Ambient aerosol size distributions and number concentrations measured during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study (PAQS)

Twelve months of aerosol size distributions from 3 to 560 nm, measured using scanning mobility particle sizers are presented with an emphasis on average number, surface, and volume distributions, and seasonal and diurnal variation. The measurements were made at the main sampling site of the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study from July 2001 to June 2002. These are supplemented with 5 months of size distribution data from 0.5 to 2.5mm measured with a TSI aerosol particle sizer and 2 months of size distributions measured at an upwind rural sampling site. Measurements at the main site were made continuously under both low and ambient relative humidity. The average Pittsburgh number concentration (3–500 nm) is 22,000 cm 3 with an average mode size of 40 nm. Strong diurnal patterns in number concentrations are evident as a direct effect of the sources of particles (atmospheric nucleation, traffic, and other combustion sources). New particle formation from homogeneous nucleation is significant on 30–50% of study days and over a wide area (at least a hundred kilometers). Rural number concentrations are a factor of 2–3 lower (on average) than the urban values. Average measured distributions are different from model literature urban and rural size distributions.

[1]  T. Raunemaa,et al.  Statistical characteristics of aerosol in Baltic Sea region , 1996 .

[2]  Cliff I. Davidson,et al.  Pittsburgh air quality study overview , 2004 .

[3]  J. Schwartz,et al.  The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study. Part II: Morbidity and mortality from air pollution in the United States. , 2000, Research report.

[4]  Andrey Khlystov,et al.  Nucleation Events During the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study: Description and Relation to Key Meteorological, Gas Phase, and Aerosol Parameters Special Issue of Aerosol Science and Technology on Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program , 2004 .

[5]  J. C. Cabada,et al.  Mass size distributions and size resolved chemical composition of fine particulate matter at the Pittsburgh supersite , 2004 .

[6]  W G Kreyling,et al.  Daily mortality and fine and ultrafine particles in Erfurt, Germany part I: role of particle number and particle mass. , 2000, Research report.

[7]  R. Burnett,et al.  Association of particulate matter components with daily mortality and morbidity in urban populations. , 2000, Research report.

[8]  B. Weiss,et al.  Association of particulate air pollution and acute mortality: involvement of ultrafine particles? , 1995, Inhalation toxicology.

[9]  Da-Ren Chen,et al.  Measurement of Atlanta Aerosol Size Distributions: Observations of Ultrafine Particle Events , 2001 .

[10]  Robert Gelein,et al.  Role of the alveolar macrophage in lung injury: studies with ultrafine particles. , 1992 .

[11]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Differences in airborne particle and gaseous concentrations in urban air between weekdays and weekends , 2002 .

[12]  S C Soderholm,et al.  Role of the alveolar macrophage in lung injury: studies with ultrafine particles. , 1992, Environmental health perspectives.

[13]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Advanced Factor Analysis on Pittsburgh Particle Size-Distribution Data Special Issue of Aerosol Science and Technology on Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program , 2004 .

[14]  Bert Brunekreef,et al.  Concentrations of ultrafine, fine and PM2.5 particles in three European cities , 2001 .

[15]  R. Harrison,et al.  Continuous measurements of aerosol physical properties in the urban atmosphere , 1999 .

[16]  M. Cheng,et al.  Characterization of ultrafine and fine particles at a site near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park , 2002 .

[17]  H Patashnick,et al.  Development of a Sample Equilibration System for the TEOM Continuous PM Monitor , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[18]  Peter V. Hobbs,et al.  Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions , 1993 .

[19]  K. T. Whitby THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SULFUR AEROSOLS , 1978 .

[20]  C. Stanier,et al.  A Method for the In Situ Measurement of Fine Aerosol Water Content of Ambient Aerosols: The Dry-Ambient Aerosol Size Spectrometer (DAASS) Special Issue of Aerosol Science and Technology on Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program , 2004 .

[21]  R. Harrison,et al.  The Mechanism of Lung Injury Caused by PM10 , 1998 .

[22]  Ronald E. Hester,et al.  Issues in environmental science and technology , 1994 .

[23]  C. Stanier,et al.  Water content of ambient aerosol during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study : Particulate matter supersites , 2005 .

[24]  Alfred Wiedensohler,et al.  Atmospheric particle number size distribution in central Europe: Statistical relations to air masses and meteorology , 2001 .

[25]  Annette Peters,et al.  Epidemiological evidence of the effects of ultrafine particle exposure , 2000, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  C. Stanier,et al.  Monitoring of Water Content of Ambient Aerosol During the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study , 2002 .

[27]  C. Stanier,et al.  An Algorithm for Combining Electrical Mobility and Aerodynamic Size Distributions Data when Measuring Ambient Aerosol Special Issue of Aerosol Science and Technology on Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program , 2004 .

[28]  B. Lehnert,et al.  Correlation Between Particle Size, in Vivo Particle Persistence, and Lung Injury , 1994 .

[29]  Yifang Zhu,et al.  Size Distribution and Diurnal and Seasonal Trends of Ultrafine Particles in Source and Receptor Sites of the Los Angeles Basin , 2002, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[30]  Ruprecht Jaenicke,et al.  Chapter 1 Tropospheric Aerosols , 1993 .