See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335797404

Inferring air pollution from air quality index by different geographical areas:
case study in India

Article in Air Quality Atmosphere & Health · September 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s11869-019-00749-x

CITATIONS READS

7 509

8 authors, including:

Rohit Sharma Devendra Kumar Sharma

SRM Institute of Science and Technology 32 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS
38 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Ishaani Priyadarshini
University of Delaware
36 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Call For Chapters (Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity) View project

Landslides View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ishaani Priyadarshini on 16 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00749-x

Inferring air pollution from air quality index by different

geographical areas: case study in India
Rohit Sharma 1 & Raghvendra Kumar 2 & Devendra Kumar Sharma 1 & Le Hoang Son 3 & Ishaani Priyadarshini 4 &
Binh Thai Pham 5 & Dieu Tien Bui 6,7 & Sakshi Rai 8

Received: 31 July 2019 / Accepted: 5 September 2019

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
India is one of the most polluted countries in the world, where several major cities are facing serious environmental consequences
as a result of rapid pollution growth. The objective of this research is to analyze air pollution trends with respect to various
geographical locations, in order to have a global view of the damage caused, so that appropriate actions can be developed in the
future to prevent air pollution. In this regard, the polluted database was established based on the data provided by the Central
Pollution Control Board; Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (India). These data demonstrate the annual
growth of SO2, NOx, and particulate matter (PM) 2.5 from 2015 to 2018 and were recorded at various monitoring stations in three
cities, namely, Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai. The results show that SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5 were from different transport modes,
both small or large-scale power generations (from diesel, coal and gas plant), industries, constructions, and domestic cooking.
Overall, there was an increasing trend, day by day, in India. The result categorized the considered areas into the following four
classes: critically polluted (CP), highly polluted (HP), moderately polluted (MP), and low polluted (LP). The results will assist in
the assessment of pollution for the cities investigated in this research.

Keywords Air pollution . Air pollutants . Environmental health . Exceedance factor . Data analysis

Introduction Working Group 2018). In Asia, the highest pollution levels

Air pollution is a serious problem that affects the lives of
billions of people every year (Louati et al. 2018; Son and
Louati 2016). According to the World Health Organization
(WHO), more than 25% of deaths around the world may be
directly linked to pollution (Amal et al. 2018). The global
disease assessment stated that in 1990 and 2016, 0.99 million
and 0.78 million premature deaths were due to particulate
matter (PM) 2.5 pollution, respectively (GBD MAPS
recorded were in 2015, when 35% of deaths were due to air
pollution. Pollution is especially serious in big cities, which
are facing many difficulties in balancing air quality and the
environment. From South Korea to Thailand and India, pol-
luted air is harming the largest cities. Air pollution is also a big
issue of concern for China, as it is a major source of dust
particles, and it is full of factories spread across China that
regularly emit dense smoke. Although many policies and laws
have been proposed to reduce pollution levels, air pollution is

* Dieu Tien Bui 5

Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da
buitiendieu@tdtu.edu.vn Nang 550000, Vietnam

6
1
Department of Electronics & Communication Engineering, SRM Geographic Information Science Research Group, Ton Duc Thang
Institute of Science and Technology, Ghaziabad, India University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, LNCT College, 7
Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang
Bhopal, India
University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
3
VNU Information Technology Institute, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi, Vietnam 8
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, LNCT
4
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA University, Bhopal, MP, India

still a big problem that needs more efforts in order to have safe
air quality levels.
In India, air pollution is a more severe problem. Today,
India incorporates 640 districts, and out of this, 27% exceeded
the annual standard value of 40 μg/m3 in 1998, and 45%
exceeded it in 2010 (Guttikunda et al. 2019). Thus, of the
top 10 most polluted cities in the world list released by the
World Health Organization, nine cities are from India, and
among them, Delhi remains at sixth position (Yuda 2019).
The WHO database further mentioned that Delhi is the most
polluted city for PM 10 (Donkelaar et al. 2016; WHO 2018).
Thus, this situation is a complicated issue, which strongly
influences human health, and a demanding solution is re-
quired in order to maintain the air quality level.
Monitoring air quality plays a vital role in controlling the
levels of pollution (Camastra et al. 2019). Thus, it is very
important to quantify the air quality levels by different loca-
tions in order to see the effect of air pollution on human health.
Schwela (2012) stated that an air pollution map could be very
useful for managing air quality and its effects. However, air
quality management stations (AQM) are not always available
in developing cities because of their set-up costs.
Nevertheless, in order to determine air pollution effects accu-
rately, the solution is to increase number of the AQM stations,
to allow for wider and more comprehensive coverage.
Literature reviews show that many methods have been con-
sidered for air pollution research, ranging from statistical anal-
yses to sophisticated models. Biswas et al. (2011) analyzed
24-h, 8-h, and 1-h averaged criteria pollutants (PM 2.5, SO2,
NO2, PM 10, and CO) at three different sites in India, that is,
Sirifort, Delhi College of Engineering, and the Income Tax
Office in Delhi. Kumar and Goyal (2011a) developed a fore-
casting model for predicting the daily air quality indices (AQI)
in Delhi, which can be used as a basis for decision-making
processes. Kumar and Goyal (2011b) estimated the AQI with
SO2, NO2, respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM),
and suspended particulate matter (SPM) pollutants using the
principal components regression (PCR) technique, in Delhi.
Ayala et al. (2011) discussed the sources and pollutants
associated with the effects on health as well as the risk
posed to health by different sources of air pollution. Hoque
et al. (2014) determined the noise level at some specific loca-
tions of Tangail, India. Kumar and Goyal (2012) forecasted
the daily AQI through a neural network based on principal
component analysis (PCA). Chinnaswamy et al. (2016) in-
ferred potential health implication through a trend analysis.
Heinrich (2018) discussed the outdoor air pollutants (PM 2.5
and NO2) accompanied with precaution needs to be taken for
reducing the effect of these pollutants. Ramasamy (2018)
discussed the Comprehensive Environmental Pollution
Index (CEPI) for evaluating the quality of environment.
Khazaei et al. (2018) predicted the concentration of indoor
air carbon dioxide by temperature and humidity. Wang et al.
Air Qual Atmos Health
(2019) determined the PM 2.5 data between 2000 and 2015
using NASA remote sensing images. Zheng et al. (2018) per-
formed analysis for the forest cover effect on urban PM 2.5 in
China. Wang et al. (2019) developed artificial neural networks
for the online monitoring data of air pollutants in order to
identify the instrument failure. Cardozo and Sánchez (2019)
measured the meteorological parameters, vehicle traffic, and
concentration of particulate matter at different locations.
In terms of air pollution, it is well known that SO2 is very
harmful for the human body, and a few of the major health
effects are lung dysfunction, inflammation of the respiratory
tract and mucous membranes, and irritation of the eyes. SO2 is
a gas that is soluble and colorless and is formed as a result of
the combustion of fuels like petrol, diesel, and coal that con-
tain sulfur. Thus, this pollutant is also responsible for asthma
attacks, lung disease, heart aggravation, and respiratory dis-
ease in children. Thermal power plants are also the major
sources of SO2 (Darryl 2017); however, diesel vehicles are
also a main source of SO2. According to Hedley et al.
(2002), there is an association between mortality and SO2. It
is the sad truth that NOx and SO2 pollutants are important
factors for sudden death (Dales et al. 2004). The efforts of
the studies resulted in a decreased usage of sulfur in many
countries. The results show that SO2 levels are reducing year
by year in some locations around the world.
In a few cities in Canada, NOx and SO2 are high-impact
risk factors for sudden death. NOx is a combination of NO2
and NO pollutant concentrations. The major sources of NOx
are vehicle exhausts like diesel, petrol, liquid petroleum gas
(LPG), and compressed natural gas (CNG). PM (airborne par-
ticulate matter) is a combination of chemical compositions,
solids, and various sizes of liquid particles. The main sources
of PM primary particles are direct emissions like diesel soot.
Sources of the PM secondary particles are gases with a phys-
icochemical transformation, like sulfate and nitrate (Limaye
and Salvi 2010). Basically, PM has been categorized into the
following three groups (Kim et al. 2015): PM 2.5 (diameter <
2.5 μm), PM 2.5–10 (coarse particles), and PM 10 (diameter
< 10 μm). The primary particles of PM consist of the carbon
emitted from trucks, cars, stone crushing, and burning waste.
PM particles are from natural sources, which include volca-
noes, oceans, and ground (Limaye and Salvi 2010). WHO
explained that PM particles can penetrate into the respiratory
tract with a high penetrability. They can easily enter into the
lungs and can affect the functioning. In general, PM is the
cause of many major diseases, and is more dangerous to hu-
man health and life than other pollutants. The studies conduct-
ed in the past are bound to a limited number of places and are
not up-to-date.
In this research, we analyzed air pollution trends in the case
study of three cities in India, namely, Delhi, Bengaluru, and
Chennai, over the period of 2015–2018. SO2, NOx, and PM
2.5 are the three air quality indices (AQI) demonstrated in the
Air Qual Atmos Health
analysis. The data have been collected through the Central
Pollution Control Board; Ministry of Environment, Forest,
and Climate Change; India. The obtained results display
how pollution is increasing day by day in these major cities.
The map result was categorized into the following four differ-
ent classes: critically polluted (CP), highly polluted (HP),
moderately polluted (MP), and low polluted (LP). The results
will assist in the assessment of pollution for the cities con-
cerned in this research.
Methodology
Materials
This study considered seven critically polluted locations in
India, as shown in Table 1. The pollution trends were derived
based on data from 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The param-
eters considered for this research were SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5.
For the concerned locations, we collected the geography and
some of the related characteristics, incorporating three mega
cities of India, namely Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai. The
populations of Bengaluru and Chennai are both more than 10
million, whereas Delhi has an estimated population of 18.6
million. It is noted that Chennai is one of the most popular
metropolitan cities in India. In this city, the SO2 concentration
increased by 30% during 2011 and 2012. In 2015, the SO2
concentration was at its peak. After 2015, because of the use
of low sulfur fuel, the SO2 concentrations have been under
compliance in Chennai. Some industries are now operating on
gas and electricity (Guttikunda et al. 2019). Bengaluru—the
capital of Karnataka—is an unplanned city, where the popu-
lation increases year by year.
Three pollutants, namely SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5, are collected
from various nodes deployed by the Central Pollution Control
Board; Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change;
India. The monitoring of pollutants is carried out on a yearly
basis, with a twice a week frequency. In India, the Central
Table 1 List of the concern
polluted cities (Delhi, Bengaluru, No Locations
and Chennai) in India
1 R K Puram, Delhi
Anand Vihar, Delhi
Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS),
Dilshad Garden, Delhi
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Shadipur, Delhi
2 Peenya, Bengaluru
3 Velachery Res. Area, Chennai
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) monitors the complete air qual-
ity monitoring networks and sets the standard that needs to be
followed by every pollution control unit. It is noted that there are
703 air quality stations across 307 cities in India. This program is
completely managed by the Central Pollution Control Board, in
collaboration with the state pollution control board (Pant et al.
2018). Most of the air quality stations are deployed in urban areas
(Balakrishnan et al. 2014).
Exceedance factor
The annual average levels of SO2, PM 2.5, and NOx are col-
lected for seven different locations for the years 2015–2018.
According to the standards and area classes described by the
CPCB, the concentration of pollutants’ range can be calculat-
ed using an exceedance factor (EF), as stated below (CPCB
2016):
pollutant annual mean concentration
EF ¼ ð1Þ
Annual standard for pollutant
By using this expression, pollution for the years 2014–
2018 in terms of four pollutants can be measured. The air
pollution can be analyzed using following criterion: low pol-
lution (L)—EF < 0.5; moderate pollution (M)—EF 0.5–1.0;
high pollution (H)—EF 1.0–1.5; and critical pollution (C)—
EF > 1.5.
Air quality index
The air quality index (AQI) is used for the effective assess-
ment of air quality. This process transforms the data of various
pollutants into a single number or value. AQI is categorized
into the following six different categories: good, satisfactory,
moderately polluted, poor, very poor, and severe. The AQ
sub-index was developed for tracking eight pollutants (PM
2.5, PM 10, SO2, NO2, CO, NH3, O3, and Pb). The calculation
of the AQ sub-index is based on the ambient concentration of
air pollutants, which is a linear function of the concentration
Population Build up area
(million) (sq. km)
18.6 1484
11.9 631
10.7 522
 Air Qual Atmos Health

(e.g., the sub-index for PM 2.5 is 75 at a concentration of Table 3 Number of

manual pollution Location Number of manual pollution
45 μg/m3, 51 at a concentration of 31 μg/m3, and 100 at a monitoring stations
monitoring stations in
concentration of 60 μg/m3). In Table 2, the AQI categories for the concerned locations
SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5 are given (CPCB 2016). Delhi 10
Bengaluru 9
Chennai 11
Monitoring air quality in India

The government of India has started a monitoring program

named the National Air Quality Monitoring Program
(NAMP) to regularly monitor air quality. As per the report
of September 2018, four measure pollutants, SO2, NO, PM
2.5, and PM 10, can be monitored regularly using NAMP.
Results
There are 703 air quality stations across 307 cities in India.
This program is completely controlled by the Central
Analysis with regard to SO2
Pollution Control Board in collaboration with state pollu-
Many policies have been formulated to reduce the effect of
tion control board (Pant et al. 2018). Mostly, the air quality
these pollutants, and the results are promising. According to
stations are deployed in urban areas (Donkelaar et al. 2016;
Fig. 1 and Table 4, the SO2 levels tend to decrease in some of
Gordon et al. 2018; Guttikunda et al. 2019; WHO 2018).
the determined areas.
Pollution measurements have been performed for the re-
The decreasing and increasing percentages for the seven
gions mentioned in Table 3.
determined areas in the four-year period are as follows: R K
These cities were not pre-planned cities, and their build
Puram (Delhi) 13.1% increase; Anand Vihar (Delhi) 27.7%
up-areas have increased by 200% compared with 1975. For
decrease; Peenya (Bengaluru) 55.5% decrease; IHBAS,
the monitoring of air quality, the Central Pollution Control
Dilshad Garden (Delhi) 89.8% increase; Velachery Res.
Board and State pollution control board are continually
Area (Chennai) 96.85% decrease; Punjabi Bagh (Delhi)
using their active monitoring systems, installed at different
10.9% increase; and Shadipur (Delhi) 55.1% increase.
locations in India. In 2015, around 206 manual air monitor-
In R K Puram, Delhi, the SO2 level in 2015 was 17.69 μg/
ing systems were installed by the CPCB in 46 cities in India,
m3, and after three years it gradually increased by 13.1% to
which will possibly increase to 700 manual stations in 2018.
20.01 μg/m3. In 2016, it increased rapidly to 26.95 μg/m3, but
In Delhi, 33 manual monitoring systems have been installed
it gradually decreased to 19.55 μg/m3 in 2017. Despite the
by CPCB. Every manual monitoring system provides con-
variations in levels from 2015 to 2018, the SO2 level remained
tinuous pollution reports for all types of pollutants every
well below the standard value (40 μg/m3) for R K Puram,
15 min. These manual stations can measure many pollutants
Delhi. The SO2 level for Anand Vihar, Delhi, was 22.08 μg/
(PM 10, SO2, PM 2.5, and NO2) at the same time for any
m3 in 2015, and in 2018, it gradually decreased by 27.7% to
given location. The PM 2.5 pollutant was introduced after
15.95 μg/m3. In 2017, it increased rapidly to 29.77 μg/m3, but
2008, and it was added to the manual monitoring stations in
gradually came down to 15.95 μg/m3 in 2018.
2015. In Delhi, 10 manual stations are continually monitor-
In Peenya, Bengaluru industrial area, the SO2 level in 2015
ing the pollution, and in Bengaluru there are 9 and in
was 71.56 μg/m3, and after a period of three years, it de-
Chennai there are 11.
creased by 55.5% to 31.84 μg/m3. In 2015, the SO2 level in
Peenya, Bengaluru industrial area, was very high at 71.56 μg/
m3. According to the Central Pollution Control Board,
Table 2 Air quality index (AQI) categories for SO2, NOx, and particu-
Bangalore (CPCB 2016), Peenya is the most polluted area in
late matter (PM) 2.5
Bangalore. In 2016, it rapidly decreased to 4.64 μg/m3, but
AQI category AQI Range of concentration (μg/m3) gradually increased to 31.84 μg/m3 in 2017. Finally, the SO2
level in Peenya remained well under the standard 40 μg/m3.
SO2 NOx PM 2.5
The SO2 level for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was
Severe 401–500 1600+ 400+ 250+ 8.26 μg/m3 in 2015, and after three years, it rapidly increased
Very poor 301–400 801–1600 281–400 121–250 by 89.8% to 15.68 μg/m3. The SO2 level for IHBAS has been
Poor 201–300 381–800 181–280 91–120 increasing over the last few years. Despite the variations in
Moderately polluted 101–200 81–380 81–180 61–90 levels from 2015 to 2018, the SO2 level remained well under
Satisfactory 51–100 41–80 41–80 31–60 the standard 40 μg/m3 for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
Good 0–50 0–40 0–40 0–30 In Velachery Res. Area, Chennai, the SO2 level in 2015
was 155.3 μg/m3, and after three years, it decreased by
Air Qual Atmos Health

Fig. 1 SO2 pollutants in different

locations

96.85% to 4.95 μg/m3. In 2015, the SO2 level in Velachery,
Chennai Res. Area, was very high at 155.3 μg/m3. In 2015,
the pollution level in Chennai was higher than that of
Delhi. Finally, the SO2 level in Velachery remained well
under the standard 40 μg/m3. The SO2 level for Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi, was 18.74 μg/m3 in 2015, and after three
years, it rapidly increased by 10.9% to 20.79 μg/m 3.
The SO2 level for Punjabi Bagh rapidly increased over
the years. Despite the variation in levels from 2015 to
2018, the SO2 level remained well under the standard
40 μg/m3 for Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. In Shadipur, Delhi,
the SO2 level in 2015 was 7.84 μg/m3, and it gradually
increased by 55.1% to 12.16 μg/m3. In 2016, it increased
rapidly to 17.25 μg/m 3, but gradually came down to
6.89 μg/m3 in 2017. Despite the variations in the levels
from 2015 to 2018, the SO2 level remained well under the
standard 40 μg/m3 for Shadipur, Delhi.
Chennai is the capital of Tamil Nadu, and it is one of
the metropolitan cities in India. Because of its proximity
to the bay of Bangal, access to East Asia markets is very
easy from Chennai. As a result of this connectivity with
these Asian markets, Chennai is an important port city.
Chennai is like a hub station for chemical, automobile,
trade and shipping, and petrochemical industries. Many
big manufactures, like Hyundai, Ford, Ashok Leyland,
Mitsubishi, and other manufacturing and engineering
units, are taking advantage of its proximity to a port.
Chennai handles 30% of the auto industry in India. The
presence of large commercial ports is the major reason for
the highest freight movements in and out on the Chennai
streets in the country. It also leads in terms of the emis-
sions of pollutants from unregistered vehicles in Chennai.
Every day, more than 700 new vehicles go to the Chennai
streets, which is the biggest contributor to increasing sul-
fur dioxide levels in Chennai. Because of these issues, the
SO2 level in Chennai is very high.
Table 5 demonstrates the EF and pollution level for SO2
over the period of 2015 to 2018. In Fig. 2, we can analyze
whether an area is critically polluted or not. It was suggested
to reduce the sulfur content in fuels (Hedley et al. 2002). Our
results confirmed this observation.
Analysis with respect to NOX
According to Fig. 3 and Table 6, it can be seen that the NOx
level tends to decrease in some of the determined areas, but it
also has the trend of increasing in the remaining areas.
The decrease and increase in percentage for the seven deter-
mined areas over the period of 2015 to 2018 are as follows: R K
Puram (Delhi) 6.1% increase; Anand Vihar (Delhi) 48.1% de-
crease; Peenya (Bengaluru) 6.1% decrease; IHBAS, Dilshad
Garden (Delhi) 30.3% increase; Velachery Res. Area

Table 4 SO2 pollutant levels for

seven locations Location Name SO2 (μg/m3)

2015 2016 2017 2018

1 R K Puram, Delhi 17.69 26.95 19.55 20.01

2 Anand Vihar, Delhi 22.08 20.09 29.77 15.95
3 Peenya, Bengaluru 71.56 4.64 9.24 31.84
4 IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 8.26 12.36 14.67 15.68
5 Velachery Res. Area 155.3 3.74 4.09 4.95
6 Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 18.74 19.18 23.94 20.79
7 Shadipur, Delhi 7.84 17.25 6.89 12.16
 Air Qual Atmos Health

Table 5 Exceedance factor (EF) and the pollution level for SO2 pollutant in 2015–2018. L—low pollution; M—moderate pollution; C—critical
pollution

R K Puram, Delhi Anand Vihar, Delhi Peenya, Bengaluru

Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 17.69 0.44 L 22.08 0.55 M 71.56 1.78 C
2016 26.95 0.67 M 20.09 0.50 M 4.64 0.11 L
2017 19.55 0.48 L 29.77 0.74 M 9.24 0.23 L
2018 20.01 0.50 M 15.95 0.39 L 31.84 0.79 M
Standard 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3
IHBAS, Delhi Velachery, Chennai Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 8.26 0.20 L 155.3 3.88 C 18.74 0.46 L
2016 12.36 0.30 L 3.74 0.09 L 19.18 0.47 L
2017 14.67 0.36 L 4.09 0.10 L 23.94 0.59 M
2018 15.68 0.39 L 4.95 0.12 L 20.79 0.51 M
Standard 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3
Shadipur, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 7.84 0.18 L
2016 17.25 0.43 L
2017 6.89 0.17 L
2018 12.16 0.30 L
Standard 40 μg/m3

(Chennai) 85.32% decrease; Punjabi Bagh (Delhi) 7.6% in-
crease; and Shadipur (Delhi) 14.3% increase.
In R K Puram, Delhi, the NO x level in 2015 was
71.36 μg/m3, and after three years, it gradually decreased
by 6.1% to 67.01 μg/m3. R K Puram, Delhi, is the most
polluted area in Delhi (CPCB 2016). In 2016, it increased
rapidly to 72.38 μg/m 3, but gradually came down to
42.91 μg/m3 in 2017. The NOx level for R K Puram,
Delhi, is very high and is more than the standard value
of 40 μg/m3. The NOx level for Anand Vihar, Delhi, was
76.94 μg/m3 in 2015, and after three years, it rapidly
increased by 48.1% to 114.32 μg/m3. In 2017, it increased
rapidly to 109.16 μg/m3. Anand Vihar, Delhi, is the top
most polluted area in Delhi. The NOx level for Anand
Vihar, Delhi, is also very high and is more than the stan-
dard value of 40 μg/m3. In Peenya, Bengaluru industrial
area, the NOx level in 2015 was 14.69 μg/m 3, and it
decreased by 6.1% to 13.8 μg/m3. In 2017, it increased
rapidly to 30.07 μg/m 3, but gradually came down to
13.8 μg/m3 in 2018. Finally, the NOx level in Peenya
remained well under the standard of 40 μg/m3. The NOx
level for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was 35.5 μg/m3
in 2015, and it rapidly increased by 30.3% to 46.28 μg/
m3. The NOx level for IHBAS rapidly increased over the

Fig. 2 Exceedance factor graph

for SO2 pollutants in 2015–2018
(see the names of the locations in
Table 4)
Air Qual Atmos Health

Fig. 3 NOx pollutants of the

seven locations for 2018 (see the
names of the locations in Table 4)

years. The NOx level for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi,
is also very high and is more than the standard value of
40 μg/m3.
In the Velachery Res. Area, Chennai, the NOx level in 2015
was 125.08 μg/m3, and it decreased by 85.32% to 18.35 μg/
m3. In 2015, the NOx level in Velachery, Chennai Res. Area,
was found to be very high, with 125.08 μg/m3. In 2015, the
pollution level in Chennai was higher than in Delhi. Finally,
the NOx level in Velachery remained well under the stan-
dard 40 μg/m3. The NOx level for Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, was
73.49 μg/m3 in 2015. The NOx level for Punjabi Bagh rap-
idly increased and is more than the standard value of 40 μg/
m3. In Shadipur, Delhi, the NOx level in 2015 was 64.41 μg/
m3, and after three years, it gradually decreased by 14.3% to
55.14 μg/m3. The NOx level for Shadipur, Delhi, is very
high, and is more than the standard value of 40 μg/m3. As
vehicle exhaust emissions are the major sources of NOx, one
way of decreasing this pollutant level is to stop launching
new vehicles in the determined areas, as registered vehicles
in India are rapidly increasing year after year. The same
solution can be applied to SO2 pollutants. Table 7 demon-
strates the EF and pollution level for NOx in 2015–2018. We
can easily analyze whether the area is critically polluted or
not (Fig. 4).
Analysis with respect to PM 2.5
According to Fig. 5 and Table 8, it can be seen that the PM 2.5
level decreases in some of the determined areas, and also
increases in the remaining areas.
The decreasing and increasing percentages for the sev-
en determined areas between 2015 and 2018 are as fol-
lows: RKPuram (Delhi) 7.8% increase; Anand Vihar
(Delhi) 4.5% decrease; Peenya (Bengaluru) 23.6% de-
crease; IHBAS, Dilshad Garden (Delhi) 13.8% increase;
Velachery Res. Area (Chennai) 61.32% decrease; Punjabi
Bagh (Delhi) 6.9% increase; Shadipur (Delhi) 3.5%
increase.
In R K Puram, Delhi, the PM 2.5 level in 2015 was
114.35 μg/m3, and after three years, it increased by 7.8% to
123.44 μg/m3. R K Puram, Delhi, is the most polluted area in
Delhi, according to the report of Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB). In 2016, it increased rapidly to 132.18 μg/
m3 but reduced to 90.45 μg/m3 in 2017. The PM 2.5 level
for R K Puram, Delhi, is very high, and is more than the
standard value (30 μg/m3). The PM 2.5 level for Anand
Vihar, Delhi, was 156.25 μg/m3 in 2015, and it increased by
4.5% to 163.25 μg/m3. In 2017, it increased rapidly to
190.82 μg/m3. Anand Vihar, Delhi, is the top most polluted

Table 6 NOx pollutant levels for

the seven locations Location Name NOx (μg/m3)

2015 2016 2017 2018

1 R K Puram, Delhi 71.36 72.38 42.97 67.01

2 Anand Vihar, Delhi 76.94 80.94 109.16 114.32
3 Peenya, Bengaluru 14.69 24.05 30.07 13.8
4 IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 35.5 13.84 48.8 46.28
5 Velachery Res. Area, Chennai 125.08 13.03 15.08 18.35
6 Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 73.49 61.06 115.57 79.13
7 Shadipur, Delhi 64.41 47.42 18.7 55.14
 Air Qual Atmos Health

Table 7 Exceedance factor (EF) and pollution level for NOx in 2015–2018

R K Puram, Delhi Anand Vihar, Delhi Peenya, Bengaluru

Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 71.36 1.78 C 76.94 1.32 H 14.69 0.36 L
2016 72.38 1.80 C 80.94 2.02 C 24.05 0.60 M
2017 42.97 1.07 H 109.16 2.72 C 30.07 0.75 M
2018 67.01 1.67 C 114.32 2.85 C 13.8 0.34 L
Standard 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3
IHBAS, Delhi Velachery, Chennai Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 35.5 0.88 M 125.08 3.12 C 73.49 1.83 C
2016 13.84 0.34 L 13.03 0.32 L 61.06 1.52 C
2017 15.08 0.37 L 15.08 0.37 L 115.57 2.88 C
2018 18.35 0.45 L 18.35 0.45 L 79.13 1.97 C
Standard 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3
Shadipur, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 64.41 1.61 C
2016 47.42 1.18 H
2017 18.7 0.46 L
2018 55.14 1.37 H
Standard 40 μg/m3

area in Delhi. The PM 2.5 level for Anand Vihar, Delhi, is also
very high, and is more than the standard value (30 μg/m3).
The Peenya industrial area of Bengaluru witnessed a PM
2.5 level of 37.05 μg/m3 in 2015, and after three years, it
decreased by 23.6% to 28.3 μg/m3. In 2017, it increased rap-
idly to 44.96 μg/m3, but gradually came down to 28.3 μg/m3
in 2018. Finally, the PM 2.5 level in Peenya remained very
high, and was more than the standard value (30 μg/m3). The
PM 2.5 level for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, was
121.8 μg/m3 in 2015, and after three years, it decreased by
13.8% to 104.94 μg/m3. The PM 2.5 level for IHBAS,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi, is also very high, and is more than
the standard value (30 μg/m3). In the Velachery Res. Area,
Chennai, the PM 2.5 level in 2015 was 103.71 μg/m3, and it
rapidly decreased by 61.32% to 40.11 μg/m3. In 2015, the PM
2.5 level in Velachery, Chennai Res. Area was very high at
103.71 μg/m3. In 2015, the pollution level in Chennai was
higher than in Delhi. After adopting preventive measures, it
decreased rapidly to 40.11 μg/m3, but was still more than the
standard value of 30 μg/m3.
The PM 2.5 level for Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, was 122.23 μg/
m3 in 2015, and it increased by 6.9% to 130.68 μg/m3. The

Fig. 4 Exceedance factor graph

for NOx in 2015–2018 for the
seven locations
Air Qual Atmos Health

Fig. 5 PM 2.5 level at the

different locations

PM 2.5 level for Punjabi Bagh rapidly increased over the
years, and it is the most polluted area in Delhi. The PM 2.5
level for Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, is very high, and is more than
the standard value (30 μg/m3). In Shadipur, Delhi, the PM 2.5
level in 2015 was 119.94 μg/m3, and after three years, it de-
creased by 3.5% to 115.65 μg/m3. The PM 2.5 level for
Shadipur, Delhi, is very high, and is more than the standard
value (30 μg/m3). Figure 6 and Table 9 demonstrate the EF
and pollution level for SO2 for the years 2015 to 2018. From
the results obtained, we can easily analyze if the area is criti-
cally polluted or not.
Discussion and conclusion
The important issue is that pollution increases day by day
because of the high number of industries and development
activities. In India, the major sources of SO2, NOx, and
PM 2.5 are mainly related to the diesel exhaust, fossil fuel
burning, petrol, LPG, and CNG. When the SO2 levels in
IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, and Shadipur were com-
pared, it was observed that Delhi has a very high SO2
level, which is above the standard pollution level. This
high pollutant level might be the reason for many health
issues and multiple deaths for specific areas. The NOx
level for IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, rapidly
increased by 30.3%. The NOx level for IHBAS, Dilshad
Garden, Delhi, is also very high, and is more than the
standard value (40 μg/m3). Anand Vihar is the top most
polluted area in Delhi. The NOx level for Anand Vihar,
Delhi is also very high, and is more than the standard
value (40 μg/m3).
The analysis in this study also investigated the areas
with high PM 2.5 levels. Because vehicle exhaust emis-
sions are a major source of these three pollution elements,
namely SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5, the fundamental solution
to decrease pollutant levels might be achieved by
preventing the further launch of new vehicles in these
areas. Another suggestion is to use the spatial interpola-
tion techniques to overcome the limitation of fixed the air
quality monitoring system. Spatial interpolation tech-
niques will help to predict the pollutant concentration in
the unmonitored regions. Geographic information system
(GIS) is also a very popular tool for creating an analysis
of the environment.
The analysis of the study is estimated based on the
exceedance factor, using SO 2 , NO x , and PM 2.5 in
Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai. It has been demonstrated
that the annual growth of SO2, NOx, and PM 2.5 in Delhi,
Bengaluru, and Chennai, as well as the considered areas,
has also been categorized into four different classes,
namely C (critically polluted), H (highly polluted), M

Table 8 PM 2.5 pollutant levels

Determined Locations PM 2.5 (μg/m3) 2015 2016 2017 2018

R K Puram, Delhi 114.35 132.18 90.45 123.44

Anand Vihar, Delhi 156.25 172.54 190.82 163.25
Peenya, Bengaluru 37.05 63.22 44.96 28.3
IHBAS, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 121.8 142.98 94.62 104.94
Velachery Res. Area, Chennai 103.71 37.95 30.82 40.11
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 122.23 94.11 100.3 130.68
Shadipur, Delhi 119.94 141 80.51 115.65
 Air Qual Atmos Health

Fig. 6 Exceedance factor graph

for PM 2.5 pin 2015–2018

(moderately polluted), and L (low polluted). As our sur-
vey report suggests, Delhi, Chennai, and Bengaluru be-
long to the most polluted cities in India, on the basis of
their emission and energy consumption. Therefore, the
concluded forecasting of pollutants for the concerned cit-
ies from 2015 to 2018 will be helpful for providing this
information to the public, in order to take the necessary
measures and to protect their health. The analysis can also
be used by the government and authorities to create a
possible reduction in the sources of the pollutants con-
cerned, and to help with the decision-making process for
actions to take regarding human health in the coming
years of 2019–2020.
For further studies, we are planning to work on the above
methods to monitor the unmonitored locations by using mea-
sured locations. This will provide researchers with enough
data to determine the hotspots for air pollutant concentrations,
as well as the health characteristics for the given area.

Table 9 Exceedance factor (EF) and pollution level for PM 2.5 in 2015–2018

R K Puram, Delhi Anand Vihar, Delhi Peenya, Bengaluru

Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 114.35 3.81 C 156.25 5.20 C 37.05 1.23 C
2016 132.18 4.40 C 172.54 5.75 C 63.22 2.10 C
2017 90.45 3.01 C 190.82 6.36 C 44.96 1.49 C
2018 123.44 4.11 C 163.25 5.44 C 28.3 0.94 M
Standards 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3
IHBAS, Delhi Velachery, Chennai Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 121.8 4.06 C 103.71 3.45 C 122.23 4.07 C
2016 142.98 4.76 C 37.95 1.26 H 94.11 3.13 C
2017 94.62 3.15 C 30.82 1.02 H 100.3 3.34 C
2018 104.94 3.49 C 40.11 1.33 H 130.68 4.35 C
Standards 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3
Shadipur, Delhi
Levels (μg/m3) EF Pollution level
2015 119.94 3.99 C
2016 141 4.7 C
2017 80.51 2.68 C
2018 115.65 3.85 C
Standards 30 μg/m3
Air Qual Atmos Health
References
Amal L, Son LH, Chabchoub H (2018) SGA: spatial GIS-based genetic
algorithm for route optimization of municipal solid waste collection.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:27569–27582. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-018-2826-0
Ayala A, Brauer M, Mauderly JL, Samet JM (2011) Air pollutants and
sources associated with health effects. Air Qual Atmos Health 5:
151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-011-0155-2
Balakrishnan K, Cohen A, Smith KR (2014) Addressing the burden of
disease attributable to air pollution in India: the need to integrate
across household and ambient air pollution exposures. Environ
Health Perspect 122:A6–A7. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307822
Biswas J, Upadhyay E, Nayak M, Yadav AK (2011) An analysis of
ambient air quality conditions over Delhi, India from 2004 to
2009. Atmos Clim Sci 01:214–224. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.
2011.14024
Camastra F, Ciaramella A, Son LH, Riccio A, Staiano A (2019) Fuzzy
similarity-based hierarchical clustering for atmospheric pollutants
prediction. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-12544-8_10
Cardozo JIH, Sánchez DFP (2019) An experimental and numerical study
of air pollution near unpaved roads. Air Qual Atmos Health 12:471–
489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00678-9
Chinnaswamy AK, Galvez MCD, Balisane H, Nguyen QT, Naguib RNG,
Trodd N, Marshall IM, Yaacob N, Santos GNC, Vallar EA, Shaker
M, Wickramasinghe N, Ton TN (2016) Air pollution in Bangalore,
India: an eight-year trend analysis. Int J Environ Technol Manag 19:
177. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijetm.2016.082233
CPCB (2016) Annual Report 2015–16. http://cpcb.nic.in/annual-report.
php
Dales R, Burnett RT, Smith-Doiron M, Stieb DM, Brook JR (2004) Air
pollution and sudden infant death syndrome. PEDIATRICS 113:
e628–e631. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.6.e628
Darryl DM (2017) https://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2017/11/24/india-
biggest-emitter-so2/
Donkelaar A et al (2016) Global estimates of fine particulate matter using
a combined geophysical-statistical method with information from
satellites, models, and monitors environmental. Sci Technol 50:
3762–3772. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05833
GBD MAPS Working Group (2018) Burden of disease attributable to
major air pollution sources in India. Special Report 21. Boston:
Health Effects Institute.
Gordon T, Balakrishnan K, Dey S, Rajagopalan S, Thornburg J, Thurston
G, Agrawal A, Collman G, Guleria R, Limaye S, Salvi S, Kilaru V,
Nadadur S (2018) Air pollution health research priorities for India:
perspectives of the Indo-U.S. Communities of Researchers. Environ
Int 119:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.013
Guttikunda SK, Nishadh KA, Jawahar P (2019) Air pollution knowledge
assessments (APnA) for 20 Indian cities. Urban Clim 27:124–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2018.11.005
Hedley AJ, Wong C-M, Thach TQ, Ma S, Lam T-H, Anderson HR (2002)
Cardiorespiratory and all-cause mortality after restrictions on sul-
phur content of fuel in Hong Kong: an intervention study. Lancet
360:1646–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11612-6
Heinrich J (2018) Air pollutants and primary allergy prevention. Allergo J
Int 28:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-018-0078-7
View publication stats
Hoque MMM, Basak LK, Rokanuzzaman M, Roy S (2014) Level of
noise pollution at different locations in Tangail municipal area,
Bangladesh. Bangladesh J Sci Res 26:29–36. https://doi.org/10.
3329/bjsr.v26i1-2.20228
Khazaei B, Shiehbeigi A, Haji Molla Ali Kani AR (2018) Modeling
indoor air carbon dioxide concentration using artificial neural net-
work. Int J Environ Sci Technol 16:729–736. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13762-018-1642-x
Kim K-H, Kabir E, Kabir S (2015) A review on the human health impact
of airborne particulate matter. Environ Int 74:136–143. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.005
Kumar A, Goyal P (2011a) Forecasting of air quality in Delhi using
principal component regression technique. Atmos Pollut Res 2:
436–444. https://doi.org/10.5094/apr.2011.050
Kumar A, Goyal P (2011b) Forecasting of daily air quality index in Delhi.
Sci Total Environ 409:5517–5523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2011.08.069
Kumar A, Goyal P (2012) Forecasting of air quality index in Delhi using
neural network based on principal component analysis. Pure Appl
Geophys 170:711–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0583-4
Limaye S, Salvi S (2010) Ambient air pollution and the lungs: what do
clinicians need to know? Breathe 6:234–244
Louati A, Son LH, Chabchoub H (2018) Smart routing for municipal
solid waste collection: a heuristic approach. J Ambient Intell
Humaniz Comput 10:1865–1884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-
018-0778-3
Pant P, Lal RM, Guttikunda SK, Russell AG, Nagpure AS, Ramaswami
A, Peltier RE (2018) Monitoring particulate matter in India: recent
trends and future outlook. Air Qual Atmos Health 12:45–58. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0629-6
Ramasamy R (2018) Assessment of comprehensive environmental pol-
lution index of Kurichi industrial cluster, Coimbatore District, Tamil
Nadu, India - a case study. J Ecol Eng 19:191–199. https://doi.org/
10.12911/22998993/78747
Schwela D (2012) Urban air pollution in Asian cities. Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781849773676
Son LH, Louati A (2016) Modeling municipal solid waste collection: a
generalized vehicle routing model with multiple transfer stations,
gather sites and inhomogeneous vehicles in time windows. Waste
Manag 52:34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.041
Wang Z, Feng J, Fu Q, Gao S, Chen X, Cheng J (2019) Quality control of
online monitoring data of air pollutants using artificial neural net-
works. Air Qual Atmos Health:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-
019-00734-4
WHO (2018) WHO global ambient air quality database (update 2018).
World Health Organization, Geneva
Yuda M (2019) Asian countries rush to fight toxic air pollution. Accessed
from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Asian-countries-rush-to-
fight-toxic-air-pollution. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
Zheng Y, Li S, Zou C, Ma X, Zhang G (2018) Analysis of PM2.5 con-
centrations in Heilongjiang Province associated with forest cover
and other factors. J For Res 30:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11676-018-0640-7
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.