'" "/
* - >k
.1
« » V
I t
*
.' k*
/'.
v .
' ' U
* » "A t * - -
' * v k» Jl V
* «
»i
*.," '»'."*'
^M^lJ. S. EN\IRQrtME/4TAL PROTECTION AG|
.» ' . \ v
-------
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
Robert E. Lee, Jr.
and
Stephen Goranson
National Environmental Research Center
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
July 1972
-------
The AP series of reports is published by the Technical Publications Branch of
the Informational Services Division of the Office of Administration for the Office
of Air Programs, Environmental Projection Agency, to report the results of sci-
entific and engineering studies, and information of general interest in the field
of air pollution. Information reported in this series includes coverage of intra-
mural activities and of cooperative studies conducted in conjunction with state
and local agencies, research institutes, and industrial organizations. Copies of
AP reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contrac-
tors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or for the cost indicated on the
title page from the Superintendent of Documents.
Publication Number AP-108
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are indebted to Mrs. Marilyn Hawkins for processing the
cascade impactor samples and to John Bryant for his help during various
aspects of the project. We would also like to thank the sampling operators at
each of the CAMP stations: Robert Shaw at Cincinnati, Ralph Korgie at
Chicago, Bill Lamarr at Denver, Ed Nelson at St. Louis, Allen Trachtenberg at
Philadelphia, and George Walsh at Washington, D.C. Special thanks is given to
Jerome P. Flesch for his help with the computer program calculations.
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES xvi
ABSTRACT xvii
INTRODUCTION 1
MODIFIED ANDERSEN SAMPLER 3
Description of Gravimetric Method 3
Determination of Particle Size Fractionation Characteristics 7
COMPUTER PROGRAM 9
RELATIONSHIP OF CASCADE IMPACTOR TO HIGH-VOLUME
SAMPLER 13
OPERATION OF CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK 15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 17
SUMMARY 25
REFERENCES 27
APPENDICES
A SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES, 1970 QUARTERLY
COMPOSITES AND AVERAGES 29
B DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 49
C DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
CINCINNATI, OHIO 61
D DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
DENVER, COLORADO 71
E DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 83
F DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES, ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI 95
G DAILY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C 107
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Diagram of the Modified Andersen Impactor and Shelter 4
2 NASN Cascade Impactor With and Without Rain Shield 5
3 Disk of Aluminum Foil Used as Collection
Surface. Method of Weighing the
Cascade Impactor Collection Surfaces 6
4 Example of Computer Printout 10
5 Example of Computer-Plotted Particle Size
Distribution Curve 11
A-l Composite Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
First Quarter, 1970 30
A-2 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
Second Quarter, 1970 30
A-3 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
Third Quarter, 1970 31
A-4 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 31
A-5 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
1970 Average 32
A-6 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
First Quarter, 1970 33
A-7 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati, !
Second Quarter, 1970 33
A-8 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
Third Quarter, 1970 34
A-9 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 34
-------
A-10 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
1970 Average 35
A-l 1 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
First Quarter, 1970 36
A-l2 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
Second Quarter, 1970 36
A-l 3 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
Third Quarter, 1970 37
A-l 4 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 37
A-l 5 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
1970 Average 38
A-l6 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
First Quarter, 1970 39
A-l 7 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
Second Quarter, 1970 39
A-18 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
Third Quarter, 1970 40
A-l 9 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 40
A-20 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
1970 Average 41
A-21 Composite Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
First Quarter, 1970 42
A-22 Composite Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
Second Quarter, 1970 42
A-23 Composite Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
Third Quarter, 1970 43
A-24 Composite Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 43
A-25 Composite Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
1970 Average 44
-------
A-26 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
First Quarter, 1970 45
A-27 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
Second Quarter, 1970 45
A-28 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
Third Quarter, 1970 46
A-29 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
Fourth Quarter, 1970 46
A-30 Composite Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
1970 Average 47
B-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
January 13,1970 50
B-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
February 25,1970 50
B-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
March 9,1970 51
B-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
March 22,1970 51
B-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
April 8,1970 52
B-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
April 19, 1970 52
B-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
May 7,1970 53
B-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
June 2, 1970 53
B-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago, ,
June 12, 1970 54
B-l 0 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
June 16, 1970 54
B-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
July 4, 1970 55
vii
-------
B-12 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
July 14, 1970 55
B-l 3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
July 30, 1970 56
B-14 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
August 11, 1970 56
B-l 5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
August 27, 1970 57
B-l6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
September 11,1970 57
B-l7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
September 20, 1970 58
B-l 8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
October 7, 1970 58
B-l9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
November 15, 1970 59
B-20 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
December 5,1970 59
B-21 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Chicago,
December 20, 1970 60
C-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
March22,1970 62
C-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
April 8,1970 62
C-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
April 19,1970 63
C-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
May7, 1970 63
C-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
May 23, 1970 64
C-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
June 2,1970 64
Vlll
-------
C-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
June 15, 1970 65
C-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
July 4, 1970 65
C-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
July 14, 1970 66
C-10 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
July 30, 1970 66
C-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
August 10, 1970 67
C-12 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
August 26, 1970 67
C-l3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
September 11, 1970 68
C-l4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
September 20, 1970 68
C-l5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
October 7, 1970 69
C-l6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
November 15,1970 69
C-l 7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
December 5,1970 70
C-l 8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Cincinnati,
December 14,1970 70
D-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
January 29,1970 72
D-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
February 14,1970 72
D-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
February 26,1970 73
D-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
March9,1970 73
IX
-------
D-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
April 19,1970 74
D-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
May 7,1970 74
D-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
May 23,1970 75
D-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
June 2,1970 75
D-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
June 16,1970 76
D-10 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
July 3,1970 76
D-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
July 23,1970 77
D-l 2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
July 30,1970 77
D-l 3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
August 10,1970 78
D-14 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
August 23, 1970 78
D-l 5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
September 11, 1970 79
D-l 6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
September 27,1970 79
D-l 7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
October 7,1970 80
D-l8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
October 20,1970 80
D-l 9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
Novembers, 1970 81
D-20 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
November 15,1970 81
-------
D-21 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Denver,
December 14. 1970 82
E-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
March 10,1970 84
E-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
March 22,1970 84
E-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
April 7, 1970 85
E-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
April 19,1970 85
E-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
May 7,1970 86
E-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
May 27, 1970 86
E-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
June 2,1970 87
E-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
June 14,1970 87
E-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
July 4,1970 88
E-10 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
July 14, 1970 88
E-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
July 30, 1970 89
E-l 2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
August 10, 1970 89
E-l 3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia, !
September 11, 1970 90
E-l4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
September 27, 1970 90
E-l5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
September 30, 1970 91
XI
-------
E-16 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
October?, 1970 91
E-17 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
October 21, 1970 92
E-18 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
November 10, 1970 92
E-19 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
November 17, 1970 93
E-20 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Philadelphia,
Decembers, 1970 . . 93
F-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
January 13, 1970 96
F-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
January 29, 1970 96
F-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
February 14,1970 97
F-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
February 25, 1970 97
F-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
March 9, 1970 . 98
F-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
April 8, 1970 98
F-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
April 19, 1970 99
F-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
May 7,1970 . 99
F-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
May 27, 1970 100
F-l 0 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
June 16,1970 100
F-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
July 4, 1970 101
XII
-------
F-12 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
July 14, 1970 101
F-13 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
July 30, 1970 102
F-14 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
August 10, 1970 102
F-15 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
August 20, 1970 103
F-16 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
August 22, 1970 103
F-17 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
August 25, 1970 104
F-18 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
August 27, 1970 104
F-19 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
September 16, 1970 105
F-20 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
November 15, 1970 105
F-21 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
Decembers, 1970 106
F-22 Particle Size Distribution Curve, St. Louis,
December 14, 1970 106
G-l Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
January 29, 1970 108
G-2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
February 14, 1970 108
G-3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
February 25, 1970 109
G-4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
March 10, 1970 109
G-5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
March 22, 1970 110
XIII
-------
G-6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
AprQ 8, 1970 . . . 110
G-7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
April 19, 1970 HI
G-8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
May 7,1970 Ill
G-9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
June 1,1970 112
G-10 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
JuneS, 1970 112
G-l 1 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
June 16, 1970 113
G-l 2 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
July 4,1970 113
G-l 3 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
July 15, 1970 114
G-l 4 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
July 30,1970 114
G-l 5 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
August 11, 1970 115
G-l 6 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
September 11,1970 115
G-l7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
September 20,1970 116
G-l8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
October?, 1970 116
G-19 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
October 20,1970 117
G-20 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
November?, 1970 117
G-21 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
November 15,1970 . .118
xiv
-------
G-22 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
Decembers, 1970 118
G-23 Particle Size Distribution Curve, Washington, D.C.,
December 15,1970 119
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Effective Cutoff Diameter for Cascade Impactor as Function of Flow
Rate 8
2 Size Distribution Measurements, Chicago, Illinois 18
3 Size Distribution Measurements, Cincinnati, Ohio 19
4 Size Distribution Measurements, Denver, Colorado 20
5 Size Distribution Measurements, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 21
6 Size Distribution Measurements, St. Louis, Missouri 22
7 Size Distribution Measurements, Washington, D.C 23
8 Quarterly and Annual Size Distribution Composition, 1970 24
XVI
-------
ABSTRACT
An experimental network of modified cascade impactors was set up, as part
of the National Air Surveillance Network, to determine gravimetrically the
particle size distribution of suspended particulate matter in the air in six urban
areas. During 1970, samples were collected at a flow rate of 5 to 6 cfm for a
24-hour period once every 2 weeks according to a prearranged schedule. The
modified cascade impactor, the analytical methodology, and the computer
processing of data are described.
Results of the first year's operation indicate that suspended particulate
matter in urban air is predominantly submicron in size (expressed as equivalent
spheres of unit density). Individual and composite particle size distribution
curves were appoximately log-normal. Variations in the quarterly composites
of mass median diameter, various size fractions less than or equal to 1 and 2
microns, and the degree of particle dispersion expressed by the geometric
deviation generally followed seasonal patterns. Future expansion of the
network is discussed.
Key Words: size distributions, particulate matter, cascade impactors, aerosols.
XVH
-------
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
INTRODUCTION
Characterization of suspended particulate pollutants in ambient air is
usually limited to estimating the quantity of total suspended particulate
(micrograms of particulate per cubic meter of air), and determining the gross
concentrations of a number of chemical components. The National Air
Surveillance Networks (NASN) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) operate a nationwide system of high volume (Hi-Vol) air samplers;
particulates are collected on glass-fiber filters for a 24-hour period and
analyzed by gravimetric and chemical methods. Although these measurements
can give some indication of the general pollution level in an area, they do not
provide information concerning the size distribution of total suspended
particulate matter.
Because the degree of respiratory penetration and retention is a direct
function of aerodynamic particle size, knowledge of the particle size
distribution of suspended particulates is essential in assessing the inhalation
health hazard.1 The particle size, composition, and concentration of aerosol
constituents determines the extent of visibility reduction,2 particle-particle and
particle-gas interactions, soiling, deterioration of materials, and a wide range of
atmospheric phenomena. Furthermore, the particle size of suspended
particulates is important in meteorology (particularly as it affects formation of
precipitation) and in geophysics (particulates can scatter solar radiation back
.into space). Until now, data on particle size distribution of suspended
particulates have been difficult to obtain because available fractionating devices
either required excessively long sampling periods to collect sufficient material
for gravimetric or chemical analysis, or provided inadequate resolution of sizes.
In addition, the previously available size classifiers generally were expensive,
were difficult to operate, and were of limited usefulness in a network
operation; often, too, the collection surfaces were not amenable to gravimetric
or to chemical analysis. Recently, however, Lee and Flesch3 described a
high-volume particle fractionating cascade impactor that overcame most of
these disadvantages. This fractionater was adapted from an Andersen* cascade
impactor,4 a commercially available device that has been used for some limited
air pollution studies.5'6
*Mention of a specific commercial product or a company name does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
In an effort to characterize the particle size distribution of suspended
particulate matter on a routine basis, an experimental network of the modified
cascade impactors was established in six urban areas in January 1970. Cascade
impactors were installed at the NASN Continuous Air Monitoring Project
(CAMP) stations in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Cincinnati, and Denver. A 24-hour sample was collected once every 2 weeks
according to a schedule established earlier for an EPA study of poDutant
effects. This report describes results that were obtained from the first year's
operation of the network, some problems that were encountered in the
operation, and plans that were made for expanding the network.
CASCADE IMP ACTOR NETWORK
-------
MODIFIED ANDERSEN SAMPLER
The Andersen cascade impactor fractionates particles in a series of six
collection stages according to the aerodynamic dimension of the particles.
Particles pass through a series of jets, 400 per stage, with progressively smaller
cross sections. At each jet, a fraction of the particles is impacted on a
collection plate; the range of particle sizes collected on a stage depends on the
jet velocity of the stage, on the jet-to-collection-surface distance, and on the
collection characteristics of the previous stage. Particles that are not collected
on the first stage follow the air stream around the collection plate to the next
stage until the jet velocity is sufficient for impaction.
By removing the sixth stage of the Andersen sampler and placing a
4-inch-diameter filter downstream to collect the small unimpacted particles,
one can operate the sampler at a flow rate "of 5 to 6 cubic feet per minute
(cfrn). Operation requires a vacuum pump of about 8 inches of mercury for
sustained sampling periods.
A diagram of the modified sampler is given in Figure 1. The spring clamps,
which hold the stages tightly together, must be shortened when the sixth stage
of the commercial .sampler is removed. The backup filter holder can ac-
commodate glass fiber or membrane filters 4 inches in diameter. A Cast carbon
vane rotary pump, model 0822, is housed in a vented shelter. The cascade
impactor and the backup filter are protected from precipitation and from large
debris by a removable rain shield. The impactor with the backup filter holder is
shown both with and without the rain shield in Figure 2. The air flow rate can
be determined by measuring the pressure drop across an orifice, approximately
0.25 inch in diameter, with a magnehelic or other pressure gauge having a
capacity of 50 inches of water. Pressure drop across the orifice is calibrated as a
function of flow rate by placing a dry test meter at the inlet end of the sampler
and varying the air flow with an air bleed on the vacuum pump.
DESCRIPTION OF GRAVIMETRIC METHOD
i
A disk of aluminum foil 3.25 inches in diameter, as shown in Figure 3, is
conditioned in a room having controlled temperature and humidity for 24
hours and is weighed to the nearest microgram on a micro-analytical balance
(Kahn Electro Balance). In the work reported here, all the weighings were done
on a micro-electro balance fitted with a weighing chamber and adapted to
permit below-the-pan weighing by suspending the aluminum foil disk from a
wire attached to the balance beam, as shown in Figure 3. Both the
electro-balance and the collection surfaces were housed in a room maintained
at a relative humidity of 50 percent and a temperature of 72°F.
-------
5 STAGE
ANDERSEN
SAMPLER
REMOVABLE
RAIN
SHELTER
AIR INLET
SPRING CLAMPS
4 inch BACKUP
FILTER HOLDER
ORIFICE
MAGNEHELIC
PRESSURE GAUGE
MOUNTED ON SHELTER
VENTED
MOTOR SHELTER
Figure 1. Diagram of the modified Andersen impactor arid shelter.
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
s.
Figuie 2. NASN cascade impactor with and without rain shield.
-------
Figure 3. Disk of aluminum foil used as collection surface
(top). Method of weighing the cascade impactor collection
surface (bottom).
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
To collect a sample, a preweighed aluminum disk is placed on top of each
stainless steel collection plate in the modified Andersen cascade impactor. A
conditioned and weighed 4-inch-diameter membrane filter of 3.0 micron pore
size and with a nylon mesh reinforcement is placed in the backup filter holder.
All collection surfaces are handled with forceps. The sampler is operated for a
24-hour period; average flow rate is calculated from the beginning and the
ending air flow values. After sampling, the aluminum collection disks and the
membrane filter are folded in half with the sample side touching, are placed in
glassine envelopes, and are returned to the laboratory, where they are
conditioned in the temperature-humidity controlled atmosphere for 24 hours
before weighing.
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE FRACTIONATION
CHARACTERISTICS
The high collection rate (5 to 6 cfm) of the modified cascade impactor
precludes dynamic laboratory calibration such as described by Flesch etal? It
is experimentally difficult to maintain an aerosol of known particle size when a
large portion of the aerosol is removed with the impactor. Consequently, the
particle size fractionation characteristics of the sampler were determined
theoretically.
According to studies by Mercer8 and by Ranz and Wong,9 the effective
cutoff diameter (BCD) in microns for each stage of an impactor can be
determined by use of the dimensionless inertial impactor parameter,^.
where V- = jet velocity
p = particle density
D.-
D
= Cunningham correction factor
= viscosity o f medium
= diameter of jet
p = diameter of particle
For round jets where s/D->2 (s is the jet-to-collection-surface distance) as in
the Andersen, *^ = 0.38. Thus, the BCD, which is the quantity (pC^D ), can
be calculated for various flow rates. Because flow conditions are not
appreciably altered at air flow rates higher than that ordinarily used with the
conventional Andersen impactor (1 cfm), the inertial impaction parameter can
be expected to predict fairly accurate BCD values at these flows.
Modified Andersen Sampler
-------
The variation of BCD with flow rate for each stage of the Anderson
sampler, calculated from the Mercer-Ranz-Wong theory, is summarized in Table
1. With increasing flow rate, sharp increases in BCD occur on the upper stages,
which collect the larger particles. The BCD for each stage changes very little,
however, when the flow rate is increased beyond about 4 cfm.
Table 1. EFFECTIVE CUTOFF DIAMETER FOR CASCADE IMP ACTOR
AS FUNCTION OF FLOW RATE
Impactorstage
Effective cutoff
diameter, ;u
7.22
4.92
2.19
1.40
8
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
COMPUTER PROGRAM
A small scientific computer was used to calculate size distribution data
including: (1) total particulate concentration in micrograms per cubic meter
(/jg/m3), (2) mass median diameter (MMD) in microns, (3) standard geometric
deviation, (4) percent particle mass less than or equal to 1 micron in diameter,
and (5) percent particle mass less than or equal to 2 microns in diameter. The
input data are the net particulate weights in micrograms for each of the five
impactor stages and the backup filter, and the average flow rate for each stage.
The BCD for each stage is determined from the average air flow rate as
previously described.
BCD (I) = C
where BCD (I) = the effective cutoff diameter for
Stage I (1 = 1-5)
C (I) = a constant related to Stage 1
R = the air flow rate in cfm
Next, using the net weight data, the cumulative weights are calculated:
CUM WT (I) = 2 Net wt. (J)
J
-------
CINCINNATI QH 04/19/70
SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE
ANDERSEN NET WT. CUM.WT. CUM. ECO
STAGE UG. UG. PC U
I 239C. 2390. 15.22 3.19
2 83C. 3220. 20.51 2.17
3 741. 3961. 25.23 1.49
4 99C. 4951. 31.54 0.96
^ 2386. 7337. 46.74 0.61
BACKUP
FILTfcR 836C. 15697. 100.00
AIR FLOW RATE = 5.11 CFM
AIR VOLUME = 208.3 M3
TOTAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION = 75.3 UG/M3
PASS MEDIAN DIAMETER = C.48 MICRONS
STANDARD GEOMETRIC DEVIATION = 5.83
PER CENT LESS THAN 1 MICRON = 66.
PER CENT LESS THAN 2 MICRON = 79.
Figure 4. Example of computer printout.
Because the particle size of total suspended particulate is nearly
log-normally distributed, the mass median diameter is found at the 50 percent
mass cumulative point and the standard geometric deviation is calculated
directly from the ratios:
84.13% size 50% size
or-
15.87% size
The size distribution lines are also used to determine the percentages of
particulate mass equal to or less than 1 and 2 microns in diameter. These size
parameters are printed out directly on the computational sheet as shown in the
sample calculation.
One option of the program is that composite curves may be computed by
use of data from the individual distributions for 1 quarter, 1 year, or any other
desired time interval. To determine composite distributions, an average air flow
rate is found and average net weights are determined for each stage; the
resultant ECD's are plotted against cumulative percent mass, as in the
individual plots.
10 CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
ClfsCIlsMATI CH
O4/1S/7O
10.O,i , ,_
> t t
4 »
6-0.
4.O.
2-0.
1-0.
o-a:
MO - 0«4B
4 1 1I»-HIIt 1 I I
a 510 30 30 4O 50 GO 70 BO 9095 SB 99
OJMJLATZVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAtCTER
Figure 5. Example of computer-plotted particle size distribution
curve. i
Computer Program
11
-------
RELATIONSHIP OF CASCADE IMPACTOR TO
HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER
Because sampling with high-volume air samplers is the method used most
commonly in the United States for determining total suspended particulate
matter, it is important to relate concentration measurements determined with
the cascade impactor sampler to Hi-Vol concentration measurements so that
comparisons can be made. During a recent study in England,10 measurements
of suspended particulate concentrations (jug/m3) determined with a cascade
impactor were compared with measurements determined with a high-volume
air sampler. The instruments were operated concurrently for 24-hour sampling
periods. A total of 101 sample pairs were colected at sites in London, at Kew
Observatory, a suburb of London, and at Eskdalemuir Observatory in southern
Scotland, a nonurban site selected to provide "background" measurements of
particulate levels. The coefficient of correlation between the two samplers was
KJ.94, indicating a high degree of association between the methods. Regression
equations were developed so that concentration measurements made with the
cascade impactor (Y) could be converted to equivalent measurements made
with the high-volume sampler (X):
Y =29.158 +0.507 X
where Sy_x =10.943
X =42.650 + 1.742 Y
where Sx y = 20.320
Measurements with the cascade impactor exhibited a marked dependence
on particulate concentrations. Concentrations measured with the cascade
impactor sampler are generally higher than those measured with the Hi-Vol
sampler at nonurban sites, where particulate concentrations are low; however,
in urban areas, where particulate concentrations are relatively high,
concentrations measured with the cascade impactor sampler are generally lower
than the corresponding concentrations measured with the Hi-Vol. It appears
that the membrane filter, which is placed downstream past the last impactor
stage, may be more efficient in collecting submicron size particles,
predominately by electrostatic attraction, than the glass fiber filters used in the
Hi-Vol; this would account for the higher cascade impactor measurements at
nonurban areas. Lower concentrations measured with the cascade impactor in
more heavily polluted atmospheres may be explained in part by wall losses on
the inner surfaces of the cascade impactor. No sigificant difference in the
13
-------
relationship between the two sampling methods was observed in the heating
season compared with the nonheating season.
14 CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
OPERATION OF CASCADE
IMP ACTOR NETWORK
At 3-month intervals, each station operator was provided with a supply of
collection surfaces consisting of 5 preweighed aluminum disks and a membrane
filter,- each stored in an individual glassine envelope. The six envelopes were
placed in a cardboard folder, that was then placed along with a data sheet in a
mailing envelope. Each operator was supplied with instructions for operating
the impactor and with a set of forceps for handling the collection surfaces.
In accordance with a random sampling schedule, the operator removed the
cascade impactor and backup filter holder assembly from the sampler body and
at an inside workbench placed the appropriate collection surface on the
corresponding impactor stage. He then replaced the impactor assembly on the
sampler body, which was connected to a 24-hour timer. After a 5-minute
warmup period, he recorded the initial flow reading on the data sheet. He also
took a final reading just before shutting off the sampler at the end of the
24-hour period. All samples were collected from midnight to midnight.
After sampling, the operator took the cascade impactor assembly indoors,
carefully removed the sample collection surfaces with forceps, folded the
surfaces in half with the sample side touching, and returned the collected
surface to its original glassine envelope. He then noted on the data sheet all
pertinent information, including, sampling site, date of sample, beginning and
ending flow readings, and unusual weather conditions. The entire folder was
mailed to a NASN laboratory in Cincinnati for gravimetric analysis.
15
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Early in the sampling program, several operational problems contributed to
the loss of a number of samples. The most important of these problems
concerned the difficulty of placing the membrane filter properly in the backup
filter holder. Because of improper placement, the filter could not be sealed in
the filter holder, and a portion of the aerosol was lost.
After several sampling runs, however, the operators mastered the technique
of changing and folding the collection surfaces and thus increased the
subsequent number of valid samples. Barring a clearly recognized sampling
error, such as inconsistent reporting of flow rate or visible leaks around the
collection surfaces, the samples were accepted as valid. Occasional difficulties
in weighing the membrane filters were overcome by use of a polonium
radiation source to reduce the surface charge and by careful temperature and
humidity control of the weighing-room atmosphere. No attempt was made to
chemically analyze the particulate fractions, although analyses of selected
components are planned at a future time.
Data on particulate concentrations and on various particle size parameters
for each of the sampling sites are summarized in Tables 2 through 7.
Examination of these tables indicates that the concentration of suspended
particulate matter measured with the cascade impactor was highest in August
at Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, and Cincinnati. Similarly, high particulate
concentrations were measured at Washington, D.C. in late July and early
August; the third highest concentration for the year, at Denver, was also
measured in August. The lowest particulate concentrations at Washington,
D.C., St. Louis, Chicago, and Cincinnati were measured in mid-November. The
lowest value at Philadelphia was measured in December, and at Denver, in
October.
Particle size distribution curves for each sampling site are given in the
Appendix. Size distribution curves for most of the sampling sites were
log-normal, although the distributions at Washington, D.C. appeared to be
somewhat skewed. Although the mass mediam diameters at all sites were
predominantly submicron, mass median diameters greater than 1 micron were
found in individual samples collected at all locations. The largest number of
samples in which the mass median diameter was greater than 1 micron was
collected at St. Louis (7 of 22 samples). Only 1 of 23 samples collected at
Washington, D.C. exhibited a mass median diameter greater than 1 micron.
Except for Chicago, the mass median diameters were lowest in the spring and
highest from October through December.
17
-------
Examination of Tables 2 through 7 reveals that, with some exceptions, the
size distribution of suspended particulate matter was relatively broad in
samples collected from March through June at most sites, as indicated by the
relatively large standard geometric deviation. A trend toward a comparatively
narrower distribution of particle sizes, revealed by small standard geometric
deviation values, occurred after June. At all sites, the degree of particle
dispersion varied considerably among individual samples, an indication that
localized conditions such as precipitation and air turbulence significantly
influence the distribution of particles. For example, during periods of rain, the
vashout of large particles that represent a major portion of aerosol mass leaves
a relatively broad distribution of small particles. On the other hand,
atmospheric turbulence may cause reintrainment of predominantly large
particles and thereby produce a relatively narrow distribution of particle sizes.
Table 2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Sampling date,
1970
January 13
February 25
March 9
March 22
April 8
April 19
May 7
June 2
June 12
June 16
July 4
July 14
July 30
August 1 1
August 27
September 1 1
September 20
October 7
November 1 5
December 5
December 20
Concentration,
jug/m3
110.4
111.1
103.1
68.0
86.7
60.2
92.4
57.8
119.1
80.1
43.7
94.7
78.1
139.8
116.7
125.9
88.4
80.5
54.3
58.0
60.5
Mass
median
diameter,
V
2.96
3.14
2.40
1.28
0.48
0.39
0.47
0.26
0.93
0.70
0.05
0.79
0.56
0.92
0.83
0.49
0.47
0.94
0.61
0.62
0.51
Standard
geometric
deviation
8.43
24.62
12.70
4.90
21.86
2.45
12.30
10.18
6.40
4.88
15.43
4.90
7.13
3.03
6.12
8.98
7.65
8.70
9.71
6.66
6.90
% Particle
mass,
<1 JU
31
37
37
44
60
85
62
72
52
59
85
56
62
53
54
63
65
51
59
60
64
% Particle
mass,
<2ju
43
45
48
61
68
97
72
81
66
75
90
72
72
76
69
74
76
64
70
73
76
18
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
Quarterly and annual composites of the particle size distribution data for
each site are summarized in Table 8. Composite size distribution curves are
presented in Appendix A. Except for Denver and St. Louis, the highest average
concentrations of suspended particulate were found during the third quarter of
1970; the lowest concentrations were found during the fourth quarter at
Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. The highest average
annual concentration, 86.5 jug/m3, was measured at Chicago; the lowest
average annual concentration, 56.3 jug/m3, was measured at Washington, D.C.
Comparatively low concentrations, 59.7 jug/m3 and 58.5 fig/m3, were also
measured at Denver and Philadelphia, respectively.
Table 8 also reveals the predominantly submicron size of suspended
particulate matter measured at all sites. Lowest values for average mass median
diameter, except for the value from the single valid sample collected at
Cincinnati during the first quarter, were obtained at all sampling sites during
the second quarter. The highest average mass median diameters varied with
season and with site. The lowest average annual mass median diameter was
found in Denver; the highest, in St. Louis.
Table 3. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS, CINCINNATI, OHIO
Sampling date,
1970
March 22
April 8
April 19
May?
May 23
June 2
June 1 5
July 4
July 14
July 30
August 10
August 26
September 1 1
September 20
October 7
November 15
December 5
December 14
Concentration,
jug/m3
61.9
83.7
75.3
51.4
133.1
43.8
74.8
51.8
124.4
69.1
40.5
191.7
72.5
67.8
65.0
26.6
49.3
54.6
Mass
median
diameter,
M
0.37
0.44
0.48
0.26
0.92
0.91
0.66
0.27
1.07
0.80
0.48
1.11
0.30
0.44
1.33
0.50
1.03
1.02
Standard
geometric
deviation
5.71
6.79
5.83
12.02
5.60
10.00
4.21
10.68
3.13
5.85
3.91
4.78
23.90
4.43
4.08
4.27
4.11
4.22
% Particle
mass
<1fi
72
67
66
71
52
76
62
71
48
55
71
48
35
71
42
69
60
50
% Particle
mass
<2fJL
84
79
79
79
68
85
78
80
71
70
85
65
73
85
62
83
68
68
Results and Discussion
19
-------
The broadest particle size distribution, gauged from the average annual
standard geometric deviation of 10.50, was measured at Denver; the narrowest
distribution, shown by an average annual standard deviation of 5.22, occurred
at Washington. In Cincinnati, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, the
particle size distribution changed from a narrow dispersion of particles in the
first quarter to a broader distribution in the second quarter, followed by a
comparatively narrow distribution in the third quarter. Fourth-quarter results
for the sites were variable. A somewhat similar pattern was also found in
Denver. Measurements at Chicago, however, exhibited broadest distribution
during the first quarter and narrowest distribution during the third quarter.
Except for Chicago, the dispersion patterns could be explained, at least in part,
by seasonal factors. That is, during the first quarter, the narrow distribution of
particles reflected the homogeneity of aerosols emitted predominantly from
heating sources in winter; during the second quarter, the broadening of the
particle distribution reflects the reduction of heating activity that removes a
fraction of the large aerosol particles giving, effectively, a greater heterogeneity
of aerosol particles; during the third quarter, the particle size distribution again
becomes more narrowly dispersed with the influx of large dust and debris
particles reentrained from the ground during dry, windy conditions.
Table 4. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS, DENVER, COLORADO
Sampling date,
1970
January 29
February 14
February 26
March 9
April 19
May?
May 23
June 2
June 16
July3
July 23
July 30
August 10
August 23
September 1 1
September 27
October 7
October 20
November 5
November 1 5
December 14
Concentration,
M9/m3
25.8
73.7
47.9
59.7
58.3
49.7
50.7
50.6
47.5
54.9
77.1
49.2
78.1
48.6
70.8
38.1
15.6
25.4
81.3
64.3
188.3
Mass
median
diameter,
M
0.49
0.23
0.45
0.55
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.37
0.17
0.74
0.30
0.60
0.05
1.53
1.51
0.47
0.63
1.44
Standard
geometric
deviation
7.18
15.53
8.09
5.01
11.14
12.49
7.41
12.19
8.86
10.37
9.13
9.72
6.90
6.37
6.86
75.21
7.98
25.35
11.35
11.98
8.23
% Particle
mass
<1 JU
65
70
65
65
76
76
76
77
77
76
67
78
57
75
61
76
42
54
62
58
44
% Particle
mass
<2ju
77
79
77
79
84
83
85
85
86
84
78
86
70
85
74
81
55
54
73
68
57
20
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
Composite values for the average percent of the particle mass < 1 micron in
diameter and the average percent < 2 microns in diameter are also shown in
Table 8. Because these values were interpolated directly from, the particle size
distribution curves, they provide a more accurate picture of the particle size
than does the mass median diameter, a value often obtained by extrapolating
the distribution curve. On a yearly-average basis, Denver, Philadelphia, and
Washington exhibited approximately the same percentages of particulate mass
< 1 micron in diameter, ranging from 65 to 68 percent. Chicago and St. Louis
exhibited the lowest proportions, 55 percent and 54 percent respectively;
Cincinnati showed an intermediate value of 59 percent. Chicago, Denver, St.
Louis, and Washington exhibited similar quarterly composite patterns in that
the average percentage of particle mass < 1 micron in diameter increased in the
second quarter, but then decreased during the third and fourth quarters.
Cincinnati and Philadelphia both exhibited a continually decreasing percentage
of particulate mass < 1 micron in diameter from the first through the fourth
quarter. The same quarterly composite trends for the percent particle mass < 1
micron in diameter were also found for the particle mass < 2 microns in
diameter. At Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington, however, the percent
Table5. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Sampling date,
1970
March 10
March 22
April 7
April 19
May 7
May 27
June 2
June 14
July 4
July 14
July 30
August 10
September 1 1
September 27
September 30
October 7
October 21
November 1 0
November 1 7
December 5
Concentration,
jug/m3
51.8
69.0
63.7
47.8
43.9
53.6
56.2
40.0
67.0
57.4
86.0
86.8
53.9
42.1
69.6
85.4
41.7
77.8
47.6
25.9
Mass
median
diameter,
M
0.44
0.28
0.29
0.24
0.12
0.42
0.42
0.20
0.82
0.39
0.90
0.88
0.25
0.23
0.53
0.02
1.41
1.62
0.83
0.62
Standard
geometric
deviation
8.44
4.14
7.33
7.55
9.81
0.44
17.32
22.41
2.91
6.20
2.97
3.19
7.20
5.21
4.47
12.92
4.41
3.68
3.63
4.66
% Particle
mass
<1M
65
81
74
76
83
65
62
70
58
70
54
55
76
82
67
93
41
36
56
63
% Particle
mass
<2ju
76
92
84
85
89
76
71
77
80
82
77
76
86
91
82
96
60
57
76
78
Results and Discussion
21
-------
particle mass < 2 microns in diameter was approximately the same in the
second and in the third quarters.
The network described here was expanded by four additional stations in
January 1971 to make a total of 10 cascade impactor stations. Two additional
urban stations were installed at Steubenville, Ohio, and Seattle, Washington;
two background stations were located at Grand Canyon, Colorado, and Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, to provide particle size information on nonurban
aerosols. Plans are to develop a network of about 50 sampling stations by 1974
to determine the particle size distribution of suspended matter in the
atmosphere. The collected samples will be subject to detailed chemical analysis
for hazardous and biologically active elements and compounds. This network
will provide data to identify pollutants in the respirable size range and provide
some indication as to the depth of penetration in the respiratory system.
Table 6. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Sampling date,
1970
January 13
January 29
February 14
February 25
March 9
April 8
April 19
May 7
May 27
June 16
July 4
July 14
July 30
August 1 0
August 20
August 22
August 25
August 27
September 16
November 15
December 5
December 14
Concentration,
jug/m3
173.9
29.2
75.0
46.8
81.6
67.9
52.6
90.0
78.7
81.0
18.1
68.1
66.5
86.8
85.8
72.4
89.9
123.8
79.7
23.4
23.4
68.3
Mass
median
diameter
J"
1.22
1.04
0.66
0.29
1.34
0.94
0.21
0.43
0.40
0.78
0.40
1.09
0.89
1.05
0.74
0.48
0.88
1.21
0.77
0.40
0.40
1.47
Standard
geometric
deviation
5.92
3.43
6.09
14.96
9.44
7.86
7.81
18.27
19.04
5.33
10.34
4.53
8.99
4.66
6.26
9.23
5.84
4.26
4.91
4.94
4.48
5.36
% Particle
mass
<1 JU
46
49
60
68
45
52
78
62
62
56
65
48
53
49
57
63
53
45
57
72
51
41
% Particle
mass
<2ju
61
70
75
76
58
65
87
70
71
71
76
66
65
66
81
74
68
64
73
84
69
58
22
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
Table?. SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sampling date,
1970
January 29
February 14
February 25
March 10
March 22
April 8
April 19
May?
June 1
June 3
June 16
July 4
July 15
July 30
August 1 1
September 1 1
September 20
October 7
October 20
November 7
November 1 5
Decembers
December 15
Concentration
Mg/m3
67.2
46.0
48.5
44.6
59.6
64.7
47.6
48.3
54.1
49.4
67.3
68.9
87.5
81.5
73.6
59.0
69.1
48.9
43.9
72.4
19.6
37.6
21.7
Mass
median
diameter
M
0.70
0.45
0.63
0.33
0.39
0.52
0.24
0.07
0.12
0.17
0.53
0.54
0.64
0.62
0.40
0.23
0.49
0.87
1.20
0.70
0.26
0.50
0.98
Standard
geometric
deviation
7.66
4.25
7.43
10.73
3.31
3.59
4.54
9.33
44.79
10.37
16.96
2.81
3.39
3.54
4.46
10.88
4.24
3.12
4.48
4.15
4.33
4.05
3.83
% Particle
mass
<1 M
57
71
59
68
78
70
83
88
71
77
59
73
65
65
73
73
69
55
46
60
82
69
51
% Particle
mass
<2n
70
85
72
78
91
86
92
94
77
85
68
90
83
82
86
82
84
77
64
77
92
84
71
Results and Discussion
23
-------
Table 8. QUARTERLY AND ANNUAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPOSITES, 1970
City and
collection
period
Chicago
1
2
3
4
Annual
Cincinnati
1
2
3
4
Annual
Denver
1
2
3
4
Annual
Philadelphia
1
2
3
4
Annual
St. Louis
1
2
3
4
Annual
Washington
1
2
3
4
Annual
Number
of
samples
4
6
7
4
21
1
6
7
4
18
4
5
7
5
21
2
6
7
5
20
5
5
9
3
22
5
6
6
6
23
Average
concentration,
Aig/m3
97.8
82.4
98.3
63.0
86.5
61.9
77.5
88.9
48.6
74.3
51.4
51.4
59.1
80.7
59.7
60.4
50.9
66.1
56.8
58.5
81.2
73.7
76.5
44.5
73.1
53.0
55.3
73.5
41.1
56.3
Average mass
median
diameter,
M
2.31
0.51
0.62
0.66
0.76
0.37
0.54
0.77
1.01
0.70
0.41
0.19
0.34
1.02
0.40
0.31
0.26
0.62
0.55
0.47
0.97
0.53
0.89
1.02
0.83
0.47
0.26
0.51
0.73
0.46
Average
standard
geometric
deviation
10.41
8.16
5.88
8.00
8.18
5.71
6.47
5.15
4.32
5.49
7.99
10.22
9.50
10.65
10.50
6.02
11.21
3.91
6.34
5.65
6.61
10.33
5.69
5.34
6.80
5.98
8.80
3.95
4.11
5.22
Average %
particle
mass
<1M
37
63
61
58
55
72
63
57
50
59
67
76
69
50
65
74
71
64
63
67
51
61
53
50
54
67
73
69
59
68
Average %
particle
mass
<2Ai
48
74
75
71
68
84
76
72
68
74
78
85
79
62
75
85
80
81
76
80
65
72
68
66
68
79
83
84
76
81
24
CASCADE IMPACTOR NETWORK
-------
SUMMARY
A successful method of determining particle size distributions of suspended
particulate matter in a routine field operation has been demonstrated.
Gravimetric determination of particulate matter, fractionated by virtue of the
aerodynamic dimension of the particles, indicated that at six major urban areas
in the United States suspended particulate matter is predominantly submicron
in size. Trends in particulate concentrations and particle size distributions
appear to be influenced at least in part by seasonal and by emission source
factors.
25
-------
REFERENCES
1. Morrow, P.E. Evaluation of Inhalation Hazards Based Upon the
Respirable Dust Concept and the Philosophy and Application of Selective
Sampling. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.25: 213, May-June 1964.
2. Middleton, W.E.K. Vision Through the Atmosphere. University of
Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 1952.
3. Lee, R.E., Jr. and J.P. Flesch. A Gravimetric Method for Determining the
Size Distribution of Particulates Suspended in Air. Presented at the annual
meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. New York, N.Y. June
22-26,1969.
4. Andersen, A.A. A Sampler for Respiratory Health Hazard
Assessment. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 27:160,1966.
5. Wagman, J., R.E. Lee, Jr., and C.H. Axt. Influence of Some Atmospheric
Variables on the Concentration and Particle Size Distribution ofSulfate in
Urban Air. Atmospheric Environment 1.-419, 1967.
6. Lee, R.E., Jr., R.K. Patterson, and J. Wagman. Particle Size Distribution
of Metal Components in Urban Air. Environ. Sci. and Technology 2:288,
1968.
7. Flesch, J.P., C.H. Morris, and A.E. Nugent, Jr. Calibrating Paniculate Air
Samplers with Monodisperse Aerosols: Application to the Andersen
Cascade Impactor. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 25:507, 1967.
8. Mercer, T.T., Aerosol Production and Characterization: Some
Considerations for Improving Correlation of Field and Laboratory
Derived Data. Health Physics 70:873,1964.
9. Ranz, W.E., and O.B. Wong. Jet Impactors for Determining the Particle
Size Distributions of Aerosols. Ind. Hyg. and Occup. Med. 464, 1952.
10. Lee, R.E., Jr., J.S. Caldwell, and G.B. Morgan. The Evaluation of Methods
for Measuring Suspended Particulates in Air. Atmospheric Environment.
in press, 1972.
27
-------
APPENDIX A
SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
1970 QUARTERLY COMPOSITES
AND AVERAGES
29
-------
CHICAGO IL
1370 QTR 1
CHICAGO IL
1370 QTR 2
n
w
T)
I
z
o
10.Of |
B.O:
4-0. ,
e-o..
I.Q. .
0-6 '.
0*4. .
o«a,
H 1 1 1II-I 1 1 1 1-
MO = 2-31
H 1 IIII H
-»
15 S 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 90 3095 9B !
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-1. Composite size distribution curve,
Chicago, first quarter. 1970.
0.1
5 IT) 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 3035 SB39
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-2. Composite size distribution curve,
Chicago, second quarter, 1970.
-------
CHICAQD IL
1S7O QTR 3
CHICAQD IL
137O QTR 4
ID'O.
9-0:
4-0.
2.0.
l.Q .
o-a:
0.6'
0.4
0.1
-II»*II-
-»*-
-I 1-
MO = 0-62
1 1II 1 1-
H
5 510 SO 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 35
UMULATIVE PER GENT MASS * PARTICLE
to'°4 1 1 1 1 1III 1 H-
Figure A-3. Composite size distribution curve,
Chicago, third quarter, 1970.
4.0. .
tj a-o..
| i-o.
1 0
-------
CHICAGO. ILL.
1970 AVE.
10.0
5.0
I
u
K
UJ
1.0
ce
2
0.2
0.1
I
t
I
ID i 0.7S
I
I I I I
12 5 10 20 30 40 50 SO 70 80 90 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PERCENT MASSSPARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-5. Composite size distribution curve,
Chicago, 1970 average.
-------
CIISCIMMMT EH
U37O QTR 1
CH
1370 QTR 2
I
S
10 «0.
B
6*0..
O. .
4-0..
M 2-0..
| 1-0.
s 0>a::
o.&.
0-4..
a
O.I
H 1 K 4 1I«II 1 1 «
MVD = 0-37
-» » »
»
1-
12 510 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B98
OMJLAriVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE OIMCTER
lO'O.
B.O: :
4-0.
2-0.
1-0.
O.BL:
3
O.I
H 1-
H 1IIII 1-
IMJ = 0'S4
-» 1I»II »-
15 5 10 3) 30 40 50 BO 70 8D 9035 3398
OlfLLATIVC PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
U)
Figure A-6. Composite size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, first quarter, 1970.
Figure A-7. Composite size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, second quarter 1970.
-------
CINCINNATI CH
1H70 QTR 3
CINCINNATI CH
1370 QTR
i
o
>
§
10.0.
B-O: :
6-0 '
4*0. .
S-0. .
1-0. ,
o-a :
0*4 .
0-1
-++-
IIII
-I 1 H
= 0-77
-{ 1 1 1II-HI 1 1 1
15 S 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 33 39
OMJ-ATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
B
6-0. .
0. i
4-O.
5-0. .
o-s .
0-4. .
o-i
S 1 1 ( 1III(-
H 1 t-
MMD = 1-01
-»III 1 1 1-
-f-
15 510 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 SB
OJMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE
Figure A-8. Composite size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, third quarter, 1970.
Figure A-9. Composite size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, fourth quarter, 1970.
-------
CINCINNATI. OHIO
1970 AVE.
I
X
10.0.
5.0
-------
DENVER CD
1370 QTR 1
DENVER CD
1370 OTR S
10.0.
O
fe
Z
w
O
SO
6-0. .
4-0. .
w 5-0.
* 1-0. .
M 0*
Uj O'B. .
fc 0-4. .
0.2.
0.1
H 1 1-
H 1 1 1-
MiD = 0*41
H H
H 1 1 t I 1 »-
10* 0.
15 510 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B9B
OM1-ATIVE PER CENT MASS £ PARTICLE
Figure A-11. Composite size distribution curve,
Denver, first quarter. 1970.
6*0..
4.0..
2-0..
« 1-0..
§ 0
-------
DENVER CD
1370 QTR 3
DENVER CD
137O QTR 4
I
s
10.0.
e-o::
e-d.'.
4-0..
| 2-0..
n
I i-o..
a 0
-------
OJ
00
DENVER, CO.
1970 AVE.
O
&
n
;
PI
Q
o
90
10.0
5.0
12.0
O.S
0.2
0.1
I I II ! I I I 1 T
I i i
I
12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PERCENT HASSs&PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-15. Composite size distribution curve,
Denver, 1970 average.
-------
I
PHILADELPHIA PA
1370 QTR 1
PHILADELPHIA PA
137O QTR 2
10-0.
6-0..
4-0..
2-0. .
1-0. .
o-a:
H » »-
H (-
-tIIII H
H (-
MVO = 0.31
H
-+
e 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 98 99
UMLLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE OIAKOEK
10-O.
4-O. .
H-0..
1-0..
o-a!
o-&:
-»-
H 1 1IIII 1 1 1 h-
= 0.35
H 1 1IIII 1 1 1 »-
12 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 35 9B 39
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
SO
Figure A-16. Composite size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, first quarter, 1970.
Figure A-17. Composite size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, second quarter, 1970.
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
197O QTR 3
PHILADELPHIA PA
1370 QTR
10<0.
O
fe
i
w
9
o
w
o
6-0
4-0. .
S-0. .
0-B. .
0.4. .
0.1
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
t I I
= O.ES
H 1 1 1»III-
H 1 1-
1 S S IX) 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 35 33 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-18. Composite size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, third quarter,"1970.
10. o.
B.O::
A-O. .
2-0. .
« I'O. .
1 °'8-
U| 0*6. .
fc 0-4. .
O.I
H 1 H 1 1 1II 1-
MnO = 0*55
-» 1 (-
1IH-1I-
H 1 h
5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS ± PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-19. Composite size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, fourth quarter, 1970.
-------
PHILADELPHIA. PA.
1970 AVE.
10.0
S.O
o
& 2.0
0.5
0,2
0.1
1 T I I
/ HMD : 0.47
1
I
I I I I
I
I
I
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95
CUMULATIVE PERCENT MASS ^PARTICLE DIAMETER
98 99
Figure A-20. Composite size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, 1970 average.
-------
ST UOUIS MD
137O OTR 1
ST LDUI5 MD
1970 QTR E
uo.o.
n
O
M
o
pa
s
o
70
4-0..
5-0. .
1-0..
I o.e::
0-4. .
o-a .
-I 1
-I 1I 1-
MO = 0-97
-\ 1III(-
-»
-t-
1 S 510 30 30 40 50 BO 70 90 9095 SB 39
OMIXTIVE PER CENT MASS - PARTIOE DIAMETER
Figure A-21. Composite size distribution curve,
St. Louis, first quarter, 1970.
10-0.
a-o:
6-0!.
4-0.
S 2-0. .
0-4.
o.s..
o-i
-i »__) )( \ ^(ii 1) (_
MtO = 0-53
-I 1 1IIII 1 h
+
15 510 50 30 40 50 60 7O 90 9095 33!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS - PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-22. Composite size distribution curve,
St. Louis, second quarter, 1970.
-------
1
5'
ST U3JIS WD
1370 OTR 3
ST LDLJ1S MD
10.0.
B.O:
6-a
4.0.
M a-o.
I i-o.
S °p
u O.E'
£ o
i
H 1I I 1I »-
H 1-
15 S1O 33 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 3399
CUMULATIVE: PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-23. Composite size distribution curve,
St. Louis, third quarter. 1970.
10-0.
4.0..
5 s-a..
I i-o..
w 0«
U 0*6. .
fc 0-4. .
O.I
-I H
I I
1370 OTR
-III > t I
t*C = LOS
H 1 1 «-
+-H 1I 1-
15 510 SO 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B99
OMLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE OIAICTER
Figure A-24. Composite size distribution curve,
St. Louis, fourth quarter, 1970.
-------
ST. LOUIS. MO.
1970 AVE,
10.0
5.0
2.0
5
UJ
g
W
0.2
0.1
I I I I 1 I
IMD = 0.83
I I
I
I 1 I I I I I l
12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PERCENT MASSsSPARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-25. Composite size distribution curve,
St. Louis, 1970 average.
-------
f
g,
S'
WASHINGTON DC
U370 QTR 1
WASHINGTON DC
1H7O QTR H
IjQ-O.
8-Ot
B-6.'.
4-0..
H-O. .
1.0. .
0-a.
0-1
H
-+IIIt It H-
MVG = 0-47
III 1-
1 2 S 10 3D 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 9B9B
OMUUATIVE fl-R CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
6-0.
4-0..
a-o..
1-0. .
0>c
4 1 1 1 1IIII 1, * ' I 1-
M.O = O'SE
> 510 30 30 40 50 60 7O 80 SO SB SB SB
UVLLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-26. Composite size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., first quarter, 1970.
Figure A-27. Composite size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., second quarter, 1970.
-------
WA9-U ISGTCN DC
1370 OTR 3
WA9-UJSGTDN DC
1970 OTR 4
IX). 0.
g
w
§
o
B-O.
4-0.
2-0.
1-0.
o-a :
0'6
o
o.i
H 1 H
HII 1I 1I »-
= 0-51
-t-
H 1IIII 1-
I
IS S 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B99
OMULATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIMETER
10*0.
8-0:
B.O'..
4*0..
y s
-------
WASHINGTON. D.C.
1970 AVE.
"8
10.0.
5.0
o
Of
I 2.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
I
1 1 I I
MMD = 0.46
I
I
J I
I
I
J_
12 5 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 SO 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PERCENT MASSSPARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure A-30. Composite size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., 1970 average.
-------
APPENDIX B
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
49
-------
CHICAGO IL
O1/13/7O
CHICAGO IL
OE/25/7O
10>0HI 1 1 »IIIIII-
O
w
i
4*0..
S 2-0..
0.
0-6.
0.4..
0-3..
0.1
MVO = 5*SE
10'0.
IS 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 90 9095 9B99
UMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
3
6-0.
4.0.
5.0.
1-0.
O.B! '.
-i 1
1 > t t I lit)
MO = 3'14
f
H 1 1I t I
1-
18 5 10 SO 30 40 50 SO 70 BO 9095 SB!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE: DIAMETER
Figure B-1. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, January 13, 1970.
Figure B-2. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, February 25, 1970.
-------
f-
g.
CHICAGO IL
CHICAQD IL
10. a
B.O:
6-a.
4.0.
g S.O ,
I i.o.
i °*d
9 °'B;
!
I o
O'E .
0-1
I I
H H
1 1II 1
MO = 3-40
-f
I I I I - I-
-t 1 H
12 5 10 20 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 9095 9B 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure B-3. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago,March 9, 1970.
10. DJ *
4.0.
2 s-o..
| i-o
| o-ei:
3 °'6
M *
I o
0.5.,
o-ij»
H 1 1 1 1 1 14 (-
t*C = 1-EB
I
1II
15 5 10 SO 30 40 50 GO 70 80 9095 9B 99
CLMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure B-4. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, March 22, 1970.
-------
is)
CHICAGO IL
04/08/70
CHICAGO IL
O4/19/7O
§
w
Q
o
z
o
10-0.
B>O::
6-d
4.0.
2«0. .
a
o-e.
0.6 :
0
-------
I
!*»
X
a
10-0.
B-O:
B-6.
4.0.
2 g.o.
§ 1-0
I O.H;:
o«6
0
0*1
CHICAGO IL O5/07/7O
H 1III> 1 1 >
CHICAQD IL
-4-
MO = 0-47
H
I
-I-
IS 5 10 33 30 40 SO SO 70 80 9095 93
CUULATIVT PER CENT MASS PARTICLE OIAICTER
10.0.
B.O: :
B-O.
4>0.
£ 2.0.
| 1-0.
I O.BC:
o-s.
H 1-
-« 1tII> I
06/05/70
H »-
MO = O'SG
0.14I 1I 1 1 1- ) I I
H 1-
15 5 10 EO 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B9B
OMJLATIVE PER CENT M^ £ PARTICLE DIA»TER
CO
Figure B-7. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, May 7, 1970.
Figure B-8. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, June 2, 1970.
-------
CHICAGO IL
06/15/70
QHICAGD IL
06/16/70
10*0.
O
I
q
o
6-0.
4.0.
B.Q
I'D.
0
0>EJ.
0"
o-a
1IIII
-I 1 h
MO = 0-93
lO.Qj( 1 | ( (|||| ( 1 ) f_
S 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96 9B
OJMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE OIAICTEK
4-0.
5-0.
O'E .
MMD ° 0>70
> t
4-
12 5 10 20 30 40 SO GO 70 BO 9095 9B
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE: DIAMETER
Figure B-9. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, June 12, 1970.
Figure B-10. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, June 1.6, 1970.
-------
f
&
sr
ee
CHICAGO IL
10'0-JI I I II»»tI-
B.O:
4-0.
2 2-0.
i-o.
0.&
o-a
o-i
O/VO4/7O
H 1 h
0«05
-t-
-I 1 t IIIf-
H h-
12 510 30 30 40 50 SO 70 BO 90 95 9B
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS PARTICLE DIAMETER
CHICAGO IL
Q7/14/7O
10-0.
B-O]
6-0!
4.0.
3 S'
| i.o.
a °-
I >
»II 1 1 1
0-2.
0-141 - 1 - 1 .............. I - 1 | I
MO = 0-79
t t - 1 - 1
1 2 5102030405060708090953899
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE: DIAMETER
(SI
Figure B-11. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, July 4, 1970.
Figure B-12. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, July 14, 1970.
-------
CHICAGO IL
O7/3D/7O
CHICAGO IL
OB/11/70
O
fe
i
w
Q
o
jo
10-0.
B.O:
G-O!
4-0.
5-0.
1-0.
o-e
0-6
0-1
-»iii» 1-
I*O = 0-5B
H I-
-f-
I
-»
-t-
IS 5 10 SO 30 40 50 GO 70 00 9095 SB 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIMCTER
10-0.
B.O:
6-Q
4-0.
5-0.
1-0.
0-&.
0
O'l.)t
H »-
HIIII h-
I I
+-
IS 510 SO 30 40 SO BO 70 BO 90 95 SB 99
CLMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAJCTER
Figure B-13. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago. July 30, 197O.
Figure B-14. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, August 11, 1970.
-------
CHICAGO XL
08/27X70
CHICAGO IL
OB/11X7O
I
s
W
10-0.
6-0.
4.0. ,
8.0.
1-0. ,
O.B::
0-6
0.1
_,
,
1_
-tIIIh-H 1 t
I I I I I - 1
1 - >
I
.
15 510 30 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 9095
OMJLATIVe rtR SNT WSSS « PMtTIdE OXAkCIBt
10-0.
B'CL i
B-oi
4.0.
1-0.
O
O'Bl
1 t
> - 1 I I I » - 1
1 - 1
II
*
IS 5 10 30 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 9095 9B!
OMJLATIVC RR CENT MAS P/WTJCLE COMCTER
cn
-4
Figure B-15. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, August 27, 1970.
Figure B-16. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, September 11, 1970.
-------
00
CHICAGO IL
oa/so/To
CHICAGO IL
1O/O7/7D
i
w
i
O
S3
7*
10-0.
B>0i
B-Q
4.0.
e.Q
o-a
o-
0-2 .
0-1
H 1 1 1H
I )
IM) * 0>4?
I I
-I-
13 5 10 30 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 90!
CLMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE OXMCTER
Figure B-17. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, September 2O, 197CX
io-a
B-6
B-d
4.0 .
5.0 .
1.0.
0>
O'El
» I I
I >I
-I »-
MO 0-94
H 1-
H»I-
SID 33 30 40 SO 60 76 BO 90 95 9B !
OMLATOC FCR CENT IW95 * PARTUXE D2MC1ER
Figure B-18 . Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago. October 7, 1970.
-------
f
R
w
10-0.
B.
O::
4.0. .
s-o..
i.o..
o«s :
0.6 '.
O.4..
CHICAQD IL 11/15/7O
H 1 1 1 1IIII 1 1 t
CHICAQD IL
HUD = 0-61
H 1III
15 5 ID 30 30 40 50 GO 70 80 90 95 33 98
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAhOER
10-0.
B.O: :
4-0.
a °
-------
CHICAGO JL
12/30/70
10.0.
i
O
>
9
o
JO
6.0. .
4-0. .
S-0. .
1.0. .
0-6 '.
0.4. .
O.I
H »--
-f-
MO = 0-51
-\IIII
-t 1-
-f-
12 5 10 303040506070 BO 3035 3339
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS 2 PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure B-21. Particle size distribution curve,
Chicago, December 20, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX C
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
CINCINNATI, OHIO
61
-------
OH
O3/3S/7O
CINCINNATI, OH.
04 08 70
I
9
o
JO
10.0.
B.O:
B-o!
4.0.
S'O.
1.0.
o-a
0-6
0-E
0.1
H 1-
II-HI
-t-
MO = 0*37
-«IIIII
IE 510 SO 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 98
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAICTER
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
o
5 2.0
-
1 0.8
"j 0.6
0.2
0.1
I 1 I I I
-MMD = 0.44
12 5 10 20 30 40 50 SO 70 80 90 95 98 99
CUMULATIVE PERCENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-1. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, March 22, 1970.
Figure C-2. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, April 8, 1970.
-------
I
8,
R'
CIMTIMStATI DM
O4/13/7O
CirCIf*4ATI OH
lO'O.
B.O:
4.0.
a-o.
a
1-0 ,
O.B :
0-6;
0"
O'l
» «iiii+-
MMD = 0-46
I I I 1IIIH
-+-
S 5 10 BO 3040506070 BO 90 95 9B 99
OMJUTIVE PER'CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
iO'O.
B
E>OJ
o:
4'0.
.
o.a:
o-i
-ii> iii> i tt-
05/07/70
-ii-
-H
H »III
0>SE
-I-
IE 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 33 99
OJAJLATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-3. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, April 19, 1970.
Figure C-4. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, May 7, 1970.
-------
CINCINNATI DH
05/53/70
CINCINNATI OH
OS/OE/7O
g
O
w
i
10.0.
e>o:
s-o.
4.0.
2.0
I'D.
o.s
O-B
0
o-e.
O'i
H 1 1ItI» 1 1 I I
MO = 0-9B
I I 1IIH-HI-
h
18 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9899
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMHER
10-0.
B.O:
E-o!
4.0.
§ s-o.
I i.o.
£H 0*
0<4.
0.3. .
0*1
- 1-
-» 1 1»I 1 1 »-
MO = 0-19
-« 1-
I I > I h
I I 1-
18 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 SB 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-5. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, May 23, 1970.
Figure C-6. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, June 2, 1970.
-------
I
I
X
n
CINTIISNATI DM
CG/IS/^O
DH
10'O
B'O!
B-6.
4-0.
5-0.
a
0.4.
0-Z.
0-i
H 1 H-
-4-
-t 1 1 I-
MO = O.S6
1IIt-
-t-
15 5 10 50 30 40 50 BO 70 BO 90!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
10.DJt
4-0.
3 s-o.
I i.o.,
§ 0.8*
0-2.
O'l
-t-
-I-
»M3 = 0-3?
I
-I 1 1-
15 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95 9B99
CIMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-7. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, June 15, 1970.
Figure C-8. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, July 4, 1970.
-------
OH
O7/14/7O
CIISCINWI OH
O7/3O/70
g
w
i
10-0.
B.O:
6-d
4.0..
5-0.
1.0.
O-B:
0-&
-tIIII»»-
H h
MO = 1.07
1 I
1
t I I t I I
II
1
18 510 80 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
lO.Oj, , , 1 ,|||,__! , , h
4.0. .
^ 5*0. .
E 1.0..
| O.B;:
UJ 0*6. .
>-t
fc 0
0-2. .
l*O = O'BO
I 1I 1 1III 1 1 1 1
15 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 9B 99
CIMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-9. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, July 14, 1970.
Figure C-10. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, July 30, 1970.
-------
f
D.
B'
r>
10-0.
B-O:
4.0.
M 5-0.
t
jjj 1.0.
io>&
i-*
t 0
CI^CI^^^ATI OH
H 1 1 1 1IIIf-
CB/1Q/7O
0-1
Md = 0-48
-f-
-t 1 I II 1-
-f-
IE S 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 98 SB
OJMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAfcETER
10-0.
e-o..
4-0.
a-o.
i-o.
o-a
0-1
CBS5E/7Q
-<t 1i»i > ti 1i 1-
«MJ = I'll
H
HIIII 1-
5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95 9B 99
CUAJLATIVE TO? CENT MASS t PARTICLE DIAMETER
ON
Figure C-11. particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, August 10, 1970.
Figure C-12. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, August 26, 1970.
-------
circnwri OH
ca/ii/To
OH
OB/a/70
n
£
n
s
w
>
*>
iO-tt
B-Oi
6-Q
4.Q
g 5-0.
1.0.
O'tf
0-6
0
0-Z
O>1
« I 1-
»»tt-
-» »-
IM3 0>30
IIIII 1-
IB 510 20 30 40 50 60 7O BO 90 SB SB
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS PARTICLE DIAMETER
1O*0.
B.O:
6-Oi
4.0
2 2.0.
| 1.0.
i 0>
a °*i
fc o.
0-1
MO = 0*44
H 1-
IE 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SO SB SB99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure C-13. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, September 11, 1970.
Figure C-14. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, September 20, 1970.
-------
cw
1D/O7/7O
CIISCIIMMATI OH
I
X
o
10-0.
B-O
4.0.
e-O.
I'D.
0
0.&
0-1
-+II 1IIIII» 1I t-
= i>33
I I
1IIII 1-
I
-t-
12 510 50 30 40 5O GO 70 BO 90 9B 3B 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS e PARTICLT DJ/*CTER
10-0.
B.O: :
e-o::
4.0. .
2-0. .
g O-BI
1.0..
o-e::
O-G.
| 0-4..
o-a.
a
o-i
-( »-
H 1IIII 1 1 1 h
MO = 0-5O
H 1(»
h
15 S 10 20 30 40 SO SO 70 BO 9095 9B 9B
OAILATIVE PER CEKT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
ON
Figure C-15. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, October 7, 1970.
Figure C-16. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, November 15, 1970.
-------
CINCINNATI OH
12/05/70
CINCINNATI OH
12/14/70
V J
fe
5
O
W
>
i
?e
10.0^ , H
B.,O: :
4-0. .
2-0. .
1-0..
o-a!
<>&:
0-4.
O«E,
1IIII 1 1 1
1
MtO = 1»O3
HII»t-
H 1-
10-0.
J;jv 2 S 10 30 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 35 9B 99
OMULATIVC PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE OIAhCTCR
4.0.
2-0. .
1.0..
o.s!:
0
0*1
-» 1 1 1IIII 1 1 1 h
MO = 1.05
-
-I 1»IIt 1-
15 510 30304050607080 3035 SB
OMXATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE OIAMTTCR
Figure C-17. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, December 5, 1970.
Figure C-18. Particle size distribution curve,
Cincinnati, December 14, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX D
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
DENVER, COLORADO
71
-------
DENVER CD
01/59/70
DENVER CO
O2/14/70
O
fc
5
O
W
S
lO'O.
e-o:
e-a
4.0.
5.0.
i-o.
O'Bi
0-6
O'E .
0-1
H » 1 1t-
-II 1 1 1 »-
MO = 0.4B
HIIII »-
1-
12 5 10 SO 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90S 9B 99
OMJLATIve PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE OIA»CTER
lO'O.
B.O::
B-0.
4-0..
M 5.0. .
i i-o. .
a °'
0.5. .
H 1 \-
I ) I 1 K-
H I I I
MiO = 0>S3
1-
15 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure D-1. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, January 29, 1970.
Figure D-2. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, February 14, 1970.
-------
DENVER CO
JENVEK CD
I
I
o
10-0.
B.O:
6-0
4.0.
B.O.
l.Q
0.&
0
O'l
-* 1 1I1t H
H »-
M43 = 0-45
H 1 L. I IH
I I
18 5 10 SO 30 40 50 BO 70 80 3D SB SB SB
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAtCTER
10-Oj t
B.O:
4-0.
5-0.
1-0..
o-a
0.4.
o-i
H h
iii-
-I » >-
HII«-
-» 1-
15 5 10 50 3D 40 50 BO 70 BO 90 95 9B !
CUMULATIVE: PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIA*CTER
Figure D-3. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, February 26, 1970.
Figure D-4. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, March 9, 1970.
-------
DENVER CD
04/19/70
DENVER CD
OS/O7/7O
i
§
w
52
o
*
10-0.
B-O:
B-6.
4.0. ,
5-0, ,
5 1>0
i 0>a:
Ul 0*6.
3
o-a
°'H>
-I ft I t ( tII 1 1 t
MMO » O'iB
_, ,,,,, , , , ,_
15 5 10 20 30 40 50 SO 70 BO 90 96 SB SB
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAkCTER
lO-O-j,.
B-O:
4.0.
2 2-
8-0, .
i-0. ,
o-a
0-1
t )IIIttI-
M>C < 0-17
H 11II(-
15 5 10 SO 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 9095 9B99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure D-5. particle size distribution curve,
Denver, April 19, 1970.
Figure D-6. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, May 7, 1970.
-------
DENVER CO
O5/23/70
DENVER CD
5'
D
10-0.
6-0.
4.0. .
e-o.
i.O. ,
o-a
o.&'
o-i
-ttii-
II
H 1 1 II t I >
MO « 0-35
I I I
510 30 30 A3 50 60 70 80 90 35 9B
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE OIAtCTER
10-01 t tt t I t t ( t I t I 1-
4-0. ,
3 s.
o.i
I t - 1 I t t » »
I
4
5 10 SO 30 *0 SO 60 70 BO 9095 9B99
OJ4JLATIVE PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE: DIAMTTER
Figure D-7. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver,May 23, 1970.
Figure D-8. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver,June 2, 1970.
-------
DENVER CO
05/16/70
DENVER CD
O7/O3/7O
i
w
I
o
O
R
10.0..
B*0! .
B-6. ',
4-0. ,
I 2-0. ,
t
| 1-0. ,
u 0'&
fc 0-4.
0-2.
0.-1
-I 1 1|_t|| 1 | , (_
MC = 0-19
H 1 1I I II »« 1 H-
12 5 10 SO 30 40 50 BO 70 BO 90 95 9399
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS < PARTICLE OIMCTER
Figure D-9 Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, June 16, 1970.
lO'O.
B.O:
4.0. ,
5-0.
a
i.O.
O.B:
0-6.
O'S.
O'l
-»I ) t.
I 1
MC « 0-20
-I»III I I H
+
12 5 10 2O 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS < PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure D-10. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, July 3, 1970.
-------
DENVER CO
Q7/S3/7Q
DENVER CO
07/3D/7O
SF
lO'O.
B-O:
B'd
4.0..
2 5-0. ,
1.0.
o-a:
a
o-a.
0.1
H 1 1 I tII» ) > 1 H
MVC = 0-37
H 1 1 1-
. . . HIHI 1 1 1-
15 510 SO 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMTTER
10-0.
B-O::
6-0! .
4.0. .
W 1*0.
| o.at
HI
r-
0.5.
MO - 0>17
t
IS 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B99
CUMXATIVE PER CENT MASS ' PARTICLE OIAMTTER
Figure D-11. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, July 23, 1970.
Figure D-12. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, July 30, 1970.
-------
DENVER CO
08/10/70
DENVER CD
OB/23/70
o
fe
o
w
5
io«o.
B.O::
e-o!
4.0.
5.0,
i-o.
o
0*1
> I 1 1II 4 I 1 1 1 »-
MO = 0-74
-f-
-»IItII 1 1 » H
15 5 10 SO 3D 40 50 GO 70 BO 90 X SB SB
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIMCTER
lO'O.
B.O:
4.0.
3
1-0
O'Bl
O.B
0"
0.1
-» 1I 1IIIIII-
M43 = 0-30
-I 1 » 1 1III» » 1 1 I
IS S 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 98 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS s PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure D-13. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, August 10, 1970.
Fiqure D-14. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, August 23, 1970.
-------
DENVER CD
08/11/70
DENVER CD
O9/27/7O
"8
I
X
O
S
8>o::
4.0. .
5-0.
w i-o.
1 0>a[;
r-a:
0.5 .
-t > t II»I»I »-
I - 1
MO = O'EO
H » I I h I - 1
1-
S 10 30 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 90 95 33
CUMXATIVE PER CENT MAES « PARTICLE DIAftOER
iO.Oj.f.
B>O:
4.0.
E-0.
1*0.
o.a
O.E. .
H 1t»»I » H
'MO « 0-05
I I 1 t tI> t >
-t-
3 5 10 20 3D 40 50 SO 70 BO 90S 9B99
OMJLATIVE: PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAICTER
Figure D-15. particle size distribution curve,
Denver, September 11, 1970.
Figure D-16. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, September 27, 1970.
-------
00
o
DENVER CD
1O/07/70
DENVER CD
1O/20/7O
i
§
W
i
10.0j_» , ,_
e-o:
4.0. .
M 2-0. ,
I i-o..
I o-a:
a °*:
w ' '
fe 0-4
O'S. .
o.ij_+
II
H ( 1 1-
-t
Hiiii 1^ +
5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
B
6-Oi
o::
4-0.
5 5-0.
| 1-0..
M 0*
UJ 0-5.
M
I 0-4.
0-5.
o-i
H (-
-ii»-
-t h
»*C = 1-51
-(
-t-
H 1 1
H 1-
5105030405060708090959899
OMJLATIVE: PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure D-17. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, October 7, 1970.
Figure D-18. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, October 20, 1970.
-------
£
nENVER CD
11/O5/7O
DENVER CD
11/15/7O
X
O
»»-H f 1 1 K
o.i
15 510 30 30 40 30 60 70 BO 9035 9B39
PER CENT MASS 2 PARTICLE DIAMETER
1O-0.
8*0!:
6-0''.
4.0. .
2 5*0..
5 1-0. ,
g o-a:
Uj 0*B .
M
fc 0-4. .
O-l
MO = O-G3
-+-
1-
Hiii^
-+-
H H-
+
12 S 10 30 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 9095 SB SB
OMJUATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTIO£ DIAWTTER
00
Figure D-19. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, November 5, 1970.
Figure D-20. Particle size distribution curve,
Denver, November 15, 1970.
-------
00
QENVFR CO
12/14X70
lO.Oj.-j..
B-OI
S'Ol
4-OJ
P
§
O
S
2-C. .
W 1-0..
I o.a:
0-4..
MC = 1-
o-Mi 1-
12 S10 a0304C3C«-70BO 9035 3B99
OMJLATIVC PER CENT MASS * JWRTJD Z
Figure D-21. Particle si^s distribution curve,
Denver, December 14, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX E
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
83
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
O3/1O/7O
PHILADELPHIA PA
03/55/70
n
o
?
w
9
o
10*0.
B.O:
B'd,
4.0. .
s.o.
₯ 1*0..
i O.B;:
Ui 0«E
3
o-s.
0*1
->-
-t 1It
IMD = 0-44
»-
1 1II 1-
IS 5 10 SO 30 40 50 SO 70 80 9095 93 99
CUULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
B-O:
G-O!
4.0.
5 2-0.
| 1*0.
a 0>
0-2.
0-1
-»»-
-»> t ii>-»»> )
H - 1
t I
- o-ae
H > I
IS 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B
OJMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAkCTER
Figure E-1. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, March 10, 1970.
Figure E-2. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, March 22, 1970.
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
PHILADELPHIA PA
O4/19/7O
10-0.
W
00
6-d
4.0.
3 a>
a.o.
1-0.
0-6:
0
-» 1 I
HI >-
»-
= 0-59
HIII
-I 1-
10-0.
15 S10 30 30 40 50 SO 70 90 9095 98 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure E-3. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, April 7, 1970.
6-0
4.0.
B
i-o.
o.a'
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
05/07/70
PHILADELPHIA PA
05/27/70
o
I
W
10>0.
8-0:
E-O!!
4-0
2 2.0 .
1-0,
O.B:
0-6 !
0"
O-E.
o-i
_, - , - 1
-t-
I - 1 - 1 I I I
-t 1
MbO = 0'15
+
|1 S 5 10 30 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 90 95 9B !
OMUVTIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE: DIMETER
Figure E-5. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia,May 7, 1970.
10-0.
e
6-0.
o::
4.0.
2 a.
3-0
o-s.
0
0*1
-» 1 I III» »» -
MO = 0-42
1 - 1
1 - 1 I I I I
iS 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B99
CLKJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE: DIAMETER
Figure E-6. Particles size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, May 27, 1970.
-------
I
w
10-0.
5 a.
6-0.
4.0.
5-0.
I'D
O.B
0-6
I 0.4
0-5
PHILADELPHIA PA
H 1 t-
PHILADELPHIA PA
-I 1 h-
t I 1-
MO = 0-45
H 1II
-f-
5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90SB SB!
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
lO'O.
G-0.
4.0.
3 a>o.
i i.o.
| o.ei:
a °-*
M
fc o
o-i
H 1 1-
-IIh-t
06/14^0
-I 1 »
M43 « 0-30
-»
t >
1-
IE 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 3E 9B 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS < PARTICLE DIAMETER
00
Figure E-7. .Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, June 2, 1970.
Figure E-8. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, June 14, 1970.
-------
00
00
PHILADELPHIA PA
O7/O4/7O
PHILADELPHIA PA
O7/14/70
O
&
r>
i
10-0.
B-Oj
B*O!
4.0.
8*0.
i'O.
O>B :
0-6 !
0-4 ,
0-2 .
0-1
-» >-
H 1tI» »-
t t
MO = O.BE
t I » 1 1IIII »-
H 1-
15 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 SB
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIMCTER
10-Oj >
4-0.
2-0.
1-0.
o-e
o-e..
-*-
t tittI14 1-
= 0-39
-I 1IIII >-
-t H
12 5 10 SO 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 SB SB
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE OIAhETER
Figure E-9. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, July 4, 1970.
Figure E-10. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, July 14, 1970.
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
O7/3D/7O
PHILADELPHIA PA
OB/ICWO
I
X
W
10-Oji , i 1 1,,,, ,_
B-O:
4.0.
M 2-0.
I
5 i-o.
3 °>B:
Uj O'E
fc 0
0-1
-» »-
MVO = 0-90
H »-
15 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B
CUMJLATIVC PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE OIAKTCR
10-0.
B.O: :
G-O!
4.0.
^ 5«0, .
| 1.0.
§ o.si
M
| 0.4.
o-a
o-i
-*-
H ^«
»-
MCI = O'BB
-t1»II I I
15 5 10 EO 3D 40 SO BO 70 BO 90 95 93 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMCTCR
00
Figure E-11. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, July 30, 1970.
Figure E-12. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, August 10, 1970.
-------
PHILADELPHIA PA
ca/ii/7o
PHILADELPHIA PA
OB/3V70
C/3
S
5
10-0.
e-o:
e-o!
4.0.
5
6
i.o.
0>B
0*E
0-4
o-s
-II 1 h-
MVD
1HHIH
H 1-
B 5 10 HO 30 40 50 SO 70 80 SO95 SB 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
10 -0.
e>o::
B-O:
4.0.
1.0.,
o-a:
0-B. '.
0-4,
0-2.
0-1
- > « It I I
»-
-t
MO « 0-33
I »
I I
15 5 10 SO 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 SB !
QMJLAT1VE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAtCTER
Figure E-13. Particle size distribution curve,
P hi\ade\phia, September 11. 1970.
Figure E-14. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, September 27, 1970.
-------
r
"8
B.
R'
w
PHILAOELmiA PA
O3/3D/7O
PHILADELPHIA PA
10.0.
B.Q:
B.O:
4-0.
« 2-0,
W i-o.
a °-g
o.&.
0-4 .
3
0-1
-»*
-»-
+
-II»I
(*O - 0-53
-I
-+-
1 H 5 10 30 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 90 SB 9B 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
B.O: :
e-a!
4-0.
I 5'°
w i>o..
w o>&
d
fc o
0-1
-» 1-
-I 1I»II
10/07/70
H H
1*0 <> 0-OS
t t
-IIItIII-
-It-
15 510 50 3D 40 50 GO 70 BO 9095 99 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure E-15. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, September 30, 1970.
Figure E-16. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia,October 7, 1970.
-------
to
PHILADELPHIA PA
iCVSl/70
PHILADELPHIA PA
11/1CV70
i
§
w
8
10-0.
B-O:
B-6.
4.0:
5-0.
I'D.
0-Bi
0-6 i
0-5
0.1
H - 1 I » » » - »
» - 1
>*C ^ 1-41
-t-
-t
t I « 1 h
IS 510 SO 30 40 50 6O 70 80 90 95 9B 99
CLMXATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTIOX OIAhCTER
10.0. __
8>o::
4-0..
H 1-
1 1II I ^ H
g 2-0..
W 1-0..
g .'
UJ O-'-i. ,
fc 0-4..
1*0 = i-sa
1 '
!
O.li 1 . _. i _i > 1 1 1 1
- L 1 . 1
15 5 10 30 30 40 SO 60 7O 80 3035 9B33
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS =.PARTICLE DIAMETER
O
s
Figure E-17. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia,October 21, 1970.
Figure E-18. Particle size distribution curve,
PhiladelphiXNovember 10, 1970.
-------
H-OLAOELFHIA PA
11X17X7O
PHILACBLPHIA PA
12/05/70
n
&
w
ifl'Ofi 1 1 1 1i1_|(-
B.O::
4-0.
5.0.
1.0..
Q.t
0.1
-\II 1 1
IS S 10 3D 30 40 SO SO 70 BO 80 85 SB!
OMULATXVE PER CENT IMSS S FW7TXOE CHAIETER
Figure E-19. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, November 17, 1970.
10-0.
6-0.
4.0.,
B.O,
i.o..
o-e.
o*
o.a.
H 1»iiiiiii-
I*O - 0-63
III)I»
1 S 510 30 30 40 SO SO 70 BO 8035 8B9B
CUMULATIVE PER CENT UtBS *
Figure E-20. Particle size distribution curve,
Philadelphia, December 5, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX F
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
95
-------
ST LOUIS kfO
01/13/70
5T LOUIS KO
O1/H9/70
o
&
g
w
10-0.
B.O:
6*0 '.
4.0 .
2-0
I'D. ,
O.B :
0-B '.
0-5 .
0.1
H « - 1 - 1 » »
t - 1 - 1
MC = i-ae
H 1-
-III
15 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 35 9B!
OMJUMIVE TO? CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIMETER
10.0.
6-0.
4.0.
5 H'O.
§ i-o.
I °.ai
o.&
0-4
0.5.
a
HII 1 1 1
IftO = 1-O4
Ht-
I I
18 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95 9B
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-1. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, January 13, 1970.
Figure F-2. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, January 29, 1970.
-------
f
R1
sr i.a as no
06/14/70
ST LOUS KC
oe/55/70
5 1O BO 30 4050GO 70 BO 90 SB SB!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTKie OIAtCTER
lO'O.
B
6-Oi
o::
4.O. .
S'O. .
a O.B;:
ui O«6
3
0-1
-I»-
-III+-
I I II»-
I I
IB 5 10 8030405080 70 BD 9095 9B!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT IMSS * PAflTICLE OIMCTER
Figure F-3. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, February 14, 1970.
Figure F-4. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, February 25, 1970.
-------
ST If!ITS MD
03/OB/7O
ST LOUIS MD
04/09/70
n
>
en
Z
w
O
pa
1O«O.
B'Oi
6'd
4.O
O.BL
0-6
0>4
o-a
i t t
> t
MO = i'34
-f-
-I
H 1 > )II »-
H
12 S1O SO 3D 40 50 SO 70 BO 30 35 33 99
CLMJLATIVe PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-5. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, March 9, 1970.
10'Q,
B-O:
6'd
4.0. .
8.0. .
1.0,
O.B; :
0.& '.
0
0-Z
H H
-I 1I»IH»-
MC = 0-34
0<14I 1I 1 1»III 1 1 1 1
18 S 10 30 3040506070 BO 3D 95 SB !
OJMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-6. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, April 8, 1970.
-------
ST LOUIS M3
04/19/70
ST LOUIS M3
GS/O7/7O
8.
5T
10*0.
6-0.
4-0.
S.Q
l-O .
o«a
-«II 1II I t II 1II-
MO = 0>B1
I 11 1I» I II I 1 H-
15 5 10 30 3040506070 60 90 SB SB!
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE OIAICTER
10*0.
B.Q
6-0
4.0.
I'D
O.B
o-s
O.H .
-f-
-»i»»ii-
MC = 0.43
H - 1
t I I - 1-
-t
18 510 30 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B
CUfULATIVE PER CENT MASS < PARTICLE DJAVETTCR
VO
Figure F-7. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, April 19, 1970.
Figure F-8. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis , May 7, 1970.
-------
ST LOUIS SO
O5/S7/7O
ST LOUIS Ml
O
>
i/J
O
>
O
w
>
q
o
io«o.
B.oi
s-d
4.O.
1.0,
o.a
o
0.1
1h-l
MO s 0'40
,,
H H
15 S 10 30 30 40 SO SO 70 BO 9095 3B !
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-Ojf
4.0.
e>o.
1.0.
-» 1IIT-I 1 1-
MO = O'TB
k-
IS 5 10 2O 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 SB
PER CENT MASS « PAOTICLe DIAMETER
Figure F-9. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, May 27 1970.
Figure F-10. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, June 16, 1970.
-------
ST LOUIS DO
O7/O4/7O
5T LOUIS MO
07/14/70
g.
R*
4-0.
8-0.
1-0.
0-6 ,
O
0-B .
0-1
H 1I 1 »tI»I »-
MO = 0-40
»-
-t-
18 5 10 aO 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 38 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE
10*0.
B-O:
E-o!
4.0. .
E-0. .
I.Q .
o-a:
o-i
-I 1 (_
-I 1-
»I h
KM3 = 1'OB
HI-HII »-
H
1S 5 10 20 30 40 50 SO 70 80 9095 33 99
CUKULATIVC PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-11. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, July 4, 1970.
Figure F-12. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, July 14, 1970.
-------
o
to
5T LOUIS
07X30/70
ST I HITS MD
OB/1OX7O
g
W
10-0.
B-O:
S-oi
4>Q
a-o
10
0-B
0-6
0-5
0-1
-I > I
-t 1III»-
t f
MO = 0-BB
-« 1
-f-
18 5 10 SO 30 40 SO GO 70 BO 90 95 SB!
OJMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE OIAtETER
10-0.
B.O:
s-d
4.0
i-o.
o.ei:
0-6 '.
O'i
-»i-
-i> > ti
H 1 1-
hM3 = 1-05
I I I
-t-
1 H 5 10 aO 30 40 50 EO 70 80 90SE 9B!
CLKULATIVE PER CENT IMSS « PARTICLE
Figure F-13. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, July 30, 1970.
Figure F-14. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, August 10, 1970.
-------
I
3.
X
ST LOUIS MO
10-0.
B.Q
4.0
5-0
I'D
O-B:
O-E
o*Mt
-i 1i-
1II»-
MC = 0-74
H 1 1IIIH
-t
-I-
18 510 SO 30 40 50 GO 70 BO 30 95 SB 93
CUMULATIVE rtR CENT MASS e PARTICLE OIMCTER
ST LOUIS
10-Oj, , , 1 ,,,i, 1_
OB/SE/70
4.0.
1-0.
o-a:
a
o-s.
o-i
MO = 0-4B
-»
_,
, ,
,
-t-
IS 51O 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 9B99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTIOT OIAtdCR
O
OJ
Figure F-15. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, August 20, 1970.
Figure F-16. Particle size distribution curve.
St. Louis, August 22, 1970.
-------
ST LOUIS KO
GB/E5/7D
ST LOUIS SO
p
o
w
9
o
JO
1O-0.
B-0[
4.0.
S'O. .
i-a.
O'Bi:
hi 0>B.
3
O-E .
0-1
- 1I 1IIIIII-
-i 1-
H 1 1 1H
H 1-
15 5 10 50 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 SB 9B S9
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS < PARTICLE QIAICTER
10.0.
B-O:
6-d
4.0.
a-o
i-o
O.B :
0-6 '.
o.i
-I 1»»» 1
-fI »-
-t H
hMD = 1-51
1III
-I »-
-»-
5 10 SO 30 40 5O GO 70 80 9095 9B9S
OMJ-ATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-17. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, August 25, 1970.
Figure F-18. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, August 27, 1970.
-------
"8
5T LOUIS MD
ST UOUIS MD
11/1S/7O
10-0.
B-ti
6-Q
4.0.
a-o.
O.B ;
0-6
I-
o-i
H 1 1-
H - 1
I I - 1-
-I H
MA = O-77
H h
-»IIItt-
4
-f-
18 510 SO 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 90 95 9B 99
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
10-0.
a-o::
B-Q..
4'0..
2 2'
e-o..
i.o. ,
Q.
0-1
H H
K*C = 0-40
f >
f-
-t-
4-
I
IS 5 10 3D 30 40 50 60 70 80 3035 33 93
OMJLATJVE PER CENT MASS S PARTICLE OIAhCTER
Figure F-19. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, September 16, 1970.
Figure F-20. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, November 15, 1970.
-------
ST LJDUIS KO
13/05/70
ST LOJIS MO
12/14/70
10'O.ji , (___, ,i,,, , 1 1 ,_
5
a
w
90
z
w
4.0..
2.0..
1-0..
0.4. .
o.i
MtO = 0*
-»ii^^
15 510 30 3D 40 SO 60 70 BO 9035 9B 99
OMLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-21. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, December 5, 1970.
o.i
15 510 30 30 40 50 SO 70 80 9095 SB!
CUMULATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure F-22. Particle size distribution curve,
St. Louis, December 14, 1970.
-------
APPENDIX G
DAILY PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION CURVES,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
107
-------
o
oo
W/va-fflsGTDN DC
01/59/70
DC
03/14^0
O
>
VI
o
>
§
9
o
10-0.
B-O::
6-tt
4.0.
2-0.
I.Q
o-ei:
0-6:
o-a.
0-1
-i-
-i » i
» » t-
-tt-
0-7O
-I 1H
HI-
-II 1-
1S S 10 SO 30 40 50 SO 70 BO 90
CLMJLATXVE PER CENT MASS « PARTXOT DIMETER
10.0.
6-0.
4-0.
a-o.
i-o
o-a:
o-s
i o-
o-i
-t»-
-+ t
i t
-» H
Itt
H
IS 510 30 30 40 SO 60 70 80 9095 9B
OMJ-ATIVE PER CENT MASS < PMITIOLE (HMCTER
Figure G-1. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., January 29, 1970.
Figure G-2. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., February 14, 1970.
-------
"8
B.
»«
X
O
10-0.
B-O:
4-0,
2-0
1-0
0-B
0-6
0-1
WA3HIM3TCM DC
H K
DC
O3/1O/7O
--
-»
»IIII
MO « 0-S3
H 1IIIh
-f-
-+-
-f-
-+-
5 10 30 30 40 SO BO 70 80 90 SB 9B9B
OMXATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAICTER
10-0.
B-O:
6-0! '
4.0.
a-o. .
i-o.
-»I I IIII 1 1 1-
MO = 0-33
o-Mi 1»-
1IIIt-
-» »-
IS 5 10 30 30 40 SO GO 70 80 9095 9899
OALLATIVt PER CENT MASS e PARTICLE DIMCTER
O
SO
Figure G-3. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D. C., February 25, 1970.
Figure G-4. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D. C., March 10, 1970.
-------
WASHINGTON DC
co/aavo
WASHIISGTON DC
OVOB/70
o
w
§
o
IiiIIii » 1
15 510 SO 30 40 SO 60 70 80 9095 SB!
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE OIMCTER
10-Oj>
e-o:
B-6.
4.0.
2 5-0.
I i.o.
§ 0.4
fc 0>4.
0-1
1 1II 1 1 1 4
MO - 0-55
-«
H 1IIIh
H 1-
15 5 10 SO 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95 9B
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS i PARTICLE OIAfcETER
Figure G-5. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., March 22, 1970.
Figure G-6. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., April 8, 1970.
-------
I
a
R'
o
WASHIhGTON DC
WASHINGTON DC
IQ-Oj-H , H
B-O:
3
4-0.
2-0.
1-0,
0-B
o-a
0-1
H
f I»HI 1 1
MiO 0-34
1 I I II H
15 510 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 33 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS « PARTIOE OIMCTER
10*0.
6-0.
4.0.
| 5-0.
I 1-0.
a °
-------
WASHINGTON DC
06X01X70
WASHINGTON DC
GBVO3/7O
10-0.
i
o
o
JO
2S
w
o
SO
6-0
4.0
a-o .
I'O
O-B :
a °'6:
fc 0
0-1
-I 1 It*»»t-
-I» 1-
MO 0-12
_! ^
5 Sip 30 30 40 SO 60 70 BO 90 95 39
OJMJLATIve PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAJnETER
Figure G-9. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., June 1, 1970.
10-0.
5-0.'.
4-0. .
3*0. .
i-o..
O.BC:
0*1
-I 1 1 1II 1 1 1 1 H
MO - 0-17
H
-t-
18 5 10 £0304050607080 9095 93
CLMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS * PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure G-10. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D. C., June 3, 1970.
-------
"8
B.
x
O
10-0.
6-0.
4.0.
5-0
i>0.
o-e
O'l| t
DC
> 4
It > I
06/16/70
H »-
DC
07/O4/70
IMD = O-53
H 1 1II-HI K
-+-
15 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 96 96 98
CLMJLATIVC FCR CXNT MASS « PARTICLE OIAtCTER
0*1
12 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 99
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE: OIAMTTER
Figure G-11. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., June 16, 1970.
Figure G-12. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., July 4, 1970.
-------
WASHIN3TCN DC
07/15/70
WAEHIM3TDN DC
07/3D/7O
a
w
>
i
M
O
10-0.
B-O:
e-a
4.Q
2-0.
1-0.
a-
-» 1II»I-»I h-
MA o 0
-------
OB/ll/TO
WA9HIKGTDSI DC
X
o
10-0.
e-o:
e-d
4>0l
1-0.
0
0-6.
0-
I »Ittt » » 1 »-
MO * 0'40
_, ,
IB S1O 50 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 95 98
PER CENT MASS « PARTICLE OIAICTER
10-0.
6-0.
4-0.
2-0.
1-0. .
o-a
0-6.
o.a
-t 1 1 > t t»»» »-
MO = 0-23
t IIII
-I-
+-
12 S ID 20 3D 40 SO 60 70 80 90 95 96
OMJLATIVC PER CENT MASS ' PARTICLE DIAJCTER
Figure G-15. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1970.
Figure G-16. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., September 11, 1970.
-------
WASHIhGTOM DC
ia/O7/7O
o
&
o
o
g
10*0.
B.O:
B-O
4.0.
9*0
I.Q.
O-B;
g »*
fr 0*4 ,
o-i
12
H
-I 1I I I.
5 ID 30 30 40 SO EO 70 80 9095 98!
ffiR CENT li^S PARTICLE OIAkCTBR
10*0.
B-O:
6«a.
4*0.
5 2-0.
I 1-0.
a o-
-t 1 1IIII » 1 » H
140 = 0-B7
0-2.
°'H 1 1 1 1 1 1IH
-I-
15 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 9B
OMJLATIVE; PER CENT IMS * PARTICLE:
Figure G-17. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D. C.,September 20, 1970.
Figure G-18. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D. C.^October 7,1970.
-------
WASHINGTON DC
WASHINGTON DC
11/07X7O
B.
X
O
10-Q,
8-6
4.Q
3*0l
0-5 .
0-1
-» tt 1IIIII» 1» 1-
WO - 1-50
I )
H
8 5 10 SO 30 40 SO 6070 60 90 95 SB
OMJLATIVE PER CENT IttSS > PARTICLE OIAtCTER
o.i
1 S 510 EO 30 40 SO 6O 70 80 9035 SB SB
OAU-ATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure G-19. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., October 20, 1970.
Figure G-20. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington D.C., November 7, 1970.
-------
WAS-UNITON DC
11/1S/7O
W/a-tllsGTOI DC
12/05/70
O
&
o
90
2!
1O.O.
8
0. .
4*0. ,
a-o.
* 1-0.
1 0.4
0*1
-I+
MO = O-EB
H 1-
15 S 10 HO 30 40 30 60 70 80 SO SB SB
OMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS a PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure G-21. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., November 15, 1970.
lO-Oj, , H
e.o::
4-0. ,
2 s-o,
5 1*0.
3 o-ai:
uj 0.6:
H4
^ °
o.a.
o-M>
1 1 1 1
H h
H H
MO = 0>SO
-III 1 1 1-
+
IS 5 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 9095 38 99
UMJLATIVE PER CENT MASS = PARTICLE OIAMTTER
Figure G-22. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., Decembers, 1970.
-------
WASHINGTON DC
IH/IS/TO
B.
*
o
10-0.
6-0. .
4.0. .
2-0. ,
1.0..
0-B.'.
0-4. .
O'H₯
_l ij)(_
h
H 1 1 +
MCI = O-9B
1IIII h-
_,
-I-
12 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 9095 96 99
OMULMTVE PER CENT WSS * PARTICLE DIAhETER
Figure G-23. Particle size distribution curve,
Washington, D.C., December 15, 1970.
------- |