PM2'5 in the Upper Midwest

1
PM2.5 in the Upper Midwest

• Michael Koerber
• Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

2

• PM2.5 particles are so small that 30 of them
  side-by-side would barely equal the width of a
  human hair (graphic courtesy of U.S. Department
  of Energy)

3
PM2.5 v. PM10 v. TSP
Cite NARSTO Fine Particle Assessment Review
Draft, August 15, 2001
4
PM2.5 Monitoring Data

• State Monitors
• FRMs (filter-based), continuous, speciation
• IMPROVE (rural)
• Special Studies
• Upper Ohio River Valley Study (DOE)
• Midwestern Aerosol Characterization Study (EPRI)

5
(No Transcript)
6
IMPROVE (rural sites)
7
Mayville, Wisconsin
8
Key Points

• Compliance with NAAQS
• Data analyses (conceptual model)
• PM2.5 - regional haze - ozone relationships

9
Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 -
2000)
10
Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 -
2000)
11
24-Hour Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 -
2000)
12
Number of Sites gt NAAQS1999 - 2000
13
Conceptual Model of PM2.5

• Spatial Variations
• Temporal Variations
• Chemical Variations
• Meteorological Conditions
• Multi-Pollutant Relationships (PM2.5-haze-ozone)

14
Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 -
2000)
15
Annual Average Concentrations IMPROVE/CASTNet
Data (1997 - 1999)
16
Urban v. Rural(Annual Average Concentrations)
17
Urban v. Rural(DOE Upper Ohio River Valley Study)
Cite Semi-Annual Technical Progress Report,
ATS, Oct. 31, 2001
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Urban v. Rural
23
Air Quality Index

• Category PM2.5 O3 (8-hour)
• Good 0 - 15ug/m3 0 - 64ppb
• Moderate 15 - 40 65 - 84
• Unhealthy for
• sensitive groups 40 - 65 85 - 104
• Unhealthy 65 - 150 105 -1 24
• Very unhealthy 150 - 250 125 - 374

24
High Daily ConcentrationsEffect on Public Health
25
Ozone v. PM2.5 AQI Days1/1/99 - 9/30/01
26
Chemical Composition - Rural Sites
IMPROVE/CASTNet Data (1997 - 1999)
27
Chemical Composition - Rural
28
Chemical Composition - Rural/Urban
29
Meteorological Conditions (Back Trajectories)
30
PM2.5 v. Visibility Ozone v. Visibility
31
PM2.5 lt 10 ug/m3 (8/16/00)
PM2.5 15 ug/m3 (8/7/00)
PM2.5 20 ug/m3 (8/24/00)
PM2.5 35 ug/m3 (8/26/00)
PM2.5 30 ug/m3 (8/15/00)
PM2.5 25 ug/m3 (8/25/00)
32
Wrap-Up

• Summary of Key Points
• Future Issues

33
Key Points

• Compliance with NAAQS
• nonattainment of annual standard likely over
  broad region of eastern U.S. (and CA), including
  across IL-IN-OH-SE MI
• Data analyses show
• Spatially regional contributions dominate
• Temporally (1) concentrations relatively
  consistent throughout the year, with some
  seasonal variation (higher levels during winter
  urban and summer and (2) daily concentrations
  present public health issues
• Chemically (1) sulfates and organics (urban)
  dominate, and (2) nitrates important during
  winter
• PM2.5 - regional haze - ozone related, which
  suggests need for integrated SIP planning

34
Future Issues

• Technical
• More data analysis (source apportionment)
• Understanding response to emission reductions
• Programmatic
• Public outreach (PM2.5 and ozone)
• Nonattainment designations
• PM-coarse