### Fine Particulate Monitoring Town of Canandaigua, Ontario County April 2, 2008



### Introduction

In February 2008, Nicholas Rich, Environmental Hea lth 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 out door 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 O fficer. In response to th e request for technical assistance, BTSA agreed to deploy particulate monito ring 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 PM 2.5 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, r unny nose and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect lung functi on and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease.

Local PM 2.5 levels can fluctuate with day-to-day atmosphe ric changes and it is im portant 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 St ate 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 fi ne aerosols and PM on a real-time basis. These real time PM 2.5 concentrations are not directly comparable to approved Federal Reference Methods for PM 2.5 . The DataRAM 4 measures airborne particulate/aeroso l in the range of 0.0001 to 400 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3 ). The DataRAM monitors were fitted with PM 2.5 inline impactor heads that allow for measurement of fine particulate matter. The monitors were also fitted2 with air inlet heaters (MIE Te mperature Conditioning Heaters Mode l DR-TCH) to help reduce the potential bias of the instrument’s light scattering measurements cause d 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 zeroi ng at hourly intervals throughout monitoring. The zeroing process ensures that the monitors are operati ng properly at startup a nd 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. Th e cases were maintained at 68 o 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 wa s 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 w ith the highest occurren ce 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 th at wind speed is 1 mile per hour (mph) or greater within the 10-minute period, the predominan t wind direction is recorded but wind speed may be recorded as 0 mph. If all wind speeds are 0 m ph within the 10-minute period, wind direction is not recorded.

Prior to meter deployment, potential control m onitoring locations beyond 2500 feet from the OWB were identified and the areas of potenti al candidates were surveyed to determine that there were no obvious significant sources of PM 2.5 (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 bot h the complainant and the control residents with instructions to record dates and times of activitie s or observations that ma y 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 set up 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 Stati on 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 bot h the complaint and the control locations that might affect the mon itoring. Staff observations are reported below.

DOH Staff Observations3 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 bl owing toward the complainant’s residence from the OWB. Also noted smoke odor inside complain ant’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 travelli ng 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 observe d within 1500 feet of the control location.

Equipment Performance

DataRAM monitors operated as intended with the ex ception of an inlet heater malfunction discovered on March 7 at the complaint location. On March 11 the inlet heater at the cont rol location was unplugged to evaluate the impact if any of the inlet heater on m onitor operation. The equipment manual indicates that a high bias due to particle accreti on can occur and increases proportiona lly as relative humidity in the optical sensing chambers increases above 50%. Th e 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 PM 2.5 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 co mplaint location, no remarkable PM sources were observed within 1500 feet of either monitor location by DOH staff.

• Figure 2 shows the PM 2.5 monitoring data. Fluctuations of PM 2.5 levels at the control location are likely due in part to regiona l atmospheric conditions. PM 2.5 levels at the complaint location fluctuate substantially above the leve ls 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 concentration at the complaint4 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 PM 2.5 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 occu rred when wind speeds were 5 mph and less and winds were W, WNW and WS W, (Figure 3-5). The highest difference in PM 2.5 concentration for a single 10-minute monitoring period was 137 microgr ams per cubic meter at the complaint location and occurred when wind was from the west at 3-mph (Figure 3).

• For comparison, PM 2.5 concentration differences plotted fo r the NNE quadrant (which made up the highest percentage of winds with an easterly component) show no c onsistent difference between the two locations (Figure 6).



### Conclusions

The monitoring data show that fine particulate concen trations at the complainan t’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 wi thin 1500 feet of either monitoring location. The complainant’s house is located eas t of the OWB in a predominantly downwind location. The highest differences in PM 2.5 occur when winds have a westerly com ponent and occur mostly during nighttime hours. The increased frequency and higher concentrations of nighttime PM 2.5 is likely due to decreased atmospheric mixing (the sun causes atmospheric mixi ng due to convection). The higher differences in PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Concentration

Figure 1 - Aerial view of OWB and Complainant’s House Figure 2 - PM 2.5 Concentration vs. Time, March 6 to March 13 Figure 3 - West Wind Direction, PM 2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed Figure 4 - West-Northwest Wind Direction, PM 2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed Figure 5 - West-Southwest Wind Direction, PM 2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed Figure 6 - North-Northeast Wind Direction, PM 2.5 Concentration Difference vs. Wind Speed

Attachments:

DOH fact sheet, Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ), Questions and Answers

P:\Bureau\Outdoor Wood Boilers\CanandaiguaReport.docTable 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 boxTable 2 Wind Direction and PM 2.5 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 weight ed based on wind direction percentage.

All values are rounded to two-significant figures.Location ofDataram 4 monitorOutdoorWood BoilerComplaintLocationFigure 1 – Aerial View of OWB and Complaint Location150 ft.Figure 2 - PM2.5Concentration vs. Time5605 Goodale Road, Canandaigua vs Control Location3/6/08-3/13/08020406080100120140160 3/6/20 08 0 : 00 3/6/20 08 1 2: 0 0 3/7/20 08 0 : 00 3/7/20 08 1 2: 0 0 3/8/20 08 0 : 00 3/8/20 08 1 2: 0 0 3/9/20 08 0 : 00 3/9/20 08 1 2: 0 0

3/10 / 2 00 8 0: 0 0 3/10 / 2 00 8 1. .. 3/11 / 2 00 8 0: 0 0 3/11 / 2 00 8 1. .. 3/12 / 2 00 8 0: 0 0 3/12 / 2 00 8 1. .. 3/13 / 2 00 8 0: 0 0 3/13 / 2 00 8 1. .. 3/14 / 2 00 8 0: 0 0

Concentration (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)ControlComplaintDOH site visit-OWB ImpactsDOH site visit -OWB ImpactsDOH Site Visit -Nightime7 P.M. to 7 A.M.Figure 3 - West Wind DirectionPM2.5Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08-200204060801001201400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)Figure 4 - West-Northwest Wind DirectionPM2.5Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08-80-60-40-200204060800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)Figure 5 - West-Southwest Wind DirectionPM2.5Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08-200204060801001201400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)Figure 6 - North-Northeast Wind DirectionPM2.5Concentration Difference (Complaint-Control) vs. Wind Speed5605 Goodale Rd, Canandaigua 3/6/08-3/13/08-200204060801001201400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Wind Speed (M.P.H.)

Conc. Difference (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)