ARTICLE IN PRESS

Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137

www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and their use

in assessing ozone trends
Louise Camaliera,, William Coxa, Pat Dolwickb
a
Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 27711, USA
b
Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, RTP, NC 27711, USA
Received 28 February 2007; received in revised form 23 April 2007; accepted 25 April 2007

Abstract

The United States Environmental Protection Agency issues periodic reports that describe air quality trends in the US.
For some pollutants, such as ozone, both observed and meteorologically adjusted trends are displayed. This paper
describes an improved statistical methodology for meteorologically adjusting ozone trends as well as characterizes the
relationships between individual meteorological parameters and ozone. A generalized linear model that accommodates
the nonlinear effects of the meteorological variables was fit to data collected for 39 major eastern US urban areas. Overall,
the model performs very well, yielding R2 statistics as high as 0.80. The analysis confirms that ozone is generally increasing
with increasing temperature and decreasing with increasing relative humidity. Examination of the spatial gradients of these
responses show that the effect of temperature on ozone is most pronounced in the north while the opposite is true of
relative humidity. By including HYSPLIT-derived transport wind direction and distance in the model, it is shown that the
largest incremental impact of wind direction on ozone occurs along the periphery of the study domain, which encompasses
major NOx emission sources.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Ozone trends; Generalized linear model; Meteorological adjustment; HYSPLIT; Spatial patterns

1. Introduction variations have on ozone trends (US Environmental

The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA) issues periodic reports that
describe the status and trends of air quality through-
out the US (US Environmental Protection Agency,
2005). Because inter-annual meteorological varia-
tions are known to affect daily and seasonal average
ozone concentrations, EPA often uses statistical
techniques to reduce the effect that meteorological
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Camalier.Louise@epa.gov (L. Camalier).
Protection Agency, 2005). Results from these peri-
odic reports have typically been based on a relatively
limited suite of meteorological parameters. The
purpose of this paper is to describe an improved
version of the statistical model for meteorologically
adjusting ozone trends that (1) accommodates the
non-linear effects of the meteorological variables, and
(2) includes a much more comprehensive suite of
meteorological variables than were used in previous
analyses (Cox and Chu, 1993, 1996).
The meteorological adjustment analysis focuses
on urban areas located in the eastern US primarily

1352-2310/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.04.061
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7128 L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137
because the number and spatial distribution of
urban areas is sufficient to identify geographic
patterns of the ozone response to meteorology.
The initial analysis identifies the effect of each
meteorological parameter on ozone at the 39
selected eastern urban areas. Also examined is
the spatial distribution of these meteorological
effects on ozone, including the effects of tempera-
ture, relative humidity and wind direction. The 39
urban areas used in the analysis are a subset of 53
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that have
been used in an EPA report (US Environmental
Protection Agency, 2004) on recent air quality
trends.
2. Technical approach
There are numerous publications that describe
methods for adjusting measured ozone for the
effects of meteorology (Bloomfield et al., 1996;
Thompson et al., 2001; Davis et al., 1998). As
previously used in Zheng et al. (2006), this analysis
employs a generalized linear model (GLM) to
describe the relationship between urban ozone and
selected meteorological parameters taken from an
extensive array of candidate meteorological vari-
ables. A separate model was fit for each urban area
using the GLM modeling function in the R software
environment (R Development Core Team, 2006).
The GLM can be written as follows:
gðmi Þ ¼ bo þ f 1 ðxi;1 Þ þ . . . f j ðxi;j Þ þ . . . f p ðxi;p Þk
þ Wd þ Y.
The subscript, i, indicates the ith day’s observa-
tion, j, indicates the jth meteorological variable,
where j ¼ 1, y, p, and the subscript, k, indicates the
kth year. The parameter bo represents the overall
mean and f ( ) is the smoothing function where fj
(xi,j) is the value of the smoothing function
associated with the ith value of the explanatory
variable j. The term, Wd, represents the effect of the
dth day of the week, where d ¼ 1, 2, y, 7 (Sunday
to Saturday, respectively). The term, Yk, represents
the effect of the kth year on ozone, i.e. the
meteorologically adjusted value of ozone for that
year, where k ¼ 1997, 1998, y, 2005.
The element, g (mi), represents the ‘‘link’’ function
(McCullagh and Nelder, 1989), which specifies the
relationship between the linear formulation on the
right side of Eq. (1) and the expected response,
the mi. Diagnostic evaluation of alternative link
functions indicates that a log link is the most
appropriate for these data. A natural spline (Hastie
and Tibshirani, 1990) was employed to allow for a
non-linear response between each meteorological
parameter and ozone concentration. A natural
spline was also applied to a term used to account
for seasonal changes.
As noted in the Introduction, previous analyses
(Cox and Chu, 1993, 1996) have been confined to a
relatively small array of meteorological parameters.
To expand upon the suite of meteorological vari-
ables that may have some impact on ozone
concentrations, a more comprehensive data base
has been assembled by EPA containing an extensive
array of both hourly and daily meteorological
parameters. The enhanced meteorological database
consists of nearly 700 meteorological sites across the
US and covers the period from 1995 to 2006. The
raw surface meteorological data are extracted from
the integrated surface hourly (ISH) database while
the raw upper air data is extracted from the
Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA)
databases, both of which are maintained by
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The sur-
face data and upper air data are joined by pairing
each surface site with its nearest upper-air neighbor.
The data pairing was only done for upper-air sites
considered to be ‘‘spatially representative’’ of the
nearest surface site. A complete description of
the omnibus data base along with a map showing
the locations of meteorological stations can be
found on the scram website at: http://www.epa.
gov/scram001/meteorology/omnibus_meteorological_
ð1Þ
data_set.pdf. The daily meteorological parameters
considered in this analysis are shown in Table 1.
Some of the variables are directly observed, while
others are calculated based on hourly data or other
observed parameters. In addition, ‘‘transport-
related’’ variables were created based on the hybrid
single-particle Lagrangian integrated trajectory
(HYSPLIT) trajectory model simulations (Draxler
and Hess, 1997). The HYSPLIT model was run for
each day of the data record to calculate 24-h
backward trajectories from each surface site. The
trajectories were started at noon LST at a height of
300 m (i.e., within the mixed layer). Fig. 1 shows
the results of a single HYSPLIT trajectory for
Cleveland on 7 June 2005 and illustrates how
transport wind direction and transport distance
are determined.
The ozone air quality data used in the analysis
was taken from EPA’s air quality system (AQS)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137 7129

Table 1
List of daily meteorological parameters that comprise the
expanded meteorological data base and considered as part of
the adjustment model

Parameter Parameter
type

Temperature Maximum surface temperature

( 1C) Morning and afternoon average temperature
Diurnal temperature change
Minimum, maximum, and average apparent
temperature
1200 UTC temperatures at 925, 850, 700, and
500 mb
Deviation in temperature from a 10 year
monthly mean at 850, 700, and 500 mb
24-h change in 1200 UTC 850 mb temperatures
Fig. 1. HYSPLIT trajectory (red) diagram for the Cleveland
Wind (m s1) Average daily u and v wind vectors vicinity on 7 June 2005.
Average daily wind speed and direction
Morning and afternoon average u and v wind
vectors maximum 8-h ozone concentration is extracted
Morning and afternoon average wind speed and
from AQS for each monitoring site within each
direction
urban area. For analysis purposes, the highest 8-h
Humidity Average daily relative humidity (%) average among the monitoring stations in an urban
Midday and nighttime average relative humidity
area was selected to represent the ozone air quality
(%)
Average and maximum dew point temperature for each day. The data included the months from
( 1C) May to September (i.e. the ozone season) for each
Maximum water vapor mixing ratio (g kg1) year from 1997 to 2005. Finally, the modeling
Morning 850 mb dew point temperature ( 1C) database for each urban area was created by
24-h change in 1200 UTC 850 mb dew point
merging the daily ozone data with the daily
temperatures ( 1C)
meteorological data described above. Data from
Pressure (mb) Average station and sea-level pressure the meteorological station nearest to the center of
Morning geo-potential height at 850, 700, and
an urban area was chosen to represent the
500 mb
Deviation in geo-potential height from a 10 year meteorology for that urban area. The resulting
monthly mean at 850, 700, and 500 mb modeling data base for each urban area was a
Stability Difference in 1200 UTC temperatures between
matrix of approximately 1300 days (9 years times
surface and 850 ( 1C) 153 summer days) by 60 meteorological variables.
Maximum afternoon mixing height (m)
Maximum rate of mixing height increase 3. Model development
(m h1)

Transport 24-h HYSPLIT transport direction and distance Standard, non-automated methods were used to
trajectories (1, km) identify the most important meteorological vari-
X, Y, and Z components of the 24-h HYSPLIT ables. The selection process included ‘‘backward
trajectory
24-h scalar wind run (m)
one variable deletion’’ based on the F-statistic
(Venables and Ripley, 2002) along with diagnostic
Synoptic Average morning and afternoon fractional checks such as the examination of model residuals.
weather cloud cover (%)
Variables that were highly correlated with one
Total precipitation (in)
Binary indicators of the occurrence of rain, another and those which offered little explanatory
haze, and fog power are excluded early in the screening process
(Harrell, 2001). The screening process is applied for
each urban area separately and examined for
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/index.htm). consistency among all 39 areas. For example, daily
For consistency with EPA’s ozone National Ambi- maximum 1-h temperature was statistically signifi-
ent Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the daily cant for 36 of the 39 urban areas and therefore was
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7130 L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137

retained. The screening process resulted in a subset 4. Meteorological effects on ozone

of eight variables from the list of candidate
meteorological variables (Table 1) and this subset
was then used in all subsequent modelings. The
eight variables used in the model are listed in
Table 2. For each meteorological parameter, the
‘‘Number of cities’’ column represents the number
of cites for which the parameter is statistically
significant at the a ¼ 0.001 level.
The predictive power of the model as measured
by the R2 statistic, ranges from 0.56 (Tampa) to
0.80. Fig. 2 shows an interpolated surface of the R2
statistic for each urban area computed by using all
of the predicted and observed daily maximum 8-h
ozone values from the 9-year period.
The parameter estimates obtained from the
model provide insight into the nature of the
ozone’s response to each meteorological variable.
The individual effects of the most important
meteorological parameters on ozone are exa-
mined for an example area (Cleveland, OH),
followed by an examination of the spatial distribu-
tion of the ozone response among all 39 urban
areas. Next, the impact on ozone trends is exa-
mined with a discussion of how inter-annual
meteorological variations affect the adjustment
process.
4.1. Individual meteorological effects on ozone

Each variable plays a unique role in explaining

Table 2
Meteorological parameters used in the model and frequency of
significance
Meteorological parameters
Daily maximum temperature ( 1C)
Mid day average (10 am–4 pm average)
relative humidity (%)
Morning (7–10 am) average wind speed
(m s1)
Afternoon (1–4 pm) average wind speed
(m s1)
Morning surface temperature difference
(1200 UTC) (temperature at
925 mb–temperature at surface) ( 1C)
Deviation in 1200 UTC temperature of 850
mb surface from 10-year monthly average
( 1C)
Transport direction (degrees clockwise from
North)
Transport distance (km)
Fig. 2. Spatial Interpolation of the R2 statistic for predicted vs.
observed daily maximum 8-h ozone.
variations in ozone through its own particular
response, or effect. For example, increasing tem-
perature is usually associated with increasing ozone,
while increasing wind speed is usually associated
Number of cities
(out of 39)
with decreasing ozone (i.e. dilution effect). Because
many of the meteorological effects are non-linear, a
36 partial response plot offers an intuitive way to
37 reveal the relationship between ozone and meteor-
16
ological variables. A partial response curve shows
the effect of a particular meteorological variable on
27 ozone after accounting for the effects of all the other
variables. Thus, the partial response curve accounts
30 for any inter-correlation that may exist among the
explanatory variables. Fig. 3 displays the partial
17 response of ozone to each of four meteorological
variables using data for the Cleveland urban area.
Because a log-link function is used in the fitting
37 process, the y-axis represents the log of ozone
35
concentrations after adjusting for the overall
average.
As visible in the upper-left quadrant in Fig. 3,
the effect of temperature is relatively small for
temperatures below the threshold of 20 1C, but
is very pronounced above that point. The individual
response curves for relative humidity and transport
distance are decreasing and approximately log-
linear over the range of data. Since transport
distance measures the distance traveled by the air
mass within the 24-h period, larger transport
distances are associated with higher transport wind
speeds, which act in the dilution of ozone and
precursor gases. As higher humidity levels are
usually associated with greater cloud abundance
and atmospheric instability, the photochemical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137 7131

Fig. 3. Partial response of ozone to selected meteorological parameters—Cleveland, OH. Dashed lines are 95% confidence bounds for the
response.

process is slowed and ground level ozone is

depleted. The ozone response to transport direction
in Cleveland is nearly uni-modal. The mode
indicates the direction from where the highest
incremental impact on ozone occurs. In this case,
the highest incremental impact on ozone is asso-
ciated with transport winds originating in the south
and southwest, while the lowest impact occurs from
winds originating from the north. The 95%
confidence bounds on each partial effect plot are
very narrow, indicating greater certainty in the
predicted response in the more dense portions of
the data.
It is interesting to compare the sensitivity of
ozone obtained from this particular study with
Fig. 4. Percent change in ozone 1 1C1 increase in daily
similar sensitivity results obtained from studies maximum 1-h temperature.
using a numerical air quality model (Dawson
et al., 2007). As noted, an example given in the
Dawson article based on a July 2001 episode 4.2. Spatial distribution of meteorological effects on
indicates that daily maximum 8-h ozone concentra- ozone
tion in Atlanta increases by approximately 4 ppb
2.5 K1 (1.6 ppb K1). This result compares Although each urban area is modeled indepen-
favorably with the sensitivity to temperature found dently, there are distinct spatial patterns in the
from this study. For example, the ozone response to response of each of the most important meteorolo-
temperature in Atlanta is approximately 3.4% K1 gical predictors. Since the ozone response for most
(Fig. 4). Since the seasonal average ozone in Atlanta of the variables has at least some degree of non-
for 2001 is approximately 60 ppb, the ozone linearity, presenting a spatial picture of the entire
sensitivity to temperature equates to 2 ppb in- non-linear response is difficult. As an alternative, a
crease in ozone K1. linear approximation of the effect of a particular
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7132 L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137

meteorological variable on ozone is calculated using

the central 50% of the data. The approximate linear
effect (i.e. ozone response) is defined as the
difference between the ozone predicted by the model
at the 75%-tile and the 25%-tile of the meteorolo-
gical variable, divided by the difference between
these two percentiles. The approximate linear effect
of maximum temperature on ozone is illustrated as
a slope in Fig. 5. The effect, or slope, is thus an
approximate rate of change in ozone that is
predicted to occur as the maximum temperature
varies from a typical low to typical high value. The
effect can also be expressed as percent change in
ozone per a 1 1C increase in temperature (%
change ¼ slope  100). Fig. 6. Percent change in ozone per 1% increase in mid-day
Fig. 4 shows the spatial distribution of the relative humidity.
approximate linear effect of temperature on ozone,
expressed as percent change in ozone 1 1C1
increase in temperature. Generally, the temperature
effect is positive and clearly has the largest impact in
the North and Northeast portions of the domain. In
the vicinity of the Great Lakes, a 1 1C increase in
temperature is associated with about a 4% increase
in ozone. Urban areas along the eastern seaboard
have the largest ozone response to temperature
(approximately 5%). The magnitude of the tem-
perature effect gradually decreases southward and
diminishes to below 1% 1C1 in the Gulf Coast
regions. Fig. 6 shows the spatial distribution of the
approximate linear effect of relative humidity on
ozone. The relative humidity effect is largely
negative with greatest impact in the southern urban
Fig. 7. Effect of 24-h transport wind on ozone concentration.
areas and less pronounced for the more northern
The arrows show the transport wind direction associated with the
largest incremental increase in ozone; the length of the arrow is
proportional to the increase in ozone concentration accompany-
ing the indicated direction.

urban areas. Differing spatial dependency of me-

Fig. 5. Schematic for the calculation of an approximate linear
effect of maximum temperature on ozone.
teorological effects could be due to the fact that the
maximum temperature varies more in the northern
areas as they experience summertime cold fronts,
which typically do not reach further south.
The direction of transport can play an important
role in the formation and movement of ozone. To
characterize the effects of the transport direction on
ozone, Fig. 7 is used to show the spatial pattern of
the directional effects among the urban areas. The
arrows on the map in Fig. 7 indicate the direction of
transport wind associated with the largest incre-
mental increase in ozone concentration; transport
winds indicate the direction from which the wind is
coming, as they are based on backward trajectories.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137
The length of each arrow is proportional to the
magnitude of the incremental increase (or effect).
Referring back to the bottom-left quadrant of Fig. 3
for Cleveland, the highest incremental ozone is
associated with transport winds originating from
the southwest (200–2501, clockwise from North).
Overall, the spatial pattern shows that urban
areas with the largest response to transport winds
are located along the periphery of the domain, while
urban areas in the central portion of the domain are
associated with the smallest directional impact
(Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia). A
general explanation for this pattern is that the
largest ozone producing sources of NOx emissions
(US Environmental Protection Agency, 2005) are
located near the central portion of the eastern US,
where air masses are more stagnant and individual
transport directions are less important. The peri-
meter urban areas, including the Northeastern
US, upper Midwest, and Gulf Coast, appear to
indicate at least some impact of transport from
the central portion of the domain (CAIR Modeling
Analysis, http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/finaltech02.
pdf); an exception may be the southeast Texas and
Louisiana Gulf Coast.
As noted previously, only the transport direction
associated with the largest incremental impact is
indicated in Fig. 7. While the figure is convenient for
conveying the overall pattern, the one arrow
approach can mask variations in directional impact
especially in urban areas that indicate impact from
more than one principal direction. For example,
urban areas in the Gulf coast region, including
Beaumont, TX and Baton Rouge, LA, show a bi-
directional impact of transport direction (Fig. 8).
One possible reason for this is the existence and
location of large sources of VOC emissions (e.g.,
petrochemical processes around Houston and
southern Louisiana). Finally, it is important to note
that individual ozone episodes may be driven by
source–receptor linkages that are not reflected in the
average transport wind effect.
All variables selected to be in the model have at
least some impact on ozone. However, because the
model is fit separately for each urban area, each city
can have different prevailing meteorological para-
meters which drive the ozone response. The two
prevailing meteorological parameters for each city
displayed in Fig. 9 are those with the largest
F-statistics. The map synthesizes the dominating
meteorological parameters in each area, illustrating
the geographic zones of meteorological influence
7133
Fig. 8. Partial response of ozone to transport wind direction for
Gulf Coast urban areas demonstrates the potential for multiple
directions of high impact.
(bands of color). The information conveyed in
Fig. 9 confirms the existence of spatially consistent
patterns in the aggregate effects of the meteorolo-
gical drivers on ozone. As previously seen by the
spatial effects maps, day-to-day variations in
temperature play the most significant impact on
ozone in the north while day-to-day variations in
relative humidity have a more dominant effect on
ozone in the south. Both relative humidity and
temperature play comparable roles in the mid-
portion of the eastern US. The outskirts/coasts of
the extreme north and south are driven heavily by
transport parameters.
Other meteorological parameters are included in
the model, as well as a term to account for day of
week effects. The spatial effects of these additional
parameters have been explored, and some interest-
ing geographic patterns have been found. For
example, some geographic patterns of day of week
effects have been observed. In the northeastern US
and the Great Lakes area, such as Detroit, week-
ends seem to be associated with higher ozone
concentrations while weekdays seem to be asso-
ciated with lower ozone values. Interestingly, in the
southeastern US area, the day of week effect on
ozone appears to be reversed, with weekdays being
more associated with higher ozone concentrations.
4.3. Aggregate meteorological effects on ozone
trends
The original motivation for improving the statis-
tical model described in this paper is to better
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7134 L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137

Fig. 9. Geographic zones of dominating meteorological influence, based on the F statistics of the meteorological parameters.

understand ambient ozone trends, especially in

those urban areas affected by the implementation
of control programs (US Environmental Protection
Agency, 2005). Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of
meteorological adjustment on ozone concentrations
using the Cleveland urban area as an example. The
vertical axis is the daily maximum 8-h ozone value
for each ozone season between 1997 and 2005. The
dotted line represents the actual, observed concen-
tration data, while the solid line connects the
meteorologically adjusted seasonal ozone averages
(i.e. the term, Yk, in Eq. (1)). The standard error for
each of the meteorologically adjusted averages is
2–3%.
The meteorologically adjusted ozone trend shown Fig. 10. Observed vs. meteorologically adjusted ozone trends for
in Fig. 10 is generally smoother than the observed Cleveland, OH.
ozone trend, showing less of the inter-annual
variability that is mainly caused by inter-annual
fluctuations in meteorology. The direction and Anomalies during the ozone season for relative
magnitude of the adjustments in Fig. 10 can be humidity in 2004 and 2005 are also noticeably
largely explained by the direction and magnitude of different. Average humidity values in 2004 are much
the relative humidity and temperature anomalies higher than the 9-year average, especially in the
from year to year. To illustrate, Fig. 11 shows the Midwest and Northeast areas. The relative humidity
relative humidity and temperature anomaly for 2004 anomaly in 2005 is in general, opposite and more
and 2005 for each urban area, where the anomaly is extreme than the 2004 anomaly, where average
calculated as the difference between the mean for a humidity in 2005 is much lower than the composite
given year’s ozone season and the 9-year ozone 9-year average. The combined effect of higher-than-
season average. The average temperature in 2004 is average temperature and lower-than-average
generally lower than the 9-year average, especially humidity in 2005 contributes to the downward
in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. Tempera- adjustment in ozone in 2005. Similarly, the com-
ture anomalies in the following year contrast with bined effect of lower-than-average temperature and
2004, with 2005 temperatures warmer than the 9- higher-than-average humidity in 2004 contributes to
year average. the upward adjustment in ozone.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137 7135

Fig. 11. Temperature and relative humidity anomalies for the ozone seasons of 2004 and 2005. Each anomaly is measured as the difference
between the average for the given year and the 9-year average. Negative values are lower than average and positive values are higher than
average.

Fig. 12. Meteorological adjustment to ozone (%). Positive values indicate an upward adjustment and negative values indicate a downward
adjustment in ozone.

Because meteorological effects on ozone generally
occur on a regional scale, adjustments within the
same general geographic area are expected to be
similar. To examine this issue, a yearly adjustment
percentage is calculated for each urban area and
displayed geographically (Fig. 12). The adjustment
percentage is calculated via
Oadj  Oraw
adjustment% ¼  100,
Oraw
where Oadj is the meteorologically adjusted ozone
(i.e. the year effect) and Oraw is the raw average
ozone. Positive values indicate an upward adjust-
ment while negative values indicate a downward
adjustment. The adjustment values for 2004 were
predominately positive, which means that 2004
seasonal ozone averages were adjusted upward in
most urban areas. Overall, the adjustments in 2004
range from 4 to 8% throughout the central and
north central portions of the domain. In contrast,
adjustments in 2005 were mostly negative with the
largest adjustments in the Midwest and Great Lakes
region. The smallest downward adjustments are
generally confined to the southeast.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7136 L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137

Fig. 13. Comparison of average ozone between 2004 and 2005 (top two quadrants). The bottom two quadrants show the percent
difference in ozone between 2005 and 2004, before and after meteorological adjustment. Since the standard error, obtained from
bootstrapping, is 2–3%, the resulting margin of error for percent change is 5 percentage points.

Fig. 13 illustrates the importance of using
meteorological adjustment methods when trying to
interpret differences in air quality levels between 2
years. The top two quadrants show the seasonal
average of daily maximum 8-h ozone for 2004 and
2005. Ozone concentrations in 2005 are much higher
than ozone concentrations in 2004. In 2004, ozone
values higher than 60 ppb are confined to a small
region; while in 2005, ozone values greater than 60
ppb dominate most of the domain. The bottom two
quadrants show the percent difference between 2005
and 2004 in average ozone, before and after
meteorological adjustment. Percent differences in
observed ozone are most pronounced in the western
portion of the domain, where differences peak
above 20%. After adjusting for meteorology,
percent differences between the 2 years are insignif-
icant. To estimate the significance of the percent
changes shown in Fig. 13, a 3-day, non-overlapping,
blocked bootstrap (Davison and Hinkley, 1999;
Hastie and Tibshirani, 1990) is used to estimate the
standard error (2–3 percentage points) of the
percent change in ozone. Only a few urban areas
have adjusted changes which exceed twice the
bootstrap estimated standard error. It can be
concluded that the increase in ozone concentrations
from 2004 to 2005 is driven mainly by meteorolo-
gical differences between the two years and not due
to a fundamental shift in air quality.
5. Concluding remarks and future applications
In 2004, the National Research Council issued a
report entitled Air Quality Management in the
United States (NRC, 2004), providing several
recommendations regarding improved decision-
making in the context of environmental health and
air quality. One of the major recommendations is to
better track air quality progress in order to enable
more informed evaluations of past and present air
policy decisions. In order to track progress toward
air quality goals, routine air quality trend analyses
are needed to confirm if emission controls are
indeed reducing pollutant concentrations.
Meteorological adjustment of ozone concentra-
tions provides a method to examine the underlying
effects of control programs apart from the random
inter-annual effects of meteorology. The benefits of
accounting for meteorological conditions when
examining air quality trends have been demon-
strated in numerous publications over the past
decade. This paper expands on previous analyses
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Camalier et al. / Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 7127–7137
through an improved regression method as well as
the inclusion of several new variables provided by
the HYSPLIT trajectory model.
The authors are beginning to explore the applica-
tion of similar methods for quantifying the effects of
meteorological conditions on PM2.5 and PM2.5
components, specifically sulfates, nitrates and or-
ganic carbon. Such pollutants are much more
complex than ozone and thus present unique
challenges for statistical modeling and for gaining
a more complete understanding of the effect of
meteorology on PM2.5 concentrations.
There is a growing interest in understanding and
quantifying the global effects of climate change on
the environment. Advances in statistical modeling of
the relationship between air quality and meteorology
should help corroborate the results being obtained
from numerical simulations which predict the re-
sponse of air quality to changes in climate conditions.
The knowledge gained by contrasting the simulated
and observed response to meteorology should
provide additional insight into the likely long-term
effects of climate change on air quality levels.
References
Bloomfield, P.J., Royle, J.A., Steinberg, L.J., Yang, Q., 1996.
Accounting for meteorological effects in measuring urban ozone
levels and trends. Atmospheric Environment 30 (17), 3067–3077.
Cox, W.M., Chu, S., 1993. Meteorologically adjusted ozone
trends in urban areas: a probabilistic approach. Atmospheric
Environment 27B, 425–434.
Cox, W.M., Chu, S., 1996. Assessment of Interannual ozone
variation in urban areas from a climatological perspective.
Atmospheric Environment 30 (14), 2615–2625.
7137
Davis, J.M., Eder, B.K., Nychka, D., Yang, Q., 1998. Modeling
the effects of meteorology on ozone in houston using cluster
analysis and generalized additive models. Atmospheric
Environment 32 (14/15), 2505–2520.
Davison, A.C., Hinkley, D.V., 1999. Bootstrap Methods and
their Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dawson, J.P., Adams, P.J., Pandis, S.N., 2007. Sensitivity of
ozone to summertime climate in the eastern USA: a modeling
case study. Atmospheric Environment 41, 1494–1511.
Draxler, R.R., Hess, G.D., 1997. Description of the HYSPLIT_4
Modeling System. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL
ARL-224. Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, Mary-
land.
Hastie, T.J., Tibshirani, R.J., 1990. Generalized Additive Models.
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Harrell, F.H., 2001. Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer,
New York, Inc.
McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.A., 1989. Generalized additive models.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, London.
NRC, 2004. Air Quality Management in the United States.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
R Development Core Team, 2006. R: A Language and
Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
URL /http://www.R-project.orgS.
Thompson, M.L., Reynolds, J., Cox, L.H., Guttorp, P.,
Sampson, P.D., 2001. A review of statistical methods for
the meteorological adjustment of tropospheric ozone. Atmo-
spheric Environment 35, 617–630.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. The Ozone Report:
Measuring Progress through 2003, EPA 454/K-04-001,
Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Evaluating Ozone
Control Programs in the Eastern United States, EPA 454-K-
05-001, Washington, DC.
Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D., 2002. Modern Applied Statistics
with S. Spring, New York, Inc.
Zheng, J., Swall, J., Cox, W.M., Davis, J., 2006. Interannual
variation in meteorologically adjusted ozone levels in the
Eastern United States: A comparison of two approaches.
Atmospheric Environment.