450R81103
81-5,2
PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION OF INHALABLE
PARTICIPATE NETWORK DATA
THOMPSON G, PACE
CHARLES E, RODES
U. S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA
JOHN G, WATSON
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
For Presentation at the 74th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania June 21-26,1981
,a, protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental rrou;
Region V, I
230 South
Chicago, Illinois
-------
f
Envirorimer.L'. .. -.1
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated a national sampling
network in 1979 to gather size specific participate data in support of the
upcoming review and potential revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate fatter,1 The U.S. EPA is investigating Inhalable
Particulates (IPl as one possible size fraction to be regulated under a
revised standard.2 The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary and
preliminary interpretation of data from the sampling program of the National
Inhalable Particulate (IP) Network.
The sites were selected by the U.S. EPA Regional Offices, States and
local agencies, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to be
representative of the air quality in major urban areas and areas of high
Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP) concentration in the United States.
They were set up by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
in cooperation with State and local agencies. EMSL provides preweighed
filters to the local agencies or operators who calibrate, operate and main-
tain the samplers. The exposed filters are returned to EMSL for gravimetric
and elemental analysis, data processing and data validation. The network
has gradually become operational since 1979 and, as of March 1981, approxi-
irately 145 stations are established.
Monitoring System
The instrumentation located at IP network sites monitors particulate
matter concentrations in three size ranges: Total Suspended Particulate
(TSP) - generally considered less than about 30 -urn aerodynamic diameter,3
Inhalable Particulate (IP) - less than 15 ym, and Fine Particulate (FP) -
less than 2.5 ym. The samples are taken every sixth day, except in special
studies where more frequent sampling is accomplished. Table I summarizes
pertinent information about the samplers used in the network.
As shown in the table, a regular hi-volume sampler was used to measure
TSP in the network. This sampler is presently designated as the Federal
Reference Method for particulate matter ambient sampling.** Various problems
associated with the representativeness of the hi-vol have been reported.5,0,7
These include windspeed and direction dependence, settling of particles on
the filter in the off-mode, and formation of artifact sulfate and nitrate
on the glass fiber filter.
A dichotomous sampler is used to collect IP.8 Several problems have
been reported in its operation. A virtual impactor separates the IP into
two fractions - 2.5 to 15 urn coarse particulate (CP) and <2.5 ym fine
particulate (FP), each collected on Teflon filters. The inlet of the
sampler theoretically excludes particles larger than 15 ym but, in fact,
the size cutoff is somewhat dependent on windspeed.3 An additional problem
recently reported is the loss of coarse particulate from the surface of
the Teflon filter during handling.10 The combined concentrations on the
two filters are reported as the total IP mass. Most sites have manually
operated samplers which are set up to sample every sixth day. In laboratory
tests, the dichotomous sampler has been shown to be relatively imprecise at
the lower concentration ranges. This is due to the high tare weight and low
quantity of mass collected. Fortunately, the precision is better at the
higher concentrations.
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Another sampler which is usually collocated with the dichotomous
sampler is the Size Selective Inlet Hi Vol (SSI).11 The SSI sampler
incorporates a special inlet to provide an upper cutpoint of 15 vim. This
inlet is situated on a regular hi-vol frame and particles are collected on
a glass fiber filter identical to that used in the TSP hi-vol. The
collection efficiency of the SSI is not influenced by the wind direction,
since its inlet is round. Further, windtunnel tests have shown that
windspeed dependency problems have been minimized. However, formation of
artifact sulfate and nitrate on the glass fiber substrate, due to adsorption
of sulfur and nitrogen oxide gases on the filter, is a problem.7
Mass concentrations measured by collocated SSI and dichotomous
samplers typically differ by an average of 10-15%, with the SSI normally
recording higher concentrations. Efforts are underway to more fully
characterize and reduce these biases. The EMSL has a program underway to
provide quality assurance and chemical analysis of the samples. The
chemical analysis may provide clues about the differences in mass collected.
However, sufficient chemical analysis data is not yet available for inter-
pretation. For consistency, until the reasons for the biases are clarified,
only dichotomous sampler data will be discussed in this paper.
Spatial Distributions
Data collected by the IP Sampling Network presents several opportunities
for the examination of spatial distributions of Inhalable and Fine Particulate
on regional, urban and neighborhood scales.12 The Network's widespread
geographical location of samplers allows concentrations from various urban
areas in the United States to be compared and regional patterns to be
discerned. Availability of data from three or more sites in the environs
of Birmingham, AL, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, Buffalo, NY, and
Philadelphia, PA provides insight into urban scale spatial distributions
of particulate matter. The special study of the Bridesburg Industrial
area of Philadelphia provides similar insight into spatial distributions
on the neighborhood scale.
National Urban IP and FP Concentrations
Table II contains the arithmetic average concentrations of TSP, IP
and FP at sites in the IP network for a full year of monitoring beginning
on October 1, 1979 and ending on September 30, 1980. Each quarter's
values have been averaged separately to reveal the seasonal distribution.
Only averages containing more than five values have been included. The
annual arithmetic mean was calculated as the average of the four quarterly
averages rather than from the entire set of data for that year. Early in
the network operations, many samples were lost due to startup problems,
resulting in a nonuniform distribution of valid sample size among quarters.
This averaging procedure gives each season equal weight in determining the
annual mean, regardless of the number of samples in each quarter. Also
presented in Table II are the maximum concentrations of TSP, IP and FP
found during each season. Only maxima from quarters with more than five
IP/FP data pairs were chosen. The annual maxima are the highest values
which occurred in any one of these quarters. An inspection of these
tables yields the typical concentrations and spatial distributions of IP
and FP.
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Table II illustrates the range in concentrations in urban areas
nationwide, arranged by geographic areas. At those sites for which annual
arithmetic averages are calculated, the highest average IP concentrations
are found in Los Angeles (92 yg/m3L El Paso (68 -yg/ro3!, Buffalo C63 yg/m3!,
and Birmingham (58 yg/m3!. There is no clear regional pattern but a wide
variability in concentrations among urban areas is seen. The average of FP
at urban sites ranges from 13 -pg/m^ in San Francisco (Richmond! to 37 yg/m3
in Los Angeles. The regional distribution of these annual averages is
fairly homogeneous in the Eastern United States, ranging from 22 yg/m3
in Birmingham to 32 yg/m3 in Philadelphia. Average fines concentrations
west of the Mississippi River are generally lower, with the exception of
El Paso and Los Angeles. This suggests the possibility of a regional scale
influence in the east, due to either emissions or meteorology.
Maximum 24-hour concentrations of IP vary substantially and rarely
occur on the same day at nearby sites. They appear to be more affected by
local than regional phenomena. The spatial variability of these maxima in
the west seems comparable to the spatial variability in the east. These
maxima range from 51 yg/m3 in San Francisco (Richmond) to 146 yg/m3 in
Philadelphia for IP. In contrast, the FP maxima varied from 37 yg/m3
in Birmingham to 128 yg/m3 in Philadelphia. The FP/IP ratio for the max
days was compared to gain insight into the causes of high IP concentrations.
It is important to note that the ratio of the maximum FP to maximum IP
concentration at each site is generally high, averaging about 70%. In many
cases, these maxima occurred on the same day. This suggests that many of
the highest IP concentrations may be due to high FP concentrations. A
notable exception to this is El Paso, Texas.
Regional Scale Particulate Matter Patterns
The regional scale pattern of particulate matter is a measure of large
scale phenomena that are not affected by specific sources or localized
groups of sources. Ideally, these sites would be located in remote areas,
but in practice they are in nonurban'locations which are influenced some-
what by the "urban plume" from nearby urban areas. Eight sites in the IP
network are located near, but outside of, urban areas and have sufficient
data to be useful in estimating large scale particulate concentrations.
Table III gives a summary of data from these sites. From this table,
quarterly IP concentrations typically average from a low of 16 yg/m3 at
Pearl City, HI to a high of 63 yg/m3 in the rural area around El Paso,
Texas. The Hawaii site is influenced only by the local island activity
and sea salt and would probably represent a near minimum for any U.S.
location. The El Paso nonurban site is affected by dust storm, agricultural
activity and appears to be atypically high, even for a desert agricultural
area. The other regional scale sites generally are in the 20-35 yg/m3 range.
FP annual average concentrations in Table III reported for the western
sites are generally averaged from 6-13 yg/m3 at four sites. In contrast,
average concentrations range from 15 to 23 yg/m3 at four sites in the
eastern part of the country. Thus, a regional doubling of FP concentrations
is seen when comparing the East to the West. It is suggested that this
might be due to sulfate concentrations which are generally higher in the
East, Chemical data from the network, when available, can be used to
confirm this.
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Urban Scale Participate Matter Patterns
The IP and FP concentrations nationwide were shown to be substantially
different among urban areas. It is not apparent thus far whether these
same differences are apparent within an urban area. This can be investi-
gated by looking more closely at data within urban areas to see if similar
variations in concentrations occur. This will offer clues to the spatial
representativeness of IP and FP concentrations. Table IV compares IP and
FP concentrations in five urban areas.
The annual averages for IP at urban or suburban sites range from 40
to 58 vg/m3 in Birmingham, from 25 to 42 yg/m3 in the San Francisco Bay
area, from 52 to 63 yg/m3 in Buffalo, from 46 to 92 yg/m3 in the Los Angeles
area, and from 37 to 48 yg/m3 in Philadelphia. These ranges within airsheds
are comparable to those among airsheds found earlier. A similar large
range exists for maximum daily values of IP at urban scale sites, which is
also comparable to the range of IP maxima among cities. This variability
within an urban area suggests that localized sources may be major contri-
butors to high IP concentrations.
Annual averages of FP are more uniform for urban and suburban sites
within an airshed, ranging from 22 to 32 yg/m3 in Birmingham, 13 to
18 vg/m3 in San Francisco, 27 to 33 yg/m3 in Buffalo, 25 to 37 yg/m3 in
Los Angeles, and 23 to 32 yg/m3 in Philadelphia. FP maxima for these same
airsheds varies from 39 to 52 yg/m3 in Birmingham, 39 to 82 yg/m3 in
San Francisco, 58 to 70 yg/m3 in Buffalo, 92 to 109 yg/m3 in Los Angeles,
and 99 to 128 yg/m3 in Philadelphia. The lower degree of uniformity in
the IP compared to FP concentrations in urban areas suggests that a larger
portion of IP may be due to local sources. Chemical data, when available,
may help to confirm this.
Industrial Neighborhood Scale Particulate Matter Patterns
In an effort to understand more fully the spatial patterns within and
around a heavily industrialized area, the Bridesburg industrial area of
Philadelphia was the subject of an intensive sampling effort from October 3,
1979 to February 15, 1980. Seven sampling sites were located within a
2 km x 4 km area. Three sites within the core of this area were in the
industrial area and four other sites were on the perimeter. A fifth site,
N.E. Airport, was located approximately 10 km away to the northeast at a
small airport in a less densely populated area in a generally downwind
direction. At each site, a TSP hi-vol and a dichotomous sampler were
operated for 24 hour periods. This study is described more elsewhere.13,14
Figure 1 compares the average and range of concentrations of TSP, IP
and FP within the industrial, perimeter and N.E. Airport subgroupings as a
function of distance from the industrial area. The ranges show substan-
tial variability within each classification, but there are major differences
between the industrial, perimeter and airport groupings.
TSP and IP are 45%, and 31% higher at industrial sites when compared
to perimeter sites. Absolute concentration differences are 30 yg/m3
for TSP, and 16 yg/m3 for IP. These differences occur over an average
distance between sites of 1 km. It is apparent that TSP and IP concen-
trations are substantially heterogeneous over a very small area. From the
-------
Paper 81-5.2
study area to the N.E. airport, a distance of 10 km, an additional average
concentration decrease of 25 yg/m3 for TSP and 17 jig/ro3 for IP was seen.
A similar decrease was not observed for FP between the industrial and
perimeter sites. In fact, with one exception, the FP sites in the Bridesburg
study area all exhibited a'rather flat profile. There was a substantial
decrease in FP levels between the industrial area and the N.E. Airport
site, indicating that an average of 8 to 1Q yg/m3 of fine particles was
associated by sources in or near the industrial study area. This industrial
scale study is described in more detail elsewhere.11*
Seasonal Patterns
The IP network offers the opportunity to evaluate seasonal patterns
in various urban areas and regions of the country. All samples are of
24-hour duration, which precludes examination of the hourly variability,
and the sixth day sampling schedule (third day at some sites) does not
provide a strong data base for investigating daily distributions or weekday/
weekend patterns. Special studies are being conducted for these purposes.
Seasonal patterns of average and maximum IP and FP concentrations are
examined by reading across a row of Table II for a specific sampling site.
Trijonis,15 studied the St. Louis regional monitoring data and concluded
that IP and FP concentrations peak in the summertime. This hypothesis
will be evaluated in other parts of the country.
Figure 2 shows the seasonal variation in average quarterly concen-
trations for IP and FP in 11 eastern and midwest cities. This geographical
subset of sites was selected because of the regional patterns shown above
for FP concentrations. There is a slight increase in FP in the summer,
which causes IP to be higher, although the increase is only 7 yg/m3
over the fall-winter-spring averages. The ranges appear to be generally
similar among the quarters, except that FP seems less variable in both
spring and fall. Figure 3 shows the seasonal variation in quarterly
maxima. FP is seen to be lower in the spring. The CP fraction can be
observed in these figures as the difference in FP and IP levels. It is
interesting that in the spring the FP/CP ratio is lower than in the other
seasons, suggesting a different mix of sources of IP in the spring.
The data suggests that FP might be slightly lower in the spring
season and higher in the summer, causing IP to be slightly higher in the
summer. However, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that there
is a general nationwide seasonal pattern in IP or FP, as was suggested in
the earlier St. Louis work.
Conclusions
Typical annual average urban IP concentrations ranged from 40-50 yg/m3
with several areas averaging 6Q to 90 yg/m3. Quarterly maximum values
were typically around 100 yg/m3, with a few as high as 200 yg/m3. FP
typically averaged 20 to 30 yg/m3 in the East, generally lower in the
West, with the highest average of 37 yg/m3 in the Los Angeles area. FP
quarterly maxima averaged 50 to 60 yg/m3 with a few sites having maxima
slightly over 100 yg/m3.
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Examination of IP and FP data on a neighborhood and urban scale
suggests that Inhalable Participate is strongly influenced by local
sources. Concentration changes averaging 16 yg/nr3, or 31%, were found
between sites separated by as little as 1 km distance. FP averages were
generally more homogeneous, although some local influence on both average
and 24-hour values was apparent. A regional pattern of FP was apparent
with concentrations at Eastern regional-scale sites double those of Western
sites.
There appeared to be no strong seasonal variation of IP and FP
averages and maxima. Slightly higher concentrations were found in the
summer, and slightly lower in the spring for FP when looking at the Eastern
region of the United States. This causes IP to be slightly higher in the
summer.
NOTE TO EDITORS
Under the new federal copyright law,
publication rights to this paper are
retained by the author(s).
-------
Paper 81-5.2
References
1. "Inhalable participates," Environmental Science and Technology,
Volume 12, No. 13, December 1978.
2. F. J. Miller, D. E. Gardner, J. M. Graham, R. E. Lee, Jr., W. E. Wilson,
and J. D. Bachrnann, "Size considerations for establishing a standard
for inhalable particles." Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Volume 29, No. 6, June 1979.
3. Carlos A. Ortiz, Andrew R. McFarland, and Charles G. Rodes, Wind
Tunnel Studies of the Hi-vol and Membrane Aerosol Samplers, Air
Quality Lab Publication 3565/05/79/CAO, Texas A&M University, May
1979.
4. 40 CFR 50, Appendix B
5. Andrew R. McFarland, Carlos A. Ortiz and Charles E. Rodes,
"Characteristics of aerosol samplers used in ambient air monitoring."
Presented at 86th National Meeting of AIChE, Houston, Texas, April 1-
5, 1979.
6. Robert Swinford, "The assessment of passive landing effects on TSP
measurements in attainment areas," Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Volume 30, No. 12, December 1980.
7. R. W. Coutant, "Effect of environmental variables on collection of
atmospheric sulfate," Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 11,
No. 9, September 1977.
8. Thomas G. Dzubay and Robert K. Stevens, "Ambient air analysis with
dichotomous sampler and x-ray fluorescence spectrometer," Environmental
Science and Technology, Volume 9, No. 7, July 1975.
9. James B. Wedding, Michael Weigold, Walter John, and Stephen Wall,
"Sampling effectiveness of the inlet to the dichotomous sampler,"
Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 14, No. 11, November
1980.
10. Personal communication of T. G. Pace and Charles E. Rodes, Chief,
Monitoring Techniques Section, EMSL, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, July 1980.
11. A. R. McFarland and C. A. Ortiz, "Aerosol characterization of ambient
particulate samplers used in environmental monitoring studies -
progress report," Texas A&M Research Foundation, October 1979.
12. "Ambient air quality monitoring, data reporting and surveillance
provisions," Federal Register, May 10, 1979.
13. Judith C. Chow, Verne Shorten, John Collins, John G. Watson, Thompson G.
Pace, and Robert Burton, "A microscale study of inhalable and fine
suspended particulate matter source contributions to an industrial
area in Philadelphia," APCA 81-14.2. Presented at Annual Meeting,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 1981.
14. Jack Suggs, Robert Burton, Thompson Pace, Larry Himmelstein, and
Fred Hauptman, "Philadelphia inhalable participate intensive studies:
spatial correlations in a metropolitan area." APCA 81-5.1, presented
at Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 1981.
15. John Trijonis, John Eldon, John Gius, and George Berglund, Analysis
of the St. Louis RAMS Ambient Particulate Data, U.S. EPA, Report No.
EPA-450/4-8Q-QQ6a and b, Researcn Triangle Park, North Carolina,
February 198Q.
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Table I. Comparison of IP Network Sampling Instrumentation
Instrument
Hi volume sampler
Size Selective
Hi volume sampler
Dichotmous sampler
Size
Fractions
< "v 30pm
<
<
2.
-
15*
2.5pm
5-15 ;ym
15pm
Filter
Used
Glass
fibre
Glass
fibre
Teflon
Teflon
Sum of
above
Airflow
Rate
40 CFM
40 CFM
15 LPM
1.67 LPM
16.7 LPMb
t
Designation
TSP
IPa
FP
CP
IP
No SSI-IP data presented
Approximately 1 CFH
Table III.
Geographic Area
West
HI Pearl City
NV Winnemucca
Fine and Inhalable Particulate Matter Concentrations
at Regional Sites (FP/IP),
Fall
1979
8/14
8/33
OR Columbia County 16/31
TX El Paso 12/68
East
IL Will County 15/30
NC Res Tri Park 22/26
TX Houston Area 16/42
NY Erie County 17/21
- missing data
Winter
1980
14/22
5/23
-719
10/51
27/40
17/20
14/28
14/19
Spring
1980
7/16
5/28
9/37
15/74
22/34
17/23
12/23
18/24
Summer
1980
5/13
15/43
13/59
16/32
37/43
16/34
Average
9/16
6/28
13/33
13/63
20/34
23/28
15/32
16/21
-------
Paper 81-5.2
tfl
s
e
1
«/»
c
a.
i
••
»
a.
*—
fc
o
g
i
1
*
io
t.
V
•£
2
£
3
~
B
2
ti*
I
X
£
,i
L.
41
k.
i
*~
Oi
t'
.
n
iO
3
£
<
»
LJ
3
O
3
—
-
0.
to
o
3
u
3
n
Jj
—
^
-
*•
t9
2
I
o
g
1.
l/l
O
=0
—
c
ex
o
g
t
4J
5
*
OS
?>
*"~
—
*.
'*x CO
en CM
cn «—
°
^s. CM
— r*.
en ^«
— m
^x, CO
— cn
CO
^
VO
CO
CM
CM
to
vo en
S 53
CM *r
CM PX.
CM CM
r— CM
m vo
tn vo
cn
CM
VO
en
cn
in
%
h- C
- L. o cn
«» "O O -4-* C
« L. M- cn—
QJ 0 4-1 C J=
J= Vfc- L. — tfl
4J +J rg -C fl3
t. U X in 2
55 5
CO
!n
CO
1
p"*
•^s.
s
^
1
^
^^^
cn
i
p*»
"xl
S
1
Ittsburgh, PA
Hazel wood
a.
en CM
- cn —
^ _
rx. »—
— —
cnco
cn co
i— »—
fx. cn
— i—
en
en en en
CO 'X.-'x,
rt corxT
-•x. VO O
CM *r *r
•— cocn
Cn co
^r CM
x^p^ _ pj
>xt.S — S ^
cn CM PX, rx, cn t
CM — '
vo co en ^» r—
rx. IT «r to cn
rx o — «3 O
»— CM — t— CM
en CM
CM en
^ CO,
5*5
CO •—
. CM m
in o
in to
vor, ex £ - d)
^ CD C !- O C - t-
CX CJ "- 3: -C 4) 0
— • J= < 0 S- E
fij C/l CT) . -3 O -— •
•O Qj • *n E *J
mo — ui a; - — —
— 0— • t. *J 4-» 10
£ £
in
men
rx m
CM-x.
— cn
CM
O
o
CO
— rx.
m vo
cn co
*n CM
en —
enm
co to
to
CM
vo
o cn
CM —
in rn
CM V
to«r
c
< o
fc.gs
§^m
*j O •
i/l CD LU
S
O CO
rx in
CO •—
en —
-^•Xs,
tn —
vocn
xt.^.
m m
ch cn
ss
— • — •
Sfx,
0^.
f— cn
O —
to cn
to ^ m
in in en
tf »— CM
en — CM
m CM CM
to in CM
*— ^r CM
m
vn co
•* "^x
^- o
d^ £?^
^J5
r— —
en CM
en CM
vo in
COCA
O CO
•x^-x^.
to m
«r cn
00
CO
*— CM
s^L
s5
en
en CM -x*
CM ^ *T
px, m •Xfc
CM CM en
co en-
en v
CM CM
VO C3
m m
en co
vorx
vo co f
• CM CM *J
S . . i
ie t/* c/i —
<+» . . •*•
<*- a. a. 2
CO
;5
i— O
vo —
CM CM
— CM
en
CM
CM in
cn —
m CM
CO CM
— CM
CM CM
— CM
toco
to en
CM CO
vn en
vn to
cn en
PX en
CM CM
"^"u?
v tn
CM co
\o cn*
»~ *—
•V CM
££
^ *—
I^«
PJ «•
mv
U1OI
v tn
r«. in
KSJ
253
o t*y
w'in"
"r<0
w>o
^ *~
in rx.
51 ^
n n
rim
1dwes.t
inneapolls, MN
Minneapolis A
Minneapolis B
Z! Z
CO
CO
oa
*"*
o
va
^2
tn
Of
£J
Sr
in
cn
fx
cn
O
•T
§>
CM
r*~
en
en"
vo
i
•S5
O *-»
-J S-
4_>
in
vn
m
cn
•x^.
CM
•^
in
in
CO
2
*"
en
rx
-
CO
vn
51
CM
r-
^
-x^
S
s
^*
to
CM
cn
^
CM
r»
>o*
vn
co
O4
^
s-
CO
Csl
en
oa
vo
en
N
(V
SJ^
r~
to
IQ
=
1*
"*
m
CO
^
CM
^
^
ro
CO
?3
^™
^.
"
VO
-
S
^
cn
vO
CO
CO
Px
CM
"x»
S
Px
f»
^
m
S
CM
CM
cn
en
cn
in
CM
•x*.
0
CM
**
CM
CM
cn
^
CO
^
incinnati, OH
Cincinnati
w
1C
-------
Paper 81-5.2
lu
1
c
s
Ml
0)
u
^
c
1
to
c
a.
u.
T3
C
oT
to
F-
H-
O
|
X
£
•a
c
M
(V
en
2
u
**
&.
&.
a-
M
•— •
U
s
4->
1C
3
O
OJ
rtj
CJ
>
X
OJ
t!
cS
,_
3
C
O
S
^
=
c
3
to
0
?>
p~
c
CL
t/1
O
CO
en
L.
+J
C
en
LI.
_
ID
C
C
a
j*
s.
3
to
O
:o
"£
CX
to
CO
OJ
c
3T
x.
en
*2
£>
0
S
en
CM
"x.
CM
in
CO
CM
CM
S
ccT
en
en
in
p^
^
^~
31 JZ
0 U
c
c •*-
cy .E
-Q i/l
3 re
at 2
to
mo
§S-
31 m
en fx.
p— p—
CO «*
CO O
r- F—
05
O rx.
at
F— in
10^,
^ o
r- en
en en
CM CO
in in
*— en
r- O
m CM
in^"
5"fx7
co cn
•p- t.
CJ t/1 3
(C O
c :S aE
*
^M cr,
co m «-
^ 5 S2
fx. r— "x.,—
O n \o i—
CM i— x^ , —
m en
co m o "x. — *x.
Q px -x^ x^ , x^
CM n rx. ,— — o
»— fw F— en oj en
CO ^ U3 ^O
"x, O CO "x, *^x
H en CM J^ r^
r— CM CO i~ *—
O CO CM
CM
in o in co
m in *x. <•
<*o en o CM en
in rx, •— x^, r^
i— rO i (—
^- VO CSJ
CM CM n
O in CM co
^ un -x^Ln
<*) CM en ^*
r— F—
^.o^'^x.co' ^
en S CM^"? ^
CO *— r— <*D ' — fx.
CO CM f— «T CM
CM 'x^'M x^ csj
"x, cc "x^cn x^
^r "x, t*~> ~*x. ro
in m cc rn «£>
F— i r— CM -x^.
o S
— J rti *5 >i
CD Cn H f
£ — •»- o O ^<
ra S S O i- •»-> t—
j= i- i- c co c <-i
Cn-P- -P- GJ r- - «
C D3 CO P— • I- f r~
31 t IS1Z~ E >2 ^0
O -r- fl
iX| a a
s*
"
OJ
C\J
'x^
CM cn
CM F—
§o
CM
cn
CO rn
n cn
fx. r—
SO F— ^- fx.
r— CM CM F—
CO CO *— rx.
f^mlnr^
fx, Jo CO I^»
CO
O V
rO y3 O "x»
CO C^O
*g^^
f— • r-x co vo
w
fx, co
CM
cn co
a •— m -»x.
C\j «. co F-
co
in F- CM
0 S £
*x*CO fO
s
O
C E filS 0
fl t- SK ^
C 3iX CO{/7
^
^~
c$
n
^"
ro
CM
cn
cn
O
CM
rn
CO
CO
S1
OJ
to
a.
c£
oT
to
F—
4-»
o
cn
c
0
<*-
a>
-C
o
*"*
cn
^
o
u
(J
*
E
.^
tA
C
o
as
u
C
0
M
t/1
E
c
re
o
>»
4-»
C
(U
u
«o
UJ
a
V)
L.
i.
1
0)
£
4_>
^
o
CJJ
en
OJ
>
-------
Paper 81-5.2
Table IV.
Area
Birmingham
San Francisco
Buffalo
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Range of IP and FP Concentrations at Various
Sites in Several Urban Areas, yg/m3
INHALABLE PARTICIPATE
Annual
Average
40-58
25-42
52-63
46-92
37-48
Average High/Low Ratio 1.53
Site Maxima
65-140
51-113
111-138
99-200
134-146
1.74
FINE PARTICULATE
Annual
Average Site Maxima
22-32
13-18
27-33
25-37
23-32
1.39
37-52
39-82
58-70
92-109
99-128
1.44
12
-------
Paper 81-502
100 i
90 -
80 -
60 -
50 -
TSP
30 -
FP
f
2468
DISTANCE FROM BRIDESBURG CENTER , km
I
4
I
6
I
10
Figure 1. Average concentrations and concentration ranges in Bridesburg
area versus distance between sites for TSP, IP and FP
13
-------
Replacement for Figures 2 and 3
Paper 81-5.2
140 —
120—
100
80—1
1
ut
u
40-
20 —
160-
140
120 —
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
A. AVERAGE;
LEGEND
TSP
FP
*%
f X
X ^
^
B. MAXIMA
223 £226
T
191
221
'1
FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER
1979 1980
Figure 2. Seasonal variation of quarterly average FP and IP in 11 Eastern
and Midwestern U.S. urban areas.
Figure 3. Seasonal variation of quarterly maxima FP and IP in 11 Eastern
and Midwestern U.S. urban areas
-------
en£
en —
en co
cr> S
in
in cn
in
Cn
-». en
2 se,
-*• co
m CM
cn ^
in
-». CM
l*> IX
O -*.
— in
— *
m o
— en
co
>e
•*».
ve
CVJ
0 r
in —
voen
oeo
rv in
O n
in to
CM in
5:2
in
in
te>
01
CM
U)
in
co
CM
in
eo
COCM — „ 2J
en
<*)
>»
eo
Or*.
vo m
in
eo
«•> v
- — o
,
vo c\j r^ m CD
o* c\j r*. r^ ch
CK CM O *- O
toco en — —
S
CM
O
co ——
to v in
in in ro
•^ ^^.-v,
' » ^ •— CM
>*N. »n —CM
' cn ^ ^B ^~
in i
•V.-X,
f^ —
cn co
in CM CM
vo in CM
— — CM
in
£S
— CM
CM CM
— CM
VO CD
VO t~>
CM eo
in rn
in vo
i en
>cn
vo r*.
in
en
en .—
vo
S
CM CM
3
C
C
o
co
en
•«v.
VD
CM
m •v.^.^-v.-v,
— en o f> — o
•>. rv, o — vo O
' — CM — — CM
e«iCM
oj n
•N.^ —
IV. CO
fn^r
o»^
^ m
-5
f*> ^
m.
r*.
en
vo
•*»
-eo
eo
fx
CM
^»
*^^
*^
LA
E
S- «
0- =
O
tft CO
aj en
c
*->o
I-CO
«cn
L.
Ol
en
rv
en
in
CM
cn
vo
in o
•v in
in vo
vo rv
CM enco
CM ^CM
CM
vo
CM
CM
O
pv
in co
t*l CM
in vo
rv
CM
— CM
vo
vo
en
in
m
CM ^- cn vc
•»».CM ri cv
i •— —.^-v.
-»>VO CJ i— pg
i "x. n in «r
f eo •vv-^->.
in ri m
CM
•*»
co
— VO
n CM
m in
eo vo
VO
^
CM
o en
CM —
o eo
T CM
e?^
vo in
"-»-^
«r cn
O O
eo
— CM
CM in
vo -^
••— CM
cn
in
CM *..
ve
in
in «•
vn cn
en r*>
o
en
u
^
ji .
fit
* *> IB
—isr
vo
en
in
c I
o cr
CO
vo
IT! O O O> >
— i- >, cv f -
O—
1= -f
—CD
a
a
c
a
»CO
C4->cs
ov
CM CM
vo o
in in
n eo
VO rx.
vo eo JT
» CM CM 4->
«T in
v vo
in
CM
o
eo
CM
•v.
en
CM
VO
CM
«•»
CM
CO
vo
C\J
CM
CM
in
vo
CM
CM
CM
U> I", O
.— — jg
— CO
— e. c. i/i
C is
— o
-------
re- rM IF
U.S. F.i'-iron1-,-; r/-?.\ Protection Agency
Ee,r:'o;i V, L:o;-;,-y
250 Sojt.i Dearborn Street
—0 M!;v:.jS 60604
-------
I
_ CMcn
co m v
> o®
S Z =
to
O
tM
en
en
£
o
o
CM
">.
CM
en
o —
to rv
CM
m
OO CO H
oo
in
n
^
1
i— .
Ik.
e
J
X
^jj
C
•
M
S,
•B
^
4)
>
^
£
*
••
I
mm
*m
•I*
•
G
tn
0
9
cn
01
*j
e
z
en
iv,
2
n
tit
L.
i!
E
z
3
•>
f
n
I
i <^
^
^
CM
2
' If)
$
- £
• S
S
1
§
°
^~ 1
U !
E I
in
O i
*» CO 1
8,2
Sen
*-\
* t-
ȣ
L
«»>tO
«nm
S^r
cn iv.
enfv!'
IS,—.
00 V
«r f*i
CM CM
(v. en
SO
to
O V
m^r
SZ
to to
win
— m
en
•— in
vs.^
to •-s.
in to
v^^*.
^ ^
— 0
— cn
en en
CM ^
•w»
CM CO
mm
-cn*
— 0
to£» ?
*• -*.«-f^ ^.
*>-«r ->KI»» es
Q3 m o ^ —
VD — en in _
O o. r«. ^i"
f\j r->f^ __
"-CM — cncM
CO » CM
^ o^^
*•* ^T" *>»» O^
^ *•• (O CD
o Sr^^
•— en CM r^
•— CM CO >—
o m m *
C^ *«»CM -^
^ *~ "^ CC
m r^ CM to
J1 "N-m ->»
^» tO *^s C5
O P>» en cn
to — .10 t—
CM
om co
Jftin-^ %f
^* ^^i^J ^^ ^>w
-venocM en
vo r>-— ^.rx
*n ^^.i/i -^
*>.CM fn to in
£» — ~xw
i>«^r» i —
•» to en CM
tw CMP-O
-i- "•"•^ —
"O mo co
»• in in
> CM^i-
« — i 2
P«» w «^
cn n i^ qf> fvj
CM *"«v ^.CM *«^.
^Of-, -s. CO
m CM «r ^
Ofm ^^ <^ _K
V— ^— Tff ^^
co n
CO CM *~*^
CM -V.CM -s,
^. eo -^01
cn to m PS,
5" ^"1 —
*•» tO >*.!»)
m nco<-5
f^ ^ u> ^^
*
n
n
-•»
CD
in
Vs.
o
cn
to
v
•v.
O
to
-s.
—
CM
to
-s,
00
00
"s.
ps.
to
c>
m
~s,
V
fs»
CM
CM
CM
n
-•s,
to
f*s
M 211/86/23
n
cn
>s
CM
^.
I
*s^
fs»
CM
CM -
to
>s.
l*>
CM
O*
CM
r»
an
CM
in
CM
•
CM
P«"
5
^s..
I
o
5
to
^
"
'30 125/80/58
i/69 392/200/106
^n. ^O
Jg S
* 5L
en «i'
n» ic
eo
r^^ >
«• CM 1-1
^en" »"
1 » IN.
in «^
— iv.cn...
^S,-V.Vs.V.
en rC (-?.;•
r*j »» CM r^
^""v^V.^V,
en rvm m
iv. ^ ^ co
O
— iv, en
eo"^ ^*
CM
en
o
CM
v^
to
n
^
Cw
v.
eC
IS)
r-
4J
£
en
c
J
c.
w
Ol
.c
4^
o
^J
en
?
e
u
v^
«
n.
vi
Oi
^
c
m
.§
4rf
^ n
O iov r*>
tn w vo rs.
eo
CM
« »
i r
O j—
u S
"• O
4^ W
C QJ
» S.
—
on
en ^
•- o
— »
> c
•O W
25
s
VI I*
C 1/5
E e
-^- •*- O
o <_>
fl";
'
iL=11 If PI
01
J3
^ wi«
u u. - ^
m i/)
c
------- |