Comparison of Ambient Measurements to Emissions ... · Comparison of Ambient Measurements to...
Transcript of Comparison of Ambient Measurements to Emissions ... · Comparison of Ambient Measurements to...
Comparison of Ambient Measurements to Emissions Representations in Modeling
Presented by:Lyle R. ChinkinStephen B. Reid
Sonoma Technology, Inc.Petaluma, CA
Presented to:The CCOS Technical Committee
Sacramento, CADecember 15, 2006
905044.12-2838
2
To provide corroborative evidence, with
sufficient justification, that can potentially
explain disagreements between emission
inventory and observed pollutant
concentrations.
Project Objective
3
Preview of Findings (1 of 3)
� Overall, the emissions data show better agreement with ambient data than previous emission inventories have. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Summer 1996 Summer 2000
TN
MO
C/N
Ox
rati
o
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Summer 1996 Summer 2000
CO
/NO
x ra
tio
Ambient
Emissions
Sacramento Del Paso
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Summer 1996 Summer 2000
TN
MO
C/N
Ox
rati
o
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Summer 1996 Summer 2000
CO
/NO
x ra
tio
Ambient
Emissions
Fresno First Street
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Summer 1996 Summer 2000T
NM
OC
/NO
x ra
tio
Ambient
Emissions
Folsom
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Summer 1996 Summer 2000
TN
MO
C/N
Ox
rati
o
Clovis
2.6 - 4.32.93.9--Kern
1.4 - 7.21.92.63.6Fresno
1.4 - 2.41.71.62.2Sacramento
STI 2000*DRI 2000DRI 1995DRI 1990
Ambient ratio/Emissions ratioAir Basin
*This column shows the range of results from all sites evaluated in each air basin—including both urban and rural sites.
4
Preview of Findings (2 of 3)
� At some sites, the emissions data correlate with ambient data as closely as could be expected given analyses limitations*.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Del Paso Manor Site
* “ARB staff believes that an assessment such as this should only be expected to produce ambient/emissions ratios that are within approximately +/- 25 to 50% of 1.0.” (ARB, 1997)
5
Preview of Findings (3 of 3)
� EI generally under-predicts pollutant ratios
� Urbanized Sacramento area:
• Good agreement on weekdays
• Poorer agreement on weekends
� Urbanized Fresno area:
• Good agreement on weekdays and weekends
� Urbanized Bakersfield area:
• Poor agreement on weekdays and weekends
� Rural sites don’t fully meet underlying assumptions of analysis techniques
6
Preview of Recommendations
� Improve accuracy of weekend emission estimates.
� Correct spatial distributions of emissions (e.g., from livestock waste and heavy-duty engines).
� Further investigate the poor agreement in Kern County.
� Collect more ambient data at Bay Area sites to enable more robust evaluations.
7
Outline
� Overview of Approach
� Sites Selected
� Results
� Findings and Recommendations
� Questions & Discussion
8
Overview of Approach (1 of 2)
� Comparisons of ambient data to the emission inventory include:
• TNMOC-to-NOx ratios
• CO-to-NOx ratios
• Ratios of individual species
• Chemical composition of hydrocarbons
9
Overview of Approach (2 of 2)
� Spatial and temporal comparisons done by:
• Weekday vs. weekend
• Wind quadrants
Wind Quadrant 1 (1-90°) Wind Quadrant 2 (91-180°) Win d Quadrant 3 (181-270°) Wind Quadrant 4 (271-360°)Wind Quadrant 1 (1-90°) Wind Quadrant 2 (91-180°) Win d Quadrant 3 (181-270°) Wind Quadrant 4 (271-360°)
10
Monitoring Sites Selected
XGranite Bay Stn.Sacto4GNBY
XBakersfield Stn. (California Ave.)SJV4BAC
XTurlock Stn.SJV3TSM
XSan Jose Stn. (4th St.)Bay Area3SJ4
XXXShafter Stn.SJV3SHA
XXXMadera Stn.SJV3M29
XXElk Grove Stn.Sacto3ELK
XXXXArvin Stn.SJV3ARV
XXXParlier Stn.SJV2PLR
XXXFolsom Stn.Sacto2FLN
XSunol Stn.Bay Area1SUN
XXXSacramento Stn. (Del Paso Manor)Sacto1SDP
XXXXSacramento/Natomas Stn.Sacto1NAT
XXFresno Stn. (First St.)SJV1FSF
XXXXClovis Stn.SJV1CLO
XXXXBakersfield Stn. (Golden State)SJV1BGS
VOC fingerprints
Species ratiosCO/NOxTNMOC/NOxSite NameDistrictTierSite
11
Comparison of TNMOC/NOx Ratios
Elk Grove (1.4)
Folsom (1.5)
Sacramento – Natomas (1.2)
Sacramento – Del Paso (1.4 - 2.3)
Clovis (1.3 - 2.1)
Fresno – First St. (1.3)
Madera (6.3) [rural]
Parlier (1.3 - 2.5) [rural]
Arvin (1.5) [rural]
Bakersfield – Golden St. (3.3)
Shafter (2.6) [rural]
*Numbers represent the ratio of the derived median ambient ratio to the emission inventory ratio
12
Comparison of CO/NOx Ratios
Bakersfield – Golden St. (2.3)
Bakersfield – California Ave (3.9)
Clovis (2.2)
Fresno – First St. (1.7)
Sacramento – Natomas (1.6)
Sacramento – Del Paso (1.1)
Turlock (2.4)
San Jose (1.6)
*Numbers represent the ratio of the derived median ambient ratio to the emission inventory ratio
13
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio Ambient
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
Elk Grove
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Folsom
Sacramento Area (1 of 3)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Sacramento - Natomas
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Sacramento – Del Paso Manor
� Better agreement on weekdays
� Note poor agreement in wind quadrant 3 at Del Paso Manor
TNMOC/NOx
Error bars represent 25th and 75th percentiles
14
Sacramento (2 of 3)
� Poorest agreement in wind quadrant 3
� Shopping center 1km southwest of site
� Possible issue capturing hot soak emissions in inventory
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atioAmbient
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
Del Paso Manor
15
Sacramento Area (3 of 3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
5
10
15
20
25
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio Am bient - Median
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Natomas Site
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Del Paso Manor Site
�Weekdays and weekends are similar
�Agricultural or heavy duty sources appear to be misrepresented (too high) in Natomas quadrant 3
�Del Paso ratios agree well
CO/NOx
16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Fresno First Street
Fresno Area (1 of 3)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio Ambient
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
Clovis0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Madera
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TN
MO
C/N
Ox
Ra
tio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Parlier
�Weekdays and weekends are similar
� Changes in real world growth between Clovis and Fresno compared to surrogates (CLO-quadrant 3)
� Rural Madera site with low emission density (doesn’t fully meet assumptions)
TNMOC/NOx
17
Fresno Area (2 of 3)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
�Agrees well except in quadrant 3
�Winery in quadrant 3 is not identified as a point source in the inventory
Parlier TNMOC/NOx
18
Fresno Area (3 of 3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Clovis
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
5
10
15
20
25
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Fresno First Street
� Similar agreement on weekdays and weekend days
�Agreements not as good as in the Sacramento area
�May suggest overestimated heavy-duty NOxemissions in the area
CO/NOx
19
Kern County (1 of 2)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
TNM
OC
/NO
x R
atio Ambient
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Levels Only
Bakersfield – Golden State
Arvin
Shafter
�Ambient ratios are 2 to 4 times higher than emissions ratio (Much was worse than Sacramento/Fresno)
�Agreement does not vary between weekdays and weekends
� TNMOC emissions in quadrant 2 of Arvin are dominated by biogenics
TNMOC/NOx
20
Kern County (2 of 2)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - With ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4
Wind Quadrant
CO
/NO
x R
atio
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
All Days Weekday Weekend
Day of Week
CO
/NO
x R
atio
Ambient - Median
EI - W ith ElevatedSources
EI - Low Level Only
Bakersfield – California Ave.
Bakersfield – Golden State
�At Calif. Ave., best agreement in wind quadrants 3 and 4
�Poor overall agreement at the Golden State site
CO/NOx
21
Individual Species Ratios
� Compared amounts of individual hydrocarbons in the ambient data and emission inventory
• Acetylene/benzene
• Acetylene/propylene
• Benzene/m- and p-xylene
• Benzene/o-xylene
• Benzene/toluene
• Toluene/m- and p-xlyene
• Toluene/o-xylene
� Emission ratios generally show good agreement with ambient ratios
22
Fingerprint Comparisons (1 of 5)
� Comparisons were performed for 10 sites
� Analyses showed:
• Speciation of emission inventory is generally representative of the TNMOC composition detected by ambient monitoring sites
• Ethane is consistently higher in the emission inventory
• Propane is consistently lower in the emission inventory
• Isoprene is consistently higher in the emission inventory
23
Fingerprint C
ompariso
ns (2
of 5
)
0% 5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
M29
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
PL
R
0% 5%10%15%20%
25%30%35%40%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Clovis
Madera
Parlie
rBakersfie
ld –Golden State
Ethane: liv
esto
ck emissio
ns sp
atially allocated usin
g populationdensity
.
24
Fingerprint C
ompariso
ns (3
of 5
)
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
M29
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
PL
R
0% 5%10%15%20%
25%30%35%40%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Elk Grove
Madera
Shafte
rParlie
r
Generally Propane is a
ssocia
ted with oil a
nd gas e
xtractio
n, except fo
r major
distrib
ution ce
nter lo
cated at E
lk Grove.
25
Fingerprint C
ompariso
ns (4
of 5
)
FL
N
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
SD
P
0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Am
bient
EI - W
ithE
levated Sources
EI - Low
LevelO
nly
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EthyleneBenzene
C6+C4+C8+
StyrenesEthane
PropaneButanes
PentanesPropylene
TolueneAcetylene
IsopreneC6-C11
TNMOC Weight%
Arvin
Sacramento -Natomas
Sacramento –Del Paso Manor
Folsom
Isoprene: re
activ
ity issu
es; p
ossib
le overestim
ated biogenics
at A
rvin.
27
Overall Findings
� Overall, the emissions data show better agreement with ambient data than previous emission inventories have.
� At some sites, the emissions data correlate with ambient data as closely as could be expected given analyses limitations.
� EI generally under-predicts pollutant ratios
28
Overall Findings
� Urbanized Sacramento area:• Good agreement on weekdays
• Poorer agreement on weekends
� Urbanized Fresno area:• Good agreement on weekdays and weekends
� Urbanized Bakersfield:• Poor agreement on weekdays and weekends
29
Recommendations
� Improve accuracy of weekend emission estimates.
� Correct spatial distribution of emissions (e.g., from livestock waste, and heavy duty engines).
� Further investigate the poor agreement in Kern County.
� Collect more ambient data at Bay Area sites to enable more robust evaluations.