About AAQR

Aims and Scope

Articles online
For contributors
Call for Papers
Guideline for the
Special Issue Proposal
Subscription
Information

Advertising

Contact Us
 
Search for  in   Search  Advanced search  

 

Volume 16, No. 10, October 2016, Pages 2512-2522 PDF(321 KB)  Supplementary MaterialPDFPDF (916 KB)
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2016.05.0201   

Accuracy of Advanced and Traditional Three-Way Factor Analysis Models for Determining Source Contributions to Particulate Matter

Ying-Ze Tian1, Yan-Qi Huang-Fu1, Guo-Liang Shi1, Xu-Rong Shi1, Bo Han2, Yin-Chang Feng1

1 State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Urban Ambient Air Particulate Matter Pollution Prevention and Control, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China
2 Tianjin Key Laboratory for Air Traffic Operation Planning and Safety Technology, College of Air Traffic Management, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China

 

Highlights
  • Scenarios were developed to evaluate performance of three-way factor analysis models.
  • PMF3 performs well with similar source emission pattern and profiles.
  • AAB/ABB models were stable regardless of profiles or emission patterns.
  • AAB/ABB results of ambient data suggest their enhanced ability for estimating sources.

Abstract

 

Although three-way factor analysis models can take more information into account, their degree of accuracy must be investigated further. We simulated numerous synthetic datasets to evaluate traditional (PMF3) and advanced three-way models (AAB or ABB). On one hand, scenarios whereby sources share the same profiles but different emission patterns were constructed and introduced into PMF3 and advanced AAB models that can estimate the same source profile matrixes B but different emission pattern matrixes A. On the other hand, datasets with the same emission patterns but different profiles were set to simulate the variability of source profiles and were used to evaluate an advanced ABB model that can estimate the same emission pattern matrix A but different source profile matrixes B. The AAEs of PMF3 under two different conditions ranged from 2.95% to 90.22% and from 2.98% to 90.11%, respectively, while the results of the advanced three-way models were 2.88%–27.51% and 2.89%–29.89%, respectively. We observed that the PMF3 performed well when all sources showed strong emission patterns and source profiles were similar. The application of advanced AAB model was stable under various emission patterns; and ABB model was stable under different variability of source profiles. At the same time, several ambient datasets were estimated by the advanced three-way models. Our findings suggest that the performance of advanced three-way models make full use of spatial or size distribution information to enhance capacities to identify source categories.

 

 

Keywords: Three-way factor analysis model; PMF3; Receptor model; Simulation; Source apportionment; ME2.

 

 

Copyright © 2009-2014 AAQR All right reserved.