CRC Report No. A-34 - Coordinating Research Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

April 2005 (a) Round 1: Experiment 1 CMB vs. Actual Contribution, by Receptor 80 70 CMB Contribution (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 Long Beach Lake Perris Crestline 15.75 Diamond HawthornBar Van Nuys Anaheim Long Beach LAX Crestline Lake Perris Hawthorn Anaheim Van Nuys Diamond Bar Anaheim Diamond Bar Crestline Van Nuys LAX Hawthorn Lake Perris Long Beach Hawthorn Long Beach CrestlineAnaheim 0 Diamond Bar Anaheim Diamond Lake Crestline Van Perris Nuys Bar Bar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Actual Contribution (%) Gasoline Diesel Solvent Biogenic Backgd CNG and Aged LPG 1:1 (b) Round 2b: Experiment 1 CMB vs. Actual Contribution, by Receptor 80 70 60 Van Nuys CMB Contribution (%) Anaheim Diamond Bar 50 LAX Hawthorn Long Beach Crestline 40 Lake Perris 30 Long Beach Lake Perris Crestline 23.23 Hawthorn Lake Perris 20 Crestline Diamond Bar Long Beach 10 Van Nuys Anaheim Diamond Anaheim LAX Bar Van Nuys Diamond Anaheim Bar Hawthorn Crestline Long Lake Beach Perris Anaheim Diamond Crestline Bar Hawthorn 0 Anaheim Diamond Lake Van Perris Nuys Bar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Actual Contribution (%) Gasoline Diesel Solvent Biogenic Backgd CNG and Aged LPG 1:1 H:\crca34-receptor\report\Final\sec4.doc 4-2
April 2005 (c) Round 4: Experiment 1 CMB vs. Actual Contribution, by Receptor 80 70 Long Beach 60 CMB Contribution (%) 50 40 30 Long Beach Crestline Van Nuys Hawthorn Diamond Bar Lake Perris Anaheim LAX LAX Anaheim Hawthorn Van Nuys Diamond Bar Lake Perris Crestline Gasoline Diesel Solvent Biogenic Backgd CNG and Aged LPG 1:1 20 Lake Perris Anaheim 10 Crestline Diamond Diamond Bar Bar Anaheim Crestline Hawthorn 0 Long Beach 0.00 Anaheim Diamond Lake Van Perris Diamond Van Hawthorn Crestline Lake Long Nuys Perris Beach Nuys Bar Bar Anaheim 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Actual Contribution (%) Figure 4-1. Comparison of CMB contributions to actual contributions for experiment 1 at each receptor averaged over all hours in (a) Round 1 (b) Round 2 and (c) Round 4. DRI selected seven CMB categories for the Round 1 analysis based on criteria of good CMB performance and lack of co-linearity between source category profiles. It is important to understand that these CMB categories were identified because they had different chemical compositions that, taken together, explained the “ambient” sample composition with some success. The CMB category names should not be expected to always correspond with source categories that are used in preparing emission inventories. This is because emission inventory categories are defined around activities that generate emissions rather than the chemical composition of emissions. The seven CMB categories selected by DRI for Round 1 are described in Table 4-1. The CMB categories were matched to A-34 source categories used in preparing the simulated “ambient” air samples as shown in the right column of Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Categories identified by CMB in experiments 1-8 of Round 1 and the way they were matched to A-34 categories actually present in the “ambient” samples. CMB Category Description/Interpretation Matched to A-34 Categories Gasoline Emissions related to gasoline usage. Includes exhaust, whole gasoline and gasoline vapor. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 Diesel Diesel exhaust. 7, 10 Solvent Solvents and/or consumer products that do not 14, 15, 16, 17, resemble gasoline. CNG and Compounds that looked like CNG, None aged predominantly ethane. LPG Compounds that looked like LPG, None H:\crca34-receptor\report\Final\sec4.doc 4-3
Page 1 and 2:
International Corporation Air Scien
Page 3 and 4:
April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page E
Page 5 and 6:
April 2005 Table 4-1. Categories id
Page 7 and 8:
April 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recept
Page 9 and 10:
April 2005 Comparing the performanc
Page 11 and 12: April 2005 90 12 Anaheim 80 10 Cr e
Page 13 and 14: April 2005 This assumption is a mat
Page 15 and 16: April 2005 dissimilar from the loca
Page 17 and 18: April 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STU
Page 19 and 20: April 2005 1.4 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
Page 21 and 22: April 2005 Meteorological input dat
Page 23 and 24: April 2005 A-34 Num Short Name Full
Page 25 and 26: April 2005 Sunday 3-Aug-97 Monday 4
Page 27 and 28: April 2005 ARB ROG TOG ARB Profile
Page 29 and 30: April 2005 Industrial facilities fr
Page 31 and 32: April 2005 Figure 2-2. Comparison o
Page 33 and 34: April 2005 2.4 EXPERIMENTS FOR ROUN
Page 35 and 36: April 2005 Table 2-9. Source catego
Page 37 and 38: April 2005 Table 2-13. Replacement
Page 39 and 40: April 2005 from front to back is th
Page 41 and 42: April 2005 3. Set the average diese
Page 43 and 44: April 2005 Table 2-15. Model year d
Page 45 and 46: April 2005 Table 2-17. Fuel composi
Page 47 and 48: April 2005 3.0 RECEPTOR MODELING ME
Page 49 and 50: April 2005 Selection of Fitting Spe
Page 51 and 52: April 2005 samples. Spatial variati
Page 53 and 54: April 2005 • Removed ethane from
Page 55 and 56: April 2005 Table 3-2. Criteria for
Page 57 and 58: April 2005 Table 3-4 (continued). N
Page 59 and 60: April 2005 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 no
Page 61: April 2005 4.0 RESULTS This section
Page 65 and 66: April 2005 emissions contributions,
Page 67 and 68: April 2005 reactivity and found CMB
Page 69 and 70: April 2005 (c) Round 4: Experiments
Page 71 and 72: April 2005 (a) 6:00am to 9:00am 80
Page 73 and 74: April 2005 (a) siteid Anaheim exp 1
Page 75 and 76: April 2005 influence CMB performanc
Page 77 and 78: April 2005 Round 3: Experiments 9-1
Page 79 and 80: April 2005 Comparison of Source Con
Page 81 and 82: April 2005 Table 4-2. Source catego
Page 83 and 84: April 2005 contributions being diff
Page 85 and 86: April 2005 to 2.4 over the A-34 sou
Page 87 and 88: April 2005 Experiment 1: Base Case
Page 89 and 90: April 2005 28. Spatial heterogeneit
Page 91 and 92: April 2005 composition derived from
Page 93 and 94: April 2005 species (CNG and LPG for
Page 95 and 96: April 2005 REFERENCES Allen, P. 200
Page 97 and 98: April 2005 Guenther, A., B. Baugh,
Page 99 and 100: APPENDIX A Supplemental Modeling Re
Page 101 and 102: SCC Description TOG %TOG Cumulative
Page 103 and 104: SCC Description TOG %TOG Cumulative
Page 105 and 106: ARB Profile Number TOG %Total % TOG
Page 107 and 108: A-34 Number SCC Code SCC Descriptio
Page 109 and 110: A-34 Number SCC Code SCC Descriptio
Page 111 and 112: Table A-4 (continued). A-34 Source
Page 113 and 114:
Table A-5. Mean source profiles (PA
Page 115 and 116:
Table A-5 (concluded). A-34 Source
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX B CMB-Derived Source Contr
Page 119 and 120:
SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) 18 16 14 12 1
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
SCE (ppbC) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6 5 C
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
SCE (ppbC) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6 5 Cons
Page 129 and 130:
SCE (ppbC) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6
Page 131 and 132:
SCE (ppbC) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Consumer P
Page 133 and 134:
SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) 4
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) 12 10 8 6 4 2
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) 10
Page 145 and 146:
SCE (ppbC) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 1
Page 147 and 148:
SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) SCE (ppbC) SC
Page 149 and 150:
SCE (ppbC) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Consumer P
Page 151 and 152:
SCE (ppbC) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40
Page 153:
Diamond Bar - Source Category 14 Di
show all

CRC Report No. A-34 - Coordinating Research Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?