submitted to acpd
DESCRIPTION
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 2 , B. Buchmann 1 , C. Hueglin 1 , and A. S. H. Prévôt 2 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Source apportionment of submicron organic aerosols at an urban site by linear unmixing of aerosol mass spectra
V. A. Lanz1, M. R. Alfarra2, U. Baltensperger2, B. Buchmann1, C. Hueglin1, and A. S. H. Prévôt2
[1] Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Laboratory for Air Pollution and Environmental Technology, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
[2] PSI, Paul Scherrer Institute, Laboratory for Atmospheric Chemistry, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
submitted to ACPD
Materials Science &Technology
![Page 2: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
urban background site (Zurich - Kaserne) three-week measurement period in summer 2005
N
www.mapsearch.ch
Measurement campaign
![Page 3: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Positive matrix factorization (PMF)
X = G F
- non-negativity of G and F - algorithm accounts for uncertainty in X (weighted least squares)
X{n x m} =
G{n x p}
F{p x m}
species j: 1…m
sam
ples
in t
ime
i: 1…
nColumns (scores)
Rows (loadingsor factors)
number of p must be specified
![Page 4: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Goodness of fit (R2) of regressed scores vs. measured organics and rotational freedom as a function of the number of factors chosen in PMF.
Number of factors p ?
![Page 5: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Most important step in PMF analyses: interpretation of F (and G), i.e.
the mathematical solutions (G and F matrices) must be linked to sources and aerosol
components
rows of F - factors: e.g check for spectral similarity with ~ AMS reference spectra
columns of G - scores: e.g. look at correlation with other species (time series)
(compare modelled emission/ratios with literature)
![Page 6: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Interpretation of F factors
spectral similarity to reference spectra
R2: correlation of all m/z‘sR2
m/z>44: correlation of m/z > 44
m/z 29
m/z 44m/z 18
m/z 43
factor [norm. int]
Ref. MS [norm. int]
similarity measure for AMS spectra ?
300...1 i/ i
iinorm.i msmsms
![Page 7: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Interpretation of F factors
example 1:
1st factor is very similar to fulvic acid, (aged urban aerosol, …)
(R2=0.96; Rm/z>442=0.83)
interpretation as OOA (oxygenated organic aerosol)
example 2:
3rd factor is very close to fuel, (lubricant oil, diesel, …)
(R2=0.99; Rm/z>442=0.99):
interpretation as HOA (hydrocarbon-like organic aerosol)
![Page 8: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
correlation with other species
-secondary processes:
atm. oxidants (O3 + NO2)
temperature
particle-phase nitrate/sulfate
-primary processes:
carbon monoxide (CO)
nitrogen oxides (NOx)
elemental carbon (EC)
Interpretation of G - scores
![Page 10: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
emission ratio
[ng m-3/ppbv]
Zürich-Kaserne
Pittburgh
(Zhang et al., 2005)
New England
(de Gouw et al., 2005)
Tokyo
(Takegawa et al., 2005)
diesel trucks/light-duty vehicles (calculated
from Kirchstetter et al., 1999)
POA/CO 10.4 4.3 9.4 11 -
HOA/NOx 15.9 42 - - 11/16
AMS (PMF) AMS (2-fact. approach)
total OA, gas-phase tracer
AMS (2-fact. approach)
tunnel studies
modelled emission ratios
![Page 11: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Main results
![Page 12: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
PM1 (Zürich-Kaserne, Summer 2005)
(avg. OM 6.58 g m-3 )
10% wood burning
13% in Zürich, 2002
(14C analysis, Szidat et al., 2006)
charbroiling; 11%
wood burning ; 10%
fossil fuel; 7%
minor source (cooking); 6%
OOA, type II (volatile); 22%
OOA, type I (aged); 44%
POA 34%SOA 66%
SOA and POA estimation
![Page 13: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Limitations of PMF
PMF (and other multivariate receptor models) cannot resolve sources/components when
(a) profiles are too similar
(b) when sources/components show similar temporal variation (e.g. Zurich winter data set)
→ CMB approach (collinearity and multicollinearity of profiles might be a problem)
→ Hybrid model combining CMB and PMF features ?
![Page 14: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Outlook: CMB - type approach (Zurich winter)
Temporal variation of three mass tracers (m/z 44, m/z 57 and m/z 60) during the Zurich winter 2006 campaign
![Page 15: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Outlook: CMB - type approach (Zurich winter)
Sources (F) known: X F+ = GF F+ ˜ G F+ the pseudo-inverse of F
X(w) {F(s) }+ = G(w) F(s) {F(s) }+ ˜ G(w) w: winter, s: summer
G(w) 95%-c.i.= X(w)
95%-c.i. {F(s) }+ 95%-c.i. propagating uncertainty
measurement uncertainty
model uncertainty
![Page 16: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
OOA HOA wood burning aerosol
calculated G factors
average contribution(incl. uncertainty estimates)
Outlook: CMB - type approach (Zurich winter) – preliminary !
![Page 17: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Calculated factors and its interpretation
Spectra of all PMF factors (interpreted as the denoted source profiles) calculated by 6-factorial PMF. Only for the minor source the full mass range up to 300 m/z is shown because it is the only source or component with significant features in the high mass region on the linear scale.
![Page 19: submitted to ACPD](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051418/5681572c550346895dc4c83c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Measured AMS-sulphate and modelled aerosol from wood burning on the Swiss national holiday (1 August)