Sources of Aerosol (PM 2.5 ) Impacting Neah Bay WA. Robert Kotchenruther - EPA Region 10 Jim Corbett - University of Delaware

Transcription

1 Sources of Aerosol (PM 2.5 ) Impacting Neah Bay WA Robert Kotchenruther - EPA Region 10 Jim Corbett - University of Delaware

2 Background Information: Neah Bay Vancouver Island BC Canada Neah Bay, WA PM 2.5 Monitor Location Olympic Peninsula Washington State PM2.5 Monitoring Site in Neah Bay Neah Bay is the home of the Makah Nation, pop. ~900 NW tip of Olympic Peninsula Strait of Juan De Fuca ~100 miles west of Puget Sound Monitor is on the eastern side of Neah Bay near mouth of inlet.

3 Background Information: Monitoring Since 2006 the Makah Nation has collaborated with EPA to conduct a multi-year long aerosol (PM2.5) monitoring in Neah Bay. The goals of this study were to two fold: 1. Determine the impact of marine vessel traffic on air quality within the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 2. Quantify other sources of PM2.5 impacting Neah Bay and the Makah Community. Why are we concerned about shipping and PM2.5?

4 Background: Why PM2.5 Aerosol and Shipping? PM2.5 is a human health concern - A health risk that increases with exposure (overall PM) - A health risk that may increase with the type of PM - There is no known lower-bound or safe exposure threshold Shipping is a source of PM that affects both urban areas (near ports) as well as rural areas that are predominantly thought of as clean. - Marine diesel engines are enriched in smaller particles over other engine PM emissions. Thus, can be longer lived and have greater health impact. - Some shipping PM is currently high in sulfur (increased acid deposition, possible ecosystem impacts) - Shipping PM emissions are also high in metals & other toxics Monitoring in rural/coastal cleaner areas may present ideal locations for confirming ship emission (ECA) reductions

5 There have been numerous health studies related to diesel exhaust exposure. Initial studies focused on worker response to exposure. Rail Workers Laden, F., et al. (2006), Historical estimation of diesel exhaust exposure in a cohort study of U.S. railroad workers and lung cancer, Cancer Causes Control, 17, Garshick, E., et al. (2004), Lung Cancer in Railroad Workers Exposed to Diesel Exhaust, Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (15), Adjusting for a healthy worker survivor effect and age, railroad workers in jobs associated with operating trains had a relative risk of lung cancer mortality of 1.40 (95% confidence interval, )... Lung cancer mortality was elevated in jobs associated with work on trains powered by diesel locomotives. Seafarers Pukkala, E., and H. Saarni (1996), Cancer Incidence among Finnish Seafarers, , Cancer Causes & Control, 7(2), Rafnsson, V., and P. Sulem (2003), Cancer incidence among marine engineers, a population-based study (Iceland), Cancer Causes and Control, 14, Saarni, H., et al. (2002), Cancer at sea: a case-control study among male Finnish seafarers, Occupational Environmental Medicine, 59, The incidence for lung cancer among engine crew increased with the increase in employment time, the odds ratio (OR) after three years being 1.68 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.41). The OR of lung cancer for deck officers was 0.42 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.61). Kaerlev, L., et al. (2005), Cancer incidence among Danish seafarers: a population based cohort study, Occupational Environmental Medicine, 62, The differences in risk pattern for lung cancer between the different job categories among men ranged in terms of SIR from 1.2 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.7) (engine officers) to 2.3 (1.6 to 3.3) (engine room crew), and 4.1 (2.1 to 7.4) among maintenance crew.

6 And more recent studies have expanded to look at public scale epidemiological impacts. Summary of Cohort Studies: Cardio-Vascular (CV) Mortality Pope and Dockery, JAWMA 56(6), 2006

7 Corbett et al. have recently modeled global shipping impacts on health. This analysis is similar to other Health Risk Assessment (HRA) studies Method Determine pollutant emissions from ships; Apply atmospheric transport and chemistry models to estimate increased concentrations due to ships; Estimate increased risk to exposed population due to these additional concentrations; Calculate additional mortalities from increased risk. Source: Winebrake, Corbett, et al. (2009) and Corbett, Winebrake, et al. (2007).

8 Back to Neah Bay: As noted previously, tracking ship emission impacts at monitors can show us the real world results from implementation of an ECA. Details of the PM2.5 monitoring in Neah Bay: PM2.5 aerosol was measured in Neah Bay from 9/ /2010. Measurements were 24-hour averages, once every 3 days (~500 samples). What was measured was PM2.5 mass, and each 24-hour sample was chemically speciated into 31 chemical components including sulfate sea salt elements (Na, Cl) nitrate major soil elements (Al, Ca, Ti, Fe) organic carbon trace metals (Ni, V, K, Mg, Pb, etc.) elemental carbon

9 Snapshot of total PM2.5 in Neah Bay and Comparison with EPA National Ambient Air Standards PM2.5 (ug/m3) Neah Bay Measured 24-hour Average PM2.5 EPA 24-hour Average National Standard (35 ug/m3) [Average 98% Max 24-hour] EPA Annual Average National Standard (15 ug/m3) Neah Bay hour 'design value' (10.9 ug/m3) 31% of 24-hour standard 5 0 Neah Bay Annual Average (4.8 ug/m3) 32% of annual standard 7/1/2006 1/1/2007 7/1/2007 1/1/2008 7/1/2008 1/1/2009 7/1/2009 1/1/2010 7/1/2010 1/1/2011

10 How does Neah Bay Compare with other monitoring sites in the Pacific Northwest? IMPROVE Monitoring Network Sites (mostly rural/remote sites) EPA STN Monitoring Network Sites (urban & suburban sites) For the annual average, Neah Bay is on the high end for IMPROVE network sites. But most IMPROVE sites are not located in or near communities. White Pass Mount Hood Pasayten North Cascades Crater Lake Snoqualmie Pass Olympic Craters of the Moon Cabinet Mountains Three Sisters Wilderness Mount Rainier Jarbidge Wilderness Lava Beds Starkey Kalmiopsis Flathead Sawtooth Redwood Monture Hells Canyon Columbia Gorge Glacier Makah Tribe Columbia River Gorge Boise Seattle_BH Tacoma_AL Portland Vancouver Marysville Seattle_DW Yakima Tacoma_SL Lakeview Bountiful Lindon Salt_Lake_City Oakridge Klamath_Falls PM2.5 Annual Standard Design Values ( Annual Average PM2.5) EPA NAAQS Annual Standard Neah Bay IMPROVE Site PM2.5 Annual Average Mass (ug/m3)

11 What are the possible Sources of PM2.5 Impacting Neah Bay? Conceptually, the range of possible sources include: Local Neah Bay Marine fleet (mostly diesel) Wood smoke (home heating, outdoor burning) On-road mobile (cars, trucks) Road dust / wind blown dust Regional Ship traffic in the Strait Urban soup drifting from Seattle/Vancouver metro areas Sea salt & marine biogenic sources Long Distance Wildfires from Canada, Alaska, California Trans-pacific transport

12 How can Source Contributions be Estimated? Traditionally, Receptor models (aka source apportionment models) have been used to estimate source contributions. The Receptor Model used with the Neah Bay data was the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) model. PMF uses a mathematical/statistical approach and is a form of Factor Analysis (also related to Principal Component Analysis [PCA]). How the model works: The model looks for systematic patterns in the day-to-day chemical variations and quantifies a smaller set of factors that can explain the overall data variability. These model factors can often be linked to aerosol sources or source categories by comparing the model factors to known source chemical emissions profiles.

13 Neah Bay Source Apportionment Modeling: Model Inputs: For each 24-hour data sample (total of 411 samples) Total PM2.5 mass Masses for each of 31 different chemical species (sulfate, nitrate, OC, EC, Na, Cl, trace metals..) What the model outputs: A time series PM2.5 mass attributed to each factor. (Each factors contribution to PM2.5 on each sample day) The chemical composition of each factor. (The percent contribution of the input chemical species to each factor s overall makeup) A note on model Factors: They can represent a single source (e.g., industrial facility) a category of sources that have similar emissions profiles (e.g., wood stoves, cars, ships) multiple sources that the model is not able to resolve (e.g., multiple sources emitting the same pollutant like sulfate, multiple sources originating from the same geographic region)

14 Modeling Result for Neah Bay: The model determined that PM2.5 in Neah Bay could be divided into 7 Factors. The 7 factors were categorized as follows.... in order of overall impact 1. Wood Smoke mixed with Secondary Organic Aerosol (37%) Mostly organic carbon (OC). Identified based on organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and potassium (K). Sources: Winter -> home heating (wood stoves) -> outdoor burning Summer -> Outdoor burning -> biogenic secondary aerosol -> wildfires 2. Sulfate Rich (19%) Predominantly sulfate (SO4) Sources: -> Neah Bay diesel fuel combustion -> Transport from Seattle/Vancouver urban areas -> Natural sulfate from oceanic sources -> Shipping in the strait that uses higher quality diesel fuels 3. Sulfate Rich, linked to fuel oil combustion (12%) Mostly sulfate (SO4), but with vanadium (V) & nickel (Ni) in 3:1 ratio characteristic of fuel oil combustion emissions. Sources: -> Shipping in the strait that uses residual fuel oil

15 Modeling Result for Neah Bay: 4. Sea Salt (12%) Mostly sodium (Na) & chlorine (Cl), with trace magnesium (Mg) & calcium (Ca). Sources: -> Natural wind/wave driven 5. Aged Sea Salt (12%) (sea salt processed by reactions with nitrate, NO3 replaces Cl) Mostly sodium (Na) & nitrate (NO3), with trace magnesium (Mg) & calcium (Ca). Sources: -> Natural nitrate from soils & lightning. -> Anthropogenic nitrate from any combustion process. 6. Mixed Sulfate and Nitrate (3%) Nitrate (NO3) and sulfate (SO4) in about equal proportions with 0.7% zinc (Zn) and 11% EC Sources: -> Presence of zinc (0.7%) and EC (11%) are indicative of some level of primary aerosol from engine combustion (zinc is widely used in engine lubricating oils). 7. Soil (3%) Mostly aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), and titanium (Ti) [note: silicon (Si) data quality was too poor to use in model, so is absent above] Sources: -> Wind blown soil dust -> Road dust

16 Modeling Result: Average For Whole Dataset Makah IMPROVE Site Average PM2.5 (4.65 ug/m3) Soil 0.16 ug/m3 (3%) Mixed, Nitrate & Sulfate 0.15 ug/m3 (3%) Aged Sea Salt 0.55 ug/m3 (12%) Model Unattributed 0.04 ug/m3 (0.8%) Wood Smoke and Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) 1.72 ug/m3 (37%) Sea Salt 0.58 ug/m3 (12%) Sulfate Rich, Fuel Oil Related 0.56 ug/m3 (12%) Sulfate Rich 0.90 ug/m3 (19%)

17 Where else were ship emissions impacts found? Data from 39 urban and rural PM2.5 monitoring sites was analyzed. Sites in green are mostly rural monitors, part of the IMPROVE network. Sites in red are urban or suburban sites from EPA s Speciation Trends Network (STN)

18 The Spatial Extent of Fuel Oil Combustion Impacts Throughout the Pacific Northwest 39 PM2.5 monitoring sites in the Pacific Northwest (red and white dots) were modeled similar to the Neah Bay site. At 14 sites (red dots), a factor linked to residual fuel oil combustion was identified from: Vanadium (V) and Nickel (Ni) trace metal signatures V:Ni ratio, roughly 3:1 high sulfur content.

19 Residual Fuel Oil Combustion Impacts Throughout the Pacific Northwest: Monthly average PM2.5 impacts from residual fuel oil combustion at 14 pacific northwest monitoring locations. Makah Neah Bay site in bold green. Monthly Average PM 2.5 : Fuel Oil Combustion (ug/m 3 ) Month of Year Marysville Tacoma (AL) Seattle (DW) North Cascades Seattle (BH) Redwood NP Kalmiopsis Mount Rainier NP Tacoma (SL) Snoqualmie Pass Makah Tribe White Pass Columbia Gorge Olympic NP

20 Thank you for your attention! Questions?

21 Supplementary Slides

22 Diesel BC matters to health and to climate Diesels do not produce the greatest mass of BC; they may produce high numbers of small size BC particles per mass of BC emitted; ships diesels operate at HTHPs making them the best emitters of BC numbers & small size per mass People exposed to small particles have health impacts We have been addressing this with a series required technologies Kasper, A., S. Aufdenblatten, et al. (2007). "Particulate Emissions from a Low-Speed Marine Diesel Engine." Aerosol Science and Technology 41(1): Small particles that are lightabsorbing affect climate

23 They looked at different policy scenarios and determined that various scenarios may achieve the same goals Mortality Reductions by Scenario Coastal 0.1% scenario Global 0.5% scenario Source: Winebrake, Corbett, et al. (2009) 2010 J.J. Corbett

24 Comparison of EPA s 24-hour Standard with other monitoring sites in the Pacific Northwest. IMPROVE Monitoring Network Sites (mostly rural/remote sites) EPA STN Monitoring Network Sites (urban & suburban sites) Olympic North Cascades Mount Rainier White Pass Cabinet Mountains Snoqualmie Pass Crater Lake Kalmiopsis Craters of the Moon Mount Hood Starkey Pasayten Makah Tribe Jarbidge Wilderness Redwood Lava Beds Columbia Gorge Three Sisters Wilderness Columbia River Gorge Flathead Glacier Sawtooth Hells Canyon Monture Seattle_BH Boise Portland Seattle_DW Tacoma_AL Marysville Vancouver Yakima Bountiful Lakeview Oakridge Tacoma_SL Klamath_Falls Salt_Lake_City Lindon Neah Bay IMPROVE Site PM2.5 Daily 24HR Standard Design Values ( Average 98% Max) EPA NAAQS 24HR Standard PM2.5 24HR Design Values (ug/m3)

25 Methods How was Marine Shipping Identified? Most ocean going vessels burn residual fuel oil (bunker fuel). Key features: Particle Emissions High sulfate (~40%) High V + Ni (~2%) V:Ni ~3:1 ratio Gas Emissions SO2 & NOx Downwind: Expect V:Ni ratio to be maintained. Weight Percent (%) Marine Diesel Heavy Fuel Oil PM2.5 Emissions Profile. Aluminum Antimony Barium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Elemental Carbon Gallium Germanium Indium Iron Lanthanum Magnesium Molybdenum Nickel Non-Carbon Organic Matter Organic carbon Particulate Water Phosphorus Silicon Sulfate Tin Titanium Vanadium Zinc Source: EPA Speciate v4.3 Key Species: Sulfate & V:Ni ~3:1

26 Summer (Apr Sept) Average PM2.5 = 4.45 ug/m3 Winter (Oct Mar) Average PM2.5 = 4.92 ug/m3 Mixed, Nitrate & Sulfate 0.09 ug/m3 (2%) Soil 0.18 ug/m3 (4%) Model Unattributed 0.02 ug/m3 (0.4%) Mixed, Nitrate & Sulfate 0.23 ug/m3 (5%) Soil 0.13 ug/m3 (3%) Model Unattributed 0.07 ug/m3 (1.3%) Aged Sea Salt 0.65 ug/m3 (15%) Wood Smoke and Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) 1.06 ug/m3 (24%) Aged Sea Salt 0.41 ug/m3 (8%) Sea Salt 0.45 ug/m3 (10%) Sulfate Rich 1.29 ug/m3 (29%) Sea Salt 0.74 ug/m3 (15%) Sulfate Rich, Fuel Oil Related 0.72 ug/m3 (16%) Sulfate Rich, Fuel Oil Related 0.36 ug/m3 (7%) Sulfate Rich 0.41 ug/m3 (8%) Wood Smoke and Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) 2.57 ug/m3 (52%) Factor Summer Winter Reason for seasonal difference Wood Smoke & SOA 24% 52% Winter -> home heating, wood stoves Sulfate Rich 29% 8% Summer -> more photochemistry, local sources? Sulfate Rich, Fuel Oil 16% 7% Summer -> more photochemistry Sea Salt 10% 15% Winter -> storm activity Aged Sea Salt 15% 8% Summer -> more photochemistry Mixed SO4 & NO3 2% 5% Winter -> nitrate chemistry promoted Soil 4% 3%

27 The spatial extent of Fuel Oil Combustion is similar to that of Sea Salt and Aged Sea Salt. Sites indicating Fuel Oil Combustion (SO4, V, Ni) (Marine Related Primary + Secondary PM) Sites indicating Sea Salt (Na, Cl, Mg, Ca) (Marine Related Primary PM) Sites indicating Aged Sea Salt (Na, NO3, Mg, Ca) (Marine Related Secondary PM)

28 Modeling Results - Residual Fuel Oil Combustion PM2.5 Monthly Average Mass Impacts Wintertime impacts likely from primarily primary PM (low rural, higher urban) Summertime maximums likely from primary PM + secondary PM (SO2 -> SO4) Largest impacts in urban areas (close to ports or waterways) in both winter and summer. Monthly Average PM 2.5 : Fuel Oil Combustion (ug/m 3 ) Bold lines = urban STN sites Month of Year Marysville Tacoma (AL) Seattle (DW) North Cascades Seattle (BH) Redwood NP Kalmiopsis Mount Rainier NP Tacoma (SL) Snoqualmie Pass Makah Tribe White Pass Columbia Gorge Olympic NP

29 Residual Fuel Oil Combustion Impacts as a percent of monthly average PM2.5 Wintertime impacts range from 0 20% of average monthly PM2.5. Summertime impacts range from 10 45%. Biggest % contribution in rural sites for both winter and summer. Percent (%) of Monthly Average PM 2.5 : Fuel Oil Combustion Bold lines = urban STN sites Month of Year Marysville Tacoma (AL) Seattle (DW) North Cascades Seattle (BH) Redwood NP Kalmiopsis Mount Rainier NP Tacoma (SL) Snoqualmie Pass Makah Tribe White Pass Columbia Gorge Olympic NP