Spatial Factors Influencing Winter Primary Particle Sampling and Interpretation

Abstract

Aerosol samplers collect material that is locally generated as well as that transported from upwind; knowing the extent of the area from which the sample is drawn is necessary for proper interpretation of sampler data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PM 2.5 monitoring guidelines recognize a conceptual hierarchy of sampler spatial representation, but provide no objective measures of a site's spatial representativeness. A case study of a sampler tributary area in central California provides insights into the factors that determine a sampler's spatial representation. Winter diurnal cycles of fine particle concentrations at places of habitation ranging from urban cores to small farm towns show a marked cycle that can be linked to local human activity. Assessment of the possible causes of the observed cycles leads to the hypothesis that local sources dominate primary particle mass in winter samples. The hypothesis was tested using a simple model to relate routine 24-hr PM 10 and PM 2.5 samples to a sampler's surroundings. Model results indicate that even minor sources very close to a sampler will overwhelm any regional component in a sample. The results for the cases studied also demonstrate that, in winter, most coarse (PM 10-2.5 ) particles collected are less than 2 hr old, and most primary fine (PM 2.5 ) particles are less than 4 hr old. Even on days that are not truly IMPLICATIONS Aerosol modeling and source apportionment have taken on heightened importance with the promulgation of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5 . Achieving closure between aerosol model results and field observations has proven difficult in many settings. This paper explores the spatial aspects of the problem. The findings contradict conventional wisdom about multiday, high PM episodes and suggest that detailed temporal and spatial resolution of both transport fields and source distributions will be needed to reduce uncertainties in PM 2.5 and PM 10 assessments."stagnant," samplers are very strongly influenced by their immediate surroundings (distances less than 10 km), and only weakly influenced by regional emissions.The implications for interpretation of sample analyses are as follows:(1) Typical PM sampling networks are unlikely to represent regional conditions; (2) Similarity of samples in time and space between widely separated samplers probably arises from sampling analogous local environments rather than a uniformly mixed regional air mass; (3) Even weak sources near a sampler will prevent regionally representative samples, so that "background" specification in models can be strongly skewed by misapplication of sampler data; (4) Source-receptor relationships within a single modeling grid cell can cause measured and modeled source impacts at a sampler to diverge by orders of magnitude, even for grid cells as small as 1 km; and (5) Differential deposition of coarse and fine particles will skew source apportionment by chemical tracers unless the tracers and the source emissions have the same s...

Chemical Characteristics of Fine Particulate Matter in Poland in Relation with Data from Selected Rural and Urban Background Stations in Europe

“…The detailed requirements for the location of individual types of monitoring stations for particulate matter (and other criterion pollutants) have been specified in Directive 2008/50/EC (Annex III). In addition to meteorological conditions, seasonal changes or long-range transport of air pollutants [66][67][68][69], local conditions may also affect the measurement point [1,70,71]. For a specific urban area, a uniform distribution of PM 2.5 , PM 10 or PM 2.5-10 is often only a guess, usually due to the limited availability of measuring equipment [4,34,35,57,72].…”

“…For a specific urban area, a uniform distribution of PM 2.5 , PM 10 or PM 2.5-10 is often only a guess, usually due to the limited availability of measuring equipment [4,34,35,57,72]. The impact is particularly strong for sources within a radius of around 10 km (neighbourhood scale) and very weak for the entire region [70]. Typically, the spatial distribution of PM 2.5 is relatively homogeneous; only in the vicinity of the PM emission source the concentrations might be elevated in relation to the background concentrations [46,71].…”

Validity of Ambient Levels of Fine Particles as Surrogate for Personal Exposure to Outdoor Air Pollution—Results of the European EXPOLIS-EAS Study (Swiss Center Basel)

“…18 Several other studies in European 26 and American 9,23,32-35 cities have reported homogeneous PM 2.5 levels, whereas for the coarse fraction and PM 10 , more withincity variability was observed. 23,36,37 However, two recent studies reported within-city variability for both PM 2.5 and PM 10 in California 38 and Canada.…”

Aerosol Concentrations During the 1999 Fresno Exposure Studies as Functions of Size, Season, and Meterology

“…Nitrate compounds, particularly secondary nitrate compounds formed in photoreactions, have been identi ed as major constituents of central and southern California aerosols (VanCuren 1999;Kim et al 1999). Therefore it was prudent to assume that a speci c gravity representative of ammonium compounds, 1.7, would be appropriate for some part of the submicrometer aerosol.…”