presentation

Air Toxics Hot Spots –
Field Studies
Zhihua (Tina) Fan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Division of Exposure Science
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Institute
Ozone Research Center Science Workshop 2011
February 24, 2011
What Is a Hot Spot for Air
Pollution?
A “hot spot” is a small area (e.g., community
or neighborhood) with dense sources of air
toxics, and the average or upper bound
concentrations of one or more air pollutants
are much higher than those in surrounding
areas or other locations.
 The spatial variation of air toxics can be
large, particularly in a “hot spot” with many
sources of air pollutants.

Why Do We Want to Study “Hot
Spots” of Air Toxics?




Residents living in a hot spot may be at a greater health
risk due to the exposure to elevated concentrations of air
pollutants.
The community-based spatial variation data of air toxics
and personal exposure data are limited.
Exposure to air toxics and health risks for people located
in a “hotspot” may be under-estimated based on results
of routine ambient air monitoring.
There are still large gaps in understanding community
exposure to air toxics and associated health effects.
“Hotspot” studies
“Personal
Exposure to Air Toxics in
Camden, New Jersey” - Health Effect
Institute (HEI)
“Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring
Project in Paterson City, NJ” – US
EPA/NJ DEP
Why Did We Choose
Camden and Paterson?
Mixed sources of Air Pollution
 Underserved population – minority, lowincome
 High prevalence of asthma in Camden and
Paterson.

Demographic Information
Ethnicity
Income
Black
Hispan
ic
NonWhite
Median
Household
Income
Individuals
Below
Poverty
New Jersey State
13.6%
12.5%
27.4%
$55,136
8.5%
Camden County
18.1%
9.7%
29.1%
$48,097
10.4%
Camden City
53.3%
38.8%
82.5%
$23,421
35.5%
Waterfront South
57.8%
27.2%
85.4%
$22,4172
33.8%2
Copewood/Davis
69.3%
25.6%
88.2%
NA3
NA3
Geographic Level
1US
Census 2000.
2
NJDEP, 2005.
3 not
available.
The Village of Waterfront South (WFS) in
Camden, NJ - A Hot Spot for Air Pollution

Mixed sources of air
toxics
– Industrial sources (26
industrial and
manufacturing facilities)
– Mobile sources (>100,000
diesel trucks/yr, HYW 676
and other major roads)
– Urban Sources
(Philadelphia ~ 8 miles
west of WFS)
Industrial facilities
Subject homes
Industrial facilities in WFS (NJ DEP, 2005)
ID
Facility Name
Type of Operation
Main Pollutants Emitted
PS1
Camden County Municipal Utilities
Authority
Sewage Treatment Facility
PM, MTBE, BTEX, chloroform,
tetrachloride, Formaldehyde, PAH
PS2
Mafco
Spice and Extract manufacturing
PM, propylene glycol, ammonium
PS3
Art Metalcraft
Electroplating
Hydrogen cyanide, metals
PS4
PSE&G Camden Coal Gas
Other Electric Power Generation
benzene, toluene, formaldehyde
PS5
Georgia Pacific (Domtar Gypsum
inc.)
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
hexane,
metals
PS6
Container Recyclers of Camden
Inc.
Other Metal Container Manufacturing
Xylene, titanium dioxide
PS8
American Minerals, inc.
All other Metal Ore Mining
PM
PS9
Hospital
Laundry
Laundry Service
PM, metals
PS10
Camden
County
Recovery Association
Refuse System (Materials Recovery)
PM, formaldehyde, PAH
PS11
St. Lawrence Cement
Cement Plant
PM, metals
PS12
Colonial Processing
Welding & Soldering Equipment
manufacturing (Paint appl.)
PM, Xylene, Hexane
PS13
Comarco
Process Pork
PM, lead
PS14
Broadway Finishing
Industrial Paint Shop
Toluene, Xylene, MEK
PS15
SL Surface Technologies
Electroplating
PM, metals
Central
Services
Inc.
Resource
benzene,
toluene,
carbon
formaldehyde,
Industrial facilities in WFS (NJ DEP, 2005)-cont’
ID
Facility Name
Type of Operation
Main Pollutants Emitted
PS16
Camdett
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC (alumina)
Ammonia
PS17
Camden Cogeneration
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
PM, ammonia
PS18
F.W. Winter
Secondary Smelting, Refining & Alloying of
Nonferrous metal
PM, metals
PS19
State Metal Industries inc.
Secondary Smelting, Non Ferrous Metals
PM, hexane, toluene, dioxins, metals
PS20
CWS Industries
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing
PM, cadmium
PS21
Duro Plating Co.
Electroplating
Cadmium, hydrogen cyanide
PS22
Camden Iron & Metal (The Pier)
Recyclable Material Wholesaler
toluene, hexane, metals
PS23*
Steve’s Auto Parts Inc.
Car scraping facility, automotive body repair,
paint
PM, gasoline emissions
PS24
Plastic Consulting & MFG Co.
Coating, Engraving, allied services, NEC (Cos.
Jewelry)
PM, metals, and VOCs
PS25
Teideken Bros Auto Body inc.
Automotive body, paint, & interior repair &
maintenance
MIBK
PS26
Cam Core
Secondary Aluminum Smelter
PM, toluene, hexane, metals
PS27
Peerless Castings
Aluminum Foundries
PM, toluene, hexane, ethylene
Industrial Facilities in WFS
HWY 676 (Left) and Sewage
Treatment Plants (right)
Objectives


To characterize local ambient and personal
concentrations of air toxics using measurements
and simulations in a suspected “hotspot” Waterfront South (WFS) Camden, NJ.
To assess the impact of local industrial and
mobile sources on measured neighborhood
ambient concentrations and personal exposures
in WFS and CDS.
Study Design
Neighborhood Ambient and Personal Measurements
WFS (60 subjects)
winter
CDS (40 subjects)
summer
weekday weekend weekday
winter
weekend
weekday
weekend
summer
weekday
weekend
A. 24-h outdoor and personal samples of Fine particles, Volatile
Organic Compounds, carbonyls, & Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
B. Baseline and Activity questionnaires and Time/Activity Diaries
C. Modeling Exposure
D. 107 Subjects participated
Contaminants Measured in Study




Particulate Matter: PM2.5
VOCs: Methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE), Hexane, Benzene, Toluene,
Xylenes, Ethylbenzene, Styrene, Chloroform, Carbon tetrachloride,
1,3butadiene
Aldehydes: Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Acrolein,
Propionaldehyde
PAHs: Naphthalenene, Acenaphthylene, Acenaphthene, Fluorene,
Phenanthrene, Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Pyrene
Chrysene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Benzo(ghi)perylene
Study Areas in Camden, NJ
The fixed site in WFS
-Hot Spot
The fixed site in CDS Reference area
: the fixed sampling sites
Personal Exposure Measurement of
Air Pollutants
Spatial Saturation Sampling

A total of 38 locations were selected as sampling
sites for the “saturation sampling” study.
22 in the WFS and 16 in the CDS



Sampling duration: 24 and 48 hours
Two summer and one winter sampling campaigns in
2005
Target compounds
•
•
11 VOCs (3M OVM badge)
3 Aldehydes (PAKS)
Spatial Saturation Sampling Sites
Facility
Subject
home
Fixed Site in
WFS
Fixed Site in
CDS
3
Ambient PM2.5 Mass Concentration (µg/m )
PM2.5: Ambient and Personal Levels
CDS
WFS
80
60
40
20
0
N=50
N=55
N=56
N=59
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
3
Personal PM2.5 Mass Concentration (µg/m )
Summer/Winter
CDS
WFS
1600
600
400
200
0
N=77
N=96
N=83
N=75
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Summer/Winter
Ambient Benzene Concentration (µg/m3)
Benzene: Ambient and Personal Levels
100
CDS
WFS
10
1
0.1
0.01
N=49
N=57
N=37
N=42
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Personal Benzene Concentration (µg/m3)
Summer/Winter
1000
CDS
WFS
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
N=86
N=104
N=79
N=96
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Summer/Winter
3
Ambient BaP Mass Concentration (ng/m )
Benzo(a)pyrene: Ambient and Personal levels
2.5
CDS
WFS
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
N=42
N=48
N=49
N=53
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
3
Personal BaP Mass Concentration (ng/m )
Summer/Winter
9
CDS
WFS
6
3
0
N=70
N=82
N=77
N=71
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Summer/Winter
Spatial Distribution of MTBE
(WFS: 0.49-159 µg/m3 CDS: 0.9-18 µg/m3)
160 µg/m3
Toluene (2-60 µg/m³)
Toluene Concentration Downwind of
the Facility (Aug. 17-18, 2005)
Toluene concentration (ug/m3)
70
Wind Direction
60
y = 51.535e -0.0052x
R2 = 0.9609
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
Distance to W-19 (m)
500
600
Spatial Distribution of Benzene
(WFS: 0.5-3.1 µg/m3 CDS: 0.67-3.5 µg/m3)
July
August
December,
2005
Ratio = Cfix site/Cmean of each area
WFS
Compound
CDS
7/20-22
8/17-18
12/20-22
7/20-22
8/17-18
12/20-22
MTBE
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
Chloroform
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
Carbon
Tetrachloride
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Benzene
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
Toluene
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
Ethylbenzene
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
m/p-Xylene
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
o-Xylene
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
Formaldehyde
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.0
Spearman Correlation Coefficients
(CDS, 8/15-17, 2005)
Species
MTBE
CHCl3
CCl4
Ben
Tol
EB
m,pXyl
o-Xyl
MTBE
1.00
CHCl3
0.33
1.00
CCl4
0.04
0.01
1.00
Ben
0.45
0.23
0.64
1.00
Tol
0.69
0.36
0.31
0.59
1.00
EB
0.78
0.13
0.18
0.68
0.74
1.00
m,p-Xyl
0.82
0.18
0.15
0.67
0.80
0.97
1.00
o-Xyl
0.79
0.20
0.16
0.75
0.78
0.92
0.96
1.00
HCHO
0.55
0.11
0.25
0.42
0.35
0.60
0.55
0.42
HCHO
1.00
Spearman Correlation Coefficients
(WFS, 8/15-17, 2005)
MTBE
CHCl3
CCl4 Ben
Tol
EB
m,pXyl
oXyl
MTBE
1.00
CHCl3
-0.70
1.00
CCl4
0.03
0.24
1.00
Ben
0.79
-0.61
-0.06 1.00
Tol
-0.09
0.11
-0.16 -0.19 1.00
EB
0.02
0.17
-0.03 0.05
0.77 1.00
m,p-Xyl
0.04
0.17
-0.01 0.02
0.76 0.99
1.00
o-Xyl
0.13
0.09
-0.06 0.11
0.67 0.96
0.97
1.00
HCHO
-0.10
0.25
0.05
0.39 0.34
0.33
0.31
0.11
HCHO
1.00
Proximity Analysis
To examine the effect of proximity to ambient
sources of air toxics on the spatial variation of air
toxics



A multiple linear regression model:
ln(Cij) = a + Σbk xik-1 + c U + d T + e RH + εi
Independent variables
– xik:: distance to stationary sources and major roads
– Meteorological (U, T, RH)
Significant predictors : p < 0.05
Distances to Sources
Proximity Analysis Results (WFS, n=61)
Parameter Estimate
Compound
R2(sour
ces
only)
MTBE
(0.2)
CHCl3
PS1-1
PS6-1
PS12-1
PS23-1
U
T
0.192
-0.126
0.605
(0.013)
-0.789
0.047
CCl4
(NA)
-0.051
0.299
Benzene
(0.394)
0.259
-0.164
0.038
Toluene
(0.162)
0.070
-0.058
Ethylben
(0.418)
0.152
0.052
0.214
-0.152
m,p-Xyl
(0.435)
0.222
0.048
0.165
-0.159
o-Xyl
(0.461)
0.246
-0.180
0.098
PS14-1
0.037
0.092
0.042
0.173
Proximity Analysis Results (CDS, n = 40)
Parameter Estimate
Compound
R2
Haddon
Ave-1
NJ-168-1
MTBE
(0.007)
0.003
0.004
CHCl3
(NA)
CCl4
(0.031)
0.031
Benzene
(0.239)
0.239
Toluene
(0.138)
0.138
Ethylbenzene
(0.368)
0.029
m,p-Xyl
(0.358)
o-Xyl
(0.405)
U
T
-0.110
0.823
-0.941
0.010
-0.069
0.716
-0.265
0.191
0.285
-0.126
0.302
0.034
0.294
-0.133
0.285
0.048
0.317
-0.181
0.168
0.014
PS23-1
Industrial facilities in WFS (NJ DEP, 2005)
ID
Facility Name
Type of Operation
Main Pollutants Emitted
PS1
Camden County Municipal Utilities
Authority
Sewage Treatment Facility
PM, MTBE, BTEX, chloroform,
tetrachloride, Formaldehyde, PAH
PS2
Mafco
Spice and Extract manufacturing
PM, propylene glycol, ammonium
PS3
Art Metalcraft
Electroplating
Hydrogen cyanide, metals
PS4
PSE&G Camden Coal Gas
Other Electric Power Generation
benzene, toluene, formaldehyde
PS5
Georgia Pacific (Domtar Gypsum
inc.)
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
hexane,
metals
PS6
Container Recyclers of Camden
Inc.
Other Metal Container Manufacturing
Xylene, titanium dioxide
PS8
American Minerals, inc.
All other Metal Ore Mining
PM
PS9
Hospital
Laundry
Laundry Service
PM, metals
PS10
Camden
County
Recovery Association
Refuse System (Materials Recovery)
PM, formaldehyde, PAH
PS11
St. Lawrence Cement
Cement Plant
PM, metals
PS12
Colonial Processing
Welding & Soldering Equipment
manufacturing (Paint appl.)
PM, Xylene, Hexane
PS13
Comarco
Process Pork
PM, lead
PS14
Broadway Finishing
Industrial Paint Shop
Toluene, Xylene, MEK
PS15
SL Surface Technologies
Electroplating
PM, metals
Central
Services
Inc.
Resource
benzene,
toluene,
carbon
formaldehyde,
Industrial facilities in WFS (NJ DEP, 2005)-cont’
ID
Facility Name
Type of Operation
Main Pollutants Emitted
PS16
Camdett
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC (alumina)
Ammonia
PS17
Camden Cogeneration
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
PM, ammonia
PS18
F.W. Winter
Secondary Smelting, Refining & Alloying of
Nonferrous metal
PM, metals
PS19
State Metal Industries inc.
Secondary Smelting, Non Ferrous Metals
PM, hexane, toluene, dioxins, metals
PS20
CWS Industries
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing
PM, cadmium
PS21
Duro Plating Co.
Electroplating
Cadmium, hydrogen cyanide
PS22
Camden Iron & Metal (The Pier)
Recyclable Material Wholesaler
toluene, hexane, metals
PS23*
Steve’s Auto Parts Inc.
Car scraping facility, automotive body repair,
paint
PM, gasoline emissions
PS24
Plastic Consulting & MFG Co.
Coating, Engraving, allied services, NEC (Cos.
Jewelry)
PM, metals, and VOCs
PS25
Teideken Bros Auto Body inc.
Automotive body, paint, & interior repair &
maintenance
MIBK
PS26
Cam Core
Secondary Aluminum Smelter
PM, toluene, hexane, metals
PS27
Peerless Castings
Aluminum Foundries
PM, toluene, hexane, ethylene
Prediction of personal exposure based on
ambient concentration using a mixed model
WFS
Slope Intercept
p
0.28
2.53
0.037
0.51
1.61
0.0002
0.46
-0.06
0.001
0.47
-1.25
0.002
0.58
2.37
0.003
NAP
PHE
PY
BaP
Σ16-PAH
0.96
0.81
0.71
0.67
0.91
R2
0.87
0.73
0.98
0.94
0.95
100
100
PY in WFS
(n=197)
Personal Concentration (ng/m 3)
Personal Concentration (ng/m 3)
CDS
Slope Intercept
p
0.38
2.86
0.056
0.47
1.78
0.003
0.58
0.37
0.004
0.73
-0.43
0.002
0.61
2.74
0.026
R2
10
1
0.1
0.1
1
10
Am bient Concentration (ng/m 3)
100
BaP in WFS
(n=197)
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
1
10
Am bient Concentration (ng/m 3)
100
The time-series profiles of hourly ISCST3 predictions of benzene (upper panel)
and toluene (lower panel) ambient concentrations from mobile on-road sources
at WFS using the census tract-based spatial allocation and the road link-based
spatial allocation for mobile on-road emission sources, as well as the
corresponding comparison between the 24-hour averages of ISCST3 predictions
from all source and the ambient measurements from July 15, 2006.
The time-series profiles of hourly ISCST3 predictions of benzene (upper panel) and toluene
(lower panel) ambient concentrations from mobile on-road sources at CDS using the census
tract-based spatial allocation and the road link-based spatial allocation for mobile on-road
emission sources, as well as the corresponding comparison between the 24-hour averages of
ISCST3 predictions from all source and the ambient measurements for the sampling date of
July 15, 2006
Conclusions-Camden Study
 Local industrial sources contribute significantly to
the air pollution and personal exposure to some
air toxics in WFS.
 Measurements collected from the fixed monitoring
site in WFS underestimated the concentrations of
pollutants with significant local sources and
therefore potential personal exposure and health
risks.
 The significant impact of emissions from the
stationary sources on ambient air toxics levels
was observed within 300 m downwind of the
facility.
Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring
Project, Paterson City, NJ (UCAMPP)
39
Main Objectives
Provide information & develop tools so that the
NJDEP and communities can better address
exposure and risk issues related to air toxics.
 Characterize local air toxics related to different land
use patterns in a highly industrialized urban
community
 Placement of air toxics monitoring stations in
community-oriented locations to capture industrial,
commercial, and mobile source-dominated
emissions

40
STUDY DESIGN
Industrial Site
(School 10)
Commercial Site
(Dept. of Health)
Mobile Site
(School 2)
60 VOCs
48 Elements
16 PAHs
Cr (VI)
4 Carbonyls
OC/EC
meteorology parameters at I site
24-h sampling period
Every six days over one year
Background Site
(Chester)
Draft: Do Not Cite or
Quote
42
Site and Seasonal Variations
1.4
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
1.0
0.8
30
0.6
0.2
0.0
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
10
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
8
OC Concentration (µg/m3)
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
25
0.4
PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)
EC Concentration (µg/m3)
1.2
20
15
10
5
0
Spring
6
4
2
0
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Summer
Fall
Winter
Site and Seasonal Variations
3.5
5
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
4
Ni Concentration (ng/m3)
As Concentration (ng/m3)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
3
2
1
0.5
0
0.0
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Fall
Winter
14
Background
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
Pb Concentration (ng/m3)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Spring
Summer
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Acrolein by Site, Season, and
Weekday/Weekend(ug/m3)
1.2
1.03
1
0.88
0.81
0.8
0.6
0.55
0.32
0.4
0.38
0.35
0.34
0.2
0
Background Commercial
TO-15
Industrial
Mobile
TO-15
1
PAKS
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Spring
Summer
Weekday
Weekend
TO-15
PAKS
PAKS
1.2
0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Fall
Winter
Acrolein was found to
be strongly correlated
with 1,3-butadiene but
ozone
How does the air in Paterson
compare to other locations
around the state?

The air toxics that were considered to be
elevated above the NJDEP cancer (health) risk
guideline are about the same with similar
concentrations at the four other sites around the
state
– Camden (urban residential), Chester (rural), Elizabeth
(mobile) and New Brunswick (suburban)
Cancer risk (# in a million)
Benzene
Background
4
 Industrial
10
 Mobile
9
 Commercial
14
 Elizabeth
10
 Camden
9
 New Brunswick 5

1,3-butadiene
<1
4
6
9
5
4
2
Ethyl benzene
<1
1
1
3
<1
<1
<1
PAH concentrations (Gas + particle
phase, ng m-3) at various locations
Site
Phen
Py
BaP
BbF+BkF
∑13PAH
Chester
5.16
0.22
0.05
0.12
12.52
Paterson
19.21
1.51
0.08
0.20
45.87
Industrial-Paterson
18.36
1.27
0.1
0.26
38.94
Mobile-Paterson
27.27
1.43
0.1
0.24
49.22
Jersey City, NJ
15.00
2.1
0.19
0.55
50.0
CDS, Camden, N
12.4
1.23
0.21
0.41
27.81
WFS, Camden, NJ
15.5
1.47
0.36
0.61
34.78
Elizabeth, NJ
26.00
3.6
0.14
0.22
53
Commercial-
Profiles of the contribution for each
individual PAH to ∑PAH at the
commercial/industry/mobile site
Commercial
(a)
Industry
Mobile
40.0
30.0
20.0
Mobile
0.20
0.15
0.10
10.0
0.05
0.0
0.00
PAH Compound
Industry
0.25
PAH Percent
PAH Percent
50.0
Commercial
(b)
PAH Compound
Draft: Do Not Cite or
Quote
50
Cancer risk (# in a million)
p-Dichlorobenzene
 Background
<1
 Industrial
4
 Mobile
3
 Commercial
205*
 Elizabeth
2
 Camden
2
 New Brunswick
<1
* This number is driven by increase and then decrease
in concentration Oct Dec 2006. Levels returned to
typical levels measured during the other 12 months
and at the other NJDEP monitoring locations
Conclusions-UCAMPP
 For
some air toxics, the levels were found
to be comparable to or higher other urban
areas in NJ.
 Land use type has significant impact on
air pollution and variations in Paterson.
 Diesel powered vehicles were one of the
major sources of air pollution in Paterson
area throughout the year.
Implications
 The community air monitoring approach can
 Better define the population at high exposure risks in
hot spot areas.
 Identify the major air toxics sources of concerns and
aid in developing effective controlling strategies to
reduce community exposure to air toxics.
 For Air Toxic problems, “Spatial Saturation Sampling”
and/or personal monitoring are recommended for
examining the impact of industrial or other major local
sources on community air pollution and potential personal
exposure.
Acknowledgments
 Investigators at EOHSI: P. Lioy (PI), S.W. Wang, P.
Georgopoulos, P. Ohman-Strickland, B. Buckley, and
J. Zhang (USC).
 Collaborator at the NJ DEP: L. Bonanno, J. Held, L.
Korn, C. Pietarinen, and other scientists
 Staff and students at EOHSI: X. Zhu, X. Wu, X. Tang,
Q. Meng, K. Black, M. Hernandez, and J. Herrington.
 Funding Agency: Health Effects Institute,
USEPA/NJDEP