Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Source apportionment of visual impairment during the California regional

PM10/PM2.5 air quality study
Jianjun Chen a, Qi Ying b, Michael J. Kleeman a, *
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
b
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gases and particulate matter predictions from the UCD/CIT air quality model were used in a visibility
Received 18 June 2009 model to predict source contributions to visual impairment in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), the southern
Received in revised form portion of California’s Central Valley, during December 2000 and January 2001. Within the SJV, daytime
29 August 2009
(0800–1700 PST) light extinction was dominated by scattering associated with airborne particles.
Accepted 3 September 2009
Measured daytime particle scattering coefficients were compared to predicted values at approximately
40 locations across the SJV after correction for the increased temperature and decreased relative
Keywords:
humidity produced by ‘‘smart heaters’’ placed upstream of nephelometers. Mean fractional bias and
CRPAQS
Source apportionment mean fractional error were 0.22 and 0.65, respectively, indicating reasonable agreement between
UCD/CIT air quality model model predictions and measurements. Particulate water, nitrate, organic matter, and ammonium were
Visibility the major particulate species contributing to light scattering in the SJV. Daytime light extinction in the
SJV averaged between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001 was mainly associated with animal
ammonia sources (28%), diesel engines (18%), catalyst gasoline engines (9%), other anthropogenic sources
(9%), and wood smoke (7%) with initial and boundary conditions accounting for 13%. The source
apportionment results from this study apply to wintertime conditions when airborne particulate matter
concentrations are typically at their annual maximum. Further study would be required to quantify
source contributions to light extinction in other seasons.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Visibility refers to the clarity of the atmosphere and the asso-
ciated ability to see distant objects (Hyslop, 2009). Visibility
impairment is probably the most readily perceived impact of air
pollution (Watson, 2002). While studies have shown that there was
substantial visibility improvement in the eastern United States as
well as California over recent decades (Schichtel et al., 2001),
continued emissions reductions are needed to meet visibility
targets both in national parks and urban areas (Watson, 2002). The
cause and effect relationships between emission sources and visi-
bility should be understood quantitatively to guide the design of
effective emission reduction measures (Kleeman et al., 2001).
Visual impairment in the atmosphere is caused by absorption
and scattering of light by gases and particles. In most areas, light
scattering by particles is the main cause for reduced visibility
(Hyslop, 2009). Source apportionment of visibility reduction has
been performed in many regions using approaches such as receptor
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 530 752 8386; fax: þ1 530 752 7872.
E-mail address: mjkleeman@ucdavis.edu (M.J. Kleeman).
models (e.g., Chan et al., 1999; Malm and Gebhart, 1997; Pryor and
Barthelmie, 2000) and emission perturbation studies involving
mechanistic air quality model simulations (e.g., Barna et al., 2006;
Knipping et al., 2006). However, receptor-based modeling cannot
quantitatively determine source contributions to secondary
particulate matter (PM) in the atmosphere, even though secondary
PM typically accounts for a significant fraction of the PM mass
(Watson, 2002). Brute force emission perturbation studies alter the
base-case chemical system which may influence source contribu-
tions from non-perturbed sources. In view of these potential
problems, Mysliwiec and Kleeman (2002) developed a source-
oriented three-dimensional air quality model that can determine
source contributions to both primary and secondary PM in the
atmosphere without perturbing the base-case chemical system.
Ying et al. (2004) further extended the model so that the model can
predict source contributions to visibility impairment.
The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) in the southern portion of Cal-
ifornia’s Central Valley is one of the largest PM2.5 non-attainment
areas in the US (Chow et al., 2006). Regional haze and substantial
visibility impairment was evident in the SJV in the past (Husar et al.,
2000), with the worst visibility typically occurring in the winter
months November–January because of excessive PM levels and

1352-2310/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.09.010
 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144
relatively high relative humidity levels during that time of the year
(ENSR, 2005). The California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS) was a multi-year field campaign designed to understand
the causes of elevated PM levels in the Central Valley. The purpose of
the current study is to calculate source contributions to reduced
visibility in the Central Valley of California, with particular attention
to the SJV during the wintertime CRPAQS study (December 15, 2000–
January 7, 2001). The UCD/CIT air quality model (Ying et al., 2004,
2008a) with source apportionment technique for visual impairment
was used to perform source apportionment of visibility reduction.
2. Model description
2.1. The UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model
Details of the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model have
been described by Ying et al. (2008a,b; 2009) and so only a brief
summary is given here. The UCD/CIT model uses the SAPRC90 gas-
phase chemistry mechanism (Carter, 1990) which has been updated
to reflect recent measurements of key rate constants and to describe
the formation rate of semi-volatile organic compounds. Gas-
particle partitioning leading to inorganic PM formation is calculated
using a dynamic approach described by Kleeman et al. (1997). The
model explicitly tracks the emissions of selected gases (nitrogen
oxides (NO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia (NH3))
from different sources. For source apportionment of primary
particles, the model uses an artificial tracer approach together with
source-specific PM emission profiles to retrieve source contribu-
tions for primary PM species. This allows efficient source appor-
tionment for primary particles (Ying et al., 2008b). For source
apportionment of secondary particles, both the gas-phase chem-
istry and gas-particle partitioning algorithms are expanded so that
source information about secondary PM precursors and secondary
particles (e.g., nitrate (NO þ 2
3 ), ammonium (NH4 ), and sulfate (SO4 ))
is retained (Mysliwiec and Kleeman, 2002). This source-oriented
tracking approach is different from brute force emission perturba-
tion studies (e.g., zeroing out emissions from specific sources) or
adjoint studies to calculate source contributions. Brute force emis-
sions perturbations change the base-case chemical system which
can alter contributions from non-perturbed sources. Adjoint
methods calculate changes to concentrations in response to small
changes in emissions, but this local derivative does not predict total
source contributions under non-linear conditions. In summary, the
source-oriented UCD/CIT model used in the study is capable of
calculating total source contributions for visibility related gas
species (i.e., NO2), primary PM (e.g., elemental carbon (EC)), and
secondary PM species (e.g., NO
3 ) for the base-case chemical system.
2.2. Visibility model
Visual impairment in the atmosphere arises from the absorption
and scattering of light by gases and particles. The attenuation of
light in the atmosphere is usually quantified by a light extinction
coefficient bext (in inverse megameters, or Mm1). In the atmo-
sphere, bext is usually decomposed into contributions from
absorption and scattering associated with gases and particles:
bext ¼ bag þ bsg þ bap þ bsp
where bag is the gas absorption coefficient mainly due to NO2, bsg is
the Raleigh scattering coefficient by clean air, bap is the absorption
coefficient due to particles (mainly due to EC), and bsp is the scat-
tering coefficient due to particles (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998).
Visibility can also be represented by visual range, Vd, which is
linked to bext through the Koschmeider equation:
6137
3:912
Vd ¼ (2)
bext
where Vd represents the distance at which a black object has 0.02
contrast ratio against a white background. Because of the close link
between Vd and bext, source apportionment for bext was performed
in this study.
In the model, bsg was calculated according to the method
described by Jacobson (1998), and bag due to NO2 was calculated
using the absorption cross-sections measured by Vandaele et al.
(1996). Absorption and scattering by particles (bap and bsp) were
calculated according to the following equations:
n
X
bap ¼ pri2 Ni Qa;i (3)
i¼1
n
X
bsp ¼ pri2 Ni Qs;i (4)
i¼1
where subscript i refers to particle size bins, ri and Ni are particle
radius and number concentrations for the size bin i, respectively.
Qa,i and Qs,i are dimensionless particle absorption and scattering
efficiencies, respectively (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Particles were
assumed to be spherical and Mie theory was used to calculate the
absorption and scattering efficiencies of particles. There are typi-
cally two alternative assumptions about the mixing of chemical
species within atmospheric particles during light extinction
calculations. One is homogeneous mixing, which means that
chemical components are distributed evenly within particles. The
other is a core-and-shell distribution, which usually means that
non-volatile components such as EC serve as a core that is sur-
rounded by other components. Ying et al. (2004) found that source
contribution results are not sensitive to the assumption about
particle mixing state (homogeneous vs. core-and-shell). Thus in
this study, the homogeneous assumption was used. The numerical
package developed by Bohren and Huffman (1983) was used to
calculate particle absorption and scattering efficiencies for homo-
geneously mixed particles. The complex refractive index for multi-
component particles was calculated using the volume averaging
method (Stelson, 1990).
Source apportionment of the light extinction coefficient was
performed according to the method outlined in Ying et al. (2004).
The contribution to the total light extinction coefficient from one
source was defined as the decrease in light extinction coefficient if
both gas and PM species from that source were removed. The PM
components from that source include the primary PM, secondary
PM formed by gas emissions from that source, and particulate
water (H2O) associated with PM components from that source.
Particle absorption and scattering coefficients are both related to
particle number and particle radius. When PM components from
a particular source are removed, particle number and/or particle
radius must be adjusted. Generally, there are two approaches
available to calculate light extinction coefficient when PM
components are removed (Lowenthal et al., 1995). One is the so-
called interactive method, which means that particle number
concentrations remain unchanged and particle radius is reduced
when PM components are removed. The other is the so-called non-
interactive method, which means that particle number concen-
(1)
trations are reduced and particle radius is held constant when PM
components are removed. Ying et al. (2004) found that relative
source contributions to visibility impairment were not sensitive to
the choice of the interactive or non-interactive method. In this
study, the interactive method was used because it was found that
light extinction coefficient was largely contributed by secondary
PM species and particulate H2O.
6138 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144

Because particulate H2O contributes substantially to light Ne

X Ck
extinction in this study, the source apportionment approach for W ¼ (5)
mk ðRH; TÞ
particulate H2O merits discussion. Particulate H2O was attributed k¼1

to sources according to the ZSR relationship (Seinfeld and where W is particulate H2O (kg m3 of air), Ck is the concentration
Pandis, 1998): of electrolyte k (mol m3 of air), mk is the molarity (mol kg1 H2O)

Fig. 1. Comparison between measured (open square) and calculated (solid square) average daytime (0800–1700 PST) particle scattering coefficient at Bethel Island (BTI), Sacra-
mento (SDP), Modesto (M14), Fresno (FREM), Angiola (ANGI), and Bakersfield (BAC).
 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144 6139

of a single-component aqueous solution of electrolyte k under chemical/size profiles and particle density calculated using the
a certain relative humidity (RH) and temperature (T). The relative method specified by Larson et al. (1988). In this study, model
contribution to particulate H2O from electrolyte k (ek) can be predictions of species that influence visibility from the UCD/CIT
calculated by: model simulation (Ying et al., 2008a,b, 2009) were used to calculate
source contributions to visual impairment for the Central Valley,
Ck =mk ðRH; TÞ with particular emphasis on the SJV. Daytime (0800–1700 PST)
ek ¼ (6)
W source contributions to light extinction were calculated over the
The relative contributions of PM species (i.e. chloride (Cl), entire modeling domain during the time period December 15,
potassium (Naþ), NHþ  2
4 , NO3 , and SO4 ) to particulate H2O can then
2000–January 7, 2001. Light extinction was calculated for the
be calculated according to: wavelength 530 nm to accommodate comparisons to measurement
data. Source contributions are resolved for 11 sources including
1 1 initial/boundary conditions (IC/BC), paved road dust, fugitive dust,
eCl ¼ eHCl þ e þ e
2 NaCl 2 NH4 Cl wood smoke, diesel engines, catalyst gasoline engines, non-catalyst
1 1 2 gasoline engines, meat cooking, high sulfur combustion, other
eNaþ ¼ eNaCl þ eNaNO3 þ eðNaÞ2 SO4
2 2 3 anthropogenic sources, and animal ammonia sources.
1 2
eNHþ ¼ eNH4 Cl þ eNH4 NO3 þ eðNH4 Þ2 SO4
4 2 3 4. Results
1 1
eNO3 ¼ eHNO3 þ eNaNO3 þ eNH4 NO3

2 2 4.1. Comparison to measured values
1 1
eSO2 ¼ eH2 SO4 þ eðNaÞ2 SO4 þ eðNH4 Þ2 SO4 ð7Þ
4 3 3 Ying et al. (2008a) found that predicted concentrations of NO2
and EC, both of which contribute to light absorption, were in
Because source contributions to these components are known,
satisfactory agreement with observations at multiple locations in
the relative contribution to particulate H2O content from a specific
the Central Valley. In the present study, predicted bsp was compared
source (Ej) can be calculated by:
to measured values from nephelometers (Radiance Research Model
Ne
X 903) (Watson et al., 2008). The majority of the light extinction
Ej ¼ Xjk ek (8) during winter conditions in the Central Valley is due to particle
k¼1 scattering (ENSR, 2005; Richard et al., 1999). The Radiance Research
Model 903 nephelometer uses a ‘‘smart heater’’ which maintains
where j denotes sources and Xkj is the fraction of component k (i.e.,
2 the inlet RH below 72% (Watson et al., 2008). When ambient RH is
Cl, Naþ, NHþ 
4 , NO3 , and SO4 ) associated with source j. It should be
greater than 72%, the heated inlet reduces particulate H2O content
noted that particulate H2O associated with organic matter (OM) is
which alters particle light extinction under high RH conditions
not considered in this study because detailed information about
(Richard et al., 1999). The value of bsp predicted by the visibility
OM chemical composition and hygroscopicity is not available
model under ambient RH conditions must be adjusted to match
(Kanakidou et al., 2005).
conditions at the nephelometer inlet before a direct comparison
can be made to measurements. Particulate H2O was recalculated
3. Model application corresponding to the RH and temperature conditions within the
nephelometer inlet using the ZSR relationship applied to predicted
Ying et al. (2008a,b, 2009) used the UCD/CIT model to simulate inorganic PM component concentrations. The particle scattering
quantitative source contributions to PM in the Central Valley coefficient (bsp) was then calculated based on the adjusted PM
between December 15, 2000 and January 7, 2001. The modeling concentrations.
domain covers the Central Valley and is horizontally divided into Fig. 1 shows the comparison between measured and modeled
4 km  4 km cells, with 190 grid cells in each direction. Hourly bsp (after recalculating particulate H2O) at six locations in the
emissions were based on an inventory with 4 km spatial resolution Central Valley. Each data point in Fig. 1 represents measured or
generated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). As dis- modeled average daytime bsp. At Angiola, Bethel Island, Modesto,
cussed in Ying et al. (2008a), PM size/number distributions were and Sacramento, modeled bsp generally follows measured trends
derived from hourly PM mass emissions, measured PM source during the study period although slight under predictions are

Fig. 2. Box-whisker plot of fractional bias for calculated average daytime particle scattering coefficient (bsp) at approximately 40 sites in the modeling domain.
6140 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144

evident on those days with the largest measured bsp. At Fresno and
Bakersfield, predicted bsp is substantially lower than measured bsp
during the second half of the study period. There are two potential
causes for the under predictions. One factor that certainly influ-
ences the results at Bakersfield is that the UCD/CIT model under
predicts PM components (e.g., NH4NO3) during the last portion of
the study period as described previously by Ying et al. (2008a). The
other factor is that particulate H2O may not instantaneously rees-
tablish equilibrium with H2O vapor as temperature and RH are
changed in the nephelometer inlet (Watson et al., 2008). The
equilibrium assumption used in model calculations could lead to
under predictions of particulate H2O if actual equilibrium condi-
tions were not established. This discrepancy could lead to the under
predictions of bsp observed in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 shows a box-and-whisker plot for the calculated fractional
bias (FB) for bsp at approximately 40 locations within the modeling
domain. On average, the mean FB (MFB) is 0.22, indicating an
overall under prediction of bsp. The under prediction is more
intense during the second half of the study period possibly due to
under predictions of PM concentrations or non-equilibrium
conditions at the nephelometer inlet as discussed above. While not
shown in the figure, mean fractional error (MFE) was calculated to

Fig. 3. Contributions to the average daytime light extinction coefficient from individual chemical species between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001. Each panel illustrates the
spatial distribution of the local light extinction coefficient divided by the domain-wide maximum coefficient for that chemical species. The domain-wide maximum is listed after
the species title.
 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144 6141

Fig. 4. Source apportionment of the average daytime light extinction coefficient between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001. Each panel illustrates the spatial distribution of
the local light extinction coefficient divided by the domain-wide maximum coefficient for that source. The domain-wide maximum is listed after the source title.
6142 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144
be 0.65. Boylan and Russell (2006) recommended criteria for visi-
bility models such that performance was considered to be accept-
able if MFB is within 0.60 and MFE is less than 0.75. The model
performance for light scattering in the current study meets these
criteria.
4.2. Apportionment of light extinction coefficient
Fig. 3 shows contributions to the average daytime light
extinction coefficient between December 25, 2000 and January 7,
2
2001 from individual PM components (including NO þ
3 , NH4 , SO4 ,
EC, OM, H2O, and other PM species) and gas-phase NO2. The
majority of the OM in the current study originates from emissions
of primary organic carbon converted to organic matter (including
the mass of H, O, N, etc) using a factor of approximately 1.4. To
minimize the effect of initial conditions, only the period between
December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001 is considered in the
model analysis. Raleigh scattering is approximately 13 Mm1
uniformly distributed within the modeling domain and is not
shown. Within the Central Valley, light scattering due to particles
is the main cause for visibility impairment, consistent with the
findings of ENSR (2005) and Richard et al. (1999). Particulate H2O
is the largest component responsible for light extinction during
the study period. The maximum contribution from particulate
H2O to the light extinction exceeds 1000 Mm1 at certain loca-
tions between Fresno and Bakersfield. Large NH4NO3 concentra-
tions and high RH leads to a large amount of particulate H2O at
those locations. Light scattering due to NO þ
3 and NH4 has similar
spatial pattern because of the prevalence of NH4NO3 formation in
the Central Valley (Chow et al., 2006; Ying et al., 2008a).
Maximum light extinction contributions from NO þ
3 and NH4 are
1 1
264 Mm and 152 Mm , respectively. Light scattering due to
OM is typically high at urban areas where there are substantial
Fig. 5. Source contributions to the average daytime light extinction coefficient between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001 at seven locations: BTI (Bethel island), SDP
(Sacramento), M14 (Modesto), FRES (Fresno), ANGI (Angiola), BAC (Bakersfield), and SJV (Average of the San Joaquin Valley).
OM emissions from wood smoke (Ying et al., 2008b). The
maximum light extinction contribution from OM is 232 Mm1.
Other PM species (mainly crustal materials) also contribute to
light extinction with a maximum contribution of 113 Mm1. Light
scattering due to SO2 4 is relatively small with a maximum
contribution of 42 Mm1. Light absorption due to EC is evident in
the San Francisco Bay area and along the traffic corridors within
the Central Valley. The maximum light absorption due to EC is
120 Mm1. Light absorption by NO2 is minor with a maximum
contribution of 25 Mm1 located in the San Francisco Bay area.
Fig. 4 shows source apportionment results for the average
daytime light extinction coefficient within the modeling domain
between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001. Contributions to
light extinction from each source include light extinction by gases
(e.g., NO2), primary PM (e.g., EC), secondary PM (e.g., NO 3 ) formed
by atmospheric transformations, and particulate H2O that is asso-
ciated with PM species from that source. Regionally in the Central
Valley, animal ammonia sources are the largest contributor to light
extinction. The maximum contribution from animal ammonia
sources is 505 Mm1 in the portion of the SJV with the greatest
density of agricultural emissions. Light extinction contributed from
animal ammonia sources is mainly due to its contribution to the
formation of ammonium and H2O associated with ammonium
electrolytes. Diesel engines, wood smoke, and catalyst gasoline
engines are also important contributors to light extinction. The
maximum light extinction contributions from these three sources
are 263 Mm1, 261 Mm1, and 218 Mm1, respectively. Light
extinction contributed from diesel engines is mainly due to NO 3
contributed from diesel engines and particulate H2O associated
with NO 3 , as well as EC emissions from diesel vehicles. In contrast,
light extinction contributed from wood smoke is mainly due to OM
from fireplace combustion of wood. Catalyst gasoline engines
contribute to light extinction mainly through contributions to the
 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144 6143

Table 1
Relative source contributions to the average daytime light extinction between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001 at different sites within the SJV.

Sources BTI* SDP* M14* FRES* ANGI* BAC* SJV*

IC/BC 12% 17% 12% 15% 12% 11% 13%
Paved road 6% 7% 4% 7% 6% 9% 6%
Fugitive dust 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Wood smoke 11% 25% 15% 21% 4% 25% 7%
Diesel engines 19% 13% 16% 14% 22% 17% 18%
Non-catalytic gasoline engines 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Catalyst gasoline engines 11% 12% 7% 7% 10% 5% 9%
Meat cooking 0% 1% 1% 4% 0% 2% 1%
High sulfur 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Other anthropogenic 6% 4% 8% 5% 7% 9% 9%
Animal ammonia 27% 16% 32% 20% 32% 16% 28%
Raleigh scattering 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
*
BTI: Bethel Island; SDP: Sacramento; M14: Modesto; FRES: Fresno; ANGI: Angiola; BAC: Bakersfield: SJV: Average of the San Joaquin Valley.

formation of NO 3 and the associated particulate H2O. Maximum
light extinction contributions from IC/BC and other anthropogenic
sources are 162 Mm1 and 152 Mm1, respectively. Light extinction
from the IC/BC is mainly due to the contribution of boundary
conditions to SO2 
4 and NO3 along with the associated particulate
H2O. Light extinction from other anthropogenic sources is due to
contributions of these sources to NO 3 , OM, and particulate H2O
associated with NO 3 . High sulfur fuel combustion, meat cooking,
paved road dust, non-catalyst gasoline engines, and fugitive dust
are less important contributors to light extinction. Their maximum
contributions to light extinction are 75 Mm1, 51 Mm1, 49 Mm1,
22 Mm1, and 12 Mm1, respectively.
Fig. 5 shows a time series of source contributions to average
daytime light extinction coefficients at six locations across the
Central Valley between December 25, 2000 and January 7, 2001. A
seventh panel is also included to show average source contribu-
tions to bsp averaged across the entire SJV. The contribution from
Raleigh scattering is approximately 13 Mm1 at all sites during the
modeling period (not shown). The summation of total daytime light
extinction from different sources (excluding Raleigh scattering)
reveals substantial day-to-day variations at each location as well as
spatial variations between sites. Maximum predicted daytime light
extinction is 450 Mm1 for the average SJV with a maximum value
of approximately 1600 Mm1 at Modesto, and within 650–
900 Mm1 for other locations. While the absolute source contri-
butions to daytime light extinction exhibit strong day-to-day
variations, the relative source contributions to daytime light
extinction show much smaller variations at each location. Table 1
summarizes percentage source contributions to daytime light
extinction for these locations averaged over the last two weeks of
the study period. At the urban locations of Bakersfield, Fresno, and
non-catalyst gasoline engines, meat cooking, high sulfur combus-
tion, and fugitive sources are minor and are typically smaller than
2% for all of the locations summarized in Table 1. The contribution
from Raleigh scattering is less than 3% at these locations, indicating
the dominance of anthropogenic sources in the polluted atmo-
sphere of the Central Valley under winter stagnation conditions.
5. Conclusions
Gas and particulate concentrations predicted by the UCD/CIT air
quality model were used to quantify source contributions to
daytime visual impairment in the Central Valley of California
during a severe winter stagnation event over the period December
15, 2000 to January 7, 2001. Particle scattering coefficients
measured by nephelometers were predicted reasonably well by the
model when particulate H2O was recalculated at the conditions of
the nephelometer inlet, although substantial under prediction is
evident at Fresno, Angiola, and Bakersfield during the later portion
of the study period. This under prediction of particle scattering
coefficients could be related to the particulate H2O non-equilibrium
issue associated with the instrument and/or under prediction of
particulate concentrations from the model simulation. For example,
NH4NO3 at Bakersfield was under predicted at the second half of
the study period. This under prediction of NH4NO3 at Bakersfield
may under estimate source contributions to visual impairment
from NH4NO3 related sources (e.g., animal ammonia sources, diesel
engines) and over estimate relative source contributions from
NH4NO3 unrelated sources (e.g., wood smoke) during the final days
of the study period. Daytime light extinction in the Central Valley
was mainly caused by light scattering associated with airborne
particles during the current study. Particulate NO 3 , OM and NH4
þ

Sacramento, wood smoke is the most important source of light
extinction (22–25%), while animal ammonia sources are the second
most important source (16–20%). In contrast, animal ammonia
sources are the dominant source for light extinction (27–32%) at
Angiola, Bethel Island, Modesto, and the averaged across the entire
SJV, with wood smoke only contributing approximately 5–15% of
the light extinction at those locations. This trend reflects the strong
spatial gradients associated with smoke produced by residential
wood combustion during winter stagnation events in the SJV.
Diesel engines contribute approximately 13–22% of the light
extinction at the locations summarized in Table 1. Contributions
from catalyst gasoline engines vary from 5% at Bakersfield to 12% at
Sacramento. IC/BC values contribute approximately 11% (Bakers-
field) to 16% (Sacramento) of the light extinction. Contributions
from other anthropogenic sources vary from 4% at Sacramento to
9% at Bakersfield. Light extinction contributed from paved road
dust can be as large as 9% at Bakersfield. Contributions from
(along with associated H2O) are the most important chemical
species contributing to light scattering. The daytime light extinc-
tion averaged over the entire SJV between December 25, 2000 and
January 7, 2001 is mainly associated with animal ammonia sources
(28%), diesel engines (18%), IC/BC (13%), catalyst gasoline engines
(9%), other anthropogenic sources (9%), and wood smoke (7%).
Further study would be required to quantify source contributions to
light extinction in other seasons.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the California Air Resources
Board and the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency
under contract 2000–2005PM. The statements, opinions, findings,
and conclusions of this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of the California Air Resources
Board.
6144 J. Chen et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 6136–6144

References Lowenthal, D.H., Rogers, C.F., Saxena, P., Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C., 1995. Sensitivity of
estimated light extinction coefficients to model assumptions and measurement
errors. Atmospheric Environment 29, 751–766.
Barna, M.G., Schichtel, B.A., Gebhart, K.A., Marm, W.C., 2006. Modeling regional
Malm, W.C., Gebhart, K.A., 1997. Source apportionment of sulfur and light extinction
sulfate during the BRAVO study: part 2. Emission sensitivity simulations and
using receptor modeling techniques. Journal of Air & Waste Management
source apportionment. Atmospheric Environment 40, 2423–2435.
Association 47, 250–268.
Bohren, C.F., Huffman, D.R., 1983. Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small
Mysliwiec, M.J., Kleeman, M.J., 2002. Source apportionment of secondary airborne
Particles. Wiley Interscience, New York.
particulate matter in a polluted atmosphere. Environmental Science & Tech-
Boylan, J.W., Russell, A.G., 2006. PM and light extinction model performance
nology 36, 5376–5384.
metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmo-
Pryor, S.C., Barthelmie, R.J., 2000. REVEAL II: seasonality and spatial variability of
spheric Environment 40, 4946–4959.
particle and visibility conditions in the Fraser Valley. The Science of the Total
Carter, W.P.L., 1990. A detailed mechanism for the gas-phase atmospheric reactions
Environment 257, 95–110.
of organic-compounds. Atmospheric Environment Part A-General Topics 24,
Richard, L.W., Alcorn, S.H., McDade, C., Couture, T., Lowenthal, D., Chow, J.C.,
481–518.
Watson, J.G., 1999. Optical properties of the San Joaquin valley aerosol collected
Chan, Y.C., Simpson, R.W., Mctainsh, G.H., Vowles, P.D., Cohen, D.D., Bailey, G.M.,
during the 1995 integrated monitoring study. Atmospheric Environment 33,
1999. Source apportionment of visibility degradation problems in Brisbane
4787–4795.
(Australia) using the multiple linear regression techniques. Atmospheric Envi-
Schichtel, B.A., Husar, R.B., Falke, S.R., Wilson, W.E., 2001. Haze trends over the
ronment 33, 3237–3250.
United States, 1980–1995. Atmospheric Environment 35, 5205–5210.
Chow, J.C., Chen, L.W.A., Watson, J.G., Lowenthal, D.H., Magliano, K.A.,
Seinfeld, J.H., Pandis, S.N., 1998. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air
Turkiewicz, K., Lehrman, D.E., 2006. PM2.5 chemical composition and spatio-
Pollution to Climate Change. Wiley Interscience, New York.
temporal variability during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
Stelson, A.W., 1990. Urban aerosol refractive index prediction by partial molar
(CRPAQS). Journal of Geophysical Research 111, D10S04. doi:10.1029/
refraction approach. Environmental Science & Technology 24, 1676–1679.
2005JD006457.
Vandaele, A.C., Hermans, C., Simon, P.C., VanRoozendael, M., Guilmot, J.M.,
ENSR, 2005. Contributions of Chemical Constituents to Visibility Reduction During
the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study, Report prepared for San Carleer, M., Colin, R., 1996. Fourier transformation measurement of the NO2
absorption cross-sections in the visible range at room temperature. Journal of
Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency, Sacramento, CA.
Atmospheric Chemistry 25, 289–305.
Husar, R.B., Husar, J.D., Martin, L., 2000. Distribution of continental surface aerosol
Watson, J.G., 2002. Visibility: science and regulation. Journal of Air & Waste
extinction based on visual range data. Atmospheric Environment 34,
Management Association 52, 628–713.
5067–5078.
Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C., Lowenthal, D.H., Magliano, K.L., 2008. Estimating aerosol light
Hyslop, N.P., 2009. Impaired visibility: the air pollution people see. Atmospheric
scattering at the Fresno Supersite. Atmospheric Environment 42, 1186–1196.
Environment 43, 182–195.
Ying, Q., Lu, J., Allen, P., Livingstone, P., Kaduwela, A., Kleeman, M.J., 2008a.
Jacobson, M.Z., 1998. Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling. Cambridge Univer-
Modeling air quality during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality
sity Press, New York.
Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model – part I.
Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J.H., Pandis, S.N., et al., 2005. Organic aerosol and global
Base case model results. Atmospheric Environment 42, 8954–8966.
climate modeling: a review. Atmospheric Chemistry Physics 5, 1053–1123.
Ying, Q., Lu, J., Kaduwela, A., Kleeman, M.J., 2008b. Modeling air quality during the
Kleeman, M.J., Cass, G.R., Eldering, A., 1997. Modeling the airborne particle complex
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT
as a source-oriented external mixture. Journal of Geophysical Research 102,
source-oriented air quality model – part II. Regional source apportionment of
21355–21372.
primary airborne particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment 42, 8967–8978.
Kleeman, M.J., Eldering, A., Hall, J.R., Cass, G.R., 2001. Effect of emissions control
Ying, Q., Lu, J., Kleeman, M.J., 2009. Modeling air quality during the California
programs on visibility in southern California. Environmental Science & Tech-
Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-
nology 35, 4668–4674.
oriented air quality model – part III. Regional source apportionment of
Knipping, E.M., Kumar, N., Pun, B.K., Seigneur, C., Wu, S.Y., Schichtel, B.A., 2006.
secondary and total airborne particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment 43,
Modeling regional haze during the BRAVO study using CMAQ-MADRID: 2.
419–430.
Source region attribution of particulate sulfate compounds. Journal of
Ying, Q., Mysliwiec, M., Kleeman, M.J., 2004. Source apportionment of visibility
Geophysical Research 111, D06303. doi:10.1029/2004JD005609.
impairment using a three-dimensional source-oriented air quality model.
Larson, S.M., Cass, G.R., Hussey, K.J., Luce, F., 1988. Verification of image processing
Environmental Science & Technology 38, 1089–1101.
based visibility models. Environmental Science & Technology 22, 629–637.