Abstract

The Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS) provided data to compare outdoor residential coarse particulate matter (PM 10–2.5) concentrations in six different areas of Detroit with data from a central monitoring site. Daily and seasonal influences on the spatial distribution of PM 10–2.5 during Summer 2006 and Winter 2007 were investigated using data collected with the newly developed coarse particle exposure monitor (CPEM). These data allowed the representativeness of the community monitoring site to be assessed for the greater Detroit metro area. Multiple CPEMs collocated with a dichotomous sampler determined the precision and accuracy of the CPEM PM 10–2.5 and PM 2.5 data. CPEM PM 2.5 concentrations agreed well with the dichotomous sampler data. The slope was 0.97 and the R 2 was 0.91. CPEM concentrations had an average 23% negative bias and R 2 of 0.81. The directional nature of the CPEM sampling efficiency due to bluff body effects probably caused the negative CPEM concentration bias. PM 10–2.5 was observed to vary spatially and temporally across Detroit, reflecting the seasonal impact of local sources. Summer PM 10–2.5 was 5 μg m −3 higher in the two industrial areas near downtown than the average concentrations in other areas of Detroit. An area impacted by vehicular traffic had concentrations 8 μg m −3 higher than the average concentrations in other parts of Detroit in the winter due to the suspected suspension of road salt. PM 10–2.5 Pearson Correlation Coefficients between monitoring locations varied from 0.03 to 0.76. All summer PM 10–2.5 correlations were greater than 0.28 and statistically significant ( p-value < 0.05). Winter PM 10–2.5 correlations greater than 0.33 were statistically significant ( p-value < 0.05). The PM 10–2.5 correlations found to be insignificant were associated with the area impacted by mobile sources during the winter. The suspected suspension of road salt from the Southfield Freeway, combined with a very stable atmosphere, caused concentrations to be greater in this area compared to other areas of Detroit. These findings indicated that PM 10–2.5, although correlated in some instances, varies sufficiently across a complex urban airshed that that a central monitoring site may not adequately represent the population's exposure to PM 10–2.5.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call