-------
SECTION 2
DATA EVALUATION
WEATHER CONDITIONS
The weather conditions during the sampling period were monitored
by the National Weather Service and four additional radiosonds per day
flown by the Environmental Protection Agency. The pertinent data is
summarized in Table 1.
Inspection of the table shows generally light winds from the
south to southwest and a morning inversion that, with the exception
of two days, persisted through the day.
-------
TABLE 1
WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING THE SAMPLING PERIOD
Date
7/15/75
7/16/75
7/17/75
7/18/75
7/19/75
7/20/75
7/21/75
7/22/75
7/23/75
7/24/75
Average
Wind Speed
Km/Hr
8.7
12.5
10.8
11.4
15.8
7.9
5.5
6.8
13.7
9.2
Average
Wind Direction Inversion
Degrees A.M. P.M.
190
150
180
200
220
280
340
100
180
300
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Precipitation
in In.
0
0
.06
.30
.09
0
0
0
.20
0
-------
SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
The mass weighted mean diameter is useful to characterize the
elemental size distributions. It is defined as
6
i = 1
d =
6
£
i = 1
where the summation indices 1, specifies the stage of the cascade
impactor, m^ is the mass collected on that stage and d^ the average
equivalent aerodynamic diameter of the particulates collected on
stage i. The assignment of the average diameter is somewhat arbitrary,
as stages one and six are open ended. The diameters used in the
calculation were .19, .37, .75, 1.5, 3.0, 6.0 micro-meters for stages
6 through 1, respectively. The data shown in Table 2 is useful to
compare different samples collected with similar devices. The error
in these figures is approximately +^20%.
Mass weighted mean diameter was not calculated for all sets of
size distribution data analyzed. Four sets from the municipal court
site, and nine sets from the Fire Station site. These size distributions
are presented in figure 2 to figure 92. The mass weighted mean
diameter was only calculated for complete data sets, that is, data
sets with no missing stages. Table 3 shows the collection dates
for the size distribution samples.
-------
TABLE 2
MASS WEIGHTED MEAN DIAMETER
Micro Meters
ELEMENT
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
Br
Pb
SLMC
7/17/75
1.91
.86
3.61
2.28
4.26
3.42
1.16
2.36
2.37
3.37
3.10
1.52
1.57
1.48
1.21
SLMC
N.E.
7/16/75
1.07
.69
1.42
1.71
3.36
2.13
-
1.61
1.40
2.31
-
1.97
2.12
1.48
.81
SLMC
S.E.
7/17/75
1.12
.70
2.01
2.44
4.26
2.97
-
-
2.46
3.30
2.36
1.15
1.49
1.86
1.01
SLMC
S.W.
7/16/75
1.08
.63
1.54
2.51
3.29
1.33
-
.71
1.13
1.92
-
-
2.06
1.12
.66
SLMC
N.W.
7/16/75
1.42
1.69
2.97
2.60
3.19
2.10
-
-
1.29
2.31
-
2.19
1.90
2.33
1.67
SLFS
7/16/75
1.29
.52
2.91
3.14
4.39
2.92
1.77
-
1.61
2.94
-
1.30
1.82
1.65
1.09
SLFS
N.E.
7/17/75
2.0
.86
4.09
2.98
4.24
3.02
-
2.74
3.29
3.71
-
1.93
2.30
1.87
.96
SLFS
E.
7/18/75
1.67
.86
1.42
1.35
2.05
2.91
2.13
2.32
1.61
1.82
1.02
.63
1.19
1.84
2.09
SLFS
S.W.
7/18/75
1.45
.58
3.61
2.67
4.24
3.42
-
2.22
3.08
2.79
2.63
2.25
.83
.76
-------
TABLE 3
COLLECTION DATES, SIZE DISTRIBUTION SAMPLES
Municipal Court Fire Station
Date Samples Samples
7/15/75 Tuesday SLFS-A
7/16/75 Wednesday SLMC-B SLFS-B*
7/17/75 Thursday SLMC-C* SLFS-C
7/18/75 Friday SLMC-D SLFS-D
7/19/75 Saturday SLMC-E SLFS-E
7/20/75 Sunday SLFS-F
7/21/75 Monday SLFS-G
7/22/75 Tuesday
7/23/75 Wednesday SLFS-I
7/24/75 Thursday SLFS-J
SLMC (St. Louis Municipal Court)
SLFS (St. Louis Fire Station)
*Signifies that only the elemental ratios are useful as the air flow data
for this sample is unreliable.
-------
CALCULATION OP SOURCE COEFFICIENTS
A useful way of analyzing air particulate data is the computa-
tion of the aerosol source coefficients (Miller et al.). The
concentration of air particulate matter at a sampling site due to
several sources can be written
where j indicates the source of the particulate matter. C± is the
concentration of an element i (nanograms/meter3) at the collection
site, a^j is the fractional composition of element i emitted by
source j, mj is the mass of particulate matter attributable to
source j, YJ.J is the coefficient of fractionization, which describes
the loss of element i between the source and the sampling station.
The mj's may be determined from the experimentally observed concen-
trations by a linear least squares criteria. The quantity minimized,
Q, is given by:
which takes the error (CTJ_) in the observed concentration (xj_) into
account. In general, the Yij coefficients are not known, but can be
assumed to close to 1. The a^ coefficients, which describe the
composition of an aerosol emitted by a source j are known for anthro-
pogenic sources but less well known for natural sources. In the
calculations presented here, yij is taken to be 1.
The method is satisfactory for total particulate matter, however
less satisfactory for particulate matter classified by size, as the
fractional composition for particulate matter as a function of particle
size is not well known. Table 4 shows the assumed source fractional
8
-------
composition for the major components of the aerosol in St. Louis. In
the calculation it was assumed that the aerosol was primarily due to
six major sources; steel, cement dust, automotive emissions, fuel oil
fly ash, soil, and coal. In the composition of fuel oil fly ash,
a 10% conversion of SG>2 to particulate matter was assumed.
Aerosol source coefficients were calculated from cascade impactor
data by summing the elemental mass deposited on each stage. Only
sets of impactor data including all six stages were used for the
calculation of source coefficients. Aerosol source coefficients
were also calculated from the time distribution data by averaging the
data obtained from each streaker. The agreement between the aerosol
mass calculated from the aerosol source coefficients and the observed
total aerosol mass, from high volume filters, is not encouraging.
However, since the calculated aerosol composition agrees with that
measured by the cascade impactors and streaker sampler the results
of the calculation are meaningful. The deviation between the calculated
and measured total mass can be attributed to two factors: (1) the
efficiency of the high volume sampler with respect to particle size
is different than that of the cascade impactor and the streaker, and
thereby samples a larger fraction of the aerosol mass; and (2) the
composition of the St. Louis aerosol is much more complex than the
assumed composition, consisting of many small sources that contribute
to the aerosol mass measured by the high volume sampler.
Table 5 compares the calculated total masses from the impactor
and streaker samples to the measured total aerosol masses obtained
from the high volume sampler. Table 6 shows source coefficients
9
-------
TABLE 4
ASSUMED FRACTIONAL ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF THE MAJOR SOURCES OF THE ST. LOUIS AEROSOL
Element
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
Br
Pb
Steel (a)
0
0
0
0
8.9xlO~2
0
0
0
3.5xlO~2
•i
2.2x10
0
0
3.4xlO~2
0
0
Cement (b)
0
.lOxlo"1
0
. 80xlO~ 3
.46x10°
. 18x10" 2
0
0
.30x10" 3
. . 21X10"1
0
0
0
0
0
fc)
Automobile v '
0
.10x10°
.69x10" 1
0
.48x10" -1
0
0
0
0
. 82X10"1
0
0
.12X10"1
.15x10°
. 41x10°
Fuel Oil
Fly Ash(d)
0
.39x10°
0
.39xlO~2
. 18x10" 2
.13xlO~3
.llxio"1
.53xlO~3
.13xlO~3
.llxio"1
.25X10"1
.66x10" 3
.12x10" 3
.13x10" 3
.79x10" 3
Soil(e)
0
8xlO~4
0
1.8x10" 2
5.6xlO~3
3.8xlO~3
7xlO~5
5xlO~5
8xlO~4
2xlO~2
5xlO~5
3xlO~5
lxlO~4
0
5xlO~5
Coal(f)
0
0
0
3.3xlO~2
3.8xlO~2
lxlO~2
8xlO~4
6.5xlO~4
3.4xlO~4
Ixio"1
3.7xlO~4
3.1xlO~4
5.2xlO~3
0
9xlO~4
(a)Gatz, D. F., Symposium on Atom Diffusion, American Meteor Soc, Boston, 1974.
(b)Standards for Portland Cement. ASTM-C-150.
(c)Cahill, T. A., Feeney, P. j., Report to California Air Resources Board ARB 502, 1973
d Winchester, J. A., De Saedelier, G. G., Nondestructive Activation Analysis, Amsterdam, 1975.
(e)McClelland, J., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Private Comm.
(f)Heisler, S. L., EPA Progress Report, R802160-03-0, 1975.
-------
calculated from the impactor data. It should be noted that the
assumed composition of coal and soil are similar (Table 4) and the
source coefficient calculation will not be sensitive to this difference,
Table 6 also shows the source coefficients calculated from the
averaged streaker data. To calculate these source coefficients,
the elemental abundances were averaged over all the data points
from a streaker, and these abundances used to calculate the source
coefficients. As with the impactor data, the total aerosol mass
calculated does not agree with that measured by the high volume
sampler. (Table 5)
11
-------
TABLE 5
TOTAL AEROSOL MASS
Impactor Samples
Sample
SLFS B
SLMC C
SLFS G
SLFS
SLFS
SLMC
Total Mass Mass %
• Calculated Mass „„„
L>ate Calculated (pg/m3) (uq/m3) HiVol Mass A iuu
7/16/75
7/17/75
7/21/75
7/15/75
7/22/75
7/22/75
9.4 139.2
16.4 H5.4
8.4 80.8
Streaker Samples
6.8 124.5
16.8 124.5
18.0 97.2
6.8
14.4
10.5
5.5
13.5
18.5
12
-------
CO
TABLE 6
SOURCE COEFFICIENTS (%)
Data Set
SLFS B •
SLFS C
SLFS G
SLFS
SLFS
SLMC
Date
7/16/75
7/17/75
7/21/75
7/15/75
7/22/75
7/22/75
Steel
5.4
6.3
48
13.8
4.5
7.2
From Impactor Data
Cement Coal Fuel Oil Fly Ash
23.5 - -6
17 60
3.4 33 .4
From Streaker Data
79.5
14.7 75.2 2.9
88.6 .9
Soil Automobile
69 1.7
11 3.8
14
6.6
2.5
3.1
-------
HIGH VOLUME FILTER ANALYSIS
The high volume sampler filters were analyzed by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency for SO4, NO3, C, N, Na+ and K+.
The filters were weighed by the City of St. Louis, Division of
Air Pollution Control. These results are presented in Table 7
and Table 8 (private communication, R. Patterson, 1976.) In
addition, organic extractions were performed by ultrasonic agitation
(Mendenhall et al., 1978.)
14
-------
TABLE 7
HIGH VOLUME FILTER ANALYSIS
(Municipal Court)
(yg/m3)
Date
7/15
7/16
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
7/29
7/30
7/31
Mass
98.2
115.4
115.4
88.4
51.9
95.
118.4
99.8
109.1
62.4
41.2
114.2
72.4
135.4
80.9
152.3
102.6
C
6.4
7.2
7.3
6.4
3.6
4.9
6.1
5.9
—
4.
—
6.5
3.7
5.1
3.3
9.
4.9
N
.6
1.1
.5
.4
.3
.4
.7
.6
—
.4
—
1.8
1.1
.6
.7
2.3
.5
so4
14.3
24.3
25.8
14.6
9.6
11.4
16.7
24.1
—
12.1
—
29.6
22.1
17.7
21.2
45.4
22.3
NO
3.6
6.3
20.7
4
2.7
4.5
4.8
29.3
—
4.
—
5.3
1.2
4.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
Na+ NH4+
6.6 .3
9.5 1.8
7.1
8.8
5.8
7.7
6.5 .9
9. .6 ,
_._ — —
8.3
__ — —
7.6 4.4
6.1 2.7
7.6
7.4 3.4
7.5 2.9
8.
K
.6
__
.8
.4
.2
.4
__
""
.2
— —
— •"•
— —
— _
— —
~"
-------
TABLE 8
HIGH VOLUME FILTER ANALYSIS
ST. LOUIS FIRE STATION
(ug/m3)
Date
7/15
7/16
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
7/29
7/30
7/31
Mass
126.5
139.2
171.1
183.9
85.5
64.4
80.8
83.7
214.4
57.3
131.3
107.6
123.8
127.6
141.4
134.1
93.9
C
7.3
7.3
10.4
7.1
3.6
3.7
4.9
5.5
—
3.2
—
6.8
7.1
7.3
8.4
7.2
6.2
N
.4
.6
.4
.4
.1
.3
.4
.3
—
.2
—
.7
1.5
.4
.8
1.4
.3
» i-- ^ f r
S°4
13.6
21.1
26.3
23.6
13
11
21.2
14.6
—
10.9
—
27.2
43
37.5
25.6
37
17.7
N03
1.7
3.3
3.1
2.
1.8
2.5
3.6
3.6
— — .
3.2
__
3.3
1.1
2.3
3.2
1.3
2.6
Na+ NH/
5 .3
7 .4
6.8
7.5 .4
5.7
6.5
6
6.7
__
6.8
—
8.4 .6
11.3 3.8
8.2 1.8
8.9
8.9 3.0
7.9
K+
__
.2
__
.3
.3
.2
.1
.3
__
__
.5
— «.
.4
-------
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICULATE MATTER
The directional distribution of the elemental concentration
of particulate matter may be determined by combining the information
obtained from the streaker samplers with meteorological information.
The wind direction as a function of time was taken from the
Department of Commerce weather summary for the St. Louis area. The
elemental concentration as a function of time from the streaker
samples was combined with the wind direction as a function of time
to yield a directional distribution of the elemental concentration
of particulate matter. The streaker samples were sorted into thirty
six groups, each group corresponding to a ten degree sector of
wind direction. The elemental concentrations were averaged over
these groups to yield the directional distributions.
17
-------
SECTION 3
SITE-BY-SITE DATA SUMMARY
ST. LOUIS FIRE STATION (SLFS), BROADWAY AND HURCK
The Broadway and Hurck sampling site is located in close proximity
to fifteen major point sources (Fig. 1) which emit a total of 486,000
tons/year of SO2. The directional distribution of particulate matter
taken during the period 7/15/75 to 7/22/75 indicate sources of Cl, K,
Ca, Ti, V, Fe, Mn, and Zn in a direction S.W. of the sampling site.
The directional distributions of Br and Pb are similar except for a
strong source of Pb south of the sampling site. Cr is observed to
have a source N.E. of the sampling site, in the direction of the
majority of steel fabricating industries, while Cu and Ni have sources
to the S.E. of the sampling site. Directional distributions taken
during the week starting 7/22/75 are more isotropic; however, Ti, V,
Cr, and Fe show sources to the west of the sampling site, Cu has a
source S.W. of the sampling site, while Br and Pb originate primarily
south of the sampling site.
The wind direction sensitive size distribution data were taken in
sectors centered around E, S, W. S.W. and N.E. The wind direction
sensing device was located so that interference from trees and tall
buildings would not affect the aerosol collection devices or the
sensitivity of the wind direction sensing instruments. The size
distributions are similar for P, S, Cl, and K, however there is a
marked difference in the size distribution for calcium from the east.
Calcium distribution from the W, N.E.,. S, and S.W. have distributions
18
-------
typical of abrasive sources, while the distribution from the east
shows a distribution typical of a combustion source. A distribution
of this type would be expected from a coal burning power plant.
The size distributions of copper indicate a different distribution
in a S.W. direction (typical of an abrasive source) while the other
directions are typical of combustion sources. The Pb distributions
are similar except for the easterly direction, which indicates a
source of large particulate Pb in that direction. It must be noted
that the first collection stage from the impactor sampling the
rt
southerly direction did not indicate any Pb or Br, so the distribution
from the south is somewhat uncertain.
The time distribution of the elemental composition of particulate
matter for the Broadway and Hurck site shows a large peak on 7/23/75
from 1000 to 2300 hrs in the elements Ti, V, Mn and Fe. Computer
calculations for near surface trajectories were made every four hours
during this period. Arrival times for these air parcels were 0700,
1100, 1500, 1900 and 2300. The air parcel that arrived at 0700 (before
the incident of high titanium concentration) traveled in a north
westerly direction. The air parcels that arrived at 1100 and 1500
traveled in a northerly direction, while the parcel arriving at 1900
traveled in a northeasterly direction. The parcel that arrived at
2300 traveled from the west. The magnitudes of the peaks obtained
at 14th and Market and the peak observed at Broadway and Hurck
indicate a source close to the Broadway and Hurck site. The aerosol
source coefficients were calculated for the time period 0800-2300 on
7/23/75, by averaging the time distribution data for this time interval.
The results indicate that 70% of the observed aerosol was due to coal,
19
-------
20% due to cement dust, 5% due to processes associated with steel
manufacturing and 3% due to auto emissions. This analysis accounts
for only 2% of the observed titanium, therefore, there must be an
additional source of titanium close to the Broadway and Hurck site.
These results are in good agreement with the conclusions reached by
Draftz using microscopical analysis on aerosol samples taken on
7/23. The elemental size distributions observed on 7/23 are markedly
different (for several elements) than those observed on other days
in the sampling period. Titanium, V, Mn and Fe show a higher percentage
of the observed mass in the large particulate fractions on 7/23 than
on other days. In addition, K has an enhanced large particulate size
distribution. Unfortunately stage five was missing from this sample,
so the mass weighted mean diameter was not calculated.
Of the elemental size distributions observed at the Broadway and
Hurck site, the distributions observed on 7/16 and 7/21 are typical.
The elements P, Cl, K, Ca, Fe and Zn exhibit bimodal size distri-
butions with a large fraction of the mass collected on stages 1 and 6.
Sulfur, Mn, Br and Pb have small particle enhanced size distributions,
and Ti has a large particle enhanced size distribution. In summary,
the data analyzed from Broadway and Hurck indicate that a large
percentage of the aerosol mass observed at the sampling site (approxi-
mately 75%) is due to coal combustion and coal dust. Cement dust
accounts for about 15% of the aerosol mass, while automotive emissions
and heavy industrial processes account for small percentages (approxi-
mately 5% each.) The bimodal distribution for elements contained in
coal (and soil) indicate that the large diameter (d>3ym) particulates
originate from coal dust.
20
-------
The similarity in the elemental composition of the local soil
and coal, do not enable a definitive distinction between these two
sources. There is a large source of Ti near the sampling site that
cannot be accounted for. Draftz concluded that the Ti is probably
combined as TiO2.
21
-------
ST. LOUIS MUNICIPAL COURT
The St. Louis Municipal Court sampling site is located in the
heart of the commercial district in downtown St. Louis. It lies
south of the area of heavy industry (steel and metal fabrication)
near Alton, 111. (approximately 10 km), west of coal burning power
plants in east St. Louis, and north of the industrialized area in
south St. Louis (approximately 8 km).
The time distributions of particulate matter at the Municipal
Court exhibits two incidents of high elemental concentrations in some
trace elements. From 0000 to 1200 on 7/23/75 there were large increases
in the concentration of Cl, Zn, Cu and Pb. The period from 1800 on
7/23/75 to 2000 on 7/24/75 showed increases in the concentration of
P, S, Cl and K. From 0600 on 7/24/75 to 1400 on 7/24/75 there was a
*
sharp increase in the level of Mn observed at the sampling site.
During the period 0000 to 1200 on 7/23/75 the wind direction varied
around the southeast (120° to 160°) but switched to the southwest
(220°) by 1500. During this incident (the increase in Pb concentration)
there was no increase in the concentrations of Br so the increase in
Pb cannot be attributed to automobile emission. The wind direction
sensitive size distribution for Cu and Zn were markedly different
in the sector centered on the southeast than in the other directions.
The size distribution observed from the southeasterly direction is a
small particle enhanced distribution for these elements. The source
of these particulates is probably industrial emissions from the
nonferrous metal plants southeast of the city.
22
-------
During the period from 1800 on 7/23/75 to 2000 on 7/24/75, the
winds were from the southwest to the northwest. There was an increase
in potassium concentration observed at the Municipal Court site
during this interval. As there was no increase in the Ca concentration
during this time, this increase cannot be attributed to dust or soil.
The directional distribution of particulate matter indicates a
source of P, S, Cl, Mn and Ni to the northeast. Likely sources would
be the heavy industry located from Granite City to Wood River. The
wind direction sensitive size distributions support this conclusion
as the size distribution of P, S and Cl in the air parcel from the
N.E. are different, being a distribution typical of a combustion source.
Titanium and V have strong sources to the northwest of the sampling
site. The wind direction sensitive size distribution of Ti is large
particulate favored, in the air parcel from the N.W. sector, leading
to a conclusion that paint pigments are the likely source of the Ti.
A strong source of Cr is located south of the sampling site as
indicated by the directional distributions of the particulate matter.
Nickel particulates originated northeast of the sampling site in the
direction of the steel mills in Granite City while the Cu and Zn have
sources to the southwest.
Four sets of elemental size distributions from the Municipal
Court site were analyzed. Only one set was complete. The size
distribution indicates that S, V, Br and Pb originated from combustion
sources while Cl, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn and Fe originated from abrasive
processes. In summary, the aerosol source coefficients show that the
aerosol at the Municipal Court sampling site is primarily from coal
(60-80%), cement dust (17%), steel manufacturing (6-7%) and auto
emissions (3%).
23
-------
CONCLUSION
The aerosol in St. Louis is a complex mixture of particulate
matter from many urban and industrial sources. This study indicates
that sampling at several sites in an urban environment with multiple
sampling devices is necessary to characterize the aerosol.
The elemental concentration of the aerosol as a function of
time is particularly useful when combined with suitable meteorological
information, as this data allows the determination of directional
distributions of particulate matter. The calculation of aerosol source
coefficients requires better knowledge of the source compositions
for the various paint sources that may be of interest in the area
being investigated. Knowledge of the elemental aerosol source
composition as a function of particle size would be particularly
useful.
24
-------
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. Standards for Portland
Cement. ASTM-C-150.
Andersen, A. A. 1966..-A Sampler for Respiratory Health Hazard
Assessment. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assn. J. 27:160-165.
Cahill, T. A. and P. J. Feeney, 1973. Report to California Air
Resources Board: Contribution of Freeway Traffic to Airborne
Particulate Matter. ARB 502. University of California, Davis.
DeJong, G., D. Watts, L. Spiller and R. Patterson, 1978. Programmable
Instrument for Controlling Atmospheric Sampling. JAPCA.
28(4):373-376.
Draftz, R. G. and Severin, K., Aerosol Characterization Study in
St. Louis-Microscopical Analysis. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (In print)
Gatz, D. F., Symposium on Atomic Diffusion. American Meteorological
Soc. 1974.
Epstein, B. S. and D. A. Lynn, 1976. National Assessment of the Urban
Particulate Problem, XIV. EPA-450/3-76-026L. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Heifler, S. L., EPA Progress Report R802160-03-0, 1975.
Johansson, T. B., R. Akselsson, and S. A. E. Johansson, 1972. Proton
Induced X-ray Emission Spectroscopy in Elemental Trace Analysis.
Adv. X-ray Anal. 15:373-387.
Johansson, T. B., R. E. Van Grieken, J. W. Nelson and J. W. Winchester.
Elemental Trace Analysis of Small Samples by Proton-Induced X-ray
Emission. Anal. Chem., 47, 855-860, 1975.
Mendenhall, G., P. Jones, P. Stink and W. Margard. Organic Character-
ization of Aerosols and Vapor Phase Compounds in Urban Atmospheres.
EPA-600/3-78-031. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Miller, M. S., S. K. Friedlander, and G. M. Hedy. A Chemical Element
Balance for the Pasadena Aerosol. J. Coll. Interface Sci. 30:165.
Mitchell, R. I. and J. M. Pilcher, 1959. Improved Cascade Impactor for
Measuring Aerosol Particle Sizes. Ind. Eng. Chem. 51:1039-1042.
Nelson, J. W., B. Jensen, G. G. Desaedeleer, K. R. Akselsson, and
J. W. Winchester, 1975. Automatic Time Sequence Filter Sampling
for Rapid Multi-Element Analysis by Proton Induced X-ray Emission.
Adv. X-ray Anal. 19.
Parsons, A. A., 1897. Florida Agricultural Experimental Station
Bulletin No. 3. Gainesville, Florida.
Winchester, J. W. and G. G. Desaedeleer, 1975. Nondestructive
Activation Analysis, Proceedings. Amsterdam.
25
-------
Figure 1 Map of St. Louis with Major Point Sources
26
-------
Figure 2 St. Louis Fire Station A.. Size Distribution P
I
27
-------
Figure 3 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution S
-------
Figure 4 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Cl
29
-------
Figure 5 St. Louis Fire Station A. size Distribution
K
30
-------
Figure 6 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Ca
01
c
z
O
i
UJ
lxKJ>
,*
1. I)
'
' S
,
"• 0.
-------
Figure 7 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Ti
32
-------
Figure 8 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution V
33
-------
Figure 9 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Mn
34
-------
Figure 10 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Fe
I
.«*£
wfi
',*' *ft ^
"I""*1' ' 'I
Fe
35
-------
Figure 11 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Cu
ixlQ.
O>
c
2
o
'}
•
itf^v-^v^^1* .
*^' ' #fw*|»,f^«-f"J' ^»
1"*' ",,1,«^ «)A ^"' ,' '
,r/t
Cu
36
-------
Figure 12 Sjjb. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution Zn
37
-------
Figure 13 St. Louis Fire Station A. Size Distribution
Pb
01
c
z
O
T
5 .
1 I
4 3
STAGE
38
-------
Figure 14 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution P
39
-------
Figure 15 St. Louis Fire Station B. size Distribution
40
-------
Figure 16 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Cl
41
-------
Figure 17 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution K
42
-------
Figure 18 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Ca
43
-------
Figure 19 St. Louis Fire Station B.» Size Distribution Ti
44
-------
Figure 20 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution V
•-r-™^.
uig!
•I.*
2
z
o
•i
s
w
jg *E
,u
; ,
" tin.
IXQ.
V
A
« . *
• • ""> ', %>'v
'"??'' f j i'*' , v>,' < ' ^
s'S ^C'
• ' *f< ** 1 "
n 1 ^ l -\
V . 1
t 6 ' *
.. , i i *T — I 1 "
6 * ,4STAGE3 2
45
-------
Figure 21 St. Louis Fire Station B. size Distribution
Mn
>*X£.
ION ng/m3
-
U
wail
Mn
T~
5
-1 T
4 3
STAGE
46
-------
Figure 22 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Fe
47
-------
Figure 23 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Cu
48
-------
Figure 24 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Zn
«*£,
IxKL.
"'*' '•«*' 'W^
•;\*^Mm*-,
I
5
i
I I
4 3
STAGE
Zn
49
-------
Figure 25 St. Louis Fire Station B. size Distribution Br
50
-------
Figure 26 St. Louis Fire Station B. Size Distribution Pb
SI
-------
Figure 27 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution P
52
-------
Figure 28 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution S
53
-------
Figure 29 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Cl
54
-------
Figure 30 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution
K
n
*—
Oi
c
Z
o
I
I
MQf
K
T~
5
STAGE
55
-------
Figure 31 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution
Ca
J
!xlQ_
r>
E
o>
c
z
O
u
1
i i
43
STAGE
56
-------
Figure 32 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Ti
57
-------
Figure 33 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution V
~r*
6
T T"
STAGE
V
58
-------
Figure 34 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Mn
59
-------
Figure 35 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Fe
.xrill
r>
I «d|
Fe
I I
4 3
STAGE
60
-------
Figure 36 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Cu
61
-------
Figure 37 St. Louis Fire Station D. size Distribution Zn
62
-------
Figure 38 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution Br
63
-------
Figure 39 St. Louis Fire Station D. Size Distribution
Pb
o>
c
z
O
u
43
STAGE
64
-------
Figure 40 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution P
65
-------
Figure 41 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution S
66
-------
Figure 42 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Cl
67
-------
Figure 43 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution
K
68
-------
Figure 44 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Ca
!X)Q1
CO
.*£
11 «£
?
o
|
IXK£
IXKL
•c
M
\t*! - '"'•'•• '-
4 •••••* ffv;;
t i .^ >4'. ''./• "',
« = .. ^ STAGE3 * '
69
-------
Figure 45 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Ti
70
-------
Figure 46 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution V
r>
1 MIL
IxQi
* 5
1 T
STAGE
71
-------
Figure 4f St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution
Mn
72
-------
Figure 48 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Fe
73
-------
Figure 49 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution
Cu
74
-------
Figure 50 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Zn
75
-------
Figure 51 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Br
76
-------
Figure 52 St. Louis Fire Station G. Size Distribution Pb
1
3
IxlCL
-t '• - ^W'^
v. ' ..,, t-?ft:5-.
77
-------
Figure 53 St. Louis Fire Station I. size Distribution p
,r'l
78
-------
Figure 54 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution S
O)
c
z
O
i*£
STAGE
79
-------
Figure 55 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Cl
O
I
UJ
C!
80
-------
Figure 56 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution K
81
-------
Figure 57 St. Louis Fire Station I. size Distribution Ca
ixlQ,
O)
c
"r!*
"'k >
Co
82
-------
Figure 58 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Ti
83
-------
Figure 59 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution V
1
3
c
O
i
IH .4.*-"
-,. y *
I f'
n r
4 3
:- STAGE
V
84
-------
Figure 60 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Mn
i*IQ-
O)
c
z
O
i
u
I
Mn
1
5
1 1
4 3
- STAGE'.
85
-------
Figure 61 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution
Fe
86
-------
Figure 62 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Cu
87 !
-------
Figure 63 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Zn
88
-------
Figure 64 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Br
89
-------
Figure 65 St. Louis Fire Station I. Size Distribution Pb
ixitif.
n
£
3)
c
u
.„«£
Mfi
TO r a
iii * v *. * >
Pb
90
-------
Figure 66 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution P
91
-------
Figure 67 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution S
Ol
c
z
O
|
u
,s
43
•: STAGE.
92
-------
Figure 68 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Cl
93
-------
Figure 69 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution K
K
Ol
c
z
O
MQ!
u
1
4
1
STAGE
94
-------
Figure 70 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Ca
01
c
z
O
u
MQ
Co
95
-------
Figure 71 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Ti
>*«!
en
c.
Z
O
C
Ti
I
96
-------
Figure 72 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution V
!xlQ_
r>
IxKli
!>«£
Cr
1
STAGE
97
-------
Figure 73 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Mn
-------
Figure 74 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Fe
§ MQ!J
01
c
Z
O
I
T~
5
STAGE
Fe
i r
2
99
-------
Figure 75 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Cu
ft
g
,01
c
.
O
u
woi
65
"1 1—
432
STAGE
Cu
T r
100
-------
Figure 76 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Zn
ixQ.
CT
c
O
u
1 1 1 —T
5432
STAGE
Zn
101
-------
Figure 77 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Br
102
-------
Figure 78 St. Louis Municipal Court B. Size Distribution Pb
103
-------
Figure 79 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution P
IWQ!
M£
~i r
4 STAGE3
104
-------
Figure 80 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution
1*10.
T~
5
-I—— T
4 3
, STAGE
105
-------
Figure 81 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Cl
IxKf.
Cl
I I
4 3
STAGE
106
-------
Figure 82 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution K
107
-------
Figure 83 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Ca
108
-------
Figure 84 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Ti
109
-------
Figure 85 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution
V
,««£]
01
c
2
O
I
IxQL
I I
4 3
STAGE
110
-------
Figure 86 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Mn
1 MQl
o
u
IXIQ!.
J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 5 4 STAGE3 2 ; / ; 1
Ill
-------
Figure 87 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Fe
112
-------
Figure 88 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Cu
113
-------
Figure 89 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution
Zn
114
-------
Figure 90 St. Louis Municipal Court C. Size Distribution Br
115
-------
Figure 91 St. Louis Municipal Court C. size Distribution
Pb
116
-------
Figure 92 Time Distribution Data Cl
117
-------
Figure 93 Time Distribution Data K
118
-------
Figure 94 Time Distribution Data Ca
119
-------
Figure 95 Time Distribution Data Ti
120
-------
Figure 96 Time Distribution Data V
iflillfllilllllll?!
>c \ 0726
121
-------
Figure 97 Time Distribution Data CR
122
-------
Figure 98 Time Distribution Data Mn
123
-------
Figure 99 Time Distribution
Data Fe
124
-------
Figure
100 Time Distribution Data Ni
125
-------
Figure 101 Time Distribution Data Cu
126
-------
Figure 102 Time Distribution Data Zn
127
-------
Figure 103 Time Distribution Data Br
SITE LET NO
BROflDWRY&HURCK
"UN) COURi
If!!!!!!!!!!!!
0726
128
-------
Figure 104 Time Distribution Data Pb
129
-------
Figure 105 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Di
Distribution P
130
-------
Figure 106 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution S
131
-------
Figure 107 St. Louis Municipal Co-urt. Directional Distribution Cl
Cl
132
-------
Figure 108 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution K
133
-------
Figure 109 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Ca
Ca
134
-------
Figure 110 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Ti
W -
Ti
135
-------
Figure 111 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution V
136
-------
Figure 112 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Cr
137
-------
Figure 113 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution
Mn
W-
Mn
138
-------
Figure 114 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Fe
139
-------
Figure 115 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Ni
140
-------
Figure 116 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Cu
141
-------
Figure 117 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Zn
142
-------
Figure 118 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution Br
Br
143
-------
Figure 119 St. Louis Municipal Court. Directional Distribution
Pb
144
-------
Figure 120 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution P
W -
145
-------
Figure 121 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution
146
-------
Figure 122 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Cl
147
-------
Figure 123 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution
K
K
148
-------
Figure 124 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Ca
Ca
149
-------
Figure 125 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Ti
Ti
150
-------
Figure 126 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution V
W-
151
-------
Figure 127 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Cr
W-
O
-E
152
-------
Figure
128
St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Mn
Mn
-w-
153
-------
Figure 129 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution
Fe
154
-------
Figure 130 St. Louis
Fire Station. Directional Distribution Ni
Ni
w -
155
-------
Figure 131 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution
Cu
w-
156
-------
Figure 132 St. Louis Fire Station
Directional Distribution Zn
157
-------
Figure 133 St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Br
Br
-E
158
-------
Figure 134
St. Louis Fire Station. Directional Distribution Pb
Pb
W-
159
-------
Figure 135 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS P
160
-------
Figure 136 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS S
161
-------
Figure 137 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Cl
162
-------
Figure 138 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS K
I
543
,,„,» ^. STAGE
163
-------
Figure 139 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLPS Ca
164
-------
Figure 140 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Ti
165
-------
Figure 141 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Mn
166
-------
Figure 142 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Fe
lxK£
1
4.3 2
STAGE .
167
-------
Figure 143 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Ni
I ^^
4 3
iSTAG.E
Ni
168
-------
Figure 144 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Cu
169
-------
Figure 145 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Zn
•u
'«tr ,,\, ?»' '>-l '.* &v«, ,
' Tt,*.V .;
|.«C
n r
4 3
STAGE
Zn
170
-------
Figure 146 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLFS Br
171
-------
Figure 147 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLPS Pb
172
-------
Figure 148 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC P
<§ >*«!]
Ol !
C
u
173
-------
Figure 149 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC S
174
-------
Figure 150 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC Cl
1,
*
STAGE"
Cl
175
-------
Figurf 151 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC
K
176
-------
Figure 152 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC Ca
.'.* "*£.
n
IxKL
-1 1 1 T
Co
177
-------
Figure 153 wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC Ti
n
I
Ol
c
u
sw
Ti
178
-------
Figure 154 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC V
179
-------
Figure 155 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC
Mn
180
-------
Figure 156 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC Fe
181
-------
Figure 157 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC Cu
*£«'
SW»,
Cu
182
-------
Figure 158 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC
183
-------
Figure 159 wind Direction Sensitive size Distributions. SLMC Br
184
-------
Figure 160 Wind Direction Sensitive Size Distributions. SLMC
Pb
185
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-025
,m TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AEROSOL SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY IN ST LOUIS
Trace Element Analysis
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7, AUTHOR(S)
Kenneth A. Hardy
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Physical Sciences
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
! Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory - RTP, NC
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI^NO.
5. REPORT DATE
february 1980
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO." '
EHE625 EA-011 (FY-7M
•*• * "• y tut v ^1 \ \J | |
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2406
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/09
The .^ aerosol in St. Louis was sampled in July 1975 to better characterize the
aerosol in an urban environment with moderate dispersion characteristics and heavy
industrial activity Two sampling sites were chosen, one in downtown St. Louis and
a second close to the industrialized section in south St. Louis.
S0¥r/!nc2££t1c1ents show t!?at the ae™sol from the downtown site is pri-
l ^°-80%)> ?Tnt dust 07%), steel manufacturing (6-7%) and auto
The aerosol from the industrialized site is primarily due to coal
combustion products and dust (75%), and cement dust (15%), while auto emissions and
heavy industrial processes account for ^5% of the aerosol mass. Determining the
directional distribution of the aerosol trace elements allowed pinpointing of strong
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
*Air pollution
*Aerosols
*Chemical elements
*Chemical analysis
*Sources
Identifying
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
——————«.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
\
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
St. Louis, MO
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)"
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
198
22. PRICE
186
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA-335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner
EPA-600/7-80-025
-------