New York PM Supersite Update: What Have We Learned/Where Do We Need - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

New York PM Supersite Update: What Have We Learned/Where Do We Need to Go? NYSERDA EMEP October 7, 2003 Kenneth L. Demerjian Atmospheric Sciences Research Center University at Albany State University of New York

U.S. EPA PM Supersites Program • A strategic ambient monitoring research program designed to develop, deploy and evaluate measurement technologies for the monitoring of the physical and chemical characteristics of particulate matter (PM) and its relationship to PM mass as measured by the Federal Reference Method (FRM). • The program consists of two Phase I and seven Phase II sites distributed across the country: New York, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Houston, Fresno and Los Angeles.

Current/Planned Urban & Rural PM 2.5 Speciation Networks SS SS SS SS SS SS Trends (54) SS Supplemental (~215 sites currently known) Supersites SS Daily Sites IMPROVE IMPROVE Protocol Castnet conversion Deploy in 2002 Deploy in 2003 01/02

PMTACS-NY Measurement Sites

Program Objectives 5 Measure the temporal and spatial distribution of the PM2.5/co- pollutant complex including: SO 2 , CO, VOCs/air toxics, NO, = NO 2 , O 3 , NO y , H 2 CO, HNO 3 , HONO, PM2.5 (mass, SO 4 , ­ , OC, EC, trace elements), aerosol size distribution, single NO 3 particle aerosol composition, CN, OH and HO 2 . 5 Monitor the effectiveness of new emission control technologies [i.e. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) bus deployment and Continuously Regenerating Technology (CRT)] introduced in New York City and its impact on ambient air quality. 5 Test and evaluate new measurement technologies and provide tech­transfer of demonstrated operationally robust technologies for network operation.

PMTACS­NY Science Policy Relevant Highlights • Testing and evaluation of new measurement instrumentation and technology transfer. • Air quality issues associated with CNG powered and retrofit diesel control technologies (DF­CRT). • PM2.5 Chemical and Physical Characterization in support of SIP development and demonstrating accountability in air quality management. • Benefits of the introduction of low sulfur fuels on local sulfate production.

Testing and evaluation of new measurement instrumentation and technology transfer • Testing and Evaluation of R&P TEOM based PM2.5 Mass Monitoring Systems • Testing and Evaluation of Semi­continuous PM2.5 Sulfate Measurement Technology • Testing and Evaluation of Semi­continuous PM2.5 Nitrate Measurement Technology • Testing and Evaluation of ARI, Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS)

EMEP Poster Session • Intercomparison of Semi-Continuous Particulate Sulfate and Nitrate Measurement Technologies at a New York State Urban and Rural Location; Olga Hogrefe, F. Drewnick, J. J. Schwab, K. Rhoads, S. Peters and K. L. Demerjian • Semi-Continuous PM 2.5 Sulfate and Nitrate Measurements In New York City and Whiteface Mountain; Oliver V. Rattigan, D. H. Felton, J. J. Schwab, U.K. Roychowdhury and K. L. Demerjian • Aerosol Size Distributions: A Comparison of Measurements From Urban and Rural Sites; G. Garland Lala, O. Hogrefe and K. L. Demerjian

zyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA EMEP Poster Session (continued) • Measurements of Carbon Particulate Matter in the Adirondack Region of Upstate New York ; U. K. Roychowdhury, D. H. Felton, J. Schwab and K. L. Demerjian • Aerosol Laboratory Evaluations of PM2.5 Measurement Technologies; Olga Hogrefe, J.J. Schwab, G.G. Lala, O. V. Rattigan, J. Ambs and K.L. Demerjian • Recent Developments in the Field Evaluation of TEOM Based PM2.5 Monitoring Technologies ; James J. Schwab, D. H. Felton, J. Ambs, J. Spicer and K.L. Demerjian

CNG/CRT Emission Perturbation Experiment (CEPEX) Characterize new and existing engine technologies used by NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). ‘Traditional’ Diesel: 6V92 & Series 50 Retrofit (Diesel Particulate Filter - CRT) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Hybrid Diesel Electric (Diesel Generator, Electric Motor) Sample heavy duty vehicles using ARI Mobile Lab Low Sulfur Fuel Power Plant Plume Characterization Tractor Trailer Transfer Station (Hunt’s Point) Examine Airport Emissions/ Urban Air Quality

In­Use Emission Characterization of CNG powered and Retrofit (DF­CRT) Controlled and Standard Diesel • Show significant PM emission reductions in CNG and DF-CRT retrofit technology • Show increases in NO 2 /NO x in DF-CRT • Show increased H 2 CO and CH 4 emissions in CNG powered vehicles • Show PM Organic emission as a significant contributor to ambient PM • Show lower SO 2 emission in low sulfur fueled vehicles, little change on primary PM sulfate (low) • Show NO x emissions across the sampled vehicle population remain an issue

~ 60% Reduction in NRPM

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA AMS Mass Spectra • Diesel bus exhaust spectrum is an average of PM exhaust MS sampled during (CEPEX) • Lubricant oil and diesel fuel spectra were obtained from lab aerosol measurements

Typical Diesel PM Organic & Sulfate Measurements Averaged over a Chase Event

Average Organic and Sulfate Exhaust Only Diesel Vehicle Chase event: in­plume ­ background

Queens College July 2001 Average Size Distribution Over Campaign Inlet Transmission Efficiency / % 8 Inlet Transmission 100 Nitrate dM/d log Dp / µ g/m 3 µ m Function Sulfate 80 Ammonium 6 Organics 60 4 40 2 20 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 0.1 1 Aerodynamic Particle Diameter / µ m yxwvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaVTSRPONMJIHGFEDCBA Typical Size Distributions Sulfate/Nitrate internally mixed Sulfate: 1 mode @ 440 nm Ammonium: mixed with organic Nitrate: 1 mode @ 450 nm interferents/fragments Ammonium: 1 mode @ 400 nm Organics: 2 modes @ 70/300 nm

yxwvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaYUTSRQPONMLJIHFEDCBA Ambient Diurnal Cycles QC 2001 Sulfate 3 µ m 6 1 h Size Distributions Nitrate 5 dM/d log D p / µ g/m Organics zyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 4 3 2 1 • weak diurnal cycle: no shifts in mode 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 0.1 1 diameters, small changes in intensities Aerodynamic Diameter / µ m 3 µ m 6 7 h •During morning rush­hour: 5 dM/d log D p / µ g/m 4 extraordinary intensive small particle 3 2 1 mode of the organic particles: 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 0.1 1 Aerodynamic Diameter / µ m 3 µ m 6 13 h Fraction in small particle mode 5 dM/d log D p / µ g/m 40 4 3 Fraction / % 35 2 yxwvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaVTSRPONMJIHGFEDCBA 1 30 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 0.1 1 Aerodynamic Diameter / µ m 25 3 µ m 6 19 h 23:00 - 24:00 0:00 - 1:00 1:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 3:00 3:00 - 4:00 4:00 - 5:00 5:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 7:00 7:00 - 8:00 8:00 - 9:00 9:00 - 10:00 10:00 - 11:00 11:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 13:00 13:00 - 14:00 14:00 - 15:00 15:00 - 16:00 16:00 - 17:00 17:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 23:00 5 dM/d log D p / µ g/m 4 3 2 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 0.1 1 Aerodynamic Diameter / µ m

Whiteface Mountain July 2002 Average Size Distribution Over the Campaign Sulfate 150 Nitrate Ammonium dM/d log D p / a.u. Organics 100 m18 m43 m44 50 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 100 1000 Aerodynamic Diameter / nm Average mode diameters and distribution widths for the campaign: Sulfate: D mode : 451.55 nm width: 541.31 nm Nitrate: D mode : 398.10 nm width: 627.43 nm Organics: D mode : 376.32 nm width: 535.32 nm m43: D mode : 368.35 nm width: 537.19 nm m44: D mode : 417.60 nm width: 614.26 nm

wvutsronmlihgfedcbaTMA Sulfate Emission Ratio versus Bus Type ∆ Sulfate / ∆ CO 2 0.05 ∆ (Sulfate)/ ∆ CO 2 0.04 7 0.03 )/ppm N =48 0.02 10 36 3 ( µ g/m 22 44 3 2 0.01 4 2 2 2 1 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 Tunnel 6V92 Cummins Series 50 CRT Hybrid CNG Diesel CNG SB OB Truck Dirty Car MTA Buses Other Buses Non-MTA Buses MTA buses (using low sulfur fuel) emit less sulfate than commercial diesel vehicles

Why is it important to characterize PM in ambient air? ¾ Determination of Composition as a Function Mass and Particle Size • provides insight into source attribution and mitigation strategies • improves identification of health based cause­effect relationships ¾ Determination of Urban/Rural Differences in PM Composition • provides insight into contributions from local versus transported PM • provides insight into primary and secondary PM contributions in regional environments and there contribution to welfare effects (e.g. visibility and climate)

FRM PM2.5 Mass Spatial Correlation Queens College and IS­52 80 2001­2002 60 -0.6886 + 0.9342*x QCII - FRM, µ g/m 3 Multiple R 2 = 0.9398 40 20 0 10 30 50 70 IS52 - FRM, µ g/m 3

FRM PM2.5 Mass Spatial Correlation PS­59 and IS­52 80 2001­2002 2.506 + 0.9791*x Multiple R 2 = 0.9303 60 PS59-FRM, µ g/m 3 40 20 0 10 30 50 70 IS52-FRM, µ g/m 3

PM2.5 Sulfate Mass Spatial Correlation April 2001 - October 2002 25 PS-219 Queens PM2.5_SO4, µ g/m 3 20 -0.07566 + 0.9926*x Multiple R 2 = 0.95 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 IS-52 Bronx PM2.5_SO4, µ g/m 3

PM2.5 Nitrate Mass Spatial Correlation April 2001 - October 2002 8 PS-219 Queens PM2.5_NO3, µ g/m 3 6 0.1806 + 0.8795*x Multiple R 2 = 0.8642 4 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 IS-52 Bronx PM2.5_NO3, µ g/m 3