United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-454/R-02-001
DATE April 2001
Air
f,EPA
2000 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC)
and Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
(SNMOC) Monitoring Program
-------
2000 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
(NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds (SNMOC)
Monitoring Program
Final Report
EPA Contract No. 68-D-99-007
Delivery Order 11
Prepared for:
Vickie Presnell and Sharon Nizich
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560
April 2001
-------
DISCLAIMER
Through its Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funded and managed the research described in this report under EPA Contract
No. 68-D-99-007 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
List of Abbreviations vii
Executive Summary viii
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 The 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Program 2-1
2.1 Monitoring Locations 2-1
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring 2-2
2.3 Monitoring Schedules 2-3
2.4 Sampling and Analytical Methods 2-4
2.4.1 Data Handling Procedures 2-4
2.4.2 Total NMOC 2-6
2.4.3 SNMOC 2-7
2.5 Data Quality Parameters 2-7
2.5.1 Completeness 2-8
2.5.2 Precision 2-8
2.5.3 Accuracy 2-9
3.0 Data Analysis Methodology 3-1
3.1 Data Summary Parameters 3-1
3.1.1 Prevalence 3-1
3.1.2 Concentration Range 3-2
3.1.3 Central Tendency 3-3
3.1.4 Variability 3-3
3.2 Analyses and Interpretations 3-4
3.2.1 Composition of Air Samples: Alkane, Olefm, and Aromatics Composition
of SNMOC Samples 3-4
3.2.2 Statistical Analyses Using Pearson Correlation Coefficients 3-5
3.2.3 Impact of Emission Sources on Spatial Variations 3-6
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.0 Analysis of Total NMOC Monitoring Results 4-1
4.1 Data Summary 4-1
4.1.1 Prevalence 4-1
4.1.2 Concentration Range 4-1
4.1.3 Central Tendency 4-2
4.1.4 Variability 4-2
4.2 Analyses and Interpretations 4-2
4.2.1 Comparison to Selected Meteorological Conditions 4-2
4.2.2 Temporal Variations 4-4
4.2.3 NMOC:NOX Concentration Ratios and Ozone Concentration Trends . . 4-4
5.0 Analysis of SNMOC Monitoring Results 5-1
5.1 Data Summary 5-1
5.1.1 Prevalence 5-1
5.1.2 Concentration Range 5-2
5.1.3 Central Tendency 5-3
5.1.4 Variability 5-3
5.2 Relationship Between "Identified" vs. "Unknown" Compounds 5-3
5.3 Composition of Air Samples 5-4
5.4 Analysis of Tracer Compounds 5-4
5.5 Correlations Between Concentrations of Different Compounds 5-5
5.6 Comparison to Selected Meteorological Conditions 5-5
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6-1
6.1 Conclusions 6-1
6.2 Recommendations 6-2
7.0 References 7-1
List of Appendices
NMOC
SNMOC
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Locations of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Stations 2-10
2-2 Bronx, New York (BXNY) Monitoring Station 2-11
2-3 El Paso, Texas (CAMS12) Monitoring Station 2-12
2-4 Fort Worth, Texas (CAMS13) Monitoring Station 2-13
2-5 Facilities Within 10 Miles of the Bronx, New York (BXNY) Monitoring Station
that Reported to TRI in 1998 2-14
2-6 Facilities Within 10 Miles of the El Paso, Texas (CAMS 12) Monitoring Station
that Reported to TRI in 1998 2-15
2-7 Facilities Within 10 Miles of the Fort Worth, Texas (CAMS 13) Monitoring Station
that Reported to TRI in 1998 2-16
3-1 Ozone Accumulation Cycle 3-8
3-2 Comparison of NO/VOC Ratios of Monitoring Sites Using EKMA 3-9
3-3 Conceptual EKMA Diagram (from NRC, 1992) 3-10
4-1 Maximum Temperature andNMOC Concentrations 4-8
4-2 Average Wind Speed and NMOC Concentrations 4-9
4-3 Average Dew Point Temperature andNMOC Concentrations 4-10
4-4 Average Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. . . . 4-11
4-5 NMOC:NOX Ratios and Maximum Ozone Concentration at BXNY (Bronx, NY) ... 4-12
4-6 NMOC:NOX Ratios and Maximum Ozone Concentration at
CAMS12 (El Paso, TX) 4-13
4-7 NMOC:NOX Ratios and Maximum Ozone Concentration at
CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX) 4-14
5-1 Acetylene and Isoprene Concentrations at CAMS 13 (Fort Worth, TX) 5-7
5-2 Acetylene versus Ethylene at CAMS 13 (Fort Worth, TX) 5-8
5-3 Benzene versus Toluene at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX) 5-9
5-4 CAMS 13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Maximum
Temperature 5-10
5-5 CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Wind Speed . . 5-11
5-6 CAMS 13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Dew Point
Temperature 5-12
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Organization of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Summary Report 1-3
2-1 Background Information for the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Stations 2-17
2-2 Descriptions of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Locations 2-18
2-3 SNMOC Method Detection Limits 2-19
2-4 Sampling Schedules Implemented During the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Program 2-21
2-5 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Methods 2-21
2-6 Completeness of the NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring 2-22
2-7 Data Quality Parameters for Total NMOC Measurements 2-22
2-8 Data Quality Parameters for SNMOC Measurements 2-23
3-1 Sources of Meteorological Data for the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Statistical Analyses . 3-11
4-1 Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Total NMOC Measured at the
Monitoring Stations 4-15
4-2 Meteorological Stations Used for Analysis 4-16
4-3 Pearson Correlations of Total NMOC (TNMOC) Concentrations with Selected
Meteorological Parameters 4-16
4-4 NMOC and Ozone Summary for All Sites 4-17
5-1 Summary Statistics for SNMOC Concentrations Measured at CAMS 13
(Fort Worth, TX) Based on 66 Days with Valid Samples 5-13
5-2 Breakdown of Total NMOC as Alkanes, Olefins, Aromatics, and Unidentified 5-17
5-3 Pearson Correlations Among SNMOC Groups 5-17
5-4 Pearson Correlations Coefficients of SNMOC Compound Type Concentration
with Selected Meteorological Parameter 5-18
VI
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIRS Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (of the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FID flame ionization detection
GC gas chromatography
MSA metropolitan statistical area
MSD mass selective detection
NAAQS national ambient air quality standard
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
ND nondetect
NMOC nonmethane organic compounds
PDFID preconcentration direct flame ionization detection
ppbC parts per billion (by volume, on a carbon basis)
ppmC parts per million (by volume, on a carbon basis)
ppbv parts per billion (by volume)
RPD relative percent difference
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SNMOC speciated nonmethane organic compounds
TNMOC total nonmethane organic compounds
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
UV ultraviolet
VOC volatile organic compounds
Monitoring Stations
BXNY New York City, NY (Bronx)
CAMS 12 El Paso, Texas
CAMS 13 Fort Worth, Texas
vn
-------
Executive Summary
This report summarizes and interprets ambient air monitoring data collected during the
summer of 2000 as part of the National Nonmethane Organic Compound and Speciated
Nonmethane Organic Compound Monitoring Program, which is also called the NMOC/SNMOC
Monitoring Program. Designed to characterize levels of air pollution in regions with ground-
level ozone problems, the NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Program measures air concentrations of
several groups of pollutants that participate in the photochemical reactions that form "smog."
The 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Program spanned four months (June to September),
during which ambient air samples were collected daily between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., local
time, at three monitoring locations. These samples were analyzed for NMOC and SNMOC.
Overall, over 5000 ambient air concentrations were measured during the 2000 program.
This report uses various graphical, numerical, and statistical analyses to identify and
illustrate meaningful trends and patterns in this large volume of ambient air monitoring data.
Some of the analyses in this report, such as the concise data summary tables, intentionally follow
the same data analysis framework used in earlier reports on past National Program elements.
This consistent use of certain analyses facilitates comparisons among the 2000 program and
earlier NMOC/SNMOC programs. To provide the reader with new perspective on the
NMOC/SNMOC monitoring data, however, this report includes several analyses that have been
addressed previously, such as a detailed review of annual variations in air quality. Though the
analyses in this report highlight many trends in the data collected during the 2000 program,
researchers are encouraged to examine the NMOC/SNMOC ambient air monitoring data to better
understand the complex ozone formation processes further. Accordingly, the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC monitoring data have been made publicly available in electronic format on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
Vlll
-------
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires state environmental agencies
to develop and implement plans to reduce ozone concentrations in areas that are not in attainment
with the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Implementing effective ozone
control strategies has proven to be a complicated task, largely because of the numerous variables
that affect ozone formation processes. To help state environmental agencies characterize some
of these variables, EPA sponsors the Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated
Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program. This program is designed to
measure ambient air concentrations of four classes of compounds that affect ozone formation:
Total NMOC;
SNMOC;
Volatile organic compounds (VOC); and
Carbonyls.
For the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Program, the VOC and carbonyl options were
not requested by the participating sites. Since the inception of the program in 1984, many state
agencies have participated in EPA's program by installing air monitoring stations within their
jurisdictions. This report summarizes and interprets results from the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC
Monitoring Program, which included up to 4 months of daily measurements of ambient air
quality in or near three metropolitan areas. This summary report provides a qualitative overview
of air pollution at the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring stations, as well as a quantitative analysis of
the monitoring data and several other factors that are known to affect ozone formation processes.
So that new and historical data can easily be compared, the report presents descriptive
summary statistics in a format identical to that of previous NMOC/SNMOC reports.
1-1
-------
While this report attempts to thoroughly characterize the large volume of
NMOC/SNMOC monitoring data, additional analyses could be performed so that the many
factors that affect ambient air quality can be fully appreciated. To facilitate further analysis of
the NMOC/SNMOC sampling results, the entire set of ambient air monitoring data is presented
in the appendices of this report and will be available on the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) of the
Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS), an electronic database maintained by
EPA.
This report is organized into seven text sections and two appendices. Table 1-1 lists the
contents of each report section. As with previous NMOC/SNMOC reports, all figures and tables
cited in the text appear at the end of their respective sections (figures first, followed by tables).
1-2
-------
Table 1-1
Organization of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Summary Report
Report
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Section Title
Introduction
The 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Program
Data Analysis Methodology
Analysis of Total NMOC Monitoring
Results
Analysis of SNMOC Monitoring
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Overview of Contents
This section presents general and historical information on the NMOC/SNMOC
monitoring program.
This section provides background information on the scope of the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC program and information about the:
Sampling locations
• Compounds of interest
• Air monitoring options
• Sampling schedules implemented at each location
Sampling and analytical methods used to measure ambient air concentrations
• Data quality parameters used to characterize the quality of the monitoring
measurements
This section presents the methodology used throughout the report to present and
interpret the ambient air monitoring data.
These sections use the methodology presented in Section 3 to:
Interpret the air monitoring data for total NMOC and SNMOC
Summarize the monitoring data and identify trends and patterns in levels of
air pollution
Note the significance of spatial and temporal variations observed in the
measured concentrations
This section summarizes the most significant findings of the report and makes
several recommendations for further work in characterizing ambient air
concentrations of nonmethane organic compounds.
This section lists the references cited throughout this summary report.
-------
2.0 The 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Program
This section of the report presents relevant background information for the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC program. This program included three monitoring stations that collected
3-hour integrated samples of ambient air according to site-specific schedules. Depending on the
monitoring options that were selected for each station, air samples were analyzed for either total
NMOC, SNMOC, or a combination. The following discussion describes in greater detail the
monitoring locations, compounds selected for monitoring, sampling schedules, and sampling and
analytical methods of the program.
2.1 Monitoring Locations
EPA sponsors the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring program to help state and local air
pollution control agencies better understand how the composition of air pollution affects the
formation and transport of ozone within a given region. Agencies can participate in this program
by working cooperatively with EPA to identify suitable monitoring locations, select classes of
compounds for monitoring, install ambient air monitoring equipment, and send samples to a
designated central laboratory for analysis. The participating agencies also must contribute to the
overall monitoring costs.
Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the three 2000 NMOC/SNMOC monitoring stations.
Each monitoring site has been assigned both an alphanumeric code for purposes of tracking air
samples from the field to the laboratory and a unique 9-digit "AIRS Code" for purposes of
logging and indexing site descriptions and monitoring results in EPA's AIRS database.
For each monitoring location, Table 2-1 lists the alphanumeric codes, the AIRS codes, and other
site information described later in this section.
As illustrated in Figures 2-2 through 2-4, the three stations participating in the 2000
program were located in three urban areas: the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, the El Paso
area, and the New York City area. The maps illustrate that a monitor was located in a primarily
residential neighborhood (i.e., Fort Worth), while another was located in a more industrial area
2-1
-------
(i.e., New York City). The graphics in Figures 2-5 through 2-7 identify the numbers and types of
facilities that are located within 10 miles of the monitoring locations and were required to report
to the 1998 Toxics Release Inventory (USEPA, 2000). For each monitoring location, the text in
Table 2-2 describes site characteristics that may not be readily apparent from the maps. Not
surprisingly, chemical concentrations measured during the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC program varied
significantly among, and even within, these metropolitan areas. As previous NMOC/SNMOC
reports have concluded, the proximity of the monitoring locations to different emissions sources,
especially heavily traveled roadways, likely explains the observed spatial variations in ambient
air quality.
At every NMOC/SNMOC monitoring location, the air sampling equipment was installed
in a small enclosure—usually a trailer or a shed—with sampling inlet probes protruding through
the roof. Using this common setup, every NMOC/SNMOC monitor sampled ambient air at
heights approximately 2 to 10 meters above local ground level.
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring
The agencies that sponsor NMOC/SNMOC monitoring stations decide what compounds
are to be measured. Agencies that participated in the 2000 program selected their monitoring
options from the following four groups of compounds:
Total NMOC. In this option, air samples are analyzed to obtain a single value (total
NMOC) that characterizes the overall levels of nonmethane organic compounds in the air.
Some computer models use total NMOC concentrations as a critical input for forecasting
ozone concentrations. Section 2.4.2 describes the NMOC sampling and analytical
method in greater detail.
SNMOC. Stations implementing this option collect air samples that are analyzed for
ambient air concentrations of 80 hydrocarbons, as well as for the concentration of total
NMOC. SNMOC concentrations also are used as inputs to certain ozone forecasting
simulations. Table 2-3 lists the 80 compounds identified by this monitoring option and
2-2
-------
their respective method detection limits, and Section 2.4.3 describes the SNMOC
sampling and analytical method in greater detail.1
Table 2-1 indicates the compound groups that sponsoring agencies selected for
monitoring at each of the three stations. Two of the stations collected samples that were
analyzed for NMOC; one station collected samples analyzed for SNMOC.
2.3 Monitoring Schedules
In addition to selecting locations and compounds for monitoring, the agencies that
sponsor NMOC/SNMOC monitoring locations also determine sampling schedules. Table 2-4
summarizes the sampling schedules and sampling frequencies implemented at the three
participating locations. Although the sampling schedules vary across the different compound
categories and monitoring locations, EPA requires that all monitoring stations adhere to three
common scheduling features:
On each sampling day, ambient air must be continuously sampled for 3 hours, starting at
6:00 a.m., local standard time. This sampling time and duration provides appropriate
precursor hydrocarbon input values for ozone transport models.
Sampling must generally be performed between June 8 and October 2. Ambient air
concentrations of ozone are known to peak during the summer months when
photochemical reactivity also peaks.
Roughly 10 percent of all samples must be collected in duplicate and analyzed in
replicate. Duplicate and replicate data are critical for evaluating the precision of ambient
air monitoring data
1 The SNMOC analytical method actually reports concentration values for only 78 different compounds for
each sample. Since the chromatographic analysis cannot differentiate isobutene from 1-butene or /w-xylene from
/>-xylene, a single concentration is reported for these pairs. Therefore, the 78 values measured by this method
characterize ambient levels of 80 compounds.
2-3
-------
2.4 Sampling and Analytical Methods
Sampling and analytical methods used in monitoring programs ultimately determine what
compounds can be identified in air samples, and at what levels. During the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC program, different sampling and analytical methods were used to measure air
concentrations of total NMOC and SNMOC. The final report for the 1997 NMOC/SNMOC
program described all of the available sampling and analytical methods in detail (ERG, 1997);
for quick reference, Table 2-5 summarizes the general attributes (detection limits, units of
measurement, etc.) of all these methods.
2.4.1 Data Handling Procedures
EPA-recognized conventions were applied in the analysis and presentation of the data
collected during the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC program. Specifically, these conventions address
units of measure, methods for presentation of the results of duplicate analyses, and methods used
to present data when a sample is determined to contain a pollutant of interest at a value lower
than the limit of detection of the applicable analytical method.
Units of Measurement
Units of measurement express results of scientific analyses in standard formats. The units
used in a particular study, however, depend largely on the conventions followed by other
researchers within a particular scientific field. In ambient air monitoring efforts, for example,
scientists typically report air concentrations using several different units of measurement, such as
parts per billion on a volume basis (ppbv) and parts per billion on a carbon basis (ppbC). This
report, which is consistent with previous NMOC/SNMOC reports, adopts the conventions EPA
(USEPA, 1988a) and other air monitoring researchers employ:
Total NMOC and SNMOC monitoring data are expressed in units of ppbC; and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and carbonyl monitoring data are expressed in units
ofppbv.
2-4
-------
For a given compound, concentrations can be converted between these different units of
measurement according to the following equation:
Concentration (ppbC) = Concentration (ppbv) x Number of Carbons
As an example, benzene (C6H6) has six carbon atoms. Therefore, by definition, a benzene
concentration of 1.0 ppbv also equals a benzene concentration of 6.0 ppbC.
Because failure to consider subtle differences in units of measurement can result in
significant misinterpretations of ambient air monitoring results, readers should pay
particular attention to the units of measurement, especially when comparing the monitoring
results to those of other studies.
Since the VOC and carbonyl options were not selected by the participating sites for the
2000 NMOC/SNMOC, there should not be any confusion between units of measure. This report
will analyze data on a ppbC basis.
Detection Limits
The detection limit of an analytical method plays an important role in interpreting
ambient air monitoring data. By definition, detection limits represent the lowest levels at which
laboratory equipment can reliably quantify concentrations of selected compounds to a specified
confidence level. Therefore, when samples contain concentrations of chemicals at levels below
those chemicals' detection limits, multiple analyses of the same sample may lead to a wide range
of results, including highly variable concentrations and "nondetect" observations. The estimated
detection limits for the NMOC, SNMOC, VOC, and carbonyl analytical methods were all
determined according to EPA guidance in "Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the
Method Detection Limit" (FR, 1984).
To interpret air monitoring data in the proper context, data analysts should understand
that the variability of analytical methods increases as sample concentrations decrease to trace
2-5
-------
levels. Additionally, for this report, data handling techniques were used to present results for
samples with concentrations determined to be below the detection limit. As recommended for
risk assessments involving environmental monitoring data (USEPA, 1988a), data analysts
replaced all nondetect observations with concentrations equal to one-half of the compound's
corresponding detection limit.
Readers should note that in some instances, at the request of the EPA, quantified results
below method detection limits are presented in this report. The actual analytical peaks that are
detected on the instruments are reviewed by experienced analysts before inclusion in the
monitoring database.
Duplicate Analyses
Duplicate sampling and replicate analysis results in the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC monitoring
database were processed to assign each compound just one numerical concentration for each
successful sampling date. Following data processing procedures to address nondetects, data
analysts entered the average of the concentrations from duplicate sampling and replicate
analyses.
2.4.2 Total NMOC
Ambient air concentrations of total nonmethane organic compounds were measured using
EPA Compendium Method TO-12 (USEPA, 1988b). The TO-12 protocol specifies steps for
collecting 3-hour integrated samples of ambient air in passivated stainless steel canisters, which
are then analyzed by using cryogenic traps and flame ionization detection (FID).
EPA Compendium Method TO-12 cannot distinguish different hydrocarbon species nor can
the methodology distinguish between hydrocarbons and other VOC that generate an FID
response; rather, the analysis measures only the total amount ofnonmethane organic
compounds in the air sample (i.e., total NMOC).
2-6
-------
Concentrations are reported in units of ppbC and the detection limit for this method is
approximately 5 ppbC.
2.4.3 SNMOC
The laboratory analytical procedures and equipment for the SNMOC and VOC methods
have been combined, allowing for simultaneous determination of both the target SNMOC and
VOC compounds in a single air sample. The sampling method to collect samples for SNMOC
and/or VOC analyses follows the same protocol as the total NMOC sample collection methods:
ambient air is collected in the field in passivated stainless steel canisters.
Ambient air concentrations of SNMOC were measured according to EPA's research
protocol "Determination of C2 through C12 Ambient Air Hydrocarbons in 39 U.S. Cities from
1984 through 1986" (USEPA, 1989). Unlike the NMOC approach, the SNMOC analytical
method involves passing the collected samples through a gas chromatographic (GC) column that
separates individual hydrocarbon species before measuring concentrations with the FID. Because
of this additional step, the FID can measure ambient air concentrations of individual organic
compounds, as well as measuring total organic compounds. The GC column used during this
program distinguishes 80 different compounds, which are listed, along with their estimated
detection limits, in Table 2-3. Like the NMOC concentrations, the SNMOC concentrations are
expressed in units of ppbC.
2.5 Data Quality Parameters
To characterize the quality of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC monitoring measurements,
Sections 4 and 5 review the completeness, precision, and accuracy of the corresponding sampling
and analytical methods. Because the final report for the 1997 program thoroughly describes
these data quality parameters, the following paragraphs only define them and briefly discuss their
significance.
2-7
-------
2.5.1 Completeness
Completeness refers to the number of valid samples (i.e., either quantified concentrations
or nondetects) compared to the number of samples expected from the planned sample cycle. Due
to a variety of sampling or analytical errors, not all the samples for the various monitoring
options were collected and analyzed as scheduled. Although completeness data do not quantify
the precision or accuracy of the monitoring methods, they do indicate how efficiently samples
were collected and handled during the program. Coordinators of the SNMOC monitoring
program generally strive for program completeness greater than 90 percent. Table 2-6 presents
completeness data for NMOC and SNMOC sampling.
2.5.2 Precision
In the context of ambient air monitoring, precision refers to the agreement between
independent air sampling measurements performed according to identical protocols and
procedures. More specifically, precision measures the variability observed upon duplicate
collection or repeated analysis of ambient air samples. This report compares concentrations from
replicate analyses to quantify "analytical precision" and concentrations from duplicate samples to
quantify "sampling precision." For any pair of duplicate samples or replicate analyses, precision
is quantified by computing a relative percent difference (RPD). Tables 2-7 through 2-8 present
precision for NMOC and SNMOC sampling, respectively.
Relative percent difference expresses average concentration differences relative to the
average concentrations detected during replicate analyses. The RPD is calculated as follows:
IX, -X7 I
RPD = I 1 _ 2 I x 100 m
X
Where:
Xl is the ambient air concentration of a given compound measured in one sample;
X2 is the concentration of the same compound measured during replicate analysis; and
Xis the arithmetic mean of X1 andX2.
2-8
-------
As Equation 1 shows, replicate analyses with low variability have lower RPDs (and better
precision), and replicate analyses with high variability have higher RPDs (and poorer precision).
2.5.3 Accuracy
Accuracy of monitoring programs indicates the extent to which measured concentrations
represent their corresponding "true" or "actual" values. Highly accurate air sampling and
analytical methods generally measure concentrations in very close agreement to actual ambient
levels. Because no external audit samples were provided during the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC
program, it is impossible to quantify the accuracy of the air monitoring data. However, since all
field sampling staff and laboratory analysts strictly followed established quality control and
quality assurance guidelines, it is believed that all samples were collected and analyzed according
to the specifications of the respective monitoring methods.
2-9
-------
Figure 2-1
Location of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Stations
wYork City, NY
Bronx (BXHY)
to
o
Fort Worth, TX
(CAMS 13)
El Paso.TX
(CAMS 12)
-------
Figure 2-2
Bronx, New York (BXNY) Monitoring Station
•- * ' - H
It* V
* " u ''
-1*1 •% UP! -
2-11
-------
Figure 2-3
El Paso, Texas (CAMS 12) Monitoring Station
IUSGS
2-12
-------
Figure 2-4
Fort Worth, Texas (CAMS 13) Monitoring Station
V4^%ss™**m
• • Hribiir [ ,' | jr ^r
' ,--r^~ ^>
CAMS 13
2-13
-------
Figure 2-5
Facilities Within 10 Miles of the Bronx, New York (BXNY) Monitoring Station that Reported to TRI in 1998
to
Each square on this map represents a TRI-
reported facility which is within a 10-mile radius
of the monitoring site (represented by a triangle)
and is classified by the following Standard
Industrial Classification Major Groups:
A = Food and Kindred Products
B = Paper and Allied Products
C = Printing and Publishing
D = Chemicals and Allied Products
E = Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
F = Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete
G = Primary Metal Industries
H = Fabricated Metal Products
I = Industrial Machinery and Equipment
J = Electrical and Electronic Equipment
K = Instruments and Related Products
L = Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
M = Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services
N = Wholesale trade - Nondurable Goods
40.7
40.65
-74.15
-74.1
-74.05
-73.95 -73.9 -73.85
Longitude (Decimal Degrees)
-73.8
-73.75
-73.7
-73.65
-------
to
Figure 2-6
Facilities Within 10 Miles of the El Paso, Texas (CAMS 12) Monitoring Station That Reported to TRI in 1998
Each square on this map represents a TRI-
reported facility which is within a 10-mile radius
of the monitoring site (represented by a triangle)
and is classified by the following Standard
Industrial Classification Major Groups:
A = Food and Kindred Products
B = Chemicals and Allied Products
C = Petroleum and Coal Products
D = Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
E = Leather and Leather Products
F = Primary Metal Industries
G = Fabricated Metal Products
H = Wholesale trade - Nondurable Goods
B
PA
CAMS12
31.95
31.9
31.85
31.8
31.75
31.7
31.65
31.6
-106.7
-106.65
-106.6
-106.55 -106.5 -106.45
Longitude (Decimal Degrees)
-106.4
-106.35
-106.3
-------
to
Figure 2-7
Facilities Within 10 Miles of the Fort Worth, Texas (CAMS 13) Monitoring Station That Reported to TRI in 1998
Each square on this map represents a TRI-
reported facility which is within a 10-mile radius
of the monitoring site (represented by a triangle)
and is classified by the following Standard
Industrial Classification Major Groups:
A = Food and Kindred Products
B = Lumber and Wood Products
C = Furniture and Fixtures
D = Paper and Allied Products
E = Printing and Publishing
F = Chemicals and Allied Products
G = Petroleum and Coal Products
H = Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
I = Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete
J = Primary Metal Industries
K = Fabricated Metal Products
L = Industrial Machinery and Equipment
M = Electrical and Electronic Equipment
N = Transportation Equipment
O = Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
P = Wholesale trade - Nondurable Goods
I N
IF
CAMS13A
A "
FlP
*v
•rF
K
33
32.95
32.9
32.85 „
32.8 o
a
HI
3
!
32.75
32.7
32.65
32.6
-97.55
-97.5
-97.45
-97.4 -97.35 -97.3
Longitude (Decimal Degrees)
-97.25
-97.2
-97.15
-------
Table 2-1
Background Information for the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Stations
2000
NMOC/
SNMOC
Site Code
BXNY
CAMS 12
CAMS 13
AIRS Site Code
36-005-0083
48-141-0037
48-439-1002
Location
Bronx, NY
El Paso, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Sampling Schedule
Starting
Date
June 19, 2000
June 8, 2000
June 8, 2000
Ending
Date
September 18, 2000
September 28, 2000
October 2, 2000
Monitoring Options
Selected
NMOC
/
/
SNMOC
/
to
-------
Table 2-2
Descriptions of the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring Locations
Monitoring
Location
Description of Immediate Surroundings
Bronx, NY
(BXNY)
The BXNY monitoring station is located in Bronx, New York., NY at the
Botanical Gardens. It is in the center of the Bronx and is located in a commercial
setting. The monitoring objective is to obtain photochemical assessment.
El Paso, TX
(CAMS 12)
The CAMS 12 monitoring station is located on Rim Road in a primarily
commercial setting. It is north of the Hawthorne Street and Rim Road intersection
in El Paso, Texas. The police station is adjacent to the site.
Fort Worth, TX
(CAMS 13)
The CAMS 13 monitoring station is located in an open field on the property of
Meacham Field, an airport in northwest Fort Worth, Texas. Although the
surrounding neighborhoods are primarily residential, several heavily traveled
roadways (including Main Street and 28th Street) pass within 1 mile of the
monitoring station.
2-18
-------
Table 2-3
SNMOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
/rans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
/w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
2-Ethyl-l-Butene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Method Limit
ppbC
0.26
0.46
0.38
0.52
0.35
0.29
0.54
0.17
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.42
0.24
0.42
0.39
0.51
0.41
0.45
0.45
0.24
0.47
0.33
0.26
ppbv
0.13
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.13
Compound
3-Methyl-l-Butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3 -Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l-Pentene
4-Methyl-l-Pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
/raws-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
p-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Method Limit
ppbC
0.42
0.37
0.25
0.50
0.51
0.33
0.39
0.18
0.32
0.32
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.52
0.51
0.26
0.22
0.30
0.21
0.39
0.39
0.48
0.37
ppbv
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.16
0.04
2-19
-------
Table 2-3 (Continued)
SNMOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
/w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
/ra»s-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Method Limit
ppbC
0.26
0.41
0.38
0.50
0.39
0.31
0.47
0.31
0.31
0.38
0.31
0.42
0.21
0.51
0.22
0.30
ppbv
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.06
Compound
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Method Limit
ppbC
0.25
0.48
0.29
0.73
0.45
0.45
0.28
0.53
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.43
0.43
0.34
0.33
ppbv
0.08
0.16
0.04
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Concentration in ppbC = concentration in ppbv x number of carbons in compound.
Because Isobutene and 1-Butene elute from the GC column at the same time, the SNMOC
analytical method can only report the sum of concentrations for these two compounds and not
concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the sum of m-xylene and
/>-xylene concentrations is reported for both compounds as a combined value.
2-20
-------
Table 2-4
Sampling Schedules Implemented During the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Program
Monitoring
Option
SNMOC
NMOC
Monitoring
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Bronx, NY
El Paso, TX
Sampling Schedules
This site sampled every weekday of the monitoring program,
except holidays. All samples were analyzed for the 80 target
SNMOC and the calculated total NMOC.
These sites sampled every weekday of the monitoring program,
except holidays. All samples were analyzed for total
NMOC only.
Table 2-5
Summary of Sampling and Analytical Methods
Parameter
Sampling
apparatus
Analytical
approach
Output of
analysis
Units of measurement a
Detection limit a
NMOC
Stainless steel canisters
Cryogenic trap and flame
ionization detection
Concentration of the total
amount of nonmethane
organic compounds in the
sample
ppbC
0.5 ppbC
SNMOC
Stainless steel canisters
Cryogenic trap at the inlet of a gas
chromatography column with flame
ionization detection
Concentrations of 80 different
organic hydrocarbons b
ppbC
See Table 2-5
a Refer to Section 2.4 for information on the significance of units of measurement and detection limits.
b The SNMOC analytical method actually reports only 78 different concentrations for each sample. The
method cannot differentiate isobutene from 1-butene or m-xylene from/>-xylene. Therefore, a single
concentration is reported for each of these pairs.
2-21
-------
Table 2-6
Completeness of the NMOC/SNMOC Monitoring
Type
SNMOC
NMOC
Code
CAMS 13
BXNY
CAMS 12
Totals
Location
Fort Worth,
TX
Bronx, NY
El Paso, TX
Number of
Samples
Expected
75
66
64
205
Number of
Valid Samples
69
53
47
169
Completeness
92%
80%
73%
82%
Table 2-7
Data Quality Parameters for Total NMOC Measurements
Monitoring Station
CAMS 12
Analytical Precision (RPD)
24%
Sampling Precision (RPD)
NA
NA - Not Applicable. Samples were not run in replicate during the 2000 NMOC season.
No duplicate or replicate analysis was performed at the Bronx, NY location.
2-22
-------
Table 2-8
Data Quality Parameters for SNMOC Measurements
Compound
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
n-Butane
cis-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
n-Decane
1-Decene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
n-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylene
m-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
n-Heptane
1-Heptene
n-Hexane
1-Hexene
Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
(%)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
RPD
(%)
88%
67%
80%
47%
73%
83%
46%
52%
34%
86%
ND
47%
45%
54%
62%
78%
78%
15%
34%
62%
44%
ND
70%
57%
61%
58%
73%
ND
70%
46%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
12.82
9.76
1.48
7.74
1.00
1.12
0.95
1.16
0.15
4.32
ND
0.56
0.31
1.24
2.60
2.01
2.56
0.15
0.33
14.54
2.99
ND
13.54
2.93
1.97
1.64
3.22
ND
7.10
0.51
Sampling and Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
(%)
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
0
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
11
0
11
11
RPD
(%)
9.21%
3.31%
6.22%
2.63%
7.82%
8.27%
5.29%
6.90%
9.96%
6.58%
ND
16.35%
12.58%
6.26%
7.24%
6.80%
5.14%
6.44%
24.99%
3.20%
6.66%
ND
4.21%
6.67%
10.39%
9.33%
2.54%
ND
3.29%
13.31%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
0.82
0.63
0.04
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.11
ND
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.24
0.08
0.08
0.02
0.16
0.54
0.21
ND
0.38
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.08
ND
0.21
0.10
2-23
-------
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Data Quality Parameters for SNMOC Measurements
Compound
cis-2-Hexene
trans-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
2 -Me thy Ihexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylheptane
3 -Methy Ihexane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l-pentene
4-Methyl-l-pentene
n-Nonane
1-Nonene
n-Octane
1-Octene
n-Pentane
1-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
b-Pinene
Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
(%)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RPD
(%)
94%
110%
9%
84%
61%
70%
22%
91%
107%
82%
42%
76%
66%
82%
69%
69%
70%
73%
96%
ND
65%
54%
53%
69%
91%
63%
76%
83%
11%
20%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
0.40
0.79
0.55
7.31
21.01
0.92
0.13
2.28
3.98
0.51
1.55
4.22
1.08
3.63
9.76
1.38
4.62
6.41
0.57
ND
1.78
0.15
1.27
0.25
40.51
1.06
1.26
2.63
0.56
0.41
Sampling and Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
(%)
7
8
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
6
2
11
5
11
8
11
11
11
11
11
7
RPD
(%)
5.82%
19.70%
4.43%
3.38%
3.18%
5.03%
20.33%
4.75%
4.94%
9.42%
8.14%
3.10%
8.82%
3.51%
4.22%
9.70%
3.69%
3.04%
12.83%
18.23%
8.96%
13.98%
6.47%
25.39%
5.87%
5.14%
7.68%
5.90%
18.31%
11.86%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
0.01
0.05
0.16
0.16
0.67
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.35
0.09
0.14
0.18
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.81
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.14
2-24
-------
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Data Quality Parameters for SNMOC Measurements
Compound
Propane
n-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Toluene
n-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Undecane
1-Undecene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/
unknowns)
Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
RPD
47%
52%
63%
ND
7%
69%
39%
ND
55%
57%
64%
81%
81%
81%
50%
ND
31%
34%
47%
48%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
13.06
0.67
5.86
ND
0.14
23.22
0.22
ND
0.95
3.80
1.58
2.00
14.50
5.63
1.22
ND
5.77
2.23
219.76
259.88
Sampling and Analytical Precision
Number of
Observations
RPD
11
11
11
0
11
11
10
0
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
0
11
11
11
11
RPD
5.51%
10.43%
5.40%
ND
14.96%
3.26%
25.52%
ND
19.61%
5.62%
12.63%
12.22%
3.42%
2.85%
1.93%
ND
7.46%
8.17%
3.23%
3.43%
Average
Concentration
Difference in
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbC)
0.84
0.07
0.29
ND
0.10
0.61
0.06
ND
0.15
0.18
0.13
0.12
0.34
0.12
0.02
ND
0.55
0.22
8.98
10.96
Note: The number of observations for analytical precision indicates the number of replicates in which the
compound was detected in both analyses; the number of observations for sampling precision indicates the
number of duplicates in which the compound was detected in the four analyses of the duplicate samples.
By definition, analytical precision and sampling precision cannot be evaluated for compounds with zero
observations, hence compounds with no observations show an RPD of "NA."
2-25
-------
3.0 Data Analysis Methodology
This section presents a general overview of the methodology used to summarize and
interpret the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC ambient air monitoring data. In addition, basic information
is provided concerning various factors that potentially impact ambient air quality. Over 5,300
NMOC and SNMOC samples were collected at the three sites.
3.1 Data Summary Parameters
Because no single parameter can characterize the results of an extensive air monitoring
program, four parameters are used together to summarize and present the results of the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC ambient air monitoring program: prevalence, concentration range, central
tendency, and variability.
Because previous NMOC/SNMOC reports have used these same four parameters to
summarize the monitoring data, readers can directly compare the data summaries in this
report to those in earlier final NMOC/SNMOC reports.
However, before comparing NMOC/SNMOC data to other ambient air studies, readers are
reminded to consider the conventions used to address units of measure, methods for
presentation of the results of duplicate analyses, and methods used to present data when a
sample is determined to contain a pollutant of interest at a value lower than the limit of
detection of the applicable analytical method. Refer to Section 2.4 for details.
3.1.1 Prevalence
Prevalence of air monitoring data refers to the frequency with which compounds, or
groups of compounds, are found at detectable levels by the corresponding sampling and
analytical method. Prevalence is typically expressed as a percentage (e.g., a compound detected
in 15 of 20 samples has a prevalence of 75 percent). Compounds that are never detected have a
prevalence of 0 percent, and those that are always detected have a prevalence of 100 percent.
Because sampling and analytical methods might not reliably quantify concentrations of
compounds at levels near their detection limits, summary statistics for compounds with low
3-1
-------
prevalence values should be interpreted with caution. Compounds with a prevalence of zero may
still be present in ambient air, but at levels below the sensitivity of the corresponding sampling
and analytical methods.
For the purposes of this report, a group of "most prevalent" compounds was identified for
the SNMOC compound group. This group of most prevalent compounds is discussed in detail in
Section 5 of this report. Readers should be careful of two items: 1) not to confuse the most
prevalent compounds identified in this report with the most prevalent compounds in urban air;
and 2) to remember that "most prevalent" in this report only applies to the CAMS 13 site.
The most prevalent compounds were identified using two statistical parameters:
• The count of the number of nondetects; and
• Percent contribution to mass concentration within a compound group.
If a compound was detected in at least 75 percent of all samples and if the compound
contributed to at least 75 percent of the mass contribution within a compound group, then the
compound was identified in the group of most prevalent compounds. Twenty-two compounds
were identified as most prevalent and are examined in detail in Section 5.
3.1.2 Concentration Range
The concentration range of ambient air monitoring data refers to the span of measured
concentrations, from lowest to highest. To indicate concentration range, summary tables in
Sections 4 and 5 present the lowest and highest concentrations measured for each compound at
each monitoring location. For many compounds, at least one sample at a given site resulted in a
nondetect, so the lowest concentration reported is "ND". For compounds not detected in any
samples at a given site, both the lowest and the highest concentrations are reported as "ND".
3-2
-------
Because the NMOC/SNMOC program only measures 3-hour average concentrations
during the summer months, the lowest and highest concentrations may not be comparable to the
values from monitoring programs with different sampling durations and schedules. Ambient air
concentrations of the target compounds might rise to higher levels during other times of the day
and other times of the year.
3.1.3 Central Tendency
The central tendency of air monitoring data gives a sense of the long-term average
ambient air concentrations. This report uses medians, arithmetic means, and geometric means to
characterize the central tendencies of concentration distributions. Despite their common use,
these three parameters can have significantly different values for the same distribution of ambient
air monitoring data. By definition:
• Arithmetic means are the central tendencies of normally distributed data;
• Geometric means are the central tendencies of lognormally distributed data; and
• Medians are the midpoints of any data set.
The central tendencies in this report are based only on ambient air concentrations sampled
during the summer of 2000. Because ambient air concentrations of compounds may increase or
decrease during the colder winter months, the central tendencies presented in this report may not
be comparable to those calculated from annual air monitoring efforts.
3.1.4 Variability
Variability in ambient air monitoring data indicates the extent to which concentrations of
certain compounds fluctuate with respect to the central tendency. This report characterizes data
variability using:
Standard deviation - commonly used statistical parameter that provides an absolute
indicator of variability;
3-3
-------
Coefficients of variation - calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the arithmetic
mean, provide a relative measure of variability by expressing variations relative to the
magnitude of the mean concentration; better suited for comparing variability across data
distributions for different sites and compounds.
All data summary parameters presented in this report were calculated from a database of
processed 2000 NMOC/SNMOC ambient air monitoring data. This database was generated by
manipulating the raw monitoring data to assign all nondetect observations a concentration equal
to one-half the corresponding detection limit. The results of all duplicate sampling events and
replicate laboratory analyses were averaged so that only one concentration was considered for
each compound for each sampling date.
3.2 Analyses and Interpretations
The following subsections describe the methods used to identify and interpret the spatial
and temporal variations in the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC monitoring results.
3.2.1 Composition of Air Samples: Alkane, Olefin, and Aromatics Composition of
SNMOC Samples
Like the magnitude of air pollution, the composition varies from one location to the next.
The following discussion explains how the composition of air pollution will be used to
understand and appreciate the sources that contribute to levels of air pollution:
This analysis divides the overall SNMOC monitoring results into contributions from
alkanes, olefms, and aromatic compounds. Such analyses are useful to understanding ozone
formation processes, because current research shows that olefmic and aromatic compounds are
significantly more reactive in air than most alkanes (Carter, 1994). Knowing the relative
abundances of these three classes of hydrocarbons, state environmental agencies can better focus
air pollution prevention policies specifically on compound categories that have the greatest
3-4
-------
impact on air quality. This data analysis approach is used only in Section 5, because the
SNMOC analytical method quantifies concentrations of the most hydrocarbon compounds.
3.2.2 Statistical Analyses Using Pearson Correlation Coefficients
The following discussion describes how Sections 4 and 5 use Pearson correlation
coefficients to measure the degree of correlation between two variables. Pearson correlation
coefficients are commonly used as a measure of correlation. Details regarding their calculation
can be found in most introductory statistics texts.
Pearson correlation coefficients characterize the extent to which variables are related in a
linear fashion, and the coefficients calculated in this report are only forpairwise correlations
(i.e., correlations between two variables). As a result, the statistical analyses do not characterize
potential nonlinear or multivariate relationships that may be relevant to ozone formation
processes. This report uses Pearson correlation coefficients to measure the degree of correlation
between two variables, specifically to answer these basic questions:
To what extent are 3-hour average pollutant concentrations related to meteorological
parameters? Table 3-1 lists the source of meteorological data for each of the 2000
NMOC/SNMOC ambient air monitoring stations.
To what extent are 3-hour average pollutant concentrations related to ozone
concentrations (1-hour maximum) measured at or near the same monitoring location?
By definition, Pearson correlation coefficients always lie between -1 and +1. A
correlation coefficient of-1 indicates a perfectly "negative" relationship, and a correlation
coefficient of+1 indicates a perfectly "positive" relationship. Negative relationships occur when
increases in the magnitude of one variable are associated with proportionate decreases in the
magnitude of the other variable, and vice versa. On the other hand, positive relationships occur
when the magnitudes of two variables both increase and both decrease proportionately. Data that
are completely uncorrelated have Pearson correlation coefficients of zero. Therefore, the sign
3-5
-------
(positive or negative) and the magnitude of Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the direction
and strength, respectively, of data correlations.
3.2.3 Impact of Emission Sources on Spatial Variations
Pollutants found in urban air come from a wide range of emissions sources. Industrial,
motor vehicle, and natural emissions sources account for most pollutants found in urban air
(Graedel, 1978). The nature and magnitude of these emissions largely determine the chemical
composition of urban air pollution. Local meteorology and atmospheric chemistry, on the other
hand, determine how quickly emitted chemicals disperse and react in ambient air.
In Section 4, NMOC-to-NOx concentration ratios (NMOC:NOX) will be calculated and
compared to maximum ozone concentrations. According to the ozone formation cycle, NMOC
and NOX produced at or near the sampling location are important precursor gases (Figure 3-1).
Generally, a site that has an NMOC:NOX ratio less than 4 to 1 is situated in an area (or system)
that is considered VOC-limited. An NMOC:NOX ratio greater than 15 to 1 indicates that the site
is situated in an area that is consider NOx-limited (NRC, 1992). Figure 3-2 is an empirical
kinetic modeling approach (EKMA) graph for two sites in New Jersey, one that is NOX -limited
and the other VOC-limited (PAMS, 1994). Figure 3-3 is a conceptual NMOC-to-NOx ratio graph
with ozone isopleths superimposed. An ozone isopleth is a line of constant ozone concentration.
The ridge line (or line between the two systems) corresponds to an 8 to 1 NMOC:NOX ratio.
For NMOC:NOX ratios to the right of the ridge line (or in the NOX -limited region of the
graph), lowering NOX concentrations either at constant VOC concentration or in conjunction with
lowering VOCs results in lower peak concentrations of ozone. This scenario is characteristic of
rural areas and of suburbs downwind of center cities. At these high NMOC:NOX ratios, there is
ample supply of organic peroxy radicals and peroxy radicals to convert nitric oxide to nitrogen
oxide, a necessary precursor gas for ozone production. Decreasing the available NOX leads
directly to a decrease in ozone (NRC, 1992).
3-6
-------
For NMOC:NOX ratios to the left of the ridge line (or in the VOC -limited region of the
graph), lowering VOC concentrations at constant NOX concentration results in lower peak
concentrations of ozone; this is also true if NOX and VOC concentrations are decreased
proportionately. This scenario is characteristic of highly polluted urban areas. However, in a
VOC-limited area, lowering NOX concentrations at constant VOC will cause, peak ozone
concentrations to actually increase until the ridge line is reached. Therefore, lowering the NOX in
some scenarios may actually lead to increasing ozone. The NOX is competing with the VOCs for
the hydroxy radical. As the NOX concentration is decreased, more of the hydroxy radical is
available to react with VOCs, leading to greater formation of ozone (NRC, 1992).
3-7
-------
Figure 3-1
Ozone Accumulation Cycle
Accumulation
OH Radical
AirQ
03(P)
Meteorological Transport
and Local Production of
VOCs
Net Result: Ozone (O3) Accumulation
Adapted from Warneck, 1998.
3-8
-------
Figure 3-2
Comparison of NOX/VOC Ratios of Monitoring Sites Using EKMA
1J6
o
o
OJ8
04
NOx Limited
n
n
c -1
r;- A
PF^r^
r
rif
^'nED *n
*ft **.^
*' _ .*.*- '
15to1
,'f c
E m
,^ ' *S
**
, ™
r
f
r **
*•
•
dl
T
VOC Limited
*• Newark, N-J
nplairfield, NJ
0
OJ04
0.08 0.12
6to9AMNCh(ppm)
0.16
02
Source: PAMS, 1994.
3-9
-------
Figure 3-3
Conceptual EKMA Diagram (From NRC, 1992)
0.20
0.24
0.20
I 016
O" 0,12
0.08
0.04
0
01{ppm)-O.OQ 0,16 Q.£4 /0.34
0.40
-VOC
1 IMITFD
0 0,2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1-0 1.2 1,4 1,6 1.8 2.0
VOC (ppmC)
3-10
-------
Table 3-1
Sources of Meteorological Data for the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC Statistical Analyses
Monitoring Station
New York City, NY
Bronx (BXNY)
El Paso, TX
(CAMS 12)
Fort Worth, TX
(CAMS 13)
Location of Nearest National Climatic Data
Center (NCDC) Meteorological Station
New York/John F. Kennedy Airport
El Paso International Airport
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
3-11
-------
4.0 Analysis of Total NMOC Monitoring Results
This section summarizes and interprets the total NMOC monitoring data collected at the
three monitoring stations during the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC program. The total NMOC sampling
and analytical method detects a wide range of organic compounds (e.g., alkanes, olefins,
aromatics, oxygenates, halogenated hydrocarbons), measuring overall levels of the air pollution
that is known to affect ozone formation processes. This method does not characterize total levels
of air pollution, because the method does not detect common air pollutants such as inorganic
acids, paniculate matter, and heavier organic compounds.
4.1 Data Summary
Table 4-1 summarizes the total NMOC monitoring results for the three monitoring
stations. The table also presents quartiles of the NMOC concentration distributions measured at
these stations. An overview of these summary parameters follows.
4.1.1 Prevalence
Each 2000 total NMOC sampling event at the three sites resulted in a valid, quantified
concentration value. Therefore, the prevalence for total NMOC sampling was 100 percent. All
but four total NMOC concentrations measured during the 2000 program were at least an order of
magnitude greater than the estimated method detection limit, 0.005 parts per million on a carbon
basis (ppmC).
4.1.2 Concentration Range
As shown in Table 4-1, total NMOC concentrations at the three sites during the 2000
program ranged from 0.086 ppmC (El Paso) to 18.576 ppmC (Fort Worth). The high values at
the Fort Worth site from June 8 to July 7 (2.264 ppmC to 18.576 ppmC) were verified; these
values appear to be related to the startup of the monitor. After July 7, the concentrations ranged
from 0.09 to 0.61 ppmC. Similarly, the Bronx, NY, and El Paso, TX, sites also had unusually
high NMOC concentrations during that time period.
4-1
-------
4.1.3 Central Tendency
Central tendency parameters were calculated for the three sites, and are listed in
Table 4-1. For the BXNY site, which was new to the 2000 program, the average concentration
was 1.154, while the geometric mean was 0.654.
Two sites, El Paso and Fort Worth, were not new to the NMOC/SNMOC program. At the
El Paso site during 2000, the geometric mean concentration for total NMOC was 0.708 ppmC,
and the average was 0.937 ppmC. Last year, these averages at El Paso were 0.500 and 0.680,
respectively, which shows nearly a 40% increase. At the Fort Worth site, the geometric mean
concentration for total NMOC was 0.563 ppmC, and the average was 2.139 ppmC. Last year,
these averages were significantly lower at 0.020 ppmC and 0.023 ppmC, respectively.
4.1.4 Variability
Variability parameters of standard deviation and coefficient of variation were calculated
at all three sites (Table 4-1). The El Paso site was the only site in which the majority of the total
NMOC sample values were greater than the standard deviation (approximately 60%). The Fort
Worth and Bronx sites had an opposite effect (12% and 20%, respectively).
4.2 Analyses and Interpretations
4.2.1 Comparison to Selected Meteorological Conditions
This report compares average daily observations of measured meteorological parameters
to the corresponding air quality measurements. Because of the close proximity of the
meteorological stations to the monitoring stations, the meteorological data are believed to be
representative of conditions at the stations.
Table 4-2 identifies the meteorological stations used for this report. Figures 4-1 to 4-3
present the average NMOC concentrations that were observed during different meteorological
conditions. Pearson correlations were calculated for selected meteorological parameters and are
4-2
-------
listed in Table 4-3. Maximum daily temperature, average wind speed, and average dew point
temperature were analyzed in relation to concentration levels.
NMOC Concentration Versus Maximum Temperature
According to Figure 4-1, NMOC concentrations did not have a consistent trend with
maximum temperature. While the BXNY and CAMS 13 sites displayed their highest
concentration peaks in the 85 to 90 degree category, CAMS12 displayed its highest concentration
peak in the 90 to 95 degree category.
Table 4-3 further highlights the Pearson correlations that were calculated for this
parameter. The Fort Worth and Bronx sites had a moderately weak negative correlations with
maximum temperature (-0.380 and -0.269, respectively) while the El Paso site had a very weak
positive correlation (0.167).
The average maximum temperatures for BXNY, CAMS 12, and CAMS 13 on sampling
days were 77.65 °F, 92.91 °F, and 94.97 °F, respectively. Ozone concentrations have been
shown to become strongly dependent on temperatures above 90 °F (NRC, 1992), but only a weak
positive correlation was observed at El Paso.
NMOC Concentration Versus Wind Speed
According to Figure 4-2, NMOC concentrations did not appear to have a consistent trend
with the wind speed. As wind speeds increase, the average concentrations vary across all three
sites. Table 4-3 confirms this trend with the calculation of the Pearson correlations. All three
sites have weakly positive or negative correlations of concentration with wind speed, with Bronx
having the strongest negative correlation (-0.106).
The average daily wind speeds for BXNY, CAMS 12, and CAMS 13 on sampling days
were 8.82 mph, 6.92 mph, and 8.66 mph, respectively.
4-3
-------
NMOC Concentration Versus Dew Point Temperature
According to Figure 4-3, NMOC concentrations appeared to have a consistent trend with
average dew point temperature. At all the sites, there is a noticeable increase in concentration
with increasing dew point temperature. Table 4-3 does somewhat confirm this, as only the Bronx
site has a very weak positive correlation (0.060). The NMOC concentrations at CAMS 12 and
CAMS13 sites have moderately strong correlations with dew point temperature (0.329 and 0.358,
respectively).
The average dew point temperature for BXNY, CAMS 12, and CAMS 13 on sampling
days were 59.47 °F, 50.76 °F, and 63.70 °F, respectively.
4.2.2 Temporal Variations
This section evaluates short-term variations in NMOC concentrations. Analyses of such
temporal variations can provide insight into seasonal changes in air quality and can verify data
trends identified in previous NMOC/SNMOC final reports. Figure 4-4 illustrates how the
average NMOC concentration measured during the morning hours at the three sites varied from
one summer month to the next. Noticeable variations appear each month for each site when
compared to that site's arithmetic mean.
Ozone concentrations are influenced by NMOC concentrations which will typically peak
during the hottest months (July and August). Interestingly, NMOC concentrations did not peak
during the hottest months, but rather in June. There is also a large difference in the NMOC
concentrations at CAMS 13 in June compared to other months. Readers should be reminded
unusually high NMOC values were measured at this site before July 11.
4.2.3 NMOC:NOX Concentration Ratios and Ozone Concentration Trends
As discussed in Section 3.2.3, NOX and NMOC are important precursor gases for
formation of ozone. An area that is primarily "NOx-limited" will require different air quality
strategies than an area that is primarily "VOC-limited". Therefore, NMOC:NOX concentration
ratios were calculated for the three urban sites. NOX and ozone data were retrieved from the Air
4-4
-------
Quality Subsystem (AQS) of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) for this
analysis.
Bronx, New York (36-005-0074)
Ozone and NOX data were not sampled at the same site as the NMOC data; therefore, a
site two miles away (AIRS Code 36-005-0110) which measured these parameters was chosen for
this analysis. Ozone data were available for all 45 sampling days, but NOX data were available
for 33 of the sampling days. Therefore, NMOC:NOX ratios were only calculated for 33 days.
The average NMOC:NOX ratio was 32.26, which would fall in the NOx-limited area. If
the ratios greater than 100 are removed, then the average NMOC:NOX ratio is reduced to 26.41,
which is still in a NOx-limited area. An effective air quality strategy would need to focus on
reducing NOX emissions.
The average maximum daily ozone concentration on a sample day at BXNY was
43.36 ppbv ± 3.98 ppbv. Daily NMOC:NOX ratios and maximum daily ozone concentrations
were plotted in Figure 4-5 to determine if there were noticeable trends between these two
parameters. It appears as if the tendicies of the NMOC:NOX ratios somewhat mirror the
maximum daily ozone concentrations. There were eighteen sampling days in which the
maximum ozone concentration exceeded the upper bound average (47.34).
If the one sampling day with the unusually high NMOC:NOX ratios was removed, then
there is a noticeably difference between a day when the maximum daily ozone concentration
exceeded the average upper bound and a day in which it was not exceeded (32.01 versus 22.05).
Additionally, maximum temperature, dew point temperature, and wind speed averages did not
vary significantly when ozone concentrations exceeded the upper bound. These observations
would suggest that a combination of local sources of NMOC are driving ozone accumulation at
this site. As shown in Figure 2-5, there a number of industries near the monitoring site, and the
issue of transport from the prevailing wind may not be valid.
4-5
-------
El Paso, Texas (48-147-0037)
Ozone and NOX data were sampled at the same site as the NMOC data; ozone data were
available for all 60 sampling days, while NOX data were available for 57 of the sampling days.
Therefore, NMOC:NOX ratios were only calculated for 57 days.
The average NMOC:NOX ratio was 47.37, which would fall into the NOx-limited area.
Again, if the ratios greater than 100 are removed, then the NMOC:NOX ratio would be 24.92,
which is still in a NOx-limited area. An effective air quality strategy would be to focus on
reducing NOX emissions.
The average maximum daily ozone concentration on a sample day at CAMS 12 was
68.27 ppbv ± 4.39 ppbv. Daily NMOC:NOX ratios and maximum daily ozone concentrations
were plotted in Figure 4-6 to determine if there were noticeable trends between these two
parameters. There appears to be a relationship between the tendencies of the NMOC:NOX ratios
and the maximum ozone concentration. There were nineteen sampling days in which the
maximum concentration exceeded the upper bound ozone concentration average (72.66 ppbv).
If the six sampling days with the unusually high NMOC:NOX ratios were removed, then
there is little difference on a day when the maximum daily ozone concentration exceeded the
average upper bound and higher (25.89 versus 24.42) a day when the average upper bound was
not exceeded. Since this area was calculated to be a primarily NOx-limited area, decreasing or
increasing VOC concentrations would have no real effect on increasing or decreasing ozone
concentrations. This observation would suggest that more NOX has become available in the
ambient air on these high ozone days. As shown in Figure 2-3, there are a few industries
surrounding the monitoring site, indicating that the meteorology, such as high temperature and/or
transport by the prevailing wind, may have a principal role in the increase of ozone
concentrations.
4-6
-------
Fort Worth, Texas (48-439-1002)
Ozone and NOX data were sampled at the same site as the NMOC data; ozone data were
available for all 66 sampling days, while NOX data were available for 65 of the sampling days.
Therefore, NMOC:NOX ratios were only calculated for 65 days.
The average NMOC:NOX ratio was 161.89, which would fall into the NOx-limited area.
If the ratios that were greater than 100 were removed (twenty-one), then the average NMOC:NOX
ratio was 18.03 (Table 4-4), which is still in the NOx-limited area. An effective air quality
strategy would be to focus on reducing NOX emissions.
The average maximum daily ozone concentration on a sample day at CAMS 13 was
68.45 ppbv ± 5.13 ppbv. Daily NMOC:NOX ratios and maximum daily ozone concentrations
were plotted in Figure 4-7 to determine if there were noticeable trends between these two
parameters. There does appear to be a similar tendency between the NMOC:NOX ratios and the
maximum ozone concentration. There were twenty-five sampling days in which the maximum
concentration exceeded the upper bound ozone concentration average (73.59 ppbv).
If the twenty-one sampling days with the unusually high NMOC:NOX ratios were
removed, then the CAMS 13 site would have an opposite trend to the BXNY site. The
NMOC:NOX ratio is lower (13.41) on a day when the maximum daily ozone concentration
exceeded the average upper bound and higher (23.56) on a day when the upper bound was not
exceeded. Since this area was calculated to be a primarily NOx-limited area, decreasing or
increasing VOC concentrations would have no real effect on increasing or decreasing ozone
concentrations. This observation would suggest that more NOX has become available in the
ambient air on these high ozone days. As shown in Figure 2-4, there are quite a few industries
near the monitoring site, especially to the east. Although maximum air temperatures were high
(96.99 °F), the local industrial emissions could play a crucial role if the prevailing wind is from
the east.
4-7
-------
Figure 4-1
Maximum Temperature and NMOC Concentrations
1 .80
• 1 .60
ff 1 40
5 1.20
£ U 1.00
o S.
O a, o.so
1 0,0
V
it 0.40
V
< 0.20
0.00
BXNY: NMOC Concentration vs. Maximum Temperature
< 8 0 >= 8 0 and < 8 5 >= 8 5 and < 9 0 >= 9 0 and <= 9 5 > 9 5
T emp erat ure R ange (degrees F ahrenheit)
1 .20
| 1.00
it
£
J 0.80
Jo
0 I 0.60
1*
* 0.40
V
9
Z
; 0.20
0.00
CAMS12: NMOC Concentration vs. Maximum Temperature
< 80
>= 8 0 and < 8 5 >= 8 5 and < 9 0 >= 9 0 and <= 9 5 > 9 5
T emp erat ure R ange (degrees F ahrenheit)
CAMS13: NMOC Concentration vs. Maximum Temperature
a
b
'
y
•
0 - 8.00
g 1 600 -
1"
V
r
V ^.UU
H
<80
>=80and<85 >=85and<90 >=90and<=95 >95
T emp erat ure R ange (degrees F ahrenheit)
4-8
-------
Figure 4-2
Average Wind Speed and NMOC Concentration
1 .80 ,
• 1 .60 -
fl 1.40-
* 1.20-
•
5 0 1.00.
||080
* 0.60 -
41
PI
2 0.40 -
£
< 0.20 •
0.00 •
BXNY: NMOC Concentration vs. Wind Speed
< 4 >= 4 and < 8 >= 8 and <= 1 2 > 1 2
Wind Speed Range (mph)
1 .20 *.
1 100
rt
* 0.80 -
jo
o 8. °'60 •
O a.
r040.
«
?
S 0.20.
0.00 -
CAMS12: NMOC Concentration vs. Wind Speed
< 4 >= 4 and < 8 >= 8 and <= 1 2 > 1 2
Wind Speed Range (mph)
3 .00 •
| 2.50.
A
« 2.00.
jo
0 S. 1'50'
a a.
1 100
«
?
S 0.50-
0.00 •
CAMS13: NMOC vs. Wind Speed
< 4 >= 4 and < 8 >= 8 and <= 1 2 > 1 2
Wind Speed Range (mph)
4-9
-------
Figure 4-3
Average Dew Point Temperature and NMOC Concentrations
1 .80 ,
• 1 .60 -
ft 1.40-
•
V 1 90 .
Awerige NMDC Coic
(PP-CJ
00000^
o o o o o o
BXNY: NMOC Concentration vs. Dew Point Temperature
<55 >=55and<60 >=60and<65 >=65
Dew Point Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
1 .40 -.
S 1.20.
z
m 1.00 .
!
J|080
0 £0.60.
Z
ft °'4°-
fl
V
H 0.20 -
CAMS12: NMOC Concentration vs. Dew Point Temperature
I
< 5 5 >= 5 5 and < 6 0 >= 6 0 and < 6 5 >= 6 5
Dew Point Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
4.00
1 3'50
\ 3.00
I tf 2.50
0 "
0 " 2.00
1 " 1 .50
S, LOO
I 0.50
* 0.00
CAMS13: NMOC Concentration vs. Dew Point Temperature
< 55 >= 55 and < 60 >= 60 and < 65 >= 65
Dew Point Tern per at ure (degrees Fahrenheit)
4-10
-------
Figure 4-4
Average Monthly NMOC Concentrations Measured from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
— 5 00
o
E 4 50
Q.
Q. 4 00
c 3 50
'S 3 00
c 2 50
0>
o 2 00
° 1 50
* 1.00 -
" 0.50
0>
> 0 00
1 6
c 1 4
o
~ 1 2
'c 10
S o 1'°
= E 08
5 £
S 0 6
a, — u-°
O)
0)
> 02
<
0 0
8 0
0
15 60
= 50
S o 5'°
c E 40
0 a.
0 S 30
0) ~ °-U
O)
ra 20
0)
> -1 n
< ku
n
n
n
n
n
n
Q
n
n
n
o
n
n
n
o
Q
June
June
June
BXNY: Monthly Average Concentrations
July August September
Month
CAMS12: Monthly Average Concentrations
July August September
Month
CAMS13: Monthly Average Concentrations
July August September
Month
October
October
October
4-11
-------
Figure 4-5
NMOC:NOX Ratios and Maximum Ozone Concentration at BXNY (Bronx, NY)
to
150
140
130 ^
_ 120
i/)
£ 110
-2- 100 ^
.o
'^
n
•o
(0
.a
Q.
I
§
Ǥ
90 -
80
70 ^
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ozone Upper
Bound Average •
47.34 ppbv
•Max Ozone
•NMOCtoNOx
Date (YYMMDD)
-------
Concentration (ppbv) and Ratio (unitless)
x O
o o
11
o
X
O
n
95
O°
95
3
a
§
95
H
§'
B
5
N ^
1 =
re
=
95
=
C/5
95
«1
o
v»
H
-------
130
20
10
0
Figure 4-7
NMOC:NOX Ratios and Maximum Ozone Concentration at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
NMOCto NOx
ratios are greater
than 150
Ozone Upper
Bound A verage =
73.59 ppbv
-NMOCto NOx
• Max Ozone
VOC-limited Line
Date (YYMMDD)
-------
Table 4-1
Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Total NMOC
Measured at the Monitoring Stations
Category
Prevalence
Concentration
Range
Central
Tendency
Variability
Parameter
Number of valid sampling
days
Number of nondetects
Frequency of detection
Lowest concentration (ppmC)
25th percentile concentration
(ppmC)
50th percentile concentration
(ppmC)
75th percentile concentration
(ppmC)
Highest concentration (ppmC)
Median concentration (ppmC)
Arithmetic mean concentration
(ppmC)
Geometric mean concentration
(ppmC)
Standard deviation (ppmC)
C oeffi ci ent of vari ati on
Percentage of samples in
which Total NMOC value was
less than the standard
deviation
Bronx
45
0
100%
0.101
0.272
0.680
1.199
8.116
0.680
1.154
0.654
1.530
1.326
80%
El Paso
60
0
100%
0.086
0.488
0.834
1.361
2.826
0.834
0.937
0.708
0.659
0.703
38%
Fort Worth
66
0
100%
0.094
0.178
0.288
2.918
18.576
0.288
2.139
0.563
4.111
1.922
88%
4-15
-------
Table 4-2
Meteorological Stations Used for Analysis
NMOC Site
El Paso
Fort Worth
Bronx
World
Meteorological
Order Number
722700
722590
744860
Station Name
El Paso
International
Airport
Dallas-Fort Worth
International
Airport
Newark
International
Airport
Latitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
31.817
32.900
40.390
Longitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
106.38
97.02
73.47
Elevation
(meters)
1194
171
21
Table 4-3
Pearson Correlations of Total NMOC (TNMOC) Concentrations with Selected
Meteorological Parameters
Site
El Paso
(CAMS 12)
Fort Worth
(CAMS13)
Bronx
(BXNY)
Correlation Variable (TNMOC
Concentration with ...)
... Maximum Daily Temperature
... Average Daily Wind Speed
... Average Dew Point Temperature
... Maximum Daily Temperature
... Average Daily Wind Speed
... Average Dew Point Temperature
... Maximum Daily Temperature
... Average Daily Wind Speed
... Average Dew Point Temperature
Pearson
Correlation
0.167
0.014
0.329
-0.380
-0.091
0.358
-0.269
-0.106
0.060
Average
Sample Day
92.91 °F
6.92 mph
50.76 °F
94.97 °F
8.66 mph
63.70 °F
77.65 °F
8. 82 mph
59.47 °F
4-16
-------
Table 4-4
NMOC and Ozone Summary for All Sites
SITE
BXNY (Bronx,
NY)
CAMS 12
(El Paso, TX)
CAMS 13
Fort Worth, TX)
Average Ozone
Concentration
43.36ppbv
(±3.98ppbv)
68.27 ppbv
(±4.39ppbv)
68.45 ppbv
(±5. 13 ppbv)
Number of
Days in Which
the Ozone
Concentration
Was High
18
19
25
Average NMOC:NOX Ratio
Time
Period
26.41
24.92
18.03b
High3 Ozone
Concentration
Day
32.01
25.89b
13.41b
Not a High3
Ozone
Concentration
Day
22.05b
24.42b
23.56b
a = An ozone concentration day considered "high" exceeds the upper bound of the average ozone
concentration. For example, the average ozone concentration at BXNY is 43.36 ppbv. The
upper bound is 47.37 ppbv, and any day that exceeds this value is considered "high".
b _
= The unusually high measured NMOC:NOX Ratios (greater than 100) were removed.
4-17
-------
5.0 Analysis of SNMOC Monitoring Results
This section summarizes the SNMOC ambient air monitoring data collected during the
2000 NMOC/SNMOC program. As discussed earlier, the SNMOC sampling and analytical
method currently measures ambient air concentrations of 80 different hydrocarbons as well as
total NMOC, thus providing extensive information on the composition and magnitude of selected
components of air pollution at the sampling locations. Of the three monitoring stations that
measured SNMOC, only one (Fort Worth) collected SNMOC samples on an almost daily basis.
5.1 Data Summary
Table 5-1 summarizes the SNMOC monitoring data for the Fort Worth site. This
summary table reveals several notable trends.
5.1.1 Prevalence
Nearly all of the 80 hydrocarbons identified by the SNMOC sampling and analytical
method were detected in more than 75 percent of the total SNMOC samples collected during the
2000 program. Prevalent compounds were identified according to their percentage contribution
by mass to a site's average daily concentration. If a compound contributed to the top 75 percent
of the average total concentration and that compound was detected in at least 75% of the
samples, then that compound was identified as prevalent.
T. ^ /-> ^ -u ±- i™n/ (Average concentration of a compound by site)
Percent Contribution = 100% x A ° i: 1 L
(Average group total concentration by site)
A group of 22 compounds was identified as the "most prevalent" SNMOC; these compounds are
listed below:
5-1
-------
Alkanes
w-Butane
w-Pentane
w-Hexane
Isopentane
Methyl cy cl opentane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Olefins
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclopentene
Isoprene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
1-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
Aromatic Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-,p-Xy\ene
o-Xylene
Specific trends noted in the frequency of detection include:
• Thirty-three compounds were detected in 100% of the samples.
• Propyne, 1-decene, and 2-ethyl-l-butene were not detected in any samples.
5.1.2 Concentration Range
As Table 5-1 indicates, concentration ranges for SNMOC vary widely from one
compound to the next. In addition, readers should note two limitations when interpreting the
concentration range data in Table 5-1:
5-2
-------
Because the data summary tables only characterize air concentrations measured between
6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., local time, it is highly likely that ambient levels of many
SNMOC rose to higher levels or fell to lower levels than the concentration range data
indicate.
There were twenty-one sample days in which the NMOC values were unusually high.
5.1.3 Central Tendency
Not surprisingly, the median, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean concentrations shown
in Table 5-1 also vary significantly among the different compounds. These various measures of
central tendency are expected to accurately represent actual central tendency levels, due to the
high prevalence of most SNMOC. For compounds detected in fewer than half of the SNMOC
samples, the magnitude of the central tendency values may be influenced by nondetects, which
were all replaced with concentrations equal to one-half their corresponding detection limits.
Again, readers are cautioned to note the unusually high SNMOC concentrations when
evaluating average values.
5.1.4 Variability
According to Table 5-1, coefficients of variation for most SNMOC compounds were
greater than 1.5. The highest coefficient of variation is for isoprene (7.22); the next highest were
for 2-methyl-1-butene and 3-methyl-l-butene (2.20). Note that these compounds are all alkenes,
relatively reactive compounds that are more difficult to measure reproducibly.
5.2 Relationship Between "Identified" vs. "Unknown" Compounds
For additional insight into the nature of airborne organic compounds, Table 5-2 lists the
total concentration of compounds that the SNMOC analytical method can, and cannot, identify.
The percentage of identified and unidentified compounds by SNMOC analytical method
characterized over eighty percent of the organic compounds found in the average NMOC sample.
5-3
-------
Although the identities of the unidentified compounds are obviously unknown, they
probably include halogenated hydrocarbons, carbonyls and other oxygenates, and hydrocarbons
that the SNMOC analytical equipment cannot yet identify.
5.3 Composition of Air Samples
The composition of air samples can be used to characterize the reactivity and sources of
pollution within airsheds. For instance, air samples having relatively high concentrations of
reactive compounds (such as olefms) likely characterize "newer" air masses near emissions
sources, and those with relatively low concentrations of reactive compounds likely characterize
"older" air masses (e.g., those influenced by long-range transport).
Refer to Table 2-5 for a list of the SNMOC compounds of interest grouped as olefms,
alkanes, and aromatics.
Table 5-2 indicates the extent to which alkanes, olefms, and aromatics (as ppbC)
constitute total identified SNMOC at each monitoring station. Previous reports based this
comparison on ppbv data. While percentages based on concentrations expressed in units of ppbC
inherently give greater weight to concentrations of compounds with more carbon atoms,
Table 5-2 highlights the same trend in the 2000 SNMOC monitoring data identified in previous
reports: alkanes account for the majority of an SNMOC sample. Nearly 54% of the samples were
from the alkane compound group, suggesting the influence of long-range transport.
5.4 Analysis of Tracer Compounds
Several compounds may be identified as "tracer" compounds, indicating that their mere
presence or relative strength may provide clues to their origin. Acetylene and ethylene are tracers
of vehicle exhaust; isoprene is a compound that is a tracer of biogenic emissions; and benzene
and toluene are tracers for combustion sources (Stoeckenius, 1994). Acetylene also has no
significant terrestrial biogenic sources (McElroy, 1998).
5-4
-------
Figures 5-1 through 5-3 are profiles of these tracer compounds. In Figure 5-1 , the
isoprene concentrations are always lower than the acetylene concentrations. After July 7 (which
is after the unusually high SNMOC values), isoprene concentrations remain fairly constant.
However, acetylene concentrations varied significantly throughout the sampling season. This
variation may suggest that the biogenic contribution to the overall CAMS 13 airshed remains
fairly constant, while the anthropogenic contribution tends to influence the ozone concentration.
Figure 5-2 is a plot of acetylene versus ethylene concentrations, and the correlation between the
two parameters is extremely high (0.959). Benzene and toluene concentrations had an even
higher correlation (0.989), as shown in Figure 5-3. The results of the tracer analysis suggest that
CAMS 13 is influenced more by anthropogenic sources, such as motor vehicles, than by biogenic
sources.
5.5 Correlations Between Concentrations of Different Compounds
Pearson correlations were calculated between the concentrations of the different SNMOC
compounds. An intercomparison between the compound types (i.e., alkanes, olefms, and
aromatics) is presented in Table 5-3.
As Table 5-3 indicates, correlations between the different compound types are strongly
positive. This table shows correlations obtained with the unusually high SNMOC data as well as
without the unusually high data. With the high data, all the compound groups show correlation
coefficients greater than 0.964. Without the high data, the correlation coefficients are still strong.
Alkanes and aromatics have the highest correlation between them on average followed by
aromatics and olefms.
5.6 Comparison to Selected Meteorological Conditions
The following analyses compare local observations of maximum temperature, wind
speed, and dew point temperature to the concentrations of the SNMOC by compound type.
Figures 5-4 through 5-6 show the compound group comparison by meteorological parameter.
5-5
-------
Compound group concentrations tended to decrease as: 1) the maximum temperature increased;
2) the wind speed increased; and 3) the dew point decreased.
Table 5-4 shows calculated correlation coefficients and summarizes the data both with
and without the unusually high data. In examining the data after July 7, the wind speed had the
strongest negative relationship with the olefms (-0.512) followed by the alkanes (-0.457). This
trend suggests that as wind speeds increase, the SNMOC concentrations decrease, and would
support the influence of local sources of air pollution. In general, the maximum temperature and
the dew point temperature weakly correlated with compound group concentrations.
5-6
-------
Figure 5-1
Acetylene and Isoprene Concentrations at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
o
&
0.
o
0)
u
o
o
o
o
n\
A
Sample Date
-------
14
Figure 5-2
Acetylene versus Ethylene at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
12 --
10
O
Pearson Correlation Coefficient = 0.959
oo
0)
I
•
6 +
4 --
. ^ * *
8 10 12
Ethylene (ppbC)
14 16 18 20
-------
1200
Figure 5-3
Benzene versus Toluene at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
1000
Pearson Correlation Coefficient = 0.989
O 800
.a
a.
1
600
I
o
o
0)
0)
o 400
200
50
100
150 200 250 300
Benzene Concentration (ppbC)
350
400
450
-------
Figure 5-4
CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Maximum Temperature
0.120
~ 0.100
E
Q.
— 0.080
c
o
4->
•£ 0.060
0)
o
c
O 0.040
0)
O)
5
5 0.020
0.000
/Alkane /Alkane Akane /Alkane /Alkane /ArcrrBtic /ArcrrBtic /ArcrrBtic /ArcrrBtic /Arcrraic Qd'in CMin Qd'in Qd'in Qd'in
<80 80to85 85to90 90to95 >95 <80 80to85 85to90 90to95 >95 <80 80to85 85to90 90to95 >95
Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
-------
Figure 5-5
CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Wind Speed
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
o"
o
'•&
c 0.03 ]
o>
o
o 0.02 ]
0.02
<5
< 0.01
0.01
0.00
=
Alkere
<4
Alkere
4to8
Alkere
8to12
Alkere
ArorrEtic
<4
ArorrEtic
4to8
ArorrEtic
8to12
ArorrEtic
Qrfin
<4
defin
4to8
Qrfin
8 to 12
Qrfin
V\ifnd Speed (mph)
-------
Figure 5-6
CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX): Average Concentration Compared with Dew Point Temperature
0.080
0.070
U 0.060
Q.
Q.
c
o
0.050
to
• 0.040
0.030
O
C
o
o
a)
O)
0.020
0.010
0.000
Alka-e Alka-e Alka-e Alkars Arorraic Arorraic Arorraic Arorraic Qrfin Qrfin Qrfin Qrfin
<55 55to60 60to65 >65 <55 55to60 60to65 >65 <55 55to60 60to65 >65
Dew Point Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)
-------
Table 5-1
Summary Statistics for SNMOC Concentrations Measured at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
Based on 66 Days with Valid Samples
Compound
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,3 -Butadiene
-Decene
-Dodecene
-Heptene
1-Hexene
1-Nonene
1-Octene
1-Pentene
1-Tridecene
1-Undecene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Ethyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methylheptane
Prevalence of Compound
in Ambient Air
Number of
Non-detects
10
1
7
18
66
7
47
17
52
43
1
61
48
6
0
0
0
1
2
1
66
3
43
4
0
Frequency
of
Detections
85%
98%
89%
73%
0%
89%
29%
74%
21%
35%
98%
8%
27%
91%
100%
100%
100%
98%
97%
98%
0%
95%
35%
94%
100%
Range of Measured
Concentrations
Lowest
(ppbC)
0.52
1.03
0.58
0.31
0.29
0.44
5.14
0.52
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.51
0.55
0.39
0.87
0.49
0.43
0.71
0.60
0.57
0.52
0.33
0.56
0.44
0.34
Highest
(ppbC)
53.72
204.38
69.43
1.80
0.29
32.95
40.14
32.85
5.57
8.78
110.04
2.37
2.83
61.81
320.76
124.20
112.34
238.19
83.46
100.80
0.52
262.18
60.33
469.14
54.59
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentrations
Median
(ppbC)
0.86
2.78
1.07
0.38
0.29
0.64
0.31
0.65
0.35
0.29
0.79
0.42
0.42
1.03
6.26
1.34
2.25
2.00
1.16
1.36
0.52
0.98
0.52
1.22
0.91
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbC)
5.86
25.20
8.21
0.54
0.29
3.81
4.64
3.82
0.59
1.02
10.63
0.45
0.73
6.29
39.08
12.62
13.66
24.38
8.78
11.61
0.52
24.38
6.38
43.07
6.24
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
1.69
6.11
2.16
0.45
0.29
1.25
0.86
1.15
0.40
0.40
1.93
0.41
0.59
1.76
11.17
3.02
4.08
4.79
2.38
2.93
0.52
2.58
1.11
3.95
1.76
Variability in Measured
Concentrations
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
10.94
47.41
15.46
0.36
0.00
6.89
9.40
7.08
0.86
1.91
21.53
0.29
0.59
11.99
71.63
24.52
24.97
48.71
17.18
22.04
0.00
53.54
12.85
91.99
11.86
Coefficient
of Variation
1.87
1.88
1.88
0.67
0.00
1.81
2.03
1.85
1.45
1.87
2.03
0.65
0.80
1.91
1.83
1.94
1.83
2.00
1.96
1.90
0.00
2.20
2.01
2.14
1.90
-------
Table 5-1
Summary Statistics for SNMOC Concentrations Measured at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
Based on 66 Days with Valid Samples (Continued)
Compound
2-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
a-Pinene
Acetylene
3-Pinene
Benzene
cis-2-Butene
c/s-2-Hexene
cis-2-Pentene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
Prevalence of Compound
in Ambient Air
Number of
Non-detects
1
0
42
0
0
0
47
15
0
23
0
16
44
2
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
40
Frequency
of
Detections
98%
100%
36%
100%
100%
100%
29%
77%
100%
65%
100%
76%
33%
97%
98%
100%
89%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
39%
Range of Measured
Concentrations
Lowest
(ppbC)
0.62
1.25
0.37
0.34
0.81
0.65
1.38
0.29
0.95
0.31
2.85
0.49
0.41
0.42
0.58
0.37
0.41
3.49
0.57
2.05
0.77
0.98
1.72
0.42
0.64
Highest
(ppbC)
210.83
945.73
48.06
52.80
225.16
568.22
16.04
7.15
12.97
2.71
386.03
86.17
43.22
181.43
128.56
171.18
101.01
49.34
167.98
18.76
256.21
50.17
3101.38
947.92
14.13
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentrations
Median
(ppbC)
2.13
7.98
0.37
0.96
3.63
4.28
0.46
3.52
0.55
16.06
0.46
0.68
0.39
0.84
2.38
1.21
0.69
10.27
2.39
4.55
4.91
3.38
17.34
1.23
0.48
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbC)
22.75
93.88
3.76
6.57
26.32
58.52
1.84
4.46
1.19
51.88
0.70
7.70
4.52
17.12
19.74
17.38
8.80
12.09
21.30
5.76
25.26
6.62
274.93
16.14
1.99
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
4.32
17.67
0.66
1.91
7.18
9.71
0.69
3.79
0.68
25.53
0.54
1.60
0.79
2.41
5.16
3.02
1.53
10.03
4.98
4.99
7.87
4.14
40.76
1.42
0.85
Variability in Measured
Concentrations
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
45.68
190.83
8.27
12.14
49.41
118.10
3.29
2.76
1.47
81.12
0.60
15.94
9.16
35.62
31.11
34.96
19.48
8.22
40.58
3.50
47.84
8.84
573.44
116.47
3.26
Coefficient
of Variation
2.01
2.03
2.20
1.85
1.88
2.02
1.78
0.62
1.24
1.56
0.85
2.07
2.03
2.08
1.58
2.01
2.21
0.68
1.91
0.61
1.89
1.34
2.09
7.22
1.64
-------
Table 5-1
Summary Statistics for SNMOC Concentrations Measured at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
Based on 66 Days with Valid Samples (Continued)
Compound
fw-Diethylbenzene
fw-Ethyltoluene
Fw-Xylene/p-Xylene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
ra-Butane
»7-Decane
»7-Dodecane
17-Heptane
ra-Hexane
»7-Nonane
>?-Octane
ra-Pentane
17-Propylbenzene
»7-Tridecane
»7-Undecane
9-Ethyltoluene
o-Xylene
o-Diethylbenzene
t>-Ethyltoluene
Propane
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Toluene
Prevalence of Compound
in Ambient Air
Number of
Non-detects
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
25
31
0
7
0
42
3
0
0
66
13
0
Frequency
of
Detections
65%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
52%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
62%
53%
100%
89%
100%
36%
95%
100%
100%
0%
80%
100%
Range of Measured
Concentrations
Lowest
(ppbC)
0.68
0.62
2.15
0.55
0.51
1.53
0.58
0.43
0.63
0.96
0.42
0.49
2.28
0.55
0.44
0.47
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.71
3.01
0.99
0.38
0.41
2.50
Highest
(ppbC)
16.04
140.91
529.06
98.48
351.59
1672.76
22.80
4.82
224.05
753.95
37.22
77.97
1542.24
38.25
5.29
20.80
56.28
171.37
19.15
75.42
59.32
9.75
0.38
7.33
979.90
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentrations
Median
(ppbC)
0.83
2.04
2.70
2.26
5.86
7.55
1.62
0.43
2.42
5.29
1.03
1.21
10.80
0.68
0.45
0.96
0.99
2.28
0.33
1.23
10.48
2.16
0.38
0.88
16.05
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbC)
2.37
13.37
36.99
17.91
65.89
140.24
3.30
0.95
25.95
78.88
5.03
9.86
148.92
5.11
1.15
2.09
7.00
22.08
2.47
9.62
14.65
2.99
0.38
1.36
122.22
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
1.22
3.84
6.17
4.71
13.39
17.67
2.07
0.59
5.18
11.90
1.83
2.52
22.12
1.42
0.64
1.29
2.10
4.92
0.71
2.61
11.20
2.56
0.38
0.90
31.37
Variability in Measured
Concentrations
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
3.45
24.34
74.46
33.49
127.39
305.69
4.17
1.08
51.05
160.41
8.77
18.69
307.69
9.40
1.25
3.10
12.75
42.08
4.46
17.91
11.89
1.88
0.00
1.49
226.88
Coefficient
of Variation
1.46
1.82
2.01
1.87
1.93
2.18
1.26
1.13
1.97
2.03
1.74
1.90
2.07
1.84
1.09
1.48
1.82
1.91
1.81
1.86
0.81
0.63
0.00
1.10
1.86
-------
Table 5-1
Summary Statistics for SNMOC Concentrations Measured at CAMS13 (Fort Worth, TX)
Based on 66 Days with Valid Samples (Continued)
Compound
trans-2-Butene
fraws-2-Hexene
fraws-2-Pentene
Prevalence of Compound
in Ambient Air
Number of
Non-detects
7
42
1
Frequency
of
Detections
89%
36%
98%
Range of Measured
Concentrations
Lowest
(ppbC)
0.30
0.40
0.36
Highest
(ppbC)
95.31
78.73
398.52
Central Tendency of Measured
Concentrations
Median
(ppbC)
0.51
0.39
1.49
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbC)
7.87
7.64
37.36
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
1.35
0.97
4.22
Variability in Measured
Concentrations
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
16.98
16.13
78.67
Coefficient
of Variation
2.16
2.11
2.11
Bold face entries indicates a prevalent compound. Please refer to Section 5.1.1 for more details.
-------
Table 5-2
Breakdown of Total NMOC as Alkanes, Olefins, Aromatics, and Unidentified
Compound Type
Alkane
Olefm
Aromatic
Unidentified
Total
Average Concentration
(ppmC)
1.16
0.24
0.37
0.37
2.14
Percent of Total NMOC
54%
11%
17%
17%
100%
Table 5-3
Pearson Correlations Among SNMOC Groups
Site
Fort
Worth
Scenario
With unusually high data
Without unusually high data
Alkanes-
Aromatics
0.983
0.896
Alkanes-
Olefms
0.966
0.773
Aromatics-
Olefms
0.964
0.765
5-17
-------
Table 5-4
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of SNMOC Compound Type Concentration with Selected
Meteorological Parameter
Site
Fort
Worth
Scenario
With unusually
high data
Without
unusually high
data
Compound
Type
Alkane
Aromatic
Olefm
Alkane
Aromatic
Olefm
Maximum
Temperature
-0.391
-0.377
-0.384
-0.060
0.106
0.025
Dew Point
Temperture
+0.372
+0.382
+0.387
-0.253
-0.128
-0.244
Wind Speed
-0.096
-0.105
-0.106
-0.457
-0.317
-0.512
5-18
-------
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
As indicated throughout this report, the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring program offers
information for evaluating several factors known to affect ozone formation processes. The
following discussion reviews the main conclusions of this report and presents recommendations
for ongoing NMOC/SNMOC monitoring efforts.
6.1 Conclusions
Although the NNOC/SNMOC monitoring data alone cannot possibly characterize all
factors that contribute to ozone formation, they suggest the following air quality trends that may
have direct relevance to air pollution control strategies:
Monitoring locations (Section 2.1). The NMOC/SNMOC monitors were located in areas
which adequately characterize numerous industrial emission sources. These emission
sources include, but are not limited to, industries which produce: 1) chemicals; 2) metals;
3) textiles; 4) plastics; 5) petroleum; and 6) mobile source emissions.
Completeness (Section 2.5.1). The completeness percentage across the three sites for
SNMOC/NMOC suggests that the improvements in the shipping and receiving
procedures are warranted and have been made accordingly.
NMOC monitoring data (Section 4). NMOC concentrations were measured at all four
sites from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. throughout the summer of 2000. EKMA calculations
determined that all three sites were primarily NOx-limited areas, and will require
strategies for reducing NOX emissions. At the CAMS 12 sites, when ozone concentrations
were high, the NMOC:NOX ratios did not vary. However, for the BXNY and CAMS 13
sites, the NMOC:NOX ratios did change on a high ozone day, while the BXNY ratios
increased, the CAMS 13 ratios decreased. Only the wind speed parameter correlated
somewhat with the NMOC Concentrations.
SNMOC monitoring data (Section 5). The SNMOC analytical method identified at least
80 percent of the organic compound sample (on a mass basis) at the Fort Worth site.
Alkanes dominated the composition of the SNMOC sample (54 percent). The different
SNMOC groups (alkanes, olefins, and aromatics) correlated extremely well with each
other. The alkanes and aromatics had the strongest Pearson relationship, suggesting that
the formation of an alkane is dependent upon the aromatic existing in the air, and vice
versa. Twenty-two of the eighty samples contributed to at least 75% of the average
sample mass concentration, and were considered prevalent.
6-1
-------
Acetylene and isoprene were plotted together to show their relative abundance and
variability. For the most part, isoprene concentrations were constant through the
sampling season, and were always lower than acetylene concentrations. Acetylene and
ethylene concentrations correlated well, as did benzene and toluene concentrations. This
correlation would suggest that the airshed at Fort Worth is influenced by anthropogenic
sources.
6.2 Recommendations
Based on lessons learned from analyzing the 2000 NMOC/SNMOC monitoring data, a
number of improvements are recommended for future national ambient air monitoring efforts:
Increased sampling for the VOC and carbonyl data. The limited number of
samples does not provide enough information for determining meaningful air
quality trends. It would be desirable if the sampling schedule could mirror the
SNMOC schedule at the very least. Special samples should be collected when the
ozone concentrations are forecast to be high.
Investigate the feasibility of offering continuous monitoring or revised sampling
schedules as a program option. Though the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring
program currently characterizes air quality extensively for sponsoring agencies,
sampling schedules could be modified to offer even greater insight into the
complex nature of air pollution. For instance, scheduling options for weekend
sampling, sampling during different hours of the day (in addition to sampling
from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), or even continuous sampling would almost certainly
reveal notable air quality trends that cannot be characterized with the current
sampling schedules. Future NMOC/SNMOC programs should investigate the
feasibility and cost of providing these alternate sampling options. At the very
least, NMOC/SNMOC sampling should be considered when the ozone
concentrations are forecast to be high.
Recommend additional analyses of the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring data. Though
extensive, the analyses in this report do not provide a comprehensive account of
air quality near the NMOC/SNMOC monitoring stations. As a result, sponsoring
agencies are encouraged to supplement the analyses in this report with additional
analyses of factors that affect ozone formation processes, such as comparing air
quality trends to changes in emissions inventories, using regional dispersion
models to predict ozone concentrations, and examining how levels of air pollution
vary with a wider range of meteorological conditions (e.g., mixing heights, solar
radiation, and upper-air wind patterns).
6-2
-------
Encourage continued participation in the NMOC/SNMOC program. Although
NMOC and SNMOC monitoring data thoroughly characterize ambient air quality
during the summer months, state and local agencies can assess long-term trends in
levels of air pollution only through continued participation in similar ambient air
monitoring efforts. Because long-term trends can indicate the effectiveness of
pollution control strategies and suggest whether air quality is improving or
degrading, sponsoring agencies are encouraged to develop thorough monitoring
programs or to continue participating in NMOC/SNMOC monitoring efforts.
Perform multi-year analysis of all data compiled by NMOC/SNMOC program.
Multi-year analysis of all the existing NMOC/SNMOC data may provide valuable
understanding as to whether air pollution control strategies have been effective.
Multi-year analysis may also reduce the variability of site averages, as one year
may be significantly different from another due to extraordinary circumstances
(i.e., high summer temperatures).
6-3
-------
7.0 References
Carter, 1994. "Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compounds."
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 44: 881-899. 1994.
ERG 1997. "1996 Nonmethane Organic Compound and Speciated Nonmethane Organic
Compound Monitoring Program." Eastern Research Group, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
November, 1997.
FR, 1984. "Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit—
Revision 1.1." Federal Register 49/136. October 26, 1984.
McElroy, M. and Elkins, J. Evaluation of Sources and Sinks for Greenhouse and Ozone-
Depleting Gases in Rural New England: Prelude to Mitigation. Northeast Region Annual
Progress Reports, Annual 1997. 1998
NRC. Rethinking the Ozone Problem. National Research Council. National Academy Press.
Washington, DC. 1992.
PAMS. Preview of 1994 Ozone Precursor Concentrations in Northeastern U.S. (Internet
Address: http://capita.wus+l.edu/nescaum/reports/PAMS94/nepams4.htmn
Stoeckenius, I.E., Ligocksi, M.P., Shepard, S.B., and Iwamiya, R.K. "Analysis of PAMS Data:
Application to Summer 1993 Houston and Baton Rouge Data." Draft report prepared by
SAL San Rafael, CA. SYS APP94-94/115d. November, 1994.
USEPA, 1988a. "Data Quality Objectives for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (Stages
I and n)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. June, 1988.
USEPA, 1988b. "Method for the Determination of Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC)
in Ambient Air Using Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame lonization Detection
(PDFID)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Division,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. May 1988.
USEPA, 1989. "Determination of C2 through C12 Ambient Air Hydrocarbons in 39 U.S. Cities
from 1984 through 1986"
7-1
-------
Appendix A
NMOC
-------
Appendix B
SNMOC
-------
USEPA, 1999. "Compendium Method TO-15: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) in Ambient Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Center for Environmental Research and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b.
January, 1999.
USEPA, 2000. "Toxics Release Inventory." United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. August, 2000.
Warneck, Peter. "Chemistry of the Natural Atmosphere." International Geophysics Research.
Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA. 1988.
7-2
-------
Appendix A
NMOC
-------
2000 NMOC Results - Bronx, New York (BXNY)
SAMPLE
ID)
17651
17652
17653
17762
17804
17805
17802
17803
17833
17832
17870
17871
17904
17905
17911
17910
17913
17912
17946
17947
18019
18020
18014
COLLECTION
DATE
06/19/00
06/20/00
06/21/00
06/28/00
06/29/00
06/30/00
07/05/00
07/06/00
07/07/00
07/10/00
07/11/00
07/12/00
07/13/00
07/14/00
07/17/00
07/18/00
07/19/00
07/20/00
07/21/00
07/24/00
07/25/00
07/26/00
07/27/00
AVERAGE
CONC.
(ppmQ
2.705
1.403
1.588
1.354
0.929
0.844
0.552
0.106
0.301
0.400
0.452
0.091
0.308
0.301
0.730
0.213
0.272
0.319
0.171
0.472
0.100
0.307
0.054
Corrected
Cone.
(ppmQ
8.12
4.21
4.76
4.06
2.79
2.53
1.66
0.319
0.902
1.20
1.355
0.273
0.923
0.904
2.19
0.638
0.817
0.958
0.512
1.42
0.301
0.920
0.162
BXNY NMOC SITE - June 2000
" 0.00
ctf
Cv-1 Cv
/ /
Date
BXNY NMOC SITE - July 2000
Date
lof 2
bxny dota.xls.xls
-------
2000 NMOC Results - Bronx, New York (BXNY)
SAMPLE
ID)
18377
18074
18075
18079
18078
18164
18165
18152
18151
18166
18233
18232
18231
18230
18242
18241
18287
18288
18292
18334
18335
18373
18374
18380
18379
18396
18397
18417
18418
COLLECTION
DATE
08/01/00
08/02/00
08/03/00
08/04/00
08/07/00
08/11/00
08/14/00
08/15/00
08/16/00
08/17/00
08/21/00
08/22/00
08/23/00
08/24/00
08/25/00
08/28/00
08/29/00
08/30/00
08/31/00
09/05/00
09/06/00
09/07/00
09/08/00
09/11/00
09/12/00
09/13/00
09/14/00
09/15/00
09/18/00
AVERAGE
CONC.
(ppmQ
0.139
0.094
0.157
0.293
0.291
0.356
0.283
0.227
0.133
0.244
0.280
0.075
0.088
0.229
0.071
0.243
0.148
0.034
0.076
0.584
0.176
0.091
0.083
0.152
0.129
0.078
0.075
0.035
0.087
Corrected
Cone.
(ppmQ
0.418
0.281
0.470
0.878
0.872
1.07
0.848
0.680
0.399
0.733
0.839
0.224
0.264
0.688
0.214
0.729
0.445
0.101
0.229
1.75
0.527
0.272
0.248
0.455
0.388
0.233
0.225
0.104
0.261
.200
.000
& 0.800
| 0.600
s
.400
BXNY NMOC SITE -August 2000
.200
.000
Date
o
Q.
c
01
u
c
o
O
BXNY NMOC SITE - September 2000
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Date
2 of 2
bxny dota.xls.xls
-------
9.00
8.00
7.00
Bronx, New York, New York - NMOC Concentrations (ppmC) from June to September 2000
Q.
6.00
o 5.00
'is
g 4.00
c
o
o
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0>V
q>\
q>\
Date
-------
2000 NMOC Results - El Paso, Texas (CAMS12)
SAMPLE ID
17580
17563
17564
17582
17589
17601
17616
17647
17650
17676
17737- Dl
17746
17744
17763
17734
17846
17766
17768
17815
17814
17835
17821
17823
17862
17868
17909
17937
17948
18025
18022
17986
COLLECTION
DATE
6/8/2000
6/9/2000
6/12/2000
6/14/2000
6/15/2000
6/16/2000
6/20/2000
6/21/2000
6/22/2000
6/23/2000
6/26/2000
6/27/2000
6/28/2000
6/29/2000
6/30/2000
7/3/2000
7/5/2000
7/6/2000
7/7/2000
7/10/2000
7/11/2000
7/12/2000
7/13/2000
7/18/2000
7/19/2000
7/21/2000
7/24/2000
7/25/2000
7/27/2000
7/28/2000
7/31/2000
AVERAGE
CONC.
(ppmQ
0.545
0.452
0.841
0.503
0.102
0.263
0.942
0.367
0.290
0.465
0.229
0.322
0.464
0.478
0.529
0.889
0.337
0.793
0.577
0.684
0.419
0.062
0.519
0.523
0.460
0.442
0.621
0.235
0.217
0.218
0.460
Corrected
Cone.
(ppmQ
1.64
1.35
2.52
1.51
0.305
0.789
2.83
1.10
0.871
1.40
0.688
0.965
1.39
1.43
1.59
2.67
1.01
2.38
1.73
2.05
1.26
0.185
1.56
1.57
1.38
1.32
1.86
0.704
0.652
0.655
1.38
CAMS12 NMOC SITE - June 2000
entratio
Date
3.00
CAMS12 NMOC SITE - July 2000
jS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f*
Date
lof 2
cams!2 data.xls.xls
-------
2000 NMOC Results - El Paso, Texas (CAMS12)
SAMPLE ID
18004
18005
18012
18144
18080
18101
18135
18153
18149
18201
18197
18218
18216
18243
18240
18252
18315
18289
18314
18326
18329
18341
18337
18378
18377
18392
18393
18404
18414
18452-D1
18453-D2
18455
18462
COLLECTION
DATE
8/2/2000
8/3/2000
8/4/2000
8/9/2000
8/11/2000
8/14/2000
8/15/2000
8/17/2000
8/18/2000
8/22/2000
8/23/2000
8/24/2000
8/25/2000
8/29/2000
8/30/2000
8/31/2000
9/1/2000
9/5/2000
9/6/2000
9/7/2000
9/8/2000
9/11/2000
9/12/2000
9/13/2000
9/14/2000
9/15/2000
9/18/2000
9/19/2000
9/20/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
9/25/2000
9/28/2000
AVERAGE
CONC.
(ppmQ
0.295
0.301
0.258
0.284
0.276
0.301
0.223
0.162
0.280
0.166
0.220
0.287
0.259
0.073
0.088
0.029
0.320
0.080
0.074
0.118
0.103
0.218
0.086
0.050
0.296
0.280
0.181
0.169
0.037
0.056
0.044
0.180
0.163
Corrected
Cone.
(ppmQ
0.886
0.903
0.774
0.852
0.829
0.902
0.668
0.485
0.840
0.498
0.660
0.862
0.776
0.218
0.263
0.086
0.961
0.239
0.221
0.354
0.310
0.653
0.257
0.151
0.887
0.840
0.543
0.506
0.110
0.169
0.132
0.539
0.489
CAMS12 NMOC SITE - August 2000
1 nnn
O n onn
•^ JJ.oUU
&
-------
2000 NMOC Results - El Paso, Texas (CAMS12)
SAMPLE
ID
17576
—
17738-D2
—
17836
17858
17906
18026
—
—
—
18147
18158
18244
18422
—
—
COLLECTIO
N DATE
6/13/2000
6/19/2000
6/26/2000
7/4/2000
7/14/2000
7/17/2000
7/20/2000
7/26/2000
8/7/2000
8/8/2000
8/10/2000
8/16/2000
8/21/2000
8/28/2000
9/21/2000
9/26/2000
9/27/2000
AVERAGE
CONC. (ppmC)
Lab Void
State Holiday
Lab Void
National Holiday
State Void
State Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
Lab Void
lof 1
cams!2 data.xls.xls
-------
El Paso, TX - NMOC Concentrations (ppmC) from June to September 2000
3.00
0.00
rKi rCi
*J r*J
Date
-------
Appendix B
SNMOC
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
1 so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17566
6/8/2000
6/27/2000
7.77
7.48
19.42
9.75
59.32
ND
232.47
41.06
1.24
1254.62
66.99
63.83
26.26
1963.80
71.47
115.45
1156.77
6.29
248.76
112.13
280.51
67.38
59.51
11.46
108.96
135.78
559.26
348.68
38.55
23.36
ND
506.38
48.89
28.30
232.99
71.79
288.00
77.15
147.56
62.22
174.14
31.25
238.21
186.41
79.20
40.43
90.40
887.25
38.50
45.26
7.43
69.27
153.16
481.97
5.92
154.65
1.82
29.47
9.69
2.58
31.23
107.57
57.77
45.99
39.45
1.61
148.52
ND
11.25
29.72
10.65
15.68
2.22
5.27
20.31
3.16
0.27
3.20
11822.49
18318.90
17562
6/9/2000
7/5/2000
5.41
4.10
12.74
4.55
32.55
ND
129.92
21.58
0.70
685.84
33.63
32.99
13.58
928.03
37.30
93.62
478.00
3.39
125.02
56.98
137.71
37.19
29.19
5.77
55.31
72.55
276.85
184.67
20.16
11.72
ND
262.85
24.21
14.46
122.96
37.31
145.60
41.06
76.57
31.24
90.77
19.90
131.76
94.22
47.11
15.93
46.70
440.48
19.63
22.91
3.32
34.29
74.49
233.45
3.17
76.12
0.74
14.28
5.16
0.83
15.77
54.38
28.56
23.72
20.66
1.66
78.43
ND
5.86
16.27
6.49
8.00
2.44
3.09
14.66
1.76
0.24
2.81
5947.34
7223.54
17581
6/12/2000
6/27/2000
3.64
3.52
10.67
3.26
21.33
ND
83.20
14.63
0.46
448.16
24.22
21.54
9.21
625.78
24.46
39.05
315.58
3.31
84.46
39.88
92.37
23.54
21.51
3.58
36.85
46.28
185.89
117.99
13.22
7.55
ND
171.34
16.71
10.24
79.75
23.68
95.73
26.88
52.87
19.81
60.29
11.27
83.14
62.77
32.07
16.03
32.15
299.27
17.10
15.68
2.57
24.48
53.12
170.98
2.16
55.92
0.83
10.40
3.83
0.57
11.90
39.55
21.34
17.67
13.87
1.88
56.91
ND
4.34
12.96
4.69
6.08
2.83
2.87
11.74
2.52
ND
3.33
3991.24
! Of15250.90
17583
6/13/2000
6/27/2000
3.22
2.40
6.66
2.17
12.09
ND
58.12
10.75
0.37
329.95
16.23
16.25
7.53
541.17
19.91
263.18
263.18
2.60
67.55
30.78
77.28
22.36
17.62
3.11
33.10
45.26
150.26
99.43
10.73
6.31
ND
130.82
12.09
7.37
62.18
18.79
68.06
21.12
34.46
11.94
41.00
7.29
56.85
40.65
19.68
7.13
20.68
197.08
8.78
10.33
1.64
15.67
35.92
114.32
1.53
38.11
0.41
7.90
3.08
0.53
8.65
29.72
16.09
13.41
10.29
0.98
42.01
ND
3.99
8.82
3.78
4.01
1.41
1.92
8.88
1.24
ND
1.96
3272.16
3976.49
17588
6/14/2000
6/27/2000
3.67
3.51
5.06
2.26
9.72
ND
56.02
9.94
0.39
299.61
13.90
14.36
7.64
556.72
17.66
29.26
253.46
2.03
59.78
27.17
68.42
22.89
15.31
3.12
28.73
44.57
144.19
95.50
9.31
5.06
ND
112.83
9.55
5.95
55.61
17.72
52.40
19.49
28.19
11.17
34.70
5.93
55.82
30.05
16.83
6.36
17.64
142.68
6.11
7.46
1.20
10.51
23.28
77.62
1.01
25.61
0.48
4.97
1.75
0.71
5.04
17.50
9.64
8.16
7.38
1.43
25.36
ND
3.20
5.96
2.56
2.30
2.26
1.59
6.29
1.01
ND
1.42
2693.96
3345.40
17607
6/15/2000
6/27/2000
4.64
6.68
13.76
6.57
46.80
ND
256.21
50.17
1.28
1672.76
95.31
86.17
48.06
3101.38
110.04
197.04
1542.24
10.96
398.52
181.43
469.14
124.20
101.01
16.04
171.18
238.19
945.73
568.22
60.33
32.85
ND
753.95
78.73
43.22
351.59
100.80
386.03
128.51
210.83
83.46
225.16
40.14
320.76
224.05
98.48
61.81
112.34
979.90
54.59
52.80
8.78
77.97
167.98
529.06
6.69
171.37
3.69
33.31
12.32
3.56
35.82
123.11
67.13
52.23
44.82
ND
168.04
ND
13.29
39.38
11.24
14.09
1.58
5.91
24.72
3.74
0.51
3.25
16487.65
18576.25
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17606
6/16/2000
7/12/2000
2.14
1.87
4.65
1.41
5.63
ND
26.39
5.99
0.18
174.01
9.31
9.21
5.18
326.96
12.32
20.27
164.39
2.66
43.05
19.62
48.95
14.65
10.69
1.38
19.34
20.97
105.18
63.60
6.88
3.78
ND
82.94
8.71
4.75
39.14
12.09
44.00
13.54
21.19
7.73
25.58
5.14
36.66
26.18
13.70
6.93
12.37
119.91
6.83
6.23
1.08
9.55
21.03
67.08
0.97
22.04
0.35
4.55
2.03
0.64
5.10
17.32
9.83
7.69
6.83
ND
24.78
ND
2.36
5.48
2.27
2.56
1.55
1.53
6.36
0.78
0.24
1.34
1849.58
2263.93
17648
6/20/2000
6/28/2000
2.62
1.97
4.43
1.59
6.19
ND
25.49
6.47
0.28
198.46
10.81
10.85
5.41
413.84
16.08
26.64
218.74
2.12
57.32
26.25
66.56
19.36
14.74
2.89
26.24
36.02
131.50
87.31
9.74
5.22
ND
115.87
10.74
6.60
54.00
16.41
61.69
19.15
29.48
10.38
35.57
6.96
50.88
36.27
18.91
9.58
16.88
165.75
7.32
8.38
1.30
13.04
29.51
94.34
1.11
30.69
0.33
6.08
2.51
0.48
6.80
22.69
12.64
10.21
8.96
0.81
32.96
ND
2.86
7.18
2.64
3.24
1.40
1.43
6.94
0.79
ND
1.30
2418.22
3273.74
17681
6/21/2000
6/28/2000
2.84
2.16
4.44
1.74
6.33
ND
31.70
6.20
0.24
179.24
10.05
10.04
5.01
396.23
15.05
208.46
208.46
2.36
54.66
24.84
62.88
18.33
13.86
2.63
25.21
34.82
127.98
84.60
9.27
5.27
ND
112.96
10.32
6.34
52.50
15.97
59.74
22.11
29.07
10.24
35.01
7.40
47.93
35.93
19.15
9.72
16.46
168.12
7.04
8.20
1.20
12.66
27.91
88.54
1.65
29.05
0.31
6.03
2.50
0.66
6.58
22.24
12.03
9.91
8.81
0.84
31.83
ND
3.33
7.55
2.74
2.93
1.18
1.94
6.71
0.78
ND
1.72
2520.80
1 of ?1 40.68
17677
6/22/2000
6/28/2000
9.41
7.05
10.83
5.16
28.65
ND
92.88
24.54
1.23
779.35
45.20
44.42
23.38
1726.66
67.39
116.57
949.66
7.54
253.30
114.30
295.87
80.03
65.09
11.93
113.40
160.08
626.43
384.40
43.99
24.60
ND
520.47
52.00
30.01
239.42
71.91
274.75
84.63
132.97
45.01
154.86
28.19
227.06
164.20
81.54
37.26
74.06
689.75
30.65
36.69
5.89
56.36
123.33
388.12
3.64
125.63
1.51
25.29
9.55
1.61
27.17
95.11
51.47
40.53
34.37
0.62
128.32
ND
12.34
26.73
8.58
11.05
1.41
20.80
18.97
3.65
ND
2.75
10313.58
11933.89
17691
6/23/2000
7/5/2000
2.81
2.13
5.06
1.76
7.52
ND
29.55
6.74
0.26
193.71
10.36
10.48
4.81
380.03
14.94
24.87
199.94
2.62
52.90
24.17
61.19
17.97
13.39
2.59
25.72
35.02
124.68
83.00
9.24
5.09
ND
111.57
10.38
6.40
52.65
16.24
63.67
48.17
30.05
10.59
36.09
7.79
52.13
36.91
19.64
8.48
18.26
165.53
7.56
10.28
1.45
13.23
28.89
91.51
1.39
30.61
0.36
6.33
2.81
0.68
7.21
24.05
13.14
11.19
9.71
0.96
34.95
ND
3.29
8.67
2.97
3.48
1.85
2.56
8.08
1.09
0.18
2.06
2377.66
3041.67
17696
6/26/2000
7/5/2000
2.41
1.79
3.69
1.40
6.01
ND
23.47
5.87
0.23
164.43
8.66
8.90
4.27
340.21
13.27
21.77
181.38
2.23
46.56
21.44
54.11
16.84
11.86
2.06
22.11
30.94
113.87
75.80
8.16
4.47
ND
99.54
9.14
5.66
47.15
14.51
59.71
16.59
26.52
11.03
31.83
6.36
45.72
31.91
17.44
7.98
15.57
135.84
6.57
7.64
1.23
11.31
24.37
75.89
0.93
25.73
0.22
5.72
2.77
0.52
6.29
22.16
11.80
10.51
9.00
0.76
32.25
ND
3.08
7.68
3.19
3.44
0.99
1.75
6.73
0.96
0.19
1.37
2065.79
3045.20
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17606
6/16/2000
7/12/2000
2.14
1.87
4.65
1.41
5.63
ND
26.39
5.99
0.18
174.01
9.31
9.21
5.18
326.96
12.32
20.27
164.39
2.66
43.05
19.62
48.95
14.65
10.69
1.38
19.34
20.97
105.18
63.60
6.88
3.78
ND
82.94
8.71
4.75
39.14
12.09
44.00
13.54
21.19
7.73
25.58
5.14
36.66
26.18
13.70
6.93
12.37
119.91
6.83
6.23
1.08
9.55
21.03
67.08
0.97
22.04
0.35
4.55
2.03
0.64
5.10
17.32
9.83
7.69
6.83
ND
24.78
ND
2.36
5.48
2.27
2.56
1.55
1.53
6.36
0.78
0.24
1.34
1849.58
2263.93
17648
6/20/2000
6/28/2000
2.62
1.97
4.43
1.59
6.19
ND
25.49
6.47
0.28
198.46
10.81
10.85
5.41
413.84
16.08
26.64
218.74
2.12
57.32
26.25
66.56
19.36
14.74
2.89
26.24
36.02
131.50
87.31
9.74
5.22
ND
115.87
10.74
6.60
54.00
16.41
61.69
19.15
29.48
10.38
35.57
6.96
50.88
36.27
18.91
9.58
16.88
165.75
7.32
8.38
1.30
13.04
29.51
94.34
1.11
30.69
0.33
6.08
2.51
0.48
6.80
22.69
12.64
10.21
8.96
0.81
32.96
ND
2.86
7.18
2.64
3.24
1.40
1.43
6.94
0.79
ND
1.30
2418.22
3273.74
17681
6/21/2000
6/28/2000
2.84
2.16
4.44
1.74
6.33
ND
31.70
6.20
0.24
179.24
10.05
10.04
5.01
396.23
15.05
208.46
208.46
2.36
54.66
24.84
62.88
18.33
13.86
2.63
25.21
34.82
127.98
84.60
9.27
5.27
ND
112.96
10.32
6.34
52.50
15.97
59.74
22.11
29.07
10.24
35.01
7.40
47.93
35.93
19.15
9.72
16.46
168.12
7.04
8.20
1.20
12.66
27.91
88.54
1.65
29.05
0.31
6.03
2.50
0.66
6.58
22.24
12.03
9.91
8.81
0.84
31.83
ND
3.33
7.55
2.74
2.93
1.18
1.94
6.71
0.78
ND
1.72
2520.80
1 of ?1 40.68
17677
6/22/2000
6/28/2000
9.41
7.05
10.83
5.16
28.65
ND
92.88
24.54
1.23
779.35
45.20
44.42
23.38
1726.66
67.39
116.57
949.66
7.54
253.30
114.30
295.87
80.03
65.09
11.93
113.40
160.08
626.43
384.40
43.99
24.60
ND
520.47
52.00
30.01
239.42
71.91
274.75
84.63
132.97
45.01
154.86
28.19
227.06
164.20
81.54
37.26
74.06
689.75
30.65
36.69
5.89
56.36
123.33
388.12
3.64
125.63
1.51
25.29
9.55
1.61
27.17
95.11
51.47
40.53
34.37
0.62
128.32
ND
12.34
26.73
8.58
11.05
1.41
20.80
18.97
3.65
ND
2.75
10313.58
11933.89
17691
6/23/2000
7/5/2000
2.81
2.13
5.06
1.76
7.52
ND
29.55
6.74
0.26
193.71
10.36
10.48
4.81
380.03
14.94
24.87
199.94
2.62
52.90
24.17
61.19
17.97
13.39
2.59
25.72
35.02
124.68
83.00
9.24
5.09
ND
111.57
10.38
6.40
52.65
16.24
63.67
48.17
30.05
10.59
36.09
7.79
52.13
36.91
19.64
8.48
18.26
165.53
7.56
10.28
1.45
13.23
28.89
91.51
1.39
30.61
0.36
6.33
2.81
0.68
7.21
24.05
13.14
11.19
9.71
0.96
34.95
ND
3.29
8.67
2.97
3.48
1.85
2.56
8.08
1.09
0.18
2.06
2377.66
3041.67
17696
6/26/2000
7/5/2000
2.41
1.79
3.69
1.40
6.01
ND
23.47
5.87
0.23
164.43
8.66
8.90
4.27
340.21
13.27
21.77
181.38
2.23
46.56
21.44
54.11
16.84
11.86
2.06
22.11
30.94
113.87
75.80
8.16
4.47
ND
99.54
9.14
5.66
47.15
14.51
59.71
16.59
26.52
11.03
31.83
6.36
45.72
31.91
17.44
7.98
15.57
135.84
6.57
7.64
1.23
11.31
24.37
75.89
0.93
25.73
0.22
5.72
2.77
0.52
6.29
22.16
11.80
10.51
9.00
0.76
32.25
ND
3.08
7.68
3.19
3.44
0.99
1.75
6.73
0.96
0.19
1.37
2065.79
3045.20
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17753
7/7/2000
7/21/2000
9.86
7.74
18.84
5.29
46.07
ND
48.26
16.11
1.15
400.73
24.51
23.93
11.35
980.64
42.07
73.33
584.73
5.66
157.44
71.22
186.60
53.69
0.75
6.38
75.30
115.67
435.84
270.74
28.88
17.07
ND
369.48
36.03
20.99
172.63
52.87
198.99
78.36
119.27
43.77
121.67
16.52
187.34
127.26
59.62
22.93
65.64
615.74
36.41
35.17
ND
52.81
113.37
347.85
4.03
121.94
2.80
30.66
11.92
2.78
31.20
115.82
60.71
57.62
47.15
ND
166.12
ND
16.96
37.38
13.57
15.00
0.89
9.60
3.72
4.03
0.63
3.64
7372.68
7574.76
17754 17813
7/10/2000 7/11/2000
VOID 7/21/2000
3.36
3.21
5.57
1.78
5.67
ND
3.81
1.91
0.26
5.27
0.43
0.59
ND
16.90
0.67
0.71
8.62
1.62
1.21
0.82
1.12
1.40
0.56
0.20
1.15
1.66
6.01
3.58
0.29
0.24
ND
4.40
0.28
0.16
2.49
1.10
9.71
12.63
1.72
0.94
4.79
0.26
3.20
3.10
2.80
0.51
1.53
42.12
0.77
0.97
0.20
1.35
3.04
8.66
1.12
3.29
ND
1.07
0.78
7.15
1.07
3.60
1.76
1.67
1.69
1.66
5.22
ND
2.02
1.39
1.08
0.55
ND
2.18
0.76
0.93
ND
0.83
225.15
1 of 1 284.02
17822
7/12/2000
7/21/2000
2.14
1.60
3.49
1.11
3.01
ND
1.14
1.30
0.16
2.26
0.35
0.49
ND
5.05
0.47
0.37
2.62
1.32
0.84
0.57
0.60
0.85
0.49
0.13
0.66
1.04
3.76
1.67
0.18
ND
ND
1.82
ND
ND
1.09
0.77
9.71
0.70
0.66
0.65
1.70
ND
2.15
0.96
1.10
0.26
0.96
6.40
0.57
0.54
0.13
0.74
1.52
4.37
0.48
1.72
ND
0.77
0.56
0.29
0.66
1.84
1.14
0.92
0.87
0.46
2.71
ND
1.14
0.80
0.85
0.35
ND
0.77
1.76
0.23
ND
0.45
93.22
131.08
17857 17864
7/13/2000 7/14/2000
7/21/2000 VOID
4.91
3.83
6.75
2.43
5.99
ND
2.42
2.63
0.43
5.61
0.55
0.72
0.18
13.06
0.80
0.85
5.86
1.74
1.60
0.96
1.40
1.27
0.96
0.17
1.09
1.85
7.57
3.58
0.29
0.19
ND
3.91
0.27
0.18
2.32
1.31
12.43
1.23
1.63
1.07
3.03
ND
4.70
1.83
1.68
0.65
1.76
11.83
0.83
0.96
ND
1.14
2.47
6.63
0.54
2.48
ND
0.89
0.64
0.40
0.86
2.52
1.46
1.28
1.20
0.59
3.47
ND
1.13
0.86
0.86
0.43
ND
0.80
0.53
0.20
ND
0.40
163.07
193.57
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17872
7/18/2000
7/26/2000
4.14
3.08
5.87
1.97
4.85
ND
1.94
2.18
0.38
4.87
0.46
0.55
ND
9.44
0.62
0.67
4.36
1.38
1.16
0.75
0.97
1.04
0.77
0.16
0.87
1.43
5.85
2.66
0.22
0.16
ND
2.96
0.16
ND
1.79
1.02
9.89
2.25
1.20
0.84
2.27
ND
3.73
1.52
1.37
0.48
1.36
8.54
0.66
0.64
0.16
0.88
1.73
4.54
0.47
1.79
0.17
0.78
0.42
0.32
0.58
2.00
1.15
1.01
1.00
1.05
2.40
ND
1.70
0.94
0.72
0.28
ND
0.59
0.50
0.21
ND
0.26
129.05
163.53
17873
7/19/2000
7/26/2000
3.55
2.73
5.62
1.97
5.97
ND
18.47
2.50
0.30
19.56
0.75
1.07
0.34
36.19
1.13
1.51
12.42
1.90
2.93
1.59
2.88
2.02
0.84
0.27
1.78
2.55
11.14
5.82
0.56
0.31
ND
8.71
0.40
0.32
4.02
1.63
12.33
45.96
2.84
1.69
5.23
ND
6.51
3.41
3.06
1.17
2.29
27.92
0.88
1.08
0.22
1.39
3.30
8.59
1.25
3.27
ND
1.30
0.80
1.80
0.98
3.35
1.83
1.68
1.51
0.87
4.47
ND
3.26
0.96
0.72
0.35
ND
3.22
0.58
1.19
ND
0.50
325.46
371.89
17932
7/20/2000
7/26/2000
4.23
3.12
5.41
2.07
5.69
ND
2.06
2.22
0.35
5.88
0.50
0.66
0.16
11.39
0.69
0.72
5.01
1.89
1.39
0.82
1.16
1.24
0.69
ND
0.93
1.59
6.45
2.92
0.21
0.17
ND
3.15
0.19
0.13
1.80
1.09
12.34
0.99
1.25
0.95
2.39
ND
3.69
1.47
1.36
0.68
1.34
9.04
0.69
0.65
0.14
0.91
1.66
4.35
0.48
1.66
ND
0.72
0.82
0.26
0.63
1.77
1.17
0.88
0.88
0.51
2.27
ND
0.92
1.09
0.76
0.31
ND
0.66
0.29
0.16
1.42
0.25
137.76
10f1 165.89
17931
7/21/2000
7/26/2000
9.95
8.47
18.79
4.97
14.63
ND
3.69
5.18
1.00
8.08
0.94
1.06
0.27
21.53
1.25
1.72
12.76
1.22
2.39
1.42
2.70
1.79
1.25
ND
1.62
2.91
11.54
6.02
0.52
0.35
ND
6.97
0.42
0.28
3.96
2.08
13.98
1.51
2.93
1.67
4.71
ND
9.44
2.99
2.62
1.77
3.23
21.34
1.20
1.08
0.22
1.62
3.49
8.57
0.90
3.20
ND
1.23
0.86
1.09
0.96
3.23
1.76
1.63
1.32
0.61
4.01
ND
2.01
1.47
1.01
0.42
ND
1.23
0.65
0.33
ND
0.50
272.47
316.75
17942
7/24/2000
7/28/2000
5.84
4.51
9.66
3.00
9.97
ND
3.84
2.88
0.49
10.65
0.76
0.92
0.27
22.98
1.14
1.28
10.97
0.93
1.90
1.23
1.99
1.90
0.87
0.20
1.46
2.58
9.89
4.98
0.38
0.33
ND
5.56
0.27
0.20
3.01
1.61
14.18
1.29
2.14
1.28
3.47
ND
6.28
2.32
2.04
0.95
2.22
16.37
0.92
1.13
0.17
1.29
2.80
7.95
0.87
2.83
ND
1.09
0.53
0.71
0.79
2.59
1.35
1.21
0.97
0.42
3.15
ND
1.56
1.26
0.98
0.32
ND
1.13
0.51
0.34
ND
0.70
218.51
257.61
18024
7/25/2000
8/16/2000
5.44
3.56
11.43
2.59
13.67
ND
3.51
2.52
0.44
8.96
0.52
0.70
ND
14.16
0.78
0.82
7.80
0.95
1.42
0.83
1.03
1.48
1.46
ND
1.01
1.82
8.68
3.70
ND
1.14
ND
5.04
ND
ND
2.85
1.18
15.87
50.00
1.70
0.96
3.18
ND
4.30
2.22
2.10
0.59
1.52
22.96
0.86
0.80
0.18
1.20
3.84
12.31
0.58
3.79
ND
1.04
0.49
0.22
0.67
2.20
1.26
1.08
0.79
ND
2.67
ND
1.21
0.70
0.83
0.32
ND
0.79
0.45
0.41
ND
0.34
253.90
292.81
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
17872
7/18/2000
7/26/2000
4.14
3.08
5.87
1.97
4.85
ND
1.94
2.18
0.38
4.87
0.46
0.55
ND
9.44
0.62
0.67
4.36
1.38
1.16
0.75
0.97
1.04
0.77
0.16
0.87
1.43
5.85
2.66
0.22
0.16
ND
2.96
0.16
ND
1.79
1.02
9.89
2.25
1.20
0.84
2.27
ND
3.73
1.52
1.37
0.48
1.36
8.54
0.66
0.64
0.16
0.88
1.73
4.54
0.47
1.79
0.17
0.78
0.42
0.32
0.58
2.00
1.15
1.01
1.00
1.05
2.40
ND
1.70
0.94
0.72
0.28
ND
0.59
0.50
0.21
ND
0.26
129.05
163.53
17873
7/19/2000
7/26/2000
3.55
2.73
5.62
1.97
5.97
ND
18.47
2.50
0.30
19.56
0.75
1.07
0.34
36.19
1.13
1.51
12.42
1.90
2.93
1.59
2.88
2.02
0.84
0.27
1.78
2.55
11.14
5.82
0.56
0.31
ND
8.71
0.40
0.32
4.02
1.63
12.33
45.96
2.84
1.69
5.23
ND
6.51
3.41
3.06
1.17
2.29
27.92
0.88
1.08
0.22
1.39
3.30
8.59
1.25
3.27
ND
1.30
0.80
1.80
0.98
3.35
1.83
1.68
1.51
0.87
4.47
ND
3.26
0.96
0.72
0.35
ND
3.22
0.58
1.19
ND
0.50
325.46
371.89
17932
7/20/2000
7/26/2000
4.23
3.12
5.41
2.07
5.69
ND
2.06
2.22
0.35
5.88
0.50
0.66
0.16
11.39
0.69
0.72
5.01
1.89
1.39
0.82
1.16
1.24
0.69
ND
0.93
1.59
6.45
2.92
0.21
0.17
ND
3.15
0.19
0.13
1.80
1.09
12.34
0.99
1.25
0.95
2.39
ND
3.69
1.47
1.36
0.68
1.34
9.04
0.69
0.65
0.14
0.91
1.66
4.35
0.48
1.66
ND
0.72
0.82
0.26
0.63
1.77
1.17
0.88
0.88
0.51
2.27
ND
0.92
1.09
0.76
0.31
ND
0.66
0.29
0.16
1.42
0.25
137.76
10f1 165.89
17931
7/21/2000
7/26/2000
9.95
8.47
18.79
4.97
14.63
ND
3.69
5.18
1.00
8.08
0.94
1.06
0.27
21.53
1.25
1.72
12.76
1.22
2.39
1.42
2.70
1.79
1.25
ND
1.62
2.91
11.54
6.02
0.52
0.35
ND
6.97
0.42
0.28
3.96
2.08
13.98
1.51
2.93
1.67
4.71
ND
9.44
2.99
2.62
1.77
3.23
21.34
1.20
1.08
0.22
1.62
3.49
8.57
0.90
3.20
ND
1.23
0.86
1.09
0.96
3.23
1.76
1.63
1.32
0.61
4.01
ND
2.01
1.47
1.01
0.42
ND
1.23
0.65
0.33
ND
0.50
272.47
316.75
17942
7/24/2000
7/28/2000
5.84
4.51
9.66
3.00
9.97
ND
3.84
2.88
0.49
10.65
0.76
0.92
0.27
22.98
1.14
1.28
10.97
0.93
1.90
1.23
1.99
1.90
0.87
0.20
1.46
2.58
9.89
4.98
0.38
0.33
ND
5.56
0.27
0.20
3.01
1.61
14.18
1.29
2.14
1.28
3.47
ND
6.28
2.32
2.04
0.95
2.22
16.37
0.92
1.13
0.17
1.29
2.80
7.95
0.87
2.83
ND
1.09
0.53
0.71
0.79
2.59
1.35
1.21
0.97
0.42
3.15
ND
1.56
1.26
0.98
0.32
ND
1.13
0.51
0.34
ND
0.70
218.51
257.61
18024
7/25/2000
8/16/2000
5.44
3.56
11.43
2.59
13.67
ND
3.51
2.52
0.44
8.96
0.52
0.70
ND
14.16
0.78
0.82
7.80
0.95
1.42
0.83
1.03
1.48
1.46
ND
1.01
1.82
8.68
3.70
ND
1.14
ND
5.04
ND
ND
2.85
1.18
15.87
50.00
1.70
0.96
3.18
ND
4.30
2.22
2.10
0.59
1.52
22.96
0.86
0.80
0.18
1.20
3.84
12.31
0.58
3.79
ND
1.04
0.49
0.22
0.67
2.20
1.26
1.08
0.79
ND
2.67
ND
1.21
0.70
0.83
0.32
ND
0.79
0.45
0.41
ND
0.34
253.90
292.81
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18013
8/4/2000
VOID
18091
8/7/2000
VOID
18100
8/10/2000
8/22/2000
3.48
2.53
4.87
1.81
3.87
ND
1.44
1.90
0.31
2.03
0.37
0.47
ND
5.11
0.46
0.43
2.54
1.16
0.82
0.57
0.51
0.84
0.78
ND
0.64
1.10
4.41
1.81
ND
0.15
ND
1.87
ND
ND
1.15
0.81
7.10
0.73
0.80
0.67
2.02
ND
2.66
1.04
1.02
0.40
1.07
6.11
0.54
0.63
0.34
0.67
1.24
2.96
0.42
1.22
ND
0.76
0.42
0.31
0.44
1.33
0.84
0.61
0.86
0.36
1.61
ND
1.44
0.54
0.68
0.29
ND
0.60
0.70
0.20
ND
0.42
92.30
1 of 1 122.66
18102
8/11/2000
8/22/2000
5.31
3.77
12.01
2.78
23.01
ND
2.56
2.64
0.48
3.99
0.54
0.63
0.24
12.77
0.82
0.79
7.50
1.21
1.52
0.88
1.06
1.29
0.52
0.18
1.02
2.17
8.17
4.71
0.22
0.25
ND
7.56
0.22
0.14
2.79
1.52
8.70
2.15
1.78
1.16
3.31
ND
6.25
1.96
1.61
0.98
2.32
13.87
0.88
0.89
0.61
1.20
2.11
5.18
0.49
1.99
ND
1.02
0.45
1.94
0.68
2.39
1.17
1.00
1.20
2.37
2.59
ND
1.61
0.66
0.68
0.33
ND
0.94
0.67
0.30
ND
0.44
193.14
232.91
18138
8/14/2000
8/22/2000
10.34
10.15
26.60
4.93
18.71
ND
8.66
5.01
0.98
7.02
0.67
0.72
0.37
21.54
1.04
1.23
10.70
1.02
1.85
1.02
1.42
1.58
2.01
ND
1.40
2.65
10.88
5.72
0.36
0.41
ND
6.55
0.32
0.22
3.38
1.87
11.37
1.91
2.99
1.57
4.55
ND
9.55
3.07
2.56
1.69
3.23
18.03
1.37
1.41
0.29
1.53
3.22
7.58
0.84
3.07
ND
1.30
0.51
0.35
0.93
3.03
1.63
1.44
1.61
0.54
4.16
ND
2.36
0.97
0.85
0.38
ND
0.96
0.62
0.26
ND
0.36
273.40
313.52
18134
8/15/2000
8/22/2000
4.36
4.31
8.40
2.15
7.08
ND
1.95
2.29
0.38
3.23
0.42
0.51
0.17
7.23
0.53
0.56
3.67
1.38
1.02
0.65
0.84
0.92
0.40
ND
0.81
1.36
4.40
2.49
0.18
0.16
ND
2.74
0.16
ND
1.54
0.99
7.99
0.82
1.25
0.85
2.62
ND
3.76
1.46
1.23
0.55
1.39
8.06
0.63
0.69
0.15
0.81
1.54
3.52
0.58
1.47
ND
0.60
0.46
0.36
0.55
1.70
0.89
0.68
0.83
0.40
2.12
ND
0.90
0.64
0.59
0.23
0.55
1.33
2.14
1.88
2.37
2.30
128.11
162.69
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18139
8/16/2000
8/23/2000
4.52
4.32
5.65
2.10
4.90
ND
3.58
2.30
0.39
2.31
0.38
0.47
0.15
11.25
0.57
0.63
3.74
1.28
0.98
0.66
0.91
0.93
0.27
ND
0.80
1.41
3.88
2.71
ND
0.63
ND
2.92
0.25
0.13
1.65
0.99
8.59
10.68
1.30
0.86
2.08
0.15
3.91
1.47
1.15
0.74
1.48
10.75
0.63
0.71
0.14
0.81
1.99
4.43
0.92
1.68
ND
0.69
0.42
0.34
0.53
1.75
0.84
0.77
0.76
0.48
2.11
ND
1.09
0.76
0.61
0.32
ND
0.64
0.47
0.23
ND
0.38
135.29
170.91
18150
8/17/2000
8/23/2000
7.65
6.19
9.50
3.40
6.78
ND
2.41
3.69
0.67
3.19
0.50
0.64
0.22
11.63
0.76
0.92
5.15
1.30
1.40
0.85
1.19
1.14
0.46
ND
1.00
1.88
6.91
3.83
ND
0.74
ND
4.10
0.23
0.19
2.35
1.32
10.31
1.67
2.02
1.19
3.36
ND
6.35
2.09
1.38
1.20
2.31
14.06
1.00
0.92
ND
1.03
2.31
5.13
0.67
2.10
ND
1.09
0.40
0.39
0.77
2.31
1.21
1.13
1.13
0.60
2.86
ND
2.34
0.87
0.70
0.29
ND
0.78
0.61
0.23
ND
0.30
169.26
206.72
18162
8/18/2000
8/29/2000
4.36
2.73
5.42
1.68
5.75
ND
1.55
1.71
0.28
2.17
0.26
0.32
0.12
5.77
0.39
0.37
2.61
0.86
0.67
0.41
0.48
0.65
0.52
ND
0.55
0.94
3.85
1.73
ND
0.49
ND
1.87
0.14
ND
1.08
0.71
11.17
0.68
0.96
0.59
1.77
ND
2.85
1.06
0.94
0.51
0.99
7.62
0.42
0.49
ND
0.53
1.07
2.58
0.31
1.07
ND
0.55
0.28
0.18
0.35
1.16
0.67
0.54
0.58
0.47
1.48
ND
1.09
0.62
0.41
0.20
ND
0.55
0.48
0.23
ND
0.16
96.03
1of1 122.87
18162REP
8/18/2000
9/26/2000
4.28
2.61
5.38
1.63
5.50
ND
1.53
1.69
0.25
2.16
0.28
0.36
ND
5.62
0.39
0.37
2.44
0.86
0.69
0.43
0.44
0.65
0.58
ND
0.50
0.97
4.15
1.72
ND
0.50
ND
1.85
ND
ND
1.05
0.70
11.02
0.70
0.95
0.63
1.94
ND
2.74
1.04
0.99
0.50
1.07
7.98
0.46
0.48
0.10
0.62
1.20
2.92
0.34
1.16
ND
0.65
0.44
0.29
0.37
1.18
0.78
0.57
0.76
0.43
1.53
ND
1.15
0.44
0.44
0.24
ND
0.54
0.35
0.23
ND
0.39
97.16
128.52
18204
8/21/2000
8/29/2000
5.39
3.26
6.24
1.91
6.70
ND
6.99
2.09
0.36
5.09
0.34
0.44
0.15
12.09
0.53
0.72
7.97
1.16
1.04
0.64
1.04
0.88
0.49
ND
1.28
1.23
5.11
2.51
ND
0.59
ND
2.86
0.13
0.14
1.83
0.85
15.06
5.28
1.33
0.74
2.43
ND
3.25
1.48
1.10
0.59
1.27
10.31
0.49
0.54
0.11
0.62
1.27
2.97
0.48
1.15
ND
0.61
0.30
0.68
0.40
1.47
0.73
0.58
0.64
0.49
1.66
ND
1.04
0.82
0.53
0.23
ND
0.79
0.67
0.40
ND
3.82
148.36
186.30
18193
8/22/2000
8/29/2000
6.12
6.22
12.89
2.82
8.20
ND
2.30
2.92
0.52
3.82
0.42
0.51
0.24
14.24
0.72
1.02
5.23
0.66
1.21
0.79
1.19
1.09
0.60
ND
0.94
1.67
7.00
3.53
0.21
0.57
ND
3.75
0.22
0.15
2.09
1.08
16.02
0.75
1.69
0.92
3.02
ND
5.43
1.76
1.24
0.91
1.91
10.98
0.69
0.80
0.16
0.90
1.81
4.09
0.42
1.68
ND
0.79
0.33
0.16
0.51
1.82
0.96
0.77
0.96
ND
2.27
ND
1.30
0.62
0.51
0.25
ND
0.60
0.63
0.27
ND
0.25
163.08
205.51
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18193REP
8/22/2000
9/26/2000
6.11
5.82
12.49
2.85
7.75
ND
2.23
2.93
0.52
3.78
0.43
0.53
0.22
13.91
0.75
0.98
4.97
0.66
1.19
0.78
1.11
1.13
0.76
ND
0.93
1.69
6.75
3.48
ND
0.72
ND
3.66
0.13
0.14
2.08
1.12
15.60
0.79
1.66
0.94
3.14
ND
5.29
1.75
1.36
0.74
1.91
10.59
0.72
0.89
0.19
0.90
1.78
4.08
0.46
1.66
ND
0.82
0.34
0.27
0.51
1.69
1.07
0.75
0.79
ND
2.16
ND
1.29
0.50
0.53
0.30
ND
0.60
0.43
0.23
ND
0.10
159.40
203.23
18212
8/23/2000
8/29/2000
7.93
6.29
15.81
3.74
12.95
ND
2.97
3.87
0.73
4.99
0.44
0.51
0.22
14.33
0.71
0.99
6.27
0.60
1.42
0.75
1.12
1.20
0.44
0.13
1.05
1.96
7.63
4.26
0.17
0.59
ND
4.66
0.25
0.18
2.43
1.33
17.01
2.32
2.17
1.12
3.54
ND
6.74
2.35
1.56
1.30
2.37
13.42
0.92
0.99
0.16
1.01
2.25
5.08
0.54
2.07
ND
0.66
0.36
0.16
0.62
2.09
1.09
0.98
0.95
0.21
2.65
ND
0.99
1.01
0.57
0.24
ND
0.72
0.60
0.35
ND
0.24
194.30
233.68
18212REP
8/23/2000
9/26/2000
7.63
6.17
15.48
3.68
12.19
ND
2.99
3.77
0.70
4.95
0.47
0.58
0.25
13.92
0.78
0.95
5.82
0.61
1.50
0.81
1.07
1.36
0.49
ND
1.07
2.00
7.93
4.19
0.14
0.76
ND
4.56
0.22
0.16
2.48
1.37
16.34
2.35
2.15
1.19
3.63
ND
6.52
2.31
1.66
1.00
2.33
13.49
0.88
1.07
0.22
1.11
2.30
5.22
0.48
2.12
0.17
0.79
0.59
0.24
0.68
2.08
1.25
0.93
0.89
ND
2.66
ND
1.09
0.62
0.56
0.30
ND
0.74
0.38
0.34
ND
0.16
191.87
1on237.29
18220
8/24/2000
9/13/2000
6.08
5.09
16.84
2.48
11.28
ND
3.67
2.74
0.47
5.41
0.36
0.42
0.17
11.67
0.54
0.71
5.66
0.72
0.95
0.59
0.80
0.99
0.80
0.14
0.82
1.58
6.49
2.95
0.16
0.57
ND
3.47
0.14
0.12
1.95
1.01
14.64
4.28
1.49
0.78
2.91
ND
4.59
1.70
1.45
0.83
1.64
10.74
0.80
0.79
0.14
0.93
1.72
3.76
0.39
1.54
ND
0.84
0.34
0.27
0.42
1.58
0.90
0.64
0.82
ND
1.88
ND
1.68
0.59
0.51
0.21
ND
0.69
0.61
0.29
ND
0.15
165.35
212.37
18236
8/25/2000
9/13/2000
8.24
6.55
18.18
3.61
12.38
ND
3.91
3.59
0.63
5.33
0.46
1.29
0.23
13.25
0.68
0.97
6.10
0.96
1.37
0.76
1.05
1.11
0.58
0.14
1.00
2.02
7.75
3.99
0.24
0.62
ND
4.67
0.24
0.15
2.61
1.33
13.91
2.46
2.12
1.01
3.89
ND
6.59
2.51
2.04
1.20
2.28
14.73
0.99
1.02
0.18
1.18
2.05
4.45
0.32
1.74
ND
0.75
0.29
0.24
0.45
1.76
0.88
0.73
0.70
ND
2.18
ND
1.33
0.65
0.50
0.29
ND
0.67
0.58
0.31
ND
0.17
193.13
245.51
18237
8/28/2000
9/13/2000
3.73
3.28
5.71
1.60
4.61
ND
1.41
1.99
0.30
2.29
0.31
0.40
0.11
6.40
0.55
0.51
3.12
0.83
0.92
0.54
0.72
0.83
0.47
0.19
0.59
1.19
4.19
2.00
ND
0.55
ND
2.12
0.13
0.12
1.28
0.77
13.91
0.65
0.91
0.60
2.04
ND
3.04
1.10
1.06
0.48
1.11
6.87
0.49
0.52
0.11
0.60
1.13
2.56
0.27
1.01
ND
0.45
0.39
0.25
0.35
1.02
0.74
0.44
0.59
0.33
1.46
ND
0.68
0.47
0.67
0.23
ND
0.47
0.59
0.23
ND
0.13
101.69
146.81
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18237REP
8/28/2000
9/26/2000
4.22
2.83
6.01
1.89
5.21
ND
1.51
2.14
0.32
2.39
0.40
0.52
0.13
6.38
0.55
0.52
2.55
0.91
0.99
0.67
0.69
1.00
0.55
ND
0.68
1.23
4.55
2.06
ND
0.76
ND
2.17
ND
ND
1.23
0.88
13.57
0.74
0.94
0.77
2.17
ND
3.07
1.11
1.09
0.46
1.11
7.26
0.57
0.65
0.35
0.76
1.26
3.11
0.42
1.28
ND
0.56
0.50
0.31
0.52
1.41
0.91
0.70
0.61
0.33
1.62
ND
0.78
0.57
0.50
0.24
ND
0.49
0.52
0.25
ND
0.18
107.59
139.83
18293
8/29/2000
9/13/2000
3.73
2.67
5.02
1.68
4.25
ND
1.90
1.80
0.30
2.20
0.27
0.35
0.11
6.78
0.43
0.56
2.61
0.81
0.69
0.49
0.73
0.73
0.59
ND
0.60
1.02
4.99
1.99
ND
0.52
ND
2.15
0.11
ND
1.28
0.68
20.72
2.42
0.90
0.60
1.99
ND
2.73
1.08
0.89
0.47
0.99
6.99
0.42
0.48
0.33
0.55
0.99
2.30
0.32
0.91
ND
0.47
0.26
0.45
0.32
1.02
0.62
0.46
0.55
0.35
1.32
ND
0.77
0.34
0.39
0.17
ND
0.47
0.44
0.24
ND
0.14
106.82
143.82
18254
8/30/2000
9/14/2000
6.55
5.20
10.44
3.27
7.36
ND
2.03
3.42
0.60
3.25
0.44
0.55
0.20
10.28
0.62
0.87
4.33
1.01
1.17
0.73
1.12
0.94
0.55
0.14
0.78
1.71
6.62
3.23
0.18
0.65
ND
3.40
0.22
0.14
1.87
1.08
35.94
0.83
1.71
0.96
3.10
ND
5.40
1.76
1.33
0.97
1.92
11.87
0.67
0.77
0.17
0.87
1.62
3.72
0.39
1.53
ND
0.66
0.30
0.32
0.44
1.61
0.88
0.68
0.82
0.29
2.06
ND
1.12
0.66
0.45
0.24
ND
0.56
0.50
0.23
ND
0.16
172.40
1of?18.61
18254REP
8/30/2000
9/26/2000
6.49
5.05
10.21
3.24
7.03
ND
1.95
3.44
0.61
3.22
0.49
0.55
0.22
10.04
0.62
0.84
4.24
0.99
1.12
0.68
1.08
0.93
0.64
ND
0.75
1.54
6.46
3.17
0.15
0.63
ND
3.32
0.14
0.15
1.85
1.07
35.00
0.80
1.68
0.95
3.04
ND
5.29
1.72
1.14
0.78
1.88
11.78
0.66
0.84
0.19
0.88
1.73
4.10
0.43
1.65
0.13
0.73
0.34
0.38
0.49
1.65
0.94
0.84
0.81
0.37
2.15
ND
1.19
0.47
0.51
0.23
ND
0.55
0.46
0.21
ND
0.12
170.00
215.80
18253
8/31/2000
9/14/2000
8.10
5.38
10.50
4.00
13.67
ND
42.51
4.59
0.82
4.42
0.48
0.57
0.25
17.54
0.59
1.00
17.14
1.31
1.31
0.78
1.25
1.16
0.50
0.13
2.27
1.86
7.29
4.65
0.22
0.65
ND
6.75
0.28
0.20
3.07
1.37
38.82
59.62
2.30
1.25
4.02
ND
6.68
2.65
1.69
1.24
2.31
20.23
0.78
0.93
0.22
1.09
2.09
4.83
0.61
1.92
ND
0.66
0.28
1.27
0.54
2.02
0.97
0.91
0.87
1.14
2.39
ND
1.18
1.15
0.46
0.25
ND
1.02
0.46
0.41
ND
0.17
335.98
396.64
18291
9/1/2000
9/14/2000
8.66
6.86
29.63
4.00
18.73
ND
3.34
4.02
0.74
5.58
0.50
0.58
0.31
17.42
0.87
1.08
7.35
1.02
1.59
0.84
1.13
1.39
0.60
ND
1.20
2.62
9.24
5.56
0.24
0.75
ND
6.46
0.27
0.18
3.09
1.65
33.49
1.35
2.76
1.43
4.49
ND
8.45
2.76
2.06
1.59
2.88
16.77
1.16
1.17
ND
1.29
2.58
6.15
0.46
2.37
0.11
0.98
0.33
0.58
0.64
2.44
1.34
1.00
1.03
1.11
2.96
ND
1.60
0.66
0.57
0.28
ND
0.98
0.44
0.44
ND
0.24
258.44
328.34
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18291 REP
9/1/2000
9/27/2000
8.54
6.42
29.31
3.89
17.95
ND
3.24
3.88
0.73
5.51
0.49
0.58
0.31
17.03
0.91
1.05
7.12
0.98
1.54
0.81
1.08
1.38
0.60
ND
1.13
2.27
8.98
5.39
0.20
0.85
ND
6.27
0.24
0.18
3.00
1.62
32.76
1.33
2.69
1.37
4.47
ND
8.30
2.71
1.79
1.56
2.81
17.12
0.98
1.24
0.23
1.33
2.90
6.94
0.51
2.65
0.14
1.05
0.43
0.79
0.72
2.58
1.36
1.11
1.29
1.18
3.15
ND
1.68
0.79
0.60
0.33
ND
0.96
0.47
0.42
ND
0.22
256.39
322.59
18319
9/5/2000
9/14/2000
16.36
12.82
30.85
7.21
38.13
ND
8.09
6.58
1.27
14.67
1.22
1.34
0.71
48.38
2.09
2.69
33.82
1.39
3.94
1.97
4.19
2.84
1.17
0.21
3.05
6.27
19.26
11.64
0.70
1.13
ND
12.43
0.77
0.48
6.41
3.66
40.29
2.04
5.72
3.06
8.28
ND
19.57
5.53
3.99
2.80
7.33
37.67
2.26
2.35
0.44
2.56
5.25
13.66
1.53
5.18
0.29
2.39
0.55
4.34
1.23
4.78
2.34
2.02
2.29
2.56
6.15
ND
4.13
1.31
0.83
0.48
ND
2.07
0.72
0.86
ND
0.47
516.99
619.07
18319REP
9/5/2000
9/27/2000
16.05
12.31
30.05
6.95
36.17
ND
7.67
6.39
1.24
14.49
1.23
1.34
0.72
47.18
2.01
2.61
32.75
1.34
3.81
1.92
4.06
2.85
1.13
0.23
2.95
4.91
18.74
11.30
0.71
1.09
ND
12.03
0.68
0.48
6.29
3.54
39.15
1.99
5.56
2.91
8.15
ND
18.83
5.35
3.37
2.69
7.08
37.74
1.84
2.29
0.42
2.59
5.61
14.56
1.72
5.50
0.33
2.51
0.57
4.69
1.29
4.91
2.59
2.20
2.32
2.87
6.18
ND
4.18
1.32
0.85
0.60
ND
2.06
0.63
0.84
ND
0.41
505.86
1 of 606.55
18333
9/6/2000
9/14/2000
4.18
3.29
6.81
1.82
11.82
ND
6.12
2.15
0.33
5.12
0.46
0.60
0.21
17.64
0.68
0.80
6.23
0.49
1.02
0.65
0.69
1.00
0.58
ND
0.81
1.59
5.92
2.80
ND
0.59
ND
3.07
ND
ND
1.60
0.95
27.16
1.97
1.22
0.74
2.62
ND
3.96
1.38
1.30
0.56
1.46
11.98
0.59
0.75
0.14
0.86
1.48
3.68
2.26
1.39
ND
0.94
0.33
0.41
0.43
1.29
0.73
0.48
0.56
ND
1.70
ND
1.32
0.45
0.44
0.23
ND
0.77
0.50
0.38
ND
0.22
166.67
220.04
18330
9/7/2000
9/14/2000
8.24
5.28
14.62
3.27
19.84
ND
5.00
3.19
0.53
11.44
0.80
1.04
0.41
31.39
1.27
1.60
10.90
0.72
1.84
1.07
1.41
1.51
1.15
ND
1.26
2.84
9.76
4.96
0.18
0.76
ND
5.24
0.23
0.16
2.50
1.42
24.98
1.05
2.14
1.14
3.68
ND
6.10
2.34
1.86
1.09
2.19
15.74
0.94
0.93
0.17
1.22
1.84
4.65
1.89
1.85
ND
1.58
0.32
0.59
0.54
1.83
1.01
0.93
0.98
0.27
2.40
ND
1.75
0.68
0.56
0.24
ND
0.82
0.63
0.37
ND
0.22
247.33
306.44
18340
9/11/2000
9/27/2000
4.80
2.91
10.18
1.93
6.65
ND
1.91
2.21
0.30
3.12
0.35
0.46
0.13
7.28
0.48
0.48
3.18
0.70
0.82
0.56
0.60
0.74
0.39
ND
0.67
1.12
3.98
2.08
ND
0.61
ND
2.35
0.12
ND
1.33
0.77
23.27
1.04
1.07
0.71
2.28
ND
3.11
1.29
1.17
0.63
1.24
7.90
0.56
0.67
0.13
0.82
1.34
3.29
0.38
1.28
0.11
0.66
0.40
0.28
0.40
1.33
0.82
0.59
0.57
ND
1.67
ND
0.94
0.44
0.45
0.21
ND
0.52
0.58
0.25
ND
0.16
125.71
175.63
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18340REP
9/11/2000
10/3/2000
4.77
2.83
10.27
1.98
6.68
ND
1.99
2.27
0.35
3.12
0.34
0.45
0.12
7.21
0.46
0.51
3.25
0.66
0.90
0.53
0.60
0.81
0.42
ND
0.65
1.11
4.27
2.11
ND
0.59
ND
2.35
0.14
0.10
1.36
0.77
23.15
1.02
1.04
0.67
2.39
ND
3.10
1.31
1.18
0.45
1.24
7.95
0.55
0.65
0.17
0.85
1.24
3.13
0.36
1.23
0.10
0.62
0.31
0.29
0.41
1.33
0.81
0.65
0.70
ND
1.59
ND
0.89
0.47
0.44
0.22
ND
0.54
0.59
0.25
ND
0.14
125.97
177.51
18376 18378
9/12/2000 9/13/2000
9/27/2000 VOID
4.33
2.82
9.91
1.90
12.88
ND
2.72
2.00
0.34
4.07
0.31
0.40
0.12
9.64
0.42
0.43
5.43
0.58
0.69
0.46
0.67
0.72
0.44
ND
0.88
0.98
3.80
1.92
ND
0.53
ND
2.54
ND
ND
1.40
0.68
18.29
8.67
0.97
0.64
2.02
ND
2.72
1.26
1.08
0.39
1.07
7.96
0.55
0.55
ND
0.74
1.15
2.91
0.37
1.09
ND
0.55
0.30
0.40
0.37
1.19
0.77
0.63
0.55
ND
1.38
ND
0.86
0.40
0.38
0.20
ND
0.57
0.40
0.25
0.20
0.13
135.96
174.50 10f1
18386
9/14/2000
9/27/2000
4.83
3.52
9.70
2.30
8.75
ND
2.33
2.36
0.41
3.18
0.33
0.40
0.16
7.36
0.42
0.47
3.13
0.48
0.67
0.46
0.56
0.84
0.54
ND
0.61
1.35
4.47
2.11
ND
0.55
ND
2.55
ND
ND
1.28
1.02
16.25
8.89
1.05
0.89
2.09
ND
4.76
1.24
0.91
0.66
1.78
9.22
0.57
0.50
0.13
0.75
1.44
3.39
0.41
1.33
ND
0.57
0.34
0.98
0.40
1.48
0.72
0.58
0.61
0.51
1.54
ND
0.76
0.47
0.56
0.15
ND
0.59
0.37
0.27
ND
0.71
134.96
173.22
18386REP
9/14/2000
10/3/2000
4.92
3.53
9.73
2.33
8.84
ND
2.42
2.36
0.44
3.16
0.31
0.38
0.12
7.43
0.48
0.44
3.19
0.49
0.68
0.47
0.58
0.78
0.56
ND
0.65
1.34
4.38
2.10
ND
0.55
ND
2.56
0.11
ND
1.30
0.99
16.33
9.00
1.08
0.89
2.10
ND
4.85
1.26
0.95
0.70
1.83
9.14
0.51
0.64
ND
0.74
1.40
3.23
0.41
1.28
ND
0.54
0.34
1.00
0.40
1.38
0.72
0.59
0.61
0.42
1.56
ND
0.72
0.32
0.43
0.15
ND
0.58
0.47
0.28
ND
0.62
135.07
174.50
18383
9/15/2000
10/3/2000
3.11
2.26
26.36
1.26
21.60
ND
4.83
5.04
0.35
9.51
0.48
0.56
0.14
11.99
0.43
0.19
13.62
0.47
1.46
0.57
1.63
0.94
0.45
ND
0.91
1.52
4.97
2.40
ND
0.52
ND
3.42
ND
ND
1.59
0.95
14.26
1.21
1.38
1.09
2.23
ND
4.23
1.95
1.99
0.57
1.41
10.23
0.71
0.76
ND
1.07
1.04
2.93
1.31
1.16
ND
0.76
0.30
ND
0.40
1.33
0.71
0.61
0.53
ND
1.48
ND
0.91
0.60
0.42
0.15
ND
0.68
0.28
0.30
ND
0.13
182.59
226.96
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18416
9/18/2000
10/3/2000
15.10
10.27
23.66
6.93
22.76
ND
6.07
6.56
1.35
10.29
0.91
0.99
0.49
30.46
1.40
1.76
24.51
1.09
2.40
1.22
3.04
2.12
0.64
0.17
2.18
3.62
12.25
7.33
0.41
0.96
ND
8.00
0.35
0.30
4.21
3.24
23.04
1.43
3.50
2.24
5.38
ND
15.64
3.65
2.44
2.02
5.30
24.15
1.21
1.51
0.29
1.78
3.62
9.20
0.90
3.49
0.17
1.75
0.40
3.63
0.80
3.36
1.72
1.49
1.83
1.25
4.49
ND
2.82
1.06
1.96
0.33
ND
1.58
0.56
0.58
ND
0.37
357.94
442.37
18408
9/19/2000
10/3/2000
4.59
4.26
13.82
1.77
9.92
ND
3.17
1.93
0.34
3.86
0.26
0.37
0.10
6.03
0.38
0.38
3.02
0.51
0.53
0.42
0.37
0.79
0.41
ND
0.61
1.03
3.83
1.95
ND
0.58
ND
2.27
ND
ND
1.31
0.75
17.25
0.80
0.93
0.63
2.22
ND
2.97
1.14
1.03
0.41
1.21
6.29
0.52
0.55
0.11
0.70
1.22
2.69
0.22
1.06
ND
0.63
0.37
0.29
0.34
1.58
0.78
0.55
0.55
ND
1.51
ND
0.98
0.56
0.81
0.21
ND
0.73
0.77
0.61
ND
3.62
126.32
181.78
18419
9/20/2000
10/3/2000
3.79
2.05
6.27
1.33
4.80
ND
54.91
1.96
0.22
2.65
0.25
0.34
ND
98.36
0.34
0.33
30.04
0.57
0.59
0.45
0.37
1.28
0.29
ND
2.18
1.43
4.11
2.36
ND
0.60
ND
3.81
ND
ND
1.69
0.73
14.48
38.57
1.16
0.94
3.08
ND
2.44
1.60
2.94
0.30
0.76
84.90
0.44
0.54
0.13
0.84
1.46
3.18
1.17
1.20
ND
0.72
0.41
0.26
0.50
1.77
0.83
0.64
0.67
ND
1.73
ND
1.54
0.66
0.60
0.34
ND
1.12
0.56
1.05
ND
3.44
405.04
1ofl470.80
18454
9/21/2000
10/9/2000
2.15
1.58
6.70
1.02
3.97
ND
0.79
1.02
0.15
1.57
0.21
0.32
ND
3.49
0.25
0.22
2.40
0.30
0.39
0.37
0.27
0.50
ND
ND
0.45
0.73
1.24
1.29
ND
0.48
ND
1.28
ND
ND
0.78
0.60
12.73
0.46
0.65
0.60
0.83
ND
2.27
0.70
0.58
0.34
1.12
7.71
0.38
0.44
ND
0.53
1.12
3.27
0.28
1.20
ND
0.50
0.31
0.36
0.34
0.77
0.62
0.45
0.42
ND
1.09
ND
0.82
0.33
0.39
0.22
ND
0.51
0.11
0.20
ND
ND
77.14
98.15
18454REP
9/21/2000
10/11/2000
1.96
1.28
6.35
0.96
3.73
ND
0.74
0.97
0.12
1.50
0.18
0.28
ND
3.25
0.25
0.21
2.27
0.27
0.34
0.31
0.25
0.48
ND
ND
0.36
0.68
1.27
1.23
ND
0.42
ND
1.20
ND
ND
0.73
0.53
11.98
0.41
0.59
0.55
0.78
ND
2.08
0.69
0.51
0.31
1.04
7.15
0.35
0.41
ND
0.46
1.05
3.51
0.19
1.07
ND
0.47
0.20
0.33
0.30
0.79
0.54
0.39
0.41
ND
0.98
ND
0.71
0.33
0.24
0.22
ND
0.50
ND
0.22
ND
ND
71.83
89.57
18431
9/25/2000
10/9/2000
2.28
0.95
5.29
1.26
4.49
ND
1.21
0.98
0.26
2.54
0.21
0.27
ND
1.72
0.31
ND
2.28
0.27
0.25
0.29
ND
0.57
0.17
ND
0.37
0.59
1.73
0.65
ND
0.61
ND
0.96
ND
ND
0.51
0.49
16.01
0.58
0.26
0.44
1.13
0.16
0.87
0.63
0.83
ND
0.43
2.50
0.34
0.34
0.10
0.52
0.57
2.15
0.27
0.55
ND
0.42
0.37
0.17
0.31
0.62
0.55
0.46
0.34
ND
0.80
ND
0.58
0.30
0.71
0.23
ND
0.56
0.76
0.51
ND
0.59
68.44
102.39
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
1 so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18475
9/26/2000
10/9/2000
7.20
3.72
49.34
3.08
36.64
ND
9.38
2.56
0.67
17.28
0.30
0.36
0.11
13.88
0.50
0.49
33.47
0.47
0.79
0.48
0.73
1.16
0.21
ND
1.12
1.58
5.52
3.38
ND
0.59
ND
5.39
ND
ND
2.02
1.05
15.01
1.68
1.82
0.88
2.55
ND
4.81
2.66
2.49
0.63
1.73
9.44
0.97
0.95
0.39
1.55
1.47
4.02
0.53
1.53
ND
0.92
0.35
2.26
0.49
1.66
0.88
0.76
0.76
1.08
1.89
ND
1.12
0.56
0.58
0.33
ND
1.20
0.48
0.58
ND
0.29
274.73
329.62
18469D1
9/27/2000
10/9/2000
12.64
8.21
16.16
6.34
21.31
ND
5.87
5.03
1.12
12.61
0.80
0.86
0.36
23.89
1.15
1.36
64.66
0.85
1.86
1.03
1.72
1.67
0.36
ND
1.64
2.93
9.27
5.62
0.31
0.86
ND
6.56
0.33
0.23
3.42
1.98
9.73
1.61
2.62
1.57
4.25
ND
10.59
2.81
2.91
1.48
4.12
22.22
1.09
1.31
0.24
1.78
5.29
15.43
1.96
5.43
0.21
1.84
0.53
4.71
0.96
3.65
2.01
1.67
2.25
1.86
4.76
ND
2.86
1.26
0.91
0.52
ND
1.81
0.82
0.88
ND
0.46
353.35
411.96
18469R1
9/27/2000
10/11/2000
11.80
7.64
15.36
5.99
19.82
ND
5.52
4.75
1.04
11.83
0.75
0.77
0.35
22.37
1.04
1.26
60.39
0.78
1.68
0.92
1.62
1.60
0.32
0.14
1.52
2.70
8.74
5.26
0.30
0.80
ND
6.11
0.32
0.18
3.22
1.82
9.15
1.46
2.52
1.43
3.99
ND
9.91
2.65
2.83
1.38
3.94
20.74
1.01
1.22
0.23
1.66
4.94
14.48
1.76
4.99
0.17
1.70
0.44
4.37
0.86
3.44
1.74
1.52
1.67
1.77
4.39
ND
2.68
1.21
0.68
0.41
ND
1.76
0.64
0.84
ND
0.48
329.77
., of.384.55
18470D2
9/27/2000
10/9/2000
26.18
21.03
30.70
12.21
34.36
ND
6.42
12.34
2.59
20.35
1.92
1.86
0.87
44.90
2.21
3.64
24.15
1.78
4.49
2.29
5.69
2.92
0.51
0.27
2.80
5.53
19.03
12.03
0.88
1.37
ND
13.65
1.12
0.63
7.63
4.54
19.49
2.56
6.25
3.57
8.87
ND
25.09
6.03
4.46
3.48
9.76
45.44
2.16
2.70
0.49
3.05
8.28
21.20
2.10
7.66
0.36
3.61
0.65
5.27
1.63
6.58
3.65
3.25
4.23
2.27
8.56
ND
7.18
2.21
1.47
0.82
ND
3.02
1.15
1.03
ND
0.68
573.12
671.84
18470R2 18467
9/27/2000 9/29/2000
10/11/2000 VOID
24.43
15.00
32.97
10.35
31.82
ND
6.05
11.53
2.44
18.88
1.73
1.70
0.87
42.04
2.08
3.44
22.49
1.64
4.22
2.14
5.34
2.72
0.47
0.20
2.62
5.11
17.95
11.29
0.77
1.11
ND
12.78
1.03
0.62
7.26
4.26
18.30
2.37
5.84
3.37
8.31
ND
23.69
5.67
4.20
3.32
9.13
42.21
2.00
2.51
0.47
2.86
7.49
19.43
1.86
6.96
0.33
3.32
0.56
4.87
1.44
6.12
3.32
2.83
3.92
1.96
7.79
ND
6.76
1.72
1.21
0.60
ND
3.00
0.51
0.98
ND
0.58
531.15
624.35
-------
SNMOC 2000 REPORT - CAMS 13 - Forth Worth, TX
All concentrations reported in ppbC
Sample No.:
Sampling Date:
Analysis Date:
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
I so butane
lsobutene/1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-1-pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-1-pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-1-butene
n-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
cis-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
n-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
n-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
n-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
18482
10/2/2000
10/9/2000
3.44
2.36
10.42
1.53
7.35
ND
2.26
1.65
0.26
4.05
0.27
0.40
0.12
6.10
0.38
0.35
2.86
0.42
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.71
0.28
ND
0.57
0.95
3.02
1.64
ND
0.56
ND
1.82
ND
ND
1.08
0.67
2.85
0.72
0.77
0.61
1.64
ND
2.24
0.98
0.95
0.29
0.91
5.45
0.46
0.54
ND
0.68
1.12
2.90
0.42
1.19
ND
0.59
0.36
0.15
0.48
1.18
0.80
0.60
0.54
ND
1.58
ND
0.87
0.44
0.47
0.32
ND
0.60
0.56
0.44
ND
1.91
93.53
1 of <1 24.47
-------
------- |