Assessment of Carbonaceous PM 2.5 for New York State and the Region - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assessment of Carbonaceous PM2.5 for New York State and the Region

2007 NYSERDA EMEP CONFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND PROTECTION IN NEW YORK: LINKING SCIENCE AND POLICY Albany, New York November 16, 2007

John Graham

jgraham@nescaum.org

2

Project Goals

• Produce a policy-relevant assessment of scientific

and technical understanding of behavior and control

• f carbonaceous PM2.5 for the State of New York

– Two equally important perspectives for assessment

• Attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 (and ozone) for the New York

Metro area (three-state area, NY, Conn., NJ) : urban focus

• Public health and human exposure to PM2.5 (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

3

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 (PM2.5 Emission Inventory, Diesel Engine Technologies, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, New Vehicle and Engine Emission Standards, Airports and Aircrafts, and PM2.5 Speciation profiles)

4

Focus Questions (two of five)

• (1) Do carbonaceous aerosols contribute significantly to

high levels of ambient PM2.5 in the New York State ?

• (2) What proportion of carbonaceous PM2.5 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.

5

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

6

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

7

Monitoring Sites

S S S S * * Met1 Sampler *

.

R & P Sampler SOAP study site S

8

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 PM2.5 – EC Tracer Method – Weekday-weekend Analysis – Local versus Regional Analysis

9

Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Mass Adjustment Factor

• This work employed a mass-balance approach based
• n 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

Site Name OC Factor Site Name OC Factor Buffalo (BUFF) 1.5 Botanical Gardens (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

10

Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Reconstructed Mass

4 .3 3 .5 3 .9 4 .3 4 .2 4 .0 4 .2 2 .3 2 .1 1 .8 2 .5 2 .2 1 .9 2 .0 2 .0 1 .7 1 .2 2 .2 2 .0 1 .8 1 .9 4 .2 3 .3 2 .8 5 .5 4 .0 4 .8 3 .8 1 .1 0 .4 0 .9 0 .6 1 .8 1 .3 0 .4 0 .2 0 .7 0 .1 0 .6 1 .2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Buffalo Rochest er Pinnacle St at e Park Canal St reet Bronx IS52 NY Bot Gardens Queens College Whit eface Mountain

Reconstructed Mass ( μg/ m

3 )

Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other

Bronx IS52 (15.6 ug/m3) Queens College (14.3 ug/m3) Buffalo (15.1 ug/m3) Rochester (12.2 ug/m3) Pinnacle SP (10.8 ug/m3) Canal Street (17.4 ug/ m3) NY Bot. Gardens (14.9 ug/m3) Whiteface Mt. (7.0 ug/m3)

Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Sulfate Nitrate Ammonium Crustal Other

Annual SO4 mass constant across NYS, NO3 , OC and EC greater in urban areas than in rural ones; OC mass represents 1/4 -1/3 of total PM2.5 mass.

11

Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Reconstructed Mass

3 .4 4 .2 6 .8 3 .0 3.4 3 .6 5 .7 3 .4 3 .4 4.0 6.3 3.3 3 .1 3 .9 6 .4 3.2 3 .4 3 .2 1 .7 2 .0 3.0 2 .1 1 .8 3 .0 2.5 1.6 1.8 2 .8 2 .2 1.7 2 .2 2 .3 2 .8 1 .5 1.9 1 .7 2 .1 1 .5 2 .0 1.9 2.6 1.5 1 .8 1 .8 2 .4 5 .6 5 .3 6 .5 4 .8 4.7 3 .8 6 .1 4 .4 3 .8 3.9 5.0 3.6 3 .3 3 .3 5 .2 3.3 1 .5 1.6 1 .3 1 .1 1.4 0.8 0 .7 0 .7 0 .7 1.1 0.9 1 .1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .1 1 .1 1 .4 1 .2 1 .2 5 10 15 20 25 Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Canal St reet NY Bot anical Gardens Bronx IS52 Queens College

Mass ( μg/ m

3 )

Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other

2.7 3.3 6 .7 4 .1 2 .4 3.2 5.0 3.3 2 .2 3 .5 6 .3 3 .4 1.8 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.0 1 .4 3 .1 2.3 1.5 1 .5 0.4 1.8 2.0 2 .4 1 .7 1 .6 1.7 1.9 1.4 1 .2 3.8 3.7 5 .5 3 .7 2 .6 2.9 4.4 3.0 4 .2 1.3 3.2 1 .3 0.3 0.8 0 .1 1 .1 1 .2 0 .3 0 .7

0.6 0.5

0.6 0 .9 1 .7 1 .1 0.5 0.8

0.9

1 .8 2 .4 2 .4 1.6 0 .7 0.6 0 .7 0 .4 0.4 0.4 0 .2 0 .2 0.2 0 .2

0.1

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0 .3 4 8 12 16 20 Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Buffalo Rochester Pinnacle St ate Park Whit eface Mountain

Mass ( μg/ m

3 )

Sulfate Nitrate Am m onium OC EC Crustal Other

PM2.5 peaks in Summer Summer sulfate twice winter sulfate in urban areas, three times for rural ones. Nitrate levels highest in winter EC shows limited seasonality, although increase observed in urban areas during wintertime

13

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

Site Cooler Months Warmer Months Site Cooler Months Warmer 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

Estimated contribution of secondary organic aerosol to total OC

14

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

BUFF ROCH PINN WHTE CANL IS52 NYBG QCII ug/m

3

Weekday Weekend

Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings:

Filter-based Measurements -Weekday-weekend Analysis

Little difference seen between weekday-weekend OC levels. Differences apparent for EC concentrations in urban areas.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 BUFF ROCH PINN WHTE CANL IS52 NYBG QCII ug/m

3

Weekday Weekend

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Fall Spring Summer Winter Fall Spring Summer Winter Fall Spring Summer Winter Canal St Queens Coll Pinnacle SP

ug/m

3

Weekday Weekend

Seasonal EC

15

Ambient Measurements and Data Analysis Findings: Filter-based Measurements -Local versus Regional

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% Intra-Urban 35% 35% 30% 40% 35% Organic Carbon Urban-Rural 40-65% 30-55% 10-35% 25-50% 25-50% Intra-Urban 50% 40% 50% 40% 45% Elemental Carbon Urban-Rural 70-85% 65-80% 70-85% 70-80% 70-85%

• 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

16

Major Findings

• We still have a lot to learn about

carbonaceous aerosols

• We know they contribute significantly to PM2.5

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

17

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