Full text of DOI:10.1080/10473289.2000.10464175

This article was downloaded by: [Van Pelt and Opie Library]
On: 21 October 2014, At: 23:41
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20
Chemical Composition of Fine Particles in the
Tennessee Valley Region
Roger L. Tanner a & William J. Parkhurst a
a Atmospheric Sciences and Environmental Assessments Department , Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals , Alabama , USA
Published online: 27 Dec 2011.
To cite this article: Roger L. Tanner & William J. Parkhurst (2000) Chemical Composition of Fine Particles
in the Tennessee Valley Region, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 50:8, 1299-1307, DOI:
10.1080/10473289.2000.10464175
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2000.10464175
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TECHNICAL PAPER
ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air &TWaanstne eMranaagned. AsPsoac.r5k0h:1u2r9s9t-1307
Copyright 2000 Air & Waste Management Association
Chemical Composition of Fine Particles in the Tennessee
Valley Region
Roger L. Tanner and William J. Parkhurst
Atmospheric Sciences and Environmental Assessments Department, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle
Shoals, Alabama
new annual NAAQS metric for PM2.5 will be difficult for
ABSTRACT
many parts of the country to attain. The need to better
understand the composition of PM2.5 and its temporal and
spatial variability is broadly supported within regulatory,
industrial, and research communities. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has promoted a large,
three-tiered program to (in order of decreasing numbers
of monitoring sites) (1) monitor fine particle mass concen-
trations, (2) determine the chemical composition of fine
particles, and (3) evaluate new methods for determining
the sources of fine particles and the details of the atmo-
spheric processes which form them.
Proactively realizing the potential consequences of
the revised PM NAAQS, the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) and Tennessee Valley state and local regulatory or-
ganizations began operating the first comprehensive, re-
gional prototype Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5
monitoring network in the eastern United States on April
22, 1997.1,2 Every-third-day PM2.5 sampling was initiated
at three core sampling stations in Nashville, Knoxville,
and Lawrence County, TN. Five additional sites were added
in Chattanooga and Memphis, TN (August 1997); Decatur,
AL, and Paducah, KY (October 1997); and Huntsville, AL
(June 1998). Analysis of the mass and chemical composi-
tion data from this network and from additional, special-
purpose studies in Chattanooga in 1998 and Nashville in
1999 is the focus of this paper. The intent of these studies
was to provide an estimate of chemical composition and
its spatial, seasonal, and diurnal variability, and to use
these estimates to identify major components and sources
of fine mass for the purpose of assisting the national ef-
fort to reduce fine particulate concentrations to which
the population is exposed.
Fine particles in the atmosphere have elicited new national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) because of their
potential role in health effects and visibility-reducing haze.
Since April 1997, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has
measured fine particles (PM2.5) in the Tennessee Valley re-
gion using prototype Federal Reference Method (FRM) sam-
plers, and results indicate that the new NAAQS annual
standard will be difficult to meet in this region. The com-
position of many of these fine particle samples has been
determined using analytical methods for elements, soluble
ions, and organic and elemental carbon. The results indi-
cate that about one-third of the measured mass is SO4-2,
one-third is organic aerosol, and the remainder is other
materials. The fraction of SO4-2 is highest at rural sites and
during summer conditions, with greater proportions of or-
ganic aerosol in urban areas throughout the year. Addi-
tional measurements of fine particle mass and composition
have been made to obtain the short-term variability of fine
mass as it pertains to human exposure. Measurements to
account for semi-volatile constituents of fine mass (nitrates,
semi-volatile organics) indicate that the FRM may signifi-
cantly under-measure organic constituents. The potentially
controllable anthropogenic fraction of organic aerosols is
still largely unknown.
INTRODUCTION
As the monitoring and regulatory implementation sched-
ules for the revised PM National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dard (NAAQS) have evolved, it has become clear that the
IMPLICATIONS
The annual standard for PM2.5 mass, when implemented,
will likely be exceeded in much of the southeastern United
States. The chemical composition must be known in or-
der to devise effective control strategies for fine particles.
This work shows that the major constituents of fine par-
ticles in the Tennessee Valley region are organics and sul-
fates, and thus the most effective control strategies for
fine particles will likely involve controls on emissions of
organics, sulfates, and their gaseous precursors.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The single-event fine PM sampler models used in this ef-
fort included five prototype Partisol-FRM Model 2000
(R&P Inc.) samplers, three prototype RAAS Model 2.5-100
(Graseby-Andersen) samplers, and one EPA-designated
FRM PM2.5 sampler, Model PQ200 (BGI Inc.). Each of these
samplers draws air through a 10-µm size-selective inlet
and removes particles larger than 2.5 µm with a WINS
Volume 50 August 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1299

Tanner and Parkhurst
impactor. The PM2.5 particles themselves were collected
on Zefluor Teflon 46.2-mm filters with 2-µm pore size
(Gelman Sciences, Inc.) through December 1998, and
thereafter on ID-stamped Teflon filters (Whatman) with
support rings. Initially, samples were collected for a 24-hr
period (midnight to midnight) every third day; the sam-
pling frequency was changed to every sixth day at most
sites on October 1, 1998.
Following gravimetric analysis using a Mettler-Toledo
Model MT5 microbalance, selected 24-hr samples were
analyzed for elements Al through Pb using X-ray fluores-
cence (XRF) by EPA-approved Protocol 3. After XRF analy-
sis, the samples were extracted ultrasonically and the TVA’s
Support Services Group analyzed them for NH4+ by auto-
mated indophenol colorimetry and for SO4–2 and NO3– by
ion chromatography. For selected sampling days at the
network’s core sites, samples of fine mass were collected
on collocated samplers using quartz as the collection
medium. These quartz filters were analyzed by the thermo-
optical reflectance (TOR) technique3 for organic and el-
emental carbon. The filters were then extracted
ultrasonically in water and analyzed for NH4+, SO4–2, and
NO3– as described above for Teflon filters. Data from the
collocated Teflon and quartz samples were used to deter-
mine the average chemical composition of fine particles
at the three core sites in the various seasons.
During two additional periods, more intensive sam-
pling was done at a mobile-source impacted site in Chat-
tanooga, about 3 km from the network site. Continuous
measurements of mass (tapered element oscillating mi-
crobalance [TEOM], R&P Model 1400a, with a 2.5-µm
cyclone inlet, operated at 30 °C) and light scattering
(3-λ nephelometer, TSI Model 3550) were made in early
March 1998, and were repeated, with the addition of con-
tinuous black carbon measurements by aethalometer4
(Magee Scientific, now distributed by TEII), in Septem-
ber 1998. The aethalometer measures the fraction of
the carbonaceous aerosol that absorbs light over a broad
region of the visible spectrum by determining the at-
tenuation of light transmitted through the sample when
collected on a fibrous filter. This technique has been
compared with other methods for determining elemen-
tal carbon in several studies,5,6 most recently by Allen
et al.,7 from which we infer an absolute accuracy of
~20% for purposes of comparison with measured fine
mass concentrations. The data from these measure-
ments were used to examine diurnal and seasonal varia-
tions in mass and composition at this site, focusing on
the implied influence of this variability on human ex-
posure to fine particles.
accuracy of the prototype FRMs. It was modified from the
BYU version8 by addition of a mass flow meter in the major
flow stream, and by addition of Visual Basic-based
computer-controlled operation of valves and monitoring
of flow rates. The goal was to develop and deploy an in-
strument that could identify the extent to which there
are significant organic semi-volatile contributions to fine
mass at both urban and rural locations. The organic semi-
volatile fraction is quantified by collecting a fine particle
sample in the minor flow stream on a quartz filter down-
stream of a parallel-plate denuder which removed >99%
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Any organic semi-
volatiles that evaporated from the filter were collected in
a second stage by a carbon-impregnated paper filter (CIF).
The organic carbon in particles below the cut-point of
the particle concentrator (virtual impactor) is collected
on a filter in the major flow stream. The fraction of semi-
volatiles lost is the amount of carbon found on the CIF
filter divided by the sum of the carbon on minor and major
flow quartz filters, corrected for the 5% losses in the con-
centrator. Analysis of the quartz filters was done by the
DRI TOR technique,3 and analysis of the CIF filters was
done by the BYU thermal evolution technique.9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our ongoing assessment of data from network operations
and special studies has provided preliminary answers to
the following questions.
What Are the Fine Particle Mass Concentrations
in the South-Central U.S. and What Are the
Implications Relative to the NAAQS?
Mass concentrations have been measured in the Tennes-
see Valley by FRM samplers at the sites shown in Figure 1.
Fine particle annual mean mass concentrations in the
Tennessee Valley range from 14 to 20 µg/m3. Measured
mass concentrations at all seven urban/suburban sites
exceeded the 15 µg/m3 level of the annual PM2.5 standard;
only mass concentrations at the rural Lawrence County
site remained below the annual standard (Table 1). Con-
centrations at none of the stations exceeded the 65
µg/m3 level of the 24-hr PM2.5 standard. Summer-high/
winter-low seasonality in mass concentrations is evident.
How Well Does the Federal FRM Measure
Fine Mass and What Positive and
Negative Biases Does It Have?
The current FRM PM2.5 mass measurements may signifi-
cantly underestimate the contribution of volatile/semi-
volatile nitrates and organic carbon species.8 Data acquired
from the summer 1997 tests of the prototype PC-BOSS sam-
pler at our Lawrence County site indicate that the under-
sampled, semi-volatile fraction is both highly variable and
A new sampler (PC-BOSS)5 designed to accurately
measure both non-volatile and semi-volatile constituents
of fine mass was used at urban and rural sites to test the
1300 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 August 2000

Tanner and Parkhurst
Figure 1. Tennessee Valley PM2.5 monitoring network (January 2000).
significant,8,10 as shown in Figure 2. Further support is
evident from preliminary data taken at urban sites in
Nashville and Atlanta (see summary in Table 2).
measurements during the winter and summer measure-
ment periods in Chattanooga indicate that TEOM mass
was lower than FRM mass for winter measurements (Fig-
ure 3, a and b) but not for summer. This effect was ob-
served even though the TEOM was operated at 30 °C;
during the winter sampling, the average daily tempera-
tures were in the range of 5–10 °C, but during the late
summer period the average daily temperatures were 20–
25 °C, only slightly lower than the TEOM filter tempera-
ture. This effect has been reported previously and is
attributed to loss of semi-volatile materials from the TEOM
collection filter during sampling.12
VOCs including the gaseous fraction of species distrib-
uted between gas and particle phases are removed with
greater than 99% efficiency by the PC-BOSS denuder. This
promotes loss of collected semi-volatiles from particles col-
lected on the quartz filter (to re-equilibrate with the gas
phase), so the organic semi-volatile fraction observed with
the TVA PC-BOSS sampler is an upper limit of the fraction
that would be observed by a collocated FRM sampler. Even
so, it is prudent to make periodic measurements that differ-
entiate these highly variable semi-volatile and non-volatile
organic carbon fractions when particle composition mea-
surements are made, since the organic fraction of fine par-
ticles appears to be highly suspect from a health-effects
standpoint. In this regard, further analysis of data from ur-
ban Nashville and Atlanta sites is in progress. We note that
fine particulate NO3– can also be lost from FRM-collected
filters, but since particulate NO3– levels in the southeast U.S.
are low (usually <1 µg/m3 in non-urban areas), the errors
caused thereby in fine mass measurements are low.
What Is the Composition of Fine Particles
in the Tennessee Valley Region, and What
Does the Composition Imply for
Development of Control Strategies?
Special attention was given to determining seasonal varia-
tions in the fine particle chemical composition and com-
position differences between urban and rural sites. Based
on composition measurements, both inorganic SO4–2 and
carbonaceous compounds make up large fractions of PM2.5
mass (Figure 4). Sulfate provides the largest fraction (~50%)
in background air (Lawrence County) with organic carbon
Comparison of the measured fine mass by the TEOM,11
averaged over 24-hr periods, with collocated prototype-FRM
Volume 50 August 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1301

Tanner and Parkhurst
Table 1. Monthly PM2.5 mass–Tennessee Valley monitoring network.
Month/Station
LC
KN
NS
CH
MP
DC
PD
HV
LR
Mean
May 97
June 97
July 97
Aug 97
Sept 97
Oct 97
Nov 97
Dec 97
Jan 98
8.9
14.8
15.8
23.7
19.9
20.6
15.8
20.1
19.2
17.5
9.6
11.0
13.8
26.8
14.5
22.5
25.4
23.1
11.8
16.5
12.9
12.3
13.4
11.9
10.9
12.9
20.8
23.7
22.0
21.7
19.1
18.0
20.8
12.4
17.6
16.3
16.3
22.7
16.4
22.0
32.8
21.8
17.2
16.9
12.5
13.7
15.1
13.1
10.8
12.2
17.0
23.1
20.1
20.6
18.0
17.4
19.3
14.0
15.7
13.9
16.3
23.2
17.1
21.8
26.3
21.3
12.8
19.3
11.0
11.3
13.8
11.8
10.9
15.0
18.9
21.5
24.6
17.5
16.4
17.3
14.3
21.8
15.8
18.1
13.8
13.2
13.7
9.8
12.4
11.4
14.0
16.9
13.8
15.6
22.7
18.5
10.5
15.9
8.3
22.5
23.2
24.6
19.9
21.9
16.6
15.7
14.4
16.2
24.7
16.9
22.2
30.3
26.4
14.9
26.2
10.6
13.7
16.3
13.1
12.9
20.2
22.2
26.3
30.0
20.2
19.6
20.1
19.1
16.9
15.6
17.7
13.3
22.6
15.4
16.0
26.0
18.8
18.1
22.0
20.8
10.5
15.1
10.7
9.7
18.8
23.3
16.8
18.1
14.1
16.6
13.0
15.0
23.2
15.6
24.3
31.8
19.3
10.6
23.9
11.2
13.0
14.7
14.6
11.7
12.5
22.2
23.5
22.9
16.7
16.1
17.5
Feb 98
March 98
April 98
May 98
June 98
July 98
Aug 98
Sept 98
Oct 98
15.6
22.9
22.4
23.7
24.8
22.4
24.6
24.8
19.6
11.4
20.5
10.6
11.8
14.3
11.3
10.3
13.5
15.3
17.6
Nov 98
Dec 98
Jan 99
10.3
11.3
8.8
6.2
Feb 99
11.5
9.5
March 99
April 99
May 99
June 99
July 99
Aug 99
Sept 99
Oct 99
9.7
10.0
19.9
24.3
13.9
15.0
18.5
21.0
15.7
14.3
14.3
15.6
16.8
Station Mean
18.2
16.3
21.7
16.1
15.1
Notes: LC = Lawrence County, TN; KN = Knoxville, TN; NS = Nashville, TN; CH = Chattanooga, TN; MP = Memphis, TN; DC = Decatur, AL; PD = Paducah, KY; HV = Huntsville, AL;
LR = Look Rock, TN.
compounds making up next largest fraction (~33%). For
the urban stations the situation is largely reversed, with
the organic aerosol fraction being dominant (~40%), fol-
lowed by SO4–2 (25–35%). Control strategies designed to
lower organic carbon (transportation and industrial
sources) and SO2 emissions (fossil fuel combustion sources)
will therefore be more effective in achieving compliance
with the PM2.5 annual NAAQS. Whether minor constitu-
ents contribute a disproportionate amount of the observed
health effects is not addressed by this type of analysis.
winter-low pattern in the (NH4)2SO4 fraction of fine mass
at all three core sites. This is seen only at Nashville—al-
though the fractions are higher at the rural site in all sea-
sons. The average molar ratio of NH4+ to SO4–2 exceeded
1.75 in all seasons, so SO4–2 fractions of fine mass were
calculated as (NH4)2SO4 for these comparisons.
Diurnal variations in several parameters relating to fine
mass and its composition were observed at a mobile-source
Table 2. Summary statistics for TVA’s PC-BOSS–Atlanta Supersite, August 1999.
Property
Average
Standard
Deviation
N of Values
What Are the Spatial, Seasonal, and Diurnal
Variations in These Concentrations, and What
Does This Tell Us about Sources and Fates?
Mass
26.5
24.7
8.70
5.1
1.76
0.69
0.69
1.76
0.14
0.49
0.31
13.6
10.9
4.05
2.5
0.87
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.09
0.12
0.16
42
(57)
38
37
37
38
38
40
34
38
36
Weighted Mass
Higher fractions of SO4–2 were expected to be found in
fine particles in the Tennessee Valley region during the
summer months compared with the remainder of the year
due to more stagnant synoptic air flow conditions. These
conditions lead to concentration buildups for all second-
ary species and high rates for conversion of gaseous pre-
cursors to SO4–2 and organic particulate species. Although
SO4–2 levels are generally higher in summer, the data shown
in Figure 5 do not show the expected summer-high/
–2
SO4
NVOC
EC
Minor SO4–+2/Total
Minor NH4+/Total
–2
Molar NH4 /SO4
Volatile OC/Total
(NH4)2SO4 Fr of Mass
NVOC Fr of Mass
Note: All concentrations in units of µg/m3.
1302 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 August 2000

Tanner and Parkhurst
impacted site in Chattanooga, located about 3 km from
the network site during intensive sampling periods in late
February–early March 1998 and in September 1998.
Hourly average values for TEOM PM2.5 mass, 550-nm
(green) light scattering by nephelometry and, in Septem-
ber 1998, continuous elemental (black) carbon measure-
ments using an aethalometer4 were calculated (see Figures
6 and 7). As noted above, TEOM mass for the late winter
measurements were estimated to under-measure the mass
by about 40% due to particle evaporation from the TEOM
filters (Figure 3a). The aethalometer measures black car-
bon, and comparisons with other elemental carbon mea-
surements of integrated samples by thermal techniques
indicate that the accuracy of the aethalometer estimate
of elemental carbon is on the order of 30%. The hourly
average data can be used to evaluate diurnal trends, how-
ever, even with the accuracy limitations.
The observed diurnal trends shown in Figures 6 and 7
show the effects of primary sources and meteorology. Er-
ror bars are the between-day variability in the averages for
each hour. Higher concentrations of primary particles (e.g.,
elemental carbon, Figure 6) and, to a lesser extent, mass
were observed during the morning rush hour when the
shallow nighttime boundary layer had not yet broken up,
but not during the late-afternoon high-traffic period. Higher
concentrations of mass and black carbon and higher light
scattering coefficients were observed at night, when a stable
nocturnal boundary layer was usually present, than dur-
ing well-mixed conditions in late morning and afternoon
(1100–1500 hr, Figures 6 and 7), presumably due to poor
vertical mixing with layers above in the vertical.
What Are the Controllable Fractions of Fine
Mass and What Are the Sources of Those
Potentially Controllable Fractions?
The largest fractions of fine mass observed in the Tennes-
see Valley are attributable to organic carbonaceous mate-
rial and (NH4)2SO4. The remainder of the fine mass
(elemental carbon, soil-derived components, and trace
metals/elements) comprises minor portions. The SO4–2
fraction can, in theory, be controlled by further reducing
emissions of its gaseous precursor, SO2, although non-
linear gas-to-particle conversion processes appear to be
significantly reducing the “bang for the buck.” The or-
ganic fraction is largely uncharacterized, and a high pri-
ority should be placed on characterizing what fraction of
it is controllable by reducing man-made emissions of par-
ticulate organics and their gas-phase precursors.
A major portion of the fine mass in the Tennessee Val-
ley is regionally transported, leading to a high correlation
of mass levels between network sites. An example of extra-
regionally transported fine mass is available from data taken
during the “Mexican smoke” episode of May 1998. Fine
mass was elevated throughout the network for multiple
Figure 2. Semi-volatile organics as a fraction of organic carbon by PC-BOSS.
Volume 50 August 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1303

Tanner and Parkhurst
24-hr Average, Chattanooga, TN, Feb 27– Mar 13, 1998
Figure 3a. Comparison of TEOM and FRM 24-hr mass in Chattanooga, TN, February–March 1998.
24-hr Average, Chattanooga, TN, September 1998
Figure 3b. Comparison of TEOM and FRM 24-hr mass in Chattanooga, TN, September 1998.
1304 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 August 2000

Tanner and Parkhurst
Figure 4. Average PM2.5 composition for network core sites.
sampling days, and it was enriched in fine potassium (and,
to a lesser extent, fine Si and Ca) to a much greater extent
than in SO4–2 and other ions during this period. This sug-
gests that fine particles have long lifetimes, and that
region-wide controls of precursors to organics and sulfates
may be needed to reduce average fine mass concentrations.
Indeed, year-to-year differences in meteorological condi-
tions may be crucial in determining fine particle concen-
trations and in establishing which strategies are likely to
be successful in reducing those concentrations.
CONCLUSIONS
Since April 1997, TVA has measured PM2.5 in the Tennessee
Valley region using prototype FRM samplers, and results
indicate that compliance with the new NAAQS annual stan-
dard will be difficult. The chemical composition of fine
particle samples has been estimated, and
our results indicate that about 30–50% of
the measured mass is (NH4)2SO4, about one-
third is organic PM, and the remainder is
other materials. The SO4–2 fraction is high-
est at rural sites and during stagnant sum-
mer meteorological conditions, with large
fractions of organic aerosol mass in urban
areas. Short-term variability of fine particle
mass has been measured, and sampling
that has been performed accounts for semi-
volatile constituents of fine mass (nitrates,
organics). Results show diurnal variability
affecting exposure and suggest that FRM
measurements may significantly underes-
timate organic constituents. Potentially
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
controllable anthropogenic sources of fine
particulate organics remain largely
uncharacterized.
Figure 5. Calculated (NH4)2SO4 as fraction of fine mass, by season.
Volume 50 August 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1305

Tanner and Parkhurst
Hour of Day
Figure 6. Diurnal variations in TEOM mass and light scattering, Chattanooga, TN, February–March 1998.
Hour of Day
Figure 7. Diurnal variations in TEOM mass, black carbon and light scattering, Chattanooga, TN, September 1998.
1306 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 50 August 2000

Tanner and Parkhurst
8. Pang, Y.; Ding, Y.; Warner, K.; Eatough, D.J.; Eatough, N.L.; Tanner,
R.L. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference On Visual Air Quality,
Aerosols, and Global Radiation Balance; A&WMA: Pittsburgh, PA, 1997;
pp 302-309.
9. Eatough, D.J.; Wadsworth, A.; Eatough, D.A.; Crawford, J.W.; Hansen,
L.D.; Lewis, E.A. Atmos. Environ. 1993, 27A, 1213-1219.
10. Tanner, R.L. Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL, unpub-
lished results, 1998.
11. Patashnick, H.; Rupprecht, E.G. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1991,
41, 1079-1083.
12. Allen, G.; Sioutas, C.; Koutrakis, P. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 1997,
47, 682-689.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the assistance of following organizations
participating in the Tennessee Valley PM2.5 Partnership
Monitoring network: Knox County Department of Air
Pollution Control; Metropolitan Health Department
(Nashville); Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution
Control Bureau; Memphis-Shelby County Health Depart-
ment; Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control; Uni-
versity of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station;
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection; City
of Huntsville Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Management; and Alabama Department of En-
vironmental Management. We specifically acknowledge
Kathy Jones of Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollu-
tion Control Bureau for her assistance in the mobile-source
impacted studies in Chattanooga. The following agencies
and organizations have helped cooperatively fund this
effort. We thank the Department of Energy’s Federal En-
ergy Technology Center, EPRI, TVA Public Power Research
Institute, and the TVA Fossil Power Group for their ongo-
ing base funding support of this regional air quality moni-
toring effort.
REFERENCES
1. Parkhurst, W.J.; Tanner, R.L.; Weatherford, F.P.; Valente, R.J.; Meagher,
J.F. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1999, 49, 1060-1067.
2. Parkhurst, W.J.; Tanner, R.L.; Weatherford, F.P.; Humes, K.L.; Valente,
M.L. PM Mass Measurements and Chemical Speciation in the South
Central 2U.5nited States. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of
A&WMA, St. Louis, MO, 1999; Paper 99-792.
3. Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Pritchett, L.C.; Pierson, W.R.; Frazier, C.A.;
Purcell, R.G. Atmos. Environ. 1993, 27A, 1185-1201.
4. Hansen, A.D.A.; Novakov T. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1990, 12, 194-199.
5. Hansen, A.D.A.; McMurry, P.H. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1990,
40, 894-895.
About the Authors
Roger L. Tanner is a principal scientist and William J.
Parkhurst is a projects manager with the Atmospheric Sci-
ences and Environmental Assessments Department of the
TVA’s Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoals, AL.
Both authors have extensive experience in the measure-
ment of PM and its chemical composition in the atmosphere.
6. Ruoss, K.; Dlugi, R.; Weigl, C.; Hanel, G. Atmos. Environ. 1992, 26A,
3161-3168.
7. Allen, G.A.; Lawrence, J.; Koutrakis, P. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 817-
823.
Volume 50 August 2000
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1307