ANALYSIS OF TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DICHOTOMOUS PARTICULATE

MATTER (PM) AIR SAMPLES IN THE EL PASO-CD. JUAREZ AIR

QUALITY BASIN
PROJECT NUMBER: D-2
WEN-WHAI LI, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
RUBEN ORQUIZ, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
NICHOLAS E. PINGITORE, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JORGE GARDEA-TORRESDEY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JOSE H. GARCIA, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
TANIA T. ESPINO, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JUDITH CHOW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JOHN G. WATSON, DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

NARRARATIVE SUMMARY

This paper presents and discusses the results obtained from the gravimetric and chemical
analyses of the 24-hr-average dichotomous samples collected from five sites in the El Paso-Cd.
Juárez air quality basin between August 1999 and March 2000. Gravimetric weighing was
performed to determine the temporal and spatial variations of PMfine (particulate matter less than
2.5 µm in diameter, or “PM2.5”) and PMcoarse (particulate matter less than 10 µm but greater than
2.5 µm in diameter, or abbreviated “PM10”) mass concentrations. The results indicate that nearly
80% of the PM10 (i.e., PMfine + PMcoarse) concentration is composed of coarse particulate.
Concurrent measurements of hourly PM concentrations, wind speed, and temperature showed
strong diurnal patterns of the regional PM pollution. Results of XRF elemental analyses were
compared to similar but limited studies performed by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) in 1990 and 1997. Major elements - Al, Si, Ca, Na, K, Fe, and Ti -
accounted for 35% of the total concentrations in the PMcoarse fraction, indicating that geologic
sources in the area are the prevailing PM sources. Levels of heavy metals, mainly considered as
products of anthropogenic activities, have decreased significantly from those observed in 1990
and 1997.
ANALYSIS OF TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DICHOTOMOUS PARTICULATE
MATTER (PM) AIR SAMPLES IN THE EL PASO-CD. JUAREZ AIR
QUALITY BASIN
PROJECT NUMBER: D-2
WEN-WHAI LI, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
RUBEN ORQUIZ, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
NICHOLAS E. PINGITORE, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JORGE GARDEA-TORRESDEY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JOSE H. GARCIA, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
TANIA T. ESPINO, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JUDITH CHOW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
JOHN G. WATSON, DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

INTRODUCTION

The Paso del Norte (PdN) air quality basin contains three cities: El Paso, Texas; Sunland Park,
New Mexico; and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Ambient PM10 concentrations in the
region frequently exceed the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of both countries.
PM in the region derives from geologic sources, vehicle exhaust, residential cooking and heating,
and other unidentified sources. The arid weather, occasional high winds, frequent stagnations,
shallow nighttime and morning mixing depths, and complex topography preclude simple
explanations for excessive PM10 levels.

Air quality in El Paso has improved gradually since 1990, as shown in Figure 1. Although El
Paso is still classified as nonattainment for ozone, CO, and PM10, reductions in all three criteria
pollutants have been reported by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC)1-3. Ozone and CO concentrations have decreased to levels close to or below their
respective NAAQS. The annual average ambient PM10 level decreased from the peak of 67 µ
g/m3 in 1989 to 37 µg/m3 in 1993; but increased to 55 µg/m3 from 1993 to 19972.

A brief modeling feasibility study in December 1990 collected 12-hr (day and night)
dichotomous samples at five sites in El Paso for gravimetric, elemental, and carbon analyses 4.
During that study, PM10 exceeded the 150 µg/m3 24-hr standard on 15 out of 31 sampled days.
Substantial spatial variation of PM10 during air pollution episodes was observed and nighttime
concentrations were reported to be greater than daytime concentrations. Geologic material
accounted for most of the mass in PMcoarse. Trace metal (Cr, Cu, As, Pb, Cd) concentrations were
higher in PM2.5 than in PMcoarse. Surprisingly, the amount of chlorine present in El Paso air during
1990 was also higher than chlorine found in Texas coastal cities. A recent study5 in downtown El
Paso showed that geologic material ([AlO+AlO2] average + SiO2 + [FeO+FeO2] average) accounted for
22% of the mass in PM2.5, while trace elements (Sum of XRF species – Al + Si + Ca + Fe + S +

2
Cl) accounted for 2% of the total mass in PM2.5. In addition, unexplained chlorine concentrations
continued to be higher in El Paso than in any city in Texas during the study period.

The recurring increase of PM10 concentration in recent years and the temporal and spatial
characteristics of PM pollution in the air basin are not understood. To improve understanding, a
PM air-monitoring program, the UTEP (University of Texas at El Paso) Study, was conducted in
1999/2000 and PM2.5 and PMcoarse samples were collected at several locations in the air basin.
The objectives were to determine: 1) the temporal and spatial variations of PM2.5 and PMcoarse; 2)
relationships between PM2.5 and PMcoarse; and 3) the elemental constituents of PM2.5 and PMcoarse.

THE AIR MONITORING PROGRAM

Site Description
The PM monitoring program began August 1, 1999 and ended July 31, 2000. During this period,
24-hr dichotomous samples were collected on alternate days at two El Paso sites: Chamizal
National Park (Chamizal) and Sun Metro Bus Terminal (Sun Metro), as shown in Figure 2. Only
air samples collected before March 7, 2000 are discussed in this paper. Three additional sites in
Cd. Juarez (Club 20-30, Advanced Transformer, and Mission) were added to the sampling
program during the winter months (January 3 – March 7, 2000). Figure 2 shows the Paso del
Norte air basin and the locations of the five monitoring sites.
In the U.S., the Chamizal site is located in south El Paso, west of the Cordova International
Bridge, in a mixed residential, semi-industrial area. It is part of the USEPA’s State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations (PAMS) networks
where daily, 24-hr Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 samples are collected, and hourly
PM10 and meteorological data are continuously recorded. The Sun Metro site, an urban
commercial/industrial site about 4 km from Chamizal, is located in southwest El Paso just north
of the Rio Grande and south of Interstate Highway I-10. The site is collocated with a TNRCC
Continuous Air Monitoring Site (CAMS) where hourly PM10 and meteorological data are
continuously recorded.

In Mexico, the Club 20-30 site is located in a residential area east of downtown Cd. Juárez. The
Advanced Transformer site is located near maquiladoras that make electronic components and
automotive parts; brick kilns operate to the south. These two sites are co-managed by the
Environmental Department of Cd. Juárez and the El Paso City and County Health and
Environmental District. The Mission site is located in the Juárez Mountains foothills southwest
of the air basin. The site is surrounded by unpaved roads and is adjacent to a cement factory; it
represents a typical residential location in the outskirts of Cd. Juárez.

These locations represent different activities in the air basin and supplement the study
measurements with FRM PM2.5, hourly PM10, and meteorological data.

Sample Collection, Handling and Processing

Two dichotomous air samplers6-7 were placed at each of the two U.S. sites, where one sampler
was operated every other day to collect 24-hr air samples and the other was operated selectively

3
for collocated samples. Only one dichotomous sampler was operated at each of the three Mexico
sites. Twenty-four-hour samples were collected from 0001 to 2359 MST on 37-mm-diameter
ringed Teflon filters (Gelman Science Inc., ID No. R2PJ037) at an actual (not adjusted to STP)
flow rate of 1 m3/hr. The filter has high particle collection efficiency, 99%, measured using the
DOP test with a 0.3-µm particle at the sampler’s operating face velocity.8 Quality control was
managed by following EPA guidelines and procedures for particulate matter monitoring9 and
gravimetric weighing10. A mini-Buck bubble calibrator (Model M-30), a primary standard
calibration device traceable to NIST, was used to calibrate the rotameters on the dichotomous
samplers11. Collocated samples were collected at the El Paso sites for every ten samples.

Analysis of Mass Concentrations

Filters were conditioned at 25 °C ± 5°C and 30% ± 5% RH for 24 hours, pre-weighed, and stored
in petri dishes for less than 30 days prior to sampling. Loaded filters were removed from the
field and transported to the laboratory at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) for
gravimetric analysis with a CAHN model C-33 microbalance (± 1 µg sensitivity)12 after
conditioning. Mass concentrations were reported as micrograms of PM per cubic meter of air (µ
g/m3), adjusted for the 10% of fine mass in the coarse mass, due to the use of virtual impactor in
the dichotomous samplers, and to EPA’s standard conditions of 298 K and 760 mm Hg. The
additional approximately 13% adjustment for EPA standard conditions is required for
determining compliance with the federal PM10 standard, but not for compliance with the federal
PM2.5 standard. PM2.5 and PMcoarse use STP sample volumes for this study.

X-ray Fluorescence Elemental Analysis

PM2.5 and PMcoarse Teflon filters were analyzed by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis for 38
elements (Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, As, Se, Br, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr,
Mo, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Ba, La, Au, Hg, Tl, Pb, and U). Calibration standards, sensitivity
factors for each excitation condition, quality control standards and procedures, and detailed
laboratory methods and operation procedures are kept the same as that used at the Desert
Research Institute.13-14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Mass Concentrations

Collocated Samples. Figure 3 shows superior collocated precision of ±1% for both PM2.5 and
PMcoarse. Regression statistics for samples collected at the Chamizal and Sun Metro sites show
high correlations (r2 = 0.99), near-unity slope (1.03), and low intercepts (<3 µg/m3).

Comparison to TNRCC’s Beta Attenuation Monitor. Figures 4 shows substantially poorer

comparisons between the dichotomous sampler PM10 and that derived from beta attenuation
monitors. On average, beta attenuation monitors reported lower PM10 than the dichotomous
samplers by 20 to 40%. The difference became more pronounced at high concentrations.

4
Temporal Variation of PM Concentrations. Figure 5 presents the time series plot of PM10 and
PM2.5 concentration for samples acquired on an every other day schedule at Chamizal and Sun
Metro. Regardless of the PM10 concentrations, PM2.5 consists of only a small, but steady, fraction
of PM10, indicating that PM2.5 in this area is rather independent of the temporal variations of
regional sandstorms or mobile emissions. The average PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations of 22.5
µg/m3 and 109 µg/m3 at Sun Metro are considerably higher than Chamizal’s 11.0 µg/m 3 and 56.9
µg/m3, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the monthly average PM concentrations and
temperatures obtained for the two El Paso sites. Both PM2.5 and PM10 increase during winter
months, as temperature inversions increase in frequency and duration, and wood burning
intensifies. Because of the nearby highway and unpaved residential area in Cd. Juárez, the PM
concentrations at Sun Metro were expected to be higher than at Chamizal. PM 10 concentrations
are dominated mainly by the PMcoarse fraction and the PM2.5 fraction is weakly associated with the
PM10 concentrations at the two sites (Table 2). The average wintertime PM 2.5/PM10 ratio at Sun
Metro, 0.28, is at a level similar to that observed at Chamizal of 0.21. These PM 2.5/PM10 ratios
are significantly lower than 0.5, a value reported for a typical arid city15 where the ratio varies
from 0.20 to 0.37 during dust storms and 0.33 to 0.75 during non-dust storm days16.

Based on the observed PM ratios and PM10 concentrations, many of the high PM10 days would
have been attributed to fugitive dust generated by high winds. However, concurrent wind
measurements at the sites do not support such argument. For instance, two of the highest 24-hr
PM10 concentrations measured at Chamizal were 275 µg/m3 on October 15th and 258 µg/m3 on
November 18th. The respective PM2.5 concentrations for these two days at Chamizal were 11.2 µ
g/m3 and 14.7 µg/m3, which resulted in PM2.5/PM10 ratios of 0.04 and 0.06. The average wind
speeds for these two days, however, were not considered high, 4.3 m/s (with occasional gusts up
to 8.9 m/s) and 2.8 m/s, respectively. Wind gusts reaching 8.9 m/s apparently had a significant
impact on the elevated PM10 concentration for that day. The low-wind-high-PM and high-wind-
high-PM phenomena have been observed at several locations and throughout the year in the air
basin. In fact, Figure 6 shows that days with low or extremely high wind speeds (exceeding the
wind erosion threshold wind speed of approximately 7 m/sec) tend to yield higher hourly PM 10
concentrations than days with moderate wind speeds17. Additionally, on January 19th at Sun
Metro, the average wind speed for the day was 3.2 m/s (with maximum wind gusts of up to 4.6
m/s) and the PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were 203 µg/m3 and 43.1 µg/m3. On February 12th,
the PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were 188 µg/m3 and 24.8 µg/m3 with average wind speed of
5.1 m/s and occasional wind gusts up to 10.3 m/s. When wind gusts reach levels of 13.1 m/s, as
on February 24th, the PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations reached 337 µg/m3 and 37.2 µg/m3. The
PM2.5/PM10 ratio was 0.21 for Jan. 19th, 0.13 for Feb. 12th, and reduced to 0.11 on Feb. 24th which
is consistent with the changes in wind speed and maximum wind gusts. PM pollution in the area
appears to be dominated by fugitive dust. A small proportion (Figure 6) results from wind
erosion, with most cases caused by suspension of road or construction dust when wind speeds
exceeded 7 m/s. Contributions to PM pollution by mobile emissions (primarily as PM 2.5) may be
quite localized and do not significantly affect the overall PM10 concentrations in the air basin.
Perhaps, PM2.5 in the area is dominated by re-suspension of urban dust and other meteorological
conditions that are likely to trap PM in the air basin.

Using hourly Beta Gauge PM10 and TEOM PM2.5 data18, 19, diurnal averages for the study period
were plotted for both sites. At both locations, PM peaked during two distinct time intervals. The

5
first PM (both fine and coarse fractions) peak was during the morning hours when ground-based
inversions occurred and traffic began (Figures 7 and 8). The second PM peak occurred in the
evening when radiation inversions started to form and wood burning and home cooking
prevailed in the air basin. Similar diurnal variations in PM 10 were observed in southern
California. 20 Pronounced morning and evening peaks in PM10 were observed at urban and rural
sites. However, the most pronounced peak was observed at a suburban location where shifts in
winds and atmospheric pressure were considered the major causes of the peak. Characterization
of the daily peaks in our air basin would help determine the localized PM emission sources and,
consequently, reduce the PM pollution.

Spatial Variation of PM Concentrations. Figure 9a contains the temporal variation of 24-hr

PM10 and PM2.5 at Club 20-30. The PM2.5 concentrations visibly followed the PM10 trend. The
average PM2.5/PM10 ratio was 0.36, with a S.D. ( ) of 0.11, obviously affected by the increased
mobile emissions in downtown Cd. Juárez.

At the Mission site, it is expected that the PM10 concentration be high and mostly made up of
PMcoarse. Indeed, Table 2 shows that the average PM coarse concentration at this site was 142 µg/m3,
a value much higher than that monitored in El Paso or downtown Cd. Juárez. The high PM
concentrations could be attributed to a cement factory located in the vicinity of the site and the
large number of wood stoves, unpaved roads, and heaters in the area. Figure 9b shows the
temporal variation at Mission during the winter months. As expected, the PM2.5/PM10 ratio, 0.16
(with a value of 0.06), is significantly lower than at other sites and is a good indication of the
dominance of PM pollution by geologic sources.

Figure 9c contains the winter study temporal variation at Advanced Transformer. The average
PM2.5 concentration of 50.9 µg/m3 and PM10 concentration of 197 µg/m3 are the highest of all
sites (Table 2), reflecting the unique emission sources (brick kilns, automobiles, unpaved roads,
and industrial sources) in the immediate vicinity of the site.

For the Juárez sites, PM2.5 correlates moderately to PM10, as seen in Table 2, indicating that
anthropogenic emissions and fugitive dust are more pronounced in Cd. Juárez than in El Paso.

Elemental Analysis

A total of 149 filters collected at the five sites were analyzed using XRF for rapid evaluation of
the elemental compositions of PM. XRF analysis was performed for samples collected at
Chamizal and Sun Metro for the month of September 1999 and from December 2, 1999, to
March 5, 2000. At the Cd. Juárez sites, filters were analyzed for samples collected from January
3, 2000, to March 7, 2000.

Figures 10 and 11 show the ambient trace metal concentrations (Cu, Cr, As, Cd, and Pb) at the
two El Paso sites. These elements were selected for their association with operations of local
industrial sources. Trace metal concentrations were higher in PM coarse than in PM2.5 for the El
Paso sites, but lower in PM2.5 than in PMcoarse for the Cd. Juárez sites (Figure 12). In general,
arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), and lead (Pb) in either PM 2.5 or PMcoarse were lower in 1997 and
2000 than a decade ago at the two El Paso sites. Arsenic and chromium levels were consistently

6
low in the basin throughout the study period, which may reflect the closure of a local copper
smelting operation (Table 3). Levels of lead and copper, although reduced, are still high in the
air basin.

Geologic elements (Al, Si, Ca, Fe) appear to dominate the coarse fraction of PM 10 (Figures 13
and 14). These elements are expected to be of higher concentrations as low PM2.5/PM10 ratios
and high correlations between PMcoarse and PM10 were observed at all sites. Based on the results
of the XRF analysis, geologic elements account for 35 % of PMcoarse and 12 % of PM2.5
concentrations. PM concentrations at the rural Cd. Juárez site (Figure 15) are particularly
affected by the geologic elements, signifying the impacts of unpaved roads and surrounding
desert on local air quality. Figure 15 also shows that sulfur concentrations are low, but similar in
the fine and coarse fractions of PM. Potential emission sources in the region for sulfur are fuel
combustion and re-entrainment of fallout from past smelting of sulfide-containing ores.

Occasional high chlorine concentrations were detected in PM2.5, indicating the existence of
possible anthropogenic sources of chlorine-containing substances or long range transport of sea
salt from the Gulf of Mexico, as shown in Figure 15. Chlorine levels at Sun Metro and Advance
Transformer appeared to be higher than in other areas in the air basin. Nevertheless, the level
has decreased significantly from what was observed in 1990, but remained at approximately the
same level as reported in TNRCC’s 1997 statewide PM2.5 study (Table 3).

Table 3 compares elemental compositions of PM2.5 observed in this study to those observed in
1990 and 1997. One notes that the sampling periods and sampling locations for the 1990 and
1997 studies are different from those for the current study. Although the comparison may
include uncertainties, it provides the best available information of historical PM data for the air
basin.

Almost all elemental compositions decreased from 1990 to 2000 at both El Paso sites. PM 2.5 lead
concentrations are significantly lower today than in the previous studies. Reasons for the lower
lead concentration lie in the elimination of lead from gasoline (eliminated recently in Cd. Juárez)
and the shutdown of a major smelting operation in the city. Arsenic and other smelter emissions
have experienced the same decrease in concentration as lead. PM2.5 chlorine and sulfur
concentrations have also experienced decreases in concentration.

The dominance of geologic elements in PM2.5 decreased over the past decade. For instance,
aluminum concentrations in El Paso decreased from an average of 0.47 µg/m3 in 1990, to 0.24 µ
g/m3 in 1997 and to 0.27 µg/m3 in 2000 (average of the two El Paso sites). PM2.5 calcium
increased from 1.27 µg/m3 in 1990, to 1.41 µg/m3 in 1997, but decreased to 1.04 µg/m3 in 2000
while PM2.5 silicon increased from 0.76 µg/m3 in 1990, to 0.93 µg/m3 in 1997 and in 2000. In the
meantime, the mass concentration of PM2.5 decreased from 32.8 and 55.6 µg/m3 in 1990 at
Chamizal and Sun Metro to 11.0 µg/m3 and 22.5 µg/m3 in 2000, respectively. The fraction of
geologic material in PM2.5 (based on the sum of Al, Si, Ca, and Fe), however, actually increased
from 6 % to 12 %. One notices from Table 3 that chlorine concentration decreased from 1990 to
2000 in PM2.5, but somehow, increased in PMcoarse. The seasonal and spatial variations in chlorine
concentrations require further investigation.

7
Table 4 compares the compositions of PMcoarse in the present study to those measured in 1990. As
expected, elements associated with geologic sources, such as Al, Si, Ca, and Fe, are high in
PMcoarse. Based on the sum of the mass of these four geologic elements and the mass of the
PMcoarse derived from Table 1, geologic materials account for about 35 % of the mass for the
coarse fraction of PM10. This confirms that geologic materials contribute more to PMcoarse than to
PM2.5 and that carbon compounds, sulfates, and nitrates roughly account for the other portion of
PMcoarse. As stated previously, coarse chlorine concentration was high at Chamizal but not at Sun
Metro while fine chlorine concentration was low at Chamizal but high at Sun Metro. Elements
associated with industrial emissions in the air basin, such as Cr, Cu, As, Pb and Cd, remained at
low levels in PMcoarse, indicating that industrial emissions contribute more to PM2.5 than PMcoarse.

Levels of trace metals in the air decreased significantly from 1990 to 2000. For instance, arsenic
concentration in PM2.5 decreased by 57-fold (from 0.073 to 0.0013 µg/m3) and lead by 18-fold
(from 0.24 to 0.014 µg/m3) in El Paso. The ratio of trace metal to PM2.5 concentration also
improved. The ratio of copper to PM2.5 actually increased by about 40% between 1990 and 1997,
but decreased to less than 40% in 2000. Table 5 shows that ratios for the dominant trace metals
in the region (except those for chromium and copper) decreased less impressively from 1990 to
1997, but rather significantly (except that for chromium) to 2000 after a major smelter halted its
operations in early 2000. This is indicative of improvement in both geologic and industrial
emissions in the past decade and further reduction of trace metals from industrial emissions in
the past year.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our seven-month study of PM concentrations in El Paso shows that the average PM 2.5 and PM10
concentrations are 11 and 57 µg/m3 for Chamizal and 22 and 109 µg/m3 for Sun Metro,
respectively. The PM10 concentration increases towards the suburban area of Cd. Juárez while
PM2.5 peaks in areas of that city surrounded by brick kiln emissions and unpaved roads.

The PM2.5/PM10 ratio for the Paso del Norte air basin varied from 0.16 to 0.36, compared to 0.38
in 1990 (two sites for two weeks) and 0.45 in 1997 (one site for eleven months determined with
two different types of instrument). Downtown locations of the air basin yield higher ratios (0.36
in Cd. Juárez during 2000 and 0.45 in El Paso during 1997). The basin-wide average ratio is
0.24, a low value indicating that fugitive dust from geologic and anthropogenic sources (within
and outside the air basin) dominates PM10 pollution in the region. This study showed that PM2.5
pollution is rather ubiquitous in the air basin regardless of the seasonal/spatial variations of PM10.

PMcoarse dominates the PM10 mass concentration, and geologic sources are the major contributors
to PMcoarse. The diurnal variation of PM concentrations at the Sun Metro site shows that both
PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations peak in the morning and at night. Characterization of hourly PM
chemical composition, both organic and elemental, will be extremely helpful in determining the
sources of the high morning and nighttime pollution.

Trace metal concentrations are lower today than historical values, and we are continuing to
evaluate the causes of this reduction. Elements of geologic origin dominate the coarse fraction
of PM10 and are persistent due to the abundance of unpaved roads and complex terrain. Further

8
 investigation using source fingerprints and chemical, both organic and elemental, compositions
of air samples could provide mitigation alternatives for controlling PM pollution in the El Paso-
Cd. Juárez air-quality basin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by a grant provided by the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy (SCERP). R. Orquiz was sponsored by a scholarship provided by the GE
Faculty of the Future Program. Assistance received from Mr. R. Currey and Dr. N.J. Parks of
CERM/UTEP; Mr. D. R. van Schoik of SCERP; Drs. H. Meuzelaar and A. Sarofim of U. of
Utah; Mr. S. Kohl of DRI; Mr. J. Saenz, Mr. M. Munoz, Mr. A. Clouse and Mr. V. Valenzuela of
TNRCC Region 6; and Mr. G. Tarin of the Environmental Department of Cd. Juárez is
appreciated. This study would not have been completed without the help of the following people
and program support: I. Becerril (SCERP), N. J. Castro and A. Martinez (UTEP MIE
Undergraduate Research Program), K.C. Gallardo (EPA Undergraduate Research Program), L.
Ledesma (EPA Undergraduate Research Program), J. Chianelli (SCERP), and J. Sanchez
(SCERP).

REFERENCES

1. Air Pollution Trends in Texas, Nonattainment Areas. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/cgi-

bin/monops/elpaso/O.html (accessed December 1999).
2. Air Pollution Trends in Texas. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/monops/e/10.html (accessed
December 1999).
3. Air Pollution Trends in Texas. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/monops/e/oz.html (accessed
December 1999).
4. Dattner, S. El Paso/Juárez 1990 PM10 Receptor Modeling Feasibility Study, TNRCC December
1994.
5. Price, J.H.; Dattner, S.L.; Lambeth, B.; Kamrath, J.; Aguirre, M., Jr.; McMullen, G.; Loos, K.;
Crow, W.; Tropp, R.J.; and Chow, J.C. (1998). Preliminary results of early PM2.5 monitoring in
Texas: Separating the impacts of transport and local contributions. In Proceedings, PM2.5: A
Fine Particle Standard, Chow, J.C. and Koutrakis, P., Eds. Air & Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 191-202.
6. Evans, J.S.; Ryan, P.B. (1983). “Statistical uncertainties in aerosol mass concentrations
measured by virtual impactors,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 1983, 2:531-536.
7. Quality Assurance Document, Method Compendium: Field Standard Operating Procedure for
the PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research
Triangle Park, NC., October 1998.
8. Lodge, J. P., Jr., (1989). Methods of Sampling Analysis. Lewis Publishing, Inc.
9. Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM 10 in the Atmosphere
(Dichotomous Sampler Method); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements Systems, Vol. II, Section 2.10 (1994).
10. Quality Assurance Guidance Document, Method Compendium: PM2.5 Mass Weighing
Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures for the Evaluation Performance Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
11. A.P. Buck, Inc.(1987), Mini-Buck Calibrator Instruction Manual.

9
12. Orion Research, Cahn Model C-33 Microbalance Instruction Manual, 1997.
13. Watson, J.G.; Chow, J.C.; Frazier, C.A. (1998), Elemental Analysis of Airborne Particles,
Landsberger, S. and Creatchman, M., Ed.; Gordon and Breach Publishers, U.S.A., pp 67-96.
14. Chow, J. C., J. (1995) Air and Waste Manage. Ass., 48:320.
15. Haller, L.; Clairborn, C.; Larson, T.; Norris, G; Edgar, R.(1999) “Airborne Particulate Matter
Size Distributions in an Arid Urban Area,” J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Vol.49: 161-168.
16. Claiborn, C.S.; Finn, D.; Larson, T.; Koenig J.(2000), “Windblown Dust Contributes to High
PM2.5 Concentrations,” J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Vol. 50: 1440-1445.
17. Becerril, I, Li,; W.-W., Gallardo, K.G., (1999), “Implication of potential PM sources based on
hourly meteorological and PM concentrations in El Paso,” Presented in the U.S.-Mexico Border:
An Exchange of Ideas, SCERP Technical Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
18. CAMS 41 Data by Month by Monitoring Site by Parameter. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/cgi-
bin/monops/monthly_summary?41 (accessed December 1999).
19. CAMS 40 Data by Month by Monitoring Site by Parameter. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/cgi-
bin/monops/monthly_summary?40 (accessed December 1999).
20. Dolislager, L.; Motallebi, N., (1999), “Characterization of Particulate Matter in California,” J.
Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Vol. 49: 45-56.

10
Table 1. Summary of 24-hr-average PM concentrations (µg/m3) and temperatures (°F) at the two
El Paso sites.

Chamizal Sun Metro

Month PM2.5 ±STD PM10 ± STD Temp. PM2.5 ± STD PM10 ± STD Temp.

Aug-99 8.6 ± 2.4 43.5 ± 24.6 84.5 N/C N/C N/C N/C N/C
Sep-99 7.2 ± 3.6 31.5 ± 18.4 78.5 10.5 ± 2.7 47.8 ± 18.8 77.1
Oct-99 11.2 ± 4.3 73.8 ± 61.8 68 22.6 ± 9.9 138.9 ± 76.9 66.6
Nov-99 11.5 ± 4.6 69.2 ± 58.2 60.9 34.6 ± 28.8 155.8 ± 88.5 59.3
Dec-99 11.6 ± 8.0 37.3 ± 15.8 47.3 18.2 ± 11 85.2 ± 73.3 45.9
Jan-00 12.7 ± 7.5 58.2 ± 26 53.4 28.4 ± 17.5 106.4 ± 50.5 51.6
Feb-00 12.5 ± 6.7 75.1 ± 78.5 57.5 21.5 ± 9.4 133 ± 106 55.8
Average 10.95 56.9 22.5 109
N/C: No Samples Collected

Table 2. Summary of 24-hr-average winter month PM concentrations (µg/m3) at all sites.

UTEP Study Average Values (Jan. 3 through March 7, 2000)

PM2.5 PMcoarse PM10 r2 for r2 for

PM2.5/PM10
µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 PM2.5 PMcoarse
Site Name
to to
Avg ± S.D. Avg ± S.D. Avg ± S.D. Avg ± S.D. PM10 PM10

Chamizal a 12.6 ± 6.5 57.7 ± 54.7 70.3 ± 57.9 0.22 ± 0.118 0.21 0.97
a
Sun Metro 23.1 ± 14.2 90.0 ± 71 113 ± 79.2 0.23 ± 0.099 0.28 0.97
Club 20-30 b 20.0 ± 11.5 36.0 ± 17.0 56.3 ± 26 0.36 ± 0.105 0.73 0.87
Adv. Transformer b 50.9 ± 59.3 146 ± 68.5 197 ± 107 0.23 ± 0.112 0.56 0.67
Mission b 26.8 ± 11.6 142 ± 50.7 169 ± 58.2 0.16 ± 0.055 0.49 0.97
a
El Paso, Texas, U.S.A.
b
Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico

11
Table 3. Comparison of UTEP winter study PM2.5 elemental composition to those of the 1990
and the 1997 TNRCC studies.
Chamizal Sun Metro AdvT Club 20-30 Mission PMfine
ELEMENT
UTEP 1990 TNRCC UTEP 1990 TNRCC UTEP UTEP UTEP AVG. OF 17
Study Study Study Study Study Study Study 3/97 TO 3/98
ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3
Na 63.90 - 54.00 - 83.10 53.80 66.30 18.00
Mg 40.90 - 69.00 - 74.70 42.60 73.20 53.00
Al 190.00 440.00 357.00 497.00 761.00 218.00 285.00 243.00
Si 593.00 440.00 1260.00 1070.00 1440.00 726.00 1010.00 928.00
P 1.52 - 2.41 - 0.57 1.84 1.63 0.10
S 409.00 1170.00 341.00 1350.00 492.00 514.00 374.00 594.00
Cl 89.20 565.00 625.00 1740.00 742.00 349.00 405.00 362.00
K 128.00 186.00 217.00 365.00 381.00 183.00 242.00 191.00
Ca 542.00 559.00 1540.00 1990.00 3410.00 1260.00 3060.00 1410.00
Ti 7.91 10.00 19.00 20.00 27.70 10.90 17.70 20.00
V 0.54 7.00 0.51 9.00 1.37 0.83 1.35 3.00
Cr 0.44 4.00 1.95 5.00 1.17 0.48 0.58 1.00
Mn 4.49 13.00 8.87 17.00 14.60 5.59 10.60 9.00
Fe 231.00 179.00 508.00 411.00 397.00 243.00 291.00 324.00
Co 0.10 - 0.11 - 0.26 0.03 0.14 1.00
Ni 0.15 - 0.15 - 1.36 0.34 0.43 1.00
Cu 14.70 49.00 22.20 119.00 35.00 24.80 37.60 61.00
Zn 24.10 90.00 38.10 242.00 159.00 97.50 72.50 64.00
Ga 0.00 - 0.04 - 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10
As 1.08 51.00 1.48 94.00 1.39 0.74 1.21 19.00
Se 0.04 6.00 0.05 21.00 0.04 0.01 0.06 8.00
Br 7.16 33.00 0.63 38.00 51.70 14.30 15.60 9.00
Rb 0.32 - 0.63 - 0.95 0.46 0.70 1.00
Sr 2.59 3.00 5.54 8.00 9.69 4.94 7.40 5.00
Y 0.16 - 0.38 - 0.34 0.29 0.24 0.00
Zr 0.65 - 1.25 - 1.32 0.78 1.01 1.00
Mo 0.13 - 0.26 - 0.15 0.12 0.16 1.00
Pd 0.25 - 0.45 - 0.78 0.72 0.98 1.00
Ag 0.08 - 0.27 - 0.18 0.71 0.00 1.00
Cd 0.26 5.00 1.41 8.00 1.62 0.75 0.76 2.00
In 0.10 - 0.72 - 0.83 0.86 0.00 1.00
Sn 0.76 3.00 2.95 7.00 2.99 2.79 3.30 3.00
Sb 2.27 8.00 14.30 18.00 23.10 10.50 15.40 8.00
Ba 17.10 7.00 22.30 12.00 21.50 22.10 18.40 9.00
La 9.65 - 12.30 - 9.08 14.70 11.90 8.00
Au 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hg 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tl 0.02 - 0.07 - 0.15 0.01 0.06 0.00
Pb 6.52 188.00 20.40 301.00 36.00 13.80 39.10 37.00
U 0.02 - 0.04 - 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.00

Table 4. Comparison of elemental PMcoarse between the 1990 study and the UTEP winter study.

12
 SUN Advanced Club
CHAMIZAL Mission
METRO Trans. 20-30
ELEMENT
UTEP 1990 TNRCC UTEP UTEP UTEP UTEP
STUDY Study Study Study Study Study
ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3 ng/m3
Na 126.00 - 91.50 162.00 73.30 153.00
Mg 179.00 - 254.00 324.00 149.00 355.00
Al 2230.00 934.00 3730.00 3990.00 1920.00 3500.00
Si 7490.00 4240.00 12700.00 14500.00 6010.00 12300.00
P 14.40 - 37.90 64.30 28.10 64.00
S 249.00 283.00 335.00 622.00 265.00 569.00
Cl 396.00 138.00 215.00 284.00 110.00 183.00
K 665.00 614.00 1070.00 1400.00 487.00 1080.00
Ca 5500.00 6670.00 12600.00 30400.00 6920.00 31800.00
Ti 89.70 100.00 150.00 200.00 71.50 159.00
V 0.88 6.00 1.05 3.25 1.32 4.15
Cr 3.20 12.00 10.30 3.61 1.80 3.14
Mn 24.30 36.00 49.00 50.20 17.40 38.70
Fe 1190.00 1250.00 2710.00 2280.00 852.00 1930.00
Co 0.85 - 1.35 2.54 0.22 0.82
Ni 0.62 - 1.99 3.13 0.73 2.62
Cu 17.90 57.00 36.40 13.00 9.72 16.30
Zn 29.50 49.00 51.20 70.10 68.40 49.10
Ga 0.03 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
As 0.73 7.00 2.53 0.98 0.44 0.60
Se 0.02 1.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.01
Br 1.18 6.00 5.25 4.08 1.79 3.08
Rb 3.01 33.00 5.25 6.98 2.12 5.16
Sr 20.10 27.00 38.30 78.20 21.40 74.20
Y 1.01 - 1.89 2.06 0.82 1.97
Zr 4.80 4.00 8.28 10.70 3.42 8.20
Mo 0.81 - 1.85 2.33 0.42 2.39
Pd 0.54 - 0.00 2.41 0.00 7.09
Ag 0.82 - 2.10 0.00 0.24 0.00
Cd 0.91 3.00 3.04 0.11 0.00 0.00
In 0.36 - 0.00 3.22 0.32 1.90
Sn 1.82 6.00 1.99 0.34 0.74 1.61
Sb 1.50 1.00 1.20 3.00 1.67 4.46
Ba 45.60 40.00 64.40 87.30 31.60 57.50
La 7.03 - 12.60 3.25 11.60 3.29
Au 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hg 0.00 - 0.17 0.21 0.00 0.00
Tl 0.11 - 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.55
Pb 9.29 55.00 22.60 11.50 5.61 16.20
U 0.12 - 0.39 0.30 0.14 0.60

13
Table 5. Fraction of trace metals in PM2.5.
1990 1997 UTEP Winter Study (2000)
TNRCC
Study El Paso Ciudad Juárez, Mx.
Element Study
Chami/Sun Central Sun Advanced Club
Chamizal Mission
Metro El Paso Metro Transformer 20-30
Cr 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.002
Cu 0.19 0.27 0.110 0.098 0.068 0.124 0.104
As 0.164 0.086 0.009 0.009 0.003 0.004 0.002
Cd 0.015 0.008 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.003
Pb 0.552 0.163 0.046 0.078 0.070 0.122 0.055

14
Figure 1. Annual average PM10 and maximum 1-hr ozone and CO concentrations for El Paso.

Ozone PM 10 CO

180 15

165 14

150 13
PM10 (µ g/m3) & O3 (ppb)

135 12

120 11

CO (ppm)
105 10

90 9

75 8

60 7

45 6

30 5
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Year

Figure 2. Locations of air monitoring sites.

Cd. Juarez
Mountains

15
Figure 3. Comparison of collocated PM2.5 and PMcoarse samples at Chamizal and Sun Metro for
the period of August 1999 to February 2000.
PM(2.5) PM(coarse) Linear (PM(2.5)) Linear (PM(coarse))

160

140

120

100
Sampler 2 (µg/m 3)

80
PM2.5 (Sampler 2)= 1.03PM2.5 (Sampler 1) - 0.54 PMcoarse (Sampler 2) = 1.03PMcoarse (Sampler 1) - 2.41
2
r2 = 0.99 r = 0.99
60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Sampler 1 (µg/m3)

Figure 4. Comparison of PM10 concentrations acquired by dichotomous and Beta Gauge samplers
at Chamizal and Sun Metro for the period of Dec. 2, 1999 to March 7, 2000.

16
 Chamizal Sun Metro Linear (Chamizal) Linear (Sun Metro)
350

300
24-hour Beta Gauge PM 10 (µ g/m3)

250
Chamizal
PM10 (beta) = 0.68 PM10 (dichot) + 13.02
r2 = 0.81
200

150

100
Sun Metro
PM10 (beta) = 0.49PM10 (dichot) + 10.58
r2 = 0.71
50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
3
Dichotomous Sampler PM10 (µg/m )

17
 PM µg/m3
PM µg/m3 07
/2

18
9/ 9 /9

100
150
200
250
300
350

50

0
1/
9

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
99
08
/1
9/ 2/
15 99
/9
9 08
/2
6/
9/ 99
2 9/
99 09
/0
9 /9
9
10
/1 09
3/ /2
99 3/9
9
10 10
/2 /0
7/ 7/
99 99
10
11 /2
/1 1 /9
0/
99 9
11
/0
11 4 /9
/2 9

PM2.5
4/
99 11
/1
8
PM2.5

/9
12 9
/

Figure 5b. Temporal PM variations at Sun Metro.

Date
8/ 12

PM10
9

Date
9 /0
2 /9
9
PM10

12 12
/2 /1
2/ 6/
99 99
Figure 5a. Temporal PM10 and PM2.5 variation at Chamizal.

12
1/ /3
5/ 0/
0 0
99
01
/1
1/ 3 /0
1 9/ 0
00
01
/2
7 /0
2/ 0
2/ 02
00
/1
0/
00
2/
16 02
/0 /2
0 4/
00
03
3/ /0
1/
00 9 /0
0
Figure 6. Relationship of hourly PM10, wind speed, and wind direction at Sun Metro for the
period of September 98 through August 99.

Figure 7. PM10 diurnal variation at Sun Metro for the period of December 99 to February 00.

300
280
260
240
220
200
180
3
PM10 ug/m

160
140
120
100
80
60
Max
40 Min
20 75th %
25th %
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Median

Hour

19
Figure 8. PM2.5 diurnal variation at Sun Metro for the period of December 99 to February 00.

140

120

100
3
PM2.5 ug/m

80

60

40

Max
20 Min
75th %
25th %
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Median

Hour

Figure 9: Temporal variation of PM10 and PM2.5 at the Cd. Juárez sites.

PM2.5 ADV PM10 ADV PM 2.5 M ISSION PM10 MISSION PM 2.5 CLUB PM 10 CLUB

520
5205 1000
520520
20 (c) Advanced Transformer
410800

210600
( g/m )
3

0 400
(b) Mission
10

220200
and PM

0
2.5

0
PM

(a) Club 20-30

100
-200

40-400
0
-600

1/7/00 1/14/00 1/21/00 1/28/00 2/4/00 2/11/00 2/18/00 2/25/00 3/3/00

D AT E

20
21
PM2.5 (F) and PM coarse (C) in µg/m3
PM2.5 (F) and PM coarse (C) in µ g/m3

0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10

0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
9/7/99
9/7/99
9/7/99
9/7/99
9/11/99
9/11/99
9/11/99
9/11/99
9/15/99
9/15/99
9/15/99
9/15/99 9/19/99
9/19/99 9/19/99
9/19/99 9/21/99
9/23/99 9/21/99
9/23/99 9/23/99
12/2/99 9/23/99
12/2/99 12/2/99
12/14/99 12/2/99
Cd

12/14/99 12/14/99

Cd
12/22/99
As

12/14/99
12/22/99 12/20/99
Cr

As
1/7/00

Date
12/20/99
1/7/00
Pb

1/7/00

Cr
1/11/00 1/7/00

Date
Cu

1/11/00 1/11/00

Pb
1/19/00 1/11/00
1/19/00 1/19/00

Cu
1/23/00 1/19/00
1/23/00 1/23/00
Figure 11. Summary of trace metal concentrations at Chamizal.
1/27/00 1/23/00
1/27/00 1/27/00
2/4/00 1/27/00
2/4/00 2/4/00
2/8/00 2/4/00
Figure 10. Summary of temporal trace metal concentrations at Sun Metro.

2/8/00 2/16/00
2/16/00 2/16/00
2/16/00 2/20/00
C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F

2/20/00 2/20/00
2/20/00
CdAs r

2/24/00
C Pb
Cu

C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F
2/24/00
C
Ad
C s
P r
Cb
u
Figure 12. Average trace metal concentrations at all sites.
Chamizal Avg. Sun Metro Avg. Club 20-30 Avg. Mission Avg. Adv. T. Avg.

0.0480
0.0440
0.0400
0.0360
0.0320
0.0280
3
µ g/m

0.0240
0.0200
0.0160
0.0120
0.0080
0.0040
0.0000

A issio 0-3 o A g.
dv n 0 vg
M b tr v
C n M izal

.T A A .
lu e A
Su am
PM2.5

PM2.5

PM2.5

PM2.5

PM2.5
PMcoarse

PMcoarse

PMcoarse

PMcoarse

PMcoarse

. A vg vg.
C
h

vg .
.
Cr Cu As Cd Pb

Figure 13. Summary of selected elemental concentrations at Sun Metro.

S Cl Fe Al Si Ca

20

18
PM2.5 (F) and PM coarse (C) in µg/m3

16

14

12

10

0 Si Ca
F Al
S Cl e
2/4/00
9/23/99

12/2/99

1/19/00

1/23/00

2/16/00
9/7/99

9/15/99

9/21/99

9/23/99

12/14/99

12/20/99

1/19/00

2/16/00

2/20/00
9/7/99

1/7/00
1/7/00

2/4/00
9/11/99

9/19/99

9/21/99

1/11/00

1/27/00

2/20/00
9/11/99

9/15/99

9/19/99

12/2/99
12/14/99

12/20/99

1/23/00

1/27/00
1/11/00

C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F

Date

22
 PM2.5 (F) and PM coarse (C) in µ g/m3

23
3
µ g/m

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
9/7/99
9/7/99
PM2.5 9/11/99
9/11/99

Al
9/15/99
PMcoarse 9/15/99
9/19/99
9/19/99
PM2.5 9/23/99
9/23/99

Si
12/2/99

Chamizal Avg.
PMcoarse 12/2/99
12/14/99
12/14/99
PM2.5 12/22/99
S

12/22/99

S
1/7/00
Cl

PMcoarse 1/7/00

Sun Metro Avg.

1/11/00
Fe

1/11/00

Date
PM2.5 1/19/00
Al

1/19/00

Cl
1/23/00
Si

PMcoarse 1/23/00

Club 20-30 Avg.

1/27/00
Ca

1/27/00
PM2.5 2/4/00
2/4/00

Ca
2/8/00

31.8
PMcoarse 2/8/00

Mission Avg.
2/16/00
2/16/00
PM2.5 2/20/00
2/20/00
Figure 14. Summary of selected elemental concentrations at Chamizal.

Fe
30.4
2/20/00
PMcoarse Adv. T. Avg. 2/20/00
2/24/00
20.9

C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F C F

C 2/24/00
Su ham
C n M iza
M lub et l A
S Cl e

A issi 20- ro A vg.

dv on 30 v
. T A A g.
F Al i

. A vg vg
Figure 15. Average element concentrations of geologic origin and Cl & S at all sites.

vg . .
.
S Ca