Swansea Ambient Air Monitoring Station (SAMS) Quarter PY2017 … · 2019-10-30 · Data Logger (with remote accessibility) Multiple Agilaire 8872 Discussion of Results and Professional

Swansea Ambient Air Monitoring Station (SAMS) 3rd Quarter PY2017 Air Quality Data Report

Prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation

and the City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health

Airtech/Montrose Project No. 6203

Report ID: 6203-Q3 2017 October 24, 2017

City and County of Denver Report ID: 6203-Q3 2017

Table of Contents

PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Operational Staff and Contacts ................................................................................................................... 2 SAMS Site Description ................................................................................................................................ 3

Picture 1 – Location of SAMS in the Swansea Elementary School Parking Lot ..................................................... 3 Picture 2 – Interior of SAMS ................................................................................................................................... 3

SAMS Equipment ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Discussion of Results and Professional Judgment ...................................................................................... 4

POLLUTANT DATA COLLECTED .......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 1a – Monthly PM10 Data ................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 1b – Monthly PM10 Data ................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2a – Monthly PM2.5 Data ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2b – Monthly PM2.5 Data ................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3a – Monthly NO2 Data ................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3b – Monthly NO2 Data ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4a – Monthly CO Data .................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4b – Monthly CO Data .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5a – Monthly Black Carbon Data.................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5b – Monthly Black Carbon Data.................................................................................................. 15 Table 1 – Summary of VOC Data .............................................................................................................. 16

DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ...................................................................... 17

Quality Assurance/Quality Control ........................................................................................................... 17 NOX and CO Analyzers - Span Test .......................................................................................................................17 NOX and CO Analyzers - Precision Test .................................................................................................................18 PM2.5 / PM10 Analyzer .............................................................................................................................................19 Aethalometer ...........................................................................................................................................................19 Wind Speed and Wind Direction ............................................................................................................................20 Gas Chromatograph ................................................................................................................................................20

SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX

Quality Assurance Logs Calibration Certification Sheets Primary Flow Standard Certification Sheet

City and County of Denver Report ID: 6203-Q3 2017 Page 1

Project Overview

Background

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Denver Environmental Health (DEH) entered into an agreement1 to monitor air quality at Swansea Elementary School in three phases. Phase I will monitor air quality for one year prior to startup of a CDOT construction project on Interstate 70 (I-70). Phase II will monitor air quality for three (3) years during the I-70 expansion project; construction may last more than three years. Phase III will monitor air quality for one year after I-70 construction and ground disturbance activities are completed. The monitoring aspect of Phase I began on April 1, 2017. The monitoring project scope of work, which is an attachment to the agreement, defined the first quarter of a year as beginning on September 1. Therefore, monitoring began in the third quarter of the 2017 project year (Q3 PY2017).

Objectives

Airtech Environmental Services Inc. (a Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Company) was contracted by the City and County of Denver to start up and operate the Swansea Air Monitoring Station (SAMS). The SAMS is located at the Swansea Elementary School; faculty parking lot; South East Corner; at 4650 Columbine Street, Denver, Colorado. This report represents the first quarterly report for Phase I. The station monitored the following parameters during Q3 PY2017:

C6 (6-Carbon) through C12 (12-Carbon) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Black Carbon

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Particulate Matter less than 10 Microns (PM10)

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)

Meteorological Measurements

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) The monitoring is being performed to meet the requirements of the agreement between CDOT and DEH. Additionally, the regulations and specifications set forth by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), are being followed as applicable.

1 The agreement between CDOT and DEH became effective on August 12, 2016 and can be obtained from CDOT by referencing routing number 17-HTD-ZH-00167.


Operational Staff and Contacts

The contact information for each of the principal parties is summarized in the table below: Rebecca White Michael Ogletree Colorado Department of Transportation City and County of Denver 5640 E. Atlantic Place 200 W 14th Ave Denver, CO 80222 Denver, CO 80204 Phone: (303) 512-5901 Phone: (720) 865-2891 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Patrick Clark, PE, QSTI Dr. Larry Anderson Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC University of Colorado Denver 990 W. 43rd Ave. 7120 Routt Street Denver, CO 80211 Arvada, CO 80004 Phone: (303) 670-0530 Phone: (303) 664-0757 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Austin Heitmann Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC 990 W. 43rd Ave. Denver, CO 80211 Phone: (303) 670-0530 E-mail: [email protected]


SAMS Site Description

Region: Denver AQS ID: 080310023 Latitude: 39.781375 Longitude: -104.955423

Picture 1 – Location of SAMS in the Swansea Elementary School Parking Lot

Picture 2 – Interior of SAMS


SAMS Equipment

The list of primary equipment used in this project is shown in the table below. During the last calendar quarter of 2016 and the first calendar quarter of 2017, Airtech/Montrose modified and upgraded the shelter including the installation of a new HVAC system. In addition, Airtech/Montrose has supplied and installed the following:

Glass lined sample probe

Glass sampling manifold

Sample blower, fittings, and tubing

Instrument rack

Cylinder mounts, calibration gases and regulators

Security camera

Pollutant/Parameter

Sampling Period

Manufacturer

Model

Nitrogen Oxides

Minute Teledyne T200U

Carbon Monoxide

Minute Thermo Scientific 48i-TLE Trace Level CO

Dynamic Dilution Calibrator Periodic

Teledyne T700U

PM2.5 / PM10 Minute GRIMM Technologies Inc.

180 EDM

Meteorological measurements (temperature, pressure, relative humidity)

Minute GRIMM Technologies Inc.

180 EDM

Meteorological measurements (wind speed and wind direction)

Minute RM Young 05305V

C6 through C12 VOCs 30 Minutes Chromatotec Airmo C6-C12 (Model A27022)

Black Carbon

5 Minutes Magee Scientific Aethalometer

Data Logger (with remote accessibility)

Multiple Agilaire 8872

Discussion of Results and Professional Judgment

The reported data is for the third quarter PY2017 which is considered, March, April and May. Monitoring commenced at the SAMS on April 1, 2017 for CO, NOX, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and black carbon. The GRIMM PM2.5/PM10 sampling and metrological probe was damaged by vandals between the evening of 2/8/17 and the morning of 2/9/17 and was not in operation when monitoring commenced. The new sampling and metrological probe was installed and the GRIMM monitor began collecting PM2.5, PM10, pressure, relative humidity, and temperature data on April 13, 2017. The


RM Young meteorological station was installed on 8/15/17, therefore no wind speed or wind direction data was collected during Q3 PY2017. The results of NO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, black carbon and VOC monitoring data can be found in Figures 1 through 5 and Table 1 on Pages 6 through 15. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The graphs shown indicate the readings for each month relative the NAAQS Standard (if applicable). Electronic records of all data and calibrations have been uploaded to the Dropbox data room maintained by DEH. No pollutant standard was exceeded during Q3 PY2017. Additionally, there were no exceptional events, weather or otherwise, during the sampling period. An exceptional event is any unusual or naturally occurring event that can affect air quality but cannot not be reasonably controlled using techniques that agencies may implement in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS. All exceptional events are documented by CDPHE. The aethalometer, GRIMM, and all meteorological equipment was calibrated weekly with no unusual results or maintenance issues this quarter. The Chromatotec Gas Chromatograph (GC) for C6 through C12 was calibrated daily by running a permeation benzene tube and zero air checks with no unusual results this quarter while the GC was in operation. A board malfunction occurred on 4/22/17 and the GC was sent in for repair. It was calibrated and re-installed and re-started operation on 7/17/17. The CO and NOX analyzers were calibrated daily by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration. No maintenance issues were observed during the sampling period. Unusual calibration results were observed as follows: The CO monitor was regularly exceeding the 10% precision requirement when analyzing the one (1) ppm calibration mixture. These exceedances fell between an 11 to 15% error. Considering the ambient levels of CO were found to be well below the 1-hour and 8-hour standards we consider the ramifications for the exceedances to be negligible. The CO analyzer operation was modified on 7/13/17 to automatically zero every six (6) hours starting in the fourth quarter, which should reduce any drift in the analyzers response.


Pollutant Data Collected

Figure 1a – Monthly PM10 Data The graph below is shown for April and is the plot of the 24 hour averages. The orange line represents the 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) 24 hour ambient PM10 standard.


Figure 1b – Monthly PM10 Data

The graph below is shown for May and is the plot of the 24 hour averages. The orange line represents the 150 ug/m3 24 hour ambient PM10 standard.


Figure 2a – Monthly PM2.5 Data The graph below is shown for April and is a plot of the 24 hour averages. The orange line represents the 35 ug/m3 24 hour ambient PM2.5 standard and the yellow line represents the 12 ug/m3 one (1) year mean ambient PM2.5 standard. Please note that the 24 hour average values cannot be directly compared to the annual mean standard.


Figure 2b – Monthly PM2.5 Data The graph below is shown for May and is a plot of the 24 hour averages. The orange line represents the 35 ug/m3 24 hour ambient PM2.5 standard and the yellow line represents the 12 ug/m3 one (1) year mean ambient PM2.5 standard. Please note that the 24 hour average values cannot be directly compared to the annual mean standard.


Figure 3a – Monthly NO2 Data The graph below is shown for April is a plot of the one (1) hour averages. The orange line represents the 100 parts per billion (ppb) one (1) hour ambient NO2 standard and the yellow line represents the 53 ppb one (1) year mean ambient NO2 standard. Please note that the one (1) hour average values cannot be directly compared to the annual mean standard.


Figure 3b – Monthly NO2 Data The graph below is shown for May is a plot of the one (1) hour averages. The orange line represents the 100 ppb one (1) hour ambient NO2 standard and the yellow line represents the 53 ppb one (1) year mean ambient NO2 standard. Please note that the one (1) hour average values cannot be directly compared to the annual mean standard.


Figure 4a – Monthly CO Data The graph below is shown for April and is a plot of the one (1) hour averages. The orange line represents the nine (9) ppm eight (8) hour ambient CO standard and the yellow line represents the 35 ppm one (1) hour ambient CO standard.


Figure 4b – Monthly CO Data The graph below is shown for May and is a plot of the one (1) hour averages. The orange line represents the nine (9) ppm eight (8) hour ambient CO standard and the yellow line represents the 35 ppm one (1) hour ambient CO standard.


Figure 5a – Monthly Black Carbon Data

The graph below is shown for April and plots the 24 hour averages. Black Carbon does not have a NAAQS Standard.


Figure 5b – Monthly Black Carbon Data

The graph below is shown for May and plots the 24 hour averages. Black Carbon does not have a NAAQS Standard.


Table 1 – Summary of VOC Data

The results of the selected VOC compounds are shown in the table below. Electronic records of all VOC compounds have been uploaded to the Dropbox data room maintained by DEH. When calculating the average, the following rules were applied:

If an individual result was above the reporting limit (RL), the result was used in calculating the average

If an individual result was below the RL or not detected, one half the RL was used in calculating the average.

Compound

Average Result for

April2 (ppb)

Total Number of Data Points

Number Above QL3

Number Between RL and

QL Number

Below RL N-Hexane 0.236 806 366 224 216

N-Heptane 0.0847 806 56 82 668

N-Octane 0.0827 806 46 166 594

Benzene 0.169 806 241 235 330

Toluene 0.395 806 467 188 151

Ethylbenzene 0.0743 806 20 132 654

m,p-Xylene 0.232 806 162 246 398

o-Xylene 0.131 806 11 139 656 The RLs and QLs for the selected compounds is shown in the table below:

Compound

Reporting Limit (ppb)

Quantification Limit (ppb)

N-Hexane 0.1 0.2

N-Heptane 0.1 0.2

N-Octane 0.1 0.2

Benzene 0.1 0.2

Toluene 0.1 0.2

Ethylbenzene 0.1 0.25

m,p-Xylene 0.15 0.35

o-Xylene 0.2 0.35

2 Data is for 4/1/17 to 4/23/17, on 4/23/17 the Chromatotec GC failed and was not reinstalled until after Q3 PY2017 ended. Therefore, VOCs were not monitored in May 2017. 3 Quantification Limit (QL)


Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality assurance is a general term for the procedures used to ensure that a particular measurement meets the quality requirements for its intended use. Quality control of continuous analyzers consists of precision and span checks or flow verifications. Quality objectives were assessed via laboratory and site system audits. All work being done on this project follows the operating procedures described in the “Swansea Air Monitoring Station Quality Assurance Project Plan” (QAPP) dated 7/1/17. The QAPP can be provided by Michael Ogletree upon request. Mr. Ogletree’s contact information can be found in the “Operational Staff and Contacts” section of this report. To ensure the collection of high quality data, the following Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures were implemented:

NOX and CO Analyzers - Span Test

A span test was conducted every other day. The NOX span test started at 21:46 and lasted for approximately 50 minutes. The CO span test started at 22:46 and lasted for approximately 20 minutes. A CO span test was conducted by first analyzing a span gas of CO which was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a zero gas was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. The CO gas was generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. An NO/NO2 span test was conducted by first analyzing a zero gas that was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a span gas of NO was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. The NO gas was also generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a span gas of NO2 was generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas and combing the diluted gas with a known quantity of ozone (O3) using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a zero gas was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. Each calibration gas was certified according to EPA Protocol 1 procedures. The generated gases were approximately, five (5) ppm of CO, 400 ppb of NO and 300 ppb of NO2. In all cases the measured responses were then compared to the generated gas value to determine the analyzer drift. The EPA requirement for span is 10 percent. The span check results are summarized in the table below:


Parameter Span Count Span Passed Span Percentage

Nitrogen Oxide 46 46 100

Nitrogen Dioxide 46 34 74

Carbon Monoxide 46 43 100

NOX and CO Analyzers - Precision Test

A precision test was conducted every other day. The NOX precision test started at 21:46 and lasted for approximately 50 minutes. The CO precision test started at 22:46 and lasted for approximately 20 minutes. A CO precision test was conducted by first analyzing a precision gas of CO which was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a zero gas was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. The CO gas was generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. An NO/NO2 precision test was conducted by first analyzing a zero gas that was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a precision gas of NO was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. The NO gas was also generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a precision gas of NO2 was generated by diluting an EPA Protocol 1 calibration gas and combining the diluted gas with a known quantity of ozone (O3) using the Teledyne Dynamic Dilution Calibrator. After a stable reading was reached and recorded, a zero gas was introduced to the sampling manifold at the back of the analyzer. Each calibration gas was certified according to EPA Protocol 1 procedures. The generated gases were approximately, one (1) ppm of CO, 100 ppb of NO and 70 ppb of NO2. In all cases the measured responses were then compared to the generated gas value to determine the analyzer drift. The EPA requirement for span is 10 percent. The span check results are summarized in the table below:

Parameter Span Count Span Passed Span Percentage

Nitrogen Oxide 45 44 98

Nitrogen Dioxide 45 44 98

Carbon Monoxide 444 265 59

4 The CO precision test did not run on June 13, 2017. 5 See note in discussion of results.


PM2.5 / PM10 Analyzer

A zero check was conducted on the GRIMM analyzer every two (2) weeks. The zero check was conducted by placing a particulate filter inline and observing the response of the analyzer. If anything other than a zero reading was observed, corrective action was taken. Additionally, a flow check was conducted on the analyzer by using a NIST traceable standard to measure the flow rate through the GRIMM. The NIST standard was a MesaLabs DCL-MH DryCal flowmeter. The calibration certification can be found in the Appendix of this report. The flow test was considered acceptable if the flow rate was between 1.15 and 1.25 liters per minute (lpm). On a weekly basis the met station ambient temperature, relative humidity, and pressure was checked by comparing the measured values to that of a reference standard. The results were considered acceptable if the temperature, relative humidity, and pressure was within 2oC, 5%, and 10 mmHg, respectively. A summary of the weekly and biweekly checks is summarized below.

Test Count Passed Percentage

Zero Check 53 53 100%

Flow Check 56 5 100%

Temperature Check 11 11 100%

Pressure Check 11 11 100%

Aethalometer

On a monthly basis the aethalometer cyclone was cleaned and inspected. A flow check was conducted using a NIST traceable standard to measure the flow rate through the aethalometer. The NIST standard was a MesaLabs DCL-MH DryCal flowmeter. The calibration certification can be found in the Appendix of this report. The flow test was considered acceptable if the flow rate was within seven (7) percent of the measured value. Additionally, a leak check was conducted by capping the sample probe and observing the measured flow through the instrument. The leak check was considered valid if the measured flow rate was less than 2.5 liters per minute (lpm). A summary of the monthly checks and is summarized below:


Flow Check 3 3 100%

Leak Check 3 3 100%

6 One flow and zero check was inadvertently skipped by the station operator.


Wind Speed and Wind Direction

The wind speed is calibrated via an anemometer drive that provides a convenient and accurate way to rotate the anemometer shaft at a known rate. The known rate that the drive rotates can then be compared to the wind speed reading on the data logger. The wind direction is calibrated with a vane angle bench stand. The monitor is placed on the stand which has a base with markings of 0 to 360 degrees. The tail of the monitor is stabilized so that as the monitor is rotated the wind direction readings are stable on the data logger. Because the RM Young sensor was not installed during Q3 PY2017 no QA/QC was performed.

Gas Chromatograph

The GC was calibrated prior to installation using a gas standard containing a known concentration of the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) list of compounds. A copy of the calibration certification can be found in the Appendix of this report. Two (2) additional concentrations were prepared and analyzed by diluting the cylinder gases using zero air and a Thermo Model 146i Multi-Gas Calibrator. A multipoint calibration of the GC was conducted before monitoring commenced. The calibration also identifies 35 compounds (or pairs of compounds that coelute). An example of the calibration for one of these compounds, benzene, is shown in the following figure. This calibration spans the concentration range from about 1 to 17 ppb. Similar calibrations were done for the other PAMS compounds identified by the GC.


Actual Benzene Concentration (ppbv)

0 5 10 15 20

Mea

sure

d B

enze

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(pp

bv)

0

5

10

15

20

PAMS Calibration Data for Benzene

Fitting Model: y=a*x+b a=1.0835139 b=-0.167019014 Goodness of fit: COD: 0.9979921 Correlation: 0.99899554

The detection limit for the GC technique was determined from data collected during repeated measurements of a low concentration PAMS standard mixture. The detection limit is three (3) times the standard deviation of low concentration measurements for the individual compounds. Because some peaks are close together, there is a greater uncertainty for partially overlapping peaks and small retention time shifts. We have chosen to use a reporting limit, as the smallest concentration where we have confidence that the compound is present. The smallest reporting limit has been set at 0.1 ppb and is greater than or equal to three times the standard deviation for each of the compounds. Compounds present at concentrations equal to the detection limit (or reporting limit, in this case) are believed to be present, but concentrations near this limit are highly uncertain. Data to be used quantitatively should exceed the quantitation limit. This limit is used to identify when the concentration that was measured for the compound is known with a reasonable degree of confidence. The quantitation limit is normally defined as 10 times the standard deviation of low concentration measurements for individual compounds. Concentrations below the quantitation limit and above the reporting limit really indicates that the compound was present, but the concentration is too uncertain to be of value.


The GC technique used in this work uses a sorbent tube to collect C6 through C12 hydrocarbons, then thermally desorbs these compounds onto the GC column for separation. The larger compounds are not completely desorbed under the conditions used in this analysis, so that can place additional limitations on the quantitative determination of the concentrations of some of these compounds, since some of the compound collected during one time period will not be desorbed until the following sample is analyzed. This carryover of sample to a subsequent period was estimated by looking at data for a zero sample following a PAMS calibration sample. This data allows one to estimate the percent carryover of compounds to a subsequent period. The data for both undecane and dodecane suggests that the carryover is more than 50% so concentrations will not be reported for these compounds. The following table shows the reporting limits, quantitation limits and estimated percent carryover for each of the compounds identified in this work.


Reportable Compounds

Reporting Quantitation Approximate

# Name Limit Limit % carryover

ppbv ppbv

1 2,2‐Dimethylbutane 0.1 0.2 <5%

2 n‐Hexane 0.1 0.2 <5%

3 Methylcyclopentane 0.1 0.25 <5%

4 2,4‐Dimethylpentane 0.1 0.25 <5%

5 Benzene 0.1 0.2 <5%

6 Cyclohexane 0.25 0.75 <5%

7

2‐Methylhexane & 2,3‐

dimethylpentane 0.2 0.5 <5%

8 3‐Methylhexane 0.1 0.2 5%

9 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 0.1 0.2 <5%

10 n‐Heptane 0.1 0.2 5%

11 Methylcyclohexane 0.1 0.2 <5%

12 2,3,4‐Trimethylpentane 0.1 0.2 <5%

13 Toluene 0.1 0.2 10%

14 2‐Methylheptane 0.1 0.2 5%

15 3‐Methylheptane 0.1 0.2 5%

16 n‐Octane 0.1 0.2 10%

17 Ethylbenzene 0.1 0.25 15%

18 m & p‐Xylene 0.15 0.35 20%

19 Styrene 0.2 0.5 25%

20 o‐Xylene 0.2 0.35 25%

21 n‐Nonane 0.1 0.2 20%

22 isopropylbenzene 0.1 0.2 20%

23 ‐Pinene 0.2 0.4 nd

24 n‐Propylbenzene 0.15 0.35 25%

25 m‐Ethyltoluene 0.3 1 nd

26 p‐Ethyltoluene 0.2 0.65 30%

27 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene 0.2 0.5 30%

28 o‐Ethyltoluene 0.2 0.5 30%


30 n‐Decane 0.3 0.85 35%


32 m‐Diethylbenzene 0.3 0.9 40%

33 p‐Diethylbenzene 0.4 1.3 45%

34 n‐Undecane >50%

35 n‐Dodecane >50%


To verify the stability of the GC, a span check was normally done at a 25-hour interval. The span check used a benzene permeation tube that emits benzene at a rate of 101 nanograms per minute, and was diluted to generate a gas concentration of approximately 55 ppb. The span check was followed by a zero check to minimize carryover of the high benzene concentration of benzene from the span check to the next ambient sample and to verify the desorption efficiency and check for contamination of the GC. If the results of the span check varied by more than ±15% from the average response that has been observed previously for more than two (2) consecutive days, a system retention time and response test was scheduled as soon as possible. Appropriate remedial action was taken if a problem was observed. A control chart showing the results of the span check for April 2017 is shown below.

For the zero checks, the benzene carryover from a preceding calibration or span check should be less than 1% of the concentration of the benzene in the span gas. If this zero check limit was exceeded on more than two (2) consecutive days, a system retention time and response test was scheduled as soon as possible. Appropriate remedial action was taken if a problem was observed. A control chart showing the results of the zero check for April 2017 is shown as follows.


The zero and span checks are summarized below:


Span Check 39 39 100%

Zero Check 28 28 100%


Signature Page Prepared and reviewed by:

Patrick Clark, PE Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC

Austin Heitmann Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC

Additionally reviewed by:

Michael Ogletree City and County of Denver

Appendix

Quality Assurance Logs

Calibration Certification Sheets

Primary Flow Standard Certification Sheet

Documents

Swansea Ambient Air Monitoring Station (SAMS) Quarter PY2017 … · 2019-10-30 · Data Logger (with remote accessibility) Multiple Agilaire 8872 Discussion of Results and Professional