5 views

Uploaded by Touhid Islam

A New Mathematical Model of Air Pollutant Concentration Averaging Time and Frequency

- Road-Tunnels TP11 Criteria InTunnel Ambient Air Quality
- 12 Concentration Exercises from 1918.docx
- air pollution.pdf
- HEAVY METAL CONTENT VARIATIONS IN TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES AND SEDIMENT DUST IN ZENICA CITY DURING 11 YEARS PERIOD 2006 ? 2016.
- NASA: 80058main 51401Astrogram
- GO102 Research Project
- La Deq_ a Site-specific Recap Evaluation_appendixi (Looking for 20% Opacity - Fugitive Dust)
- Env Issue Review
- air pollution.pdf
- Anotec - Progressive Odour Management
- Chapter 11-Situational Influences
- ASIKAINEN 2004 Environmental Impact of Household biogas Plants in India.pdf
- Comparing generation cost of DG and thermal power plants by considering their generation impacts on health
- m6C - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)
- Loc 1
- GridDataReport Design
- Lorelei Sutton a Howl in the Night (1)
- Propoasal Writing
- 2017_Incident Investigation and Reporting
- Contribution of Traffic to Levels of Ambient Air Pollution in Europe

You are on page 1of 8

Concentration Averaging Time and Frequency

R. I. Larsen

To cite this article: R. I. Larsen (1969) A New Mathematical Model of Air Pollutant Concentration

Averaging Time and Frequency, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 19:1, 24-30, DOI:

10.1080/00022470.1969.10466453

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm16

Download by: [Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology ] Date: 08 May 2017, At: 23:33

R. I. Larsen

A New Mathematical Model

National Air

Pollution Control Of Air Pollutant Concentration

Administration

Averaging Time and Frequency

A previous mathematical model of air pollutant concentration, averaging time, and frequency gave results

close to actual measurements for the relatively short averaging times for which it was used. However,

recent calculations show that mathematically unsound results are obtained with the model for averaging

times longer than one month. A new mathematical model, described herein, gives mathematically sound

results for all averaging times. The two dominant features of this new model are derived from observa-

tions that indicate: (1) air pollutant concentrations are approximately lognormally distributed for all pollu-

tants in all cities for all averaging times; and (2) median concentration is proportional to averaging time

to an exponent. Applications to problems air pollutant effects and air quality standards are shown.

The purpose of this paper is to present aging times for which it was tried. Z,NO. OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS

2 t 0 -I -2

a new mathematical model for the ex- Recent, more extensive computer cal-

pression of air pollutant concentration culations show, however, that the model

as a function of averaging time and is mathematically unstable for averaging STANDARD GEOMETRIC

freqviency and to show how this model times greater than 1 month. As DEVIATION,

16 PERCENTILE

can be used to relate air quality criteria averaging time is increased, the model 50 PERCENTILE

to air quality standards and emission equation changes gradually until the 0106 P P M \ 0.106 PPM = 2 4 e

0.043 PPM

standards. square root of a negative number ap-

Continuous air pollutant concentra- pears and imaginary numbers are pro-

tion data for seven pollutants have duced. A revised model was necessary MEDIAN, m.

been analyzed previously for six cities to overcome this problem.

for 3 years.1 The analyses indicated

A New Mathematical Model 0.01 0.1 1 16 50 80 99 9999

that: FREQUENCY % OF TIME CONC. EXCEEDED STATED VALUE

Air pollutant concentration data can

1. Concentrations are approximately be presented in digital tables (Table Figure 1. Frequency that various 1-hr-averag-

lognormally distributed for all pollu- I) or as analog plots (Figures 1 and 2). ing-time nitrogen oxides concentrations ex-

tants in all cities for all averaging ceeded various values in Washington, D. C.

To determine what mathematical model from 12/1/61 to 12/1/64.

times. might best fit the actual data, a com-

2. Maximum concentration is inversely puter program was written to plot con-

proportional to averaging time to centration data (Figure 2). Data 1 were more than 100) indicates that the data

an exponent. plotted for carbon monoxide, hydro- can be described by a mathematical

carbons, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, model with the following character-

A previous mathematical model2 that nitrogen oxides (NO -f- NO2), oxidant, istics:

gives air pollutant concentration as a and sulfur dioxide for Chicago, Cin-

function of averaging time and fre- 1. Concentrations are approximately

cinnati, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San lognormally distributed for all pollu-

quency was constructed using these Francisco, and Washington for each

two fundamental characteristics of the tants in all cities for all averaging

of the 3 years and for the 3-year period times (same as previous model).

data. The model worked for all aver- from December 1, 1961 to December 2. The median concentration (50 per-

1, 1964. (A December 1 starting time centile) is proportional to averaging

was selected so that one of the averag- time to an exponent (and thus plots

ing times would be for a 3-month as a straight line on logarithmic

Dr. Larsen is in the Bureau of seasonal value, starting with winter,

Criteria and Standards National Air paper).

Pollution Control Administration, which is defined here as the three cold-

411 West Chapel Hill Street, Dur- est months, December, January, and In the new model maximum concentra-

ham, North Carolina 27701. February.) tion is still approximately inversely

Analysis of these plots (a total of proportional to averaging time to an

Table I. Concentration vs. averaging time and frequency for nitrogen oxides (ppm) in Washington, D. C , December 1,1961 to December 1,1964.

Arith Data

'Time Mean Max Min Avail. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 9!3.9 99 .99 99.999

5 Min 0.07 1.78 0.00 70. 1.69 1.03 0. 71 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0,.00 0 .00 0.00

10 0.07 1.76 0.00 70. 1.03 0. 71 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 .00 0 .00

15 0.07 1.74 0.00 70. 1.03 0. 71 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0 .00 0 .00

30 0.07 1.65 0.00 70. 1.00 0. 70 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 .00 0 .00

lHour 0.07 1.41 0.00 70. 0. 71 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 .00

2 0.07 1.29 0.00 68. 0. 66 0.37 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 .00

4 0.07 0.88 0.00 72. 0. 60 0.36 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 .00

8 0.07 0.69 0.00 74. 0. 55 0.33 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

12 0.07 0.51 0.00 76. 0.29 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02

1 Day 0.07 0.38 0.01 76. 0.25 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02

2 0.07 0.35 0.02 69. 0.22 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02

4 0.07 0.26 0.02 73. 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04

7 0.07 0.20 0.03 74. 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04

14 0.07 0.15 0.03 79. 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04

1 Month 0.07 0.13 0.04 86. 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04

2 0.07 0.11 0.04 89. 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05

3 0.07 0.10 0.04 83. 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05

6 0.07 0.08 0.06 100. 0.07

lYear 0.07 0.07 0.06 100.

exponent for averaging times of less number of samples that could have and thus gives erroneously low values

than 1 month. The plot curves slightly been taken if sampling had been con- for some averaging times of less than

beyond 1 month (Figure 2). tinuous. Although continuous data 1-hr duration.

The plotted percentile lines appear were used here, previous studies indicate Calculating the Standard

to be straight (Figure 2). Actually that fairly accurate approximations can Geometric Deviation

they are parabolas that originate at be obtained with relatively few samples.2 Variability in pollutant concentra-

the "arrowhead" point of the plot. The two points that best depict results tion is indicated by the standard geo-

The model possesses one other basic from continuous air quality data are metric deviation. If two points for

property that results in a very useful the 0.1 and 30 percentile concentrations the same averaging time are available,

equation. This simple property is that for 1-hr-duration samples (x points the standard geometric deviation can

the arithmetic mean for a particular on Figures 1 and 2). A 1-hr-duration be calculated as

set of data is the same value for all sampling time was selected because the

averaging times. This property links response time3 for some air sampling sga = exp{[ln(co/c6)]/(za - zb)} (2)

all averaging times by the equation2: instruments, and especially for the ni-

trogen oxides (Figure 2), is very long where ca and c& are the concentrations

m = mgSg-5lasa (1)

where m is the arithmetic mean, tng is AVERAGING TIME

SECOND MINUTE HOUR DAY MONTH YEAR

the geometric mean and sg is the stan- 1 1 5 15 1 2 4 8 1 2 4 7 14 1 23 6 1 3 10

dard geometric deviation for a particular I I TT I - | - T I | I | I I I I | I I I |

3.412 1.359 0.635 0 . 4 2 8 0.128 0.066

I

averaging time, and In indicates natural EXPECTED ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONC IN PPM

logarithms to the base 2.718.

As will be noted later, the object of the

model is to fit the most polluted one-

half of the air samples, for these are of

most interest for air pollution effects,

criteria, and standards.

The model requires only two items of O.O1 O

information about air quality. These O

items are the concentrations that are

exceeded by a specified percentage of

the air samples. These values may be

for samples of the same or of different 0.0001 O.OO1 O.O1 O.I 1 10 100 1OOO 10,000

averaging time. The accuracy of the AVERAGING TIME, HOURS

model will depend on the number of air Figure 2. Concentration vs. averaging time and frequency for nitrogen

samples taken compared to the total oxides in Washington from 12/1/61 to 12/1/64.

Table II. Plotting position of extreme concentrations and various percentiles for various

averaging times.

Plotting Position

Z(No. of std.

Averaging time No. of samples Frequency, 60%/N deviations

(hr) in year (% of time) from median)

1 sec 0.000278 31,500,000 0.0000019 5.50

1 min 0.0166 525,000 0.0001142 4.73

5 0.0833 105,000 0.000571 4.39

8.8 0.146 60,000 0.001 4.27

10 0.166 52,500 0.001142 4.24

15 0.25 35,000 0.001715 4.14

30 0.5 17,500 0.00343 3.98

lhr 1 8,760 0.00685 3.81

1.46 1.46 6,000 0.01 3.72

2 2 4,380 0.0137 3.63

4 4 2,190 0.0274 3.46

8 8 1,095 0.0548 3.26

12 12 730 0.0822 3.14

14.6 14.6 600 0.1 3.09

lday 24 365 0.1644 2.94

2 48 183 0.328 2.72

4 96 91 0.657 2.48

5.90 146 60 1 2.33

7 168 52 1.153 2.27

14 346 26 2.31 1.99

1 month 730 12 5 1.64

2 1460 6 10 1.28

3 2190 4 15 1.04

6 4380 2 30 0.52

1 year 8760 1 50 0

f

ing time at point a would then have {w2 - 2(1 -

at points a and b, In indicates natural

1

w v) [\n{ca/cb)

logarithms, za and z& are the number been calculated as follows: 1 - v

of deviations the points are from the

median (Table II), sga is the standard (10)

v = (4)

geometric deviation for the averaging When cb is greater than ca, use + radi-

time at which point a is located, and cal. When cb is less than ca, use

where ttot is the total averaging time

exp indicates that e, 2.718, is to be radical. For the example

plotted (1 yr, 8760 hr, Table II) and

taken to the power that follows in

ta and tb are the averaging times for

brackets. The standard geometric devi- soa = exp x

points a and b. For the example

ation for 1-hour averages can be calcu-

(

cited 2.18 - {2.182 -

lated for Figures 1 and 2 from data in

Tables I and II as ln(8760/96) 2(1 - 0.50) [ln(

=

V (5) 1 - 0.50

saa = exp{[ln(0.71/0.07)]/ ~ ln(8760/l)

(3.09-0.52)} (3) v = 0.50 (6)

soa = 2.46 saa = 2.48 (12)

The next equation is

Figure 2 could have been plotted for which is very close to the 2.46 obtained

averaging times of longer than 1 year. W = Za V^2Zb (7) with Equation (3).

One year was selected for later use in

an example on air quality standards. where za and Zb are the number of devi- Calculating the Geometric Mean

As was mentioned earlier, it is pos- ations the points are from the median The geometric mean for a particular

sible to calculate the standard geometric (Table II). For the example averaging time can be calculated2 as

deviation from any two items of in-

formation about concentration. For w = 3.09 - (0.50)V(1.28) (8) mga == Ca/Sga'a (13)

instance, point b might have been se- w = 2.18 (9) For the example

lected as the 10 percentile concentration

for 4-day-duration samples, a value The next equation is

of 0.12 (Table I). The standard geo- 0.71 ppm

mgrhr = (14)

metric deviation for the 1-hour averag- Sga = exp X 2.463-09

Table III. Slope of maximum concentration line for various 1-hr-average standard geometric deviations.

Std. Geo. Dev. 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

1.00 0.000 -0.004 -0.008 -0.012 -0.017 -0.021 -0.025 -0.029 -0.034 -0.038

1.10 -0.042 -0.046 -0.050 -0.054 -0.057 -0.061 -0.065 -0.069 -0.072 -0.076

1.20 -0.080 -0.083 -0.087 -0.090 -0.094 -0.097 -0.101 -0.104 -0.107 -0.111

1.30 -0.114 -0.117 -0.121 -0.124 -0.127 -0.130 -0.133 -0.136 -0.139 -0.142

1.40 -0.145 -0.148 -0.151 -0.154 -0.157 0.160 -0.163 -0.165 -0.168 -0.171

1.50 -0.174 -0.176 0.179 -0.182 -0.184 -0.187 -0.190 -0.192 -0.195 -0.197

1.60 -0.200 -0.202 -0.205 -0.207 -0.210 -0.212 -0.214 -0.217 -0.219 -0.222

1.70 -0.224 -0.226 -0.229 -0.231 -0.233 -0.235 -0.238 -0.240 -0.242 -0.244

1.80 0.246 -0.248 -0.251 -0.253 -0.255 -0.257 -0.259 -0.261 -0.263 -0.265

1.90 0.267 -0.269 -0.271 -0.273 -0.275 -0.277 -0.279 -0.281 -0.283 -0.285

2.00 -0.287 -0.288 0.290 -0.292 -0.294 -0.296 -0.298 -0.299 -0.301 -0.303

2.10 -0.305 -0.307 0.308 -0.310 -0.312 -0.314 -0.315 -0.317 -0.319 -0.320

2.20 -0.322 -0.324 0.325 -0.327 -0.329 -0.330 -0.332 -0.333 -0.335 -0.337

2.30 -0.338 -0.340 -0.341 -0.343 -0.344 -0.346 -0.347 -0.349 -0.350 -0.352

2.40 -0.353 -0.355 -0.356 -0.358 -0.359 0.361 -0.362 -0.364 -0.365 0.366

2.50 -0.368 -0.369 -0.371 -0.372 -0.373 -0.375 -0.376 0.378 -0.379 -0.380

2.60 -0.382 -0.383 -0.384 -0.386 -0.387 -0.388 -0.390 0.391 -0.392 -0.393

2.70 -0.395 -0.396 -0.397 -0.398 -0.400 -0.401 -0.402 -0.403 -0.405 -0.406

2.80 -0.407 -0.408 -0.410 -0.411 -0.412 -0.413 -0.414 -0.415 -0.417 -0.418

2.90 -0.419 -0.420 -0.421 -0.422 -0.424 0.425 -0.426 -0.427 -0.428 -0.429

3.00 -0.430 -0.431 -0.432 -0.434 -0.435 -0.436 -0.437 -0.438 -0.439 -0.440

3.10 -0.441 -0.442 -0.443 -0.444 -0.445 -0.446 -0.447 -0.448 -0.449 -0.450

3.20 -0.451 -0.452 -0.453 -0.454 -0.455 -0.456 -0.457 -0.458 -0.459 -0.460

3.30 -0.461 -0.462 -0.463 -0.464 -0.465 -0.466 -0.467 -0.468 -0.469 -0.470

3.40 -0.471 -0.472 -0.473 -0.474 0.475 -0.476 -0.477 -0.477 -0.478 -0.479

3.50 -0.480 -0.481 0.482 -0.483 -0.484 0.485 -0.485 -0.486 -0.487 -0.488

3.60 -0.489 -0.490 -0.491 -0.492 -0.492 -0.493 -0.494 -0.495 -0.496 -0.497

3.70 -0.497 -0.498 -0.499 -0.500 -0.501 -0.502 -0.502 -0.503 -0.504 -0.505

3.80 -0.506 0.506 -0.507 -0.508 -0.509 -0.510 -0.510 -0.511 -0.512 -0.513

3.90 -0.514 -0.514 -0.515 0.516 -0.517 0.517 -0.518 -0.519 -0.520 -0.520

4.00 -0.521 -0.522 -0.523 -0.523 -0.524 0.525 -0.526 -0.526 -0.527 -0.528

4.10 -0.529 -0.529 -0.530 -0.531 -0.531 -0.532 -0.533 -0.534 -0.534 -0.535

4.20 -0.536 -0.536 -0.537 -0.538 -0.539 -0.539 -0.540 -0.541 -0.541 -0.542

4.30 -0.543 -0.543 -0.544 -0.545 -0.545 0.546 -0.547 -0.547 -0.548 0.549

4.40 -0.549 -0.550 -0.551 -0.551 -0.552 -0.553 -0.553 -0.554 -0.555 -0.555

4.50 -0.556 -0.556 -0.557 0.558 0.558 0.559 -0.560 -0.560 -0.561 -0.562

4.60 -0.562 -0.563 0.563 -0.564 -0.565 -0.565 -0.566 -0.566 -0.567 -0.568

4.70 -0.568 -0.569 -0.569 -0.570 -0.571 -0.571 -0.572 0.572 -0.573 -0.574

4.80 -0.574 -0.575 -0.575 -0.576 -0.576 -0.577 -0.578 -0.578 -0.579 -0.579

4.90 -0.580 -0.580 -0.581 -0.582 -0.582 -0.583 -0.583 -0.584 0.584 -0.585

Note. The standard geometric deviation for a particular slope is the sum of the left and top margin values.

m

g hr = 0.044 ppm (15) Calculating Frequency and Maximum less than 1 month. The slope of this

Values

line could be determined from any two

The geometric mean for any averaging- Once the geometric mean and stan- points on it. Averaging times of 1

time can be determined from dard geometric deviation have been cal- hour and 1 day were selected for this

culated for an averaging time, the con- purpose, and slope has been calculated

mot = centration expected for any frequency as a function of the standard geometric

moa Sga{{Xn(-t/ia)] -5 l n (16) can be calculated2 as deviation for 1-hr averaging time (Table

For example, the geometric mean for c = masgz (22) III). The equation of the maximum

8-hour averages would be calculated as line can be expressed as:

For instance, the maximum 1-hr-

tngt = (0.044) X average concentration expected once Cmax ~ Cmax hrf v^"/

(2.46) l[ln(8/1)]

- 5In 2

-46)/[ln(8760/l)] a year (z value from Table II) could where t is time, cmax is the maximum

be calculated as concentration for that time, cmax h r is the

(17)

cmaxhr = (0.044 ppm) (2.46)3-81 (23) concentration for the maximum hour

mgt = 0.048 (18) expected once per year, and b is the

ax hr = 1.36 (24) slope of the line on logarithmic paper

Similarly, the standard geometric devi- (Table I I I ) . Thus the maximum 1-

ation can be calculated for any averag- This point is shown as the line plot, day-duration sample expected once a

ing time as appears digitally at the top of the graph year would be calculated as

Sgt = S, o P" I/a (W0]/[lnV*(Wfc)] (19) (Figure 2), and indicates that the ex-

pected annual maximum concentration = (1.36) (24) (26)

axday

For 8-hr averages, this would calculate for 1-hr-duration samples is about 1.36 c raax day = 0.43 p p m (27)

as ppm. Calculated values are also shown

for several other averaging times. Other researchers have calculated

Sgt = As has been noted earlier, the maxi- theoretical maximum concentrations

1/2

2.46 [ln (8760/8)]/[In'/2(8760/D] (2Q) mum concentration line for the mathe- for various averaging times with models

matical model (Figure 2) is essentially that employ meteorologic diffusion

sat = 2.20 (21) a straight line for averaging times of equations. 4 Their data also plot ap-

10 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 l i 1 1 1 ll| 1 i 1 1 l 1L

EQUIVALENT STD.

- SLOPE -

RESEARCHER GEO. DEVIATION

OF LINE

_ FOR 1-HR. AVG. TIME -

WIPPERMANN -0.14 1.38

MEADE -0.17 1.49

TNO -0.24 1.77

MEADE'T^o~~;

0.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i i i i i i 11 i i i i i i 11

0.1 1 10 100

AVERAGING TIME, HOURS

calculated from meteorologic diffusion equations.

proximately as straight lines on loga- to prevent such plant damage, they theoretically be smelled on the average

rithmic paper (Figure 3). The slopes might set the air quality standard for of once every few minutes. Because

of these lines are associated, in this oxidant at a maximum value of 0.03 of these problems, particular care must

model, with standard geometric devi- ppm for an 8-hr averaging time. be taken in selecting the frequency of

ations ranging from 1.38 to 1.77 (Table How frequently should damaging occurrence values in standards so that

III). These standard geometric devi- levels of oxidant be allowed? On two they are commensurate with the unde-

ations are close to those actually ob- daysJuly 17 and 18, 1959photo- sired effects to be avoided, the pollu-

served1 (Table IV) from samples taken chemical smog caused almost $5 million tant involved, the averaging time, etc.

by the Continuous Air Monitoring damage to tobacco growing in Connecti- Oxidant is irritating to people as well

Program (CAMP) operated by the cut.8 It is important to note that only as damaging to plants. As an ex-

National Air Pollution Control Admin- one such event a year can damage the ample, let us assume that when oxidant

istration. crop. Air Quality standards that spe- concentration exceeds 0.1 ppm, aver-

The least variation in pollutant con- cify that a damaging concentration is aged over 1 hr, it may cause slight eye

centration, as measured by the stan- not to be exceeded for some arbitrary irritation. Thus the air management

dard geometric deviation, occurs for frequency, such as 1 per cent of the board for a particular air quality region

carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons time, would have been inadequate to might specify that the 1-hr-average

(Table IV), two pollutants that are protect the crop. If the standard concentration of oxidant shall not ex-

released fairly continuously at low had specified that the damaging level ceed 0.1 ppm. To prevent plant

levels by motor vehicles. The greatest could be exceeded 1 per cent of the damage, the board might specify that

variation occurs with nitric oxide, a time, then 11 such events per year the plant-damaging concentration shall

pollutant that is changed rapidly to would exceed the limit (Table II). not be exceeded more than once a year.

nitrogen dioxide in sunlight, and thus Incidentally, I will have to take the Since the effects of eye irritation would

shows relatively low concentrations blame for getting air quality standards not be as crucial, the board might decide

during daytime hours and relatively on the wrong track by using the 1 per- that eye irritation could occur 4 times

high values at night. Oxidant concen- centile. The 1 percentile was used in a year. The board might thus have

tration is also influenced by sunlight, 1959 as an arbitrary point on a log- two air quality standards for oxidant:

and shows the next most variation. probability plot, in order to calculate 1. 0.03 ppm for 8-hr-duration samples,

how much reduction in oxidant pre- not to be exceeded more than once

Applications for Air Quality Standards

cursors was necessary to achieve the a year.

The mathematical model allows con- California oxidant standard of 0.15

centration to be expressed as a function ppm for 1-hr-duration samples.9 The 2. 0.1 ppm for 1-hr-duration samples,

of averaging time and frequency. The calculations were based on allowing such not to be exceeded more than 4 times

next step is to relate these results to an event to occur on 1 per cent of the a year.

air quality criteria and air quality days, which would amount to about The standards would apply to nonover-

standards. 3 or 4 days per year. Problems may lapping time periods. All sampling

Simply expressed, air quality criteria arise when the 1 percentile is used for times would begin at midnight. Thus,

enumerate effects5"7 that have been averaging times shorter than 1 day. the 8-hr sampling periods would be

observed at various concentrations If the averaging time were 1 hr, then from midnight to 8 A.M., 8 A.M. to 4

and exposure durations for a particular a 1 percentile standard would be ex- P.M., and 4 P.M. to midnight. Stan-

pollutant or group of pollutants. For ceeded 87 times a year (Table II), or dards would, in effect, be slightly more

instance, studies might indicate that almost twice a week. The problem is restrictive if overlapping time periods

plants grown in a particular area could even worse if odor control is desired. were considered (e.g., 8-hr averages

be visibly damaged if the 8-hr-average Since a pollutant can be smelled if it calculated for sampling periods begin-

concentration of oxidant exceeded 0.03 exceeds the odor threshold for only a ning at 6 A.M., 7 A.M., 8 A.M., etc.).

ppm. Thus, if the air management second, if a 1 percentile standard were Since substantially increased computer

board for this particular area desired used for odor control, the odorant could calculations and data analysis are in-

Table IV. Standard geometric deviations for 1-hr-average concentrations of various pollutants

in various cities, 12/1/61-12/1/64.

Pollutant

City CO Hyc NO NO2 NO X Oxi SO2

Chicago 1.49 1.37 1.77 1.65 1.66 2.54 1.98

Cincinnati 1.40 1.77 2.82 1.76 2.13 2.25 2.25

Los Angeles 1.50 1.74 2.45 2.09 2.12 2.30 2.07

Philadelphia 1.70 1.80 3.46 1.83 2.69 2.87 2.31

San Francisco 1.53 1.60 2.09 1.85 1.80 2.13 2.54

Washington 1.76 1.77 3.19 1.67 2.46 2.13 2.03

Median 1 .52 1 .76 2 .64 1 .80 2 .13 2. 28 2 .16

Minimum 1 .40 1 .37 1 .77 1.65 1 .66 2. 13 1 .98

Maximum 1 .76 1 .80 3 .46 2 .09 2 .69 2. 87 2 .54

volved, it is suggested that this not be Two additional parameters, back- (100%) [(2)(0.13) - 0 . 0 3 ]

done. The nonoverlapping time periods ground concentration and a growth R = (29)

(2) (0.13) - 0.02

should give sufficiently close results, factor, are needed to calculate the re-

and a slight safety factor could be used duction in oxidant needed to prevent R = 96% (30)

to compensate for the slight difference plant damage. Let us assume that the

encountered when nonoverlapping maximum 8-hr-average background con- The additional steps needed to deter-

rather than overlapping sampling pe- centration of oxidant measured in a mine emission standards from air qual-

riods are used. rural area far from and unaffected by ity data, air quality standards, and

In order to see how an air quality oxidant precursors (hydrocarbons and emission data have been described in

standard to prevent plant damage nitrogen oxides) from San Francisco previous articles.7-9"13

might be used, let us assume that it is is 0.02 ppm. Let us also assume that Similar calculations could be made to

to be used by the San Francisco Bay a doubling in oxidant levels due to determine the control needed to achieve

Area Air Pollution Control District. growth will occur (in about 20 years) the eye-irritation standard for the air

The plot of oxidant data from the if no abatement action is taken. The quality control region, allowing 0.1

CAMP station in San Francisco (Figure following equation10 could be used to ppm for 1-hr-duration samples to be

4) indicates that the 8-hr-maximum calculate the reduction in oxidant exceeded no more than 4 times a year.

concentration expected once a year is needed to prevent plant damage: The fourth highest value expected in

0.13 ppm. Maximum values calculated a year would be calculated2 using the

(100%) (gc - q) following steps.

from the model, rather than observed (28)

maxima, are recommended for use. gc - b

rr

Although observed values are about where R is the per cent reduction needed, = 100% (31)

the same as the calculated values, ob- g is the growth factor, q is the air qual-

served maxima vary substantially from ity goal, c is the present concentration, where / is the plotting position for the

year to year, whereas the calculated and b is the background concentration. frequency, r is the rank order (first,

values remain fairly stable. For the example, second, third, fourth, etc.) that is not

to be exceeded, and N is the total num-

ber of samples in a year. For the

example,

SECOND MINUTE DAY MONTH YEAR

5 15 1 2 4 7 14 1 2 3 6 I 3 10..

I I I | I I | I | I I I I | I I I

0.531 0.241 0.126 0.090 0.032 0.018 / - 100% (32)

EXPECTED ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONC IN PPM

8760

/ = 0.0411% (33)

Statistical tables similar to Table II

indicate that this frequency is 3.35

deviations from the median. The con-

centration expected would be calculated

with Equation (22), using the values

from Figure 4, as

c = (0.013) (2.13)3-35 (34)

O.OOO1 O.OO1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1OOO 10,000 c = 0.16 ppm (35)

AVERAGING TIME, HOURS

Figure 4. Concentration vs. averaging time and frequency for oxidant Thus the fourth highest value expected

in San Francisco from 12/1/61 to 12/1/64. in a year would be 0.16 ppm. This

value could be used with the method States cities for 3 years. These data 2. Zimmer, C. E., and Larsen, R. I.,

previously described to determine the have been used to develop a mathe- "Calculating air quality and its con-

trol," / . APCA, 15: 565-572 (Dec.

degree of control necessary to achieve matical model to express pollutant con- 1965).

the example standard for controlling centration as a function of averaging 3. Larsen, R. I., Benson, F. B., and

eye irritation. time and frequency. The two essential Jutze, G. A., "Improving the dynamic

The ultimate purpose of emission features of the model are derived from response of continuous air polutant

measurements with a computer,"

standards is to prevent various un- data analyses indicating that: (1) J. APCA, 15: 19-22 (Jan. 1965).

wanted pollutant effects. The chain concentrations are approximately log- 4. Brasser, L. J., Joosting, P. E., and

that joins emission standards to pollu- normally distributed for all pollutants Van Zullen, D., "Sulfur dioxideto

tant effects is composed of many links, in all cities for all averaging times; what level is it acceptable?," Report

G 300 of the Res Inst for Public Health

such as air quality criteria, air quality and (2) median concentration is pro- Eng., p. 10, Delft, The Netherlands

standards, studies of atmospheric reac- portional to averaging time to an ex- (July 1967).

tions, aerometric sampling and data ponent. Applications of this model 5. Jaffe, L. S., "Effects of photochemical

analysis, and emission studies. It is to problems involving pollutant effects, air pollution on vegetation with rela-

air quality criteria, and air quality tion to the air quality requirements,"

important to design every link of this J. APCA, 17: 38-42 (Jan. 1967).

chain to fit its adjacent links. In the standards are shown. Air quality 6. Menser, H. A., and Heggestad, H. E.,

past some links have been proposed standards should be based on the pre- "Ozone and sulfur dioxide synergism:

that look fine by themselves, but just vention of certain combinations of con- injury to tobacco plants," Sci., 153:

don't fit into the total system. For centrations and exposure durations 424^25 (July 22, 1966).

instance, air quality standards can be that may cause various undesirable 7. Larsen, R. I., "Air pollution from

motor vehicles," Anals of the N. Y.

written so that the necessary aerometric effects. It is also recommended that Acad. of Sci., 136 (12): 275-301

data processing related to such stan- air quality standards specify maximum (Aug. 26, 1966).

dards is straightforward and efficient, concentrations that are not to be ex- 8. Heggestad, H. E., "Ozone as a to-

or they can be written so that aero- ceeded more often than a stated fre- bacco toxicant," J. APCA, 11:

691-694 (Dec. 1966).

metric data analysis becomes horren- quency, commensurate with the unde- 9. Larsen, R. I., "A method for deter-

dously complicated and almost im- sirable effects to be avoided, the pollu- mining source reduction required to

possible. Some analyses become so tant involved, and the averaging time. meet air quality standards," / . AP-

complicated that it is almost impossible In comparing air quality in a com- CA, 11: 71-76 (Feb. 1961).

to determine emission standards that munity to the standard, the calculated 10. Larsen, R. I., "Determining reduced-

emission goals needed to achieve air

will achieve the specified air quality expected value based on real air quality quality goalsa hypothetical case,"

standards. The techniques discussed data and the model presented herein, J.APCA, 17: 823-829 (Dec. 1967).

in this and recent companion pa- would be used. 11. Larsen, R. I., "Future air quality

pers1 ' l o ' n fit together into an integrated standards and industrial control re-

Acknowledgments quirements," Proc: The Third Natl.

system that enables emission standards Conf. on Air Poll, 199-204, PHS

to be linked to air pollutant effects. Sincere thanks are expressed to Ray- Publ. No. 1649, U. S. Govt. Printing

Future research will undoubtedly sug- mond Smith, Chief, Air Quality and Office, Washington, D. C. (1967).

gest additional improvements in this Emission Data Division, NAPCA, and 12. Larsen, R. I., "Determining source

air management chain. to his staff for past studies which pro- reduction needed to meet air quality

standards," Internal. Clean Air Cong.

vided the data on which this mathema- Proc, Part 1, pp. 60-64, Natl. Soc.

Summary tical model is based. for Clean Air, London E. C. 4, Eng-

Continuous air pollutant concentra- land (Oct. 1966).

References 13. Larsen, R. I., Stalker, W. W., and

tion data have been analyzed for car-

bon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitric 1. Larsen, R. I., et al., "Analyzing air Claydon, C. R., "The radial distribu-

pollutant concentration and dosage tion of sulfur dioxide source strength

oxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, data," / . APCA, 17: 85-93 (Feb. and concentration in Nashville," / .

oxidant, and sulfur dioxide in 6 United 1967). APCA, 11: 529-534 (Nov. 1961).

- Road-Tunnels TP11 Criteria InTunnel Ambient Air QualityUploaded byALARP (Arnold Dix)
- 12 Concentration Exercises from 1918.docxUploaded bybhushantintin
- air pollution.pdfUploaded byclaudiutp
- HEAVY METAL CONTENT VARIATIONS IN TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES AND SEDIMENT DUST IN ZENICA CITY DURING 11 YEARS PERIOD 2006 ? 2016.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- NASA: 80058main 51401AstrogramUploaded byNASAdocuments
- GO102 Research ProjectUploaded byallcongo
- La Deq_ a Site-specific Recap Evaluation_appendixi (Looking for 20% Opacity - Fugitive Dust)Uploaded byStephen Montelepre
- Env Issue ReviewUploaded byLin Zhiyang
- air pollution.pdfUploaded byclaudiutp
- Anotec - Progressive Odour ManagementUploaded byAnotec Pty Ltd
- Chapter 11-Situational InfluencesUploaded byhvactrg1
- ASIKAINEN 2004 Environmental Impact of Household biogas Plants in India.pdfUploaded byRiski Saputra
- Comparing generation cost of DG and thermal power plants by considering their generation impacts on healthUploaded byIJEC_Editor
- m6C - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)Uploaded byMariana Amaral Dias
- Loc 1Uploaded byPatricia Jayshree Samuel Jacob
- GridDataReport DesignUploaded byDian Rizqa
- Lorelei Sutton a Howl in the Night (1)Uploaded bySudha Harvande
- Propoasal WritingUploaded byMehwish Naeem
- 2017_Incident Investigation and ReportingUploaded byaseascan
- Contribution of Traffic to Levels of Ambient Air Pollution in EuropeUploaded bysalekojic5332
- Smsn-Industrial Air Pollution and Effects on EnvironmentUploaded bysiruslara6491
- Curso BusinessUploaded byAlejandro Pacori
- GridDataReport Data TheodolithUploaded byCahaya Kunang Kunang
- Environment protection policy and its effective in JapanUploaded byDewey Wednesday
- why do we kissUploaded byangelofglory
- GridDataReport-COBA1Uploaded byZulfa Sukmawan
- Triangular Interpolation MapUploaded byAgung Bachtyar
- 2014AESoretetalVEMadrid-Barcelona.pdfUploaded byJermy Tomasoa
- Air PollutionUploaded byTan Yong Chang
- Exhaust Gas - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byyasin

- 090151 b 28023 f CbfUploaded byTouhid Islam
- BernoulliUploaded byTouhid Islam
- 22. Toxic_Gas_Measurement.pdfUploaded byTouhid Islam
- 921556Uploaded byTouhid Islam
- Inter-phase Mass TransferUploaded byTouhid Islam
- 1EUploaded bypathi777
- 10.ISCA-RJCS-2015-106Uploaded byTouhid Islam
- 64 Interview QuestionsUploaded byshivakumar N
- HU501 Economics for EngineersUploaded byMyWBUT - Home for Engineers
- pUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Vapor Liquid EquilibriumUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Packed Column Aug 2014 (1)Uploaded byTouhid Islam
- 175701749 Tubular Bowl CentrifugeUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Report on Industrial Training at Eastern Refinery LimitedUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Flash DistillationUploaded byJenny Zenobi
- Crude Tower Simulation Using Aspen HYSYSUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Crude Tower Simulation Using Aspen HYSYSUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Spectrophotometric Determination of Protein ConcentrationUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Spectrophotometric Determination of Protein ConcentrationUploaded byTouhid Islam
- Sample Calculation -Constant Pressure filtrationUploaded byTouhid Islam

- Analyze the StarbucksUploaded byRadu Mircea
- jurnal dokter keluargaUploaded byArina Windri Rivarti
- DornUploaded bynithin_suresh1983
- Participant Information FormUploaded byAnonymous EuMyeKFj
- Service Rig Walk AroundUploaded byTerry Penney
- Nutrition and Diet EvaluationUploaded bygabrielwerneck
- Protect Glen Ellyn, Inc. vs. Village of Glen Ellyn and True North Energy LLCUploaded byAnonymous kjtwnJssyw
- Legal Medicine - Ancient HistoryUploaded byJovie Dacoycoy
- BECHARA, A. the Role of Emotion in Decision–Making_ Evidence From Neurological Patients With Orbitofrontal DamageUploaded bysem_dionatas
- Categorii de puncte de acupunctura/Acupuncture Points ClassificationUploaded byMIRAHORIAN
- Multicultural Counseling Applied to Vocational RehabilitationUploaded byMichele Eileen Salas
- NVBMP HandbookUploaded bycmendoza2011
- Personal Theory of Counseling Pape1Uploaded bySteven Adams
- brochure bwrt genericUploaded byapi-275178923
- Factors Affecting Mental HealthUploaded byGeorge Bendanillo
- Urethritis: Signs and Symptoms, Treatment and Diagnostic TestsUploaded byXenia Oabel
- Job Order Employees in the GovernmentUploaded byBea Suan
- The Future of Systems Validation ACF1D6Uploaded byMitchel Jammal
- argument essayUploaded byapi-331361162
- enkap_quality_manual (1).pdfUploaded bypiyusharora1964
- UK Home Office: multi agency public protection annual reportsUploaded byHome Office
- Coping StrategiesUploaded bylillouana
- GOST 12.1.007-76 engUploaded byandresmorantesm
- sem0708bUploaded byNaseer Hyden
- corp govUploaded byAngna Dewan
- Cumberland County Water Study Final All 08-19-2009Uploaded byAzharudin Zoechny
- SchizophreniaUploaded byHugo Lucero
- Management of Mandibular FractureUploaded byCaterine Lee
- Guidance for Industry and FDAUploaded byps2365
- Capability TrapsUploaded bylawrencehaddad