P. 1


|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by Bùi Lộc

More info:

Published by: Bùi Lộc on Aug 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The Science of the Total Environment, 8 (1977) 39-51

~) Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands



Department of Environment, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4 (Canada)
(Received April 8th, 1976)


An Air Quality Index is defined as a single term, usually a number, used to describe the degree of contamination of the ambient air. The concept of an air quality index is not new and such an index could be quite useful provided that the index does not over-simplify the situation nor cover up gaps in our knowledge. Some basic information on an assortment of air pollution indicators that have been used nationally and internationally either for public information and/or alert systems is provided. In most of these indicators, aerosols, usually measured by light absorption techniques, and sulphur dioxide, were the pollutants incorporated into the index. Other pollutants used less frequently included carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and oxidants. After listing the requirements of a national air quality index a second list of items is presented which would negate the validity of any comprehensive nation-wide index. It is thus concluded that considering the present state of our knowledge and vastly different geographical, topographical and meteorological areas of a country such as Canada the development of a nation-wide air quality index is not recommended.

It is the objective of this paper: (a) to provide the definition or concept of a national air quality index; (b) to outline the purpose of an index; (c) to present a number of air quality indices; (d) to set out the requirements of a nation-wide index; and finally (e) to consider the merits of developing yet another index for a country such as Canada.

An Air Quality Index could be defined as a single term, usually a number, used to describe the degree of contamination of the ambient air. One could think of it as an indicator only, not an absolute scientific measurement. Such an indicator, if it could be formulated, would undoubtedly be one of the important components of the "Quality of Life ''1 which is "something which everyone talks about but nobody understands" and which is a concept that is not amenable to a universally acceptable definition.

40 The idea o f such an indicator or index is not new. lnhaber 2 drawing on information from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1966, Vol. 2, pp. 973 ff describes the following myth: "The Sumerians, creators of the world's first cuneiform system of writing, had thousands of gods, but four were particularly significant: Enlil (the god of air), Enki (the god of water), Ninhursaga (the earth goddess), and an (god of the sky). If we regard the first three as representing the three major components of the environment, and the fourth as giving a bird's-eye view of the others, we have a succinct description of the parts of the Environmental Quality Index, 4500 years old?' T. A. Rich 3 a consulting engineer with General Electric C o m p a n y , suggested that: "Air pollution can be described in terms of a list of the concentrations of the presumably undesirable substances, usually man-made wastes, present in a given sample of air. This is in essence a catalog, not a simple definition. Because it is difficult to deal with such a complex concept, it is common practice to try to find some sort of overall index of air pollution that can be expressed as a single number. This is reasonable and helpful, provided the index is not used to make the situation appear less complex than it is, nor to hide gaps in knowledge."

The idea o f such an air quality index, i.e., an overall air pollution indicator could serve at least three purposes: (1) to advise the public t h r o u g h the news media o f the existing air quality on a daily or more frequent basis. (2) to provide a technical tool, i.e., an alert system for air pollution control, and (3) to show trends in air quality, i.e., to be used as a desirable n u m b e r for comparing one environmental state to another.

Before discussing air quality indices a clear understanding o f the measurements used to formulate these indices is necessary. This is particularly true with units that have been used to relate the optical density o f particulates collected on filter paper to mass concentrations. A l t h o u g h the true relationship is not completely understood, theory and experimental facts have demonstrated the relationship to be curvilinear. The m e t h o d using a curvilinear model has been used with some degree o f reliability where the particulates were o f uniform size and composition such as hematite dust and carbon blacks. The technique is part o f a British standard for measuring particulate concentrations in the ambient atmosphere and should be understood by those using these data. In C a n a d a the relationship has been demonstrated to be curvilinear, however, the "constants" in the proposed model were found to vary from air sample to air sample. Caution is indicated in formulating an index where the measurement of particulate concentration is by this technique particularly when the calculation is based on a linear model. A more detailed discussion o f this topic is given in ref. 4.

A rather descriptive term for a unit o f atmospheric dirtiness, the " m u r k " , was

41 suggested by Rees 5, a researcher in Manchester, England, concerned mainly with the soiling of textile materials. He defined the murk as follows: "The dirtiness of air measured in murks is given by the quantity 10 6 All / where a volume V (cm 3) of air drawn through an area A (cm 2) of Whatman No. 1 filter paper produces an increase in reflection optical density, that is, a decrease in log10 reflection factor of 0.01 ." The extent of soiling of the filter paper is obtained by measuring "the increase in its reflection optical density, that is, by its "Soiling Additional Density" (abbreviated to S.A.D.)". i.e., Ro S.A.D. = loglo R~ where R o = optical density of unsoiled paper; R S = optical density of soiled paper. For a given atmosphere murk = S.A.D. × A x 10 s V

Rees, realizing the non-linearity of the relationship between the optical density of the stain and the volume of air sample, recommended the use of this equation only when the S.A.D. values were less than 0.1. For higher S.A.D. values he obtained his murk values from a log-log plot of S.A.D. values against murk × volume (ft.3). The following scale of murk values was used to describe the cleanliness of dirtiness of the atmosphere:
SCALE OF M U R K VALUES 0-50 50-100 100-250 250-500 500-1000 1000-3000 3000-5000 Over 10,000 outstandingly clean air clean air moderately clean air fairly dirty air unpleasantly dirty air light fog dense fog "'pea souper" fog


This Murc index, not to be confused with the Murk index just described, was devised by Morton Sterling, Director of District and Wayne County Air Pollution Control Agencies, and his staff 6. The acronym stands for Measure of Undesirable Respirable Contaminants. It is based on the linear expression 7 which relates the interference of transmittance of light through the soiled spot to the index "coh" per 1000 linear feet of air sample. It has the general formula: MURC -- 70

105-~- log ~ - )


Murc = 70 {coh/1000 linear ft. }0.7

42 where A = area of filter tape spot in f t ) ; V = volume of air sample in ft.a; To = initial light transmittance through clean filter paper; T t = light transmittance through soiled filter paper after sampling. The following numbers were given to show the relationship between coh, Murc and particulates in the atmosphere over Detroit.
0.3 2.15

30 120


35 350

The Murc Index reading representing a one-hour sample of the air in the CityCounty Building in downtown Detroit between 7 and 8 a.m. together with the high and low Murc readings for the previous 24 h was broadcast by the local Detroit radio station. The correlation between Murc Index and degree of air dirtiness was made as follows:
MURC index Degree of dirtiness

0-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 120 plus

extremely light contamination light contamination medium contamination heavy contamination extremely heavy contamination

Green's indices In a student paper competition, sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic States Section of the Air Pollution Control Association, Green 8 suggested an air pollution index based on sulphur dioxide and smoke shade. Each pollutant was placed on the same numerical scale, i.e., zero to 100. The scale was divided so that for each pollutant an index of 25 would be the desirable level, 50 would be the alert level and 100 would be the extreme or intolerable level. The following alignment charts, prepared by Green, relates the air pollution index scale from zero to 100 to the specific pollutant concentrations. A power function was used to relate the pollutant concentration to the index scale as follows: For sulphur dioxide:
I = 8 4 . 0 ( 5 0 2 ) 0'431

and for smoke shade: 1 - : 26.6(coh) °'57s A combined index for the pollutants under consideration was prepared by taking the average of the specific pollutant indices, i.e., SO2 Index + coh Index 2 when mass effects criteria including antagonisms and synergisms are documented,

100-- .--IO,O - - E X T R E M 9 0 - 18.o 80EXTREME LEVEL->,.~ 1.50=[-100 c ~'J-7060 "



.~_ ~,

-" ~ mo

~,--90 1.00-.-~-






o ~=




o ~" o.~= .o a4olT oo ~ ', ERTL VEL'-50 u I:= -4u

~ 40-

7, 3 0 - 3







~ :3






L EVEL-'~ 0 . 0 6


,.Oo.8 §--&'S,REDLEVEL

,~ 2 0 -

~30.04 ! .-~
• ,* ~ 0.02 0.0~ --q


c r0

u 100.2


air pollution

0.1 index

a weighting of the various pollutants could be incorporated into the combined index. Green's "Index" is primarily an alert system. However, it was also suggested as a convenient index for the layman if it was "to be offered to the public as a representation of the over-all air quality".

New York City's air pollution index
Indices to describe air quality in New York City 9 have been updated as new information became available. Their first index was based on a once-a-day measurement of sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, aldehydes and dust counts. The gaseous pollutants were measured in p p m and the dust count was measured in Mppcf. All pollutants were multiplied by a weighting factor and summed as follows: A.P.I. = (SO 2 X 5 ) "-+- (CO X 1) + ( N H 3 × 10) + ( R C H O × 10) + (dust count × 20) In 1962 the index was changed to accommodate automatic continuous measurements and to represent typical source characteristics of New York City air. It had the formula: SCS API - - (SO 2 X 10) + (CO × 1) + (coh × 2) The "SCS" part of the formula indicated that the index was calculated from continuous measurements of sulphur dioxide "S", carbon monoxide "C", and smoke shade, cohs "S". In 1964 a new index called the "SCS Air Pollution Index" was formulated. It was based on the 24 hourly average continuous monitoring of pollutants (from noon

44 tO noon) and had new weighting factors. The following formulae was used: SCS API = (SO2 × 20) -- (cohs x 2) × (CO x 1)

A.P. watch 1st alert 2nd alert 3rd alert

0.5 0.7 1.5 2.0

I0 10 20 30

5.0 7.5 9.0 10.0

30 39 68 90

On the basis of the above calculations an air pollution index of 50 for 24 h was considered an adverse air pollution condition for New York City.
Ontario Air Pollution Index

The Ontario Air Pollution Index 10 is a combined index involving sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter. For control purposes the authors attempted to design the index so that it would relate the pollutant concentrations measured on a real time basis to health effects. Sulphur dioxide could be measured directly by continuous analyzers on a real time basis. The suspended particulate matter, however, was measured indirectly using an empirical relationship between average hi-vol concentrations and coh values for a given area. For Toronto the relation was: hi-vol = 240 (coh) T M (1)

In order to relate the index to health effects the average hi-vol and SO 2 measurements during severe air pollution episodes reported in the literature were utilized. The particulate concentrations reported in these episodes were converted to coh per 1000 linear feet by eqn. (1). Severe episodes from literature hi-vol SO2 For Toronto = 2.74 coh hi-vol SO2 For Toronto = 2.24 coh 500 pg/m 3 0.25 p p m (3) 600 #g/m 3 0.13 p p m (2)

The equation for the air pollution index as a function of the 24-h average values of SOz and coh was: A.P.I. 1 = A (coh) q- B (SO2) (4)

The weighting assigned to each pollutant was determined by setting the API 1 for each episode, equal to 100, substituting the foregoing pairs of values for coh and SO2 in eqn (4) and solving for A and B as follows:

45 100 = A(2.74) + B(0.13) 100 = A(2.24) + B(0.25) thus: API 1 = 30.5 (coh) + 126 (SO 2) In order to make a desirable scale the API was set as an exponential function of APl 1. Desirable scale: API = c(API1) D = C(30.5 (coh) ~ 126 ( 5 0 2 ) ) D (5)

The desirable objectives for 24-h averages SO: and coh values were 0.1 p p m and I unit per 1000 linear feet, respectively. In order to provide a working scale of 100 and a range of indices twice as great for control action to take place as for the desirable range, a maximum value of 32 was assigned to the latter range. Substituting these values in eqn (5) gave 100 = C (100) D From eqn (4) also 3 2 = ( C 3 0 . 5 ( 1 ) + 126(0.1))0 Solving for C and D gives the A.P.I. equation for Toronto: AP1 Toronto = 0.2 30.5 (coh) + 126.0 (SO2) T M Index equations for Sudbury, Hamilton and Windsor have been derived in a similar manner. The equations for the different cities are as follows: Toronto A.P.I. 0.2 (30.5 (coh) + 126.0 ( 5 0 2 ) ) T M Sudbury A.P.I. 1.84(I1 (coh) + 161 (SO2)) °'8v Hamilton A.P.I. 2.5 (13.9 (coh) + 104.5 (SO2)) °'a° Windsor A.P.I. 0.78(18.26 (coh) + 156.7 (SO2)) 1'°6 It must be noted that the pollution information for the calculations of the Index is derived from only one sampling location (e.g., College Street sampling site for Toronto) and not a city network of sampling sites. In Toronto the Index has been used both as an air pollution alert system and as a public information device.

Lambton Industrial Society-Ontario Research Foundation-Combined Pollution Index This index given in the Sarnia Air Monitoring Report 197411 has the acronym L I S - O R F - C P I and is quite similar to the Ontario Air Pollution Index. It differs from the O A P I in that the suspended particulates (24 h average) are used in the calculation. The general equation is as follows: AQI = 0.61(0.14 (S.P.) + 117.6 (SO2)) TM where S.P. = suspended particulates (24 h av.), pg/m 3 SO 2 = sulphur dioxide (24 h av.), p p m

46 Substitution of the desirable values in the equation by design gives: L I S - O R F - C P I = 0.61(0.14 (170) + 117.6 (0.1)) T M = 32
Alberta's Air Quality Index Four pollutants, i.e., total oxidants, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and suspended particulates were considered in the development of the Alberta Air Quality Index 12. Equal importance was given to each pollutant when compared to the hourly objectives of Ox ----- 8 pphm, NOx : 15 pphm, CO = 30 ppm and coh = 0.9. Thus for the hour limit 81"3 = 151"° = 30/2 = 10(0.9) 1"2 = 15. The model for the index was: AQI = ( O x ) 1"3 -~- (NOx) q- (CO/2) q- (10 coh) 1"2 where the hourly individual pollution concentrations were given in the units indicated above. The model is similar to an index used in the Bay Area 13, i.e., API = 200 Ox(ppm) + 100 NO2(ppm) ÷ CO(ppm) + 10(coh) The weighting assigned to the various pollutants was different. In both cases the following arbitrary scale was attached to the index values.

ARBITRARY SCALE 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100... clean air light air pollution moderate air pollution heavy air pollution severe air pollution

Pindex The Pindex 14 is a combined pollution index designed to estimate total air pollution. Each contaminant is weighted by dividing its concentration by the ambient air quality standard set for that particular pollutant. A synergism factor for particulates and sulphur dioxide is arrived at by selecting the smaller of the two respective quotients. Since both nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons contribute to oxidant formation which is controlled by the incident solar radiation a correction factor is applied to arrive at the true concentrations of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and oxidants. The quotients for each pollutant and synergistic effect are summed to give the Pindex value. The following example illustrates the method.

Given Information
Pollutant Tol. fact. Data

PM (particulate matter) SOX NOX CO HC 000 (oxidant) SR (solar radiation)

375/~g/ma 1430 514 40,000 19,300 214

143.0 123.0 136.0 7250.0 2157.0 43.2 400 cal/cm~ day

47 It is assumed that nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons contribute to oxidant formation on a one to one molar basis. Also, the extent of conversion is controlled by incident solar radiation. The average conversion coefficient of 0.0006 was used in Pindex calculations. Convert reactants to #mol/m 3 N O X ~- 136/46 3 HC = 2157/16 134.5 000 = 43.2/48 0.9 Det. limiting reactant for 000 synthesis (NOX or HC) N O X is limiting Create oxidant 000 = 0.0006 x SR x (NOX) = 0.0006 × 400 x 3 = 0.72 pmol/m 3 Det. total 000 and excess HC and NOX 000 = 0.9 plus 0.72 = 1.6 pmol/m 3 HC ----- 134.5 - 0.72 ---- 133.8 N O X = 3 - 0.72 = 2.3 Convert to weight basis 000 1.6 × 48 = 77.3 HC 133.8 x 16 ---- 2140 N O X 2.3 x 46 = 105 The synergism term is assumed to be the smaller of either the particulate or sulphur oxide concentration. Apply tolerance factors and sum the quotients PM 143/375 = 0.381 SOX 123/1430 = 0.086 NOX 105/514 ---- 0.204 CO 7250/40000 = 0.181 HC 2140/19300 = 0.111 000 77.2/214 = 0.361 SYN ( P M o r S O X ) = 0.086 Pindex 1.41 Pindex values for different areas can be compared only if they are based upon the same pollutants with the same air quality standards and synergistic factors.

Inhaber's Air Quality Indices
In the indices proposed by Inhaber 2 the root-mean-square method of averaging and combining of sub-indices was used. This method of averaging gives more weight to extreme values which would be considered undesirable and which would be lost if linear averaging were employed. In these indices each pollutant was given equal weighting and was converted to a unitless value by dividing the respective individual pollutant concentration by the appropriate objectives adjusted to the same averaging time periods.

48 The index for specific pollutants was: ISP

= ~/(ISO2)2 + (ISPM)2 -~- (ICO)2 -]- (IOX)2 +

(IOX)2 + (INOX)2

The model was further modified by altering the weighting of the "ISPM", i.e., the suspended particulate matter term. A half weighting was allotted to the suspended particulate matter and the other half was given to the index of coh. The model then became:

isP =



+ (INoX)2

For an overall air quality index, AQI, three major sub-indices were combined. (1) Index of Specific Pollutants, i.e., air quality in urban areas. (2) Index of Inter-Urban Air Quality, i.e., urban or regional (visibility measurements). (3) Index of Air Quality from Major Urban Centers, i.e., areas where large industries exist. The root-mean-square method was employed with weight assigned of 5, 3 and 2, respectively. The weighting was chosen to reflect the relative importance of the three subindices to the overall air quality index. The equation was: AQI = ] / ~ I S P ) 2 ~ 3(I REG) 2 ÷ 2(IIE) 2



The relation of the index scale to air quality was given as follows: "low . . . . good" 1 "high . . . . bad" 3

(1) The presentation of an index here-in should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the author as to its scientific soundness. The indices are presented only for the information of the reader. (2) Most indices have used a light scattering measurement to reflect suspended particulate concentrations. (The limitations of these measurements have been discussed elsewhere4.) (3) All indices suffer from a lack of well-documented scientific cause-effect criteria. (4) Synergistic and antagonistic parameters are almost completely ignored since supporting information is relatively sparse. (5) Most indices are based on measurements taken at only one sampling site and are not representative of the total area. (6) Most indices are based on only a few of the many air pollutants.

49 (7) Some indices are based only on one pollutant measured at a particular time of the day, not necessarily during the highest pollution period of the day. (8) Most indices tend to make the situation appear less complex than it is and may even hide gaps in knowledge. (9) Most indices conceal the individual pollutants and their concentrations so that scientific correlations with health or other effects are not possible and if attempted lead to unreliable and confused conclusions. (10) The literature contains many air quality indices based on unfounded assumptions and further development should be curtailed until much more causeeffect and other information becomes known.

If an Index is to fulfill the purpose outlined earlier then it should meet the following requirements. It should: 1. be simple 2. be meaningful 3. be comprehensible 4. relate to the "sensed" air pollution levels 5. be derived from an extensive continuous monitoring network 6. consider all pollutants in existence 7. consider relative harmfulness of each pollutant 8. consider synergisms and antagonisms 9. have credibility and public acceptance 10. be numerical rather than descriptive 11. be clearly understood and believed by the agency releasing the index 12. be understood by the public and others receiving the information 13. not be used to make the situation appear less complex than it is, nor to hide gaps in knowledge 14. be universal and not in competition with other indices 15. be based on a sound theoretical and mathematical model 16. Further the pollution data upon which the index is based should relate to the same time period 17. Further each pollutant used in the index should be accompanied by a standard that is not subject to change 18. Further the measurements used in the index must be reliable and based on sound scientific techniques.

The foregoing list of requirements for a national air quality index is not considered exhaustive, however, the list does emphasize the difficulty and complexity of characterizing the ambient atmosphere by a single number. The present state of air pollution technology is such that most of these requirements cannot be satisfied. One could

50 prepare another list of items which would n~gate.the validity of any comprehensive nation wide index. Such a list would include the following: 1. air quality criteria are incomplete 2. air quality standards are based on incomplete information, political and economical considerations, and built in safety factors to protect the most sensitive forms of life 3. air quality standards are subject to change 4. dose and exposure are time--concentration parameters 5. synergistic effects are not well understood nor documented 6. some pollutants have antagonistic properties 7. some pollutants catalyze the effects of others 8. air pollution is a local or regional phenomenon 9. different areas use different fuels, hence different pollutant mixtures 10. meteorological conditions vary from one area to another. Each area has its own seasonal inversion patterns. 11. the topography varies from one area to another 12. air sampling networks are not extensive enough to give reliable coverage o f each area 13. only a few pollutants are measured on a continuous basis 14. standardization of methodology is lacking 15. particulate measurements based on optical evaluation of deposits on filter paper are unreliable and not based on sound theory 4 16. the public's concern is directly related to the extent to which the presence of air pollutants can be detected by their sensors and whether or not a given concentration of a pollutant is good or bad for them. An assortment of air pollution indices has been described. Some of these indices have been applied in relatively local areas and have been used as alert and public information devices, others are being promoted as nationally useful indices. As a public information device these indices are confusing and are not indicative of actual pollution conditions over a wide area. The public's acceptance of such information is typical of that described by Lack and Schulz 12 for Calgary and Edmonton. The public relate the index, which should be based on monitored pollutant concentrations, to "sensed" pollution such as localized smoke, or odor. When these do not agree, due to too few sampling points, a wide variety of pollution conditions and other variables, the credibility of the index is seriously questioned and often ejected outright. Reidy and Dziewulski 15 found even more public confusion in Chicago, especially when several different indices were being reported simultaneously for the same area by different news agencies. The answer to solving such public confusion is not to create yet another index, but to report pollution concentrations on an individual pollutant basis and inform the public of the limitations of these measurements. As an alert or air pollution control device some agencies have used indices based on two or more pollutants with some success, however, would not the same degree

51 of success have been accomplished using the actual individual pollutant concentrations? As regards trends in air quality this would best be evaluated by observing the long term changes with respect to individual pollutants. Air quality in London has improved over the years in terms of sulphur dioxide and smoke. An examination of these individual pollutants would adequately reveal such a trend. CONCLUSIONS An air quality index has a number of requirements, many of which cannot be met due to our very imperfect knowledge of air pollution and other physical parameters. Many air pollution indices are already in existence. Although some of these indices have been thought useful for alert or control purposes they have created considerable confusion and scepticism as air pollution information devices. In consideration of the local nature of air pollution and the vastly different geographical, topographical and meteorological areas in Canada a national air quality index is not sound theoretically and further, promulgation of such an index is not recommended. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive criticisms and helpful reviews of several researchers in particular Dr. M. Phillips, Research Scientist, Atmospheric Environment Services. REFERENCES 1 2 3 4

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mario Bunge, Soe. Indicators Res., 2 (1975) 65. H. lnhaber, Science, 186 (1974) 798. T.A.R.ich, Environ. Sci. TechnoL, l (1967) 796. H.P. Sanderson, Evaluation of Mass Concentration by Optical Density of Particulates Collected on Filter Paper, Internal Report No. AR.QA-22-75, 1975, unpublished. W.N.R.ees, Br. J. Appl. Phys., 9 (1958) 301. Anon., Air Eng., 10 (1968) 28. W.C.L. Hemeon, G. F. Haines, Jr. and H. M. lde, Air Repair, 3 (1953) 22. Marvin H. Green, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., M. M. Braverman and C. Theophil, Cir. Eng. N.Y., 35 (1965) 64. L. Shenfield and F. Frantisak, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 20 (1970) 612. S.C. Barton, Sarnia Air Monitoring Programme, 1974AnnualR.eporttotheTechnicalComrnittee, Lambton Industrial Society, ORF Technological Services, May 12, 1975. J.C. Lack and A. R.. Schulz, Alberta's Experience with the Development and Distribution of an Air Quality Index, presented to Air Pollution Control Association, Pacific Northwest International Section Annual Meeting, Nov. 30, 1973, Seattle, Washington, Paper 73-AP-39. Technical Services Division, Combined Pollution Indices for the Salt Francisco Bay Area, Bay
Area Pollution Control District Information Bulletin No. 10-68.

14 L.R.. Babcock, Jr. and N. L. Nagda, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 20 (1970) 653. 15 M.R.eidy and C. Dziewulski, Homogeneous Dissemhtation of Ambient Air Quality Levels to the News Media and the Public or the Need to Eschew Obfitscation, presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the A.P.C.A., Chicago, Ill., June 24-28, 1973, Paper No. 73-352.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->