Comparative testing of PMF and CFA models

被引:48
作者
Qin, Y
Oduyemi, K [1 ]
Chan, LY
机构
[1] Univ Abertay, Div Construct & Environm, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland
[2] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept Civil & Struct Engn, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
positive matrix factorization; convenient factor analysis; respirable suspended particulate; source identification;
D O I
10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00175-7
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Positive matrix factorization (PMF) and convenient factor analysis (CFA) models have been tested using a large aerosol database measured in Hong Kong, As many as possible chemical components (good elements or so-called weak elements) [Atmos. Environ. 33 (1999) 2169] were selected to compose as large as possible a database. Error estimates and enforced rotation techniques were used in the PMF model trial. These important aspects were not included in a recently published work [Atmos. Environ. 33 (1999) 2169]. The test results of the two models mentioned above were assessed qualitatively by analyzing factor characteristics, and quantitatively by comparing factor mass profiles. CIA model has been shown to be a convenient tool for aerosol source identification and can qualitatively treat the elements that can serve as source tracers as well as PMF model does. PMF model provides expert tool for the identification of aerosol sources and source contribution estimation. It can treat the chemical components from various sources by apportioning these chemical components among the factors more reasonably than CFA model can. Quantitatively, the factor mass profiles produced by a PMF model are better at describing the source structure than those derived by a CFA model. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:75 / 87
页数:13
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
ALEXANDR V, 1998, J GEOPHYS RES-ATMOS, V103, P19045
[2]   SOURCE IDENTIFICATION OF BULK WET DEPOSITION IN FINLAND BY POSITIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION [J].
ANTTILA, P ;
PAATERO, P ;
TAPPER, U ;
JARVINEN, O .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1995, 29 (14) :1705-1718
[3]   ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY OF AUTOMOTIVE LEAD [J].
BIGGINS, PDE ;
HARRISON, RM .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1979, 13 (05) :558-565
[4]   PM10 SOURCE APPORTIONMENT IN CALIFORNIA SAN-JOAQUIN VALLEY [J].
CHOW, JC ;
WATSON, JG ;
LOWENTHAL, DH ;
SOLOMON, PA ;
MAGLIANO, KL ;
ZIMAN, SD ;
RICHARDS, LW .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART A-GENERAL TOPICS, 1992, 26 (18) :3335-3354
[5]   SOURCE RECEPTOR STUDY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC-COMPOUNDS AND PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE KANAWHA VALLEY, WV .2. ANALYSIS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO VOC AND PARTICLE EXPOSURES [J].
COHEN, MA ;
RYAN, PB ;
SPENGLER, JD ;
OZKAYNAK, H ;
HAYES, C .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART B-URBAN ATMOSPHERE, 1991, 25 (01) :95-107
[6]  
*HONG KONG ENV PRO, 1997, AIR QUAL HONG KONG 1
[7]   AN INTRODUCTION TO RECEPTOR MODELING [J].
HOPKE, PK .
CHEMOMETRICS AND INTELLIGENT LABORATORY SYSTEMS, 1991, 10 (1-2) :21-43
[8]   TARGET TRANSFORMATION FACTOR-ANALYSIS AS AN AEROSOL MASS APPORTIONMENT METHOD - A REVIEW AND SENSITIVITY STUDY [J].
HOPKE, PK .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1988, 22 (09) :1777-1792
[9]   Testing and optimizing two factor-analysis techniques on aerosol at Narragansett, Rhode Island [J].
Huang, SL ;
Rahn, KA ;
Arimoto, R .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1999, 33 (14) :2169-2185
[10]   ANALYSIS OF DAILY PRECIPITATION DATA BY POSITIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION [J].
JUNTTO, S ;
PAATERO, P .
ENVIRONMETRICS, 1994, 5 (02) :127-144