# Pinal County Air Quality Control District

Source Apportionment Study

Prepared by Pinal County Air Quality Staff

Sampling conducted in October and November of 2003

July 29, 2005

# Acknowledgements

Pinal County Air Quality Control District would like to acknowledge and thank the United States Environmental Protection Ag ency - Region 9 for supplying the grant funding for the project, the Arizona Departme nt of Environmental Quality for loaning equipment utilized in the study and the Ma ricopa County Air Quality Department for loaning equipment util ized in the study.

# Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 2

Table of Contents 3

Abstract 9

Monitoring Sites Map 10

1.0 Project Description 11

1.1 Study Objective 12

1.2 Study Duration 12

1.3 Study Area 12

1.4 Site Descriptions 12

1.4.1 Casa Grande 13

1.4.2 Coolidge 13

1.4.3 Cowtown 13

1.4.4 Pinal County Housing 14

1.4.5 Stanfield 14

1.5 Monitors Installed and Utilized 15

1.5.1 Casa Grande 15

1.5.2 Coolidge 15

1.5.3 Cowtown 15

1.5.4 Pinal County Housing 16

1.5.5 Stanfield 16

1.6 Soil Sampling 16

1.7 Road Counts 17

3

# 1.8 Note Taking 18

1.9 Filter Analyses 18

2.0 Results and Analysis 19

2.1 Method Comparison 20

2.2 Source Apportionment Results 24

2.2.1 Casa Grande 27

2.2.2 Coolidge 30

2.2.3 Cowtown 33

2.2.4 Pinal County Housing 35

2.2.5 Stanfield 39

2.3 Road Counts 41

3.0 Conclusions 42

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Hi-Vol vs Mini-Vol: PM 10 

# 20

Figure 2: Hi-Vol vs Mini-Vol: PM 10 

# 21

Figure 3: TEOM vs Mini-Vol: PM 10 

# 21

Figure 4: TEOM vs Mini-Vol: PM 10 

# 22

Table 1: FRM PM 2.5 

# vs Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# 22

Table 2: Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# / PM 10 

# Ratios 23

Table 3: Casa Grande FRM PM 2.5 

# / PM 10 

# Ratios 23

Figure 5: PM 10 

# Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 26

Figure 6: PM 2.5 

# Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 27

Figure 7: Casa Grande Avg. PM 10 

# Source Attributions 29

4

# Figure 8: Casa Grande Avg. PM 2.5 

# Source Attributions 30

Figure 9: Coolidge Avg. PM 10 

# Source Attributions 31

Figure 10: Coolidge Avg. PM 2.5 

# Source Attributions 33

Figure 11: Cowtown Avg. PM 10 

# Source Attributions 34

Figure 12: Cowtwon Avg. PM 2.5 

# Source Attributions 35

Figure 13: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM 10 

# Source Attributions 37

Figure 14: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM 2.5 

# Source Attributions 38

Figure 15: Stanfield Avg. PM 10 

# Source Attributions 40

Figure 16: Stanfield Avg. PM 2.5 

# Source Attributions 41

Appendix A: Site Descriptions 44

Table A-1: Casa Grande 45

Table A-2: Coolidge 46

Table A-3: Cowtown 47

Table A-4: Pinal County Housing 48

Table A-5: Stanfield 49

Appendix B: Ambient Monitoring Data 50

Table B-1: Casa Grande Concentration Data 51

Table B-2: Coolidge Concentration Data 51

Table B-3: Cowtown Con centration Data 52

Table B-4: Pinal County Hous ing Concentration Data 52

Table B-5: Stanfield Concentration Data 53

Appendix C: Modeling Data 54

5

# Table 1: Average measured PM 2.5 

# to PM 10 

# mass ratios 56

Figure 1: Measured mass for PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# 57

Table 2: Legend: CMB source attributions 58

Table 3: Measured source profiles in the applied CMB Modeling 58

Table 4: CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attribution

for Casa Grande 59

Figure 2: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 10 

# data subsets

from Casa Grande 59

Table 5: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attribution

for Casa Grande 60

Figure 3: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 2.5 

# data subsets

from Casa Grande 60

Table 6: CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attribution for Coolidge 61

Figure 4: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 10 

# data subsets from Coolidge 61

Table 7: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attribution for Coolidge 62

Figure 5: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 2.5 

# data subsets from Coolidge 62

Table 8: CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attribution

for Cowtown 63

Figure 6: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 10 

# data subsets

from Cowtown 63

Table 9: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attribution

for Cowtown 64

Figure 7: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 2.5 

# data subsets

from Cowtown 64

6

# Table 10: CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attribution for Pinal County Housing 65

Figure 8: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 10 

# data subsets from Pinal County Housing 65

Table 11: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attribution for Pinal County Housing 66

Figure 9: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 2.5 

# data subsets from Pinal County Housing 66

Table 12: CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attribution

for Stanfield 67

Figure 10: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 10 

# data subsets

from Stanfield 67

Table 13: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attribution

for Stanfield 68

Figure 11: CMB modeled s ource attributions for PM 2.5 

# data subsets

from Stanfield 68

Table 14: CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# species for re-suspended soil and feedlot samples 69

Table 15: CMB modeled PM 10 

# species for re-suspended soil and feedlot samples 69

Addendum – Chemical Finge rprint Analysis 71

Figure 1: PM 10 

# Chemical Fingerprint 74

Figure 2: PM 2.5 

# Chemical Fingerprint 75

Figure 3: Ambient Sample PM 10 

# 76

Figure 4: Ambient Sample PM 2.5 

# 77

Table 1: Measured Particulate Masses 78

Appendix D: Meteorological Data 79

D-1 Wind Roses 80

7

# Casa Grande 81

Coolidge 92

Cowtown 103

Pinal County Housing 114

D-2 HYSPLIT Analysis 125

Appendix E: Road Counts 136

Appendix F: Acronyms 138

8

# Abstract

Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) began a source apportionment study in 2003 to identify emission sources that contributed to elevated particulate matter concentrations in the local agricultural basin.

Pinal County lies in central Arizona, in the heart of the Sonoran Desert. Historical monitoring indicated elevated levels of pa rticulate matter at sites located in the agricultural basin, which occ upies roughly the western thir d of the county. With grant support from the United States Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the county retained Desert Research Institute to perform the analysis and modeling aspects of the study.

To collect data for the study, PCAQCD co-l ocated filter based Mini-Vol monitors capable of measuring particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 

# ) and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM 10 

# ) at five existing monitoring sites. All the existing

sites had at least one Federal Reference Me thod (FRM) monitor configured to measure

ambient PM 10 

# concentrations and one site had an existing FRM monitor configured to

measure ambient PM 2.5 

# concentrations. The Mini-Vol m onitors operated in parallel with existing FRM monitors.

Data collection occurred in October and N ovember of 2003. In addition to servicing the Mini-Vol monitors, the fieldwork included coll ection of soil and feedlot surface material samples. During the data collection process the FRM monitors indicated 24-hour average

PM 10 

# concentrations ranging from 25.3 to 577.0 μg/m 3 

# . PCAQCD transmitted the

collected Mini-Vol filters and surf ace material samples to DRI.

DRI analyzed the material on the filters us ing chemical mass balance (CMB) techniques.

That effort included refinement of a CMB “fingerprint” for Pi nal soils and a definition of a “fingerprint” for feedlot emissions. The CM B analysis indicated that under conditions of low concentrations of particulate matte r, a relatively diverse category of sources contributed to observed ambient impacts.

DRI’s analysis also indicated that when ambien t concentrations rose to elevated levels, at

four of the sites soil emissi ons, followed by feedlot emissions, produced the greatest impacts. At a fifth site, identified as the “Cowtown” site, feedlot emissions produced the dominant impact. When particulate concen trations reached elevated levels, those conclusions regarding source-at tribution applied to both PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# emission impacts.

PCAQCD prepared this final re port. This report draws conclu sions from the DRI analysis and provides additional background info rmation, including corresponding FRM monitoring data and meteorological data.

910

# Section 1

Project Description

11

# 1.1 Study Objective

This project was designed to identify the dominant sources of particulate matter in the Pinal County agricultural basin, which covers roughly th e western third of the County. Dual samplers capable of measuring part iculate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 

# ) and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM 10 

# ) were utilized to collect ambient air samples from five existing monitoring sites. Sa mples collected at each site were analyzed by Desert Research Institute (DRI) to determ ine the chemical aspects of the particulate matter on the filters. This data was then used to perform a source apportionment modeling analysis that resulted in a list of source categories th at contribute to particulate

matter concentrations in the Pi nal County agricultural basin.

1.2 Study Duration

The sampling portion of this study occurred between October 1, 2003 and November 8, 2003. Originally, the study was to involve coll ecting ten filter sets on a one in three day cycle between October 1, 2003 and Octobe r 31, 2003. The study duration was extended to November 8, 2003 so that three additional filt er sets could be collected. The ten filter sets with the highest data recovery were then chosen for analysis.

This time frame was chosen since elevated particulate matter concentrations have historically been record ed during the months of October and November. 1 

# Several local

conditions contribute to this every year, with the most notab le one being cotton harvest. Local cotton fields are being harvested, fall t illage is taking place, and nine cotton gins spread throughout the agricultura l basin are in full operation at this time. The equipment utilized in all of these oper ations tends to create partic ulate matter. The cotton harvest

also adds a substantial amount of traffic to field apron road s and to the county dirt road system, thus creating additional particulate matter. The amount of construction activity in the area does not seem to vary seasonally, although it is steadily growing, providing another source of particulate matter. Finally, the cooler ambient temperatures during this time period often create inve rsion conditions trap ping emissions close to the earth’s

surface.

1.3 Study Area

Based on historically elevated PM 10 

# levels, the western portio n of Pinal County was the area of focus for this study. Open field agri culture dominates this portion of the County, although the area is rapidly developing.

1.4 Site Descriptions

The following five sites were chosen for this study due to their proximity to possible sources of particulate matter. A picture of each site and a tabular summary of the parameters monitored at each site are included in Appendix A.

1 

# Pinal County Air Quality PM 10 

# monitoring records



# 12

# 1.4.1 Casa Grande – 401 Marshall St. (Lat. N 32 o 

# 52’ Long. W 111 o 

# 45’)

This site is located on the roof of an Ariz ona Department of Economic Security building

in the downtown area of Casa Grande. A core business district surrounds the site followed by residential areas in all directi ons. It was expected that the many minor industrial sites, Southern P acific mainline railroad traffi c, and paved roadway traffic surrounding the area would impact this site. This site may have been impacted slightly by an agricultural area to the south. The area surrou nding this site consists almost entirely of buildings, paved streets, and paved parking lo ts. Since the area surr ounding this site was generally stabilized and the site was centrally located within the study area, this site was used as the control site during data comparis on. As the control site it was expected that this site would be the least impacted by the local sources of particulate matter.

Historical FRM data indicates that, apart from unusual wind events, typical maximum 24-

hour PM 10 

# concentrations at this site onl y reach about 67% of the 24-hour PM 10 

# standard, and annual average concentrations only reach about 60% of the annual PM 10 

# standard. Typical maximum 24-hour PM 2.5 

# concentrations at this site only reach about 50% of the

24-hour PM 2.5 

# standard, and maximum individual a nnual average concentrations only

reach about 60% of the annual PM 2.5 

# standard.

1.4.2 Coolidge – 212 E. Broadway (Lat. N 32 o 

# 58’ Long. W 111 o 

# 30’)

This site is located within the Pinal Count y Public Works Yard on the east side of Coolidge. Coolidge lies about thirty miles sout heast of the Phoenix ur ban area, in a desert basin largely dominated by open field agricultu re. Residential homes surround the site to the north, south, and east. West of the site is a railroad track with a business district on the other side. It was expected that the ag ricultural sources along the eastern edge of Coolidge, Phoenix spur railroad traffic, vehicle traffic, a nd the minor industrial sources located near the area would impact this site.

Historical FRM data indicates that, apart from unusual wind events, typical maximum 24-

hour PM 10 

# concentrations at this site approach 100% of the 24-hour PM 10 

# standard, and maximum individual annual average concentr ations only reach about 67% of the annual

PM 10 

# standard.

1.4.3 Cowtown – 37580 W. Maricopa/C asa Grande Hwy. (Lat. N 33 o 

# 63’ Long. W

111 o 

# 58’)

This site is located approximately four m iles southeast of the City of Maricopa and

fiftteen miles south of the Phoenix urban area. The site lies within the irrigated desert plain, with active and retired agricultural operations to th e north, northwest and east. Three cattle feedlot companies and a grain- processing complex operate to the south,

southwest and southeast. It was expected that the vast agricultural area that surrounds the

13

# site, the nearby feedlots, dirt roads, Southern Pacific mainline railroad traffic, and paved roadway traffic would potentially impact this site.

Historical FRM data indicates 24-hour PM 10 

# concentrations at this site often reach 200%

or more of the 24-hour PM 10 

# standard, and maximum individual annual average

concentrations exceed 200% of the annual PM 10 

# standard. Observed concentrations recorded by the Tapered Element Os cillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM 10 

# monitor over a 3-year period extending through 2004 actually reached twice those values or more. However, installation of a second, parallel TEO M in April of 2005 indicated that, at least

under elevated PM 10 

# conditions, ambient concentrati ons reached only roughly 60% of those indicated by the original TEOM. A ccordingly, for purposes of this discussion,

PM 10 

# concentrations are characterized as only 200%, rather than 400%, of the prevailing

standards.

1.4.4 Pinal County Housing – 970 E. Eleven Mile Corner Rd. (Lat. N 32 o 

# 53’ Long.

W 111 o 

# 30’)

This site is located within the Pinal C ounty Housing Complex and is approximately eleven miles east of Casa Grande in the heart of the agricultural ba sin of Pinal County.

The site is located within a fenced area that houses the sewer lift station for the subdivision. The enclosure is immediately surro unded by native desert growth with active and retired agricultural areas in all directions. The County Housing subdivision lies just

to the southeast of the enclosure. A da iry, two cotton gins, and the Pinal County Fairgrounds are approximately one mile south of the site. It was expected that the nearby dairy, nearby cotton gins, surrounding agri cultural sources and surrounding County dirt roads would potentially impact this site.

Historical FRM data at this and a predecessor site indicates that, ev en apart from unusual wind events, maximum 24-hour PM 10 

# concentrations at this si te exceed 200% of the 24-

hour PM 10 

# standard, and maximum individual annual average concentrations reach about

125% of the annual PM 10 

# standard.

1.4.5 Stanfield – 36697 W. Papago Dr. (Lat. N 32 o 

# 53’ Long. W 110 o 

# 57’)

This site is located behind the Stanfield County Complex. Stanfield lies about fifteen miles west of Casa Grande, and about thir ty miles south of the Phoenix urban area.

Residential homes surround th e site on all sides, but the surrounding landscape is dominated by open-field agriculture. Sizeable feedlot and dairy operations lie about three miles to the north, east and west. It was exp ected that the vast agricultural area that surrounds the site, several nearby feedlots, Coun ty dirt roads, and paved roadway traffic would potentially impact this site.

Historical FRM data indicates that, even apart from unusual wind events, maximum 24-

hour PM 10 

# concentrations at this si te exceed 200% of the 24-hour PM 10 

# standard, and maximum individual annual average concen trations reach about 120% of the annual

PM 10 

# standard.

14

# 1.5 Monitors Installed or Utilized

Pinal County Air Quality Control District (P CAQCD) installed and operated twenty (20) Airmetrics low volume particulate matter (Min i-Vol) samplers for this study. Four (4) Mini-Vol samplers were insta lled at each site listed below. Two (2) Mini-Vol samplers were equipped with PM 10 

# heads and two (2) Mini-Vol samplers equipped with PM 2.5 

# heads. Teflon filters were utilized in two of the Mini-Vols, one having a PM 10 

# head and one having a PM 2.5 

# head. Pallflex quartz filters were utilized in the re maining two MiniVols, one having a PM 10 

# head and one having a PM 2.5 

# head. The Mini-Vols operated on a one in three day schedule. Add itionally, each site had existing monitors that were utilized as part of the study. These monitors are list ed in following subsections. The concentration data collected during the study for Mini-Vols and the monitors listed below is included in Appendix B for reference.

1.5.1 Casa Grande

In addition to the Min-Vol samplers , an existing high volume (Hi-Vol) PM 10 

# sampler utilized quartz filters and operated on a one in six day schedule. An existing Andersen

PM 2.5 

# sampler utilized Teflon filters and operated on a one in six day schedule.

Meteorological conditions were recorded for the Casa Grande area during the study using an existing ten-meter system located at the Casa Grande airport site. This site is located approximate five miles north of the Casa Grande Downtown site where the ambient particulate matter samples were collected.

1.5.2 Coolidge

In addition to the Min-Vol sa mplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM 10 

# sampler utilized quartz filters and operated on a one in six day schedule.

A three-meter meteorological system operated by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) program was used to gather meteorological data for this site. This meteorological system is located 0.5 miles southwest of the intersection of Curry Road and Bechtel Road and is approximately five miles west of the Coolidge site. Wind speed a nd wind direction data co llected at this site

were utilized.

1.5.3 Cowtown

In addition to the Min-Vol samplers, an existing TEOM PM 10 

# sampler operated continuously during the study.

An existing three-meter meteorological system operated during this study. The system recorded temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and wind direction

15

# standard deviation. The mete orological system at the Cowtwown site experienced

hardware and software failures during the study.

A three-meter meteorological system operated by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension AZMET program was used to supplem ent the meteorological data for this site. This meteorological system is located at University of Arizona Agricultural Research Station near the City of Maricopa and is a pproximately five miles north of the Cowtown site. The topography between the two sites cons ists of flat irrigated farmland. Since the AZMET site had a more complete data set av ailable and the data wa s representative of the area, the wind speed and wind direction data collected at the University of Arizona Agricultural Research Station site was util ized in place of the Cowtown meteorological

data set.

1.5.4 Pinal County Housing

In addition to the Min-Vol sa mplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM 10 

# sampler utilized quartz filters and was operated on a one in six day schedule. An existing TEOM PM 10 

# sampler was operated continuously during the study.

An existing three-meter meteorological syst em operated continuously during the study. The system recorded temperature, relati ve humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and

wind direction standard deviation.

1.5.5 Stanfield

In addition to the Min-Vol sa mplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM 10 

# sampler utilized quartz filters and operated on a one in six day schedule.

Neither PCAQCD nor the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension AZMET program has a meteorological system located in the vicinity of the Stanfield site. The closest meteorological stations are located at the Cowtown site, the Casa Grande airport site, and the University of Arizona Mari copa Agricultural Research Station. The Cowtown system is approximately nine miles nor th of the Stanfield site, the Casa Grande airport system is approximately thirteen m iles northeast of the Stanfield site, and the University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Research Station AZMET system is approximately fourteen miles north of the St anfield site. None of these meteorological stations can be considered representative of th e Stanfield area. Thus, this site did not have site-specific meteorological data available.

1.6 Soil Sampling

Soil sampling was conducted at one of the m onitoring sites in orde r to create a more accurate source profile for the source apporti onment. The Cowtown site was chosen for soil sampling due to its historically elevated PM 10 

# concentrations and its proximity to three major sources of particul ate matter, feedlots, open field agriculture, and dirt roads.

16

# PCAQCD collected a grab sample from each of these sources of particulate matter. The feedlot soil samples involved collecting one pound of fine material from the surface of five randomly selected feed pens. These samp les were then combined into one composite sample. The agricultural field soil samples involved collecti ng one pound of fine material from the surface of five randomly selected locations within the agricultural field immediately surrounding the Cowtown monito ring site. These samples were then combined into one composite sample. The dirt road soil samples involved collecting one pound of fine material from the road surface of five randomly selected locations along

Hartman Road between Farrell Road and Casa Grande Maricopa Highway. These samples were then combined into one composite sample.

DRI resuspended each composite soil sample individually and took two sets of air samples from each resuspension. These filter s were then analyzed using the same

methods as the ambient filters obtained from the Pinal County monitori ng sites. Using the

results from these filters DRI constructe d a chemical fingerprint for feedlot soil emissions, agricultural soil emissions and dirt road soil emissions. The feedlot soil emission chemical analysis was significantly di fferent than the other two analyses in that

it contained a substantial amount of total carbon. Thus, a feedlot soil category was formed in the source apportionment analysis . DRI could not signifi cantly differentiate between the agricultural field and the dirt ro ad analyses. Thus, a separate category was not formed in the source apportionment for these two samples. A more detailed discussion of the feedlot chemical fingerpri nt analysis can be found in Section 2.2 and Appendix C Addendum.

1.7 Road Counts

PCAQCD installed a road counter on five different roads duri ng the course of this study. The counter was placed on each road for se ven days and a total traffic volume was

recorded.

The five roads counted were all near the Cowtown site and are as follows:

• Hartman Road – the dirt section between Farrell Road and Casa Grande Maricopa Highway. This count took place between September 26 th 

# and October 3 rd



# .

• Farrell Road – the dirt section betwee n Hartman Road and White and Parker Road. This count took place between October 3 rd 

# and October 10 th



# .

• Casa Grande Maricopa Highway – the pa ved section between Hartman Road and White and Parker Road. This count took place between October 28 th 

# and

November 4 th



# .

• White and Parker Road – the dirt secti on between Farrell Road and Casa Grande Maricopa Highway. The count took place between October 14 th 

# and October 21 st



# .

• Cowtown Road – the dirt road sectio n between Hartman Road and White and Parker Road. This count took place between November 7 th 

# and November 14 th



# .

The road count information is incl uded in Appendix E for reference.

17

# 1.8 Note Taking

The technicians in charge of maintaini ng the monitors were supplied with aerial photographs of each site. Dust producing activit ies or events observed during site visits were noted by placing a numb er on the aerial photograph. The number corresponded to a written description of the dust producing activity or event.

1.9 Filter Analyses

DRI analyzed the Teflon filters by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) for 40 elemental species and weighed the filters for mass calculations. The number of Teflon filters analyzed were as follows; ambient PM 10 

# = 50, ambient PM 2.5 

# = 50, source PM 10 

# = 3, source PM 2.5 

# = 3, blanks = 10.

DRI analyzed the pallflex quartz fiber filters for the cations Na + 

# and K + 

# by Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectroscopy, ammonium (NH 4 + 

# ) by Automated Colorimetry (AC), the

anions SO 4 2- 

# , NO 3 - 

# , Cl - 

# by Ion Chromatography (IC), and the eight carbon species as well as carbonate (CO 3 = 

# ) by Thermal/Optical Reflectance (T OR) carbon analysis. The number of pallflex quartz filters analyzed were as follows; ambient PM 10 

# = 50, ambient PM 2.5 

# = 50, source PM 10 

# = 3, source PM 2.5 

# = 3, blanks = 10.

DRI also performed a source apportionment an alysis on the filters that were speciated using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Vers ion 8 model. This analysis involved using source profiles previously developed by DRI and source profiles developed by DRI using the Cowtown soil samples to produce a list of likely sources at each site. The source profiles utilized in this CMB modeling ar e described in Appendix C - Table 3 and Appendix C Addendum - Chemical Fingerprint Analysis.

PCAQCD performed mass calculations on the Hi-Vol quartz filters. PCAQCD performed the data management necessary on th e continuous TEOM readings and the meteorological measurements. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) performed mass calcu lations on the Andersen PM 2.5 

# filters.

18

# Section 2

Results and Analysis

19

# 2.1 Method Comparison

The Mini-Vol samplers utilized for this proj ect are not designated as Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists precise methodology for quantifying ambient concentrations of pollutants in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50. These precise methodologies are then referred to as FRMs. The monitoring sites chosen for this project all had an existing FRM PM 10 

# sampler and one site, Casa Grande, also had an existing FRM PM 2.5 

# sampler.

Figure 1 illustrates how the PM 10 

# Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with the PM 10 

# FRM Hi-Vol filter concentrati ons. Throughout all five sites th ere were fifteen samples in

which Hi-Vol data and Mini-V ol data were collected at the same location and time. Figure 1 shows the two samplers generally ha d reasonable agreement, except the samples

shown as run #10 and run #14.

Figure 1: Hi-Vol vs Mini-Vol

(24-hour average values)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Run #Conc. (ug/m3)



# HiVol

MiniVol



# Run #10 was collected at the Pinal County Housing site on October 30, 2003 and run #14

was collected at the Stanfield site on October 30, 2003. In both cases the Mini-Vol samplers recorded a concentration signifi cantly below the Hi-Vol concentration. This could point to an ambient condition affecti ng both sites that prevented the Mini-Vols from operating properly or these two Mini-Vol s did not mechanically operate correctly on October 30, 2003. Overall the Mi ni-Vol concentrations toggl ed back and forth as to whether they were higher or lowe r than the Hi-Vol concentrations.

Figure 2 also illustrates how the PM 10 

# Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with the

PM 10 

# Hi-Vol filter concentrations. Here th e slope of the line equals 0.613 and the correlation coefficient (R 2 

# ) equals 0.747. (A slope of 1.0 and a R 2 

# of 1.0 would represent

the ideal situation where th e two methods have the exact same concentration.) The scatterplot again shows that the two samplers generally have reasonable agreement with the exception of October 30, 2003. The Pinal County Housing October 30, 2003 run is depicted as the outlier point on th e right-hand side of the graph.

20

# Figure 2: Hi-Vol vs Mini-Vol (24-hour average values)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

FRM Hi-Vol Conc. (ug/m3)Min-Vol Conc.(ug/m3) 

# FRM HiVol to MiniVol
PM10
Linear (FRM HiVol to MiniVol PM10)



# Slope: 0.613

R 2 

# : 0.747

Figure 3 depicts how PM 10 

# Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with FRM PM 10 

# TEOM filter concentrations. Two of the sites involved in this project, Pinal County Housing and Cowtown, were equipped with a FRM PM 10 

# TEOM. At both sites there were a combined nineteen samples in wh ich TEOM data and Mini-Vol data were collected at the same location and time. Figur e 3 shows the Mini-Vol concentrations were always below the TEOM concentrations. A ll the data points, except run #17, show reasonable agreement between these two me thods. Run #17 is again October 30, 2003 at the Pinal County Housing site.

Figure 3: TEOM vs Mini-Vol

(24-hour average values)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Run #Conc. (ug/m3)



# TEOM

MiniVol



# 21

# Figure 4 shows that the Mini -Vol concentrations have a very good linear relationship with the TEOM concentrations. Here the slope equals 0.892 and R 2 

# equals 0.954.

Figure 4: TEOM vs Mini-Vol: PM10 (24 Hour Average Values)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

TEOM Conc. (ug/m3)Mini-Vol Conc.(ug/m3) 

# TEOM vs MiniVol PM10

Linear (TEOM vs MiniVol PM10)



# Slope: 0.892

R 2 

# : 0.954

The Casa Grande site was the only location at which a FRM PM 2.5 

# sampler, the Andersen

PM 2.5 

# sampler described in secti on 1.5.1, was located with a PM 2.5 

# Mini-Vol sampler. As shown in Table 1, this produced only three samples in which FRM PM 2.5 

# data and PM 2.5 

# Mini-Vol data were collected at the sa me location and time. The methods do differ significantly in two of th e three data points. Still, due to th e small data set, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the agreem ent between the two methods.

Table 1: FRM PM 2.5 

# vs Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# Date FRM PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# )

10/18/2003 10.1 14.1

10/30/2003 26.7 49.5

11/5/2003 10.7 20.2

PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# samples were collected at all five sites using the Mini-Vol samplers. Table 2 shows the average PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# concentrations as r ecorded by the Mini-Vol samplers for the duration of this study. The average Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio, shown in Table 2, ranges from 0.32 at the Stanfield site to 0.53 at the Coolidge and Cowtown sites. When compared to the historical average FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratios shown in Table 3 the

22

# Mini-Vol ratio appears too high. Since Casa Grande is the only site included in the study

at which a PM 2.5 

# FRM sampler is located, there is limited historical data. Still, for the last three years the Casa Grande annual average FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio has consistently averaged 0.27 (+/-0.01). Since there were only three FRM PM 2.5 

# samples taken during this project, the Study Du ration Casa Grande FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio listed in Table 3 is only based on three runs. Still this ratio of 0.30 is very close to the three-year average

ratio of 0.27. The PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio analysis and difference in the FRM to Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# concentrations suggest that the Mini-Vol samplers likely over estimated the ambient

PM 2.5 

# concentrations.

Table 

# 2: Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratios

Site Avg. MiniVol PM 10 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Avg. MiniVol PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Avg. Mini-Vol

PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# Ratio

Casa Grande 44 18 0.41 Coolidge 47 25 0.53

Cowtown 127 67 0.53 Pinal County Housing 60 25 0.42

Stanfield 55 18 0.32

Table 

# 3: Casa Grande FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratios

Annual Casa Grande FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratios

Year Annual Avg.

PM 10 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Annual Avg.

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Avg. FRM

PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# Ratio

2001 29.2 7.7 0.26

2002 30.4 8.5 0.28

2003 31.5 8.4 0.27 Study Duration Casa Grande FRM PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio (Based on 10/18/03, 10/30/03, 11/5/03 data)

Site Avg. Hi-Vol

PM 10 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Avg. FRM

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Avg. FRM

PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# Ratio

Casa Grande 52.9 15.8 0.30

23

# 2.2 Source Apportionment Results

DRI performed a source apportionment modeling exercise (CMB version 8) on ten of the thirteen run dates encompasse d by this project. The ten runs with the highest data recovery were the runs chosen for the speciation analysis. Th e remaining three runs were not analyzed due to budgetary constraints and thus are not included in this report. The runs included in this report occurred on October 3, 2003, October 9, 2003, October 12, 2003, October 15, 2003, October 18, 2003, Oct ober 21, 2003, October 27, 2003, October 30, 2003, November 5, 2003 and November 8, 2003. Th e data recovery for these ten runs

was excellent at 95.5%. Out of two hundred filters, eight filters ran less than the scheduled twenty-four hours and th e laboratory voided one filter.

PCAQCD utilized meteorological data coll ected at the Pinal County Housing, Casa Grande Airport, Cowtown, Coolidge AZM ET and Maricopa Agricultural Research

Station AZMET sites to construct wind roses for each of the dates listed above. The wind roses are included in Appendix D-1. PCAQCD also utilized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model to construct a backward trajectory for air masses starting 0700 the day of the run date until 0700 the day af ter the run date (the ambient filters were collected midnight to midnight). The Casa Gr ande area was chosen for the termination point of the model due to its central locat ion. The 0700 to 0700 time frame was chosen to account for the fact that monitoring sites were located both east and we st of Casa Grande. Given the resolution of the HYSPLIT analysis this was not a nece ssary consideration. The graphical product produced by the NOAA HY SPLIT model is included in Appendix

D-2. Information on the model and the data i nputs used in the model can be found at http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysp_info.html

Appendix C contains the source apporti onment results as compiled by DRI. The information listed in this appendix is base d on the filters collected by the Mini-Vol samplers. No FRM filters were speciated as part of this project. Appendix C - Table 1 lists the average measured PM 2.5 

# and PM 10 

# concentrations as measured by the Mini-Vol samplers at each site. Appendix C - Figure 1 shows the c oncentrations of each run in a graphical format.

Appendix C - Table 2 explains the color-coding scheme used in the pie charts that represent the modeled source attribution for each run date. Appendix C - Table 3 further explains the source profiles used in this CM B modeling. Each site ha s a table listing the

modeled chemical mass balance for each PM 10 

# run along with the modeled and measured

concentrations for each run. This same informat ion is also represented in pie chart figures directly below each table. Additionally, each si te has a table and pie chart figure detailing

the modeled chemical mass balance for each PM 2.5 

# run along with the modeled and measured concentrations for each run. This information is detailed in Appendix C - Table 4 through Table 13 and Appendix C - Figure 2 through Figure 11. Appendix C - Table 14

lists the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# species for the resuspended ag ricultural field, dirt road and feedlot samples. Appendix C - Table 15 lists the CMB modeled PM 10 

# species for the resuspended agricultural field, di rt road and feedlot samples.

24

# The pie charts depicted in Appendix C - Fi gure 2 through Figure 11 are all based on the corresponding information listed in Appendix C - Table 4 through Table 13. Generally, dividing the individual mode led source component (soil, feedlot, motor vehicle, vegetative burning, coal power plants, ammoni um sulfate, or amm onium nitrate) by the modeled mass produces the pie charts per centages. Whenever the CMB model was unable to attribute a portion of the analysis to a known source an “other” category was created. For samples with an “other” categ ory dividing the indivi dual modeled source component by the measured mass produces the pie chart percentages. This was done to

account for the fact the modeled mass number does not include the concentration listed in the other category. The follo wing sections include PM 10 

# pie charts and PM 2.5 

# pie charts that illustrate the averaged results for each site . These pie charts also take into account the two mechanisms for creating percentages.

Appendix C – Addendum contains an explan ation of how DRI de rived the feedlot chemical fingerprint. Each composite so il sample from the Cowtown site was individually resuspended and two sets of ai r samples were taken from each resuspension. These filters were then analyzed using the same methods as the ambient filters obtained from the Pinal County monitoring sites.

Using the results from the resuspension filters DRI constructed a chemical fingerprint for feedlot soil emissions, agricultural soil emi ssions and dirt road soil emissions. Figure 5 illustrates these three chemical fingerprints for PM 10 

# and Figure 6 illustrates these three chemical fingerprints for PM 2.5 

# . Shown in both figures are concentrations of 17 chemical species and their analytical uncertainties ( ⊥ ), including water solubl e nitrate, sulfate and ammonium, the eight ca rbon species (Organic Carbon (OC) 1 thru 4, Optical Pyrolyis by Thermal/Optical Reflectance (OPT) and Elementa l Carbon (EC) 1 thru 3), as well as total carbon (TC), and five metals typical of most soils aluminum, silicon, potassium, calcium

and iron. The PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# Feedlot Dust samples differ from the PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# Agricultural and Road Dust samples in that they contain a substa ntial amount of total carbon (TC), which is the total of the concentr ations of the carbon species, particularly OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1.

25

# Figure 5: PM 10 

# Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints

Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM 10



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM 10



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM 10

0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# 26

# Figure 6: PM 2.5 

# Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints

Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM 2.5



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM 2.5



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM 2.5

0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A

l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# 2.2.1 Casa Grande Source Apportionment Results

The Casa Grande site was the control site fo r the project due to its central location and the area surrounding the site being well stabi lized. Since the site is located in the

downtown area of Casa Grande there are no agricultural fields , dirt roads, feedlots or large construction projects in the area im mediately surrounding the monitoring site. The average 24-hour PM 10 

# concentration for the site as r ecorded by the Mini-Vol sampler was 44 μg/m 3 

# during this project. This is the lowe st of the sites in cluded in the study.

Appendix C – Table 4 and Figure 2 show the CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attributions for Casa Grande. The highest source contributi on in all ten runs was the geological soil

27

# category with an average contribution of 62 %. The second highest source contribution, for all runs except 10/9/03, was the feedlot soil category with an average of 20%. (The 10/9/03 run had a large percenta ge, 25.8%, which could not be attributed to any of the identified source profiles.) The nearest dairy is approximately two miles to the southeast of the site. The wind roses shown in Appendi x D-1 do not always support the feedlot soil emissions coming from this dairy. Dairies and feedlots further to th e northeast, west and northwest could be contributing.

Throughout the study feedlot emissions appeared in unexpected areas. It is possible that

the numerous dairies and feedlots locate d throughout the agricultural basin are contributing significantly to the recorded PM 10 

# concentrations. It is also possible that agricultural field soils are contributing to the modeled feedlot emissions. It is common practice to spread manure on agricultural fi elds for fertilizer. Either one of these conclusions would explain f eedlot emissions being identified in many samples where they cannot be linked to a specific feed lot or dairy using the wind roses.

Vegetative burning and coal power plant em issions were the remaining two prominent source contributions. The percentages of bot h of these categories reduced as the PM 10 

# concentrations increased. Vegetative bur ning averaged 6% and coal power plant emissions averaged 5% over the ten runs.

The vegetative burning emissions were expect ed at all the sites. Open burning is a common practice throughout Pinal Count y. Countywide PCAQCD issued 253 burn permits during October 2003 that allowed plan t material to be disposed of by burning. 2


# The burning of prohibited substances such as household garbage is also a substantial compliance issue throughout the County.

The coal power plant emissions were not an expected source. The nearest coal power plant is approximately 70 miles to the sout heast in Tucson. The wind roses in Appendix D-1 and the HYSPLIT analysis in Appendi x D-2 do not support attributing these emissions to the Tucson plant. Since the coal power plant emissions ar e identified in each sample it appears the emissions are originating from multiple sources.

Ammonium Nitrate was the only remaining so urce contribution identified in all the samples with an average of 3%. One sample , 10/9/03, identified amm onium sulfate with

3.8% and motor vehicle emissions with 5.3% as contributing s ources. Since only one sample identified these two sources the av erage contribution for both was insignificant,

less than 1% for each source.

The 10/9/03 run had a large contribution, 25.8%, which could not be identified. The only

other run with an unidentified contribution was 10/27/05 with 5.0%. When averaged over all ten runs this produces a 3% unidentified source contribution.

Figure 7 graphically depicts the PM 10 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 4 and Figure 2 for individual run data.

2 

# Pinal County Air Quality burn permit records



# 28

# Figure 7: Casa Grande Avg. PM10 Source Attributions

62% 20% 1%

6% 5% 0%

3%

3% Soil

Feedlot

MvEmi

VgBrn

ColPP

AmSulf

AmNitr

Other



# Appendix C – Table 5 and Figure 3 show the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attributions for Casa Grande. The highest source contributi on in all ten runs was the geological soil category with an average contribution of 43%. On average the second highest source contribution was coal power plants with 17% . In relative terms the coal power plant contribution generally decreased as the concentrations increased.

Two runs, 10/27/03 and 10/30/03, have a larg e unidentified contribution, 47.8% and 74.1% respectively. As in all instances with an unidentified component, the modeled mass (or concentration) was below the measured mass for the run (see Appendix C – Table 5). It is likely that th e cut point on the Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# sampler was not accurate for these two runs and the sampler overestimated the PM 2.5 

# concentrations. This would also in part explain the increased PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio discussed in Section 2.1.

Vegetative burning with an average sour ce contribution of 10% and motor vehicle emissions with an average source contribu tion of 12% were the remaining significant sources. As discussed earlier, vegetative burning was an e xpected source contribution at

all the sites. The motor vehicl e contribution was expected due to the proximity of several busy nearby city streets. Amm onia nitrate and Ammonia sulf ate were the remaining two identified sources with average contri butions of 4% and 1% respectively.

The Casa Grande site was only one of two sites in which feedlot emissions were not

identified in the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment. The other si te that did not include feedlot

emissions in the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment was Stanfi eld. While the closest dairy to the Casa Grande site is approximately two miles to the southeast, the Stanfield site is near several large dairies and feedlots. (The Stan field source apportionment results will be further discussed in Section 2.2.5.) Further sa mpling and analysis will be needed to discuss why these two dramatically different sites lack feedlot emissions in the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment.

29

# Figure 8 graphically depicts the PM 2.5 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 5 and Figure 3 for individual run data.

Figure 8: Casa Grande Avg. PM2.5 Source Attributions



# 43%

0% 12% 10% 17%

1%

4% 13%

%Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 2.2.2 Coolidge Source Apportionment Results

The Coolidge site was utilized in this study due to its location on the eastern side of the agricultural basin and du e to its location near the edge of town. The site is located in a residential neighborhood and approximately 1⁄4 of a mile west of active agricultural fields. The agricultural basin extends north of the Coolidge site a substantial distance. Although, approximately six miles east of the Coolidge s ite the landscape genera lly changes back to native desert and this landscape continues to the eastern boundary of the County with increasing elevations further to the east.

The average 24- hour PM 10 

# concentration during the project as recorded by the Mini-Vol sampler was one of the lowest in the study at 47 μg/m 3 

# . Even though this value is elevated when compared to the annual PM 10 

# standard, it should be noted that this average only included nine runs and the time pe riod in which the study was conducted is generally when the highest particulat e matter concentrations are recorded.

Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM 10 

# source apportionment analysis for this site. The November 8, 2003 run was voided by DRI since the Teflon filter deposit appeared to be much lighter than the quartz filter deposit. The Teflon filter for October 3, 2003 only ran seventeen hours out of the sche duled twenty-four. Th e quartz filter for October 15, 2003 only ran seven hours out of th e scheduled twenty-four. In both cases

the filters were still included in the source apportionment analysis.

Appendix C – Table 6 and Figure 4 show the CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attributions for Coolidge. The highest source contribution in a ll ten runs was the ge ological so il category with an average contribution of 73%. On average the second highe st contribution was the feedlot soil category with 9%, even though feedlot emissions were only identified in four of the nine runs analy zed. The nearest dairy is loca ted approximately four miles

30

# northeast of the site. Another da iry is located approximately five miles northwest of the

site. In three of the four runs with feedlot emissions the wind roses created for the site do not support attributing the emissions to thes e dairies. The remaining run, October 12, 2003, appears to have been a very calm day w ith winds generally coming across the dairy

northeast of the site and towards the monitor.

Coal power plant and vegetative burning emi ssions were the remaining two predominant source contributions. Coal power plant emissi ons averaged 8% over the nine runs and were identified in all the runs. Vegetative burning emissions averaged 5% and were

identified in seven of the runs.

Ammonium nitrate and motor vehicle emissi ons were the lowest source contributions with ammonium nitrate averaging 3% and motor vehicle emissions averaging 2%. The

small contribution from motor vehicle emi ssions was expected since the monitor is located along a residential street. Thr oughout the project ammonium nitrate was identified in small quant ities in all but two PM 10 

# runs, or 96% of the PM 10 

# runs. It is common practice to supplement agricultura l soils by bubbling gaseous ammonia into irrigation canals. The ammonia dissolves re adily in water and forms ammonium ions. Sewage treatment plants and animal manure ar e also local sources of ammonia that in

turn can create ammonium ions. Ammonium nitrate is then formed through chemical reactions with nitrogen oxides emitted by burning fossil fuels.

The Coolidge PM 10 

# source attribution resulted in very little unidentified emissions. Only three runs included an unidentified, or ot her, component. In these three runs this component was a very small percentage a nd on average the other component made up

less than 1% of the PM 10 

# source attribution.

Figure 9 graphically depicts the PM 10 

# average percentage source contributions for all nine runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 6 and Figure 4 for individual run data.

Figure 9: Coolidge Avg. PM10 Source Contributions

73% 9% 2%

5% 8% 0%

3%

0%

%Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 31

# Appendix C – Table 7 and Figure 5 show the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attributions for Coolidge. The highest identified source contri bution in all ten runs was the geological soil category with an average contribution of 40%. On average the second highest source

contribution was the unidentified or other ca tegory with 20%. Eight runs included an other category with four runs having gr eater than 30% of th e source attribution

unidentified. Three of the four runs with a large unidentified cont ribution, October 15, 2003, October 18, 2003, and November 21, 2003 had a larger than expected PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio, 0.69, 0.59 and 0.70 respectively. In other words, the measured PM 2.5 

# concentration seemed too large when compared to the measured PM 10 

# concentration. Historical data suggests we would expect a ratio cl oser to 0.30 (see section 2.1). A PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio

could not be calculated for the fourth da te, November 8, 2003, si nce the corresponding

Mini-Vol PM 10 

# filter was voided. It is likely that the Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# samplers did not operate properly on these days and over estimated the PM 2.5 

# concentrations.

Coal power plant emissions made up the thir d largest source with an average of 15%. As seen throughout the study coal power pl ant emissions reduced dramatically as

concentrations increased. In all cases wh ere coal power plant emissions made up a significant portion of the individual run source attribution, 23.9%, 29.3% and 37.7%, the corresponding measured PM 2.5 

# concentration was fairly low, 11.4 μg/m 3 

# , 10.5 μg/m 3 

# and 8.4 μg/m 3 

# respectively.

Vegetative burning with an average contribu tion of 9%, motor vehicl e emissions with an average contribution of 7%, and feedlot soil emissions with an average contribution of 5% were the remaining significant sources. Ve getative burning was an expected source

contribution at all the sites. Motor vehicle em issions were an expect ed source due to the site’s proximity to a residential street. Only two samples included a feedlot soil component in the PM 2.5 

# source attribution, October 15, 2003 with 9.0% and October 30,

2003 with 40.6%. The wind rose for Octobe r 30, 2003 does not support attributing the elevated feedlot component directly to either of the nearby dairies.

Ammonium nitrate and ammoni um sulfate were the remaining two identified sources with 3% and 1% respectively. Ammonium nitr ate is an expected source contribution as discussed in the Coolidge PM 10 

# source attribution descrip tion. Ammonium sulfate was only identified in three PM 2.5 

# runs at Coolidge, two PM 2.5 

# runs in Stanfield, two PM 2.5 

# runs in Casa Grande, and one PM 10 

# run in Casa Grande. The contribution was relatively small at all the sites, except Stanfield. (The Stanfield source apportionment will be discussed further in Section 2.2.5) Sulfur dioxi de gas is introduced into the atmosphere primarily from fossil fuel combustion. The gas in turn converts to su lfuric and sulfurous

acids and then reacts with ammonia to form ammonium sulfate. The Coolidge and Casa Grande sites are both near heavily traveled railroad tracks. The diesel emissions, including sulfur dioxide, from the railroad locomotives may have contributed to the

formation of ammonium sulfate at these sites. A third site, Cowtown, is also near heavily

traveled railroad tracks and ammonium su lfate was not identified in either the PM 2.5 

# or
PM 10 

# source attribution. (The Cowtown sour ce apportionment results will be further discussed in Section 2.2.3.)

32

# Figure 10 graphically depicts the PM 2.5 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 7 and Figure 5 for individual run data.

Figure 10: Coolidge Avg. PM2.5 Source Contributions



# 40%

5% 7% 9% 15% 1% 3% 20% %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 2.2.3 Cowtown Source Apportionment Results

The Cowtown site was utilized in this study due to its proximity to several large feedlots. The site is approximately 300 yards from the closest feedlot and a grain handling operation. Also, the site is completely surrounde d by active and retired ag ricultural fields.

Appendix C – Table 8 and Figure 6 show the CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attributions for Cowtown. Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM 10 

# source apportionment analysis for this site. The October 2 7, 2003 run was voided by DRI since no mass was

recorded on the Teflon filter.

The highest PM 10 

# source contribution in all nine runs was the feedlot soil category with an average contributi on of 59%. The second highest sour ce contribution fo r all the runs was the geological soil category with an averag e of 32%. This was the only site in the study where the geological soil category was not the highest source contribution.

The average 24-hour PM 10 

# concentration at Cowtown was well above any other site at 127 μg/m 3 

# , as recorded by the Mini-Vol PM 10 

# sampler. Four samples had a recorded

PM 10 

# Mini-Vol concentration above 200 μg/m 3 

# , October 18 2003, October 21, 2003, November 5, 2003, and November 8, 2003. In all four cases the wind roses created for

the site show inversion conditions with very light winds throughout the day.

On average the remaining source categories ma de up small percentages of the attribution. Ammonium nitrate contributed on average 2% and was expected due to the nearby feedlots serving as a large source of ammonia. Motor vehicle, open burning and coal power plant emissions each onl y contributed 1% on average.

33

# Four runs included an unidentified categor y, October 3, 2003 with 4.9% listed as other, October 21, 2003 with 8.7% listed as other, November 5, 2003 with 5.8% listed as other and November 8, 2003 with 17.2% listed as othe r. Averaged over the nine runs this leaves 4% in the unidentified category.

Figure 11 graphically depicts the PM 10 

# average percentage source contributions for all nine runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 8 and Figure 6 for individual run data.

Figure 11: Cowtown Avg. PM10 Source Contributions

32%

59% 1% 1% 1% 0%

2%

4% 

# %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# Appendix C – Table 9 and Figure 7 show the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attributions for Cowtown. Ten runs were analyzed and included in the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment analysis for this site, although one filter did not have a complete run. The Teflon filter for November 5, 2003 only ran fourteen hours out of the scheduled twenty-four.

The highest source contribution in nine of the ten runs was th e feedlot soil category with an average of 49%. The second highest source contribution for nine of the ten runs was the geological soil category with an average of 24%. Again, this was the only site in the study where the geological soil category was not the highest source contribution.

The average 24- hour PM 2.5 

# concentration at Cowtown was al so well above any other site at 67μg/m 3 

# , as recorded by the Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# sampler. Three samples had a recorded

PM 2.5 

# Mini-Vol concentration above 100 μg/m 3 

# , October 21, 2003, October 27, 2003, and November 8, 2003. In all three cases the wind ro ses created for the site show inversion conditions with light wi nds throughout the day.

Coal power plant emissions were the third larg est contributor with an average of 9%. As seen at other sites the coal power plant em ission percentages dramatically decreased as

the measured concentrations increased. Vegetative burning was also a significant contributor with an average of 7%. The October 12, 2003 run was unique in that coal

34

# power plant emissions made 26% of the sour ce attribution, vegetati ve burning emissions contributed 21%, and geological soil emissions contributed 18%. The PM 2.5 

# measured

concentration for this date was the lo west recorded at the site at 15.7 μg/m 3 

# . A specific source for the elevated coal power plant emissions and vegetative burning emissions

could not be identified.

Ammonium nitrate with an av erage contribution of 4% and motor vehicle emissions with an average contribution of 3% were the remaining identi fied source contributions. Both of these sources were expected to have a la rger contribution due to the nearby feedlots serving as a source of ammoni a and the proximity of a heavily traveled road. As noted earlier this is the only site that was near a he avily traveled railroad track that did not show ammonium sulfate as a small source contribution. It is possible that the large feedlot soil contribution affected these three source categories. An unidentified component was apparent in seven of the ten runs, although on average the other category only accounted

for 4%.

Figure 12 graphically depicts the PM 2.5 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 9 and Figure 7 for individual run data.

Figure 12: Cowtown Avg. PM2.5 Source Contributions

24%

49% 3% 7%

9% 0% 4%

4% %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 2.2.4 Pinal County Housing Source Apportionment Results

The Pinal County Housing site was included in this study due to its location in the heart of the agricultural basin. The site is immedi ately surrounded by native desert; beyond that open field agriculture dominates the landscape fo r at least ten miles in all directions. The average 24-hour PM 10 

# concentration for this site during the project as recorded by the Mini-Vol sampler was elevated at 60 μg/m 3



# .

Appendix C – Table 10 and Figure 8 show the CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attributions for Pinal County Housing. Ten runs were analyzed and included in the PM 10 

# source

35

# apportionment analysis for this site, although one filter did not have a complete run. The quartz filter for November 5, 2003 only ran twenty-two hours out of the scheduled twenty-four.

The highest source contribution in all ten runs was the geol ogical soil cate gory with an average contribution of 67%. The second highest source contribution for all the runs was the feedlot soil category with an average of 19%. The neares t dairy is approximately one mile south of the site. Three additional dairies are approximately five miles west of the

site. The wind roses do not alwa ys support attributi ng the feedlot soil emissions to these dairies. As discussed earlier, the feedlot soil emissions could be attributed to the large

number of dairies and feedlo ts throughout the agricultural basin or manure spread over agricultural fields.

Coal power plant emissions made up the thir d largest category with an average of 6%. This site is immediately su rrounded by native desert and a small group of houses with vast tracks of agricultural fields beyond th at. The only significant industrial processes nearby are a cotton gin 3⁄4 of a mile to the south and a natural gas power plant approximately 2.5 miles north of the site. This power plant operates solely on natural gas and is operated only during peak power demands. As seen at other sites, the coal power plant emissions did reduce as concentrations increased. Cons idering there is not a local

source that could contribute to this source category and th e HYSPLIT analysis included in Appendix D-2 does not support attributing the emissions to the nearest coal power plant in Tucson, it appears that there is a l ong-range transport mechanism affecting this

source category.

Vegetative burning and ammonium nitrate em issions were the remaining two identified source categories with both averaging 3% over the ten runs. Only two runs had an unidentified component, November 5, 2003 with 9.0% listed as other and November 8, 2004 with 10.2% listed as other. Averaged ove r the ten runs this leaves 2% in the unidentified category.

Figure 13 graphically depicts the PM 10 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 10 and Figure 8 for individual run data.

36

# Figure 13: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM10 Source Contributions

67% 19% 0% 3% 6% 0%

3% 2%



# %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# Appendix C – Table 11 and Figure 9 show the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attributions for Pinal County Housing. Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment analysis for this site. The Teflon filter for October 18, 2003 ran for 17 hours, although no mass was recorded on the f ilter. Since there was not a valid Teflon

filter for the date it was not incl uded in the source apportionment.

The largest source contribution in seven of the nine runs was the geological soil category. Geological soil emissions were still the dominant source category with 50% when averaged over the nine runs. Coal power plant emissions made up the second largest category with an average contribution of 17%. October 3, 2003 had an extremely large contribution identified as coal power plant emissions with 44.8%. The PM 2.5 

# concentration recorded by the Mini-Vol on this day was relatively small at 7.1 μg/m 3 

# . As concentrations increased the coal power plant percentages dramatically decreased. As discussed earlier a long-range transport mech anism seems to be affecting this source

category.

Motor Vehicle emissions averaged 8% over the nine runs. Octobe r 9, 2003 had a large contribution identified as motor vehicle emissions with 39.9%, which was the most significant source for that run. The Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# concentration for that day was 9.5 μg/m 3 

# and the motor vehicle contribution di d generally reduce as concentrations

increased. The site is located in an area wh ere very few vehicles drive directly by the monitors. There are major thoroughfares located approximately 1⁄2 mile east of the site

and 3⁄4 of a mile south of the site. This stil l does not explain the high motor vehicle source contribution on October 9, 2003. Field notes al so do not note any activities that could

have contributed to this sour ce category. It is possible th at an unidentified localized activity contributed significantly to this source category on October 9, 2003.

37

# Feedlot soil emissions also av eraged 8% over the nine runs . October 30, 2003 had a large

contribution identified as feedlot emissions with 39.9%, which was the most significant

source contribution for th at run. The Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# concentration for that day was elevated at 35.4 μg/m 3 

# . The wind rose included in Appendix D-1 for Pinal County Housing on October 30, 2003 did show sustaine d winds blowing across the nearest dairy

and towards the monitor.

Vegetative burning and ammonium nitrate we re the remaining two identified source contributions with an average of 7% and 3% respectively. As discussed previously vegetative burning was an expected source at all the sites. The Pinal County Housing site

is located within a fenced area that houses the sewer lift station for the nearby County Housing subdivision. Even though this does crea te a localized sour ce of ammonia it does not appear to have affected the source appor tionment for the site. Ammonium sulfate was

not identified in either the PM 10 

# or PM 2.5 

# source apportionment and ammonium nitrate concentrations were comparable to all the other sites.

An unidentified component was apparent in five of the nine runs. Three runs had a significant percentage in th e other category, October 30, 2003 with 20.3%, November 5, 2003 with 17.0% and November 8, 2003 with 20.8%. When averaged over the nine runs

this left 7% of the source contribution unidentified. As seen at other sites the PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio on two of these days was higher than expected, 0.55 for October 30, 2003 and 0.57 for November 8, 2003.The PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio for November 5, 2003 was slightly elevated at 0.39. It is likely that the Mini-Vol samplers over estimated the PM 2.5 

# concentrations on these days.

Figure 14 graphically depicts the PM 2.5 

# average percentage source contributions for all nine runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 11 and Figure 9 for individual run data.

Figure 14: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM2.5 Source Contributions

50%

8% 8% 7% 17% 0% 3% 7% 

# %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 38

# 2.2.5 Stanfield Source Apportionment Results

The Stanfield site was utilized in this study due to it proximity to several feedlots and dairies and since it is generally surrounded by open field agriculture. The community of Stanfield only extends 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 a mile in all directions from the site, beyond that open field agriculture dominates the landscape. Sizeab le feedlot operations and dairies lie approximately three miles to the north, east, and west. The average 24-hour PM 10 

# concentration during the project as recorded by the Mini-V ol sampler was elevated at 55 μg/m 3



# .

Appendix C – Table 12 and Figure 10 show the CMB modeled PM 10 

# source attributions

for the Stanfield site. Ten runs we re analyzed and included in the PM 10 

# source apportionment analysis for this site, although tw o filters did not have a complete run. The Teflon filter for October 9, 2003 only ran twenty hours out of the scheduled twenty-four. The quartz filter for October 15, 2003 did not run at all. This date wa s still included in the source apportionment since a mass and con centration could be computed using the corresponding Teflon filter. Sources identified using the quartz filter analysis, such as

ammonium nitrate and ammoni um sulfate, were not acc ounted for on October 15, 2003. This explains why this is one of the two PM 10 

# runs throughout the entire study that did not have a small ammonium nitrate component.

The highest identified source contribution in a ll ten runs was the geol ogical soil category with an average contribution of 63%. The sec ond highest contribution for all the runs was the feedlot soil category with an average of 19%. Since this site does not have localized meteorological data available no wind roses we re constructed for the area. Several dairies and feedlots are located approximately three m iles to the north, east and west of the site.

Coal power plant and vegetative burning emi ssions made up the third and fourth largest categories, each with an average of 4%. Th ere are no industrial sources in the area that could be attributed to the coal power plant category. As disc ussed earlier it appears there is a long-range transport mechanism affec ting this source category. Ammonium nitrate was the remaining identified source category with an average of 3%. Both vegetative burning and ammonia nitrate emi ssions are expected given th e local conditions explained

earlier.

An unidentified component was only apparent in one run, October 3, 2003. This run had a large unidentified component with 67.3% in the other category. It appears both the Teflon and quartz PM 10 

# Mini-Vol samplers operated proper ly and ran for the full twentyfour hours on October 3, 2003. The measured concentration for the PM 10 

# Mini-Vol sampler was 43.1 μg/m 3 

# and this does not seem abnorma lly high or low. The reasoning for this unusually large unid entified fraction in the PM 10 

# source attribution is not readily apparent. When averaged over all ten runs the unidentified component was 7% of the

source attribution.

Figure 15 graphically depicts the PM 10 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 12 and Figure 10 for individual run data.

39

# Figure 15: Stanfield Avg. PM10 Source Contributions

63% 19% 0% 4% 4%

0%

3%

7% 

# %Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# Appendix C – Table 13 and Figure 11 show the CMB modeled PM 2.5 

# source attributions for the Stanfield site. The geological soil cate gory was the largest source contribution in eight of the ten runs. Geologi cal soil emissions were still the dominant source category with 48% when averaged over ten runs. Coal power plant emissions made up the second largest category with an aver age contribution of 17%. In nine of the ten runs coal power plant emissions were the second largest s ource and on October 12, 2003 coal power plant

emissions were the dominant source with 22.8% . As mentioned previ ously this seems to be a long-range transport issue.

Vegetative burning also made up a significant portion of the source attribution with 15% when averaged over the ten runs. Two runs ha d a significant portion of the run attributed to vegetative burning, October 12, 2003 with 22.1% and October 30, 2003 with 43.8%. Vegetative burning was the largest source co ntribution for October 30, 2003. It is likely that on both of these days a local brush disposal fire affected the PM 2.5 

# source apportionment.

Motor vehicle emissions with an average cont ribution of 7%, ammonium nitrate with an average contribution of 5%, and ammonium su lfate with an average contribution of 2% made up the remaining identified source ca tegories. The October 9, 2003 run and the October 12, 2003 run had a significant motor vehicle emission contribution with 19.8% and 12.9% respectively. In both cases an ammonium sulfate component was also

identified with 11.4% for October 9, 2003 and 6.7% for October 12, 2003. The

PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio for both of these days was well w ithin expectations at 0.27 for October 9, 2003 and 0.28 for October 12, 2003. Thus, the Mini-Vol samplers do not appear to

have over estimated the ambient PM 2.5 

# concentrations on these days . This site is located adjacent to the Stanfield Fire Department. It is possible that the diesel fumes from an idling fire engine contributed to both the motor vehicle emission category and the ammonium sulfate category on these days. Th e large number of feed lots and dairies in

40

# the area would serve as a source of ammoni a for both the identified ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate components.

An unidentified component was apparent in four of the ten runs. November 8, 2003 had a large percentage left unidentified w ith 37.7% in the other category. The PM 2.5 

# /PM 10 

# ratio was higher than expect on November 8, 2003 at 0.56. It appears the Mini-Vol sampler

over estimated the ambient PM 2.5 

# concentration on this day. Averaged over the ten runs

6% of the source attri bution was unidentified.

Figure 16 graphically depicts the PM 2.5 

# average percentage source contributions for all ten runs. Refer to Appendix C – Table 13 and Figure 11 for individual run data.

Figure 16: Stanfield Avg. PM2.5 Source Contributions

48%

0% 7% 15% 17% 2% 5% 6%

%Soil

% Feedlot

% MvEmi

%VgBrn

%ColPP

%AmSulf

%AmNitr

%Other



# 2.3 Road Count Results

The soil sampling and road counts conducted ar ound the Cowtown site were done in an effort to break down the geological soil category. The chemical analysis of the dirt road soil sample and of the agricultural field soil sample did not yield significantly different fingerprints. Thus, the CMB modeling analysis was not able to differentiate between dirt road emissions and agricultural field em issions. This was a known limitation when designing the study and the addi tion of soil sampling was not able to overcome this

limitation.

With this limitation the road count info rmation was not useful in estimating the

contribution of dirt road traffic. Road counts conducted for this study and additional counts conducted by PCAQCD do suggest dirt road emissions are a significant contributor to the geological soil category identified in this study. PCAQCD plans on conducting additional analysis to better quantif y this emission source. The road count information collected during this study is included in Appendix E.

41

# Section 3

Conclusions

42

# 3.0 Conclusions

Soil generally constitutes the dominant source of particulate emissions that

contribute to elevated ambient PM 10 

# concentrations in the agricultural basin of Pinal County.

Somewhat surprisingly, feedlot emissi ons also meaningfully contribute to

elevated ambient PM 10 

# impacts even at monitoring sites well-removed from any actual

feedlot. The common use of manure as a so il amendment may account for the apparent finding of widespread impacts from feedlot particulate matter.

Rather unremarkably, at the "Cowtown " monitoring site feedlot emissions

constitute the dominant source of PM 10 

# emissions. Feedlot emissions consistently

contribute more than 50% of elevated concentrations of PM 10 

# . Historical FRM data

indicates 24-hour PM 10 

# concentrations at that site of ten reach 200% or more of the 24-

hour PM 10 

# standard, and annual average concentrations exceed 200% of the annual PM 10 

# standard.

This study and historical monitori ng data both indicate that when PM 10 

# concentrations rise, the ob served average ratio of PM 2.5 

# -to-PM 10 

# concentrations equals about 0.3-to-1.0. No site-specific FRM PM 2.5 

# data currently exists for the "Cowtown" site. However, arithmetic a pplication of the empirical PM 2.5 

# -to-PM 10 

# ratio to the elevated

PM 10 

# FRM data discussed above produces a rational expectation that PM 2.5 

# concentrations at the "Cowtown" site will exceed both the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 

# standards.

The CMB analysis of the PM 2.5 

# filters from the "Cowtown" monitoring site

indicates feedlot emissions contribute to PM 2.5 

# concentrations. When PM 2.5 

# ambient concentrations rise, feedlot emissions contribute more than 50% of observed impacts of

PM 2.5



# .

43

# Appendix A

Site Descriptions

44

# Casa Grande Downtown - CG 401 Marshall St., Casa Grande, Arizona

Latitude: N 32 o 

# 52.682' Longitude: W 111 o 

# 45.135' Map Datum: WGS 84

Table A-1

Parameter Instrument #1 In strument #2 Instrument #3

Pollutant Type PM 2.5 

# PM 10 

# PM 10 

# / PM 2.5


# Date Established 1999 1989 October 2003

County ID CG PM 2.5 

# CG PM 10 

# CG MV

Sampler Make & Model Andersen RAAS2.5-100 Wedding HiVol Airmetrics MiniVol

Inlet Height 5.7 meters 5.7 meters 5.8 meters

Distance from Tree Dripline 15.4 me ters 19.0 meters 13.2 meters

Obstacle Description None None None

Height of Obstacle N/A N/A N/A

Distance and Direction N/A N/A N/A

Airflow Arch 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o



# Furnace or Incinerator Flue Furnace Flue Furnace Flue Furnace Flue

Distance and Direction 7.4 meters - S 5.6 meters - S 6.0 meters - SW

Distance between Collocated Samplers 3.3 meters 3.3 meters 6.8 meters (PM 10 

# ) 5.1 meters (PM 2.5 

# )

Nearest Road Marshall St. Marshall St. Marshall St.

Distance and Direction to

Road 18.9 meters – E 22.9 mete rs – E 16.7 meters – E

Schedule 1 in 6 days 1 in 6 days 1 in 3 days

Surrounding Area Business district Busi ness district Business District

Notes: The photo was taken while facing north.



# 45

# Coolidge Maintenance Yard - CLDG 212 E. Broadway, Coolidge, Arizona

Latitude: N 32 o 

# 58.717' Longitude: W 111 o 

# 30.874' Map Datum: WGS 84

Table A-2

Parameter Instrumen t #1 Instrument #2

Pollutant Type PM 10 

# PM 10 

# / PM 2.5


# Date Established 1992 October 2003

County ID CLDG CLDG MV

Sampler Make & Model Wedding HiVol Airmetrics MiniVol

Inlet Height 3.4 meters 3.3 meters

Distance from Tree Dripline None None

Obstacle Description Building Building

Height of Obstacle 3.2 meters 3.2 meters

Distance and Direction 6.8 meters – NE 4.5 meters – NE

Airflow Arch 360 o 

# 360 o



# Furnace or Incinerator Flue None None

Distance and Direction N/A N/A

Distance between Collocated Samplers 1.5 meters 1.5 meters

Nearest Road Pacific St. Pacific St.

Distance and Direction to Road 7.9 meters – W 7.2 meters – W

Schedule 1 in 6 days 1 in 3 days

Surrounding Area Residential Residential

Notes: The photo was taken while facing west.



# 46

# Cowtown Road - CWTN 37580 W. Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway, Maricopa, Arizona

Latitude: N 33 o 

# 00.632’ Longitude: W 111 o 

# 58.323’ Map Datum: WGS 84

Table A-3

Parameter Instrument #1 Inst rument #2 Instrument #3 Instrument #4 Instrument #5

Pollutant Type PM 10 

# Wind Temp & RH

/Pressure Video PM 10 

# / PM 2.5



# Date Established 2001 2002 2002 2003 October 2003

County ID CWTN TEOM CWTN MET CWTN MET CWTN Video CWTN MV

Sampler Make & Model R&P 1400a (A/B) RM Young 05305 AQ Viasala

HMP35C/PTA427 Panasonic

AG-6740 Airmetrics MiniVol

Inlet Height 3.0 meters 3.5 meters 2.9 meters 3.5 meters 2.5 meters

Distance from Tree Dripline None None None None None

Obstacle Description None None None None Shed

Height of Obstacle N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.0 meters

Distance and Direction N/A N/ A N/A N/A 4.8 meters – SE

Airflow Arch 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o



# Furnace or Incinerator

Flue None None None None None

Distance and Directio n N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Distance between Collocated Samplers 5.2 meters N/A N/A N/A 5.2 meters

Nearest Road Casa GrandeMaricopa Hwy Casa GrandeMaricopa Hwy Casa GrandeMaricopa Hwy Casa GrandeMaricopa Hwy Casa GrandeMaricopa Hwy

Distance and Direction

to Road 53.6 meters – S 53.6 meters – S 53.6 meters – S 53.6 meters – S 56.7 meters – S

Schedule Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous 1 in 3 days

Surrounding Area Agricultural /

Feedlots Agricultural /

Feedlots Agricultural /

Feedlots Agricultural /

Feedlots Agricultural /

Feedlots

Notes: The picture was taken facing south.



# 47

# Pinal County Housing Complex - PCH 970 N. Eleven Mile Corner Rd., Casa Grande, Arizona

Latitude: N 32 o 

# 53.471' Longitude: W 111 o 

# 34.225' Map Datum: WGS 84

Table A-4

Parameter Instrument #1 Inst rument #2 Instrument #3 Instrument #4 Instrument #5

Pollutant Type PM 10 

# PM 10 

# Wind Temp&RH/Pressure PM 10 

# / PM 2.5



# Date Established 2002 2002 2002 2002 October 2003

County ID PCH TEOM PCH PM 10 

# PCH MET PCH MET PCH MV

Sampler Make&Model 

# R&P 1400a (A/B) Andersen HiVol RM Young 05305 AQ Viasala

HMP35C/PTA427 Airmetrics

MiniVol

Inlet Height 3.0 meters 3.1 meters 3.2 meters 3.1 meters 3.1 meters

Distance from Tree Dripline 

# 13.7 meters 11.6 meters 13.7 meters 13.7 meters 10.0 meters

Obstacle Description Shed Shed Shed Shed Shed

Height of Obstacle 2.6 meters 2.6 meters 2.6 meters 2.6 meters 2.6 meters

Distance & Direction 10.8 meters – W 8.6 meters – SW 11.4 meters – W 11.2 meters – W 9.3 meters – W

Airflow Arch 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o 

# 360 o



# Furnace or Incinerator Flue 

# None None None None None

Distance & Direction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Distance between Collocated Samplers 5.5 meters 5.5 meters N/A N/A 2.2 meters

Nearest Road Eleven Mile

Corner Rd. Eleven Mile

Corner Rd. Eleven Mile

Corner Rd. Eleven Mile Corner

Rd. Eleven Mile

Corner

Distance & Direction to Road 

# 400 meters – E 400 meters – E 400 meters – E 400 meters – E 400 meters – E

Schedule Continuous 1 in 6 days Continuous Continuous 1 in 3 days

Surrounding Area Agricultural/

Residential Agricultural/

Residential Agricultural/

Residential Agricultural/

Residential Agricultural/

Residential

Notes: The picture was taken facing north.



# 48

# Stanfield County Complex - STNF 36697 W. Papago Dr., Stanfield, Arizona

Latitude: N 32 o 

# 52.876' Longitude: W 111 o 

# 57.717' Map Datum: WGS 84

Table A-5

Parameter Instrumen t #1 Instrument #2

Pollutant Type PM 10 

# PM 10 

# / PM 2.5


# Date Established 1988 October 2003

County ID STNF STNF MV

Sampler Make & Model Wedding HiVol Airmetrics MiniVol

Inlet Height 4.3 meters 4.1 meters

Distance from Tree Dripline None None

Obstacle Description Building Building

Height of Obstacle 4.0 meters 4.0 meters

Distance and Direction 5.9 meters – N 4.0 meters -N

Airflow Arch 360 o 

# 360 o



# Furnace or Incinerator Flue None None

Distance and Direction N/A N/A

Distance between Collocated Samplers 1.2 meters 1.2 meters

Nearest Road Navajo Way Navajo Way

Distance and Direction to Road 19 meters – W 20 meters – W

Schedule 1 in 6 days 1 in 3 days

Surrounding Area Residential Residential

Notes: The picture was taken facing north.



# 49

# Appendix B

Ambient Monitoring Data

50

# Casa Grande Concentration Data

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m 3 

# )

Table B-1

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 10 

# FRM PM 2.5 

# Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# 10/3/2003 N/A 13.3 N/A 3.2

10/9/2003 N/A 36.9 N/A 9.2

10/12/2003 27.5 27.7 Void 6.7

10/15/2003 N/A 39.9 N/A 11.9

10/18/2003 45.1 39.2 10.1 14.1

10/21/2003 N/A 46.9 N/A 12.9

10/27/2003 N/A 61.1 N/A 31.5

10/30/2003 58.8 48.9 26.7 49.5

11/5/2003 54.9 57.2 10.7 20.2

11/8/2003 N/A 64.0 N/A 26.9



# Coolidge Concentration Data

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m 3 

# )

Table B-2

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# 10/3/2003 N/A 25.3 11.4

10/9/2003 N/A 35.0 10.4

10/12/2003 25.3 32.2 8.3

10/15/2003 N/A 50.8 35.2

10/18/2003 37.1 45.3 26.8

10/21/2003 N/A 48.3 34.3

10/27/2003 N/A 41.8 17.1

10/30/2003 84.1 86.6 35.1

11/5/2003 Void 60.8 23.2

11/8/2003 N/A Void 50.2

N/A = The sampler was not scheduled to run and ther e is no data available. Void = The sampler was scheduled to run, but the sample was invalid.

51

# Cowtown Concentration Data

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m 3 

# )

Table B-3

Date FRM TEOM PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# 10/3/2003 122.1 74.5 17.5

10/9/2003 166.32 113.1 33.6

10/12/2003 79.0 55.4 15.7

10/15/2003 147.8 113.8 33.8

10/18/2003 293.7 264.3 76.5

10/21/2003 348.2 294.1 101.7

10/27/2003 577.0 Void 183.3

10/30/2003 204.4 120.5 39.6

11/5/2003 271.7 221.7 56.9

11/8/2003 308.6 265.6 112.3



# Pinal County Housing Concentration Data

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m 3 

# )

Table B-4

Date FRM Hi-Vol

PM 10 

# FRM TEOM

PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol

PM 2.5 

# 10/3/2003 N/A 53.3 14.7 7.0

10/9/2003 N/A 50.5 31.0 9.5

10/12/2003 42.2 53.0 31.0 8.4

10/15/2003 N/A 74.1 55.9 22.2

10/18/2003 74.5 77.8 61.9 Void

10/21/2003 N/A 120.1 89.2 30.1

10/27/2003 N/A 73.9 60.9 22.2

10/30/2003 116.5 149.2 64.1 35.3

11/5/2003 92.1 103.7 81.6 32.2

11/8/2003 N/A 149.3 104.6 59.3

N/A = The sampler was not scheduled to run and ther e is no data available. Void = The sampler was scheduled to run, but the sample was invalid.

52

# Stanfield Concentration Data

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m 3 

# )

Table B-5

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 10 

# Mini-Vol PM 2.5 

# 10/3/2003 N/A 43.1 5.1

10/9/2003 N/A 38.4 10.4

10/12/2003 31.7 32.0 9.1

10/15/2003 N/A 47.0 13.0

10/18/2003 55.1 56.0 16.3

10/21/2003 N/A 57.5 16.7

10/27/2003 N/A 65.2 20.1

10/30/2003 93.5 71.9 27.8

11/5/2003 91.4 82.8 28.4

11/8/2003 N/A 55.5 31.1

N/A = The sampler was not scheduled to run and ther e is no data available. Void = The sampler was scheduled to run, but the sample was invalid.

53

# Appendix C

Modeling Data

Pinal County Source Apportionment Study

7/29/2005 

# 54

# Report



# Pinal County Source Apportionment Study

Prepared for:

Pinal County Air Quality C ontrol District (PCAQCD)

Submitted to:

Mr. Kale Walch, Environmental Program Manager Pinal County Air Quality Control District 31 N. Pinal Building F

Florence, AZ 85232 kale.walch@co.pinal.az.us

Tel. 520 866 6960



# By:

Johann P. Engelbrecht, Principal Investigator

Steven D. Kohl Division of Atmospheric Sciences

Desert Research Institute

2215 Raggio Parkway

Reno NV 89512-1095 tel. (775) 674 7027 fax. (775) 674 7009

e-mail johann@dri.edu

May 27, 2004 (amended May 24, 2005)

Pinal County Source Apportionment Study

7/29/2005 

# 55Table 1. Average measured PM2.5to PM10mass ratios for Pinal County, ArizonaSite IDSiteAverage massPM10μg/m3Average massPM2.5μg/m3Average MassPM2.5/PM10RatioCasGraCasa Grande44180.41CooMaiCoolidge Maintenance Yard47250.53CowtowCowtown127670.53PinCouPinal County Housing60250.42StaCouStanfield County Complex55180.32Average for Pinal County66310.46Pinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200556Measured Mass Casa Grande, Pinal County, Arizona020406080 10/03/03 10/06/03 10/09/03 10/12/03 10/15/03 10/18/03 10/21/03 10/24/03 10/27/03 10/30/03 11/02/03 11/05/03

Measured Mass (unc) ug/m 3Measured Mass PM10Measured Mass PM2.5Annual NAAQS10 (50)Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)Measured Mass Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County, Arizona0255075100 10/03/03 10/06/03 10/09/03 10/12/03 10/15/03 10/18/03 10/21/03 10/24/03 10/27/03 10/30/03 11/02/03 11/05/03 11/08/03

Measured Mass (unc) ug/m 3Measured Mass PM10Measured Mass PM2.5Annual NAAQS10 (50)Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)Measured Mass Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona0100200300400 10/3/03 10/6/03 10/9/03 10/12/03 10/15/03 10/18/03 10/21/03 10/24/03 10/27/03 10/30/03 11/2/03 11/5/03 11/8/03

Measured Mass (unc) ug/m 3Measured Mass PM10Measured Mass PM2.5Annual NAAQS10 (50)Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)Measured Mass Pinal County Housing, Arizona0306090120 10/3/03 10/6/03 10/9/03 10/12/03 10/15/03 10/18/03 10/21/03 10/24/03 10/27/03 10/30/03 11/2/03 11/5/03 11/8/03

Measured Mass (unc) yg/m 3Measured Mass PM10Measured Mass PM2.5Annual NAAQS10 (50)Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)Measured Mass Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County, Arizona0255075100 10/3/03 10/6/03 10/9/03 10/12/03 10/15/03 10/18/03 10/21/03 10/24/03 10/27/03 10/30/03 11/2/03 11/5/03 11/8/03

Measured Mass (unc) yg/m 3Measured Mass PM10Measured Mass PM2.5Annual NAAQS10 (50)Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)Figure 1. Measured mass for PM10and PM2.5at Casa Grande, Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Cowtown, Pinal County Housing, and Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County,ArizonaPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200557Table 2. Legend: CMB source attributions for Pinal County, ArizonaSource IDGeneric source descriptionCMB modeled chemicalsource profilesSoilGeological soilPHBAREAG agricultural soil, PHUPRD1 unpaved road dust, TUDSOIL desert soil, PINSL688 dirt road, PINSL689 agricultural fieldFeedlotFeedlot soilPINSL690 feedlotMvEmiMotor vehicle emissionsPHRDP motorvehicle emissions, BVRSMV01 roadside exhaustVgBrnVegetative burningBVBURN15,BVBURN19, BVBURN11, 9RICE,ColPPCoal fired power plantBVCOAL03, BVCOAL06, BVCOAL18AmSulfAmmonium sulfateAMSULAmNitrAmmonium nitrateAMNITOtherUnclassified sourcesTable 3. Measured source profiles applied in ChemicalMass Balance (CMB) modeling for Pinal County, ArizonaGenericIDSite Identification(SID)ParticlesizeProfile number(PNO)DescriptionSoilPHBAREAGPM2.55.002Phoenix agricultural soil from bare field; composite, 9 bulk samples collected on 1/21/90PHBAREAGPM105.001Phoenix agricultural soil from bare field; composite, 9 bulk samples collected on 1/21/90Phoenix unpaved road dust W/Hi Calcium; composite, 2 bulk samples collected on 1/20/90PHUPRD1PM2.55.02PHUPRD1PM105.019Phoenix unpaved road dust W/Hi Calcium; composite, 2 bulk samples collected on 1/20/90Tucson desert soil; composite, 3 samples.TUDSOILPM2.55.026TUDSOILPM105.025Tucson desert soil; composite, 3 samples.Pinal County dirt road from Hartman Road, Cowtown; composite, N33o00.272' W111o57.767'PINSL688PM2.5RDST01Pinal County dirt road from Hartman Road, Cowtown; composite, N33o00.272' W111o57.767'PINSL688PM10RDST03Pinal County agricultural field soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o00.697' W111o58.212'PINSL689PM2.5AGRI01Pinal County agricultural field soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o00.697' W111o58.212'PINSL689PM10AGRI03Pinal County Maricopa feed yard soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o01.288' W112o00.001'FeedlotPINSL690PM2.5FDL01Pinal County Maricopa feed yard soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o01.288' W112o00.001'PINSL690PM10FDL03MvEmiPHRDPM2.55.037Phoenix motor vehicle; composite, 10 roadside samples average after background correctionsBRAVO San Antonio Texas roadside exhaust; 0642-0742,BVRSMV01PM2.519.031VgBrnBVBURN15PM2.519.066BRAVO open burning of cut mesquite shrubs/treesBRAVO open burning of piles of dry grassBVBURN19PM2.519.081BVBURN11PM2.519.082BRAVO open burning of piles of dry grassCRPAQS rice straw fireplace; ventilated open fire with grate9RICEPM2.520.008ColPPBVCOAL03PM2.519.088BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #1; 0700-1200BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #2; morningBVCOAL06PM2.519.091BVCOAL18PM2.519.1BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #3; 1630-0700AmSulfAMSULSecondary ammonium sulfateAmNitrAMNITSecondary ammonium nitrateOtherUNCLASSIFIEDOther sources not modeledPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200558Table 4. CMB modeled PM10source attributions for Casa Grande, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20039.72973.29291.33522.82270.611817.792313.3136± 1.586610/9/200317.93172.55531.97761.69801.04121.39410.85299.547927.450636.9985± 2.348410/12/200321.84835.96332.51522.60651.429234.362527.7017± 2.028310/15/200332.37975.97093.41253.06711.301646.131839.9083± 2.489510/18/200334.94608.07983.26373.16371.305050.758139.2037± 2.462710/21/200345.501010.27314.06663.45651.538364.835546.9357± 2.761410/27/200340.201711.91472.90341.66281.36783.076958.050361.1272± 3.364610/30/200323.929522.00763.10291.33821.847952.226148.9083± 2.826311/5/200344.361617.87822.07941.98693.093669.399657.2872± 3.190311/8/200349.008319.10292.93521.79373.006875.846964.0227± 3.4855Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/03/2003VgBrn7.5%AmNitr3.4%ColPP15.9%Soil54.7%Feedlot18.5%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/09/2003Other25.8%Feedlot6.9%Soil48.5%ColPP2.8%AmSulf3.8%AmNitr2.3%VgBrn4.6%MvEmi5.3%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/12/2003VgBrn7.3%AmNitr4.2%ColPP7.6%Soil63.6%Feedlot17.4%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/15/2003Feedlot12.9%Soil70.2%ColPP6.6%AmNitr2.8%VgBrn7.4%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10,10/18/2003Feedlot15.9%Soil68.8%ColPP6.2%AmNitr2.6%VgBrn6.4%Measured Mass for PM10= 13.3 ± 1.6Measured Mass for PM10= 37.0 ± 2.3Measured Mass for PM10= 27.7± 2.0Measured Mass for PM10= 39.9± 2.5Measured Mass for PM10= 39.2± 2.5Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/21/2003VgBrn6.3%AmNitr2.4%ColPP5.3%Soil70.2%Feedlot15.8%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/27/2003Other5.0%VgBrn4.7%AmNitr2.3%ColPP2.7%Soil65.7%Feedlot19.5%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/30/2003Feedlot42.1%Soil45.8%ColPP2.6%AmNitr3.5%VgBrn5.9%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 11/05/2003VgBrn3.0%AmNitr4.5%ColPP2.9%Soil63.9%Feedlot25.8%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 11/08/2003Feedlot25.2%Soil64.7%ColPP2.4%AmNitr4.0%VgBrn3.7%Measured Mass for PM10= 46.9± 2.8Measured Mass for PM10= 61.1± 3.4Measured Mass for PM10= 48.9± 2.8Measured Mass for PM10= 57.3± 3.2Measured Mass for PM10= 64.0± 3.5Figure 2. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10data subsets from Casa Grande, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200559Table 5. CMB modeled PM2.5source attributions for Casa Grande, Pinal County (μg/m3),Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20031.93900.79340.62921.40390.31025.07573.2764±1.396510/9/20031.82152.23961.36013.04500.50910.30308.97549.2784± 1.507010/12/20033.76252.11560.72251.34410.67280.41769.03506.7947± 1.477610/15/20035.57202.40221.85523.46290.575113.867311.9403±1.570910/18/20037.30872.28651.90443.52270.564015.586314.1321±1.654010/21/200311.90981.46903.22010.506617.105612.9985±1.578110/27/20039.49921.86901.06893.39300.629015.097116.459131.5562± 2.582810/30/20033.45526.00031.31860.93561.148436.712212.858049.5702± 2.844011/5/200312.67822.44241.82071.85441.09860.353619.894320.2479±1.680211/8/200318.16972.23972.32562.48401.39580.335826.614626.9504±1.9294Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/03/2003Soil38.2%ColPP27.7%AmNitr6.1%VgBrn12%M vEmi15.6%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/09/2003Other3.3%Soil19.6%ColPP32.8%AmNitr5.5%VgBrn14.7%M vEmi24.1%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/12/2003MvEmi23.4%VgBrn8.0%AmNitr4.6%AmSulf7.4%ColPP14.9%Soil41.6%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5,10/15/2003MvEmi17.3%VgBrn13.4%AmNitr4.1%ColPP25.0%Soil40.2%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/18/2003MvEmi14.7%VgBrn12.2%AmNitr3.6%ColPP22.6%Soil46.9%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 3.3±1.4Measured Mass for PM2.5= 9.3±1.5Measured Mass for PM10= 6.8±1.5Measured Mass for PM10= 11.9±1.6Measured Mass for PM10= 14.1±1.7Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/21/2003Soil69.6%ColPP18.8%AmNitr3.0%VgBrn8.6%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5,10/27/2003Other47.8%MvEmi5.9%VgBrn3.4%AmNitr2.0%ColPP10.8%Soil30.1%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/30/2003Other74.1%VgBrn12.1%AmNitr2.3%AmSulf2%ColPP2.7%Soil7.0%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 11/05/2003Other1.8%MvEmi12.1%VgBrn9.0%AmNitr5.4%ColPP9.2%Soil62.5%Casa Grande, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 11/08/2003Soil67.4%ColPP9.2%AmNitr5.2%VgBrn8.6%MvEmi8.3%Other1.2%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 13.0±1.6Measured Mass for PM2.5= 31.6±2.6Measured Mass for PM2.5= 49.6±2.8Measured Mass for PM2.5= 20.2±1.7Measured Mass for PM2.5= 27.0±1.9Figure 3. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5data subsets from Casa Grande, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200560Table 6. CMB modeled PM10source attributions for Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/200315.80973.88701.30822.96570.73960.608924.710225.3191± 2.427610/9/200324.59254.59114.50061.20160.196834.885735.0825± 2.282010/12/200319.78217.62022.91273.09411.203334.612532.2679± 2.190610/15/200342.38242.74183.91031.41200.363550.446550.8100± 2.917210/18/200337.30243.25042.76863.97310.911148.205645.3638± 2.659610/21/200353.52072.07972.83594.19141.055063.682848.3212± 2.803110/27/200335.30026.71652.14062.53361.188247.879241.8571± 2.512810/30/200352.020127.06924.03654.22412.154489.504286.6860± 4.557511/5/200354.32082.33651.35751.073559.088360.8069± 3.348411/8/2003*Void*Void- Teflon filter deposit appears to be much lighter than quartz.Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/03/2003Other2.4%AmNitr2.9%ColPP11.7%Soil62.4%Feedlot15.4%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/09/2003Other0.6%Soil70.1%ColPP12.8%AmNitr3.4%VgBrn13.1%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/12/2003Feedlot22.0%Soil57.2%ColPP8.9%AmNitr3.5%VgBrn8.4%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/15/2003Other0.7%Soil83.4%ColPP7.7%AmNitr2.8%VgBrn5.4%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/18/2003MvEmi6.7%VgBrn5.7%AmNitr1.9%ColPP8.2%Soil77.4%Measured Mass for PM10=25.3±2.4Measured Mass for PM10= 35.1±2.3Measured Mass for PM10= 32.3±2.2Measured Mass for PM10= 50.8±2.9Measured Mass for PM10= 45.4±2.7Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/21/2003Soil84.0%ColPP6.6%AmNitr1.7%VgBrn4.5%MvEmi3.3%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/27/2003MvEmi4.5%AmNitr2.5%ColPP5.3%Soil73.7%Feedlot14%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/30/2003Feedlot30.2%Soil58.1%ColPP4.7%AmNitr2.4%VgBrn4.5%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,11/05/2003VgBrn4.0%AmNitr1.8%ColPP2.3%Soil91.9%Measured Mass for PM10= 48.3±2.8Measured Mass for PM10= 41.9±2..5Measured Mass for PM10= 86.7±4.6Measured Mass for PM10= 60.8±3.3Figure 4. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10data subsets from, Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200561Table 7. CMB modeled PM2.5source attributions for Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20035.44331.20941.02582.73490.33880.694510.752211.4467± 1.650210/9/20034.04832.53091.82503.65210.417812.474110.4634± 1.546410/12/20032.36150.89991.62473.19620.40708.48938.3969± 1.544510/15/200311.69743.16362.55511.48071.74250.98010.610313.012622.229735.2423± 2.269110/18/20039.12121.77571.92012.59611.409310.021216.822526.8437± 1.965510/21/200310.52512.03651.43113.09541.270315.944018.358334.3023± 2.223510/27/200310.59791.87542.29310.51331.916715.279817.1965± 1.648810/30/20037.715314.23763.23352.78771.29485.839129.268935.1079± 2.245811/5/200315.40101.68101.93930.87283.327919.894223.2221± 1.828811/8/200322.24322.61272.01772.87251.100019.363030.846250.2092± 2.8541Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/03/2003Other6.1%MvEmi10.6%VgBrn9.0%AmNitr3.0%ColPP23.9%Soil47.6%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/09/2003Soil32.5%ColPP29.3%AmNitr3.3%VgBrn14.6%MvEmi20.3%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/12/2003MvEmi10.6%VgBrn19.1%AmNitr4.8%ColPP37.7%Soil27.8%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/15/2003Other36.9%Soil33.2%AmSulf2.8%AmNitr1.7%VgBrn4.2%MvEmi7.3%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/18/2003Other37.3%MvEmi6.6%VgBrn7.2%AmSulf5%ColPP9.7%Soil34.0%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 11.4±1.7Measured Mass for PM2.5= 10.5±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 8.4±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 35.2±2.3Measured Mass for PM2.5= 26.8±2.0Coolidge M aintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/21/2003Other46.5%Soil30.7%ColPP9.0%AmSulf3.7%VgBrn4.2%M vEmi5.9%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/27/2003Other11.1%VgBrn10.9%AmNitr3.0%ColPP13.3%Soil61.6%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/30/2003VgBrn9.2%AmNitr3.7%ColPP7.9%Soil22.0%Feedlot40.6%Other16.6%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,11/05/2003Other14.3%VgBrn7.2%AmNitr3.8%ColPP8.4%Soil66.3%Coolidge Maintenance Yard,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,11/08/2003Other38.6%Soil44.3%ColPP5.7%AmNitr2.2%VgBrn4.0%MvEmi5.2%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 34.3±2.2Measured Mass for PM2.5= 17.2±1.6Measured Mass for PM10= 35.1±2.2Measured Mass for PM10= 23.2±1.8Measured Mass for PM10= 50.2±2.9Figure 5. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5data subsets from Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200562Table 8. CMB modeled PM10source attributions for Cowtown, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/200325.103341.00731.59052.21480.94283.656970.858774.5156± 3.998310/9/200345.609160.36762.42503.45592.6796114.5372113.1195± 5.831310/12/200312.038736.49323.66593.57093.487659.256355.4905± 3.119310/15/200340.317672.16872.49692.6798117.6629113.8643± 5.871510/18/2003113.8341154.94504.34583.8895277.0144264.3609± 13.298910/21/200393.8503168.29442.79663.663725.5040268.6050294.1090± 14.775210/27/2003*Void10/30/200341.841578.69162.43472.8110125.7788120.5839± 6.194411/5/200372.5156129.79451.85444.633912.9470208.7984221.7454± 11.174411/8/200358.8056147.69843.81275.883249.4339216.1999265.6338± 13.3523*Void- No recorded mass for Teflon filterCowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 10/09/2003Feedlot52.7%Soil39.8%ColPP3.0%AmNitr2.3%MvEmi2.1%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 10/12/2003MvEmi6%AmNitr5.9%ColPP6.0%Soil20.3%Feedlot61.6%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 10/15/2003Feedlot61.3%Soil34.3%AmNitr2.3%MvEmi2.1%Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 10/18/2003Feedlot55.9%Soil41.1%AmNitr1.4%VgBrn1.6%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10,10/03/2003Other4.9%MvEmi2.1%AmNitr1.3%ColPP3.0%Soil33.7%Feedlot55.0%Measured Mass for PM10= 74.5±4.0Measured Mass for PM10= 113.1±5.8Measured Mass for PM10= 55.5±3.1Measured Mass for PM10= 113.9±5.9Measured Mass for PM10= 264.4±13.3Cowtrown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 10/21/2003Other8.7%Feedlot57.2%Soil31.9%AmNitr1.2%VgBrn1.0%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 10/30/2003Feedlot62.6%Soil33.3%ColPP0.0%AmNitr2.2%VgBrn1.9%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM10, 11/05/2003Other5.8%VgBrn0.8%AmNitr2.1%Soil32.7%Feedlot58.5%Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM10, 11/08/2003Other18.6%Feedlot55.6%Soil22.1%ColPP1.4%AmNitr2.2%Measured Mass for PM10= 294.1±14.8Measured Mass for PM10.= 120.6±6.2Measured Mass for PM10=221.7±11.17Measured Mass for PM10= 265.6±13.4Figure 6. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10data subsets from Cowtown, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200563Table 9. CMB modeled PM2.5source attributions for Cowtown, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20037.25546.46451.51752.26960.307917.814817.5841± 1.728910/9/200311.978612.80932.76564.67081.20330.203433.427633.6310± 2.219610/12/20032.79471.41303.36273.98922.09722.053213.656815.7100± 1.667210/15/20038.890115.90022.30952.00043.87641.390734.367333.8109±2.191610/18/200321.041139.70011.92492.92975.04721.96823.977972.611276.5891± 4.116210/21/200328.217756.01963.37084.02221.71998.448993.3502101.7991± 5.295110/27/200329.7366146.29362.86821.44453.0382180.3429183.3811± 9.274510/30/20035.352021.76074.63723.20461.72721.77881.215038.460539.6755± 2.448911/5/200312.941036.21812.71962.78513.33372.262160.259556.9682±3.712011/8/200323.409471.76972.83662.17362.84202.20107.0732105.2323112.3055± 5.7816Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/03/2003Soil40.7%ColPP12.7%AmNitr1.7%VgBrn8.5%Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.510/09/2003VgBrn8.2%ColPP13.9%AmNitr3.6%Soil35.6%Feedlot38.1%Other0.6%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/12/2003Feedlot9%Soil18%ColPP26%AmNitr13%VgBrn21%Other13%Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 10/15/2003MvEmi6.7%VgBrn5.8%AmNitr4.0%ColPP11.3%Soil25.9%Feedlot46.3%CowtownPinal County, ArizonaPM2.5,10/18/2003Other5.2%MvEmi2.5%VgBrn3.8%AmNitr2.6%ColPP6.6%Soil27.5%Feedlot51.8%Measured Mass for PM2.5=17.6±1.7Measured Mass for PM2.5= 33.6±2.2Measured Mass for PM2.5=15.7±1.7Measured Mass for PM2. 5= 33.8±2.2Measured Mass for PM2.5= 76.6±4.1Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/21/2003Other8.3%Feedlot55.0%Soil27.7%ColPP4.0%AmNitr1.7%VgBrn3.3%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/27/2003Other1.7%VgBrn1.6%AmNitr0.8%Soil16.2%Feedlot79.8%Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/30/2003Other3.1%Feedlot54.8%Soil13.5%ColPP4.4%AmNitr4.5%VgBrn8.1%MvEmi11.7%5Cowtown, Pinal County, ArizonaPM2.5, 11/05/2003MvEmi4.5%VgBrn4.6%AmNitr3.8%ColPP5.5%Soil21.5%Feedlot60.1%Cowtown, Pinal County,Arizona PM2.5, 11/08/2003Other6.3%Feedlot63.9%Soil20.8%ColPP2.5%AmNitr2.0%VgBrn1.9%MvEmi2.5%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 101.8±5.3Measured Mass for PM2.5= 183.3±9.3Measured Mass for PM2.5= 39.7±2.4Measured Mass for PM2.5= 57.0±3.7Measured Mass for PM2.5= 112.3±5.8Figure 7. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5data subsets from Cowtown, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200564Table 10. CMB modeled PM10source attributions for Pinal County Housing, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/200311.83903.62920.26272.63400.560218.925114.7975± 1.687310/9/200316.65659.22961.43473.25121.158531.730531.0395± 2.107210/12/200322.108011.54911.94582.43841.301439.342831.0811± 2.133510/15/200346.481612.09151.34122.77901.792964.486255.9823± 3.146910/18/200342.500515.23972.09322.74671.532364.112461.9469± 3.414010/21/200390.35167.20602.38503.87531.8174105.635489.2489± 4.687110/27/200355.26614.19262.11152.50311.393265.466460.9756± 3.353510/30/200330.872326.79932.17431.49822.12630.723663.470464.1940± 3.497311/5/200359.33307.78022.00842.52342.63277.333274.277881.6109± 4.340511/8/200373.416810.39162.73663.87073.549710.708893.9654104.6742± 5.4123Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/03/2003VgBrn1.4%AmNitr3.0%ColPP13.9%Soil62.6%Feedlot19.2%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10,10/09/2003Feedlot29.1%Soil52.5%ColPP10.2%AmNitr3.7%VgBrn4.5%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/12/2003VgBrn4.9%AmNitr3.3%ColPP6.2%Soil56.2%Feedlot29.4%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/15/2003VgBrn2.1%AmNitr2.8%ColPP4.3%Soil72.1%Feedlot18.8%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/18/2003VgBrn3.3%AmNitr2.4%ColPP4.3%Soil66.3%Feedlot23.8%Measured Mass for PM10= 14.8±1.7Measured Mass for PM10= 31.0±2.1Measured Mass for PM10= 31.1±2.1Measured Mass for PM10= 56.0±3.1Measured Mass for PM10= 61.9±3.4Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/21/2003Feedlot6.8%Soil85.5%ColPP3.7%AmNitr1.7%VgBrn2.3%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/27/2003VgBrn3.2%AmNitr2.1%ColPP3.8%Soil84.4%Feedlot6.4%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 10/30/2003Other1.1%Feedlot41.7%Soil48.1%ColPP2.3%AmNitr3.3%VgBrn3.4%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 11/05/2003Other9.0%VgBrn2.5%AmNitr3.2%ColPP3.1%Soil72.7%Feedlot9.5%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM10, 11/08/2003Other10.2%Feedlot9.9%Soil70.1%ColPP3.7%AmNitr3.4%VgBrn2.6%Measured Mass for PM10= 89.2±4.7Measured Mass for PM10.= 61.0±3.4Measured Mass for PM10.= 64.2±3.5Measured Mass for PM10= 81.6±4.3Measured Mass for PM10= 104.7±5.4Figure 8. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10data subsets from Pinal County Housing, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200565Table 11. CMB modeled PM2.5source attributions for Pinal County Housing, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20033.31630.14340.08903.17180.24190.11726.96247.0796± 1.478910/9/20032.27844.38860.81993.04290.458910.98869.5168±1.502710/12/20033.40791.53471.35552.45158.74958.4720±1.532510/15/200314.53452.22872.07963.37180.803423.017822.2874±1.810910/18/200315.9562*Void10/21/200322.25521.65912.57823.68180.755230.929330.1028±2.075810/27/200317.83801.38152.23000.71720.118922.166822.2857± 1.782110/30/20038.024814.10322.85651.92501.28197.160828.191335.3521± 2.237111/5/200315.34986.44261.46852.37031.09125.481026.722432.2034± 2.117411/8/200334.50036.18572.68792.50801.155212.346647.037259.3838± 3.2673*Void- No recorded mass for Teflon filterPinal County Housing,Arizona PM2.5, 10/03/2003Other1.7%M vEmi2.0%VgBrn1.3%AmNitr3.4%ColPP44.8%Soil46.8%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/09/2003Soil20.7%ColPP27.7%AmNitr4.2%VgBrn7.5%M vEmi39.9%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/12/2003MvEmi17.5%VgBrn15.5%ColPP28.0%Soil38.9%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/15/2003MvEmi9.7%VgBrn9.0%AmNitr3.5%ColPP14.6%Soil63.1%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 7.1±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 9.5±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 8.5±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 22.3±1.8Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/27/2003Soil73%ColPP12%AmNitr2%VgBrn8%MvEmi5%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/27/2003Other0.5%VgBrn6.2%AmNitr3.2%ColPP10.0%Soil80.0%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 10/30/2003Other20.3%Feedlot39.9%Soil22.7%ColPP5.4%AmNitr3.6%VgBrn8.1%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 11/05/2003Feedlot20.0%Soil47.7%ColPP7.4%AmNitr3.4%VgBrn4.6%Other17.0%Pinal County Housing, ArizonaPM2.5, 11/08/2003Other20.8%Feedlot10.4%Soil58.1%ColPP4.2%AmNitr1.9%VgBrn4.5%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 30.1±2.1Measured Mass for PM2.5= 22.3±1.8Measured Mass for PM2.5= 35.4±2.2Measured Mass for PM2.5= 32.2±2.1Measured Mass for PM2.5=59.4±3.3Figure 9. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5data subsets from Pinal County Housing, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200566Table 12. CMB modeled PM10source attributions for Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/20039.77631.80382.09080.649029.525714.319843.1221± 2.629210/9/200328.83535.27221.93434.01901.305141.366038.4755± 2.612010/12/200318.90469.88562.54492.70241.727135.764632.0700± 2.141310/15/200340.32306.61591.10931.546249.594447.0414±2.757910/18/200337.172312.26874.36774.02251.702759.533956.0305± 3.171410/21/200346.596911.00031.54943.14882.019064.314557.5000± 3.211810/27/200355.410513.16691.42422.02691.779773.808265.2361± 3.546710/30/200347.960736.99053.16152.138090.250771.9653± 3.863511/5/200374.002912.15193.55082.32663.688295.720382.8035± 4.372711/8/200339.981113.82721.32281.67413.692160.497355.5712± 3.0993Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/03/2003Other67.3%VgBrn4.1%AmNitr1.5%ColPP4.8%Soil22.3%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM10,10/09/2003Feedlot12.7%Soil69.7%ColPP9.7%AmNitr3.2%VgBrn4.7%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/12/2003VgBrn7.1%AmNitr4.8%ColPP7.6%Soil52.9%Feedlot27.6%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/15/2003VgBrn2.2%ColPP3.1%Soil81.3%Feedlot13.3%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM10,10/18/2003VgBrn7.3%AmNitr2.9%ColPP6.7%Soil62.3%Feedlot20.6%Measured Mass for PM10= 43.1±2.6Measured Mass for PM10= 38.5±2.6Measured Mass for PM10= 32.1±2.1Measured Mass for PM10= 47.0±2.8Measured Mass for PM10= 56.0±3.2Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/21/2003Feedlot17.1%Soil72.5%ColPP4.9%AmNitr3.1%VgBrn2.4%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/27/2003VgBrn1.9%AmNitr2.4%ColPP2.7%Soil75.1%Feedlot17.8%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,10/30/2003Feedlot41.0%Soil53.1%ColPP0.0%AmNitr2.4%VgBrn3.5%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,11/05/2003VgBrn3.7%AmNitr3.9%ColPP2.4%Soil77.3%Feedlot12.7%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM10,11/08/2003Feedlot22.9%Soil66.1%ColPP2.8%AmNitr6.1%VgBrn2.2%Measured Mass for PM10= 57.5±3.2Measured Mass for PM10.= 65.2±3.5Measured Mass for PM10.= 72.0±3.9Measured Mass for PM10= 82.8±4.4Measured Mass for PM10= 55.6±3.1Figure 10. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10data subsets from Stanfield County Complex, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200567Table 13. CMB modeled PM2.5source attributions for Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County (μg/m3)Sample DateSoilFeedlotMvEmiVgBrnColPPAmSulfAmNitrOtherModeledMassMeasuredMassMassUncertainty10/3/200332.60251.45130.44492.04490.434236.97785.1095± 1.444010/9/20033.75942.07401.35801.68711.19540.415410.489310.4520± 1.471010/12/20031.73091.17242.01372.07420.61110.66730.84698.26959.1164± 1.439510/15/20037.71591.36871.60323.32200.579314.589113.0802± 1.517410/18/20035.64140.80373.57814.23780.84941.207615.110416.3180± 1.584110/21/20039.17011.94222.36883.45210.810317.743416.7979± 1.529010/27/200314.01591.14751.24762.07760.68830.972419.176920.1493± 1.768110/30/20036.856913.12209.10660.896429.982027.8940± 1.946511/5/200321.94182.59712.46251.860428.861828.4153± 1.946111/8/200312.08121.10561.50472.76141.925511.729719.378431.1081± 2.0270Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/03/2003MvEmi3.9%VgBrn1.2%AmNitr1.2%ColPP5.5%Soil88.2%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,10/09/2003Soil35.8%ColPP16.1%AmSulf11.4%AmNitr4.0%VgBrn12.9%MvEmi19.8%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,10/12/2003Other9.3%MvEmi12.9%VgBrn22.1%AmNitr7.3%AmSulf6.7%ColPP22.8%Soil19.0%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,10/15/2003MvEmi9.4%VgBrn11.0%AmNitr4.0%ColPP22.8%Soil52.9%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,10/18/2003Other7.4%MvEmi4.9%VgBrn21.9%AmNitr5.2%ColPP26.0%Soil34.6%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 5.1±1.4Measured Mass for PM2.5= 10.5±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 9.1±1.4Measured Mass for PM2.5= 13.1±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 16.3±1.6Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/21/2003Soil51.7%ColPP19.5%AmNitr4.6%VgBrn13.3%MvEmi10.9%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,10/27/2003Other4.8%MvEmi5.7%VgBrn6.2%AmNitr3.4%ColPP10.3%Soil69.6%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,10/30/2003Soil22.9%ColPP30.4%AmNitr3.0%VgBrn43.8%Stanfield County Complex, PinalCounty, Arizona PM2.5,11/08/2003MvEmi3.6%VgBrn4.8%AmNitr6.2%ColPP8.9%Soil38.8%Other37.7%Stanfield County Complex,Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5,11/05/2003Soil76.0%ColPP8.5%AmNitr6.4%VgBrn9.0%Measured Mass for PM2.5= 16.8±1.5Measured Mass for PM2.5= 20.1±1.8Measured Mass for PM2.5= 27.9±1.9Measured Mass for PM2.5= 28.4±1.9Measured Mass for PM2.5=31.1±2.0Figure 11. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5data subsets from Stanfield County Complex, Pinal CountyPinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200568Table 14. CMB modeled PM2.5species for re-suspended soil and feedlot samples(concentration in fractions), Pinal County, ArizonaSID, PNOPM2.5Soil (PINSL688, RDST01)PM2.5Soil (PINSL689, AGRI01)PM2.5Feedlot (PINSL690, FDLT01)ConcUncConcUncConcUncNO3-0.0016±0.00060.0000±0.00060.0000±0.0006SO42-0.0017±0.00070.0000±0.00060.0189±0.0026NH4+0.0018±0.00070.0015±0.00070.0015±0.0007OC10.0000±0.00340.0000±0.00340.0000±0.0033OC20.0000±0.00350.0000±0.00340.0212±0.0046OC30.0006±0.00430.0000±0.00410.1593±0.0304OC40.0018±0.00350.0012±0.00350.0506±0.0064EC10.0030±0.00100.0018±0.00090.0481±0.0043EC20.0028±0.00110.0014±0.00100.0101±0.0016EC30.0000±0.00080.0000±0.00080.0009±0.0009Al0.0495±0.00360.0489±0.00360.0039±0.0005Si0.1560±0.01130.1606±0.01160.0237±0.0017K0.0290±0.00210.0321±0.00230.0418±0.0030Ca0.0260±0.00270.0299±0.00290.0404±0.0035V0.0000±0.00030.0000±0.00030.0000±0.0003Fe0.0441±0.00320.0480±0.00350.0064±0.0005Cu0.0001±0.00000.0001±0.00000.0001±0.0000Zn0.0002±0.00000.0002±0.00000.0007±0.0001As0.0000±0.00010.0000±0.00010.0000±0.0001Se0.0000±0.00000.0000±0.00000.0000±0.0000Br0.0000±0.00000.0000±0.00000.0000±0.0000Pb0.0000±0.00010.0000±0.00010.0000±0.0001Table 15. CMBmodeledPM10speciesfor re-suspended soils and feedlot samples (concentration in fractions),Pinal County, Arizona.SID, PNOPM10Soil (PINSL688, RDST03)PM10Soil (PINSL689, AGRI03)PM10Feedlot (PINSL690, FDLT03)ConcUncConcUncConcUncNO3-0.0014±0.00040.0007±0.00020.0000±0.0004SO42-0.0013±0.00040.0008±0.00020.0264±0.0039NH4+0.0010±0.00040.0007±0.00030.0021±0.0006OC10.0000±0.00190.0000±0.00090.0035±0.0035OC20.0000±0.00190.0000±0.00100.0579±0.0085OC30.0031±0.00250.0032±0.00150.1832±0.0377OC40.0037±0.00200.0022±0.00100.0524±0.0066EC10.0058±0.00070.0036±0.00040.0528±0.0052EC20.0034±0.00070.0019±0.00040.0059±0.0012EC30.0003±0.00050.0000±0.00020.0020±0.0008Al0.0626±0.01510.0687±0.01840.0082±0.0022Si0.1980±0.05020.2141±0.06060.0364±0.0092K0.0297±0.00470.0324±0.00560.0565±0.0091Ca0.0346±0.00520.0380±0.00580.0473±0.0066V0.0001±0.00020.0001±0.00020.0000±0.0002Fe0.0400±0.00310.0421±0.00230.0077±0.0006Cu0.0001±0.00000.0001±0.00000.0001±0.0000Zn0.0002±0.00000.0002±0.00000.0007±0.0001As0.0000±0.00000.0000±0.00000.0000±0.0000Se0.0000±0.00000.0000±0.00000.0000±0.0000Br0.0000±0.00000.0000±0.00000.0000±0.0000Pb0.0000±0.00000.0001±0.00000.0000±0.0001Pinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200569Pinal County Source Apportionment Study7/29/200570

# Appendix C - Addendum

Chemical Fingerprint Analysis

71

# May 18,2005

Mr. Donald P. Gabrielson Pinal County Air Quality C ontrol District (PCAQCD) 31 N. Pinal Building F

P.O. Box 987 Florence, AZ 85232

Dear Mr. Gabrielson, Chemical Fingerprint of the Cowtow n Feedlot dust, Pinal County, AZ In addition to the DRI report on the “P inal County Source Apportionment Study” submitted to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) on May 26, 2004, we are adding the following clarification on the Feedlot Dust sample and the Cowtown ambient samples. 1. The Feedlot grab sample, as well as the Dirt Road and Agricultural samples received from the PCAQCD were re-s uspended at the DRI’s re-suspension facility. The two size fractions, PM 10 

# (respirable particulate matter) and PM 2.5 

# (fine particulate matter) were collected on filters and thereafter analyzed at the DRI’s Environmental Analysis Facility to provide the chemical fingerprint (source profiles, signature) shown for PM 10 

# in Figure 1 and for PM 2.5 

# in Figure 2. Each chemical signature is characterized by a combination of chemical species. Shown in Figures 1 and 2 ar e concentrations of 17 chemical species and their analytical uncertainties, including water soluble nitrate, su lfate and ammonium, the eight carbon species (OC1-4, OPT a nd EC1-3) as well as the total carbon (TC), and five metals typical of most soils (aluminum, silicon, potassium, calcium and iron). The Feedlot Dust source sample differs from the Agricultural and Road

Dusts in that it contains a substantial amount of total carbon (TC) which is the

sum of the concentrations of the carb on species, with larg e proportions of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1.

2. The chemical results of PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# ambient samples collected at the Cowtown sampling site on three days with above average dust loadings (DRI report, Figure 1), are simila r to the Feedlot Dust fingerprint, in that they all

contain substantial amounts of total ca rbon (TC) which is the sum of the concentrations of the carbon species, pa rticularly of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1 (Figures 3 and 4). This show s that the ambient samples do contain substantial amounts of the Feedlot Dust, as was confirmed by the Chemical Mass Balance (Version 8) receptor modeling results (see Report Figures 6 and 7).

3. The measured masses on the three se lected days (10/18/2003, 10/21/2003 and 11/8/2003) at the Cowtown site were substa ntially higher than at any of the other

four measured sites in Pinal Count y (Table 1), ranging from 264.4 to 294.1 micrograms per cubic meter for Cowtow n compared to 39.2 to 104.7 micrograms

72

# per cubic meter at the other four sites for PM 10 

# . Similarly for PM 2.5 

# the masses range from 76.6 to 112.3 micrograms per cubic meter for Cowtown and 13.0 to 59.4 micrograms per cubic meter at the ot her four sites for the same sampling periods. This was the general trend during the month-long intensive sampling campaign, and clearly points to a local polluting source (feedlot?) impacting on the Cowtown sampling site, not impacting on the other four site s in the County to

the same extent.

We trust that this additional interpretation of the results from the Cowtown sampling site and the Feedlot Dust sample will be useful to the PCAQCD. Please feel free to contact us should you require any further clarification of the results from the Pinal County Source Apportionment report.

Sincerely,

Johann Engelbrecht

Associate Research Professor Division of Atmospheric Sciences

Desert Research Institute 2215 Raggio Parkway

Reno NV 89512-1095
tel. (775) 674 7027
fax. (775) 674 7009

e-mail johann@dri.edu http://www.dri.edu/People/johann/



# 73

# Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM 10



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM 10



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM 10

0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Figure 1. Comparative chemical fingerprint s from Pinal County, for respirable particulate matter (PM 10 

# ). Shown are concentrations of 17 chemical species and their analytical uncertainties ( ⊥ ), including water soluble nitr ate, sulfate and ammonium, the eight carbon species (OC1-4, OPT and EC1-3) as well as th e total carbon (TC), and five metals typical of most soils (aluminum, silicon, potassium, calcium and iron). The Feedlot Dust sample differs from the Agricult ural and Road Dusts in that it contains a substantial amount of total carbon (TC) which is the total of the c oncentrations of the carbon species, particularly of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1.

74

# Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM 2.5



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM 2.5



## 0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM 2.5

0 10 20 30 40

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A

l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



## Chemical Species% Concentration



# Figure 2. Comparative chemical fingerprints fr om Pinal County, for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ). Shown are concentrations of 17 ch emical species and their analytical
uncertainties ( ⊥ ), including water soluble nitrate, sulfate and ammonium, the eight carbon species (OC1-4, OPT and EC1-3) as well as the total carbon (T C), and five metals typical of most soils (aluminum, sili con, potassium, calcium and iron). The Feedlot Dust sample differs from the Agricultural and Road Dusts in that it contains a substantial amount of total carbon (TC) which is th e total of the c oncentrations of the carbon species, particularly of OC2, OC 3, OC4, OPT and EC1.

75

# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/18/2003, PM 10 

# (Total mass = 264 microg/m 3 

# )

0 20 40 60 80 100

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m

o n i u m O C

1 O C

2 O C

3 O C

4 O P T E C

1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A

l u m i n u m

S i li c o n

P

o t a s s i u m

C

a l c i u m
I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrog/m3



# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/21/2003, PM 10 

# (Total mass = 294 microg/m 3 

# )

0 20 40 60 80 100

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m

o n i u m O C

1 O C

2 O C

3 O C

4 O P T E C

1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A

l u m i n u m

S i li c o n

P

o t a s s i u m

C

a l c i u m
I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrog/m3



# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 11/8/2003, PM 10 

# (Total mass = 266 microg/m 3 

# )

0 20 40 60 80 100

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m

o n i u m O C

1 O C

2 O C

3 O C

4 O P T E C

1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A

l u m i n u m

S i li c o n

P

o t a s s i u m

C

a l c i u m
I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrog/m3



# Figure 3. Ambient respirable particulate matter (PM 10 

# ) samples collected on three high days at the Cowtown sampling site. Shown are concentratio ns of 17 chemical species and their analytical uncertainties ( ⊥ ), including water solubl e nitrate, sulfate and ammonium, the eight ca rbon species (OC1-4, OPT and EC1- 3) as well as the total carbon (TC), and five metals typical of most soils (aluminum, silicon, potassium, calcium and iron). The three ambient samples are similar to the Feedlot Dust fingerprint in that they

all contain substantial amount s of total carbon (TC) which is the sum total of the concentrations of the carbon species, with large proportions of OC 2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. This shows that the ambient samples do contain substantial amounts of the Feedlot Dust, as was confirmed by the Chemical Ma ss Balance (Version 8) receptor modeling results (see Report Figure 6)

76

# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/18/2003, PM 2.5 

# (Total mass = 77 microg/m 3 

# )

0 10 20 30 40 50

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A

m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrog/m3



# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/21/2003, PM 2.5 

# (Total mass=102 microg/m 3 

# )

0 10 20 30 40 50

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrog/m3



# Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 11/8/2003, PM 2.5 

# (Total mass = 112 microg/m 3 

# )

0 10 20 30 40 50

N i t r a t e

S u l f a t e

A m

m o n i u m O C 1 O C 2 O C 3 O C 4 O P T E C 1 E C 2 E C 3 T C

A l u m i n u m

S i l i c o n

P o t a s s i u m

C a l c i u m

I r o n



# Chemical SpeciesConcentrationmicrogr/m3



# Figure 4. Ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ) samples collected on three high days at the Cowtown sampling site. Shown are c oncentrations of 17 chemical species and their analytical uncertainties ( ⊥ ), including water soluble nitr ate, sulfate and ammonium, the eight carbon species (OC1- 4, OPT and EC1-3) as well as the total carbon (TC), and five metals typical of most soils (aluminu m, silicon, potassium, calcium and iron). The three ambient samples are similar to the Feedlo t Dust fingerprint in that they all contain substantial amounts of total carbon (TC) which is the sum total of the concentrations of the carbon species, with large proportions of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. This shows that the ambient samples do contain s ubstantial amounts of the Feedlot Dust, as was confirmed by the Chemical Mass Balance (Version 8) receptor modeling results (see Report Figure 7). Also note that the PM 2.5 

# samples have larger proportions of total

carbon than the PM 10 

# samples, meaning that the organic ma tter is concentrated in the fine fraction and the geological dus t in the coarse fraction.

77Table 1.Measured particulate masses from Cowtown on highly polluted sampling days, and of the four other Pinal County sitestaken over the same periods.SamplingDatePM10, measured mass and uncertainties(micrograms per cubic meter)CowtownCasa GrandeCoolidge MaintenanceYardPinal CountyHousingStanfield10/18/2003264.4±13.339.2±2.545.4±2.761.9±3.456.0±3.110/21/2003294.1±14.846.9±2.848.3±2.889.2±4.757.5±3.211/8/2003265.6±13.464.0±3.5na±104.7±5.455.6±3.1PM2.5, measured mass and uncertainties(micrograms per cubic meter)CowtownCasa GrandeCoolidge MaintenanceYardPinal CountyHousingStanfield10/18/200376.6±4.114.1±1.726.8±2.0na±16.3±1.610/21/2003101.8±5.313.0±1.634.3±2.230.1±2.116.8±1.511/8/2003112.3±5.8na±50.2±2.959.4±3.231.1±2.0278

# Appendix D

Meteorological Data

79

# Appendix D-1

Wind Roses

80

# Casa Grande

Wind Roses

81WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 7% 14% 21% 28% 35%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 3 - Oct 3

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

3.88 m/s



# 82WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 9 - Oct 9

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.69 m/s



# 83WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 12 - Oct 12

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.11 m/s



# 84WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 15 - Oct 15

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.75 m/s



# 85WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 18 - Oct 18

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.02 m/s



# 86WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT:



## Station #

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 21 - Oct 21

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.82 m/s



# 87WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 27 - Oct 27

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.77 m/s



# 88WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 30 - Oct 30

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

3.67 m/s



# 89WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 5 - Nov 5

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.64 m/s



# 90WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Casa Grande, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 4

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 4.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 8 - Nov 8

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.64 m/s



# 91

# Coolidge

(Coolidge AZMET)



# Wind Roses

92WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 3 - Oct 3

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.39 m/s



# 93WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 9 - Oct 9

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.75 m/s



# 94WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 4

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 4.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 12 - Oct 12

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.37 m/s



# 95WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 2 0

. 8 3 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 20.83% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 15 - Oct 15

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.93 m/s



# 96WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 18 - Oct 18

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.03 m/s



# 97WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 21 - Oct 21

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.15 m/s



# 98WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 4

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 4.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 27 - Oct 27

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.15 m/s



# 99WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 30 - Oct 30

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.95 m/s



# 100WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 2 5

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 25.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 5 - Nov 5

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.91 m/s



# 101WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Coolidge, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 3 3

. 3 3 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 33.33% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 8 - Nov 8

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.99 m/s



# 102

# Cowtown

(Maricopa Agricultural Research Station AZMET)



# Wind Roses

103WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 9% 18% 27% 36% 45%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 3 - Oct 3

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

4.38 m/s



# 104WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 9 - Oct 9

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

2.00 m/s



# 105WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 12 - Oct 12

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.34 m/s



# 106WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 4

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 4.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 15 - Oct 15

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.01 m/s



# 107WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 8

. 3 3 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 8.33% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 18 - Oct 18

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.21 m/s



# 108WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 21 - Oct 21

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.90 m/s



# 109WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 27 - Oct 27

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.94 m/s



# 110WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 30 - Oct 30

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

3.96 m/s



# 111WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 2 0

. 8 3 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 20.83% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 5 - Nov 5

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.84 m/s



# 112WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Maricopa, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 6

. 6 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 16.67% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 8 - Nov 8

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.93 m/s



# 113

# Pinal County Housing

Wind Roses

114WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 7% 14% 21% 28% 35%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 3 - Oct 3

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

3.07 m/s



# 115WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 9 - Oct 9

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.85 m/s



# 116WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 12 - Oct 12

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.19 m/s



# 117WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 15 - Oct 15

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.95 m/s



# 118WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 4

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 4.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 18 - Oct 18

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.02 m/s



# 119WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 7% 14% 21% 28% 35%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 2

. 5 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 12.50% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 21 - Oct 21

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.17 m/s



# 120WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 27 - Oct 27

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

1.11 m/s



# 121WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 8% 16% 24% 32% 40%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 0

. 0 0 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 0.00% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Oct 30 - Oct 30

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

3.76 m/s



# 122WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 1 6

. 6 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 16.67% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 5 - Nov 5

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.89 m/s



# 123WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

## Station # - Pinal County Housing, AZ

DATE:



## 04/12/2005 PROJECT NO.: COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:



## Pinal County Air Quality NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 6% 12% 18% 24% 30%



### W I N D S P E E D ( m / s )

> = 1 1

. 1

8

. 8

- 1 1

. 1

5

. 7

- 8

. 8

3

. 6

- 5

. 7

2

. 1

- 3

. 6

0

. 5

- 2

. 1

C a l m s : 2 9

. 1 7 %

TOTAL COUNT:



### 24 hrs. CALM WINDS:



### 29.17% DATA PERIOD:



### 2003

Nov 8 - Nov 8

00:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Flow Vector (blowing to)

0.76 m/s



# 124

# Appendix D-2

HYSPLIT Analysis

125

# 126

# 127

# 128

# 129

# 130

# 131

# 132

# 133

# 134

# 135

# Appendix E

Road Counts

136

# Road Count Totals

Table 4-1

Road Name and location of

the count Road

Surface Type Dates on which the count took place Average

number of cars per day

Hartman Road

0.1 mile north of Casa Grande – Maricopa Highway Dirt 9/26/2003 thru

10/3/03 96

Farrell Road

0.9 mile east of White and

Parker Road Dirt 10/3/2003 thru

10/10/03 134

White and Parker Road

0.1 mile north of Casa Grande – Maricopa Highway Dirt 10/14/2003 thru

10/21/2003 343

Casa Grande – Maricopa Highway

0.1 mile east of White and

Parker Road Paved 10/28/2003 thru

11/4/2003 2717

Cowtown Road

0.1 mile west of Hartman

Road Dirt 11/7/2003 thru

11/14/2003 146

137

# Appendix F

Acronyms

138

# Acronyms Used in this Document

ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

AZMET - Arizona Meteorological Network (University of Arizona Cooperative

Extension)

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CMB – Chemical Mass Balance

o 

# C – degrees of temperature in Celsius

DRI – Desert Research Institute

EC – Elemental Carbon

EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency

FRM – Federal Reference Method

Hi-Vol – High Volume particulate matter sampler

HYSPLIT – Hybrid Single -Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory

L/min – Liters per minute

MCAQD – Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Mini-Vol – Airmetrics low volume particulate matter sampler

mmHg – Millimeters of mercury

NEIP – Natural Events Initiative Plan

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards

OC – Organic Carbon

OPT – Optical Pyrolyis by Thermal/Optical Reflectance

NOOA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PCAQCD – Pinal County Air Quality Control District

139

# PM 10 

# - Particulate Matter less than 10 microns

PM 2.5 

# - Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns

TEOM – Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance

TC – Total Carbon

μ g – Micrograms

μ g/m 3 

# – Micrograms per cubic meter

140