Literature DB >> 32636605

South Philadelphia passive sampler and sensor study.

Eben D Thoma1, Halley L Brantley1,2, Karen D Oliver3, Donald A Whitaker1, Shaibal Mukerjee1, Bill Mitchell1, Tai Wu1, Bill Squier4, Elsy Escobar5, Tamira A Cousett6, Carol Ann Gross-Davis7, Howard Schmidt7, Dennis Sosna8, Hallie Weiss8.   

Abstract

From June 2013 to March 2015, in total 41 passive sampler deployments of 2 wk duration each were conducted at 17 sites in South Philadelphia, PA, with results for benzene discussed here. Complementary time-resolved measurements with lower cost prototype fenceline sensors and an open-path ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectrometer were also conducted. Minimum passive sampler benzene concentrations for each sampling period ranged from 0.08 ppbv to 0.65 ppbv, with a mean of 0.25 ppbv, and were negatively correlated with ambient temperature (-0.01 ppbv/°C, R2 = 0.68). Co-deployed duplicate passive sampler pairs (N = 609) demonstrated good precision with an average and maximum percent difference of 1.5% and 34%, respectively. A group of passive samplers located within 50 m of a refinery fenceline had a study mean benzene concentration of 1.22 ppbv, whereas a group of samplers located in communities >1 km distant from facilities had a mean of 0.29 ppbv. The difference in the means of these groups was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.001). A decreasing gradient in benzene concentrations moving away from the facilities was observed, as was a significant period-to-period variation. The highest recorded 2-wk average benzene concentration for the fenceline group was 3.11 ppbv. During this period, time-resolved data from the prototype sensors and the open-path spectrometer detected a benzene signal from the west on one day in particular, with the highest 5-min path-averaged benzene concentration measured at 24 ppbv. IMPLICATIONS: Using a variation of EPA's passive sampler refinery fenceline monitoring method, coupled with time-resolved measurements, a multiyear study in South Philadelphia informed benzene concentrations near facilities and in communities. The combination of measurement strategies can assist facilities in identification and mitigation of emissions from fugitive sources and improve information on air quality complex air sheds.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 32636605      PMCID: PMC7340175     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc        ISSN: 1096-2247            Impact factor:   2.235


  11 in total

1.  Source attribution and quantification of benzene event emissions in a Houston ship channel community based on real-time mobile monitoring of ambient air.

Authors:  Eduardo P Olaguer; Matthew H Erickson; Asanga Wijesinghe; Bradley S Neish
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.235

2.  24 h diffusive sampling of toxic VOCs in air onto Carbopack X solid adsorbent followed by thermal desorption/GC/MS analysis-laboratory studies.

Authors:  William A McClenny; Karen D Oliver; Henry H Jacumin; E Hunter Daughtrey; Donald A Whitaker
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2005-01-26

Review 3.  The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring.

Authors:  Emily G Snyder; Timothy H Watkins; Paul A Solomon; Eben D Thoma; Ronald W Williams; Gayle S W Hagler; David Shelow; David A Hindin; Vasu J Kilaru; Peter W Preuss
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Infrared differential absorption Lidar (DIAL) measurements of hydrocarbon emissions.

Authors:  Rod Robinson; Tom Gardiner; Fabrizio Innocenti; Peter Woods; Marc Coleman
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2011-06-24

5.  Toward a Functional Definition of Methane Super-Emitters: Application to Natural Gas Production Sites.

Authors:  Daniel Zavala-Araiza; David Lyon; Ramón A Alvarez; Virginia Palacios; Robert Harriss; Xin Lan; Robert Talbot; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Assessment of methane emissions from oil and gas production pads using mobile measurements.

Authors:  Halley L Brantley; Eben D Thoma; William C Squier; Birnur B Guven; David Lyon
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Facility fence-line monitoring using passive samplers.

Authors:  Eben D Thoma; Michael C Miller; Kuenja C Chung; Nicholas L Parsons; Brenda C Shine
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.235

8.  Volatile organic compounds at two oil and natural gas production well pads in Colorado and Texas using passive samplers.

Authors:  Adam P Eisele; Shaibal Mukerjee; Luther A Smith; Eben D Thoma; Donald A Whitaker; Karen D Oliver; Tai Wu; Maribel Colon; Lillian Alston; Tamira A Cousett; Michael C Miller; Donald M Smith; Casson Stallings
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.235

9.  Field comparison of passive air samplers with reference monitors for ambient volatile organic compounds and nitrogen dioxide under week-long integrals.

Authors:  Shaibal Mukerjee; Karen D Oliver; Robert L Seila; Henry H Jacumin; Carry Croghan; E Hunter Daughtrey; Lucas M Neas; Luther A Smith
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2008-10-08

10.  Spatial analysis of volatile organic compounds in South Philadelphia using passive samplers.

Authors:  Shaibal Mukerjee; Luther A Smith; Eben D Thoma; Karen D Oliver; Donald A Whitaker; Tai Wu; Maribel Colon; Lillian Alston; Tamira A Cousett; Casson Stallings
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.235

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.