You are on page 1of 12

*Corresponding author.

Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674


An enhanced ozone forecasting model using
air mass trajectory analysis
W. Geo!rey Cobourn*, Milton C. Hubbard
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Speed Scientixc School, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA
Automated Analysis Corporation, Peoria, IL, USA
Received 15 December 1998; accepted 16 April 1999
Abstract
An enhanced ozone forecasting model using nonlinear regression and an air mass trajectory parameter has been
developed and "eld tested. The model performed signi"cantly better in predicting daily maximum 1-h ozone concentra-
tions during a "ve-year model calibration period (1993}1997) than did a previously reported regression model. This was
particularly true on the 28 `high ozonea days ([O
`
]'120 ppb) during the period, for which the mean absolute error
(MAE) improved from 21.7 to 12.1 ppb. On the 77 days meteorologically conducive to high ozone, the MAE improved
from 12.2 to 9.1 ppb, and for all 580 calibration days the MAE improved from 9.5 to 8.35 ppb. The model was "eld-tested
during the 1998 ozone season, and performed about as expected. Using actual meteorological data as input for the ozone
predictions, the MAE for the season was 11.0 ppb. For the daily ozone forecasts, which used meteorological forecast data
as input, the MAE was 13.4 ppb. The high ozone days were all anticipated by the ozone forecasters when the model was
used for next day forecasts. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air pollution; Air quality; Ground-level ozone; Nonlinear regression
1. Introduction and background
Ground-level ozone (O
`
) has been a serious air pol-
lution problem for several decades in many urban
communities in the United States. The US Environ-
mental Protection Agency has recently promulgated a
revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone, based on the daily maximum 8-h
average concentration. The new 80 ppb, 8-h standard is
based on health studies which demonstrate serious hu-
man health e!ects from prolonged exposures to ozone
concentrations signi"cantly below the previous 120 ppb,
1-h standard (US EPA, 1996). In 1996, approximately 39
million people lived in counties where the ozone NAAQS
had been exceeded (US EPA, 1998a). The revised
NAAQS for ozone will bring many additional communi-
ties into a state of non-compliance with the clean air act,
and will probably cause delays in reaching compliance
for communities that were already in violation of the
NAAQS for ozone. For many of the individuals sensitive
to high ozone levels (e.g. asthmatics and children), it may
therefore be years or even decades before they can regard
the air quality to be `healthya, as de"ned by the NAAQS.
Recent regulatory actions by the EPA calling for addi-
tional reductions in emissions of VOCs and NO
V
com-
pounds, hold promise for eventually improving the ozone
air quality. In the meantime, people who su!er ozone-
related respiratory problems would bene"t from access
to accurate forecasts of high ozone days, so that they
could reduce their health risk on those days by staying
indoors or reducing outdoor activities.
In the past few years, many urban areas have enacted
voluntary ozone control programs, aimed at increasing
public awareness and participation in local clean air
e!orts. A key component of these programs is the fore-
casting of probable high ozone days, and subsequent
proclamation of an `ozone action daya (OAD) in the
community. Health warnings or health advisories for
asthmatics, children and others at risk are typically
1352-2310/99/$- see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 2 - 2 3 1 0 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 2 4 0 - X
issued along with the OAD. In some of the programs,
voluntary episodic control measures such as carpooling
or industry cutbacks are encouraged. It is clear that the
public acceptance and success of the OAD programs will
depend crucially on the accuracy of the ozone forecasts.
Many di!erent techniques are used for forecasting ozone,
and the accuracy of the forecasts varies widely among
these programs. Some of the techniques are ad hoc
methods, devised by local o$cials, and others are based
on more rigorous methods described in the scienti"c
literature. These include multiple regression (e.g. Wol!
and Lioy, 1978 or Ryan, 1995), generalized additive mod-
els (Niu, 1996), arti"cial neural networks (Comrie, 1997),
and classi"cation and regression tree analysis (Ryan,
1995). The more accurate of these models can predict
the day-to-day peak ozone concentrations reasonably
well. Typical explained variances (square of correlation
coe$cient) are in the range 60}80%, and typical mean
absolute errors are in the range 10}20 ppb. A common
problem with these models, however, is that on the very
high ozone days, the errors tend to be much larger, and
the O
`
concentrations are systematically underpredicted.
Of course, it is these very events that are most important
from a health perspective. In order to maximize the
e!ectiveness of OAD programs, it is essential to develop
ozone forecast models with greatly improved accuracy at
the upper end of the seasonal ozone distribution.
Until more accurate ozone forecast models can be de-
veloped, an interim approach is to supplement or modify
the objective model predictions with subjective forecasts
prepared by `expertsa. The subjective forecasts are based
on analysis of additional meteorological information that
may be di$cult to include in parametric models, such as
satellite imagery, synoptic #ow patterns, frontal analysis, or
air mass trajectory analysis. Ryan and Luebehusen (1996)
have reported success with this approach in the Baltimore
area. Ozone forecasts made using a regression model sup-
plemented by expert analysis were signi"cantly more accu-
rate in predicting 1-h daily maximum ozone concentrations
in excess of 120 ppb than the regression model alone.
Air mass trajectory analysis has been a useful tool for
identifying `source regionsa for various air pollutants.
Ashbaugh et al. (1985) used backward air trajectories,
combined with a statistical technique called residence
time analysis, to identify source regions for transport of
particulate sulfur to the Grand Canyon National Park.
Employing a similar technique, Poirot and Wishinski
(1986) identi"ed the Lower Great Lakes and Ohio River
Valley regions as signi"cant contributors to high sulfate
concentration and poor visibility in Northern Vermont.
Comrie (1994) used backward, three-layer branching tra-
jectories, combined with residence time analysis, to ident-
ify the transport corridors and source regions for high
ozone in a forested area of western Pennsylvania. The
source regions identi"ed included the lower Ohio and
middle Mississippi valleys, and a secondary source re-
gion near the southern tip of Lake Michigan. Moy et al.
(1994) have reported that certain backward trajectory
patterns are associated with high O
`
and NO
V
concentra-
tions at a rural site in Virginia. Using a trajectory cluster-
ing technique, they identi"ed distinct corridors for the
transport of `cleana air and `dirtya air to the monitoring
site. The authors hypothesized that the trajectory in-
formation could o!er predictive opportunities for air
quality, but noted that confounding phenomena such as
convective activity along the trajectory path tended to
confuse matters.
We have recently reported on the development of
a multiple-linear regression model to forecast 1-h peak
O
`
concentration in Louisville, Kentucky (Hubbard and
Cobourn, 1998). This model was composed of eight ex-
planatory variables, viz. peak temperature, midday wind
speed, atmospheric transmittance, cloud cover, minimum
temperature, day of week, 24-h rainfall and number of
nighttime calms. For the 1993}1996 model calibration
period, the model predicted the 1-h peak O
`
concentra-
tions to within$15.0 ppb 80% of the time, and the mean
absolute error was 9.4 ppb. However, for the `extreme
daysa, in which the peak [O
`
] was greater than 120 ppb,
none of the predictions were within$15 ppb, and the
mean absolute error for those days was 31.2 ppb. We re-
ported also on the development of an adjunct model called
the `Hi-loa model, to be used for the probable high ozone
days, for which the mean absolute error of the extreme
([O
`
]'120 ppb) days was somewhat lower, at 19.4 ppb.
In this paper we report on enhancements to the pre-
viously reported models. The enhancements are based on
a reformulation of the nonlinear regression equation and
the parameterization of air mass trajectory information
for inclusion in the models. These enhancements have
signi"cantly reduced the high-end prediction errors, and
have made possible the forecasting of high ozone days
(days near to or above the NAAQS) with a much greater
degree of reliability and accuracy than was previously
possible.
We have concentrated on the problem of forecasting
the daily maximum 1-h average ozone concentration for
two reasons. First, the Louisville Air Quality Control
Region is still subject to the 1-h, 120 ppb standard as of
this writing. Second, the enhancements reported herein
may be applied to other statistical models used in other
communities; the degree of improvement made possible
by these developments is best described by comparing to
the previously reported models for Louisville.
2. Air quality and meteorological data
2.1. Ozone data
Data from the seven ozone monitors that comprise the
Louisville Air Quality Control Region were used for this
4664 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674
study. The monitors are located in a mix of urban,
suburban, and rural sites in a region approximately 2000
km` in area spanning both sides of the Ohio River. Daily
1-h average O
`
concentrations for each monitor were
obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
(AIRS) database, for the months of May}September,
over the "ve year period 1993}1997. Since the local
pollution control authorities issue a single forecast for
the entire Air Quality Control region, the appropriate
ozone concentration for "tting the forecast models is the
highest value in the region, i.e., the `domain peaka [O
`
].
If on a particular day the daily peak 1-h concentration
could not be reliably determined for two or more moni-
tors, the whole day was excluded from the database. No
days were dropped on account of rain, but two days
judged to be statistical outliers were excluded. The do-
main peak [O
`
] is approximately log-normally distrib-
uted with a geometric standard deviation of 1.38 and
a geometric mean of 71.2 ppb. Relative to the arithmetic
mean (76.4 ppb), the NAAQS threshold (120 ppb) is 1.86
standard deviations away.
2.2. Meteorological data and other predictor variables
Three classes of predictor variables were used in this
study: (1) surface weather observations, (2) deterministic
parameters, and (3) derived meteorological products. The
"rst class consisted of surface weather observations made
by the National Weather Surface at the Standiford Field
site in Louisville, KY. These included hourly obser-
vations of: temperature, cloud cover, dew point,
relative humidity, and wind speed, as well as daily peak
temperature, daily minimum temperature, and daily
precipitation. The temperature extrema represented
instantaneous values, not extremes of the hourly data. In
addition, using the hourly wind speed data, the number
of hourly periods for which speed fell below 3 m.p.h.
during the nighttime period 12 midnight to 4 a.m. was
used to de"ne a new variable } the number of overnight
calms. Because the hourly meteorological observations
were recorded over a brief interval lasting for just a few
minutes, they may not have been representative of condi-
tions lasting over the full time interval between successive
observations. Therefore, some of the variables were aver-
aged over several hours to reduce the e!ect of random
#uctuations present in the data. The averaging intervals
were as follows: temperature, dew point, and relative
humidity (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.), cloud cover (9 a.m. to 2 p.m.),
and wind speed (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.).
The second class of predictors consisted of determinis-
tic parameters that are typically found useful in ozone
forecasting: (1) day of the week, (2) solar zenith angle, (3)
theoretical atmospheric transmittance and (4) length of
day. The last three predictors are a function of the time of
year and serve as a proxy for the ultraviolet #ux and
seasonal cycle. The derivation and application of atmo-
spheric transmittance to ozone forecasting is described in
detail in Hubbard and Cobourn (1998).
The third class of predictors consisted of two derived
meteorological products: the location of upper air mass
trajectories into Louisville, KY, and the Ultraviolet (UV)
Index (US EPA, 1994). The upper air trajectories are
described in detail in the next section. The UV index,
issued daily by the National Weather Service, is a fore-
cast of the radiation intensity at Earth's surface for local
solar noon for 58 US cities including Louisville. To
derive the UV index, stratospheric ozone data from satel-
lite observations, atmospheric pressure and temperature
forecasts and expected cloudiness are analyzed and
scaled to produce an index between the range 0}15.
According to the US EPA (1994), about 90% of the
forecasts are accurate to within$two units as veri"ed by
ground based sensors. The accuracy of the forecast is
very dependent on the accuracy of the cloudiness fore-
cast.
3. Model development and formulation
3.1. Development of the trajectory parameter
Air mass trajectory analysis has for some time been
used to help identify the direction and location of sources
of pollutants or pollutant precursors, which are trans-
ported over long distances. In addition, it has been well
documented that ozone and ozone precursors, parti-
cularly NO
V
, can be transported over distances of several
hundred kilometers or more (e.g. Wol! and Lioy, 1977;
US EPA, 1997; Ryan et al., 1998). For purposes of im-
proving the ozone forecast model, we sought to identify
transport patterns which were associated with high
ozone. The original purpose was to use the information
to develop subjective guidelines for modifying the re-
gression model predictions. However, a relatively
straightforward technique was developed for interpreting
the information in terms of a single parameter for
inclusion in the regression equation.
There are two practical requirements for using any
type of meteorological information in an ozone forecast
model: (1) archives of the information must be available
for studying relationships to daily peak ozone concentra-
tion, and (2) reasonably accurate meteorological fore-
casts of the information can be obtained routinely and
quickly, at least 24 h in advance of the forecasted event.
The ability to use air mass trajectory data in the ozone
forecasts was made possible by a recently developed
website which provides access to the Hybrid Single-
Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT)
model for calculating forward or backward trajecto-
ries at various levels for continental US locations
(NOAA, 1998). The NOAA Transport and Dispersion
W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674 4665
Fig. 1. 36 h backward trajectories at 750 m elevation on high-
ozone days ([O
`
]*115 ppb) during the period 1993}1997.
Fig. 2. Origins of the 36-h backward trajectories at 750 m elev-
ation on high-ozone days during the period 1993}1997.
(HYSPLIT) website provides both trajectory forecasts
based on numerical weather model output, and past
trajectories (analysis trajectories) based on archived
model output. The HYSPLIT model (version 4) uses
gridded wind "eld data for computing the trajectories
(Draxler, 1991). In the case of the forecast trajectories, the
wind "elds are model forecasts. In the case of the past
trajectories, the gridded wind "elds utilized are analyzed
wind "elds, i.e. they are based on model interpolations of
rawindsonde data obtained at 12-h intervals. Both the
NGM and EDAS output data "les were used for calcu-
lating trajectories. The NGM data was available for
trajectories prior to May 1997, and the EDAS data for
trajectories after that time.
Backward trajectory patterns were examined for sev-
eral categories of daily 1-h peak ozone concentration
[O
`
]. The calculated backward trajectories were all of
36-h duration, originating at 750 m height. The duration
of the trajectories was based on the characteristic trans-
port time for ozone and ozone precursors, estimated to
be 1}2 days from the Ozone Transport and Assessment
Group (OTAG) "nal report (US EPA, 1997). The traject-
ory height was chosen to be roughly half of the average
summertime mixing height (e.g. Holzworth, 1967), so that
the trajectories would be a mean representation of the
transport, which varies in speed and direction through-
out the mixed layer. Consideration was given to using
trajectories at multiple heights, but rejected in favor of
the simpler approach, in consideration of the time ele-
ment involved in the ozone forecasting process.
The trajectory patterns for the highest ozone category
([O
`
]*115 ppb) formed a distinct pattern. The average
trajectory length was shorter than those of the lower
ozone categories, and the trajectory paths tended to fall
within distinct corridors, each roughly 300 km;600 km
in size (Fig. 1). Three corridors were identi"ed: one ex-
tending west, and approximately centered along the Ohio
River Valley, one extending east, also including the Ohio
River Valley, and one extending to the northwest, en-
compassing the Indianapolis and Chicago metropolitan
areas. These corridors together form an envelope (Fig. 2)
which may be considered to be a `region of in#uencea for
transport of ozone and ozone precursors into Louisville.
The envelope was constructed so as to encompass nearly
all (32/34) of the recorded high ozone trajectories, using
published maps of large NO
V
emission sources (e.g. US
EPA, 1998b) for additional guidance. For the next high-
est ozone category examined (100)[O
`
])114 ppb), 15
of 25 trajectories were within the envelope. Of those
originating outside, three were from middle Tennessee,
and "ve from below Tennessee. The trajectory patterns
for the rest of the lower concentration categories were
more dispersed directionally, and the average trajectory
lengths were greater. Signi"cantly, on the days which
were prone to high ozone concentration, but which did
not reach concentrations above 99 ppb, the trajectories
tended to come from directions other than along one of
the three high ozone corridors, and nearly all (20/22) of
the trajectory origin points (the open circles in Fig. 2)
were outside of the high ozone envelope. The criteria
used for determining the days prone to high ozone were
the `sunny, sultry and stagnanta (3S) criteria described
by Hubbard and Cobourn (1998), and brie#y sum-
marized in Section 3.4 below.
4666 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674
Various attempts were made to parameterize the tra-
jectory information for inclusion into the regression
model, including correlation with trajectory length, etc.
Most of these were only marginally successful. The
scheme that worked the best was quite simple. A traject-
ory classi"cation parameter was formed and added to the
`Hi-loa (HL) regression model. For the 1993}1997 lim-
ited Hi-lo data set (162 days) the trajectory parameter
was given a value of unity when the trajectory was fully
contained within the high [O
`
] envelope. Otherwise, the
trajectory parameter was given a value of zero. The
inclusion of this parameter into the HL regression model
resulted in a signi"cant improvement in the model accu-
racy (the mean absolute error (MAE) improved from 11.1
to 9.4 ppb), and the parameter itself was determined to
have a high degree of statistical signi"cance. This exercise
was repeated for the Standard model (580 days), and the
results were also positive, with the MAE improving from
8.7 to 8.3 ppb. Signi"cantly, for the 116 `in-corridora
days, the average error (bias) of the HL regression model
improved from !6.3 to 0.4 ppb.
In order for the trajectory parameter to make an
e!ective contribution to forecasting ozone, it is essential
that the forecast trajectories agree with the correspond-
ing `pasta, or analysis trajectories, since it is the latter
parameter that was used for calibrating the model. We
studied this, using available trajectories from 1997 and
1998, and found that the distance between the origin
points of forecast and hindcast 36 h backward trajecto-
ries was on average equal to 40% of the trajectory path
length. In terms of just the trajectory parameter de-
scribed above (i.e. equal to zero or unity), we found that
the trajectory forecasts agreed with the analysis trajecto-
ries about 70% of the time for the same study period.
3.2. The Standard and Hi-lo regression equations
During the 1997 forecasting season we used two re-
gression models: the Standard model and the Hi-lo
model. The Standard model was intended to be the
default forecast tool for predicting ozone levels with
equal accuracy on all days. To this objective the Stan-
dard model was "tted to all days in the database with
equal weighting given to each day. Since regression-
based air quality forecast models have a tendency to
underpredict high ozone days, we paid particular atten-
tion during model formulation to minimize this potential
problem by appropriate selection and transformation of
the predictor variables. Comparison of model hindcasts
with observations showed that the Standard model was
free of systematic bias. That is, the model did not show on
average a tendency to overpredict or underpredict over
the full range of expected ozone levels. Nevertheless, on
the highest ozone days the Standard model tended to
underpredict the daily peaks. To improve upon this lim-
itation of the Standard model, the Hi-lo model was
developed to give improved accuracy on the high ozone
days. This was accomplished by removing roughly the
middle 80% of the ozone distribution from the original
regression database. This technique preserved the numer-
ical range of the predictors and predictand, but reduced
the in#uence of the middle days on the outcome of the
regression coe$cients. The cuto! values of 50 and 105
ppb were determined so as to leave approximately equal
numbers of days at each end of the ozone distribution,
and to minimize the MAE for the Hi-lo regression. Com-
pared to Standard model, the Hi-lo model had greater
explained variance and lower average error on the high
ozone days.
The regression model building approach involved per-
forming exploratory analysis using graphical techniques
and nonparametric regression to discover the salient
relationships between ozone and the predictor variables.
Using these estimates provided guidance in formulating
a parsimonious parametric model, which was then "t to
the data by a combination of linear and nonlinear least-
squares regression. The overall approach was much the
same as we previously reported, but the application of
nonlinear regression has been substantially expanded in
the latest model. The need for greater nonlinear treat-
ment was based on the exploratory analysis by Bloom-
"eld et al. (1996), which convincingly showed the highly
nonlinear relationship of ozone to humidity, wind speed,
and temperature. To capture these nonlinear e!ects bet-
ter, we employed a two step model building approach in
which a "rst stage regression model was "tted using
nonlinear regression to this same set of meteorological
variables. This regression was then used as a new pre-
dictor in the second regression, which was "tted using
ordinary least squares and the stepwise method (IMSL,
1992). All regression variables were considered in the
stepwise procedure. The two-step approach conveniently
combines the advantages of nonlinear and linear regres-
sion into one model, yielding superior results to using
linear regression alone.
The "nal form of the Standard model consists of an
intercept, seven regression coe$cients, and seven ex-
planatory variables:
O
`
"b
"
#b

O
`LJ
#b
`
CC#b
`
DOW#b
"
LOD
#b
`
NC#b
"
RF#b
`
TRAJ (1)
The dependent variable, O
`
, is the 1-h domain peak
ozone. The "rst explanatory variable, O
`
, is the predic-
tion from the nonlinear regression equation (Eq. (2)),
which is a function of temperature, surface wind speed,
and relative humidity.
O
`
"(

#(
`
#
`
TMAX#
"
TMAX`)
;exp(
`
WS))exp(
"
RH) (2)
W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674 4667
Table 1
Predictors used in the regression equations
Predictor Units Symbol Timing
Air mass trajectory corridor * TRAJ Upwind, previous 36 h
Cloud cover tenths CC 9 a.m.}2 p.m. (average)
Day of week * DOW Saturdays
Length of day hours LOD Sunrise to sunset
Maximum temperature 3F TMAX Daily 24-h peak
Minimum temperature 3F TMIN Daily 24-h min.
Nighttime calms * NC 12 midnight}4 a.m.
Nonlinear model prediction ppb O
`
*
Rainfall in RF Daily 24-h total
Relative humidity % RH 9 a.m.}1 p.m. (average)
Surface wind speed mph WS 9 a.m.}3 p.m. (average)
Table 2
Regression coe$cients for the Standard model
Coe$cient Fitted value S.E. t-statistic
Constant !43.7 7.55 !5.79
O
`
0.800 0.0310 25.83
CC !0.732 0.199 !3.67
DOW 4.14 1.29 3.21
LOD 4.16 0.530 7.85
NC 1.55 0.566 2.74
RF !2.29 1.37 !1.67
TRAJ 11.3 1.24 9.06
Table 3
Regression coe$cients for the nonlinear regression model
Coe$cient Fitted value S.E. t-statistic

76.5 4.62 16.59

`
181 127 1.42

`
!9.26 3.09 !3.00

"
0.0933 0.0193 4.83

`
!0.115 0.0124 !9.32

"
!0.00654 0.000703 !9.30
The remaining explanatory variables } cloud cover, day
of week, length of day, number of calms, rainfall, and
trajectory corridor location, are summarized in Table 1.
The "tted coe$cients for the Standard model are shown
in Table 2 along with the standard errors and t-statistic.
Except for the rainfall variable, the t-values exceeded 2.7
in absolute value, indicating that all the explanatory
variables contributed signi"cantly to the regression. The
term representing the nonlinear regression was by far
the strongest contributor, with a t-value exceeding 25.
The overall explained variance (R`) was 0.790, the mean
absolute error (MAE) was 8.45 ppb, and the root mean
square error (RMSE) was 10.58 ppb.
In order to optimize the nonlinear model, many vari-
able transformations and groupings of terms were evalu-
ated. The best results were obtained by using a second
order transformation of temperature and by applying an
exponential transformation to wind speed and relative
humidity separately (Eq. (2)). The "tted coe$cients for
the nonlinear parameters are shown in Table 3 along
with the standard errors and t-statistic. The accuracy of
the nonlinear regression model is quite good considering
that only three explanatory variables are used. The ex-
plained variance, MAE, and RMSE are 0.724, 9.52 ppb,
and 12.12 ppb, respectively. This level of performance is
su$ciently good that the nonlinear model by itself could
be used as the primary forecast model for those commu-
nities that lack access to the other predictor variables.
The Hi-lo model was "t to the days with peak ozone
concentrations below 50 ppb and above 105 ppb using
the same methods and explanatory variables as for the
Standard model, except that the variables for 24-h rain-
fall and the number of overnight calms were removed
from the regression for lack of statistical signi"cance.
Though the sample size was much smaller (162 vs. 580
days) the retained regression variables were statistically
signi"cant.
3.3. Comparison with previous models
To demonstrate the improvements realized in the
latest generation of regression models resulting from
the expanded nonlinear regression term and inclusion
of the trajectory parameter, a stepwise comparison of
models is presented in this section.
The forecast model used during the 1997 forecasting
season (`Standard Ia)
>"

b
"
#b

TMAX#b
`
TMAX`#b
`
TMAX"
#b
"
exp(WS)#b
`
AT
#b
"
TMIN#b
`
CC#b
`
RF
#b
"
NC#b
"
DOW

`
(3)
4668 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674
Table 4
Comparison of mean absolute error, root mean square error,
and explained variance of various models for the period
1993}1997 (580 days)
Forecast model MAE
(ppb)
RMSE
(ppb)
R`
Hybrid II 8.35 10.50 0.844
Standard II 8.45 10.58 0.790
Standard II (w/o traj.) 8.99 11.31 0.760
Standard I (w/o traj.) 9.50 11.97 0.729
Fig. 3. Scatterplot of Hybrid II model hindcasts against obser-
vations for the period 1993}1997. The diagonal indicates the line
of perfect correspondence between hindcasts and observations.
di!ers from the 1998 Standard model (`Standard IIa) in
several ways: (1) The use of nonlinear regression was
limited to the wind speed term only. (2) Maximum tem-
perature was treated as a linear variable and was trans-
formed up to the fourth order versus second order for
Standard II. (3) The e!ects of humidity were captured via
minimum temperature instead of relative humidity. (In
e!ect, minimum temperature served as a proxy for the
dewpoint, but actually gave better results than dewpoint
with the Louisville data set.) (4) The proxy term for the
seasonal cycle was theoretical atmospheric transmittance
instead of length of day. (5) Standard I bene"ted from
a square-root transformation of the dependent variable
in order to stabilize variance. Standard II did not bene"t
from any stabilization transformation probably owing to
the greater use of nonlinear regression which better cap-
tured interactions between the variables. Finally, Stan-
dard I lacked the air mass trajectory term. When we re"t
the Standard II model to exclude the trajectory term, but
keeping everything else the same and using the same days
to "t both models, the Standard II (w/o traj.) had 5.4%
lower mean absolute error (8.99 vs. 9.50 ppb), and 4.3%
greater explained variance (0.760 vs. 0.729), as compared
to Standard I. The bulk of this improvement is attributed
to incorporating temperature, wind speed, and relative
humidity into a single nonlinear regression term. Inclu-
sion of the air mass trajectory provided similar improve-
ments. The mean absolute error decreased an additional
6.0% (8.45 vs. 8.99 ppb), and the explained variance
increased an additional 3.9% (0.790 vs. 0.760). To sum-
marize (see Table 4), the Standard II regression had
11.1% less mean absolute error and 8.4% greater ex-
plained variance than Standard I but used only one
additional explanatory variable.
3.4. Hybrid model
By using the 3S criteria to identify the probable high
ozone days, a strategy can be employed to switch in an
optimal way between the Standard model to the Hi-lo
model to improve forecast performance beyond what
could be achieved using either model alone. Combining
the Standard II and Hi-lo II models in this way gives rise
to the Hybrid II model. The following 3S criteria were
used to invoke the Hi-lo II model: (1) expected maximum
temperature greater than 87 3F, (2) expected wind speed
less than 6 mph, and (3) expected cloud cover less than 2.5
tenths. Relative to the Standard II model, this switching
strategy reduced the mean absolute error by 1.2% (8.35
vs. 8.45 ppb) and increased the explained variance by
6.8% (0.844 vs. 0.790). Inspection of the scatterplot of
ozone observations vs. Hybrid II hindcasts (Fig. 3) con-
"rms that the switching does not introduce systematic
overprediction or underprediction error anywhere in the
range: the scatter of points coalesces along a straight line
having a slope of 1 and an intercept of 0.
4. Prediction of high ozone concentrations
It stands to reason that on the few days of extremely
high concentration during the ozone season, all of the
factors which contribute to high ozone must be at or near
to their extreme values for the season. Good regression
models can account for a substantial portion of the daily
ozone variation, but the models cannot account for the
e!ects of factors not included in the model. Conse-
quently, regression models (and other types of statistical
models) will tend to underpredict on days when all ozone
related factors are nearly maximal. The prediction errors
tend to be substantially negative on these days, due to the
strong e!ect of the unexplained factors. There are at least
two possible means of improving the prediction errors on
high ozone days. First, if some separate method (indepen-
dent of the principal regression model) can be found to
identify probable high ozone days, then an adjunct re-
gression equation can be developed which is specially
"tted for high ozone. This is the hybrid model approach.
W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674 4669
Fig. 4. Distribution of ranked model hindcast errors on days
during the 1993}1997 period when observed [O
`
]*120 ppb, by
model.
Table 5
Comparison of mean absolute error, root mean square error,
and explained variance of various models for the 3S-days (77
days) during the 1993}1997 period
Forecast model MAE
(ppb)
RMSE
(ppb)
R`
Hybrid II 9.07 11.30 0.633
Standard II 9.84 11.85 0.458
Standard II (w/o traj.) 11.67 14.15 0.362
Standard I (w/o traj.) 12.25 14.99 0.318
Second, if an additional ozone-related parameter (which
is su$ciently independent from the existing ones) can be
found, then this parameter can be added to the regression
in order to reduce the amount of unexplained variance.
Adding the trajectory parameter follows this approach.
This last development has been particularly useful, since
there is a strong association between high ozone days,
and the `in-corridora back trajectories. For example,
during 1993}1996, on the days where [O
`
]*120 ppb,
93% were `in-corridora days. By contrast, of the days
where [O
`
](60 ppb, only 10% were `in-corridora days.
These developments have made it possible to formu-
late a hybrid regression model which is much more
accurate in forecasting extreme ozone events than the
previously reported regression model. In most cases,
very little subjective adjustment to the model forecast is
necessary. Subjective or `experta skill is still required,
however, in evaluating all relevant meteorological in-
formation to make the best forecasts of the meteorologi-
cal input parameters. With the current hybrid model, the
high-end errors have been signi"cantly reduced, as com-
pared to previous models (Fig. 4). The graph shows the
successive improvements achieved by the updated regres-
sion equation (Standard II w/o traj.), the trajectory para-
meter (Standard II), and the hybrid technique (Hybrid
II). Based on the retrospective predictions, or `hindcastsa
of the 1993}1997 model calibration period, using ar-
chived meteorological data for the model input, the
Hybrid II model predicted 63% of the [O
`
]*120 ppb
days to within 15 ppb; and the MAE for those days was
12.1 ppb. In contrast, the Standard II model without
the trajectory parameter predicted only 36% of the
[O
`
]*120 ppb days to within 15 ppb, and the corre-
sponding MAE was 18.1 ppb. For the Standard I model,
re"tted to the 1993}1997 data, these statistics were re-
spectively 21% and 21.7 ppb. For the 77 days during the
1993}1997 period which were meteorologically prone to
high ozone, according to the `3Sa criteria, the Hybrid II
model also performed signi"cantly better than the other
models discussed above (Table 5).
The capability of predicting concentrations exceeding
the air quality standard, or other relevant threshold
levels, for purposes of issuing health advisories, etc., is
a critical aspect of OAD programs. The `detection ratea
(DR), de"ned as the fraction of observed threshold ex-
ceedances predicted by the model, is a useful indicator of
the model performance in predicting high threshold
values, such as the 1-h, 120 ppb standard still in e!ect in
the Louisville MSA as of this writing. The DR is also
referred to as the `probability of detectiona (e.g. Ryan,
1995). In simple terms, an event is detected if both the
model and observed values exceed the threshold. This
could be called the `zero tolerancea DR, because obser-
vations just over the threshold (e.g. by 1 ppb) would be
regarded as undetected, or `misseda, even if the predic-
tion was very close, but just under the threshold. It is
possible to assign a `tolerancea to the DR computation,
wherein exceedances would be regarded as detected as
long as the predictions exceeded an `alarm levela de"ned
as the threshold minus a certain tolerance (e.g. 15 ppb).
This scheme is rational in that it takes into account the
model imperfections and tendency to underpredict the
extreme values.
Another useful indicator of model performance is the
false alarm rate (FAR), nominally de"ned as the fraction
of predicted threshold exceedances in which the observed
values are below the threshold. It is appropriate to use
the same tolerance discussed above for computation of
the FAR, so that predicted exceedances would not be
counted as false alarms as long as the observed concen-
tration exceeded the alarm level.
Using the 1-h, 120 ppb NAAQS as the currently ap-
plicable threshold for Louisville, the theoretical DR and
FAR values were computed for the 1993}1997 model
calibration period. Both indicators were good to excel-
lent for the Hybrid II model, depending on the chosen
4670 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674
Table 6
Theoretical detection rates and false alarm rates for the Hybrid
II and Standard II (w/o traj.) models, based on a 120 ppb
threshold, for various tolerances during the 1993}1997 period
Tolerance
(ppb)
Hybrid II Std. II (w/o traj.)
DR (%) FAR (%) DR (%) FAR (%)
0 53 35 18 50
5 64 31 39 48
10 75 29 57 33
15 96 26 68 30
tolerance (Table 6). For example, at a tolerance of 15 ppb,
corresponding roughly to the 85th percentile of the
prediction errors for the period, the DR was 96%, and
the FAR was 26%. The DR and FAR indicators for the
Hybrid II model were signi"cantly better than those of
the Standard II model without the trajectory parameter
(Table 6), at several tolerance levels. These statistics are
based on hindcasts made for the 1993}1997 calibration
period, and so are theoretical values. In the forecast
mode, the values would be expected to di!er somewhat
(lower for the DR and higher for the FAR) for two
reasons. First, because the model input is meteorological
forecast data, and there are errors in these forecasts.
Second, because in the forecast mode the model is
being tested against new data, and the e!ect of the unex-
plained factors contributing to ozone may vary from year
to year.
The tolerance that leads to an acceptably high DR and
acceptably low FAR can be used to establish the alarm
level for issuing OADs in the community. Thus, if the
ozone forecast would equal or exceed the threshold
minus the tolerance value, the forecaster would recom-
mend that an ozone action day be called. During the
1998 ozone forecast season in Louisville, a 15 ppb toler-
ance was chosen, so OADs were recommended on days
when the model forecasts exceeded 105 ppb.
5. Model validation
5.1. Daily predictions for the 1998 ozone season
The Hybrid II model was deployed by the Air Pollu-
tion Control District of Je!erson County (APCDJC) in
cooperation with the Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management (IDEM), during the period 14 May
to 16 September 1998. The o$cial forecasts for each day
were prepared by IDEMmeteorologists. Since these fore-
casts were geared primarily towards the identi"cation of
the days appropriate for designation as ozone action
days, here they are referred to as the `ozone actiona,
or OA forecasts. Normally, these were prepared each
Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Some OA forecasts
were updated on Tuesdays and Thursdays if high ozone
was expected. Thus, less than half of the OA forecasts
were next day forecasts, a shortcoming which was due to
sta$ng limitations. A second set of forecasts, called `raw
forecastsa, was prepared at the university. The raw ozone
forecasts were all next day forecasts, and were generated
by directly entering the unadjusted meteorological fore-
cast data obtained from the NGM numerical weather
prediction model (the NGM MOS output is available
twice daily from several internet sites) and the trajectory
parameter as determined by the HYSPLIT trajectory
model. In addition, the hindcasts from the Hybrid II
model were prepared and archived once the recorded
meteorological data became available from the National
Weather Service (NWS). The observed daily 1-h maxima
of ground level ozone were provided by the APCD.
The raw forecasts tracked the day-to-day ozone vari-
ation reasonably well (Fig. 5). Some of the high peaks
(e.g. [O
`
]'120 ppb) were seriously missed by the raw
forecasts, however. The o$cial forecasts were more accu-
rate on these days, particularly when next day forecasts
were made. The hindcasts of the high peaks were also
more accurate than those of the raw forecast. One prob-
lem with forecasting the high peaks is that in this realm,
the model predictions are much more sensitive to small
changes in certain meteorological parameters such as
temperature and wind speed. Therefore, careful review of
all pertinent meteorological information, taking into ac-
count expected errors in the raw forecast information, is
crucial to the process. Such expert skill requires experi-
ence with both meteorological and ozone forecasting,
and can be very e!ective in improving the next-day
forecasts when relatively high ozone concentrations are
expected.
The overall statistical comparison of the 1998 hind-
casts, raw forecasts, and OA forecasts is presented in
Table 7. The hindcast MAE was 11.0 ppb, which is about
2.7 ppb higher than the value from the hindcasts of the
1993}1997 model calibration period. This deviation was
higher than expected, since experience with using the
original model on the 1997 ozone forecasts led us to
expect only about 1 ppb added to the hindcast MAE. The
hindcast average error, or bias was !6.8 ppb, whereas
from the 1997 results we had anticipated a near zero bias.
However, the original model exhibited similar increases
in the MAE and bias in calculating a set of hindcasts for
1998. Part of the explanation for these anomalies is that
some is due to normal year-to-year statistical variation.
For example, the annual MAEvaried from 7.0 to 9.1, and
the annual bias varied from!1.3 to 1.0 for the hindcasts
of the 1993}1997 model calibration period. It is possible
also that uncharacteristic di!erences in meteorology and
ozone climatology between 1998 and the 1993}1997 cal-
ibration period played an important role. We note that
for Louisville, May and September of 1998 were much
W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674 4671
Fig. 5. Time series of observed and predicted daily maximum 1-h ozone concentration for the raw forecasts during the 1998 ozone
season.
Table 7
Error statistics for the 1998 daily 1-h maximum ozone hindcasts, raw ozone forecasts, Ozone Action forecasts, and next day Ozone
Action forecasts
Index Hindcast Raw forecast OA forecast 1-d OA forecast
90th pct. (ppb) 7.8 21.8 27.0 31.1
10th pct. (ppb) !22.6 !20.3 !18.8 !22.1
Average (ppb) !6.8 0.9 4.1 3.4
MAE (ppb) 11.0 13.4 15.4 15.2
Table 8
Detection rates and false alarm rates for the 1998 daily 1-h
maximum ozone hindcasts, raw forecasts, ozone action forecasts
and next day ozone action forecasts
Index Hindcast Raw
forecast
OA
forecast
1-d OA
forecast
DR 1.00 0.40 0.60 1.00
FAR 0.20 0.50 0.47 0.33
warmer and drier than usual, and July was cooler and
rainier, as compared to the model calibration period.
The MAE of the raw forecast, at 13.4 ppb, was slightly
higher than that of the hindcast. The bias, at 0.9 ppb, was
actually a signi"cant improvement. This `boosta may
have come from the fact that for our area, the NGM
model tends to over-predict peak temperatures during
the summer months. The MAE of the OA forecasts was
greater than that of the raw forecasts by about 2 ppb, and
the bias was higher by about 3 ppb. This was mostly due
to the fact that the forecasters' "rst priority was to ident-
ify and recommend OADs, rather than to minimize the
overall forecast error. Therefore, uncertainties in the vari-
ous forecasted meteorological parameters were typically
hedged in the direction of higher predicted ozone, in
order to avoid a `missed exceedance.a The error statistics
for the next day OA forecasts (2-d and 3-d forecasts
removed) were only slightly improved. Probably, the
aforementioned `miss avoidancea technique contributed
strongly to the overall error statistics of the next day OA
forecasts as well. Nevertheless, the technique was success-
ful when measured against its objective, since OADs were
called on all days exceeding the 120 ppb threshold for
which next day forecasts were available.
5.2. Predictions of high ozone in 1998
The detection rate (DR) for the 1998 hindcasts, based
upon the nominal threshold value of 120 ppb, and a 15
ppb tolerance, was 5/5, or 100% (Table 8). The false
alarm rate (FA) was 2/10, or 20%. These values are close
to the expected values of 96% and 26% from the calib-
ration hindcasts. For the raw forecasts, the correspond-
ing DR was 2/5, or 40%, and the FAR was 6/12, or 50%.
The disparity in these "gures is due to the critical rela-
tionship between ozone and meteorological factors on
the days when conditions conducive to high ozone exist.
4672 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674
This makes the meteorological forecast errors more im-
portant on these critical days. For logistical reasons
associated with disseminating an ozone action alert for
the next day, the forecasts must be issued by 11 a.m. This
time is usually just prior to the release of the next up-
dated numerical weather model output, which is the 1200
UTC (8 a.m. EDT) model initialization run. As a result,
the available output is the 0000 UTC run, which is
about 15 h old at the time of the forecast. Since ozone
normally peaks near 3 p.m. EDT, the next day forecasts
are actually for about 42 h ahead. A skilled ozone
forecaster can take the critical ozone relationships and
forecast uncertainty into account, as well as departures
between the raw model forecasts and other expert fore-
casts, e.g. from NWS. Other information, such as the
location and strength of high pressure systems may also
be taken into account. Thus, the DR for the next day OA
forecasts was 3/3, or 100%, and the FAR was 4/12 or
33%. These indicators compare well to those of the
calibration hindcasts. When the 2-d and 3-d forecasts are
added in, the results are less impressive: 3/5 (60%) for
the DR and 8/17 (47%) for the FAR. Of the two missed
forecasts, one was for two days ahead, and the other was
for three days ahead. Both occurred in middle September,
near the end of the ozone forecast season. It appears
doubtful that forecasts of high ozone events beyond a next
day outlook can be made with any degree of reliability.
5.3. Application to forecasts of 8-h daily maximum ozone
An optimized version of an 8-h ozone forecast model
would involve re-examining all possible meteorological
input parameters, using various averaging periods for the
data, and combining these parameters into several di!er-
ent formulations with the aim of minimizing the model
error. As a prelude to this major undertaking, a rudimen-
tary 8-h forecast model was developed by using a correla-
tion equation to convert the 1-h forecasted ozone values
to equivalent 8-h forecasts. The correlation equation was
a second order polynomial, "tted to the 1-h and 8-h ozone
daily maxima from the 1993}1997 calibration period. The
purpose was to test the feasibility of using the same or
similar model formulation for an 8-h forecast model, and
to arrive at an upper bound estimate of the model MAE.
The resulting preliminary 8-h model predicted the 8-h
ozone daily maxima reasonably well. The time series of
predicted and observed values appeared much the same
as those in Fig. 5, when rescaled appropriately. As for the
overall forecast statistics, the MAEs for the converted
hindcasts, raw forecasts, and OA forecasts were respec-
tively 10.1, 10.8 and 11.9 ppb. The DR values, based on
the nominal threshold of 80 ppb, and using a 15 ppb
tolerance were respectively 84, 92 and 89%. Of course,
there were a far greater number of threshold exceedances
for the 8-h, 80 ppb threshold: 38 as compared to 5 for the
1-h, 120 ppb threshold. The corresponding FAR values
were 22, 24 and 29%. These results seem rather good for
such a crude estimation procedure. Thus, it seems likely
that it is feasible to develop an 8-h forecast model which
is at least as accurate as the 1-h forecast model.
6. Conclusions
The Hybrid II model was signi"cantly more accurate
than the original Standard I model for predicting 1-h
maximum daily ozone for the Louisville area during the
1993}1997 model calibration period. The improvement
was even more dramatic at the higher end of the ozone
distribution. The improved accuracy is attributed to
a more advanced regression equation, use of the hybrid
concept, and the addition of the trajectory parameter.
The Hybrid II model was "eld tested during the 1998
ozone season, and it performed reasonably well.
When the model was used by ozone forecasters during
the 1998 ozone season to predict the days that were
expected to approach or exceed the current 1-h ozone
standard, the model performed well when the forecasts
were next day forecasts. When the forecasts were made
two or three days out, the model did poorly, due to the
added uncertainty in the meteorological forecasts. It ap-
pears feasible to use the same or similar formulation for
an 8-h ozone forecast model. The accuracy would be
expected to be about the same, or slightly better than for
the 1-h model described herein.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the Air Pollu-
tion Control District of Je!erson County (APCDJC).
The authors wish to thank Art Williams, Arthur Chang,
Cynthia Lee, and other APCDJC o$cials for their en-
couragement and cooperation. LGE Energy Corporation
and the University of Louisville Research Foundation also
provided support. We wish also to thank meteorologists
Steve Sherman, John Welch, Mark Derf, and Mark Ney-
man of the Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement for their cooperation and technical assistance
throughout the model development and evaluation.
Graduate students Becky Hall, Richard Decker and
Chutikoon Gajaseni faithfully performed many data col-
lection and analysis chores required for this project.
References
Ashbaugh, L.L., Malm, W.C., Sadeh, W.Z., 1985. A residence
time probability analysis of sulfur concentrations at Grand
Canyon National Park. Atmospheric Environment 19,
1263}1270.
Bloom"eld, P., Royle, J.A., Steinburg, L.J., Yang, Q., 1996.
Accounting for meteorological e!ects in measuring urban
W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674 4673
ozone levels and trends. Atmospheric Environment 30,
3067}3077.
Comrie, A.C., 1994. Tracking ozone: air-mass trajectories and
pollutant source regions in#uencing ozone in Pennsylvania
forests. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
84, 635}651.
Comrie, A.C., 1997. Comparing neural networks and regression
models for ozone forecasting. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association 47, 653}663.
Draxler, R.A., 1991. The accuracy of trajectories during
ANATEX calculated using dynamic model analysis versus
rawindsonde observations. Journal of Applied Meteorology
30, 1446}1467.
Holzworth, G.C., 1967. Mixing depths, wind speeds and air
pollution potential for selected locations in the United
States. Journal of the American Meteorological Association,
1039}1044.
Hubbard, M.C., Cobourn, W.G., 1998. Development of a regres-
sion model to forecast ground-level ozone concentration in
Louisville, KY. Atmospheric Environment 32, 2637}2647.
IMSL, 1992. FORTRAN Subroutines for Statistical Analysis.
User's manual-version 3.0. IMSL, Houston, TX, USA.
Moy, L.A., Dickerson, R.R., Ryan, W.F., 1994. Relationship
between back trajectories and tropospheric trace gas concen-
trations in rural Virginia. Atmospheric Environment 17,
2789}2800.
Niu, W., 1996. Nonlinear additive models for environmental
time series, with applications to ground-level ozone data
analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91,
1310}1321.
NOAA, 1998. HYSPLIT4 (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian
Integrated Trajectory) Model. Internet URL: http://
www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html, NOAA Air Re-sour-
ces Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Poirot, R.L., Wishinski, P.R., 1986. Visibility, sulfate and air-mass
history associated with summertime aerosol in northern Ver-
mont. Atmospheric Environment 20, 1457}1469.
Ryan, W.F., 1995. Forecasting severe ozone episodes in the
Baltimore metropolitan area. Atmospheric Environment 29,
2387}2398.
Ryan, W.F., Luebehusen, E., 1996. Accuracy of ozone air quality
forecasts in the Baltimore metropolitan area. 96-TA45.03,
Presentation at 89th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Nash-
ville, Tennessee, of the Air and Waste Management Associ-
ation, 23}28 June 1996.
Ryan, W.F., Doddridge, R.R., Dickerson, R.R., Morales, R.M.,
Hallock, A.H., Roberts, P.T., Blumenthal, D.L., Anderson,
J.A., 1998. Pollutant transport during a regional O
`
episode
in the mid-Atlantic states. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association 48, 786}797.
US EPA, 1994. The experimental UV index factsheet: explaining
the index to the public. EPA 430-F-94-019, US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency}National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration.
US EPA, 1996. Review of National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards for Ozone: Assessment of Scienti"c and Technical
Information. EPA 452/R-96-007, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
US EPA, 1997. OTAG technical supporting document. Internet
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/otag/"nalrpt/.
US EPA, 1998a. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Report, 1996. EPA 454/R-97-013, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
US EPA, 1998b. NO
V
emissions coal-"red plants continental
U.S., Internet URL:http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/emission/
index.htm.
Wol!, G.T., Lioy, P.J., 1977. An investigation of long-
range transport of ozone across the Midwestern and
Eastern United States. Atmospheric Environment 11,
797}802.
Wol!, G.T., Lioy, P.J., 1978. An empirical model for forecasting
maximum daily ozone levels in the Northeastern U.S.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 28,
1035}1038.
4674 W.G. Cobourn, M.C. Hubbard / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 4663}4674

You might also like