# APPENDIX VII

MATES III

FINAL REPORT

PM 2.5 

# Source Apportionment for the South Coast Air Basin Using

Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model

Authors Tuyet-Le Pham Bong Mann Kim Aaron Katzenstein Tracy Goss

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 1 

# Appendix VII

PM 2.5 

# Source Apportionment for the South Coast Air Basin Using Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model

VII-1 Introduction The MATES II Study found that the major contributor to risk from ambient air toxics was diesel exhaust. Since there is no method to directly meas ure diesel particulate matter, an indirect method must be used. In MATES II, the concentration of elemental carbon (EC) in PM 10 

## filter samples was multiplied by a factor of 1.04 to estim ate diesel particulate matter for cancer risk assessment. The presence of high levels of EC with in diesel exhaust is a unique property of this combustion source. A factor of 1.04 was determined from diesel source profiles and fine particle samples collected in 1982. Due to uncertainty from this approach, the MATES III Technical Advisory Group recommended using speciated analysis conducted upon the collected PM 2.5 

## filters within a Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) model to estimate diesel contributions. The Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) receptor model was also suggested.

PM 2.5 

## source apportionment for the Basin was conducted u sing the CMB receptor model 8.2 approved by the U.S. EPA and the MATES III ambient da ta collected over a two-year period from March 2004 to April 2006 at the ten MATES III monit oring stations.
In particular, gasoline and diesel-vehicle contribu tions were differentiated with the use of organic compounds (Chow et al. 2007). Contributions of other primary sources to ambient PM 2.5 

## mass concentrations (biomass burning, cooking opera tions, sea salt, geological, residual oil burning, and limestone) were also estimated.

VII-2 MATES III Source Apportionment CMB Model The CMB model was first developed by Miller, et al. (1972) and further refined by Friedlander (1973) and Watson (1979). The CMB model, which use s selected chemical species as mass balance fitting species, is a tool to estimate source contributions. The ambient concentration of chemical species i is expressed as a linear equation:

where a ij 

## is fractional concentration of chemical species i in source j , Sj is total mass concentration contributed by source j , p is number of sources, and n is number of species.
Since the number of chemical species, n , is usually larger than the number of sources, p , the system is over-determined and the least-squares fittin g approach is applied. The model requires the



# C a S i n i j p
ij j 

# = =

= 

# 

1 

# 1
, ,

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 2 

## identification of emission sources, the selection o f chemical species and source profiles, and the ambient data. Input uncertainty is critical to the model since it determines the importance of input data to the model solutions (EPA, 2004). In su mmary, the CMB source apportionment is depicted by the following flowchart:

Figure 1. Source Apportionment Flowchart

MATES III Ambient Data Monthly-averaged ambient data from samples collecte d at the ten fixed MATES III sites [West Long Beach (WLB), North Long Beach (NLB), Compton ( CP), Huntington Park (HP), Pico Rivera (PR), Los Angeles (LA), Burbank (BU), Inland V alley San Bernardino (SB), Rubidoux (RU), and Anaheim (AN)] were utilized. Sampling wa s conducted every three days over a twoyear period from March 2004 to April 2006. Since O ctober 2004 through February 2005 was not considered a typical winter season for the Basin (w ith 56 rainy days and 24.2 to 33.9 inches of rain in Los Angeles and Long Beach per National Cli matic Data Center), the MATES III sampling program was extended one more year to April 2 006. During the second year (2005-2006), sampling was not conducted in Pico Rivera and Hunti ngton Park for a full year. Elemental Carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), ions, metals, and mo nthly-composite organics samples were analyzed. Details of the sites and sampling protocols are given in Chapter 2.

Selected Source Profiles Before selecting the source profiles, available and pertinent previous studies were reviewed. Great care was made to ensure that the chosen sourc e profiles represented the Basin and therefore were most applicable for this study. The foll owing source profiles for the MATES III source apportionment model and their basis for sele ction are as follows:

• Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Sulfate Profiles Single constituent source profiles consisting of pu re nitrate and sulfate (Chow, et al. 2007) were used. 

# Input CMB Model Output

Ambient Data

Source Profiles Selected Chemical Species Source Apportionment

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 3 

## • Biomass Burning Profile A biomass burning profile was developed for the Bas in by Schauer (1998) based on the testing of residential fireplaces burning oak wood. Th is profile was selected due to the similarity of its levoglucosan (0.138 ± 0.0001) mass fraction compared to the levoglucosan level from the most recent and comprehensive combined profile developed by Fine (2002) for fireplace and woodstove combustion (0.126 ± 0.0002). In thes e profiles, OC, EC, and TC (total carbon) were analyzed accordingly to the NIOSH protoco l that was different than the IMPROVE thermal/optical reflectance (TOR) protocol used in the MATES III.
In addition, another biomass burning profile develo ped by Desert Research Institute (DRI) for use in a source apportionment study in Fresno ( Chow, et al. 2007) was also applied to the Los Angeles, West Long Beach, and Rubidoux CMB sour ce apportionment for comparison purposes.

• Cooking Profile A meat cooking profile consisting of average data f rom charbroiling chicken with skin on was developed by Zielinska, et al. (1998). This pr ofile applied the same IMPROVE TOR protocol that was used in the MATES III to analyze OC, EC, and TC.

• Diesel Exhaust Profile A diesel motor-vehicle profile was developed during the summer of 2001 for the Basin as part of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Gasoline/D iesel PM Split Study (Fujita, et al. 2006) and was normalized to PM 2.5 

## mass for use in the Fresno Supersite Study (Chow, et al. 2007). This profile was selected because: (1) it w as the most recently developed and comprehensive one that tested 34 diesel vehicles of va rious vehicle weights and model years operated under various cycles; (2) it was the profile where OC, EC, and TC were analyzed using the same IMPROVE TOR protocol that was applied in MATES III; (3) it was also used in the most recent CMB studies (Chow, et al. 2007 a nd Lough, et al. 2005); and (4) it generated better model performance statistics that are m ore acceptable to the CMB practice.
However, sensitivity tests for mobile diesel exhaus t have also been conducted for Los Angeles. In particular, various diesel profiles from t he Northern Front Range Air Quality Study (NFRAQS) were applied. The poor performance statis tics indicate that these diesel profiles were not adequate for the model.

• Gasoline-Vehicle Exhaust Profile A gasoline motor-vehicle profile developed for the Basin as part of the DOE’s Gasoline/Diesel Split Study (Fujita, et al. 2006) and n ormalized to PM 2.5 

## mass for use in the Fresno Supersite Study (Chow, et al. 2007) was selected . This profile was based on the testing of 57 gasoline vehicles of various model years and mil eages operated under various cycles.
In addition, another profile (Zielinska, et al. 199 8) developed during summer 1996 and winter 1997 for the NFRAQS was also selected. This pr ofile was based on the testing of a larger fleet consisting of 111 gasoline vehicles under var ious operating cycles and also utilized the

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 4 

## same IMPROVE TOR protocol used in the MATES III to analyze EC, OC, and TC. Since mobile source emissions vary upon ambient temperatu re (Mathis, et al. 2005), fuel use, engines, driving modes, and lubricating oil (Lough an d Schauer, 2005); the differences in fleet composition and ambient temperature were recognized . Therefore, both gasoline profiles were utilized for the analysis and a range for gaso line motor exhaust contribution was provided.

• Sea Salt Profile An “aged” sea salt profile was developed by Chow, e t al. (1996), which reflects a reaction of sea salt and nitric acid (HNO3) where 0.5 mole of c hlorine (Cl-) was replaced by one mole of nitrate (NO3-).

• Geological Profile A geological profile was developed by Chow, et al. (2003) from paved road suspended dust samples collected in the San Joaquin Valley. Altho ugh this profile was not developed for the Basin, its mass fractions (0.052 ± 0.01) of iron (F e) and (0.035 ± 0.01) of calcium (Ca) are similar to those in Cooper, et al.’s profile (1987) developed for the Basin (0.052 ± 0.02 for Fe) and (0.035 ± 0.01 for Ca). Fe and Ca were two of the three selected fitting species for geological apportionment in the MATES III CMB.

• Residual Oil Burning Profile A residual oil burning profile was developed for th e Basin by AQMD (1989) based on samples collected from a residual oil-fired boiler at a power plant in the Basin. Residual oil burning is mainly used in ships (Corbett and Fischb eck, 1997). Although vanadium (V) and nickel (Ni) concentration in residual oil is minima l compared to that of sulfur, vanadium is a unique species to characterize ship PM emissions.

• Limestone Profile A profile developed by AQMD (1989) from the testing of Portland cement in a kiln was used only for the Rubidoux site.

Selected Fitting Species Fitting species were pre-selected based on informat ion from previous studies and further screened based on their correlation co-efficients a nd ambient concentrations. Species with higher ambient concentrations than their uncertainties and species with high correlation co-efficients (correlation co-efficients  0.8) were selected. However, the ambient concentr ation criteria was not strictly applied to levoglucosan, cholesterol, palmitoleic acid, coronene, indeno [123- cd]pyrene, and benzo(ghi) perylene, which often hav e low ambient concentrations.
The following were selected fitting species for the MATES III source apportionment categorized by their major sources:

• Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate: NO 3 - 

## and SO 4 -2



## • Biomass burning: Levoglucosan and potassium (K)

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 5 

## • Meat cooking: Cholesterol and palmitoleic acid

• Diesel-vehicle exhaust: EC, Steranes 48 and 49, Hop anes 17, 19, 24, and 26

• Gasoline-vehicle exhaust:

– Indeno[123-cd]pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, coronene

– Steranes 48 and 49

– Hopanes 17,19, 24, and 26

• Sea salt: sodium (Na + 

## ) and chlorine (Cl - 

## )

• Geological: Silica (Si), calcium (Ca), and iron (F e)

• Residual oil burning: Vanadium (V) and nickel (Ni) Organic carbon (OC) was not used in the CMB analysi s because measured ambient OC is believed to be biased high. The flow rate (6.7 lpm) of the SASS PM sampler used during MATES III was approximately three times slower than that (20 lpm) of the Multi-Channel Fine Particulate (MCFP) sampling system used for the measuremen ts of EC, OC, ions, and trace metals as part of the PTEP (1995) and MATES II studies. High er flow rate is believed to have a greater stripping effect upon lighter organic compounds tha t may accumulate during slower flow. Slower flow rate in the SASS sampler reduces pressure d rop through the sampler and increases the absorption of lighter organic compounds on quartz f ilter medium. Therefore, OC measured by the SASS sampler is often higher than that measured by the higher flow MCFP sampler. This positive OC bias leads to a higher total carbon (TC ) than total mass due to the deposition difference between the quartz filters that were used to c ollect EC, OC, TC and Teflon filters that were used for mass (Turpin, et al. 1994). While PM 2.5 

## mass decreased 20 – 40% in 2004 compared to the 1995 ambient data, EC decreased 50 – 57%, nitra te decreased 30 – 54%, and sulfate decreased 11-25%, only organic carbon increased 13 to 50%. Additionally, the SASS sampler did not account for positive OC artifacts by using back up filters.

VII-3 Results and Discussion
The PM 2.5 

## source apportionment was conducted independently f or each sampling year, using the same source profiles and fitting species. Specific ally, the monthly source apportionment for the fixed sites was conducted by targeting R 2 

## values of 0.8 to 1.0, Chi 2 

## values of less than 4.0, and differences between calculated and measured PM 2.5 

## mass of less than 20%, which are the CMB optimal performance criteria.
The modified pseudo-inverse matrix (MPIN) diagnosti c, an option to identify influential chemical species (Kim and Henry, 1989) shows that EC (wi th normalized MPIN absolute value of 1.0) is the most influential chemical species for diesel -vehicle exhaust, while the three PAHs (with absolute values  0.5): indeno [123-cd]pyrene, benzo(ghi) perylene, and coronene found in used gasoline motor oil, and sterane 48 found in engine lubricating oil (Fujita, et al. 2006) are most influential species to gasoline-vehicle exhaust in this model.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 6 

## April 2004 – March 2005 (First-Year) PM 2.5 

## Source Apportionment
Both Basin and the NFRAQS gasoline profiles were us ed in two CMB estimates, holding all other source profiles the same.
With the Basin Gasoline Profile A Basin gasoline-vehicle profile used in the Fresno Supersite Study (Chow, et al. 2007) was applied to the CMB analysis. The annual-average source contribution estimates of major PM 2.5 

## source categories (in μg/m 3 

## ) and their percentages of the total predicted mass are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. Table VII-1 First-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates - Basin Gasoline Pro file

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN 10-Site Ave. Ammonium Nitrate 4.39

(22.0) 5.14

(27.2) 5.68

(27.3) 6.99

(30.5) 7.03

(32.8) 7.04

(34.0) 7.33

(35.0) 8.42

(37.7) 10.08

(44.8) 5.70

(32.3) 6.78

(31.6) Ammonium Sulfate 5.68

(28.5) 5.68

(30.0) 5.43

(26.1) 5.68

(24.8) 5.22

(24.4) 5.06

(24.4) 4.75

(22.7) 4.53

(20.3) 4.49

(19.9) 4.81

(27.3) 5.13

(23.9) Biomass Burning 0.57

(2.8) 0.28

(1.5) 0.20

(1.0) 0.15

(0.7) 0.34

(1.6) 0.28

(1.3) 0.33

(1.6) 0.22

(1.0) 0.38

(1.7) 0.22

(1.3) 0.30

(1.4) Cooking 1.93

(9.6) 1.47

(7.8) 2.78

(13.4) 2.13

(9.3) 1.59

(7.4) 1.60

(7.7) 1.74

(8.3) 1.65

(7.4) 1.43

(6.4) 1.37

(7.8) 1.77

(8.2)

Diesel Exhaust 3.35

(16.8) 2.47

(13.1 ) 2.93

(14.1) 3.77

(16.5) 3.61

(16.9) 3.11

(15.0) 3.43

(16.4) 3.70

(16.6) 2.72

(12.1) 2.22

(12.6) 3.13

(14.6) Gasoline Exhaust 0.36

(1.8) 0.37

(2.0) 0.51

(2.4) 0.51

(2.2) 0.26

(1.2) 0.22

(1.1) 0.29

(1.4) 0.16

(0.7) 0.24

(1.0) 0.24

(1.3) 0.31

(1.5)
Sea Salt 1.57

(7.9) 1.84

(9.7) 1.92

(9.2) 1.80

(7.8) 1.76

(8.2) 1.64

(7.9) 1.47

(7.0) 1.33

(6.0) 1.38

(6.1) 1.77

(10.1) 1.65

(7.7) Geological 0.83

(4.2) 0.83

(4.4) 0.87

(4.2) 1.45

(6.3) 1.23

(5.7) 1.45

(7.0) 1.32

(6.3) 2.03

(9.1) 0.81

(3.6) 0.80

(4.6) 1.16

(5.4) Residual Oil Burning 1.30

(6.5) 0.82

(4.4) 0.51

(2.5) 0.43

(1.9) 0.39

(1.8) 0.33

(1.6) 0.29

(1.4) 0.28

(1.3) 0.27

(1.2) 0.52

(2.9) 0.51

(2.4)

Limestone 0.72 (3.2) Predicted Mass 19.98 18.89 20.83 22.89 21.42 20.73 20.93 22.33 22. 50 17.65 21.46

Measured Mass 17.72 18.41 19.34 22.2 20.6 19.38 21.21 21.35 23.54 17.55 20.13



### I talic, bold values in ( ) are the percentages of pr edicted mass

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 7 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN
StationsConcentrations (μg/m3)

Limestone
Residual Oil Burning
Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust
Cooking
Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-2. First-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates – Basin Gasoline Pro file

The CMB estimated PM 2.5 

## mass contributions range from 17.65 to 22.89 μg/m 3 

## across the Basin. Major source contributors are ammonium nitr ate (4.39 – 10.08 μg/m 3 

## , 22 – 44.8%), ammonium sulfate (4.49 – 5.68 μg/m 3 

## , 19.9 – 30%), biomass burning (0.15 – 0.57 μg/m 3 

## , 0.7 – 2.8%), cooking (1.37 – 2.78 μg/m 3 

## , 7.8 – 13.4%), diesel exhaust (2.22 – 3.77 μg/m 3 

## , 12.6 – 16.5%), gasoline exhaust (0.16 – 0.51 μg/m 3 

## , 0.7 – 2.4%), sea salt (1.33 - 1.92 μg/m 3 

## , 6.0 – 9.2%), geological (0.80 – 2.03 μg/m 3 

## , 4.6 – 9.1%), residual oil burning (0.27 – 1.30 μg /m 3



## , 1.2 – 6.5%), and limestone (0.72 μg/m 3 

## , 3.2%) at the Rubidoux site.
The model performance statistics of the first year source apportionment (averaged R 2 

## values of 0.9 – 0.96; Chi 2 

## values of 2.02 – 3.12; and % difference in mass of 1 – 10%) are within the optimal performance ranges (R 2 

## : 0.8 – 1.0; Chi 2 

## 4.0; and % difference in mass 20%). Such optimal performance statistics indicate that t he Basin gasoline profile is adequate for the CMB model.
However, high ratios of diesel-to-gasoline exhaust contributions are observed across the Basin (from 5.75 in Compton to 23.13 in Inland Valley San Bernardino). The average dieselgasoline ratio for all stations is 10.10, which is significantly higher than the 2007 AQMP diesel-gasoline emissions ratio of 1.90 and the ratio of 2.68 calculated from Fujita, et al.’s (2006) emission factors.
Source apportionment using the NFRAQS gasoline prof ile was therefore conducted, and the results are also presented in this analysis. With the NFRAQS Gasoline Profile
A NFRAQS gasoline-vehicle profile used in the NFRAQ S (Zielinska, et al. 1998) was applied to the CMB analysis.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 8 

## The annual-average source contribution estimates of major PM 2.5 

## source categories (in μg/m 3 

## ) and their percentages of the total predicted mass are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 3. Table VII-2 First-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates - NFRAQS Gasoline Pr ofile

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN 10-Site Ave.
Ammonium Nitrate 4.40

(21.0) 5.14

(26.2) 5.69

(26.0) 7.00

(29.3) 7.03

(32.0) 7.04

(33.2) 7.33

(34.0) 8.43

(37.2) 10.08

(44.0) 5.70

(31.3) 6.78

(30.7) Ammonium Sulfate 5.73

(27.4) 5.71

(29.1) 5.47

(25.0) 5.73

(24.0) 5.25

(23.9) 5.09

(24.0) 4.78

(22.2) 4.55

(20.1) 4.51

(19.7) 4.82

(26.5) 5.16

(23.3) Biomass Burning 0.56

(2.7) 0.28

(1.4) 0.20

(0.9) 0.15

(0.6) 0.34

(1.6) 0.28

(1.3) 0.33

(1.5) 0.22

(1.0) 0.38

(1.6) 0.22

(1.2) 0.30

(1.3) Cooking 1.93

(9.2) 1.49

(7.6) 2.88

(13.2) 2.17

(9.1) 1.59

(7.2) 1.61

(7.6) 1.76

(8.2) 1.72

(7.6) 1.44

(6.3) 1.39

(7.6) 1.80

(8.1) Diesel Exhaust 3.25

(15.5) 2.20

(11.2) 2.67

(12.2) 3.34

(14.0) 3.30

(15.0) 2.85

(13.4) 3.18

(14.8) 3.51

(15.5) 2.54

(11.1) 2.10

(11.5) 2.89

(13.1)

Gasoline Exhaust 1.42

(6.8) 1.24

(6.3) 1.63

(7.4) 1.75

(7.3) 1.05

(4.8) 0.87

(4.1) 1.06

(4.9) 0.60

(2.7) 0.85

(3.7) 0.83

(4.6) 1.13

(5.1)

Sea Salt 1.58

(7.5) 1.84

(9.4) 1.90

(8.7) 1.79

(7.5) 1.76

(8.0) 1.64

(7.7) 1.47

(6.8) 1.33

(5.9) 1.38

(6.0) 1.76

(9.7) 1.64

(7.4) Geological 0.79

(3.8) 0.87

(4.5) 0.95

(4.3) 1.49

(6.3) 1.26

(5.8) 1.49

(7.0) 1.35

(6.3) 2.00

(8.8) 0.78

(3.4) 0.85

(4.7) 1.19

(5.4) Residual Oil Burning 1.28

(6.1) 0.83

(4.2) 0.52

(2.4) 0.43

(1.8) 0.39

(1.8) 0.33

(1.5) 0.29

(1.4) 0.28

(1.2) 0.27

(1.2) 0.53

(2.9) 0.51

(2.3)
Limestone 0.71 (3.1) Predicted Mass 20.94 19.59 21.91 23.85 21.98 21.20 21.55 22.64 22. 93 18.20 21.40
Measured Mass 17.72 18.41 19.34 22.20 20.60 19.38 21.21 21.35 23. 54 17.55 20.13 

### Italic, bold values in ( ) are the percentages of p redicted mass

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN StationsConcentrations (μg/m3)

Limestone
Residual Oil Burning
Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust
Cooking
Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-3. First-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates - NFRAQS Gasoline Pr ofile

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 9 

## The CMB estimated PM 2.5 

## mass contributions range from 18.20 to 23.85 μg/m 3 

## across the Basin. Major source contributors are ammonium nitr ate (4.40 – 10.08 μg/m 3 

## , 21 - 44%), ammonium sulfate (4.51 – 5.73 μg/m 3 

## , 19.7 – 27.4%), biomass burning (0.15 – 0.56 μg/m 3



## , 0.6 – 2.7%), cooking (1.39 – 2.88 μg/m 3 

## , 7.6 – 13.2%), diesel exhaust (2.10 – 3.51 μg/m 3



## , 11.6 – 15.5%), gasoline exhaust (0.6 – 1.75 μg/m 3 

## , 2.7 – 7.3%), sea salt (1.33 -1.9 μg/m 3 

## , 5.9 – 8.7%), geological (0.78 – 2.0 μg/m 3 

## , 3.4 – 8.8%), residual oil burning (0.27 – 1.28 μg /m 3



## , 1.2 – 6.1%), and limestone (0.71 μg/m 3 

## , 3.1%) at the Rubidoux site.
The model performance statistics of the first year source apportionment (averaged R 2 

## values of 0.93 – 0.96; Chi 2 

## values of 2.02 – 2.94; and % difference in mass of 1 – 13%) are within the optimal performance ranges (R 2 

## : 0.8 – 1.0; Chi 2 

## 4.0; and % difference in mass 20%). Such optimal performance statistics indicate that t he NFRAQS gasoline profile is also adequate for the CMB model.
The ratios of diesel to gasoline-exhaust contributi ons across the Basin vary from 1.64 in Compton to 5.80 in Inland Valley San Bernardino. T he average diesel to gasoline ratio for all stations is 2.56, which is within the range of the 2007 AQMP diesel-gasoline emissions ratio of 1.90 and the ratio of 2.68 calculated from Fujita, et al.’s (2006) emission factors.
Basin and NFRAQS Gasoline Profiles Comparison Figure 4 compares the first-year contributions of m ajor sources averaged among ten sites, using both Basin and NFRAQS gasoline profiles.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

Ammonium

Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Biomass

Burning Cooking Diesel Exhaust Gasoline

Exhaust Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning Limestone

SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) NFRAQS Gasoline Profile Basin Gasoline Profile



## Figure VII-4. First-Year – 10-Site Average Sources Comparison

Applying the Basin gasoline profile affects other s ources only slightly, but greatly impacts gasoline exhaust contributions. The 10-site averag e contribution from diesel exhaust went from 3.13 μ g/m 3 

## with the Basin gasoline mobile to 2.89 μ g/m 3 

## with the NFRAQS gasoline

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 10 

## profile, a difference of 7.7%. Using the Basin gas oline profile also results in similar spatial contribution pattern as using the NFRAQS profile.
Spatial Analysis The following discussion on spatial and seasonal di fferences of apportioned mass below focuses on the apportionment using the NFRAQS gasolin e profile. Ammonium nitrate displays a strong spatial variation, with high contributions inland and low contributions in coastal areas. Ammonium nitrate varies between 4.4 μg/m 3 

## (21%) in West Long Beach and 10.08 μg/m 3 

## (44%) in Rubidoux. Nitric acid concentration incr eases to the highest level at Diamond Bar that is located upwind of a dense array of dairy ammonia source (Kim, et. al. 2000). Most of the nitric acid is then neutralized by ammonia while transported to downwind locations that results in high ammonium nitrate con tribution in Rubidoux.

Ammonium sulfate also shows a strong spatial variat ion, but in contrast to ammonium nitrate, with high contributions in coastal areas and low contributions inland. Ammonium sulfate varies between 5.73 μg/m 3 

## (27.4%) in West Long Beach and 4.51 μg/m 3 

## (19.7%) in Rubidoux. Greater RH (  75%) at the coastal sites and the importance of th e aqueous-phase sulfate chemistry at high RH may explain the higher sulfate contributions at coastal sites.
Biomass burning does not show a clear spatial varia tion. The highest contribution is observed at West Long Beach (0.56 μg/m 3 

## , 2.7%) and the lowest contribution is observed at Huntington Park (0.15 μg/m 3 

## , 0.6 %).
Cooking does not display a clear spatial variation. The highest contribution is observed at Compton (2.88 μg/m 3 

## , 13.2%) and the lowest contribution is observed at Anaheim (1.39 μg/m 3 

## , 7.6%). The highest cooking concentration at Comp ton may be biased since the monitoring station is located above the county fire sta tion where cooking activities might occur during the sampling period.
Diesel exhaust displays high contributions in West Long Beach (3.25 μg/m 3 

## , 15.5%), which is within close proximity to the ports and cargo di stribution centers, and at industrial areas, such as Huntington Park (3.34 μg/m 3 

## , 14%), Burbank (3.18 μg/m 3 

## , 14.8%), Inland Valley San Bernardino (3.51 μg/m 3 

## , 15.5%), and Pico Rivera (3.3 μg/m 3 

## , 15%) where heavy dieseltruck traffic occurs. The lowest diesel contributi on is observed at Anaheim (2.10 μg/m 3



## , 11.5%).
The highest gasoline exhaust contribution is observ ed at Huntington Park (1.75 μg/m 3 

## , 7.3%) and the lowest contribution is observed at Inland V alley San Bernardino (0.60 μg/m 3 

## , 2.7%). Gasoline exhaust displays higher contributions at t he ports and in more urbanized areas where dense population and heavy gasoline-vehicle t raffic are located. However, the gasoline estimate for Los Angeles (0.87 μg/m 3 

## , 4.1%) is relatively lower than other urbanized ar

eas. Sea salt shows a spatial variation with high contri butions in coastal areas and low contributions inland. The highest contribution is observed at Compton (1.90 μg/m 3 

## , 8.7%) and the lowest contribution is observed in Inland Valley Sa n Bernardino (1.33 μg/m 3 

## , 5.9%).

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 11 

## Geological shows a strong spatial variation with lo w contributions in coastal areas and high contributions inland. The lowest contribution is o bserved at West Long Beach (0.79 μg/m 3



## , 3.8%) and the highest contribution (2.0 μg/m 3 

## , 8.8%) is observed at Inland Valley San Bernardino where high winds cause more re-suspended so il dust.
Limestone is the only other source contributing to PM 2.5 

## mass at Rubidoux. The geological source alone was not sufficient to explain the high measured ambient calcium concentrations in Rubidoux. Addition of limestone source in the C MB analysis accounted for the excess calcium. These findings are consistent with earlier studies (Chow, et. al., 1992; Kim, et. al., 1992).
Residual oil burning displays a strong spatial vari ation. The highest residual oil burning contribution (1.28 μg/m 3 

## , 6.1%) is observed in West Long Beach where shippi ng activities occur. The contributions remain higher in the surrou nding coastal areas in relation to the inland. The lowest contribution is observed at Rubid oux (0.27 μg/m 3 

## , 1.2%). Seasonal Analysis Ammonium nitrate displays a seasonal variation. Th e highest contribution is observed in the fall (September through November) as shown in Figur e 5. Cool temperatures and stagnant conditions favor the formation of ammonium nitrate (Appel, et al., 1980, Stelson and Seinfeld, 1982, Russel, et al., 1983). The average amm onium nitrate among the 10 monitoring sites varies between 5.51μg/m 3 

## in the winter (December through February) and 8.23 μg/m 3 

## in the fall.
As depicted in Figure 5, ammonium sulfate displays a clear seasonal variation. Unlike ammonium nitrate, the highest ammonium sulfate contri bution is observed in the summer (June through August) and the lowest contribution in the winter. The average ammonium sulfate among 10 sites varies between 1.99 μg/m 3 

## and 8.70 μg/m 3



## . Biomass burning shows a strong seasonal variation a s shown in Figure 5. The highest contributions are observed in the fall and winter when more heating activities and lower ambient air mixing height occur. The average biomass burni ng among 10 sites varies between 0.11 μg/m 3 

## in the summer and 0.38 μg/m 3 

## in the fall and winter.
As illustrated in Figure 6, although cooking does n ot show a clear seasonal variation, the highest cooking contribution is observed in the win ter when ambient air mixing height is low. The average cooking among 10 sites varies bet ween 1.10 μg/m 3 

## in the summer and 2.23 μg/m 3 

## in the winter.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 12 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Ammonium Nitrate Ammonium Sulfate SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) 

### Spring Summer Fall Winter



## Figure VII-5. First Year 10-Site Average Seasonal Contributions –

Ammonium Nitrate and Sulfate

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Biomass Burning Meat Cooking SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) 

### Spring Summer Fall Winter



## Figure VII-6. First Year 10-Site Average Seasonal Contributions –

Biomass Burning and Cooking

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 13 

## Diesel exhaust displays a strong seasonal variation as shown in Figure 7. The highest contribution is observed in the winter when ambient air m ixing height is low. The average dieselvehicle exhaust among 10 sites varies between 1.86 μg/m 3 

## in the spring (April and May) and 4.13 μg/m 3 

## in the winter.
As with diesel exhaust, the highest gasoline contri bution (1.62 μg/m 3 

## ) is also found in the winter when ambient air mixing height is low. As s hown in Figure 7, the lower contributions (0.8 μg/m 3 

## and 0.91 μg/m 3 

## ) are observed in the summer and fall, respectively

.

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Diesel Exhaust Gasoline Exhaust SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) Spring Summer Fall Winter



## Figure VII-7. 10-Site Average First-Year Seasonal Contributions – Diesel and Gasoline Exhaust
As depicted in Figure 8, the highest sea salt contr ibution (2.68 μg/m 3 

## ) is observed in the spring when land and sea temperature differential i s higher, resulting in stronger offshore winds that create greater sea spray. The lowest co ntribution (1.42 μg/m 3 

## ) is observed in the

summer.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 14 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) 

### Spring Summer Fall Winter



## Figure VII-8. 10-Site Average First-Year Seasonal Contributions

Sea Salt, Geological, and Residual Oil Burning

Geological shows a strong seasonal variation where the highest contribution (1.75 μg/m 3 

## ) is observed in the winter, the strong winds season. T he lowest contribution (0.90 μg/m 3 

## ) is in the summer as shown in Figure 8.
Residual oil burning also displays a strong seasona l variation as shown in Figure 8. The highest contributions are observed in the summer an d fall (0.67 μg/m 3 

## and 0.65 μg/m 3 

## , respectively), and the lowest contribution (0.28 μg/m 3 

## ) in the winter.

April 2005 to April 2006 (Second-Year) PM 2.5 

## Source Apportionment The following PM 2.5 

## source apportionment was conducted independently fo r the second year, using the same source profiles and fitting species.
With the Basin Gasoline Profile The annual-averaged source contribution estimates o f major PM 2.5 

## source categories (in μg/m 3 

## ) and their percentage of the total predicted mass ar e summarized in Table 3 and Figure 9.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 15 

## Table VII-3 Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates - Basin Gasoline Pro file

WLB NLB CP LA BU SB RU AN 8-Site Average Ammonium Nitrate 4.56

(24.0) 4.92

(28.6) 5.50

(29.6) 6.55

(34.0) 6.69

(33.3) 8.55

(37.9) 10.23

(45.0) 5.39

(31.2) 6.55

(32.2) Ammonium Sulfate 4.94

(25.9) 4.90

(28.5) 4.31

(23.3) 4.04

(21.0) 3.91

(19.5) 3.63

(16.1) 3.68

(16.2) 3.90

(22.6) 4.16

(20.5) Biomass Burning 0.32

(1.7) 0.38

(2.2) 0.42

(2.2) 0.42

(2.2) 0.46

(2.3) 0.39

(1.7) 0.43

(1.9) 0.39

(2.3) 0.40

(2.0) Cooking 1.21

(6.4) 0.98

(5.7) 1.63

(8.8) 1.24

(6.4) 1.47

(7.3) 1.45

(6.4) 1.34

(5.9) 1.43

(8.3) 1.34

(6.6)

Diesel-Exhaust 4.25

(22.4) 2.90

(16.9) 3.34

(18.0) 4.46

(23.2) 4.09

(20.4) 4.77

(21.1) 4.02

(17.7) 2.89

(16.7) 3.84

(18.9)
Gasoline-Exhaust 0.30

(1.6) 0.25

(1.4) 0.45

(2.4) 0.24

(1.3) 0.31

(1.5) 0.16

(0.7) 0.21

(0.9) 0.19

(1.1) 0.26

(1.3)
Sea Salt 1.50

(7.9) 1.46

(8.5) 1.43

(7.7) 1.11

(5.8) 1.01

(5.0) 1.07

(4.7) 1.09

(4.8) 1.30

(7.5) 1.25

(6.1) Geological 0.62

(3.2) 0.68

(3.9) 0.97

(5.2) 0.82

(4.3) 1.86

(9.2) 2.21

(9.8) 0.62

(2.7) 1.28

(7.4) 1.13

(5.6) Residual Oil Burning 1.31

(6.9) 0.72

(4.2) 0.51

(2.7) 0.38

(1.9) 0.30

(1.5) 0.35

(1.6) 0.27

(1.2) 0.48

(2.8) 0.54

(2.6)
Limestone 0.87 (3.8)

Predicted Mass 18.96 17.18 18.55 19.27 20.08 22.58 22.76 17.25 19.47

Measured Mass 18.10 16.74 17.66 17.40 19.97 20.98 2 1.80 16.81 18.68



### Italic, bold values in ( ) are the percentages of p redicted mass

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

WLB NLB CP LA BU SB RU AN
StationsConcentrations (μg/m3)

Limestone
Residual Oil Burning
Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust Cooking
Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-9. Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates - Basin Gasoline Pro

file

Major source contributors are ammonium nitrate (4.5 6 – 10.23 μg/m 3 

## , 24.0 – 45.0%), ammonium sulfate (3.63 – 4.94 μg/m 3 

## , 16.1 – 28.5%), biomass burning (0.32 – 0.46 μg/m 3 

## , 1.7 –

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 16 

## 2.3%), cooking (0.98 – 1.63μg/m 3 

## , 5.7 – 8.8%), diesel-exhaust (2.89 – 4.77 μg/m 3 

## , 16.7 – 21.1%), gasoline-vehicle exhaust (0.16 – 0.45 μg/m 3 

## , 0.7 – 2.4%), sea salt (1.01 – 1.5 μg/m 3



## , 5.0 – 7.9%), geological (0.62 - 2.21μg/m 3 

## , 2.7 – 9.8%), residual oil burning (0.27 – 1.31μg/m 3 

## , 1.2 – 6.9%), and limestone (0.87μg/m 3 

## , 3.8%) at the Rubidoux site. With the NFRAQS Gasoline Profile The annual-averaged source contribution estimates o f major PM 2.5 

## source categories (in μg/m 3 

## ) and their percentage of the total predicted mass ar e summarized in Table 4 and Figure 10.
The CMB estimated PM 2.5 

## mass contributions range from 17.74 to 23.16 μg/m 3 

## across the Basin. Major source contributors are ammonium nitr ate (4.56 – 10.24 μg/m 3 

## , 22.9 – 44.2%), ammonium sulfate (3.65 – 4.94 μg/m 3 

## , 15.8 – 29.4%), biomass burning (0.32 – 0.46 μg/m 3



## , 1.6 – 2.2%), cooking operations (0.98 – 1.66 μg/m 3 

## , 5.5 – 8.5%), diesel-vehicle exhaust (2.6 – 4.63 μg/m 3 

## , 14.6 – 20.1%), gasoline-vehicle exhaust (0.73 – 1 .75 μg/m 3 

## , 3.2 – 8.8%), sea salt (1.01 -1.53 μg/m 3 

## , 4.8 – 7.7%), geological (0.64 – 2.23 μg/m 3 

## , 3.2 – 9.7%), residual oil burning (0.26 – 1.29 μg/m 3 

## , 1.1 – 6.5%), and limestone (0.85 μg/m 3 

## , 3.7%).

Table VII-4 Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates – NFRAQS Gasoline Pr ofile

WLB NLB CP LA BU SB RU AN 8

- Site s Average Ammonium Nitrate 4.56

(22.9) 4.92

(27.5) 5.50

(28.2) 6.55

(33.3) 6.69

(32.0) 8.55

(37.1) 10.24

(44.2) 5.39

(30.4) 6.55

(31.2) Ammonium Sulfate 4.94

(29.4) 4.92

(27.5) 4.35

(22.3) 4.06

(20.6) 3.94

(18.8) 3.65

(15.8) 3.72

(16.0) 3.92

(22.1) 4.19

(20.0) Biomass Burning 0.32

(1.6) 0.38

(2.1 ) 0.42

(2.1) 0.42

(2.1) 0.46

(2.2) 0.39

(1.7) 0.43

(1.9) 0.39

(2.2) 0.40

(1.9) Cooking 1.21

(6.1) 0.98

(5.5) 1.66

(8.5) 1.26

(6.4) 1.49

(7.1) 1.47

(6.4) 1.33

(5.8) 1.44

(8.1) 1.36

(6.5)
Diesel-Exhaust 3.64

(18.3) 2.60

(14.6) 3.09

(15.9) 4.19

(21.3) 3.86

(18.5) 4.63

(20.1) 3.49

(15.1) 2.65

(15.0) 3.52

(16.8)GasolineExhaust 1.75

(8.8) 1.19

(6.7) 1.52

(7.8) 0.91

(4.6) 1.27

(6.1) 0.73

(3.2) 1.07

(4.6) 0.86

(4.8) 1.16

(5.5)
Sea Salt 1.53

(7.7) 1.45

(8.1) 1.43

(7.3) 1.14

(5.8) 1.01

(4.8) 1.07

(4.6) 1.10

(4.7) 1.30

(7.3) 1.25

(6.0) Geological 0.64

(3.2) 0.71

(4.0) 1.01

(5.2) 0.80

(4.1) 1.89

(9.0) 2.23

(9.7) 0.68

(2.9) 1.30

(7.3) 1.16

(5.5) Residual Oil Burning 1.29

(6.5) 0.72

(4.0) 0.51

(2.6) 0.38

(1.9) 0.30

(1.4) 0.35

(1.5) 0.26

(1.1) 0.48

(2.7) 0.54

(2.6)
Limestone 0.85 (3.7)

Predicted Mass 19.89 17.88 19.49 19.70 21.16 23.07 23.16 17.74 20.13

Measured Mass 18.10 16.74 17.66 17.40 19.97 20.98 2 1.8 16.8 18.68



### Italic, bold values in ( ) are the percentages of predicted mass

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 17 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

WLB NLB CP LA BU SB RU AN
StationsConcentrations (μg/m3)

Limestone
Residual Oil Burning
Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust Cooking
Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-10. Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Estimates –

NFRAQS Gasoline Profile

Basin and NFRAQS Gasoline Profiles Comparison Figure 11 compares the second-year contributions of major sources averaged among eight sites, using both Basin and NFRAQS gasoline profile s. Similar to the first-year source apportionment, applying the Basin gasoline profile to the second-year ambient data affects other sources only slightly, but greatly impacts ga soline exhaust contributions. Using the Basin gasoline profile also results in similar spat ial contribution pattern as using the NFRAQS profile.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Ammonium

Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Biomass

Burning Cooking Diesel Exhaust Gasoline

Exhaust Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning Limestone

SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) NFRAQS Gasoline Profile Basin Gasoline Profile



## Figure 11. Second-Year 8-Site Average Sources Comp arison

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 18 

## First and Second-Year Source Apportionment Comparis ons With the Basin Gasoline Profile Figure 12 compares the major source contributions a t all stations during the two years.

PM 2.5 

## mass slightly decreased in the second year. Howev er, elemental carbon (EC) concentration increased in the second year, resulting in increased diesel-vehicle contributions. Higher EC concentrations coincide with increased di esel trucking activities during the second year. According to the ARB’s EMFAC data (2007), th e vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for diesel vehicles in 2004 was 16,398,000, while in 20 05 the VMT increased to 18,608,000 (a 13% increase).
Second-year source contributions are very similar t o the first-year source contributions except diesel-vehicle contributions. As a result, th e ratios of diesel to gasoline-vehicle contributions across the Basin vary from 7.4 in Compton t o 30.7 in Inland Valley San Bernardino. The average diesel to gasoline ratio for all statio ns is 14.6, which is higher than the first-year ratio of 10.0, and significantly higher than the 20 07 AQMP diesel-gasoline emissions ratio of 1.90 and the ratio of 2.68 calculated from Fujita, et al.’s (2006) emission factors.
The second-year spatial contribution pattern is sim ilar to that of the first year.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN 10- Site Ave. StationsConcentrations (μg/m3) Limestone

Residual Oil Burning

Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust

Cooking

Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-12. First & Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Comparison Basin Gasoline Profile
With the NFRAQS Gasoline Profile Figure 13 compares the major source contributions a t all stations during the two years.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 19 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

WLB NLB CP HP PR LA BU SB RU AN 10- Site Ave. StationsConcentrations (μg/m3) Limestone

Residual Oil Burning

Geological

Sea Salt

Gasoline Exhaust

Diesel Exhaust

Cooking

Biomass Burning

Ammonium Sulfate

Ammonium Nitrate 

## Figure VII-13. First & Second-Year PM 2.5 

## Source Contribution Comparison NFRAQS Gasoline Profile

PM 2.5 

## mass also slightly decreased in the second year. Second-year source contributions are very similar to the first-year source contributions , except diesel-vehicle contributions. As a result, the ratios of diesel to gasoline-vehicle co ntributions across the Basin vary from 2.03 in Compton to 6.33 in Inland Valley San Bernardino, wh ich is higher than the first-year ratio due to the higher second-year diesel contribution. The average diesel-gasoline ratio for all stations is 3.03, which is slightly higher than the 2007 AQMP diesel-gasoline emissions ratio of 1.90 and the ratio of 2.68 calculated from Fujit a, et al.’s (2006) emission factors.
The second-year spatial contribution pattern is als o similar to that of the first year.

VII-3 Sensitivity Tests Sensitivity tests have been conducted not only for gasoline, but also for diesel exhaust, biomass burning, and cooking, using various profiles. In t he sensitivity tests, major chemical species in various profiles were modified and/or different pro file combinations were used to evaluate model performance.
In the beginning, various NFRAQS diesel profiles we re applied to determine model performance. However, the poor performance statistics (e. g., R 2 

## , Chi 2 

## , etc.) obtained indicated that these diesel profiles were not appropriate for the model. Therefore, their applications were not continued, and the Basin diesel profile was selected.
Cooking sensitivity tests were also conducted using various profiles developed by Desert Research Institute (DRI) for use in the Fresno Supers ite. However, due to the poor model statistics obtained, their sensitivity applications were not c ontinued.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 20 

## A biomass burning profile that was developed by DRI for the Fresno Supersite was applied to the CMB analysis, along with the NFRAQS gasoline and ot her profiles used throughout this study, for comparison purposes. In general, contributions of all source categories are affected slightly by this profile, except for biomass burning.
Figures 14, 15, and 16, respectively show that, usi ng the DRI profile, biomass burning contributions for Los Angeles, West Long Beach, and Rubidou x are approximately two times greater than the current contributions using the Basin profile (Schauer, 1998). However, the CMB model performance statistics, that is, the chi-square values generated from using the DRI profile are roughly 1.5 times greater than that from using the Basin profile. The biomass burning contribution of 0.72 μg/m 3 

## in Rubidoux using the DRI profile (vs. 0.38 μg/m 3 

## using the Basin profile) is similar to the 0.79 μg/m 3 

## estimated by the PMF for data collected between 20 01 and 2004 at U.S. EPA Speciation Trends Network monitoring site in Rubidoux (Kim and Hopke, 2007). However, the 4-month averaged biomass burning contr ibution of 0.84 μg/m 3 

## from November to February in Rubidoux using the DRI profile (vs. 0.3 6 μg/m 3 

## using the Basin profile) is lower than ARB’s 1.8 – 2.2 μg/m 3 

## estimated by their 1995 CMB and 2005 PMF models, r espectively (ARB, 2007).

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Ammonium Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Biomass

Burning Cooking Diesel Exhaust Gasoline

Exhaust Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning SourcesConcentations (ug/m3) Schauer Profile DRI Profile



## Figure VII-14. Los Angeles PM 2.5 

## Source Contributions – Using Different Biomass Burning Profiles

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 21 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Ammonium

Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Biomass

Burning Cooking Diesel Exhaust Gasoline

Exhaust Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) Schauer Profile DRI Profile



## Figure VII-15. West Long Beach PM 2.5 

## Source Contributions – Using Different Biomass Burning Profiles

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Ammonium

Nitrate Ammonium

Sulfate Biomass

Burning Cooking Diesel Exhaust Gasoline

Exhaust Sea Salt Geological Residual Oil Burning Limestone

SourcesConcentrations (μg/m3) Schauer Profile DRI Profile



## Figure VII-16. Rubidoux PM 2.5 

## Source Contributions – Using Different Biomass Bur ning Profiles
VII-4 Summary Diesel is greater in the second year due to the hig her second-year diesel exhaust contribution, which is driven by the higher EC ambient concentrat ions.
The use of different gasoline profiles slightly affects other source categories but has a large impact on gasoline contributions.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 22 

## Gasoline exhaust contributions range from 0.60 μg/m 3 

## to 1.75 μg/m 3 

## for the first year and 0.73 μg/m 3 

## to 1.75 μg/m 3 

## for the second year, using the NFRAQS gasoline pro file. The gasoline range varies from 0.16 μg/m 3 

## to 0.51μg/m 3 

## for the first year and 0.16 μg/m 3 

## to 0.45 μg/m 3 

## for the second year, using the Basin gasoline profile. Based on the two-year site-averaged contributions, gasoline exhaust using the NFRAQS gasoline p rofile are approximately three to five times higher than those generated by the Basin profile. As a result, the average diesel-gasoline ratios range from 2.6 to 3.0 using the NFRAQS gasoline pro file. These ratios become more significant (10.1 to 15.0) with the Basin gasoline profile, and are not supported by the 2007 AQMP dieselgasoline ratio of 1.9 and Fujita, et al.’s (2006) r atio of 2.68. For that reason, the NFRAQS gasoline profile is the preferred profile for this CMB model.
The use of the DRI biomass burning profile also sli ghtly affects other sources and results in biomass burning contributions that are approximately t wo times greater than the contributions using Schauer, et al.’s profile (1998). Based on the sen sitivity tests, Schauer, et al.’s biomass burning profile is the preferred profile for the model.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 23 

## VII-5 References Appel, B.R.; Wall, S.M.; Tokiwa, Y.; Haik, M.,1980. Simultaneous Nitric Acid, Particulate Nitrate and Acidity Measurements in Ambient Air, Atmo s. Environ., 14, 549-554.
AQMD, 1989. AQMP – Final Appendix V-G - PM 10 

## Source Profile Library for the South Coast Air Basin, 1989 AQMP.
Chow, J.C., J.G. Watson, D.H. Lowenthal, L.W.A. Che n, B. Zielinska, L.R. Mazzoleni, and K.L. Magliano, 2007. Evaluation of Organic Markers for Chemical Mass Balance Source Apportionment at the Fresno Supersite, Atmos. Chem. Phys ., 7: 1741-1754.
Chow, J.C., J.G. Watson, D.H. Lowenthal, and R.J. C ountess, 1996. Sources and Chemistry of PM 10 

## Aerosol in Santa Barbara County, CA, Atmos. Enviro n., 30(9): 1489-1499.
Chow, J.C., J.G. Watson, L.L. Ashbaugh, and K.L. Ma gliano, 2003. Similarities and Differences in PM 10 

## Chemical Sources Profiles for Geological Dust from the San Joaquin Valley, California, Atmos. Environ., 37(9-10): 1317-1340.
Corbett, J.J. and P. Fischbeck, 1997. Emissions fr om Ships. Science, 278: 823-824.
EPA, 2004. Protocol for Applying and Validating th e CMB Model for PM 2.5 

## and VOC. Report No. EPA-452/R-04-011. December 2004. Prepared by Watson, et al. for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Fine, P.M., 2002. The Contribution of Biomass Comb ustion to Ambient Fine Particle Concentrations in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Friedlander, S.K. 1973. Chemical Element Balances and Identification of Air Pollution Sources, Environm. Sci. Technol., 7(3): 235-240.
Fujita, E.M., B. Zielinska, D.E. Campbell, W.P. Arn ott, J.C. Sagebiel, L. Reinhart, J.C. Chow, P.A. Gabele, W. Crews, R. Snow, N.N. Clark, W.S. Wa yne, and D.R. Lawson, 2006. Variations in Speciated Emissions from Spark-Ignition and Comp ression-Ignition Motor Vehicles in California’s South Coast Air Basin. Manuscript.
Kim, B.M. and R.C. Henry, 1989. Analysis of Multic ollinearity Indicators and Influential Species for Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model. In Transactions, Receptor Models in Air Resources Management, J.G. Watson, Ed. J. Air & Wast e Manage. Assoc., 379-390.
Kim, B.M., S. Teffera, and M.D. Zeldin, 2000. Char acterization of PM 2.5 

## and PM 10 

## in the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California: Part 1 – Sp atial Variations, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 50: 2034 – 2044.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 24 

## Lough, G.C., J.J. Schauer, D.R. Lawson, 2006. Day- of-week Trends in Carbonaceous Aerosol Compostion in the Urban Atmosphere, Atmospheric Env ironment, 40: 4137-4149.
Lough, G.C., C.C. Chistensen, J.J. Schauer, J. Tort orelli, E. Bean, D.R. Lawson, N.N. Clark, P.A. Gabele. 2005. Development of Molecular MarkerSource Profiles for Emissions from OnRoad Gasoline and Diesel Vehicle Fleets, J. Air & W aste Manage. Assoc., Submitted for Review.
Mathis, U., M. Mohr, and A.M. Forss, 2005. Compreh ensive Particle Characterization of Modern Gasoline and Diesel Passenger Cars at Low Ambie nt Temperatures, Atmos. Environ., 39(1): 107-117.
Miller, M.S., S.K. Friedlander, and G.M. Hidy, 1972 . A Chemical Element Balance for the Pasadena Aerosol, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 39: 165- 176.
Russel, A.G.; McRae, G.J.; Cass, G.R., 1983. Mathe matical Modeling of the Formation and Transport of Ammonium Nitrate Aerosol, Atmos. Envir on., 17, 949-964.
Schauer, J.J., 1998. Source Contributions to Atmos pheric Organic Compound Concentrations: Emissions Measurements and Model Predictions. Ph.D . Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Stelson, A.W.; Seinfeld, J.H., 1982. Relative Humi dity and Temperature Dependence of the Ammonium Nitrate Dissociation Constant; Atmos. Envi ron., 16, 983-992.
Turpin, B.J., J.J. Huntzicker, and S.V. Hering, 199 4. Investigation of Organic Aerosol Sampling Artifacts in the Los Angeles Basin, Atmos. Environ. , 28(19): 3061-3071.
Watson, J.G., 1979. Chemical Element Balance Recep tor Model Methodology for Assessing the Sources of Fine and Total Suspended Particulate Mat ter in Portland, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR.
Zielinska, B., J.D. McDonald, T. Hayes, J.C. Chow, E.M. Fujita, and J.G. Watson, 1998. Northern Front Range Air Quality Study. Volume B: Sourc e Measurements. Prepared for Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 25 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF

MSGC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MSGU 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 1
OCTC 0 0 0.583351 0.591 0.830617 0.416033 0.587718 0.663695 0 0.06895 0.032 0
OCTU 0 0 0.046528 0.03 0.060651 0.167461 0.215955 0.11833 0.001416 0. 037295 0.005 0.0001
ECTC 0 0 0.051909 0.032 0.003231 0.525526 0.285649 0.184472 0 0.00994 6 0.077 0
ECTU 0 0 0.007901 0.002 0.002217 0.11106 0.138095 0.133081 0.001416 0 .00952 0.015 0.0001
NAXC 0 0 0.003045 0.001 0.000829 0 0 0.00003 0.370809 0.000789 0.026 0
NAXU 0 0 0.000252 0.0001 0.001001 0.000007 0.00001 0.0011 0.042302 0. 000351 0.006 0.0001
N4CC 0.2255 0.273 0.004565 0.001 0 0.007921 0.030173 0 0 0.003233 0.035 0
N4CU 0.02255 0.0273 0.003963 0.0001 0.0001 0.007969 0.031377 0.0001 0.001416 0.0 02305 0.016 0.0001
CLIC 0 0 0.014719 0.002 0 0.001591 0.004769 0 0.332596 0.001027 0.000 18 0
CLIU 0 0 0.018146 0.0001 0.000704 0.002345 0.004318 0.01 0.037942 0.0 01839 0.00008 0.0001
N3IC 0.775 0 0.006803 0.0044 0 0.000907 0.016545 0.001251 0.00416 0.00043 5 0 0.0055
N3IU 0.0775 0 0.000567 0.0001 0.000772 0.002573 0.012115 0.000551 0.000475 0.001817 0.0001 0.00165
S4IC 0 0.727 0.014179 0.0041 0 0.024065 0.067749 0.002467 0.092703 0.0027 87 0.4 0.0427
S4IU 0 0.0727 0.006204 0.0001 0.000705 0.019995 0.069651 0.001449 0.010575 0.001881 0.03 0.01281
MGXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000642 0 0 0 0
MGXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000206 0.0001 0. 0001 0.000484 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
ALXC 0 0 0.000944 0 0 0.001152 0.001073 0.00013 0 0.100008 0.0042 0
ALXU 0 0 0.000112 0.0001 0.000226 0.001151 0.000736 0.00025 0 0.03014 7 0.0008 0.0001
SIXC 0 0 0.002912 0.00016 0 0.008072 0.047878 0.003048 0.000103 0.281 663 0.019 0
SIXU 0 0 0.00023 0.00005 0.000063 0.002447 0.041119 0.003189 1.13E-05 0.089603 0.006 0.0001
PHXC 0 0 0 0.00007 0 0.001196 0.003479 0 1.42E-06 0 .003877 0.015 0
PHXU 0 0 0.000073 0.00002 0.0001 0.000372 0.005129 0.0001 0 0.003543 0.004 0.0001
SUXC 0 0.2427 0.00424 0.00148 0 0.009962 0.02667 0 0.030901 0.003516 0.11 0.024
SUXU 0 0.02427 0.000331 0.00004 0.0001 0.008032 0.024785 0.0001 0.003524 0. 0021 0.02 0.004
CLXC 0 0 0.013544 0.00127 0 0.000515 0.002491 0 0.332596 0.001006 0 0
CLXU 0 0 0.015612 0.00006 0.0001 0.000285 0.002978 0.0001 0.037942 0. 001422 0.0001 0.0001
KPXC 0 0 0.029511 0.00647 0 0.000735 0.000579 0.000021 0.013734 0.028 206 0.0016 0.024
KPXU 0 0 0.006782 0.00007 0.000067 0.000611 0.000474 0.000114 0.00156 6 0.005488 0.0005 0.004
CAXC 0 0 0.001873 0.00008 0 0.004728 0.007865 0.001443 0.014146 0.034 85 0.034 0.161
CAXU 0 0 0.000225 0.00011 0.000088 0.001892 0.014028 0.000554 0.00161 4 0.011771 0.009 0.03
SCXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SCXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TIXC 0 0 0.000129 0 0 0.000103 0.00003 0.000007 0 0.004553 0.0005 0.0 055
TIXU 0 0 0.000197 0.00017 0.0006 0.000613 0.000569 0.000501 0 0.00134 8 0.0005 0.00165
VAXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000004 0 0 0.011 0
VAXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00007 0.000244 0.0001 0 .0001 0.000234 0.0001 0.0001 0.003 0.0001
CRXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000011 0 0 0.00022 0
CRXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00002 0.00006 0.0001 0. 0001 0.000079 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 26 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
MNXC 0 0 0.000067 0 0 0.000009 0.000042 0.000008 0 0.000759 0.00035 0
MNXU 0 0 0.000007 0.00001 0.000045 0.000044 0.000042 0.000062 0 0.000 054 0.00004 0.0001
FEXC 0 0 0.001402 0 0 0.004409 0.004226 0.000642 0 0.052254 0.015 0
FEXU 0 0 0.000114 0.00001 0.000017 0.002751 0.003424 0.000289 0 0.010 428 0.002 0.0001
COXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00075 0
COXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00014 0.0001
NIXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000004 0 0 0.015 0
NIXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.000031 0.0001 0 .0001 0.000039 0.0001 0.0001 0.005 0.0001
CUXC 0 0 0.000067 0.00005 0 0.000105 0.000519 0.000191 0 0.000168 0.0 0098 0
CUXU 0 0 0.000006 0.00001 0.000017 0.000044 0.000537 0.000122 0 0.000 119 0.00032 0.0001
ZNXC 0 0 0.001368 0.00005 0 0.002531 0.004335 0.001965 0 0.000965 0.0 12 0
ZNXU 0 0 0.000135 0.00001 0.000026 0.000585 0.004056 0.000988 0 0.000 467 0.003 0.0001
GAXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
GEXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GEXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
ASXC 0 0 0.000007 0 0 0.000003 0.000001 0 0 0.000016 0.000031 0
ASXU 0 0 0.000017 0.00002 0.0001 0.000052 0.000052 0.0001 0 0.000027 0.000007 0.0001
SEXC 0 0 0.000001 0 0 0.000015 0.000002 0 0 0.000002 0.000022 0
SEXU 0 0 0.000007 0.00001 0.0001 0.000028 0.000027 0.0001 0 0.00001 0 .000005 0.0001
RBXC 0 0 0.000046 0 0 0.000005 0.000005 0 0 0.000139 0 0
RBXU 0 0 0.000005 0.00001 0.0001 0.000026 0.000022 0.0001 0 0.000046 0.0001 0.0001
SRXC 0 0 0.000025 0 0 0.000019 0.000009 0 0.000272 0.000305 0.00016 0
SRXU 0 0 0.000004 0.00001 0.0001 0.000026 0.000023 0.0001 3.12E-05 0. 000016 0.00005 0.0001
YTXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YTXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
NBXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
MOXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00087 0
MOXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00018 0.0001
PDXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PDXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
AGXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AGXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CDXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
INXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
SNXC 0 0 0 0.00001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00034 0
SNXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00011 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00022 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 27 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
SBXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00035 0
SBXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00013 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00038 0.0001
CSXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CSXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BAXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00186 0
BAXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00048 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00009 0.0001
LAXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00012 0
LAXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00065 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00002 0.0001
PTXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PTXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
AUXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AUXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PBXC 0 0 0.000039 0 0 0.000058 0.000257 0.000141 0 0.000109 0.018 0
PBXU 0 0 0.000009 0.00003 0.000084 0.00008 0.000241 0.000097 0 0.0000 74 0.006 0.0001
BIXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BIXU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PYREN 0 0 0 0.000241 0.000304 0 0 0.001046 0 0 0 0
PYRENU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000111 0.0001 0.0001 0.000337 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
RETEN 0 0 0.000272 0.00022 4.22E-06 0.000001 0.000042 0 0 0 0 0
RETENU 0 0 0.000039 0.0001 3.71E-06 0.000006 0.000132 1.05E-05 0 0 0.00 01 0.0001
BGHIF 0 0 0 8.22E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BGHIFU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BAANT 0 0 0 0 5.73E-05 0 0 0.000131 0 0 0 0
BAANTU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 4.50E-05 0.0001 0.0001 5.34E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CHRYS 0 0 0 0 4.89E-05 0 0 0.000137 0 0 0 0
CHRYSU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 1.20E-05 0.0001 0.0001 5.14E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BBJKF 0 0 0 0 4.02E-05 0 0 0.000167 0 0 0 0
BBJKFU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 8.57E-06 0.0001 0.0001 9.49E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BEPYR 0 0 0 4.53E-05 9.99E-06 0 0 0.000125 0 0 0 0
BEPYRU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 3.83E-06 0.0001 0.0001 8.41E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BAPYR 0 0 0 4.80E-05 1.67E-05 0 0 0.000178 0 0 0 0
BAPYRU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 8.84E-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.000109 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
INDPY 0 0 0.000028 0 9.93E-06 0 0.00034 0.000102 0 0 0 0
INDPYU 0 0 0.000004 0.0001 7.21E-06 0.000009 0.000278 5.92E-05 0 0 0.00 01 0.0001
DBANT 0 0 0 0 1.49E-06 0 0 9.43E-06 0 0 0 0
DBANTU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 1.04E-05 0.0001 0.0001 2.93E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PICU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BGHIP 0 0 0.000029 0 1.45E-05 0 0.000941 0.000115 0 0 0 0
BGHIPU 0 0 0.000008 0.0001 9.42E-06 0.000011 0.000827 0.000196 0 0 0.00 01 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 28 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
CORON 0 0 0.000011 0 8.57E-06 0 0.000836 0.000133 0 0 0 0
CORONU 0 0 0.000003 0.0001 1.87E-05 0.000003 0.00092 0.000121 0 0 0.000 1 0.0001
STR42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR42U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR43 0 0 0 0 2.75E-05 0 0 9.33E-05 0 0 0 0
STR43U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 2.75E-05 0.0001 0.0001 9.33E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR44 0 0 0 0 3.32E-05 0 0 2.93E-05 0 0 0 0
STR44U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 2.29E-05 0.0001 0.0001 9.92E-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
ST454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST454U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR46U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR47U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000031 0.000117 0 0 0 0
STR48U 0 0 0.000001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000006 0.000037 4.24E-05 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
STR49 0 0 0 0 0 0.000007 0.000431 0 0 0 0 0
STR49U 0 0 0.000001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000018 0.000978 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 .0001
STR50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR50U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR51U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR52 0 0 0 0 1.04E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR52U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 7.64E-06 0.0001 0.0001 7.53E-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOP13U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
STR53 0 0 0 0 0.000457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STR53U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000585 0.0001 0.0001 7.53E-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP15 0 0 0 0 2.09E-05 0 0 2.44E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP15U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 2.74E-05 0.0001 0.0001 1.78E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP17 0 0 0.000001 0 0 0.000079 0.000146 0.00014 0 0 0 0
HOP17U 0 0 0.000002 0.0001 0.0001 0.00005 0.000262 0.000107 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
HOP19 0 0 0.000006 0 1.34E-05 0.000042 0.000446 9.12E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP19U 0 0 0.000002 0.0001 1.18E-05 0.000031 0.000791 6.25E-05 0 0 0.00 01 0.0001
HOP20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.95E-06 0 0 0 0
HOP20U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 1.22E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.50E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP21U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 3.00E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP22U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 2.20E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 29 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
HOP23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP23U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 1.75E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP24 0 0 0.000005 0 0 0 0.000026 1.95E-05 0 0 0 0
HOP24U 0 0 0.000003 0.0001 0.002665 0.000006 0.000054 1.02E-05 0 0 0.00 01 0.0001
HOP25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOP25U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HOP26 0 0 0.000001 0 0 0 0.000025 0 0 0 0 0
HOP26U 0 0 0.000002 0.0001 0.0001 0.000006 0.000052 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 .0001
HOP27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOP27U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
GUAI 0 0 0.003721 2.92E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GUAIU 0 0 0.000309 0.0001 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
SUCAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUCACU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
SYRI 0 0 0 0.00039 0.000164 0 0 8.84E-06 0 0 0 0
SYRIU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000179 0.0001 0 .0001 1.53E-05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
GUAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GUACU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HEXDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HEXDAU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CPINA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CPINAU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
FGUA4 0 0 0 0 0.000221 0 0 5.66E-07 0 0 0 0
FGUA4U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 3.69E-05 0.0001 0.0001 7.53E-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PHTHA 0 0 0.000141 0 0 0.001251 0.001026 0 0 0 0 0
PHTHAU 0 0 0.00001 0.0001 0.0001 0.001168 0.002018 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
LEVG 0 0 0.022778 0.138431 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LEVGU 0 0 0.005924 0.0001 0.0001 0.000117 0.00012 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0. 0001
SYRAL 0 0 0.004631 0.004961 9.73E-05 0 0 7.16E-05 0 0 0 0
SYRALU 0 0 0.000307 0.0001 7.82E-05 0 0 0.000117 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
ISPHA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ISPHAU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
AZEAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AZEACU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PALOL 0 0 0.000069 0 0 0.000176 0.000082 0 0 0 0 0
PALOLU 0 0 0.000005 0.0001 0.0001 0.000146 0.000117 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 .0001
PALAC 0 0 0.000562 0.003314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PALACU 0 0 0.000041 0 0.0001 0.001011 0.000486 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
OLAC 0 0 0.000652 0.002294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OLACU 0 0 0.000051 0 0.0001 0.000283 0.000152 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 30 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
STEAC 0 0 0.000174 0.000543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STEACU 0 0 0.000013 0 0.0001 0.00024 0.000173 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
ISOPI 0 0 0 0.000696 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ISOPIU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
DHABA 0 0 0 0.000406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DHABAU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
ABAC 0 0 0 0.000235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ABACU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
OXDH7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OXDH7U 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CHOL 0 0 0 0 0.001331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CHOLU 0 0 0 0.0001 0.000576 0.000013 0.000011 7.53E -06 0 0 0.0001 0.0001
PHYTA 0 0 0.000015 0 0 0.000654 0.000139 0 0 0 0 0
PHYTAU 0 0 0.000005 0.0001 0.0001 0.00044 0.004463 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0. 0001
DOCOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOCOSU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
DC6YH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC6YHU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TRICO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TRICOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
DC7YH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC7YHU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
DC8YH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC8YHU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TETCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TETCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PENCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PENCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
DC9YH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC9YHU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HEXCO 0 0 0 6.47E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HEXCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CYHXE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CYHXEU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HEPCO 0 0 0 3.98E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HEPCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CYHHE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CYHHEU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
OCTCO 0 0 0 1.33E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OCTCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 31 

## Source Profiles Used for CMB Model

PNO S21 S19 S14 RESWDBUR DR1353 S08 S07 DR1387 S17 S01 S53 Portland
SID AMNIT AMSUL BURN SCHWDBUR CHCHICK DIES GAS GASO Mar-50 PVRD ResiOil3 CementKil n SIZE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE FINE F INE FINE FINE
REF
NONCO 0 0 0 4.53E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NONCOU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
HTRIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HTRICU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TTRIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TTRICU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0. 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001



## PNO: Profile name SID: Source.

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 32 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description ABAC abietic acid ABACU abietic acid uncertainty AGXC Silver concentration AGXU Silver concentration uncertainty ALXC Aluminum concentration ALXU Aluminum concentration uncertainty ASXC Arsenic concentration ASXU Arsenic concentration uncertainty AUXC Gold concentration AUXU Gold concentration uncertainty AZEAC azelaic acid (d-c9) AZEACU azelaic acid (d-c9) uncertainty BAANT Benz(a)anthracene BAANTU Benz(a)anthracene uncertainty BAPYR Benzo(a)Pyrene BAPYRU Benzo(a)Pyrene uncertainty BAXC Barium concentration BAXU Barium concentration uncertainty BBJKF Benzo(b+j+k)fluoranthene BBJKFU Benzo(b+j+k)fluoranthene uncertainty BEPYR Benzo(e)Pyrene BEPYRU Benzo(e)Pyrene uncertainty BGHIF Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene BGHIFU Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene concentration uncerta inty BGHIP Benzo(ghi)perylene BGHIPU Benzo(ghi)perylene uncertainty BIXC Bismuth BIXU Bismuth concentration uncertainty CAXC Calcium concentration CAXU Calcium concentration uncertainty CDXC Cadmium concentration CDXU Cadmium concentration uncertainty CHOL cholesterol CHOLU cholesterol uncertainty CHRYS Chrysene CHRYSU Chrysene uncertainty CLIC Chloride concentration CLIU Chloride concentration uncertainty CLXC Chlorine concentration CLXU Chlorine concentration uncertainty CORON Coronene CORONU Coronene uncertainty COXC Cobalt concentration COXU Cobalt concentration uncertainty CPINA cis-pinonic acid CPINAU cis-pinonic acid concentration uncertainty

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 33 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description CRXC Chromium concentration CRXU Chromium concentration uncertainty CSXC Cesium CUXC Copper concentration CUXU Copper concentration uncertainty CYHHE Heneicosylcyclohexane CYHHEU Heneicosylcyclohexane concentration uncertai nty CYHXE Eicosylcyclohexane CYHXEU Eicosylcyclohexane concentration uncertainty DBANT Dibenzo(ah+ac)anthracene DBANTU Dibenzo(ah+ac)anthracene uncertainty DC6YH Hexadecylcyclohexane DC6YHU Hexadecylcyclohexane uncertainty DC7YH Heptadecylcyclohexane DC7YHU Heptadecylcyclohexane uncertainty DC8YH Octadecylcyclohexane DC8YHU Octadecylcyclohexane uncertainty DC9YH Nonadecylcyclohexane DC9YHU Nonadecylcyclohexane uncertainty DHABA dehydroabietic acid DHABAU dehydroabietic acid uncertainty DOCOS Docosane DOCOSU Docosane uncertainty ECTC Elemental Carbon concentration ECTU Elemental Carbon concentration uncertainty FEXC Iron concentration FEXU Iron concentration uncertainty FGUA4 4-formyl-guaiacol (vanillin) FGUA4U 4-formyl-guaiacol (vanillin) concentration u ncertainty GAXC Gallium concentration GAXU Gallium concentration uncertainty GEXC Germanium GUAC glutaric acid (d-c5) GUACU glutaric acid (d-c5) concentration uncertaint y GUAI guaiacol GUAIU guaiacol uncertainty HEPCO Heptacosane HEPCOU Heptacosane concentration uncertainty HEXCO Hexacosane HEXCOU Hexacosane concentration uncertainty HEXDA hexanedioic (adipic) acid (d-c6) HEXDAU hexanedioic (adipic) acid (d-c6) uncertainty HOP13 18a(H),21ß(H)-22,29,30-Trisnorhopane HOP13U 18a(H),21ß(H)-22,29,30-Trisnorhopane uncerta inty HOP15 17a(H),21ß(H)-22,29,30-Trisnorhopane HOP15U 17a(H),21ß(H)-22,29,30-Trisnorhopane uncerta inty

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 34 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description HOP17 17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Norhopane HOP17U 17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Norhopane uncertainty HOP19 17a(H),21ß(H)-Hopane HOP19U 17a(H),21ß(H)-Hopane uncertainty HOP20 17ß(H),21a(H)-hopane HOP20U 17ß(H),21a(H)-hopane uncertainty HOP21 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Homohopane HOP21U 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Homohopane uncertainty HOP22 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Homohopane HOP22U 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30-Homohopane uncertainty HOP23 17ß(H),21ß(H)-Hopane HOP23U 17ß(H),21ß(H)-Hopane uncertainty HOP24 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31-Bishomohopane HOP24U 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31-Bishomohopane uncert ainty HOP25 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31-Bishomohopane HOP25U 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31-Bishomohopane uncert ainty HOP26 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31,32-Trisomohopane HOP26U 22S-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31,32-Trisomohopane unc ertainty HOP27 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31,32-Trishomohopane HOP27U 22R-17a(H),21ß(H)-30,31,32-Trishomohopane un certainty HTRIC Hentriacontane HTRICU Hentriacontane concentration uncertainty INDPY Indeno[123-cd]pyrene INDPYU Indeno[123-cd]pyrene uncertainty INXC Indium concentration INXU Indium concentration uncertainty ISOPI isopimaric acid ISOPIU isopimaric acid concentration uncertainty ISPHA isophthalic acid ISPHAU isophthalic acid concentration uncertainty KPXC Potassium concentration KPXU Potassium concentration uncertainty LAXC Lanthanum concentration LAXU Lanthanum concentration uncertainty LEVG levoglucosan LEVGU levoglucosan uncertainty MGXC Magnesium concentration (qualitative only) MGXU Magnesium concentration uncertainty MNXC Manganese concentration MNXU Manganese concentration uncertainty MOXC Molybdenum concentration MOXU Molybdenum concentration uncertainty MSGC Mass concentration MSGU Mass concentration uncertainty N3IC Nitrate concentration N3IU Nitrate concentration uncertainty

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 35 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description N4CC Ammonium concentration N4CU Ammonium concentration uncertainty NAXC Sodium concentration (qualitative only) NAXU Sodium concentration uncertainty NBXC Niobium NIXC Nickel concentration NIXU Nickel concentration uncertainty NONCO Nonacosane NONCOU Nonacosane concentration uncertainty OCTC Organic Carbon concentration OCTCO Octacosane OCTCOU Octacosane concentration uncertainty OCTU Organic Carbon concentration uncertainty OLAC oleic acid OLACU oleic acid uncertainty OXDH7 7-oxodehydroabietic acid OXDH7U 7-oxodehydroabietic acid concentration unce rtainty PALAC palmitic acid (c16) PALACU palmitic acid (c16) uncertainty PALOL palmitoleic acid PALOLU palmitoleic acid concentration uncertainty PBXC Lead concentration PBXU Lead concentration uncertainty PDXC Palladium concentration PDXU Palladium concentration uncertainty PENCO Pentacosane PENCOU Pentacosane concentration uncertainty PHTHA phthalic acid PHTHAU phthalic acid uncertainty PHXC Phosphorous concentration PHXU Phosphorous concentration uncertainty PHYTA Phytane PHYTAU Phytane uncertainty PIC picolinic acid PICU picolinic acid uncertainty PTXC Platinum PYREN Pyrene PYRENU Pyrene uncertainty RBXC Rubidium concentration RBXU Rubidium concentration uncertainty RETEN Retene RETENU Retene uncertainty S4IC Sulfate concentration S4IU Sulfate concentration uncertainty SBXC Antimony concentration SBXU Antimony concentration uncertainty

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 36 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description SCXC Scandium SEXC Selenium concentration SEXU Selenium concentration uncertainty SIXC Silicon concentration SIXU Silicon concentration uncertainty SNXC Tin concentration SNXU Tin concentration uncertainty SRXC Strontium concentration SRXU Strontium concentration uncertainty ST454 C27-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-cholestane&C29-20S 13ß(H),17a(H)-diasterane ST454U C27-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-cholestane&C29-20 S13ß(H),17a(H)-diasterane uncertainty STEAC stearic acid (c18) STEACU stearic acid (c18) uncertainty STR42 C27-20S5a(H),14a(H)-cholestane STR42U C27-20S5a(H),14a(H)-cholestane uncertainty STR43 C27-20R5a(H),14ß(H)-cholestane STR43U C27-20R5a(H),14ß(H)-cholestane uncertainty STR44 C27-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-cholestane STR44U C27-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-cholestane uncert ainty STR46 C28-20S5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-ergostane STR46U C28-20S5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-ergostane uncerta inty STR47 C28-20R5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-ergostane STR47U C28-20R5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-ergostane uncerta inty STR48 C28-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-ergostane STR48U C28-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-ergostane uncerta inty STR49 C28-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-ergostane STR49U C28-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-ergostane uncerta inty STR50 C29-20S5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-stigmastane STR50U C29-20S5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-stigmastane uncer tainty STR51 C29-20R5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-stigmastane STR51U C29-20R5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-stigmastane uncer tainty STR52 C29-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-stigmastane STR52U C29-20S5a(H),14ß(H),17ß(H)-stigmastane uncer tainty STR53 C29-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-stigmastane STR53U C29-20R5a(H),14a(H),17a(H)-stigmastane uncer tainty SUCAC succinic acid (d-c4) SUCACU succinic acid (d-c4) uncertainty SUXC Sulfur concentration SUXU Sulfur concentration uncertainty SYRAL syringaldehyde SYRALU syringaldehyde concentration uncertainty SYRI syringol SYRIU syringol uncertainty TETCO Tetracosane TETCOU Tetracosane concentration uncertainty TIXC Titanium concentration

## MATES III Final Report

Appendix VII- 37 

## Source Profile Species Codes Code Description TIXU Titanium concentration uncertainty TRICO Tricosane TRICOU Tricosane uncertainty TTRIC Tritriacontane TTRICU Tritriacontane concentration uncertainty VAXC Vanadium concentration VAXU Vanadium concentration uncertainty YTXC Yttrium concentration YTXU Yttrium concentration uncertainty ZNXC Zinc concentration ZNXU Zinc concentration uncertainty