1 / 19

California PAMS Monitoring Stations: A 2000 Overview

Explore the California Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) program in 2000, its districts, sampling requirements, alternative plan, hydrocarbon data, bias issues, LOD, and method sensitivity. Discover the conclusions and recommendations for better data utilization.

stellal
Download Presentation

California PAMS Monitoring Stations: A 2000 Overview

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. California Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) 2000 By Donald Hammond February 13, 2001 California Air Resources Board Monitoring and Laboratory Division

  2. Introduction • 1989- ARB begins seasonal (summer) sampling for hydrocarbons • 1991- ARB’s Sacramento Area Winter Study • 1994- Federal regulations require States to establish Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) in ozone non-attainment areas (1-hour standard). PAMS begins with several California Districts.

  3. California Air Districts in the 2000 PAMS Program • South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) • Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) • San Diego County APCD • Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD • San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD • Santa Barbara County APCD

  4. ARB’s role in PAMS • Provide program development coordination • Provide quality management support for the Districts: Review QA/QC plans Station Probe Audits Laboratory Audits (ARB and Federal) Whole Air Sample Comparisons

  5. ARB’s role in PAMS- continued • Have provided laboratory services to some Districts (Sacramento and San Joaquin) by contract • Coordinate PAMS data analysis (STI reports May 1999) • Assist in the development of the California Alternative Plan (CAP)

  6. Monitoring Stations Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 • 1: Upwind / Background • 2: Maximum Emissions from Central Business District. Requires precursor measurement of both HCs and carbonyls. • 3: Downwind maximum ozone station • 4: Extreme downwind station (transport)

  7. General Sampling Requirements for Ozone Precursors • Type 2 stations collect eight 3-hour samples every day for hydrocarbons and carbonyls • Type 1, 3, and 4 stations collect eight 3-hour samples every third day for hydrocarbons • South Coast AQMD is performing the full plan while other California Districts are on the California Alternative Plan

  8. California Alternative Plan • Requires less sampling for hydrocarbons and carbonyls at all station types • Type 2 stations collect four 3-hour samples every third day for hydrocarbons and carbonyls • Type 1, 3, and 4 stations collect four 3-hour samples every third day for hydrocarbons

  9. California Alternative Plan -continued • Increase sampling on episode days • Collect hourly Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds (TNMOC) at all stations every day

  10. California PAMS: 25 • South Coast AQMD- 7 stations • Ventura County APCD- 3 stations • San Diego County APCD- 4 stations • Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD- 4 stations • San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD- 6 stations • Santa Barbara County APCD- 1 stations • Several Upper Air Profilers

  11. Target Precursors Reported • 56 hydrocarbons • TNMOC (43102) from hourly monitors such as the TEI 55 C or Method 164 • TNMOC (43102) sum of all species from Gas Chromatograph Flame Ionization Detector GC/FID or Method 200 • TNMOC (43102) from GC Pre-concentration Direct (PD) FID or Method 12 • Carbonyls (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde)

  12. Bias Issues- caution data user! • Are calibration gases traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)? • Are oxygenates part of the TNMOC (43102)? • Do Limit of Detection LOD differences among laboratories and methods have an effect? • Sensitivity requirements (are the methods adequate for today’s samples?)

  13. Limit of Detection • TEI or TECO 55 C, Method 164 had a LOD of 150 PPBC, after modification in 2000 the LOD was lowered to about 75 PPBC • GC/FID Method 200 LOD vary from 0.1 to 1 PPBC depending on Laboratory (five district and two contract laboratories operated during year 2000 for PAMS) • GC/PDFID Method 12 has an LOD of 30 PPBC

  14. Relationship of LOD and Method Bias • GC/FID Method 200 may undercount TNMOC if LOD is higher than many of the species • U.S. EPA Technical Advisory Document recommends a minimum LOD of 1 PPBC for Method 200 (outdated standard?) • TNMOC concentrations have gone down since the PAMS program was stated in 1994

  15. Conclusions • A lot of data has been collected over the last seven years with the 2000 season having the most extensive network • With understanding of the data availability and monitoring issues there is an opportunity for data users to better utilize PAMS data • Data users and monitoring staff need to collaborate on method sensitivity

  16. Web Sites of Interest www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/hcarbons.htm www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pams/ www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/pams/docs.html www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/toxics.htm

More Related