EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE
SECONDARY OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARD!
January 1979
Strategies and Air Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Method of Analysis for Preliminary Estimate of
Reduction in Yield for Commercially Important
Crops ........................ 2
3.0 Preliminary Estimate of Ozone Damage to
Commercial Farm Crops ................ 9
4.0 Preliminary Estimate of Ozone Damage to
Other Vegetation .................. 14
5.0 Examination of Available Evidence on Yield Reduction
in Field Exposures .................. 16
6.0 Ozone Damage to Materials and Reduction in
Visibility ..................... 19
7.0 Summary and Conclusions ............... 21
References ..................... 23
Figure 3-3 ..................... 24
Table 1 ....................... 25
Table 2 ....................... 26
Table 3 ....................... 28
Table 4 ....................... 32
Table 5 ....................... 33
Table 6 ....................... 34
Table 7 ....................... 35
Table 3 ....................... 36
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 3
Appendix A
Appendix 3
Appendix C
-------
1.0 Introduction
It has been found that ambient concentrations of ozone are re-
sponsible for economic losses that arise from accelerated aging of
certain materials (e.g., rubber cracking, dye fading, and paint weathering)
and damage to vegetation (e.g., foliar injury, growth reduction, and yield
reduction), and are associated with visibility degradation in some
areas. This analysis attempts to quantitatively assess the difference in
damages associated with alternative secondary ozone standard levels.
It should be emphasized that the estimates for reduction in damage
to forest products, farm crops, and ornamentals are primitive due to
the extremely limited data base correlating yield reduction and short-
term low-level ozone exposure. The analysis used a first-cut approach
to obtain an upper-boundary estimate on reduction of damage for major
farm crops. Damage was estimated both in terms of growth and yield
reductions and economic losses. Economic losses were estimated to
provide an indicator of damage across crop types. Reduction in ozone damage was
estimated for 90% of the major farm crops for which the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) recorded economic data (3). EPA consulted with
several plant pathologists to obtain an improved estimate for reduction
in damage. In addition, the available evidence relating long-term ozone
field exposures to yield reduction in commercial crops and indigenous
flora were examined and the implications of these studies for the selection
of an appropriate secondary standard level were explored. Finally, for
materials and visibility, EPA concluded that there is no identifiable difference
in economic damage between the alternative standards.
1
-------
2.0 Method of Analysis for Preliminary Estimate of Reduction in Yield
For Commercially Important Crocs
The criteria document (2) estimates that damage to vegetation
resulting from current ambient oxidant exposures may be approaching
$300 million (1974 dollars) at the farm level. The goal of this analysis
is to estimate the incremental reduction in yield that might result from
adoption of alternative annual peak hourly average ozone secondary standards
(0.08 ppm, 0.10 ppm, or 0.12 ppm). For the standard levels under considera-
tion, the available evidence indicates that the air quality parameter
that will determine the amount of vegetation injury is the 6- to 3-hour
average concentration which accompanies the permitted hourly average
peaks. SPA analyzed 123 site-years of ozone or total oxidant data from
stations that were diversified in nature, ranging from "center-city -
industrial" to "rural - agricultural". The results of this analysis are
presented in Attachment 1. Annual-asak 3-hour ozone (or oxidant)
concentrations are plotted as a function of annual peak hourly average
concentrations in Figure 1 of that attachment. As can be seen from
the figure, there is a considerable- variability in this relationship. ;?A
chose to use an upper-boundary cur/e which envelops most of the data
in Figure 1 to establish the maximum 3-hour average cancantraticn "hat
could be exoectad to occur if a given hourly average standard level
were achieved. Thus a 0.08 ppm hourly average standard level
should prevent 0.07 ppm, 3-hour average, from being exceeded more
-------
than once per year. Similarly, a 0.10 ppm hourly average standard level
should prevent 0.09 pom, 8-hour average, from being exceeded and a 0.12
com hourly average standard level should prevent 0.10 ppm, 8-hour
average from being exceeded more than once per year. The following pre-
liminary analysis is based upon two comparisons: (1) allowing only one
0.10 ppm/8-hour versus 0.09 ppm/ 8-hour peak exposure oer year and (2)
allowing only one 0.09 ppm/8-hour versus 0.07 ppm/8-hour peak exposure
per year.
In order to evaluate the reductions in yield or growth for alternative"
standard levels, it is necessary to have a dose-response function relating
ozone concentrations and duration of exposure to percent yield reduction
or damage. Larsen and Heck have developed a mathematical model that
quantitatively predicts the extent of foliar injury in certain classes
of crops due to single, acute exposures as a function of ozone concentration
and exposure time (6). Dr. Ralph Larsen (U.S. EPA) has applied this mathematical
node! to the 1135 data points evaluated in the 1977 National Academy of
Sciences report (4). The results of this analysis are presented in
Attachment 2 and utilized in Tables 2 and 3 of this report (pp. 26-31).
It should be cautioned that foliar injury is an imprecise measure
of the effect of ozone on Plant growth and/or yield. The Con/all is
Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL) of U.S. EPA has recently funded
a case study in California to evaluate the economic effects of air
pollution on agricultural crops. The study will utilize data
which are currently being generated to measure yield effects. The
objective of the study is to develop a generalized economic methodology
-------
for evaluating direct and secondary impacts on agricultural crop
yields. Unfortunately, the results of this recently initiated
study will not be available for some time. However, section 5.0
of this report examines the available evidence relating yield
reduction and growth parameters for commercial crops and native
vegetation to seasonal ozone doses.
For the purposes of this analysis, a first-cut estimate was
made based on the assumption that the acute foliar injury response
to the peak exposure permitted by the standard can be used to predict
biomass (growth) and yield reduction caused by chronic exposure to
ozone levels up to and including the peak value permitted by the
standard. Regarding this assumption, Or. Walter Heck (Research
Leader, Southern Region, USDA, Raleigh, NC) estimated that the ratio of
the percent damage (yield reduction) to acute foliar injury percentage
may be as low as 1:2 or as high as 1:1 (see Attachment 3).
In discussions with plant pathologists arcund the country,
EPA was cautioned that while there appears to be a fair amount of
correlation between foliar injury percentage and biomass reduction,
there is a great degree of variability in the relationship between
biomass reduction and reduction in yield (the economically imoortant
parameter for most craps), "or example, significant damage or yield
reduction can occur in some crops without any noticeable foliar
injury. Conversely, it is possible to have significant foliar
-------
injury and biomass reduction and yet have no noticeable effect on
yield, as illustrated in Table 4. The timing of an air pollution
episode in the crop's life cycle and the presence of other environ-
mental stresses (e.g., drought conditions) are often crucial
determinants of how much yield and/or biomass reduction will result
from a given degree of foliar injury.
Another important caveat is the fact that the Larsen and Heck
equations were derived from studies which generally exposed plants in
greenhouses under the most likely conditions to produce injury "(e"."g.V~~
high humidity, high soil moisture, and medium temperature). The levels
of injury suggested by the Larsen and Heck model almost certainly
exaqaerate the amount of damage for the significant portion of the U.S.
crop which is grown under less sensitive conditions (e.g., low humidity,
low soil moisture). These less sensitive conditions are particularly
found in the central and northern plains regions of the United States.
The commercial crops studied are divided into the following categories
depending upon which part of the plant is of economic value: foliar
(tobacco, hay), seed (corn, wheat), root (potatoes, onion) and
fruit (oranges, tomato). For foliar type crops it is assumed that
there is no threshold, i.e., any foliar injury percentage will result
in some yield reduction. However, for non-foliar type crops, the
assumption made is that only foliar injury greater than 5 percent will
lead to yield reduction. The selection of a 5 percent threshold value
-------
is a conservative estimate based on the comments of several researchers
to the effect that 5 to 20 percent foliar injury is usually required
before there is a detectable reduction in biomass and/or yield in
sensitive plants.
Using the above assumptions, a percent_damage (yield reduction)
is determined using the foliar injury data from Attachment 2 for each
major commercial croo known to be sensitive to low ozone levels. The
difference in oercent damage associated with alternative standard
levels is listed in Tables 2 and 3 as A % damage. However, in
order to compare damages across crop types, EPA used the economic
indicator of crop values as a convenient measure or surrogate for
yield reduction effects.
The daca needed to enable conversion of i * damage to a dollar
measure are:
(1) the economic value of production of each crop at the farm
level;
(2} the percentage of each croo that is of a sensitive or
intermediate cultivar (i.e., variety).
The aroduction value of each major crop is obtained frcm the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (3) and is in terms of 1377 oroduction and
dollars. A first-cut, systematic estimate of the share of :he total
crop that is of a sensitive (or intermediate) variety is calculated by
one of two methods. 3oth methods rely on Table 11-24. in the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) ozone document (*•} which categories the
varieties examined by olant researchers as sensitive, intermediate, or
-------
resistant. Where four or more cultivars for a crop are listed, it is
assumed that the percent of sensitive (intermediate) cultivars for that
crop (as reported in Table 11-24) is equivalent to the sensitive
(intermediate) fraction of the crop oresently being grown on the nation's
farms. Therefore, since 12 cultivars for oats are listed and 5 of them
are in the sensitive category, then 6/12 or 50 percent of the oats grown
are assumed to be of the sensitive variety. Where fewer than 4 cultivars
of a given crop are listed, a percentage of sensitive cultivars for that
tyoe of crop (i.e., seed, foliar, fruit, or root) is used to determine
the share of the crop that is sensitive. For example, fewer than 4
cultivars are listed for sweet corn in Table 11-24, but 24 percent of the
seed-type cultivars fall in the sensitive category. Therefore, it is
assumed that roughly 24 percent of the sweet corn grown is of a sensitive
variety.
To put the above assumptions into proper perspective it should be
recognized that the commercial lifespan of most cultivars is no more
than ten years, and indeed can be considerably shorter. Many of the
cultivars listed in the MAS tables are either no longer grown, or are of
only minor commercial sianificanca. Nonetheless, for a preliminary
estimate of ozone-related crop damage EPA chose to use the NAS breakdown
of cultivar sensitivity as a rough approximation of the sensitivity of
crops presently being grown on the nation's farms due to the limited
data base and resources available for this study.
-------
Utilizing the above estimates and -the assumptions upon which they
are based, the difference in economic loss between two alternative ozone
standards is calculated by (1) multiplying the difference in percent damage
for the sensitive crops, the share of the crop that is sensitive, and
the economic value of the total production at the farm level for each......
crop and (2) multiplying the difference in percent damage for the intermediate
crop, the share of the crop that is intermediate, and the economic value
of the total production at the farm level for each crop, and (3) summing the
products for all major commercial crops.
[Differential
Annual Economic
Loss, in 1977
dollars and
!oraduction
n
d * Damage
for sensi-
tive crop i
n !~i % Damage
* Z for interme-
1=1 diate crop i
V -i
* of crop that
jjs sensitive
\% of crop that !
jis intermediate
H~ J
r!977 value
of production
for crop i
| 1977 value 1
of production?
ror croo
In determining the reduction in yield and growth associated with a
0.07 ppm/3-hour as opposed to a 0.09 ppm/8-hour exposure (Table 2), it
was found that for crops of intermediate sensitivity the A " damage is
zero or nearly zero for the crops considered. Thus no loss data for
intermediate crops appears in Table 2. However, in comparing a 0.09
ppm/3-hour and a 0.10 ppm/8-hour exposure (Table 3), ozone carnage to
intermediate craps was included because the 5 percent injury threshold
is exceeded for some crops for a peak exposure greater than 0.09 ppm/
3-hour average.
-------
The above estimate of the annual difference in economic loss
associated with alternative standards assumes that production will
remain at 1977 levels and that the value or price per unit for each crop
would remain unchanged even if more of the crop were produced due to
reduced ozone levels.
3.0 Preliminary Estimate of Ozone Damage to Commercial Farm Crops
Using the above-mentioned assumptions an upper-boundary (worst-
case) estimate was made to identify which crops might be responsible for
the bulk of the reduction in damages. It was found that the
vast majority of the estimated loss was accounted for by the following 6
crops: corn for grain, cotton, hay, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat. In
addition, the systematic approach outlined above was not helpful in
providing even a first-cut estimate for several important crops.
Therefore, in order to obtain more realistic estimates of the reduction
in damage to these major farm crops associated with alternative standards,
various plant experts were consulted with on the assumptions used in the
initial analysis and the total values obtained. 3ased on these con-
versations, the first-cut estimates were revised for several crops, and
original estimates were made for several others. These improved results
are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The following oaragraphs detail the bases
for these revisions.
Dr. Al Heagle (Plant Pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Raleigh, NC) has suggested that the percent of field corn (corn for
grain) that is of a sensitive variety is probably on the order of one-
half of the percentage of sweet corn that is sensitive. Since the
systematic estimate of this percentage was the same for both crops,
this recommendation lowered the damage estimates for field corn by
-------
50 percent from the first-cut estimate. Tables 2 and 3 have been
revised to incorporate this suggestion.
The first-cut estimate of the incremental reduction in damage to
tobacco was from $94 to S190 million (0.09 ppm/S-hour vs. 0.07 ppm/8-hour).
This was based on the systematic estimate that 70 percent of the tobacco —
crop is of a sensitive variety. This estimate is almost certainly too
high. In North Carolina, where nearly 50% of the U.S. tobacco crop is
grown, the maximum annual ozone (weather fleck) damage in the period .1_9_7_3^_.
1977 occurred in 1976. The estimated disease loss was only 0.38 percent
or S3.555 million for that year (5). Or. Furney Todd of M.C. State
estimated in personal communications that about 23 percent of the North
Carolina flue-cured tobacco crop (types 11-H) consists of the variety
Speight 3-23 and that this variety was the most sensitive of the flue-
cured types presently grown. However, he believed that Soeight G-23
would fall in the intermediate category using the MAS classification
system. Or. Todd also mentioned that most of the ozone (weather ^lec!<)
damage was to the lower leaves of the tobacco plants. There is currently
a surolus of these leaves on the market and farmers are being encouraged
to destroy these leaves. Thus at present there is little, if any, ozone-
related economic damage to the tobacco crop in North Carolina.
For Burley Type 31 tobacco, which makes up roughly 31 percent of
total tobacco croo, Or. Hadden (Univ. of Tennessee) estimated that the
maximum weather fleck (ozone) damage suffered in recent years was around
0.5 oercent of the croo. Since 3urley Type 31 and flue-cured types 11-
1-J- make UD 91 oercent of the total tobacco crown and are of intermediate
-------
or resistant susceptibility to ozone,- the maximum fraction of the
tobacco crop that could be of a sensitive variety is 9 percent. Tables 2
and 3 have been revised in accordance with this upper-boundary estimate.
Dr. Todd also estimated that 26 percent of the total tobacco crop
nationwide was of an intermediate varie±y. This value is used in - -
generating the reduction-in-loss estimate in Table 3 for intermediate
sensitivity tobacco.
We also consulted Or. H.E. Heggestad of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture at Beltsville, MO regarding his work with cotton. While he
noted that some cultivars were found to be more sensitive than others,
he offered his judgment that no cotton tested would show a difference in
yield for either of the alternative standards under consideration.
Tables 2 and 3 reflect his judgment.
EPA also sought expert advice on the impact that environmental
factors (such as soil moisture and type, humidity, tamperatura, etc.) as
well as the timing of an ozone pollution episode in a crop's life cycle
might have on the yield response of that crop.
It is generally recognized that the timing of a peak pollutant
exposure in a crop's life cycle can have a considerable impact on the
response of that crop to the pollutant. Plant pathologists have shown
that for non-foliar type crops the most susceptible period occurs from
onset of flowering through fruit development. According to Dr. Heagle
(U.S. Department of Agriculture), this period is highly dependent on
the crop. For corn, soybeans, and wheat, however, he indicated that
the most susceptible period is about 1 month. Since peak man-caused
11
-------
ozone values typically occur in the 5-month period from May through
September (see Table 1 in Attachment 1), it seems reasonable to
hypothesize that there is a 20 percent chance that in a particular
location one of these crops might sustain yield reduction losses •
as a result of the peak ozone level. EFA has amended the results of
its preliminary analysis in accordance with this estimate by incorporating*
this correction factor for seed and fruit crops in Tables 2 and 3 in the
column listing the percentage of the crop that is sensitive (or inter-
mediate) .
Environmental conditions such as soil moisture, humidity, and
temperature are known to be important factors in determining the
response of plants to pollutant challenges. Several experts cautioned
that foliar injury studies such as these on which Tables 2 and 3
are based are generally conducted in greenhouse chambers under ex-
perimental conditions which, as nearly as is possible, are optimal for
producing injury. This means that the results presented in Tables 2 and 2
are an overestimate of the damage associated with the alternative
standards, since the analysis assumes that environmental conditions
throughout the nation are optimal for producing injury when the peak
ozone levels occur. Such is clearly not the case, since tne 3reat
Plains, Mountain, and Southwest regions of the country generally have
environmental conditions (dry soil and low humidity) which are less
conducive to ozone-related damage than are the humid, moist-soil regions
of the East and South and the irrigated farm areas of California. The
estimates of damage for crops such as wheat which are largely grown in the
-------
less susceptible regions of the country are consequently inflated. EPA
was not able to modify Tables 2 and 3 to correct for this bias, however,
because the available data do not permit a reasonably accurate breakdown
of the nation's crop production into areas of differing environmental
conditions in relation to pollution damage susceptibility.
Several researchers emphasized the fact that there are alternative
approaches to the reduction of ozone-related damage to commercial crops.
One option is for the agricultural sector to substitute more resistant
cultivars for susceptible ones in regions of the country where ozone
levels are high. Researchers are developing new cultivars that are
specifically bred to be more resistant to air pollutants. In some cases,
chemical protectants can be applied to sensitive crops to reduce or
eliminate ozone-related damage.
It should, however, be realized that the alternatives described
above also involve costs. The costs associated with research, application
and testing of chemical protectants, changes in harvesting equipment and
procedures, reduced quality or yield for some of the substitute cultivars,
etc., would have to be calculated for a complete and thorough cost-
benefit analysis. In addition, the question of equity would have to be
addressed, for it is the farmer who would bear the additional expense
associated with the pollution generated by industry and automobiles.
Que to the limited data available, EPA does not have the ability to
address this issue in any greater detail at this time.
13
-------
Where possible, Tables 2 and 3 have been revised to incorporate the
suggestions of the plant experts.consul ted. Consequently, EPA believes
that these tables represent the best estimates that can presently be made
using the foliar injury data base to compare the nationwide reductions in
yield of commercially important crops associated with alternative short-term
(annual peak hourly average) secondary ozone standards. The results of this
preliminary analysis indicate that the incremental damage between a 0.12 ppm
peak hourly average standard and a 0.10 ppm peak hourly average standard
ranges from SO.14 to $0.29 billion per year, while the incremen-tal--4am*c-e
between a 0.10 ppm and a 0.08 ppm standard ranges from SO.18 to SO.36 billion
per year. Compared with the 1977 nationwide total of crop production evaluated
in -his analysis, S50.5 billion per year, these incremental damages are G.3-
0.5% and 0.4-0.7*, respectively. Because the analysis was net corrected for
temperature, humidity and soil moisture, these estimates ire conservative,
tending to overstate the potential impact. Given the uncertainty in the data
and the conservatism in the estimates, EPA does not consider these -impacts to
be significant.
4.0 Preliminary Estimate of Ozone Damage to Other Vegetation
The preceding section presented quantitative estimates of the reduction
in damage to commercial farm crops which would result from attainment of
alternative ozone standards. It should be realized that current ambient
ozone levels also cause damage to our national forests and parks, to commercial
timber growth, and to commercial and home-grown ornamentals.
It is very difficult to quantify adequately the importance of natural
ecosystems to the public welfare, and consequently to provide -nonetary estimates
of the impacts of oxidant pollution on natural ecosystems. While there have
-------
been important advances made in the economic methodology to measure the
benefits of or damages to natural ecosystems (e.g., willingness-to-pay
approaches), the state of the art is not sufficiently developed to
distinguish the incremental difference involved with the alternative
ozone standards being considered.
Using the systematic methodology discussed previously for farm
crops, a crude (worst-case) estimate can be made of the maximum reduction
in damage to all commercial forestry and ornamental products associated
with the alternative standards. In 1972, the total value for_all_j:ommercial
forestry products was 32.9 billion. If the percentage of the sensitive
trees grown is equivalent to the fraction of tree species listed in
Table 11-24 (reference 4) that are sensitive (20") and the difference in
damage for the 0.09 pern vs. 0.07 ppm/8-hr levels is about 12 percent
(the value obtained using the all-sensitive-trees equation for foliar
injury data), then for the case where percent yield reduction is assumed
to equal percent foliar injury, the annual reduction in damage is:
(20%) (12S) (32.9 billion) = 370 million (1972 dollars) or 2A%
Thus, the range of the estimate given in Table 2 is 335-70 million per
year (0.09 ppm/8-hr vs. 0.07 ppm/8-hr).
A similar crude estimate can be made for commercial ornamentals and
shrubs using the all-sensitive-plants equation:
(92) (8%) ($1.3 billion) = $9 million (1974 dollars) or Q.7%
(0.09 ppm/8-hrs vs. O.Q7 ppm/8-hr).
The range of the estimated reduction in damage to ornamentals would
be $5 - 39 million per year for exposure to a 0.07 ppm/8-hour-average
as opposed to exposure to a 0.09 ppm/3-hour-average.
15
-------
The preceding estimates contain the same conservative assumptions
discussed in section 3.0 for the farm crop analysis. Consequently,
these estimates also tend to overstate the potential impact.
Quantitative estimates of damage to home-grown crops, ornamentals,
and shrubs were not made due both to the lack of information on how much
of each type of vegetation is grown and the difficulty of placing an
economic value estimate on damage to shrubs and plants. These plants may
be damaged by ozone such that their appearance is marred but still the
plant continues to survive. Since these plants are not subject to any
market mechanism, it is very difficult to place an economic value on the
partial damage that is caused by exposure to ozone.
5.0 Examination of Available evidence on Yield Reduction in Field Exposures
Section 3.0 detailed specific revisions which were made in the
first-cue, systematic estimate of croo damage associated with alternative
ozone standards, based a a*the suggestions received from several plant
experts. However, a more basic criticism of this approach was offered
by several researchers in relation to its underlying assumotion that
greenhouse foliar injury data is a valid indicator with which to project
yield reduction in crops excosed in the field. As was noted previously,
the environmental conditions in the field may not be nearly so optimal
for producing injury as those typically used in greenhouse chamber
studies.
In order to determine whether or not croo yield reductions would
actually occur at any of the alternative standards, £?A evaluated the
15
-------
ozone field exposure data currently available in the criteria document
(summarized in Table 5) and in recent unpublished studies (7,8,9) by Dr.
A. S. Heagle. These data are not directly relevant to the issue of
comparing alternative peak hourly average standards, since they relate
crop yield reductions to the long-term (growing season) mean of the
daily maximum 6- to 7-hour-average ozone concentrations. Nevertheless,
EPA believes that some useful conclusions can be drawn from an examination
of this evidence in conjunction with available air quality data.
The five studies in Table 5 all demonstrated statistically signi-
ficant growth and yield reductions in commercial varieties of alfalfa,
soybean, and sweet corn or in pine seedlings when the seasonal mean of
the daily maximum 6-hour-average ozone concentrations was 0.10 ppm. In
these studies ozone was added to a charcoal-filtered airstream to produce
the exposure dosage. Of the three studies in which crops were exposed
to a seasonal mean of 0.05 ppm, one demonstrated statistically significant
growth reductions in alfalfa. In this study of 0.05 ppm, the alfalfa
did not receive any nitrogenous nutrients; the ozone exposure apparently
affected the ability of the alfalfa to symbiotically fix atmospheric
nitrogen. The bulk of this evidence suggests that for normally fertilized
agricultural crops, the threshold for significant growth or yield reductions
lies between 0.05 and 0.10 ppm for a seasonal mean of the daily maximum
6- to 7-hour-average concentrations.
Or. Heagle's studies (7,8,9) examined the effect of long-term ozone
exposures on the yield of several commercial varieties of field corn,
spinach, and winter wheat grown in open-top field chambers. The first
17
-------
two studies have been accepted for publication and the third study will
be submitted shortly; these studies are attached as Appendixes A, 3, and
C. The exposure protocol in these studies differed from those discussed
above in that the crops received different ozone doses by the addition
of different but constant concentrations of ozone to non-filtered ambient
air for 7 hours per day (approximately 0930 to 1630 hours EOT). The
results of these studies are summarized in Table 5, along with an ambient
exposure study on tomatoes by O.C. Maclean and R.E. Schneider (10). On
balance, this evidence indicates a threshold for significant yield -• -
reductions in several commercial crops between 0.06 pom and 0.10 ppm for
a seasonal mean of the daily maximum 7-hour average ozone concentration.
It is particularly interesting to note that in the field corn study (7),
which had a significant yield response threshold between 0.11 and 0.15
ppm seasonal mean 7-hour-average, the foliar injury response threshold
was less than 0.07 ppm seasonal mean, demonstrating that field corn can
*
sustain some injury with no loss of yield.
The rationale for selection of the seasonal mean of the daily
maximum 7-hour-average ozone concentration as the air quality parameter
with which to correlate yield reduction caused by ozone exposures is
presented by reference 3:
Previous methods of describing ambient pollutant doses include
seasonal means, weekly means, 24-hour means, ppm hours, peak hourly
means, and a number of hours above a set concentration. None of
these methods adequately describe the dose from a biological standpoint
because pollutant dose - plant response curves are .not linear and
plants may respond differently to pollutants at different times
during growth. Doses have also been described in terns of oercentage
of time or number of hours above set concentrations intervals, but
neither of these metnoas consider the timing of exposure to given
-------
concentrations in relation to plant growth stage or time of day.
In our experience, the 7 hour/day (0930 to 1530 hour EOT) and 24
hour/day means, adequately characterize the dose from a biological
standpoint.
The connection between this long-term dose characterization and the
annual peak hourly average standard format under evaluation is difficult
to establish definitively. A few examples may be cited: In Raleigh,
North Carolina a peak hourly average of 0.14 ppm was observed when the
ambient air seasonal mean 7-hour-average concentration in Dr. Heagle's
winter wheat study (9) was 0.06 ppm. A peak hourly average oxidant
value of 0.20 ppm was measured in Yonkers, Mew York in conjunction" with"
the 0.07 ppm seasonal mean 7-hour-average concentration calculated from
reference 10. The results of an analysis of EPA's air quality data
files presented in Table 2 and Figure 2 of Attachment 1 demonstrate that
the relationship between peak hourly average values and long-term mean
7-hour-average concentrations is quite variable. However, the data do
seem to indicate that attainment of a peak hourly average standard level
of 0.12 ppm would prevent a seasonal mean daily-maximum 7-hour-average
concentration of O.Q6 ppm from being exceeded. As a result, EPA concludes
that the evidence currently available does not suggest that a peak
hourly average ozone secondary standard any lower than 0.12 ppm is
necessary on the basis of ozone-related yield reduction effects in
vegetation.
6.0 Ozone Damage to Materials and Reduction in Visibility
Materials damage resulting from ozone can be described as an acceleration
of aging processes; for example, rubber cracking, dye fading, and paint
weathering. In contrast to the effects of ozone on vegetation, these
19
-------
effects are linearly dependent on the total ozone dose sustained by the
material. As a result, the annual average concentration will determine
the rate at which material is damaged, as discussed in the criteria
document (2). Any nonzero ozone concentration (including natural background
levels) will contribute to the deterioration of sensitive materials over
a sufficient exposure duration. While peak 1-hour ozone concentrations
in urban areas tend to be considerably higher than in rural areas
remote from man-made emission sources, the annual average concentrations
observed in these areas are essentially the same, as illustrated in
Tables 7 and 3. This finding is believed to be due to the impact of
very low urban-area nighttime ozone concentrations on the annual average
values; nighttime ozone levels in remote areas are not reduced as much
from the daytime levels due to the absence of scavenging by man-made
urban pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxices and hydrocarbons). As peas ozone
levels in urban areas are Deduced through control of man-made pollutants,
scavenging will also be reduced resulting in little if any change in the
annual average. Consequently, no effect-based rationale can be of-ersd
to -decide the level of the secondary standard needed to protect materials.
Accordingly, a secondary standard more stringent than the primary standard
does not appear necessary on the basis of ozone damage to materials.
The criteria document states that there is a limited amount of data
suggesting an association between ambient ozone and visibility degradation,
particularly in the Los Angeles area. The final version of the criteria
document contains a diagram (Figure 3-2, attached) that depicts a gcod
correlation for the Los Angeles basin between visibility reduction (as
measured by the extinction coefficient) and Z-'icur-average maximum ozone
20
-------
concentrations. However, inspection of the data reveals no obvious
relationship between visibility reduction and maximum ozone concentrations
at and below 0.12 ppm. Furthermore, the criteria document states that
the Los Angeles evidence on the impact of ozone-related control measures
on haze does not have universal validity, as indicated by the case of
Denver, for example, where the haze problem appears to be caused by
primary aerosols. On the basis of the available information, EPA does
not believe that a secondary standard more stringent than the primary
standard is necessary to prevent visibility deterioration.
7.0 Summary and Conclusions
This report has produced a quantitative estimate of the yield
reduction impacts of alternative peak hourly average ozone standards
based on the foliar injury data base. Several experts questioned the
validity of this analysis because of its underlying assumption that
greenhouse chamber foliar injury data is a reliable indicator of yield
reduction in field crops. Because of these criticisms, EPA believes the
preliminary estimates given in Tables 2 and 3 do not provide an accurate
indication of the damages associated with the alternative standard
levels considered, but rather are considerable overestimates.
Consequently, EPA has evaluated the data currently available in the
criteria document (summarized in Table 5) and in other recent studies
(summarized in Table 6) relating long-term ozone field exposures and
yield reduction in commercially important crops and indigenous flora. On
the basis of this information and an examination of air quality data,
EPA has concluded that there is currently no evidence indicating the
-------
need for a peak hourly average ozone secondary standard any lower than
0.12 ppm on the basis of ozone-related yield reduction effects in vegetation,
Furthermore, EPA's assessment of the available information regarding
materials damage and visibility deterioration indicates that a secondary
standard more stringent than 0.12 ppm is unnecessary to protect against
these effects as we!1.
22
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment of Welfare
Effects and the Secondary Air Quality Standard for Ozone, June
1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for
Ozone and other Photochemical Oxidants, Publication No. EPA-600/ 8-
78-004, April 1978 (preprint).
3. Department of Agriculture, Crop Values 1975-1976-1977, Washington,
DC, January 18, 1978.
4. National Academy of Sciences (MAS), Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants. MAS, Washington, DC, 1977.
5. Todd, Furney, Extension-Research on Wheels; Summary Report of 1977
Data, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, November,
1977.
6. Larsen, R.I. and W.W. Heck. "An air quality data analysis system
for interrelating effects, standards, and needed source reductions:
Part 3. Veaetation Injury." J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.
26(4): 325-333, 1976.
7. Heagle, A.S., R.B. Philbeck, and VI.M. Knott, "Thresholds for injury,
growth, and yield loss caused by ozone on field corn hybrids."
Phytopathology, 1979 (In Press).
8. Heagle, A.S., R.B. Philbeck, and M.S. letchworth, "Injury and yield
responses of spinach cultivars to chronic doses of ozone in open-
top field chambers." Journal of Environmental Quality, 1979 (In
Press).
9. Heagle, Allen S., Suzanne Spencer and Michael 3. Letchworth, "Yield
Responses of Winter Wheat Cultivars to Chronic Doses of Ozone."
(Draft, to be submitted for publication in 1979).
10. Maclean, D.C., and R.E. Schneider. "Photochemical oxidants in
Yonkers, Mew York: Effects on yield of bean and tomato." J. Environ.
Qua!. 5_(1): 75-78, 1976.
23
-------
14
10
i_ 3
•Z 4
u
X
LU
BSC3t AT PEAK OZONE (BASSO ON TWO HOUR
AVERAGED OATA FROM LOS ANGELES AREA)
(SUMMER 1973)
(SUMMER 1972)
0 ROUBIOOUX (RIVERSIDE) * PASADENA
A WESTCOVINA
a POMONA
• DOMINGUE2 HILLS
(TORRANCE)
• RIVERSIDE
» POMONA
* HAR8OR FvVY.
(DOWNTOWN LA)
O 3LIMP FLIGHT '
19/6/73!
1315-1500 PST
BLIMP _
NO AcHOSOL IN THE ATMOSPHERE
! I I I
) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5
03. ppm (MAXIMUM)
Figure 3-3. Corralation between 3SCat anci rnaximal
ozone concentration.
37
from Air Quality Critaria for 3zane and
other ^loiiccnsrncai jx'aants, /o;'j~e :.
Office of ^ssearcr. anc CaveVcpmen', j.S. E
-------
TABLE 1
SELECTED VEGETATION GENERA AND SPECIES GROUPED 3Y
SENSITIVITY TO OZOfiE
Sensitive intermediate Res-is-tan-t—
Sean (4)a
Cucumber (1)
Oats (6)
Soybean (14)
Spinach (4)
Tobacco (35)
Tomato (7)
Sean (5)
Cucumber (2)
Oats (5}
Soybean (19)
Spinach (3)
Tobacco (12)
Tomato (5)
Bean (5)
Cucumber (1)
Oats (1)
Soybean (5)
Spinach (1)
Tobacco ( 1 )
Tomato (3)
aMumbers in parentheses ( ) are the numbers of varieties of the species
for which reports of ozone response were reviewed in the MAS report.
(reference 4).
£.3
-------
I/..ULE 2
Preliminary tbliuiJiL'S of KtUiiut ion in Annual tconomic D
to fdim Crops, forust fvoilmts, anil lii•ii.uiu.-iiUls (G.07ppin/8-lir. vs
. 0.09p|iin/8-Ur.)
Crop
- foliar
r - Kool
i> - fruit
apples (fr)
tin Icy (s)
beans, dry
edible d]_
broccoli (f)
cabbaije (f)
'corn, for
corn, sweet
U)
;cotton
cucumber (fr)
jrupes (fr)
Iwy (f)
'oats (s)
onions (r)
juranyes (fr)
leanuls (s)
potatoes (r)
foliar injury
(F.I.)
O.O/ 0.09
piii/t nrs ppm/8tui
a
a
10
a
a
a
a
" a" "
a
a
13
2
a
8
a
a
16
16
20
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
23
. 6 '
16
16
16
16
type of equations
used for fol iar
iajury Values
1) sensit ive plants
11 sensitive plants
II sensit ive beans
11 sensitive plants
II sensitive plants
til sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
til sensitive hay
ill sensitive oats
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive plants
all sensitive plants
% IJamaye (if 1 . 1 . - Yield
tetlucliou (Y.K. ) tar
:oliar lype crops Ji.d V.K.
-f .l.-b.Oi; for otner crops
O.O/ 0.09
3
3
6
a
a
3
3
3
3
3
13
0
3
3
3
3
II
11
Ib
16
16
11
11
11
II
D
23
I
A* Damage if
V ft -t I in
1:1
8
a
10
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
10
; 1
n a
1 D a
n
n
11
8
-' - i
Value of
t rop
illilliu: i)
621
714
358
88
176
12.887
220
4,014
136
776
6,742
853
227
648
771
17275
of crop
hat is
ens it ive
5
5
5
51
51
2
5
0.
5
7
30
10
26
JO
1
25
Value of
Sfllb it ive
crop
30
40
20
40
90
260
10
0
10
50
2000
90
60
60
10
320
A Oaiuaye (SMi Dions)
Y.U.:F.l. Y.R.:1.I.
1:2 1:1
1
1
1
2
4
2
3
2
3
' 7
10 i 20
" L?
0
0
0 ! 1
, : 4
100 200
0
2
3
0
13
1
5
~5
'
26
-------
Table 2 (cont.)
Preliminary Estimates of Reduction in Annual Economic Damage
to Farm Crops, forest Products, and Ornamentals (0.07ppm/8-hr. vs. O.G9ppm/8-hr.)
Crop
f - Foliar
r = Knot
fr - Fruit
s = Seed
rice (s)
sorghum (s)
soybeans (s)
spinach (f)
tobacco (f)
tomato (fr)
iwlieat (s)
sub-total
(farm crops)
forest crops
jornamentals
:and shrubs
i
i
TOTALS
i
i
foliar injury
(F. .)
0.07 0.09
prn/Bhrs ppm/3hrs
a
10
2
8
15
4
8
9
8
16
20
9
16
25
10
16
2)
16
Type of equations
used for foliar
injury values
all sensitive plants
all sensitive
sorghum
all sensitive
oybfidns
all sensitive plants
11 sensitive tobacco
all sensitive tomato
ill sensitive plants
ill sensitive trees
ill sensitive plants
% Damage (if F.I.- Yield
(eduction (Y.R.) for
Foliar type crops and Y.R.
=F.I.-5.0'i for o:iicr crops
0.07 0.09
)pm/8l»rs 'iiiii.'lilirs
3
5
0
8
15
0
3
9
8
11
15
4
16
25
5
11
21
16
&% Damage if
Y.R.:F.l. is
1:1
8
10
4
8
10
5
8
12
8
I
i
t
Value of
crop
S.'iill ions)
929
1.357
9,945
24
2,294
914
4,677
50,650
2,900
1,300
!
of crop
hat is
ensitive
5
5
7
50
9
9
5
20
9
t
i
Value of
ens it ive
crop
SHill ions)
50
70
700
A Uamage (SMillions)
Y.R.:F.I. Y.R.iF.l.
1:2 1:1
2
3
14
10 0
210 10
80
4
7
28
1
21
2 4
230 | 9 i 19
580
120
t
180 : 360
35
5
220
70
9
440
-------
IAIIU 3
I'rcl imliiary I ^Uuiati.'i ut UuUucliuu in Annual tcuitomic
farm Lru|is, li)ii-"jl I'ruiluulii, and di aumuiil.1 IL (0.09|i|iin/tl lir'. v
(I. I0|)|uii/ll-l,r.]
1 1 U|l
- 1 ul iar
i - l(c,ui
li - 1 mil
d|>|l|ui (fl)
J|)|ilei (fr)
barley (i)
barluy (b)
IICMI, tlry
H.anu, dry
Ill0tl.0li (t)
JIULCllli (I)
1
LjUUillJO ( f )
calibaot; (f)
LUIII, t»r
•jrain .(il ...
LIIIII, lor
.urn, 'jWuut
:urn, bwuiil
i ul lull
uc,ullUur (1,
lullar injury
if. •)
u.o'j o.io
16
1
16
1
20
0
16
1
16
1
16
*
16
b
0
16
21
2
21
2
26
t
21
2
21
2
21
7
21
1
0
21
ype ol initial uiiii
uiccl fur ful iar
11 iuiiill ivu |j|anli
i Ian Is
all ifnti i t ivu planlt,
;i|anLi
.11 .unsUlveULM,,,
};jui;^iiniwiiuiu v
all ii-'in 1 1 i vc jijanli
j)l Inluruiudialo
lldllli
,11 Se,,Sillvo,,l-,,lS
<)anli
il 1 Suiib lUvu |)|anlb
ill iliU.-1'incil laU;
,11 S^iliv, ,-laats
,) 1 inltiriucdialu tun
ill luiisljul plants
,11 .un.itivu planl,,
% Uamayc- (It l-'.l.- ticlJ
(cdutiiuii (y.U.) fur
ol iar ly|>0 crup^ ami y.lt.
-F.I. -5. OX lor oi.i^r cruu^
0-09 o. |0
II
0
1)
0
11,
0
16
1
16
1
II
0
11
0
0
II
16
0
16
0
21
0
21
2
21
2
16
2
16
2
0
16
.Ti OilMUlIC it
1:1
&
a
5
0
6
0
&
1
5
1
5
2
I 5
2
0
5
VdUlU Ul
621
62)
714
714
3M1
3SU
UU
IM
176
176
12. UU/
12.UU7
220
220
4.014
136
ol crop
lint ii
eiiiitivo
&
5
5
13
5
U
61
(33)
51
(32)
2
13
6
13
0
5
Value ol
intur-
WUll'iuMu)
30
,30)
40
(90)
20
(30)
40
(30)
90
!\ Uiuiuiju (Si'.il 1 ions)
V . ft . : 1 . 1 . y.U : 1 . 1 .
1:2 1:1
1
0
1
0
\
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
• 1
0
5
0
2 f 4
(6(i) o : l
260
(16oO)
10
(30)
"'
10
6
17
1)
U
0
0
.3
34
1
1
0
i
0
-------
I Alii L 3 (lout.)
to
I'rel iminary F.sl imalet. of IU;dm:l ion in /Uimul hconomic
Crops, forest Products, and Ornamentals (0.0'jppm/B fir- vs. 0.lOppw/H-hr.)
Crop
t - Foliar
I - ItOOl
1 1' - F ru i t
s - Seed
cucumber (fr)
ji apes (fr)
jrapeb (tr)
>ay (t)
.ay (t)
DdlS (S)
IjdlS (S)
unions (r)
I
jnions (r)
,1-amjes (fr)
ifdiiges (tr)
ledliuts (s)
•»'•'-"'"«' <*>
iurijliuiit (s)
.oybeans (s)
Soybeans (s)
foliar i
(F .1
0.0'J
1
16
1
23
1
6
0
16
1
16
1
16
1 16
1
'J
4
njury
• '
0. 10
ppin/hlirs
2
2'
2
28
2
8
0
21
2
21
2
2)
21
2
13
5
fype of equal ions
used for fol i ar
injury values
all intermediate
)1 dills
all sensitive plants
all intermediate
all sens it ive hay
dl 1 intermediate hay
all sensitive oats
^ln!icrl"ediale
all sensitive plants
all intermediate
plants
all sensitive plants
all intermediate
p |ants
all sensitive plants
all sensitive plants
jjlants
dl 1 sensi t ive
soybeans
all intermediate
soybeans
'i Haulage ( i f
(eduction (Y.
Fo) iar tvjie c
-F.I.-5.T\ fu
0.0'J
0
11
0
23
1
1
0
11
0
11
0
11
II
0
4
0
F.I.- Yield
K.) for
rops and Y.ii.
r ottter crops
0. 10
1 tiu/iibrs
0
16
0
20
2
3
0
1C
0
16
0
16
1C
0
U
0
A# Damaijc if
Y l( •!" 1 is
1:1
0
5
0
5
1
2
0
5
0
5
0
5
i 5
0
4 :
0 1
1...
Vdllld of
c rop
136
776
776
6,742
6,742
853
853
227
227
648
648
771
1,357
1,357
9,U45
-g.94-5
A of crop
hat is
ens it ive
led i ale)
10
7
10
30
(50)
10
8
26
(42)
10
10
1
5
13
7
11
Value of
sens it iv«
(inler-
iiediatc')
$Mi 11 ions)
(10)
54
(80)
2,100
(3,400)
90
(70)
60
(100)
60
(60)
10
70
(IftO)
670
(1100)
6 Uamayu
Y H *l 1
1:2
0
i
0
50
17
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
14
0
— ^' — —" i
Si'li 11 ions)
Y . « . : F . 1 .
1:1
0
3
0
100
' 34
2
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
28
0
-------
IAllll 3 (LuiiI.)
l'i cl tin I luii y I jllmuli-'i ul lli.ilui I inn in Annual trunumii i,_,,m.ji.
to I arm Crop., loiu.l IVi-ilncl.. ami Oi n..iiiuiilal., (0.09ppilanl:
;lil..tc'i"isUUiB
all •Juu-,lliv-: plant:
al) iflluniU--l|a-L'
al 1 -L'n.il Ivu plant.
dl) intuniieiliali.
li)eul-i. ... ... .
all ..un.itivi.
all int t:i'niijil i at tj
luljacixi
all -.cniil ivu
l!!.llslli-
al 1 Inl urnicilljle
all .uliSilivt: plant
al 1 1 n t c l ineil i jlc
i Oailla.e ( ll .1 .- YlilJ
(-.•Um:l ion (V.K. ) lur
ol iai lyini erupt, and Y.R.
-1 . 1 . -i . O.i lor uihcr crups
0.0'J O.|0
16
1
12
0
12
0
25
1
«»
0
12
0
21
3
16
0
16
0
31
2
9
0
16
0
At Uauiayu if
Y.li.:l.l. it,
1:1
5
2
4
0
4
0
6
1
4
0
4
0
i
1
V_)u. Ul
i.i'Hi |
s:m: i.i.i..
24
24
1.275
1.275
929
929~
2.294
2.294
914
914
4.677
4.677
50.650
1C of i.iu|j
Llidl It.
iun'. i livu
[inU:r-
c.lijlu)
50
(3U)
25
(50)
_
13
9
(26)
9
U
5
13
.alui' ul
-,Cll-> 1 I i VI!
inler-
iiL-tliali.')
t-rop
(tMilliun.)
12
(9)
320
(640)
(50)
(120)
210
(600)
«0
(/O)
230
(610)
-
A Uauiatji. (i"' 1 1 lon-j)
Y.l(.:f.l. Y..\.:KI.
1:2 1:1
0
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
13
0
- 2
0
6 j 13
3 j 6
2 1 3
o : o
5
0
140
9
„ _ .
290
-------
I TAUIt 3 (ConI.)
Preliminary' Cat iiiiatus of ((eduction in Annual economic
to I arm Crops, forest; Products, am) Ornamentals l0.09ppm/8-lir. vs. 0.10ppm/8-hr.)
JQiJ
Crop
= 1 ol iar
-- KliOt
r - fruit
= Seed
rest
ouucts
rest
oJucls
namentals
'i.&!irul)S... _
•itamentals
id shrubs
!•.>- total
Hal - all
Delation
foliai- j
(r.
0.0'J
pr.'i/chrs
21
/
16
0
njury
-)
0. 10
ppin/Ohrs
28
9
21
1
lype of oijudt ions
used for foliar
injury values
all sensitive trees
all intemiedidte
trees
all sensitive plants
all intermediate
anuiueftials.
% Dative (if
liecJuction (Y
'oliar type c
=F.I.-5.0X fc
0.0'J
ipiu/Qhrs
21
7
16
0
i
F.l.= Yield
R.).for
rops and Y.K.
r otUer crops
0. 10
P(.'.n/!;iirs
28
9
21
1
1
A% Damage if
Y li -F 1 is
1:1
7
2
5
1
i
Value of
(; cop
SMil) ions)
2,900
2,900
1,300
1,300
1
% of crop
Ih.U is
sensitive
( i ntor-
iied iale[
20
(20)
9
(21)
•
Value of
sens i Live
(inter-
media to)
(SMil lions)
580
(580)
126
(270)
»
A Damage
Y.U.:F.I.
1:2
20
6
3
2
30
170
(SMil lions)
Y . It . : f I
1:1
41
12
• 6
3
CO
350
-------
Taole A
-iant specias 3.
i C'jltivar (cv.i '
Alfalfa,
cv. vernal
Saan,
cv. "into
Tuc'jraer,
cv. Ohio Mcsiac
jnion,
cv. Spartan Era
.'.adisn,
cv. Cnerry Sail a
r adisn,
cj. Cnerry Belle
3oytaan
cv . rood
in.l 2ar-
Soystan,
cv. 3are
3*eet ccn,
:•, . jalcen '-fidget
i?C1"'*-3
"ccacco,
cv. 3el —3
"aoacco,
cv. 3ur:ey-21
Tomato ,
*No statistical
*»*ta statistical
^Statistically
"Scat'sfcal !y
•jrowtfi and yield xesoonsas of Plants to Qiona Exposures, Compares uith roiiir Injury Response
froc U.S. EPA, Assessment of Welfare Effects and tne Secondary Air Duality Stanaard for Ozona,
June 1978.
concantration. Exposure pattern: ?1ant growth 3r yield ?oliar injury Type 3f 2ef«rsnc<
ppm* Surtier of hours!*), rasponsa, 5 'ssuction resoonsa, '. incr. Exposure
days(d), 4 w«e.t;
I*, root i'risa ;*»;
O.IQ(-) 3.h/d, 5d/w, 2* 2!*, top frssn s«;- ;3»
*i', root 'rash. *t;
0.3S'.*5 5h/d, 133d 3*. sass yield; 19* :-nci3sad fijic = =
22*. slant fresn *t;
3.13'!*} ih/d, 133d 55?, sasc yield; 37^
55?, Plant -resn 3.35opn(-j A3d 22?, laaf fresn »t; . "7- opsn-cop -"ijic '.,iO
3.2s.;-> 3h/d, 5d/w, AJ !*, leaf cry ^t; 3 ;raernausa 3C.79
3r-«», stam cry »t;
A2??, root cry »t;
O.CS(-J 3h/d, 5d/w, lw Mo significant rscuctions traca greennjusa 30,79
O..20(+) 2.5h/d, 3d/w, 15w 1*-, fruit yield; extensive, con- greannojsa £S
32?*, too dry wt; sidaraole amount
11**, root dry <*t; af cafoiiation
2.35(-) 2.5 n/d, 3o/w, 15* 45*-, fruit yield; extensive, ji-iost
72?*, toe dry »t; cpmoletaly
j3*», root dry
-------
TABLE 5
Effects of Long-term Controlled Ozone Field Exposures on Growth and Yield of
Selected Plants (Excerpted from U.S. EPA, Air quality Criteria for Ozone ana
Other Photochemical Oxidants, April 1973,
Plant Species
1 Cul tivar (cv. )
Alfalfa, Cv.
'•'esa-Sirsa
Pine, Pcnaerosa
J'ne, western
.•ihica
Soyoean, Cv.
:are
S.veet Corn, Cv.
Golden Midget
Exposure Pattern
0, Concentration, and Duration:
?pma hours (h) 1 days(d)
0.05 7h/d, 63d
0.10 Sh/d, 70d
0.10 5h/d, 125d
0.10 5/hd, 12Sd
0.05 Sh/d, 133d
0.10 Sh/d, 133d
0.05 5h/d, Sid
0.10 5h/d, 54d
Type of
Exposure
Chamber
Enclosed
Enclosed
Enclosed
Enclosed
Eric lo sea
Enclosed
Enclosed
Enclosed
Plant growth or
yield response, ", re-
duction from controls
30*, cop irv-wt,
(Harvest 1 )"
50*, 'OP dry wt.
; Harvest 2;
20*. top dry wt.
..Harvest 2,
50**, too ciry wt.
•; harvest 3
12. root 'enqth
21 , sten cry •»'.
25*, root dry >jc.
I''*, fol iace -iry wt.
9, stem cry «t.
3, saec yield
22, 3 lane fresh wt .
55*, seed yiela
65*, plant fresh ,vt.
9, kernel dry wt.
-15*, kernel dry -.vc.
Criteria
Document
Reference
63
13i
;3i
133
'32
i AM references specified both che .nonitoring technique ana the calibration procedure, except in the case
:f reference 53 zhat infomation ^as ootained by correspondence with the authors.
* Statistically significant difference from controls at the 5% confidence level.
*~ Statistically significant difference frcn controls at the IX confidence level.
33
-------
T 1 Ol "* •"
.ASLi i
Effects 3f Long-carrt Ancient (ana AugKtentaaj Ozone .ria!a £xsosures en the Meld
of Selected P
Plant Soecies, treatment Seasonal Mean of
lurncer of 7-hour-averaga
Caitivars Qj concentration, ppirr3
-
'ield lorn '3) AA
0) •a
5, karnei *t.
-2
7 '
25*
1 1 , Shoot fresn wt.
33** " :' ~' " ~
57** "
il»
12, sasd it.
T '
13*
30*
33**, fry it fresn .-/t.
^aferanc,
7
3
9
10
" "raat~ent AA is 'jnenclosad. 'IF treatments are lon-filtaraa poen-cap field cnamoers "3csiving
3
^
:
.3
(in raferences 7, 3, anc 9) additional coses
All "?farancas specif ^a
-------
Table 7. Oxidant Levels in 23 Urban Areas
a 90,91
of the U.S., 1964-1975
Location
Ca.rcen, :U
Corpus Christi , TX
Ges Moires, I A
Louisville, K>'
vaTiaronec'<, NY
Vemohis, T'i
Newport, jg/tt (ppm)
53
90
53
30
70
90
72
89
97
99
54
94
34
95
91
77
95
32
90
33
95
55
94
93
97
95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
table obtained after 19"
ier data measured total
es having valia cata for
y, the sites :reser,tea i
375 (0.19)
365 (0.19)
505 {0.25}
241 (0.12)
241 (0.12)
192 (0-10)
133 (0.10)
362 (0.18)
136 (0.09)
352 (0.13)
309 (0.16)
313 (0.16)
253 (0.13)
225 (0.1 i)
254 (0.13)
305 (0.16)
297 (0.15)
321 -.0.16)
155 (C.03)
225 (0.11)
552 (0.2?)
155 (0.03)
270 (0.14)
245 .0.13;
130 (0.07;
150 (0.03)
950 (0.43)*
340 f 0^.43)*
4^0 (0.22J*
440 (0.22)-
360 (0.13)*
570 (0.29)*
400 (0.201*
230 '0.14)*
3:0 :o.is;*
310 (0.16)*
220 (0.11)*
250 (0.13)*
44 (0.022)
40 '0.020)
38 (0.019;
41 (0.021)
44 (0.022;
47 <'0.024)
55 (0.034)
18 (0.009)
13 (0.009)
23 (0.012)
25 (0.013)
27 (0.014)
23 (0.012)
38 '0.019)
47 (0.024) . .„..
41 (0.021)
20 .'0.015)
24 (0.017)
32 (0.015)
53 (0.027)
50 (Q.028)
30 (0.015'.'
41 {0.021;
0 '0.020)
24 '0.012)
19 -0.310)
32 (O.G42)
71 (0.035)
71 (0.035;
71 (0.033)
51 (0.031)
59 (0.230)
59 (0.330)
"1 (0.036)
57 (0.029)
37 '0.019)
55 (0.023)
'Q were measured by ozone-soecific
oxidants. Also, post-1970 aata .
-------
I/U1I I- 'I
it/nne Air ({ujliiy la Iteiuito
jtaliun Location fluvatton Ixlcnl of
(lumber Above Mean IUIJ .Months
bcM level, (Yeari of
i» Observation)
1 (Jul 1 Uyulu, MA 6i! (!) (|'J/4-/6)
•f. Mcltae. Mi 9/1) |'j (|'J/4-/l.)
3 un Site, Ml lou;? io (iy/6 /i.)
4a Uhlle liiver, 01 I!)'j0-I6i?b II, (|9/4-/nl
4b • 16 (19/4/6)
4< IU (l'J/4 /6)
!»<• II lo Ulanco, CO 1'JOO I'J (I9/4-/6)
!ib i!lOO I'J (|'J/4-/6)
6 Iriu I'eak. COC ^/30 '.t (I'J/M
/ Converse Co., UY N/A 6 (l'J/4)
11 imilti Face Mln., ML IlilU 23 ()lJ/1-/6)
'J Manna foa. III 3400 i'\ (ll-/!i)
10 /iujb|iltze, 3UOO 2] (CJ/4-/6)
tle^t liei-iiiany
Avij. Conceu.
aver I'eriuJ
Ex/iiniried,
•jb (O.(tfH)
// (0.03'J)
116 (0.044)
/!> (0.03U)
/I (0.036)
6/ (0.034)
S6 (O.O^j)
'jS (O.l>'. ll'A. Ass,eiiineiil of We II are lllucli and I In; Vn.ondary Air ()ual ily |Slandard for 0/une. June I'J/H.
I
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Air Quality Data Analyses
This attachment describes two analyses performed on ozone and
oxidant air quality data available in EPA's Storage and Retrieval of
Aerometric Data (SAROAO) system. In the first analysis, the relation-
ship between annual peak 1-hour and 3-hour average concentrations was
evaluated. This was used in the preliminary approach presented in
sections 2.0 through 4.0 estimating ozone damage to vegetation using
the foliar injury data base. The second analysis examined the relation-
ship between annual peak 1-hour average concentrations and the long-term
(growing season) mean of the daily maximum 7-hour average concentrations.
This was used in section 5.0 for comparison with studies examining long-
term ozone field exposures on growth and yield reduction in vegetation,
1. Annual peak 1-hour and 3-hour average concentrations
In section 2.0 through 4.0, a preliminary estimate of the ozone
damage to vegetation was attempted using foliar injury data which are
based on acute responses of plants to single short-term ozone exposures.'
The foliar injury data suggested that the peak 3-hour average concen-
tration might, under prevailing atmospheric conditions, be the controlling
factor for determining the amount of foliar injury associated with given
alternative 1-hour average standard levels. Consequently, EPA conducted
an analysis of air quality data to determine the relationship between
these parameters.
-------
2
Ozone or total oxidant data from 123 site-years (45 stations
in 25 states) for the period 1975 through 1973 were analyzed to compare
annual peak 1-hour and 3-hour average concentrations. These site-years
constitute approximately 50 percent of the data contained in 5AROAD for
the control sites (i.e., stations whose concentrations are highest) of the
90 Air Quality Control Regions (AQCS) containing urbanized areas with popu-
lations greater than 200,000. The site-years to be analyzed were selected
in order of increasing AQC3 number; this procedure should minimize any
selection bias in the analysis. Descriptions of the site-years (extent
of data, location, station type, etc.) are given in Table 1 of this
attachment. The station types vary in nature from "center city-industrial"
to "rural-agricultural."
To permit a tractable computer treatment of the problem, concen-
trations were reduced to parts per hundred million (ppnm); the results of
the analysis are reported in this unit. One pphm is equal to 0.31 pern
(or 19.5 ug/m- at 25°C and 101.3 kilopascals). This translation aeleted
one significant digit ror most data (e.g., 0.137 ppm became 14 pphm;
Q.G05 Ppm rounded up;.
For each site-year, a computer program calculated 3-nour average
concentrations far each day's data for the 3-hour periods starting at
12:01 a.m., 1:01 a.m., and so forth on through 4:01 p.m., so that every
1-hour average value was included in at least one 2-hour average comauta-
ticn, Where a full 3 hours' worth of data was not in the data tank for a
given start time, 3. multiple-hour average value was computed on the oasis
of the number of hours of data that were available. "Thus, if only 4 hours
-------
3
of data were present for a given 3-hour period, the multiple-hour
average value computed was actually only a 4-hour average. This data-
handling procedure could be expected to bias the 8-hour to 1-hour
average relationship on the high side by computing higher.(ostensible)
3-hour average values than the data warrant. Consequently, the output
of this computation was checked against the raw data for those instances
when the annual peak (ostensible) 3-hour average value seemed high
(within 2 pphm of the corresponding 1-hour average value). As a result,
adjustments were made in the annual peak 8-hour average value for
5 site-years. In addition, clearly anomalous peak 1-hour average values
were deleted for 5 site-years.
Table 1 presents the corrected results of this computation. A
plot of annual peak 3-hour average concentrations as a function of annual
peak I-hour average values is given in Figure 1. As can be seen from the
figure, there is a considerable variability in this relationship. EPA
chose to use an upper-boundary curve which envelops most of the data in
Figure 1 to establish the maximum 3-hour average concentration that
could be expected to occur if a given hourly average standard level were
achieved. Thus, attainment of a 0.08 ppm hourly average standard whose
permitted frequency of exceedance is one day per year snould prevent
0.07 opm, 3-hour average, from being exceeded more than once per year.
Similarly, a 0.10 opm hourly average standard should prevent 0.03 opm,
8-hour average, from being exceeded and a 0.12 ppm hourly average standard
should prevent 0.10 ppm, 8-hour average from being exceeded more than once
per year. These relationships are used in section 2.0 through 4.0 in the
preliminary damage estimates.
In section 3.0 the pofnt was made that most of the annual peak
concentrations occurred in the period May through September. From Taole ;
it can be seen that the annual peak 1-hour average concentration occurrec
-------
4
during this period for 36 (or 73 percent) of the site years, and of the
remainder 18 (or 15 percent) had no data in the months May-September.
1. Seasonal mean of the daily maximum 7-hour average values
As noted in section 5.G, the available information on yield
reduction in vegetation resulting from long-tern ozone exposures
indicates the importance of the long-term (growing season) mean of
the daily maximum 5- to 7-hour average ozone concentrations. Consequent-
ly, EPA conducted an analysis of the available air duality data to
determine what long-term mean might be expected to accompany a O.lZppm
annual peak 1-hour average standard whose permitted frequency of excee-
dance is one day per year.
The currently available evidence regarding the effects of
long-tern ozone exposures on growth and yield reduction in vegetation
is discussed in section 5.3 and summarized in Taoles 5 znc 5. This
evidence indicates that the threshold for significant growth and yield
reduction in commercially important croos and inaigenous vegetation lies
between 0.06 and Q.lGppm for a 1- to 4-nonth mean of the daily maximum
5- to 7-hour average concentrations. SPA chose to use the Z-Tionth
mean of the daily maximum 7-hour average concentration as a reasonably
conservative parameter for evaluating the protectiveness of a O.lZppm
annual pea.k 1-hour average standard.
Ozone or total oxidant aata were analyzed for the 23^ site-years
in the period 1975-1973 contained in SARCAu for the control sites of
the 90 AQC2 containing urbanized areas with populations greater than
2CG,OCC. Of these, 171 site-years had a valid 2-month ~ean in the
:eriaa '-'ay througn Seotemcer; these site-years are describes ;:
-------
5
A valid 2-month mean v/as defined as two consecutive months with at
least 30 daily maximum 7-hour average values in the 2 months. (One
site-year was included that did not have any 2 months consecutive but
otherwise fit the criterion.) Table 2 presents the maximum 2-month
mean of the daily maximum 7-hour average values as well as the peak
1-hour average concentration in the period May through September,
and Figure 2 depicts the results graphically. Figure 2 demonstrates
that the relationship between these parameters is quite variable, but
there is definitely a trend in the direction of increasing 2-month means
as the peak 1-hour average increases.
In order to use Table 2 and Figure 2 to evaluate the protective-
ness against yield reduction effects of a peak 1-hour average standard
whose level is Q.12ppm and whose freauency of exceedance is one day per
year, it is necessary it introduce one cornolicating factor. The "peak
1-hour value" column in Table 2 does not exactly correspond uO the stan-
dard level, since the peak 1-hour value is by definition the very
highest hour recorded in the May-September period (except for corrections
in the values of 7 site-years to delete anomalous data), whereas the
standard permits one daily maximum 1-hour average value per year (as
a 3-year average) to exceed the standard level . For a standard level
of 0.12ppm, che expected peak 1-hour average is 0.13ppm. Consequently,
a peak 1-hour average concentration of 0.13ppm or less would be expected
to attain the Q.12?pm 1-hour average standard.
From Figure 2 and Taole 2, it can be discerned that of the
13 site-years with peak 1-hour average values less than or equal uO
0.13ppm, only 5 (or 12%) 'nave maximum 2-month means in excess of
-------
0.06 ppm (5 pphm). Of those 5 site-years, none had 2-month means as high
as 7 pphm. In contrast, of the 123 site-years whose peak 1-hour average
value exceeds 13 pphm, 33 (or 56 percent) had 2--nonth means in excess of
5 pphm.
On balance, these data seem to indicate chat attainment of a
Q.12ppm 1-hour average standara (with an expected exceedance frequency
of one day per year) would generally prevent a O.Ooppm 2-month mean
of daily maximum 7-hour average values from being exceeded. Consequently,
EPA believes that the evidence currently available does not suggest that a
peak 1-hour average standard any lower than Q.12ppm is necessary on the
•basis of ozone-related yield reduction effects in vegetation.
-------
RELATIONSHIP Of- ANMUAL PEAK l-||oUll
TABLE J.
0-IIOUR AMEHAGH OY.OHE (OR OXIOANT) CONCE/
31
33
5|TIT CODE
01 1300003 G0|
10351-0001 FOI
"
n
21032001 GO)
n
h
'•
oiHfl&oOo2Po5
'1 '1234 oo2 16 01
.i
M i
n
'(62180001 F03
..
oSGi{i(fl003lOI
OS027500I I0(
n
ii
OSfc 600001101
o;lc.-Ptnsacola-Pftna»»\a C;IV-5,AA^
o\3: Cl3rk~Mo^?ve
OiC: Cer\\ral Avk^rtjvs
OJ9." /VtL. WBOI pli i s
022: Shnfve|)ort- Toorkana- ^y|«r
02'f-; Altt, Los Aixjolci
o t S : H. <-' f r> ( ra 1 Co a v "1"
oZB: 5a crv> Kififto v^ilU^
oiO: ^»or\ pnin cisco Bag Area
031: San '^nafjiAin ValUy
i. /
-> T C II 1 1% /
o 3o; ooulhc^st Uc5trl
rtif,: Aid. Denver
HO.
OF
DAYS
187
10
265
-313
72
1-53
X7
3lf
60
3IJJ
»3T
71
237
70
329
182
346
5»|-
171
233
318
3H2
i?>7
65
IR3
33f-
58
3'VE.
35S
3^.4
nif
AMII
PEAK
con
14
10
IG
2-0
7
10
' o
1 V>
13
K;
I'l
II
Ifc.
12
H-l
16
M
7
23
12
23
Ift
1?
12
23
27
8
20
V8
13.
12
UAL
1-HR
CEN,
DATE
JUS
A II 20
JF12
"JE 10
FB2C
31.6
JLlO
AM 3
AH>
AU28
AH 26
rt\Y28
At1 IS
AJL«'i
FD2J
MY II
SP7
OC2Z
MR 18
MY 13
•TU^O
'sp?
F131
TL 6
3"L 2(,
C" n "0 (1
o /ll
3L2B
-3E.30
J-LI5
MY 7
ANMUAL
t'CAK 8-MK
COHCEN.
PPHM
II
6
13
15
S
13
7
10
12
II
12
M
10
\l
-------
' Or ANNUAL 1'EAK 1-1(01111 ANB
TAUl.t i (CrttVl.)
g ||OUR AVEKA<>£ OZOUlE (QR oxiOAN'0
FIG.
t
KEY
.n
...i1!
'ik
.w
18
:vi
•JO
'II
'IV-
Mi
M'7
'(£
'I/
'IB
~?o~
hi
ij()
LA
li'l
br,
57
SB
To
f'J
41
smr coue
V.038<>OO'J-f-O|
II
II
II
olOJ!jOI?3 F0|
••
ll
07 07 00| 13 FO|
H
07<3rt6oi23 \o\
_
j'11 OH oo i2 FOI
it
M
'!8/>0&noO'H(ol
a
ii
•i
to '11 00002 FOJ
'1
irtl'Urio&'j i|0|
ii
fo'fV&oooiGfll
ii
i-
10'] 3^00^^602
.i
'1 '( 0:1 54 00 /"I 60
H
MoNHoll
Memoir
HJ?-OI/I
— '-
i.
i.
H
i.
"
i.
i.
i.
i.
..
,.
ii
ii
H
<•
ii
ii
H
M
H
• *
ii
ii
ii
ii
M
,«
7S
-y
"is
75
76
77
76
77
75
76
77
'IS
76
''8
75
76
T r
78
76
i 1
75
7^
-is
7^
//
-1!)
76
7/
75
IL
if
LftCATIOfvJ
tu»<.raJo%\,,ls/0
Grolj CT
^lew lla^trtj C1
Br'lJi'jtt ()oi LI C V
Brjatftl fA
>\lcxa»ulna.M
Winter f'lik R.
UitUs.«hvilU ft
vM'jIwgeiicJ! ft
^
r,«,^ 1 1,
r Ik j Ll -a in
j *
S IAT jOM
lYPt
CT-C
S-I
CC-R
cc-.r
5-R
CC-C
—
s r.
CC 0
(>(V I
cc~c
AI« QUALITY cornf- Si,, ;„,. f;<;\t{
"
0'I3; Mtw Terieu- McujYaHc- cWneclicut
0«K»: A\et.Vlr.|a<(c(i,l»%.a
M\~l:Hal',t>na\ CaiJ(v/J/
O'lfi; Ccnlul Florida
O'l 1 : la<:)ct->nvi{/f - f^i unstick
ObO : 5.E. FlotiJa
Ob?; yj. Cenful I'foi ul a
Of>S: Cl|.»/(,,fi|ip,,n^
J
HO.
OF
DAYS
?4|
•3M-£
10
81
i'/ 3
I'lU
K.ft
n>i
I'M/
Ill
ni
r/7
77
73
27'j
fftj
3i'S
87
/OO
(87
O?
1'Jl.
257
317
2M'J
i'l/
^28
111
in
Ann
PEAK
/'f-J* 1 J
10
10
8
7
21
23
^6
^')
33
28
28
3^
7
|i|-
23
I'}
O
<\
lO
»0
13
I'V
10
Ib
I {
>5
13
i'f
13
1 1
tl
1AL
UME
312?
MtlO
MK30
me
je H
JL-lt
31 2.4
It /6
J£?j
^if
/AY 20
Av\£* O /I
"*|x t-U
MH|l
AU |
It28
Jl?2.7
«m »3
4't.l'l
*J|T 17
MY 6
3El2
ai. f,
JLIfc
MY jo
MY20
AV?ft
u va
A'»M
yv\v?3
Ann
I'lAK
cone
8
t
Y
6
I'l-
I'l
21
I'l
2(,
r»
JLL
20
2fl
^
»2
n
15
17
6
f/
8
J.fl.
a
ii
10
(I
IG
(1
10
•;
UAL
(H»R.
Eril_
OKIE
Jt{l
AU?'|
H-Z3
A1K30
31-31
JL- ||
"J I |6
-Tt2'l
;~J
JL1
-3 tlC,
A/>Y20
M(U6
MKll
AU £
.JE 2fl
JLlC
MKl3
W\l
A^Xt
s|M'|
A?I
A^ris
MV^O
AP2,g
-Jf2'-i
SP 3
AUIt
£l«i
oesi iwAiioii',
TO 'AOM1MS
MY -DC
J'A - /^R
'Jl- OC
AP- OC,
AV- OC
AP- OC
AP OC
A\K OC,
AP- OC
^ A - Sf
ilA- AAR
-EAJAJL
— ,
3A-tfR
3f: -(X
37\ - Al|
MX HV
A1K PC
/i\K UC
^U^AU.
-------
RELATIONSHIP OF ANNUAL PEAK 1-||OUH
TAUt-E J «:oHT.)
0-HOUR AVtHAGU 07.0UE (OR
FIG.
1
KEY
(>S
66
(01
f,fl
(.7
10
71
rt
13
'I'i
7S
/6
77
78
BO
HI
fV.
M
Sf
g$
at,
87
f/B
~fo~
Ti~
^
75
76
77
SITE CODE
in&ooooaroi
«
n
l2O|2oooi i~O(
..
n
ii
'1720'* 00 »2 FO|
n
_ 2 jJ '
i.
I'LB02 0002 Fo|
n
i it&7ooc> ?. FOI
,.
M
I8236002IGOJ
ii
,i
3627? 000 C, MOl
n
..
.,
I620'| 0033 HO |
It
1 1
( *
28I88002GGOJ
/i
„
I6M8003/G02
i.
MO N i TOR
METHOD*
H-H-70IH
II
1 1
II
II
I.
tl
1 1
II
1 1
.'
II
M
'MI 20 m
1'|7-0|M|
II
<{'(20(|l
n
,,
i>
n
it
n
1 1
.,
.,
'jMZoll'f-
if i| 2O| 1 1
n
n
i.
.-
YEAR
75
76
T*
75
76
77
7fl
7S
-/£
75
76
17
77
76
7S
77
75
76
-77
"'5
•'6
77
78
76
-17
78
77
/.lj
7&
/7
75
76
LOCATION
Dccal«^GA
llri ^j 4. i—
VJa«Keaan It,
-..
Kftck'iHUwJ^JU
Lotns^lle ,|(Y
Mil IVM 1 i^n C'j. ,0(1
Indiana i>o'ii, Jhl
O^ajja fjp
'^
DCS A^o'inej I A
TYPE**
i"-R
CC'-C
3-P.
S-c
S'r
cc- c
S-R
R- MU
K-A
•5-C
5-C
AIR QUALITY CONTROL RtGIOM(AQCR)
056: ftf-t. /\lhnt*
OC.O: 5l;)(e o(~ ||a./>^i;
0£2: CT. \AJail\inqjorl- N. '.I'd a lift
065; BMrlinci-Vw- Keokul<
o O: fAc'L . C I) 'i c 3 f\o
o6fl: A\el. Qua'f Cities
078; Uou'i svJ'i lie
O7'f. AUi. t-"»nc'»fl na'Ui
080: Met.ln4'ia»ia j>^lis
oft5; /fl(.Lo,»;il>A- Cc.unc'.l Plufls
O'/2; S. CVnVi/ Jo-*»a
HO.
Of
DAYS
30£
~|-
/'(
2 ID
-l'!±
306
287
Tif-
III
236
^3
226
25
23'|
217
188
3 <|-7
i40
207
3 CC
357
Mf7
206
'1 8
87
123
2'>Z
•27f
25C
328
300
AMIUIAI-
PEAK 1-HR
COh4CEN.
PP»UA
18
(5
12
~I3~
3
M
Ct
Q
10
II
<3
2f
^^
&
jij-
17
11
IG
1-7
?-t
n
(6
I'l
17
7
II
18
(3
13
10
10
10
OfVTE
sf'3
3 Ell
AUII
-------
FIG.
i
KEY
''J
i0]
102
10}
lo'l
l"5
l«t
..'.5.1
lO'l
lip
III
1)2
I'l
nc,
117
tiB
if)
l?0
li'l
.1*2
UClMKlN
sitcf CODE
?t?3QO()22 ll'/ 00 jy. 1" 0 1
1,
It
2 22 i'| 0003 101
„
M|0|t|0002F03
4 |
22?'|(,7<}0| 1 0(
.>
„
23I5BOOII ||0|
c
2J |l 80020 GO I
ii
.,
3&I26000JG01
ii
tiitu1 or
MOI4UUH
ME 11 100
n
n
n
i'
..
/-
ll
••
u
..
u
u
n
i.
it
/t
i.
ii
,,
i,
i1
..
„
-
MAUl t .J ( (.OMCLUUtUJ
ANNUAL- PEAK 1 UoUH AUfo g-||OlU< AVtKAGf (;»70»lE (OR OXtOAN'f^ CONCeNm/^TlONS
YtAft
~-
77
70
75
76
1 I
•if,
it>
~iQ>
JI1
75
l(o
76
rf
75
>(,
n
75
'}(,
,5
'!(>
77
77
IB
L6CATIO|s|
^;f^f-
i:.s.5n. Ml)
Wofck'ilc^ MA
WaUUatn , MA
K«nt Cw. t]?r
UUk.^^
F|^>-^- -
Oclio'f jAAl
Clark C««. ftll
5 IATIOM
lYl't
S-C
cc% - c
R- A
K-U
R-f\
cc-c
c.:c-c
S-R
AlH QUALITY CoHTKoU REGION (AqCR)
1 06 : V,. 1- ^((ii'iana - 3, f.. Tfxas
il'v. Mel. UalliWc^
U8: Central A^r>5^;)r"»>5tLt5
U'l. AltL. flo5\ori
!?-(): AUt. » r/?\/if{ei\Cc
12 1 ; Mi'fr(rr\ack ^a''*1 " s.N5
13
?5
15
18
7
12
I'l
\3
H
\5
18
17
s
I'l
16
-'r
18
16
10
17
t2
OME
All B
AU25
m~
AU 1
JL-28
"JLIG
MR r)
"JIF23
AUjZ
-Sf 11
-Tl-70
4F. l|
/\f |3
NV/ (5
AU?(j
AtVZl
;JU Zl
us ft
AU 1
Aim
»V\Y28
3C 1C
MY26
OBSUWATIOIIi
KESIUK'irjJ
(O fAOM'UlS
M0\ f D
-"'-:-l)-c-
3 A MR
JA-Mf\
AP OC
"sJL-OC
AP- ny
MY- SP
AVJ- OC
OC-MV/
/AP-^p
Ap-OC
/IP- DC
TA- FB
JA-FB 3V/U
-4 £" - DC
JA-MY
i ,
i
i
i
i
i
I
'•'
'
,
f
'I'linf/'/-=• Trvst. tolorlmetnc Neutral Kt(Oxi
l|-i|IOI'5= /nit./\/»iperom«1r.'c N«u(r»l Kl" f(V.
M'I 20111= l.»»sl. ^hemUuminesceiKfc
fcC-I * Cenlrr C'Jjj-
CC-R-- Cf.vlt-r Cilii -
.'j C - Snt.ir\>iMi- C
5- J = ->ul)i«« V>3o- l.
ra
-------
O-
o -
U»
o
or
o
V-/
o
IJJ
o;
o
00
30
i'i;
'.ft
ii1
i
10
t i :
$
i
.70 .
i'i
.3 j
i I '180 I
n- & a 10
ANNUAL PEAK I-UOUR
102
it
Ji
ta!l
I; i
'll
te
*
•H
V.C. 28
OX 11)ANT) OoNCI
32
I'iii I-
34-
LlUl.lil i L
36 3B
. PPKIV\
!
MO 42.
-------
f(fcl/rflO|i o(- I'FAK 1-llOUR
: ?.
(OK QK IDAU T) CoNCC H 7KM"|OMS TO Tilt MAXIMUM IJ (MoHTHLY
OF 1>A'LY MAXIMUM M\0 MR VALUES
FIG.
'L
'{.
(o
/o
.''!.
t'..
(4
i /
17
OllioDOOl GO)
O'H 880007
't 5 2100001 F03
PQ.QP1.TOI
OMl'j OOOJJLO]
n
h
o'to 'i soi 2 :*
ft'/O'/OOlZiFOl
ETHOD
1120114
n
ii
Ll'QlJS
H
n toici
YfAR
75..
75
.77
75
17
75
TZ
IS
'12
75
6
Ji.
75
;^.
77
It-
'll
77
76_
77
UCATION
H. t; Hie Rock
7rnJ3.—:' '-
Apioi C'A
-(—-•• -•• —/ —
,£A,_.
(.olor Jiin Snnii'ii CO
JYPE
**
:» - 1
S-C
cc-c.
CC-R
n-A
cc-c
R-A
CC-R
-r
AtR QUALITY COM IRftl. l\EG |OH (ACJCR)
qj.ft.iMet..A
022:
i\? 2J Ml!« Vf »»/..(_- .Jg x 3 r k _a n a - Ty j tr
:jMet.
02S; M.C
-0"
ft 30;.-:
Area
o3| :
Ucscrt
: Mti.
QMl
Q HI ill J_il (sri^yiyl
pcia^J
WAY -SEP.
PL-AK l-Hf<
NO. OF
UAYS
,JO_
JL°JL
«'i-
M3
60
\37
t'13
I'M
10
j^0_
|53
12.
>53
J50_
I'18
70
1113
JAP-
JA1
•I'll
JO..
i^
22
16
1.L
ji.
19
.17.
78
JO
-_8.
21
"26"
'43
MAX. ?.-
-------
oF P£AK I-IIOUR
TABLE ?. (CoNT.)
(OR OXlDAMT") CoNCEMTV\MlOh4S TO IMF MAXIMUM Dlfv\oHTHLV NEAM OF DAILY MA0 123 Fol
u
«.
i'i logooi a FOI
'••80080001) HOI
•I
M
lOM'/OOQO?, F0|
.«
IQI'K.0055 llOI
n
10 4760001 G0|
i.
•'
|0'B(,0035 GO?
"
ii
vir'i3 VA
w:«1rr ParltjFL
JacUson^iUe FL
W.PaJj^ Btac{,F|
'
Tamp?. Ft.
i i -
Chaltan<»ofjaTtl
0(jca"iwr, G/\
HonoWdi V\I
Spokane jVJA
'
p,. oc' a XL
. J " " ' "
^I^M>I:L_..
STATION
TYPE**
cc-T
5-R
CC-C
—
vc
CC-R
cc,r
cc-c
S-R
CC-C
S-R
s-c
S-I
AiR QUALITY CoNT^ol. l\EG|OH (At^CR)
OH'3: NcvJ Jerict/ - f4"vjYor }< - Context' Cut
J
04'S: Met, Ph;/3c2: E.W^^V,o(vU^-M.iAa\\o
Ot$- BurV.KVvWrt- Keo|AILY MAX. 7-HR. VALUES
IH THLr VLRIOD MAY- SEP.
NO. OP
DAYS
60
£l
30
(,t
61
51
51
57
l*3
£1
5?
51
£|
K8
til
H-8
Ij-Cjl
M-5
MQ
V/
•1-7
VO
S3
57
" 55 _
62
sG
6 1
iS
57
PPIIAA '
G.5
M-
7.8
13.0
IB
C.o
B.I
^.1
; 'K2
M-.5
S.I
Z.8
2.<^
2.8
•hfc
5.1
O..O
'fjul-
S.6
M.O
5.3
7. "3
'1.8
0.5
1.4-
3.7
3.3
•I-.5
'Kft
7.0
5.8
MONTHS
IC-TL
Ju- AM
3E -3"U
/^X-JE
JL- AM_
/AY-.TE
Jf- JL,
JL-AU
/AX-Jl"
A\Y-JF
JL-AU
/AY-3E
AH- 5P
MY-J0
/M-m
MV- 3£
/v\X-JE
Jt -3L
/\u-sp
A\X-JE
AU-5P
TE-JL
JL-AU
AU - Sp
/«\Y-^E
JL-AU
TL- A(Jl
AU-SP
ftV-JE
JL£AU
A\X-JE
-------
OF Pl?AK 1 lloUR
(op. QXtDAMT) CGNCEUTr|T{T COPE
281880026601
it
iCilgOftT/GO?
n
i 10
ZllX.flOOOl 001
ii
i/
V2
F03
ETHOt)
n
II
II
/eL
r77
/s
75
75
7S
77
:a
76
X7
7_5
7c
71
V7
LACATIOH
b TAT ON
ties Men
Kansas Ci.in>/
Ml)
nrpf
**
cc-c
R-A
S-CL
s-c
(.'(' C
R
..El.il.
QUAirry CONJ^U
Q61:..%V.
072iJrf^*'5yilk _._
OTl:.Mit,.Cj
oftfti.Mtt._
085: Mel.
Ce „{«-*/ -J
,_ K248S 2l_£»
AUl.
1(8: Ce,,t
!i'«: ?«Lt;.OMt«.\___
li.QLj^eL
til: M,,-,-;m
OF DAILY MMiMUNV /-WftUR VALUES
AiAY-scr* 'MAX. f-MoijrTi WAN~QF
-Hfl. nAILY ^A^X. '?-»K.VALUES
\*e
NO. O
DAYS
\±z_
T-Ts"
57
iUL
'Hi
83
____ 11.
JL7-
17
120
I'if
PPIIM
11.
_T7_
^7
if
n
1§
18
(3
|Q
JO
JjO.
15
Jl
-Li
n
is
Ji-
zo
15
2.1
Jfl"
JU_
22
IMTMF I'tRIOD MAY- SEP.
NO. OF
PAYS
.A8
50
_0p
58
11
Jii.
_5$.
'(6
J>L
~sT
_5Z
"s'V
_6J
S_'l_
"62
ME/VN,
M-.8
7.1
.GO-
7.7
JJL_
7.1
as
6.Z
5.?-
Jb2_
"&~o
.S.'l
MaHTHS
:m-TL
AU^M^
JI--AU
lL:Jk.
TT-jT
/nY- Jtr
Ik: Ail
•16-JL
IkrA
Jt-AU
- A <4
.-AM
-TL
JL Ml
3 £. --TU
IUAU.
Jl -
Si^AJtl
3I..AU
-------
f'FAK I-MOUR
TABLE 2
OXIDAHT) CONCENTRATIONS TO THE MAXIMUM BliwoMTHUY f*EAN oF t>A»l-Y MAXIMUM 7-MUR VALUES
FIG.
KEY
'.'.M.'.
17
.. 'IT
100
(01
102
103
' 105
lOfc
(07
I0£
l/)7
1(0
III
.l(L
if/
115"
jj(,
117
II*
I'l
.!«..
r~"
SITE CODE
23IS&OOU JlOt
?3II&00?-0£0|
•/
i'
2328'J 0007 TGI
2!J3|2 001^605
370780017 FOI
'1 5 17 000 a 8 FOI
n
(i
33G620005 Fo|
.1
n
33S7£ °°P_4_ ro'
n
ii
33^50OQ02FQ(
n
330(30002 Fo/
n
H
I'l 07 000 ZS 60 1
i'
36 166001? 6-0 /
,.
ii
365320002G02
/i
u
METHOD*
I'f^fcUl
II
•1
„
n
i'
n
u
II
n
„
U
II
n
M
II
Ii
II
„
II
II
II
M
U
..
n
<•
u
,i
YCAR
75
16
I'l
77
75
-J5
7S
76
77
-/5
76
77
7£
76
77
~75
76
/c,
/6
77
1C
77
75
'6
77
75
76
LftCATIOfsJ
Flint MV
DcW,t.jMt
L-ansioa Ait
Rocliesfc^j MM
BelUchc,,, I'A,
g| Pa?o 'l\
SyfaCMS* NY
Rochester. Nl"
|y. nr|"o|. >JY
Atfheot NY
Ctiar/.lle NC
Da^liiUjOU
Pji/)fiv;|lc o/(
STATION
TYPE**
cc-C
cc-C
s-R
_
CC-f^
S-R
cc-c
—
CC-R
^'K
5 -/A
S-R
cc-c
AiR QUALITY CO^T^oL flEGIOH (AQCn)
\2^: cV«lf»| ^'''"^•Agfv
I2"3: Met. petro'it- ^oft Hufdn
iZ£>; S.Cci\lrfi| l\\ \ c h i '\ & r\
)20; S.E. MinMf.^Dl/i -ta Crosse
Uil; H.6". Pennsylvania- Upprr thUw«fc Vallu
i&"2>: El r,iio-l..\S Cruccs- AUmoaorJo
IS8: Centr'Al NcvMYork
I^O;Gencseo- Finoer Lakes
" ' •• ' • u
(61: Mul^otv va||fl/
/
162: Niagara r^onl'.er
IG'/: Aid. Cl> ar l«T(c
173; O.i« ten
'
ri'J ; Gic^lcr M«L, cVtvtl M<\
A'AY - 5
VALU
NO. OF
OAYS
t'^6
88
1Z5
1^0
<55
33
133
(45
135
._..i|L.
IB3
132
• 53
153
153
153
150
m-s
147
^H
,J1K>
133
153
153
IE-4
153
i50
FP.
-HK.
E
PPtIM
'1
Zff
21
15
10
17
ZS
«7
16
1C
If
13
)4
IZ
13
13
23
2'f
16
2Z
IZ
II
17
17
23
18
(9
MAX. "z-
OAll-Y M
IN TUG" P
N0.~0 P
DAYS
S7
SS
57
60
5^
3"i
JLg
58
60
Si
._|1..
61
41
£\
61
61
' 1
(@ vj
6)
5^
47
4?
60
61
61
61
6\
60
:
MO^n! A
AX. 7-IIR.
LRtOD M
PPIIM '
6.1
M.6
5.5
ij-,2.
5, a
7JL_
6. 6
; 6.8
6.5
S.O
, S.O
s.f
~~S,3~
5.2
B.'l-
5.1
6.6
5.0
7.2
6.1
6. a
7.5
8.7
8.1
7.2
6.7
\EAN OF
VALUES
\Y-SEP.
MONTHS
Jt-3'L
Jl-At|
JL'Ai\
TE-TL.
irj:"spk
JL-AM
-JL-AM
JL- /i U
JV\Y-JET
•3t~'J'L
MY-JE"
71-AU
3"f "3~U
JP-3L
mY-3E
TE- -TL
AW-TE
^E-JL
•JC-TL
3~L-Ay
A\X -IE
AW-3E
3E-JL
A\f-J[T
at-TL
TE--JL
JL-AM
-------
L (0>r«T.)
OF I'fc'AK I'llollR Oj?OhlE Oft QKIUAHT) CftMCE ll TI\AT|OMS TO THE MAXIMUM UliAOtJTItlY f*t/\N OF «>A»tY" MAXIMUM /-HOUR VALUES
FIG.
2
KEY.
m
ivtT
r,"/
'S
"31
"07
BB
m
I'/O
~p/Ji
I'K'-
)i/.7
I'Jfl
I'/?
—-•.--.
inc cope
iO'JCOOO'l f-OJ
II
M.//COOO7 IOJ
l<
17?.20G03}|-0{
It
3730001 2 7 po'^
u
3fi IbBOOll Po(
ii
u
3'I'I'1600||R)|
4'llbl, 0008 Fol
H'M5600ft5FO|
l|2l')OUOO:il~OI
>i
u
..
/,
'll» 02?- 001 2 pO]
II
(I
'<5l3ino'l5 FO|
ll
II
'»52:nuJ |\ ( O 1 1
Okblior>|aC;fi, oK
T4lsa O|<
S»|*«i «/"<
Johns town. ^A
Cliar/eioii i^A
R;rUai\.( SC
*
C ^ ., _ /\ Til
An* lim'U
OjlUij T)C
Karri* i.'.i.jTx
iTATiOH
IYHG*
s-t:
i'C-C
cc C
s c
5-C
cc-c
S- H
CC C
s-c
H-I
ii-C
CC-K
•i K
-'•~^cn)
I7(i; A\tt, C»i»Hi\>ui
|/fl:^,VJ. rcrt«syl»/ini;jj- V(iin(lfjfll"L
^
Ifl'l: C'entr*l 0|nsylj»i>:a,
»U; ^. CenVolPenniyli/anla,
l'«7: ^.W, /'ennsulvauia.
^OO; Colllmllii
aog- A\;«l(lle TirnoesiSfe
212: Aus^-'n- Waco
? i&. Al^tl. D^llai -Fort Wdrtlv
214. n/U't. Ijiijis^ort Galvcilon
WAY - 5
VALU
NO. oF
DAYS
152
I5|
153
•05
ISO
SO
ISO
ll«5
ISO
51
H2
io7
137
> '(8
130
|S»
135
no
151
|62
,|33
135
IBI
ua
76
Ml
l«~
EP.
UK.
U
16
n
PI
it
it
\\
23
"it-
>2
\1
»7
2.0
?-'3
15
MH
IG
17
»B
(8
10
J5
17
16
3 1
27
MAX. ?-
IiAtl Y M/
IH flit ^1
60
60
bl
62
^?
M6
___
62
MO
5'|
. '11.
S'?
_^|
58
(>0
fcl
Sfi
61
60
SG
£3
56
58
5S
53
'r7
'IG
._32._-.
fAowru A\
\X. Mlfv'.v
PP1IM '
6.1
1: 5
1.6
6.1
6.'f
ij.fj
GJJ
7.6
7.0
3.6
3.3
£.0
6.?
7.7
10.0
S-2:
7.0
8.0
7. £
.Zu__
6.5
7.8
7.3
G.I
V
7. '1
EAN OF
/AUIES
Y-SEP.
MOhiTIIS
MY -IE"
All- SP
3E-JL
JL-A4
"3'U-AH
^L- A
-------
oF
|-»|OUR
TA0LF ?. C OiK.
(OK OJUDAUT) CoNCEH TR/VT|OHS TO THE MAXIMUM BifAOHTHLY r*EAN of DAItY MAXIMUM 7-UftMR VALUES
FIG,
2
KEY.
..153..
'56
157
|5R
15')
IGO
I6;d
'IM
165
16G
ic-y
170
I7f
i.|TE" CODE
'IS '15/00 36 KOi
M
n
l'l-?-OI(l
I*
'If20ll'f
1'I20I|I
ii
M
,,
'I'I?O| ||
I.
YEAR
75
76
77
75
16
77
75
76
77
"'5
-77
76
• 7
''5
7k
7]
/7
79
77
LOCATION
i'an Aiivon'io. IX
BounHful^LlT
WansemoivlO). YA
Mcnrico Co. VA
Hum Co. WA
Mil^auUec WT
Columbia Co.^wi
Art/34 ^^CO
Honolulu , (IT
STATION
'-'-K
oc-c
s-r^
S-R
R-U
CC-R
R-A
s-R
cc-C
AiR QUALITY CONTROL HEGIOH (AQCR)
?-l/: Met. Sarx An^nio
220: Wa5att:h Ffnni
223: Hai^pVoq RoaJs
?2b; statt Cablt'Oil
221; tuijel Souna
23cf; S.E. W;sccoi\s'.ft
o3fc; Met. Denver
o6(D: State of Hawal/ _L
A«AY - 5
PHAK 1
VALM
NO. OF
DAYS
ft3
I3'l_
!^>5
125
152
151
1 1H|-
50
IE.3
I'l'l-
-~^
136
90
I3f
145
107
56
136
EP.
-MR.
E
PPlIM
13
'?
\5
1C,
1?
I'l
IM
"T?"
18
20
•2M-
17
18
Z?
20
13
JZ
MAX, ^-^Ao^J^|l AAEAN OF
(>AU.Y ^A^X. 7-HR. VALUES
IM THE VtRIOD MAY- SEP.
NO, OF
DAYS
3 'I
57
55
58
61
61
50
bO
£|
56
61
58
60
M-0
37
S3
53
SG
H-H-
miM '
4:1
5.6
5.3
6.1
S.3
5.T
5.M-
5.f
G.8
7.7
8.3
6.1
M.I
7.3
6.7
6. a
. 5,1
S.6
O.ft
MONTHS
AU-Sf
AU- SP
31-AU
Jb'-TL
TL-AIL
TE-^L
AU-SP
MY-J'E
JE-J'L
JL-AU
T1E-TL
/Y\Y-3E
•TL-AU
TL-AU
TE-JL
AAY-Jl?
MY-Jf
/V\Y-JP
M-3E
MO»HTf>KlH&
Kt
STATION
OC-C = Center Cl.;|^
CC- 1 - Center C(f^
CC-R= Center Cihj
5-C ' -Suburbs^ -
5- I r O
.S-M r ^
3-Rr S
K- A r Rural Anr«'caltwral
R-NU=
R U -
Rural- Near Urban
Rural- Urjwn (;{,>,|
-------
Ill
iw
of.
<
—t
£
,1
- ,-
o
5 9-
-x y
«r o
S:ur
n
It v>
lij
'0 hi
H O
"
\
0 2
'ti
i
.in
^i
i
10 I? I'( tf.
V- »U)UK
i
ft
^l
(A
>j-
i •
^
1
W
tfl
»
j'.il
I I
i!
ri
4
ih
i
fe
M
IB
:!l
7G
W
11!
28 30 3Z
ooiu'tini\/\
Lit
3'» 36 3ft MO
III
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: October 24, 1978
SUBJECT: Qzone Leaf injury
Ralph Larsen
Environmental Applications Branch, MD, ESRL (MO-80)
T0: Harvey Richmond
Pollutant Strategies Branch, CAQPS (MD-12)
This is in response to your request for calculations of expected
percent leaf injury in plants exposed to 8-hcur-average ozone con-
centrations of 7, 9, or 10 pphm (last three columns of attached
Table 3).
Computer programs have been revised to produce Tables 1 and 2 (given
to you October 12), and now 3. Table 2 lists each observation of
ozone leaf injury for each plant variety. These input data have
been processed by a multiple regression program to calculate the
three parameters of Or. Heck and my plant injury model and the
expected percent leaf injury after an S-hcur exposure to ozone
concentrations of 7, 9, or 10 pphm.
Table 1 pools observations by integer plant numbers. (The plant
names following the commas do not apply.) For instance, the 55
observations of Pinto 3ean (plant 3.1), the 1 observation of Seeway
3ean (plant 3.2), and the 6 observations cf White Sanilac Bean
(plant 3.4) have been pooled to give the 52 observations for beans
that comprise the input that gives the resulting plant injury
parameters listed in Table 1. Note that the large number of Pinto
Bean observations will weight the results towards that plant. If
you want to alter the weighting of the observations of the separate
varieties comprising a pooled calculation, please let me know and
I will try to revise the computer programs to do so.
The computer program to produce Table 3 has just been completed.
It allows pooling by plant number. For sensitive tobacco, for
instance, line 5GC states that all plant numbers between 20.0 and
20.99 will first be pooled.
Line 510 indicates that plant numbers between 22.0 and 23.9 will
also be included in that pool. Table 2 lists all of the available
input data. If you would like any of that data pooled in ways
different than in Table 3, please give me the line title and the
plant numbers you wish included in each susceptibility under that
title, and I will run it for you. Note that the plant number for
the same plant name differs' among the three susceptibilities.
-------
I hope this information will be helpful to you, Harvey. If I can be of
any further assistance, please let me know.
Addendum
The computer program to which Dr. Larsen refers has not been included.
Regarding his statement that in Table 1 the plant variety names do not
apply, the comouter printout has been modified so that variety names
appear only when the data pooled are from that variety alone. In all
tables, the concentrations appearing in the "INJURY THRESH" (injury
threshold) columns are for 1 percent response; the numbers appearing in
the "SUSC" (susceptibility) column signify the following classification:
(1) sensitive, (2) intermediate, and (3) resistant.
In Table 2, the numbers appearing in the "EFFECT TYPE OR N" column
in the lines presenting individual plant response observations refer to
one of the following effect types: (1) foliar injury, (2) chlorophyll
reduction, (3) yield reduction, (4) leaf area reduction, (5) respiration
increase, (5) root dry weight reduction, and (7) tap dry weight reduction.
The numbers that appear in this column in the lines summarizing the
observations for each plant or variety are the number of observations
presented for that plant (variety), effect type, and susceptibility. In
Table 1, the data are summarized by effect type, starting with the
effect type 1, cycling through the plant numbers and susceptibilities
before proceeding to effect type 2, etc.
In Taole 2, the numbers appearing in the ''TYPE CCNC I'1ST" (tyoe of
monitoring instrument) column nave the following meaning: (1) ampercmetric
neutral buffered potassium iodice (NBKI) calibrated by 2 percent color-
imetrlc ,'IBKI, (2! amoerometric '(3KI uncalibrated, (3) ultraviolet -non i tori ng
instrument (late 1950's), (-} Atlas iodometric, (5; wet chemistry (20
percent), and (5) unknown.
The numoers that appear in the "MULT CORR CQEF" (multiple correlation
coefficient) column are R values. The fraction of variance in the data
explained by the .node! would be .12.
In Table 2, the numbers in the '"REF" (reference) column indicate
reference numbers in Chacter 11 of the 1975 draft of the National Academy
of Sciences document, Ozone and Other Photochemical Gxidants. Only tne
docket copies of this report contain these references.
In order for the multiple regression orogram to calculate the
parameters of the Larsen-Heck model, and hence calculate percent injury
-or tne specified 3-hour average concentrations, there must be opservations
at more than one exoosure duration. The wider the range of exposure
durations, the better the model's predictions. This fact provides the
basis for certain comments in the margin of Table 1 as to the validity
of the mocel's predictions.
-------
r AD it
CAtCULATEO INJURY PARAMETERS TOR PI AN TS EXPOSIO TO 01 CN E.
P LA NT
1.
2.
f3.
n;
5.
G.
U.
3.
10.
1 1.
12.
I 3.
11.
15.
1 G.
I 7.
I 0.
20.
2 1.
22.
2 3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
5.
G.
7.
U.
*U r L. U ML K
S OY BE AN .
TOU AC CO
TOMATO. '
TOU CCU IN. GUJTINOSAI
TOBACCO IN. RUSTICAJ. BRASILIA
A U ALFA
ASH, UIIIfE
U I A N
IIF1T. PERFECT ff) DETROIT
BEGONIA. THOUSAND WONDERS WHITE
BENTGRISS
OltOrtTGR ASS. SKJOTII SAC
C AUBA GE . 1. L 31 ASON
S'\i\ YSTTJfllEMUM . GOLDEN ARROW
C 1.0 VE R
.conn
C UC Ull HE U |
1 ARCH . EUROPE «N
LLTTUCF. . DARK GREEN BOSTON
0 ATS
ONION. SW31
PETUNIA. ID MAM: HE
PINT
POINSFTTI A
K AOISH
S Al IL OUl'R
SUtUIUM. MARTIN
S OY IIE AN
SPINACH. NORTIL. AND
SOU ASH. SUMME 11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 '
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SID
GCO
N DEV
. I
1
G2
10
26
3
1
1
3
1
30
4
10
25
1
i n.
L U*
19 1
" 26
G
6
11
5
10
G
9
1
12
9
2
21
10
1
1
1
13
1
G
0
0
5
2
9
50
12
9
1.1G
1.75
1 .53
1 .56
2.20
2 .20
1 .72
2.12
1 .61
1.57
1.51
, 1 . 9G
1 .63
1 .07
2 .09
1.51
.no
1 .61
1 .GO
1 .05
1.05
1 .75
I .35 .
, I .00
2.00
2.07
1 .39
2.27
2.27
1 .11
.no
I .70
1 .71
1.17
1 .03
CEO GFO INUJRY
ME AN M EA H L JM E
AT T 1 II R SL
8 .7
28 JJ
..-9
OS J
.1
.1
.2
a
J&
JJ
J
2 3.
~ 3 .2
JJ
5 .9
3 J]
B JJ
i a
.2
JJ
.1
19. 9
_-
. 1
7. 1
5.5
2 0. B
G. G
8. 7
25. 1
._ 9. 6
16. '9
1 0. 5
3. 8
&5. 9
. 3
. 3
. 8
. 8
2. 6
. 0
. 8
1.9
1 G. 3
. 2
I 0. 1
7. 0
1 9. 8
3. E
1. 3
. U
.5
25 -6
.9
9 J
8 JO
27 M
10 J.
13 .1.
30 .7
13 .9
21 Ji
16 .1
6 .1
G5 .8
JS
A
1 J
1 -t
4 JJ
Ji
1 .7
6 .6
20 .1
.4
13 JJ
9 JU
25 .3
5 .3
2 .6
.1
-------
I All It I 1C UN I iNlltO I.
UJH 11() IN Jl Jilt I'KltMIIIHS I 0 II I'l Ml IS CXPOSrO TO WON I.
•1*111
2 9.
JO.
U.
32.
33.
1.
2.
3.
1.
'a.
d.
/.
U.
9.
0.
1.
2.
3.
1.
i.
L.
J.
U.
9.
20.
i 1.
22.
2 i.
25.
26.
2 8.
2 'J.
IU.
31.
32.
1 3.
3.
1 1.
2 3.
31.
0.
3.
20.
23.
3.
1 3.
i? 1. ,
tfftCT
IVPt
Swiss cm iii), IOKUIIOOK omii
1 00 AC CO
1 011 Al 0
i iici ii.iiAss
ui£ ti , HI u. s
4U 1-1 A
Mill HI VI Ul
A /A 1 1 A. ALA SK A
ULAN
UlUUtU, Cllltl S( HAS
CIOI YS ANIIILHUH
CIO vv iii u. sr ia
con u, sum
COI 1011
C 110 Ull VL 1 III
LUCUHI'I «. LONG MA UK II Ell
T III
IIIHIOCK. CASI UIN
HOLLY. INUISII
L AIIUI , JA 11 UL U
I I J IUCI
OAIS, CLlNIIAHl 61
.0 I/I UN
OflCllAKI) I)II«SS, I'OIOMAC
I'KIIWHIUL. UII1 OKI CYCS
IM IUI I*
I1 IN I
l> 01 NSI 111 A
SUI (HUH, HA HI IN
SOYU AN
$ 111 l£ I
Sin. IA NA , Ull lit IMC
suiss CIIAMI. iu no no OK on HI
I Oil C CO
1 Oh AI 0
I OYSl A
U 1 A H 'i
micKurru
It All IS II. C «/ ». ItH
1 OM »f 0. 1 Illlll t I
COI II, SUl 11 J
U I A N, 1' 1 N 1 0 4
Kill «CCO !>
II Alt ISII. C AV *. I II C
C III r'j HI Illlll UM . (UlLUtN ARIIOU 1
P 1 I III I A . CA I'll 1
1 Ull Al 0
susc
2
2
2
2
2
— ~r ' -*~"J*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
r- -j -.
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
N
3
59
5
7
10
3
1
SI
5
3
15
3
1
10
2
Itl
3
1
2
1
17
3
It ,
G
3
12
1
17
12
17
1
9
3
2
2
2
1
a
l
5
2
2
C
2
t
1
2
SIO
Of U
01 V
i ./b
1 .78 .
-DO
.00
1 .17
1 .52
.01
2 .631
1 .50
1 .13
1 .M
1 .111
2 .11
1.15
2 .11
2.10
1.57
1 .71
.20
1 .59
2 .SO
1 .CO
7 .2G
1 .5b
17.23
I .03
1 .U'J
1 .3(1
7 .10
0 .50
It 0 010
H HI Ml AM
Al 1 1 UK
7t
70
U
0
81
73
0
122
30
90
37
133
3t
U2
531
1 1G
172
1
131
110
105
6 C7 3 1
79
0
1,2
(.2
21
178
111
IN JUDY
L III
sta-c
- J3
- .1C
- .st
- Jt2
- .13
' - .11
- .13
,5'J
-2 J12
- .10
- .2 3
-.53
-.38
- JBfl
a jt> a
- .Jll
- .11
I NJUII
I lift
10
33
JO
13
21
25
23
20
to
10
11
17
35
5U1
0
11
11
Y 111
MM II
3 lit
13
20
1C
27
21
21
20
37
0
31
32
9
23
213
0
9
9
re sii
e UK
9
13
3
18
21
10
10
G7
I
21
21
G
1G
•JU
53
6
G
INJ CONC
R Al 10
Ht U/ III 15
3 .8
2.1
2.G
2 J
3.3
3.'J
5.7
5.7
7 .7
2.8
3 Jl
8.9
3.0
1 01 .1
73 CO .7
1 .1
1 .1
HU. 1
conn
cotr
1. Ul
.88
-.1X1
-.110
.91
.91
-.00
.PC
.68
. 83
.81
.93
.73
1.U1
.92
- 3*
, 91
.81
-.00
.63
.91
.95
. C1
i. Ul
l.UU
.99
.96
.95
. Ul
,9G
t JNJ Af 8
IP 111 C OHC
7 3
»! .9
. JJ .1
a . a
JJ .0
Jl . 1!
jj .a
ji .1
ai .0
* a 5 s. H
Jl . 0
M . U
l .3 3.5
JO .0
J) . 0
.2 . 3
2 VI 5. 7
2 J\ 5. T
lilt
or
1 U
1 £t
.1
I .S
JJ
JJ
J)
.1
Jl
Ul .1
Jl
Jl
1 .1
.0
J)
.3
7 .9
7 .9
-------
i (CONTINUED >•
CU.CULUED INJURY PWMMETEIIS TOR PUN IS EXPOSED TO OZONE.
pL»nr
5.
11.
.11.
5.
21.
2't.
32.
BEC
CM.
TON
BEG
ON IV
tus.
UOt
mn
p
F
,
VSTE L IUINOOU
1(1 CD «LL
SC «UE T T *
PETUN J»
SH\ rum CON
TOM
MO,
F
lUtfl «_L
I
EFfECT
TYPE SUSC
7 2
2
2
3
3
3
3
N
8
1
2
'I
a
a
2
I
12
12
2
Z
SID
CEO
DEV
.7')
.03
.30
.13
.31
CEO OEO IHJJRY
M£ »N ME*N L «E
U T 1 MR SL O'E
00
715
OG'J
137
ion
I Ml Un V Til HE Sll IN J COM: MULT
rr> tin R »T ro c on R
1 HR 3 IIR 8 MR ME D/ HI fS C OE F
.93
.90
.97
. DO
. OU
t IN J VT 8 II H
IP Iff CONC OF
7 9 10
-------
I All H 2
»ND C«LUUAUU 1NJUHV I'UMHfllltS roiifl. »N15 EXt'OSfl) 10 0/im.
IXI'OS
00114 1
IMA HI lift
i. mo
I. lUt)
1 . U) 0
1. 100
i. /an
I, MO
1. 3t)0
». JUO
l.'lOO
1 . '*) 0
1 . "M (1
1 . «JQ 0
I. (00
1. (1)0
2.IUU
2 . Ill 0
3. ion
3. U10
3. ion
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. ion
3. U) 0
3. 100
3. IUO
3. 100
3 . U) 0
3. 100
3. inn
3. 100
3. ion
3. 100
3.0
Air «.
1 4)
4 If «U
4 .0
4 I/ *-
t .0
4ir ».
•1 .U
4 U H.
t .0
Ml «.
4 .0
4 IK ».
2.0
4 5P Ul
2.0
2 .0
4 .0
t .n
1 .0
1 .0
.«,
.5
1 .0
l.U
2.0
2.0
4 .0
4 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
I .0
I -0.
NUHIUII iri't t
CONC INJLJtr OF 0 TV CONC
ITIUI i z IN si susc Kir
20
14
20
1 \ •
20
14.
20
14.
20
1 4 •
20
14 .
20
14 .
15
25
35
25
25
26
to
G 5
85
45
GO
35
50
25
35
30
30
32
15
35
55
55
70
36
04 US Ul
34
U. 1C It H
5 3
MCS4 -S 1KS4
36
MJ Al> 4
39
VI UN 4L
i, i.
.52
.36
.41
.00
.36
.211
.15
UIU.1AHSOOI1G
30
5 0
95 I
27
33
J5
U 2 1
11 -1
35
33
G3
H t
G 2
32
G 1
G 3
7 1
1 7
7 1
u a i
7 7
a u
.52
.on
.65
.6 1
.41
.67
.11
.23
.38
.44
.33
.10
.31
.47
.28
.33
.55
.74
.14
.23
.71
.84
G 1 SOU
1 40B
1 5C.B
2
2
1
1
5
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
U'J
Ul
10'J
103
13G
138
139
13'J
131
13'J
13'J
130
U'J
U'J
212
212
216
2 1C
216
216
I 1 216
irtCI SIU UO 0(0 INJJRY INJOrtY 111 U ill JNJ CONC HU. I t JNJ 41 8 UK
mi cto ML: 4ri nun tut I-PIU n w TO conn »• m CONC OF
ui N utv 4i r i ii n SLOT i nn 3 in a mi HTD/IIIRS car 7 y in
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i •
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
IA31E 2 (CCNTINUCOI. OBSERVATIONS 1MB CU.CULITED INJURY PWU1E1ETIS TOR PL IN IS EXPOSED TO OZ ON f.
EXPOS
OUMH T CONG I
PLANT II R PPIIM
3. inn
3. 100
3. WO
3. 11)0
3. 1OO
3. 100
3. inn
3. 1UO
3. 1UO
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 1OO
3. 100
3. 100
3. 15JO
3. 100
3. ion
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 100
3. 10 0
3. 100
3. 10 U
3. 100
3. 10 0
s. vi n
3. a)o
3. 200
3. 'iQO
3. 400
3. 40 0
3. 'lO 0
3. 'CJ 0
3. 400
3. 400
.5
.5
.5
.5
1 .0
1 4)
1 .0
1 .0
2 .0
2.0
2 .0
4 .U
4 J)
1 .0
1 .0
2 .0
2 .0
4 4)
0 .0
4 J)
4 J)
4 J)
I .5
I .5
I .5
1 .5
1 .5
1 .5
4 .0
4 .0
4 .0
1 .0
t .0
1.0
UE4 N.
.->
II f * Nt
4 .1)
.5
1 .0
1 .5
2.0
6 .0
UU Ht
10
20
35
55
10
20
35
55
10
20
35
10
20
10
50
10
50
10
1C)
25
35
25
5
10
15
20
30
35
6
12
25
60
611
50
PIN 0
35
•".IE Wl
25
IG
16
1G
16
U
Wilt TF
NUMBER TYPE
MJUI1Y Or DEV CONC
X Z INST
1
I
9
G 1
1
I 2
86
9 4
5
5 6
82
15
70
0
G 7
U
9 9
12
5 5
5 5
30
GO
0
0
3 4
4 7
SO
7 7
0
2 1
5 0
7 7
B (1
0 U
3 3
Y
4 8
3
22
3 3
3 G
4 B
S U
-2.33
-2.33
-1 .34
.28
-2.33
-I. IB
1.04
1.56
-1.65
.15
.92
-1.04
.52
-3.72
.44
-3.72
2.33
-1.10
.13
.13
1.2B
.25
-3.72
-1.41
- .41
-.08
.00
.74
-3.72
-.01
.00
.74
.04
.04
- .44
- .05
-l.BB
-.77
- .44
- .36
-.05
IL *C
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
5
5
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
SUSC
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EfFECT STD CEO 0 EO INajRY I HI Ufl Y Til NT 31 IN J COM: M UU T t IN J IT 8 II R
TYPE GEO HE IN ME*N 1. 1-1 E PPIIM H »T 10 C OR R IT IN CONC 0"
R IF Ort N DEV If f 1 HR SLO'E 1 II R 3 In 8 II R MED/DIRS COtF 7 9 10
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
360
360
360
360
3C8
368
433
433
435
4G4
464
464
464
464
454
4 92
492
492
513
513
561
89
105
105
109
580
5 BO
5 CO
son
5 BO
109
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
55 1 .70 35 -Jit) 10 7 4 3 .5 . 01 7 2 I G. 2 21 JS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b 23.59 393 -2.10 n 0 0 lf>79.6 .93 59 J 62.4 GJ .6
4. 11) 0 G
23
70
.52
'I'I
-------
AUll 2 (C (Hi 1 HUH) I. 1)1) SE HV *T IONS 4 NU C «.. CULt 1C U IN .JUDY I'MMMIIHIV f U II I'l fll IS (XT OS in 10 O/CNC.
txrus
(JUIM 1 CONC I
IANI MM I'Plin
4. 100
4. 100
4. 21)0
4. 200
4 . 2U 0
4 . HI 0
4. Jl)n
4. .100
4. 4UO
4 . 40 I)
4 . 40 0
4. bill)
4. bOO
4. mn
b. UIO
b. WO
b. 11)0
b. UU)
b. 10 0
5. 100
b. 1011
b. 11)0
b. 100
b. 11)0
5. 100
5. 10(1
b. UIO
b. 100
5. 100
5. mo
5. 100
b. H) 0
5. UIO
b. UK)
b. 100
5. 100
b. 10 0
b. Ul 0
b. 10 0
b. UU)
b. 100
b .0
U 1 N 1C
b .1)
6 .0
UCNIU
b .0
t M
30
NOHU1II lYI't
MJUIU or otv CONC
t z IHSI
90
1.28
I
USS. IS 10 HI »
21
JO
IUSS .
23
10
niniuiu^i ,
b .0
b .0
11 (.11 |ti
b .0
b .0
IUUIQ
b M
b .U
21
10
IHSb >
21
30
IUSS •
23
3U
70
uo
CO 114
50
7 0
IUIJ-'
70
90
It XI
7 0
'JO
bt VS
50
90
aiuriiutss t «NHU
.5
.5
.fl
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 .0
1 -0
1 .0
2 .0
2 .0
2 .0
2 -0
2.0
4 .0
4 .0
4 .0
4 .0
7 .0
/ .0
50
99
0
Ib
2b
25
2b
30
bO
50
75
') 'J
9 'J
U
1 b
20
to
GO
U
I b
10
bll
1(1
4 0
Ib
U b
2
I
b
2 0
1 b
1 5
a i
3b
a 2
'J 9
9 9
Q
1
5
b 1
8 U
0
2
b b
8 U
0
4 (1
.52
.04
NSIY
.00
.62
1OH
.52
1.28
UIOSS
.52
1.28
.DO
1.28
U.
- .99
1.00
-2.05
-2.33
-1.65
- .84
-.18
-1.04
.95
1.75
.92
2.J3
2.33
- .72
- .OB
- .b5
.28
.18
- .72
-2.05
.4 1
1.18
-3.72
- .25
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
. 1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S.OSC
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i if ic i sio ao uio uiaiKY
1 If IV CC 0 HL j i
MR
-------
2 iccNTiNuro ».
»ND CM.CUMTEO INJURY
ron PUNTS EXPOSED 10 O/WJE.
PLANE
5.
G.
6.
L.
G.
0.
a.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
1 1.
1 1.
1 2.
12.
1 2.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
I 2.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
inn
100
too
10 0
inn
on
100
mo
mo
EDO
tuo
mo
U4U
0)0
0)0
200
200
2TJO
2UI1
200
3UO
300
.sun
300
JUO
300
AID
300
ma
JUG
.2 J
1
1
1
3 2 .20 41 .92
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 2.20 39 - JIB 6 C 6 6.3 . 99 2 J. 1. 3 5 .7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1.25 21 .98
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9 2 .02 47 - J> 1 3 6 1 5 .1 .91 7 fl I 3. 2 It .7
1
1
1
1
1 1 .20 22 . 93
1
1
1
-------
IAUU 2 1C UN II Nlll!) >- OUStnVU IONS *NU C * CUM It U 1MJUHV (MIMMlllllS fan PUNTS CXI1 US 1.0 JO OZONT.
1
1
I'lANI
1 2. !i)0
12. UIO
1 2 . U) 0
1 2. U) 0
1 2. U)0
1 2. Ulll
12. U)0
1 2 . Ill 0
12. UK)
I 2 . U) O
1 2. UK)
12. U10
1 3. 200
1 ). 2(10
1 3. 20(1
I 3. 20 U
13. 200
1 4. 100
1 'I. Ulll
14. UH1
14. 201)
14. 21)0
t 4. 2U 0
1 4. 300
14. iUI
14. -MX)
14. 0)1)
I 4. 400
t 4. WO
1 4 . 'Ml 11
14. 400
Ib. UK)
t b. 11)0
1 b. 10 0
IS. 200
1 b. 200
1 b. 21)0
I b. 200
1 b. 200
txcos
(HI lit T i
lilt
4 4)
CMS.
.5
.5
1 4)
1 4)
2 .0
2 4)
4 .0
1 4)
7 -0
0 M Si
34)
3 .0
3.0
3 .0
mm
24)
2 .0
P III I .
24)
2.0
f IN I.
2 4)
1 .5
4 4)
1* lilt.
2 .0
2.0
2.0
1' llll.
3 41
4 .0
H tO IS
I J)
.S
.5
1 4)
1 .0
CONC 1
r-pim
31
Otll 11)
GO
99
25
75
20
CO
50
10
40
1' 1 N II
15
Ul
45,
lit)
It • (1
2b
SU
J tC K
2b
50
II II)
2b
50
2b
VIIIO
2t
50
5
Ulll U
2b
25
II. C *V
2b
Sll
33
2b
Zb
NJUHY
72
*
30
5 U
3 7
5 9
JS
5 1
5 7
25
63
K
16
36
00
7 3
NK C tS
4 5
•J 1
7
a 7
6 9
52
f> 8
Ml t
10
7 3
0
S 2
bb
tL U- II
5 6
an
96
It
2 b
HUM! IK 1
OK U EV (
2 1
.58
-.52
.20
- .33
.23
-.38
.18
.16
-.67
.33
-.3 a
-.36
.84
.61
iCtQC
-.13
i.ua
-I. 411
l.U
.50
.05
,20
- 1.28
.81
-3.72
.05
.13
.15
.04
1.75
- .99
-.67
(Y»'t
:UNC
iNsr
1
1
1 «-
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
I
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
susc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
nir
13
19
214
214
214
214
211
214
214
214
211
211
67
67
67
67
67
2S
25
25
25
25
25
112
113
113
112
25
25
83
2'j
1
1 17
4
4
214
214
214
211
HtCI Sll) (£0 010 IIIOJH* INJURY Illlf'JI IN J CUM: HU f S IN J U 8 III)
im CIO HL Mi HUN LIU IV 111 11*110 C Oil R II' IM CUNC OF
Ul H OfW tl T 1 III! SLU'L 1 II H 3 ID) 8 II R tf [V 111 16 C Of. f 7 9 1U
1
1 1 .23 24 .38
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
i
i
95.17 58 - *2 I 1 1 464) .94 Zf A 2 1. 2 23 .4
1
1
1
1
4 2.12 32 .94
I
1
2
1
1
2
,
1
1
3 2.12 5U -.42 ID 6 4 5.7 .76 4 £ 9. 2 U J)
1
1
1
3 1.10 31) .38
1
I
2
1
1
1
1
1
-------
MULE 2 ICOHTINUF-D ). OUSERVATIONS AND CALCULATED INJURY PARAMETERS FOR TUNIS EXPOSED TO
EX PO S
UURAT CONC
PLANT II R PPIIH
15.
15.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
1 5.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
16.
1G.
1 7.
1 7.
1 7.
I 7.
1 7.
1 1.
I 7.
I 7.
1 7.
I 7.
I 7.
1 7.
1 7.
200
200
21)0
20 0
X) 0
200
200
2130
ajo
2UQ
21)0
Ml)
200
21)0
200
,110
10 0
3D Q
40 0
'(10
too
9)0
100
1)10
U)fl
11)0
11) 1
U) 1
zuo
2UO
310
1)0
'100
41)0
:»o
U)0
I/) 0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
;
/
1
R
1
It
1
R
1
R
4
Jl
.0
.0
.0
JJ
J)
.0
J)
J)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.U
.5
Al)
.5
50
75
9'J
0
0
15
16
20
30
30
GO
50
10
40
35
ISII. C
35
NUMBER TYPE
I NJUI Y OF OEV CONC
X Z IHST
S 4
9 9
9 3
0
2
1
12
30
55
a G
9 7
90
3 9
9 1
35
IE lilt Y
34
M) Ell* CniMSUI
.5
M)
.5
W
J)
RED
2 J)
S
2
S
2
S
2
S
2
S
2
S
2
f
JO
W
J]
U
j)
HF
J.1
H
J)
nr
j)
|
35
ISII. C
35
ISII. C
25
CLOVE
25
FLOWER
25
FL OWCR
25
FLOWCR
25
FLOWER
25
fLOWER
25
fLOWCH
25
32
OMET
3 I
2
2
-3
-2
-2
_ •
-
1
I
1
-
I
-
.99
.33
.33
.72
.05
.33
.IB
.52
.13
.08
.U B
.28
.28
.56
.38
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
BELLE
_
.41
1
GIANT
-
_
.47
.50
1
1
IA HP 10 N
5 0
.00
1
R. KIM LAND
G 4
• Ml U
7 2
. UT E
6 8
> oi a;
6 G
t JO ID
5 5
• ME U)
7 3
. ic in
7 a
ON A
S
AN
ASKA
ASM
.36
11 154
.58
.47
.41
.13
1-1-5-
.Gl
-4 05 1
.52
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
SUSC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
EIFECT STO CEO CEO INJURY I Nl UR Y Til IT 31 IN J COM: M U. T * IN J AT 8 MR
TYPE CEO MEAN HEAN LIME PPIIH RATIO C OR fl IP IH CONC OF
RTF OK N DEV AT T 1 MR SL(PE 1 II R 3 IK 8 II R HE O/ TH IS C OE F 7 9 10
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
449
4
449
449
449
449
449
449
52
52
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
1
I
1
1
1 . •
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20 1.56 34 - .33 12 fl 6 2 .0 . 94 2 .3 7.,5 01 .5
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
r*uu
(com INIIIU ). oustnv u IONS «NO cu Quut:i> INJUKY CUMHCIUIS ion ri-tHis cxrosru 10
I' I A
1 1.
1 /.
1 >.
1 7.
1 I-
1 /-
1 /-
1 0.
I 0.
i a.
1 8.
Ml
UIO
AID
mu
ui n
mn
'JIO
U)U
ma
mo
UK)
11) U
Iti.UlU
'*^ MvtrfMI*
IU. 1|) II
IU.
i*t'+rt
10.
; IU.
lu.
.10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
1 U.
100
4*f*
10*0
1UU
101
UI I
110
un
120
120
120
uo
130
110
I'll)
200
200
i x ro i
1)11 IU 1
II H
CONC
I'PIIM
s « n. oui-ii
2.0
StfIL
2.11
SU IL
2 J)
s « n.
3 41
SCJYIC
,«J
.5
t.o
*' 2\»fl "F
4.0 '
1 .0
dMWMfr*!
2,0
APm
- 2.0 -
2!>
uuni
25
OUIIt
2b
OUl It
20
(N
u :.
Oi
49
rUB;
35
•mK*
»Ni ,
iO
NUMII (ft
iNJiltV OF OCV
I
• t*t UI
Gb
• IJt IU
Gt
t i'* a
G2
i UI 41
SO
3
2 1
n
"^IG"'
n
t ;
B KC
. GO
2
ViK*-b
.30
ISIU-O
.1 1
II C-2
.31
1 Y 1' I
COHC
INSf
2
2
2
1'121-9-lG
.no
-i. a a
-.81
= .51
'-. a a
. •.- r>*0
M-»-«««i>
•* '
.25
G
1
1
I
*""'""llk l,
1
* I
2
..
11
- 2
SOYIIC*N. .HI till *NU
2 .0
.soYM.
2 .0
2 .0
sorut
2.0
soYut
2.0
s o r UL
2.0
2 .0
t>0
(N.
tiO
!iO
*"•
SO
*N.
50
*M.
50
•JO
ia. 21111 so ir ut in.
10.
3ua
2.0
!>U
Gb
.41
2
IU *NOKl
G 0
GO
^£ MHtS
71
UYl
G 1
SI 00
B'J
G'J
N HI
G 1
.47
.47
..55
.28
I. '23
.50
.28
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
LIFICI SID UO UIU 1HOJIIY I HJ UR Y III If SI 1 IN J COM; HULI t IN J *l 8 lilt
SUSC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
V^T^
i
1 M-^*"**fc "&
1
- 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ttlf
2',G
25G
25G
25G
25G
2bG
25G
40'J
'1 09
139
139
iiy
' 139*'
139
»V b«l'U
3B2
139
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
182
2S1
302
251
382
IYP( 010 Ht M4 HUH I JUi: ri'llH 11*110 C OR It IV III CUNC U
Wl N OfV U r 1 Hi; StU'l 1 II R 3 lit B lift HO/ 1111(5 C OT F 7 9 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ••- .. ' •
1 .'•''.. .
^-^4.frSNjNW«^y-4^V.tiP>'--'*«''~*i~'*<'"1--1"r-»:----- - - — ~ -
10. 1 .31,, j, ;. .,* •, 7). -.55 3G 20 12 2.0 .89 JJ .1 .2
- • i t • f '
i .-.-.' f •
\ ,. .. . ....
i '
i i , • •.
• 7 '
I
I .f. i
. 2 . . w , ;
, t. ,.
•
, , .
2 ... ...
I
••*iiMj'i-?,**" '
-------
TAULE 2 (CONTINUED!. OBSER V IT ION S ANO CALCULATED INJURY PARAMETERS FOR PUNTS EXPOSED TO OZONE.
EXPOS NUMBER TYPE
DURAT CONC INJURY OF DEV CONC
PLANT HR PPHM X Z IMST
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
IB.
IB.
10.
10.
10.
10.
IB.
10.
20.
ill.
20.
20.
211.
20.
20.
20.
20.
2(1.
20.
21).
20.
211.
20.
20.
20.
2(1.
20.
20.
20.
20.
300
1UO
'llJI)
500
500
mo
too
700
TOO
QUO
DUO
'Jin
•JOU
100
100
U)U
11)0
101
101
101
Ul 1
111)
110
110
111)
120
120
120
120
130
130
130
130
I'lO
110
SOYBE
2.0
SOYHE
2.0
SOYUE
2.0
SOYDC
2.0
SOYflE
2.0
SOYBE
2.0
SOYUE
2.0
2.0
2.0
rou t£
3.0
3.0
3.0
IN.
.50
AN.
50
UN.
50
AN,
50
AN.
50
AN.
50
IN.
8
'15
30
CO*
15
22
JO
CL ARK
GO
CL ARK 63
GG
CUTLER
61
.17
.Ml
. 3G
2
2
2
IIAUEIiL WOT
GG
LEE
70
LINCOLN
7 9
re KING
0
1
<» I
DEL B
3G
'•3
G'l
TOBACCO. MARYLAND
3.0
3.0
3.0
15
22
30
TO!) ACCO,
3.0
3.0
3.0
15
22
30
TOU ACCO.
3.0
3.0
3.0
15
22
30
TOU ACCO.
3.0
3.0
15
22
35
38
GO
H4RYHNO
3G
30
Gl
HA RYL4NO
33
H 2
GO
M\ UYUNO
27
31
.Ml
.52
.81
-3.72
-2.33
-.23
-.3G
-.18
.3G
10
-.30
-.31
.25
59
-.3G
-.31
.28
G
-------
I AUK i (CONIINU(U). OBSEHVU IONS AND CMCU1MLU INJURY PMUMIIIUS fOHPI_»NlS EXPOSCO 10 OlOHf.
1
1
P L » N 1
21). I'll)
2U. I'lO
20. 150
20. I'jO
20. ISO
20. 150
21). 1!»0
20. 15 0
21). ISO
20. II. (1
20.if, 0
20. 1CU
20. ILO
20. ICQ
20. 160
211. 100
20. I/O
2(1. I/O
20. 170
20. U(l
211. 1MI
20. HI)
21). HO
20. 1UU
20. ioo
20. IHU
20. IUO
2(1. IUO
20. IUC1
20. IUO
20. no
2U. I'll)
20. rill
20. DO
20. Uil
20. DO
20. 110
20. 200
20.200
txpos
JUIU1 CONC
lilt I'PIIM
1 .0 JO
iuii v:cu.
1.0 JO
i.S 20
2.0 SO
J.O 10
.1.0 20
0 .0 10
1011 V.-CO.
1.0 U)
1.5 20
2 .0 JO
J.U 10
i.U 20
I. .0 10
IUII
I .0 U)
1.5 20
2 .0 JO
J.O 10
J.O 20
b.O 10
IUII «CCO.
1.0 JO
1 .0 20
1 .0 JO
J.O 10
J.O 20
1..0 10
IUII «CCO.
1.0 JO
1.5 20
2 .() JO
1.0 10
J.O 20
(J.Q 10
IUU CCO.
2.0 21
Kill HCCOi
I M J HI Y
X
53
WILSON
IS
2 1
Jl
1 0
JO
12
MMSUN
2 t
2 I
J8
6
31
11,
XftNHII
2 U
It
J9
1
25
t
it v*m
i J
2'J
CO
•J
1 J
1 U
11 V Mil
1 U
22
51
21
j a
16
mv»iu
2 J
It I C
NUHUtH
Of OfV <
1 ]
.08
-1.0%
-.81
-.50
-1.28
-.52
-LIB
-.71
-.61
-.Jl
-1.66
-.11
-.99
-.50
-.93
-.28
-1.18
-.67
-1.75
501
-.18
-.55
.25
- 1.31
-. 10
-.92
J07
-.05
-.77
.02
-.Ul
-,2fl
-,'J9
504
-.71
m-t
;
-------
TABLE 2 ICONTlNUfDI. OBSEHVITIONS »ND (MLCULUEO INJURY PARAMETERS FOR PUNTS EXPOSED TO OZONC.
EXPOS NUHOER TYPE
DURAT CONC INJURY OF OEV CONC
PLANT IIR PPHM t 2 IHST
20. 2O 1
20.20 1
20.201
20.210
20.210
20. 210
20.21(1
20. 210
20.210
20. 220
20. 220
20. 220
20.220
20.220
20.220
20. 230
20.230
20.230
20.230
20.230
20. 2MO
20. 2'lO
20.2'lO
20.2'lO
20.2'lO
20.2'tO
20.250
20.250
20.250
20.250
20.250
20.25H
20. 2GO
20.260
20.260
20. 260
20. 26 H
20.260
2.5 IB
2.5 3t
101) 1C CO,
2.0 30
2 -5 12
2.5 10
2.5 36
J.O 20
TOU ACCO.
2.0 30
2.5 12
2.5 10
2.5 36
3.0 20
TOO «C CO •
2.0 30
2.5 12
2.5 IB
2.5 36
3.0 20
T t\H RT" P f\ m
I UU RU L- U f
2.0 30
2.5 12
2.5 10
2.5 3f.
J.O 20
TOO HCCO,
2.0 30
2.5 12
2.5 18
2.6 36
3.0 20
ion ncco.
2 .0 30
2.5 12
2.5 18
2.5 36
J.O 20
roo iccot
J2
51
COKEB 187
51
17
3M
66
32
i
i
i
i
i
5 10.01 22 .MM
I
1
1
I
1
5 2.66 20 -.00
1
1
1
1
1
5 2.25 28 -.17
INJURY THW Ul 1NJ CONC MULT t IN J AT 0 MR
rpim RATIO CORR rp m CONC OF
I III! 3 IIR 0 IIR MED/TIIRS COEF 7 9 10
.97
3 1 5 7.1 .99 3 .5 6.G 0 .1
0 0 0 1252.0 .69 31. 5 3 7. 6 30 .9
000 211.3 .51 18.8 21.9 23.3
3 3 3 9.8 .92 7 .9 1 2. 5 11 .8
1 3 3 C .6 .91 D .C 17. 3 20.9
20.270 2-5
12
11
-1.23
350
-------
IAIUL 2 ICUNI iNUtO I. imSHIVUlOHS »NO CUCUlUtO 1HJUI1V PMUHlirilS rOII PIOUS CXPOSfU 10 070NC.
IXPOS NUhUltl llTI't tfltCl SIO CJEU QIO 1NJUKY UUURY IHUfSH 1HJ COMC HUH X 1MJ kl B III)
11 II IHl CUNC 1 NJUHT OF DtV CUNC 1 Yl't GEO HI *M H(«N 1. INI I'l'IIH I) U IO C OH R fP IN C ONC Or
I'lAHl till PI'IIH t Z IN SI SOSC 111) 01) N OfV *I 1 1 III! SL (VI I lilt .1 UK B UK HtO/ IllltS COEI 7910
20.2/0
2U. 210
211.2/0
20.2110
20.280
20.2UQ
20.2UO
20.2UII
20.280
20.2'JO
20.2)0
20.210
20.200
20.230
2(1. 2UQ
20. JUO
20. 100
20.JUO
20. JUO
2U.3UO
20. JUO
211. JUO
20. JUO
20. JUO
20.300
20. UIO
20. .100
2 (1 . JU 0
20. JtlO
2(1. JU I)
20. JOI)
21). JOU
20. -UIO
20. JOO
20. UK)
20. JUO
21). JUO
20. 1UU
20. .(00
2 0 . M 0
20. JOO
20. IUO
20. JIM)
2 U . Ill 0
2.S
2.!i
Kill
2.0
2.S
2.5
2.6
1.0
ion
2.0
2.5
2.S
2.!i
J.f)
10U
2.0
H .0
0.0
a.o
a.u
l.U
.0
.u
.0
.0
.0
.u
2.U
z.n
2.0
1.0
• ti
.5
.5
,'j
1.0
1 .0
l.U
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
S .0
1.0
IB
It
KCO.
JO
12
la
1C
20
«C C 0 .
.10
12
ifi
3b
20
ceo.
JO
10
20
10
20
MO
JO
JO
JO
25
SO
•J'J
a
1!>
JO
J->
10
20
Ji
!»t>
10
20
15
S!>
10
20
J!>
10
20
iib
an
MCN» 1R
b 3
10
5H
(>3
^ S
u: a 6
11
3
6 1
60
»l
it ms
H a
;
66
l!>
ao
H7
54
5&
lib
1 1
t J
65
1
1 C
fcb
(> 1
0
3
1 C
C 7
1
26
G8
7 J
IS
5J
C7
bl
65
.11
.Jt
JO
-J3
- 1.28
.10
.SO
-.13
-.15
-1.3%
.28
.0%
-.08
1.1
-.05
-LIB
.41
-1.0%
.at
-.08
.10
.13
.41
-.as
-.18
.38
-2.33
-.39
.47
.28
-3.72
- l.OB
-.'39
.4%
-2.33
-.6%
.47
.Cl
-l.OB
.OB
.44
.10
.38
2 358
2 358
358
2 358
2 358
2 358
2 I 358
2 1 3Sa
1 358
2 1 15 U
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
^
1
1
1
I
I
•
1
35a
350
358
358
jsa
6
Cl
G4
G<4
C'l
138
212
212
212
214
214
214
214
214
214
2lli
217
217
217
217
217
217
21 /
217
217
217
217
21 /
217
1
1
3 2.13 2J .I1C
1
1
1
1
1
5 1.3% 29 -.25 B 5 4 %.7 .91 8.8 IG.5 20.8
1
1
1
t
1
5 1.79 GC -1.17 17 5 1 3.9 .87 G3 .1 77.9 B2 .9
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED). OBSERVATIONS UJO CM.CUMIED INJURY P*R»METERS FOR PUNTS EXPOSED TO OZONE,
PLANT
2 0. 30 0
20. 300
20.300
20.300
20.300
20.300
20.300
20. 30 U
20.31)0
20.3(10
20.300
20.300
2U.300
20.300
20.300
20. MO
20. 31)0
20.3UO
20.300
20.300
20. 3011
20.3UU
20.300
20.300
20.31)0
20.3UO
20.3UO
20.300
2(1. 3OO
20.3UO
20.300
20.300
20. 300
2U. 300
20. -WO
20.30 1
20.301
20. i) 1
20. 30 I
2 0. 3fJ 1
2 U. 30 1
?0. 31 0
20. 31 U
2 U. 31 0
2 0. 3L 0
20. 32 0
CXPO:
OUIM
11)1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3 .0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
i.r,
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1 .0
4-0
TOO
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
100
2.5
2.5
2 .5
TOO
2 .5
r CONC
PPIIM
10
10
10
It
It
22
22
22.
28
28
28
25
50
75
27
10
It,
22
28
21
5
1,0
15
20
30
35
20
10
to
20
10
20
10
20
HCCQt
30
12
ia
3k
20
«CCOi
12
ia
3b
ceo.
12
INJOflY
t
1
9 9
12
20
MO
21
32
77
40
73
83
4'J
75
7 2
33
1
13
10
64
30
0
10
0
55
ao
a a
3
0
4
3 1
26
35
25
Mb
OL WJ
13
14
39
73
4 4
SPEIQI T
35
4 1
8 7
9' El Ul T
3 3
Nunocn
OF DEV
z
-2.33
2.33
-1.10
-.84
-.25
-.71
-.47
.74
-.25
.51
.95
-.02
.67
.58
-.44
-2.33
-.08
-.25
.36
-.20
-3.72
-1.28
-3.72
.13
.04
1.18
-1.88
-3.72
-1.75
-.50
-.G4
-.38
-.67
-.10
-.18
-1.08
-.28
.61
-.15
G-3
-.38
-.23
1.13
0-7
- .44
TYPE
CONC
INST
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
G
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SOSC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
(
REF
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
352
J54
3GI
3&1
3GI
361
3C3
4G4
4G4
4G4
4G'I
464
464
484
484
404
484
484
404
4Q'I
404
6
350
358
358
350
358
358
3SO
358
358
358
350
:rrco SID CEO CEO INJURY INJURY THRESH INJ CONC HULT t INJ IT a MR
TYPE CEO MEAN HE*N LINE PPIIH RMIO CORR PPIIM CONC Of
OR N OEV »T T I Mil SLtPf 1 tIR 3 MR 0 II R HCD/TIIRS COEF 7 3 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
63 1.88 39 - .55 9 5 3 4.3 .73 18 JO 30.3 36.3
1
1
1
1
1
5 2.00 G7 -1.0ft 13 4 1 5.0 .98 '0 JJ 6 3. 0 69.3
I
1
1
3 2 .00 17 .96
I
-------
IAUU
icuiiimuu >. ousuiv ITIONS »NO c«cuuiti> UIJUIIY PMUHCUHS run PUNTS txposrn 10 nzenc.
•• U
20.
2 0.
i a
2 a
i a
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 IL
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 (I
2 U
2 (I
2 U
2 n
2 U
2 a
2 n
2 a
2 U
2 ft
2 U
2 a
2 ft
2 U
2 U
2 L
2 1,
2 U
'•t i.
1 I.
2 U
2 I.
2 I.
2 1.
2 L
Iff
3i
32
i!
-JJ
-U
11
il
.11
11
31
31
U
!1)
01
U
11
n
D
n
u
n
a
D
U
n
11
•u
ti
0
I)
u
11
I)
II
u
1)
D
u
I)
u
u
DOT) S
1)11 IH 1 CO 1C 1
mi iriH
u
0
a
u
0
u
u
(1
a
u
u
u
0
0
»
u
0
0
a
u
u
u
u
a
a
n
u
u
0
a
u
it
n
n
u
ti
0
u
u
u
n
2
2
i
i
2
2
2
3
1
I
1
2
3
4
G
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
J
I
J
J
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
t
.5
A
HI
4)
J.
Ji
i
41
(U
a
.6
o
.0
u
a
ID
J)
i)
A
H
Ji
.6
Jj
1)
(11
a
n
n
(ii
•'»
a
in
j)
A
u
ji
a
A
j)
j)
a
i a
1 1,
C (U t V
3 n
t 2
\ a
1 1
2 U
C (U . «
1 U
20
1 U
1 U
2 U
I U
C U) . N
0
t 5
3 U
1 II
1 2
1 a
i i.
2 U
C (U , '•
i 5
2 2
I (1
C (U . C
"1 U
2 S
« o. r i
u
I 5
2 U
2 i,
3 0
•a U
5 (1
•J «J
1 9
rmn
i
1 1
1 U
II (II
1
1 1)
4 a
i H
V* 11
1
2
t J
L J
J 7
N 1
1 2
'I 7
II 1
3 a
t G
b 1
ir ui
0 U
a t>
.(ft at
i
I 3
b 1
U !i
t 1
•J 9
^ 1
'i 'J
11 1
NUN) EH TYPE
If Of 0 tV C ON C
Z INST
- .15
.52
I 0- JG
- a a
- .1 H
-.IB
.7 1
- .55
a o
- J 3
.J 3
- J!l 2
- 4)5
-.11
I t2
-2 J 3
-2 41 5
- .1 8
.13
- .1 3
- .1 8
.5 0
- 41 a
U) 111
- J I
- .1 0
J 3
U N
41 0
1 JU *
-2 -i 3
- ja a
u t
1 41 1
J 3
2 J 3
2 .3 3
2 .3 3
2 J3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
SUSt
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
It U
3 *>a
3511
3 UJ
3 SU
3 '.A
3 5fl
3 !itt
3 SU
3£>U
2 J^»
2 3-J
2 i'J
230
2 J'J
2 31
2 i'l
2 1't
2 11
2 W
3 sa
3 M
3 M
3 LU
3 M
2 14
3 t2
3 C2
3 C2
3 62
'i 'M
H 11
1 'HI
2 11
2 11
2 1'!
2 11
2 11
2 11
2 I'l
2 14
2 14
iFicr sio a:o uto iw-uiir iruunr imtai IMJ CUM: HU.T t JNJ u e UK
irii ceo IIAII nun L MI: rrui R u 10 conn ir in c otic or
at N ic v u T i M n u. o> r i M n J MI a INI n iv HI 15 c (t r 7 9 i o
i
i
3 3 -0 9 2 0 J. HI
1
I
1
1
1
52. Mb 3H -Jl 1 3 2 B ^ .»» > .•) 2 2. 3 I J)
1
1
1
1
1
1 .....
C2.25 27 - U it 4 3 2 6 i i. 11) » £ 2 i U i J)
1
•I
I
1
t
1
I
t
ai.a7. i 12 -LJ5 r, t i i .1 . D >Kar>.23A
i
i
i
33412 2 2 .*
1
I
2
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
-------
2 ic 01 IT r*j D v. oj SE nv » » NS » MJ c «u oj u IE 0 n oj w r 00
COO
can
TOO
7UO
oon
000
ma
00 U
ouo
nrjn
tiao
mo
1UU
lt)0
iaa
mn
ion
IUO
ion
11] 0
wo
100
200
200
tx 10 s
HI r» T oo re
u n ic in
2 ti
2.U
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4 .0
4 .0
fOH
3.0
3.0
3.U
1.0
IOH
1.5
IOM
1.5
TOM
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
3-0
C .0
I OB
1-0
1.5
2-0
3.0
3.0
6.0
roo
2.0
2.0
2.0
ALF
•t .0
*LF
e
a
15
16
30
30
0
15
30
UO . tt
15
25
30
18
NU H) lit T YP C
I Ml IK Y OF DEV C at C
t Z I NS T SU SC
0 -3
1
3
5 2
72
91
10
38
93
(H4
40
60
CO
40
2
i
i
i
-
i
-
-
.7 2
.33
.88
.OS
.58
.3H
.28
.31
.40
.25
.25
.25
.25
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*TOf RUTGERS
10
*ro. u
'|Q
UTO.i H
30
20
30
10
20
10
CCO 1
30
70
30
10
20
10
4CCO 1
15
30
CO
It-Mr
211
H. 1 *•
52
EINZ 1350
5U
mCLfJBE
52
52
62
10
SO
IT
.05
.20
.05
.05
.31
1.20
-
.20
.95
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
ti. U LOT1NOS«>
H 9
4B
70
2'l
G3
3C
_
-
-
-
.02
.05
.52
.71
.33
.36
H. RUSTICOt B/MS
1
25
01
vtnN «.
29
aitnoKfjE:
2
-
-
.33
.67
.no
.55
2
2
2
2
2
2
ILH
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
f
« r
2 14
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
308
308
300
311
300
440
440
440
440
101
lai
101
101
101
101
101
181
101
181
101
101
181
101
214
214
214
214
257
257
r IE T Si D IE 0 0 ID IN J) f(Y I U U< Y 11 It H
1Y It 0. 0 1C t< H LA N L W t fP IH
(n H DC « « T i ii n a. o f. i it n 3 in B u R
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
18 1.56 24 -.21 8 7 S
1
1
1
1
4 3.57 9 .73 0 1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6 1 .87 26 - .22 6 5 4
1
1
1
1
I
1
6 2.09 20 -.45 5 3 2
1
1
1
3 1.54 40
1
1
H J (11 (C H IL T t W J W 8 11 R
RVIJ cotRrmiccNccr
If (V 11 IE C (E f 7 9 10
2.0 .92 3.7 11.0 1C. 1
19.4 .98 8 3. 1 1.6 13 .3
4.3 .94 8 .7 16.9 21.4
5 .6 .97 28 JJ 4 0.5 46.1
1.00
1.3011 4.0 20 20 -.50 2 2 257
-------
IAUU 2 ICON1 INUIO I. OBSEHVU10NS *NU CUCUIUEI) IHJUHV I'MIMHIUIS I OR PUNTS CXPOSFU 10 OZONE.
EXPOS
OMDlT CONC INJU1Y
I'lANI III) I'PIIrt I
1.
1.
1.
I.
1.
1.
I.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
30 0
1UO
41)0
501)
too
LOO
COO
700
niu
(100
U)0
•JOO
•JOO
100
100
100
100
1UO
11)0
100
100
200
200
JLMI
3UO
JOO
too
SI) 0
300
300
500
MJO
LOO
UIO
411 U.H.
4.0
M-l «L
1 .0
20
F»>
20
NUMBER TYPE
OF UCV CONC
2 1NST
IHOaUDlS
23
K*NZ4
12
-.74
-1.18
2
2
ll.fd.Fl> HS«-CW5»N2
4.U
Mf" «L
4.O
Mt *L
4 .0
Ml «1.
1.0
» 1.1 M-
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
7 .0
»SII.
4 .0
II UN.
1 .0
DUN.
1 .0
I. II
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1)1 »N.
4.0
Ul 4N.
.5
III tN.
20
f I >
20
r % »
20
Mi
20
1 1.
25
25
25
25
25
Will
25
IS
25
1 U
HS 4-CU3
19
HSIIf'U-
2 9
SIIUN4C
19
It KH
15
35
44
Cfc
SO
rs
2 1
IIU
10
IIU SHU UL
25
50
33
15
30
GU
3
33
6 I
0
1 5
42
llMI. IlllX
25
U
35
CL
22
Mf'U
3
I IV til
-.92
%N2
-.ae
IN2U2
-.55
"~* »8 0
-1.04
-.38
-.15
.41
.00
-.81
-1.2B
1. 4KE
- 1.08
- .44
.28
-3.72
-1.04
-.20
Hit
-.77
-1.88
2
2
2
2
1
1
t
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
SUSC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
tutci i ro cro uio INJURY INJURY iiinrsu INJ cote HUI i t INJ u a IIR
1 YPE CEO ME »N HEM/ LINE PPHM R *I 10 CORR IP IH CONC Of
HIT 0« N OEV U T 1 lilt SLU'E 1 (III 3 III) B IIR MEO/1IIHS COLf 7 910
257
257
257
257
25|
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
SU3
503
503
5U3
5H3
503
103
103
103
103
214
21 1
211
211
214
214
211
103
103
105
105
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
5 .00 0 13.70 0 2271 0 .0 .84 66.3 l>5.9 65.8
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t 1.63 69 -.05 22 21 20 3.1 .35 .0 .0 .0
1
I
*
1
1
1.1(10 1.0
-2.33
2 211
-------
TAUIE 2 (CONTINUED). ODS ERV »TION S *NO CU-CUL1TED INJURY PARAMETERS FOR PUNTS EXPOSED TO OZONE.
PLANT
EXPOS NUMBER TYPE
OUR4T CONC INJURY OF DEV CONC
UK PPIIM * Z 1NST
EFFECT S TO CEO OEO INJURY INJURY THRESH IN J COHC MULT * INJ »T 8 HR
TYPE GEO ME*N ME4N LINE PPMH R*TIO CORR Ff IIH CONC OF
susc Rrr OR N DEV u T i MR SLCPL i H« 3 MR a HR HED/TIIRS COEF 7 d 10
1.100
1.100
4.1/10
1. 10 0
i . in o
1. 100
5. 2(10
5.200
5.20(1
5.200
5.200
5.200
5.2UO
5.200
5.200
5.200
C. 100
6. 100
c. ion
6.200
G.200
6.200
7. 10 0
7. 100
7.100
7. 100
7. 100
7. 100
7.100
7. ion
7. in a
7. ino
7. 100
7. 100
7. ion
8. 100
0.10(1
8. 100
B. 100
0. 100
8. 100
a. ui u
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
01 El.
.5
.5
i.a
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
7 .0
7.0
50
09
15
30
GO
PCHFE
50
'J9
25
75
20
GO
50
10
'10
UEOONH. 11
C.Q
G.O
23
30
ut.NtaR.iss i
G.O
G .0
'23
30
QENTGIMSS.
.5
.5
1.0
l.U
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
'l.O
7 .0
7 .0
50
99
25
75
15
20
30
GO
GO
50
10
10
OROMEGR4SS.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1-0
1.0
1.0
2.U
25
25
50
50
99
99
1!>
2G
T5
1
6
50
-,G1
.G7
2.33
1.56
.00
I
1
1
1
1
CTU) DETROIT
«»
55
3
68
10
5G
G5
1
20
OUS&ND
10
70
1.75
.13
1.88
.'17
1.28
.15
.38
2.33
-.81
UONDERS
1.20
.52
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
WHITE
1
1
IMCIIUNO
10
70
1.20
.52
1
1
KINDS TO UN
20
7 7
2
GO
3
1
2 5
GG
8 9
G7
9
5G
SMOOTH
0
15
53
70
91
9 9
0
-.8'»
.7'!
2. OS
.25
1.88
1.75
-.67
.11
1.23
.11
1.31
.15
SIC
3.72
1.04
.00
.52
1.5G
2.33
3.72
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
11
11
11
11
11
11
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
1
1
1
1
1
f> 1. 68 71 -.31 22 15 11 3.3 .98 .1 .3
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9 1.85 7G -.30 18 13 ID 1.2 .90 .2 .81
1
1
2
1 .........
1
2
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12 1.75 GO -.39 16 11 7 3.7 .91 .8 2.6 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.6
-------
(Alllt I ICONI IHUIO I. UaSEKVUIONS »NO CllCIJItUU 1NJUHT I'MMHlllflS Foil TUNIS EXPOSED JO 07 ONI.
I xi'oi
UUIMI CONC
PLAN!
0.
a.
a.
•j.
2.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
111.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
to.
10.
10.
10.
10.
to.
1(1.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
to.
10.
12-
12.
12.
12-
12.
12.
12.
100
100
100
100
10U
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10U
10(1
100
100
100
100
100
100
21) 0
2UO
2UQ
200
300
3UO
3UU
300
10 n
IIM
30
2.0 GO
CUIDtGCt
3.0
1.0
1 .0
1.0
1.Q
I .0
t.O
1.0
1.0
l.U
1-0
2.0
2.0
2.0
t .0
1 .0
1-0
Cl OVER
1 .0
1.0
1 -0
CIOVEI)
1 .0
1 .U
1 .0
C 10 VI II
1 .U
1 -0
4.0
Cl OVEH
.5
.5
1 .0
1 .<)
2.0
2.0
1 .0
30
Id
III II
10
15
20
15
25
30
50
GO
99
15
30
CO
15
30
GO
. II
10
15
20
N UHU EH
IHJUIY OF DEV
t
1
92
CL SE
5
66
LttUn •
0
15
2 5
I
3
7
2G
t I
96
0
3 B
GO
1G
29
81
ID . It
0
1 5
25
. CltS lit
10
15
20
0
15
25
2
-2.33
1. 11
4SON
- 1.G5
.38
it PI:
COHC
iwsr '
i
i
i
i
001 OtH ARIIOU
-3.72
-1.0%
-.67
-2.33
-1.88
- i-ia
-.61
-.23
1.75
-3.72
-.31
.25
-.99
-.55
.99
NNSCOTT
-3.72
-1.01
-.GI
4KE
-3.72
- 1.01
-.G7
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
. Ulllir SUEET
10
15
20
. L
50
•1'J
25
75
20
GO
50
U
S
25
V) JNO
15
3 9
1
1 9
7
57
17
-3.72
-1.65
-.G7
-1.01
-.28
-1.75
-.02
-1.10
.18
-.08
LlflCl SID CIO OCO IHOIlif 1HIOIIY HIDE Ml IHJ CONC HOL 1 X IN J *l 8 III)
SUSC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
IMF
211
211
211
ia
ia
ia
52
52
52
211
211
211
214
211
211
211
214
211
211
211
211
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
211
211
211
211
211
211
214
1YPC CEO ME*tl HE1N LINI PPIIM IMT10 CORR n' IM CONC OF
on H OCV »T I 1 III! SLOPE 1 IIH 3 IM 8 IIR HCO/HIRS COfF 7 9 10
1
1
9 1.35 51 -.OB 25 23 21 2.0 .93 .0 .U .0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
15 i.51 fid -.38 ?0 U 4 2.B .90 3 .9 1.6
1
1
1
3 1.25 21 .95
1
1
1
3 1.25 21 .95
1
1
1
3 1.25 22 .99
1
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED*. OBSERVATIONS tNO CM-CULUED INJURY ptRtHETERS TOR Pt«MTS EXPOSTD TO OZOMC.
EXPOS NUMBER TYPE
DUIMT CONC INJURY OF DEV CONC
PLANT I»R PPIIH « Z INST '
1 2 . 10 0
12. 100
12. 1(JQ
12.200
12.200
12.2110
1 2 . 20 (1
12.200
1 1 . 20 0
12. 21/0
12.200
12.200
12.200
13.100
13. 100
13.200
13. ZOO
13.2110
13.2UO
is. loo
it. ion
1C. 100
1C. 100
in. ion
IU. 100
10.100
IB. ion
la. 100
1 a . 2U o
IB. 200
IQ.2UU
1 0 . ?O P
10.20(1
10. 311 II
10.300
18.300
18. 300
10. 300
IB. 'if)0
7.0 10 5 -1.65
7.0 (»0 57 .18
cotiNt GOLU:N cnoss
.5 50 11 -1.23
.5 9'J 28 -.56
1.0 25 1 -2.33
1.0 75 5 'J .23
2.0 20 13 -1.13
2.0 GO GO .17
1.0 50 70 .52
7.0 tO 7 -1.18
7.0 '10 GO .25
CORN. P10NCCR SOI
1.0 25 10 -.25
CUCUMBER. CHIC400 PICKLING
1.0 25 7 -1.18
1.0 50 1 0 -.38
1.0 9'J GG .41
CUCUMBER. L ONG HtRKCTER
8.0 25 3t, -.36
L »RCM» CUIUPE «N
1.5 70 16 -.10
tCflUCE. PUiK OREEN BOSTON
1.0 10 0 -3.72
i.o ia B -i.m
1.0 22 5 -1.G5
'(.0 31 12 -.20
OATS. C.I . 7575
1.0 10 0 -3.72
1.0 13 15 -1.01
1.0 22 21 -.71
1.0 31 11 -.15
OUTS. C.I. 7578
1.0 10 0 -3.72
1.0 I'J 13 -1.13
1.0 22 38 -.31
1.0 31 BG 1.00
OATS. CHRION
2.0 16 6 -1.56
1
1
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
susc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
EFFECT SIO fif 0 OEQ INJURY INJURY ll(RCy< INJ CONC HULT t INJ U 8 MR
TYPE GEO ME*N HEIN LINE PPIIM IUTIO CORR PPIM CONC OF
RTF OR N OEV »T T 1 Hit SLOPE 1 IIR 3 MR 8 UR MF.O/TIIRS COEF 7 3 10
211
211
211
211
2ii
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
133
133
211
211
211
211
112
112
119
119
49
19
19
I'J
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
I'J
19
10
19
211
1
1
9 2.10 03 -.11 15 9 6 5.7 .99 1 .fl 3.9 5.3
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
9 1.91 BO -.57 10 10 5 1.5 .91 2 .E G. 0 8.2
1
1
1
1
1
3 2.07 79 .98
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1 1.39 33 .90
I
1
1
I
1 1.36 29 .90
1
1
1
1
1 1.26 21 1.00
1
-------
2 ICGNIINOCU t.
uio cucuuuu in juny putiHiuns roitriuus cxrosro 10 ozone.
I'l AMI
I XI'OS NUMOEW TYI'C
niiiur CUHC IN Jin y ur bcv cone
mi I'i'iiH x z IN si
1 U.100
1 U. '11)0
10.100
i a . UK)
iu. bun
1U.MHI
iu.a>n
lu.uin
I a. 11)0
19. 100
20. 100
20. 100
20. 100
20. 100
20. 100
20. 100
20. 100
21 . 100
21. 100
21.200
21.200
21. 300
21.300
21. 300
21.3UO
2|. 300
21. 100
21.300
22. 100
!i. 100
22. 100
22. UIO
22. UIO
22.200
22.200
22.200
22.200
22.200
2.0
2.0
30
60
22
71
-.77
.55
1
i
OMSt CI-IHIIUI) 61
1.0
1 .0
1 .0
1.0
041S.
2.0
ON 1 (114.
I .5
3.0
3.U
3.U
J.I)
C.O
I'Elinii
U .0
PINE.
O.I)
1'lNl.
1 .0
2.0
2.0
1 .0
U .0
a.o
I'llU.
1.0
'» .0
'< .U
1 .0
10
19
22
31
0 »IWY
10
SU3>«
30
15
30
SO
60
30
»• U)
2U
4USIII
25
-MCK
50
25
25
25
10
25
VIMU1
10
15
25
35
I'CJIHSf HI*.
1 .0
1 .0
1.0
1.0
10
15
25
Ib
I'OUJit 11 M.
0
16
39
tl
1 5
10
10
21
23
66
1C
23
UN
35
5
5
I 6
10
5
60
111 4
0
10
25
60
E CKt
0
0
10
J'j
I' MIL
-3.72
-.99
-.28
.36
-1.01
-1.28
-1.28
-.7i
-.71
.11
-.10
E
-.71
-.38
-1.65
-1.65
-.99
-.25
-1.65
.25
-3.72
- 1.28
-.67
.25
M'OIMT
-3.72
-3.72
- 1.28
-.30
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
HIKKELSOH
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
211
214
211
1'J
19
19
13
19
111
ill
67
67
17
67
6)
67
67
112
112
112
112
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
310
310
3'iU
ViO
310
ViO
310
I'lO
3'iQ
310
1
1
3
1
1
I
1
*
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.93 11
1.31 25
2.27
1.71
1.11 30
1.10 11
CIUCI SIU CIO 010 JNJUIIY 1NJUIIY JIIHESII 1NJ CONC MULT * 1NJ U 8 UN
lYl'C CEO MEM! HUN I. INI TPIIM IIUIO CORR Fl'IH CONC OF
susc HIK on N new »i \ i nn siau i MM 3 UK a nit HFU/IIIRS con 7 a 10
.99
.90
107
.70
6.7
.98
5 .9 1 0. * U .0
-.75 27
12
3.6
.89
.95
.95
2 M 6.1 9.2
2 3 . 20 0 I . 5
.07
-------
TABLE 2 CCONrlNUCDI. OBSERVATIONS AND CALCUHTEO INJURY PARAMETERS TOO TUNIS EXPOSFD 10 OZONE.
txros NUMBER
OURAT CONC INJURY OF 0 CV CONC
EFFECT SID CEO OEO INJURY INJURY THRESH INJ CONC MULT t IN J AT 8 II fl
TYPE CEO ME IN Mf AN LINE PPIIM RATIO CORR Pt> IH CONC OF
PLANT
23.200
23.301)
23.300
2 3 . 40 0
2 3 . 40 0
z 3 . so n
23.500
2 3 . 00 0
2 3 . tU 0
2 4 . 1U f.l
24. 1UU
24.200
24.200
25. 100
25. 100
25. inn
2!>. 11)0
2 5 . 10 0
25. 100
2 S . 10 0
25.100
25. 100
25. 100
20. 11)0
20. 100
20. 100
20.101
20. 101
20. 101
20.110
20.110
20. lltl
20. 110
20. UO
20. 110
20. 120
II R PPIIM
t
z
INST
it MUSK. RED nor
1.5 35
RADISH. C
1.5 35
RADISH, f.
I .5 35
24
-.71
1
ALVALRONDO
24
-.71
1
«RLY SCARLET OLOOE
23
-.74
1
RADISH. FRENCH OREAKFAST
l.S 35
17
-.95
1
RADISH. ICICLE
2.0 25
S *r FL 0 WE R
2.0 25
3 AF FL 0 Ut R
1.0 15
1-0 30
1.0 GO
2.0 15
2.0 30
2.0 00
4.0 15
4.0 30
4 .0 00
SOUQIUH.
1.5 30
l.S 70
SOYBE AH.
1.5 30
1.5 70
SOYBE AN.
2.0 IB
2.11 30
2.0 CO
1.5 30
1.5 70
SOYDE AN.
1.5 30
32
• FR10
45
t NE IH
1
7
59
4
4 0
7 0
30
44
90
H RUN
1
48
«SOY
4
29
u:r
i
15
4 3
3
4 5
a; OTT
1
-.17
-.13
ASKA-10
-2.33
-1.10
.23
-1.75
-.05
.77
-.36
-.15
1.75
-2.33
-.05
-1.75
-.55
-2.33
-1.04
-.18
-1.80
-.13
-2.33
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
susc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RFF
449
449
449
449
443
449
449
4'|5
449
256
250
256
256
214
214
214
214
214
214
211
214
214
211
S4G
54 G
54 G
SQG
54G
540
214
214
214
540
54 G
214
540
OR N OEV AT T 1 HR SLOP! I MR 3 IIR 8 )IR MEO/THRS COEF 7 9 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9 1.78 59 -.07 15 7 4 3.9 i 97 10 J] 1 9. 8 25 .3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 I
1
1
1
1
5 1. 01 130 -l.il 33 10 3 4.0 .99 15 JO 27.0 33.2
1
-------
1AOIE 2 ICONUNU(Q). OUSEftVAIIUNS ANO CAltulOEl)
I'tlltHtUflS
EXPOSfl) 10 OZONC.
tXI'OS
PUHAI COUC
I'l.ANI III! ri'llH
2fc. 120
2C. 120
2fc. ljn
2C.1JO
2C.130
/I.. 1'iU
2t. mo
2C. lt>0
2t.iso
2(.. 11.0
2L. ICO
2C. If 0
2C-170
2C. 1UU
2b. iao
2t. 100
2fc. 1'JO
2 C . 20 II
2 C . 20 0
ZC.2UO
26.?J)1
2 C . 20 I
2 (..«)»
2C. JUO
2C. 300
26. tun
2 1. Mill
2t, U)()
21,. UJU
2t. tOO
2t. tOO
2 fc . tO 0
2t. tOP'
2b.MH>
2L. LOO
2k. tUO
1.5 70
SOY DC IN»
1 .'j JO
I .b JO
SUYUC AN.
2.0 SO
SOVttt »N.
2.0 bQ
SOYUI AN*
2 .U bt)
surui AN.
2.0 SO
SUV tit ANf
2.0 SO
SOY tit AN>
2.0 SO
SUYW AN.
1 .5 30
I .'j TO
SOYUt AM.
2 .0 !.0
•iOYUt AM.
1 .5 30
i.s /a
SOY lit AH,
.5 Gt
.5 65
.S CS
.S Q^
.5 85
.5 85
1.0 15
1 .0 <<5
1.0 16
i.o to
1.0 CO
NUHUIlt lYI'C
INJUHY Of OEV COHC
t 2 IN SI
11
IKAVtHSt
fc
29
UAYNt
5 b
AUK SOY
52
INS
55
UlINT ItlU
51
OOUCN
It
-.IB
-1.5G
-.55
.13
.05
.13
.15
-.10
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1'. I . 101550
15
-.13
2
f. i . 15717%
10
25
01 11' Pi. W A
5 J
YUI1K
1
1C
U AH K b i
J
4
6
7
I 0
21
7
0
11
21
2 t
-1.28
-,67
61
.oa
-1.75
-.16
-1.88
-1.75
-1.56
-1.1B
-,ao
-.81
-1.16
-1,11
-1.08
-.81
- ,U 7
1
1
2
1
susc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
tuici s ru cto uto iNOJitr IMJUIIY niric^u JNJ CONG nut i t JHJ AY a un
lYI't ULO HC »H M(AH LINt PI'MH rt At 10 CURR IV IIM COMC OF
ii (T un H otv AI i i tin sttrt i un 3 nit a tin neo/tiiRS coir 7 'j 10
5lb
bib
516
SIC
5iG
J82
-J82
5BZ
362
J02
382
1112
302
302
3112
3B2
382
SIC
SIC
51 £
302
382
SIC
SIC
510
13'J
139
139
13 'J
li'J
lia
U'J
130
130
13')
130
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
i
1
i
i
1
i
i
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
-------
TABLE 2 CCONTINUIO). OBSERVATIONS 4ND CtLCULllEl) INJURY PARAMETERS FOR PUNTS EXPOStO TO OZONE.
I
[
PLANT
26.500
2G.ain
2C..5UO
2 G . UJ 0
26. U10
2G. MO
2G. 500
2G.SOO
2 1 . 50 (t
26. 500
26. 500
26. 500
26. SOU
26. U1Q
2b. 500
26.500
26. 500
2G.GUU
2G.GUO
20. von
2G. TOO
26. TOO
26.000
2G. QUO
2 G . BO 0
2G.U10 i
26.900
26. 'JUU
27. 100
27. UJD
27. 100
27. 100
27. 100
27. 100
27. 100
27. 100
27.100
27. 100
27. 100
27. 1UU
27. 100
20. 100
LXPOS
>UR»T CONC
MR PPIIM
1.0 60
2.0 35
2.U 35
2.0 35
2.0 so
2.0 50
2.0 50
1 .0 25
1.5 30
1.5 70
sortie KHf
1.5 30
1.5 70
SOYOE *N.
1.0 &
1.0 15
1.0 25
1.0 30
1.0 50
1.0 Q3
2.0 0
2.11 15
2-0 30
'l.O (1
1.0 IS
•t.tl 30
SPINtClli
.5 50
INJURY
I t
2B
1 B
22
22
M 3
44
48
13
16
21
26
31
38
45
12
43
U RE
57
DELH M
12
4 n
IK RK
1
57
lUWKtYl
5
44
KENT
0
0
0
1
73
96
0
0
25
0
3
7 7
N> nniL ^
27
NUHOCR
OF OEV I
z
-.50
-.92
-.77
-.77
-.18
-.15
-.05
-1.13
-.99
-.01
-.64
-.50
-.31
-.13
-1.18
-.IB
.18
-1.18
-.02
-2.33
.18
-1.65
-.15
-3.72
-3.72
-3.72
-2.33
.Gl
1.75
-3.72
-3.72
~.C7
-3.72
-1.8B
.74
40
-.&!
TYPE
CONC
IN 5T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
susc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
t
RET
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
5
-------
2 icoHiiuium. oBStnvuioNS ANO ctLCuuuu iMJtmv PMJMicitns rou PUNTS txi>osrn TO OZONE.
LXI'OS
DIIIUI CONC
PLANT III) I'I'IIM
28. 10 U
20. 1011
28. 100
2(1. 100
28. IUO
2(1. 100
2U. 100
2U. 100
28.10 0
2'J. 100
2'J. 100
2!). 100
29. 100
JO. 100
in. too
IU. 100
30. 100
JO. 100
10. 100
JO. IUO
jo. 100
111. 10 1
3(1. 10 1
JO. 110
SO. 110
10. 120
JO. 120
HI. no
JO. 1JO
IU.200
JO. 200
ID. ZOO
30.2UO
JO. 200
10.2110
30. «)0
J(J. JOO
30.3UU
JO. J0(l
lU.'iOO
.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
7.0
1 .0
SOU
1.0
1.0
1.0
99
25
75
20
60
50
10
10
i N.IUHY
s
51
7
50
6
56
37
0
1 1
mmuiii
OF OCV
z
.10
- 1.18
.00
-1.56
.15
-.33
-3.72
-.35
tiff
CONC
insr
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
*SII. SIMMtll
25
50
99
suiss cm
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
(Oil
2.0
too
2.0
rou
2.0
rou
2.0
rou
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
run
1.0
1.0
1.0
ion
2.0
JO
27
10
16
22
20
21
4CCOi
27
t£CO»
27
ceo.
27
4CCO.
27
VJCO.
27
10
16
22
20
4CCO.
25
50
99
ceo.
10
2
25
66
-2.05
-.67
.11
IUt (OHUMOOK 0
1 3
7
0
1
2
3 3
1 3
d 1 U
1 1
1C N Utt
8
-1.13
-1.18
-3.72
-2.33
-2.05
-.11
-l.U
- 1.23
12
-l.il
i
i
i
UN \
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
uiiirt uoto
7
NC-a5
6
11: in i b;
10
0
7
11
5 2
I£L C
6
10
61
It I UJ
0
- 1.18
-1.56
I
-1.28
-3.72
-1.18
-1.08
.05
- 1.56
-.25
.28
-3.72
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
SUSC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CITLC1 SIU OEO UtO IHJUKY INJUHY IIIRT.MI IN J CONC HUL 1 * IN J %T 8 IIH
1YPE 010 HUM MUN I. JNI FPIIH fWJO COHH PP IN CONC OF
HIF on H uru u r i tin stcrr i nn 3 mi o HR nn>/nirc COEF ^ 9 10
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
6
351
361
361
3C1
361
3G3
6
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
3d
361
361
361
351
211
211
211
211
3fcl
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
9 1.83 JO -.01 17 17 17 1.1 .96 .0 .0 .1
1
i
1
3 1.75 76 1.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7 1.19 11 .91
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5 1.11 32 .92
1
1
1
3 2-12 73 .97
1
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED). OBSERVATIONS »NU C»LCUHTEO INJURY P*R»MEICRS TOR PLANTS EXPOSED TO OZONE.
EXPOS NUHQCR TYPE
DUR»T CONC INJURY OF UEV CONC
PLANT Illl PPIIH t 7 IHST
JO. 1110
30.4UO
J 0.100
30.1(10
30. ion
JO- MO
30.500
iU.SU 0
JO. 500
JU.5UO
30.UJO
ju.sun
JO. !XJO
JO. M)0
jo. coo
JO. COO
ju.con
JO. COO
jo. to a
JO. GOO
JO. tOO
jo. ran
JO. 7IJO
JO. 7110
jo. /no
JO. 700
JO. 7110
JU. TOO
JO. 700
ja. onu
jo. nau
to. win
50. BOO
JO. BOO
jo. isio
JO. UQO
JO. QUO
jo. QUO
ju.'jin
jo. am
JU. 'MO
JU. 900
2.0 1C
2.0 22
2.0 2B
2.0 21
ion *cco.
i.n 20
l.O JO
2.0 20
2.0 JO
J.U 20
J.O JO
4.0 20
1 .0 JO
TOO CCOt
L.O JO
1.5 20
2.0 JO
J.U 10
J.O 20
G.O 10
TOO *CCO,
2.0 10
2.0 It
2 .0 22
2.0 2U
J.O 25
'J.O 50
J.O r 5
100
-------
lAUlt 2 ICONI IIIUEO I. OUSEDVOlOHi UNO CMCUMItU 1NJUHV l'»MHIltllS (OKI'IINIS EXPOSED TO OJOHf.
I'tANI
i xros NUHDER ni'C
OUIUI CONC INJURY Of DCV CUNC
UK IM'IIN * Z
fiiici sio GEO oio INJUN* INJURY nmrsii INJ cure HUI.I * JNJ «r a UK
lYI'C CEO Mt*N HE»N LINE fM'IIH RUlO CORK H> IH CONC OK
susc itrr OH H ocv u I i 1111 SLU-L i tin 3 IIH e mi tit u/i tins cotr 7 s 10
10.
30.
30.
31.
31.
31.
31.
II.
It.
31.
31.
31.
31.
32.
32.
32.
S2.
12.
32.
12.
12.
12.
12.
32.
32.
32.
32.
33.
31.
33.
33.
33.
33.
13.
•JUU
•joo
•jo ft
200
200
300
300
4UO
mo
MM)
too
LOO
U10
100
100
200
200
U1U
300
400
400
ujo
U10
too
(.00
JUO
All)
1110
tuo
100
100
11)0
100
IOO
3.0
3.0
I Oil
l.b
ion
1.5
ron
1 .5
I OH
1 .5
50
75
45
48
-.13
-.05
2
2
«CCO. UTIIII10M
10
tro. M*«
10
34
M'U.
26
*io. onto UR
40
33
«ro. OHIO uu
10
IOMUO, VE
1 .5
I OH
6.0
40
MO. VE
30
HJUIGIUSS.
6.0
50
36
14 Ml
26
13L
40
DELE
20
_
_
- 7
_
-25
-
7U7a
_
_
.41
.67
-44
.36
.64
.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
n ui-occruss
_
.84
1
roKEGims* luaiiioiii RED EESCUE
6 .0
30
lOlirWUSSi
6 .0
tun
6 .11
30
ECR4SS.
30
IUIIIUIUSS.
I, .11
30
lOREUIUSS •
6.0
30
IUKEOIUSS .
.5
.!>
.0
.n
.0
.0
.0
so
O'J
2£,
2J.
50
»!,
•J'J
60
.25
1
E4HURI RYEtilMSS
60
H4MI
60
Mfc IU
2U
P- 16
6(1
mi
.25
H RYtGH
.25
OH UUIEQIUS
-
.84
1
4SS
1
S
1
UCRHUnlGRtSS
n tuu «u N
0
42
0
4
2 U
5 a
52
-3
-
— 1
- 1
-
.25
1
HEO EESCUt
.12
.20
.12
.75
.58
.20
.05
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
352
352
352
448
448
448
448
440
'I'lll
448
448
440
4(1 8
44
44
44
kt
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
214
214
214
214
214
214
21 4
1
i
7 1 . 5'J
1
I
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
34
12
21
37
2.9
.97
.U
.U
.0
-------
IADLE 2 CCOHJiNUtDI. OBSERVATIONS 4NO C4LCUL4TED INJURY P*R*Mrit(jS FORPL4NTS EXPOStO 10 020NF..
[XFOS
PUR4T CONC I
PLAN! MR PI'IIM
3 3 . 10 0
33.100
33. ion
33.100
33.11)0
33. 100
33. 100
3 3 . 1U 0
33.100
1. 100
1 . 10 0
1. 100
1. 100
1.200
1.200
1.2UO
1.2QO
1. 300
1.300
1.300
1.300
2.000
2.UJO
3.100
3. 100
3.100
3. 100
3.100
3. inn
3. 100
3.100
3. 1110
3. 100
4. 100
4. 100
'1.200
4.200
4. 300
4.300
4.400
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
7 .0
7.0
UHC 41 .
1.0
1.0
1.0
4LF 4LF
1 .0
4 .0
4 .0
15
20
30
60
CO
GO
10
40
UEIL
25
50
99
4. it
10
15
25
NUHOER TYPE
NJUHV OF OEV CONC
* Z IN SI
0
1 —
12
SO
59
74
0
4 b
S
1
a
67
RN AL
0
15
15
3.72
2.33
I. IB
.20
.23
.64
3.72
-.10
2.33
1.41
.44
3.72
1.04
1.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4LF 4LF4. DU PUITS
4.0
4.0
4.0
4LF 4Lf
a.o
4Rno»v
.5
1 .5
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
10
15
25
4. 4t
25
IT 4'E
50
99
25
75
20
GO
50
10
40
4Z4LE 4. 4U
4 .0
DE4N,
4 .0
III UN.
4 .0
UE4N.
4.0
25
E4CLE
25
0
5
15
L4NIIC
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
3.72
1.G5
1.04
3.72
3.72
3.72
3.72
3.72
3.72
3.72
0 -3.72
0
0
SK 4
4
6
3.72
3.72
1.75
1.56
1
1
1
2
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
HARVEST EH
25
PROVI
25
1
Of R
2
2.33
2.05
1
1
susc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
EFFECT SID CEO OEO IHaiRY INJURY THftf Sll 1NJ CONC MULT * IN J 4T 8 IIR
TYPE OEO HE4N ME4N LINT PPIIM R 41 10 CORR HP IM CONC OF
RtF OR N OEV 4T T 1 MR SLOPF 1 HR 3 IIR 8 IIR HEO/THRS COEF 7 9 10
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
340
340
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15 1.47 81 -.4G 33 20 13 2.4 .91 J} .1 .1
1
1
I
3 1.G5 86 .98
1
1
1
3 1.43 30 .83
1
1
1
3 I. >t2 32 .93
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
IAIHE 2 icONIlNUrut. OUSERVlriONS *NO CU.CUUlEU iHJUHY ftlllHtUHS FOR PUNTS EXCOSfD fO
IXI'OS NUHQCK IYTL
IJIJIUl COHC INJUUY OF UtV COHC
I'MNI Illl I'I'IIM 1 Z INir
1.400
1. 600
1 . 60 (I
!>. lUlt
5.100
5. 100
5. 100
(..CUD
t.OJO
b.WO
b.mo
b.mil
b.UlU
b.UOO
6 . 1C U
b. 100
b. 100
b. 10 11
b. 100
t.UJO
b. 1UO
b. 1UO
b. 10(1
b. 100
C. 101
b. 101
b. 101
b. 11(1
b. 11U
b. itn
b. 120
b. 120
b. 120
b. 1)0
b. UO
C. MO
b. HO
t. 1'lU
susc
UHN. SlUIMGltSS UUCK VU.ENI1NE 3
1 .(J 25 3
- l.BB
1
UUMt UNWH CHOP
1.0 25 0
1.0 50 0
1.0 3 1
1 .0 7 !. J 1
2.0 20 2
2.0 bO U
H.O !)0 6
1.0 10 0
7.0 HO 1
CMItYStUMI IMUI1 >
J.O 30 5
'1.0 tO lb
Cllll VSUUIMHUH.
i.O JO S
1.0 HO 15
CIIU Y SOI lilt HUH .
J.O iO S
1.0 10 «0
tlllltS*UJIIFHUH •
J.O 30 5
i| .0 10
-------
TABLE 2 ICUNTlNUED t. OBSERVATIONS »NO C*LCtJL»IEO INJURY P»R*HtltHS FoRPLlNTS EXPOSfO
OZONE.
EXPOS NUMBER TYPE
OUIUT CONC INJURY OF DEV CONC
PLANT HR PPHH t Z INST i SUSC.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
6.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
110
ISO
150
15(1
1GO
1GU
ISO
200
200
200
3UO
300
300
'lUO
100
100
500
too
51)0
MO
HID
GOO
700
6. TOO
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
7.
7.
7.
7.
B.
TOO
co n
BOO
BUII
-------
I Mil I 2 CCONI INOCDI. GUSEHViTIUNS INU C *l.COL* IE I) INJUHV I'MUMtttOS roillMtHtS EXPOS I'D T t) OtOHl.
tXI'Oi NUHllltt Ul't
OUI141 CONC INJUIIV OF OEV CONC
PI.ANI Illl Pl'lin T I IN SI
tirici su» etc oto INJURY INJURY unitsii IHJ CONC HUL! * INJ u a mi
irrt ccb ME MI MC»N i.INC. PPIIH nuio conn ivin CONC or
susc itir on N orv u T i iin si.trc i MR 3 im a 1111 nco/iuns coef 7910
0.100 CONN. SUUl
62
9. 1011
a. 100
a. too
a. too
9. 100
a. 100
9. 100
a . 20 o
a . 2u o
a. 200
a. 200
t .O
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
25
50
a a
15
30
60
co HUH. *a
1.0
1.0
1 .0
3.0
50
ad
a a
40
a. 200 coiioti. »a
10. 10(1
10. 100
10. 200
10.200
11. 100
i i . 10 a
11. 100
i
i
i
i
1
i
t
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
. 100
. 11) 0
. 100
. 100
. 10 0
. 100
. 100
. 100
. 100
. 100
. ion
. 100
. 100
.100
1. 100
t 1. 100
i. mo
12. 100
^.200
1 2 . 20 0
4 .0
CHOMN
4 .0
cnouii
.5
.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1 .0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
'i.O
4 .0
) .0
7.0
25
V{ 1OI
25
VI 101
SO
•19
15
25
30
60
75
IS
20
50
60
60
15
10
50
60
10
40
CUCUHUIII t L
U.O
rut .
u.o
riu.
25
tui.su
25
4
15
2 /
b
1
6
M
5
25
95
40
-1.75
-1.04
-.61
-3.72
-2.33
-1.56
-1.65
-.67
1.65
-.25
1
t
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1 » S J- 1
0
-3.72
1
. UllHUNU
0
-3.72
1
. ItHIIOIll
a
4 3
0
d
2
I U
3 a
0
2
G
a
3 3
1
7
32
ta
0
15
ONU
0
(1
-1.41
-.18
-3.72
-1.41
-2.05
-.92
-.31
-3.72
-2.05
-1.56
-1.34
-.44
-2.33
-1.40
-.47
-.92
-3.72
- 1.04
H III KCT til
-3.72
-3.72
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
2
2
OOOOHS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
j
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
S29
529
523
529
529
52
52
52
52
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
21 't
214
214
214
340
340
340
340
1
1
1
I
1
i
6
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ia
i
i
i
i
2.31
1.26
128
.96
77 -.55
10
45
52 134
25
15
7.0
1.7
.97
.90
JJ
.0
.0
.0
.0
l.UU
91 -.14
25
21
IB
3.9
.33
M
-O
.0
12. mo a.i)
-3.72
I'll)
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED). OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATED INJURY P*fl»METFRS FOR TUNIS EXPOSED 10 OZoNt.
PLANT
12.300
13. 100
13.100
11. 100
14. 100
1 4 . 1U 0
is,, inn
11>. 11)0
it. ID n
16. 11)1)
16. 100
IG. 100
IG. 100
16. 1OO
16. 100
iG.om
16. OK)
1 G . 01 0
iG. 01 n
IG. Oil)
16.200
11.200
1G.300
16. 30 U
1G.1UO
1 G . 40 0
1C. SOU
16.500
in. LO n
1C. LOU
1C. 711 0
1C. 7UO
16. 01)0
1 6 . 00 0
17. U)l)
EXPOS NUMBER
DURAT CONC INJURY OF OEV
MH PPMM * Z
Flit, UHITE
6 .0 25 G -1.56
Hi Ml OCX. EASTiDN
7.0 30 0 -3.72
7.0 SU U -3.72
HOLLY. ENGLISH
8.0 25 G -1.56
LARCH. JAPANESE
1.0 2b 2 -2.05
1.0 5(1 13 -1.13
1.0 93 54 .10
2.0 15 1 -2.33
2.0 30 5 -1.65
2.0 GO 30 -.31
TYPE
CONC
INST SUSC
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
I
1
LETTUCE. D»RK GI1CEN BOSTON
2.U 30 0 -3.72
2.0 60 4 -1.75
3.0 30 13 -1.13
3.0 60 3t -.50
M AP LE • S Ua H
1 .5 70 30 -.52
2
2
2
2
1
LETTUCE. GRAND lUPIDS FORCING
I 1.5 70 24 -.71
LETTUCE. IMPERIAL »45G
1.5 71) 21 -.71
LETTUCE. BUTTTR CRUNCH
1.5 70 21 -.71
LETTUCE. BIG BOSTON
1.5 70 13 -.88
LETTUCE. ROMIINE
1.5 7f) 11 -1.23
LETTUCE. SIMPSON. BLACK
1.5 70 10 -1.28
LETTUCE. CHEAT LAKES
1.0 25 0 -3.72
1
I
1
1
I
SEEDED
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 •
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
EFFECT STD GEO CEO INJURY INJURY THRESH IHJ CONC MULT t IN J AT B MR
TYPE GEO MEAN ME»N LINE PPItM RATIO CORR TV IIH CONC OF
RET OR N DEV AT T 1 lilt SLCI'T 1 II R 3 HR 8 M R MED/ THRS COEF 7 9 10
340
340
340
17
17
17
340
310
211
211
211
211
211
214
211
223
229
229
229
229
119
119
119
449
449
449
44G
449
449
449
149
449
449
449
211
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
6 1.91 98 -.35 21 14 10 4.7 .99 .2 .6 .9
1
1
1
1
1 1.70 1055 -2.53 304 19 2 3.5 .96 67.9 82.6 87.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
-------
lAUlt 2 (CUI4TIMUI 01- UUSCHtftTIUHS tMU Cit.Clll.MtU IHJIMY I'MUrtlltltS roRt'LifllS CXPOSt'O 10 OZOUC.
tXI'OS
OUIM1 COIJC
(M*H1 Illl I'f'IIH
7.
1.
7.
U.
U.
U.
ia.
to.
1ft-
Itt.
13.
ia.
la.
i a.
la.
ia.
la.
20.
20-
20.
21).
20.
20.
20.
tQ.
21).
20.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
1UO
Jllll
l&O
100
1011
J0l>
ion
100
too
100
1110
100
inn
1(10
inn
uto
11)0
too
mo
m a
11)0
Ull)
ino
100
100
100
11) 0
HM
111 V
an
Ull
no
no
HO
110
120
120
120
120
130
1
t
.0
.0
50
a a
UUMlllU lYI't
INJURY OF 01V CONC
X I lMi.1
6 -1.56
1U -.05
1
i
SUSC
3
3
(MIS. ClINIllM) 61 4
1
1
1
2
2
2
.0
.11
.0
.0
.0
.0
2'j
50
au
it
10
Ml
a
10
2 9
0
1 —
i a
1
i
.11
.28
-.55
3
.72
2.33
-
.00
i
i
i
i
i
i
UNION
1
1
1
2
2
2
.n
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
25
50
aa
15
30
CO
0
i
2
i
3
20
oiicmnn ciuss. poi
i
1
2
2
i)
7
7
.5
.!»
.0
.0
.0
.(I
.0
.0
.U
•JO
au
25
75
20
60
50
10
40
flltlUlNCil.
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
.n
.0
.0
I TUN!
.0
.0
.0
IT UNI
.0
.0
.0
25
50
a a
0
1 (i
0
2i
0
IS
i a
0
i
h 0 IU CUT
0
\
11
3
2
2
2
I
-
.72
.33
.05
.33
.00
.01
i
i
t
i
i
i
omc
1
-
.72
.33
1.72
-
4
1
—
j
I
3
2
I
-fll
.72
.01
.till
.72
.75
EYES
.72
.33
.00
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
I
1
1
i
i
I. Hilt JllNS
2!i
50
13
n
12
47
3
1
-
.72
.10
.33
i
i
t
4. It 0 HtCIC
25
!iO
a a
i num.
.0
25
0
1
30
UtUH 1UH
(I
3.72
1
-
.10
.52
3.72
i
i
1
i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
LIllCl S.IU UfO GttO IMJURV tttJURY UHtf Sit IHJ CUHC HUl « t IHJ IT 8 IIR
IVI't CtO HE»M HC*H I.1NI PI'IIH fUTIO COHfl 0> IH CONC Of
IMF DU N IHV Mil lilt SLcrC 1 IIR 3 lilt 6 IIR Hi D/ 11IRS COtf 7 a 10
211
211
211
211
211
211
21 H
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
il'i
211
211
2t1
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
1
1
3 1.15 36 ' 1^00
1
i
i
i
l
i
t, 2.11 112 .53 20 37 61 5.7 .92 M .0 .0
1
1
1
1
1
i
t 2. 1O 531 -2.02 ta 6 X 7.7 .97 It Jl 55.1 GO.l
1
t
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
3 1.S7 136 ~.<*D <»0 3i 21 2.B .91 .0 .0 .0
1
1
1
3 1.68 171 1.00
1
1
1
3 1. 50 101 .36
1
1
1
3 1.8,1 113 .37
1
-------
TAULE 2 (CONTINUED!. OUSERVATIONS AND CALCULATED INJURY PARAMETERS fOR PLANTS EXTOSCO TO OZONE.
EXPOS NUMOER TYPE
OUHAT CONC JNJUI1Y OF DEV CONC
PLANT IIR f'PIIM « Z INST
EEEECT STO GCO CEO INJURY INJURY TIlRFSH INJ CONC MULT * IN J AT 0 MR
TYPE CEO MEAN MEAN LINE PPMH RATIO CORR PP IM CONC OF
SOSC REF OR N OEV AT T 1 IIR SLITC I MR 3 MR 0 IIR MED/TIIRS COEE 7 9 10
21. 130
21.130
21. HO
?1.11«J
? i . i>t n
?1.1'|0
?i . 110
71. 150
21.100
?l. 150
21. ISO
2 1 . 16 0
21.100
21. ir>o
21. ICO
? 1.300
21.300
2 1 . 30 0
21.300
?i.'ion
zi.'ino
•/l.'iOQ
21.100
2 1 . HI 0
21.51)0
21.500
2 1 . so n
? i . MI o
?1.C(IO
?l.C(lf)
21. COO
21.700
21. 700
2 1 . 70 0
21.700
21.800
21. BOO
21. COO
1.0 50
1.0 00
PETUUIAt
1.0 25
i.O 50
i-n 99
f>ETUNH«
1.0 25
1 .U 50
1.0 03
ft TUNJA>
1 .[) 25
I .0 50
1 .0 00
PETUNId.
1.0 25
1 .0 50
1.0 09
PCTUHIlt
1.0 25
I .0 50
1.0 00
PEruMT*.
1.0 25
1.0 50
I .0 09
PETUNH.
1.0 25
1.0 50
1.0 90
PC rum*.
l-O 25
1.0 50
1.0 99
PETUril*.
1.0 25
1 .0 50
1.0 09
0 -3.72
7 -l.«»B
VICTORY
0 -3.72
1 -2.J3
22 -.77
PARTI PINK tPINKI
0 -3.72
1 -2.33
27 -.61
fE AClf OLOSSOH
1 -2.33
1 -2.33
38 -.31
tt-UE SCA
0 -3.72
1 -2.33
i -2.33
ULAC TIME
0 -3.72
I -2.33
1 -2.33
OICItRY OLOSSOH
0 -3.72
3 -i. an
10 -1.20
CA L Y PS 0
0 -3.72
3 -1. OB
25 -.67
ItACIITS K CREAM
0 -3.72
0 -3.72
2 -2.05
DLUE D AHUOE
1 -2.33
9 -1.31
30 -.31
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1C2
162
162
162
1C2
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
1C2
162
162
1C2
162
1E2
162
162
1G2
162
1C2
162
162
1
1
3 1.05 300
1
1
1
3 1.60 111
1
1
t
3 1.56 133
1
1
1
3 1.98 153
I
1
1
3 2.68 701
1
1
1
3 2.60 701
1
1
1
3 1 .76 101
1
1
1
3 1.57 12B
1
1
1
3 2.20 685
1
1
1
.86
1.00
1.00
.06
.87
.87
.96
.99
.86
-------
lAUlt 2 ICUNI1NUIU). OUSERV4T10NS *NU CMCIU.UIO INJURY P*R*H[ltllS
PLANTS tXPOSfl) 10 0/0t4t.
IXI'OS NllHBlll IV PE
DUIMT CONC INJURY Of I) TV CONC
PLANI MR PPIIH I 2 !N il > SUSC
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
21.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
25.
uno
9110
200
900
<-«)0
inn
100
200
200
300
300
100
100
U) 0
(VI 0
000
01)0
too
100
100
100
ion
200
20 n
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
500
too
win
100
Pi IUIII
1.0
1
1
.0
-0
Pt IUMI
8
P
8
''
8
P
a
.0
INI.
•n
IHI:.
.0
mi.
.n
PJNt.
1
1
1
.0
.0
.0
POlNSl
3
1
3
3
P
3
1
3
J
P
1
1
P
1
1
P
1
1
P
.0
.u
.0
-0
oinsr
.0
.0
.0
.0
oi tm
.n
.0
OIHU
.0
.0
uiir.i
.0
.0
OlNJI
.-,
»« fCJ
25
50
99
>r iw U-
Q
9
36
-3.72
-1.31
-.36
1
1
1
I, IIOULtlH
25
I'l ICII
25
lit U
25
6
U
Jl
-1.56
-J.72
-.50
2
2
2
SCOICH
25
UIUIE
25
50
99
II 1 A
30
15
(.0
75
III A.
30
15
60
75
III A.
25
35
II 1 A.
25
35
n i A.
25
35
II I A,
•-,0
16
1
2
1
III (0 .
5
20
10
10
-.99
-2.33
-2.05
-t.75
PINK. Will
-1.65
-.6*1
-.25
-.25
2
1
1
i
It VII)
2
2
2
2
AMflETIK IHGG
0
0
2 0
10
- 1.72
-.1.72
-.81
-.25
2
2
2
2
tCKESPOlNl C-l
0
25
U <«K
0
5
Will 1C
0
15
-3.72
-.67
II LI) ANN El
- 1./2
- 1. EH
UINEIIC
-1./2
-.13
2
2
11 III 0
2
2
III 110
2
2
M1KKEI Wllllt
5
- 1.65
1
3
3
3
3
i
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
llttCI Sll) CCO CtO INJURY INJURY Him ^11 INJ CONC HUM X INJ AT 8 MR
iri't OtO Hf UJ MMH I lilt PPIIH RMIO CORK PPIIM CONC OF
III) (111 N DCtf AI I I IIR Sl.(l>t 1 II n 3 lilt 8 lilt HCO/HIRS COtf 1 9 10
162
162
162
162
162
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
31(0
211
211
211
211
6U
GQ
6U
60
GO
68
68
60
CO
68
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
J10
310
211
3 1.90 122 1.00
1
1
1
3 i.51 101 .97
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
3 10.926605 1.00
1
1
1
1
1 1.86 78 .97
1
1
I
1
1 1.2 1 02 .90
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUUM. OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULUEO INJURY PUttHEfniS fOR PUNTS EXPOSED 16 OZONE.
EXPOS NUHUfR TYPE
DURIT CONC INJURY OF IHV CONC
PLANT MR PPIIM t Z INST
25. 100
25. 100
25. 100
2 5 . in o
25. 11)0
25. mo
25. 100
25.100
25. 100
25. 100
?5.ioo
25.100
20. 100
26. 100
20.200
2k. 21)0
2 G . 20 0
26.200
26.200
26. 300
2 6 . iO 6
2 6 . 30 0
26.300
2 b . M) (1
26.10-0
26.1UO
26. <<00
2 6 . <|0 0
2G.1UO
26. HIP
?b.50t)
2 6 . !>0 0
26. LOO
?G.tnn
26.600
20.100
2 B . 10 0
28. ZOO
28.200
20. 300
.5 99
1.0 25
1.0 25
1.0 50
1.0 75
1.0 93
2.0 20
2.0 GO
-------
2 (cum
i.
cucuuuo ift.iiiiiY
r on nuns txcosio 10
CXI'US NUHUtlt ITI'l
IJUIUl CONC 1NJUIY OF OEV CONC
I* i-AMI mi iM'tm « 2 mil
SUSC II IF
tirici sio UEo uro INOJIIY INJURY uint sii INJ CONC nu.r * INJ u a tin
lYI'f Ct 0 ME 4M HftM I INt f'PIIH IMTJO CORK (rill CUNC OF
on N ocv M r i mi suua i MR i tin a tin Hco/nms coin ;
-------
TAULE 2 (CONTINUED I. OBSEI1V 4TION S »NO CM.CULMEO INJURY PlR4HlTER5 fORPLlNIS EXPOSED TO 020NE.
PLANT
3.
11.
1 1.
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
23.
23.
31.
31.
31.
31.
31.
31.
0.
0.
8.
3.
3.
3.
100
0(10
mo
mo
win
QUO
con
C110
uno
aio
ion
100
100
100
100
100
100
1X10
inn
1110
100
100
1110
loo
1
20.100
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
23.
23.
23.
9.
9.
9.
•in a
100
100
MID
800
liOQ
8UO
100
inn
100
100
HI a
icm
EXPOS HUHUER
OURM CONC INJURY OF OEV
MR PPIIH t Z
UE4N.
.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
PINTO
35
35
IS
25
35
35
15
35
a -i
20
1 -I
20
28
35
53
52
.11
.01
.75
.111
.50
.30
.00
.05
TYPE
CONC
INST
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
DUCKUEEO
1.0
II 40 ISM
l.S
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
25
• C V
99
50
50
99
99
TOH4TO. FBI
2.0
2.0
CORNt
12.0
12.0
UE4N«
2.0
2.0
2.0
33
33
SHEET
5
10
PINTO
10
20
30
TOR 1C CO. C4
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
30
11
4LIER
56
36
36
67
6 7
Ell ILL
12
3 -1
13 -1
15 -I
0 -3
60
63
LLUS DEL
0 -3
32
60
TOU4CCO. C4LLUS DEL
1.0
1.0
HMU'ill
2.0
2.0
2.0
25
25
• C 4V
10
20
10
31
39
4LIER
5 -I
2 1
21
.23
.15
.36
.36
.11
.11
.20
.86
.13
.01
.72
.25
.33
U3
.72
.17
.25
ri
.11
.28
.65
.01
.71
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
SUSC
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
ETFECT STD CEO OEO IMJJRY INJURY THRESH INJ CONC HW.T t INJ 4T 8 MR
TYPE CEO HE4N ME4N LINE PPIIH R4TIO CORR PP IH CONC OF
RTF OR H OEV 4T T 1 MR SLCTE 1 MR 3 MR 8 MR MED/TIIRS COEF 7 9 10
169
90
90
90
9(1
90
90
90
90
90
3
3
0
200
260
200
200
0
62
C2
62
117
117
117
11
11
1 1
11
11
11
11
11
3
3
3
S
S
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
8 1.09 62 -.11 11 9 6 1.1 .99 2.1 5.7 7.9
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
5 1.09 62 -.11 11 9 6 1.1 .96 2.1 5.7 7.9
3
3 -
2
1
1
2
5
5
5
3 1.29 23 .91
5 .....
5
5
3 1.31 25 .90
6
6
2
7
7
7
-------
uiut 2 icuNiiHurui. OUSERVMIONS »NO CILCUUUO INJiJiii rtR»Hi.itRS FOR Hitm cxposrn td o2oiic.
LXI'OS HUHUIII lYI'f
OUI14I CUNC INJURY Of OfV CONC
tin f'PiiH * i
SUSC II (f
9.
9.
1 3.
13.
13.
13.
13.
21.
21.
21.
21.
b.
b.
5.
b.
*•
5.
5.
5.
b.
5.
1 1.
1 I.
11.
11.
u.
11.
31.
31.
5.
b.
5.
b.
5.
21.
100
100
ID a
100
100
100
100
200
200
100
100
100
100
too
mo
100
MO
300
3DO
jon
3110
100
100
100
too
inn.
100
100
100
21)0
200
?00
200
20 n
1110
21. 100
21. 100
21 . 100
2.0 00
cium*
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
10
UO
Pimm, a
1 .5
ronun
1 .5
IOHUO
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
IUO|)N1
2.0
2. a
2.0
2.0
10
. HtO
10
. HUM
10
20
in
UO
». u
10
20
10
UO
IHGOtm. Ml
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
col i us
1.0
t .0
10
20
10
00
, P«
f»0
•13
IOHUO. fin
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
o r (• on i
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
MO
00
4. s:
10
20
10
00
30
UN »
10
1C
21)
in
PHI
CO
-.5?
'2
GOLD IN HINDU
-1.20
- .99
-.81
-.25
.25
2
2
2
2
1
CIIEHRY .
a «.»
* VF
0
^
17
33
NO 4
0
0
17
50
ITU-
1,
7
11
1 7
lEt
33
1 0
(II 41
1
7
9
1 9
1.23
-3.72
-1.75
-.95
-.28
-3.72
-3.72
-.95
.00
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
T40SENOSCHON
-1.75
- 1.18
-I. on
-.95
H4IHUOU
-.11
-.OS
L
-1.75
- 1.1B
-1.31
-.UO
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4IHF.Tt 4
0
0
5
1
-3.72
- 3.72
- 1.65
-1.11
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
110
111)
110
iia
s
5
S
5
5
5
5
S
5
S
5
5
S
b
S
200
200
200
b
b
5
5
5
5
5
5
!i
7
*
7
7
}
)
1
7
1
1
1
,
7
i
7
*
7
/
7
I
1
7
7
7
i
1
/
J
2
,
J
1
;
i
7
7
7
7
I.1U 1 10
8. 50 171
l.a; ao
l.cs an
12.03 715
12.30 Of)
IIIILI SID Uf;o uro INJURY INJURY IIIRESlI INJ CONC HUL 1 » INJ U 6 MR
I YPC CIO Mt»N ME»N LINT PPIIM IIUIO COHR fVIIM CONC OF
OR N OCV U I I MR SI (PE I MR 3 HR B MR HtU/IMHS COtf 7 9 10
.HO
.96
.90
.91
.00
.37
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED). OBSERVATIONS UNO CILCULUED INJURY P»R*MrTr.RS FOR PUNTS EXPOSTO TO OZONC.
EXPOS NUMBER TYPE
UWMT CONC INJURY OF DCV CONG
PLANT MR PPHH t 2 INST
EFFECT STU oro OEO INJURY INJURY THRESH INJ CONC MULT t INJ u a IIR
TYPE GEO Hf_*N HUN LINT PPHn R*TIO CORR HP IM C OHC Or
susc Rrr OR N orv AT T i IIP SLCPE i IIR 3 MR o IIR MFD/TIIRS cotr 7910
21.
21.
21.
71.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
2.1.
32.
32.
32.
10 0
2110
200
200
200
2110
1110
100
ino
100
100
?00
200
200
200
200
100
1110
100
PETUNUi UONIN24
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
10
80
0
0
10
1
PETUNUt CAN* DI M-
z.n
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
10
aO
SNM'OIMGONr
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10
20
10
80
SNAPDRAGON.
1.0
1.0
TOM 41
SO
19
[0. Flit
a
10
9
7
F LORAL
0
0
10
11 -
ROCKCT
15
21
EB ALL
3
1
1
i
.72
.72
.28
.10
2
2
2
2
ALL OOUOLE HIX
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
.72
.28
.31
.18
CARPET
.72
.72
.28
1.23
1
-
MIXTURE
.01
.81
2
2
2
2
FORMAL
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
5
S
5
S
5
280
280
200
1 2.12 201
7
7
7
7
1 2.13 191
7
7
7
7
1 2.83 215
7
7
7
7
1 2.01 ICQ
7
7
2
.92
.87
.73
.90
-------
TABLE 1. IMSHWMIOHS AND LALCULATIU 1N.HJIIY PAItAMFTERS FOIl PLANfS EXPOSED TO OZONE.
I'l ANf
All. PI AN IS
All I'l. AN IS
All I'l AN IS
All UtANS EXCEI'f SOYUEANS
All BEAMS EXCEPT SOYBEANS
ALL COHN
riOWEHS (BEGONIA & POINSETTIA)
IIAY {ALTAI. FA & GltASSES)
HAY (All All A 1 CHASSIS)
(MflAMiNIAI S
SOIIWIIIH. MAIU1N
All SOYBEANS
All SOYBEANS
AIL iniJACEU
ALL IllllACCO
WES UIU UlMltEK (4 VARIETIES OF PINE)
IUEES IOH l.UMUEH (3 VAIIIEIIES OF PINE)
UIIIAI
* 1 - sensitive'
2 - tnleniieillalc
3 * rusl slant
" Hit L-sliulil - IX injury
SUSC*
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
|
2
2
NUMIIEIt SID
OF CEO
OUS DEV
450
342
260
62
10
IB
17
23
25
y
26
SO
203
59
10
.06
.67
.92
.75
.61
.00
.59
.91
.59
.61
.70
.51
.71
96
.711
.61
0 2.27
15 1.47
GEO
MEAN
1 lilt
30
72
174
35
72
Ul
60
45
57
60
59
72
94
39
70
49
119
Ul
IN JUDY
LINE
SLOI'E
-.40
-.46
-.27
-.42
-.37
-.51
-.32
-.54
-.37
-.34
-.67
-.73
-.66
-.49
-.33
-.63
-.74
-.46
INJUItY THRESH
PPIIM**
1 lilt
9
22
30
9
24
16
23
10
19
22
15
27
27
0
ID
16
21
33
3 IIR
6
13
20
6
16
9
16
6
13
15
7
12
13
5
13
0
9
20
0 (III
4
0
21
4
U
6
12
3
9
11
4
6
7
3
9
4
4
13
IN,) CONC
HAT 10
MED/ TIMS
4.3
3.3
4.6
3.7
3.1
5.0
3.0
4.5
2.9
3.0
3.9
2.6
3.5
4. a
3.0
3.0
6.7
2.4
MULT
CORK
COEF
.77
.05
.59
.00
.92
.95
.09
.03
.09
.07
.97
.77
.90
.75
.08
.91
.79
.91
% IN,) AF (1 IIR
WIM CONC OF
7.0 9.0 10.0
0.4 16.5 21.1
.4 1.4 2.3
.0 .0 .0
9.8 19.9 25.6
.1 .3 .6
2.2 4.9 6.6
.0 .2 .3
13.0 23.0 20.3
.2 1.0 1.9
.1 .3 .6
10.0 19.0 25.3
2.5 0.7 13.4
1.1 3.6 5.3
15.1 25.4 30.7
.3 .9 1.5
9.0 20.0 27.0
3.0 7.0 9.0
.0 .1 .1
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION
1224 Gardner Hall, Botany Dept.
FEDERAL RESEARCH NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN REGION P. O. BOX 5186
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 2765O
September 27, 1978
Subject: Estimate of Economic Benefits Associated with Alternative
Secondary Ozone Standards
To: Mr. Don Lokey - - - •
Mr. Harvey Richmond
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NT. C. 27711
I have scanned with interest your development of the above subj_ec_t
matter. You have made use of data that was generated for this use.
I had hoped to do something like that for the MAS document but time
did not permit.
I have problems with some of your assumptions but you have well stated
these problems and have included comments from many people with whom
vou have communicated. Your approach is clearly given, your caveats
are well stated and your discussions with exoerts are well presented.
I personally have no problems with your presentations.
However, based on observations in field work here at NCSU, I have some
of the same concerns voiced by Dr. Heggestad. I will raise some
questions without really giving you any answers.
1. I question the 0.07 and 0.09 pom 0 for 8 hrs when the hourly is
0.08 and 0.10 respectively.
2. Further, if the hourly is 0.08 or 0.10 ppm, what would you expect to
find in terms of numbers of days from >lay - September when the 3 hr
average each day would be above say 0.06 ppm?
3. I would tend coward a different ratio for the best and worst case
of yield:injurv ratio. The worst would be 1:1 and the best 1:2.
This would not be for leafy crops used for human consumption where
a 10:1 ratio could hold.
4. I would also stress the dangers of extrapolation from short term
acute exposures with injury as the prime response to long term
chronic exposures where harvested yield is Che prime concern.
I still like vour approach and believe it is a first effort that should
be submitted. At the least, it will make others seriously look at
economic imoact.
-------
Paae 2
Mr. 3 on LsSwy
Mr. Harvey Richmond
I vouid encourage you eo Look aC "he paper by Laraen and .rvself. Larsen
cook, che 32-
-------
Appendix A
1 Thresholds for Injury, Growth, and Yield Loss
2 Caused by Ozone on Field Corn Hybrids
3 A. S. Heagle, R. 3. Philbeck and W. M. Knott
4 Plant Pathologist and Agricultural Engineer, Southern Region,
5 Science and Education Administration, U. S. Department of Agricul-
6 ture, Plant Pathology Department, North Carolina State University,
7 Raleigh, N. C. 27650; and Research Associate, Botany Department, ___
g North Carolina State University, -Raleigh, N. C. 27650.
9 Cooperative investigations of the U. S. Department of Agricul-
IQ ture and the North Carolina State University. Paper number 5529 of
^j_ the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
12 Station, Raleigh, North Carolina 27650.
^3 Mention of commercial products or equipment by name does not
^ constitute a guarantee or warranty__of the product by Che U. S.
T* Department of Agriculture, or North Carolina State University and
,f does nof imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that
_ may be suitable.
The authors thank Hans Hamann for statistical analyses and
18
Michael B. Letchworth, John W. Johnston and Janice L. Heard for
__ technical assistance.
20
Accepted for publication
22
ABSTRACT
23
HEAGLE, A. S., R. 3. PHILBECK, and W. M. KNOTT. 1979. Thresholds foi
injury, growth, and yield loss caused by ozone on field corn
-------
Heagle et al. - 2
1 hybrids. Phytopathology 69:
2 ."'- r
3 A commercial field com, .Zea nays L. , hybrid 'Cokar-16' ' —
™'-M-"11-" * ' y
4 was exposed to four chronic doses of ozone (0.,) in open- —
5 top field chambers from 25 days after planting until maturity. The
5 different doses war a obtained by adding different but constant con-
7 ceatrations of 0_ to the naturally varying ambient concentrations for
g 7 .hr/day (0930 to 1530 hr) . The threshold 0.. concentrations causing
g foliar injury (betveen 0.02 and 0.07 ppm) were lower than concentra-
IQ tions required to -decrease "kernel -yield : (between. -0*11 _and 0.15 pom).
11 These thresholds were the same whether planes were grown in pots
j2 or in the ground. In the greenhouse, the sensitivity of Coker 16 to
«2 growth effects caused by chronic 0, exposures was intermediate to
,. that of two open-pedigree hybrids. In the field, both open-pedigree
._ hybrids- were more sensitive than Cokar 16. Exposure to a mean 7 hr/
-^ day 0_ concentration of 0.15 ppm decreased - kernel yield of the open—
15 J
pedigree hybrids by 37-«0", but that of Coker 15 was decreased by only
-, -,<.
18
19 -
Chronic doses of ozone CO,) g^" injure foliage and decrease yield
20 J
of important crop species (5, o, 11, 13, 14, 15). Yiald of sv.eet
com, Zea mays L. , 'Golden ilidget', grown in field chambers was de-
creased by daily 7-hr exposures to 0.10 ppm of 0, CO. 10- ppm of 0, =
196 ^g/m at 25 C and 750 mm Hg) but not by 0.05 ppm (.5). Tieid of
sveet com was decreased substantially by exposure of planes to
-------
Heagle et al. - 3
1 ambient oxidants in open-top field chambers in California (14) and
2 by exposure in a greenhouse to 0.20 or 0.35 ppm of 0, (11). Cameron
3 (2, 3) showed that sweet corn had high heritability for response to
4 foliar injury from ambient oxidants in California. There are no
5 reports of the effects of ambient oxidants or chronic doses of 0_
5 on field corn.
7 Fertility levels and growth media greatly affect the_sensitiv-_
g ity of plants to 0-, Interactions between the different nutrient -
g elements and sensitivity seem to be complex (1, 8), but the exact
10 relationships have not been shown (10) . Greenhouse studies with
»» potted pinto bean and tobacco showed that foliar sensitivity to
12 oxidants is greater in plants growing in artificial media such as
.- a peat:perlite mixture or vermiculite, than in plants growing in
.. soil (9, 12). However, foliar injury of tobacco caused by ambient
oxidants in the field was four to five times less for potted plants
growja in a mixture of peat:perlite:soil than for plants grown in
16
the ground (4) - No studies have compared the effects of 0, on yield
of plants grown in different growth, media.
18
Previous field studies on the effects of ambient oxidants have
19
been limited to determining the effects of one dose, usually comparing
20
plants grown in carbon-filtered (CF) air with, plants grown in non-
filtered (N?) air. From such studies, it is not possible to determine
the relative impact of different doses or to determine threshold
doses for effects on injury, growth, and yield.
The present research, was conducted with, field com to: i)
-------
Heagla et al. - 4
I identify the range of sensitivity to 0, of several hybrids in a
2 greenhouse, ii) determine threshold doses of 0. causing-injury _
and decreased growth and yield of a cosnercial hybrid grown in .- —
pots or in the ground in field chambers, and iii) relate the inj.u.ry
and growth effects of 0, in the greenhouse to effects of 0- on
yield in the field.
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Greenhouse study. - rive open-pedigree and six cocnercial
o
field com, Zea inays L., hybrids (Table 1) were tested for relative
9 -—
sensitivity to 0,. Seeds were planted on 2-February 1976 in 4-licer
10 J
pocs, containing a 1:1:1 ratio (by volune) of sand:sandy-loan soil:
?ro-Mi:c 32. Pro—Mis EX contains seat and perlite with nutrients
12 "
(Premier Brands, Inc., ^lev Tork., N. ?.). Plants were thinned to 1
13
plant/pot and fertilized 7 days after planting wich 2 g of fertilizer
U
0-4-4-6, N-P--Q . Sight plants per hybrid vere exposed to Q, or carbon—
15 " J
filtered ^-^ in two field chambers 05) installed in a greenhouse.
16
Plants were eznosed ta Q^ for 7 hr G09QO to 1500 hrs) for 21 davs,
17
starting 14 days after planting. Ozone was generated by ulcraviaiet
18
lighr. Concentrations of Ov in. chaabers vere ncni-tored continuously
IS °
during exposure with, a chesiluainescence 0, analyzer (Model 3410A, Mon—
20
itor Labs Inc., San Diego, CA 92121) calibrated to a 1" neutral buffer-
21
ad KZ standard. The sean hourly 0, concentrations during the 21-day
22
esposure. period ranged froa Q.G6 to 0.13 ?pa. The aean 7-hr 0., coccen—
23 " J
tracion was 0.12 ppn (daily range: 0.08 to 0.17 ppn). Tesperature
2*
and relative humidity CP>H) i^- the greenhouse and exposure chambers
23
-------
Reagle et al. - 5
* ranged from 20 to 25 C and 35 to 70% KH respectively. No supple-
* mental lighting was used. One day after exposures ended', we esti-
3 mated visible foliar injury on individual leaves in 5% increments"
* (0-100%). Fresh weight of the stem and leaves (shoots) were ~ ""
5 measured. Dry weights of shoots were measured after drying for
6 2 days at 60 C.
7 Field studies - threshold doses of ozone and effeac__of._plantr
8 growth media. - Seeds of 'Coker 16' were sown with a four-row planter
9 on 6 May, 1976, -in rows spaced 95 cm in a 1.2 ha field of sandy-clay
10 and sandy-loam soil (Cecil and Appling, Typic hapludults). Fertilizer
11 (14-0-14; N-P-K) was banded along each row at 500 kg/ha at planting.
12 Ammonium nitrate was applied in a strip along each row at 336 Jcg/ha,
13 34 days after planting.
14 Seeds were also planted on 6 May in 15-liter plastic pots con—
13 taining a 1:1:1 ratio (by volume) of sandy-loam soil (Appling, Typic
16 hapludults) :sand:Pro-M±s 5X. Plants were thinned to 1 plant/pot 21
17 days after planting. Each plant was fertilized with 6 g of fertilizer
18 (14-4-6; N-P-K), 24 days after planting and 5 g of ammonium nitrate,
19 34 days after planting.
20 Each plot (of a total of 25 in 5 blocks) initially consisted of
21 tvo 2.75 m rows of corn. Plants in alternate halves of each row were
22 removed to make room for plants in four 15-liter pots. Pots were
23 partially buried leaving the top 5 to 10 cm uncovered. The plants
24 growing in the ground were thinned to about one per each. 15 cm of
35 row, leaving seven to eight plants in each, of the two alternate 1.33 m
-------
Heagle at al. - 6
1 rows/plot. Planes were watered to prevent wilt ing. Com plants
2 growing adjacent to plots were not disturbed. Weeds wera controlled
3 by hand. Insects wera controlled vita carbaryl (1-napthy1 nethyl-
4 carbanate) or aalathion [S-(l, 2-bis[ethoxycarbony]ethyl) 0,0-di-—
5 methyl phosphorodithioate] as needed.
6 Five treatments (1 treatment/plot) wera randomized within aach
7 of the five blocks. One treatment was ambient air (AA) with no_chanbe:
3 A cylindrical (3 m-diaraeter) open-top field chamber (4, 7) was placed
9 over each of the four remaining plots in each block, 22 days after
10 planting. Plants in one chamber/block, continuously received charcoai-
jj_ filtered (CF) air. Plants in three chambers/block were exposed con-
^2 tinuously to nonfilterad OIF) air (particuiata filtar only) throughout
13 the sncner. However, starting 25 days afcar planting, snail constant
j^ concentrations of 0^ wera added for 7 hr/day (0930 to 1530 hrs). "The
I* added 0^ resulted in thrae different 0- cur*/es that followed the daily
tg fluctuations of anbianc oxidant concentrations (Fig. 1). One dose
,j (NF-1) was near anbienc concentracions and was obtained by adding
,« O.Q2 pen of 0, to chaaber concentrations, thus z^king up for the 0^
«a lost in tie chanber air-handling systen. Two higher doses wera ob.—
2Q tained by adding 0.06 ppm C^F-2) or 0.10 ppm CNF-3) of 0-. Ozone was
-, added to the NF-1, NF-2, and UF-3 chambers for 7 hr/day for 33 days
-2 C31 >iay tnrough, 27 August).
Ozone was oroducad and dispensed as described previously (.7) .
_, Ozone concentrations were monitored frcn the center of the chamber
at midplant canopy haighr, as described previously C7) .
-------
Heagle et al. - 7
1 Plant height and leaf emergence were measured, and estimates
2 of visible foliar chlorosis and necrosis (injury) on individual -
3 leaves were made once each week for 10 consecutive weeks, starting"
4 8 days after exposures began: Eights plants in the ground (four-
5 in each row) and the eight plants in pots in each plot were labeled
g to show plant position.before harvest. Plants in the ground adja-
7 cent to the chamber wall or pots were not used in measuring effects.
g Plants were harvested 115 days-after-planting, when leaves in all
o treatments were brown and a black layer had formed in the kernels.
»Q Plant height and fresh weight of ears, with husks and without husks,
«< were measured. Ears were dried to 12.5% moisture content and
«- weighed. The total kernel weight and the weight of 100 kernels/
.» plant were measured. Stovers were dried in the field for 42 days
,, (10-25%-/moisture content) and weighed.
Response of three hybrids. - Plants of 'Coker 16' sown on
6 May were removed, and seeds of two open-pedigree hybrids, FR. 532 x
16
FR 619 (OP-1) resistant, and H 95 x FR 64A (OP-2) sensitive, and
Coker 16 intermediate sensitivity, were planted on 24 May. Seeds
18
were spaced 15 cm apart in seven 45 cm subrows in tvo 2.75 a. rows
19
in each of three clots in three blocks. The. hybrid positions were'
20
randomized within each subrov. Four seeds were planted at each
21
position but plants were thinned to one after 12 days. Plants were
fe^-ti'1i2ad with 336 kg/ha of ammonium nitrate and 336 kg/ha of 10-
23
10-10; N-P-K, 13 and 25 days, respectively, after planting. Coker
16 corn growing in adjacent rows was maintained.
-------
Heagle st al. - 8
Open-top field chambers were inscalled on 2 plots/block 25
days after planting. Plants in one chamber received carbon-fil-=_
tered (C?) air for 24 hrs per day. Those in the other chamber ;
received nonfiltered air for 24 'or/day with 0.10 ppm 0- added
^ (NF-4) for 7 hr/day for 32 days, starting on 22 June and continuing
* through 12 Sepcamber (29 to 111 days after planting).
7 RESULTS •
' Greenhouse study. - Foliar sympotoms of 0, exposure ranged - -
5 froa interveinal chlorosis and-surf ace necrosis-co-white-bifacial
10 necrosis on all 11 hybrids.
H Among Che open-pedigree hybrids, H 95 x ?R 54A (OP-2) vas acre
12 sensitive and (TR 37 :c H 34) :c ~a 25 more resistant to 0_ injury
13 than others (Table 1). Overall, the connercial hybrids vara injured
1* less than were the csaen-oedigree hybrids. _ De«La.lb_XL 73 was conpar—
13 atively sensitive while Pioneer 3363A was relatively resistant.
16 Tie correlation coefficient between shoot fresh and shoot dry
17 weights was 0.97. Therefore, Table 1 shows only shoot fresh weights.
13 Of the open-pedigree hybrids, shoot weight of FR 532 ;c ?r 519 (OP-i)
19 was 2.7, less because of 0_ and shoot weight (OP-2) was 53% less than
20 the concrol C^aole 1). The range of 0, effects on shoot weight was
21 less among the commercial hybrids than that for tha open-pedigree
22 hybrids. Scooc weight of Pioneer 3363A was decreased lass (.27^) and
23 chat of Funk G 4545 more (Ai") than chat of mosc other commercial
2A hybrids casted (Table 1).
23 Field studies - ozone concentrations. - Daily fluctuations in
-------
Keagle et al. -9
1 the. ambient 0^ concentrations are shown by the daily 7-hr (0930
2 to 1630 hr) and 24-hr means in Figure 1. The mean diurnal 0, fluctu-
3 ations for various treatments are shown in Figure 2. Except for
4 several rainy days, the 7-hr mean 0. concentration greatly exceede'd
5 the 24-hr mean 0, concentration, as would be expected by the diurnal
6 pattern of 0^ concentrations, shown in Figure 2. The overall mean
7 1- and 24-hr 0. concentrations in ambient air (AA) and .those -for.. the
8 various -chamber treatments- are shown -in Table 2, --The. daily. 7-hr __
9 mean concentrations for the NF-1, NT-2, NF-3 or NF-4 treatments can
10 be easily determined by adding 0.01, 0.05, 0.09 or 0.09 pom, respec-
11 tively, to the daily 7-hr AA means (Fig. 1). The daily 24-hr mean
12 OT concentrations for the various NF treatments can also be calculated
13 using a common 0_ dose (87% of AA) for all NF creacments during the
1^ 17 hr when 0., was not added. For example, the calculation to deter-
U mine a given 24-hr aean for NF-1 is:
16 24 hr mean for NF-1 = 7 (7-hr *F-1) + 17 CNF 17)
^4
17 NF 17 is the common 17 hour daily mean for all NF treatmencs:
18 24 hr AA - 7 hr AA (7/24)
NF 17 = - - x .3/
19
2Q threshold doses of ozone and effects of plant-growth media. -
j-t Symptoms of foliar injury in the field resembled those from green-
22 house exposures to 0,. The initial symptom was a faint interveinal
23 chlorosis which gradually increased with continuing exposure, often
^culminating in complete chlorosis.
«. The percentage injury o£ plants in pots and ground was similar,
-------
Eeagle at al. - 10
and were combined for each. 0, treatment (Fig. 3). The decreased in-
* jury between weeks 2 and 4 was probably due to rapid growth, as jell
^ as to relatively low 0_ concentrations. The difference in foliar
* injury between-plants in the CF treatment (0.02 pom) and plants in
* each of the other chamber treatments is an indication of the amount
* of injury caused by 0.. rather than by normal senescence. The thresh-
7 old 0. concentration for significant foliar injury of Coker i5—was -
8 between" 0".07 (NF-1) and 0.11 ppm (NF-2) (Fig. 3). Chlorosis and
9 necrosis of-foliage was greater in chambers at 0.07- CN"F-i) or 0.02
10 (CF) ppn 0., than that in the AA (0.06 ppm) treatment from weeks 8
11 to 10 (Fig. 3). .
12 There were no significant 0., treatment :c media interactions for
13 any of the growth or yield measures taken. Plants in chambers were
14 slightly taller than these in the AA treatment- (Liable 3) . Plants sear
15 the center of the chambers were slightly taller with slightly greater
16 kernel weight than those nearer the chamber wails, but these differences
17 were not statistically significant. There ware ao significant 0,
13 treatment x chamber position interactions affecting growth. The
15 threshold 0., dose for decreased height and weight of stovers was
20 higher for potted plants than for planes grown in the ground (Table 3)
21 but the interaction was not significant statistically.
22 Yields tended to decrease at a higher 0- level for potted plants
23 than for slants in the ground (Table 3) but there was no significant
Tjk 0, concentration :c media interaction. Kernel weight oer olant at 0.15
*>•» j w
25 pro of 0- was 30 g less than that at 3.02 ppm for potted plants and
-------
Heagle et al. - 11
1 38 g less for plants in the ground. At 0.15 ppm, kernel size (100
2 wt) was decreased by 7 to 9% compared to a 13 to 16% decrease for
3 kernel weight/plant, showing that 0_ also caused a decrease in num-~
4 bers of kernels.
5 A block x 0- treatment interaction for yield of potted plants
6 was partially caused by block-to-block fluctuations at 0.07 ppm of
7 0, where the yield ranged from 7% greater to 13% less than—tha-fe--ae- —
8 0.02 ppm.- Block-to-block-fluctuations were smaller-at-Q.11. ppm.
9 However, for all blocks, the weight of kernels/plant_at 0.15 ppm were
10 less (9 to 19%)" than those at 0.02 ppm. There-were-no- differences in--
11 0-, concentrations that accounted for these fluctuations.
^2 Block x 0- treatment effects also occurred for growth, -and yield
13 of plants in the ground, primarily due to variation at 0.02 ppm where
JA plants were-unusually small-in-block 3 and usually large in block 2.
•it In all blocks, growth, and yield of plants at 0.15 ppm was less than
»g that at 0.02 ppm.
,7 response of three hybrids. - Injury symptoms were similar to
,o those in the threshold-dose study except for bifacial necrosis which
.Lu
jo occurred on some leaves of both open-pedigree hybrids after several
-g weeks of exposure in the NF-4 treatment.
Injury of all hybrids was significantly greater at 0.15 (NF-4)
-•than that at 0.02 (CF) ppm 0., on all dates, except injury was similar
7-in both treatments for Coker 16 after week 1 (Fig. 4). The two open-
_.pedigree hybrids were -ore severely injured than Coker 16 after weeks
i, 2, 3 and 9. But during intermediate weeks, foliar injury of all
-------
Heagle et_ al. - 12
1 hybrids -as srnilar; about 15% greacar ac 0.15 ppm Chan at Q.Q2 ppm
2 o£ Q7. Percentage injury of the open-pedigree hybrids were siailar
3 (<5% different), except after veek 3 vhea OP~1 vas sore severely*.ia-
4 jured than OP-2.
5 Plants of all hybrids were shorter and the stovers weighed less
6 at 0.15 ppm than at Q.Q2 pan. in all blocks (Table 4). . A block 2 Q~
7 treat-lent interaction for plant height and weight of scovar-s vs-& - -
8 caused primarily by greater effects of 0,-on all hybrids in-block
9 1 than in other blocks. .. ..
10 The weight of kernels/plant at 0.15 ppm~vas 12;-37,-and 40" less
11 than -hat ac 0.02 ppm for Coker 15, OP-1, and Q?-2, respectively; the
12 weighz of 100 kernels -^as decreased by 15, 25, and 30% for Cokar 16,
U OP-1, and OP-2, respectively CTabia 4). These values indicated chat
H yield decreases of Coker 15 vere caused-by decreased kerr.el sizes
1* rather than by nuabers. However, vich. the open-pedigree hybrids,
it yield decreases vere apparently caused by decreased kernel numbers as
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
-------
Heagle et al. - 13
1 DISCUSSION
2 Ozone concentrations in ambient air at our field site near 7
3 Raleigh, N. C. depended mainly on regional weather patterns and ,.
4 were representative of most of the southeastern United States. The
5 daily concentration curve was predictable, based on previous hourly
6 concentrations during a given day, assuming no abrupt change in in-
7 tensity of sunlight. Hourly fluctuations in 0. concentrations_were_
8 usually-less than-0.02 ppm. The daily, —7r-hr, ambient 0__nieans, shown
9 in Figure 1, were generally within .04 ppm of the daily minimum and
10 maximum ---concentrations-during--daylight-hours,--—. .v..
11 Threshold doses of 0, for injury expression and effects on
12 growth were much lower than threshold doses for decreased kernel yield,
U demonstrating that field corn can withstand some injury with no loss
l^ of yield. The correlation between.injury,—growth, and yield effects
1« across treatments-was often low. The magnitude of the differences
lg between treatments in the amounts of foliar injury and affects on
*7 stover weight were a poor indication of the magnitude of the effects
jo on kernel weight. For example, at 0.11 ppm of 0-, the percentage of
je foliar injury averaged about 17, greater than that at 0.02 ppm, stover
-Q weight was decreased by 23%, and yield was decreased by only 27.. At
?1 0.15 ppm, foliar injury was 10% greater than at 0.02 ppm of 0-, stover
_- weight was decreased by 45%, and yield was decreased by 15%.
Differences in plant injury, growth, and yield in ambient air
at 0.06 ppm of 0., C24-hr mean = 0.04) and in chambers at 0.07 ppm
(24-hr mean - 0.04) (Table 3) provided an estimate of the chamber
-------
Heagle et al. - li
* affects, assuming the snail dose difference between. 0930 to 1530 hr
2 was not a factor. The canses for these differences are not known Jut
3 are probably related to =™a11_ differences in climate (i, 7). While
* the chambers can. affect, plant growth, there are no reports where
5 changes in light, wind speed, or tesrperature, of the magnitude caused
6 by the chambers, have been shown to affect sensitivity to 0.,. We found
7 no significant Q^ treatment x chamber position interactions—af-fecsiag-
8 injury7" growth, 'or yield; - More-research-is--needed-to-det-erziine inter-
9 actions between various environmental.factors and plant response to
10 chronic doses of 0-,.
H Threshold doses for injury, growth, and yield of the open-pedi-
12 gree hybrids was noc determined, but our results indicated that all
13 thresholds would be lass for the two open-pedigree hybrids tested
Ifc than, for Goker 16. The effects of 0, on injury rather than growth
15 under greenhouse conditions, were a better indicator of the reaction
•
15 under field conditions. It is not known *«hy growth of OP-1 was severely
j^7 affected in the field but not in the greenhouse.
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
-------
Heagle et al. - 15
1 LITERATURE CITED
2 1. BREWER, R. F., F. 3. GUILLEMET, and R. K. CREVELING. 1961. 4
3 Influence of N-P-K fertilization on incidence and severity -
4 of oxidant injury to mangels and spinach. Soil Sci. 92:298-301.
5 2. CAMERON, J. W. 1975. Inheritance in sweet corn for resistance
6 to acute ozone injury. J. An. Soc. Hort. Sci. 100:577-579.
7 3. CAMERON, J. W. and 0. C. TAYLOR. 1973. Injury to sweet-corn
5 inbreds and hybrids-by--air-pollutants in the field and by ozone
g treatments in the greenhouse J.-Environ.-Oual. 2:387-389. - --
10 4. HEAGLE, A. S., D. E. BODY, and W. W. KECK. 1973. An-open-top
H field chamber to assess the impacc of- air pollution on plants.
12 J- Environ. Qual. 2:365-368.
jj 5. HEAGLE, A. S., D. E. BODY, and G. E. NESLY. 1974. Injury and
i^ yield response of soybean to chronic doses of ozone and sulfur
j« dioxide in the field. Phytopathology 64:132-136.
16 6. HEAGLE, A. S., D. E. BODY, and S. K. POUNDS. 1972. Effect of
. - ozone on yield of sweet corn. Phytopathology 62:683-687.
,a 7. HEAGLS, A. S., R. 3. PHTLBECK, H. E. ROGERS, and H. 3. LETCEWORTH.
It)
1Q 1979. Dispensing and monitoring ozone in open—top field chambers
_o for plant effects studies. Phytopathology 69:
3. HECK, W. ft". 1968. Factors influencing expression of oxidant .
_., damage to plants. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 6:165-188.
9. HECK, tf. W., and J. A. DUNNI2TG. 1967. The effects of ozone on
,,, . tobacco and pinto bean as conditioned by several ecological
factors. J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 17:112-114.
-------
Keagla at al. - 16
1 10. HECK, w. W. , J. 3. MUDD, and ?. R. MILLER. 1977. Plane and
Z micro-organisms. In: "Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants."
3 Chap. 11, Vol. 2, Nat. Acad. Sci. , Washington, D. C. (Ingress).
^ 11. OSHIMA, R. J. 1273. Effect of ozone on a commercial sweet com
$ variety. Plant Disease Reporter 57:719-723.
6 12. SEIDMAN, G., I. J. EINDAWI, and W. W. HZCK. 1965. Enviranaental
7 conditions affecting the use of plants as indicators-- o-f-a-ir- —
8 pollution. J. Air Poll. "Contr. Assoc. 15 T 153-170-.-
9 13. THOMPSON, C, R. , Z. EENSEL,. and G. XAIS. -19.69. .Effects, of
10 photochemical air pollutants -on Zinfandel grapes. Hortic. 3ci.
U 4:222-224.
1214. THOMPSON, C. R. , G. SATS, and J. W. CAiMZRON. 1376. Effects of
13 ambient photochemical air pollutants on growth, jlald and aar
14 characters of tvo street cam hybrids. J. Environ. Oual. 5:
13 410-412.
Ifi 15. THOMSON, C. R. , and 0. C. TAYLOR. 1969. Effects of air pollu-
J.7 cants on growth, leaf drop, ruit drop, and yield of citrus trees.
12 Envircn. 5ci. Technoi. 3:934-940.
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
-------
Heagle at al. - 17
1 Figure I. Daily 24 and 7 hr (0930 co 1630 hr) mean ozone concentrations
2 in ambient air 4.8 km south of Raleigh, North Carolina.
2 Ozone was added for 7 hr/day to ambient air (AA) chambers
^ from 31 May through 27 August (A-C) in the threshold-dose
e study and from 22 June through 12 September (B-D) in the
g three-hybrid study.
j Figure 2. Mean ozone concentrations at different -times • of "the~day In
g ambient air (AA) , carbon- fil-tered-airr -chambers- -(CF) , or non-
* filterad-air chambers with different. .concentrations of. .ozone ._.
1Q .. added (NF-1) , (NF-2) , (NF-3), (NT-4) for 7 hr/day. Each
.. point is the mean from 31 May through 27 August, 1976, excepc
-_ for NF-4 which is the mean from 22 June through 12 September,
13
Figure_3. Foliar injury, at. 10 weekly intervals on 'Coker 16' corn grown
14
in ambient air (AA) , carbon-f iltered-air chambers CCF) , or
nonfiltered-air CNF) chambers with different concentrations
16
of ozone added for 7 hr/day O^T-i, NF-2, NF-3). Each aoint is
17
the mean injury per leaf on 24 plants C3 plants in 2 growth
18
media in each of 4 blocks). Confidence intervals shown are
19
the LSD C? = 0.05) values for treatment .x growth media.
20
Figure 4. Percentage injury per leaf on three field corn hybrids grown
in carbon-filterad-air CCF) or in nonfiltered-air chambers
22
with 0.10 ppm ozone added for 7 hr/day CNF-4) over a nine-week
23
period. Each ooint is the mean -of- 12 plants C4 plants in each
24
of three blocks) . Confidence intervals shown are the LSD
23
-------
Heagle a: al. - 13
1 CL * 0-05) values for craacaerit x hybrid.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 .
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Heagle et al. - 19
Table 1. Injury and growth response of 11 field corn hybrids co chronic
doses of ozone in a greenhouse.—
Hybrid
Open Pedigree
(FR 37 x H 84) x Va 26
FR 632 x H 94
FR 632 x FR 619 (OP-1)
B 73 x MO 17
H 95 x FR- 64A (OP-2)
Commercial
Pioneer 3368A
DeXalb XL 43
Coker 16
Funk G 4646
McNair x 170
DeKalb XL78
LSD 0.05 =
Foliar Injury—
(Leaves nos. 5,6,7,8)
(%)
24 ij
33 kl
34 kl
37 1
45 m
IS h
• 23 hi
1 23 hi ..
23 hi
25 ij
29 jk
5.3
Shoot Fresh Weight-
Control
(s)
98.8
74.3
55.8
61.4
71.7
73.2
75.3
86.3
73.0
83.7
72.7
Exposed ,
(% Loss)-7
37 kl
30 j
2 h
28 ij
63 n
27 i
29 ij
35 k
41 m
39 Ln -
38 1
2.8
— Plants were exposed to carbon-filtered .air (control) or to carbon-filtered
air plus ozone (mean concentration of 0.12 ppm for 7 hr/day for 21 days,
starting 14 days after planting.
— These leaves were chosen because no chlorosis or necrosis was present on
homologous leaves of control plants. Each value is the mean of 32 leaves
(4 leaves on each of 8 plants per cultivar) . Means followed by different
letters are significantly different (LSD ?_ = 0.05).
—'Each value is the mean of 8 plants/cultivar.. .Means followed by different
letters are significantly different (LSD P_ =• 0.05). '
^Percent loss is defined as 100 - ( ° ')10°-
v
-------
Heagle et_ al. - 20
Table 2. Mean ozone concentrations for 7 hr/day (0930-1630 hr) and 24
hr/day in field studies to determine threshold doses of ozone
for significant affects on fiald corn hybrids.
Threshold-Dose Three-Hybrid
Study*' StudyH/.
Treatment
Anbiaat Air (AA)
Carbon-Filtered Air (C7)
Nonfiltered Air -r Q_
Nonfilcered Air ~ 0.,
Nonfilterad Air •*• 0,
j
3
a/,, ....
— iarasnoj.c coses o;
15 ' zrown ia oots o
per treatment cover
25 C and 760 nm of
(NF-i)^
(NI-2)-7
ozone for ef
7 hr/
day
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.11
0.15
facts on
r in the ground vera
the period
Eg, 0.10 ppa
from 31
of 0, =
24 hr/ 7 hr/
day day
ppn
0.04 Qj36
0.01 0.02
0.0" . —
0.05 —
0.06 —
0 . 15
. inj ury , grovth and yiald
determined. Mean concent
May through 27 August, 197
196 ug/m",
24 hr/
day
.. .0-04
0.01
—
0.06
of 'Coke:
rations
6. Ac
— The effects of ozone on injury, growth and yield vera datamined for -vo
open-oedigrae hybrids and for 'CoJeer 15'. Mean concentrations per traat-
aenc for 22 June through 12 Septasber.
:errcr3-cions -in chanbers -for 7 hr per day
(0930 to 1630 hr) . Concentrations in NF chambers when Q, vas not added
* AA cines 0.37. J
-------
Heagle et al. - 21
Table 3. Growth and yield of 'Coker 16' field corn grown in either pots or
ground in ambient air with no chamber (AA) , or in open-top field
chambers and exposed continuously to charcoal-filtered air (CF)
or nonfiltered air with three levels of 0, added for 7 hr/day
(NF-1, NF-2, NF-3)£/
Treatment
7 hr daily
mean 0.,
cone £_'
ppm
Growth Media Jt
b/
Pots
Ground
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.11
0.15
LSD 0.05
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.11
0.15
LSD 0.05
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.11
0.15
LSD 0.05
Plant Height - cm
287
318
315
315
305
j
h
h
h
i
312
343
333
338--
323
k
h
i
- i
j
6.8
4.8
c/
Weight of stover - g—'
203
244
237
193
142
i
h
h
i
j
194
257
217
196
133
j
h
i
j
k
21.2
18.9
Weight of kernels g/plant—'
d/
234.9 h
240.1 h
243.3 h
239.1 h
209.8 i
11.0
221.3 j
239.1 hi
245.9 h
229.7 ij
201.5 k
15.5
d/
Weight -2/100 kernels—'
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.11
0.15
LSD 0.05
32.3 h
32.3 h
32.5 h
32.7 h
29.9 i
1.2
32.2 h
31.2 h
31.8 h
31.0 h
23.3 i
1.2
— Each value is the mean of 40 plants (8 plants in each of 5 blocks). Ozone was
added to the inlet duct of nonfiltered air (NF) chambers for 7 hr/day to
produce the 7 hr mean concentrations as shown.
— Data for each growth media were analyzed separately. Means for a given
response measure and growth media followed by different letters are
significantly different according to the LSD (?_ = 0.05) values (.treatment) .
-------
Eeagle e_t al. -22
— The aoisture content of stovers ranged from 10-25%.
— Tne values for kernel weights were adjusted to reflect a aoisture content
of 15.5%
-------
Keagle et al. - 23
Table 4. Growth and yield of three field corn hybrids grown in ambient air
with no chambers (AA), in charcoal-filtered-air open-top chambers
(CF) or in nonfiltered-air open-top chambers with 0., added for 7
hr/day (NF-4)£/ -1
Treatment
7 hr daily
mean 0., cone.
ppm
Coker
16
Effect per
OP-1
hybrid2-''
Plant Height
AA
CF
NF-4
0.
0.
0.
06
02
15
285
292
283
hi
h
i
256
259
240
j
j
k
OP- 2
- cm
227
233
212
.
1
kl
m
AA
CF
NF-4
AA
CF
NF-4
LSD 0.05 =
7.11
Weight of stover - 'g—
0.06
0.02
0.15
295
301
136
h
h
i
90
90
56
j
-j
k
80
100
53
jk
j
k
LSD 0.05 =
27.7
d/
Weight of kernels - g/plant—'
0.05
0.02
0.15
213.5 h
214.5 h
188.9 i
126.3
130.5
81.9
jk
jk
LSD 0.05 =
15.2
119.6 k
136.1 j
82.1 1
d/
Weight - g/100 kernels—'
AA
CF
NF-4
0.06
0.02
0.15
LSD 0.05 =
33.5 h
34.7 h
29.6 i
1.75
30.5 i
30.4 i
22.7 j
25 . 7 k
27.7 j
19.4 1
—0.08 ppm ozone was added to ambient concentration in nonfilterad-air .chambers
for 7 hr/day (0930-1430 hr). 0, concentrations shown are means for (0930-
1630 hr).
—Each value is the mean of 24 plants (8 plants in each of 3 blocks). Means
followed by different letters within a response measure are significantly
different according to the LSD C?_ =-'0.0'5) values (treatment x hybrid).
— The moisture content of stovers ranged from 10-252.
—The values shown have been corrected to reflect a moisture content of 15.5%.
-------
inure i
I I i i I !
7 HOUR MEi.M ( OD3O HOURS-I63O
2-4 HOL'R MEAN
.' U f,\\ ;.'
^l.-fUi
r •! i 4
_ 1 1 1 -.{ — _
A3 CD
1 1 1 1 I I ! 1 1 1 1 !
9/13
o.oo
O5OO
-------
igurc. 3
Mcrjr
70
^ GO
I
U.
5 50
(T
30
20 -
-0
,0
Figure
SO
SO —
£T 50
3
-3
Z
c ^o
_J
o
30
20
10 -
.
Cf t
' /,--
p 3
- I
c
W c t K
-------
Appendix B
1 Injury and Yield Responses of Spinach Cultivars to Chronic
2 Doses of Ozone in Open-Top Field Chambers—
3 A. S. Heagle, R. B. Philbeck, and M. B. Letchworth^-'' —
$ Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) cultivars were exposed con-
5 Cinuously during growth to carbon-filtered air or non-filtered
g ambient air in open-top field chambers. Constant low concentrations
j of ozone (0_) were added to the varying ambient concentrations in
a the non-filtered-air chambers for 7 hr (0920 to 1620 hr EOT) per
g day. There were significant differences in the amount~of~foliar"
,Q injury and shoot growth decrease among 11 spinach cuV:ivars exposed
.- for 7 hr/day to 0.13 ppm of 0_; America, Winter Bloomsdale, and
Sevea-R were less sensitive to foliar injury than Chesapeake,
E7brid-612, and Dixie Market. Shoot growth of America and Viroflay
w=s affected less and Hyfarid-612 and Dark Green Bloomsdale sore
14
^5 — Cooperative investigations of the U. S. Department of Agriculture
^g a=d the North Carolina State University. Paper number 5516 of the
»7 journal series of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
,g Raleigh, North Carolina 27650.
2/
-o — Plant Pathologist and Agricultural Engineer, Science and Education
2O Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Plant Pathology
21 Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C. 27650;
Research Assistant, Plant Pathology Department, North Carolina State
„. University, Raleigh, N. C. 27650.
—' The authors thank Hans Hamann for statistical analyses and Suzanne
24
Spencer, Madeleine Engel and John W. Johnston for their technical support.
-------
1 than that of most other cultivars. The cultivars Anerica, Winter
2 Bloomsdale, Hybrid 7, and Viroflay were exposed for 38 days co
3 determine threshold doses of 0 for injury and yield effects. The
^ threshold 7-hr/day mean 0, concentration for foliar injury was
5 between 0.02 and 0.06 ppta.. The.threshold for significantly decreased
g shoot growth of most spinach cultivars was between 0.06 and 0.10 ppta.
7 Shoot fresh weights of plants grown in the ground at 0.06, 0.10,
a and 0.13 ppm were 18, 37 and 69% less, respectively, chan plants
o grown at 0.02 ppta. Comparative values for potted plants grown in
._ a 1:1:1 oixture of sand:soil:Pro-Mix 3X were 4, 25, and 55%
respactively.
11
12 Additional index words: Oxidants, plant growth
13
13
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1 Ozone (0 ) is part of the photochemical oxidaut air pollution
2 that occurs over widespread areas of the United States (14, 18).
3 Reports of foliar injury to plants from exposure to ambient doses
4 of 0_ are common (11, 19), but there are relatively few reports of
5 the effects of 0, on. yield under field conditions (5, 6, 7, 12,
6 16, 17, 20, 21).
•j Commercial plantings of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) have
a been severely injured by photochemical oxidant pollution (3, 4, 15).
o Foliar symptoms from controlled exposure to 0^ are identical ~to~
,Q symptoms in the field (4, 15). There are no reports of the effects
. , of 0 on spinach yields, but several papers have reported threshold
.. doses of 0 causing foliar symptoms in short-term (acute) exposures
(13, 15). y^T^ng et al. (15) found differential foliar sensitivity
, a^cng six comercial cultivars exposed for 4 hr in a, greenhouse to
0.10, 0.15, 0.20, or 0.25 ppm of 0_. The cultivar America was
slightly injured at 0.10 ppm, while Winter 31ooir.sda.le and Bounty
16
,„ were injured at 0.15 ppm (15). Hill et al, (.13) found that the
17
injury threshold for four spinach cultivars, including Hybrid 7,
IS
was near 0.23 ppm for 2-hr exposures. There are no reports of the
effects on spinach of long-term (chronic) exposure to low 0_
20 3
concentrations .
21
For recommendations of appropriate control strategies, studies
22
are needed on the threshold doses of 0_ that can cause iniurv and
3
24
23
decrease crop yields. The present study was designed to determine
whether spinach cultivars vary in sensitivity to 0 and to determine
25 J
-------
1 threshold doses of 0 for injury and decreased shoot yield.
2 Spinach was exposed to low 0, concentrations for long periods in
3 open-top field chambers (5). The effaces of 0- on. injury and
4 yield of 11 spinach cultivars grown in pots were measured. Plants
5 of four cultivars- were grown in the ground or in pots to determine
g whether edaphic conditions affected sensitivity.
7 MATERIALS AND METHODS
. Spinach (Spinacia oleraeea L.) seeds were planted in 3.8-
. or 0.1-liter pots containing a 1:1:1 ratio by voiune"~cff~~saad': ~~
4/
,Q soil:Pro-Mix BX— . Pro-Mix 3X is a cotnnercial aixture of peac
aad periite with added nutrients (Premier Brands, Inc., New
York, N. T.). Planes were chinned to I/pot 9 days after planting.
Planes grown is 3.8~liter pots were fertilized with 6 g/pct of
14-4-5, OT-P-E:} on 12 September and with 3 g/?oc of 10-10-10
14
C2T-P-5) on 5 October.
Plants in 0.1 licar pots wera cransplantad into the ground
15
ia 2.4 3 rows in clay-loani or sandy-losa soil on 9 September.
They were fertilized on 15 Septanber with 100 g/row of 10-10-10
ia
Ol-P-tv) placed in a furrow, 8 cs. away froa the plants.
19
Plants were watered as needed to prevent wilting. Insects
20
4/
2*7 — Mencion of connercial products or equipment by nane does not
22 constitute a guarantee or warranty of Che product by the U. 5.
22 Deparcaent of Agriculture, or N'orth Carolina State University and
-A does not iaply their approval to the exclusion of other products
« chat siay be suitable.
-------
1 were controlled with weekly applications of Carbaryl (1-napthyl
2 methylcarbaniate) or a commercial preparation of Bacillus
3 thuringiensis.
4 Open-top field exposure chambers (5) 3-m diameter x 2.4-m
5 tall were used. In each of two studies, plants were exposed in
f chambers receiving charcoal-filtered air continuously or in chaia-
•j bers receiving nonfiltered air continuously with 0. added for
a 7 hr/day. Ozone was generated in oxygen by silent electric
_ discharge and constant concentrations were dispensed to the inlet
_Q ducts of the nonfiltered-air (NF) chambers for 7 hr/day (0920 to
1020 hr EDI) as described previously (8). With this method, we
produced a set of oxidant curves in the NF chambers that had a
constant relationship to the changing oxidant concentrations in
ij •
arbi=-c air. The daily 7 (0920 to 1620 hr) and 24 hr mean 0.
14 ->
concentrations at our field site from 10 September through
17 October 1976 are shown in Figure 1. Ozone concentrations were
16
monitored in ambient air (AA) and within chambers at plant height
17
using a monitoring system previously described (8).
13
Cultivar Sensitivity
19
Seeds of 11 cultivars (Table 2) were planted in 3.8-liter
20
pots on 30 August 1976. Two plants of each cultivar were placed
21
randomly in each quadrant of eight chambers (2 chambers in each of
22
four replicates). Exposures began on 15 September and continued
23
for 33 days. Plants in 1 chamber/reulicate were exposed continuously
24
to carbon-filtered air (CF). Plants in the other chamber were
25
-------
1 exposed continuously co nonfiltered air with 0.08 ppa of 0_
2 added to ambient concentrations for 7 hr/day (NF-4) . The mean
3 0. concentrations and diurnal fluctuations of 0_ for the CF and
4 NF-4 treatments are shown in Table 1 and Figure 2, respectively.
5 The percentage chlorosis and necrosis (in-jury) of individual
6 leaves was estinated at 5Z increments (0-100%) on 15 October.
7 Plant shoots were harvested and weighed on 19 October. Shoots
Q were dried for 5 days at 70 C and weighed. Analyses of variance
9 were performed and/'.LSD (?_ = 0.05) fces±s-we=a used as "a'aielH
2£ separation technique when F tests were significant.
^7 Dose Response
J9 Seeds of the cultivars America, Winter Bloomsdale, Hybrid 7,
T, and 7iroflav were planted on 31 August 1976. Sixteen chambers
., vera used (faur chambers in. each of four blacks). Five plants
. - of each cultivar grown in 0.1-liter pots were transplanted into
15 ' ' 7^
,~ the sround in. each of 2 rows/chamber as shown in Figure 3. The ~
16 f-
four plants nearest the chamber walls in each row were not used •r-.f-sf-'
_^*.«^J*^
in data analyses. Plants growing in the ground in one block, were „_/
Ho ' ''
^S-r*-S
subsequently discarded because of poor growth from an unknown - -
19 **-* '"'
/}r
cause in two plots. ^
20 . -
Two plants of each cultivar grown in the 3.8-licar pots were j^
randomly placed on the ground in each of 4 quadrants/ chamber as „_„„
22 >
^ ~-,2Z*
shown in Figure 3. Eight plants of Winter Sloonsdale and Hybrid 7 ; ~'"~~
23 ,c*— ^.
grown in 3.8-liter pots were placed in an ambient-air plot (no •;z
24 ^->-^
chamber) in each block. •'•''~Lss
23 f-
-------
1 Exposures began on 10 September and continued for 38 days,
2 Plants in. one chamber/block were exposed continuously to carfaon-
3 filtered air. Plants in 3 chambers /block, were exposed continuously
4 to nonfiltered air, but in addition, each received a. different
5 constant concentration of 0_ for 7 hr/day. The mean added Q_
g concentrations were 0.01, 0.05, or 0.08 ppm for the NF-1, NF-2,
7 and NF-3 treatments, respectively. These additions resulted in
g 7 hr/day mean concentrations for each treatment as shown in
« Table 1. Figure 2 shows the mean diurnal concentratTaV~£Tuctua-
,Q tions for each treatment.
-- Foliar injury and fresh weight responses were measured on
._ 12 October and 13 October, respectively. Plants were dried and
_ weighed as- described previously. Separate analyses of variance
S CAT.-V .....}
&-£ LSD ass*s vara pes§£H:me4i for plants grown in each media. A
l-»
cs^biaad analysis was porforraed on plants in 3 blocks to determine
16
vhsthar growth media affected the amount of loss in shoot weight
caused by 0 .
RESULTS
13
Cultivar Sensitivity
19
Symptoms of foliar injury resembled those described previously
20
(4, 15). However, in this experiment, the major symptom was
21
chlorosis rather than bifacial necrosis. Foliar injury of the
22
11 cultivars ranged from 49 to 65% greatar at 0.13 ppm than at
23
0.02 ppm (Table 2). America, Winter Bloomsdale, and Seven-R were
24
less sensitive than Chesapeake, Hybrid-612, and Dixie Market.
25
-------
>-
1 Thers were no obvious relationships between foliar injury
2 and shoot fresh or dry weight (Table 2). The correlation coefficients
3 between injury and shoot fresh and dry weight were 0,069 and 0.052,
4 respectively. Percentage loss ia shooc fresh weight ac 0.13 ppzn
5 03 ranged from 33% for Viroflay to 512 for Kybrid-612 (Table-2).
5 If the effects oo shoot weight wera used as a measure of relative
7 sensitivity, Aaerica and Viroflay ---are lass sensitive chan Hybrid-612,
g Dark. Green Bloomsdale, Seven-R, and Dixie Market.
« Dose—B.asponse
• Q Injury on all four cultivars ia-crsased as the 0_ concantratior.
«. incrsassd (Table 3). The ozone trastaar.t and cultivar affects
-_ were significant but thera was no significant cultivar x 0. treacseat intar-
.^ actiact in aichsr growth sadia. The acsunt of foliar injury caused
, , b~ 0, was sizilar in both siadia C'abla 3). Mean foliar injury
1*4 J
for all plazrs was 5, 38, and 35S at 0.05, 0.10, and 0.13 ppra of 5.,
L6
Taa corrslacion coefficianc across traacsents becvean. shoot
frash weight and shoot dry weight vas 0.97. Therefore, only cha
13
effects of 0, on shoot fresh weight will be discussed further.
19 3
The threshold 0 concantraticn for decrsasad growth depended
20 3
partially on the growth nedia, as vail ^s the culcivar (table 4);
21
the interactions between 0_ traaczaflt ar.d growth tnedia and between
22 3
0. treatment and cultivar were significant statistically but the
23 3
three-way interaction vas not. Tor th* cultivars cot2.bir.ad, the
24
growth of ootred plants was decreased less by 0, than that of
23 ' 3
-------
/7*.*r (
1 plants grown in the soil. The is»&*& effect was significant at
A.
2 0,06 and 0.10 ppm but not at 0,13 ppm. Considering the 0.02-
3 ppm 0 treatment (CF) as the control, the mean weight loss for
4 all potted plants was 4, 25, and 65% at 0.06, 0.10, and 0.13
5 ppm, respectively. For plants grown in the ground, the.comparative
5 losses were 18, 37 and 69%, respectively. For potted plants,
1 shoot weight of all cultivars except Viroflay was significantly
3 affected at 0.10 ppm (Table 4). For plants in the ground, shoot
g weight of Viroflay was significantly affected at 0.06 ppm while
ng that of other cultivars was not.
11 The shoot weights of potted Winter Bloomsdale in AA (0,05 ppm
12 ®i) was 33.6 o as compared to 36.6 g for those grown in the NF-1
*^ cnanber treatment (0.06 ppm 0,). However, Hybrid 7 plants growing
. ,. ir. at^bietxt air were significantly smaller (47.1 g) than those
proving- in tha NF-1 chambers (60.4 g).
15
There were statistically significant quadrant and quadrant x
cultivar effects for shoot weight i
17 A _
no significant quadrant y. 0_ treatment nor quadrant x 0 treatment
13 -^ f 3
x cultivar effects-^vv wi-^-A^., +w*-1~-*-'-*~t •
19
DISCUSSION
20
The reason for greater decrease in shoot weights for plants
grown in the ground than in pots at some 0 doses may be ralaced
22 -*
to growth media differences in fertility, physical characteristics,
23
water relations, or combinations of these or other edaphic factors.
24
The reported effects of fertilizer rates and physical factors o£
25
-------
10
1 growth media on plant sensitivity to 0 have been reviewed (9, 11).
2 Braver _et_ al. (1) have shown the importance of nutrition on foliar
3 injury caused by 0- on Viroflay spinach but the cause and effect
4 relationships for the main fertilizer elements have not been
5 determined. Oxidants injured Bel W tobacco less in open-top
g field chanbers when plants were grown in pots in a nix of peat-
7 perlite-soil than when they were grown in the ground (5). However,
£ potted tobacco and pinto bean plants were niora sensitive vhen grown
n in growth oedia containing veraiculite, perlite, or peat than in
-Q pots containing field soil (10). In our study, roots of plants in
.. pots ware zot pot-bound and moisture vas adequate to prevent
-2 wilting. While plants grown in tha ground were the sane age as "hose
, in pots, they ware slower growing after transplanting than those
in the pots. These results show a need for further work to determine
1^
relative responses to 0. of plants grown in different growth aedia.
Foliar injury causes decreased photosynthesis and, therefore,
16
decreased availability of aetafaolites required for growth. Chang
and Eeggestad (2) have shown a direct ispairzrant by 0 of the
photochemical activity of photosystea II, and a decrease in the
19
amount of E-carotene in the chloroplasts when spinach'was exposed
20
to 0.35 pom 0- for 60 to 80 ninutes. In our dose-response study,
21 ' 3
the correlation coefficient between foliar injury and frash weight
22
of shoots was -0.186 for plants in pots and -0.147 for plants in
23
the ground. The reason for lack of significant correlations between
24
foliar injury and fresh weight of shoots is not clear. Possibly
25
-------
11
1 large plant-to-plant variability in both injury and shoot weight
2 within cultivars is a cause. It is possible that better correlations
3 would occur if injury and weight measures were taken on the same
4 day. However, apparently some cultivars can sustain more foliar
5 injury than others with comparatively less decrease in shoot
g growth. For example, Viroflay was injured significantly more than
7 was America but there was no difference in the effects of 0., on
g weight of shoots (Table 2). There were no significant differences
n in foliar injury between America and Seven-R but Seven-R weight
,- loss was significantly greater than that for America (Table 2).
.. In a previous report (15) foliage of America was found to
0 be more sensitive than foliage of Winter Bloomsdale, when they were
JM»
exposed once for 4 hr to 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 or 0.25 ppm 0 . In our
JL«3 • J
study with chronic exposures, foliar sensitivity of these two cul-
14
tivars was similar (Table 3). The different results may be related
to different cultural methods, doses of 0,, or growth conditions
16 3
that differentially affected the sensitivity of the two cultivars.
For the four cultivars common-to both of the present studies,
13
foliar injury and loss of shoot weight for potted plants was greater
19
at 0.13 ppm for the dose-response study than for the cultivar
20
sensitivity study, probably because of the differences in duration
21
of exposure. However, the relative sensitivity of the four cultivars
22
was the same in both studies (Tables 2-4).
23
The threshold 0, concentration (7-hr/day mean) for significantly
24 3
(P - 0.01) decreased shoot weight of most of the spinach cultivars
25
-------
12
1 tested was between 0.06 and 0.10 ppm. The 0.06 ppa concentration
2 is probably lower than levels found in some spinach growing areas
2 of the East (14) and the 0.10 ppm concentration is probably exceeded
^ in some spinach growing areas of California (18). Using the results
2 reported in Table 4 with values at 0.02 ppta considered as controls,
g we can roughly predict, with some extrapolation, probable weight
- losses at higher 0, concentrations. Assuming that ambient oxidant
_ levels fluctuate diumally like those at our field site, with 7-hr/
o
day mean 0, concentrations of 0.07, 0.09, 0.11 and 0.13 ppa during
37 days of growth, the predicted shoot weight decreases of a spinach
•0
cultivar with average resistance would be approximately 20, 30, 50,
and 65Z respectively. We have not attempted to assign spinach
crop loss valuss that slight result from various accounts of foliar
injury. With, present mechanical harvesting methods and the prohibitive
14
ccszs of separating injured from non-injured leaves, even small
amcumcs af injury could greatly decrease the value of a spinach
16
crop, Hora foliar injury would probably be allowable on spinach to
17
be canned than on spinach for use as fresh market produce.
13
Our study did not consider effects of Q at different stages
19 3
of growth. Ambient fluctuations in oxidant concentrations (Figure 1)
20
were used in determining the dose. The seasonal oxidanc dose ovar
21
the past several years near Raleigh, North Carolina has been relatively
22
constant; the 7-hr/day mean concentration has usually been between
23
0.05 and 0.07 ppra during the summer months. Loss figures might
2A
differ from year to year with the same total 0. dose but with
25
different levels of 0_ occurring at various growth stages.
-------
13
1 LITERATURE CITED
2 1. Brewer, R. F., F. B. Guillemet, and R. K. Graveling. 1961.
3 Influence of N-P-K fertilization on incidence and severity
4 of oxidant injury to mangels and spinach. Soil Sci. 92:298-301.
^ *
5 2. Chang, C. W., and H. E. Heggestad. 1974. Effects of ozone on
6 photosystem II in Spinacia oleracea chloroplasts.
%
7 Phytochemistry 13:871-873.
g 3. Daines, R. H., I. A. Leone, and E. Brennan. 1960. Air pollution
o as it affects agriculture in New Jersey. New Jersey Agr.
JQ Exp. Sta. Bull. 794.
«, 4. Daines, R. H., I. A. Leone, E. Brennan, and J. T. Middlaton.
,2 1960. Damage to spinach and other vegetation in New Jersey
, . fron ozona and other airborne oxidants. Phytopathology 50:
.t 570 (Abstr.).
5. Haagle, A. S., D. E. Body, and W. W. Heck. 1973. An open-top
field chamber to assess the impact of air pollution on plants.
16
J. Environ. Qual. 2:365-368.
6. Heagle, A. S., D. E. Body, and G. E. Neely. 1974. Injury and
13
yield responses of soybean to chronic doses of ozone and sulfur
19
dioxide in the field. Phytopathology 64:132-136.
20
7. Heagle, A. S., D. E. Body, and E. K. Pounds. 1972. Effect of
21
ozone on yield of sweet corn. Phytopathology 62:683-687.
22
8. Heagle, A. S., R. B. Philbeck, H. H. Rogers, and M. 3. Letchworth.
23
1978. Dispensing and monitoring ozone in open-top field
24
chambers for plant-effects studies. (Phytopathology, In Press).
25
-------
14
1 9. Heck, W. W. 1968. Factors.influencing expression of oxidant
2 damage to plants. Annu. Rav. Phytopathol. 6:135-188.
3 10. Heck, W. W., and J. A. Dunning. 1967. The effects of ozone
4 on tobacco and pinto bean as conditioned by several ecological
5 factors. J. Air Politic. Control Assoc. 17:112-114.
6 11. Heck, W. W., J. B. Mudd, and P. R. Miller. 1977. Plants and
7 microorganisms. p. 437-585. In: "Ozone and Other Phoco-
g chenical Oxidants." Chap. 11, Vol. 2, National Acad. Sci.,
9 Washington, D. C. 1977.
, 12. Heggestad, H. E., A. S. Heagle, and J. P. Heiners. 1973.
. Effects of oxidant air pollution on yields of green beans.
Proc. Inc. Congr. of Plant Pathol., 2nd, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
1973. (Abscr.).
13. Hill, A. C., H. R. Pack, M. Tresfaow, R. J. Downs, and L. G.
Transeras. 1961. Plant injury induced by ozone. Phyto-
aachology 51:356-363.
16
14. Jacobson, J. 3., and G. 0. SalotColo, 1975. Photochemical
oxidants in the Mew York-New Jersey netrooolitan area.
13
Ataos. Environ. 9:321-332.
19
15. Manning, W. J., W. A. Feder, and I. Perkins. 1972. Sensitivity
20
of spinach cultivars to ozone. Plant Disease Reporter 56:
21
832-833.
22
16. MacLean, D. C., and R. E. Schneider. 1976. Photocheoical
23
oxidants in Yonkers, Sew York: Effects on Yield of Bean and
24
Tomato. J. Environ. Qual. 5:75-73.
23
-------
15
1 17. Oshima, R. J., R. K. Braegelmann, D. W. Baldwin, V. Van Way,
2 and 0. C. Taylor. 1977. Reduction of tomato fruit size
3 and yield by ozone. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102:289-293.
4 18. Pitts, J. N., J. L. Sprung, M. Poe, M. C. Carpelan, and
5 A. C. Lloyd. 1976. Corrected South Coast air basin
6 oxidant data: Some conclusions and implications. Environ.
7 Sci. and Technol. 10:794-801.
g 19. Rich, S. 1964. Ozone damage to plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.
g 2:253-266.
JQ 20. Thompson, C. R., E. Hensel, and G. Kats. 1969. Effects of
*7 photochemical air pollutants on Zinfandel grapes. Hort.
j^ Sci. 4:222-224.
,, 21. Thompson, C. R., G. Kats, and J. W. Cameron. 1976. Effects
., of ambient photochemical air pollutants on growth, yield
-_ and ear characters of two sweet corn hybrids. J. Environ.
., Qual. 5:410-412.
lo
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Table 1. Mean ozone (0 ) concentrations for 7 hr/day (0920 to 1620 hr EDT)
and standard deviations in two experiments to determine the effects
of 0- on spinach.
a/
treatment—
Asbiant Air (AA)
Carbon Filtered Air
Cultivar Sensitivity Study—
O.-ppm Standard &—
deviation
0.047 0.018 330
0.024 0.012 330
Dose-Response Study—
0,-ppa Standard
deviation
0.046 0.019
0.024 0.012
*&
380
380
(CF)
c/
Nonfiltered Air -r 0 — '
0.056 0.019
1520
Nonfiltered Air 4- 0
(NF-2)
Nonfiltered Air +• 0
(NF-3)
Nonfiltersd Air +• 0
(NF-4)
0.125
0.027
1320
0.096 0.027 1520
0.129 0.027 1520
a/
Ozone "-a.3 iddad to asbier." concentrations in nonfilterad-air (NF) chambers
for 7 hr/ds- (G920 to 1520 hr ZDT).
— Heatis for 15 September through 17 October, 1976.
— Means for 10 September through 17 October, 1976.
— The AA and CF means were calculated from N number of 2-oinuta readings
(10 readings/7 hr/day) froia one sampling location/mean. The 117 aeans were
calculated from N number of 2-sinuta readings (10 readings/7 hr/day) from
four chasibers/mean.
-------
Table 2. Injury and growth response of 11 spinach cultivars exposed in open-top field chambers to carbon-
filtered air (0.02 ppjn 0„) or non-filtered air with 0 added for 7 hr/day (0.13 ppm 0 }.-
J _y J
Cultivar
America
Winter Bloomsdale
Seven-R
Hybrid-424
Hybrid 7
Viking
Dark Green Bloomsdale
Viroflay
Chesapeake
Hybrid-612
Dixie Market
LSD 0.05
— 0_ concentrations
i / J
Foliar
Injury
49 h
52 hi
52 hi
54 hij
56 hijk.
58 hijk
58 hljk
6Q ijk
63 jk
65 k
65 . k
9.95
are means for
0.02j
(>0
4,'i.O
-.17.5
67.6
65. 'J
61,'J
48.4
51.2
68.0
61.5
62.6
58.2
7 hr/day
SUoot FresU Weight
put 0.13 f
(r.) (
20.8
20.6
30.4
30.2
35,3
27 . 1
21.5
45.6
3$. 7
24.4
26.2
(0920 to 1620 hr
% lo!Jti}->
36 hi
45 ij
55 jlc
42 111
43 hi
44 hij
58 k
33 h
42 hi
61 Y
55 jk
11.00
EOT) for
Shoot
0.02 ppm
-------
Table 3. Percentage foliar injury per leaf of four spinach cultivars grown
in pocs or in Che ground and exposed to different concentrations of
ozone.5.'
Treatment
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
7 hr/day-
meaa 0.
cone.
(ppa)
0.06
0.10
0.13
./
America
3
41
65
Hean Foliar Injury - %—
Winter
Bloomsdale
Plants in
7
37
62
Hybrid
Pots - Z
9
44
63
Plants in Ground - %
NF-1
N?F-2
NF-3
0.06
0.10
0.13
3
36
60
3
33
65
9
39
69
7 Viraflay
Injury
6
37
59
In j ury
0
36
70
Jra*,
"
—
8*
40**
64**
5*
36**
66**
a/
Concentrations shown are the neans for 7 hr/day (0920 co 162Q hr SOT) for
33 days (10 Septaaber through 17 October).
b/ „ .
— m 1
c/
Joliar is/jury is cafined as (Injury of NF-treatad plants - Injury of CF-
treated pleats). Isch cultivar value for pottsd plants is the sean of
96 leaves (3 leaves aa 3 plants in 4 blocks). Each cultivar value for
plants in the ground is the niean of 72 leaves (3 leaves on 3 plants in-. 3
blocks). Theresa percentage foliar injury (chlorosis and necrosis) for •^.-^/••^
'CF-treated-CO.02 ppc) cgasrSS of America, Winter Bloomsdala, Hybrid 7,
"and Viroflay plants in pots was 3, 5, 10, and 13, respectively; the
comparative values for plants in the ground were 1, 2, 3, and S, respectively.
The ? tests for treatment and cultivar ware highly significant but the
treatment x cultivar interaction was not significant for either growth
aedia. * and ** = significantly different fron the controls at the 0.01
and 0.05 level of confidence according to the treatment LSDs.
-------
19
Table 4. Percentage loss of shoot fresh veight of four spinach cultivars
grown in pots or in the,ground and exposed to different con-
centrations of ozone.—
Treatment
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
7 hr/day^
mean 0_
cone.
(ppm)
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.10
0.13
Fresh Weight of Shoots - Percentage Loss-
America
11
33**
60**
23
39**
70**
Winter
Bloomsdale
Plants
8
35**
70**
Plants
19
44**
73**
Hybrid 7
in Pots
.6
29**
71**
in Ground
4
35**
61**
Viroflay
•_c/
11 ^
59** ^
26* / !
35** *
72** £
— Concentrations shown, are the neans for 7 hr/day (0920 to 1620 hr EDI) for
38 cays (10 September through 17 October).
b/ _ , , .. , , nn .weight of NF-treated plants% irt_
— Percentage less is d2-^r.ad as 100 - (—r=r r-r^ fc j f\ ) 100.
0 weight or CF-treated plants
Each value for pottac plants is the sear. o£ 32 plants (S plants in - blocks).
Each value for plants in the ground is the mean of 24 plants (3 plants in 3
blocks). The 2=an fresh weights of shoots for CF-treated controls (0.02 ppm)
of America, Winter Blooi^sdale, Hybrid 7, and Viroflay plants in pots were
45.1, 39.4, 64.5, and 69.Og,respectively; comparative values for plants in the
ground were 21.1, 20.6, 35.6, and 40.5 g respectively. The F tests for treatment,
cultivar and the trestnent x cultivar interaction were highly significant for
both growth mediay?X^"anj) ** = significantly different from the respective
"contr51s""aT~the 0.01 ariiri 0. 05 level of confidence, respectively according to
the LSDs for the cuTtivar x treatment interaction.
c/
— The minus sign indicates a percentage gain.
-------
Table 5. Degrees of freedom and nean squares for foliar injury and shooc
fresh weight of four spinach culcivars grown in pots or in Che
ground and exposed to different concentrations of ozone.
Foliar Injury
Source
Block
Treatment (T)
Error A
Cultivar (C
T x C
Error B
Shoot Fresh "eiaht
Source
Block
Treatment (T)
Error A
quadrant C")
T x q
Error 3
Culcivar (C)
T x C
q x c
T x q x C
Error C
df
3
3
9
3
9
36
3
3
9
3
9
36
3
9
9
27
144
Plants in Pots
Mean Square
-
169
41093 **^
245
996 **
40
121
1217
33869 **
336
5229 **
269
211
23016 **
992 **
390 **
211
204
Plants
df
2
3
6
3
9
24
2
3
6
3
9
24
3
9
9
27
96
in the Ground
Mean Square
31
34347 **
26
- 423 -**--
75
46
325
7227 **
430
273
137
93
5363 **
256 **
56
96
80
The F test vas significant at ?_ » 0.01.
-------
1 FIGURE LEGENDS
2 Figure 1. Mean 0 concentrations in anbient air (AA) for 7 hr/day
3 - (0920 to 1620 hr EDI) and 24 hr/day 4.8 ko south of
$ Raleigh, N. C. from 10 September through 17 October, 1976.
5 A •% C « duration of the dose-response study; B •> C =
g duration of the cultivar sensitivity study.
7 Figure 2. Mean, hourly 0. concentrations in ambient air (AA),
a carfaon-filtered-air chambers (CF) and nonfiltered-air
Q (NF) chambers to which different: concentrations of 0-
,Q were added for 7 hr/day (NF-1, 2, 3) froo 10 September
-. through 17 October, 1976. The hourly means for the
., }i"?-4 treatment are values for 15 September through
17 October, 1976.
Fisura 3. Diagram of spinach cultivar positions in chamber plots;
o = potted plants, A = plants in Che ground. 1 =• America,
2 = Winter Bloomsdale, 3 = Viroflay, 4 = Hybrid 7.
15
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
O.O8
O.O7
a
a O.O6
O.O5
u
Z
O
O.O-*
O.O3
Z
O
M
O O.O2
O.O I
o.oo
\
c
9/1O
I
I
9/2O
9/3O
OATE
IO/IO
O.IS
O.I*
I o.ia
a
t
Z
O 0.1O
2 o.aa
u
z
O
-------
*
A
*
*
*
ft
*
*
*
A
*
A.
*
*
*
*
A
T
i
•
s
1
>
I
1
*
X
1
4
•
>
4
»
1
>
»
*
1
*
•
4
1
*
1
*
*
>
X
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
k^
-------
Appendix C
1 Yield Responses of Winter Wheat Cultivars to
2 Chronic Doses of Ozone
3 Allen S. Heagle, Suzanne Spencer, Michael B. Letchworth
^ Plant Pathologist, Southern Region, Science and Education
e Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Plant Pathology
g Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C. 27650;
- and Graduate Research Assistant and Plant Physiologist respectively,
_ Plant Pathology Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, N. C. 27650.
10 ~
Abstract
The relative sensitivity of 11 cultivars of soft red winter
wheat, Triticm aestivum L., exposed as young plants to ambient
levels of oxidant air pollution was determined. On the basis of the
14
shoot weight response, the cultivars Holly and Blueboy II were
significantly more sensitive than Oasis or Coker 47-27. Plants of
16
these four cultivars, grown in pots or in the ground, were exposed
for 54 days in open-top field chambers to different concentrations
18
of 0_ added for 7-hr/day to existing levels of ambient oxidants.
19 3
The effects of 0 on injury, growth, and yield were determined.
20 3
For the four cultivars combined, in both growth medias, the
21
22
Cooperative investigations of the U. S. Department of Agriculture
23
and the North Carolina State University. Paper No. of the Journal
24
Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Research..Service, Raleigh.
25
-------
1 threshold 0_ concentration (7-hr/day mean) for significant injury
2 and decreased yield was between 0.06 and 0.10 ppm. For potted
3 plants, exposed to 0.10 and 0.13 ppm of 0_, seed weight yields were
4 10 and 27% less, respectively, than seed yield of plants in charcoal-
5 filtered-air chambers (0.03 ppm). For plants in the ground at 0.10
g and 0.13 ppm, the yields were 16 and 34% less, respectively, than
7 at 0.03 ppm. The relative sensitivity of cultivars to growth effects
a as young plants was not a good predictor of relative sensitivity of
a cultivars to yield effects.
.- Additional key words: air pollution, photochemical oxidants
11
Introduction
Present estimates of economic losses to agricultural crops
from exposure to air pollutants are based primarily on visual
14
estiaates of foliar injury (1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). However,
except for foliage crops, little is known of the relationships
16
between injury of leaves and loss of yield (1). Experimental
effects of ambient oxidants on yield of crops have been reported for
13
only a few species and recent reviews have emphasized the need for
19
further research (6, 14, 17). There are no reports of the effect
20
of long-term exposure to ambient oxidants on yield of wheat,
21
Triticum sp.
22
In greenhouse tests (7, 15) wheat was relatively sensitive to
23
ozone (0_), the principle phytotoxic component of ambient photochem-
24 3
ical oxidants. In a field test, ozone at 0.20 ppm for 4-hr/day on
25
-------
1 7 days during anthesis significantly decreased yield of winter
2 wheat, T^ aestivum L., Arthur 71 and Blueboy (16). In another
3 field test, the biomass of T^ aestivum was decreased by exposure
4 to 0.08 - 0.10 ppm of 0 for 5-hr/day but effects of 0 on yield
5 were not reported (14).
$ Our objectives were to determine threshold concentrations of
7 0_ in long-term (chronic) exposures, required to cause significant
g injury and decrease growth and yield of T_. aestivum cultivars under
9 field conditions. The relative sensitivity of 11 cultivars was
JQ determined and four cultivars with varying degrees of sensitivity
i^ were selected for dose-response studies.
12
,« Materials and Methods
. , Cultivar sensitivity - Eleven cultivars of soft red winter
._ wheat, Triticua aestivum L., (Table 1) were tested. Seeds were
, planted in 3.8-liter pots containing a 1:1:1 mixture of sand:
lo
Metro-Mix 200 :soil (Appling, Typic Hapludults; clayey, Icaolinitic
thermic) on 6 August 1976. Metro-Mix 200 is a mixture of perlite,
13
peat moss, vermiculite, and sand with added nutrients (W. R. Grace
20
Mention of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not
constitute a guarantee or warranty by the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture or the North Carolina Agricultural Research .Service, and does
23
not imply approval of it to the exclusion of other products or vendors
24
that also may be suitable. • -
23
-------
1 and Co., Cambridge, MA..)- Seedlings were thinned to three/pot on
2 16 August. Plants were watered as needed to prevent wilting.
3 Insects were controlled with one application of Malathion and
4 Carbaryl.
5 Plants in five pots/cultivar were placed randomly in each of
5 two open-top field chambers (3^). Plants in one chamber were
7 exposed continuously to charcoal filtered air (CF); those in the
g other chamber were exposed continuously to nonfiltered air (NF).
9 Ozone (0.10 ppm = 196 yg/m ) was added to existing oxidant concen-
10 trations in the air of the NF chamber for 7-hr/day (0930 to 1630 hr
11 EDT) for 27 days starting on 17 August. Ozone was dispensed to the
12 inlet air stream of the NF chamber and was monitored at plant-canopy
,. height in both chambers using an automatic dispensing and monitoring
., sjste^ described previously (4).
1 Fresh and dry (70° C - 5 days) weights of plant shoots were
treasured on 15 September. Analyses of variance were performed and
16
significant differences between cultivars were identified using the
LSD test when the F test was significant (P = 0.05).
13
Dose-response - Four cultivars were selected on the basis of
19
their sensitivity to 0 as seedlings; Holly and Blueboy II were
20 3
sensitive and Oasis and Coker 47-27 were resistant (Table 1).
An 0.8 ha field was fertilized with 8-8-8 (N-P-K) fertilizer
22
at the rate of 113 kg/ha prior to planting. Seeds were planted at
the rate of 70 kg/ha on 2 November, 1976, using a 12-row grain
planter with a 17.5 cm row spacing. The hopper of the planter was
25
-------
1 partitioned to allow a separate cultivar to be planted in each
2 of three rows (three four-row strips containing one row of each
3 cultivar in the same sequence). On 3 November, seeds of each
4 cultivar were planted in 3.8-liter pots containing a 1:1:1 mixture
5 of sand:Metro-Mix:sandy-loam soil (Appling). Potted plants were
6 watered as needed and left outdoors for the duration of the winter.
7 On 15 March 1977, 20 3 x 2 m field plots (five in each of
3 four blocks) were selected on the basis of uniform plant appearance
g and physical soil characteristics within each block. Two blocks
J_Q were located on sandy-loam soil (Appling) and two blocks were on
jj^ clay-loam soil (Cecil, Typic Hapludults). On 21-23 March, plants
»2 in field plots were thinned to one plant/5-8 cm and plants in pots
., were thinned to two/pot. Fertilizer (10-10-10, N-P-K) was applied
., on 29 }£arch at the rate of 320 kg/ha in field plots and 5 g/pot.
^ _ Plants in the ground and in pots were watered as needed to provide
, uniform soil moisture and prevent wilting. Aphids were controlled
lo
with an application of Malathion on 21 April.
Open-top field chambers, 3 m diameter by 2.4 m tall, (3, 4)
13
were placed on 16 field plots (four plots in each of four blocks)
on 28 March; the fifth plot in each block remained in ambient air
20
(AA) with no chamber. Plants in one chamber per block were exposed
21
continuously to charcoal-filtered air (CF). Plants in the remaining
22
three chambers were exposed continuously to nonfiltered (NF) air
23
(particulate filter only). However, from 9 April to 31 May 1977,
24
small constant concentrations of 0 were added to -the existing
-------
1 ambient oxidant concentrations in the NF chambers for 7-hr/day
2 (0930 to 1630 hr EDT). Ozone addition of 0.02 ppm (NF-1) resulted
3 in 7-hr oxidant curves that resembled ambient curves by making up
^ for the 0_ lost in the chamber air handling system. Ozone addition
5 of 0.06 ppm (NF-2) or 0.09 ppm (NF-3) resulted in 7-hr oxidant
g curves with 0 concentrations averaging 0.04 and 0.07 ppm, respectively,
•j above ambient concentrations.
. The design for potted plants was similar to that for plants in
_ the ground. Eight pots per cultivar were randomly placed in each of
,ft 12 open-top chambers and in three ambient air (AA) plots (two pots
. in each of four chamber quadrants) on 29 March. This provided for
three replicates of the five treatments as described for plants
grown in the ground.
When exposures began, plants in the ground had five to six
14
leaves with a mean height of 28, 34, 45, and 41 cm in blocks 1-4,
respectively. Plants in pots also had five to six leaves with a
16
mean height of 28 cm. Plant height, growth stage, and foliar injury
were recorded once each week for 6 weeks starting on 19 April.
13
Injury (chlorosis and necrosis) was visually estimated in 5% incre-
19
ments (0-100%) on the four uppermost leaves of three plants per
20
cultivar for each treatment in two blocks.
21
Plants were harvested on 8-10 June. For plants in the ground,
22
yield measures were taken for two rows per cultivar (one row in each
23
half of the chamber). Each of the eight rows were subdivided into
24
six 40-cm sections from which a sample of four plants were randomly
23
-------
1 chosen for yield measure. Plants in Che two outer and two center
2 rows of each plot and those in the 20-30 cm at the ends of rows
3 were used only as borders. All potted plants were harvested and
4 the two plants/pot were treated as one sample. The total shoot
5 weight (stems, leaves, and heads), and number and weight of heads
£ were determined at harvest. The heads were threshed by hand and
7 seed weight per sample, weight of 100 seeds, and seed moisture content
g were measured.
o Separate statistical analyses were performed on data from
JQ plants in the ground and for potted plants. Analyses of variance
•« were performed and LSD (P = 0.05) tests were used when warranted by
-» significant F tests. Regression analyses were performed to determine
... relationships between percentage foliar injury and seed yield for
, , Dlants in each medium separately using the block x treatment x
14
cultivar means.
16
Results
Cultivar sensitivity - Foliar symptoms of 0 injury included
18 j
chlorosis and small white necrotic areas (flecking), as previously
described (7). Bifacial necrosis occurred on young leaves of
20
Ruler, Holly, and Blueboy II, but not on other cultivars. A significant
21
interaction between 0_ treatment and cultivars occurred for shoot
22 3
dry weight but not for shoot fresh weight, although the cultivar
23
trends for both measures were similar (Table 1). Ozone caused dry
24
weight decreases ranging from 42% (Ruler) to 8% (Coker 47-27).
25
-------
1 Dose-response — ozone concentrations - The daily 7-hr (0930 to
2 1630 hr EDT) and 24-hr mean 0_ concentrations in the ambient air at
3 our field site near Raleigh, N. C., are shown in Figure 1. The
4 mean diurnal fluctuation in 0 concentrations for the AA, CF, NF-1,
5 NF-2 and NF-3 treatments are shown in Figure 2. The mean 7-hr/day
6 0. concentration exceeded 0.08 ppm on each day from 12 May through
7 20 May, the period when wheat plants were in the watery-ripe to
9 milky-ripe stage of development. The highest hourly mean 0. concen-
9 tration (0.14 ppm) occurred on 18 May.
£0 For the period 9 April through 31 May, the mean 7-hr/day 0
jj_ concentrations for the AA, CF, NF-1, NF-2 and NF-3 treatments were
j£ 0.06, 0.03, 0.06, 0.10 and 0.13 ppm, respectively. Differences in
•* mean 7-hr 0 concentrations between replicates of a given treatment
,, for potted plants and for plants in the ground x^ere less than 0.01
15 ?pn-
,. - growth and injury - Ozone did not affect the date of flowering
10 ——
or rate of maturity. Plant height was not significantly affected by
0_ in either media except at the last measurement date when plants in
13 J
pots at 0.13 ppm were 6 cm shorter than plants at 0.03 ppm.
The overall trends for injury were similar whether plants were
grown in pots or in the ground (Table 2). Foliar injury increased
rapidly in all treatments during the period when estimates were made,
22
one week before flowering to when kernels were in the mealy-ripe
23
stage (Figure 3). Injury at 0.10 (NF-2) and 0.13 ppm (NF-3) was
24
significantly greater than at 0.03 ppm (CF) on all but the last
25
-------
1 date of estimate when plants were starting to mature in all treatments.
2 In both growth medias, the mean injury was slightly greater in the
3 NF-1 and AA treatments than in the CF treatment but the differences
4 were not significant (Table 2).
5 For plants in pots, the cultivar x treatment interaction for
g injury was not significant except on the fourth estimate date. At
7 this time, more injury was present at 0.10 ppm of 0, on Coker 47-27
Q and Blueboy II than for Holly and Oasis. There were no significant
g cultivar differences in the overall amount of injury (mean of first
5« 5 estimate dates) for potted plants, although Holly showed somewhat
., more injury than other cultivars at 0.06 ppm (NF-1) (Table 3).
.« For plants in the ground, the cultivar x treatment interaction
was significant on the second, fourth and fifth estimate dates. On
these dates, Coker 47-27 generally showed significantly more injury
14
caused by 0.10 ppn of 0 than did Blueboy II. This difference is also
reflected in the overall (5 week) injury means for plants in the
16
ground (Table 3).
- weight and yield - The 0 treatment and cultivar effects were
13 3
highly significant for all weight measures taken. For plants in
19
chambers, the threshold 0_ concentration (7 hr/day mean) was the
20 J
same for all weight measures in both growth medias (between 0.06 and
0.10 ppm) (Table 2). Weight decreases were slightly greater for
22
plants in the ground than for plants in pots. Seed weight per plant
23
(yield) for plants in the ground at 0.10 and 0.13 ppm was 16 and 33%
24
less, respectively, than yield at 0.03 ppm; the comparative values
25
-------
10
1 for potted plants were 10 and 27%, respectively (Table 2). Similar
2 trends occurred for the other weight measures. The percentage
3 decrease in seed weight per plant was slightly higher than the
4 percentage decrease in weight of shoots (heads, leaves, and stalks)
5 or weight of heads per plant.
g The data show that the decrease in yield was caused by decreased
7 seed numbers as well as by decreased weight per seed (Table 2). For
a example, at 0.13 ppm, the mean weight of 100 seeds was decreased by
o 17% but the yield was decreased by 30%.
3Q The cultivar response to 0 was different in both medias (Table
«, 3). For plants in pots, the yield of Holly was decreased more than
., that of most other cultivars at 0.10 and 0.13 ppm. For plants in the
,_ ground, yield of Coker 42-27 was decreased more than that of other
, . cultivars at all 0. concentrations (Table 3).
IQ J
Significant chamber position effects occurred for yield of
plants grown in both medias. For potted plants, yields were 4% less
Id
in the two northern chamber quadrants than in the two southern quadrants.
However, there were no significant quadrant x 0_ treatment interactions
13 -*
for any of the weight measures taken. For plants in the ground,
19
yield was 7% less in the sampling position closest to the northern
20
edge of the chambers than yield in other sampling positions. At 0.10
21
and 0.13 ppm, yield at the northern-most sampling position was
22
decreased by 20 and 45%, respectively compared to mean yield decreases
23
of 16 and 33% respectively at the other positions. However, there
were no significant treatment x position x cultivar interactions.
25
-------
11
1 - correlations between injury and yield - A linear regression
2 analysis was performed using the block x cultivar x treatment means
3 for seed weight per plant (yield), weekly mean foliar injury and
4 6-week mean foliar injury. In both medias, the correlations were
5 highly significant for each weekly period and for the 6-week mean.
g For plants in pots, the correlation coefficients were -0.82, -0.74,
7 -0.71, -0.67, -0.68, and -0.56 for the consecutive individual weekly
g injury means respectively, and was -0.75 for the overall (6-week mean)
a injury values. The regression equation between seed weight (y) and
,Q overall injury (x) was y = 6.50 - 0.367x. For plants in the ground,
., the correlation coefficients were -0.59, -0.59, -0.55, -0.53, -0.46
.- and -0.33 for the consecutive weekly means respectively, and was -0.51
... for the overall injury values. The regression equation between seed
, weight (y) and overall injury (x) was y = 5.78 - 0.311x.
15
Discussion
16
In the present study, plants were treated by adding constant
amounts of 0. to nonfiltered air rather than to filtered air. Thus,
13 3
the daily dose of 0_ was determined partly by daily and hourly changes
19 ->
in ambient 0, concentrations. We chose this approach because of the
20 J
complex nature of photochemical oxidant air pollution. Plant response
21
to. 0_ might be affected by other components in the photochemical
23
22
oxidant complex but there is little information on the subject. The
use of filtered air would interfere with any possible interactions
24
of this type. In most areas, oxidant concentrations "follow a diurnal
25
-------
12
1 pattern similar to that shown in Figure 2, although concentrations
2 are different from day to day (Fig. 1) depending on local and
3 regional weather. Relationships between the effects of 0, at
4 constant levels and the effects of 0, at changing levels have not
5 been shown. Therefore, we chose to add small constant amounts of 0_
6 to the existing oxidant complex during the daily period when concen-
7 trations of 0 are normally the highest (0930 - 1630 hr EDT).
g Previous methods of describing ambient pollutant doses include
9 seasonal means, weekly means, 24-hr means, ppm hrs, peak hourly
20 means, and number of hours above a set concentration. None of these
jj^ methods adequately describe the dose from a biological standpoint
*2 because pollutant dose - plant response curves are not linear and
«3 plants may respond differently to pollutants at different times during
-, growth. Doses have also been described in terms of percentage of
. - tic= or number of hours above set concentration intervals, but
, - neither of these methods consider the timing of exposure to given
io
concentrations in relation to plant growth stage or time of day. In
our experience, the 7-hr/day (0930 to 1630 hr EDT) and 24-hr/day
18
means, adequately characterize the dose from a biological standpoint.
At our field site, the 7-hr/day mean 0., concentration rarely varied
by more than ^0.02 ppm from the daily minimum or maximum concen-
tration from 0930 to 1630 hr EDT.
22
The mechanism for decreased yield from exposure to 00 appeared
23 J
to be through foliar injury which decreased photosynthesis, causing
mi^9
slower growth and a decrease in the number and size of seeds.
23
-------
13
1 Injury was progressive, beginning on lower leaves and advancing, with
2 continuing exposure, to younger leaves. It is possible that
3 environmental alterations caused by the open-top chambers affected
4 the sensitivity of leaves to 0_. However, there are no reports
5 showing significant changes in sensitivity caused by environmental
g variations of the magnitude caused by the chambers (4, 6). Light,
7 measured in the photosynthetically active region of wavelengths
9 (PAR), averaged 12% less and temperature 0.7 C higher in the chambers
g than in ambient air (4). The chambers did not affect relative
20 humidity (3) but the air velocity in chambers was constant at about
H 2.5 km/hr (4) compared to variable velocities in ambient air. Foliar
j2 injury of plants in ambient air (7 hr/day mean of 0.06 ppm of 0_)
»3 was not significantly different from that in the NF-1 chambers at
,i the sane relative dose of 0_ (Table 3). However, Holly and Oasis
, - grown in the ground were more injured in ambient air than in chambers.
, - The cause for greater yield decrease for plants grown in the
1&
ground at the northern sampling position (about 25-65 cm from the
chamber frame) is not known. The cause may be related to small
18
differences in air velocity, light intensity, soil moisture, or a
_^ combination of these factors.
20
Drought stress is known to decrease the sensitivity of plants
to gaseous pollutants (6). The present results were obtained in-a
relatively normal growing season although plants were watered to
23
prevent wilting. While different results might occur during seasons
24
with extreme weather conditions, we feel that similar effects
23
-------
1 would occur during most seasons with similar oxidant concentrations
2 and adequate soil moisture.
3 Further refinements are needed in protocols for screening
^ winter wheat cultivars for sensitivity to 0.,. Neither the cultivar
e sensitivity test, performed on seedlings, nor foliar sensitivity of
* older plants, adequately predicted the relative sensitivity of
- cultivars to loss of yield caused by 0 . These results may be
a related to changes with age in relative foliar sensitivity of
o
cultivars, to cultivar differences in relative tolerance to foliar
ft injury, or to a combination of these factors. We do not understand
why the relative sensitivity of cultivars to yield loss was
different in the two medias; Holly was the most sensitive cultivar
in pots and Coker 47-27 was the most sensitive cultivar in the
13
grcua-d. Much reoains to be discovered about the ways that methods
14
of culture and exposure affect the response of plants to air pollu-
tants.
16
17
Acknowledgements
18
The authors thank Hans Hamann for statistical analyses and
19
Cindy A. Mitchell and Robert P. Philbeck for technical assistance.
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
15
LITERATURE CITED
1 1. BENEDICT, H.M., C.S. MILLER, and R.E. OLSON. 1971. Economic
2 impact of air pollutants on plants in the United States.
3 Stanford Research Inst. SRI Project LSD-1056, Menlo Park,
4 Calif. 77 p.
5 2. FELICIANO, A. 1971. 1971 survey and assessment of air pollu-
g tion damage to vegetation in New Jersey. Cooperative Exten-
7 sion Service, Rutgers - The State University, New Brunswick,
g N.J. 43 p.
« 3. HEAGLE, A.S.,. D.E. BODY, and W.W. HECK. 1973. An open-top
,- field chamber to assess the impact of air pollution on
.. plants. J. Environmental Quality. 2:365-368.
-. 4. HEAGLE, A.S., R.B. PHILBECK, H.H. ROGERS, AND M.B. LETCHWORTH.
1978. Dispensing and monitoring ozone in open-top field
chambers for plant-effects studies. Phytopathology (in press).
1*
5. HECK, W.W., AND C.S. BRANDT. 1975. Impact of air pollutants
on vegetation: crops, forests, native. In: "Air Pollution"
16
(A.C. Stern, ed.), 3rd ed., Vol. 2, Chap. 14. Academic Press,
New York. (in press).
18
6. HECK, W.W., J.B. MUDD, AND P.R. MILLER. 1977. Effects on
19
plants and microorganisms. In: "Ozone and Other Photo-
20
chemical Oxidants." pp. 437-585. National Acad. Sci.,
21
Washington, D.C.
22
7. HILL, A.C., M.R. PACK, M. TRESHOW, R.V. DOWNS, and L.G. TRANSTRUM.
23
1961. Plant injury induced by ozone. Phytopathology 51:
24
356-363.
23
-------
16
1 8. LACASSE, N.L. 1971. Assessment of air pollution damage to
2 vegetation in Pennsylvania. Center Air Environ. Studies.
3 Pa. State Univ. CAES Pub. No. 209-71. 61 p.
4 9. LACASSE, N.L., AND T.C. WEIDENSAUL. 1971. A cooperative
5 extension-based system of assessing air pollution damage
5 to vegetation: organization, results, and recommendations
•j for future surveys. "Proc. Second International Clean
g Air Congress" (H.M. England and W.T. Berry, eds.) Acad-
o emic Press, N.Y. pp. 132-136.
,Q 10. MILLECAN, A.A. 1971. A survey and assessment of air pollu-
.. tion damage to California vegetation in 1970. California
._ Dept. Agric., Sacramento, California. 48 p.
11. NAEGELE, J.A., W.A. FEDER, AND C.J. BRANDT. 1972. Assessment
of air pollution damage to vegetation in New England: July,
14
1971-July, 1972. Final Report, Suburban Experiment Station,
University of Mass., Amberst, Mass. Contract No. 68-02-0084.
16
12. PELL, E.J. 1973. 1972 survey and assessment of air pollution
damage to vegetation in New Jersey. The State University
13
Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers, N.J. Publication No.
19
EPA-R5-73-022. 44 p.
20
13. PELL, E.J., and E. BRENNAN. 1975. Economic impact of air
21
pollution on vegetation in New Jersey and an interpretation
22
of its annual variability. Environ. Poll. 8:23-33.
23
14. PHILLIPS, S.F., and V.C. RUNECKLES. 1974. Field response of
24
a wheat-pea mixture to ozone and ambient oxidant. Proc.
23
Can. Phytopathological Soc. 41:28 (Abstr.).
-------
17
1 15. SECHLER, DALE, and D.R. DAVIS. 1964. Ozone toxicity in
2 small grain. Plant Disease Reptr. 48:919-922.
3 16. SHANNON, J.G., and C.L. MULCHI. 1974. Ozone damage to
4 wheat varieties to anthesis. Crop Science 14:335-337.
5 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agecny. 1978. Air quality
f criteria for photochemical oxidants and oxidant precursors.
- Volume II.
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Table 1. Shoot weight response of 11 soft red winter wheat cultivars exposed in open-top field .chambers to
carbon-filtered air (CF) or to nonfiltered air with 0 added for 7-hr/day (NF + O.J .—
Shoot Dry Wt.—
Cultivar
Name
Ruler
Holly
McNair 4823
Blueboy 11
Funk W-540
McNair 3001
Coker 68-15
Oasis
McNair 1813
Arthur 71
Coker 47-27
C.I. No.
17314
14579
15290
15281
-
-
15291
15929
15289
15282
12563
li/plant
0.83
0.64
0.59
0.72
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.66
0.56
0.64
0.61
LSD (P = 0.05) =
NF -1- 00
J
{•/plant
0.48
0.41
0.39
0.52
0.45
0.46
0.52
0.58
0.49
0.58
0.56
0.13
% loss from
c/
exposure—
42
36
34
28
27
25
13
12
12
9
8
23%
Fresh Weight
% loss from
exposure
30
24
27
20
21
19
11
10
2
7
0
co
— Plants were exposed for 27 days (11-38 days after planting). The mean 7-hr/day and 24-hr 0.,
concentrations in the CF treatment were 0.02 and 0.01 ppm respectively. The comparative values
for the NF 4- 0_ treatment were 0.15 and 0.06 ppm, respectively. At standard temperature and pres-
sure, 1.0 ppm of 0- = 1960 pg/m .
b/
Each value is the mean of 15 plants (3 plants in each of 5 pots).
-------
19
Table 2. Effect of chronic doses of ozone on foliar injury, growth, and
yield of winter wheat grown in pots or in the ground in open-top
field chambers.
Treatment
Ozone cone. •
Growth Medium—
7-hr/day mean .
ppm . Pots—
Ground—
Foliar Injury - 5 week mean—
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
25 a
22 a
25 a
50 b
64 c
LSD (P=0.05) 10.6
Shoot wt.
13.21 a
: 12.08 b
12.34 ab
11.12
9.96
LSD (P=0.05) 0.95
Head wt.
6.70 ab
6.85 ab
7.08 a
6.18 b
5.33
LSD (P=0.05) 0.75
Seed wt.
33 ab
21 a
26 a
48 be
61 c
15.5
per plant - g
9.83 ab
10.74 a
10.38 a
c 9.18 b
d 7.62 c
1.10
per plant - g
5.59 b
6.52 a
6.32 a
5.65 b
c 4.51 c
0.42
(yield) per plant - s,
4.77 be 4.25 b
5.25 ab
5.34 a
4.72
3.85
LSD (p=0.05) 0.48
100-seed
2.91 b
3.08 a.
3.06 a
3.00 ab
2.62
LSD (P=0.05) 0.10
5.08 a
4.90 a
c 4.28 b
d 3.38 c
0.53
wt. - g —
3.41 b
3.49 ab
3.52 a
3.43 b
c 2.87 c
0.08
-------
20
Table 2 (continued)
a/
— Ozone was added to the inlet duct of nonfiltered air (NF) chambers
for 7-h4/day (0930 to 1630 hr EDT) to produce the 7-hr/day mean
concentrations shown.
W
Data for each growth medium were analyzed separately. Means followed
by different letters are significantly different according to the
LSD (P=0.05) (Treatment).
£/
Each value is the mean of 192 plants (4 cultivars, 2 plants/8 pots,
3 blocks), except for seed 100-wt. values.
I/
Each value is the mean of 768 plants (4 cultivars, 4 plants/6 samples,
2 rows, 4 blocks), except for seed 100-wt. values.
£/
Each value is the mean percentage chlorosis and necrosis from 576
estimates (4 leaves/3 plants, 4 cultivars, 2 blocks, 6 dates).
I/
Seed 100-wt. values for plants in pots are the mean of 36 samples
(3 samples of 4 cultivars from 3 blocks) . Values for plants in the
ground are the mean of 48 samples (3 samples of 4 cultivars from 4
blocks) .
-------
Table 3. Effect of chronic doses of ozone on foliar injury and seed yield of four winter wheat cultivars.
Growth
Medium Treatment
Pots AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
Ground AA
CF
NF-1
NF-2
NF-3
Ozone cone. -
7-hr/day mean
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
.03
.06
.10
.13
.06
.03
.06
.10
.13
Foliar Injury % —
Coker
Blueboy II 47-27
24
19
24
51*
62*
LSI)
33
24
31
41*
59*
LSD
18
16
21
51*
62*
(I1 - 0.05) »
23
16
21
49*
59*
(P = 0.05) -
Holly
29
22
32
46*
68*
12.3
45
26
32
52*
68*
9.2
Oasis
25
20
23
48*
62*
30
20
22
49*
60*
Seed Weight -
Coker
Blueboy II 47-27
4.67
5.12
5.16
4.64*
4.08*
LSD (P
4.79*
5.84
5.74
4.97*
4.02*
LSD (P
5.07
5.14
5.53
4.82*
3.98*
« 0.05) =
4.01*
5.09
4.55*
3.82*
2.91*
- 0.05) =
• ^/plant-
Holly
4.
5.
5.
4.
2.
0.47
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
0.32
45*
61
32
59*
97*
16*
95
91
43*
30*
Oasis
4.90
5.12
5.34
4.85
4.37*
4.06*
4.45
4.41
3.89*
3.28*
a/
— Each value is the mean percentage injury from 120 estimates (4 youngest leaves on 3 plants/cultivar in 2
blocks on 5 dates).
— Each value for potted plants is the mean of 48 plants (2 plants in each of 8 pots in 3 blocks); each value
for plants in the ground is the mean of 192 plants (4 plants for each of 6 samples in each of 2 rows in
4 blocks).
Vtf
= significantly different from the respective CF values, LSD = (P = 0.05) for cultivar x treatment.
-------
22
FIGURE LEGENDS
1 Figure 1. Daily 7 (0930 to 1630 hr EDT) and 24-hr mean ozone
2 concentrations in ambient air 4.8 km south of Raleigh,
3 N.C.
*
5 Figure 2. Mean ozone concentrations at different hours of the
g day in ambient air (AA) , charcoal f iltered-air chambers
7 (CF) , or in nonf iltered-air chambers with different
a concentrations of ozone added (NF-1, NF-2, NF-3) for
« 7-hr/day. Concentrations are the means from 9 April
^Q through 31 May, 1977.
11
_9 Figure 3. Foliar injury on winter wheat at different times after
exposures began for plants grown in the ground in ambient
air (AA, 0.06 ppm 0_) , charcoal f iltered-air chambers
14 J
(CF, 0.03 ppm 0,,), or nonfiltered air (NF) chambers with
different concentrations of ozone added for 7-hr/day
16
[(NF-1, 0.06 ppm), (NF-2, 0.10 ppm), (NF-3, 0.13 ppm)].
Each point is the mean injury on 96 leaves (4 cultivars,
18
3 plants, 4 leaves per plant, 2 blocks).
19
20
21
22
23
25
-------
I I
7 HR (O93O- I63O HR ) MEANS
24- HR MEANS
.02 -
.Ol
4VIO
4/2O
4/3O
DATE - 1977
5/IO
5/2O
-------
.16
a
a
2
O
.15 -
.14
.13
.12
.1 I
.10
S -09
h-
2 .08
UJ
y .o^
O
«-> .06
2 -O5
O
N .04
O
.03
.02
.01
.OO
AA
NF
CF
6OO
IOOO I4OO
HOUR OF DAY
I8OO
22OO
-------
.;, 3
u.
4
Ui
100
90
80
70
tC 6O
Ul
0.
5O
-J
2
S 4O
o
u.
Ui
5
3O
2O l-
10 )—
I
L
IO 17 24 3t 38
DAYS AFTER EXPOSURES BEGAN
45
------- |