Fine Particulate Monitoring

Town of Canandaigua, Ontario County

April 2, 2008

Introduction

In February 2008, Nicholas Rich, Environmental Health Director for the Geneva District Office,

requested technical assistance from the Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment (BTSA) to address a

series of complaints about impacts from an outdoor wood boiler (OWB) in the Town of Canandaigua,

Ontario County. Mr. Rich had received four letters of complaint from area residents and planned to refer

the matter to the Canandaigua Town Local Health Officer. In response to the request for technical

assistance, BTSA agreed to deploy particulate monitoring equipment to measure fine particulate levels at

a complainant’s house for a one-week period.

Background

The term fine particles, or particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5), refers to tiny particles or droplets in the air that

are two and one-half microns or less in size. Particles in the PM2.5 size range are able to travel deeply into

the respiratory tract, reaching the lungs. Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects

such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose and shortness of breath.

Exposure to fine particles can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and

heart disease.

Local PM2.5 levels can fluctuate with day-to-day atmospheric changes and it is important to establish a

baseline from which to compare results when studying the impact of local sources.

Methods

BTSA staff (K. Malone) worked with New York State Department of Health Western Regional Office

(DOH WRO) staff (D. McNaughton) to deploy and monitor operation of DataRAM 4 real-time particulate

matter (PM) monitors to measure fine particulates and a Davis Vantage Pro2 Meteorological Station to

record weather data. Data averaging periods were set for 10-minute periods for all instruments and

instruments were synchronized with each other.

DataRAM monitors use nephelometric methods (light scattering) to quantify fine aerosols and PM on a

real-time basis. These real time PM2.5 concentrations are not directly comparable to approved Federal

Reference Methods for PM2.5. The DataRAM 4 measures airborne particulate/aerosol in the range of

0.0001 to 400 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3

). The DataRAM monitors were fitted with PM2.5 inline impactor heads that allow for measurement of fine particulate matter. The monitors were also fitted
2

with air inlet heaters (MIE Temperature Conditioning Heaters Model DR-TCH) to help reduce the

potential bias of the instrument’s light scattering measurements caused by particle accretion (growth) due

to elevated relative humidity (> 50%) within the optical sensing chamber. The instruments were initially

“zeroed” and programmed to run automatic zeroing at hourly intervals throughout monitoring. The

zeroing process ensures that the monitors are operating properly at startup and do not “drift” during the

monitoring period.

The DataRAM monitors were housed in Igloo Kool Mate portable thermoelectric coolers (120v power

supply) with the inlet heater penetrating the cooler lid. The cases were maintained at 68o

F to allow the

instruments to operate when ambient temperatures are below the recommended instrument operating

range. The cases also protect the equipment from precipitation.

The Davis Meteorological Station was used to record weather data including wind direction, wind speed,

temperature, rainfall and humidity near the complaint monitoring site. Wind direction and speed data is

sampled every five-seconds. The compass point with the highest occurrence within each 10-minute

interval is recorded as the direction for that interval. Wind speed data is the average of the wind speeds

recorded over 10-minute intervals. If there is at least one time that wind speed is 1 mile per hour (mph)

or greater within the 10-minute period, the predominant wind direction is recorded but wind speed may be

recorded as 0 mph. If all wind speeds are 0 mph within the 10-minute period, wind direction is not

recorded.

Prior to meter deployment, potential control monitoring locations beyond 2500 feet from the OWB were

identified and the areas of potential candidates were surveyed to determine that there were no obvious

significant sources of PM2.5 (e.g., diesel trucks idling, highways, smoky fireplaces, etc.). A control site

was located approximately 2600 feet southwest of the OWB.

Resident Observation Logs were provided to both the complainant and the control residents with

instructions to record dates and times of activities or observations that may result in elevated PM.

Investigation

BTSA staff initiated data collection on Thursday March 6, 2008 and terminated data collection on

Thursday March 13. One DataRAM meter was setup in the backyard of the complainant, 5605 Goodale

Road and one at the control residence, 5687 Bunnell Road, located 2600 feet to the southwest of the

OWB. The Meteorological Station was setup at a town property on Goodale Road, nearby the complaint

location.

Equipment Checks

On three occasions during the one-week monitoring period, DOH WRO staff observed the monitor

operation and looked for other potential smoke sources within 1500 feet of both the complaint and the

control locations that might affect the monitoring. Staff observations are reported below.

DOH Staff Observations
3

March 7, 2008, 5:00 PM - No substantial PM sources observed within 1500 feet of case or control

locations.

March 9, 2008, 1:20 PM- DOH staff noted OWB smoke blowing toward the complainant’s residence

from the OWB. Also noted smoke odor inside complainant’s residence. No other substantial PM sources

observed within 1500 feet of the complaint location. No substantial PM sources observed within 1500

feet of the control location.

March 11, 2008, 8:50 AM- DOH staff noted smoke travelling toward complaint residence from the OWB

and noted strong smoke odor in front of house. No other substantial PM sources observed within 1500

feet of the complaint location. No substantial smoke sources observed within 1500 feet of the control

location.

Equipment Performance

DataRAM monitors operated as intended with the exception of an inlet heater malfunction discovered on

March 7 at the complaint location. On March 11 the inlet heater at the control location was unplugged to

evaluate the impact if any of the inlet heater on monitor operation. The equipment manual indicates that a

high bias due to particle accretion can occur and increases proportionally as relative humidity in the

optical sensing chambers increases above 50%. The recorded relative humidity data from the optical

sensing chambers for both monitors remained at or below 25% for the entire monitoring period beyond

initial startup. In addition, evaluation of the DataRAM PM2.5 monitoring data from the control location

showed no apparent effect at the time the inlet heater was unplugged.

The anemometer on the Davis Meteorological Station did not function due to excessive ice accumulation

for an approximately 25-hour period from March 8, 11:50 AM to March 9, 12:40 PM when all wind

speed and directional data were recorded as 0.

Findings

• The complainant’s house is located approximately 150 feet east of the OWB (Figure 1) and the

monitor location at the complainant’s house was located due east of the OWB.

• Other than the OWB located due west of the complaint location, no remarkable PM sources were

observed within 1500 feet of either monitor location by DOH staff.

• Figure 2 shows the PM2.5 monitoring data. Fluctuations of PM2.5 levels at the control location are

likely due in part to regional atmospheric conditions. PM2.5 levels at the complaint location fluctuate

substantially above the levels at the control monitor.

• During site visits, DOH staff observed smoke from the OWB impacting the complainant’s home on

two occasions. The site visits are indicated on Figure 2.

• The complainant’s observation log indicates many occasions when smoke odors were observed (Table

1).

• Many of the occurrences of increased PM2.5 occur during nighttime hours when there are few if any

resident observations.

• For the entire monitoring period (excluding the 25-hour period when wind data are unavailable),

winds had a westerly component (NNW to SSW) 61.7% of the time and winds had an easterly

component (NNE to SSE) 18.6% of the time. The average PM2.5 concentration at the complaint
4

location was 7.5 micrograms per cubic meter higher than the control location when the wind had a

westerly component and 0.66 micrograms per cubic meter when the wind had an easterly component

(Table 2).

• Evaluating PM2.5 as a function of wind direction shows that the highest difference in overall average

concentration was 17 micrograms per cubic meter at the complaint location when the wind was from

the west (Table 2).

• The highest impact at the complaint location occurred when wind speeds were 5 mph and less and

winds were W, WNW and WSW, (Figure 3-5). The highest difference in PM2.5 concentration for a

single 10-minute monitoring period was 137 micrograms per cubic meter at the complaint location

and occurred when wind was from the west at 3-mph (Figure 3).

• For comparison, PM2.5 concentration differences plotted for the NNE quadrant (which made up the

highest percentage of winds with an easterly component) show no consistent difference between the

two locations (Figure 6).

Conclusions

The monitoring data show that fine particulate concentrations at the complainant’s house are significantly

higher (p<0.001 using a t-test adjusted for autocorrelation) than the control location. Other than the

OWB, no remarkable sources of PM were observed within 1500 feet of either monitoring location. The

complainant’s house is located east of the OWB in a predominantly downwind location. The highest

differences in PM2.5 occur when winds have a westerly component and occur mostly during nighttime

hours. The increased frequency and higher concentrations of nighttime PM2.5 is likely due to decreased

atmospheric mixing (the sun causes atmospheric mixing due to convection). The higher differences in

PM2.5 concentrations at the complaint location are most likely due to smoke from the OWB.

Data Tables and Graphs

Table 1 - Complainant resident observation log

Table 2 - Summary of Wind Direction vs. Average PM2.5 Concentration

Figure 1 - Aerial view of OWB and Complainant’s House

Figure 2 - PM2.5 Concentration vs. Time, March 6 to March 13

Figure 3 - West Wind Direction, PM2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed

Figure 4 - West-Northwest Wind Direction, PM2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed

Figure 5 - West-Southwest Wind Direction, PM2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed

Figure 6 - North-Northeast Wind Direction, PM2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed

Attachments:

DOH fact sheet, Fine Particles (PM2.5), Questions and Answers

P:\Bureau\Outdoor Wood Boilers\CanandaiguaReport.doc
Table 1 – Complainant Resident Observation Log

(*) Can not breathe

Betty Singer, 5605 Goodale Road, Canandaigua, NY 14424, 585-394-8842

MARCH 2008

Date Time Observation/Activity

5 1:15 pm Light gray smoke coming at my house 20%

5 4:16 pm Light gray smoke coming at my house

6 6:47 am Thick whitish gray smoke straight up and floating all over

6* 11:08am Dark gray sooty smoke about 18% crossing road and real smelly

MONITORING STARTS

6 3:23 pm Light gray puffy smoke crossing road real smelly in front of house

6 4:42 pm Light gray puffy smoke going to back field to ground smelly

(14.5 hour gap with no observations noted)

7 7:14 am Light gray puffy smoke going straight up in tree about 18%

7 8:30 am Right in this time husband had a truck that had a lot of fumes

7 8:42 am Light gray puffy smoke about 10% smelly out front little in back

7 10:16am Light puffy smoke about 10% smoke floating to back field

7 12:39pm Hardly any smoke at all

7 1:48 pm Not Hardly any smoke

7 3:48 pm Light gray puffy smoke about 7 to 10% going to back field

(16 hour gap with no observations noted)

8 7:39 am Light gray smoke going to back field going to ground

8 7:51 am Still the same

8 8:08 am Light gray smoke still going to back field about 17%

8 8:15 am Chrisman Just came from company store

8 8:36 am Light gray smoke still blowing to back field going to the ground about 17%

8 9:16 am Little darker gray smoke going to back field drifting to ground about 20%

8 9:31 am Thick gray sooty smoke floating to back field 20% or more

8 10:42am Gray sooty smoke floating to back field about 17%

8 11:27am Raining Light gray smoke blowing to back field about 19%

8 12:24pm Light gray smoke still blowing to back field about 19 to 20%

8 2:33 pm Dark gray sooty smoke floating to back field about 20%

8 2:58 pm Dark gray sooty smoke floating to back field about 20%

8 4:36 pm Light gray smoke to back field about 15%

8* 11:30pm Real smelly out side and coming into my house Had to take meds to

breathe
(7.5 hour gap with no observations noted) TIME CHANGE

9* 8:06 am Windy Light gray smoke coming at our house Smelly 20%

9* 9:04 am Dark gray sooty smoke blowing toward my house over 20% Windy

Had to take inhaler again

9* 9:40 am Gray sooty smoke blowing in my back yard and back field 18 to 20%

9* 10:46am Gray sooty smoke blowing at my house Really smelly

9 10:55am Called Mr. Blake because of wind and power

9* 10:53am Gray sooty smoke coming my way front and back of house smell strong

9* 11:44am Gray sooty smoke not much at this time about 10% still smells

9* 12:52pm Gray sooty smoke Windy not much smoke but still smelly front & back

9* 1:20 pm Deb was here to check box. Box was ok. Smells outside and inside my

house

9* 1:44 pm Gray sooty smoke coming at my house 17 to 18%

9* 3:02 pm Light gray smoke still windy 10 to 15% Smells in front

9* 4:49 pm Light gray smoke blowing at my house 10 to 15% smelly out front

9* 5:45 pm Light gray smoke blowing at my house 10 to 15%

9* 7:10 pm Hardly any smoke but still smelly out front and in house

9* 8:30 pm Quite smelly out side and smell still in house

(10 hour gap with no observations noted)

10* 6:10 am Thick smoke and real smelly woke me up could not breathe could see

thick smoke as cars came down the road

10* 7:46 am Thick gray smoke 20% smells real bad outside and in my house

10* 8:42 am Gray sooty smoke 20% and more going up in air and just falling down

10* 9:44 am Gray sooty smoke 20% floating cross road and at time toward my house in

front Smells

10* 11:55am Gray smoke smells in back but more in front 10% blowing cross road and

toward front of house

10 1:18 pm Hardly any smoke about 5%

10 2:12 pm Very little smoke about 5%

10 3:04 pm Light gray smoke coming toward my house about 15%

10 3:37 pm Light gray smoke coming to back field and my house 17%

10 6:02 pm Light gray smoke going to back field 17 to18%

10 6:14 pm Dark gray sooty smoke just floating around 18%

(13 hour gap with no observations noted)

Red 11's are real bad sooty smoke

11 7:35 am Light gray smoke blowing cross road and at front of house smells bad in

front 20%

11* 7:45 am Thick gray smoke coming toward front of house smells real bad

Called Mr. Blake Took meds

11 7:52 am Thick sooty smoke over 20%

11 8:06 am Gray sooty smoke coming at front of house 20%

11 8:20 am Dark gray sooty smoke coming at front of house smells bad over 20%

11 8:33 am Dark gray sooty smoke coming at house

Deb was here over 20%

11 8:35 am Black sooty smoke way over 20% smell in upstairs

11* 9:20 am Thick dark gray smoke drifting at front and back smells bad over 20%
11 10:00am Let house had appointment

11 3:00 pm Light gray smoke coming at my house about 17%

11 5:05 pm Light gray smoke going to field in back about 10%

11 6:09 pm Light gray smoke floating toward my back yard and field 18 to 20%

(13 hour gap with no observations noted)

12 7:47 am Light gray smoke blowing toward back yard and field 15%

12 8:32 am Light gray smoke blowing toward me and back field about 10%

12 11:08am Light gray smoke blowing to back yard and field 17%

12 1:40 pm Light gray smoke blowing to back field 15%

12 2:27 pm Light gray smoke blowing to back field and my back yard 20%

12 3:40 pm Nothing at all

12 5:37 pm Hardly any smoke little floating to back field about 5%

12 7:25 pm Nothing

13 8:02 am Light gray smoke going cross road about 10%

13 9:08 am Light gray smoke going cross road about 10 to 15%

13 10:16 am Light gray smoke going to ground and cross road 10 to 15%

13 11:15am Came and got box
Table 2

 Wind Direction and PM2.5 Concentration

(micrograms per cubic meter)

Wind Direction

Wind

Direction

% operating

time*

Complaint

Conc.

Control

Conc. Difference

Calm- 0 M.P.H. 11.7% 19 18 1.1

Equip.

Malfunction* NA 9.0 3.0 6.0

East 0.1% 22 25 -3.1

ESE 0.0% - - -

ENE 0.8% 21 17 4.3

SE 2.5% 12 9.0 2.7

NE 3.4% 5.7 5.7 0.08

NNE 9.1% 16 17 -1.0

SSE 2.5% 18 13 4.4

total east** 18.6% 14 13 0.66

NNW 16.0% 16 13 2.2

NW 8.6% 19 14 4.4

SSW 0.6% 15 13 1.7

SW 2.3% 24 18 5.9

West 12.6% 33 16 17

WNW 12.7% 19 13 5.8

WSW 8.7% 27 17 10

total west** 61.7% 22 15 7.5

North 7.2% 12 10 1.8

South 1.0% 12 11 0.79

total N S** 8.1% 12 10 1.7

*Percentage operating time does not include the 25-hour period when the

meteorological station anemometer malfunctioned

**PM2.5 concentrations are weighted based on wind direction percentage.

All values are rounded to two-significant figures.
Location of

Dataram 4 monitor

OutdoorWood Boiler

ComplaintLocation

Figure 1 – Aerial View of OWB and Complaint Location

150 ft.
Figure 2 - PM2.5 Concentration vs. Time

5605 Goodale Road, Canandaigua vs Control Location

3/6/08-3/13/08

0

20406080

100120140160

3/6/2008 0:00 3/6/2008 12:00 3/7/2008 0:00 3/7/2008 12:00 3/8/2008 0:00 3/8/2008 12:00 3/9/2008 0:00 3/9/2008 12:00 3/10/2008 0:00 3/10/2008 1... 3/11/2008 0:00 3/11/2008 1... 3/12/2008 0:00 3/12/2008 1... 3/13/2008 

Concentration (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)

DOH site visit -OWB Impacts

DOH site visit - OWB Impacts 

DOH Site Visit - 
Figure 3 - West Wind Direction 

PM2.5 Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed

5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08 

-20

0

20406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)
Figure 4 - West-Northwest Wind Direction 

PM2.5 Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed

5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08 

-80-60-40-20

0

20406080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)
Figure 5 - West-Southwest Wind Direction 

PM2.5 Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed

5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08 

-20

0

20406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)
Figure 6 - North-Northeast Wind Direction 

PM2.5 Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed

5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08 

-20

0

20406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)