1 / 36

PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest

PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest. Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. Cite: The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, Dr. Michael Kleinman, UC-Irvine, September 19, 2000.

vian
Download Presentation

PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PM2.5 in the Upper Midwest Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

  2. Cite: The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, Dr. Michael Kleinman, UC-Irvine, September 19, 2000

  3. PM2.5 particles are so small that 30 of them side-by-side would barely equal the width of a human hair (graphic courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)

  4. PM2.5 v. PM10 v. TSP Cite: NARSTO Fine Particle Assessment Review Draft, August 15, 2001

  5. PM NAAQS • TSP (1971): • Annual = 75 ug/m3 • 24-hour = 260/150 ug/m3 • PM10 (July 1987): • Annual = 50 ug/m3 • 24-hour = 150 ug/m3 • PM2.5 (July 1997): • Annual = 15 ug/m3 • 24-hour = 65 ug/m3 (98th percentile)

  6. Regulatory Schedule • 2002: 3 years data available (‘99 - ’01) • Dec 2003: Finalize review of PM NAAQS • 2003-4: State recommendations for designating nonattainment areas • 2004-5: EPA designates areas (per TEA-21 legislation) • 2007-8: States submit SIPs with control strategies for PM2.5 and haze

  7. PM2.5 Monitoring Data • State Monitors • FRMs (filter-based), continuous, speciation • IMPROVE (rural) • Special Studies • Upper Ohio River Valley Study (DOE) • Midwestern Aerosol Characterization Study (EPRI)

  8. IMPROVE (rural sites)

  9. Seney NWR, Michigan

  10. Key Points • Compliance with NAAQS: • nonattainment of annual standard likely over broad region of eastern U.S. (and CA), including across IL-IN-OH-SE MI • Data analyses show… • Temporally: (1) concentrations relatively consistent throughout the year, with some seasonal variation (higher levels during winter [urban] and summer; and (2) daily concentrations present public health issues • Spatially: regional contributions dominate • Chemically: (1) sulfates and organics (urban) dominate, and (2) nitrates important during winter • PM2.5 - regional haze - ozone related, which suggests need for integrated SIP planning

  11. Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 - 2000)

  12. Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 - 2000)

  13. 24-Hour Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 - 2000)

  14. Number of Sites > NAAQS1999 - 2000

  15. Conceptual Model of PM2.5 • Spatial Variations • Temporal Variations • Chemical Variations • Meteorological Conditions • Multi-Pollutant Relationships (PM2.5-haze-ozone)

  16. Annual Average Concentrations IMPROVE/CASTNet Data (1997 - 1999)

  17. Urban v. Rural(Annual Average Concentrations)

  18. Urban v. Rural(DOE Upper Ohio River Valley Study) Cite: Semi-Annual Technical Progress Report, ATS, Oct. 31, 2001

  19. Urban v. Rural

  20. Air Quality Index Category PM2.5 O3 (8-hour) Good 0 - 15ug/m3 0 - 64ppb Moderate 15 - 40 65 - 84 Unhealthy for sensitive groups 40 - 65 85 - 104 Unhealthy 65 - 150 105 -1 24 Very unhealthy 150 - 250 125 - 374

  21. High Daily ConcentrationsEffect on Public Health

  22. Ozone v. PM2.5 AQI Days1/1/99 - 9/30/01

  23. Chemical Composition - Rural Sites IMPROVE/CASTNet Data (1997 - 1999)

  24. Chemical Composition - Rural

  25. Chemical Composition - Rural

  26. Chemical Composition - Rural/Urban

  27. Meteorological Conditions (Back Trajectories)

  28. Contoured Trajectories: Cincinnati

  29. Regression Trees (met only):Cincinnati southerly winds northerly winds,low wind speed northerly winds, high wind speed

  30. PM2.5 v. Visibility Ozone v. Visibility

  31. Wrap-Up • Summary of Key Points • Future Issues

  32. Key Points • Compliance with NAAQS: • nonattainment of annual standard likely over broad region of eastern U.S. (and CA), including across IL-IN-OH-SE MI • Data analyses show… • Temporally: (1) concentrations relatively consistent throughout the year, with some seasonal variation (higher levels during winter [urban] and summer; and (2) daily concentrations present public health issues • Spatially: regional contributions dominate • Chemically: (1) sulfates and organics (urban) dominate, and (2) nitrates important during winter • PM2.5 - regional haze - ozone related, which suggests need for integrated SIP planning

  33. Future Issues • Technical • More data analysis (source apportionment) • Understanding response to emission reductions • Programmatic • Public outreach (PM2.5 and ozone) • Nonattainment designations • PM-coarse

More Related