es304255u_si_001.pdf (215.35 kB)
Download fileApplication of an Ensemble-Trained Source Apportionment Approach at a Site Impacted by Multiple Point Sources
journal contribution
posted on 2013-04-16, 00:00 authored by Marissa L. Maier, Sivaraman Balachandran, Stefanie E. Sarnat, Jay R. Turner, James A. Mulholland, Armistead G. RussellFour
receptor models and a chemical transport model were used to
quantify PM2.5 source impacts at the St. Louis Supersite
(STL-SS) between June 2001 and May 2003. The receptor models used
two semi-independent data sets, with the first including ions and
trace elements and the second including 1-in-6 day particle-bound
organics. Since each source apportionment (SA) technique has limitations,
this work compares results from the five different SA approaches to
better understand the biases and limitations of each. The source impacts
calculated by these models were then integrated into a constrained,
ensemble-trained SA approach. The ensemble method offers several improvements
over the five individual SA techniques at the STL-SS. Primarily, the
ensemble method calculates source impacts on days when individual
models either do not converge to a solution or do not have adequate
input data to develop source impact estimates. When compared with
a chemical mass balance approach using measurement-based source profiles,
the ensemble method improves fit statistics, reducing chi-squared
values and improving PM2.5 mass reconstruction. Compared
to other receptor models, the ensemble method also calculates zero
or negative impacts from major emissions sources (e.g., secondary
organic carbon (SOC) and diesel vehicles) for fewer days. One limitation
of this analysis was that a composite metals profile was used in the
ensemble analysis. Although STL-SS is impacted by multiple metals
processing point sources, several of the initial SA methods could
not resolve individual metals processing impacts. The results of this
analysis also reveal some of the subjectivities associated with applying
specific SA models at the STL-SS. For instance, Positive Matrix Factorization
results are very sensitive to both the fitting species and number
of factors selected by the user. Conversely, Chemical Mass Balance
results are sensitive to the source profiles used to represent local
metals processing emissions. Additionally, the different SA approaches
predict different impacts for the same source on a given day, with
correlation coefficients ranging from 0.034 to 0.65 for gasoline vehicles, −0.54–0.48
for diesel vehicles, −0.29–0.81 for dust, −0.34–0.89
for biomass burning, 0.38–0.49 for metals processing, and −0.25–0.51
for SOC. These issues emphasize the value of using several different
SA techniques at a given receptor site, either by comparing source
impacts predicted by different models or by using an ensemble-based
technique.
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
Positive Matrix Factorization resultsreceptor modelsPM 2.5 source impactsmetals processing point sourceschemical transport modelSA techniquesSA approachesPM 2.5 mass reconstructionensemble methoddiesel vehiclesChemical Mass Balance resultssource impact estimatesmetals processing impactsSOCmetals processing emissionschemical mass balance approachsource impactsMultiple Point SourcesFour receptor models