1
Urban air pollution in developing countries:
Case study of Metro Manila, Philippines
Simonas Kecorius*, Honey Dawn Alas, Leizel Madueño, Thomas Müller, Wolfram Birmili, Edgar Vallar, James Bernard B. Simpas, Everlyn Gayle T. Tamayo, Mylene G. Cayetano, and Alfred Wiedensohler
Honey Dawn C. AlasPresenting author
2
Motivation
Source: http://www.ecoclimax.com
Source: WHO (2016, September 27)
air‐pollution‐related deaths occur in low‐and middle‐income countries92%
deaths occurSoutheast Asia and Western Pacific regions
2 out of 3
3
Motivation
PHILIPPINES1990 2013
Annual PM2.5 (µg/m³) 9.1 8.6
DEATHS 38 676 57 403
IMPROVED45
62
25 21 4
8WORSEN
25 out of 140 countries reported a decrease in PM2.5 from 1990‐2013 but an increase in total deaths due to air
pollution
21 of those are DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
PM 2.5 and air pollution‐related deaths
Source: The Cost of Air Pollution, The World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2016
4
Motivation
Source: Hopke et al., 2008
Mean Annual PM2.5 Mean Annual BC
Annual limit24 hr limit
2nd highest BC concentration
5
Motivation and Objectives
• To determine soot properties and its sources in a megacity
• To determine the spatial and temporal variability of soot in a megacity
• To estimate excess lifetime cancer risk of the populace in megacities
Source: WHO (2016, September 27)Source: The Cost of Air Pollution, The World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2016
• Health effect associated with short‐term exposure to BC is more robust than PM
BC is a better indicator of harmful particulate substances from combustion sources than undifferentiated PM mass
(WHO, 2012)
Cardio‐vascular diseases
toxic materials and heavy metals
carcinogenic components
6
Study Domain: Metro Manila, Philippines
12.8 Million
20,785 persons/km2
2.3 Million
METRO MANILA(17 Cities)
LAGUNABAY
MANILABAY
CHINA
INDONESIAMALAYSIA
JAPAN
PHILIPPINE SEA
90% of emissions Mobile sources
Source: DENR ‐ EMBSource: PSA
Source: LTOTraffic Reduction Policies: Number Coding Scheme ‐ ex. ABC 001 – Mondays Truck Ban Policy – No trucks: 6 – 9AM and 5 – 9PM
7
The Campaign
Manila Aerosol Characterization Experiment – MACE 2015FIXED:
Urban background station“UBS”
SEMI‐FIXED: Subsequent Roadside Sites
“RS”
MOBILE: Fixed Route
TROPOS Aerosol Container
8
MACE 2015 Experiment Design – Measurement Sites
LAGUNABAY
MANILABAY
TAFT RS
KAT RSMO UBS
MO ‐ Urban background station (MO UBS)
PERIOD: April 1 – June 5, 2015
MO UBS
MAIN ROADSCAMPUS
KAT RS
9
Roadside Sites
LAGUNABAY
MANILABAY
TAFT RS
KAT RSMO UBS
KAT RS TAFT RS
PERIOD: April 1 – May 5• 8‐lane road• West: buildings• East: university campuses
• MO UBS
PERIOD: May 17 – June 10• 4 to 6 – lane road• STREET CANYON + railway
MACE 2015 Experiment Design – Measurement Sites
10
MACE 2015 Experiment Design ‐ Instrumentation
PARAMETER INSTRUMENT UBS AEROSOLCONTAINER
Black carbon (eBC)
MAAPMulti‐angle absorptionphotometer
Mixing state of refractory particles
TROPOS ‐ VTDMAVolatility Tandem Differential Mobility Analyzer
Particle number concentration
TROPOS ‐MPSSMobility Particle Size Spectrometer
PAHs 5‐Stage Cascade BernerImpactor
eBC ‐ equivalent black carbon
Soot ‐ carbonaceous particles formed from incomplete combustion
PAH ‐ polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons‐ carcinogenic component of soot
BaP ‐ benzo(a)pyrene‐ carcinogenic to humans
BaPeq ‐ benzo(a)pyrene equivalent‐ relative carcinogenic potency of PAH compounds in reference to BaP
11
MACE 2015 Experiment Design – Instrumentation
PARAMETER INSTRUMENT
Black carbon (eBC)
AE51microAeth
Particle Number Concentration
MCPCCondensationParticle Counter
Particle Number Size Distribution
TSI OPSS 3330Optical Particle Size Spectrometer
Position GPS
TROPOS AEROSOL BACKPACK v.1
12
RESULTS
13
Results: eBC in Metro Manila
NUMBER CODING
NUMBER CODING
TRUCK BANWINDOW
UBS: boundary layer
height
RS: ??
Roadside:Vehicle emissions Traffic
scheme/policy Vehicle fleetStreet configuration
TRUCK BANWINDOW
TRUCK BANWINDOW
Time (hour)
TRAFFIC REDUCING SCHEMES IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY
14
Results: eBC in Metro Manila vs Other Cities
Hung et al., 2014Cao et al., 2009
Song et al., 2013
Lee et al., 2007
Part et al., 2002
Part et al., 2002
TROPOS
This Study
Asia
Europe
Daily mean BC
BC in µg/m³
eBC mass concentration is up to 30 times higher than in
Western countries
15
Results: Soot Size distribution – number and volume
~15 000 #/cm3
Soot:~70% of PM1
Soot particle NUMBER concentration Soot particle VOLUME concentration
16
Results: Size Segregated Emission factors
Vehicle Type PMsoot g/km PNsoot, #/km
LDV + PC 0.027 9.79•1013
Jeepneys 1.618 1.15•1015
Average fleet 0.313 3.29•1014
• Jeepney emit 12 times more soot in terms of number and 60 times more in terms ofmass when compared to LDV 94% of total roadside soot mass
JeepneyLight duty vehicles (LDV + passenger cars)
80% 20%
• Jeepney showed 2000 times higher emission when compared to EURO 6standard for diesel in Europe.
17
Results: PAHs and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Total PAH in PM10 = 119 ± 26 ng/m3
ULTRAFINE
34%
28%21%
12%
5%
FINE
COARSE
WHO Guideline for BaPeq = 1 ng/m3
Carcinogenic PAH38%
Total Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent Metro Manila12.7 ng/m3
Additional 1,100 cases of lung cancer for every 1 million people exposed!
(Accepted: 1 in 1 million)
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
Source: WHO Regional Office for Europe 2010. WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants. Tamayo et al., In Progress
18
Results: Spatial Distribution of eBC
19
Results: Spatial Distribution of eBC
20
Results: Who are at risk?
pedestriansdrivers and conductors
(and their families)
vendors traffic enforcersstreet sweepers
21
Summary and Conclusions
• Soot dominates PM1 by ~70% and the main sources are the old jeepneys despite beingonly 20% of the total vehicle number.
• eBC has high temporal and spatial variabilities with hotspots found Jeepney terminals,traffic light areas or major intersections, and street canyons affecting people stayingthere for HOURS (traffic enforcers, street vendors, drivers, and conductors)
• The estimated excess lifetime lung cancer risk is 1000 times higher than the acceptednorms.
In developing regions, where primary pollutant emission dominates, PM10 and PM2.5 must be supplemented by additional parameters such as eBC mass concentration or soot particle number size distribution, in order to better
evaluate possible adverse health effects and create effective mitigation policies.
22
Honey Dawn C. [email protected]
Simonas Kecorius [email protected] Madueño [email protected] Tamayo [email protected]
THANK YOUSALAMAT
DANKEAČIŪ
23
24
Size‐segregated emission factors
OSPMOperational Street Pollution Model
surface topography
roof top wind speed and direction
particulate pollutant concentration
Emission factors
Inverse Modelling Approach
Background concentration
Traffic countsVehicle fleet
(Berkowicz et al., 2000)
25
Excess lifetime cancer risk calculation
PAH FactorAce 0.001Phe 0.001An 0.01Ft 0.001Py 0.001B[a]an 0.1Chy 0.01B[b]ft 0.1B[k]ft 0.1B[a]py 1D[a,h]an 1B[g,h,i]pe 0.01
Table 5. TEFs for PAHs (Nisbet and Lagoy, 1992)
Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) approach• relative carcinogenic potency
Concentration of each PAH compound
BaP equivalent of each
compound
Excess lifetime cancer risk
Unit risk (UR) for lung cancer = 8.7 x 10‐5 per ng/m3
→ 8.7 cases per 100,000 people with chronic inhalational exposure to 1 ng/m3 BaP over a lifetime of 70 yrs (ave. adult weight) (WHO, 2000)
BaPeq = (PAH conc) x (TEF values)
Lifetime cancer risk = BaPeq X UR
• Curie‐Point Pyrolysis – GC/MS• Solvent Extraction
Top Related