Source Apportionment of PM2.5 Using Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) and PMF with Factor Selection

Abstract

Personal exposure, indoor, residential outdoor and urban background particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) samples were collected in parallel, for 30 participants and analyzed for their chemical content. Source apportionments for the separate microenvironments were performed using conventional positive matrix factorization (PMF), and for the combined dataset, applying a new PMF method with factor selection.Regional sources were the largest contributor to the sampled PM 2.5 in all microenvironments and accounted for 69% in urban background; 55% and 54% in residential outdoor and indoor environment, respectively; and 40% of personal exposure. For personal exposure, personal activities accounted for 21% (2.2 µg/m 3 ), and constituted the main difference in total mass concentration between personal exposure and the other microenvironments.The PMF method with factor selection was found to be a useful tool in the PMF analysis of multiple microenvironments, since ambient contributions to indoor and personal exposure are less likely to be distorted or misinterpreted. The possibility to more correctly estimate the source contributions will increase by combining the datasets for the different microenvironments into a larger dataset and using the PMF with factor selection method.

Indoor and Outdoor Levels and Sources of Submicron Particles (PM1) at Homes in Edmonton, Canada

“…The indoor and outdoor sources of elements in PM 1 obtained in this study were consistent with other available source apportionment studies for PM 2.5 . For residential indoor environments, soil and resuspension, electrical appliances and cooking, cleaning, personal care products, personal activities, and ETS have been found as indoor sources. ,− ,, Common outdoor sources of PM 2.5 that infiltrated to indoors have been identified in other studies and these include secondary sulfate, soil, traffic, sea-salt, vegetative burning, oil combustion, and urban mixture. ,, In this study, the identified source profiles and composition found outdoors were in agreement with ambient PM 2.5 source apportionment studies conducted in Edmonton and other Alberta cities. , …”

“…Possible indoor sources of Cu are electric devices, including vacuum cleaners, blenders and hair dryers that use copper commutators for motor rotation and personal care products, such as cosmetics. ,, Daily questionnaires indicated that people used personal care products and performed cleaning activities (dusting, vacuuming) at least 1 day during monitoring in almost all Edmonton homes. An indoor Cu-factor was also found in other source apportionment studies for indoor PM 2.5 concentrations. , The dominant element found in factor 12 was Ag, explaining 84% of the variation. Small mass fractions of Si, Ni, Ca, and Cl (5% to 10% of their total mass) were also observed.…”

Source apportionment for indoor air pollution: Current challenges and future directions

“…Parallel personal, indoor and outdoor sampling is more time-consuming and labor-intensive compared to a fixed monitoring station study. Therefore, personal exposure datasets are often rather small (Molnár et al, 2014). Besides, the absolute (or relative) contribution of common indoor, ambient and personal sources may differ between the studies due to local and regional conditions, as well as the measured tracers used in the models, but it can be performed (e.g.…”

Long-range transport clusters and positive matrix factorization source apportionment for investigating transboundary PM2.5in Gothenburg, Sweden

“…Similar sources and chemical specie contributions have been found in previous studies on the Swedish west coast. 24,25 The mean PM 2.5 levels of the six estimated sources (LRT, LRT-Pb, marine, shipping, resuspension, and combustion) can be found in Table 1. The mean PM 2.5 levels of these sources were 2.7, 0.1, 0.4, 1.1, 0.2, and 1.1 mg m À3 , respectively (Fig.…”