United States       Region 4         EPA 904/9-77-028
          Environmental Protection   345 Courtland Street, NE   February 2, 1979
          Agency         Atlanta GA 30308
          AI7                                ~

&EPA    Tampa Bay  Area    Final
          Photochemical       Appendi;
          Oxidant Study

          Determination of
          Emission Rates Of
          Hydrocarbons From
          Indigenous Species
          Of Vegetation In The
          Tampa/St. Petersburg
          Florida Area.

-------
                     FINAL  REPORT
                   February 2,  1979

             Washington  State University
                College  of Engineering
                  Research Division
            Air Pollution Research Section
                Contract  No-  68-01-4432
   Title:   Determination  of  Emission Rates of
           Hydrocarbons  from Indigenous Species of
           Vegetation  in  the Tampa/St. Petersburg,
           Florida  Area
                   By:   P.  R.  Zimmerman
Prepared For:   Environmental  Protection Agency
               Region  IV
               Air Programs Branch
               345 Courtland  St., NE
               Atlanta, Georgia  30308
               Attention:   Ron  McHenry

-------
                              DISCLAIMER






     This report was furnished to the Environmental  Protection Agency



(Region IV) by Washington State University,  Air Pollution and Resources



Section, Pullman, Washington in fulfillment  of contract number 68-01-4432.



The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the



Washington State University, Air Pollution and Resources, Research Section.



The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed are those of the author



and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mention



of company names or products is not to be considered as an endorsement by



the Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





     The following people made significant contributions  toward  the  comple-



tion of this project:



     Don Stearns,  Phil  Sweany and Bob Watkins collected and analyzed many



of the field samples.   They also assisted in  data  reduction and  in the



preparation of the final  report.



     Dianne Rochleau did much of the background research  for the leaf bio-



mass section of this report.



     Robert Knox was responsible for the computer  portion of this research



program.



     The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission provided



facilities for our mobile laboratory, office  space and storage space during



the five-month duration of the field project.  Their willingness to  aide



our research team was instrumental  in the successful  completion  of the



project.
                                  11

-------
                                ABSTRACT



     This report describes the methodology used to develop a natural  hydro-


carbon emission inventory for a 60 x 81  km region which includes the  Tampa


and St. Peterburg Florida.  As part of the study a field program was  con-


ducted in which over 600 emission rate samples were collected and analyzed.


The hydrocarbon emissions were quantified chromatographically in terms of


Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons, Paraffins, Olefins, Aromatics, Methane, and


for each major hydrocarbon peak.  The report also includes a detailed study


of the distribution and quantisation of the vegetation in the area.   Hourly


emission factors were determined for each hydrocarbon component  and species.


These emission factors have been coded onto a computer tape for  each  of the


2,160 1.5 x 1.5 km grids in the study area.


     The inventory calculates that natural emissions during the  summer months


approximate 160 metric tons/day.  This is equal to an average emission flux

                          p                                          O
of approximately 1350 pg/nr hr during the daytime (30°C) and 700 yg/nr hr


during the nighttime (25°C).  Isoprene is the single largest nonmethane


emission component, and is approximately 18% of the daily TNMHC  emission.


The next largest emission component is a-Pinene (10% of daily TNMHC emission).


Methane emissions were calculated to be  ^33% of the TNMHC plus  methane


total.  The emissions are distributed fairly uniformly throughout the study


area with respect to time and space; however, "evergreen forests" which


occupy approximately 10% of the total study area account for about 35% of


the non-methane hydrocarbon emissions.

-------
     Appendicies are included which list emission rates by vegetation species,
emission factors for vegetation types (associations and land use categories),
and total daily emissions for each vegetation type.

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                        Pag<

INTRODUCTION	1

OBJECTIVES	3

1.  METHODOLOGY 	   5
    1.1   SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 	   5

    1.2   ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 	   12
         1.2.1   Standardization	14
         1.2.2   Quantisation	17

2.  EMISSION RATE ALGORITHMS	22
    2.1   RAW DATA CORRECTION FACTORS	23

3.  FIELD PROGRAM	28
    3.1   SAMPLING SITES	28

4.  LEAF BIOMASS DISTRIBUTION AND QUANTITATION	31
    4.1   LEAF BIOMASS DISTRIBUTION	31

    4.2   LEAF BIOMASS QUANTITATION	35
        4.2.1   Mangrove Swamps	39
        4.2.2   Pine	41
        4.2.3   Citrus Trees	44
        4.2.4   Oak-Gum-Cypress	44
        4.2.5   Xeric Oak Hammock	47
        4.2.6   Hydric Oak Hammock	49
        4.2.7   Representative Shrubs 	   53
        4.2.8   Palmetto	54
        4.2.9   Pasture	55
        4.2.10   Row Crops	57

5.  DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION INVENTORY 	   59
    5.1   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA	62

    5.2   STEP 1: CODING OF RAW EMISSION RATES	63

    5.3   STEP 2: DETERMINATION OF SPECIES EMISSION RATES	70

-------
                                                                       Page

    5.4  STEP 3:  DETERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION EMISSION FACTORS ..... 70

    5.5  STEP 4:  DEVELOPMENT OF LUDA EMISSION ESTIMATES ........ 73

    5.6  STEP 5:  DETERMINATION OF GRID EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR THE
                 STUDY AREA ...................... 79

6.  DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS,  FILES AND TAPES ......... 91

    6.1  EPA GRID EMISSION DATA TAPE .................. 91

    6.2  WSU TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG EMISSION STUDY TAPE ......... 91

    6.3  DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF WSU TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG STUDY TAPE
         (VOL. CC1587) ......................... 92
References
APPENDIX A: Emission Rate Means By Species ............... A-l
                                                                        A-21

APPENDIX B: Association Emission Factors ..........  ,  ..... B-l
                                                                        B-7

APPENDIX C: LUDA Emission Factors ................... C-l
                                                                        C-13

APPENDIX D: Total Emissions by LUDA Category .............. D-l
                                                                        D-

APPENDIX E: Field Sampling Schedule .................. E-l
                                                                        E-4

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1-a

Figure 1.1-b

Figure 1.1-c

Figure 1.1-d

Figure 1.1-e

Figure 1.1-f

Figure 2.1-a

Figure 3.1-a

Figure 4.1-a

Figure  4.1-b

Figure 4.2.6-a


Figure 5-a


Figure 5-b



Figure 5.6-a


Figure 5.6-b


Figure 5.6-c
Vegetation emission sample collection system .  .  .  .

Portable sample manifold 	

Soil leaf-litter sampling system 	

Surface water sampling system	

Emission rate formula	

Field data format	

Emission rate algorithms 	

Tampa/St. Petersburg sampling sites	

Tampa/St. Petersburg land use categories 	

Land use map key 	

Hydric Oak Hammock mean tree method of leaf biomass
determination	

Simplified schematic of natural  emission inventory
procedure for the Tampa/St. Petersburg study area.  .

Detailed schematic of procedure used to compile
Tampa/St. Petersburg natural hydrocarbon emission
inventory	

Tampa/St. Petersburg biogenic emission density
total non-methane hydrocarbon	
Tampa/St. Petersburg biogenic emission density
methane	

Tampa/St. Petersburg biogenic emission density
olefins	
 9

11

13

15

25

29

33

34


52


60



61


80


81


82
                                 vn

-------
                                                                           Page

Figure 5.6-d   Tampa/St.  Petersburg Biogenic  Emission  Density  -
               Paraffins	   83

Figure 5.6-e   Tampa/St.  Petersburg Biogenic  Emission  Density  -
               Aromatics	   84

Figure 6.3     List of Files  and Programs  for Tampa/St.  Petersburg
               Study Tape (Vol.  CC1587).  .	   94
                                  vm

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES                             Page
Table 1.2-a    HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS CONDITIONS	16

Table 1.2.2-a  ROUTINE LIGHT HYDROCARBON STANDARDS 	 18

Table 1.2.2-b  ROUTINE HEAVY HYDROCARBON STANDARDS 	 19

Table 4.2.-a   SUMMARY OF LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS AND PLANT
               ASSOCIATION CROSS-REFERENCE LIST	38

Table 4.2.1-a  MANGROVE SWAMPS - COMMON SPECIES	39

Table 4.2.1-b  MANGROVE LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS 	 40

Table 4.2.2-a  PINE - COMMON SPECIES	41

Table 4.2.2-b  PINE LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS	43

Table 4.2.4-a  OAK-GUM-CYPRESS - COMMON SPECIES	45

Table 4.2.4-b  OAK-GUM-CYPRESS LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS	46

Table 4.2.5-a  COMMON XERIC OAK HAMMOCK SPECIES	47

Table 4.2.5-b  XERIC OAK HAMMOCK LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS	48

Table 4.2.6-a  COMMON HYDRIC OAK HAMMOCK SPECIES 	 49

Table 4.2.7-a  COMMON SPECIES OF REPRESENTATIVE SHRUB	53

Table 4.2.7-b  LEAF BIOMASS OF REPRESENTATIVE SHRUB	54

Table 4.2.9-a  PASTURE	55

Table 5.1-a    VEGETATION SPECIES/SAMPLE CATEGORY CODES	64

Table 5.4-a    ASSOCIATION SPECIES/SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITION
               FACTORS FOR TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 	 71

Table 5.5-a    EMISSION FACTORS FOR TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG LUDA
               CATEGORIES	75

-------
                                                                        Page

Table 5.6-a    AVERAGE HOURLY DAYTIME (30°C)  AND  NIGHTIME  (25°C)
               EMISSION FOR THE TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG AREA	86

Table 5.6-b    AVERAGE DAILY APRIL-AUGUST  NATURAL EMISSION RATES
               FOR THE TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG STUDY AREA ......... 87

Table 5.6-c    TOTAL DAILY (24 hr) EMISSIONS  BY MAJOR VEGETATION
               TYPES	88

Table 6.2-a    CONTENTS OF WSU TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG EMISSION
               STUDY TAPE (VOL. CC1587)	93

-------
                               INTRODUCTION

     The regional nature of pollutant episodes has been well  documented in
the last few years.  High pollutant levels, especially Oj,  have been meas-
ured in rural areas well away from significant emission sources, (Sandberg,
eit aj^, 1978), Ripperton et al., 1977).  Evidence has accumulated that indi-
cates oxidant precursors generated in urban centers can be  transported into
these rural regions, however it has also been shown that photooxidation of
natural hydrocarbons can produce significant quantities of  ozone, (Westberg,
1977).  Thus it is unclear at the present time what part each of these ozone
producing mechanisms plays.
     In order to define the importance of the natural production of hydro-
carbons in a specific region a good estimate of natural hydrocarbon emissions
is essential.  Early literature estimates of biogenic hydrocarbon production
indicate that natural sources of oxidant precursors may be  significant,
(Went, 1960).  However, recent studies aimed at identifying terpene emissions
in the vicinity of forested areas have found minimal amounts of these natural
hydrocarbons, (Lonneman, et al., 1978).
     Many rural and urban areas presently routinely exceed  government air
quality standards set for oxidant concentrations.  As a result, large-scale
control strategies aimed at local anthropogenic source emissions have been
proposed.  Since no adequate estimate of natural  biogenic oxidant precursors

-------
is available, the potential effectiveness of the control  strategies is sub-
ject to debate.  (Koziar and Becker,  1977).
     This report describes the procedure used to more reliably estimate the
magnitude of the contribution of biogenic hydrocarbon emissions to the
ambient air in the Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg  area and the  results of an
intensive field study conducted by WSU in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area
between the months of April and August,  1977.
     It should be noted that the biogenic emission  rates  quoted in this
report are not meant to be used as a  direct  comparison with anthropogenic
emission rates.  Direct comparisons are  inappropriate since biogenic emis-
sions differ fundamentally from anthropogenic emissions with respect to
their chemical characteristics, emission densities  and resultant ambient
concentrations (Westberg, 1977; Zimmerman, 1977).

-------
                              OBJECTIVES


     The research program described in this  report was  initiated  in

February 1977, by Region IV of the Environmental  Protection Agency,

with the following objectives:

1.  To develop and quantify emission rates for the dominant species  of  the

    following natural  hydrocarbon sources in the  Tampa/St.  Petersburg

    area:

    a.  Decaying vegetation in the coastal  intertidal  areas
    b.  Dominant grass of the marine grass beds
    c.  Production of hydrocarbons from the surface waters  of Tampa  Bay
    d.  Forest type group of Oak-Gum-Cypress
    e.  Forest type group of Long-Leaf Pine
    f.  Improved pastures
    g.  Palmetto
    h.  Dominant Mangrove species
    i.  Native grass (unimproved pastures)
    j.  Citrus trees
    k.  Representative shrubs
    1.  Forest type group of Oak, Hickory
    m.  Representative row crops


2.  To identify and quantify the emission rate of each  major hydrocarbon peak

    for each vegetative type and to group the emissions into the  four

    chemical classes of:

    a.  methane
    b.  paraffins
    c.  olefins
    d.  aromatics

-------
3.  To develop April-August  biogenic  enission  factors  for  each  1.5  x  1.5 km



    grid section within the  approximately  61 by 80  km  study  area which



    included Tampa and St. Petersburg,  Florida.

-------
                            1.   METHODOLOGY

     This section briefly describes the techniques  used for  collecting
emission rate samples from vegetation,  soil-pasture and water surfaces.
Details of the sample analysis, instrument calibration, and  emission  rate
quantisation are also discussed.

1.1  SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
    The technique used to determine the emission rates  from  vegetation,
soil leaf-litter and surface water has  been described in detail  elsewhere
(Zimmerman, 1979).
    The method can be classified as a semi-static enclosure  technique.
Figure 1.1-a illustrates the equipment  and procedure involved in collecting
an emission sample from vegetation.
    A common indoor-outdoor type thermometer is used to monitor  ambient
air temperatures and bag air temperatures simultaneously during  sampling.
Before the bag is placed around a branch the "outdoor"  temperature sensor
is placed along the branch.  If sampling occurrs in bright sunlight the
sensor is placed so that it is  not in the direct incident light  (i.e.
it is placed below a leaf or branch for shade).  The "indoor" thermometer
is hung in the shade on a nearby limb.
     Next, sample, evacuation and zero  air lines are placed  along the branch.
Lines used for zero air and for sampling are connected  to a  sample manifold

-------
 LU
 V)
 O

 \-
 O
 LU
 O
 O

 LU

 Q.
 2
 <
 CO

 Z
 O
 CO
 CO

 s
 LU

 2
 O


S
LU
O
LU
O)
s_
rs
en

-------
equipped to regulate zero air pressure, zero air and sample flow rates (Figure
1.1-b).
    A large Teflon bag, ( 1m x 1.2m) with a capacity of approximately 120 £
(open at one end), is then carefully placed over the branch.   The bag is
sealed at its base by wrapping it with a strip of Velcro® sewn so that the
"fuzzy" side and the "hook" side face opposite directions.
     As much ambient air as practical (without damaging the vegetation) is
quickly removed from the bag, and a sample of the air is pumped via a 12
volt metal-bellows pump into a 6.6 liter electropolished stainless steel
canister.  This is the "background sample."  It contains the  contribution to
the bag from hydrocarbons present in ambient air at the time  of sampling
plus emissions from the branch.  After the background sample  is collected
the bag is quickly inflated with zero air at the rate of 10 liters/minute
for six minutes.  The zero air has a C02 content of approximately 365 ppm
and no hydrocarbons.
     Next the emission rate sample is collected at approximately 2 liters
per minute, while zero air continues to flow into the enclosure at 2 liters
per minute.  The total enclosure time is less than 15 minutes.
    Leaf litter and pasture samples are collected in a similar manner except
that the enclosure technique utilizes a sealing ring and stainless steel bag
collar, Figure 1.1-c.  To collect a pasture sample the sealing ring is
driven into the soil to act as a seal and the bag collar is placed in the
center of the sealing ring.  After the collar and ring are placed, the
Teflon bag  is attached to the collar by means of a wide elastic strap.  The
remainder of the sample collection procedure is identical to  that for vege-
tation.

-------
                         FIGURE  1.1-b
         PORTABLE SAMPLE MANIFOLD
             O-AIR OUT
     PRESSURE
      GAUGE
                     -REGULATOR
                                               [i— O-AIR IN
REGULATOR
   EVAC. —
                                            -O-AIR OUT
                                             PRESSURE
                                              GAUGE
                                             NEEDLE VALVES
                    SAMPLE
                     FLOW
O-AIR
 FLOW

-------
                      Figure 1.1-c
  SOIL  LEAF-LITTER SAMPLING  SYSTEM
EVAC.
                         COLLAPSIBLE
                         TEFLON BAG
 BAG COLLAR
- SAMPLE
 ZERO AIR INLET

  MOIST SOIL SEAL
                           SEALING RING

          (2) )4" SWAGLOCK BULKHEAD
SHARP CUTTING
EDGE
         SEALING RING
            BAG COLLAR


  * all dimensions in centimeters

-------
    To collect samples from Tampa Bay, the Gulf of Mexico and from fresh
water, a floatation ring made of two water-ski  belts sewn together is strap-
ped around the bag collar, Figure 1.1-d.   The standard sample collection pro-
cedure is then followed.  For many of the samples which utilize the bag
collar, virtually all of the ambient air can"be removed from the bag.  This,
therefore, eliminates the need to collect a background sample.
    Periodic sample blanks are collected  to insure the integrity of the
sampling equipment and analytical procedures.   The sample blanks are col-
lected using the identical procedures as those used to collect vegetation
samples, except no vegetation is enclosed.
     The net emission from the vegetation, pasture leaf litter or surface
water enclosed is equal  to the difference between the hydrocarbon content
of the bag after enclosure, as represented by the background sample, and
the hydrocarbon content of the bag after the addition of zero air, as repre-
sented by the emission rate sample.  This net emission is converted to an
emission rate by dividing by a unit of time and a unit of foliage or area.
     For vegetation samples, leaf dry weight of the branch enclosed (leaf
biomass) was used as a unit of foliage.   Therefore, the raw emission rates
for vegetation are given in micrograms hydrocarbon (HC) emission per gram
leaf biomass per hour (yg/g/hr).  Leaf biomass was determined by clipping
the branch at the point of enclosure,  separating the leaves and drying them
in an oven at 70°C until they reached a  constant weight.  For the pasture,
marine, and aquatic samples and some row crops (flat samples) the emission
rates were calculated in terms of yg/unit surface area covered/unit time
(pg/nr/hr).  The emission rates for most of the flat sample categories were
small.  Since the samples included emissions from any vegetation enclosed
                                 10

-------
                     Figure 1.1-d
 SURFACE WATER  SAMPLING  SYSTEM
                              x-COLLAPSIBLE TEFLON BAG

                              / TEFLON BAG SUPPORT



                              BAG COLLAR
                                           WATER
                              SAMPLE
                              ZERO AIR INLET
FLOATATION BELT
                                ~r
                                ..i _..
BAG COLLAR
                                       ''all dimensions in centimeters
                       11

-------
(i.e. grass or phytoplankton)  as well  as from the substrate itself (soil  or
water) it was felt that the results  would be more meaningful  if wide ranges
of pasture row crops and water conditions were sampled and emissions were
related directly to ground or  water  surface area.
     Throughout this report the emission rates reported are in terms of yg
of each hydrocarbon compound.   A conversion factor to micrograms carbon can
be calculated from the ratio of the  molecular weight of the hydrocarbon to
the molecular weight minus the weight  of the hydrogen atoms.   Thus for the
terpenes and isoprene the ratio is 0.88; therefore,  yg hydrocarbon x 0.88 =
yg carbon.
     Figure 1.1-e shows the formula  for calculating  emission rates.   This
formula was applied to the determination of each individual  hydrocarbon
emission rate, as well as to each major hydrocarbon  group.  As the formula
shows, the emission rates for  vegetation were measured in terms of micrograms
emission/unit time/unit leaf biomass.   This emission rate was then converted
to an emission factor or flux  estimate by multiplying by a leaf biomass/unit
ground area factor.  For "flat samples" no conversion was necessary.
    Figure 1.1-f illustrates the field data format used when  collecting emis-
sion rate samples.  Sample variables were recorded so that correlations with
trends in emission rates might be determined at a later date.  If the vegeta-
tion species sampled was not known,  leaves were taken to local  experts for
positive identification.

1.2  ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
    Columns and operating conditions are shown in Table 1.2-a.   Methane,
Ethylene, Ethane and Acetylene quantitation was determined using column
Number 1.  Column Number 2 was used  for the analysis of G  -  Cg hydrocar-
                                 12

-------
              Figure 1.1-e  Emission rate formula


                         C   (Zv + Ve) - C ,  Ve
               \:\) _
                               _
                              (Sa) (AT]T
 where:

 C$s:  ( ug/w ) equals the TNMOC measured for the emission sample
            o
 Cstr  ( M9/"i ) equals the TNMOC measured for the background sample
         o
  Zv:  (m ) equals the total volume of zero air put into the enclosure

  Sa:  (g) equals the dry weight of the leaves (leaf biomass)

 AT] :  (min) equals the total  emission time.  This is the time interval
       between the background sample and the emission sample.

  Ve:  (M3) equals the dead volume of the bag when collapsed around the
       branch =         ZV
                   Csb'/Css')-l

       Cgk' and C  '  are equal  to the concentration of a non-emitted
       tracer in the background and sample respectively.  For this
       study acetylene was used since it was not found to be an emission
       product.


Note:  Hydrocarbon emissions were calculated in terms of yg hydrocarbon
       (ug).  To convert to ug  carbon (ygC) for terpenes and isoprene,
       multiply by 0.88 (see text).
                             13

-------
bons.  The Uurapak low-k column (lolufiin ¥j) was used for the routine? anal-



ysis of C,^ - C^ hydrocarbons.  In addition, each major species which was




sampled extensively was also anal/zed on the SL-JU glass capillary column



(#b).  This column (jives better- separation for purposes of peak identifica-




tion; however, it was not known at the time that field sampling was performed



if oxygenates would elute from the colimn in quantifiable oeaks.



    Samples of each major vegetation type were also sent to Pullman for anal-



ysis via gas chromatograph-mass soectrorneter (GC-MS) to confirm the tentative



field identification of the major hydrocarbons.  The analysis showed that



most of the tentative field identifications were correct.






1.2.1  Standardization




      Each uC was standardized daily.  A specially prepared standard certi-



fied by Scott Laboratories Inc.,  was used.  The standard contained 0.299 ppm




methane, 0.202 ppm ethyleae, 0.213 ppm acetylene and U.2U4 ppm neo-hexane.



For the light hydrocarbon and heavy hydrocarbon G.C.'s 500 ml of the standard



was introduced into the freeze-out loop and the area response to neo-hexane



as determined by the Perkin Timer PEP-1 Mini-computer was calculated as



follows:  500 ml of 0.204 ppm neo-hexane - 359no, (compound).  Therefore the



response factor is equal to 359ng/peak area of standard.  The reproriucibili ty



of the injection procedure was better than one percent.  The response factors



for each instrument remained constant throughout the study period.  The quant-




itation of ethane, ethylene, acetylene and methane was calculated on an indi-



vidual concentration/peak height basis using the same Scott standard.  This




was done because we were operating five uC's and only four computer inter-



faces were available.
                                 14

-------
                      Figure 1.1-f.   Field data format

                                                        169  Background
Date    4-28	Sample #  151	  Can  #      87  Emission
Location    West U.S.F. Campus along Fowler         Barom

Sample Type:    Slash Pine	
Enclosure:     Teflon Bag number E
Site description:     Sandy soil  grassy,  dry,  Pine  Oak  Forest  type,  open

 canopy	

Weather, general:     clear, hot, some wind	
              filtered
Weather, site sunlight Cloud cover   0%    Ha  (ambient  air  temp.)  27°C

Wind:  direction     SW	speed     2-7 mph     gust    15 mph	
Vegetation:  describe type, age,  physiological  state.  30'  tall, moss  on

limbs 10" D.B.H.  20 years old growth fair,  some  frost damage.	

Litter:  Type    pine needles	
         Incorporation 			Depth
Soil:     Moisture	dry	ph     		Temp.

         Describe 	sandy,  grass understory.	
Time at encl. Tn  1311   ,  Time End Bkgd.  T-|   1317   Start  flush, T2   1317

End flush, T3 1323 ,  Start purge,  T4 1323 Start sample, T5  1323

End Sample, Tg    1326      Sample  rate 1/min.    2.1	
Flush flow rate ZF(l/nrin.)     10   Purge flow rate Zp(l/min) 	2.0

Encloses sample temp.   29°C	Can pressure   10  psig	
COMMENTS:   Ve estimated at 30 liters collected  by  Don  Stearns

           A Tl = 9>  AT2 = 6>  AT3 = 3,  Zv =  0.066
                               15

-------
                      Table 1.2-a.   HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS CONDITIONS
Compound
  Instrument
      Operating Conditions
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Methane
Light Hydrocarbon
P.E. 3920 Iso-
thermal FID GC.
P.E. 3920 Temp.
Prog. FID GC and/or
HP 5711  A Temp.
Prog. FID GC with
Dual Electrometer
Option.
Heavy Hydrocarbon
and Oxygenates
C4"C12
P.E. 3920 and/or
P.E. 990 Temp.
Prog. FID GC.
Heavy Hydrocarbon
C4-C12
P.E..3920 Temp.
Prog. FID GC and/or
990 Temp.
Prog. FID GC.
 1.  Column:   10'  x 1/8" OD Porapak Q
        Carrier:   He 80 psig,  7 ml/min.
        Hydrogen:   22 psig
        Compressed Air:  50 psig
        Oven:   65°C (30°C for  CH4)
        Total  Run  Time:  10 min.
        Sample Size:  100ml (5ml for CH4)

2.  Column:   20' x 1/16" OD Durapak
             N-Octane
        Carrier:   He 90 psig,  6 ml/min
        Hydrogen:   40 psig
        Compressed Air:  50 psig
        Oven:   -70°C to 65°C
              Delay time:  4 min
              Program rate: 16°/min.
        Total  Run  Time:  40 min.
        Sample size:  500ml

3.  Column:   10' x 1/8" Durapak Low-K
             carbowax 400
     Carrier:   He  90 psig, 8 ml/min.
        Hydrogen:   40 psig
        Compressed air:  50 psig
        Oven:   -20 to 100°C
              Delay Time: 2 min.
              Program Rate: 8°/min.
        Total  Run  Time:  20 min
        Sample size:  500ml

 4.  Column:  200'  SCOT OV-101, 10'  x
             1/16" OD Durapak
             Low-K, Carbowax
             400 precolumn
        Carrier:   He 90 psig,  5 ml/min
        Hydrogen:  40 psig
        Compressed Air:  50 psig
        Oven:   0°C to 100°C Temp.  Prog.
        Delay Time:  6 min.
        Program rate::   6°/min
        Total  Run  Time:  60 min.
        Sample size:  500ml

 5.  Column:   30 m SE 30 Glass Capillary
        Carrier:   He 90 psig,  1 ml/min.
        Oven:   -30 to 80°C Temp. Prog.
             Delay Time:  8 min.
             Program rate:  4°/min
        Total  Run  Time:  50 min.
        Sample size:  500 ml
                                       16

-------
    A qualitative standard was used to determine the retention time of €2  -



Cj2 compounds for identification purposes.  The standard was made by inject-



ing microliter amounts of liquid samples of each compound shown in Table



1.2.2-a and 1.2.2-b into an evacuated 25 £ glass carbouy.  The container was



then pressurized to about 5 psig with clean air.  This mixture was run per-



iodically to monitor column separation performance and elution time.  In



addition, WSU maintains a large file of the relative retention times of a



wide variety of compounds for different column types.  If a large peak was



noted which was not present in the routine qualitative standard, its identity



was tentatively made with the aide of these files.  A few of the unknown



compounds which were present for many vegetation samples but did not match



the retention time of the known standards were determined via GC-MS analysis



upon our return to the Pullman laboratory.  Some compounds could not be



identified.  These unknowns were numbered and then retention times were



recorded so that future identification might be possible.





1.2.2  Quantitation



    The light hydrocarbon and heavy hydrocarbon GC's were interfaced with a



Perkin Elmer PEP-1 Mini Computer.  The computer listed the peak areas and



retention times of each peak analyzed.  The chromatograms were also recorded



on strip charts.



    For each sample, emission rates were determined for the major hydrocar-



bon groups of paraffins, olefins and aromatics.  In addition emission rates



of methane and of each of the major hydrocarbon peaks which was greater than



five percent of the non-methane hydrocarbon total (TNMHC) were quantified



for each sample.



    For most vegetation types the chromatogram consisted of five or six major



hydrocarbon components plus as many as one hundred very small peaks.  It was





                                 17

-------
	Table 1.2.2-a  ROUTINE LIGHT HYDROCARBON STANDARDS

Compound
*Ethane
+Ethylene
^Acetylene
*Propane
+Propene
*Isobutane
*n-Butane
*2,2-Dimethylpropane
+Propyne
+I-Butene
+IsoButene
+2-Methylbutene
+trans-2-Butene
*n~Pentane
*Clyclopentane
+l-Pentene
*2,2-Dimethylbutane
*2-Methylpentane
+Trans-2-Pentene
+3-Methyl-l-Butene
*3-Methy1pentane
*cis-2-Pentane
*Methy1cyclopentane
*n-Hexane
+Isoprene
*Cyclohexane
* Paraffins
+ Olefins
- Aromatics
                                 18

-------
                 Table 1.2.2-b  ROUTINE HEAVY HYDROCARBON STANDARDS
                                            Class
2,3-DimethylButane
2-MethylPentane
3-MethylPentane
n-Hexane
2,4-DimethylPentane
2,3-DimethylPentane
3-MethylHexane
n-Hentane
2,2,4-TrimethylPentane
2,4-DimethylHexane
2,5-DimethylHexane
2,3,4-TrimethylPentane
Toluene
3-MethylHextane
n-Octane
2,2,5-TrimethylHexane
Parrafins
Ethyl Benzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
Aromatics
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
n-Nonane
IsopropylBenzene
n-PropylBenzene
1-Ethyl-2-MethylBenzene
1,3,5-TrimethylBenzene
Aromatics
Myrcene
1,2,4-TrimethylBenzene
n-Decane
A3-Carene
TerButylBenzene
d-Limonene
3-Phellanderene
Sec-Butyl Benzene
Terpinolene
T7Z -DietnylBenzene
1,3-Diethyl Benzene
1,4-DiethylBenzene
n-ButylBenzene
Aromatics
n-Undecane

*Parafins
+01efins
-Aromatics

Note:  All small peaks which eluted within the arrows were assumed to belong
in the class named.  Exceptions include those marked.  Also, all large peaks
were specifically identified by matching the elution time with known qualita-
tive standards.  This list only includes the compounds in the qualitative
standard which was run periodically in order to verify column performance
(See text).
                               19

-------
thus impractical  to attempt to identify each component and to calculate its
emission rate.  The following scheme was therefore used to quantify the
emission components into their respective hydrocarbon groups:
    TNMHC:   The total  of the light hydrocarbon analysis to (and including)
    propane plus the total  of the heavy hydrocarbon analysis.  If large
    peaks which eluted after propane were noted in the light hydrocarbon
    analysis,  they were identified by matching their retention times with
    the known  standards and each was grouped into its appropriate class.
    Usually, however there were virtually no peaks which eluted after pro-
    pane on the light hydrocarbon analysis.   All  of the peaks which eluted
    after propane also eluted in the early part of the heavy hydrocarbon
    analysis.   Although the peaks were not separated sufficiently for peak
    identification purposes, the TNMHC calculated by adding tie individual
    light hydrocarbon peaks to the non-overlapping heavy hydrocarbon peak
    total matched the TNMHC calculated from the total of the light hydro-
    carbons to (and including) propane plus the total of the heavy hydro-
    carbons.  Since the second procedure facilitated the speed of data
    reduction, it was used in this study to calculate TNMHC.
    Paraffins:  The total  of the paraffins in the light hydrocarbon analysis
    to propane plus all of the peaks from the heavy hydrocarbon analysis
    which eluted before ethyl benzene, plus n-nonane and n--decane, (except
    for isoprene, benzene and toluene).  While it was recognized that ethyl-
    ene and acetylene were olefins,  ethylene emissions were very small and
    no acetylene emission fr -m vegetation was ever noted.
    Olefins:  The sum of all of of the terpenes plus isoprene.
    Aromatics:  Everything which eluted after n-octane with the exceptions
    of n-nonane, n-decane and the terpenes.
                                 20

-------
    The light and heavy qualitative hydrocarbon standards which were used to



establish elution order are listed in order of increasing retention times in



Table 1.2.2-a and 1.2.2-b.



    Some peaks which appeared in each chromatogram were subsequently deter-



mined by gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis to be the result of



column bleed.  These peaks were then omitted.  Broad tailing peaks were con-



sistently associated with specific sample groups such as Bay and Gulf samples.



These peaks, which occurred at specific elution times, were most likely due



to the presence of sulfur compounds, however they could also have been caused



by oxygenated compounds.  It is also possible that the peaks were column



bleed components caused by something in the samples.  Since the character of



the compounds responsible for these tailing peaks could not be determined,



their areas were subtracted from the nonmethane hydrocarbon total (TNMHC)



for each chromatogram.



     Early in the sampling program the G.C. analysis was allowed to continue



until the expected elution time of the C^ compounds.  Since no quantifiable



peaks occurred after approximately C^, and since the analytical procedure



was the primary bottleneck in the sampling program, subsequent chromatograms



were terminated at ^ C^.



     After the analysis was complete the sample canisters were recycled by



purging with clean dry air at 10 liters per minute.  At the same time the



"cans" were heated to 7U°C.  This treatment continued for approximately 12



hours.  The cans were then evacuated to a pressure of 30 microns or lower



prior to being reused for sampling.  Blank analysis of the can contents



confirmed that the procedure did an excellent job of cleaning.  Testing at



WSU also indicated that this treatment tends to minimize adsorption losses



of hydrocarbons stored in cans.  Samples stored for several days have shown



no significant shift in hydrocarbon content.




                                 21

-------
                      2.   EMISSION RATE  ALGORITHMS

    Field data indicated  changes in emission  rates  with  temperature  and  light,
although, other factors also seemed to significantly  affect  emission rates.
These variables could include site specific variables such as  soil fertility,
plant moisture, weather,  individual genetic variability,  location  of the
sample on the tree,  various pathologic conditions  such as disease  or injury
and the age of the vegetation.
    In order to more clearly estimate the effects  of  temperature and light
on emission rates, a laboratory research program headed  by Dr.  D.  T.  Tingey,
EPA Con/all is, was conducted utilizing specially designed environmentally
controlled chambers.  Whole plants were  placed inside the chambers and the
selected variable of plant temperature or light was changed  while  other  con-
ditions remained constant.  The reports  on experiments completed for Live
Oak, an isoprene emitter, and for Slash  Pine,  a terpene  emitter, indicated
that there is a positive  relationship between  temperature and  emission rates
(Tingey, et aj_., 1978a,b).  For terpene  emissions  no  light dependency could
be detected.  Terpene emissions increased exponentially  with temperature.
The log of isoprene emissions varied with temperature and light according to
a four parameter logistic function.  However,  light was  saturating for iso-
prene emissions at fairly low intensities. The study quantified the relation-
ships between leaf temperature  and terpene emissions  at  any  light  level,
between isoprene emissions and  leaf temperature at  various light levels  and
                                 22

-------
between isoprene emissions and light at various temperatures.   Although the
isoprene comparisons seem to be the same,  laboratory results were  different
between the two sets of experiments.  This variability could  reflect the
differing genetic backgrounds of the plants or the  different pre-conditioning
of the plants used in each experiment (Tingey, personal  communication).  In
either case the data indicates the difficulty in trying to establish one
emission rate algorithm to describe the variation of isoprene  emissions with
temperature and light.

2.1   RAW DATA CORRECTION FACTORS
     The results of Tingey experiments were used to standardize field data
to constant temperature and light conditions.  No "average" emission rate
algorithm which combined the results of the two isoprene experiments was
available; therefore, for purposes of this emission inventory  we have assumed
that changes in isoprene emission rate with temperature for Live Oak would be
similar to other isoprene emitters and have selected one of the emission rate
algorithms for varying temperature at a light intensity of 800 yE/m /sec,
(Tingey, et^ j*]_., 1978a., Table 3).   This  algorithm was chosen because it
indicated that additional increases in light intensity would not further
increase isoprene emissions (i.e. isoprene emissions were saturated with
respect to light).  Additionally it was assumed that light intensity would
be saturating for isoprene emissions from  field samples during the daylight
hours.  We have also assumed that the change in non-methane hydrocarbon emis-
sion rates with temperature for all vegetation types (except for isoprene
emissions) would be similar to Slash Pine  (Tingey,  et al., 1978b,  Figure 4-a).
Since the field data was collected over a  range of  temperatures a  correction
                                   23

-------
factor was used to standardize the hydrocarbon emissions to specified condi-
tions of saturating light and a leaf temperature of 30°C.  Figure 2.1-a shows
the emission rate algorithms used to calculate the respective hydrocarbon
emissions.  The emission rate correction factors are equal  to the result of
the emission rate algorithm at 30°C divided by the result of the emission
rate algorithm for the bag temperature of the field sample.  This ratio is
then multiplied times the field emission rate.  Since the correction factors
take the form of the ratio of the predicted emission rate at 30°C to the pre-
dicted emission rate at the sampling temperature, times the emission rate
measured in the field, the units make no difference (note:   the data in
Tingey, 1978 a and b are in yg carbon).  For nighttime all  isoprene emissions
were assumed to be zero.  From energy balance calculations (Gates, 1971) it
was apparent that leaf temperature and air temperature inside our enclosure
during sampling were very close.  The relationship between ambient air temp-
erature, bag temperature and leaf temperature for some deciduous plants, was
more difficult to estimate.  The primary factors that affect this relationship
are the size of the leaf, the energy absorption by the leaf, wind speed and
transpiration rate (Gates, 1965).  From our field measurements, it appeared
that in the morning or afternoon hours or if the sunlight was filtered
through foliage or shaded by clouds, bag temperatures were within 5°C of
ambient air temperatures.  If, however leaves were in direct sun at noon,
bag temperatures and leaf temperatures could be up to 10°C warmer than
ambient air temperatures.
    Because bag temperature more accurately reflects leaf surface tempera-
ture, a probable controlling factor for emissions, the raw emission rates
were specified in terms of bag temperature.  When the emission rates based
on bag temperature are standardized to an ambient temperature of 30°C,
                                   24

-------
                   Figure 2.1-a.   Emission  rate  algorithms

                                Isoprene
                 In  (Er)  =
                                          4.88
                         + 0.11
Isoprene Temperature  correction  factor  to 30°C:

                                        34.194
              Er = Er
                          exp
     4.88
                                1  +  exp  [-0.18  (Ta - 25.26)]
                     — + 0.11
where:   Er* =  Isoprene emission  rate (measured)
        Er  =  Isoprene emission  rate (std.  to 30°C)
        Ta  =  Leaf temperature
    34.195  =  Predicted emission rate at 30°C
       exp designates an exponent
                              Terpenes

                       ++  Er = exp  [-0.332  + 0.0729  (Ta)]
Terpene correction factor to 30°C:


                         Er = Er*
        6.392
exp [-0.332 + 0.07?TTTaTT
where:  Er* = Terpene emission  rate (measured)
        Er  = Terpene emission  rate (standardize  to 30°C)
        Ta  = Leaf temperature
     6.392  = Predicted emission rate at 30°C
       exp designates an exponent

+From Tingey et  al., 1978a.

++From Tingey et_ ^K_, 1978b.
                                  25

-------
there is a possibility of underestimating emission  factors.   For  instance,
the emission rate measured at a bag temperature  of  35°C  is  necessarily  lower-
ed when standarized to a prevailing ambient condition  of 30°C.  Under these
conditions leaf surface temperatures of unenclosed  as  well  as the  enclosed
vegetation might be closer to the bag temperature than to the ambient air
temperature (Gates, 1971).  Therefore,  when the  emission rate is  standarized
to an ambient air temperature of 30°C,  the effect is a lower emission estimate
than would be expected at a corresponding leaf surface temperature of 35°C.
    Although leaf temperatures may be higher than ambient temperatures  for
some leaves during some period of the day, it is much  more  difficult to esti-
mate average diurnal  leaf temperature cycles than average diurnal  air temper-
ature cycles.  For this reason, in the  Tampa/St. Petersburg natural emissions
inventory WSU has assumed that bag temperatures  equaled  air temperature.  It
was recognized that this assumption could lead to underestimation  of emission
rates.  This potential underestimation  of emission  estimates would be moder-
ated somewhat for isoprene emitters because during  periods  of direct sunlight
temperatures of some leaves may exceed  44°C and  the leaf would  then begin to
physiologically shut down (Tingey, et.  al., 1978a). Since  isoprene emissions
seem to be tied to photosynthesis (Sanadze and Kalandadze,  1966)  the isoprene
emission rate would be reduced for the  over-heated  leaves.   In  other words,
in bright sun, leaf temperatures of some of the  leaves for  some broadleafed
plants tend to be warmer than ambient air during some  hours of  the day,
causing emission rates based only upon  bag temperature and  standardized to
ambient air temperature to be too low.   However, some  of the leaves of  a
canopy may exceed a temperature of 44°C, causing a  sharp decrease  in isoprene
emission rates.  These factors, therefore, may tend to balance.
                                   26

-------
     For purposes of modeling,  emission rates  are  given  for  an  average leaf
temperature of 30°C during the  daytime and 25°C  at night.   If emission esti-
mates were desired for other duirnal  temperature regimes,  the emission
algorithm correction factors could be used to  adjust  emission rates  on an
hourly basis.
     Additionally, for this study it  was assumed that the  emission rate of
an enclosed branch at a specific bag  temperature would be  representative of
the emission rate of the whole  plant  if it were  at the same  temperature.
     Samples which were collected using the bag  collar were  not corrected
for temperature.  These "flat samples" included  some  of  the  short  row crops
and all of the pasture (soil/leaf litter)  and  surface water  samples.   The
temperature of the enclosure for these samples did not vary  as  greatly as
for those samples using the Teflon bag enclosure.   It was  not known  how leaf
temperature, soil/water temperature or ambient air temperatures would affect
the emission rates of these samples,  and no experimental data was  available
to elucidate possible temperature relationships.  Similarly, no attempt was
made to standardize methane emission  rates with  temperature  for any  of the
samples.
                                   27

-------
                            3.  FIELD PROGRAM





     Between the months of April and August 1977 a field sampling program



was conducted to assess the hydrocarbon emission rates from biogenic sources



in the Tampa/St. Petersburg study area.  This section briefly discusses the



selection of sampling sites.  Appendix D lists the order of events for the



field sampling program and discusses the typical sampling schedule.





3.1  Sampling Sites



    Figure 3.1-a shows the boundaries of the study area.  The area encom-



passes Hillsboro and Pinellis counties and includes the major cities of



Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida.  Each dot on the map represents a site



where emission samples were collected during the course of the April 1  to



August 7, 1977 study.



    As the map illustrates, the sampling sites are not evenly distributed



over the study area.  Sampling sites were limited by accessibility and by



the number of vegetation associations (groupings of vegetation species



which are normally found together) located in close proximity.  Sampling



sites were concentrated upon in locations which contained representative



vegetation from most of the associations in the study area.  These sites



were sampled repeatedly over the study period.  This was intended to help



define the seasonal variability in emission rates.  Although this data has



riot Deen statistically analysed for trends, in general, it appears that
                                   28

-------
CO
Ul

(75

(D
C/)

o
tr

3

-------
sampling variability (the difference between similar samples)  was greater



than seasonal  variability.



     In order to get an idea of the variability of emission rates with loc-



ation, we also collected a  few samples at diverse sample sites throughout



the study area.  This sampling scheme allowed the collection of samples from



many vegetation associations daily.



     The decision for WSU to sample Row Crops was made in mid-June.   Row



Crops were therefore sampled in June and July after the first growing season



and harvest had been completed.  Emission rates from these plants therefore,



might not be representative of active vegetation emissions during the growing



season.  Recent unpublished data by WSU for experiments which measured



changes in vegetation emissions throughout a year indicate that vegetation



emissions are probably highest for most plants during periods  of active



growth.
                                   30

-------
              4. LEAF BIOMASS DISTRIBUTION AND QUANTITATION

    As previously explained, the emission rates of the vegetation samples
were measured in terms of emission/unit time/unit, leaf biomass.   In  order
to convert this emission rate into an area wide emission  factor,  (emission/
unit time/unit area) for each grid,  it was necessary to conduct  a detailed
study to determine the type (plant species),  quantity (biomass  factors), and
distribution (area coverage), of leaf biomass.

4.1  LEAF BIOMASS DISTRIBUTION
    The study area primarily consisted of Hillsborough and Pinellis  coun-
ties.  In general, at the time that this study was conducted,  Hillsborough
county was mostly agricultural land closely intermixed with  other vegetation
communities.  Many areas formerly in pine flatwoods had been converted to
improved pasture with cypress heads and marshes intermixed.   The pine flat-
wood areas remaining were located mainly in the southern  half of the county
or northwest of Tampa.  Directly east of Tampa and five to ten  miles east  of
Hillsborough Bay, pine and oak sandhills could be found.   Wooded swamps
occurred mainly in the Hillsborough River and Trout Creek drainage basins  in
floodplains and isolated depressions.
    Nearly all of the southern half of Pinellis County was in developed land,
primarily residential and urban.  There was however a well-defined band of
pine flatwoods running east-to-west, located south of Clearwater/Largo and
North of St. Petersburg.  Much of the residential land, particularly in
                                   31

-------
older districts, was heavily covered in a mixture  of natural  and  exotic  trees
and shrubs.
    The portion of the county north of Old Tampa Bay was  in  pine  flatwoods,
sandhills, and agricultural  land.   Pine flatwoods  were  located  near
Sutherland Bayou and Smith Bayou.   Xerophytic  oak  and pine were located  to
the east of the flatwoods area (Environmental  Science and Engineering  Inc.,
1977).
    The distribution of the vegetation types over  the study  area  was deter-
mined primarily from Level II Land Use and Planning  Maps.   (Tampa Bay  Regional
Planning Council, 1977).  These maps were developed  by  the U.S. Geological
Survey for the Land Use and Land Cover data analysis system  (LUDA),  (Figure
4.1-a).  The coordinates on the map in Figure  4.1-a  which define  the study
area are: 315KmE., 3118KmN.; 396KmE., 3118KmN.; 315KmE.,  30b8KmN.; 396KmE.,
3058KmN.  The squares in the upper and lower left  corners of the  map desig-
nate the size of the study grids.   The numbers in  the grid squares represent
the numbering system used to identify the location of each grid.   As Figure
4.1-a shows, the coordinate system for the grids originates  in  the lower
left-hand corner with 1-1.  The first number designates the  column of  the
grid and the second number designates its row. Therefore, the  grids in
column one are labeled (from bottom to top) 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 .  .  .   1-40  and
those in row one are labeled (bottom right to  left)  1-1,  2-1, 3-1 .  .  .54-1.
Similarly the top row of grids would be labeled (right  to left) 1-40,  2-40,
3-40 . . . 54-40.  This makes a total of 2160  grids  in  the study  area.
     The original 1:250,000 scale  Level II LUDA maps were designed to  give
resolution down to four hectares (10 acres) for categories of urban  land,
rivers, bays and estuaries and some agricultural land and 6  hectares (15
acres) for other land use categories (Anderson et  al.,  1976).   Figure  4.1-b
                                   32

-------
UJ
cc
o
o
UJ

5
o

Ul
CO
r>

Q
o
o:
^>
CO
CO
a:
Lul
i-
UJ
QL
                                                                                                              g>
                                                                                                              u.
                                                    33

-------
                    Figure 4.1-b  Land Use map key
1.   Urban or Built-up Land

    11  Residential
    12  Commerican and Services
    13  Industrial
    14  Transportation, Communincation,
       and Utilities
    15  Industrial & Commercial
       Complexes
    16  Mixed Urban or Built-up Land
    17  Other Urban or Built-up Land
2.  Agricultural  Land

    21  Cropland & Pasture
    22 Orchards,  Groves,
       Vineyards, Nurseries,
       and Ornamental  Hort.
       Areas
    23 Confined Feeding Oper.
    24 Other Agricultural Land
    25 Cropland
    26 Improved Pasture
    27 Specialty  farms
    28 Horticultural  farming
3.  Rangeland

    31  Herbaceous  Rangeland
    32  Shrub  and Brush Rangeland
    33  Mixed  Rangeland
4.  Forest Land

    41  Deciduous Forest Land
    42 Evergreen Forest Land
    43 Mixed Forest Land
   421  Planted Pine
    Water

    51  Streams  and  Canals
    52  Lakes
    53  Reservoirs
    54  Bays and Estuaries
    55  Gulf
6.  Wetland

   612 Forested Evergreen
    61 Forested Wetland
   621 Nonforested Wetland
  6121 Mangroves
    Barren land

    71  Dry Salt Flats
    72  Beaches
    73  Sandy Areas  other  than Beaches
    74  Bare Exposed Rock
    75  Strip Mines, Quarries, and
       Gravel  Pits
    76  Transitional Areas
    77  Mixed Barren land
8.  Tundra
    81
   Shrub and Brush Tundra
82 Herbaceous Tundra
83 Bare Ground Tundra
84 Wet Tundra
85 Mixed Tundra
    Perennial  Snow or  Ice

    91  Perennial  Snowfields
    92  Glaciers
                                34

-------
is a key for the numbers shown in Figure 4.1-a.   Large LUDA maps are avail-
able from the Tampa Bay Planning Commission or from the State Capitol.
The LUDA maps are based primarily upon land use or function in addition to
ground cover.  Therefore a two-hour flight by a doctoral  candidate in Urban
Ecology (and native of the Tampa area) in a small chartered airplane allowed
for the confirmation of existing land use and stand composition information.
The flight also enabled procurement of new information concerning the rela-
tionship of land use categories to vegetation types previously characterized
by composition and biomass.   Information from the flight was incorporated
into the Land Use map shown in Figure 4.1-a.
    To determine the distribution of vegetation by grid, a large LUDA Level
II Map was overlaid with the grids of the study area.  The percentage occu-
pied by each land use category was then visually estimated for each grid.
This technique was subjectively estimated to be accurate to within about
five percent for each area in each grid.  Visual area estimates compared
within 6 percent of the values obtained from trial planimeter measurements
of land use categories which occupied more than 20 percent of a grid.  The
planimeter (O.lmm resolution) WSU tested could not resolve areas smaller
than 10 percent of a study grid from the 1:25,000 scale maps.  WSU, therefore,
chose the visual estimation technique due to its increased speed and accuracy
over planimetry for these maps.  The result was a set of LUDA categories and
their percent area coverage for each grid of the study area.  This informa-
tion was then coded and stored on a computer tape.

4.2  LEAF BIOMASS QUANTITATION
     This section contains a general discussion of leaf biomass quantitation.
The section also contains a general description of the overall character and
                                   35

-------
climate of the study area and a detailed discussion  of each  of the vegetation
associations sampled during the course of the study.   The typical  species
composition and the method used to estimate leaf biomass for each  association
has been outlined.  Leaf biomass estimates were  not  made for the association
categories of Improved Pasture, Unimproved Pasture,  Tampa Bay and  the  Gulf of
Mexico; Fresh Water Marsh or for some Row Crops.   These categories were  sam-
pled using the bag collar, which enclosed 0.5m2  of ground.   The amount of
vegetation enclosed was assumed to be representative of typical conditions.
     Fortunately, leaf biomass tends to be convergent in forests of widely
varying growth rates, dimensions, tree density per unit area,  and  species
composition (Lieth and Whittaker, 1975).  Assuming canopy closure, leaf  bio-
mass varies more with site index than with any of the other  variables, (Satoo,
1971).  The figures cited for central Florida vegetation bear that out,  rang-
ing from 200 g/m2 to 700 g/m2, with most of the  vegetation types falling
within the 450 to 650 range.  (Lugo and Snedaker,  1974; Bayley, 1976;  Mitsch,
1975; Carter et aL_, 1973; Wilbur, 1975).
     While some sources describing broad regional  trends indicate  expected
leaf biomass from 800 to 1200 g/m2 in this latitude  (Satoo,  1971)  (Rodin
and Bazilevich, 1965), the soils and rainfall  regime of the  region present
limitations which result in edaphic climax vegetation.   Nutrient poor, exces-
sively drained soils, poorly drained soils and fire  are the  major  causes of
edaphic climax vegetation.  This successional  vegetation state is  also less
productive and lower in leaf biomass than the classic climatic climax  vegeta-
tion type.  Moreover, the study area is transitional  with regard to climate.
Where climax communities do occur there is a mixture of humid subtropical
and humid sub-boreal vegetation types (Wunderlin,  1975;  Pardue, 1971;
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1977).    While  the Tampa  Bay
                                   36

-------
Region is classified as an area of Humid Continental  climate (Cfa in the
Koppen-Geiger Classification) it is located at the southeastern extreme of
the extent of this climate designation in North America (Koppen and Geiger,
1936).  In addition to the north-south temperature and moisture gradients,
the central portion of the Peninsula is characterized by marked gradients
from each coast to the interior.  This suggests that the vegetation of the
region will not fit well within categories of vegetation typical  of either
subtropical or sub-boreal areas.
     The vegetation in the study area had also been subjected to several
forms of disturbance, ranging from clear-cutting to drainage, to severe
prolonged drought.  This disturbance and stress had caused many of the asso-
ciations in this area to remain in an early to mid-successional level.  Often
the climax vegetation was also stressed.  Because of these factors much of
the vegetation was therefore somewhat impoverished and atypical with respect
to other sub-tropical areas.
     Several sources were consulted regarding the composition and leaf dry
weight of trees and shrubs in each of the emission categories defined for
purposes of the study.  These are referenced in the leaf biomass tables in
the discussion of each association.  Wherever possible, local sources were
consulted and given preference over more general information or over sources
specific to other regions.  In each case the full range of biomass figures
is listed in the tables.  The figure deemed most representative of the vege-
tation type as it occurred in the study area has been denoted by double
underlines.  Where species-specific or site-specific information was not
available, the best approximation is cited.  The final figures for each
association are listed in Table 4.2-a.
                                   37

-------
             Table 4.2-a  SUMMARY OF LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS AND PLANT
                           ASSOCIATION CROSS-REFERENCE LISTS
Common Litera-
ture References

Mangrove swamps
Mixed hardwood
 swamps
LUDA Land
Use Categories

6121 Mangroves
WSU Plant
Associations

Mangroves
  Mature
  Succession
   forested wetlands  Oak-gum-cypress
                        Dome
                        Drained
                        Undrained
Leaf Biomass
g/nr	
                                                                   641.6
                                                                   221.5
                      331
                      203
                      365.8
Southern mixed hard-   41 Deciduous forest,
woods, Mixed hardwood  612 Forested wet-
swamps, Bayheads,
Moist to mesic
hardwood hammocks,
Hydric hammock
                      Hydric oak
                      hammock
                      614.8
Sand hills
Pine flatwoods
Oldfields
with developing
overstory
Improved pasture
Oldfields, early
stage
    land evergreen
42 Evergreen forest


42 Evergreen forest

31 Herbaceous
   rangeland
32 Shrub & brush
   rangeland

11 Residential
32 Shrub & brush
   rangeland

29 Citrus groves

26 Pasture
31 Herbaceous
   rangeland
32 Shrub & brush
   rangeland

25 Cropland
Xeric oak
 hammock

Pines

Palmetto
Representitive
 shrubs
Citrus groves

Improved
 pasture

Unimproved
 pasture
                                             Row crops
                                               Tomatoes
                                               Okra
    417


    662.5

    450
    200
                                                                   658.3
                                              8.48
                                             72.09
                                   38

-------
     Although LUDA maps give some idea of the types of vegetation and its
distribution in the study area, most leaf biomass references are given in
terms of the vegetation associations shown in Table 4.2-b.   The following
section therefore gives a brief description,  a detailed species composition
list and the available leaf biomass figures for each vegetation association
listed in the Table.   Information used was obtained from a  wide variety of
sources, therefore it is not uniform with respect to detail  or with respect
to the method of leaf biomass determination.

4.2.1  Mangrove Swamps
     Mangrove swamps occur in almost pure stands in the study area (Table
4.2.1-a).  Red mangroves are the most common  of the four species present and
occupy the largest areas of the Tampa/St. Petersburg estuaries.
     As illustrated by Table 4.2.1-b mangrove biomass is dependent upon the
physiography of the area.  Successional  mangrove stands are considered to be
less than five years old, and contain roughly one-third of  the leaf biomass
of mature stands.  Therefore, two biomass factors were used in emission rate
calculations.  Where successional mangrove stands were identified, the lower
biomass factor was used.  In mature stands almost all of the leaf biomass
is in the mangrove canopy.

               Table 4.2.1-a  MANGROVE SWAMP  - COMMON SPECIES
                Species                           Common Name
   Overstory -
        Avicennia gerun nans                       Black Mangrove
        Laguncularia racemosa                     White Mangrove
       *Rhizophora roa_ncjLe                         Red Mangrove
        Conocarpus erectus                        Buttonwood
                                  39

-------
       Table 4.2.1-a  MANGROVE SWAMP - COMMON SPECIES  (continued)


   Understory -

        Saplings of overstory

        Bacharix halimifolia                      Salt Myrtle

        Iva frutescens                            March Elder
        Borichia frutescens                       Sea  Ox-eye

   Ground cover -
        Distichlis spicata                        Salt Grass

        Bat is maritima                            Batis

   *dominant
                Table 4.2.1-b  MANGROVE  LEAF  BIOMASS  FACTORS
Type of Association           Biomass of Sample Plots       Average  Biomass


Overwash                          7263 kg/hectare
                                  6946 kg/hectare


Riverene                          3810 kg/hectare
                                  9510 kg/hectare
	641.6  gm/nr
Fringe                            5934
                                  5843 kg/hectare
                                  7036
Island                            4990 kg/hectare


Su .-cession                        2215 kg/hectare            221.5  gm/m2

                     Reference:   (Lugo and Snedaker,  1974)
                                  40

-------
4.2.2  Pine
     The composition of this group is varied, however, the major portion of
the biomass is dominated by one or two species.   Often slash pine or long-
leaf pine occur in a closed canopy, thus limiting understory development.
     Table 4.2.2-a lists the most common plant species found in the pine
association.  Table 4.2.2-b shows the range of needle biomass figures
found for this plant association.  The leaf biomass figure of 662.5 was
selected because it came from the most local source and seemed to concur
with the expected value based upon the climatology and physiography of the
study area.

                  Table 4.2.2-a  PINE - COMMON SPECIES
            Species
   Overstory -
       *Pinus elliottii
        Pinus palustris
        Pinus serotina
        Quercus minima
        Quercus lauri folia
        Quercus nigra
        Quercus pumila
        Quercus geminata
   Understory -
        *Serenoa repens (5-25X coverage)
        Myrtica cerifera
        Ilex cassine
        Sambucus simponii
        Seshenia punicea
        Vaccinium arboreum
        Viburnum rufiduluns
        Lyonia Lucida
^dominant
Common Name

Slash Pine
Longleaf Pine
Pond Pine
Dwarf Oak
Laurel Oak
Water Oak
Runner Oak
Scrub-live-oak

Saw Palmetto
Wax Myrtle
Dahoon holly
Elderberry
Seshenia
Spark!eberry
Black Haw
Fetterbush
                                41

-------
     Table 4.2.2-a  PINE  -  COMMON  SPECIES  (continued)
    Species
Rhus copallina
Rubus spp.
Asimina spp.
Ilex glabia
Gaylussacia dumosa
Vaccinium myrsinites
Hypericum spp.
Ascyrum te t ia.
Lyonia ferraginca
Myrica pulsilla
Pterocaulon undulatum
Common Name
Winged Sumac
Blackberry
Paw-paw
Gall berry
Dwarf Huckleberry
Ground blueberry
St. John1s Wort
St. John's Wort
Staggerbush
Dwarf Wax Myrtle
Rabbit Tobacco
                        42

-------
                Table 4.2.2-b  PINE  LEAF  BIOMASS  FACTORS
Location/Type
 Biomass
Source
N. Carolina
    Loblolly Plantation
    Duke 17 year Loblolly
      Plantation
Calhoun Experimental
    Forest/S. Carolina
    Loblolly Plantation
Several stands-several
    types/sub-boreal  region
Slash Pine
    Florida average
Tampa/St. Petersburg
 480 g/m

 750 g/m2

 700 g/m2

 500-550 g/m2

 662.5 g/m2

*662.5 g/m2
(Bernier, 1975)


(Arnts, et al, 1977)

(Metz and Wells, 1965)

(Ovington, 1962)

(Bay ley, 1976)
      *Pine canopy only in plantations,  or over-and-understory
       combined in natural stands of pine.
                                43

-------
4.2.3  Citrus Trees

     Good information  is readily  available  for  citrus groves due to their

economic importance.   The  average  leaf  biomass  of Florida citrus was calcu-

lated to be 658.3 g/rn^  {Bayley at.  al_._,  1976;.   The regression developed for

California citrus and  Florida citrus  used by  Bayley to determine leaf biomass

was:
                   0.80948(whera  0,80948  is an  exponentia" )
       1.426 x age         =  leaf  bioraass  In kg  (Turrell,  et__al_. 1969)


     Approximately 90%  of  the commercial  citrus groves in the study area

are planted in oranges.  The re^A", ii ng  10%  ind  owny abandoned groves are

grapefruit.  Orange groves in trie  study d;"ea  were primarily  the "Valencia"

variety although some  groves of tn3 ".-lem"!: n"  v.^ety did  cccur.  All grape-

fruit groves found within  the s'ouoy ,sred  »vere '"rtrrite Grapefruit."  (personal

communication with Dr.  ,J.  Allan,  Ocr.a CAperniinefst station, Lake Alfred, FLA),


4.2,4  Oak-G uiCy} ress
     Table 4.2.4-a  lists  the  p", ant  5p:-cies  .riOf.c oaniron to the oak-gum-

cypress association.

     Biomass varies with  site ;,»a~ • ;> ,  part icul d~"ly  with the difference in

cypress domes  in standing  water,  a>:  cypress  s~,:ar,ds  in or along flowing

water courses.

     The oak-gum-cypress  plaivc r >soc' aticn  has  & '"elatively small leaf bio-

mass.  This can be  explained  ^ r,  terr. s  of  nutrient ". im'tati ons and drainage

conditions and the  physiologicd  au,i,.rc.!riOiis  o~" t'r's "cype of vegetation to

such conditions; the conditions  car  best  oe aescribed as constituting a

physiological  drought  for  the vegetation.   This type of broad trend has

been characterized  by  Bazilevich, e M; jj_. .  ii570), for general forest types,

for example:

-------
                      Total  Plant Blomass,  by  Veg. Type
                 g/m2
            Broadleaf forest on  red  and yellow  soils
            Broadleaf forest -  swampy
            Floodplain forest
            Meadow - bog
                45,000
                40,000
                25,000
                20,000
Thus lower bioinass is expected  in  seasonally  undated  areas.

     Cypress are deciduous,  therefore a seasonal  fluctuation  of  leaf bio-

mass exists.  The values reported  here are March-October  averages.  The

minimum leaf biomass occurs  in  January with 10  g/m2.   Leaf  and twig fall

occurs in October - November and new growth begins  in March.  The March

through October understory average is approximately 40-50 g/m2 (Odum and

Ewel, 1976).  Table 4.2.4-b  summarizes the leaf biomass  factors  for the

oak-gum-cypress association.
             Table 4.2.4-a  OAK-GUM-CYPRESS  -  COMMON  SPECIES
    Overstory -
         Taxodiurn disti chum (vav.  nutans)
         Nyssa biflora
         Taxodiurn distichum
         Fraxinus caroliniana
         Acer rubrum
         Nyssa'lyTvatica
         Liquidumbar styraciflua
         Quercus nigra
         Sabal palmetto
         Carpinus caToTim'ana
         Ilex cassine
         Jumperus sflicicola
    Understory -
         Myrica cerifera
         Cephalanthus occidental is
         Tyoria Lucida
         Salix virgimana
         Ludwigia peruviana
         Si mi 1 a x~1 a ur if61 i a
         Rhus toxicodendron
         I tea virginica
Pond Cypress
Swamp Tupelo
Bald Cypress
Walter Ash
Southern Red Maple
Black Gum
Sweetgum
Water Oak
Sabal Palmetto
Blue Beech
Dahoon Holly
Southern Red Cedar
VIax Myrtl e
Buttonbush
Fetterbush
Virginia Willow
Primrose Willow
Bamboo Briar
Poison Ivy
Sweet-spi res
                                  45

-------
        Table 4.2.4-a  OAK-GUM-CYPRESS  -  COMMON  SPECIES  (continued)
    Groundcover -
         Polygonum punctatum                    Smartweed
         Lachnanthus caroliniana                 Redroot
         Saururus cernuus                       Lizard's  tail
         Rub'us spp.                              Blackberry
         Woodwardia virginica                   Virginia Chain fern
         Osmunda cTnnamonmea                    Cinnamon Fern
         Osmunda regal is                        Royal  Fern
         Sphagnum spp.                           Sphagnum Moss
          Table 4.2.4-b  OAK-GUM-CYPRESS  LEAF  BIOMASS  FACTORS  (g/m2)
Location/Type	Overstory	Understory   Total

*Withlacooche
 Fla/Dome                   Cypress  (121),
                            Tupelo gum (160)                50        331
                                    281
 Fahkahatchee
 Strand, Fla/drained        Cypress (3167.6)                40        203
                            Total  x*0.02  -  163
2Fahkahatchee
 Strand, Fla/undrained      Cypress (19,790.3  g/nr)
                            Total  x 0.02  =  315.8  g/m2      50       365.8
1 Mitsch, 1975
2 Carter, et a!.,  1973 and Mitsch,  1975

*0.02 is equal  to  the portion of the total  biomass  which  is  present  as
 leaves (Leith,  1975).
                                  46

-------
4.2.5  Xeric Oak Hammock
     The predominance of evergreen vegetation in this  association  (i.e.
xeric evergreen oaks) is attributable to a mineral  retention  adaptation
by the plants.  The relatively low biomass reflects the  impoverishment
due to excessively drained sandy  soils.
     Table 4.2.5-a lists the most common vegetation of this  association.
Table 4.2.5-b shows the range of  biomass estimates  available  for this asso-
ciation.  A leaf biomass factor 417 g/nr is most appropriate  for the  study
area since it represents the most local  source of information.

               Table 4.2.5-a  COMMON XERIC OAK HAMMOCK SPECIES
          Species
     Overstory -
     *Quercus 1aevi s
     *Quercus virginiana
     *Pinus elliottii
     *Pinus palustris
      Quercus geminata
      Quercus falcata
      Quercus laurifolia
      Quercus jncana
      Quercus myrtifolia
      Pinus clausa
     Understory  -
     *Diospyros  ebenaster
     *Myrtica cerifera
     *Serenoa repens
Common Name

Turkey Oak
Live Oak
Slash Pine
Longleaf Pine
Scrub-live-oak
Southern Red Oak
Laurel Oak
Bluejack Oak
Myrtle Oak
Sand Pine

Persimmon
Wax Myrtle
Saw Palmetto
  (5-25% coverage)
 *dominant
                                47

-------
       Table 4.2.5-a   COMMON  XERIC  OAK  HAMMOCK  SPECIES  (continued)
   Saplings of overstory  species  especially:
        Quercus myrtifolia
        Quercus geminata
        Bumelia sp.

        Lyonia ferruginea
        Lyonia lucida

   Groundcover -
        Aristida S_tricta_
        Aridroppgon spp.
        Folygala grandiflora
        Ascleplas spp.
        Berlandiera  subacaulis
        Qpuntia spp.
        Sporobolus junceus
        Chrysabalanus oblongifolius
        Heterotheca  g_ramini folia
        Sorghastrum  secudatum
                          Myrtle Oak
                          Scrub OaK
                          Buckthorn

                          Staggerbush
                          Fetterbush
                          Wiregrass

                          Beard Grasses
                          Milkweeds
                          Green Eyes
                          Prickly Pear
                          Pinewoods Crcpseed
                          Gopher Appl e
                          Grassy-leaf Golden Aster
                          Lopsided Indiangrass
          Table 4.2.5-b  XERIC  OAK  HAMMOCK  LEAF BIOMASS FACTORS
Location
Type
Leaf Biomass   Source
North Florida
Brookhaven N.Y.
Upland Oak
45 yr. old
Oak-Pine
417 g/m2
443 g/m2
(Odum, Brown, 1973)
(Whittaker and Woodwe
1969)
Cove Forest
Great Smokey Mtns.
Mixed
351  g/m2      (Spurr,  Barnes,  1973)
                    Best Estimate:   417  g/m2
                                                      including understory
                                   48

-------
4.2.6  Hydrlc Oak Hammock

     The most common species present in this association are listed in

Table 4.2.6-a.  Specific Biomass data for the dominant species is also in-

cluded.

     Leaf biomass factors for the Hydric Oak Hammock were calculated using

the mean tree method and the data from Table 12.

     The mean tree method (Lieth and Uhittaker, 1975) involves averaging the

basal area of all the trees in this association and fitting the means to a

regression line of leaf biomass and the diameter at breast height (DBH)to

yield average leaf biomass per tree.  This is then multiplied by the tree

density in terms of trees per unit area to result in the leaf biomass factor

per unit area.  For this vegetation type it was assumed that approximately

10% of the leaf biomass occurred in the understory.  Therefore, the leaf

biomass factor per unit area for the Hydric Oak Hammock plant association is

approximately 615 g/nr (Figure 4.2.6-a).


	Table 4.2.6-a  COMMON HYDRIC OAK HAMMOCK SPECIES	


       Dominant Overstory Species (Wilbur 1975, Carter et al., 1973)

                                        Relative
                                        Dominance  Basal Area     Density
	Species	Common Name	(%}	ft  /acre (trees per acre)

 Quercus laurifolia        Laurel Oak     57.19       82.18        103.99

 Acer rubrum               Red Maple      14.10       20.25         75.23

 Nyssa biflora             Swamp Tupelo    8.11       11.65         50.89
 Pinus elliotii             Slash Pine     11.66       16.75         15.49

 Magnolia virginiana       Sweetbay        2.71        3.89         11.06

 Liquidumbar styraciflua   Sweetgum        0.99        1.42         11.06

 Ilex coriacea             Large Gallberry 0.76        1.09         11.06
                                  49

-------
            Table  4.2.6-a  (cont.) COMMON  HYDRIC  OAK  HAMMOCK  SPECIES
        Dominant  Overstory  Species  (Wilbur  1975,  Carter  et  al.,  1973)
      Species
Common Name
Relative
Dominance  Basal Area   Density
   (%)	ft  /acre  (per acre)
Fraxinus pennsyl vanica
Ulmus americana
Carya aquatica
Fraxinus carol iniana
Vaccinium arboreum
Sal ix carol iniana
Myrica cerifera
Ilex myrti folia
Green Ash 0.54
American Elm 2.33
Water Hickory 0.53
Carolina Ash 0.41
Dominant Understory
Tree Sparkleberry 0.34
Carolina Willow 0.19
Southern Waxmyrtle 0.09
Myrtle 0.09
0.77
3.35
0.75
0.58
Species
0.49
0.28
0.12
0.12
11.06
6.64
6.64
6.64
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
     Species
   Common Overstory Species

                         Common  Name
Quercus virginiana

Taxodium distichum

jSabal palmetto

Quercus nigra

Persia borbonica

Gordonia lasianthus

Juniperus silicicola

Carpinus caroliniana

Cornus stricta

JJex_ coriacea

Ilex cassine
                           Live Oak

                           Bald Cypress

                           Cabbage Palm

                           Water Oak

                           Red  Bay

                           Loblolly Bay

                           Southern Red  Cedar

                           Blue Beech

                           Stiffcornel Dogwood

                           Sweet Gall berry

                           Dahoon Holly
                                   50

-------
             Table 4.2.6-a  (cont.) COMMON HYDRIC OAK HAMMOCK SPECIES
                          Common Understory Species
Cephalanthus occ
Lyonia luci'da
Rhus toxicodendron
Similax Spp.
Decumaiia barbara
Itea virginica
Rhus copallina
Ilex myrtlfolia

Saururus cernuus
Polygonum punctatum
Hydrocotyle spp.
Dyschoriste humistrate
PanIcurn spp.
Carex spp.
Woodwardia areolata
Osmunda cinnamonea
Osmunda regal is
Common Ground Cover
Button Bush
Fetterbush
Poison Ivy
Greenbriar
Climbing Hydrangea
Sweet-spires
Winged Sumac
Myrtle-leaved Holly

Lizard's Tail
Smartweed
Pennywort
Dyschoriste
Panicgrass
Sedges
Neeted Chain Fern
Cinnamon Fern
Royal Fern
                                   51

-------
                                Figure 4.2.6-a


     Hydric oak hammock mean tree method of leaf hiomass determination
     The leaf biomass of an average tree is equal  to the regression


of the average diameter at breast height (DBH)  on  the average basal


area (Auerbach, 1971, Pool, e* a]_., 1974).


     1.  Average basal  area equals:


                         Total basal  area	 =   143.69 =  0.45  ft2
                         Total number of trees     318.61




     2.  Average diameter at breast height  equals:  Basa1 area x  4


                         (Leith and Whlttaker,  1975):    3'14


                    = 0.45 ft2 x 4 = 0.75 ft =  22,860 cm DBH
                           37T4"


     3.  Leaf biomass per tree is estimated from  the correcced regression


         lines of DBH on dry leaf weight developed by Auerbach and Nelson


         (1975).


                        Average leaf biomass =  8kg/tree



     4.  If there are an average of 318.61  trees  per acre (Table 4.2.6-a)


         then the total overstory leaf biomass  equals:



        8000g/tree x 318.61 trees/acre x 2.171  x  10~4 acre/m2 =  553.3 g/m2




     5.  Assuming roughly 10X of the total  leaf biomass  is  understory


         then the total association figure  equals:

                      p                     o                       n
             553.3 g/m  overstory + 61.5 g/nr understory =  614.8 g/nr
                                   52

-------
4.2.7  Representative Shrubs
     The shrub species listed in Table 4.2.7-a  are typical  of  disturbed  and
early successional  vegetation.   Shrubs which  occur as  understory  vegetation
for other plant associations are included in  the appropriate  association
discription.  Biomass estimates are shown in  Table 4.2.7-a.   The  total leaf
biomass of this association is  estimated at 200 g/m2.   Approximately  90%
of the leaf biomass of this vegetation type is  included in  overstory.
(Carter et al^, 1973)

              Table 4.2.7-a  COMMON SPECIES OF  REPRESENTATIVE  SHRUB
          Species
     Overstory - sparse small  in stature
          Quercus virginiana
          Prunus serotina
          Pinus elliottii
          Pinus palustris
     Understory -
          Prunus serotina
          Diospyros virginiana
          Myrtica cerifera
          Salix caroliniana
          Aster carolinianus
     Ground Cover -
          Eupatorium capillifolium
          Eupatorium compositifolium
          Soli dago microcephala
          Sesbania exaltata
          Andropogon ssp.
          Paspalum notatum
          Panicum spp.
          Bidens pilosa
Common Name


Live Oak
Black Cherry
Slash Pine
Longleaf Pine


Black Cherry
Persimmon
Wax Myrtl e
Willow
Aster


Dog Fennel

Goldenrod
Sesbania
Beardgrasses
Bahia Grass
Panic Grasses
Beggars Tick
                                53

-------
	Table 4.2.7-b  LEAF BIOMASS  OF REPRESENTATIVE  SHRUBS	
             Baseline data compiled by  Carter,  et al.,  1973*
     Species           Avg. Diameter      Avg.  Ht.        Avg.  Leaf Biomass
Myrica cerifera           4.6cm            3.0m               405g
   (Wax Myrtle)
Salix caroliniana**       7.9cm            7.4m               490g
   (carolina willow)

* Field observation in the study area indicates an  approximate ground cover-
  age of 2 sq meters for wax myrtle of  5 cm DBH,  and 3  square  meters  for
  willow trees/shrubs of 8 cm DBH.  The understory  and  ground  cover biomass
  are an additional 11%.
                                                    o
     Thus the leaf biomass per unit area is:  200  g/nr  for wax  myrtle  and
160 g/m2 (willow).  The average is 180  g/m2.   If  understory and  ground
cover vegetation are added to this the  total  leaf biomass is approximately
200 g/m2.
^Representative sample tree, not average of all  trees sampled;  many samples
  obtained during and after leaf fall.
4.2.8  Palmetto
     This vegetation type is early successional  and appears in areas
recently disturbed by clearing or burning.   Two  types of Palmetto  are com-
mon to the study area:  Saw palmetto Serenoa repens and Cabbage palm  Sabal
palmetto.  Sabal palmetto is considered to  be common in the overstory of
the Hydric oak hammock, and is not discussed here.   Saw palmetto is by far
the most common species and occupies almost pure stands in  disturbed  areas.
Overstory and understory species are relatively  insignificant  to this
classification.
                                   54

-------
     Since Saw Palmetto is of questionable economic value,  not much  infor-
mation concerning leaf biomass is available.   The  leaf biomass of Palmetto
can be estimated from the range of biomass of the  associations in which  Saw
Palmetto occurs.  The range of biomass for Palmetto was estimated by  WSU to
be probably between that of pine fl atwoods (663 g/m2)  and successional
shrubs (200 g/m2).  Based upon this  range and upon measurements of Palmetto
leaf biomass made during field sampling,  a value of 450 g/nrr  was estimated
to be representative of the study area.

4.2.9  Pasture
     For the categories of unimproved pasture, improved pasture and  the
marine samples the area enclosed was used directly in  the calculation of
the emission factors as discussed in Section 1.1.
     Species lists for improved and  unimproved pasture are shown in Table
4.2.9-a.

                           Table 4.2.9-a   PASTURE
     Species                                             Common Name
Overstory - sparse
     Quercus virginiana                                  Live Oak
     Pinus palustrus                                     Longleaf  Pine
     Pinus elliottii                                     Slash Pine
Understory -
                             Unimproved Pasture
     Eupatorium capillifolium                            Dog Fennel
     Eupatorium compositifolium                          Dog Fennel
     Soli dago microcephala                               Goldenrod
     Andropogon spp.                                     Beardgrasses
                                55

-------
                     Table 4.2.9-a   PASTURE  (continued)
     Species
     Paspalum notatum
     Panicum spp_.
     Bidens pilosa
     Sestania exaltata
Groundcover -
     Paspalum notatum
     Cynodon dactyl on
     Digitaria sanguinalis
     Axonopus affinis
     Trifolium spp.
     Spobolus poirettii
                              Unimproved Pasture
                               Improved Pasture
Common Name
Bahia grass
Panic grass
Beggars tick
Sestania
Bahia grass
Bermuda grass
Crabgrass
Carpetgrass
Clover
Smutgrass
                                56

-------
4.2.10  Row Crops
     Row crops in the Tampa/St.  Petersburg study area  include  tomatoes,  straw-
berries, beans, squash, okra,  melons,  peppers,  cucumbers  and cabbage  (Florida
Agricultural Statistics, 1977).
     Crop yields often average 30,000  Ibs./acre for tomatoes,  the  major  row
crop, and 8,000 Ibs./acre for  okra.   High yields can be  attained even  in
these sandy leached soils, with  the  application of large  amounts of fertil-
izer.  Two crops per year are  often  attained.   The primary  growing seasons
are March-July and October-January,  although cold-weather crops such  as  cab-
bage may be growing all year.   All categories  of row crops  which were  sampled,
except okra and tomatoes, used the same sample collecting procedure as for
pasture samples.  For each tomato and  okra sample, one entire  plant was
enclosed.  The plant emissions were  sampled and then the  plant was clipped
and the leaves were separated  and dried.   Leaf biomass factors were obtained
by multiplying the average planting  density (plants/m)  by  the average of the
dry leaf weights of the plants sampled.  Therefore, for  tomatoes this  is
                        /*                                     ?
equal to:  1.73 plants/nr x 4.9g dry wt leaves/plant = 8.48g/m.   For  okra
                                         o                               p
the leaf biomass factor is:  8.9 plants/m  x 8.1g dry wt  leaves =  72.09g/m  .
This comparatively low leaf biomass  accounts for a small  part  of the  produc-
tivity.  If for example the crop yield is added, the fruit  plus leaf  biomass
becomes:
Tomato
3,000 Ibs. fruit/acre = 3363g/m2 x O.lOg dry wt/g wet wt. = 1634.3
                                                   leaves =   8.48
                                               total g/nf = 1643
Okra
8,000 Ibs. fruit/acre = 4360g/m2 x 0.25g dry wt/g wet wt. = 1090 g/m2
                                                   leaves =   72.09 n
                                                            1162 g/nf
                                  57

-------
The total biomass figures are comparable with productivity values for


Wisconsin hay and corn yields and are somewhat higher than the 600-920 g/m2


reported for row crops in Tennessee (Lieth and Whittaker,  1975).

                                         o
     Conversion factors from yield to g/nr dry weight for  okra and tomatoes


were obtained from Dr. D. Bienz, Professor of Horticulture at  WSU.   All  other


information concerning crops, plant spacing,  growing season and yields was


obtained from Dr. J. Montelaro,  Professor and Extension Vegetable Specialist,


Vegetable Crops Department, University of Florida at Gainesville.
                                   58

-------
                  5.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  EMISSION  INVENTORY

     The previous sections have described  the  background work which was
necessary in order to develop a detailed estimate  of natural hydrocarbon
emissions for the Tampa/St.  Petersburg area.   The  following section will
describe the collation of the basic sets of information  into an  emission
estimate.
     Figure 5-a is a generalized schematic outline of the  methodology  used
to develop an inventory of the natural  hydrocarbon emissions by  grid.  Basic-
ally it involves calculating average  emission  rates for  each vegetation
species and sample type collected  during the field study.  These average
emission rates are then grouped into  vegetation  associations.  The vegetation
associations are multiplied by their  leaf  biomass  factors  and grouped  into
land use categories compatible with the LUDA map designations.   In addition,
LUDA categories may contain certain species/sample types that do not occur  in
associations.  For example,  ornamental  shrubs  like oleander occur in the  res-
idential LUDA category but in none of the  associations.  Some of these addi-
tional  species' emissions are measured in  terms  of yg/g  leaf  biomass/hour
(eg. oleander).  These are then converted  to yg/nr/hr.  These LUDA emission
factors are then multiplied times  the percent  composition  of  each LUDA cate-
gory in each grid.  The individual grid emissions  can then be totaled  for
day and night emissions to get a daily emission  rate (24 hrs).   Figure b-b
is a detailed schematic of the procedures  used to  arrive at hourly emission
                                  59

-------
     Figure 5-a.  Simplified Schematic of Natural Emission Inventory
                  Proceedure for the Tampa/St. Petersburg Study Area.
**L(JDA Leaf
  Biomass
  and
  % Occurance
                          Raw Emission Rates
                       Averages for each Species
                     Association Emission Factors
*LUDA Emission Factors
                        Grid Emission Factors
                   Day                       Night
                      Hourly Emission Factors
                            24 Hr Average
                           Emission Factor
                                                      LUDA Composition
                                                           Factors
                                                           By Grid
  *LUDA = Land Use and Land Cover Data Analysis  System
 **This route was used only for species which  occurred  in  LUDA Category,
   but were not present in any Association  (see  text).
                                 60

-------
 Figure  5-b.  Detailed Schematic of Proceedure Used to Compile Tampa/
             St. Petersburg Natural Hydrocarbon Emission Inventory.
                                       Raw Emission Rates
\


Vegetation
yg/g/hr


Coded Raw Emission Rates
*
Row Crops
yg/g/hr or yg/nr/hr



i

Pasture Water Surfaces
ug/t//hr
              * M, P, 0, A, Major Peaks
 day
        niqht
                                            M,  P,  0,  A,  Major Peaks
                   Standardized Emission Rates
                   Day, 30°C       Night, 25°C
Determine the Average Emission Rates for Each Species and Sample Ty[
      Day yg/g/hr     Night yg/g/hr  |    Day Mg/nr/hr   Night  ug/nry
Multiply by
Average Leaf
Biomass for the
Associations in
the LUDA category
      Multiply by % Composition In each Vegetation Association
      Multiply by the Association
       Leaf Biomass Factor (g/nr)
                                        Association Emission Factors
                                        day    (Mg/mz/hr)      night
Multiply by %
occurance in the
LUDA category
(equals zero
for many)
 .day
 >ight\
Multiply by the % Composition of each Association in
 LUDA Category
       I
  night
                  day
                                     I
       LUDA Emission Factor
           (vig/nrVhr)
       day            night
                              Grid Emission Factors yg/hr/grid
                                                     _L
Quantify the
Area of each
LUDA category
in each grid (%\
Multiply by the
area of each
grid (FIT).
                               Sum the Grid Emission Factors
                       Multiply by uverage
                       day hours (u g/days)
                                   Multiply by average
                                   night  hours (yg/night)
                              Sum day and night emissions for
                               the Study Area (y g/24 hours)
*M=methane, P=Parafins, OOefins, and A=Aromatics.
                                   61

-------
factors by grid and summary emission  factors  for the entire  study  area  from
the raw emission rates.   The following  section  describes  the elements which
are illustrated in each  step of this  schematic.

5.1  SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA
     We have discussed the following  elements of the emission inventory
data:
     1.  Field sampling  program.  The program was conducted  between  April
         and August 1977.  Emission  rates  were  measured for  various  species
         during all types of weather  which occurred during the study period.
         Repetitive diurnal  samples were collected twice  for species rep-
         resentative of  each vegetation association.  Samples were analyzed
         within 24 hours of collection.  Emission rates were quantified in
         terms of methane(M), paraffins(P), olefins(O), aromatics(A), total
         nonmethane hydrocarbons(TNMHC)  and for each  major hydrocarbon  peak.
     2.  Emission rate algorithms.  It  was known that all emissions  were
         responsive to temperature and  that only isoprene emissions  seemed
         sensitive to light.  Algorithms generated in the EPA-Corvallis
         laboratory for  Slash Pine and  for Live Oak were  used to standard-
         ize field data.  It was assumed that all  nonmethane non-isoprene
         emission rates  for vegetation  would  be similar to slash pine emission
         algorithms, that all isoprene  emission rates would  be similar  to one
         of the Live Oak isoprene emission algorithms and that light was
         saturating for  isoprene emissions in the daytime.
     3.  The determination of the distribution  and quantisation of leaf
         biomass.  This  part of the  study  was based upon  land use  and land
                                     62

-------
         cover maps, personal observations in the study  area,  extensive



         search of the available literature and limited  field  measurements.



         The leaf biomass factors were estimated for each  of the vegetation



         associations in the study area.   Land use definitions were  used  to



         estimate the distribution of associations and species within  LUDA



         categories.  LUDA maps were used to estimate the  distribution and



         types of leaf biomass in each grid.



     From the above data a detailed natural emission inventory for each



grid in the study area was constructed using the following steps.





5.2  STEP 1:  CODING OF RAW EMISSION RATES



     The variables which were recorded during the collection of each sample  and



which were thought to be important in describing and predicting differences  in



emission rates were stored on a Washington State University computer tape along



with the raw emission rate data for each  sample.  This was done so that re-



lationships between emission rates and sample variables  might  become clearer.



The raw emission rate data is stored in the following format:



     1.  Columns 1-3 contain the sample number.  Numbers range from  001 to



         631.



     2.  Columns 4-6 contain the vegetation species or vegetation category.



         Numbers range from 001 thru 950.  The first digit corresponds to



         the broad vegetation type of the sample.  The second  digit  corres-



         ponds to the genus of the sample in that type,  and the third  digit



         represents the species.  For example, 001 and Oil are both  mangrove



         however, they are separate genera and species.   Numbers 101  and



         102 represent two species of pines.  Table 5.1-a  lists the  species



         codes and the sample types to which they correspond.
                                       63

-------
Table 5.1-a  VEGETATION SPECIES/SAMPLE CATEGORY CODES

001
on
021

101
102
103
104
601

201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208

301
311

401
411
421
431
441
451
461
471
481
491
492
Black Mangrove
White Mangrove
Red Mangrove

Slash Pine
Longleaf Pine
Sand Pine
Southern Red Pine
Austral ian Pine

Laurel Oak
Water Oak
Turkey Oak
Live Oak
Southern Red Oak
Bluejack Oak
Myrtle Oak
Willow Oak

Saw Palmetto
Sabal Palmetto

Wax Myrtle
Elderberry
Dwarf Huckleberry
Groundsel Bush
Persimmon
Dahoon Holly
Red Bay
Red Mulberry
Sweet Acacia
Viburnum
Oleander
501
511

111
112

611
621
631
641
651
671

700
701
711
721
731
741

801
811
821
831
841

901
902
903
904
905
911
912
Oranges
Grapefruit

Pond Cypress
Bald Cypress

Sweetgum
American Elm
Carol ina Ash
Willow
Red Maple
Hickory

Mixed grasses
Bahia
Bermuda
Clover
Pens i col a
Sawgrass

Tomatoes
Strawberries
Beans
Watermell on
Okra

Grass mudflat
Grass mudflat
Grass mudflat
Grass mudflat
Sandy Bottom
Decaying mari
913
921

922
923
924
925
931
941

942

943

944

950









(marine)
(2"-12")
(12"-2')
(2'-5')
(>5')
ne algae
Decaying mixed veg
Mudflat no
exposed 0
Mudflat (2"
Mudflat (12
Mudflat (21
Mudflat (>5
Sandy Beach
Fresh water
(0"-2")
Fresh water
(>12")
Fresh water
Hyacinth
Fresh water
Waterlilly
Oyster Beds









0"-2" water





grass
n p M
-12")
"-21)
-5')
')

marsh

marsh

marsh

marsh

















Decaying maring grass
                                  64

-------
3.  Columns 7-10 contain the location of the sample within the study



    grid.  The digits correspond to the grid coordinates.



4.  Column 11 is a one-digit code which defines the person who col-



    lected the sample.  This was done so that any trends  in data  related



    to sampling technique could be noted.  1 = Don Stearns, 2  = Phil



    Sweany, 3 = Pat Zimmerman.



5.  Columns 12-16 represent the date in the format; Month, Day, Day,



    Year, Year.



6.  Columns 17-18 represent the time at which the sample  was collected



    in hours from 01-24.



7.  Columns 19-21 contain the number of the canister in which  the



    sample was collected from 001-999.   This was recorded so that any



    anomalous emission rate trends corresponding to a specific sample



    container could be determined.



8.  Column 22 contains a subjective estimation of the sunlight condi-



    tions where 0 is dark, 1 is dusk or overcast, 2 is partly  cloudy



    or shady, 3 is filtered sunlight or early morning or  late  after-



    noon sunlight, and 4 is the direct noonday sunlight.



9.  Column 23 contains a subjective estimation of the illumination of



    the enclosed branch or "bag sunlight" using the same  scale as item



    8.
                              65

-------
10.  Column 24 describes the rain,  cloud, and moisture conditions dur-
     ing the time of collection of  the sample:
             Code           Cloud Cover         Soil         Leaves
              0
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
                              <50%             dry
                              <50%             dry
                              <50%             damp
                              <50%             wet
                            Raining during sample
                              >50%             dry
                              >50%             dry
                              >50%             damp
                              >50%             damp
dry
wet
dry
wet

dry
wet
dry
dry
                              >50%            Raining during sample
11. Columns 25 and 26 describe the wind conditions during the collec-
    tion of the sample:
                  Column 25                         Column 26
Code
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
Direction
N
E
S
w
NE
NW
SE
sw
calm/var
Code
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Direction
calm
0-7 mph
7-15
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
Too wind
                                                          good sample
                              66

-------
 12.  Column number 27  contains  a code  from  0-9 which  is  a  subjective

      evaluation of the health  of the  plant  being  sampled:
Code
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8&9
Age
dead
mature
medium
medium
young
young
sapl ing
sapling
does not app
Health
—
stagnai
poor
good
poor
good
poor
good
ly (refers
13.  Columns 28 and 29  contain the temperature  of  the  ambient  air  at

     the time that the  sample was collected in  °C.

14.  Columns 30-31  contain  the temperature  of the  air  in  the enclosure

     at the end of the  sample period in °C.

15.  Columns 32 and 33  are  blank.

16.  Column 34 contains a letter code from  a to z  which describes  the

     time between the collection of the sample  and its analysis:

                          C ode               Time

                           a               <2 hours
                          b-t              2-20 hours
                          u-y              2-6  days
                           z               >7 day s

17.  The total  length of time that the vegetation  sampled was  enclosed

     is coded in column 35:

        Code     Time (minutes)   Code    Time        Code   Time
A
B
C
D
E
10
11
12
13
14
I
J
K
L
M
18
19
20
21
22
R
S
T
U
V
27
28
29
30
31
                                 67

-------
        Code     Time (minutes)   Code    Time         Code     Time
F
G
H

15
16
17

N
0
P
Q
23
24
25
26
W
X
Y
Z
32
33
34
35
18.    Column 36 is a subjective  evaluation  of  reliability  of  the  emis-
      sion rate results where zero is  least reliable  and 9 is most
      reliable.  This number was assigned by allocating  a  possible  six
      points to quantisation of  the analytical  results and three
      points to collection  of the sample.   Caution  must be exercised
      when attempting to interpret reliability  factors,  for if one  of
      the components is low and  the other is high,  the reliability
      could appear to be "average" when  in  fact,  it would  be  very low.
      Samples which were obviously contaminated or  invalid due to sam-
      pling or analytical  difficulties have been  deleted.
19-27 Columns 37-80 contain the  coded emission  rates  for the  various
      components of the sample.   The emission  rate  values  are four  digit
      numbers where the first three digits  represent  the value and  the
      fourth digit represents the position  of the decimal  point.  For
      example, a value of 2342 would be  equal to  an emission  rate of
      23.4.   Negative emission  rates sometimes occurred for  some compo-
      nents of some species.   Negative emission rates imply that  an up-
      take occurs.  Negative emission rates occur when the amount of
      hydrocarbons in the  background sample (Cs^  X  Ve) is  greater than
      the amount of hydrocarbons in the  emission  rate sample  (C  (Zv +
      Ve)).  If the dead volume  (Ve) is  overestimated an apparently
      negative emission rate can occur.  This could  easily  happen  for
      sweet gums in which  very high background  values sometimes occur.
                                  68

-------
          However,  in most cases the negative  values  appear  to  be  representa-

          tive of actual  conditions.  For negative  emission  rates  the minus

          sign is considered as a first digit  for placement  of  the decimal.

          Therefore,  values of -202 and -200 would  equal  -2.0 and  -.020

          respectively.  The identities of the emission  rate components  are

          as follows:

                 Item#     Column        Description

                  19        37-40         Methane
                  20        41-44         Total  non-methane hydrocarbons
                  21        45-48         Paraffins
                  22        49-52         Olefins
                  23        53-56         Aromatics
                  24        57-62        *Major Peak No.  1
                  25        63-68         Major Peak No.  2
                  26        69-74         Major Peak No.  3
                  27        75-80         Major Peak No.  4

            *The "major peaks" may not be present for all  samples.


          The emission rate of each major peak is preceded by a two character

     code which identifies the peak as follows:

            Code       Identity                 Code       Identity

            1. DL      d-Limonene              14.  17     unknown  17
            2. AP      arPinene                15.  18     unknown  18
            3. 3C      A-Carene               16.  20     unknown  20
            4. BP      3-Pinene                17.  21     unknown  21
            5. 9A     unknown 29-A             18.  22     unknown  22
            6. 6A     unknown 26-A             19.  23     unknown  23
            7. 1A     unknown 21-A             20.  24     unknown  24
            8. MY     Myrcene                  21.  25     unknown  25
            9. TP     Terpinolene              22.  26     unknown  26
           10. OA     unknown 10-A             23.  27     unknown  27
           11. UT     unknown terpenes         24.  28     unknown  28
           12. IS     Isoprene                 25.  29     unknown  29
           13. 16     unknown 16


5.3  STEP 2:  DETERMINATION OF SPECIES EMISSION RATES

     Since no change  in non-isoprene emission  rates with light  intensity

were apparent from the field data or the Tingey, et al., 1978b  report,
                                      69

-------
All raw nonmethane, non-isoprene emission rates for all vegetation samples
(except some row crops), including those collected during the daytime and
during the nighttime vegetation were standardized to 30°C for day and 25°C
for night.  All of the non-methane emission rates of isoprene emitters which
were sampled during the daylight were standardized to 30°C for day.  WSU's
diurnal samples of isoprene emitters and Tingey et_ _a]_., 1978a indicate that
no isoprene is emitted in the dark.  However, all of the other non-methane
non-isoprene emissions from the isoprene emitters were  standardized to day
and to night.
     Because of this scheme, emission samples were used in the day and in
the night averages for all  non-isoprene emissions.  Therefore, the summation
of N (number of samples used in each average) for all of the species in
Appendix A will result in roughly twice the number of samples that were
actually collected.  Flat samples were not corrected for tanperature.  The
emission rates of each species/emission category was then averaged (Appendix
A).  The variability of the average species emission rates in Appendix A is
expressed as a Standard Deviation Error of the Mean(SD).

5.4  STEP 3:  DETERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION EMISSION FACTORS
     The estimated species/sample type composition for  each association, as
determined in Section 4, is shown in Table 5.4-a.  Wherever each association
occurred in the study area  it was assumed to consist of the same species in
the same proportions.  The  name of the association is shown in the first
column followed by the code letter used to designate it on the computer tape.
The "species code" column lists the species sample/type included in each as-
sociation as defined in Table 5.1-a.  The "multiplication factor" column
                                     70

-------
Table 5.4-a  ASSOCIATION SPECIES/SAMPLE TYPE  COMPOSITION  FACTORS  FOR
            TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG,  FLORIDA

ASSN SPECIES
ASSOCIATION CODE CODE
Mangrove A 001
on
021
901
902
922
923



Pine B 101
102
201
301
491
700





Citrus C 501
511
711
721
731
700






MULT I
FACTOR
32.11
96.11
512.88
0.10
0.40
0.40
0.10



331.25
198.75
66.25
33.13
33.13
1.00





592.47
65.83
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25






ASSN SPECIES
WSU ASSN CODE CODE
Drained E 112
Stand 651
202
611
311
451
401
641
941
741
Undrained F 112
Stand 651
202
611
311
451
401
641
941
942
741
Xeric G 203
Oak 204
101
102
201
206
207
103
441
401
301
700
MULTI
FACTOR
121.88
20.30
20.30
20.30
12.18
8.12
8.12
12.18
0.10
0.90
256.06
18.29
21.95
18.29
14.63
7.32
7.32
21.95
0.20
0.20
0.60
125.10
137.61
58.38
41.70
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
4.17
1.00
  Oak-Gum-
  Cypress
  Domes
112
651
202
611
311
451
401
641
941
741
198.6
 16.55
 33.10
 33.10
 16.55
  6.62
  6.62
 19.86
  0.10
  0.90
                                     71

-------
Table 5.4-a
 ASSOCIATION SPECIES/SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITION FACTORS FOR
 TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA (continued)
WSU  ASSN
ASSM  SPECIES  MULTI
CODE   CODE    FACTOR
Hydric H
Oak














Represent- I
ative Shrub











201
651
101
611
621
671
631
401
112
311
204
202
461
451
7UO
741
204
101
102
401
641
441
411
421
451
461
491
701
790
325.84
98.37
73.78
30.74
12.30
12.30
12.30
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
0.70
0.30
10
6
4
51
46
51
10
10
4
4
4
0.30
0.70
           ASSN  SPECIES  MULTI
WSU  ASSN  CODE   CODE    FACTOR
Palmetto J

Improved K
Pasture




Unimproved L
Pasture




Crops M



301
700
700
701
711
721
731
741
700
701
711
721
731
741
801
811
821
841
450
1.0
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.45
0.05
0.45
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.20
4.24
0.10
0.35
3.60
                                     72

-------
lists emission multiplication factors determined by multiplying the associa-


tion leaf biomass shown in Table 4.2-a times the estimated percent composi-

tion by species.  Where identical  species were not sampled,  substitutions  of

species which were sampled and which were believed to have similar emission


rates were made.  For flat categories (surface water, pastures, etc.)  the

multiplication factor represents the percent of the ground in  the association


covered by the specific "flat sample" type.   Therefore,  each association


contains leaf biomass factors multiplied by  relative occurrance for canopy


vegetation and percent ground cover factors  for flat sample categories.

Therefore, for each association, overstory,  understory and soil/litter emis-


sions are accounted for.  The multiplication factors were then multiplied

times the average emission rates for each respective species/sample type in

Appendix A and the products were summed to give an emission factor (yg/m^/hr)

for each association.  Since each sample emission rate consisted of TNMHC,


M, P, 0, A and major peaks for day and for night a computer was used to

manipulate the data.
                                                                        f\
     Appendix B lists the association emission rates and the variance (S^)

for each.  The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the variance.


The variance was chosen because it is easier to manipulate statistically for

later use in estimating the overall  variability of the final emission esti-

mate.  The association variance was calculated with the assumption that all


samples were independent.



5.5  Step 4:  DEVELOPMENT OF LUDA EMISSION! ESTIMATES


     Since the most detailed spatial characterization of the vegetation in


the study area was based upon land use and land cover categories, it was

necessary to estimate the composition of land use categories in terms of
                                     73

-------
the vegetation associations and species present.   Some vegetation species
sampled (notably ornamentals) which were not normally included in association
categories, were present in LUDA categories (such as the "residential" cate-
gory).  Therefore, the development of LUDA categories includes the emission
rates of associations weighted by their relative  percent ground cover, plus
emission rates of individual vegetation species.   Since species emission
                                        p
rates are in yg/g/hr, to convert to yg/nr/hr emission factors the species
emission rates were multiplied by the average leaf biomass of the LUDA cate-
gory.  This was determined from the average leaf  biomass of each association
in the LUDA category multiplied by its relative occurrance.   The determina-
tion of association and species contributions to  each LUDA category were
based upon the definition of each LUDA category (Anderson, et _al_., 1976),
association species composition (Section 4), and  upon direct field observa-
tion in the study area.
     Table 5.5-a outlines the information which was used for computer devel-
opment of LUDA emission rates.  The "map no." column refers  to the numbers
used to designate each LUDA category on the LUDA  map (Figure 4.1-a).   The
column marked "ASSN Multiplication Factor" is derived from the percentage of
each association in the LUDA category (1.00=100%) or the multiplication factor
for individual species.  As can be seen from Table 5.5-a,  the LUDA category
for "residential" does not add up to 100 percent.  This is because this LUDA
category includes species as well  as associations.   Therefore,  for species
whose emission rates were measured in yg/g/hr,  the association multiplication
factor is equal  to the average species emission rate multiplied by the aver-
age LUDA leaf biomass times the relative percent  occurrance.   Other categories
which do not add up to 1.00 (100%) include LUDA#52  "Lakes."   In this  case
                                     74

-------
Table 5.5-a  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG LUDA  CATEGORIES

Map #
11









21


22



24


25
26


LUDA
Category
Residential









Cropland
Pasture

Orchards
Nurseries
Vineyards
Misc .
Agricul ture
Land

Cropland
Pasture


ASSN
CODE
B
G
T
I
*x
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
L

SAME



M
K
i
L
M
K
F
B
wsu
ASSN
Pine
Xeric Oak
Shrubs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cropland
Unimproved
Pasture
AS RESIDENTIAL



Cropland
Imp. Pasture
SPECIES
CODE
X
X
X
701
481
491
492
601
471
431
X
X





X
X
Unimp. Pasture X
Crops
Imp. Pasture
X
X
Cypress Domes X
Pine
X
ASSN
Multi. Factor
0.08
0.08
0.02
0.40
14.04
14.04
17.55
17.55
7.02
7.02
0.50
0.50





0.50
0.45
0.05
1.00
0.85
0.10
0.05
 27


 28
Specialty
Farms

Horticulture
Farms
                     912
SAME AS RESIDENTIAL
1.00
 29
Groves
       Citrus
1.00
* X means "not applicable"
                                  75

-------
Table 5.5-a
EMISSION FACTORS FOR TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG LUDA CATEGORIES
(continued)

Map #
31





32


33






41

42

421

43

51



LUDA
Category
Herbaceous
Rangeland




Shrubs
Brush
Rangeland
Mixed
Rangeland





Deciduous
Forest
Evergreen
Forest
Planted
Pine
Mixed
Forest
Streams
Canals


wsu
ASSN
CODE
J
B
D
E
F
L
J
I
L
J
B
D
E
F
I
L
G
H
B
G
X
X
Average

X
X
X
X
WSU
ASSN
Palmetto
Pine
Cypress
Cypress
Cypress
Unimp. Pasture
Palmetto
Shrubs
Unimp. Pasture
Palmetto
Pine
Cypress
Cypress
Cypress
Shrubs
Unimp. Pasture
Xeric Oak
Hydric Oak
Pines
Xeric Oak
X
X
41 and 42

X
X
X
X
SPECIES
CODE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
101
102


941
942
943
944
ASSN
Multi. Factor
0.10
0.10
.04
.03
.03
0.70
0.10
0.20
0.70
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.70
0.08
0.20
0.60
0.40
596.25
66.25


0.10
0.90
0.40
0.10
                                  76

-------
Table 5.5-a
EMISSION FACTORS FOR TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG LUDA CATEGORIES
(continued)

Map #
52



53



54












55













WSU
LUDA ASSN
Category CODE
Lakes X
X
X
X
Reservoirs X
X
X
X
Bays X
Estuaries X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gulf of Mexico X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WSU
ASSN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SPECIES
CODE
941
942
943
944
941
942
943
944
901
902
903
904
921
922
923
924
925
911
912
913
950
901
902
903
904
905
921
922
923
924
925
911
912
193
950
ASSN
Multi. Factor
0.10
0.90
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.90
0.20
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.05
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
                                  77

-------
Table 5.5-a  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG  LUDA  CATEGORIES
             (continued)

Map #
61


612


6121
621




71

72


73

74
75
76
LUUA
Category
Deciduous
Forested
Wetland
Forested
Evergreen
Wetland
Mangroves
Non Forested
Wetland



Dry Salt
Flats
Beaches


Sandy
Non Beaches
Barren Rock
Strip Mines
Transitional
WSU
ASSN
CODE
D


D
E
F
A
X
X
X
X
X


X


X

--
X
X
WSU
ASSN
Cypress Dome


Cypress
Cypress
Cypress
Mangroves
X
X
X
X
X


X


X

__
X
X
SPECIES
CODE
X


X


X
741
941
942
943
944
931

913
911
912
931

--
931
931
ASSN
Multi. Factor
1.00


0.30
0.20
0.50
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.90
0.40
0.10
1.00

0.07
0.07
0.07
1.00

0
1.00
1.00
             Barren Land
77
Mixed Barren
Land
931
1.00
                                    78

-------
100% of the lake is covered with water (Species sample type codes 941 and



942).  Additionally, approximately 30% of the surfaces of lakes were esti-



mated to be covered by aquatic plants (ES&ET, 1974).  Appendix C lists the



emision rates and their variances for each LUDA category.





5.6  STEP 5  DETERMINATION OF GRID EMISSION RATES FOR THE STUDY AREA



     Land use categories for each grid in the study area were estimated from



a LUDA map, as previously described.  The grid number and its associated



LUDA composition in % grid area were then coded into the computer.  Next,



for each grid, the emission rates for each LUUA category (yg/nr/hr) were



multiplied by their percent occurrance in the grid and by the area of the



grid (nr) for day and for night.  The results were hourly emission rates for



each grid for daytime at a temperature of 30°C and for nighttime at a temper-



ature of 25°C.  These hourly emission rates were then used to prepare daily



emission density maps for the study area.  To prepare the maps each day (24



hours) was assumed to consist of 12 hours of the daytime emission rate plus



12 hours of the nighttime emission rate for each grid.



     The emission densities of each grid for methane, TNMHC, paraffins,



olefins and aromatics were then plotted separately on an x-y coordinate sys-



tem by computer with the aid of Symmap, a packaged data presentation (Dudnik,



1971).  Figures 5.6-a through 5.6-e illustrate the enission density maps.  It



should be noted that separate ranges were selected for methane emissions and



TNMHC emissions.  Emission ranges for paraffins, olefins and aromatics are



identical to facilitate emission density comparisons.  The maps clearly



illustrate that the primary biogenic emissions are olefins and that these



tend to occur in forested regions.  It can be seen that grid emission densi-



ties are fairly low with a maximum TNMHC emission of approximately 88 mg/nr/



day (24 hours).  This is equivalent to an average flux of 3,667 yg/nr/hr.





                                         79

-------
                                                                                 i


                                                                                 o
                                                                                 z

                                                                                 m
                                                                                 H
                                                                                 1C

                                                                                 m
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  03
                                                                                  O
                                                                                 O
                                                                                         g

                                                                                         I
                                                                                         m

                                                                                         m
                                                                                         :o
                                                                                         en
                                                                                         on

                                                                                         ;c
                                                                                         CD
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        CD
                                                                                        m
                                                                                        z
                                                                                        o

                                                                                        m
                                                                                         D
                                                                                         m

O)
 i

00
00
       OJ
       CD
••••••••• NRUHBlUIB i
                  lB8 XXXXXXXXX
Ol
o

oS
OJ
tt
01
o
                           ro
                           CJi
OJ
 i
no
01
O
 i

OJ
                                                       m
                                        80

-------
                                 (M
                                 J

                                 UJ
                                                      o
                                                             o
                                                             ro
                                                              i
                                                             if)
6
ro
£    OS
                                                                                    PCP8 RHItflllRI ••••••••I
                                                                                       •DIHCIRK •••••••••
(T)
Z
UJ
Q
O
to


UJ

o

UJ

o
03


(D

OQ
       UJ
DC    <
UJ    X

UJ    UJ
°-    2

t5
                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                     iri
                                                                                                                      CD

-------
31

to'
c
-*
(B

01

O)

o
                                                                                                 p  S

                                                                                                 m  m
                                                                                                 co
                             CO

                             c

                             G)


                             02
                             o

                             m

                             o

                             m

                             co
                             co
                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                      m
                                                                                                      •z.
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                      H


O)
1
ro


en
ro
O)
ro

aaaeeaaatt
T"
01
ro
XXX«,XX< .,..,4..,

oj ro
i i
-P> OJ


O
ro


O
i
O
                                                                m
                                                               I
                                                                  IN)
                                                                         >  :o  o

                                                                         o  ^o  rn
                                                                                   ~
=H   Z  co
o   z
CO   CO
                                                      82

-------
                                   CM
                      CO   CO
                      z   o
                  LJ  a:   o
                  _i  <   
-------
01

en
                                                                                            g

                                                                                            1
                                                                                            \
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            ~0
                                                                                            m
                                                                                            H
                                                                                            m
                                                                                            ?o
                                                                                            co
                                           o   OD
                                           CO   o
                                                CD
                                                m
                                                z
                                                o

                                                m
                                                1
                                                CO
                                                CO
                                                o
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           m
                                                                                           •z.
                                                                                           CO
ro


ro
             CJi
             ro
             no
                     i
                    en
                    ro
O

i    o
O
 i
                                                          m
                       o   33  rn
                            >  -n
                                                                   o  z
                                                                   CO  CO
                                              84

-------
The emission rates have also been calculated in terms of TNMHC, paraffins,
olefins, aromatics, methane and for each major peak for each grid, and stored
on a computer tape.  The sum of the components does not add up exactly to the
TNMHC due to errors in rounding introduced by the computer format (Section
5.2).
     The separate grid emission rates have been summed for the day and the
night data to result in an estimated hourly flux rate of each hydrocarbon
component for the total study area for day and for night (Table 5.6-a).  A
rough approximation of the total average daily emission rate for the study
area over the study period has been made (Table 5.6-b).  This estimate is
based upon the assumption of a 12-hour 30°C average daytime and 12-hour 25°C
average night.  More complex temperature regimes could be accommodated using
the Tingey et al., emission rate algorithms for isoprene and the terpenes
(Tingey, et aj_. 1978a&b).  However, due to the uncertainty of the appropriate-
ness of applying these algorithms to non-related species it is doubtful that
the emission estimates could be improved at this time.  The total daily (24
hours) emissions from each major vegetation type has also been summed over
the entire study are using the same scheme (Table 5.6-c).  A detailed tabu-
lation of the total area occupied by each LUDA category and its percent of
the study area is given in Appendix D.
     Although arithmetic means were used to calculate the variability, it has
been reported that a better estimate of raw data variability might result if
the geometric mean were calculated instead of the arithmetic mean, since the
data by Tingey, et al. 1978a&b, indicate that emission rates are log normally
distributed.  In this case the arithmetic mean and standard deviation would
over estimate the actual sample variability.  WSU chose to use the arithmetic
mean and standard deviation since it is easier to manipulate statistically
                                      85

-------
Table 5.6-a  AVERAGE HOURLY DAYTIME  (30°C)  AtiD  NIGHTTIME  (25°C)  EMISSIONS
             FOR THE 81 X 60 km TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG  STUDY  AREA

Daytime

Compound
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
Unk. Terp.
Unk 10A
Unk 21A
Unk 16A
Unk 17
Unk 18
Unk 20
Unk 21
Unk 22
Unk 23
Unk 24
Unk 25
Unk 26
Unk 27
Unk 28
Unk 29
A3-Carene
Unk 26A
Unk 29A
Emission
Factor
(pg/hr)
8.6 x 1012
1.6 x 1012
5.6 x 1012
1.4 x 1012
4.1 x 1012
7.4 x 1011
4.0 x 1011
1.3 x 1011
2.4 x 1012
4.2 x 1010
1.9 x 109
-4.0 x 109
6.2 x 108
4.9 x 109
1.3 x 109
-3.0 x 107
5.7 x 108
2.3 x 108
2.7 x 1011
8.4 x 1010
3.8 x 109
8.6 x 1011
7.1 x 109
1.8 x 109
8.4 x 109
2.9 x 109
1.9 x 109
2.8 x 1011
3.4 x 1010
4.3 x 1010
Standard
Deviation
1.7 x 1011
2.3 x 1010
1.5 x 1011
1.9 x 1010
1.3 x 1011
1.7 x 1010
1.4 x 1010
6.3 x 109
3.8 x 1010
3.2 x 109
1.1 x 108
2.7 x 109
1.3 x 108
_ _ _ _
3.1 x 108
1.5 x 106
1.0 x 108
4.8 x 107
2.4 x 1010
9.0 x 109
2.2 x 108
1.4 x 1011
1.7 x 109
4.4 x 108
7.3 x 108
1.2 x 108
1.5 x 108
7.8 x 109
4.6 x 109
1.3 x 109
Nighttime
Emission
Factor
(yg/hr)
4.5 x 1012
1.2 x 1012
2.3 x 1012
1.0 x 1012
4.1 x 10L2
5.6 x 10L1
2.9 x 10L1
8.7 x 101U
0.0
3.0 x 1010
1.9 x 109
-2.1 x 109
6.2 x 108
3.4 x 109
8.8 x 108
-3.0 x 107
4.1 x 108
1.6 x 108
1.9 x 1011
5.9 x 1010
2.6 x 109
6.0 x 1011
4.9 x 109
1.2 x 109
5.8 x 109
2.0 x 109
1.1 x 109
1.9 x 1011
2.4 x 1010
3.0 x 1010
Standard
Deviation
1.1 x 1011
1.6 x 1010
1.0 x 1011
1.3 x 1010
1.3 x 1011
1.2 x 1010
9.4 x 109
4.4 x 109
0.0
2.2 x 109
1.1 x 108
1.9 x 109
1.3 x 108
_ _ _ _
2.1 x 108
1.5 x 106
6.9 x 107
3.3 x 107
1.7 x 1010
6.2 x 109
1.6 x 108
9.4 x 1010
1.2 x 109
3.0 x 108
5.0 x 108
8.1 x 107
1.0 x 108
5.4 x 109
3.2 x 109
8.9 x 108
                                   86

-------
Table 5.6-b
AVERAGE DAILY APRIL-AUGUST NATURAL EMISSION RATES FOR THE
81 X 60 km TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG STUDY AREA (METRIC TONS)*

Compound
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
A3-Carene
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Daytime
12 hr
Total %
103
19
67
17
49
29
8.9
4.8
3.4
1.6
0.5

18
67
Ib
33+
28
9
5
3
1
0.5
Nighttime
12 hr
Total %
54
14
28
12
49
0
6.7
3.5
2.3
1.0
0.4

27
52
21
8+
0
13
7
4
2
0.7
Daily
24 hr
Total %
157
33.6
94.8
28.8
98.4
28.8
15.6
8.28
5.56
2.60
0.9

21
60
18
29+
18
10
5
4
2
0.5
                                  o
Average Daytime Flux   = 1.71 mg/nr/hr


Average Nighttime Flux = 0.93 mg/m^/hr


Total Daily (24 hr) Average Flux = 32 mg/m2/day
^Calculations assume a 12 hour day, 30°C average leaf temperature and a
 12 hour night, 25°C average leaf temperature (see text).
+,„
   of TNMHC + methane
                                      87

-------
1
1
1
1 ) 	 %
s_
"c
«^J-
S 00
cn

K-
j-E

^-
< oo

en
p
^_
£_
_£;

^-
o oo

CD
s^£
s^.

i
t

1
ft^J-
QL.ICM

' cn
'•^x
r"™"""


U-^
i-
C_3 r~
rc
SI "3"
Z CM
I— "-.
cn
^

i[ ;•}
o 3:
•S.
*5 z
H-

fW—

O P d>
o s-
&«i—<:

racCP
Oi E
e vx
^f ^-^»





to

c^
^
_J






c:
0

jj_>
Q.
•r-
$*-
£i O*i OO
VjO UO **O VO *™~ CVJ ^d" CvJ P*^ ^"
r— ^J- *\ * *\ *>
•s ^- p^«. t»O ^~
*sO



r™~ r~~ O^ *^i" c^j ^jQ ^^" ^J" *sj" C\J c^j
P^- P**-  rv n ri
OO i — CO O> i— O
I— i— r— ^f





r*-» oo CM p^- *J^ ^~ 'sO C5 CP
r— P1^- CM ^J~ OO P*- CO r-" C3 *sO
cn r— •— P^CMOLDCMLOOO
CO O^ * " •* •»
»v »X> P^- 00 CM
UO






QQ QQ ,— LjO LO **O *~~ P*** CT) 0s) ^3
LOOOCTi CMCOi-OCMO^P^O"!
^ ^ ^ ^^^ * ^rv^
LOOOCTJ ^J-i — LOi — ^J-
CM CM OO LO




^O CM O^ CM ^~* LO r~™ *"~" OO r"~" C?
•— r- CM OO V V




mu">i^> vo r— i — i — ooinoo'-o
r — OJ V r — CM


O"i C^ OO ^O OO LO ^t" C3 CM P**- r~"
OJ — oo oo
^» f^_


* OO
«3- «^- oo • — ^- oo
CM CM "Co in oo in
co m v£> • "i —
• ^— . — .00 oo oo OOOOLO
CM un ** m ** co *^~ "xj* *• in in r*~- r*~^
^^uo-^In" " -In CM «r-" "7 T
i — r— • r— • i— CT^ *~~ r~™" CM • ^"* f~~ CM ^J" <~~ CM
r— CM *-— ' CM ^— " OO CM ^~ LO «^ "*— " '••O LO LO LO P*"^ ' —
^c



1
r- i. r- S~
it? "O O) '•^ i-  O) «J ••- -P CO t-to
C C O) r— (/) O +-* O) •*-* > 3- "^ ^O c~ 4-* C! c~
OlrtJ i-CU  CO  "O CO O^ OI 1- c~ 3 t- Ol "O d 3 i-. 't~
•r- Q. 4->C S-O-r-S- S-S- CntOCT4->
> Q.
0.
to 
OI O •!-
i. C T3
Q.T- c
14- bO
O T- <+-
o
C r—
O OJ CO
O Q T-
5 	 1 0
"4- i-
4- Q.
co O
oi c
•P M- O
Or- -r-
C *O (/)
OI JC CO
•0 -r;
co E
CO C O)
•i- fO
CO Of >,
01 E r-
_f" *r~
4^ "-™* fO
C IT) T3
01 •
i_— -o
(Or— OI
O.OO r-
•r-
C fO
•r- •• +J
O) OI
i- i— -O
O> CL
Jd E i-
S 
-------
and since a log-normal distribution of the field data was not  apparent  when



the field data were compiled.    The variability of the emission estimates  by



grid and of the total emissions from the study area were calculated assuming



that all of the emission rate  data was independent.  However,  some  of the



association values used in some of the LUDA emission estimates are  positively



correlated since they share some of the same species/sample types.   Thus,  the



statistical standard deviation shown in Figure 5.6-a and Appendix C under-



estimates the actual statistical standard deviations.  The degree of under-



estimation is positively related to the degree of dependence between vegeta-



tion associations.  A "worst case" example was calculated for  the hypothetical



situation where associations A and B were assumed to be independent, but had



a correlation coefficient of 1 (A=B).  This example indicated  that  the



standard deviations would be underestimated by only a factor of 1.4. Since



the correlation coefficient for the associations and LUDA categories is much



less than one, the assumption  of independence causes the underestimation of



the variability to be insignificant.  Additionally, WSU could  not different-



iate or predict the effects of other field sample variables such as soil



moisture or location upon emission rates.  Therefore, the actual variability



in the emission inventory is probably much greater than the statistical



standard deviation shown in Table 5.6-a.  The standard deviations for the



various hydrocarbon compounds  and classes in the table indicate that the



emission factor variability is less than a factor of two.  It  should be



stressed that this only reflects the variability between the raw sample



emission rates that were used  in the emission inventory.  Uncertainties in



vegetation composition, the emissions of species not sampled and uncertain-



ties in leaf biomass estimation are all more difficult to evaluate.  Although
                                     89

-------
every attempt was made to accurately evaluate each element in this inventory
and to treat uncertainties conservatively,  the final  figures reflected in
Tables 5.6-a and 5.6-b could probably differ from actual  natural  emissions by
a factor of two.  More sampling is needed to narrow this  variability further.
Improvements in the emission rate algorithms could be appliec at  a later date
to increase the accuracy of these estimates.  Ambient air sampling should be
done in the study area and the concentrations of the natural emission pro-
ducts should be related to meteorological  parameters to determine if they are
commensurate with the emission estimates made during the  course of this study.
Finally, since the climatic conditions before and during  the study were some-
what atypical (very cold winter preceeding  a very dry summer), spot checks of
emission rates should be made in future years to confirm  that the emission
rates measured during the course of this study are representative.
     Although uncertainty in the projected  emission estimates still  exists,
this study is the most comprehensive program of its type  ever attempted.
The resultant emission estimates developed  as a result of this study prob-
ably are the most accurate area-wide estimates of natural hydrocarbon emis-
sions made to date for a large heterogeneous area.
                                     90

-------
         6.  DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTER  PROGRAMS,  FILES  AND  TAPES


     Two computer tapes were generated as  a  result  of this  study.   The WSU

tape contains all of the raw data,  files of  the refined emission  factors,

programs to generate those factors  and emission rates by  grid.  The other
                                       \
tape submitted to Region IV, contains only the  emission factors by  grid.

     Computer manipulations were aided by  SAS,  a statistical  analysis com-

puter package (Barr, et_ al_, 1976).


6.1   EPA GRID EMISSION DATA TAPE

     A computer tape of emission rates by  grid  was  prepared according to EPA

specifications and has been forwarded to Region IV.   The  tape is  non labeled,

7-track, 556 BPI EBCDIC, even parity  LRECL = 80  RECFM =  FB  BLK  SIZE = 2400.

     The tape contains the following  information:

     File 1:  Daytime Grid Emission Rates

                   DSN = USER.  Y6401. Emission. Grid. Daytime

     File 2:  Nighttime Grid Emission Rates

                   DSN = USER.  Y6401. Emission. Grid. Nighttime

        column 1-5:   Grid #, character data

        column 6-7:   compound,  character data

        column 8-23:  Emission rate,  E notation


6.2   WSU TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG EMISSION STUDY TAPE

     The following section describes  the location and format for  all of the

files and programs used to generate those  files from  the  original data.
                                     91

-------
The data are stored at WSU on magnetic tape volume number CC1587.   The tape
is in standard Tabled, 1600 BPI, 9-track format.   All  files  are in  fixed
block (FB) form with logical record lengths (LRECL) and block  sizes (BLK
SIZE) as indicated in Table 6.2-a.

6.3  DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF WSU TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG STUDY TAPE VOLCC1587
     The programs described should  be put in a Wylbur  or other disk library
before use.  They should be run in  the order shown in  Figure 6.3-a, although
it is not required to start at the  beginning.   The Job Control  Language
(JCL) associated with each program  assumes that all data sets  being read
exist in catalogued data sets on disk and that each data set to be  written
does not currently exist and will  be created on disk (except the GRID  emis-
sion rate data sets which are so large that it is  better to  write them to
tape).  If these written data sets  are to be rewritten,  the  associated Data
Definition (DD), card can be changed so that just  the  Data Set Name,  (DSN)
parameter and DISP = OLD need be coded.  For example,  the FT10F001  DD  card
in the program to generate the ASSN emission rates would appear as:
11GO FT10F001  DD DSN - USER. Y4313. Emission, Day ASSN, DISP  = OLD
     All the data sets and programs listed here are also on  tape volume num-
ber CC1587.  They can be accessed directly from the tape, although  the unit
and volume parameters must be specified since  these data sets  are not  cata-
logued (the unit is UNIT = TAPE).   Data sets can be written  to this tape,
but it is recommended that writing  is done after the existing  data  sets on
the tape.  Writing over an existing file will  also destroy all  files after
the rewritten one.
                                     92

-------
Table 6.2-a  CONTENTS OF WSU TAMPA/ST.  PETERSBURG EMISSION  STUDY  TAPE

File
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Date Set
Name
. EMISSION. RAWDATA
6401 .EMISSION. DAY
01 .EMISSION. NIGHT
. EMISSION. DAYME AN
EMISSION. NIGHTMEAN
401. EMISSION. ASSN
. EMISSION. DAYASSN
EMISSION. NIGHTASSN
401. EMISSION. LUDA
. EMISSION. DAYLUDA
EMISSION. NIGHTLUDA
EMISSION. AIRGRIDS
. EMISSION. DAYGRIU
EMISSION. NIGHTGRID
SIGN. GRID. DAYTIME
ION. GRID. NIGHTTIME
L. EMISSION. APRFIX
EMISSION. APRMEANS
. EMISSION. APRASSN
.EMISSION. APR DATA
. EMISSION. APRLUDA
EMISSION. APRDATA2
. EMISSION. APRGRID
EMISSION. APRDATA3
Block
Count
17
8
8
65
65
1
13
13
1
32
32
56
1
1
2160
2160
4
3
2
1
4
1
3
1
Block Size
3120
6400
6400
2400
2400
1090
2400
2400
1352
2400
2400
3120
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
Logical
Record Lengt
80
80
80
80
80
10
80
80
13
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
                                 93

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St. Petersburg
    	study (Tape vol.  CC1587)	
USER. Y4313. EMISSION. RAWDATA        catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. RAWDATA        tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 1

   Contents:  Original raw data.   The original  data is coded as described
              in Section 5.2.


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. DAY            catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. DAY            tape VOL-SER=CC1587       file 2

   Contents:  Original data corrected to a standard 30°C daytime tempera-
              ture.  The format of the data is  the same as for original
              data.


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. NIGHT          catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. NIGHT          tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 3

   Contents:  Original data corrected to a standard 25°C nighttime temp-
              erature.  The format of data is the same as for the original
              data.

USER. Y4313. EMISSION. DAYMEAN        catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. DAYMEAN        tape VOl=SER=CC1587       file 4

   Contents:  Daytime species mean emission rates

   Format:  Species      columns  1-3
            Compound     columns  4-5    character data
            Rate         columns  6-15   E notation
            Variance     columns  16-25  E notation


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. NIGHTMEAN       catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. NIGHTMEAN       tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 5

   Contents:  Nighttime species mean emission rates.   The format is the
              same as for the daytime means.
                                   94

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St. Petersburg
	study (Tape vol. CC1587)(continued).	


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. ASSN           catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. ASSN           tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 6

   Contents:  ASSN factor data sorted by species

   Format: ASSN     column 1       character data
           SPECIES  columns 2-4
           FACTOR   columns 5-10


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. DAYASSM        catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. DAYASSN        tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 7

   Contents:  Daytime ASSN emission rates

   Format:  ASSN       column 1         character data
            COMPOUND   columns 2-3      character data
            RATE       columns 4-11     hexadecimal floating point data
                                          (FORTRAN real Z form)
            VARIANCE   columns 20-27    hexadecimal floating point data


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. NIGHTASSN      catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. NIGHTASSN      tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 8

   Contents:  Nighttime ASSN emission rates.

   Format:  the same as for the daytime ASSN rates.


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. LUDA           catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. LUDA           tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 9

   Contents:  LUDA factor data sorted by ASSN - SPECIES

   Format:  LUDA     columns 1-4
            ASSN     column 5      character data   1st 41  records
            SPECIES  columns 5-7                    remaining records
            FACTOR   columns 8-13
                                   95

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St. Petersburg
	study (Tape vol. CC1587)(continued).	


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. DAY LUDA       catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. DAY LUDA       tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 10

   Contents:  Daytime LUDA emission rates.

   Format: LUDA       columns 1-4
           COMPOUND   columns 5-6    character data
           RATE       columns 7-14   hexadecimal floating point data
                                     (FORTRAN real Z form)
           VARIANCE   columns 23-30  hexadecimal floating point data


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. NIGHT LUDA     catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. NIGHT LUDA     tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 11

   Contents:  Nighttime LUDA emission rates

   Format:  the same as for the daytime LUDA rates.


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. AIR GRIDS      catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. AIR GRIDS      tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 12

   Contents:  GRID LUDA factor data.


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. DAY GRIDS      catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. DAY GRIDS      tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 13

   Contents:  Daytime final total  emission rates

   Format:  COMPOUND    columns 1-2   character data
            RATE        columns 3-10  hexadecimal  floating point data
            VARIANCE    columns 19-26 hexadecimal  floating point data


USER. Y4313. EMISSION. NIGHT GRIDS    catalogued

USER. Y6401. EMISSION. NIGHT GRIDS    tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 14

   Contents:  Nighttime final  total emission rates.

   Format:  the same as for the daytime total emission rates.
                                   96

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St. Petersburg
	study (Tape vol. CC1587)(continued).	


USER. Y6401. EMISSION. GRID. DAYTIME  tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 15

   Contents:  Daytime GRID emission rates.

   Format: GRID       columns 1-5    character data
           COMPOUND   columns 6-7    character data
           RATE       columns 8-23   E notation


USER. Y6401. EMISSION. GRID. NIGHTTIME    Tape VOL=SER=CC1587   file 16

   Contents:  Nighttime GRID emission rates

   Format:  the same as for the daytime GRID rates.


WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRFIX)           catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRFIX         Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 17

   Contents:  Program to correct original data for daytime and
              nighttime temperatures.

   The EMISSION DO card defines the data  set containing the original data.

   The DAY DD card defines the data set which will contain the daytime
     corrected original emission rates.

   The NIGHT DD card defines the data set which will contain the nighttime
     corrected original emission rates.


WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRMEANS)         catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRFIX         Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 18

   Contents:  Program to determine and print specie means.  Run once
              for day and once for night  data, making  the  appropriate
              changes in the following DD cards and the TITLE statement.

   The EMISSION DD card defines the data  set containing the corrected
      day or night data.

   The DAYMEAN DD defines the data set which will contain  the day or
      night specie means.
                                  98

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St.  Petersburg
    	study (Tape vol.  CC1587)(continued).	
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRASSN)          catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRASSN       Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 19

   Contents:  Program to generate ASSN emission rates.   Run once for
              day and once for night data.   Minor change in some DD
              cards are required for night data.

   The FT08F001  DD card defines ASSN factor data  sorted by species.
   The FT09F001  DD card defines day or night species mean emission
     rates.
   The FT10F001  DD card defines the data set which will contain the
     day or night ASSN emission rates.
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRDATA)          catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRDATA       Tape VOL=SER=CC1587        file 20

   Contents:  Program to print ASSN emission rates.

   The DAYASSN DD card defines the data set containing daytime ASSN
     emission rates.

   The NIGHTASSN DD card defines the data set containing  nighttime
     ASSN emission rates.
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRLUDA)          catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRLUDA       Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 21

   Contents:  Program to generate LUDA emission rates.   Run once for
              day and once for night data.   Determination for LUDA's
              22, 28, 43 are  built in.

   The FT08F001  DD card defines LUDA factor data sorted by ASSN-SPECIE.
   The FT09F001  DD card defines the data set which contains day or night
     ASSN emission rates.

   The FT10F001  DD card defines the data set which contains the day or
     night specie mean emission rates.

   The FT11F001  DD card defines the data set which will contain the day
     or night LUDA emission rates.  WYL. SS. RAK.  JOBS  (APRLUDA)
                                   99

-------
     Figure 6.3-a  List of files and programs for Tampa/St.  Petersburg
                   study (Tape vol. CC1587)(continued).	
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRDATAZ)        catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRDATAZ      Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 22

   Contents:  Program to print LUDA emission rates

   The DAYLUDA DD card defines the data set containing daytime LUDA
     emission rates.

   The NIGHTLUUA DD card defines the data set containing nighttime
     LUDA emission rates.
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRGRID)         catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRGRID       Tape VOL=SER=CC1587       file 23

   Contents:  Program to generate GRID and TOTAL emission rates.   Run
              once for day and once for night data.

   The FT08F001  DD card defines the data set which contains the GRID
      factor data.

   The FTU9F001  DD card defines the data set which will contain the
      day or night GRID emission rates.  The tape volume serial
      number will have to be supplied.  If operator attempts to
      write on CC1587, the label will  have to be changed so that
      previous data does not get destroyed.  Note also, the night
      label must be different from the day label.

   The FT11FOU1  Du card defines the data set which contains the day
      or night LUDA emission rates.

   The FT12F001  DU card defines the data set which will contain the day
      or night TOTAL emission rates.
WYL. SS. RAK. JOBS (APRDATAZ)         catalogued
USER. Y6401. EMISSION. APRDATAZ       Tape VOL=SER=CC1587      file 24

   Contents:  Program to print TOTAL emission rates.

   The DAYGRID DD card defines the data set containing daytime TOTAL
      emission rates.

   The NIGHTGRID DD card defines the data set containing nighttime
      TOTAL emission rates.
                                  100

-------
                             REFERENCES  CITED
Anderson, James R., Ernest E.  Hardy,  John  T.  Roach,  and  Richard E. Witmer,
A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for  Use  with Remote Sensor
Data, U.S.G.S.Professional Paper 964,  U.S.  Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1976.

Arnts, R. R., R. L. Seila, R.  L.  Kuntz,  F. L.  Mowry,  K.  R. Knoerr, and
A. C. Dudgeon.  "Measurements  of   -pine-ne  Fluxes  From a  Loblolly Pine
Forest.  Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference  on Sensing of Environ-
mental Pollutants, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington,  D.C.,  1978.

Auerbach, S. I., "The Deciduous Forest Biome  Programme in the United States
of America" in Productivity of Forest Ecosystems,  Proc.  Brussels Syrnp.,
1969, Unesco, Paris, 1971.

Barr, A. J., J. H. Goodnight,  J.  P. Sail,  J.  T. Helwig,  "A User's Guide to
SAS 76," SAS Institute Inc., P. 0. Box 10066,  Raleigh, NC, 27605, 1976.

Bayley, Suzanne, Appendices to A  Comparison of Energetics and Economic
Benefit Cost Analysis for the  Upper St.  Johns River,  Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida, Gainesville, 1976.

Bazilevich, N. I., L. Ye. Rodin,  and  N.  N. Rozov,  "Geographical Aspects of
Biological Productivity," in Papers of the Fifth  Congress of the Geograph-
ical Society, U.S.S.R., Leningrad, 1970.

Bernier, B. and C. H. Winget,  Forest  Soils and Forest Land Management, Proc.
of the Fourth North American Forest Soils  Conference at  Laval University,
1973, Les Presses de 1'Universite Laval, Quebec,  1975.

Carter, Michael R., Lawrence A. Burns, Thomas  R.  Cavinder, Kenneth R.
Dugger, Paul L. Fore, Delbert  B.  Hicks,  H. Lavon  Revel! s, Thomas W. Schmidt,
Ecosystems Analysis of the Big Cypress Swamp  and  Estuaries, U.S.E.P.A.,
Region IV, Atlanta, 1973.

Dudnik, E. E., SYMAP: User's Reference Manual  for Synagraphic Computer
Mapping, Report No. 71-1, Department  of  Agriculture,  University of Illinois
at Chicago Circle, Chicago, IL 60680.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,  Development of Regional Impact
Application, Dominion Tract, submitted to  Tampa Bay  Regional Planning Coun-
cil, St. Petersburg, 1974.
                                     101

-------
Environmental Science and Engineering,  Inc.,  Physical  and  Environmental
Profiles of the Tampa Bay Region,  Tampa  Bay  Regional  Planning Council,
St.  Petersburg, 1977.

Florida Agricultural  Statistics -  Vegetable Summary.   Published  by Florida
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service,  1222 Woodward St., Orlando, FL,
32803, 1977.

Gates, D. M., "Heat Transfer in Plants,"  Sci.  Am.  213:76-84, 1965.

Gates, D. M., L. E. Paplan,  Atlas  of Energy Budgets of Plant Leaves,
Academic Press, New York, 1971.

Koppen, W. P., and R. Geiger, Handbuch  der Kl imatologie, Vol., I, Part C,
"Das Geographische System der Klimat,"  1936.

Koziar, P. and B. Becker, "Review  and Analysis,  Part  VIII  The Issue of
Optimum Oxidant Control Strategy."  In:   International Conference on
Oxidants, 1976-Analysis of Evidence and  Viewpoints.   EPA-60013-77-120,
Nov. 1977.

Lieth, H., and R. H.  Whittaker, Primary  Productivity  of the Biosphere,
Springer-Verlag, New  York, 1975.

Lonneman, W. A., R. L. Seilla and  J. J.  Bufalini,  "Ambient Air Hydrocarbon
Concentrations in Florida."   E.S.&T., Vol. 12, No. 4,  April 1978.

Lugo, A. E. and S. C. Snedaker, "The Ecology  of  Mangroves,"  In:  Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol.  5, edited  by  R. F. Johnston, P. W.
Frank, and C. D. Michener.  Annual Reviews,  Inc.,  Palo Alto, Calif., 1974.

Metz, L. J. and C. G. Wells, "Weight and  Nutrient  Content  of the
Aboveground Parts of  Some Loblolly Pines," U.S.  Forest Service Research
Paper, S.E.-17, U.S.   Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville,
N.C., 1965.

Mitsch, William Joseph, Systems Analysis  of Nutrient  Disposal in Cypress
Wetlands and Lake Ecosystems in Florida,  doctoral  dissertation, University
of Florida, Gainesville, 1975.

Odum E. P., Fundamentals of  Ecology, W.  B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
1971.

Odum H. T. and M. T.  Brown,  eds.,  Carrying Capacity for Man and Nature in
South Florida, Vol. 3, Center for  Wetlands, University of  Florida, Gainesville,
WIT.

Odum, H. T. and K. C. Ewel,  Cypress Wetlands  for Water Management, Recycling
and Conservation, Third Annual  Report, Center  for  Wetlands, University of
Florida, Gainesville, 1976.

Ovington, J. D., "Quantitative  Ecology and the Woodland Ecosystem Concept"
in Advances in Ecological Research,  Vol.  I, by J.  B.  Cragg, Academic Press,
London and New York,  1962.

Pardue, Larry G., An  Ecological Survey of Shore  Hammock Vegetation in
Peninsular Florida, Masters  Thesis,  University of South Florida, Tampa, 1971.

                                    102

-------
Pool, D. J., L. Searl, W. M. Kemp, and H.  T.  Odum,  Forested  Wetland Ecosystems
of the Southern United States,  Center for  Wetlands,  University  of  Florida,
Gainesville, 1972.

Robinson, E., "Review and Analysis, Part V The  Issue of  Oxidant Transport."
In:  International Conference on Oxidants, 1976-Analysis of  Evidence and
Viewpoints.  EPA-600/3-77-117,  Nov. 1977.

Ripperton, L. A., J. J. B. Worth, F.  M.  Vukovich, and L.  E.  Decker,
"Studies of High ozone Concentrations in Non-Urban  Areas".   International
Conference on Photochemical  Oxidant Pollution and Its Control Proceedings.
EPA-600/3-77-001a, Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park
Institute, NC, 1977.

Rodin, L. E., Bazilevich, N. I.  "World Distribution  of Plant Biomass."  In:
Functioning of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the  Primary Production Level,
Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium, edited by  F. E.  Eckhardt.  Unesco,
Paris, 1965.

Sanadze, G. A. and A. N. Kalandadze,  "Light and Temperature  Curves of the
Evolution of CgHg, "Fiziologiya  Rastenii,  Vol.  13,  No. 3,  1966.

Sandberg, J. S., M. J. Basso, B. A. Okin,  "Winter Rain and Summer Ozone:
A Predictive Relationship,"  Science 200, 1051,  1978.

Satoo, T., "Primary Production Relations of Coniferous Forest in Japan" In:
Productivity of Forest Ecosystems, Proc. Brussels Symposium, 1969, Unesco,
Paris, 1971.

Spurr, S. H. and B. V. Barnes,  Forest. Ecology,  The  Ronald Press Company, New
York, 1973.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning  Council,  Tampa Bay  Region, General  Highway Base
Map, Mylar No. B-3, Prepared June 197T,  Revised March 1977,  TBRPC, St.
Petersburg, 1977.

Tingey, D. T., Ratsch, H. C., Manning, M., Grothaus, L.  C.,  Burns, W. F.,
Peterson, E. W. "Isoprene Emission Rates from Live  Oak."  U.S.  Environ.
Protec. Agency, Report EPA-904/9-73-004, May, 1978.

Tingey, D. T., Manning, M.,  Ratscr,, K. C., Burns, W. F., Grothaus, L. C.
Field, R. W. "Monoterpene Emission Rates from Slash  Pine."   U.S. Environ.
Protec. Agency, Report EPA-904/9-78-013, June,  1978.

Turrell, F. M., M. G. Garber, W. V,. Jones, W. C. Cooper, and R. H. Young,
"Growth Equations for Citrus Trees,"  Hildegardia, Vol. 39,  1969.

Went, F. W., "Blue Hazes in  the  Atmosphere,"  Nature, Aug.  20, 1960.

Westberg, H., "Review and Analysis, Part IV The Issue of Natural Organic
Emissions."  In:  International  Conference on Oxidants,  1976-Analysis of
Evidence and Viewpoints.  EPA-600/3-77-116, Oct., 1977.
                                     103

-------
Whittaker, R. H. and G.  M.  Woodwell,  "Structure,  Production  and  Diversity
of the Oak-Pine Forest at Brookhaven,  New York"  in  Journal  of Ecology,  57:
155-174, 1969.

Wilbur, R. M., Development of Regional  Impact  Application,  Borden  Mine  Tract,
Final Report submitted to Tampa Bay  Regional Planning Council, St.  Petersburg,
Florida, 1975.

Wunderlin, Richard P., Woody Plants  of the Tampa  Bay Area,  The Botanical
Laboratories, University of South Florida, Tampa, 1975.

Zimmerman, P. R., "Procedures for Conducting Hydrocarbon  Emission  Inventories
of Biogenic Sources and Some Results  of Recent Investigations."  IN:
Emission Inventory/Factor Workshop,  Volume 2,  EPA-AMTB and  APTI, September
13-15, 1977.

Zimmerman, P. R., R. B.  Chatfield, J.  Fishman, P. J. Crutzen and P.  L.
Hanst, "Estimating of the Production  of CO and H2 From the  Oxidation  of
Hydrocarbon Emissions From Vegetation," Journal of  Geophysical Research
Letters, Paper No. 8LO 549, 5:8, 1978.

Zimmerman, P. R., "Testing of Hydrocarbon Emission  From Vegetation and
Development of a Methodology for Estimating Emission Rates  From  Foliage,"
draft final report for contract number DU-77-C063 US Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
                                    104

-------
                                 APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTION
     This appendix contains the average emission rates for day and for  night
of each species/sample type used to compile the emission  inventory.   The
"compound" column lists the compounds for which emission  rates were  calcu-
lated.  "TNMHC" means total non-methane hydrocarbons;  "Parafins",  "Olefins",
"Aromatics" and "Methane" are classes of compounds as  described in Section
1.2.2.  Other compounds such as "a-Pinene" designate major peaks.  Some of
those include unknowns.  In these cases the peak identity (eg #21) is pre-
ceeded by UNK.  The column labeled "N" designates the  number  of samples.   In
some cases N is smaller for one compound than another. This  is due  to  analy-
tical problems which required the omission of a sample.   X" designates the
mean of the emission samples calculated as^x-j  + /2« . .  . +  x^/n.  SD  desig-
nates the standard deviation of the emission samples,  calculated as  the
square root of the variance.  N denotes the number of  samples used to calcu-
late the mean.
     The name of each species/sample type is shown above  its  set of  emission
rates followed by its scientific code and the units of measurement,  yg/g/hr
means micrograms emission per gram leaf biomass dry wt per hour.  The heading
    *2
yg/m /hr means micrograms emissions per square meter surface  per hour.
     Emission rates for row crops were collected in June  and  July  after har-
vest.  These emission rates therefore do not include fruit and may not  be
representative of actual  emissions during the growing  season.

                                     A-l

-------
     For "wet" categories such as  "grassy  mudflat  (Marine)  0"-2" water 901,"
the title designates an an area of salt  water where marine  grass occurred
that had a water depth of from 0"  to 2"  during  the time  that  the samples
were collected.  Similarly, category 905 designates samples collected over
an area where the bottom was sandy and the water depth was  greater  than five
feet.  Categories 901 to 931 designate salt water  areas, while 941-944 desig-
nate fresh water samples.  Category 950  is a sample collected while the tide
was out on an oyster bed.
                                    A-2

-------
                 APPENDIX A

Emission Rate Means by Species  Standardized
       to 30°C (day) and 25°C  (night)
  Day
Night
Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
P-Pinene
d-Limonene
A -Carene
N

3
3
3
3
3

18
18
18
18
18

16
16
16
16
15

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
X
Name:
1.344
0.429
0
0.917
-0.301
Name:
1.172
0.692
0
0.480
1.514
Name:
1.000
0.596
0.006
0.400
1.361
Name:
4.069
0.566
3.216
0.287
0.816
0.966
0.900
0.291
0.462
SD
N
Black Mangrove 001 (yg/g/h
0.426
0.082
0
0.475
0.225
White Mangrove 01
0.701
0.519
0
0.301
3.369
Red Mangrove 021
0.744
0.552
0.020
0.376
1.371
Slash Pine 101
3.884
0.608
3.536
0.312
0.952
1.008
1.648
0.432
0.976
3
3
3
3
X
r)
0.932
0.298
0
0.638
3 -0.301
SD

0.294
0.057
0
0.331
0.225
1 (yg/g/hr)
18
18
18
18
18
0.814
0.480
0
0.333
1.514
0.488
0.361
0
0.208
3.369
(yg/g/hr)
16
16
16
16

(yg/g/hr)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
0.695
0.414
0.004
0.278


2.824
0.393
2.235
0.200
0.816
0.670
0.625
0.202
0.301
0.516
0.384
0.016
0.252


2.696
0.424
2.456
0.216
0.952
0.700
1.144
0.300
0.676
                   A-3

-------
Compound
                Day
                            Night
SO
SD
Name: Longleaf Pine 102 (ng/g/hr)
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
d -Limonene
Myrcene
A-Carene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
^-Pinene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
29
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

1
1
1
1
1
1
7.265
0.802
5.894
0.384
0.321
2.416
2.871
0.087
0.001
0.176

13.558
1.516
11.650
0.386
1.575
4.783
6.188
Name
2.910
1.560
0.067
1.290
0.325
0.068
11.680
1.005
11.424
0.444
0.639
5.175
5.945
0.226
0.005
0.716
Name: Sand Pine 103
16.558
0.908
15.388
0.456
2.626
6.284
9.184
: Southern Red Pine
—
—
—
—
—
—
29
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
(ng/g/i
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5.048
0.557
4.091
0.266
0.321
1.679
1.993
0.060
0.001
0.122
ir)
9.428
1.052
8.088
0.268
1.575
3.315
4.302
8.121
0.698
7.921
0.307
0.693
3.597
4.125
0.156
0.003
4.971

11.518
0.628
10.684
0.316
2.626
4.354
6.388
104 (yg/g/hr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.020
1.090
0.047
0.894
0.325
0.047
—
—
—
—
—
__ _
                                    A-4

-------
Day
Night
Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a -Pinene
B -Pinene
d -Limonene
Myrcene
Unk Terp.
Unk #22
Unk #27
A^Carene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pi nene
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene
N

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

10
10
10
10
9
10
10

3
3
3
3
3
3
X

14.159
3.214
8.486
2.448
3.230
4.362
0.058
0.272
0.282
0.278
0.072
0.145
2.810

12.633
1.405
10.174
1.034
1.988
0.022
9.996

26.683
1.236
23.797
1.626
-1.427
23.713
SD
Name: Cypress 1
9.816
3.318
9.942
2.419
5.765
7.231
0.165
0.452
0.783
1.243
0.322
0.648
4.571
Name: Laurel Oak
13.753
1.940
10.705
1.224
1.563
0.071
10.120
Name: Water Oak
22.680
0.667
20.134
2.138
14.903
19.913
N
12 (yg/g/hr)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
X

9.838
2.232
5.902
1.701
3.230
3.032
0.040
0.189
0.196
0.193
0.050
0.100
1.949
SD

6.816
2.303
6.923
1.677
5.765
5.018
0.116
0.313
0.541
0.863
0.224
0.447
3.180
201 (vg/g/hr)
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
1.609
0.872
0.111
0.622
1.703
0.013
0
2.562
1.244
0.704
0.800
1.547
0.045
0
202 (yg/g/hr)
3
3
3
3
2.054
0.857
0.061
1.129
3 -1.427
3
0
1.991
0.461
0.162
1.485
14.903
0
                    A-5

-------
                       Night
Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a -Pinene
3 -Pinene
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
« -Pinene
3 -Pinene
Isoprene
Unk #29

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene
N

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18

7
7
7
7
5
7
X

26.500
1.215
24.213
1.040
1.095
0.373
0.152
23.434

10.789
0.695
9.440
0.654
0.998
0.054
0.061
9.083
0.081

56.411
6.862
44.193
5.317
0.737
43.909
SD
Name: Turkey (
19.104
1.258
17.572
1.178
1.925
0.649
0.266
17.418
Name: Live f
7.701
0.603
7.413
0.595
2.931
0.209
0.229
7.662
0.187
Name: Bluejacfc
56.749
6.855
45.113
6.133
2.850
44. M3
            21
            21
            21
            21
            21
            21
            21
            21
            21
N
hr)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
hr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/ .- u ,
/g ni
7
7
7
7
5
7
X

2.126
0.844
0.550
0.722
1.095
0.258
0.106
0

1.362
0.439
0.505
0.419
0.824
0.140
0.175
0
0.048
*\
r )
8.659
4.767
0.170
3.69b
0.737
0
SD

2.602
0.873
1.030
0.818
1.925
0.449
0.185
0

1.379
0.408
1.406
0.393
2.738
0.506
0.642
0
0.121
8.482
4.766
0.208
4.272
2.850
0
A-6

-------
                Day
                                      Night
Compound
X
SO
SD
Name: Myrtle Oak 207 (yg/g/hr)
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Isoprene
Unk #18
Unk #20
Unk #22
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

35
35
35
35
32
35
35
35
35
35
17.200
1.310
14.800
1.080
3.060
14.60

32.600
1.010
31.000
0.624
7.120
31.000

11.547
1.300
8.667
1.590
2.323
-0.006
8.595
0.014
0.007
0.308
—
—
—
—
—
	
Name: Willow Oak 208
—
—
—
—
—
—
Name: Saw Palmetto 301
17.932
2.121
14.447
2.581
4.264
0.037
14.349
0.081
0.039
1.289
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.800
0.912
0.120
0.750
3.060
0
—
—
—
—
—
0
(yg/g/hr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.120
0.704
0
0.433
7.120
0
—
—
0
—
—
0
(yg/g/hr)
36
36
36
36
33
36
36
36
36
36
Name: Sabal Palmetto 311
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene
12
11
11
11
12
12
7.452
1.266
4.916
0.786
0.641
4.470
3.977
2.941
2.542
1.330
1.259
2.842
14
13
13
13
14
14
2.040
0.888
0.048
1.101
2.258
-0.004
0
0.009
0.004
0.208
(yg/g/hr)
1.861
0.803
0.023
0.498
0.552
0
2.142
1.449
0.131
1.771
4.213
0.027
0
0.055
0.027
0.884

3.289
1.864
0.064
0.851
1.180
0
                                     A-7

-------
Day
Night
Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
«-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Unk #21
Unk #22
Unk #23
Unk #27
Unk #28
A3-Carene
Unk #26-A
Unk #29-A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
N

9
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

5
5
5
5
5

2
2
2
2
0
2
X

7.477
0.754
6.287
0.426
2.060
0.635
0.294
0.047
0.007
0.010
0.224
0.119
0.254
0.109
0.133
3.707

4.800
2.790
-0.032
2.039
6.352

2.540
0.564
1.700
0.276
—
1.131
SD
Name: Wax Myrtle 401
5.395
0.555
4.816
0.525
4.278
0.517
0.883
0.142
0.020
0.029
0.673
0.317
0.363
0.294
0.338
3.984
Name: Elderberry 411
3.062
1.243
0.072
2.000
11.619
Name: Groundsel Bush
1.414
0.352
0.792
0.271
—
0.564
N
X
SD
(yg/g/hr)
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5.191
0.523
4.371
0.296
2.060
0,441
0.204
0,033
0.005
0
0.157
0.082
0.176
0.076
0.092
0.257
3.745
0.385
3.350
0.364
4.278
0.359
0.613
0.099
0.014
0
0.470
0.220
0.252
0.204
0.234
2.760
(yg/g/hr)
5
5
5
5
5
431
2
2
2
2
0
2
3*332
1..936
-0.022
1.416
6. ,352
(yg/g/hr)
1.765
0..392
1.180
0.191
—
0.789
2.125
0.864
0.049
1.387
11.619

0.983
0.245
0.552
0.188
—
0.397
                    A-8

-------

Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Arotnatics
Methane
a -Pinene
3 -Pinene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
Unk #29-A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Day
N

17
17
17
17
17
17
17

3
3
3
3
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
2
Night


2.
1.
-0.
1.
0.
-0.
0.

2.
1.

1.
0.

2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

8.
4.
1.
2.
-2.
X
Name:
892
702
025
217
076
036
003
Name:
750
477
0
278
804
Name:
003
457
180
369
066
304
195
575
Name:
230
911
163
167
200

SD
N

X
SD
Persimmon 441 (pg/g/hr)
2
1
0
0
1
0
0

1
0

0
0

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

5
3
2
0
1
.065
.414
.180
.895
.001
.161
.011
Dahoon Holly
.401
.768
0
.748
.057
Red Bay 461
.976
.179
.669
.131
.334
.429
.275
.813
Red Mulberry
.148
.900
.164
.598
.414
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
2
1
-0
0
0
-0
0
.007
.182
.018
.846
.076
.025
.002
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
.435
.982
.126
.621
.001
.112
.008
451 (yg/g/hr)
3
3
3
3
2
(ug/g/hr)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1

0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.911
.024
0
.886
.804

.391
.317
.820
.256
.066
.211
.135
.400
0
0

0
0

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.968
.531
0
.518
.057

.371
.124
.160
.091
.334
.298
.191
.564
471 (yg/g/hr)
3
3
3
3
2
5
3
0
1
-2
.730
.413
.807
.507
.200
3
2
1
0
1
.588
.709
.502
.417
.414
A-9

-------
                                                     Night
Compound
SD
SD

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a -Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Unk #21

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Unk #21-A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
0
1
1
Name
5.850
0.576
4.707
0.570
2.295
3.762
0.414
0.201
0.093
0.180
Name
2.680
1.340
0.214
1.120
-0.100
0.221
Name
20.000
6.940
0
13.200
1.450
: Sweet Acacia 481 (yg/g/hr)
3.702
0.252
3.421
0.313
5.502
2.781
0.391
0.182
0.161
0.312
: Viburnum
—
—
—
—
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
491 (yg/g/hr)
1
1
1
1
4.063
0.400
3.271
0.396
2.295
2.614
0.288
0.140
0.064
0.125

1.860
0.930
0.149
0.781
2.568
0.174
2.375
0.217
5.502
1.931
0.271
0.126
0.111
0.217

—
—
—
—
1 -0.100
—
: Oleander
1
492 (g/g/hr)
0.154

—

1 13.900
—
—
—
—
1
0
1
1
4.820
0
9.160
1.450
—
—
—
___
                                 A-10

-------
Compound
                Day
SO
                         Night
SD
Name: Oranges 501
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
d-Limonene
Unk #21
Unk #22
Unk #24
29
29
29
29
26
29
29
29
29
9.334
1.857
5.540
1.949
6.407
0.187
0.044
0.404
5.065
15.442
2.094
13.981
1.744
12.151
0.572
0.178
0.857
13.217
Name: Grapefruit
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Unk #16
Unk #21
Unk #24
Unk #25
Unk #26
A3-Carene
16
16
16
16
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
4.274
2.077
0.628
1.568
7.238
0.475
0.068
0.014
0.005
0.378
0.096
0.003
3.680
2.047
1.603
1.464
10.010
1.262
0.270
0.055
0.022
1.513
0.383
0.012
Name: Australian
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.200
0.599
9.380
0.162
0.579
9.260
	
	
	
	
—
	
(yg/g/hr)
29
29
29
29
26
29
29
29
29
6.484
1.288
3.848
1.353
6.407
0.130
0.030
0.281
3.517
10.722
1.451
9.711
1.211
12.151
0.397
0.123
0.595
9.178
511 (yg/g/hr)
16
16
16
16
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Pine 601
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.963
1.442
0.437
1.089
7.238
0.330
0.047
0.010
0.004
0.263
0.066
0.002
(yg/g/hr)
0.625
0.416
0.083
0.113
0.579
0
2.544
1.420
1.113
1.017
10.010
0.877
0.188
0.038
0.015
1.050
0.265
0.099

—
—
—
	
—
	
                                 A-ll

-------
Day
Niqht
Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk Terp.
Unk #21
A3-Carene
Unk #26-A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
N

17
17
17
17
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18

1
1
1
1
1
X
Name
60.852
3.046
54.908
3.423
-0.082
-1.366
-0.377
1.219
8.463
2.461
-1.889
22.189
4.290
3.283
Name
3.920
1.960
0
1.960
0.016
SD
: Sweetgum
99.553
3.549
95.292
4.791
1.040
31.837
2.423
2.427
10.237
10.442
8.014
81.165
13.408
15.438
: American
—
—
—
—
—
Name: Carolina
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
1
1
1
1
1
0.546
0.173
0
0.374
2.590
—
—
—
—
—
N
611 (yg/g
17
17
17
17
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Elm 621 (
1
1
1
1
1
Ash 631 (
1
1
1
1
1
X
hr)
35.822
2.116
31.812
2.372
-0,082
-0,,934
-0.262
0..847
0
1 .711
-1.278
14.933
2.978
2.278
yg/g hr)
2.720
1.360
0
1 .360
0.016
ijg/g fir)
0.379
0.120
0
0.260
2.590
SD

69.175
2.472
65.481
3.323
1.040
22.062
1.682
1.686
0
7.260
5.421
57.500
9.318
10.704

—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
                 A-12

-------
Day
Night
Compound
N

I

Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Unk #21
A3-Carene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
d-Limonene
Unk #22
A3-Carene
7
7
7
7
7
8

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
22
4
14
3
4
12

6
0
3
2
2
0
2
0

3
1
-0
2
9
-0
-0
0
0
0
.143
.776
.326
.056
.801
.399
Name
.457
.883
.473
.104
.998
.033
.267
.458
Name
.188
.548
.375
.015
.346
.575
.078
.255
.112
.640
12
5
9
2
6
10
•
4
0
3
1
3
0
2
0
*•
2
1
0
1
18
1
0
0
0
0
SO
N

I
SD
Willow 641 (yg/g/hr)
.440
.601
.727
.808
.015
,338
Red Map!
.097
.800
.542
.533
.197
.100
.774
.911
Hickory
.142
.407
.750
.040
.843
.150
.155
.510
.137
.128
8
8
8
8
8
9
4
2
0
1
4

.944
.911
.096
.938
.076
0
5
3
0
1
5

.484
.766
.132
.882
.934
0
e 651 (yg/g/hr)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
671 (ug/g/hr)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
2
1
2
0
1
0

2
1
-0
1
9
-0
-0
0
0
0
.486
.613
.411
.461
.998
.023
.574
.317

.213
.074
.250
.398
.346
.400
.055
.177
.078
.045
2
0
2
1
3
0
1
0

1
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
.848
.556
.600
.065
.197
.069
.927
.631

.486
.974
.500
.721
.843
.800
.110
.354
.095
.089
                 A-13

-------

Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Oleflns
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-Limonene
Unk Terp.
Unk #24
A3-Carene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
^-Carene

N

24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Day
X
Name
190.050
75.254
71.671
43.154
292.450
56.198
8.674
0.104
1.008
2.246
1.649
Name
53.650
24.875
0
28.775
147.000
Name
163.250
68.525
19.000
75.800
207.425
3.215
10.625

SD
: Mixed Grass
237.128
49.203
212.237
34.335
205.674
161.256
30.250
5.993
4.940
11.002
5.145
: Bahia 701 (
9.863
7.999
0
13.470
61.395
: Bermuda 711
40.302
45.856
41.608
34.466
261.388
6.250
21.250

N
Night
X"

SD
700 (yg/m2/hr)
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
yg/m2/hr)
4
4
4
4
4
190.050
75.254
71.671
43.154
292.450
56.198
8.674
0.104
1.008
2.246
1.649

53.650
24.875
0
28.775
147.000
237.128
49.203
212.237
34.335
205.674
161.256
30.250
5.993
4.940
1 1 .002
5.145

9.863
7.999
0
13.470
61.395
(yg/m2/hr)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
163.250
68.525
19.000
75.800
207.425
3.215
10.625
40.302
45.856
41.608
34.466
261.388
6.250
21.250
A-14

-------

Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
o-Pinene
B-Pinene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
o-Pinene
B-P i nene

N

3
3
3
3
3

59
59
59
59
59
59
59

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Day
X"
Name
153.00
97.467
11.573
44.400
150.633
Name
144.336
79.490
13.190
51.678
280.831
10.050
2.448
Name
391.717
70.383
292.500
28.505
313.200
242.333
39.167

SD
: Clover 721 (y
14.107
11.707
5.368
6.636
66.821
: Pensicola 731
91.039
47.513
65.896
23.986
175.591
58.437
10.314
: Sawgrass 741
476.865
18.578
456.430
11.720
215.211
378.023
61.568

N
Night
X"

SD
g/m2/hr)
3
3
3
3
3
(yg/m
59
59
59
59
59
59
59
(pg/m2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
153.00
97.467
11.573
44.400
150.633
2/hr)
144.336
79.490
13.190
51.678
280.831
10.050
2.448
/hr)
391.717
70.383
292.500
28.505
313.200
242.333
39.167
14.107
11.707
5.368
6.636
66.821

91.039
47.513
65.896
23.986
175.591
58.437
10.314

476.865
18.578
456.430
11.720
215.211
378.023
61.568
A-15

-------

Compound

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Unk #21
Unk #23
^ -Carene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Isoprene

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

N

6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7

2
2
2
2
2

10
10
10
10
8
10

6
6
6
6
6
Day
X"
Name:
48.083
7.555
31.355
9.278
4.127
15.301
0.129
5.543
1.207
3.930
Name:
419.000
360.55
0
58.350
174.000
Name:
1565.100
296.700
1172.800
95.420
669.880
1184.100
Name:
9.847
5.593
0
4.250
0.849

SD
Tomatoes
24.619
5.648
19.473
13.152
15.142
11.865
0.341
4.445
1.121
2.820

N
Night
jf

SD
801 (yg/g/hr)
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Strawberries 811 (
420.021
406.516
0
13.647
83.439
Beans 821
1053.640
220.010
850.750
44.720
36.470
835.440
Okra 841
11.495
6.664
0
4.979
2.427
2
2
2
2
2
(yg/m2/h
10
10
10
10
8
10
(ug/g/hr)
6
6
6
6
6
33.400
5.243
21.745
6.443
4.127
10.636
0.900
3.850
0.840
2.728
yg/m2/hr)
290.800
250.400
0
40.550
174.000
r)
264.390
205.970
-8.690
66.300
669.875
0

6.840
3.886
0
2.953
0.849
17.081
3.910
13.508
9., 133
15.141
8.,247
0.2370
3.087
0..7793
1 ., 960

291.611
282.277
0
9, .405
83.439

182.476
152..631
23.668
31, .083
36 ,.471
0

7, .979
4,630
0
3.463
2, .427
A-16

-------

Compound
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

N
Day
X" SD
Grassy Mudflat (Marine) 0"
7
7
7
7
7
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
11
11
11
11
11
Name
4
4
4
4
4
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
10
10
10
10
10

15
15
15
15
15
206.371 250.511
148.443 208.617
0 0
57.943 44.785
352.429 178.100
Grassy Mudflat (2"-12"
77.927 39.459
36.855 13.310
0 0
41.091 29.167
186.200 107.170
: Grassy Mudflat (12"-2
79.300 39.125
45.050 22.000
0 0
34.325 18.421
143.250 18.283
Grassy Mudflat (2'-5l)
123.650 57.479
69.130 46.001
0 0
54.610 22.180
201.110 225.747
Name: Sandy Bottom (>5'
89.540 50.143
50.153 33.033
0 0
39.329 21.175
281.200 284.621
Night
NX" SD
-2" Water 901 ( yg/m2/hr)
7 206.371 250.511
7 148.443 208.617
70 0
7 57.943 44.785
7 352.429 178.100
) 902 (yg/m2/hr)
11 77.927 39.459
11 36.855 13.310
110 0
11 41.091 29.167
11 186.200 107.170
') 903 (yg/m2/hr)
4 79.300 39.125
4 45.050 22.000
40 0
4 34.325 18.421
4 143.250 18.283
904 (yg/m2/hr)
10 123.650 57.479
10 69.130 46.001
10 0 0
10 54.610 22.180
10 201.110 225.747
) 905 (yg/m2/hr)
15 89.540 50.143
15 50.153 33.033
15 0 0
15 39.329 21.175
15 281.200 284.621
A-17

-------

Compound

N
Day
X"

SD

N
Night
X"

SD
Name: Decaying Marine Algae 911 (yg/nr/hr)
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Myrcene
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Terpinolene 2
209.500
50.800
127.500
31.400
433.000
32.650
31.000
31.000
126.572
29.557
180.312
23.193
69.296
46.174
43.841
43.841
Name: Decaying Marine Grass
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
5
5
5
5
4
Name
11
11
11
11
10
Name
1
1
1
1
1
87.200
54.520
0
32.720
375.750
: Decaying
96.100
49.700
0
46.373
380.300
: Mudflat
215.000
119.000
0
96.900
80.800
20.027
19.467
0
12.138
136.170
Mixed Vegetation
15.056
5.721
0
10.655
72.605
No Grass 0-2" H20
—
—
—
—
—
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
912 i
5
5
5
5
4
913 I
11
11
11
11
10
921
1
1
1
1
1
209.500
50.800
127.500
31 .400
433.000
32.650
31.000
31.000
(yg/m2/hr)
87.200
54.520
0
32.720
375.750
[yg/m2/hr)
96.100
49.700
0
46.373
380.300
(yg/m2/hr)
215.000
119.000
0
96.900
80.800
126.572
29.557
180.312
23.193
69.296
46.174
43.841
43.841

20.027
19.467
0
12.138
136.170

49.935
18.973
0
35.338
229.598

—
—
—
—
___
A-18

-------

Compound

N
Day
Y

SD
Name: Mudflat 2"-12"
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
4
4
4
4
4
85.575
43.050
0
42.500
151.475
11.481
10.573
0
6.472
58.066
Name: Mudflat 12"-2
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
2
2
2
2
2
105.550
66.250
0
39.300
124.750
812.470
56.215
0
25.032
59.751
Name: Mudflat 2 '-5'
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Unk #10-A
Unk #22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
136.582
79.746
0
56.900
271.973
1.339
0.373
125.379
72.120
0
55.955
219.996
6.422
1.787
Name: Mudflat >5'
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Unk #10-A
Unk #22
Unk #23
Unk #24
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
149.423
79.179
0
70.279
305.417
4.063
1.412
0.005
0.444
141.883
73.237
0
75.114
247.450
28.146
9.786
0.032
3.074

N
922 (yg/m2/hr)
4
4
4
4
4
Night
X

85.575
43.050
0
42.500
151.475

SD

11.481
10.573
0
6.472
58.066
1 923 (yg/m2/hr)
2
2
2
2
2
924 (yg/m2/hr)
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
925 (ng/m2/hr)
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
105.550
66.250
0
39.300
124.750

136.582
79.746
0
56.900
271.973
1.339
0.373

149.423
79.179
0
70.279
305.417
4.063
1.412
0.005
0.444
812.470
56.215
0
25.032
59.751

125.379
72.120
0
55.955
219.996
6.422
1.787

141.883
73.237
0
75.114
247.450
28.146
9.786
0.032
3.074
A-19

-------

Compound
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Unk. #17
Unk. #18

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane

N
1
1
1
1
1
Name
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
Name
3
3
3
3
3
Name
2
2
2
2
2
Day
X"
Night
SD
N
X
SD
Name: Sandy Beach 931 (pg/m2/hr)
349.000 — 1 349.000
157.000 — 1 157.000
0 — - 10
192.000 — 1 192.000
380.000 — 1 380.000
: Fresh
74.670
49.870
0
24.820
2940.330
-0.650
1.850
Fresh
120.100
48.530
0
71.430
1432.330
: Fresh
69.650
26.850
0
42.800
1792.500
H20 Marsh (o"-2") 941 (yg/m2/hr)
23.900
23.860
0
1.310
2456.340
1.300
3.690
Water Marsh
44.950
14.180
0
44.440
1811.420
Water Marsh
8.410
15.490
0
7.070
1269.260
4
4
4
4
3


(>12") 942
3
3
3
3
3
(hyacinth)
2
2
2
2
2
74.670
49.870
0
24.820
2940.330
-0.650
1.850
(yg/m2/hr)
120.100
48.530
0
71.430
1432.330
943 (yg/m2
69.650
26.850
0
42.800
1792.500
23.900
23.860
0
1.310
2456.340
1.300
3.690

44.950
14.180
0
44.440
1811.420
/hr)
8.410
15.490
0
7.070
1269.260
A-20

-------
                 Day
                                          Night
Compound    N
                   SD
                                               SD
        Name:  Fresh Water Marsh (Waterlilly) 944 (yg/m2/hr)
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
2
2
2
2
2
  164.000
   94.600
     0
   69.500
36950.000
   15.600
   14.600
     0
    0.800
29769.200
2
2
2
2
2
  164.000
   94.600
     0
   69.500
36950.000
   15.600
   14.600
     0
    0.800
29769.200
                  Name:  Oyster Beds 950 (yg/m2/hr)
       50.400
       32.800
          0
       17.600
      323.000
                                   50.400
                                   32.800
                                      0
                                   17.600
                                  323.000
                                A-21

-------
                                 APPENDIX B


INTRODUCTION
                                                                      o
     This appendix contains the emission factors (ER) and variances (Sc)  for

each vegetation association during a 30°C day and a 25°C night.   S2 was

calculated by multiplying the variance of each species/sample type times  the

square of its association multiplication factor and summing these for each

association.  This procedure carries the implicit assumption that the mean

emission rates in Appendix A are independently related.

     Since a change in one species/sample type emission rate value in Appendix

A will not affect the emission rates of any of the other species/sample  types,

this assumption seems valid.  The "name11 designates the computer letter  code

and the association type.  All emission factors are in micrograms per meter
                                     iy
squared ground surface per hour (,pg/nr/hr).

-------
                               APPENDIX B
                                                      O
                   Association Emission Factors  (yg/nr/hr)
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
        Name:  Assn. B Pine
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Link. Terpenes
21A
18
20
22
24
A3-Carene
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
16
21
22
24
25
26
A3-Carene
4289.950
602.553
3276.390
372.757
821.851
857.510
877.476
113.827
946.987
0.158
1.008
7.322
0.452
0.217
10.188
2.246
189.733
Assn. C
5974.090
1317.130
3352.490
1311.640
4505.220
48.626
2.780
111.528
0.750
0.252
4.444
26.808
239.299
3001.780
24.890
6.295
3.269
8287360.0
104704.0
7303520.0
33513.0
190969.0
1196080.0
1694520.0
22492.5
675435.0
0.720
24.4
0.0
7.165
1.644
1824.2
121.1
124492.0
Citrus
83781200.0
1558510.0
68638800.0
63.838
52289100.0
8745.0
63.838
114893.0
2.250
1.525
315.9
11151.0
257860.0
61323300.0
9915.2
634.0
30.530
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Assn. A Mangrove
765.266 150551.0
439.131 83182.7
3.109 118.9
323.738 38429.5
1017.190 600835.0

561.323
321.487
2.180
238.036
1017.190

73002.6
40567.2
57.4
18563.0
600835.0
                                                 2364.540
                                                  434.125
                                                 1638.970
                                                  265.746
                                                  810.816
                                                  612.619
                                                  611.880
                                                   79.075
                                                    0.000
                                                    0.110
                                                    1.008
                                                    5.102
                                                    0.306
                                                    0.146
                                                    6.881
                                                    2.246
                                                  132.201
                                                 4199.180
                                                  938.209
                                                  233.742
                                                  927.057
                                                 4505.220
                                                   39.061
                                                    2.780
                                                   77.638
                                                    0.750
                                                    0.252
                                                    3.091
                                                   18.629
                                                  166.247
                                                 2084.520
                                                   17.280
                                                    4.361
                                                    3.207
                                             3499180.0
                                               50472.7
                                             3188770.0
                                              166333.2
                                              190278.0
                                              590904.0
                                              817258.0
                                               10847.7
                                                   0.0
                                                   0.349
                                                  24.4
                                                   0.0
                                                   3.361
                                                   0.771
                                                 856.8
                                                 121.1
                                               60042.5
                                            40399500.0
                                              748416.0
                                            33109700.0
                                              519264.0
                                            52289100.0
                                                5168.5
                                                  63.8
                                               55394.7
                                                   2.250
                                                   1.525
                                                 152.8
                                                5348.9
                                              124261.0
                                            29570000.0
                                                4775.6
                                                 304.3
                                                  30.2
                                     B-2

-------
                                                     • 1
                   Association  Emission  Factors   (yg/m/hr)
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
17
18
21
22
23
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
17
18
21
22
23
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Assn. D Oak,
6807.000
993.542
5018.710
801.235
1341.940
1043.900
36.196
94.761
1385.170
137.484
-7.315
-0.065
0.185
772.050
14.364
1.486
29.484
1.681
708.361
109.550
25.392
Assn. E Oak,
4436.090
656.341
3250.500
532.140
1089.060
727.460
37.026
58.308
858.588
84.318
-4.486
-0.065
0.185
496.530
8.849
1.822
18.565
2.062
439.521
67.728
30.623
Gum, Cypress
15479100.0
464183.0
14504500.0
265039.0
1671330.0
3289920.0
10634.7
14562.2
593605.0
143666.0
131337.0
0.017
0.136
7219980.0
4090.2
19.870
16475.4
5.763
1021560.0
2610890.0
701.3
Gum, Cypress
22368.0
175404.0
5566120.0
100605.0
693824.0
1309660.0
5954.3
5478.2
223638.0
54037.0
49399.6
0.017
0.136
2718010.0
1538.5
29.9
62G1.8
8.670
384498.0
98208.4
1048.6
(Domes)
3817.460
701.483
2561.450
560.589
1326.060
792.606
35.908
65.819
0.000
95.460
-3.972
-0.065
0.185
520.262
9.945
1.037
20.406
1.167
491.185
76.014
17.552
(Drained)
2558.580
470.771
1714.980
375.322
1079.140
572.453
36.484
40.500
0.000
58.545
-2.436
-0.065
0.185
335.068
6.127
1.272
12.849
1.432
304.762
46.994
21.207

7280810.0
223343.0
6758540.0
127612.0
1670900.0
1641350.0
6716.5
7019.8
0.0
69381.8
61584.2
0.017
0.136
3623100.0
1960.3
9.681
7890.5
2.782
493595.0
125559.0
336.4

2857170.0
84457.7
2649760.0
48471.1
693653.0
689577.0
4460.6
2640.8
0.0
26096.5
23163.6
0.017
0.136
1363900.0
737.3
14.6
2970.2
4.186
185780.0
47229.0
503.4

-------
                   Association Emission  Factors   (yg/mc/hr)
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER

26A
29A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-L imonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Name: Assn.
1.112
30.916
Name: Assn.
7840.610
884.093
6134.830
827.685
1514.730
177.712
75.448
64.132
3822.670
77.386
Unk. Terpenes -55.652
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A

TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-L imonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
905.165
1.883
1.380
1.572
1.619
1.561
0.497
230.902
101.740
26.598
Name: Assn.
1983.460
487.518
1170.920
324.857
724.839
87.072
39.497
4.581
661.230
0.003
Unk. Terpenes 0.706
21
22
23
24
27
0.334
0.499
1.144
1.572
6.059
G Xeric Oak (cont'd)
7.936
1103.8
H Hydric Oak
29779300.0
423365.0
21004600.0
205562.0
454815.0
992150.0
21159.0
6642.2
10992600.0
103022.0
60754.9
6299780.0
6.785
17.149
59.339
19.592
4.974
1.322
183916.0
225185.0
625.8
I Representative Shrubs
454221.0
74267.0
290744.0
21731.4
202707.0
13976.4
3147.7
77.6
232071.0
0.0003
11.956
1.006
2.238
1179.3
59.3
261.1

0.771
21.450

2766.440
599.801
1623.350
553.785
1415.780
157.866
58.636
44.561
0.000
53.798
-37.393
613.810
1.308
0.964
1.572
1.122
1.084
0.296
160.513
70.594
18.437

881.610
337.796
314.846
228.701
689.748
73.517
30.598
3.204
0.000
0.002
0.706
0.232
0.346
7.992
1.572
4.204

3.802
530.0

5389160.0
176145.0
4239210.0
90707.4
449422.0
489501.0
10620.9
3212.3
0.0
49809.0
27812.1
3159910.0
3.261
8.355
59.3
9.393
2.401
0.557
88775.7
108293.0
300.5

136414.0
34446.4
52772.5
10227.4
200567.0
13360.6
1788.3
46.5
0.0
0.0001
11.956
0.486
1.075
574.6
59.3
125.8
                                    B-4

-------
                   Association Emission Factors  (yg/nr/hr)
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name: Assn. I Representative Shrubs (cont'd)
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
12.949
0.808
10.180
6.803
193.329
342.0
3.496
279.8
296.8
41319.6
8.991
0.480
7.421
4.714
133.986
165.1
1.472
141.8
142.2
19838.0
          Name:   Assn. J  Palmetto
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Unk. Terpenes
18
20
22
24
A3-Carene
5387.500
660.250
3971.820
758.649
1337.750
53.371
8.674
0.104
3867.750
1.008
6.147
2.944
138.375
2.246
1.649
65180200.0
913063.0
42489000.0
1350030.0
3723750.0
26280.1
915.0
35.9
41694700.0
24.4
1321.9
303.3
336555.0
121.1
26.5
          Name:  Assn. K  Improved Pasture
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
24
& -Carene
159.505
73.426
37.952
48.208
251.000
28.190
4.795
0.300
0.202
0.449
1.392
4515.2
570.9
3219.2
178.1
8816.4
2091.6
67.6
0.360
0.976
4.844
5.575
          Name:  Assn. L  Unimproved Pasture
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
207.605
70.100
94.549
42.962
265.270
75.068
20583.2
548.3
17513.4
263.8
11458.9
11015.6
1108.000
475.075
93.207
538.600
1308.500
54.200
8.674
0.104
0.000
1.008
4.150
1.988
93.465
2.246
1.649
2055920.0
427671.0
48514.9
636016.0
3636670.0
26144.0
915.0
35.9
0.0
24.4
620.0
142.2
158071.0
121.1
26.5
                                                  159.505
                                                   73.426
                                                   37.952
                                                   48.208
                                                  251.000
                                                   28.190
                                                    4.795
                                                    0.300
                                                    0.202
                                                    0.449
                                                    1.392
                                                  207.605
                                                   70.100
                                                   94.549
                                                   42.962
                                                  265.270
                                                   75.068
                                                    .4
                                                    .6
               4515.2
                570.9
               3219.2
                178.1
               8816.
               2091
                 67.6
                  0.360
                  0.976
                  4.844
                  5.575
                                               20583.2
                                                 548.3
                                               17513.4
                                                 263.8
                                               11458.9
                                               11015.6
                                    B-5

-------
                                                      o
                   Association Emission Factors   (yg/m /hr)
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER

a-Pinene
3-Limonene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
24
A3-Carene
Name: Assn.
11.982
0.283
0.300
0.454
1.011
1.804
L Unimproved Pasture (cont'd)
338.0
7.495
0.360
4.941
24.5
9.876
11.982
0.283
0.300
0.454
1.011
1.804
338.0
7.495
0.360
4.941
24.5
9.876
               Name:   Assn.  M  Crops
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
21
23
A3-Carene
828.956
192.063
543.474
93.871
272.418
64.872
414.400
0.547
23.502
5.118
16.663
150347.0
8731.4
95482.5
3678.3
4431.1
2531.2
85504.9
2.1
355.2
22.6
143.0
                                                  287.860
                                                  133.360
                                                   89.136
                                                   65.209
                                                  272.418
                                                   45.114
                                                    0.000
                                                    0.380
                                                   16.324
                                                    3.560
                                                   11.567
                                               11004.3
                                                4203.8
                                                3349.5
                                                1774.3
                                                4431.1
                                                1223.8
                                                   0.0
                                                   1.0
                                                 171.3
                                                  10.9
                                                  69.1
                                    B-6

-------
                                 APPENDIX C


LUDA EMISSION FACTORS

     This appendix contains the day and night LUDA emission  factors  in

yg/nr/hr.  LUDA (Land Use and Land Cover Data Analysis System) map iden-

tification codes and their general designations  are given  in the  headings.
                    o
     The variance (SM was calculated for each LUDA category from the

variance for each species times the square of the  multiplication  factor

summed for all species in each LUDA category, plus the variance for  each  asso-

ciation times the square of the association  percent in each  LUDA  category,

summed for all associations in the LUDA category.   Symbolically,  this appears

as:
                    2222             22       22
        S^ LUDA = [S-,^) + S2(f2)	+ sn(fn)]  =  [Sa(fn)  +
                                22     22
                               sb(fb) +sn(fn)l

        2  2
where: S-i(f-i) represents species variance times  its squared  multiplication  factor.
 22
Sa(fa) represents the association variance times its squared multiplication factor.

This calculation procedure assumes that all  values are independent.  However,

it is recognized that since many associations share some  species, the variances

show a slight   positive correlation.  The correlation coefficients  vary  between

each association depending upon the number of species shared,  the predominance

of the shared species in each association, and the predominance of each

association in each LUDA category.  The detailed statistical  analysis and
                                      C-l

-------
computer programming that would be required to evaluate the LUDA variances



more accurately were beyond the scope of this project.



     It should also be noted that the variances reported here can only be



considered as rough estimates of the variance associated with the samples



involved in the LUUA emission estimates.  However, uncertainties in emission



rate algorithms, temperature regimes, annual  emission rate variability and



many other unknown factors which may cause actual  emissions to vary from the



emission estimates reported here make a more  detailed analysis of the sample



variances superfluous.
                                      C-2

-------
                                APPENDIX  C

                           LUDA  Emission  Factors
                                 ug/m2/hr
                          Day
Compound
ER
                                         Night
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
S-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21
23
24
A3-Carene
LUDA 0011
2006.520
393.924
119.772
412.204
378.625
163.826
112.851
14.538
753.571
1.317
0.302
3.865
0.041
0.020
2.603
1.023
2.439
0.674
1.291
2.759
1.051
20.165
11.450
41.139
LUDA 0021
518.281
131.081
319.011
68.417
268.884
37.534
5.992
32.578
207.200
0.423
0.227
11.751
2.559
0.505
9.234
Residential
122974.0
4680.2
101638.0
1365.8
17725.0
10290.0
11526.2
158.4
52072.7
5.083
0.790
0.0
0.046
0.011
19.271
11.195
47.374
3.924
10.049
13.740
4.377
83.458
1.922
1659.8
Cropland Pasture
42733.
23230.
28249.
985.5
3973.
2753.9
84.5
634.7
21376.2
0.614
1.235
88.8
5.649
6.131
38.2

878.956
279.014
306.961
291.497
367.795
120.265
80.900
10.104
0.000
0.914
0.302
2.693
0.028
0.013
1.809
0.693
1.703
0.674
0.896
1.916
0.625
14.149
1.004
28.513

247.732
101.730
91.842
54.086
268.844
37.534
5.991
22.698
0.000
0.340
0.227
8.162
1.780
0.505
6.685

32111.4
2214.9
25277.4
666.6
1750.3
5431.7
5619.8
76.9
0.0
2.450
0.790
0.0
0.022
0.005
9.310
5.613
23.1
3.924
5.053
6.633
1.843
402.9
5.712
796.9

7896.8
1188.0
5215.7
509.5
3972.5
2753.9
34.5
307.6
0.0
0.342
1.235
42.8
2.729
6.131
19.7
                                  C-3

-------
                          LUDA Emission Factors
                                yg/m2/hr
                         Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21
23
24
A3-Carene
LUDA 0022
2006.520
393.924
119.772
412.204
378.625
163.826
112.851
14.538
753.571
1.317
0.302
3.865
0.041
0.020
2.063
1.024
2.439
0.674
1.291
2.579
1.050
20.165
1.450
41.139
LUDA 0024
496.636
132.578
293.542
70.777
262.423
16.439
2.757
2.356
207.200
0.423
0.113
11.751
2.559
0.253
9.048
Orchards, Vineyards,
122974.0
4680.2
101638.0
1365.8
17725.0
10290.0
11526.2
158.4
52072.7
5.083
0.790
0.0
0.047
0.011
19.271
11.950
47.374
3.924
1.049
13.740
4.377
834.6
11.922
1659.8
Agricultural Land
38552.6
2299.8
24566.3
956.3
2921.8
451.1
14.539
633.2
21376.2
0.597
0.210
88.8
5.649
1.042
36.9
Nurseries
878.956
279.014
306.961
291.497
367.795
120.265
80.900
10.104
0.000
0.914
0.302
2.694
0.028
0.013
1.809
0.693
1.703
0.674
0.896
1.916
0.625
14.149
1.004
28.513

226.087
103.226
66.374
56.446
262.423
16.439
2.757
22.687
0.000
0.340
0.113
8.162
1.780
0.253
6.500

32111.4
2214.9
25277.4
666.6
17502.8
5431.7
5619.8
76.9
0.0
2.450
0.790
0.0
0.022
0.005
9.310
5.613
23.1
3.924
5.053
6.633
1.843
402.9
5.712
796.9

3716.8
1167.9
1533.0
480.3
2921.8
451.1
14.5
306.1
0.0
0.326
0.210
42.8
2.729
1.042
18.4
                                C-4

-------
                          LUDA Emission Factors
                         Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromati cs
Methane
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
21
23
A3-Carene
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aroma tics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
LUDA 0025
828.958
192.063
543.474
93.871
272.418
64.872
414.400
0.547
23.502
5.118
16.663
LUDA 0026
988.706
204.894
633.166
148.717
459.655
191.095
51.304
15.149
148.629
11.988
3.885
0.366
-0.013
0.060
0.011
44.736
2.360
0.164
0.494
3.787
0.186
91.386
6.102
2.808
LUDA 0027
87.200
54.520
0.000
32.720
375.700
Cropland
150347.0
8731.3
95482.5
3678.3
4431.1
2531.2
85504.9
2.094
355.2
22.6
143.0
Pasture
124478.0
8117.8
119002.0
4194.4
33823.1
42705.9
4337.1
211.9
4481.8
767.9
1229.2
0.0
0.0007
0.023
0.004
22064.1
72.6
0.243
3.802
273.9
0.070
14622.9
797.2
8.574
Specialty Farms
401.1
378.9
0.0
147.3
18540.0

287.860
133.360
89.136
65.209
272.418
45.114
0.000
0.380
16.324
3.560
11.567

630.087
163.029
349.052
116.793
456.881
145.424
37.718
10.590
0.000
8.396
2.826
0.255
-0.013
0.052
0.007
30.189
1.625
0.115
0.494
2.621
0.129
63.755
4.234
1.941

87.200
54.520
0.000
32.720
375.700

11004.3
4203.8
3349.5
1774.3
4431.1
1222.8
0.0
1.100
171.3
10.9
69.0

59514.7
4121.0
56831.4
2087.3
33816.3
21627.6
2124.1
102.8
0.0
370.1
587.6
0.0
0.0007
0.014
0.002
11071.7
34.7
0.118
3.802
131.2
0.034
7068.1
383.4
4.113

401.1
378.9
0.0
147.3
18540.0
                                 C-5

-------
                          LUDA Emission Factors
                         Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromati cs
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromati cs
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
16
21
22
24
25
26
A3-Carene
LUDA 0028 Horticultural Farms
2006.520
393.924
1197.720
412.204
378.625
163.826
112.851
14.538
753.571
1.317
0.302
3.865
0.041
0.020
2.063
1.024
2.439
0.674
1.291
2.759
1.051
20.165
1.450
41.139
122974.0
4680.2
101638.0
1365.8
17725.0
10290.0
11526.2
158.4
52072.7
5.083
0.790
0.0
0.046
0.012
19.3
11.9
47.4
3.923
10.5
13.7
4.377
834.6
11.9
1659.8
878.956
279.014
306.961
291.497
367.795
120.265
80.900
10.104
0.000
0.914
0.302
2.694
0.028
0.013
1.809
0.693
1.703
0.674
0.896
1.916
0.625
14.149
1.004
28.513
32111.4
2214.9
25277.4
666.6
17502.8
3431.7
5619.8
76.9
0.0
2.450
0.790
0.0
0.022
0.005
9.310
5.613
23.1
3.924
5.053
6.633
1.843
402.9
5.712
796.9
LUDA 0029 Groves
5974.090
1317.130
3352.490
1311.640
4505.220
48.626
2.780
111.528
0.750
0.252
4.444
26.808
239.299
3001.780
24.890
6.294
3.269
83781200.0
1558510.0
68638800.0
1077280.0
52289100.0
8745.0
63.8
114893.0
2.250
1.525
315.9
11151.0
257860.0
61323300.0
9915.2
634.0
30.5
4199.180
938.209
2337.420
927.075
4505.220
39.061
2.780
77.638
0.750
0.252
3.090
18.629
166.247
2084.520
17.280
4.361
3.207
40399500.0
748416.0
33109700.0
519264.0
522891.0
5168.5
63.8
55394.7
2.250
1.525
152.8
5348.9
124261.0
29570000.0
4775.6
304.3
30.2
                                    C-6

-------
                           LUDA Emission Factors
                                 yg/m2/hr
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
6-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
: LUDA 0031 Herbaceous Rangeland
1710.020 783922.0
268.489 12016.8
1220.390 543581.0
217.958 14837.7
550.412 50488.4
244.493 27502.2
100.567 17147.0
19.903 271.1
593.021 425104.0
11.772 347.8
1.191 368.1
0.732 0.0
-0.008 0.0001
0.684 13.292
0.316 3.050
59.199 15983.9
16.252 3397.8
0.163 0.080
1.157 14.4
2.872 56.590
0.185 0.023
86.136 4518.2
8.244 577.9
2.777 2.837
: LUDA 0032 Shrub & Brush Rangel
4706.690 32608300.0
625.703 459502.0
3411.640 21256100.0
627.189 675885.0
1215.170 1869980.0
60.111 13699.1
14.839 583.4
0.992 21.0
3226.450 20856600.0
0.0006 0.00001
0.948 12.7
0.177 0.0
4.918 661.0
2.355 151.7
0.067 0.040
110.800 168277.0
2.289 47.2

834.917
205.846
463.762
162.950
543.934
195.356
73.888
13.889
0.000
543.934
1.068
0.510
-0.008
0.470
0.213
39.919
11.001
0.114
1.157
1.988
0.128
60.227
5.721
1.920
and
1062.720
447.619
137.535
476.619
118.475
58.064
13.059
0.724
0.000
0.0004
0.948
0.123
3.320
1.590
0.046
74.841
1.598
                                                                84132.7
                                                                 5805.9
                                                                58340.8
                                                                 7073.2
                                                                49609.4
                                                                16492.4
                                                                 8365.0
                                                                  132.8
                                                                    0.0
                                                                49609.4
                                                                  175.1
                                                                    0.0
                                                                    0.0001
                                                                    6.235
                                                                    1.430
                                                                 8020.9
                                                                 1596.0
                                                                    0.039
                                                                   14.4
                                                                   27.1
                                                                    0.011
                                                                 2184.7
                                                                  277.9
                                                                    1.361
                                                              1033410.0
                                                               215213.0
                                                                26368.3
                                                               318417.0
                                                              1826360.0
                                                                13606.4
                                                                  529.0
                                                                   19.8
                                                                    0.0
                                                                    0.00006
                                                                   12.7
                                                                    0.0
                                                                  310.0
                                                                   71.1
                                                                  194.3
                                                                79035.7
                                                                   23.0
                                  C-7

-------
                          LUDA Emission Factors
                         Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
LUDA 0032
2.111
1.212
2.590
0.162
3.355
1.361
38.666
LUDA 0033
1455.950
248.474
1009.940
195.347
511.907
194.526
76.162
14.398
50.759
8.377
0.949
0.583
-0.006
0.540
0.251
42.066
12.801
1.029
1.170
2.498
1.165
0.065
61.675
6.406
17.402
LUDA 0041
6766.050
583.021
5703.130
470.809
876.217
285.465
225.108
Shrub 7 Brush Rangeland
62.9
10.4
13.7
0.140
24.4
11.9
1652.8
Mixed Rangeland
491083.0
7886.3
337376.0
9510.8
34540.7
16529.1
8508.8
136.1
272376.0
181.8
189.9
0.0
0.00005
8.496
1.950
8467.8
2169.9
7.587
13.8
29.9
2.200
0.022
2262.3
308.0
265.8
Deciduous Forest
5955530.0 1
43139.4
4909980.0
29477.3
190798.0
94877.6
51805.9
(cont'd)
2.111
0.841
1.798
0.096
2.803
0.943
26.797

10.066
190.730
371.668
146.890
504.268
159.041
56.777
10.066
0.000
5.880
0.878
0.406
-0.006
0.370
0.169
28.366
8.664
0.719
1.170
1.730
0.809
0.038
43.266
4.444
12.058

566.530
414.970
819.285
328.793
835.143
230.086
174.251

62.9
5.031
6.604
0.059
18.9
5.688
793.5

67.7
3851.6
33858.7
4556.2
33965.6
11044.5
4196.6
67.7
0.0
33965.6
90.9
0.0
0.00005
3.985
0.914
4249.2
1019.2
3.696
13.8
14.3
1.062
0.009
1095.2
148.1
127.6

441895.0
20353.3
321585.0
14063.7
177365.0
57665.4
29980.7
                                 r D
                                 L-o

-------
                          LUDA Emission Factors
                                 yg/m2/hr
                         Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Link. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
: LUDA 0041
29.723
4595.070
876.217
-10.324
0.046
0.022
181.077
1.468
1.773
2.111
1.116
2.006
8.992
75.683
21.124
30.053
: LUDA 0042
5172.930
564.633
4203.920
376.290
785.746
639.467
631.495
76.744
2483.460
0.108
1.008
4.393
0.294
0.141
0.022
6.658
0.749
2.246
0.396
0.847
4.446
128.591
0.445
12.366
Deciduous Forest
753.1
4286410.0
190798.0
2445.8
0.073
0.017
251991.0
18.8
20.9
79.9
5.253
6.053
423.7
10020.0
9012.5
731.5
: Evergreen Forest
4174540.0
44244.6
3646710.0
17378.5
111900.0
444387.0
622767.0
8219.1
1204830.0
0.264
12,7
0.0
2.598
0.596
0.004
661.3
5.046
63.0
1.117
1.463
105.9
45483.2
1.270
176.6
(cont'd)
20.671
0.000
10.778
-6.672
0.031
0.015
122.792
1.000
1.238
2.111
0.774
1.393
5.349
52.985
14.736
20.848

1925.350
407.980
1230.690
268.465
762.483
466.827
448.389
53.324
0.000
0.075
1.008
3.061
0.199
0.095
0.015
4.498
0.523
2.246
0.275
0.588
2.645
89.762
0.308
8.580

375.1
0.0
1992.4
1128.1
0.034
0.008
126396.0
8.836
10.168
79.9
2.528
2.922
178.4
4844.3
4334.2
351.2

1316290.0
21497.0
1185960.0
8488.8
108347.0
222247.0
301602.0
3966.8
0.0
0.128
12.7
0.0
1.218
0.279
0.002
310.6
2.458
63.0
0.538
0.706
44.6
21938.6
0.608
84.8
                                 C-9

-------
                           LUDA  Emission Factors
                                 ug/m2/hr
                          Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
8-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
17
18
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
17
18
LUDA 0043
5969.490
573.827
4953.520
423.550
830.981
462.466
428.301
53.234
3539.270
7.806
-4.658
2.196
0.170
0.081
90.549
4.063
1.261
2.179
0.756
1.427
6.719
102.137
10.842
21.210
LUDA 0051
159.817
68.869
0.000
90.839
5994.600 1
-0.065
0.185
LUDA 0052
145.887
63.499
0.000
82.279
5636.200 1
-0.065
0.185
Mixed Forest
2532520.0
21846.0
2139170.0
11713.9
75674.5
134816.0
168643.0
2243.0
1372810.0
1030.3
614.625
0.0
0.668
0.153
62997.8
170.0
6.479
35.7
1.593
1.879
132.4
13875.9
2253.4
227.0
Streams, Canals
1655.7
209.2
0.0
1607.8
1837700.0
0.017
0.136
Lakes
1647.2
180.4
0.0
1601.8
1644400.0
0.017
0.136
ER
                                                  159.817
                                                  68.869
                                                   0.000
                                                  90.839
                                                5994.600
                                                  -0.065
                                                   0.185
                                                 145.887
                                                  63.499
                                                   0.000
                                                  82.279
                                                5636.200
                                                  -0.065
                                                   0.185
1745.940
411.475
1024.990
298.629
798.813
348.456
311.320
36.998
0.000
5.426
-2.832
1.531
0.115
0.055
61.404
2.749
0.88C
2.179
0.525
0.991
3.997
71.374
7.522
14.714
439545.0
10462.6
376886.0
5638.1
71427.9
69977.9
82895.6
1085.5
0.0
498.1
285.2
0.0
0.313
0.072
31599.1
79.9
3.156
35.7
0.767
0.907
55.8
6695.7
1083.7
109.0
                                              1655.7
                                              209.2
                                                0.0
                                              1607.8
                                          11837700.0
                                                0.017
                                                0.136
                                              1647.2
                                               180.4
                                                0.0
                                              1601.8
                                          11644400.0
                                                0.017
                                                0.136
                                 C-10

-------
                           LUDA Emission Factors
                          Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
17
18
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
10A
22
23
24
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
10A
22
23
24
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
LUDA 0053
145.887
63.499
0.000
82.279
5636.200
-0.065
0.185
LUDA 0054
168.242
94.671
6.375
67.301
406.068
1.632
1.550
1.550
0.674
1.134
0.0005
0.044
LUDA 055
134.169
74.213
6.375
53.639
314.810
1.632
1.550
1.550
0.270
0.548
0.0002
0.022
LUDA 0061
6807.000
993.542
5018.710
801.235
1341.940
1043.900
Reservoirs
1647.2
180.4
0.0
1601.8
11644400.0
0.017
0.136
Bays & Estuaries
1405.6
571.3
81.3
250.4
4745.8
5.330
4.805
4.805
9.572
10.4
0.00001
0.094
Gulf
675.3
301.4
81.3
102.6
4787.8
5.330
4.805
4.805
2.084
2.566
0.00003
0.024
Deciduous Forest
15479100.0
464183.0
14504500.0
265039.0
1671330.0
3289920.0

145.887
63.499
0.000
82.279
5636.200
-0.065
0.185

168.242
94.671
67.375
67.301
406.068
1.632
1.550
1.550
0.674
1.134
0.0005
0.044

134.169
74.213
6.375
53.639
314.810
1.632
1.550
1.550
0.270
0.548
0.0002
0.022
Wetland
3817.460
701.483
2561.450
560.589
1326.060
792.606

1647.2
180.4
0.0
1601.8
11644400.0
0.017
0.136

1405.6
571.3
81.3
250.4
4745.8
5.330
4.805
4.805
9.572
10.4
0.00001
0.094

675.3
301.4
81.3
102.6
4787.8
5.330
4.805
4.805
2.084
2.566
0.00003
0.024

7280810.0
223343.0
6758540.0
127612.0
1670900.0
1641350.0
                                   C-ll

-------
                           LUDA  Emission  Factors
                          Day
                                         Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
a-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
17
18
21
22
23
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromati cs
Methane
a-Pinene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
22
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
LUDA 0061 Deciduous Forest '
36.196 10634.7
94.761 14562.2
1385.170 593605.0
137.484 143666.0
-7.315 131337.0
-0.065 0.017
0.185 0.136
772.050 7219980.0
14.364 4090.2
1.486 19.9
29.484 16475.4
1.681 5.763
708.361 1021560.0
109.550 261089.0
25.392 701.3
LUDA 0071 Dry Salt Flats
349.000 0.0
157.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
192.000 0.0
380.000 0.0
LUDA 0072 Beaches
303.206 92.7
134.881 7.901
8.925 159.3
159.414 9.478
383.430 372.7
2.286 10.4
2.170 9.418
2.170 9.418
0.643 4.544
LUDA 0073 Sand Non-Beaches
349.000 0.0
157.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
192.000 0.0
380.000 0.0
                                                   35.908
                                                   65.819
                                                    0.000
                                                 2536.145
                                                   -3.972
                                                   -0.065
                                                    0.185
                                                  520.262
                                                    9.945
                                                    1.037
                                                   20.406
                                                    1.167
                                                  491.185
                                                   76.014
                                                   17.552
                                                  349.000
                                                  157.000
                                                    0.000
                                                  192.000
                                                  380.000
                                                  303.206
                                                  134.881
                                                    8.925
                                                  159.414
                                                  383.430
                                                     ,286
                                                     .170
                                                     .170
                                                    0.643
                                                  349.000
                                                  157.000
                                                    0.000
                                                  192.000
                                                  380.000
                                              6716.5
                                              7019.8
                                                 0.0
                                           6758540.0
                                             61584.2
                                                 0.017
                                                 0.136
                                           3623100.0
                                              1960.3
                                                 9.681
                                              7899.0
                                                 2.782
                                            493595.0
                                            125559.0
                                               336.4
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                92.7
                                                 7.901
                                               159.3
                                                 9.478
                                               372.7
                                                10.4
                                                 9.418
                                                 9.418
                                                 4.544
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                                 0.0
                                  C-12

-------
                           LUDA  Emission Factors
                          Day
                                        Night
Compound
ER
ER
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
Myrcene
-Carene
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
LUDA 0074
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
LUDA 0075
349,000
157.000
0.000
192.000
380.000
LUDA 0076
349.000
157.000
0.000
192.000
380,000
LUDA 0077
349.000
li>7.00G
0.000
192.000
380,000
LUDA 0421
2907.450
390.590
2308.020
196,709
507.806
735.799
726.948
0.052
287.247
LUDA 0612
6541.230
839.900
Bare Rock
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Strip Mines etc.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Transition
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
Mixed Barren Land
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
Planted Pine
5963810.0
136662. C
5013140. C
35647.3
323268.0
479851.0
1120640.0
0,080
339642. G
Forested Evergreen
8091040.0
123869.0

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

349.000
157.000
0.000
192.000
380.000

349.000
157.000
0.000
192.000
380.000

349.000
157.000
0.000
192.000
380.000

2018.240
271.161
1603.650
136.647
507.806
510.840
504.812
0.037
199.373
Wetland
2870.010
582.862

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2873070.0
65783.7
2421690.0
17228.2
323268.0
230925.0
540113.0
0.039
163738.0

1636140.0
52715.4
                                    C-13

-------
                           LUDA  Emission Factors
                                yg/m2/hr
Compound
                          Day
ER
                                         Night
ER
         Name:   LUDA 0612   Forested  Evergreen  Wetland  (cont'd)
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
d-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
£-Pinene
17
18
Name:
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
4986.700
710.833
1371.550
561.752
223.896
79.378
2426.390
72.629
-25.141
1.464
-0.026
0.164
0.043
624.177
7.151
1.185
1.235
9.402
1.341
0.248
348.901
74.700
21.708
LUDA 0621
198.987
75.907
29.250
93.689
6025.910
24.230
3.917
-0.065
0.185
LUDA 6121
765.266
439.131
3.109
323.738
1017.190
5842400.0
60369.4
171970.0
380081.0
73288.2
2915.2
2786120.0
28500.3
18225.6
0.0
0.001
0.295
0.066
1696390.0
198.9
5.028
19.7
505.5
1.458
0.330
79326.8
60686.5
182.5
Nonforested Wetlands
3929.7
212.6
2083.0
1609.2
11838200.0
1429.0
37.9
0.017
0.136
Mangroves
150551.0
83182.7
118.9
38429.5
600835.0
1801.960
486.162
1313.560
428.794
161.981
55.145
0.000
50.457
-16.531
1.020
-0.026
0.135
0.029
422.627
4.919
0.828
1.235
6.507
0.931
0.148
242.253
51.832
15.035
1327970.0
27008.8
170583.0
187960.0
35489.4
1408.0
0.0
13777.1
8388.3
0.0
0.001
0.143
0.031
850920.0
94.6
2.450
19.7
242.1
0.704
0.139
38303.4
29184.5
87.6
                                                  198.987
                                                   75.907
                                                   29.250
                                                   93.689
                                                 6025.910
                                                   24.230
                                                    3.917
                                                   -0.065
                                                    0.185
                                                  561.323
                                                  321.487
                                                    2.180
                                                  238.036
                                                  101.719
                                              3929.7
                                               212.6
                                              2083.0
                                              1609.2
                                          11838200.0
                                              1429.0
                                                37.9
                                                 0.017
                                                 0.136
                                             73002.6
                                             40567.2
                                                57.4
                                             18563.0
                                            600835.0
                                  C-14

-------
                             APPENDIX D





INTRODUCTION



     This appendix lists the daily (2$ hour) emissions of each LUDA cate-



gory summed over the entire study area.  The total  estimated area and the



area % covered by each LUDA category are also listed.  Area values are



in units of km .  Emission rates are in units of Kg/24 hrs.
                                    D-l

-------
                             APPENDIX I)



                  Total Emissions By LUDA Category (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUUA 0011
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
&-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unk. Terpenes
21A
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Name: LUDA 0021
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
46
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
21
23
A3-Carene
Residential Area: 711 km^
24,631
5,744
12,844
6,007
6,371
2,425
1,654
210
6,433
19
5
56
38
14
35
12
19
40
14
293
21
595
p
Cropland Pasture Area: 32 km"1
291
88
156
15
204
28
5
21
79
—
8
2
6
% of Total Area: 14.6
3,361
709
3,041
385
1,602
1,070
1,118
131
1,948
23
11
—
46
36
72
24
34
39
21
300
36
423
% of Total Area: 0.7
85
22
69 Aromatics

34
28
5
12
55
	
4
1
3
                                 D-2

-------
                  Total  Emissions  3y  LUDA  Category
                             (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0022 Orchards, Vineyards
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
A3-Carene
29A
Name: LUDA 0024 Agricultural Land
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Limonene
Isoprene
21
A3-Carene
Name: LUDA 0025 Cropland Area:
TNMHC 2
Paraffins
Olefins 1
Aromatics
Methane 1
d-Limonene
Isoprene 1
Myrcene
21
23
A3-Carene
, Nurseri
234
55
122
57
60
23
16
2
6?
3
6
Area:
56
18
28
10
40
3
4
16
2
1
221 km2
,964
864
,679
422
,446
292
,100
2
106
23
75
                                       e^   Area:  7  km2  %  of Total: 0.1

                                                        32
                                                         7
                                                        29
                                                         4
                                                        15
                                                        10
                                                        11
                                                         1
                                                        18
                                                         3
                                                         4

                                       6  krn2    %  of Total  Area: 0.1

                                                        16
                                                         5
                                                        12
                                                         3
                                                         6
                                                         2
                                                         2
                                                        11
                                                         1
                                                         1

                                          %  of Total  Area: 4.6

                                                      1,066
                                                        302
                                                        834
                                                        196
                                                        250
                                                        163
                                                        776
                                                         5
                                                        61
                                                        15
                                                        39
                                 D-3

-------
Total Emissions By LUDA Category
           (kg/24 hr)
Compound
Name: LUDA 0026 Pasture
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unknown terpenes
21A
18
21
22
23
24
27
28
A3-Carene
26A
29A
ER
Area: 719 km2
13,973
3,176
8,478
2,292
7,911
2,905
768
222
1,283
176
58
5
1
648
34
2
9
55
3
1,339
89
41
Name: LUDA 0027 Specialty Farms Area: 6 km2
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUDA 0028 Horticultural
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
A3-Carene
29A
12
8
0
5
53
p
Farms Area: 11.4 km
393
92
205
96
102
39
26
3
103
5
9
Std. Dev.
% of Total: 14.8
3,703
955
3,620
684
2,245
2,189
694
153
578
291
358
—
2
1,571
89
5
24
174
3
1,271
30
31
X of Total: 0.1
2
2
—
1
14
% of Total: 0.2
54
11
49
6
26
17
18
2
31
5
7
              D-4

-------
                  Total  Emissions  By  LUDA  Category
                             (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0029 Groves
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Myrcene
Unknown terpenes
16
21
22
24
25
26
A3-Carene
Name: LUDA 0031 Herbaceous
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
g-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unknown terpenes
21A
18
20
21
2?
23
24
"7
28
A -Carene
26A
29A
Area: 286 kur
34,925
7,743
19,534
7,686
30,933
301
19
649
5
2
26
156
1,392
17,462
145
37
22
Range! and Area: 503 km2
15,364
2,864
10,168
2,300
6,607
2,65t>
1,053
204
3,580
121
14
3
7
3
598
165
2
14
29
2
884
84
28
                                                  of Total: 5.9

                                                    38,257
                                                     5,214
                                                    34,629
                                                     4,338
                                                    35,108
                                                       405
                                                        39
                                                     1,417
                                                          7
                                                          6
                                                        74
                                                       441
                                                     2,122
                                                    32,730
                                                       416
                                                       1 jy
                                                        27

                                                  7o of Total : 10.4

                                                     5,625
                                                       806
                                                     4,684
                                                       894
                                                     1,910
                                                     1,266
                                                       964
                                                       121
                                                     3,936
                                                       137
                                                       141

                                                        27
                                                        13
                                                       935
                                                       427
                                                          2
                                                        32
                                                        55
                                                          1
                                                       494
                                                       177
                                                        12
                                D-5

-------
                       Total  Emissions By LUUA Category
                                  (kg/24 hr)
     Compound                       ER                    Std.  Dev.
Name: LUDA 0032                Area:  2 km2            % of Total:  0.1

TNMHC                               171                       172
  Paraffins                          32                       24
  Olefins                           105                      137
  Aromatics                          34                       30
  Methane                            71                        57
  a-Pinene                            4                        5
  3-Pinene                            1                         1
  Isoprene                           96                      136
  22                                  6                       15
  29A                                 2                        1

Name: LUDA 0033 Mixed Range!and   Area:  34 km2        % of Total:  <0.1

TNMHC                                 9                        3
  Paraffins                           2                       <1
  Olefins                             6                        2
  Aromatics                           1                        <1
  Methane                             4                        1
  a-Pinene                            1                        <1
  3-Pinene                            1                        <1
  Isoprene                            2                        2

Name: LUDA 0041 Deciduous Forest   Area: 0.7 km2       % of Total: <1

TNMHC                                67                       20
  Paraffins                           8                        2
  Olefins                            53                       19
  Aromatics                           6                        2
  Methane                            14                        5
  a-Pinene                            4                        3
  3-Pinene                            3                        2
  Isoprene                           37                       17
  21                                  2                        5
  A3-Carene                           1                        1
                                      D-6

-------
                       Total  Emissions By  LUDA Category

                                  (kg/24 hr)
     Compound
          ER
     Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0042   Evergreen Forest  Area:  223
TNMHC
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
  a-Pi nene
  B-Pinene
  d-Limonene
  Isoprene
  Unknown terpenes
  21A
  IB
  22
  23
  24
  27
  28
  29
  A3-Carene
  26A
  29A
       18,974
        2,600
       14,527
        1,723
        4,138
        2,957
        2,887
          348
        6,638
            5
           20
            1
           30
            ^
            »J
           12
            2
            4
           19
          584
            2
           56
Name: LUDA 0043 Mixed Forest    Area:
            2 km2
167
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
  a-Pinene
  g-Pinene
  d-Limonene
  Isoprene
  21
  A3-Carene
37
           21
          129
           16
           35
           18
           16
            2
           76
            3
            4
\'me: LUDA 0051 Streams, Canals   Area:  12.7  kn/
TITHC
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
           49
           21
            0
           28
        1,829
% of Total: 4.6

      6,264
        685
      5,876
        430
      1,254
      2,182
      2,570
        295
      2,934
         13

          5
         83
          7
         30
          3
          4
         33
        694
          4
         43

of Total :  <.l TNMHC
          4
         34
          3
          8
         10
         11
          1
         25
          7
          3

    of Total:  0.3

          9
          3
          0
          9
        742
                                      D-7

-------
                  Total  Emissions By LUDA Category

                             (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0052
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUUA 0053
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUDA 0054
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pi nene
3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
10A
22
Name: LUDA 0055
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
Myrcene
Terpinolene
10A
22
Lakes Area: 63 km2
222
97
0
125
a, 658
f>
Reserviors Area: 14 knr
50
22
0
28
1,933
Bays & Estuaries Area: 742 knr
2,998
1,687
114
1,199
7,236
29
0
0
0
28
28
12
20
Gulf Area: 460 km2
1,481
819
70
592
3,474
18
17
17
3
6
                                                 % of Total:  1.3

                                                        44
                                                        14
                                                         0
                                                        43
                                                     3,668

                                                  % of Total:  0.3

                                                        10
                                                         3
                                                         0
                                                        10
                                                       827

                                                 % of Total:  15.3

                                                       472
                                                       301
                                                       114
                                                       199
                                                       868
                                                        29
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                        28
                                                        28
                                                        39
                                                        41

                                                % of Total: 9.5

                                                       203
                                                       135
                                                        70
                                                        79
                                                       540
                                                        18
                                                        17
                                                        17
                                                        11
                                                        12
                                D-8

-------
                       Total  Emissions By LUDA Category

                                  (kg/24 hr)
     Compound
                          Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0061  Deciduous Forest Wetland   Area:  11  km2   % of Total:  0.2
TNMHC
  Paraf Pins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
  a-Pirrene
  B-Pinene
  d-Limonene
  Isoprene
  Myrcene
  Unknown terpenes
  21
  22
  27
  A3-Carene
  26A
  29A
  1,334
    213
    952
    171
    335
    231
      9
     20
    174
     29
     -1
    163
      3
      6
    151
     23
      5
Name: LUDA UU71 Dry Salt Flats   Area:  <0.1
TNMHC
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane

Name: LUDA OU72 Beaches

TNMHC
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0

Area: 3 krn2

     61
     27
      2
     32
     77
Name: LUDA 0073 Sand Non-beaches   Area:  1  km2
      599
      104
      579
       79
      203
      279
       17
       18
       97
       58
       55
      413
       10
       20
      155
       78
        4

% of Total:  <.l

        0
        0
        0
        0
        0

% of Total :  0.2

        1
       <1
        2
       <1
        3

% of Total:  <.l
TNMHC
  Paraffins
  Olefins
  Aromatics
  Methane
     12
      6
      0
      7
     13
                                     D-9

-------
                  Total  Emissions By  LUDA  Category

                             (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0074 Bare Rock
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUDA 0075 Strip Mines,
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUUA 0076 Transition
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
Name: LUUA 0077 Mixed Barren
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Arornatics
Methane
Name: LUDA 0421 Planted Pine
TNMHC
Paraff i ns
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pi nene
B-Pinene
d-Limonene
A3-Carene
Area: 0.7 km^
0
0
0
0
0
o
etc. Area: 40 knr
337
152
0
186
367
Area: 47 km^
389
175
0
214
424
o
Land Area: <0.1 km11
0
0
0
0
0
Area: 21 km^
1,257
169
998
85
259
318
314
78
124
                                                    %  of  Total:  <1

                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0

                                                    7o  of  Total :  0.8

                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0

                                                    %  of  Total :  1.0

                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0

                                                    %  of  Total:  <1

                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0
                                                         0

                                                    %  of  Total:  0.4

                                                       758
                                                        115
                                                       696
                                                         59
                                                       205
                                                       215
                                                       329
                                                         80
                                                        181
                                 D-10

-------
                  Total  Emissions By  LUDA  Category

                             (kg/24 hr)
Compound
ER
Std. Dev.
Name: LUDA 0612 Evergreen
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a-Pinene
|3-Pinene
d-Limonene
Isoprene
Myrcene
Unknown terpenes
21A
18
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
A3-Carene
26A
29A
Wetland Forests Area: 31(
35,041
5,297
25,276
4,457
9,997
3,688
1,437
501
9,034
458
-155
9
i
3,898
45
7
9
59
8
1
2,201
471
137
Name: LUDA 0621 Non-Forested Wetland Area: 34 km2
TNMHC
Paraffins
Olefins
Aromatics
Methane
a~Pinene
B-Pinene
Nairn : LUDA 6121 Mangroves
TNMHC
naraffins
Jlefins
Aromatics
Methane
164
63
24
77
4,962
20
3
Area: 64 km^
1,021
585
4
432
1,565
                                                       % of Total: 6.4
                                                    11,612
                                                     1,565
                                                     9,970
                                                     1,101
                                                     2,179
                       2
                       1,
                                                       806
                                                       228
                                                       245
                                                     6,215
                                                       766
                                                       607
                                                         0
                                                         2
                                                     5,924
                                                        64
                                                        10
                                                        23
                                                       102
                                                         5
                                                         3
                                                     1,277
                                                     1,116
                                                        61
                                                   of Total :  0.7

                                                        37
                                                         8
                                                        27
                                                        23
                                                     2,004
                                                        22
                                                         4

                                                   of Total :  1.3

                                                       364
                                                       271
                                                        10
                                                       184
                                                       844
                                 D-ll

-------
                               APPENDIX  E





INTRODUCTION



     This appendix outlines the order of events for the performance of



this project.  A sample field work schedule is also included.   This in-



formation may be of importance for those interested in a more  detailed



interpretation of the data presented in  this report or to those involved



in planning similar research programs in the future.
                                    E-l

-------
                               APPENDIX E





                         Field Sampling Schedule



1.1  ORDER OF EVENTS



     In February 1977, prior to initiation of the field program,  the study



area was visited by the principal  investigator.   During this planning trip



the local  air pollution control agencies were visited and informed of the



impending study.  Arrangements were made with the Hillsborough County



Environmental Protection Commission for the location of our field labora-



tory.  Laboratory and storage facilities were also provided.  The Pinellis



County Department of Environmental  Management arranged a helicopter flight



and a ground tour over the study area to help define the major vegetation



types and to determine potential sampling sites.  Land use planning maps



(LUDA Maps), which defined vegetation in the study area, were obtained



from the Tampa Bay Regional  Planning Council.



     The WSU mobile laboratory and a four-man crew arrived in Tampa on



March 15, 1977.  The period from March 15 to March 31 was used to optimize



the analytical instrumentation and to perform the necessary checks on the



sampling equipment.  The field sampling program began on April 1.  On



April 28 and 29 the field site was visited by EPA project officers to



review the sampling procedures and to discuss the sampling strategy.  In



June two additional personnel were added to the staff.  One person had



extensive experience as a laboratory assistant for the chemistry depart-



ment at the University of South Florida.  He therefore assisted in
                                    E-2

-------
routine analysis,  allowing other experienced  WSU  personnel  to  begin  data

reduction.   The other person had previous  experience  in  the air  pollution

field, and was a doctoral  candidate  in  urban  ecology.  She  was therefore

assigned the task  of quantitating the vegetative  leaf  biomass  in the study

area.

     On June 16, 1977 the Tampa field site was  visited by Ron  McHenry and

Carl Sova EPA Region IV,  Dave Tingey EPA  Corvalis,  and Leslie  Dunn EPA

Las Vegas.   The meeting was initiated so  that results  of the Phase I

sampling program could be discussed  and recommendations  concerning Phase

II could be made.   The main points of the  meeting were:

     1.  Mr. Dunn  was to insure that all  of the contractors involved in the
         Ozone Modeling Study including WSU would be  furnished with  the exact
         grid coordinates of the study  area.

     2.  Based upon the results of Phase  !  the  following re-distribution of
         our sample effort was recommended:

         a)  Due to the large emissions from  Gum  trees,  the Oak  Gum  Cypress
             vegetation groups were  to  be  considered  to  consist  primarily of
             Gum and Cypress.

         b)  The marine samples were to be cut  by 50  samples.  This  would
             allow an additional 25  samples to  be distributed  among  other
             vegetation types.

         c)  Ten samples were to be  cut from  citrus and  ten samples  from
             Mangrove vegetation types.

         d)  Ten additional samples  were  to be  made of the  representative
             shrub group.  The samples  will concentrate  upon Black Willow,
             Wax Myrtle,  and Persimmon.

         e)  Ten samples were to be  made  of freshwater marsh and wetland veg-
             etation.

         f)  Twenty five samples were to  be collected  of the predominate row
             crops available at that time,  especially  tomatoes and beans if
             possible.

         g)  The Oak-Hickory group would  be considered to consist primarily
             of Oak.
                                    E-3

-------
         h)   Some of the species sampled diurnally  in  Phase  I would  again be
             sampled in Phase II.

     3.   The problem of isolating sample variables  which  affect  emission
         rates was discussed.  It was  pointed  out that Corvalis  should soon
         have a system of enclosed plexiglass  environmentally controlled
         chambers for use in the project.   It  was decided that in  order to
         separate the effects that the variables of illumination,  temperature
         and soil water potential  might have on  emission  rates,  chamber
         studies should be performed.   The vegetation  type chosen  for the
         first chamber tests was oak.   Oaks were chosen because  WSU  sampling
         had shown that oaks exhibited a definite diurnal cycle  of emissions.
         WSU had also found that the emission  components  of  oaks were rela-
         tively simple consisting almost entirely of large amounts of Isoprene
         (in daylight hours), thus the analytical methodology required could
         be relatively simple.  Rasmussen, (1970) had  previously demonstrated
         that Isoprene production in plants was  light  dependent.   Field sam-
         ples collected during Phase T illustrated  that temperature  and soil
         moisture may also affect Isoprene production.

     Phase II of the field study began on June 19 and  was completed  by August

1, 1977.  In all, 632 natural emission samples were collected requiring over

1000 analysis for each of the heavy hydrocarbon, light hydrocarbon,  methane

and ^2 hydrocarbon groups.


 .2  TYPICAL WORK SCHEDULE

    On typical sampling days, the G.C.s were  standardized at about 6 AM.

Analysis of samples would then begin.   Field  samples were usually  collected

between 6 AM and 7 PM, although each week two  vegetation  species/sample types

were sampled every 6 hours for 30 hours.  At  least  eight  vegetation  samples

were collected daily.  Each vegetation sample  required a  background  sample

and an emission rate sample; therefore at least 16  cans had  to be  analyzed

daily.  Two days each week (usually Saturday  and Sunday)  twenty  samples were

collected from Tampa Bay and the Gulf  of Mexico.  The  sampling schedule

necessitated operation of the G.C.s on a 16 to 24-hour basis six days per

week.
                                    E-4

-------
commerce early in the morning so that  emission  rate  samples  could  be  col-


lected and returned throughout the day.   Testing  at  WSU  had  indicated that


minimum hydrocarbon losses would be expected even for  samples  stored  for


24 hours.


     The field schedule outlined allowed each vegetation association  to be


sampled approximately four times weekly.   Appendix A lists the species sam-


pled, the number of times each was sampled,  and the  mean and standard error


of the emission rates standardized to  30°C (day)  and 25°C (night)  for each


species.  The emission rates are given in terms of the micrograms  emission


(compound)/g leaf biomass/hr of paraffins, olefins,  aromatics,  methane,


TNMHC and for each major peak.  "Flat  samples"  (bay, pasture,  etc.) are

               o
in micrograms/m /hr.
                                    E-5

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                                nt',1 i»\rruction*. on ttu T,<.n'( htjoK- <
 1 RfcPORT NO
   _9Q4/9r7J-_028
                         )3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
                         j
                         J_ __   .	
                           REPORT DATE
4/TiTLEANDsuBTiTLL TAMPA  BAY  AREA PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT

STUDY.  Final Appendix  C                                    P^T-ORM.NG ORGAN.ZAT.ON coo,
Determination of Emission Rates of Hydrocarbons from In-
digenous^ Species of  Vegetation in the Tampa/St. Petersburg Area.
/ AUTHOHTS)
Patrick R. Zimmerman
 ) I'k H( OHMINCi ORGANISATION NAIVU ANDAPDHISS
Washington State University
College of Engineering,  Research  Division
<\ir Pollution Research Section
                         8 PERI OHMINf. ORGANISATION HI PORT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA Region IV
Mr Programs Branch
345 Courtland Street,  N.E.
Atlanta, GA  30308
                         1~0 PROGRAM f Lf MENT NO~


                         Tl"CONTRACT/GRANT"NO"



                         L68-.01-443.2.	
                         |l3 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

                          Final  Report	  	
                         |14 SPONSOR!!*
NG AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
The  methodology used to develop a natural hydrocarbon  emission inventory for a 60 X 81
km area  including Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida  is described.   The inventory is
based  upon  more than 600 emission rate samples collected  from vegetation, surface water
and  pastures  between the months of April and August, 1977.   Emission rates in terms of
total  non methane hydrocarbons (TNMHC), paraffins, olefins,  aromatics, methane, and
^ach major  emission component are presented for the  major vegetation species, associa-
tions  and land use categories which occurred in the  study area.   Hourly emission fac-
tors were calculated for each of the 2,160 1.5 km X  1.5 km grids in the study area and
coded  onto  a  computer tape.
The  inventory estimates the summer biogenic emissions  to  approach 1025 yg/nr/hr or 160
metric tons/day.   Isoprene is 18% of theTNMHC, a-pinene  is  about 10%.  Evergreen
forests  occupy approximately 10% of the total study  area  and contribute about 35% of
the  total daily emissions.
The  emissions are fairly uniform with respect to time  and space, therefore, low ambient
levels of the natural  hydrocarbons are expected in ambient air.
17.

I
Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
 Vegetation
 Hydrocarbons
 Emissions
18  DIS f KIKUT ION S7 ATEMEN1
 Distribution unlimited
EPA Fcnm 2270-1 (Rev  4-77)
                                              h.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
            Biogenic  Emission Inventory
            Natural Emissions
            Tampa/St.  Petersburg
            Hydrocarbons
                                             119 SECURITY CLASS (Ihi\ fit-port/
            |20 SECUR'TY CL
-------