SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2017 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 6

Ethylene source attribution modeling in the Greater Houston area

Dennis McNally
Gregory Stella
Cynthia Loomis
Pages
1016–1022
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Of the anthropogenic sources, which account for the remaining 31% of the annual ethylene concentration, the largest contribution was from area/non-road sources (annual mean of 16%) with industrial source (annual mean of 11%) and on-road motor vehicle (annual mean of 4%) sources showing relatively lower concentration contributions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Ethylene is a ubiquitous industrial gas that is emitted byawide variety of biogenic, biomass burning, and anthropogenic sources, so the opportunity for human exposure is widespread.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Source attribution modeling shows that when averaged over the full modeling domain, inclusive of industrial, urban, rural and water areas, ethylene concentrations are dominated by natural source emissions (fires and biogenic) with an annual mean of 69% of total ethylene concentration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Of the anthropogenic sources, which account for the remaining 31% of the annual ethylene concentration, the largest contribution was from area/non-road sources (annual mean of 16%) with industrial source (annual mean of 11%) and on-road motor vehicle (annual mean of 4%) sources showing relatively lower concentration contributions.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Ethylene is a ubiquitous industrial gas that is emitted byawide variety of biogenic, biomass burning, and anthropogenic sources, so the opportunity for human exposure is widespread. We believe that a comprehensive exposure assessment of ethylene from emissions sources has not specifically been evaluated so this study was conducted to estimate the relative contribution of different sources on atmospheric concentrations in the Greater Houston area. Source attribution modeling shows that when averaged over the full modeling domain, inclusive of industrial, urban, rural and water areas, ethylene concentrations are dominated by natural source emissions (fires and biogenic) with an annual mean of 69% of total ethylene concentration. Of the anthropogenic sources, which account for the remaining 31% of the annual ethylene concentration, the largest contribution was from area/non-road sources (annual mean of 16%) with industrial source (annual mean of 11%) and on-road motor vehicle (annual mean of 4%) sources showing relatively lower concentration contributions.

🔖

Cite This Article

McNally, D., Stella, G., Loomis, C. (2017). Ethylene source attribution modeling in the Greater Houston area. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 6, 1016–1022. https://ajindex.com/articles/350161

References (8)

  1. ABT, 2014. SPECIATE Version 4.4 Database Development Documentation. Abt Associates Inc., Bethesda, MA. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ software/speciate/speciate_version4_4_finalreport.pdf. CEMPD,2014. SMOKEv3.5.1User's Manual.CenterforEnvironmental Modeling and PolicyDevelopment. TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaat ChapelHill, Chapel Hill, NC. ENVIRON, 2016. User's Guide e Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions e Version 6.3. ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. Jenkin, M.E., Saunders, S.M., Pilling, M.J., 1997. The tropospheric degradation of volatile organic compounds: a protocol for mechanism development. Atmos. Environ. 31, 81-104.
  2. Johansson, J.K.E., Mellqvist, J., Samuelsson, J., Offerle, B., Lefer, B., Rappenglück, B., Flynn, J., Yarwood, G., 2014. Emission measurements of alkenes, alkanes, SO2, and NO2 from stationary sources in Southeast Texas over a 5 year period using SOFandmobile DOAS. J. Geophys.Res. Atmos.119,1973-1991. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/2013JD020485. Myers, J.L., Phillips, T., Grant, R., 2015. Emissions and ambient air monitoring trends of lower olefins across Texas from 2002 to 2012. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 241, 2-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2015.02.008.
  3. Saunders, S.M., Jenkin, M.E., Derwent, R.G., Pilling, M.J., 2003. Protocol for the development of the Master Chemical Mechanism, MCM v3 (Part A): tropospheric degradation of nonaromatic volatile organic compounds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 3, 161-180.
  4. Skamarock, W.C., Klemp, J.B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D.O., Barker, D.M., Duda, M.G., Huang, X.Y., Wang, W., Powers, J.G., 2008. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-475þSTR. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2008. Development Support Document Ethylene CAS Registry Number: 74-85-1,
  5. Austin, TX. Available at: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/toxicology/dsd/final.html. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2015. Texas Air Monitoring Information System (TAMIS). Available at: http://www17.tceq.texas.gov/tamis/ index.cfm. USEPA, 2009. NMIM User Guide. US.Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division. EPA-420-b-09-015.
  6. Research Triangle Park, NC. USEPA, 2011.
  7. National Emissions Inventory, Version 1 Technical Support Document - Draft. 2014.
  8. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. USEPA, 2013. Motor Vehicle Emission Simula