Overview

1. Maps of PM2.5 over the U.S. Derived from Regional PM2.5 and Surrogate Visibility and PM10 Monitoring DataStefan R. Falke and Rudolf B. HusarCenter for Air Pollution Impact and Trend AnalysisWashington University St. Louis, Missouri

2. Overview Fine mass (particulate matter <2.5 µm in diameter) is currently monitored at a limited number of locations. Incorporation of related data into the spatial interpolation of fine mass aids the interpolation. This paper describes the methodology used in deriving fine particle maps for the U.S. by using visibility (280 sites) and PM10 data (~1000 sites) as fine mass surrogates. The higher resolution spatial coverage of the visibility and PM10 networks combined with their relationships to fine mass results in more detailed fine mass maps. Quarterly fine mass maps are derived for 1988-92.

3. Surrogates for Fine Mass Concentrations Fine Mass Monitoring Network Visibility Monitoring Network PM10 Monitoring Network Fine Mass vs. Visibility

4. Surrogate Aided Interpolation Extinction Coefficient 1/r2 Interpolation Fine Mass Concentrations 1/r2 Interpolation Bext Fine Mass 1/r2 Interpolation Bext Aided FM = Fine Mass Bext x Bext

5. Fine mass concentrations from the IMPROVE and NESCAUM networks, 1988-1992. Sparse site coverage, ~50 sites located mostly in rural areas results in coarse spatial pattern.

6. 75th percentile visibility extinction coefficient, 1988-1992 High spatial resolution visibility observation network (~280 monitoring sites)

7. Fine Mass using Bext Surrogate Before After

8. Fine Mass using Bext Surrogate Before After

9. Fine mass from IMPROVE/NESCAUM and AIRS 1988-1992

10. AIRS PM10 Concentrations, 1988-1992 AIRS consists of mostly urban monitoring sites. Using these as surrogates would result biased regional PM2.5 estimates.

11. ‘Regional’ AIRS PM10 concentrations Monitoring sites with PM10 concentrations below a ‘base’ level were considered regional.

12. Fine Mass using PM10 Surrogate Before After

13. Fine Mass using PM10 Surrogate Before After

14. Correlation coefficients (R2) for interpolation error tests

15. Conclusions • Derived fine mass maps using surrogates were of higher spatial resolution. • Locations with observed fine mass concentrations remained unchanged by the surrogates. • Cross validation analysis indicates improvement with the surrogates • Visibility performs better than PM10 • Future work will merge Visibility and PM10.

16. Methodology 1. Use high spatial resolution surrogate monitoring sites to interpolate a surrogate grid. 2. Obtain a surrogate value at each of the fine mass monitoring sites 3. Calculate the FM/Surrogate ratio at each of the fine mass monitoring sites 4. Interpolate the FM/Surrogate ratio to a grid 5. FM/Surrogate * Surrogate = FM Grid

17. Bext to Fine Mass Ratios A spatially smooth pattern with exceptions over northern Minnesota, eastern California and southern Oregon.

18. Fine mass ratio.