NJDEP TETERBORO AIRPORT AIR QUALITY STUDY Alan Kao, Principal ENVIRON International Corporation Groton, Massachusetts Final Project Presentation February 11, 2008
OUTLINE � Background � Recap of monitoring program design – What we monitored – Where we monitored � Air quality characterization – Monitoring data collected at Teterboro Airport – Comparison with NJDEP monitoring network and health benchmarks � Temporal variations – VOCs, BC, PM2.5 – Compare to traffic patterns, airport activity, wind 2
BACKGROUND � 2001 ENVIRON Screening Study – 48-hour monitoring study (June 27-29) – The overall results of the Screening Study indicate that airport operations might be affecting ambient air quality in the immediate vicinity. – The major limitation of the Screening Study is that its results represent a single point in time, and thus may not reflect long- term conditions – Based on the results of the Screening Study, a more extensive study was recommended 3
BACKGROUND � 2003 EOHSI Modeling Study – Using emissions estimates for various sources in the airport vicinity (e.g., aircraft, mobiles sources, local industry), modeled ambient air concentrations – Concluded that airport operations were a minor contributor to local air quality, accounting for 1-5% of air toxics concentrations in ambient air 4
PROJECT OBJECTIVES Major Goals of NJDEP/ENVIRON Study: � Measure ambient concentrations of specific compounds of potential concern over an extended period of time � Provide monitoring results consistent with other data being collected by NJDEP, which would allow for a comparison of the Teterboro area results to data collected for other locations in New Jersey � Evaluate whether the target compound emissions from Teterboro Airport have a measurable impact on air quality in the airport vicinity 5
TETERBORO AIRPORT VICINITY 6
WHAT DID WE MONITOR? Air Pollutants of Concern Gas phase constituents: � Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes – Carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde) Particle-phase constituents: � Fine particles (PM2.5) � Black carbon 7
WHAT DID WE MONITOR? Gas phase constituents: � Automated canister / cartridge samplers (ATEC Toxic Air Sampler) – discrete measurement of VOCs and carbonyls (24-hour samples every six days) 8
WHAT DID WE MONITOR? Gas phase constituents: � Open path DOAS monitoring systems (Cerex Environmental UVSentry) – continuous measurement of certain gaseous pollutants (e.g., VOCs, NO) 9
WHAT DID WE MONITOR? Particle-phase constituents � Beta-attenuation monitors (Met One EBAM) – continuous measurement of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) � Aethalometers (Magee Scientific) – continuous measurement of black carbon (BC) 10
WHAT DID WE MONITOR? Other parameters: � Meteorological parameters – wind speed and direction � Traffic flow � Aircraft landings and takeoffs (provided by TEB) 11
WHERE DID WE MONITOR? P1 S1 19 19 24 24 6 6 S2 1 1 P2 12
WHERE DID WE MONITOR? P1 19 � Speciated 24 VOCs � gases � BC � PM2.5 � wind data � traffic 13
WHERE DID WE MONITOR? � Speciated VOCs � gases � BC � PM2.5 6 � wind data � traffic 1 P2 14
WHERE DID WE MONITOR? S1 19 24 � Speciated VOCs 6 � Speciated VOCs S2 1 15
AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND TRAFFIC MONITORING � What was happening at the airport? � What was happening on the roads?
WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE AIRPORT? 17
WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE AIRPORT? Runway 1, Runway 24, 41968, 24% 49082, 28% Runway 6, Runway 19, 30846, 18% 52605, 30% 18
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS? 19
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS? 20
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS? 21
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE ROADS? 22
WIND SPEED PATTERN Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006 12 10 8 Wind speed (mph) Primary 1 6 Primary 2 4 2 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A A A A A A A A A A A A P P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hour 23
AIR MONITORING RESULTS � What’s in the air? � How does it compare with the rest of New Jersey? � Where is it coming from?
WHAT WAS MEASURED IN THE AIR? � The following 16 compounds were consistently detected (>70%) in the canister/cartridge samples: • Acetone • Acetone • Acetaldehyde • Acetaldehyde • Benzene • Benzene • Benzaldehyde • Benzaldehyde • Dichlorodifluoromethane • Dichlorodifluoromethane • Butyraldehyde • Butyraldehyde • Ethylbenzene • Ethylbenzene • Formaldehyde • Formaldehyde • Methyl ethyl ketone • Methyl ethyl ketone • Hexaldehyde • Hexaldehyde • Methylene chloride • Methylene chloride • Propionaldehyde • Propionaldehyde • Toluene • Toluene • Valeraldehyde • Valeraldehyde • Trichlorofluoromethane • Trichlorofluoromethane • Xylenes • Xylenes � 13 of these 16 were higher at Teterboro than at other NJ stations 25
COMPARISON WITH OTHER NJ LOCATIONS � Camden (urban) � New Brunswick (suburban) � Chester (background) � Elizabeth (mobile source dominated) 26
COMPARISON WITH OTHER NJ LOCATIONS Elizabeth Station dominated by mobile sources 27
CERTAIN VOCs ARE ELEVATED COMPARED TO OTHER NJ LOCATIONS 28
CERTAIN VOCs ARE COMPARABLE OR LOWER THAN AT OTHER NJ LOCATIONS 29
RISK SCREENING CALCULATIONS Cancer risks at P2 are comparable to Elizabeth; P1 is about two times higher 30
RISK SCREENING CALCULATIONS Noncancer risks at P2 are comparable to Elizabeth; P1 is about two times higher 31
SUMMERTIME INCREASE IN ALDEHYDES 32
PM2.5 IS ELEVATED COMPARED TO OTHER NJ LOCATIONS BUT method used in this study for PM2.5 is different than method used by NJDEP 33
PM2.5 TRENDS – P1 Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006 12 10 8 Wind speed (mph) Primary 1 6 Primary 2 4 2 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A A A A A A A A A A A A P P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hour 34
PM2.5 TRENDS – P2 Average Hourly Wind Speed at P1 and P2 in 2006 12 10 8 Wind speed (mph) Primary 1 6 Primary 2 4 2 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A A A A A A A A A A A A P P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hour 35
PM2.5 CONCENTRATION IS RELATED TO WIND SPEED Average PM2.5 Concentration by Wind Speed in 2006 45 40 35 PM Concentration (ug/m3) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph) P1 PM2.5 Concentration P2 PM2.5 Concentration 36
EVALUATION OF WIND-FILTERED DATA PRI-1 SEC-1 135-225 deg 19 19 160-270 deg 24 24 6 6 SEC-2 15-90 deg 315-70 deg 1 1 PRI-2 37
PM2.5 OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS 38
PM2.5 OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS 39
BLACK CARBON TRENDS – P1 Day-of-week temporal pattern for BC is similar to large vehicle automotive traffic 40
BLACK CARBON TRENDS – P2 Day-of-week temporal pattern for BC is similar to large vehicle automotive traffic 41
BLACK CARBON CONCENTRATION IS RELATED TO WIND SPEED Average Black Carbon Concentration by Wind Speed in 2006 5 4.5 4 BC Concentration (ug/m3) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph) P1 BC Concentration P2 BC Concentration 42
BLACK CARBON OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS 43
BLACK CARBON OBSERVED WHEN WIND IS FROM BOTH AIRPORT AND ROADWAYS 44
OPEN PATH SYSTEM – OVERVIEW TRANSMITTER RECEIVER Nonlocalized Emission Source � When some gases are exposed to UV light, they will absorb specific wavelengths of light. Measure of total absorption is called “DUV Intensity”. 45
OPEN PATH SYSTEM – OVERVIEW � DUV Intensity represents all gases that absorb in certain wavelengths, including hazardous and nonhazardous compounds � Methods are still under development to identify specific individual compounds (e.g., NO) � NOTE: This is an experimental technique; has not been officially validated or approved by USEPA or other regulatory agencies 46
DUV-DOAS OPEN PATH SYSTEM – P1 PATH LENGTH = 190 meters RECEIVER TRANSMITTER 47
DUV-DOAS OPEN PATH SYSTEM – P2 PATH LENGTH = 188 meters TRANSMITTER RECEIVER 48
Recommend
More recommend
