1 / 45

Data Analysis/Monitoring Session OAQPS Updates

Data Analysis/Monitoring Session OAQPS 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)

donar
Download Presentation

Data Analysis/Monitoring Session OAQPS Updates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Data Analysis/Monitoring SessionOAQPS Updates Neil Frank RPO National Workgroup Meeting Dallas TX December 3-4, 2002

  2. 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of IMPROVE/STN data and 6 sites Study (5 minutes) • Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments (20 minutes) • Status of Draft Guidance Documents (5 minutes) • Access to Canadian Data (5 minutes) • Discussion (10 minutes)

  3. IMPROVE/STN Intercomparisons

  4. 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

  5. Pinnacles St Park, NY R&P Sampler

  6. New York PM-2.5 Species Data (April – Nov 01: STN vs. IMPROVE (provided by Dirk Felton, NYSDEC) IMPROVE = 0.89STN - 0.00 R2 = 0.88

  7. 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

  8. Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments

  9. 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

  10. Ambient PM2.5 Composition in Urban Areas More Carbon and Nitrates in Urban Areas vs. Rural Areas EPA STN network, 2001 From: Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 2001 Status and Trends

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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 Avg OC blank, ug/m3

  15. Evaluation of STN OC blank correction for 12-month averages using measured OC vs PM2.5 mass OC concentration, ug/m3 PM2.5 Mass Concentration, ug/m3

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. EPA Speciation Trends Network 35 complete sites initially selected for analysis 35 STN sites

  19. IMPROVE Network, 2002 98 Sites with “complete” data, Mar 01-Feb 02

  20. 13 Selected Urban Sites are Paired with Rural Sites for “Urban PM2.5 Excess” Calculations Missoula Cleveland Bronx SLC Indy Fresno S.L. Baltimore Tulsa Richmond Charlotte Atlanta Birmingham 13 urban STN sites 16 rural IMPROVE sites

  21. Are the Rural IMPROVE Sites Indicative of Regional Backgroundfor Comparison to Urban Sites?Let’s look at Spatial Patterns for SO4, NO3 and Carbon

  22. Rural Sulfates: March 01 – Feb 02

  23. ?? Rural Nitrates : March 01 – Feb 02

  24. Rural Total Carbonaceous Mass: March 01 – Feb 02 TCM=1.8*OC+EC

  25. Now, lets estimate urban excess First in terms of gravimetric mass Then, specific species

  26. Urban PM2.5 is Higher than Nearby Rural Concentrations Top: Urban Bottom: Rural 12-month average PM2.5 mass with speciation samplers

  27. Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD Dolly Sods, WV Rural IMPROVE site (background) “Urban Excess” = Urban – Rural concentrations Baltimore MD STN urban site Rural Concentrations Adjusted for Elevation differential Rural Concentrations Superimposed on Urban Top bars are urban concentrations Bottom bars are nearby rural concentration

  28. Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD Elevation adjustment is a small technical correction to the “Urban Excess” calculation Concentration, ug/m3 Urban excess after elevation adjustment Concentration at 1158m (Dolly Sods) is 12% lower than sea level

  29. Focus on Dolly Sods, WV Average Sulfate March 01 – Feb 02 Elevation adjustment increases average DOSO sulfate to 4.8 ug/m3

  30. Examples of Other Urban-Rural Pairings

  31. TCM (k=1.4): (k=1.4) 2.4 6.4 10.5 Ambient Urban Excess Concentrations for 13 example areas Range of TCM based on “k”= 1.4 to 1.8 “Urban Excess” = urban concentration – regional background

  32. 20 18 16 PM2.5 Mass 14 Sulfate 12 Ammonium 10 Nitrate 8 6 4 2 0 Indy SLC Tulsa Bronx Atlanta Fresno St Louis Missoula Charlotte Baltimore Cleveland Richmond Birmingham PM2.5 Urban Excess is Mostly Carbon Concentration, ug/m3 TCM (k=1.8) TCM (k=1.4) Crustal 12-month average PM2.5 mass and components with speciation samplers

  33. Carbon Excess Percentage is even higher when FRM mass is used w. STN mass w. FRM mass

  34. Status of Draft RH Guidance Documents

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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 -- Revised monthly avg f(RH) • -- Sensitivity analyses with new f(RH) • Many editorial changes and clarifications

  39. Access to Canadian Data

  40. 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)

  41. 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

  42. 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

More Related