United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771!
EPA-454/R-99-014
January 1997
Air_
EPA
1995 Nonmethane Organic
Compounds
And
Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds
Monitoring Program
-------
1995 Non-Methane Organic Compounds and
Speciated Non-Methane Organic Compounds
Monitoring Programs
Final Report
EPA No. 68-D3-0095
Delivery Order 06
Prepared for:
Kathy Weant
and
Neil J. Berg, Jr.
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Joette L Steger
Joann Rice
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
P. O. Box 2010
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (Pi.\?n
'
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards funded and managed the research described here under Contract
No. 68-D3-0095 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
u
-------
Contract #68D30095
Report Title: 1995 Non-Methane Organic Compounds and Speciated Non-Methane
Organic Compounds Monitoring Programs
Report Date: December 1996 _
Contract No.: 68-D3-0095
Prime Contractor: Astern Research Group, Inc.
Delivery Order No.: 06
Project Officer: Kathy Weant
Project Officer Address: U.S. EPA, OAR/OAQPS/TSD nVTD-14^ Tel: (919^ 541-4215
Program Office: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards _
No. of Pages in Report: 327 _
Does this report contain confidential business information
Yes _ No X
-------
Abstract
From the Speciated NMOC analysis, the paraffins and aromatic compounds occurred
more frequently than the olefins. Toluene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and isopentane were detected
in all 254 Speciated NMOC samples. For the UATMP VOC analysis, the nonhalogenated
compounds occurred more frequently than the halogenated compounds. 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
and carbon tetrachloride were the only halogenated compounds detected in all 43 samples. For
the carbonyl analysis, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and hexaldehyde were detected in all
41 analyzed samples.
Of the total NMOC measured by the Speciated NMOC method, an average of 78% is
speciated by the GC/FID method. Of the Speciated NMOC, on average, 58% are paraffins, 23%
are aromatic compounds, and 19% are olefins. Isopentane, propane, and ethane make up, on
average, 30% of the paraffins. Toluene accounted for 30%, on average, of the aromatic fraction.
Almost 30% of the olefin fraction is made up of ethylene and acetylene.
Temporal variations of the central tendencies of the data at a given site and between sites
were examined. Based on visual inspection of the plotted data, no apparent upward or downward
trends in the NMOC concentration was observed from 1988 through 1995. Downward trends
were observed for 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Upward trends were observed for acetaldehyde.
Distributional analysis of the data confirmed that the data was lognormally distributed as is
typical for environmental data. Completeness results for the 1995 program on a per site basis
ranged from 94 to 100% with an overall completeness of 96 percent. Equipment malfunction was
identified as the primary cause of missed samples.
in
-------
Key Words
Non-Methane Organic Compound (NMOC)
Speciated Non-Methane Organic Compound (Speciated NMOC)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Gas chromatography/multiple detector (GC/MD)
Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Carbonyl
Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC/FID)
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
Preconcentration direct flame ionization detection (PDFID)
Compendium Method TO-12
C2 through Cn Hydrocarbons
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
Key Words iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures xi
About this Report 1-1
1.0 BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION AND 1995 SITE INFORMATION 1-2
1.1 Background and Introduction 1-2
1.1.1 Summary of Technical Procedures and Methods 1-6
1.1.2 Report Objectives 1-7
1.1.3 Executive Summary 1-12
1.2 1995 Site Information 1-12
1.2.1 The New York City and Northeastern New Jersey
Metropolitan Area 1-14
1.2.1.1 Long Island, New York (LINY) 1-14
1.2.1.2 Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) 1-15
1.2.1.3 Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) 1-18
1.2.2 Birmingham (Alabama) Metropolitan Area 1-18
1.2.3 The Dallas and Fort Worth (Texas) Metropolitan Area 1-22
1.2.3.1 Dallas, Texas (DLTX) 1-22
1.2.3.2 Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX) 1-23
1.2.4 The El Paso (Texas) Metropolitan Area 1-26
1.2.5 The New Orleans (Louisiana) and Southern Louisiana
Metropolitan Area 1-27
2.0 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE 1995 NMOC DATA 2-1
2.1 Methodology 2-1
2.1.1 Skewness 2-1
2.1.2 Kurtosis 2-3
2.1.3 Testing for Normality and Log-Normality 2-4
2.2 Distribution of Concentration Values 2-5
2.2.1 NMOC Base Program 2-6
2.2.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program 2-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
2.2.3 Speciated NMOC Option Program 2-12
2.2.4 UATMP VOC Option 2-12
2.2.5 Carbonyl Option 2-13
3.0 PROGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY 3-1
3.1 Prevalence (Number and Frequency of Occurrence) 3-1
3.1.1 NMOC Base Program 3-1
3.1.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program 3-1
3.1.3 Speciated NMOC Option 3-7
3.1.4 UATMP VOC Option 3-11
3.1.5 Carbonyl Option 3-13
3.2 Range, Central Tendency, and Variability 3-14
3.2.1 Treatment of Non-Detects 3-15
3.2.2 NMOC Base Program 3-16
3.2.3 Speciated NMOC Base Program 3-19
3.2.4 Speciated NMOC Option Program 3-22
3.2.5 UATMP VOC Option 3-24
3.2.6 Carbonyl Option 3-26
4.0 GEOGRAPHICAL COMPARISONS 4-1
4.1 Metropolitan Area Comparison 4-1
4.1.1 Speciated NMOC Compounds 4-1
4.1.2 UATMP VOC Discussion 4-12
4.1.3 Carbonyl Discussion 4-16
4.2 Comparison of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas 4-25
4.2.1 NMOC Results 4-27
4.2.2 Speciated NMOC Results 4-28
4.2.3 UATMP VOC Option Program 4-31
4.2.4 Presentation of the UATMP VOC and the Speciated
NMOC Results 4-40
4.2.5 Carbonyl Discussion 4-46
5.0 DATA TRENDS 5-1
5.1 NMOC 5-1
5.2 Speciated NMOC Compounds 5-6
5.3 UATMP VOC Compounds 5-12
5.3.1 New York City and Northeastern New Jersey
Airshed (NWNJ, P2NJ) 5-14
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
5.3.2 Birmingham, Alabama Airshed 5-21
5.4 Carbonyl Compounds 5-26
6.0 Completeness Results by Program 6-1
6.1 NMOC Base Program 6-1
6.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program 6-1
6.3 Speciated NMOC Option Program 6-5
6.4 UATMP VOC Option Program 6-6
6.5 Carbonyl Option Program 6-6
7.0 References 7-1
Appendices
A AIRS Site Description
B Statistical Summary for the Speciated NMOC Base sites
C Statistical Analysis Results for the Speciated NMOC Option
D Statistical Summary for the UATMP VOC Option
E Statistical Summary for the Carbonyl Option
VH
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 1995 Speciated NMOC Target Compounds 1-3
1-2 Speciated UATMP VOCs Sampled in the 1995 UATMP VOC Option to the NMOC and
Speciated NMOC Base Programs 1-4
1-3 Speciated Carbonyls Sampled in the 1995 Carbonyl Option to the NMOC and Speciated
NMOC Base Programs 1-5
1-4 1995 Method Detection Limits for the Speciated NMOC Target Compounds 1-8
1-5 1995 UATMP VOC Detection Limits 1-9
1-6 Method Detection Limits, Underivatized Detection Limit (ppbv) 1-10
1-7 1995 NMOC and Speciated NMOC Program Sites 1-13
1-8 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to NWNJ ... 1-17
1-9 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to P2NJ 1-19
1-10 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relation to Sampling Sites in the
Birmingham (Alabama) Metropolitan Area 1-22
1-11 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to DLTX ... 1-25
1-12 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to FWTX ... 1-26
1-13 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to JUMX ... 1-29
1-14 Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to NOLA ... 1-31
2-1 Shape Statistics for All Sites in the Total NMOC Option 2-7
2-2 Goodness of Fit Test Results for Total NMOC at the
Speciated NMOC Base Sites 2-11
2-3 Number of Compounds with less than 25 Percent Non-detects That Fail to Reject
the Hypothesis of a Normal Distribution for the UATMP VOC Option 2-13
3-1 Most and Least Frequently Detected Speciated NMOC Compounds for the
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program 3-4
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
Page
3-2 Speciated Aromatic Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the
Samples Collected at a Site in 1995 3-5
3-3 Speciated Paraffin Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the
Samples Collected at a Site in 1995 3-6
3-4 Speciated Olefin Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the
Samples Collected at a Site in 1995 3-7
3-5 Speciated Compounds Detected in Less Than 10 Percent of the Samples
at a Site in 1995 3-8
3-6 Summary Statistics for All Sites in the NMOC Base Program in 1995 3-17
4-1 Comparison of Number and Frequency of Occurrence of Carbonyl Compounds by
Metropolitan Area 4-17
5-1 Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds at
Tarrant City, Alabama ,(B1AL) 5-7
5-2 Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds at
Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) 5-8
5-3 Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds at
Helena, Alabama (B3 AL) 5-9
5-4 Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds at Newark,
New Jersey (NWNJ) Concentration (ppbv) 5-15
5-5 Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds at Plainfield,
New Jersey (P2NJ) Concentration (ppbv) 5-16
5-6 Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds at Tarrant City,
Alabama (B1AL) Concentration (ppbv).- 5-17
5-7 Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds at Pinson,
Alabama (B2AL) Concentration (ppbv) 5-18
5-8 Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds at Helena,
Alabama (B3AL) Concentration (ppbv) 5-19
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES - Continued
Page
6-1 1995 NMOC Completeness Results 6-2
6-2 1995 NMOC Invalid Samples by Site 6-3
6-3 1995 Speciated NMOC Completeness Results 6-4
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Location of Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) Monitoring
Sites in Relationship to Potential Emission Sources 1-16
1-2 Location of Birmingham, Alabama (B1AL, B2AL, B.3AL) Monitoring Sites in
Relationship to Potential Emission Sources 1-21
1-3 Location of Dallas, Texas (DLTX) and Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX) Monitoring Sites in
Relationship to Potential Emission Sources 1-24
1-4 Location of Juraez, Mexico (JUMX) Monitoring Site in Relationship to Potential
Emissions Sources 1-28
1-5 Location of New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) Monitoring Site in Relationship to Potential
Emissions Sources 1-30
2-1 1995 NMOC Histogram for all Sites 2-7
2-2 1995 NMOC Histogram for P2NJ 2-9
2-3 1995 Histogram Showing Distribution of Total NMOC Concentrations For All
Seven Speciated NMOC Base Sites 2-10
2-4 1995 Histogram of Total NMOC at Bl AL 2-11
3-1 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Aromatics in 1995 3-2
3-2 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Olefins in 1995 3-2
3-3 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Paraffins in 1995 3-3
3-4 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Aromatics for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option 3-9
3-5 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Paraffins for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option 3-9
3-6 Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Olefins for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option 3-10
3-7 Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Halogenated UATMP VOCs
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
in 1995 3-12
3-8 Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Nonhalogenated VOCs in 1995 3-12
3-9 Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Carbonyls in 1995 3-14
3-10 Comparison of NMOC Concentrations at the NMOC Base Sites in 1995 3-18
3-11 Distribution of the 78% of Identified NMOC between Compound Classes for the
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program Sites 3-20
3-12 Average Composition of Paraffin Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC
.in 1995 3-20
3-13 Average Composition of the Aromatic Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC
in 1995 3-21
3-14 Average Composition of the Olefin Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC
in 1995 ,, 3-21
3-15 Class Breakdown of Speciated NMOC for the 1995 Speciated NMOC
Option Sites 3-23
3-16 Comparison of Speciated NMOC on a Class and Site Basis for the 1995
Speciated NMOC Option Program 3-23
3-17 Site Comparison of Speciated Class Concentrations for the 1995
Speciated NMOC Option Program 3-25
3-18 Site Comparison of Compounds Comprising 40 Percent of Speciated NMOC
for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program 3-25
3-19 Comparison of Concentration Ranges of Different Fractions of VOC for
the 1995 UATMP VOC Option 3-27
3-20 Percentage of UATMP VOC Per Compound Class in 1995 3-27
3-21 Composition of UATMP VOC Fraction in 1995 3-28
3-22 Composition of Halogenated Fraction of the UATMP VOC Fraction in 1995 3-28
Xll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
3-23 Composition of Carbonyl Fraction in 1995 3-29
4-1 Frequency of Occurrence of Speciated Aromatics in 1995 4-2
4-2 Frequency of Occurrence of Paraffins in 1995 4-3
4-3 Frequency of Occurrence of Olefins in 1995 4-3
4-4 Composition of Paraffin Fraction in Birmingham in 1995 4-5
4-5 Composition of Paraffin Fraction in Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995 4-5
4-6 Composition of Paraffin Fraction in El-Paso-Juarez in 1995 4-6
4-7 Composition of Paraffin Fraction in New Orleans in 1995 4-6
4-8 Composition of Olefin Fraction in Birmingham in 1995 4-7
4-9 Composition of Olefin Fraction in Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995 4-7
4-10 Composition of Olefin Fraction in El-Paso-Juarez in 1995 4-8
4-11 Composition of Olefin Fraction in New Orleans in 1995 4-8
4-12 Toluene Concentrations at Different Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-10
4-13 Ethane Concentrations Measured at Different Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-10
4-14 Acetylene Concentrations at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-11
4-15 a-Pinene Concentrations at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-11
4-16 Comparison of Toluene Fraction at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-12
4-17 Frequency of Occurrence of Halogenated VOC in 1995 by Metropolitan Area 4-13
4-18 Comparison of Composition of UATMP VOC in 1995 by Metropolitan Area 4-14
4-19 Comparison of Selected Halogenated Compound Concentrations in 1995 in
New York City and Birmingham 4-15
Kill
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
4-20 Comparison of Selected Nonhalogenated VOCs in 1995 in New York City and
Birmingham 4-15
4-21 Between Metropolitan Area Comparison of Frequency of Occurrence in 1995 for the
Carbonyl Compounds 4-17
4-22 Total Carbonyls Measured at Each Metropolitan Area in 1995 4-19
4-23 Comparison of Formaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Area in 1995 4-19
4-24 Comparison of Acetaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-20
4-25 Butyraldehyde and Isobutyraldehyde Concentrations in 1995
by Metropolitan Area 4-20
4-26 Comparison of Hexaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Area in 1995 4-21
4-27 Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in New York City in 1995 4-22
4-28 Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in New Orleans in 1995 4-22
4-29 Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995 4-23
4-30 Composition of Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratio
for Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-24
4-31 Formaldehyde to Acetaldehyde Ratio Comparison for
Metropolitan Areas in 1995 4-24
4-32 Propionaldehyde Concentration by Metropolitan Area in 1995 4-26
4-33 Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratios without Nondetects in 1995 4-26
4-34 1995 NMOC Monthly Variations for the Three Base NMOC Sites 4-28
4-35 Central Tendencies and Ranges by Land Use Type for Total NMOC
Measured by the GC/FID Methods in 1995 4-29
4-36 Comparison of Class Composition of the Speciated NMOC
with Land Use in 1995 4-30
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
4-37 Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Urban Commercial Areas in 1995 4-32
4-38 Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Suburban Residential Areas in 1995 4-32
4-39 Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Rural Residential Areas in 1995 4-33
4-40 Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Rural Agricultural Areas in 1995 4-33
4-41 Composition of Speciated Olefins in Urban Commercial Areas in 1995 4-34
4-42 Composition of Speciated Olefins in Suburban Residential Areas in 1995 4-34
4-43 Composition of Speciated Olefins in Rural Residential Areas in 1995 4-35
4.44 Composition of Speciated Olefins in Rural Agricultural Areas in 1995 4-35
4-45 Frequency of Occurrence of Halogenated VOC Based on Land Use in 1995 4-37
4-46 Comparison of UATMP VOC Composition for Different Land Used in 1995 4-37
4-47 Comparison of Methylene Chloride Concentrations Versus Land Use in 1995 4-38
4-48 Comparison of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Concentrations Versus Land Use in 1995 .... 4-38
4-49 Comparison of Trichloroethylene Concentrations with Land Use in 1995 4-39
4-50 Comparison of Tetrachloroethylene versus Land Use in 1995 4-39
4-51 Comparison of Acetylene Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-41
4-52 Comparison of Propylene Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995 4-41
4-53 Comparison of Benzene Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995 4-42
4-54 Comparison of Toluene Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995 4-42
4-55 Comparison of m- andp-Xylene Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-43
4-56 Frequency of Occurrence of Selected Compounds in 1995 as Determined by the
Speciated NMOC Method 4-44
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
4-57 Acetylene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method for
Different Land Uses in 1995 4-45
4-58 Toluene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method for
Different Land Uses in 1995 4-45
4-59 m- and p-Xylene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method for
Different Land Uses in 1995 4-46
4-60 Comparison of Frequency of Occurrence of Carbonyls for Different
Land Uses in 1995 4-47
4-61 Comparison of Formaldehyde Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995 4-48
4-62 Comparison of Acetaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-48
4-63 Comparison of Formaldehyde to Acetaldehyde Ratio with Land Use in 1995 4-50
4-64 Propionaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-50
4-65 Comparison of Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratios in 1995 4-51
4-66 Comparison of Acetone Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-51
4-67 Comparison of Hexaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995 4-521
5-1 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) 5-2
5-2 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) 5-2
5-3 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Long Island, New York (LINY) 5-3
5-4 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured
at Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) 5-4
5-5 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured
at Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) 5-4
5-6 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured
at Long Island, New York (LINY) 5-5
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
5-7 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Toluene Concentrations at
Helena, Alabama (B3AL) 5-10
5-8 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Acetylene Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites 5-10
5-9 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Isopentane Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites 5-11
5-10 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Propane Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites 5-11
5-11 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Concentrations of Selected
Compounds at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL) 5-13
5-12 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Concentrations of Selected
Compounds at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) 5-13
5-13 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Concentrations of Benzene and Propylene
at Helena, Alabama (B3AL) 5-14
5-14 1995 Temporal Comparisons of 1,1,1 -Trichlorothane Concentrations Measured
at Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) 5-21
5-15 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations Measured
at Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) 5-22
5-16 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations Measured
at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL) 5-23
5-17 1995 Temporal Comparisons of 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Concentrations Measured
at Birmingham, Alabama 5-24
5-18 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Benzene Concentrations Measured at
Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL) 5-25
5-19 1995 Temporal Comparisons of 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Concentrations Measured
at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) 5-25
5-20 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Formaldehyde Concentrations Measured in
the New York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed 5-27
xvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - Continued
Page
5-21 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Acetaldehyde Concentrations Measured in
the New York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed 5-27
5-22 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Acetone Concentrations Measured in the
New York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed 5-28
6-1 1995 Sampling Completeness History for the NMOC Program 6-3
6-2 1995 Sampling Completeness History for the Speciated NMOC Base Program 6-5
XVlll
-------
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report documents the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1995
Non-Methane Organic Compound (NMOC) and Speciated Non-Methane Organic Compound
(Speciated NMOC) monitoring programs. Begun in 1984, the NMOC sampling program is
designed to provide NMOC data for use in development of control strategies for ozone. The
Speciated NMOC program was initiated in 1991 in response to requests by state agencies for
more detailed speciated hydrocarbon data for use in their ozone control strategies.
Measurements of NMOC and Speciated NMOC are critical inputs to the development of
ozone precursor emission control strategies. When started with 23 sites, the NMOC program was
designed to provide NMOC data for use in photochemical modeling using the U.S. EPA
Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA)/OZIPPM model.1 As the need for more refined
modeling tools developed, the Speciated NMOC sampling program was initiated to provide the
speciated hydrocarbon data required for input to more advanced photochemical models such as
the Urban Airshed Model (UAM).2
This report documents the 1995 NMOC and Speciated NMOC monitoring programs,
including the base programs and optional monitoring performed for carbonyl and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Details of the technical monitoring procedures used for the 1995 programs
are identical to those used in the 1994 programs. The reader is directed to the 1994 final report
for the technical details of the monitoring programs.3
This report is organized into six major sections. Background and introductory information
are provided in Section 1.0 as well as a summary of the 10 sample site locations that participated
in the 1995 programs. Section 2.0 contains the distribution analysis of the ambient air data.
Program statistical results are summarized in Section 3.0. Geographical comparisons between the
five participating metropolitan areas are given in Section 4.0. Section 5.0 examines trends of the
data over time. Program completeness is covered in Section 6.0. References are provided in
Section 7.0. Appendix A contains AIRS site descriptions. Appendices B through E contain
1-1
-------
statistical summaries for the speciated NMOC base site data, speciated NMOC option site data,
UATMP VOC option data, and carbonyl option data.
1.0 BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION AND 1995 SITE INFORMATION
1.1 Background and Introduction
In areas of the country where the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone is exceeded, measurements of ambient total NMOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOJ are used by
the affected states in developing ozone precursor emission control strategies. To transfer
hydrocarbon sampling and analysis technology to interested state and local agencies, EPA
supports a centralized program that provides NMOC monitoring and analytical assistance to these
state and local agencies. This program, consisting of the NMOC and Speciated NMOC sampling
programs, was formerly operated through Radian Corporation but is now conducted through
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).
The NMOC program yields a single total NMOC measurement for the 3-hour period
6 a.m. to 9 a.m., Monday through Friday, for each sampling location. Because of the importance
of ambient VOC data for ozone control strategy development, some of the agencies participating
in the NMOC program requested in 1991 that hydrocarbon speciation analysis be included as part
of the NMOC program. Knowledge of the specific individual VOCs present in the ambient air is
required for inputs for the UAM2 and other photochemical models, such as Carbon Bond Four
(CB4), necessary for forecasting the NMOC reductions needed to attain the NAAQS for ozone.
Consequently, in response to the agency requests, analysis for 78 individual hydrocarbon
compounds in the C2 through C12 range was provided. This enhanced program was called the
Speciated NMOC program. The 78 compounds were collected as 3-hour canister samples from
6:00 to 9:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and analyzed using gas chromatography with flame
ionization detection (GC/FID). The list of hydrocarbon compounds that were speciated in 1995 is
shown in Table 1-1.
1-2
-------
Table 1-1
1995 Speciated NMOC Target Compounds
Ethylene
Acetylene1
Ethane
Propyne
Isobutane
1-Butene
Isobutene
Propylene1
1,3-Butadiene1
w-Butane
Propane
trans-2-Butsns
m-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
rra/w-2-Pentene
c;s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
n-Hexane
fraw.s-2-Hexene
m-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene1
Cyclohexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
1-Heptene
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene1
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
w-Octane1
Ethylbenzene1
m- and/J-Xylene1
Styrene1
o-Xylene1
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
/j-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
P-Pinene
1-Decene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
/?-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
/j-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
'Compounds included in the UATMP VOC sample analysis
1-3
-------
In 1987, EPA, as part of the National Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP),4
developed an analytical method to support the needs for information concerning the levels of
specific chlorinated, brominated, aromatic, and olefinic VOC species in ambient air. The specific
analytical method currently uses a gas chrdmatography/mass selective detector with a flame
ionization detector (GC/MSD-FID) analysis to measure the concentration of the 38 selected VOC
compounds listed in Table 1-2 . The compounds m- andp-xylene coelute. These compounds are
referred to in this report as UATMP VOCs.
Table 1-2
Speciated UATMP VOCs Sampled in the 1995 UATMP VOC Option to
the NMOC and Speciated NMOC Base Programs
Acetylene1
Propylene1
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3-Butadiene1
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1 -Dicnloroethane
Chloroprene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene1
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
cis-1,3 -Dicnloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene1
Dibromochloromethane
w-Octane1
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene1
m- andp-Xylene1
Bromoform
Styrene1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene1
/H-Dichlorobenzene1
p-Dichlorobenzene1
o-Dichlorobenzene1
Compounds included in the Speciated NMOC sample analysis.
The UATMP was developed and implemented in 1987 following an EPA study entitled
"The Air Toxic Problem in the United States: An Analysis of Cancer Risks for Selected
1-4
-------
Pollutants,"5 which was completed in May 1985. This study concluded that a high potential of
elevated individual lifetime risks was associated with certain VOC frequently found in urban areas.
The UATMP sampling and analysis method was incorporated into the 1987 NMOC
program as an option to the NMOC base sites. Additionally, monitoring for three carbonyl
compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone) was added as an option to the NMOC
base program in 1990. All carbonyl sampling was performed using 2,4-dinitrophenyl-hydrazine
(DNPH) coated silica gel cartridges. In 1991, the carbonyl target analyte list was revised to
encompass the 16 compounds shown in Table 1-3 (butyraldehyde coelutes with isobutyraldehyde,
and the m-, o-, and/?-tolualdehydes are reported together).
Table 1-3
Speciated Carbonyls Sampled in the 1995 Carbonyl Option to the NMOC
and Speciated NMOC Base Programs
Formaldehyde Propionaldehyde Valeraldehyde
Acetaldehyde Crotonaldehyde Benzaldehyde
Acrolein Butyraldehyde and Isobutyraldehyde m-, o-, and/?-Tolualdehydes
Acetone Isovaleraldehyde Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
The NMOC and Speciated NMOC programs generally consist of several activities that
include:
• Site coordination;
• Equipment certification, installation, and operator training;
• Sample analysis;
• Data reduction, validation, and reporting;
1-5
-------
• Statistical analyses and data characterization;
• Formatting and submittal of the validated data to the AIRS-AQS; and
• Post-sample collection activities, such as equipment recovery and refurbishment,
and canister cleanup and archive.
1.1.1 Summary of Technical Procedures and Methods
The NMOC and Speciated NMOC program sample collection systems and procedures are
identical. Both UATMP VOC and Speciated NMOC option analyses are performed as
subsequent analyses on a single sample canister. Carbonyl option samples are collected on the
same schedule using a separate cartridge sample collection system.
Sample collection for the 1995 NMOC program occurred from 6 a.m. through 9 a.m. local
time, Monday through Friday, from June 5 through September 29, 1995 for the NMOC and
Speciated NMOC base sites. Samples were not collected on holidays or weekends. Ffistorically,
the NMOC and Speciated NMOC sampling season begins in June and ends in September,
encompassing approximately 90 sampling days. In 1994, the previous program year, the sites
started sampling in July and continued through October 31, for a total of about 81 sampling days.
Sample analyses for NMOC were performed in accordance with the cryogenic
preconcentration direct flame ionization detection (PDFJD) methodology described in
Compendium Method TO-12.6 This methodology incorporates PDFJD gas chromatography and
provides a total hydrocarbon measurement without speciation. In order to measure precision,
approximately 10% of the samples were collected in duplicate. Duplicate sample canisters were
analyzed in replicate, except where low pressure precluded a second analysis. Based on the 1984
through 1994 studies, the method was shown to be precise, accurate, and effective for indicating
the concentration level of total hydrocarbons in ambient air.
Sample analyses for Speciated NMOC base and option programs were performed
generally in accordance with the EPA's "Research Protocol Method for Analysis of C2 through
1-6
-------
C12 Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air by Gas Chromatography with Cryogenic Concentration."7 This
methodology incorporates the use of gas chromatography with dual capillary columns and FIDs.
Seventy-eight hydrocarbons are quantified during this analysis. Chlorinated and oxygenated
species are not identified using this procedure. Approximately 10% of the samples were collected
in duplicate. One-half of all duplicate pairs were analyzed in replicate. The 1995 minimum
detection limits are reported in Table 1-4.
The 3-hour UATMP VOC option program provides for subsequent UATMP VOC
analysis on nine of the samples collected for each of the participating NMOC and Speciated
NMOC base sites. Of the nine samples, one pair is a duplicate that is analyzed in replicate.
Sample analyses for the UATMP VOC option were performed using the same procedures as used
for the UATMP. The methodology employed is performed in accordance with Compendium
Method TO-14.8 The 1995 minimum detection limits are reported in Table 1-5.
Sample analyses for the 3-hour carbonyl option were performed using the methodology
described in Compendium Method TO-11.9 Approximately 10 carbonyl sample cartridges,
including a duplicate pair, were sent to each site for sample collection and analysis. A trip blank
was used to assess the potential for field contamination. The trip blank cartridge accompanied the
sample cartridges, but at no time was exposed to ambient air. One set of field duplicates from
each site was collected and analyzed in replicate to determine both the sampling and analytical
precision. The 1995 minimum detection limits are reported in Table 1-6.
1.1.2 Report Objectives
The primary objective of this report is to summarize the data collected during the 1995
NMOC program. This objective is accomplished through a statistical and distributional
description of the collected VOC samples. This information allows the ambient data collected
during the NMOC and Speciated NMOC programs to be compared to and placed in context with
monitoring data collected in prior years and in other sampling programs.
1-7
-------
Table 1-4
1995 Method Detection Limits for the Speciated NMOC Target Compounds
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene1
Ethane
Propyne
Isobutane
1-Butene
Isobutene
Propylene1
1,3 -Butadiene1
n -Butane
Propane
rra«i'-2-Butene
c/$-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
rra/i.y-2-Pentene
m-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
w-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
m-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene1
Cvclohexane
Detection Limit
(ppbC) Compound
0.3302 2,3-Dimethylpentane
0.330 2-Methylhexane
0.330 3-Methylhexane
0.330 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
0.0783 n-Heptane
0.078 Methylcyclohexane
0.078 1-Heptene
0.330 2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
0.078 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
0.078 Toluene1
0.330 2-Methylheptane
0.078 3-Methylheptane
0.078 1-Octene
0.078 /7-Octane1
0.078 Ethylbenzene1
0.078 m- andp-Xylene1
0.078 Styrene1
0.078 o-Xylene1
6.078 1-Nonene
0.078 w-Nonane
0.078 Isopropylbenzene
0.078 a-Pinene
0.078 n-Propylbenzene
0.078 /M-Ethyltoluene
0.078 />-Ethyltoluene
0.078 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
0.078 o-Ethyltoluene
0.078 p-Pinene
0.078 1-Decene
0.078 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.078 n-Decane
0.078 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
0.078 /7-Diethylbenzene
0.078 1-Undecene
0.078 w-Undecane
0.078 1-Dodecene
0.078 /i-Dodecane
0.078 1-Tridecene
0.078 w-Tridecane
Detection Limit
(ppbc)
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
. 0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.078
'Compounds included in the UATMP VOC sample analysis.
2Detection limit calculated
3Detection limit calculated
based on the area reject of the data system and the response
based on the area reject of the data system and the response
factor for propane.
factor for benzene.
1-8
-------
Table 1-5
1995 UATMP VOC Detection Limits
Compound
Detection Limit (ppbv)
Acetylene
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
ffj-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
/i-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichrloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichlropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
m-, /j-Xylene
o-Xvlene
0.12
0.24
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.18
0.15
0.07
0.06
0.18
0.06
0.39
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.26
0.22
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.16
0.03
0.04
0.33
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.06
1-9
-------
I
o
Table 1-6
Method Detection Limits, Underivatized
Detection Limit (ppbv)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
But/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexanaldehyde
2 ,6-DimethylbenzaIdehyde
100 L
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.49
0.03
0.12
200 L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.24
0.02
0.06
300 L
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.16
0.01
0.04
400 L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.12
0.01
0.03
Sample
500 L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.02
Volume
600 L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.02
TOOL
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.005
0.02
800 L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.004
0.02
900 L
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.004
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.004
0.01
1000 L
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.01
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.003
0.01
-------
Statistical parameters were calculated for all of the data. Skewness, kurtosis, and the
Shapiro-Wilk statistic are all values that measure the normality of a data distribution. Most
ambient air data are lognormally distributed.10 Arithmetic and geometric means and medians
provide information on the central tendency of the data. Standard deviations of the arithmetic and
geometric means provide information on the variability of the data. The larger the standard
deviation, the more variable the data; the smaller the standard deviation, the less variable the data.
Temporal variations of the central tendencies of the data at a given site and between sites can
indicate if the NMOC or speciated VOC concentrations are increasing or decreasing or if the
average makeup of the VOC mix at a given site is changing with time.
A second objective of the monitoring program is to allow comparison of VOC
concentrations in different air sheds or urban metropolitan areas. Comparisons include
contrasting VOC data collected at urban versus suburban and urban versus rural sites within an air
shed and between air sheds. Geographic comparisons of the data allow differences in air sheds to
be identified and quantified.
A third objective is to compare the observed speciated compounds collected at each site
with information on industrial chemical emissions reported in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI).11 The relative concentrations and presence of each VOC and carbonyl species, typical
wind flow patterns near each sampling site and within the air shed, and a comparison with
reported emissions of the same compounds can indicate the potential types of sources that
generated the measured compounds.
Finally, a fourth objective in the NMOC and Speciated NMOC programs is to determine
the viability of conducting routine ambient sampling programs for VOCs. The completeness of
the sampling record (i.e., percentage of planned samples actually collected) and the completeness
of the analyses performed (i.e., ability of the analytical protocol to produce valid analyses for all
designated analytes) reflect directly on the viability of the sampling program.
1-11
-------
1.1.3 Executive Summary
From the Speciated NMOC analysis, the paraffins and aromatic compounds occurred
more frequently than the olefins. Toluene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and isopentane were detected
in all 254 Speciated NMOC samples. For the UATMP VOC analysis, the nonhalogenated
compounds occurred more frequently than the halogenated compounds. 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
and carbon tetrachloride were the only halogenated compounds detected in all 43 samples. For
the carbonyl analysis, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and hexaldehyde were detected in all
41 analyzed samples.
Of the total NMOC measured by the Speciated NMOC method, an average of 78% is
speciated by the GC/FID method. Of the Speciated NMOC, on average, 58% are paraffins, 23%
are aromatic compounds, and 19% are olefins. Isopentane, propane, and ethane make up, on
average, 30% of the paraffins. Toluene accounted for 30%, on average, of the aromatic fraction.
Almost 30% of the olefin fraction is made up of ethylene and acetylene.
Temporal variations of the central tendencies of the data at a given site and between sites
were examined. Based on visual inspection of the plotted data, no apparent upward or downward
trends in the NMOC concentration was observed from 1988 through 1995. Downward trends
were observed for 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Upward trends were observed for acetaldehyde.
Distributional analysis of the data confirmed that the data was lognormally distributed as is
typical for environmental data.10 Completeness results for the 1995 program on a per site basis
ranged from 94 to 100% with an overall completeness of 96 percent. Equipment malfunction was
identified as the primary cause of missed samples.
1.2 1995 Site Information
The sampling sites for the 1995 NMOC and Speciated NMOC monitoring programs are
listed in Table 1-7, which includes the EPA region for each site, number of sites at each location,
ERG site code, Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) code, site location, the typical
1-12
-------
Table 1-7
1995 NMOC and Speciated NMOC Program Sites
Region
2
4
6
ERG
ft of Site
Sites Code
1 LINY
1 NWNJ
1 P2NJ
1 B1AL
1 B2AL
1 B3AL
1 FWTX
1 DLTX
1 JUMX
1 NOLA
AIRS Code
36-059-005
34-013-0011
34-039-5001
01-073-6002
01-073-5002
01-117-0004
48-439-1002
48-113-0069
80-006-0001
22-051-1001
Location
Long Island, NY
Newark, NJ
Plainfield, NJ
Birmingham, AL
(Tarrant)
Birmingham, AL
(Pinson)
Birmingham, AL
(Helena)
Fort Worth, TX
Dallas, TX
Juarez, MX
New Orleans, LA
Land Use
Suburban
commercial
Urban industrial
Suburban residential
Suburban residential
Rural residential
Rural agricultural
Urban commercial
Urban commercial
Urban commercial
Suburban residential
Options
Base UATMP
Program SNMOC VOCs
NMOC
NMOC Yes Yes
NMOC Yes Yes
SNMOC Yes
SNMOC Yes
SNMOC Yes
SNMOC
SNMOC
SNMOC
SNMOC
Carbonyl
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
land use surrounding each site, and the base and optional program participation for each site. The
AIRS site description detailing the site characteristics are provided in Appendix A.
Three NMOC base sites were located in Long Island, New York (LINY); Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ); and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Seven Speciated NMOC base sites were
located in Birmingham, Alabama (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL); New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA);
Dallas, Texas (DLTX); Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX); and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (JUMX). The
JUMX monitor is located in the El Paso, Texas, air shed. Two NMOC base sites (NWNJ, P2NJ)
participated in the Speciated NMOC analysis option. Five sites (NWNJ, P2NJ, Bl AL, B2AL,
B3 AL) participated in the 3-hour UATMP VOC analysis option. Five sites (NWNJ, P2NJ,
DLTX, FWTX, NOLA) participated in the 3-hour carbonyl analysis option.
Three sites (DLTX, FWTX, JUMX) are located in urban commercial areas and one site
(NWNJ) is located in an urban industrial area. One site (LINY) is located in a suburban
commercial area and three sites (P2NJ, B1AL, NOLA) are located in suburban residential areas.
One site (B2AL) is located in a rural residential area and one site (B3 AL) is located in a rural
agricultural area.
1.2.1 The New York City and Northeastern New Jersey Metropolitan Area
In 1995, three of the participating sites (LINY, NWNJ, P2NJ) were located in an area that
included the New York City and northeastern New Jersey metropolitan area.
1.2.1.1 Long Island, New York (LINY)
The LINY site has been participating in the NMOC program since 1990 and was
established in 1971 by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The site
represents ambient air obtained from the New York City and northeastern New Jersey
metropolitan area, with a population of approximately 16.5 million in 1990. The LINY site is
located in a commercial suburban setting in Nassau County about 35 kilometers east of New York
City. The sampling location is bounded by a road and a park, with a manufacturing facility
1-14
-------
located directly across the street. No map was prepared for this site because the samples were
only analyzed for NMOC, so no pollutant data or speciated data was available to relate to the TRI
or local emissions information. The prevailing (or most frequent) wind direction across Long
Island in the summer is from the south.12 '
1.2.1.2 Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
The NWNJ site has been participating in the NMOC program since 1987. This site was
established by the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection in 1985 when
sampling equipment was moved from another sampling site to this location. This site also
represents ambient air from the New York City and northeastern New Jersey metropolitan area.
The NWNJ site is located in an industrial urban center in Newark, which has a population of
approximately 330,000 based on the 1990 census. The site is about 15 kilometers northwest of
New York City. The sampling location is in a parking lot with a residential neighborhood on one
side and a ballfield on another side. The local street running next to the parking lot has a traffic
flow of approximately 2,000 cars per day. On the other side of the ballfield is an automobile
junkyard. Also, manufacturing facilities are in the neighborhood and an expressway is nearby with
a traffic flow of approximately 71,000 cars per day. Newark International Airport is located
approximately 4 kilometers southwest of the sampling site.
According to the 1994 TRI data base,11 the NWNJ site is surrounded, as shown in
Figure 1-1, by facilities in Essex and Union Counties that reported releasing toxic chemicals to the
air in 1994. A summary of the chemicals released and the facility location in relation to the
NWNJ sampling site is provided in Table 1-8. The closest facility was located 0.5 kilometers
south of the sampling site and reported releasing 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, o-xylene, and mixed
isomers of xylene. The prevailing wind at Newark International Airport during the summer is
from the southwest.13
1-15
-------
Area of
Detail
Prevailing
wind direction
-Key:
if Monitoring site
— County boundary
:: City
- US Interstate
_Montclair
Essex County wBloomfiel
"Bel/eville
T 17 East Oran
Monitoring
Site NWNJ-
~~^v,
Newark
onitormg
Site P2NJ
Release Categories:
Carbonyls
Aromatics _ Olefins Paraffins
Chlorinated Aromatics ± Chlorinated Olefins T Chlorinated Paraffins
Figure 1-1. Location of Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
Monitoring Sites in Relationship to Potential Emission Sources
1-16
-------
Table 1-8
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data)
in Relationship to NWNJ
Direction
Distance
Chemicals Emitted (Number of Reported Sources)
North 6 to 12 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, chloroform, cumene, dichloromethane,
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, toluene (3), xylenes
Northeast 1 to 4 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (2), cumene,
dichloromethane, ethylbenzene (4), styrene, toluene (2), xylenes (4)
East 1 to 2 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, o-xylene, toluene
Southeast 1 to 4 km Ethylbenzene, formaldehyde (3), propionaldehyde, toluene (2), xylenes
(2)
South 0.5km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, o-xylene, xylenes
South 1 to 2 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (2), cumene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene,
xylenes (2)
South 4 to 10 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, dichloromethane (2), toluene (2),
trichloroethylene, xylenes (3)
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, toluene
Dichloromethane, toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (2), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (2), 1,3-butadiene,
benzene, cumene, cyclohexane (2), dichloromethane, ethylbenzene,
ethylene, propylene (2), tetrachloroethylene, toluene (3), xylenes (2)
Southwest 2 to 8 km Chloromethane, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, toluene, xylenes (2)
Southwest 7 to 9 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, formaldehyde, toluene, xylenes
Southwest 15 to 19 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (2), 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
benzene (2), chlorobenzene, chloroform, cumene, dichloromethane,
ethylbenzene (3), formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, styrene, toluene (6),
xylenes (4)
West southwest 7-19 km 1,1,1-Tnchloroethane (5), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, dichloromethane (2),
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes (3)
West 2 to 10 km Tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylenes (2)
West 5 to 6 km Dichloromethane
West 11 to 21 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (2), 1,2-dichloroethane, dichloromethane, toluene
Northwest 20 to 21 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
South 17 to 22 km
South southwest 7 km
South southwest 7-13 km
1-17
-------
1.2.1.3 Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
The P2NJ site has been participating in the NMOC program since 1988. This site was
established in 1980 by the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection as part of
the Northeast Oxidant Study. The site was relocated from latitude 40:36:04 N to 40:36:03 N at
the beginning of the summer of 1992. The new site remains in the general location of the initial
site. This site also represents ambient air in the New York City and northeastern New Jersey
metropolitan area. The P2NJ site is located in a suburban residential neighborhood in Plainfield,
which has a population of approximately 46,000 based on the 1990 census. The site is about
42 kilometers west of New York City. The sampling location is in a parking lot that is
surrounded by commercial and industrial facilities. The parking lot houses a fleet of propane-
fueled cars. The two local streets that pass by the parking lot have traffic flows of approximately
1,000 and 500 vehicles per day.
The P2NJ site is located south and west of the potential sources in Essex and Union
Counties reported in the 1994 TRI data base." Table 1-9 summarizes the chemicals released and
facility location in relation to the P2NJ sampling site. The closest facility was located
approximately 10 kilometers east northeast of the sampling site and reported releasing mixed
isomers of xylene.
1.2.2 Birmingham (Alabama) Metropolitan Area
In 1995, three of the participating sites (DIAL, B2AL, B3AL) were located in the
Birmingham, Alabama, metropolitan area. The B1AL and B2AL sites were established by the
Jefferson County Department of Health. The B3 AL site was established by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management in 1983. All three sites represent ambient air in the
Birmingham metropolitan area, which has a population of approximately 1.2 million based on the
1990 census.
1-18
-------
Table 1-9
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data)
in Relationship to P2NJ
Direction
Distance
Chemicals Emitted (Number of Reported Sources')
North northeast
North northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
East northeast
East northeast
East northeast
East northeast
East
IS to 16 km 1,2-Dichloroethane, dichloromethane, toluene
31 to 3 6 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (2), tetrachloroethylene, toluene
15 to 19 km 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (6), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, dichloromethane (2),
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
19 to 36 km 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, chloroform, cumene,
dichloromethane (2), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde,
toluene (5), trichloroethylene, xylene (mixed isomers) (4)
21to25km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, dichloromethane
10 to 22 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (2), cumene, cyclohexane, formaldehyde,
propylene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
22 to 23 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (2), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, dichloromethane,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
22 to 33 km 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (6), chloromethane,
cumene (2), dichloromethane (2), ethylbenzene (7), formaldehyde (4),
o-xylene (2), propionaldehyde, styrene (2), tetrachloroethylene,
toluene (7), xylene (mixed isomers) (13)
24 to 25 km Dichloromethane, toluene
14 to 21 km 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (2), 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
1,3-butadiene, benzene (3), chlorobenzene, chloroform, cumene,
cyclohexane, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene (4), ethylene, formaldehyde,
isobutyraldehyde, propylene, styrene, toluene (8), xylene (mixed
isomers) (4)
The B1AL site is located in a suburban residential neighborhood in Tarrant City, which
has a population of 8,148. The site is about 13 kilometers northeast of Birmingham and about
2 kilometers northwest of Birmingham Airport. The sampling location is next to tennis courts
located behind an elementary school. Two local streets with traffic flows of 2,000 and 300
vehicles per day are near the sampling location. Two major streets with traffic flows of 1,500 and
80,000 vehicles per day are also in the vicinity. A major coke producing plant is located about
0.8 kilometers west of the sampling location.
1-19
-------
The B2AL site is located in a rural residential area 32 kilometers northeast of Birmingham.
The sampling location is next to tennis courts located in front of an elementary school. One
through street with a traffic flow of approximately 13,000 vehicles per day passes by the sampling
site.
The B3AL site is located in a rural agricultural area on a farm south of Birmingham. Two
local highways with traffic flows of 1,000 and 20 vehicles per day pass nearby the site.
According to the 1994 TRI,11 30 facilities in Jefferson County and two facilities in Shelby
County, Alabama, shown in Figure 1-2, reported emitting VOCs to the air. Nineteen of these
facilities were located in Birmingham and reported releasing benzene, chlorobenzene,
cyclohexane, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene, ethylene, propylene, styrene, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, xylenes, and o-xylene. Two facilities
that reported releasing benzene, ethylene, styrene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes
were located in the same city as Bl AL, approximately 15 kilometers southwest of B2AL and 39
kilometers north of B3AL. Table 1-10 summarizes the chemicals released and facility location in
relation to the three Birmingham sampling sites for the remaining 11 facilities.
Birmingham is located in a valley that produces significant terrain influence on the wind
flow. Ridges extend southwest to northeast on each side of Birmingham and tend to produce
channeled wind flow along the same axis. In the early summer, the prevailing winds tends to have
a southwesterly component produced by flow from the Gulf of Mexico. By mid-summer,
migratory high pressure systems tend to shift the wind flow so that the prevailing winds have a
northeasterly component. On any given day in the summer, however, the location of the seasonal
high pressure system over the southeast will determine the actual wind direction experienced on
that day.13
1-20
-------
_->—- '-^
Area of
'Detail
June. Jul\
/
/
j 1T1U11IIU1 lllg 1 / /
\ SiteB2AL I August^/
.Monitoring^
°Site B2AL
(
Monitoring
Site BIAL
<°i/o
\
/
September
4
Prevailing
wind directions
165
Monitoring
^Site B3AL
Shelby County'
Key:
* Monitoring site
— County boundary
City
- US Interstate
\
Release Categories.
Carbonvls
Aromatics Olefms Paraffins
Chlorinated Aromatics A Chlorinated Olefms T Chlorinated Paraffins
Figure 1-2. Location of Birmingham, Alabama (BIAL, B2AL, B3AL) Monitoring Sites in
Relationship to Potential Emission Sources
1-21
-------
Table 1-10
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relation to Sampling
Sites in the Birmingham (Alabama) Metropolitan Area
B1AL
B2AL
B3AL
Chemicals Emitted
27 km southwest
22 km southwest
17 km southwest
8 km southeast
16 km northeast
44 km southwest
37 km southwest
32 km southwest
25 km southeast
11 km southeast
16 km northwest
25 km northwest
21 km north
35 km northwest
44 km northeast
Styrene, toluene, and xylenes
Benzene, toluene, and xylenes
Xylenes
Toluene
Ethylbenzene,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and
xylenes
47 km south-southeast
36 km South
59 km South
52 km South-
southwest
24 km east-southeast
7 km South
Xylenes
Chloroform
1.2.3 The Dallas and Fort Worth (Texas) Metropolitan Area
In 1995, two of the participating sites (DLTX, FWTX) were located in the Dallas and Fort
Worth, Texas, metropolitan area. The prevailing wind in this region during June through
September when the samples were collected is from the south.13
1.2.3.1 Dallas, Texas (DLTX)
The DLTX site did not participate in the Speciated NMOC program in 1994, although it
participated in 1992 and 1993. The site was established by the city of Dallas Air Pollution
Control Section, which relocated sampling equipment to this site. This site represents ambient air
in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area. The DLTX site is located in a commercial urban
center, north of the Trinity River and south of Dallas Love Field Municipal Airport, on the
Northwest side of Dallas, which had a population of approximately 900,000 in 1990. The
1-22
-------
sampling site is surrounded by parking lots and commercial buildings and is across the street from
an arena. A major street with a railroad crossing and traffic flow of approximately 46,000
vehicles per hour runs by the site.
According to the 1994 TRI," the DLTX site is surrounded, as shown in Figure 1-3, by
facilities in Dallas and Tarrant Counties that reported releasing toxic chemicals to the air in 1994.
A summary of some of the chemicals released and the facility location in relation to the DLTX
sampling site is provided in Table 1-11. Chlorinated compounds were not included in the table
because the DLTX site did not participate in the UATMP VOC option. The closest facility was
located 1 to 2 kilometers northwest of the sampling site and reported releasing toluene.
1.2.3.2 Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX)
The FWTX site has been participating in the Speciated NMOC program since 1992. The
site was established in 1975 by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and
represents ambient air in the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan area. The FWTX site is located
in a commercial urban center in Fort Worth, which had a population of 385,000 in 1990. The site
is about 6 kilometers northwest of Fort Worth on the south side of Meacham field, a small airport
with grass runways. The sampling location is surrounded by the airport and commercial
buildings. The local street passing by the site had a traffic flow of 100 vehicles per day in 1992.
The FWTX site is located north, east, and south of the potential sources reported in the
1994 TRI data base11 in Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Table 1-12 summarizes the chemicals
released and facility location in relation to the FWTX sampling site. Chlorinated compounds were
not included in the table because the FWTX site did not participate in the UATMP VOC option.
The closest facility was located approximately 8 kilometers east-southeast of the sampling site and
reported releasing toluene and mixed isomers of xylene.
1-23
-------
•_— -;
-^=""~r-*-?<
~«*^ir°s
^ ^r-^—. _
^r— — c^fe^
^:x>r=^||g££
^ ^^11^"
^
s
&
3?
Area of
"Detail
/
/
/
/
Monitoring />
Site FWTX C
/
1
/-
I*
K
^v
\
\
\
V
V -
North Richland Hil
_ Bedford
Haltom City-HuTst Eu
""->£ J _ ,- O
<
/ ^
Fort Worth^,
v-^ f
^•-*^^ ^
^;
Key:
* Monitoring site
• ••
^~,
1
/
30 ^
XI
/N "
Tarrant County
Arlington""
i — ,
Ul
15
oc
\
\
^_._j — -^
\
120 ;
^
V -CarrolJton Richardson
V
\ w /\
^ m Monitoring ^
S
o_ c>
"ss Trving
O
s
- • ~*^
.-^
(
/\ "Garland
c QU» r»T TV ^ ~ <
m
c/a
/
/
I
\
C> Aromatics Olefms
O N
.£, S
l^Y^
*/ /\
J ^
•$&'
^ I ~>r\i
r—~tr ' us ^
I -
\ ^Mesquil
Dallas County /
\jSr
~^ "^^
r ^ V,
\ - T
\
)
•V
/
0
— —
e
1
)
1
V
Paraffins
* Chlorinated Aromatics A Chlorinated Olefms T Chlorinated Paraffins
Figure 1-3. Location of Dallas, Texas (DLTX) and Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX) Monitoring
Sites in Relationship to Potential Emission Sources
1-24
-------
Table 1-11
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to
DLTX
Direction
Distance
Chemicals Emitted (Number of Reported Sources)
North
North
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
East
East
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
South
South
Southwest
Southwest
West southwest
50 to 51 km
1 toSkm
14-20 km
20 to 27 km
5 to 10 km
17 to 24 km
10 to 11 km
26 to 28 km
43 to 44 km
8to 16km
22 to 23 km
6 to 19 km
27 to 40 km
15 to 17 km
West southwest
West southwest
West
West
West
West
West
West northwest
Northwest
Northwest
11 to 18 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene (2), styrene, toluene (2), xylene
(mixed isomers) (4)
Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
Styrene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (2), cumene, ethylbenzene (2), styrene (2),
toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
Toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
Formaldehyde, styrene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
Ethylbenzene, xylene (mixed isomers)
Styrene, xylene (mixed isomers)
Styrene
Toluene, formaldehyde (2)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene (2), formaldehyde, styrene,
toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
Toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
Formaldehyde, toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene (2), xylene
(mixed isomers)
17 to 20 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene
(mixed isomers) (2)
41 to 47 km Toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
6 to 17 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
23 to 30 km Toluene (2)
36 to 40 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
41 to 44 km Formaldehyde, styrene (2), toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
50 to 51 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
39 to 50 km Styrene (2), toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
1 to 2 km Toluene
6 to 12 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
1-25
-------
Table 1-12
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to
FWTX
Direction
Distance
Chemicals Emitted (Number of Reported Sources)
North northeast
Northeast
Northeast
East northeast
East northeast
East northeast
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East southeast
East southeast
East southeast
East southeast
East southeast
East southeast
Southeast
Southeast
17 to 18 km Styrene
16 to 24 km Styrene, xylene (mixed isomcrs)
79 to 80 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
15 to 18 km Styrene (2), toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
54 to 58 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene (2), styrene, toluene (2), xylene
(mixed isomers) (4)
66 to 81 km Xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
14 to 18 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, formaldehyde, toluene (2), xylene (mixed
isomers)
20 to 27 km Xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
30 to 40 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene (3), xylene
(mixed isomers)
40 to 42 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene (2), xylene
(mixed isomers) (2)
41 to 50 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
50 to 59 km Formaldehyde, styrene, toluene (5), xylene (mixed isomers) (5)
62 to 66 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xyiene (mixed
isomers) (2)
73 to 79 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (2), cumene, ethylbenzene (2), formaldehyde,
styrene (4), toluene (4), xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
7 to 8 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
18 km Toluene
40 to 42 km Formaldehyde, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
43 to 44 km Toluene
55 to 63 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene (2), formaldehyde (2), styrene,
toluene (2), xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
70 to 91 km Styrene (2), xylene (mixed isomers)
19 to 23 km Toluene, xylene (mixed isomers) (2)
41 to 42 km Toluene
1.2.4 The El Paso (Texas) Metropolitan Area (Juraez, Mexico [JUMX]
In 1995, one of the participating sites (JUMX) was located in the El Paso, Texas,
metropolitan area airshed. The JUMX site did not participate in the Speciated NMOC program in
1-26
-------
1994, although the site did participate from 1991 through 1993. The site was established in 1990
as a special El Paso and Juarez monitoring site because of its location near the border. This site
represents ambient air in the El Paso metropolitan area. The JUMX site is located in a
commercial urban center in Juarez, which has a population of approximately 360,000. The
prevailing wind in the El Paso region during June through September when the samples were
collected is from the south.13
The JUMX site, as shown in Figure 1-4, is generally located west and south of the
potential sources in El Paso County reported in the 1994 TRI data base.11 Table 1-13 summarizes
the chemicals released and facility location in relation to the JUMX sampling site. Chlorinated
and brominated compounds and carbonyl compounds were not included in the table because the
JUMX site did not participate in the UATMP VOC or Carbonyl option. The closest facilities in
El Paso County were located approximately 5 kilometers north and north-northwest of the
sampling site and reported releasing 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, cumene,
cyclohexane, ethylbenzene, ethylene, propylene, toluene, and mixed isomers of xylene. No
information was available for potential sources in Juarez, Mexico.
1.2.5 The New Orleans (Louisiana) and Southern Louisiana Metropolitan Area
In 1995, one of the participating sites (NOLA) was located in the New Orleans, Louisiana,
and Southern Louisiana metropolitan area. The NOLA site participated for the first time in the
Speciated NMOC program in 1995. This site represents ambient air in the New Orleans and
Southern Louisiana metropolitan area. The NOLA site is located in a residential suburban area on
the west side of New Orleans about 7 kilometers north-northwest of New Orleans International
Airport near Lake Pontchartrain. The prevailing wind in the New Orleans region during June
through September when the samples were collected is from the Southeast.14
As shown in Figure 1-5, the NOLA site is generally located west and north of the potential
sources in Jefferson Parrish reported in the 1994 TRI data base.11 Table 1-14 summarizes the
chemicals released and facility location in relation to the NOLA sampling site. Chlorinated and
brominated compounds were not included in the table because the NOLA site did not participate
1-27
-------
El Paso County
Area of Detail
Monitoring
Site JUMX
Key:
Monitoring site
— County boundary
City
- US Interstate
Prevailing
wind direction
Release Categories:
Carbonvls
; Aromatics _ Olefms
Chlorinated Aromatics A Chlorinated Olefms
. Paraffins
T Chlorinated Paraffin
Figure 1-4. Location of Juarez, Mexico (JUMX) Monitoring Site in Relationship to
Potential Emission Sources
1-28
-------
in the UATMP VOC option. The closest facilities are located approximately 8 kilometers south-
southeast of the sampling site and reported releasing mixed isomers of xylene.
Table 1-13
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data)
in Relationship to JUMX
Direction
Distance
Compounds Emitted (Number of Reported Sources)
North
North-northeast
East-northeast
Southeast
Northwest
North-northwest
North-northwest
5 to 6 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (2), benzene (2), cumene, cyclohexane (2),
ethylbenzene (2), toluene (2), xylenes (2)
7 to 8 km Toluene
6 to 7 km Toluene
7 to 8 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, cumene, xylenes
24 to 25 km Toluene, xylenes
5 to 6 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, cyclohexane,
ethylbenzene, ethylene, propylene, toluene, xylenes
8 to 9 km Toluene, xvlenes
1-29
-------
X r
Area of Detail
Prevailing
wind direction
Key:
ir Monitoring site
— County boundary
City
- US Interstate
Monitoring
Site NOLA
Release Categories:
Carbonyls
v Aromatics Olefins
4 Chlorinated Aromatics A Chlorinated Olefins
" Paraffins
y Chlorinated Paraffins
Figure 1-5. Location of New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) Monitoring Site in Relationship
to Potential Emission Sources
1-30
-------
Table 1-14
Potential Source Locations (Based on 1994 TRI Data) in Relationship to
NOLA
Direction
Distance
Compounds Emitted (Number of Sources)
East-southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
South-southeast
South-southeast
South-southeast
South
10 to 11 km Ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene (mixed isomers)
12 to 13 km Xylenes
20 to 21km Toluene
22 to 23 km Xylenes
23 to 24 km Toluene
24 to 25 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (3), ethylbenzene (2), styrene, toluene,
xylenes (2)
29 to 30 km Xylenes
7 to 8 km Xylenes
14 to 15 km 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, toluene (2), xyienes
22 to 23 km Toluene
8 to 9 km Acrolein, propylene, toluene
1-31
-------
2.0 THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE 1995 NMOC DATA
This section characterizes the distributions of the data collected from the 1995 NMOC
program. Characterizing the statistical distributions of the data is important for accurate
interpretation of the collected samples. Being able to categorize a pollutant according to a
known statistical distribution (e.g., normal and lognormal distribution) provides a concise
method of describing the data. This report uses the shape of the distributions, in terms of their
symmetry and peakedness, as well the extent to which the distributions fit a normal or
log-normal distribution, to characterize the distributions. This section begins with a discussion
of the methods used to characterize the distributions and then discusses the results of applying
these methods to the data.
2.1 Methodology
A number of parameters and statistical tests can be used to characterize a set of data,
including the mean, median, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and hypothesis for equality
between mean values. Section 3.0 presents and discusses summary statistics for the data (i.e.,
means, median, standard deviations). This section analyzes the shape of the distributions, in
terms of symmetry and peakedness, and their conformity to normal and log-normal distributions.
The symmetry and peakedness of the dat are measured by skewness and the kurtosis parameters,
respectively. Each distribution is also tested for its conformity to both the normal and
log-normal distributions using the Shapiro-Wilk test and D'Agostino test for normality.
2.1.1 Skewness
The skewness of a distribution measures the symmetry of a distribution around its mean
value. A distribution that is not skewed (i.e., symmetric) will have the same shape on either side
of the median value.15 Skewness (a3) is calculated as:
(2-1)
2-1
-------
where:
n = The number of observations;
s = Sample standard deviation; and
X = The sample mean.
Positively skewed distributions (o3 > 0) have long tails that extend toward higher values, while
negatively skewed distributions (o3 < 0) have long tails extending toward lower values. A
distribution with a zero skewness, such as the normal distribution, is symmetrical around the
median and mean. A distribution with a skewness close to zero, in absolute value terms, can be
said to be closer to a normal distribution than one that is further from zero, in absolute value
terms.
The skewness of a distribution tells us in what direction (i.e., smaller or larger than the
mean) we are likely to see extreme values. Pollutants with positively skewed distributions might
generate concentrations well above the mean concentration, but might not result in
concentrations far below the mean concentration.
The estimated values of skewness will be affected by the presence of non-detects.
Non-detected values can be described as a truncation on the lower end of the distribution of daily
concentrations.16 Values lower than the detection limit have been assigned the arbitrary value of
one-half of the detection limit, as opposed to their true value, which is unknown. This implies
that the skewness of a distribution that contains non-detects will contain a positive bias. The
assignment of one-half the detection limit to non-detected values creates an artificial clustering
of data, at one-half the detection limit. The clustering will make the data appear asymmetrical
because observations are not allowed to take on their true values. Because the clustering is
below the mean, the bias to the skewness is positive.17 Thus, interpretation of the skewness
results should take into account the number of non-detects in the distribution.
2-2
-------
2.1.2 Kurtosis
Kurtosis measures the peakedness (or flatness) of a distribution. A relatively peaked
distribution will have thin tails while a relatively flat distribution will have broad tails.15
Kurtosis (o4) is calculated as:
o4 =
n(n
x. - x
- 3(n-l)2
n-2)(n-3)
(2-2)
where:
n = The number of observations;
s = Sample standard deviation; and
x = The sample mean.
The calculation of kurtosis used in this report is scaled so that a normal distribution will
have a zero kurtosis (o4 = 0). This is done by subtracting three from the normal measure of
kurtosis.18 Distributions with a positive kurtosis (o4 > 0) are relatively peaked with thin tails. A
negative kurtosis (o4 < 0) indicates a flat distribution with relatively broad tails. Thus, a
distribution with a kurtosis that is close to zero is closer to a normal distribution than one that is
further from zero (in absolute value terms).
The kurtosis of a distribution tells us the likelihood of observing values far from the mean
value. An urban air pollutant with a positive kurtosis can be expected to result in daily
concentrations that are close (as defined by the standard deviation of the data) to the mean more
often than daily concentrations that are far from the mean.
Non-detect values will bias the value of kurtosis in an indeterminate manner.
Non-detected values can be described as a truncation on the lower end of the distribution. Values
not detected are assigned the arbitrary value of one-half of the detection limit, as opposed to their
2-3
-------
true value which creates an artificial clustering of data at one-half the detection limit. The
direction of the bias caused by this cluster is indeterminate. If the true values are below one-half
the detection limit, then the kurtosis will be positively biased (i.e., too peaked). In other words,
observations that should broaden the tails are moved to a position where they contribute to the
peakedness of the data. The opposite is true (i.e., a negative bias) if the true values are close to
the mean and above one-half the detection limit. Therefore, interpretation of the kurtosis results
should take into account the number of non-detects in the data.
2.1.3 Testing for Normality and Log-Normality
The normal distribution provides a succinct and well-known way of characterizing a data
set. Data that is normally distributed has certain properties (e.g., symmetry, mean equal to
median) that simplify interpretation. The symmetrical property of normal distributions is
particularly useful for interpretation of urban air pollution data. Normal distributions are
symmetrical about the mean. Given an estimate of the mean and standard derivation of the data,
such as the sample mean and sample standard deviation, one can predict the frequency with
which certain concentrations will be exceeded hi a given time frame (e.g., a year).
This report compares the distributions of the collected data for this program to normal
and log-normal distributions. If a set of data is log-normally distributed, then the logarithms of
the data will exhibit the properties of a normal distribution. The hypotheses that each set of
concentrations at each site is normally (or log-normally) distributed is tested against the
hypothesis that they are not normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk19 test for normality is used
to perform these hypothesis tests.
If the data is normally distributed, W will equal one. Therefore, the null hypothesis in the
Shapiro-Wilk test is that W = 1. If W is significantly different from one then the data rejects the
hypothesis of a normal distribution.
2-4
-------
Failing to reject the hypothesis is not equivalent to proving a set of data is normally
distributed. A "fail to reject," or "insignificant difference," result says that no significant
difference exists between the sampled data and a sample drawn from a normal distribution. It
could be that not enough samples were collected to reject the hypothesis. For purposes of
interpretation though, this report will refer to data that fails to reject the hypothesis as normally
distributed if the test is performed on the data itself and as lognormally distributed if the test is
performed on the logarithms of the data.
Each test conducted in this section is done at the 5% level of significance. If the data is
normally distributed, then we can expect W to be within a 95% confidence interval of unity. The
W-statistic can only take on values that are less than one. Therefore, the confidence interval for
testing the hypothesis of W = 1 is only for values less than one. If the calculated value of W is
not within that interval, the value of W is said to be significantly different than one, and the
hypothesis of a normal distribution is rejected.
2.2 Distribution of Concentration Values
The D'Agostino Test was also used to examine the distribution of the data.20 D'Agostino
developed the D statistic to test the null hypothesis of normality or lognormality when n ^ 50.
To conduct the D test, the data are ordered from smallest to largest and the D statistic is
computed as shown in Equation 2-3:
n
£ [i - 0.5 (n + 1)] xi
D = —
n2s
where:
= [- E <*, -x)2]"2 (2-4)
n =
2-5
-------
The D statistic is then transformed to the Y statistic using Equation 2-5:
D - 0.28209479
Y = (2-5)
0.02998598/^n
The expected value of Y is zero if n is large and the data are drawn from a normal distribution. If
the distribution is not normal, then Y will tend to be either less than or greater than zero,
depending on the particular distribution. Thus, a two-tailed test is used so the hypothesis that the
distribution is normal is rejected if Y is less than the a/2 quantile or greater than the l-a/2
quantile of the distribution of Y.
2.2.1 NMOC Base Program
Three NMOC base sites participated in the 1995 NMOC program: Long Island, New
York (LINY); Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ); and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Data obtained
for the 1995 NMOC program were analyzed for skewness, kurtosis, and W and Y using the
untransformed data and the transformed data (natural logarithm). Results of the analyses for the
overall program and the individual sites are reported in Table 2-1. As expected, the combined
data from the three sites are lognormally distributed.
To provide a visual picture of the concentration distribution., a histogram was prepared
using the NMOC values at all three NMOC base sites. NMOC values ranged from 0.062 to
1.248 ppmC. To prepare the histogram, the number of NMOC values at each 0.05 ppmC interval
were summed between 0.05 and 1.00. Values greater than 1.00 were grouped together into a
single category. Figure 2-1 shows the histogram obtained for all of the 1995 NMOC data from
the three NMOC base sites. As is typical with ambient data, the distribution is skewed toward
the lower values. Approximately 30% of the data falls within the range of 0.15 to 0.30 ppmC
total NMOC.
2-6
-------
Table 2-1
Shape Statistics for All Sites in the Total NMOC Option
Site
LINY
NWNJ
P2NJ
Overall
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.867a
0.891"
0.9338
b
Normal
Skewness
1.514
1.198
0.822
1.180
Kurtosis
2.598
1.670
0.365
1.407
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.981
0.969
0.952"
c
Lognormal
Skewness
0.067
0.143
-0.420
-0.153
Kurtosis
-0.442
-0.587
-0.633
-0.509
"Significant at the 5% level.
bD-Agostino's Test: Y = -6.59, Y0 025 = -2.34 and Y0.975 = 1.54; therefore the distribution is not
normal.
cD-Agostino's Test: Y = 1.52, Y0025 = -2.34 and Y0975 = 1.54; therefore the distribution is
lognormal.
13
r »f O ccvrrcBCCi
Figure 2-1. 1995 NMOC Histogram for All Sites
2-7
-------
Interestingly, the W-statistic indicates that the data from P2NJ is neither normally
distributed nor lognormally distributed. The NMOC data at this site were further analyzed by
preparing a histogram of the data by summing the number of NMOC values at each 0.025 ppmC
interval between 0.2 and 0.4 ppmC. The histogram is shown in Figure 2-2. A maximum
frequency is found at the lower concentrations, yet the frequency remains fairly constant at the
higher concentrations. As shown in Figure 2-1, the P2NJ sampling site is located in a residential
suburban area upwind from most of the potential sources. The presence of a fleet of propane-
fueled vehicles in the vicinity of the sampling location may result in a fairly constant NMOC
background, however, the reason for the variability at P2NJ is unknown. It may be related to
specific sources or to meteorological conditions.
2.2.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Seven sites participated in the Speciated NMOC base program: Birmingham, Alabama
(B1AL, B2AL, B3AL); Dallas, Texas (DLTX); Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX); Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX); and New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA). Data obtained for the 1995 NMOC program
were analyzed for skewness and kurtosis using the concentrations and the logarithms of the
concentration. Analyses performed on the concentrations tested for normal distribution, and
analyses on the logarithms tested for lognormal distributions. The results for all seven sites
combined is presented in Appendix Table B-l 1. Results on a site-by-site basis are provided in
Appendix Tables B-l2 through B-l8.
The skewness and kurtosis values generated for the concentrations were all positive,
indicating that the concentration distribution for all of the compounds is more peaked than a
normal distribution and tails toward the higher concentrations. The skewness and kurtosis values
obtained for the distribution of the logarithms of the concentration are closer to zero, indicating
that the concentrations tend to be lognormally distributed. Lognormal distributions are typical of
environmental data, particularly ambient air samples; thus, these results are consistent with what
has been seen in other data and in previous program years.
2-8
-------
u
E
0 37S lo 0 4
8 10 12
Nambcr of OccvrrcBcci
16
20
Figure 2-2. 1995 NMOC Histogram for P2NJ
To provide a visual picture of the concentration distribution, histograms were also
prepared using the total NMOC at the seven Speciated NMOC base sites. Total NMOC values
ranged from 0 to 3,000 ppbC. To prepare the histograms, the number of total NMOC values at
each 50 ppbC interval were summed between 0 and 1,000. For values over 1,000 ppbC, intervals
of 1,000 were used. Figure 2-3 shows the histogram obtained for all of the 1995 Speciated
NMOC data at the seven Speciated NMOC base sites. As is typical with ambient data, the
distribution is skewed toward the lower values. Approximately 20% of the data falls within the
range of 100 to 150 ppbC total NMOC.
The distribution of the total NMOC data for the Speciated NMOC base sites was also
analyzed using the D'Agostino Test.20 The test was performed on the combined total NMOC
data for all sites and on the data for each individual site except for JUMX. Because less than 50
valid samples were collected at JUMX, the W test was used for JUMX. The tests were
2-9
-------
I
I
u
<50
50-100
100-150
150-200
200-250
250-300
300-350
350-400
400-450
45O-500
500-550
550-600
600-650
650-700
700-750
750-WO
(00-850
850-900
900-950
950-1000
1000-2000
200O-3000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
45 50 55 60
Frequency of Occurrence
65 70 75 SO 85 90 95 100 105
Figure 2-3. 1995 Histogram Showing Distribution of Total NMOC Concentrations For AH
Seven Speciated NMOC Base Sites.
performed on the data themselves and on the logarithms of the data. The hypothesis that the
data was normally distributed was rejected in all cases. Results of the hypothesis tests on the
logarithms of the concentrations is presented in Table 2-2. For the combined site data and for all
of the sites except B1AL, the hypothesis that the distribution was lognormal was accepted.
The total NMOC data at Bl AL were further analyzed by preparing a histogram (shown in
Figure 2-4) of the data as described earlier. Instead of having one peak that tails toward higher
concentration values, the histogram shows two peaks, one at 100 to 150 ppbC and one at 400 to
450 ppbC. This could possibly be produced by the nearness of the sampling site to the potential
sources. Because Birmingham is located in a valley, the prevailing winds tend to alternate from
blowing southwest to northeast. As shown in Figure 1-2, the B1AL site has potential sources
both to the southwest and to the northeast. The sampling site may be closer to potential sources
from one direction than the other. To determine the cause for the multimodal distribution and
2-10
-------
Table 2-2
Goodness of Fit Test Results for Total NMOC at the Speciated NMOC Base
Sites
Site
B1AL
B2AL
B3AL
DLTX
FWTX
JUMX
NOLA
All Sites
Number
of Data Test Used Symbol Value Result
77 D'Agostino Test Y -3.71 The distribution is riot lognormal
80 D'Agostino Test Y -1.50 The distribution is lognormal
79 D'Agostino Test Y -0.09 The distribution is lognormal
83 D'Agostino Test Y -3.25 The distribution is lognormal
. 79 D'Agostino Test Y 0.36 The distribution is lognormal
49 WTest W 1.41 The distribution is lognormal
79 D'Agostino Test Y 0.97 The distribution is lognormal
526 D'Agostino Test Y 0.50 The distribution is lognormal
<50 1
50-100 |
100-150 I
150-200 1
200-250 1
^ 250-300 1
£ 300-350 I
e P
* 350-400 •
1 I
T 400-450 •
1 f
| 450-500 •
u r
500-550 •
mmmmm
^^••^^^••B
^m^^mm^^mm
^mmm^mmm
•••^•••^•1
550-600 ••{••^•••••l
600-650 ^^^_
650-700 ^mmi^g
>7oo gmmi^H
6 g
Frequency of Occurrence
10
Figure 2-4. 1995 Histogram of Total NMOC at B1AL
2-11
-------
whether it is related to wind flow, wind flow data would be needed for the days the samples
were collected and a more detailed analysis of the data would be required.
2.2.3 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Two of the NMOC base sites participated in the Speciated NMOC option: Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ), and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Data obtained for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC option program were analyzed for skewness and kurtosis using the concentrations and
the logarithms of the concentration. Analyses performed on the concentrations tested for normal
distribution, arid analyses on the logarithms tested for lognormal distributions. The results for
both sites combined are presented in Appendix Table C-5. Results on a site-by-site basis are
provided in Appendix Table C-6. As with the SNMOC base data, the SNMOC option data
generally are better characterized by a lognormal distribution than by a normal distribution.
2.2.4 UATMP VOC Option
Five sites participated hi the UATMP VOC option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ),
Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), and Birmingham, Alabama (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL). Data
obtained for the 1995 UATMP VOC option program were analyzed for skewness, kurtosis, and
the W-statistic using the concentrations and the logarithms of the concentration. Analyses
performed on the concentrations tested for normal distribution, and analyses on the logarithms
tested for lognormal distributions. The results for all five sites combined is presented in
Appendix Table D-9. Results on a site-by-site basis are provided hi Appendix Tables D-10
through D-14.
For the UATMP VOC option, the distributions were further analyzed by comparing the
number of compounds at each site that had less than 25% non-detects that failed to reject the
hypothesis of a normal or lognormal distribution. The results are reported in Table 2-3. More
compounds failed to reject the hypothesis of a lognormal distribution than failed to reject the
2-12
-------
Table 2-3
Number of Compounds with less than 25 Percent Non-detects That
Fail to Reject the Hypothesis of a Normal Distribution
For the UATMP VOC Option
Straight
Site
B1AL
B2AL
B3AL
NWNJ
P2NJ
Totals
Less than
25%
non-detects
18
14
13
18
18
81
Fail to reject
null
hypothesis
10
6
8
11
15
50
Percentage
56%
43%
62%
61%
83%
62%
Logarithms
Fail to reject
null
hypothesis
12
11
12
16
16
67
Percentage
67%
79%
92%
89%
89%
83%
hypothesis of a normal distribution. This result indicates that the majority of the data are better
characterized by a lognormal distribution, as would be expected for ambient air monitoring data.
2.2.5 Carbonyl Option
Five sites participated in the carbonyl option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), Plainfield,
New Jersey (P2NJ), Dallas, Texas (DLTX), Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), and New Orleans,
Louisiana (NOLA). Data obtained for the 1995 Carbonyl Option were analyzed for skewness
and kurtosis using the concentrations and the logarithms of the concentration. Analyses
performed on the concentrations tested for normal distributions while analyses on the logarithms
tested for lognormal distributions. Generally, the data was better characterized by the lognormal
distribution. Acetone was better characterized by the normal distribution. Results for the overall
program are provided in Appendix Table E-9. Appendix Tables E-4 through E-8 provide the
results on a site-by-site basis.
2-13
-------
3.0 PROGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY
This section summarizes the statistical analysis of the data and includes discussions on
the number and frequency of occurrences, the distribution of the data, and determination of the
central tendency of the data using the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean and standard
deviation, and the median.
3.1 Prevalence (Number and Frequency of Occurrence^
This discussion summarizes the frequencies at which speciated compounds were detected
during the respective programs or options in 1995. Compounds that are detected frequently are
more likely to derive from ubiquitous sources, such as automotive exhaust or biogenic emissions.
Compounds that are detected infrequently may derive from occasional process upsets in local
industrial processes or other unnatural or natural disruptions.
3.1.1 NMOC Base Program
Three NMOC base sites participated in the 1995 NMOC program: Long Island, New
York (LINY); Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ); and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Total NMOC
was measured in 100% of the samples from all three sites.
3.1.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Seven sites participated in the Speciated NMOC base program: Birmingham, Alabama
(B1AL, B2AL, B3AL); Dallas, Texas (DLTX); Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX); Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX); and New Orleans , Louisiana (NOLA). For convenience, the Speciated NMOC
compounds were divided into three classes: paraffins, olefins, and aromatics. Both the number
and frequency of occurrence for the overall program for the three classes of compounds are
provided in Appendix Table B-l and frequency of occurrence is shown in Figures 3-1 through
3-3.
3-1
-------
iocs
90%
80V.
70%
60%
•s 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
95 Percent) le
Median
5 Percentite
Frequency
x
J
-—D-
ArOB«lic SpecUted NMOC Conponndi
32
24-
20-
12
Figure 3-1. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Aromatics in 1995
100%
90%
0%
,jllllllll«l.i,lellilllllll
i -" " i i 27tM i t' 4
SpcciMed Okfiu
Figure 3-2. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Olefins in 1995
3-2
-------
90%
70%
t 60%
|
•g 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
.A
3
TtT
56
32.i
28|
20
16
12
il
. H
^ *
I I
i I
Spcciated Paramos
Figure 3-3. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Speciated Paraffins in 1995
The paraffins and aromatic compounds occurred more frequently than the olefins. Three
compounds—toluene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and isopentane—were detected in all 524
samples. Toluene has been shown to originate predominately from mobile source emissions,
which are prevalent in all areas, so frequent occurrence is expected.21 Table 3-1 lists the
compounds detected most (>90%) and least (<10%) frequently during the 1995 Speciated
NMOC base program.
Compound prevalence in this study was compared to compound prevalence in Columbus,
Ohio, during June and July 1989. The Columbus, Ohio* study was designed to determine the
variability of hazardous air pollutants in ambient air. The prevalence results were compared
because the Columbus, Ohio, study analyzed for many of the same compounds and reported
frequency of occurrence.
3-3
-------
Table 3-1
Most and Least Frequently Detected Speciated NMOC Compounds for the
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compounds
Detected in <10%
of the Samples
Compounds Detected in >90% of the Samples
Isopropylbenzene
Propyne
2-Methyl-1 -pentene
1-Heptene
1-Nonene
1 -Decene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p- and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
/w-Ethyltoluene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
w-Butane
w-Pentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Isobutene and 1-Butene
Isoprene
a-Pinene
P-Pinene
1-Dodecene
2-Methylhexane/2-Methylpentane
Ten of the compounds detected with >90% frequency (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
m- and p-xylene, ethane, propane, isobutane, n-butane, and n-pentane) were detected with ^99%
frequency in Columbus, Ohio. Styrene was detected with 21% frequency in Columbus, Ohio,
and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected with 82% frequency. None of the other compounds
listed in Table 3-1 were included in the Columbus, Ohio, study.22
Number and frequency of occurrence for each of the seven sites is presented in Appendix
Table B-2 and frequency of occurrence is shown in Appendix Figures B-l through B-21,
Besides toluene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and isopentane, several additional compounds listed in
Tables 3-2 through 3-4 were detected in all of the samples at one or more of the seven sites.
Tables 3-2 through 3-4 also list compounds that were detected in 90% or more of the samples at
a given site.
3-4
-------
Table 3-2
Speciated Aromatic Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the
Samples Collected at a Site in 1995
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Site
B1AL B2AL B3AL DLTX FWTX JUMX NOLA
/ / x / / / /
///////
X X X / X / /
X X if * S S S
S x x x x / /
X X X X X / X
X
X X X X / X
X XXX
X XXX
X X i/ X / / S
S S S S S S S
X
•^ Detected in all samples.
x Detected in > 90% of samples.
3-5
-------
Table 3-3
Speciated Paraffin Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the
Samples Collected at a Site in 1995
Compound Name
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane +
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
Site
B1AL B2AL B3AL DLTX FWTX JUMX NOLA
x x / / / x
X X / / / X X
X X / / X
/ x x i/ S if if
///////
x / S / x x x
X X
/ / X
XXX
/ X X * V v V
X X X / / / X
X X X / / / X
X / / / X
X / /
XXX
xx / S / x
/ / X / / / /
x / S S x
/ ^ /
X X X / / / X
xx S S \
XXX
XXX
XX
X
X X /
X / X /
/ Detected in all samples.
x Detected in > 90% of samples.
3-6
-------
Table 3-4
Speciated Olefm Compounds Detected in 90 Percent or More of the Samples
Collected at a Site in 1995
Compound Name
Propylene
Isobutene and 1-Butene
2-Methyl-l-butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
a-Pinene
P-Pinene
1 -Undecene
Site
DIAL B2AL B3AL DLTX
/
/
X X
X / /
X
X X
XXX
/ / S x
S / x /
FWTX JUMX NOLA
X X
/ / X
X X
X
X X
X / /
/ / /
/ Detected in all samples.
x Detected in > 90% of samples.
Four compounds were not detected at one or more sites. 2-Methyl-l-pentene was not
detected in any of the samples from B2AL; 2-ethyl-l-butene was not detected in any of the
samples from JUMX; and 1-heptene was not detected in any of the samples from B3AL.
Propyne was only detected at DLTX. Table 3-5 lists compounds that were detected in 10% or
fewer of the samples at a given site.
3.1.3 Speciated NMOC Option
Two of the NMOC base sites participated in the Speciated NMOC option: Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ), and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Both the number and frequency of
occurrence for the overall option program are provided in Appendix Table C-1 and frequency of
occurrence is shown in Figures 3-4 through 3-6 for the aromatics, paraffins, and olefms. Again
the paraffins and aromatic compounds occurred more frequently than the olefms. Of
3-7
-------
Table 3-5
Speciated Compounds Detected in Less Than 10 Percent of the Samples at a
Site in 1995
Compound Name
Isopropylbenzene
Propyne
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
Cyclopentene
1 -Hexene
2 -Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Nonene
1 -Decene
1 -Tridecene
B1AL B2AL
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
x X
X
X
X X
X X
X , X
B3AL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site
DLTX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FWTX JUMX NOLA
XXX
XXX
XXX
x X x
XXX
X X
X X
X
X Not detected in any samples
x Detected in < 10% of samples.
3-8
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
>0%
10%
'0%
>0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
\ / ^\ /- -\
\ i \ / \ r
\ / V \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \/
\/ «
u
n
y
2 j i
i. i
95 Pcrcenti e
0 Median
5 Perc entile
a Frequency
1
X
E
D 0 n D D
HDTBDRUaUB.g
76
72
64
60
56
52 _
OO M O> O Jt oo
Concentration (ppbC
24
20
12
8
4
0
| { f ! f ! f f | 1
J 1 £ t * *
"*. T . "i
Aramlic Specified NMOC CoBpondl
Figure 3-4. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Aromatics for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option
90%
80%
70%
t 60%
a
2 50%
£-
= 40V.
r
30V.
20V.
10%
0V.
/" - ' -
•
1 | ]
* I 1
—
n-Rutwie
95 Percentile "
5 Percentile
BJ Frequency
"\ /A 7 ' N S m m '
m — • \ / •
V
'
• — •
\
\ /
\ /
\ /
r~~"^
\ /
y
i
n n
PI
n
n I!
n U n D n U
LDIJU'UlUDDHD
•'jiiii'ii'n'i
n n D
y H D H ,
= H 11 i
•* 1 f •
3 B
• e y e u
i
1 r
\ ' ' ' \
\
-
1
y
1
68
64
60
56
52
48
<1
3*!
"!
20
16
12
4
0
Figure 3-5. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Paraffins for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option
3-9
-------
100%
90V.
80V. . - _
70% . _
60% . -
50% - - _
«OV. . - _ _
30% . - _ _
20% . -
Sptcultd Okfuj
Figure 3-6. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Olefins for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option
the 78 compounds, 45 were detected in all 16 samples. Only one compound—2-ethyl-l-butene,
was not detected in any of the samples.
Both the number and frequency of occurrence for both of the sites are presented in
Appendix Table C-l and Appendix Figures C-l through C-6. Isopropylbenzene,
m-diethylbenzene, ethane, 3-methylpentane, «-decane, propyne, 1 -hexene, cw-2-hexene,
1-nonene, p-pinene, and 1-dodecene were detected more frequently atNWNJ. Cyclopentane,
2,3-dimethylbutane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, 2,2,3-trimethylpentane, trans-2-butene,
cw-2-butene, 1-pentene, 2-methyl-l-butene, cw-2-pentene, cyclopentene, 4-methyl-l-pentene,
1-heptene, and 1-octene were detected more frequently at P2NJ. Because the P2NJ site is located
upwind and further from the potential emission sites than the NWNJ site, frequency of
occurrence and concentration magnitude at this site are expected to be lower. However, as noted
above and in Section 3.2.4, some compounds occur more frequently and at higher concentration
levels at P2NJ. No explanation for these occurrences were identified.
3-10
-------
3.1.4 UATMP VOC Option
Five sites participated in the UATMP VOC option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ),
Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), and Birmingham, Alabama (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL). For
convenience, the UATMP VOC compounds were divided into two classes: the halogenated
compounds and the nonhalogenated compounds. Both the number and frequency of occurrence
for the overall program are provided in Appendix Table D-l and frequency of occurrence is
shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8.
The nonhalogenated compounds occurred more frequently than the halogenated
compounds. Nine of the 11 nonhalogenated compounds (m- and/?-xylene coelute) were detected
in all of the 43 samples. Only two—1,1,1-trichloroethane and carbon tetrachloride—of the 27
halogenated compounds were detected in all 43 samples. These two compounds were also
detected with 100% frequency in Columbus, Ohio.22 Of the 27 halogenated, 12 compounds were
not detected in any of the samples. Six of these compounds (vinyl chloride, chloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, cw-l,3-dichloro-propene, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane)
were also not detected in Columbus, Ohio.22
Both the number and frequency of occurrence for each of the five sites is presented in
Appendix Table D-2 and Appendix Figures D-l through D-10. Several additional compounds
were detected in all of the samples at one or more of the five sites. Chloromethane was detected
in all of the samples from Birmingham (B1AL, B2AL, B3AL) and in none of the samples from
NWNJ or P2NJ. In Columbus, Ohio, chloromethane was detected with 97% frequency.22
Methylene chloride, H-octane, tetrachloroethylene, and/?-dichlorobenzene were detected in all of
the samples from NWNJ, P2NJ, and B1AL. In Columbus, Ohio, methylene chloride was
detected in 86% of the samples, tetrachloroethylene was detected in 76% of the samples and/?-
dichlorobenzene was detected in 1% of the samples.22 Trichloroethylene was detected in all of
the samples from P2NJ. In Columbus, Ohio, trichloroethylene was detected in only 17% of the
samples.22 1,3-Butadiene was detected in all of the samples from B2AL. Several compounds
were detected at some sites and not at others.
3-11
-------
100%
90%
H>k>|enled UATMP VOC Compounds
Figure 3-7. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Halogenated UATMP VOCs in
1995
50%
30*
20*
0*
V
V
»5 tarattlle
it
t
25
K
V
5
nc
Nonhklogencted UATMP VOC Compound*
Figure 3-8. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Nonhalogenated VOCs in 1995
3-12
-------
Chlorobenzene was detected only at NWNJ and P2NJ. 1,2-Dichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane were only detected at NWNJ. Bromomethane was detected only at B2AL. In
Columbus, Ohio, bromomethane was not detected at all.22
3.1.5 Carbonyl Option
Five sites participated in the carbonyl option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), Plainfield,
New Jersey (P2NJ), Dallas, Texas (DLTX), Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), and New Orleans,
Louisiana (NOLA). Both the number and frequency of occurrence for the overall program are
provided in Appendix Table E-l and frequency of occurrence is shown hi Figure 3-9. Four
compounds—formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and hexaldehyde—were detected in all 41
analyzed samples. Four additional compounds—crotonaldehyde, butyraldehyde and
isobutyraldehyde (which coelute), and benzaldehyde—were detected in over 50% of the analyzed
samples. For comparison with other studies, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone were
detected in > 90%, butyraldehyde was detected in 17%, and crotonaldehyde and benzaldehyde
were detected in <2% of samples collected in Columbus, Ohio during June and July, 1989.22
Both the number and frequency of occurrence for each of the five sites is presented in
Appendix Table E-2 and frequency of occurrence is shown in Appendix Figures E-l through E-5.
Besides formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and hexaldehyde, six additional compounds were
detected in all of the samples at one or more of the five sites. Crotonaldehyde was detected in all
of the samples at DLTX, NOLA, NWNJ, and P2NJ. Butryraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde were
detected in all of the samples at NOLA, NWNJ, and P2NJ. Benzaldehyde was detected in all of
the samples at NWNJ and P2NJ. Propionaldehyde was detected in all of the samples at DLTX;
valeraldehyde was detected in all of the samples at P2NJ; and tolualdehyde was detected in all of
the samples at FWTX.
Four compounds were not detected at all at one or more sites. 2,5-Dimethylbenz-
aldehyde was not detected in any of the samples from DLTX, FWTX, and NOLA. Acrolein
3-13
-------
M%
~\ 7\ *^~—
i / \ / ^^
\ /
\ / \
\ / \ / ^
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
]i
\ / \
\ / \
\ / \
\/ \
\
\
\
\
\
^
»5 rtrcmmlUm
S t*rc*mtUt
— •— Fr«q»«»cy
r
/
/
\ /
\ /
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
^ \
\
\
\
\ -
\
\
V \
I
•
_ — — _ ..
1 1 i i -t ! 1 1
1 1 " " l i t I
£ i a 4
-s
I 1
* t i
f 1 1
IS J
iS = ">.
V
• M
- M
- M
14
- II
u
t
•
i
2
I
u
SpeciaMd Cftrbonyi Compound*
b
Figure 3-9. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Carbonyls in 1995
was not detected in any of the samples from NOLA and P2NJ; isovaleraldehyde was not detected
in any of the samples from DLTX or P2NJ. Tolualdehyde was not detected in any of the samples
from NOLA.
3.2 Range. Central Tendency, and Variability
The following section discusses the concentration range, central tendency, and variability
of the 1995 NMOC data.
Concentration range refers to the span of the concentration data, from lowest level to the
highest. To indicate the range of chemical concentrations measured at the site, both the lowest
and highest observed concentrations are reported. For most chemicals, at least one sample at
each site resulted in a non-detect, so the minimum concentration reported is one-half the
detection limit as discussed in Section 3.2.1.
3-14
-------
Median, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean concentrations are commonly calculated
as a measure of the central tendency of a concentration distribution. The shape of the
concentration distribution, however, determines the most appropriate value to use. Normally
distributed data (having bell-shaped curves) have equal arithmetic mean and median values. If
ambient air concentrations are normally distributed, the distribution central tendency would
exactly equal the median and arithmetic mean of an adequate number of 3-hour average
concentrations. As shown in many air monitoring studies,23 including previous NMOC reports,3
however, ambient air concentrations tend to more closely fit lognormal distributions. The
lognormal distribution is asymmetrical with a higher probability of "outlier" observations than
found in normal distributions. These outliers may exert an undue influence on the arithmetic
mean. In particular, arithmetic mean concentrations calculated for lognormally distributed data
generally overestimate the actual central tendency. The geometric mean more accurately
represents the central tendency of lognormally distributed data. Although the geometric mean
provides the best estimate of central tendency for NMOC monitoring results, the arithmetic mean
and median concentrations have also been included in the data analysis to allow the reader to
compare the results with other studies using these values instead of the geometric mean.
3.2.1 Treatment of Non-Detects
When analyzing ambient air monitoring data, something must be done with non-detect
observations. These observations can be ignored, assigned a concentration of zero, or assigned
some other proxy concentration. A non-detect result indicates that the actual chemical
concentration in a sample is somewhere between zero and the detection limit. As a best estimate
of the actual concentration, this study assigns all non-detect observations a concentration equal to
half the detection limit. This approach has been followed by many previous monitoring studies
and is the required approach for risk assessments involving environmental monitoring data.24
Because the approach used to deal with non-detects significantly affects the data analysis,
consistent approaches for treating non-detects should be used when comparing NMOC results to
the results of other studies.
3-15
-------
The accuracy of the central tendency estimates for any distribution ultimately depends on
the number and accuracy of the individual measures. Concentrations above detection limits can
be measured within acceptable accuracy bounds. Non-detect observations, however, cannot be
assigned an accurate chemical concentration; the assumed concentration of half the detection
limit represents only an estimate of the actual chemical concentration. Therefore, the accuracy of
central tendency estimates decreases with increasing number of non-detect observations. For
example, if a chemical has only "ND" readings for every sample, all the concentrations would be
assigned a value of half the detection limit, and the median, arithmetic mean, and geometric
mean would all equal this value; yet, the actual central tendency concentration could be
anywhere between zero and the chemical detection limit.
Variability refers to the spread of data observations about the central tendency value.
Variability in ambient air monitoring data may be useful to researchers examining the impact of
meteorological and emissions fluctuations on ambient air concentrations. Common measures of
the variability are the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation. Because standard
deviations increase with higher data values, standard deviations of different data sets (e.g., for
different chemicals) may not be comparable. The coefficient of variation, on the other hand,
expresses the standard deviation of a data distribution as a percentage of the arithmetic mean. By
scaling the standard deviation to the mean value, the coefficient of variation quantifies variability
on a uniform scale, allowing comparison across distributions for different sites and chemicals.
3.2.2 NMOC Base Program
Three NMOC base sites participated in the 1995 NMOC program: Long Island, New
York (LINY); Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ); and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Data obtained
for the 1995 NMOC program were analyzed for range, central tendency, and variability. Results
of the analyses for the overall program and the individual sites are reported in Table 3-6 and
depicted in Figure 3-10.
3-16
-------
Table 3-6
Summary Statistics for AH Sites in the NMOC Base Program in 1995
Concentration Range
(ppmC)
Site
LINY
NWNJ
P2NJ
Overall
Cases
79
83
79
241
Non-
Detects
1
0
0
1
Minimum
0.062
0.142
0.081
0.062
Maximum
0.914
1.010
1.248
1.248
Central Tendency of Concentration
(ppmC)
Mode
0.120
0.153
0.411
0.153
Median
0.247
0.338
0.408
0.314
Arithmetic
Mean
0.279
0.380
0.437
0.365
Geometric
Mean
0.235
0.341
0.360
0.307
Concentration Variability
Arithmetric
Standard
Deviation
0.174
0.185
0.259
0.218
Arithmetric
Coefficient
of Variation
0.623
0.487
0.593
0.597
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
1.803
1.593
1.938
1.830
Ul
-J
-------
I 4
I 2
I 0
08
06
04
02
NWNJ
P2NJ
Sift
LINY
Figure 3-10. Comparison of NMOC Concentrations at the NMOC Base Sites in 1995
Figures 3-10 and 3-15 through 3-20 show statistical
values in the form of a box plot. The maximum is depicted as a
solid circle located above the box and attached to the box via a
single, solid line. The top of the box represents the 95th
percentile and the bottom of the box represents the 5th ' —
percentile; thus 90% of the sample values fall within the box.
The median is depicted by a solid square within the box. Half of the samples are above the
median and half of the samples are below the median. The minimum is depicted as a solid circle
located below the box and attached to the box by a single, solid line.
Overall, P2NJ has the highest maximum, mode, median, and arithmetic and geometric
means. These results are surprising because the P2NJ site is expected to be upwind from most of
the sources during the summer sampling episode. However, the high NMOC levels could be
related to the fleet of propane-fueled vehicles in the parking lot next to the sampling site. The
3-18
-------
median propane levels are higher at P2NJ although the maximum observed propane
concentration occurred at NWNJ as discussed in Section 3.2.4. The site is also located near
roads with combined estimated traffic flows of 1500 vehicles per day. The median and
maximum acetylene concentrations are higher at P2NJ. Acetylene is associated with vehicle
emissions. The P2NJ is also located in a suburban residential area, so biogenic emissions could
be greater due to the presence of more plants. P2NJ has the widest range of measured
concentrations and the highest arithmetic and geometric standard deviations. No explanation is
available for the higher and more variable NMOC concentrations observed at P2NJ.
3.2.3 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Seven sites participated in the Speciated NMOC base program: Birmingham, Alabama
(B1AL, B2AL, B3AL); Dallas, Texas (DLTX); Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX); Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX); and New Orleans , Louisiana (NOLA). Data obtained for the 1995 NMOC program
were analyzed for range, central tendency, and variability. The results for all sites combined is
reported in Appendix Table B-3. The medians and 5 and 95 percentiles are plotted in Figures 3-1
through 3-3. Results on a site-by-site basis are provided in Appendix Tables B-4 through B-10.
The medians and 5 and 95 percentiles are plotted in Appendix Figures B-l through B-21.
Of the NMOC measured, an average of 78% is speciated by the GC/FID method. The
speciated NMOC data can be divided into three classes: aromatics, paraffins, and olefins. As
shown in Figure 3-11, the speciated NMOC for the Speciated NMOC base program sites
consists, on average, of 58% paraffins, 23% aromatics, and 19% olefins. Aromatic hydrocarbons
have been found to be 20 to 40% (on a carbon basis) of the total nonmethane hydrocarbon
concentration in the ambient air from a number of cities around the world.25 The composition of
each class is depicted in Figures 3-12 through 3-14. Isopentane, propane, and ethane constituted
approximately 30% of the paraffins. Toluene accounted for 30% of the aromatic class with m-
and/7-xylene and benzene contributing almost another 30 percent. In ambient samples collected
around the clock in 12 U.S. cities from 1979 to 1984, the average distribution of aromatic
hydrocarbons was found to be 36% toluene, 15% m- and/?-xylene, and 21% benzene.25 Although
3-19
-------
Figure 3-11. Distribution of the 78% of Identified NMOC between Compound Classes for
the 1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program Sites
Others
11%
Etham
10%
2,2,4-Tnmethylpenttnc
4%
-Methylhexmne + 2.3-
Dimethytpentane
4%
Iclhylpentane
4%
2-Me4iylpenlane
5%
Figure 3-12. Average Composition of Paraffin Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC in
1995
3-20
-------
1,2,4-Tnmethylbcnzene
8V.
Benzene
10V.
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
4V.
1,3,5-TnmethyIbenzene
3V.
p-Xylene •*• m-Xylene
17V.
o-Ethyltolliene
2V.
p-Elhyl toluene
2V.
p-Diethylbenzene
2V.
Others
2V.
Figure 3-13. Average Composition of the Aromatic Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC
in 1995
i-Pinene
9V.
Propylene
9V.
Othen
13V.
c-2-Pentene
2V.
2-Methyl-l-Buun.
3%
2-Methyl-2-Buten
4%
boprene
5%
UobuteiK + l-Buune
6%
Figure 3-14. Average Composition of the Olefin Class for the 78% of Speciated NMOC in
1995
3-21
-------
the ratio of toluene to m- andp-xylene and benzene combined is similar, the ratio of w- and/?-
xylene to benzene is higher than what was reported in 1979 to 1984. In the late 1970s, benzene
was declared a carcinogen and as a result its use has been phased out for applications where other
aromatic solvents can be substituted. Almost 30% of the olefin class is made up of ethylene and
acetylene.
3.2.4 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Two of the NMOC base sites participated in the Speciated NMOC option: Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ), and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). Data obtained for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC option program were analyzed for range, central tendency, and variability. The results
for both sites combined are presented in Appendix Table C-2. The medians and 5 and
95 percentiles are plotted in Figures 3-4 through 3-6. Results on a site-by-site basis are provided
in Appendix Tables C-3 and C-4. The medians and 5 and 95 percentiles are plotted in Appendix
Figures C-l through C-6.
Of the NMOC measured, an average of 85% is speciated by the GC/FID method-80% for
NWNJ and 90% for P2NJ. The speciated NMOC data can be divided into three classes:
aromatics, paraffins, and olefins. Figure 3-15 depicts the percentage of speciated NMOC that
belonged to each class. The majority of the speciated NMOC were paraffins. Isopentane,
propane, and pentane constitute, on average, 36% of the paraffin fraction. Approximately equal
percentages of the speciated NMOC belonged to the aromatic and olefin fractions. Toluene
represents about 40% of the aromatic fraction. The distribution of the total NMOC into the
aromatic fraction and of the aromatic fraction into toluene agrees well with what has been
reported previously.25 Approximately 40% of the olefin fraction is made up of ethylene and
acetylene.
Figure 3-16 depicts the percentage of speciated NMOC that belonged to each class on a
site basis. Although the medians tend to be similar for all three classes at both sites, the ranges
differ for the paraffins and olefins. At NWNJ the paraffins sometimes constitute a larger fraction
3-22
-------
80%
70%
60%
5 50%
I «"*
m
I 30%
i_
20V.
T
Paraffin
Clan
Olefm
Figure 3-15. Class Breakdown of Speciated NMOC for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Sites
E 30%
20',
*
T
JL
•
m
JL
•
T
JL
*
•
.AI
•
95 Percentile
^Maximum
^Minimum
5 Percentile
^Meditn
NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ
% Aromatic! •/• Paraffins % Olcfitu
Site
Figure 3-16. Comparison of Speciated NMOC on a Class and Site Basis for the 1995
Speciated NMOC Option Program
3-23
-------
and the olefms a smaller fraction of the speciated NMOC than at P2NJ. Figure 3-17 shows the
concentration ranges measured for each class at each site. The median at P2NJ is higher for all
three classes. The concentration range for the olefins is similar at both sites. For the aromatics
and paraffins, the range of concentrations observed is smaller at P2NJ. Figure 3-18 shows the
concentration ranges at both sites for the six compounds that constitute approximately 40% of
the speciated NMOC. In each case, the median concentration is higher at P2NJ than at NWNJ.
The range of concentrations observed are smaller for propane and n-pentane and are larger for
acetylene at P2NJ than at NWNJ.
3.2.5 UATMP VOC Option
Five sites participated in the UATMP VOC option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ),
Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), and Birmingham, Alabama (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL). Data
obtained for the 1995 UATMP VOC option program were analyzed for range, central tendency,
and variability. The results for all five sites combined is presented in Appendix Table D-3.
Figures 3-7 and 3-8 graphically display the median and the 5 and 95 percentiles. Results on a
site-by-site basis are provided in Appendix Tables D-4 through D-8. Appendix Figures D-l
through D-10 display the medium and 5 and 95 percentiles. The observed concentration ranges
for benzene, o-xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m- and/7-xylenes, and carbon tetrachloride were
similar to the concentration ranges observed in Columbus, Ohio22 for samples taken throughout
the day in June and July of 1989. The observed concentration ranges for acetylene and propylene
were larger than those observed in Columbus, Ohio.22 The observed maximum concentrations for
chloromethane, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloro-ethane, and tetrachloroethane were smaller
(sometimes by as much as a factor of 10) than those observed in Columbus, Ohio.22
3-24
-------
500
I 300
U
200
100
NWNJ
Aromaucs
P2NJ
I
NWNJ
Paraffins
P2NJ
NWNJ
Olcfins
P2NJ
Figure 3-17. Site Comparison of Speciated Class Concentrations for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Option Program
100
80 .
lion (ppbC)
C7-
O
;
e
1
u
40
20 -
0 .
I
JL
•
•
T
t
"w1
1
•
r
95 Percentile
0 Maximum
0 Minimum
5 Percentile
^Median
T
JL
r
JL
I
1
JL
1
T
I
T
1.
.
•
1
•
JL
i
T
JL
1
JL
1
t
NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ NWNJ P2NJ
Toluene Propane Isopeoune n-PeDOmc EUtylene Acetylene
Figure 3-18. Site Comparison of Compounds Comprising 40 Percent of Speciated
NMOC for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
3-25
-------
The UATMP VOCs can be divided into two fractions: the halogenated compounds (those
containing chlorine, bromine, or both) and the nonhalogenated compounds. Figure 3-19 shows
the median and concentration ranges for the sum of these two fractions and Figure 3-20 shows
the median percent of total UATMP VOC and the ranges in percent composition. The total
concentration of halogenated compounds is much less than nonhalogenated compounds.
Halogenated compounds only constitute from 6 to 50% of the measured UATMP VOC, whereas
the nonhalogenated compounds make up 50 to 94 percent.
As shown in Figure 3-21, the measured UATMP VOCs consist, on average, of
approximately 38% acetylene, 14% toluene, 9% propylene, 7% m- and/?-xylenes,
6% chloromethane, and 4% benzene. As shown in Figure 3-22, chloromethane constitutes
approximately 25% of the halogenated fraction. Methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
tetrachloroethane make up an additional 30% of the halogenated portion.
3.2.6 Carbonyl Option
Five sites participated in the carbonyl option: Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), Plainfield,
New Jersey (P2NJ), Dallas, Texas (DLTX), Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX). and New Orleans,
Louisiana (NOLA). Data obtained for the 1995 Carbonyl Option program were analyzed for
range, central tendency, and variability. These values are summarized for the overall program in
Appendix Table E-3. Figure 3-9 depicts the median and 5 and 95 percentiles. Concentration
range, central tendency, and variability for each of the five sites is presented in Appendix
Tables E-4 through E-8. Appendix Figures E-l through E-5 show the median and 5 and
95 percentiles for each compound on a site by site basis. The combined data was compared to
maximum values observed in Columbus, Ohio,22 throughout the day in June and July, 1989. The
observed maximum formaldehyde value was lower than at Columbus, Ohio.22 The observed
maximum acetaldehyde value was higher than at Columbus, Ohio;22 and the observed maximum
acetone value was similar.22
3-26
-------
70
SO
30
20
Halogeiuted Fraction
Nonhalogenaied Fraction
Figure 3-19. Comparison of Concentration Ranges of Different Fractions of VOC for the
1995 UATMP VOC Option
Ptrcrnl of UATMP VOC
90%
80% .
70%
60%
50%
40%
30V.
20%
10%
0% .
•
. 1
1 *
•
Halogenatcd Fraction
Nonhalogenated Fraction
Figure 3-20. Percentage of UATMP VOC Per Compound Class in 1995
3-27
-------
Acetylene
3«V.
Methylene Chloride
2%
Chlorom ethane
6%
«>,p - Xylene
7%
Figure 3-21. Composition of UATMP VOC Fraction in 1995
Chloromethane
25%
MelhyleiM Chloride
IS'/.
1,1.1 - Tnchloroethane
9V.
Tetrschloroethylene
IV.
Othcrt
20V.
1,1.2,2 - Tetrichloroenane
3%
Cirbon Tetrichloride
3V.
BromomeUunc
3V.
ChloroelhaiK
3V.
ins • 13- • Dichloroethylei*
4V.
1,2 - DickloroethiiK
5V.
Figure 3-22. Composition of Halogenated Fraction of the UATMP VOC in 1995
3-28
-------
As shown in Figure 3-23, the carbonyl fraction consists primarily of 14% formaldehyde,
62% acetaldehyde, and 16% acetone. Of the speciated carbonyl compounds, acetaldehyde has
the highest median and maximum concentrations and its measured concentration varies the most.
No explanation was identified for why acetaldehyde rather than formaldehyde was the most
abundant carbonyl measured. The median, maximums, and amount of variability in measured
concentrations are similar for formaldehyde and acetone. The other speciated carbonyl
compounds are detected only at trace levels and individually constitute only 2% or less of the
carbonyl fraction.
Oherl
4%
1%
ft! jrl I ««bu jrr«l dehjuk
1%
TWu»l*hy*5
2%
Figure 3-23. Composition of Carbonyl Fraction in 1995
3-29
-------
4.0 GEOGRAPHICAL COMPARISONS
One objective of the NMOC monitoring program is to allow comparison of VOC
concentrations in different airsheds or urban metropolitan areas. Comparisons include
contrasting VOC data collected at urban versus suburban and urban versus rural sites within an
airshed and between airsheds. Geographic comparisons of the data allow differences in airsheds
to be identified and quantified.
4.1 Metropolitan Area Comparison
Five different metropolitan areas were represented by the 1995 NMOC base and
Speciated NMOC base sites. These metropolitan areas are New York City, Birmingham, Dallas-
Fort Worth, El Paso-Juarez, and New Orleans. All of the base NMOC data was collected in the
New York City and Northeastern New Jersey airshed so no metropolitan area comparisons were
possible for the NMOC base data. The NMOC measured using TO-12 is usually higher than the
total NMOC measured using the GC/FID method. Higher values may be obtained using TO-12
because there is no column to retain compounds and NMOC greater than C13 can also be
included. Total NMOC measured using the GC/FID method is based on summing all of the peak
areas from C, to CI3. Thus, the base NMOC data was not compared with the Speciated NMOC
base data.
4.1.1 Speciated NMOC Compounds
Four metropolitan areas are represented by the seven sites participating in the 1995
Speciated NMOC base program: Birmingham, Alabama (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL); Dallas and Fort
Worth, Texas (DLTX, FWTX); Juarez, Mexico (JUMX); and New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA).
Comparisons were made between several parameters including prevalence of compounds and the
magnitude and variability of the measured concentrations.
4-1
-------
Frequency of occurrence of the aromatic compounds is depicted in Figure 4-1. The
aromatic compounds occur most frequently in the El Paso-Juarez area and least frequently in the
New Orleans area. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and the xylenes are prevalent in all areas
whereas isopropylbenzene occurs infrequently in all areas.
100%
90V.
80%
60V.
1
^ • Birmingham Area
• •• Dallms-Fort Worth Area
» El Paso-Juarez Area
• New Orleans Area
I j
,
X
X
i.
£
S
£ si s;
•&
D
4.
Figure 4-1. Frequency of Occurrence of Speciated Aromatics in 1995
Frequency of occurrence of the paraffin compounds is shown in Figure 4-2. The paraffin
compounds occur most frequently in the Dallas-Fort Worth and El Paso-Juarez areas and least
frequently in the Birmingham and New Orleans areas. Frequency of occurrence of the olefm
compounds is graphed in Figure 4-3. The prevalence of the olefins is fairly consistent from
metropolitan area to metropolitan area although there are differences in prevalence for some of
the olefin compounds. For example, c-2-pentene occurs less frequently in the New Orleans area
and f-2-hexene occurs more frequently in the El Paso area.
4-2
-------
low.
70%
•> IV1 •
'
r
40%
30V.
20%
10%
0%
BirmnghunArea
Dtflu-Fort Worth Arei
El Puo-JiwczArei
New Orleans Area
I I
|
t 1 1 f I
S,
u
5 1°
Figure 4-2. Frequency of Occurrence of Paraffins in 1995
5 50%
Birmingham Area
• •• Dallas-Fort Worth Area
Paso-iuarez Area
New Orleans Area
Figure 4-3. Frequency of Occurrence of Olefins in 1995
4-3
-------
On average, 78% of the total NMOC was speciated in each metropolitan area. The
average class composition of the speciated NMOC was calculated for each metropolitan area and
remained fairly consistent from area to area. The aromatic fraction varied the least from
metropolitan area to metropolitan area ranging from a low of 21% at New Orleans to a high of
24% at Birmingham. The paraffin fraction varied the most, ranging from 53% at Birmingham to
64% at El Paso-Juarez. The olefin fraction ranged from 14% at Juarez to 23% at Birmingham.
The average composition of each class was also examined. The composition of the
aromatic class was consistent between the metropolitan areas. However, differences were
observed in the composition of the paraffin and olefin classes. The compositions of the paraffin
and olefin classes for each metropolitan area are shown in Figures 4-4 through 4-11. The
composition of the paraffin class was very similar in Dallas-Fort Worth and in New Orleans. In
Birmingham, the isopentane fraction was slightly larger (22% versus 15%) and the propane and
ethane fractions were slightly smaller (7 to 10% versus 12 to 13%). The largest observed
difference hi the paraffin composition was observed for Juarez where propane comprised, on
average, 36% of the speciated paraffins. The relatively high percentage of propane
concentrations at the Juarez, Mexico (JUMX) site is consistent with a previous finding of high
alkane hydrocarbons, including propane, in Mexico City. In this study, Blake and Rowland
concluded that the observed high alkane concentrations were likely the result of leakage and
incomplete combustion of liquid petroleum gas (LPG), a common cooking fuel in Mexico, and
that these emissions contributed significantly to ozone formation in Mexico City.26
In Dallas-Fort Worth and Juarez, ethylene and acetylene combined, comprised greater
than 30% and a- and p-pinene comprised less than 10% of the olefin fraction. In Birmingham
and New Orleans, the olefin fraction consisted of less ethylene and acetylene and more a- and
P-pinene. In Birmingham, ethylene and acetylene comprised 25% and a- and P-pinene
comprised 19% of the olefin fraction while in New Orleans, ethylene and acetylene comprised
only 17% and a- and P-pinene comprised 36%, on average, a- and p-Pinene have been
associated with biogenic emissions. The observed levels of a- and P-pinene are consistent with
estimates of biogenic emissions that are available from the U.S. EPA BEIS2.2 biogenic
4-4
-------
2-Meihylpenunt
SV.
n-Buune
9%
J-Methylp"""
5%
2,2,4-Triinethylpentint
4V.
2-Methylhex>ne + 2,3-
Dimethyl pen tine
3%
n-H»»e
3%
3-Methylhex»ne
3%
Isobuline
3%
2.3-Dimelhylbuunc
Methylcyclopenune
2'/. n-Undeone
2V.
Iiopcnune
22%
Figure 4-4. Composition of Paraffin Fraction at Birmingham in 1995
2-Methylpenunt
6%
J-M«hylh«xtn« + 2.3
Dimethyl pen une
4V.
3-Methylhexine
4V.
3-Melhyipenune
4V.
2.2.4-Tnm«hylpen«ae
3V.
Isobuune
3%
n-Heptanc
3V.
M«hylcyclohex«ne
2V.
Mclhylcyclopentin
2V.
Isopentane
15V.
Figure 4-5. Composition of Paraffin Fraction at Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995
4-5
-------
c-fertur
5%
2-Mthylhtxue + 2,3-
D»t by) pent ant
3%
3-Mlkylpert
3*
2-MttypeBluc
3%
»*
2,2,4-IHKthylpcilt
3%
Figure 4-6. Composition of Paraffin Fraction at Juarez in 1995
2-M0thylp*nune
4%
3-Methylpentinc
4V.
3-Methylhexane
4%
n*Hexane
3%
2-Methvlhex>ne + 2,3.
Dimethylpenlane
3%
2.2.4-Trimethyipenlane
3*/.
2,3-Dimelhylbutan
Methylcyclopenlane
2*" n-HcpUne
2V.
Figure 4-7. Composition of Paraffin Fraction at New Orleans in 1995
4-6
-------
b-Pinene
IV.
Iiobutene + l-Bulene
4V.
2-Melhyl-2-Butene
4V.
1-Pentene
4V.
t-2-Pentene
3V.
2-Methyl-l-Buten
3V.
4-Methyl-l-Penten
2%
Acetylene
13V.
Figure 4-8. Composition of Olefm Fraction at Birmingham in 1995
2-Methyl-2-Butene
4V.
•-Pinene
3%
2-Methyl-l-Butene
3V.
c-2-Pentene
3V.
Isoprene
2V.
Isobutene + I
-------
b-Pmene
5%
Isobutene •*• l-Butene
6V.
a-Pmenc
4%
2-Methyl-2-But«>e
3V.
2-Methyl-)-Bulene
3V.
1,3-Buudiene
2V.
c-2-Pentene
2V.
Othere
10V.
Figure 4-10. Composition of Olefin Fraction at Juarez in 1995
Propylene
7V.
Isobulene •*• !-Butene
5V.
2-Melhyl-2-Bulene
2V.
t-2-Pentcne
2V.
2-Methyl-l-Butene
* 1-Penlcn
2V.
l-Undecene
12V.
Figure 4-11. Composition of Olefin Fraction at New Orleans in 1995
4-8
-------
emissions model and with average rainfall amounts for each city (more rainfall produces more
biomass).27 The southern cities of New Orleans and Birmingham have, on average, over
50 inches of precipitation per year, while Dallas has 32 inches and El Paso less than 8 inches per
year on average.13 The NOLA sampling site is located near to lake Pontchartrain which may also
contribute to biogenic emissions. Acetylene is generally associated with emissions from motor
vehicles.
The ranges and central tendencies of the measured
concentrations were also compared for selected compounds using
box plots. The maximum is depicted as a solid circle located
above the box and attached to the box via a single, solid line.
The top of the box represents the 95th percentile and the bottom
of the box represents the 5th percentile; thus 90% of the sample
values fall within the box. The median is depicted by a solid
square within the box. Half of the samples are above the median and half of the samples are
below the median. The minimum is depicted as a solid circle located below the box and attached
to the box by a single, solid line. This type of box plot is used for Figures 4-12 through 4-16,
4-18 through 4-20,4-22 through 4-26,4-30 through 4-33,4-35,4-46 through 4-55,4-57 through
4-59, and 4-61 through 4-67.
As examples, the results for toluene, ethane, and acetylene are shown in Figures 4-12
through 4-14. Generally the median concentrations were highest at Juarez and lowest either at
Birmingham or New Orleans. In some cases, such as shown for cc-pinene in Figure 4-15, the
lowest median concentrations occurred at Dallas-Fort Worth and the highest concentrations
occurred at either Birmingham or New Orleans.
Also, although the measured concentrations sometimes exhibited a high maxima, such as
for toluene at Dallas-Fort Worth, the toluene fraction of the total NMOC remained relatively
constant as shown in Figure 4-16.
4-9
-------
200
180
120
100
60
40
20
Birmingham Area
Da Has-Fort Worth Area El PuoOuarez Area
Metropolitan Area
New Orleans Area
Figure 4-12. Toluene Concentrations at Different Metropolitan Areas in 1995
50
e
=
30
20
Birmingham Area Dallas-Fort Worth Area • El Paio-Juarez Area
Metropolitan Area
New Orleuu Area
Figure 4-13. Ethane Concentrations Measured at Different Metropolitan Areas in 1995
4-10
-------
i
100
80
70
60
I ,0
20
Birmingham Area Dallas-Fort Worth Area El Paso*Juarez Area
Metropolitan Area
New Orleans Area
Figure 4-14. Acetylene Concentrations at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995
25
20
I '5
I
Birmingham Area Dallai-Fon Worth Area El Puo-Juarez Area New Orleans Area
Mo»tk
Figure 4-15. cc-Pinene Concentrations at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995
4-11
-------
10V.
9V.
8V.
7V.
g *
z
£ 5V.
c
e
•s
X 4V.
IV.
0V.
t
Birmingham Area Dallas-Fort Worth Area El Paso-Juarez Area
Metropolitan Area
New Orleans Area
Figure 4-16. Comparison of Toluene Fraction at Various Metropolitan Areas in 1995
4.1.2 UATMP VOC Discussion
UATMP VOC data was collected in two of the five metropolitan areas: the New York
City area (NWNJ, P2NJ) and the Birmingham area (Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL). Frequencies of
occurrence of the 28 UATMP VOC halogenated compounds for these two metropolitan areas is
shown in Figure 4-17. The frequency of occurrence is very similar between the two metropolitan
areas with several compounds (such as trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene) appearing
more frequently in the New York City Area. The 1994 TRI data base reported several potential
emission sources of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene upwind of the NWNJ sampling
site. Two compounds (chloromethane and bromomethane) occurred more frequently in
Birmingham. The frequency of occurrence of the nonhalogenated compounds was also similar
with the exception that 1,3-butadiene and w-octane occurred more frequently in the New York
City area. The 1994 TRI data base also reported potential emission sources of 1,3-butadiene
upwind of the NWNJ sampling site.
4-12
-------
Figure 4-17. Frequency of Occurrence of Halogenated VOC in 1995 by Metropolitan Area
The UATMP VOC analyte list is composed of halogenated compounds and
nonhalogenated compounds so the fraction of the total measured concentration that is
halogenated or nonhalogenated can be compared between metropolitan areas. Figure 4-18
compares the median, maximum, minimum, and 5 and 95 percentiles of these two fractions on a
percent of total VOC basis. The medians are similar for both metropolitan areas (approximately
20% halogenated). However, the composition is more consistent in New York City where the
halogenated fraction ranges only from approximately 6 to 30% as compared to 6 to 50% in
Birmingham. No explanation was identified for the larger variation in Birmingham.
4-13
-------
O
>
fl-
D
i2
O
ov.
.
m
L^J
t
_l_
•
L.J
^u
"
^
^_
•
•^
i
-
•New York City Birmingham
Halogenated Fraction
New York City
Birmingham
Metropolitan Ar«a
Nonhalogenated Fraction
Figure 4-18. Comparison of Composition of UATMP VOC in 1995 by Metropolitan Area
The ranges and central tendencies of the measured concentrations were also compared for
selected compounds. Figure 4-19 compares measured concentrations for chloromethane,
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and tetrachloroethylene in the New York City and
Birmingham areas. The median chloromethane concentration was similar for both metropolitan
areas. However, the median concentrations were higher in the New York City area for
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and tetrachloroethylene. All three of these compounds
were reported in the 1994 TRI data base as having been released from a facility within
13 kilometers of the NWNJ sampling site. Figure 4-20 compares measured concentrations for
acetylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, and m- and/?-xylenes (which coelute). The median
concentration for all five compounds was lower in Birmingham than in New York City;
however, for benzene and toluene, the maximum concentration was significantly higher in
Birmingham. According to the 1994 TRI data base, several facilities upwind of the Bl AL site
reported releasing benzene or toluene to the air so these high maximum concentration spikes
4-14
-------
30
25
20
>
&
I ,5
1 0
95 Percentile
Maximum
Mini mum
S Percenule
Median
fl
i
Ne» York dry
Cbloromethmne
trmngham New York Off Binnntham New York Cin Bnmgham New York City Bumnghain
Mctfeylcne Chlondc 1,1,1- Tetr«chlorocth> kne
Tnchloroelhane
Metropolitai Arn/Co«ipoyad
Figure 4-19. Comparison of Selected Halogenated Compound Concentrations in 1995 at
New York City and Birmingham
W Itrcntlle
» Mam
5 Ftrccdile
• Nad an
I
^
Nw)krkai> Inli
Figure 4-20. Comparison of Selected Nonhalogenated VOCs in 1995 at New York City and
Birmingham
4-15
-------
could be related to process releases. Benzene and toluene are also associated with motor vehicle
emissions and the Bl AL site is located near a freeway on which an estimated 80,000 vehicles per
day travel.
4.1.3 Carbonyl Discussion
Carbonyl data was collected in three of the five metropolitan areas: the New York City
area (NWNJ, P2NJ), the Dallas-Fort Worth area (DLTX, FWTX), and the New Orleans area
(NOLA). Frequencies of occurrence of the 16 carbonyl compounds for these three metropolitan
areas are shown hi Figure 4-21 and provided hi Table 4-1. Butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde
coelute and are reported as one compound. The meta-, ortho-, and para-tolualdehydes are also
reported as one compound because they are incompletely resolved by the analytical system.
The three metropolitan areas are similar in that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and
hexaldehyde were measured in all of the samples from all three areas. Aldehydes are ubiquitous
in urban air, where they are emitted by a variety of mobile and stationary sources. Acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, acetone, propionaldehyde, and acrolein have been measured in the emissions of
gasoline-fueled vehicles.28-29 Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, crotonaldehyde,
isobutyraldehyde, benzaldehyde, isovaleraldehyde, valeraldehyde, p-tolualdehyde, and
hexaldehyde have been measured in the emissions of engines using No. 2 diesel fuel.30 In
addition, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, the most abundant species, are formed in situ by the
oxidation of virtually all hydrocarbons.
Figure 4-21 also highlights areas where differences exist between the metropolitan areas.
Acrolein was not detected in any of the samples from New Orleans. New Orleans also had a low
frequency of samples containing propionaldehyde and had a lower frequency of samples
containing benzaldehyde than Dallas-Fort Worth and New York City. Isovaleraldehyde was
detected more frequently in New Orleans than in the other two metropolitan areas. 2,5-Di-
methy-benzaldehyde was only detected in the New York metropolitan area. Valeraldehyde was
detected less frequently in the Dallas-Fort Worth area than hi New Orleans or New York City.
4-16
-------
100%
90%
80V.
70%
60%
•s 50%
I
40%
» —Dallas-Fort Worth Area
.New Orleans Area
New York City Area
I
Conpoud
Figure 4-21. Between Metropolitan Area Comparison of Frequency of Occurrence in 1995
for the Carbonyl Compounds
Table 4-1. Comparison of Number and Frequency of Occurrence of
Carbonyl Compounds by Metropolitan Area
Dallas-Fort Worth
Metropolitan Area
New Orleans
Metropolitan Area
New York City
Metropolitan Area
Number of Frequency Number of Frequency Number of Frequency
Compound Occurrences (%) Occurrences (%) Occurrences (%)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaidehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
16
16
5
16
14
15
13
14
1
4
13
16
0
100%
100%
31%
100%
88%
94%
81%
88%
6%
25%
81%
100%
0%
8
8
0
8
1
8
8
3
3
5
0
8
0
100%
100%
0%
100%
13%
100%
100%
38%
38%
63%
0%
100%
0%
17
17
5
17
9
17
17
17
2
13
9
17
3
100%
100%
29%
100%
53%
100%
100%
100%
12%
76%
53%
100%
18%
4-17
-------
The ranges and central tendencies of the measured concentrations were also compared for
selected compounds. Figure 4-22 depicts the total carbonyl (sum of all 16 carbonyl compounds)
measured in each metropolitan area. Based on visual inspection of the plot, the total carbonyl
concentration appears to be similar in the New York City and Dallas-Fort Worth areas and to be
much higher in New Orleans.
Figures 4-23 and 4-24 compare the amount of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde measured
in the three metropolitan areas. Measured formaldehyde and acetaldehyde values were similar in
the New York and Dallas-Fort Worth areas. The 1994 TRI data indicated there were several
potential emissions sources for formaldehyde in these areas. Formaldehyde levels were lower in
the New Orleans area where the 1994 TRI data did not indicate any potential emission sources.
However, acetaldehyde concentrations were much higher in New Orleans. No explanation for
the high acetaldehyde levels was found. Ambient levels of acetaldehyde will be higher in areas
where ethanol fuel is used.31 Acetaldehyde can also be emitted from coal-fired power stations at a
concentration approximately four times that of formaldehyde.32 No information on the type of
fuel used in new Orleans or the proximity of the NOLA sampling site to a coal-fired power
station was obtained.
Besides acetaldehyde, several other carbonyl compounds were present at higher
concentrations in New Orleans. Figures 4-25 and 4-26 compare the amount of butyraldehyde
and isobutyraldehyde (which coelute) and hexaldehyde measured in the three areas. Based on
visual inspection of the plots, the butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde and hexaldehyde
concentrations appear to be very similar in New York and Dallas-Fort Worth and to be much
higher in New Orleans.
Another way to evaluate the metropolitan areas, is by examining the ratio of formaldehyde
to acetaldehyde and acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde. Examining these ratios allow the data to
be compared to other data and also indicate how predominant anthropogenic sources are. In
computing the acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde ratio, one-half the detection limit was used for
4-18
-------
90
80
70 -1
? 60
t
I ,„
Content™
-* *.
D O
20
10
0 -
-**m
•
hr
_JL_
•
^•^
•
|™*~|
*
1 I •
Dallas-Fort Worth New Orleans New York City
Metropolitan Area
Figure 4-22. Total Carbonyls Measured at Each Metropolitan Area in 1995
Dal I ai-Fort Worth
New Orleans
Metrapolitaa Area
New York City
95 Percent] Ie
I Maximurn
^Minimum
5 Percenule
• Median
Figure 4-23. Comparison of Formaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Area in 1995
4-19
-------
80
70
60
t»
l
t
£ 40
w
5
30
20
10
o
_1_
•
""W"
*•
•
^r^
•-1-J
m
L.J
Da lias- Fort Worth New Orleans New York City
Metropolitan Area
Figure 4-24. Comparison of Acetaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Areas in 1995
I 2
08
I
06
04
02
00
Dillu-Fon Worth
New Orleans
Metropolitan Ana
New York City
Figure 4-25. Butyraldehyde and Isobutyraldehyde Concentrations in 1995 by Metropolitan
Area
4-20
-------
1 0
I OS
04
02
00
Dallas-Fort Worth
New Orleans
Metropolitan Area
New York City
Figure 4-26. Comparison of Hexaldehyde Levels by Metropolitan Area in 1995
The composition, on average, of the carbonyl fractions for the three metropolitan areas
was also determined by dividing the arithmetic mean concentration for each speciated carbonyl
compound by the arithmetic mean for the sum of all of the speciated carbonyl compounds.
Figures 4-27 through 4-29 present the results. The composition of the carbonyl fraction in New
York City and in Dallas-Fort Worth was very similar for the major components (formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and acetone). However, the composition of the carbonyl fraction in New Orleans
contained a much larger percentage of acetaldehyde and a much lower percentage of acetone and
formaldehyde which correlates with the concentration. --
4-21
-------
Crotonildebyde
2V.
Toltuldehydes
2V.
Butyr/Uobutyraldehyde
IV.
Others
4V.
Figure 4-27. Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in New York City in 1995
Acetone
10V.
Formaldehyde
4V.
Heuiuldehyde
2V.
Butyr/liobutyrtldehydi
2V.
Figure 4-28. Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in New Orleans in 1995
4-22
-------
Acetone
17%
Figure 4-29. Composition, on Average, of Carbonyl Fraction in Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995
the cases where propionaldehyde was not detected. High formaldehyde to acetaldehyde
concentration ratios may indicate a biogenic source of formaldehyde. For example,
formaldehyde is a major reaction product from the oxidation of isoprene. Propionaldehyde is
mostly of anthropogenic origin. Thus, acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde ratios may be an
indicator of anthropogenic pollution. However, these ratios will vary significantly between
urban areas (0.3 to 14.3 for formaldehyde to acetaldehyde and 1.7 to 49 for acetaldehyde to
propionaldehyde) so the data should be carefully interpreted.31 Figures 4-30 and 4-31 present the
median, maximum, minimum, and 5 and 95 percentiles of these ratios for each metropolitan area.
4-23
-------
1
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
T
•
••
1
M
1
JL
•
.
1
m
mm
•
95 Percentile
d Maximum
e Minimum
5 Percentile
g Median
Dallas-Fort Worth New Orleans New York City
Metnpolilil Area
Figure 4-30. Comparison of Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratio for Metropolitan
Areas in 1995
I
•s
1
I
c
300
250
200
1 00
050
000 1-
D»ll«J-Fort Worth
New Orleuu
Mctrapolitai Art«
New York Ciry
Figure 4-31. Formaldehyde to Acetaldehyde Ratio Comparison for Metropolitan Areas in
1995
4-24
-------
The acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde ratio was most consistent in the Dallas-Fort Worth
area and was generally highest in the New Orleans area where the highest concentration levels of
acetaldehyde were measured. The measured ratios were quite high (as high as 1000 to 2500:1)
compared to the ratios measured in diesel gas (approximately 12:1),30 in ambient air samples in
Italy (approximately 4:1 in urban air and 10:1 in nonurban air)28 and in ambient air samples
outside Los Angeles (approximately 2:1).33 For the counties for which 1994 TRI data was
collected, propionaldehyde was only reported at one source, located 1 to 4 kilometers southeast
of the NWNJ sampling site. Figure 4-32 displays the measured propionaldehyde concentration
ranges and central tendency for the three metropolitan areas. For New Orleans the median,
minimum and 5 percentile are all equal to one-half the detection limit indicating that
propionaldehyde was detected in less than 50% of the samples. Examination of Figure 4-21
indicates that propionaldehyde was detected in fewer than 20% of the samples from the New
Orleans metropolitan area. This high incidence of nondetects may explain the high observed
acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde ratios. Figure 4-33 depicts the acetaldehyde to
propionaldehyde ratios when the nondetects are excluded. The median ratio for all three
metropolitan areas is approximately 40:1 which is more reasonable, although still high compared
to most other published data.
The formaldehyde to acetaldehyde ratios are generally less than 0.25, being smallest for
the New Orleans area where the acetaldehyde concentrations were highest. The measured ratios
were quite low compared to the ratios measured hi diesel gas (approximately 5:1),30 in ambient
air samples in Italy (approximately 1:1 in urban air and 2:1 in nonurban air)28 and in ambient air
samples outside Los Angeles (approximately 2:1).33 However, they are similar to ratios measured
in areas where ethanol fuel is used (0.29-0.95 in Brazil)31 and hi the exhaust from coal-fired
power plants (0.26).32
4.2 Comparison of Urban. Suburban, and Rural Areas
Six different land uses were represented by the 1995 NMOC base and Speciated NMOC
base program sites. These land uses are urban industrial (NWNJ), urban commercial (FWTX,
4-25
-------
1 8
1 6
1 4
? 12
I
1 10
S
e
tt
u
c 08
U W5
0 6
0 4
0 2
_i—
IV
•
•*
ft—
T
•
^^.
Dalits- Fort Worth New Orleans New York City
Metropolitan Area
Figure 4-32. Propionaldehyde Concentration by Metropolitan Area in 1995
140
120
-|
K
i
£
•S
< 40
±
T
Dalll»-Fort Worth
New Orleuu
Metro polilM Are«
New York City
95 Percent! k
Maximum
Mini mum
S Perc entile
Median
Figure 4-33. Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratios without Nondetects in 1995
4-26
-------
DLTX, JUMX), suburban commercial (LINY), suburban residential (P2NJ, BIAL, NOLA), rural
residential (B2AL), and rural agricultural (B3AL).
4.2.1 NMOC Results
Each of the three NMOC base program sites was located in a different land use area. One
site (NWNJ) was located in an urban industrial area, one site (LINY) was located in a suburban
commercial area, and one site (P2NJ) was located in a suburban residential area. Comparison of
the measured concentration ranges and central tendency of the data was discussed in
Section 3.3.1, provided in Table 3-11, and displayed in Figure 3-14 on a site specific basis.
The suburban residential area exhibits the highest maximum, mode, median, arithmetic
and geometric means, the widest range of concentrations, and the highest arithmetic and
geometric means. The reason for the highest observed NMOC concentrations in a residential,
suburban area when compared to the more urban or commercialized areas is unknown. The
range of measured NMOC concentrations is similar for the urban industrial area and the
suburban commercial area with the maximum, median, and minimum shifted to slightly lower
values for the suburban commercial area.
Figure 4-34 exhibits the average monthly NMOC concentration plotted for each of the
land use types. At all three sites the average NMOC concentration increases in July, decreases in
August, and increases again in September. The monthly variation is smallest (less than 50 ppbC)
for the suburban commercial area (LINY) and largest (approximately 100 ppbC) for the urban
industrial area (NWNJ). No explanations for the variations other than random variability were
identified.
4-27
-------
500
450
400
350
S 300
P. 250
a
U
U
o
S
z
200
150
100
50
0
*— Urban IndnitrUI (NWNJ)
•• Suburban Residential (P2NJ)
—* — Suburban Commercial (LINY)
JIB-95
JU-95
Sep-95
Mot hi y Averages
Figure 4-34. 1995 NMOC Monthly Variations for the Three Base NMOC Sites
4.2.2 Speciated NMOC Results
Four land use types are represented by the seven sites participating in the 1995 Speciated
NMOC base program: urban commercial (DLTX, FWTX, JUMX), suburban residential (Bl AL,
NOLA), rural residential (B2AL), and rural agricultural (B3AL). Comparisons were made
between several parameters including prevalence of compounds, composition of the air, and the
magnitude and variability of the measured concentrations.
First, the total NMOC measured by the Speciated NMOC (GC/FID) method for each land
use area was examined and compared to the results obtained using the NMOC base program data
measured by TO-12. The medians, maximums, minimums, and 5 and 95 percentiles for the four
represented land use types are presented in Figure 4-35. The maximum observed total NMOC
concentration for the Speciated NMOC data occurred in the urban commercial area. The median
total NMOC concentration for the Speciated NMOC data was similar between the urban
4-28
-------
3000 -
2500 -
2000 J
o
.0
E 1500 -
o
c
o
u 1000 -
500 '
1
i
I 1
n n
1
r1 . -r . B
0 1 i i i
Urban Suburban Rural Rural
Commercial Re»idential Reiidential Agricultural
Land U«e
Figure 4-35. Central Tendencies and Ranges by Land Use Type for Total NMOC
Measured by the Speciated NMOC (GC/FID) Method in 1995.
commercial and suburban residential areas. Both of these concentrations were higher than the
median total NMOC concentrations for the speciated NMOC data observed hi the rural areas.
Interestingly, the range of observed total NMOC concentrations for the Speciated NMOC data
for the rural agricultural area and the suburban residential area were similar. The rural residential
area exhibited the smallest total NMOC concentration range for the Speciated NMOC data. The
results from comparing total NMOC measured by the Speciated NMOC (GC/FID) method
versus land use are different from the results comparing NMOC measured by TO-12 versus land
use in that the residential areas do not exhibit higher and more variable total NMOC
concentrations measured by the Speciated NMOC (FID) method than the urban areas. The
reason for the observed difference between urban and residential areas is unknown.
4-29
-------
On average, 77 to 81 % of the total NMOC was speciated for each land use type. The
average class composition of the speciated NMOC was calculated for each land use and was
found to be dependent on land use as shown hi Figure 4-36. The aromatic fraction showed the
least dependence on land use, ranging from 18% in rural agricultural areas to 26% in rural
residential areas. The paraffin fraction showed the most dependence on land use, ranging from
45% in the rural residential areas to 61% hi the rural agricultural areas. The olefin fraction
ranged from 16% hi the urban commercial areas to 29% in the rural residential areas.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Urban Commercial Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laid UK
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-36. Comparison of Class Composition of the Speciated NMOC with Land Use in
1995
4-30
-------
The average composition of each class was also examined. The composition of the
aromatic class was independent of land use. However, differences were observed in the
composition of the paraffin and olefm classes based on land use. The compositions of the
paraffin and olefm classes for each land use are shown in Figures 4-37 through 4-44.
Composition of the paraffin fraction was very similar in suburban residential and rural residential
areas. In urban commercial areas, the isopentane was slightly lower (13% versus 16 to 20%)
and the propane fraction was slightly larger (19% versus 12 to 13%). The largest observed
difference in the paraffin composition was observed in rural agricultural areas where isopentane
comprised, on average, 29% of the speciated paraffins.
In the urban commercial areas, the combined acetylene and ethylene concentration
comprised 34%, a- and P-pinene comprised less than 10%, and isoprene comprised 3% of the
olefm fraction. In the suburban residential area the olefin fraction consisted of slightly less
acetylene and ethylene (28%), much more a- and P-pinene (22%), and about the same amount of
isoprene (4%). In the rural residential and rural agricultural areas, the olefin fraction consisted of
even less ethylene and acetylene and even more a- and P-pinene and isoprene. In the rural
residential areas, the ethylene and acetylene comprised 19%, the a- and P-pinene comprised
28%, and isoprene comprised 12% of the olefin fraction while in rural agricultural areas,
ethylene and acetylene comprised only 12%, a- and p-pinene comprised 25%, and isoprene
comprised 11%, on average. Acetylene and ethylene are associated with anthropogenic emission
sources especially motor vehichles, thus they would be expected to comprise a larger fraction of
the speciated olefins in urban areas where there is more vehicular traffic. The pinenes and
isoprene are associated with biogenic emissions which should be greater in rural areas where
there are more plants and trees.
4.2.3 UATMP VOC Option Program
One UATMP VOC option site was located in an urban industrial area (NWNJ), two sites
were located in suburban residential areas (P2NJ, B1AL), one site was located in a rural
residential area (B2AL), and one site was located in a rural agricultural area (B3AL). Frequency
4-31
-------
3-Methylpenunc
4V.
3-Methylhexinc
4V.
2-Methylpenui»
5V.
2-Meihylheune + 2,3-
Dtmethylpentine
4V.
n-Hepune
2%
2,2,4-Tnmethylpenune
3V.
bopenune
13%
Methylcyclohexine
2V.
n-Buunc
7V.
Figure 4-37. Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Urban Commercial Areas in 1995
3-Methylpcnunc
4V.
3*Methylbexine
4V.
2-Methylpenuiw
5V.
2-Mclhylhexane + 2,3-
Dimethylpenune
4%
2,3-Dimcthylbutine
2V.
2,2.4-Trtmethylpenunc
4V.
n-Buune
7V.
n-Hexine
4V.
n-Penunc
6V.
Figure 4-38. Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Suburban Residential Areas in 1995
4-32
-------
3-Methylpentane
5V.
3-Methylhexane
4V.
2-Methylpenune
5V.
2-Methylhexane + 2,3
Dimethyl pentane
3V.
2,3-Dimelhylbutan
2%
2,2,4-Trimethylpenune
5V.
Others
15V.
Ethane Isobutane
6V. 2V.
liopentine
20V.
Methylcyclopentane
2%
n-Hexane
3V.
n-Pentane
7V.
Figure 4-39. Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Rural Residential Areas in 1995
bopemane
29%
3-Methylpentane
5V.
3-Methylhexane
2%
2-Methylpenune
6V.
2-Melhylhexane <- 2.3-
Dimethyl pentane
2V.
2,3-Dimethytbutane
2V.
2,2.4-Tnmethylpentane
3V.
Others
10V.
n-Hexane
3V.
Melhylcyclopentane
2%
Figure 4-40. Composition of Speciated Paraffins from Rural Agricultural Areas in 1995
4-33
-------
t-Pinene
4V.
c-2-Pentene
2%
b-Pmenc
5V.
2-Methyl-l-Buiene
3V.
I -Pentene
3V.
Isobuttne * 1 -Butcne
9V.
Others
12V.
Uoprene
3%
Figure 4-41. Composition of Speciated Olefins in Urban Commercial Areas in 1995
2-Mediyl-2-Butene
3%
2-Me!hyl-l-Butenc
2%
I -Pentene
2%
Other
14V.
Isobutene •*• 1 -Butene
4V.
Figure 4-42. Composition of Speciated Olefins in Suburban Residential Areas in 1995
4-34
-------
4-Mtttwl-l-Ptntcne
2V.
2-Methyl-2-Buttne
3V.
2-Melhyl-l-Butene
2V.
i-Pinene
16%
b-Pmene
12V.
Uobutene + 1-Butene
4V.
boprene
12%
Figure 4-43. Composition of Speciated Olefins in Rural Residential Areas in 1995
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
3%
2-Methyl-2-Butene
5%
2-Methyl-1 -Buttne
5V.
Others
16%
t-2-Pentene Propylene
5% 5%
Acetylene
5V.
bopren
11%
Uobutene + I -Butene
4V.
Figure 4-44. Composition of Speciated Olefins in Rural Agricultural Areas in 1995
4-35
-------
of occurrence of the 27 halogenated compounds for these four land use types is displayed in
Figure 4-45. Eight compounds (methylene chloride, chloroform, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, and the dichlorobenzenes) all occurred less frequently in
rural areas than in urban or suburban areas.- 1,2-Dichloroethane and 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane
occurred only in the urban industrial area. The 1994 TRI data base reported that
1,2-dichloroethane was released from one or more facilities located 11 to 21 kilometers west of
the NWNJ sampling site. Chloromethane occurred more frequently in the rural areas than in the
urban and suburban areas and bromomethane occurred only in the rural residential area.
Bromomethane is used as an insect fumigant for mills, warehouses, vaults, ships, and freight cars
and is also used as a soil fumigant. Of the 11 nonhalogenated compounds, all but two were
detected with 100% frequency. 1,3-Butadiene was detected more frequently in the rural areas
and w-octane was detected more frequently in the urban and suburban areas.
The composition of the UATMP VOC fraction from various land use areas is compared
in Figure 4-46. In the urban industrial and rural residential areas the halogenated fraction
comprises about 20% (median) of the UATMP VOC and ranges from 10 or 20 to 30 percent. In
the rural residential area, the composition of the UATMP VOC fraction is most consistent
ranging from 20 to 30% halogenated. The UATMP VOC fraction has the highest median (about
30%) and most variable (10 to 50%) halogenated content in the rural agricultural area. The
median halogenated content is lowest (10%) in the suburban residential areas.
Concentrations of selected VOCs were compared to see how land use affected the
magnitude or variability of the measured concentration. Figures 4-47 through 4-49 compare the
measured methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene concentrations based
on land use. The median methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene
concentrations were much lower and much less variable in the rural areas. Methylene chloride is
a commonly used solvent for degreasing and cleaning fluids and has also been used in food
processing. 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane is used in cold type metal cleaning and in cleaning plastic
molds. Trichloroethylene is a commonly used solvent in paints and varnishes and is also used
for degreasing and dry cleaning. Figure 4-50 shows the tetrachloroethylene concentrations
4-36
-------
100V.
80V.
70%
| 60%
•5 50%
»>
| 40V.
30%
20V.
10%
0V.
-I'-
ll
t
I .-'
» .- Urban Indusual
^ Suburban Resldenual
b—Rural Resldenual
» Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-45. Frequency of Occurrence of Halogenated VOC Based on Land Use in 1995
Fraction of Total UATMP VOC
l-**^O--IOOsO<
2222222s
20V.
10% .
0% .
•
1
y
*
f
t
JL
I
•
•
u
u
w
JL
•
»
Urban
Industrial
Suburban
Residential
Rural
Residential
Rural
Agricultural
Urban
Industrial
Suburban
Residential
Rural
Residential
Rural
Agricultural
HatofeBiled Fraction
Noaaak>|eaaled Fraction
Figure 4-46. Comparison of UATMP VOC Composition for Different Land Uses in 1995
4-37
-------
20
1 6
I
a ••
06
Figure 4-47. Comparison of Methylene Chloride Concentrations Versus Land Use in 1995
06
05
•f 03
02
T.
Urban Induitrnl Suburban Residential Rural Residential
L»d Hi.
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-48. Comparison of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Concentrations Versus Land Use in
1995
4-38
-------
012
008
006
002
u
Urban Industrial Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laad Use
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-49. Comparison of Trichloroethylene Concentrations with Land Use in 1995
30
25
20
•j I 5
i
05
Urban Industrial Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laid Use
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-50. Comparison of Tetrachloroethylene versus Land Use in 1995
4-39
-------
measured for the different land uses. The median concentration is similar in the various areas;
however, the tetrachloroethylene concentration varies much more in magnitude in the suburban
residential and rural agricultural areas. Tetrachloroethylene is also used for dry cleaning and
degreasing and has been detected in the emissions from coal-fired power plants.32
Figure 4-51 depicts the acetylene concentration range and central tendency measured in
different land use areas. Acetylene concentrations were lower and the range of measured
concentrations were smaller in the rural areas. Acetylene is associated with emissions from
motor vehicles. Both the NWNJ (urban industrial) and the Bl AL (suburban residential) sites are
located near major expressways.
Figures 4-52 through 4-55 show the concentration ranges and central tendencies for
propylene, benzene, toluene, and m- and/?-xylene (which coelute). The median concentrations
are generally lower and the ranges are generally narrower in the rural areas. The highest median
concentration and widest ranges are generally in the suburban residential areas. The one
exception to these generalities is toluene. Although the median concentration is quite low in the
rural agricultural area, the maximum toluene measurement is much higher than for the other
areas and the concentration range is much wider. Toluene is used as a solvent for paints and
lacquers and as a gasoline additive.
4.2.4 Presentation of the UATMP VOC and the Speciated NMOC Results
Eleven compounds (acetylene, propylene, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, o-xylene, toluene,
n-octane, ethylbenzene, m- and/?-xylene, and styrene) are analyzed by both the UATMP VOC
multidetector and the Speciated NMOC flame ionization detector methods. Thus, the results
obtained from the two programs can be looked at side-by-side to identify areas where the data
agree and disagree.
4-40
-------
25
>
1 20
« *"
u
1
$ 15
0 -
•Li
•
^
I
•
i^
•
T
Q M
M £|
95 Per c entile
^Minimum
5 Percentile
B Median
Urban Industrial
Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laid Use
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-51. Comparison of Acetylene Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
£ 4
u
Urban Industrial Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laid U»e
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-52. Comparison of Propylene Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995
4-41
-------
I 3
U
Urban Industrial Suburban Restdenaal Rural Residential
Laid Use
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-53. Comparison of Benzene Concentrations Versus Land Use in 1995
25
IS
r
Urban Industrial Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Laid Use
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-54. Comparison of Toluene Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995
4-42
-------
40
3 5
t
E 20
§
1 5
1 0
Urban Industrial
Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Land U»e
Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-55. Comparison of m- andp-Xylene Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
First, frequency of occurrence was examined. Figure 4-56 shows the frequency of
occurrence as determined by the Speciated NMOC method for the eleven compounds. As with
the UATMP program, benzene, o-xylene, ethylbenzene, m-and/?-xylene, and styrene were
detected with high frequency in all areas. The results for n-octane are also similar in that
n-octane occurs least frequently in rural agricultural areas and most frequently in urban
commercial areas.
For acetylene, propylene, and 1,3-butadiene, the prevalence results from the Speciated
NMOC analysis differ somewhat from the results from the UATMP VOC analysis. First,
acetylene and propylene are detected less frequently by the speciated NMOC method, probably
because the speciated NMOC method has an estimated detection limit for these compounds that
is approximately ten times higher than that for the UATMP VOC method. For acetylene and
propylene, the frequency of occurrence is greatest in the urban commercial areas and least in the
4-43
-------
* -Urban Commercial
« . Suburban Residential
«— Rural Residential
• .Rural Agricultural
Figure 4-56. Frequency of Occurrence of Selected Compounds in 1995 as Determined by
the Speciated NMOC Method
rural agricultural areas. Because, as mentioned earlier, acetylene and propylene are associated
with motor vehicle emissions, the lower frequency of occurrence in the agricultural areas may be
a result of the reduced number of motor vehicles in these areas. The incidence of 1,3-butadiene
is less in the rural areas than in the suburban and urban areas which is the opposite of what was
indicated by the UATMP VOC data.
The central tendency and variability of the data was also compared for propylene,
acetylene, benzene, toluene, and m- and /j-xylene. The central tendency and variability
relationships for the two data sets were similar between the land use areas for propylene and
benzene. As shown in Figures 4-57 through 4-59, slight differences were observed for acetylene,
toluene, and m- and/>-xylene. Although the suburban residential area still exhibits a wide range
of concentrations for acetylene, the median value is very similar to that observed in the urban
commercial areas. A difference in the median may result from the larger number of cases
4-44
-------
ioo-
90"
80
70
u
£ 60 J
***
a
£ 50
B
B 40
O
O
30'
20
i n -
—
i
~r n ^.,
* Maximum
• Median
* Minimum
5 Percentile
t
1
1
• 1 , •
0
Urban Suburban Rural Rural
Commercial Residential Residential Agricultural
Land Use
Figure 4-57. Acetylene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method for
Different Land Uses in 1995
200"
1801
160
140 i
u
g. 120
a
•s 100
B
" o/-> -
B ^0
O
° 60
40
20
•
i
4
Ma
• Me
• Mil
Percentile
ximum
dian
limum
5 Percentile
— 1 . • •
0 ^ ' • " - '• ' 1
Urban Suburban Rural Rural
Commercial Residential Residential Agricultural
Land Use
Figure 4-58. Toluene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method for
Different Land Uses in 1995
4-45
-------
w -
5U
Af\ -
G*
A
s
3 J
OUM)I»3IO
U 4U
10
1
•
1
o ' — •
Urban
Commercial
1
93 Percentile
• Maximum
• Median
• Minimum
5 Percentilc
i
•
T
i
• •
Suburban Rural Rural
Residential Residential Agricultural
Land Uie
Figure 4-59. m- and p-Xylene Concentrations Measured by the Speciated NMOC Method
for Different Land Uses in 1995
available for the speciated NMOC data. With more data available, a spurious high concentration
observation will affect the median less. For toluene, the range of concentrations observed in the
rural agricultural area is much smaller and for m- andp-xylene, the concentration ranges
observed in the suburban residential areas is much smaller.
4.2.5 Carbonyl Discussion
Three carbonyl option sites (DLTX, FWTX, NWNJ) were located hi urban areas and two
sites (NOLA, P2NJ) were located in suburban residential areas. Frequency of occurrence of the
16 carbonyl compounds for these land uses are shown in Figure 4-60. Formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acetone, and hexaldehyde showed up in all of the samples. Acrolein was detected
most frequently in the urban industrial area and was not detected at all in the suburban residential
samples. Acrolein emissions are associated with engines and fossil fuel combustion.34 There is
4-46
-------
100%
90%
—» —Urb«» IidaitrUl
—•—Urbai
• * Snbirb*n ReildcBtlal
Figure 4-60. Comparison of Frequency of Occurrence of Carbonyls for Different Land
Uses in 1995
less estimated vehicular traffic in the suburban residential levels and frequency of sampling areas
than in the urban industrial area so lower occurrence would be expected for acrolein in the
suburban areas. Propionaldehyde was detected most frequently in the urban commercial area and
least frequently in the urban industrial area. Valeraldehyde was detected most frequently in the
suburban residential area and least frequently in the urban commercial area. Tolualdehydes were
detected most frequently in the urban industrial area and least frequently in the suburban
residential area.
The ranges and central tendencies were also compared for selected compounds.
Figure 4-61 depicts the formaldehyde concentrations measured in different areas. In the
suburban residential areas the median formaldehyde measurement was less than 2 ppbv while it
was greater than 2.5 ppbv in the urban commercial areas and almost 5 ppbv in the urban
industrial areas. Figure 4-62 shows the acetaldehyde concentrations. The median acetaldehyde
4-47
-------
r
Urban Industrial
Urban Commercial
La ad UK
Suburban Residential
95 PercenuIt
e Maximum
e Minimum
5 Percent! le
• Median
Figure 4-61. Comparison of Formaldehyde Concentration Versus Land Use in 1995
80 -
70 .
60 .
1 ,0
J
t
i 40 .
t>
(5
30
20 .
10
0
j-X-j
•
"a*"
_1_
•
•Tr™
•
•
hr
1
Urban Industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
L»»d Use
95 Per centi le
0 Maximum
9 Mini mum
5 Percent! te
p Median
Figure 4-62. Comparison of Acetaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
4-48
-------
concentrations are highest (about 25 ppbV) in the suburban residential areas and lowest (about
12 ppbV) in the urban industrial areas. Figure 4-63 displays the formaldehyde to acetaldehyde
ratios for the various areas. The ratios are largest for the urban industrial areas and lowest for the
suburban residential areas. These results are opposite of what is expected based on the
literature.28
Propionaldehyde concentrations are depicted in Figure 4-64. The median and maximum
concentrations were highest and the measured range of concentrations was widest in the
suburban residential areas and smallest and narrowest in the urban industrial areas. Figure 4-65
shows the acetaldehyde to propionaldehyde ratios (excluding the propionaldehyde nondetects).
Again the ratios are higher in the urban areas and lower in the residential areas which is opposite
of what is reported in the literature.28
Figures 4-66 and 4-67 depict the concentration ranges and central tendencies for acetone
and hexaldehyde. Acetone concentrations were more consistent in the urban industrial area than
in the other areas. Hexaldehyde concentrations varied widely and were generally larger in
magnitude in the suburban residential areas.
4-49
-------
2 5 -
_o
*m •) n
teetatdehyde R
—
jt
maldehyde lo >
D
1
0 5
0 0
JL
•
m^m
•
S
i
H
••
•
Mi
-»-
95 Percent! le
0 Maximum
0 Minimum
S Per c en tile
p Median
Urban Industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
Laid Die
Figure 4-63. Comparison of Formaldehyde to Acetaldehyde Ratio with Land Use in 1995
] g
1 6
1 4
? 12.
Q.
a
e
e
- I 0
I
" 08
U
0 6
04
00
-
1 1
LJ
_J_
m^m
-.
i
^
^
Urban Industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
Laid Ult
Figure 4-64. Comparison of Propionaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
4-50
-------
dchyde Ralir
0 1
D <
to Proplona
r* c
D (
^
X
•
X
w
T
JL
•
i—»-J
_•_
•
hr
1
95 Percenule
0 Maximum
^ Mini mum
5 Pereenti le
pj Median
Urban Industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
Laid U»e
Figure 4-65. Comparison of Acetaldehyde to Propionaldehyde Ratios in 1995
u
9
fl
7 .
1
T
1 .
0 .
•
—i—
•
1
•
i
1
i
hr
•
m
V
1
95% Percenule
^ Maximum
0 Minimum
5 Percent! le
m Median
Urban industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
Laid Ust
Figure 4-66. Comparison of Acetone Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
4-51
-------
3 0
2 5
i. 20.
T
r
S 1 5
U
1 0
05
00 .
. _•_
M
M
1
1
^r-
Urban Industrial Urban Commercial Suburban Residential
Laid Vie
Figure 4-67. Comparison of Hexaldehyde Concentration versus Land Use in 1995
4-52
-------
5.0 DATA TRENDS
Temporal variations of the central tendencies of the data at a given site and between sites
can indicate if the NMOC or speciated VOC concentrations are increasing or decreasing or if the
average makeup of the VOC mix at a given site is changing with time. The analysis of the
temporal trends presented in this section are based upon visual observation of the plotted daily
concentrations of the individual species examined. No statistical analysis of trends was
performed and no adjustment of individual concentrations for day-to-day variations in
meteorological reactivity were made. Also, no allowances for differences in photochemical
reactivity were made when comparing the temporal trends of individual species. Differential
reaction rates can cause large differences in the observed concentrations of similarly emitted
species. These reactivity differences can be accentuated by the short-term (3-hour) nature of the
samples whose concentrations are highly dependent upon the local ozone photochemistry (a
function of both reactivity and meteorology) that occurred at the time a given sample was taken.
5.1 NMOC
Figures 5-1 through 5-3 plot the measured NMOC concentration in ppbC versus the date
sampled for the three sites that participated in the 1995 NMOC base program. Breaks in the plot
indicate scheduled sampling days on which valid samples were not collected with one exception.
At Long Island, New York (LINY), a sample was collected on July 2 instead of July 3 due to a
state recognized holiday. This sample is plotted as though it were collected on July 3. The plots
display considerable day-to-day variability, which is typical for ambient monitoring data.
The median, maximum, minimum, and 5 and 95 percentile NMOC concentrations for
each month were calculated for 1988, 1990, 1993,1994, and 1995 for the Newark, New Jersey
(NWNJ), and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), sites and for 1990, 1993, 1994, and 1995 for the
Long Island, New York (LINY), site based on historical participation in the program. Plots of
5-1
-------
1200
1000
0
5/21/95 6/10/95 6/30/95 7/20/95 8/9/95 8/29/95 9/18/95 10/8/95
Date Sampled
Figure 5-1. 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
1400
0
5/21/95 6/10/95 6/30/95 7/20/95 8/9/95 8/29/95 9/18/95 10/8/95
Date Sampled
Figure 5-2. 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
5-2
-------
1000
900
u
.a
a.
o.
V
u
o
U
U
O
o
5/21/95 6/10/95 6/30/95 7/20/95 8/9/95 8/29/95 9/18/95 10/8/95
Date Sampled
Figure 5-3. 1995 NMOC Concentrations, Long Island, New York (LINY)
these values for each site are shown in Figures 5-4 through 5-6.
The maximum is depicted as a solid circle located above the
box and attached to the box via a single, solid line. The top of
the box represents the 95th percentile and the bottom of the box
represents the 5th percentile; thus 90% of the sample values fall ' """
within the box. The median is depicted by a solid square
within the box. Half of the samples are above the median and half of the samples are below the
median. The minimum is depicted as a solid circle located below the box and attached to the box
by a single, solid line. The numbers under the first letter of each month indicate the number of
valid samples collected that month. No data was available for September of 1993 at Plainfield,
New Jersey (P2NJ).
5-3
-------
u
.c
c.
E.
_o
«
u
c
u
u
o
3000 -
2500 -
2000 -1
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -
1-1
T
1
t-
m
T
1
^i
i
r
T
T
J J A S
19 18 22 21
1988
-r
J
19
1 1
Jl
J A
18 22
1990
I
1
i
r
S
18
et
r
J J A
i
"
S
1
T
18 21 22 21
1993
-L,
T
J
15
TT
A
23
J
T
S
21
"H
V
95
Percentiie
B Median
• Minimum
5 PercentOe
0
I
*•
J
3
J
-
A
19 20 20 23
1994
1
V
S
20
1995
Figure 5-4. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured at
Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
_o
«
u
o
Z
500 -
000 •
500
000 -
500 -
n -
t
TT
JL
W
i
1
I
i
r
±
T
i
T
i
r
T
1
Z
1
«
H '
- -,
T
i
TT
1
1*1
1
r"
•
^
q
T
1
1
1
r
1
-
T
95 Percentilc
• Maximum
• Median
• Minimum
5 Percentiie
1
*w
n fi
T L
TT
JJASJJASJJAS
15 20 23 21 20 20 22 17 12 19 21 0
1988
1990
1993
J A S
10 23 21
1994
O J J A S
17 20 19 21 19
1995
Figure 5-5. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured at
Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
5-4
-------
zwu -,
i stnrt J
Si 140f)
B.
^D.
^O
•»* 1(W1
w
u
B
O onn
U
o 600
z
dfVI
?(V)
n -
i
•
I
•
-•-
,
V
1
i
1
TT
I
T
JL
i
•
J.
T
.
'•v
5 Percentile
• Maximum
B Median
• Minimum
95 Percentik
»
1
•*
M T
J_
.
J ^
1
h
1
r
June July Aug Sep June July Aug Sep July Aug Sep Oct June July Aug Sep
(18) (21) (20) (19) (18) (19) (22) (20) (16) (23) (18) (19) (19) (20) (23) (17)
1990
1993
1994
1995
Figure 5-6. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured at
Long Island, New York (LINY)
At Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), the median 1995 NMOC concentrations seem to be
comparable with values measured during the last few years. In 1995, however, the maximum
concentration values are lower than in 1994 and the observed concentration ranges are also
narrower. In general, the same observations are also true for the Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ),
site. At Plainfield, the maximum observed NMOC concentration in June of 1994 is lower;
however, only 10 valid samples were collected during this month, which may account for the
lower maximum. At Long Island, New York (LINY), the median concentrations and the
observed variability in the measurements appear to be comparable to what has been observed
during the last 2 years. Thus, based on visual inspection of the plot, there does not appear to be
any apparent trend in the NMOC concentration over the period studied at any of these three sites.
5-5
-------
5.2 Speciated NMQC Compounds
The Speciated NMOC data were examined for the three Birmingham, Alabama, sites
(B1AL, B2AL, B3AL) for seven selected compounds for the 4 years (1992 through 1995) that
the sites participated. Compounds were selected for the temporal studies based on the frequency
and magnitude of their occurrence. The maximum, minimum, and median measured
concentration values for each year are reported by site in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. The median
and minimum concentration values for 1995 were calculated by setting the non-detect values to
one-half of the detection limit. The median and minimum concentration values for 1992, 1993,
and 1994 were calculated by dropping the non-detects. Excluding the non-detects tends to
increase the calculated median and minimum values, so these values may appear lower in 1995
based on how the calculations were performed. However, because the number of nondetects is
usually less than 10% of the total values, the effect of the calculation procedure on the results
will be minimal.
The maximum, minimum, and median values were plotted for toluene at the Helena,
Alabama (B3AL), site and are shown in Figure 5-7. The median toluene concentration and the
concentration range appear to be decreasing at this site. None of the other examined compounds
at any of the sites exhibited any possible trends. The median values for acetylene, propane, and
isopentane for each year were compared between the three sites as shown in Figures 5-8 through
5-10. The median acetylene and propane concentrations at the two rural sites (B2AL and B3AL)
are lower than at the suburban site and appear to be correlated with each other. In fact, the
median propane concentrations at B2AL and B3AL are almost identical. At B3AL, the median
acetylene concentrations are lower than at B2AL as would be expected because acetylene is
primarily associated with motor vehicle exhaust and B3AL is in a rural agricultural area where
traffic is minimal.
5-6
-------
Table 5-1
Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds
at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL)
Compound
Propylene
Ethylene
Benzene
Acetylene
Isopentane
Propane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
1992
4.82
0.56s
2.38a
66
42.67
2.07
12.84
68 •
43.04
1.92
9.58
68
40.27
1.37a
13.183
66
163.33
2.35
21.25
68
47.48
1.12
14.21
68
68.58
1.84
20.99
68
1993
17.60
1.20
5.30
82
81.00
2.20
15.00
82
37.30
1.60
9.10
82
36.10
1.90
10.20
82
115.10
3.70
20.30
82
140.50
1.90
15.00
82
58.30
4.70
22.10
82
1994
25.94
0.82a
4.55a
80
47.84
0.53a
11.038
80
43.88
0.76
7.60
81
47.97
1.21
7.93
81
120.75
3.25
16.48
81
133.35
1.87
16.95
81
107.40
2.98
17.73
81
1995
17.25
0.1 7b
5.58b
68
23.64
0.1 6b
9.36b
66
56.70
0.36
6.84
77
96.60
0.1 7b
10.74b
67
100.80
0.84
24.24
77
50.10
0.1 7b
15.00b
75
63.00
0.90
23.88
77
"Median and minimum values were calculated by dropping non-detect values.
bMedian and minimum values were calculated by setting non-detect values to one-half the
detection limit.
5-7
-------
Table 5-2
Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds
at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
Compound
Propylene
Acetylene
Benzene
Isopentane
Propane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
1992
6.65
0.60a
2.36"
65
11.16
0.96a
3.78a
65 -
18.89
1.38
4.32
71
137.73
0.92a
8.46a
69
17.44
1.30
5.85
71
53.99
1.08
7.41
71
1993
6.90
0.80a
2.60a
81
14.70
0.70a
4.40a
81
11.10
0.70
3.70
83
668.20
1.70
7.90
83
13.60
1.40
6.70
83
98.50
1.40
6.90
83
1994
16.27
0.46a
2.86a
75
23.15
0.71a
3.94a
72
13.38
0.68
3.74
78
44.50
0.99
8.05
78
45.34
1.08
6.61
78
42.52
2.11
8.01
78
1995
9.06
0.1 7b
2.44b
68
16.71
0.1 7b
2.28b
53
9.06
0.04b
2.85"
79
93.6
0.60
6.57
80
22.29
0.1 6b
5.55b
78
26.58
0.72
6.81
80
"Median and minimum values were calculated by dropping non-detect values.
bMedian and minimum values were calculated by setting non-detect values to one-half the
detection limit.
5-8
-------
Table 5-3
Historical Data for Selected Speciated NMOC Compounds
at Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
Compound
Propylene
Benzene
Acetylene
Isopentane
Propane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Cases
1992
6.00
0.65"
1.52"
44
9.09
1.01
3.35
49
6.48
0.85a
2.02a
45
76.78
1.58
8.65
49
10.35
0.99
5.32
49
98.15
2.07
13.62
49
1993
10.50
0.60s
'2.00a
64
11.30
0.90a
3.50"
66
9.60
0.80"
2.50"
60
89.50
1.80
12.20
66
380.10
1.80
6.90
66
71.40
2.30
8.30
66
1994
5:53
0.34a
2.01"
73
9.52
0.94
3.18
78
9.10
0.40a
3.09s
69
413.00
1.14
11.37
78
16.59
1.27
6.45
78
42.68
0.95
7.25
78
1995
4.98
0.17
1.62
79
12.24
0.48
2.52
79
6.24
0.17
1.71
79
216.60
1.80
10.08
79
26.70
1.56
5.61
79
31.86
1.08
6.00
79
"Median and minimum values were calculated by dropping non-detect values.
5-9
-------
100
90
80
—. 70
0
a
a 60 -
5 50
2
**
£ 40
o
/? 30 -
O wu
20 -
10 -
0 .
. i
.
,
i
I
J
,
-
i i
1 :
^
I |
1 :
|
• Maximum
« Minimum
u Median
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-7. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Toluene Concentrations at
Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
14
12
10
•" B1AL
•— B2AL
•—B3AL
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-8. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Acetylene Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites
5-10
-------
25
20 -
u
.o
O.
& 15
B
O
10
o
U
5 -
•s.'
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-9. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Isopentane Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites
IS
16
14
^ 12
G
.0
S 10
2 -
_—_—__
^ ^ —
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-10. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Propane Concentrations at
the Three Birmingham, Alabama Sites
5-11
-------
The median isopentane concentration is also lower at the two rural sites. Although the
median isopentane concentration was similar at B2AL and B3AL in 1992, the median isopentane
concentration has been higher at B3AL from 1993 through 1995. Isopentane is also associated
with mobile emissions, so it is surprising that the median concentration is higher at B3 AL than at
B2AL; however, isopentane is also present in evaporative losses from motor vehicle fuels. The
B3 AL sampling site is located on a farm and farms often have onsite fuel storage tanks.
Trends between compounds at each site were also evaluated. Figure 5-11 shows the
median concentrations for benzene, toluene, ethylene, and propylene at the Tarrant City,
Alabama (Bl AL), site. The median concentrations of toluene, ethylene, and propylene appeared
to increase from 1992 to 1993 and appeared to decrease from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 to 1995,
the median concentration of ethylene continued to decrease, and the median concentrations of
toluene and propylene increased. During the same 4-year period, the median concentration of
benzene appeared to steadily decline. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 display similar information for the
rural Birmingham sites (B2AL and B3AL). The median benzene, propylene, and toluene
concentrations have all appeared to decrease from 1994 to 1995 at both of these sites.
5.3 UATMP VOC Compounds
The UATMP VOC data were examined for the five participating sites (NWNJ, P2NJ,
Bl AL, B2AL, B3AL) for eight selected compounds for the years that the various sites
participated. Compounds were selected for the temporal studies based on their prevalence. Only
those compounds that occurred most frequently were included. Any conclusions regarding
trends that are based on the UATMP VOC data must be interpreted with caution because the data
are based on only eight or nine samples selected at random throughout the summer. Two of the
sites (NWNJ and P2NJ) are located in the New York City and Northeastern New Jersey airshed
and participated in the UATMP VOC option from 1989 through 1995. The Birmingham,
Alabama sites (B1AL, B2AL, and B3AL) participated from 1992 through 1995.
5-12
-------
25
20
15
10
^ Benzene
*~" Toluene
••"-Ethylene
t- Propylene
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-11. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Concentrations of Selected
Compounds at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL)
u
.0
o.
& 5
a
.2
I «
t>
u
ca
o
o 3
2
1
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-12. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Median Concentrations of Selected
Compounds at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
5-13
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
CT
1 2.0
I 1.3
1.0
0.5
0.0
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-13. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Yearly Concentrations of Benzene and
Propylene at Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
The maximum, minimum, and average measured concentration values for each year are reported
by site in Tables 5-4 through 5-8. The average measured concentration values for 1991, 1992,
1993, and 1995 were calculated by setting the non-detect values to one-half of the detection
limit. The average concentration values for 1989, 1990, and 1994 were calculated by dropping
the non-detects because the data reduction procedures used in those years dropped the
non-detects. Excluding the non-detects tends to increase the calculated average concentration so
these averages calculated may appear higher in 1989, 1990, and 1994 because of the procedures
used. Because most of the compounds selected for study were detected at 100% prevalence, the
data calculation procedure affects results only for 1,3-butadiene, tetrachloroethylene, and
propylene.
5.3.1 New York City and Northeastern New Jersey Airshed (NWNJ, P2NJ)
Seven compounds (carbon tetrachloride, benzene, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
1,1,1 -trichloroethane, toluene, and 1,3-butadiene) were examined at the Newark, New Jersey
5-14
-------
Table 5-4
Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds
at Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
Concentration (ppbv)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Tetrachlorethylene
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
1989
0.96
0.08
0.32'
7
0.21
0.13
0.15
9
5.98
0.92
2.47
9
1.78
0.15
•1.001
7
2.44
0.33
1.03
9
2.57
0.49
1.33
9
23.67
2.40
10.27
9
1990
0.46
0.11
0.21'
6
0.18
0.13
0.14
10
2.24
0.50
0.88
10
3.73
0.14
0.85
10
1.07
0.19
0.41
10
2.16
0.70
'1.28
10
11.49
2.01
4.32
10
1991
3.12
0.34
0.42b
2
0.30
0.26
0.28
9
2.43
0.78
1.58
9
1.30
0.28
0.66
9
1.33
0.37
0.89
9
3.59
1.18
2.33
9
13.49
2.73
6.79
9
1992
•*
0.16
0.14
0.14
8
1.37
0.75
1.01
8
0.92
0.07
0.38
8
0.97
0.36
0.63
8
253.06
4.42
37.87
8
6.01
2.14
3.83
8
1993
0.30
0.03
0.09b
4
0.39
0.24
0.78
8
2.11
0.26
0.33
8
1.33
0.12
0.39
8
1.67
0.12
0.50
8
4.24
1.23
2.17
8
10.04
1.12
3.58
8
1994
2.60
0.06
0.70
8
0.09
0.05
0.06
8
0.98
0.36
0.72
8
2.20
0.02
0.36
8
0.87
0.14
0.44
8
0.78
0.16
0.48
8
3.57
0.75
2.26
8
1995
0.31
0.03
O.llb
6
0.09
0.07
0.08
8
1.35
0.16
0.50
8
0.20
0.03
0.14
8
0.67
0.12
0.32
8
0.46
0.15
0.31
8
4.90
0.68
2.14
8
*No results were reported.
"Average values were calculated by dropping non-detects.
bAverage values were calculated by setting non-detect values to one-half the detection limit.
5-15
-------
Table 5-5
Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds
at Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
Concentration (ppbv)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
1989
0.17
0.13
0.15
9
3.48
0.49
1.91
9
0.99
0.08
0.47
9
2.04
0.28
'1.02
9
8.95
1.04
4.85
9
1990
0.15
0.05
0.13
10
3.00
0.27
1.09
10
1.01
0.06
0.31
10
12.32
0.19
1.82
10
13.34
0.78
3.49
10
1991
0.28
0.24
0.26
8
2.83
0.34
1.35
8
0.92
0.14
0.50
8
4.83
0.38
1.66
8
9.85
0.87
4.62
8
1992
0,28
0.13
0.15
8
4.09
0.60
2.28
8
3.62
0.22
1.31
8
4.67
0.84
2.49
8
17.40
1.50
7.46
8
1993
*
3.09
0.18
1.04
8
1.47
0.07
0.44
8
4.07
0.30
1.16
8
15.18
0.45
4.22
8
1994
0.09
0.05
0.07
8
4.22
0.18
1.48
8
2.05
0.06
0.69
8
1.16
0.20
0.49
8
12.45
0.36
4.82
8
1995
0.09
0.07
0.08
8
1.62
0.23
0.83
8
0.78
0.13
0.34
8
0.41
0.21
0.31
8
7.72
1.13
3.36
8
*No results were reported.
5-16
-------
Table 5-6
Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds
at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL)
Concentration (ppbv)
Compound
Propylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachlorethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
1992
4.82
0.56
2.38
8
0.14
0.12
0.13
8
2.24
0.36
1.12
8
1.03
0.12
0.56
8
0.68
0.03
0.17
8
1.47
0.47
0.89
8
5.58
0.77
2.80
8
1993
3.54
0.46
1.38
8
0.37
0.22
0.29
8
2.63
0.21
0.87
8
1.08
0.08
0.39
8
0.19
0.03
0.11
8
0.71
0.30
0.44
8
4.78
0.55
2.01
8
1994
3.14
0.18
1.24
8
0.11
0.06
0.07
8
3.41
0.13
0.93
8
0.84
0.05
0.32
8
0.10
0.01
0.04
8
0.53
0.13
0.30
8
3.86
0.27
1.58
8
1995
4.23
0.48
2.29
8
0.09
0.07
0.08
8
6.48
0.28
1.90
8
0.90
0.12
0.58
8
0.16
0.03
0.07
8
0.52
0.16
0.25
8
4.95
0.76
3.05
8
5-17
-------
Table 5-7
Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds
at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
Concentration (ppbv)
Compound
Propylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
1992
2.62
0.27
0.93"
7
0.13
0.09
0.11
8
0.56
0.15
0.30
8
0.16
0.02
0.09
8
0.50
0.29
0.40
8
0.91
0.14
0.56
8
1993
1.39
0.08
0.60
8
0.35
0.20
0.29
8
0.59
0.09
0.29
8
0.17
0.04
0.08
6
0.38
0.26
0.32
8
1.23
0.16
0.62
8
1994
1.27
0.33
0.77
8
0.09
0.06
0.08
8
0.99
0.17
0.53
8
0.36
0.10
0.18
8
0.19
0.13
0.15
8
1.62
0.59
0.98
8
1995
1.29
0.48
0.81
9
0.11
0.07
0.08
9
1.05
0.23
0.43
9
0.23
0.10
0.14
9
0.15
0.12
0.13
9
1.71
0.68
0.96
9
"Average values were calculated by setting non-detect values to one-half the detection limit.
5-18
-------
Table 5-8
Historical Data for Selected UATMP VOC Compounds
at Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
Concentration (ppbv)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachlorethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Value
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maxirmjm
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Cases
1992
o;i4
0.10
0.11
8
0.73
0.12
' 0.42
8
0.29
0.02
0.11
8
0.30
0.01
0.11
8
1.29
0.32
0.68
8
1.68
0.17
0.84
8 _j
1993
0.46
0.22
0.31
8
0.72
0.09
0.29
8
0.24
0.02
0.09
8
1.82
0.02
0.38
8
0.74
0.26
0.47
8
2.00
0.22
0.77
8
1994
0.09
0.05
0.07
8
0.66
0.32
0.45
8
0.31
0.09
0.16
8
0.47
0.04
0.22
8
0.36
0.16
0.22
8
1.36
0.55
0.93
8
1995
0.11
0.07
0.08
10
0.63
0.12
0.33
10
0.34
0.05
0.13
10
0.93
0.02
0.30"
8
0.25
0.12
0.17
10
24.08
0.47
3.27
10
"Average values were calculated by setting non-detect values to one-half the detection limit.
5-19
-------
(NWNJ), site and five compounds (carbon tetrachloride, benzene, ethylbenzene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and toluene) were examined at the Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), site. Based on
visual inspection of the plot, there does not appear to be any apparent upward or downward
trends for 1,3-butadiene and carbon tetrachloride over the period from 1989 to 1995.
The average concentration and the measured range of concentrations appears to have
decreased for 1,1,1-trichloroethane at both of these sampling locations in 1994 and 1995.
Figure 5-14 presents the temporal comparison for 1,1,1-trichloroethane at P2NJ as an example.
It should be noted that meteorological conditions can have a significant role in producing the
observed changes in ambient concentrations as can emissions. However, there should be some
correlation between the temporal changes in concentrations of individual species at a given site if
meteorological conditions are contributing to the observed trends. Assessment of the role
meteorology may have played in creating the observed temporal trends is beyond the scope of
this analysis.
In 1991,41% of the 1,1,1-trichloroethane sold was used in cold type metal cleaning and
in cleaning plastic molds and 14% was used in aerosol products.35 As a result of the Montreal
Protocol, production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane will be phased out by January 1, 1996.36 In
addition, on December 2, 1994, the EPA published a regulation titled "National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Halogenated Solvent Cleaning" that
regulates the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.37 The standard takes affect December 2,1997. In
1993, several companies reported substituting other solvents for 1,1,1-trichloroethane in their
degreasing and cleaning operations as part of their pollution prevention efforts.38 Although the
actual reason for the decrease in the observed concentration levels is unknown, the results agree
with global monitoring reports which indicate that levels of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the
atmosphere have been declining since 1991.39 The decline in atmospheric levels of
1,1,1-trichloroethane in the atmosphere are contributed to the Montreal Protocol.
The other four compounds exhibited a possible downward trend at the Newark, New
Jersey, site (NWNJ), although they remained relatively constant at the Plainfield, New Jersey,
5-20
-------
.o
O.
o
o
o
c
o
o
to -
1?
•M
10
P
7
fi
c;
4 _,
-a
•>
1
n
i
•
•
' •
I 1
i ii
n »
1 I
1 A > •
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Figure 5-14. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Concentrations
Measured at Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
site (P2NJ). As shown in Figure 1-1, the NWNJ site is located much closer to potential emission
sources than the P2NJ site. As an example, Figure 5-15 presents the temporal comparison for
tetrachlorethylene at NWNJ, which exhibited a much narrower concentration range in 1995.
Tetrachloroethylene is also used as a degreaser for metal cleaning and is regulated by the
Halogenated Solvent Cleaner NESHAP.37 In addition, tetrachloroethylene is used in dry-
cleaning, which is also regulated by the EPA.40
5.3.2 Birmingham, Alabama Airshed
Seven compounds (carbon tetrachloride, benzene, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, and propylene) were examined at the Tarrant City, Alabama
5-21
-------
4 0
35 -
30-1
~ 20 -
n
c
S 1 5
c
o
O
1 0 -
05 -
0.0 -
•
'
i
i
_ i
i
i
i
i
1 i
i i
•
i i
i
f
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Figure 5-15. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations
Measured at Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
(Bl AL), site and six compounds were examined at the other two Alabama sites (B2AL excluded
tetrachloroethylene and B3 AL excluded propylene). Based on visual inspection, there does not
appear to be any apparent trends in concentration with time for propylene or carbon tetrachloride
over the period from 1992 to 1995, although in 1993 the observed carbon tetrachloride
concentrations were much higher at all three sites than in the other three years. Figure 5-16
shows the observed carbon tetrachloride concentrations for Bl AL as an example. High values
also were observed for carbon tetrachloride at NWNJ in 1993, which may indicate a bias in the
analysis. No external audit results were reported for carbon tetrachloride in 1993. The
production of carbon tetrachloride is scheduled to be phased out by January 1,1996, as part of
the Montreal Protocol.36 As a result, ambient levels of carbon tetrachloride may decrease in
future years.
5-22
-------
Q.
Q.
o
O
0 35
0 30
0 25
0 20
0 15
0 10
0 05
0.00 -
I
i
i
*
T
i
i- T
» Maximum
• Minimum
m Average
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-16. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations
Measured at Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL)
Just as in the New York City and Northern New Jersey airshed, the average concentration
and the measured range of concentrations appear to have decreased for 1,1,1-trichloroethane at
all three of the Birmingham, Alabama, sampling locations in 1994 and 1995. Figure 5-17
presents the temporal comparison for 1,1,1-trichloroethane at all three sites for 1992 through
1993. Besides a general decrease in observed concentration, the range of concentrations
observed also appears to be narrowing. Based on visual inspection of the plot, the decrease in
observed concentration is more apparent at B2AL and B3AL, where less variability is observed
in the range of concentrations measured. As noted above, emissions of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
from halogenated solvent cleaning processes will be regulated by the EPA starting in 1997.
5-23
-------
1 6
1 4
1 2
ft
g- i o
B
•B 08
1 06
3 01
0 2
0 0
i
i
i
J
"1
>...! i
* i
L ?. 1....
""}
,
»
i •
i i
T
' " * •'• I
t i...
1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 1995 1992 1993 1994 1995
B1AL B2AL B3AL
Site «nd Year
^ Maximum
. Minimum
m Average (using 1/2 detection limit)
.5 Averge (dropping nondetects)
Figure 5-17. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of l,l»l-Trichloroethane Concentrations
Measured at Birmingham, Alabama
The other four compounds either exhibited no trend or a possible upward trend at one of
the Birmingham sites. For example, Figure 5-18 presents the temporal comparison for benzene
at Bl AL, which exhibited a much wider concentration range and higher average hi 1995 than in
the preceding 3 years. As another example, Figure 5-19 shows the measured toluene
concentrations at B2AL, which is located in a rural residential neighborhood in Pinson, Alabama.
The minimum, maximum, and average concentrations appear to be gradually increasing with
time.
5-24
-------
~ 5
Q.
Q.
4
o
7
I 3
0)
u
O
O 2
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
Figure 5-18. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Benzene Concentrations Measured at
Tarrant City, Alabama (B1AL)
5 -
_Q
C
o
*— *}
ro
"c
C
o
o
1 .
0 -
<
l
(
i
I
T I
I
4
T
[ 1
4
1 1
1
1
4
0 Maximum
« Minimum
m Average
1992
1993 1994
Year
1995
Figure 5-19. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Concentrations
Measured at Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
5-25
-------
5.4 Carbonyl Compounds
The carbonyl data were examined for the two sites in the New York City and Northern
New Jersey airshed (NWNJ and P2NJ) for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone over a
5 year period from 1991 through 1995. Although carbonyl analyses were included as an option
to the NMOC program starting in 1989, the sampling procedures used before 1991 were slightly
different (i.e., no ozone scrubber was used in 1989 and the samples were collected over a 24-hour
period instead of from 6 to 9 a.m.). The maximum, minimum, and average measured
concentration values for each year are plotted in Figures 5-20 through 5-22. The average
measured concentration values for 1991 and 1992 were previously calculated by setting the
non-detect values to zero. Using zero for the non-detects will bias the data low. No non-detects
were recorded in 1993 through 1995, which indicates that the prevalence of these aldehydes may
be increasing, or that the sensitivity of the analytical method used is increasing. For comparison
purposes, the data for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), are presented on the left side of the plot and
the data for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), are presented on the right side of the plot. The
number in parentheses beside the year indicates the total number of samples collected and
analyzed that year.
At Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), the average formaldehyde values have ranged between
a low of 2.5 ppbV in 1992 to a high of 7.5 ppbV in 1994. The average of 5 ppbV measured in
1995 seems to agree well with previous years. At Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), the average
formaldehyde values have decreased slightly over the last 3 years from a high of 9 ppbV in 1993
to 3 ppbV in 1994 and 2 ppbV in 1995. The range of values observed in 1995 (.1 to 6 ppbV),
however, was approximately twice as wide as the range of values observed in 1994 (3 to
5 ppbV).
5-26
-------
40
1«
>~ 30
JS ->U "
c.
"iT 25
_o
5 20
c Z"
V
o 15 -
0
10
5
0 -
1
I
1 ;
T g
1
b r "
t .
i
>
i i
i
i
i
. t
; I
T
1991(10) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(8) 1991(6) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(9)
Newark , New Jersey (NWNJ) Plainfield , New Jersey (P2NJ)
Sampling Location and Year
• Maximum
• Minimum
I Average
Figure 5-20. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Formaldehyde Concentrations Measured in
the New York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed
35 -
30 -
^.
.0
°- 25 -
&
- 20 -
« *•"
u
S 15 -
B IJ
s
10 -
5 .
0 -
i
i
i
i
i
*
i
i
i
T
I
T J
1
r
1991(10) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(8) 1991(6) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(9)
Newark , New Jersey (NWNJ) . Plainfield , New Jersey (P2NJ)
Sampling Location and Year
. Maximum
Minimum
i Average
Figure 5-21. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Acetaldehyde Concentrations Measured in
the New York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed
5-27
-------
t\J -
•55 -
30 -
o
S-.5
&
•z 20 -
£
e
8 15
s IJ
o
10 -
<
0 -
1
r
i
i
i
1 ,
t
T
[ I
1
1
I
I M
1991(10) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(8) 1991(6) 1992(10) 1993(10) 1994(10) 1995(9)
Newark , New Jersey (NWNJ) Plainfield , New Jersey (P2NJ)
Sampling Location and Year
• Maximum
• Minimum
i Average
Figure 5-22. 1995 Temporal Comparisons of Acetone Concentrations Measured in the New
York City and Northern New Jersey Airshed
The acetaldehyde concentration range and central tendency trends are almost identical for
Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ). At both sites the average
concentration and the range of concentrations have increased from 1993 to 1995. In fact, the
median concentrations have increased almost geometrically going from approximately 2.5 ppbV
in 1993 to approximately 5 ppbV in 1994 and greater than 15 ppbV in 1995. Although the
reason for the increase in acetaldehyde levels is not known, it may be related to EPA mandates
that require the use of ethanol and other oxygenates in fuels year round starting January 1,1995,
in the New York City and Northern New Jersey airshed.41
At Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), the average acetone concentration and the range of
observed concentrations decreased from 1993 through 1995. At Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ),
5-28
-------
the average acetone concentration decreased from 1992 through 1995; however, the observed
range of acetone concentrations almost tripled in 1995 (0 to 10 ppbV) as compared to 1994 (4 to
7 ppbV). Acetone is considered an exempt compound by the EPA (i.e., it is not considered a
VOC that contributes to ground level ozone production). As an exempt compounds, its use in
consumer products may increase as VOC content limits are imposed on these products.
5-29
-------
6.0 COMPLETENESS RESULTS BY PROGRAM
The completeness of ambient air monitoring efforts refers to the fraction of attempted
sampling events resulting in either quantified chemical concentrations of not-detected results.
Invalid sampling events may result from various sampling or analytical errors. Not all of the
samples from the various base programs and their options were collected as scheduled. This
section presents completeness results, indicating the percentages of samples that were collected as
scheduled. The percentage complete does not include the collection and analysis of duplicate
samples.
6.1 NMOC Base Program
For the 1995 NMOC base program, 242 of the scheduled 249 samples were collected on
schedule for the three sites. The seven missing samples resulted in an overall result of 97%
completeness. Percent completeness by site ranged from 95% at LINY to 100% at NWNJ
Table 6-1 presents data from each of the base sites involved in the program. The overall
completeness value for 1995 is comparable to completeness figures for previous years of the
program. Figure 6-1 shows the sampling completeness for the history of the NMOC program.
Table 6-2 lists the invalid samples by site. Equipment malfunction was identified as the primary
cause of missed samples, accounting for 78 percent. Operator error accounted for the remaining
22% of the missed samples.
6.2 Speciated NMOC Base Program
For the 1995 Speciated NMOC base program, 524 of the 548 samples were taken on
schedule. The 24 missed samples resulted in an overall completeness result of 96 percent.
Percent completeness by site ranged from 94% at Bl AL and B3AL to 100% at DLTX. Table 6-3
presents completeness data for each of the Speciated NMOC base sites in the 1995 program. The
overall completeness value for 1995 is comparable to completeness figures for previous years of
the program. Figure 6-2 shows the sampling completeness history of the Speciated NMOC
program. Two of the 24 samples missed were because the shelter at the NOLA site was being
6-1
-------
Table 6-1
1995 NMOC Completeness Results
Site Location
Long Island, NY
Newark, NJ
Plainfield, NJ
Overall
ERG Site
Code
LINY
NWNJ
P2NJ
Scheduled
Sampling
Days
83
83
83
249
Total
Scheduled
Duplicate
Samples
9
9
9
27
Total
Scheduled
Canister
Analyses
92
92
92
276
Total Valid
Duplicate
Samples
10
11
12
33
Total Valid
Samples
79
83
79
242
Percent
Complete*
• 95
100
95
97
' Percent Complete = 100(Total Valid Samples/Scheduled Sampling Days)
-------
98'A
97Vi
88V.
87V.
1*14 1*13 I*U 1*1? 1*11
1 1991 1*93 I*f4 1»»S
NMOCPr*(niiV*ir
Figure 6-1. 1995 Sampling Completeness History for the NMOC Program
Table 6-2
1995 NMOC Invalid Samples by Site
Site
LINY
NWNJ
P2NJ
Date
6/15/95
9/11/95
9/22/95
9/25/95
7/28/95
8/04/95
8/09/95
9/21/95
Description
Timer was in off position
Timer was not set for Monday
Pump failure
Pump failure
(No invalid samples — 100% Complete)
Low pressure
Bad solenoid valve
Canister leaked
Canister leaked
Assignment
Operator error
Operator error
Equipment malfunction
Equipment malfunction
Equipment malfunction
Equipment malfunction
Equipment malfunction
Equipment malfunction
6-3
-------
Table 6-3
1995 Speciated NMOC Completeness Results
Site Location
Birmingham, AL (Tarrant)
Birmingham, AL (Pinson)
Birmingham, AL (Helena)
Dallas, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Juarez, Mexico
New Orleans, LA
Overall
Site Code
B1AL
B2AL
B3AL
DLTX
FWTX
JUMX
NOLA
Scheduled
Sampling
Days
82
82
82
83
80
56
83
548
Total
Scheduled
Duplicate
Samples
9
9
9
9
9
6
9
60
Total
Scheduled
Canister
Analyses
91
91
91
92
89
62
92
608
Total Valid
Duplicate
Samples
8
9
9
12
10
6
10
64
Total Valid Percent
Samples Complete*
77 b
80 b
77 b
83
e 79
d 49
79
524
94
98
94
100
99
88
95
96
'Percent Complete = 100 (Total Valid Samples/Scheduled Sampling Days).
bThe Birmingham, AL, sites started collecting samples on June 6.
CFWTX started collecting samples on June 8.
dJUMX started collecting samples on July 13.
-------
96%
94%
IM3
SNMOC Program Ye«r
Figure 6-2. 1995 Sampling Completeness History for the Speciated NMOC Base Program
replaced. Three samples were missed because the sites at B1AL, B2AL, and B3AL did not
sample on July 3. Other reasons for missed samples included leaking canisters, defective sampling
pumps, and lack of power at the sampling site.
6.3 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Two (NWNJ, P2NJ) of the base NMOC sites participated in the 1995 Speciated NMOC
option program. All of the 16 samples and 2 duplicate samples were taken on schedule resulting
in an overall completeness result of 100 percent.
6-5
-------
6.4 TJATMP VOC Option Program
For the 1995 UATMP VOC option program, 40 samples and 5 duplicate samples were
scheduled at the five participating sites (B1AL, B2AL, B3AL, NWNJ, P2NJ). All of the 40
samples plus 1 additional sample at B2AL and 2 additional samples at B3AL were successfully
collected and analyzed. Although all 5 duplicate samples were apparently successfully collected,
only three were analyzed. The duplicate samples for Bl AL and B3AL were apparently collected
according to the custody forms but no analytical results are reported.
6.5 Carbonyl Option Program
For the 1995 carbonyl option program, 40 samples and 5 duplicate samples were
scheduled at the five participating sites (NWNJ, P2NJ, DLTX, FWTX, NOLA). All of the 40
samples plus 1 additional sample at P2NJ were successfully collected and analyzed. Only 4 of the
5 duplicate samples were successfully collected and analyzed. The duplicate sample for FWTX
was either not collected or not analyzed. No analytical results were reported.
6-6
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Procedures for Applying City Specific EKMA (Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach),
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711. EPA-450/4-89-012, 1989.
2. Morris, R.E. and Myers, T.C. "User's guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume I.
User's Manual fof UAM (CB-IV)." EPA-450/4-90-007A. Office of Air Quality and
Planning Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. June 1990.
3. 1994 Non-Methane Organic Compounds and Speciated Non-Methane Organic
Compounds Monitoring Programs. Final Report. Delivery Order 3. EPA Contract
No.: 68-D3-0095. Prepared for Kathy Weant and Neil J. Berg, Jr., Office of Air Quality
and Planning Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. January 25, 1996.
4. Development and Evaluation of a Prototype Analytical System for Measuring Air Toxics.
Final Report. EPA Contract No.: 68-02-3889. Prepared for Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. November 13, 1987.
5. "The Air Toxic Problem in the; United States: An Analysis of Cancer Risks for Selected
Pollutants " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Publication. May 1985.
6. Compendium Method TO-12, "Determination of Non-Methane Organic Compounds
(NMOC in Ambient Air Using Cryogenic Pre-Concentration and Direct Flame lonization
Detection (PDFID)." Quality Assurance Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. May 1988.
7. Lonneman, W. A. and Seila, R.L. "Research Protocol Method for Analysis of C2 through
C12 Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air by Gas Chromatography with Cryogenic Concentration,
in Determination of C2 to C12 Ambient Air Hydrocarbons in 39 U.S. Cities from 1984 to
1986." EPA/600/3-89-058; March 1989.
8 Compendium Method TO-14. "The Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) in Ambient Air Using SUMMA® Passivated Canister Sampling and Gas
Chromatographic Analysis." Quality Assurance Division, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
7-1
-------
9. Compendium Method TO-11. "Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient Air Using
Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography."
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
10. Georgopoulos, P.O. and J.H. Seinfeld, 1982. "Statistical Distributions of Air Pollutant
Concentrations." Environmental Science and Technology. 16:401-416.
11. TRI1994, Toxic Release Inventory, 1994 Data Release. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
12. Personal communication with Howard Balentine, certified Meteorological Consultant,
December 9, 1996.
13. "Climates of the States." Second Edition. Volume 2. Gale Research Company, Detroit,
Michigan 48226. Page 509.
14. Personal communication from Howard Ballentine, certified Meteorological Consultant,
Decembers, 1996.
15. Donald L. Harnett. "Statistical Methods." Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Third
Edition. 1982.
16. Rhodes. "Much Ado About Nothing, Or What to do with Measurement Below the
Detection Limit." Environmetrics 81: Selected Papers, SIAM SIMS Conference Series
No. 8, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. Pp. 157-62, 1991.
17 Lawrence C. Hamilton. "Modern Data Analysis." Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
1990.
18 Snedecor, George W. and William G. Cochran. "Statistical Methods." Ames, Iowa:The
Iowa State University Press, Seventh Edition. 1980.
19 Shapiro, S.S. and M.B. Wilk. "An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (complete
samples)." Biometrika, 52:591-611, 1965.
20. D'Agostino, R.B. "An Omnibus Test of Normality for Moderate and Large Size
Samples." Biometrika 58:341-348, 1971.
21 Scheff, P.A., R.A. Wadden, B.A. Bates and P.P. Aronian (1989). "Source Fingerprints
for Receptor Modeling of Volatile Organics." Journal of Air Pollut. Control Assoc.
39:469-478.
7-2
-------
22. Chester W. Spicer, Bruce E. Buxton, Michael W. Holdren, Deborah L. Smith, Thomas J.
Keely, Steven W. Rust, Alan D. Pate, George M. Sverdrup, and Jane C. Chuang.
"Variability of Hazardous Air Pollutants in an Urban Area." Atmospheric Environment.
Volume 30, No. 20, pp 3443-3456, 1996.
23. Gilbert, Richard O. "Statistical Methods for Environmental Polution Monitoring." Van
Nostrand Reinhold Publishers, 1987.
24. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A)." Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response. December, 1989.
25. Singh, H.B., L.J. Salas, B.K. Cantrell, and R.M. Redmond. "Distribution of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in the Ambient Air." Atmospheric Environment. Volume 19, No. 11.
Pp 1911-1919, 1985.
26. Blake, D.R. and F.S. Rowland (1995). "Urban Leakage of Liquified Petroleum Gas and
its Impact on Mexico City Air Quality." Science, Volume 269, Pp. 953-956, 1995.
27. Birth, T.L. 1995. "User's Guide to the Personal Computer Version of the Biogenic
Emissions Inventory System (PCBEIS2.2)." Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
28. Possanzini, M. and V. DiPalp. "Determination of Olefinic Aldehydes and Other Volatile
Carbonyls in Air Samples by DNPH-Coated Cartridges and HPLC." Chromatographia,
Volume 40. Pp. 134-138, 1995.
29. Hoshika, Yasuyuki and Yoshinori Takata. "Gas ChromatographicSeparation of Carbonyl
Compounds as Their 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazones Using Glass Capillary Columns."
Journal of Chromatography, Volume 120. Pp. 379-389, 1976.
30. Creech, G., R.T. Johnson, and J.O. Stoffer. "Part I. A Comparison of Three Different
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Systems for the Determination of Aldehydes and
Ketones in Diesel Exhaust." Journal of Chromatographic Science, Volume 20,
Pp. 67-72, 1982.
31. Grosjean, Daniel. "Discussion: Atmospheric Concentrations and Temporal Variations of
Q-Cj Carbonyl Compounds at Two rural Sites in Central Ontario." Atmospheric
Environment. Vol. 26A, No. 2. Pp. 349-35 lr 1992.
32. Garcia, J.P, S. Beyne-Masclet, G. Mouner, P. Masclet. "Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds by Coal-fired Power Stations." Atmospheric Environment. Pp 1589-1597
1991.
33. Grosjean, Daniel. "Formaldehyde and other Carbonyls in Los Angeles Ambient Air."
Environmental Science Technology. Vol. 16. Pp. 254-262. 1982.
7-3
-------
34. Dost, F.N. "Acate Toxicology of Components of Vegetation Smoke." Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Vol. 119. Pp. 1-46. 1991.
35. Dew, R.J. "The Regulatory Outlook for Methyl Chrloroform." Spray Technology and
Marketing, January 1993. Pp. 25-27.
36. Zurer, P. "Tighter CFC Substitute Controls Found Feasible." Chemical and Engineering
News, March 13, 1995. Pg. 8.
37. "National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning." Federal Register 59:61801-61820 (December 2, 1994).
38. Thayer, AM. "Growing Exchange of Information Spurs Pollution Prevention Efforts."
Chemical and Engineering News, July 26, 1993. Pp. 8-25.
39. Zurer, P. "Global Monitoring Shows Ozone Treaty is Working." Chemical and
Engineering News, July 17, 1995. Pp. 7-8.
40. Federal Register, Volume 58, p. 49354. September 22, 1993. Office of the Federal
Register, Washington, D.C.
41. Peaff, G. "Court Ruling Spurs Continued Debate Over Gasoline Oxygenates." Chemical
and Engineering News, September 26, 1994. Pp. 8-13.
7-4
-------
Appendix A
AIRS
Site Description
-------
7/96
e : 01 ALABAMA
.ty: 073 JEFFERSON CO
: €002
•ation (MSL)
. Use
tion Setting
tude
od of Determ.
m
UTM =
Zone
ess
ort Agency
tion Descrip.
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AQCR: 004
MSA : 1000
CMSA: 0000
171 METERS
1 RESIDENTIAL'
2 SUBURBAN
75000 TARRANT CITY
+33:34:42:0000
AMP510SB
Page 1/3
METROPOLITAN BIRMINGHAM
BIRMINGHAM, AL
DESCRIPTION UNKNOWN
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
/ /
96/09/25
/ /
- 86:46:26:0000
16
Easting
520984 Northing : 3715234
TARRANT, ELEM. SCH., 1269 PORTLAND STREE
012 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
end
PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev :-PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
11/27/96
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
State. : 01 ALABAMA
County: 073 JEFFERSON CO
Site : 5002
Elevation (MSL)
Land Use
Location Setting
City
Latitude
Method of Determ.
Datum
UTM =
Zone
Address
Support Agency
Location Descrip,
201 METERS
1 RESIDENTIAL
3 RURAL
00000 NOT IN A CITY
+33:42:16:0000
16
Easting
AQCR: 004
MSA : 1000
CMSA: 0000
AMPS1C
Page 3
METROPOLITAN BIRMINGHAM
BIRMINGHAM, AL
DESCRIPTION UNKNOWN
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
/ /
96/09/25
/ /
- 86:40:08:0000
530684 Northing : 3729242
PINSON, HIGH SCR., BOX 360 HWY 75 NORTH
012 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PF3=end PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
:7/96
e. : 01 ALABAMA
ity: 117 SHELBY CO
: : 0004
-at ion (MSL)
I Use
.tion Setting
tude
iod of Determ.
.m
UTM =
Zone
•ess
ort Agency
tion Descrip.
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AQCR: 004
MSA : 1000
CMSA: 0000
600
METERS
4 AGRICULTURAL
3 RURAL
00000 NOT IN A CITY
+33:19:01:0000
AMP510SB
Page 1/3
METROPOLITAN BIRMINGHAM
BIRMINGHAM, AL
DESCRIPTION UNKNOWN
Date Established ;
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
83/01/01
96/09/25
- 86:49:30:0000
16
Easting
516280 Northing : 3686270
BEARDEN FARM
Oil AL DEPT. OF ENV. MGT.
end
PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
11/27/96
State : 48 TEXAS
Tounty: 113 DALLAS CO
Site : 0069
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP51C
Page 1
Elevation (MSL)
Land Use
Location Setting
City
Latitude
Method of Determ.
Datum
UTM =
Zone
Address
Support Agency
Location Descrip.
125 METERS
2 COMMERCIAL
1 URBAN AND CE
19000 DALLAS
+32:49:10:0000
14
AQCR: 215 METROPOLITAN DALLAS-FOF
MSA : 1920 DALLAS, TX
CMSA: 0031 DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX
Date Established : 86/01/01
Date Last Updated: 96/06/27
Date Terminated : / /
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
- 96:51:40:0000
Easting : 700236 Northing : 3633107
1415 HINTON STREET
002 CITY OF DALLAS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SECTION
PF3=end PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
17/96
.e : 48 TEXAS
ity: 439 TARRANT CO
J : 1002
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP510SB
Page 1/3
ration (MSL)
1 Use
ition Setting
.tude
lod of Determ,
im
UTM =
Zone
•ess
)ort Agency
ition Descrip.
204 METERS
2 COMMERCIAL
1 URBAN AND CE
27000 FORT WORTH
+32:48:18:0000
MAP
00 DATUM UNKNOW
14
Easting
AQCR: 215 METROPOLITAN DALLAS-FORT
MSA : 2800 FORT WORTH-ARLINGTON, TX
CMSA: 0031 DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX
Date Established : 75/01/01
Date Last Updated: 96/06/27
Date Terminated : / /
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
- 97:21:23:0000
5.00000SEC
24000A
653888 Northing : 3630675
3317 ROSS AVE.
001 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION
•end
PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
11/27/96
- AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP51
Page
State : 80 COUNTRY OF MEXICO
County: 006 CHIHUAHUA STATE
Site : 0001
Elevation (MSL)
Land Use
Location Setting
City
Latitude
Method of Determ.
Datum
UTM =
Zone
Address
Support Agency
Location Descrip.
METERS
2 COMMERCIAL
1 URBAN AND CE
01150 CIUDAD-JUAREZ
+31:42:56:0000
SUR-GPS
83 NAD 83
13
Easting
TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
002 SEMARNAP
AQCR: 250
MSA : 2320
CMSA: 0000
COUNTRY OF MEXICO
EL PASO, TX
DESCRIPTION UNKNOWN
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
90/06/04
95/10/31
-106:23:39:000t
3.20000SEC
NA
367900
Northing : 3509566
PF3=end PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
7/96
8 : 36 NEW YORK
ty: 059 NASSAU CO
: 0005
•AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP510SB
Page 1/3
ation (MSL)
Use
tion Setting
tude
3d of Determ.
Tl
JTM = Zone
2SS
3rt Agency
cion Descrip.
27 METERS
2 COMMERCIAL
2 SUBURBAN
00000 NOT IN A CITY
+40:44:41:0000
18
Easting
AQCR: 043 NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNE
MSA : 5380 NASSAU-SUFFOLK, NY
CMSA: 0070 NY-N.NJ-L.IS,NY-NJ-CT-PA
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
71/01/01
95/07/03
- 73:35:13:0000
619300
Northing : 4511200
EISENHOWER PARK,MERRICK AV&OLD COUNTRY R
001 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIO
2nd
PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
11/27/96
State : 34 NEW JERSEY
County: 013 ESSEX CO
Site : 0011
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP51
Page
Elevation (MSL)
Land Use
Location Setting
City
Latitude
Method of Determ.
Datum
UTM =
Zone
Address
Support Agency
Location Descrip.
3
1
METERS
INDUSTRIAL
URBAN AND CE
51000 NEWARK
+40:43:36:0000
18
Easting
AQCR: 043 NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CO
MSA : 5640 NEWARK, NJ
CMSA: 0070 NY-N.NJ-L.IS,NY-NJ-CT-
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
85/01/01
96/09/25
- 74:08r39:OOOC
572280 Northing : 4508570
ST. CHARLES BETWEEN KOSSUTH & KAMERON ST
001 NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT'
PF3=end PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
7/96
e : 34 NEW JERSEY
ty: 039 UNION CO
: 5001
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP510SB
Page 1/3
ation (MSL)
Use
.tion Setting
tude
od of Determ.
m
UTM =
Zone
ess
ort Agency
tion Descrip.
18 METERS
1 RESIDENTIAL
2 SUBURBAN
59190 PLAINFIELD
+40:36:03:0000
18
Easting
AQCR: 043 NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNE
MSA : 5640 NEWARK, NJ
CMSA: 0070 NY-N.NJ-L.IS,NY-NJ-CT-PA
Date Established :
Date Last Updated:
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
80/05/01
96/09/25
- 74:26:31:0000
547218 Northing : 4494399
WEST THIRD AND BERGEN STREETS
001 NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
end
PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
11/27/96
AIRS Air Quality Subsystem
Browse Site Data
AMP5K
Page :
State : 22 LOUISIANA
County: 051 JEFFERSON PAR
Site : 1001
Elevation (MSL)
Land Use
Location Setting
City
Latitude
Method of Determ.
Datum
UTM =
Zone
Address
Support Agency
Location Descrip,
3 METERS
1 RESIDENTIAL
2 SUBURBAN
39475 KENNER
+30:02:36:0000
15
Easting
AQCR: 106 SOUTHERN LOUISIANA-SOU'
MSA : 5560 NEW ORLEANS, LA
CMSA: 0000 DESCRIPTION UNKNOWN
Date Established :
Date Last Updated;
Date Terminated :
Longitude
Est. of Accuracy
Scale
WEST TEMPLE PL
001 STATE OF LOUISIANA
/ /
96/05/21
/ /
- 90rl6:30:0000
762761 Northing : 3326537
PF3=end PF4=main menu PF5=terminate PF7=prev PF8=next PF9=gen
-------
Appendix B
Statistical Summary
for the
Speciated NMOC Base Sites
-------
Table B-1. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for AH 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Sites
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Aromatic Compound Average
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane +
2, 3 -Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
Number of
Occurrences
523
524
515
521
515
509
30
347
494
449
440
349
519
524
349
441
490
517
481
520
524
519
346
442
470
521
514
515
499
427
462
499
521
Frequency (%)
100%
100%
98%
99%
98%
97%
6%
66%
94%
86%
84%
67%
99%
100%
67%
84%
94%
99%
92%
99%
100%
99%
66%
84%
90%
99%
98%
98%
95%
81%
88%
95%
99%
B-1
-------
Table B-1. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for All 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Sites
Compound Name
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Parifin Compound Average
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl- 1-Butene
Number of
Occurrences
492
394
517
290
485
415
428
374
361
411
460
114
114
437
388
367
461
1
479
225
120
164
97
235
424
470
403
324
425
128
335
156
16
60
Frequency (%)
94%
75%
99%
55%
93%
79%
82%
71%
69%
78%
88%
22%
22%
83%
74%
70%
88%
0%
91%
43%
23%
31%
19%
45%
81%
90%
77%
62%
81%
24%
64%
30%
3%
11%
B-2
-------
Table B-1. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for All 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Sites
Number of
Compound Name Occurrences Frequency (%)
t-2-Hexene 220 • 42%
c-2-Hexene 147 28%
1-Heptene 13 2%
1-Octene 240 46%
1-Nonene 29 6%
a-Pinene 473 90%
p-Pinene 522 100%
1-Decene 18 3%
1-Undecene 523 100%
1-Dodecene . 134 26%
1-Tridecene 65 12%
Olpfin fnmnmind Average 247 47%
B-3
-------
Table B-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Base Sites
Tarrant City, Pinson, Alabama
Alabama (B1AL) (B2AL)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Aromatic Average
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbulane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
No.
77
77
75
76
77
74
63
7
64
73
71
71
59
76
77
68
70
75
68
77
77
75
54
65
68
77
73
74
Frequency
100%
100%
97%
99%
100%
96%
82%
9%
83%
95%
92%
92%
77%
99%
100%
88%
91%
97%
88%
100%
100%
97%
70%
84%
88%
100%
95%
96%
No.
79
80
78
78
79
78
43
1
43
74
59
63
50
77
80
64
60
78
58
77
80
80
31
48
68
79
77
76
Frequency
99%
100%
98%
98%
99%
98%
54%
1%
54%
93%
74%
79%
63%
96%
100%
80%
75%
98%
73%
96%
100%
100%
39%
60%
85%
99%
96%
95%
Helena, Alabama
(B3AL)
No.
79
79
75
79
75
75
25
1
38
76
65
57
46
79
79
62
73
79
71
78
79
79
35
59
63
77
78
78
Frequency
100%
100%
95%
100%
95%
95%
32%
1%
48%
96%
82%
72%
58%
100%
100%
78%
92%
100%
90%
99%
100%
100%
44%
75%
80%
97%
99%
99%
Dallas, Texas
(DLTX)
No.
83
83
83
83
82
82
73
6
69
83
81
82
61
82
83
74
83
83
81
83
83
83
69
83
82
83
83
83
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
88%
7%
83%
100%
98%
99%
73%
99%
100%
90%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
83%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
Fort Worth,
Texas (FWTX)
No.
79
79
78
79
76
77
62
4
59
77
75
74
60
79
79
69
79
79
79
79
79
78
72
79
78
79
79
79
Frequency
100%
100%
99%
100%
96%
97%
78%
5%
75%
97%
95%
94%
76%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
91%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX)
No.
49
49
49
49
49
49
44
7
45
48
48
47
42
49
49
45
49
46
49
49
49
48
45
39
47
49
49
49
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
14%
92%
98%
98%
96%
86%
100%
100%
92%
100%
94%
100%
100%
100%
98%
92%
80%
96%
100%
100%
100%
New Orleans,
Louisiana
(NOLA)
No.
79
79
79
79
79
75
40
4
30
65
51
47
33
79
79
60
78
79
77
79
79
78
41
71
65
79
77
78
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
51%
5%
38%
82%
65%
59%
42%
100%
100%
76%
99%
100%
97% .
100%
100%
99%
52%
90%
82%
100%
97%
99%
-------
Table B-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Base Sites
Tarrant City, Pinson, Alabama
Alabama (DIAL) (B2AL)
Compound
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylhq>tane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Paraffin Average
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
No.
74
62
68
72
77
73
63
76
55
74
63
65
62
62
68
76
18
18
66
66
67
68
0
68
52
31
49
Frequency
96%
81%
88%
94%
100%
95%
82%
99%
71%
96%
82%
84%
81%
81%
88%
99%
23%
23%
86%
86%
87%
88%
0%
88%
68%
40%
64%
No.
71
49
66
74
80
70
32
78
29
74
52
40
39
36
32
60
17
16
58
58
53
68
0
70
29
7
5
Frequency
89%
61%
83%
93%
100%
88%
40%
98%
36%
93%
65%
50%
49%
45%
40%
75%
21%
20%
72%
73%
66%
85%
0%
88%
36%
9%
6%
Helena, Alabama
(B3AL)
No.
69
43
63
67
76
67
36
76
28
67
47
60
31
47
58
66
13
12
59
47
44
62
0
56
14
16
24
Frequency
87%
54%
80%
85%
96%
85%
46%
96%
35%
85%
59%
76%
39%
59%
73%
84%
16%
15%
75%
59%
56%
78%
0%
71%
18%
20%
30%
Dallas, Texas
(DLTX)
No.
83
81
77
83
83
83
83
83
52
83
81
81
79
71
82
83
23
22
76
71
67
83
1
83
44
14
19
Frequency
100%
98%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
63%
100%
98%
98%
95%
86%
99%
100%
28%
27%
92%
86%
81%
100%
1%
100%
53%
17%
23%
Fort Worth,
Texas (FWTX)
No.
79
79
78
79
79
79
79
79
60
79
76
77
76
67
72
73
14
14
73
69
59
76
0
79
36
23
28
Frequency
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
76%
100%
96%
97%
96%
85%
91%
92%
18%
18%
92%
87%
75%
96%
0%
100%
46%
29%
35%
Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX)
No.
49
49
47
49
49
49
49
49
36
47
44
47
43
44
49
49
17
16
45
43
43
47
0
49
24
13
20
Frequency
100%
100%
96%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
73%
96%
90%
96%
88%
90%
100%
100%
35%
33%
92%
88%
88%
96%
0%
100%
49%
27%
41%
New Orleans,
Louisiana
(NOLA)
No.
76
66
65
77
79
73
54
78
31
63
53
60
45
36
52
55
12
16
62
36
36
59
0
76
27
17
20
Frequency
96%
84%
82%
97%
100%
92%
68%
99%
39%
80%
67%
76%
57%
46%
66%
70%
15%
20%
79%
46%
46%
75%
0%
96%
34%
22%
25%
B-5
-------
Table B-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Base Sites
Tarrant City, Plnson, Alabama
Alabama (B1AL) (B2AL)
Compound
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Olefln Average
No.
28
49
69
73
67
62
69
45
63
51
3
28
53
47
2
54
5
74
77
0
77
19
II
46
Frequency
36%
64%
90%
95%
87%
81%
90%
58%
82%
66%
4%
36%
69%
61%
3%
70%
6%
96%
100%
0%
100%
25%
14%
60%
No.
2
29
63
80
55
33
66
5
58
4
0
2
12
5
1
27
2
79
80
2
80
22
10
32
Frequency
3%
36%
79%
100%
69%
41%
83%
6%
73%
5%
0%
3%
15%
6%
1%
34%
3%
99%
100%
3%
100%
28%
13%
41%
Helena, Alabama
(B3AL)
No.
16
38
58
79
54
37
52
13
60
20
3
22
29
12
0
28
1
78
79
1
78
19
6
34
Frequency
20%
48%
73%
100%
68%
47%
66%
16%
76%
25%
4%
28%
37%
15%
0%
35%
1%
99%
100%
1%
99%
24%
8%
43%
Dallas, Teias
(DLTX)
No.
15
34
78
68
75
66
81
18
57
18
2
2
36
21
1
37
4
66
82
3
83
23
10
41
Frequency
18%
41%
94%
82%
90%
80%
98%
22%
69%
22%
2%
2%
43%
25%
1%
45%
5%
80%
99%
4%
100%
28%
12%
49%
Fort Worth,
Texas (FWTX)
No.
19
38
71
65
70
59
73
19
57
21
2
3
31
27
2
43
3
56
78
10
79
17
11
39
Frequency
24%
48%
90%
82%
89%
75%
92%
24%
72%
27%
3%
4%
39%
34%
3%
54%
4%
71%
99%
13%
100%
22%
14%
50%
Juarez, Mexico
(JUMX)
No.
9
26
44
39
38
36
43
11
7
17
3
0
36
18
4
30
11
44
49
1
49
17
10
25
Frequency
18%
53%
90%
80%
78%
73%
88%
22%
14%
35%
6%
0%
73%
37%
8%
61%
22%
90%
100%
2%
100%
35%
20%
51%
New Orleans,
Louisiana
(NOLA)
No.
9
23
43
68
46
33
43
18
34
26
4
4
24
18
3
22
3
78
79
1
79
17
7
31
Frequency
11%
29%
54%
86%
58%
42%
54%
23%
43%
33%
5%
5%
30%
23%
4%
28%
4%
99%
100%
1%
100%
22%
9%
39%
-------
80%
70V.
50%
40V.
20V.
0V.
\. /
fl-HHfr
AraMtk Specified NMOC C»po»di
40
36
32
28 g
24!
20 1
16(5
12
8
4
0
Figure B-l. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Aromatics at BIAL in 1995.
90%
80%
70% .
60%
50% -
40% .
30% .
20% -
10V.
A /"
m/ \ /
m
n
* j
—
"^ /r\__«__ • /\_ ^ • /T
\
\ ^
\ f
\ /
\l
/ ~ \ J \ l\ l\ /\ \
t
\
^ \ 1
\ >
•
V « \ / ^^^_-/
\\
I
H
95 Percenulc
9 Median
5 Percentile
p— Frequency
i H
I i 1 { i
a. t t i
"11-
•1
1
- i
1=
MM
1 * i- *
* " 1 i
Spcctaled ParafTii
n
U
U n n
u H n
o
1 IMcthylhra™
, n-llcpm
* M*thrlc;cM*ni*
2 1.4-TrilMlhvlMnl.nr
.h
' j;
9K
R H R H
« ) H n
.
i
i— •
n n
i i t
44
40
36
32
28 g;
"1
20 £
<3
16
n
i
4
0
Figure B-2. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Paraffins at BIAL in 1995.
B-7
-------
•a
Cd
n
02
n
D
tt
a
a
n
o
B
n
n
B
Frequency of Occurrence
W
oo
e
B
«T
a
o
B
S
to
ri
(A
w
K)
•— N) U) £k u\ O\
O O O O O O O
sp NO sO vp xp sP N?
tf^ o^ o^ ff- S^ e^ 0s
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
n-Propylbemene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltotuene
1.3,5-
Trimethylbenzrne
o-Elhyltoluene
1,2.4-
Tnmethylbenzene
1.2,3-
Trimeihylbenzcne
Concentration (ppbC).
Freqnency of Occurreiict
•*j o» *o p
§ § ? I
n
B
D
a
D
n
S
5
a
o
s
I
3.
cr
I
B
S*
S)
B
^
S'
l_i
t/l
Coic«ilr»doii (ppbC)
-------
Figure B-5. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Paraffins at B2AL in 1995
Figure B-6. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Olefins at B2AL in 1995
B-9
-------
no
3
w
ic
te
B
a.
O
o
B
w 8
• B
e
B
0s
§.
e
B
3
i
09
K
•^
Cd
Ethane
Propine
liobutane
n-Buuae
liopentane
n-Pentue
CyclopentBlie
2.2-Dlmethylbutue
2.3-DlmethylbuUne
2-Mtthylpenune
3-MetbylpralUM
n-Hexuie
Mtthylcyclopentue
Cyclohexue
2,4-Dlmcthylpentejie
2-Melhylhexuie + 2,3
Dimethylpentine
3-Methylbexu»
n-Heptuia
Methylcyclohexmne
2.2.4-
Trlmethylpentmne
2.2.3-
Trlmetbylptnune
2.3,4-
Trlmethylpentuie
3-MeIhylhcpl«ne
D-Octane
2-Methylheptue
n-Decuie
o-Undeciofl
n-Dodec«ae
ff
3
^J
»*J
Frequency of Occurrence
n
B
3
(B
B
a
O
o
B
i
«•
i
o
B
a
3.
cr
I
B
e
"»•
3
so
Benzene
Toluene
Elhylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Stymie
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
fsopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Elhyl toluene
p-Elhyltoluene
1.3,5-
Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
1.2,3-
Trimethylbenzene
O <^i o
Concentration (ppbC)
-------
2
TO'
§
w
Frequency of Occurrence
n
a
69
B
D.
n
o
o
n
n
D
*+
3
«•*
D
O
B
e
I
a
v>
»
5'
I/I
ooooooooooo
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Isopropytbenzene
O Ul — —
Trimelhylbenzene
o-Elhylloluene
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
1.2,3-
Trimethylbenzene
Concentration (ppbC)
<» S B K
-------
ff
3
TO
>-»
K»
n
0
(0
0
a
• e
0
§
r+
I
td o
3.
a-
»*.
S'
0
0
R
e
r
S
0
tS
Frequency of Occurrence
Concentration (ppbC)
ff
^
Cd
e
S
0
Q.
0
n
S
A
S
(T
I
0
e
3
I
5'
Ethane
Proptn*
Ifobutan*
n-Butanc
laopentui*
n-PcnUne
Cyelopentant
2.2-Dlmetbylbuluie
2.3-DlmethytbuluM
2-MetiiytpenUne
3-MelhylpenUiM
Mcthylcyctopentanc
Cyclohexanc
2.4-Dlraethylpentui*
I-M«thyIfc«x«n« + 2.3-
DlmethylpentaBC
3-McthylhexuK
n-HcptAae
Methylcyclohexui*
2.2.4-
Trlmctliylpelituie
2.2,3-
Trln ethylpeataae
2.3.4-
Trtmethylpcntane
3-Methylhepuwe
n-Octanc
2-McthylhepUn«
0-Nonui«
D-Deeuie
n-Uadacfta*
n-Dodecuie
n-Trld«cuw
6
-------
era
\tf
WEth...
taa.*. Propaot
•
UofcaUa*
»>f B-BattB*
*Q IiopenUo*
e
«_
n-Pentane
B
«5 Cyclop..!...
2 2,2-Dlnt.tkylbaUM
s
^* 2,3-Dim.tbytb.u..
o
Q 2-M>tky1p.au>«
f» 9-Mctkylp.au>.
H u
SB M.lhylcyclop.aua.
£}•
2* Cyelok.xui.
Cd B
1 ^^ 2.4-Dlm.tkylp.at.B.
S"1 Dlm.tkylp.aun>
. }-M.lkylknu.
C .-H.pU..
S;
B
O 2.2,4-Trlm.tkytpe.tu.
hrtk
'^
M 2,2,3-Trlni.tkylp.BUa.
IB
•J 2.1,4.Trln.tkylp.aua.
St l-M.lkylk.pua.
5
JJ a-Octu.
J«> 2-M.tkylb.pua.
5 ..N..M.
^ >-D.cM.
X a-U.d.eui.
S'
.-Dod.oa.
N- »
^A a-Trld.ean. '
V0
1 • 1
f~ 4)
'* | '
1
i
1 • 1
r~ •
i •
iZI
ED
• i
i <
czr
1="
i • i
*
El
D
EZ
an
I4> 1
ED
GE:
D
ED
D
D
3
9
D
a
1
1
?
=D
r
1
i
—
i
•
~
• •
JT ~
. •
•c
— '—
"
•^i |
-~-
<
\
__ ~J
|
K'
1
1
^--'
--,
^~^_
/
/
}
J
\
1
Frequency of Occurrence
Benzene
1.2,3-
Trimethylbenzene
(ppbC)
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene Jj
n*fropyl benzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-E(hyl(oluene
1.3.5-
Trimelhylbenzene
o-Ethylioluene
1.2.4-
Trimethylbenzene
1.2.3-
Trimethylbenzene
ooooooooooo
Concentration (ppbC)
Frequency of Occurrence
Concentration (ppbC)
-------
*?
ff
w
I-*
o
I
n
B
•5
n
g
8
B
v+>
3
03 B
Frequency of Occurrence
9
1-TridKOK
Concentration (ppbC)
Frequency of Occurrence
Eihnc
Propm.
Intaune
IIOIKIIUM
B
a
O
e
B-
8
B
r+
i
o
B
O
I
o-'
I
B
8,
"^
so
2
f
L
CyckvaUK ]
J.J^mahylboUK
2,}-DtiMliylbuUM g
2-MdhylpaiuiK
3-Mcdiylpcnune
n-HcuiK
MflhytcyctopoiM
Cydohen
2-MediyDKiuiK « 2.)-
DtmakjtfaOM
McdiylcydohnaiK
2.].4-TrimdbylpaiUM Q
)-M«h)lhqK«o« |
-Ocu~ 3
2.M«hylh
-------
f
3
s
n
>fi
n
D
(0
a
o.
o
B
Frequency of Occurrence
DO a
SS
«•
a.
a1
I
B
5
B*
Concentration (ppbC)
f
Frequency of Occurrence
UD
B
a
n
S
n
3
e
B
w*
3.
e
B
e
r
5
ee
O
r
>
5*
Ul
Benzene
Toluene
Elhylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Dielhylbeiuene
liopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Elhyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
I.3.S-
Trimethylbenzene
o-Eihylloluene
1.2,4-
Trimethylbeiuene
1,2,3-
Trimelhylbeiuene
Concentration (ppbC)
-------
w
ff
Frequency of Occurrence
n
a
to
a
Q.
n
o
B
n
n
D
i^-
i
o
B
or
§.
o
B
O
55"
5
M
o
r
O Is) *••
Concentration (ppbC)
-------
Table B-3. Statistical Summary of the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Concentration Range Central Tendency of Measured Concentration
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Dielhylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-E%ltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Variability
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Minimum Maximum Mode Median Mean Mean Deviation Deviation
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
56.70
196.20
16.26
50.22
17.88
17.04
8.40
9.48
10.68
11.10
6.96
7.92
6.00
15.12
10.14
83.10
1530.00
29.76
87.00
420.00
76.20
56.40
13.80
106.80
46.56
31.56
29.16
12.96
2.76
5.88
0.84
4.80
1.32
1.32
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.08
1.08
0.17
0.17
0.04
3.00
6.24
3.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.20
2.40
1.08
0.60
3.72
9.69
1.86
5.19
1.56
1.98
0.90
0.04
0.48
1.92
0.78
0.78
0.96
2.76
1.44
9.77
10.19
2.70
6.48
10.92
5.31
0.48
0.93
1.32
4.80
3.75
2.94
1.56
4.98
14.73
2.71
8.13
1.93
2.90
1.06
0.08
0.75
2.58
1.15
1.25
1.16
3.75
1.82
12.38
19.21
4.05
9.49
19.90
8.26
0.83
1.21
2.24
6.36
5.16
4.31
2.31
3.69
10.28
1.87
5.41 •
1.55
1.91
0.41
0.05
0.31
1.69
0.63
0.64
0.44
2.76
1.53
. 7.28
10.46
2.09
6.19
11.96
5.18
0.28
0.61
1.09
4.13
3.60
2.76
1.46
4.36
14.66
2.42
7.75
1.64
2.62
1.06
0.43
0.87
2.05
1.08
1.26
1.13
2.91
1.30
10.77
69.14
4.29
10.65
31.12
9.24
2.81
1.47
5.17
5.93
4.19
4.09
2.03
2.25
2.37
2.57
2.63
2.06
2.89
5.67
1.85
4.82
3.21
3.85
4.12
5.88
2.38
1.77
3.71
2.76
4.33
2.65
2.60
2.85
4.68
4.08
4.01
2.78
2.73
2.87
3.12
-------
Table B-3. Statistical Summary of the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Concentration Range
Compound Name
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2 -Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Central Tendency of Measured Concentration
Variability
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Minimum Maximum Mode Median Mean Mean Deviation Deviation
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
19.32
7.56
350.40
344.40
158.40
101.40
21.24
9.36
6.96
7.86
8.04
4.68
14.40
21.12
101.40
19.44
16.14
32.40
96.60
17.25
0.48
13.44
4.26
12.00
11.04
6.36
23.10
20.88
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.68
0.48
0.04
2.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.14
0.72
2.58
2.85
1.32
1.20
3.06
0.54
0.90
0.66
0.60
0.60
0.48
0.60
0.78
0.04
0.04
4.34
3.24
2.63
0.17
1.86
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.60
1.72
1.14
4.68
4.35
2.38
1.96
4.43
0.78
1.37
0.93
0.86
0.65
0.73
1.16
1.85
0.38
0.30
5.73
5.41
3.50
0.17
2.46
0.73
0.34
0.34
0.19
1.30
1.18
0.76
0.67
2.41
2.81
1.20
0.68
3.08
0.25
0.86
0.46
0.47
0.33
0.31
0.46
0.70
0.08
0.08
2.35
1.91
2.20
0.17
1.48
0.18
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.20
0.50
2.39
1.08
16.02
15.57
7.30
4.94
3.69
1.00
1.22
1.01
0.84
0.58
1.06
2.10
6.35
1.29
0.92
5.77
8.02
3.10
0.01
2.16
1.03
0.91
0.83
0.51
3.11
1.87
4.82
3.49
3.46
2.21
3.44
5.92
2.61
5.69
3.14
" 4.15
3.76
4.14
4.47
4.54
3.93
4.12
3.87
5.46
5.64
3.14
1.05
3.69
6.12
4.13
4.12
3.10
6.93
4.39
B-19
-------
Table B-3. Statistical Summary of the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Concentration Range
Compound Name
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-EthyM-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1 -Dodecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Minimum Maximum
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
26.40
51.48
24.12
13.08
26.88
3.36
3.90
29.64
5.28
5.52
3.36
2.58
7.02
3.24
1.44
21.48
18.36
5.64
36.72
5.40
4.08
2800.00
Central Tendency of Measured Concentration
Variability
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Mode Median Mean Mean Deviation Deviation
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.74
0.04
1.32
0.04
0.04
117.00
1.11
0.72
0.48
0.84
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
2.52
2.58
0.04
2.10
0.04
0.04
195.00
2.15
1.45
0.83
1.52
0.20
0.74
0.49
6.08
0.20
0.37
0.20
0.07
0.36
0.08
3.83
3.25
0.09
3.02
0.36
0.11
275.42
1.00
0.53
0.29
0.64
0.08
0.31
0.11
0.04
0.06
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.14
0.05
1.88
2.57
0.04
2.29
0.09
0.05
210.03
3.33
2.61
1.23
2.43
0.42
0.74
1.48
0.30
0.57
0.54
0.33
0.36
0.45
0.17
3.69
2.27
0.36
3.07
0.67
0.26
239.49
4.16
5.04
5.30
4.72
3.31
5.02
5.01
1.83
3.00
4.37
3.33
1.62
4.25
1.90
4.75
2.06
1.84
2.02
4.44
2.40
208
-------
Table B-4. Statistical Summary for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
0.36
0.90
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.48
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Maximum Mode Median Mean
56.70
63.00
8.88
31.56
9.36
10.50
5.40
0.60
6.00
9.30
6.96
4.86
4.86
13.74
5.64
28.20
50.10
23.88
18.60
6.84
26.10
1.08
19.08
0.84
1.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
6.24
0.04
0.48
0.04
1.20
2.76
0.17
9.66
0.04
6.24
6.84
23.88
4.02
12.36
2.40
4.26
1.92
0.04
1.20
4.38
2.10
2.40
2.10
5.88
2.64
12.39
15.00
3.90
7.92
7.74
21.74
3.79
12.01
2.90
4.17
1.79
0.07
1.13
4.03
1.96
2.07
1.86
5.47
2.67
11.97
15.77
3.71
8.11
Geometric
Mean
5.51
16.16
2.78
8.35
2.30
2.92
0.98
0.05
0.65
2.71
1.27
1.35
0.87
4.05
2.50
7.54
11.04
2.02
6.50
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
7.27
13.54
2.23
7.73
2.03
2.52
1.13
0.11
0.90
2.47
1.32
1.31
1.28
3.31
0.94
7.29
10.68
3.16
4.52
2.47
2.48
2.77
3.00
2.01
3.14
4.84
1.91
4.04
3.41
3.48
3.49
5.84
2.62
1.47
3.94
2.90
4.87
2.15
B-21
-------
Table B-4. Statistical Summary for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane ,
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethyipentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
0.84
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
100.80
19.62
7.74
2.46
8.04
17.52
16.62
17.40
6.36
19.32
4.20
91.20
90.60
39.48
29.52
15.72
2.88
5.76
4.62
5.70
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
7.44
12.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.80
0.04
0.96
0.84
0.04
0.04
0.04
5.04
0.48
0.04
9.48
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
24.24
8.70
0.78
1.20
2.58
7.08
8.22
5.28
3.12
1.68
1.98
5,28
4.20
2.04
2.28
6.90
1.32
2.28
1.08
1.08
22.86
8.20
0.79
1.05
2.47
7.01
6.83
5.52
2.85
3.82
1.67
5.93
5.23
2.68
2.50
6.52
1.08
2.17
1.05
1.08
Geometric
Mean
16.06
5.60
0.36
0.62
1.40
5.02
4.67
3.41
1.97
1.18
1.00
3.20
3.46
1.51
1.08
4.81
0.50
1.53
0.60
0.64
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
16.61
5.09
1.00
0.69
1.77
4.49
3.81
4.31
1.78
4.87
1.09
10.42
10.24
4.55
3.53
3.96
0.81
1.37
0.77
0.88
2.70
3.27
4.60
3.90
4.39
2.62
3.65
3.56
3.06
7.15
3.95
4.02
2.19
3.35
5.57
2.66
5.29
2.89
4.05
3.81
-------
Table B-4. Statistical Summary for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
2.76
7.50
20.40
101.40
3.48
2.04
23.64
96.60
17.25
0.17
8.88
4.08
1.56
1.32
0.84
16.14
7.26
12.36
11.40
3.24
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Mode Median Mean Mean Deviation Deviation
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.96
1.20
1.32
1.62
0.04
0.04
9.36
10.74
5.58
0.17
2.10
1.14
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.84
1.44
1.62
1.68
1.20
0.87
1.16
1.69
3.65
0.39
0.28
9.21
11.18
6.11
0.17
2.38
1.32
0.41
0.44
0.22
1.38
1.57
2.52
1.74
1.17
0.52
0.62
0.86
1.60
0.09
0.08
5.11
5.95
3.53
0.17
1.40
0.49
0.14
0.23
0.10
0.37
0.93
1.57
0.97
0.65
0.58
1.04
2.61
11.73
0.74
0.49
6.22
11.92
4.70
0.00
1.74
1.21
0.50
0.36
0.25
2.55
1.26
2.32
1.56
0.81
3.83
4.32
3.91
2.82
4.58
4.02
4.63
4.62
3.86
1.00
4.21
6.27
4.82
3.95
3.51
6.31
3.77
3.23
4.19
4.35
B-23
-------
Table B-4. Statistical Summary for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
26.40
5.64
2.94
3.90
2.64
1.56
5.52
3.36
1.26
7.02
2.70
1.02
12.12
9.30
0.04
6.84
2.64
0.96
959.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
2.64
0.04
1.44
0.04
0.04
452.00
Arithmetic Geometric
Median Mean Mean
2.04
0.36
1.32
1.08
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.36
0.04
0.84
0.04
2.40
2.64
0.04
1.98
0.04
0.04
394.00
2.06
0.40
1.33
0.90
0.09
0.72
0.60
0.31
0.13
0.77
0.07
3.41
2.93
0.04
2.30
0.33
0.11
353.99
1.21
0.18
0.74
0.39
0.04
0.15
0.31
0.18
0.04
0.38
0.05
2.23
2.48
0.04
2.07
0.09
0.06
284.02
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.48
0.52
0.93
0.72
0.25
1.14
0.53
0.26
0.80
0.60
0.15
2.77
1.68
0.00
1.13
0.57
0.20
197.43
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
4.02
3.93
4.36
5.36
1.98
6.25
4.23
3.47
1.90
4.62
1.92
3.13
1.85
1.00
1.59
4.33
2.47
2.13
-------
Table B-5. Statistical Summary for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Range (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Compound Name
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Minimum
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
Maximum
9.06
26.58
4.92
16.56
7.74
5.64
1.98
0.48
3.84
5.64
3.00
2.70
2.46
6.72
7.20
22.05
22.29
9.36
55.08
Mode
1.98
5.88
1.92
6.12
1.02
1.32
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.38
1.20
0.17
7.62
0.04
3.00
Median
2.85
6.81
1.29.
4.11
1.14
1.53
0.54
0.04
0.33
1.62
0.54
0.60
0.84
2.10
1.20
2.13
5.55
0.72
2.70
Mean
3.18
7.15
1.37
3.98
1.34
1.56
0.53
0.04
0.34
1.64
0.55
0.59
0.70
2.05
1.58
2.87
5.90
0.94
3.80
Mean
2.57
6.06
1.13
3.13
1.16
1.26
0.21
0.04
0.16
1.17
0.31
0.37
0.31
1.60
1.38
1.43
4.84
0.41
2.42
Deviation
1.79
3.95
0.75
2.33
0.94
0.88
0.53
0.05
0.49
0.98
0.49
0.44
0.57
1.16
1.07
3.15
3.31
1.36
6.44
Deviation
2.22
1.88
2.14
2.50
1.77
2.22
4.92
1.32
3.80
3.04
3.70
3.43
5.04
2.53
1.62
4.06
2.15
4.68
2.82
B-25
-------
Table B-5. Statistical Summary for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane .
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
0.60
0.24
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.30
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum
93.60
23.04
1.98
4.02
4.92
16.20
9.78
8.70
4.26
7.44
2.28
6.12
4.32
2.94
2.94
9.42
9.36
3.30
2.76
1.32
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
5.22
1.68
0.04
0.04
0.04
2.10
2.76
1.56
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.20
0.48
0.04
2.34
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
6.57
2.61
0.04
0.36
0.78
2.10
2.01
1.32
0.87
0.60
0.51
1.68
1.56
0.60
0.04
2.19
0.04
0.72
0.36
0.14
8.57
3.10
0.21
0.38
0.86
2.43
2.19
1.54
0.95
0.76
0.56
1.59
1.66
0.64
0.33
2.41
0.43
0.77
0.41
0.23
Geometric
Mean
6.44
2.42
0.10
0.18
0.54
1.92
1.65
1.15
0.66
0.27
0.37
1.14
1.50
0.46
0.12
1.88
0.12
0.58
0.21
0.12
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
10.73
2.89
0.32
0.55
0.72
2.07
1.56
1.20
0.70
1.15
0.42
1.02
0.75
0.46
0.47
1.56
1.14
0.53
0.43
0.23
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.06
2.06
3.29
3.75
3.35
2.14
2.60
2.55
3.01
.5.14
3.09
3.03
1.58
2.80
4.20 .
2.36
4.52
2.52
3.74
3.27
-------
Table B-5. Statistical Summary for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1-Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
Maximum
1.20
1.56
4.14
7.92
9.00
5.16
11.28
16.71
9.06
0.17
4.44
4.14
3.24
2.88
1.68
19.14
6.84
15.96
8.04
4.32
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
3.78
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.4Z
0.04
0.04
3.20
2.28
2.45
0.17
1.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.42
3.00
0.42
0.04
0.28
0.24
0.28
0.65
0.36
0.28
3.28
2.28
2.36
0.17
1.17
0.41
0.12
0.10
0.07
1.53
0.67
3.69
0.55
0.29
Arithmetic Geometric
Geometric Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Deviation
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.31
0.08
0.07
1.62
1.10
1.67
0.17
0.78
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.17
0.31
2.67
0.26
0.11
0.29
0.27
0.58
1.03
1.19
0.71
2.70
2.39
1.45
0.00
0.77
0.72
0.39
0.33
0.19
3.17
1.13
2.95
0.94
0.54
3.73
3.50
3.67
3.81
3.91
3.75
4.48
4.18
2.87
1.00
3.39
4.62
2.35
2.03.
1.65
8.27
3.63
2.36
3.91
3.76 .
B-27
-------
Table B-5. Statistical Summary for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL) for the 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1 -Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.96
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
27.30
10.68
1.44
3.00
2.04
0.04
0.48
1.20
0.72
0.66
2.40
1.14
12.00
7.20
5.64
13.02
3.72
1.32
439.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.60
4.38
0.04
1.20
0.04
0.04
113.00
Arithmetic Geometric
Median Mean Mean
0.60
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
4.17
3.39
0.04
1.47
0.04
0.04
114.00
0.82
0.08
0.68
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.22
0.06
4.45
3.57
0.16
1.95
0.36
0.11
125.94
0.45
0.05
0.36
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.04
3.39
3.17
0.04
1.61
0.10
0.05
110.23
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.25
0.18
0.55
0.29
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.35
0.13
2.74
1.65
0.76
1.76
0.63
0.21
70.58
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
3.54
1.94
4.17
2.04
1.00
L41
2.30
1.86
1.37
3.44
1.60
2.47
1.67
2.13
1.73
4.51
2.41
1.69
-------
Table B-6. Statistical Summary for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
0.48
1.08
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.36
0.17
1.56
0.04
0.04
Maximum
12.24
31.86
4.14
12.24
3.36
4.14
3.42
9.48
1.56
4.44
3.18
1.80
4.20
5.52
5.76
11.70
26.70
24.12
87.00
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Mode Median Mean Mean
0.96
5.04
0.96
1.32
0.96
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.08
0.84
0.17
6.99
0.04
2.70
2.52
6.00
1.0&
3.48
1.20
1.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.56
0.48
0.60
0.84
1.74
1.08
4.92
5.61
1.56
4.74
3.40
8.90
1.44
4.10
1.30
1.48
0.38
0.16
0.34
1.75
0.57
0.58
0.75
1.93
1.33
4.77
6.19
3.12
12.03
2.70
6.85
1.06
3.28
1.04
1.08
0.11
0.04
0.15
1.33
0.36
0.32
0.28
1.58
1.14
3.55
5.47
1.38
5.69
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
2.33
6.46
0.92
2.61
0.66
0.97
0.63
1.06
0.36
1.05
0.48
0.48
0.78
1.19
0.91
2.58
3.44
4.59
18.96
2.02
2.14
2.67
2.04
2.39
2.73
4.67
1.86
4.15
2.54
3.18
3.94
5.58
1.96
1.68
2.77
1.66
4.42
3.35
B-29
-------
Table B-6. Statistical Summary for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
1.80
0.84
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
216.60
61.80
7.62
13.44
14.22
38.82
22.02
13.86
9.78
2.46
4.74
10.26
7.26
5.88
3.00
14.22
2.40
4.02
2.28
2.40
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
6.24
1.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.96
3.12
1.08
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.32
0.60
0.04
2.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
10.08
3.96
0.04
0.48-
0.96
2.40
3.18
1.50
1.08
0.36
0.60
1.62
1.74
0.60
0.04
2.04
0.04
0.60
0.42
0.48
28.06
8.57
0.60
1.18
2.24
5.36
4.40
2.49
1.66
0.56
0.88
2.27
2.15
1.09
0.61
3.04
0.38
0.88
0.46
0.51
Geometric
Mean
12.75
4.47
0.15
0.37
0.77
2.67
2.85
1.63
0.84
0.21
0.45
1.15
1.60
0.58
0.18
1.95
0.12
0.51
0.21
0.30
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
46.83
13.04
1.21
2.26
3.07
7.75
4.63
2.78
1.99
0.59
0.98
2.16
1.52
1.23
0.81
2.91
0.55
0.82
0.46
0.48
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
3.21
2.88
5.11
4.96
5.82
3.40
2.72
2.53
4.01
5.00
3.98
4.80
2.61
3.79
5.59
3.03
4.60
3.53
4^26
3.46
-------
Table B-6. Statistical Summary for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobuteneand 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.24
0.04
0.04
Maximum
1.62
1.08
4.74
14.64
4.92
2.16
9.42
6.24
4.98
0.17
6.60
2.76
6.12
5.52
5.04
10.92
13.98
21.96
16.14
8.76
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Mode Median Mean Mean Deviation Deviation
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.48
0.60
0.04
0.04
2,04
1.71
1.62
0.17
0.90
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
2.88
0.84
0.04
0.31
0.37
0.53
1.05
0.21
0.15
2.31
1.81
1.82
0.17
1.30
0.27
0.46
0.48
0.35
1.57
1.54
3.80
1.76
0.85
0.12
0.19
0.28
0.50
0.06
0.06
0.98
0.81
1.20
0.17
0.49
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.23
0.42
2.49
0.48
0.19
0.40
0.32
0.65
2.06
0.62
0.32
2.30
1.76
1.27
0.00
1.54
0.57
1.15
1.06
0.84
2.78
2.81
3.61
3.09
1.70
4.15
3.86
3.70
3.70
3.17
2.81
4.64
4.31
3.04
1.00
5.67
3.74
4.56
4.83
4.14
7.98
5.75
2.66
6.54
5.99
B-31
-------
Table B-6. Statistical Summary for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
33,20
21.36
2.88
3.06
4.26
1.62
2.52
2.94
1.50
0.04
1.14
1.32
21.48
10.74
0.84
6.78
4.20
1.44
902.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
1.74
0.04
0.96
0.04
0.04
113.00
Arithmetic Geometric
Median Mean Mean
0.48
0.04
0.90
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
3.90
3.00
0.04
1.20
0.04
0.04
142.00
1.76
0.21
0.96
0.38
0.08
0.31
0.39
0.16
0.04
0.25
0.06
4.91
3.34
0.05
1.45
0.29
0.09
195.23
0.39
0.06
0.49
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.10
0.04
3.32
2.75
0.04
1.24
0.08
0.05
146.26
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
3.83
0.52
0.77
0.80
0.24
0.52
0.67
0.31
0.00
0.31
0.14
4.10
2.09
0.09
0.97
0.66
0.20
172.44
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
6.56
3.23
4.52
4,47
1.94
4.20
4.45
2.97
1.00
3.81
1.49
2.78
1.92
1.41
1.84
3.93
2.10
2.11
-------
Table B-7. Statistical Summary for Dallas, Texas (DLTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Compound Name Minimum Maximum Mode Median Mean
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2, 3 -Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
1.44
3.42
0.72
1.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.54
3.84
3.72
0.04
1.92
17.10
196.20
12.48
50.22
17.88
12.90
4.74
0.75
3.06
11.10
5.64
6.48
5.10
15.12
8.64
49.50
56.70
18.60
21.60
2.28
13.08
1.68
5.76
1.32
1.68
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.62
0.84
0.60
0.04
1.92
0.96
11.82
31.80
2.22
5.76
3.90
12.12
2.16
6.24
1.74
2.40
1.20
0.04
0.72
2.28
1.20
1.20
1.08
3.18
1.50
15.24
14.64
3.48
7.32
4.85
18.74
3.07
9.48
2.04
3.28
1.38
0.07
0.89
3.16
1.62
1.79
1.43
4.44
2.09
17.16
16.99
4.28
8.23
Geometric
Mean
4.16
13.42
2.46
7.11
1.71
2.53
0.89
0.05
0.53
2.57
1.25
1.28
0.61
3.48
1.70
15.19
14.73
3.12
7.26
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
2.97
23.41
2.36
8.31
1.93
2.47
0.94
0.11
0.72
2.18
1.14
1.48
1.27
3.12
1.58
8.72
9.65
3.53
4.19
1.72
2.10
1.92
2.11
1.84
2.23
3.53
1.84
3.65
1.90
2.28
2.38
5.65
2.22
1.85
1.65
1.71
2.59
1.68
B-33
-------
Table B-7. Statistical Summary for Dallas, Texas (DLTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-MethyIhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
3.84
1.80
0.04
0.36
0.04
2.40
1.56
1.38
0.54
0.04
0.04
1.08
0.96
0.54
0.54
1.20
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
420.00
42.60
13.44
4.86
15.24
24.60
21.24
19.74
8.88
9.00
7.56
350.40
344.40
158.40
101.40
20.40
7.32
4.86
4.50
4.68
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
7.80
5.28
0.04
0.72
1.32
7.08
4.80
2.16
1.20
1.62
0.48
1.86
3.12
1.02
1.20
5.16
0.04
0.48
0.84
0.84
11.04
5.88
0.48
0.96
1.56
7.86
4.80
3.78
1.98
1.32
0.72
3.24
3.78
2.16
1.86
3.12
0.72
0.90
0.84
0.96
20.42
7.86
0.77
1.28
2.22
8.69
5.70
5.00
2.39
1.50
0.98
8.33
8.49
4.59
3.67
4.38
0.86
1.34
1.15
1.22
Geometric
Mean
13.38
6.41
0.42
1.05
1.69
7.72
4.84
4.19
2.02
1.23
0.68
3.64
4.13
2.35
2.10
3.53
0.31
1.06
0.88
0.97
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
45.60
6.12
1.48
0.87
2.05
4.36
3.55
3.38
1.51
1.06
0.97
38.11
37.39
17.19
11.04
3.37
1.09
1.00
0.83
0.85
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.05
1.84
3.36
1.85
2.16
1.65
1.77
1.78
1.79
2.07
2.70
2.20
1.98
2.17
2.15
1.88
5.50
1.94
2.23
2.15
-------
Table B-7. Statistical Summary for Dallas, Texas (DLTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Oleflns:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
1.20
0.17
0.96
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum
2.40
5.40
21.12
85.20
4.68
2.64
26.88
69.30
12.75
0.48
12.12
3.78
1.86
1.14
1.02
20.46
4.44
3.48
19.80
4.56
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
0.60
0.04
0.60
0.48
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
2.40
0.17
1.86
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.96
0.04
0.78
0.72
1.20
1.08
0.04
0.04
5.82
3.99.
2.94
0.17
2.46
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.60
0.72
0.72
0.86
1.11
1.96
2.99
0.38
0.32
7.01
8.31
3.70
0.17
3.15
0.86
0.19
0.18
0.13
1.40
0.93
0.89
1.44
0.92
Geometric
Mean
0.71
0.59
1.20
1.35
0.10
0.09
3.86
3.19
3.14
0.17
2.62
0.24
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.18
0.62
0.47
0.72
0.46
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
0.44
1.16
2.70
9.69
0.77
0.57
5.78
12.21
2.35
0.03
2.22
1.09
0.36
0.28
0.22
3.29
0.89
0.88
2.57
0.94
2.17
3.80
2.70
2.58
4.52
4.21
4.27
5.26
1.75
1.12
1.78
6.17
3.24
3.25
2.77
7.37
2.70
3.88
3.45
4.16
B-35
-------
Table B-7. Statistical Summary for Dallas, Texas (DLTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1 -Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
0.04
0.04
76.00
6.72
2.40
2.70
2.64
1.02
1.02
1.50
2.22
0.36
1.50
0.36
10.44
8.52
2.58
36.72
5.40
4.08
2800.00
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.74
0.04
1.62
0.04
0.04
234.00
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Geometric Standard
Median Mean Mean Deviation
0.96
0.04
0.66
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.20
2.10
0.04
3.00
0.04
0.04
222.00
1.35
0.18
0.72
0.29
0.06
0.05
0.29
0.19
0.04
0.28
0.05
1.42
2.36
0.09
4.17
0.44
0.15
308.03
0.99
0.07
0.34
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.66
1.98
0.04
3.16
0.10
0.06
247.03
1.09
0.39
0.62
0.55
0.12
0.11
0.36
0.35
0.04
0.32
0.06
1.49
1.46
0.31
4.53
0.85
0.47
321.73
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.38
3.12
4.58
4.03
1.57
1.54
3.88
3.27
1.28
3.77
1.58
4.90
1.97
1.93
1.97
4.93
2.63
1.81
-------
Table B-8. Statistical Summary for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xyle.ne
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
0.60
2.16
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
0.36
3.30
3.63
0.90
2.22
16.20
66.60
10.56
32.64
3.54
11.76
4.20
0.84
2.76
9.84
4.68
5.40
4.32
14.88
10.14
83.10
215.40
21.00
64.20
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) Concentration fnnbO
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
2.58
9.30
1.32
3.54
1.74
1.74
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.08
0.72
0.60
0.04
3.12
1.08
8.88
7.53
1.62
5.88
3.78
12.48
1.98
6.12
1.62
2.16
1.20
0.04
0.72
2.04
0.96
0.96
1.08
3.12
1.38
17.61
15.18
3.60
7.50
4.86
16.58
2.66
8.00
1.61
2.91
1.26
0.07
0.82
2.72
1.30
1.32
1.22
4.28
1.74
18.97
19.53
4.65
10.67
Arithmetic
Geometric Standard
Mean Deviation
3.85
12.65
2.02
6.12
1.34
2.13
0.65 "
0.04
0.42
2.03
0.93
0.88
0.59
3.54
1.44
15.68
14.77
3.64
7.89
3.47
12.78
1.98
6.20
0.73
2.20
0.99
0.14
0.69
1.95
0.98
1.11
1.02
2.80
1.48
12.64
25.25
3.74
10.49
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.01
2.12
2.29
2.12
2.24
2.58
4.70
K84
4.35
2.52
2.67
2.91
4.98
1.86
1.76
1.88
1.93
1.99
2.08
B-37
-------
Table B-8. Statistical Summary for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
3.54
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.04
1.20
0.72
1.08
0.36
0.36
0.04
0.60
1.08
0.48
0.36
1.20
0.04
0.24
0.04
0.04
214.20
76.20
56.40
13.80
17.76
46.56
31.56
29.16
12.96
4.68
4.32
14.76
11.88
8.52
5.52
17.16
4.44
6.24
5.16
4.08
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
5.64
6.12
0.48
1.20
1.20
6.36
2.46
3.30
1.50
0.96
0.60
1.62
2.82
0.96
0.84
4.26
0.04
0.72
0.60
0.48
14.22
7.20
0.60
1.68
1.68
8.46
5.16
4.38
2.22
1.62
0.84
3.36
3.72
2.22
1.80
4.08
0.90
1.20
0.90
0.96
24.08
12.15
1.85
2.25
2.63
10.35
6.90
6.49
3.29
1.92
1.18
4.66
4.44
2.97
2.10
5.74
1.10
1.88
1.29
1.21
Geometric
Mean
15.71
7.97
0.66
1.72
1.80
8.35
5.38
4.96
2.49
1.67
0.92
3.66
3.78
2.31
1.74
4.60
0.51
1.42
0.89
0.96
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
31.74
13.33
6.40
2.11
2.81
7.62
5.51
5.42
2.67
1.01
0.86
3.31
2.56
2.17
1.20
4.05
1.02
1.49
1.09
0.78
2.32
2.73
3.61
2.11
2.45
1.95
2.02
2.05
2.12
1.72
2.10
2.03
1.78
2.05-
1.92
1.94
4.85
2.14
2.63
2.18
-------
Table B-8. Statistical Summary for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum
4.68
3.12
7.68
14.10
19.44
16.14
25.02
17.40
11.04
0.17
13.44
4.26
12.00
11.04
6.36
23.10
20.88
2.76
24,12
13.08
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) . Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
0.72
0.48
0.48
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
2.64
0.17
3.30
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.54
0.78
0.72
0.04
0.04
5.13
4.11
2.64
0.17
3.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.78
0.60
0.90
0.60
0.94
0.72
1.02
1.13
0.44
0.38
6.57
4.64
3.60
0.17
4.60
0.76
0.69
0.64
0.33
1.72
1.61
0.75
2.05
1.22
Arithmetic Geometric
Geometric Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Deviation
0.76
0.45
0.67
0.69
0.07
0.07
3.56
2.15
2.77
0.17
3.97
0.20
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.21
0.74
0.46
0.87
0.46
0.64
0.60
1.01
1.71
2.20
1.83
5.94
4.31
2.53
0.00
2.74
1.01
1.78
1.60
0.87
4.75
3.07
0.58
3.62
1.94
2.13
3.25
2.96
2.89
3.84
3.67
4.06
4.91
2.28
1.00
1.72
6.26
5.64
5.40
4.02
7.13
3.67
3.50
4.J6
5.04
B-39
-------
Table B-8. Statistical Summary for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX), 1995 Speciated NMOC
Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0,04
74.30
26.88
3.36
3.78
4.44
1.50
4.08
2.28
2.58
0.36
3.24
0.60
7.56
5.04
0.90
12.72
2.04
0.72
1170.00
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.14
0.04
1.44
0.04
0.04
191.00
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Geometric Standard
Median Mean Mean Deviation
1.20
0.04
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
1.02
1.44
0.04
1.86
0.04
0.04
262.00
2.33
0.25
0.77
0.45
0.07
0.10
0.35
0.32
0.05
0.44
0.06
1.30
1.53
0.12
2.30
0.27
0.10
322.38
1.11
0.08
0.38
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.10
0.04
0.18
0.04
0.52
1.34
0.06
1.98
0.08
0.06
268.04
3.95
0.53
0.70
0.84
0.18
0.46
0.50
0.52
0.04
0.55
0.09
1.37
0.78
0.21
1.58
0.49
0.16
216.67
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
3.71
3.64
4.44
4.97
1.69
1.89
4.36
4.16
1.38
4.36
1.62
5.73
1.81
2.55
1.70
3.91
2.39
1.82
-------
Table B-9. Statistical Summary for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
1.08
2.64
0.60
1.44
0.60
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.36
3.75
0.17
1.44
4.20
23.64
87.60
16.26
47.40
17.76
17.04
8.40
1.08
3.30
9.42
4.14
6.12
6.00
13.20
6.96
72.00
1530.00
14.28
55.20
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
3.54
9.96
1.98
4.92
1.32
1.56
0.84
0.04
1.08
1.50
0.72
0.60
0.04
4.80
0.84
11.34
0.17
7.86
4.26
7.32
16.92
3.54-
9.00
2.04
3.48
1.44
0.04
1.32
2.70
1.20
1.44
1.44
4.50
1.50
14.64
39.90
4.68
13.32
7.67
21.03
5.02
13.69
2.94
5.06
1.66
0.12
1.44
3.24
1.50
1.70
1.64
5.32
1.82
18.22
78.25
5.29
15.55
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Geometric Standard
Mean Deviation
6.29
16.78
3.78
9.85
2.27
3.66
1.05
0.06
1.05
2.44
1.13
1.15
0.95
4.41
1.57
15.20
29.95
4.48
12.88
4.58
15.20
3.86
11.48
2.94
4.11
1.43
0.22
0.81
2.10
1.04
1.43
1.31
3.12
1.13
12.56
215.56
3.05
10.06
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
1.97
2.00
2.18
2.32
1.91
2.32
3.51
2.55
2.98
2.52
2.40
2.81
4.13
1.94
1.71
1.82
5.06
1.82
1.88
B-41
-------
Table B-9. Statistical Summary for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane ,
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
3.48
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.08
1.20
1.32
0.72
0.72
0.04
0.72
1.08
0.24
0.60
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Maximum Mode Median Mean
87.60
43.86
19.80
1.62
27.48
18.96
15.30
17.52
9.54
6.96
6.96
38.46
29.88
19.74
23.64
17.76
4.14
5.04
3.06
8.04
20.94
4.20
0.36
0.04
0.72
7.20
3.36
1.86
1.56
1.20
1.20
3.36
4.44
0.96
0.60
5.16
0.04
0.60
0.84
0.48
13.08
10.38
0.84
0.72-
1.98
4.80
5.16
4.68
3.12
2.22
1.92
6.00
3.66
2.46
2.28
5.16
0.96
1.44
0.84
0.84
16.74
11.43
1.40
0.62
2.60
5.75
5.96
5.66
3.39
2.39
2.11
6.63
4.21
3.03
3.30
5.62
0.95
1.58
0.96
1.06
Geometric
Mean
13.18
8.46
0.74
0.35
1.61
4.66
5.12
4.68
2.81
2.12
1.57
5.09
3.41
2.21
2.17
4.61
0.46
1.19
0.65
0.75
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
14.18
8.15
2.84
0.48
3.89
3.68
3.25
3.50
1.99
1.20
1.37
5.73
4.11
2.98
3.90
3.35
0.81
1.02
0.66
1.17
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
1.97
2.78
3.16
3.78
2.94
1.97
1.78
1.89
1.92
1.65
2.66
2.12
1.82
2.25
2.42
1.99
4.79
2.57
3.06
2.45
-------
Table B-9. Statistical Summary for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobuteneand 1-Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum
2.04
14.40
16.32
24.96
14.40
6.72
32.40
27.81
15.24
0.17
8.82
4.14
1.62
3.78
0.72
2.40
3.78
51.48
21.24
3.06
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
0.60
0.48
0.72
0.84
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
2.40
0.17
1.92
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.72
0.60
1.20
1.08
0.04
0.04
8.07
7.29
3.96
0.17
2.34
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.24
1.08
0.60
0.90
0.72
0.76
1.29
2.65
2.93
0.80
0.55
8.97
7.60
4.51
0.17
2.60
0.91
0.22
0.35
0.12
0.45
1.23
1.94
1.93
0.77
Arithmetic
Geometric Standard
Mean Deviation
0.54
0.63
1.51
1.55
0.14
0.12
5.37
4.65
3.51
0.17
2.28
0.23
0.08
0.12
0.06
0.18
0.81
0.46
0.59
0.39
0.46
2.28
3.80
4.84
2.18
1.19
6.44
5.38
2.81
0.00
1.39
1.16
0.34
0.68
0.18
0.53
0.87
7.49
3.98
0.67
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.93
3.45
2.59
2.61
6.01
5.28
4.13
3.94
2.35
1.00
1.69
6.69
3.66
4.12
2.66
4.51
3.33
4.51
5.50
4.34
B-43
-------
Table B-9. Statistical Summary for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX), 1995 Speciated NMOC Base
Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1 -Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
0.04
1.50
0.04
0.04
110.00
6.12
0.72
0.84
2.10
1.08
0.04
2.40
0.96
3.30
0.96
1.44
12.48
4.08
1.86
18.96
2.52
0.96
2190.00
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
2.16
0.04
1.98
0.04
0.04
314.00
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Geometric Standard
Median Mean Mean Deviation
1.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
1.20
2.04
0.04
3.30
0.04
0.04
314.00
1.33
0.12
0.12
0.40
0.09
0.04
0.58
0.19
0.18
0.38
0.24
2.01
2.05
0.08
4.40
0.55
0.14
425.37
0.76
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.31
0.09
0.05
0.20
0.08
1.07
1.90
0.04
3.63
0.14
0.07
342.59
1.23
0.16
0.21
0.55
0.21
0.00
0.52
0.23
0.60
0.31
0.39
2.20
0.80
0.26
3.35
0.77
0.21
348.91
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
3.79
2.62
2.59
488
2.12
1.00
3.89
3.21
2.64
3.83
3.75
4.02
1.50
1.74
1.79
5.73
2.86
1.88
-------
Table B-10. Statistical Summary for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Compound Name
Aromatic Compounds:
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene and m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
Paraffins:
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Minimum
0.48
1.74
0.36
0.84
0.72
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
0.48
0.17
2.07
0.04
1.32
Maximum
19.32
57.72
11.46
38.94
4.92
12.48
3!48
0.60
10.68
9.12
3.84
7.92
4.32
14.28
9.84
43.80
65.10
29.76
42.12
Mode
1.44
3.96
0.72
1.32
1.32
0.84
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.32
1.08
4.62
5.25
1.08
1.32
Median
2.76
6.24
1.50.
4.38
1.68
1.56
0.30
0.04
0.04
1.08
0.36
0.36
0.04
2.34
1.20
13.26
12.30
5.76
8.40
Mean
4.29
11.43
2.54
7.88
1.83
2.71
0.67
0.06
0.53
1.81
0.71
0.85
0.68
3.41
1.55
14.81
14.47
6.87
10.41
Mean
2.96
7.68
1.71
4.67
1.73
1.53
0.21
0.04
0.13
0.83
0.26
0.26
0.17
2.64
1.31
10.25
10.64
3.97
7.00
Deviation
3.91
11.39
2.47
8.47
0.67
2.83
0.82
0.11
1.29
1.96
0.91
1.30
0.97
2.79
1.30
11.33
11.34
6.15
9.10
Deviation
2.37
2.38
2.42
2.82
1.38
3.44
5.65
1.78
5.03
4.88
4.92
5.55
6.02
1.98
1.69
2.66
2.27
3.55
2.54
B-45
-------
Table B-10. Statistical Summary for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane and
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
1.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.48
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
97.20
40.92
2.22
7.32
106.80
23.76
16.92
16.92
7.56
14.82
6.00
24.72
19.32
14.04
8.34
21.24
5.64
6.96
7.86
4.92
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
2.64
1.32
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.84
2.40
0.72
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.84
3.30
0.36
0.04
0.96
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
10.02
4.68
0.24
1.44
0.90
2.46
3.30
2.52
1.20
1.08
0.60
1.98
3.24
0.96
1.20
2.04
0.04
0.60
0.48
0.48
17.52
7.78
0.45
1.50
2.85
4.62
4.47
4.03
2.04
1.40
1.02
3.96
4.08
1.80
1.63
3.85
0.70
1.09
1.19
0.76
Geometric
Mean
10.01
4.62
0.17
0.99
0.74
2.73
3.06
2.40
1.19
0.71
0.51
2.20
3.36
0.93
0.53
2.33
0.16
0.49
0.36
0.38
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
19.60
7.93
0.55
1.05
11.95
4.85
3.68
4.14
1.95
1.83
1.15
4.91
3.09
2.24
1.82
4.12
1.12
1.30
1.72
0.80
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.96
3.11
4.56
3.45
5.22
2.86
2.82
3.01
3.27
4.26
4.05
3.17
1.83
3.65
6.74
2.86
6.07
4.45
5.90
4.12
-------
Table B-10. Statistical Summary for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name Minimum
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Olefins:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene and 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum
3.60
2.58
6.24
23.04
4.56
1.92
27.81
18.54
15.57
0.17
9.36
3.78
1.92
1.44
0.96
17.28
4.08
7.86
4.68
3.24
Central Tendency of Measured Variability in
Concentration (ppbC) Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.96
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.36
0.4&
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.17
1.77
0.17
1.32
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.24
0.96
0.48
0.04
0.54
0.40
0.54
0.97
0.23
0.26
4.07
2.93
2.86
0.17
2.02
0.68
0.28
0.22
0.10
0.72
0.74
1.46
0.86
0.58
Arithmetic Geometric
Geometric Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Deviation
0.21
0.15
0.24
0.32
0.06
0.08
0.89
0.78
1.36
0.17
1.39
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.22
0.76
0.27
0.16
0.70
0.51
0.81
2.68
0.62
0.49
6.00
4.14
3.19
0.00
1.80
1.02
0.50
0.33
0.17
2.34
1.01
1.52
1.08
0.83
4.66
4.50
4.15
4.70
3.38
3.83
6.88
5.87
4.09
1.00
2.71
6.21
4.02
3.59
2.31
5.38
5.61
4.12
5.77
5.51
B-47
-------
Table B-10. Statistical Summary for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA), 1995 Speciated
NMOC Base Program
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound Name
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
Total NMOC
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Minimum Maximum Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.92
0.04
0.96
0.04
0.04
83.60
5.04
1.62
2.46
29.64
5.28
2.10
3.00
1.08
0.60
1.20
0.72
15.72
18.36
2.58
23.64
3.54
1.86
784.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
6.96
6.12
0.04
3.12
0.04
0.04
117.00
Arithmetic Geometric
Median Mean Mean
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.04-
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
8.70
6.12
0.04
3.66
0.04
0.04
189.00
0.98
0.17
0.41
0.92
0.15
0.09
0.40
0.15
0.06
0.23
0.06
8.74
6.56
0.07
5.01
0.34
0.09
256.16
0.26
0.07
0.14
0.13
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.07 '
0.04
0.09
0.04
7.56
6.19
0.04
4.14
0.08
0.05
210.60
Variability in
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.38
0.28
0.56
3.42
0.64
0.28
0.70
0.23
0.10
0.33
0.09
3.41
2.32
0.29
3.99
0.70
0.23
170.98
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
6.33
3.15
4.65
6.02
2.34
2.04
4.72
3.01
1.67
3.65
1.61
2.15
1.42
1.60
1.77
4.32
2.14
1.85
-------
Table B-11. Distribution Shape Characteristics for the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Test for Normal
Distribution
Test for Lognormal Distribution
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
Cases
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
Nondetects
1
0
9
3
9
16
176
496
178
30
76
85
175
5
0
34
7
43
4
0
5
179
82
55
Skew
4.07
4.58
1.99
2.02
4.97
1.89
1.49
20.54
3.83
1.24
1.45
1.66
1.11
1.38
2.68
1.73
20.07
2.18
3.54
6.58
3.27
15.79
4.38
16.20
Kurtosis
37.87
45.52
5.21
5.23
37.76
4.57
4.59
451.10
33.98
1.15
2.34
3.09
1.11
1.62
10.31
5.52
436.53
6.07
17.10
63.51
14.95
298.83
29.13
320.13
Skew
-0.48
-0.06
-0.97
-0.70
-1.79
-1.30
-0.50
4.46
-0.36
-1.71
-0.94
-0.88
-0.51
-1.11
0.46
-1.44
-0.43
-1.37
-0.85
0.24
-0.90
-0.08
-0.85
-1.05
Kurtosis
1.64
-0.18
3.19
2.81
10.41
3.52
-1.49
21.24
-1.46
3.72
0.07
-0.07
-1.49
4.20
0.29
2.07
3.56
1.95
4.46
0.54
3.53
-0.99
-0.14
1.23
Results
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
B-49
-------
Table B-ll. Distribution Shape Characteristics for the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Test for Normal
Distribution
Test for Lognormal Distribution
Compound Name
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-MethyJhexane +
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Cases
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
Nondetects
3
10
9
25
97
62
25
3
32
130
7
235
39
110
96
151
163
113
64
412
412
136
157
Skew
2.20
1.78
1.90
1.58
4.18
1.81
19.55
20.24
18.97
16.14
1.43
2.74
1.49
2.58
2.68
1.64
5.86
5.66
12.17
9.62
11.03
1.31
5.17
Kurtosis
8.00
4.94
4.79
3.09
22.39
4.67
416.54
436.65
400.44
315.24
1.95
14.62
2.22
9.99
13.83
6.12
59.35
41.26
172.24
119.45
171.23
1.69
44.27
Skew
-0.67
-1.69
-0.97
-1.30
-0.88
-1.02
-1.37
-0.33
-0.87
-0.65
-1.15
0.01
-1.13
-0.72
-0.88
-0.66
-0.34
-0.42
-0.43
1.64
1.57
-0.65
-0.41
Kurtosis
1.31
6.02
2.80
2.59
-0.13
0.66
4.04
6.86
1.84
-0.84
4.03
-1.75
1.56
-0.60
-0.25
-1.18
-1.20
-0.58
1.11
1.21
0.86
-1.08
-1.23
Results
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
-------
Table B-ll. Distribution Shape Characteristics for the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Test for Normal
Distribution
Test for Lognormal Distribution
Compound Name
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l -Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
Cases
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
Nondetects
63
525
45
300
405
361
428
289
100
54
121
200
99
397
190
369
509
465
305
378
513
285
497
51
Skew
1.70
22.93
1.93
1.42
6.83
6.95
6.90
4.07
5.19
7.42
4.89
4.16
5.61
4.23
1.19
14.95
11.67
4.83
2.19
3.06
15.94
1.94
5.35
1.30
Kurtosis
3.27
526.00
5.00
0.98
66.51
68.06
- 63.60
19.33
38.96
94.80
29.46
27.90
43.63
21.86
1.52
289.42
176.60
28.30
5.90
12.80
282.59
5.86
30.01
1.37
Skew
-1.03
22.93
-1.61
0.45
1.48
1.06
1.87
0.68
-0.48
-0.78
-0.45
-0.12
-0.65
1.42
-0.37
1.03
5.53
2.63
0.55
1.14
7.35
0.33
4.13
-1.26
Kurtosis
0.69
526.00
2.55
-1.62
0.55
-0.40
2.09
-0.95
-0.50
0.55
-0.64
-1.50
-0.36
0.44
-1.60
-0.70
29.78
5.39
-1.43
-0.43
58.31
-1.69
15.75
1.12
Results
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward zero
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward zero
B-51
-------
Table B-11. Distribution Shape Characteristics for the Speciated NMOC Base Program
Test for Normal
Distribution
Compound Name
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Average
Cases
526
526
526
526
526
526
Nondetects
2
508
1
392
461
0
Skew
1.54
11.12
4.81
2.93
8.26
3.97
597
Kurtosis
3.90
143.48
36.59
11.58
104.61
31.14
8165
Test for Lognormal Distribution
Skew
-0.72
5.59
0.20
1.23
2.48
0.04
037
Kurtosis
3.27
31.35
2.52
-0.33
4.69
-0.10
989
Results
Peaked, tails toward zero
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
Peaked, tails toward infinity
Flat, tails toward infinity
-------
Table B-12. Shape Statistics for Tarrant City, Alabama (DIAL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cues
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
Non-
detects
0
0
2
1
0
3
14
70
13
4
6
6
18
1
0
7
2
9
0
0
2
23
12
9
0
4
3
3
15
9
5
0
4
14
1
22 •
3
14
12
15
15
9
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
4.19
0.41
0.11
0.26
1.23
0.20
0.11
3.88
1.95
0.01
0.61
0.01
-0.09
0.19
0.70
-0.04
0.72
3.37
0.20
1.47
0.09
4.69
-0.09
0.68
0.10
-0.15
0.82
0.01
1.73
-0.06
7.42
7.85
7.15
6.03
0.19
-0.06
0.25
1.31
2.22
0.38
3.04
5.42
26.60
-0.06
-0.91
-0.76
1.16
-0.69
0.13
15.29
9.84
-1.16
1.13
-1.10
-0.95
-0.80
0.94
-0.96
0.57
21.05
-0.78
5.10
-0.93
30.55
-0.98
0.78
-1.06
-0.87
0.11
-1.18
2.40
-1.11
60.89
65.76
57.83
45.68
-0.82
-1.24
-0.71
4.90
9.89
0.27
17.18
35.91
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-0.80
-1.13
-2.12
-1,99
0.03
-2.24
-1.46
3.08
-1.21
-2.17
-1.67
-1.75
-1.13
-1.87
-1.01
-1.94
-1.79
-1.73
-1.10
-1.06
-2.22
-0.59
-1.24
-1.57
-0.91
-2.67
-1.69
-1.79
-0.66
-1.46
-1.87
0.54
-1.19
-1.09
-1.94
-0.81
-1.70
-1.24
-1.26
-1.24
-1.14
-1.02
1.13
0.83
6.29
6.40
-0.95
6.05
0.47
8.08
0.14
5.23
2.37
2.64
-0.53
5.82
3.53
3.03
4.68
2.01
0.92
0.76
6.52
-1.17
0.06
1.47
-0.19
7.63
3.92
3.80
-0.69
1.06
4.70
2.95
2.80
0.01
6.42
-1.21
3.48
0.05
0.42
-0.02
-0.11
1.07
B-53
-------
Table B-12. Shape Statistics for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
2-Ethyl- 1-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1 -Undecene
1 -Dodecene
1 -Tridecene
TNMOC
Cases
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
NOD-
detects
1
59
59
11
10
9
77
9
25
46
28
49
28
8
4
10
15
8
32
14
26
74
49
24
30
75
23
72
3
0
77
0
58
66
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
7.88
2.30
1.97
0.18
4.93
0.52
1.02
0.95
0.47
0.88
0.37
0.85
3.63
1.52
1.73
3.13
0.23
0.43
3.12
0.47
0.21
5.04
1.95
1.79
0.68
8.75
0.54
4.82
1.24
1.24
-1.02
1.60
2.05
3.07
0.27
65.70
4.98
2.89
-0.74
34.67
-0.65
-2.05
1.39
-1.10
-0.78
-0.95
-0.89
15.70
4.47
3.52
18.19
-0.55
-0.67
11.77
0.02
-0.71
24.75
4.03
7.96
0.58
76.66
0.47
25.01
1.40
2.39
-2.05
3.23
3.68
9.28
-0.13
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
0.54
1.40
1.37
-1.51
-1.53
-1.20
1.02
-1.69
-0.55
0.47
-0.42
0.61
-0.10
-1.33
-1.39
-1.32
-1.22
-1.49
-0.04
-1.33
-0.63
4.87
0.71
-0.63
-0.31
7.29
-0.76
3.80
-1.64
-0.56
1.02
-0.22
1.27
2.23
-0.98
4.55
0.11
-0.01
0.98
1.44
0.57
-2.05
1.99
-1.50
-1.74
-1.67
-1.62
-1.29
1.01
3.15
0.77
-0.08
1.39
-1.50
0.26
-1.54
22.38
-1.37
-1.36
-1.76
55.64
-1.26
13.22
4.26
0.56
-2.05
2.02
-0.27
3.36
0.32
B-54
-------
Table B-13. Shape Statistics for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-DunethyIbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methy Ipentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2 ,2 ,4 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cases
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
'80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Non-
detects
2
0
6
2
1
4
37
79
48
7
32
24
30
4
0
20
2
22
3
0
2
71
47
15
2
5
5
10
35
30
7
1
19
50
2
53
16
46
66
52
57
62
Normal
Skew Kurtosu
0.93
1.59
1.32
1.88
4.60
1.23
0.67
8.94
4.90
0.79
2.07
1.53
0.25
1.04
3.11
3.10
1.59
4.49
6.83
6.61
4.75
3.39
4.46
2.90
4.34
2.71
3.45
2.49
3.61
1.63
1.55
1.28
2.14
2.73
1.84
6.55
1.91
2.44
1.59
0.84
1.82
4.72
1.36
6.17
5.16
9.34
28.15
4.31
-0.40
80.00
33.15
2.22
7.90
5.86
-0.52
3.07
11.86
16.49
6.27
24.01
52.57
51.23
29.70
14.46
25.54
14.00
25.68
11.56
17.18
10.25
16.50
5.01
5.08
2.31
8.38
11.43
5.75
49.69
6.31
10.35
4.79
-0.16
5.59
27.12
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-2.29
-1.02
-2.23
-2.88
-1.96
-2.17
-0.08
8.94
0.08
-2.11
-0.73
-1.09
-0.47
-2.46
1.11
-0.53
-2.24
-0.63
-1.90
-0.19
-0.59
0.75
-0.08
-1.35
-1.61
-2.28
-2.17
-1.74
-0.13
-1.14
-2.12
-0.37
-1.52
0.55
-2.29
0.87
-1.64
-0.31
0.13
0.16
0.32
0.92
9.26
1.84
8.01
11.80
16.29
7.50
-1.94
80.00
-1.58
4.29
-0.96
-0.28
-1.74
7.83
1.77
-1.05
8.16
-0.88
8.84
3.59
2.79
-0.98
-1.37
0.93
8.51
7.34
6.84
2.50
-1.49
0.21
4.33
1.25
1.72
-1.52
8.92
-0.68
3.27
-1.48
-1.82
-1.88
-1.75
-0.46
B-55
-------
Table B-13. Shape Statistics for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1-Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl- 1-Pentene
2-Ethyl- 1-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
I -Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1 -Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Cases
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
'80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Non-
detects
39
66
64
22
27
12
80
10
55
73
77
78
56
39
2
36
56
18
77
25
77
80
79
76
77
79
63
78
1
0
78
0
58
73
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
5.02
5.92
4.87
0.46
2.89
0.99
1.02
1.11
2.87
7.10
7.97
8.19
3.13
3.79
1.62
6.64
5.65
6.50
6.18
1.12
5.71
-1.02
7.31
4.15
4.27
8.94
3.75
7.56
0.58
0.35
6.50
4.18
2.75
3.77
2.16
31.83
38.92
29.26
-0.54
15.66
4.41
-2.05
3.22
9.99
56.11
67.38
69.43
12.36
15.35
3.59
52.11
40.20
50.51
43.17
2.88
33.82
-2.05
55.88
19.50
18.04
80.00
20.08
59.86
-0.18
-0.86
42.44
21.66
10.00
16.53
7.69
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-0.38
1.83
1.74
-0.69
-0.41
-1.45
1.02
-1.73
0.82
3.31
4.25
6.58
0.89
-0.21
-0.34
-0.38
0.61
-0.89
3.95
-0.80
4.53
1.02
6.45
2.33
3.77
8.94
0.88
6.41
-1.89
-0.44
6.22
1.30
1.11
2.44
-0.18
-0.55
2.20
1.49 .
-1.20
-1.49
0.93
-2.05
1.99
-1.01
10.21
18.39
43.75
-0.93
-0.09
-0.47
-0.98
-1.13
0.37
14.81
-1.06
19.72
-2.05
41.60
4.23
12.79
80.00
-0.91
40.97
6.44
-0.66
37.63
2.55
-0.63
4.35
0.53
B-56
-------
Table B-14. Shape Statistics for Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cases
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
' 79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79'
79
79
Non-
detects
0
0
4
, 0
4
4
54
78
41
3
14
22
33
0
0
6
0
8
1
0
0
44
20
16
2
1
1
10
36
16
12
3
12
43
3
51
12
32
19
48
32
21
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
1.27
1.37
0.71
0.89
0.84
0.66
2.60
8.89
0.87
0.56
2.26
0.70
1.31
0.90
2.79
0.15
2.89
2.86
2.71
2.93
2.94
3.65
3.69
2.05
2.63
2.31
2.44
2.38
0.96
2.20
1.74
1.46
2.28
1.37
1.92
1.59
1.65
1.25
2.07
1.50
0.30
4.06
1.67
2.06
0.00
0.33
1.76
-0.24
8.60
79.00
0.00
-0.36
10.11
-0.10
3.37
0.41
9.87
-0.16
15.28
8.27
6.81
8.42
8.65
15.80
15.13
3.86
6.76
5.27
5.84
5.68
0.34
5.11
3.29
2.25
5.33
0.93
3.64
1.81
2.94
2.06
5.73
1.78
-1.22
23.05
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-0.19
-0.30
-1.85
-0.45
-2.68
-1.76
0.90
8.89
0.17
-2.06
-1.00
-0.70
-0.19
-0.34
0.78
-2.06
-0.25
-0.96
-0.20
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.01
-0.53
-0.47
-0.83
-0.28
-0.98
-0.02
-0.73
-1.31
-2.06
-0.86
0.34
-1.41
0.78
-0.96
-0.20
-0.71
0.56
-0.28
-0.50
-0.46
-0.38
4.36
-0.31 .
8.32
3.90
-1.07
79.00
-1.90
5.89
-0.03
-1.14
-1.86
-0.58
0.94
3.94
1.02
1.41
3.07
0.06
0.13
-0.97
-0.68
-0.63
2.51
3.49
2.63
0.86
-1.87
-0.37
0.76
6.70
0.32
-1.74
4.17
-1.26
0.26
-1.75
-0.73
-1.57
-1.83
-0.94
B-57
-------
Table B-14. Shape Statistics for Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l -Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1 -Undecene
1-Dodecene
1 -Tridecene
TNMOC
Cuts
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
' 79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
NOD-
detecti
13
66
67.
32
35
17
79
23
65
63
55
63
41
21
0
25
42
27
66
19
59
76
57
50
67
79
51
78
1
0
78
1
60
73
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosu
5.37
6.20
4.15
0.92
0.65
0.56
1.02
1.85
2.56
3.32
3.19
3.48
1.91
2.84
2.19
3.25
3.23
3.87
3.94
0.63
2.94
5.40
2.13
2.26
2.70
-1.02
1.07
8.89
1.54
1.22
8.89
3.21
4.25
5.11
2.17
31.21
44.93
21.17
0.20
-0.17
-0.25
-2.05
3.01
5.94
11.30
10.60
13.71
2.57
8.13
7.40
11.52
11.02
16.18
16.71
-0.12
9.32
29.36
4.38
4.59
6.86
-2.05
-0.32
79.00
2.95
1.36
79.00
13.42
21.08
29.24
5.04
Lognonnal
Skew Kurtosu
-0.64
2.15
2.14
-0.20
-0.09
-0.98
1.02
-0.54
1.88
1.77
1.20
1.76
0.61
0.04
-0.22
-0.22
0.51
0.07
2.11
-0.93
1.38
4.97
1.14
0.91
2.05
1.02
0.69
8.89
-1.17
-0.45
8.89
-1.85
1.42
3.47
0.30
0.79
3.35
3,03
-1.77
-1.87
-0.43
-2.05
-1.17
1.77
1.56
-0.09
1.48
-1.24
-0.90
-0.64
-1.18
-1.22
-1.04
3.02
-0.75
0.19
23.43
-0.54
-0.79
2.40
-2.05
-1.48
79.00
3.25
0.58
79.00
13.17
0.39
10.88
-0.16
B-58
-------
Table B-15. Shape Statistics for Dallas, Texas (DLTX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cases
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
1
1
10
77
14
0
2
1
22
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
2
2
4
12
1
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
1.61
5.60
1.97
2.33
6.96
1.77
0.87
4.61
1.10
1.43
1.37
1.33
0.91
1.41
2.04
1.22
1.47
2.16
1.05
8.41
2.95
7.79
1.69
3.73
1.19
1.62
1.84
1.62
4.53
4.22
9.04
9.06
8.95
8.68
2.23
2.95
1.61
1.49
1.71
0.86
1.91
4.86
3.00
40.57
4.36
7.21
56.14
3.51
1.04
22.47
1.06
1.82
1.78
1.14
0.39
1.72
4.42
1.84
2.69
4.99
1.04
74.29
12.76
66.71
3.53
19.72
1.73
3.57
4.03
3.46
30.60
25.62
82.09
82.36
81.04
77.53
6.46
14.22
2.45
2.42
3.43
1.27
3.87
31.32
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
0.40
0.77
0.46
0.29
-2.16
-1.49
-1.72
3.58
-1.14
0.24
-1.54
-0.54
-0.82
-1.95
0.60
-0.18
0.01
-2.16
-0.21
1.45
0.49
-0.79
0.29
-0.96
-0.17
0.24
0.50
0.17
-2.39
-1.36
2.40
3.33
1.98
1.73
0.59
-0.21
0.41
-1.13
-1.47
-2.45
-0.85
-0.18
-0.47
0.77
-0.42
-0.23
20.09
7.86
2.08
11.66
0.21
-0.64
5.85
1.82
-0.99
11.16
-0.08
0.06
-0.03
9.59
-0.19
5.08
0.28
0.69
-0.57
6.28
-0.10
-0.46
-0.28
-0.35
11.37
3.13
12.45
20.93
9.38
7.14
-0.30
-1.64
-0.70
3.93
5.98
7.73
0.19
1.37
B-59
-------
Table B-15. Shape Statistics for Dallas, Texas (DLTX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l -Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dcxiecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Cases
S3
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
Non-
detecU
0
60
61
12
16
0
82
0
39
69
64
68
49
5
15
8
17
2
65
26
65
81
81
47
62
82
46
79
17
1
80
0
60
73
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
7.85
3.27
2.42
1.17
3.13
1.63
9.11
2.07
1.21
2.56
1.85
2.28
3.59
2.19
1.35
5.30
1.81
2.17
4.29
0.91
2.39
7.48
8.06
1.42
3.50
9.11
1.33
4.49
2.95
2.23
7.21
4.94
3.27
7.33
5.94
65.49
12.86
5.78
1.47
11.50
2.76
83.00
4.97
0.28
6.57
2.31
4.42
15.14
5.30
1.10
33.45
4.02
7.15
20.93
0.89
5.69
58.48
67.74
1.32
15.19
83.00
1.64
19.03
15.34
6.67
56.22
32.67
14.24
60.09
44.45
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
1.46
1.20
1.21
-1.31
-0.67
0.40
9.11
0.61
0.13
1.85
1.38
1.76
0.85
-0.87
-0.75
-0.65
-0.74
-1.03
1.65
-0.64
1.49
6.49
6.67
0.47
1.35
9.11
0.36
4.34
-0.89
-2.24
5.26
0.83
1.13
2.69
1.01
4.04
-0.29
-0.35
0.66
-0.31
-0.43
83.00
-0.14
-1.76
1.58
0.01
1.27
-0.77
1.86
-0.37
1.55
-0.59
3.13
1.29
-1.36
0.37
41.84
44.89
-1.58
0.19
83.00
-1.73
17.42
-0.52
13.17
27.06
1.02
-0.55
6.34
2.24
B-60
-------
Table B-16. Shape Statistics for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3 -Methy Ihexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cues
79 '
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
' 79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Noii-
detects
0
0
1
0
3
2
17
75
20
2
4
'5
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
3
2
3
12
7
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
1.40
1.51
1.53
1.62
0.54
1.60
0.88
4.69
0.77
1.35
1.37
1.45
0.90
1.47
3.97
2.14
6.37
2.22
2.88
3.86
2.78
8.16
3.67
3.09
2.34
2.12
2.01
1.65
0.84
1.51
1.22
1.02
1.18
0.53
1.26
1.16
1.36
1.49
1.26
2.96
1.57
4.05
1.55
2.43
2.76
2.87
0.84
3.06
0.85
21.64
-0.07
1.72
1.74
1.94
0.61
2.14
19.03
7.70
47.71
5.93
10.19
18.31
9.04
69.86
16.77
11.98
7.36
5.63
4.50
2.51
0.00
2.19
0.98
0.50
0.50
-0.59
0.80
1.19
1.21
1.82
1.71
14.35
3.45
24.32
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-0.10
0.02
-1.26
-0.10
-3.21
-1.84
-1.12
4.27
-0.80
-1.92
-1.51
-1.29
-0.95
0.05
0.73
-0.16
0.93
0.26
0.60
0.82
-1.49
-0.02
-0.48
-0.58
-0.27
0.12
0.35
0.12
-0.21
-0.67
-0.02
-0.03
0.09
-0.40
0.24
-0.77
0.14
-0.99
-1.58
-1.99
-1.09
-1.31
-0.13
-0.59
5.36
-0.04
12.50
6.66
-0.32
16.92
-0.92
7.04
3.55
2.53
-0.72
-0.20
2.38
-0.04
2.84
-0.24
0.14
0.59
9.23
1.96
2.83
3.56
1.04
0.13
-0.35
-0.31
-0.37
2.96
-0.66
-0.70
-0.79
-0.73
-0.82
-0.92
-0.73
2.39
5.62
7.57
0.39
2.13
B-61
-------
Table B-16. Shape Statistics for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1 -Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Case*
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
' 79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Non-
detectt
6
65
65
10
20
3
79
0
43
56
51
60
41
8
14
9
20
6
60
22
58
77
76
48
52
77
36
76
23
1
69
0
62
68
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
6.09
8.49
8.37
1.27
1.19
1.30
1.02
1.51
1.39
4.56
4.77
5.14
3.66
4.78
0.99
4.12
3.92
4.41
3.89
1.42
2.57
7.22
8.66
1.71
2.37
6.64
2.46
5.30
1.99
1.77
2.56
4.10
2.11
2.46
1.71
43.95
74.08
72.53
1.16
1.00
1.24
-2.05
1.77
1.42
24.01
26.23
31.26
12.58
25.61
1.13
20.05
19.38
22.69
17.83
3.60
7.36
54.45
76.12
2.54
5.83
45.01
8.89
28.02
5.85
5.08
5.21
24.07
3.52
4.88
3.28
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosu
-0.97
2.13
2.17
-1.11
-0.80
-1.25
1.02
0.02
0.32
1.19
0.94
1.53
0.77
-0.50
-1.12
-0.58
-0.42
-0.71
1.46
-0.72
1.18
6.28
5.87
0.66
0.89
6.26
0.06
4.99
-0.64
-2.52
2.32
0.04
1.50
2.17
0.31
2.72
3.79
3.98
0.49
-0.90
3.48
-2.05
1.11
-1.78
-0.18
-0.60
0.88
-0.49
1.30
0.09
0.88
-0.82
1.71
0.57
-1.11
-0.45
38.97
36.48
-1.37
-0.92
38.58
-1.69
23.66
-1.22
15.17
3.56
2.55
0.38
2.87
-0.39
B-62
-------
Table B-17. Shape Statistics for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cases
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
'49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
Non-
detects
0
0
0
•o
0
0
5
42
4
1
1
2
7
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
4
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
5
2
6
5
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosu
0.95
2.03
1.30
1.47
3.53
1.32
2.54
3.11
0.34
0.75
0.91
1.54
1.37
0.95
2.26
2.25
6.63
1.00
1.64
3.15
1.74
6.01
0.29
5.68
1.14
0.83
1.09
0.71
1.30
1.06
3.68
5.26
3.83
3.49
1.04
1.22
0.93
0.90
4.66
0.74
4.45
2.61
1.56
6.55
1.19
1.85
14.57
1.33
9.75
9.71
-0.22
0.12
0.14
2.23
2.23
0.64
7.87
6.83
45.38
0.99
4.03
13.37
4.48
38.87
-1.04
36.37
1.93
0.24
1.31
0.27
3.03
1.80
19.57
32.91
20.41
15.56
2.07
3.40
1.18
1.02
26.87
0.92
23.30
6.16
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosu
-0.53
-0.14
-0.11 '
-0.07
1.00
-0.13
-1.71
2.26
-2.24
-1.96
-1.24
-1.26
-1.51
-0.69
0.19
0.22
-1.75
-0.15
-0.07
0.26
-3.04
-0.73
-0.71
-1.34
-0.23
-0.31
-0.12
-0.29
-0.15
-2.16
-0.30
0.61
-0.12
0.42
-0.71
-0.82
-1.90
-1.51
-1.06
-1.70
-0.44
1.02
-0.24
-0.05
-0.48
-0.56
1.68
-0.61
2.75
3.54
4.81
7.12
3.20
3.07
1.30
0.59
0.60
0.16
5.27
-0.84
-0.51
0.07
15.45
2.75
-1.08
4.99
-0.78
-0.36
-0.87
-1.03
-0.31
6.74
0.56
2.28
0.34
-0.25
0.46
-1.03
5.39
1.86
4.07
2.07
1.53
0.65
B-63
-------
Table B-17. Shape Statistics for Juarez, Mexico (JUMX)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene •+• 1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l -Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
1-Tridecene
TNMOC
Cases
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
Non-
detects
0
32
33
6
6
2
49
0
25
36
29
40
23
5
10
11
13
6
38
42
32
46
49
13
31
45
19
38
5
0
48
0
32
39
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosu
3.13
5.39
3.86
1.07
1.08
1.23
1.03
1.90
1.14
1.99
4.00
1.95
1.66
0.78
6.37
3.79
1.32
1.79
2.11
2.54
1.24
4.11
1.03
1.23
1.56
4.74
0.13
1.74
2.74
0.48
7.00
2.47
1.17
2.11
3.13
10.20
32.80
16.87
2.24
2.64
2.94
-2.09
6.97
0.16
4.36
17.48
2.46
3.16
0.57
42.12
14.49
2.72
4.24
3.91
5.07
0.56
16.20
-2.09
2.06
2.06
21.89
-1.48
1.58
10.26
-0.45
49.00
7.35
0.11
4.00
13.47
Lognonnal
Skew Kurtosu
1.40
0.94
0.98
-1.74
-1.70
-1.82
1.03
-0.36
0.22
1.15
0.69
1.72
0.10
-1.54
0.06
-0.34
-0.80
-1.14
1.47
2.22
0.71
3.82
1.03
-0.64
0.70
3.62
-0.36
1.42
-1.19
-0.24
7.00
0.85
0.70
1.57
0.52
1.53
-0.66
-0.70
2.12
1.98
5.12
-2.09
0.67
-1.84
-0.60
-0.97
1.04
-1.78
1.85
1.46
-0.37
-0.99
0.73
0.38
3.21
-1.49
13.26
-2.09
-1.10
-1.37
12.44
-1.81
0.08
1.27
-0.74
49.00
0.38
-1.52
0.59
0.25
B-64
-------
Table B-18. Shape Statistics for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
Compound Name
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xylene + m-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
p-Diethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cyclopentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
Cyclohexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Methylhexane + 2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
2-Methylheptane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Cases
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Noii-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
4
39
75
49
14
28
32
46
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
38
8
14
0
2
1
3
13
14
2
0
6
25
1
48
16
26
19
34
43
27
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
1.54
1.76
1.67
1.66
2.00
1.65
1.34
4.28
6.55
1.69
1.65
2.82
1.57
1.72
4.42
0.78
1.56
1.15
1.31
1.99
1.76
1.41
2.11
8.66
1.57
1.38
1.59
1.17
5.34
2.02
2.42
2.83
2.87
1.54
1.80
2.14
2.01
2.12
2.33
2.36
1.75
4.80
2.09
2.98
2.49
2.40
6.14
2.30
1.31
17.07
50.90
2.53
2.22
10.86
2.01
2.66
24.07
-0.33
4.02
1.42
1.52
4.35
3.60
1.50
10.77
76.20
2.32
1.50
1.94
0.35
37.73
4.52
6.18
10.27
11.30
2.91
3.37
5.05
4.78
4.37
8.84
7.13
3.63
31.64
Lognonnal
Skew Kurtosis
0.21
0.50
0.37
0.26
0.48
-0.98
0.14
4.19
0.76
-0.96
-0.03
0.09
0.49
0.68
1.10
-0.98
-0.11
-1.18
-0.02
0.17
-0.77
0.17
-1.78
-0.41
0.21
-1.72
-0.47
-0.71
-1.04
-0.68
-0.59
0.19
-0.69
-0.45
-0.33
0.62
-0.55
-0.07
-0.65
0.02
0.35
-0.17
-0.78
-0.77
-0.87
-1.02
1.27
2.01
-1.84
16.02
-1.02
0.02
-1.48
-1.47
-1.63
-0.54
2.90
2.37
-1.03
2.55
-1.19
-1.03
2.49
-1.73
2.38
0.28
-1.15
6.28
1.03
0.74
0.27
-0.30
2.40
1.40
0.79
-1.45
1.58
-1.43
-0.63
-1.38
-0.84
-1.63
-1.69
-1.27
B-65
-------
Table B-18. Shape Statistics for New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA)
1995 Speciated NMOC Base Program
(Continued)
Compound Name
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
n-Tridecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene + 1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
t-2-Butene
c-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l -Butene
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -Butene
Isoprene
t-2-Pentene
c-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
2-Ethyl-l -Butene
t-2-Hexene
c-2-Hexene
I -Heptene
1 -Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pmene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1 -Undecene
1 -Dcxiecene
1 -Tridecene
TNMOC
Cases
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Noil-
detects
24
67
63
43
43
20
79
3
52
62
59
70
56
36
11
33
46
36
61
45
53
75
75
55
61
76
57
76
1
0
78
0
62.
72
0
Normal
Skew Kurtosis
7.44
4.%
2.16
1.83
1.69
1.90
1.02
2.10
1.46
1.85
1.74
3.13
5.85
1.45
2.00
1.53
1.56
1.57
2.62
1.74
7.82
7.10
5.94
2.20
1.98
5.02
1.52
6.07
-0.13
1.68
8.89
2.99
2.84
6.29
1.20
60.56
30.50
3.51
3.36
2.46
4.08
-2.05
4.87
1.05
2.05
2.15
9.78
37.16
1.04
4.80
1.74
1.57
1.34
8.40
2.80
65.87
54.28
37.45
4.44
3.22
24.09
1.04
39.42
-0.18
7.54
79.00
10.32
9.03
45.35
0.60
Lognormal
Skew Kurtosis
-0.10
2.16
1.59
0.39
0.38
-0.40
1.02
-1.47
0.75
1.46
1.21
2.54
1.28
0.24
-0.98
-0.03
0.51
0.18
1.43
0.45
1.07
4.48
4.47
1.03
1.41
4.94
1.08
5.08
-4.59
-0.51
8.89
0.78
1.50
3.27
0.39
-0.64
3.12
0.67
-1.67
-1.66
-1.06
-2.05
4.69
-1.38
0.22
-0.45
4.74
0.28
-1.61
0.31
-1.68
-1.57
-1.62
0.25
-1.62
-0.29
19.47
19.20
-0.74
0.13
23.04
-0.77
25.02
28.99
2.17
79.00
1.25
0.41
9.88
-1.00
B-66
-------
Appendix C
Statistical Analysis Results
for the
Speciated NMOC Option
-------
Table C-1. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for the 1995 Speciated NMOC
Option Program
Overall
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
AromaticAverage
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Occurrence
16
16
16
16
16
16
9
16
16
14
16
16
16
16
10
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
14
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
63%
94%
94%
94%
' 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
94%
94%
100% •
88%
100%
100%
100%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
94%
94%
100%
NWNJ
Occurrence
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
63%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
.100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
88%
100%
P2NJ
Number
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
4
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100% -
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
88%
92%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100%
ioo%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
C-1
-------
Table C-1. Number and Frequency of Occurrence for the 1995 Speciated NMOC
Option Program
Overall
Compound
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
•n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Paraffin Average
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
1-Pentene
2-MethyI-l-butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1 -Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1-Dodecene
Olefin Average
Occurrence
16
16
16
36
11
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
16
7
16
15
15
14
15
15
16
16
15
16
15
9
5
12
0
14
13
15
15
5
16
14
16
16
7
13
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
69%
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
81%
100%
44%
100%
94%
94%
88%
• 94%
94%
100%
100%
94%
100%
94%
56%
31%
75%
0%
88%
81%
94%
94%
31%
100%
88%
100%
100%.
44%
82%
NWNJ
Occurrence
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
4
8
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
8
7
4
3
6
0
7
7
7
7
3
8
8
8
8
6
7
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
50%
100%
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
100%
100%
88%
100%
88%
50%
38%
75%
0%
88%
88%
88%
88%
38%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
83%
P2NJ
Number
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
3
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
2
6
0
7
6
8
8
2
8
6
8
8
1
7
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
38%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
63%
25%
75%
0%
88%
75%
100%
100%
25%
100%
75%
100%
100%
13%
82%
C-2
-------
80%
*
w
o ,„,
Frequency o
j -n. >.
? ? s
tov. .
ov. .
*
\ r \ /
\ / \ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\
\ /
\ /
\ /
V
\/
i *~*
n
II
u •
1 1 s 1
n
D n n
U _ D U D U B
1 S « 1 1 8 w !
D-
. Q
! E ?
Concentration (ppbC)
!
Aromitic Specified NMOC Compounds
Figure C-1. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Aromatics at NWNJ in 1995
•r 90V
85%
80%
DoD
ho DP
D D D D
D D B .
92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60-
40g
32^
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
• 2 c = e
1 I H I
95 Percentile
0 Median
5 Percentile
j_ Frequenc>
•".= >>'tl^
€ u -S £ £
1 - 1 1 1
| I | I
*"*<*;**
I S S 8
1 J i 1
~°
| I
!
1
Specified ParaTfias
Figure C-2. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Paraffins at NWNJ in 1995
C-3
-------
100% -_•—m
t
I
Specialed Olefinj
Figure C-3. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Olefins at NWNJ in 1995
Frrqufnry of Or rurrrnce
90V.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% .
10% J
0% .
—
.... 7 "\ S ' m "\
\ 1 \ / \
\ 1 V \ . -
\ / \ / •
_1 / \ • -
\ / \ I
\ 1 \ /
\ I \ /
\/ \ /
w \ /
s i
1 4
95 Percentile
0 Median
5 Percentile
H - Frequency
1 J
1 1
>
•
B_
B o „ B
T«nBioHB.B
1 ^ S 1 I I 8 1 J * S S
; * ? 1 J I 1 1 t 1 i 1 1
eiSSiSiil-l
|.£ge.^0g|^>
Aronatic Speciated NMOC Co«pOHads
. 68
64
60
56
52
48
44 i£
c.
36-f
b.
32 "e
28 §
24
:o
16
12
8
4
0
Figure C-4. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Aromatics at P2NJ in 1995
C-4
-------
1 00%
90% .
80%
70%
t 60%
s
w 50%
c
9 40%
30%
20%
10%
T ' '
/
m
\ / \ i
\ / \ 1 •
\ /
\ / .
\
]i \
H
/
1
'
/
i
n
n
.
n
U n n
n _ u a n
H H U uggUQ"
i 1
95 Percentile
^ Median
5 Percenti e
•g Frequency
• E B • D
1 S 1 8 « » S S 8 S 8 8 S s 1 S S S « « I 1 5
- u ! j l } u i t j 1 1 1 1 1 j H n
1=111 f 1 " s 1 H {11*1
SoecUted Paraffins
Bn
B
n-Unilecane
nlVulrcine
. 52
48
44
40
J
24t
205
16
12
g
4
0
Figure C-5. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Paraffins at P2NJ in 1995
Specified O It Hoi
Figure C-6. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Olefins at P2NJ in 1995
C-5
-------
Table C-2. Summary Statistics for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound Minimum
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Total Aromatics
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
1.35
7.54
0.94
3.76
0.57
1.12
0.04
0.23
1.14
0.04
0.64
0.17
0.66
1.30
0.04
0.04
23.91
0.17
4.05
1.76
2.43
Maximum
22.40
80.15
9.40
30.10
3.33
12.39
1.08
2.73
9.41
4.64
7.03
2.62
13.67
10.96
1.89
4.05
204.77
15.07
64.40
46.42
99.05
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Mode
1.81
None
None
None
None
None
0.04
None
None
0.04
1.17
None
3.64
1.68
0.04
None
None
None
None
None
None
Arithmetic
Median Mean
4.10
28.33
2.83
-9.44
1.27
3.81
0.20
0.89
3.98
1.60
1.63
0.77
2.48
3.24
0.52
0.98
71.40
3.06
13.88
7.06
9.12
6.88
33.77
3.65
12.46
1.48
4.66
0.30
1.09
3.99
1.74
2.29
1.05
3.19
3.65
0.59
1.22
81.95
4.96
19.17
10.16
16.45
Geometric
Mean
4.53
25.44
2.96
10.18
1.29
3.76
0.15
0.85
3.26
1.01
1.79
0.84
2.38
3.02
0.25
0.81
66.03
3.09
.14.15
6.51
9.15
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
6.60
24.46
2.41
8.00
0.79
3.13
0.33
0.73
2.54
1.31
1.75
0.70
3.11
2.51
0.59
1.05
53.01
4.53
16.05
11.10
23.50
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.58
2.24
1.98
1.95
1.71
. 2.00
3.73
2.16
1.97
4.18
2.05
2.05
2.12
1.86
4.86
2.98
2.02
3.14
2.24
. 2.64
2.91
-------
Table C-2. Summary Statistics for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound Minimum Maximum
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2.04
1.88
0.29
0.04
0.04
1.40
0.04
0.73
0.55
0.36
0.04
0.58
0.52
1.18
1.68
0.50
0.04
0.04
0.51
0.12
0.29
56.57
108.31
8.45
5.04
17.38
37.23
20.94
26.40
11.94
6.52
4.31
11.43
8.35
13.56
27.07
8.24
7.56
2.91
8.92
2.93
3.99
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.04
None
None
None
0.21
None
None
None
1.92
None
None
None
None
None
0.49
14.91
11.11
1.42
-1.29
2.97
7.64
2.62
5.41
2.59
1.34
0.78
3.09
1.99
3.48
6.34
2.09
1.62
0.94
2.57
0.78
1.30
23.32
18.67
2.12
1.55
4.00
9.90
5.62
8.23
4.09
1.82
1.09
3.38
2.44
4.35
7.78
2.30
1.92
1.28
2.73
0.85
1.40
Geometric
Mean
15.68
9.42
1.31
0.93
2.06
6.16
2.24
4.73
2.61
1.24
0.65
2.49
1.70
3.41
5.45
1.65
1.17
0.85
1.95
0.55
1.07
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
18.66
27.36
2.35
1.44
4.50
9.60
6.10
8.24
3.64
1.66.
1.10
2.75
2.11
3.27
6.91
1.98
1.82
0.95
2.29
0.76
1.02
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.73
3.24
2.75
3.42
4.28
2.88
6.44
3.20
2.83
2.52
3.23
2.33
2.47
2.05
2.42
2.39
3.42
3.08
2.41
2.80
2.23
C-7
-------
Table C-2. Summary Statistics for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Total Paraffins
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1-Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl-l-butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
Minimum
0.39
0.41
0.04
0.77
0.72
37.17
2.42
3.32
2.41
0.08
2.01
0.04
0.24
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.24
0.35
0.04
Maximum
5.78
4.17
1.78
56.39
46.61
524.81
55.05
87.43
26.23
1.30
32.21
3.14
3.42
7.85
7.61
3.15
9.14
2.49
8.08
11.68
4.88
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Mode
None
None
0.04
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.17
None
0.04
None
0.47
0.38
0.04
None
None
None
1.49
None
Arithmetic
Median Mean
1.48
1.29
0.43
-2.61
1.72
175.62
13.18
11.36
7.06
0.30
7.03
0.04
0.90
1.02
0.82
0.41
0.94
0.50
2.00
1.49
0.79
1.69
1.40
0.61
6.26
5.00
174.55
16.12
18.06
10.37
0.40
9.00
0.41
1.11
1.66
1.49
0.69
1.66
0.62
2.61
2.27
1.33
Geometric
Mean
1.31
1.19
0.28
2.85
2.21
129.90
11.16
10.95
7.49
0.30
6.38
0.13
0.80
0.93
0.78
0.34
0.84
0.39
1.67
1.40
0.72
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.33
0.90
0.60
13.52
11.19
130.83
14.49
21.37
8.26
0.33
8.04
0.77
0.94
1.91
1.89
0.83
2.19
0.60
2.33
2.76
1.48
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.10
1.84
4.56
2.82
2.83
2.30
2.49
2.74
2.33
2.16
2.38
4.51
2.38
3.49
3.59
3.73
3.74
2.96
2.87
2.71
3.52
-------
Table C-2. Summary Statistics for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound Minimum
2-Methyl-2-butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l -pentene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1 -Decene
1 -Undecene
1 -Dodecene
Total Olefms
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
TNMOC (speciated)
0.55
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.04
1.53
0.07
0.04
20.30
109.94
89.26
Maximum
20.06
1.83
1.61
0.23
2.27
0.04
2.59
1.29
3.12
1.63
1.18
1.41
1.26
14.24
2.10
0.74
237.41
1264.27
966.98
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Mode
2.40
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
None
0.04
0.04
None
0.04
None
0.36
0.04
None
None
None
Arithmetic
Median Mean
2.40
0.47
0.09
-0.04
0.17
0.04
0.54
0.15
0.88
0.37
0.04
0.47
0.46
4.96
0.63
0.04
75.34
394.48
348.10
4.16
0.49
0.34
0.06
0.45
0.04
0.68
0.33
1.05
0.54
0.20
0.51
0.51
6.12
0.75
0.12
84.07
398.43
340.57
Geometric
Mean
2.42
0.30
0.13
0.05
0.20
0.04
0.34
0.17
0.67
0.28
0.08
0.43
0.34
5.24
0.55
0.07
60.21
310.02
261.78
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
4.92
0.46
0.53
0.06
0.61
0.00
0.70
0.40
0.87
0.52
0.31
0.31
0.36
3.54
0.57
0.18
69.95
299.86
243.03
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.96
3.03
3.97
1.74
3.82
1.00
3.91
3.41
3.17
3.82
3.40
1.92
2.94
1.80
2.44
2.49
2.36
2.10
2.19
Percentages:
C-9
-------
Table C-2. Summary Statistics for the 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Program
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound
Aromatics
Paraffins
Olefms
Minimum
16%
41%
7%
Maximum
35%
77%
36%
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Mode
27%
50%
25%
Median
26%
49%
24%
Arithmetic
Mean
26%
50%
24%
Geometric
Mean
25%
50%
23%
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
5%
9%
6%
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
122%
117%
143%
-------
Table C-3. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
m-Xylene and p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum
1.35
7.54
0.94
3.76
0.63
1.62
0.04
0.23
1.14
0.04
0.64
0.40
0.84
1.30
0.04
0.32
0.93
0.76
1.15
5.20
1.76
Maximu
m
19.93
80.15
9.40
30.10.
3.33
12.39
0.77
2.73
9.41
4.64
7.03
2.07
13.67
10.96
1.89
4.05
56.39
46.61
15.07
64.40
46.42
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.04
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.04
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
2.14
14.56
2.13
7.49
1.63
2.74
0.21
0.69
1.87
1.01
1.20
0.71
3.05
1.75
0.51
0.98
3.67
1.72
2.40
8.99
3.67
5.91
27.46
3.73
12.60
1.67
4.72
0.27
1.05
3.55
1.65
2.34
1.00
4.22
3.67
0.61
1.43
10.35
7.99
4.74
21.41
10.48
Geometric
Mean
3.65
19.62
2.79
9.82
1.40
3.62
0.15
0.75
2.62
0.93
1.70
0.83
3.02
2.73
0.31
1.04
4.23
2.89
3.17
14.08
5.29
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard Coefficient
Deviation of Variation
6.65
25.44
3.05
9.59
1.00
3.86
0.26
0.89
3.09
1.53
2.18
0.67
4.14
3.37
0.62
1.26
18.77
15.71
4.85
21.45
15.22
1.13
0.93
0.82
0.76
0.60
0.82
0.97
0.85
0.87
0.92
0.93
0.67
0.98
0.92
1.03
0.88
1.81
1.97
1.02
1.00
1.45
C-ll
-------
Table C-3. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclqpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2-Methylheptane
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Minimum
2.43
2.04
1.88
0.29
0.04
0.04
1.40
0.90
0.73
0.55
0.36
0.04
0.58
0.52
1.18
1.68
0.50
0.04
0.04
0.51
0.12
Maximu
m
99.05
43.86
108.31
8.45
5.04
11.30
37.23
20.94
19.05
11.94
6.52
4.31
11.43
8.35
13.56
27.07
8.24
7.56
2.91
8.92
2.93
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
3.79
7.67
6.83
0.95
0.47
1.69
2.45
1.65
1.58
1.05
0.74
0.38
2.21
0.79
1.93
2.53
0.87
0.70
0.52
1.71
0.29
18.69
14.30
25.04
2.51
1.15
2.86
9.00
5.13
4.86
3.04
1.76
0.94
3.26
2.32
4.31
7.48
2.22
1.81
1.13
2.75
0.82
Geometric
Mean
7.27
9.37
8.92
1.18
0.53
1.18
4.32
2.75
2.59
1.65
1.01
0.42
2.06
1.34
2.95
4.36
1.31
0.78
0.59
1.71
0.44
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard Coefficient
Deviation of Variation
33.16
14.48
38.24
3.27
1.64
3.69
12.48
6.89
6.28
3.95
2.14
1.41
3.60
2.76
4.34
9.04
2.68
2.49
1.15
2.92
0.99
1.77
1.01
1.53
1.30
1.43
.29
.39
.34
.29
.30
.22
1.50
1.11
.19
.01
.21
.20
.37
1.02
1.06
1.20
-------
Table C-3. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
Cyclopentene
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
Minimum
0.29
0.39
0.42
0.04
2.42
3.32
2.41
0.08
2.01
0.04
0.24
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.24
0.35
0.04
0.55
0.04
Maximu
m
3.99
5.78
4.17
1.59-
38.23
33.03
26.23
1.30
32.21
0.62
3.42
7.85
7.61
3.15
9.14
2.49
2.79
11.68
4.88
20.06
1.83
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Arithmetic
Mode Median Mean
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.04
#N/A
0.47
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.96
0.85
1.22
0.43
5.15
4.84
3.67
0.22
3.62
0.20
0.43
0.47
0.38
0.17
0.47
0.25
0.89
0.73
0.37
1.05
0.13
1.46
1.72
1.52
0.67
11.27
11.78
10.19
0.41
8.86
0.26
1.00
1.61
1.46
0.65
1.80
0.57
1.06
2.38
1.08
4.03
0.39
Variability
Arithmetic
Geometric Standard
Mean Deviation
0.98
1.17
1.20
0.40
7.34
7.68
6.61
0.28
5.40
0.14
0.63
0.62
0.51
0.26
0.61
0.28
0.81
1.08
0.45
1.71
0.18
1.32
1.81
1.20
0.59
12.16
12.10
9.92
0.42
10.50
0.26
1.13
2.61
2.55
1.05
3.09
0.81
0.83
3.88
1.62
6.71
0.61
Coefficient
of Variation
0.91
1.05
0.79
0.88
1.08
1.03
0.97
1.04
1.18
0.98
1.13
1.62
1.75
1.63
1.71
1.42
0.79
1.63
1.51
1.67
1.55
C-13
-------
Table C-3. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration
Range (ppbC)
Compound
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1-Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1 -Decene
1-Undecene
1 -Dodecene
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
TNMOC (speciated)
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
4
5
2
8
1
1
1
2
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Minimum
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.15
0.10
3.27
0.07
0.04
113.86
90.79
Maximu
m
1.57
0.06
2.27
0.04 -
2.59
1.21
3.12
1.46
1.18
1.41
0.96
14.24
2.10
0.35
1264.27
966.98
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Mode
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.04
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
0.04
#N/A
#N/A
Arithmetic
Median Mean
0.07
0.04
0.13
0.04
0.14
0.08
0.41
0.16
0.04
0.45
0.46
3.83
0.38
0.09
271.24
231.77
0.26
0.04
0.49
0.04
0.60
0.28
0.92
0.44
0.26
0.56
0.52
6.09
0.71
0.14
396.38
321.72
Geometric
Mean
0.09
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.25
0.14
0.45
0.20
0.10
0.44
0.42
5.21
0.44
0.10
280.97
225.33
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard Coefficient
Deviation of Variation
0.53
0.01
0.79
0.00
0.88
0.40
1.06
0.53
0.40
0.41
0.30
4.01
0.70
0.11
387.54
301.52
2.05
0.19
1.63
0.00
1.45
1.45
1.15
1.20
1.55
0.73
0.58
0.66
1.00
0.80
0.98
0.94
-------
Table C-4. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-EthyltoIuene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimelhylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-TrimetfiyIbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimelhylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum
1.81
9.66
1.16
3.80
0.57
1.12
0.04
0.26
1.76
0.04
0.73
0.17
0.66
1.46
0.04
0.04
0.17
4.05
2.49
3.33
6.95
2.41
0.40
0.36
Maximum
22.40
75.48
6.39
23.08
2.23
8.62
1.08
2.09
8.06
3.47
4.84
2.62
3.64
6.11
1.32
2.63
13.60
28.84
17.92
26.01
56.57
22.46
3.14
4.34
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Median
6.44
40.95
3.55
11.46
1.27
4.76
0.14
1.23
4.33
2.11
•2.32
0.90
2.20
3.46
0.33
0.90
3.43
19.76
11.62
14.68
35.01
13.82
1.82
1.70
Arithmetic
Mean
7.85
40.08
3.56
12.32
1.29
4.60
0.25
1.13
4.44
1.82
2.24
1.10
2.16
3.64
0.50
1.01
5.18
16.94
9.83
14.21
32.33
12.29
1.73
1.95
Geometric
Mean
5.62
33.00
3.13
10.55
1.19
3.90
0.12
0.95
4.04
1.11
1.89
0.85
1.88
3.35
0.19
0.63
3.01
14.22
8.01
11.51
26.22
9.95
1.45
1.61
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
6.84
23.31
1.76
6.72
0.52
2.46
0.35
0.61
1.95
1.15
1.35
0.78
1.06
1.47
0.55
0.82
4.51
8.96
5.68
8.52
18.72
7.04
0.93
1.18
Coefficient of
Variation
0.87
0.58
0.50
0.55
0.40
0.53
1.40
0.54
0.44
0.63
0.60
0.71
0.49
0.40
1.11
0.81
0.87
0.53
0.58
0.60
0.58
0.57
0.54
0.61
C-15
-------
Table C-4. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dtmethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Ethylcnc
Acetylene
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Minimum
0.76
2.64
0.04
3.01
1.36
0.47
0.24
0.86
0.62
1.84
1.92
0.57
0.47
0.37
0.58
0.13
0.35
0.46
0.41
0.04
0.77
0.72
6.14
3.80
Maximum
17.38
18.47
14.81
26.40
9.58
3.71
2.33
5.79
4.74
7.59
16.28
3.82
3.30
2.48
5.86
1.51
2.37
2.64
1.81
1.78
3.71
3.64
55.05
87.43
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Median
4.35
11.47
5.07
9.17
. 5.23
1.89
1.17
3.57
2.89
4.52
8.88
2.40
2.20
1.42
2.83
0.85
1.30
1.76
1.42
0.36
2.25
1.75
17.45
14.70
Arithmetic
Mean
5.15
10.81
6.11
11.60
5.14
1.88
1.23
3.50
2.57
4.39
8.08
2.38
2.03
1.43
2.71
0.88
1.35
1.66
1.28
0.55
2.17
2.02
20.98
24.34
Geometric
Mean
3.60
8.79
1.82
8.67
4.13
1.52
I.OI
3.01
2.17
3.95
6.80
2.07
1.76
1.21
2.23
0.70
1.16
1.48
1.17
0.20
1.93
1.69
16.97
15.60
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
5.18
6.31
5.63
8.96
3.20
1.14
0.73
1.77
1.38
2,03
4.51
1.12
0.94
0.76
1.64
0.49
0.69
0.71
0.50
0.64
1.01
1.19
15.74
27.24
Coefficient of
Variation
1.01
0.58
0.92
0.77
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.51
0.54
0.46
0.56
0.47
0.46
0.53
0.61
0.56
0.51
0.43
0.39
1.15
0.46
0.59
0.75
1.12
-------
Table C-4. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -Pentene
1 -Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
1-Heptene
1 -Octene
1-Nonene
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
3
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
2
8
1
2
0
0
6
Minimum
2.89
0.16
2.08
0.04
0.30
0.38
0.31
0.04
0.19
0.10
0.78
0.49
0.27
0.88
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.27
0.05
0.04
Maximum
22.26
0.82
18.23
3.14
2.45
3.05
3.55
1.94
2.54
1.01
8.08
3.36
4.68
8.66
0.93
1.61
0.23
1.27
0.04
1.33
1.29
2.14
1.63
0.53
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Median
9.54
0.24
9.44
0.04
. 1.00
1.76
1.37
0.74
1.76
0.77
4.03
2.35
1.44
4.67
0.55
0.17
0.04
0.35
0.04
0.86
0.31
1.27
0.61
0.04
Arithmetic
Mean
10.54
0.36
9.15
0.55
1.23
1.71
1.53
0.74
1.52
0.66
4.16
2.17
1.59
4.30
0.51
0.42
0.08
0.41
0.04
0.76
0.37
1.19
0.64
0.14
Geometric
Mean
8.49
0.29
7.53
0.13
1.01
1.40
1.18
0.45
- 1.17
0.55
3.45
1.83
1.16
3.43
0.43
0.18
0.06
0.24
0.04
0.47
0.19
0.98
0.40
0.07
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
6.90
0.25
5.33
1.08
0.75
1.00
1.08
0.61
0.87
0.32
2.34
1.10
1.38
2.62
0.25
0.55
0.08
0.40
0.00
0.53
0.41
0.67
0.53
0.19
Coefficient of
Variation
0.65
0.69
0.58
1.94
0.61
0.59
- 0.71
0.83
0.57
0.49
0.56
0.51
0.87
0.61
0.49
1.30
0.97
0.98
0.00
0.70
1.12
0.56
0.83
1.38
C-17
-------
Table C-4. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Concentration Range
(ppbC)
Compound Cases
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1-Decene
1-Undecene
1 -Dodecene
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
TNMOC (speciated)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
detects
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
Minimum
0.11
0.04
1.53
0.23
0.04
109.94
88.26
Maximum
0.68
1.26
11.57
1.59
0.06
687.87
616.17
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbC)
Median
0.51
0.41
5.75
0.76
- 0.04
442.29
407.14
Arithmetic
Mean
0.47
0.50
6.16
0.80
0.04
400.48
359.54
Geometric
Mean
0.41
0.28
5.27
0.68
0.04
342.08
304.19
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
0.19
0.44
3.29
0.44
0.01
206.11
186.79
Coefficient of
Variation
0.41
0.88
0.53
0.55
0.19
0.51
0.52
-------
Table C-5. 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Shape Statistics
Normal
Distribution
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Paraffins
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
Cases
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Nondetects
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
, 6
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
Skew
1.38
0.65
0.96
0.80
0.88
1.06
1.20
0.73
0.76
0.60
1.52
0.99
2.84
1.73
0.79
1.56
1.18
1.61
2.51
3.22
0.55
2.78
1.97
1.39
2.14
1.60
1.30
1.17
0.89
1.63
1.89
1.71
Kurtosis
1.16
-0.86
0.39
-0.32
0.19
0.85
0.49
-0.16
-0.25
-0.11
2.43
0.05
9.36
3.85
-0.34
2.49
0.50
3.08
7.82
11.57
-1.25
8.19
3.41
1.53
4.95
3.26
1.17
0.27
-0.35
3.20
4.22
4.08
Lognormal
Distribution
Skew
0.35
-0.05
-0.01
0.01
0.09
-0.03
0.13
-0.28
-0.07
-1.58
0.31
-0.36
0.42
0.37
-0.25
-1.31
-0.88
0.20
0.26
0.52
-0.38
0.42
0.27
-1.02
-1.28
-0.01
-1.22
-0.10
-0.06
0.11
-0.71
-0.21
Kurtosis
-1.40
-1.57
-1.08
-1.27
-1.13
-1.00
-1.78
-1.12
-1.35
1.95
-1.00
0.25
0.84
-0.71
-1.88
3.10
1.53
-1.06
-0.85
-0.27
-0.86
-0.32
-0.70
1.57
2.68
-1.42
1.22
-1.20
-1.47
-1.27
0.83
-0.74
C-19
-------
Table C-5. 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Shape Statistics
Normal
Distribution
Compound
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2 , 3 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methy Iheptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Olefms
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl-l-butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cases
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Nondetects
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0 .
6
0
9
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
7
Skew
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.84
2.07
0.46
1.48
1.40
1.08
2.01
1.96
0.69
3.85
3.88
1.58
2.51
0.77
1.61
1.74
3.33
1.20
2.47
2.54
2.04
2.90
2.16
1.10
2.90
1.73
2.46
1.71
1.93
Kurtosis
2.87
3.01
2.95
4.67
5.80
-1.25
2.43
2.55
1.16
5.56
5.73
-0.87
15.13
15.33
2.42
7.53
-0.89
2.42
3.67
12.07
0.85
7.44
7.44
4.55
9.83
6.28
0.48
9.90
2.38
7.32
4.02
2.63
Lognormal
Distribution
Skew
0.05
0.23
0.15
-0.02
-1.33
-1.33
-0.08
-0.21
-0.20
0.04
-0.15
-0.36
1.56
1.70
-0.01
0.46
0.20
0.32
0.19
0.70
0.13
-0.80
-0.47
-0.15
-0.54
-0.57
-0.27
0.31
-0.51
0.24
-0.38
0.84
Kurtosis
-1.42
-1.05
-1.27
-1.10
2.91
2.50
-1.07
-1.32
-1.13
-0.53
0.23
-1.61
3.77
4.12
-0.86
-0.81
-1.71
-0.59
-1.13
-0.92
-1.31
1.62
0.80
-0.86
0.75
-0.01
-0.95
-0.48
0.48
-0.99
-0.93
-0.70
C-20
-------
Table C-5. 1995 Speciated NMOC Option Shape Statistics
Normal
Distribution
Lognormal
Distribution
Compound
Cases Nondetects Skew Kurtosis Skew Kurtosis
1-Hexene 16 11 2.64
2-Methyl-l-pentene 16 4 2.13
2-Ethyl-l-butene 16 16 1.11
trans-2-Hexene 16 2 1.37
cis-2-Hexene 16 3 1.69
1-Heptene 16 1 0.88
1-Octene 16 2 0.82
1-Nonene 16 11 2.55
a-Pinene 16 0 1.44
b-Pinene 16 2 0.47
1-Decene 16 0 0.98
1-Undecene 16 0 0.99
1-Dodecene 16 9 2.95
6.23
4.71
-2.31
2.24
2.21
0.37
-0.36
7.22
3.60
-0.60
0.25
0.53
9.17
2.31 4.37
0.25 -1.06
1.11 -2.31
-0.27 -1.36
0.28 -1.39
-0.95 0.83
-0.27 -1.53
1.11 -0.44
-0.54 0.27
-1.03 0.22
-0.10 -0.18
-0.56 0.02
1.65 1.98
C-21
-------
Table C-6. Shape Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) Plainfield, New Jersey (P2N J)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
I sopropy Ibenzene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 .3, 5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
2.2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2, 3 -Dimethy Ibutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
n-Hexane
Methylcyclopentane
2 ,4-Dimethy Ipentane
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3 -Dimethy Ipentane
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Skew
1.67
1.51
1.06
1.01
0.47
1.33
1.03
1.10
1.26
1.19
1.71
1.03
2.08
1.76
1.38
1.58
1.68
1.36
2.38
2.61
1.54
1.90
1.41
2.40
2.09
2.05
2.16
2.03
2.03
1.93
2.46
2.01
1.81
Kurtosis
2,27
1.83
-0.10
-0.31
-1.19
1.00
0.44
0.28
0.34
0.87
2.84
-0.67
4.66
2.90
1,82
2.18
2.54
1.09
5.90
7.01
1.66
3.13
0.27
6.08
4.77
4.29
4.78
4.26
4.14
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3.69 0
6.35 0
4.40 0
3.17 0
Skew
1.52
0.12
0.24
0.35
0.50
0.17
2.32
0.08
0.57
-0.38
0.86
1.10
-0.06
0.24
0.69
1.07
0.94
-0.30
-0.17
0.03
-0.12
-0.13
-0.05
1.09
2.32
-0.11
0.37
0.82
0.13
0.26
0.37
-0.14
0.02
Kurtosis
2.63
-i.32
-0.77
-0.90
0.60
-0.49
5.80
-0.78
0.88
-0.65
0.84
1.05
-1.39
-0.09
-1.31
1.34
0.22
-1.54
-1.57
-1.78
-1.63
-1.29
-1.00
2.15
6.05
-1.88
-1.52
-0.79
-1.84
-1.09
-0.97
-1.33
-0.89
C-22
-------
Table C-6. Shape Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
Compound
3-Methylhexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2 ,2 ,3 -Trimethy Ipentane
2 , 3 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane
n-Undecane
n-Dodecane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propylene
Propyne
Isobutene
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-l-Butene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -Pentene
1-Hexene
2-Methyl-l -Pentene
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
4
5
2
Skew
1.67
1.83
1.99
2.19
0.94
1.63
1.65
1.07
1.95
1.77
0.56
2.73
2.76
1.88
1.26
0.93
1.69
1.96
0.49
1.77
2.49
2.58
2.45
2.45
2.39
1.41
2.51
2.31
2.48
2.39
2.79
1.67
2.07
Kurtosis'
2.49
2.99 |
4.08
5.03 ;
-0.98
2.43
2.47
0.38
3.97
3.63
-1.64 !
7.56
7.69
3.64 !
-0.16 !
-1.15 i
2.16 !
3.75
-1.74 i
2.63 |
6.41
6.87 !
6.24
6.14 I
6.00
2.18
6.50
5.49
6.34 ;
5.87
7.84
2.34
3.98
Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
Non-
detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
2
Skew
0.23
0.47
-0.24
-0.39
0.04
0.76
-0.11
0.27
-0.45
-0.76
1.02
-0.03
0.27
1.70
2.18
0.63
1.15
0.32
2.54
0.48
0.08
0.83
0.95
-0.42
-0.78
0.34
-0.45
1.85
0.22
0.01
1.74
1.63
1.51
Kurtosis
-1.02
0.43
-0.57
-0.71
-1.68
0.98
-0.73
-0.66
-0.38
-0.63
0.37
-0.82
-2.02
3.09
5.20
-0.69
0.27
-0.39
6.62
-0.98
-1.66
0.21
1.18
-1.27
-0.51
-0.26
-1.41
4.20
-0.56
0.69
2.93
1.19
2.68
C-23
-------
Table C-6. Shape Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
and Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 Speciated NMOC Option
Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
Compound
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
1 -Heptene
1-Octene
1 -Nonene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
1 -Decene
1 -Undecene
1-Dodecene
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
TNMOC (speciated)
Non-
detects
8
1
1
1
2
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Skew
NA
2.08
2.21
1.51
1.23
2.26
1.38
0.13
1.51
1.32
1.19
1.93
1.61
Non-
Kurtosis detects
NA 8
4.45
1
4.87 2
1.91 0
0.52
5.37
2.08
-1.23
1.51
1.00
0.75
4.02
2.70
0
6
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
Skew
NA
-0.32
1.81
0.01
0.73
1.78
-0.97
0.67
0.35
0.59
2.83
-0.18
-0.25
Kurtosis
NA
-1.81
3.81
-1.36
0.16
2.13
0.17
-0.62
-0.51
0.24
8.00
-1.30
-1.31
NA = Not Applicable (No values were detected).
Note = There were 8 cases for both sites.
C-24
-------
Appendix D
Statistical Summary
for the
UATMP VOC Option
-------
Table D-1. 1995 UATMP VOC Option Summary of Number and
Frequency of Occurrences for All Sites
Compounds
Halogenated Compounds:
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Chloroprene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Dibromochloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroentane
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Nonhalogenated Compunds:
Acetylene
Propyne
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
o-Xylene
Number of Occurences
40
0
1
0
38
0
0
0
0
34
1
43
43
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
36
2
0
2
11
38
13
43
43
33
43
43
Frequency (%)
93%
0%
2%
0%
88%
0%
0%
0%
0%
79%
2%
100%
100%
0%
0%
58%
0%
0%
0%
0%
84%
5%
0%
5%
26%
88%
30%
100%
100%
77%
100%
100%
D-1
-------
Table D-1. 1995 UATMP VOC Option Summary of Number and
Frequency of Occurrences for AH Sites
Compounds Number of Occurences Frequency (%)
Toluene 37 86%
n-Octane 43 100%
Ethylbenzene 43 100%
m-and p-Xylene 43 100%
Stvrene 43 100%
D-2
-------
100%
-*— Frequency
95 Percentile
Median
5 Percentile
Figure D-1. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of the Nonhalogenated UATMP
VOCs at Bl AL in 1995
100%
90%
80% -.
70% I
60%
•- 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
-•—Frequency
95 Percentile
. Median
5 Percentile
1.00
0.90
00
Figure D-2. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of the Halogenated UATMP VOCs
at DIAL in 1995
D-3
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
Frequency of Occurrence
"- N>
O O O
O
O
Acetylene
Propylene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
I
a
n-Octane I
Ethylbenzene
m- and p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
B
a
9> \O
1 S
3
3 "
s ^
\
Concentration (ppbV)
Concentnlion (ppbV)
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
Concentration (ppbV)
^s
Frequency of Occurrence
Acetylene
Propylene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
rtv 8nd p-Xylene
o s>
Concentration (ppbV)
-------
Frequency of Occurrence
Frequency of Occurrence
ooooooooooo
Acetylene
Propylene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
— 1
•
I'
1
n
Toluene 1 1 (
n-Octane U
P
Ethylbenzene
m- and p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
B
I*
L_
D
1
_l
. j
IA ^ xi
2 5' o c
n 3 o 2
3 n 2
E 3-5
f» — ;
n
1
<
/
N,
>
s
N
y
/
/
f
\
OM*.I?>00 — ~ —
O to -U
Concentration (ppbV)
Concentration (ppbV)
-------
90%
80%
| 70%
a 60%
«- 50%
B 40%
£ 30%
u.
20%
10% ,
0%
•
—
Acetylene
\ /
n n
, -d , .m,^, , «
4) U ft> u o **
g. « g "o o V
E = CD f~ ' •"
£ CD c "?>
[2" U
_•_ Frequency
95 Percentile
« Median
5 Percentile
Q ,
1 I
a.
• 1
^,
X
&
36
32
28 ~
74 &
70 1
C
16 S
e
8
L 4
0
Figure D-9. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Nonhalogenated UATMP VOCs
at Plainfleld, New Jersey (P2NJ) in 1995
100%
-•—Frequency
95 Percentile
« Median
5 Percentile
2.00
1.80
00
Figure D-10. Frequency and Concentration Distribution for Halogenated UATMP VOCs
at Plainfleld, New Jersey (P2NJ) in 1995
D-7
-------
Table D-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrence of the UATMP VOCs in 1995 by Site
Tarrant City,
Alabama (B1AL)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m- and p-Xyiene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroprene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Occurrences
No.
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
7
0
8
Frequency
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88%
0%
100%
Pinson, Alabama
(B2AL)
Occurrences
No.
9
9
9
9
9
5
9
9
8
9
9
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
6
0
9
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
100%
100%
89%
100%
100%
0%
11%
0%
78%
0%
0%
0%
0%
67%
0%
100%
Helena, Alabama
(B3AL)
Occurrences
No.
10
10
4
10
10
8
10
10
8
10
10
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
7
0
10
Frequency
100%
100%
40%
100%
100%
80%
100%
100%
80%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
70%
0%
0%
0%
0%
70%
0%
100%
Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ)
Occurence
No.
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
6
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
7
1
8
Frequency
100%
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
75%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88%
13%
100%
Plainfield, New
Jersey (P2NJ)
Occurrence
No.
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
7
0
8
Frequency
100%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88%
0%
100%
-------
Table D-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrence of the UATMP VOCs in 1995 by Site
Tarrant City,
Alabama (B1AL)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethane
cis- 1 ,3-DichIoropropene
trans-l,3-Dich!oropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Dibromomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Occurrences
No.
8
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
8
2
Frequency
100%
0%
0%
88%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
25%
100%
25%
Pinson, Alabama
(B2AL)
Occurrences
No.
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
8
1
Frequency
100%
0%
0%
0%
o%-
0%
0%
0%
44%
0%
0%
0%
22%
89%
11%
Helena, Alabama
(B3AL)
Occurrences
No.
10
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
6
2
Frequency
100%
0%
0%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80%
0%
0%
0%
20%
60%
20%
Newark, New
Jersey (NWNJ)
Occurence
No.
8
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
2
3
8
5
Frequency
100%
0%
0%
88%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
13%
0%
25%
38%
100%
63%
Plainfleld, New
Jersey (P2NJ)
Occurrence
No.
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
2
8
3
Frequency
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0% .
0%
0%
100%
13%
0%
0%
25%
100%
38%
D-9
-------
Table D-3. Summary Statistics for the UATMP VOC Option Program
Concentration Range
Compound
Acetylene
Propyne
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Chloroprene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichioropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1,1, 2 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
n-Octane
Nondetects
0
0
3
43
10
42
43
5
43
43
43
43
9
42
0
0
0
43
43
18
43
43
43
0
43
6
Minimum
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.47
0.03
0.01
Maximum
39.45
8.87
0.95
0.06
0.41
0.09
0.09
1.81
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.13
0.52
6.48
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.03
24.08
0.03
0.70
Central Tendency of Measured Concentration
Mode
None
1.23
0.58
0.06
0.08
0.09
O.T)9
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.12
0.30
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.22
0.03
0.03
Arithmetic
Median Mean
3.83
1.10
0.62
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.22
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.20
0.46
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.31
0.03
0.07
7.91
1.59
0.63
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.40
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.23
0.77
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
2.55
0.03
0.11
Geometric
Mean
4.86
1.11
0.60
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.21
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.21
0.50
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.67
0.03
0.07
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
8.86
1.60
0.16
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.10
1.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.71
0.00
0.12
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
2.70
2.33
1.41
1.00
1.91
1.18
1.00
3.08
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.78
1.00
1.53
2.35
1.15
1.00
1.00
1.66
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.30
1.00
2.52
-------
Table D-3. Summary Statistics for the UATMP VOC Option Program
Concentration Range
Central Tendency of Measured Concentration
Arithmetic
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m- and p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroentane
o-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Nondetects
7
41
0
0
43
0
41
0
32
5
30
Minimum
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.19
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
Maximum
2.85
0.22
0.90
4.01
0.04
0.65
0.08
1.51
0.06
0.12
0.05
Mode
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.57
0.04
0.03
O.D8
0.23
0.04
0.01
0.04
Median
0.08
0.03
0.21
0.90
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.34
0.04
0.03
0.04
Mean
0.20
0.03
0.29
1.26
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.49
0.03
0.04
0.03
Geometric
Mean
0.08
0.03
0.22
0.93
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.37
0.03
0.03
0.03
Variability
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
0.45
0.03
0.23
1.00
0.00
0.12
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.03
0.01
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
3.75
1. 42
2.18
2.22
1.00
2.28
1.37
2.18
1.49
2.12
1.55
There were a total of 43 valid samples from the five participating sites.
D-ll
-------
Table D-4. Summary Statistics for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
U-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETH YLENE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
n-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETH YLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
g
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
Detects
0
0
0
8
1
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
1
8
0
0
0
8
8
1
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
8
0
Arithmetic
Mean
13.98
2.29
0.65
0.06
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.36
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.25
1.90
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
3.05
0.03
0.24
0.07
0.03
0.58
Geometric
Mean
13.58
1.92
0.64
0.06
0.17
0.09
0.09
0.27
-0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.13
0..23
1.32
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
2.73
0.03
0.20
0.07
0.03
0.50
Median
12.69
2.11
0.60
0.06
0.19
0.09
0.09
0.24
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.22
1.25
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
3.04
0.03
0.20
0.07
0.03
0.56
Minimum
10.91
0.48
0.55
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.16
0.28
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.76
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.12
Maximum
22.95
4.23
0.85
0.06
0.31
0.09
0.09
1.24
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.13
0.52
6.48
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
4.95
0.03
0.70
0.16
0.03
0.90
Standard
Deviation
3.97
1.31
0.12
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.12
1.95
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
0.00
0,19
0.04
0.00
0.25
Coeficient of
Variation
0.28
0.57
0.19
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.47
1.03
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.81
0.56
0.00
0.43
-------
Table D-4. Summary Statistics for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
Detects
0
8
0
8
0
6
0
6
Arithmetic
Mean
2.52
0.04
0.28
0.08
0.96
0.03
0.07
0.04
Geometric
Mean
2.18
0.04
0.23
0.08
0.85
0.03
0.07
0.03
Median
2.42
0.04
0.23
0.08
0.94
0.04
0.07
0.04
Minimum
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.20
0.02
0.03
0.02
Maximum
4.01
0.04
0.65
0.08
1.51
0.04
0.09
0.04
Standard
Deviation
1.14
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.41
0.01
0.03
0.01
Coeficlent of
Variation
0.45
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.42
0.22
0.36
0.26
D-13
-------
Table D-5. Summary Statistics for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETH YLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETH YLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DEBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
n-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETH YLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
Cases
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Non-
Detects
0
0
0
9
0
8
9
2
9
9
9
9
3
9
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
4
5
9
0
Arithmetic
Mean
3.30
0.81
0.68
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.13
0.43
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.96
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.14
Geometric
Mean
3.07
0.76
0.67
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.07
- 0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.13
0.39
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.91
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.14
Median
2.85
0.78
0.65
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.13
0.35
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.78
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.13
Minimum
1.68
0.48
0.54
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
O.OJ
0.13
0.12
0.23
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.68
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.10
Maximum
5.29
1.29
0.95
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.26
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.15
1.05
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.71
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.23
Standard
Deviation
1.33
0.30
0.13
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
Coeficient of
Variation
0.40
0.37
0.19
0.00
0.38
0.24
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.00
• o.oo
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.10
0.59
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.18
0.27
0.00
0.34
-------
Table D-5. Summary Statistics for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Non- Arithmetic Geometric Standard Coeficientof
Compound Cases Detects Mean Mean Median Minimum Maximum Deviation Variation
m,p-XYLENE 9 0 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.41 1.03 0.22 0.37
BROMOFORM 9 9 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
STYRENE 9 1 0.07 006 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.35
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 9 9 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
o-XYLENE 9 0 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.39 0.08 0.34
m-DICHLOROBENZENE 9 7 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.29
p-DICHLOROBENZENE 9 1 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.40
o-DICHLOROBENZENE 9 8 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.18
D-15
-------
Table D-6. Summary Statistics for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-l,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DffiROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
Cases
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Non-
Detects
0
0
0
10
6
10
10
3
10
10
10
10
3
10
0
0
0
10
10
7
10
10
10
0
10
2
2
10
0
Arithmetic
Mean
2.49
0.59
0.69
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.17
0.33
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
3.27
0.03
0.04
0.30
0.03
0.13
Geometric
Mean
2.01
0.50
0.68
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.11
- o.ii
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.17
0.29
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.23
0.03
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.11
Median
2.25
0.54
0.69
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.17
0.28
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.93
0.03
0.04
0.22
0.03
0.11
Minimum
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.47
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
Maximum
6.29
1.11
0.95
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.31
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.13
0.25
0.63
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
24.08
0.03
0.09
0.93
0.03
0.34
Standard
Deviation
1.69
0.34
0.12
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.18
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
7.32
0.00
0.02
0.31
0.00
0.09'
Coeficient of
Variation
0.68
0.58
0.18
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.24
0.54
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.24
0.00
0.56
1.04
0.00
0.68
-------
Table D-6. Summary Statistics for Helena, Alabama (B3AL), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Non- Arithmetic Geometric Standard Coefficient of
Compound Cases Detects Mean Mean Median Minimum Maximum Deviation Variation
m,p-XYLENE 10 0 0.52 0.44 0.43 . 0.19 1.40 0.35 0.68
BROMOFORM 10 10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 " 0.04 0.00 0.00
STYRENE 10 2 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.68
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 10 10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
o-XYLENE 10 0 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.58 "0.15 0.69
m-DICHLOROBENZENE 10 8 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.25
p-DICHLOROBENZENE 10 4 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.40
o-DICHLOROBENZENE 10 8 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.27
D-17
-------
Table D-7. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE.
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
Detects
0
0
2
8
2
8
8
0
8
8 .
8
8
1
7
0
0
0
8
8
1
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
7
Arithmetic
Mean
6.16
2.00
0.55
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.72 .
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.11
0.31
0.50
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
2.14
0.03
0.13
0.14
0.05
Geometric
Mean
4.68
1.56
0.49
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.48
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.30
0.38
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.78
0.03
0.10
0.12
0.04
Median
3.71
1.24
0.61
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.45
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.13
0.33
0.28
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.87
0.03
0.07
0.16
0.03
Minimum
1.57
0.65
0.20
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.15
0.16
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.68
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
Maximum
14.90
4.36
0.77
0.06
0.31
0.09
0.09
1.81
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.13
0.46
1.35
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.03
4.90
0.03
0.39
0.20
0.22
Standard
Deviation
5.09
1.48
0.23
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.43
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.39
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.07
Coeficient
of
Variation
0.83
0.74
0.41
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.40
0.35
0.86
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.87
0.44
1.25
-------
Table D-7. Summary Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
Cases
Non- Arithmetic Geometric
Detects Mean Mean
Median
Coeficient
Standard of
Minimum Maximum Deviation Variation
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
1
6
0
5
0
3
0.32
1.48
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.57
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.27
1.30
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.50
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.25
1.13
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.43
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.68
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.67
2.92
0.04
0.28
0.08
1.19
0.04
0.12
0.05
0.20
0.83
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.34
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.61
0.56
0.00
0.77
0.35
0.59
0.32
0.63
0.50
D-19
-------
Table D-8. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
Cases
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Non-
Detects
0
0
1
8
1
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
1
8
0
0
0
8
8
0
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
7
0
Mean
15.54
2.61
0.56
0.06
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.82
O.H
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.31
0.83
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
3.36
0.03
0.14
0.49
0.03
0.34
Median
6.81
1.75
0.57
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.59
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.32
0.76
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
2.88
0.03
0.13
0.17
0.03
0.31
Minimum
2.71
0.74
0.20
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.09
on
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.21
0.23
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.13
0.03 '
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.13
Maximum
39.45
8.87
0.80
0.06
0.41
0.09
0.09
1.62
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.41
1.62
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.03
7.72
0.03
0.22
2.85
0.03
0.78
Standard
Deviation
15.57
2.66
0.17
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.52
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.16
0.00
0.05
0.96
0.01
0.21
Coeficlent of
Variation
1.00
1.02
0.30
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.18
0.62
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.38
1.97
0.26
0.61
-------
Table D-8. Summary Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ), 1995 UATMP VOC Option
Non- Standard Coeficient of
Compound Cases Detects Mean Median Minimum Maximum Deviation Variation
m,p-XYLENE 8 0 1.46 1.44 0.55 2.88 0.79 0.54
BROMOFORM 8 8 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
STYRENE 8 0 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.27 0.08 0.80
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 8 8 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
o-XYLENE 8 0 0.58 0.59 0.22 1.09 - 0.30 0.52
m-DICHLOROBENZENE 8 6 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.38
p-DICHLOROBENZENE 8 0 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.49
o-DICHLOROBENZENE 8 5 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.31
D-21
-------
Table D-9. Shape Summary Statistics for the UATMP VOC Option
Normal
Distribution
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Chloroprene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Dibromochloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroentane
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Acetylene
Propyne
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
n-Octane
Cases
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43-
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Nondetects
3
43
42
43
5
43
43
43
43
9
42
0
0
43
43
18
43
43
43
43
7
41
43
41
32
5
30
0
0
10
0
0
6
Skew
-0.89
-1.04
-6.56
1.04
1.75
-1.04
-1.04
-1.04
1.04
2.03
1.04
1.02
0.54
-1.04
1.04
2.76
-1.04
-1.04
-1.04
-1.04
5.16
6.44
-1.04
-6.17
-0.72
0.87
-1.58
2.19
2.65
1.66
4.35
4.92
3.05
Kurtosis
2.36
-2.10
43.00
-2.10
1.78
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
4.86
-2.10
0.35
-0.28
-2.10
-2.10
8.99
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
29.70
42.01
-2.10
39.05
2.93
-0.55
1.29
5.02
9.35
2.64
23.18
28.12
12.49
Lognormal
Distribution
Skew
-2.33
1.04
-6.56
1.04
0.44
-1.04
1.04
-1.04
1.04
0.39
1.04
0.37
0.27
-1.04
1.04
0.92
-1.04
1.04
-1.04
-1.04
0.39
3.63
1.04
-6.46
-1.96
0.15
-2.01
0.18
0.21
0.33
0.71
0.84
0.35
Kurtosis
6.18
-2.10
43.00
-2.10
-0.74
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
0.13
-2.10
-0.92
-0.71
-2.10
-2.10
1.46
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
-2.10
-0.19
27.15
-2.10
42.09
3.38
-1.36
2.88
-0.30
-0.15
-0.26
0.36
0.90
-0.71
D-22
-------
Table D-9. Shape Summary Statistics for the UATMP VOC Option
Normal Lognormal
Distribution Distribution
Compound
Ethylbenzene
m- and p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Cases
43
43
43
43
Nondetects
0
0
0
0
Skew
1.22
1.19
2.64
1.07
Kurtosis
0.64
0.68
8.77
0.23
Skew
0.18
0.10
0.41
0.08
Kurtosis
-0.94
-0.95
-0.28
-1.00
D-23
-------
Table D-10. Shape Statisitcs for Tarrant City, Alabama (BIAL)
1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETH ANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
Noo-
Detects
0
0
0
8
1
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
1
8
0
0
0,
8
8
1
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
8
0
6
0
6
Shapiro-
Wflk(W)
0.766*
0.941
0.718*
0.967*
0.626
0.869*
0.710*
0.720
0.849*
0.843
0.975
0.665
0.890*
0.932*
0.929
0.892
0.951
0.566*
0.866
0.566*
Straight
Skewness
2.01
0.42
1.32
0.21
1.25
1.25
2.54
1.25
0.12
2.30
2.29
0.00
1.25
0.18
1.25
1.25
-0.43
1.25
2.45
1.42
-0.42
-0.31
1.37
-0.54
-1.44
-0.80
-1.44
Kurtosis
4.34
-0.70
-0.13
-0.39
-2.80
-2.80
6.85
-2.80
-1.88
5.81
5.76
-0.70
-2.80
0.84
-2.80
-2.80
0.98
-2.80
6.52
2.75
0.70
0.51
2.05
0.88
0.00
-0.62
0.00
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.839
0.942
0.743*
0.952
0.870
0.864
0.844
0.970
0.847
0.812*
0.822
0.890
0.985
0.784*
0.786*
0.991
0.785*
0.566*
0.818*
0.566*
Logarithm
Skewness
1.62
-0.99
1.26
-0.65
-1.25
-1.25
0.77
-1.25
-0.14
1.67
0.09
-0.22
-0.67
-1.84
1.02
0.00
-1.93
-1.90
-0.04
-1.99
-1.44
-1.30
-1.44
Kurtosis
2.76
1.32
-0.20
0.11
-2.80
-2.80
2.94
-2.80
-2.02
3.46
1.36
-0.69
-0.07
4.23
2.80
0.53
4.60
4.49
0.25
4.75
0.00
0.79
0.00
* Significant at the 5% level
D-24
-------
Table D-11. Shape Statisitcs for Pinson, Alabama (B2AL)
1995 UATMP VOC Option
Non-
Compound Detects
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
n-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
0
0
0
9
0
8
9
2
9
9
9
9
3
9
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
4
5
9
0
0
9
1
9
0
7
1
8
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.914
0.918
0.870
0.386*
0.937
0.386*
0.670*
0.386*
0.386*
0.730*
0.814*
0.718*
0.866
0.386*
0.386*
0.386*
0.386*
0.769*
0.386*
0.647*
0.975*
0.772*
0.806*
0.868
0.797*
0.569*
0.670*
0.386*
Normal
Skewness
0.54
0.44
1.34
0.54
-3.00
1.21
2.51
-1.21
1.21
-0.75
0.68
2.24
0.69
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.36
1.21
2.77
2.83
-1.21
1.33
1.33
0.55
1.28
-2.12
1.67
-3.00
Lognonnal
Kurtosis
-1.25
-1.34
1.32
-0.49
9.00
-2.67
6.97
-2.67
-2.67
-1.71
-1.25
5.41
-0.60
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
0.89
-2.67
7.97
8.27
-2.67
0.32
0.49
-1.62
0.23
4.00
1.10
9.00
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.953
0.928
0.913
0.386*
0.943
0.386*
0.900
0.386*
0.386*
0.701*
0.818*
0.871
0.872
0.386*
0.386*
0.386*
0.386*
0.801*
0.386*
0.693*
0.724*
0.836
0.874
0.899
0.867
0.554*
0.721*
0.386*
Skewnesi
0.09
0.10
1.05
-1.21
-0.08
-3.00
0.84
1.21
1.21
-1.21
-0.80
-1.21
0.61
1.43
0.48
-1.21
1.21
1.21
-1.21
1.21
1.08
1.21
2.64
2.67
1.21
1.09
1.00
-1.21
0.31
0.98
-2.46
1.65
-3.00
Kurtosis
-1.25
-1.65
0.64
-2.67
-0.90
9.00
2.85
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
-1.71
-2.67
-1.37
2.25
-1.05
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
-2.67
-0.34
-2.67
7.43
7.62
-2.67
-0.06
-0.08
-2.67
-1.63
-0.11
6.07
0.92
9.00
* Significant at the 5% level.
D-25
-------
Table D-12. Shape Statisitcs for Helena, Alabama (B3AL)
1995 UATMP VOC Option
Non- Shapiro-
Compound Detects Wilk(W)
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 . 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ^-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
0
0
0
10
6
10
10
3
10
10
10
10
3
10
0
0
0
10 '
10
7
10
10
10
0
10
2
2
10
0
0
10
2
10
0
8
4
8
0.902
0.910
0.951
0.360*
0.824*
0.803
0.360*
0.360*
0.790*
0.951
0.895
0.869
0.360*
0.740*
0.360*
0.360*
0.407*
0.360*
0.741*
0.876
0.794*
0.794*
0.865
0.798*
0.452*
0.716*
0.496*
Normal
Skewness
1.25
0.48
0.73
-1.19
1.09
1.36
1.36
1.21
-1.185854
'-1.19
1.36
-1.19
1.18
1.19
0.52
0.72
0.71
1.19
1.36
-1.04
1.36
1.19
1.36
3.15
1.36
2.02
0.95
-1.19
1.89
1.94
1.19
0.85.
1.19
1.91
-2.66
0.36
-2.66
Lognormal
Kurtosu
2.02
-1.21
1.52
-2.57
3.74
-1.72
-1.72
0.08
-2.57
-2.57
-1.72
-2.57
0.52
-2.57
0.33
-0.96
-0.45
-2.57
-1.72
-1.22
-1.72
-2.57
-1.72
9.93
-1.72
5.48
0.19
-2.57
4.23
4.39
-2.57
-0.74
-2.57
4.11
7.19
-2.25
7.19
Shapiro-
WilkfW)
0.974
0.936
0.974
0.360*
0.855
0.891
0.360*
0.360*
0.871
0.960
0.953
0.875
0.360*
0.705*
0.360*
0.360*
0.701*
0.360*
0.882
0.898
0.946
0.959
0.921
0.959
0.419*
0.720*
0.454*
Skewness
-0.26
-0.16
0.16
-1.19
-0.24
0.71
1.19
-1.19
0.12
-1.19
-0.02
0.09
0.49
-1.19
1.19
-1.04
1.19
-1.19
1.19
2.48
1.19
0.16
-0.34
0.64
0.63
-1.19
0.25
0.66
-2.92
0.29
-2.94
Kurtosis
-0.48
-1.44
0.91
-2.57
2.46
-0.89
-2.57
-2.57
0.79
-2.57
-0.31
-1.07
-0.97
-2.57
-2.57
-1.22
-2.57
-2.57
-2.57
6.91
-2.57
1.84
-1.69
0.09
0.33
-2.57
-1.46
0.24
8.72
-2.27
8.82
' Significant at the 5% level.
D-26
-------
Table D-13. Shape Statistics for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ)
1995 UATMP VOC Option
Compound
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-l,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DffiROMOCHLOROMETHANE
N-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
Noil-
Detects
0
0
2
8
2
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
1
7
0
0
0,
8
8
1
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
8
1
6
0
5
0
3
Shapiro-
WilkfW)
0.785*
0.836
0.798*
0.417*
0.775*
0.861
0.417*
0.417*
0.788*
0.417*
0.950
0.793*
0.844*
0.417*
0.948
0.417*
0.417*
0.915
0.417*
0.761*
0.859
0.417*
0.898
0.878
0.855
0.492
0.876
0.692
0.919
0.821 .
Normal
Skewness
1.23
0.76
-1.09
1.66
1.25
1.25
0.91
1.25
1.13
-2.83
-0.10
1.43
-0.31
1.25
0.84
1.25
1.25
1.11
1.25
1.86
-1.14
2.83
0.87
0.84
1.43
-2.60
1.02
-1.64
0.46
-0.54
Kurtosis
-0.17
-1.36
-0.41
2.44
-2.80
-2.80
-0.78
-2.80
-0.44
8.00
-1.32
1.07
2.21
-2.80
0.90
-2.80
-2.80
1.15
-2.80
3.58
0.19
8.00
-0.29
-0.78
1.93
6.89
-0.12
1.77
-1.33
-1.49
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.923
0.891
0.711*
0.417*
0.908
0.960
0.417*
0.417*
0.920
0.932
0.904
0.832
0.417*
0.967
0.417*
0.417*
0.980
0.417*
0.905
0.745*
0.417*
0.944
0.926
0.975
0.452*
0.945
0.650*
0.943
0.770*
Lognormal
Skewness
0.46
0.30
-1.32
-1.25
0.30
-0.12
1.25
1.25
-1.25
0.35
-1.30
-0.61
0.70
-0.69
0.09
1.25
-1.25
1.25
-0.04
1.25
0.79
-1.81
2.83
0.11
0.37
-1.25
0.24
-2.78
0.38
-2.03
-0.53
-091
Kurtosis
-0.63
-1.75
-0.16
-2.80
-0.29
-1.03
-2.80
-2.80
-2.80
-0.91
-3.00
-0.61
-0.84
2.60
0.04
-2.80
-2.80
-2.80
-0.82
-2.80
-0.06
2.81
8.00
-1.22
-1.54
-2.80
-0.70
7.76
-1.03
3.86
-0.29
-1 07
* Significant at the 5% level
D-27
-------
Table D-14. Shape Statistics for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ)
1995UATMPVOC Option
Compound fioa-
Detects
ACETYLENE
PROPYLENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,3-BUTADIENE
BROMOMETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
trans- 1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROPRENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 >DICHLOROPROPANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
cis- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
trans-l,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
n-OCTANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
m,p-XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
o-XYLENE
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
0
0
1
8
1
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
1
8
0
0
0
8
8
0
8
8
8
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
8
0
6
0
5
Shapiro-
WllkfW)
0.787*
0.702*
0.842
0.417*
0.851
0.838
0.417*
0.417*
0.869
0.965
0.911
0.839
0.417*
0.853
0.417*
0.417*
0.892
0.417*
0.979
0.462*
0.417*
0.873
0.934
0.815
0.936
0.794*
0.925
0.675*
Normal
Skewness
0.87
2.32
-1.41
1.47
1.25
1.25
0.36
1.25
0.31
-0.31
0.49
0.26
1.25
1.14
1.25
1.25
1.21
1.25
0.06
2.82
-2.83
1.47
0.71
1.63
0.42
0.00
0.52
-2.12
Lognormal
Kurtosb
-1.27
5.78
3.81
2.35
-2.80
-2.80
-2.02
-2.80
-1.90
1.21
-0.80
-0.71
-2.80
0.84
-2.80
-2.80
1.64
-2.80
-0.01
7.94
8.00
2.64
0.08
3.16
-0.32
3.50
-0.70
4.68
Shapiro-
Wilk(W)
0.876
0.941
0.698*
0.417*
0.959
0.883
0.417*
0.417*
0.871
0.933
0.897
0.838
0.417*
0.890
0.417*
0.417*
0.939
0.417*
0.935
0.733*
0.417*
0.969
0.946
0.929
0.902
0.689*
0.928
0.597*
Skewness
" 0.32
0.86
-2.30
-1.25
0.14
-0.56
1.25
1.25
-1.25
0.01
-1.25
-0.90
-0.56
0.07
0.03
1.25
-1.25
1.25
-0.13
1.25
-0.98
2.00
-2.83
0.17
-0.26
-1.25
0.20
-0.54
-1.94
-0.15
-2.53
Kurtosu
-1.82
0.89
6.10
-2.80
-0.54
-1.03
-2,80
-2.80
-2.80
-2.06
-2.80
1.81
-0.77
-1.12
-1.55
-2.80
-2.80
-2.80
-0.46
-2.80
1.46
5.35
8.00
-0.12
-0.85
-2.80
-0.71
-0.73
5.46
-1.27
6.65
'Significant at the 5% level.
D-28
-------
Appendix E
Statistical Summary
for the
Carbonyl Option
-------
Table E-l. 1995 NMOC Carbonyl Option Summary of Number and
Frequency of Occurrence for All Sites
Analyte Number of Occurences Frequency (%)
Formaldehyde 41 100%
Acetaldehyde 41 100%
Acrolein 10 24%
Acetone 41 100%
Propionaldehyde 24 59%
Crotonaldehyde 40 98%
Butyraldehyde and Isobutyraldehyde 38 93%
Benzaldehyde 34 83%
Isovaleraldehyde 6 15%
Valeraldehyde 22 54%
Tolualdehydes 22 54%
Hexaldehyde 41 100%
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 3 7%
E-l
-------
Table E-2. Number and Frequency of Occurrences for the Carbonyl Compounds in 1995 by Site
Dallas, TX(DLTX)
Occurrences
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Toiualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number
8
8
1
8
8
8
7
7
0
1
5
8
0
Frequency
100%
100%
13%
100%
100%
100%
88%
88%
0%
13%
63%
100%
0%
Fort Worth, TX
(FWTX)
Occurrences
Number
8
8
4
8
6
7
6
7
1
3
8
8
0
Frequency
100%
100%
50%
100%
75%
88%
75%
88%
13%
38%
100%
100%
0%
New Orleans, LA
(NOLA)
Occurrences
Number
8
8
0
8
1
8
8
3
3
5
0
8
0
Frequency
100%
100%
0%
100%
13%
100%
100%
38%
38%
63%
0%
100%
0%
Newark, NJ(NWNJ)
Occurrences
Number
8
8
5
8
1
8
8
8
2
4
4
8
1
Frequency
100%
100%
63%
100%
13%
100%
100%
100%
25%
50%
50%
100%
13%
Plalnfield, NJ (P2N J)
Occurrences
Number
9
9
0
9
8
9
9
9
0
9
5
9
2
Frequency
100%
100%
0%
100%
89%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
56%
100%
22%
-------
100%
90V.
\
10%
0%
i 1 j.
Speciaud Cirfaoiyl Conpo»ds
200
ISO
160
140
?
120 "I
100|
so I
u
60
40
20
Figure E-l. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Carbonyls at DLTX in 1995
100V.
90%
80%
30%
20%
10%
T\
I \
-VI
\ /
Spccuted Ci
36
32
28
24'
20 :
16
12
Figure E-2. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Carbonyls at FWTX in 1995
E-3
-------
loov.
90%
80%
70V.
60V.
•S 50%
40V.
20V.
10V.
I
Specified Cirhoiyl CoBponds
Figure E-3. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Carbonyls at NOLA in 1995
IOOV.
90V.
80V.
70V.
50V.
40V.
30V.
20V.
10V.
0%
S
-T
T
I
I
SpecUltd Cirboiyl CoBpondi
36
24 I
e
20 i
161
Figure E-4. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Carbonyls at NWNJ in 1995
E-4
-------
100%
90V.
80V.
•S 50%
40V.
30V.
20V.
10V.
0%
t
Speciitcd Cirbo«yl CoBpoudi
Figure E-5. Frequency and Concentration Distribution of Carbonyls at P2NJ in 1995
E-5
-------
Table E-3. Statistical Summary for Total Carbonyl Option Program
Concentration Range (ppbV)
Compound Minimum Maximum
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/lsobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexanaldehyde
2,5-DimethyIbenzaIdehyde
0.83
0.85
0.01
0.22
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.02
7.92
81.90
0.41
9.74
1.86
0.92
1.27
0.28
1.16
1.62
1.23
3.17
0.22
Central Tendency of Measured Concentration (ppbV) Variability of Concentration
Arithmetic Geometric
Arithmetic Geometric Standard Standard
Mode Median Average Mean Deviation Deviation
2.21
30.75
0.01
None
0.01
0.37
0.46-
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.19
0.03
2.55
18.09
0.03
3.82
0.15
0.37
0.34
0.12
0.02
0.07
0.43
0.19
0.04
3.04
21.84
0.07
4.00
0.28
0.40
0.39
0.12
0.08
0.18
0.41
0.34
0.07
2.63
14.26
0.03
3.19
0.12
0.32
0.30
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.33
0.22
0.06
1.73
18.41
0.11
2.30
0.34
0.23
0.26
0.06
0.18
0.30
0.26
0.51
0.04
1.72
2.94
3.45
2.21
4.62
2.11
2.33
1.72
2.59
3.45
1.94
2.22
1.84
-------
Table E-4. Statistical Summary for Dallas, Texas (DLTX) for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Concentration Range
(ppbV)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Non-
detects
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
1
8
7
3
0
8
Minimum
1.58
0.85
0.01
1.09
0.12
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.02
Maximum
4.96
18.09
0.40
4.04
0.42
0.60
0.30
0.15
0.02
0.06
0.42
0.20
0.02
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbV)
Arithmetic
Median Average
2.63
15.54
0.01
2.05
0.22
0.26
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.14
0.02
2.73
12.37
0.06
1.99
0.23
0.29
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.20
0.14
0.02
Variability of
Concentration (ppbV)
Shape Statistics
Arithmetic Coefficient
Geometric Standard of
Mean Deviation Variation Skew Kurtosis
2.60
9.30
0.02
1.83
0.21
0.23
0.15
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.13
0.02
0.98
6.33
0.14
0.95
0.11
0.18
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.05
0.00
0.36
0.51
2.35
0.47
0.49
0.62
0.43
0.42
0.00
0.57
0.57
0.35
0.00
1.87
-1.10
2.83
1.55
0.50
0.53
-1,74
-0.72
4.85
-0.14
8.00
3.20
-1.24
-0.42
3.68
-0.67
Not Applicable
2.83
1.13
-0.10
8.00
0.85
-1.08
Not Applicable
Note: There were a total of 8 cases.
E-7
-------
Table E-5. Statistical Summary for Fort Worth, Texas (FWTX) for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Concentration Range
(ppbV)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Non-
detects
0
0
4
0
2
0
1
1
7
5
0
0
8
Minimum
2.21
1.69
0.02
0.41
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.43
0.13
0.03
Maximum
7.92
33.12
0.41
8.50
0.80
0.45
0.46
0.19
0.09
0.22
1.23
0.29
0.09
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbV)
Median
3.34
18.92
0.09
3.86
0.38
0.40
0.32
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.53
0.20
0.03
Arithmetic
Average
3.87
17.74
0.16
4.05
0.38
0.31
0.29
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.71
0.21
0.04
Geometric
Mean
3.56
10.91
0.08
3.13
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.65
0.20
0.04
Variability of
Concentration (ppbV)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.88
14.08
0.17
2.49
0.29
0.17
0.14
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.33
0.06
0.02
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.49
0.79
1.04
0.61
0.77
0.55
0.49
0:63
0.45
0.79
0.47
0.28
0.46
Shape
Skew
1.73
-0.06
0.68
0.57
0.20
-0.98
-0.70
0.54
2.20
1.40
1.03
0.11
2.83
Statistics
Kurtosis
2.92
-2.56
-1.50
0.52
-0.72
-0.93
-0.44
-1.42
4.66
1.66
-0.80
-1.06
8.00
Note: There were a total of 8 cases.
-------
Table E-6. Statistical Summary for New Orleans, Lousiana (NOLA) for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Concentration Range
(ppbV)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Non-
detects
0
0
8
0
7
0
0
5
5
3
8
0
8
Minimum
1.52
26.82
0.04
2.81
0.03
0.25
0.48
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.44
0.45
0.09
Maximum
2.72
81.90
0.06
6.51
1.86
0.88
1.27
0.28
1.16
1.62
0.61
3.17
0.12
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbV)
Median
1.87
33.26
0.04
5.44
0.03
0.51
0.70
0.13
0.09
0.30
0.44
0.83
0.09
Arithmetic
Average
1.98
46.47
0.05
5.14
0.26
0.54
0.77
0.14
0.25
0.51
0.46
1.03
0.09
Geometric
Mean
1.93
42.09
0.05
5.00
0.05
0.51
0.74
0.13.
0.15
0.29
0.46
0.85
0.09
Variability of
Concentration (ppbV)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
0.48
23.22
0.01
1.17
0.65
0.21
0.27
0.07
0.37
0.54
0.06
0.88
0.01
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.24
0.50
0.13
0.23
2.53
0.38
0.34
0.48
1.52
1.06
0.13
0.86
0.13
Shape Statistics
Skew
0.71
0.94
2.83
-1.24
2.83
0.32
1.04
0.49
2.74
1.39
2.83
2.59
2.83
Kurtosis
-1.09
-1.10
8.00
1.61
8.00
-0.53
0.43
2.42
7.58
1.67
8.00
7.06
8.00
Note: There were a total of 8 cases.
E-9
-------
Table E-7. Statistical Summary for Newark, New Jersey (NWNJ) for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Concentration Range
(ppbV)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-DimethylbenzaIdehyde
Non-
detects
0
0
3
0
7
0
0
0
6
4
4
0
7
Minimum
2.09
1.91
0.01
2.58
0.01
0.06
0.20
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.02
Maximum
6.85
35.63
0.24
6.58
0.32
0.92
0.56
0.25
0.29
0.34
0.47
0.25
0.09
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbV)
Median
4.75
12.44
0.09
4.75
0.01
0.29
0.33
0.14
0.02
0.04
0.22
0.19
0.02
Arithmetic
Average
4.50
16.07
0.10
4.67
0.05
0.42
0.35
0.15
0.08
0.14
0.26
0.18
0.03
Geometric
Mean
4.12
9.62
0.05
4.48
0.02
0.30
0.33
0.14
0.04
0.07
0.20
0.17
0.02
Variability of
Concentration (ppbV)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.89
14.06
0.09
1.35
0.11
0.34
0.12
0.05
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.06
0.03
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.42
0.88
0.90
0.29
2.25
0.80
0.35
0.37
1.40
1.09
0.67
0.34
0.87
Shape Statistics
Skew
-0.15
0.34
0.42
-0.15
2.83
0.65
0.38
0.87
0.87
0.64
0.17
-0.71
0.87
Kurtosis
-1.91
-2.04
-1.44
-1.08
8.00
-1.41
-0.63
0.35
0.35
-2.09
-2.46
-0.14
0.35
Note: There were a total of 8 cases.
-------
Table E-8. Statistical Summary for Plainfield, New Jersey (P2NJ) for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Concentration Range
(ppbV)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Non-
detects
0
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
4
0
7
Minimum
0.83
2.57
0.01
0.22
0.01
0.22
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.02
Maximum
5.58
25.94
0.01
9.74
0.68
0.72
0.57
0.17
0.02
0.46
0.65
0.30
0.06
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentration (ppbV)
Median
1.67
17.53
0.01
3.69
0.5.1
0.34
0.34
0.09
0.02
0.13
0.38
0.18
0.02
Arithmetic
Average
2.23
17.12
0.01
4.14
0.46
0.43
0.32
0.10
0.02
0.15
0.35
0.16
0.03
Geometric
Mean
1.80
14.36
0.01
2.61
0.33
0.40
0.26
0.09
0.02
0.10
0.25
0.15
0.02
Variability of
Concentration (ppbV)
Arithmetic
Standard
Deviation
1.69
8.31
0.00
3.42
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.04
0.00
0.14
0.25
0.07
0.01
Coefficient
of
Variation
.0.76
0.49
0.00
0.82
0.41
0.40
0.59
0.42
0.00
0.94
0.71
0.42
0.54
Shape Statistics
Skew Kurtosis
1.46 0.92
-0.48 -0.99
Not Applicable
0.60 -1.22
-1.86 4.58
0.54 -1.20
-0.04 -2.01
0.54 -0.95
Not Applicable
1.61 2.79
0.02 -2.27
0.79 0.41
1.67 1.10
Note: There were a total of 9 cases.
E-ll
-------
Table E-9. Shape Statistics for the 1995 Carbonyl Option
Normal Distribution
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde and
Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Skew
1.16
1.66
2.09
0.44
2.52
0.52
1.44
0.58
5.40
3.40
1.23
4.63
1.14
Kurtosis
0.63
3.70
3.49
-0.33
9.72
-0.23
2.87
0.55
31.72
13.76
2.48
24.89
-0.19
Lognormal Distribution
Skew
0.10
-0.85
0.76
-1.37
-0.23
-1.05
-1.68
-0.72
1.67
0.58
-0.39
1.25
0.78
Kurtosis
-0.33
0.17
-0.77
2.45
-1.59
0.73
5.20
-0.02
2.72
-0.61
-1.07
2.03
-1.07
E-12
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE BEFORE COMPLETING)
ORT NO.
^-454/4-99-014
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
E AND SUBTITLE
5 Nonmethane Organic Compounds And Speciated Nonmethane
anic Compounds Monitoring Program
5. REPORT DATE
1/1/97
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
HOR(S)
tern Research Group, Inc.
>. Box 2010, Morrisville, NC 27560
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
FORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
ce Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
i. Environmental Protection Agency
earch Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D3-0095
DNSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
'PLEMENTARY NOTES
5TRACT " '—"— "~~
:ERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD (NAAQS)
* OZONE IS BEING EXCEEDED, ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS OF AMBIENT NONMETHANE ORGANIC
^POUNDS (NMOC) ARE NEEDED TO ASSIST THE AFFECTED STATES IN DEVELOPING REVISED OZONE
vJTROL STRATEGIES. BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING ACCURATE NMOC
\SUREMENTS, THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) HAS PROVIDED MONITORING
3 ANALYTICAL ASSISTANCE TO THESE STATES, BEGINNING IN 1984 AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE
5 NMOC MONITORING PROGRAM.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
>ne Control Stategies
ional Ambient Air Quality Standards
imethane Organic Compound
nitoring Analysis
5 NMOC Monitoring Program
3TRIBUTION STATEMENT
LIMITED
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI FIELD/GROUP
21. NO. OF PAGES
22. PRICE
------- |