Page |1

WISE REWU 2015

Department of Chemical, Biomedical, and Environmental Engineering

Understanding Trends in Cincinnatis Air

Pollution (UTICAP)
Gabrielle Cook
08/03/2015
Freshman
Major: Medical Sciences

Mentor: Sivaraman Balachandran, PhD, PE

Page |2

Abstract
The primary objective of this summer research project was to understand and quantify spatial
and temporal trends in air pollution in the urban core of Cincinnati. The project entailed a
combination of data collection, analysis, and field work that covered two major components: air
pollution dataset development and evaluation of portable air quality monitors. The first part
consisting of organizing the past 13 years of fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) data at the
William Howard Taft Rd. (Taft) monitoring site in Cincinnati, OH using Microsoft Excel. This
data can later be used to understand both temporal trends in PM2.5 as well in models to determine
the sources of these pollutants. In general, there has been a decrease in average daily
concentrations of PM2.5, as well as elemental carbon, organic carbon, ammonium, and sulfate.
The second part of the project focused on measuring air pollution using portable monitors called
microAethalometers to measure black carbon concentration in four Cincinnati neighborhoods as
well as a typical car commute on local highways. For the four neighborhoods, Mt. Adams has
higher black carbon levels than Downtown meaning that elevation may not play role in pollution.
The car commute measurements showed that when comparing I-471 to US 52 data it indicates
that traffic volume may correlate with black carbon levels.

Acknowledgements

Page |3
This project was funded by the University of Cincinnati and the Department of Chemical,
Biomedical, and Environmental Engineering. The assistance of Dr. Sivaraman Balachandran is
gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks to the WISE REWU program and Dr. Urmila Ghia.
Table of Contents
I.)

Abstract

II.)

Acknowledgements

III.)

Table of Contents

IV.)

Introduction

V.)

Methods

VI.)

Results

VII.)

Discussion

VIII.) Conclusion

IX.)

Tables and Figures

Introduction
PM2.5 is particulate air pollution with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or
less. These particles are actually composed of many different chemical species, which include
elemental carbon, organic carbon, sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and trace metals. PM2.5 is so small

Page |4
that when it embeds deep within the lungs it can cause many adverse health effects, largely
cardiovascular and respiratory related. Worldwide, millions of people die prematurely every year
due to PM2.5. Data on this pollutant has been collected in Cincinnati at the Taft St. monitoring
site. However, the data must be processed to be useable for further analysis such as modeling.
Also, air pollution is very spatially variable which means that the data collected at this site may
not accurately represent the entire city, especially when compared to locations near major
sources of pollution such as highways. Therefore, this project consisted of two parts. The first
focused on organizing the past 13 years of existing PM2.5 data and second focused on collecting
black carbon data in different areas around the Greater Cincinnati area.

Methods
Speciated PM2.5 data was downloaded the from the EPAs website (Table 1). These data
contained measurements of total PM2.5 as well as elemental carbon, organic carbon, sulfate,
nitrate, ammonium, and trace metals. Included in this data were also various gas measurements
and meteorological data such as temperature, pressure, wind speed, and wind direction. Our final
data set spanned from 2001 to 2014. The EPA data had to be processed so that it could be used
for understanding trends and modeling. This processing includes removing days for which there
is no data for major species and filling in missing values for minor species. Also, the data had to
reorganized in tabular format suitable for use in models
The second part of this project consisted of collecting and processing black carbon data. We
took portable black carbon monitors, called microAethalometers, and measured black carbon
around Cincinnati. The microAethalometer works by using optical absorption. We did some

Page |5
spot checks where we walked around various neighborhoods in order to test the monitors and
get our first look at understanding the differences between these areas. The neighborhoods
studied included Camp Washington, the University of Cincinnati, Downtown, and Mt. Adams as
shown in Figure 7.1. We selected these neighborhoods to get a large diversity in geography as
well as local socioeconomic status. I also collected data while driving to and from the University
of Cincinnati. This route consisted of some Urban Cincinnati streets, I-471, I-275, and US 52 as
shown in Figure 8.1. In order to collect the black carbon data, I set the microAethalometer in the
passenger seat, buckled the seatbelt, clipped the microAethalometers tube to the seat belt, and
then ran the A/C on my entire commute. After every collection of data I would upload the data to
the UTICAP server by using the program that came with the microAethalometer called
microAethCOM. We then processed this data with the EPAs ONA (Optimized Noise-reduction
Algorithm) software.

Results
As seen in Figures 1, 2, and 3, the average PM2.5, Elemental Carbon, and Organic Carbon
fluctuated greatly between 2001 and 2013. Initially, PM2.5 levels declined, reaching their lowest
point in 2003, but then make a dramatic increase and reach their highest point in 2005. PM2.5 has
been on a steady decline since 2007 and it has had an overall decline since 2001. These trends
are very similar to the trends seen in Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon in Figures 2 and 3.
However, Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon reach their lowest levels in 2008. The
ammonium and sulfate levels seen in Figures 4 and 6 follow similar trends as well. The only
major component of PM2.5 that does not seem to be decreasing is nitrate, instead it is constantly
fluctuating and has yet to find a stable trend.

Page |6
The neighborhood data in Figure 7 shows that Mt. Adams has the highest levels of black
carbon, followed by the University of Cincinnati, then Downtown, meaning Camp Washington is
shown to have the lowest levels of black carbon. Figure 8 contains the commute data, which
shows that I-471 has the highest average black carbon levels and the highest standard deviation.
I-275 was second highest, with the second highest standard deviation. The urban Cincinnati
streets had similar black carbon concentrations to US 52, but the standard deviation for urban
Cincinnati was higher.

Discussion
Overall, PM2.5, Elemental Carbon, and Organic Carbon levels are decreasing. This change
may be due to more environmental awareness and stricter policies regarding pollution, but also
due to decreased economic activity due to the recession from 2008-2010. When analyzing the
first three years of the PM2.5, Elemental Carbon, and Organic Carbon it is important to note that
there is limited data during this time period. However, these pollutants are still present and must
be studied further to determine their sources.
As expected, when comparing I-471 to US 52, higher black carbon levels appear to
correlate with increasing volumes traffic. I-471 bridges the gap between urban and suburban
Cincinnati meaning that many people drive on it every day. This study suggests that these
drivers, especially during rush hour, are exposed to higher levels of black carbon than on other
highway segments. On my personal commutes, I am on I-471 for about 10 minutes. The
exposure to these elevated levels of black carbon for 10 minutes twice every day for many years

Page |7
could have negative impacts. Better understanding these spatial gradients would allow health
researchers to better understand exposure to and health effects from traffic-related air pollution.
The results from spot checks in neighborhoods were limited by small sample size.
Nevertheless, several trends were apparent. First, the black carbon data collected in Mt. Adams
compared to the data collected Downtown suggests that elevation may not affect black carbon
levels and being close to a known air pollution source, like a highway, is a larger contributing
factor to local black carbon levels. Also, when look at the collected black carbon data the
negative values for Camp Washington stand out very prominently. These negative values are
most likely due to having low air pollution on the days we measured the black carbon leading to
excessive noise in the instrument. This excessive noise, when processed with the ONA software,
led to a negative average concentration. More sampling, especially on days with higher air
pollution, will result in better data. Also, the Camp Washington data shows that the
microAethalometers do not perform well in relatively clean conditions

Conclusions
This project involved two major components: developing an air pollution dataset and
collecting preliminary data with the microAethalometers. After organizing the past 13 years of
PM2.5 data from the Taft site, it can now be used be in models that determine the sources of these
pollutants and to understand the trends in PM2.5. Overall, this data shows that there has been a
decrease in average daily concentrations of PM2.5, as well as elemental carbon, organic carbon,
and other major species in PM2.5. The neighborhood data demonstrates that Downtown has lower
black carbon levels than Mt. Adams meaning that elevation may not affect pollution. Also, the

Page |8
Camp Washington data produced negative values signifying that these microAethalometers do
not perform well on low pollution days. The car commute data shows that comparing I-471 to
other sections of the commute corroborates the hypothesis that black carbon concentrations may
correlate with traffic volume levels. This project has provided the groundwork for more in depth
studies of black carbon, PM2.5, as well as other air pollutants, and has led to a better
understanding of the trends in air pollution in Cincinnati.
Tables and Figures

Average Daily PM2.5 Concentration (g/cm3)

20
15
10
5
0

Figure 1: Average Daily PM2.5 Concentration 2001-2013

Average Daily EC Concentration (g/cm3)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Figure 2: Average Daily Elemental Carbon Concentration 2001-2013

Page |9

Average Daily OC Concentration (g/cm3)

6
4
2
0

Figure 3: Average Daily Organic Carbon Concentration 2001-2013

Average Daily Ammonium Concentration (g/cm3)

3
2
1
0

Figure 4: Average Daily Ammonium Concentration 2001-2013

Average Daily Nitrate Concentration (g/cm3)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Figure 5: Average Daily Nitrate Concentration 2001-2013

P a g e | 10

Average Daily Sulfate Concentration (g/cm3)

8
6
4
2
0

Figure 6: Average Daily Sulfate Concentration 2001-2013

Average Daily BC Concentration (ng/cm3)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800

Campus

Camp Washington

Downtown

Figure 7: Spot check results, Average Daily Black Carbon Concentration

Mt. Adams

P a g e | 11

Figure 7.1: Neighborhood map, green is Camp Washington, yellow is the University of
Cincinnati, red is Downtown, and purple is Mt. Adams

Average Daily BC Concentration (ng/cm3)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

US 52

I-275

I-471

Figure 8: Commute Results, Average Daily Black Carbon Concentration

Urban Cinci

P a g e | 12

Figure 8.1: Commute route, highlighted in blue is the urban Cincinnati streets, green is I-471,
yellow is 1-275, and red is US 52

200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
1&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
2&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
3&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
4&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
5&site=39-061-0040

P a g e | 13
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
6&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
7&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
8&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=200
9&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=201
0&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=201
1&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=201
2&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=201
3&site=39-061-0040
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?
_service=data&_program=dataprog.Daily.sas&check=site&debug=0&year=201
4&site=39-061-0040

Table 1: Download links for annual EPA PM2.5 data