Assessment of Carbonaceous PM 2.5 for New York State and the Region John Graham jgraham@nescaum.org 2007 NYSERDA EMEP CONFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND PROTECTION IN NEW YORK: LINKING SCIENCE AND POLICY Albany, New York November 16, 2007
Project Goals • Produce a policy-relevant assessment of scientific and technical understanding of behavior and control of carbonaceous PM 2.5 for the State of New York – Two equally important perspectives for assessment • Attainment of NAAQS for PM 2.5 (and ozone) for the New York Metro area (three-state area, NY, Conn., NJ) : urban focus • Public health and human exposure to PM 2.5 (across the state including rural areas) : human exposure focus • Provide recommendations to decision makers on how to move forward (science, technology, controls, need for future work) • Report written for broad audience 2
Assessment Report • Final product : A written assessment report – In two volumes • Volume I : Executive Summary (six pages) and a Synthesis Document (21 pages; includes recommendations); both written for broad audience • Volume II : Three-chapter comprehensive assessment report (chapters on atmospheric processes, human health effects, and control technologies and strategies), and six detailed appendices (PM 2.5 Emission Inventory, Diesel Engine Technologies, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, New Vehicle and Engine Emission Standards, Airports and Aircrafts, and PM 2.5 Speciation profiles) 3
Focus Questions (two of five) • (1) Do carbonaceous aerosols contribute significantly to high levels of ambient PM 2.5 in the New York State ? • (2) What proportion of carbonaceous PM 2.5 present in NY is derived from in-state sources? Ambient data used to illustrate temporal (seasonal, daily, sub- daily) & spatial (regional, urban, community) variation of carbonaceous aerosol in New York State. Combined with available emissions inventory information, provide answer to above questions. 4
Emissions Inventory • Information Sources: US EPA National Emissions Inventory and MANE-VU Inventory • PM2.5 emissions speciated with US EPA profiles • Seven emission areas emphasized, based on their contribution to EC and OC fraction of PM2.5 emissions: (1) commercial meat cooking, (2) residential fuel combustion, (3) light-duty vehicles, (4) heavy-duty trucks and buses, (5) nonroad engines, (6) airports, and (7) marine ports 5
6 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area
Monitoring Sites . Met1 Sampler * R & P Sampler SOAP study site S * S * S S S 7
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings • Filter-based Measurements in New York State – Blank Correction & Organic Carbon Mass Adjustment Factor – Reconstructed Mass Data – Monthly Variation of Carbonaceous PM 2.5 – EC Tracer Method – Weekday-weekend Analysis – Local versus Regional Analysis 8
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Mass Adjustment Factor • This work employed a mass-balance approach based on Frank’s (2006) SANDWICH approach • Sample-specific OC adjustment factors calculated for blank corrected data • Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, EC and Crustal mass subtracted from total sample mass • Adjustment made for particle-bound water and seasonally adjusted nitrate loss OC OC Site Name Factor Site Name Factor Botanical Gardens 1.5 Buffalo (BUFF) (NYBG) 1.4 Whiteface (WHTE) 1.6 IS 52 (IS52) 1.4 Rochester (ROCH) 1.6 Queens College (QCII) 1.5 Pinnacle State Park (PINN) 1.6 Canal St (CANL) 1.3 9
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Reconstructed Mass Rochester (12.2 ug/m3) Buffalo (15.1 ug/m3) Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other 18 15 1 .3 3 ) Canal Street (17.4 ug/ m3) NY Bot. Gardens (14.9 ug/m3) Reconstructed Mass ( μ g/ m 1 .2 1 .1 0 .6 0 .7 12 5 .5 4 .2 4 .0 0 .4 4 .8 3 .8 9 0 .2 3 .3 2 .2 2 .8 2 .0 2 .0 Bronx IS52 (15.6 ug/m3) Queens College (14.3 ug/m3) 1 .9 1 .8 1 .7 6 2 .5 1 .2 2 .1 2 .2 2 .0 1 .9 0 .1 1 .8 0 .9 1 .8 3 0 .6 0 .4 4 .3 4 .3 4 .2 4 .2 3 .9 4 .0 3 .5 Pinnacle SP (10.8 ug/m3) Whiteface Mt. (7.0 ug/m3) 2 .3 0 Buffalo Rochest er Pinnacle Canal St reet Bronx IS52 NY Bot Queens Whit eface St at e Park Gardens College Mountain Annual SO 4 mass constant across NYS, NO 3 , OC and EC greater in urban Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Sulfate areas than in rural ones; OC mass represents 1/4 -1/3 of total PM 2.5 mass. Nitrate Ammonium Crustal Other 10
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Reconstructed Mass 25 20 PM 2.5 peaks in Summer Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other Summer sulfate twice winter sulfate in urban areas, three times 20 16 0 .7 1 .4 for rural ones. 5 .5 0.9 0.2 0 .7 3 ) 1 .2 1 .1 3 ) 1 .5 0.6 0.4 15 12 0.5 6 .5 Mass ( μ g/ m Mass ( μ g/ m 0 .7 1.6 5.0 4 .2 1 .1 5 .2 0 .4 1 .1 3.7 5 .3 0 .3 4.4 3.8 6 .1 5 .6 1 .2 1 .1 0.4 0 .7 1 .2 2 .4 3 .7 0 .7 1.1 2.9 4.7 2 .6 3 .8 3.9 0 .2 10 8 2 .8 0.8 3.0 1 .7 3 .3 0.1 3 .3 0 .2 3 .8 2.6 2.0 1 .1 2 .4 4 .8 4 .4 1.8 2 .3 1.9 2 .4 3.6 0 .3 1 .7 1.7 0 .2 3.3 1 .6 2 .2 2 .1 1 .7 2 .4 3.2 2 .0 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1 .8 1 .8 1 .3 0.8 1 .8 1 .2 1 .7 0.2 3.0 1 .4 1 .1 1 .5 1 .1 1.5 3 .2 1 .5 3.3 2.3 1.4 2.5 1.5 0 .9 0.2 0.8 4 3 .4 3 .1 Nitrate levels highest in winter 5 3 .0 2 .2 1.6 1 .2 3.0 0 .7 2 .1 0.1 2 .8 6 .7 1 .8 1.8 1.3 6 .3 1.7 2 .0 0.6 0 .1 1 .5 0.9 6 .8 0.5 5.0 0.4 6.3 6 .4 EC shows limited seasonality, 5 .7 0.5 4 .1 0.3 3 .5 3 .4 3.4 3.3 3.3 4 .2 3.2 0.6 2.7 4.0 3 .9 3 .6 3 .4 3.4 3 .4 3 .4 2 .4 2 .2 3.3 2.3 3.2 3 .0 3 .1 although increase observed in 1.8 1 .3 0 0 Fall Fall Fall Fall Spring Summer Spring Summer Spring Summer Spring Summer urban areas during wintertime Winter Fall Winter Fall Winter Fall Winter Fall Spring Summer Spring Summer Spring Summer Spring Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Buffalo Rochester Pinnacle St ate Park Whit eface Mountain Canal St reet NY Bot anical Gardens Bronx IS52 Queens College 11
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -EC Tracer Method • EC used as tracer for primary emissions. Derived primary ratio based on dataset. • Note: this approach assumed constant averaged primary source ratio of OC:EC Estimated contribution of secondary organic aerosol to total OC Cooler Warmer Cooler Warmer Site Months Months Site Months Months Buffalo 42% 47% Pinnacle State Park 60% 78% Canal St. ~0% 15% Queens CoIIege ~0% 29% IS52 ~0% 27% Rochester 51% 61% NY Botanical Gardens ~0% 39% Whiteface 50% 80% Warmer months = May to September 13
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Weekday-weekend Analysis Little difference seen between weekday-weekend OC levels. Differences apparent for EC Seasonal EC concentrations in urban areas. 2 1.8 5 Weekday 1.8 Weekday Weekday 4.5 1.6 1.6 Weekend 4 Weekend Weekend 1.4 1.4 3.5 ug/m 3 1.2 1.2 1 ug/m 3 3 3 1 ug/m 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.6 2 0.4 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.4 1 0 Fall Fall Fall Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Winter 0.2 0.5 0 0 BUFF ROCH PINN WHTE CANL IS52 NYBG QCII BUFF Canal St ROCH PINN WHTE Queens Coll CANL IS52 Pinnacle SP NYBG QCII 14
Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Local versus Regional • NYC sites compared to Pinnacle State Park site – Pinnacle site assumed to represent regional background – Sample dates matched • Intra-Urban [(max-min)/max)] comparison represents a lower bound for local source contribution (sampler specific comparison ~10% less than in table) • Urban-rural [(urban-rural)/urban] estimate may or may not accurately portray local source contribution Pollutant Comparison Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Intra-Urban 5% 15% 10% 5% 10% Sulfates Urban-Rural 30-35% 10-25% 0-10% -15 – (-5%) 5-15% Intra-Urban 15% 35% 30% 25% 25% Nitrates Urban-Rural 50-55% 50-65% 75-80% 55-65% 55-65% Organic Intra-Urban 35% 35% 30% 40% 35% Carbon Urban-Rural 40-65% 30-55% 10-35% 25-50% 25-50% Elemental Intra-Urban 50% 40% 50% 40% 45% Carbon Urban-Rural 70-85% 65-80% 70-85% 70-80% 70-85% 15
Major Findings • We still have a lot to learn about carbonaceous aerosols • We know they contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels in New York City and the rest of the State • A substantial fraction of OC and most EC is likely of local in origin for New York City 16
Special Thanks to: • NYSERDA for supporting the project (Dr. Ellen Burkhard, Project Manager) • Dr. Mort Lippmann and Dr. Ken Demerjian for invaluable expertise • NESCAUM Staff : Praveen Amar, Michael Block, Coralie Cooper, Addison Faler, Phil Johnson, Iyad Kheirbek, Paul Miller, Lisa Rector, Emily Savelli, Eric Skelton, and Jung-Hun Woo • MJB Associates for preparing substantial portions of many of the control technology chapters and appendices • EPA ORD for speciation profiles; NACAA for background material on technologies 17
Recommend
More recommend
