&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring and Support EPA-600/4-78-035
Laboratory June 1978
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
Air Quality Data for
Nonmetallic Inorganic
Ions: NH+ NO"SO=
1975
From the National
Air Surveillance
Networks
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
AIR QUALITY DATA
FOR NONMETALLIC INORGANIC IONS: NH^, N0~ SOJJ
1975
FROM THE
NATIONAL AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORKS
by
Donald H. Fair, Raymond C. Rhodes, E. Gardner Evans
Statistical and Technical Analysis Branch
John C. Puzak
Quality Assurance Branch
Frank E. Butler and John E. Frazer
Analytical Chemistry Branch
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
! I
-------
PREFACE
The Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) of the
Envi i|onmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, with the assistance and
cooperation of state and local agencies, conducts a variety of air sampling
activities to obtain information about the air quality in the United States.
Air quality data of three nonmetallic inorganic ions in particulate matter
are presented in this report.
Updated listings will be provided as more current data are available.
Any subsequent changes in the introductory material (site descriptions, data
table presentations, laboratory methodology, etc.) made by EPA will be
forwarded on a routine basis.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Samples collected during 1975 by the cooperating stations of the National
Air Surveillance Network (NASN) provided the data for summarizing the annual
urban and nonurban concentrations of three nonmetallic inorganic ions in
suspended particulate matter. The ions are ammonium (NH,) , nitrate (NO ) ,
and sulfate (SO,). Concentration data are presented as cumulative frequency
distributions. The arithmetic and geometric means and standard deviations
are also reported.
Three previous EPA publications, APTD-0978, APTD-1k66, and EPA-600/
A-77-003, list data collected during 1968, 1969-1970, and 1971-1974,
respectively, for the three types of ions.
i v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface i i i
Abstract iv
Tables vi
Figures vi
Acknowledgment vi i
Section 1. Introduction 1
Organizational Structure 1
Sample Collection 3
Data Handling and Analysis 3
Section 2. Quality Control 7
Introduction 7
Blank Filter Analyses and Lower
Detectable Limits 7
Precision 9
Bias 12
Analytical Quality Assessment 15
Section 3- Laboratory Methods 17
Sampling Procedure 17
Nonmetallic Ion Analysis Procedure 18
Section 4. National Summary of Air Quality Measurements 20
Section 5. Data Tables 23
Append ices
A. Grubb's Statistic for the Detection of Outliers .... 52
B. Confidence Limits of Measured Values 5^t
-------
TABLES
Number
Paqe
1-1 NASN Network Modifications 2
1-2 EPA Regions and Locations of Regional Offices 4
2-1 Blank Filter and Lower Limit of Discrimination ...... 8
2-2 Measures of Precision on 1975 NASN Filters 11
2-3 Summary of Audit Sample Program for NO and SO, 14
2-4 Analytical Precision and Bias 16
4-1 Urban National Cumulative Frequency Distributions .... 21
4-2 Nonurban National Cumulative Frequency Distributions ... 22
5-1 Frequency Distributions of Nonmetallic Ions in
Suspended Particulates . 25
Ammon i urn
Urban 25
Nonurban 32
N i t rates
Urban 34
Nonurban 4l
S ulfa tes
Urban 43
Nonurban . 50
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 EPA Regions and Regional Offices ........ 5
B-l Graphical Representation of Upper and Lower
Confidence Limits 54
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The data in this publication were collected with the generous support of
the many state and local air pollution control agencies that operate the
NASN stations. Also, the 10 EPA Regions have participated in this program
since 1973 by sending the high volume filters to the centralized laboratory
of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
The authors also thank those who contributed their time and effort to
publishing this document.
VI I
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
ORGAN IZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance and
cooperation of state and local agencies, conducts a variety of air sampling
activities to obtain information about the air quality in the United States.
One such program, the National Air Surveillance Networks (NASN), has existed
for over 20 years. The network has grown and undergone many modifications
since its beginning, especially during the last 5 years. Table 1-1 catalogues
these recent changes.
The first change, in sampling schedule, was brought about to encourage
synoptic sampling with state/local ambient monitoring programs. In addition
to assisting in the operation of the EPA sampling network, state and local
air pollution control agencies administer their own air pollution control
programs.
The second change, decentralization, was made to shift air monitoring
responsibility from one centralized laboratory to 10 EPA regional labora-
tories. This modification was implemented over the ]k month period from
December 1972 through January 197**- Moreover, in January -197^) the responsi-
bilities of the 10 EPA Regional Offices were extended further to the overall
management of the NASN sites. Additional duties included weighing the sample
filters and determining the concentrations of total suspended particulates
(TSP). Table 2 and Figure 1 indicate the locations of the Regional Offices
and the geographic areas of responsibility.
After completing their tasks, the EPA regional laboratories sent the
sample filters to the EPA filter bank for routine trace constituent analyses.
The filters were stored there for non-routine, special analyses as required.
Metals, nonmetallic inorganic ions, and BaP-
-------
TABLE 1-1. NASN NETWORK MOD IFI CAT IONS
Month/Year
Change
I mpact-
January 1972
December 1972
April 1973
December 1973
January
Samp 1e schedu1e changed from
random biweekly to 12-day
systematic samples, first
sample collected 1/10/72.
Decentra1i zati on , Region II
Decentra1i zat i on, Region I
Decent ra1i zat i on, Regions V,
VII, VIM, IX, X
Decentra1i zati on, Regions III,
IV, VI
All sites
NJ, NY, PR
CT, ME, MA, NH, Rl , VT
IL, IN, MS, MN, OH, Wl,
IA, KS, MO, NE, CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY, AZ, CA,
HI , NV, AK, ID, OR, WA
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV,
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC, TN, AR, LA, NM, OK,
TX
--Abbreviations coincide with standard U.S. mail code designations for states.
-------
Although pollutant monitoring was decentralized, the analysis and
publication of the trace pollutant data remained the responsibility of one
laboratory, the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Prior to January 1974, sample
filters also were weighed and analyzed for TSP by EMSL; however, after this
date, the EPA regional laboratories performed these tasks as mentioned
previously.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Samples were collected at approximately 300 urban and 35 nonurban NASN
sites located across the country. The urban sites are generally located
within a city or town or adjacent suburbs. The nonurban sites were origin-
ally located in rural or remote areas, although with the passage of time,
many of these rural areas, especially in the northeast, have become more
heavily populated and thus are subject to increasing influences of spreading
urbanization. Voluntary operation of each site is maintained through the
generous assistance of local or state agencies and individuals such as park
rangers, firemen, or policemen.
Prior to 1972, 24-hour samples (beginning at midnight) were collected
according to a biweekly (26 samples per year) modified random sampling
schedule. The schedule was modified to ensure equal representation for each
of the seven days of the week. Since 1972, however, samples have been
collected every 12th day (30 or 31 samples per year). The initial sampling
date was January 10, 1972. This sampling schedule eliminates the need for
redesigning a new sampling schedule each year. In addition, it is easily
implemented in the field.
DATA HANDLING AND ANALYSIS
Beginning with the 197^ samples, the responsibility for managing the
NASN was given to each of the 10 EPA Regions (Table 1-2). Prior to that
time one centralized laboratory located at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, weighed and analyzed the high volume filters. The Regions now
send the total suspended particulate values to the National Aerometric Data
Bank (NADB) and the weighed filters to the EPA Filter Bank (FB) for routine
trace constituent analyses and storage in the Filter Bank for non-routine
-------
TABLE 1-2. EPA REGIONS AND LOCATIONS OF REGIONAL OFFICES
Region Regional Office Location
I Boston, Massachusetts
II New York, New York
III Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IV Atlanta, Georgia
V Ch i cago, I 11i noi s
VI Dal las, Texas
VII Kansas City, Missouri
VIM Denver, Colorado
IX San Francisco, California
X Seattle, Washington
-------
Figure 1
-!. EPA Regions and Regional Offices
-------
special analyses as needed. The resulting data are published by EMSL and
are sent to the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB) for archiving.
The sampling data were analyzed by EMSL to determine those data to
exclude from data summaries because of anomalies. The precision and bias
of the data were determined using statistical analyses. The overall accuracy
of the sampling data was evaluated to assist with interpretation of the air
qual i ty summar ies.
The air quality summaries include annual concentration data classified
as urban and nonurban origin and compiled for the nation as a whole and also
for individual site locations. The data are presented as cumulative frequency
distributions, and the arithmetic and geometric means and standard deviations
also are tabulated.
-------
SECTION 2
QUALITY CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the quality control data from which analytical
detection limits and analytical performance were determined. The assessment
of analytical performance includes the estimation of precision and bias.
These estimates are combined statistically to determine an overall measure
of analytical quality assessment.
To ensure that only valid data were used, the data were subjected to a
stringent test for outliers. A Grubb's statistical test for multiple out-
liers was used as described in Appendix A. The data were compared within a
year and against the previous three years to determine whether the values
were outliers. All outliers were reported to the laboratory for reanalysis
of the sample filters.
Of the samples analyzed, thirty-four (3*0 sulfate and seven (7) nitrate
samples were reanalyzed. Five (5) of the new sulfate values and three (3)
of the reanalyzed nitrate values were significantly different from corres-
ponding values originally reported. Consequently, these eight (8) values
were considered to be indeterminant and eliminated from the data set.
Because of the decay inherent in the ammonium on the filters, reanalysis
was not performed to determine outliers of ammonium ions.
BLANK FILTER ANALYSES AND LOWER DETECTABLE LIMITS
Table 2-1 lists the average concentrations of the three ions found in
blank filters. The blank value was determined by analyzing a large number
of clean (unexposed) filters from the filter lot used by the NASN. Starting
in 1974, blanks have been analyzed concurrently with exposed filters.
The results of the blank filters were used to correct the raw analysis
values. For the filter lot used for sampling during the period 1971 through
-------
TABLE 2-1. BLANK FILTER AND LOWER LIMIT OF DISCRIMINATION
1 on
Ammon i um
N i trate
Sul fate
Year
1971-197^
1975
1971-1972*
1975
1971-1973
1971*
1975
Blank Fi 1
< 0.05
< 0.1
< 0.06
0. 1
0.8
0.5
1-3
Concentration, jjg/m3»
Ana ly t i cal
ters of Di scrimi nat
0.05
0. 1
0.06
0.05
0.6
0.2
0.05
Limit
ion (LD)
•'-'These values were calculated assuming an average of 2500 cubic meters
per f i1te r.
-------
1973, analyses of blank filters were run prior to the use of the lot, and a
constant blank correction applied during these years. Results of analyses
for 197^t and since have been corrected by year according to the blanks
analyzed concurrently with the samples.
The analytical limit of discrimination (LD), or minimum detectable
limit, values are also listed in Table 2-1. In earlier reports, separate
minimum detectable limits were given for urban and nonurban samples because
the portion of each filter used for analysis of nonurban samples was larger
than that for urban samples in order to obtain enough particulate matter for
analysis. Beginning with the samples for 197^> the portions of each filter
used for analysis have been the same for both urban and nonurban samples,
the portion being the same as previously used for urban samples. Therefore,
the LD values for 197^ and 1975 apply to both urban and nonurban samples.
The LD values were determined by fitting a linear equation to the noise
level as a function of concentration and extrapolating to zero concentration.
The noise level was measured as the standard deviation of repeated analysis
at the same concentration. The LD values given in Table 2-1 are 1-96 (2-
sigma) times the extrapolated standard deviation and therefore represent an
upper 97.5 percent limit for analytical results expected at zero concentra-
tions .
It is noted from Table 2-1 that for the sulfate analysis, the LD had
decreased since 1973- This decrease has been attributed to the replacement
of the Autoanalyzer, Technicon I with the Technicon II. Although analyses
for nitrate and ammonium ions have also been made on the Technicon II since
1973, no such decrease has been evident for the nitrate and ammonium ion
analyses.
PRECISION
Table 2-2 presents precision estimates for the various analyses. The
measures of precision are expressed as percentages of concentration level
because precision is generally concentration dependent.
Precision estimates are based upon the percent difference between
analysis of extracts from two different filter strips from the same filter.
Thus, the measure of precision includes variation caused by the cutting,
extracting, and analytical processes as well as any actual variability
-------
between filter strips. Precision data were generated throughout the
analysis period. Duplicate strips of every 10th sample were analyzed. For
1975 samples, approximately 500 pairs of duplicate strips were analyzed for
each ion. From analyses of these duplicate strips, precision estimates have
been obtained. In determining the estimates, a number of outlier values
were omitted from consideration. These outlier values resulted when exces-
sive percentage differences between the paired data were obtained. For each
pair of data, percentage differences were computed by the following formula:
x - x,
Id = ' ^ (100) (1)
Xl + X2
where %d = percentage difference between analyses of duplicate
strips (difference between values divided by the
average of the two values), percent
x,, x? = concentration values of the two analyses of duplicate
str i ps , pg/m3
For each of the different pollutant concentration ranges as shown in
Table 2-2, the average percent difference (%d) and the standard deviation
of percent differences (S0 ,) were calculated. The standard deviation of
/o Q
percentages is calculated by the following equation:
- (Z%d)2 1/2
n
n -
(2)
The above standard deviation applies to the percent differences of the
results from the duplicate strips, and provides a basis for control limits
which can be applied to the results of future duplicate strip analyses. The
standard deviations and the 99% control limits which are associated with the
percent differences between duplicate strips are shown in Table 2-2.
The standard deviations of Table 2-2 must be divided by t/2~ to obtain
the standard deviation (actually coefficient of variation) which measures
the precision of an individual reported pollutant concentration value.
These values are shown in Table 2-2. These coefficients of variation can
be used for computing confidence limits on individual reported pollutant
10
-------
TABLE 2-2. MEASURES OF PRECISION ON 1975 NASN FILTERS
Differences Between Duplicate Strip Analyses
Concentration Standard Deviation of
Level Percent Differences
yg/m3 s^d, %
Below .2
Between . 2 ->- 1.0
Above 1 . 0
Below 3
Above 3
Below 10
Above 10
39-8
36.0
17-1
10.1
8.6
9.8
7-4
Individual Analysis Values
99% Control Limits Coefficient of
(±2.576 S0 ) Variation, C
0, /°Q Of V
'Q 'O
Ammon i urn
±102.5
± 92.7
± kk.O
Ni trates
±26.0
± 22.2
Sulfates
± 25-2
± 19-1
28.1
25-5
12.1
7-1
6.1
6.9
5-2
Approximate 95%
Confidence Limits
%
±55.1
±50.0
±23-7
±13-9
±12.0
±13-5
±10.2
-------
concentration values, considering precision only, i.e. assuming no bias.
Approximate confidence limits- are computed from the following formula:
L = X [1 + kC 7100] (3a)
u v J
4 = X [1 - kCv/100] (3b)
where L = upper confidence limit, yg/m3
L0 = lower confidence limit, yg/m
x/
X = single reported sample value, yg/m3
k = standard normal deviate corresponding to the desired
confidence level
C = coefficient of variation of individual analysis values,
v
percent
As a sample calculation, assume that an individually reported concentra-
tion for nitrate is 5-3 yg/m3. In Table 2-2 the corresponding value for the
coefficient of variation is 6.1 percent. Assuming that 95 percent confidence
limits of the true value are desired, the value of k is 1.96. Substituting
these data in Equation 3-
LU = 5-3 [1 + 1-96(6.1)/100] = 5-9 yg/m3 (4a)
L£ = 5-3 [1 - 1.96(6.1)7100] = k.J yg/m3 (kb)
These limits can also be given the following interpretation. If it were
possible to analyze a large number of individual strips from the same filter
having a true nitrate concentration of 5-3 yg/m3, 95 percent of such results
would fall within the stated limits.
BIAS
An independent estimate of bias is obtained for nitrate and sulfate
analyses through an audit program involving the analysis of strips of blank
high volume filters, identical to those used for ambient air sampling, but
which have been spiked with known amounts of nitrate and sulfate. The
percent recovery is calculated as follows:
:';A more exact formula is presented in Appendix B.
12
-------
Percent Recovery = Value
Known va1ue
Bias is equal to the percent recovery minus 100.
The samples used for audits have been developed by the Quality Assurance
Branch (QAB) of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory as part
of its program for assisting analytical laboratories to improve their in-
house analysis capabilities. Each lot of samples is analyzed by QAB and a
corroborative laboratory before it is accepted for use in the audit program.
The QAB analysis, the corroborative analysis and the attempted spike must
agree to within 5% and the coefficient of variation for a spike level must be
less than 2.5% or the samples are rejected. Table 2-3 presents the bias
information.
The main use of the audit results is to document chronologically the
precision and accuracy achieved by the analytical laboratory. QAB has found
that a meaningful way to display the precision and accuracy is through mean
and range control charts.
Every two weeks a set of 10 audit samples is given to the analytical
laboratory to be analyzed with the ambient air samples. One blank and trip-
licates in a high, middle, and low range are included in each set. The
analytical laboratory distributes the audit samples as evenly as possible
among the analysis days during the audit period and intersperses the audit
samples throughout their normal analyses of ambient air samples. Mean and
range control charts are constructed and routinely used for the high level,
mid-level and low level samples.
The coefficient of variation of the analytical results can be used to
estimate the variability due to the extraction and analysis procedures.
Nitrate analyses of audit filters had a coefficient of variation of 7.1%
while the sulfate analyses had a coefficient of variation of 3.k%. These
values are approximately 0.5 percent greater for nitrate ion and 3-^ percent
greater for sulfate ion than corresponding values of coefficient of variation
of individual analyses in Table 2-2. These differences represent the varia-
bility of cutting the sample strips and of heterogenity across the filter.
It may be assumed that the bias estimates for nitrate and sulfate were
no different during the earlier years when audits were not conducted. The
13
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF AUDIT SAMPLE PROGRAM FOR NO AND
Mean
Concentration Recovery, %
Below 10 yg/m3
10 -> 25 yg/m3
Above 25 yg/m3
Al 1 Samp 1 es
Below 3 yg/m3
3^6 yg/m3
Above 6 yg/m
Al 1 Samp les
105-9
95-8
100.4
100.8
101 .2
94.5
101 .3
98.1
Standard Deviation
Bias, % of Recovery and Bias,
Sulfate
5.9 11.6
-4.2 3-7
0.4 5-2
0.8 9-4
Ni trate
1.2 7-9
-5-5 4.7
1.3 3-8
-1.9 7-1
Number
% of Samples
89
89
30
208
91
96
23
210
Results of audit samples analyzed with 1975 NASN filters.
-------
audits were prepared by adding known spikes to unexposed filters. The audit,
then, includes variation resulting from the cutting and extraction steps of
the measurement process in addition to analytical variation.
ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The precision and bias estimates discussed previously have been combined
into an overall estimate of "Analytical Quality." Based on the estimates of
bias and precision, an individual pollutant value (minimum, maximum or pel—
centile) appearing in the data tables is expected to be correct (from an
analysis standpoint) within the stated interval with a 95% confidence.
The approximate upper and lower confidence limits" (L and LQ, respec-
u x/
tively) are calculated as follows:
LU = X (1 - B/100 + 1.96 C /100) (5a)
L = X (1 - B/100 - 1.96 C /100) (5b)
where X = the individual analysis value
B = bias, percent
C = coefficient of variation of individual analysis
For example, the maximum sulfate value for Birmingham, Alabama for 1975
was 42.0 yg/m3. The resulting confidence limits are:
L = 42.0 [1 - 0.4/100 + (1.96)(5-2)/100] = 46.1 yg/m3 (6a)
L. = 42.0 [1 - 0.4/100 - (1.96)(5-2)/100] = 37-6 yg/m3 (6b)
A*
It is emphasized that the estimates determined by the above formulas
consider only variability from sample preparation (i.e., cutting, extraction)
and analysis. Further, it is assumed that the bias is constant, and that
the inherent variability due to sample preparation and analysis remains
unchanged. Furthermore, if additional information were known concerning
variation due to factors such as the flow rate or other variables of sampling,
then these confidence intervals would be wider. As a result, all confidence
limits are under-estimates of the total variability of the total measurement
process, including sampling and analysis.
*A more exact equation is presented in Appendix B.
15
-------
Estimates of the bias and the 95 percent limits of precision for the
period 1971 through 1975 are summarized in Table 2-4.
TABLE 2-4. ANALYTICAL PRECISION AND BIAS
Ion Year
Ammonium 1971-1974
1971-1974
1971-1973
1974
1975
1975
1975
Nitrate 1971-1973
1974
1975
1975
1975
Sulfate 1971-1974
1971-1974
1975
1975
1975
Concen trat ion
Range, pg/m3
<0.05
0.05^0.6
>0. 6
>0 . 6
<0. 2
0.2->1 .0
>] .0
Al 1
Al 1
<3
3^6
>6
<3-0
y.o
<10
1CK25
>25
Bias
Percent
"O
0)
C
E
0)
4-1
0)
O
o
- 6.
- 6.
1 .
- 5-
1.
-18.
- 6.
5.
- 4.
0.
7
7
2
5
3
0
3
9
2
4
Prec i s i on
(±1-96 Cv)
Percent
±1 12
+ 47
+ 26
± 12
± 55-1
±50.0
± 23.7
± 16
± 12
± 13-9
± 12.0
± 12.0
± 10
± 10
± 13.5
± 10.2
± 10.2
-------
SECTION 3
LABORATORY METHODS
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The mass of participate matter per volume of air was determined by
weighing a filter before and after sampling, and measuring the sample air
flow rate. Air was drawn through a preweighed glass-fiber filter with a
high volume air sampler.
The sample air flow rate was set at approximately 1.7 cubic meters per
minute, or approximately 2500 cubic meters of air during the 24-hour sampling
period. A calibrated rotameter was read at the beginning and end of the
sampling period, and the average value was used to obtain the average sample
flow rate. Using the sampling time (2k hours) and the measured flow rate the
total sample volume of air was determined.
The filters, 20.3 by 25.4 cm, were made of flash-fired glass-fiber
selected for low and uniform background concentrations of the pollutants to
be measured. To eliminate filters having pinholes, creases, or other flaws
that could affect air flow, the filters were visually screened for imper-
fections by placing each filter in front of a beam of light. Prior to the
initial weighing, the filters were equilibrated for a minimum of 2k hours at
a temperature of 2k Centigrade and a relative humidity of 50 percent or less.
A balance scale was used that permitted weighing the filters without bending
them.
The filters are then distributed unfolded to the cooperating local
agencies for the urban sites and to the designated participant responsible
for operating the nonurban site. After sampling, the filters are folded in
half with the collected particulate matter inside and returned to the labora-
tory. The filter with the collected particulates is again equilibrated for
at least 2k hours at a temperature of 2k Centigrade and a relative humidity
of 50 percent or less, and then weighed to determine the amount of particulate
17
-------
matter that was collected. These suspended participate mass values are sent
to the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB) on a routine basis and the filters
are sent to the Filter Bank for further analyses.
NONMETALLIC ION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The analysis for inorganic ions during 1975 was performed by Northrop
Services, Incorporated, under contract no. 68-02-2566. This included the
analysis of blank filters, duplicate strips, and the routine sample filters.
Previously, the analytical work was performed by EMSL.
Analyses for ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate ions were performed with
autoanalyzers on an aqueous extract of an 8.3 percent section of the partic-
ulate filter, i.e., a 1.9 cm strip was cut across the fold. The filter
section was washed twice to obtain the final volume of 50 mill Miters. This
single solution was used for the three analyses. The most effective wave
length for determining color for each pollutant was used. Color values were
converted to concentration values in units of yg/m .
The analysis procedure for each ion is as follows:
1. The ammonium ions extracted from the exposed filters are analyzed
by reacting them with sodium phenolate and sodium hypochlorite to produce a
blue-colored complex. The reaction is pH dependent; thus, below a pH of 7-0,
no color is produced. The color of the complex is determined colorimetrica1ly
at a wavelength of 625"630 nanometers.
2. The extract with water is analyzed for nitrate ion by reduction of
the nitrate to nitrite by a copperized-cadmiurn reduction column. The nitrite
is reacted with su1fani1 amide in acidic solution to form a diazo compound.
This compound then couples with N-1-Naphthy1enediamine dihydrochloride to
form a reddish-purple azo dye which is determined colorimetrically at a
wavelength of 520~5^0 nanometers.
3- The extract is analyzed for sulfate ion by the methylthymol blue
(MTB) method using a single channel Technicon Autoanalyzer II system equipped
with a linearizer. The MTB method is based on the spectral difference which
exists in basic solution (pH 12.5~13-0), between the barium complex of MTB
and the free MTB. At this pH the barium complex is blue and free MTB is
brownish-red (absorbs light at ^60 nm). Thus, the color of solutions
containing both the free MTB and the complex appears as gray. The amount of
-------
free MTB, monitored colorimetrically at wavelengths of 460-480 nanometers,
is the measure of the amount of sulfate in tie sample.
19
-------
SECTION 4
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
The data in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are cumulative frequency distributions
by ion of individual results by year for urban and nonurban locations,
respectively. Consider, for example, the first line in Table 4-1. The
number, 3909, is the number of valid 24-hour samples analyzed for ammonium
in 1971- The next entry is the minimum value detected that year and "LD"
means the minimum detectable level of the instrument. The next seven entries
are the 10 through 99 percent!le values. For example the 90 percent!le
value of 0.73 indicates that 90 percent of the 3909 values were equal to or
less than 0.73 pg/m3. The next entry is the maximum annual value. The
arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and the geometric mean and geometric
standard deviation are presented in the last four columns in the table.
Comparison among years for a given pollutant provides a relative indication
of trends.
Since typical levels of these pollutants, especially sulfates, may be
geographically dependent, the national frequency distribution is not helpful
for judging the localized contribution and relative severity of these pollu-
tants for an individual site. Therefore, local site analyses should be
performed with data from surrounding sites within the same general geograph-
ical area. Data for each site are presented in Section 5- Also of consid-
eration is that some of the variability from year to year in the national
summary tables may be attributed to different sets of sites being used in
the summarization depending upon the completeness criteria for valid data
as described in Section 5-
20
-------
TABLE 4-1. URBAN NATIONAL CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Ion
NH+
NOi
so:
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Number
of
Samples
3909
5512
4778
4584
4113
3900
5519
4775
4562
4113
3916
5519
4774
4564
4110
Percent of time concentration
is equaled or exceeded
Min.
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
10
0.01
LD
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.69
0.66
0.81
0.83
0.96
3.4
3.9
3.9
3.9
3-5
30
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.20
1.55
1.58
1.71
1.74
2.00
5-7
6.7
6.3
6.3
6.1
50
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.20
2.29
2.47
2.58
2.54
2.91
8.0
9.4
8.1
8.3
8.3
70
0.15
0.09
0.17
0.34
0.20
3.22
3-55
3-65
3.63
4.12
10.9
12.7
10.9
11-3
11.5
90
0.73
0.59
0.73
1.36
1.13
5.02
5.90
6.24
6.46
7.18
18.0
20.3
17.5
17-9
18.1
(yg/m )
95 99
1.23 3.07
1.20 3.28
1.37 3.82
2.26 5.79
2.18 5.73
6.48 11.85
7.88 13.50
8.31 14.61
8.62 17-50
9-90 17-07
22.0 33.5
25-4 37.9
22.7 35.4
22.8 34.8
23.8 35.8
Arithmetic
statistics
Max.
12.72
13.91
15.50
15.30
13.65
26.17
24.99
37-36
54.89
33.71
69.2
75-9
162.0
69.1
72.6
Mean
0.27
0.24
0.30
0.49
0.55
2.77
3.05
3.25
3.36
3.73
9.6
11.1
9-9
10.0
10.0
Std.
dev.
0.69
0.72
0.79
1.12
1.06
2.30
2.61
2.87
3.40
3-31
6.8
7.7
7-0
6.7
7.0
Geometric
statistics
Mean
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.20
0.25
2.13
2.32
2.44
2.36
2.79
7.84
9.15
8.06
8.34
8.22
Std.
dev.
4.14
4.57
4.23
3.85
3.48
2.06
2.10
2.13
2.32
2.15
1.89
1.87
1.89
1.83
1.88
-------
TABLE 4-2. NONURBAN NATIONAL CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
1 on
NH+
N03
S0=
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Number
of
Samp] es
569
929
832
706
630
671
928
831
706
630
686
929
831
706
630
Percent of time concentration (pg/m )
is equaled or exceeded
Min.
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
0.4
LD
LD
0.1
0.2
10
0.01
LD
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.06
LD
0.04
0. 12
0.20
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
0-7
30
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.31
0.15
0.28
0.37
0.20
3.0
2.9
2-7
2.6
2. 1
50
0.04
0.0)
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.71
0.50
0.71
0.83
0.73
4.7
5.2
4.4
4.8
4.0
70
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.20
1.20
1 .01
1.26
1.37
1.41
7-2
7-8
6.3
7-2
6.4
90
0.17
0. 10
0.23
0.37
0.20
2. 19
2.08
2.35
2.52
2.74
11.8
13-7
12.0
12.2
11.6
95
0.44
0.25
0.80
1 .12
0.64
2.67
2.59
2.83
3.16
3.28
15.5
17.4
17-0
16.6
15.2
99
1.25
1-57
3.16
2.61
6.14
3.81
4.19
4.47
5.13
4.85
23.6
24.8
29-8
27.0
28.7
Max.
3
6
7
9
8
6
6
6
6
11
35
42
53
90
48
.19
.12
.80
.64
.85
.04
-59
-67
.65
.85
.4
.7
.2
.0
.3
Ari thmet i c
stat i st i cs
Mean
0.10
0.07
0.17
0. 19
0.34
0.95
0.79
0.99
1 .10
1.13
6.0
6.6
6.0
6.2
5.5
Std.
dev.
0.28
0.32
0.65
0.62
0.79
0.92
0.92
1 .02
1 .07
1.16
4.9
5.4
5.9
6.2
5.7
Geomet r i c
stat i st i cs
Mean
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.68
0.52
0.69
0.79
0.78
4.7
5.1
4.2
4.4
3-8
Std.
dev .
4.31
5.68
5.28
4.85
3-92
2.26
2.52
2.34
2.25
2.35
2.03
2.05
2.29
2.30
2.36
-------
SECTION 5
DATA TABLES
The data are arranged by urban and nonurban sites. Each monitoring site
is assigned a unique code number as described in the SAROAD Station Coding
Manual.*
The data are presented in the same format as that described previously
for the national summaries. Values are expressed in micrograms of pollutant
per cubic meter of air at standard temperature (25 Centigrade) and standard
pressure (760 mm mercury). Data are judged to be valid (representative) if
there were at least five valid samples obtained each quarter of the year.
In addition, when no samples were collected during a month of a quarter, at
least two valid samples must have been collected during the other two months.
In order to provide a more comprehensive data summary, some data which are
not valid, as identified by an asterisk following the year, are presented if
three conditions are satisfied, namely:
1. A total of at least 15 samples were collected that year
2. Data for at least two quarters were valid
3- At least one sample was obtained in each of the other two quarters
The minimum detectable concentrations for the three nonmetallic inorganic
ions are presented in Table 2-1. Values below this analytical limit of dis-
crimination are reported as "LD's" in the data tables, and a yearly mean is
calculated by replacing the LD's with a value equal to one-half the value of
the LD. If more than 25 percent of the individual values during a year are
below the analytical discrimination value, the summary statistics are not
calculated. When more than 50 percent of the individual results during a
year are below the analytical discrimination value, only the minimum, maximum
and number of results above the LD are shown.
*Fair, D.H. SAROAD Station Coding Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Publication No. APTD-0907- February 1972.
23
-------
Data table headings present the bias and precision information from
Table 2-4. For example, the headings for sulfate include the following:
Analytical Quality 95% Confidence
Cone. Range Bias Precision
(yg/m3) (%) (%)
<10 5-9 +13.5
10-25 -A.2 +10.2
>25 0.4 +10.2
The bias and precision values can be used in equations (5a) and (5b) to
compute upper and lower 95 percent confidence limits on the true concentration
for a given reported concentration. For example, the confidence limits for a
reported sulfate concentration of 8.4 yg/m3 would be:
LU = X(1-B/100 + 1.96 C /100) (5a)
= 8.4(1-5-9/100 + 13-5/100)
= 9.0 yg/m3
L = XO-B/100 1-96 C /100) (5b)
x/ v
= 8.4(1-5-9/100 - 13-5/100)
=6.8 yg/m3
Thus, the interval between 6.8 yg/m3 and 9-0 yg/m3 would be expected to
include the true value with a confidence of 95 percent.
24
-------
POLLUTANT -. 12301 - AMMONIUM URBAN ANALYTICAL QUALITY 95Z CONF.
METHOD - 92 - HI-VOL SODIUM PHENOLATE CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU METER <25 C> N n * (U6/M3) (X) (I)
< 0.2 »- 55.1
0.2-1.0 »- 50-0
> 1.0 •- 23.7
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: IB NO. MIN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MAX MEAN STDEV MEAN STO
ALABAMA
BIRMINGHAM
010380003*01 75* 23 LD LO LD LD LD .05 .07 .26 .56 1.81 6.96
GADSDEN
011*80001*01 75* 20 LD LD LD LD LD LD .07 .21 .44 .52 1.79
HUNTSVILLE
011860001*01 75* 19 LD NO. OF SAMPLES 1 10) BELO« MIN. DEI. EXCEEDS 50* .98
MOBILE
012380001*01 75 25 LD NO- OT SAMPLES I 22) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50% .13
MONTGOMERY
012460001*01 75 25 LO NO. OF SAMPLES ( 15) BELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50% 5.35
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE
020040003*01 75* 26. LO ,NO. OF S»MPLES < 25) BELOy MIN. DET- EXCEEDS 501 LD
FAIRBANKS
020160001*01 75* 15 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 12) BELOU MIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501 .08
ARIZONA
DOUGLAS
030240004*01 75* 21 LD NO. OF SAMPLES C' 11) BELOy MIN. OET. EXCEEDS 50X .94
PHOENIX
030600002*01 75* 17 L0 NO. OF SAMPLES ( 10) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 1.20
TUCSON
030360001*01 75 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 15) BELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 1.71
ARKANSAS
LITTLE HOCK
041440001*01 75 26 LD NO. OF S«MPLES ( 15) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 3.12
TEX*fiK*N*
0*2560001*01 75* 20 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 16) BELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50* .14
VEST MEMPHIS
042740001*01 75 24 LD LD LD LD LD LD .12 .49 .76 1.63 3.16
CALIFORNIA
ANAHEIM
050230001*01 75* 26 LO LD LD LD .05 .16 .38 .76 1.24 2.67 0.14
BERKELEY
050740001*01 75 26 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 22) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS SOX .17
BURBANK
050930002*01 75* 22 LD LD LD .38 .47 .60 .86 1.09 1.50 2.25 7.12 1.170 1.64 .466 5.2*-
FRESNO
052800002*01 75* 26 LD LD LD .06 .07 .11 .14 .25 .43 .77 6.14
GLENDALE
052940301*01 75* 21 LD LD LD .16 .31 .53 .62 1.95 2.02 3.87 7.50 1.435 2.04 .441 6.2?
LONG BEACH
054100001*01 75 24 LD LO LD LD -14 .25 .53 1.01 1.£6 3.1f 7.24
LOS ANGELES
054130001*01 75* 26 LD LO .05 .08 .29 .57 .8u 1.31 2.13 2.57 4.82 1.135 1.34 .403 3.83
OAKLAND
055300001*01 75 23 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 14) BELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50* .93
PASAOEN*
055760002*01 75* 25 LD LD .16 .27 .35 .54 .99 1.40 1.77 2.5( 7.61 1.238 1 .66 .510 4.79
SACRAMENTO
056580001*01 75 25 L I) NO. OF SAMPLES ( 15) BELOy KIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50Z 2.37
SAN BERNARDINO
056680001*01 75 27 LD LD .22 .50 .81 1.44 2.00 3.17 4.43 5.21 12.36 2.514 3.04 .954 5.9-|
SAN DIEGO
056500004*01 75 23 LD LD LD LO .06 .08 .15 .16 .17 .63 1.09
SAN FRANCISCO
05iB60001*01 75 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES C 1?) BELOy MIN. DEI. EXCEEDS 50* 1.68
S»N JOSE
051980004*01 75 26 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 17) BEloy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50* 1.90
SANTA »N»
057180001*01 75* 23 LD LD LD Lo -05 .09 .36 1.23 1.78 2.35 8.52
•JORB»NCE
056260001*01 75 26 LO LD LD .08 .09 .12 .57 .81 1.57 1.9f 5.71 .875 1.37 .239 5.98
COLOR»OO
OENVEk
050580001*01 75* 15 LD NO. OF S»MPLES ( 9) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50* .19
DCNVEK
060580002*01 75* 26 Li, NO. OF SAMPLES ( 16) BELOW MIN. OET. EXCEEDS 50* .30
* INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT MET
25
-------
UMTS j 1 Uta/Cu*'t.Ttfi<<.jC> NHi,
CONNECTICUT
PBI &&E POR T
j7COtCJ-1*C1 75 2 A L D L o LD L D . 0 1 .11 .17 .29 .79
HAB T FOR D
C70t 20d02*01 75 27 LD LD LD LD .06 .20 .32 .38 . E2
*£y HAVE*
.AT i B3URT
DEL A WAfi E
fcEW ARK
08G140u01*01 75 24 LI LC LD LD .0? .11 .17 .47 .73
WlLhlNGTON
0?G260302*01 75* 19 L t LD .05 .13 .20 .22 .22 .24 .36
FLOR IDA
JACK SON«I LLE
101960002*01 75* 26 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 23) bELO^ WIN- DE7. EXCEEDS 5 C 1
M*ni
ST PETERSBURG
103980002*01 75' 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 21) oELOU M IN . DET. EXCEEDS 50Z
GEOHG I A
ATLANTA
COLUMBUS
SAVANNAH
1U5J0001A01 75 26 LD NO. OF S A H P L fc S ( 17) u E L 0 W RlN. DET- EXCEEDS 501
HAW A 1 I
HONOLULU
12U120001AC1 75 27 L u NO. UF SAMPLES ( 23) bELOy KIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501
ILLINOIS
CH] C AGO
1O220Q31A01 75« 17 LC .U .24 .35 .51 .68 .70 .77 j.76
FAS T ST LOUIS
JOL IET
143760001*01 75« 22 L D LP LD LD .08 .11 .13 .17 .62
WOL 1 NE
NOR TH CHICAGO
PEOfi 1 A
ROCKFORO
14668QQ01AD1 75* 23 LD LD LD LD LD .06 .Of .08 .16
ROCK ISLUND
SPRINGFIELD
147280G01A01 75- 1? LC LP LD LP .06 .09 .11 .23 .34
IND 1 ANA
EAS T CHI C AGO
15118000TA01 75* 23 LD .06 .10 .13 .19 .24 .27 .30 .45
EVANSVILLE
151300001*01 75 23 LD LD LD LD .06 .08 .09 .11 .?1
FORT WATHE
GAR T
151520001*01 75* 20 LO LD LD LD .05 .07 .13 .19 .72
HAMMOND
151730002*01 75 2A LD LD LD .05 .06 .0& .11 .55 .56
SOUTH BEHD
153880002*01 75 27 LD LD LD LD .11 .22 .32 .50 .73
TEBHE HAUTE
IOWA
150660016*01 75 22 LD LO LD LD .05 .Q7 .09 .12 .21
f Ula/l"3 > (I ) t* >
< 0.2 +- 55.1
0.2-1 .0 +- 50.0
> 1 .0 *- 23.7
AR 1 THUETI C G fOP £TR 1 C
.t 1 i ,4C
.97 1.55
1.32 5.5C
,t6 o.19 ,?6t 1 .3S .193 3.91
LD
LU
2.1*.
. 1 2
2.32 -.15 1.060 1.15 .603 i.39
.79 1.C4
.25 1 .35
.51 .7C
.52 1.12 .268 .24 .208 2.M
1 .E4 5.5C
.76 ^.17
•89 L" -390 .55 .143 4.54
i.6f 3.15
2.00 ».05 .813 1.11 .287 5.16
.42 .71
INDICATES TEARLT CRITERIA HOT RET
26
-------
POLLUTANT - 12301 - AMMONIUM URBAN ANALYTICAL SUAL1TY 95 Z t OH F .
METHOD - 92 - HI-VOL SODIUM PHENOLATE CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS 01 - UG/CU METER (25 C) N H t (U8/M3) (I) (Z>
< 0.2 «- 55.1
0.2-1.0 «- 50-0
> 1.0 «- 23.7
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: »R NO. M1N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MAX MEAN STDEV MEAN STO
10UA
DAVENPORT
1S1D60001A01 75* 24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 14) BELOW HIN. OET. EXCEEDS SOX 1.16
DES MOINES
1611E0001A01 75 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES < 18) BELOW MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50* .24
DuBUDUE
1S1260002A01 75* 21 L D LD LD LD LD .06 .0? .14 .27 .£5 2.05
DUBUOUE
151260008A01 75* 24 LD LO LD LD L» .05 .10 .12 .32 i.OC *.77
WATERLOO
163760004A01 75 25 LD LD LD LD LD .06 .08 .15 .17 .33 .76
KANSAS
KANSAS CITT
171S00002A01 75* 18 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 12) BELO" MIN. DET- EXCEEDS SOX .46
KANSAS CITT
171800012A01 75 25 LD LC LO LD .09 .17 .18 .23 .27 .43 4.56
TOPEKA
173560001A01 75 24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES < 19) BELOW MIN. DET- EXCEEDS 50% 2.68
WICHITA
1 73740001 A01 75* 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 13) BELOy MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50X 1.14
KENTUCKY
ASHLAND
1F0080002AD1 75* 23 LD LD LD .09 .11 .35 1.08 1.26 }. 22 O.26 13.65 1.214 3.68 .400 8.70
BOWLING GREEN
180320001A01 75* 20 LD LD LD LD .05 .10 .17 .28 .40 .66 1.40
COVINGTON
1B08000D1AEM 75* 24 LD LD LD .07 .26 .29 .32 .52 1.15 2.26 4.11 .716 1.04 .248 5.11
LOUISVILLE
1B2380002A01 75 24 LD LD .05 .07 .08 .10 .15 .54 .69 .7! 3.84 .549 .98 .182 4.53
LOUISIANA
BATON ROUGE
190280001*01 75 22 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 18) BELOW H1N. DET. EXCEEDS SOX .54
IBERVILLE PAD
191280002A01 75* 16 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 14) BELOW «1N. DET. EXCEEDS 501 .91
NEW ORLEANS
192020002A01 75 23 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 17) BELOW MIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501 .81
SHREVEPORT
192740001A01 75* 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 23) BELOW MIN. DET. EXCEEDS SOX ID
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE
210120001A01 75* 22 LD LD .07 .38 .41 .46 .60 .64 .67 1.75 7.69 1.023 1.81 .410 4.34
MICHIGAN
DEARBORN
231140Q01A01 75* 23 LD LD LD .10 .10 .16 .19 .22 .44 1.50 7.15 .706 1.59 .180 4.80
231180001A01 75 27 LD LO
FLINT
2315S0008A01 75* 15 LO NO. OF
GRAND RAPIDS
231S20001A01 75 26 LD LD
LANSING
232840001A01 75* 19 L D LD
SASINAW
234760001A01 75 27 LD LD
LD LD .13 .15 .30 .43 .65 .96 6.28
SAMPLES ( 8) BELOfc MIN. DET. EXCEEDS SOX 2.34
LD LD LD .09 .16 .29 .54 .61 5.37
LD LD .05 .08 .09 .14 .38 .88 6.21
Lo LD .05 .06 .08 .22 .42 .84 4.23
TRENTON
235120004A01 75* 22 LD LD LO LD LD -09 .14 .20 .54 .92 3.57
MINNESOTA
DULUTH
241040001A01 75* 22 LD LD LD • LD Lt LI) .05 .12 .21 .43 .68
MINNEAPOLIS
242260J27A01 75 26 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 14) BELOW MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 502 .62
ST PAUL
243300031A01 75* 22 LD NO. OF SAMPLES < 17) BELOW KIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 .64
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON
251260002H01 75 25 LD NO. Of SAMPLES < 15) BELOK BIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 1.76
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT MET
27
-------
POLLJT^M 1 J J „ ; „ K '" C S I U F " ft b A \
UKiTi C' U0/CU "tm C? C, K h t
"15 50JBI
S T L 0 J 1 S
Zf.^:0::i»C1 75- J3 L I L[ .15 .2! . 3 <• .54 .60 .69 .91
Hu'dT/
ML P R AS K A
LINCOLN
NEVADA
LAS VEG.AS
293T;C;D1->"1) 75- 2! LL >, 0 „ OF S A M F L t - < 17> c E L C ^ PIN. C E T . EXCEEDS 50*
PhN 0
Z|;j4tOujl601 75 27 L l> hi^ OF SAM^LES ( 1 t > oELOU ,»-lN. DEI. EXCEEDS 5Cj
NE b HA»PS H ] R f
C L"J C 0 fl 0
3DJ1?GLG.»01 75» 17 LC NO. *.• F ^.A ^PLt 5> f 9 ) dtLQW P I h . DLT. ExCEtDS 502
\ L v J t R S f 1
FAYONNE
CAMD EN
31j/20jG1'l01 75' 21 LD . L l, . C ! .13 .24 .45 .C1 . 1 1 1.J4
CARD EN CO
ELT Z A3E TH
feL A S SbORO
31?7QPiV1A01 ?5* 2 L Li LC . C f .11 .15 .22 .24 .4' .f5
JLS o E J C I T V
31t7. ^ 0 o 0 1 * D 1 75* 2'j LL- LC .35 .13 . ? U ,45 .*.@ .77 . f 2
N L W A R k
3134(jQ001'l01 75* ? «, L^ cr- LC . D t -23 . ? ^ . 7 n 1.24 1.'2
PL P T H Art 9 OT
3142:CC'JlAO'i ^5* :i LL LD .11 .13 .It .3i* .47 ,d2 .r/1
1Kb N TGI
I- 1 a YORK
CLP AN*
j i u 0 4 C L 0 1 * L 1 75 2 L L u L T L D . 1 <" . 1 - . . t. - 4 S . t 7 7 . J 3
f- u r F fl L 0
3?^^L?...1»G1 75 25 L: LL tc LD L - •>-/ -C7 -11 v?
CuN C . RftN&E BIAS PS t I- I S I ON
( U t / M 3 ) ( 1 ) t X )
< 0.2 «- 55.1
0 . ? - 1 . 0 +-50,0
> 1 .C +-23.7
AR ] THME TIC 6f OM £TR i C
2.25 ?.tb .76 Li .79 .4^4 i.52
1 . ' 7
,15
.»
1.55
1.94 t .6i .9£t 1.^,4 .356 <,.b6
I.51 ; . f. L -P5L i.if- .324 *. o fc
.t 7 i,5 .347 .J2 .1 9fc i .33
.0- - .4t .i4 Sf .Vi .2^7 *, .IS
2.34 c.r'J ° 1 £ 1 . J L .3CY ; . o 6
1.14 7 . H . " U .L 1.4^ .316 4 . L i
1 . ; ^ 1 1 . f '/
,.„ :.:t
i . - 2 : . 'j T . 6 c, 7 I.It .277 4.uV
. 1 L
Lf LC
( 1£> u E L 0 - - I •. - DtT. ExLfEDS 5Ci
( i"1) cELC1- ^l^. DST. EXCEEDS :pi
. 1 ^
C1 75 27
L 0 LD
1-12 1 . f? 2.91 L . ?3 i .T
. t.4 . ^4 1.34 3 . 5 G
-------
POLLUTANT - 12301 • ABBOMUB U 8 6 A N KIALKTICAL OU AL 1T» 95 * CONF.
METHOD - 92 - Hl-VOL SODIUM PHENOLATE CCNC. RANGE flAS PRECISION
UMTS - 01 - UG/CU FcTER (25 C) N H 4 (UC/fJ) (i) <*>
< 0.2 «- 55.1
0.2-1.0 +- 50.0
> 1.0 »- 23.7
ARITHMETIC GtOBET»IC
SITE: T« NO. BIN ID 2C 3D 40 5G 60 70 SO 9C MX BEAN STDEV «£»N ST
.11 4.CC f-.t7 1.070 1.65 .374 4.69
.(3 .75 1.37 .37C -Z3 .214 3.55
.C2 2.5° 3.19 .725 .5? .274 4.67
.60 3.»0 5.71 1.361 T .77 .413 6.41
.07 1.97 5.2t .974 1.56 .309 5.17
.95 1.C? 1.44 .497 .4F .245 4.1O
1.250 1 .77 .713 2.66
OHIO
CINCINNATI
351220001*01 75 25
COLUMBUS
3S1460D01A01 75- 20
DAYTON
361660001*01 75* 24
IkONTON
363080001A01 75« 17
PORTSBOUTH
365620002*01 75" 17
STEUBENVILLE
366*20012*01 75- IS
TOLEDO
366600001A01 75* 20
YOUNGSTOUN
367760001*01 75 27
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA CITT
OKLAHOMA CIT»
372200029*01 75 27
TULSA
373000001*01 75* 22
OREGON
PORTLAND
381460001*01 75* 21
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLENTOMN
350120001*01 75* 24
*LTOONA
390140001*01 75* 13
ERIE
393060002*01 75* 19
HAZLETON
393960001A01 75* 14
PHILADELPHIA
397143004*01 75 26
PITTSBURGH
397260001*01 75* 24
5CRANTON
39S04000U01 75* 1t
VARM1NSTER
399160002*01 75* 19
WEST CHESTER
39»2B0110«01 75 23
V1LKES-BARRE
399430001*01 75 24
TORK
399560322*01 75* IV
PUERTO RICO
PONCE
401920002*01 75* 21
RHODE ISLAND
CAST PROV1DENC
410120001*01 75* 21
PROVIDENCE
410300001*01 75* 23
SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA
420760001*01 75 23
GREENVILLE
t 21130001*01 75 26
TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA
44038000U01 75 25
LD .05 .10 .13 .2£ .35 .42 .63 1
Lfc LD LD -17 .20 .27 .4(j .43
LD LD .09 .12 .16 .23 .32 .56 1
LD LC LD .13 .19 .52 .55 1.14 j
LD LD -Of .06 .17 .19 .45 .70 1
LD LD .05 .07 .U .23 .46 .75
LD LD LD LD LC .2E .33 .41
.13 .19 .33 .39 .55 .62 .75 .88 1
Ll> NO. OF SABPLES ( 16) tiELOW BIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50*
LD NO. OF SABPLLS ( 13) bELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 5 OX
LD NO. OF SAMPLES C 14) bELO" BIN. OET. EXCEEDS 501
LD LD .12 .14 .28 .60 .70 .94
LD LD .11 .14 .16 .19 .33 .70 1
LC LD .05 .10 .16 .21 .24 .31
LD LD .05 .06 .13 .22 .29 .59
LD .07 .09 .12 .20 .46 .53 .64 1
LD LD .07 .14 .36 .42 .45 .89
LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 10) BELO" BIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501
ID LD LD .07 .15 .23 .76 .39
LD LD .06 .06 .15 .24 .33 .38
LC LD LD .09 .17 .19 .35 .60
LD LD LD LD .05 .08 .16 .26
Lb NO. OF SAMPLES ( 21) BELOU MIN. DET. EXCEEDS SOX
LC LD LD LD .10 .12 .24 .40
LD LD LD .11 .16 .33 .47 .53
LD LD LD LD .08 .16 .23 .37
LC LD LD LD .10 .14 .22 .28
Lt LD LD .05 .06 .08 .09 .11
.99 1.4F 2.92 .7U2 .70 .368 3.S*
.49 3.41 5.46 1.101 1.64 .346 5.1?
.42 1.2C 1.74 .4U3 .51 .169 3.00
.71 1.33 4.29 .661 1.11 .231 4.83
.10 1.03 t.27 .756 1.23 .337 3 .9(1
.05 1.46 2.19 .615 .61 .297 -..33
1 .53
.51 1.16 6.34
.60 1.1° 1.50 .427 .47 .207 3.69
.PO 1.14 3.03 .405 .66 .200 4.48
.71 1.45 7.31
.66 1.65
.97 2.41
.59 1.36 3.C2
.40 .67 2."76
.33 1.52
• INDICATES >EA8LT CRITERIA NOT MET
29
-------
POLLUTANT- 12:01 -AnrQNlLi,1' UfibAM ANALYTICAL QUALITY SSlCONF.
K E THO D 91 H1~ VOi iOLi]cr-phfhCLA1F CONC.FANGE BIASPRECISION
UNITS-Q1 Ub/CU«tTtPC(C) F, * <. ( U W * 3 ) (HI ( X >
< 0.2 -»- b5 .1
f.r-I.O *- 50.0
> 1 . C' * - 2 3 . 7
AR J ThHE Tl C GfOMETHIC
T K ij... • i M 1 r, ? r, IF, t n * i. tO 7 C f C 9 G *** »E * M S T 0 E V n t A N S T D
TENNE SS EE
KhO XVIL LE
<,t174.Cu02'C1 75" 2(, L I, h 0 . Of SAMPLES ( 11) d E L C * WIN- OLT. EXCEEDS S P X
«"EW PHI S
4423*0001*01 75 ?? L L. LD L c L o .05 . c? -09 .11
HASHVlLLE
4425*0001*01 75* 1 o L L. HO. OF £ A " P L E S ( 1 f) D E L 0 * PIN- DtT. EXCEEDS 5C1
TEXAS
AUSTIN
*.50ZZ 0010*01 75* 2 !> LL NO. OF SA^PLtS ( 19) oELO* «Ih- DET- EXCEEDS 501
CORPUS CHRIST]
<.S115C001»01 75' 21 LD HO. OF SAFPLtS ( If) oELO- hIN. DET. EXCEEDS SCI
DALLAS
*,51310u02A01 75 2^ LU hO. OF SAMPLES ( It) D£L
EL PASO
(.=170000^*01 75* 2o Lt LI LD LD LD -Ct . T7 -1C .?C .1?
FOfiT uORTH
*.51Sa0301»01 75 27 LL SO. Or SA«PLE^ I 2 C) eELO-^ M1N. DtT. EXCEEDS 5C1
HOUSTON
J,5256QOD1»'01 75 2*> LI HO. OF SA^PLtb ( 1P) bELQy WIN. DEI. tXCEEDS SCI
l_ JB80CK
4:33<.0301A01 75* 16 L ti NO. Of SA«FLES ( It) dELO«( h 1 N . DET. EXCEEDS 502
PAS AOE.NA
LD HO- OF fftiPLES C 1 <, ) DElO» hlN- DEI- EXCFEDS 5C1
45457D03i.A01 75* 21 LL NO. Of SAMPLES C 2?)bELO"«lN. DET-ExC£EDS50X LD
yiCHITA FALLS
4(iS560002A01 75* 17 Lt> NO. Of SABLES ( I1) c-ELC- fIN. DtT . EXCEEDS 5C5. .27
UTAH
060 £H
<.60630001A01 75« 23 LD NO. Or SAMPLES ( 12) tELO-* MS. DET. EXCEEDS 501 ' .Ct
5ALT LAKE CITY
46C920Q01A01 75 2 tj LU LC LD LD . C 5 . C8 . 1 1 . 1 P . ?7 .5C 7.^3
VERMOM
PURL ING TON
4701*3003*01 75 2 «. LC NO. OF SA^PLtS ( 1T) B£LO" f 1 N . DLL EXCEEDS 50* . " C
VIRGINIA
OAN VILLE
450920D01A01 75* 21 LU LO . Ot . CV .09 .20 . to .'7 1.26 1 . IP 3.12
i . 1 E d . ^ f
L r^ C HbU R6
tP1StOL/01»Ol 75
NOB FOLK
4VJ2140[)01«01 75* 21 LD L o LC .06 .19 .44 . M .,'0 1.29 2.t4 3.41 . M 7 i „ 0 2 . 2 9 2 5-62
POR T SMOOTH
4f2".0u01*01 75- 15 LL. .Cc .C7 .21 .25 .^1 . "" i . tS p .10 \.7( ": . 5 6 .F 54 1.39 .349 i,.2Q
1 .31 .703 -.01
4f27Q0003AD1 75* 21 Li LD LD LD LC «"i .07 .14 .7 £ .tt i .:1
1-5-3 t .2U .456 5.91
- -t- 1.17 . ?4 ^. t r, v.?1 1.712 2.7J .403 6.42
30
-------
POLLUTANT - 12301 - AMMONIUM
METHOD - 92 - Hl-YOL SODIUM PHENOLATE
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU METER (25 C)
URBAN
N H 4
ANALYTICAL OUALITY 951 CONF.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
(UG/M3)
< 0.2 *- 55.1
u.2-1.0 »- 50.0
> 1.0 »- 23-7
»R NO. "IN 10
ARITHMETIC
MAX MEAN STOEV MEAN
GEOMETRIC
WISCONSIN
KENOSHA
5115*0001*01 75* 17 LD
MADISON
511860001A01 75* 19 LO
MILUAUKEE
512200001A01 75 24 LO
RACINE
5128S0002A01 75 24 LO
LD
LO
LO
LD
>. OF
LD
LD
LD
.05
SAMPLES
.06
.08
.08
.05
( 10)
.14
.09
.09
.07
BELOU
.16
.12
.12
.11
MIN.
.30
.15
.17
.11
.39 1
.23
.34
.18
.15
.34
.60
.47
1.38
.50
1.63
1.46
DET. EXCEEDS 5 01
3.25
.62
3.42
2.62
.31
.583
.208
.513
.394
.87
.19
.92
.64
.214
.126
.165
.141
4.61
3.05
4.47
4.11
WYOMING
CASPER
52012D001A01 75* 20 LD NO. OF SAMPLES < 18) BELO" MIN. OET. EXCEEDS 5OZ
31
-------
POLLUTANT- 12331 A* NO M UK NONUfieAN ANALYTlCACQuALllY 1.0 +- 33.7
ARITHMETIC GEOMfTRjC
SHf: TR we. WIN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 WAX NEAN STDEVflEAN STD
ABKAN.SAS
FONTGOHER T CO
041760001*03 75* 21 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 17) BELO* NIN. DET. EXCEEDS 50X .21
COLORADO
WES A VERDE NAT
061530002*03 75* 22 LD NO. OF SAMPLES < 2?) BELOW MjN. OET. EXCEEDS 5Q1 LO
FLDB IDA
HAROEE CO
1Q16J0001H03 75« 22 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 18) eELO^MlN- DET. EXCEEDS 501 .07
HAW A 11
HAWAII CO
1200SO&01AD? 75* 20 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 16) 6ELO" WIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501 -'•3
HAWAII CO
120050002A03 75* 22 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 17) bELO* HIM. DE1 . EXCEEDS 501 .21
HAUA II VOLCANO
120090001A03 75* 14 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 11) BELOy Hln> DET. EXCEEDS 501 .11
IDAHO
6UTTE CO
1?03i,0001A03 75- 2i LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 2?) BELOW WIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501 LO
INDIANA
HONBOE CD
152800001AQ3 75* 21 LD LD LD LD LD .10 .11 .20 .46 .59 c.46
ffCl HE
ACADIA NAT PAR
20001QQ01AD3 75- 19 LU NO. OF SAMPLES ( 1')BELOyMlN. Dtl . EXCEEDS 501 . 6£
^AR YLAND
CALVERT CO
210230001AD3 75- 23 LD LD LD LD .05 .37 .43 .48 .77 1.48 6.36
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON CO
251?8QQ01A03 75* ?6 LI NO. OF SAMPLES < 16)faCLO*niN. DEl. EXCEEDS 50Z . t 5
CJ S SOUR I
SHANNON CO
2644$QQ02*03 75 2". i l> LD LD LD LD . C6 . [)7 .11 .21 .5 P i . 7<*
l"ON TANA
GLAC IE « NAT PA
Z'70570001AO? 75 * 1 £ LD h 0 . OF SAMPLES* 1°)cELOtfniN. OET. EXCEEDS 5ni LD
POWDER B1 WE R C
271?4000cJAO? 7i* 19 i i> NO. OF SAMPLES ( 1 P ) bELOW MIS. OET- EXCEEDS 501 LD
NEBRASKA
THOflAS CO
2?-248DOQlA[B 75* 17 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 1t)t)ELO*KIS. D fc T . ExCEEDSSCl LD
NEVADA
WHITE PISE CC
2^0560001*03 75* 24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 21) btLdw nih- DET. EXCEEDS 502 .13
NE* HABPS HIRE
COOS CO
3CuUOD01»C3 75- 2:- L L NO. OF SAMPLES ( 17) bELO- nih. DET. EXCEEDS 50X 2.6C
^ E w T D fi fc
JE f F EKSO* C 0
333343C01AC! 75* 21 LU LC LD .05 .11 .15 .19 .21 .21 .73 7.T9 .?y^ i.9fc il59 493
RHODE ISLAND
WASHING TOh CO
<.1j!60032*C3 75* 22 L^ LD LD LD LD LD .06 .10 . ?C .16 1.32
SOUTH CAROLINA
B1CHLASID CO
4Z13j";Di»:3 75* 26 LU f. 0. OFSftMPLtS( 15) dELC- n] t<. DEI. EXCEEDS 5 ? Z 1.1;;
32
-------
POLLUTANT - 12i01 - AMMONIUM
METHOD - 92 - HI-VOL SODIUM PHENOLATE
UMTS - 01 - UG/CU HETER (25 C)
NONURBAN
N H 4
ANALYTICAL DUALITY 951 CONF.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
< 0.2
0.2-1.0
> 1.0
+- 55.1
*- 50.0
*- 23.7
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN STDEV MEAN STD
SOUTH DAKOTA
PLACK HILLS NA
430110001A03 75*
LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 21) BELOW M]N. OET. EXCEEDS 50*
TENNESSEE
CUMBERLAND CO
4406S0001A03 75
LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 16) BELOW MIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501
TEXAS
MATAGORDA CO
453530001A03 75*
TOM GREEt CO
455200001A03 75«
2S LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 22) bELou KIN. DET. EXCEEDS 5ox
24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 19) bELOW KIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501
VERMONT
ORANGE CD
470J60301A03 75" 24
LD
.0?
.15 1.67 6.50
VIRGINIA
SHENANDOAH NAT
4828V0001A03 75* 19 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 11) BELOU HIN. DET. EXCEEDS 501
y»THE CO
WASHINGTON
KING CO
490980002*03 75* 24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES ( 23) BELOX MIN. DET- EXCEEDS 502
8.85
LD
WYOMING
YELLOWSTONE NA
520S60001A03 75* 17
LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 16) BELOW MIN. DET. EXCEEDS 502
SREUIND NOWDATA.
FURPUR 27R3 E33 SL73R1 04/27/78 09:20:41
iXQT TPFS.ABS
33
-------
M t T M 0 t' g 2 ri 1 - V C L fc E L, L C T 1 0 '. - D 1 A 7 0 COUPLIM-
UMTS a 1 - U b / E L " t T E S K5 C)
SUE: T k NO. WIN 1 : : c - J
E- 1 fi »* I ', b H A K
0 1 , ' ^ - r- 3 A C •: 75« 33 .11 .71 1.5C 1.52
r AO s c t s
oii43OuDi*;i 75« :• u i . i -, i . 2 c i . z t 1.47
HUNTSvlLLt
0 1 1? 6 D 0 C 1 • C 1 75' 1 v .it 1.23 1 . c L 4- . C 6
"lj? IL L
012*6 CuOIADI 75 25 LI/ .53 .tt i .10
AL» SKA
ANC HOk A&E
0?OD40U03*C1 75* 26 LD .27 .41 .O
FAI BBANKS
ARIZONA
DOUfcL AS
03024 DJ 04*01 75* 21 LD .15 .67 .91
PHOEM I
TUC SON
D30B6030l*u1 75 25 .96 1-27 1.57 1.82
ABIT ANSAS
LI T TLL BOCK
041440001*01 75 ?t .5* 1-13 1.73 ^.20
OI256CU01A01 75* 20 i.5i i .55 i.9i 2.32
WEST «E«PH1S
042740001A01 75 2 4 .it .76 1.70 1.78
ANAHE IH
BERK ELE T
PURB *NK
050900002*01 75- 77 *, .1 o 5.33 :> . 6
-
A^ITHHETi C
MEAN STDEV
2.265
2 .073
2.369
1 .4 U3
.766
1 .091
i.569
2 .627
^.707
3.275
10.757
v.105
9.253
7.593
12 .672
3.476
9.668
4.340
17.331
7.164
3.870
7.850
9 .990
6.913
1 .11
.69
.66
1 .61
.71
.52
.49
i .08
.97
.91
1 .92
3 .C2
4 .59
7 .03
4 .00
4 .98
5 .74
2 .84
3 .90
3 .47
8 .60
3.35
4 .03
5 .48
5 .92
5 .67
(1 )
1 .2 *
5.5 <
1.3 »
MEAN
1 .932
1 .961
2.230
L .1 09
1 .065
.570
.857
2 .352
2 .375
i.576
2 .686
8.637
^ 2 89
9.819
0.975
8.515
5 .866
11 .209
2 .566
8.212
2.992
14.585
6.473
2.281
5.754
8.362
4 .541
II )
- 13.9
-12.0
- 12 .L
ETHIC
STD
1 .94
1.41
1.49
1 .63
2.83
2.56
^.67
1.57
1.54
1 .66
1 .37
2.02
1.87
i-03
1.56
2.17
1.51
2.30
1.72
2-24
1.81
2.79
1.95
1.59
2.95
2.45
1 .90
2.97
COLORADO
CEKVE9
010580001101 75- 15 1.11 1.47 1.96 2.25 2.42 2.49 2.58 i.99 3.02 4.79 5.18 2.741 1.07 t .555
0105SOC02A01 75- 26 .81 1.23 1.76 2.07 2.24 2.36 2.64 ^.68 3.65 4.20 V.01 2.812 1.62 2.489
- IHDICATES TEABLT CfilTERJA hOT MET
34
-------
POLLUTANT - 12306 - NITRATE URBAN ANALYTICAL QUALITY 951 CONF.
NETHOD - 92 - HI-VOL RE DUCTION-DIAZO COUPLING C°Nc. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS 01 - UG/CU BETER (25 Cl H 0 3 U>
< 3 1.2 «- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 *- 12.0
> 6 1.3 *- 12.0
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: »« NO- BIN 10 20 3D 40 50 60 70 80 90 HAX HE»N STDEV BEAN ST
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT
07006D001AD1
HARTFORD
070420002*01
NEW HAVEN
070700001*01
VATERBURY
071240001*01
DELAWARE
NEWARK
080140001*01
WILBINGTON
080260002*01
FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE
101960002*01
BI»BI
102700002*01
ST PETERSBURG
103980002*01
GEORGIA
ATLANTA
110200001*01
COLUMBUS
111230001*01
SAVANNAH
114500001*01
HAWAII
HONOLULU
1 20120001*01
ILLINOIS
CHICAGO
141220001*01
EAST ST LOUIS
1 42120001*01
JOHET
143760001*01
HOLINE
145120001*01
NORTH CHICAGO
145620002*01
PEORIA
144080001*01
ROCKFORD
146680001*01
ROCK ISL«NO
146700001*01
SPRINGFIELD
147280001*01
INDIANA
EAST CHICAGO
151180001*01
EVANSVILLE
151300001*01
FORT WAYNE
151380002*01
GARY
151520001A01
HAAnOND
151780002*01
SOUTH BEND
153880002*01
1ERRE HAUTE
154030001*01
IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS
1106I001BI01
75
75
75
75
75
75*
75*
75*
75*
75
75
75
75
75*
75*
75*
75*
75*
75*
75*
75
75*
75*
75
75*
75*
75
75
75*
75
24 1.33
27 .72
27 1.12
27 .88
24 .40
19 .23
26 .88
21 .47
23 .13
25 .07
26 .08
26 .07
27 Lo
17 1.12
19 .78
22 1.67
24 .65
23 .28
23 1.43
23 2.09
23 1.51
17 2.35
23 2.32
23 .74
17 2.26
20 4.07
24 .05
27 .41
22 .70
22 .39
1.66
1.02
1.79
1.71
1 .29
1.46
1.38
.70
.15
1 .26
.28
.41
.11
1.78
£.16
£.22
i .16
.83
1.72
2.15
2.55
2.92
2.40
1.06
2.41
4.42
.93
1 .66
1.32
2.67
2.12
1.76
2.22
1.76
1.85
2.64
1.57
.79
1.27
1.47
.41
.74
.14
3.08
1.42
2.82
3.22
1.93
£.22
2.63
3.33
3.17
3.53
1.79
2.61
4.54
£.43
2.28
3.01
2.80
2.26
£.27
2.66
2.40
2.23
3.03
1.75
.96
1.51
1.55
.59
1.49
.21
3.44
£.50
3.23
3.55
2.28
£.99
3.39
3.53
3.33
4.19
2.24
3.34
5.10
3.06
2.88
3.57
3.31
£.87
3.07
2.71
2.80
2.84
3.35
2.00
1.17
2.01
1.94
1.10
1.71
.24
4.35
£.66
3.44
3.95
3.27
3.30
3.93
1.36
3.91
4.29
2.64
3.62
6.12
3.32
3.47
4.18
3.46
3.01
3.87
3.07
3.72
2.88
1.03
2.13
1.73
2.40
2.06
1 .38
2.19
.29
5.20
2.83
3.81
4.46
3.64
3.96
4.33
4.86
4.11
5.29
3.02
4.72
0.36
3.86
3.97
4.49
3.55
3.83
3.90
4.25
4.23
2.94
4.05
2.30
1.95
£.94
2.55
1.44
2.54
.32
5.38
3.50
3.91
4.62
3.87
4.45
4.41
3.02
4.45
3.44
3.30
5.42
7.13
4.23
4.08
4.91
4.47
4.81
4.26
4.93
5.10
3.40
4.12
2.70
2.20
3.26
2.89
1.51
2.87
.35
6.19
3.58
4.38
4.75
4.66
5.33
4.69
5.46
4.68
c.77
3.97
5.92
7.37
5.63
4.78
5.27
5.03
5.28
4.80
5.62
5.92
4.33
4.60
2.93
2.45
3.95
2.92
1.77
3.20
.43
6.73
4.P7
5.15
5.JE
4.87
6.06
5.14
c.33
4.93
7.69
4.05
6.88
1C. 29
5.76
5.P7
6.54
6.07
7.15
5.21
6.36
7.59
5.03
4.67
3.15
2.89
3.21
4.17
1.91
3.39
.4?
7.55
5.84
6.15
6.90
5.7P
7.43
c.95
8.74
4.94
10.39
4.54
8.76
12.30
7.52
r.75
(.31
7. Of
9.99
6.55
9.90
8.25
5.36
6.35
-.32
3.23
3.38
4.34
2.92
c.65
.83
10.70
9.69
9.05
11.14
12.83
9.06
12.40
11. CJ
5.69
19.65
3.82
12.72
14.64
10.97
11.88
v.68
13.94
3.977
3.465
3.956
4.079
3.021
3.634
£.286
1.723
2.610
2.334
1.256
2.274
.304
5.231
3.652
4.230
4.548
3.»66
4.445
4.666
5.146
4.139
6.221
3.070
5 .305
7.561
4.484
4. 386
4.756
4.708
2.20
1.58
2.08
2.25
1.31
1.41
.79
.85
1 .56
1 .06
.73
1.45
.16
2.54
2 .02
1 .83
2 .00
2.52
2.30
2.36
£.26
.91
3.81
1 .36
£.90
3.22
2.62
£.65
£ .12
2 .73
3.465
3.018
3.455
3.452
2.675
3.142
£.151
1.503
1.937
1.957
.971
1.686
.253
4.579
3.212
3.902
4.Q94
3.075
3.887
1.220
4.698
4.036
5.428
2.729
4.676
6.995
3.381
3.649
4.179
3.988
1.70
1.80
1.71
1.85
1.76
2.04
1.44
1.75
£.67
2.22
£.35
2.63
2.02
1.77
1.69
l.SO
1.68
2.19
1.71
1.55
1.56
1.26
1.66
1.70
1 .66
1.48
2.87
1.95
1 .80
1 .94
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA KOI BET
35
-------
POLLUTANT -123^/6 NITRATE URBAN ANALTTlCALQUALlTY 95XCONf-
MElHOD 92 Hl-VOL REDUCT 10N-D IAZ0 COUPLING CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS 01 -UG/CU METER (2SC) N 0 3 (X> **>
< 3 1.2 +-13,9
3-6 -5.5 +- 12.0
> 6 1.3 +-12,0
ARITHMETIC 6£°"ETRlC
SITE: T& NO. WIN 10 20 3D 40 50 60 70 80 90 MAX MEAN STDEV «EAN ST
IOWK
DAVE NPORT
U1060001A01 75* 2k 2.Ce 2.26 3.46 4.72 * . 5 3 3.00 5.85 o.14 0.36 0.79 15.04 5.519 2.75 k. 985 1.5
D£S HOINE S
1M1&ODOU01 75 25 .51 1.41 1.76 t.79 ^.92 3.47 3.52 3.87 * . 33 f . 6 * 12.66 -..000 2 .74 3.250 ,.9
DUB UOUE
OUB UOUE
1M260G02A01 75* 21 .44 .48 1.06 1.95 2.14 2.39 2.79 3.79 A.55 3.5? e .03 3-011 1.99 2.355
DUBUQUE
IS 1260006*01 75* 24 .63 1 =03 1.70 1.62 3.58 £.67 £.76 3.57 3.67 3.76 10.08 3.159 2 =07 2.637
WATERLOO
163760u04*01 75 25 -86 2.16 2.44 3.48 3.52 3.62 3.97 - = 24 -.29 9.06 10.45 -.270 2.31 3.763
TAN S A S
KANSAS CITT
171800302*01 75* 16 1.24 1.35 2.CS £.34 2.70 £.96 3.38 3.55 4.60 <*.1? v.11 3.43? 1.95 3.043
ASHLAND
l^OOdOOOtADI 75* 23 .<. fc .57 .73 .99 1.34 1.93 2 . 10 2.34 j. 19 3.55 3.bS 1=973 "1.12 1.627
POw LlWG SREEN
1f032C001A01 75* 2C =57 p.11 ! . 51 d .Qt 2.56 c.98 3.C6 3.22 .-.44 3.91 *. . 4 8 2.718 1=02 2,469
51 24 ,c_,b 1.09 1.69 1.90 2.50 £.53 ^.7b 3.25 ?.42 4.71 E.22 2.«24 1.62 2^54-J
1 «, 6 9 4 s 4 5 4 .6 fc £ . P 0 4 i . 0 6 £• „ 6 0 5
192D2Q332A&1 75 23 1-tt 2.04 £ .11 .70 3.233 1.09 3.071
ShR E Vt PORT
1VZ74030Ifl01 75" 25 .6 V r.33 1,dt 1.7E j.86 <. . 1 C t.'tL 2.46 £.90 3.22 5.11 2.259 .57 2.117
PAR T L AW 0
PAL T IPlOftE
210120001*01 75* 2 1 i .: ^ 1.99 2.49 £ . 90 4.40 4.59 3.75 *. .36 i.* k 6.33 7.78 4 .964 1.63 3.646
l C H I
DE
171803012*01 75 25 i.5L £.07 £.69 4.35 4-49 4.90 4.97 4.32 4.86 8.21 9.4U 4.231 2.06 3D821 i.5b
TOPEKA
17356DCOU01 75 24 .93 1.09 1.49 1.81 2.17 2.21 2.32 2.75 3.17 3.63 11.07 ^.652 "1.95 2.292 T .65
WICH I TA
1737i.0031AQ1 75* 25 .57 1.24 ^„k^ 2.04 2.25 2.51 2.69 3.05 : .26 3.49 / .52 «;.644 1.44 2.321 1.70
KENTUCKY
1.96
1.65
COV1NbT ON
180800001*01 751 24 ,5b 1.09 1.69 1.90 2.50 £.53 ^.7b 3.25 3.42 4.71 £.22 2.«24 1.62 2.,54-J ,.75
LOUIStf I LL E
182380032*01 75 24 i.CO 1.66 2.17 2.27 2-58 £.74 £.91 3.02 3o13 -.30 ^.74 £'.Pa4 .86 2.767
IGUlEl ANA
tATON ROU6E
1 ^0280001*01 75 22 .69 ,95 1.26 i-45 i .50 1.52 1.67 2.19 ,; .44 ^. ts g fr.67 2.00? 1.2G P0796
1-53
7-1140G01A01 75* 21 .25 1.64 2.42 4.22 *.. 4 S -.94 5.^2 0.24 f.'5 8.6F 18.23 5.P71 4 .00 4.491 ^./.u
0£ T ft 01T
231130001*01 75 27 .7t 1.54 ?.te 1.33 : .80 4.25 *.42 3.26 r ,T7 6=46 14.67 5.135 3.36 «p.21Z 1-94
f LI NT
2315600 06A01 75* 15 .67 1.16 I-95 ^.94 2.99 i, .71 5.11 5.29 5.eO c = 16 8,25 4.299 2.39 3.52? 2-06
fftfl NO RAP J D S
2313200D1AQ1 75 26 .3 t i .4? ^.35 £.62 2.£7 3.15 *..01 -.24 ^.55 / .61 13.14 *..42C 3.19 3.523 2.02
LAIVSIS&
272°4C001A01 75» IV .frc 1=71 2.2t 4=11 3.61 3.£4 4.91 4.P3 5.F5 7.00 15.73 4.P24 3.58 4.852 2-02
SAG 1NAM
23*76Cuj1*G1 75 27 .t t i .17 1.93 2.24 4.04 3 .52 - . ? 9 *. . f 7 6.^2 7.61 16.53 -,.525 3.39 3.510 2.1^
THE MTU'*
23512CC04A01 75- 22 i.l t !.75 t.1C 2. £6 4.83 3.91 -.51 3.12 S.tO 0.27 17.02 <-.61F 3.23 3.902 l-7ti
22 -f 5 -73 «E4 >95 •" 1-lL i.M 1.65 4.44 A.-u 1P.30 2.202 2.22 ,.602
"ISNEAPOLlS
242?t3;27*C1 75 2t .M T .07 1 .11 1.71 i.fi4 2.21 4. CO 3,31 3 . ? 7 6.47 1C. 87 3.375 £ .77 2.501
^ "-1 -2c -71 ' -*3 1.62 i .63 £.36 3.58 *. . 77 7.2? 1n.?6 3.C16 £.71 1.945
36
-------
POLLUTANT - 12306 - NITRATE URBAN ANALYTICAL DUALITY 951 CONF.
METHOD - 92 - Hl-VOL REBUCT10N-DIAZO COUPLING CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS 01 Ut/CU BETER <25 C> N 0 3 (UG/BJ) (X) (Z)
< 3 1.2 +- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 »- 12.0
> 6 1.3 «- 12.0
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: YR NO- BIN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 BAX BEAN STDEV BEAN ST
MISSOURI
ST LOUIS
264280001*01 75* 23 .83 .88 1.49 1.62 1.96 3.50 3.56 4.23 -..58 6.04 16.01 3.784 3.30 £.867 2.1
BONTANA
HELENA
270720001*01 75« 16 .13 .22 .25 .31 .36 .62 .71 .71 .85 .99 3.27 .761 .75 .553 <:.i
NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
281560002AD1 75' 24 .93 .93 1.58 1.62 1.82 2.25 i.88 3.19 3.61 8.71 10.94 3.323 2.74 2.584 1.9
NEVADA
LAS VEGAS
290320001*01
RENO
290480001*01
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONCORD
300120002*01
NEW JERSEY
BAYONNE
310180001*01
CABDEN
310720001*01
CABDEN CO
310740003*01
ELIZABETH
311300002A01
GLASSBORO
311700001*01
JERSEy CITY
312320001*01
NEWARK
313480001*01
PERTH AHBOY
314220001*01
TRENTON
315400001*01
NEW YORK
ALBANY
330040001*01
BUFFALO
330660001*01
NEW YORK CITY
334680014*01
NIAGARA FALLS
334740001*01
ROCHESTER
335760001*01
SYRACUSE
336620001*01
UTICA
336880001*01
YONKERS
337620001*01
75*
75
75*
75*
75*
75*
75
75*
75*
75*
75*
75
75
75
75*
75
75
75*
75
75*
NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE
340700001*01 75
DURHAM
341160001*01
WINSTON-SALEH
344460002*01
OHIO
AKRON
360060014*01
CANTON
341000001*01
75*
75
75
75*
23
27
17
22
22
20
26
22
20
24
23
25
22
25
22
27
24
18
24
19
25
16
27
25
20
.55 1.01
.39 .48
.38 .51
1.34 1.65
.93 1.48
.64 1.12
.90 1.16
1.47 1.50
1.17 1.54
1.07 1.64
.16 .41
.44 1.05
.27 .44
.14 .59
1.53 1.64
1.16 1.74
.33 .43
.77 1.17
.72 .73
.78 1.80
.38 .70
.25 .36
.23 .36
.65 1.32
.76 .88
1.58
1.03
.62
1.92
1.71
1.77
1.52
1.83
2.07
2.35
1.62
1.82
.54
1.81
i.56
1.16
1.53
1.96
2.03
2.45
1.33
.50
.71
2.25
1.59
2.06
1.32
.91
2.J9
3.03
2.47
2.24
2.50
2.34
2.48
1.73
2.55
1.22
2.52
3.00
2.30
1.62
^.35
2.77
2.73
1.68
.87
1.16
2.76
2.03
2.31
1.63
.94
2.62
3.74
2.91
3.09
3.05
2.77
3.14
1.29
2.61
1.52
2.65
3.83
2.89
f.Ot
3.02
3.17
3.17
1.87
1.54
1.45
2.95
3.18
2.57
1.91
1.13
3.05
3.99
3.34
3.22
3.39
3.17
3.49
1.85
3.12
1.82
3.46
5.22
3.05
1.94
3.14
4.19
4.24
2.01
1.81
1-79
J.17
3.91
2.87
1.98
1.18
3.75
4.52
3.55
3.64
3.43
4.71
3.79
3.15
3.41
2.22
3.75
5.74
3. OB
3.32
3.83
4.24
4.37
2.20
2.25
1.86
3.83
4.04
3.30
2.59
1.33
4.06
5.14
3.73
4.21
4.06
5.34
5.03
3.33
3.86
2.78
4.51
6.12
3.75
4. 03
4.52
4.67
4.54
2.40
2.44
2.35
4.11
4.49
3.46 4.59
2.?1 3.01
2.34 2.69
5.38 C.1C
5.52 6.40
4.43 5.31
4.77 4.96
4.38 5.34
5.62 0.05
7.09 8.30
3.65 4.19
4.21 5.04
3.16 3.96
4.57 4.96
6.51 8.40
4.37 4.81
4.95 7.30
5.01 6.32
5.18 5.78
5.25 6.07
2.44 2.79
3.02 3.33
2.58 2.89
4.43 5.00
4.61 4.96
5.06
6.77
4.12
6.48
8.09
c.55
7.37
8.33
f .67
8.83
5.13
6.50
7.77
6.30
9.34
10.11
7.69
9.16
6.71
10.49
3.95
4.05
3.57
8.97
9.75
2.70E
2.150
1 .476
3.578
4.148
3.381
3.393
3.517
4.037
4.354
2.665
3.116
2.30E
3.197
4.981
3.404
3.342
3.918
3.787
4.231
1 .972
1.951
1.768
3.441
3.601
1 .19
1 .47
1 .07
1 .64
1.97
1 .60
1 .61
1 .71
1.04
2 .40
1 .36
1 .50
1 .84
1 .64
2.37
1 .74
2 .31
2 .29
1 .68
2.22
.81
1.23
.97
1 .67
2.03
2.412
1.740
1.199
3.219
3.626
2.955
<:.970
3.162
3.524
3.759
2.139
2.663
1.659
2.471
4.370
3.071
2.465
3.291
3.301
3.684
1.760
1.474
1.430
3.023
3.030
1 .70
1-99
1.91
1.61
1.77
1.78
1.75
1.60
1.74
1.75
2.28
1.90
2.44
2-52
1 .74
1.57
2*44
1.89
1-82
1.77
1.72
2.39
2.12
1.75
1.91
INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT BET
37
-------
1 t T H C C - -. - r, ] - V 0 L SEDUCTION -D1A-C I C ^ r L I N b
L. KITS 01 Ub/CU-tlfRC'.C) N03
SlTi;; T t p\L. Pis 1: < [ 3 C 40 - G tO 7C
OH 1 0
C ] SC I S4 A I 1
:M2:0_J1*01 75 25 .91 ^.OP ^.35 :>.Q1 j.OB 3.52 3. ft 4.26
COLuMc U i
i5U6CJ01»Cl 75- 2C i .; 4 i .62
< 3 1.2 +- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 +- 12. C
> & 1.3 +- 12.0
AR 1 THWETl C 6 E0-Mt TR 1C
tC QC f * x NE*S STDEU JltAN SID
4.T2 :>.&7 t,24 3.^66 1.29 3.412 1.5)
4 ..3?0 2.05
1.25 1 .27 1 .45 .882 .31 .830 1-42
2.22 4.14 5.90 2.411 t.45 1.9 97 1.94
4.67 4.91 D.83 2.794 ,.53 2.403 , .77
3.41 0.36 8.71 ,:.806 2. 06 2.258 1.95
^.71 3.01 3.96 1.967 .67 1 .743 ,.b1
38
-------
POLLUTANT - 12J06 NITRATE U R B « « ANALYTICAL OUALITY 95Z CONf.
METHOD - 92 - Hl-WOL DEDUCTIDN-tlAZO COUPLING CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU METER 12S C) N 0 3 (U6/K3) «> <*>
< 3 1.2 +- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 *- 12.0
> 6 1.3 *- 12.0
ARITHMETIC
SITE: TO NO. "IN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MAX MEAN STDEV BEAN
TENNESSEE
KNDKV1LLE
441740002A01 75*
BEBPH1S
442340001AD1 75
NASHVILLE
442540001*01 75*
TEKAS
AUSTIN
450220010*01 75*
CORPUS CHRIST1
45115D001A01 75*
DALLAS
451310002*01 75
EL PASO
451700002*01 75*
FORT yORTH
451880001*01 75
HOUSTON
452560001*01 75
LUBBOCK
453340001*01 75*
PASADENA
454053002*01 75*
SAN AHTONIO
454570034*01 75*
WICHITA FALLS
455560002*01 75*
UTAH
OGDEN
460680001*01 75*
SALT LAKE CITY
460920001*01 75
VERMONT
BURLINGTON
4701*0003*01 75
VIRGINIA
DANVILLE
4B0920001A01 75*
HAHPTON
481440001A01 75*
LYNCHBURG
461840001*01 75
NORFOLK
482140001*01 75*
PORTSMOUTH
482440001*01 75*
RICHMOND
482660002*01 75*
RO*NOKE
482700003A01 75*
WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
491840001*01 75*
SPOKANE
492040001*01 75*
TACOMA
492140001*01 75
WEST VIRGINIA
CH*RLESION
500280001*01 75
SOUTH CHARIEST
501760001*01 75
WISCONSIN
EAU CLAIRE
510840002*01 75
20
27
18
23
21
25
26
27
24
16
18
23
17
23
26
24
21
25
21
21
15
25
22
26
23
27
24
25
23
.58
.80
1.00
.45
.99
2.30
i.OO
1.17
.85
.50
.88
.17
.61
.80
.88
.10
.87
.17
.14
.21
.12
.14,
.96
.68
.21
.39
.2C
.23
1.0C
1.34
1 .04
1.32
1.20
1.28
4.29
1.13
1 .67
1.78
.59
1.98
1.04
1.00
.81
1.04
.32
1.23
.50
.57
.40
1.56
.66
1.22
.73
.24
.46
.26
.30
1.09
1.70
1.19
1.80
1.89
1.91
4.68
1.49
2.30
2.03
.81
2.56
1.08
1.48
1.23
1.21
.68
2.08
1.03
1.40
.90
1.61
1.23
1.39
.90
.52
.66
.74
.76
1.39
1.96
2.08
2.17
2.05
2.00
4.90
1.73
2.66
2.78
1.26
2.88
1.23
1.68
1.36
1.39
1.37
2.21
1.32
1.43
.95
2.63
1.61
1.69
1.10
.76
.84
.88
1.10
1.65
2.11
2.14
2.75
2.30
£.08
= .00
1.81
2.89
3.54
1.35
3.50
1.40
2.15
1.75
1.68
1.67
2.40
1.92
1.89
1.70
£.69
1.83
1.95
1.32
.90
1.02
2.00
1.29
1.77
2.23
2.53
2.92
2.32
3.02
3.52
i .95
3.21
.1.66
1.65
3.64
1 .65
2.39
1.93
2.16
2.33
2.82
£.44
£.22
2.29
4.10
2.30
£.25
1.63
1 .22
1.31
2.06
1 .64
2.21
2.34
2.68
3.12
£.40
4.19
(.60
£.19
3.33
4.59
1.92
4.45
1.67
2.39
2.90
2.88
£.58
£.85
£.57
£.46
2.45
4.37
2.48
2.32
2.12
1.55
1.65
2.16
1.77
2.86
2.92
3.23
3.94
2.91
5.64
8.24
2.44
3.46
5.77
1.92
6.78
2.18
2.64
3.44
3.06
3.09
3. OF
3.18
2.82
2.92
4.46
2.97
2.47
2.51
1.90
2.23
2.41
2.04
2.95
3.06
3.61
4.02
3.25
3.89
8.52
3.12
4.07
6.49
£.02
7.88
£.32
3.45
•..09
3.84
3.97
3.33
3.45
3.03
3.31
4.53
3.10
2.67
2.62
2.26
3.17
2.79
2.17
3.86
4.46
3.66
5.35
4.17
7.34
v.77
3.45
4.84
1.31
2.08
8.84
3.06
3.74
0.90
5.14
4.96
3.75
3.88
3.16
3.SP
5.38
3.89
2.74
2.77
2.55
3.91
4.80
2.4?
0.29
5.01
5.14
5.72
5.38
10.79
14. 04
3.58
7.67
9.81
5.62
18.40
0.44
4 .48
16.53
13.31
7.49
5.17
4.98
3.70
4.49
8.18
4.12
3. IE
5.98
2.84
7.06
8.61
24.13
8.26
2.605
2.583
3.224
£.663
3.994
6.682
2.211
3.350
4.518
1 .831
5.676
1.857
2.449
3.603
3.309
£.541
£.812
2.318
£.169
2.234
3.609
2.273
2.131
2.173
1 .374
1.889
2.290
2.462
2.989
1 .17
1.10
1.44
1 .13
2.66
2.70
.81
1 .39
2.43
i .18
4.35
.94
1.04
s.01
3.17
1 .84
1 .03
1 .30
.91
1 .28
1 .98
1 .15
.58
1 .37
.84
1.53
1 .92
4.59
2.L4
2.345
2. 3 25
2.900
2.404
3.240
0.167
2.069
3.094
3.863
1.559
4.450
1.600
2.204
2.453
2.447
1.746
2.619
1.787
1.849
1.745
2.778
1.870
2.044
1.734
1.084
1.424
1.598
1.427
2.467
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.66
1.95
1.51
1.45
1.50
1.82
1.79
2.06
1.88
1.66
£.29
2.10
2.85
1.50
2.43
2.07
£.29
2.68
2.11
1.36
1.82
2.16
2.14
£.59
2.54
1.85
* INDICATES YEARLY CRI7EKIA HOI BET
39
-------
POLLUTE*! - 12306 NITRATE URBAN ANALITICAL QUALITY 951 CONf.
* f THOD 92 HI-VOL KE DUCT 10N-DIAZO COUPLING CONC.RANGE BIASPRECISION
UMTS 01 Ut,/CU"tTEfil25C> h 0 1 (U6/nM (X) (I)
< 3 1.2 *- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 «- 12-0
> t 1.1 * - 12 .0
ARITHMETIC G fOMtTR J C
SITc: Tfi HL>. * ] N 1C ?C 3 C 40 50 60 70 50 Q 0 * * * h£»N STOtVFEAN STO
511540001*01 75 « 1 / .7: .87 2.05 2.91 7.60 c .37 o . S 4 £.0? v. "*6 12-1? 15.24 6.A7C 4.53 4.757 2.A6
"AD I SOS
511?oOj21»D1 75' 19 1.67 1 .&£ 2.59 3 .3 t -.01 -.AA * . 4 6 5.13 i .00 6.71 13.60 A.877 2 .7A A.2S4 1.68
"ILw^UK E E
512200001*C1 75 24 1 .9 c 2.13 2.81 3.13 3.64 *,=02 5.7J c.2C 6.P3 10.2 F 11.A3 5.252 2.75 A.623 ] .67
RACINE
511330002*01 75 24 ,cf 1.51 t.i.t J.33 A.Gi A.7C 5.36 t.27 7.78 v.02 11.35 i.256 £.9A A.3 77 1.9*
^UPE R]OH
513480001*01 75* 17 .71 .75 .77 1.C9 1.22 1.28 1=36 2=67 3.1£ A.29 9.SA 2.691 2.S7 1.841 2=30
CASPER
5?0120Q01A01 75« 20 .2A .^4 .A3 .45 .48 .59 .79 . t E .^t i .05 i .52 .713 .34. .634 1.67
mFLlt 1HD N^yDATA.
fURPUR 27R3 E3i iL?3fl1 0 ». / : 7 ; 7 j 09:14:57
40
-------
POLLUTANT - 12306 - NITRATE NONURBAN ANALYTICAL 8UALITY 951 CONf.
BETHOD - 92 HJ-VOL R E DUCT ION-D IAZ 0 COUPLING CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS 01 - Ut/tU BETER (25 C> N 0 3 (X) HI
< 3 1.2 »- 13.9
3-6 -5.5 t- 12.0
> 6 1.3 «- 12.0
ARITHMETIC G£OB£TRlC
SITE: YR NO. BIN 1C 20 30 40 50 6C 7C EC 9C BAX BEAN STDEV BEAN SJO
ARKANSAS
B01T60BERY CO
041760001A03 75* 21 .54 .57 .88 .93 1.09 1.31 HI 1.43 2.24 2.41 ?.?2 1.44C .70 1.295 1.59
COLORADO
PESA VERDE NAT
061530002*03 75* 22 .Ot, .11 .19 .27 .30 .40 .42 .57 .74 .77 1.05 .456 .27 .369 2.06
FLORIDA
HARDEE CO
101680001*03 75* 2i .32 .35 .60 .89 1.08 1.16 1.33 1.46 1.55 2.51 4.86 1.366 .99 1.103 i.96
HAWAII
HAWAII CO
120030001*03 75* 20 LD HO. OF 5ABPLES ( 11) bELO» BIN. OET. EXCEEDS 501 .37
HAWAII CO
120030002*03 75* 22 LD LD LD .05 .07 .09 .12 .12 .16 .19 .21 .100 .06 .081 2.05
HAWAII VOLCANO
120090001*03 75* 14 LD NO. OF SABPLES < 11) BELOW BIN- DET. EXCEEDS 501 .14
IDAHO
eUTTE CO
130340001*03 75* 23 LD LD .15 .16 .26 .37 .41 .45 .52 .71 1.48 .417 .36 .273 ^.93
INDIANA
BONROL CO
152900001*03 75* 21 .09 .23 1.02 1.85 1.92 2.5D 2.82 J.37 4.C5 4.34 4.65 2.507 1.37 1.876 ^.72
BAINE
ACADIA NAT PAR
2C0010001A03 75* 19 .22 .32 .39 .52 .89 1.07 1.19 1.54 1.»4 2.81 5.C3 1.393 1.21 .998 2.35
BARYLANB
CALVERT CO
210280001*03 75* 23 .47 .49 ^.03 <:.D8
-------
N0f-U9b»r\ AMALTTICALQU*L1TT ^bTCONF.
CCNC. RANGE fMAS PRECISION
^OT ( U t, .' M 7 ) < I ) ( % )
< 3 1.2 +- 13-9
3-6 -5.5 +- 12-0
•> ( 1.3 -• - 1 2 .0
AR11HW£TI C G EOKET h ] C
T F, Su. "IN 1C1 2C !: 4U 5L tf 70 Ef 90 WAX MEAN STDEVHEAN STD
SOUTH DAKOTA
k ' J11C uD1»0? 75' 22 .11 .12 . 1 ( .19 .25 .30 .32 .36 .i9 .£5 ^.77 .471 .59 .322 2.19
TtSSE iSEE
t.4u£3 0.31*03 75 21 Lu .4Z .5! ,9b 1.45 1.75 2.05 2.53 2.72 2.82 5.C4 1.C63 1.24 1.2 90 3.12
TEXAS
KATAGORD* CO
45353^JD1»0? 75' ci .-1 i . 1C 1.1! i . 4 j 1.44 1.55 1.65 2.2« 2.73 3-U"1 4.4: 1 . .c 8 ? .bt1 1.705 1.57
.^3 .91 ..C7 1.1t 1.56 i.80 2.11 3.5C 1.295 ,7fc 1.097 i.o!
VtR10NT
Ch* NG£ CO
4703bOD01ftO! 75- 2*. .14 .38 .49 .65 i.C7 l.cO l . P4 3.u8 3.21 3.6C 11 . E 5 2.246 2.46 1.402 <;.fa1
1.12^ .9? .798 2.47
wlTHE CO
4'344COOlA03 75- 2. .CS .11 .4t .55 .66 .VI 1.02 1.14 1.76 i .t* « .Ci i.CIf .70 .774 ^.35
WASH I us TON
KlNb CO
49U98CG02A03 75' ?4 LO LD .09 .3 U -50 .v1 i.09 i.33 i.C6 «;.tfr 4.f1 1.P31 1.27 .555 4.y?
W T 0 M I N 6
TcLLOhSIDNf NA
5 ?08 60001*03 75- 17 LD .C6 .10 .15 .23 .31 .35 .43 ,f 5 -7f 1.45 .411 .37 .271 ^.o1
iRE WIND NOhDATA.
FUR"UR 27fi3 E33 SL73R1 04/27/7C 09:10:54
XQT TPf J .APS
42
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 - SULFATE URBAN ANALYTICAL OUAL1TT 951 CQNF.
BETHOD - 91 - Hl-VOL COLOR1BETRIC CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - ut/cu BETER «25 c> s o 4 (UG/BJ) (I)
<10 5.9 *- 13.5
10-25 -4.2 »- 10.2
>25 .4 *- 10.2
ARITHMETIC GEOBETRIC
SITE: VR NO- BIN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 RAX BEAN STDEV MEAN ST
ALABAMA
BIRMNGHAH
010380003*01
GADSDEN
011483001*01
HUNTSVILLE
011860001*01
BOBILE
012380001*01
BONTGOBERY
012460001*01
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE
020040003*01
FAIRBANKS
0201 60001 A 01
ARIZONA
DOUGLAS
0 30240004 A 0 1
PHOENIX
03060000 2 A01
TUCSON
0305 6000 1*01
ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK
041 440001 A01
TEXARKANA
042560001 A01
VEST BEBPHIS
042740001*01
CAL1FORNI A
ANAHEin
050230001*01
BERKELEY
bURBANK ,
050900002*01
FKESNO
0 52800002*01
GLENDALE
052940001*01
LONG BEACH
D54100001A01
LOS ANGELES
054160001*01
OAKLAND
0 ^5300001*01
PASADENA
055 7 5 000 2*01
SACRABENTO
05&5B0001A01
SAN BERNIRD1N
056680301*01
SAN DIEGO
056300004*01
SAN FRANCISCO
056860001*01
SAN JOSE
056980004A01
SANTA AN*
057180001*01
TORRANCE
056200001*01
COLORADO
DENVER
060580001*01
DENVER
050580002*01
75«
75*
75*
75
75«
75*
75*
75 *
75
75
75 *
7 5
75*
75-
7 5 *
75*
75*
75
75*
75
0
75
75
75
75
75*
75
75«
75'
23 5.2
20 5.5
19 ..1
25 4.1
25 2 • 2
26 LD
21 £.* 0
17 i • 7
24 1 • 7
26 3.*.
22 j.e
21 LD
26 1.6
23 1*7
27 l.u
23 4.1
26 1.3
23 2.7
26 3.1
15 2.4
26 2.2
5.4 6.5 6.7 7.5 9.8 10. B 11.3 13.5 21.0 42.0 11.71
5.7 6.2 7.7 8.6 10.1 12.0 13.1 15.6 17.3 25.4 11.69
4.5 5.8 6.4 0.7 8.3 y.O 10.8 14.2 16.2 19.8 9.84
5.5 5.9 0.3 6.4 8.7 9.3 11.8 13.0 16.2 21.2 9.59
.( .y 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.3 1.30
4.0 5.1 0.6 7.1 8.6 11.1 17.6 20.5 25.4 43.5 13.62
5.3 7.0 9.2 11.4 14.1 15.3 19.9 21.1 24. u 35.0 15.54
LD £.1 3.8 0.5 8.3 10.2 11.4 12.8 23.6 33.6 10.05
3.8 4.r l.L I.I 9.8 12.5 13.8 19.8 23.4 26.9 12.07
2.1 4.4 7.4 9.1 12.7 13.2 19. u 23.3 25.8 3C.8 13.63
4.3 1.4 5.B 0.0 c.7 7.1 7.7 10.2 I'.C 21.1 6.17
1.9 2.1 2.2 2.5 3.6 3.5 4.2 5.1 5.' 0.4 3.57
3.1 5.1 5.7 0.4 8.7 o.y y .9 20.5 26.5 43.9 12.46
5.7 6.3 7.5 B.O 9.0 10-6 12.6 20.6 22. r 39.3 12.65
2.5 2.9 j.£ 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.9 4.3 5.3 9.2 3.91
2.4 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.3 j.y 4.2 4.7 5.t y.O 4.00
8.1
5.2
4.7
4.4
.4
2.2
2.5
^ 5
2.4
4.0
10.4
1 .6
8.7
2.0
8.7
8.7
7.2
2.0
7.7
1.4
9.2
4.3
1 .4
1C. 6
v.u
1.6
l.e
10.04
10.66
8.83
8.71
1.17
1 .57
5 • 29
3 67
3 • 95
7.50
7 • 08
10. 4Q
10.79
4-11
13.21
3 . 55
5.93
10 .62
9.78
Jay
• cC
9 .15
2 52
9.85
7.39
i.26
9.27
10.56
3.69
3.75
1.69
1-55
1.61
1.55
1.70
3 »30
1 -75
1 .61
1 "6fi
2.01
2-03
1*48
1.63
1 . 74
3.73
2.02
1 -6Q
2 • 20
2.59
1.54
1 50
1.56
2.16
1.85
1.J9
1.42
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT NET
43
-------
KETHGD =1 Hl-vuL COLOklftEThlC
U JUT $ 01 Ub/CU 1-tTER < Z H C)
SITE: T k N Q. Win 10 ?0 30
CONNECTICUT
E-ai 0 EEPJC 1
0700fcOOC1*01 '5 24 5. v 7.0 7.c 7.9
HAR T F OS D
C704:OCQ2*Cr1 75 2? j.y 5,2 5.o 6.9
HE* HAvtl
VATERBURY
DEL AWAR E
HE MARK
W1LRIHGTDN
FLOR IDA
JACKSOHtf I LLE
1C1?60002AQ1 75* 26 4. U 6.2 6.J /• . i
"1AFU
ST PETERSBURG
GEORGIA
ATLANTA
COLUMBUS
SAVANNAH
HAWAI 1
HONOLUL U
ILL 1 NOI S
CHI CAbO
EAST ST LOUIS
14212 DC01A01 75* 1o <, . * O.L c .j v.j
JOL1ET
143760001*01 75* 2 Z <. . i 5 . v c . T a.<^
ROL IMt
1451 2 0001*01 75* 24 «. . 1 4.8 7.C 7 . -
NOR TH CHICAGO
PCOKI*
ROCn FOR D
BOC< ISLAND
SPRINGFIELD
IND I ANA
FAS T CHIC ASO
1S113CD 01*01 75* 23 c.o v.* 12. y 14. D
EV*N s» I LLE
1S1^30C31»01 75 23 3.7 5 .e 7,"1 £.r
FOR T wATN E
1 51 550002*01 75» 17 5-5 6..J e . * v.t
&AR T
(-*• « OS D
50UT H 3£ s [
51P5C.C'2»01 75 27 ;.= 5. A 7 . •. c.i
54?sO:01 »C1 75* 22 c . o 7.; 7.y v.y
CEDAR RAPJCS
ii^;tc:i3*:i 75 : 2 *. . ,. 5.3 7.0 7.7
SOt (U6/H3) (1> tX)
<10 5.«? *- 15.5
10-25 -<•.: +- 10-2
AR 1 THMFT1 C G EOM£TR1 C
b.f y. i 11.1 12.5 13.7 17.& 19.5 11.01 3.8 10.42 1.3*
6.4 v.5 10 = ,' 11 -3 12.5 15.7 21 -<. lu.ul 4.Z 9.21 1.52
9a 115 12 i 12.8 1T.9 18.5 20. d 11.80 4.0 11.17 1-39
/.5 K.I a.y v.j IC.u 10.2 13. 0 8.34 ZJ |_tQ
44
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 - SULFAT£ URBAN ANALYTICAL DUALITY 951 C ON F.
METHOD - 91 - hl-VOL COLORIHETRIt CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU METER (25 C> S 0 4 (UG/M3) (X) (I)
<10 5.9 »- 13.5
lu-25 -4.2 *- 10.2
>25 .4 «- 10-2
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: .* e.2 12.3 33.7 7.25 6.6 5.?o
4.0 ».5 o.O 0.3 f.l 7.5 9.0 10.1 11.4 14.6 7.59 2.V 7.06
2.1 3.4 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.1 6.2 6.9 8.7 10.6 5.34 ?.<: 4.87
5.6 7.6 10.4 11.2 11.8 17.2 18.9 19.0 42. u 60.2 19.00 15. u 14.72
0.5 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.» 11.0 13.5 13. o 29. u 33. I 13.10 C.I 11.36
3.v 5.5 0.1 0.2 o.o 10.8 11.8 12.6 15.5 19.5 9.65 •..» 8.46
4.9 0.5 7.8 8.1 8.9 ».o 10.2 14.9 19.2 19.3 10.51 ».8 9.51
4.7 5.4 5.7 7.2 E.1 8.3 9.3 9.9 10.6 10. o 7.69 2.2 7.32
5.7 7.3 9.0 10.4 11.2 11.7 12.6 17.1 17.8 28.3 12.70 6.1 11.52
8.1 10.2 11.0 12.0 12.9 15.5 17.0 20.1 31.9 40.6 16.34 9.0 14.36
7.4 7.6 8.7 10.7 11.9 13.0 14.8 17.2 25.6 35.8 13.93 7.4 12.34
5.0 o.l 7.0 o.O 9.0 9.u 10.6 11.6 16.6 30.7 10.53 6.4 9.31
4.0 5.8 7.4 r.o 8.8 v.o 14.0 15.4 16.7 34.5 11.25 7.2 9.67
5.9 6.3 9.2 10.9 11.2 11.2 15. o 19.2 24. V 46.9 14.78 10.0 12.44
6.9 7.3 7.9 8.8 9.9 11.0 14.5 19.0 27.5 34. 1 13.51 8.1 11.60
2.6 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.5 6.3 f.3 7.1 0.3 o . ( 5.69 2.0 5.27
2.7 3.1 3.8 5.7 o.3 6.6 o.o r.3 9.« 15.4 O.45 3.3 5.71
2.7 3.2 3.8 5.8 6.1 6.7 7.5 8.0 9.6 11.2 6.29 2.5 5.76
4.2 5.4 5.9 7.1 7.6 7.9 8.7 9.7 13.2 19.3 8.20 3.6 7.54
1.53
1.53
1 .67
1.92
1.48
1 .44
1.45
1.53
1.56
2.04
1 «54
1 «73
1.66
1 »4 3
1.71
1.58
1.39
1.55
1.67
1.64
1.61
1.71
1.78
1 "83
1.74
1.52
1.66
1.56
1.50
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT BET
45
-------
* f T rtOD - -1 1 - hl-vOL COLOM*EIPIC
SITE: Yf, SO. P" IN 1C
PIS S OuR 1
ST LOUIS
HELE KA
NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
2S156CC3i*01 75* 24 1.3 2.1
NEVADA
LAS VE6AS
REHO
NEW HAHPSH 3 R E
CONCO&D
330120002*01 75' 17 <, . u <. . 25 .4 t- 10.2
AR I THMET1 C &EON£TR j c
20 30 40 50 60 7C 80 9C «AX MEAN STDEVMEAN SID
^ .* £.-3 }. 12. / 13.6 14. B 20.4 60.^ 13.25 11.1 1 1 .01 1.74
6- 4 t mt, n.2 1C. 9 13. £ 15.0 16. o 16.2 26. C1 11. K2 5.8 10.40 1=71
e .*. o.*. y.«. v.o 11 .^ 12. e 13o 28.2 37.5 13.29 E.o 11. 43 1.69
7.0 f .5 b.o 9.2 1Q.1 13.9 16. <: 17.r 20. V 11.10 -.9 10.08 1.57
'•C v.O 9.5 9.7 13.o 13.0 16.V 21.5 24.0 12.67 6.2 11.22 1.69
1C-? 12-9 14-° 1*-8 16-' 17-0 18., 28.8 35.5 16.74 7.3 15. 40 1.51
IfOICATES YEARLY CEITEH1A NOT PET
46
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 SULFATE URBAN ANALYTICAL QUALITY 951 CONF.
METHOD - 91 - HI-VOL CO LORI METRIC CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU METER (25 C) SO* (UG/M3) (I) (I)
<10 5.9 *- 13.5
10-25 -4.2 *- 10.2
>25 .4 «- 10.2
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: 1R NO- BIN 10 20 30 iO 50 60 70 60 '0 MAX MEAN STDEV MEAN ST
OHIO
CINCINNATI
3S1220001A01
COLUMBUS
341460001*01
BUTTON
361660001A01
IRONTON
363080001*01
PORTSMOUTH
365620002*01
STEUBENVILLE
366420012A01
TOLEDO
366600001A01
VOUN6STOWN
367760001H01
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA CITY
372200015A01
OKLAHOMA CITY
3 72200029 A01
TULSA
3 73000001 A 01
OREGON
PORTLAND
381460001A01
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLENTOMN
39012Q001A01
ALTOONA
3901*0001*01
ERIE
393060002A01
HAZLETON
393960001A01
PHILADELPHIA
397140004*01
PITTSBURBH
397260001A01
SCRANTON
393040001*01
VARMINSTER
3 991 60002A01
VEST CHESTER
399280110A01
UILKES-BARRE
399430001*01
YORK
399560322A01
PUERTO RICO
PONCE
RHODE ISLAND
EAST PROVIDEN
410120Q01A01
PROVIDENCE
410300001*01
SOUTH CAROLIN
COLUMBIA
420760D01A01
GREENVILLE
4211B0001A01
TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA
440380001*01
75
75*
75*
75"
75'
75«
75*
75
75*
75
75*
75 *
75*
75*
75*
75*
75
75*
75*
75 *
75
75
75*
C
75*
75*
A
75
75
75
25 5.8
20 5.8
2* 3.1
17 6.3
17 5.8
18 5.6
20 4.3
27 6.7
25 1.9
21 2.1
18 5.2
14 5.2
26 5.7
24 5.3
18 5.1
19 5« v
24 ».3
19 4.0
23 4.1
23 4.0
26 4.0
25 5.0
7.0 7.v 9.9 11.5 12.4 12.8
6.4 7.6 9.2 10. 8 11.7 12-0
0.1 8.8 9.6 10.4 12.7 13.6
7.1 8.1 9.8 13.9 16.0 17.9
6.8 7.5 8.5 9.4 11. o 12.0
5.8 10.5 11.2 13.9 15.4 19.0
6.5 8.6 9.1 10.0 11.5 12.9
8.4 9.4 9.6 11.6 12.7 12.8
2.6 2.7 3.1 4.7 5.3 6.0
5.3 5.8 5.8 7.8 8.2 9.9
5.2 7.1 7.6 9.1 10.6 11.8
7.1 8.0 8.8 9.3 12.4 13.1
6.5 9.4 10.5 11.5 12.5 12.7
5.6 7.7 8.7 10.9 11.0 11.7
6.1 7.5 7.7 10.3 10.9 11.1
5.6 7.6 9.4 10.9 12.9 15.0
5.2 e.2 6.8 7.3 v.i 10.3
4.0 4.4 4.9 4.9 6.9 7.4
4.6 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.8
5.3 5.7 0.3 7.0 r.y B.2
14.9
12.<:
14.6
22.9
15.5
22.3
14.2
14.3
7.7
13.7
13.6
13.4
14.0
13.4
13.2
13 1
12.3
16.2
1 r\ ^
10 "3
11. E
8.0
8.0
y.2
16.2
12.9
15.3
30.1
17.8
28.6
18.8
15.1
V.I
15*7
14.4
14.0
15.0
15. a
13.5
17 .8
13 4
13.3
18.6
4-1 n
I J «U
12.5
8.4
9.0
v.7
22.3
17.3
20.0
30.8
23.1
34.6
25.0
17.4
10.7
1 9 • 0
23.7
17.1
15.9
18.7
14.8
21.0
14.3
19.3
24.9
15.1
15.8
15.4
10.2
15.3
33.0 13.72
23.8 11.63
27-8 13.04
35.8 18.66
39.9 14.89
37.0 19.02
34.9 14.29
36.3 13.88
13.9 6.13
11.2 5.30
10.1 5*19
23.5 1 1 • 64
35.7 12.41
30.7 12.01
32.9 12.48
28.3 13.25
20.0 11.34
38.0 13.56
19.3 11.16
27.5 11.65
72.6 18.02
18.9 8.98
21. v 10.11
25.3 8.21
21.6 7.70
26. v v.36
o.V
*.2
5.4
9.9
9.8
10.2
8.2
6.6
3.3
2 .5
?«6
1 «9
5 .3
6.9
6.4
5.5
5.2
3.9
8 A
.0
3.3
5.3
16.0
1 .2
4.1
4.5
5.2
3.8
3.3
12.38
10.96
12.02
16.10
12.67
16.40
12.48
12-80
5.27
A • 74
6 • 01
4 • 87
10. 53
10.25
fl «89
10.75
11.55
12.34
10.64
1 1 63
1 0 66
10.66
13.79
*> .39
8 • 21
9.23
7.13
7.07
0.43
1.56
1.42
1.51
1.77
1.74
1.78
1.68
1.47
1.77
1 .62
1.53
1 .44
1.59
1.82
1 .91
1.60
1.47
1.46
1.46
1 71
1 •* 1
1-»7
• i'
1.52
2.02
1 «31
1 52
1.54
1.66
1.48
1.53
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT MET
47
-------
POLLUTANT 12433 SULFATE
U«ITS 01 UG/CU "ETtfi (25 C)
SITE: TR NO- « IN 10
TENNESSEE
KNO IV1LLE
441740002AQ1 75* 20 i. i 5.6
HEKPH1S
442340001A01 75 27 i . t 3.1
44254Q001A01 75* 18 5-2 5.6
TEHAS
AUST IN
DALLAS
EL PASO
FOPT LOBTH
HOUSTON
LUBEJOCK
PASADENA
SAN ANTON i o
WICHITA FALLS
UTAH
CbDEN
SAL T LAKE C I T T
460920Q01A01 75 26 I- * £.•.
VERMONT
PURL I NGTON
VIRGIM A
DAN VI LL E
HA1 P TON
L TNC HbUSE
NCR f OLK
PORTSMOUTH
PI C HNuND
K 0* N OK E
WASHINGTON
SEAT TLE
rPOK ANE
4C204P001AC1 75* 23 1- : 1.7
TACOM*
492140G01»:i 75 27 2. ^ 2.6
t£ST VIRGINIA
CHA BLE5TON
SOUTH CH»RLEST
5C1760:01A01 75 25 5 . «• 7.S
-ISCOSS1S
E AU ELAI B E
CONC RANGE BIAS PRECISION
<10 5.9 +~ 13.5
10-25 -4 .2 +-10 .2
>25 .* +- 1Q.2
AR I THflETI C G EOME^R I C
20 30 40 50 6C 70 60 90 "** "E*N STDEVWEAN STD
6.U &./ /.i v.i y.*, 10. u 13.2 15.6 2C.3 V.85 4.1 9.12 1.48
5.2 5.5 o.1 7.6 6.7 9.4 10.0 13. / 18. < B.47 3.9 7.75 1.51
6.y ^.o e.u v.v 12.2 14=8 15.6 20.2 25.0 12.14 5.9 10.87 1.62
<: -' i-3 3.9 4.J s .e, 5.5 5. 9 a.: 41 -J 6.26 ^o 4. 72 l.9u
11 -v J-^ ^-* --? 6-u o.c ^.<: -, ,r 20.5 &.37 3.3 5.M i.5i
2-- ^' ^'& -•< i-t A-2 4*2 5.<- 1C. 5 3.57 T.V 3.17 T .63
?'£ 3'D '"2 "--a 5-'' 5-7 7.1 7.v 13.4 5.2V ?.6 4.76 1>iv
8- v.c 14. / 16.1 Iw.o d^ .^ 29.6 37. r 51. c 19. V*, 1£.7 16.56 1.86
E •" £*& 9'3 11>c 13i:- 15-p 25 .<: 35.: 44. i 16.54 11.2 13.73 I.e1
"° -"• c*' * 1-'1 6--'^ '•! C..S3 1 .^j
CKITEMA
48
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 - SULFATt URBAN ANALYTICAL OUALITY 951 CONF.
BETKOD - 91 - Hl-VOL COLORIhETRIC CONC- fiANGE BUS DECISION
UNITS - 01 - Ub/CU »ETER (25 C) S 0 4 (UG/B3) (Z) (Z)
00 5.9 t- 13.5
10-25 -4.2 »- 10.2
>25 .4 «- 10.2
ARITHMETIC 6EO"tTRIC
SITE: If NO. "IN 10 2C 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 BAX BEAN STDEV BEAN STO
WISCONSIN
KENOSH*
511540001«01 75* 17 4.6. 6.1 6s7 7.5 JS.3 9.1 9.4 11.2 17.4 19.5 30. c 11.74 6.8 10.33 1.64
BAOISON
511B60001A01 75* 19 3.9 «.2 3.1 o.^ 7.0 7.8 8.4 9.7 10.7 13.3 17.4 8.6f 3.6 7.95 1.54
PILuAUKEE
512200001A01 75 24 4.J 5.4 6.0 7.2 8.2 6.y y.9 13.3 15.8 18.3 30.1 11.26 o.O y.96 1.64
BAC1NE
512S80002A01 75 2J 3.4 5.8 0.5 I.4 6.0 8.4 9.8 10.6 12.4 20.0 29.3 10.70 6.0 9.49 1.62
SUPERIOR
513480001A01 75* 17 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.B 6.1 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.9 10.7 20.1 /.46 3.8 6.86 1.43
WYOMING
CASPER
520120001*01 75* 20 2.1 2.1 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.7 5.3 7.9 3.t6 1.5 3.61 1.44
SREUIND NOUDATA.
fURPUR 27B3 E33 SL73R1 04/27/76 09:19:29
1XOT TPFl.ABS
49
-------
POLLUTANT IZOl-ilKFATt NONURbAN ANALVTICALfiLJALlTY 951CQNF.
KElHOD-91-Hl-VCL COLOMKETRIC C ON C. RANGE 6IASPRECIS10N
UMTS 01 Ub/CU W£TER (25 O S 0 4 (U6/R3) CD <*>
<10 5.9 +- 13.5
10-25 -4.2 +- 10.2
>25 .4 *- 10-2
AR J THMETIC GQOMeTRj C
S HE: TR NO- PIN 10 20 3U 40 50 60 70 80 "0 MAX MEAN STOEV MEAN STD
»JV TGO^EH T CO
041760001*03 75* 21 2. t £.* J.7 10 <..o o.* o.7 8.8 V.5 11.6 14.5 0.79 3.3 6.02 1.67
COL ORADO
FES A VE AD E NAT
061530002*03 75* 22 LD . D .9 1.2 1.7 l.v 2.U t. . i ^ .*. 2 . o 2.9 1.73 . f 1.52 1.80
FLOR IDA
HARDEE CO
101&SOOOU03 75* 22 1.
HAW Al 1
HAyAIJ CO
120080001*03 75* 23 LD NO. OF SA*PL£S ( 13) BELOW fllN- DET- EXCEEDS 5QX ^ -5
HAWAII CO
1? 00 30002*03 75* 22 LD .7 .9 1=1 1 . «. 2.1 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.9 A. 5 ^.27 i.<: i .84 2.09
HA«A 11 VOLCANO
12J09C001A03 75* 14
IDAHO
BJTTE CO
1?0340001*03 75* 23 LO LD .7 06 1.1 1.2 1.o 1.6 2.2 3.3 4.U 1.57 1.1 1.19 2-27
INDI ANA
•ONfiOE CO
152900001*03 75 * 21 5.5 o.5 7.2 6.1 V.9 10.8 13.1 13.6 17.3 19.c 36.7 13.29 7.4 11.81 1.61
ACA DI A NAT PAR
2 CD 01 0001*03 75* 19 13.^ 17.t1 6.6C * .£ 5.73 i.?1
P-ONT AI^A
tLACILR NAT Pft
; 7C 57 Oj 01*03 75* It .c .7 .<= 1.0 1.2 1.- i.o i.o ^.p 5.^ * .*, 1.77 1.1 1.50
rowDEft HltfER L
2 71240008*03 75
F-tB t A5H A
THOMAS CD
\£V ^ D A
WHI T F PINE CO
3.4 3.6 5.5 ^.^7 i .j 1.95
1 . S- 2.0 2 . *.
E.fc 11.0 15.2 24. r 7.65 5.8 3. 90
htw TORn
JEFFERSON CO
333?CCD01*D3 75* 21 -•> i. r <. .: 5.«. &.u t.^ 7.0 10-1 11.v H.v 3t .«.
6.91 2.32
RhOD E ISLAND
410?;0U02*03 75* 2, 1.- 2.3 4.3 -.6 5.8 o.3 7.7 c.* 9.7 13.5 1 £.i 7.55 *.j t.36 1.87
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sj C HL*S C CC
-:I = ::J^«D: 75* ?t ,.^ :.: 3-r i.3 ^.^ 5.^ 0.4 c.7 , .^ 8.6 13.3 0.17 2.? 5.65 «.si
50
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 - SULFATf NONURBAN ANALYTICAL DUALITY 95% CONF.
HETHOD • 91 - HI-VOL COLOBIBETBIC CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - U6/CU HETER «25 C) SO* (UG/H3) (I) (I)
<10 5.9 +- 13.5
10-25 -4.2 »- 10-2
>25 .4 «- 10.2
ARITHMETIC GEONETRIC
SITE: »« NO. *1N 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 "AX MEAN STDEV HEAN STB
SOUTH DAKOTA
BLACK HILLS NA
430110001A03 75* 22 .6 .7 .9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.° 4.0 1.66 .9 1.48 1.62
TENNESSEE
CUMBERLAND CO
4406S0001A03 75 27 1.5 3.6 5.2 6.3 7.8 8.6 9.0 10.1 10.8 16.1 20.v v.02 4.8 7.69 1.87
TEIAS
NATAGOROA CO
453530001A03 75* 25 1.8 2.5 2.8 4.0 4.2 4.8 5.3 5.7 6.4 9.6 16.0 3.49 3.2 4.79 1.68
TOPI 6REEN CO
455200001A03 75* 24 L t> LO 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.6 3.4 4.2 •, .6 6.6 7.7 J.10 2.1 2.25 2.58
VERHONT
ORANGE CO
470360001*03 75* 24 2-3 2.8 5.5 6.2 7.0 8.7 8.8 11.9 15.0 28.3 39.0 11.81 v.3 9.17 2.04
VIRGINIA
SHENANDOAH NAT
482B90001A03 75* 19 2.2 3.3 4.4 4.6 5.7 6.2 7.1 8.5 9.4 13.7 21.3 f.77 4.6 6.70 1.73
WYTHE CO
483440001A03 75* 22 1.8 2.4 3.5 4.6 5.2 5.3 6.1 7.8 11.3 13.5 16.7 7.34 4.2 6.21 1.83
WASHINGTON
KING CO
490980002A03 75* 24 LD LD .r 1.3 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.0 5.5 9.8 2.97 c.2 2.10 2.64
UYOHIN6
YELLOWSTONE NA
52Q860001A03 75* 17 .o .9 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.O 1.o 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 1.75 .6 1.62 1.52
51
-------
APPENDIX A
GRUBB'S STATISTIC FOR THE DETECTION OF OUTLIERS
As a final test before data were summarized and released for publication,
Grubb's test- was used to indicate outliers, i.e., questionable values that
seemed to be excessively great. A computer program compiled the statistics
and performed the tests for outliers. As many as three outliers were re-
jected for each pollutant at each site.
The procedure is to calculate the variance using all the data in the
data set for a site, then repeat the calculation by eliminating the maximum
value in succession. The calculation of variances continues until a total
of four values of variance have been calculated, i.e., until the three highest
concentration values have been temporarily eliminated from the data set.
Whether to identify any of the maximum values from the data set as outliers
was determined by calculating three ratios of variances and comparing these
with F statistics in standard texts. The procedure is explained further by
the equations that follow.
Values of variance were calculated as follows:
n - 1
where S^ = variance of data set about its mean value using all the data
X = individual concentration values
n = total number of data in the data set
Successive values of variance, labeled S , S and S were
n n , n- I n , n- 1 , n-2
calculated by eliminating the maximum value in succession. Thus, the last
value was calculated as follows:
••Technometrics, 14(3), August 1972.
52
-------
S2 = I Y2- (Z Y)2/N (A-2)
n,n-l ,n-2 _ ..
9
where S , _ = variance of data set formed by eliminating the highest
n, n~ i , n~i.
three concentrations
Y = individual concentration values of the new data set
(Y; = X; to i = N)
N = n - 3, three less than the number of data in the original
data set
The three ratios of variance were calculated as follows:
2
1 S2 (A-3)
S2
i n,n-1
L2 = 5
S2 (A-4)
s2
I - n,n-l,n-2
3 " S2 (A-5)
53
-------
APPENDIX B
CONFIDENCE LIMITS OF MEASURED VALUES
The usual formula for computing confidence limits of individual values
when the precision is measured as the coefficient of variation is:
Lu = X[ 1 + ta2 Cv/100] (B-la)
L = X[ 1 - t C/100] (B-lb)
£ a2 v
Where LU = upper limit
X = the measured value
t . = the t statistic for the desired confidence
Cv = the coefficient of variation expressed as a percentage
L^ = 1 ower limit
As an example, assume that the precision of an air pollution measurement
system as measured by the coefficient of variation is 5-1 percent. An in-
dividually measured value of ^7-5 yg/m was observed. Assuming a 95~percent
confidence interval (a= 0.05) and a large number of degrees of freedom,
tn n7C. = 1.96. Therefore, the 95-percent confidence limits for the true
va 1 ue a re
Lu = 1*7. 5 [ 1 + 0.96M5. 0/100] (B-2a)
= 52.3 yg/m
L£ = 47. 5[ 1 - (1-96) (5.0/100] (B-2b)
= k2.8 yg/m3
These limits are symmetric about the observed value.
Since use of the coefficient of variation implies that the precision is
a function of the concentration level, a more correct formula for computing
the confidence limits is:
-------
u
- W2 Cv/10°
V2 Cv/10°
(B-3a)
(B-3b)
Using the data In the previous example the upper and lower 95 percent
confidence limits are
u
47-5
. 0/100
47-5
1 + (1-96) (5-0/100
= 52.8 yg/m3
= ^3.2 percent
(B-4a)
These limits are asymmetric (as they should be) about the observed
value and they result in a slightly wider confidence interval than given by
B-2a and B-2b.
The graphical representation of the procedure is shown in Figure B-l.
Figure B-l. Graphical representation of upper and lower confidence
intervals of an individually-measured concentration value
when precision is evaluated over a range of concentration
levels
55
-------
The confidence limits in equation B-3 were derived from Figure B-l as
fol1ows:
X = Lu(l - ta/2 Cv/100) (B-5a)
X = L£<] + V2 Cv/100) (B"5b)
Therefore,
L = * (B-6a)
" ] V2 Cv/10°
L = * (B-6b)
1 -
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read instructions on //',<• rci'crsc before completing
^REPORT NO.
BfepA-600/4-78-035
4.flTLE AND SUBTITLE
AIR QUALITY DATA FOR NONMET/
N0~, SO^ 1975
From the National Air Survei
2, 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
+ 5. REPORT DATE
ULLIC INORGANIC IONS: NH , June 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
.1 lance Networks
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Donald H. Fair, Raymond C. Rhodes, E. Gardner Evans,
John C. Puzak, Frank E. Butler and John E. Frazer
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME Af>
Environmental Monitoring anc
Environmental Protection Age
Research Triangle Park, Nort
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADC
Environmental Monitoring anc
Office of Research and Devei
U.S. Environmental Protectic
Research Triangle. Park, Nor1
ID ADDRESS 10. PRCIGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 Support Laboratory 1AD606
Jncy 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
;h Carolina 27711
>RESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
1 Support Laboratory Final
Lopment 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
jn Agency
;h Carolina 27711 EPA/ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report lists the urban and nonurban concentrations of 3 nonmetal inorganic
«stituents of suspended particulate matter from samples gathered during calendar
r 1975 by the cooperating stations of the National Air Surveillance Network (NASN) .
individual 24-hour data are summarized as cumulative frequency distributions for
each site.
17.
•'• DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
Monitors
Quality control
STRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI I'icld/Group
Inorganic ions 13B
NASN
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED 63
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tills page) 22. PRICE
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form Z220-1 (9-73)
------- |