4.8 Article

Source apportionment of PAH in Hamilton Harbour suspended sediments: Comparison of two factor analysis methods

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 16, Pages 6007-6014

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es800219z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Environment Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
  2. National Water Research Institute's Technical Operations department

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 26 suspended sediment samples collected over a 5-year period in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, Canada and surrounding creeks were analyzed for a suite of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sulfur heterocycles. Hamilton Harbour sediments contain relatively high levels of polycyclic aromatic compounds and heavy metals due to emissions from industrial and mobile sources. Two receptor modeling methods using factor analyses were compared to determine the profiles and relative contributions of pollution sources to the harbor; these methods are principal component analyses (PCA) with multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) and positive matrix factorization (PMF). Both methods identified four factors and gave excellent correlation coefficients between predicted and measured levels of 25 aromatic compounds; both methods predicted similar contributions from coal tar/coal combustion sources to the harbor (19 and 26%, respectively). One PCA factor was identified as contributions from vehicular emissions (61%); PMF was able to differentiate vehicular emissions into two factors, one attributed to gasoline emissions sources (28%) and the other to diesel emissions sources (24%). Overall, PMF afforded better source identification than PCA with MLR. This work constitutes one of the few examples of the application of PMF to the source apportionment of sediments; the addition of sulfur heterocycles to the analyte list greatly aided in the source identification process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available