Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Calculating Air Quality and Its Control

Charles E. Zimmer A.M. & Ralph I. Larsen

To cite this article: Charles E. Zimmer A.M. & Ralph I. Larsen (1965) Calculating Air
Quality and Its Control, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 15:12, 565-572, DOI:
10.1080/00022470.1965.10468424

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1965.10468424

Published online: 16 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6727

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
 CHARLES E. ZIMMER, A.M.,
Chief, Planning and Data Analysis
Unit, Air Quality Section, Laboratory
of Engineering and Physical Sciences
RALPH I. LARSEN, Ph.D.,
Assistant Chief, Field Studies Branch,
Division of Air Pollution, Robert A.
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Public Health Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare
Calculating Air Quality and
Its Control
Air quality is shown as a function of averaging times offiveminutes to one year for carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxidant, and
sulfur dioxide in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington, D. C. Concentrations are approximately lognormally
distributed for all pollutants in all cities for all averaging times. Maximum concentra-
tion is inversely proportional to averaging time to an exponent. The exponent is a
function of the standard geometric deviation. General air quality and control parameters
are derived and shown for one example, nitrogen oxides in Washington, D. C. These
values are compared to one air quality standard.

Mir pollution control officials and
researchers measuring air quality have a
wide variety of air sampling devices at
their disposal. Such devices range in
complexity from relatively simple and
inexpensive dustfall collectors and lead
peroxide candles to the more sophisti-
cated, and consequently expensive,
instruments that provide continuous
measurements.1 Each device provides
some indication of air quality; however,
each device also imposes its own restric-
tions and limitations upon the resultant
data. The choice of air sampling in-
struments to be used in a particular
investigation depends upon the objec-
tives of the study and the availability of
funds.
Air quality data can be analyzed in
two fundamental ways: (1) by the
frequency and length of time that a
certain concentration is exceeded2"4;
and {2) by concentration averaged over
a specified time interval. The first
analysis requires continuous data meas-
ured by an instrument with a fairly short
time constant.1 The second analysis
can be obtained either by averaging
continuous data over a specified time
period or by using integrating samplers
such as the high-volume sampler,5 the
AISI sampler, various bubblers, or the
dustfall jar.
Concentration Versus Averaging
Time and Frequency
Since January 1962 the Public Health
Service has operated a Continuous Air
Monitoring Program (CAMP), in which
air pollutant concentrations are punched
automatically into computer paper tape
every five minutes. For analysis of
these data, averaging times are selected
that begin at the first minute of a pollu-
tion season (usually spring, taken here
as beginning March 1; but when data
are scarce, later periods are used). The
eight-hour-average values then conclude
at every 0800, 1600, and 2400 hour time
thereafter. Other averaging-time values
are calculated similarly. If more than
half of the five-minute values are avail-
able for an averaging period, concentra-
tions are calculated by summing these
values and dividing by their number.
If half or less of the values are available,
no value is calculated for that period.
Cumulative frequency distributions of
concentrations of gaseous pollutants for
selected averaging times are given in
detail for one example, nitrogen oxides
in Washington, D. C. (Table I), and
in summary for carbon monoxide (Table
II). Maximum concentrations for vari-
ous averaging times are given for carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NO +
NO2), total oxidants, and sulfur dioxide
in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles,
New Orleans, Philadelphia, San Fran-
cisco, and Washington, D. C. (Table
III). Table I indicates that the mean
concentration of nitrogen oxides in
Washington, D. C , during the period
from March 1, 1962, to March 1, 1963,
was 0.06 ppm. The maximum five-
minute concentration during this period

Table I—Concentration vs. Averaging Time and Frequency for

Nitrogen Oxides (ppm) in Washington, D. C , March 1 , 1962 to March 1, 1963
Aver-
Per- p r r . ^6nt oi J. line if ra firm
lbrtltlOIJL I S J C J X C I
Time Mean Max Min cent 0.001 0.01 0 .1 1 10 20 50 60 70 80 90 99 99.9 99.99 99.999
30 40
5 min 0.06 0.79 0.00 70 0.79 0.77 0 . 53 0.35 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00
10 0.06 0.79 0.00 70 0.75 0 . 53 0.35 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0. 00 0.00
15 0.06 0.78 0.00 70 0.74 0 . 53 0.35 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0. 00 0.00
30 0.06 0.78 0.00 69 0.69 0 . 53 0.35 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0. 00 0.00
1 hour 0.06 0.74 0.00 70 0 . 51 0.34 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0. 00
2 0.06 0.64 0.00 68 0 . 53 0.33 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0. 00
4 0.06 0.51 0.00 71 0. 49 0.32 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0. 00
8 0.06 0.43 0.00 73 0. 40 0.27 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0. 00
12 0.06 0.35 0.00 77 0.26 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
1 day 0.06 0.29 0.01 73 0.22 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02
2 0.06 0.25 0.02 66 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02
4 0.06 0.18 0.03 69 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03
7 0.06 0.13 0.03 73 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03
14 0.06 0.13 0.03 77 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03
1 month 0.06 0.11 0.04 83 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
2 0.05 0.08 0.04 67 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
3 0.06 0.08 0.04 75 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
6 0.07 0.09 0.05 100 0.05
1 year 0.06 0.06 0.06 100

December 1965 / Volume 15, No. 12 565

 Table II—Carbon Monoxide Concentration (ppm) at Camp Sites vs. Averaging Time and Frequency

%
-Period- Averaging Data —Percent of Time Concentration Is Exceeded
City End Time Mean Max Min Avail 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 30 50 70 90
Chicago 9/1/62 9/1/63 5 minutes 8 50 0 49 50 47 35 25 15 10
1 hour 8 36 0 49 26 21 14 10
8 hours 8 22 1 50 22 18 13 10
1 day 8 19 3 50 15 12 9
1 week 8 13 5 50 10 9
1 month 8 10 7 58 9 7 7
1 season 8 9 7 50 7 7
Los Angeles 3/1/62 3/1/63 5 minutes 11 67 0 74 66 41 34 25 16 12 10
1 hour 11 36 1 74 32 24 16 12 10
8 hours 11 28 5 76 25 21 15 12 10
1 day 11 22 6 78 19 14 11 10 10
1 week 11 15 8 79 12 12 11 10
1 month 11 13 9 75 12 11 11 9
1 season 11 12 10 75 12 10 0
Philadelphia 9/1/62 9/1/63 5 minutes 13 52 0 16 52 52 48 32 19 15 12 9
1 hour 13 47 4 16 46 32 19 15 12 9
8 hours 13 36 4 16 35 30 18 15 12 9
1 day 13 25 6 16 23 18 14 13 9
1 week 13 18 8 13 17 13 12 11
1 month 14 14 13 17 13 13 13 0
1 season

was 0.79 ppm. The minimum concen-

Table III—Maximum Concentration of Various Pollutants for Various tration recorded was zero, an indication
Averaging Times at Camp Sites, 1962 that the concentration was less than
the minimum detectable by the analyzer.
Averaging Maximum Concentration One percent of the five-minute values
City Time CO IIYC NO NO 2 N O . (ppm;
OXI so3 exceeded 0.35 ppm. Ninety percent
Chicago 5 minutes 50 19 0.66 0.26 0.78 0.16 1.94 exceeded 0.01 ppm. The median con-
1 hour 36 • 12 0.61 0.22 0.69 0.11 1.69 centration (50 percentile) was 0.05 ppm.
S 8 hours 22 8 0.41 0.16 0.54 0.05 0.87 Similarly, the one-day-average concen-
1 day 19 6 0.36 0.12 0.43 0.02 0.71 tration maximum was 0.29 ppm and the
1 week 13 4 0.25 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.47
1 month 10 4 0.17 0.06 0.21 0.01 0.33 one-day-average concentration exceeded
1 season 9 4 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.28 0.22 on one percent of the days.
1 year (mean) 8 3 0.11 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.14 The cumulative frequency distribu-
Cincinnati 5 minutes 25 0.60 0.30 0.69 0.20 0.68
1 hour 17 0.58 0.25 0.68 0.14 0.48 tion (including the minimum and maxi-
8 hours 11 0.38 0.14 0.50 • 0 .10 0.23 mum values) for various averaging times
1 day 10 0.29 0.09 0.37 0.06 0.11.., can be plotted manually (Figs. 1 and 2)
1 week 6 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.07 or by computer (Fig. 3). The computer
1 month 5 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.06
1 season 4 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05 plots appear as if typed by a pica type-
1 year (mean) 3 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.04 writer (six characters per vertical inch
Los Angeles 5 minutes 67 2.11 0.59 2.16 0.53- 0.22 and 10 characters per horizontal inch).
1 hour 36 0.80 0.54 1.07 0.49 0.19 The M values on Fig. 3 indicate maxi-
8 hours 28 0.56 0.37 0.71 0.31 0.09 mum or minimum concentrations. The
1 day 22 0.38 0.20 0.54 0.16 0.07
1 week % 15 0.23 0.13 0.35 0.07 0.03 top 1 is the 0.1 percent frequency.
1 month 13 0.18 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.03 The top 0 is the one percentile. The
1 season 12 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.02 lower 1 and digits 3 to 9 are the 10 to
1 year (mean) 11 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.02
New Orleans 5 minutes 0.42 0.14 0.49
90 percentiles. The low 0 is the 99
0.18 0.31 percentile. The H values are a plot of
1 hour 0.36 0.13 0.43 0.17 0.10
8 hours 0.15 0.07 0.20 0.11 0.04 the hour-average cumulative distribu-
1 day 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.08 0.03 tion of frequency on a logarithmic
1 week 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.02 (vertical scale) by normal probability
1 month 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02
1 season 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 (lower scale) basis, also shown as a hand
1 year (mean) 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 plot (Fig. 2). Averaging times for Fig.
Philadelphia 5 minutes 52 15 2.63 0.36 2.84 0.12 1.25 3 are on the top scale.
1 hour 47 13 2.37 0.32 2.59 0.10 1.03
. Lt;>' 8 hours 36 7 1.35 0.19 1.49 0.08 0.48 Individual plots, like Fig. 3, of maxi-
L• 1 day 25 5 0.76 0.13 0.89 0.05 0.30 mum concentration and the one-hour-
1 week 18 4 0.19 0.07 0.28 0.02 0.19 average cumulative frequency distribu-
1 month 14 3 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.10 tion have been printed by the computer.
1 season 3 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.09
1 year (mean) 3 0.05 0.04 0.09 These have been combined into Fig. 4
13 0.01 0.08 to show the overall data trend. The
San Francisco 5 minutes 17 1.39 0.50 1.47 0.32 0.16
1 hour 12 0.65 0.26 0.72 0.26 0.11 plots indicate two trends:
8 hours 8 0.44 0.16 0.52 0.16 0.07
1 day 6 0.23 0.09 0.27 0.09 0.05 (1) The plot of maximum concentra-
1 week 4 0.15 0.07 0.20 0.05 0.02 tion versus averaging time
1 month 3 0.11 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.01 approximates a straight line on
1 season 3 0.11 0.05 0.16 0.02 0.01
1 year (mean) 2 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.01 logarithmic paper, indicating that
Washington 5 minutes 20 0.68 0.37 0.79 0.17 0.56 maximum concentration can be
1 hour 17 0.65 0.30 0.74 0.13 0.48- expressed as a function of averag-
8 hours 14 0.39 0.11 0.43 0.10 0.35-
-' 1 day 8 0.22 0.09 0.29 ing time to an exponent.
0.06 0.25
1 week 5 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.14 (2) For a given averaging time (one-
i 1 month 3 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.11 hour averages are shown) con-
\ 1 season 3 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.10 centration versus frequency of
1 year (mean) 3 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.06 occurrence plots as a straight line

566 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

 on logarithmic by normal (log- AVERAGING TIME

normal) probability paper.6"8

i n i i i i n i i n i i n i i r m r
Some of the data fit these trends very
well, some only fairly. Some curve
slightly upward, some downward. On
the average, the data tend to fit these
trends, especially the most polluted half
of the samples. Some of the lower con-
centrations are so near thel owest detect-
able limit that they do not plot well.
Some of the maximum concentrations
for averaging times less than 30 minutes
fall below expected levels. This is
especially true of nitrogen oxides, since
the analyzer has a long averaging time.1 OOOI O.OI I 10. 100 1000 10,000 100,000

The time constant for nitrogen oxides AVERAGING TIME, JHOURS

samples is 10 minutes. Thus, if the Fig. 1. Frequency of various nitrogen oxides concentrations for various
sampled concentration were abruptly averaging times in Washington, D. C , March 1, 1 962 to March 1, 1 963.
changed from zero to one ppm, the
values would read only 0.63 ppm after
a 10-minute exposure. None of the
data have been corrected for slow re-
sponse.
REDUCED VARIATE.Z, NO. OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Pollutant Parameters
Frequency distributions that tend to'
be normal can be characterized by the
average and standard deviation. For a
lognormal distribution these values are
the geometric mean (approximately the
50 percentile) and the standard geo-
metric deviation (approximately the 16
percentile divided by the 50 percentile) .8
To demonstrate a technique, both pa- GEOMETRIC DEVIATION.

rameters will be calculated from a line

fitted to two points of the cumulative
frequency distribution of one-hour-
average concentration. The 30 and 0.1
percentiles will be used here. The 30-
percentile concentration is usually high
enough above the minimum detectable
value to be read with reasonable ac-
curacy. The 0.1 percentile is close 999 99.99
enough to the maximum to fit it well.
Thus a line fitted to these two points Fig. 2. Frequency of various one-hour averaging time nitrogen oxides
describes the upper half of the distribu- concentrations in Washington, D. C , March 1, 1962 to March 1, 1963.
tion quite well. For oxidant, only a
little more than 10 percent of the values
may be significantly above the minimum
detectable level. In this case, fairly
good fits have been obtained with the
10 percentile and 0.1 percentile.
The horizontal scale on probability
graph paper (Fig. 2) may be expressed
as percentage points of the cumulative
frequency distribution or as standard
deviation units (z values). The 30 per-
centile corresponds to z = 0.52, and the
0.1 percentile is at z = 3.09 (Table IV).
The concentration at any z value can
be calculated.7- 8
c = nigSg* (1)
where c is the concentration at z, mg is
the geometric mean, and sg is the stand-
ard geometric deviation. If two points
of the cumulative frequency distribu-
tion are known, sg may be calculated.

Z1
Fig. 3. Concentration vs. averaging time and frequency for nitrogen oxides
Sn = e
(2) in Washington, D. C , March 1, 1 962 to March 1, 1 963.

December 1965 / Volume 15, No. 12 567

 NEW SAN WASHINGTON,
CHICAGO CINCINNATI LOS ANGELES ORLEANS PHILADELPHIA FRANCISCO D.C.
AVERAGING T I M E , hours
I 100 10,000 I 100 10,000 I 100 10,000 I 100 10,000 I 100 10,000 I 100 10,000 I 100 10.000
100 l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- 30ppm
••••••••>.•'• •••••• ...•'
CALIFORNIA
STANDARD
CARBON MONOXIDE

"* ""*.*••• " • ••••".«••*

I -
HYDROCARBONS

100 -

NITRIC OXIDE
' • • • • « » *

0.01 -

NITROGEN <
DIOXIDE £ * "'•••"«**
••••%•*
5 o.oi -

NITROGEN
OXIDES - 0 . 1 ppm
0.01 - COLORADO
STANDARD

I -
OXIDANT
-0.15 ppm
EYE IRRITATION;
0.01 - THRESHOLD

SULFUR DIOXIDE • 0.3 ppm

TASTE
- THRESHOLD
1111111 rrtTT mini I till 11 iijiiii
SO ,50 50 50 50 50
FREQUENCY, % OF TIME

Fig. 4. Maximum concentration for various averaging times, and frequency of various pollutants in various cities.

where e is the base of natural logarithms, in = (0.047)(2.16)°- 51n2 - 16 (8)

2.718, In indicates natural logarithms,
CJJ is the concentration at the first z m = 0.063 ppm b =
. x2
value, cZ2 is concentration at the second In —
z value, and zx and z2 are the z values. The expected frequency of the extreme xl (12)
Substituting into Equation 2, using the concentrations (maximum and mini-
0.1 and 30 percentiles for one-hour mum) is approximately 9 In m
averaging time values of nitrogen oxides b =
s __ 60% 8760 hours
in Washington, D. C. (Table I), (9) ln
N 1 hour

sa = e
[ ,
ln
0T07
0.51 -i

3.09-0.52 J (3)
where / is percent frequency and N is
the number of samples. For the maxi-
Or, using Equations 1 and 7,
ln s z
mum one-hour concentration this fre- In " ~
s0 = 2.16 (13)
quency corresponds to z = 3.81 (Table ln 8760
IV). Substituting in Equation 1,
Equation 1 can be rearranged to solve b = -0.29
for the geometric mean. = (0.047) (2.16)3-81 (10) The coefficient of the equation is the
: = 0.9 ppm expected one-hour maximum (Equation
mg = (4) 10). Thus the equation is
V
c min = (0.047) (2.16) ~3-81 01) = o.9r 0 - 29 (14)
0.07
mg (5) cmin = 0.0025 ppm
~ 2.16 where t is averaging time in hours.
mg == 0.047 ppm Similarly, the minimum is
Concentrations for other percentiles can
be calculated and plotted (Table IV and c min = 0.0025i0-36 (15)
The arithmetic mean can now be cal- Fig. 1).
culated.7 The equation for the maximum con- The frequency distributions for other
In m = In mg + 0.5 In2 sg (6) centration line (Fig. 1) can be calculated averaging times can be plotted by draw-
from two points. The one-hour-average ing lines through the one-hour values
Or, taking antilogs,
maximum and the annual mean will be and the maximum concentration line
m = nigsg0-5 l n S9
(7) used here. The slope of the line is10 (at averaging times noted in Table IV).

568 Journal o f the Air Pollution Control Association

 REDUCED VARIATE , Z, NO. OF STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Frequency distributions for other
averaging times can be calculated if two
points are available. One point is the
arithmetic mean, which is the same for
all averaging times. The other is the
maximum concentration. Equations 1
and 7 can be combined.
_ „ z — 0.5 In sg (16)
m
Taking logarithms, solving the resulting
quadratic equation, and taking antilogs,

V m )
s, = e (17)
Solving sg for 24-hour averaging time,
2.94-( 2 . 942 -2 1 n ^ ) 1 / 2 (18)
sg — e
10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 99.9 99.99
sa = 1.94 FREQUENCY, % OF TIME

As mentioned earlier, the standard
geometric deviation describes concen-
tration spread. If the standard geo-
metric deviation were one, Fig. 1 would
appear as one horizontal line. All sam-
ples for all averaging times would be
the same. The higher the deviation,
the greater the spread of the fan in
Fig. 1.
By the above calculations, all of the
lines on Fig. 1 have been constructed
from only two points, the 0.1 and 30
percentile concentrations of one-hour
averaging time. The lines could have
been calculated from any two points,
at the same or at different averaging-
times. Observed values (Table I) have
been plotted for comparison. Although
most of the values fit very well, almost
all of the observed maxima are less than
expected. Just the reverse occurs for
sulfur dioxide in Chicago; most of the
observed maxima are slightly greater
than expected.
26 Samples per Year
Figure 1 is based on 70,000 five-minute
values. The National Air Sampling
Network (NASN)5- » and National Gas
Sampling Network (NGSN)12 take 26
random 24-hour-duration samples per
year at each station. How well would
such a sampling program have approxi-
mated Fig. 1? A set of 24-hour-dura-
tion random values were selected from
the CAMP data by use of an NASN
sampling schedule (Fig. 5). The
logarithms of these concentrations were
used to calculate the geometric mean
and standard geometric deviation.
L AT J ,in,
mg = e (19)
where mg is the geometric mean, 2 In x
is the summation of the logarithms of all
the observed concentrations, and N is
the number of observations. For the
standard geometric deviation,
Sin *x - N (In J»B) 2 "1V2
N - 1
sa = e
Fig. 5. Frequency of various 24-hour averaging time nitrogen oxides con-
centrations in Washington, D. C , March 1, 1962 to March 1, 1963.
AVERAGING TIME
HOURS DAYS MONTHS
000 10,000 100,000
AVERAGING T I M E . HOURS
Fig. 6. Expected frequency of various nitrogen oxides concentrations for
various averaging times in Washington, D. C , March 1, 1962 to March 1,
1963.
For the 22 samples available the and r is the rank order (highest, second
geometric mean is 0.054 (Equation 19) highest, third highest, etc.). The con-
as compared with 0.051 calculated from centration is calculated with Equation 1.
the one-hour data (Equation 4). The For Fig. 6, the one-hour maximum is
standard geometric deviation is 1.76 0.9 ppm. The fourth highest concen-
(Equation 20) as compared with 1.94 tration (/ = 0.041%, z = 3.34) is about
calculated from the one-hour data two-thirds this value, 0.62 ppm. The
(Equations 1, 14, 17, and 18). Thus a 12th highest (exceeded an average of
fairly good approximation to Fig. 1 once per month) is 0.53 ppm (z — 3).
could have been obtained with these 22 All of the foregoing analyses have
random samples. Future analyses are showed results for only one year of data.
planned to determine how well various But air pollution is worse in some years
sampling patterns would approximate than in others. In fact there may even
the continuous data. be a cyclic trend. The 1930 Meuse
Valley air pollution incident, the Decem-
High Concentrations ber 1952 London incident, the November
1953 New York incident, and the De-
Concentrations can be ranked by fre-
cember 1962 London incident all oc-
quency (Fig. 1) or order (Fig. 6).
curred during periods of low sun spot
Ordered values plot almost parallel to
activity (11-year cycle).10 Several years
the maximum concentration line. The
frequency is determined as9 of data (possibly one solar cycle, 11
years) would increase the reliability of
predictions. The graph paper shown
(Fig. 1) allows the plotting of data for
(20) where N is the total number of samples averaging times from a second to a

December 1965 / Volume 15, No. 12 569

century. If many years of data are Table IV—Plotting Position of Extreme Concentrations and Various Per-
used, the overall average effect of year- centiles for Various Averaging Times
by-year change in pollutant source
strength must be adjusted before com- ?
Plnttimr Pr
X 1\J V t l l l g , X UOA \JJL\Jli. •»

bining years. Reduced

If all sources are controlled by ap- Variate z
(No of std.
proximately equal percentages, then the Averaging time No. of samples Frequency, 60%/iV deviations
distribution after control will be shaped (hours) in Year (% of time) from mean)
the same as before control (Fig. 1), only 1 sec 0.000278 31,500,000 0.0000019 5.50
the concentration axis will be shifted.8

1—1
min 0.0166 525,000 0.0001142 4.73
For instance, if 90 percent reduction of 5 0.0833 105,000 0.000571 4.39
all nitrogen oxides sources in Washing- 8 .8 0.146 60,000 0.001 4.27
ton, D. C, occurred, one ppm on the axis 10 0.166 52,500 0.001142 4.24
15 0.25 35,000 0.001715 4.14
would become 0.1 ppm, 0.1 ppm would 30 0.5 17,500 0.00343 3.98
become 0.01 ppm, etc.

i—i
hour 1 8,760 0.00685 3.81
1 .46 1.46 6,000 0.01 3.72
Air Quality Standards 2 2 4,380 0.0137 3.63
4 4 2,190 0.0274 3.46
The ultimate purpose of air sampling 8 8 1,095 0.0548 3.26
is to determine if source reduction is 12 12 730 0.0822 3.14
needed, and if so, how much. The pur- 14 .6 14.6 600 0.1 3.09
1 day 24 365 0.1644 2.94
pose of this section is to demonstrate a 2 48 183
method for calculating the degree of air 0.328 2.72
4 96 91 0.657 2.48
quality control needed to meet any 5 .90 146 60 1 2.33
standard. It is not the purpose of this '7 168 52 1.153 2.27
14 346 26 2.31 1.99
paper to recommend any particular air
i—i

month 730 12 5 1.64

quality standard. 2 1460 6 10 1.28
The California standard for adverse 3 2190 4 15 1.04
air quality tends toward levels that are 6 4380 2 30 0.52
1 year 8760 1 50 0
not expected to significantly harm or
impair man or plant (Table V).8> 13
The levels allow some sensory irritation analyses could be tailored to the stand- would achieve the Colorado standard
(SO2 and oxidant). Two of the values ard instead. Also note that observed at the CAMP site in Washington, D. C.
are close to those for air in an industrial data are used here. Calculated data Mathematical meteorological modeling
environment as promulgated by the could have been used.8 may be used to determine how much air
ACGIH threshold limits (eight-hour The degree of overall average air quality would be improved by selectively
averages). The ACGIH recommends quality control required to meet a given controlling individual sources.18- 19
0.1 ppm for ozone; California recom- standard can be calculated. Negative numbers in Table VI indi-
mends 0.15 ppm (one-hour average) for cate the percent increase in source
oxidant. California recommends 30 (100%)(c-s) strength that would just exceed the
ppm (eight-hour average) for carbon R = (22)
standard. Note that a 20 percent in-
monoxide; the ACGIH tentative value crease in carbon monoxide emissions in
is 50 ppm. where R is the percent reduction that
will achieve the standard, c is the present Los Angeles could occur at the CAMP
The Colorado14 and West Germany station site (Tables II and VI) before
(VDI)15 standards tend toward values or future predicted concentration, and
s is the standard concentration.8 By use the California standard would be ex-
that would allow only infrequent sensory ceeded. California plans indicate that
irritation. The USSR values are de- of values for nitrogen oxides in Wash-
ington, D. C. and the Colorado stand- a 60 percent reduction in average carbon
signed to prevent the first human re- monoxide emissions will be needed by
sponse.15"17 Biologic instruments have ard,
1970.13'20 One reason for this difference
been used to determine decreased adap- (100%) (0.51 - 0.1) in calculated reduction is that 40 percent
tation to dark, shift in optical chronaxie, R = (23) more carbon monoxide is expected to be
or any other altered human response. 0.51
emitted in 1970 than in 1962.13 A
Air quality standards can be com- R = 80% second very important reason for this
pared with either tabular or graphical difference is that the CAMP site is not
air quality data. The Colorado stand- Thus an overall average reduction of 80 as polluted by carbon monoxide as are
ard for nitrogen oxides is 0.1 ppm for a percent in nitrogen oxides emissions many other locations in Los Angeles.
one-hour average for no more than one
percent of the hours in any three months
(Table V). Comparison of this standard Table V—Air Quality Standards for Various Pollutants
with Washington, D. C, data shows that n nTir , entratior1
20 percent of the one-hour average > VPP111/
concentrations exceed 0.1 ppm (Table Percent of Nitro-
Time Standard Carbon gen Nitro-
I, Figs. 1 to 4). The longest averaging State or Averaging Can Be Mon- Di- gen Sulfur
time for which 0.1 ppm was exceeded Country Time Exceeded oxide oxide Oxides Oxidant Dioxide
was one month (1000 hours). California14 8hr. 30 0.3
1 hr. 120 0.15 1
Calculating the Degree of Colorado13 24 hr. 1% of any 0.1
Air Quality Control 3 months
1 hr. 1% of any 0.1 0.1 0.5
Note that the air quality standard 3 months
parameters (Table V) have been altered W. Germany 30 min. 0.5 0.2
5
slightly (Table VI) to fit the available (VDI)i
16 17 short 1 0.3
data (e.g., Tables I and II). If just one USSR - 24 hr. 0.8 0.06 0.06
20 min. 4.8 0.18 0.18
standard were being used, the air quality

570 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

 Table VI—Source Reduction That Would Achieve Various Air Quality Standards in Various Cities

Standard Compared with Source Reduction (%) That Would

Pollutant, Parameters, Measured Concentration (ppm) Achieve Various Air Quality Standards
and City Calif. Col. W. Germ. USSR Calif. Col. W. Germ. USSR
Carbon Monoxide
Parameters Used
Averaging time 8hr. 24 hr.
Percent of time exceeded 0.1% 1%
Standard Concentration 30 1
Measured Concentration
Chicago 22 15 -36 93
Los Angeles 25 19 -20 95
Philadelphia 35 23 14 96
Nitrogen Oxides
Parameters Used
Averaging time 1 hr. 1 hr. 24 hr.
Percent of time exceeded 0.1% 0.1% 1%
Standard Concentration 0.1 0.5 0.06
Measured Concentration
Chicago 0.63 0.63 0.31 84 21 81
Cincinnati 0.42 0.42 0.17 76 -19 65
Los Angeles 0.88 0.88 0.48 89 43 88
New Orleans 0.31 0.31 0.10 68 -61 40
Philadelphia 1.83 1.83 0.43 95 73 86
San Francisco 0.60 0.60 0.24 83 17 75
Washington, D. C. 0.51 0.51 0.22 80 2 73
Oxidant
Parameter Used
Averaging Time 1 hr. 1 hr.
Percent of time exceeded 0.1% o.i%
Standard Concentration 0.15 0.1
Measured Concentration
Chicago 0.09 0.09 -67 -11
Cincinnati 0.10 0.10 -50 0
Los Angeles 0.32 0.32 47 69
New Orleans 0.15 0.15 0 33
Philadelphia 0.09 0.09 -67 -11
San Francisco 0.17 0.17 12 31
Washington, D. C. 0.11 0.11 -36 9
Sulfur Dioxide
Parameters.Used .
Averaging time 8hr. 24 hr. 1 hr. 24 hr.
Percent of time exceeded 0.1% 1% 0.1% 1%
Standard Concentration 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.06
Measured Concentration
Chicago 0.73 0.49 0.93 0.49 59 80 78 88
Cincinnati 0.19 0.10 0.27 0.10 -58 0 26 40
Los Angeles 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.05 -275 -100 -82 -20
New Orleans 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.03 -650 -233 -186 -100
Philadelphia 0.47 0.27 0.64 0.27 36 63 69 78
San Francisco 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.04 -330 -150 -120 -50
Washington, D. C. 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.17 -15 41 31 65

Control must be based on the worst Summary Acknowledgments

situation that is to be rectified, whether
by control of individual sources or by
overall measures. Probably in no case
is the CAMP station measuring the
worst air quality in a city. Other sites
must be located, possibly with less
frequent sampling, to find the worst air
quality situation that is to be controlled.
Either this, or the worst situation can be
estimated from the data from a single
station.21
The values in Table VI are based on
1962 pollutant concentrations. In plans
for the future, growth must be con-
sidered.8 If present trends continue,
by the year 2000 sulfur oxides emissions
will double, nitrogen oxides emissions
will triple, and carbon monoxide emis-
sions will quadruple.22
Air quality is shown as a function of
Sincere thanks are expressed to Ed
averaging times of five minutes to one
Diephaus, Supervisor, and Paul Britton
year for carbon monoxide, hydrocar-
and Charles Hampel, Programmers, of
bons, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
the Sanitary Engineering Center Data
nitrogen oxides, oxidant, and sulfur
Processing Unit for many of the com-
puter programs and all of the data
dioxide in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los
Angeles, New Orleans, Philadelphia,
processing for this study.
San Francisco, and Washington, D. C. REFERENCES
Concentrations are approximately log- 1. R. I. Larsen, F. B. Benson, and G. A.
normally distributed for all pollutants in Jutze, "Improving the Dynamic Re-
sponse of Continuous Air Pollutant
all cities for all averaging times. Maxi- Measurements with a Computer," J.
mum concentration is inversely propor- Air Poll. Control Assoc, 15: 19-22
tional to averaging time to an exponent. (January 1965).
The exponent is a function of the stand- 2. R. C. Wanta and A. C. Stern,
"Classification of Air Pollution Ex-
ard geometric deviation. General air posures," Amer. Industr. Hyg. Assoc.
quality and control parameters are Quarterly, 18: 156-160 (June 1957).
derived and shown for one example, 3. R. I. Larsen, "Parameters of Aero-
nitrogen oxides in Washington, D. C. metric Measurements for Air Pollution
Research," Amer. Industr. Hyg. Assoc.
These values are compared to one air J., 22: 97-101 (April 1961).
quality standard. 4. T. R. Oliver, "Mathematical Methods

December 1965 / Volume 15, No. 12 571

 of Measuring Exposure to Air Pollut-
ants," presented in Houston at the
annual American Industrial Hygiene
Conference (May 6, 1965).
5. Air Pollution Measurements of the
National Air Sampling Network, 1957-
1961, Public Health Service Publica-
tion No. 978, Government Printing
Office, Washington 25, D. C. (1962).
6. C. E. Zimmer and G. A. Jutze, "An
Evaluation of Continuous Air Quality
Data," / . Air Poll. Control Assoc,
14: 262-266 (July 1964).
7. R. I. Larsen, "United States Air
Quality," Arch. Environ. Health, 8:
325-333 (Feburary 1964).
8. R. I. Larsen, "A Method for De-
termining Source Reduction Required
to Meet Air Quality Standards," J.
Air Poll. Control Assoc, 11: 71-76
(February 1961).
9. E. S. Pearson and H. O. Hartley,
Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, 1:
175, Cambridge University Press,
London (1956).
10. R. I. Larsen, "Determining Basic
Relationships Between Variables,"
Symposium on Environmental Meas-
urements: 251-263, PHS Publication
999-AP-15, Sanitary Engineering Cen-
ter, Cincinnati, Ohio (July 1964).
11. R. I. Larsen, "Choosing an Aero-
metric Data System," J. Air Poll.
Control Assoc, 12: 423-430 (Septem-
ber 1962).
12. E. C. Tabor and C. C. Golden, "Re-
sults of Five Years' Operation of the
National Gas Sampling Network,"
J. Air Poll. Control Assoc, 15: 7-11
(January 1965).
13. Technical Report of California Stand-
ards for Ambient Air Quality and
Motor Vehicle Exhaust, California
Department of Public Health, Berk-
eley (1960).
14. S. M. Rogers and S. Edelman, 1964
Supplement to A Digest of State Air
Pollution Laws: 4: Public Health
Service Publication No. 711, Wash-
ington, D. C. (1964).
15. A. C. Stern, "Summary of Existing
Air Pollution Standards," J. Air
Poll. Control Assoc, 14: 5-15 (Jan-
uary 1964).
16. A. C. Stern, Air Pollution, II, Aca-
demic Press, New York (1962).
17. V. A. Ryazanoy, "Sensory Physiology
as Basis for Air Quality Standards,"
Arch. Environ. Health, 5: 480-494
(November 1962).
18. F. Pooler, Jr., "A Prediction Model
of Mean Urban Pollution for Use with
Standard Wind Roses," J. Air and
Water Poll, 4: 199-211 (1960).
19. D. B. Turner, "Relationships Between
24-Hour Mean Air Quality Measure-
ments and Meteorological Factors in
Nashville, Tennessee," / . Air Poll.
Control Assoc, 11: 483-489 (October
1961).
20. J. A. Maga and G. C. Hass, "The
Development of Motor Vehicle Ex-
haust Emission Standards in Cali-
fornia," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc,
10: 393-396 (October 1960).
21. R. I. Larsen, W. W. Stalker, and C. R.
Claydon, "The Radial Distribution
of Sulfur Dioxide Source Strength and
Concentration in Nashville," «/. Air
Poll. Control Assoc, 11: 529-534
(November 1961).
22. V. G. MacKenzie, "The Role of the
Scientist and the Citizen—a Case
Study, Air Pollution," presented at
the Scientists' Institute for Public
Information Symposium of the Annual
Meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science,
Montreal, Canada (December 29,
1964).
572
NOMINATING COMMITTEE SEEKS
MEMBERSHIP'S RECOMMENDATIONS
This year for the first time APCA's
members will have an opportunity to
nominate candidates for First Vice
President instead of President. In
accordance with the newly amended
By-laws approved by the membership
this year, the Nominating Committee
may recommend multiple nominees for
vacant offices. You, as an individual
member or company representative of
APCA, are requested to submit to the
chairman or any member of the Nom-
inating Committee, names of individuals
and the offices for which you feel they
are qualified. These recommendations
should be received before February 1,
1966. The members of the Nominating
Committee, all of whom have been
members of the Association for a min-
imum of five years, are as follows:
Dr. E. R. Hendrickson, Chairman
Director of Research
309 Tigert Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32603
R. E. Hatchard, Director
Air Quality Control Division
Portland Bureau of Health
1225 Southwest Third Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Arthur J. Robert
Chief Investigator and
Director of Air Pollution
City of Saint Paul
100 East 10th Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Elmer P. Wheeler
Manager, Environmental Health
Medical Department
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
John H. Easthagen
Staff Engineer
Chevron Research Company
567 Standard Avenue
Richmond, California 94801
George T. Minasian
Consulting Engineer
104 Clark Street
Glen Ridge, New Jersey 07028
Jean J. Schueneman
Chief, Technical Assistance Branch
Division of Air Pollution
Taf t Sanitary Engineering Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
The offices for which this committee
is to select nominees are:
(1) First Vice President, who must
be a control official—to serve one year.
(2) Five Directors to serve accord-
ing to the following schedule: Two in-
dustry representatives—to serve three
years. One representative from the
research, education, and consultant
category—to serve three years. One
representative from the research, edu-
cation, and consultant category—to
serve two years. One representative
from the research, education, and con-
sultant category—to serve one year One
control official—to serve two years.
Retiring Board Members are: Dr.
L. C. McCabe, Dr. E. R. Hendrickson,
Gordon W. Barr and James V. Fitz-
patrick.
Due to a change in the nature of the
activity of the U.S. Public Health Serv-
ice since the passage of the 1963 Clean
Air Act, the U.S. Public Health Service
is now deemed to be an agency with en-
forcement powers. Accordingly, Mr.
Arthur C. Stern is now considered to
have had his employment category
changed from that of the Research Ed-
ucation and Consultant category to that
of a control official. In accordance with
the by-laws, he may serve until the next
election in his present category and he
may be placed in nomination for a two-
year term as a control official.
Mr. John S. Lagarias has changed his
employment category from industry to
consultant and in accordance with the
By-laws he may serve until the next
election in his category as consultant
and he may be placed in nomination
for a one year term in the consultant
category.
DREXEL ANNOUNCES
FACULTY EXPANSION
Drexel Institute of Technology has
expanded the faculty in the Environ-
mental Engineering and Science Gradu-
ate Program.
Dr. H. C. Wohlers, former Director
of Technical Services, Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District, joins the
staff as Associate Professor of Environ-
mental Science; Dr. Norman Trieff,
Assistant Professor of chemistry, was
previously connected with the Michigan
Department of Health; Dr. Robert
Stiefel will be concerned with the engi-
neering aspects of water resources
development and water qualitative
management; Dr. Alonzo Lawrence
comes to Drexel as a specialist in bio-
logical treatment methods as applied to
waste disposal systems.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association