Spatial and temporal variations in PM10 and PM2.5 source contributions and comparison to emissions during the 1995 integrated monitoring study |
| |
| Institution: | 1. California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA;2. Sonoma Technology, Inc., 1360 Redwood Way, Suite C, Petaluma, CA 94954-1169, USA;3. EPRI, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA;1. Department of Surgery, Section of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Lung Transplantation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;3. Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;1. College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331;2. Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX 78714;1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, 145 North Riverside Drive, S400 CPHB, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States;2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98109, United States;3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California at Davis, Med Sci 1C, Davis, CA, United States;4. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 600 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38105, United States;5. Medstar Health Research Institute and Georgetown/Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Research, 6525 Belcrest Road #700, Hyattsville, MD, United States;6. Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Box 951740, 27-138 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States;7. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227, United States;8. Department of Family, Community and Rural Health, The Commonwealth Medical College, Medical Sciences Building, Room 1013, 525 Pine Street, Scranton, PA 18509, United States;9. John A. Burns School of Medicine and Cardiovascular Division, University of Hawaii, The Queens Medical Center, 1301 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, United States;10. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, 145 North Riverside Drive, S400 CPHB, Iowa City, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | The ambient PM10 and PM2.5 data collected during the fall and winter portions of the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (IMS95) were used to conduct Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Modeling to determine source contribution estimates. Data from the core and saturation monitoring sites provided an extensive database for evaluating the spatial and temporal variations of contributing sources. Geological sources dominated fall samples, while secondary ammonium nitrate and carbonaceous sources were the largest contributors for winter samples. Secondary ammonium nitrate concentrations were uniform across all sites during both the fall and winter. Site-to-site variability was primarily due to differences in geological contributions in the fall, and carbonaceous source contributions in the winter. During the winter, diurnal profiles of particulate matter (PM) were driven by variations in carbonaceous sources at urban sites, and by variations in secondary ammonium nitrate at rural sites. Although records of day-specific PM activities were recorded during the study, no correlation was observed between 24-h CMB results and specific activities. The ambient data collected during IMS95 was also used to evaluate the adequacy of the emissions inventory. Comparison of ambient and emissions based ratios of NMHC/NOx, PM/NOx, CO/NOx, and SOx/NOx suggested that emissions of NMHC and CO in some locations may be underestimated, while emissions for PM and SOx may be overestimated. Comparison of fractional primary CMB source contribution estimates to corresponding fractional emissions estimates indicated that geological sources were overemphasized in the inventory, while carbonaceous sources were underrepresented. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
