3506B24 Final Report
Download 11.49 Mb.
|
| 3506B24 – Final Report
Pilot Study of Air Quality Impacts Resulting from Prescribed Burning (PB) on Military Facilities Sponsored by Department of Defense/ U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL) In support of the DOD/EPA/State Region 4 Pollution Prevention Partnership Small Grants Program Grant No. DACA42-02-2-0052T
University of South Carolina Center for Environmental Policy Institute for Public Service & Policy Research 937 Assembly Street, Suite 1524 Columbia, SC 29201 Prepared by Karsten Baumann School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0340 September 30, 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Prescribed Burn Study was born out of the Fall line Air Quality Study (FAQS) and is a joint effort of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Schools of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (EAS) and Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE). The financial support from the US Department of Defense/Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL) through the DOD-EPA-State Region 4 Pollution Prevention Partnership is gratefully appreciated. Principal Investigator: Dr. Karsten Baumann EAS Co-Principal Investigators: Dr. Mei Zheng EAS Dr. Michael Chang EAS Dr. Armistead Russell CEE
Dr. Don Blake Ms. Amy Sullivan Dr. Carlos Cardelino Ms. Shelly Tyre Dr. Zohir Chowdhury Dr. Alper Unal Ms. Venus Dookwah Dr. Rodney Weber Mr. Sangil Lee Mr. Wes Younger Special recognition and thanks are due to the following individuals for their work in securing funding for the study, in providing technical and logistical support to the science team, or in contributing to the continued operation and maintenance of the sampling equipment. Mr. Ed Engbert, Mr. George Carellas and Mr. Gary Rush from the Army’s Southern Regional Environmental Office (SREO) in Atlanta, the former now with the Army Environmental Center (AEC) in Maryland; Ms. Christine Steagall and Dr. Robert W. Oldendick from the Institue for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina (USC); Mr. John Brent, Ms. Polly Gustafson, Ms. Michelle Smith, and Ms. Linda Veenstra from Fort Benning’s Environmental Management Division (EMD); Mr. Bob Larimore, Mr. Jack Greenlee, Mr. Tom Hutcherson, Mr. Rick Johnston, and Mr. James Parker from Fort Benning’s Land Management Branch (LMB); Mr. Allen D. Braswell, and Mr. Steve Willard from Fort Gordon’s LMB; Mr. Hugh Westbury and Dr. Harold E. Balbach from the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Ecosystem Management Project; Dr. Becky Champion, Ms. Jill Whiting, and Mr. Jim Trostle from the Columbus State University (CSU) and Oxbow Meadows Environmental Learning Center; Mr. Steven Davis and Mr. Frank Burch from the Columbus Water Works; Ms. Shari Mendrick and Mr. John Burnham from the Columbia County Engineering Department in Augusta, Georgia Mr. Daniel Chan and Alan Dozier from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) in Macon, Georgia; Mr. Kit Redmond and Dr. Susan Zimmer-Dauphinee from Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD). TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1 2 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 4 3 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... 8 4 MOTIVATION,,,,....................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 General Observations from the Fall-line Air Quality Study (FAQS)................................ 13 4.2 The Fall 2001 Columbus PM2.5 Pollution Case.................................................................... 17 5 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................21 5.1 Data Collection at OLC……...................................................................................................21 5.1.1 Site Preparation, PM2.5 Sampling, and Meteorology ........................................................... .21 5.1.2 Ozone......................................................................................................................................24 5.1.3 Carbon Monoxide...................................................................................................................25 5.1.4 Nitrogen Oxide and Sum of Total Reactive Nitrogen Oxides.............................................. .28 5.1.5 Semi-continuous PM2.5 Mass (TEOM) ..................................................................................32 5.2 VOC Sampling..........................................................................................................................35 5.3 Laboratory Analyses ...............................................................................................................38 5.3.1 PCM Samples for Major Ions and Carbon..............................................................................38 5.3.2 High-Volume Samples for POC Speciation............................................................................46
6.2.1 Emission Profiles.....................................................................................................................51 6.2.2 Emission Estimates and Comparison with Mobile Sources....................................................56
6.5.1 Meteorology, Trace Gas and PM2.5 Mass Relationships at OLC............................................66 6.5.2 Influences on Regional CO Background.................................................................................71 6.5.3 Influences on State Regulatory PM2.5 Monitoring..................................................................73 6.5.4 Influences on Organic Mass Contribution to Total PM2.5 at OLC..........................................76
6.6.1 Case Study of the February 5-7 Event....................................................................................85 6.6.2 Case Study of the Mid April 13-18 Event...............................................................................88 6.6.3 Case Study of the Late April 28-30 Event..............................................................................91 6.6.4 Source Apportionment from CMB for February case.............................................................94 7 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK.........................................................................................96 8 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................99 9 APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................107 10 PUBLICATIONS....................................................................................................................133 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Nation wide annual total wild land fires burned and occurrence frequency in comparison with annual total prescribed burning areas from five major US land management agencies. Figure 2: Annual total acres burned by prescription in comparison with areas and numbers of wildfires occurred on Fort Benning’s military installation since 1985. Figure 3: Monthly averages of total areas burned for agricultural, silvicultural and land clearing purposes from monthly county-level data spanning 1999-2003 in GA. Figure 4: Map of central Georgia with [PM2.5] roses of the semi-permanent FAQS sites Columbus, Macon, Augusta and Griffin for years 2001 and 2002. Figure 5: Fine PM mass concentration rose from Fig. 4 projected over the OLC measurement site between Columbus and Fort Benning. Figure 6: Average diurnal cycles of [PM2.5] for the summer periods 2000, 2001, 2002 (left) and winter periods 2000/01 and 2001/02 (right) of the FAQS continuous monitoring sites. Figure 7: Average monthly precipitation in Georgia during the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, relative to each other and the 30-year normal (1961-1990). Figure 8: Comparison of prescribed burn areas and wild fires at Fort Benning with 24 h [PM2.5] from OLC compared with Griffin, Macon, and Augusta for the Oct-Nov period in 2001. Figure 9: Correlation of 24 h [PM2.5] with acres burnt, projected plume trajectory, BL stability, wind speed, and GFC model predicted BL mixing heights for day-/night-times in fall 2001. Figure 10: Schematic of OLC site upgrades: platform, fence, electrical wiring (left), and photograph of the platform (from NE) with sampling equipment (right) taken on 1/27/2003. Figure 11: Schematic of the modified CO analyzer with added needle valve NV, solenoid valves CV and ZV for periodic calibration and background (zero) determination, respectively. Figure 12: Analog signal output (1 min averages) of the modified CO analyzer, periodically subject to zero and standard addition (cal) checks aside from regular ambient air measurements. Figure 13: Ambient CO mixing ratios measured by the newly modified CO analyzer (black) compared to the MAQREL operated reference analyzer (brown). Figure 14: Regression of the new analyzer’s converted signal against the CO reference signal. Figure 15: Tower overview with met sensors, TEOM cyclone inlet, and NO/NOy inlet box (left), and photograph of the plumbing details of the inlet box (right). Figure 16: Flow diagram of the modified TEI 146C calibrator. Figure 17: Flow schematic of the TEI 42CY NO/NOy inlet box. Figure 18: Time series of the continuous gas analyzers individual signal responses to the programmed sequence of multi-point calibrations and zero checks. Figure 19: TEOM flow paths with installed Sample Equilibration System (SES). Figure 20: Regression of the TEOM PM2.5 mass concentrations vs. PCM Teflon filters. Figure 21: Regression of CO measured by whole-air canister samples with coincident 1 min average CO from the continuous IR absorption analyzer. Figure 22: Schematic of the thermal-optical transmission (TOT) instrument for the analysis of elemental and organic carbon (EC+OC) in PM25 quartz filter samples. Figure 23: Thermogram of a quartz filter sample with front oven temperature, two differently amplified FID signals, and the He/Ne laser transmittance signal. Figure 24: Federally owned lands and Indian reservations (top), and forest types (bottom) in the South-Eastern US, from http://nationalatlas.gov based on USGS data from 1997. Figure 25: Comparison of average mixing ratios of given VOC groups, CH4, CO, CO2, and CO/CO2 ratios for locations away, up- and down-wind from prescribed burns. Figure 26: Average mixing ratios enhanced above local background levels of given VOC groups, CH4, CO, CO2, and average combustion efficiencies, for the flaming and smoldering stages. Figure 27: Average ranking of VOC emitted during flaming on Forts Benning and Gordon, compared to the corresponding propylene-equivalent ranking, indicating OH-reactivity. Figure 28: Relative contributions of major aromatic compounds emitted by flaming and smoldering prescribed burns to the regional SOA forming potential, relative to mobile sources. Figure 29: Time series plot comparing measured and calculated total [VOC] at OLC. Figure 30: Scatter plot of measured vs. calculated [VOC] from Figure 29 data. Figure 31: Comparison between measured and calculated concentrations of VOC species sampled at OLC on 4/29/2003 at 16:00 EST. Figure 32: Source apportionment of VOC measured at OLC expressed as fractions (top), and as absolute concentrations in ppbC (bottom) for each of the 7 identified source categories. Figure 33: Monthly average diurnal patterns of major meteorological (top) and pollutant concentrations measured at the OLC site. Figure 34: Monthly wind rose plots for wind direction frequency, wind speed, PM2.5, CO, and NOy, distinguishing daytime (100-1800 CST), and “nighttime” averages (1800-1100 CST). Figure 35: Linear regressions of 30 min averages of CO versus NOy measured at OLC, for months December 2002 through June 2003 scaled in size by the NO/NOy ratio. Figure 36: Monthly average CO background level derived from CO/NOy regressions at OLC in comparison with prescribed burn areas at Forts Benning, Gordon, and their surrounding areas. Figure 37: Comparison of average CO and OH free tropospheric background levels in the Northern Hemisphere. Figure 38: Monthly time-series of 24h average [PM2.5] from the 4 major FAQS sites and 4 FRM sites in Augusta (red) and Columbus (blue); incl. areas burnt on Forts Benning and Gordon. Figure 39: Annual mean of [PM2.5] for GA-EPD FRM network sites at rural Yorkville, metro Atlanta, Macon, Columbus, Augusta, and coastal sites, compared with FAQS network sites Figure 40: Wind direction and speed, trace gas concentrations, PM2.5 mass and composition with acres burned spanning from the January background to the late May prescribed burn event. Figure 41: PCM derived PM2.5 mass and composition, incl. TEOM mass and reactive gases concentrations for the 30 samples collected between January and May 2003. Figure 42: Absolute and fractional PM2.5 mass and composition data from the PCM averaged for the 7 different sampling events between mid January and late May 2003. Figure 43: PM2.5 concentrations in ng m-3 of main POC groups in 17 samples representing background conditions, and potential influences from flaming and smoldering PB sources. Figure 44: Prescribed burning area and location with wind direction, CO, and OC mass fraction, PM2.5 mass and composition, and speciated POC during the burn events in early February. Figure 45: Prescribed burning area and location with wind direction, CO, and OC mass fraction, PM2.5 mass and composition, and speciated POC during the burn events in mid April. Figure 46: Prescribed burning area and location with wind direction, CO, and OC mass fraction, PM2.5 mass and composition, and speciated POC during the burn events in late April. Figure 47: Source contributions to organic carbon (OC) in PM2.5 at the OLC site outside Fort Benning, GA, for samples taken on February 1, 5 and 6. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Annual average and standard deviation from monthly total areas burned by prescribed fires in all Georgia counties between 1999 and 2003, compared with Fort Benning data. Table 2: Daily 24 h means, standard deviations based on ½ h means, and ½ h maxima [PM2.5] in μg/m3, measured at Columbus, OLC; and completeness of records in percent. Table 3: Size, distance and direction from OLC of prescribed burns (PB) and wild fires (WF) that occurred at Fort Benning’s burn units between October 17 and November 22, 2001. Table 4: Aerosol sampling strategy, allowing the capture of multiple burn events per week. Table 5: PCM channel configurations Table 6: Meteorological parameters measured at OLC. Table 7: Sequence of automated zeros and multipoint calibrations subjected to the continuous NO, NOy, O3 and CO measurements at OLC and other FAQS monitoring sites. Table 8: Average trace gas data quality indicators (DQI) with the instruments’ response times τ, and lower detection limits (DL) for 1 and 30 min integration. Table 9: Distribution of the total number of 92 VOC samples (incl. 1 torch sample) taken at specified locations before and during the conduct of the prescribed burns. Table 10: Summary of 42 VOC species detected and quantitated during the whole-air canister sampling conducted between February and April 2003. Table 11: Accuracy, relative and absolute precision (P) achieved for the laboratory IC analyses. Table 12: Precision (bias) assessment for EC, OC, and SVOC during the study period. Table 13: Summary of PCM Data Quality Indicators (DQI) for gas- and particle-phase species. Table 14: List of particle-phase organic compounds (POC) quantified via GC/MS. Table 15: Prescribed burns and wild fires at Forts Benning and Gordon during the study period (12/02 – 05/03) in comparison with the surrounding regions and the rest of Georgia. Table 16: Averages and standard deviations of CO/CO2, plus mixing ratios of CO, CO2, CH4, and VOC groups at up- and down-wind locations (same abbreviations as in Fig. 25). Table 17: Averages and standard deviations of CO2/COx, and mixing ratios of CO, CO2, CH4, and VOC groups (enhanced above background) at the burn sites during flaming and smoldering. Table 18: Average ratios for compounds and VOC groups emitted during flaming vs. smoldering of same burn sites at Fort Gordon (3) and Fort Benning (4). Table 19: Average ranking of VOC emitted during flaming and smoldering on Forts Benning and Gordon, compared to the corresponding propylene-equivalent ranking. Table 20: Estimated emissions of aromatic compounds from PB flaming and smoldering in comparison with mobile sources in Richmond and Muscogee Counties. Table 21: OH rate constants (k), the fraction of VOC species reacted with OH (FR), and the Fractional Aerosol Coefficients (FAC) for the most important aromatic species. Table 22: Profiles of SOA forming potential for aromatics from flaming and smoldering vs. mobile sources. Table 23: Source profile fractions and standard deviations of VOC for miscellaneous source categories from photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS). Table 24: CMB-derived contributions to VOC measured at OLC from various PAMS sources, including biogenic (BIOG) and flaming prescribed burn emissions (FLAM). Table 25: Correlation coefficients, averages and standard errors of slopes and intercepts of linear regressions between CO and NOy 30-min data from OLC between December ‘02 and June ‘03. Table 26: Prescribed burns (in acres) at Forts Benning and Gordon during fiscal year 2003 in comparison with burns/fires occurring at the surrounding regions and rest of Georgia. Table 27: Average meteorological quantities, gas-phase, PM2.5 mass and species concentrations, incl. major POC species from GC/MS during the burn events in February. Table 28: Average meteorological quantities, gas-phase, PM2.5 mass and species concentrations, incl. major POC species from GC/MS during the burn events in mid April. Table 29: Average meteorological quantities, gas-phase, PM2.5 mass and species concentrations, incl. major POC species from GC/MS during the burn events in late April. Table 30: Absolute and relative source contribution to organic carbon (OC). ABBREVIATIONS
Download 11.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||