![Page 1: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days
Vic Etyemezian,
David Dubois,
Mark Green,
and
Jin Xu
![Page 2: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Improve Sites in 1997 (black) and 2002 (all)
![Page 3: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
SPECIES FORMULA ASSUMPTIONS POSSIBLE SOURCES
SULFATE 4.125[S] All elemental S is from sulfate. All
sulfate is from ammonium sulfate. Fossil fuel combustion
NITRATE 1.29[NO3] Denuder efficiency is close to 100%. All nitrate is from ammonium nitrate.
Industrial and automobile emissions, organic decomposition
Organic Mass by Carbon (OMC) 1.4 * OC Average organic molecule is 70%
carbon.
Biomass burning, automobile emissions, fossil fuel combustion, gas-to-particle conversion of hydrocarbons
Light absorbing Carbon (LAC)
EC1+EC2+EC3-OP (see definitions below)
Incomplete combustion of fossil and biomass fuels
SOIL (fine soil) 2.2[Al]+2.49[Si]+1.63[Ca] +2.42[Fe]+1.94[Ti]
[Soil K]=0.6[Fe]. FeO and Fe2O3 are equally abundant. A factor of 1.16 is used for MgO, Na2O, H2O, CO2.
Desert dust, construction, road Dust
CM (coarse mass) [PM10] - [PM2.5] Consists only of insoluble soil particles Crushing or grinding operations, dust from paved or unpaved roads
Bext = 3F(RH)[Sulfate] + 3F(RH)[Nitrate] + 4[OMC] + 10[LAC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[CM]+
10 (Rayleigh Gas Scattering)
Reconstructed Light Extinction Coefficients
![Page 4: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
20% Worst Days
• After sorting the reconstructed light extinction coefficient values of site X in year Y from lowest to highest, the days with light extinction coefficients above the 80th percentile value are considered 20% worst days in terms of visibility.
![Page 5: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
For This Presentation
• “Dust” = Coarse Mass (CM) + Fine Soil (FS)
• “Visibility extinction due to dust” is portion of Bext that is due to CM + FS
• Unless otherwise stated, data shown for 1997-2002
• Unless otherwise stated, Bext does NOT include Rayleigh scattering
• Some sites have longer record than others
![Page 6: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Sources of “Dust” – CM+FS• Regional Windblown• Local Windblown• Road Dust• Construction• Mining• Agriculture• Asian Origin• African Origin• Organic debris• Wildfires• Volcanoes• Sea spray• Other
![Page 7: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Fractional Contribution of Dust to Aerosol Extinction For All Worst Days
![Page 8: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Absolute Contribution of Dust to Aerosol Extinction For All Worst Days (Mm-1)
![Page 9: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Fraction of Worst Days When Dust Contributed 15% or more to Aerosol Extinction
![Page 10: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Fraction of Worst Days When Dust Contributed more to Aerosol Extinction than Any Other Component
(NO3, SO4, OMC, LAC)
![Page 11: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Q1 Q2
Q3 Q4
Seasonal Patterns:
Fraction of worst days when dust was principal component of extinction in each quarter.
LegendSummary_Dust_Seasonal.Q1
0.000000 - 0.100000
0.100001 - 0.200000
0.200001 - 0.300000
0.300001 - 0.400000
0.400001 - 0.500000
0.500001 - 1.000000
![Page 12: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Example 1:Regional Windblown Dust Event
![Page 13: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Regional Windblown Dust 4/26/02
![Page 14: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Regional Windblown Dust 4/26/02
Percent of BextLocation Site_Name Bext (Mm-1) State Soil% CM/% Dust% CM/SoilBAND1 Bandelier National Monument 33.0 NM 11.4% 49.0% 60.4% 4.3BOAP1 Bosque del Apache 74.9 NM 13.2% 61.7% 74.9% 4.7CHIR1 Chiricahua National Monument 42.7 AZ 11.3% 70.5% 81.8% 6.2GICL1 Gila Wilderness 22.0 NM 17.4% 48.1% 65.5% 2.8MEVE1 Mesa Verde National Park 28.1 CO 21.4% 48.7% 70.1% 2.3PEFO1 Petrified Forest National Park 31.3 AZ 14.3% 64.6% 79.0% 4.5QUVA1 Queen Valley 49.5 AZ 17.0% 66.6% 83.5% 3.9SACR1 Salt Creek 47.1 NM 2.3% 17.1% 19.4% 7.5SAPE1 San Pedro Parks 21.2 NM 14.8% 32.0% 46.8% 2.2SAWE1 Saguaro West 47.7 AZ 15.7% 66.3% 82.0% 4.2WEMI1 Weminuche Wilderness 20.2 CO 13.2% 41.9% 55.1% 3.2WHIT1 White Mountain 84.3 NM 11.1% 45.6% 56.7% 4.1
Min 20.2 2.3% 17.1% 19.4% 2.2Max 84.3 21.4% 70.5% 83.5% 7.5
Average 41.8 13.6% 51.0% 64.6% 4.2
![Page 15: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Surface Weather 4/26/04 ~ 5:00 PM Local time
![Page 16: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
NRL Model Prediction (WestPhal & Co) ~ 5:00 PM Local time
![Page 17: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Supplemental Met and PM Data
![Page 18: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
4/2
3/0
20
:00
4/2
4/0
20
:00
4/2
5/0
20
:00
4/2
6/0
20
:00
4/2
7/0
20
:00
4/2
8/0
20
:00
4/2
9/0
20
:00
4/3
0/0
20
:00
Time
PM
10
ug
/m3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Win
d S
pee
d (
m/s
)
PM10 from PimaCounty
Wind Speed (m/s)from CASTNETChiricahua site
Pretty sure this is windblown dust!
![Page 19: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Example 2: Asian Dust
![Page 20: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
2001 Asian Dust Episode (4/16)
![Page 21: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Asian Dust
• During the spring season, the desert regions in Mongolia and China are massive sources of mineral aerosols
• Aerosol particles emitted from the Northwest desert region of China may have a significant influence over Eastern Asia, the Northern Pacific and even as far away as North America
• Recent work suggests that the frequency of dust storms in China has increased in the last few decades
![Page 22: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
The Asians Don’t Like It Either
Winds in excess of 60 mph can suspend enormous amounts of dust from a very large region
![Page 23: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
2001 Asian Dust Episode (4/16)
![Page 24: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
2001 Asian Dust Episode (4/16)
![Page 25: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Properties of Asian Dust
• Average CM:FS
– All 2001 WRAP Worst days caused by dust (except 4/16/01): 4.6
– All WRAP sites when 4/16/01 was worst day: 0.93
• Average K:Fe
– 2001 WRAP sites average: 0.91
– 4/16/01 worst day sites: 0.5
• Average Al:Si
– 2001 WRAP sites average: 0.2
– 4/16/01 worst day sites: 0.5
![Page 26: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Example 3:Local Windblown Dust?
![Page 27: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Single-site dust in Montana 7/27/01
![Page 28: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Example of hazagons of confirmed fires in NV, WA, OR, ID
![Page 29: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
![Page 30: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Surface weather ~ 5:00 PM Local Time
![Page 31: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
![Page 32: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
![Page 33: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
EPA AIRS Air Quality Monitors in Adjacent Counties
0
50
100
150
200
250
7/2
4/0
1 0
:00
7/2
5/0
1 0
:00
7/2
6/0
1 0
:00
7/2
7/0
1 0
:00
7/2
8/0
1 0
:00
7/2
9/0
1 0
:00
7/3
0/0
1 0
:00
7/3
1/0
1 0
:00
AIR
S P
M1
0 m
on
ito
r (u
g/m
3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Win
d S
pe
ed
Gu
sts
at
RA
WS
Sta
tio
n (
mp
h)
Missoula
Lewis & Clark
Lake
Wind gusts (mph)
![Page 34: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
![Page 35: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Moral of the Story: For this case nothing jumps out immediately as a
convincing “most likely” cause of the dust haze in Montruse
![Page 36: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Another Resort: Chemistry
Example Jarbridge WA Cross-Correlation Plots
![Page 37: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Some Things to Think About
• Should this Type of Analysis be done for every 20% worst day at every site in WRAP?
• OR is there a semi-systematic approach that can be used instead of brute force method?
• What types of information can we expect to learn?
![Page 38: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Should This Analysis Be Done for Every Worst Day at Every WRAP
Site?
• # of 20% Worst Site-Days in WRAP Region– Between 1997 and 2003*: 6,839– Between 2001 and 2003* : 5,838– Between 2001 and 2003* AND
• Dust significant contributor (>15% of Bext): 2,392
• Dust principal contributor (greatest Bext): 899
• *2003 Data Available ~ October, 2004
![Page 39: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Should “Episode Analysis” Be Done for Each of the 899 Cases
– Analyst can research and document 2 – 4 cases a day
– OR ~ 1 – 2 labor years - $$$$.– Not clear that this will result in a useful
explanation of “dust” for every case– Will have to be repeated in the future – if
desired
![Page 40: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Can a semi-systematic, less ambitious, method be used?
• Look closely at a subset of worst days with dust as a dominant source
• Find commonalities among “like” events and differences between “unlike” events
• Use a set of criteria to place all remaining worst days into one of several categories according to “most likely source type”
![Page 41: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
How can this be done?
• Local and Regional Windblown dust1. For each site, identify a nearby meteorological
station that can provide reasonably representative wind speed data
2. Look at Wind Speed vs. Coarse Mass to estimate a threshold value for windblown dust at that site
3. Check if on a particular worst day with dust as dominant haze component
a. threshold value is exceeded b. ratio of Coarse Mass to Fine Soil above a predetermined
value
4. If so, categorize as Windblown Dust
![Page 42: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Determining Threshold Wind Speed for Windblown Dust
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Chiricahua Average WS (M/S)
PIM
A P
M1
0 (
ug
/m3
)
![Page 43: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Windblown Dust
• 1 site affected – “Local Windblown” dust
• Multiple sites affected – “Regional Windblown”
![Page 44: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Asian Dust
• Tendency to have large regional influence• Compare CM:FS ratio to predetermined value
(nominally 1 or less means long-range transport)• Inspect chemical signature (K/FE, Al/Si)• Identify a possible corresponding Asian Dust
Event (E.g. Using NRL model)• Inspect air mass trajectories• If all points to Asian origin then “Asian Dust”
![Page 45: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Other Sources
• Construction: Unless close to monitor, likely infrequent and mixed with urban plume. Difficult to identify unless well-documented
• Road Dust: Same as Construction. If from urban source, urban air quality monitors might help. Signature of exhaust might help.
• Mining: Is there a mine within one day’s transport of site? Do trajectories show this as possible? Can chemistry be used as a tracer
• Agriculture: Could be substantial, depending on season. Difficult to confirm individual event occurrence. E.g. “Did Farm X harvest almond on Date Y?”
![Page 46: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Other Sources
• African Dust: Can use same approach as Asian dust, though probably very infrequent cause of worst day
• Organic debris: Can be related to agriculture. Probably seasonal. Probably shows different CM:FS ratio than windblown
• Wildfires, Volcanoes: Were there any wildfires or volcano eruptions nearby? Ratios of FS:Organic, K:FS, CM:FS can help.
• Sea Spray: Probably impacts coastal sites (if any in WRAP). Na and Cl content and ratio of CM:FS can help
![Page 47: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
The “Other” Category
• For some cases, multiple sets of criteria would be met– Depending on # of such cases, inspect individually,
try to find supplemental information• For some cases, no set of criteria is met
satisfactorily– These will go into “Other” category. Can Happen
when:• Inadequate met data• Multiple sources in comparable quantities• Criteria set incorrectly• Unforeseen/undocumented source• Just Because
![Page 48: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Summary of Method
• Consider only 2001-2003 20% worst days in WRAP at sites where dust (CM+FS) is dominant haze constituent
• Inspect subset of those days for useful trends to include known days for impacts from major source types
• As much as reasonable, place each worst day into category based on defined criteria. # of categories determined by how well the criteria can be defined
![Page 49: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
What Can We Learn? Pros and Cons of Method
• Cons:– Limited to worst days dominated by dust haze– Does not give “source apportionment” for any particular day– Some difficulties likely in determining source category for some
worst days• Pros:
– A mix of reasoning and brute force - optimize ratio of outcome to resources utilized
– Leverages many of the same tools currently used in Causes of Haze Assessment (COHA)
– Provides a first stab at a methodology that can be improved in the future
– Provides insight into knowledge gaps– Likely to result in accounting for the most frequent causes of
dust haze– Can be completed in 1 year or so
![Page 50: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Discussion?
![Page 51: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
2001 Asian Dust Episode (4/16-4/19)
![Page 52: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Ratio of Coarse Mass to Fine Soil Extinction
Average Contributions of Major Checm ial Com ponnents to Light Extinction for 68 WRAP Sites (1997-2001 April Average)
Sulfate36%
Nitrate15%
OC20%
EC7%
FS7%
CM15%
Average Contributions of Major Checm ial Com ponnents to Light Extinction for 68 WRAP Sites (April 16, 2001)
Sulfate28%
Nitrate14%
OC14%
EC3%
FS21%
CM20%
Average for 68 WRAP sites in April over period 1997-2001
Average for 68 WRAP sites 4/16/2001
On 4/16/01, 45 of the 68 WRAP IMPROVE monitoring sites were in 20% worst case days of the year 2001. Up to 11 more were worst case days on 4/19/01.
![Page 53: Dust Impacts on the 20% Worst Visibility Days](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062321/5681312e550346895d97a208/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Other 2001 Worst Days at Mont1
1.813.4%8.6%4.8%65.820010510
3.512.1%9.4%2.7%49.120011001
4.58.4%6.9%1.5%48.420011004
2.430.9%21.8%9.2%47.620010817
4.412.0%9.8%2.2%44.920010814
3.310.4%7.9%2.4%44.820010928
4.121.7%17.4%4.2%40.120010925
8.02.6%2.3%0.3%39.920010113
6.72.8%2.4%0.4%39.120011115
11.512.9%11.9%1.0%38.320011109
2.152.3%35.4%16.8%32.220010829
2.632.2%23.2%9.0%29.920010820
1.420.2%11.7%8.6%28.720010507
2.025.5%16.9%8.6%28.020010913
4.617.0%14.0%3.0%26.820011007
3.556.8%44.1%12.7%26.820010727
3.451.4%39.7%11.7%26.720010724
1.936.4%24.1%12.4%26.720010823
2.120.3%13.8%6.5%26.420010513
2.946.2%34.5%11.7%25.820010904
7.21.9%1.6%0.2%24.920011025
2.514.5%10.4%4.2%24.520010519
3.917.5%13.9%3.6%24.320010525
CM%/Fine%Dust%CM/%Soil%BextDate
1.813.4%8.6%4.8%65.820010510
3.512.1%9.4%2.7%49.120011001
4.58.4%6.9%1.5%48.420011004
2.430.9%21.8%9.2%47.620010817
4.412.0%9.8%2.2%44.920010814
3.310.4%7.9%2.4%44.820010928
4.121.7%17.4%4.2%40.120010925
8.02.6%2.3%0.3%39.920010113
6.72.8%2.4%0.4%39.120011115
11.512.9%11.9%1.0%38.320011109
2.152.3%35.4%16.8%32.220010829
2.632.2%23.2%9.0%29.920010820
1.420.2%11.7%8.6%28.720010507
2.025.5%16.9%8.6%28.020010913
4.617.0%14.0%3.0%26.820011007
3.556.8%44.1%12.7%26.820010727
3.451.4%39.7%11.7%26.720010724
1.936.4%24.1%12.4%26.720010823
2.120.3%13.8%6.5%26.420010513
2.946.2%34.5%11.7%25.820010904
7.21.9%1.6%0.2%24.920011025
2.514.5%10.4%4.2%24.520010519
3.917.5%13.9%3.6%24.320010525
CM%/Fine%Dust%CM/%Soil%BextDate