Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you have safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Environmental Topics
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Report a Violation
  • About EPA
Contact Us

Grantee Research Project Results

Environmental risk assessment: comparison of receptor and air quality models for source apportionment.



Citation:

Park S-K, Marmur A, Russell AG. Environmental risk assessment: comparison of receptor and air quality models for source apportionment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2013;19(5):1385-1403.

Abstract:

Source apportionment of particulate matter has been commonly performed using receptor models, but studies suggest that the assumptions in receptor models limit the accuracy of results. An alternative approach is the use of three-dimensional source-oriented air quality models. Here, a comparison is conducted between the PM2.5 apportioned from the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) receptor model using organic tracers as molecular markers with those from the source-based Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. Source apportionment was conducted at sites in the southeastern United States for July 2001 and January 2002. PM2.5 source apportionment results had moderate discrepancies, which originate from different spatial scales, fundamental limitations, and uncertainties of the two models. Results from CMB fluctuated temporally more than real variation due to measurement and source profile errors and uncertainties, whereas those from CMAQ could not capture daily variation well. In addition, results from CMB are mass contributions for the monitoring location, whereas those from CMAQ represent the average mass contributions of the model's grid. It is difficult to assess which approach is “better.” Indeed, both models have strengths and limitations, and each model's strengths can be utilized to help overcome the other model's limitations.

Top of Page

The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.

Site Navigation

  • Grantee Research Project Results Home
  • Grantee Research Project Results Basic Search
  • Grantee Research Project Results Advanced Search
  • Grantee Research Project Results Fielded Search
  • Publication search
  • EPA Regional Search

Related Information

  • Search Help
  • About our data collection
  • Research Grants
  • P3: Student Design Competition
  • Research Fellowships
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated April 28, 2023
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Discover.

  • Accessibility
  • Budget & Performance
  • Contracting
  • EPA www Web Snapshot
  • Grants
  • No FEAR Act Data
  • Plain Writing
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

  • Data.gov
  • Inspector General
  • Jobs
  • Newsroom
  • Open Government
  • Regulations.gov
  • Subscribe
  • USA.gov
  • White House

Ask.

  • Contact EPA
  • EPA Disclaimers
  • Hotlines
  • FOIA Requests
  • Frequent Questions

Follow.