Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 260–269 | Cite as

Source apportionment of PM10 and PM2.5 at multiple sites in the strait of Gibraltar by PMF: impact of shipping emissions

  • Marco Pandolfi
  • Yolanda Gonzalez-Castanedo
  • Andrés Alastuey
  • Jesus D. de la Rosa
  • Enrique Mantilla
  • A. Sanchez de la Campa
  • Xavier Querol
  • Jorge Pey
  • Fulvio Amato
  • Teresa Moreno
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

The impact of shipping emissions on urban agglomerations close to major ports and vessel routes is probably one of the lesser understood aspects of anthropogenic air pollution. Little research has been done providing a satisfactory comprehension of the relationship between primary pollutant emissions, secondary aerosols formation and resulting air quality.

Materials and methods

In this study, multi-year (2003–2007) ambient speciated PM10 and PM2.5 data collected at four strategic sampling locations around the Bay of Algeciras (southern Spain), and positive matrix factorisation model were used to identify major PM sources with particular attention paid to the quantification of total shipping emissions. The impact of the emissions from both the harbour of Algeciras and vessel traffic at the Western entrance of Mediterranean Sea (Strait of Gibraltar) were quantified. Ambient levels of V, Ni, La and Ce were used as markers to estimate PM emitted by shipping.

Results and discussion

Shipping emissions were characterised by La/Ce ratios between 0.6 and 0.8 and V/Ni ratios around 3 for both PM10 and PM2.5. In contrast, elevated La/Ce values (1–5) are attributable to emissions from refinery zeolitic fluid catalytic converter plant, and low average V/Ni values (around 1) result mainly from contamination from stainless steel plant emissions. The direct contribution from shipping in the Bay of Algeciras was estimated at 1.4–2.6 μg PM10/m3 (3–7%) and 1.2–2.3 μg PM2.5/m3 (5–10%). The total contribution from shipping (primary emissions + secondary sulphate aerosol formation) reached 4.7 μg PM10/m3 (13%) and 4.1 μg PM2.5/m3 (17%).

Keywords

Particulate matter Shipping emissions contribution PMF Vanadium Nickel Lanthanoids 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by research projects from the Spanish Ministry of Environment (GRACCIE-CSD2007-00067 and CALIOPE, 441/2006/3-12.1), the Spanish Ministry of Education and Sciences (DOASUR CGL2007-62505/CLI) and by the Junta de Andalucia. Finally, we would like express our gratitude to Jesús Parga and David Monje for their technical support.

Supplementary material

11356_2010_373_MOESM1_ESM.doc (70 kb)
ESM 1 Online Resource S1 shows the chemical profile of the sources obtained with the PMF analysis in both PM10 and PM2.5 fractions together with the specie variation explained by each source (DOC 70 kb)

References

  1. Amato F, Pandolfi M, Escrig A, Querol X, Alastuey A, Pey J, Perez N, Hopke PK (2009) Quantifying road dust resuspension in urban environment by multilinear engine: a comparison with PMF2. Atmos Environ 43:2770–2780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson HR (2000) Differential epidemiology of ambient aerosols. Philos Trans R Soc London, Series A Math & Phys Sci 1775:2771–2785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arhami M, Sillanpää M, Hu S, Olson MR, Schauer JJ, Sioutas C (2009) Size-segregated inorganic and organic components of PM in the communities of the Los Angeles Harbor. Aerosol Sci Technol 43(2):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cofala J, Amann M, Heyes C, Wagner F, Klimont Z, Posch M, Schöpp W, Tarasson L, Jonson JE, Whall C, Stavrakaki A (2007) Analysis of policy measures to reduce ship emissions in the context of the revision of the national emissions ceilings directive. Final report submitted to the European Commission, DG Environment, Unit ENV/C1 Contract No. 070501/2005/419589/MAR/C1Google Scholar
  5. Corbett JJ, Koehler HW (2003) Updated emissions from ocean shipping. J Geophys Res D Atmos 108(D20):4650–4666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH, Kasibhatla P, Eyring V, Lauer A (2007) Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment. Environ Sci Technol 41:8512–8518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Escrig A, Monfort E, Celades I, Querol X, Amato F, Minguillón MC, Hopke PK (2009) Application of optimally scaled target factor analysis for assessing source contribution of ambient PM10. J Air & Waste Manage 59:1296–1307, ISSN 1047-3289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eyring V, Köhler HW, van Aardenne J, Lauer A (2005) Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of Geophysical Research 110:D17305. doi: 0.1029/2004JD005619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gariazzo C, Papaleo V, Pelliccioni A, Calori G, Radice P, Tinarelli G (2007) Application of a Lagrangian particle model to assess the impact of harbour, industrial and urban activities on air quality in the Taranto area, Italy. Atmos Environ 41:6432–6444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgeva E, Canepa E, Builtjes P (2007) Harbours and air quality. Atmos environ 41:6319–6321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaeckels JM, Bae MS, Schauer JJ (2007) Positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis of molecular marker measurements to quantify the sources of organic aerosols. Environ Sci Technol 41:5763–5769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim E, Hopke PK (2008) Source characterization of ambient fine particles at multiple sites in the Seattle area. Atmos Environ 42:6047–6056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim E, Hopke PK, Larson T, Maykut N, Lewtas J (2004) Factor analysis of Seattle fine particles. Aerosol Sci Technol 38:724–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsen RK, Baker JE (2003) Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the urban atmosphere: a comparison of three methods. Environ Sci Technol 37:1873–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee E, Chan CK, Paatero P (1999) Application of positive matrix factorization in source apportionment of particulate pollutants in Hong Kong. Atmos Environ 33:3201–3212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee PKH, Brook JR, Dabek-Alotorzynska E, Mabury SA (2003) Identification of the major sources contributing to PM2.5 observed in Toronto. Environ Sci Technol 37:4831–4840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maykut NN, Lewtas J, Kim E, Larson TV (2003) Source apportionment of PM2.5 at an urban improve site in Seattle, WA. Environ Sci Technol 37(22):5135–5142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mészáros E (1999) Fundamentals of atmospheric aerosol chemistry. Akadémiai Kiado, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  19. Minguillón MC, Arhami M, Schauer JJ, Sioutas C (2008) Seasonal and spatial variations of sources of fine and quasi-ultrafine particulate matter in neighborhoods near the Los Angeles–Long Beach harbour. Atmos Environ 42:7317–7328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreno T, Querol X, Alastuey A, Gibbons W (2008) Identification of FCC refinery atmospheric pollution events using lanthanoid- and vanadium-bearing aerosols. Atmos Environ 42:7851–7861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paatero P (1997) Least square formulation of robuste non-negative factor analysis. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 3:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paatero P, Hopke PK (2003) Discarding or downweighting high-noise variables in factor analytic models. Anal Chim Acta 490:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paatero P, Tapper U (1994) Positive matrix factorization: a non-negative factor model with optimal utilization of error estimates of data values. Environmetrics 5:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paatero P, Hopke PK, Begum BA, Biswas SK (2005) A graphical diagnostic method for assessing the rotation in factor analytical models of atmospheric pollution. Atmos Environ 39:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pandolfi M, Viana M, Minguillón MC, Querol X, Alastuey A, Amato F, Celades I, Escrig A, Monfort E (2008) Receptor models application to multi-year ambient PM10 measurements in an industrialized ceramic area: comparison of source apportionment results. Atmos Environ 42:9007–9017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pope C, Dockery W (2006) Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 56:709–742Google Scholar
  27. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287:1132–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Querol X, Viana M, Alastuey A, Amato F, Moreno T et al (2007) Source origin of trace elements in PM from regional background, urban and industrial sites of Spain. Atmos Environ 41:7219–7231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Querol X, Alastuey A, Moreno T, Viana MM et al (2008) Spatial and temporal variations in airborne particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) across Spain 1999–2005. Atmos Environ 42:3964–3979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider DR, Bogdan Z (2003) Modelling of SO3 formation in the flame of a heavy-oil fired furnace. Chem Biochem Eng Q 17(3):175–181Google Scholar
  31. Viana M, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Querolr X, Alastuey A, Harrison RM, Hopke PK et al (2008) Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe: a review of methods and results. J Aerosol Sci 39:827–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viana M, Amato F, Alastuey A, Querol X, Saúl G, Herce-Garraleta D, Fernandez-Patier R (2009) Chemical tracers of particulate emissions from commercial shipping. Environ Sci Technol 43(19):7472–7477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yuan Z, Lau AKH, Zhang H, Yu JZ, Louie PKK, Fung JCH (2006) Identification and spatiotemporal variations of dominant PM10 sources over Hong Kong. Atmos Environ 40:1803–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Pandolfi
    • 1
  • Yolanda Gonzalez-Castanedo
    • 2
  • Andrés Alastuey
    • 1
  • Jesus D. de la Rosa
    • 3
  • Enrique Mantilla
    • 4
  • A. Sanchez de la Campa
    • 3
  • Xavier Querol
    • 1
  • Jorge Pey
    • 1
  • Fulvio Amato
    • 1
  • Teresa Moreno
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA)–CSICBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Optics and Applied PhysicsUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain
  3. 3.Geology DepartmentUniversity of HuelvaHuelvaSpain
  4. 4.Fundación Centro de Estudios Ambientales del Mediterráneo (CEAM)ValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations