Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)
description
Transcript of Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)
![Page 1: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)
Albert Hendler URS Corporation
June 13, 2007
![Page 2: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Contents
• Part 1 – ARTS Overview
• Part 2 – Comparison with 1999 NATA
• Part 3 – Source Apportionment
• Part 4 – Acrolein Measurements
![Page 3: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Part 1 – ARTS Overview
• Exploratory study of air toxics levels
• 83 common VOCs, carbonyls, and metals
• 5 sampling sites
• Every 12th day sampling
![Page 4: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Austin-Round Rock Quick Facts
• 2000 population estimate – 1.25 million
38th largest U.S. MSA
• Two largest counties, Travis and Williamson, ranked 85th and 376th in 1999 total NEI HAPS Emissions (among 1207 U.S. urban counties)
• Major source HAP emissions = 1% of total
![Page 5: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Data Uses
• Health risk assessment
• Source apportionment
• Evaluation of NATA results
• Baseline for trend analysis
• Benchmark for other cities
![Page 6: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Part 2 – Comparison with 1999 NATA
Compound
Travis Co. Average (ug/m3)
RatioARTS NATA
Acetaldehyde 1.42 1.48 1.04
Formaldehyde 2.83 1.67 0.59
1,3-butadiene 0.15 0.17 1.12
Benzene 1.18 1.61 1.36
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.66 0.27 0.41
Chloromethane 1.34 1.21 0.91
Dichloromethane 0.59 0.52 0.89
Tetrachloroethylene 0.19 0.25 1.31
Toluene 3.01 3.43 1.14
Total Xylene 1.77 2.17 1.23
• Better than a factor of 2 agreement at county level for most frequently detected VOCs and carbonyls
• Carbon tetrachloride and formaldehyde NATA estimates appear low
• Poor modeled-monitored agreement for acrolein
![Page 7: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
• ARTS data estimated assuming ND = ½ DL
• NATA estimates driven mostly by background
• Strong agreement not expected
Monitored-Modeled (1999 NATA) Comparison – Travis County Averages for infrequently detected VOCs and Carbonyls
![Page 8: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Monitored-Modeled (1999 NATA) Comparison – Travis County Averages for frequently detected Metals
• Better than a factor of 2 agreement for lead, nickel and Cr6+
• Worse than a factor of 10 agreement for arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt
• Arsenic one of top 10 risk drivers based on monitoring data – comparatively unimportant based on NATA
![Page 9: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Top 10 Cancer Risk Drivers for Travis County from 1999 NATA and 2005-2006 ARTS
1999 NATA
2005-2006 ARTS
ND = 1/2 DL ND=0
Benzene 1,2-Dibromoethane Carbon tetrachloride
1,2-Dibromoethane Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Benzene
1,3-Butadiene Carbon tetrachloride 1,3-Butadiene
Carbon tetrachloride Benzene Acetaldehyde
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Arsenic
Acetaldehyde Acrylonitrile p-Dichlorobenzene
Bis_2_ethylhexyl_phthalate 1,3-Butadiene Chloroform
Naphthalene Acetaldehyde Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene Arsenic 1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane p-Dichlorobenzene Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Bold type highlights 5 chemicals on all three lists
![Page 10: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
11
Summary of Comparison with 1999 NATA
• Strong agreement between ARTS 2005-2006 monitoring results and 1999 NATA in terms of:
Estimated Concentrations for most frequently detected VOCs and carbonyls
Identification of key species
Estimated risks
• Formaldehyde and carbon tetrachloride NATA estimates appear low
• Wide range of variability in ARTS-NATA agreement for metals
![Page 11: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
12
Part 3 – Source Apportionment
• One site – WETX – had a different VOC fingerprint than the other 4 ARTS sites
• Higher levels of VOC that are constituents of motor vehicle emissions were observed
• Source apportionment objective was to see if a MV source profile could be confirmed and its contribution to the measured benzene and other measured species quantified
![Page 12: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
13
U.S. 2006 Average Benzene Levels from http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html
Webberville Rd. benzene average was greater than
80% of 335 averages for 2006 reported in AQS
![Page 13: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
14
EPA Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF)
• Menu-driven source apportionment tool available for download at http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/pmf/pmf.htm
• Uses temporal variability in measured concentrations and multi-pollutant relationships to infer source types and their contributions to the observed pollutant levels
Inputs are measured levels of multiple VOC, carbonyl, and/or PM chemical species over a long time series of sampling periods
Outputs are chemical source profiles and their estimated contributions to the observed levels
Model user or data analyst identifies source profiles based on key species
![Page 14: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
15
Example of Source Profile Produced by PMF and Identified as Motor Vehicle Emissions
![Page 15: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
16
Other Source Profile Produced by PMF
![Page 16: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
17
Set of 6 Source Profiles Produced by PMF from ARTS VOC and Carbonyl Measurements
Source Profile No.
Description Key Species Key Months/Sites
1 Acrolein/MEK Acrolein, MEK Jun.-Sep./All sites
2 Toluene Toluene Mar.-Nov./RRTX
3 Motor Vehicle Emissions
Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, trimethylbenzene,
acetylene, propylene, butadiene
All months/WETX
4 Background Carbon tetrachloride, chloromethane,
dichlorofluoromethane, trichlorofluoromethane
All months/All sites
5 Secondary Aldehydes
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, Jun.-Sep./All sites
6 Undefined (possible
contaminant)
Ethyl benzene, MEK, styrene, xylene, MIBK
Jun.-Sep. 2005/All sites
![Page 17: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
18
Relative Source Strengths by Site
Less than a factor of two variability in average source strengths between sites, except for an apparent toluene source impacting RRTX and motor vehicle emissions impacting WETX
![Page 18: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
19
Reconstructed vs. Measured Benzene (R-Square = 0.87)
• Reconstructed Benzene (y-axis) is the sum of all the source contributions to a particular benzene measurement (x-axis)
• For the ARTS source apportionment, reconstructed benzene agreed reasonably well with the measurements
![Page 19: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
20
Benzene Source Apportionment for Webberville Road (WETX)
![Page 20: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
21
ARTS Sampling Sites and Major Roadways
WETX was the farthest of all ARTS sites from a major freeway
![Page 21: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
22
Webberville Road Sampling Site
![Page 22: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
23
Summary of Source Apportionment
• PMF produced 6 source profiles from the ARTS data set
• The greatest motor vehicle impact was detected for Webberville Road (WETX), where benzene levels averaged about 2x the other ARTS sites
• 79% of the benzene mass measured at WETX was attributed to motor vehicle emissions
• WETX was the farthest of all ARTS sites from a major freeway
![Page 23: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
24
Part 4 – Acrolein Measurements
Analyte
2005-2006 Average Concentrations (μg/m3)
RfC (μg/m3)
Average Hazard
QuotientMUTX PITX RRTX TRTX WETX
Acrolein 3.73 2.51 4.60 2.58 3.77 0.02 172
Formaldehyde 2.78 2.85 3.26 2.98 2.72 9.8 0.30
Acetaldehyde 1.34 1.33 1.38 1.40 1.62 9 0.16
1,3-Butadiene 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.33 2 0.07
Manganese 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.8 0.13
Acrylonitrile 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.18 2 0.04
Benzene 0.94 0.80 0.98 1.11 1.88 30 0.04
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 4 0.02
Arsenic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02
Top 10 Non-Cancer Hazard Quotients
ARTS acrolein measurements exceeded the EPA RfC by more than 100 times
![Page 24: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
25
U.S. 2005 Average Acrolein Levels from http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html
ARTS acrolein averages were the highest reported to EPA AQS in 2005
![Page 25: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
26
Comparison of Monitored and Modeled (1999 NATA) Acrolein Estimates
ARTS acrolein averages exceeded 1999 NATA estimates by factors of about 20 to 60
![Page 26: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
27
Acrolein Monitoring Method and Data Quality Indicators
• Measurements made using TO-15 (canister – GC/MS)
• Acceptable stability in canisters and recovery demonstrated by ERG
• Same method and lab used in 2005 and 2006 for the EPA Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
• Good measurement precision in ARTS for 13 of 16 collocated sample pairs
Acrolein Canister Duplicates Average RPD = 49% (N=16)
The data quality appears to be OK but…
![Page 27: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
28
Acrolein Emissions Densities from the 1999 NEI
No known emission sources explain why the ARTS acrolein levels were the highest in the U.S.
![Page 28: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
29
U.S. 2006 Average Acrolein Levels from http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html
In 2006, seven Indiana sites joined four ARTS sites to round out the top 10% of reported acrolein
![Page 29: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
30
2006 Acrolein Averages from AQS
![Page 30: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
31
1999 NATA County-Averaged Acrolein Estimates
NATA modeling of known emissions does not explain the Indiana measurements
![Page 31: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
32
Acrolein/MEK Source Profile
![Page 32: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
33
Acrolein Time Series
![Page 33: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
34
Acrolein Follow Up Study – Summer 2007
• Collaborative effort between EPA, TCEQ, and CAPCOG
• Conducted by URS, ERG, UTSPH, and Czartech Analytical
• 3 measurement techniques TO-15
Modified TO-11A (DNPH) – Includes analysis of acrolein decay products
Dansylhydrazine (DNSH) passive sampler (Herrington et al, 2006)
• Field Duplicates
• Replicate analyses
• Through the probe field blanks and challenges
• Blind spiked QC samples
• Data quality assessments for accuracy and precision
![Page 34: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
35
Acrolein Summary
• ARTS acrolein levels were among the highest reported to EPA AQS
• Very poor agreement with NATA estimates
• No known sources account for the measured levels or differences between Austin-Round Rock compared and most other urban sites
Similarly high levels measured in Indiana and Tulsa show the anomaly is not limited to central Texas
• Repeatability of measurements and reliability of measurement method to be tested in summer 2007
![Page 35: Austin – Round Rock Toxics Study (ARTS)](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081519/56814624550346895db33044/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
36
Acknowledgements
• ARTS was sponsored by a grant from the U.S. EPA to the Capitol Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) Kuenja Chung was the EPA Project Officer Mike Fishburn was the CAPCOG Project Manager Samples were analyzed by Eastern Research
Group (Julie Swift)
• The acrolein follow up study was designed by David Brymer, David Carmichael, and David Manis, TCEQ