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 Agency - Region 9 for supplying the grant 

funding for the project, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for loaning 

equipment utilized in the study and the Maricopa County Air Quality Department for 

loaning equipment utilized 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: PM10 20 

 Figure 2: Hi-Vol vs Mini-Vol: PM10 21 

 Figure 3: TEOM vs Mini-Vol: PM10 21 

 Figure 4: TEOM vs Mini-Vol: PM10 22 

 Table 1: FRM PM2.5 vs Mini-Vol PM2.5 22 

 Table 2: Mini-Vol PM2.5/ PM10 Ratios 23 

 Table 3: Casa Grande FRM PM2.5/ PM10 Ratios 23 

 Figure 5: PM10 Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 26 

 Figure 6: PM2.5 Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 27 

 Figure 7: Casa Grande Avg. PM10 Source Attributions 29 

4
 Figure 8: Casa Grande Avg. PM2.5 Source Attributions 30 

 

Figure 9: Coolidge Avg. PM10 Source Attributions 31 

 Figure 10: Coolidge Avg. PM2.5 Source Attributions 33 

 Figure 11: Cowtown Avg. PM10 Source Attributions 34 

 Figure 12: Cowtwon Avg. PM2.5 Source Attributions 35 

 Figure 13: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM10 

 Source Attributions 37 

 Figure 14: Pinal County Housing Avg. PM2.5 

Source Attributions 38 

 

 Figure 15: Stanfield Avg. PM10 Source Attributions 40 

 Figure 16: Stanfield Avg. PM2.5 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 Concentration Data 52 

 Table B-4: Pinal County Housing Concentration Data 52 

 Table B-5: Stanfield Concentration Data 53 

Appendix C: Modeling Data 54 

5
 Table 1: Average measured PM2.5 to PM10 mass ratios 56 

 Figure 1: Measured mass for PM10 and PM2.5 57 

 Table 2: Legend: CMB source attributions 58 

 

 Table 3: Measured source profiles in the applied 

 CMB Modeling 58 

 Table 4: CMB modeled PM10 source attribution 

 for Casa Grande 59 

 Figure 2: CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets 

 from Casa Grande 59 

Table 5: CMB modeled PM2.5 source attribution 

 for Casa Grande 60 

 Figure 3: CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets 

 from Casa Grande 60 

Table 6: CMB modeled PM10 source attribution 

 for Coolidge 61 

 Figure 4: CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets 

 from Coolidge 61 

Table 7: CMB modeled PM2.5 source attribution 

 for Coolidge 62 

 Figure 5: CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets 

 from Coolidge 62 

Table 8: CMB modeled PM10 source attribution 

 for Cowtown 63 

 Figure 6: CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets 

 from Cowtown 63 

Table 9: CMB modeled PM2.5 source attribution 

 for Cowtown 64 

 Figure 7: CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets 

 from Cowtown 64 

6
Table 10: CMB modeled PM10 source attribution for 

 Pinal County Housing 65 

 Figure 8: CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets 

 from Pinal County Housing 65 

Table 11: CMB modeled PM2.5 source attribution for 

 Pinal County Housing 66 

 Figure 9: CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets 

 from Pinal County Housing 66 

Table 12: CMB modeled PM10 source attribution 

 for Stanfield 67 

 Figure 10: CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets 

 from Stanfield 67 

Table 13: CMB modeled PM2.5 source attribution 

 for Stanfield 68 

 Figure 11: CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets 

 from Stanfield 68 

 Table 14: CMB modeled PM2.5 species for re-suspended soil and 

 feedlot samples 69 

 Table 15: CMB modeled PM10 species for re-suspended soil and 

 feedlot samples 69 

 Addendum – Chemical Fingerprint Analysis 71 

 Figure 1: PM10 Chemical Fingerprint 74 

 

 Figure 2: PM2.5 Chemical Fingerprint 75 

 Figure 3: Ambient Sample PM10 76 

 Figure 4: Ambient Sample PM2.5 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 particulate matter at sites located in the 

agricultural basin, which occupies roughly the western third of the county. With grant 

support from the United States Environmental 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-located filter based Mini-Vol monitors 

capable of measuring particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and particulate 

matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) at five existing monitoring sites. All the existing 

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

ambient PM10 concentrations and one site had an existing FRM monitor configured to 

measure ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The Mini-Vol monitors operated in parallel with 

existing FRM monitors. 

Data collection occurred in October and November of 2003. In addition to servicing the 

Mini-Vol monitors, the fieldwork included collection of soil and feedlot surface material 

samples. During the data collection process the FRM monitors indicated 24-hour average 

PM10 concentrations ranging from 25.3 to 577.0 μg/m3

. PCAQCD transmitted the 

collected Mini-Vol filters and surface material samples to DRI. 

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

That effort included refinement of a CMB “fingerprint” for Pinal soils and a definition of 

a “fingerprint” for feedlot emissions. The CMB analysis indicated that under conditions 

of low concentrations of particulate matter, a relatively diverse category of sources 

contributed to observed ambient impacts. 

DRI’s analysis also indicated that when ambient concentrations rose to elevated levels, at 

four of the sites soil emissions, 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 concentrations reached elevated levels, those 

conclusions regarding source-attribution applied to both PM10 and PM2.5 emission 

impacts. 

PCAQCD prepared this final report. This report draws conclusions from the DRI analysis 

and provides additional background information, including corresponding FRM 

monitoring data and meteorological data. 

9 
10
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 the western third of the County. 

Dual samplers capable of measuring particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 

and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) were utilized to collect ambient air 

samples from five existing monitoring sites. Samples collected at each site were analyzed 

by Desert Research Institute (DRI) to determine 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 that contribute to particulate 

matter concentrations in the Pinal 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 collecting ten filter sets on a one in three day 

cycle between October 1, 2003 and October 31, 2003. The study duration was extended 

to November 8, 2003 so that three additional filter 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 recorded during the months of October and November.1 Several local 

conditions contribute to this every year, with the most notable one being cotton harvest. 

Local cotton fields are being harvested, fall tillage is taking place, and nine cotton gins 

spread throughout the agricultural basin are in full operation at this time. The equipment 

utilized in all of these operations tends to create particulate matter. The cotton harvest 

also adds a substantial amount of traffic to field apron roads 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 inversion conditions trapping emissions close to the earth’s 

surface. 

1.3 Study Area 

Based on historically elevated PM10 levels, the western portion of Pinal County was the 

area of focus for this study. Open field agriculture 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 PM10 monitoring records 

12
1.4.1 Casa Grande – 401 Marshall St. (Lat. N 32o

52’ Long. W 111o45’) 

This site is located on the roof of an Arizona 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 directions. It was expected that the many minor 

industrial sites, Southern Pacific mainline railroad traffic, 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 surrounding this site consists almost entirely of 

buildings, paved streets, and paved parking lots. Since the area surrounding 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 comparison. 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 PM10 concentrations at this site only reach about 67% of the 24-hour PM10 standard, 

and annual average concentrations only reach about 60% of the annual PM10 standard. 

Typical maximum 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at this site only reach about 50% of the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard, and maximum individual annual average concentrations only 

reach about 60% of the annual PM2.5 standard. 

1.4.2 Coolidge – 212 E. Broadway (Lat. N 32o58’ Long. W 111o30’) 

This site is located within the Pinal County Public Works Yard on the east side of 

Coolidge. Coolidge lies about thirty miles southeast of the Phoenix urban area, in a desert 

basin largely dominated by open field agriculture. 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 agricultural sources along the eastern edge of 

Coolidge, Phoenix spur railroad traffic, vehicle traffic, and 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 PM10 concentrations at this site approach 100% of the 24-hour PM10 standard, and 

maximum individual annual average concentrations only reach about 67% of the annual 

PM10 standard. 

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

63’ Long. W 

111o58’) 

This site is located approximately four miles 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 the 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 PM10 concentrations at this site often reach 200% 

or more of the 24-hour PM10 standard, and maximum individual annual average 

concentrations exceed 200% of the annual PM10 standard. Observed concentrations 

recorded by the Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM10 monitor over a 

3-year period extending through 2004 actually reached twice those values or more. 

However, installation of a second, parallel TEOM in April of 2005 indicated that, at least 

under elevated PM10 conditions, ambient concentrations reached only roughly 60% of 

those indicated by the original TEOM. Accordingly, for purposes of this discussion, 

PM10 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 32o53’ Long. 

W 111o

30’) 

This site is located within the Pinal County Housing Complex and is approximately 

eleven miles east of Casa Grande in the heart of the agricultural basin of Pinal County. 

The site is located within a fenced area that houses the sewer lift station for the 

subdivision. The enclosure is immediately surrounded 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 dairy, 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 agricultural sources and surrounding County dirt 

roads would potentially impact this site. 

Historical FRM data at this and a predecessor site indicates that, even apart from unusual 

wind events, maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations at this site exceed 200% of the 24-

hour PM10 standard, and maximum individual annual average concentrations reach about 

125% of the annual PM10 standard. 

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

53’ Long. W 110o57’) 

This site is located behind the Stanfield County Complex. Stanfield lies about fifteen 

miles west of Casa Grande, and about thirty miles south of the Phoenix urban area. 

Residential homes surround the 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 expected that the vast agricultural area that 

surrounds the site, several nearby feedlots, County 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 PM10 concentrations at this site exceed 200% of the 24-hour PM10 standard, and 

maximum individual annual average concentrations reach about 120% of the annual 

PM10 standard.

14
1.5 Monitors Installed or Utilized 

Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) installed and operated twenty (20) 

Airmetrics low volume particulate matter (Mini-Vol) samplers for this study. Four (4) 

Mini-Vol samplers were installed at each site listed below. Two (2) Mini-Vol samplers 

were equipped with PM10 heads and two (2) Mini-Vol samplers equipped with PM2.5

heads. Teflon filters were utilized in two of the Mini-Vols, one having a PM10 head and 

one having a PM2.5 head. Pallflex quartz filters were utilized in the remaining two MiniVols, one having a PM10 head and one having a PM2.5 head. The Mini-Vols operated on a 

one in three day schedule. Additionally, each site had existing monitors that were utilized 

as part of the study. These monitors are listed 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) PM10 sampler 

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

PM2.5 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 samplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM10 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 and wind direction data collected at this site 

were utilized. 

1.5.3 Cowtown 

In addition to the Min-Vol samplers, an existing TEOM PM10 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 meteorological 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 supplement 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 approximately five miles north of the Cowtown 

site. The topography between the two sites consists of flat irrigated farmland. Since the 

AZMET site had a more complete data set available and the data was representative of 

the area, the wind speed and wind direction data collected at the University of Arizona 

Agricultural Research Station site was utilized in place of the Cowtown meteorological 

data set. 

1.5.4 Pinal County Housing 

In addition to the Min-Vol samplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM10 sampler utilized quartz 

filters and was operated on a one in six day schedule. An existing TEOM PM10 sampler 

was operated continuously during the study. 

An existing three-meter meteorological system operated continuously during the study. 

The system recorded temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and 

wind direction standard deviation. 

1.5.5 Stanfield 

In addition to the Min-Vol samplers, an existing Hi-Vol PM10 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 Maricopa Agricultural Research Station. The 

Cowtown system is approximately nine miles north of the Stanfield site, the Casa Grande 

airport system is approximately thirteen miles northeast of the Stanfield site, and the 

University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Research Station AZMET system is 

approximately fourteen miles north of the Stanfield site. None of these meteorological 

stations can be considered representative of the 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 monitoring sites in order to create a more 

accurate source profile for the source apportionment. The Cowtown site was chosen for 

soil sampling due to its historically elevated PM10 concentrations and its proximity to 

three major sources of particulate 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 samples were then combined into one composite 

sample. The agricultural field soil samples involved collecting one pound of fine material 

from the surface of five randomly selected locations within the agricultural field 

immediately surrounding the Cowtown monitoring 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 filters were then analyzed using the same 

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

results from these filters DRI constructed a chemical fingerprint for feedlot soil 

emissions, agricultural soil emissions and dirt road soil emissions. The feedlot soil 

emission chemical analysis was significantly different 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 significantly differentiate 

between the agricultural field and the dirt road analyses. Thus, a separate category was 

not formed in the source apportionment for these two samples. A more detailed 

discussion of the feedlot chemical fingerprint 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 during the course of this study. 

The counter was placed on each road for seven 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 26th and October 3rd. 

• Farrell Road – the dirt section between Hartman Road and White and Parker 

Road. This count took place between October 3rd and October 10th. 

• Casa Grande Maricopa Highway – the paved section between Hartman Road and 

White and Parker Road. This count took place between October 28th and 

November 4th. 

• White and Parker Road – the dirt section between Farrell Road and Casa Grande 

Maricopa Highway. The count took place between October 14th and October 21st

. 

• Cowtown Road – the dirt road section between Hartman Road and White and 

Parker Road. This count took place between November 7th and November 14th. 

The road count information is included in Appendix E for reference. 

17
1.8 Note Taking 

The technicians in charge of maintaining the monitors were supplied with aerial 

photographs of each site. Dust producing activities or events observed during site visits 

were noted by placing a number 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 PM10 = 50, ambient PM2.5 = 50, source PM10 = 

3, source PM2.5 = 3, blanks = 10. 

DRI analyzed the pallflex quartz fiber filters for the cations Na+ and K+ by Atomic 

Absorption (AA) Spectroscopy, ammonium (NH4

+

) by Automated Colorimetry (AC), the 

anions SO4

2-, NO3-

, Cl- by Ion Chromatography (IC), and the eight carbon species as well 

as carbonate (CO3

=

) by Thermal/Optical Reflectance (TOR) carbon analysis. The number 

of pallflex quartz filters analyzed were as follows; ambient PM10 = 50, ambient PM2.5 = 

50, source PM10 = 3, source PM2.5 = 3, blanks = 10. 

DRI also performed a source apportionment analysis on the filters that were speciated 

using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Version 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 are 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 the continuous TEOM readings and the 

meteorological measurements. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) performed mass calculations on the Andersen PM2.5 filters. 

18
Section 2 

Results and Analysis 

19
2.1 Method Comparison 

The Mini-Vol samplers utilized for this project 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 PM10 sampler and 

one site, Casa Grande, also had an existing FRM PM2.5 sampler. 

Figure 1 illustrates how the PM10 Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with the PM10

FRM Hi-Vol filter concentrations. Throughout all five sites there were fifteen samples in 

which Hi-Vol data and Mini-Vol data were collected at the same location and time. 

Figure 1 shows the two samplers generally had 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 significantly below the Hi-Vol concentration. This 

could point to an ambient condition affecting both sites that prevented the Mini-Vols 

from operating properly or these two Mini-Vols did not mechanically operate correctly 

on October 30, 2003. Overall the Mini-Vol concentrations toggled back and forth as to 

whether they were higher or lower than the Hi-Vol concentrations. 

Figure 2 also illustrates how the PM10 Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with the 

PM10 Hi-Vol filter concentrations. Here the slope of the line equals 0.613 and the 

correlation coefficient (R2

) equals 0.747. (A slope of 1.0 and a R2 of 1.0 would represent 

the ideal situation where the 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 the 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 

R2: 0.747 

Figure 3 depicts how PM10 Mini-Vol filter concentrations compare with FRM PM10

TEOM filter concentrations. Two of the sites involved in this project, Pinal County 

Housing and Cowtown, were equipped with a FRM PM10 TEOM. At both sites there 

were a combined nineteen samples in which TEOM data and Mini-Vol data were 

collected at the same location and time. Figure 3 shows the Mini-Vol concentrations were 

always below the TEOM concentrations. All the data points, except run #17, show 

reasonable agreement between these two methods. 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 R2 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 

R2: 0.954 

The Casa Grande site was the only location at which a FRM PM2.5 sampler, the Andersen 

PM2.5 sampler described in section 1.5.1, was located with a PM2.5 Mini-Vol sampler. As 

shown in Table 1, this produced only three samples in which FRM PM2.5 data and PM2.5 

Mini-Vol data were collected at the same location and time. The methods do differ 

significantly in two of the three data points. Still, due to the small data set, it is difficult to 

draw conclusions on the agreement between the two methods. 

Table 1: FRM PM2.5 vs Mini-Vol PM2.5

Date FRM PM2.5 

(μg/m3) 

Mini-Vol PM2.5 

(μg/m3) 

10/18/2003 10.1 14.1 

10/30/2003 26.7 49.5 

11/5/2003 10.7 20.2 

PM10 and PM2.5 samples were collected at all five sites using the Mini-Vol samplers. 

Table 2 shows the average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations as recorded by the Mini-Vol 

samplers for the duration of this study. The average Mini-Vol PM2.5/PM10 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 PM2.5/PM10 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 PM2.5 FRM sampler is located, there is limited historical data. Still, for the last 

three years the Casa Grande annual average FRM PM2.5/PM10 ratio has consistently 

averaged 0.27 (+/-0.01). Since there were only three FRM PM2.5 samples taken during 

this project, the Study Duration Casa Grande FRM PM2.5/PM10 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 PM2.5/PM10 ratio analysis and difference in the FRM to Mini-Vol PM2.5

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

PM2.5 concentrations. 

Table 2: Mini-Vol PM2.5/PM10 ratios 

Site Avg. MiniVol PM10

(μg/m3) 

Avg. MiniVol PM2.5

(μg/m3) 

Avg. Mini-Vol 

PM2.5/PM10

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 PM2.5/PM10 ratios

Annual Casa Grande FRM PM2.5/PM10 ratios 

Year Annual Avg. 

PM10 

(μg/m3) 

Annual Avg. 

PM2.5 

 (μg/m3) 

Avg. FRM 

PM2.5/PM10

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 PM2.5/PM10 ratio 

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

Site Avg. Hi-Vol 

PM10 

(μg/m3)

Avg. FRM 

PM2.5 

 (μg/m3)

Avg. FRM 

PM2.5/PM10

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 encompassed by this project. The ten runs with the highest data 

recovery were the runs chosen for the speciation analysis. The 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, October 21, 2003, October 27, 2003, October 

30, 2003, November 5, 2003 and November 8, 2003. The 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 the laboratory voided one filter. 

PCAQCD utilized meteorological data collected at the Pinal County Housing, Casa 

Grande Airport, Cowtown, Coolidge AZMET 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 after the run date (the ambient filters were 

collected midnight to midnight). The Casa Grande area was chosen for the termination 

point of the model due to its central location. The 0700 to 0700 time frame was chosen to 

account for the fact that monitoring sites were located both east and west of Casa Grande. 

Given the resolution of the HYSPLIT analysis this was not a necessary consideration. 

The graphical product produced by the NOAA HYSPLIT model is included in Appendix 

D-2. Information on the model and the data inputs used in the model can be found at 

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysp_info.html 

Appendix C contains the source apportionment results as compiled by DRI. The 

information listed in this appendix is based 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 PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations as measured by the Mini-Vol 

samplers at each site. Appendix C - Figure 1 shows the concentrations 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 CMB modeling. Each site has a table listing the 

modeled chemical mass balance for each PM10 run along with the modeled and measured 

concentrations for each run. This same information is also represented in pie chart figures 

directly below each table. Additionally, each site has a table and pie chart figure detailing 

the modeled chemical mass balance for each PM2.5 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 PM2.5 species for the resuspended agricultural field, dirt road and 

feedlot samples. Appendix C - Table 15 lists the CMB modeled PM10 species for the 

resuspended agricultural field, dirt road and feedlot samples. 

24
The pie charts depicted in Appendix C - Figure 2 through Figure 11 are all based on the 

corresponding information listed in Appendix C - Table 4 through Table 13. Generally, 

dividing the individual modeled source component (soil, feedlot, motor vehicle, 

vegetative burning, coal power plants, ammonium sulfate, or ammonium nitrate) by the 

modeled mass produces the pie charts percentages. 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” category dividing the individual 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 following sections include PM10 pie charts and PM2.5 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 explanation of how DRI derived the feedlot 

chemical fingerprint. Each composite soil sample from the Cowtown site was 

individually resuspended and two sets of air 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 emissions and dirt road soil emissions. Figure 5 

illustrates these three chemical fingerprints for PM10 and Figure 6 illustrates these three 

chemical fingerprints for PM2.5. Shown in both figures are concentrations of 17 chemical 

species and their analytical uncertainties (⊥), including water soluble nitrate, sulfate and 

ammonium, the eight carbon species (Organic Carbon (OC) 1 thru 4, Optical Pyrolyis by 

Thermal/Optical Reflectance (OPT) and Elemental 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 PM10 and PM2.5 Feedlot Dust samples differ from the PM10 and PM2.5 

Agricultural and Road Dust samples in that they contain a substantial amount of total 

carbon (TC), which is the total of the concentrations of the carbon species, particularly 

OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. 

25
Figure 5: PM10 Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 

Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1OC2OC3

OC4OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3OC4

OPT

EC1EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1OC2OC3OC4OPT

EC1

EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

26
Figure 6: PM2.5 Surface Material Chemical Fingerprints 

Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPT

EC1

EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2OC3OC4OPT

EC1

EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

2.2.1 Casa Grande Source Apportionment Results

The Casa Grande site was the control site for the project due to its central location and 

the area surrounding the site being well stabilized. 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 immediately surrounding the monitoring site. The 

average 24-hour PM10 concentration for the site as recorded by the Mini-Vol sampler was 

44 μg/m3 during this project. This is the lowest of the sites included in the study. 

Appendix C – Table 4 and Figure 2 show the CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for 

Casa Grande. The highest source contribution 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 percentage, 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 Appendix D-1 do not always support the feedlot soil 

emissions coming from this dairy. Dairies and feedlots further to the 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 located throughout the agricultural basin are 

contributing significantly to the recorded PM10 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 fields for fertilizer. Either one of these 

conclusions would explain feedlot emissions being identified in many samples where 

they cannot be linked to a specific feedlot or dairy using the wind roses. 

Vegetative burning and coal power plant emissions were the remaining two prominent 

source contributions. The percentages of both of these categories reduced as the PM10

concentrations increased. Vegetative burning averaged 6% and coal power plant 

emissions averaged 5% over the ten runs. 

The vegetative burning emissions were expected at all the sites. Open burning is a 

common practice throughout Pinal County. Countywide PCAQCD issued 253 burn 

permits during October 2003 that allowed plant 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 southeast in Tucson. The wind roses in Appendix 

D-1 and the HYSPLIT analysis in Appendix D-2 do not support attributing these 

emissions to the Tucson plant. Since the coal power plant emissions are identified in each 

sample it appears the emissions are originating from multiple sources. 

Ammonium Nitrate was the only remaining source contribution identified in all the 

samples with an average of 3%. One sample, 10/9/03, identified ammonium sulfate with 

3.8% and motor vehicle emissions with 5.3% as contributing sources. Since only one 

sample identified these two sources the average 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 PM10 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 PM2.5 source attributions for 

Casa Grande. The highest source contribution 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 large 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 the cut point on the Mini-Vol PM2.5 sampler was not accurate for 

these two runs and the sampler overestimated the PM2.5 concentrations. This would also 

in part explain the increased PM2.5/PM10 ratio discussed in Section 2.1. 

Vegetative burning with an average source contribution of 10% and motor vehicle 

emissions with an average source contribution of 12% were the remaining significant 

sources. As discussed earlier, vegetative burning was an expected source contribution at 

all the sites. The motor vehicle contribution was expected due to the proximity of several 

busy nearby city streets. Ammonia nitrate and Ammonia sulfate were the remaining two 

identified sources with average contributions 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 site that did not include feedlot 

emissions in the PM 2.5 source apportionment was Stanfield. 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 Stanfield source apportionment results will be 

further discussed in Section 2.2.5.) Further sampling 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 PM2.5 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 due 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 site the landscape generally 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 PM10 concentration during the project as recorded by the Mini-Vol 

sampler was one of the lowest in the study at 47 μg/m3

. Even though this value is 

elevated when compared to the annual PM10 standard, it should be noted that this average 

only included nine runs and the time period in which the study was conducted is 

generally when the highest particulate matter concentrations are recorded. 

Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM10 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 scheduled twenty-four. The quartz filter for 

October 15, 2003 only ran seven hours out of the 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 PM10 source attributions for 

Coolidge. The highest source contribution in all ten runs was the geological soil category 

with an average contribution of 73%. On average the second highest contribution was 

the feedlot soil category with 9%, even though feedlot emissions were only identified in 

four of the nine runs analyzed. The nearest dairy is located approximately four miles 

30
northeast of the site. Another dairy 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 these dairies. The remaining run, October 12, 

2003, appears to have been a very calm day with winds generally coming across the dairy 

northeast of the site and towards the monitor. 

Coal power plant and vegetative burning emissions were the remaining two predominant 

source contributions. Coal power plant emissions 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 emissions were the lowest source contributions 

with ammonium nitrate averaging 3% and motor vehicle emissions averaging 2%. The 

small contribution from motor vehicle emissions was expected since the monitor is 

located along a residential street. Throughout the project ammonium nitrate was 

identified in small quantities in all but two PM10 runs, or 96% of the PM10 runs. It is 

common practice to supplement agricultural soils by bubbling gaseous ammonia into 

irrigation canals. The ammonia dissolves readily in water and forms ammonium ions. 

Sewage treatment plants and animal manure are 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 PM10 source attribution resulted in very little unidentified emissions. Only 

three runs included an unidentified, or other, component. In these three runs this 

component was a very small percentage and on average the other component made up 

less than 1% of the PM10 source attribution. 

Figure 9 graphically depicts the PM10 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 PM2.5 source attributions for 

Coolidge. The highest identified source contribution 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 category with 20%. Eight runs included an 

other category with four runs having greater than 30% of the source attribution 

unidentified. Three of the four runs with a large unidentified contribution, October 15, 

2003, October 18, 2003, and November 21, 2003 had a larger than expected PM2.5/PM10

ratio, 0.69, 0.59 and 0.70 respectively. In other words, the measured PM2.5 concentration 

seemed too large when compared to the measured PM10 concentration. Historical data 

suggests we would expect a ratio closer to 0.30 (see section 2.1). A PM2.5/PM10 ratio 

could not be calculated for the fourth date, November 8, 2003, since the corresponding 

Mini-Vol PM10 filter was voided. It is likely that the Mini-Vol PM2.5 samplers did not 

operate properly on these days and over estimated the PM2.5 concentrations. 

Coal power plant emissions made up the third largest source with an average of 15%. As 

seen throughout the study coal power plant emissions reduced dramatically as 

concentrations increased. In all cases where 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 PM2.5 concentration was fairly low, 11.4 μg/m3, 10.5 μg/m3 and 

8.4 μg/m3 respectively. 

Vegetative burning with an average contribution of 9%, motor vehicle emissions with an 

average contribution of 7%, and feedlot soil emissions with an average contribution of 

5% were the remaining significant sources. Vegetative burning was an expected source 

contribution at all the sites. Motor vehicle emissions were an expected source due to the 

site’s proximity to a residential street. Only two samples included a feedlot soil 

component in the PM2.5 source attribution, October 15, 2003 with 9.0% and October 30, 

2003 with 40.6%. The wind rose for October 30, 2003 does not support attributing the 

elevated feedlot component directly to either of the nearby dairies. 

Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate were the remaining two identified sources 

with 3% and 1% respectively. Ammonium nitrate is an expected source contribution as 

discussed in the Coolidge PM10 source attribution description. Ammonium sulfate was 

only identified in three PM2.5 runs at Coolidge, two PM2.5 runs in Stanfield, two PM2.5

runs in Casa Grande, and one PM10 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 dioxide gas is introduced into the atmosphere 

primarily from fossil fuel combustion. The gas in turn converts to sulfuric 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 sulfate was not identified in either the PM2.5 or 

PM10 source attribution. (The Cowtown source apportionment results will be further 

discussed in Section 2.2.3.) 

32
Figure 10 graphically depicts the PM2.5 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% 9% 7%

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 surrounded by active and retired agricultural fields. 

Appendix C – Table 8 and Figure 6 show the CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for 

Cowtown. Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM10 source apportionment 

analysis for this site. The October 27, 2003 run was voided by DRI since no mass was 

recorded on the Teflon filter. 

The highest PM10 source contribution in all nine runs was the feedlot soil category with 

an average contribution of 59%. The second highest source contribution for all the runs 

was the geological soil category with an average 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 PM10 concentration at Cowtown was well above any other site at 

127 μg/m3

, as recorded by the Mini-Vol PM10 sampler. Four samples had a recorded 

PM10 Mini-Vol concentration above 200 μg/m3

, 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 made 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 only contributed 1% on average. 

33
Four runs included an unidentified category, 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 other. Averaged over the nine runs this 

leaves 4% in the unidentified category. 

Figure 11 graphically depicts the PM10 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 PM2.5 source attributions for 

Cowtown. Ten runs were analyzed and included in the PM2.5 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 the 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 PM2.5 concentration at Cowtown was also well above any other site 

at 67μg/m3, as recorded by the Mini-Vol PM2.5 sampler. Three samples had a recorded 

PM2.5 Mini-Vol concentration above 100 μg/m3

, October 21, 2003, October 27, 2003, and 

November 8, 2003. In all three cases the wind roses created for the site show inversion 

conditions with light winds throughout the day. 

Coal power plant emissions were the third largest contributor with an average of 9%. As 

seen at other sites the coal power plant emission 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 source attribution, vegetative burning emissions 

contributed 21%, and geological soil emissions contributed 18%. The PM2.5 measured 

concentration for this date was the lowest recorded at the site at 15.7 μg/m3. A specific 

source for the elevated coal power plant emissions and vegetative burning emissions 

could not be identified. 

Ammonium nitrate with an average contribution of 4% and motor vehicle emissions with 

an average contribution of 3% were the remaining identified source contributions. Both 

of these sources were expected to have a larger contribution due to the nearby feedlots 

serving as a source of ammonia and the proximity of a heavily traveled road. As noted 

earlier this is the only site that was near a heavily 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 PM2.5 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 immediately surrounded by native desert; beyond that 

open field agriculture dominates the landscape for at least ten miles in all directions. The 

average 24-hour PM10 concentration for this site during the project as recorded by the 

Mini-Vol sampler was elevated at 60 μg/m3

. 

Appendix C – Table 10 and Figure 8 show the CMB modeled PM10 source attributions 

for Pinal County Housing. Ten runs were analyzed and included in the PM10 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 geological soil category 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 nearest 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 always support attributing the feedlot soil emissions to these 

dairies. As discussed earlier, the feedlot soil emissions could be attributed to the large 

number of dairies and feedlots throughout the agricultural basin or manure spread over 

agricultural fields. 

Coal power plant emissions made up the third largest category with an average of 6%. 

This site is immediately surrounded by native desert and a small group of houses with 

vast tracks of agricultural fields beyond that. 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. Considering there is not a local 

source that could contribute to this source category and the 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 long-range transport mechanism affecting this 

source category. 

Vegetative burning and ammonium nitrate emissions 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 over the ten runs this leaves 2% in the 

unidentified category. 

Figure 13 graphically depicts the PM10 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 PM2.5 source attributions 

for Pinal County Housing. Nine runs were analyzed and included in the PM2.5 source 

apportionment analysis for this site. The Teflon filter for October 18, 2003 ran for 17 

hours, although no mass was recorded on the filter. Since there was not a valid Teflon 

filter for the date it was not included 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 PM2.5

concentration recorded by the Mini-Vol on this day was relatively small at 7.1 μg/m3

. As 

concentrations increased the coal power plant percentages dramatically decreased. As 

discussed earlier a long-range transport mechanism seems to be affecting this source 

category. 

Motor Vehicle emissions averaged 8% over the nine runs. October 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 PM2.5 concentration for that day was 9.5 

μg/m3 and the motor vehicle contribution did generally reduce as concentrations 

increased. The site is located in an area where 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 still does not explain the high motor vehicle source 

contribution on October 9, 2003. Field notes also do not note any activities that could 

have contributed to this source category. It is possible that an unidentified localized 

activity contributed significantly to this source category on October 9, 2003. 

37
Feedlot soil emissions also averaged 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 that run. The Mini-Vol PM2.5 concentration for that day was 

elevated at 35.4 μg/m3

. The wind rose included in Appendix D-1 for Pinal County 

Housing on October 30, 2003 did show sustained winds blowing across the nearest dairy 

and towards the monitor. 

Vegetative burning and ammonium nitrate were 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 create a localized source of ammonia it does 

not appear to have affected the source apportionment for the site. Ammonium sulfate was 

not identified in either the PM10 or PM2.5 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 the 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 PM2.5/PM10

ratio on two of these days was higher than expected, 0.55 for October 30, 2003 and 0.57 

for November 8, 2003.The PM2.5/PM10 ratio for November 5, 2003 was slightly elevated 

at 0.39. It is likely that the Mini-Vol samplers over estimated the PM2.5 concentrations 

on these days. 

Figure 14 graphically depicts the PM2.5 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. Sizeable feedlot operations and dairies lie 

approximately three miles to the north, east, and west. The average 24-hour PM10

concentration during the project as recorded by the Mini-Vol sampler was elevated at 55 

μg/m3

. 

Appendix C – Table 12 and Figure 10 show the CMB modeled PM10 source attributions 

for the Stanfield site. Ten runs were analyzed and included in the PM10 source 

apportionment analysis for this site, although two 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 was still included in the 

source apportionment since a mass and concentration could be computed using the 

corresponding Teflon filter. Sources identified using the quartz filter analysis, such as 

ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, were not accounted for on October 15, 2003. 

This explains why this is one of the two PM10 runs throughout the entire study that did 

not have a small ammonium nitrate component. 

The highest identified source contribution in all ten runs was the geological soil category 

with an average contribution of 63%. The second 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 were constructed for the area. Several dairies 

and feedlots are located approximately three miles to the north, east and west of the site. 

Coal power plant and vegetative burning emissions made up the third and fourth largest 

categories, each with an average of 4%. There are no industrial sources in the area that 

could be attributed to the coal power plant category. As discussed earlier it appears there 

is a long-range transport mechanism affecting this source category. Ammonium nitrate 

was the remaining identified source category with an average of 3%. Both vegetative 

burning and ammonia nitrate emissions are expected given the 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 PM10 Mini-Vol samplers operated properly and ran for the full twentyfour hours on October 3, 2003. The measured concentration for the PM10 Mini-Vol 

sampler was 43.1 μg/m3 and this does not seem abnormally high or low. The reasoning 

for this unusually large unidentified fraction in the PM10 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 PM10 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 PM2.5 source attributions 

for the Stanfield site. The geological soil category was the largest source contribution in 

eight of the ten runs. Geological 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 average contribution of 17%. In nine of the ten runs coal power 

plant emissions were the second largest source and on October 12, 2003 coal power plant 

emissions were the dominant source with 22.8%. As mentioned previously 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 had 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 contribution for October 30, 2003. It is likely 

that on both of these days a local brush disposal fire affected the PM2.5 source 

apportionment. 

Motor vehicle emissions with an average contribution of 7%, ammonium nitrate with an 

average contribution of 5%, and ammonium sulfate with an average contribution of 2% 

made up the remaining identified source categories. 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 

PM2.5/PM10 ratio for both of these days was well within 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 PM2.5 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. The large number of feedlots and dairies in 

40
the area would serve as a source of ammonia 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 with 37.7% in the other category. The PM2.5/PM10 ratio 

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

over estimated the ambient PM2.5 concentration on this day. Averaged over the ten runs 

6% of the source attribution was unidentified. 

Figure 16 graphically depicts the PM2.5 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%

7% 0%

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 around 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 emissions. This was a known limitation when 

designing the study and the addition of soil sampling was not able to overcome this 

limitation. 

With this limitation the road count information 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 quantify 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 PM10 concentrations in the agricultural basin of Pinal 

County. 

 Somewhat surprisingly, feedlot emissions also meaningfully contribute to 

elevated ambient PM10 impacts even at monitoring sites well-removed from any actual 

feedlot. The common use of manure as a soil 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 PM10 emissions. Feedlot emissions consistently 

contribute more than 50% of elevated concentrations of PM10. Historical FRM data 

indicates 24-hour PM10 concentrations at that site often reach 200% or more of the 24-

hour PM10 standard, and annual average concentrations exceed 200% of the annual PM10

standard. 

 This study and historical monitoring data both indicate that when PM10

concentrations rise, the observed average ratio of PM2.5-to-PM10 concentrations equals 

about 0.3-to-1.0. No site-specific FRM PM2.5 data currently exists for the "Cowtown" 

site. However, arithmetic application of the empirical PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio to the elevated 

PM10 FRM data discussed above produces a rational expectation that PM2.5

concentrations at the "Cowtown" site will exceed both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5

standards. 

 The CMB analysis of the PM2.5 filters from the "Cowtown" monitoring site 

indicates feedlot emissions contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. When PM2.5 ambient 

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

PM2.5. 

43
Appendix A 

Site Descriptions

44
Casa Grande Downtown - CG 

401 Marshall St., Casa Grande, Arizona 

Latitude: N 32o52.682' Longitude: W 111o45.135' Map Datum: WGS 84 

 

 Table A-1 

Parameter Instrument #1 Instrument #2 Instrument #3 

Pollutant Type PM2.5 PM10 PM10 / PM2.5

Date Established 1999 1989 October 2003 

County ID CG PM2.5 CG PM10 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 meters 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 360o 360 o 360o

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 (PM10) 

5.1 meters (PM2.5) 

Nearest Road Marshall St. Marshall St. Marshall St. 

 Distance and Direction to 

Road 

18.9 meters – E 22.9 meters – E 16.7 meters – E 

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

Surrounding Area Business district Business district Business District 

Notes: The photo was taken while facing north. 

45
Coolidge Maintenance Yard - CLDG 

212 E. Broadway, Coolidge, Arizona 

Latitude: N 32o58.717' Longitude: W 111o30.874' Map Datum: WGS 84 

 Table A-2 

Parameter Instrument #1 Instrument #2 

Pollutant Type PM10 PM10 / PM2.5

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 360o 360o

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 33o00.632’ Longitude: W 111o58.323’ Map Datum: WGS 84 

Table A-3

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

Pollutant Type PM10 Wind Temp & RH 

/Pressure 

Video PM10 / PM2.5

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 360o 360o 360o 360o 360o

Furnace or Incinerator 

Flue 

None None None None None 

 Distance and Direction 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 32o

53.471' Longitude: W 111o34.225' Map Datum: WGS 84 

 Table A-4 

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

Pollutant Type PM10 PM10 Wind Temp&RH/Pressure PM10 / PM2.5

Date Established 2002 2002 2002 2002 October 2003 

County ID PCH TEOM PCH PM10 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 360o 360 o 360o 360o 360o

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 32o52.876' Longitude: W 111o57.717' Map Datum: WGS 84 

 

 Table A-5 

Parameter Instrument #1 Instrument #2 

Pollutant Type PM10 PM10 / PM2.5

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 360o 360o

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/m3) 

Table B-1 

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM10 FRM PM2.5 Mini-Vol PM2.5

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/m3)

Table B-2 

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM2.5

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 there is no data available. 

Void = The sampler was scheduled to run, but the sample was invalid. 

51
Cowtown Concentration Data 

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m3)

Table B-3 

Date FRM TEOM PM10 Mini-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM2.5

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/m3)

Table B-4 

Date FRM Hi-Vol 

PM10

FRM TEOM 

PM10

Mini-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol 

PM2.5

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 there is no data available. 

Void = The sampler was scheduled to run, but the sample was invalid. 

52
Stanfield Concentration Data 

(24 Hour Avg. μg/m3) 

Table B-5 

Date FRM Hi-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM10 Mini-Vol PM2.5

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 there 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 Control 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

55
Table 1. Average measured PM2.5 to PM10 mass ratios for Pinal County, Arizona

Site ID Site 

Average mass 

PM10 μg/m3

Average mass 

PM2.5 μg/m3

Average Mass 

PM2.5/PM10Ratio 

CasGra Casa Grande 44 18 0.41 CooMai Coolidge Maintenance Yard 47 25 0.53 Cowtow Cowtown 127 67 0.53 PinCou Pinal County Housing 60 25 0.42 StaCou Stanfield County Complex 55 18 0.32 

Average for Pinal County 66 31 0.46 

Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 56 
Measured Mass Casa Grande, Pinal County, Arizona 

0

20406080

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/m3

Measured Mass PM10 Measured Mass PM2.5 Annual NAAQS10 (50) Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)

Measured Mass Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pi

0

255075

100

10/03/03

10/06/03

10/09/03

10/12/03

10/15/03

10/18/03

10/21/03

10/24/03

Measured Mass (unc) ug/m3

Measured Mass PM10 Measured Mass PM2.5 Annua

Measured Mass Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona

0

100200300400

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/m3

Measured Mass PM10 Measured Mass PM2.5 Annual NAAQS10 (50) Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)

Measured Mass Pinal County Housin

0

306090

120

10/3/03

10/6/03

10/9/03

10/12/03

10/15/03

10/18/03

10/21/03

10/24/03

Measured Mass (unc) yg/m3

Measured Mass PM10 Measured Mass PM2.5 Annual NA

Measured Mass Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County, Arizona

0

255075

100

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/m3

Measured Mass PM10 Measured Mass PM2.5 Annual NAAQS10 (50) Annual NAAQS2.5 (15)

Figure 1. Measured mass for PM10 and PM2.5 at Casa Grande, Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Cowtown, Pinal County Housing, and Stanfield C

Arizona 

Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 57 
Table 2. Legend: CMB source attributions for Pinal County, Arizona 

Source ID Generic source description CMB modeled chemical source profiles Soil Geological soil PHBAREAG agricultural soil, PHUPRD1 unpaved road dust, TUDSOIL desert soil, PINSL688 dirt rFeedlot Feedlot soil PINSL690 feedlot MvEmi Motor vehicle emissions PHRDP motor vehicle emissions, BVRSMV01 roadside exhaust VgBrn Vegetative burning BVBURN15, BVBURN19, BVBURN11, 9RICE, ColPP Coal fired power plant BVCOAL03, BVCOAL06, BVCOAL18 AmSulf Ammonium sulfate AMSUL AmNitr Ammonium nitrate AMNIT Other Unclassified sources 

Table 3. Measured source profiles applied in Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling for Pinal County, Arizona Generic ID 

Site Identification (SID) 

Particle size 

Profile number (PNO) 

Description 

Soil PHBAREAG PM2.5 5.002 Phoenix agricultural soil from bare field; composite, 9 bulk samples collected on 1/2

PHBAREAG PM10 5.001 Phoenix agricultural soil from bare field; composite, 9 bulk samples collected on 1/2

PHUPRD1 PM2.5 5.02 Phoenix unpaved road dust W/Hi Calcium; composite, 2 bulk samples collected on PHUPRD1 PM10 5.019 Phoenix unpaved road dust W/Hi Calcium; composite, 2 bulk samples collected on TUDSOIL PM2.5 5.026 Tucson desert soil; composite, 3 samples. 

TUDSOIL PM10 5.025 Tucson desert soil; composite, 3 samples. 

Pinal County dirt road from Hartman Road, Cowtown; composite, N33o00.272' W1

PINSL688 PM2.5 RDST01 

Pinal County dirt road from Hartman Road, Cowtown; composite, N33o00.272' W1

PINSL688 PM10 RDST03 

Pinal County agricultural field soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o00.697' W111o PINSL689 PM2.5 AGRI01 Pinal County agricultural field soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o00.697' W111o PINSL689 PM10 AGRI03 

Pinal County Maricopa feed yard soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o01.288' W1

Feedlot PINSL690 PM2.5 FDL01 

Pinal County Maricopa feed yard soil from Cowtown; composite, N33o01.288' W1

PINSL690 PM10 FDL03 

MvEmi PHRD PM2.5 5.037 Phoenix motor vehicle; composite, 10 roadside samples average after background c

BVRSMV01 PM2.5 19.031 BRAVO San Antonio Texas roadside exhaust; 0642-0742, 

VgBrn BVBURN15 PM2.5 19.066 BRAVO open burning of cut mesquite shrubs/trees 

BVBURN19 PM2.5 19.081 BRAVO open burning of piles of dry grass BVBURN11 PM2.5 19.082 BRAVO open burning of piles of dry grass 

9RICE PM2.5 20.008 CRPAQS rice straw fireplace; ventilated open fire with grate 

ColPP BVCOAL03 PM2.5 19.088 BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #1; 0700-1200 

BVCOAL06 PM2.5 19.091 BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #2; morning BVCOAL18 PM2.5 19.1 BRAVO stack emission Texas electric utility, plant #3; 1630-0700 

AmSulf AMSUL Secondary ammonium sulfate AmNitr AMNIT Secondary ammonium nitrate Other UNCLASSIFIED Other sources not modeled Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 58 
Table 4. CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for Casa Grande, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 9.7297 3.2929 1.3352 2.8227 0.6118 17.79

10/9/2003 17.9317 2.5553 1.9776 1.6980 1.0412 1.3941 0.8529 9.5479 27.45

10/12/2003 21.8483 5.9633 2.5152 2.6065 1.4292 34.3610/15/2003 32.3797 5.9709 3.4125 3.0671 1.3016 46.1310/18/2003 34.9460 8.0798 3.2637 3.1637 1.3050 50.7510/21/2003 45.5010 10.2731 4.0666 3.4565 1.5383 64.8310/27/2003 40.2017 11.9147 2.9034 1.6628 1.3678 3.0769 58.0510/30/2003 23.9295 22.0076 3.1029 1.3382 1.8479 52.22

11/5/2003 44.3616 17.8782 2.0794 1.9869 3.0936 69.3911/8/2003 49.0083 19.1029 2.9352 1.7937 3.0068 75.84

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/03/2003

VgBrn

7.5%

AmNitr

ColPP 3.4%

15.9%

Soil

54.7%

Feedlot

18.5%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/09/2003

Other

25.8%

Feedlot

6.9%

Soil

48.5%

ColPP

2.8%

AmSulf

3.8%

AmNitr

2.3%

VgBrn

4.6% MvEmi

5.3%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/12/2003

VgBrn

7.3%

AmNitr

4.2% ColPP

7.6%

Soil

63.6%

Feedlot

17.4%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/15/2003

Feedlot

12.9%

Soil

70.2%

ColPP

6.6%

AmNitr

2.8%

VgBrn

7.4%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 13.3 ± 1.6 Measured Mass for PM10 = 37.0 ± 2.3 Measured Mass for PM10 = 27.7± 2.0 Measured Mass for PM10 = 39.9± 2.5 

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/21/2003

VgBrn

6.3%

AmNitr

2.4%

ColPP

5.3%

Soil

70.2%

Feedlot

15.8%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/27/2003

Other

5.0%

VgBrn

4.7%

AmNitr

ColPP 2.3%

2.7%

Soil

65.7%

Feedlot

19.5%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 10/30/2003

Feedlot

42.1%

Soil

45.8%

ColPP

2.6%

AmNitr

3.5% VgBrn

5.9%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM10, 11/05/2003

VgBrn

3.0%

AmNitr

4.5%

ColPP

2.9%

Soil

63.9%

Feedlot

25.8%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 46.9± 2.8 Measured Mass for PM10 = 61.1± 3.4 Measured Mass for PM10 = 48.9± 2.8 Measured Mass for PM10 = 57.3± 3.2 

Figure 2. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets from Casa Grande, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 59 
Table 5. CMB modeled PM2.5 source attributions for Casa Grande, Pinal County (μg/m3), 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 1.9390 0.7934 0.6292 1.4039 0.3102 5.07

10/9/2003 1.8215 2.2396 1.3601 3.0450 0.5091 0.3030 8.97

10/12/2003 3.7625 2.1156 0.7225 1.3441 0.6728 0.4176 9.0310/15/2003 5.5720 2.4022 1.8552 3.4629 0.5751 13.8610/18/2003 7.3087 2.2865 1.9044 3.5227 0.5640 15.5810/21/2003 11.9098 1.4690 3.2201 0.5066 17.1010/27/2003 9.4992 1.8690 1.0689 3.3930 0.6290 15.0971 16.4510/30/2003 3.4552 6.0003 1.3186 0.9356 1.1484 36.7122 12.85

11/5/2003 12.6782 2.4424 1.8207 1.8544 1.0986 0.3536 19.8911/8/2003 18.1697 2.2397 2.3256 2.4840 1.3958 0.3358 26.61

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM 2.5, 10/03/2003

Soil

38.2%

ColPP

27.7%

AmNitr

6.1%

VgBrn

12% M vEmi

15.6%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM 2.5, 10/09/2003

Other

3.3% Soil

19.6%

ColPP

32.8%

AmNitr

5.5%

VgBrn

14.7%

M vEmi

24.1%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/12/2003

MvEmi

23.4%

VgBrn

8.0%

AmNitr

4.6%

AmSulf

7.4%

ColPP

14.9% Soil 41.6%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/15/2003

MvEmi

17.3%

VgBrn

13.4%

AmNitr

4.1%

ColPP

25.0% Soil

40.2%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 3.3±1.4 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 9.3±1.5 Measured Mass for PM10 = 6.8±1.5 Measured Mass for PM10 = 11.9±1.6 

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/21/2003

Soil

69.6%

ColPP

18.8%

AmNitr

3.0%

VgBrn

8.6%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/27/2003

Other

47.8%

MvEmi

5.9%

VgBrn

AmNitr 3.4%

2.0%

ColPP

10.8%

Soil

30.1%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/30/2003

Other

74.1%

VgBrn

12.1%

AmNitr

2.3%

AmSulf

2%

ColPP

2.7%

Soil

7.0%

Casa Grande, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 11/05/2003

Other

1.8%

MvEmi

12.1%

VgBrn

9.0%

AmNitr

ColPP 5.4%

9.2%

Soil

62.5%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 13.0±1.6 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 31.6±2.6 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 49.6±2.8 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 20.2±1.7 

Figure 3. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets from Casa Grande, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 60 
Table 6. CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 15.8097 3.8870 1.3082 2.9657 0.7396 0.6089 24.71

10/9/2003 24.5925 4.5911 4.5006 1.2016 0.1968 34.88

10/12/2003 19.7821 7.6202 2.9127 3.0941 1.2033 34.6110/15/2003 42.3824 2.7418 3.9103 1.4120 0.3635 50.4410/18/2003 37.3024 3.2504 2.7686 3.9731 0.9111 48.2010/21/2003 53.5207 2.0797 2.8359 4.1914 1.0550 63.6810/27/2003 35.3002 6.7165 2.1406 2.5336 1.1882 47.8710/30/2003 52.0201 27.0692 4.0365 4.2241 2.1544 89.50

11/5/2003 54.3208 2.3365 1.3575 1.0735 59.0811/8/2003 *Void 

*Void - Teflon filter deposit appears to be much lighter than quartz. 

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/03/2003

Other

2.4%

AmNitr

2.9%

ColPP

11.7%

Soil

62.4%

Feedlot

15.4%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/09/2003

Other

0.6%

Soil

70.1%

ColPP

12.8%

AmNitr

3.4%

VgBrn

13.1%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/12/2003

Feedlot

22.0%

Soil

57.2%

ColPP

8.9%

AmNitr

3.5%

VgBrn

8.4%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/15/2003

Other

0.7%

Soil

83.4%

ColPP

7.7%

AmNitr

2.8%

VgBrn

5.4%

Measured Mass for PM10 =25.3±2.4 Measured Mass for PM10 = 35.1±2.3 Measured Mass for PM10 = 32.3±2.2 Measured Mass for PM10 = 50.8±2.9 

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/21/2003

Soil

84.0%

ColPP

6.6%

AmNitr

1.7%

VgBrn

4.5%

MvEmi

3.3%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/27/2003

MvEmi

4.5%

AmNitr

2.5%

ColPP

5.3%

Soil

73.7%

Feedlot

14%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/30/2003

Feedlot

30.2%

Soil

58.1%

ColPP

4.7%

AmNitr

VgBrn 2.4%

4.5%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

11/05/2003

VgBrn

4.0%

AmNitr

1.8%

ColPP

2.3%

Soil

91.9%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 48.3±2.8 Measured Mass for PM10 = 41.9±2..5 Measured Mass for PM10 = 86.7±4.6 Measured Mass for PM10 = 60.8±3.3 

Figure 4. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets from, Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 61 
Table 7. CMB modeled PM2.5 source attributions for Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 5.4433 1.2094 1.0258 2.7349 0.3388 0.6945 10.75

10/9/2003 4.0483 2.5309 1.8250 3.6521 0.4178 12.47

10/12/2003 2.3615 0.8999 1.6247 3.1962 0.4070 8.4810/15/2003 11.6974 3.1636 2.5551 1.4807 1.7425 0.9801 0.6103 13.0126 22.2210/18/2003 9.1212 1.7757 1.9201 2.5961 1.4093 10.0212 16.8210/21/2003 10.5251 2.0365 1.4311 3.0954 1.2703 15.9440 18.3510/27/2003 10.5979 1.8754 2.2931 0.5133 1.9167 15.2710/30/2003 7.7153 14.2376 3.2335 2.7877 1.2948 5.8391 29.26

11/5/2003 15.4010 1.6810 1.9393 0.8728 3.3279 19.8911/8/2003 22.2432 2.6127 2.0177 2.8725 1.1000 19.3630 30.84

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/03/2003

Other

6.1%

MvEmi

10.6%

VgBrn

9.0%

AmNitr

3.0%

ColPP

23.9%

Soil

47.6%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/09/2003

Soil

ColPP 32.5%

29.3%

AmNitr

3.3%

VgBrn

14.6%

MvEmi

20.3%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/12/2003

MvEmi

10.6%

VgBrn

19.1%

AmNitr

4.8%

ColPP

37.7%

Soil

27.8%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/15/2003

Other

36.9%

Soil

33.2%

AmSulf

2.8%

AmNitr

1.7%

VgBrn

4.2%

MvEmi

7.3%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 11.4±1.7 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 10.5±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 8.4±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 35.2±2.3 

Coolidge M aintenance Yard, Pinal County, Arizona PM 2.5, 

10/21/2003

Other

46.5%

Soil

30.7%

ColPP

9.0% AmSulf

3.7%

VgBrn

4.2%

M vEmi

5.9%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/27/2003

Other

11.1%

VgBrn

10.9%

AmNitr

3.0%

ColPP

13.3% Soil

61.6%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/30/2003

VgBrn

9.2%

AmNitr

3.7%

ColPP

7.9%

Soil

22.0%

Feedlot

40.6%

Other

16.6%

Coolidge Maintenance Yard, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

11/05/2003

Other

14.3%

VgBrn

7.2%

AmNitr

3.8%

ColPP

8.4%

Soil

66.3%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 34.3±2.2 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 17.2±1.6 Measured Mass for PM10 = 35.1±2.2 Measured Mass for PM10 = 23.2±1.8 

Figure 5. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets from Coolidge Maintenance Yard, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 62 
Table 8. CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for Cowtown, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 25.1033 41.0073 1.5905 2.2148 0.9428 3.6569 70.85

10/9/2003 45.6091 60.3676 2.4250 3.4559 2.6796 114.53

10/12/2003 12.0387 36.4932 3.6659 3.5709 3.4876 59.2510/15/2003 40.3176 72.1687 2.4969 2.6798 117.6610/18/2003 113.8341 154.9450 4.3458 3.8895 277.0110/21/2003 93.8503 168.2944 2.7966 3.6637 25.5040 268.6010/27/2003 *Void 

10/30/2003 41.8415 78.6916 2.4347 2.8110 125.77

11/5/2003 72.5156 129.7945 1.8544 4.6339 12.9470 208.7911/8/2003 58.8056 147.6984 3.8127 5.8832 49.4339 216.19

*Void - No recorded mass for Teflon filter 

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/09/2003

Feedlot

52.7%

Soil

39.8%

ColPP

3.0%

AmNitr

2.3%

MvEmi

2.1%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/12/2003

MvEmi

6%

AmNitr

5.9%

ColPP

6.0% Soil

20.3%

Feedlot

61.6%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/15/2003

Feedlot

61.3%

Soil

34.3%

AmNitr

2.3%

MvEmi

2.1%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/03/2003

Other

4.9%

MvEmi

2.1%

AmNitr

1.3% ColPP 3.0%

Soil

33.7%

Feedlot

55.0%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 74.5±4.0 Measured Mass for PM10 = 113.1±5.8 Measured Mass for PM10 = 55.5±3.1 Measured Mass for PM10 = 113.9±5.9 

Cowtrown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/21/2003

Other

8.7%

Feedlot

57.2%

Soil

31.9%

AmNitr

1.2%

VgBrn

1.0%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 10/30/2003

Feedlot

62.6%

Soil

33.3%

ColPP

0.0%

AmNitr

VgBrn 2.2%

1.9%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM10, 11/05/2003

Other

5.8%

VgBrn

0.8%

AmNitr

2.1%

Soil

32.7%

Feedlot

58.5%

Measured Mass for PM10= 294.1±14.8 Measured Mass for PM10. = 120.6±6.2 Measured Mass for PM10 =221.7±11.17 

Figure 6. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets from Cowtown, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 63 
Table 9. CMB modeled PM2.5 source attributions for Cowtown, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 7.2554 6.4645 1.5175 2.2696 0.3079 17.81

10/9/2003 11.9786 12.8093 2.7656 4.6708 1.2033 0.2034 33.42

10/12/2003 2.7947 1.4130 3.3627 3.9892 2.0972 2.0532 13.6510/15/2003 8.8901 15.9002 2.3095 2.0004 3.8764 1.3907 34.3610/18/2003 21.0411 39.7001 1.9249 2.9297 5.0472 1.9682 3.9779 72.6110/21/2003 28.2177 56.0196 3.3708 4.0222 1.7199 8.4489 93.3510/27/2003 29.7366 146.2936 2.8682 1.4445 3.0382 180.3410/30/2003 5.3520 21.7607 4.6372 3.2046 1.7272 1.7788 1.2150 38.46

11/5/2003 12.9410 36.2181 2.7196 2.7851 3.3337 2.2621 60.2511/8/2003 23.4094 71.7697 2.8366 2.1736 2.8420 2.2010 7.0732 105.23

Cowtown, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM 2.5, 10/03/2003

Soil

40.7%

ColPP

12.7%

AmNitr

1.7%

VgBrn

8.5%

Cowtown, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5 10/09/2003

VgBrn

8.2%

ColPP

13.9%

AmNitr

3.6%

Soil

35.6%

Feedlot

38.1%

Other

0.6%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/12/2003

Feedlot

9%

Soil

18%

ColPP

26%

AmNitr

13%

VgBrn

21%

Other

13%

Cowtown, Pinal County, 

Arizona PM2.5, 10/15/2003

MvEmi

6.7%

VgBrn

5.8%

AmNitr

ColPP 4.0%

11.3% Soil

25.9%

Feedlot

46.3%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 =17.6±1.7 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 33.6±2.2 Measured Mass for PM2.5 =15.7±1.7 Measured Mass for PM2. 5 = 33.8±2.2 

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/21/2003

Other

8.3%

Feedlot

55.0%

Soil

27.7%

ColPP

4.0%

AmNitr

1.7%

VgBrn

3.3%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/27/2003

Other

1.7% VgBrn

1.6%

AmNitr

0.8% Soil

16.2%

Feedlot

79.8%

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/30/2003

Other

3.1%

Feedlot

54.8%

Soil

13.5%

ColPP

4.4%

AmNitr

4.5%

VgBrn

8.1%

MvEmi

11.7%

5

Cowtown, Pinal County, Arizona 

PM2.5, 11/05/2003

MvEmi

4.5%

VgBrn

4.6%

AmNitr

3.8%

ColPP

5.5% Soil

21.5%

Feedlot

60.1%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 101.8±5.3 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 183.3±9.3 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 39.7±2.4 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 57.0±3.7 

Figure 7. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets from Cowtown, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 64 
Table 10. CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for Pinal County Housing, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 11.8390 3.6292 0.2627 2.6340 0.5602 18.92

10/9/2003 16.6565 9.2296 1.4347 3.2512 1.1585 31.73

10/12/2003 22.1080 11.5491 1.9458 2.4384 1.3014 39.3410/15/2003 46.4816 12.0915 1.3412 2.7790 1.7929 64.4810/18/2003 42.5005 15.2397 2.0932 2.7467 1.5323 64.1110/21/2003 90.3516 7.2060 2.3850 3.8753 1.8174 105.6310/27/2003 55.2661 4.1926 2.1115 2.5031 1.3932 65.4610/30/2003 30.8723 26.7993 2.1743 1.4982 2.1263 0.7236 63.47

11/5/2003 59.3330 7.7802 2.0084 2.5234 2.6327 7.3332 74.2711/8/2003 73.4168 10.3916 2.7366 3.8707 3.5497 10.7088 93.96

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/03/2003

VgBrn

1.4%

AmNitr

ColPP 3.0%

13.9%

Soil

62.6%

Feedlot

19.2%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/09/2003

Feedlot

29.1%

Soil

52.5%

ColPP

10.2%

AmNitr

3.7%

VgBrn

4.5%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM 10, 10/12/2003

VgBrn

4.9%

AmNitr

3.3%

ColPP

6.2%

Soil

56.2%

Feedlot

29.4%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/15/2003

VgBrn

2.1%

AmNitr

2.8%

ColPP

4.3%

Soil

72.1%

Feedlot

18.8%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 14.8±1.7 Measured Mass for PM10 = 31.0±2.1 Measured Mass for PM10 = 31.1±2.1 Measured Mass for PM10 = 56.0±3.1 

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/21/2003

Feedlot

6.8%

Soil

85.5%

ColPP

3.7% AmNitr 1.7% VgBrn

2.3%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/27/2003

VgBrn

3.2% AmNitr

2.1%

ColPP

3.8%

Soil

84.4%

Feedlot

6.4%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 10/30/2003

Other

1.1%

Feedlot

41.7%

Soil

48.1%

ColPP

2.3%

AmNitr

3.3%

VgBrn

3.4%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM10, 11/05/2003

Other

9.0%

VgBrn

2.5%

AmNitr

ColPP 3.2%

3.1%

Soil

72.7%

Feedlot

9.5%

Measured Mass for PM10= 89.2±4.7 Measured Mass for PM10. = 61.0±3.4 Measured Mass for PM10. = 64.2±3.5 Measured Mass for PM10 = 81.6±4.3 

Figure 8. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets from Pinal County Housing, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 65 
Table 11. CMB modeled PM2.5 source attributions for Pinal County Housing, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 3.3163 0.1434 0.0890 3.1718 0.2419 0.1172 6.96

10/9/2003 2.2784 4.3886 0.8199 3.0429 0.4589 10.98

10/12/2003 3.4079 1.5347 1.3555 2.4515 8.7410/15/2003 14.5345 2.2287 2.0796 3.3718 0.8034 23.0110/18/2003 15.9562 *Void 10/21/2003 22.2552 1.6591 2.5782 3.6818 0.7552 30.9210/27/2003 17.8380 1.3815 2.2300 0.7172 0.1189 22.1610/30/2003 8.0248 14.1032 2.8565 1.9250 1.2819 7.1608 28.19

11/5/2003 15.3498 6.4426 1.4685 2.3703 1.0912 5.4810 26.7211/8/2003 34.5003 6.1857 2.6879 2.5080 1.1552 12.3466 47.03

*Void - No recorded mass for Teflon filter 

Pinal County Housing, 

Arizona PM 2.5, 10/03/2003

Other

1.7%

M vEmi

2.0%

VgBrn

1.3%

AmNitr

3.4%

ColPP

44.8%

Soil

46.8%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM 2.5, 10/09/2003

Soil

20.7%

ColPP

27.7%

AmNitr

4.2%

VgBrn

7.5%

M vEmi

39.9%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/12/2003

MvEmi

17.5%

VgBrn

15.5%

ColPP

28.0% Soil

38.9%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/15/2003

MvEmi

9.7%

VgBrn

9.0%

AmNitr

ColPP 3.5%

14.6%

Soil

63.1%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 7.1±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 9.5±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 8.5±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 22.3±1.8 

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/27/2003

Soil

73%

ColPP

12%

AmNitr

2%

VgBrn

8%

MvEmi

5%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM2.5, 10/27/2003

Other

0.5%

VgBrn

6.2%

AmNitr

ColPP 3.2%

10.0%

Soil

80.0%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM 2.5, 10/30/2003

Other

20.3%

Feedlot

39.9%Soil

22.7%

ColPP

5.4%

AmNitr

3.6%

VgBrn

8.1%

Pinal County Housing, Arizona 

PM2.5, 11/05/2003

Feedlot

20.0%

Soil

47.7%

ColPP

7.4%

AmNitr

3.4%

VgBrn

4.6%

Other

17.0%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 30.1±2.1 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 22.3±1.8 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 35.4±2.2 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 32.2±2.1 

Figure 9. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets from Pinal County Housing, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 66 
Table 12. CMB modeled PM10 source attributions for Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Modeled 

Mass 

10/3/2003 9.7763 1.8038 2.0908 0.6490 29.5257 14.31

10/9/2003 28.8353 5.2722 1.9343 4.0190 1.3051 41.36

10/12/2003 18.9046 9.8856 2.5449 2.7024 1.7271 35.7610/15/2003 40.3230 6.6159 1.1093 1.5462 49.5910/18/2003 37.1723 12.2687 4.3677 4.0225 1.7027 59.5310/21/2003 46.5969 11.0003 1.5494 3.1488 2.0190 64.3110/27/2003 55.4105 13.1669 1.4242 2.0269 1.7797 73.8010/30/2003 47.9607 36.9905 3.1615 2.1380 90.25

11/5/2003 74.0029 12.1519 3.5508 2.3266 3.6882 95.7211/8/2003 39.9811 13.8272 1.3228 1.6741 3.6921 60.49

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM 10, 

10/03/2003

Other

67.3%

VgBrn

4.1%

AmNitr

1.5%

ColPP

4.8%

Soil

22.3%

Stanfield County Complex, Pinal 

County, Arizona PM10, 

10/09/2003

Feedlot

12.7%

Soil

69.7%

ColPP

9.7%

AmNitr

3.2%

VgBrn

4.7%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/12/2003

VgBrn

7.1%

AmNitr

4.8%

ColPP

7.6%

Soil

52.9%

Feedlot

27.6%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/15/2003

VgBrn

2.2%

ColPP

3.1%

Soil

81.3%

Feedlot

13.3%

Measured Mass for PM10 = 43.1±2.6 Measured Mass for PM10 = 38.5±2.6 Measured Mass for PM10 = 32.1±2.1 Measured Mass for PM10 = 47.0±2.8 

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/21/2003

Feedlot

17.1%

Soil

72.5%

ColPP

4.9%

AmNitr

3.1% VgBrn 2.4%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/27/2003

VgBrn

1.9%

AmNitr

2.4%

ColPP

2.7%

Soil

75.1%

Feedlot

17.8%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

10/30/2003

Feedlot

41.0%

Soil

53.1%

ColPP

0.0%

AmNitr

VgBrn 2.4%

3.5%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM10, 

11/05/2003

VgBrn

3.7%

AmNitr

3.9%

ColPP

2.4%

Soil

77.3%

Feedlot

12.7%

Measured Mass for PM10= 57.5±3.2 Measured Mass for PM10. = 65.2±3.5 Measured Mass for PM10. = 72.0±3.9 Measured Mass for PM10 = 82.8±4.4 

Figure 10. CMB modeled source attributions for PM10 data subsets from Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 67 
Table 13. CMB modeled PM2.5 source attributions for Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County (μg/m3) 

Sample Date Soil Feedlot MvEmi VgBrn ColPP AmSulf AmNitr Other 

Mod

Ma

10/3/2003 32.6025 1.4513 0.4449 2.0449 0.4342 36

10/9/2003 3.7594 2.0740 1.3580 1.6871 1.1954 0.4154 10

10/12/2003 1.7309 1.1724 2.0137 2.0742 0.6111 0.6673 0.8469 810/15/2003 7.7159 1.3687 1.6032 3.3220 0.5793 1410/18/2003 5.6414 0.8037 3.5781 4.2378 0.8494 1.2076 1510/21/2003 9.1701 1.9422 2.3688 3.4521 0.8103 1710/27/2003 14.0159 1.1475 1.2476 2.0776 0.6883 0.9724 1910/30/2003 6.8569 13.1220 9.1066 0.8964 29

11/5/2003 21.9418 2.5971 2.4625 1.8604 2811/8/2003 12.0812 1.1056 1.5047 2.7614 1.9255 11.7297 19

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/03/2003

MvEmi

3.9%

VgBrn

1.2% AmNitr

1.2%

ColPP

5.5%

Soil

88.2%

Stanfield County Complex, Pinal 

County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/09/2003

Soil

35.8%

ColPP

16.1%

AmSulf

11.4%

AmNitr

4.0%

VgBrn

12.9% MvEmi

19.8%

Stanfield County Complex, Pinal 

County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/12/2003

Other

9.3%

MvEmi

12.9%

VgBrn

22.1%

AmNitr

7.3%

AmSulf

6.7%

ColPP

22.8%

Soil

19.0%

Stanfield County Complex, Pinal 

County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/15/2003

MvEmi

9.4%

VgBrn

11.0%

AmNitr

ColPP 4.0%

22.8%

Soil

52.9%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 5.1±1.4 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 10.5±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 9.1±1.4 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 13.1±1.5 

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/21/2003

Soil

51.7%

ColPP

19.5%

AmNitr

4.6%

VgBrn

13.3%

MvEmi

10.9%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/27/2003

Other

4.8%

MvEmi

5.7%

VgBrn

6.2%

AmNitr

3.4% ColPP

10.3%

Soil

69.6%

Stanfield County Complex, Pinal 

County, Arizona PM2.5, 

10/30/2003

Soil

22.9%

ColPP

30.4%

AmNitr

3.0%

VgBrn

43.8%

Stanfield County Complex, 

Pinal County, Arizona PM2.5, 

11/05/2003

Soil

76.0%

ColPP

8.5%

AmNitr

6.4%

VgBrn

9.0%

Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 16.8±1.5 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 20.1±1.8 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 27.9±1.9 Measured Mass for PM2.5 = 28.4±1.9 

Figure 11. CMB modeled source attributions for PM2.5 data subsets from Stanfield County Complex, Pinal County Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 68 
Table 14. CMB modeled PM2.5 species for re-suspended soil and feedlot samples (concentration in fractions), Pinal County, Ar

SID, PNO PM2.5 Soil (PINSL688, RDST01) PM2.5 Soil (PINSL689, AGRI01) PM2.5 Feedlot (PINSL690, FDLT01) 

Conc Unc Conc Unc Conc Unc 

NO3- 0.0016 ± 0.0006 0.0000 ± 0.0006 0.0000 ± 0.0006 

SO42- 0.0017 ± 0.0007 0.0000 ± 0.0006 0.0189 ± 0.0026 

NH4+ 0.0018 ± 0.0007 0.0015 ± 0.0007 0.0015 ± 0.0007 

OC1 0.0000 ± 0.0034 0.0000 ± 0.0034 0.0000 ± 0.0033 OC2 0.0000 ± 0.0035 0.0000 ± 0.0034 0.0212 ± 0.0046 OC3 0.0006 ± 0.0043 0.0000 ± 0.0041 0.1593 ± 0.0304 OC4 0.0018 ± 0.0035 0.0012 ± 0.0035 0.0506 ± 0.0064 

EC1 0.0030 ± 0.0010 0.0018 ± 0.0009 0.0481 ± 0.0043 EC2 0.0028 ± 0.0011 0.0014 ± 0.0010 0.0101 ± 0.0016 EC3 0.0000 ± 0.0008 0.0000 ± 0.0008 0.0009 ± 0.0009 

Al 0.0495 ± 0.0036 0.0489 ± 0.0036 0.0039 ± 0.0005 Si 0.1560 ± 0.0113 0.1606 ± 0.0116 0.0237 ± 0.0017 

K 0.0290 ± 0.0021 0.0321 ± 0.0023 0.0418 ± 0.0030 

Ca 0.0260 ± 0.0027 0.0299 ± 0.0029 0.0404 ± 0.0035 

V 0.0000 ± 0.0003 0.0000 ± 0.0003 0.0000 ± 0.0003 

Fe 0.0441 ± 0.0032 0.0480 ± 0.0035 0.0064 ± 0.0005 

Cu 0.0001 ± 0.0000 0.0001 ± 0.0000 0.0001 ± 0.0000 

Zn 0.0002 ± 0.0000 0.0002 ± 0.0000 0.0007 ± 0.0001 As 0.0000 ± 0.0001 0.0000 ± 0.0001 0.0000 ± 0.0001 

Se 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 

Br 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 

Pb 0.0000 ± 0.0001 0.0000 ± 0.0001 0.0000 ± 0.0001 

Table 15. CMB modeled PM10 species for re-suspended soils and feedlot samples (concentration in fractions), Pinal County, Arizona. 

SID, PNO PM10 Soil (PINSL688, RDST03) PM10 Soil (PINSL689, AGRI03) PM10 Feedlot (PINSL690, FDLT03) 

Conc Unc Conc Unc Conc Unc 

NO3- 0.0014 ± 0.0004 0.0007 ± 0.0002 0.0000 ± 0.0004 

SO42- 0.0013 ± 0.0004 0.0008 ± 0.0002 0.0264 ± 0.0039 

NH4+ 0.0010 ± 0.0004 0.0007 ± 0.0003 0.0021 ± 0.0006 OC1 0.0000 ± 0.0019 0.0000 ± 0.0009 0.0035 ± 0.0035 OC2 0.0000 ± 0.0019 0.0000 ± 0.0010 0.0579 ± 0.0085 OC3 0.0031 ± 0.0025 0.0032 ± 0.0015 0.1832 ± 0.0377 OC4 0.0037 ± 0.0020 0.0022 ± 0.0010 0.0524 ± 0.0066 EC1 0.0058 ± 0.0007 0.0036 ± 0.0004 0.0528 ± 0.0052 EC2 0.0034 ± 0.0007 0.0019 ± 0.0004 0.0059 ± 0.0012 EC3 0.0003 ± 0.0005 0.0000 ± 0.0002 0.0020 ± 0.0008 Al 0.0626 ± 0.0151 0.0687 ± 0.0184 0.0082 ± 0.0022 Si 0.1980 ± 0.0502 0.2141 ± 0.0606 0.0364 ± 0.0092 K 0.0297 ± 0.0047 0.0324 ± 0.0056 0.0565 ± 0.0091 Ca 0.0346 ± 0.0052 0.0380 ± 0.0058 0.0473 ± 0.0066 V 0.0001 ± 0.0002 0.0001 ± 0.0002 0.0000 ± 0.0002 Fe 0.0400 ± 0.0031 0.0421 ± 0.0023 0.0077 ± 0.0006 Cu 0.0001 ± 0.0000 0.0001 ± 0.0000 0.0001 ± 0.0000 Zn 0.0002 ± 0.0000 0.0002 ± 0.0000 0.0007 ± 0.0001 As 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 Se 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 Br 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 Pb 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0001 ± 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0001 

Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 69 
Pinal County Source Apportionment Study 70 
Appendix C - Addendum 

Chemical Fingerprint Analysis

71
 May 18,2005 

Mr. Donald P. Gabrielson 

Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 

31 N. Pinal Building F 

P.O. Box 987 

Florence, AZ 85232 

Dear Mr. Gabrielson, 

Chemical Fingerprint of the Cowtown Feedlot dust, Pinal County, AZ 

In addition to the DRI report on the “Pinal 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-suspended at the DRI’s re-suspension 

facility. The two size fractions, PM10 (respirable particulate matter) and PM2.5

(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 PM10 in Figure 1 and for PM2.5 in Figure 2. 

Each chemical signature is characterized by a combination of chemical species. 

Shown in Figures 1 and 2 are concentrations of 17 chemical 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 

(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 carbon species, with large proportions of OC2, 

OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. 

2. The chemical results of PM10 and PM2.5 ambient samples collected at the 

Cowtown sampling site on three days with above average dust loadings (DRI 

report, Figure 1), are similar to the Feedlot Dust fingerprint, in that they all 

contain substantial amounts of total carbon (TC) which is the sum of the 

concentrations of the carbon species, particularly of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and 

EC1 (Figures 3 and 4). This shows 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 selected days (10/18/2003, 10/21/2003 and 

11/8/2003) at the Cowtown site were substantially higher than at any of the other 

four measured sites in Pinal County (Table 1), ranging from 264.4 to 294.1 

micrograms per cubic meter for Cowtown compared to 39.2 to 104.7 micrograms 

72
per cubic meter at the other four sites for PM10. Similarly for PM2.5 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 other 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 sites 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, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1OC2OC3OC4

OPT

EC1

EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3OC4

OPT

EC1EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM10

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1OC2OC3OC4OPT

EC1

EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Figure 1. Comparative chemical fingerprints from Pinal County, for respirable 

particulate matter (PM10). Shown are concentrations of 17 chemical 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 (TC), and five 

metals typical of most soils (aluminum, silicon, 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 the total of the concentrations of the 

carbon species, particularly of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. 

74
Chemical Fingerprint - Feedlot Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPT

EC1

EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Agricultural Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2OC3OC4OPT

EC1

EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Chemical Fingerprint - Road Dust, PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

% Concentration

Figure 2. Comparative chemical fingerprints from Pinal County, for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). Shown are concentrations of 17 chemical 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 (TC), and five metals typical 

of most soils (aluminum, silicon, 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 the total of the concentrations of the carbon species, 

particularly of OC2, OC3, OC4, OPT and EC1. 

75
Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/18/2003, PM10 (Total mass = 264 microg/m3

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microg/m3

Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/21/2003, PM10 (Total mass = 294 microg/m3) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPTEC1

EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microg/m3 

Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 11/8/2003, PM10 (Total mass = 266 microg/m3) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3

OC4

OPTEC1EC2

EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microg/m3

Figure 3. Ambient respirable particulate matter (PM10) samples collected on three high 

days at the Cowtown sampling site. Shown are concentrations of 17 chemical 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 

(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 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 substantial amounts of the Feedlot 

Dust, as was confirmed by the Chemical Mass Balance (Version 8) receptor modeling 

results (see Report Figure 6) 

76
Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/18/2003, PM2.5 (Total mass = 77 microg/m3

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1OC2

OC3

OC4OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microg/m3

Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 10/21/2003, PM2.5 (Total mass=102 microg/m3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2OC3

OC4

OPT

EC1

EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microg/m3

Ambient Sample - Cowtown, 11/8/2003, PM2.5 (Total mass = 112 microg/m3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nitrate

Sulfate

Ammonium

OC1

OC2

OC3OC4OPT

EC1EC2EC3

TC

Aluminum

Silicon

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Chemical Species 

Concentration 

microgr/m3

Figure 4. Ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) samples collected on three high days 

at the Cowtown sampling site. Shown are concentrations of 17 chemical 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 (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 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 substantial 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 PM2.5 samples have larger proportions of total 

carbon than the PM10 samples, meaning that the organic matter is concentrated in the fine 

fraction and the geological dust in the coarse fraction. 

77
Table 1. Measured particulate masses from Cowtown on highly polluted sampling days, and of the four other Pi

taken over the same periods.

Sampling 

Date PM10, measured mass and uncertainties (micrograms per cubic meter) 

Cowtown Casa Grande Coolidge Maintenance 

Yard

Pinal County 

Housing

10/18/2003 264.4 ± 13.3 39.2 ± 2.5 45.4 ± 2.7 61.9 ± 3.4 10/21/2003 294.1 ± 14.8 46.9 ± 2.8 48.3 ± 2.8 89.2 ± 4.7 

11/8/2003 265.6 ± 13.4 64.0 ± 3.5 na ± 104.7 ± 5.4 

PM2.5, measured mass and uncertainties (micrograms per cubic meter) 

Cowtown Casa Grande Coolidge Maintenance 

Yard

Pinal County 

Housing

10/18/2003 76.6 ± 4.1 14.1 ± 1.7 26.8 ± 2.0 na ± 10/21/2003 101.8 ± 5.3 13.0 ± 1.6 34.3 ± 2.2 30.1 ± 2.1 

11/8/2003 112.3 ± 5.8 na ± 50.2 ± 2.9 59.4 ± 3.2 

78
Appendix D 

Meteorological Data 

79
Appendix D-1 

Wind Roses 

80
Casa Grande 

Wind Roses 

81
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

82
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

83
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

84
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

85
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

86
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

87
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

88
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

89
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

90
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 4.17%

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 

92
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

93
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

94
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 4.17%

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

95
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 20.83%

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

96
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

97
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

98
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 4.17%

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

99
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

100
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 25.00%

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

101
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 33.33%

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 

103
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

104
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

105
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

106
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 4.17%

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

107
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 8.33%

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

108
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

109
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

110
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

111
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 20.83%

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

112
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 16.67%

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 

114
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

115
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

116
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

117
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

118
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 4.17%

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

119
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 12.50%

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

120
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

121
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 0.00%

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

122
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 16.67%

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

123
WRPLOT 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%

WIND SPEED

(m/s)

>= 11.1

8.8 - 11.1

5.7 - 8.8

3.6 - 5.7

2.1 - 3.6

0.5 - 2.1

Calms: 29.17%

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
PM10 - Particulate Matter less than 10 microns 

PM2.5 - Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns 

TEOM – Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 

TC – Total Carbon 

μg – Micrograms 

μg/m3 – Micrograms per cubic meter 

140