PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

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

PM 2.5 particles are so small that 30 of them side-by- side would barely equal the width of a human hair (graphic courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)

PM 2.5 v. PM 10 v. TSP Cite: NARSTO Fine Particle Assessment Review Draft, August 15, 2001

PM NAAQS TSP (1971): Annual = 75 ug/m 3 24-hour = 260/150 ug/m 3 PM 10 (July 1987): Annual = 50 ug/m 3 24-hour = 150 ug/m 3 PM 2.5 (July 1997): Annual = 15 ug/m 3 24-hour = 65 ug/m 3 (98th percentile)

Regulatory Schedule 2002: 3 years data available (‘99 - ’01) Dec 2003: Finalize review of PM NAAQS : State recommendations for designating nonattainment areas : EPA designates areas (per TEA-21 legislation) : States submit SIPs with control strategies for PM 2.5 and haze

PM 2.5 Monitoring Data State Monitors FRMs (filter-based), continuous, speciation IMPROVE (rural) Special Studies Upper Ohio River Valley Study (DOE) Midwestern Aerosol Characterization Study (EPRI)

IMPROVE (rural sites)

Seney NWR, Michigan

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

Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data ( )

24-Hour Average Concentrations FRM Data ( )

Number of Sites > NAAQS

Conceptual Model of PM 2.5 Spatial Variations Temporal Variations Chemical Variations Meteorological Conditions Multi-Pollutant Relationships (PM 2.5 -haze- ozone)

Annual Average Concentrations IMPROVE/CASTNet Data ( )

Urban v. Rural (Annual Average Concentrations)

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

Urban v. Rural

Air Quality Index Category PM 2.5 O 3 (8-hour) Good ug/m ppb Moderate Unhealthy for sensitive groups Unhealthy Very unhealthy

High Daily Concentrations Effect on Public Health

Ozone v. PM 2.5 AQI Days 1/1/99 - 9/30/01

Chemical Composition - Rural Sites IMPROVE/CASTNet Data ( )

Chemical Composition - Rural

Chemical Composition - Rural/Urban

Meteorological Conditions (Back Trajectories)

Contoured Trajectories: Cincinnati

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

PM 2.5 v. Visibility Ozone v. Visibility

Wrap-Up Summary of Key Points Future Issues

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

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