A Comparison Between National Air Quality Index

Environmental Challenges
Volume 5, December 2021, 100356
A comparison between national air quality index,

india and composite air quality index for Ahmedabad,
India
Dipsha Paresh Shah a b , Dr. Piyushkumar Patel c
Show more
Outline Share Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100356
Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license open access
Highlights
• In Ahmedabad City, during monitoring, pollutants concentration is generally
within NAAQS, 2009 in the summer.
• In the winter, during monitoring, particulate matters concentration is generally

exceeding the standards.
• The composite air quality index estimates more efficiently the pollutants
exposure to the population as compared to the maximum operating function-
based national air quality index, India.
• The wider range of composite air quality indexes proves the superiority over the
national air quality index, India.
Abstract
Ahmedabad is the 5th biggest city and 7th most populated city in India. It is the largest city in Gujarat. The city
is spread over a further 450 sq. km. of area. The study report prepared by the World Health organization
(WHO) in May 2014 reveals that Ahmedabad is the 9th most air polluted city in the world and 5th most air
polluted city in India, based on the concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In this study, six different
ambient air quality monitoring locations are selected in Ahmedabad. A sensor-based continuous ambient air
quality monitoring instrument is used to monitor the ambient air quality of selected locations for the
summer and winter seasons. The concentration of six pollutants is monitored: respirable suspended
particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone
(O3), and carbon monoxide (CO). The monitoring data shows that in the summer, the average concentration
of all the pollutants at all selected locations is within National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2009.
In the winter, gaseous pollutants; an average hourly concentration of O3 and CO; and 24 hrs. the average
concentration of SO2 and NO2 are within NAAQS, 2009 at all the selected locations. In the winter, the average
concentration of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are exceeding the standards at four out of six selected
locations during monitoring. So, pollutants concentration is more in winter as compared to summer, this may
be due to meteorological parameters. The monitoring data also reveals that in Ahmedabad the major
responsible pollutants are particulate matters (PM10 and PM2.5) rather than the gaseous pollutants.The
monitoring data are used to determine the National Air Quality Index (NAQI), India, and the fuzzy-based
Composite Air Quality Index (CAQI). The two indexing systems are compared. In this research article,
determination methods of the National Air Quality Index and the Composite Air Quality Index are discussed.
The comparison between the two-indexing system reveals that the CAQI estimates more efficiently the
pollutants exposure to the population as compared to the NAQI. The CAQI shows the realistic situation,
especially when two or more pollutants are exceeding the standards simultaneously. The composite air
quality indexing tool is very useful to inform the citizens and to protect human well-being in an urban area. It
can be used as a governmental and administrative tool to make abatement strategies and to take effective
measures. The wider range of composite air quality indexes proves the superiority over the national air
quality index, India.
Previous Next
Keywords
Composite air quality index (CAQI); National air quality index – India (NAQI); Air quality indexing system
comparison; City level air pollution; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation model
Introduction
Air is a vital and principal resource for the survival of human life, along with water and land. Air pollution is
considered a serious environmental threat in Asian cities, especially India. Most of the Indian population is
exposed to poor air quality thus, leading to severe health hazards, responsible for various health problems
such as the risk of developing cancers, respiratory diseases, and others. Universally, as derived from the risk
factor causes for the mortality rate of human beings, air pollution is at the 4th rank. It would be insightful to
understand that worldwide, every year more than 5.5 million people die annually due to air pollution.
Approximately, 55% of these deaths are occurring in China and India (Feb 12, information 2016 | F more
2016). These countries have had the fastest growing economy and booming rigorously over the past few
decades. According to the research conducted by Qiao Ma at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 1.4 million
people die prematurely every year due to indoor as well as outdoor air pollution (Feb 12, information 2016 | F
more 2016). As per the Lancet Commission report of 2015 on pollution and health, household and ambient air
pollution are responsible for more than 99% and 89% of deaths respectively in low and medium-income
group countries. Average annual concentrations of PM2.5 are more than 100 µg/m3 in many cities of India and
China (A.J. Cohen et al., 2017; AJ Cohen et al., 2017).
With technological advancement and the establishment of several air monitoring stations, an enormous
amount of ambient air quality data is generated, used to determine the air quality status of different areas.
With an increasing number of monitoring locations and pollutant parameters, monitoring frequencies
increase. This huge chunk of monitoring data is neither useful to decision-makers/scientists nor to common
people as it is too fragmented and coded. Day-by-day, the representation, and analysis of air quality
explanations tend to get even more complicated for the experts. Especially since the common man simply
wishes to know the air pollution status around them to take necessary measures accordingly. The common
person cannot be satisfied as they cannot understand and interpret the raw data, statistical analyses, time
series plots, and other complicated air quality findings. Gradually, people lose interest and never recognize or
appreciate the efforts made by the government agencies/authorities for air pollution reduction. People need
to know the status of air pollution, especially those suffering from illness due to air pollution exposure. So
effective communication of air quality status is crucial. Support from citizens having information about the
local and national level air pollution problems is necessary for the success of air action plans and air
pollution mitigation measures taken by the governmental agencies. The concept of air quality index (AQI) is
developed and initiated to fulfill the above-mentioned concerns. It is used efficiently in many developing and
developed countries to investigate the concerns related to air pollution.
As stated by many esteemed researchers, the air quality index is a comprehensive system that converts the
measured concentration of air pollutants into a single number for reporting air quality with its impact on
human health (Thom and Ott, 1976; Bortnick et al., 2002; Murena, 2004; Ragusa, n.d., 2018). It is a
quantifiable tool through which data related to air pollution and associated health concerns can be reported.
AQI aims to inform the public and make them aware of the risks of pollution exposure and to enforce
regulatory agencies to take the required measures. In India, at present, two types of air quality indexing
systems are used, to show the quality of air in different regions of the country: i. National Air Quality Index
developed by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT – Kanpur), implemented by Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB) in 2014, and ii. Air Quality Index, India; developed by Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology,
Pune (IITM, Pune) with the help of the Ministry of Earth Science (MoES), Government of India in 2010. In
both indexing systems, the US EPA formula is used, which is based on maximum operating function i.e., the
sub-index of individual pollutants is calculated by segmented linear interpolation between breakpoint values
of pollutants. The maximum value of the sub-index of pollutants is selected as an overall AQI. The
disadvantage of both air quality indexing systems is that they only represent the level of one pollutant at a
time i.e., the index value is based on the concentration of only one pollutant. Hence, it cannot show whether
simultaneously more than one pollutant exceeds the daily national ambient air quality standards or not. This
seems a bit arbitrary and over-simplified, especially in context with such severe pollution concerns. The
breakpoint values of pollutants vary in both systems. In the current air quality indexing systems, synergetic
effects of pollutants have not been considered. There may be a chance that a combination of pollutants at a
concentration below the standards may increase harmful effects on human health, living organisms,
materials, and monuments. They may cause new or currently unknown problems. In the current AQI,
weather conditions are also not considered. There may be possibilities that in the monsoon the concentration
of pollutants is less as compared to winter. This happens as pollutants were washed out in the monsoon
while the pollutants cannot be dispersed in the winter due to thermal inversion. To overcome the limitations
of the existing air quality indexing systems, a fuzzy evaluation model-based composite air quality index
(CAQI) has been developed. It considers factors such as the appropriate method of indexing without
ambiguity and eclipsing, synergetic effects of pollutants, and aggregation of pollutants. In this paper
specifically, for the monitored data, NAQI and CAQI have been calculated. The values obtained by both the
indexing systems are compared to see the difference between them. The comparison also evaluates which
indexing system functions better out of the two.
Material and methods

In this section, a brief about the urban area selected for the study, criteria selected for the selection of
monitoring stations, duration of monitoring, and data collection has been discussed.
Location of the study

Ahmedabad is selected as the study area. The city is known as the financial capital of Gujarat, India has been
selected to monitor the ambient air quality. The city is also known as ‘Karnavati’ or ‘Amdavad’. It was
established in 1411 AD by a noble, Ahmed Shah on the bank of river Sabarmati. It is the largest city of Gujarat,
the 5th biggest city, and the 7th most populated city in India. The city is spread over an area of 466 sq. km.,
having a population of around 56,00,000, population density is 11,948 per sq. km (as per census 2011). It is
located at 23.03° North (latitude), and 72.5° East (longitude) (About Ahmedabad). In 2010, Ahmedabad was
ranked 3rd in Forbes's list of the fastest-growing cities of the decade. In 2012, the Times of India chose the city
as India's best city to live in terms of infrastructure. In July 2017, the old Ahmedabad was declared as India's
first UNESCO World Heritage City. As per the May 2014 report of the World Health organization (WHO); the
city is the 9th most air-polluted city in the world and 5th most air-polluted city in India, based on the
concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). As per the Gujarat Ecology Commission's report on, “State of
Environment Reports of Gujarat - 2012″, Ahmedabad has the highest number of air polluting industries in
Gujarat, registered in the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) (Commission, 2012) . As per the same
report, from 2006 to 2010, SPM and RSPM concentration in all the monitoring stations located in residential
areas were in high and critical pollution levels, while in industrial areas; RSPM and SPM concentration were
in moderate and high pollution levels as per CPCB standard 2005 (Guttikunda and Jawahar, 2012). The city
has almost 3000 industrial units including 855 chemical factories, 511 foundries, and 380 textile plants
among others. The surrounding low-efficiency brick kilns and trash burning also contribute to air pollution in
the city. As per S. Guttikunda's report on, “Urban Air Pollution Analysis in India”, in the last decade, from
2001 to 2011, the number of vehicles including motorcycles and scooters doubled in Ahmedabad, while the
population grew by 58%. Ahmedabad has two thermal coal-fired power plants: the 800 MW Gandhinagar
plant and the 400 MW Sabarmati plant (Guttikunda et al., 2019). As per the report produced by Urban
Emissions, a research organization in the year 2012 and 2018, major sources of respirable suspended
particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are power plants, road dust, vehicular exhaust,
and industry (Guttikunda et al., 2019; Central Pollution Control Board 2014). The % contribution of all the
sources for PM10 and PM2.5 for the years 2012 and 2018 is shown in Annexure B.
Selection of monitoring stations

Total six ambient air quality monitoring stations are selected considering existing ward level land-use
patterns and population density. In the selected monitoring stations, the population density should be at
least twice the average population density of Ahmedabad city i.e., densely populated locations are selected
for monitoring. For monitoring, the wards are selected with prior conditions such as that there should not be
any existing ambient air quality monitoring station within that ward and the selected location should not be
within 5 sq. km. area of existing stations established by IITM and GPCB. There should not be any obstruction
of airflow (e.g. buildings, trees, and others) at the ambient air quality monitoring instrument installation sites
(Polludrone, 2021).
For the selection of ambient air quality monitoring locations, information about existing monitoring
locations established by the GPCB RO office, GPCB Rural office, and IITM have been collected and the existing
locations are located on Ahmedabad city map with a buffer of 1.25 km i.e. circle covering 4.9 sq. km. of the
area as shown in Fig. 1. Data regarding the number of wards of Ahmedabad, ward-wise area, and population
have also been collected and reorganized as Annexure A. The ward-wise data are arranged in a descending
order based on their population density. The wards are eliminated in which within the ward boundary,
existing ambient air quality monitoring stations are installed by GPCB – RO, or by GPCB – Rural or by IITM, or
the ward location is within 5 sq. km. of the area of existing ambient air quality monitoring stations (AAQMS).
A brief description of the six selected locations, land use patterns, and statistics are tabulated in Table 1. The
six selected locations with existing AAQMS with a 1.25 km radius on the Ahmedabad map are shown in Fig. 2.
The six selected six locations (only) with a 1.25 km radius on the Ahmedabad map are shown in Fig. 3. Photos
representing the installation of sensor-based continuous ambient air quality monitoring (CAAQM)
instruments at six selected locations are shown in Annexure C.
Download : Download high-res image (483KB)

Download : Download full-size image
Fig. 1. Ahmedabad Map with Existing AAQMS with Buffer of 1.25 km radius
Table 1. Description of selected wards and Sampling Locations for ambient air quality monitoring
Sr. Ward Monitoring Site Ward The Population The ratio of Description of the site
No. Name Location Code Area, population Density Ward's
Sq. as per (ppl/Km2) Population
km. census Density to
km. census Density to
2011 Avg.
Population
Density of
Ahmedabad
1 Asarwa Sharda ASR 2.4 1,21,747 49,894 3.95 This ward is selected as it represents
Clinic & the sensitive zone and mixed zone
Hospital (Residential cum commercial). The
ward consists of many well-known
hospitals such as CIVIL Hospital,
Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute
(GCRI), GCS Medical College, Hospital
& Research center, U N Mehta
Institute of Cardiology & Research
center, and many private hospitals.
Population density is around 4 times
more than the average population
density of Ahmedabad.
2 Saijpur Building SAI 3.1 1,24,887 40,159 3.18 This ward is selected as it represents
Bogha opposite to the mixed zone.
Rishikesh The area represents the residential
Hospital and commercial area.
Population density is around 3.2
times the average population density
of Ahmedabad.
The national highway – 8 passes near
the location.
The major source of ambient air
pollution is vehicular emission.
3 New Building WDJ 3.2 1,19,798 37,720 2.98 This ward is selected, as it represents
Wadaj opposite to the mixed zone, sensitive zone.
T. R. Many private hospitals within the
Memorial selected area.
Hospital Population density is approximately 3
times the average population density.
The major arterial road passes near
the selected site.
Ahmedabad Municipal Transportation
Service (AMTS) Bus Terminal is
within this ward.

The major sources of ambient air
pollution are vehicular emissions,
domestic cooking due to slum areas.
4 Indrapuri Patel IPR 3.3 1,10,451 33,256 2.63 This ward is selected as the area is
Dental Care near the Ahmedabad – Baroda
and Express Highway and National
Implant Highway 8.
center Population density is 2.6 times the
average population density of
Ahmedabad city.
The ward represents commercial,
industrial as well as residential areas.
The major sources of air pollution are
vehicular emission and industrial
activities.
5 Shahpur Building SHR 3.8 1,15,078 30,434 2.41 This ward is selected, as a large
Opposite to number of heritage monuments
Patthar within the ward.
Wali Masjid It represents the residential cum
commercial area (mixed zone).
Large-scale construction activity
(Metro Project) is going on.
Highly Traffic congested area.
This ward is located in the center of
the city.
The population density is 2.4 times
density of Ahmedabad City.
The major sources of air pollution are
vehicular emission and construction
activities.
6 Naranpura Shree NRA 4.9 1,22,616 24,957 1.97 This ward is selected, as it represents
Kameshwar the residential zone.
Mahadev The major sources of air pollution are
Campus vehicular emissions.
The population density is 2 times
density of Ahmedabad City.
Fig. 2. Ahmedabad Map with Existing and Selected AAQMS with Buffer of 1.25 km radius

Fig. 3. Ahmedabad Map with Selected AAQMS with Buffer of 1.25 km radius
Duration of monitoring and data collection

The highly accurate, cost-effective, sensor-based continuous ambient air quality monitoring (CAAQM)
instrument known as ‘Polludrone’ was used to monitor the ambient air quality (Protecting Health from
Increasing Air Pollution in Ahmedabad, 2017). The ambient air quality monitoring has been done from May
2019 to July 2019 for the summer season and from December 2019 to March 2020 for the winter season, as
shown in Table 2. Sensor-based instruments measured the parameters: PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, O3, SO2, and UV
index (UVI) (Rosario et al., 2016). The monitoring instrument also measured the meteorological parameters:
temperature, humidity, wind speed, and wind direction. At all the selected locations, Polludrone was
installed at a height between 3 to 6 m from ground level. The CAAQM instrument provided the hourly data at
each selected monitoring station. In the summer and winter seasons, 67 days and 83 days of monitoring have
been done respectively. So, a total of 150 days i.e. 3600 h of monitoring data has been collected.
Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Duration of Selected Locations
Sr. No. Location Summer Monitoring Winter Monitoring

Code
Time Duration No. of Days Time Duration No. of Days
To From To From
1. NRA 06/05/2019 18/05/2019 12 20/12/2019 03/01/2020 15
2. SAI 19/05/2019 29/05/2019 11 29/02/2020 13/03/2020 15
3. IPR 30/05/2019 07/06/2019 8 18/02/2020 29/02/2020 11
4. ASR 11/06/2019 24/06/2019 13 04/02/2020 18/02/2020 14
5. WDJ 25/06/2019 07/07/2019 12 04/01/2020 20/01/2020 16
6. SHR 08/07/2019 19/07/2019 11 22/01/2020 03/02/2020 12
Data analysis
The hourly data and 24 hrs. data have been analyzed. The minimum, maximum, mean, and standard
deviation values have been determined for the selected locations of both the seasons; summer and winter as
tabulated in Table 3. In Ahmedabad, average summer temperature and relative humidity ranged from 31.4 °C
to 36 °C and 40% to 60% respectively during the monitoring period. While in winter, the average temperature
and relative humidity ranged from 21.4 °C to 28.6 °C and 27% to 45% respectively. The UV index value is much
less in winter as compared to summer. The Ozone concentration is negligible in summer as compared to
winter despite higher solar radiation. This may be due to higher level maximum mixing depth i.e., higher
boundary layer in summer, so, low concentration of Ozone in lower heights (Lal et al., 2000). Carbon
monoxide acts as a precursor gas in ozone production. In summer, carbon monoxide concentration is also
less as compared to winter (Monforte and Ragusa, 2018). In summer, the average concentration of all the
pollutants; PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO, and O3 are within NAAQS, 2009 at all the selected locations. While in
winter, all the pollutants except PM10 and PM2.5 are within NAAQS, 2009 at all the selected locations. The
average value of PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeding the standards at all locations except Asarva. At Asarva, the
concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 are within the standard but nearer to the limit prescribed in NAAQS, 2009.
The maximum value of PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeding the standards at all the locations.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Monitoring Data Collected at Selected Locations

Winter Summer
Description PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, CO*, O3*, UVI Temp. RH PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, CO*, O3*,
µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m3 µg/m3 (°C) (%) µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m3 µg/m
Kameshwar Mahadev Temple, Naranpura
Minimum 30.6 60.1 23.0 3.7 1.30 17.2 0.1 19.6 32.0 6.9 17.6 13.4 2.2 0.0 0.0
Maximum 178.9 264.2 52.1 33.3 6.00 215.3 0.3 25.0 57.8 20.0 72.6 41.7 110.5 3.3 12.7
Mean 93.3 144.7 34.3 15.1 2.04 76.4 0.2 22.3 45.3 12.7 44.8 32.1 15.7 0.7 0.1
Standard 50.6 70.4 9.3 8.9 0.76 25.8 0.0 2.0 7.8 3.5 14.8 8.5 30.5 0.0 0.1
Deviation
Building opposite to T. R. Memorial Hospital, New Wadaj
Minimum 35.5 73.5 23.5 3.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 18.6 38.6 16.7 35.9 41.3 16.3 0.7 0.0
Maximum 140.1 214.0 54.3 59.9 6.1 132.2 0.3 25.9 51.8 40.3 68.5 61.9 30.5 3.7 10.8
Mean 80.8 131.6 33.7 19.7 2.1 65.8 0.3 21.4 45.4 21.9 46.6 51.4 25.7 1.8 0.8
Standard 38.4 52.9 9.2 15.6 0.8 25.4 0.0 2.0 4.2 6.6 9.1 6.9 4.7 0.7 1.9
Deviation
Building opposite to Pattharwali Masjid, Shahpur
Minimum 21.3 56.6 18.4 8.4 1.3 14.7 0.0 21.0 32.0 14.5 38.1 21.6 7.3 0.7 0.0
Maximum 126.1 203.7 61.1 119.5 6.8 153.2 0.1 24.9 44.4 46.4 77.3 41.8 34.5 3.7 39.3
Mean 64.7 111.4 38.9 34.5 2.4 74.6 0.1 22.7 38.5 21.5 49.5 28.3 21.8 1.5 1.1
Standard 32.6 47.7 14.6 35.7 1.2 20.5 0.0 1.3 4.4 9.0 11.6 6.0 7.7 0.7 4.8
Deviation
Sharda Clinic & Hospital, Asarva
Minimum 33.7 77.0 37.5 22.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 24.0 23.9 17.4 46.0 49.2 4.9 0.5 0.0
Maximum 82.4 145.1 66.9 82.4 6.2 189.6 0.6 30.5 36.6 51.2 76.8 79.4 62.6 5.4 44.2
Mean 55.2 100.0 47.0 38.9 2.7 77.2 0.5 27.3 29.9 24.9 58.7 57.5 22.8 1.5 0.7
Standard 11.3 17.9 8.4 18.2 1.1 33.6 0.1 2.3 3.8 8.3 7.7 8.5 17.7 0.8 3.7
Deviation
The building opposite Ahmedabad - Baroda Express Way, Indrapuri Ward
Minimum 40.9 101.7 33.3 19.8 1.6 0.0 0.6 28.9 23.8 16.0 40.6 56.3 6.3 0.3 0.0
Maximum 126.2 261.4 85.8 83.3 6.7 234.3 1.1 34.5 32.4 24.0 57.5 79.5 13.7 3.9 85.0
Mean 89.2 178.6 61.4 38.9 3.1 72.1 0.8 31.5 27.0 19.1 49.3 68.6 8.6 1.2 4.7
Standard 27.4 49.8 16.3 19.6 1.3 42.1 0.1 1.9 2.3 3.0 5.8 8.5 2.3 0.6 14.7
Deviation
The building opposite Rishikesh Hospital, Saijpur Bogha

Minimum 18.7 55.1 25.9 8.9 1.3 0.0 0.3 26.5 25.9 8.6 26.6 39.8 2.6 0.1 0.0
Maximum 86.7 167.2 69.7 55.2 6.3 208.5 0.6 31.3 46.2 20.2 50 57.8 12.8 3.6 15.5
Mean 39.4 100.3 50.7 30.5 2.7 53.4 0.4 28.6 33.5 14.0 38.8 46.4 6.3 0.8 0.7
Standard 21.6 39.9 15.2 15.1 1.1 39.4 0.1 1.7 7.2 3.8 8.4 5.1 3.1 0.5 2.2
Deviation
⁎
hourly monitoring data
Development of indexing systems

In this section methodology adopted to calculate the Composite air quality index (CAQI) and National air
quality index (NAQI), India will be discussed. The national air quality indexing system is the existing air
quality indexing system in India. For the developemnt of the composite air quality index, which is based on
aggregation of pollutants, literature review has been done. Many air quality indexing systems developed
from 1966 to 2021, such as Green's Index (Green, 1966), Aggregation function based Air Pollution Index
(Swamee and Tyagi, 1999), US EPA Index (Government Printing Office, 1999), Air Quality Depreciation Index
(Singh, 2006), Revised Air Quality index (Cheng et al., 2007), Aggregate Air Quality Index (Kyrkilis et al.,
2007b), Factor Analysis based New Air Quality Index (Bishoi et al., 2009), Air Quality Health Index (Chen and
Copes, 2013), Fuzzy synthetic model based Air quality index (Gorai et al., 2014, Upadhyay et al., 2014), and
General Air Quality Health Index (Tan, 2021) has been reviewed. Based on the literature review, it is
concluded that fuzzy based air quality indexing system is more powerful tool and gives more reliable results
as compared to other methods. So, composite air quality indexing system is developed based on fuzzy
synthetic evaluation model. For both indexing systems, six criteria pollutants have been considered;
Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM, PM10), Fine Particulate Matter (FPM, PM2.5), Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Ozone (O3) (Rosario et al., 2016). The NAQI and
CAQI determination methods are discussed.
Determination of national air quality index (NAQI) (National Air Quality Index 2014)
The national air quality index (NAQI) is based on maximum operating function. The maximum value of the
sub-index is considered as an index value. Sub-indices of pollutants have been calculated by the linear
interpolation between the breakpoint concentration values of pollutants as tabulated in Table 4 and
calculated by using Eq. (1). NAQI value is represented as Eq. (2).
(1)
(2)
Table 4. NAQI Categories and Corresponding Breakpoint Concentration of Pollutants
AQI Category Good Satisfactory Moderately Polluted Poor Very Poor Severe
AQI Value 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 200 201 – 300 301 −400 401 - 500
PM10 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 250 251 – 350 351 – 430 430+

PM2.5 0 – 30 31 −60 61 – 90 91 – 120 121 – 250 250+
NO2 0 – 40 41 – 80 81 – 180 181 – 280 281 – 400 400+
SO2 0 – 40 41 – 80 81 – 380 381 – 800 801 – 1600 1600+
CO* 0–1 1.1 – 2 2.1 – 10 10 – 17 18 – 34 34+
O3 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 168 169 – 208 209 – 748** 748+**
*All pollutants concentration is in "g/m3 except CO in mg/m3.
24 h average value for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and NO2, and 8 h average value for CO and O3.
** Hourly values instead of 8 h average.
Where, p = n number of pollutants: 1, 2… n, BHI = Breakpoint concentration value more than or equal to given
concentration value, BLO = Breakpoint concentration value smaller or equal to given concentration value,
IHI = AQI value corresponding to BHI, ILO = AQI value corresponding to BLO
The NAQI in India is categorized into six categories; Good (0 - 50), Satisfactory (51 - 100), Moderately
polluted (101 - 200), Poor (201 - 300), Very Poor (301 - 400), and Severe (401 - 500). The lower value of NAQI
(up to 100) characterizes good air quality, whereas the NAQI value of more than 100 represents the poor, very
poor, or severe air quality. Thus, more health concerns for the NAQI value greater than 100. The NAQI values
along with pollutants’ breakpoint values are shown in Table 4.
In the existing, US EPA-based National Air Quality Index, India, there is no aggregation of pollutants, i.e.
synergetic effects of pollutants are not considered. To overcome the limitation of NAQI, a fuzzy synthetic
evaluation model-based composite air quality index (CAQI) has been developed.
Determination of composite air quality index (CAQI) using fuzzy synthetic evaluation
model (Gorai et al., 2014) (Upadhyay et al., 2014)
Composite Air Quality Index (CAQI) has been determined by considering the weights of individual pollutants
and aggregating the pollutants. The model is developed based on the breakpoint value of pollutants given in
the National Air Quality Index (NAQI), 2014. In the fuzzy pattern recognition model, the breakpoint values of
pollutants, shown in Table 4 are classified as representative values (ei). The National ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), 2009 are considered as the benchmark values (pi). In the development of the model, the
air quality class is categorized into six different risk levels: Good, Satisfactory, Moderately Polluted, Poor,
Very Poor, and Severe. The classifying representative of the first class (e1 – e2) and the last class (e6 – e7) is
defined as good and severe air quality classes respectively. The concentration values for the first class (e1 –
e2) are 0 – 50, 0 – 30, 0 – 40, 0 – 40, 0 – 1 and 0 – 50, respectively for PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO and O3.
Whereas the concentration values for the last class (e6 – e7) are 430 – 700, 250 – 380, 400 – 750, 1600 – 1700,
34 – 40, and 748 – 800 respectively for PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO and O3. The intermediate classifying
representative values for remaining classes are defined as satisfactory (e2 – e3), moderately polluted (e3 – e4),
poor (e4 – e5), very poor (e5 – e6), and severe (e6 – e7). Table 5 shows the classifying representative
concentration and benchmark values for the selected pollutants, which are used to develop the composite air
quality index. The index is used to evaluate the air quality status of monitoring locations. Benchmark values
(pi) are used to determine the permissible value (CAQI Standard) of the composite air quality index.
Table 5. Classifying Representative and Standard (Benchmarks) Values
Pollutants Classifying representative concentration values (ei) Benchmarks (NAAQS, 2009) (pi)
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7
PM10 0 50 100 250 350 430 700 100
PM2.5 0 30 60 90 120 250 380 60
NO2 0 40 80 180 280 400 750 80
SO2 0 40 80 380 800 1600 1700 80
CO 0 1 2 10 17 34 40 2
O3 0 50 100 168 208 748 800 100
Every pollutant has varying health impacts, so, relative weights assigned to them are also unique. Experts’
opinion is taken and an analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is used for assigning the weights of the
pollutants. The relative weight vector (W), representing the relative weights of pollutants is given:
The standard value matrix (Yi,h) is established based on Table 5, as shown below.
Where, Yi,h = standard value of level h with regard to factor i, h = 1, 2, 3…..7 represents the number of
standard levels of air pollutants concentrations, i = 1, 2, 3…6 denotes six air pollutants; PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2,
CO, and O3. The relative membership degree matrix (Si,h) for standard values can be determined by the use of
the standard value matrix (Yi,h). Si,h is calculated as the membership degree of Yi,h with regard to zero
pollutant, by using eq. 3.
(3)
In Eq. (3), Yi,1, and Yi,7 = concentration values of the first level and seventh level respectively.
The matrix S reflects the continuous transition of the harmful capability of pollutants, which varies from 0 to
1. By use of Eq. (3), the relative membership degree matrix S is obtained.
Similarly, concentration matrix X represents the air pollution monitoring data (24 / 8 hrs. average
concentration of air pollutants). For air quality assessment, if n is the number of samples, and m is the
number of air pollutants (six pollutants in this case), then the concentration matrix (X):
Where, xi,j = air pollution level due to jth pollutant concentration of the ith sample,
The relative membership degree (ri,j) can be calculated by using Eq. (4) for the jth pollutant parameter of the
ith sample.
(4)
If pollutant concentration is less than the concentration at level 1 (i.e. xi,j < yi,1) or if the pollutant
concentration is more than the concentrations at level 7 (i.e. xi,j > yi,7) of standard value matrix, the relative
membership degree (ri,j) is zero or one respectively. By use of Eq. (4), the relative membership degree matrix
R can be written as:
Where, ri.j = the relative membership degree of jth pollutant parameter (j = 1, 2, …, m) of ith sample (i = 1, 2,
…, n), m = 6, as six air pollutants has been considered in the model.
Based on the standard matrix (S), in matrix R, if ri,j = 1, then the worst ith sample, and if ri,j = 0, then the best
ith sample. Suppose, there is a best alternate, in which all the m pollutant's membership degrees are equal to
0, represented as G = (g1, g2, …, gm) = (0, 0, …, 0), the worst alternate, which is represented as B = (b1, b2, …,
bm) = (1, 1, …, 1). In the current scenario, the decision-making problem is converted to a fuzzy pattern
recognition problem. Eq. (5) represents the alternative i expression in matrix R.
(5)
Eq. (6) described the distance of sample i to level h:
(6)
Where, p = distance parameter. The distance parameter (P) is known as Hamming distance and Euclidean
distance for p = 1 and 2 respectively. Euclidean distance (P = 2) is generally used for the degree of differences
in impact. Wj = relative weights of jth air pollutants, calculated by AHP.
The formula for determining the membership degree of sample i belonging to level h is:
(7)
When di,k = 0, i.e. ri,j = si,j, i.e. the sample i completely belongs to level h, therefore,
(8)
For each sample i belonging to each level, the membership degree matrix,
(9)
Eq. (9) represents a 7-level fuzzy pattern recognition model. Where h = 1, 2, …, 7. Eq. (9) provides the
membership degree matrix of each sample belonging to each level, shown as matrix U.
Where, i = number of sample (n), h = number of levels.
The row vector:
(10)
Thus, for standard value matrix S, the membership degree matrix (Us) is written:
The membership degree matrix (Us) unambiguously shows that the pollutants’ concentration in each level of
the standard value matrix S exactly belongs to the level. That means, if i = h, ri,h = Si,h, and hence ui,h = 1. For a
given sample, the evaluation level cannot be determined directly in the matrix. To solve this problem, the
rank feature value is defined. For sample i, Eq. (11) shows the calculation of rank feature value.
(11)
For sample i, Hi is considered as a fuzzy-based composite air quality index. This rank value was established
for National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 2009 which represents the standard evaluation levels.
The rank matrix for the above standard membership degree matrix (Us) is as:
The scale for fuzzy-based composite air quality index for the assessment of the sample is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. The scale of Fuzzy Based Composite Air Quality Index (CAQI)
Scale 1–2 2.01 – 2.5 2.51 – 2.8 2.81 – 3.1 3.11 – 3.4 >3.41
Class Good Satisfactory Moderately Polluted Poor Very Poor Severe
Comparison of air quality indexing systems

Fuzzy-based composite air quality index (CAQI) and national air quality index (NAQI) have been calculated
for both the seasons: summer and winter. To justify that the fuzzy-based composite air quality index (CAQI)
is better than the national air quality index (NAQI), India; a comparison between CAQI and NAQI has been
done (G. Kyrkilis et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2004), (Bishoi et al., 2009). The index range of NAQI is in-between
0 and 500, while the CAQI range is in-between 1 and 7. So, to compare both the index, the NAQI value is
divided by 100. After dividing the NAQI value by 100, the national air quality index value is in-between 0 and
5. Both the index, CAQI, and NAQI are divided into six categories. The six different categories along with NAQI
and CAQI value range and color code is tabulated in Table 7. For all six selected locations, and both the
seasons; summer and winter, monitoring data, NAQI, and CAQI value is shown in Annexure D. The
comparison graph of NAQI and CAQI is shown in Annexure E.
Table 7. FAQI and NAQI Category
Color Code AQI Category NAQI Range NAQI Range CAQI Range
Green Good 0 – 50 0 – 0.5 1.0 – 2.0
Light Green Satisfactory 51 – 100 0.51 – 1 2.01 – 2.5
Dark Pink Moderately Polluted 101 – 200 1.01 – 2 2.51 – 2.8
Orange Poor 201 – 300 2.01 – 3 2.81 – 3.1
Red Very Poor 301 – 400 3.01 – 4 3.11 – 3.4
Dark Red Severe 401 - 500 4.01 - 5 > 3.4
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Naranpura, summer

The tabular and graphical representation of the comparison between NAQI and CAQI reveal that during
monitoring duration, all the pollutants are within NAAQS except one day when the concentration of Sulfur
dioxide exceeded the standards. The comparison graph shows that the trend lines of CAQI and NAQI follow
the same pattern. The NAQI and CAQI values are within respective air quality index standards. During all the
monitoring days, CAQI values are in a good category, NAQI values are either in a good or in a satisfactory
category. For one day, the NAQI value is in a moderately polluted category, as the concentration of SO2 is
exceeding the NAAQS, 2009.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Naranpura, winter

The comparison graphs of NAQI and CAQI values show that the trend lines of both indexing systems follow
the same pattern. The comparison graph and the tabulated data reveal that from 1st to 3rd January, NAQI is in
a very poor category, while CAQI is in a severe category. The monitoring data reveals that the air quality is
really in a severe category as CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are exceeding the standards simultaneously and the
concentration of particulate matters is very high. CAQI shows that more than one pollutant exceeds the
standards, which cannot be represented by NAQI. On 29th and 30th December 2019, NAQI is in a moderately
polluted category, while CAQI is in a poor category because CO and PM10 are exceeding the NAAQS along with
a high concentration of PM2.5. From 20th to 24th December 2019, NAQI is in a moderately polluted category
while CAQI is in the poor category, as both the pollutants; PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009
simultaneously.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Asarva, summer

At Asarva, during monitoring, most of the days, NAQI and CAQI are either of good or satisfactory quality in the
summer season. The NAQI and CAQI comparison graph shows a similar trend. On 25th June 2019, the NAQI is
in a moderately polluted category as CO concentration slightly exceeding the standards, while CAQI is in a
satisfactory category as the remaining pollutants concentrations are very less than the NAAQS, 2009. On 24th
June 2019, both NAQI and CAQI values are in a moderately polluted category. But the difference between the
CAQI and CAQI standard is more as compared to NAQI and NAQI standard, as along with exceeding CO
concentration, the other pollutants concentration was also high. The concentration of PM2.5 and NO2 were
nearer to the standard value.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Asarva, winter

The comparison graph shows that the NAQI and CAQI do not follow a similar trend. CO concentration is
exceeding the standards throughout the monitoring period, and NAQI is based on the CO concentration on all
days except 4th February 2020. For all the monitoring days, NAQI is in a moderately polluted category. While
CAQI is in the satisfactory, moderately polluted, or poor category. On 17th February 2020, CAQI is in the poor
category as PM10, SO2 and CO are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009 simultaneously. On 15th and 12th February
2020, CAQI is in the poor category as PM10, PM2.5 and CO are exceeding the standards simultaneously, while
on both days NAQI is in the moderately polluted category as it represents only one responsible pollutant
which is CO. On 6th and 16th February 2020, only one pollutant; CO is exceeding the standards, so CAQI is in
the satisfactory category. From 8th to 11th February 2020, except 9th February 2020, CAQI is in the poor
category, as only one pollutant (CO) is exceeding the standard, but the other pollutants concentration was
also high. While NAQI is in the moderately polluted category as CO concentration is reflected in NAQI value.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Indrapuri, summer

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graph shows a similar trend. For all monitoring days, NAQI is in the
satisfactory category while CAQI is in a good category, as all the pollutants concentrations were within
NAAQS, 2009.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Indrapuri, winter

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graph shows a similar trend. But the value difference (gap) between the two
trend lines is very uneven. The value difference between the trend lines to its standard index line is also not
uniform. NAQI value is either based on PM10 concentration or based on PM2.5 concentration. NAQI value does
not represent that the CO concentration is also exceeding the NAAQS, 2009. On 21st, 23rd, 24th and 29th
February 2020, NAQI is in a moderately polluted category, while the CAQI is in poor quality, as NAQI is based
on maximum operating function, so, it represents only maximum sub-indices value, while three pollutants;
PM10, PM2.5, and CO are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009 simultaneously. On 22nd February 2020, NAQI is in the
moderately polluted range, while CAQI is in the satisfactory range, as PM10 and CO exceeded the standards,
but the concentration of both the pollutants just crossed the standard limits, and the remaining pollutants
concentration values are less and within standards. On 27th February 2020, NAQI is in the very poor air
quality category, while CAQI value is in the severe air quality category, and it is justifiable as all the pollutants
except O3 are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009. On 19th, 26th and 28th February 2020, NAQI is in the poor category,
while CAQI is in the very poor category, as three pollutants are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009 simultaneously
and PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were very high.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Nava Wadaj, summer

A similar tendency can be seen in the comparison graph between the NAQI and the CAQI. NAQI is in the
satisfactory air quality category for all of the monitoring days, while CAQI is in the good air quality category,
as all pollutants concentrations are within NAAQS, 2009.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Nava Wadaj, winter

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graph shows a similar trend. But the vertical difference (gap) between the
two trend lines is very uneven. On 5th, 8th and 19th January 2020, NAQI is in a satisfactory category, whereas
CAQI is in a moderately polluted category, as PM10, PM2.5, and CO concentration are nearer to the limit of
NAAQS, 2009. On 13th and 18th January 2020, NAQI is in a moderately polluted category, while CAQI is in the
poor category, as three pollutants; PM10, PM2.5, and CO are exceeding the NAAQS, 2009 simultaneously.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Saijpur Bogha, summer

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graphs do not show a similar trend, although NAQI is in the satisfactory
category and CAQI is in the good category for all monitoring days. All pollutants concentrations are within
the NAAQS, 2009 on all monitoring days.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Saijpur Bogha, winter

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graphs follow a similar trend. During all the monitoring days, CO is exceeding
the NAAQS, 2009 except one day. NAQI value is based on CO concentration for 10 monitoring days out of 13
monitoring days. NAQI is mostly in a moderately polluted category, whereas CAQI is in good, satisfactory,
moderately polluted, and poor categories. On 10th and 12th March 2020, only CO is slightly exceeding the
NAAQS, 2009, the all remaining pollutants concentration is lesser than the NAAQS, 2009, so CAQI is in a good
category, while NAQI is in a moderately polluted category. On 4th to 6th March and 9th March 2020, CO is
exceeding the NAAQS, 2009 and the concentration of the remaining pollutants are within NAAQS, 2009, PM10
concentration is nearer to standard limit, so CAQI is in a satisfactory category, while NAQI is in a moderately
polluted category. On 2nd, 3rd and 7th March, more than two pollutants are exceeding the standards
simultaneously, and the concentration of pollutants is also high, So, CAQI is in the poor category, while NAQI
is in the moderately polluted range, as the NAQI value is only based on one pollutant having maximum sub-
index value.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Shahpur, summer

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graphs follow a similar trend. For all the monitoring days, NAQI is in a
satisfactory category, While CAQI is in a good category, as the concentration of all the pollutants within
NAAQS, 2009.
Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Shahpur, winter

The NAQI and CAQI comparison graphs follow a similar trend, but the vertical difference (gap) between the
two trend lines is very uneven. On 22nd, 24th, 29th and 30th January, and 3rd February 2020, NAQI is in a
moderately polluted category whereas CAQI is in the poor category, as three pollutants are exceeding the
standards simultaneously. On 23rd January, NAQI is in a satisfactory category, while CAQI is in a moderately
polluted category, as all the pollutants are within NAAQS, 2009 but simultaneously, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and O3
concentration are high, and nearer to standard limits.
Discussion
Analyzing the superiority of the indexing system, season-wise NAQI and CAQI values for all selected locations
have been compared and pie charts representing air quality index category have been prepared as shown in
Figs. 4 to 7. For summer, the NAQI pie chart shows that 11.8%, 83.8%, and 4.4% of NAQI values are in a good,
satisfactory, and moderately polluted categories respectively. For summer, the CAQI pie chart shows that
92.6%, 5.9%, and 1.5% of CAQI values are in a good, satisfactory, and moderately polluted categories
respectively. Whereas for winter, the NAQI pie chart shows that 20.3% of NAQI values are in a satisfactory
category, 55.7% of NAQI values are in a moderately polluted category, 10.1% NAQI values are in the poor
category, and 13.9% of NAQI values are in the very poor category. In winter, 0% of NAQI values are in the good
and severe air quality categories. For winter, the CAQI pie chart shows that 6.3% of CAQI values are in a good
category, 22.8% of CAQI values are in a satisfactory category, 11.4% of CAQI values are in a moderately polluted
category, 40.5% of CAQI values are in the poor category, 13.9% of CAQI values are in very poor category and
5.1% of CAQI values are in a severe category. So, the wider range of composite air quality index (CAQI) proves
the superiority over the national air quality index (NAQI), India. The composite air quality indexing system is
more appropriate for seasons and areas, where two or more pollutants exceed the NAAQS, 2009
simultaneously.
Fig. 4. Pie Chart Representing % NAQI Category for Summer Season

Fig. 5. Pie Chart Representing % CAQI Category for Summer Season

Fig. 6. Pie Chart Representing % NAQI Category for Winter Season

Fig. 7. Pie Chart Representing % CAQI Category for Winter Season
Conclusion
As per the weightage given to the pollutants, the impact of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is more on human
health followed by nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
respirable suspended particulate matter (PM10). In Ahmedabad, at all six selected locations, the
concentration of the pollutants is higher in winter as compared to summer. In summer, the concentration of
the pollutants is within NAAQS, 2009. While in winter, at all six selected locations, most of the time the
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO) are exceeding the standards, and the other
gaseous pollutants; NO2, SO2, and O3 are within NAAQS, 2009. The higher concentration of pollutants in
winter may be due to meteorological conditions. The fuzzy-based composite air quality index (CAQI) is based
on an aggregation of pollutants while the national air quality index (NAQI) is based on maximum operating
function. National air quality index cannot represent that more than one pollutant is exceeding the standards,
while fuzzy based composite air quality index can represent that more than one pollutant is exceeding the
standards and based on that CAQI value is in moderately polluted, poor, very poor or in the severe category.
In summer, considering monitoring data of all the locations, 95.60% of NAQI values and 92.60% of CAQI values
are below NAQI and CAQI standards respectively. Whereas, in winter, 20.25% of NAQI values and 6.33% of
CAQI values are below NAQI and CAQI standards respectively. Most of the selected locations for both the
seasons; summer and winter, NAQI and CAQI trend lines follow the same pattern.
The comparison between the two indexing systems shows that the composite air quality index estimates
more efficiently the pollutants exposure to the population as compared to the national air quality index,
India. The composite air quality index considers the concentration of all monitored pollutants and their
impacts. The composite air quality index shows the realistic situation, especially when two or more
pollutants are exceeding the standards simultaneously. The composite air quality indexing system is a very
useful tool to inform the citizens and to protect human well-being in urban areas. It can be used as a
governmental and administrative tool to make abatement strategies and to take effective measures. The
wider range of composite air quality indexes proves the superiority over the national air quality index, India.
Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank CEPT University, for allowing me to do the research work and Oizom company,
Ahmedabad for providing me the sensor-based continuous air quality monitoring instrument to monitor the
concentration of pollutants. We would also like to thank Dr. R. A. Christian (Professor, SVNIT) and Dr. Santosh
Kolte (Principal, Alpha College of Engineering and Technology) for their valuable guidance and suggestions in
this research work.
Annexure A
. Ward wise information and selection of ambient air quality monitoring locations
Sr. Ward Number Ward The Population Existing Existing The ratio of Comments
NO. and Name Area, population Density Monitoring No. of Ward's
Sq. as per (ppl/sq Station Stations Population
km census Km) Density to
2011 Avg.
Population
Density of
Ahmedabad
1 21 Dariyapur 1.6 1,17,314 72,386 GPCB - RO 1 5.73 Existing AAQMS installed

by GPCB RO.
2 43 Bhaipura 1.9 1,10,818 57,079 4.52 It is within 10 sq. km

Hatkeshwar area of AAQMS installed
by GPCB Rural.
3 14 Kubernagar 2.2 1,18,156 52,841 4.18 Kubernagar is within 10

sq. km area of AAQMS
installed by SAFAR at
Airport and AAQMS
installed by GPCB Rural.
4 15 Asarva 2.4 1,21,747 49,894 3.95 This ward can be selected

as it represents the
sensitive zone and mixed
zone. The population
density is approximately
4 times more than the
average population
density of Ahmedabad
City.
5 26 Bapunagar 2.7 1,26,935 47,333 3.75 This ward can be

selected. If Saijpur Bogha
or Thakkarbapanagar
ward is selected for
monitoring, then it is
within a 10 sq. km area.
6 29 Jamalpur 2.8 1,25,923 44,732 GPCB - RO 2 3.54 Existing AAQMS installed

& SAFAR by GPCB RO & SAFAR.
7 13 Saijpur Bogha 3.1 1,24,887 40,159 3.18 The ward can be

selected. As it represents
the mixed zone,
population density is
approximately 3.2 times
more than the average

population density of the
city and the national
highway passes through
the ward.
8 38 Gomtipur 3.2 1,27,578 39,361 SAFAR 1 3.11 Existing AAQMS installed

by SAFAR.
9 23 3.1 1,18,683 38,329 3.03 This ward can be

Thakkarbapanagar selected, but if Saijpur
Bogha ward is selected
then it is within 10 sq.
km area of Saijpur Bogha
ward.
10 27 Saraspur - 3.1 1,16,634 38,116 GPCB - RO 2 3.02 Two existing AAQMS

Rakhiyal installed by GPCB RO.
11 06 New Wadaj 3.2 1,19,798 37,720 2.98 This ward can be

selected, as it represents
the mixed zone, sensitive
zone, population density
is approximately 3 times
more than the average
population density of the
city and the major
arterial road passes
through the ward.
12 28 Khadia 3.3 1,20,690 36,915 Covered by 2.92 This ward is within 5 to

Buffer 10 sq. km. area of
existing AAQMS installed
by GPCB RO and SAFAR.
13 32 Vejalpur 2.9 1,05,159 36,252 Covered by 2.87 This ward is within 5 to

Buffer 10 sq. km. area of
existing AAQMS installed
by GPCB RO
by GPCB RO
14 07 Ghatlodia 3.0 1,04,697 34,840 2.76 Some portion of

Ghatlodia Ward is
covered within 10 sq. km
area of existing AAQMS
installed at Gota by GPCB
RO and some area will be
covered by AAQMS will
be located at New Wadaj
15 36 Danilimda 3.5 1,20,944 34,096 GPCB - RO 1 2.70 Some portion of
Danilimda Ward is
covered within 10 sq. km
area of GPCB RO station
and GPCB Rural station
16 25 Viratnagar 3.7 1,27,525 34,048 2.69 This ward can be

selected, as this ward
represents the
commercial zone. Major
arterial roads and
national highway pass
through the ward.
17 39 Amraiwadi 3.1 1,05,671 33,609 2.66 This ward is within 5 to

10 sq. km. area of AAQMS
installed by SAFAR.
18 42 Indrapuri 3.3 1,10,451 33,256 2.63 This ward can be selected

as the area is near the
express highway,
national highway and
population density is 2.6
times more than the
average population
density of Ahmedabad
city.
19 17 Shahpur 3.8 1,15,078 30,434 2.41 This ward can be selected

because of the many
heritage monuments in
this ward. Major
construction activity
(MEGA Project) is going
on in this ward. This
ward represents the
commercial zone,
residential zone as well
as sensitive zone.
20 44 Khokhra 3.6 1,06,403 29,654 GPCB - RO 1 2.35 Existing AAQMS installed

by GPCB RO.
21 45 Isanpur 4.1 1,15,098 28,123 GPCB - 1 2.23 Most of the ward area is
Rural within 5 to 10 sq. km.
area of existing AAQMS
installed by GPCB Rural
and GPCB RO Station
(GPCB RO 4A and 2A and
GPCB Rural 2B).
22 37 Maninagar 4.5 1,23,027 27,053 GPCB - RO, 1 2.14 Most of the ward area is
Continuous within 5 to 10 sq. km.
Monitoring area of AAQMS installed
Station by GPCB RO (GPCB RO
11A and 2A).
23 22 India Colony 4.6 1,16,106 25,389 2.01 Some of the ward areas
are within 5 to 10 sq. km.
area of AAQMS installed
by GPCB RO (GPCB RO 6A
and 8A). Some of the
ward areas will be
covered by the selected
monitoring station
24 09 Naranpura 4.9 1,22,616 24,957 1.97 This ward can be

selected, as it represents
the residential area and
the population density is
approx. 2 times more
than the average
population density of
Ahmedabad.
25 16 Shahibaug 4.4 1,05,819 23,863 1.89

The population density
of the wards is less than
two times the average
population density of
Ahmedabad City.
26 10 S. P. Stadium 5.3 1,21,853 23,206 SAFAR 1 1.84
27 40 Odhav 5.5 1,16,372 21,280 GPCB - 1 1.68

Rural
28 30 Paldi 5.6 1,07,774 19,266 1.52

29 31 Vasna 5.6 1,06,520 19,097 1.51
30 05 Ranip 7.6 1,14,655 15,167 1.20
31 11 Sardarnagar 8.7 1,10,750 12,699 1.00
32 35 Baherampura 10.2 1,26,978 12,412 SAFAR 1 0.98
33 04 Sabarmati 9.8 1,11,227 11,358 0.90
34 47 Vatva 11.3 1,26,286 11,170 0.88
35 20 Jodhpur 9.9 1,06,026 10,740 GPCB - RO 2 0.85

& SAFAR
36 24 Nikol 11.5 1,14,823 9990 0.79
37 03 Chandkheda 11.9 1,16,324 9760 SAFAR 1 0.77
38 18 Navrangpura 12.0 1,11,256 9270 GPCB - RO 1 0.73
39 19 Bodakdev 13.0 1,16,539 8997 0.71
40 41 Vastral 13.5 1,16,202 8617 0.68
41 12 Naroda 13.9 1,11,200 8026 GPCB - 1 0.64

Rural
42 02 Chandlodia 13.7 1,09,411 7980 0.63
43 33 Sarkhej 23.6 1,15,520 4887 0.39
44 34 Maktpura 25.6 1,20,890 4731 0.37
45 48 Ramol 30.8 1,27,701 4148 GPCB - 1 0.33

Hathijan Rural
46 08 Thaltej 28.0 1,10,401 3939 0.31
47 01 Gota 33.8 1,04,676 3096 GPCB - RO 1 0.24
48 46 Lambha 48.2 1,22,322 2540 GPCB - RO 1 0.20
Total 441.1 55,73,463
Avg. Population 12,637

Density of
Ahmedabad
Annexure B
The %% contribution of all the sources for PM10 and PM2.5 for the years 2012 and 2018
Fig. 8. % Contribution of Sources of PM10 in 2012

Fig. 9. % Contribution of Sources of PM2.5 in 2012

Fig. 10. % Contribution of Sources of PM10 in 2018

Fig. 11. % Contribution of Sources of PM2.5 in 2018
Annexure C
Installation of sensor-based continuous ambient air quality monitoring instrument at selected
locations
Download : Download high-res image (2MB)
Download : Download high-res image (2MB)
.
Annexure D
Monitoring Data, NAQI, and CAQI Values for the Summer and the Winter Seasons
Table 8. Monitoring Data, NAQI and CAQI Values of the Summer for all Selected Locations.
Table 8. (Continued)
Table 9. Monitoring Data, NAQI and CAQI Values of the Winter for all Selected Locations.
Table 9. (Continued)
Annexure E
A Comparison Graph of NAQI and CAQI Values for the Summer and the Winter Seasons

Fig. 12. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Naranpura, summer

Fig. 13. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Naranpura, winter

Fig. 14. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Asarva, Summer

Fig. 15. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Asarva, Winter

Fig. 16. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Indrapuri, summer

Fig. 17. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Indrapuri, winter

Fig. 18. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Nava Wadaj, summer
Fig. 19. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Nava Wadaj, winter

Fig. 20. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Saijpur Bogha, summer
Fig. 21. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Saijpur Bogha, winter

Fig. 22. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Shahpur, summer

Fig. 23. Comparison of NAQI and CAQI values at Shahpur, winter
Recommended articles
References
Feb 12, information 2016 | F more 2016 Feb 12, information 2016 | F more
Amos Contact H. Poor air Quality Kills 5.5 Million Worldwide Annually
(2016)
UBC News. Published February 12
https://news.ubc.ca/2016/02/12/poor-air-quality-kills-5-5-million-worldwide-annually/last
accessed on 13th July 2021
Google Scholar
Cohen et al., 2017a A.J. Cohen, M. Brauer, R. Burnett, H.R. Anderson, J. Frostad, K. Estep, M.H. Forouzanfar
Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air
pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study
2015
Lancet North Am. Ed., 389 (2017), pp. 1907-1918
10082
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
Cohen et al., 2017b A.J. Cohen, M. Brauer, R. Burnett, et al.

Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air
pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015
Lancet North Am. Ed., 389 (10082) (2017), pp. 1907-1918, 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30505-6
http://gujenvis.nic.in/PDF/soe-land.pdf
accessed on 26th August 2021
Guttikunda and Jawahar, 2012 S.K. Guttikunda, P. Jawahar

Application of SIM-air modeling tools to assess air quality in Indian cities
Atmos. Environ., 62 (2012), pp. 551-561
Guttikunda et al., 2019 S.K. Guttikunda, K.A. Nishadh, P. Jawahar

Air Pollution Knowledge Assessments (APnA) For 20 Indian cities, 27, Urban Climate (2019), pp. 124-141
Central Pollution Control Board 2014 Central Pollution Control Board

National Air Quality Index (CUPS/82/2014-15). Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change
(2014)
https://cpcb.nic.in/displaypdf.php?
id=bmF0aW9uYWwtYWlyLXF1YWxpdHktaW5kZXgvRklOQUwtUkVQT1JUX0FRSV8ucGRm
accessed on 26th August 2021
Google Scholar
Gorai et al., 2014 A.

A.K. Gorai, Kanchan Upadhyay, P Goyal
Design of fuzzy synthetic evaluation model for air quality assessment
Environ. Syst. Decis., 34 (3) (2014), pp. 456-469, 10.1007/s10669-014-9505-6
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Tan, 2021 Xiaorui Tan, et al.

A review of current air quality indexes and improvements under the multi-contaminant air
pollution exposure
Journal of environmental management, 279 (2021)
Google Scholar
Upadhyay et al., 2014 A. Upadhyay, P. Kanchan Goyal, A. Yerramilli, A.K Gorai

Development of a fuzzy pattern recognition model for air quality assessment of Howrah
City
Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 14 (6) (2014), pp. 1639-1652, 10.4209/aaqr.2013.04.0118
Bishoi et al., 2009 B. Bishoi, A. Prakash, V.K. Jain

A Comparative Study of Air Quality Index Based on Factor Analysis and US-EPA Methods for
an Urban Environment
Aerosol Air Qual. Res., 9 (1)) (2009)
VolIssue
Google Scholar
Kyrkilis et al., 2007a G. Kyrkilis, A. Chaloulakou, P.A. Kassomenos
Development of an aggregate Air Quality Index for an urban Mediterranean agglomeration:
relation to potential health effects
Environ. Int., 33 (5) (2007), pp. 670-676
Lal et al., 2000 S. Lal, M. Naja, B.H. Subbaraya

Seasonal variations in surface ozone and its precursors over an urban site in India
Atmos. Environ., 34 (17) (2000), pp. 2713-2724
Monforte and Ragusa, 2018 P. Monforte, M.A. Ragusa

Evaluation of the air pollution in a Mediterranean region by the air quality index
Environ. Monit. Assess., 190 (11) (2018), pp. 1-10
Google Scholar
Commission, 2012 G.E. Commission

http://gujenvis.nic.in/
Google Scholar
Rosario et al., 2016 L. Rosario, M. Pietro, S.P. Francesco

Comparative analyses of urban air quality monitoring systems: passive sampling and
continuous monitoring stations
Energy Procedia, 101 (2016), pp. 321-328
Polludrone 2021 Polludrone. (n.d.). No Title. Assessed on 27th October 2021.

https://oizom.com/product/polludrone-air-pollution-monitoring/
Google Scholar
Protecting Health from Increasing Air Pollution in Ahmedabad 2017 Protecting Health from Increasing Air
Pollution in Ahmedabad. (2017). www.phfi.org,
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ahmedabad_aqi_-_final.pdf accessed on 25th October 2021.
Google Scholar
National Air Quality Index 2014 National Air Quality Index

Central Pollution Control Board
(2014)
www.cpcb.nic.in
https://app.cpcbccr.com/AQI_India/
accessed on 25th October 2021
Google Scholar
Chen and Copes, 2013 H. Chen, R. Copes

Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion., Public Health Ontario., & Canadian
Electronic Library
Rev. Air Qual. Index Air Qual. Health Index (2013)
Google Scholar
Cheng et al., 2007 W.L. Cheng, Y.S. Chen, J. Zhang, T.J. Lyons, J.L. Pai, S.H. Chang
Comparison of the Revised Air Quality Index with the PSI and AQI indices
Sci. Total Environ., 382 (2–3) (2007), pp. 191-198, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.036
Cheng et al., 2004 W.L. Cheng, Y.C. Kuo, P.L. Lin, K.H. Chang, Y.S. Chen, T.M. Lin, R. Huang
Revised air quality index derived from an entropy function
Atmos. Environ., 38 (3) (2004), pp. 383-391, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.10.006
Government Printing Oﬃce, 1999 U. Government Printing Oﬃce

federal register Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 58 Air Quality Index
Reporting
Final Rule (1999)
Google Scholar
Green, 1966 M.H. Green

An air pollution index based on sulfur dioxide and smoke shade
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 16 (12) (1966), pp. 703-706, 10.1080/00022470.1966.10468537
Kyrkilis et al., 2007b G. Kyrkilis, A. Chaloulakou, P.A. Kassomenos

Development of an aggregate Air Quality Index for an urban Mediterranean agglomeration:
relation to potential health effects
Environ. Int., 33 (5) (2007), pp. 670-676, 10.1016/j.envint.2007.01.010
Singh, 2006 G. Singh

An index to measure depreciation in air quality in some coal mining areas of Korba
industrial belt of Chhattisgarh, India
Environ. Monit. Assess., 122 (1–3) (2006), pp. 309-317, 10.1007/s10661-005-9182-5
Swamee and Tyagi, 1999 P.K. Swamee, A. Tyagi

Formation of an air pollution index
J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49 (1) (1999), pp. 88-91, 10.1080/10473289.1999.10463776
About Ahmedabad https://ahmedabadcity.gov.in/portal/jsp/Static_pages/introduction_of_amdavad.jsp

Google Scholar
Cited by (5)
Air Quality Index prediction using machine learning for Ahmedabad city
2023, Digital Chemical Engineering
Show abstract
Effects of Precipitation on the Air Quality Index, PM<inf>2.5</inf> Levels and on the Dry
Deposition of PCDD/Fs in the Ambient Air
2023, Aerosol and Air Quality Research
Understanding Responses of Atmospheric Pollution and its Variability to Contradicting Nexus of

Urbanization–Industrial Emission Control in Haldia, an Industrial City of West Bengal
2023, Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Assessment of Air Quality through Multiple Air Quality Index Models – A Comparative Study
2023, Journal of Ecological Engineering
Bi-LSTM based Air Pollution Risk Likelihood Prognostication using Ensemble Approach
2023, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science and Engineering, Confluence
2023
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
All content on this site: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar
technologies. For all open access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.

A Comparison Between National Air Quality Index

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison Between National Air Quality Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Challenges

Volume 5, December 2021, 100356

A comparison between national air quality index,

Outline Share Cite

Under a Creative Commons license open access

• In the winter, during monitoring, particulate matters concentration is generally

Material and methods

Location of the study

Selection of monitoring stations

Download : Download high-res image (483KB)

within this ward.

Download : Download high-res image (362KB)

Duration of monitoring and data collection

Table 2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Duration of Selected Locations

Sr. No. Location Summer Monitoring Winter Monitoring

Time Duration No. of Days Time Duration No. of Days

1. NRA 06/05/2019 18/05/2019 12 20/12/2019 03/01/2020 15

2. SAI 19/05/2019 29/05/2019 11 29/02/2020 13/03/2020 15

3. IPR 30/05/2019 07/06/2019 8 18/02/2020 29/02/2020 11

4. ASR 11/06/2019 24/06/2019 13 04/02/2020 18/02/2020 14

5. WDJ 25/06/2019 07/07/2019 12 04/01/2020 20/01/2020 16

6. SHR 08/07/2019 19/07/2019 11 22/01/2020 03/02/2020 12

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Monitoring Data Collected at Selected Locations

Kameshwar Mahadev Temple, Naranpura

Building opposite to T. R. Memorial Hospital, New Wadaj

Building opposite to Pattharwali Masjid, Shahpur

Sharda Clinic & Hospital, Asarva

The building opposite Ahmedabad - Baroda Express Way, Indrapuri Ward

The building opposite Rishikesh Hospital, Saijpur Bogha

Development of indexing systems

Table 4. NAQI Categories and Corresponding Breakpoint Concentration of Pollutants

PM10 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 250 251 – 350 351 – 430 430+

NO2 0 – 40 41 – 80 81 – 180 181 – 280 281 – 400 400+

SO2 0 – 40 41 – 80 81 – 380 381 – 800 801 – 1600 1600+

CO* 0–1 1.1 – 2 2.1 – 10 10 – 17 18 – 34 34+

O3 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 168 169 – 208 209 – 748** 748+**

*All pollutants concentration is in "g/m3 except CO in mg/m3.

** Hourly values instead of 8 h average.

PM10 0 50 100 250 350 430 700 100

PM2.5 0 30 60 90 120 250 380 60

NO2 0 40 80 180 280 400 750 80

SO2 0 40 80 380 800 1600 1700 80

O3 0 50 100 168 208 748 800 100

Eq. (6) described the distance of sample i to level h:

Where, i = number of sample (n), h = number of levels.

The row vector:

Class Good Satisfactory Moderately Polluted Poor Very Poor Severe

Comparison of air quality indexing systems

Table 7. FAQI and NAQI Category

Green Good 0 – 50 0 – 0.5 1.0 – 2.0

Light Green Satisfactory 51 – 100 0.51 – 1 2.01 – 2.5

Dark Pink Moderately Polluted 101 – 200 1.01 – 2 2.51 – 2.8

Orange Poor 201 – 300 2.01 – 3 2.81 – 3.1

Red Very Poor 301 – 400 3.01 – 4 3.11 – 3.4

Dark Red Severe 401 - 500 4.01 - 5 > 3.4

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Naranpura, summer

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Naranpura, winter

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Asarva, summer

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Asarva, winter

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Indrapuri, summer

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Indrapuri, winter

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Nava Wadaj, summer

Comparison of NAQI and CAQI value, Nava Wadaj, winter

O3 0 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 168 169 – 208 209 – 748 748+