particulate matter and its sources in georgia sangil lee
Post on 18-Jan-2018
219 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Particulate Matter and its Sources in Georgia
Sangil Lee
Particulate Matters
• PM10 (<10 m) regulated due to its health concerns.
• PM2.5 (<2.5 m) believed to cause the severe health problems (premature mortality, respiratory, cardiovascular disease).
• Recently, EPA established annual (15 g/m3)and 24 hours (<65 g/m3) NAAQS for PM2.5.
chemical Speciation Trends Network (STN)
• Characterizing annual, seasonal, and spatial trends of PM2.5.
• Monitoring air quality and the progress of control programs.
• Developing emission control strategies.• Comparing the chemical speciation data to
those from other network studies.
National PM2.5(Annual Mean) Trends2001~2003
50
45
40
35
30
25
-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60
50
45
40
35
30
25
-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60
36
35
34
33
32
31
30-86 -85 -84 -83 -82 -81 -80
2001 2002
2003 Georgia, 2001
50
45
40
35
30
25
-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60
Exceed Annual Standard (>15 g/m3)
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
g /m
3
PM2.5(primary) and Precursor Emissions1999
PM2.5 SO2
NH3 NOx VOCs
from www.EPA.gov
Variation of PM2.5 in Georgia2002~2003
36
35
34
33
32
31
-86 -85 -84 -83 -82 -81 -80
Richmond
Muscogee
Floyd
Dekalb
Coffee
Clarke
ChathamBibb
Monitoring Site
Variation of PM2.5 in Georgia2002~2003
36
35
34
33
32
31
-86 -85 -84 -83 -82 -81 -80
Richmond
Muscogee
Floyd
Dekalb
Coffee
Clarke
ChathamBibb
Monitoring Site
Correlation of Major Species
PM Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.93Floyd 0.81 0.82Bibb 0.80 0.80 0.63Muscogee 0.66 0.67 0.66 0.60Richmond 0.79 0.80 0.65 0.81 0.52Chatham 0.49 0.45 0.24 0.48 0.51 0.53Coffee 0.48 0.46 0.29 0.56 0.53 0.48 0.70
SO4 Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.92Floyd 0.82 0.78Bibb 0.76 0.80 0.65Muscogee 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.86Richmond 0.81 0.81 0.71 0.84 0.78Chatham 0.32 0.34 0.22 0.42 0.45 0.52Coffee 0.33 0.34 0.22 0.48 0.55 0.38 0.64
NH4 Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.91Floyd 0.83 0.78Bibb 0.75 0.81 0.60Muscogee 0.78 0.83 0.68 0.86Richmond 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.76 0.70Chatham 0.29 0.34 0.20 0.46 0.48 0.46Coffee 0.37 0.39 0.22 0.54 0.58 0.36 0.67
NO3 Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.87Floyd 0.82 0.78Bibb 0.84 0.70 0.62Muscogee 0.73 0.67 0.68 0.90Richmond 0.48 0.57 0.58 0.45 0.37Chatham 0.32 0.39 0.40 0.54 0.43 0.54Coffee 0.69 0.52 0.63 0.72 0.66 0.51 0.45
OC Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.86Floyd 0.72 0.72Bibb 0.84 0.82 0.60Muscogee 0.46 0.53 0.61 0.45Richmond 0.74 0.74 0.58 0.80 0.43Chatham 0.58 0.44 0.25 0.64 0.22 0.70Coffee 0.78 0.65 0.39 0.76 0.39 0.78 0.70
EC Dekalb Clarke Floyd Bibb Muscogee Richmond ChathamDekalbClarke 0.73Floyd 0.66 0.70Bibb 0.73 0.81 0.64Muscogee 0.64 0.75 0.62 0.64Richmond 0.67 0.74 0.57 0.84 0.52Chatham 0.49 0.59 0.45 0.64 0.36 0.57Coffee 0.50 0.69 0.57 0.67 0.42 0.83 0.56
36
35
34
33
32
31
-86 -85 -84 -83 -82 -81 -80
Richmond
Muscogee
Floyd
Dekalb
Coffee
Clarke
ChathamBibb
Monitoring Site
Chemical Composition of PM2.5
(2002) 19.03 +- 8.13 g/m3
19%
3%
30%
2%9%
5%
32%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 17.72 +- 7.67 g/m3
18%
4%
31%
3%9%
5%
30%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2002) 16.24 +- 7.75 g/m3
12%
2%
34%
5%9%
6%
32%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 16.36 +- 7.03 g/m3
14%
3%
32%
6%9%
5%
31%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2002) 17.96 +- 8.44 g/m3
16%
3%
29%
3%10%
5%
34%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 16.14 +- 7.60 g/m3
16%
3%
29%
3%10%
5%
34%
(2002) 15.45 +- 7.34 g/m3
12%
3%
37%
3%8%
3%
34%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 16.34 +- 15.12 g/m3
19%
3%
37%3%
7%
3%
28%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2002) 16.28 +- 6.38 g/m3
17%
5%
34%3%
8%
4%
29%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 16.50 +- 6.63 g/m3
19%
6%
32%4%
8%
4%
27%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2002) 16.67 +- 6.48 g/m3
13%
3%
36%
3%9%
5%
31%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 16.28 +- 8.51 g/m3
15%
3%
31%
3%10%
5%
33%
(2003) 11.58 +- 5.63 g/m3
18%
4%
33%3%
7%
4%
31%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2002) 14.87 +- 6.41 g/m3
10%
5%
37%
4%7%
4%
33%
Uniden
Others
OC
EC
NH4+
NO3-
SO42-
(2003) 14.77 +- 5.27 g/m3
11%
4%
36%
5%8%
4%
32%Uniden
Others
OC
ECNH4+
NO3-
SO42-
Rome, Floyd Decatur, Dekalb Athens, Clarke
Columbus, Muscogee Macon, Bibb Augusta, Richmond
Douglas, Coffee Savannah, Chatham
Source Apportionmentwith Chemical Mass Balance
• Quantify the source contribution to the receptor.• Cik =fijSjk i = 1,…n (chemical species) j = 1,…,m (sources), k = 1,…,l (samples).
Cij : observed conc. of species i in sample k. fij : fraction of species i in source j. Sjk : conc. of from species i in source k.
• Assumption: 1) compositions of source emissions are constant, 2) chemical species do not react with each other, 3) All sources contributing significantly to the receptor have been included in the calculation, 4) the number of sources is less than or equal to the number of species, 5) the source profiles are sufficiently different from one another, 6) measurement uncertainties are random, uncorrelated, and normally distributed.
j = 1
m
Source Profiles for CMB
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00Cem Kiln Coal PP
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
SB
AS AL
BA
BR
CD
CA
CR
CO
CU CL
GA
FE
PB IN MN
MO NI
MG
HG
AU LA PH SE
SN TI
VA SI
AG
ZN
SR
SU
RB
KP
YT
NA
ZR
NH
4
Na K
OC
NO
3
EC
SO
4 Cl
PD TL
UR
Diesel V Gasoline V
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00Wood Burning Meat Cooking
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30SOILDUST
Floyd, 18.33 +- 7.84 g/m3
6.52
0.37
1.01
2.850.750.39
0.55
5.21
0.520.16
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Dekalb, 15.58 +- 6.87 g/m31.32
0.47
4.77
0.290.37
0.74 1.05
0.98
0.12
5.47
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Clarke, 17.02 +- 8.20 g/m3
6.54
0.20
1.24
1.760.620.440.58
4.60
0.64
0.39
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Muscogee, 14.66 +- 6.67 g/m3
0.170.23
5.08
0.44 0.680.271.86
0.53
0.13
5.27
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Bibb, 15.85 +- 6.52 g/m3
5.18
0.52
0.64
1.710.730.71
0.67
4.91
0.470.32
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Richmond, 16.35 +- 7.57 g/m3
0.160.26
5.32
0.470.84 0.44 1.56
0.88
0.15
6.28
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Coffee, 12.23 +- 5.29 g/m30.10
0.02
4.03
0.46
0.98 0.161.86
0.53
0.16
3.93
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Chatham, 15.63 +- 5.74 g/m3
5.28
0.28
0.65
1.140.830.99
0.48
5.09
0.32 0.59
UnxexplainCem Kiln(NH4)2SO4NH4NO3Diesel VehicleGasoline VehicleWood burningSoil dustMeat cookCoal Power plant
Summary
• Metro-areas have higher PM2.5 mass than NAAQS level( >15g/m3).
• The higher correlation, the closer location.• Sulfate and Organic Carbon in chemical
composition.• Secondary and Wood Burning in sources.
top related