Sources of fine particles in the South Coast area, California.

Abstract PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in aerodynamic diameter) speciation data collected between 2003 and 2005 at two United State Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Speciation Trends Network monitoring sites in the South Coast area, California were analyzed to identify major PM2.5 sources as a part of the State Implementation Plan development. Eight and nine major PM2.5 sources were identified in LA and Rubidoux, respectively, through PMF2 analyses. Similar to a previous study analyzing earlier data ( Kim and Hopke, 2007a ), secondary particles contributed the most to the PM2.5 concentrations: 53% in LA and 59% in Rubidoux. The next highest contributors were diesel emissions (11%) in LA and Gasoline vehicle emissions (10%) in Rubidoux. Most of the source contributions were lower than those from the earlier study. However, the average source contributions from airborne soil, sea salt, and aged sea salt in LA and biomass smoke in Rubidoux increased. To validate the apportioned sources in this study, PMF2 results were compared with those obtained from EPA PMF ( US EPA, 2005 ). Both models identified the same number of major sources and the resolved source profiles and contributions were similar at the two monitoring sites. The minor differences in the results caused by the differences in the least square algorithm and non-negativity constraints between two models did not affect the source identifications.

[1]  W. J. Mitchell,et al.  East versus West in the US: Chemical Characteristics of PM2.5 during the Winter of 1999 , 2001 .

[2]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Incorporation of parametric factors into multilinear receptor model studies of Atlanta aerosol , 2003 .

[3]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Discarding or downweighting high-noise variables in factor analytic models , 2003 .

[4]  Philip K Hopke,et al.  Source Identifications of Airborne Fine Particles Using Positive Matrix Factorization and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Positive Matrix Factorization , 2007, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[5]  P. Hopke,et al.  Estimation of Organic Carbon Blank Values and Error Structures of the Speciation Trends Network Data for Source Apportionment , 2005, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[6]  P. Paatero.  Least squares formulation of robust non-negative factor analysis , 1997 .

[7]  P. Paatero.  The Multilinear Engine—A Table-Driven, Least Squares Program for Solving Multilinear Problems, Including the n-Way Parallel Factor Analysis Model , 1999 .

[8]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Mining airborne particulate size distribution data by positive matrix factorization , 2005 .

[9]  Qi Ying,et al.  A comparison of the UCD/CIT air quality model and the CMB source-receptor model for primary airborne particulate matter , 2005 .

[10]  Meng-Dawn Cheng,et al.  Receptor modeling of airborne ionic species collected in SCAQS , 1994 .

[11]  Yulong Xie,et al.  The use of conditional probability functions and potential source contribution functions to identify source regions and advection pathways of hydrocarbon emissions in Houston, Texas , 2007 .

[12]  Barbara J. Turpin,et al.  Investigation of organic aerosol sampling artifacts in the los angeles basin , 1994 .

[13]  C. Sioutas,et al.  Seasonal and spatial variability of the size‐resolved chemical composition of particulate matter (PM10) in the Los Angeles Basin , 2005 .

[14]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Comparison between Conditional Probability Function and Nonparametric Regression for Fine Particle Source Directions , 2004 .

[15]  P. Hopke,et al.  Source Identification of Atlanta Aerosol by Positive Matrix Factorization , 2003, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[16]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Source characterization of ambient fine particles in the Los Angeles basin , 2007 .

[17]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Investigation of the relationship between chemical composition and size distribution of airborne particles by partial least squares and positive matrix factorization , 2005 .

[18]  P. Buseck,et al.  Aerosol particle characteristics determined by combined cluster and principal component analysis , 1991 .

[19]  J Wayne Miller,et al.  Emission rates of particulate matter and elemental and organic carbon from in-use diesel engines. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  G. Carmichael,et al.  The aging process of naturally emitted aerosol (sea-salt and mineral aerosol) during long range transport , 1999 .

[21]  C. Lewis,et al.  Source Apportionment of Phoenix PM2.5 Aerosol with the Unmix Receptor Model , 2003, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[22]  P. Hopke,et al.  Characterization of fine particle sources in the Great Smoky Mountains area. , 2006, The Science of the total environment.

[23]  P. Buseck,et al.  Individual particle types in the aerosol of phoenix, Arizona. , 1995, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  M. Hannigan,et al.  Trends in Fine Particle Concentration and Chemical Composition in Southern California , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[25]  Chemical characterization of outdoor PM2.5 and gas-phase compounds in Mira Loma, California , 2004 .

[26]  Philip K. Hopke,et al.  Utilizing wind direction and wind speed as independent variables in multilinear receptor modeling studies , 2002 .

[27]  P. Hopke,et al.  Sources of fine particles in a rural midwestern U.S. area. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  P. Paatero,et al.  Understanding and controlling rotations in factor analytic models , 2002 .