Comparison of Positive Matrix Factorization and Multilinear Engine for the source apportionment of particulate pollutants

被引:70
作者
Ramadan, Z
Eickhout, B
Song, XH
Buydens, LMC
Hopke, PK
机构
[1] Clarkson Univ, Dept Chem Engn, Potsdam, NY 13699 USA
[2] Univ Nijmegen, Analyt Chem Lab, Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
Positive Matrix Factorization; Multilinear Engine; particulate pollutants;
D O I
10.1016/S0169-7439(02)00160-0
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
New approaches to solving the factor analysis (FA) problem have recently been developed by recognizing that factor analysis is fundamentally a least-squares (LS) problem. This approach is called Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF). Two programs have been written to implement different algorithms for solving the problem. These programs are PMF2 and Multilinear Engine (ME-2). The two programs use different algorithms to obtain the least-squares solution and the constraints are imposed in different ways. Elemental composition data for particle samples collected in Phoenix, AZ from June 1996 through June 1998, were used to compare the source apportionment of these two programs. The ME-2 results presented in this paper are compared with the previously published PMF2 results. The identification of the eight PMF sources returned one questionable source: wood burning and some peculiar mass contributions. The extra features of ME-2 made it possible to also investigate the sources responsible for the fine particles. The mixed-way approach indicated the existence of incinerators in the Phoenix area. Like PMF, ME-2 identified high source contributions for biomass burning, motor vehicles (with higher contribution in winter), coal-fired power plants (secondary particles with higher contributions in summer), soil, and nonferrous smelting process. Sea salt and heavy-duty diesel were identified by the ME two-way analysis, but they disappeared in the three-way analysis of the dual fine particle sequential sampler (DFPSS) and DICHOT data. Instead, an obvious incinerator source was identified again. Thus, PMF and ME-2 identified the same major sources responsible for the PM2.5 in Phoenix, but some of the sources identified by PMF2 appear to be uncertain. The three-way analysis provided additional information about possible sources, but also returned unexplainable sources. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:15 / 28
页数:14
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   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
[2]   TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL VARIATIONS OF PM(2.5) AND PM(10) AEROSOL IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AIR-QUALITY STUDY [J].
CHOW, JC ;
WATSON, JG ;
FUJITA, EM ;
LU, ZQ ;
LAWSON, DR ;
ASHBAUGH, LL .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1994, 28 (12) :2061-2080
[3]  
CHOW JC, 1991, 89316F1 DRI U NEV SY
[4]   Investigation of sources of atmospheric aerosol at urban and suburban residential areas in Thailand by positive matrix factorization [J].
Chueinta, W ;
Hopke, PK ;
Paatero, P .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2000, 34 (20) :3319-3329
[5]   CURRENT FACTOR-ANALYSIS RECEPTOR MODELS ARE ILL-POSED [J].
HENRY, RC .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1987, 21 (08) :1815-1820
[6]  
Hopke P. K., 1991, RECEPTOR MODELING AI
[7]   MULTI-ELEMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION OF URBAN ROADWAY DUST [J].
HOPKE, PK ;
LAMB, RE ;
NATUSCH, DFS .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1980, 14 (02) :164-172
[8]  
Hopke PK, 1999, J CHEMOMETR, V13, P343, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199905/08)13:3/4<343::AID-CEM550>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-P
[10]   Three-way (PARAFAC) factor analysis: examination and comparison of alternative computational methods as applied to ill-conditioned data [J].
Hopke, PK ;
Paatero, P ;
Jia, H ;
Ross, RT ;
Harshman, RA .
CHEMOMETRICS AND INTELLIGENT LABORATORY SYSTEMS, 1998, 43 (1-2) :25-42