#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

Mason City

Waterloo

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Davenport

Clinton

Des Moines

Council Bluffs

Sioux CityDubuque

30

34

35

30

28

3428

30

32

25

28

Viking Lake

Muscatine

Iowa PM2.5 24-hr Design Values 2004-2006Iowa Continuous PM2.5 Monitors

Zero Air Test

Initial Results using New Continuous PM2.5

Monitoring Designs in Iowa

Sean Fitzsimmons, Iowa DNR

Warm Weather FDMS Rev C. versus FRM Comparisons

in Iowa (Draft)

Site Monitor n r2 m b m(35)+b Z CVub (%)

BH FoundryPrimary 100 0.93 1.01 1.5 37 - 15

Secondary 77 0.85 1.04 3.7 40 -2.7 21

Cedar Rapids Primary 16 0.93 1.17 0.1 41 - 12

Clinton Primary 65 0.91 1.09 0.8 39 - 15

DavenportPrimary 103 0.95 1.07 1.0 39 -0.4 10

Secondary 89 0.95 1.07 0.4 38 -0.3 11

Des MoinesPrimary 56 0.95 1.01 1.0 36 -0.9 11

Secondary 52 0.92 0.96 1.6 35 -2.0 14

EmmetsburgPrimary 17 0.83 1.06 0.2 37 - 22

Secondary 18 0.62 0.77 3.6 31 - 27

Lake Sugema

Primary 15 0.95 0.97 1.9 36 -1.2 11

Secondary 17 0.95 1.02 3.3 39 -3.5 20

Viking LakePrimary 21 0.95 1.04 0.0 36 - 15

Secondary 22 0.73 0.94 2.6 35 -1.5 23

Waverly Primary 27 0.95 1.12 1.4 40 - 15

Continuous=m* Filter +b

Warm Weather Comparisons Between Co-located Continuous

PM2.5 Monitors in Iowa (Draft)

Site n CVub r2 m b m(35)+b

BH Foundry 173 17 0.88 0.95 3.0 36

Davenport 169 5 0.99 0.99 -0.5 34

Des Moines-BAM 28 16 0.89 1.01 -.9 34

Des Moines-FDMS 119 9 0.96 0.94 1.2 34

Emmetsburg 107 18 0.88 0.99 2.4 37

Lake Sugema 110 14 0.95 0.98 3.7 38

Viking Lake 89 12 0.96 0.98 1.0 35

Waverly 44 11 0.92 1.07 0.1 38

(Continuous)2=m* (Continuous)1+b

Issues we are trying to resolve at some monitoring locations:

•Nafion Dryer –Performance in hot weather–Performance in rooftop shelters

•Intermittent “noise” in volatile mass channel