Keith Rose EPA, Region 10 June 22, 2005
description
Transcript of Keith Rose EPA, Region 10 June 22, 2005
Source Contribution to PMSource Contribution to PM2.52.5 and and
Visibility Impairment in Two Class I Visibility Impairment in Two Class I Areas Using Positive Matrix Areas Using Positive Matrix
FactorizationFactorization
Keith RoseKeith Rose
EPA, Region 10EPA, Region 10
June 22, 2005June 22, 2005
Introduction Introduction
PMF was used to analyze IMPROVE data from PMF was used to analyze IMPROVE data from 1991-95 and 2000-03 time periods for Mt. Rainier 1991-95 and 2000-03 time periods for Mt. Rainier and Yosemite National Park Class I Areasand Yosemite National Park Class I Areas
PMF identified six source profiles and the time-PMF identified six source profiles and the time-dependent contributions of these sources to PMdependent contributions of these sources to PM2.52.5 concentrations in these Class I Areasconcentrations in these Class I Areas
PMF source concentrations were converted to PMF source concentrations were converted to light extinction to determine the visibility light extinction to determine the visibility impairment due to each sourceimpairment due to each source
The PMF ModelThe PMF Model
PMF is a form of factor analysis with non-negative PMF is a form of factor analysis with non-negative factor elementsfactor elements
PMF looks for co-variation of species over time to PMF looks for co-variation of species over time to identify source profiles and source time-dependent identify source profiles and source time-dependent contributions which best fit the datacontributions which best fit the data
PMF uses data uncertainty to “weight” the data PMF uses data uncertainty to “weight” the data (i.e. greater uncertainty = less weight)(i.e. greater uncertainty = less weight)
The PMF Model The PMF Model (continued)(continued)
PMF works best with a large (>300) number of PMF works best with a large (>300) number of samples and several metal tracer speciessamples and several metal tracer species
The appropriate number of sources can be The appropriate number of sources can be determined by analyzing the data first with another determined by analyzing the data first with another model (UNMIX), or comparing source profiles with model (UNMIX), or comparing source profiles with previously identified profilespreviously identified profiles
The model was run in the “robust” mode in the The model was run in the “robust” mode in the “heuristically-computed” error mode“heuristically-computed” error mode
Data SelectionData Selection
IMPROVE data from 1991-95 and 2000-03IMPROVE data from 1991-95 and 2000-03 Species with a substantial number (>50%) of Species with a substantial number (>50%) of
values below the MDLs were eliminatedvalues below the MDLs were eliminated Data reported as “0” were replaced by ½ MDLData reported as “0” were replaced by ½ MDL Species used in this analysis included: Ca, Cu, Species used in this analysis included: Ca, Cu,
EC1-2, Fe, K, H, Na, Pb, OC2-4, NO3, S, SO4, Si EC1-2, Fe, K, H, Na, Pb, OC2-4, NO3, S, SO4, Si and Zand Z
Number of samples used: Mt. Rainier – 476/435 Number of samples used: Mt. Rainier – 476/435 and Yosemite – 473/421and Yosemite – 473/421
Determining the Number of SourcesDetermining the Number of Sources
Used the UNMIX model to identify the number of Used the UNMIX model to identify the number of sources and source profiles for Mt. Rainiersources and source profiles for Mt. Rainier
Compared PMF source profiles with identified Compared PMF source profiles with identified source profiles from Seattle and Columbia Gorgesource profiles from Seattle and Columbia Gorge
Examined “goodness of fit” of linear regression Examined “goodness of fit” of linear regression between measured and calculated source between measured and calculated source concentrationsconcentrations
Sources and Average Percent Contribution to PMSources and Average Percent Contribution to PM2.52.5
Concentrations at Mt. RainierConcentrations at Mt. Rainier (1998-2001 data)(1998-2001 data)
SourceSource PMFPMF UNMIXUNMIX
BiomassBiomass 38.938.9 43.143.1
SulfateSulfate 31.631.6 31.131.1
NitrateNitrate 8.68.6 11.511.5
MobileMobile 4.84.8 4.74.7
SoilSoil 9.49.4 5.75.7
MarineMarine 6.76.7 4.04.0
Definition of Sources Definition of Sources
Biomass = wood stoves/fireplaces, agricultural Biomass = wood stoves/fireplaces, agricultural burning, wildfires, prescribed burning burning, wildfires, prescribed burning
Mobile = on-road and off-road gasoline and diesel Mobile = on-road and off-road gasoline and diesel powered mobile vehiclespowered mobile vehicles
Secondary sulfate = diesel fuel, home heating fuel, Secondary sulfate = diesel fuel, home heating fuel, pulp mills, oil refineriespulp mills, oil refineries
Secondary nitrate = oil refineries, commercial Secondary nitrate = oil refineries, commercial boilers, power plants, on and off-road mobile boilers, power plants, on and off-road mobile sources (50-66%?) sources (50-66%?)
ResultsResults
Mt. Rainier and Yosemite source profilesMt. Rainier and Yosemite source profiles Time-dependent concentrations for each Time-dependent concentrations for each
sourcesource Average source light extinction (Bext)Average source light extinction (Bext) Light extinction by source for 1991-95 and Light extinction by source for 1991-95 and
2000-03 time periods2000-03 time periods 20% worst vs. 20% best days for 200220% worst vs. 20% best days for 2002
Biomass Burning Profile - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Biomass Burning Profile - Yosemite 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Secondary Sulfate Profile - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Secondary Sulfate Profile - Yosemite 1991-95
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Secondary Nitrate Profile - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Secondary Nitrate Profile - Yosemite 1991-95
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Mobile Source Profile - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Mobile Source Profile - Yosemite 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Soil Profile - Yosemite 1991-95
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Species
Per
cen
t C
on
cen
trat
ion
Biomass Source Trend - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/5/91
4/5/91
7/4/91
10/2/91
12/31/91
3/30/92
6/28/92
9/26/92
12/25/92
3/25/93
6/23/93
9/21/93
12/20/93
3/20/94
6/18/94
9/16/94
12/15/94
3/15/95
6/13/95
9/11/95
12/10/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Secondary Sulfate Trend - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1/5/91
4/5/91
7/4/91
10/2/91
12/31/91
3/30/92
6/28/92
9/26/92
12/25/92
3/25/93
6/23/93
9/21/93
12/20/93
3/20/94
6/18/94
9/16/94
12/15/94
3/15/95
6/13/95
9/11/95
12/10/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
ns
(ug
/m3)
Secondary Nitrate Trend - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1/5/91
4/5/91
7/4/91
10/2/91
12/31/91
3/30/92
6/28/92
9/26/92
12/25/92
3/25/93
6/23/93
9/21/93
12/20/93
3/20/94
6/18/94
9/16/94
12/15/94
3/15/95
6/13/95
9/11/95
12/10/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Mobile Source Trend - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1/5/91
4/5/91
7/4/91
10/2/91
12/31/91
3/30/92
6/28/92
9/26/92
12/25/92
3/25/93
6/23/93
9/21/93
12/20/93
3/20/94
6/18/94
9/16/94
12/15/94
3/15/95
6/13/95
9/11/95
12/10/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Soil Trend - Mt. Rainier 1991-95
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1/5/91
4/5/91
7/4/91
10/2/91
12/31/91
3/30/92
6/28/92
9/26/92
12/25/92
3/25/93
6/23/93
9/21/93
12/20/93
3/20/94
6/18/94
9/16/94
12/15/94
3/15/95
6/13/95
9/11/95
12/10/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Biomass Source Trend - Yosemite 1991-95
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1/2/91
4/2/91
7/1/91
9/29/91
12/28/91
3/27/92
6/25/92
9/23/92
12/22/92
3/22/93
6/20/93
9/18/93
12/17/93
3/17/94
6/15/94
9/13/94
12/12/94
3/12/95
6/10/95
9/8/95
12/7/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Secondary Sulfate Trend - Yosemite 1991-95
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1/2/91
4/2/91
7/1/91
9/29/91
12/28/91
3/27/92
6/25/92
9/23/92
12/22/92
3/22/93
6/20/93
9/18/93
12/17/93
3/17/94
6/15/94
9/13/94
12/12/94
3/12/95
6/10/95
9/8/95
12/7/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Secondary Nitrate Trend - Yosemite 1991-95
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1/2/91
4/2/91
7/1/91
9/29/91
12/28/91
3/27/92
6/25/92
9/23/92
12/22/92
3/22/93
6/20/93
9/18/93
12/17/93
3/17/94
6/15/94
9/13/94
12/12/94
3/12/95
6/10/95
9/8/95
12/7/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Mobile Source Trend - Yosemite 1991-95
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1/2/91
4/2/91
7/1/91
9/29/91
12/28/91
3/27/92
6/25/92
9/23/92
12/22/92
3/22/93
6/20/93
9/18/93
12/17/93
3/17/94
6/15/94
9/13/94
12/12/94
3/12/95
6/10/95
9/8/95
12/7/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Soil Trend - Yosemite 1991-95
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1/2/91
4/2/91
7/1/91
9/29/91
12/28/91
3/27/92
6/25/92
9/23/92
12/22/92
3/22/93
6/20/93
9/18/93
12/17/93
3/17/94
6/15/94
9/13/94
12/12/94
3/12/95
6/10/95
9/8/95
12/7/95
Dates
Co
nce
ntr
atio
ns
(ug
/m3)
Light Extinction CalculationLight Extinction Calculation
Bext = (3mBext = (3m22/g)Ft(RH)[sulfate] + /g)Ft(RH)[sulfate] + (3m(3m22/g)Ft(RH)[nitrate] + (4m/g)Ft(RH)[nitrate] + (4m22/g)[OC] + /g)[OC] + (10m(10m22/g)[EC] + (1m/g)[EC] + (1m22/g)[soil]/g)[soil]
Ft(RH) = annual average relative humidity factorFt(RH) = annual average relative humidity factor
Average Light Extinction by Source at Yosemite
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Biomass Sulfate Nitrate Mobile Soil
Sources
Bex
t (1
/Mm
)
1991-95 2000-03
Average Light Extinction by Source at Mt. Rainier
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Biomass Sulfate Nitrate Mobile Soil
Sources
Bex
t (1
/Mm
)
1991-95 2000-03
Light Extinction of 20% Worst and 20% Best Days - Mt. Rainier 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
Biomass Sulfate Nitrate Mobile Soil
Sources
Bex
t (1
/Mm
)
20% Worst Days 20% Best Days
Light Extinction of 20% Worst and 20% Best Days -Yosemite 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Biomass Sulfate Nitrate Mobile Soil
Sources
Bex
t (1
/Mm
)
20% Worst Days 20% Best Days
ConclusionsConclusions
At Mt. Rainier, the highest Bext is due to secondary sulfate At Mt. Rainier, the highest Bext is due to secondary sulfate and the second highest is due to biomass burning and the second highest is due to biomass burning
At Yosemite, the highest Bext is due to biomass burning At Yosemite, the highest Bext is due to biomass burning and the second highest is to secondary sulfate and the second highest is to secondary sulfate
At Mt. Rainier, Bext from biomass, sulfate, nitrate and At Mt. Rainier, Bext from biomass, sulfate, nitrate and mobile sources decreased between 1991-95 and 2000-03mobile sources decreased between 1991-95 and 2000-03
At Yosemite, average Bext from biomass and mobile At Yosemite, average Bext from biomass and mobile sources increased, while secondary sulfate and nitrate sources increased, while secondary sulfate and nitrate sources decreased between 1991-95 and 2000-03sources decreased between 1991-95 and 2000-03
Conclusions (continued)Conclusions (continued)
Bext of the 20% worst days at Mt. Rainer in 2002 Bext of the 20% worst days at Mt. Rainer in 2002 was due to a combination of secondary sulfate was due to a combination of secondary sulfate (44%) and biomass burning (27%)(44%) and biomass burning (27%)
Bext of the 20% worst days at Yosemite in 2002 Bext of the 20% worst days at Yosemite in 2002 was dominated by biomass burning (66%)was dominated by biomass burning (66%)
PMF is a valuable tool in determining source PMF is a valuable tool in determining source contribution to visibility impairment, and changes contribution to visibility impairment, and changes in visibility impairment over time in Class I Areasin visibility impairment over time in Class I Areas