U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
REPORT
ON
THE AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR
THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
REPORT ONE
DATA SUMMARY
DECEMBER 1989
-------
ti ZTU\
Ob 3°)
REPORT
ON
THE AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR
THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
PREPARED BY
MARK KOMP*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
*NOW AFFILIATED WITH
U.S. EPA REGION VIII
AIR & TOXICS DIVISION
AIR PROGRAMS BRANCH
PLANNING SECTION
AND
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
REPORT ONE
DATA SUMMARY
December 1989
REPORT ONE
DATA SUMMARY
U.8 F;PA Region 8 Library
BOCM
999 i31 h St., Suilc 500
Denver, CO 60202-2466
DECEMBER 1989
-------
Acknowledgements
The author of this report wishes to thank the following
individuals for their guidance, support, help and expertise that
they have provided in the development of this report. Mr. Jim
Lehr, Director of the Environmental Services Division - EPA Region
VIII; Mr. Irv Dickstein, Director, Air and Toxics Division- EPA
Region VIII; Mr. Ken Lloyd, Director IEMP-EPA Region VIII. Mr
Larry Svoboda,Chief, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Section-EPA Region VIII; Mr. William Basbagill, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Section-EPA Region VIII; Mr. Gordon
MacRae, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Section-EPA Region
VIII; Mr. Steve Frey, Environmental Enforcement Section-EPA Region
IX. Their help and support made the IEMP Air Monitoring Program
a success.
The Colorado Department of Health Air Pollution Control
Division played a key role in making the IEMP monitoring program
a success. Mr. Gordon Pierce, Frank Rogers, Alan Dunhill and Steve
Arnold's efforts in supplying monitoring equipment and their help
in maintaining the equipment contributed to the monitoring program
operating with a minimum amount of problems. Their suggestions
during the course of the sampling program and their review of this
report were most welcomed.
A special thank you goes to the many individuals at the U.S.
EPA's facilities at Research Triangle Park, N.C. The individuals
helped Region VIII secure the monitoring equipment or assisted in
the selection of the methods that enable the Denver's IEMP Air
Toxic Monitoring Program to collect data on ambient air toxic
concentrations in the Denver Metropolitan area. These individuals
and the monitoring areas that they assist in are listed below.
Inorganics and 9-5 nm Particulates Semi-Volatiles
Robert K. Stevens, ARSL Nancy K. Wilson, EMSL
Aldehydes and Canisters
Roy B. Zweidinger, ARSL
Silvestre B. Tejada, ASRL
William A. McClenny, EMSL
The author wishes to thank the individuals listed below for
their review of the report.
General Review
EPA Headauarters-Wash. D.C.
Art Koines
-------
State of Colorado
EPA Region VIII
Steve Arnold, APCD
Frank Rogers, APCD
Alan Dunhill, APCD
Gordon Pierce, APCD
Wm. Basbagill, ESD
Gordon Macrae, ESD
Larry Svoboda, ESD
Ken Lloyd, IEMP
Specific Review
Annular Denuder and Particulate Data
Robert Stevens, RTP
Thomas Dzubay, RTP
Aldehyde Data
Silvestre Tejada, RTP
Roy Zweidinger, RTP
Volatile Organic Compound Data
Gerald Akland, RTP
William McClenny, RTP
PUF Data
Nancy Wilson, RTP
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the document does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The data
appearing in this report have been summarized for the convenience
of the reader and have been reviewed for accuracy to the limit
possible under the context of this report. It must be noted that
the majority of the data presented in this report were obtained
from sampling methods that are still considered to be
experimental and such data are best used in a relative sense.
Estimates for individual pollutants contain uncertainty and
should be used with this uncertainty in mind.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Conclusions l
2.0 Introduction 5
3.0 Background 7
3.1 Objectives 7
3.2 Monitoring Approach 8
3.3 Monitoring Locations and Sampling Frequency .... 10
4.0 Data Validation 14
4.1 Routine Checks 14
4.2 Internal Consistency Checks 16
5.0 Summation of Data Results 34
5.1 Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Data 34
5.1.1 Carbon Monoxide Data . 34
5.1.2 PM-10 Particulate Data 37
5.1.3 2.5 um Particulate Data 39
5.2 Summary of the CO and PM-10 Data 40
5.3 Aldehyde Data 41
5.4 Denuder Data 44
5.4.1 Nitrous and Nitric Acid and Sulfur
Dioxide 4 5
5.4.2 Nitrate and Sulfate Concentrations ... 48
5.5 Volatile Organic Compounds 51
5.6 Particulate Matter and Semi-Volatile Organic
Matter 57
6.0 Recommendations 62
i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Monitoring Site Locations 11
Figure 4-1. Carbon Tetrachloride Outliers in the Summer
VOC Data Base . 17
Figure 4-2. Decreasing 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane
Concentrations measured at Auraria Monitoring
Station 19
Figure 4-3. Gradual Increase and Sudden Decrease in
Dichlorodifluoromethane Concentrations. ... 19
Figure 4-4. High Vinyl Chloride Concentrations Measured
at End of Sampling Period 20
Figure 5-1. 8hr Running Averages of CO Data Collected at
the Auraria Monitoring Station during the
Winter Monitoring Period 3 6
Figure 5-2. 8hr Running Averages for CO Data Collected at
the Palmer Station during the Winter
Monitoring Period 3 6
Figure 5-3. summer PM-10 Concentrations at Auraria. ... 38
Figure 5-4. summer PM-10 Concentrations Measured at
Arvada 38
Figure 5-5. Winter PM-10 Concentrations Measured at
Auraria 39
Figure 5-6. Winter PM-10 Concentrations Measured at
Arvada 4 0
Figure 5-7. Monthly Average Formaldehyde Concentrations
in Summer 4 2
Figure 5-8. Monthly Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations
in summer 42
Figure 5-9. Monthly Average Formaldehyde Concentrations
for Winter 43
Figure 5-10 Monthly Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations
for Winter 44
Figure 5-11. Monthly Average Propionaldehyde
Concentrations for winter 4 5
Figure 5-12. Summer AM Nitric Acid Levels in the Denver
Area 4 6
Figure 5-13. Winter AM & PM Nitrous Acid Levels in the
Metropolitan Denver Area 47
Figure 5-14. winter AM Nitric Acid Levels in the
Metropolitan Denver Area 48
Figure 5-15. Winter Nitrate Concentrations Measured at the
Auraria Monitoring station 50
Figure 5-16. winter Sulfate Concentrations Measured at the
Auraria Monitoring Station 50
Figure 5-17. Winter Benzene Concentrations. . 54
Figure 5-18. winter Ethylbenzene Concentrations 54
Figure 5-19. Winter Toluene Concentrations 55
Figure 5-20. Winter 4-Ethyltoluene Concentrations 55
Figure 5-21. Winter o-Zylene Concentrations 56
Figure 5-22. Winter m/p-Xylene Concentrations 56
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Parameters Measured at the Four Monitoring
Locations 9
Table 3-2. Monitoring Equipment and Analytical Methods . 13
Table 4-1. Number of Samples Collected and Detection
Limits 15
Table 4-2. Historical Air Quality Data Collected by the
State of Colorado Used in Comparison with
IEMP Data 22
Table 4-3. Comparison of IEMP XRF Data to Previous
study 24
Table 4-4. Comparison of IEMP VOC Data with VOC
Data Presented in the Literature 2 6
Table 4-5. Regression Analyses of Collocated Data .... 30
Table 4-6. Regression Analyses of Duplicate Samples. 3 2
Table 4-7. 2.5 vs. PM-10 Comparisons 3 3
Table 5-1. Range of Volatile Organic Compounds for Each
Monitoring Location o ... . 53
Table 5-2. PUF Composite Concentrations 59
Table 5-3. Selected Individual PUF Samples 59
iii
-------
1.0 conclusions
This report quantifies concentrations of air toxic and
pollutant compounds as measured by the Denver Integrated
Environmental Management Project (IEMP) Air Toxic Monitoring
Program. Interpretation of the concentrations involves a review
of the pollutant levels measured during the summer (June-September
1987) and winter (November-February 1987/88) sampling periods and
a comparison with concentrations reported in previous studies for
Denver and in other urban areas. It is. anticipated that this
report will serve as a reference for ambient air toxic compounds
in the area and as a resource for an assessment of potential health
risks from exposure to these compounds.
Pollutant compounds measured during the program consisted of
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates (ranging in size from
< 10 um and < 2.5 um, nitrates and sulfates), aldehyde/ketone
compounds, nitric and nitrous acid, volatile organic compounds, and
semi-volatile organic compounds. Monitoring occurred at four
locations in the area and were chosen for their representativeness
of the area's populace. The primary monitoring location was on the
grounds of the Auraria Higher Education Center (central business
district). The second and third monitoring locations were in
Arvada (western metropolitan area) and near National Jewish
Hospital (eastern metropolitan area). A smaller fourth monitoring
location was the Palmer Elementary School (eastern metropolitan
area).
In general, concentrations measured during the summer sampling
period were lower when compared to concentrations of the same
compound measured during the winter period. The higher winter
concentrations occurred, the majority of time, during periods when
higher concentrations of carbon monoxide and particulates occurred.
These elevated concentrations of pollutants occurred during
discrete time periods in late November and again in mid to late
December. Concentrations were generally lower in January and
February. The coincident occurrence of elevated levels of air
toxic compounds with high levels of carbon monoxide and
particulates which occurred during the winter suggest that poor
atmospheric dispersion conditions result in the higher levels.
This observation is based on the general knowledge that poor
atmospheric dispersion conditions result in higher levels of carbon
monoxide and particulates. However, a review of representative
meteorological data for the sampling periods is necessary to
confirm this observation.
Concentrations measured during the two monitoring periods by
the four monitoring locations revealed that the Auraria location
was subject to the highest concentrations, with a few exceptions,
measured during the program. However, the small differences in
concentrations when compared to the other monitor locations
suggest that unique air toxic sources do not contribute to the
higher concentrations at Auraria. The pattern of air toxic
1
-------
concentrations measured at all of the monitoring stations suggests
that the ambient air quality of the area is not subject to a
limited number of air toxic emission sources located in one area
but probably is affected by many sources located over the entire
metropolitan area.
Maximum, mean, and minimum values for all pollutants have been
summarized in several formats within the context of this report.
In summary , carbon monoxide concentrations were less than the EPA
maximum one hour standard of 35 parts per million by volume (ppm)
during the summer and winter period. Several violations of the 8
hour standard of 9 ppm occurred during the winter at the Auraria
location. No violation of the particulate standard of 150
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) was recorded at any of the
locations. Sulfur dioxide concentrations reached a maximum of 0.02
ppm for a 24 hour period during the winter at Auraria. This is
compared to the 24 hour EPA standard of 0.14 ppm.
The monitoring for aldehydes and ketones resulted in four
compounds, i.e. formaldehyde, acetone, acetaldehyde, and
propionaldehyde, being measured on a consistent basis. Reported
acetone concentrations for both monitoring periods proved to be
unreliable due to contamination problems and difficulties
experienced in the laboratory analyses of the compound.
Consequently, acetone concentrations are not reported. Summer
concentrations of the remaining three compounds ranged from 2 to
5 parts per billion by volume (ppb) based on a monthly average.
Winter monthly averages for these compounds ranged from
approximately 1 to 8 ppb.
Nitric and nitrous acid levels were low during the summer
period. Nitrous acid was not detected and nitric acid
concentrations were less than 3 ppb for a 24 hour period during
the summer. During the winter, concentrations for both compounds
were less than 10 ppb for a 24 hour period.
Nitrate and sulfate particulate concentrations were also low
during the summer. Nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.5 ug/m3 to
1.5 ug/m3 and sulfate concentrations ranged from 1.5 ug/m to 3
ug/m . Nitrate concentrations were generally below 5 ug/m3 during
the winter with notable exceptions. Concentrations as high as 13
ug/m3 were observed in early and late February. This is
significant in the fact that the majority of pollutants measured
during the program achieved maximum concentrations in November and
December. Lower concentrations other than nitrate and sulfate were
generally found in January and February. The shift in occurrence
of the maximum concentrations was also evident in winter sulfate
concentrations. A maximum concentration of 9 ug/m3 occurred in
February. Future comparisons with other studies conducted in
Denver involving nitrates and sulfates may provide an explanation
of the time in which elevated levels of nitrate and sulfate
particulates occurred during the winter period.
2
-------
Twenty-six volatile organic compounds (VOC) were sampled
during the summer and winter monitoring period. 23 of the
compounds were detected in varying concentrations during the
summer. Four of the compounds maximum 24-hour concentrations were
found to range from a factor of 2 to as high as a factor of 1000
greater than concentrations expressed in the literature from
previous studies in Denver. These compounds were n-undecane
(maximum 24-hour concentration of 30 ppb compared to 10 ppb
expressed in the literature); 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (1 ppb
compared to 0.009 ppb); carbon tetrachloride (3 ppb compared to
0.18 ppb); trichlorofluoromethane (17 ppb compared to 0.8 ppb).
The remaining compounds were found to be within the range of
concentrations found from previous studies of VOCs in Denver.
During the winter, only six VOC compounds were detected with
any regularity. The compounds were benzene, toluene,
ethlylbenzene, and the several isometric forms of xylene. These
compounds were found to be within or near the range of
concentrations detected by previous studies in the Denver area for
a majority of the sampling period. However, a maximum
concentration at the Auraria location of 2 to 10 times higher than
the previous reported range of concentrations for each of the six
compounds occurred on samples taken either in late November or
December. It is anticipated that these maximum concentrations
occurred during poor atmospheric dispersion conditions. A maximum
benzene concentration of 26 ppb occurred on 20 November 1987.
Benzene concentrations ranged from 1 to 14 ppb at all sites for the
remainder of the period. A maximum concentration of 78 ppb for
toluene, 18 ppb for 4-ethyltoluene, and 58 ppb for m/p-xylene also
occurred on this date at the Auraria station. Maximum
concentrations of 2 ppb for ethlybenzene and 3 ppb for o-xylene
occurred at the Auraria site on 29 December 1987. The range of
concentrations for the remainder of the period were not detected
(ND) to 35 ppb for toluene, ND to 9ppb for 4-ethyltoluene, ND to
22 ppb for m/p-xylene, ND to lppb for ethylbenzene and ND to 3ppb
for o-xylene.
Over one hundred semi-volatile samples were collected during
each of the two sampling periods. Of the samples collected, only
two samples during the summer and nine samples during the winter
were found to have significant concentrations of semi-volatile
compounds. Naphthalene had the highest concentration of the 12
compounds that were detected on a regular basis. Naphthalene
concentrations were consistently a factor 10 or more greater than
the remaining compounds. A maximum naphthalene concentration of
2.4 ug/m was measured on 17 December 1987. Other compounds
measured in smaller quantities were phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluorathene, pyrene, chrysene, acenaphthene, acenapthylene,
fluorene, quinoline, isoquinoline and 9-fluorenone. Benzo (a) Pyrene
(BaP) was not detected during either sampling period. This was
considered unusual since BaP was anticipated as being able to be
detected in the Denver ambient air. Composites were made of all
3
-------
the semi-volatile samples collected. Composite sample
concentrations were lower than individual samples.
A brief comparison of air toxic data collected by the EPA in
urban areas across the country with the IEMP study was made.
Reported concentrations for several VOCs and formaldehyde collected
in Boston, Chicago and Houston during 1987/88 are available from
EPA's Toxic Air Monitoring System (TAMS) (Evans, 1988). A
comparison of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-
xylene concentrations measured in these cities with IEMP
concentrations indicated that the IEMP concentrations were within
a factor of 2 of the concentrations measured in these cities. This
was also true when formaldehyde levels when compared between
cities. A comparison of concentrations of benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, toulene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene
collected in the south coast air basin of California (SCAQMD, 1987)
during 1985 with the IEMP data indicates that the IEMP
concentrations were within a factor of 2 of the California data.
The comparison of IEMP VOC concentrations with other cities
suggests that at least for VOC pollutants Denver's air toxic
concentrations reflect the same magnitude of concentration as found
in other urban environments. Comparisons of additional compounds
were not performed.
The methods utilized to monitor for the compounds involved
both state-of-the-art instrumentation and instrumentation which
were considered in the development stage. Use of this
instrumentation provided a valuable means to obtain information
that had not been readily available for the area. However, the
inability of field operations to successfully utilize some of the
equipment, laboratory methods to resolve concentrations, or the
failure of the instrumentation to completely resolve the
concentrations of some desired pollutants prevented a small portion
of the program's goals from being obtained. The failure to obtain
representative < 2.5 um sized particulate data indicates that
additional tests of the equipment utilized and/or additional
training of field personnel in the proper procedure for the correct
operation of equipment are needed. As a result, no < 2.5 um
particulate data has been addressed within this report.
The validated IEMP data summarized in this report provides an
opportunity to approach a health risk assessment. The IEMP air
monitoring program as conducted provides information for a
qualitative assessment in the context of demonstrating the absence
or presence of possible health concerns that could be related to
the presence of air toxic concentrations. At present, a
qualitative risk assessment study using IEMP data is being pursued
by EPA Region VIII. With the cooperation of the Office of Human
and Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, a report on the assessment should be available
by the Spring of 1990.
4
-------
2.0 Introduction
The Denver Integrated Environmental Management Project
(IEMP) was part of a larger national demonstration program that
was established as a vehicle in which local communities could
explore ways in which to improve environmental management at the
local level. The concern that national regulations might not
effectively handle problems unique to a specific locale resulted
in the establishment of the IEMP program. The projects involved
communities across the country in defining, evaluating and
responding to local environmental problems.
Currently, choices and decisions made in environmental
management are driven primarily by laws and regulatory
requirements which separate problems by media i.e. air, land,
and water. The collective impact of different problems is
sometimes not considered in setting priorities. Problems in each
media are usually not evaluated simultaneously to determine which
ones warrant immediate attention and funding. Local factors and
values that may play a significant role in efforts to reduce
pollution are often not taken into account.
The Denver IEMP program, like previous pilot projects,
responded to the above concerns by concentrating on two
components:
Providing technical information on a range of environmental
concerns to be used in the development of exposure analyses
and risk assessments. These assessments would, in turn, be
used in the decision making process for the development of
environmental priorities.
Involve local decision makers from many levels of government
and leaders from business, scientific, citizen, and
environmental communities in objectively developing these
environmental priorities.
This report describes an aspect of the first component of the
Denver IEMP program. A complete description of the Denver IEMP
may be found in a report on the entire program (The Environmental
Strategies, 1989).
One of the environmental concerns IEMP addressed was ambient
air toxic pollutant levels. However, a lack of technical
information on ambient air toxic concentrations necessitated that
an ambient monitoring program be initiated in order to assess
whether concentrations were at a level to warrant further
analysis.
The monitoring program was to quantify concentrations of air
toxic and pollutant compounds in the ambient air. The data were
to be analyzed and concentrations were to be determined for
5
-------
selected time periods. Following the collection of data, the
issues of exposure and the associated risk of the Denver populace
to the air toxic concentrations were to be addressed.
Monitoring began in the summer of 1987 and was completed in
late winter 1988. After completion of monitoring, a draft report
was prepared regarding the data collected, the exposure analysis,
and risk assessment. Based on an EPA review of the draft report,
additional work was needed. The data required additional
analyses and review for quality control. The approach used for
the exposure and risk assessment was considered inappropriate for
the data collected. Since the additional data analyses could be
completed earlier than the exposure analysis and risk assessment,
two reports were developed.
This report represents the first to be prepared and
addresses the data collected during the monitoring program. It
includes background information on the monitoring approach,
location of the monitors, specific compounds measured, and
sampling frequency. The quality of the data are also evaluated
and summarized in the report. The limited time and resources
available for a review of the data prevents an extensive
interpretation of the data within the context of this report.
Therefore, this report represents only a summary of the data
collected.
The second report to be completed in Spring 1990 will be an
interpretation of the data in terms of potential exposure of the
public to the toxic compounds measured during the study. Based
on that assessment, the report will characterize the risk
associated with such potential exposure. This risk
characterization will include each compound's health effects and
the associated uncertainty regarding these health effects.
EPA expects that these reports will be used to establish a
reference point for ambient concentrations of air toxic compounds
in the area and provide a first step towards potential
development of ambient standards for air toxic concentrations
should it be warranted.
6
-------
3.0 Background
Previous studies conducted in the Denver area have
investigated the composition of air pollution in the area.
Studies by Russell, 1976 and Heisler, et. al., 1980 did examine
gaseous and particulate toxic compounds associated with mobile
and stationary sources. However, the two studies were conducted
only during the winter season. Studies performed by Singh et.
al. (1986) in the Denver area were similar to the IEMP air
monitoring program. The field study involved on-site analyses of
29 organic chemicals, many of which are mutagens or suspected
carcinogens. These chemicals included volatile organic
compounds, aromatic hydrocarbons, organic nitrates, and
aldehydes. However, the field study was of short duration
lasting one week in the spring of 1984 and collected data at only
one site location. The work performed by Lewis, et. al. (1986)
examined mobile and stationary sources but was restricted to the
study of these sources' contribution to toxic particulate
concentrations. The above studies did provide a comparison with
data collected by the IEMP study. The IEMP field monitoring
program attempted to broaden the data base available for air
toxic concentrations in the Denver area by sampling an extensive
number of pollutants in several locations for more than one
season.
3.1 Objectives
Objectives of the data collection portion of the IEMP air
toxics monitoring program were the following:
Quantify concentrations of specific air toxic and pollutant
compounds at four monitoring locations. Pollutant
concentrations were to be collected that were known or
suspected to be present in Denver's ambient atmosphere based
on previous ambient data collection efforts or knowledge of
existing emission sources.
Subject the data to quality assurance and control procedures
in order to insure its representiveness of ambient air
quality conditions.
Summarize the concentrations in terms of selected averaging
times.
Compare the concentrations to ambient air quality data.
Identify pollutants that were higher than what is considered
to be background levels and highlight them for further
study.
The accomplishment of these objectives would result in a
reference data base for ambient concentrations of air toxic
7
-------
compounds in the Denver area. It would also provide a first step
towards potential development of ambient standards for air toxic
concentrations should standards be warranted.
3.2 Monitoring Approach
The methods utilized to monitor for the compounds involved
both standard instrumentation and instrumentation which were
considered to be in the development stages. The program was
designed with the assistance of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) within EPA. It became apparent early in the
program that in addition to the monitoring of toxic compounds the
monitoring of air pollutant compounds not considered to be toxic
would be needed. This was necessary to ensure that a complete
data base would be collected containing pollutant concentrations
of interest to the various organizations involved with the
project. Monitoring included the following pollutants:
Toxic Compounds
. Volatile Organics
. Semi-Volatile Organics
. Inhalable Particulates
. Aldehydes
Additional Compounds
. Carbon Monoxide
. Nitrates and Sulfates
In determining the compounds to monitor, a comprehensive
list of compounds was reviewed and selection of the above
pollutants was made based on several factors. A discussion of
the selection process is given in the air monitoring plan for
this project (Komp et. al., 1988).
For the purpose of the IEMP study, a series of analyses were
conducted to determine whether sampling for less than a one year
period could produce ambient data which would adequately
represent an annual variation of pollutant concentrations. The
results suggested that sampling during the summer season (June
through September) and the winter season (November through
February) would be sufficient to conservatively represent an
annual variation (Versar, 1987).
The number and location of the monitoring sites were
selected on the basis of a series of statistical analyses of
8
-------
Table 3-1. Parameters Measured at the Four Monitoring Locations
Parameters Measured8 Auraria Arvada NJH Palmer
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
1) Toxic compounds
Aldehydes x x13
Volatile organic
compounds x x1* x
Semi-volatile
organic compounds x x5 x
2) Particulates and
Other compounds
Particulates x* xc xb xd
< 2.5 um
PM-10 (< 10 um) x x
Inorganic gas &
particulates® x1* x
3) Additional compounds
Carbon Monoxidef x x
The monitoring equipment at the Auraria location sampled once
every third day for two 12 hour periods. The remaining
locations sampled once every sixth day for one 24 hour
period. This sampling schedule was modified during the
winter period.
Collocated samplers for this parameter located at the site.
Four particulate samplers used at the site. Two primary and
collocated teflon and quartz filter samplers were used every
sixth day.
Two particulate samplers were used at the site, and consisted
of one teflon and quartz filter sampler.
Sampling consisted of nitrous (HN02) and nitric (HN03) acid
gas, sulfate, and nitrate particulate sampling.
9
-------
criteria pollutant data collected over a three year period
(Versar, 1987). The analyses demonstrated that three monitoring
sites could represent ambient concentrations for the metropolitan
Denver area. The use of three sites as being representative of
the metropolitan Denver area was attributed to differences in
topographical,
meteorological characteristics, population distribution and, the
distribution of sources of air toxic emissions in the
Metropolitan Denver area. However, upon further study of the
sites selected, a fourth site was added to ensure that eastern
residential areas were adequately represented by the data base.
3.3 Monitoring Locations and Sampling Frequency
The primary monitoring location (Site 1) was located on the
grounds of the Auraria Higher Education Center near Speer
Boulevard and Larimer Street in Denver's central business
district (CBD). The Auraria site was chosen over other existing
stations in the area based on the need to select a site
representing average exposure to the Denver work force who
commute daily to the downtown business district and the permanent
downtown residential population. The second and third monitoring
locations were located in Arvada (Site 2) and at National Jewish
Hospital (NJH)(Site 3). The Arvada site (57th and Garrison)
represented the western geographical area. The area was a medium
density residential area and, based on historical air quality
data, was considered to be more heavily influenced by residential
woodbuming than other areas. Correspondingly, the NJH site
(14th and Albion) represented the eastern most metropolitan area.
The site was located near a major arterial intersection (Colfax
Ave. and Colorado Blvd.) and was selected by IEMP in an attempt
to quantify the risk associated with Denver residents who are
exposed to emissions from mobile sources that utilize these
arterial highways.
A fourth site was added to the monitoring program when some
concern was raised regarding whether the NJH site would truly be
representative of ambient air concentrations for the eastern
metropolitan residential area. The fourth site was added at the
Palmer Elementary School (995 Grape Street) to ensure that the
eastern population would be adequately addressed. Figure 3-1
depicts the location of the IEMP sites.
Each IEMP site utilized the same types of monitoring
equipment. However, the parameters measured varied with each
site. The monitoring plan (Komp, et. al. 1988) provides an
extensive list of the equipment used at each site. A brief
summary of the parameters measured at each site may be found in
Table 3-1. A list of the equipment and analytical methods used
appears in Table 3-2. The sampling frequency at which the
10
-------
equipment operated was based on the priorities to acquire a
statistically significant data base and to ensure the development
of high quality data for the exposure analysis and risk
assessment.
The Auraria site, because of its downtown location and
anticipated pollutant levels, would collect samples every third
day while the three remaining sites would collect samples on a
less frequent basis during the two monitoring periods. This less
frequent basis was determined to be a one in six day schedule and
emulated the State of Colorado's one in six day sampling
schedule. The same frequency of sampling was advantageous for
comparisons of IEMP and the State's air quality data.
11
-------
Daytime and nighttime sampling was also initiated at the
Auraria site to assess any differences in ambient air quality
between daytime and nighttime air toxic emissions in the downtown
area. The expectation that meteorological conditions would
contribute to higher concentrations of ambient air toxic
concentrations during specific time periods necessitated
different sampling times during the two monitoring periods.
During the summer period, the day and night sampling at Auraria
consisted of two 12 hour sampling periods (7am through 7pm and
7pm through 7am). However, during the shorter daylight period of
the winter season, the sampling times were modified to conform to
the anticipated change from daylight to nighttime dispersion
regimes. Equipment at Auraria operated from 9am through 4pm (7
hours of sampling). Nighttime sampling occurred during the hours
of 4pm through 9am (17 hours of sampling). The three remaining
sites sampled for 24 hour periods during both seasons. However,
during the summer, sampling began at 7am and ended 24 hours
later. The winter sampling began at 9am and ended at 9am the
following day.
During part of the winter monitoring period the sampling
schedule for nitrates and sulfates (gas and particulate phases)
being measured at the Auraria site was changed from a one in
three day sampling schedule to an everyday sampling schedule.
This variation in the sampling schedule was performed to help
support the 1987-88 Denver Metro Brown Cloud Study, which was
also being conducted during the IEMP winter monitoring program.
The sampling schedule was modified to everyday sampling in
December and returned to its original sampling frequency during
February.
Other variations in the sampling frequency were performed
for varying lengths of time during the winter monitoring period.
Specifically, these variations included the following:
1. One in six day sampling for HN03 and HN02(gas
phase), nitrates and sulfates was changed to
everyday sampling at the Arvada monitoring site
from late December 1987 through January 1988.
2. Everyday sampling for HN03 and HN02(gas phase),
nitrates and sulfates was conducted at the
downtown Federal Building (1929 Stout Street) from
late December 1987 through January 1988.
The remaining sections
validation methods employed,
brief interpretation of the
of this report describe the data
a summary of the results, and a
results.
12
-------
Table 3-2. Monitoring Equipment and Analytical Methods
Parameter
Measured
Aldehydes
Volatiles
Semi-Volatiles
Particulates
2.5 urn
PM-10
Inorganics
Carbon Monoxide
Monitoring
Equipment
DNPHa
Stainless Steel
Canisters
PUFC sampler
Anderson PS-1
Impactor - 47mm
Teflon & Quartz
Filter
Particulate sampler
Anderson 32IB
Annular Denuderf
CO Analyzer,
Dasibi 3003
Analytical
Method
HPLC
GC/FID/ECDfc
GC/MS
IC*
Mass, XRFe &
Carbon
Mass
IC
Infrared
Spectrometry
" Dinitrophenylhydrazine reagent coated silica cartridges
analyzed using HPLC - High Performance Liquid
Chromatography.
b GC - Gas chromatography/FID - Flame Ionization Detection/ECD
- Electron Capture Detection for summer sampling period and
MS - Mass Spectrometry during the winter sampling period.
c PUF-Polyurethane Foam Sampler
d IC - Ion chromatography
e XRF - X-Ray Fluorescence, Carbon - Elemental, organic, and
total carbon
f Annular Denuder - HN02 & HN03 gas absorption onto NA2C03
coated glass tubes. < 2.5 um sized sulfate and nitrate
particulate sampling performed using 47 mm teflon and nylon
filters.
13
-------
4.0 Data Validation
An essential component of the IEMP air toxics monitoring
program was the validation of the data collected during the two
monitoring periods. Data validation refers to the methods
performed after the data have been collected and serves as a
screening process to ensure that the data are correct for use in
the decision making process. The validation, therefore, provided
for an overall review of the data and became an integral factor
in the successful data analysis regime.
Data validation for IEMP air toxics monitoring program
followed the systematic process outlined in the EPA document
Validation of Air Monitoring Data (U.S. EPA, 1980). The
procedures outlined in this document were applied, where
possible, to the parameters measured. These procedures included
routine checks of the data, tests for internal consistency, tests
for historical consistency, tests for consistency within parallel
data sets, and replicate laboratory analysis and field blanks.
4.1 Routine Checks
These checks consisted of examining flow rates, duration of
sampling, problems with the sampling equipment as noted by the
site technician, unusual sampling events, and performance checks
that were routinely conducted on the equipment. A checklist was
maintained for each of the parameters in which routine checks
were performed. This checklist provided a convenient method of
reviewing the number of checks performed for each data set and
provided documentation that the proper quality control measures
for the equipment were performed. Table 4-1 provides a summary
of the number of samples collected and the minimum detection
limit for the analytical methods used.
When improper sampling times were noted, an assessment was
made to determine that data could still be considered
representative for the sample day. Flow rates were carefully
considered since along with the sample times they directly
affected the concentrations reported. A check of the flow rates,
and duration of sampling was accomplished by referring to the
spreadsheets which the contractor, assigned to the project, had
developed. These spreadsheets are contained in a separate
project reports (PEI, 1987a & 1988). These reports also provide
documentation of the performance checks, i.e. calibrations and
audits, performed periodically throughout the sampling program.
Calibrations were used to adjust, where necessary, flow rates and
audits were used to assess the adequacy of the quality control of
the data for the program.
Unusual sampling events or problems with the equipment were
obtained from the site technician's log book and assessed by the
reviewers of the data for their impact on data results.
14
-------
Table 4-1. Number of Samples Collected and Detection Limits
Purrnnnt-ar
1) Toxic Compounds
Aldehydes
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semi-Volatile
Organic Compounds
2) Particulates and
Other Compounds
Particulates
<2.5 umd
<10 um
Inorganic gase
Particulate
3) Additional Compounds
Carbon Monoxide
Number of
Samples*
293
182
260
479
114
220
Detection
Limitb
0.06ppb
l-10ppbc
<0.5ppb
<0.lug/m3
continuous
<0.lug/m
1 ug/m
1 ppb(gas)
<0.lug/m
0.lppm
a Includes summer and winter sampling period for all sites
and collocated samples.
b General detection limit based on the analytical method used.
Actual sample detection limit is determined by the amount of
the parameter collected on a given day.
c Represents the range of detection for Gas Chromatography
used during summer sampling period. 0.5 ppb represents
detection limit for mass spectrometer used during winter
sampling period.
d <2.5 um particulate samples include quartz and Teflon
filters samples.
® Denuder sample constitutes both the gaseous and particulate
sample.
f Carbon Monoxide levels were monitored continuous during the
two monitoring periods. The data were subsequently averaged
to hourly values.
15
-------
Adjustments made to the data as a result of errors discovered
during the routine checks were documented on the checklist and
the project report. From the routine check procedures employed
during a review of the data, less than 2% of the data were
removed from the data base.
4.2 Internal Consistency Checks
Internal consistency tests examine data set values which
appear, upon first review, to be atypical when compared to other
values within the particular data set being examined. Common
anomalies of this type include unusually high or low values known
as outliers which result in large differences in adjacent values
sampled before or after the outlier value. These outliers can
usually be attributed to incorrect operation of the sampler,
contamination of the sample, or the incorrect calculation of the
concentration from flow rate and laboratory analysis of the
sample. However, in some cases an explanation of the outlier can
not be determined. At this point it is the subjective decision
of the agency or individual reporting the results as to the
determination of the validity of the data point.
Plotting of the data set is one of the most effective means
of identifying possible data outliers. It was used exclusively
in performing internal consistency checks of the data collected
by the IEMP monitoring program because of its effectiveness in
identifying unusual data that would not ordinarily be identified
using other internal consistency tests. For the Denver IEMP
data, plotting for internal consistency checks involved plotting
of data over time. The ability to examine all of the data at
once in order to establish patterns within the concentrations
measured aided greatly in establishing the existence of possible
outliers. It also provided a means of determining whether the
outliers were grouped within a specific time period. If the
outlier had occurred during one specific time period, the cause
of the outlier could be attributed to a possible event during the
sampling program that had been documented either by site
technician or reviewers of the program.
The most numerous examples of outliers in the IEMP air
toxics monitoring program data set can be found in the VOC data.
Unusually high concentrations were found in both the summer and
winter data when compared to adjacent values collected prior to
or after the outlier value. Many of these outliers can be
explained by events which occurred during sampling or by
procedures utilized during the laboratory analyses. However
several occurrences of outliers could not be explained adequately
and were removed from the data base on the subjective opinion of
the reviewers of the data. A discussion of the outliers and
figures depicting the erroneous data are presented in the
following paragraphs.
16
-------
A review of the summer VOC data revealed that laboratory
analyses of all 26 compounds demonstrated unusually high
concentrations during the first samples taken in June 1987.
Figure 4-1 depicts the plot of carbon tetrachloride
concentrations for the summer monitoring period. The carbon
tetrachloride example in the figure is typical of the first
sample taken for all 26 compounds. In the figure the first VOC
sample taken at the three monitoring stations were all unusually
high compared to samples taken later in the monitoring period.
It has been suggested by several of the reviewers of the data
that these high concentrations can be attributed to the improper
purging of air toxic compounds within the canisters and the
samplers prior to the receipt of the equipment and subsequent use
in the IEMP sampling program. A second opinion is that the
laboratory improperly analyzed the samples. Subsequent analyses
of the canisters samplers apparently alleviated the contamination
problem or laboratory anomaly and it is believed that
representative samples were collected for the remainder of the
period. Although there is no strong evidence to support these
opinions, the fact that all 26 compounds were unusually high for
the first sample suggests erroneous results. As a result, all
VOC data for the 2 June 1987 sampling period were removed from
the data base.
IEMP SUMMER VOC DATA
2.2
2.0 -
1.8 -
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1.6 - AUMPIA OUTLIER
1.4 -
1.2 i
1.0
0.8
0.6-
0.4
0.2
(l<- AflVAOfc GQUOCATH) OUTLIER
0.0
June 81
• AftfMK miMAPT OUIU0)
• HJH OOTLIB)
A A
*
~
i *
~ma
+
a
A A
~ COLLOCATED
A A A o Q A
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
July 87 Aug. B7 Stpl. 81
MONITOR INS PERIOD
~ MM0A PRIMARY » KJH
AUMHIA
Figure 4-1. Carbon Tetrachloride Outliers in the Summer VOC Data
Base.
17
-------
Data collected for the compound 1,1,1-trichloroethane during
the summer monitoring period indicated that a decreasing
concentration of the compound with time occurred at the Auraria
monitoring station. It was suspected that this pattern of
concentrations at Auraria was erroneous. Figure 4-2 depicts the
pattern of concentrations at the monitoring stations that sampled
the compound. Concentrations of l,1,1-trichloroethane measured
at Auraria decreased until mid-July and remained stable for the
remainder of the monitoring period. At the same time
concentrations of the compound at the Arvada and NJH monitoring
stations remained stable during the entire monitoring period.
Three explanations for the pattern of decreasing concentrations
with time for this compound measured at the Auraria monitoring
station have been suggested. First, a source of the compound
near the Auraria station may have released the compound in
decreasing amounts with time. Second, 1,1,1-trichloroethane may
have been present in the Auraria canister sampler prior to its
installation in the field and several sample runs were necessary
to purge the sampler of the compound. Third, the laboratory may
have over estimated the amount of this compound in early samples.
Confirmation of a possible explanation will require a review of
emissions of the compound near the monitoring location and a
review of analytical methods. For the purpose of this report,
1,1,1-trichloroethane data collected at the Auraria monitoring
station from 2 June 1987 through 8 July 1987, (a total of 9
samples), were removed from the data base.
Figure 4-3 depicts concentrations of dichlorodifluoromethane
measured during the summer at the VOC monitoring stations. An
increase with time in the concentration of the compound followed
by a sudden decrease at all the stations is seen in the figure.
This increase was considered unusual and further examination of
the laboratory results was initiated. During the review,
conversations between the contractor and their laboratory
personnel (Zimmer, 1988a) indicated that dichlorodifluoromethane
had been a difficult compound to analyze. Problems analyzing the
compound were resolved during the course of sampling. Although
there was insufficient evidence to conclusively indicate that all
reported concentrations of the compound measured through the
middle of July were incorrect, the tendency for the
concentrations to increase through mid-July followed by a sharp
decrease made the results questionable. As a result
dichlorodifluoromethane concentrations reported for all stations
through 14 July 1987 were removed from the data base, a total of
30 samples were removed from the three monitoring locations.
Towards the end of the summer sampling period high values of
vinyl chloride were observed from the laboratory analyses of
canister samples taken at the three monitoring stations. A plot
of the concentrations against time is provided in Figure 4-4.
Conversations with laboratory personnel confirmed that the
laboratory analyses for vinyl chloride and vinylidene chloride
18
-------
IEMP SUMMER VOC DATA
40.0
35.0 ¦
30.0 -
35.0 -
1.1.1,-TRIOLOHETHME
u
i 20.0 -
1S.0 -
a«-auuru pre ccnog=s iitk tide
a
A A
^ A •
# * ¦ ® a i i41414 ' ® a ¦ A • ft
n» «i i » j |
tiii—i—i—n—i i i i i
July
i i i i i i i i i i i—i i i i
AUO. S*Jt.
0 tmUA COLLOCATED
MONITOR IKi PWICO 1387
+ ARVAM PRIMMT
9 MJH
A AJMfllA
Figure 4-2.
Decreasing 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane Concentrations
measured at Auraria Monitoring station.
13
12
11
10
9 ¦
8
7 -
fi -
3 -
4 .
3
a -
1
IEMP SUMMER VOC DATA
oiounxiFumocTme
~ <-OBCSEASE IN PTC
+ A
A A
a * ?
A ^ A
6
o
i » »
J A f A |
JUW
July
~ MNMM ODLLOCATED
Aug.
ICHI TOPING IBNOCI 1387
ARVACK mitMm
A A M *
SBPt.
~ WH
A AURARIA
Figure 4-3. Gradual Increase and Sudden Decrease in
Dichlorodifluoronethane Concentrations.
19
-------
were difficult to obtain from all of the summer canister samples
due to interference from other compounds (Zimmer, 1988b).
Although plots of vinylidene chloride did not show the occurrence
of outliers as was the case with vinyl chloride, concerns
regarding the ability to analyze for these compounds have been
expressed by others (Komp, 1988). Vinyl chloride samples
collected after 22 August 1987 were deleted from the data base
for all the VOC monitoring stations based onthe outliers which
occured after that date. This amounted to 14 samples from 3
monitoring locations being removed from the data base. However,
there was no evidence that vinylidene chloride concentrations
were incorrect and they remained in the data base.
IEMP SUMMER VOC DATA
£
u
5
240
220 -
200 -
180
160 -
MQ
120 -
100 -
60 -
60 -
40
20 -I
VINYL OLORIDE
5 i
4 4 1 fi ' 1
i ) 4 M 9
June
~ CCLLOCATH)
S A ¦ A » A » .
I I T I—I—I—I—I—~*"
July Aug.
MONITORING PERI0O 1387
+ ARTAC* PBIMMtt
A * A •
-i—T—r
Sept.
O NJH & AURARIA
Figure 4-4.
High Vinyl Chloride Concentrations Measured at End
of Sampling Period.
Finally, plots of dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
concentrations, not shown, collected during the summer indicated
unusually high concentrations (> 100 ppb) occurred periodically
throughout the sampling period. These concentrations were higher
than any previous study had shown for the Denver area. These
high concentrations appear random throughout the data for all of
the monitoring stations. Although there is insufficient evidence
to conclusively indicate that the data are erroneous, the high
values suggest that a contamination problem may have resulted in
these values being reported. Methylene chloride data for the
summer have been removed from the final data base until
20
-------
sufficient information is brought forth to suggest that the data
are representative of the metropolitan Denver area.
The occurrence of outliers in the VOC data collected during
the summer period and the concerns expressed by laboratory
personnel prompted a change in the analytical method used to
determine VOC concentrations from canister samples. During the
winter period VOC samples were analyzed using gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy. This improved the ability to delineate
between coeluting compounds although at the cost of some accuracy
in determining the concentration of the compound.
The majority of the outliers in the IEMP air toxics
monitoring program data set were found in the VOC data and the
examples presented above were typical of the entire VOC data set.
However outliers occurred for all of the parameters measured
during the program. The total amount of data determined to be
outliers from the parameters not addressed in this section varied
for each parameter. The overall amount of data removed from the
entire data base because of outliers was approximately 7 percent.
4.3 Historical Consistency Checks
Checks for historical consistency compared the data set
being examined with similar data collected in the same or nearby
location in the past. This process is useful in detecting data
averages or individual data points that are considered unlikely
to occur under the atmospheric conditions expected for the
sampling area during a specific sampling period. Step one of
examination involves the establishment of upper and lower limits
expected for an individual parameter based on the historical data
being used. Upper limits were established for the IEMP air
toxics data through the use of the maximum value observed over
the sampling period. Lower limits were assumed to be the non-
detectable limit depending on the parameter being reviewed. Next,
where it was appropriate, averages were established by reviewing
the historical data usually on a month by month or seasonal
bases. Finally, a pattern was established for the data set under
examination in order to assess a pollutant behavior which has
never occurred or rarely occurs. For example, unusually high CO
levels (> 20 ppm) occurring during the summer would be considered
more unusual than the same level occurring during poor dispersion
conditions usually found during the winter season.
For the purposes of the IEMP study, historical consistency
checks were limited to a select number of parameters. A
sufficiently large historical data base exists in the Denver area
for the measured parameters of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (S02), and PM-10 particulates. However, many of the air
toxic concentrations (i.e. volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
semi-volatiles (PUF)) measured by IEMP air toxics monitoring
21
-------
Table 4-2. Historical Air Quality Data Collected by the State
of Colorado Used in Comparison with IBMP Data.
Selected Air Quality Data Collected by apcd0
Parameter
APCD Monitoring
Station Location
1. Carbon monoxide (PPM)
5 yr. lhr Max.
5 yr. 8hr Max.
2. Sulfur dioxide0 (PPM)
5 yr. 2nd 24hr Max.
5 yr. Max. Ann. Ave,
Welby Camp Carriage NJH
17
13
44
26
0.02 0.04
0.008 0.014
26
20
X
X
33
22
X
X
3. PM-10 Particulate (ug/m )
1987 Annual Arith. Ave. 46
1987 2nd 24hr Max. 109
1986 Annual Arith. Ave. 64
1986 2nd 24hr Max. 142
Adams City Arvada Camp Denver
20°
81
27
47
32
93
36
61
37
121
42
139
a Data taken from 1983 thru 1987 APCD annual air quality reports.
b CO maximum based on two years of data. Welby site began CO
sampling in 1986.
c Data was collected only at the indicated sites.
d Average based on incomplete data recovery.
program are unique to the program. Air toxic data have been
collected in the Denver metropolitan area by previous monitoring
programs.
4.3.1 carbon Monoxide and sulfur Dioxide Data Comparisons
CO data collected during the last five years by the State
of Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at selected
locations in the Denver metropolitan area were used as an
approximation of the upper limit to be expected for the
metropolitan area. Locations used in the averages were Welby (E.
78th and Steele), Camp (21st and Broadway), Carriage (2325
Irving), National Jewish Hospital (14th and Albion). These
locations were chosen because of their proximity to the IEMP
monitoring locations. Table 4-3 depicts the comparison of
maximum and minimums developed from the five year data base.
Any data found to be outside the limits established by the
five year data base were highlighted and received further review
22
-------
to determine if in fact they were correct. For data validation
purposes the IEMP data were within the upper and lower limits
established by the historical data base. Section 5 of this
report describes the CO data collected as part of the program.
The use of historical sulfur dioxide (S02) data collected by
APCD was limited to the Welby and Camp Stations and was not a
direct comparison with S02 data collected by the IEMP air toxics
monitoring program. IEMP S02 data were derived from the annular
denuder measurements at the Auraria monitoring station. S02 data
collection by APCD were performed using continuous monitors
employing the pulsed fluorescence method. Despite the
differences in the two methods, the IEMP data were within the
limits established by the historical data base. Section 5 of
this report describes the S02 data in more detail.
4.3.2 Particulate Data Comparisons
PM-10 data have been collected for a short time period in
the Denver area and a five year comparison was not possible.
Therefore, the amount of data used in the comparison was based on
PM-10 data collected during the 1986 and 1987 monitoring years.
Monitoring locations used in the comparison were Adams City (4301
E. 72nd Ave.), Arvada (57th & Garrison) and Denver (414 14th
Street). IEMP PM-10 data were within the limits set by the
historical data set.
Historical comparisons of the fine size fraction (<2.5um)
particulate sampling conducted by the IEMP air toxics monitoring
program consisted of comparing X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyses
of the data with similar analyses performed on past fine
particulate studies conducted in Denver. The XRF analyses
provided a description of the elemental composition of the
particulates collected. A review of the elemental analyses
performed on data revealed that the elemental composition of the
particulates was not what was expected for the metropolitan
Denver area. High concentrations of aluminum(A1), silicon(Si),
calcium(Ca), iron(Fe), and other elements characteristic of
coarse size particulates (>2.5um) from soils were found from the
analyses. These data were inconsistent with a previous study
(Lewis et. al., 1986) of the elemental composition of <2.5um
particulates conducted in Denver which indicated that fine
particulates consist of smaller concentrations of the above
elements. The fine particulate analyses performed for this study
indicated that elemental concentrations were a factor of 10-100
less than elemental concentrations reported for the IEMP Air
Toxics Monitoring study. Table 4-3 presents the comparison of
the IEMP XRF analyses with the Lewis study. IEMP data presented
in the table are an average concentration for the compound for
the entire winter sampling period. The Lewis study
concentrations are an average based on a data set that was
collected for a 19-day period. The IEMP data were collected at
23
-------
Table 4-3. Comparison of IEHP
XRF Data to
Previous Study.
Fine Part.
Cone, (ug/m3)
from XRF
Selected
Element IEMP8 Lewisb
A1 1.07 0.4
Si 5.05 0.3
K 2.03 0.06
CI 0.9 0.05
Ca 0.7 0.04
Mn 0.04 0.008
Fe 1.24 0.08
° Data collected Nov.-Feb.
1987/88 from 9am-4pm.
b Data collected Jan. 11-30,
1982 from 6am-6pm.
the Auraria monitoring station
between the hours of 9am and
4pm. The Lewis study
collected data in northeast
Denver between the hours of
6am and 6pm. With these
differences in mind, the
comparison of the IEMP data
with the Lewis study resulted
in further review of the
particulate data. A possible
explanation for the high
elemental concentrations was
formulated after a review of
PM-10 IEMP particulate data
that were collected at the
same time as the fine size
particulates. A complete
description of the review is
highlighted in Section 4.4
which describes the data
validation procedure of
reviewing parallel data sets.
The XRF analyses of the 2.5 urn
particulate data were also reviewed for metal constituents. The
measured species of chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd),
and arsenic (As) were of interest to the study because of their
known or suspected toxicity. However, a review of the laboratory
analyses for these species revealed that the lower quantifiable
limits for these species were not exceeded for a majority of the
sample days. Since the maximum values for these species were low
or unquantifiable and represent the total size range of
particulates, they are not considered further within this report.
The lower quantifiable limit for each element varied with each
sample. The limits are listed in the project reports (PEI, 1987a
& 1988).
4.3.3 Volatile Organics Data Comparison
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) were reviewed by comparing
the 26 compounds collected during the summer and winter IEMP air
toxics monitoring program with data that had been collected in
the Denver metropolitan area in the past. The comparison was
possible by using an assessment of available VOC data for the
Denver area prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, 1983). This assessment was designed to summarize data that
had been collected from many studies across the country in an
attempt to develop a useful and coherent data base that typified
VOC concentrations. An emphasis was placed on the quality and
24
-------
representativeness of the data before they were placed in the
document. It is from this data base that the historical Denver
data were extracted. Some of the VOC compounds sampled by the
IEMP program had not been sampled by the previous studies. In
these cases data collected across the country for the particular
compound were used to develop an upper and lower limit for the
concentration. Several VOC concentrations for Denver were
extracted from the Denver Air Pollution Study- 1973 (Russell,
ed. 1976) but the majority of the data were taken from
Atmospheric Measurements of Selected Hazardous Organic Chemicals
(Singh, et. al. 1979). The methods by which the VOC samples
were collected in these studies varied and consisted of one or
more of the following collection methods:
* canisters
* adsorption resin
* bag samples
VOC data for the IEMP program were collected exclusively
through the use of steel canisters. Table 4-4 depicts the range
of VOC concentrations measured during the summer and winter IEMP
air toxics monitoring program with the range of concentrations
presented in the EPA literature. The IEMP VOC data range from
not-detected (ND) to significant levels in parts per billion
(ppb/volume). Ten of the 26 compounds measured during the summer
period were significantly above the range of concentrations
presented in the literature. During the winter sampling period,
six compounds were significantly above the range of
concentrations presented in Table 4-4. Upon further review, the
data above the range of the historical data remained in the data
base. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the data
were incorrect.
4.4 Consistency of Parallel Data Sets
The examination of the data for outliers as defined in
Section 4.2 assumes that the majority of the data is correct and
can be used as an accurate indication of the range of values
found in the ambient air during the sampling period. However, if
the sampler collecting the data has a bias in its collection
method, a review for outliers would not identify the bias. A
method of identifying a systematic bias within the data is to
compare the data set with
similar data collected at the same time and location. IEMP
collected collocated data for selected parameters at several of
the monitoring locations.
The collocated equipment at each site are presented below:
* Arvada - 2.5 um particulates, PUF, aldehyde sampler,
and canisters.
25
-------
Table 4-4. Comparison of IEMP VOC Data with VOC Data
Presented in the Literature.
Range of
VOC Concentrations
IEMP
IEMP EPA
Compound
Summer
Winter Literature
(PPb)a
(PPb)
(PPb)D
n-Octane
ND-3
ND
0.0-13*
n-Nonane
0.2-3
ND
0.06-14*
n-Decane
0.2-17
ND
0.01-14
n-Undecane
ND-30
ND
0.1-10
Chloroformc
0.07-0.4
Dichloromethaned
ND
0.03-1.9
1,2-Dichloroethanee
(2-12)
ND
0.1-0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.5-8
ND
0.4-1.1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND-1
ND
0.002-0.009
Carbon Tetrachloride
ND-0.5
ND
0.16-0.18
Dichlorodifluoromethane
ND-4
ND
0.6-1.5
Trichlorofluoromethane
3-17
ND
0.4-0.8
Vinyl Chloride
ND-3 7
ND
0.0-79*
Vinylidene Chloride
4-39
ND
0.0-0.14
Trichloroethene
ND-0.8
ND
NOT AVAIL.
Tetrachloroethene
ND-2
ND
NOT AVAIL.
2-Chloro-l,2-butadiene
ND-15
NOT AVAIL.
Benzene
(2-12)
ND-2 6
0.3-14
Toluene
3-22
ND-78
0.71-37
Ethylbenzene
ND-5
ND-3
0.3-30
o-Xyleneh
ND-3
0.3-30
m-Xylene1
(2-15)
ND-58
0.6-22.0
p-Xylene
(2-15)
ND-58
0.6-22.0
Styrene
2-16
ND
1.1-1.9*
4-Ethyltoluene
0.5-18
ND
0.4-1.5
Chlorobenzene
ND-18
ND
NOT AVAIL.
3 Range of data presented are with outliers removed. ND=Not
Detected
b As presented in Volatile Organic Chemicals in the Atmosphere:
An Assessment of Available Data. EPA (1983). * = Not specific
to Denver area. Not Avail.= Range not available from
literature for indicated compound.
c Chloroform data not reported due to laboratory insensitivity.
d Data collected during the summer were removed from data base.
e Parenthesis indicates coeluted with benzene when GC/FID/ECD
analytical method used.
f Historical data range was listed as questionable.
9 Compound not measured during winter.
h Compound not measured during summer.
' Parenthesis around range indicates coeluting of compound with
p-xylene.
26
-------
* Auraria - Annular Denuder
* NJH - Aldehyde Sampler
Analyses for consistency of the PM-10 and < 2.5 ui particulate,
and PUF data sets were not performed. No collocated PM-10 data
were collected. The larger sized particles that were found to be
a part of the 2.5um particulate data precluded further tests of
the data base. The analytical methods employed in analyzing the
PUF data base consisted of compositing the filter samples over
the entire sampling period. This prevented a comparison of the
collocated PUF data sets.
Sample results from the remaining collocated samplers were
compared to the designated primary samplers for determination of
the linearity of the two samplers. This was accomplished by
comparing the same parameter collected by the two samplers for
the same date and time using linear regression analyses. The
samples from the primary samplers were considered independent.
The results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 4-5
and represent how well the collocated parameters compared for the
entire sampling period. The table provides the regression
coefficient (R), and the number of valid cases for each parameter
considered. The number of valid samples are a result of a review
of the data utilizing quality control checks described in the
previous sections of the report.
Some conclusions may be drawn from the regression analyses.
For the purpose of this report, correlations are considered good
if the R value is greater than 0.8. This value was based on the
anticipated accuracy of instrumentation and laboratory analyses
being used (PEI, 1988). Correlations for the four aldehyde
compounds that consistently showed concentrations above
detectable limits are presented in Table 4-5. The aldehyde data
showed good correlation between primary and collocated values
with the exception of acetone samples collected during the
summer. The lower correlation for acetone may be a result of
contamination which occured during the period when the filters
were being analyzed. Correlation of collocated acetone samples
improved during the winter sampling period after the
contamination problem had been alleviated.
More VOC compounds were detected during the summer
monitoring period than during the winter. Those VOCs that were
detected during the two sampling periods are presented in Table
4-5. VOC correlations varied with the compound. Eight compounds
had correlations less than 0.8. Correlation of collocated vinyl
chloride samples for the summer was 0.57. This is an indication
of the difficulty expressed by the laboratory in determining
concentrations of the compound. This difficulty was described in
Section 4.2 of this report. Collocated styrene samples showed a
27
-------
0.43 correlation and chlorobenzene samples showed no correlation.
Since concentrations reported for these compounds were above the
quoted detection limit, there is insufficient evidence at this
point to suggest a reason for the poor correlation for these two
compounds. The remaining compounds, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, dichlorodiflouromethane and
tetrachloroethene varied in their correlation from 0.6 to 0.8.
Difficulties in analyzing for 1,l,l-trichloroethane and
Dichlorodiflouromethane compounds were discussed in previous
sections of this report. Poor correlations for the remaining
compounds may also be attributed to difficulties in determining
concentrations for these compounds.
Correlation of collocated data collected by the Denuder were
performed for both am and pm samples for both the summer and
winter sampling periods. Correlation was good for all parameters
with the exception of summer pm sulfate samples, and am and pm
nitric acid samples collected during the winter. The poorer
correlation of these parameters may be attributed to
concentrations which approach the limits of detection of the
sampler.
Tests of the means (T-test) and standard deviations (F-test)
of the primary and collocated samples were also performed for the
data sets. With the exception of the parameters that showed poor
correlation as described above, the tests indicated that all
collocated and primary data sets were related at the 95 percent
confidence interval.
4.4.1 Consistency of Replicate Samples
The correlation of collocated data sets does not distinguish
between the errors that may be attributed to the instrumentation
and those that are associated with the laboratory analyses. Some
of the poor correlations addressed in the previous section were
attributed to laboratory analyses. In an attempt to better
understand the contribution the laboratory analyses had to the
overall error of the reported concentration, replicate analyses
of samples were performed by the laboratories analyzing the data.
Table 4-6 lists the results of regression analyses that were
performed for replicate samples. An insufficient amount of data
was available for a correlation of VOC and Denuder data for the
winter period. Therefore, analyses of these data do not appear
in Table 4-6.
For the aldehyde samples, replicate sample analyses were
performed using two DNPH impregnated cartridges. A series of the
two DNPH cartridges were exposed to ambient air at the same
location and time throughout the same period. After exposure,
one cartridge was submitted to the State Department of Health
laboratory for analysis. The second cartridge was submitted to
28
-------
EPA's research laboratory in North Carolina. The results from
the two laboratories were compared for similar results. Both
cartridges were exposed to ambient aldehyde levels using one
sampler.
Correlation of aldehyde data between the two laboratories
showed good correlation between formaldehyde samples during both
sampling periods. Acetaldehyde and propionaldehyde replicate
sample correlation improved from the summer to the winter
sampling period. However, acetone analyses show the reverse
trend. In general, the State laboratory consistently reported
lower aldehyde concentrations than the EPA laboratory during both
sampling periods. The exception to this observation was summer
propionaldehyde concentrations. Both laboratories reported
similar propionaldehyde concentrations during the summer period
replicate sample analyses. Examination of laboratory protocols
will be required in order to determine the possible cause of the
difference between laboratory analyses.
Replicate analyses of VOC concentrations indicated that poor
correlations exist for octane, nonane, decane, undecane, 1,1,2,2
tetrachlorethane, vinyl chloride, vinylidene chloride, 2-chloro-
1, 2-butadiene, and 4-ethyltoluene. The poor correlations of
vinyl chloride and vinylidene chloride are consistent with
reported laboratory difficulties in analyzing samples for these
compounds. The poor correlations for the remaining compounds
described above suggest additional laboratory difficulties in
reproducing reported concentrations for these compounds.
Denuder sample replicate analyses for the summer period
showed very good correlations.
Test of the mean (T-tests) and standard deviations (F-tests)
of the initial and duplicate samples were also performed for the
data sets. With the exception of the parameters that showed poor
correlation as described above, the tests indicated that all
duplicate samples were related to the initial sample analyses at
the 95 percent confidence interval.
4.4.2 Summary of Correlations
The correlations of the data presented in the two previous
sections provide a preliminary indication of the reliability of
the instrumentation and laboratories analyzing the data in
consistently reproducing reliable results. Concentrations of
compounds in which correlations less than 0.8 were found were
flagged as being possibly unreliable.
Additional work beyond the scope of this report is required
to determine the reliability of individual concentrations.
Frequency distributions of the collocated data may provide some
29
-------
Table 4-5. Regression Analyses of Collocated Data
Pwrwiwftfar
Number of Regression
Valid Sample Coefficent
Bummer Winter Riimmwr Winter
0.99
0.98
0.81
0.98
Aldehvdes
Formaldehyde
17
21
0.95
Acetaldehyde
17
21
0.85
Acetone
17
21
0.66
Propionaldehyde
17
21
0.88
Volatile Oraanic ComDounds
n-Octane
17
0.95
n-Nonane
18
0.89
n-Decane
18
0.82
n-Undecane
18
0.96
Chloroform
4
0.96
Dichloromethane"
1,2-Dichloroethane
17
0.97
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
12
0.73
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
18
0.61
Carbon Tetrachloride
18
0.96
Dichlorodifluoromethane
10
0.69
Trichlorofluoromethane
18
0.91
Vinyl Chloride
15
0.57
Vinylidene Chloride
18
0.99
Trichloroethene
18
0.90
Tetrachloroethene
9
0.78
2-Chloro-l,2-butadiene
17
0.83
Benzene
17
16
0.97
Toluene
18
18
0.98
Ethylbenzene
18
0.97
o-Xylene
18
10
0.98
m-Xylene
18
17
0.98
p-Xylene
18
17
0.98
Styrene
18
0.43
4-Ethyltoluene
18
0.73
Chlorobenzene
17
0.03
0.94
0.85
0.82
0.95
0.95
Denuder
flnmmwr Winter Bummer Winter
AM PM AM PM AM PM
AM PM
Nitrous
Nitric
Nitrate
Sulfate
16 14 44 37 .73 .88 .89 .70
16 14 44 37 .80 .87 .46 .00
16 14 44 37 .95 .97 .70 .87
16 14 44 37 .83 .50 .78 .90
Removed from data base.
30
-------
indication of sampler error in the collocated comparisons.
Further review of laboratory procedures may provide some
explanation of the laboratory's inability to produce consistent
results in the concentrations reported for some compounds.
Many of the correlations were performed for a small number
of samples. Additional collocated and replicate samples were
necessary for the given mean and standard deviation of the
compound's reported concentration in order for the desired
reliability to be achieved. Computation of residuals for
subsequent determination of a confidence interval for a reported
concentration is needed.
4.4.3 Consistency of Parallel Data Sets of Related Parameters
The examination of the collocated data provided a
preliminary examination of the precision of the equipment
monitoring methods and alerted reviewers to possible precision
errors in the sample methods used during the program. The
consistency of parallel data sets were also examined by reviewing
two data bases that were sampling different parameters but where
the parameters were related to each other. This type of review
of the IEMP data consisted of a comparison of 2.5 um particulate
data with data collected by PM-10 monitors. In Section 4.3 it
had been suggested that the 2.5 um particulate data did not
correctly represent that size range of particulates because of
the XRF analyses indicating the presence of elements attributed
to 10 um coarse size particulates.
PM-10 data were compared to 2.5 um particulate data
collected at the same time and location. Comparing daily
concentrations of PM-10 data to 2.5 um data collected at the same
time provided an assessment of the magnitude that the 2.5 um
sampler allowed larger sized particulates to be collected. Table
4-7 compares the data collected at the two sites where the
particulate data were being collected. Data collected during the
winter sampling period at Arvada and Auraria have been averaged
for each month and for the entire sampling period. Data
collected during the winter period were chosen since only one
type of particle size limiting device
was used on the 2.5 um sampler during the winter period.
The comparison indicates that on an average the 2.5 um
sampler collected 84% of the particulates collected by the PM-10
sampler. However, on several individual days the 2.5 um sampler
collected the same or greater particulate mass than the PM-10
sampler. This indicates that coarse particle contamination of
the fine particle samples was evident. The cause of this
contamination may be due to impactor or field operation
malfunction. The cause of this contamination is under
investigation. A more complete discussion of the examination of
31
-------
Table 4-6 Regression Analyses of Duplicate Samples.
Pammfltor
Number of Regression
Valid Samples Coefficent
gummas winter flmnmar winter
Aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
17
17
17
17
21
21
21
21
0.96
0.75
0.76
0.81
0.93
0.93
0.55
0.93
Volatile Organic Compounds
n-Octane 11 0.20
n-Nonane 11 0.10
n-Decane 11 0.20
n-Undecane 11 0.20
Chloroform
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane 11 0.87
1,1,1-Trichloromethane 11 0.97
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6 0.47
Carbon Tetrachloride 11 0.96
Dichlorodifluoromethane 11 0.96
Trichlorofluoromethane 11 0.86
Vinyl Chloride 11 0.65
Vinylidene Chloride 11 0.34
Trichloroethene 5 0.96
Tetrachloroethene 11 0.98
2-Chloro-1,2-butadiene 11 0.66
Benzene 11 0.87
Toluene 11 0.89
Ethylbenzene 11 0.86
o-Xylene 11 0.94
m-Xylene 11 0.94
p-Xylene 0.94
Styrene 11 0.71
4-Ethyltoluene 11 0.24
Chlorobenzene 10 0.84
Denuder ""mmor- winter winter
Nitrous 9 0.99
Nitric 9 0.99
Nitrate 9 0.99
Sulfate 9 0.99
32
-------
of the 2.5 urn data indicated that the mass concentration has
bias. Therefore, no further discussion of this data is presented
in this report.
The comparison of related particulate data provided a unique
opportunity to validate the data. Similar comparison with other
IEMP data sets were not possible given the parameters measured.
However, the comparison of occurrences of maximums and minimums
within the various data sets was possible. These comparisons
would provide an indication of specific environmental conditions
that affected all ambient sampling. The review of similarities
within the data sets are addressed in Section 5.0 of this report.
4.5 Future Data Validation
Additional comparisons
of related parallel data
sets can be performed. The
1987/88 Metro Denver Brown
Cloud Study also conducted
sampling during the same
winter sampling period as
the IEMP study. The study
placed sampling equipment at
IEMP's Auraria monitoring
station. Some of the
sampling conducted by the
study involved the
measurement of particulates,
nitrates and sulfates.
Comparison of this data with
similar IEMP data would be
beneficial.
A summary of the data
collected and considered
valid is presented in
Appendix A. Appendix A
provides means and standard
deviations of the
parameters. At this point
in the data validation
process, the data which remained were considered to be of
sufficient quality to begin interpretation of data. The
interpretation of the data appears in Section 5 of this report.
Table 4-7. 2.5 vs. PM-10
Comparisons
Month/ 2.5/PM-10
Ave.Period Ratio
Auraria Arvada
NOV. '87
.73
.90
Max.
.96
1.35
Min.
.52
.68
Dec. '87
.77
.84
Max.
1.11
.95
Min.
.63
.57
Jan. '88
.85
.74
Max.
1.04
.88
Min.
.31
.51
Feb. '88
.95
.94
Max.
1.44
1.11
Min.
.28
.88
Avg.Auraria
.86
Avg.Arvada
.83
Avg. All
.84
33
-------
5.0 Summation of Data Results
Interpretation of the results involved the review of the
parameters for selected averaging periods. These averages
provided a temporal representation of pollutant concentrations in
the Denver metropolitan area. Average concentrations were
developed for the time periods of 1 hour, 8 hours, 12 hours, and
24 hours. Maximum, average, and minimum concentrations were
depicted graphically over the summer and winter monitoring
periods. Patterns in the concentrations were observed within the
data, and relationships between the various parameters were
established. It was anticipated that any patterns found in the
data may be attributed to the occurrence of specific ambient air
conditions and would highlight areas in the metropolitan area
that would be subject to high concentrations of a particular
pollutant on a consistent basis. However, in the absence of a
review of meteorological data, any conclusions regarding temporal
and spatial variation of the data would be qualitative.
The ultimate goal of the interpretation of the data results
was to develop a summary of the data that would be used to
develop exposure and risk assessments of the pollutants measured
during the program.
5.1 Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Data
By first reviewing criteria pollutant concentrations, i.e.
carbon monoxide (CO) and PM-10 um (< 10 um in size) particulate
data, it was anticipated that trends in the data for these
pollutants would provide an indication of the general pattern of
concentrations that should be expected for all of the pollutants
measured. These data sets would establish a pattern of days when
concentrations were high and, therefore, provide the first
indication of days in which the air toxics concentrations
measured may also be high.
5.1.1 Carbon Monoxide Data
CO was measured at the Auraria and Palmer monitoring
stations. Appendix A presents a tabulation of hourly averaged
values of the CO concentrations measured during the summer and
winter. During the summer period, CO concentrations were
measured only at the Auraria station. Data collected between
July and September indicated that CO concentrations were small.
The monthly maximum for July through September were 5, 6, and 8
parts per million by volume (ppm), respectively. The small
amounts of CO measured during the summer period made any
observation of a pattern within the concentrations difficult. In
general the pattern of a small increase in hourly values is seen
between the hours of 5am and 8am and again between the hours of
7pm and 11pm.
34
-------
between the hours of 5am and 8am and again between the hours of
7pm and 11pm.
A more apparent pattern of higher concentrations of CO was
established during the winter period. During November 1987, a
maximum hourly concentration of 32 ppm, 3 ppm below the Colorado
standard of 35 ppm, occurred on November 20 at 7 pm. This
maximum concentration marked a particular high pattern of CO
concentrations that occurred during the period of the 19th
through the 21st of November. On these three days, the daily
mean was 8, 10, and 9 ppm respectively. For the remainder of
November, the daily mean average approximately one half of these
values. The exception was the period from November 10 through
the 12 when CO hourly values were also high during the evening
period. The highest value occurred at 10 pm on the 10th when a
value of 29 ppm was measured. High concentrations were also seen
in the morning hours during these periods. A high concentration
of 23 ppm was measured at 2 an on the 21st of November. In
general, higher ppm values recorded during November at Auraria
occurred during the period from lam through 9am.
The same pattern of CO concentrations also occurred at the
Palmer monitoring station but the magnitude of concentrations was
less than that measured at the Auraria monitoring station. The
highest value measured for the month of November was 15 ppm at 6
pm on the 20th of the month. This is the same day and within an
hour (7 pm) of the occurrence of the monthly maximum at the
Auraria station. Although hourly concentrations of CO measured
at Palmer were less than the same hour concentration measured at
the Auraria monitoring station, the same pattern of high
concentrations of CO was seen.
The month of December experienced similar values of CO as
measured by the two sites. The maximum concentration at Auraria
was 21 ppm and occurred at 6 pm on 17 December and a maximum of
16 ppm was recorded at 5 pm on 17 December at Palmer. Similar to
the month of November, the maximum value again occurred on the
same day and within an hour at each site. Palmer's maximum CO
concentration occurred the hour before the Auraria site measured
its maximum. This suggests not only a relationship between the
two stations but also a lag in CO concentrations measured between
the two stations. High CO concentrations occurred less
frequently in the morning hours than had occurred in November.
Both stations experienced high CO concentrations during the
period of 17 through 18 December, however, the Auraria station
recorded higher maximum concentrations.
With the exception of December 3, when the Auraria and not
the Palmer station monitored high CO concentrations in the
evening hours, the pattern of coincident high values of CO at
both stations continued for the entire winter period. However,
the Palmer monitoring station continued to show lower values of
35
-------
AURARIA CO DATA C Bhr AVE. }
11/01/87 THWJ 03/29/88
Btr AVE. 00 DATA
mcmitccing peaiao
err CO STMC.-9PPM
Figure 5-1. 8hr Running Averages of CO Data Collected at the
Auraria Monitoring Station during the Winter
Monitoring Period.
Pa I mer 8hr . CO Va I ues
Nov, trru PeD. 07/80
Jan.
Monitoring Period
Figure 5-2
8hr Running Averages for CO Data Collected at the
Palmer Station during the Winter Monitoring
Period.
36
-------
depict the eight hour running average concentration of CO
concentrations in ppm determined from hourly values. It can be
seen from the figure that concentrations of CO are generally
higher in November and December and decrease in January and
February.
CO data collected by the State of Colorado at monitoring
stations near the Auraria and Palmer stations indicated a similar
pattern of concentrations in November and December. The general
pattern of high concentrations of CO on selected days in November
and December followed by a general decrease in CO concentrations
in January and February was noted. The review of the particulate
and air toxic parameters were made in anticipation of finding
similar patterns in the data. If the pattern of concentrations
were similar, a relationship could be developed between CO and
the toxic concentrations. Similar patterns in the air toxic
concentrations would suggest that the occurrence of high
concentrations may be related to meteorological conditions.
5.1.2 PM-10 Particulate Data
PM-10 data were collected during the summer and winter
monitoring periods at the Auraria and Arvada monitoring stations.
During the course of the summer monitoring period, no violation
of the PM-10 standard was observed (150 ug/m3) . Most
concentrations observed at the two stations were in the 25-35
ug/m3 range. The average concentration at the Auraria station
was 31 ug/m3 and 27 ug/m3 at the Arvada monitoring location.
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 depict the summer PM-10 concentrations
measured at the two monitoring stations during the period.
Higher concentrations of PM-10 were seen during the winter
months. The Auraria station measured the highest concentration
of 117 ug/m3 on December 16. The second and third highest
concentrations were found on November 20 and December 17.
Concentrations measured on these two days were 115 ug/m3 and 112
ug/m3 respectively. The highest PM-10 concentrations occurred on
the-same days as the occurrence of elevated levels of CO noted
earlier. The average concentrations for the two sites for the
entire monitoring period were 54 ug/m3 for the Auraria station
and 38 ug/m3 for the Arvada station.
Concentrations of PM-10 measured at the Arvada station
showed elevated concentrations of particulates on the same dates
as the Auraria station. The highest concentration that occurred
at the Arvada station was 77 ug/m3 on December 16. Although,
Arvada PM-10 concentrations were smaller in magnitude than at
Auraria, the Arvada PM-10 concentrations showed an increase in
concentrations on the same days as Auraria. Figures 5-5 and 5-6
depict the concentrations at the two stations with time for the
winter period.
37
-------
Auraria PM-10
Jun» thru Sept. '87
kCNITORING PS)100
Summer PM-10 Concentrations at Auraria.
Arvada PM-10
June thru Sept. TP
ICNITQRINS PS)100
Summer PM-10 Concentrations Measured at Arvada.
38
-------
5.1.3 2.5 um Particulate Data
Fine size particulate data (< 2.5 urn in size) were collected
at all of the monitoring stations during both monitoring periods.
In addition to a determination of the concentrations of
particulates in this size range, laboratory analyses were
performed to determine the elementary composition of the
particulate using X-Ray Florescence (XRF) and the carbon content
using Thermal/Optical Combustion. However, examination of these
laboratory analyses revealed discrepancies in the analyses when
compared to previous studies. Section 4.0 has described the
discrepancies involving these data and a series of discussions
regarding the concerns with the data are presented in
correspondence in Appendix B.
Auraria PM-10 Data
MONITOntNS PS)100
Figure 5-5. Winter PM-10 Concentrations Measured at Auraria.
In reviewing these discrepancies, personnel reviewing the
data determined that any reported 2.5 um particulate
concentrations would be biased by the larger than 2.5 um size
particulates that were found on the sampling media. Therefore,
no discussion of 2.5 um particulate mass is presented in this
report.
The larger size particles also biased the organic and
elemental carbon, and XRF analyses that were performed
exclusively on the 2.5 um particulate data. The difficulty in
39
-------
Arvada PM-10 Data
Novuntwr thru Fetrunry
MONITOR IM5 PS)100
Figure 5-6. Winter PM-10 Concentrations Measured at Arvada.
interpreting the XRF data because of the presence of large
particulates was compounded by the fact that large uncertainties
in the XRF laboratory analyses were also evident. The majority
of the reported concentrations failed to exceed the lower
quantifiable limits reported by the laboratory. The uncertainty
of the XRF data base makes the interpretation of the data
difficult. Therefore, no further interpretation of the data is
presented within the context of this report. The project reports
for IEMP (PEI, 1987a & 1988) provide a listing of the uncertainty
attributed to the XRF data.
5.2 Summary of the CO and PM-10 Data
The CO and PM-10 data bases showed similar trends in the
occurrence of maximum, average and minimum concentrations for
both the summer and winter period. In general, the winter period
showed higher concentrations for both parameters than did summer.
During the winter period, selected days in November and December,
experience similar occurrences of the maximum concentration of
both CO and PM-10. In November maximum concentrations of both CO
and PM-10 occurred during the period of the 15th through the 21st
of November. December 17th and 18th also marked a period when
high concentrations of both CO and PM-10 were measured. During
these periods, all stations measuring CO and particulate data
showed the same pattern of occurrence of maximum, and minimum
40
-------
concentrations. Higher concentrations occurred in November and
December and in general decreased in January and February.
Similar patterns in the data were anticipated for the
remaining compounds measured by the IEMP study. Summer
concentrations were anticipated to be less than winter
concentrations. Higher values were anticipated for November and
December and lower values for January and February.
5.3 Aldehyde Data
Aldehyde data were collected during the summer and winter
monitoring sites at three of the four monitoring locations.
Arvada, Auraria, and NJH monitoring stations each sampled for 12
aldehyde and 2 ketone compounds. Arvada and NJH stations
conducted 24 hour sampling and the Auraria station sampled on a
modified sampling schedule to obtain am and pm samples. This was
done to determine if aldehyde concentrations were significantly
different during daylight and nighttime regimes. During the
summer, am and pm samples were 12 hr periods and began at 7am and
7pm, respectively. The schedule was modified during the winter
sampling period. AM sampling at Auraria was conducted between
9am and 4pm (7 hours) and pm sampling was conducted between 4pm
and 7am (17 hours). Laboratory analyses of the aldehyde sampling
revealed that only four compounds were consistently measured
throughout the two sampling periods at all three sites. These
compounds were formaldehyde, acetone, acetaldehyde, and
propionaldehyde. Further examination of the acetone
concentrations indicated high field blank and laboratory blank
concentrations. High concentrations for these blank samples,
used as a quality control measure, alerted reviewers of the data
to exercise some caution in reviewing the acetone results. It
was determined that the reported acetone levels from the
laboratory analyses were erroneous for both sampling periods and
therefore are not presented in this report. A summary of
contamination problems and difficulties in analyzing for acetone
are presented in Section 4 and Appendix B of this report.
Results from the aldehyde sampling are summarized in a
series of graphs depicted in the following figures. Monthly
averages have been developed for each compound and compared for
each site. Figure 5-7 depicts formaldehyde concentrations
measured during the summer monitoring period at all three
monitoring locations. The number of samples that were used in
the average appear at the top of each concentration.
Figure 5-7 indicates that the highest average concentrations
in formaldehyde were found, the majority of the sampling period,
at the Auraria monitoring station. However differences between
the monitoring stations only amounted to a maximum of 1 ppb.
Comparing am and pm concentrations revealed a maximum of only 1
41
-------
ARVADA, AURARIA, & NJH FORMALDEHYDE
nrreLT xttbjlgx for saci am
o>
a
JtSZ
JULY ATTGVST
ffoirroaiio pebxod 1967
SEPT.
act. 2us m ADBA.- AH BBSS USA. - PH ggg KB Z4IS
Figure 5-7. Monthly Average Formaldehyde Concentrations in
Summer.
ARVADA, AURARIA, & NJH ACETALDEHYDE
tDVTXLT ATEBAGE FOB UCl 81TS
7 -
S -
i -
5 10 10
JTILT ABGV7T
H3HTOEH0 FZHIOD 1987
Figure 5-8.
AST. 24EB HHI AU1A. • AS ADBA. - PH TO IJ1 21BS
Monthly Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations in
Summer.
42
-------
ppb difference with pm levels being higher than am
concentrations. The remaining stations showed on average smaller
24 hour concentrations than Auraria but with a similar pattern to
the averages. Summer acetaldehyde concentrations are depicted in
Figure 5-8 and very little change in the average monthly
concentration can be seen from month to month. Monthly
acetaldehyde averages for all stations varied less than 1.5 and
averaged approximately 2.5 ppb. Summer propionaldehyde levels
were less than the detection limit of 0.6 ppb.
During the winter sampling period a small increase as
compared to summer concentrations in the monthly formaldehyde
average can be seen in Figure 5-9. In the summer, averages
during the four month sampling period ranged from 3 to 5 ppb.
The range of averages were approximately 1 to 6 ppb during the
winter period. Highest concentrations were found in November and
December and decreased in January and February. With the
exception of November, am concentrations were higher than pm but
the differences are very small.
ARVAQA, AURARIA, AND NJH FORMALDEHYDE
BDVniT JVIUGI K» KJCI SIR
s
«
5
iKTAM 2 UK
XT. -8?
rae. 'tr ju. -88
IOIIT01IIG PERIOD '87/86
m. '68
AOTtABIA-Afl
AU1AUA-YB
IJK 34H1
Figure 5-9. Monthly Average Formaldehyde concentrations for
winter.
In Figures 5-10 and 5-11 acetaldehyde and propionaldehyde
concentrations for the winter are summarized. Acetaldehyde
monthly average levels range from 0 to 7.8 ppb. The months of
November and December experienced the highest levels of
acetaldehyde and, similar to formaldehyde levels, decreased in
43
-------
January and February. Propionaldehyde levels for the winter are
very small. Monthly averages were slightly above detection
limits during November, December and January. During February
levels fell below detectable limits with the exception of Auraria
am levels.
ARVADA, AURARIA, AND NJH ACETALDEHYDE
BQITOLT ATEBAGE TO& IACX SITE
10
IQt. '87 DBC. '97 JJU. '88 FEB. '88
mnoxivG pnzoc 'rr/w
m ABtADA lin HI AOUBZA-JUl AVlABIA-iff MtM IJH 21RI
Figure 5-10 Monthly Average Acetaldehyde Concentrations for
Winter.
Aldehyde averages for the four month winter period indicate
that the same pattern of higher levels in November and December
followed by lower levels in January and February occurred.
Although differences in the monthly averages are small, the
pattern follows the same pattern as the CO and particulate data.
This suggests that higher levels of aldehydes occur during poor
air quality conditions.
5.4 Oenuder Data
The Annular Denuder monitoring equipment used during the
summer and winter sampling periods provided for the measurement
of inorganic compounds found in the ambient air. Compounds of
interest involved nitrous and nitric acid in gaseous form, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrate and sulfate particulates. The denuder
sampling method is presented in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) (PEI, 1987b).
44
-------
ARVADA., AURARIA, & NJH PROP IONALDEHYDE
BD1TOLT must FOB UCS BITI
minoinG nxioD '87/80
ADSA1U-JU!
m 11IJM 24HB mi ADSA1U-JU! £89 illUIU-Fll BMS1 I J! 24SE
Figure 5-11. Monthly Average Propionaldehyde Concentrations for
Winter.
5.4.1 Nitrous and Nitric Acid and Sulfur Dioxide
Concentrations
Nitrous and nitric acid for the summer and winter periods
are depicted in Figures 5-12 through 5-14. During the summer
these compounds were measured only at the Auraria monitoring
station. However, during the winter monitoring period denuder
sampling also occurred at the Arvada and the Federal Court
building monitoring station. The sampling frequency also was
changed during the winter period. A one in three day sampling
schedule at the Auraria station was increased to an everyday
sampling schedule at approximately the beginning of December
until the end of January. This was done because of the interest
in developing a larger data base for comparison with other
studies having similar data bases. Everyday sampling occurred at
Auraria and the Federal Court building monitoring location during
the entire period that the denuder sampled at these sites.
Monitoring occurred at the Arvada location from the end of
December through the end of January. The Federal Court building
operated from 7 January 1988 thru the end of the month.
The majority of summer am and pm nitrous acid levels for the
summer sampling period were below the detection limit of 1 ppb.
PM levels were generally higher than am levels but none of the
levels were above 2 ppb. Concentrations of nitric acid during
45
-------
the summer sampling period were less than 3 ppb. Summer nitric
acid levels shown in Figure 5-12 represent am concentrations. PM
concentrations were less than detectable levels.
AURARIA DENUDER DATA
SUMtG) GASSOUS NITRIC ACID LEVELS
MONITOR 1KB P51100
~ HN03 m core. + - Not Detected
Figure 5-12. Summer AM Nitric Acid Levels in the Denver Area.
Patterns of high and low concentrations during the winter
period have been established and discussed in previous sections
of this report. Winter concentrations of compounds measured by
the denuder were compared to CO and particulate concentrations
sampled at the same time in order to assess whether elevated
levels of the more commonly measured pollutants occurred at the
same time as elevated levels of nitrous and nitric acid.
Winter nitrous acid levels were higher than summer
concentrations and are probably due to the longer nighttime hours
as well as atmosphere dispersion conditions associated with
winter conditions. AM and pm levels of nitrous acid, depicted in
Figure 5-13, indicated that elevated levels of the compound
occurred during December and early January. A maximum am level
of approximately 5 ppb was reached on December 18. This date
also marked elevated levels of CO. AM levels decreased to below
detection limits, with a few exceptions, during the remainder of
the period. PM nitrous levels concentrations were in the 4 to 6
ppb range during the period. During December nitrous acid levels
reached a maximum of 8.5 ppb. Higher pm levels probably reflect
the fact that nitrous acid disassociates in sunlight. In
November and December, and to a lesser extent in January and
46
-------
February, nitrous acid levels were elevated at the same time as
CO and particulate concentrations were elevated. This may
suggest that poor dispersion conditions result in higher
concentrations of toxic pollutants as well as the more typically
measured pollutants in the Denver area.
AURARIA DENUDER DATA
WINTER AM GASEOUS NITtWUS ACID OONC.
MONITORING PERIOD "S7/BB
~ woe am oonc. * woe pm ccnc.
Figure 5-13. Winter AM & PM Nitrous Acid Levels in the
Metropolitan Denver Area.
Figure 5-14 represents nitric acid levels during am sampling
times in the winter. In general the pattern of concentrations
did not reach above detectable levels (> l ppb) during
approximately one half of the entire monitoring period. Elevated
concentrations occurred during mid December and early January.
The maximum concentration of approximately 5.5 ppb occurred in
mid December. PM levels of nitric acid, not depicted, were less
than the detectable limit.
Nitrous acid levels measured at the Arvada and Federal Court
building during the two month period from late December 1987
through the end of February 1989 were small. 24 hour
concentrations range from 1 to 8 ppb at Arvada during late
December and early January. Levels drop to between 1 and 3 ppb
the remainder of January. 24 hour Federal Court building nitrous
acids levels were below detectable levels.
47
-------
24 hour nitric acid levels at both Arvada and Federal Court
building were below detectable levels for the entire sampling
period.
AURARIA DENUDER DATA
WIOTB) AM GASEOUS NITRIC ACID CONC.
10
e
7
I
6 -
s
5 -
~
o
§
3
2 -
0
tCNITOftING PERIOD "97/88
0 HM09 AM CONC.
Figure 5-14. Winter AM Nitric Acid Levels in the Metropolitan
Denver Area.
S02 concentrations were derived from denuder measurements.
S02 data were collected during the entire winter period at the
Auraria monitoring location and during the months of January and
February at the Arvada and during the month of January at the
Federal Court building monitoring locations. S02 concentrations
did not exceed 0.02 ppm at all monitoring locations during their
entire sampling period.
5.4.2 Nitrate and Sulfate Concentrations
Concurrent nitrate and sulfate particulate concentrations
were also measured using the same Denuder sampling device at the
same time as the acid levels were measured. Through the use of
teflon and nylon filters, the particulates contained in the same
airstream as the gaseous acid concentrations were captured and
analyzed. Sampling of particulates by the denuder was limited to
those particulates < 2.5 um in size. This was achieved using the
same impaction device utilized by the 2.5 um particulate samplers
operated by IEMP at several locations. Section 4.0 has described
problems in obtaining a representative 2.5 um particulate sample
48
-------
utilizing the impaction device upon visual inspection of these
samples. Larger than 2.5 um particulate were found. Possible
errors in the sampling have been attributed to either field
operation error or impactor malfunction.
The possibility of similar error in particulate sampling
with the denuder exists. Observation of the denuder filter to
determine the extent of the error was not possible. The
analytical method used to determine nitrate and sulfate
concentrations prevented observation of the filters after they
had been analyzed. Delineation of any possible error, may be
possible by comparing nitrate and sulfate data collected at the
Auraria monitoring location by the Metro Denver Brown Cloud
Study. In discussions with Dr. William Neff, NOAA (Komp, 1989),
a comparison of nitrate and sulfate data was made between the two
studies. Poor correlation of individual sample days between the
two studies for sulfate and nitrate exists for a portion of the
data collected during the winter collection period. Parallel
data sets for IEMP's summer collection period do not exist. The
Brown Cloud study was conducted from November through January
1987/88. Comparison of the two studies have alerted reviewers of
the IEMP data that additional comparisons of the two studies•
nitrate and sulfate data are needed. Some outliers in the IEMP
nitrate and sulfate data base were determined through the methods
described in Section 4.0. However until more review of the two
data bases is performed, additional adjustments to the IEMP
nitrate and sulfate data will not be made.
Summer concentrations of nitrate and sulfate were small and
are not depicted in the text. Nitrate concentrations measured at
Auraria were in the range from 0.5 ug/m3 to 1.5 ug/m3. Sulfate
concentrations varied from 1.5 ug/m3 to 3.0 ug/m3. Figures 5-15
and 5-16 provide concentrations of nitrate and sulfate
concentrations collected during the winter period at Auraria. In
Figure 5-15 nitrate particulate concentrations collected at the
Auraria monitoring station during a 24 hour period are displayed.
Concentrations during the majority of the monitoring period
averaged less than 5 ug/m3. In early January approximately 15
ug/m was measured. Nitrate concentrations of 13 ug/m3 were
observed in early and late February. These concentrations marked
the highest and second highest concentrations observed at the
site. Several smaller elevated concentrations were observed in
November and December but concentrations during these events and
for the remainder of the monitoring period never exceeded 15
ug/m .
Sulfate concentrations depicted in Figure 5-16 show a
similar pattern in their concentrations with time as was depicted
for the nitrate concentrations. The range of sulfate
concentrations were from below detection limits to 9 ug/m3. A
maximum sulfate concentration of 9 ug/m3 was observed the first
of February. A second maximum of 8 ug/m3 occurred in early
49
-------
AURARIA DENUDER DATA
• INTER NITRATE PARTICULATE OONC.
w
s
kONITORIHG PERIOD "87/88
D NITRATE 24W. OONC.
Figure 5-15. Winter Nitrate Concentrations Measured at the
Auraria Monitoring station.
AURARIA DENUDER DATA
• INTER SULFATE PARTICULATE CONC.
S
t-
2
MONITORING PERIOD 'B7/8B
~ SULFATE OONC.
Figure 5-16. Winter Sulfate Concentrations Measured at the
Auraria Monitoring Station.
50
-------
January. Nitrate and sulfate concentrations during the winter
did not follow similar patterns in concentrations as some of the
other IEMP air monitored pollutants had followed. The nitrate
and sulfate data base for the winter period is currently being
compared to nitrate and sulfate data collected during the same
period by the Metropolitan Denver Brown Cloud Study.
Nitrate and sulfate particulates were measured for an
approximate two month period at the Arvada monitoring location
and for a one month period at the Federal Court building
monitoring location. The concentrations are not depicted. On 2
February, a maximum nitrate concentration of 13 ug/m3 for a 24
hour period occurred at the Arvada site. Auraria had measured 13
ug/m3 on the same day. A maximum 24 hour sulfate concentration
of 6 ug/m3 at the Arvada site occurred on 5 February 1988. The
Auraria monitoring station recorded 4 ug/m3 on the same day. A
maximum sulfate concentration of 9 ug/m occurred at the Auraria
on 2 February 1988.
Nitrate and sulfate concentrations were below detectable
limits during the month of January at the Federal Court building
monitoring location.
5.5 Volatile Organic Compounds
Twenty six unique'Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) were
monitored and analyzed during the summer and winter period.
Section 4.0 of this report has addressed some of the concerns
raised about the VOC measurements. In summary, during the summer
period the contract laboratory had used a gas chromatograph (GC)
system with a flame ionization detector and an electron capture
detector. For the winter sampling period, air evacuated from the
canisters was analyzed using a GC with mass spectrometry (MS).
Most of the 26 organic compounds were detected in varying
concentrations during the summer period. However, only six
compounds were detected using the mass spectrometry system during
the winter. It is suspected that the large number of non
detectable results may be an artifact of the insensitivity of the
MS. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether
the MS failed to detect the presence of volatiles within the
samples or ambient levels were too low to measure. A detection
limit of < 0.5 ppb has been reported by the laboratory for the MS
system. Based on VOC measurements from previous studies
mentioned in Section 4, this should be at a sufficient level to
detect small ambient concentrations. Whereas it is not
conclusive that a problem occurred in using the MS system for the
determination of concentrations during the IEMP study, it does
suggest that additional review of laboratory procedures is
warranted. For the purpose of this report, the available data
will be summarized.
51
-------
The large data base of summer VOC concentrations prevented a
concise graphical representation of the data. As an alternative,
a range of values at each site have been provided in Table 5-1.
A summary of the maximum, mean, and minimum concentration for
each compound has been provided in Appendix A. With a few
exceptions the Auraria monitoring location VOC concentration
showed the widest range of concentrations for the summer sampling
period. At the Auraria monitoring location, no pattern was
discernible for the occurrence of maximum and minimum values.
VOC compounds collected during the winter constituted a
smaller data base due to the non-detectable levels of many of the
compounds. Only six compounds were measured to have significant
concentrations during the winter monitoring period. The six
compounds were benzene, ethylbenzene, o-xylene, m/p-xylene,
toluene, and 4-ethlytoluene. Concentrations measured during the
winter for these six compounds are presented in Figures 5-17
through 5-22. In reviewing the figures, four of the six
compounds benzene, toluene, 4-ethyltoluene, and m/p-xylene were
analyzed to have high concentrations in November. Concentrations
returned to low levels from approximately early December until
the end of the monitoring period. Conversely, ethylbenzene and
o-xylene showed the reverse trend of low concentrations in
November and December followed by higher concentrations in
January. The elevated January concentrations were followed by
decreasing concentrations with each subsequent sample in
February.
52
-------
Table 5-1.
Range of Volatile Organic Compounds for Each
Monitoring Location
Compound
n-Octane8
n-Nonane8
n-Decane8
n-Undecane8
Chloroformb
Dichloromethanec
1,2-Dichloroethaned
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanee
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride8'*5'6
Vinylidene Chloridea,b
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
2-Chloro-l,2-butadienea
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylenef
m/p-Xylened
Styrene8'6
4-Ethyltoluene8
Chlorobenzene6
Monitoring Location
Auraria Arvada NJH
(PPb) (ppb) (ppb)
S
ND-2
ND-3
ND-14
ND-30
W
S
ND-1
ND-2
ND-17
ND-2 3
W
S
0.5-3
ND-3
0.5-10
ND-2 4
W
2-10
2-10
3-12
ND-8
ND-6
0.5-3
ND-1
ND-1
ND-0.
5
ND-0.5
ND-0.
5
ND-0.
5
ND-3
ND-4
1-4
2-16
4-14
4-17
ND-3 7
4-16
4-23
4-39
4-15
5-14
ND-0.5
ND-0.
8
ND-0.
5
ND-1
ND-2
ND-1
1-11
2-12
2-15
2-10
1-26
2-10
ND-13
3-12
ND-9
4-22
ND-7 8
5-12
ND-3 4
6-18
ND-16
ND-5
ND-2
ND-2
ND-1
1-3
ND-2
ND-3
ND-1
ND-3
2-15
ND-5 8
2-8
ND-24
3-12
ND-12
2-16
2-10
2-11
ND-14
ND-18
ND-6
ND-9
1-8
ND-5
ND-7
ND-5
ND-18
8 Compound showed a poor correlation (R <0.8) when duplicate
laboratory analyses of the same sample was performed.
b Laboratory indicated difficulty in analyzing for this compound.
c Contamination of samples. Data removed from data base.
d Coeluted with compounds for summer sampling period. One reported
concentration for each coeluting compound. 1,2 dichloroethane
coeluted with benzene. Isometric forms of xylene coeluted with
each other.
e Compound showed a poor correlation (R <0.8) when compared with
collocated samples. Based on 15 or greater collocated samples.
f Not measured during the summer
S = summer W = winter
53
-------
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
EOCENE 24HB CONC.
NOV
MONITORING PS1IOO '87/8B
~ ARVABA + AURARIA
O NJN
Figure 5-17. Winter Benzene Concentrations.
2.6 -r-
2.4 -
2.2 -
2 -
1.8 -
1.8 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
o.a -
0.6 -
0.4 -
a.2 -
a hi-
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
ETKTLGENZBE 2-4KR OONC.
~
Q O
DEC JAN FB3
NOV
MONITORING R31I0D *87/80
O APVACA + AURAPIA
C NJN
Figure 5-18. winter Ethylbenzene Concentrations.
54
-------
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
TOLUENE 24HR CONC.
MONITORING PER 100 "87/68
~ ARVAOA + ALRARIA
C NJN
Figure 5-19. Winter Toluene Concentrations.
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
4-ETMrLTOLUeC 2**» CONC.
19 -j
18 *
1? -
16 -
13 -
14 -
r\
E
13 -
12 -
u
11 -
s
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
~
~
+
u
§
6 -
3 -
A -
4>
*
D ~
3 -
~ 0 +
~
2 -
1 -
a 4
H-fn
a + °* +
¦i $1 i i i i*?iVT$l»IPlfT>ifl»'
NOV OEC JAN FS
MONITORING PS1IOO 37/88
~ ARVAQA + AURARIA O HJN
Figure 5-20. Winter 4-Ethyltoluene Concentrations.
55
-------
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
O-XTLENE 24W CCNC.
S
MONITORING PB1IOO "87/88
O ARVADH + AJURARIA.
» NJN
Figure 5-21. Winter o-Xylene Concentrations.
WINTER VOC CONCENTRATIONS
80
M/P-XTLEIt Z-4HR OONC.
s
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
o+4+
NOV
I I l I l I l I I I
DEC
^ n
* -4.0 * +0 +
+
* o
+ 6i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I T i T i
JAN
TITT^ i T
MONITORING PERIOD "87/8B
~ ARVAJ> + ALRARIA
O MJN
Figure 5-22. Winter m/p-Xylene concentrations.
56
-------
Recalling the pattern of elevated concentration for both CO
and particulates that occurred in November and December, it was
anticipated that the same pattern would occur for VOC. Elevated
voc concentrations were seen in November for four of the six
compounds detected. However during December, concentrations did
not approach the levels seen in November. Concentrations
remained small throughout the rest of the monitoring period.
The exception to this pattern occurred for ethylbenzene and
o-xylene. Elevated concentrations occurred from approximately
the beginning of January through the end of the sampling period.
It should be noted that the higher concentrations in January and
February amounted to only a maximum of several ppb above the
detection limit and did not approach the concentration levels of
the other compounds.
The highest concentrations were measured at the Auraria
monitoring location. Benzene reached a maximum of 26 ppb on 2 0
November 1989. A maximum of 78 ppb for toluene, 18 ppb for 4-
ethyltoulene, and 58 ppb for m/p-xylene also occurred on this
date. The Arvada and NJH monitoring location did not sample on
this date. Consequently, maximum concentrations for the four
compounds at these locations occurred on different dates.
Maximum benzene concentrations of 13.6 ppb at Arvada and 8.9 ppb
at NJH occurred on 28 November 1987. Ethylbenzene and o-xylene
maximum concentrations occurred on 29 December 1987. Maximum
concentrations for the remaining three compounds occurred on 29
November 1987 at both locations. These maximum concentrations
occurred during periods of elevated CO an PM-10 levels.
5.6 Particulate Matter and Semi-Volatile Organic Matter
Semi-volatile compounds and particulate matter were
collected using polyurethane foam (PUF) cartridges and filters,
respectively. Sampling was conducted during both the summer and
winter sampling periods. However, due to the constraints of the
study, only a selected number of PUF samples were analyzed.
The selection process consisted of extracting material from
both the resin portion of the cartridge and from the filters
collected during a sampling day. The extracted material from
both media were combined and suspended in solution. The solution
was stored in glass vials wrapped in foil to protect the sample
from photo degredation and under low temperature conditions until
the sample was selected for analysis. The selection process
involved a screening method in which extracts of each PUF sample
were exposed to ultraviolet light. Samples containing detectable
quantities of semi-volatile organic compounds would fluoresce
when subject to the ultraviolet light. Those samples that did
fluoresce were set aside for analyses. Samples that, according
to the subjective opinion of the laboratory technician exhibited
57
-------
strong fluorescence were set aside to be analyzed as individual
samples. 133 samples were collected during the summer period.
Only 2 .of the samples showed any fluorescence. These samples
were set aside for further analyses. During the winter sampling
period, 144 PUF samples were collected. 32 samples showed
fluorscence.
In addition to the individual samples five composite samples
were constructed for each of the two sampling periods. These
composites consisted of portions of all samples from Auraria,
Arvada, and NJH sample sets. A portion of each individual sample
was included in the composite for each site. The composite
sample, therefore, represented an average concentration of the
semi-volatiles collected for the summer and winter periods.
Table 5-2 contains the values found in the composite extracts.
Compounds not detected during either of the sampling seasons do
not appear in the table. More compounds were found in the winter
composites compared to the summer and in general the winter PUF
samples were higher in concentration. Naphthalene had the
highest concentration for both the winter and summer sampling.
The remaining compounds were an order of magnitude lower or less
in concentration compared to naphthalene. Benzo(a)pyrene was not
detected in the composite samples. This compound was thought to
be prevalent in Denver's ambient air (Komp, et.al. 1988).
Semi-volatile and particulate compounds detected in
individual samples are depicted in Table 5-3 as had been shown
with the composite samples, naphthalene had the highest
concentrations for both the summer and winter period. The
remaining 11 compounds in which concentrations were detected were
an order of magnitude less than naphthalene concentrations.
Winter concentrations of these compounds were, in general,
higher than the two summer samples. AM and pm concentrations
varied depending on the compound being examined. The samples
days during November and Demcember depicted in the table
correspond to days when elevated concentrations of volatile
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, PM-10 particulates and
aldehydes had occurred. The pattern of the concentrations was
also similar to the pattern displayed by other compounds. Higher
concentrations were found in November and December and lower
concentrations in January and February.
5.7 Summary
Carbon monoxide and PM-10 particulate concentrations
measured during the summer indicated no distinct pattern.
Aldehydes, inorganic gases and particulates, volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds measured during the summer also
indicated no distinct pattern to the concentrations.
Concentrations measured during the winter sampling did show a
58
-------
Table 5-2. PUF Composite Concentrations.
MONITOR SITE COMPOSITE CONC. (ng/m3)
COMPOUND ARVADA AURARIA-AM AURARIA-PM NJH
SW^SWSWSW
NAPTHALENE
420
700
380
800
500
1400
720
90C
9-FLUORENONE
6
10
6
12
9
12
7
12
PHENANTHRENE
38
49
58
60
48
59
35
41
ANTHRACENE
NDb
ND
ND
11
ND
5
ND
2
FLUORANTHENE
5
12
6
10
10
13
6
12
PYRENE
7
15
7
10
9
10
6
25
ACENAPHTHENE
18
18
15
28
16
30
17
25
ACENAPTHYLENE
ND
35
ND
22
ND
55
ND
ND
FLUORENE
15
22
15
25
16
35
17
25
CHRYSENE
ND
4
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
8 S = SUMMER W = WINTER b ND = NOT DETECTED
Benzo (g,h, i) Perylene and Indenno(l, 2,3,-cd)Pyrene were not detected
in the composite samples.
pattern of higher concentrations in November and December.
Selected days during these months had the highest concentrations
measured during the IEMP monitoring program. It was anticipated
that these occurrences of high concentrations of air pollutants
corresponded to days when poor atmospheric dispersion conditions
existed. However, an examination of meteorological data for
these days will be necessary to confirm dispersion conditions.
The exception to the general pattern of higher
concentrations during November and December occurred for nitrate
and sulfate concentrations. The highest concentrations for these
compounds occurred during January and February. A different
dispersion regime may be responsible for the shift in the pattern
of high nitrate and sulfate concentrations.
59
-------
The inability to distinguish between particulate sizes <2.5
um and larger particulates, and the failure of the XRF analyses
of the particulates to exceed lower quantifiable limits for a
majority of the analyses prevented further examination of the
data.
An extensive data base of pollutants is now available for
use. The data base depicts both summer and winter values and has
undergone a sufficient amount of quality control checks to be
considered valid to the extent possible for this report. The
pollutants measured may be used for comparison with other
monitoring data, source apportionment of known emission sources
in the area and for a risk assessment analyses of the compounds
measured.
60
-------
Table 5-3. Selected Individual PUF Samples
Concentrations in ng/m
3*
Haptha- Phenan- Anthra-
lene tbrane oene
Fluor-
anthane Pyrene
Chry-
¦ene
Aee-
naph-
tbana
Aeeaap- riuor-
thyle&e ene
Quia-
oline
I«o-
quin- 9-Fluor-
ollae enone
HJH
HJH
13-AU9-6T
09-8ep-87
020
537
37
27
HD
HD
HD
8
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
15
15
»
HD
28-Hev-8"7
29-HOV-87
1«-D«e~87
17-Dee-07
29-Deo-87
04-Jan-88
28-Jan-88
947
1003
1012
1414
1034
524
951
70
81
77
122
73
42
70
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
21
28
28
38
HD
HD
21
24
HD
32
42
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
28
35
HD
24
IS
HD
127
185
35
53
56
HD
HD
39
58
42
HD
HD
I©
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
APHAKIA
AM
28-HOV-87
29-NOT-87
16-Dec-07
17-Deo-87
29-Dac-87
04-Jan-88
13-Jan-88
28-Jan-88
i2-r«b-88
358
298
1002
2400
1613
952
1073
667
663
HD
114
148
131
63
72
70
47
HD
HD
HD
10
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
34
37
22
HD
24
23
12
HD
HD
34
37
22
13
24
23
12
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
74
33
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
111
<5
38
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
74
76
HD
HD
»
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
11
HD
m
23
25
22
HD
AORAKXA
fH
28-NOV-87
29-Hov-87
16-Oee-87
17-0ee-87
29-0ec-87
04-Jaa-88
13-Jan-00
28-Ja&-88
12-rab-88
791
800
2739
1799
1585
906
003
1433
547
34
34
241
128
98
96
45
104
40
HD
46
15
10
10
HD
HD
HD
10
10
HD
25
21
25
10
20
25
15
Bt
ND
HD
as
10
25
25
HD
HD
10
HD
HD
10
HD
5
15
HD
HD
303
29
HD
HD
HD-
HD
HD
54
58
206
162
118
80
20
70
15
20
19
175
54
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
170
HD
HD
HD
HD
to
HD
HD
HO
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
ND
KD
20
15
10
HD
15
HD
20-0OV-O7
29-HOV-87
10-Dee-07
17-Peo—87
29-Dee-87
04-Jaa-08
28-Jaa-66
25-Feb-88
1027
771
1559
334
1475
766
778
549
46
46
64
25
113
52
39
31
7
7
7
HD
21
HD
14
18
25
7
21
14
11
10
18
21
21
7
24
21
14
10
4
7
7
HD
HD
7
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
110
HD
HD
60
63
99
HD
86
70
35
14
21
18
28
HD
79
24
KD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
11
11
11
4
HD
10
11
HD
* The following compounds were not detected in any of the
individual samples: Benzo(k)flouranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(g, h, i)-perylene, amd Indeno-(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
ND = Not Detected
61
-------
6.0 Recommendations
The assessment of the air pollutant data collected by the
IEMP air monitoring program has led to three primary
recommendations. First, several aspects of the data suggest that
additional monitoring of air toxics be considered for the Denver
area. Second, the data as presented in this report provides for
a qualitative assessment of the potential risk of the Denver
populace from exposure to the pollutant concentrations. Finally,
an opportunity is presented for the apportionment of sources in
the metropolitan area.
The methods utilized to monitor for the compounds involved
both state-of-the-art instrumentation and instrumentation which
were considered in the development stage. Use of this
instrumentation provided a valuable means to obtain information
that had not been readily available for the area. However, the
inability of field operations to successfully utilize some of the
equipment, laboratory methods to resolve concentrations, or the
failure of the instrumentation to completely resolve the
concentrations of some desired pollutants prevented a small
portion of the program's goals from being obtained. The failure
to obtain representative < 2.5 um sized particulate data
indicates that additional tests of the equipment utilized and/or
additional training of field personnel in the proper procedure
for the correct operation of equipment are needed. Once the
testing has resolved the problems, additional monitoring would
complete the objectives of the program.
Resolving problems in sampling methods would not be the only
benefit from additional monitoring of air toxic pollutants. The
history of monitoring for these compounds in the Denver
metropolitan area has been one of brief monitoring programs
lasting one week to several seasons. EPA does conduct some
limited long term monitoring but only for selected toxic
particulates in the Denver area (Evans, 1988). Additional
insight may be gain through the examination of trends within a
data base. Trends that can only be obtained through long-term
sampling i.e. longer than the period in which the IEMP air
monitoring was conducted. Conclusions reached from a examination
of IEMP air toxic concentrations compared to concentrations of
carbon monoxide and particulates suggest that air toxic compounds
follow the same pattern of higher and lower concentrations as
occurs with pollutants that are typical sampled on a more
frequent basis. Long term sampling would confirm this conclusion
and assist in the determination of whether additional controls on
these pollutants are warranted. The concentrations summarized in
this report provide a means of identifying those compounds that
may warrant further study in order to establish trends in their
ambient concentrations over a period of years. One primary
method for determining which pollutants warrant additional
62
-------
sampling is through the potential health risk that they impose on
the population.
The validated IEMP data summarized in this report provides
an opportunity to approach a health risk assessment. A full
evaluation of the health impacts of exposure to toxic air
pollutants involves an extensive medical knowledge of the
pollutants considered and a rigorous demonstration of levels of
ambient exposure and dose to humans. The process considered here
comprises hazard identification, dose-response analyses, exposure
assessment and the resultant risk. Each portion of the process
may be pursued in a qualitative or quantitative manner. The
simplest approach of a qualitative assessment is recommended
based on the available resources. This approach attempts to
screen for the possible existence of health hazards and can be
used to establish a basis for setting priorities for more indepth
investigations of environmentally related health risk factors.
The IEMP air monitoring program as conducted provides information
for a qualitative assessment in the context of demonstrating the
absence or presence of possible health concerns that could be '
related to the presence of air toxic concentrations. At present,
a qualitative risk assessment study using IEMP data is being
pursued by EPA Region VIII. With the cooperation of the Office
of Human and Environmental Assessment, a report on the assessment
should be available by the Spring of 1990.
Finally, source apportionment of emissions in the
metropolitan area would prove to be valuable in providing insight
into the relationship between existing emission sources in Denver
and the concentrations of pollutants measured by the IEMP air
monitoring program. The apportionment is performed by grouping
source emission tracers according to their variation (maximum to
minimum) in concentration with time and their relationship to the
anticipated source of the emissions. Most source apportionment
has been limited to the identification of particulate sources.
However, work has been done in identifying sources whose
emissions are gaseous.
Air toxic emission data is now available for the Denver
metropolitan area from several sources. The State of Colorado
Air Pollution Control Division has compiled a list of toxic
emission sources for Denver. In addition, EPA has compiled a
toxic release inventory as mandated by the "Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act" enacted by Congress in 1986
(EPA, 1989). Air toxic release data for Denver may be extracted
from this inventory.
Past experience has demonstrated that in order to conduct a
successful source apportionment analysis, distinct trace
compounds for a source are needed. Certainly, an extensive
assessment of the data is needed to determine the extent that a
source apportionment analysis may be completed.
63
-------
REFERENCES
Arnts, R.R., and Tejada, S. B., 1989; 2.4-Dinitrophenvlhvdrazine
-Coated Silica Gel Cartridge Method for Determination of
Formaldehyde in Air: Identification of an Ozone Interference;
Environ. Sci. Technol, (In Production)
Environmental Strategies, 1989; Setting Environmental Priorities
for Metro Denver: An Agenda for Community Action. Report from
the Advisory Committee; Denver, CO.
Evans, Gary F.; 1988; FY-88 Annual Report on the Operation and
Findings of the Toxic Air Monitoring Stations. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency/ROD/AREAL. December 1988.
Heisler, S.L.; Henry, R.C.; Watson,J.G.; Hidy,G.M., 1980; The
1978 Denver Winter Haze Study; Document No. P-5417-1;
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.: Westlake Village,
Ca. March 1980.
Johnson, T., 1984; Study of Personal Exposure to Carbon Monoxide
in Denver. Colorado. EPA-600/4-84-014, U.S. EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1984.
Komp, M.J. 1988; Personal Communication with Gordon Pierce,
Colorado Department of Health, November 1988.
Komp, M.J. 1988; Personal Communication with Dr. William Neff,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, January, 1989.
Komp, M.J., Svoboda, L.; Frey, S.J. 1988; Air Toxics Monitoring
Plan for the Denver Metro - Area Integrated Environmental
Management Project; EPA Region VIII/Environmental Services
Division Document: Denver, CO, March 1987.
Lewis, C.W.; Baumgardner, R.E.; Stevens, R.K.; Russwurm, G.M.,
1986; Receptor Modeling Study of Denver Winter
Haze:Environ.Sci.Technol.,Vol. 20,No.11,1986,1126-1136.
PEI Associates, Inc., 1988; Phase II Denver IEMP — Project
Report Vol. I & II. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4394 Work Assignment
#10 PN 3759-10
PEI Associates, Inc. 1987a; Phase I Denver IEMP — Project
Report. Vol I & II, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0390 Work Assignment
#67 PN 3655-67
PEI Associates, Inc., 1987b; Phase I Denver IEMP Quality
Assurance Project Plan fOAPP^ Vol I & II Contract No. 68-02-0390,
Work Assignment #67, PN 3655-67
Russell, P. A., Ed. 1976; Denver Air Pollution Study:
Proceedings
of a Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research
-------
Triangle Park, NC., Volume 1, June 1976, EPA-600/9-76-007A &
Volume 2, February 1977, EPA-600/9-77-001.
Singh, H.B., Ferek, R. J., Salas, L. J., and Nitz, K.C., 1986;
Toxic Chemicals in the Environment: A Program of Field
Measurements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/3-86/047
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1987; The
Magnitude of Ambient Air Toxics Impacts from Existing Sources in
the South Coast Air Basin. SCAWMD 1987 Air Quality Management Plan
Revision Working Paper No. 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989; The Toxics Release
Inventory: A National Perspective. 1987 Office of Toxic
Substances, Economics and Technology Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983; Volatile Organic
Chemicals in the Atmosphere: An Assessment of Available Data. U.S.
EPA/RTP, EPA-600/3/83-027(A), April 1983
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980; Validation of Air
Monitoring Data; 1980; EPA 600/4-80-030; June 1980, RTP, NC.
Versar Inc., 1987; Appendix A Draft Monitoring Plan for IEMP, U.S.
EPA Region VIII/ESD Document
Zimmer, R; 1988a; Conversation with William Jesse, PEI, Cinn.,
Ohio; March 1988
Zimmer, R; 1988b; Conversation with William Jesse, PEI, Cinn. Ohio;
August 1988
-------
APPENDIX A
A-l IEMP CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
A-2 MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, MEAN & STANDARD
DEVIATION OF THE DATA
-------
IEMP CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONCKIDE DATA
AVEAGE HOURLY VALUES
JULY 1987
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 OA 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OBS MEAN
08
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983 9983 9983
9983
9983 9983
9983 9983
9983
9983 9983
9983 9983 9983
9983 9983
9983
9983
0
09
9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983
9983 9983
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
4
2
2
10
1
10
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
24
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
24
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
0
13
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
24
1
14
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
2
24
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
24
1
16
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
24
1
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
24
1
18
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
19
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
24
1
20
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
24
1
21
2
1
1
0
0
1
3
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
24
1
30
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
24
1
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
24
1
NO- OBS:
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
MAXIMUM:
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
4
3
MEAN:
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 538 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 5
MISSING DATA » 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 93*
-------
DAY/TIME
00
01
02
03
04
01
2
1
1
1
1
02
1
1
1
1
1
03
1
1
1
1
1
04
1
1
1
1
1
05
1
1
1
1
2
06
0
0
0
0
0
07
1
0
0
0
0
08
0
0
0
0
0
09
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
1
1
1
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
1
0
14
1
1
1
1
1
15
2
2
2
2
1
16
1
0
1
1
0
17
2
2
2
2
1
18
0
0
0
0
0
19
1
1
0
0
0
20
1
1
1
0
0
21
1
1
1
1
1
22
1
1
1
1
1
23
1
1
1
1
0
24
1
1
1
0
0
25
4
3
2
1
1
26
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
29
1
1
1
0
0
30
2
1
0
0
0
31
1
1
1
1
1
NO- OBS:
31
31
31
31
31
MAXIMUM:
4
3
2
2
2
MEAN:
1
1
1
1
0
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 744
MISSING DATA « 9983
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
AUGUST 1987
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1"
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM
RECOVERY IOO*
05 06
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 1
2 5
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
0 0
1 3
2 2
0 1
1 4
0 1
0 1
1 1
3 2
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 3
31 31
3 5
1 1
MONTHLY
PERCENT
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
31
31
31
31
31
31
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
DAILK
21
22
23
OBS
MEAN
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
24
1
3
4
2
24
1
2
2
1
24
1
0
0
0
24
1
0
0
0
24
2
1
1
24
1
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
24
1
1
1
0
24
0
2
1
1
24
1
5
4
2
24
2
3
1
1
24
1
1
2
2
24
1
1
1
0
24
1
3
2
1
24
1
2
2
1
24
1
2
1
1
24
1
2
2
2
24
2
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
24
0
3
4
4
24
1
1
1
0
24
1
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
24
1
1
1
24
0
6
3
2
24
1
1
1
1
24
0
5
3
1
24
1
31
31
31
6
4
4
20
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
5
1
6
31
6
1
6
-------
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 M 05 06 07
I IMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONOKIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
SEPTEMBER 1987
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
TOTAL
OBS
DAILY
MEAN
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2k
1
02
1
1
1
0
1
1
k
7
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2k
2
03
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2k
0
NO. OBS:
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
MAXIMUM:
1
1
1
0
1
1
k
7
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
MEAN:
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
k
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 72
MISSING DATA = 9983
MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 8
PERCENT RECOVERY 100*
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AlIRARIA CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
NOVEMBER 1987
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 OA 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OBS MEAN
01
5
7
9
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
24
4
02
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
24
3
03
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
5
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
6
6
4
3
4
2
24
3
04
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
8
8
7
6
3
24
3
05
2
3
5
3
3
3
4
11
7
6
3
3
3
8
3
2
4
5
5
6
14
11
10
8
24
6
06
6
7
7
8
7
5
8
12
11
9
6
3
2
8
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
24
5
07
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
24
2
08
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983
9983
9983 9983 9983 9983
7
2
09
9983 9983
9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983
5
4
9983
3
5
4
2
2
3
5
7
8
6
7
5
4
15
5
10
4
6
7
7
7
7
13
20
16
9983
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
9
20
17
29
25
13
13
23
10
11
6
4
3
2
3
5
6
8
7
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
10
18
15
5
5
5
3
24
5
12
2
1
1
3
2
3
12
8
6
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
7
10
17
20
11
9
5
24
6
13
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
8
7
5
3
2
2
9983 9983
5
6
8
8
13
11
7
7
9
22
6
14
11
8
6
3
2
3
5
6
5
6 9983
5
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
23
4
15
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
24
1
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
8
8
5
3
3
3
2
3
4
7
11
10
11
9
7
5
5
24
5
17
3
2
2
2
2
3
6
13
11
9
4
7
6
5
3
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
24
4
18
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
9983 9983
11
13
8
5
5
6
5
9
22
4
19
15
8
10
3
1
2
8
13
9
4
2
3
3
4
6
10
15
28
15
8
5
4
5
6
24
8
20
10
10
11
9
4
3
12
10
8
4
4
5
4
5
5
10
13
11
20
32
15
8
10
13
24
10
21
19
23
21
14
14
11
13
16
14
11
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
7
24
9
22
15
11
10
8
8
9
9
8
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
10
12
13
16
10
6
24
7
23
3
3
3
3
4
5
8
13
12
10
6
5
4
4
3
3
5
10
14
7
13
9
6
7
24
6
24
7
5
2
3
4
4
7
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
6
6
10
11
5
24
4
25
5
4
3
3
2
4
9
15
12
9
6
5
4
3
2
3
4
4
5
4
2
2
1
2
24
4
26
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
24
2
27
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
5
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
8
7
6
4
4
5
5
24
3
28
4
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
10
11
8
6
4
5
5
24
4
29
2
3
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
5
4
3
2
2
24
2
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
5
10
7
4
2
2
2
5
24
3
NO- OBS:
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
29
28
27
29
29
28
27
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
MAXIMUM:
19
23
21
14
14
11
13
20
16
11
6
7
6
8
7
10
15
28
20
32
29
25
13
13
MEAN:
5
4
4
3
3
3
5
7
6
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
4
7
7
7
7
6
5
5
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 688 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 32
MISSING DATA = 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 96*
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
DECEMBER 1987
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OBS
MEAN
01
7
8
5
3
2
3
8
12
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
6
7
7
4.
4
4
4
24
4
02
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
6
7
4
2
4
3
3
24
3
03
4
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
5
6
5
5
4
3
7
14
14
16
17
14
6
6
5
4
24
6
04
3
6
6
6
4
4
7
14
12
3
2
3
3
4
5
6
4
6
7
10
11
9
4
4
24
6
05
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
5
8
24
3
06
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
24
2
07
4
5
4
4
3
3
5
4
2
1
9983
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
23
3
08
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
24
1
09
2
1
2
2
2
3
5
8
8
1
9983 9983
1
1
1
1
4
7
6
3
4
6
5
3
22
3
10
4
3
2
2
1
1
3
4
5
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9983
1
1
9983
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
22
1
12
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
13
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
24
2
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
6
7
4
3
4
3
2
3
5
7
8
5
3
4
3
3
24
3
16
4
6
5
5
4
3
5
8
9
8
3
2
2
2
3
4
6
5
7
6
5
8
7
24
5
17
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
6
5
6
7
12
20
21
14
7
6
6
4
24
8
18
3
5
2
8
1
2
8
12
14
11
9
4
3
3
6
9
9
10
9
11
9
15
18
19
24
8
19
19
11
9
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
24
3
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
3
3
2
2
24
2
21
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
5
2
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
22
4
2
2
2
2
2
5
7
9
6
5
4
2
2
3
7
12
10
8
5
5
10
24
5
23
11
8
5
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
1
25
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
24
2
26
4
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
]
28
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
5
7
6
4
3
4
6
24
3
29
8
7
6
5
4
5
7
11
18
13
7
9983
4
4
4
6
8
12
13
8
9
16
19
20
23
9
30
5
6
4
1
2
2
3
5
7
,6
3
1
6
4
7
6
10
10
6
6
5
8
10
24
5
31
9983
5
3
1
1
2
2
4
6
5
5
4
5
4
5
6
5
9
9
5
5
5
7
10
23
5
NO. OBS:
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
29
29
30
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
MAXIMUM:
19
11
9
8
7
7
8
14
18
13
9
7
6
5
7
14
14
20
21
14
11
16
19
20
MEAN:
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
5
6
5
4
4
4
4
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 737 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 21
MISSING DATA = 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 99*
-------
IIMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONOKIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
JANUARY 1988
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OBS MEAN
01
8
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6 10
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
3
2
2
6
24
3
02
9
9
8
7
6
5
4
5
7
7 3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
4
5
5
4
24
5
03
6
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
3 2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
6
5
4
3
3
24
3
04
3
4
4
3
2
3
6
8
7 7
6
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3 9983
9983
22
4
05
9983
9983
9983 9983 9983 9983
9983
9983 9983 9983 9983
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
13
2
06
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
24
1
07
4
6
6
5
3
8
14
10
4 9983
2
1
3
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
5
3
3
23
5
08
4
6
7
5
3
8
11
14
11 7
6
4
3
2
2
3
7
5
2
2
2
2
24
5
09
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3 2
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
5
3
24
3
10
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3 2
2
2
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
24
2
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2 1
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
12
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
24
1
13
2
2
1
1
1
4
10
8
6 5
5
6
5
4
4
4
5
6
2
1
1
1
24
4
14
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1 1
1
2
2
2
1
4
3
2
5
3
5
5
4
24
2
15
5
3
2
2
2
4
10
10
10 4
4
9
12
5
7
14
14
11
5
7
8
7
4
24
7
16
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
6
24
2
17
4
3
2
1
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
24
2
18
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
6
4
3
2
24
2
20
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2 1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
24
2
21
2
1
2
2
2
3
4
4 3
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
8
6
3
4
4
24
3
22
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
4
5
5
2
2
3
24
2
23
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
24
2
24
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
24
2
25
3
2
1
1
1
2
4
3
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
26
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
3 3
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
3
2
3
24
2
27
3
3
4
3
2
3
4
2 2
15
11
9
1
2
1
2
4
6
6
5
4
24
4
28
3
2
2
2
4
6
5
3 2
1
2
2
2
4
8
12
11
7
8
7
4
4
24
4
29
4
3
1
1
1
4
10
10
5 6
7
8
4
4
6
5
7
14
8
13
16
15
12
24
7
30
11
7
2
20
1
1
2
3
2 2
2
2
2
2
9983
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
23
3
31
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
24
1
NO- OBS:
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
30
MAXIMUM:
11
9
8
20
6
5
8
14
14
11
10
15
11
12
5
7
14
14
14
8
13
16
15
12
MEAN:
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 729 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 20
MISSING DATA = 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 98"
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
AURARIA CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
FEBRUARY 1988
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OBS MEAN
01
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
9983
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
1
02
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
24
2
03
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
9983
2
2
2
7
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
2
04
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
24
2
05
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
24
1
06
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
07
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
3
3
3
3
24
2
08
3
1
1
1
0
1
3 9983
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
5
4
4
3
1
1
9983
22
2
09
2
9983
1
1
1
9983
2
4
5
5
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
22
2
10
9983
1
1
1
9983
1
9983
0
0
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
6
7
5
5
21
2
11
1
1
9983
1
9983
1
9983
1
9983
1
1
9983 9983
1
9983 9983
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
2
16
1
12
2
9983
9983
0
0 9983
9983
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
20
1
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
24
1
14
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
24
1
15
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
24
1
16
1
1
1
0
1
2
3
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
0
24
2
17
1
0
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
6
5
1
7
1
2
4
4
5
3
2
2
24
3
18
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
4
6
5
6
4
2
9983
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
23
2
19
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
5
4
0
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
24
2
20
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
24
1
21
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
24
1
22
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
2 9983 9983 9983 9983
9983 9983
9983 9983 9983 9983
14
1
23
9983 9983
9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983 9983
2
2
1
1
9983
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
13
2
24
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
7
4
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
5
4
5
2
24
3
25
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9983
3
3
3
6
4
2
23
2
26
2
1
1
0
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
8
4
1
1
24
2
27
1
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
9
6
3
2
24
2
28
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
5
4
2
9983
23
1
29
4
4
3
3
3
4
6
13
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
24
3
NO. OBS:
27
26
26
28
26
26
25
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
26
27
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
26
MAXIMUM:
4
4
3
3
4
4
6
13
6
5
6
4
6
5
7
7
3
5
4
5
9
7
5
5
MEAN:
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 651 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 13
MISSING DATA = 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 94*
-------
I IMP MONITORING PROGRAM
PALMER CARBCN MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
NOVEMBER 1987
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME 00 01 02 03 OA 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OBS MEAN
01 22333333211111111234 3210 24 2
02 222221121110000012221111 24 1
03 101000122111111113553221 24 1
04 100000122 10 9983 0000011643221 23 2
05 111112252222211112366453 24 2
06 111111347641111112111111 24 2
07 1111101111110 0 0 01110 0 0 0 0 24 1
08 000001111100000012444211 24 1
09 111111133332211111212321 24 2
10 1111112432 9983 1111116888333 23 3
11 322111222110000017732111 24 2
12 110001122111111135333332 24 2
13 111001132100100111111110 24 1
14 000111222111111111111111 24 1
15 111111111111111111112222 24 1
16 443333456554333444456544 24 4
17 543333477235544344331344 24 4
18 111113455441444467864344 24 4
19 41111346644445568 14 986444 24 5
20 45664446764444468 14 15 13 7544 24 6
21 444333445554445555544446 24 4
22 655555444444333445676544 24 4
23 444444587644441124863443 24 4
24 331012232210000012211111 24 1
25 111111234322111111221000 24 1
26 000000000111111101111111 24 0
27 110000112111105114322211 24 1
28 111100111111111124221211 24 1
29 111111111111111114533222 24 1
30 211111144311111137631111 24 2
NO. OBS: 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
MAXIMUM: 656655587 10 5555568 14 15 13 8556
MEAN: 221112233322222224443222
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 718
MISSING DATA = 9983
MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 15
PERCENT RECOVERY 100*
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
PALMER CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
DECEMBER 1987
TOTAL DAILY
DAY/TIME
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OBS
MEAN
01
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
6
4
2
2
2
1
24
2
02
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
03
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
1
04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
5
4
3
3
1
24
1
05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
24
1
06
1
3
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
08
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
24
1
09
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
4
1
0
0
9983 9983
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
22
10
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
24
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
12
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
13
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
14
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
24
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
4
6
5
3
2
1
1
1
24
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
8
6
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
6
10
10
7
3
4
4
24
3
17
5
3
5
6
6
7
7
5
4
5
7
6
6
8
16
12
9
6
6
3
2
24
6
18
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
6 9983
6
7
4
5
6
8
9
8
8
10
10
7
9
23
5
19
10
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
24
2
20
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
6
4
2
3
3
2
24
2
21
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
6
4
3
9983
9983
9983
1
1
2
8
8
6
6
5
3
4
21
3
23
4
5
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
24
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
24
2
26
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
1
27
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
24
0
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
24
1
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
9
1
9983
3
3
2
2
3
6
9
10
5
3
2
2
1
23
3
30
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
24
3
NO- OBS:
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
29
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
MAXIMUM:
10
5
5
6
6
7
9
6
6
6
7
5
6
6
8
16
12
10
10
10
7
9
MEAN:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 737 MONTHLY MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 16
MISSING DATA «. 9983 PERCENT RECOVERY 99*
-------
DAY/TIME
00
01
02
03
04
05
01
2
2
1
2
1
2
02
1
1
1
0
0
0
03
1
1
1
1
1
1
04
2
3
3
3
2
1
05
3
3
3
3
3
2
06
1
1
1
1
1
1
07
3
3
2
2
1
1
08
1
1
2
1
1
2
09
2
3
4
3
3
3
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
1
1
0
0
13
9983
9983
1
1
1
1
14
1
9983
1
1
1
1
15
2
2
1
1
9983
1
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
2
1
1
1
18
3
2
2
1
1
19
0
0
0
1
1
20
1
2
1
1
1
21
1
2
2
2
1
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
1
1
1
1
24
1
0
1
1
1
1
25
1
1
1
1
1
26
1
1
1
1
1
27
1
1
1
1
1
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
1
1
1
1
1
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OBS:
30
29
31
31
30
31
MAXIMUM:
3
3
4
3
3
MEAN: 11111
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
PALMER CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE
HOURLY VALUES
JANUARY
1988
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
5
7
5
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
8
8
6
5
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9983
1
9983
2
2
9983
1
3
5
9983
2
2
9983
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
2
9983
2
9983
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
5
3
9983
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
30
30
29
31
30
29
31
6
8
8
6
5
3
4
4
9
n
9
9
i
l
i
l
06
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
31
4
1
TOTAL MONTHLY OBSERVATIONS 721
MISSING DATA - 9983
MONTHLY MINIMUM
PERCENT RECOVERY
0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM
97*
TOTAL DAILY
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OBS
MEAN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
4
3
3
4
5
3
2
1
1
24
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
24
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
24
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
24
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
24
1
2
2
2
3
5
5
3
2
24
2
1
2
4
6
4
2
2
2
2
24
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
24
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
24
1
2
9983
2
9983
2
1
9983 9983
2
17
1
3
3
3
5
9983
1
1
9983
1
18
2
3
3
0
2
3
2
9983
2
2
21
2
2
9983
4
9983
9983
2
9983
2
1
18
2
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
24
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
24
1
0
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
24
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
0
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
23
2
1
2
4
4
2
3
2
1
0
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
24
1
3
4
4
0
4
2
1
1
24
2
2
6
7
5
4
4
2
2
24
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
24
1
31
29
31
29
29
31
28
29
31
4
3
6
7
5
5
5
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
8
-------
IEMP MONITORING PROGRAM
PALMER CARBON MONOXIDE DATA
AVERAGE HOURLY VALUES
FEBRUARY 1988
DAY/TIME
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OBS
01
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9983
1
9983 9983
1
1
9983
1
9983
1
9983
1
1
18
02
1
9983
1
9983
9983
9983
2
3
3
9983
3
0
2 9983 9983 9983
2
2
9983
9983
2
2
2
14
03
1
1
1
1
9983
1
1
9983
2
9983
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
OA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
24
05
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
24
06
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
07
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
24
08
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1 1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
24
09
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
24
11
4
3
3
3
3
5
6
4
2
2
1
1 1
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
24
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
24
13
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
24
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
16
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
17
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
24
18
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
3
3
3
1
1 1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
24
19
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
24
20
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
24
21
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1 1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
24
22
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
23
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
24
24
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2 1
1
1
1
2
5
5
4
4
3
24
25
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
24
26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
24
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
24
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1 0
0
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
24
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
0 1
1
1
1
1
0 9983 9983 9983 9983
20
NO. OBS:
29
28
29
28
27
28
29
28
29
27
29
28
29
28 27
28
28
28
29
27
27
27
28
28
MAXIMUM:
4
3
2
3
3
3
5
6
4
3
3
3
3 2
2
2
3
3
5
5
4
4
3
MEAN:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
TOTAL DAILY
MEAN
TOTAL MDNTHLY OBSERVATIONS 673
MISSING DATA » 9983
MONTHLY MINIMUM
PERCENT RECOVERY
0 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 6
97*
-------
A-2 MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, MEAN & STANDARD
DEVIATION OF THE DATA
-------
SWER PfllO SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA AND ARVAOA HONITORINO LOCATIONS
«» DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ««
VALUES ARE IN ug/m3
AURARIA
THERE ARE I VARIABLES AND 36 CASES IN THE DATA SET
36 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VARIABLE
AURSPHIO
HEAN
30.9239
STD.DEV.
8.50491
VARIANCE
72.3336
STD ERROR COEFF OF
OF MEAN VARIATION
1.41749
27.5027
VARIABLE
AURSPHIO
MINIMUM
16.0500
MAXIMUM
46. 1800
RANGE
32.1300
TOTAL
1113.26
VARIABLE
AURSPHIO
MEDIAN MODE SKEUNESS KURTOSIS
32.0550 NONE -0.0494065 2.25149
ARVAOA
THERE ARE I VARIABLES AND 19 CASES IN THE DATA SET
19 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VARIABLE
ARVSPH10
MEAN
26.7937
STD.DEV.
5.66664
VARIANCE
32.1108
STD ERROR COEFF OF
OF HEAN VARIATION
1.30002
21.1492
VARIABLE
ARVSPH10
MINIMUM
16.7400
HAXIMUH
38.2800
RANGE
21.5400
TOTAL
509.080
VARIABLE
ARVSPH10
MEDIAN
26.6200
MODE
NONE
SKEUNESS
-0.111730
KURTOSIS
2.63686
-------
WINTER PfllO SAftPLES COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA AND ARVAOA HOW I TOR INC LOCATIONS
»»• DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ***
VALUES ARE IN ug/m3
AURARIA
THERE ARE I VARIABLES AND 42 CASES IN THE DATA SET
42 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VARIABLE MEAN STD.DEV. VARIANCE
AURUPrtIO 53.9350 28.7963 829.225
VARIABLE MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE
AURHPMIO 12.5400 116.660 104.120
VARIABLE MEDIAN MODE SKEUNESS
AURHPMIO 49.4450 NONE 0.515518
STD ERROR COEFF OF
OF MEAN VARIATION
4.44336 53.3907
TOTAL
2265.27
KURTOSIS
2.33425
ARVAOA
THERE ARE I VARIABLES AND 23 CASES IN THE DATA SET
23 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
STD ERROR COEFF OF
VARIABLE MEAN STD.DEV. VARIANCE OF MEAN VARIATION
ARVHPM10 38.0813 19.1444 366.509 3.99189 50.2725
VARIABLE MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE TOTAL
ARVHPM10 7.36000 77.0800 69.7200 875.870
VARIABLE MEDIAN MODE SKEUNESS
ARVHPM10 36.5800 NONE 0.230987
KURTOSIS
2.17730
-------
SUNER ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT T>£ ARVADA MONITORING LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »**
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 18 CASES IN THE DATA SET
18 CASES (100.0*) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V. 24 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
ARACETSP
ARPROPISP
ARFORMSP
MEAN
2.79086
0.500715
3.07269
STD.DEV.
0.777705
0.167383
1.05579
VARIANCE
0.604825
0.0280169
1.11470
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
0.183307
0.0394525
0.248853
COEFF OF
VARIATION
27.8661
33.4287
34.3605
VARIABLE
ARACETSP
ARPROPISP
ARFORMSP
MINIMUM
1.28988
0.180557
I.10477
MAXIMUM
4.20045
0.813697
4.97384
RANGE
2.91057
0.633140
3.86907
TOTAL
50.2355
9.01287
55.3085
VARIABLE
ARACETSP
ARPROPISP
ARFORMSP
MEDIAN
2.75282
0.503995
3.21309
MODE
NONE
0.423179
NONE
SKEUNESS
-0.171787
-0.137912
-0.233874
KURTOSIS
2.35158
2.70617
2.62010
VARIABLE NAMES:
ARACETSP - ACETALDEHYDE
ARFORMSP - FORMALDEHYDE
ARPROPISP - PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
SUWCR ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HONITORIKG LOCATION DURING THE AH.
*** DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 35 CASES IN THE DATA SET
35 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 7 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
AUACETSA
AUPROPISA
AUFORMSA
MEAN
2.92931
0.472224
2.90676
STD.DEV.
0.994962
0.194472
1.21428
VARIANCE
0.989950
0.0378193
1.47446
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
0.168179
0.0328717
0.205250
COEFF OF
VARIATION
33.9658
41.1821
41.7742
VARIABLE
AUACETSA
AUPROPISA
AUFORMSA
MINIMUM
0.112150
0.00000
0.275618
MAXIMUM
4.75122
0.774295
6.32710
RANGE
4.63907
0.774295
6.05148
TOTAL
102.526
16.5278
101.736
VARIABLE MEDIAN
AUACETSA 3.19158
AUPROPISA 0.425444
AUFORMSA 2.60335
MODE SKEWNESS KURTOSIS
NONE -0.505610 3.14007
NONE -0.0681299 2.34962
NONE 0.547845 3.43157
VARIABLE NAMES:
AUACETSA - ACETALDEHYDE AUPROPISA - PROP IONALDEHYDE
AUFORMSA - FORMALDEHYDE
-------
SUttCR ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT DC AURARIA BON I TOR INC LOCATION DURING THE PH.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ww
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 33 CASES IN THE DATA SET
33 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 17 HR CONCENTRATIONS
STD ERROR COEFF OF
VARIABLE
AUACETSP
AUPROPISP
AUFORMSP
MEAN STD.DEV. VARIANCE OF MEAN VARIATION
2.97574 0.983857 0.967974 0.171267 33.0626
0.499338 0.198838 0.0395364 0.0346132 39.8202
4.11570 1.68762 2.84806 0.293777 41.0045
VARIABLE
AUACETSP
AUPROPISP
AUFORflSP
n i n i riun max i mum range total
1.43778 6.01518 4.S7740 98.1993
0.183366 I. 11944 0.936079 16.4782
1.52311 8.23164 6.70854 135.818
VARIABLE
AUACETSP
AUPROPISP
AUFORflSP
MEDIAN
2.95447
0.509349
3.99250
flOOE SKEHNESS KURTOSIS
NONE 0.793168 4.06052
NONE 0.748424 4.I95IG
NONE 0.558804 2.69793
VARIABLE NAMES:
AUACETSP - ACETALDEHYDE
AUFORflSP - FORMALDEHYDE
AUPROPISP • PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
SUWIER ALDCHYOE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSIPITAL HONITORINO LOCATION
»*• DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 18 CASES IN THE DATA SET
18 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V. 24HR CONCENTRATIONS
STD ERROR COEFF OF
VARIABLE
NJACETSP
NJPROPISP
NJFORNSP
MEAN STD.DEV. VARIANCE OF MEAN VARIATION
2.42380 0.840939 0.707178 0.198211 34.6950
0.469857 0.163450 0.0267159 0.0385255 34.7871
3.63656 1.50396 2.26189 0.354487 41.3566
VARIABLE
NJACETSP
NJPROPISP
NJFORMSP
MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE TOTAL
0.00000 3.59594 3.59594 43.6284
0.00000 0.762302 0.762302 8.45743
0.00000 5.84627 5.84627 65.4581
VARIABLE
NJACETSP
NJPROPISP
NJFORMSP
MEDIAN
2.55293
0.473596
3.82490
MODE SKEWNESS KURTOSIS
NONE -1.13705 4.94672
NONE -1.02325 5.16772
NONE -0.593191 3.03067
VARIABLE NAMES:
NJACETSP - ACETALDEHYDE
NJFORMSP « FORMALDEHYDE
NJPROPISP - PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
WINTER ALDEHYDE SAftPLES COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HON I TOR IMC LOCATION
»»* DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 23 CASES IN THE DATA SET
23 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 24 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
ARACETHP
ARPROPUP
ARFORMHP
MEAN
0.846292
0.120628
1.78286
STD.DEV.
0.825394
0.115282
1.74467
VARIANCE
0.681276
0.0132899
3.04389
STD ERROR
OF HE AN
0.172107
0.0240379
0.363790
CCEFF OF
VARIATION
97.5307
95.5681
97.8582
VARIABLE
ARACETHP
ARPROPUP
ARFORMWP
MINIMUM
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
MAXIMUM
2.25811
0.336106
4.89397
RANCE
2.25811
0.336106
4.89397
TOTAL
19.4647
2.77444
41.0058
VARIABLE
ARACETHP
ARPROPUP
ARFORMHP
MEDIAN
0.442525
0.0845651
0.794053
MODE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SKEWNESS
0.379263
0.368215
0.501706
KURTOSIS
1.61362
1.60913
1.72102
VARIABLE NAME:
ARACETHP - ACETALDEHYDE
ARFORMHP - FORMALDEHYDE
ABPBOPWP - PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
WINTER ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HONITORINO LOCATION DURING TIE AH.
»»* DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 42 CASES IN THE DATA SET
42 CASES (100.OK) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 7 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
AUACETUA
AUPROPUA
AUFORMA
VARIABLE
AUACETUA
AUPROPUA
AUFORMA
VARIABLE
AUACETUA
AUPROPUA
AUFORMA
KEAN
1.72242
0.255427
2.88125
nininun
0.00000
-0.0124525
0.00000
MEDIAN
1.16620
0.176722
2.13362
STD.DEV.
I.67021
0.255679
2.54567
MAX I nun
6.08269
0.994104
II.0727
NODE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
VARIANCE
2.78959
0.0653719
6.48045
RANGE
6.08269
I.00656
II.0727
SKEUNESS
1.43199
1.45254
1.56942
STD ERROR
OF HEAN
0.257719
0.0394522
0.392806
TOTAL
72.3418
10.7279
121.012
KURTOSIS
4.12959
4.39734
5.22136
COEFF OF
VARIATION
96.9685
100.099
88.3532
VARIABLE NAME:
AUACETUA • ACETALDEHYDE
AUFORMA ¦ FORMALDEHYDE
AUPROPUA • PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
HINTER ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE AUIARIA HCMITORING LOCATION DURING THE PN.
»*« DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ***
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 42 CASES IN THE DATA SET
42 CASES (100.OX) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 17 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
AUACETUP
AUPROPHP
AUFCRHP
MEAN
0.844899
0.112342
2.24520
STD.DEV.
0.804968
0.109555
2.05043
VARIANCE
0.647973
0.0120023
4.20428
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
0.124209
0.0169047
0.316389
COEFF OF
VARIATION
95.2738
97.5192
91.3254
VARIABLE
AUACETUP
AUPROPHP
AUFORflP
MINIMUM
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
MAXIMUM
3.I 161 I
0.404718
7.81776
RANGE
3.11611
0.404718
7.81776
TOTAL
35.4857
4.71836
94.2983
VARIABLE
AUACETHP
AUPROPHP
AUFORMP
MEDIAN
0.655722
0.0838047
1.59696
MODE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SKEUNESS
1.01293
I.15492
1.03425
KURTOSIS
3.35821
3.55720
3.15316
VARIABLE NAME:
AUACETHP - ACETALDEHYDE
AUFORMP - FORMALDEHYDE
AUPROPHP • PROPIONALDEHYDE
-------
U INTER ALDEHYDE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSIPITAL KM ITOR INC LOCATION
WW DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS •«
THERE ARE 3 VARIABLES AND 23 CASES IN THE DATA SET
23 CASES (100.0*) ARE VALID
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V 24 CONCENTRATIONS
VARIABLE
NJACETHP
NJPROPHP
NJFORMP
MEAN
1.05084
0.144987
2.42972
STD.OEV.
0.887352
0.126382
I.99101
VARIANCE
0.787393
0.0159724
3.96411
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
0.185026
0.0263524
0.415154
COEFF OF
VARIATION
84.4421
87.1679
81.9439
VARIABLE
NJACETHP
NJPROPWP
NJFORMP
MINI MUM
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
MAXIMUM
2.80667
0.391366
6.24650
RANGE
2.80667
0.391366
6.24650
TOTAL
24.1693
3.33469
55.8836
VARIABLE MEDIAN
NJACETHP 0.980326
NJPROPWP 0.110267
NJFORMP I.90804
MODE SKEWNESS KURTOS IS
NONE 0.450396 2.08775
0.00000 0.602030 2.26475
NONE 0.437916 2.01231
VARIABLE NAME:
NJACETHP • ACETALDEHYDE
NJFORMP ¦ FORMALDEHYDE
NJPROPWP - PROP IONALDEHYDE
-------
SUHER DENUDER DATA COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HON I TORINO LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »«»
THERE ARE 8 VARIABLES AND 33 CASES IN THE DATA SET
ALL VALUES ARE IN PPB/V EXCEPT NITRATES AND SULFATES WHICH ARE IN UNITS OF ug/m3
VARIA8LE
HN02AP
HN03AP
S02AP
HN02PP
HN03PP
S02PP
N03
S04
VALID
CASES
32
32
32
29
29
29
31
31
NUMBER
MISSING
I
I
1
4
4
4
2
2
% MISSING
3.0
3.0
3.0
12.1
12.1
12.1
6.1
6.1
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VAR1 ABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
HN02AP
0.398349
0.255052
0.0650516
0.0450873
64.0273
HN03AP
1.48369
0.811832
0.659071
0.143513
54.7173
S02AP
5.31137
3.84750
14.8033
0.680149
72.4390
HN02PP
0.781722
0.467916
0.218946
0.0868899
59.8571
HN03PP
0.333120
0.207647
0.0431174
0.0385591
62.3341
S02PP
2.80043
2.62541
6.89278
0.487526
93.7504
N03
0.568082
0.348855
0.121700
0.0626563
61.4094
S04
1.10693
0.470330
0.221210
0.0844737
42.4897
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
HN02AP
0.00000
1.06197
1.06197
12.7472
HN03AP
0.0390895
2.98894
2.94985
47.4779
S02AP
0.0520437
15.6378
15.5857
169.964
HN02PP
0.0607812
1.68814
1.62736
22.6699
HN03PP
0.0185175
0.948999
0.930482
9.66048
S02PP
0.0130997
14.3877
14.3746
81.2124
N03
0.152450
1.43076
1.27831
17.6105
S04
0.369030
2.37398
2.00495
34.3147
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEWNESS
KURTOSIS
HN02AP
0.358032
NONE
0.370402
2.79951
HN03AP
1.48786
NONE
0.0532727
2.30580
S02AP
4.22331
NONE
0.934816
3.20275
HN02PP
0.875344
NONE
-0.0390025
2.20229
HN03PP
0.332805
NONE
0.742828
3.90294
S02PP
2.52870
NONE
3.00399
14.2826
N03
0.396140
NONE
0.831698
2.52042
S04
1.10314
NONE
0.605897
3.16622
Variable Name:
HN02AP • AM NITROUS ACID
S02AP ¦ AM SULFUR DIOXIDE
HN03PP - PM NITRIC ACID
NO3 - 24 HR NITRATES
HN03AP ¦ AM NITRIC ACID
HN02PP =¦ PM NITROUS ACID
S02PP = PM SULFUR DIG"IOC
S04 ¦ 24 HR SULFATES
-------
UIHTER OENUDER DATA COLLECTED AT TK AURARIA HON I TOR INC LOCATION
"W DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »**
THERE ARE 8 VARIABLES AND 9S CASES IN THE DATA SET
ALL VALUES ARE IN PPB/V EXCEPT NITRATES AND SPATES WHICH ARE IN UNITS Of
VALID
NUMBER '
VARIABLE
CASES
HISSING
% MISSING
AURN03
87
8
8.4
AURS04
68
7
7.4
AURAHN02
68
7
7.4
AURAHN03
88
7
7.4
AURAS02
88
7
7.4
AURPHN02
88
7
7.4
AURPHN03
88
7
7.4
AURPS02
88
7
7.4
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
AURN03
2.69696
3.81595
14.5615
0.409113
141.491
AURS04
1.97976
1.79709
3.22954
0.191571
90.7733
AURAHN02
1.02109
0.929799
0.864526
0.0991169
91.0595
AURAHN03
0.573877
0.801979
0.643170
0.0854913
139.747
AURAS02
5.34138
4.89201
23.9318
0.521490
91.5870
AURPHN02
2.55396
1.98956
3.95835
0.212088
77.9009
AURPHN03
0.143498
0.0845057
0.00714122
0.00900834
58.8899
AURPS02
4.54398
2.98788
8.92742
0.318509
65.7547
VARIABLE
minimum
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
AURN03
0.00000
15.5349
15.5349
234.635
AURS04
0.136756
9.10169
8.96493
174.219
AURAHN02
0.00000
4.56948
4.56948
89.8559
AURAHN03
0.00000
5.27927
5.27927
50.5012
AURAS02
0.00000
22.7253
22.7253
470.042
AURPHN02
0.00000
8.37786
8.37786
224.749
AURPHN03
0.00000
0.411037
0.411037
12.6278
AURPS02
0.00000
16.1708
16.1708
399.870
VARIABLE
nEDIAN
MOOE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
AURN03
0.728916
0.00000
1.73711
5.14454
AURS04
1.22917
NONE
1.66721
5.68320
AURAHN02
0.752047
0.00000
1.84255
6.95512
AURAHN03
0.342407
0.00000
3.19912
16.4153
AURAS02
3.99372
NONE
1.38688
4.50960
AURPHN02
2.38706
0.00000
1.01117
3.77867
AURPHN03
0.139339
0.00000
0.399847
3.22168
AURPS02
4.30924
NONE
1.55749
6.89192
Variab1e
Name:
AURN03 ¦
24 HR NITRATES
AURS04
• 24 HR SULFATES
AURAHN02
- AH NITROUS ACID
AURAHN03 - AM NITRtC
ACID
AURAS02 •
¦ AM SULFUR DIOXIDE
AURPHN02 ¦ PM NITROUS ACID
AURPHN03
¦ PM
NITRIC ACID
AURPS02 - PM SULFUR
DIOXIDE
-------
WINTER DENUDER DATA COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HONITOR INC LOCATION
»»* DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS ***
THERE ARE
5 VARIABLES AND
66 CASES IN THE
DATA SET
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% HISSING
ARVHN02
61
5
7.6
ARVHN03
61
5
7.6
ARVS02
61
5
7.6
ARVN03
56
10
15.2
ARVS04
57
9
13.6
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
ARVHN02
2.76220
1.73980
3.02690
0.222759
62.9860
ARVHN03
0.459838
0.310272
0.0962686
0.0397262
67.4741
ARVS02
4.03337
2.43291
5.91905
0.311502
60.3196
ARVN03
2.69828
2.99616
8.97697
0.400379
111.039
ARVS04
1.77868
1.57887
2.49284
0.209127
88.7665
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
ARVHN02
0.208862
7.83608
7.62721
168.494
ARVHN03
0.00000
1.24756
1.24756
28.0501
ARVS02
0.00000
12.8864
12.8864
246.035
ARVN03
0.00000
13.0599
13.0599
151.104
ARVS04
0.00000
6.33434
6.33434
101.385
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MOOE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
ARVHN02
2.79738
NONE
0.461253
2.32208
ARVHN03
0.390250
NONE
0.828330
2.75835
ARVS02
3.69118
NONE
0.966422
4.5839J
ARVN03
1.71047
0.00000
1.69747
5.61210
ARVS04
1.18526
NONE
1.39433
3.90476
Variable Name:
ARVN03 ¦ 24 HR NITRATES ARVS04 - 24 HR SULFATES
ARVHN03 - NITRIC ACID
ARVHN02 ¦ NITROUS ACID
ARVS02 ¦ SULFUR DIOXIDE
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V EXCEPT NITRATES AND SULFATES WHICH ARE IN UNITS OF
-------
WINTER KNIIOER DATA COLLECTED AT THE FEDERAL COURT BUILDING MONITORING LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ***
THERE ARE II VARIABLES AND 26 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
X MISSING
FCAHN02
25
1
3.8
FCAHN03
25
1
3.8
FCAS02
25
1
3.8
FCPHN02
26
0
0.0
FCPHN03
26
0
0.0
FCPS02
26
0
0.0
FCCHN02
25
1
3.8
FCCHN03
25
1
3.8
FCCS02
25
1
3.8
FCCN03
25
1
3.8
FCCS04
25
1
3.8
STO ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.OEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
FCAHN02
1.25770
0.803628
0.645818
0.160726
63.8967
FCAHN03
0.589466
1.47729
2.18238
0.295457
250.614
FCAS02
4.97196
5.68215
32.2868
1.13643
114.284
FCPHN02
1.27857
1.01068
1.02147
0.198210
79.0472
FCPHN03
0.155589
0.169820
0.0288389
0.0333045
109.147
FCPS02
3.15228
3.31547
10.9923
0.650217
105.177
FCCHN02
0.0427942
0.0257274
6.6I90I5E-04
0.00514549
60.1191
FCCHN03
0.0152856
0.0342862
0.00117554
0.00685723
224.303
FCCS02
0.163398
0.191424
0.0366433
0.0382849
117.153
FCCN03
0.0289717
0.0454075
0.00206184
0.00908149
156.730
FCCS04
0.0253179
0.0502612
0.00252619
0.0100522
198.520
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
FCAHN02
0.00000
2.90632
2.90632
31.4425
FCAHN03
0.00000
7.29397
7.29397
14.7367
FCAS02
0.263785
21.9196
21.6558
124.299
FCPHN02
0.00000
4.11773
4.11773
33.2429
FCPHN03
0.00000
0.671570
0.671570
4.04532
FCPS02
0.00000
12.9369
12.9369
81.9594
FCCHN02
0.00000
0.0918812
0.0918812
1.06985
FCCHN03
0.00000
0.168488
0.168488
0.382141
FCCS02
0.0227381
0.779508
0.756770
4.08494
FCCN03
0.00000
0.174796
0.174796
0.724293
FCCSQ4
0.00000
0.240256
0.240256
0.632948
-------
WINTER KNUOCft DATA COLLECTED AT TW FEDERAL COURT BUILDING HON I TOR INC LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
FCAHN02
FCAHN03
FCAS02
FCPHN02
FCPHN03
FCPS02
FCCHN02
FCCHN03
FCCS02
FCCN03
FCCS04
HEDIAN
I.0S490
0.I84068
2.00519
1.31412
0.186113
2.16797
0.0379390
0.00587849
0.0645757
0.00761191
0.00787723
MOOE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
0.00000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
SKEUNESS
0.399487
3.98338
1.46696
0.652327
I.04832
1.30416
0.429797
3.82001
1.78729
1.83021
3.40020
KURTOSIS
2.33729
18.4685
4.47159
3.54556
4.18569
4.31318
2.28482
17.3958
5.67967
5.63382
14.6825
Variable Name:
FCCN03 • 24 HR NITRATES
FCAHN02 • AH NITROUS ACID
FCAS02 - AM SULFUR DIOXIDE
FCPHN03 - PH NITRIC ACID
FCCHN02 - COMBINED AH AND PH NITROUS ACID
FCCS02 • COMBINED All AND PH SULFUR DIOXIDE
FCCS04 - 24 HR SULFATES
FCAHN03 ¦ AH NITRIC ACID
FCPHN02 ¦ PH NITROUS ACID
FCPS02 - PH SULFUR DIOXIDE
FCCHN03 • COMBINED AH AND PH NITRIC ACIO
ALL VALUES ARE IN PP8/V EXCEPT NITRATES AND SULFATES WHICH ARE IN UNITS OF ug/m3
-------
SUNHER VOLATILE ORG AM IC COWOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT TfC ARVAOA HON I TOR I KG LOCATION
«h» DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 23 VARIABLES AND 18 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V
VALID NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
1 MISSING
ARVCP
14
4
22.2
ARTR1MTP
17
1
5.6
ARVINCP
17
1
5.6
ARBENETP
17
1
5.6
ARTOLP
17
1
5.6
ARNOCTP
17
1
5.6
ARCHLBNP
15
I6.7
ARETBENP
17
1
5.6
ARMPXYLP
17
1
5.6
ARNNONP
17
1
5.6
ARSTYP
17
1
5.6
AR4ETTOP
17
1
5.6
ARNDECP
17
1
5.6
ARUNDECP
17
1
5.6
ARDIFLUP
II
38.9
ARCHLFOP
4
14
77.8
ARTRICHP
17
1
5.6
ARCARTEP
17
1
5.6
ARTRCHEP
12
33.3
ARTETETP
17
1
5.6
ARTETCHLP
12
33.3
ARBUTDIP
17
1
5.6
STO ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
ARVCP
7.30213
3.12635
9.77404
0.835551
42.8142
ARTRIMTP
7.23164
2.79174
7.79382
0.677097
38.6045
ARVINCP
7.34703
3.65981
13.3942
0.887634
49.8134
ARBENETP
4.70043
2.11038
4.45370
0.511842
44.8976
ARTOLP
6.99553
2.41081
5.8I200
0.584707
34.4621
ARNOCTP
0.780506
0.391890
O.I 53577
0.0950472
50.2097
ARCHLBNP
1.50540
1.63825
2.68388
0.422995
108.825
ARETBENP
1.34830
0.514001
0.264197
0.124663
38.1220
ARMPXYLP
4.63386
1.69534
2.87416
0.4II179
36.5859
ARNNONP
0.865600
0.411342
O.I 69202
0.0997651
47.5210
ARSTYP
4.63528
2.50385
6.26927
0.607273
54.0172
AR4ETTOP
3.04372
1.48368
2.20I30
0.359845
48.7456
ARNDECP
4.20564
4.87722
23.7873
1.18290
115.969
ARUNDECP
3.27242
5.54385
30.7343
1.34458
169.411
ARDIFLUP
1.83156
1.08791
I.I8355
0.328017
59.3981
ARCHLFOP
0.359322
0.233890
0.0547045
0.116945
65.0920
ARTRICHP
1.82236
1.67213
2.79601
0.405550
91.756?
ARCARTEP
0.287452
0.122946
0.0151157
0.0298187
42 7"n'1
ARTRCHEP
0.329072
0.257392
0.0662504
0.0743026
'¥.2175
ARTETETP
1.00038
0.451295
0.203667
0.109455
45. 1125
ARTETCHLP
0.424574
0.415262
0.172443
0.119876
9T .«u6T
-------
SUmCR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HON I TOR I KG LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
ARBUTDIP
VARIABLE
ARVCP
ARTRIHTP
ftRVlNCP
ARBENETP
ARTOLP
ARNOCTP
ARCHLBNP
ARETBENP
ARHPXYLP
ARNNONP
ARSTYP
AR4ETTOP
ARNDECP
ARUNDECP
ARDIFLUP
ARCHLFOP
ARTRICHP
ARCARTEP
ARTRCHEP
ARTETETP
ARTETCHLP
ARBUTDIP
(IE AN
4.73816
fllNlflUn
3.76251
4.31111
3.66015
1.56951
4.48820
0.336321
0.169786
0.608466
1.97982
0.200324
I.53657
0.795988
0.249378
0.0707596
0.335954
0.133644
0.755745
0.133947
0.0518140
0.399890
0.0680816
I.18564
STD.DEV.
3.21222
maxinun
15.9349
14.3050
15.0950
10.3068
12.2164
1.88939
5.08705
2.19416
7.85935
1.77429
9.51546
5.86303
16.6309
23.3256
3.94645
0.653873
6.47519
0.517017
0.766027
2.30195
I.45785
II.8011
VARIANCE
10.3184
RANGE
12.1724
9.99394
11.4348
8.73727
7.72821
1.55307
4.91726
1.58570
5.87953
1.57397
7.97889
5.06704
16.3816
23.2549
3.61049
0.520228
5.71945
0.383070
0.714213
1.90206
1.38977
10.6155
STO ERROR
OF MEAN
0.779078
TOTAL
102.230
122.938
124.899
79.9073
118.924
13.2686
22.5811
22.9212
78.7756
14.7152
78.7997
51.7433
71.4958
55.6312
20.1471
1.43729
30.9800
4.88668
3.94886
17.0064
5.09489
80.5487
COEFF OF
VARIATION
67.7947
VARIABLE
NED IAN
NODE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
ARVCP
6.36220
6.14686
1.55871
5.24861
ARTRIHTP
6.46666
NONE
1.64900
4.78655
ARVINCP
5.78051
NONE
0.964950
2.79659
ARBENETP
4.13525
3.85330
1.27609
4.30956
ARTOLP
6.294M
NONE
0.928725
2.70018
ARNOCTP
0.670499
NONE
1.43307
4.83915
ARCHLBNP
0.586967
NONE
1.16433
3.02895
ARETBENP
1.23076
NONE
0.202274
1.77508
ARHPXYLP
4.33301
4.33301
0.465658
2.38629
- HAS nULTIPLE
NODES
ARNNONP
0.757414
NONE
0.541246
2.87076
ARSTYP
3.75919
NONE
0.641474
2.36406
AR4ETT0P
2.52436
2.09685
0.482857
2.26470
-------
SUmtR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HONITOR IKC LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
ARNDECP
1.87463
NONE
1.53897
4.07237
ARUNDECP
1.87857
1.65941
3.06474
11.4713
ARDIFLUP
1.67370
NONE
0.823139
2.79032
ARCHLFOP
0.324886
NONE
0.345791
1.57194
ARTRICHP
1.08776
NONE
2.06697
5.82827
ARCARTEP
0.257713
NONE
0.584664
2.17470
ARTRCHEP
0.296346
NONE
0.405252
1.75032
ARTETETP
0.886840
NONE
1.51900
5.27145
ARTETCHLP
0.282823
NONE
1.47856
4.23923
ARBUTDIP
3.59284
6.79876
0.635885
2.40991
Varible Name:
ARVCP ¦ VINYL CHLORIDE ARTRIHTP ¦ TR ICHLOROFLUOROtlETHANE
ARVINCP - VINYL I DENE CHLORIDE ARDIHETP • DICHOLOROMETHANE
ARBENEETP - BENZENES 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE ARTOLP ¦ TOLUENE
ARNOCTP ¦ N-OCTANE ARCHL8NP • CHLOROBENZENE
ARETBENP - ETHYLBENZENE ARMPXYLP - M/P-XYLENE
ARNNONOP - N-NONANE ARSTYP - STYRENE
AR4ETTOLP - 4-ETHYLTOULENE ARNDECP - N-DECANE
ARUNDECP ¦ N-UNDECANE
ARDIFLUP • DICHLORODIFLUORONETHANE ARCHLFOP - CHLOROFORM
ARTRtCHP « I.I.I-TRICHLOROETHANE ARCARTEP • CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
ARTRCHEP ¦ TRICHLOROETHENE ARTETETP - TETRACHLOROETHENE
ARTETCHLP -1.1,2.2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE ARBUTDIP • 2-CHLORO-I.3-BUTADIENE
-------
SUfflER VOLATILE ORCAHIC COWOUWJS DATA COLLECTED AT THE MIR ARIA HONITOR IHG LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE
23 VARIABLES AND 30 CASES IN THE
DATA SET
VALUES ARE
IN PPB/V
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
AUVCP
23
7
23.3
AUTRIMTP
29
1
3.3
AUVINCP
29
1
3.3
AUBENETP
29
1
3.3
AUTOLP
29
1
3.3
AUNOCTP
29
1
3.3
AUCHLBNP
29
1
3.3
AUETBENP
29
1
3.3
AUI1PXYLP
29
1
3.3
AUNNONP
29
1
3.3
AUSTYP
29
1
3.3
AU4ETTOP
29
1
3.3
AUNDECP
29
1
3.3
AUUNDECP
29
1
3.3
AUDIFLUP
19
II
36.7
AUCHLFOP
1
29
96.7
AUTRICHP
25
5
16.7
AUCARTEP
29
1
3.3
AUTRCHEP
14
16
53.3
AITETETP
29
1
3.3
AUTETCHLP
18
12
40.0
AUBUTDIP
29
1
3.3
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
AUVCP
10.4878
8.29626
68.8280
1.72989
79. 1039
AUTRItlTP
7.04349
2.94201
8.65543
0.546318
41.7693
AUVINCP
12.5786
7.41567
54.9922
1.37706
58.9549
AUBENETP
4.42411
2.14539
4.60270
0.398389
48.4932
AUTOLP
7.46538
3.47878
12.1019
0.645994
46.5989
AUNOCTP
0.760322
0.363701
0.132279
0.0675376
47.8351
AUCHLBNP
1.65829
1.94713
3.79133
0.361574
117.418
AUETBENP
1.37922
0.779028
0.606885
0.144662
56.4832
AUMPXYLP
5.20327
2.49943
6.24714
0.464132
48.0357
AUNNONP
1.01556
0.633265
0.401025
0.117594
62.3560
AUSTYP
4.18785
2.77458
7.69831
0.515227
66.2531
AU4ETT0P
3.50771
2.48354
6.16798
0.461182
70.8024
AUNDECP
4.29790
4.04471
16.3597
0.751084
94.1090
AUUNDECP
5.87567
7.73064
59.7628
1.43554
131.570
AUDIFLUP
1.62204
0.585904
0.343284
0.134416
36. 1215
AUCHLFOP
0.197597
0.00000
0.00000
O.OOOOCl
u.uouuu
AUTRICHP
3.20627
2.07727
4.31506
0.415454
64.7S79
AUCARTEP
0.247131
0.106675
0.0113795
0.0I9809U
43. 1*5:
AUTRCHEP
0.180963
0.132205 '
0.0174783
0.0353334
us*"
AUTETETP
0.669773
0.268469
0.0720758
0.0498535
-11. lie ?fr
AUTETCHLP
0.314037
0.296957
0.0881832
0.0699933
¦U. 56 In
-------
SOWER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OATA COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HON I TOR INC LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE MEAN STD.DEV. VARIANCE
AUBUTDIP 4.0Z53I 2.81382 7.91757
VARIABLE
AUVCP
AUTRIMTP
AUVINCP
AUBENETP
AUTOLP
AUNOCTP
AUCHLBNP
AUETBENP
AUMPXYLP
AUNNONP
AUSTYP
AU4ETT0P
AUNDECP
AUUNDECP
AUDIFLUP
AUCHLFOP
AUTRICHP
AUCARTEP
AUTRCHEP
AUTETETP
AUTETCHLP
AUBUTDIP
MINIMUM
0.857429
2.49403
4.26597
2.04883
4.38197
0.274198
0.119133
0.682219
2.39699
0.270914
1.54362
0.604625
0.636344
0.259869
0.937028
0.197597
0.867639
0.120266
0.0607603
0.315780
0.0819311
0.613546
MAX I HUH
37.3902
16.2646
39.3782
9.64891
21.6708
1.78443
6.56533
4.65568
14.6585
2.89992
15.5537
13.5583
14.2403
29.5876
3.01549
0.197597
8.23615
0.474064
0.540506
1.31624
I.15024
II.3036
RANGE
36.5327
13.7706
35.1122
7.60008
17.2889
1.51023
6.44620
3.97347
12.2615
2.62901
14.0100
12.9536
13.6040
29.3277
2.07846
0.00000
7.36851
0.353798
0.479745
1.00046
1.06831
10.6901
VARIABLE
AUVCP
AUTRIMTP
AUVINCP
MEDIAN
8.02616
6.57355
10.9047
- HAS MULTIPLE MODES
AUBENETP 3.72799
AUTOLP 6.24099
AUNOCTP 0.659788
- HAS MULTIPLE MODES
MODE
NONE
NONE
10.9047
NONE
4.40853
0.548395
- HAS MULTIPLE MOOES
AU4ETT0P 2.68722
SKEHNESS
1.71680
1.46247
2.02152
0.925423
2.50651
1.19256
AUCHL8NP
0.467400
NONE
1.29196
AUETBENP
1.20541
NONE
2.71526
AUMPXYLP
4.63264
4.42520
2.09318
AUNNONP
0.858530
0.927212
1.51985
AUSTYP
3.59473
2.41998
2.68611
NONE
2.37293
STD ERROR COEFF OF
OF MEAN VARIATION
0.522513 69.9031
TOTAL
241.219
204.261
364.778
128.299
216.496
22.0493
48.0904
39.9974
150.895
29.4514
121.448
101.724
124.639
170.395
30.8187
0.197597
80.1-567
7.16681
2.53348
19.4234
5.65266
116.734
KURTOSIS
6.05400
5.27026
7.39087
2.77043
10.6283
4.07218
3.42524
11.8979
8.40889
4.78877
11.0641
10.2445
-------
SUMMER VOLATILE
ORGANIC COWCUNDS OATA COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HON ITOR INC LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
AUNDECP
2.23580
2.23580
1.26195
3.28253
AUUNDECP
3.05268
23.9518
1.91433
5.64274
AUDIFLUP
1.42679
2.36787
0.690449
2.66174
AUCHLFOP
MISSING
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
AUTRICHP
2.38463
NONE
1.05991
3.17124
AUCARTEP
0.194080
0.194080
0.856541
2.45840
AUTRCHEP
0.153112
NONE
1.76889
5.21379
AUTETETP
0.666975
NONE
0.617397
2.56912
AUTETCHLP
0.171297
0.157448
1.60120
4.62382
AUBUTDIP
3.34410
5.94200
1.06301
3.65568
Varible Name:
AUVCP - VINYL CHLORIDE AUTRIMTP - TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
AUVINCP - VINYL I DENE CHLORIDE AUDI METP - DICHOLOROMETHANE
AUBENEETP • BENZENEM.2-DICHLOROETHANE AUTOLP - TOLUENE
AUNOCTP - N-OCTANE AUCHLBNP - CHLOROBENZENE
AUETBENP ¦ ETHYLBENZENE AUMPXYLP - M/P-XYLENE
AUNNONOP • N-NONANE AUSTYP - STYRENE
AU4ETT0LP - 4-ETHYLTOULENE AUNDECP - N-DECANE
AUUNDECP ¦ N-UNDECANE
AUDIFLUP - DICHLORODI FLUOROflETHANE AUCHLFOP • CHLOROFORM
AUTRICHP - I.I.I-TRICHLOROETHANE AUCAUTEP - CAUBON TETRACHLORIDE
AUTRCHEP ¦ TRICHLOROETHENE AUTETETP - TETRACHLOROETHENE
AUTETCHLP - I.I,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE AUBUTDIP - 2-CHLORO-I,3-8UTADIENE
-------
SWWER VOLATILE ORGANIC CONFOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL MONITORING LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »««
THERE ARE
23 VARIABLES AND 17
CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE
IN PPB/V
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
X MISSING
NJHVCP
12
5
29.4
NJTRIHTP
16
1
5.9
NJVINCP
16
1
5.9
NJBENETP
16
1
5.9
NJTOLP
16
1
5.9
NJNOCTP
16
1
5.9
NJCHLBNP
16
1
5.9
NJETBENP
16
1
5.9
NJMPXYLP
16
1
5.9
NJNNONP
16
1
5.9
NJSTYP
16
1
5.9
NJ4ETTOP
16
1
5.9
NJNDECP
16
1
5.9
NJUNDECP
16
1
5.9
NJDIFLUP
10
41.2
NJCHLFOP
5
12
70.6
NJTRICHP
16
1
5.9
NJCARTEP
16
1
5.9
NJTRCHEP
7
10
58.8
NJTETETP
16
1
5.9
NJTETCHLP
9
47.1
NJBUTDIP
16
1
5.9
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
I1E AN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
NJHVCP
10.3785
5.56348
30.9523
1.60604
53.6056
NJTRIHTP
9.67550
3.52137
12.4000
0.880342
36.3947
NJVINCP
7.49542
2.68072
7.18624
0.670179
35.7647
NJBENETP
6.99154
2.76576
7.64940
0.691439
39.5586
NJTOLP
9.37643
3.29599
10.8636
0.823999
35.1519
NJNOCTP
1.04136
0.606916
0.368347
0.151729
58.2810
NJCHLBNP
2.59670
4.49158
20.1743
1.12290
172.972
NJETBENP
1.80710
0.748218
0.559830
0.187054
41.4043
NJMPXYLP
6.80058
2.66041
7.07777
0.665102
39.1203
NJNNONP
1.18406
0.670817
0.449996
0.167704
56.6542
NJSTYP
5.52734
2.55167
6.51101
0.637917
46.1645
NJ4ETT0P
3.97014
1.94074
3.76646
0.485184
48.8833
NJNDECP
2.99426
2.73464
7.47825
0.683660
91.3295
NJUNDECP
4.65544
5.79857
33.6235
1.44964
124.555
NJDIFLUP
1.72551
0.814618
0.663602
0.257605
47.2103
NJCHLFOP
0.445453
0.226508
0.0513059
0.101297
50.8499
NJTRICHP
1.20802
0.693606
0.481090
0.173402
5T.41bt
NJCARTEP
0.262863
0.116238
0.0135112
0.0290594
44.21<^
NJTRCHEP
0.183266
0.141622
0.0200567
0.0535279
NJTETETP
0.789450
0.284470
0.0809233
0.071 1175
36.' 134i i
NJTETCHLP
0.313859
0.182857
0.0334366
0.0609523
5: .2^!|Q
-------
SUTKR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL MONITORING LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
NJBLTTD1P
6.54242
4.16180
17.3206
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
NJHVCP
4.18926
22.8256
18.6364
NJTRIMTP
4.23985
17.3335
13.0937
NJVINCP
4.54364
14.0095
9.46591
NJBENETP
2.68791
11.7165
9.02862
NJTOLP
5.65673
17.2358
11.5790
NJNOCTP
0.475562
3.04188
2.56632
NJCHLBNP
0.176960
17.9351
17.7581
NJETBENP
0.753668
3.27281
2.51914
NJMPXYLP
2.90404
11.7314
8.82736
NJNNONP
0.289992
2.78545
2.49546
NJSTYP
1.81146
11.0191
9.20767
NJ4ETT0P
0.730843
8.00059
7.26975
NJNDECP
0.613986
9.97512
9.36113
NJUNDECP
0.471209
23.9518
23.4806
NJDIFLUP
0.985600
3.56192
2.57632
NJCHLFOP
0.0914192
0.721514
0.630095
NJTRICHP
0.675034
3.30180
2.62676
NJCARTEP
0.105471
0.467701
0.362230
NJTRCHEP
0.0540506
0.467817
0.413766
NJTETETP
0.311353
1.46675
1.15540
NJTETCHLP
0. i08901
0.660406
0.551504
NJBUTDIP
2.11978
14.9517
12.8320
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEUNESS
NJHVCP
8.18277
NONE
1.06453
NJTRIMTP
8.98742
NONE
0.608621
NJVINCP
6.86594
9.81930
1.07200
NJBENETP
7.69093
NONE
0.0382606
NJTOLP
9.18886
NONE
0.838687
NJNOCTP
0.922204
NONE
2.34021
NJCHLBNP
0.769579
NONE
2.73310
NJETBENP
1.72860
NONE
0.533517
NJMPXYLP
6.99505
NONE
0.242496
NJNNONP
1.01783
NONE
0.999752
NJSTYP
5.76801
6.41412
0.401934
NJ4ETT0P
4.27512
NONE
0.0880395
STO ERROR COEFF OF
OF HEAN VARIATION
1.04045 63.6125
TOTAL
124.543
154.808
119.927
111.865
150.023
16.6618
41.5473
28.9136
108.809
18.9449
88.4374
63.5222
47.9081
74.4870
17.2551
2.22727
19.3284
4.20581
1.28286
12.6312
2.82473
104.679
KURTOSIS
3.09930
2.62414
3.32931
1.83198
3.05473
8.55930
9.75621
2.48175
2.52760
3.38533
2.38617
2.69344
-------
SUTTER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DATA COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL MONITORING LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
NJNOECP
1.84024
NJUNDECP
3.34230
NJDIFLUP
1.52900
NJCHLFOP
0.471444
NJTRICHP
0.980451
NJCARTEP
0.240214
NJTRCHEP
0.157679
NJTETETP
0.723048
- HAS MULTIPLE MOOES
NJTETCHLP 0.275534
NJBUTDIP 5.47217
NONE 1.53721 4.03812
3.36578 2.51104 8.86049
NONE 1.25880 3.58465
NONE -0.556915 2.55569
NONE 2.06595 6.41125
NONE 0.517094 2.05363
NONE 1.21087 3.41502
0.684682 0.813581 3.73212
NONE 0.637075 2.37178
NONE 0.486596 1.96569
Varible Name:
NJVCP • VINYL CHLORIDE NJTRIMTP • TRICHLOROFLUORONETHANE
NJVINCP - VINYIIDENE CHLORIDE NJDIHETP - DICHOLOROflETHANE
NJBENEETP - 8ENZENEVI,2-DICHLOROETHANE NJTOLP » TOLUENE
NJNOCTP • N-OCTANE NJCHLBNP • CHLOROBENZENE
NJETBENP • ETHYLBENZENE NJHPXYLP - M/P-XYLENE
NJNNONOP » N-NONANE NJSTYP - STYRENE
NJ4ETTOLP - 4-ETHYLTOULENE NJNOECP - N-DECANE
NJUNDECP - N-UNDECANE
NJDIFLUP » DICHLOROOIFLUOROMETHANE NJCHLFOP ¦ CHLOROFORM
NJTRICHP - I,I.I-TRICHLOROETHANE NJCNJTEP - CNJBON TETRACHLORIDE
NJTRCHEP - TRICHLOROETHENE NJTETETP ¦ TETRACHLOROETHENE
NJTETCHLP- I.1.2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE NJBUTDIP - 2-CHLORO-I.3-BUTADIENE
-------
WINTER VOLATILE ORGANIC COHPOUNDS COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HON ITOR I KG LOCATION
»*» DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »**
THERE ARE 6 VARIABLES AND 23 CASES [N THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
ARWBENZP
18
5
21.7
ARWETBEP
5
18
78.3
ARWOXYLP
10
13
56.5
ARW4ETTP
9
14
60.9
ARWTOLUP
20
3
13.0
ARMPXYLP
20
3
13.0
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STO.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
ARWBENZP
3.58889
3.82805
14.6540
0.902281
106.664
ARWETBEP
0.560000
0.403733
0.163000
0.180555
72.0951
ARWOXYLP
0.700000
0.352767
0.124444
0.111555
50.3953
ARW4ETTP
2.96667
3.47815
12.0975
1.15938
117.241
ARWTOLUP
5.23500
7.70367
59.3466
1.72259
147.157
ARMPXYLP
3.87500
7.03584
49.5030
1.57326
181.570
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
ARWBENZP
0.400000
13.6000
13.2000
64.6000
ARWETBEP
0.00000
1.00000
1.00000
2.80000
ARWOXYLP
0.300000
1.40000
1.10000
7.00000
ARW4ETTP
0.00000
9.10000
9.10000
26.7000
ARWTOLUP
0.300000
34.1000
33.8000
104.700
ARMPXYLP
0.200000
23,9000
23.7000
77.5000
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
NODE
SKEWNESS
KURTOSIS
ARWBENZP
2.05000
NONE
1.59582
4.47095
ARWETBEP
0.500000
HONE
-0.235471
1.76260
ARWOXYLP
0.650000
0.300000
0.688324
2.60523
- HAS MULTIPLE MODES
ARW4ETTP
1.10000
0.400000
0.863455
2.19569
ARWTOLUP
2.60000
4.30000
2.87099
11.1275
ARMPXYLP
1.10000
0.600000
2.38024
7.09526
VARIABLE NAME:
ARWBENZP - 8ENZENE
ARUOXYLP - O-XYLENE
ARWTOLUP - TOULENE
« NOTE
ARWETBEP » ETHYLBENZENE
ARW4ETTP - 4-ETHYLTOULENE
ARMPXYLP =¦ IVP-XYIENE
NOT DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDERED MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE Of THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
MINTER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HONITORING LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS •«
THERE ARE 6 VARIABLES AND 42 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN PP8/V
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
AUUBENZP
34
8
19.0
AUWETBEP
13
29
69.0
AUUOXYLP
24
18
42.9
AUH4ETTP
19
23
54.8
AUUTOLUP
38
4
9.5
AUMPXYLP
37
5
11.9
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
AUUBENZP
3.70882
4.86854
23.7026
0.834947
131.269
AUHETBEP
0.823077
0.648272
0.420256
0.179798
78.7620
AUUOXYLP
0.858333
0.657344
0.432101
0.134180
76.5838
AUU4ETTP
2.93158
4.36756
19.0756
1.00199
148.983
AUUTOLUP
8.51842
13.8721
192.436
2.25035
162.848
AUMPXYLP
5.38378
10.5487
111.275
1.73419
195.934
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
AUUBENZP
0.300000
26.3000
26.0000
126.100
AUUETBEP
0.200000
2.60000
2.40000
10.7000
AUUOXYLP
0.200000
3.10000
2.90000
20.6000
AUU4ETTP
0.00000
18.3000
18.3000
55.7000
AUUTOLUP
0.400000
78.0000
77.6000
323.700
AUMPXYLP
0.500000
58.3000
57.8000
199.200
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
AUUBENZP
2.30000
0.700000
3.23057
14.8800
- HAS MULTIPLE
MODES
AUHETBEP
0.600000
0.300000
1.63759
5.34748
- HAS MULTIPLE
MODES
AUUOXYLP
0.700000
0.400000
1.72219
6.55966
AUU4ETTP
1.30000
0.400000
2.50463
9.16789
AUUTOLUP
3.65000
0.900000
3.65227
17.9141
- HAS MULTIPLE
MODES
AUMPXYLP
1.50000
1.20000
3.80023
18.5430
VARIABLE NAHE:
AUUBENZP ¦ BENZENE AUHETBEP - ETHYLBENZENE
AUUOXYLP ¦ O-XYLENE AUU4ETTP - 4-ETHYLT0ULENE
AUUTOLUP • TOULENE AUMPXYLP « H/P-XYLENE
» NOTE
NOT DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDERED MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALiSIS.
-------
H INTER VOLATILE ORGANIC COflPOUNDS COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL HONITORING LOCATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 6 VARIABLES AND 23 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN PPB/V
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
NJHBENZP
19
4
17.4
NJHETBEP
6
17
73.9
NJHOXYLP
16
7
30.4
NJH4ETTP '
11
12
52.2
NJHTOLUP
19
4
17.4
NJMPXYLP
20
3
13.0
STD ERROR COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
NJHBENZP
2.98421
2.59856
6.75251
0.596151
87.0770
NJHETBEP
0.766667
0.771146
0.594667
0.314819
100.584
NJHOXYLP
0.818750
0.759139
0.576292
0.189785
92.7192
NJH4ETTP
1.39091
1.72653
2.98091
0.520569
124.130
NJHTOLUP
4.30526
3.72983
13.9116
0.855682
86.6342
NJMPXYLP
3.06000
3.52874
12.4520
0.789050
115.318
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
NJHBENZP
0.600000
8.90000
8.30000
56.7000
NJHETBEP
D.00000
2.20000
2.20000
4.60000
NJHOXYLP
0.200000
3.00000
2.80000
13.1000
NJH4ETTP
0.00000
4.80000
4.80000
15.3000
NJHTOLUP
0.800000
15.6000
14.8000
81.8000
NJMPXYLP
0.400000
11.7000
11.3000
61.2000
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEHNESS
KURTOSIS
NJHBENZP
2.20000
0.600000
1.26504
3.37667
- HAS MULTIPLE
MOOES
NJHETBEP
0.500000
0.500000
1.15597
3.12014
NJHOXYLP
0.550000
0.400000
1.84558
5.55584
NJH4ETTP
0.500000
0.300000
1.12530
2.62552
- HAS MULTIPLE
MODES
NJHTOLUP
3.80000
NONE
1.67186
5.57881
NJMPXYLP
1.25000
0.500000
1.46954
3.68701
- HAS MULTIPLE MODES
VARIABLE NAME:
NJHBENZP - BENZENE
NJHOXYLP • O-XYLENE
NJHTOLUP • TOULENE
NJHETBEP - ETHYLBENZENE
NJW4ETTP = 4-ETHYLTOULENE
NJMPXYLP = M/P-XYLENE
« NOTE
NOT DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDERED HISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PDF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT "THE ARVAOA MONITORING LOCATION
*•* DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS »»•
THERE ARE 12 VARIABLES AND 7 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN ng/m3. 24 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
ARNAPU
7
0
0.0
ARPHENU
7
0
0.0
ARANTHRU
1
6
85.7
ARFLUORU
5
2
28.6
ARPYRENU
3
4
57.1
ARCHRYU
1
6
85.7
ARACENU
4
3
42.9
ARCENAPU
6
1
14.3
ARFLUREU
5
2
28.6
ARQUINU
1
6
85.7
ARISOQU
1
6
85.7
AR9FLUOU
1
6
85.7
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
ARNAPU
983.532
259.102
67134.1
97.9315
26.3441
ARPHENU
76.3869
23.6586
559.728
8.94210
30.9720
ARANTHRU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ARFLUORH
27.2708
7.13191
50.8642
3.18949
26.1522
ARPYRENU
32.6277
8.70886
75.8443
5.02807
26.6917
ARCHRYU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ARACENU
21.7631
15.1407
229.242
7.57037
69.5708
ARCENAPU
75.7296
67.4796
4553.50
27.5485
89.1061
ARFLUREU
33.5007
20.7097
428.891
9.26165
61.8186
ARQUINU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000,
0.00000
0.00000
ARISOQU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
AR9FLUOU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
VARIABLE
mini nun
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
ARNAPU
523.689
1413.94
890.255
6884.72
ARPHENU
'42.1763
121.892
79.7155
534.708
ARANTHRU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ARFLUORU
20.9052
38.3088
17.4036
136.354
ARPYRENU
24.4593
41.7915
17.3322
97.8830
ARCHRYU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ARACENU
0.00000
34.8020
34.8020
87.0523
ARCENAPU
0.00000
184.579
184.579
454.377
ARFLUREU
0.00000
55.7219
55.7219
167.504
ARQUINU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ARISOQU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
AR9FLUOU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL POF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE ARVADA HONITORINC LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE MEDIAN
ARNAPW 1003.05
ARPHENH 73.0842
ARANTHRH MISSING
ARFLUORH 28.0574
ARPYRENH 31.6322
ARCHRYH MISSING
ARACENH 26.1252
MODE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
NONE
-0.180342
3.41013
NONE
0.729402
3.51395
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
0.645129
2.18245
NONE
0.207241
1.50000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
-0.870077
2.15374
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEHNESS
KURTOSIS
ARCENAPH
54.2338
NONE
0.640105
2.12024
ARFLUREH
38.6616
NONE
-0.816100
2.56318
ARQUINU
MISSING
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
ARISOQW
MISSING
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
AR9FLUOH
MISSING
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
VARIABLE NAME:
ARNAPU - NAPTHALENE
ARFLUORH - FLUORANTHENE
ARACENH • ACENAPHTHENE
AROUINU • QUINOLINE
ARPHENH ¦ PHENANTHRENE
ARPYRENH - PYRENE
ARCENAPH « ACENAPTHYLEI
ARISOQH ¦ ISOQUINOLINE
ARANTHRH - ANTHRACENE
ARCHRYU - CHRYSENE
ARFLUREH - FLUORENE
AR9FLUOW - 9-FLUORENONE
* NOTE
SUMMER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS HAS NOT PERFORMED. ONLY TWO INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES HERE PERFORMED
FOR THE SUMMER DATA. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES HAS NOT PERFORMED.
NON DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDER MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PUF SAflPLCS COLLECTED AT THE AURASIA MONITORING LOCATION DURING THE AH.
DESCRIPTIVE
THERE ARE 12 VARIABLES AND
VALUES ARE IN ng/m3. 7 HR
STATISTICS —*
9 CASES IN THE DATA SET
CONCENTRATIONS
VALID NUMBER
VARIABLE CASES HISSING X MISSING
AUNAPH 9 0 0.0
AUPHENH 8 I 11.1
AUANTHRW 2 7 77.8
AUFLUORW 7 2 22.2
AUPYRENH 8 I II.I
AUCHRYH I 8 88.9
AUACENU 3 6 66.7
AUCENAPU 4 5 55.6
AUFLUREW 3 6 66.7
AUQUINU I 8 88.9
AUISOOU 2 7 77.6
AU9FLU0U 4 S 55.6
VARIABLE
AUNAPU
AUPHENH
AUANTHRW
AUFLUORU
AUPYRENH
AUCHRYU
AUACENU
AUCENAPU
AUFLUREW
AUQUINU
AUISOOU
AU9FLUOW
MEAN
1069.35
80.5676
4.92247
21.7309
20.5795
0.00000
35.5115
53.4279
50.0438
0.00000
5.44959
17.3228
STD.DEV.
688.456
48.2215
6.96143
12.6921
12.1935
0.00000
36.9989
46.6761
43.3566
0.00000
7.70689
11.6066
VARIANCE
473972
2325.32
48.4614
161.090
148.662
0.00000
1368.92
2173.66
1879.79
0.00000
59.3961
134.713
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
229.485
17.0489
4.92247
4.79718
4.31106
0.00000
21.3613
23.3381
25.0319
0.00000
5.44959
5.80329
VARIABLE
AUNAPU
AUPHENU
AUANTHRW
AUFLUORU
AUPYRENH
AUCHRYU
AUACENU
AUCENAPU
AUFLUREH
AUQUINU
AUISOOU
AU9FLU0U
MINIMUM
297.796
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
MAXIMUM
2399.70
147.674
9.84494
36.9185
36.9185
0.00000
73.8371
110.756
76.2943
0.00000
10.8992
24.6124
RANGE
2101.91
147.674
9.84494
36.9185
36.9185
0.00000
73.8371
110.756
76.2943
0.00000
10.8992
24.6124
TOTAL
9624.18
644.541
9.84494
152.116
164.636
0.00000
106.535
213.712
150.131
0.00000
10.8992
69.2914
COEFF OF
VARIATION
64.3806
59.8523
141.421
58.4060
59.2506
0.00000
104.188
87.3627
86.6373
0.00000
141.421
67.0015
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PUT S/UPLES COLLECTED AT TIC AURARIA MONITORING LOCATION DURING THE AN.
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE MEDIAN
AUNAPU 951.546
AUPHENU 70.8615
AUANTHRU 4.92247
AUFLUORH 23.3945
AUPYRENH 22.5965
AUCHRYU HISSING
AUACENU 32.6975
MODE
SKEHNESS
KURTOSIS
NONE
0.695720
2.48179
NONE
-0.135755
2.15672
NONE
0.00000
1.00000
NONE
-0.503403
2.32990
NONE
-0.243600
2.19003
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
0.138916
1.50000
VARIABLE MEDIAN
AUCENAPW 51.4781
AUFLUREU 73.8371
AUQUINH MISSING
AUI SOON 5.44959
AU9FLU0U 22.3395
MODE
SKEHNESS
KURTOSIS
NONE
0.127221
1.78217
NONE
-0.704553
1.50000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
I.286220E-I2
1.00000
NONE
-1.11998
2.30770
VARIABLE NAME:
AUNAPH » NAPTHALENE
AUFLUORH - FLUORANTHENE
AUACENU - ACENAPHTHENE
AUQUINH - QUINOLINE
» NOTE
AUPHENH - PHENANTHRENE
AUPYRENU - PYRENE
AUCENAPW - ACENAPTHYLENE
AUISOOW - ISOQUINOLINE
AUANTHRU » ANTHRACENE
AUCHRYU • CHRYSENE
AUFLUREU - FLUORENE
AU9FLU0W - 9-FLUORENONE
SUMMER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS UAS NOT PERFORMED. ONLY TWO INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES UERE PERFORMED
FOR THE SUMMER DATA. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES UAS NOT PERFORMED.
NON DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDERED MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PUF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT Ttff AURARIA HONITORI KG LOCATION DURING THE PH.
«Ht DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
THERE ARE 12 VARIABLES AND 9 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN ng/m3. 17 HR CONCENTRATIONS
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
AUNAPWP
9
0
0.0
AUPHENUP
9
0
0.0
AUANTHRUP
5
4
44.4
AUFLUORHP
e
1
II.1
AUPYRENHP
7
2
22.2
AUCHRYHP
5
4
44.4
AUACENUP
3
6
66.7
AUCENAPUP
9
0
0.0
AUFLUREHP
4
5
55.6
AUOUINUP
2
7
77.8
AUISOOHP
1
8
88.9
AU9FLUOWP
5
4
44.4
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
AUNAPHP
1244.63
716.595
513508
238.865
57.5751
AUPHENUP
91.1391
66.5786
4432.72
22.1929
73.0517
AUANTHRUP
16.2495
17.6047
309.925
7.87305
108.206
AUFLUORUP
18.0726
7.08967
50.2634
2.50658
39.2289
AUPYRENHP
23.7261
18.4615
340.829
6.97781
77.8111
AUCHRYUP
8.04567
5.70746
32.5751
2.55246
70.9383
AUACENUP
110.882
167.165
27944.1
96.5126
150.759
AUCENAPUP
87.5773
63.8348
4074.88
21.2783
72.8896
AUFLUREHP
66.9232
73.6793
5428.64
36.8397
110.095
AUOUINUP
84.7806
119.898
14375.5
84.7806
141.421
AUISOOUP
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
AU9FLUOHP
12.0184
7.52963
56.6953
3.36735
62.6510
VARIABLE
m N1 MUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
AUNAPUP
546.584
2738.67
2192.09
11201.6
AUPHENUP
33.9592
241.496
207.537
820.252
AUANTHRUP
0.00000
46.2440
46.2440
81.3477
AUFLUORHP
9.70261
25.1724
15.4698
144.581
AUPYRENUP
0.00000
56.5204
56.5204
166.083
AUCHRYHP
0.00000
14.9068
14.9068
40.2284
AUACENUP
0.00000
303.155
303.155
332.646
AUCENAPUP
14.9068
205.529
190.622
788.196
AUFLUREHP
19.4052
174.699
155.294
267.693
AUOUINUP
0.00000
169.561
169.561
169.561
AUISOOHP
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
AU9FIUOWP
0.00000
19.6609
19.6609
60.0919
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PUF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE AURARIA HON I TOR ING LOCATION DURING THE PH.
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEWNESS
KURTOSIS
AUNAPWP
906.208
NONE
0.982323
2.98303
AUPHENWP
95.6552
NONE
1.27878
3.90471
AUANTHRWP
10.2891
NONE
1.13567
2.86322
AUFLUORUP
20.2414
NONE
-0.305661
1.31348
AUPYRENHP
24.8447
NONE
0.575311
2.56646
AUCHRYWP
10.0690
NONE
-0.311745
1.92504
AUACENHP
29.4913
NONE
0.682428
1.50000
VARIABLE MEDIAN
AUCENAPWP 69.6656
AUFLUREHP 36.7941
AUQUINUP 84.7806
AUISOQWP MISSING
AU9FLU0HP 14.9283
MODE
SKEWNESS
KURTOSIS
NONE
0.675048
2.33975
NONE
0.996912
2.18827
NONE
0.00000
1.00000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
-0.806977
2.38159
VARIABLE NAME:
AUNAPHP - NAPTHALENE
AUFLUORUP - FLUORANTHENE
AUACENWP - ACENAPHTHENE
AUQUINUP • QUINOLINE
AUPHENWP ¦ PHENANTHRENE
AUPYRENHP - PYRENE
AUCENAPWP - ACENAPTHYLEI
AUISOQHP • ISOQUINOLINE
AUANTHRHP - ANTHRACENE
AUCHRYWP - CHRYSENE
AUFLUREHP - FLUORENE
AU9FLU0WP ¦ 9-FLUORENONE
« NOTE
SUMMER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS HAS NOT PERFORMED. ONLY TUO INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED
FOR THE SUMMER DATA. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES WAS NOT PERFORMED.
NON DETECTABLE SAMPLES WERE CONSIDER MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PDF SAHPLES COLLECTED AT THE NATIONAL JEWISH HOSIPITAL MONITORING LOCATION
»•» DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS «*»
THERE ARE 12 VARIABLES AND 8 CASES IN THE DATA SET
VALUES ARE IN pg/m3. 24 HR CONCENTRATIONS.
VALID
NUMBER
VARIABLE
CASES
MISSING
% MISSING
NJNAPU
8
0
0.0
NJPHENH
8
0
0.0
NJANTHRU
4
4
50.0
NJFLUORH
8
0
0.0
NJPYRENU
8
0
0.0
NJCHRYU
4
4
50.0
NJACENU
2
6
75.0
NJCENAPU
7
1
12.5
NJFLUREU
5
3
37.5
NJOUINU
1
7
87.5
NJISOQU
1
7
87.5
NJ9FLUOU
6
2
25.0
STD ERROR
COEFF OF
VARIABLE
MEAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
OF MEAN
VARIATION
NJNAPU
907.357
426.481
181886
150.784
47.0025
NJPHENH
51.9618
27.5078
756.681
9.72549
52.9385
NJANTHRU
10.4382
6.75870
45.6800
3.37935
64.7494
NJFLUORU
14.8849
5.82781
33.9634
2.06044
39.1526
NJPYRENU
17.0642
5.95866
35.5057
2.10671
34.9190
NJCHRYU
6.14984
1.73880
3.02344
0.869402
28.2740
NJACENU
54.8697
77.5975
6021.36
54.8697
141.421
NJCENAPU
60.9959
28.9855
840.160
10.9555
47.5204
NJFLUREU
34.0733
25.3599
643.127
11.3413
74.4276
NJOUINU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
NJISOQU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
NJ9FLUOU
9.40195
2.84984
8.12)61
1.16344
30.3112
VARIABLE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
TOTAL
NJNAPU
333.560
1558.79
1225.23
7258.86
NJPHENU
25.1067
113.169
88.0620
415.695
NJANTHRU
7.00599
20.5761
13.5701
41.7530
NJFLUORU
7.17334
24.7990
17.6256
119.079
NJPYRENU
7.17334
24.0055
16.8321
136.514
NJCHRYU
3.54271
7.08541
3.54271
24.5994
NJACENU
0.00000
109.739
109.739
109.739
NJCENAPU
13.7363
99.1958
85.4595
426.972
NJFLUREU
17.5150
78.8752
61.3602
170.366
NJOUINU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
NJISOQU
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
NJ9FLUOU
3.58667
10.6281
7.04145
56.4117
-------
WINTER INDIVIDUAL PUF SAMPLES COLLECTED AT TW NATIONAL JEWISH HOSIPITAL HONITOR I NO LOCATION
(CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
MEDIAN
MODE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
NJNAPU
774.435
NONE
0.430042
2.02180
NJPHENU
45.7971
NONE
1.46412
4.22094
NJANTHRU
7.08541
7.08541
1.15459
2.33325
NJFLUORU
14.0507
NONE
0.418903
2.13291
NJPYRENU
19.3046
NONE
-0.559547
1.91982
NJCHRYU
6.98562
NONE
-1.15184
2.33116
NJACENU
54.8697
NONE
0.00000
1.00000
VARIABLE MEDIAN
NJCENAPW 63.0539
NJFLUREH 24.3784
NJQUINU MISSING
NJISOQU MISSING
NJ9FLU0H 10.5605
MODE
SKEUNESS
KURTOSIS
NONE
-0.375803
2.18417
NONE
1.40840
3.12866
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
NONE
0.00000
0.00000
10.6281
-1.78619
4.19519
VARIABLE NAME:
NJNAPU - NAPTHALENE
NJFLUORU - FLUORANTHENE
NJACENU • ACENAPHTHENE
NJQUINU - QUINOLINE
NJPHENU • PHENANTHRENE
NJPYRENU - PYRENE
NJCENAPH • ACENAPTHYLENE
NJISOQU - ISOOUINOLINE
NJANTHRU - ANTHRACENE
NJCHRYU • CHRYSENE
NJFLUREH ¦ FLUORENE
NJ9FLUOU - 9-FLUORENONE
» NOTE
SUMMER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS UAS NOT PERFORMED. ONLY TUO INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES HERE PERFORMED
FOR THE SUMMER DATA. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES HAS NOT PERFORMED.
NON DETECTABLE SAMPLES HERE CONSIDERED MISSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
-------
APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING IEMP DATA COLLECTION
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Phone (303) 320-8333
Snm»f
Governor
Thoma* M. Vernon, M.O
Executive Director
December 20, 1988
Mark Komp
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
Dear Mark:
This letter is to inform you of changes that have been made to
the IEMP aldehyde results. All of these changes stem from errors
in the standard concentration values used for calculating the
microgram amounts and affect all formaldehyde values and some
acetone values. All floppy disks given to you with a '12/14/88'
date on them are correct and any previous disks should be erased.
For formaldehyde, it was found that a standard concentration
value based on a 100% solution was used when in actuality a 37%
formaldehyde solution was being used. Thus, in the updated disks,
all formaldehyde values have been multiplied by 0.37 to adjust
for this error.
For acetone, it was found that the results for the last third of
summer and all of winter were put on an old form where the
standard concentration value was off by a factor of 10. Thus, in
the updated disks, the standard concentration has been corrected
which results in dividing the affected acetone values by 10.00.
These errors were found during meetings and talks between the
Colorado Department of Health (CDH) and the University of
Colorado-Denver (UCD). Dr. Larry Anderson and Chuck Machovek of
UCD have been performing aldehyde monitoring since December 1987,
but were coming up with values and formaldehyde/acetaldehyde
ratios significantly different than what CDH were getting. After
a sample swap and corrections on both sides, a meeting was held
on December 12, 1988 between CDH and UCD with the results now
-------
appearing to be cooparable. Pending another sample swap in the
near future, CDH is fairly confident that all IEMP aldehyde data
on floppy disks dated '12/14/88' are correct.
Sincerely,
Gordon E. Pierce
Air Pollution Control Specialist
cc. Frank Rogers, CDH-APCD
Allan Dunhill, CDH-APCD
William Basbagill, EPA
Dr. Larry Anderson, UCD
Chuck Machovec, UCD
Dr. John Lanning, UCD
Ron Ragazzi, CDH-APCD
W.P. 2.2a
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Phone (303) 320-3333
Rov Romer
November 22, 1988 Governor
Thomas M. Vernon. M.D
Executive Director
Mark Komp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Dear Mark:
As per your request, I have looked at the IEMP Aldehyde data in
order to determine if the acetone values are valid or not. From
what I have found, I believe that the summer acetone values are
rather suspect due to the high lab and field blank values. However,
the winter values are probably good as the lab and field blank
values are much lower. The main reason for the change from summer
to winter is that our lab had an acetone source in the summer
causing a fairly major contamination of our samples. By winter,
Noel had managed to remove this source.
Presented below are averages of the raw analysis numbers for
acetone as well as the percent values of the field and lab blanks.
All analysis numbers are in unit-less peak areas which are
independent of sampling time or flowrate. The reason for using peak
areas rather than microgram-per—cubic-meter values is that the
sample peak areas and the field blank peak areas are corrected for
the lab blank area before conversion to a microgram value.
Snimnpr Winter
Samples:
Minimum 440 6
Maximum 5590 3666
Average 2086 1170
Number of samples 123 146
Field Blanks:
Minimum 126 10
Maximum 4094 29
Average 1409 18.5
Lab blanks (max): 463 29
*** All values are in peak area units ***
-------
Siinmpr
Winter
Percentages:
Avg. Field Blank/Avg.
Sample
67.6*
1.6s:
Lab Blank/Avg. Sample
22.2%
2.5*
Avg. Field Blank/Avg.
Sample
58.3S
-0.9%
(Corrected for Lab Blank)
Hopefully these figures will help in deciding if the acetone values
should be included or not. If you have any questions on these
numbers or other items, just give me a call.
Sincerely,
Gordon E. Pierce
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIH
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
Ref: 8AT-AP
life 5
Mr Robert K. Stevens
U.S.EPA, EPA Annex
Alexander Drive
Room 246, MD-47
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Dear Mr. Stevens:
It has been several months since I received your memos dated
22 and 26 August 1988 providing a reply to our request for
assistance in interpreting the fine particulate data collected
during Denver's IEMP program. I must apologize for the delay in
preparing this response to you memos. You will recall that
larger than 2.5 um particulates were suspected of being deposited
on sampling media used in the IEMP air monitoring study to
delineated the composition and concentration of fine particulates
(<_ 2.5 um size range). Concern regarding this problem centered
on the question of the effectiveness of the impactor device used
to prevent the larger size particulates (>_ 2.5 um size range)
from being deposited on the sampling media. At this time, I
wanted to address some of the issues you raised in your memos.
After several conversations with state personnel and from
personal observation, it can be stated with assurance that an
impactor device was always used when the sampling equipment was
operating. You had indicated that several of the glass impactor
devices had been broken but never replaced during the course of
sampling and that this suggested that an impactor may not have
been used during some period of the sampling program. It is true
that some of the impactor devices were not replaced but this was
due to the availability of spare impactors. Admittedly some of
the old styled impactors were used when the availability of the
New styled impactors were in short supply. However, at no time
during the sampling program were impactors not in use.
As you are aware, the particulate sampling devices went
through a series of modifications during the time sampling was
being performed. These modifications to the sampling equipment
were performed at your direction by University Research Glass the
supplier of the equipment. A history of the type of equipment
used during the two sampling periods that comprised the IEMP air
monitoring program has been provided by the State of Colorado and
is attached to this letter. Despite these numerous modifications
-------
it is unlikely that the IEMP contractor operated the equipment
incorrectly since the contractor, as well as EPA Region VIII
personnel, were trained by you during your visit to Denver early
during the IEMP program. EPA personnel monitored the contractors
work during the program ana numerous telephone calls to your
office for updates on the operation of the devices would suggest
that improper operation of the devices did not occur.
In my previous correspondence to your office, data from PM-
10 samplers and the 2.5 um collocated samplers that collected
concurrent particulate data were compared and indicated that fine
particulate mass collected at the monitoring sites often exceeded
the PM-10 mass. This, of course, should not happen since PM-10
samplers are design to allow larger particulate sizes and
therefore more mass to accumulate on its sampling media. An
error was made in the calculation of the total 2.5 um particulate
mass reported for the two sampling sites, Auraria and Arvada.
The incorrect data comparison was presented to you in my
correspondence dated 5 August 1988. The error resulted in the
higher 2.5um particulate mass being reported than actually
occurred. A correct comparison of the two concurrent data bases
are presented as an attachment to this letter for your review.
In your review of the attached data you will note that
during the Summer when only Auraria data was available the
average ratio of 2.5um to PM-10 data was 72%. During the Winter
when data from both sites were available the average ratio was
84%. It also should be noted that during the Winter both sites
showed consistent average ratios in the comparison of 2.5 um to
PM-10 um data. Although the revised comparison shows a "better"
ratio of 2.5 um to PM-10 um there are still individual days when
2.5 um mass was higher than PM-10 um data. In addition,
particulate data collected by the Denver Brown Cloud Study during
the same Winter period suggests a 2.5 um to PM-10 um particulate
ratio between 40 and 60 percent. The Brown Cloud ratio is more
consistent with similar particulate data comparisons that have
been reported in the literature.
Thank you for the numerous technical papers describing
research performed on the type of impactor used in the IEMP
program. After reviewing these papers it is unclear where the
discrepancy lies in the performance of the impactor during the
IEMP program and during the controlled tests described in the
papers you provided. Perhaps the difference lies in the length
of time that the impactors operated in the tests compared to the
time frame that they were used in the field during the IEMP air
monitoring program. I agree with you in the opinion that the
discrepancy will not be fully resolved until field tests with the
equipment can be performed in Denver.
Until such test are initiated, we both agree, based on
previous phone conversations that the interpretation of the data
2
-------
should be caveated to reflect the bias indicated in the 2.5 urn
data. This bias will be described within the context of the data
report now being prepared for the IEMP air monitoring program.
Should ycu have additional questions please contact me at (303)
293-1768.
Enclosures:
cc:
Larry Svoboda
Ken Lloyd
Wm. Basbagill
Very Truly "
Mark Komp
3
-------
DemtP££ / Phi-z-5 e.£Ru.i pm£.nt
2-l~7 /n^ P^/tlL^c-- tu.L&_.
2-H 2~ D-e.*** wi^l. {lc*J f a. t ^ cl^ •
Z-67 «»m>\ Zf"wtX-C wtib. £ }o*J } t r «. iJ /Vz1 W J ""y0 "•'*1/
1 /r\ o^c,tot~ UJ~.
™ IDO £l\ork jAL^fOd. (l Fio*J. ftra.'ij b.t«.K<-r .0 Witt f/e+j
jbratajh.bej\<-r- a*i<£ //npo-t-fcor bo/t/t-r.
l-p;e«. Cou uLt wt^l\ b\*.'l£ r-v j )«¦*"_/ \ o f~
._.... (for u#-c \s/itL P* or £) .
•euu .^;/,"J ;«kt (fe r uf-e- -vj'i th C or D^) .
.Filter . . Pa.i.k. . . .
A\JfilL.A 13,/utTy pfi TE.S fa.//..
_ o.f>jc>rox• r»
. Pr«. - April_J 127.. 5 /W«y 1927 .
- Affil - I9&7 £-r\«Z of
h-a-r /?S7 O of ,£f"tKjJy
^¦e-p t-e-m. b-e-r- /92> 7 ^ £-n^ c f $t\xJy
Pr*. - Apr',I 1927 . ¦> August .1137 _
£*.pt-Z**.bes- /?8 7 "-> £-n itu/y
Pr«..-^;/ /?57 > £**/ of .
-------
I;R /
<5/
PADMASTI;
Mud* in USA
I
I
! 1I7.M
PEVUPCK.
TUP E-
FIUTER. PACK
X4Z I
rn&e-
<§>
V ^ 7
pt/JJDER.
tube.
©
-2
e
~ |OOn».
i JHeflT ('. flovJ
JTR/J/4/I r£fjK'? ) je.LTIOH
WPALTOR*
H£>t-D£«_
ffo/" TElFL^aJ /ctroMi' c.
1-f/E-ce.
C'olp JT7LE")
ISll-E-T
Bitlt-T-/M
//Wf7KTPI<
IMPACT" tK.
HPLPta. (f,r TEFtJHj/terA^'.l.
ItAPACTO/tf)
r - p»ete .
tT^te'O
IMt-CT"
©
-------
/
L^enw-eL-tri
LL$c-J- Z of £> , 1. of E~ a~\J. 1 c{ Cr
$v>h$h t L o ( A for 1 »f £
t\4.^-J.c.jl for- e.xtret. cu\J- clI^io~^S u.:c
a_ te.(loa flo ia( £treLi^l\t<*\/!_£.•«. «"/* r\crLaJ^-^h te. to/i/K eJlor
Ccl*s<
- 2.-5/5
. \Xi*u/ . 1 of_ E_... a^-jL _ i . £.. «**". a *.r Cm 2£.
Ctl&ij i**.pa.c^torf __ t
Ocrtoi>e.r
P A1 - 2-. 5 0
ILi-e-J. L of £- «-*_
-------
W; n t<^r
u. tLo- f J>
f [Li-e-J, 1 of C y 1 or 2_ *f By 1 of F ouncL 1 o f 6*
I ^-e_r as$e.f*\l/y.
\X?e.. a.£ ^ rt-c[
for- *.x.trtK_ . tu-Ljzs .. O^s/. c*J*/tLy£_ \JL/ U. a. Cz-f/e*.
flovu j) b-Csna*- j o^p c-or) n ¦a.c.fo/- 11\ pja_(--*- f
.normi./. baJz^-L t-e. .c,o*T<-c-tor. . ..
l r^p o~C.tort \yJ
-------
All i>Cro~ OAj T of frar^ (Lotu>~ri.
t-e v-e-*\ i. -H-K c-e-p fo<" i *\ t^-e. }u*n*/v\<~r \ o J-
of tL- .
/si tL. p>4Lr~ic> J.;t w O- t o'f t~/_a_ } r* -4*r- f>~*-r 1 • _-..
A/luuJ- th-e— U.iC_ cf_..tL- zLof't FlovJ I OOm.*^).
.. ... . .. Wa.; . r-e-cLu.c.*-
/) .. . .. . _. . . .
_ _ .. *¦) £-kJt. o<~cLz*r fof. . /vu?r^e_ o ^/uw-c. s*.c,t.io*^ wa^t
I tkus. no .
yv^cr-e. 5-S-j\ t ,t... ««.
A> n-g-*1 J-ed; J- of D aur^J. X ©/" F
.... . ^ttL._,l. of E- . _ _
4.//. >as'^ r L*.*^ t^. tv-L*S ft)LC
-------
AURARIA PM 2.5 PR 10 COMPARISON - SUMMER
pmo
SEO.
DATE
CONCENTRATION
PM2.5
PM2.5
(UC/M3)
AVG.
AVC.
%
PH2.5/PM
DAY
COKC.
COKC.
oirr.
RATIO
n-Jun-87
20
24.51
9.63
60.7
0.39
3-Jun-87
23
38.22
22.84
40.2
0.60
f>-Jun-87
26
46.78
17.14
63.4
0.37
9-Jun-87
29
16.05
12.08
24.8
0.75
.'-Jul-87
2
29.06
6.79
76.7
0.23
Jul -87
5
24.58
10.10
58.9
0.41
l-Jul-87
8
38.19
20.37
46.7
0.53
1-Jul-87
II
19.90
7.83
60.7
0.39
1-Jul-B7
14
31.92
13.53
57.6
0.42
?-Jul-87
17
37.01
12.10
67.3
0.33
i-Jul -87
20
43.18
14.50
66.4
0.34
i-Jul-87
23
35.47
20.25
42.9
0.57
i-Aug-B7
10
31.3*)
27.90
II. 1
0.89
i-Aug-87
13
40.72
38.57
5.3
0.95
¦Aug-87
16
29.47
27.59
6.4
0.94
'-Aug-87
19
37. 12
29.12
21.5
0.78
'-Aug-87
22
16.42
13.24
19.3
0.81
¦-Aug-87
25
19.8?
14.02
29.3
0.71
>-Aug-87
28
17.57
21.23
-20.8
1.21
I-Aug-87
31
40.47
43.75
-8.1
1.08
•-Sep-87
3
28.84
44.86
-55.6
1.56
-Sep-87
r.
32.99
34.11
-3.4
1.03
'-Sep-87
9
34.40
41.53
-20.7
1.21
AVG. ALI
AVC. SCO
AVG.PN2.5
31.0
13.9
30.5
26.3
55.5
-1.4
0.72
0.44
1.01
-------
PH 2.5 PN 10 COMPARISONS - WINTER IEHP
PMIO
PM2.5
site/
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
t
PH2.5/PHIC
SAMPLE
DATE
DAY
(ug/nJ)
(ug/m3)
oirr.
RATIO
\RVADA-P
05-Nov-87
S
49.12
37.18
24.3
0.76
\RVADA-P
1l-Nov-67
II
29.72
22.21
25.3
0.75
iRVADA-P
l7-No»-B7
17
25.90
35.06
-35.4
1.35
.RVADA-P
23-Nov-87
23
37.53
39.62
-5.6
1.06
.RVADA-P
28-No»-B7
28
65.96
45.18
31.5
0.68
RVADA-P
29NOV-87
29
63. II
50.66
19.7
0.80
RVADA-P
05-Dec-87
5
34.27
28.90
15.7
0.84
RVADA-P
1l-Dec-87
II
7.36
4.19
43.0
0.57
RVADA-P
I6-Dec-B7
16
77.08
72.86
5.5
0.95
RVADA-P
l7-Dec-87
17
54.01
46.98
13.0
0.B7
RVADA-P
23-Dec-87
23
7.99
7.07
11.5
0.89
RVADA-P
29-Dec-87
29
36.58
34.46
5.B
0.94
RVADA-P
04-Jan-88
4
61.22
49.72
18.8
0.81
RVADA-P
IO-Jan-88
10
21.69
11.03
49.2
0.51
I1VADA-P
I6-Jan-8B
16
38.43
30.05
21.8
0.78
fiVADA-P
22-Jan-80
22
22.33
16.00
28.3
0.72
iVADA-P
28-Jan-88
28
51.02
45.10
11.6
0.88
IVADA-P
03-Feb-88
3
28.82
25.61
II.1
0.89
iVADA-P
09-reb-8B
9
20.88
18.41
11.8
0.88
IVADA-P
15-reb-BS
15
28.20
31.21
-10.7
l.ll
>VADA-P
21-F eb-B8
21
13.68
13.54
1.0
0.99
IVADA-P
25-Feb-88
25
56.66
41.16
27.4
0.73
iVADA-P
27-Eeb-88
27
44.31
46.63
-5.2
1.05
-------
PM 2.5 PM 10 COMPARISONS - UINTER IEHP
PtllO
PM2.5
SHE/
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
%
PM2.5/PHIC
SAMPLE
DATE
DAY
(ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
DIFF.
RATIO
iURARIA
:05-Nnv-l)7
5
80.58
54.63
32.2
0.68
.URARIA
:09-Nov-n7
9
42.91
36.79
14.3
0.86
.URARIA
: 11 -Nov—117
II
30.39
22.31
26.6
0.73
.URARIA
: M-Ntiv-07
M
19.01
18.26
4.0
0.96
.URARIA
: I7-NOV-II7
17
29.88
26.75
10.5
0.90
iURARIA
:20-Nnv-fl7
20
115.14
59.51
48.3
0.52
¦URARIA
:23-N»v-87
23
73.60
45.17
38.6
0.61
URARIA
:27-No*-B7
27
40.06
27.67
30.9
0.69
URARIA
:28-N»v-B7
28
63.16
40.74
35.5
0.65
URARIA
:02-Drc-87
2
58.46
36.93
36.8
0.63
URARIA
:05-0rc-87
5
41.43
27.42
33.8
0.66
URARIA
:08-Dec-87
8
29.26
20.06
31.5
0.69
URARIA
: 1 l-Dec-87
II
12.54
6.28
49.9
0.50
URARIA
:14-Dec-87
14
23.52
26.06
-10.8
1.11
URARIA
: l6-Dec-87
16
116.66
91.73
21.4
0.79
URARIA
:20-Dec-87
20
77.13
66.37
14.0
0.86
URARIA
:23-Dec-87
23
9.64
5.78
40.1
0.60
URARIA
:26-Dec-87
26
13.57
10.85
20.0
0.80
URARIA
:29-Oec-87
29
82.98
86.34
-4.1
1.04
URARIA
:0I-Jan-88
1
72.22
70.82
1.9
0.98
IJRARIA
:04-Jan-88
4
88.09
27.40
68.9
0.31
URARIA
:07-Jan-88
7
74.75
70.79
5.3
0.95
URARIA
: 10-Jan-88
10
20.46
25.44
10.6
0.89
URARIA
: 13-Jan-88
13
88.73
71. 16
19.8
0.80
¦JRAR1A
: 16-Jan-88
16
33.74
27.07
19.8
0.80
URARIA
: l9-Jan-88
19
16.57
17.20
-3.8
1.04
URARIA
: 22-Jan-88
22
29-70
25.38
14.5
0.85
IRARIA
:25-Jan-88
25
23.59
18.31
22.4
0.78
URARIA
:28-Jan-88
28
71.15
54.86
22.9
0.77
IRARIA
: 3 l-Jan-88
31
19.08
22.21
-16.4
1.16
IRARIA
:03-reb-88
3
39.57
40.19
-1.6
1.02
-------
PM 2.5 pn 10 COflPARI SONS - MINTER IEMP
PfllO
PH2.5
SITE/
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
%
PH2.5/PHI0
SAHPLE
DATE
DAY
(ug/nl)
(ug/m3)
oirr.
RATIO
URARIA
06-feb-88
6
54.59
56.51
-3.5
1.04
URARIA
09-Feb-88
9
39.39
43.36
-10.1
i. to
URARIA
12-F eb-88
12
85.16
66.83
21.5
0.78
URARIA
IS-Feb-88
IS
37.82
29.69
21.5
0.78
(IRARIA
18-feb-BB
18
45.14
38.87
13.9
0.B6
URARIA
21 -f eb-00
21
3U. 15
8.42
72.1
0.28
URARIA
24-reb-BB
24
95.64
111.46
-16.5
1.17
URARIA
25-feb-BB
25
59.42
85.77
-44.3
1.44
URARIA
27-f eb-88
27
55.18
56.63
-2.6
1.03
AVC. ALL
46.4
38.6
16.0
0.84
AVG. ARVADA
38.1
32.7
13.9
0.86
AVC. AURARIA
M.2
42.0
17.2
0.83
-------
* A* tj
5 -7 = 1 injiTcr) sTATCC cNv/,DnNN/,cNTAl DQnTCPTiON AGENCY
-, 1 | I—,. ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
% / RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
*1 PROi*- NORTH CAROLINA 2771 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 26, 1988
SUBJECT: Sampling Problems Associated vith
Impactor Inlet Assemblies and Missing
Annular Denuder Data
FROM: Robert K. Stevens
Chief, IPAB
TO:
Mark Komp
Since writing the memo of August 22, 1988 I have secured the missing ADM
data you requested. This data was supplied to me by James Mulik of EMSL and
vas submitted to you on or about the first or second week in April in hard
copy format. Attached is a copy of this ADM data by EMSL at that time they
performed the IC analysis but had not developed a protocol for reducing ADM
data.
Attached is a copy of the packing list from PEI shows the items returned
to URG after the completion of the winter phase of the IEMP study. You will
notice only 2 broken short irapactor-flow straightener components were returned
to URG. This is because PEI had already returned this assembly to URG some
months earlier. Vithout this component fine particle samples cannot be
collected properly. Coupling the one piece impactor to the filter pack is a
solution but not one which we have evaluated and one which we recommend. If
as you told me PEI did replace the impactor-flow straightener section with the
one piece impactor-accelerator jet-elutriator assembly, improper collection
may have occurred. Since we do not recommend this configuration to collect
fine particles, I can only speculate as to how this geometry would impact the
fine particle composition.
Attached is a figure of the fine particle sampler showing the impactor-
flow straightener component. Also enclosed is one of the impactor-flow
straightener components sent back to URG. Notice this one is broken as were
the ones sent back to URG prior to completion of the study.
RKS/sm
Attachments
-------
•f
/-//~
(P/i *-T~J
v^, as^fc. <^7-^„,
irn^ s^>- u>vU-.
<^jU.j44jLAjt4/&^-/£nBL' »-*
Vv £//£&
A
# »
^j/ CfyrMLeflnjJf*
/l—- ^s_—
s^Hjys
^ r/A £v V-^-<—
CLO-tuj>^ /Q^L>las>~^
S/ •
jwcsiJ*. yY&u-
(Ur^^fy^ru/ *L.
&ruj?j£ci0^Y&L.
s4at_* CLssrt&^-f
-------
AUG 22 'S3 10=02 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GLASS
r. 1
University Research Glassware
Scientific Glsuwars for Research and industrial Development
P.O.Bex 388 • 118 Eaat Main Strut • Cirrboro, North Carolina 27S10 • 919-942-2763
August 22, 1988
To:
Robert K. Stevens EMSL
From: Mary Lou Gardner
Subject: PEI orders
I am sending you a copy of the lasc page of the ?EI lease which
includes the description of the equipment leased. Please note that
Chsy leased four of che sets listed. Also, I am sending the two
page packing list they included with the items when returning them
at the end of the lease. This is all of the written documentation
we have concerning the broken items. I hope this will help you in
reconstructing the information you are seeking.
-------
AUG 22 'S3 10:02 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GLASS
C. L2ASE>
1. Cash Price of Equipment S3,717,00 tea.) x A »»:» - filA.858.00
-> Shipping (to be billed aeparately)
3. Monthly Kintal Payment 2)230.00
4. Number of Month* 3 minimum
5. AMOUNT DUE NOW §2,230. 20
D. DESCRIPTION OP EQUIPMENT TO BE LEASEDi
Fine Particle Sampler
1a:h Sit Contiini:
i u*G-2ooa-o; ?un? $:t3oc,oo : > so:. oo
3
"RG-20C0-3G7
Piltar Pack
357.00
1,071,00
3
URG-2000-3 ODD
Impaccor (PEP)
200,00
600.00
1
URG-2OOO-3Q0 3
Tool #3 ¦
26.00
26.00
6
URG-2000¦
• Teflon Pin 03
20,00
120.00
1
URG-2000
Filter box
300.00
300.00
(12" x 8")
$3,717.00
* *
PEI Associates, Inc.
By j
LESSEE
'(AutHori a ad/ Signature)
Stephen W. SchUckman
(Type/Print Nama)
Purchasing Manager
TTitTa)
Ont March 3. 1988
(Data)
125 SOK.i University Riaaarch
Glaaaware
Mary Lou Gardner
(Type/Print Nana)
On t
TlitOi,
ORIGINAL
Atfc a'p tanco
Data
-------
AUG 22 '83 10:03 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GLASS
P A C KI nJ L-iS> i
&o *. ^ I ~'"~~ Pbox. M
&o< ^ 2— \>OX C
Pb&K £ »«*•)
^6>< ^ V Pu**f kox* Ca
^ S ' l?c?<
& OX. & 1 l*e>\
S*43* ^ ———— ^a^.jfUr ..!?*K
^ £ +*\f l*-1~ Irox. (<>**-)
&®*> ^ ^ £.CA,rv«.c,£Vnj Irr-Aj •
/2- ^//fctr- ptLclc} Wi tk C*>-f $ j LfttSf ,
tv*.iL r^yfe*- "f-cl.A.p tors •
Sf-H jJ/«.cfc //"£<- (^or\r\-*.c-tori .
T"/;a. Crt^C) o - r!Ajj .
/2— ITfii'cA Cjr*-y) c " r"'*^3* •
V/^2-^ Tc^/pa /V"i t< / / m^a-c-l^orV •
V^ H Ft it t vW-«-a 1-<-r£, ,
£rlo-i) .> a
-------
AUG ZZ 'S3 10:03 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH GLASS P.4
/ ' N
p^CK/jsJCr L/iT" Cents J
9 ^COA.U^«
lO ^6QoL <\ 01-~ /«- £ •
^ J 00
c/ 2-^2_ A\*t " t ^ £ '
2- r*» AOX-T-V*/ .
£. brok,**. ftlimfb i r~.fa-z.fcor >
LrolcM**. j.
I - 2-/7 .
^/s-/ J hi
-------
J/14/0S
Aurarla P.M. Annular Denuder Staples
Sample I.D.
? 93-17
9348
9349
9350
A9346
C 9427
9428
5429
9430
A9426
Field *
9346
9346
9345
9346
9346
9426
9426
9426
9426
N02
220.65
21.02
2.212
1.50
26.82
Cone, found (ug)
N03
7.90
10.22
218. I
3.271
1.80
12.29
6.836
503
110.39
25.10
504
295.3
51.02
91.51
1.673
88.19
£ 930
40.47
HH4
El .23
i 11
26.57
28.20
9532
9533
9534
9535
A9531
9531
9531
9531
9531
9531
53.43
4.44
1.516
1.916
9.13
1.57
42.94
39.55
140.43
222.8
3.02
22.3
20.89
6. 18
54.52
9607
9608
9609
9610
A9606
9606
9606
9606
9606
9606
88.21
4.73
7.318
4.34
12.10
21.71
154.2
1.85
13.78
1.162
10.23
i 5 r
38. 73
9597
9598
9599
9600
A9396
9596
9596
9596
9596
9596
91.62
14.46
1.241
3.69
25.15
13.10
33.21
90.06
1.97
17.36
1.214
ti.
44.87
i 9717
r 9718
" 9719
7 9720
** A9716
9716
9716
9716
9716
9716
56.55
2.13
1.587
5.58
13.91
4.894
239.1
93.26
1.63
13.41
14.39
36.23
9807
9808
9809
9810
A9806
9802
O-9803
r - 9804
9805
flr- A9801
9806
9806
9806
9806
9801
9801
9801
9801
9801-
56.81
S.03
53.85
6.11
2.191
1.146
5.41
1.965
24.86
4.47
5.722
12.67
71.73
75.74
221.55
1.68
11.56
^51.34 >
213.15
2.87-
9.494
3-1'
30.46
5.33
34.97
9422
9423
9424
9425
A9421
9421
9421
9421
9421
21.24
1.67
8.78
9.166
20.45 60.77
6.596
5.406
31.84
-------
3/14/88
Auraria
Every Day Annular Denuder Samples
Sample 1
9737
3738
3733
9740
A9736
Field *
3736
9736
9736
9736
9736
Cone Found (ug )
N02 N03 S03
7.73 4-16 39-56
1.788
2.116
IS. 64
S04
225.45
3.63
2.827
1.500
NH4
22. 77
9747
9748
5749
9750
A9746
9746
9746
9746
9746
9746
68- 61
3.01
15.74
3.23
55- 73
22.02
153. 15
7 206
154.2
2-72
14.71
38.03
9742
9743
9744
9745
A9741
9772
9773
9774
9775
A9771
9741
9741
9741
9741
9741
9771
9771
9771
9771
9771
73.58
6. 17
10.61
2.045
13.37
2.20
72. 36
11.25
3.60
20.78
8.42
143.67
41.91
134.6
1.48
16.18
5.280
159.45
1.99
69.37
1.848
34.41
22.44
9767
9768
9769
9770
A9766
9766
9766
9766
9766
9766
10.27
.959
3.41
31.33
5.351
43.41
158.7
2.25
6.958
35.49
9832
9833
9834
9835
A9831
9831
9831
9831
9831
9831
2.08
2.27
1.914
4.717
9.10
11.34
.9500
1.746
17.29
9827
9828
9829
9830
A9826
9826
9826
9826
9826
9826
2.88
1.78
2.484
12.81
2.071
19.12
9837
9838
9839
9840
A9836
9836
9836
9836
9836
84.75
1.85
.977
6.38
10.47
19.49
39.56
87.53
10.66
31.40
9777
9778
9779
9780
A9776
9776
9778
9776
9776
9776
60.48
2.81
5.46
16.62
13.49
102.41
94.82
1.81
12.10
2.133
38.58
-------
uMiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AT\*^C?HER!C cC!ENCEc 3ESE
-------
Attached is a paper describing comparisons cf air quality data collected
vith impactor denuder assembly vith data collected simultaneously vith a
cvclone-denuder assembly. In this paper by Vossler no difference was observed
in results for N03" and sulfate measurements made vith the tvo assemblies
equipped with these two different inlets. The elutriator component of the
impactor inlet prevents some of large particles from entering the inlet. The
impactor greased or ungreased removes most of balance of particles >2.5 um in
aerodynamic diameter.
In the letter form DRI in the report you sent to me they observed the
deposit on the fine particle filter was non-uniform. A non-uniform deposit
with this system can only take place when the impactor surface is removed.
Not coating the surfaces properly only allows a few percent of the large
particles to enter the fine particle stream and these particles would be
uniformly deposited on filter downstream of the impactor-inlet assembly.
Based on the above information I conclude the annular denuder system was
operated properly in the IEMP study and represent the true SO , HN03, HN02 and
fine particle sulfate and nitrate' concentrations measured in Denver.
I have examined the PM-10 and fine particle sample mass data from Arvada
and Auraria sites that you sent to me. For the Arvada sites three of the fine
particle mass measurements of the 23 observations exceeded the PM-10 mass.
However, the fine particle samplers at the Auraria site, appear to have
not been operated correctly by the IEMP contractor, and the data cannot be
adjusted to provide reliable information for your study.
However the data from Auraria site is very interesting in that after
August of 1987, the PM-2.5 was always higher than the PM-10 data. Now if the
two samplers were operated in an identical manner then differences between the
masses collected at the tvo sites would not have been so dramatically
different. My conclusions are the impactor assembly was not part of the fine
particle sampler operated at Auraria but probably was part of the sampling
system in Arvada.
Therefore I suggest you send to me several of the fine particle samples
collected between December 1987-Feb. 1988 from both sites for us to examine
and analyze for elemental composition. Ve will need the mass (total yg
collected) flow rate, flow duration, sampling dates, and ug/m3 of mass
measured. Attached is a data sheet which you need to have filled out prior to
our laboratory performing XRF analysis. Also please send the XRF data
obtained by DRI on samples they analyzed so I can determine which samples may
be valid for IEMP.
RKS/sm
Attachment
-------
TYPE I X RHY FLUORESCENCE DATA ENTRY FORM
c
1
2
E
J
LAB/XR
ID
SAMPLE
ID
Mnss UG
site:
NO.
STRRT
STRRT
DURRTION
MINUTES
FLOW
RRTE
L/M
MO
DRY
YR
HOURS
2
e h
IS 20
21 24
25 27
28 30
31 33
34 39
40 45
46 51
0
02
03
01
05
06
07
08
09
10
—
ll
12
13
14
lfi
17
18
19
20
21
—
22
23
21
2!i
2G
27
2»
2'J
—
30
;ji
32
—
33
:m
:i!)
:ii"j
u a
u. u
T. W
tt a
ui u
_i -J
a a.
z: r.
a: a:
m in
i
I
i
i
I
l
i
i
i
i
I ••
i a
i u
11—
11-
I M
I r
i m
I 3
I in
i r
i a.
i o
i u
I
I in
• • I—I
Y- X
O h-
Ui
k-> LJ
O H-
k a:
a. a
•• o
u a.
a. t
>- H
I- 3
U
a
u \~
H U
_l _l
n Z
L. n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i a
I u
I h-
11-
l w
I £
i m
I 3
i w
i
i w
i u
i _J
i a
I £
i a:
i in
j:
o
_j ••
u. z
U
a a:
i a;
iu.
i
12
io
i _i
i u.
i
i
i
i
m
m
a:
n
o
2:
aj
>
-------
A
AUG 0 5 WW
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
9BB DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
Ref: 8ES-ES
Mr. Robert K. Stevens
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA, EPA Annex
Mail Drop 47
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Dear Mr. Stevens:
After a recent review of the Denver Integrated Environmental
Monitoring Project's (IEMP) 2.5um particulate data by the
Environmental Services Division (ESD), some concerns have been
raised regarding the representativeness of the data for this size
range of particulates. These concerns are the result of evidence
provided by the data which indicates that the particulate
impaction device used to limit .the size range to 2.5 urn or less
allowed a significant amount of larger sized particles to pass
through the impaction device and be collected by the sampling
media.
These concerns were first expressed in a series of telephone
conversations between you, Steve Frey (Region VIII), and myself.
During those conversations, you indicated that ESD should review
several aspects of the 2.5um particulate sampling technique
employed by IEMP sampling personnel and examine the filter media
itself. ESD has completed its initial review in these suggested
areas and comments regarding these and other areas of the data
collection process are presented as a part of the enclosed
assessment.
The purpose of the enclosed assessment is to encourage a
dialogue regarding the data and attempt to resolve the concerns.
Please review the enclosed information and call at your
convenience in order to discuss the information. My FTS number
is 776-7372. We also request your written comments on the
attached assessment once you have had an opportunity to evaluate
and formulate a response.
Enclosures:
cc:
Larry Svoboda
Ken Lloyd
Marshall Payne
-------
Denver IEMP
2.5um Particulate Data
Assessment
Introduction
The following discussion represents EPA Region VIII/ESD's
assessment regarding the results of several analyses
performed on the 2.5 um particulate data collected as part
of the Denver Integrated Environmental Management Project
(IEMP). This assessment describes the equipment used by IEMP
to collect the data and presents some of the analyses that
were performed with the data that led to ESD's assessment.
The assessment concludes by expressing some concerns
regarding the interpretation of the 2.5 um particulate data
in view of the results of ESD's assessment.
Equipment Used
The IEMP monitoring program began in June 1987 and entailed
sampling a number of atmospheric pollutants over a four
month period. Monitoring operations were suspended in
September 1987 and resumed for an additional four month
period in November 1987. One aspect of the monitoring was
the sampling for the fine size fraction (£2.5um) of
particulates. The purpose of the 2.5um particulate sampling
was to obtain particulate concentrations in the respirable
fine particulate size range. This data would , in turn, be
analyzed for its total carbon content, the elemental
composition of the particulates using X-Ray fluorescence
(XRF) analysis, and, through the use of a filter pack
attached to an annular denuder, the determination of nitrate
and sulfates concentrations on the particles' surface.
The samplers used for the 2.5um particulate sampling were
the annular denuder and an abbreviated annular denuder
sampler. Both were supplied by the Inorganic Pollutant
Analysis Branch of EPA's Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory (ASRL) located at Research Triangle Park, N.C.
The abbreviated 2.5um sampler was similar to the denuder but
the glass- denuder tubes were omitted and two different
particle size limiting inlet devices were used. These inlets
consisted of a size limiting device that was designed to
prevent particles larger than the desired 2.5 um si-e from
entering the sampler and being collected by a filter within
the sampler. The first 2.5um sampler inlet, provided by ASRL
to ESD, contained a cyclone device designed to achieve the
desired particle sizes. This device was used on the
sequential samplers that were designed to sample 2.5um
-------
particulates at the Auraria monitoring station. A
sequential sampler was used because of its availability to
the Denver IEMP program. Only one such device was used
during the monitoring program. An impaction inlet was used
at the other three monitoring stations. Towards the end of
July 1987 the sequential sampler malfunction and was unable
to be repaired in time for its use on the remainder of the
IEMP sampling program. The impaction inlets were, therefore,
used during the remainder of the IEMP monitoring program at
all of the monitoring stations
After the conclusion of the first four month monitoring
period ESD was instructed to coat the impactors with a
solution of silicon grease dissolved in a solvent in order
to provide more effective prevention of larger sized
particulates from being deposited on the filter media. It
should be noted, however, that the denuder equipment
utilized the impaction rather than the cyclone device during
the entire monitoring program to achieve the 2.5 um particle
size fraction and that the denuder impaction devices were
not greased until after the first four month monitoring
period as instructed by ASRL.
Analysis of Particulate Concentrations
In the spring of 1988, analyses of the composition of the
particulates was being completed. A review of the XRF
analysis, performed by the Desert Research Institute
Laboratory (DRI), revealed that the elemental composition of
the particulates was not what was expected for the
metropolitan Denver area. High concentrations in Silicon,
Calcium, Iron and other elements characteristic of coarse
size particulates (>2.5um) from soils were found from the
analyses. The data were also inconsistent with previous
studies (Lewis et. al., 1986) of the elemental composition
of 2.5um particulates conducted in Denver which indicated
that fine particulates consist of smaller concentrations of
the above elements. The fine particulate analyses performed
for this study indicated that elemental concentrations were
a factor of 10-100 less than the elemental concentrations
reported for the IEMP study.
DRI supported the conclusion that coarse particulates were
collected in correspondence (attached) in which it was
indicated that the XRF analysis "revealed the possibility
of non-uniformity distributed coarse (> 2.5um) particulates
on many of the filters". DRI performed microscopic analysis
on six of the filters and found significate concentrations
of particles with sizes up to 30 microns deposited on the
filters. ESD reviewed more of the filters using microscopic
analysis and confirmed the observation of large size
particulates present on the filters. However ESD's
observations of the filters indicated that the larger size
-------
particulates were more uniformly distributed over the
filters than DRI had observed. This observation may be due
to ESD reviewing a larger portion of the filter set than DRI
had done.
In order to define the time frame in which the larger sized
particulates began to be deposited on the filters, ESD
reviewed all of the XRF data performed on 2.5um particulate
filters collect during the two four month sampling periods.
The XRF analysis shows a substantial increase in the
concentrations of elements characteristic of coarse sized
soils particulates at the point when the cyclone size
limiting device was replaced by the impaction limiting
device. Attached graphs of concentration versus time (Figure
one) for calcium, silicon and aluminum (soil elements)
reveal the increase in concentrations when the impaction
device was used. This would indicate that the cyclone device
was more effective in limiting the coarse sized
particulates.
Data from samplers located at the same location as the 2.5um
particulate samplers (collocated) that collected particle
sizes _<_1 Oum were compared to the 2.5um data. Figure two
depicts the comparison and indicates that when the cyclone
device was in use 2.5um concentrations were at or slightly
below 1Oum particulate concentrations collected at the same
time. 2.5um particulate data collected using the impaction
device showed higher concentrations than collocated 1Oum
particulate concentrations. Conclusions from this comparison
are as follows:
1. The cyclone device was more effective in
limiting larger particles from being deposited on
the filter but it still allowed some coarse
particles to be collected.
2. The impaction device consistently allowed a
significant amount of coarse particulates to be
deposited on the filters.
Explanation of Samplers Performance
In an attempt to explain why the samplers permitted larger
sized particulate to be collected, ESD contacted Mr. Robert
Stevens (ASRL), who provided the sampling equipment, in the
hope that by discussing the data a resolution to the problem
might be obtained. Mr. Stevens indicated that improper
preparation of the Silicon coating used on the surface of
the impactor may have contributed to the larger particulates
being collected (Komp, 1988). He also submitted research
papers to support the effectiveness of the impaction device,
when properly coated, of limiting sample collection to less
than 2.5um.
-------
ESD has reviewed the technique used in preparing the
samplers for data collection and the papers Mr. Stevens
submitted. In questioning the personnel who prepared the
samplers it was not obvious that they had significantly
deviated from the instructions Mr. Stevens had given them on
the preparation of the samplers. In addition, IEMP personnel
were given periodic updates on how the sampler inlets should
be prepared by personnel from Mr. Stevens office who had
traveled to Denver during the monitoring periods.
The explanation for the incorrect operation of the impaction
device may lie in the papers that Mr. Stevens provided to
ESD. Specifically in the research paper by Lane et. al.,
several statements and conclusions are presented that
provide a possible explanation for the 2.5um sampler's
performance. In the paper, it is stated that a greased
impactor was tested that was similar to the one used during
the IEMP study. Their research found that after particulate
loadings on the impactor reach 31-48 ug the effectiveness of
the impactor to limit sizes less than 2.Sum is significantly
decreased. This particulate loading is approximately equal
to a concentration of 2 ug/m^ when a flow rate of 16.7
actual liters per minute (1/min) is considered over a 24
hour sampling period as occurred during the IEMP sampling
program. This concentration is very small when compared to
particulate concentrations measured during the IEMP study.
Considering the 16.7 1/min flow rate used and the
particulate loadings measured during the study, the 31-48 ug
particulate loading referred to in the Lane paper would have
been achieved after the first 30 minutes to 2 hours,
depending on the loading for that day, of sampling had
elapse.
In a paper under preparation by Baxter and Lane, that was
provided by Mr. Stevens, research regarding the impactor
device used in the IEMP study indicates that for ungreased
impaction devices the impactor was only 80% effective in
limiting particle sizes greater than 2.5um particulates from
being deposited on the filters. Figure three, taken from the
Baxter and Lane paper, depicts a graph of the effectiveness
of the particulate inlet at preventing large size
particulates from entering the sampler. A handwritten
comment by Mr. Stevens appears below the figure. The graph
and Mr. Stevens comment indicate that above 2.5um the inlet
was 80% effective in eliminating larger sized particulates.
The conclusions reached from these papers that can apply to
the IEMP study are:
1. Any improperly greased preparation of the impactor
that may have occurred probably did not contribute
significantly to degrading the operation of the
impactor since the impactor would have quickly been
-------
coated with particles in a typical Denver atmosphere
and particle bounce would have ensued from that point
in time.
2. An uncoated impactor is only 80% effective in
eliminating large sized particulates.
A review of the XRF analyses of the data has revealed little
difference in the concentrations of elements when comparing
data collected by greased and ungreased impactors. It is ,
therefore, possible that during the IEMP study the greased
inlets quickly became coated by particles to the point that
the impactor operated similar to an ungreased inlet. If this
is the case, the inlet would be 80% effective in eliminating
larger particulates. The conclusion that the impactor is
only 80% effective in eliminating coarse particulate is
significant. The mass of a spherical particle varies with
the cube of its size. For example, a 20 micron particulate
has a mass 1000 greater than a 2 micron particulate when the
density is considered equal between the two particulates.
Therefore, a twenty percent concentration of particulates in
the larger size range could effectively dominate the
elemental analysis of particulates for a given filter.
Statement of Concern
Given the above conclusions several concerns need to be
expressed concerning particulate data collected by the IEMP
study.
1. Elemental and chemical analyses of the 2.5um data
appears to be dominated by coarse sized particulates.
2. The sampling of larger sized particulates is
apparently due to the design of the impactor and not
the presampling preparation of the coating of the
impactor.
3. This domination by the larger size particulates
indicates that the interpretation of the following data
sets collected by IEMP must be given careful
consideration:
A. 2.5 Particulate Concentrations
B. All Carbon Data
C. All XRF Data
D. Sulfate and Nitrate Data collected by the
Denuders
-------
Interpretation of the sulfate and nitrate data from the
analysis of the 2.5 um particulate filters contained within
the denuders may be biased. The denuders used the same
impaction device as the 2.5um samplers. Therefore it is
possible that large sized particles may have passed around
the impaction device and have been deposited on the
denuder's particulate filter. The large surface area that
these particles represent may contain a significant amount
of nitrate and ammonium. The sulfate data may be less
effected since sulfate data has been found in previous
studies to be confined to smaller particulate sizes.
It is unclear at this point whether the data from these
samplers may be able to be corrected for the presence of
larger size particulates. All of the denuder filters were
destroyed during the analyses due to the procedure used in
the laboratory for the analysis of the filters. The filters
collected by the 2.5 um samplers are fairly uniform in
particulate distribution preventing the reanalysis of only a
portion of the 2.5 um filter where large particles may not
have been collected. Therefore, corrections to the data may
not be possible.
It is recommended that additional sampling using both the
cyclone and impaction inlets be performed. The sampling
using these inlets should be designed to determine the point
during sampling, if any, when large particulates begin to be
deposited on a filter. This sampling would also aid in
supporting the 80% efficiency of the impactor as determined
in the previous studies described in this assessment and
perhaps provide a determination of any correction that may
apply to the data collected during the IEMP program.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Baxter, T.E. & Lane,D.D. Initial Performance Testing of a
Glass Jet Impactor Designed for use in Dry Acid Deposition
Sampling.Paper in preparation.
2. Komp, M.J. 1988. Personal Communication with Mr Robert
Stevens on June 7, 1988.
3. Lane, D.D.,Randtke,S.J., & Baxter, T.E. Development of a
Sampling Proceedure for Large Nitrogenous Particles:
Preliminary Results.Paper in preparation.
4. Lewis C.W.,Baumgardner, R.E., & Stevens, R.K. 1986
Receptor Modeling Study of Denver Winter Haze. Enivron. Sci.
Technol.,Vol. 20, No. 11, 1986
-------
ft
2.5 urn) particles on many of the filters.
Microscopic analysis of six teflon and three quartz filters all showed
numerous particles up to 30 microns in diameter. The concentration of
coarse particles was highest at the center of the filters and gradually
decreased toward the edges. The coarse particles appeared to make up a
significant, if not major fraction of the total deposit mass of these
filters. If these are supposed to be PM2 5 samples, as indicated by your
filter shipping lists, the fine particle cut device is not working.
Results for samples with coarse particles are biased in two ways: 1)
Uncorrected particle size effects result in lower concentrations than would
otherwise be reported. Particle size correction factors range from 2.4 for
Al to 1.2 for Ca for PM^q samples, and would be larger for larger particle
size distributions. 2) The concentration of coarse particles in the
center of the filter biases both XRF and carbon analysis results, since the
entire deposit area is not analyzed.
The remaining carbon analyses will be completed within two weeks. Please
let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Clifton A. Frazier
Assistant Research Chemist
cc: J. Watson J. Chow
L. Pritchett
Atmospheric Sciences Center • Rioloyic *1 Sciences Center • \ neri-\ and F nvironmental F ngineennj; Center • Social Sciences Center • Water Resf>un «'s Center
-------
ID
5171
5178
5209
5236
5237
5240
5244
5255
5268
5285
5302
5310
NOTE:
PEI CARBON ANALYSIS DATA VALIDATION SUKMARY II
For Denver IEW3 Winter Samples
File Observation Action Taken
ID
5171-1 Poor laser
5178-2 Poor laser
5209-R Poor replicate-. Inhomogeneous deposit
5236-1 FID baseline drift
5237-1 FID baseline drift
5240-1 FID baseline drift
5244-2 FID baseline drift
5255-1 Analyer malfunction
5268-R Poor replicate: inhomogeneous deposit
5285-fi Poor rep Iicate: inhomogeneous deposit
5302-1 FID baseline drift
5310-1 Poor laser
Sample rerin
Sample rerun
Noted in validation summary
Sample rerun
Sample rerin
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Sample rerin
Noted in validation summary
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Samples 5094, 5107, and 5333 (reported In the 'SUMMARY I' data set) were examined by microscopy.
Numerous particles up to 30 microns in diameter were observed on these samples, and may also be
present on other filters in this set. The coarse particles were concentrated In the center of the
filters, and could account for higher than normal deviation of replicate analysis results on some
samples.
-------
PEI CARBON ANALYSIS DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY I
For Denver IEVP Winter Samples
ggpla File Observation Action Taken
ID 1°
8079 5079-2 FID baselIne shift
(08) 5086-2 Inhomogeneous sample
gOBf 5091-1 Poor laser
5082 5092-2 Inhomogeneous sample
{004 5094-2 Sample contaminated or Inhomogeneous
5099 5099-1 inhomogeneous sample
SQB9 5099-4 Sample contaminated or Inhomogeneous
5107 5107-2 Sample contaminated or inhomogeneous
(108 5108-1 FID baselIne drift
5108 5108-2 Sample contaminated or Inhomogeneous
5111 5111-2 Inhomogeneous sample
5117 5117-1 Poor replicate
5118 5118-2 FID baseline drift
5119 5119-1 FID basaline drift
5121 5121-2 Inhomogeneous sample
5139 5139-1 Deposit very heavy in center of filter, see 5133-2
5139 5139-2 Incomplete removal of carbon during normal analysis
5146 5146-2 Inhomogeneous sample
5148 5146-3 Inhomogeneous sample
5147 5147-2 Inhomogeneous sample
5150 5150-4 Poor rep IIcate
5811 5318-3 Poor replicate
5518 5318-R Poor replIcate
5322 5322-3 FID baseline drift
5522 5322-4 Poor replIcate
6329 5329-1 Sample contaminated or Inhomogeneous
5333 5333—1 Sample contaminated or inhomogeneous
5334 5334-3 Poor replicate
5348 5349-R Anomalous FID response
8UJK4 8LANK4-1 Analyzer malfunction
BUHC4 BLAHK4-2 Sample contaminated or inhomogeneous
JWM BLANKS-fl Sample contaminated or Inhomogeneous
MM BLANK8-2 FID basel Ine shift
Sample rerun
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerun
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerir
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Sample rerir
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Sample rerir
Noted in validation summary
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerir
Noted In validation summary
Noted in validation summary
Noted in validation summary
Sample rerun
Noted In validation summary
Noted In validation summary
Sample rerun
Sample rerir
Sample rerir
Sample rerun
Sample rear
Sample rerir
Sample rerun
Sample rerun
Sample rerir
Sample rerir
Saaples 5094, 5107, and 5333 were examined by microscopy, Nimerous particles up to 30 microns in
diameter were observed on these samples, and may also be present on other filters In this set. The
coarse particles were concentrated in the center of the filters, and could account for higher than
noraal deviation of replicate analysis results on some samples.
-------
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY
For PEI Denver IEMP Winter Samples
Flag Explanation
11 Inhomogeneous filter deposit
J Abnormal deposit area, possible leakage during
samp I Ing
f1 Filter damaged, outside of analysis area
f2 Filter damaged, within analysis area
f3 Teflon membrane separated from the ring
f4 Filter deposit side facing down In Petri dish
b2 Laboratory control blank
Sample ID Observation
BSSBSSsaase BBaaa3SC3mB3BoansiaoasaaDBa==ccass3aDsa = 3SB = a=s = 3 = = = :
4199 5 1 Large hole In filter. Samp Ie mounted off-center
In 37 mm fI Iter holder to maximize overlap of
undisturbed deposit and analysis spot. Results
may be biased due to stretching of the teflon
membrane during mounting.
4250 -5' Same as 4199.
4046 •£>' Same as 4199.
4172 ' Same as 4199.
4353 i^) Sample examined by microscopy. Numerous particles
up to 30 microns In diameter were observed.
Coarse particles were concentrated In the center
of the filter. Results biased due to un-corrected
particle size effects and lnhomogeneous deposits.
Coarse particles may also be on other filters not
examined by microscopy.
4303 Same as 4353.
4354 Same as 4353.
4181 Same as 4353.
4176 Same as 4353.
4285 Same as 4353.
-------
SUMMER
PF If-
G
n
J n
i i
'¦5 h"
iLL'
Figure 1
-------
SUMMER XRF INLE
COMPARISON (AUPARiA)
3iL!CC'M
i
4-
+
+
Figure 1 continued
-------
SUMMER XRF INLE
JLl
COMPARiSON iAURAF
Uvi!l JUU
c
I {
n
i i i i
!:iLl7
gure 1 continued
-------
Figure 2
-------
Figure 2 continued
-------
Figure 2 contini,0d
-------
-A '
V 1 a. »" e; ~ * '** 11 ' *
M r ^ \ p •- •" J,"i !
' '¥ iti H' K Vj 5, ,l! H ' i L
I Lo- * ^ ^
^tt/yuodtiscsi-' N™
bms&t ( OS-^t 7^4 c5 ;
f ' ¦ '.LiiJWLii'umwi ''upKrr.-^'j'.* \r y y'
h 1 Hiiro ^ "**'>
-------
',A<^
Q$>
"" ^
------- |