Comparison and Evaluation of Chemically Speciated Mobile Source PM2.5 Particulate Matter Profiles

• Published in: Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995) 2000-08, Vol.50 (8), p.1459-1480
• Main Authors: Gillies, John A., Gertler, Alan W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air Pollution - analysis; Applied sciences; Atmospheric pollution; Carbon - analysis; Exact sciences and technology; Models, Theoretical; Organic Chemicals - analysis; Particle Size; Pollution; Pollution sources. Measurement results; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Transports
• ISSN: 1096-2247; 2162-2906
• DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2000.10464186

Mobile sources are significant contributors to ambient PM 2 5 , accounting for 50% or more of the total observed levels in some locations. One of the important methods for resolving the mobile source contribution is through chemical mass balance (CMB) receptor modeling. CMB requires chemically speciated source profiles with known uncertainty to ensure accurate source contribution estimates. Mobile source PM profiles are available from various sources and are generally in the form of weight fraction by chemical species. The weight fraction format is commonly used, since it is required for input into the CMB receptor model. This paper examines the similarities and differences in mobile source PM 2.5 profiles that contain data for elements, ions, elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC), and in some cases speciated organics (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), drawn from four different sources. Notable characteristics of the mass fraction data include variability (relative contributions of elements and ions) among supposedly similar sources and a wide range of average EC:OC ratios (0.60 ± 0.53 to 1.42 ± 2.99) for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs), indicating significant EC emissions from LDGVs in some cases. For diesel vehicles, average EC:OC ratios range from 1.09 ± 2.66 to 3.54 ± 3.07. That different populations of the same class of emitters can show considerable variability suggests caution should be exercised when selecting and using profiles in source apportionment studies.