USA and Canada:
• Precipitation Chemistry, Particulate Matter and Toxics data
• The NAtChem Particulate Matter Database consists of – a number of US and Canadian data sets
How network differences are treated?
• The differences between the networks/data are documented.
• NatChem has converted all data to 0 deg C, 760 mm Hg except those data at ambient conditions.– Methods to further harmonize STP/LTP units
underway
Top Related