Evaluation of air quality zone classification methods based on ambient air concentration exposure

ABSTRACT Air quality zones are used by regulatory authorities to implement ambient air standards in order to protect human health. Air quality measurements at discrete air monitoring stations are critical tools to determine whether an air quality zone complies with local air quality standards or is noncompliant. This study presents a novel approach for evaluation of air quality zone classification methods by breaking the concentration distribution of a pollutant measured at an air monitoring station into compliance and exceedance probability density functions (PDFs) and then using Monte Carlo analysis with the Central Limit Theorem to estimate long-term exposure. The purpose of this paper is to compare the risk associated with selecting one ambient air classification approach over another by testing the possible exposure an individual living within a zone may face. The chronic daily intake (CDI) is utilized to compare different pollutant exposures over the classification duration of 3 years between two classification methods. Historical data collected from air monitoring stations in Kuwait are used to build representative models of 1-hr NO2 and 8-hr O3 within a zone that meets the compliance requirements of each method. The first method, the “3 Strike” method, is a conservative approach based on a winner-take-all approach common with most compliance classification methods, while the second, the 99% Rule method, allows for more robust analyses and incorporates long-term trends. A Monte Carlo analysis is used to model the CDI for each pollutant and each method with the zone at a single station and with multiple stations. The model assumes that the zone is already in compliance with air quality standards over the 3 years under the different classification methodologies. The model shows that while the CDI of the two methods differs by 2.7% over the exposure period for the single station case, the large number of samples taken over the duration period impacts the sensitivity of the statistical tests, causing the null hypothesis to fail. Local air quality managers can use either methodology to classify the compliance of an air zone, but must accept that the 99% Rule method may cause exposures that are statistically more significant than the 3 Strike method. Implications: A novel method using the Central Limit Theorem and Monte Carlo analysis is used to directly compare different air standard compliance classification methods by estimating the chronic daily intake of pollutants. This method allows air quality managers to rapidly see how individual classification methods may impact individual population groups, as well as to evaluate different pollutants based on dosage and exposure when complete health impacts are not known.

[1]  Paul R. Wyrwoll,et al.  national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) , 2012 .

[2]  Dennis J. McLerran PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES , 2002 .

[3]  Bahram Gharabaghi,et al.  Mapping air quality zones for coastal urban centers , 2017, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[4]  Michel Gerboles,et al.  Model quality objectives based on measurement uncertainty. Part II: NO2 and PM10 , 2013 .

[5]  M. Green Air pollution and health , 1995 .

[6]  Michel Gerboles,et al.  Model quality objectives based on measurement uncertainty. Part I: Ozone , 2013 .

[7]  Kai Zhang,et al.  An assessment of air pollutant exposure methods in Mexico City, Mexico , 2015, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[8]  Mohamed Noor Norazian,et al.  Assessment of various probability distributions to model Pm 10 concentration for industrialized area in peninsula Malaysia: a case study in Shah Alam and Nilai , 2011 .

[9]  G. Ruxton The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test , 2006 .

[10]  Charles E. Brown Coefficient of Variation , 1998 .

[11]  Ian Roberts,et al.  The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass , 2012, BMC Public Health.

[12]  Claudio Vargas,et al.  Health risk estimation due to carbon monoxide pollution at different spatial levels in Santiago, Chile , 2010, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[13]  Prashant Kumar,et al.  An integrated statistical approach for evaluating the exceedence of criteria pollutants in the ambient air of megacity Delhi , 2013 .

[14]  J. Horel,et al.  Sea and Lake Breezes: A Review of Numerical Studies , 2010 .

[15]  Allen L. Robinson,et al.  Quantifying uncertainties in pollutant mapping studies using the Monte Carlo method , 2014 .

[16]  Douglas G. Fox,et al.  Uncertainty in Air Quality Modeling , 1984 .

[17]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Statistical distributions for air pollution applied to the study of the particulate problem in Santiago , 1999 .

[18]  Douglas R Murray,et al.  Probability analyses of combining background concentrations with model-predicted concentrations , 2014, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[19]  Gregory C Pratt,et al.  Validation of a Novel Air Toxic Risk Model with Air Monitoring , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  X. Basagaña,et al.  Personal, indoor and outdoor air pollution levels among pregnant women , 2013 .

[21]  L. Abi-Esber,et al.  Indoor to outdoor air quality associations with self-pollution implications inside passenger car cabins , 2013 .

[22]  M. Wayland,et al.  Guideline on data handling conventions for the PM NAAQS , 1999 .

[23]  Edzer Pebesma,et al.  Spatio-temporal modelling of individual exposure to air pollution and its uncertainty , 2013 .

[24]  G. Kesteven,et al.  The Coefficient of Variation , 1946, Nature.

[25]  Stefan Bringezu,et al.  Weight of Nations , 2000 .

[26]  Guohe Huang,et al.  An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for assessing health-impact risk from air pollution , 2008 .

[27]  Joan Cuxart,et al.  Study of a Sea-Breeze Case through Momentum, Temperature, and Turbulence Budgets* , 2014 .

[28]  Mark Wilde,et al.  The New Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe , 2010 .

[29]  WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide , 2006 .

[30]  J. Osborne Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox transformation , 2010 .

[31]  Michael Brauer,et al.  Within-urban variability in ambient air pollution: Comparison of estimation methods , 2008 .

[32]  Giovanni Lonati,et al.  The duration of PM10 concentration in a large metropolitan area , 2011 .

[33]  Kai Zhang,et al.  Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[34]  Panos G. Georgopoulos,et al.  Statistical distributions of air pollutant concentrations , 1982 .

[35]  Barbara Lübkert-Alcamo The update and revision of the 1987 WHO air quality guidelines (WHO european centre for environment and health) , 2014 .

[36]  Wayne R. Ott,et al.  Measuring Air Quality Levels Inexpensively at Multiple Locations by Random Sampling , 1981 .

[37]  Roy N. Colvile,et al.  Uncertainty in dispersion modelling and urban air quality mapping , 2002 .

[38]  Elizabeth Deakin,et al.  Inhalation intake of ambient air pollution in California's South Coast Air Basin , 2006 .

[39]  Hsin-Chung Lu,et al.  Comparisons of Statistical Characteristic of Air Pollutants in Taiwan by Frequency Distribution , 2003, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[40]  Michelle L Bell,et al.  The use of ambient air quality modeling to estimate individual and population exposure for human health research: a case study of ozone in the Northern Georgia Region of the United States. , 2006, Environment international.