EPA-600/4-77-020
March 1977
AIR QUALITY DATA FOR THE NORTHEAST OXIDANT TRANSPORT STUDY, 1975
Final Data Report
by
G.W. Siple, C.K. Fitzsimmons, J.J. van Ee, and K.F. Zeller
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory-Las Vegas, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
which are based on sound technical and scientific information. This informa-
tion must include the quantitative description and linking of pollutant
sources, transport mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man and
his environment. Because of the complexities involved, assessment of
specific pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach
which transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation and
enhancement of a sound integrated monitoring data base through multidiscipli-
nary, multimedia programs designed to:
develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies by
applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs of
the Agency's operating programs
This report presents the results of a study directed at determining the
extent of pollutant transport, specifically oxidant, into and through the
EPA Region I area. The results of this study could provide a basis for
modifying the transportation control plans for the Boston metropolitan area
particularly since they demonstrate that the origin of the photochemical
pollution resides in areas upwind of that city. As this study demonstrates
the phenomenon of oxidant transport, that mechanism should be considered by
policymakers and investigators in other geographical areas. Further details
concerning this subject can be obtained by contacting the Air Quality Branch,
Monitoring Operations Division, Environmental Monitoring & Support
Laboratory-Las Vegas.
George B. Morgan
Acting Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures v
List of Tables viii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols ix
Introduction 1
Summary of EPA-LV Involvement 1
Monitoring System Description 2
Instrument Layout 2
System Design Rationale 4
Temperature and Pressure Sensitivity of Instruments 5
Data Handling 6
Quality Control 9
Quality Assurance Program 9
Data Anomalies/Aberrations 14
Air Quality Data 16
References 90
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 On-site data treatment 8
2 Off-site data treatment 8
3 EMSL-LV field calibration scheme for ozone measurement 10
4 Northeast Oxidant Transport Study ozone measurement
intercomparison 13
5 Flight #1 (August 9, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 18
6 Flight #2 (August 10, 1975): Flight pattern 19
7 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 20
8 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 21
9 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 22
10 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 23
11 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5 24
12 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #6 25
13 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #7 26
14 Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #8 27
15 Flight #2: Vertical- profiles of parameters for Spiral #9 28
16 Flight #3 (August 11, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 29
17 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 30
18 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 31
19 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 32
20 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 33
21 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5 34
22 Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #6 35
23 Flight #4 (August 12, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 36
24 Flight #5 (August 12, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 37
25 Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 38
26 Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Sprial #2 39
27 Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 40
28 Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Sprial #4 41
29 Flight #6 (August 13, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 42
30 Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 43
31 Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 44
32 Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 45
33 Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 46
34 Flight #7 (August 13, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 47
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
35 Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 48
36 Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 49
37 Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 50
38 Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 51
39 Flight #8 (August 14, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 52
40 Flight #8: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 53
41 Flight #8: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 54
42 Flight #9 (August 14, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 55
43 Flight #9: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 56
44 Flight #10 (August 15, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 57
45 Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 58
46 Flight #10: Vertical profiels of parameters for Spiral #2 59
47 Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 60
48 Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 61
49 Flight #11 (August 17, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 62
50 Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 63
51 Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 64
52 Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 65
53 Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4 66
54 Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5 67
55 Flight #12 (August 19, 1975) : Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 68
56 Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 69
57 Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 70
58 Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 71
59 Flight #13 (August 19, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 72
60 Flight #13: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 73
61 Flight #14 (August 20, 1975) : Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 74
62 Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 75
63 Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 76
64 Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 77
65 Flight #15 (August 20, 1975) : Flight pattern and ozone
distributions map 78
66 Flight #16 (August 24, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 79
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
67 Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 80
68 Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 81
69 Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3 82
70 Flight #17 (August 26, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 83
71 Flight #18 (August 27, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map 84
72 Flight #18: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1 85
73 Flight #18: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2 86
74 a Flight #19 (August 27, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map, northbound 87
74 b Flight #19 (August 27, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map, southbound 88
75 Flight #20 (August 28, 1975) : Flight pattern and ozone 89
distribution map
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
I Instrument Characteristics 3
II Data Acquisition System 7
III Traceability of EMSL-LV Ozone Calibration 11
IV Summary of Data Presented 17
Vlll
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
BEN
BMI
cm
DAS B-26
DAS-LV
EOT
EMSL-LV
EPA
GPT
1C
KI
km
LORAMA
LV
m
MOA
mm Hg
MSL
NBKI
NBS
NO
N02
NOTS
NPR
03
PHOT
ppb
RTP
SRM
STP
uv
v/v
WSU
— Bendix model 8002 ozone analyzer
— Battelle Memorial Institute
— centimeter(s)
— Dasibi model 1003-AAS used in Boston
— Dasibi model 1003-AH used in Las Vegas
— U.S. Eastern Daylight Time
— Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-
Las Vegas
— U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
— gas-phase titration
— integrated circuit
— potassium iodide
— kilometer(s)
— Long Range Air Monitoring Aircraft
— Las Vegas
— meter(s)
— Air Quality Branch
— millimeters mercury
— mean sea level
— neutral buffered potassium iodide
— National Bureau of Standards
— nitric oxide
— nitrogen dioxide
— Northeast Oxidant Transport Study
— Normalized Pressure Response
— ozone
— ultraviolet photometer in Las Vegas laboratory
— parts per billion by volume
— Research Triangle Park
— Standard Reference Material
— Standard Temperature and Pressure
— ultra violet
— volume of 03 per volume of air
— Washington State University
IX
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (Continued)
SYMBOLS
°C — degrees Celsius
°K — degrees absolute (Kelvin)
Ka — photo dissociation constant for nitrogen dioxide
+ NO) — rate constant for the reaction between ozone and
nitric oxide
— mean ozone concentration in Boston on August 12,
1975, as measured by BMI
— mean ozone concentration in Boston on August 12,
1975, as measured by EMSL-LV
— mean ozone concentration in Boston on August 12,
1975, as measured by WSU
— quantum yield for photo dissociation of nitrogen
dioxide
-------
INTRODUCTION
The transport of oxidant and oxidant precursors over short and long-
range distances has gained more attention as Air Quality Control Regions
implement strategies to control photochemical pollution within their mandated
areas. Policy makers have promoted studies which investigate the transport
of oxidant and oxidant precursors in such areas as the Midwest (Johnston
et al., 1974; Decker et al. , 1975), South Coast Basin of California
(Blumenthal et al., 1973), the Northeast (Cleveland et al., 1976), and the
heavily industrialized areas of the East (Coffey and Stasiuk, 1975). The
promulgation of a Transportation Control Plan for the Boston metropolitan
area elicited an urgent need to investigate the possibility of oxidant
and oxidant precursors transport from the metropolitan New York - New Jersey
area into Southern New England. Subsequently, Region I of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) sought to conduct an extensive monitoring
effort directed at determining the extent of pollutant transport into and
through Region I. Emission reductions in the areas accountable for the
origin of the photochemical pollution problem in Region I can have extensive
economic implications.
The field project involved research teams from Washington State Uni-
versity (WSU), Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), EPA-Research Triangle Park
(RTP), EPA-Region I, and EPA-Las Vegas (LV). WSU conducted airborne monitor-
ing of ozone primarily through eastern New York and western Connecticut, as
well as operated ground stations monitoring ozone and ozone precursors. BMI
had a similar approach, primarily in eastern Connecticut and in Massa-
chusetts. EPA-RTP operated a hydrocarbon analytical lab for samples
collected throughout the area during the study. EPA-Region I administered
the overall project and provided cross-calibration audits of those groups
involved, including the various State agencies. EPA-LV involvement is
discussed below.
SUMMARY OF EPA-LV INVOLVEMENT
The participation of the Air Quality Branch (MOA) of the Monitoring
Operations Division (MOD) of the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory at Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV), was twofold. A staff meteorolo-
gist with MOA was responsible for the day-to-day coordination of the various
airborne monitoring teams, including the EMSL-LV team. A report of
meteorological data covering the period of the study was also compiled. In
addition, the EMSL-LV field team gathered extensive air quality data
utilizing the Long Range Air Monitoring Aircraft (LORAMA); these data are
-------
reported here in final form. The purpose of this report is to document all
phases of the EMSL-LV participation in the Northeast Oxidant Transport Study
and to present all data collected by LORAMA during the NOTS. The data are
presented graphically for ease in noting trends; no interpretation of the
data is provided. Hydrocarbon samples were analyzed by EPA-RTP and results
are not presented herein.
MONITORING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
INSTRUMENT LAYOUT
Since the completion of participation in NOTS, a number of changes have
been made on the LORAMA system. However, this section describes the system
as it existed during the summer of 1975. Table I lists the instruments
installed on board. Ambient air data were collected primarily for ozone (03)
and nitric oxide (NO); no data were collected on nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
An air-handling system was installed in the aircraft, a Monarch B-26,
which operated as an air monitoring platform. A probe which admits ram air
into an integrating nephelometer consisted of a cylindrical aluminum tube,
3.5 centimeters (cm) in diameter. This tube extends about 0.9 meter (m) in
front of the nose of the aircraft and allows air to flow into the instrument,
which was located in the nose of the ship. The air then flowed on through an
exhaust manifold and exited at the rear of the aircraft.
The hygrometer, designed specifically for aircraft use, responds to air
let in through a small probe extending through the skin of the aircraft on
the underside of the nose.
The temperature probe consisted of an integrated circuit projecting from
the underside of the nose of the aircraft forward about 0.3 m. The probe was
encased in a small cylindrical tube with an opening at the forward end.
The pressure transducer was mounted freely hanging inside the nose of
the aircraft. This transducer was not attached to a static line since the
air in the nose of the aircraft remains static during flight.
The remaining equipment was mounted in standard racks in the cabin of
the aircraft. An S-shaped cylindrical aluminum probe, 3.5 cm in diameter,
and internally coated with Kynar (a relatively inert plastic compound), was
mounted on the roof of the cabin extending about 45 cm into undisturbed
ambient air. Sample air entered the probe due to ram pressure. This air
flowed through a manifold system and exited through the exhaust manifold.
Each of the air quality instruments in the cabin continuously drew sample
air from the inlet manifold for analysis. Air for sample bags was also
drawn from this manifold. The operation was conducted remotely from the
rear of the cabin.
-------
I
o
o
in
o
4-1
ft
O
m
o
-p
x
o
o
o
in
O
4J
o
in
m
i
U
o
o
m
o
4-1
o
o
in
i
2
in
o
ro
O
U
H
EH
CO
H
fvj
W
EH
O
H
0)
-o
O
g
CM
O
O
00
X
•H
•a
2
^
C
H
-------
SYSTEM DESIGN RATIONALE
There are a number of variables which affect the validity of data
collected from airborne platforms. Among these are the reliability of
instrument calibration, lag and response times of each instrument, statis-
tical considerations of the size of the sample, chemical reactions of pol-
lutants within the sampling system, and the response of each instrument to
the stressful environment of an unpressurized aircraft (stresses such as
vibration and temperature and pressure changes).
The quality of instrument calibration is limited by the accuracy of the
calibration standard and the precision of the calibration procedure. The
requisite details of the quality assurance program are discussed in a sub-
sequent section of this rpeort.
The lag time of an instrument is defined as the time interval between a
step change in input concentration at the sampling system inlet to the first
observable corresponding change in the instrument output. If the sampling
system is defined as the aircraft-instrument combination, then the velocity
of the aircraft will have some influence on what the system sees and when it
responds. Since instantaneous data were recorded every 5 seconds, the
average air speed of 320 kilometers (km) per hour, flown by the B-26 aircraft
during NOTS, provided one data point approximately every 450 m. The effect
of the response time, the time interval between initial response and some
percentage of final response (e.g., 90 percent) after a step change in
input concentration, is minimized when monitoring air of uniform composition,
where strong pollution gradients do not exist. The data should be corrected
when very rapid changes in input concentration occur, such as when source
sampling. For the purpose of the regional ambient monitoring performed by
our system, however, data have not been corrected for the effects of lag and
response time.
Ambient air quality standards and modeling routines are generally based
on data time-averaged over 1 hour or longer at a given location. Spatially
static monitors can provide this type of information quite readily. Mobile
monitors, such as airborne platforms, however, must provide averaged or
spatially integrated data. It is apparent that a close examination of
atmospheric variability is necessary before accepting the statistical vali-
dity of data taken from an airborne platform. The subject has been discussed
in the literature (Mage, 1975) and the reader is referred to that article for
a more in-depth discussion.
Air monitoring can be further complicated by the reactivity of species
being measured. For example, a given compound can react on the walls of the
system obviously biasing the sample. It is therefore necessary to take
precautions to ensure that the portions of the system with which the com-
pounds being measured come in contact are as chemically inert as possible.
To this end, the internal surfaces of the air inlet probes are coated with
Kynar, a relatively inert plastic compound.
-------
Furthermore, reactive species can certianly react with one another; a good
example is the reaction of NO with 03. As long as these compounds exist at
typical ambient concentrations, an equilibrium exists between them. Once
they enter the confines of the monitoring system, the equilibrium is dis-
turbed. For example, in a dark manifold, NO and O^ will react according to
their rapid dark-phase chemistry, biasing the measurement of both species.
The error due to chemical interactions is strongly dependent on the residence
time of sample air in the manifold system. This error can be estimated
(Butcher and Ruff, 1971) by use of the appropriate rate constants. The
residence time of this inlet manifold is calculated to be less than 1 second,
while at typical ambient concentrations the reaction between NO and 03 should
take approximately 2 minutes to 99 percent completion; this obviates cor-
rection factors for this condition.
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE SENSITIVITY OF INSTRUMENTS
Since the B-26 aircraft is not pressurized, all equipment on board is
subject to changes in ambient temperature and pressure. To isolate the sen-
sitivity of each instrument to these factors, tests were conducted in an
environmental chamber in Las Vegas before the beginning of the oxidant study.
The following text will discuss only the Bendix ozone instrument and the TECO
oxides of nitrogen instrument, since neither temperature nor pressure is
expected to significantly affect the other instruments.
The Bendix ozone instrument showed an almost negligible effect from
changing temperature in these tests. The zero level was unaffected through-
out the range of 5° to 40° Celsius (C). The span varied up to 5 percent of
full scale throughout this range, however, in the range of measurement
covered by this report, approximately 15° to 30° C, it was practically
unchanged.
The Bendix ozone instrument demonstrated an effect from changing
altitude (pressure) in these tests. There was no demonstrable effect on the
zero level. However, the span decreased with increasing altitude. Using the
data obtained from these tests, a regression line was formulated
(r2 = 0.94) to relate instrument response to altitude; a correction factor
is determined in terms of a Normalized Pressure Response (NPR).
NPR(03) = (-1.037 x 10~4) x (altitude in meters) + (0.9968)
Ozone concentration is corrected for pressure sensitivity by
dividing the Bendix output value by NPR(03). It should be noted that the
change in signal was very similar to the expected theoretical output due to
changing air density.
The TECO instrument, which was tested only for response to NO, showed
some effect due to changing temperature in these tests. In the range 5° to
40° C, the zero level was noted to decrease for colder temperatures and
increase for warmer temperature, relative to room temperature. The span
was unaffected by changing temperature.
-------
The TECO instrument, tested only for NO, also varied with changing
altitude. The zero level was not affected by changing altitude, but the
span decreased with increasing altitude. A regression analysis was also
performed on this data (r2 = 0.92).
NPR (NO) = (-4.315 x 10~5) x (altitude in meters) + (0.9446)
NO concentration is corrected for pressure sensitivity by dividing the TECO
output value by NPR(NO). NO2 was not measured during the project. This
variation of response with altitude is significantly different from the
theoretical change in air density with altitude, presumably due to the low-
pressure reaction chamber in the instrument. In applying these correction
factors to the 03 and NO data, it was assumed that the chamber test
conditions closely simulated the range of aircraft operational conditions.
DATA HANDLING
The elements of the data acquisition system are listed in Table II.
The signal voltages from each monitoring instrument were received, encoded
(abbreviated ASCII), and stored on magnetic tape (7-track, 200 bits per inch,
even parity) in 5-second increments, thus allowing ready accessibility for
subsequent processing. The four-channel strip chart recorder provided a
backup for the calculator-based storage and retrieval system. Figure 1
illustrates the availability of data during the study; the processing of the
data followed the flow illustrated in Figure 2, after the field team returned
to Las Vegas. The EMSL-LV field team now has the system capabilities for
data processing (Figure 2) within 24-hours of collection, i.e., while still
in the field. This is a great advantage for quality control considerations
and for rapid initiation of data interpretation. The capability that now
exists for final processing of the data corrects for zero and gain shifts (as
linear functions of time), and also relates the data to sea-level pressure
(altitude). In preparation of this final report, an error in the preliminary
processing of the data was uncovered. The response of the 03 analyzer and
the NO analyzer, due to pressure sensitivity, was normalized to Las Vegas
altitude (610 m Mean Sea Level (MSL) or 705 millimeters mercury (mm Hg)
reference pressure) instead of sea-level altitude. This is a systematic
error in the previously reported data values, and the proper pressure cor-
rection (to sea-level altitude) results in an approximate 7 percent increase
in the 03 data and in the NO data; i.e., the 03 and NO data accompanying the
preliminary draft of this report were low by 7 percent. The final data,
presented in this report, incorporate the corrections as discussed above.
-------
TABLE II. DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
Item
Programmable Calculator
Multimeter
Scanner
Digital Clock
Magnetic Tape Recorder
Strip Chart Recorder
Printer
Model
HP 9830 A
HP 3490 A
HP 3495 A
HP 59309 A
Cipher 70
MFE 4M3CAHA Modified
HP 9866 A
-------
INSTRUMENTS
nn
/
/
FIGUR
/
MULTIMETER
\
DATA
ACQUISITION
PROGRAM
. 1
CALCULATOR
1
7
^/MAG A
rRAW DUMP /
PROGRAM /
1
PRINTER
E 1. ON-SITE
PLOTTER
\
, RAW
VOLTAGE
DATA TREATMENT.
t ,
r PROCESS/PLOT /
PROGRAM J
I
CALCULATOR
\
^-^
/ MAG \ / \
/PROCESS/PRINT/
PROGRAM _J
PRINTER
ENGINE-
1 LISTIlfGj
FIGURE 2. OFF-SITE DATA TREATMENT.
8i
-------
QUALITY CONTROL
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
The validity of air quality data can be improved by the establishment
of a well-documented and well-executed quality control program. Such a pro-
gram must rely on accurate calibration standards and precise calibration
techniques. Such a program was developed by the EMSL-LV field team for the
successful participation of the LORAMA in the NOTS.
The accuracy of the ozone data was of primary importance. The liter-
ature was replete with difficulties with the Federal Register standard
reference calibration method, Neutral Buffered Potassium Iodide (NBKI) (Behl,
1972; Boyd et al., 1970; Hodgeson et al. , 1971; Kopczysnki and Bufalini,
1971; Parry and Hern, 1973; Schmitz, 1973). Therefore, the quality control
program chose the Dasibi 1003-AAS ozone monitor, based on the absorption of
ultraviolet (uv) energy by ozone (an "absolute" measurement) to transfer
the ozone standard from the laboratory to the Bendix 8002 ozone field ana-
lyzer. Previous experience with the Dasibi showed it to be stable and quite
adequate for field work. Figure 3 shows the traceability of the ozone cali-
bration from laboratory standards to the field instrument.
Under the supervision of J. Hodgeson, EMSL-LV, the uv-absorption method
(Dasibi) was compared with the Federal Register NBKI method and with gas-
phase titration (GPT) of ozone with a National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
nitric oxide Standard Reference Material (SRM) which is maintained at Las
Vegas. The results of these comparison studies are summarized in equations
(1) and (2) in Table III (the numbers in parentheses in Figure 3 correspond
to equations in Table III, and frequent references will be made to both
Figure 3 and Table III in the following text). The Dasibi 1003-AAS was not
calibrated directly against the laboratory-based uv photometer; instead,
it was calibrated against a second, laboratory-based Dasibi (equation (4)),
that is routinely calibrated against the uv photometer (equation (3)).
Some confusion arose in the field by calibrating the Dasibi under Las
Vegas conditions without correcting to Standard Temperature and Pressure
(STP) conditions. This situation was rectified after completion of the
NOTS; equation (5) in Table III was used to correct the Dasibi readings made
in the field to STP-based values. Furthermore, some doubt was generated
during the study regarding the stability and accuracy of the Dasibi 1003-AAS.
However, laboratory calibration of the instrument performed upon return to
Las Vegas at the completion of the study indicated little variation from the
laboratory calibration performed in Las Vegas prior to the study (compare
equation (6) with equation (7)).
-------
GPT WITH NBS
NO CYLINDER
Kl FEDERAL
REGISTER METHOD
PERFORMED AT
EMSL-LAS VEGAS
(2)
UV PHOTOMETER
EMSL-LAS VEGAS
(3)
LOCATIONiLAS VEGAS
TIME:PRE OXIDANT STUDY
LABORATORY BASED
DASIBI
INSTRUMENT
LOCATION:BOSTON
TIMEAUGUST 1975
LOCATION:LAS VEGAS
TIME:POST-OXIDANT STUDY
BOSTON OXIDANT
STUDY DASIBI AAS
CALIBRATION
INSTRUMENT
(DAS B-26)
(5)
DASIBI B-26
CALIBRATION
INSTRUMENT
(9)
B-26 BENDIX 03
INSTRUMENT
AMBIENT AIR
LABORATORY
BASED
OASIBI
INSTRUMENT
(6)
L.
UV PHOTOMETER
EMSL-LAS VEGAS
FIGURE 3. EMSL-LV FIELD CALIBRATION SCHEME FOR OZONE MEASUREMENT.
10
FIGURE 4
-©
-------
§
H
EH
I
H
U
O
N
O
fn
O
,-q
H
§
H
I
H
H
H
3
a
Oft
4-1 H i
O Om -ri
-H4-10
en rj
rd Q)
0) M
> o
U
g
rd
HX
UO)
05O
P-^
§•
tn
rd fi .
KH1 O fe
•H "
C4-1 .
H rdft^ CU
4J C
• C W rd
*D U tP U
CN C CD
i8>S
en 3
co CD rd en
r-3 en
do o>
•H
JC
0)
rd
11
-------
A Bendix 8851-X Dynamic Calibration System was utilized during the study
to generate calibration atmospheres of ozone for the Bendix 8002 ozone ana-
lyzer. The Dasibi instrument was used to measure the concentration of the
span gas and to check the quality of the zero air. The Bendix 8002 was cali-
brated before and after each day's flight, even though the stable performance
of this instrument did not require such a frequent calibration schedule.
Experience has shown it to be a good practice to calibrate frequently, espec-
ially when the instrument is subject to stressful aircraft environment, to
minimize spurious data. Zero level checks were also made on the air quality
instruments periodically during flight.
The ozone data reported for this study were scaled to an NBKI primary
calibration standard, at STP, using equation (11) of Table III.
Figure 4 illustrates the various channels of intergroup ozone calibra-
tion carried out in Region I during the NOTS. Comparison data, in the form
of ground-based audit checks, performed by the EPA-Region I laboratory are
available from Region I. The three aircraft involved in the NOTS participa-
ted in a concomitant flight along a common path around the Boston metropoli-
tan area on the morning of August 12, 1975. Analysis of variance of the
ozone data populations sampled by WSU, BMI, and EMSL-LV infers that the
hypothesis that all three population means are equivalent must be rejected.
Further, this analysis indicates that at the 99 percent level of confidence,
the difference between the WSU population mean (I-IBMI) i-s not significant,
while the difference between the EMSL-LV population mean (UEPA) an<^ both
^WSU an|3 UBMI is significant. At the 99 percent level of confidence,
ywsu = PBMI = (VEPA + 6 ppb).
The 6 ppb offset represents 8 percent of ywsu and appears to indicate a
systematic bias in the EMSL-LV aircraft system since the other two sets of
data are directly comparable. A linear regression analysis comparing all
three sets of data yielded the following results:
= 0.934|bJ + 10.844; r2 = 0.72
WSU L 3 EPA
= 0.988KD.] + 6.805; r2 = 0.73
BMI L J EPA
IbJ = 0.956 IbJ + 2.067; r2 = 0.83
L 3 BMI L 3 WSU
A modified TECO 14B gas-phase chemiluminescent instrument was used to
measure NO only. No data were collected concerning NO2- A cylinder of NO
gas, bottled by Scott-Marrin, Inc., Riverside, California, was verified for
concentration at the EMSL-LV lab by comparison to an NBS NO cylinder (SRM).
The Scott-Marrin NO cylinder was taken into the field for calibration
purposes. Gas from this cylinder was diluted with purified air in the
Bendix Dynamic Calibration System, and zero level and one span level
(approximately 40 percent of full scale) were checked before and after
flight. Since none of the other instrumented aircraft measured NO regularly,
no comparison data are included in this report.
12
-------
Kl FEDERAL
REGISTER METHOD
SEE
FIGURE 3
H
NBS 03
GENERATOR
OZONE CALIBRATION
SYSTEM
REGION 1 LAB
LOCATION:EPA REGION 1
LABORATORY
WHAT:EPA REGION 1
OZONE STANDARD
TRACEABILITY
©-
AID PORTABLE
03 GENERATOR
1 FIELD r
I TESTS I
ri
STATE AGENCIES
REGION 1
LOCATIONiGROUND LEVEL
WHAT:AUDIT CHECKS
BATTELLE
AIRCRAFT
LOCATION:FLIGHT AROUND BOSTON
METROPOLITAN AREA(450meters msl)
WHAT.INTERCOMPARISION OF OZONE
MEASUREMENTS BY AIRBORNE PLATFORMS
wsu
AIRCRAFT
FIGURE 4. NORTHEAST OXIDANT TRANSPORT STUDY OZONE MEASUREMENT
INTERCOMPARISON.
13
-------
Other instruments on board LORAMA, including the temperature sensor,
dewpoint sensor, and nephelometer, were found to be extremely stable and
calibration schedules were arranged accordingly.
DATA ANOMALIES/ABERRATIONS
Integrating Nephelometer
The integrating nephelometer is an instrument designed to indirectly
measure the loading of solid particulate matter in the atmosphere. Particles
in a given size range preferentially scatter visible light, altering the
visibility through that column of light. However, the instrument cannot
discriminate between various particle sizes or even particle composition.
Liquid aerosols in the form of moisture droplets, therefore, act as a posi-
tive interference to determining pollutant-related particle loading. The
instrument design calls for decreasing the relative humidity of the sample
air in order to correct for the interference of water droplets. The resi-
dence time in the inlet line with the designed optimum flow rate of 10 cubic
feet per minute (cfm) allows the installed heating element to accomplish this
purpose.
In actual application, the sample flow rate provided by ram air is more
than ten times faster than the optimum design, greatly reducing the residence
time in the instrument and the effectiveness of the heater. For this reason,
the scattering coefficient data reported are uncorrected for interference due
to moisture droplets.
Ozone and Relative Humidity
As a general trend, the aircraft data showed an association between
relative humidity and the indicated 03 concentrations. Two possible reasons
for this relationship are: (1) the moisture content of a parcel of air may
play a role in the chemistry of smog-forming reactions; or (2) this moisture
content may act as an interferent to the measurement method. (Naturally,
these factors are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)
The role of humidity in the complex sequence of photochemical smog for-
mation is, at best, confusing the contradictory. The literature offers no
definitive statements when taken as a whole (Altshuller and Bufalini, 1971;
Demerjian et al., 1974; Jeffries et al. , 1975).
The possibility that moisture in the air interferes with the measurement
technique may be attributed to the particular method (device) being used, or
perhaps to the manner in which it is being used. The literature suggests
that an interference effect does exist (Higuchi et al., 1976). During the
study, an experiment was conducted to isolate the moisture effect relative to
the instrumental method. Two instruments, based on different techniques
(gas-phase chemiluminescence and uv absorption), were installed in the
aircraft system and flown through areas of varying relative humidity. The
chemiluminescent instrument had a positive correlation with the uv absorption
instrument and with relative humidity, based on qualitative observations;
i.e., both instruments indicated increased 03 concentration in ambient air
14
-------
of increased relative humidity. Laboratory-based experiments are planned to
further test these instruments for the effects of relative humidity at
various dewpoints.
Nitric Oxide Data
Significant challenges have arisen regarding the quantitative and quali-
tative validity of the NO data collected by the LORAMA system during the
NOTS. The concentration levels of NO reported are relatively high, and one
might expect to see lower levels, e.g., below 10 parts per billion (ppb) for
the most part. In addition, considering the reactivity dynamics of the
constituents of photochemical smog, one anticipates an inverse qualitative
relationship between NO and 03; however, a majority of the observations
recorded in the LORAMA missions confound this expectation.
An easy solution to this dilemma is unduly complicated due to the dearth
of N02 data. The fact is that NO concentrations up to 40 ppb (the highest
recorded by LORAMA) are not unknown in the lower troposphere (Tebbens, 1968;
Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides, 1970), although data reported
recently of NO aloft indicates concentrations near the limit of analytical
techniques (Breeding et al., 1976). It is well-known that the equilibrium
between NO, NO2, and 03 may exist at any level of concentration and the
following equality exists:
[03] [NO] _ SKa
K(03 + NO)
This equality is constant under equilibrium conditions of constant tempera-
ture and irradiation, but outdoor conditions are seldom, if ever, constant.
For example, if the 03 concentration increases, the NO concentration can in-
crease as long as the N02 concentration increases sufficiently to maintain
the equilibrium. This argument, of course, says nothing about non-equili-
brium conditions. (See Calvert (1976) for further discussion of the dynamic
atmospheric relationship between NO, NO2, and 03.)
The lack of N©2 data renders the above argument academic for the pur-
poses of this report and necessarily constrains the possible approaches to
validating the NO data. It could, of course, be said that in light of the
foregoing arguments, the NO data are plausible. In support of this proposi-
tion, NO data were collected during three flights when the concentrations
were, for the most part, below 10 ppb. Since calibration methods were not
altered during the study, nor was the design of the air-handling system
changed, all data might then represent a cross section of real values. On
the other hand, the preponderance of the data appears to belie this argument;
the NO data show little diurnal concentration variation. Several alternative
explanations present themselves:
(1) It is possible the instrument was actually monitoring N02 plus NO.
A suggestion has been proffered which implied that the residence time in the
air-handling system might be sufficient for dissociation of NO2 in the air
and that the NO thus produced biased the measurements of "real" NO. Upon
15
-------
further consideration, this argument is specious. For one thing, the dis-
sociation of NC>2 is driven by light; since the manifold system is dark, the
equilibrium for the reaction would lie on the side on NO2- Furthermore, if
the residence time were relatively long, the subsequent reactions between NO
and 03 and NO2 and 63 would have the overall effect of reducing the NO values.
(2) It is possible that although the calibration procedure was rigor-
ously followed, a systematic error was present. It has been suggested that
the zero air generator may not have cleaned the incoming air of NO as
thoroughly as expected. The result of such a situation would be a negative
offset. If such an error existed, it would be necessary to increase the data
by some amount to correct for this situation.
(3) It is possible there is a humidity interference in the measurement.
Qualitative examination of the data shows an apparent association between
dewpoint and NO, so that water vapor may be a positive interferent. This
possibility needs to be followed up by laboratory investigation. Higuchi
et al. (1976) found humidity to be negatively correlated with NO measured
or a similar instrument under controlled conditions.
AIR QUALITY DATA
In general, there were four types of flight patterns performed by the
LORAMA during the NOTS. These were: (1) broad area coverage; (2) long
range eastern seaboard; (3) urban plume characterization; and (4) circumcity.
The aircraft performed spiral descents at strategic points in all types of
patterns to determine the vertical profiles of all parameters. Non-spiral
flight consisted of horizontal flight along a predetermined path. The
altitude of 03 maximum as determined from the most recent vertical profile
most often served to dictate the altitude of horizontal flight. Most of
the flight hours were logged below 610 M MSL.
The final processed digital data have been reduced into analog (graph-
ical) representations, which are presented here in two forms. Each flight
is represented by a horizontal 03 distribution map. These maps illustrate
the flight pattern plus pertinent data: time during flight (Eastern Daylight
Time (EOT)), flight level in meters MSL, instantaneous 03 concentration in
ppb (volume of O3 per volume of air (v/v)) every two minutes (approximately
every 11 km), and location of spiral descents. In addition, vertical
profiles of all parameters for all spiral descents are presented. All data
are arranged by flight, beginning with flight #1 on August 9 and going
through flight #20 of August 28, 1975. Table IV summarizes the data to
follow.
16
-------
TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF DATA PRESENTED
I. Horizontal 03 Distribution Maps
A. Times are EDT
B. Altitudes are m above MSL
C. Locations marked every two minutes by "+" are determined by Collins-
40 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and are accurate to within
200 m
D. Instantaneous O3 concentrations in ppb, corrected for zero and span
drift and corrected to 760 mm Hg pressure (no correction for temp-
erature or lag or response time of the instrument)
II., Vertical Profiles of Parameters
A. Parameters reported
1. 03 (ppb)
2. NO (ppb)
3. Outside ambient temperature (°C)
4. Dewpoint temperature (°C)
5. Relative humidity (percent)
6. Particulate light scattering coefficient (10~^ m )
B. Instantaneous 0- and NO concentrations in ppb, corrected for zero
and span drift and corrected to 760 mm Hg
C. Temperatures are reported in °C with no corrections applied
D. Relative humidity calculated from dewpoint and outside ambient
temperatures, based on appropriate equations in the Smithsonian
Meteorological Tables (1971)
E. Scattering coefficient reported without correction for high relative
humidity
17
-------
^
01
c
o
N
O
13
C
i
1X5
C
^
Q)
cd
Pu
4-J
60
CTi
CTi
w a
3 ctj
60 S
^a
v-/ o
•H
iH 4J
=S= 3
,JO
4J -H
^3 H
60 4J
•H M
i-H -rt
fe T3
0)
M
60
•H
fn
-------
SCALE IN KM
Figure 6. Flight #2 (August 10, 1975)
(SPIRALtfS)
G5)(13:2B)
(SPIRALS)
G5>(13:47|
(SPIRALS?)
(14:05)
(SPIRAL**)
(14:27)
(SPIRAL#9|
Flight pattern
19
-------
SEA
LEVEL
LLJ
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO
10
Figure 7. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
20
-------
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE.°C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, 10'4iir
Figure 8. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
21
-------
f 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 9.
Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
22
-------
SEA
LEVEL
/s
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE,°C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, 10-4nr
Figure 10. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
23
-------
SEA
LEVEL
20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION.ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 11. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5
24
-------
ui' 2
a
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO
10
Figure 12. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #6
25
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
01 2345678
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 13. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #7
26
-------
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION.ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
01 23456789
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO
10
Figure 14. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #8
27
-------
" 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE.°C
30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 15. Flight #2: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #9
28
-------
(13-50)
_ E X,1-, (640m)
C3)(SPIRAL#5)
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 16. Flight #3 (August 11, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
29
-------
LLJ
Q
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
20 40 60 80 100120U0160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE.'C
30 40
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 17. Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
30
-------
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
^ *
-------
UJ
a
SEA
LEVEL
2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 ~20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION.ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
.; 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 19. Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
32
-------
SEA
LEVEL
J
a." 2
.0
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,^
5
*2
Q
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. S SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 20. Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
33
-------
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
LU
a
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURES
30 40
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT. lO
10
Figure 21. Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5
34
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120U0160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURES
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 22. Flight #3: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #6
35
-------
6+3(490m)
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL/
M^fT^-^,
Figure 23.
Flight #4 (August 12, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
36
-------
(uiogg)+S
C"OOlL)+5
S SI
+a
a
o
UJ
E «
,--+S—+£ +£- +S +
V.r. (UlSlZl+S
"*" fff i ^
0)
C
o
N
O
T3
CO
C
t-i
0)
4-1
4-1
rt
a
60
•H
a\
CN
CO CL>
3 n)
oo 6
in 4J
~~ &
00 4-1
•H W
-------
SEA
LEVEL
0°
/* o1
u* 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
SEA
LEVEL
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 25. Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
38
-------
a
=3
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
1EVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 B 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.lO^m'
Figure 26. Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
39
-------
SEA
LEVEL
LLJ
o
SEA
LEVEL
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
.; 2
SEA
LEVEL
uJ 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,^4 nT1
Figure 27. Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
40
-------
5 '
SEA
LEVEL
//
\ \_
f *^-
* ~^*-_
• •*-
3
5
a
=5
t
t- i
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120UO 160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE.'C
. 2
uu
a
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,10 4nT1
Figure 2$. Flight #5: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
41
-------
(SPIRAL*!)
/'•
64
51
57
54
*.(1i:I4) SV11'™
DO t
65
67
V
56
57
(SPIRAL**) 58
(11:44)
81 73 68
\
(490m)
56
75C^)(SPIRAl#2| s'i^^V
6W —^ (11:22jX (
*—i \ + (10:10) ^,»7H;'^- ,+.^ \
I 50 + ^",71 56
51
I I I I I
(490m)
50
TIME IS EOT 0, IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
100
SCALE IN KM
Figure 29. Flight #6 (August 13, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
42
-------
2
UJ
a
=>
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION.ppb TEMPERATURES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, S SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^rn'
Figure 30. Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
43
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
j$4$
-------
SEA
LEVEL
Sb,
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
5
^ 2
LU
O
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 JO
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO^m'
Figure 32. Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
45
-------
UJ
a
SEA
LEVEL
.: 2
SE,
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120H0160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE.'C
. 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 33. Flight #6: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
46
-------
G5)(SPIRAl#1|
+ **•/ \J(490m)
+ e'o "' 1 + -»_
(16:38)
\
50
TIME IS EDT °3 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
100
SCALE IN KM
Figure 34. Flight #7 (August 13, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
47
-------
SEA
LEVEL
UJ
o
- 9
i
SE,
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
SEA
LEVEL
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, 10'4iir1
Figure 35. Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
48
-------
UJ* 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURES
30 40
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 36. Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
49
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
20 40 60 80 100120140 160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURES
30 40
^ 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 37. Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
50
-------
SEA
LEVEL
ui 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE.'C
SEA
LEVEL
iJ 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 I 2 34 56 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.lO'4!*"
Figure 38. Flight #7: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
51
-------
(12:46)
(305m)C§) (SPIRAUM)
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 39. Flight #8 (August 14, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
52
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 40. Flight #8: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral
#1
53
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
.7 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 41. Flight #8: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
54
-------
OJ
c
o
N
O
13
C
rt
e
n
0)
tfl
p.
00
co ex
3 rt
M a
^ c
^ o
•H
,0
4J -H
43 M
00 4-1
•H CO
H -H
CM
sr
00
55
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120U0160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE.'C
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO'4.*-
Figure 43. Flight #9: Vertical profiles of parameter for spiral
56
-------
81
74
82
»-I4",Y *
78
X"
1
1
1
A[^ I
\
k
I
J4\!
WmVi^cs)
" I X7
(1B2B-8380 '
63
83
70 9+0
+ A 0
+^67 I | I
4+,(15=5«) 0+a (16:22)
60
100
I
SCALE \H KM
TIME IS EOT Q3 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
|SPIRAL#2)
Figure 44.
Flight #10 (August 15, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
57
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
\
0 20 40 60 80 100120U0160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,^
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 45. Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
58
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
\
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 46. Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
59
-------
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120H0160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE.'C
30 40
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
2
tc
ui- 2
a
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 47. Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
60
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION.ppb TEMPERATURES
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 48. Flight #10: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
61
-------
(10:36) (SPIRALS)
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 0, IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 49. Flight #11 (August 17, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
62
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,^
u" 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 50. Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
63
-------
SEA
LEVEL
tu
H
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE.°C
30 40
uJ 2
O
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 51. Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
64
-------
2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURES
- 2
LU
O
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT. lO^m'
Figure 52, Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
65
-------
3
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION, ppb TEMPERATURE,^
a* 2
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.lO^m'
Figure 53. Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #4
66
-------
MJ
a
=3
SEA
LEVEL
U *
a
=>
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
- 2
UJ
O
SEA
LEVEL
. 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 54. Flight #11: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #5
67
-------
,*B (12.52)
+
39
t
+
37
+
40
49
42
44
44
4+4(1Z:36)
44
43
<10'3°'3+5
46
44
+
41
i
,+3 (10:40)
0
1 1 1
6; (12:12)
+
47\
^X. 4- » 4-
48 5I 4B
50
I 1 1 1
+ -
47
100
|
44
4+SV
-~*V
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 55. Flight #12 (August 19, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
68
-------
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
SEA
LEVEL
" 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 56 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,ID'4m'1
Figure 56. Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
69
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE.°C
SEA
LEVEL
J 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.lO^m'
Figure 57. Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
70
-------
UJ
a
SEA
LEVEL
UJ
a
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 HO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION.ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,°C
30 40
ul2
a
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 3 4
SCATTERING
5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 58. Flight #12: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
71
-------
68
-6+4(16:58)
+
67
I
57
52
43
+
43
i
+
43
+
45
45
5Z
"
\
+
47
39
46
f
58 '15 34'
0
till
\ I
71
64 64 50 *9 51
50 100
111 1
65
52
6+, 08:34)
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 59. Flight #13 (August 19, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
72
-------
SEA
LEVEL
/
o
s
i
•
i
, 1
[ t
F f.
\. >t.
3
s
LU
0
E ]
<
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURES
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
01 234 567 8 9
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO
10
Figure 60. Flight #13: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
73
-------
37
43 Yl 41
40
"44
35
55
+ 59
47(09 24)
8+2
48
60
6+0 O':06)
43
4+0 00.36)
I \
^){Sf\RKL#2)
lU
1 4+7(3B5m)
-f
45 ('0:56)
/
+
35
, +
^?
6*2
44
t
4+,(1152>
4.(365m,
J(sp|RAi
4+8 (";28)
+
39
k
61
66
t
61
59
46
79
"82 100
+ '9+2(0936)
93
50
I
56 51 56
100
I
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
SCALE IN KM
Figure 61. Flight #14 (August 20, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
74
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120U0160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE.°C
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT. 10^nT
Figure 62. Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
75
-------
- 2
LJJ
o
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION.ppb TEMPERATURE.'C
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT, lO
10
Figure 63. Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
76
-------
O
=3
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE,^
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
ul 2
O
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 64. Flight #14: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral
#3
77
-------
54
(14:20)
63 57
65
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
SCALE IN KM
Figure 65. Flight #15 (August 20, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
78
-------
0)
c
o
N
O
C
cd
79
-------
SEA
LEVEL
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE.'C
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
.EVEL
V
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 67. Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
80
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION,ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURES
30 40
SEA
LEVEL
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT.
9 10
Figure 68. Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral
#2
81
-------
SEA
LEVEL
LLJ
O
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100120140 160180200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION.ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
; 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,lO^m'
Figure 69. Flight #16: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #3
82
-------
(17:26) •
55
(16:48)
85 • (1525_mjl
9By
SCALE IN KM
TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
Figure 70. Flight #17 (August 26, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
-------
/^40
/
4+, ("'I'D
42 (480i«|
43
42
C3)r(SPIRAl#2)
-^'
\S>, !r
• SCALE IN KM .
j TIME IS EOT 03 IS ppb ALTITUDE IS MSL
I
Figure 71. Flight #18 (August 27, 1975): Flight pattern and ozone
distribution map
84
-------
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CONCENTRATION,ppb TEMPERATURE,°C
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, % SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,IQ^nT
Figure 72. Flight #18: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #1
85
-------
- 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UO 160 180 200
CONCENTRATION, ppb
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
TEMPERATURE,^
30 40
.: 2
SEA
LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, %
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8
SCATTERING COEFFICIENT,
9 10
Figure 73. Flight #18: Vertical profiles of parameters for Spiral #2
86
-------
o
N
O
-------
88
-------
89
-------
REFERENCES
"Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides," National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, D.C., Publication No. AP-84 (March 1970)
Altshuller, A.P., and Bufalini, J.J. "Photochemical aspects of air
pollution: A review." Environmental Science and Technology/ Vol 5,
No. 1, pp. 39-64 (1971)
Behl, B.A. "Absolute continuous atmospheric ozone determination by differ-
ential uv absorption." Air Pollution Control Association 65th Meeting,
Paper No. 72-7. Miami Beach, Florida (1972)
Blumenthal, D.L., White, W.H., Peace, R.L., and Smith, T.B. "Determination
of ozone or ozone precursors." Meteorology Research Incorporated,
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/3-74-061
(November 1974)
Boyd, A.W., Willis, C., and Cyr, R. "New determination of stoichiometry of
the iodometric method for ozone analysis at pH 7.0." Analytical
Chemistry, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 670-672 (1970)
Breeding, R.J., Klonis, H.B., Lodge, J.P., Jr., Pate, J.B., Sheesley, D.C.,
Englert, T.R., and Sears, D.R. "Measurements of atmospheric pollutants
in the St. Louis area," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.
181-194 (1976)
Butcher, S.S., and Ruff, R.E. "Effects of inlet residence time on analysis
of atmospheric nitrogen oxides and ozone." Analytical Chemistry, Vol.
43, No. 13, pp. 1890-1892 (1971)
Calvert, J.G. "Test of theory of ozone generation in Los Angeles Atmos-
phere," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 248-
256 (1976)
Cleveland, W.S., Kleiner, B., McRae, J.G., and Warner, J.L. "Photochemical
air pollution: Transport from the New York City area into Connecticut
and Massachusetts." Science, Vol. 191, pp. 179-181 (1976)
Coffey, P.E., and Stasiuk, W.N. "Evidence of atmospheric transport of ozone
into urban areas." Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 59-62 (1975)
90
-------
Decker, C.D., Bach, W.D., Eaton, W.C., Hamilton, H.L., King, W.J.,
Ripperton, L.A., Tommerdahl, J.B., vukovitch, P.M., White, J.H., and
Worth, J.J.B. "Investigation of rural oxidant levels as related to
urban hydrocarbon control strategies." Research Triangle Institute,
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/3-75-036
(March 1975)
Demerjian, K.J., Kerr, J.A., and Calvert, J.G. "The mechanism of photo-
chemical smog formation." Advances in Environmental Sciences and
Technology, Vol. 4 (J.N. Pitts, Jr., R.L. Metcalf, and A.C. Lloyd,
eds.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 1-262 (1974)
Higuchi, J.E., MacPhee, R.D., and Leh, F.K.V. "Comparison of oxidant meas-
urement methods, ultraviolet photometry, and moisture effect." Pre-
sented at APCA Technical Specialty Conference on Ozone/Oxidants - Inter-
action with the Total Environment. Dallas, Texas (March 10-12, 1976)
Hodgeson, J.A., Baumgardner, R.E., Martin, B.E., and Rechme, K.A. "Stoichio-
metry in the neutral iodometric procedure for ozone by gas-phase titra-
tion with nitric oxide." Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp.
1123-1126 (1971)
Jeffries, H.E., Fox, D.L., and Kamens, R.M. "Outdoor smog chamber studies-
effect of hydrocarbon reduction on nitrogen dioxide." University of
North Carolina, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-650/3-75-011 (June 1975)
Johnston, D.R., Decker, C.E., Eaton, W.C., Hamilton, H.L., Jr., White, J.H.,
and Whitehorne, D.H. "Investigation of ozone and ozone precursor con-
centrations at non-urban locations in the eastern U.S." Research
Triangle Institute, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-450/3-74-034 (May 1974)
Kopczynski, S.L., and Bufalini, J.J. "Some observations on stoichiometry of
iodometric analyses of ozone at pH 7.0." Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43,
No. 8, pp. 1126-1127 (1971)
Mage, D.T. "Sample size requirements for statistical validity." Presented
at U.S. EPA conference on Monitoring From Airborne Platforms for Air
Quality Assessment, Las Vegas, Nevada (March 26-27, 1975)
Parry, E.P., and Hern, D.H. "Stoichiometry of ozone-iodide reaction: Signi-
ficance of iodate formation." Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 65-66 (1973)
Schmitz, L.R. "Correspondence: Stoichiometry of ozone-iodide reaction:
Significance of iodate formation." Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, Vol. 7, No. 7, p. 647 (1973)
Smithsonian Meterological Tables, Prepared by Robert J. List (sixth revised
edition), Smithsonian Institute Press, City of Washington (1971)
91
-------
Tebbens, B.D. "Air pollution." (A.C. Stern, ed.)/ Vol. I, Academic Press,
New York (1968)
92
•A-U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977 - 784-579/85 Region No. 9-1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/4-77-020
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AIR QUALITY DATA FOR THE NORTHEAST OXIDANT TRANSPORT
STUDY, 1975
Final Data Report
5. REPORT DATE
March 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
G. W. Siple, C. K. Fitzsimmons, J. J. van Ee,
and K. F. Zeller
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA603
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/7
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
During the summer of 1975, a survey was conducted in the northeastern region of
the U.S. to assess the transport of oxidant and oxidant precursors through the area.
This report documents the scope of participation of the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory at Las Vegas Long Range Air Monitoring Aircraft in the study. The
report includes a description of the monitoring system, considerations involved in
the operation of the system, and a presentation of the data collected by the system.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Air masses
Air pollution
Environmental survey
Fixed wing aircraft
Ozone
Quality Assurance
Oxidant Transport
Airborne Monitoring
01C
04A
04B
07B
13B
14D
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
104
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |