data analysis/monitoring session oaqps updates neil frank rpo national workgroup meeting dallas tx...

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• Status of Draft Guidance Documents (5 minutes)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


0

3

6

9


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


0

3

6

9


0

3

6

9


Top bars are urban concentrations

Bottom bars are nearby rural concentration

0

3

6

9


0

3

6

9


0

3

6

9


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


2

4

6

8

10

ug/m

3

BRONX/BRIG



2

4

6

8

10

ug/m

3

CHARLOTTE/LIGO



5

10

15

20

ug/m

3

FRESNO/PINN


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

data analysis/monitoring session oaqps updates neil frank rpo national workgroup meeting dallas tx...

Documents

stn pm

canadian data

species data

year data analyses ready

sites study

sites12 months sampling

preliminary resultsoutside

additional site