EPA-R4-73-020
December 1972 Environmental Monitoring Series
Indoor - Outdoor
Carbon Monoxide Pollution Study
\
~~
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460
-------
EPA-R4-73-020
Indoor - Outdoor
Carbon Monoxide Pollution Study
by
General Electric Company
3198 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Contract No. CPA 70-77
Program Element No. 1H1326
Project Officer: Robert E. Lee
Quality Assurance and Environmental Monitoring Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
December 1972
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
An acknowledgement is hereby given to the Environmental Protection'Agency. New York
Department of Air Resources. Management of the Washbridge Apartments, New York
State Housing Authority and the New York Port Authority, without whose cooperation
and assistance this study could not have been completed.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Conclusions 1-3
1.1.1 Pollutant Sources 1-4
1.1.2 Meteorological Conditions 1-5
1.1.3 Site Configuration 1-6
1.1.4 Summation 1-8
1.2 Suggested Guidelines for Urban Planners 1-11
1.3 Recommendations for Future Research 1-12
2.0 Summary 2-1
2.1 Brief Test Program Description 2-1
2.2 Brief Site Description 2-2
2.2.1 Site 1 - Washington Bridge Apartments 2-2
2.2.1.1 Configuration 2-2
2.2.1.2 Meteorological Conditions 2-3
2.2.1.3 Traffic Conditions 2-4
2.2.2 Site 2 - West 40th Street 2-6
2.2.2.1 Configuration 2-6
2.2.2.2 Meteorological Conditions 2-10
2.2.2.3 Traffic Conditions 2-11
2.3 Highlights 2-18
2.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 2-18
2.3.2 Hydrocarbon Concentrations 2-21
2.3.3 Particulate Concentrations 2-26
2.3.4 Lead Concentrations 2-28
2.4 Summary of Site 1 Results 2-31
2.4.1 Carbon Monoxide 2-42
2.4.2 Hydrocarbons 2-50
2.4.3 Particulate Concentrations 2-57
2.4.4 Lead Concentrations 2-60
2.5 Summary of Site 2 Results 2-65
2.5.1 Carbon Monoxide 2-76
2.5.2 Hydrocarbons 2-82
2.5.3 Particulate Concentrations 2-84
2.5.4 Lead Concentrations 2.86
3.0 Study Program and Methodology 3-1
3.1 General Methodology 3-1
3.1.1 Carbon Monoxide Measurement 3-1
3.1.2 Hydrocarbons Measurement 3-3
3.1.3 Traffic Measurement 3-4
3.1.4 Wind Measurement 3-5
3.1.5 Particulate Measurement 3-6
3.1.6 Temperature Measurement 3-6
3.2 Data Editing and Processing 3-7
4.0 Site Description and Environmental Conditions 4-1
4.1 Site 1 - Air Rights Structure - Trans Manhattan Expressway 4-1
4.1.1 Site Description 4-1
-------
Page No.
4.1.2 Site Instrumentation 4-8
4.1.2.1 Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons 4-8
4.1.2.2 Total Particulates and Lead 4-10
4.1.2.3 Traffic 4-11
4.1.2.4 Meteorological 4-11
4.1.3 Traffic Characteristics 4-12
4.1.3.1 Weekday Traffic 4-12
4.1.3.2 Weekend Traffic 4-17
4.1.4 Meteorological Conditions 4-17
4.2 Site 2 - Canyon Structure - West 40th Street 4-29
4.2.1 Site Description 4-29
4.2.2 Site Instrumentation 4-34
4.2.2.1 Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons 4-34
4.2.2.2 Total Particulates and Lead 4-37
4.2.2.3 Traffic 4-37
4.2.2.4 Meteorological 4-38
4.2.3 Traffic Characteristics 4-38
4.2.3.1 Weekday Traffic 4-39
4.2.3.2 Weekend Traffic 4-44
4.2.4 Meteorological Conditions 4-44
5.0 Results of Study 5-1
5.1 Site 1 - Air Rights Structure - Trans Manhattan Expressway 5-1
5.1.1 Carbon Monoxide 5-1
5.1.1.1 Heating Season 5-2
5.1.1.1.1 CO Traffic Relationship 5-3
5.1.1.1.2 Indoor/Outdoor Relationships 5-9
5.1.1.2 Non-Heating Season 5-18
5.1.1.2.1 CO Traffic Relationship 5-19
5.1.1.2.2 Indoor/Outdoor Relationships 5-19
5.1.1.3 CO Meteorological Relationship 5-29
5.1.1.3.1 Meteorological Factors 5-30
5.1.1.3.2 Median Strip Concentration 5-39
5.1.1.3.3 3rd Floor Concentrations 5-48
5.1.1.3.4 23rd Floor Concentrations 5-62
5.1.1.3.5 32nd Floor Concentrations 5-79
5.1.1.3.6 Meteorological Summary 5-86
5.1.2 Hydrocarbons 5-95
5.1.2.1 Heating Season 5-95
5.1.2.2 Non-Heating Season 5-102
5.1.3 Particulates 5-119
5.1.3.1 Analysis Technique 5-123
5.1.3.2 Particulate Relationships 5-123
5.1.3.3 Particulate Summation 5-136
5.1.4 Lead 5-139
5.1.4.1 Lead Quantity 5-139
5.1.4.2 Lead Persentage 5-148
5.2 Site 2 - Canyon Structure - West 40th Street 5-158
5.2.1 Carbon Monoxide 5-158
5.2.1.1 Heating Season 5-159
5.2.1.1.1 CO Traffic Relationship 5-160
5.2.1.1.2 Indoor/Outdoor Relationships 5-170
VI
-------
Page No.
5.2.1.2 Non Heating Season 5-175
5.2.1.2.1 CO Traffic Relationship 5^175
5.2.1.2.2 Indoor/Outdoor Relationships 5-187
5.2.1.3 CO Meteorological Relationships 5-189
5.2.1.3.1 Meteorological Factors 5-189
5.2.1.3.2 3rd Floor Concentrations 5-191
5.2.1.3.3 Differential 3rd to 19th Floors 5-199
5.2.1.3.4 19th Floor Concentration 5-207
5.2.2 Hydrocarbons 5-221
5.2.2.1 Heating Season 5-221
5.2.2.2 Non-Heating Season 5-231
5.2.3 Particulates 5-241
5.2.3.1 Analysis Technique 5-244
5.2.3.2 Particulate Relationships 5-244
5.2.3.3 Particulate Summation 5.251
5.2.4 Lead 5.253
5.2.4.1 Lead Quantity 5-253
5.2.4.2 Lead Percentage 5-259
vii
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
The considerable interest which exists today on the part of architects,
urban planners and others in air rights buildings for dwellings, schools and
offices, is a natural consequence of the fact that 60 - 70% of the downtown areas
of many major American cities consist of paved roadways. The high value of land
in such areas makes the concept of buildings, which span these roads, economically
attractive. It is clear however, that the impact of traffic generated air pollu-
tants on the air quality within such buildings requires assessment to be sure
that the health of the occupants is not endangered. In order to make such an
assessment, the Air Pollution Office of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency contracted with the General Electric Company in May of 1970 to make an
intensive study of air quality and traffic relationships inside and outside of
two buildings in New York City. One of these buildings was an air rights, high
rise, apartment dwelling, known as the Washington Bridge Apartments, which strad-
dles the Trans Manhattan Expressway near the approach to the George Washington
Bridge. The second building was chosen to provide a comparison between an air
rights building and a more conventional high rise structure located on a canyon -
like street in midtown Manhattan. This second structure was a twenty story office
building located at 264 West 40th Street, just east of Eighth Avenue
The basic objective of the study was to gather and analyze a large
statistical data base of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulates and lead
concentrations inside and outside each building at different levels above the
roadways and to relate these concentrations to the wind, temperature and traffic
conditions which occurred at each site. The study was designed to obtain suf-
ficient data to determine if a significant difference in the relationships between
pollutant levels and environmental parameters was observable between the two
1-1
-------
sites. It also was structured to explore whether or not these pollutant/en-
vironmental relationships changed as a function of building heating and non-heat-
ing seasons.
Fulfillment of these requirements necessitated continuous and simul-
taneous monitoring of the pollutants, meteorological variables and traffic flow
rate and velocity for approximately five months at each site. The monitoring
period at each site was selected to provide data on the pollutant levels during
both the heating and non-heating seasons. It was necessary for the General
Electric Company to establish an air pollution laboratory within each test
building to perform this continuous 24 hour a day seven days a week monitoring.
The laboratory was equipped with the necessary instrumentation to measure and
record data from sensing devices positioned at carefully selected locations in
and about the building.
Carbon monoxide concentrations were measured with non-dispersive,
infra-red instruments distributed by Intertech Corporation. Hydrocarbon
measurements were made with Beckman, Inc., flame ionization detectors. Wind
speed, wind azimuth and elevation and sigma azimuth and elevation were measured
with MRI vector vanes. Traffic speed and volume were measured with General
Signal Company, ultrasonic sensors mounted above each lane of the roadways.
Particulate measurements were made with high volume and tape samplers. Lead
concentrations were determined from the high volume samples by atomic absorption.
It will be realized that the enormous quantity of data implied by the
above brief description could not be managed by manual methods in any reason-
able time period. For this reason, the problem of converting the continuously
gathered analog sensor data into hourly averages was handled by a small hybrid
computer (i.e., part analog and part digital) which had been designed and de-
1-2
-------
veloped at GE prior to this contract and which was constructed and used under
the contract. This device, known as the Mean Data Calculator, accepted over
40 channels of continuously input analog data, calculated hourly averages for
each such channel, converted the hourly averages to ASCII digital form and pro-
vided these digital outputs on punched paper tape while simultaneously printing
the hourly averages on an ASR 33 teletypewriter. The teletype was connected by
phone line to an identical teletype and tape punch in the APO in Cincinnati. The
24 hourly averages for each sensor were transmitted by this telemetry link to
Cincinnati once each day. The paper tapes were used to enter the hourly averages
into the GE 605-635 batch process computer system in Philadelphia for further
processing.
The General Electric Company would like to acknowledge the assistance
of the New York City Department of Air Resources, and the New York City Department
of Transportation Administration in arranging site access and permits, and the
assistance of the New York Port Authority in mounting the traffic sensors at
the George Washington Bridge Site.
The work was performed under Contract CPA 70-77 entitled "Indoor-Outdoor
CO Study." This document is the final report describing the study and its results.
1.1 Conclusions
Concentration levels of the four pollutants studied, i.e., carbon mon-
oxide, hydrocarbon, total particulates and lead and the outdoor/indoor relation-
ships of these pollutants are influenced by four factors. These are:
1. Traffic conditions
2. Non-traffic related sources
3. Meteorological conditions
4. Site Configuration
1-3
-------
Both the traffic and non-traffic related sources in combination
with the meteorological variations determine the hourly and average levels
of each of the four pollutants.
1.1.1 Pollutant Sources
Carbon monoxide concentrations at both sites are clearly traffic
generated. At the air rights structure, the Trans Manhattan Expressway is the
prime CO source. CO increases with increasing traffic flow rate and decreases
with increasing traffic velocity. At the canyon site, CO levels are determined
jointly by 40th Street traffic and traffic on adjacent streets whose rush hour
peaks occur at different times than the 40th Street peaks.
Hydrocarbon concentrations at the air rights structure are the result
of Trans Manhattan Expressway traffic and cooking facilities in the apartments.
The effect of these cooking facilities on internal hydrocarbon levels, especial-
ly when used by tenants on the 32nd floor for heating purposes, was verified by
experimenters on site during the study. At the 40th Street site, paint spraying
activities on the third floor which normally occurred during the early evening
hours, effectively masked the contribution of traffic to the daily average
hydrocarbon level. However, variations in hydrocarbons at the 3rd floor outdoor
location of this site between 5 and 6 IM from day to day show a similar correla-
tion with CO as seen at the air rights structure. Thus area traffic contributes
to, but does not primarily establish, the hydrocarbon level at the canyon site.
The major particulate source at the air rights site is the build-Ing
chimney. This source overshadows the traffic generated particulates. Similarly,
no particulate/traffic relationship is discernible at the 40th Street site. It
is apparent, however, that the source at this site is external to and south and
west of the canyon structure.
Lead concentrations at the air rights structure originate outside the
base of the building. Daily variations at outdoor locations strongly indicate
1-4
-------
that Trans Manhattan Expressway traffic is the major lead source at that site.
At the 40th Street site, the paint spraying activities control lead concentra-
tion.
1.1.2 Meteorological Conditions
Concentrations of each pollutant at a given building location vary
directly as a function of the wind angle between the source of the pollutant
and the location involved. Traffic generated CO is transported from the
roadway to the low levels of the buildings by road level winds. Outdoor CO
rising from the base of the building is dispersed by roof winds which blow
parallel or perpendicular to the building face under study study. However,
these outdoor CO concentrations are not dissipated when roof winds blow from
behind the building.
Non-traffic related pollutants, such as particulates, are primarily
influenced by roof level winds. As these pollutants settle downwards, they
combine with traffic generated particulates. Road winds then distribute the
particulates from both sources. Apparent seasonal changes in particulate
levels at all locations are the result of changes in wind direction and not
related to temperature.
Wind direction, speed and turbulence influence outdoor concentrations.
Wind direction is the most significant meteorological variable. Indoor con-
centrations are affected by the meteorological variations primarily through the
change in outdoor concentrations.
Outdoor hydrocarbon concentrations increase with increases in outdoor
temperature levels both on an average temperature basis and a diurnal cycle.
It is possible that differential hydrocarbon concentrations are influenced by
outdoor/indoor temperature differentials.
Building ventilation, while not a true meteorological parameter,
1-5
-------
definitely influences indoor concentrations. This is particularly noticed
at the 40th Street site where indoor concentrations generally are higher for
all pollutants during the non-heating season. Open windows decrease the time
lag between outdoor and indoor concentrations at a given floor and prevent
the entrapment of pollutants within the building. This suggests that the
inversion in CO levels seen between the 23rd and 32nd floors of the air rights
structure is partially due to the increased ventilation within the 23rd floor
room by the room air conditioner used at that location
1.1.3 Site Configuration
Pollutant levels are affected by site configuration in several ways.
*
1. The vertical profile of wind from roof to ground level was
different at each of the two sites. At the air right structure,
road level winds were often coaxial with roof level winds but
frequently oppositely directed. This suggests that a vortex
is sometimes present. At the canyon structure road winds were
generally were limited to westerly'and southerly directions
regardless of roof level direction.
2. At the air rights structure the relative levels of carbon monoxide
between the median strip of the Trans Manhattan Expressway and the
3rd floor level of the building for any given hour are random.
Their relationships are determined by the traffic flor rate in
the eastbound and westbound lanes and the relative road level
wind direction between the roadway lanes and the CO measurement
point. The outdoor CO level, at a constant vertical distance
above the roadway, therefore will vary from the 178th Street side
to the 179th Street side as a function of both road wind angle
and magnitude of traffic in the two sets of lanes. As a result
1-6
-------
average CO concentrations at any point at the 3rd floor building
elevation are significantly lower than median strip average con-
centrations.
At the canyon site, the relative levels of CO between road con-
centrations and those at the 3rd floor location for any given
hour are linear regardless of wind direction. The predominantly
westerly road winds carry traffic generated pollutants along the
canyon, effectively eliminating any reduction in concentrations
parallel to the road. As a result average 3rd floor CO concentra^
tions are only slightly lower than road level concentrations.
3. Pollutants generated at road level diffuse as a function of
vertical distance. Both sites display typical exponential re-
ductions in CO concentrations from the bottom to top floors at
the outdoor locations. Indoor concentrations also decrease with
height; however, these indoor CO levels reduce more slowly than
outdoor concentrations. Pollutants which enter the buildings
at low elevations become entrapped within the buildings. They
disperse upwards and outwards, when outdoor concentrations are
lower than indoor concentrations. The pollutants rising internally
increase at upper floors when the upward diffusion path is blocked
4. The configuration of the roadway involved influences the pollutant
level transported to the outside of the buildings adjacent to the
roadway. Traffic generated pollutants on the Trans Manhattan
Expressway are entrapped within the intermittent span beneath the
air rights buildings. This causes higher road level CO concentra-
tions at the ends of the span than midway between the two covered
1-7
-------
sections. Therefore, air rights structures may be exposed to
higher CO concentrations than buildings at equal distances from
open highways.
•
1.1.4 Summation
Seasonal variations of all pollutant levels do occur at given lo-
cations of the buildings studied. These variations primarily are the result of
seasonal changes in prevailing wind direction and associated changes in site
temperature. However, since the pollutant levels were monitored only on one
side of each building, the average concentration levels for the pollutant
identified herein are significant only to the locations monitored and to the
particular months of monitoring at each site. Concentration differences at-
tributed to "heating" and "non-heating" seasons will differ at other locations
on a given floor of a building or adjacent buildings as a function of the
location of the particular pollutant source and the relative wind angle.
Building locations which are located 180° apart from the particular pollutant
source at each site will vary in opposite directions as the prevailing wind
changes. Further seasonal differences may occur if the prevailing winds at
the sites are significantly different for the four calendar seasons.
With the above in mind, the following conclusions are drawn relative
to the pollutants examined during this study.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide concentrations at all outdoor and indoor locations
result from automotive emissions on roadways in the site vicinity.
On-roadway concentration levels increase linearly with increase
in traffic flow rate and decrease with traffic velocity.
CO concentration gradients across a roadway vary as a function of
1-8
-------
traffic conditions in all lanes of the road and the wind conditions
close to the road.
CO concentration gradients from a roadway to a building vary as
a function of the horizontal distance and the road level wind direction
between the high volume traffic lanes and the building vary. Winds
from the high volume lanes to the building increase concentrations at
the building.
Average concentrations at the base of the building reflect on-road-
way average concentrations but are lower in proportion to the horizontal
and vertical distances from road level. These distances create finite
response time lags at the building to changes in traffic conditions,
which vary as a function of road level wind speed, direction and
turbulence.
There is an appreciable reduction in both peak and average carbon
monoxide levels between "on-roadway" locations and adjacent buildings
at the air rights site but not at the canyon site. As a result there
is no significant difference in CO levels along the outside walls and
inside the two structures.
Concentrations indoors at the building base vary with outdoor con-
centrations. Indoor concentrations lag changes in outdoor CO levels.
It is suspected that this time delay is a variable that is a function
of both wind conditions as seen at the building and the direction of
change in outdoor concentrations.
Average concentrations inside and outside the buildings reduce
exponentially with height above ground level. The rate of change with
height is essentially constant outdoors for both heating and non-heating
1-5
-------
seasons. However, indoors the decay In average concentrations with
height is greater during the non-heating season than during the
heating season. This variation is the result of changes in the roof
wind angle from the non-heating to the heating season.
Indoor concentrations normally are lower than outdoor concentrations
at all heights above the roadway when outdoor concentrations are high.
Conversely, indoor concentrations are higher than outdoor concentra-
tations when outdoor concentrations are low.
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon concentrations result from automotive emissions on
roadways adjacent to the two sites and non-traffic related emissions
internal to the buildings.
Internal hydrocarbon emissions at the 40th Street site obscure
traffic generated hydrocarbons at all building elevations. However,
at the Washington Bridge Apartments air rights site, Trans Manhattan
generated hydrocarbons influence concentrations at building locations
close to the roadway. These traffic generated concentrations at both
sites decrease with height until overshadowed by internal emissions.
Diurnal changes in site temperature produce diurnal changes in
hydrocarbons at outdoor locations. Since diurnal temperature is out.
of phase with diurnal traffic, hydrocarbon/traffic correlations are
distorted by temperature much of the day.
Concentrations at both sites generally are higher indoors than
outdoors. Differential concentrations at all heights above the base
of the buildings vary as a function of indoor concentrations.
Seasonal increases in site temperature appreciably increase the
outdoor hydrocarbon levels close to road level. Since daily average
1-10
-------
temperature change as a function of calendar season, these hydro-
carbon/traffic correlations change with calendar time.
Differential concentrations at the Trans Manhattan site are
influenced by site temperature. Since indoor temperatures were not
monitored, it is not definite whether the temperature effect is
outdoor temperature or differential temperature between inside and
outside locations.
1.2 Suggested Guidelines for Urban Planners
The data obtained in this study indicates that the pollutant level
internal to buildings is greatly influenced by traffic and the height above the
traffic and by "stack effects" internal to the buildings. Accordingly, the
following guidelines are suggested:
1. Special attention be observed to seal the lower floors of new
guildings to exclude traffic generated CO. The specific number
of floors to be sealed should be determined from forecast data
on traffic volume on predominant adjacent highways.
2. Where possible, major entrances into buildings should be located
such that prevailing road winds blow parallel to them. Building
sides which face major urban roadways should be as tight as
possible.
3. Air rights structures should be designed to provide ample spacing
between buildings to permit dilution. This spacing should be based
upon forecast data on traffic volume and speed, and the length of
covering over the highway.
4. Consideration should be given, when long sections of a high traffic
volume expressway are covered, to force ventilation systems which
exhaust pollutants from the "tunnels" beneath air rights structures
1-11
-------
at heights above their roof levels.
5. Convection paths internal to buildings should be minimized.
Elevator shafts could be under a slight positive pressure from
an air source drawn from the outside of the building approxi-
mately 1/2 the height of the building. (This assumes that 1/2
the height is higher than the level indicated in guideline 1)
6. Elevator control rooms at roof level should be force ventilated
to the roof to reduce the entrapment of pollutants in tall
buildings.
7. Internal pollutant sources, such as parking garages within the
building, etc., be force ventilated outside the building, parallel
to and over the center of the highway over which the building is
constructed. The pressure at the exhaust point should be inversely
proportioned to the horizontal distance from the nearest receptor.
1.3 Recommendations for Future Research
1. Segregations of the collected data on a heating vs. non-heating
season basis produced two statistical perturbations which should be
avoided in the future. These are:
a. The relative sample sizes are significantly different. Non-
heating seasonal hourly averages are biased considerably more
by random data than are heating season averages.
b. The change of time from Daylight Savings to Standard time,
\ and vice versa, distorts heating season diurnal data for meteoro-
logical factors such as wind speed and temperature. Peak and
valley hourly averages are inadvertently smoothed by the one
hour shift.
Future studies of "seasonal" effects should be divided at the
1-12
-------
time of changing from Standard to Daylight time.
2. Segregation of the data on the basis of weekdays and weekends
produced distortions in diurnal profiles for traffic and traffic
related pollutants for both periods. Traffic patterns vary on
holidays which occur on Monday thru Fridays. Saturday and Sunday
traffic profiles are different. While this doesn't affect the
pollutant/traffic relationships significantly, it distorts the
relationships of meteorological and traffic related data. Similarly
variations in internal pollutant sources which are related to
building usage are lost by the segregation process used.
Different groupings of days in future studies, might strengthen
correlation of the many variables influencing pollutant levels.
3. The absence of temperature data at all indoor locations and inter-
mediate locations outdoors precluded any evaluation of the effect
of differential temperature on outdoor/indoor pollutant relation-
ships. Future studies of outdoor/indoor pollutants should include
this temperature data.
1-13
-------
SECTION 2.0
SUMMARY
This section summarizes the study of the Indoor-Outdoor Carbon
Monoxide Pollution Relationships associated with two high rise structures
within New York City. Section 2.1 provides a brief description of the test
program conducted at the two sites. A brief description of each of the
sites is presented in Section 2.2. Highlights of the study results for both
sites are given in Section 2.3; Sections 2.4 and 2.5 expand these highlights
for the two sites.
2.1 Brief Test Program Description
Data necessary to determine the impact of traffic generated pol-
lution on typical multi-storied buildings was gathered for approximately
five months at each site. The site locations and data collection periods
are tabulated below.
Site Location Data Collection Period
1 Washington Bridge Apts. Sept. 9, 1970 - Jan 14, 1971
Trans Manhattan Expressway
2 264 West 40th Street Feb. 11, 1971 - June 20, 1971
Each of the two sites was instrumented to measure the concentra-
tion levels of four pollutants, i.e., carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particu-
lates and lead at selected locations. The pollutant levels were measured both
inside and outside the buildings under study and at different elevations above
the adjacent roadways. Traffic volume and velocity and meteorological para-
meters, such as wind velocity and direction and prevailing temperatures, were
recorded as necessary inputs to the analysis. Section 3.0 provides a detailed
description of the instrumentation used at each site.
Continuous readings were taken of the carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbon levels and of the traffic and meteorological parameters. These data
2-1
-------
were averaged to obtain a single value for each hour of the day. Each days
worth of data was categorized into "heating" and "non-heating" seasons." This
was done by determining the days when the average daily road level temperature
o
was below or above 65 F. Both "heating" and "non-heating" seasons were further
subdivided into "weekdays" and "weekends." Averages were taken, on a diurnal
basis, for the resultant four data groupings. The 24 hourly averages were
then averaged to obtain a total value for the variables for each of the four
data groups. The processed data for these variables is included in two
Appendices, one for each site.
Particulate and lead samples were taken for continuous 24 hour
periods at random times throughout the monitoring period at each site. This
"daily" data is presented in tabular form in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report.
Three analytical approaches were used to examine the seasonal impact
on pollutant levels. These are: the daily average levels for the heating
versus non-heating season, the level recorded from day to day for the 24 hour
period used to collect particulate samples, and the levels recorded from day
to day for the peak traffic hour of 5-6 pm. The techniques involved in the
latter two approaches are described in further detail in Section 5.0.
2.2 Brief Site Description
2.2.1 Site 1 - Washington Bridge Apartments
2.2.1.1 Configuration
The Washington
Bridge Apartments site consists
of a series of air rights, high
rise, apartment buildings which
straddle the Trans Manhattan
Expressway. Two of these
buildings, between St. Nicholas and Wadsworth Aves., look down upon the highway.
2-2
-------
The 12 lane highway is some 35 feet below street level with poured concrete
walls along it sides, and carries a constant flow of traffic on its" way to
and from the George Washington Bridge. The configuration simulates a series
of tunnels or intermittent spans with the open section between the two air
rights structures. The 32 story aluminum clad building on the east edge of
the exposed highway was the high rise apartment evaluated.
2.2.1.2 Meteorological Conditions
Data monitoring at Site 1 was started late in the summer and con-
tinued for a five month period to the middle of January. All "non-heating"
days occurred prior to October 16. Some early October and all days after
October 15 make up the "heating" season. Thus the majority of data on pollutants
collected at the air rights structure is for the heating season. Detail meteoro-
logical data was not obtained during the first month of monitoring, so some "non-
heating" season description is not available. However, as shown in the following
table, the "non-heating" season generally was milder than the "heating" season.
Roof Level
Road Leve1
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
In Degrees
Wind
Turb.
(Sig.
Elev.'
(Sig.
Azi.)
Temp.
°F
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
In Degrees
Wind
Turb.
(Sig.
Elev.'
(Sig.
Azi.)
Temp
Heating Season
9.33
325"
39.2
5.74
215C
21.2C
41.6
Non-Heating Season
4.69
190
10.7°
29.4C
63.1
3.82
130
9.1°
17.2V
65.5
Wind direction, and other associated meteorological variables, are in-
fluenced by calendar seasons and the configuration of the air rights structure
and the adjacent buildings. Since data was collected at this site during the
2-3
-------
2nd half of the year, the general weather changed from summer to winter
conditions. Wind direction, as measured at the building roof level shifted
from the south to the west and north. Site temperatures showed a gradual
decline from moderate to below freezing conditions. These trends are shown
on Figure 2.2-1 which shows the daily average data for these two meteorologi-
cal parameters for the 24 hour periods in which particulate samples were col-
lected. In general, more turbulent roof winds occurred when the roof wind
blew from the northwest and northeast.
At road level, wind speed and turbulence generally reflected those
factors as recorded at the roof level. Road level wind direction followed
roof level direction the majority of time but frequently blew 180 from roof
winds. No data was taken to define the height above ground level at which
this roof to road direction shifted.
The roof to road temperature difference, or temperature lapse,
was basically determined by the roof level wind angle. High temperature
lapses were recorded, as seen on the northwest side of the building, when the
roof wind blew from behind the building from the southeast. Temperature lapse
decreased as the wind shifted to blow towards the building face under study.
The meteorological conditions at the Washington Bridge Apartments
are discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.1.3 of this report. As shown
therein, the general dependency of wind speed, wind turbulence, temperature
and temperature lapse on roof wind direction complicates the identification
of the effect of these meteorological variables on pollutants. It is felt that
since these latter variables are basically controlled by wind direction, wind
direction is the major meteorological variable.
2.2.1.3 Traffic Conditions
The 12 lane Trans Manhattan Expressway displayed typical traffic
characteristics for a two-way urban roadway. Weekdays showed a daily
2-4
-------
CO
01
Ill III
20 -
180
90
360
en
ui
ui
-------
minimum traffic flow rate during the early morning hours and dual peaks
reflecting the morning and evening rush hours as shown on Figure 2.2-2.
Weekends were marked with the early morning low and a single peak traffic
flow rate about 5 pm, see Figure 2.2-3. Average weekday traffic, as shown
in the following table, was slightly higher during the non-heating season.
Avg.
Traffic
Volume
(24 Hr. Avg.)
Peak
Traffic
For 1 Hr.
(Veh/Hr.
Hour of
Highest
Flow
Rate
Flow
Rate
Heating Season
6669
14198
5-6 pm
11990
Avg.
Traffic
Vehicle
Velocity
(mph)
46.2
Non-Heating Season
6884
14328
5-6 pm
12510
47.1
Traffic velocity on the expressway is inversely related to the
existing traffic flow rate. Velocity is higher for periods of low traffic
volume and lower for high volume conditions. Slightly higher velocities
were recorded during peak traffic conditions during the non-heating season
than for comparable heating season traffic peaks, as shown on Figure 2.2-4.
2.2.2 Site 2 - West 40th Street
2.2.2.1 Configuration
The 40th Street site consists
of two older type brick buildings on
opposite sides of West 40th Street, just
east of Eighth Ave. Smaller structures
were located on either side of the
facing buildings. The three lane road-
IT'
D
n
n
r-i
way between the buildings handles one way east bound traffic. Normally,
curb side parking restricted traffic to a single lane. The 20 floor building
2-6
-------
to
I
14400 r~
12000
— 9600
DC
I
i
UJ
o
o
LJL
U-
7200
4800
2400
HEATING WEEKDAYS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS
I
I
I
I
j I
I
I
I I
J I
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000
TIME OF DAY
Figure 2.2-2. Weekday Traffic Flow Rate On Trans Manhattan Expressway
2200
2400
-------
14400
12000
£ 9600
I
I .
LU
>
LJJ
to
I __
00 u_
O
g 7200
O
4800
2400
HEATING WEEKEND TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
HEATING WEEKEND AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY
—I 60
50
40
30
20
10
I
I
I
_L
I
_L
I
I
a.
O
O
O
I
CC
UJ
>
200
400
6OO
800
1600
1800
2000
1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 2.2-3. Weekend Traffic Characteristics On Trans Manhattan Expressway
2200
2400
-------
to
CO
60 i—
SO
Q_
O
O
Ul
>
Ul
a
<
oc
LU
40
30
20
10
HEATING WEEKDAYS
— NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS
I i 1 \ I
0
2400 200
I I I I I I I I II
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
TIME OF DAY
Figure 2.2-4. Weekday Traffic Velocity On Trans Manhattan Expressway
2400
-------
on the south side of 40th Street was the test building.
2.2.2.2 Meteorological Conditions
The data monitoring period at site 2 started in mid-winter and ended
in early June. All "non-heating" days occurred after May 10. The "heating"
season comprised all days prior to then plus several other May and June days.
Again the heating season data on pollutants exceeds the non-heating season
data.
Since the five month period of data collection at the canyon
structure involved the spring season, daily temperatures at the site dis-
played a general increase from winter to summer, as shown in the following
tabulation.
Roof
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
In Degrees
Wind
Turb.
(Sig. /
Elev.K/
/
-------
Road wind direction generally followed roof winds from the west
and south showing the same seasonal effect, see Figure 2.2-5. However,
easterly roof winds were translated to westerly road winds resulting in
predominantly westerly road winds
Wind speed decreased at both roof and road levels as the roof wind
shifted from the west to east. This generally followed the seasonal weather
moderation.
Temperature lapse at this site decreased as the general site
temperature increased. This change appears independent of roof wind angle.
The meteorological conditions at the 40th Street site are discussed
in more detail in Section 5.2.1.3 of this report. Roof wind again is the
dominant meteorological factor, especially since road wind basically flows
west to east in the same direction as West 40th Street
2.2.2.3 Traffic Conditions
The traffic pattern on West 40th Street was essentially alike on
weekdays and weekends for both the heating and non-heating seasons, as shown
on Figures 2.2-6 thru -9. Minimum traffic conditions occurred in the early
morning hours. The traffic flow rate increased during the AM rush hour to
reach a peak level about midday. The weekday peak is significantly higher
than the weekend peak and occurs earlier in. the day. Weekday traffic was
slightly greater during the non-heating season than in the heating season as
shown below
Avg.
Traffic
Volume
(24 Hr. Avg.)
Peak
Traffic
For 1 Hr.
(Veh/Hr.)
Hour of
Highest
Flow
Rate
Flow
Rate
Avg.
Traffic
Velocity
(mph.)
Heating Season
357
888
10-11 am
582
15.0
Non-Heating Season
369
894
10-11 am
638
15.5
2-11
-------
—1 270
to
70 r-
I 1 I I I I I I I
20 -
2/16 2/24 3/8 3/11 3/16 3/17 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/30 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/26 5/3 . 5/4 5/11 5/27 6/2 6/10
DATE OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 2..2-5. -Temperature & Wind Direction - Road Level - Site 2
-------
780 I—
to
M
CO
585 -
I
111
>
390 -
O
u.
LL
<
CC
\-
195
2400
HEATING WEEKDAYS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS
200
400
600
800
1600
1800
1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 2.2-6. Weekday Traffic Flow Rate On West 40th Street
2000
2200
2400
-------
45 ,—
HEATING WEEKDAYS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS
I
K
o.
>- 30
O
3
01
LU
O
LU
LU
O
CC
LU
>
15
J I
I
J I
I
J I
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 2.2-7. Weekday Traffic Velocity On West 40th Street
-------
585 r—
390
LU
>
LU
o
o
15
LU
_l
O
LU
0
2400
J I
J I
I
I
_L
J_
J I
J I
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 2.2-8. Heating Weekend Traffic Characteristics On West 40th Street
-------
585 i—
390
cc
o
o
u_
U-
<
cc
t-
195
NON-HEATING WEEKEND TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
NON-HEATING WEEKEND AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY
45
30
15
0
2400
I
200 400 6OO 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Q_
o
3
01
>
uu
o
LU
O
<
tr
ui
Figure 2.2-9. Non Heating Weekend Traffic Characteristics On West 40th Street
-------
West 40th Street traffic velocity displayed typical sensitivity
to traffic flow rate. Higher velocities occurred during low traffic volume
periods and lower velocities during the daylight hours of high traffic
volume. Average traffic velocity was slightly higher during the non-heating
season than recorded for the heating season.
2-17
-------
2.3 Highlights
This section presents significant highlights concerning the four
pollutants explored during this Indoor/Outdoor Pollution Study. A more detailed
summary is provided on these pollutants on a site basis in Section 2.4 and 2.5.
In depth analyses are presented in Sections 5.1 and 5.2
2.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Concentration
The average carbon monoxide concentrations at the two sites decay
exponentially with height above road level. The decay is essentially the same
at the two sites at heights greater than 30 feet above road level. Figures 2.3-1
and -2 show the smoothed verticle CO profiles for the two sites respectively for
the outdoor and indoor locations monitored.
CO concentrations at low building elevations generally are higher
outdoors than indoors indicating that CO levels at both sites are a function of
traffic generated carbon monoxide. At the Washington Bridge Apartments site,
the outdoor CO levels at all heights closely follow Trans Manhattan Expressway
traffic volume. Outdoor CO at the 40th Street site displays diurnal variations
which are characteristic of a two-way street. The weak CO/traffic correlation
suggests that CO generated by traffic on 8th Avenue and parallel streets con-
tribute to the carbon monoxide level at this site.
Concentrations at all building locations at both sites follow CO levels
as seen close to the road level on a time-delayed basis. Indoor concentrations
at all building levels are directly influenced by the outdoor concentrations at
the location involved. Generally these indoor concentrations lag outdoor con-
centrations. Outdoor concentrations usually are higher than indoor concentra-
tions during periods of increasing area traffic and lower during decreasing
traffic conditions. Outdoor concentrations generally are higher than indoor con-
2-18
-------
OUTDOOR
— HEATING
—— NON-HEATING
SITE 1
50
100
150 200
HEIGHT-FEET
250
300
350
Figure 2.3-1. Vertical Outdoor CO Profile - Both Sites
2-19
-------
INDOOR
15 r-
HEATING
_ _ _ NON-HEATING
SITE 2
10
I
z
o
z
01
o
8
8
— SITE 1
I
I
50 100 150 200 250
HEIGHT^ FEET
300
350
Figure 2.3-2. Vertical Indoor CO Profile - Both Sites
2-20
-------
centrations when the outdoor concentrations are high. However, indoor concentra-
tions normally are higher than outdoor concentrations when outdoor concentrations
are low.
Outdoor concentrations, as measured at the building locations, are
influenced by wind direction at each site. Road level winds which blow from
the CO source towards the monitoring locations produce high concentration levels
at the buildings. Concentrations decrease as the wind shifts away from this
worst case condition. Roof level winds similarly modify CO levels at the upper
floors of both buildings.
Average levels indoors generally are higher than outdoor concentrations
?.t heights greater than 100 feet above the road surface. This situation is more
pronounced during the heating season than during the non-heating season, as shown
on Figures 2.3-3 and -4, and indicates an entrapment of CO within the building.
2.3.2 Hydrocarbon Concentrations
The average hydrocarbon concentrations at the two sites generally are
feigher indoors than outdoors. This situation is present during both the heating
and non-heating seasons at all building locations regardless of vertical distance
from road level with the sole exception of the 3rd floor level at the Washington
Bridge Apartments during the non-heating season, as shown on Figures 2.3-5 and -6.
Average concentrations at the Washington Bridge Apartments are lower
close to the roadway than at the top floor. The reverse is true at the 40th Street
site. Hydrocarbon concentrations at the Washington Bridge Apartments site display
a general correlation with Trans Manhattan Expressway traffic volume. There is no
hydrocarbon/traffic relationship at the 40th Street Site. Cooking facilities,
which were used for heating purposes at the 32nd floor of the air rights structure
caused the high internal hydrocarbon levels on that floor. Paint spraying internal-
2-21
-------
12 r—
10
a.
a.
OUTDOORS
INDOORS
O
Z
HEATING SEASON
100
200
300
12
10
a.
a.
Z Q
o 8
(X
H o
Z 6
ill
o
I 4
OUTDOORS
_ __— INDOORS
— X
NON-HEATING SEASON
_J
300
100
200
HEIGHT- FEET
Figure 2.3-3. Average Outdoor/Indoor CO Profile - Site 1
2-22
-------
12 _
10
a.
Q-
I
<
oc
o
§ 4
O
o
o
OUTDOORS
INDOORS
HEATING SEASON
100
200
300
HEIGHT-FEET
12 r-
10
a.
a.
I
g
— OUTDOORS
— INDOORS
LU
O
O
o
8
NON-HEATING SEASON
100
200
300
HEIGHT-FEET
Figure 2.3^-4. Average Outdoor/Indoor CO Profile - Site 2
2-23
-------
12 i-
10
Q.
•r
o
X —
HEATING SEASON
100
OUTDOORS
•— INDOORS
200
300
HEIGHT-FEET
12 r-
10
OUTDOORS
INDOORS
Q.
a.
O
I
NON-HEATING SEASON
100 200
HEIGHT-FEET
300
Figure 2.3-5. Average Outdoor/Indoor HC Profile - Site 1
2-24
-------
12
10
i
.OUTDOORS
INDOORS
I
100
HEIGHT-FEET
HEATING SEASON
200
12
10
i
u
—— OUTDOORS
INDOORS
1
100
HEIGHT - FEET
200
Figure 2.3-6. Average Outdoor/Indoor HC Profile - Site 2
2-25
-------
ly at the 3rd floor level of the 40th Street site produce the abnormally high
3rd floor concentrations at that site.
With the exception of the 3rd floor location at Site 1, outdoor hydro-
carbon levels are established by internal levels. The outdoor/indoor differentials
vary proportionately with indoor concentrations and randomly with outdoor hydro-
carbons.
Site temperature changes significantly affect outdoor hydrocarbon
concentrations at Site 1. This is most noticeable during the non-heating season
at the 3rd floor location. These outdoor concentrations are high during midday
and decrease to their minimum at the low temperature hour of the day. Similar
temperature effects are noticed at all the floors during the heating season,
however, the change due to temperature variations is less.
2.3.3 Particulate Concentrations
The total particulate concentrations at the two sites vary on a dail>
basis. These daily variations are controlled primarily by roof and road level
wind directions. No direct correlation of particulates with traffic volume exists
at either site.
Indoor particulate levels are significantly lower than outdoor con-
centrations at both sites. Daily variations are larger at the outdoor locations
than indoors. The major particulate source at the Washington Bridge Apartments
is the chimney which exhausts to the outdoors slightly above the roof. The 40th
Street source is to the south and west of the building.
Since prevailing winds at roof level of each site vary as a function of
the time of the year, the general shift in roof winds creates a seasonal change
in measured particulates. Figure 2.3-7 shows the average particulate concen-
trations (excluding the basement boiler room at the Washington Bridge Apartments)
at the two sites plotted as a function of height from the roadway surfaces for
both outdoor and indoor locations.
2-26
-------
150
CO
LU
D
O
fe 50
HEATING
NON-HEATING
100 200
HEIGHT-FEET
300
150
n
2
§> 100
CO
LU
O
50
INDOORS
OUTDOORS
SITE 2
HEATING
NON-HEATING
100
200
300
HEIGHT- FEET
Figure 2.3-7. Average Outdoor/Indoor Particulate Profiles - Both Sites
2-27
-------
At Site 1, the seasonal shift in wind direction produces opposite
effects on average outdoor and indoor concentrations. During the heating
season, maximum particulate concentration was recorded on the outside of the
second floor balcony. This outside concentration decayed rapidly to the roof
elevation. Indoor concentrations increased with vertical distance. During the
non-heating season, outdoor concentration increase with height while indoor con-
centration decrease from the second floor to roof locations.
Daily variations in roof level concentrations, and outdoor/indoor
particulate differential levels are completely dependent on roof wind angle
between the chimney and the two roof level samplers. Simularly outdoor dif-
ferentials between the roof and 2nd floor levels also vary as a function of wind
angle.
At site 2, the particulate concentrations show no change with height
at the outdoor locations. However, the average level is higher during the non-
heating season. Indoor concentrations show the same increase from heating to
non-heating season at the llth floor level but not at the 18th floor. This anomaly
is entirely due to the fact that the 18th floor location was a sealed room and the
particulate sampler was essentially isolated from daily variations in outdoor con-
centration levels.
2.3.4 Lead Concentrations
The lead concentrations at the two sites also show a daily variation
which is basically related to wind direction. No direct correlation of lead with
traffic volume is evident at either site.
Indoor lead concentration levels are generally lower than outdoor con-
centrations at both sites at comparable heights above road level. Concentrations
measured close to road level show greater daily variations than those measured at
2-28
-------
greater heights. While a direct lead/traffic relationship is not identifiable
at the Washington Bridge Apartments, it is evident that road and roof winds
transport traffic generated lead from the Trans Manhattan Expressway to the air
rights structure. The contribution of traffic to lead concentrations at the 40th
Street site is totally obscured by the paint spraying activity within the building.
The shift in prevailing winds with calendar time at Site 1 produces a
alightly different effect on lead concentrations than seen for particulates. As
shown on the upper diagram of Figure 2.3-8, outdoor concentrations always decrease
from 2nd floor to roof level while indoor concentrations are generally unchanged.
The difference is basically due to the ground level origin for lead and the roof
level source for particulates.
At the 40th Street site, lead concentrations show a larger change in the
3rd floor outdoor and llth floor indoor levels between the heating and non-heating
seasons than seen at higher elevations. This is expected since the internal source
was located on the 3rd floor.
2-29
-------
SITE 1
I
O
HEATING
NON-HEATING
X—
— X
100 200
HEIGHT-FEET
300
I
Q
SITE 2
HEATING
NON-HEATING
OUTDOORS
—X
INDOORS
100
200
HEIGHT- FEET
Figure 2.3-8. Average Outdoor/Indoor Lead Profiles - Both Sides
2-30
-------
2.4 Summary of Site 1 Results
Three sources of pollutants are identifiable at the Washington Bridge
Apartments. These are: traffic on the Trans Manhattan Expressway, cooking
facilities in the apartments on the upper floors and the building chimney which
exhausts slightly above roof level. These pollutant sources contribute to the
pollution level both outdoors and indoors at this air rights sight. The pollu-
tion concentration level at individual locations in and about the building are
controlled by these emission sources and wind currents from the roof to road
level.
The average pollution levels varied significantly from road level
to roof level at both indoor and outdoor locations. Outdoor carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon levels generally were higher during the non-heating season than
for the heating season. This trend, however, does not hold at indoor locations
nor for: the particulate and lead concentration levels. The average levels for
each of the pollutants at all measurement locations on weekdays are shown in
Tables 2.4-1 and -2.
The average hourly carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon levels displayed
diurnal variations which closely followed diurnal traffic patterns. The diurnal
variations of the two pollutants respond differently, however, to diurnal
changes in site temperature. As can be seen from Figure 2.4-1, which presents
3rd floor outdoor diurnal CO and hydrocarbons and diurnal traffic and site
temperature, both pollutants respond to rush hour traffic peaks. The afternoon
«
hydrocarbon peak, however, is significantly distorted by diurnal temperature
changes. Midday hydrocarbon levels are higher due to increasing site temperature.
The evening peak is lowered by the reduction in site temperature which occurs
approximately two hours before the traffic peak. There is a slight time delay
between CO and traffic peaks, reflecting the time for traffic generated CO to
2-31
-------
TABLE 2.4-1
CARBON MONOXIDE
WEEKDAY MEASUREMENTS
SITE 1
Outside
3' - Median
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec
3' - North
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec
3rd Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
15th Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
23rd Floor ! 32nd Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
Peak 'Ave.
ppm I ppm
Ex. ' Ex.
Sec. Sec.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
Heating Season
27.7
91,4
92 i24.9 112
26.6 !95.4 23.1
7.0
23.6
33
0
6.0
13.5
35
0
3.6
4.2
36 3.9 j 23 '
; i
.1 ' 3.0 • 0 !
Inside
Outside
' NA
NA
NA NA NA i 7.0
NA NA NA 123.1
29 ; 6.7
0 , 18.7
21
0
4.2
4.1
19 ; 6.6 j 28
.1 '19.7 ! 0 '
Non-Heating Season
30.6
97.9
75 ;31.1 72
38.5 197. 9 , 39.7
7.2
20.3
28 . 6.4
0 16.5
29 | 4.0
0 3.9
20 i 4.3 19
0 3.6 0
Inside
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
L
NA
NA NA
6.4
15.2
23
NA
0 NA
NA
NA
4.5
5.1
19 : 5.0 > 17 |
i - ,
0 2.9 0 !
Ex. Pri. = Frequency exceeding 9 ppm averaged over 8 hour period
Ex. Sec. = Frequency exceeding 35 ppm over 1 hour period
2-32
-------
Hydrocarbon
3rd
Floor
Ave
ppm
23rd
Floor
peak
ppm
32nd
Floor
peak
ppm
Outside
TABLE 2.4-2
HYDROCARBONS -; PARTICULATES - LEAD
WEEKDAY MEASUREMENT
SITE 1
Mean
Particulate
Concentration
ug/M3
Heating Season
2nd Fl
160.9
Roof
102.9
Tower
N/A
Boiler
Room
N/A
Mean
Lead
Concentration
ug/M
2nd Fl
3.45
Roof
1.47
Tower
N/A
Boiler
Room
N/A
Inside
Outside
4.1
28
3.7
28
9.2
21
4.8
10
N/A
N/A
4.5
56.1
90.4
69.1
112.9
1.42
1.58
1.71
4.0
Non-Heating Season
122.1
148.6
N/A
N/A
1.89
1.30
N/A
N/A
Inside
4.5
11
N/A
N/A_
6.5
18
85.1
82.5
N/A
N/A
1.51
1.42 ! N/A
N/A
-------
tO
CO
30 i—
25 —
1
I
U
I
o
I
20
15
10
TEMPERATURE
TRAFFIC
—r 14400
I I
I I
I I 1
L J
J I
I I I I
45
12000
44
9600 ~
I
UJ
43
7200
a
u.
u.
<
42
IT
cc
UJ
Q.
O
X
4800
41
2400
40
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 2.4-1. Diurnal Traffic Temp., & CO & HC - 3rd Floor - Heating Weekdays - Site 1
-------
disburse from the Trans Manhattan Expressway to the lower floors of the air
rights structure.
As previously presented in Section 2.2.1.3, there is a significant
variation in the diurnal traffic patterns on weekdays and weekends. Also minor
differences were noted in traffic flow rate and velocity between the heating
and non-heating seasons. However, both the small variation in traffic para-
meters between seasons and the marked change in diurnal traffic for weekdays and
weekends are directly reflected in changes in the carbon monoxide concentration
measured at the median strip of the Trans Manhattan Expressway. This CO/traffic
relationship appears constant regardless of the day of the week or season of
the year. Similarly, the average carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations,
as measured at the 3rd floor outdoor location at the air rights structure, are
linear with traffic flow rate. These median and 3rd floor pollutant relation-
ships to Trans Manhattan traffic using diurnal data, are shown on Figure 2.4-2.
No diurnal data is available for total particulate or lead concentra-
tions. However, daily data for these two pollutants fail to indicate a pollutant/
traffic relationship.
The relative concentration levels of the four pollutants, as measured
at the 2nd and 3rd floor outdoor locations for those days on which particulate
samples were obtained, is shown in Figure 2.4-3. (Carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbon concentrations are given as hourly averages to permit comparison with
data in Tables 2.4-1 and -2. Particulates and lead are plotted in daily con-
centration levels.) It will be noted that while there are similarities in the
variations of the pollutant levels, the pollutants do not vary uniformly. In
general, both carbon monoxide and total particulates increased during the data
collection period. Hydrocarbons and lead increased during the early months and
then decreased. These differences in general trends reflect the change in
2-35
-------
50
to
CO
05
D.
Q.
I
z
o
z
LU
o
z
o
o
o
Q.
40
30
20
10
MEDIAN CO
3RD FLOOR CO
3RD FLOOR HC
10
11
12
13
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEHICLE/HR x 10
,-3
Figure 2.4-2. Hydrocarbon & CO Concentrations vs. Traffic Flow Rate - Heating - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
10 r
to
I
CO
-a
x
o
o
z
0 U
-1500
-400 -1 16
14
12
10
10/14 10/26 11/2 11/16 11/17 11/24 12/1
12/2 12/7 12/8 12/9 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24
DAT E OF MEASUREMENT
1/12
Figure 2.4-.'!. Pollutants - 2nd & 3rd Floors - Outdoors - Site 1
-------
meteorological conditions; i.e., site temperature and wind direction, through-
out the 5 months monitoring period. A comparison of the hydrocarbon concentra-
tion curve with the daily temperature levels shown on Figure 2.2-1 again shows
the reduction in hydrocarbon concentrations with a decrease in site temperature.
Wind azimuth and the relative location of the sampling location to
the pollutant source both influence the concentration levels of the four pollu-
tants. Figures 2.4-4 and -5 show the daily concentration levels as a function
of the road level wind azimuth angle. CO and HC concentrations are high for road
winds from 270° which blow Trans Manhattan generated pollutants towards the
sampling location at the N. E. corner of the air rights structure. These pollu-
tants are low for winds from the N. E. Particulate and lead concentrations are
o o
high for road winds from 15 and 245 ; directions which carry these pollutants
o
across the face of the building. Wind perpendicular to the building, from 300 ,
reduce these pollutant concentration levels.
It will be noticed from the constant temperature lines on the four
curves, that hydrocarbon concentrations are significantly lower on low tempera-
ture days than any of the other pollutants. (The data for these curves are
included in Section 5.1).
Figure 2.4-6 shows the relationship between daily average hydrocarbon
and CO concentrations and daily levels of lead and total particulates for the
selected days.
Since the average levels of the four pollutants at the 2nd and 3rd
floor outdoor locations and traffic flow rate on these selected days are very
close to the averages during the heating season, as shown in the following
tabulation, it is felt that the date for these selected days properly repre-
sents the total monitoring period.
2-38
-------
Q.
Q-
I
O
8
8
10 —
37° _ ^-<
55C
6
o.
Q.
1
Z
o
1—
< 4
QC
1-
2
LU
O
O
O
z
O j
(O *
QC
O
o
QC
Q
I
n
X— _ 55°
' — — x
"""-^-x *
NX x x
c^ y
37 Xjj *
XX
X x
X
1 1 1 1
180
270 360 90
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - DEGREES
180
Figure 2.4-4. CO & HC Concentrations vs. Road Level Wind - Site 1
2-39
-------
CO
U
K
QC
O
300
20°
100
180
\
XS37° X
\
55
1
1
270 360 90
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - DEGREES
180
8
n 6
t
01
^
1
O
t-
1 4
LU
o
z
o
o
0
LU
-1 2
n
•
•^, 37° «
^^
• **" •
•
^
"^ -^ * *
ss° "**••** ^ •
"** ^«
1 1 I 1
180
90
270 360 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - DEGREES
Figure 2.4-5. Particulates & Lead Concentrations vs. Road Level Wind - Site 1
2-40
-------
Q.
Q.
I
g
o
z
O 2
o
o
,v
_L
_L
_L
5678
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
10
11
12
en
Q
<
UJ
6r-
I
I
100 200
TOTAL PARTICULATES -jug/M3
/
Figure 2.4-6. Pollutant Relationships - Daily Data - Site 1
300
2-41
-------
CO HC Part. _Lead Traffic
ppm ug/M3Veh/Hr
Heating Season
Daily Ave. 7.0 3.4 161 3.5 6670
Selected Days
24 Hr. Ave. 6.5 3.3 157 3.3 6590
2.4.1 Carbon Monoxide
CO measurements at this site were made at five elevations; 3 ft. above
road level, 3rd floor, 15th floor, 23rd floor and 32nd floor. Because of the
time of starting the program, September 25, 1970, sparse CO data was taken during
the non-heating season. One hundred days of CO measurements were taken during
the heating season and only 9 days of measurements during the non-heating season.
The Federal Criterion of 9 ppm was exceeded over 90% of all hours 3 ft.
above the road level with the 35 ppm one hour average being exceeded over 20% of
the time. At the third floor level the 9 ppm standard was exceeded over 20% of
the time both outdoors and indoors. Above these levels the frequencies are as
shown in Table 2.4-1.
Hourly average CO measurements taken at the 3 ft. level show a good
correlation with the traffic characteristics. The diurnal CO weekday profiles
have a double-peaked configuration (morning and afternoon maxima) which have a
close phase relationship to the traffic flow rate. The daily average CO concen-
trations, both outdoor and indoor, show an exponential decay, with the greatest
decrease between the ground level and 3rd floor probes. The general decay profile
up to and including the 23rd floor is quite representative of that related to a
live source. For this site, therefore, traffic is a major source of the CO as
measured at the lower and intermediate elevations.
The CO measurements at this site were higher during weekdays as com-
pared to weekends, consistent with the traffic volumes. Concentrations outdoors
2-42
-------
were always higher during the non-heating season than during the heating season.
This is also consistent with higher traffic conditions during the non-heating
season. However, indoor concentrations during the non-heating season were lower
at the 3rd and 32nd floors than those occuring during the heating season. In-
door average concentrations at all elevations were comparable to outdoor averages
for both seasons with the exception of the 32nd floor during the heating season.
CO concentrations at all building locations, indoors and outdoors,
displayed diurnal characteristics representative of the diurnal traffic flow
rate for both weekdays and weekends. That is, weekday CO profiles were double-
peaked while weekend CO profiles had a single peak late in the day. There were
significantly different time delays between traffic peaks and CO peaks at the
various building elevations suggesting that other factors beside traffic in-
fluence CO concentration at the various building elevations, especially indoors.
As for the general trend, we see an indoor/outdoor pattern of highly permeable
walls, low concentration gradient across the wall and definite indications that
the building acts as an entrapping receptor.
The difference in time delay between CO and traffic peaks is partially
due to height above the roadway, different upward paths internally and externally
and to different meteorological conditions indoors and outdoors. These factors
modify the response time of CO concentrations to changes in traffic flow rate.
This can be seen from Figure 2.4-7 which portrays the diurnal CO concentrations
at the 3rd floor outdoor and 32nd floor indoor locations against diurnal traffic
flow rates. (The numbers 24, 1, 2, etc., represent the hour of the day.) CO
levels lag changes in traffic flow rates for both increasing and decreasing
traffic conditions. 32nd floor lag is greater.
Indoor CO concentrations, as measured on both heating and non-heating
weekdays, increase linearly with the outdoor concentration at all building levels.
2-43
-------
12
(O
O.
O.
I
O
s
DC
O
I
8
10
3RD FLOOR OUTDOORS
32ND FLOOR INDOORS
I
I
J
2000
4000 6000 8000
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE VEH/HR
10000
12000
Figure 2.4-7. Diurnal CO vs. Diurnal Traffic - Site 1
-------
The indoor/outdoor relationships are slightly different at each floor, as shown on
Figure 2.4-8. Indoor CO at the 23rd floor is lower than 3rd floor indoor CO.
However, 32nd floor CO indoors is higher than the 3rd floor concentration. This
"inversion" duplicates the phenomena noted for the daily average CO concentrations.
The outdoor/indoor differential relationships also increase as a function
of outdoor CO level at the respective floors. Again an "inversion" occurs between
the 23rd and 32nd floors. Figure 2.4-9 shows the average 0/1 relationships for
both heating and non-heating weekdays. These 0/1 relationships are influenced by
outdoor temperature as shown on Figure 2.4-10. The differentials become positive,
i.e., outdoor CO higher than indoor CO, at lower outdoor CO levels at high temper-
ature than at low site temperature. Since no temperature measurements are avail-
able to define indoor temperatures, it is assumed that indoor temperatures general-
ly are higher than outdoor temperatures, especially at the higher floors during
the heating season. It is felt that the resultant differential temperature con-
tributes to the variation in outdoor/indoor relationships at the different floors.
As previously mentioned, the Trans Manhattan Expressway is the major
source of CO at this site. Road and roof level winds distribute the Trans Man-
hattan Expressway generated CO in the open area between the two air rights build-
ings and the buildings along 178th and 179th Streets. Median strip CO level
varies as a function of road wind direction and the traffic flow rate in the east
and west bound lanes. Road wind that blow across the high volume traffic lanes
toward the median produce high median CO levels. Winds blowing high volume
traffic generated CO away from the median produce low median CO readings.
It should be noted that the other meteorological parameters, wind
speed, wind turbulence and temperature lapse contribute to variations in median
strip CO. However, these parameters generally vary as a function of wind di-
rection. The contribution of these parameters are small in comparison to the
2.45
-------
3RD FLOOR
O.
a.
I
in
cc
O
O
Q
2
O
LU
O
z
O
CJ
O
O
25
20
32ND FLOOR
23RD FLOOR
15
10
_L
10 15 20 25
CO CONCENTRATION OUTDOORS - PPM
30
35
Figure 2.4-8. Indoor vs. Outdoor CO Concentrations - Site 1
-------
to
o.
0.
O
O
DC
LU
-2
-4
-6
-8
A 23RDvs 23RDOUT
A 3RD vs 3RD OUT
A 32ND vs 32ND OUT
I
I
I
I
10 12 14 16 18
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 2.4-9. Differential CO vs. Outdoor CO - Various Floors - 6 pm - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
-2
-4
a.
a.
I
en
U)
-4
4 i-
-2
-4
-6
I I I
36-50
51-65
20-35
51-65
,51-65
20-35
36-50
I
I
I
3RD FLOOR
23RD FLOOR
J I I I I I I
32nd FLOOR
I
J
3 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 2.4-10. Differential CO vs. Outdoor CO & Site Temperature - Site 1
2-48
-------
effect produced by changes in wind direction.
CO levels at any particular time as seen at the N. E. corner of the
air rights buildings, both inside and outside, vary as a function of road wind
direction and the volume of traffic on the Trans Manhattan Expressway. Highest
building concentrations occur when high traffic flows west bound and the road
wind blows directly at the sampling location from the west bound lanes. N. E.
corner concentrations reduce when traffic and meteorological conditions vary
from this "worst case" condition.
Average concentrations at the 3rd floor outdoor location are signifi-
cantly lower than average median strip CO levels. The unusually large decay in
concentration between the ground level and the third floor probe can be ex-
plained, at least in part, by noting that the probes at the third floor, are set
back over a deck configuration which precludes a line of site visibility between
those probes and the traffic induced pollutants as they are dispersed upward.
Concentrations at the upper floors are strongly influenced by con-
centrations at the immediate lower floors and by the roof wind direction. High
outdoor-concentrations, and positive outdoor/indoor relationships, occur at
both the 2-3rd and 32nd floors when the roof wind blows from behind the building
towards the open space between the two air rights buildings. Roof winds from 300°
to 60°, which blow towards the N. E. corner, produce low outdoor concentrations
and negative indoor/outdoor relationships. It is felt that the CO concentrations
rising from the Trans Manhattan Expressway are partially blown away and partially
blown into the air rights structure by the northerly roof winds. The CO concentra-
tion levels react differently between floors at outdoor and indoor locations as
a function of roof wind direction. This is explained in greater detail in
Section 5.1.1.3.6
2-49
-------
2.4.2 Hydrocarbons
Measurements were conducted at three elevations, the 3rd floor, for
a period of time at the 32nd floor and at the 23rd floor. It was discovered
early in the heating season that the 32nd floor apartment showed unusually high
hydrocarbon levels because of very significant internal sources. Accordingly,
these probes were moved to the GE leased apartment at the 23rd floor on
November 23, 1971. Therefore, no non-heating season hydrocarbon data was take
at the 23rd floor.
The diurnal curves of hydrocarbon concentration vs. traffic flow
rate do not show an obvious correlation. The plots of concentration vs.
traffic flow rate and speed, however, suggest a cause-effect relationship between
concentrations measured outside the building and traffic emissions. This indi-
cation is strongest at the third floor and decreases with height. Diurnal tem-
perature variations which, as shown on Figure 2.4-1, are time phase differently
than diurnal traffic variations are the cause for this lack of correlation.
Meteorological parameters, rather than traffic conditions, appear to
be the most significant factors in determining the hydrocarbon concentrations
at the 3rd floor outdoor location of the air rights structure. Road wind
direction and wind speed influence the amount of hydrocarbons transported from
the Trans Manhattan Expressway to the base of the building. Outdoor hydrocarbons
vary with road temperature, as shown on Figure 2.4-11. 3rd Floor indoor
concentrations are random with outdoor temperature.
In general, hydrocarbon concentrations are higher at indoor locations
than at outdoor locations. Concentrations indoors increase with outdoor con-
centrations. The relationship between indoor and outdoor hydrocarbons increases
from the non-heating season to the heating season. Similarly, indoor hydrocar-
bon concentrations increase with respect to outdoor concentrations for both
2-50
-------
1
I
o
8
1 3
cr
O
O
QC
O
i _
30
40 50 60
TEMPERATURE- °F
70
80
Figure 2.4-11. 3rd Floor Hydrocarbon Outdoors vs. Road Temperature - Site 1
2-51
-------
seasons with height above the roadway. Figure 2.4-12 shows these indoor/outdoor
relationships.
Differential hydrocarbon concentrations, outdoors to indoors, primari-
ly are determined by indoor concentrations as presented on Figure 2.4-13. (The
0/1 differential when plotted against outdoor hydrocarbons displays a similar
but significantly more random relationship. This may be caused by greater
temperature variations outdoors than indoors.) As expected, the differential to
indoor concentration relationships change with height above the roadway and from
non-heating to heating seasons, indicating a strong temperature effect. Only
the 3rd floor differential during the non-heating season displays positive
levels, i.e., high outdoor hydrocarbons. ?
There are strong indications that internal sources contribute to the
high indoor concentrations at the 32nd floor. Test personnel noticed that use
of cooking stoves increased indoor concentrations significantly and we know that
the family in the 32nd floor apartment complained of insufficient heat-and fre-
quently used the oven and stove to obtain additional heat. The similarity of
32nd floor 0/1 differential to indoor concentrations, shown on Figure 2.4-13
for both heating and non-heating seasons, suggest the high indoor hydrocarbons
leak outwards to control the outdoor concentrations as measured right outside
the apartment window.
The outdoor concentrations are responsive to diurnal traffic and
temperature changes as shown on Figure 2.4-14 and -15 which show the vertical
gradient between floors. Both figures show the rise and fall in' 3rd floor
hydrocarbon between 8 and 10 AM due to the morning rush hour traffic peak. This
is followed by a secondary rise due to the increase in outdoor temperature.
2-52 .
-------
a.
o.
I
O
HEATING
NON-HEATING
3RD FLOOR
L
4 -
ATING
NDOORHCCONC
0 10
/
23RD FLOOR
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12
10
HEATING
NON-HEATING
1
8
OUTDOOR HC CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 2.4-12. Indoor vs. Outdoor HC Concentration @ Floor -
Diurnal Average - Site 1
2-53
-------
Q.
O.
I
QC
o
o
o
2
•—
tr
O
O
O
I-
o
I
o
I
-2
-2
J I
NON-HEATING
3RD FLOOR
23RD FLOOR
HEATING
J I
-2
-4
-6
1
I
NON-HEATING
I
I
I
32ND FLOOR
10
J
2 3 4 5 6.7 8 9
INDOOR HC CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 2.4-13. 0/1 HC Diff. vs. Indoor HC @ Floor - Diurnal Averages - Site 1
11
2-54
-------
Q-
Q.
I
O
I
01
QC
-2
-3
-4
•WEEKDAY HEATING
WEEKDAY NON-HEATING
24
I
10
12
TIME
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 2.4-14. Diurnal Hydrocarbon Differential 3rd - 32nd Floor - Outside
2-55
-------
0.
a.
I 0
-------
2.4.3 Particulafce Concentration
Approximately 90 particulate samplings were taken at the Washington
Bridge Apartments between September 10, 1970 and January 12, 1971. The data was
collected at two outdoor locations and four indoor locations. The data collected
was organized according to heating and non-heating seasons. The mean values
along with the concentration ranges from all the 24 hour samplings (excluding
those inside the tower) are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1 - Total Particulates, ug/M^ (Mean Values)
Outside Inside
Heating
Non-Heating
2nd Fl.
160.9
122.1
Table 2 -
Roof 2nd Fl.
102.9 56.1
148.6 85.1
Particulate Concentration Ranges
Roof Boiler Rm.
90.4 112.9
82.5
- ub/M3
Heating 86.6-287.6 50.3-243.6 29.4-105.6 57.4-142,4 75,9-184.8
Non-Heating 115.2-129.1 104.7-192.5 79.5- 90.7 82.5
At this site, the particulate concentrations outside the test building
were significantly higher than the inside particulate concentrations. The outside
mean particulate concentration was 133.6 ug/>i while the inside was only 82.0 ug/M .
This trend was shown during both heating and non-heating seasons. Both inside and
outside particulate concentrations fluctuated greatly on a day to day basis indi-
*
eating that daily changes in variables were of utmost significance.
During both seasons, the particulate concentration inside and outside
2
the building exceeded the national primary ambient air standard of 260 ug/M for
particulates over a 24 hour sampling period only on December 14 and 28. The
secondary standard of 150 ug/M was exceeded outside nine out of a possible 20
days during the heating season. During the non-heating season, the secondary
standard wastexceeded outside once out of two days. The inside particulate con-
2-57
-------
Generations for both seasons exceeded the secondary standard only once, on
December 8- in the boiler room.
There was also no direct correlation between total participates and
traffic volume passing the test building. The poor correlation indicated thnt
the total particulate concentrations are a function of other variables.
Concentration close to the roadway displayed a gradual change in level
from the beginning to the end of the monitoring period. Second floor outdoor
concentrations increased with time, while both 2nd floor indoor and boiler room
particulate levels decreased. Roof level concentrations, however, varied inde-
pendently with calendar time.
While the shift in particulate levels at the three ground level sam-
pling locations indicates a temperature influence, graphical analysis showed that
roof wind direction is the prime controlling factor at all locations.
Roof level particulates primarily originate from the building chimney.
Both outdoor and indoor concentrations vary as the roof wind rotates about the
chimney exhaust. Outdoor concentrations are high when the roof wind blows from
o o
270 (from the chimney towards the outdoor sampler) and low at 90 . Indoor con-
centrations are the reverse.
Ground level particulates also vary as a function of roof level angle
suggesting that chimney exhaust is the major particulate source. However, road
wind angle and temperature also influence the concentrations at both the 2nd
floor and boiler room locations.
At the roof level, the particulate differential outdoors to indoors
is controlled by the roof wind angle. The outdoor differential from roof to 2nd
floor is established by roof wind in essentially the same manner. These differ-
ential relationships are shown in the upper diagrams of Figure 2.4-16.
At the ground level, the indoor differential from the boiler room to
the 2nd floor location also responds to roof wind. Second floor differential,
2-58
-------
100 |—
LL
o
o
cc
I
o
o
200
100
-100
\
I
I
I
180 270 360 90 180
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
-200
180 270 360 90 180
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
100
50
2
01
I
£E
O
o
CM
o
of
CO
I
111
o
CO
z
cc.
01
<± -50
o 180
I
270
360
90
180
01
tr
o
o
D
CM
LU
CC
300
200
< 100
h-
I
100
200
300
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
Figure 2.4-16. Participate Differential Relationships - Site 1
2ND FLOOR CONCENTRATION -
OUTDOORS -/ig/M3
2-59
-------
outdoor to indoor, however, is basically a function of the particulate level
at the outdoor location. The lower diagrams of Figure 2.4-16 show these
relationships.
In summary, the building chimney is the major source of particulates
at the air rights structure. The chimney exhaust is disbursed by the roof wind
and settles to the ground level. Road winds then further distribute these and
road generated particulates.
2.4.4 Lead Concentrations
All -total particulate samples collected at the Washington Bridge Apart-
ments site were analyzed for lead content using an atomic absorption technique.
The results are summarized according to mean values and concentration ranges as
shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 - Lead Concentration. ug/M (mean values)
Outside
Inside
Heating
Non-Heating
Heating
Non-Heating
Heating
Non- Heat ing
2nd Fl.
3.45
1.89
2.30
1.57
Table
1.61-6.35
1.69-2.09
Roof
1.47
1.30
% Lead (mean
1.53
0.98
2nd Fl.
1.42
1.51
values)
2.40
1.74
Roof
1.58
1.42
1.77
1.10
Boiler Room
3.999
-
3.60
-
2 - Pb Concentration Ranges
0.52-2.68
1.18-1.41
0.38-3.29
1,05-1.96
0.72-2.25
1.42
2.61-5.87
% lead Ranges
Heating
Non -Heat ing
1.20-2.50
1.31-1.82
0.73-3.10
0.61-1.35
1.20-5.40
1-32-2.16
0.60-3.90
0.47-1.73
2.90-4.80
-
The lead concentrations at the 2nd floor outside and boiler room locations
2-60
-------
were significantly higher than at the other four sampling positions. The similari-
ty of lead concentration in the boiler room to that outside the second floor indi-
cates a common source, probably at ground level. Concentrations varied signifi-
cantly from day to day at all three locations close to the roadway. However, roof
level concentrations generally displayed less fluctuation. Concentrations in-
creased at all locations from the beginning of the monitoring program to reach
their peak levels about December 1. Lead levels decreased after that date to
approximately the same values measured at the beginning of the monitoring period.
This reversal is primarily due to the shift in wind direction from east, through
north and to the west and then back to the north. This wind change was previously
shown on Figure 2.2-1.
Examination of the average lead concentrations for both heating and
non-heating seasons showed the vertical concentration, 2nd floor to roof, de-
creased with height outdoors. Indoor concentrations, however, increased with
height from the 2nd floor to roof level.
Roof level lead concentrations do not originate, as seen for total
particulates, from the building chimney. Both outdoor and indoor concentrations
vary with the roof wind angle in the same fashion. Concentrations are high at
both locations when the roof wind blows from 270° and low for roof winds from
90° as shown in the upper diagrams of Figure 2.4-17. The roof level outdoor/in-
door differential is basically random with roof wind angle. Similarly roof to
2nd floor differentials, both outdoors and indoors are random with both roof
and road level wind directions.
Second floor concentrations do not display a definite relationship
to wind angle. However, it appears that the outdoor concentration and the
outdoor/indoor differential peak when the road wind blows from approximately
2-61
-------
CO
•fe
CO
cc.
Q
O
Q
I-
O
LU
O
O
CC
I
s
CO
cc
o
z
LU
O
O
CC
I
o
180
270
360
90
180
180
270
360
90
180
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
cc
O
O
CM
I
oc
O
O
O
cc
O
o
0
I-
o
I
LU
cc
Q
Q
I
CO
QC
O
o
Q
I-
o
cc
o
3
LU
o
CM
o
cc
m
I
cc
LU
LU
<
LU
-1
-2
!± -3
180
270
360
90
180
180
270 360
90
180
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
Figure 2.4-17. Lead Differential Relationships - Site 1
2-62
-------
o
20 and drops rapidly as the wind shifts in either direction. Road wind also
controls the differential between the boiler room and the 2nd floor outdoor
location in the same fashion. These relationships are shown in the lower diagrams
of Figure 2.4-17.
The average percent lead was found to be higher at the low level lo-
cations than at roof level. Daily lead percentages fluctuated more than the
lead concentration at all sampling locations. In general, higher percentages
occurred for road and roof wind angles of 300°. These factors strongly indicate
that the Trans Manhattan Expressway is a major source of lead at the air rights
structure.
Figure 2.4-18 presents comparative plots of the lead and lead per-
centage differentials as a function of roof wind direction. Both the roof level
outdoor/indoor and roof to 2nd floor indoor differentials respond to roof wind
in opposite fasions, further suggesting that the lead source is ground originated
and total particulates emanate at roof level.
In summary, traffic is the major source of lead at this site. Road
and roof winds distribute the lead. Since the major particulate source is non-
traffic related, the percentage of lead at any sampling location varies as a
function of the total particulates and roof and road wind direction.
2-63
-------
-2
360
90 180 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
360
90
J
180
I- CC
u. Q
5 3
o
o
o
cc
—2
180
270
360
90
180
Q -
< I
Z Q
% 2
CC CM
ffi o
t I-
o
DC
-2
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
Figure 2.4-18. Lead and % Lead Differential Relationships - Site 1
2-64
-------
2.5 Summary of Site 2 Results
The pollution levels at the West 40th Street site are generated by
three sources. These are: traffic on West 40th Street, sources internal to the
building and sources in the general area to the south and west of the building. These
three sources influence the pollution levels both outdoors and indoors. The concen-
tration levels at individual locations are established by these sources and wind
currents at the site.
The average carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations decreased
significantly from road to upper floor levels for both seasons and at both indoor
and outdoor locations. However vertical distance generally did not affect total
particulate and lead concentrations. All four pollutants displayed large differences
between -indoor and outdoor concentrations. The average levels for the four pollutants
on weekdays for both the heating and the non-heating seasons are listed in Table 2.5-1
and -2. It will be noticed that while indoor carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons levels
were generally higher than outdoor levels during the heating season, only hydrocarbons
were higher indoors during the non-heating season.
Neither carbon monoxide nor hydrocarbon average hourly levels displayed
diurnal variations which decisively indicate their relationship to 40th Street traffic
patterns. From Figure 2.5-1 it can be seen that weekday traffic profile is character-
istic of a one way street while CO closely portrays a two way roadway. The diurnal CO
peaks occur slightly later in the day than typical for morning and evening rush hour
times, indicating that traffic generated CO from adjacent"streets contributes to the
carbon monoxide levels at this site. Hydrocarbons appear to be totally independent
of 40th Street traffic. While there is a slight suggestion,that site temperature
influences the hydrocarbon diurnal profile from 4 AM to 4 PM, the lack of response
to both traffic.and temperature reductions in the latter part of the day strongly
indicates the presence of a nan traffic related hydrocarbon source.
2-65
-------
TABLE 2.5-1
Carbon Monoxide
Weekday Measurements
Site 2
9' South
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
9' North
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
3rd Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
5th Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
Ppm
Ex.
Sec.
llth Floor
Ave.
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec.
19th Floor
Ave
ppm
Ex.
Pri.
Peak
ppm
Ex.
Sec
Heating Season
11.2
59.3
NA
NA
46.6
1.1
11.2
62.1
51.2
0.4
9.9
47.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.5
47.6
45.0
0.4
7.7
28.0
33.8
0
6.6
20.4
25.8
0
5.4
7.8
24.6
0
34.5
0
7.8
29.2
25.3
0
6.9
20.2
25.3
0
6.8
17.4
30.7
0
Out-
side
In -
side
Non Heating Season
TI'TT
55.8
NA
^
39.4
0.5
NA
NA
10. 8
60.4
NA
NA
37.8
0.2
NA
NA
10.3
48.8
8.2
33.0
37.3
0.2
30.0
0
8.1
36.0
7.1
28.3
35.2
0.2
22.1
0
4.8
8.4
4.7
5.2
21.1
0
15.6
0
4.2
1.4
3.8
1.2
18.3
0
13.4
0
Out-
side
In -
side
Ex. Pri. = Frequency exceeding 9 ppm averaged over 8 hr. period
Ex. Sec. » Frequency exceeding 35 ppm over 1 hr. period
2-66
-------
3RD FLOOR
Avc ppm
Peak ppm
TABLE 2.5-2
HYDROCARBONS - PARTICIPATES - LEAD
WEEKDAY MEASUREMENTS
SITE 2
11TH FLOOR
Ave. ppm
Peak ppm
MEAN PARTICULATE .
CONCENTRATION
ug/M3
MEAN LEAD
CONCENTRATION
ug/M3
HEATING SEASON
OUTSIDE
INSIDE
4.5
OPTSIDE
INSIDE
4.8
14.3
34
11.7
30.9
1.9
2.4
2.8
7.9
15.5
3RD FLOOR
123.2
ROOF
123.9
3RD FLOOR
1.42
11TH
65.7
18TH
66.8
11TH
0.81
ROOF
1.45
18TH
0.98
NON-HEATING SEASON
6.8
13.1"
3RD FLOOR
147.1
11TH
92.9
ROOF
144.1
18TH
64.0
3RD FLOOR
2.25
11TH
1.81
ROOF
1.57
18TH
1.17
2-67
-------
to
C5
OO
55
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
-« 45
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 2.5-1. Diurnal Traffic. CO & HC - 3rd Floor - Heating Weekday - Site 2
-------
Since West 40th Street is a one way street, the general shape of the
diurnal traffic parameters are basically the same weekdays and weekends. Weekday
traffic is somewhat higher than that on weekends for both the heating and non-heating
seasons. The correlation between traffic on 40th Street and both CO and hydrocarbons
is considerably weaker than seen at the Trans Manhattan Expressway site. As shown
on Figure 2.5-2, the averaged diurnal data for CO at road level and the 3rd floor
outdoor locations display similar linear relationships to traffic flow rate while
hydrocarbon is independent.
The relative concentration levels of the four pollutants as measured at
the two different outdoor locations at the 3rd floor level for the days of parti-
culate sampling is shown on Figure 2.5-3. Generally the four pollutants show very
similar fluctuations on a day to day basis during the monitoring period, but little
or no change in level from the start to the end of the program. Since, as previously
shown on Figure 2.2-5, site temperature generally rises during the monitoring period,
the apparent differences in 3rd floor outdoor pollution levels between the heating
and non-heating seasons are indicative of daily rather than seasonal variations.
Road level wind direction and the location of the pollutant sampler
both influence the 3rd floor outdoor concentration levels. Figures 2.5-4 and -5
show the relationship of the four pollutants to road level wind. The variation
in concentration level is small for all pollutants for westerlywindswhich blow
along 40th Street. Higher, and more randon',' levels occur for southerly winds.
As shown by the constant temperature lines, much of this randomness is the result
of a general increase in site temperature.
Figure 2.5-6 shows the relationship between daily averages of the two
sets of pollutants. The relationships are comparable to those seen at the Trans
Manhattan Expressway site.
2-69
-------
20
to
-q
O
Q.
°-
z
o
LU
O
O
O
15
10
9 FT ROAD CO
3RD FLOOR CO
3RD FLOOR HC
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEHICLES/HR x 10
,-2
Figure 2.5-2. HC & CO Concentrations Vs. Traffic Flow Rate - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
20/10 |—
16/8
O
z
UJ
u
z
12/6
8/4
4/2
I 1 I I I I
-, 500/20
400/16
PARTICULATES x-" """
LEAD
I I
I I I I I I I I
300/12
200/8
100/4
a
<
UJ
<
CJ
2/16 2/24 3/8 3/11 3/16 3/17 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/30 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/22 5/3 5/4 5/11 5/27 6/2 6/10
DATE OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 2.5-3. Pollutants - 3rd Floor Outdoors - Site 2
-------
IB
16
8: 14
I
z
0
< 12
CE
h-
o 10
z
8
O 8
X
o
^y
i e
z
0
CO
oc 4
5
2
0
\
\
^ 60°
\
i \
71°\ • \
\ \
' \ /x/
*
V *
9
—
I I I
8
Q.
a.
z e
o
<
oc 4
^—
o
Z o
8 2
u
I
n
f \60°
71°\ \
"~ V \ *
«•%
v
I I I
90 180 270
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - DEGREES
360
Figure 2.5-4. CO & HC Concentration Vs. Road Level Wind - Site 2
2-72
-------
300
o>
200
o
100
71° \ \*
V \
\ • .
>:
8 I—
5
O)
g
t-
z
LLJ
O
8
o
V V. 60°
oV X
° \ X\
i
i
90 180 270
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - DEGREES
360
Figure 2.5-5. Particulates & Lead Concentration Vs. Road Level Wind - Site 2
2-73
-------
to
-q
81-
I
I4
ui
u
I3
u
J I
I
I
I
I
I
2 3
4
co
5
7 8 9 10 11
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
12 13
14
15 16 17 '8
I
I
100 200
TOTAL PARTICULATES ->ug/M3
300
Figure 2.5-6. Pollutant Relationships - Daily Data - Site 2
-------
The averages of 3rd floor pollutants for the two analytical approaches
are shown below. These averages are essentially alike.
Heating Season
Daily Ave.
Selected Days
24 Hr. Ave.
CO
HC
ppm
9.9
8.8
4.5
4.2
Part
Lead
ug/mj
123
129
1.4
1.5
Traffic
Veh / Hr.
357
353
2-75
-------
2.5.1 Carbon Monoxide
CO measurements were made at the 40th Street site at five elevations;
9 ft. above road level, 3rd floor, 5th floor, llth floor and 19th floor. 106 days
of CO measurements were takendiring the heating season and 32 days data was obtained
during the non-heating season.
The primary Federal Standard of 9 ppm was exceeded approximately 60% of
all monitoring hours at the 9 ft. level. The secondary standard of 35 ppm one hour
average was only exceeded 17» of the time at that level. The primary standard was
exceeded by lesser percentages at the various building locations as shown in
Table 2.5-1.
Hourly average CO measurements taken at the 9 ft. level show a general
correlation with 40th Street traffic characteristics. However, the weekday diurnal
CO profiles have a double peaked configuration which do not correspond to the single
peaked diurnal traffic flow rate profile. The CO peaks do correspond with double
valleys in the weekday 40th Street traffic velocity diurnal curve. Similarly the
weekend traffic and CO diurnal profiles do not peak simultaneously. It is therefore
evident that other traffic, probably on 8th Avenue, contributes to the CO concentrations
at this canyon-like site.
The vertical concentration decay is exponential from the 9ft level to
the 19th floor both outdoors and indoors and during both heating and non-heating
seasons. At road level, the concentration gradient across the road is negligible
during the heating season. The average CO level on the north side of the road is
slightly lower than that on the south side during the non-heating season when the
general wind flow is from the south and perpendi.cular to 40th Street. Concentrations
at the various building levels show diurnal profiles very similar to those at street
level but at generally lower magnitudes. The outdoor concentrations display reasonable
correlation with traffic between 6 PM and 8 AM. However, as shown on Figure 2.5-7,
the CO/traffic relationship during the midday period is significantly different
2-76
-------
16
14
12
10
Q-
Q.
s
CC
I-
01
o
z
O
o
o
o
\\
\\
t
18>
/
20 X
y,
X
24
y
J
I
I
I
14 I
12+13
100
500
200 300 400
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEHICLE/ HR
Fig-ure 2.5-7. Diurnal CO 3rd Floor Outdoors Vs. Diurnal Traffic - Site 2
600
2-77
-------
from that seen at the Trans Manhattan Expressway site.
The indoor concentrations at each building floor increase essentially
linearly with outdoor concentrations at that floor. The 40th Street structure displays
the same characteristic of greater indoor concentrations per outdoor concentration at
the upper floor. This is indicated on Figure 2.5-8.
The outdoor/indoor differential relationships at this site vary as a
function of outdoor CO levels. The average heating weekday conditions are displayed
on Figure 2.5-9. The 0/1 differential relationship at each floor is modified by
site temperature. Appreciably higher differentials, lower indoor concentrations, occur
with increases in site temperature. The change with temperature, as shown on Figure
2.5-10, appears greater than seen at the air-rights structure.
In winter, the density difference between heated indoor air and cold out-
door air provides the force which controls the indoor-outdoor pollution relationship.
In summer, the wind provides this control. The effect in winter may be likened to a
"stack." Cold air enters lower floors to replace rising warm air which leaks out
through roof openings and open windows on the upper floors. The entering air carries
relatively high CO concentrations into the building from ground level on 40th Street.
These concentrations rise through the building with the thermally induced circulation,
receiving relatively little dilution compared to the turbulent mixing occurring out-
doors. Interior sources such as oil-fired boilers and open gas flames may also provide
some small contribution. This type of circulation in the building accounts for equal
indoor-outdoor concentrations at the lowest floor and higher indoor concentrations at
upper floors. It also accounts for the phase lag between indoor and outdoor concen-
trations at the upper floors because the vertical transport within the building through
elevator shafts and the like would tend to be slower than the free transport and diffu-
sion occurring outdoors.
Carbon monoxide levels were lower indoors during the non-heating season
due to the influence of a different circulation regime. During this season, the
2-78
-------
-3
cr>
24
22
20
18
I
CO
tr
§'«
o
z
O 12
Z 10
UJ
O
z
o
u 8
8
3RD
11TH
19TH
8 10-12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION OUTDOORS - PPM
22
24
26
28
Figure 2.5-8. Indoor Vs. Outdoor CO Concentration - Site 2
-------
10 -
A 3vs30
oo
o
Q.
Q.
I
8
A 11vs110
A 19vs190
-4
-6
-8
-10
I
I
I
I
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
24 26 28 30 32 34
36
Figure 2.5-9. Differential CO Vs. Outdoor CO - Various Floors - 6 pm - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
70-90°
4 i-
2 -
70-90°
-2 -
-4
8 10 12 14 16
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
20 22 24
Figure 2.5-10. Differential CO Vs. Outdoor CO & Site Temperature - Site 2
2-81
-------
windows were open, the prevailing wind was from the south, and the building was
generally at the same temperature as its surroundings. The probes within the
building received contributions only from relatively distant upwind sources. The
probes outdoors on the north face of the building received contributions directly
from 40th Street. The pressure gradient force at the north face of the building
prevented any 40th Street generated CO from entering the building. The lack of a
"stack effect" during warm weather precluded the entrance of large amounts of CO-
laden air at lower floors as was the case in the winter.
2.5.2 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon concentrations were measured at the 3rd and llth floor levels
of the structure on West 40th Street.
Average hydrocarbon concentrations were always higher indoors than out-
doors at all days of the week. Indoor hydrocarbon concentrations at the third floor
were strongly affected by a paint spraying operation. Diurnal variations in concen-
trations were generally small ( <^ .5ppm) except for the third floor indoors. In
the vertical, indoor hydrocarbon concentrations decreased by a factor of approximately
4 from the third floor to the eleventh. Outdoor concentrations decreased by a factor
of approximately 2.
Hydrocarbon concentrations at the llth floor, indoor and outdoor and at
the 3rd floor outdoor were slightly less on weekends. Weekend indoor concentrations
at the 3rd floor increased during the heating season.
At the 3rd floor, indoor concentrations were independent of outside
hydrocarbons. However, llth floor hydrocarbons increased linearly with outdoor con-
centrations. Differential concentrations at both floor are controlled by indoor
hydrocarbons. Figure 2.5-11 shows these relationships for both floor for the heating
and non-heating seasons.
The large internal hydrocarbon source at this site obscures the effect
of traffic emissions at the 3rd floor level. The correlation, at the llth floor,
with traffic parameters is so slight that no firm conclusion can be made.
2-82
-------
to
I
CD
CO
0.
Q.
DC
O
o
Q
cc
8
o
O
I
o
ai
-------
2.5.3 Particulate Concentration
In order to define the pnrticulate concentrations at the 264 W. 40th
Street site, four high volume air samplers were utilized. Two of the samplers were
placed outside the building while two others were placed inside. Approximately one
hundred (100) particulate samplings were taken during the period between February 16,
1971 and July 14, 1971, at the test building at 264 W. 40th Street. The data collected
was organized according to heating and non-heating seasons. The mean values along
with the concentration ranges from all the 24 hour samplings are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1 - Total Particulates, ug/M (Mean Values)
Outside Inside
Heating
Non-Heating
3rd Fl.
123.2
147.1
Roof llth Fl.
123.9 65.7
144.1 92.9
Table 2 - Particulate Concentration Ranges - u
Heating
Non-Heating
73.6-229.8
74.0-212.0
75.6-229.8 27.9-109.
71.9-213.5 59.5-128.
18th Fl.
66.8
64.0
K/M3
3 23.1-143
0 34.2-105
.0
.7
At the 264 W. 40th Street site, the particulate concentrations outside
the test building were significantly higher than the inside particulate concentrations.
This trend was shown during both heating and non-heating seasons. Both inside and
outside particulate concentrations fluctuated greatly on a day to day basis indicating
daily changes in variables such as wind speed, air turbulence,traffic volume, and other
influencing parameters were of utmost importance.
During both seasons, the particulate concentration inside and-outside the
building never exceeded the national primary ambient air standard of 260 ug/M3 for
particulates over a 24-hour sampling period. The secondary standard of 150 ug/M3
was exceeded outside six out of a possible 18 days during the heating season. During
the non-heating season, the secondary standard was exceeded outside three out of six
sampling periods. The inside particulate concentrations never exceeded the secondary
standard for both seasons.
2-84
-------
There was also no direct correlation betwween total particulates and
traffic volume passing the test building. The poor correlation indicated that the
total particulate concentration outside was a function of other variables, only one
of which was traffic volume.
Concentrations at all four locations remained essentially constant
throughout the monitoring program. The outdoor concentrations were consistantly
higher than indoor concentrations and varied in identical patterns. Indoor concen-
trations generally fluctuated together but somewhat differently than the outdoor
concentrations. This indicated the suspended particulates did not vary with height
at least up to the roof level (227 ft.). Inside the building, the amount of suspended
articles was substantially lower. The building had a filtering effect on the incoming
particles, the efficiency of which was probably a function of the relative particle
size distribution outside. The larger particulates, which were continuously being
generated and circulated outside were probably restricted to a great extent from
entering the building. Any large particles that did enter the building probably
settled quickly in the absence of sufficient internal air turbulence. The smaller
particles, such as lead, easily entered the building due to its "leaky" construction.
A decrease in the number of particles, along with the building's ability to selectively
filter out the more weighted particles, caused the concentration of particulates
inside to drop significantly. During the heating season, when the doors and windows
were closed, the mean particulate concentration remained fairly constant within the
building. Concentration variations inside the building were probably a function of
the outside particulate concentration and the amount of air movement inside at the
particular levels. During the summer months when the windows and doors at the llth
floor were kept open for ventilation, the mean particulate concentration inside at
that level increased significantly. Since the 18th floor area was a storage room,
where the air circulation was minimal, the particulate concentration showed no
appreciable seasonal variation. The mean concentration at the 18th floor was almost
2-85
-------
identical to the mean concentration at the llth floor during the heating season
indicating that the participate concentration remained fairly constant with height
inside the building when the doors and windows were not open. Any particulates
generated inside were considered small when compared to those filtering in from the
outside.
Outdoor concentrations increased as temperature increased and as the
roof wind shifted to the south. Since these two meteorological factors are directly
related at this site, accurate identification of the major factor was not possible.
It is felt, however, that wind direction was more influential. Both 3rd floor and
roof outdoor particulates are high for wind from 180° and low for west winds as
shown on the upper diagram of Figure 2.5-12. Indoor concentrations appear to be
random with both roof and road wind direction.
Differential concentrations, outdoors and from outdoor to indoor locations,
respond to wind direction as shown on the lower diagrams of Figure 2.5-12. Indoor
differentials between the llth and 18th floors again are random.
2.5.4 Lead Concentrations
All total particulate samples collected at the 264 W. 40th Street site
were analyzed for lead content using an atomic absorption technique. The results
are summarized according to mean values and concentration ranges as shown in Tables 1
and 2.
Table 1 - Lead Concentration ug/M (Mean Values)
3rd Fl. Roof llth Fl. 18th Fl.
Heating
Non-Heating
Heating
Non-Heating
Heating
Ion-Heating
1,
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
42
78
15
27
Table
75-3.13
87-3.25
1
2
%
1
1
2
0
1
.45
.26
Lead
.23
.62
- Pb
.76-2
.29-3
(Mean
0.
1.
Values)
1.
1.
81
81
45
91
0.98
1.44
1.53
2.19
Concentration Ranges
.46
.44
0
0.
.25-1.28
56-3.47
0.59-1.
0.37-3
57
.28
2-86
-------
300
o
o
o
DC
200
100
I
300 i—
co
"a
C/5
200
O
I-
oc
O 100
o
D
cc
n
I
90 180 270 360 0 90
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
180
270 360
oc
8
o
cc
CO
I
u.
O
O
oc
I
t-
-50
" 0
90 180 270 360 0 90
ROOF WIND ANGLE - DEGREES
270 360
Figure 2.5-12. Particulate Differential Relationships - Site 2
2-87
-------
% Lead Ranges
Heating 0.78-1.64 0.71-2.43 0.35-3.72 0.43-3.31
Non-Heating 0.70-2.09 0.91-2.97 0.95-3.70 0.71-3.10
The average lead concentration was higher during the non-heating season
than for the heating season both inside and outside the test building. The concen-
trations inside and outside fluctuated widely from day to day during both seasons.
These variations in lead level are directly relatable to increase in site temperature
and changes in the wind direction. There was no correlation between lead concentra-
tion and traffic flow on West 40th Street.
Outside the building, there was essentially no change in concentration
with height during the heating season, however, the non-heating season concentration
increased with height. Inside the building , the heating season produced a slight
concentration increase with height. The non-heating season, however, showed a
substantial decrease with height within the building. This anomaly is caused by a
single days data for the two outdoor locations on June 2 and inclusion of 18th floor
data for two non-heating season days for which there is no comparable llth floor
data (shown on Table 5.2.4.1). Elimination of these data results in non-heating
season averages and seasonal differentials as follows:
Outside Inside
3rd Fl. Roof llth Fl. 18th Fl.
Non-Heating 2.25 1.57 1.81 1.17
Diff. Non-Heating .83 .12 1.00 .19
to Heating
Using these figures, lead concentrations at both lower level locations
•re higher than those at upper level locations and show a larger variation from the
heating to non-heating seasons. The high level locations show a small seasonal
change in lead. Relative concentrations, both indoors and outdoors, reverse with
height between the heating and non-heating seasons.
2-88
-------
Adjusting the percent lead non-heating season averages for the same
questionable data produces the following:
Outside Inside
3rd Fl. Roof llth Fl. 18th Fl.
Non-Heating 1.73 1.45 1.91 2.01
Diff. Non-
Heating to Heating .58 .22 .46 .48
The seasonal change outdoors, using these figures, is larger at the 3rd floor than
at roof level and greater than either indoor locations. The indoor percentage change
from the heating to non-heating season is essentially equal at both locations.
The larger variation in lead and lead percent at the 3rd floor outdoor
location distinctly indicates the major lead source is traffic related. The general
randomness of lead concentration levels with respect to both road level and roof
level winds shown in Section 5.2.4, suggests that there are many sources, i.e.,
adjacent streets, which contribute to the area level.
2-89
-------
SECTION 3.0
STUDY PROGRAM AND METHODOLOGY
A study was performed to determine the air quality, traffic and meteoro-
logical relationships as seen inside and outside two buildings in New York
City. One of these buildings was an air rights apartment dwelling which
straddles the TransManhattan Expressway near the George Washington Bridge.
The second structure was a twenty story office building located on West 40th
Street, just east of Eighth Avenue.
3.1 General Methodology
Data defining these relationships was obtained by an air pollution lab-
oratory set up within each test building. This laboratory provided the
capability of sensing, measuring, and recording carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,
traffic, and meteorological data. Each of these parameters was continuously
monitored for a total of 130 days at both sites. This data was collected on
punched paper tape in the form of averages using a GE developed Data Converter
and recorded on strip chart recorders as a back-up and permanent record. A
general schematic of the entire sampling system is shown on Figure 3.1-1.
Total particulate and lead concentration samples were collected on a 24 hour
basis periodically throughout each monitoring period.
3.1.1 Carbon Monoxide Measurement
In this study, carbon monoxide was measured using an infrared analysis
technique. The measuring principle of the CO analyzer makes use of the
specific radiation absorption band of carbon monoxide in the infrared range.
A total of five carbon monoxide analyzers (Intertech Corp., Princeton, N.J.),
were used in this study. The instrument was usually operated on the 0 to 100
ppm CO range and had the capability of measuring concentrations of less than
1 ppm CO in the sampled gas. The inherent zero and span drift for the instrument
was ^_ 2% of full scale per week. Nitrogen gas (zero grade) and standard carbon
monoxide in nitrogen were used to calibrate each CO instrument. All the calibration
3-1
-------
OUT
u>
i
ro
2 A 28 3A 3B 4 A 4B
\ i ; i J \
FLOW
ME TE R
EXHAUST
OUTPUT
NC 1
1
1
O AIR
!
i H
"TT
SOLENOID VALVE
TEMP SENSOR
VANE SENSOR
TRAFFIC SENSOR
GAS LINE
SIGNAL LINE
O
A
D
O
GENERATOR
Figure 3.1-1 General Schematic of Sampling System
-------
gases used in this study were supplied by Air Products and Chemical, Inc., of
Emmaus, Pa. For each of these standard gases, a detailed chemical assay was
provided by the vendor to assure for component purity and concentration accuracy.
All analyzers were calibrated daily (except weekends) to insure maximum
accuracy. All interfering water bands and particulate matter were either
removed by filtration or kept constant by condensing coolers during the analysis.
Since the infrared measuring techniques used in the carbon monoxide determination
is sensitive to water vapor it was important to maintain the water concentrations
constant during the analyses. Both sample and calibration gas were passed through
a condensing coil which reduced the water vapor content to a dewpoint below
ambient temperature.
At each site, a total of ten sampling probes were positioned near the
roadway and at various levels relative to the building under evaluation.
Through these probes, the air from the various locations was sampled. Each
CO analyzer was equipped with a pump which alternately pulled air from one of
two probe locations. The sampled gas was directed through electrically
controlled solenoid valves which were controlled by means of a digital clock
built directly into the Data Converter. From these valves, the gas flowed
either to a CO analyzer or was exhausted to the outside. The exhaust gases
were vented to the outside at a place where their relative concentrations would
not interfere with the ambient CO concentrations being sampled. A high
capacity pump was connected to the exhaust system in order to keep the sampling
lag time to a minimum and to insure that all instruments were supplied with
a fresh sample.
3.1.2 Hydrocarbons Measurement
Hydrocarbon concentrations at both sites were measured by a flame
ionization method of detection. Two analyzers (Beckman Instruments, Model
3-3
-------
Number 400-FID , Fullerton, Calif.) were used to measure total hydrocarbons
from four different probe locations at each site. By means of solenoid
switching and the utilization of specific probes, CO and HC concentrations from
a specified level could be measured simultaneously. The instrument full scale
sensitivity had an adjustable range of 1 ppm to 2% CH, .
The electronic stability of each instrument at maximum sensitivity was 1% of full
scale. The reproducibility was 1% of full scale for successive identical
samples. All concentrations were expressed as ppm CH,, since methane was the
particular hydrocarbon present in the calibration gas. Each analyzer was
equipped with its own flow regulator and particulate filter. Fuel was provided
by means of a hydrogen generator while the clean combustion air was obtained
from gas cylinders. Two different calibration gas concentrations were used
to define the linear calibration range of the instrument (usually 0 to 20 ppm).
3.1.3 Traffic Measurement
Ultrasonic traffic sensors were used to measure the volume and average
speed of vehicles at each of. the test sites. The sensing equipment (General
Railway Company, N.J.) included one-sensing head for each traffic lane which
was electrically connected to a remote^ transceiver. Each traffic head was
positioned ./\_/18 feet above the middle of each traffic lane. Inside each
head was a transmitter and a receiver assembly. The transmitter directed an
ultrasonic signal down to the roadway which was reflected back and sensed
by the receiver. The remote transceiver was used to calibrate and set the
sensitivity of each sensing unit. Calibration of the unit was defined as
setting the timing of a series of electrical gates. The time lapse between
transmission and signal return would determine whether the signal would be
picked up by the receiver or not. Normally, with no vehicle in the detection
zone, the signal would not be sensed. However, if a vehicle did pass into
the zone of detection, the signal was reflected off the vehicle instead of
3-4
-------
the roadway, thus reducing the time of reflection. Since the electrical
gate was calibrated to be open for this time period, the vehicle wauld be
sensed (counted).
Velocity measurement was obtained by assuming an average vehicle length
and calibrating the time of detection for various speeds. Thus, a detection
time vs. speed relationship was obtained. The General Electric Data Converter
integrated all detection times on an hourly basis. By dividing this integrated
velocity component by the hourly vehicle count, one obtained average hourly
velocity readings.
3.1.4 Wind Measurements
In order to define the wind parameters and their effects on the normal
pollution diffusion characteristics, two three-dimensional vector vanes were
installed at two different locations at each site. The Mark III vector vane
sensor (Meteorology Research Inc., Altadena, Calif.) was selected for this
study because of its special design features which allowed for maximum
accuracy, low thresholds, and fast responses. The vector vane sensor, its
associated transmuter and output recorder were utilized to sense, measure
and record such variables as wind velocity,"wind azimuth and wind elevation
at each point of sensor installation. In addition to these measurements,
standard deviation (sigma) values for the azimuth and elevation were
automatically computed.
The wind speed output was an analog voltage generated by an ultralinear
solid state tachometer circuit driven by a pulse signal from the vector vanes
light chopper. Using this sensor, wind speeds up to 80 mph could be accurately
recorded. Elevation potentiometers in the vane itself allowed for wind angle
measurement from -60 to 60° from the horizontal. A dual azimuth potentiometer
measured the wind direction over a full 540°. A transmuter, by means of a
3-5
-------
shielded cable, provided a linearized 0-5 volts DC positive voltage to the
data system for each of the five wind parameters measured.
3.1.5 Particulate Measurement
Hi Volume Air Samplers (General Metal Works, Cleves, Ohio) were used to
define the total particulate and lead concentrations at each site. Ambient air
was drawn by a pump through a weighed filter paper for a period of 24 hours.
A calibrated flowmeter measured the air flow rate through the filter at the
beginning and at the end of the sampling period. An average flow volume over
the sampling period was calculated from these two readings. After the
sampling period, the filter was again weighed. The difference between the
initial and final filter weight was the total weight of particulate collected
for 24 hours. This total weight of particulates divided by the volume of air
sampled, gave a weight/ m of particulate matter in the sampled air. The
filter, along with the deposits, was later analyzed for lead using an atomic
absorption technique.
3.1.6 Temperature Measurement
The lapse rate was calculated at each site by taking a
temperature measurement at ground level and at the top of each test building.
The sensor itself was a very sensitive thermistor enclosed in a highly reflective
radiation shield. The thermistor was electrically connected to a transmuter
inside the laboratory and measured temperatures with a sensitivity of +p.l°F.
3-6
-------
3.2 Data Editing and Processing
The processed data from the air rights structure site and the canyon
structure site are found in Appendices A and B respectively. Each appendix
is divided into four sections. The four sections are: (1) Traffic Data and
Statistics, (2) Hydrocarbon Data and Statistics, (3) Carbon Monoxide Data
and Statistic, and (4) Meteorological Data and Statistics.
The Traffic Data and Statistics Section of Appendix A contains flow rate
and velocity information for the vehicular traffic on both the eastbound and
westbound lanes of the Trans-Manhattan Expressway beneath the air rights
structure. Information on the total traffic flow rate, which is the sum of
the two directional traffic flow rates, is also presented as well as information
on the average velocity of all vehicular traffic on the Expressway for each
hour period. If one or both of the directional traffic flow rates for an hour
were missing, the total traffic flow rate for that hour was not calculated.
The average vehicle velocity was calculated by summing the products of the
traffic flow rate and average vehicle velocity for each direction and then
dividing by the total traffic flow rate. If, for an hour period, either the
average vehicle velocity or traffic flow rate data for one direction was missing,
the average vehicle velocity for all the \ehiciilar traffic in that hour period
was not calculated.
The Traffic Data and Statistics section of Appendix B contains flow rate
and velocity information for the vehicular traffic on the center lane and on
the two outer lanes of South 40th Street in front of the canyon structure.
The total traffic flow rate and average vehicle velocity data for all lanes
is also presented. Because approximately 85% of the vehicles on South 40th
3-7
-------
Street in front of the canyon structure travelled in the center lane, the
center lane traffic flow rate was taken as the total traffic flow rate when
traffic flow rate data from the outer lanes was missing. If the center lane
traffic flow rate data was missing, then the total traffic flow rate was
considered missing. Similarly, the average vehicle velocity for the center
lane was taken as the average vehicle velocity for all lanes if the data from
the outer lanes was missing, but if the center lane vehicular velocity data
was missing, then the vehicle velocity average from the outer lanes was taken
as the average vehicle velocity for all lanes.
The data acquired at each site for each traffic parameter was classified
on the basis of when the data was taken, either on a weekday or weekend, and
also on the basis of whether the day was a heating day (the mean temperature
for the day was less than 65 F) or a non-heating day (the mean temperature for
the day was 65°F or higher). All the data for a particular parameter in each
classification is presented in tabular form. A "-1.00" entry means that no
data was acquired for that parameter during the indicated time period and a
"-2.00" entry means that the data that had been acquired has been judged
inaccurate for some reason and hence was omitted from the table and all
statistical calculations. The mean, median, and standard deviation of all
values in the table for each hour period appears at the bottom of the table.
The 24 hourly means and standard deviations were then plotted to show the
diurnal variation in that particular traffic parameter. Following the diurnal
curve plot is a frequency of occurrence table, a percent frequency of occurrence
histogram plot^and a cumulative percent frequency of occurrence histogram plot.
2-8
-------
The data from the Hydrocarbon Data and Statistics section of Appendix A
and B was again classified on the basis of when the data was taken, on a heating
or non-heating day and on a weekday or weekend. The classification and sampling
location is printed above each table or graph in the section. All data in
each classification acquired at each sampling location is presented in tabular
form with a "-1.00" entry indicating no data was acquired during the indicated
sampling period and a "-2.00" entry indicating inaccurate data was acquired.
The mean, median, and standard deviation of each column of data is presented
at the bottom of each column and the diurnal variations of the means and
standard deviations are plotted on the graph following the data table. A
frequency of occurrence table, a percent frequency of occurrence histogram,
and a cumulative percent frequency of occurrence histogram are shown on the
succeeding two pages, In the next two graphs the 24 hourly means that are shown
at the bottom of the data table are plotted against the 24 hourly means of the
total traffic flow rates in the same classification and also against the 24
hourly means of the average vehicle velocities in the same classification. An
"X" on the graph indicates that more than one point has been plotted at that
particular location. The two graphs are omitted in Appendix A for the non-
heating weekends since there was no accurate non-heating weekend traffic data
acquired at the air rights structure site. For the data taken at a sampling
location inside the air rights or canyon structure, there is an additional
graph showing the diurnal variation in the difference between the outdoor and
indoor means of the hydrocarbon data for each classification.
3-9
-------
The Carbon Monoxide Data and Statistics section has the same format as
the Hydrocarbon Data and Statistics section with one exception. For the
carbon monoxide data in each classification there is a list of the occurrences
when the average carbon monoxide concentration for an 8-hour period exceeded
9 parts per million. The percent of the time that the 9 PPM value was exceeded
is also shown as is the percent of the time that the average CO concentration
for a one-hour period exceeded 35 PPM. This additional information is presented
after the graphs of the CO concentrations vs. the traffic flow rates and the
CO concentrations vs. the average vehicle velocities.
The temperature and wind parameter data acquired at the two sites is
presented in essentially the same format in the Meteorological Data and
Statistics section as the traffic flow rate and vehicle velocity data was
presented in the Traffic Data and Statistics section. Where the mean, median,
and standard deviation would be meaningless, as in the case of the wind
elevation angle, they are omitted. In addition, missing lapse rate values and
missing values of the wind elevation angles are shown as a "-98.00" or a
"-99.00" instead of a "-1.00" and "-2.00" as was used previously to indicate
missing or inaccurate data. If all data for a particular meteorological
parameter was missing for some classification, only the table of values which
indicate missing data is presented, since the additional tables and graphs
would be extraneous.
3-10
-------
SECTION 4.0
SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
4.1 Site 1 - Air Rights Structure - Trans-Manhattan Expressway
4.1.1 Site Description
The Bridge Apartments complex consists of four hi-rise apart-
ment buildings each being built directly over the Trans-Manhattan
Expressway in upper New York City. Located on one of the highest.
points on Manhattan Island, these 32-story aluminum-clad structures
are among the tallest apartment buildings ever built in the city.
This 12-lane expressway is a direct artery connecting Upper Manhattan
and the Bronx with New Jersey by means of the George Washington Bridge.
At various points, exit and entrance lanes also provided service to
the expressway. There were a total of six lanes flowing in each di-
rection. Theycould be thought of as being four sets of three lanes.
Each set of three lanes had flow patterns similar to or different from
the adjacent sets of lanes. At any'moment, one set of lanes could be
traveling freely while the other set (in the same' direction) could be
very congested. There was a slight upward grade in the west-bound
lanes. Narrow medial strips divided each set of three lanes. During
the day, a large volume of traffic flows beneath the Bridge A.-artH^nt
complex producing an appreciable amount of pollution at the roadway
level. The degree to which this concentrated pollution source affects
residents at each of the indoor-outdoor apartment levels deserves soroa
serious attention. An evaluation of this site as to various indoor-
4-1
-------
outdoor pollution concentrations should provide some direction
to future planinng of similar housing complexes.
In this study, only a portion of the entire apartment complex
was under evaluation. The actual test area included two apartment
buildings, the included vent area, the roadway below, and all surround-
ing construction bounded by West 178th St. and West 179th St. between
St. Nicholas and Wadsworth Avenues. Three different views of the site
under test are shown in Figures 4.1-1, 4.1-2 and 4.1-3. The open vent
area between the buildings provided an open exposure to the traffice
pollution on the expressway-below. One-way traffic also flowed parallel
to the expressway on 178th and 179th St. and perpendicular to the express-
way on St. Nicholas Avenue at the ground level of the building. These
streets often carried heavy traffic volumes, whose associated pollution
levels were also of direct concern to this study. Surrounding each
building at the 2nd floor level, was located a building loggia consist-
ing of a park and play facilities. During the summer months, children
played in this secluded area because it was situated above street level
and offered complete privacy and safety away from the stree traffic.
This balcony area surrounded the entire building and was approximately
180 feet wide and 29 feet deep. Beneath the building was located a
parking garage for the residents of the apartment building.
4-2
-------
SI TE 1
BRIDGE AP T S.
SIDE VIE W -
1365 ST. NICHOL AS AVE., M AN.
NOTE- ALL DIMEN SIONS
RELATIVE TO ROADWAY
PROBE O
VECTOR VANE
TEMP- SENSOR
HI VOL
!?
n
H
yra r
363 (VANE 2)
359'
nnn n g
5A
W5B
p n r~i n j '•
>"> i r\
! ; 4B
i
n n n n i
'3
3B
ii 9' ( TEMP 2)
31 6'
233'
50'
•
j
nnn
i
nnn
i
2 A
D n n n n
r v
n
i
n
i
<• a
i /-60'
1 /
p2B >T±-57'(VA
I im lO — «1 6. I T P
^>^sA$6oocx /
/
ROADWAY LEVEL
IA.IB
b— 3'
Figure 4.1-1 - site 1 Side View
4-3
-------
VAN E 2
SITE i
BRIDGE APT.
1365 ST. NICHOLAS AVE. MAN.
TEM P 2
-_ _
23FL..
1 5 TH
----
TANK ROOM
ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM
3RD.
ROADWA Y
LEVEL
V9'
Figure 4.1-2 -
Site 1 -
4-4
Elevation View
-------
SITE 1
BRIDGE APAR T MEN TS -TOP VIEW
i
Ul
UJ
CO
o
X
o
CO
1
f <-
TEMP 2
1
1
<' ^
C* 1
•v
VAN E 2
V-)
63
2 A 0
3 A
4 A
5A
^
1
El
1 *
N-
"i 2 B
38
48
5B
-as'-*
^
PT
>8
^
9
2
V
*
N E 1
B
E M P 1
-TRAFFIC DETECTOR
^1
^
\
L
I
i
I
i
O J A
1-ANE 12
PROBE
VECTOR VANE
T E M P. S E N S 0 R
HI VO L.
O
SIDE WALK
179 ST.
Figure 4.1-3
Site 1 - Top View
-------
The building is of modern construction whose highest point
rises 359 feet above the roadway and displays a 156 ft. frontage
facing the open vent area. Four apartments face the vent area
on 30 of the 32 floor levels. The first two floors are non-residential.
A total of 120 apartments having a total of 240 windows and 60 doors
were of direct and indirect concern to this study. The apartment units,
which were of direct concern to this study, were designated as being
either "R" or "N" apartments. The "R" units at each level were three-
bedroom corner apartments having balconies on the north side of the
building. These apartments each have three windows facing the open
vent area. These same apartments had two windows and one door leading
to the balcony on the northern building face. The "N" units were
studio apartments having a balcony, one door, and one window facing
the open vent area. All "R" and "N" apartments were of similar layout
as shown in Figure 4.1-4. There were 60 additional apartment units
on the southern part of the building (also facing the vent area) which
were of similar designs and were of lesser concern to the study.
Since the apartment complex is of relatively new construction,
the number of possible leak entrances into the building was small.
Open doors and windows and thru wall air conditioning would define the
relative permeability of the building. Building exhaust ventilation
was provided from the roof by several blowers and each apartment was
provided with a thru wall air conditioning option. However, since
the exhaust blowers were down for repairs, the building was not pro-
vided with this exhaust ventilation capability for the duration of
4-6
-------
• A/
yo
O J3 /=:
sr.
o
V»
T
29
// i/'y/v C3
/% OOf7
_i
DRS.
GAT/J
T I
/v
c o /v X
OOTSIOE.
-------
the study. All apartments which were monitored during this study
did not have air conditioning except for the General Electric air
pollution laboratory on the 23rd floor. On each floor of the build-
ing was located a trash shoot which led directly to the common incinera-
tor located at the street level. Each building is equipped with a
flue-fed incinerator. In this configuration, the flue serves a dual
purpose; to provide a means of feeding the refuse deposited at the
various floors to the storage/combustion chamber in the cellar; and
also to convey the products of combustion to the roof. Generally
speaking, the incinerator should not be expected to be an indoor source
of CO contamination because during operation the flue is under moderate
negative pressure. Moreover, on November 25, 1970, the system was
converted from incineration to compaction, thereby eliminating any
potential source problems!' The building was centrally heated (oil-
hot water) by four large furnaces in the basement.
4.1.2 Site Instrumentation
4.1.2.1 Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
A total of 10 probes were used, as shown on Figure 4.1-1, -2
and -3, to map and define pollution concentrations at the various
levels at this site. Probing in the form of tubes extended from
the intake manifold of the laboratory on the 23rd floor to the vari-
ous indoor-outdoor locations on the western face of the test building.
Both carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon concentrations were sampled
4-8
-------
by these probes, as indicated in the table below.
Distance
Probe Designation Pollutant from Roadway
1A Roadway - CO 3 ft (no. wall)
2A Inside CO Inside HC 60 "
3A " " ** 163 "
4A " " Inside HC ** 233 "
5A - " » » ** 309
IB Roadway - CO 3 " (median strip
2B Outside CO Outside HC 60
3B " " 163 "
4B " " Outside HC ** 233 "
5B " " " " ** 309 "
* Permission to locate probe inside was not obtained until
partway thru monitoring period. Probe was mounted outdoors adjacent
to 3B until 11/4/70.
** Hydrocarbon samples were obtained from probes 5A and 5B from
beginning of monitoring until 11/19/70. Probes 4A and 4B were sampled
from 11/21/70 to end of monitoring.
As indicated, two carbon monoxide probes were positioned at the
roadway, each at a level of 3 feet. One probe was placed along the
north wall down along the roadway while a second probe was positioned
at the median strip at the geometric center of the 12 lanes. Both
probes were located in a plane perpendicular to the roadway at the
point where the west-bound traffic lanes exited from beneath the
building. Sampling from these two probes should define the highest
4-9
-------
CO concentrations measured at the site and should represent the
total CO emissions at the apparent source. There were no probes
positioned adjacent to the east-bound lanes since all apartments
monitored were located on the northwest sector of the building and
the majority of the CO would probably evolve from the traffice moving
in the west-bound direction.
As was shown on Figure 4.1-4, all outside readings at the vari-
ous levels were measured adjacent to the "N" (studio) apartment
balconies. The indoor measurements were taken inside the three bed-
room (R) apartments.
4.1.2.2 Total Particulates and Lead
Total particulates were measured at a total of six different
locations. Two high volume air samples were utilized to measure
total particulates and lead concentrations outside the test building.
One sampler was placed on the balcony while another sampled from the
roof. Inside, Hi Vols initially were placed in the second floor
community room and in the 32nd floor stairwell. These instruments
were moved during the monitoring program to the boiler room and the
elevator control shelter area respectively. All Hi Vols were operated
simultaneously for periods of 24 hours in order to obtain total particu-
/
lates and % lead concentrations in the air in and about the test build-
ing.
4-10
-------
4.1.2.3 Traffic
A total of 12 ultrasonic traffic detectors were used to obtain
data on traffic volume and speed. One traffic head was positioned
over each of the 12 traffic lanes. The southernmost lane traveling
east was designated as being lane #1 whle the northernmost lane was
considered lane #12. Traffic detectors #1 thru #6 were mounted on
an overhead traffic sign structure approximately 6 feet away from the
sign itself. Detectors #7 thru #9 were placed on the east wall of
the vent area and detectors #10 thru #12 were placed on the west wall
of the vent area. Each detector was positioned parallel to the road-
way at an 18 ft. level. All signal wires were routed to a central
transceiver center (located on the balcony) from which additional
wires traversed up the building to the laboratory area. A total
hourly volume and average velocity measurement was obtained for each
direction of traffic.
4.1.2.4 Meteorological
Two precise temperature measurements were continuously monitored
at two different levels. One temperature sensor (Temp 2) was placed
on a support pole (8 ft. off building.) on the northwest corner of the
building roof. The other temperature (Temp 1) sensor was positioned
8 ft. high off the edge of the balcony directly in the plane of the
median strip of the roadway below. Both temperature sensors provide
valuable data as to relative stability of the air mass surrounding
the test building.
4-11
-------
Two vector vanes described the wind parameters at the site.
Vane #2 was positioned 4 ft. above the highest portion of the
building and defined the general wind patterns at the site. A
second vector vane (Vane #1) was placed on the same pole supporting
Temp #1, 11 ft. off the balcony, and described the traffic derived
and micrometeorological wind patterns between the buildings.
4.1.3 Traffic Characteristics
Traffic flow rates and velocities measured on the Trans-Manhattan
Expressway during both the heating and non-heating seasons were essen-
tially the same. While traffic conditions varied throughout the total
monitoring period, these variations are not related to "heating" and
"non-heating" season categories. The minimum traffic flow rate for
the total period was 585 vehicles per hour. The maximum was 14,328
vehicles per hour. In general vehicle velocities were greater than
45 mph when the traffic flow rate was less than 7200 vehicles per
hour and 45 mph or less when the traffic flow rate was greater than
7200 vehicles per hour.
Traffic conditions throughout the total period were bascially the
same for each day on weekdays. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays had
their own characteristic traffic patterns.
4.1.3.1 Weekday Traffic
Weekday traffic during the heating season displayed typical diurnal
characteristics as shown on Figures 4.1-5 and 4.1-6. Figure 4.1-7 and
4.1-8 show the non-heating season diurnal traffic parameters.
4-12
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTipN RELATIONSHIPS
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS
0, 3600?0
TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE (VEH/HR)
STANDARD DEVIATION
7200.0 iOSOO.O
MEAN
720Q.O 10800.0
+ *
STUDY
14400,0
14400,0
FIGURE 4.1-5
4-13
-------
NEW YORK CITY I
GEOR
HEATING WEEKDAYS
0, 15
0, 15
2400 *
100 * J
* a
200 * \
* t
300 * 1
i
* X
400 * (
500 * |
* s
600 * /
* s
700 * \
* s
800 * \
900 + /
* 9
1000 * /
+ s
1100 * \
* t
1200 *
1300 *
*
1400 *
* *
1500 * /
1600 * \
1700 * j
* *
1800 * J
* f
1900 * /
* *
2000 * '
2100 * J
* *
2200 * '
* 9
2300 * [
+ •
2400 *---T •
NDOOR/OUTnOOR POLLUTION R
GE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APAR
AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOC
STANDARD DEVIATION
;-o 30,0
MEAN
;o 30.0
* *
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
4
«
*
«
*
*
*
»
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
+
+
*
*
«
*
+
«
*
*
«
«
41
«
»
+
«
4
*
' *
*
*
+
*
*
*
+
*
+
*•
*
*
*
*
*
»
+
*
4-
+
+
*
+
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
ELATIONSHrPS
THENTS
ITY (MPH) .
45,0
45.0
\
* 4
* /
* /
...i.----
;
i *
*
\ *
*
1*
y^ *
/ *
J *
\^ *
A.*
^X
* \
+ \
* \
* I
* i
* \
* V
».---»---i-.
STUDY
ALL LANES
60,0
60.0
*
+
*
•
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
»
»
*
*
•
•
*
*
*
*
+
*
«
*
+
*
*
*
FIGURE 4.1-6
4-14
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE (VEH/HR)
STANDARD DEVIATION
7200,0 10800,0 14400,0
MEAN
7200,0 1080040 14400,0
* * *
*
NON.HEATING WEEKDAYS
0, 360OVO
0,
2400 *
100 *
200
2400
FIGURE 4.1 -7
4-15
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDV
SEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAVS
0,
15/0
AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH) - ALL LANES
STANDARD DEVIATION
30,0 45,0 60.0
MEAN
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
9A(\Q
o,
*?
* 1
6 5
*'
4. i
•!
« •
*\
^ *
\
\
* z
* !
* /
+ X
4, \
I
4. z
* !
» s
* \
* 1
4. r
* /
+ ;
• !
+ S
1
..,-,
4> *
* '
^ .
X
* *
* >
•!
*s
* 1
* '
^
15, '0
+
*
•
4,
*
*
*
+
«
4*
*
41
4,
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
4i
4r
*
*
• *
*
^
*
*
*
*
*
*
__.___4l»-
30.0 45,0 60.0
•»• * +
* * *
* * : *
* * 4-
* * / *
* */'••*
* * r *
* * 1 4
* * / *
* * y *
* * / *
* * Jc *
* )F ^ *
* 1 * *
* V *
* T *
* T *
* .X *.
* A *
* X* *
* \* *
* A . • *•
4- 4* y +
* V *
* / ' *
* r *
* X* *
4. I* 4.
* V *
* \ • • *
4- *\ *
* * X *
* * \ *
* * \ *
* * \ • *
* * 1 *
* * X *
4. * \ +
* * t *
* * 1 *
* * X *
FIGURE 4.1-8
-16
-------
Minimum traffic flow for both seasons occured in the early morning
hours. The traffic flow rate was highest during the morning and
evening rush hour periods. Mid-day traffic dipped to approximately
2/3 of the morning peak. The numerical differences between the heat-
ing and non-heating duirnal traffic characteristics is primarily
-s,
caused by the difference in data sample size, ie 55 days for the
heating season and 6 days for the non-heating season.
4.1.3.2 Weekend Traffic
Weekend traffic during the heating season was highest during
the afternoon and early ^evening. No morning rush hour occured. The
daily minimum again occured in the early morning but several hours
later than for weekdays. Figures 4.1-9 and 4.1-10 show the diurnal
traffic flow rate and velocity profiles for the heating season. In-
sufficient non-heating season data is available to provide comparable
profiles.
4.1.4 Meteorological Conditions
Meteorological characteristics at the air - rights site are
relatively undisturbed by other nearly obstacles. The four George
Washington Bridge Apartment Buildings were, by far, the tallest
buildings were, by far, the tallest buildings in the area rising to
about 300 feet. Other nearby buildings averaged less than 60 feet.
4-17
-------
HEATING WEEKENDS
o,
o,
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
-------
YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDV
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
NEW
HEATING WEEKENDS
0,
AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY
-------
The upper floors of the structure were sheltered from the general
wind flow by the other apartment buildings, but only very slightly.
However, the roof level measurements themselves were almost completely
unaffected by the presence of the other three buildings since they
were taken an additional 40 feet above the rooftop. Other meteorolo-
gical data (wind and temperature) was taken on a second floor balcony
approximately 29 feet from the nearest building wall (see figure 4.1-1),
The data collected at this lower location was influenced by the proxim-
ity of the building.
The highest average hourly wind speed recorded on the roof of the
air - rights structure was 45 mph from 190° (North = 0°) between 12
and 1 PM on 10/2/70. The wind speed on the second floor balcony also
recorded its highest average hourly level at that time, registering
23 mph from 199° . This correspondence- between wind at the two levels
of measurement did not hold throughout the monitoring period. For
example, the second highest roof level wind speed was 32 mph from 84° ,
between 8 and 9 PM on 12/16/70. However, the balcony (road) level
wind at that time blew from 313° and only recorded 7 mph.
The heating and non-heating seasons were characterized by the
roof wind azimuth direction as shown in the table below. It can be
seen that during the heating season, the roof wind blew from 120 - 239°
only 5.8% of the time. This wind however blew from 120 - 239° for 83%
4-20
-------
Wind Azimuth Angle-degree
LOG Season 0-59 60-119 120-179 180-239 240-299 300-359
Heating 28.3 21.5 3.4 2.4 10.5 33.8
Roof
Non-Heating 5.0 9.0 25.0 58.0 1.0 2.0
Heating 17.1 18.4 11.3 25.7 8.8 18.6
Road
Non-Heating 6.9 1.5 42.7 34.4 4.6 9.9
of the time during the non-heating season. While the wind direction
at road level during the non-heating season shows general correspond-
ence with roof level wind direction, the heating season wind conditions
are significantly different. Apparently there is no fixed relationship
between roof and road level wind directions. Average wind speeds at
the two locations characteristically were lower at road level for both
seasons.
Average Wind Speed-mph
Loc Heating Non-Heating
Roof 9.3 4.7
Road 5.7 3.8
Diurnal variation of wind speed on the roof on weekdays during
the heating season is shown in figure 4.1-11. The apparent peak of
2000 hours is not real but is caused by a few abnormal readings. The
diurnal plot of the turbulence parameter, sigma azimuth, is shown in
4-21
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS WIMU SPEED - ROOF LEVEL
STANDARD.DEVIATION
ft. 3.7 7.5 H.2 15,0
0.
2400
100 *
•+•
203 *
4-
300 4
400 *
+• .
503 •>•
600 +
+•
703 *
4-
30 J «•
yOO +
1303 *
1100 »
1200 4
+• -
1300 -f
4-
1400 *
1503 +
1600 -
^ •
17:]0 *
IdOO 4
1910 +
4.
2000 *
2100 *
2200 *
4
2300 >
2400 +•
3.7
7.5
11.2
15,0
.4
4
4
*
4
S 4
*
»
4
4'
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
••.4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•» +
Figure 4.i_n
4-22
-------
figure 4.1-12. At road level, the same parameters have considerably
lower values (Figures 4.1-13 and 4.1-14). This is due to normal
velocity decrease with height coupled with a sheltering effect of
nearby walls and other objects. Diurnal temperature curves are pre-
sented in figures 4.1-15 (roof sensor) and 4.1-16 (ground level sensor).
As may be seen from these plots, the average daily temperature range
for this site was small. Duirnal variations of meteorological para-
meters for heating weekends are essentially the.same and are not shown.
As expected the only significant difference in diurnal characteris-
tics between the heating and non-heating seasons is the temperature
level. The average temperature at the road level was 2.4° higher than
that at roof level for both heating -and. non-heating seasons, as seen
from the following table.
Average Temp - degrees F
LOG Heating Non-Heating
Roof 39.2 63.1
Road 41.6 65.5
4-23
-------
NTW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR HHLLUTIQN RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEOWGF WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS WIND AZIMUTH STANDARD DEV. - ROOF LEVEL
STANDAWD DEVIATION1
"• 15,0 3U.O 45,0
G.
2400
100 +
4-
200 *
4
300 *
4
40C *
4- -
50C 4
4-
60C +
4
70C 4
4
800 *
4 -
90C +
4-
130C *
4>
HOC *
4-
1200 +
4 -
1300 4
4
14 OC *
4
IbOC 4
4-
ICOQ *
4 —
1700 *
4
1800 *
4
1900 *
4
2000 4
4 -
2100 *
4-
220C 4
4
2300 *
4
2400 «•-•
-30,0
45.0
6C.O
60 .0
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4-
4>
•*•
4
4-
4
4
4-
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
»
4
.*
Figure 4.1-12
4-24
-------
100 +
+•
200 «•
*
300 *
*
400 +
4-
500 «•
4.
600 *•
4
700 «
4
HOC +
4. •
900 *
4
1000 *
+
1100 «•
1303 *
4
140D *
4
1500 *
4
16JO *
+• -
1700 «•
4
1800 *
+
1900 +
+
2002 *
* -
2100 *
4
2200 *
4-
2300 +
4
2400 *•
NFW YORK CITY I NDOOR/OUTDnOR ^OLLUT I ON,. REL A T I O'MSH 1 PS STJIjy
GEOHfiE WASHINGTON HHII^b APARTMhNTS
HFATING uttKUAYb WIND SPHE;) fwr-H) - RQAO LEVEL
STA.-onAHJ DtrVlAFlON
j . 3.7 7.5 11.2 . 15,0
M k A :vl
o . 3.7 /.5 11.2 15.0
2400 4 * + + 4
4
4
4
4
4
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
, 4
4
4 .
4
y
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
Figure 4.1-13
4-25
-------
YORK CITY IMJOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATIN'3 WfcEKDAYS Wl^O AZIMUTH STANDARD DfcV. (UER) - ROAD I EVEL
STANDARD DEVIATION
3. 15.0 30.0 45.0
2403 *
4> •
103 *
*
203 *
+
303 >
4-
403 *
+ -
503 *
+
603 *
4-
703 +
+
303 +
15.3
+
30,0
4i
45. 0
60.0
60.0
4- :
+
+ =
+
+
+
*
4r
4)
4.
*
+
>
+
4.
•»•
+
*
4
1201 •*
+
1103 +
•f
1203 4.
+.
1303 +
4-
1403 +
4-
1503 +
4-
1603 +
* -
1700 *
4-
1603 *
4.
1903 •••
*
2003 *
+ -
2100 *
4.
2200 *
*
2303 *
+
2400 +-
+
4-:
+
+
*
*
4.
t
.+
,»
4.
Figure 4.1-14
4-26
-------
NTM YORK CITY IMpnoR/OUTDOOP POLLUTION PbL AT J flNSH I PS STUDY
GEOKfit WASHINGTON HHI!?Gfc APARTMF.MTS
HE4TING WchKDAYS TEMPFRATlJRh (HtG. F) - 319 H. APOVt rffiAI!
STAMDAWD DEVIATION
o. 25>.:' t>L.<< 75.0 ICP.O
ML AM
0) 2t,. •; 5U.D 75.0 100. (I
i?40C
IOC
O.n ^
CV •-•
30 :•
400
SOC
600
73 C
oOO
90?
1:0:
1100
120:
1300
140:
1500
16CC
170C
1800
190C
2000
2100
2203
230C
*\ A f\ f*
240 -
4- •>•
4- +
+ = +•
+ +
4- = •»• ',
4- ( *
•" = * ;'
/
.4 +
4 - -
4-' +
4- = * (
4- +
\
' : ' — \
;. ...... _.:
\
\
4- = + -
4- +
4- = •*
+ *
4" +
4- = +
4- +
4- = +
* + .
* — 4.
T
4- *
4- +•
4- = +
4- *
4- = +
4- +
•t- = *
4- +
•f + 1
* . = * '•
4- ' *
4. = + :
4- +
4. = + '
4 + »
* * *
+ + "*
. x 4-
T T T
* + +
+ + *
+ + *
* + *
4- + *
+ + *
+ + *
4. 4- t
+••••'•
4. + t-
4- + *
4- + *
+ + t
V
V * + *
t
4
t * +
\ .
+ * T
4, 4- »
4- * »
4, + T
+ + »
.• +. 4- f
4- * *
* + *
..4, + »
I *
1 + * *
4- * *
•f * + *
4- + *
f
* + *
4- + *
* + V
4, * *
* + *
Figure 4.1-15
4-27
-------
NFW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
fiEO^RE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS TEMPERATURE (iihij. FJ - 54 FI. ABOVF^ ROAD
STANiDARU UEVIATION
U- 25vO 50,0 75,0 1C 0.0
240C
100
200
300
400
503
600
700
800
903
1000
HOC
120D
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
O A f\ O
2400
•J . *9-;J 3U,U
* 4 «,
4 4-
4= +
4 +
,fc ™ .
~ . ™ T
4 4-
4 . = 4, ;
4 4
4 4-
4 r 4.
4 4.
4 = +
4 4-
4 = +. .
4 4
4 4-
4=4-
4
4
4
^
*
4
4
4
; *
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
\
*• * + k
*
i
:..,...= : \._:
: -\ :
4 r' . 4 f *
4 + 4
* = + :: *
4 4- *
4 = • , 4 , V- .4.
444
/ '
* s * i *
1 *
i +
/ *
4 '.^ 4 14
444.
* 4.4
* = * A * •
/
+ = 4 X 4
1
4 a • > * *
/s.o ion
4
4
4
4
4 '
4
4
4
4
4
4-
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4,
4
*
Figure 4.1-16
4-28
-------
4.2 Site 2 - Canyon Structure - West 40th Street
4.2.1 Site Description
In the heart of New York City's garment district, a large volume of slow
moving urban traffic creates a high pollution source potential. Within the
buildings in the surrounding area is located a variety of small business
activity. Here many people work and carry on their daily business exposing
themselves to pollution concentrations which may or may not be harmful. In
order to provide valuable information as to the pollution levels to which these
working people are being exposed, a typical commercial building was selected
to be the focal point of an air pollution study.
The building selected for the canyon structure test site was located at
264 W. 40th St. in mid-Manhattan. The building was situated on the south side
of 40th St. approximately 105 ft. east of the edge of the building line on 8th.
Avenue. The structure rose 2.51 ft. above^ the street, having a frontage span of
i
65 ft. This building was an older type brick structure and was considered ideal
in which to check indoor-outdoor pollution relationships due to its "leaky"
construction. In conjunction with a similar building across the street, the
test building formed the narrow canyon-like formation. The building across the
street was of similar construction and dimensions. A large parking garage
bounded the test building on the east, while a hotel was on the west. The
building across the street was bounded by another parking garage and a smaller
office building. All adjacent buildings were shorter and formed a canyon which
was not as deep or pronounced. The face of.the test building was 13 ft. from
the roadway and rose 149 ft. perpendicular to the street after which a series
of steps occurred (ex. the face of the 19th floor was offset back 9 feet from
the face at the llth floor). Site drawings and important site dimensions are
shown in Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-2 and 4.2-3.
4-29
-------
TEMP 2
FRONT VIE W
264 W. 4_0 T_H. ST.
SITE 2.
EAST
5A.5B
2fe 2 i v ANt 2
260'
251'
2 2 7(ROOF )
205 ( 19 TH FL.)
I 8 TH. F L.
PROBE O
HI VOL IS
TEMP SENSOR ^7
VECTOR VANE < — <
GARAGE
4A,<
O
VANE 1
n
3
2
*!
\
O
A,
0
c^
I/
Pi
*B
rx
"
3B
2 B f-V
K^
-I1
B
-
S
\
1 1 7' (1 1 7 H Fl )
5 2' ( 5 TH F L )
/ HI VOL (OUTSIDE
32 ' (3RD FL)
2 9'
*
v
Figure 4.2-1 Site 2 .- Front View'.
4-30
-------
-(-h.
SID' MEW 264 W 40 ST., MAN.
SITE 2
NORTH
"^
.rv
1
W
M
PROBE
HI VOL
TEMP STNSOR
VECTOR VA
ME
(
C
S
.«
^^--~-^
~
D
3
7
e-<
1 —
1
L
- - —
i —
•—i
i
i
;
l
|
—
IB
!-•>•-
VANE !
.
_...,.,,.,,„
•o
\
{
1 t
-
48
O
3B
C
2B
r °
O
1 A
<- 1 3 ' >-
9k
'iR
0
r
J
C
r
la
o!^
1
1
1
1
1
1
— 1 —
iA
2 A
£l
TF^
\
J
*t
:
.
i
-1
/ANE
SI
A
e'^j
18 Tri
FL.
• 1 TH
'V'Y
. K
r i
2
-i —
i—
!
i
*r n
-L-U
3 R
i
TE
^7
D. F
fv71
» J
M P 2
L
• El
n
i i
n
r i
LJ
n
r~i
i i
• — i
i i
L.
Figure 4.2-2 Site 2 Sida View
-------
TOP VIEW
SITE 2^
264 W. 40 TM. SJ., MAN.
PROBE
VECTOR VANE
TFI/P. SENSOR
H.I. VOL.
O
<—i
A
TRAFFIC LIGHT
( I
4O T H ST.
105 —
TEMP
IB
TRAFFIC
OETECTORS
VANE I
EAST
,',*
V"!
.. j
K
.264 W. 40 TH.
(~)^>
^-*/ vV
D
Figure 4.2-3 Site 2 - Top View
-------
A total of 177 windows faced 40th St., while 28 upper level windows were
exposed to 8th Avenue. t Windows were located at each floor level and were
fairly evenly spaced across the face of the building. There were two entrances
into the main part of the building, one being a public entrance and the other
being a service entrance. Both entrances led to elevators which serviced the
20 floors within the building. A small fabric shop was located at the first
floor level with its own entrance on 40th St. On the west face of the building
at each level above the second floor were located external cement balconies
connecting the working area within the building with an enclosed fire stairwell.
These doors leading from each balcony to the inside of the building were kept
open at times for ventilation, introducing possible entrances for incoming
pollution. Because of the number of windows, doors, and general building
construction, many possible leak-entrances were available which allowed
pollution to diffuse and circulate throughout the building. The building was
heated with oil (hot water) and was not centrally air-conditioned. Most of
the ventilation, especially during the summer months, was achieved by opening
doors and windows.
Inside the building were many small business firms manufacturing such
items as clothing, buttons, buckles, display fountains, etc. On other floors
were printing concerns, fabric and metal casting companies, storage spaces,
and other areas involving small business operations. Each of the above
businesses paid for its own trash removal, thus eliminating incineration in
the building.
All traffic passing by the test building originated from either right-
turn traffic off 8th Avenue (one way north) or from cross-over traffic on
4-33'
-------
40th St. (one way east). Heavy commuter traffic exiting from the Lincoln
Tunnel flowed directly onto 40th St. making it a major artery into the city.
A traffic light (located at the intersection of 40th and 8th Ave.) determined
to some extent the volume of traffic flowing at any particular time but overall
traffic volume can be considered relatively independent of the visual stop-go
condition of the traffic light. Steady traffic flows regardless of the state
of the light. Ideally, 40th St. handled a maximum of three lanes of one-way
traffic. Traffic patterns, however, did not allow for maximum traffic flow.
During the working day, vehicles' parked along the curb forced all traffic to
pass single file up the middle of 40th St. At night, when the street was
completely free of all parked vehicles, traffic again followed the geometric
center of the street out of driver personal preference. Traffic flow patterns
involving more than one lane of traffic occurred but not as frequently and
usually took an unpredictable haphazard pattern.
4.2.2 Site Instrumentation
4.2.2.1 Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons
Five different gas sampling levels relative to the street were
monitored to investigate the indoor-outdoor pollution concentrations
at this site. Two sampling probes were placed at each level, one
inside and one outside, providing a total of 10 samplings. All probes
placed inside the building were positioned as far from the windows
as possible in order to best define the pollution concentrations with-
in. Both carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon concentrations were
sampled by these probes as indicated in the table below.
4-34
-------
Probe
Designation Pollutant Distance from Roadway
1A Roadway - CO x 9 Feet - Test Building
2A Inside - CO Inside HC 32 Feet
3A Inside - " 52 Feet
4A Inside - " Inside HC 117 Feet
5A Inside - " " " 205 Feet
IB Roadway - CO x 9 Feet - North Side
2B Outside CO Outside HC 32 Feet
3B Outside CO 52 Feet
4B Outside CO Outside HC 117 Feet
5B Outside CO " " 205 Feet
The air pollution laboratory was located on the llth floor.
X Monitoring started on 2/18/71. Probe on north side of
street not installed until 3/15/71.
The roadway CO concentrations was characterized using two
probes, each at the 9 ft. level. One of the probes (IB) was
positioned on the wooden pole on the north side of 40th St. while
the other probe (1A) was attached to the face of the test building.
An average of the two probes might best define the CO concentrations
at the roadway. Two other sampling probes were positioned inside
4-35
-------
and outside at the 3rd floor level (32 ft.). The outside probe (2B)
was secured outside the window at that level. The inside probe (2A)
was positioned approximately 15 ft. inside a small women's clothing
factory. Probes 3A and 3B were positioned at the 5th floor (52 ft.).
A small print shop was located at this level. At the 117 ft. level
(llth floor) probe 4A was inside and 4B was located outside. Business
activity on this floor included a dress maker shop and a manufacturer
of auto travel bags. The highest level checked for CO was the 19th
floor, Probe 5A was positioned in an area involved in the manufacture
of buckles for women's shoes and dresses. Probe 5B was placed outside
at this level. Large drums of oil coated buckles were often stored on
this floor.
.;; i
Hydrocarbon concentrations were measured at three different indoor-
outdoor elevations. The-3rd, llth and 19th floors were monitored for
total hydrocarbons by utilizing the CO probing and incorporating a
switching technique using solenoid valving. Thus the CO and HC con-
centrations from the desired levels would be monitored simultaneously.
High HC concentrations were expected from various levels due to the
oil drums on the 19th.floor, spraying of decorative fountains on the
3rd, painting of the various floors during the study, and other factors
which introduced high hydrocarbon concentrations inside the building
which were not traffic derived.
4-36
-------
4.2.2.2 Total Particulates and Lead
Particulates were measured at various levels inside and outside
the test structure. Since the High Volum Air Sampler produced exces-
sive noise, a problem arose as to where the units could be positioned.
One Hi Vol sampler was placed on the roof of the test building whil e
another was positioned on the outside balcony on the third floor.
Two inside samplers were positioned on the llth and 18th floors.
These four air samplers measured the total particulate matter and
relative lead concentrations at the various locations about the test
building.
4.2.2.3 Traffic
Three ultrasonic traffic detectors were utilized to measure
hourly vehicular traffic volumes and speeds. Two steel cables were
positioned between wooden poles located on each sidewalk adjacent to
40th St. to support the three traffic sensors. One sensor was placed
directly above the geometric center of the street while the other two
sensors were positioned 6 ft. out from the curb. Most of the traffic
was counted by the center traffic sensor, while the adjacent sensors
picked up any irregular non-typical patterns that occurred. Since
the majority of vehicles passed through the detection zone of the
center detector, average speed for the flowing traffic was defined
by the speed measurement of that detector.
4-37
-------
4.2.2.4 Meteorological
Two vector vanes were utilized to measure and evaluate the
wind parameters at this site. One vane (vane #1) was positioned
at the top of the traffic pole on the south side of 40th Street,
29 feet above the roadway. All measurements recorded from this
vector vane were considered to be the summation of both natural
and traffic derived wind components. A second vane was placed
262 ft. above the street, higher than any portion of the building.
Since the test building was the tallest structure in the nearby
area, wind measurements recorded from this vane characterized the
general overall wind parameters at the site.
In order to calculate the local temperature lapse rate which
indicated the stability of the micrometeorological condition present
at the site, two very accurate temperature sensors were utilized.
One sensor was placed above the building adjacent to vane #2 at a
distance of 260 ft. from the street level. Another temperature sen-
sor was positioned 4 ft. off the face of the building, 12 ft. from
the sidewalk. This temperature-sensor (Temp #1) measured the temp-
erature near ground level.
4.2.3 Traffic Characteristics
Traffic flow rates and velocities measured on West 40th Street
were essentially the same during the heating and non-heating seasons.
4-38
-------
The minimum traffic flow rate for the total period was 23 vehicles
per hour. The maximum was 938 vehicles per hour. The average
vehicle velocities for the individual hours ranged from 5 mph
to 39 mph. Average vehicle velocities were less than 15 mph when
the average traffic flow rate exceeded 455 vehicles per hour.
Average vehicle velocities were greater than 15 mph when the average
traffic flow rate was less than 455 vehicles per hour.
Traffic conditions on weekdays throughout the total monitoring
period were basically the same for each day. Weekend traffic generally
was lower than for weekdays.
4.2.3.1 Weekday Traffic-
Weekday traffic during the heating season produced the diurnal
characteristics shown on figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-5. Non-heating season
diurnal weekday traffic conditions are very similar as shown on figures
4.2-6 and 4.2-7. It should be noted that twice as many days data (51
days) is available for the heating season than for the non-heating
season (26 days). Minimum traffic flow for both seasons occurred in
the early morning hours. Traffic rose sharply during the morning
rush hour. Peak traffic, however, occurred between 9 and 11 A.M.
Traffic decreased from this peak, except for a short period of time
during the evening rush hour, to the early morning low.
4-39
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TM STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS TOTAL TRAFFIC PLOW RATE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 195VO 390,0 585iO 780,0
MEAN
0, 195,0 390,0 585,0 780,0
2400 * * * * *
Figure 4.2-4
4-40
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS AVPRAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY - ALL LANES
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 15.0 30.0 45.-0 60.0
MEAN
0, 15.0 30.0 45,0 60.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
14,00
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
?4flO
4
* I
* \
4 ik
*
* /*
* '
*
* f
* /
* 1 STANDARD •
i
* = DEVIATION '
* 1-*—
* = 1
* \
* ^
* ' I
4. 4___ ._/.
* * /
• m
* =v 1
* \ \
> V
* X 1
* * 1-
: \- 1
: •; I:
i •
* * 1 "
•
* c I •
* /' / '
4 i f •
* ''
* ' \
* * \ 4
\
* * 1
* ' 1
1 1
* * ]
: '•-
:•/
:•• !
«
* 5 •<
* ' 4
4 i
k +
' \ *
k \ 4
k m *
k • 4>
k J *
k jf *
* f *
k 1 4
•
kl 4
w *
1 *
1 4
1 +
U MEAN *
k +
f +
k +
k +
k +
k *
k +
h +
k +
k +
It +
k +
k 4
k +
k +
k +
k *
f +
1 *
1
1 *
1 4-
1 4-
\ '''
k \ *
^ 1 4
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
4
4
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
+
*
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•k
+
4>
*
+
*
+
4
*
+
*
+
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
FIGURE 4.2-5
4-41
-------
NEW STORK CITY 1 NDOOft/OUTDOO* POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STyDV
264 WEST 40TM STREET
NON-MEATJN9 WEEKDAYS TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE (VEH/HR)
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 195,'0 390.8 585TO 780.0
MEAN
0, 195,"0 398,0 585,0 780.0
2400 « * * «
FIGURE 4.2-6
4-42
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 yEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH) - ALu
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
23QO
94an
0,
0,
+
* 7
* /
4 3
4 |
4 S
* \
4 C
» /
* :
4 S
4 '
>
4 Z
* ;
4 B
4 *
*__\,____
* \
4 =
* !
4 ~
* /
4 =V
: .CX-.
* STANDARD
* DEVIATION 1
* i
4 s 1
* '
1
* S
:./ i
* !
4 S
* !
* B
4 J
4 «
4 1
. «
4 B
* *
\
* \
* s
STANDARD DEVIAT!
15,0 30,0
MEAN
15,0 30.0
4 4
4 f 4
* ¥ *
4 ^r 4
* I • *
* \
* I *
.,.!./.. :
. \ :
+ V 4
4^^^ 4
f 4
/
§4 4
|4 4
W *
% 4
A 4
4j 4
f 4
• * *
^^SN>. *
/ * MEAN *
I * *
14 4
I 4 4
\ 4 4
m.
• 4 4
r.:_ :
\:
\4 4
V *
\ *
\ 4
*I *
/ :
i :
1 4
4\ 4
4 \ 4
* V
41 4
tON
45-. 0
45,0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
<*
4
4
rt
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
LANES
60,0
6H.O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE
4.2-7
4-43
-------
4.2.3.2 Weekend Traffic
Weekend traffic during the heating season was highest at
noon-time as shown on figure 4.2-8. No morning rush hour was
present. The daily low occured a couple of hours later than
typical on weekdays. Average traffic velocities, as shown on
Figure 4.2-9, were higher than for weekdays.
Figures 4.2-10 and 4.2-11 show the diurnal traffic flow rate
and velocity profiles for non-heating weekends. These curves
represent only 8 days of data while the heating weekend data
covers 22 days. It is.felt that the slight difference between
the seasonal data is a reflection of the difference in data sample
size.
4.2.4 Meteorological Conditions
The area near the canyon street site was structurally more
congested than the air-rights site. Many nearby buildings were
almost as tall as the structure used for monitoring. At a distance
of only a few blocks, other buildings were considerably taller than
this. Circulation patterns in the vicinity of the canyon site are,
therefore, extremely complex. The highest wind speed recorded at
this site was 20 mph at the roof level between the hours of 2 AM
and 5 AM on April 7, 197. Wind azimuth, during this period, was
basically from 40°. The road level winds however were blowing from
280° at this time at approximately 5 mph. There was no discernible
reduction in pollution levels during these hours.
4-44
-------
NEW VORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKENDS TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOK/nUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKENDS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY - ALL LANES
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 15,0 30,0 45.0 60,0
MEAN
0. 15;0 30.0 45,0 60.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
sno
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
?4nn
4 ^
4 I
1
4 E
4
4 i
4
4
4 X
4
4 X
4 f
4 Z
* ;
4
4 S
* \
4 >
1
t
4 C
* !
4 /
t
4 S
\
4
4 *
4 1
4 Z
I
* 1
4 X
1
* I
4 e
4 '
4 •
* \
4
4
4
4 «
| <
STANDARD J
* DEVIATION -§-
i
4
*
4
*
4
4
4 Y
* A
4 \
> :
> i
4
> !
4
4
4
- MEAN *
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FICURE
4.2-9
4-46
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOW RATE (VEH/HR)
STANDARD DEVIATION
390,0 585,0 780.0
MEAN
390,0 585,0 780,0
* * +
*.
NON-HEATING WEEKENfiS
0, 195,"0
FIGURE
4.2-10
4-47
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKENDS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MRH) - Ai_L LANES
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 15,0 30,0 45vO 60,0
MEAN
0. 15,0 30.0 45;0 60,0
2400 * *
100 * \ *
* * * A
200 * / * /
* * * c
300 * ; * \
* * * "
400 * \ *
500 * \ * |
* r * •
600 * / * y
* / STANDARD 1
* (*"* DEVIATION 1
* \ - ,
800 * , * j
900 * ! * 1
* * * f
1000 * ! * /
* ? * f
1100 * , * \
* = + •
1200 * / * j+
1300 * \ */
* « *|
1400 * f *|
* a +1
1500 * ' *\
* " * 1
1600 * ; * 1
1700 * / */
* * *€
1800 * \ * X
* * * 1
1900 * / *
* r *
2000 * / *
2100 * \ *
* • *
2200 + \ *
* * *
2300 * / *
*« *
2400 * » * *
* *
1 * *
* * *
* *
* *
I * *
: :„.
: :
1 * *
+ *
+ *
\
1 * *
• *
4- +
+ *
* *
« *
+ *
^, MEAN * *
C*T •* *
+ *
+ 4
+ *
* *
+ *
* *
* *
1 * *
m * *
1 * *
f * *
* *
+ *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
FIGURE 4.2-11
4-48
-------
The heating and non-heating seasons were characterized by the
roof wind azimuth direction as shown in the table below, it can be
Wind Aximuth - degrees
0-59 60-119 120-179 180-239 240-299 300-359
LOG Season
Roof
Road
Heating 8 . 1
Non-Heating 6.9
Heating 0
Non-Heating 0
14.7
11.9
0.7
0.6
21.0
23.2
17.4
31.6
23.5
44.8
8.7
17.6
32.4
13.2
61.1
40.2
0.2
0
11.9
10.1
/seen that during the heating season, the roof wind blew from 120-239°
f for 44.5% of the time and.from 240-299° for 32.4% of the time. This
wind, however, blew from 120-239° for 68.0% of the time during the non-
heating season and only 13.2° of the time from 240-299°. Road level
winds were predominately from 240-299° during the heating season. Non-
heating season road level winds were fairly evenly distributed between
120-239° and 240-299°.
Diurnal variation of the roof level wind speed at the canyon site
is shown in figure 4.2-12. The maximum occurs near 6 PM and the mini-
mum near 6 A.M. Velocities are considerably reduced from those recorded
at the air-rights structure. The turbulence parameter, sigma azimuth,
as recorded at roof level shows a good range
4-49
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS WIND SPEED (MPH> „ ROOF LEVEL
STANDARD DEVIATION
0. 3;0 6,0 9,0 12,0
MEAN
0. 3,'0 6,0
2400 * * *
100 *
+
200 *
+
300 *
+
400 *
*•
500 *
*
600
700
800
*-
900 *
*
1000 *
*
1100 *
«
1200 +
* -
1300 *
*
1400 *
*
1500 *
*
1600 *
1700 *
*
1800 *
*
1900 *
*
2000 *
*-
2100 «
*
2200 *
«
2300 *
*
2400 *-
9', 0
*
12,0
+
*
* a
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* 8
• »-*•
*
« 4
*
: «
*
*
*
.-.«.
• *
4
*
*
*
Figure 4.2-12
4-50
-------
of values with the minimum occurring at.5 AM and the maximum
near 5 PM (Figure 4.2-13). The curve is considerably smoother
and shaped more as would normally be expected of a meteorological
parameter than the air rights sigma azimuth curve. Wind speed at
road level (Figure 4.2-14) is reduced about 1 mph from the roof
level averages as shown in the following table.
Average Wind Speed -"mpfi
Loc Heating Non-Heating
Roof 5.2 3.8
Road 4.1 2.6
Turbulence is also reduced at street level (Figure 4.2-15).
There is no evidence of traffic-induced turbulence in the data.
This is expected since vehicle velocity was very low and the amount
of congestion quite high. Diurnal temperature ranges, although
still rather small at 12°F, were almost twice the magnitude of
those encountered at the air-rights structure (Figure 4.2-16 and
4.2-17). The heating season mean temperature of near 50°F was
approximately 11°F warmer than the heating season mean for the
air-rights location as shown in the table below.
Average Temp degrees F
Loc Heating Non-Heating
Roof 47.2 72.0
Road 50.1 73.6
4-51
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOO*/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET-
HEATING WEEKDAYS WIND AZIMUTH STANDARD DEV, (DEG) - ROOF
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 7,5 15,0 22,5
MEAN
0, 7.'5 15.0 22,5
2400 * * * *
LEVEL
30.0
Figure 4.2-13
4-32
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
HEATING WEEKDAYS
0,
3,0
364 WEST 40TH STREET
WIND SPEED
* 34
1000 * *
4 S *
1100 * *
* s +
1200 * *
1300 * *
* s *
1400 + *
* = *
1500 * +
4 s +
1600 * *
1700 * *
* r *
1800 * *
* = *
1900 * *
* s *
2000 * * /
*__„,, * i-
2100 * *
* it
2200 * * \
k
2300 * *
4 « * X
junn *--. . •-*
6.0 9,0
* *
•» *
* »
« *
+ *
» «
* *
+ *
* ^
+ V
•*• +
* *
+ *
4 *
\
V
V
f
+
\
\ : : - -
+ *
) * *
« *
14 *
\
f
! : :...;.;.:.:.
/ '
:: * *
* *
1 * *
/
X
4 *
4 *
4 *
* *
4 *
12.
4
4
*
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
+
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
. *
*
4
*
*
*
+
*
4
*
4
*
*
*
4
*
Figure 4.2-14
4-53
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATIN.G WEEKDAYS WIND AZIMUTH STANDARD DEV, (DEHJ - ROAD LEVEL
STANDARD DEVIATION'
0. 7. '5
0 . 7,5
?400 * *
100 * *
+ s •» it
200 * *
+ n + j!
300 * * /
* = * T
400 * *
500 * * /
* t * A
600 * + \
•*• = * X.
700 * * ^
+ = +
8 0 0 * *
900 + »
* : +
1.000 *
+ s +
1100 * +
* = *
1200 +
1300 * *
* c +
1400 + *
+ : *
1500 * *
* : +
1600 + *
1700 * *
+ s *
1800 * *
+ = +
1900 * +
+ s *
2000 * *
2100 * *
4 84
2200 * *
+ 54
2300 + *
+ i
15,0 22.5 30.
MEAN
15.0 22, Si' 30.
* * +
*• * *
* + +
* * *
+ * *
* * +
* + *
* * +
* + +
* * *
* * •»
* * +
\ * * *
X * * +
\: :......-.-....:
/: : :
\ * * *
\ + * *
y * * *
* * *
A * * +
w *
T * *
' r *
A * *
x+ * *
* « »
»\ ' * +
* \ * *
+ / * *
+ x •+ +
*/ * *
/• * *
/ * * *
)c + * *
/ * * +
* * +
i: + * +
+ * *
: * * +
+ * +
x. * . * +
0
0
Figure 4.2-15
4-54
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS TEMPERATURE
* 4 *
* * +
* * *
* * *
* * +
+ * +
* * *
* * +
* * +
+ * +
* * +
+ * *
* * +
+ * +
* * *
V * *
x * *
A * *
* X * *
* * +
*x * *
*\
.^.V- -_...__*_._".__"»" *
* \
* \
*, y
* /
* 5
* V
* k
* 1 * - - - *
f
* y
* T * *
* * +
* !( * *
* / * *
*x * *
*I *....*
V * *
X + *
T *
T +
A *
> *
Figure
4.2-16
4-55
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TM STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS TEMPERATURE (DEC. n - 260 FT, ABOVE ROAD
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 25.0 50,0 75,0 100.0
MEAN
0, 25.0 50.0 75-, 0 100.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
>4nn
4 4
: : . /•
4 B 4
* +
4 B 4 ;
4 4
4 • B 4 ;
4 4
4 4
4 B 4
4 4
4=4 ;
4 4
4 S 4
4 4 \
* * • \
434 )
4 4
48 4
4 4
4 C 4
4 4
4 4
4 • 4
* * /<9.f : •
4 • 4
* * •
4 e 4
4 4
4 *
4 e 4
4 4
4 B 4
4 *
4 * 4
4 . 4
4 4
4 IB 4 ti
4 *
404 *
* * /
4 • 4 X
4 4
4 *
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
* *
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 *
4 4
\ 4 4
X4 4
\4 4
X 4
v - - -
4 *
4 ( 4
4 4
4!! 4
4 4
4 ; 4
4 4
*/ *
X 4
| 4
X 4
A *
x+ *
1* *.....
/ 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Figure 4.2- 17
4-56
-------
SECTION 5.0
RESULTS OF STUDY
5.1 Site 1 - Air Rights Structure - Trans Manhattan Expressway
Measurements to define the indoor outdoor relationships of pollutants at
the air rights structure were started on September 9, 1970 and terminated on
January 14, 1971. The measurement locations are defined in detail in Section
4.1. The methodology for obtaining the measurements is discussed in Section
3.0. The exact amount of data obtained for each measurement is identified in
the appropriate portion of this section.
The data obtained was divided into heating and non heating seasons on
the basis of the daily average temperature at the site. All non-heating days
occurred during Sept. and Oct. The heating season included some Sept. and
Oct. days and all of the Nov., Dec. and Jan. measurement days. Approximately
4 times as much data was obtained for the heating season as was obtained for
the non-heating season.
5.1.1 Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide measurements at this site were made at five elevations.
Two measurements were made at the three foot level of the highway, one at the
median strip and the other at the north perimeter. Both indoor and outdoor
measurements were made at the third, the 15th, the 23rd and the 32nd floors of
the air rights structure.
The carbon monoxide measurements began on September 9, 1970 during the
non-heating season and terminated January 14, 1971 in the heating season for the
building locations. Accordingly, 25 days of data were taken during the non
heating season, 19 of these were weekdays and 6 were weekend days. 103 days
of data were obtained during the heating season, 73 of which were weekdays
and 30 which were weekend days. There was a delay, at the 15th floor, in
5-1
-------
obtaining permission from the tenants in the apartments for placement of an
indoor probe. As a result of this, the two probes at this level were
positioned outdoors from September 9 to November 3. Indoor measurements
were started on November 5 at the 15th floor. No indoor measurements were
obtained during the non-heating season.
Measurements at the road level did not begin until September 25 and
terminated on Jan. 11, 1971. As a result, only 7 days of non-heating weekdays
and 2 days of non-heating weekend days CO data was obtained for the highway.
5.1.1.1 Heating Season
The highest carbon monoxide values recorded at this site was measured
at the three foot level at the north edge of the road. This value was 112 ppm
and was recorded on December 15, 1970 between 1700 and 1800 hrs. It is in-
teresting to note that for this period, although the traffic count was not
excessively high, 6700 vehicles/hr, the vehicle velocity was ususually low,
25 miles per hour, the winds were very light and the turbulence index parameter
was a global minima at 4 degrees. All of which indicated a period of meteo-
rological stability concurrent with lower vehicle velocities.
As shown in the tabulation below, the highest 24 hour average CO
concentrations during the heating season were measured at the median strip
probe. In general, both peak and average CO levels decreased as the measure-
ment locations increased above the road. Similarly the percentage of the time
that the Federal criterions of 9 ppm average over an 8 hour period and 35 ppm
for a 1 hour period were exceeded also decreased with height above the road.
5-2
-------
Location
Med. Edge 3rdO 3rdl 15thO 15thl 23rdO 23rdl 32ndO 32ndl
Weekday Data *
Ave CO - ppm 25.7 24.9 7.0 7.0 5.8 6.7 3.6 4.2 3.9 6.6
Peak CO- ppm 92 112 33 29 35 21 36 19 23 28
Exceed 9 ppm/
8 hr - % 91.4 95.4 23.1 13.5 13.4 18.7 4.2 4.1 3.0 19.7
Exceed 35ppm/
1 hr - % 26.6 23.10 0 0 0 .1 .10 0
Weekend Data
Ave CO - ppm 24.4 22.8 5.9 6.0 5.1 5.3 2.7 3.1 3.4 6.0
Peak CO -ppm 74.5 92.1 23.7 17.7 25.4 19.4 18.5 11.7 18.4 18.3
Exceed 9ppm/
8 hr - % 87.3 93.2 15.6 12.4 9.6 3.4 2.0 0 3.3 15.4
Exceed 35 ppm/
1 hr - I 22.5 15.6 0000 00 00
*11/15/70 to 1/14/71
Examination of the above data will show that both peak and average CO
levels were higher on weekdays than on weekends. Average indoor concentrations
were always equal to or higher than average outdoor concentrations at the cor-
responding level. Both the indoor/outdoor and weekday/weekend data groupings
show an inversion in CO concentrations at 23rd floor level.
5.1.1.1.1 CO Traffic Relationships
A good correlation occurs between the diurnal patterns of the carbon
monoxide, particularly on the lower levels, and the traffic. The diurnal
patterns for weekdays shown in Figures 5.1.1-1 to -5 exhibit similar double-
peaked patterns with maxima typically between 0800 and 0900 in the morning and
1500-1600 in the evening. Note that the diurnal profiles of CO concentrations
show a good correlation pattern with each other as well as with the profile of
traffic. The phase relationship of the outdoor concentrations is closer to
5-3
-------
60 r-
en
50
40
a.
^
g
K
| »
ui
o
8
8
20
10
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
—I 14400
I I I
12000
9600
7200 3)
-I
m
en
I
4800
2400
2400 200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400
1600
1800 2000 2200
2400
Figure 5.1.1-1. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - Road Level - Weekdays
-------
25 r
20
*
S 15
01
W
u
£
O 10
u
o
u
Traffic
Inside 3rd Floor
-Outside 3rd Floor
Heating Weekdays
(12000
9600
W
W
W
7200 <
S
P-H
o
4800
K
H
2400
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-2. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - 3rd Floor - Weekdays
-------
25 r
O)
Ol
S 2°
Q.
a.
<
oc
UJ
(J
z
o
u
15
10
12000
9600 >
O
•33
7200 H
I
3J
4800
2400
J I
I
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-3. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - 15th Floor - Weekdays
2400
-------
u
8
30 i-
(T
h-
25
a.
- 20
O
15
10
/ \
TRAFFIC
—•14400
J I I I I
I I I I I
J L
J _ I
\
I _ I I I
12000
9600
>
-n
-n
O
O
7200.
m
I
I
3)
4800
2400
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-4. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - 23rd Floor - Weekdays
-------
en
i
00
30 r-
25
g 20
Q.
g
<
O
z
O
O
8
15
10
-114400
I I I I 1 I
I 1 I
I II III I I L I
12000
9600
7200
i
m
I
3)
4800
2400
2400
200
400
600
800
1000 1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-5. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - 32nd Floor - Weekdays
-------
that of the traffic, particular in the afternoon hours, than is the indoor concen-
tration compared to the traffic. The diurnal pattern for the carbon monoxide and
the traffic on the weekends show a trend of a single peaked maxima generally in the
afternoon around 1600 to 1800 (Figures 5.1.1-6 & -7).
Figure 5.1.1-8 and -9 show the diurnal values of the CO concentration at the
road plotted against the diurnal values of the traffic flow and of the vehicular
velocities. The line that best fits the data in the least squares sense, as
determined by a linear regression analysis, is drawn on each graph. The results
of the linear regression analysis, are summarized in Tables 5.1.1-1 and 5.1.1-2.
The correlation coefficients between the CO concentrations at both the 3
foot level on the median strip and the north side of the road and the traffic flow
rates are .99. Since the correlation coefficient is an indicator of the strength of
a linear relationship between the variables under consideration, there appears to be
an almost perfect linear relationship on the weekdays during the heating season
between the CO concentration 3 feet above the Trans-Manhatten Expressway and the traffic
flow rate. This confirms very well the assumption that the heavy traffic volume on
the Trans-Manhattan Expressway is the major source of the CO concentrations.
As shown in Table 5.1.1-1 and -2 and figures 5.1.1-1 thru -5 the correlations
with traffic flow rate and velocity decrease as a function heighc above the roadway.
5.1.1.1.2 Indoor Outdoor Relationships
As mentioned earlier, daily average indoor concentrations always were equal to
or greater, than comparable outdoor concentrations. Hourly average CO concentrations
outdoors at both the 15th and 32nd Floors (see figures 5.1.1-3 + -5) always were
lower than indoor concentrations. However at the 3rd floor level, (figure 5.1.1-
2) outdoor hourly average contrations exceeded indoor concentrations during the
hours of morning and evening rush hours and then dropped below the indoor CO levels.
Indoor diurnal CO peaks occurred progressively later than traffic peaks as a function
of distance above the ground level of the air rights structure except for the 23rd
floor (Figure 5.1.1-4).
5-9
-------
60
en
i->
o
40
a.
o.
z
g
O
O
8
30
20
10
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
CO CONCENTRATION - 3 FT. LEVEL MEDIAL STRIP
CO CONCENTRATION - 3 FT. LEVEL NORTH SIDE
/'V
i i i
j i
i i
i i i i i i i
14400
12000
9600
7200
33
-n
Tl
O
i
m
I
I
3)
4800
2400
2400 200 400 6OO
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-6. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - Weekends - Road Level
-------
en
I
30
25
f 20
a.
a.
O
tr
i-
2 15
o
I
O
o
10
5
f\
— — — — — TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
CO CONCENTRATION 3rd FLOOR INSIDE
^\
' \
/" V— N
/
'
/ \
/ \
/ _-^=-. '
/ ^^2^*''**' ^*^^^**^
^^^ \ i ^^^^^ ^^" V
~^S^i*^N / ^_ -y^" ~
^^^^^••••^ • ^ » ^^^ _^,+
^^_^
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
14400
12000
H
9600 >
-n
O
-n
O
2J
7200 5
m
m
I
^n
4800
2400
n
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-7. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 1 - Heating Season - Weekends - 3rd Floor
-------
0,
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDUfc APARTMENTS
HEATING wtEKDAYs co CONCENTKATIUN (PPM> - MEDIAL STRIP
CQ CONCENTRATION-! (PPM) VS IRAFF'IC Fi.OW RATE
CS CONCENTRATION IN PPM
0. 15.0 30.0 45.0
*
CO
00
00
300,00 *
600.00 *
900.00 *
1200.00 *
1500.00 *
1800,00 *
2100.00 *
2400.00 *
2700.00 *
3000.00 +
3300.00 *
3600.00 *
3900.00 +
42Li0.00 *
4500.CC +
4BOO
5100
5400
5700,00
6 0 0 0 . C 0
6300.OC
6600.00
6900.00
7200,00 +
7500.OC «•
7800.00 *
81CC.OO
8400,00'
8700.00
9000.00
9300.CO
96UO.CO *
9900.CO
10200,00
1C500 .00
10600,00
aiiuo.oo
11400.00
SL1700.CO *
12000,00 *
i23CO.OC *
&260C.OO *
1290C.OO *
13200.00 *
13500.00 >
13800.00 *
14100.00 *
14400.00 *
14700.00 *
15000,00 *
CO = . 0037 TFR + . 95
Figure 5.1.1-8
5-12
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIP!? STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGfc APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS co CONCENTHATIUN (PPMJ - ML-DIAL STPIP
CO CONCENTRATION (PPM) V5 AVERAGE VEHICLE VtLOCITY (WPH)
CC5 CONCENTRATION IN PPM
C. 15.0 JO.O 4i>.0
60.0
CO = -3. 7927v + 4200. 82
Figure 5.1.IT9
S-" i,
-------
TABLE 5;1.J.-1
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Air Rights Structure — Heating Weekdays
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone. CO Cone.
Medial Strip 3 Ft. North
.99
.95
.0037
25.70
6668.63
.99
3.69
.0032
24.91
6668.63
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
.93
3.25
.0008
6.96
6668.63
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
.81
3.92
.0007
6.95
6668.63
Air Rights Structure — Heating Weekends
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone.
Medial Strip
.98
2.07
.0037
24.41
6105.17
CO Cone.
3 Ft. North
.98
4.62
.0030
22.75
6105.17
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
.93
2.51
.0007
5.93
6105.17
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
.94
2.90
.0007
6.03
6105.17
5-14
-------
TABLE 5.1.1-2
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Air Rights Structure — Heating Weekdays
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind.Var)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone.
Medial Strip
-.92
200.82
-3.7927
CO Cone.
3 Ft. North
r.92
175.09
-3.2526
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
-.85
31.37
-.5288
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
-.74
27.85
-.4525
25.70
46.17
24.91
46.17
6.96
46.17
6.95
46.17
Air Rights Structurs — Heating Weekends
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind.Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone.
Medial Strip 3 Ft. North 3rd Fl. Out 3rd Fl. In
-.96
195.19
-3.6205
-.96
162.30
-2.9585
-.92
31.18
-.5352
-.91
29.82
-.5043
24.41
47.17
22.75
47.17
5.93
47.17
6.03
47.17
5-15
-------
There can, of course, be a number of causes contributing to the higher values
indoors than outdoors but, considering the long term averages on a diurnal basis,
it is difficult to attribute the general pattern to a single source. It seems
logical, therefore, to conclude that there are probably several mechanisms at work
which would explain the pattern. The first of these considers permeation of the CO
from the outside into the smaller internal volume and by this constant process there-
by increasing the indoor concentration over that of outdoors. The second mechanism
is the stack effect due to the indoor-outdoor temperature differential in the heating
season. By this mechanism one can expect CO entering the building at the lower
floors to be transported upward through open doors and elevator shafts and enter the
upper level apartments via cracks in doorways and ventilators and the like, again
increasing indoor concentration. The third mechanisms of course could be that of
internal sources themselves. It is known that the tenants on the 32nd floor com-
plained of not receiving sufficient heat and for that reason used their ovens for
heating purposes an unusually large period of time.
The apartment at the 23rd floor was the GE command post for the program at
this site. These quarters were used for the conduct of the program only, and were
not used as living quarters. In other words there was negligible use of the cooking
facilities and the^-e was no occupancy of the apartment after approximately 1700
hours, on weekdays. Moreover, there was absolutely no occupancy of the apartment
on weekends. Thus, while the activities of the tenants in the apartments at other
;levations might have some impact on the levels of CO measured, measurements at
:he 23rd floor level should be the most unbiased in this respect of any measurements
aken at this site.
The effect of these mechanisms can be seen from the following tabulation
hich compares daily average concentrations with the concentrations recorded during
ic evening rush hour at 5-6 PM.
5-16
-------
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
DAILY AVE. 5-6 PM AVE.
0 I DIFF. 0 I DIFF.
3rd Floor 7.0 7.0 0 10.7 9.9 0.8
23rd Floor 3.6 4.2 -0.6 6.2 5.7 0.5
32nd Floor 3.9 6.6 -2.7 5.9 8.2 -2.3
3rd-23rd Diff. 3.4 2.8 0.6 4.5 4.2 0.3
23rd-32nd Diff. -0.3 -2.4 -2.1 0.3 -2.5 -2.8
As would be expected, the daily average concentrations are always lower than
the rush hour CO levels. Concentrations decrease both outdoors and indoors from
the 3rd to 23rd floors for both the daily average and 5-6 PM periods. However,
concentrations increase between the 23rd and 32nd floors for all locations except
the outdoor rush hour period. Apparently the anticipated decrease in CO level
with height above the roadway is noticeable only outdoors, when the Trans Manhattan
Expressway traffic is high. Indoor concentrations at the 3rd and 32rd floors are
lower than outdoor concentrations during the rush hour period, but are higher than
outdoors on a daily average basis. Concentrations at the 32nd floor are always
higher indoors than outdoors.
5-17
-------
5.1.1.2 Non Heating Season
CO measurements during the non heating season represent approximately
one quarter of the heating season measurements and therefore are not as significant.
As can be seen from the. tabulation below, daily average CO levels at the air rights
structure during the non-heating season closely duplicate the heating season daily
averages for both weekday and weekend periods. There is no consistent difference
in concentration levels on weekdays between the two seasons. Non-heating CO levels
on weekends, however, are slightly lower at all building locations.
Location
Med
Weekday Data
Ave Co-ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9 ppm/
8 hr-%
Exceed 35ppm/
1 hr- h
Weekend Data
Ave CO-ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9 ppm/
8 hr-%
Exceed 35ppm/
1 hr - %
30
75
97
38.
28
48
100
29
.6
.9
5
.1
.1
.0
.2
Edge
31.1
72
97.9
39.7
26.2
45.3
100.0
29.2
3rdO
7.2
28
20.3
0
5.1
16.2
9.8
0
3rd I
6.4
23
15.2
0
5.6
17.9
13.8
0
15thO
6.4
29
18.1
0
4.2
21.7
13.8
0
15thl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23rdO
4.0
20
3.9
0
1.5
7.7
0
0
23rdl
4.5
19
5.1
0
2.7
23.0
4.1
0
23ndO
4.3
19
3.6
0
2.7
9.8
0
0
3 2nd I
5.0
17
2.9
0
4.3
12.6
12.2
0
It can be seen that average CO levels at the Trans Manhattan Expressway
were higher than for the heating season. Federal standards, at road level, were
violated a larger percentage of the time. Concentrations again decrease with
height above the roadway. In general, the percentage violations of Federal Standards
at the air rights structure were lower during the non heating season.
Peak and average CO levels again were higher on weekdays than on weekends.
With the exception of the weekday 3rd floor data, average indoor concentrations
were higher than average outdoor concentrations. Twenty third floor CO levels, both
indoors and outdoors, again are lower than CO levels measured at the 32nd floor.
5-18
-------
5.1.1.2.1 CO Traffic Relationships
The diurnal carbon monoxide and traffic patterns for weekdays during the
non-heating season are shown in Figures 5.1.1-10 thru -13. In general there is
good correlation between CO and traffic parameters. Figures 5.1.1-14 and -15
show the diurnal values of the CO concentrations at the median strip plotted
against the diurnal values of traffic flow rate and of vehicular velocities. It
will be noted from Tables 5.1.1-3 and 5.1.1-4, which indicate the results of
linear regression analyses, that the average traffic flow rate during the non-
heating season was slightly higher than that for the heating season (6884 vs.
6668 veh/hr.). This higher traffic flow rate is the reason for higher CO concen-
trations during the non-heating season than the heating season at the outdoor
locations on weekdays.
No non heating reason weekend traffic data was obtained. Therefore no
discussion of CO traffic relationships is possible.
5.1.1.2.2 Indoor Outdoor Relationships
Daily average indoor concentrations at the 3rd, 23rd and 32nd floors in
general are lower during the non-heating season than during the heating season for
both weekdays and weekends. A .comparision of Figures 5.1.1-11 thru -13 with
Figures 5.1.1-2,-4 and -5 shows that the differential CO level at the 32nd floor
is markedly different for the two seasons, however, this seasonal difference is
not as apparent at the 3rd and 23rd floors.
The major cause of this seasonal difference is a significant reduction
in the indoor concentrations at the 32nd floor during the non-heating seasons. It
can be seen from the following table comparing weekday daily averages with concen-
trations recorded at 5-6 M, that both outdoor and indoor concentrations decrease
with height above the roadway during the rush hour period. It should be noted that
5-19
-------
60
—114400
MEDIAL STRIP
to
o
O
u)
O
O
O
8
50
40
30
20
10
12000
9600
O
5
7200
33
>
m
I
I
4800 2
2400
J I
J I
J !
j I J I
I I
1 i J 1 I I
240D 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1809
2000
2200
2400
Figure 5.1.1-10. Diurnal CO and Traffic - Site 1 - Non-heating Weekdays - Road Level
-------
Cn
to
UJ
U
o
U
8
30
25
- 20
Q.
15
10
2400
-114400
(12000
9600
>
-n
-n
n
7200
m
I
3)
4800
2400
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.1.1-11. Diurnal CO and Traffic - Site 1 - Non-heating Weekdays - 3rd Floor
-------
30|
114400
25
5 20
o
to
to
U
O
(J
O
U
15
10
120001
9600
7200
>
-n
TI
O
•n
O
x
>
I
i
4800 2
2400
I I i I
_L
_L
1 I I I
2400 200 400 60O 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 5.1.1-12. Diurnal CO and Traffic - Site 1 - Non-heating Weekdays - 23rd Floor
-------
01
to
CO
z
g
-n
Tl
O
O
3>
7200 '
m
4800
2400
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 5.1.1-13. Diurnal CO and Traffic - Site 1 - Non-heating Weekdays - 32nd Floor
-------
NEW YORK CJTY INDOOR/OUTDOOR HfiLI.UlI QIJ KFI.AT IONSHJPS STUDY
GEORGfc' WASHINGTON bWIIJGfc APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS
HO CONCfcNTRAHON
111QO
11400
11700,00
12000.OC
12300
i2600
12900
13200
13500
13800
14100
14400
14700,00
3:5000.00
CO CONCENTRATION (PPM) - MFDIAl STRIP
(PPM) V^ 1RAFI-IC FLOW RATE O/FH/HP)
Co CONCENTRATION IN PHM
15-. o oo. n 45,0
CO = . 0042 TFR + 2. 05
Figure 5.1.1-14
5-24
-------
NTW YORK CITY iMl)OUR/OUTDnnR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS
HEOKGE WASH1NGTMM HPH.'UL APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING HbEKI.lA YS CO CONCENTRATION (PPM) - MFIUAL
CO CONCEiNTHATlON (PPM) VS AVEHA'ifc VEHICLE VELOCITY
CO nOMCF.NIKATIUN IN PPM
15.0 30.D 45.n
FTUpY
?TPIP
CO = -4. 6608v + 250. 34
Figure 5.1.1-15
5-25
-------
TABLE 5.1.lr-3
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Air Rights Structure — Non-Heating Weekdays
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone.
Median Strip 3 Ft. North 3rd Fl. Out 3rd Fl. In
.97
2.05
.0042
.95
4.27
.0041
.76
2.96
.0009
.64
3.48
.0006
30.64
6884.25
31.08
6884.25
7.15
6884.25
6.38
6884.25
Air Rights Structure — Non-Heating Weekends
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone.
Medial Strip 3 Ft. North 3 Ft. Out 3rd Fl. In
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
NO TRAFFIC FLOW RATE DATA
5-26
-------
TABLE 5.1."1^4
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Air Rights Structure — Non-Heating Weekdays
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO Cone.
CO Cone.
CO Cone.
CO Cone.
Medial Strip 3 Ft. North 3rd Fl. Out 3rd Fl. In
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
-.84
250.34
-4.6608
-.84
242.82
-4.4921
-.53
33.27
-.5541
-.41
23.01
-.3529
30.64
47.14
31.08
47.14
7.15
47.14
6.38
47.14
Air Rights Structure — Non-Heating Weekends
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone. CO Cone.
Medial Strip 3 Ft. North 3rd Fl. Out 3rd Fl. In
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
NO AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY DATA
5-27
-------
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
DAILY AVE. 5-6 PM AVE.
0 I DIFF 0 I DIFF
3rd Floor 7.2 6.4 0.8 12.8 10.4 2.4
23rd Floor 4.0 4.5 -0.5 8.8 7.0 1.8
32nd Floor 4.3 5.0 -0.7 8.0 6.8 1.2
3rd - 23rd Diff 3.2 1.9 1.3 4.0 3.4 0.6
23rd - 32nd Diff -0.3 -0.5 -0.2 0.8 0.2 0.6
while the daily average concentrations increase from the 23rd to 32nd floors, the
increase indoors is considerably less than noted during the heating season.
5-28
-------
5.1.1.3. CO Meteorological Relationships
The effect of changes in meteorological conditions on the carbon
monoxide levels at the air rights structure was explored for the 3rd,
23rd and 32nd floor locations. This analysis shows that the measured
CO concentrations are influenced by the relative location of the probes
and the highway and site geometry.
The relationship between CO pollution patterns and the meteorological
variables was investigated through the use of the 5-6 PM hourly average
data rather than daily average data. Both heating and non-heating season
information was used. The non-heating season data points are shown as X's
on the diagrams herein.
As previously shown on pages 5-17 and 5-28, the hourly average concentra-
tions at 5-6 PM displayed the expected decrease in CO level with height above
the roadway at both outdoor and indoor locations during the non-heating season
and outdoors during the heating season. Only the indoor CO concentration at
the 32nd floor during the heating season was- higher than the comparable indoor
concentration at the 23rd floor. Thus, during the 5-6 PM period, a heating/non-
heating seasonal difference is noted between the 23rd and 32nd floors indoors.
Valid data on roof level wind azimuth was obtained at the 5-6 PM hour for
44 weekdays during the heating season and 5 weekdays during the non heating
season. Southerly winds occured 13 times and northerly winds prevailed 36
times. However, between October 8 and November 5, southerly winds were
recorded on 10 days and northerly winds five times. All of the non heating
V
days were marked by southerly winds. Northerly winds were experienced pri-
marily in November, December and January during the heating season. This
5-29
-------
suggests that wind azimuth, which varies as a function of the season of
the year, significantly contributes to the "increase" of CO concentration
at the 32nd floor.
The 5-6 PM hourly average data was selected because this time period
represented the maximum traffic conditions on the Trans Manhattan Express-
way. Peak hourly average CO concentrations occured at this time of the
day at the two road levels locations and both the outdoor and indoor
locations at the 3rd floor level. This peak conditions also existed at
the 23rd floor outdoor location but did not hold true either at the 23rd
floor indoor location or at both locations on the 32nd floor. Daily peaks
at these three locations did not correspond to traffic peaks, indicating a
time lag between road level CO concentrations and the concentrations at the
higher locations.
As seen in Figures 4.1-1, -2 and -3, the Trans Manhattan Expressway
lies along a line with a northwesterly heading of approximately 300°. The
building face under study is perpendicular to the highway, along a line from
210° to 30 , and is on the northern side of the structure. The apartments
involved overlook the westbound traffic lanes. Surrounding buildings protect
the air rights structure at the 3rd floor level but do not at the 23rd and 32
floor levels.
5.1.1.3.1 Meteorological Factors
Meteorological conditions at the roof level and the site geometry combine
to produce the wind conditions at ground level. Figure 5.1.1-16-shows the
relationship of the wind azimuth angle at the road level to the roof level wind
5-30
-------
360T
330
300
270
C/5
LU
UJ
IT
o
LU
o
240
210
01
5
o
z
UJ
>
LU
_l
O
I
180
150
120
90
60
30
I
I
I
1
1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20O 220 240
ROOF LEVEL WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
260
_| L_
280 300
1
J
320
340 360
Figure 5.1.1-16. Road Level Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
azimuth. It can be seen that the road level wind generally blew from the
same azimuth angle as the roof wind. Occasionally, however, road winds blew
approximately 180° from the roof wind direction. Road wind speeds generally
were lower than roof winds, as shown on Figure 5.1.1-17. Wind speeds, at both
locations, varied with wind azimuth. However, higher velocities were more
frequent when the winds blew essentially parallel to the face of the building,
see Figures 5.1.1-18 and -19. The roof wind azimuth and wind speed combine
with the site configuration to create the road level wind conditions.
Roof level temperatures vary for each roof azimuth angle. High tempera-
tures are generally associated with southerly winds and low temperature with
northerly winds, as shown on Figure 5.1.1-20. Temperature variations at roof
level are reflected at road level as shown by the lines of constant temperature
lapse drawn on the figure.
Temperature lapse is controlled by the azimuth angles of the roof and road
winds. As can be seen from Figures 5.1.1-21 and -22, maximum temperature lapse,
as measured on the northerly side of the air rights structure, occurs when the
roof wind is from 112°, or from behind the building. Minimum lapse occurs when
the roof and road winds blow parallel to the face of the building but in oppo-
site directions (20° and 210°). Temperature lapse therefore is a function of
the wind azimuth angles at the two levels and the location of the road level
temperature measurement. (If the road measurement had been made on the southern
side of the building, the temperature lapse for the 112° roof wind would have
been low, while 300° roof winds would have produced higher lapse measurements.)
5-32
-------
18
16
14
Q_
I 12
Q
LLJ
LU
o.
1/3 10
O
ui Z
L i
CO _l Q
UJ o
LLJ
j
3 6
O
oc
4
2
n
-
_
9
•
• •
*
x • x • • • •
X X • X •
-
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I
10 12 14 16 18 20
ROOF LEVEL WIND SPEED - MPH
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 5.1.1-17. Road Level Vs. Roof Level Wind Speeds - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
30
27
24
21
I 18
o
SJ 15
Q.
(/>
Q
Z
I 12
xx
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20 40 60 8O 100 120
140 160 180 200 220
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-18. Roof Level Wind Speed Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
18
16
14
12
01 £
CO S
w 1 10
Q
LU
UJ
a.
i 8
i
6
4
2
0
.
.
*.
•
•••• X XX ••
• • • x x • • «x •
•
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 - 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-19. Road Level Wind Speed Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
CO
o>
70
60
ui
w
(T
o
111
a
I
50
TEMP LAPSE
13.6
+ + + 8.2
cc
uj
a.
5
30
20
J 1 1 ' ' '
J I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 20
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-20. Roof Level Temperature Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
01
i
CO
-251-
-20
S -15
I
UJ
cc
-------
Ol
I
CO
oo
-25 r
-20
c/i
Ul
UJ
EC
-15
Ul
EC
D
< -10
cc
LLJ
Q-
5
UJ
-5
ROOF WIND AZIMUTH
96-112°
155-175°
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240
260
280
300
320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-22. Temperature Lapse Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
Road level wind sigma azimuth is greatly affected by road level wind
azimuth. As shown in Figure 5.1.1-23, the highest turbulance conditions
occured when the wind blew parallel to the road towards the face of the
building under study. Low turbulence predominanted when the road level
wind was parallel to the building face. Comparison of Figures 5.1.1-19
and -23 will show that wind azimuth determined the wind sigma azimuth more so
than road level wind speed.
It appears, therefore, that wind azimuth is the dominant meteorological
variable. As shown, roof wind azimuth influences roof wind speed and road
level wind azimuth. Road level wind azimuth determines road level wind sigma
and wind speed. Roof and road wind azimuths combine to establish temperature
lapse.
5.1.1.3.2 Median Strip Concentration
Figure 5.1.1-24 is a plot of the CO concentration as measured at the
median strip of the Trans Manhattan Expressway. This figure shows that a
large variation occured in traffic flow rate during the evening rush hour
period. It also shows that there is a significant variation in CO level at
the median strip for each traffic volume. However the CO/traffic relation-
ship conforms very well with that discussed in paragraphs 5.1.1.1.1 and
5.1.1.2.1, as indicated by the parallel lines.
As mentioned in section 5.1.1.1, the peak CO level measured at the
'median strip was 91.3 ppm. This peak occurred during the 5-6 PM period
on a day when the traffic flow rate was 12,200 vehicles per hour. The
meteorological conditions for the 4 instances at which the 5-r6 PM traffic
flow rate was 12,200 vehicles per hour are tabulated below. These data
points are circled on figures which follow.
5-39
-------
60
50
40
to
UJ
oc
0
LU
Q
i"
i S
o <
I
5
o
£ 20
10
0
61
•
X
X
• .
X *
•
• x •
* X
..*• •
1 • *-• •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-23. Road Level Sigma Azimuth Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
en
100
90
I
80
70
a 60
z
LU
O
O 50
o
8
40
30
20
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEH/HR x 10~2
120 125 130 135
140
Figure 5.1.1-24. Median Strip Concentration Vs. Traffic Flow Rate - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
CO
PPM
26.1
36.0
37.2
91.3
Traffic
Veh/Hr
122
122
122
122
Wind Azimuth
Degrees
60
-
338
58
Wind Sigma
Degrees
15
-
48
5
Wind Speed
MPH
15
-
6
5
Temp. Lapse
Degrees
10.2
13.6
11.6
9.5
Examination of Figures 5.1.1-25 thru -28 will show how the road level
meteorological conditions affect the median strip CO level. The peak CO
conditions occurred when the wind was blowing from 58°, wind speed was
5 mph and wind sigma was low at 5°. When the wind speed increased to 15
mph, blowing at essentially the same azimuth angle and with a sigma of
15°, the CO concentration dropped significantly to 26.1 ppm. When the wind
shifted to 338° at 6 mph and sigma increased to 48°, the CO was 37.2 ppm. Thus,
the median strip CO level for a constant traffic flow rate is greatly influ-
enced by meteorological conditions.
It will be noticed from these constant traffic days, and the constant
5 mph wind speed days (see Table 5.1.1-5 for data) which are connected on
Figures 5.1.1-25, 27 and -28, that wind azimuth, wind speed and wind sigma
combine to determine median CO level. Median strip CO tends to be high when
the wind speed and wind sigma perpendicular to the road are low, and low
when winds speed and sigma are high. Winds parallel to the road produce
average concentrations. Median strip CO is not noticeably influenced by
temperature lapse. The suggestion of a CO/temperature lapse relationship
given by the constant wind data points on Figure 5.1.1-28 is in reality the
change in CO level due to the changes in other meteorological conditions.
5-42
-------
en
CO
100
90
80
I
z
g
70
60
S 50
8
8 40
30
20
10
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20 40 60 80 100 120
140 160 180 200 220
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-25. Median Strip CO Concentration Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
Ol
5
fc
1
O
1-
oc
I-
LU
o
I
8
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
•
-
x •
• : •
-
• * . • •
-
i 5 • • * ' . •
• •
^
-
—
i i i i i i i i i i
•
i J J 1 J
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
WIND SPEED-MPH
Figure 5.1.1-26. Median Strip CO Concentration Vs. Road Level Wind Speed - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
01
^
01
100 i-
90
80
Q_
CL
70
60
50
8
40
30
20
10
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
I I I I
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45
SIGMA AZIMUTH — DEGREES
50 55 60 65
Figure 5.1.1-27. Median Strip CO Concentration Vs. Road Level Sigma Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
01
i
0
100 r
90
80
a.
a.
I 70
< 60
m
o
o
o
50
40
30
20
10
I
I
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
I
-5 -10 -15 -20
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREES/F'x 10~3
-25
Figure 5.1.1-28. Median Strip CO Concentration Vs. Temperature Lapse - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
TABLE 5.I.1-5
CO
PPM
35.9
41.6
45.6
46.0
56.6
62.3
68.6
91.3
CONSTANT
TRAFFIC WIND
5 MPH DATA
AZIMUTH
VEH/HR DEGREES
120
123
121
121
114
132
133
122
19
344
331
109
223
216
35
58
- ROAD LEVEL -
WIND SIGMA
DEGREES
33
52
61
36
9
9
7
5
SITE 1
WIND SPEED
MPH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
TEMP LAPSE
DEGREES
11.6
12.2
12.9
13.6
7.5
8.8
6.8
9.5
5-47
-------
The minimum median strip CO of 20.7 ppm occurred, as shown on
Figure 5.1.1-24, at the minimum traffic flow rate of 5600 vehicles per
hour. The low level of CO is mainly the result of the low traffic condi-
tions and not significantly perturbed by meteorological variations.
5.1.1.3.3 3rd Floor Concentrations
CO concentrations at the 3rd floor outdoor and indoor locations for
the same meteorological variables are shown on Figures 5.1.1-29 thru -36.
Examination of comparable curves will reveal that the relationship of CO
concentration to the meteorological variables is essentially the same for
both1 outdoor and indoor locations. However, the effect of the meteorological
factors is appreciably different from that noticed at the median strip, A
comparison of corresponding figures for the two locations will show that
wind azimuth angles which decrease the median strip CO level increase the
concentration at the 3rd floor. Sigma azimuth appears to decrease median
strip CO while increasing the 3rd floor levels. Median strip concentrations
do not noticeably respond to temperature lapse changes. However, temperature
lapse increases produce higher CO levels at the 3rd floor locations. In
other words, the meteorological conditions which reduce on roadway CO levels
increase CO levels at off roadway locations.
At the 3rd floor, road winds from approximately 60° produce low outdoor
and indoor concentrations. Winds from 220° and 320° produce a wide variation
in CO level. It will be noticed the peak 3rd floor outdoor and indoor CO
levels of 39.9 ppm and 28.7 ppm occurred when the wind blew from 218° at 3 mph.
Wind Sigma was an average of 25°. Temperature lapse is missing. The next two
high outdoors concentrations, 28.1 and 27.3 ppm, also occurred for southerly
wind conditions at 3 mph and 20-25° sigma. The 27.3 ppm reading resulted
5-48
-------
30
C71
CO
25
20
2
O
UJ
O
8
O
(J
15
10
• WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
J L
J I I
_L
J I I L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH -DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-29. CO Concentration'Outdoors 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays -
Site 1
-------
VI
en
o
30
25
20
a.
I
O
o
8
8
15
10
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
i i i i
I
I I I I
I
I I I
I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-30. CO Concentration Indoor 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
en
en
o-
a.
2
O
O
I
8
30
25
20
15
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12
13
14
15
16
01 2345 6789 10 11
WIND SPEED -MPH
Figure 5.1.1-31. CO Concentration Outdoors 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Speed - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
VI
I
Ol
to
30
Q.
O.
g
<
EC
h-
tu
o
O
O
8
25
20
01
10
*
*
I
I
7 8 9 10
WIND SPEED-MPH
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 5.1.1-32. CO Concentrations Indoor 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Speed - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
30 I-
Ol
i
en
CO
25
20
Q.
D-
F 15
LU
o
o
o
8
10
•WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
1 i I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
SIGMA AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-33. CO Concentration Outdoors 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Sigma Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays
-. Site 1
-------
en
i
en
30
25
20
a.
a.
15
8
8
10
•WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
I I
I I I I I I
10 15 20
25 30 35 40
SIGMA AZIMUTH - DEGREES
45 50 55 60 65
Figure 5.1.1-34. CO Concentration Indoors 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Sigma Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
30
en
en
on
o_
Q-
<
QC
LLJ
o
Z
O
o
25
20
15
10
WIND SPEED
5MPH
3MPH
ROOF ANGLE = 98°
I
I
-5 -10 -15
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREES/FT x 10~3
-20
-25
Figure 5.1.1-35. CO Concentration Outdoors 3rd Floor Vs. Temperature Lapse - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
30
en
01
01
25
20
Q_
O.
I
CO
o
o
o
8
10
-5 -10 -15
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREE/FT x 10~3
-20
WIND SPEED
5MPH
3MPH
-25
Figure 5.1.1-36. CO Concentration Indoors 3rd Floor Vs. Temperature Lapse - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
when temperature lapse was a maximum' of -19.7 degrees. However, the
28.1 ppm CO level was recorded when the temperature lapse was only
-12.9 degrees. Minimum concentrations of 1.7 ppm outdoors and 3.7 ppm
indoors occurred for easterly road wind conditions when the respective
temperature lapses were -10.2 and -13.6 degrees.
Examination of the data tabulated below for 3rd floor CO concentra-
tions for the five instances when temperature lapse readings of -7.5 and
13.6 degrees were measured will show that wind azimuth angle, not tempera-
ture lapse, is the dominant meteorological factor.
Temperature Lapse = 7.5 Temperature Lapse = 13.6
CO
Out
3.7
4.6
9.2
12.3
15.5
In
5.1
4.4
6.2
15.4
13.6
Azimuth
Road
32
60
44
223
134
Roof
10
18
-
43
-
CO
Out
6.5
7.1
15.7
15.9
18.8
In
3.7
7.0
13.6
12.4
13.3
Azimuth
Road
109
99
305
178
-
Roof
79
72
98
167
44
Both sets of data show a wide variation in CO level. Within each set,
CO levels are low for easterly winds at both road and roof elevations.
High CO levels occur for other road wind azimuth angles. This effect
is graphically displayed on Figures 5.1.1-35 and -36 by the cross hatched
lines which show CO/temperature lapse relationship for the wind azimuth
angles listed below.
Wind A
Road
331
343
305
289
18j
•imuth
Roof
81
96
98
98
112
Temp.
12.
18.
13.
15.
19.
Lapse
9
3
6
6
7
Out
12.5
13.8
15.7
23.2
27.3
CO
In
10.8
11.4
13.6
17.0
14.4
It will be noticed that when the roof wind angle is essentially constant
(98°), CO outdoors at the 3rd floor increases as the road wind shifts from
5-57
-------
the northwest to the south. The change Is independent of temperature, lapse.
The largest variation in 3rd floor CO levels occur for road azimuth
angles between 200 and 240° see Figures 5.1.1-29 and -30. As will be
shown later, this wide CO range is caused by the roof wind azimuth angle.
Roof winds from the same general southwesterly angle increase 3rd floor CO
while opposing roof winds significantly decreased 3rd floor concentrations.
Thus, CO at the 3rd floor outdoor location is established by the traffic
flow rate on the Trans Manhattan Expressway and both road and roof wind
azimuth angle.
CO at the 3rd floor indoor location is established by the 3rd floor out-
door concentration and road level wind azimuth. As shown on Figure 5.1.1-37,
the concentration indoors at the 3rd floor is generally linear with 3rd floor
outdoor CO. Deviations from the linear relationship are caused by variations
in road azimuth, as indicated by the constant wind azimuth lines. See
Table 5.1.1-6 for data. Road winds from 215° produce higher concentrations
indoors than road winds from 340°. The range of CO levels both indoors and
outdoors is small for road winds of 340° even though the roof wind swings
from 212° to 96°. However, a large variation in CO is seen outdoors as roof
winds vary from 41° to 192° when the road wind is from 215°. The large
change in indoor concentrations for these road winds is caused by the large
change outdoors.
The outdoor/indoor differential at the 3rd floor also is a function
of outside CO level and road wind azimuth angle. Figure 5.1.1-38 presents
the data. A comparison of this figure with Figure 5.1.1-37 will show that
the variations in 0/1 differential are due to the changes in indoor CO level.
5-58
-------
30
en
I
to
25
20
Q-
Q.
I
1«
<
nc
lil
o
z
O
o
Q 10
• •
. ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + 4- ROOF ANGLE = 98°
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10 12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
22
24
26
28
30
32
Figure 5.1.1-37. CO Concentration - 3rd Floor Indoor Vs. Outdoor - 6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
TABLE 5.1.1-6
CONSTANT WIND AZIMUTH DATA - SITE 1
o>
o
Road Angle
Roof Angle
CO-3rd0
" -3rdl
" -23dO
" -23dl
" -32ndO
" -32ndl
VCO-3-230
" -3-231
11 -3-320
" -3-321
11 -23-320
" -23-321
A 0/1-3
" -23
" -32
ACO-30-23I
" -30-321
183
112
27.3
14.4
20.7
9.7
13.9
7.7
6.6
4.7
13.4
6.7
6.8
2.0
12.9
11.0
6.2
17.6
19.6
289
98
23.2
17.0
10.0
8.1
9.4
12.5
13.2
8.9
13.8
4.5
.6
-4.4
6.2
1.9
-3.1
15.1
10.7
305
98
15.7
13.6
12.3
8.3
11.4
8.6
3.4
5.3
4.3
5.0
.9
-.3
2.1
4.0
2.8
7.4
7.1
331
81
12.5
10.8
10.7
8.5
11.8
13.6
1.8
2.3
.7
-2.8
-1.1
-5.1
1.7
2.2
-1.8
4.0
-1.1
343
96
13.8
11.4
10.9
8.9
10.6
11.9
2.9
2.5
3.2
-.5
.3
-3.0
2.4
2.0
-1.3
4.9
1.9
340
332
9.9
8.4
.1
.1
5.7
17.2
9.8
8.3
4.2
-8.8
-5.6
-17.1
1.5
0
-11.5
9.8
-7.3
338
278
13.6
8.3
6.3
3.8
7.6
5.4
7.3
4.5
6.0
2.9
-1.3
-1.6
5.3
2.5
2.2
9.8
8.2
344
212
18.2
12.6
16.4
10.4
10.9
10.8
1.8
2.2
7.3
1.8
5.5
-.4
5.6
6.0
.1
7.8
7.4
214
41
6.8
9.1
4.0
4.7
2.9
9.3
2.8
4.4
3.9
-.2
1.1
-4.6
-2.3
-.7
-6.4
2.1
-2.5
210
20
7.3
8.5
2.1
2.5
2.9
6.9
5.2
6.0
4.4
1.6
-.8
-4.4
-.8
-.4
-4.0
4.8
.4
225
171
16.1
14.7
11.8
9.8
10.7
9.2
4.3
4,9
5.4
5.5
1.1
.6
1.4
2.0
1.5
6.3
6.9
208
175
18.1
14.2
12.8
8.1
11.7
9.8
5.3
6.1
6.4
4.4
1.1
-1.7
3.9
4.7
1.9
10.0
8.3
218
192
30.9
28.7
19.6
11.6
18.2
13.4
11.3
17.1
12.7
15.3
1.4
-1.8
2.2
8.0
4.8
19.3
17.5
-------
Wl
05
14
12 -
10
Q.
a.
O 6
u
DC
LU
-2
-4
-6
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + ROAD ANGLE = 98°
• *
X
I
I
I
I
I
10 12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION -PPM
22
24 26 28 30
32
Figure 5.1.1-38. Differential CO Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor CO Concentration -
6 PM - Weekday - Site 1
-------
Higher differentials occur for road winds from 340° than for winds from 215°.
Outdoor CO levels always are higher than indoor levels when the outdoor con-
centration is 13 ppm or greater. When the outdoor level is less than 13 ppm,
the 0/1 differential varies, positive or negative, according to the nearness of
the roof wind to 60 , as can be seen from the constant 215° road wind data on
Figure 5.1.1-39. As can be seen from Figures 5.1.1-40 thru -42, the other
road level meteorological conditions do not significantly influence 3rd floor
outdoor/indoor differential.
5.1.1.3.4 23rd Floor Concentrations
Twenty-third floor concentrations during the 5-6 PM period always were
lower than 3rd floor concentrations at both indoor and outdoor locations for
both the heating and non-heating seasons. At the 23rd floor, non-heating sea-
son indoor CO levels were consistently lower than outdoor concentrations.
While heating season CO levels frequently were higher indoors than outdoors,
the average level indoors during the 5-6 PM period was lower than outdoors.
As a result, both indoor and outdoor locations showed a reduction in average
CO level from the 3rd to 23rd floor locations during this period.
As pointed out on page 5-29, the 23rd floor outdoor concentration peaked
during the 5-6 PM period in the same fashion as the concentrations at the road-
way and 3rd floor locations. The outdoor CO level at the 23rd floor is basically
determined by the 3rd floor outdoor concentration. Figure 5.1.1-43 shows that
the 23rd and 3rd floor outdoor concentrations are linearly related. High 3rd
floor concentrations produced high 23rd floor concentrations and vice versa.
The relationship of the CO level at the two outdoor locations again is
modified by the wind azimuth angles at both the road and roof elevations. This
can be seen by examination of constant wind azimuth conditions plotted on
5-62
-------
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
cn
05
CO
14
12
10
a.
a.
8
01
er
UJ
u_
t 2
a
-2
-4
ROAD WIND = 215°
+ + + ROOF WIND = 98°
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
300 320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-39. Differential CO Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
14
12
10
i e
O
o
K
LU
LU 2
U.
U.
5
0
-2
-4
-6
^ ROAD ANGLE = 215°
•»• + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
it
J
x
X X
X X *
I *
I 1 1 1
2 34 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
WIND SPEED - MPH
Figure 5.1.1-40. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Speed -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
en
ci
en
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
— — ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
25 30 35 40 45
SIGMA AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-41. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level Sigma Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
O5
14
12
10
t
8
DC
LU
5 2
-2
-4
-6
I
I
-5
-10 -15 -20
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREES/FT x 10~3
WIND SPEED = 5 MPH
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + + ROOF ANGLE = 98o
-25
Figure 5.1.1-42. Differential CO Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. Temperature Lapse
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
Ol
22
20
18
16
14
a.
a.
I
Z
o
S 12
oc
I-
LLJ
^ 10
o
o
8 8
• ••
_t!_
J L
l I L
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
-I- •»- ROOF ANGLE = 98°
I I I
10 12 14 16 18
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Figure 5.1.1-43. CO Concentration 23rd Floor Outdoors Vs. CO Concentration 3rd Floor Outdoors -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
Figure 5.1.1-44 and previously presented on Table 5.1.1-6. It will be
noticed that when the road wind blows parallel to the face of the building
from 215°, the CO level outdoors at the 23rd floor varies in the same
manner as CO at the 3rd floor location. As the opposing roof wind shifts
from parallel to the building face at 20°, to "behind" the building, at
41°, 23rd floor concentration increases. When the roof wind moves from "behind"
the building at 171° to 192° the 23rd floor concentration also sharply increases.
The roof wind angle also appears significant when the road wind is from
340°. The 23rd outdoor CO level rises sharply as the roof wind shifts from the
same angle (332°) to 278 and 212°. Roof winds from 98°, behind the building,
tend to oppose the road wind and reduce 235x1 floor concentration. CO level
is fairly high, however.
The effect of the relative wind positions is vividly seen by the constant
o
98 roof angle data. The 23rd floor outdoor CO is nearly a constant 11 ppm
when the road wind is 315_*;30°. However, the maximum 23rd floor outdoor con-
centration of 2O.7 ppm was recorded when the road wind flew from 183 .
The differential CO level, outdoors to indoors, at the 23rd floor again
shows a basically linear relationship to the CO level outdoors at the 3rd
floor, See Figure 5.1.1-45. The 23rd floor differential, however, is primarily
related to the CO concentration at the 23rd floor outdoor location. As can be
seen from Figure 5.1.1-46, road wind azimuth variations have far less effect
on the 0/1 differential than noticed at the 3rd floor. Roof wind changes
still influence the outdoor/indoor differential significantly as shown on
Figure 5.1.1-47. It should be noted that 23rd floor concentrations indoors
exceed outdoor CO level when roof winds are between 300° and 60 ; i.e.,
blowing towards the 23rd floor room under study.
5-68
-------
en
24 »-
22 -
20
18
16
1
I
2
O
14
«E 12
u
8
O
u
10
- ROAD ANGLE = 340°
— — — ROAD ANGLE = 215°
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20 40 60 80 100 120
140 160 180 200 220
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-44. CO Concentration - Outdoors 23rd Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
tn
-q
O
Q.
Q.
12 r—
10
8
8
_i
< 6
IT
LU 4
-2
-4
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ ROOF ANGLE = 98°
r*++\
>
-------
en
12
10
Q_
a.
LU
CC
UJ
U.
t 2
Q
-2
-4
ROAD ANGLE = 340o
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ -f ROOF ANGLE = 98°
• •
I
I
I
I
8 10 12 14 16
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
18
20 22
Figure 5.1.1-46. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor 23rd Floor Vs. 23rd Floor CO Concentration Outdoors -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 210°
cn
to
14
12
10
I
8
LU
U-
-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-47. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 23rd Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
Figures 5.1.1-48 and -49 show the change in CO levels between the
3rd and 23rd floor for both the outdoor and indoor locations as a function
of the 3rd floor outdoor concentration. Both locations demonstrate the
same behavior. The differentials are low (negative) when the 3rd floor
CO level is low, and high when high concentrations exist at the 3rd floor.
This suggests that both locations respond to the same variables. The 3rd
to 23rd floor differential is always greater indoors than outdoors for road
winds from 210°. The magnitude of the outdoor and indoor differentials is
significantly different for the 210° road wind when the roof wind is from
192°. This shows that roof winds parallel to the building face strongly
affect 23rd floor outdoor CO. Both indoor and outdoor locations show
essentially a linear differential between the 3rd and 23rd floors for an
increasing concentration outdoors at the 3rd floor when the roof wind is
from 98° for road winds from the northwest. However, the differentials are
significantly reduced for the road wind of 183 . Therefore 23rd floor
concentrations, both indoors and outdoors, are proportionately higher for
southerly road winds than for northerly road winds.
The change in CO level indoors from the 3rd to 23rd floors is, in
reality, primarily influenced by the 3rd floor indoor concentration. As
shown on Figure 5.1.1-50, the relationship between the two indoor locations
is more clearly linear than that indicated on Figure 5.1.1-49. It should be
noticed that the indoor differential for the 98 roof wind condition is
practically a straight line. The variations in differential CO indoors 3rd
to 23rd floors shown on Figures 5.1.1-51 and -52 for this wind condition are,
therefore, due to variations in 3rd floor indoor concentrations and not road
5-73
-------
20
18
16
8: 14
i
o
CJ
d 12
HI
cc in
in •**
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
•f + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
TT**-
i
i I i
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 5.1.1-48. Differential CO Outdoor - 3rd To 23rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor CO Concentration Outdoors -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
-q
Oi
18
16
£ 14
a.
I
O
°, 12
£ 10
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + + ROOFANGLE= 98°
I
I I
I
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
24 26 28 30 32
Figure 5.1.1-49. Differential CO - Indoors - 3rd To 23rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor Concentration Outdoors -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
en
18
16
a.
Q.
8 12
10
oc
UJ
5 «
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
4 + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
• •
* •
. ** .
1
1
1
i
X
10 12 14 16 18
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
20 22 24 26 28 30
Figure 5.1.1-50. Differential CO Indoors - 3rd To 23rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor Indoor CO Concentration
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
en
24
22
20
18
16
D.
Q.
I 14
8
P 12
z
cc
ui
_u. 10
5
8
l
1
i
• •
I
_L
i
i
i
i
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
•»••*•+ ROOF ANGLE = 98°
- I
i
1
i
i
1
i
i
20 40 60 80 100 120
140 160 180 200
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
220 240 260 280 300 320 340
_J
360
Figure 5.1.1-51. Differential CO Indoors - 3rd To 23rd Floor Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
00
24
22
20
18
16
8
14
5 12
ui
ff
LU
U-
£ 10
o
r
i
i
___- ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + 4- ROOF ANGLE = 98°
• s
I
I
I
J
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Figure 5.1.1-52. Differential CO - Indoor - 3rd to 23rd Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
wind angle changes. The changes in indoor differential for constant road
wind angle conditions are the result of both 3rd floor indoor CO levels
and changes in roof wind conditions. This demonstrates that variations
in road winds effect CO levels at the 3rd floor locations but do not directly
influence concentrations at higher elevations.
5.1.1.3.5 32nd Floor Concentrations
Concentrations at the 32nd floor during the 5-6 PM period displayed
a different pattern, with respect to lower floor concentrations, than were
seen at the 23rd floor. Outdoor concentrations, with a single exception,
were lower than -3rd floor outdoor levels. Similarly indoor concentrations
generally were lower at the 32nd floor than seen at the 3rd floor. However,
both outdoor and indoor CO levels were usually higher than comparable con-
centrations at the 23rd floor. It is significant to note that during the
non-heating season, all 32nd floor outdoor concentrations and most indoor
concentrations were lower than those measured at the same time at the 23rd
floor. As a result, the non-heating season displayed a reduction in average
CO level, both outdoors and indoors, with height for this 5-6 PM period.
This decrease in average CO level also occurred outdoors during the heating
season but did not at the indoor location.
The CO levels at the 32nd floor locations are related to the 3rd floor
outdoor concentrations in a similar fashion as noted at the 3rd and 23rd
floors. The 32nd floor outdoor/indoor differential relationship to 3rd
floor outdoor CO, as seen in Figure 5.1.1-53, is somewhat lower however.
This is caused primarily by the general reduction in CO at the upper floors.
5-79
-------
en
oo
o
ROAD ANGLE = 450°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 5.1.1-53. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 32nd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor CO Concentration Outdoors -
6PM- Weekdays - Site 1
-------
The 32nd floor Q/I differential displays an even more linear relationship
when compared to the 32nd floor outdoor concentration, see Figure 5.1.1-54.
A comparison of Figures 5.1.1-53 and -54 shows the marked reduction
in 32nd floor outdoor concentration over that recorded at the 3rd floor.
Thirty-second floor indoor concentrations typically are higher than 32nd
floor outdoor concentrations, especially for low outdoor CO levels. It will
be noticed from Figure 5.1.1-55, that the negative 32nd floor differentials
always are associated with roof winds between 300 and 100°. Positive
differentials occurred only when the roof wind blew from behind the build-
ing. The maximum differential was measured when the roof and road winds
both blew from behind the building. The minimum occurred when the winds
both blew towards the building from 340 . Thus it is seen that wind azimuth
plus outdoor CO level control the differential concentration at the 32nd
floor in the same manner as noted at the 23rd floor, previously shown on
Figure 5.1.1-47.
Wind azimuth, however., produces a markedly different effect on the rela-
tive concentrations at various floors of the air-rights building. Figure
5.1.1-56 presents the 23rd - 32nd floor indoor CO differential plotted
against roof wind azimuth. As shown by the constant road angle conditions,
roof winds from behind the building reduce the CO level indoors at the 32nd
floor, while roof winds blowing towards the building increase 32nd floor
indoor concentration. This increase in CO level at the higher floor was not
seen between the 3rd and 23rd floors, see Figure 5.1.1-52. The net result
as shown on Figure 5.1.1-57 is for 32nd floor indoor CO to be higher than
23rd floor indoor CO the majority of the time. Thirty-second floor indoor
CO is lower than 23rd floor CO only when one or both of the winds blow from
behind the building.
5-81
-------
en
i
oo
to
a.
O-
I
o
o
UJ
a:
UJ
-10 -
-12 -
8 10 12 14
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
16
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
18
20
Figure 5.1.1-54. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 32 Floor Vs. 32 Floor Concentration Outdoors
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
— ROAD ANGLE = 215°
cn
oo
CO
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-55. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 32nd Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
01
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 215°
20 40
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.1-56. Differential CO - Indoors 23rd To 32nd Floors Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
oo
en
10 12 14 16
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
— — — ROAD ANGLE = 215°
+ + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
20
22
24
Figure 5.1.1-57. CO Concentration - 32nd Floor Indoors Vs. CO Concentration 23rd Floor Indoors
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
The change in CO levels between the 23rd and 32nd floor outdoor levels
again is basically linear with respect to the lower elevation position.
In general, the concentrations decrease with height, except, as can be seen
on Figure 5.1.1-58, for those instances when very low concentration levels
were recorded at the 23rd floor. As previously shown on Figure 5.1.1-44,
these low 23rd floor concentrations occurred for roof winds blowing towards
the room under study, from 300° to 60°. Therefore, 23rd floor outdoor con-
centrations strongly influence 32nd floor outdoor CO levels.
5.1.1.3.6 Meteorological Summary
CO concentrations at the air-rights structure during the 5-6 PM period
are directly traceable to the traffic flow rate on the Trans Manhattan Express-
way and the azimuth angle of both road and roof level winds. Wind speed, wind
sigma, temperature and temperature lapse variations effects are secondary to
wind direction.
CO levels at the median strip and the 3rd floor outdoor location are in-
versely related. High concentrations occur at the 3rd floor location when
the road wind blows from the highway toward the 3rd floor probe location.
Under these conditions median strip CO is low. The 3rd floor CO is low, and
median strip high, when winds blow away from the building towards the highway.
CO levels at the 23rd floor outdoor and 3rd floor indoor locations are
controlled by 3rd floor outdoor CO and wind angle. Similarly 32nd floor out-
door CO is influenced by 23rd floor concentrations and wind direction. Indoors,
the concentrations at successively higher floors is dependent upon the CO level
at the floors below and the wind angles.
5-86
-------
en
oo
81-
6h
8: 2
i
8
H
LU
"E O
uj —2
u.
LL
Q
-4
-8
-10
•
•
• *
_i_J I L
I
8 10 12 14 16
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
ROAD ANGLE = 340°
ROAD ANGLE = 210°
+ + + ROOF ANGLE = 98°
I I I I
18 20 22 24
Figure 5.1.1-58. Differential CO - Outdoor - 23rd To 32nd Floor Vs. 23rd Floor CO Concentration
6 PM - Weekdays - Site 1
-------
The carbon monoxide changes from the base of the building to the 32nd
floor are affected differently by the various wind azimuth angles. Figures
5.1.1-59 thru -62 present the change in CO concentration between the 3rd and
23rd and between the 23rd and 32nd floors, both outdoors and indoors for four
different roof wind azimuth angle conditions. Each curve on the four figures
is plotted against the CO concentration present at the lower floor for the
data involved. For example, the abscissa represents the CO level indoors
at the 3rd floor for the 3-231 curves and represents the CO level outdoors
at the 23rd floor for the 23-320 curves. The data for Figure 5.1.1-59, which
shows the constant 98° roof wind azimuth angle is provided in Table 5.1.1-6.
Examination of the four figures will show that during the 5-6 EM period,
concentrations at the 23rd floor always were lower than comparable 3rd floor
CO levels. However, in the majority of instances, concentrations at the 32nd
floor were lower than comparable 23rd floor CO levels. All plots on each of
the four figures show a positive slope with increase in CO concentration at
the reference position. The differential in CO levels between different floors
is low, or negative, when the CO level at the lower floor is small. Conversely
high concentrations at the lower floors produce positive differentials.
It will be noted from Figure 5.1.1-59, that the differential between floors
is highet indoors than outdoors for roof winds'from 98°. This means that the
CO levels indoors from the 3rd-23rd and 23rd-32nd floors will reduce more than
comparable CO levels outdoors for easterly roof winds, for the same concentra-
tion at the lower floor. As indicated by the slope of the curves, large changes
in CO levels occur for small changes in concentration at the lower floors.
5-88
-------
When the roof wind shifts to 160° as shown on Figure 5.1.1-60, the
differential curves flatten out, showing that southerly winds have little
affect on CO levels on the north face of the air rights structure. The
indoor and outdoor changes appear uniform for each pair of floors. The
higher change indicated for the 3-23rd floor is probably due to the
greater vertical distance between the 3rd and 23rd floors than exists
between the 23rd and 32nd floors.
As the roof wind shifts so it is blowing towards the building face
under study, see Figures 5.1.1-61 and -62, the differential between floors
generally becomes lower indoors than outdoors. This means northerly winds
will produce lower CO levels outdoors than indoors. In other words, roof
winds blowing towards the building disperse the outdoor CO. This affect
appears stronger at the 23rd floor than at the 32nd floor.
It is very evident that the CO levels recorded at the northeast
corner of the air rights structure display a variation which is responsive
to the seasons of the year. Southerly winds, which always occurred during
the "non-heating" season and rarely prevailed during the "heating" season,
do not disperse the Trans Manhattan generated CO on the north face of the
building. The carbon monoxide concentration decayed exponentially with
height above the roadway. Conversely, the predominate north and northeast
winds recorded during the heating season decrease CO levels at the inter-
mediate floors of the air-rights structure. These -winds have a dual effect.
They decrease outdoor concentrations at the upper floors of the building. In
addition, indoor concentrations, which entered the building at lower floors,
are trapped within the rooms on the top floors by the winds blowing towards
them.
5-89
-------
3-230
10 12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
22 24 26 28
Figure 5.1.1-59. Differential CO For Constant 98° Roof Wind Angle
5-90
-------
10
9
8
O_
Q.
cc
LU 4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
3-230
23-320
-X v
T7
\/
V 23-321
P I I
I
I
I
I
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
22 24 26 28
Figure 5.1.1-60. Differential CO For Constant 160° Roof Wind Angle
5-91
-------
3-230
Q.
Q.
8
i-
2
cc
LU
-20 -
456789
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
10 11
12
Figure 5.1.1-61. Differential CO For Constant 340° Roof Wind Angle
5-92
-------
10
9
8
7
6
0.
Q.
I
8
LJJ
DC
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
23-320
_ /
X 3-231
3-230
X 23-321
X
X I
ll
X
_L
I I
J I
j
234 567 89 10
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 5.1.1-62. Differential CO For Constant 16° Roof Wind Angle
5-93
-------
THIS PAGE IS
INTENTIONALLY
BLANK
5-94
-------
5.1.2 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon samples were acquired for indoor outdoor data at three
levels of the air rights structure. Measurements started, using the 3rd
and 32nd floor indoor and outdoor probes, on September 16, 1970. It was
discovered that unusually high readings were obtained at the 32nd floor. These
could be attributed to internal sources, particularly a gas stove and oven which
was used almost constantly by the tenants who complained of not receiving enough
heat at their upper floor apartment. Accordingly the measurement location was
switched to the probes at the 23rd floor on November 21, 1970.
The transfer of the measurement location during the monitoring period
created an unbalance in the size of the data samples at the three levels monitored.
Fourteen days of data was obtained at the 3rd and 32nd floors during the non-heating
season, 12 of these were weekdays and 2 were weekend days. No data on hydro-
carbon levels during the non-heating season was obtained at the 23rd floor.
One hundred and three days of data was obtained during the heating season at
the 3rd floor with 73 of these being weekdays and 30 being weekend days.
Approximately 50 days of heating season data was collected at the 32nd and
23rd floor levels.
5.1.2.1 Heating Season
The weekday diurnal curves for hydrocarbon concentrations at the 3 out-
door locations (Figures 5.1.2-1, -2 and -3) show some similarity to the diurnal
traffic. However, the increased level of hydrocarbons at the 32nd floor, as
compared to the 23rd and 3rd floors, and the lack of similarity of the diurnal
curves for internal hydrocarbon concentrations (Figures 5.1.2-4, -5 and -6) suggest
that traffic on the Trans Manhattan Expressway is not the prime source of hydro-
carbons at this site. Plots of hydrocarbon concentration vs. traffic flow rate
5-95
-------
NEW YORK CITY iNDOOR/OUTDfiOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING wtEKDAYs 'HYDROCARBON C'ONC, - 3RD FL OUTSIDF
; ' STAfvDAHD DEVIATION '
C. 3'77 7,5 11,2
o ,
2400 +•
3.7
+
7,5
15,0
15,0
11.2 i
* * *
+ ----•«• -•-- y - + ,-^ „ • - * _ _ _
/ " -" " » --.-._• *•_•„__ = =. .4
100 *
200 +
4
300 +
400 +
+ -
500 *
4
600 +
4
700 +
4
500 +
4 -
9CO +
4
1 n " " *
1 ^ u - *
4
HOC *
1300 *
4
14HC *
+
1500 *
4
ItoOO +
4-.
170C *
+
1800 *
4
1900 +
4
2000 *
+.
2100 *
4
2200 +
4
2300 *
4-
2400 *-
»
4
4
*
4
4
. *
4
4
4>
4
4-
p. +
4
4
4
4
4>
. +
*
4
4-
4-
+
•f
4
. 4-
4
4
4
*
*
*
. *
FIGURE 5. 1.2-1
5-96
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGk APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS UYDKOCARBQN COM;. (PPM) - 23wo FL. OUTSIDE
STANDAKU DbVlATlON
C. 3v7 /,5 11,2 15,0
u .
2400 «•
100 *
4 = )
200 *
4 =
30C *
4- =
400 «•
500 •»
+ =
600 * V
* = I
700 +
* r ^
800 +
9(1C *
+ =
1000 *
4 = ll
lino *
+ = i
1200 *
1300 *
4 = ':
1400 *
4 = !
1500 +
^. •
1600 *
1700 +
4- =
1800 +
4 =
1900 *
• —
2000 +
2100 +
4 =
2200 *
+ ~
2300 +
+ =
2400 *•-- = -"
3, -7 /.5 11.2 15,0
4 + * *
* * * *
4. * * *
4 * * *
* * + *
4 * * *
4 * * *
4 * * *
4 + * +
i 4 4
4 + '
4 + * *
4 4- * +
* * *
4 * * *
y
V": '
v 4 * * *
/ + . * * *
r 4 * * *
4 * * *
4 * * *
V : : : ...,..:
/••": • : . •
4 + * *
4- * * *
4 + * *
* * *
* * *
\ *
\y , ' _ _ — _^A — »«»-• — -»—•••* — »» — »^» — "»^™"'""w™~""^^
*_T« — •4P*~WC|— VMv.^QW^ ^ — • — W
/ 4
] «• * *
j. 4 *
4 . * *
4 * *
4 ^
^. 4 +
4- *
4 + * *
. 4, +
4- *
.44
4 *
4 * * *
4
4
j. 4 *
* + *
/ * ' *
FIGURE 5. 1.2.-2
5-97
-------
YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR HOUUUTION RELAT I ONSH ! PS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
NFW
HEATING WLEKDAYS
0,
3v7
HYDROCARBON COM:. (PPM) -
STANDARU DEVIATION
/,5
MEAN
FL. OUTS I RE
15.0
u • 3*7
240C * 4
IOC * 4
* = 4
200 + 4
«• = 4
30 C + 4
* = 4
400 * 4 y
4 _3» + _;
sno «• 4
* = 4 ;
60C «• *
* = + :
70C * 4 ^
* C 4
SOC «• 4
90C * 4
* = 4
100C + 4
4 = 4
1100 * 4 y
4 = 4/
1200 * 4 \
130C + 4
4 r 4 ;
i4no * 4 /
* = + I
150C * 4
* = 4 ;
160C +• 4
170C * 4 \
* \
18 OC * 4
* )
1900 * +
4 = 4
2 GOO * 4
2100 + 4
* = 4
2200 4 4
42 4
2300 + 4
43 4
2400 > '-4
>,5 11.2
* 4
: :
A
/
t * *
*
i
'
* 4
* 4
4 4
4 4
S. 4 4
\ * 4
1 * *
\ 4 4
V 4 4
/ * *
f * 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
I 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
14 *
* *
*
4
*
4 4
4 4
> 4
' 4 4
4 4
! * * '
4 4
) + +
15.
4
4
4
t
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
¥
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•fr
4
*
4
4
FIGURE 5.1.2-3
5-98
-------
N = W YORK CITY 1 'JLJOOR/QUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON URIDGfc APARTMENTS
HEATING wttuDAYS WYDROCARRON CPNC. (PPM> - 3RD FL, INSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
u. 3.7 /.5 11.2 1'
0.
2400 *
* - •
100 *
4-
20? *
4
300 *
4-
400 *
* —
500 *
4
60G +
4
700 +
4-
so: +
+-
90C +
4-
1000 *
•f
1100 +
4-
1200 +
+ -
1300 *
4
1400 *
4-
153C *
4
160C +
4>-
1700 *•
*
1800 +
4-
1900 *
+
2000 +
•» •
2100 *
4
2200 *
4-
2300 «•
*
2400 *•
S.7
+
11
. 0
.U
. 4
*
4
+
•f
*
4
*
. 4
:/
FIGURE 5.1.2-4
5-99
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDQOR/OU1DGOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIP*: S
GE-ORGE WASHINGTON bRiriub APARTMENTS
HEAT'ING wtEiuuYs HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) - 23RD F'L.
STANDARD UbVI AT I UN
3 -.-7 1, 5 11.2
2400 4
+• •
100 *
4
200 *
4
30C *
4
400 *
4 -
50 C +
4
6004
*
70C 4
4
8PC* «•
6 . ?
4-
11.2
TUDY
1/i SI DE-
IS, 0
13.0
i;o: +
4
HOC *
4-
1200 4
4- <
1300 4
1500 +
>
1600 4
+ •
IV 00 *
+
1800 4
4
19CO 4
4-
2000 *
4 -
2100 4
4
2200 +
4
2300 *
4-
2400 4-
FIGURE 5.1.2-5
5-100
-------
NF:W YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GfcilRGL WASHINGTON HRlPGb APARTMENTS
HEATINli MbfcKUAYS HYUROCA*PON Cl'UL. (pPf) - 32r'll Fl. . I^SI
STANPARIi Fib Vi AT I ON
3,7 ' ' /.5 11.*
Mb AN
u. 4.7. /.& 1.1-2
2400 + ' * * *
100 *
+
200 *
+
300 +
4-
40C *
+
500 +
60" +
4-
70C +
•f
hO'J »
115,0
4-
— - +
4
4
If* f\ O
V U J
1100
1300 *
t
1 4 0 G «•
+
1500 *
•f
i6o: *
1800 *
4-
1900 *
+
2000 *
+ -
2100 +
+
2200 *
+
2300 *
+
2400 *•
FIGURE .5. L2-6
5-101
-------
and velocity, as shown in Figures 5.1.2-7 thru -12, hint at a correlation
with traffic at the 3rd floor outside level but not at the 23rd or 32nd
floor.
The outdoor-indoor differential concentrations for all floors showed
a consistent pattern of higher indoor concentrations both on weekdays and
*.
weekends. Weekday average hydrocarbon data at 3rd floor show higher readings
indoor than outdoor (4.14 PPM vs. 3.43). At the 32nd floor average indoor
values are higher than outdoor readings by a factor of 2 (9.22 PPM vs. 4.52).
The 32nd floor weekend indoor average is 10.32 PPM. The maximum average value
indicates the high degree of internal source activity on weekends with maximum
occupancy of the apartment. The maximum outdoor concentration was 4.72 PPM.
This concentration was also at the 32nd floor on weekends and was obviously re-
lated to the maximum indoor reading. Readings at the 23rd floor were more
representative of anticipated conditions. The 23rd floor readings for week-
days were 2.37 PPM/3.74 PPM, outdoor and indoor respectively. In general, it
must be assumed that, at all levels, the dominant source of hydrocarbons is
internal.
At the 3rd floor, concentrations were less than 4 PPM 65% of all hours
outdoors and 50% of all hours indoors. At the 23rd floor the readings were
less than 4 PPM 95% of all hours outdoors and 62% of all hours indoors. The
32nd floor had readings less than 4 PPM only 36% of all hours outdoors and
approximately 1% of the time indoors.
5.1.2.2 Non Heating Season
The diurnal curves for hydrocarbon concentrations at the 3rd floor differ
to some extent from those for the heating season. The weekday curves (Figure
5.1.2-13 and -14) show a single early afternoon maximum peaking between 1400 and
1500 hours. However, these peaks are due to some data which is suspect.
5-102
-------
NEW YORK CITY IMDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON tJPIDKb APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCAPRON rohu. (I-PM - 3Pn FL, OUTSIDE
MYHR'JCAKHON CONG, (PPM) VS TRAFFIC Fl.D'* RATE (VEH/HR)
H/DROCAHRQf.. CONCEIVTK.AT JON I !v PPM
I. 3.7 7.b 11.? 1!
0. +
3CO.OO 4
600.00 4
900. 00 4
1200. DC +
1 S 0 0 . 0 u 4
1800.00 4
?100.00 4
2400-Ou 4
2 1 l> 0 . C C 4
3300.00 4
3 6 U 0 . 0 C +
3900.00 4
4 2 C 0 . 0 w +
4b'00.0u 4
4 8 0 0 . C o> 4
SlCC.Tv 4
5400.00 4
5700. DC *
60uij.no f
6 3 0 0 . C v +
6 6 u : . ? v +
6900.00 4
7200. CO 4
7500.00 4
7800.C- +
8100.00 4
8400.00 4
8700. CO +
9000. 0 J *
9300. Oo +
9 6 0 0 . 0 o 4.
9900.00 4
10200.00 4
10500. CO +
10800 . 00 +
11100.0- 4
11400.00 4
11700.00 4
12000.00 *
12300.0o 4
12600.00 4
12900. Co 4
13200. Oo 4
13500.00 4
13800.00 *
14100.00 4
14400.00 *
14700.00 *
iSOOO . 00 *
4 4
4 -f
4 4
X +
«• 4
« 4 4
4 ' "4
« f 4
4- 4-
4- 4-
+ 4
¥ +
> 4
->• 4-
* + 4-
f » *
<<• + -f
4 4
•r -r
« 4- 4
» 4
*«• 4- 4
* *
» 4
4- 4
4- +
* -r 4
4 4
+ 4
-r 4-
» •*•
*-f +
4 4-
* 4 4
4- * 4
•» 4
4 4
4. »
4- 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
-f 4
4- 4
4- 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4'
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5.1.2-7
5-103
-------
YORK CITY 1MUHOR/OUTOC0R POLLUTION RfcLAT I OMSHI PS STUDY
kEORGL WASHINGTON hRIPOt APARTMENTS
NK WfehKHAYb HY0ROCAPRON- CONC. (PPM) ~ 3RD FL, PUTSIDF
CONC. (PPM) VS AVFKAUfc VfcHICLfc VtLOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON! CONCf'N F h A T I ON IN PPh
3.7 7.5 11.? 15.0
4,
6,
7,
1.2C, +
2.40 +
3.60 4
,80 *
,CC *
,20 +
o . 4 0 *
9.6U *•
1 0 . 6 u +
12.00 +
13.20 *
14.40 «•
15.60 +
16.60 *
18.GO +
19. 2v +
2:.4o +
21.6y *
22. 6- +
24 . C « *
25.2o +
26.40 *
27.bO +
26.flu +
3:.:. *
31.20 *
32.40 +
3 3 . 6 C +
34.60 +
36.00 +
37.20 +
38.4* 4
39. 6u +
40.ec *
42.GO +
43.20 *
44.4* *
45.60 *
46.80 +
48.00 *
49.20 *
50.40 *
51.6- +
52.80 +
54.00 +
55.20 +
56.40 +
57.60 *
58.80 +
60.00 *
+
•+•
4
4-
4-
*
+
4-
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4-
4-
4
*
^
4
+
f
4-
+
4
4
»
4
•t-
»
4-
X *
*i- »
x*«
*
* #
y yT
*«««+•
4
4-
4-
4
4
4
4
+
+
4
4
4
4
+
-f
•»-
4-
*
-f
+
4-
•f
*
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 '
4
4
4
4
4'
4
4
4
4
4'
4 '
4
• 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
' 4
+
• +
4
4
.4.
4.
4
4
4
4
V
*
•»
4
• 4
FIGURE 5.1.2-8
5-104
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUD/
GEORGE WASHINGTON HRIOGfc APARTMENTS
HEATING HLEKDAYS HYBROCARRON CONG. (PPM) - S.SRD FL. OUTSIDE
HYPROCAHBON CONC( JPRMJ vs T^AKF'IC FLOW RATE (VEM/HR>
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN
:. 3.7
300. CO * *
600.00 * *
900.00* +
1 ,2 0 0 . 0 0 * * X *
ISO 0.004- *
1800.00 * * +
?. 1 0 0 . 0 0 * +
2400.00 * * »
2700.00 * 4.
3300.00 * *
3603. OJ + +
3V 03. CO * *
4200.00 * *
4 'j 0 0 . 0 0 * 4
48 00. CO * « +
5 1 u 3 . 0 0 + * +
5403.0J + » +
5700.00 + *
6000 . Oj * - * * - - «
o 3 J 0 « 0 '-j * *
0600.00* » »
69 00. CO * * +
7200. DJ * X
7500.00+ «
-'aoc.o^ * «
* 1 0 0 . 3 J * *
H 4 0 3 . 0 J + *
8700. 30 + « *
9300.30 + <
9603.3u+ +
+
+
*
*•
4-
*
-f
*
*
+
4-
+
+
*
+
4-
4-
*
*
*
+
4.
*
11. J?
f
*
»
t
4
+
*
+
*
4
t
+
+
4*
*
+
t
+
4
*
+
4-
4-
*
4-
+
*
+
*
4-
4-
*•
4-
*
+
*
*
+
+
*
*
*
*
4-
*
15.0
+
*
*
+
+
+
+
+
*
4-
4
+
4>
4-
4-
+
+
*
*
*
*
4
*
+
4
*
4-
4-
+
4-
+
*
*
*
+
4-
*
+
*
*
*
*
+
FIGURE
5.1.2-9
5-105
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATINS WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONG. - 23PD FL, OUTSIDE
HYDROCARHON CONIC. (PPM) VS AVfrHAGE V£HICLF VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCEN1 HAT I ON IN PP*
C. 3.7 7. 5 11,? 15,0
1.20 +
2.4G +
3.60 *
4.30 +
6.00 +
7.20 *
y.40 *
9.60 +
i:.So +
12.OJ *
13.20 *
14.40 +
15.60 +•
16.80 +•
18.00 -
19.20 *
2 'J . 4 o +
21.60 4-
22.3o +
2 4 . 3 C +
25.20 +
26.40 *
27.60 *
28. 8 v' +•
30.DC +
31.20 *
32.4u +
33.60 +
34.30 *
36.30 *
37.2'J +
3H.40 +•
39.60 *
4C.3J *
42.OC *
43.20 +
44.40 *
45.60 +
46.30 *
48. Du +
49.20 4.
50.40 +
51. 6 0 *
52.80 +
54 . DJ +
55.20 +
56.40 +
57.6C +
58.8J *
(SO.00 *
4> *
4- 4-
•f 4-
* +
4- *•
4- 4-
4- +
4- 4-
4- 4-
4. +
4- +
»• •*
4- *
4 4.
4- +
+ *
4- 4-
4- 4-
4. +•
+ 41
f 4-
4- 4-
+ 4-
4- 4-
» 4-
4- +
4- +
4- +
» + +
*• +
X* + +
» * 4- 4-
X * +
* 4- 4-
*# * *
x*x * +
X + *
4- *
4. 4-
* 4-
4- +
4- *
4- +
4- 4-
4-
*
+
4-
»
4>
•»•
4-
^
*
•*
4-
*
»
«
4-
•f
•
*
+
+
4-
4>
4>
*
»
4>
4>
4
4-
»
4.
4>
*
*
^
4-
4-
+
41
*
+
*•
*
•»
4-
+
4-
+
+
+
+
+
»
+
*
*
4-
4-
4.
4-
4-
*
^
4-
4>
+
+
•»
+
4-
*
«•
«•
+
4-
4-
4
+
+
4-
4-
4-
41
*
+
*
FIGURE 5.1.2-10
5-106
-------
NEW Y(1RK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON HKIDGE APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CUNC. (PPM) - S?ND FL, OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CONG, (PPM) VS TRAH-1C FL.OW RATE (V£w/HR)
HYDROCARPQM CONCENTRATION IN PPM
3,7 7.!? 11.2 15,0
0.
300.
600.
900.
1200.
1500.
18UO.
2100.
2400.
2700.
3000.
3300.
3600.
3900.
4200.
4500.
4bOO .
5100.
5400.
5700.
f, r\ P 0
O J u u .
6300.
6600.
6900.
7200,
7500.
7BOO.
6100.
8400.
P, 7 0 0 .
9« r\ fi
ij U U •
9300.
9600.
9900,
10200.
10500 .
1G800.
11100.
11400.
11700.
12000.
12300.
12600.
12900.
13200.
135CO.
13803.
14100.
14400.
i4700.
15000.
00
rt -1
O «J
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
30
00
DO
1 ,"'
J 0
00
00
00
30
Do
00
00
00
Oo
3".
U
30
00
Ou
00
OC
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Oo
00
00
00
00
00
00
*
+
•f
+
*
+
*
+
4.
+
*
+
4.
+
*
*
4>
+
+
+
4"
4-
4.
+
+
+
4>
•f
+
4-
& '
4.
•f
*
+
+
4-
4,
*
*
*>
4-
+
4-
4-
»
+
*
*
4.
+
4-
4>
4-
+ »x
•*•
4. »
4*
4- »
+
4-
4-
+
4-
4>
4- *
4- »
•f »
+
4
•4 tt
4- »
»» »
4- *
4- *
+•
+.
4- »
+
4-
4-
4- *
+• It
4-
4- »
4. »
4- *
+
4-
+
4-
4-
•+
4.
^
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4.
+
4-
4-
4-
4.
4-
4>
4-
+
4-
4.
+
•f
4>
4>
4-
+
4-
4-
*
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
4
+
+
4-
•4>
4-
*
4
41
4-
4-
4<
4-
4-
»
4.
»
4>
*
*
+
+
4-
+
4>
4>
4.
*
*
4-
A
«•
*
4
*
+
*
+
*•
4-
4-
4
4,
4
4-
+
*•
+
+
+
4-
4.
*
+
+
*
4-
»
*
4-
*
»
4-
+
*
«
4-
4-
+
+
+
•*•
4>
+
41
*
4-
+
4>
>
4>
4-
+
*
4-
*
+
4-
*
+
+
+
4
4-
*
A
*
FIGURE 5.1.2-11
5-107
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON HRIUGfc APARTMENTS
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYOROCARRON CONC. (PPM) - S?ND FL. . OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN PPM
". 3.7 7.-5 11.2 *5.!
C. 4-- 4 4 4 = -- .4
1 . 2u + 4 4 4 4
2.404 4 4 4 *
3.604 4 4 4 4
4.804 4 4 4 4
6.304 4 4 4 4
7.204 4 4 4 *
8.404 4 4 4 4.
9.604 4 4 4 4
1C.804 4 4 4 4
12.00 4 4--. a, 4-- ._-___-4»_^_. - - = - „ .*
13.20 44444
14.404 4 4 4 4
15.604 4 4 4 4
16.804 4 4 4 4
18.004 4 4 4 4
.19.204 4 4 4 4
20.404 4 4 4 4
21.604 4 4 4 4
22.30 4 4 4 4 4
24. 30 4 4--.- ___-. + .-_._. *_.„ = _ _ +
25.2u 4 4 4 4 4
26.404 4 +. 4 4
? 7 . 60 + 4 4 4 4
P6.804 4 4 4 4
-53.004 4 4 4 4
31.20+ * + + +
32.4j 4 4 4 4 4
35.6o+ 4 4 4' 4
3 4 . 3 U 4 + 4 4 4
•36.00 4 • 4----- B__-_4--- . - - • -+.-_»____ = _.___»»
37.204 4 4 4 4
38.4J 4 4 4 4 4
39.60+ 4 » 4 4. 4
40.80 + + + + *
42.30+ + ««# 4 4 *
43.20+ 4 » • 4 4 *
44 . 4u 4 4»«X» 4 4 4
45.604 4 • 4 4 4
46.80+ 4«« 4 4 4
•46 , 00 4 --_-_-,__.»,___* .__-_+. _„_•_.. „» 4. „..,,. =r-»--«o4
49.204 4X»X 4 4 4
53.404 4 «X 4 4 4
51,60 44+44
52.804 4 4 4 4
54.004 4 4 4 4
55.20 + + + + *
56.40+ + + + +
57.60+ + + + *
58.80+ + + + +
60.00 + + --- " + + --- S.-.---- +
FIGURE 5.1.2-12
5-108
-------
NEW YORK CITY J.NDOnR/OUIDOOP POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS FTULiY
GEORGE WASHINGTON HPIHliL APARTMENTS
MON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARHON CUNC, (PPK) - 3RD fl. PilJTSlLE
STANDA.RU DEVIATION
u. 4*7 - /.? il.'i? 1 -
Figure 5..J.2-.13
5-109
-------
NFW YORK CITY [NDOOR/OUTDOOK POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GE-ORG& WASHINGTON BRIDUt APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WfcEKliAYS HYDRDCAWHON CONG. (PPM) - 3RD FL. iNSIDfc
STAMDARU I1E-V1ATION
0. 3.7 /,!> 31.2 15,U
240C
240!
Figure 5.1.2-14
5.110
-------
Unusually high readings occurred on 9/17/70 from 12 N to 3 PM and on
9/21/70 from 1 PM to 4 PM. Within the small sample, these high readings
have a marked effect on the hourly means reflected by the large standard
deviations. If, for example, we eliminate the high readings mentioned above
from the outside location data, then the mean values for hourly averages out-
side, from the interval 12 N - 1 PM to 3-4 PM, would be as shown below.
Interval Old Mean New Mean
12 N - 1 PM 5.84 PPM 3.85 PPM
1 - 2 PM 11.34 PPM 3.66 PPM
2 - 3 PM 9.05 PPM 3.92 PPM
3 - 4 PM 8.29 PPM 3.81 PPM
These new means are comparable to the other hourly Means and the outside diurnal
curve will therefore be relatively flat with no significant maxima. This modi-
fied diurnal curve is very similar to that for the heating season. A similar
modification to the plots for 3rd floor outside hydrocarbon concentrations vs.
traffic flow rate and velocity (Figure 5.1.2-15 and -16) would also create curves
like those for traffic parameters during the heating season. These modified
curves also suggest a hydrocarbon traffic relationship.
The outside-inside differential concentration at the 3rd floor for this
period differed from that of the heating season in that it showed no concentra-
tion gradient for a majority of the period with a small period of higher outside
values.
The gradients at the 32nd floor still showed the influence of internal
sources, but were somewhat less than those during the heating season. Figures
5.1.2-17 thru -20 show the diurnal curves at this elevation. Note that the unusue
high readings recorded at the third floor were not recorded at this floor.
The outside concentration differential between the 3rd/32nd floors shows
predominantly negative pattern, indicating higher concentrations on the upper
5-111
-------
NrW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION HELAT 1UMSHI PS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON HRiutit APARTMENTS
MON-MEATfNG WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONG, (PPM) - 3«D F L. OUTSIDE
HYPROCArfBON CONC, (PPM) VS TRAKKIC FL.OW RATfc (VEM/MR)
HYOROCARPQIv rONCENTKATlQN IN PPM
3.7 7.5 ll.J! tS.
U .
300.00
600 . OC
900.00
1200.00
1500.GO
1 d 0 0 . 0 0
2100.00
2400.CO
2700.00
3000.00
3300.00
3600.30
3900.Co
4200.CO
4500.00
4 H 0 0 . C 0
5100.Oo
5-4 00. CO
5700.CO
6 0 0 C . 0 o
6300.Co
6600.00
69CO .00
7200.00
7500.Od
7300.00
fUOO.OO
8400.00
8700.00
9 0 0 0 . 0 d
9300.GO
9630.30
9900.0o
±0200.30
10503.30
10«GC.OC
11100.00
11400.00
117 0 0 . 0 u
12000.00
12300.00
12600.Oo
12900.Ou
13200.00
13500.00
13800.00
14100.00
14400.00
14 7 U 0 . 0 0
15000.00
+
4-
4
4
4
4
4-
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*•
•4
4-
4
4.
4
4
+•
4
4
4
4
4!
+
+
4
4
4
4
+
4
*
4
4
4-
4
*
»4-4»
* +
4
* 4
* 4
4
4
4
4
4
1>
4- 1»
4 »
4
4-
4 »
» «
» » «
4 *
*
4
4
•»• •»
4
*•
4 V
4
4
4
-t-
4 «
» 4
4 »
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4-
+
4
+
4
4
4-
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
4-
4
4 «
4 »
4
4-
4
4
4-
4-
4
>
*
4-
4
-4
4-
*
4
*
*
4
4-
4
4
f
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4-
t-
4
4
4
*
4
4
4-
4
*
4
4
•»•
4
*
4
4-
•4-
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•+•
4-
4
4
4-
+
*
4
«•.
4
4
4
4
»
+
4
+
4
4
*
+•
•»
*
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
+
f
•f
4
4
+
+
4
4
+
•f
+
4.
4
+
Figure 5. 1.2-15
5-112
-------
NFW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON H^JUUt APAHTMb'NTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYHROCARHQM f:jNC, (PPM) - 3Rn FL . HUTS
HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) VS AVRRAGfc VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCfcNTRATlON IN PPM
C' 3.7 7 . "3 11.2
1.20 *
2.40 *
3.60 *
4.80 *
6.00 *
7. 20 *
fl. 40 *
9.60 +
10.80 *
13.20 «•
14.40 +
113. 60 +
16.80 *
18. CO +
19. 2C +
20.40 *
2l.6o «•
?2.8C *
x> 4 n.' 4
^5.20 *
26.40 *
?7 . ou *
?8.80 *
30. o: *
31.20' +
32.40 *
33.60 +
34. 8C *
37.20 +
3H.40 *
39.60 +
40.30 +
42.00 +
43.20 *
44. 4 J *
45.60 *
46. 8C +
** 3 . J U *•" — — -
49.20 *
50.40 +
51. 6u +
•J2 . 8u *
54.00 +
55.20 *
^6.40 *
t> 7 . 60 +
58.80 *
f ft f\ r
+• 4-
4- 4
4 4
4 4
4 4-
+ 4-
+ 4-
4- 4-
4- 4-
4- 4.
4 +
» 4-
4- +
4- 4-
4 4-
+• *
+ 4-
4- +
*• 4-
*• 4
4- 4-
4 4
4 4
* 4
+• 4-
+• +
4 4
* 4-
+ 4-
-^ 4-
4 4-
4 +
+• » 4-
* *• V*\ » 4- * «
4- 4-
* 4- » +
* 4-»» 4-
y < 4-
4* 4
4 4-
<• *
4- >
4 4-
4- +
+ 4
4-
+
4
4-
4
4-
4
4-
4
4-
4-
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4-
+
4
4
4
4-
4
4
^
4-
4
4
4-
4-
»
+
4
+
4.
4-
4
4.
4
4t
4
4
4
*
4-
+
4.
4-
4-
4
+
+
•4
4'
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4-
*
+
4
4.
4
+
+
4
4
*
+
4-
4.
*
4
4
4-
Figure 5.1.2-16
5-113
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GtORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CUNC, (PPM> - 32ND FL, OUTSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0. 3*7 /,5 11.2 15,0
MEA'lJ
/,5 11.2 15,0
2400 + +
100 + +
» r 4 jl
200 * +
4 = 4
300 + *
4 = +
400 + * >
500 * V
* = \
600 4 +\
4 = 4 A
700 4 * \
•»• = 4 :
800 * « *
voo * *
+ = •«
1000 * +
+ = +
line + +
+ = +
1200 + +
* = + \
1300 * * \
+ = *
14 GO + *
+ = +
1500 + *
+ s *
1600 * *
1700 * *
+ = +
1800 + +
+• = *
1900 * *
+ = *
2000 * *
2100 + *
+ = *
220C * *
+ = +
2300 * *
*• = *
2400 + + -
* +
4 +
* *
\ * *
V * *
I * +
1 * *
r + *
^ +
« *
4 +
* +
+ *
{ * *
\ * *
I * *
/ * *
\ * *
\ * *
1 * *
jr + *
S * *
«• +
: + *
* +
; + *
* •*•
* *
N. + +
/ j. +
/
\ * *
\ * *
V * *
1 * *
/ * *
1 * *
/ 4 *
\ * *
\ * *
V 4 +
i 4 +
/ 4 *
4
4
+
+
4
4
4
+
4
4
+
4
4
+
4
4
+
*
4
+
4
*
*
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
--=..--.4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Figure 5..1.2-17
5-114
-------
NEW YORK CITY IMDOOR/OUTDDOK POLLUTION PbLAT 1OwSHI PS STUDY
GECi^Jk WASHINGTON tiWIDUE APARTMfcNTS
NOM-HEATING MfcEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CUNC. (PPH) - *?NU f'L , INSIDF
STANOARU DEVIATION
0. 3.7 /.'> 11.2 l'j.0
H b A N
o . 3.7 /.. 5 11.2 \b.O
2400 *****
in: +
*•
200 *
+•
303 *
+•
403 +
* -
5 CD *
^
600 *
+
700 +
*•
HO: *
i o o : *
*
1100 +
+
1233 *
+ -
1300 *
+
1400 t
*
1503 «•
+
1600 +
* -
1700 *
*
1800 *
+
1900 +
*
2000 *
4- -
210C *
•f
2200 *
*•
2300 *
*
2403 *-
-a i
•t-
•t
*
*
* x
Figure 5.1.2-18
5-115
-------
YORK CITY I NOOOK/QUTOOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRiDob APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CUNC, - 32MD FL, OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CUV,:, (PPM) VS TRAFFIC FL.OW RATE (VEH/HR)
HvDROCARHOM CONCENTRATION IM PPM
0, 7.7 7.5 11.2 15.0
0
300
600
900
1200
1330
i a o o
2103
2400
2/00
3000
3303
3600
3900
4200
4500
4 d 'J 0
5100
54U3
5703
6 : u o
6300
6600
6900
7203
7500
7SOO
8100
S 4 0 0
8 / '0 D
9000
9300
9 ft -j 0
9900
10200
iC503
10000
11100
11403
11700
12000
12300
12600
12900
13200
13300
13300
14100
14400
14700
15300
. OC
.00
.00
.00
.30
. o o
.30
.00
. 03
.0:
.30
.00
.00
. OC
.00
. 0 0
.00
.30
.00
. 3 o
.00
.30
. OC
. OC
.00
.OO
.00
. 0 0
. 0 0
.00
.00
. 0 0
.00
,00
.3u
.30
. 00
.00
.00
. 0 J
. 00
. 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
4-
*
>
4.
*
*
*'
4
+
*
4
4
4.
+
4,
•f
4.
4
4.
4
4.
«.
4
+
4-
*
4
4
4
4,
*
*
4-
»
4* *
4.
#
4- *
*
4
*• tt
+ *
4- «
f
f
4-«
4- » »
4-» «
4- «
+
4-
+ *
4- ».
4-
+
t *
4-
4>
4-
4-
f »
4- *
4-
*
>
4-
f
*
4-
4-
*
j
4.
*
4>
*
+
+
4-
*
f
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
+
4-
*
4-
4.
«•
f
4.
4-
4-
4-
+
*
+•
*
4-
4-
*
* 4-
*• *
* *
4 *
4 +
4- +
4- +
i 4
„ «,
+ 4-
4- 4-
4 *
* +
4. +
4. +
* 4-
4- *
f 4
* *•
4. *
+ 4i
4> . +
+ +
*• i
* *
t +
4 +
* «
4. *
+ 4-
4- +
* *
4- +
* 4>
* 4
Figure 5. 1.2:19
5-116
-------
N=W YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
GfcORGE WASyiNGTON HRJC'jfc APARTMENTS
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CUNC, (PPH) - 32ND H-, OUTSIDE
HYDKOCARbON CONG. (PPM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
H/DROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN PPM
3. 3.7 7.5 11,2 15.0
0< + ^ _ „ «.
1.20 * * *
2.40 * * *
3.60 * + *
4.30 * * +
6.00 * + *
7.20 * + *
3.40 * + *
9.60 + * *
10.30* • + *
13.20 * + +
14.40 * * *
15.60 * *
16.80 + » +
18.30 *
19.20 +. •• +
20,40 +
21.63 + * *
22.30 * - +
24 . 00 + • * ~ " ~"
25.20 +
26.40 + - *
27.60 *
28.30 + '- +
33.30* •• *
31. 2j *
32.40 * f +
33.6o * * +
34.3G+ ^ *
36. JJ * i---. -*-
37.20 * *
3fl.4o * - *
39,60 * - *
4 3 ; 3 0 + + " *
42.30 * • *
43.20+ +*
44.40+ -r»v«V* +
45.60 + r +
46.80 + +»* *
48. 3u + • - + ---X + -- -••
49, 2u + * ** . +
50. '40+ T*yX +
51.60 + * *
52.80 + + *
54.00 +
55.20 + * *
56.40 + * *
57.60 *
58.80 * ' * • *
60.00 * ,---- _-'_,.__,. .- + -.
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ 4
+ *
+ +
* +
+ +
+ »
+ *
* +
+ *
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ *
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ *
+ +
» +
+ +
+ +
» +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ >
+ +
+ +
«• +
» +
+ ' +
+ ••
+ *
* ^
t
+
+
Figure 5. k-2-20
5-117
-------
floor. Again, the internal source is the plausible explanation. Unfor-
tunately, there is no 23rd floor data available for this season but there
is good reason to believe that it would exhibit a decay with height as
shown in the heating season.
Weekday average hydrocarbon data for this period show higher out-
side readings (4.82 PPM outside vs. 4.45 PPM inside) at the 3rd floor.
The reverse is true of the 32nd floor with the values being 4.46 PPM
outside vs. 6.48 PPM inside.
The 3rd floor outside weekday measurements were less than 6 PPM
90% of the time while the outside weekend values never exceeded 5 PPM.
The lower floor inside values were less than 6 PPM more than 90% of the
time.
5-118
-------
5.1.3 ParticuLates
Particulate samples were obtained at six locations associated with the
air-rights structure thru the use of five High Volume Air Samplers. Initially
two samplers were located at the second floor level, one inside and the other
outside. Similarly two samplers were located at indoor and outdoor locations
at the roof level. The sampler at the inside rocf level was relocated up-
wards to the tower room near the end of the testing period. The fifth
sampler was installed indoors in the boiler room midway during the program.
Data was obtained at the roof and second floor locations for only two
days during the non-heating season. No non-heating season measurements were
made in either the tower or boiler room. Particulate data was obtained at
all six locations during the heating season. The data sample size varied
however from four days inside the tower to twenty-one days at the outdoor
roof location.
All particulate data obtained at the air rights structure during both
the heating and non-heating seasons are presented in Table 5.1.3-1.
Analysis of this data revealed that particulate concentrations are not
directly related to heating or non heating seasons. Therefore, the
ensuing discussion considers all of the data regardless of season.
The highest total particulate concentrations at the air-rights struc-
ture were recorded at the outside locations. The National secondary
3
standard for particulates (150 ug/M ) was exceeded on 9 out of 20 days
at the 2nd floor outdoor location. This secondary standard also was
exceeded at the roof outdoor location three times and in the boiler room
once. Only two of the nine high concentrations at the 2nd floor balcony
5-119
-------
TABLE 5.1.3-1
PARTICUIATES -/jg/M3
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
Date
9/30
10/26
10/27
11/2
11/16
11/17
11/23
11/24
12/1
12/2
12/7
12/8
12/9
12/14
12/15
12/16
12/21
12/22
12/28
12/29
1/12
Outside
2nd Fl
128.8
-
87.6
96.7
176.5
•-
108.1
174.0
130.7
122.7
204.9
177.9
141.7
287.6
105.6
213.6
121.7
264.4
194.8
158.8
Roof
135.4
71.2
71.2
50.3
72.9
136.1
93.4
75.4
177.1
121.2
79.6
243.6
140.7
95.1
96.4
36.4
107.6
65.6
144.4
87.7
59.9
Heating
2nd Fl
48.5
-
-
54.6
95.5
60.9
-
-
105.6
-
78.0
45.8
49.5
29.4
52.9
38.8
35.1
35.5
Ins
Roof
100.1
79.4
98.0
92.2
100.8
142.4
57.4
69.9
69.4
70.6
106.9
93.5
91.1
93.8
-
-
-
-
-
iide
BR
-
-
-
-
-
_
143.2
126.2
88.5
184.8
124.6
82.6
129.2
75.9
115.5
104.5
89.9
90.2
T
'
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
81.8
56.0
75.9
62.7
Non-Heating
9/17
10/14
129.1 192.5
115.2 104.7
79.5
90.7 82.5
Ave.
156.9 106.8
60.0 89.9 112.9
69.1
5-120
-------
exceeded the primary standard of 260 iig/M. The other three locations
never exceeded the primary or secondary standards during any of the 24
hour samplings. The lowest concentrations were recorded inside at the
second floor level.
Both inside and outside concentrations varied greatly from day to
day and there was great overlapping of the concentration ranges as shown
on Figure 5.1.3-1. Outside, the particulate concentration fluctuated more
than it did inside the.building. Second floor concentrations exceeded roof
concentrations outdoors 17 out of the 20 days for which comparable samples
were obtained. The second floor indoor particulate level never exceeded
the outdoor 2nd floor concentration for the same day. The roof inside con-
centrations exceeded the concentrations outdoors seven times for the same
days.
Examination of Bigure 5.1.3-1 shows that, in general, the particulate
level at all six locations show similar characteristics. Minimum levels
were recorded on 12/16 at three locations, i.e., roof outside, boiler room
and 2nd floor inside. The particulate level at the 2nd floor outside for
that date was the next to lowest concentration measured at that location.
The low at the 2nd floor outdoor location occurred on 11/2; the same date
for which the roof outside level was the next to lowest reading. Similarly,
primary and secondary peaks occurred at most locations on 11/17, 12/8 and
12/28. The behavorial likeness of the particulates at all locations strongly
suggests that they are affected by a common source.
5-121
-------
300
200
100
I 0
V)
LU
to o
*» F 300
cc
200
100
ROOF LEVEL
ROOF OUTDOORS
I I I I
III!
ROOF INDOOR
I I J I I
I I I I I I I I
CLOSE TO ROADWAY
L I I
Jill
X X
I I i i i 7 i I I I
2ND FLOOR
OUTDOORS
-O- -O BOILER ROOM
2ND FLOOR
INDOORS
r> o ^r
«— 00 T-
CO
CN
CN CN -~.
CM f
-------
5.1.3.1 Analysis Technique
Each particulate sample obtained was gathered over a consecutive
24 hour period. However, the 24 hour periods varied from day to day.
Since the start and end times for each sample were known, and the particu-
late sample represented a complete diurnal cycle, daily comparisons of
particulate levels with traffic and meteorological conditions were made.
The analysis was conducted by determining the average hourly level
of the parameter involved for the 24 hour span for which particulate data
was obtained. Since complete 24 hour readings were not always available
for each parameter, data is not presented when more than four readings were
missing. Average hourly data was used, or assumed, to replace the missing
readings when less than four readings were not recorded. The resultant
data is shown on Table 5.1.3-2.
5.1.3.2 Particulate Relationships
Analysis of the daily total particulate levels with the average hourly
traffic flow rate for the 24 hour sample period shows little or no direct
relationship. Figure 5.1.3-2 presents the total particulate level at the
roof and 2nd floor levels plotted against average traffic flow rate. Both
outdoor locations show a random pattern. The indoor particulate levels
are independent of traffic flow rate.
Wind azimuth angle significantly influences particulate level. At
roof level the particulates are very responsive to roof wind as shown on
\
Figure 5.1.3-3, peaking at 270° and decreasing as the wind shifts clockwise
° o
to 45 or counterclockwise to 180 . Indoor roof level concentrations respond
to roof winds in exactly the opposite fashion. Low particulate levels occur
5-123
-------
TABLE 5.1.3-2
SITE ENVIRONMENT
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
Date
9/17 *
30
10/14 *
26
27
11/2
16
17
23
24
12/1
2
7
8
9
14
15
16
21
22
28
29
1/12
Ave
Road
Traf
7201
6411
6528
6277
6475
6541
7027
7182
6411
6360
6775
6491
6297
6180
6531
-
6456
6036
6939
7120
-
6586
2nd Floor
Temp
70
52
45
55
40
46
30
30
50
55
23
37
43
34
31
37
31
30
26
24
25
39
Az Angle
147
111
113
59
300
349
-
319
-
220
348
248
269
304
17
336
-
-
-
-
-
353
Wd Sp
3.9
5.3
2.9
6.4
6.8
1.6
-
8.9
-
6.9
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
5.7
Roof
Temp
67
48
42
54
38
43
28
28
48
54
22
- 35
42
33
28
34
28
27
25
23
22
Az Angle
189
59
65
47
358
46
-
346
300
9
-
276
357
344
57
-
57
2
321
331
37 j 356
Wd Sp
~
19.8
11.0
12.1
6.1
7.9
-
8.0
7.0
3.2
3.7
5.0
6.4
5.6
-
-
13.0
-
7.8
8.4
-
8.3
* NON-HEATING DAY
5-124
-------
JUU
200
LL
O
O
cc
100
« 0
« e
300
OUTDOORS
X
- 200
x
x x x
X
- x x x x x i 100
x xxx x x
X
I I I I I
INDOORS
_
X
- x xX ** x
x x x
XX x
x x
1 1 1 1 1
I 1 ! 1 P Q
0 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 60 52.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5
^
ft TRAFFIC :P' nw/RATP VEHICLES
£ HRx 100
_i
D
O
CC
<
a.
300
200
cc
O
g
LL
O
Z
100
X OUTDOORS 3°°
X
XX x 200
x x x
x
x
x x x
x
- X 100
x
I I 1 1 I
INDOORS
—
¥
X w
X
X
y
w X XXX
X XX
1 1 1 1 1
Q ^ \J
60 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 60 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE VEH..ICLE§.
HRx 100
Figure 5.1.3-2. Particulates Vs. Traffic Flow Rate - Site 1
5-125
-------
JUU
200
LL
O
O
cc
100
1
- 300
OUTDOORS
X
- 200
s
o
x x x K
x x x
— xx x 100
X* X
X
1 I I I 0
INDOORS
—
X
_ x x
xx xxx
x x x
x xxx
X
I I 1 1
80 270 360 90 180 "130 270 360 90 180
CO
K WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE- ROOF -DEGREES
•
o
i—
EC
°- 300
200
cc
O
O
LL
0
CM
100
0
p 300
X
OUTDOORS
- * § 200
x x o
LL
Q
X Z
x x ^
XX*
~~ x 10°
I I I I
INDOORS
X
X X
X
X* * *
X
1 1 1 1
180 270 360 90 180
180 270 36ff 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.3-3. Particulates Vs. Wind Azimuth Angle - Site 1
5-126
-------
at 300 and high levels occur at 45°. At the second floor level, neither
the outdoor nor the indoor particulate levels demonstrate strong relation-
ship to wind direction as measured at the 2nd floor level. However, the
2nd floor particulates show a relationship to roof wind azimuth angle as
demonstrated on Figure 5.1.3-4. The outdoor particulates are low when
the roof wind blows from about 45° and increase as the wind shifts counter-
clockwise towards 270°. The opposite effect is seen at the 2nd door indoor
location. At roof level, the outdoor roof concentration levels suggest a
particulate/road wind relationship but the indoor particulate concentrations
are random with road wind.
As can be seen from Figure 5.1.3-5, the particulate/temperature relation-
ship appears random at the two outdoor locations. The second floor concentra-
tions however display a general reduction with temperature increase. Indoors,
both roof and 2nd floor particulate concentrations are independent of tempera-
ture.
The 2nd floor outdoor particulates actually are influenced by both
winds and the prevailing temperature. Figure 5.1.3-6 again presents 2nd
floor outdoor particulates versus roof level wind and shows the days of
constant temperature conditions. This plot clearly indicates that roof
winds from the north reduce the particulate concentration. The actual
particulate level increases for constant roof wind angles as temperature
decreases. Particulates also increase for constant roof winds as the
road wind shifts from the east thru north and to the west. This can be
seen on Figure 5.1.3-7, which shows particulates versus 2nd floor wind
and lines of constant roof wind. (The abscissa is folded about 270
road azimuth.)
5-127
-------
JUU
200
u.
O
O
CC
100
*s o
r- 300
OUTDOORS
X
- 200
LL
O
O
CC
X X
X
-xx x 100
x*x
. . * x
X
I I I I
INDOORS
—
X
~ Xx x x x x
x x ,x *
'x
1 1 1 1
"CT 180 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
V)
UJ
< . WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR - DEGREES
o ••••••
o
1—
CC
300
200
QC
O
O
•J
LL
Q
CM
100
n
r— 300
- • x
x OUTDOORS
X
— x 200
x * x §
LL
X Q
x * * S •
X
X 100
X
1 1 1 1 n
_ _
•l . •
,* INDOORS
— . '
^~ ' w
X X
X
X-
xx x
# x
1 1 1- 1
270 360
90
180
180 270 360 90
180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - ROOF - DEGREES
Figure...5.1.3-4. Particulates Vs. Wind Assimuth Angle - Site 1
5-128
-------
300
200
LL
0
O
CC
n
w
LU
100
OUTDOORS
-x i* *
x *
XX
x x x
20 30 40 50 60 70
300
200
O
O
100
INDOORS
x x
/ x x x
-x x x
x XX
XX
20 30 40 50 60 70
o
i
TEMPERATURE - °F - ROOF LEVEL
300
o:
0
Q
CM
20°
100
OUTDOORS
xx
x x
300
0 200
O
a
100
0
INDOORS
—
-* * x
X
XX X
I I I I I
20 30 40 50 60 70
20 30 40 50 60 70
TEMPERATURE - °F - 2ND FLOOR
Figure 5.1.3-5. Particulates Vs. Temperature - Site 1
5-129
-------
Ol
CO
o
o
280
260
240
220
200
.180
160
140
120
100
80
•
67°F
_L
34° F
I
_L
I
I
I
2ND FLOOR OUTDOORS
28° F
50°F
I
I
I
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 30 60 90
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - ROOF - DEGREES
120 150
Figure 5.1.3-6. Particulates Vs. Roof Wind and Roof Temperature - Site 1
-------
en
I
CO
280
260
240
220
200
180
2 160
-------
The indoor/outdoor particulate relationship at roof level is clearly
determined by roof wind, as shown on Figure 5.1.3-8. The outside concen-
tration is considerably greater than inside concentration for a 270° roof
wind. The differential reduces as the wind shifts from this angle, such
that the inside concentration exceeds outside particulate level for roof
winds from the northeast (45 ). It is evident therefore, that roof level
particulates are derived from the same source. The concentrations measured
outdoors and indoors are determined by the roof wind angle. Temperature
does not appear to have a significant effect.
The indoor/outdoor particulate differential at the 2nd floor plotted
on Figure 5.1.3-8 does not show a comparable relationship to 2nd floor
wind. It will be noticed that this differential shows the same relation-
ship to temperature as seen on Figure 5.1.3-5 for the outdoor particulates.
This is because 2nd floor differential is a function of 2nd floor outdoor
concentrations as shown on Figure 5.1.3-9. Indoor concentrations are
independent of outdoor particulates at the 2nd floor.
The particulate relationship outdoors between roof and floor levels
is also determined by roof level wind direction. As can be seen from
Figure 5.1.3-10, roof particulates are higher than 2nd floor concentra-
tions at 270°roof winds and significantly lower for north and east winds.
The plot of outdoor differential versus 2nd floor wind suggests that the
road wind angle does not noticeabley influence the differential. The in-
door differential shows the reverse effect with roof wind azimuth i.e.,
high for north and east winds and low as the roof wind shifts towards
270°. This reflects the contribution of roof winds on the roof level
5-132
-------
200
O
tr
> ..
§ •
O) -
r
D
3
2
D
~ -100
D
— 200
X
h- * , fe 100
x o
DC
xx
X X*
x * n
, * °
xX x
X
i i ; i I 1on
X
_ X
X
x x
..X X X
X X X
x x x *
X
X
I I I I I
- WIND AZIMUTH -DEGREES TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
o
_i • .
2
D
c
LJ
: soo
5
u
f
J
D
< 200
L CC
O
O
u.
D .
CM
-' 100
n
p 300
X
- ' tc 200
O
o
_J
LL
Q
CM
- x x 100
f x
xx
x x
I J I I I
, —
X
X
x x
X x
x x x x
X X
X *
I I I I I
180 270 360 90 180 270
20 30
40
50
60 70
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.3-8. Particulate Differential - Site 1
5-133
-------
n
5
O)
'
JUU
UJ
oc 200
LU
LL
O
CC
O
O
0
Z
- 100
CC
O
O
0
H
0
Q
X
X
_
X x
X X
x * x x
x x x
* X
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
DA DTIOI II ATC fVIMf'CMTO ATIOM — OMP> C 1 On O Ol ITnOHOC _ noM/|3
O.
CC
O
3
LL
Q
Z
LU
UJ
O
300
200
100
X
X
X
x x
50 100 150 200 250
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION - 2ND FLOOR OUTDOORS - ug/M3
300
Figure 5.1.3-9. 2nd Floor Participates -- Site 1
5-134
-------
50
0
0
in
saooainc
r1
s <->
1 -100
cc
0
O
U-
Q
S -15°
1-
LL
o
o
cc
1
_!
— 50
X
X
0
X X
X
* *
X
— ., -50
* X
CO
cc
O
O
a
13
O
— „ -100
X *
x
-150
I I * I I
X
X X
X
X
* x x
_ X
X
—
-
I _l* 1 J
p —200 — zuu
LU
CC
LU
LL
LL
5
LU
I
< 50
D
O
CC
^ CO
cc
O
1 °
_c;n
^ «
X
X w
« cc
X 0
o
X 2 °
X * ?
I I I I
X X x
X
X
* X
X
1 1 1 1
180 270
360
90
180
180 270 360 90 180
ROOF WIND AZIMUTH 2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
Figure 5.1.3-10. Particulate Differential - Site 1
5-135
-------
indoor particulates. The indoor differential appears random with 2nd
floor wind, reflecting the lack of impact of road wind on either roof
or 2nd floor indoor particulate levels.
Boiler room particulates appear to be related to both roof and 2nd
floor level winds and not to traffic or temperature. Similarly the
differential between the boiler room and the roof and 2nd floor inside
locations suggest a wind direction influence. The smallness of the data
sample precludes a positive conclusion (See Figures 5.1.3-11 and -12).
The inference is drawn, however, that particulates found in the boiler
t
room come from the same source as roof level particulates. ,
5.1.3.3 Particulate Summation
Examination of Figures 4.1-3 on page 4-5 will show that the Hi Vol
Sampler on the roof was located east of the building chminey. The roof
indoor sampler was closer to the chimney than the outdoor sampler. Winds
i
from 270 would blow from the chimney towards the outdoor sampler. Similarly
winds from the north and east would blow towards the indoor sampler. The
plot of particulate differential at roof level shown on Figure 5.1.3-8 clearly
indicates that roof level particulates eminate from the chimney.
Figure 4.1-3 also shows that the 2nd floor outdoor Hi Vol is west of the
chimney. Roof winds which blow chimney exhausts directly away from the"
outdoor roof sampler blow them towards the 2nd"floor sampler. However,
winds at the lower floors determine how these particulates are dispersed
as they settle towards the 2nd floor sampler.
5-136
-------
300 r-
200
100
xx
60 62.5 65 67.5 70 72.5
300 |-
200
20 30 40 50 60 70
UJ
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE
ROAD TEMPERATURE
O
CC
300
200
100
n
,—
X
X x X
*x*
I I I I
180 270 360 • 90
300 r-
200
100
0
I
I
180
180 270 360 90 180
2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
ROOF WIND AZIMUTH
Figure 5.1.3-11. Boiler-Room Participates - Site 1
5-137
-------
IUU
50
LU
Q
CO
z
LL
n O
2 O
? K Q
Z
g
o
o
£ -50
5 1
O
O
DC
100
X
X
50
III
Q
_ CO
X x z
fe
O
DC
X
1111 rn
x
X
X
* X
X *
X
X
1 1 1 1
80 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
25 WIND AZIMUTH -2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH - ROOF
O
m
I
1 100
DC
LU
LL
LL
Q
LU
5 g 50
o z
< o
CL 0
LL
O
sn
,- 100
X
-xx' S 50
X Z
oc
o
g
LL
X
1 1 1 ,J no
-
X
— x
xx
X
X
1 1 1 1
180 270 360 90 180
180 ' 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH - 2ND FLOOR
WIND AZIMUTH-ROOF
Figure 5.1.3-12. Boiler Room Particulate Differential - Site 1
5-138
-------
5.1.4 Lead
All particulate samples collected at the George Washington Bridge
Apartments were analyzed for lead content using an atomic absorption
technique. The analysis determined both the quantity and percentage of
lead included in the particulate samples. Figures and Tables 5.1.4-1
and -2 present the data obtained.
Comparison of the figures reveals a general similarity at the roof
level locations between the quantity and percentage of lead. Close to the
road, however, a marked difference was recorded during December in lead
quantity between the outdoor and indoor locations. This difference did
not happen in a similar manner for the lead percentage. Comparison of
Figure 5.1.4-1 with Figure 5.1.3-1, for total particulates, will suggest
that the lead quantity measured close to the road is directly related to
total particulates. Lead percentage however appears to be unrelated to
total particulates.
5.1.4.1 Lead Quantity
The highest lead concentration was recorded outside on the second
floor balcony on December 1. The second highest concentration occurred in
the basement boiler room on the same day. The lowest lead concentrations
were measured on December 16 indoors at the 2nd floor level. At roof level
outdoor and indoor concentrations varied in a common fashion. The wide
variations at all locations from day to day suggest that wind direction
influences lead concentrations in a similar fashion as it affected total
particulates.
Figure 5.1.4-3 presents the lead concentrations at roof and 2nd floor
locations plotted against the winds at the respective floors. Roof winds
from 270° produce high concentrations and winds from 45 and 180° create
• . 5-139 -
-------
Date
9/30
10/26
10/27
ll/ 2
11/16
11/17
11/23
11/24
12/ 1
12/
12/
12/
12/
12/14
12/15
12/16
12/21
12/22
12/28
12/29
1/12
2
7
8
9
9/17
10/14
GEORGE
2nd Fir. Roof
.
2.53
-
1.61
2.68
3.07
-
3.68
6.35
2.75
'4.30
4.30
3.56
3.26
4.89
3.59
3.63
4.02
3.17
2.53
2.22
1.69
2.09
Outside
1.27
.52
.97
.61
1.00
1.84
2.43
2.19
1.95
2.18
2.47
2.68
1.97
1.43
1.06
1.02
.86
.98
1.44
1.14
.78
1.18
1.41
TABLE 5.1.4-1
LEAD -yug/M3
WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
2nd Fir.
Ins ide
Heating
_
1.06
-
-
1.58
-
-
3.29
-
-
2.96
.
1.40
1.01
1.24
.38
.74
.78
1.30
1.28
-
Non-Heating
1.05
1.96
Roof
1.30
.97
1.28
.72
1.52
1.59
-
1.78
1.82
1.74
2.75
2.25 .
1.78
1.37
1.31
-
.
-
-
.
-
.
1.42
BR.
5.87
4.54
3.62
5.73
3.74
3.30
3.88
3.19
3.35
5.02
2.61
3.16
Tower
1.72
1.79
2.13
1.91
Ave.
3.29
1.44
1.43
1.56
4.00
1.71
5-140
-------
TABLE 5.1.4-2
PERCENT LEAD
GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APARTMENTS
2nd Fir.
Roof
2nd Fir.
9/30
10/26
10/27
ll/ 2
11/16
11/17
11/23
11/24
12/ 1
12/ 2
12/ 7
12/ 8
121 9
12/14
12/15
12/16
12/21
12/22
12/28
12.29
1/12
9/17
10/14
Outside
1.96
2.61
1.83
2.77
1.74
3.20
3.40
2.50
2.10
3.50
2.10
2.00
2.30
1.70
3.40
1.70
3.30
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.31
1.82
.94
.73
1.36
1.20
1.38
1.35
2.6
2.9
1.1
1.8
3.1
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.1
2.8
.8
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
.61
1.35
Heating
Non-Heating
1.32
2.16
Tower
-
2.18
2.25
1.20
2.89
1.21
-
5.4
-
-
2.8
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.5
1.3
1.4
2.0
3.7
3.6
3.0
1.29
1.10
1.30
.77
1.51
1.12
1.60
3.1
2.6
2.5
3.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.4
.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
•3.6
4.1
3.1
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.2
2.9
4.8
2.9
3.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.1
3.2
2.8
1.9
.47
1.73
Ave.
2.2
1.5
2.4
1.7 3.6
2.5
5-141
-------
ROOF LEVEL
^x—x
ROOF INDOORS
ROOF OUTDOORS
I I I I I
en
N>
"Si
Q
o M- CD
CLOSE TO ROAD
BOILER ROOM
2ND FLOOR OUTDOORS
X
yX—*
J_J I l_l I I I L
V 2ND FLOOR INDOORS
I i I I I L I I I I I I J
o o
DATE OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 5.1.4-1. Lead - George Washington Bridge Apartments
-------
tn
I
CO
Q
<
LU
LU
o
cc
ROOF LEVEL
TOWER
ROOF OUTDOORS
I I I I I
CLOSE TO ROAD
BOILER ROOM
X X
2ND FLOOR INDOORS . 2ND FLOOR OUTDOORS
I I I I I I I I I I I I LI I I 1 I I I I I I I
o ^ co r-*
ro ^ CN c^
O) O O O
«- •- CM
.^^.
cvjCMCMCMCMCM
DATE OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 5.1.4-2. Percent Lead - George Washington Bridge Apartments
-------
4
LL
O
2 2
0
1
~ OUTDOORS 4
X
xx o
* » X g2
x xx
x* >
\
1 1 1 1 0
~ INDOORS
X
x »x
X X* \
\
1 1 1 1
80 270 360 90 180 130 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE- ROOF - DEGREES
01
at
1- »
III
LU
6
DC
O
2 4
LL H
O
CN
2
0
1
— OUTDOORS 8
_ 6
x a:
O
XX 3
_ "-4
a
x xx g
X
X
x *
_ x 2
x
1 | | 1 n
>"• INDOORS
—
-
X
X
— X
x x
X
1 1 1 1
an 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - ROAD - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.4-3. Lead Vs. Wind Azimuth Angle - Site 1
5-144
-------
low lead concentrations at both the outdoor and Indoor locations. This
is the same effect as seen for outdoor total particulates. It, however,
is opposite that seen for indoor total particulates. This suggests that
the roof level lead concentrations eminate from a source other than the
chimney; probably traffic on the Trans Manhattan Expressway.
Lead concentrations at the 2nd floor show high outdoor level for
road winds from 300 . As these winds shift counterclockwise thru the
west and south, lead concentrations decrease. This is as expected since
west and southerly winds blow Trans Manhattan generated pollutants away
from the Hi Vol Sampler on the 2nd floor balcony. Second floor indoor
concentrations appear random with wind.
Outdoor/indoor lead differentials are controlled at both the roof
and 2nd floors by wind direction as shown on Figure 5.1.4-4. The roof
level differential is not as distinct as previously noted for total
particulates since the source of the lead is northwest of both roof
level samplers. Second floor differential shows larger differentials;
i.e., higher outdoor concentrations, for east winds and lower differentials
for west and south winds.
Since the lead concentrations are highway generated, the vertical
differentials are much larger outdoors. As can be seen from Figure
5.1.4-5, 2nd floor lead levels are always greater than roof levels outdoors.
Outdoor differentials are influenced by both 2nd floor and roof level wind
directions. Indoor differentials vary about zero, showing the small effect
of wind on indoor concentrations. Both outdoor and indoor differentials
show a closer relation to 2nd floor wind than to roof wind.
5-145
-------
.5
LL
8 o
oc
-.5
CO 1
i- .5
x xx
X
X
X
LL
X 0
on
* go
X
X
X*
1 J 1 1
'** X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
I I I I
i. -0 X
30 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
oc ROOF WIND AZIMUTH 2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
O
O
Q
Z
oc
O
O
Q
.
O
-J 4
K
2
LU
OC
LLJ
LL
LL
r\ Q
Q
LU
2ND FLOOR
NJ
1
n
4
X
X
i- 3
X.
oc
w O
X 0
— U- 2
i
X
X
1
X
* I I I I 0
—
X
X
—
X
X
X
* X
X
I I I x I
180 270 360 90 180
180 270 360 90 180
ROOF WIND AZIMUTH 2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
Figure 5.1.4-4. Outdoor/Indoor Lead Differential - Site 1
5-146
-------
-------
The impact of 2nd floor wind can be seen dramatically from Figure
5.1.4-6 which presents data relative to lead concentrations for the
boiler room. The lead level in the boiler room is highest for winds
blown towards the 178th Street end of the building. The differential
lead concentrations to both the roof and 2nd floor inside locations
show identical patterns. The differential to the 2nd floor outdoor
location is practically a straight line, with the highest differential
for winds from 178th Street.
It must be concluded that indoor lead concentrations are blown
into the end of the building and filter upwards. Road winds that in-
crease boiler room concentrations therefore effect indoor roof concentra-
tions.
5.1.4.2 Lead Percentage
The highest percentage of lead concentration in the total particulates
was found inside at the 2nd floor level on November 24, corresponding to
the peak of lead particulates. The lead percentages were high at the 2nd
floor outdoor and both roof locations for the same day. Total particulates
at the time were well below the average levels for all four locations.
However this correspondence in relative percentage of lead did not hold
true for all sampling days.
The percent of lead concentration measured is a function of the quantity
of roof eminated particulates and traffic generated lead. Since these are
independent sources, lead percentage is not directly relatable to environ-
mental factors at the site. As can be seen from Figures 5.1.4-7 and -8,
neither traffic nor wind direction significantly establish the percent
lead. There is an indication that the 2nd floor and roof indoor locations
5-148
-------
6
5
4
UJ
uj 3
2
1
n
5 0
J '
r 6
X
— uj 5
o
X £
• . ." § 4
- * 5 *
p
— u3 2
oc
UJ
LL
— 0 1
I I I I
,—
-
—
X
X
X
— xx
~ X
I I I I
BO 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
< WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE -2ND FLOOR
O
O
OC
oc
UJ
5 •
CD
HI
a
to 5
z
oc
o
g 4
it
o
0 3
z 2
Ul
oc
UJ
It 1
Q
0
1
3
UJ
o
CO
- D 2
0
OC
O
O 1
a
z
^ 0
X ^
X X <
Ul
OC
Ul
LL n
— u. — *•
X 0
I I I I ?
—
X
X
x «
X
X
— x
—
I I I I
80 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR
Figure 5.1.4-6. Boiler Room Lead Concentrations - Site 1
5-149
-------
6
4
u.
O
O
cc
2
0
6
- OUTDOORS 6
4
°
X 0
X *
2
* * x x* x x
x x xx x
xx
11111 0
INDOORS '
~ ' X
* X
X*
1 x *
XX * X
x \
X
1 1 1 1 1
0 62.5 65 67.5 70 72.5 60 62.5 65 67.5 70 72.5
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE VEHICLfS
1
0
<
LU
_l
6
4
2ND FLOOR
NJ
0
6
<~ OUTDOORS 6
— 4
* X * §
s
x X *
X*XX 2
X X X X
x x
I 1 1 I i n
~ INDOORS
X
x x
X X
* x Xxx
X
x X x
1 I 1 1 1
0 62.5 65 67.5 70 72.5 60 62.5 65 67.2 70 72.5
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE VEHICLES
HRx 100
Figure 5.1.4-7. Percent Lead Vs. Traffic Flow Rate - Site 1
5-150
-------
4
O
i
2
0
H
OUTDOORS *
X •
u.
h- 8 2
X K
x xxV V
i
1 II 1 0
~ INDOORS
x
X X
_ X
X
X
XX «
X
1 I 1 1
10 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE- ROOF -DEGREES
6
4
DC
§
LL
O
-------
respond to increasing traffic conditions. This phenomenon, i.e., indoors
more responsive to traffic than outdoors, is basically caused by the
easy access of lead particles from outside thru the ends of the building
at the 178th and 179th Street levels.
Since the lead concentrations are street level generated and the
total particulates are roof level eminated, the percent lead measured
at the various sampling locations reflect the resultant quantity of lead
and particulates disbursed to the locations by the winds. It was pre-
viously shown on Figure 5.1.3-7, that b<5th roof and 2nd floor winds
influenced total particulate concentration at the 2nd floor outdoor
locations. Both winds again influence the percent lead, but as shown
on Figure 5.1.4-9, the shift in road level wind direction, for a constant
roof wind angle produces the opposite effect on percent lead. This is
the result of street level origin of lead.
Outdoor/indoor differential at roof level, Figure 5.1.4-10, is low
for roof winds from 300°, corresponding to high 0/1 total particulate
differentials, see Figure 5.1.3-8. Roof winds from the north and east
which produced essentially a zero total particulate differential also
produced essentially a zero percent lead differential. This demonstrates
the greater influence of total particulates at roof level. The greater
influence of lead, close to the road level, can be seen from the random
2nd floor percent lead differential shown on Figure 5.1.4-10. Figure
5.1.4-11 shows the same effect when the roof to 2nd floor percent lead
differentials are examined.
5-152
-------
Ol
I
Ul
CO
o
DC
357
275
46
I
_L
I
I
189
2ND FLOOR OUTDOORS
O BOTTOM SCALE
65
I
I
270
285
255
300
240
315
225
330
210
345
195
360
180
15
165
30
150
45
135
60
120
75
105
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR
90
Figure 5.1.4-9. Percent Lead Vs. 2nd Floor & Roof Wind Azimuth Angle - Site 1
-------
/
LL
§0
DC
CC
O
o
Q
- -2
0
1-
DC
O
*
X * - O 0
x
X
X X
x -2
1 1 1 1
— X
X
v X
X \ x
X * *
X
X X
X
1 1 1 1
P 180 270 360 90 180 20 30 40 50 60
D
O
1 WIND AZIMUTH -DEGREES TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
_i
•z.
LU
CC
LU
uu
LL
Q
o
LU
_i 2
2
LU
O
DC
LU
°- IE
O
O
LT! o
0
CN
-2
r x 2
X ,
u A or
x o
w x Q
" ^ X U-
X Q
Z
X f^
X _2
1 1 1 1
X
X
X w
X *
X VX
X K
X X
X
X
X
— X
X
1 1 1 1
180 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
20 30 40 50 60
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
Figure 5.1.4-10. Percent Lead Differential - Site 1
5-154
-------
1 -
0 -
V)
cc
8 *
o
h-
0
-1
as
I
cc
1 -
X 0 -
v>
* £
XX O
i
X XX ^
X °
X
X -1
X
X
X X
X
' I I I o
X X
X X
x *x x x
X
X
X
X
X
I I I I
0 _2 , , ,
J 180 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
Q
Z ROOF WIND AZIMUTH 2ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
CM
o
r-
LL
O
o
CC
I
_l
<
\-
z.
LU
CC
UJ .
LU 1
LL
Q
O
LU
_l
PERCENT 1
^JDOORS
o
-1
n
I— 1
X
x
x 0
X
en
§
0
x 1
- x -1
X
X
X
I I I I
X X
X
* X
X
X X
- X
X X
xx
I I I I
180 270 360 90 180
ROOF WIND AZIMUTH
180 270 360 90 180
2 ND FLOOR WIND AZIMUTH
Figure 5.1.4-11. Percent Lead Differential - Site 1
5-155
-------
Boiler room percent lead, see Figure 5.1.4-12, and the differentials
from the boiler room to roof and 2nd floor indoor locations show a reverse
relation to wind as seen on Figure 5.1.4-6 for lead quantity. The differ-
ential, boiler room to 2nd floor outdoors, however, is completely random,
reflecting the randomness of total particulates at the 2nd floor location.
5-156
-------
ae
I
<
LU
_1
K
Z
LU
0
OC
LU
0.
5
O
o
cc
CC
LU
O
00
6
5
4
_i
> 3
LU
.J
2
1
- 4
S 3
CO
z
- X *X "-7
X 0 2
X °
— *x x i- 1
p
UJ f\
OC
LU
U.
5 -1
Ilil
—
x
-
X
—
X
- x x x
X
-
I I I I
180 270 360 90 180 180 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR
4
LU
£j
w 3
OC
O
q 2
_i
u_
Q
Z
CM 1
O
K-
I- 0
UJ
CC
UJ
LL _1
u»
5
-2
6
LU
Q
CO
^ 5
O
OC
8 4
X _i
x * §
- X CN 3
O
X *~
_J
I- 2
LU
OC
in
~ LL
5
I | I I n
-
™
X
X
X
- XX
X
X
I I I I
180 270 360 90 180 18° 270 360 90 180
WIND AZIMUTH ANGLE - 2ND FLOOR
Figure 5.1.4-12. Boiler Room Percent Lead - Site 1
5-157
-------
5.2 Site 2 - Canyon Structure - Wea^ 40th Street
Measurements to define the indoor outdoor relationships of pollutants
at the canyon structure were started on Feb. 11, 1971 and ended June 30, 1971. The
methodology for obtaining the measurements is discussed in Section 3.0. The
measurement locations at this site are defined in detail in Section 4.2. The
amount of data obtained for each measurement is identified in the appropriate
portion of this section.
The data obtained for each pollutant was divided into heating and non-
heating seasons on the basis of the dailyaverage temperature at the site. All non-
heating days occurred during May and June. The heating season included all of
the February, March and April measurement days plus the remaining days in May and
June. Approximately 3 times as much data was obtained for the heating season as
was obtained for the non-heating season.
5.2.1 Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide measurements were taken at five elevations at this site.
Two measurements were made at the nine foot level of the street, one on the south
side and the other on the north side. Both indoor and outdoor measurements were
made on the 3rd, 5th llth and 19th floors of the canyon structure, The CO measurements
associated with the building began on February 11, 1971 during the heating season and
ended on June 30, 1971 in the non-heating season. Accordingly 106 days of data was
obtained during the heating season, 74 of which were weekdays and 32 were weekend
days. 32 days of non-heating season data was taken, 26 of these were weekdays and
8 were weekend days.
Measurements of carbon monoxide at the street level were begun on Feb.
18 on the south side. North side measurements were not started until March 15.
As a result, the heating season data sample for the south side of the street is
for 98 days but is only 74 days for the north side.
5-158
-------
5.2.1.1 Heating Season
The highest carbon monoxide value at this site during the heating season
was recorded at the nine foot level on the north side of the road. This was 51.2
ppm. As shown in the tabulation below, the 24 hour average concentrations at
street level were 11.2 ppm on both sides of 40th Street during the period of 3/15
to 6/15. The average concentration at the south side, from 2/18 to 3/12 was higher,
13.4 ppm, making the composite south side concentration equal to 12.3 ppm. (It is
assumed that the north side average CO level for the period starting on 2/18, would
be essentially the same.)
_Loc_ation
Weekday Data
Ave CO- ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9 ppm/
8 hr-%
Exceed 35 ppm/
1 hr-%
Weekend Data
Ave CO-ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9 ppm/
8 hr-%
Exceed 35 ppm/
1 hr-%
S.S
*
11.2
46.6
59.3
1.1
8.3
22.5
35.9
0
N.S
*
11.2
51.2
62.1
.4
8.1
22.3
35.9
0
3rdO
9.9
45.0
47.5
.4
8.4
29.7
37.8
0
3rdl
9.5
34.5
47.6
0
7.4
25.1
31.1
0
5thO
7.7
33.8
28.0
0
6.5
24.4
26.8
0
5thl
7.8
25.3
29.2
0
6.4
19.6
28.0
0
llthO
6.6
25.8
20.4
0
6.0
21.7
24.7
0
llthl
6.9
25.3
20.2
0
6.1
17.8
23.5
0
19thO
5.4
24.6
7.8
0
4.9
16.7
6.2
0
19thl
6.8
30.7
17.4
0
5.4
15.1
12.8
0
*3/15/71 to 6/15/71
In general, both the peak and average CO levels decreased for both indoor
and outdoor locations as the measurement location increased above road level. Similarly
the percentage of time that the Federal criterions of 9 ppm average over an 8 hour
period and 35 ppm for a 1 hour period were exceeded also decreased with height above
the road.
Weekday peak and average concentrations were always higher than weekend
levels at comparable locations. Average indoor concentrations at the llth and 19th
floors were always higher than corresponding outdoor CO levels. In general, the
5-159
-------
reverse was recorded at the 3rd and 5th floor locations.
5.2.1.1.1 CO Traffic Relationships
The diurnal patterns of carbon monoxide concentrations at all 5
elevations for weekdays are distinctly different from the diurnal traffic
pattern, as shown on Figures 5.2.1-1 to -5. The CO profiles show distinct
double peaks characteristic of morning and evening rush hour periods. The
traffic pattern, however, shows a morning peak almost two hours after the
CO peak occurred and an evening peak which again is later than the CO peak.
The diurnal CO patterns on opposite sides of the street (Figure
5.2.1-1) are very much alike, as would be expected on a one way street.
A visual comparison with the weekday diurnal vehicular velocity curve
(Figure 4.2-5) suggests that the CO peaks are a function of velocity re-
ductions during the same time periods. It is possible, however, that the
CO peaks may be due to traffic on other streets in the vicinity or traffic
associated with the nearby parking garages.
It is interesting to note that the diurnal CO patterns at the
3rd, 5th, and llth floor outdoor locations (Figures 5.2.1-2 to -4) appear to
follow the north side CO pattern. Indoor diurnal patterns appear to follow
the south side CO profile at the 3rd floor and a combination of the north and
south side patterns at higher building elevations.
The weekend diurnal CO and traffic patterns for the road and 3rd
floor levels are shown on Figures 5.2.1-6 and -7. Both diurnal profiles are
shaped significantly different from the weekday curves. Again the lack of
correspondence between peaking traffic on 40th Street and CO concentrations
at the road and 3rd floor levels, suggests other traffic contributes to the
CO level at the canyon site.
Figures 5.2.1-8 and -9 show the diurnal values of the CO concen-
trations at the north side of the road plotted against the diurnal values of
traffic flow rate and vehicular velocity. The results of a linear regression
5-160
-------
25 i-
20
o.
a.
15
05 UJ
I-- O
z
o
o
o
o
10
0
TRAFFIC
J L
I I I
l I i I
—I 650
I
520
390
>
m
a
260
33
130
2400 200 400 600 800
1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Figure 5.2.1-1. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - Road Level - Weekdays
-------
25
to
20
Q.
15
DC
I-
01
o
z
o
8
10
0
-i 650
TRAFFIC
\
I I I
-I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
520
>
390 I
-n
I
33
>
m
260 <
m
X
130
2400 200 400 600 ,800 ,000 1200 1400 1600
TIME OF DAY
1800 2000 2200 2400
Figure 5.2.1-2. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - 3rd Floor - Weekdays
-------
25 r-
01
i
CO
20
Q-
Q.
z 15
g
<
111
o
O 10
o
-i 650
^^ TRAFFIC
OUTDOOR
0
2400
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
520
30
>
390 o
3D
>
m
260 <
I
I
3D
130
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800 2000 2200 2400
Figure 5. 2.1-3. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - 5th Floor - Weekdays
-------
25
20
Q_
Q.
g 15
<
05 UJ
^ o
O
8 "
0
2400
—i 650
520
390
\
260
\
>
Tl
TJ
O
Tl
O
3)
I
I
130
I I I I I
J ! 1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
I i i i
1600 1800 2000 2200
2400
Figure 5.2.1-4. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - llth Floor -Weekdays
-------
25 r-
20
01
I
o.
(^
Z
O
UJ
O
8 10
O
o
-1 650
TRAFFIC
520
H
30
390 ^
o
-n
|
5- ^
260 ^
m
X
I
3D
130
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200 2400
Figure 5. 2.1-5. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - 19th Floor - Weekday
-------
25 r-
20
Q.
Q.
en
O>
o>
z
Ui
U
8
8
10
—1 650
. TRAFFIC FLOW RATE ON SOUTH-40TH STREET
• CO CONCENTRATION 9 FT. SOUTHiSIDE
• CO CONCENTRATION 9 FT. NORTH SIDE
i i i i i i i i i i
I
i i i i i i i i i i i i
520
390
260
i
3D
H
m
m
I
130
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200 2400
Figure 5.2.1-6. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - Weekends - Road Level
-------
25 i—
en
i
Ul
O
1
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE ON SOUTH 40TH STREET
CO CONCENTRATION - 3RD FLOOR OUTSIDE
CO CONCENTRATION - 3RD FLOOR INSIDE
—1 650
— 520 H
>
-n
Tl
o
- 390
260
- 130
i
m
x
I
3D
2400 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800 2000
2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.2.1-7. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Heating Season - Weekends - 3rd Floor
-------
NEW
HEATI
CO
o.
YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST ^O-T-.H STREET
NG WEEKDAYS CO CONCENTRATION (PPM) - 9 FT. NORTH SIDE
CONCENTRATION
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40/PH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS co CONCENTRATION (PPM) . 9 FT, NORTH SIDE
CO CONCENTRATION (PPM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
CO CONCENTRATION IN PPM
7,5 15,0
22.5'
30.0
0,60
1,20
1,80 *
2.40 +
3,00
3,60 *
4,20 *
4,80 *
5,40 *
27,00 *
27.60 *
2S.20 *
28,80
29,40 *
30,00 *
CO = -1.254v + 30. 04
Figure 5.2.J-9
5-16'9' '
-------
analysis for the road and 3rd floor locations are summarized in Tables 5.2.1-1
and 5.2.1-2. It will be noted that the correlations coefficients are, in
general, considerably lower than found at Site 1. Correlation with traffic
velocity is extremely poor.
5.2.1.1.2 Indoor/Outdoor Relationships
Daily average CO concentrations on weekdays were higher outdoors
than indoors only at the 3rd floor level. Daily average indoor concentrations
exceed outdoor CO levels at the 5th, llth and 19th floors. This phenomenon,
as shown on Figures 5.2.1-5 thru -5, is primarily due to the greater responsive-
ness of 3rd floor outdoor CO to traffic changes than seen at higher floors. A
comparison of the outdoor plots for the four floors will show a lesser CO
sensitivity outdoors, with height above the roadway, to the diurnal CO curve
for the north side of 40th Street, see Figure 5.2.1-1.
As mentioned earlier, the indoor CO concentrations more nearly
reflect the diurnal CO curve for the south side of the street. This suggests
that CO enters the building close to ground level and diffuses upwards thru
internal passageways. These passageways introduce a time delay between street
level CO and indoor concentrations at the upper floors. As a result outdoor CO
increases faster than indoor CO levels at most floors. Since outdoor CO is
dissipated more rapidly than CO confined within the structure, outdoor CO
levels also decrease sooner with changes in roadway CO level.
The long term effect of entrapment of CO within the building can
be seen from the following table which compares daily average CO levels at
each floor with the 5-6 pm average concentrations.
5-170
-------
TABLE 5.2.1-1
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES RESULTS
264 W. 40th Street - Heating Weekdays
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone.
9 Ft. North
t .96
5.25
.0166
11.19
357.46
CO Cone.
9 Ft. South
.92
5.32
.0166
11.25
357.46
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
.92
5.23
.0131
9.92
357.46
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
.92
4.55
.0140
9.55
357.46
264 W. 40th Street - Heating Weekends
Traffic Flow
CO Cone.
9 Ft. North
it .83
5.21
.0108
8.15
Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO Cone.
9 Ft. South
.75
5.36
.0104
8.20
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
.75
6.25
.0079
8.40
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
.66
5.93
.0053
7.39
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent 273.41 » 273.41 273.41 273.41
Variable Observations
5-171-r
-------
TABLE 5.2.1-2
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES RESULTS
264 W. 40th Street - Heating Weekdays
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind. Var.)
VS
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
CO Cone.
9 Ft. North
-.82
30.04
-1.254
11.19
15.04
CO Cone.
9 Ft. South
-.80
30.44
-1.276
11.25
15.04
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
-.80
25.15
-1.013
9.92
15.04
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
-.80
25.69
-1.073
9.55
15.04
264 W. 40th Street - Heating Weekends
Average Vehicle
CO Cone.
9 Ft. North
-.31
16.69
-.4678
8.15
Velocity (Ind.
VS
CO Cone.
9 Ft. South
-.22
14.64
-.3531.
8.20
Var.)
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. Out
-.30
14.90
-.3560
8.40
CO Cone.
3rd Fl. In
-.28
12.15
-.2606
7.39
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25
Variable Observations
5-172
-------
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
DAILY AVE .. 5-6 PM AVE
0 I Diff 0 I Diff
3rd Floor 9.9 9.5 0.4 14.2 12.6 1.6
5th Floor 7.7 7.8 -0.1 11.5 10,3 1.2
llth Floor 6.6 6.9 -0.3 9.2 8.8 .4
19th Floor 5.4 6.8 -1.4 6.9 8.1 -1.2
3rd to 5th Diff 2.2 1.7 0.5 2.7 2.3 0.4
5th to llth Diff 1.1 0.9 0.2 2.3 1.5 0.8
llth to 19th Diff 1.2 0.1 1.1 2.3 0.7 1.6
It will be noticed that while both sets of data show a decrease
in CO levels at the respective outdoor and indoor locations with height,
the daily average outdoor/indoor differential becomes negative at the 5th floor
but only the 19th floor differential is negative for the 5-6 pm averages.
It is apparent that on a daily basis, the middle and upper floors of
the building act as a CO trap on heating weekdays. CO, which enters the build-
ing at low levels thru open doors and elevator shafts, spreads thruout the
building. Due to the density difference between the heated indoor air and the
cold atmosphere outpide, the lower level building air and its associated CO
travel upwards to the higher floors. In its indoor vertical path, the CO
receives relatively less dilution than corresponding outdoor concentrations
which are exposed to turbulent mixing. The internal dissipation of this en-
trapped CO is too slow to reduce internal CO levels below prevailing outdoor
CO concentrations at each floor.
5-173
-------
Re-examination of the daily average CO concentrations on weekends,
shown on page 5-159, will reveal that CO concentrations indoors were lower
than outdoors for a considerably larger height above the roadway than seen on
weekdays. This occurred because roadway CO levels were significantly lower
and less CO was introduced into the building close to the ground. The smaller
CO source allowed the entrapped CO to dissipate, producing lower daily average
CO levels at the upper floors.
The outdoor differentials at each floor, as developed further in
Section 5.2.1.3, are basically a reflection of the direction of change in CO
levels at the particular floor. Differentials are positive; i.e., outdoor
levels higher, when CO levels are increasing and negative when CO levels are
decreasing.
5-174
-------
5.2.1.2 Non Heating Season
CO concentrations measured at the canyon site during the non-heating
season are tabulated below. In general, concentrations are lower at all building
locations than recorded during the heating season. Only the 3rd and 5th floor
outdoor locations showed higher non-heating season average CO levels.
Location
Weekday Data
Ave CO-ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9ppm/
8 hr-%
Exceed 35pm/
1 hr-%
Weekend Data
Ave CO-ppm
Peak CO-ppm
Exceed 9ppm/
8 hr-7»
Exceed 35 ppm/
1 hr-%
S.S
11.2
39.4
55.8
.5
7.3
19.1
21.3
0
N.S
10.8
37.8
60.4
.2
7.0
21.2
16.5
0
3rdO
10.3
37.3
48.8
.2
7.0
18.7
18.3
0
3rdl
8.2
30.0
33.0
0
4.9
10.9
.6
0
5thO
8.1
35.2
36.0
.2
4.1
15.6
7.3
0
5thl
7.1
22.1
28.3
0
3.6
10.6
1.8
0
llthO
4.8
21.1
8.4
0
1.7
6.6
0
0
llth I
4.7
15.6
5.2
0
1.6
7.2
0
0
19th 0
4.2
18.3
1.4
0
1.1
4.7
0
0
19thl
3.8
13.4
1.2
0
.8
4.3
0
0
Peak and average CO levels again were higher on weekdays than on weekends.
The higher indoor concentrations at the llth and 19th floors recorded during the
heating season did not occur. All peak and average CO levels during the non heating
season, with the sole exception of the 5th floor weekend data, were lower indoors
than outdoors at comparable levels.
5.2.1.2.1 CO Traffic Relationships
The diurnal profiles of carbon monoxide and traffic volume for non-
heating season weekdays are shown in Figures 5.2.1-10 thru -14. The diurnal
profiles exhibit the same shapes as noted for the heating season. Similarly, the
weekend diurnal profiles, Figures 5.2.1-15 and -16, for the non-heating season
closely duplicate those found during the heating season. As shown on Figures
5.2.1-17 and -18, and table 5.2.1-3 and -4, the correlation of CO levels with
traffic parameters is weaker during the non-heating season thSn during the heating
5-175
-------
25 I—
650
01
2
oc
o
I
20
15
10
520
390
O
Tl
260 m
m
I
3)
130
J L
J L
I I I
I I I I l
I I I
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5. 2.1-10. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 Non-Heating Season - Road Level - Weekdays
-------
25 i-
-| 650
01
i
a.
Q.
O
UJ
O
z
O
O
8
/ //v
10 —
5 —
2400 200 400 600 800
1000 1200 1400
TIME OF DAY
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Figure 5.2.1-11. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season - 3rd Floor - Weekdays
-------
—, 650
Q_
Q-
o
8
8
II I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Figure 5.2.1-12. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season - 5th Floor - Weekdays
-------
0.
a.
oc
I-
LLI
O
z
O
O
8
25 r-
20
15
10
—i 650
\ TRAFFIC
\
\
520
390
-\
30
o
•n
|
260 >
m
I
— 130
J I
0
2400 200
I I
I I I I
II
II
400 600 800 1000 1200 140O
TIME OF DAY
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 5.2.1-13. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season llth Floor - Weekdays
-------
25,-
Ol
i
00
o
20
O
UJ
O
15
O 10
8
I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
650
520
30
390 >
o
3D
260 3
m
I
I
3D
130
2400 200 400 600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.2.1-14. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season - 19th Floor - Weekdays
-------
25 —
20
D-
Q-
o
o
o
O
10
0
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE ON SOUTH 40TH STREET
CO CONCENTRATION 9 FT. SOUTH SIDE
CO CONCENTRATION 9 FT. NORTH SIDE
J I I I I I I I I I I I
J L
I
650
520
390
O
3D
260
m
I
30
130
2400 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.2.1-15. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season - Weekends - Road Level
-------
Q.
Q.
r •
M Z
bo UJ
to o
8
25
—I 650
20
. — TRAFFIC FLOW RATE ON SOUTH 40th STREET
CO CONCENTRATION-3RD FLOOR OUTSIDE
CO CONCENTRATION - 3RD FLOOR INSIDE
15
'*. X
10
I I
I I
J I
I I I I
I I I I I I
520
390
>
-n
Tl
O
-n
|
>
260
130
2400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200 2400
TIME OF DAY
Figure 5.2.1-16. Diurnal CO & Traffic - Site 2 - Non Heating Season - Weekends - 3rd Floor
-------
0.
20.00
40.00
60,00
80.00
100,00
120".00
140,00
160.00
180.00
200,on
220,00
240.00
260.00
280.00
300.00
320.00
340,00
360,00
380.00
400.00
420'.00
440,00
460,00
480.00
500.00
520,00
540.00
560,00
58.0.00
600.00
620.00
640.00
660.00
680. 00
700.00
720,00
740.00
760.00
780.00
800,On
820.00
840.00
860.00
880.00
9 0 0 ", 0 0
920.00
940,00
960'.00
980.00
1000.00
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS co CONCENTRATION
-------
NEW YORK CJTY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS CO CONCENTRATION
-------
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
TABLE 5.2.1-3
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
264 W. 40th Street - Non-Heating Weekdays
Traffic Flow Rate (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO CONG.
9 FT NORTH
.93
2.65
.0219
10.75
369.38
CO CONG. CO
9 FT SOUTH 3rd
.91
2.70
.0229
11.17
369.38
264 W. 40th Street - Non-Heating
Traffic
CO CONG.
9 FT NORTH
.74
2.26
.0172
6.98
Flow Rate (Ind. Var
VS
CONG.
FL. OUT
.89
3.87
.0173
10.25
369 . 38
Weekends
0
CO CONG. CO CONG.
9 FT SOUTH 3rd FL. OUT
.70
2.42
.0177
7.28
.70
3.85
.0116
7.04
CO CONG.
3rd FL. IN
.90
2.46
.0156
8.24
369.38
CO CONG.
3rd FL. IN
.55
3.50
.0051
4.90
274.54
274.54
274.54
274.54
5-185
-------
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
Correlation Coefficient
Intercept
Slope
Mean of Dependent
Variable Observations
Mean of Independent
Variable Observations
TABLE 5,2.1-4
LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES RESULTS
264 W. 40th Street - Non-Heating Weekdays
Average Vehicle Velocity (Ind. Var.)
VS
CO CONG.
9 FT NORTH
-.72
31.52
-1.343
10.75
15.46
CO CONG.
9 FT SOUTH
-.77
34.86
-1.533
11.17
15.46
264 W. 40th Street - Non-Heating
Average
CO CONG.
9 FT NORTH
-.04
8.76
-.0974
6.98
Vehicle Velocity
VS
CO CONC.
3rd FL. OUT
-.75
28.29
-1.167
10.25
15.46
Weekends
(Ind. Var.)
CO CONG. CO CONC.
9 FT SOUTH 3rd FL. OUT
-.01
7.78
-.0028
7.28
-.01
7.43
-.0216
7.04
CO CONC.
3rd FL. IN
-.75
24.32
-1.040
8.24
15.46
CO CONC.
3rd FL. IN
.02
4.54
.0201
4.90
18.22
18.22
18.22
18.22
S-186
-------
season. This lack of correlation is very evident on the weekends, suggesting that
there is enough carbon monoxide from other sources in the vicinity of site 2 to
destroy the apparent relationship between CO concentrations and 40th Street traffic
flow rates suggested for weekdays.
5.2.1.2.2 Indoor Outdoor Relationships
During the non-heating season, the daily average CO concentrations were
always higher outdoors than indoors at all floors for both weekdays and weekends.
Several factors in combination serve to produce this reversal of the previously
discussed heating season characteristics. First, the building is no longer much
warmer than the ambient air surrounding it. Second, the windows of the building
are open in the warm weather since the structure is not air conditioned. Third,
the prevailing wind direction during the non-heating season is from the south.
It is significant to note that appreciably lower amounts of average CO
were measured indoors at the 3rd floor during the non-heating season than during
the heating season for essentially the same average street level CO, as previously
shown on pages 5-159 & -175. As can be seen from Figure 5.2.1-11, the non-heating
season indoor CO level at the 3rd floor never was higher than comparable outdoor
concentrations. The average outdoor indoor differential at this floor was signi-
ficantly larger, 2.1 ppm, during the non-heating season than the 0.4 ppm average
0/1 differential during the heating season.
During the daylight hours, indoor concentrations remained lower than
outdoor concentrations at progressively higher floors. See Figures 5.2.1-12 thru
-14. However, during the evening hours when building temperatures may be above
outdoor temperatures or windows may be closed because workers have left for the
day, indoor concentrations decrease more slowly than outdoor levels. The CO
remains entrapped within the building, producing negative 0/1 differentials at
the upper floors. Indoor concentrations do not drop below outdoor concentrations
5-187
-------
at these floors until early in the morning, when increasing traffic produces
a significantly larger outdoor CO level.
The smaller proportion of street level CO entrapped at the 3rd floor
indoor level results in lesser amounts of CO traveling upwards to high floors.
This can be seen from the following comparison of daily average CO levels at
each floor with the 5-6 pm average concentrations.
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
3rd Floor
5th Floor
llth Floor
19th Floor
DAILY AVE
0 I Diff
10.3 8.2 2.1
8.1 7.1 1.0
4.8 4.7 0.1
4.2 3.8 0.4
5-6PM AVE
0 I Diff
16.4 11.3 5.1
14.2 9.2 5.0
9.1 7.2 1.9
6.9 5.8 1.1
3rd to 5th Diff
5th to llth Diff
llth to 19th Diff
2.2
3.3
0.6
1.1
2.4
0.9
1.1
0.9
-0.3
2.2
5.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.4
0.1
3.1
0.8
5-188
-------
5.2.1.3 CO Meteorological Relationships
The carbon monoxide/meteorological relationships at the canyon
site were investigated through the use of 5-6 pm hourly average data rather
than daily average data. The analysis was limited to the 3rd and 19th floors
since CO levels showed a consistent reduction with height above the roadway
at both the outdoor and indoor locations during both heating and non-heating
seasons.
It should be noted that, as shown on Figures 4.2-1 thru -3, that
West 40th Street runs from west to east. The building under study is on the
south side of the street. All CO and temperature measurements associated
with the building were taken on its north face. Surrounding buildings pro-
tected the structure up to the 5th floor.
5.2.1.3.1 Meteorological Factors
Roof level meteorological conditions and site geometry again com-
bine to produce the wind conditions at the West 40th Street level. The re-
sultant road winds show a significantly different relationship to roof winds
than recorded at the air rights structure, Site 1. As can be seen from
Figure 5.2.1-19, road winds generally blew from 180° to 300 regardless of
the direction of the roof wind. Westerly roof winds always produced westerly
road winds and southeasterly roof winds generated southeasterly road winds.
However, as the roof wind moved from 150 to 40 , road winds moved in the
opposite direction; i.e., towards 300°. In essence, road winds generally
blew from west to east; the same direction as the one-way traffic flow.
Roof winds from the west generally produced moderate wind speeds
at both roof and road levels. Wind speed decreased as the roof wind shifted
counterclockwise thru 180° to the east. Average wind speed decreased ap-
proximately 2 mph for comparable roof wind angles from the start of the
5-189
-------
CD
O
330 -
300 -
t/j 270
UJ
UJ
DC
o
S 240
N
<
O
LU
210
180
150
O 120
cc
90
60
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
0 20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
ROOF LEVEL WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
240 260 280 300
Figure 5.2.1-19. Road Level Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
monitoring in February to the end in early summer.
During the heating season, average temperatures rose approximately
20 F for comparable roof wind directions. Site temperature, as measured at
roof level, was very responsive to wind direction. Low temperatures occurred
when the wind blew from the west. The temperature rose as the wind shifted
to the south and then decreased as the wind moved to the east. The combina-
tion of change in temperature with calendar time and roof wind direction re-
sulted in a very scattered temperature/wind direction relationship, as shown
on Figure 5.2.1-20. The significance of wind angle on temperature level is
demonstrated by the constant temperature lapse lines drawn on the figure. In
general, temperature lapse is low for higher temperatures for a fixed roof
wind angle. As can be seen from Figure 5.2.1-21, temperature lapse is not
influenced by roof wind direction, as was previously noted for the air rights
structure at Site 2.
At road level, wind speed and wind sigma appear to be related as
shown on Figure 5.2.1-22. High sigmas occur for high wind speed from the
west. Sigmas decrease as wind speed decreases. Southeasterly winds produce
the reverse wind speed sigma relationship.
It can be seen from the preceding figures that roof wind direction
is the major meteorological variable. While the other meteorological factors
also vary, these variances are so closely associated with changes in roof
wind that their effects are not discernable.
5.2.1.3.2 3rd Floor Concentrations
CO concentrations at the 3rd Floor outdoor location, as suggested
above, are not responsive to any of the road level meteorological factors
as shown on Figures 5.2.1-23 thru -26. In reality, 3rd floor concentrations
5-191
-------
T
LU
DC
O
LU
Q
I
LU
DC
LLJ
I-
70
60
50
40
TEMP LAPSE
- 5.2+5.8
10.2
30
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
20
40 60 80
100 120 140 160 180
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
200
220 240 260 280 300
Figure 5.2.1-20. Roof Level Temperature Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Weekday - Site 2
-------
Cn
ID
CO
CO
01
Ul
QC
(5
Ul
o
I
Ul
-20
-15
-10
-5
_L
J_
J
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
200
220
240
260
280 300
Figure 5.2.1-21. Temperature Lapse Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM - Heating Weekday - Site 2
-------
101—
Cn
CO
o.
Q
01
Q.
CO
5 4
SIGMA
+ * + 15
8
+ « **
J I L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-22. Wind Speed Vs. Wind Azimuth Road Level - 6 PM - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
50 |-
01
I
CD
Ol
40
2
O
t 30
LU
O
z
O
O
8 20
10
_L
I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-23. CO Concentration - 3rd Floor - Outdoors Vs. Road Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM -
Heating Weekdays Site 2
-------
50
40
Q.
O.
to
Oi
30
LU
O
I
O
u
20
10
6
WIND SPEED - MPH
10
12
Figure 5.2.1-24. CO Concentration - 3rd Floor Outdoors Vs. Road Level Wind Speed - 6 PM - Heating
Weekdays Site 2
-------
Ol
4.
r^
(O
50
40
5
a.
O.
1
Z
o
< 30
cc
K
z
UJ
o
8
0 20
10
n
•
*
.
* .
• 1 • . . .
• * •
• : . •
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
SIGMA AZIMUTH - DEGREES
26
28
30
32
34
36
Figure 5.2.1-25. CO Concentration - 3rd Floor Outdoors Vs. Road Level Sigma Azimuth - 6 PM -
Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
en
l
to
oo
50 —
40
o.
o.
< 30
o
z
8
8
20
10
10
2O
- •
V
• •
30 40
50
60
70
80
TEMPERATURE-F
Figure 5.2.1-26. CO Concentration - 3rd Floor Outdoors Vs. Road Level Temperature - 6 PM
Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
are primarily related to the carbon monoxide levels found at the road level.
Since, as previously shown on Figure 5.2.1-1, the CO gradient across the
road is very small - there is only a small difference between 3rd floor CO
and CO on either side of the street. However, the outdoor CO appears to be
more closely related to the north side CO and indoor CO to that measured on
the south side. These relationships are shown on Figures 5.2.1-27 and -28.
There is a suggestion that the roof wind has some bearing upon 3rd floor
concentrations. It can be seen, from Figure 5.2.1-29, that higher CO levels
were measured when the roof winds blew from the south behind the building.
The outdoor indoor differential at the 3rd floor is determined
by both the CO concentration outdoors and site temperature. The differential
increases as outdoor CO and site temperature increase as shown on Figures
5.2.1-30 and -31. As shown by the lines of constant 3rd floor CO overlayed
on Figure 5.2.1-31, the differential is biased uniformly by 3rd floor outdoor
CO for a constant road level temperature. However, the differential appears
to be steeper at higher temperatures. This suggestion can be seen by com-
paring the slope of the heating season data points on Figure 5.2.1-30 with that
for the non-heating season shown on Figure 5.21.1-32. The 3rd floor dif-
ferential is affected slightly by the roof wind azimuth angle, as seen on
Figure 5.2.1-33. This effect is primarily due to the greater influence of
the roof wind on outdoor CO than on indoor concentrations.
5.2.1.3.3 Differential 3rd to 19th Floors
Outdoor and indoor concentrations are affected in identical
fashions with height above the road. This can be seen by examining the
change in CO levels between the 3rd and 19th floors for both the outdoor and
indoor paths. Both vertical differentials display completely random patterns
for changes in roof wind speed, roof temperature as site temperature lapses,
5-199
-------
o.
30
en
to
o
01
8
O
CJ
20
10
10
J I I
15 20 25
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
30
35
40
Figure 5.2.1-27. CO Concentration 3rd Floor Outdoors Vs. CO Concentration Road Level North Side -
6 PM Heating Weekdays Site 2
-------
01
to
o
40 i—
30
<
IT
O
O
O
8
20
10
10
15
I I
20 25
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
30
35
40
45
Figure 5.2.1-28. CO Concentration 3rd Floor Indoors Vs. CO Concentration Road Level South Side
6 PM - Heating Weekday - Site 2
-------
to
o
to
50 i-
40
1
< 30
DC
U
O
O
8
20
10
J L
J L
20 40 60
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-29. CO Concentration 3rd Floor Outdoor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6PM - Heating
Weekdays - Site 2
-------
01
to
o
W
12
10
OL
o.
8
LJJ
DC
LU
LL
U» O
Q
-4
-6
-8
I
I
10
15 20 25
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
30
35
40
Figure 5.2.1-30. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor Concentration Outdoors -
6 PM - Heating Weekdays Site 2
-------
en
to
o
14
12
10
I 6
a.
8
5 o
-2
-6
30
X HEATING
• NON—HEATING
3RD FLOOR CO
27
40 50 60
TEMPER ATURE-°F
70
80
Figure 5.2.1-31. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. Road Level
e - fiPM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
01
tNS
o
Ol
16
14
12
10
a.
°-
O
O
LU
LU 6
* 4
-2
-4
I
I
10 15 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
25
30
35
Figure 5.2.1-32. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. 3rd Floor Concentration Outdoors -
6 PM - Non-Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
10
01
to
o
LU
CC
01
U-
± 0
O
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
WIND AZIMUTH -*f
Figure 5.2.1-33. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 3rd Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth - 6 PM -
Heating Weekdays - Site 2 __
-------
see Figures 5.2.1-34 thru -39. These differentials, as shown on Figures
5.2.1-40 and -41, show identical response to roof wind azimuth. Both out-
door and indoor vertical differentials are high for southerly winds and low
for all other winds. This indicates that the sheltering affect from southerly
winds seen at the 3rd floor is lost at the upper floors. It is felt that
this is caused by the fact that adjacent buildings are oaly five stories high.
5.2.1.3.4 19th Floor Concentra_ti_Qns
CO concentrations at the 19th floor directly reflect the CO levels
below as modified by the roof wind azimuth. Outdoor concentrations are
significantly reduced in level from that seen at the 3rd floor. However, the
19th floor outdoor CO is still responsive to road level CO, as shown on
Figure 5.2.1-42. The net effect of the vertical differentials noted in
Section 5.2.1.3.3 is to produce outdoor CO levels, and 19th floor outdoor/
indoor CO differentials which are random with roof wind. This can be seen
from Figures 5.2.1-43 and -44.
The 19th floor outdoor/indoor differential retains essentially
the same relationship to outdoor concentration and site temperature as seen
at the 3rd floor. The 19th floor differential exhibits the same slope with
respect to outdoor CO level, see Figure 5.2.1-45, as seen at the 3rd floor.
The curves are displaced proportionately to the CO level at the respective
floors. Site temperature has a lesser effect on outdoor/indoor differential
at the 19th floor, however. While the differential again increases with
temperature change, the rate of change is lower as shown on Figure 5.2.1-46.
5-207
-------
en
bo
o
00
26 i-
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
5 10
( •
t •
t
• •
• •
•
•
•
i
5 10
WIND SPEED -MPH
15
Figure 5.2.1-34. Differential CO - Outdoor - 3rd to 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Speed - 6 PM
Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
to
o
20
18
16
14
a.
a.
8 12
10
cc
LU
5 8
«
• •
I
I
5 10
WIND SPEED-MPH
15
Figure 5.2.1-35. Differential CO - Indoor - 3rd to 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Speed - 6 PM
Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
Ol
to
I
8
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
gj 10
u.
u.
O
8
25 30 35
40 45 50 55
60
65 70 75 80 85 90
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
Figure 5.2. 1-36. Differential CO - Outdoor - 3rd to 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Temperature - 6 PM
All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
en
to
18
16
14
12
10
Q.
Q-
I
o
o
•
•
-2
-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J I
I
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-37. Differential CO - Indoor - 3rd To 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Temperature -
6 PM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
en
i
to
(->
to
5
fc
1
8
_i
P
z
UI
ta
UI
i^
LL
5
14
12
10
4U
-20
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREES/FT, x 10'
Figure 5 2 1-38. Differential CO - Outdoor - 3rd To 19th Floor Vs. Temperature Lapse -
B 6 PM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
en
to
CO
20
18
16
14
OL
I
O
O
10
H .
LU
cc 8
01
10
i
1
0 -5 -10
TEMPERATURE LAPSE - DEGREES/FT, x 10'3
-15
-20
Figure 5.2.1-39. Differential CO - Indoor - 3rd To 19th Floor Vs. Temperature Lapse
6 PM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
26
24
22
20
18
16
T
to
I
8
E
111'
14
12
10
I
J
I I I
I I
I I I
20 40 6O 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-40. Differential CO - Outdoor - 3rd To 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
to
Ol
8
UJ
20
18
16
14
12
10
I
I
I
20 40 60 80 100
I
I
I
I
J
120 140 160 180 200
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
220 240 260 280 300
Figure 5.2.1-41. Differential CO - Indoor - 3rd To 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
01
to
t-»
A
14
12
§ 8
o
8 4
i
10
15 20
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM.
25
30
35
Figure 5.2.1-42. CO Concentration 19th Floor Outdoors Vs. CO Concentration Road Level North -
6 PM - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
en
to
12
I 10
I
1 8
g 6
o
o
o
8 4
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-43. CO Concentration 19th Floor Outdoors Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Heating Weekdays — Site 2
-------
Cn
1
to
00
4
5 2
fc
1
1
8
<
^
Z fl
ID u
CC
LU
U.
U.
Q
-2
4
w J
_ • •
• •
0 •
A A A
A • • •
". * » •
•"*.
* * * * •
*• * • * *
III 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
WIND AZIMUTH - DEGREES
200
220 240 260 280
300
Figure 5.2.1-44. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Wind Azimuth -
6 PM - Heating Weekdays - Site 2
-------
10
• HEATING
X NON-HEATING
4
2
Q.
V "
S 8
* o
i-
uj
oc
UJ
LL
LL
Q
_4
x x *
x x
—
y X
• x
x*x • * x
• x x x
• X
• y • • • -
X X v X*
• •
^ ^
* A
• •
\ x •
• • •
*0 •
1 *l 1
15
CO CONCENTRATION - PPM
Figure 5.2.1-45. Differential CO Outdoor/Indoor - 19th Floor Vs. 19th Floor Concentration
6 PM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
en
to
to
o
Q.
Q.
8
*
*
UJ
DC
•
•
• •
-2
-4
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES
Figure 5.2.1-46. Differential CO - Outdoor/Indoor - 19th Floor Vs. Roof Level Temperature -
6 PM - All Weekdays - Site 2
-------
5.2.2 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon measurements at the West 40th Street site were taken at the
3rd and llth floor indoor and outdoor locations simultaneously with the carbon
monoxide data. One hundred and six days of heating season hydrocarbon data was
obtained. Thirty two days of non heating season data was taken.
5.2.2.1 Heating Season
Indoor hydrocarbon concentrations were significantly higher than outdoor
at the third floor level and slightly higher indoors at the llth floor. The
weekday average for the third floor indoor probe was 10.4 PPM as opposed to a
4.5 PPM average for the outdoor location. • At the llth floor the indoor average
was 2.4 PPM while the outdoor average was 1.9 PPM.
3rd Floor
The highest hourly hydrocarbon average (34 PPM) that was measured at this
site occurred at the third floor indoor location. The high indoor concentra-
'.tions were, the direct result of a paint spraying operation on the third floor.
The diurnal curve (Figure 5.2.2-1) shows that the weekday hydrocarbon character-
istics were almost entirely dictated by the spraying operation which began daily
between 4'and 5 PM. This is the only location where a strong diurnal variation
in hydrocarbon concentration occurs. Any variation in hydrocarbon concentration
with traffic is effectively masked by strong contributions from the paint source.
The effect of paint spraying was even noticeable at the third floor outdoor
location where its diurnal curve followed the indoor diurnal curve, although
with much reduced amplitude (Figure 5.2.2*2). Levels outdoors tended to
increase in the late afternoon when the spraying started and reached a maximum
'•'•••. t
near 10 PM. Apparently the hydrocarbons escaping from the building overcame the
feeble traffic influence to produce this maximum. The highest hourly average
recorded at the outdoor location was 14.3 PPM. Pollutant vs. traffic plots
(Figures 5.2.2-3 and -4) show no discernible relationship between hydrocarbon
data and traffic volume or speed except that hydrocarbons may be considered .a
constant.
5-221
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON co«c« - 3RD FL', INSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 7,5 15,0 22,5 30.0
MEAN
0. 7,5 15.0 22,5 30,0
2400 * 4 +
100
FIGURE 5.2.2-1
5-222
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC- (PPM> - 3RD FL'. OUTSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 7,'5 15.0 22,5 30,0
MEAN
0, 7.5 15.0 22,5 30.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
BOO
900
iOOO
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
•* A n f\
H40Q
4
4
4 S
4
4 S
4
4 S
4
4
* e )
4
4 S }
\
4 S
4
4
4 S '
I
4 e !
4
4 S )
4
4
4 S )
: . \
4
4 I
4
4
4 =
4
4 S
4
4 S
4
4
4 S
4
* *
4
4 S
* 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
» 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
! * *
4 4
\
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
) « +
4 4
) * *
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5. 2.2-2
5-223
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
364 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONG. - 3RD FL". OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CoNC,
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC. *PPM> - 3RD FL'. OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CONC, (PPM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN PPM
0. 7,5 15.0 22,5 30
0,60
1,20
1,80
2,40
3,00
3,"60
4,20
4,80
5^40
6', 00
6',60
7',20
7;eo
8,40
9', 00
9', 60
10'.20
10,80
11,40
12,00
12'.60
13.20
13,80
14.40
15,00
is; 60
16',20
16i,80
17'.40
IS',00
18,60
19,20
19'.80
20.40
21JOO
21,60
22,20
22.80
23,40
?4,00
24',60
25',20
25',80
26',40
27', 00
27', 60
28',20
28,80
29,40 *
30',00
I t
^ ' «.
* *
* *
* *
* +
I I
* *
* *
+ +
* *
* x«* *
+ X* *
* ft * +
* *x +
* »x *
+ * *
* *
* *• *
* X *
* »
* *
* *
+ *
+ *
* *
* +
« «>
* *
I *
* *
* * *
* * *
* + *
* + +
* * +
* * +
* * *
+ * +
* + +
+ + +
* * *
* * +
* + *
* + *
+ + +
* * +
* * +
* + +
+ * *
+ + *
* + *
+ * *
* *• *
+ + +
* + +
* * *
+ + *
* + +
* * *
* * *
* f +
* * *
FIGURE 5.2.2-4
5-225
-------
Weekend hydrocarbon data at the third floor level was also dominated by
effects from the paint. Concentrations were lowest near noon and highest at
night and during the early morning hours both inside and outside of the building.
Average concentrations were again higher on the inside by a factor of 3 (12 PPM
vs. 4 PPM outside). The highest hourly average recorded inside was 34.9 PPM
while the highest outside was 15.2 PPM. Both of these extremes occurred between
2400 and 0100 on April 17, 1971. Traffic volume and velocity at that particular
hour do not account for the high values and meteorological conditions were not
conducive to stagnation. The high hydrocarbon levels, both indoors and outdoors,
at that hour are clearly the sole result of the spray source.
llth Floor
Weekday hydrocarbon concentrations at the llth Floor were apparently not
affected to any great extent by the source on the third floor. Diurnal curves
of both the indoor and outdoor concentrations (Figures 5.2.2-5 and -6) are very
flat except for a slight maximum in the forenoon hours. Concentrations were
higher inside than outside (2.4 PPM vs. 1.9 PPM) but much reduced from the third
floor levels. The highest hourly average was 15.5 PPM inside and 7.9 PPM outside.
Concentrations were less than 2 PPM 657o of all hours outside and 45% of all hours
inside. Most concentrations fell between 1 and 2 PPM compared to nearly 4 PPM at
the third floor. Plots of hydrocarbon against traffic volume and speed (Figures
5,2,2-7 and -8) do not show any direct relationship either indoor or outdoor.
The general weekday behavior was repeated on the weekends with the single
major exception that the maxima occurred near midnight both indoors and outdoors.
There is no firm explanation for this shift. It may not be real at all since the
amplitude of the curve is so very small. When averaged over all hours, indoor
values were higher than outdoor values by .6 PPM (2.1 PPM as opposed to 1.5 PPM)
and both indoor and outdoor hydrocarbon concentrations, as far as could be deter-
mined, were constant with respect to traffic volume and speed on 40th Street.
5-226
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STljDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM> - IITH FL, INSIDE
0
0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
94no
7.5
7.5
4 4
4
4 • !
4
4 * '
4
4 * '
4
*« it » •
-» ^ » •
4
4 *
4
4 S
: A
4
4
4 E
4
4 •
4
4 Z
4
4
4 8 !
4
4 « ',
4
4 B '
4
4
4 Z !
4
4 > :
4
4 * :
4
4
4 C
4
4 « ;
4
* > :
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
*
*
4 '
\ :
4
| 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
«
4
4
4
«
4
4
4
STANDARD DEVIAT
15.0
MEAN
15.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
a £.1,4
4
1 • 4
4
4'
+
4
4
4
. . ""4
ION
22.5
22,5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
30.0
30.0
»
*
*
4
4
+
*
4
4
»
4
4
+
*
4
*
4
4
4
4
*
4
*
+
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
4
«
FIGURE 5.. 2. 2-5
5-227
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STuDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HYBRQCARBON CONC.
*
4 — * •»
4
4 *
4
4 X
4
A C
4-*»
4 »
4
4 *
4
4 • )
7,5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
)*
:
*
*
*
^
«
i
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
•.S
4
4
4
4
:
15.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
22,5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
30,0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5.2.2-6
5-228
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONG. (PPM> - IITH FL. OUTS
HYDROCARBON CONG.
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC.
-------
5.2.2.2 Non Heating Season
3rd Floor
Third floor hydrocarbon concentrations on non-heating weekdays were
higher indoors than outdoors. The average all-hour level indoors was 8.1 PPM
compared to 4.8 PPM outdoors. The elevated indoor readings stemmed from paint
spraying on the third floor. There was a drop of 2 PPM in the indoor concentra-
tions when compared to the heating season data; however, the outdoor average
concentration rose slightly. This may be attributed to open windows allowing
increased ventilation within that floor while subjecting the outdoor probe to
increased contamination from within the structure. The increased air exchange
would tend to lower concentrations near the indoor source while raising them
slightly outdoors due to transport of the hydrocarbons through the open windows.
The 24 hour maximum concentrations occur in the early morning on the indoor
diurnal curve (Figure 5.2.2-9) while the outdoor curve is relatively flat
(Figure 5.2.2-10 '• The outdoor concentrations were virtually constant with
both traffic speed and volume as shown in Figures 5.2.2-11 and -12. The highest
non-heating weekday hourly concentration recorded indoors was 30.9 PPM on May 11
while the highest outdoor concentration was 11.7 PPM on May 18.
Concentrations indoors on non-heating weekends were less than on heating
weekends by 5 PPM for an all-hour average of 7.2 PPM. Outdoor weekend concentra-
tions did riot show this seasonal variation. Indoor levels were higher than
corresponding outdoor concentrations. Plots--of hydrocarbon vs. traffic speed
and volume show virtually no discernible effect on the pollutant levels.
llth Floor
Eleventh floor concentrations were'also higher indoors, although the
difference was much less than on the third floor. Non-heating weekday concen-
trations showed an increase over heating season levels. This increase was small
3-231
-------
4
a
«
3
4
! 4
4
' 4
A - • -
4
4
4
4
NEW YORK
NON-HEATING
o,
2400 4
100 4
4
200 4
300 4
4
400 4
4-
500 4
600 4
4
700 4
4
800 4
4-
900 4
4
1000 4
4
1100 4
4
1200 4
1300 4
CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC, (PPM) - 3RD PL'. INSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
7?5 15,0 22,5 30,0
MEAN
7;5 15,0 .22,5 30.0
* * 4 *
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
4
4
4
4
4
2000 4
4-
2100 *
4
2200 4
4
2300 4
4
2400 4-
FIGURE 5. 2.2-9
5-232
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STllDV
264 WEST 4CTH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) - 3Rn FL", OUTSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 7,5 15.0 22-, 5 30.0
MEAN
0, 7,<5 15.0 22,5 30.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
60€
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1600
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
4*4
4 *
*
* * !
*
4 =
4
4
4 S '
4
4 S
I , \
* S
4
* 4
4 4
4 *
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
* 4
4 4
, ^ ^
4 4
y *
* = /
*
4 * \
\
4
4 S
4
4 e
4
4 =
4
4 4
4 4
' * 4
4 4
! * *
4 4
' * *
4 4
4 \ * *
4 S
4
4 S
4
4 *
*
•» 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
/ 4 4
* a i * *
*
* « i
/ *
4 « X * *
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
*.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5. 2.2-10
5.-
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
364 WEST 40TN STREET
NON.HEATINQ WEEKDAVS HYDROCARBON CONC.
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STuDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) - 3RP FL'. OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CONC, (PPM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN PPM
30,0
1
n
u ,
0.60
1.20
1.80
2140
3,00
3.60
4 ',20
4", 80
5,40
f> ' 00
V , w VJ
6.60
7,20
7.80
8,40
9.00
9,60
10,20
1.0,80
11.40
1 ?' 00
J. £ « U U
12,60
13120
13',80
14.40
15.00
15.60
16,20
16,80
17.40
4 A ' n n
X O | U V
18,60
19', 20
19.80
20,40
21.00
21.60
22.20
22,80
23,40
94 n n
e. «» , U u
24,60
25.20
25,30
26.40
27,00
27,60
28,20
28.80
29.40
in.nn
j'f
*
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
' . J
*
*
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
* 4
X +
4
*«» 4
X *
* X *
* ** 4
4
*« 4
« 4
« 4
* 4
4
* 4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
*
*
4
I? , U
4.
4
*
*
4
4
4
*
*
4 •
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
*.
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
*
4
*
4
4
4
4
4.
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
4
*
*
£.f- . :> ou
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5.2.2-12
5-235
-------
but significant, occurring both indoors and outdoors, and averaging approxi-
mately .5 PPM. Average indoor concentrations were 2.8 PPM while those out-
side were 2.4 PPM. The weekday diurnal curves of both eleventh floor locations
were quite flat with small maxima near 8 AM (Figures 5.2.2.-13 and -14). Although
the time of maximum concentration does not coincide with the hour of maximum
traffic volume on 40th Street, the 8 AM peak is probably traffic generated. This
is due to a relatively larger amount of hydrocarbon contribution to the eleventh
floor area from other sources within the city. Traffic peaks occur on most major
nearby city arteries near 8 AM,
resulting in a hydrocarbon maximum near that hour.
Again, as during the heating season, hydrocarbon vs. traffic plots show no direct
relationship with volume or speed. (Figures 5.2.2.-15 and -16).The slopes of the
concentration vs. traffic plots are extremely small, usually less than .003 PPM/
vehicle and less than -.05 PPM/MPH determined by least squares fit.
Weekend hydrocarbon concentrations were higher indoors than outdoors during
the non-heating season. This completes a consistent pattern for this site -
in all cases, indoor hydrocarbon concentrations were greater than corresponding
outdoor concentrations. The indoor diurnal curve was not quite as flat as most
other weekend curves, but this may be a result of the very restricted sample
size of 6. The highest hourly average recorded indoors was 4.8 PPM on June 6;
outdoors, it was 3.7 PPM on June 12.
5-236
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 UEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATINfi WEEKDAVS HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM» - 11TH FL. INSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0. 7.5 15,0 22.5 30.0
MEAN
0. " 7,5 15.0 22,5 30.0
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
11CO
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
?dnn
* *
*
* a
»
+ a
4
* S
«
* S
*
+ =
*
+
+ 3
+
* *
4
* =
*
*
« X
*
* *
+
* z
*
* 5
«
* S ]
*
* f
*
*
* a
4
* *
*
* + *
* + *
* * *
« * A
* + *
I + * *
* ••» *
* * *
* + *
+ * *
+ * *
* * *
* * *
) * * *
\ : :.... :...
/
/
t * *
t * *
f
* * *
* . * *
+ * *
* * *
* + *
* * *
* + *
+ + *
* + *
* * *
« + *
* + *
* * *
4 + *
y * + +
* * *
* + *
•i •* *
* * *
* + *
" •* 4 *
FIGURE 5.2.2-13
5-237
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STuDV
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONC. (PPM) • 11TH FL. OUTSIDE
STANDARD DEVIATION
0, 7.5 15,0 22.5 30,0
MEAN
0.
?400 4
«v X • '
* i
100 4
4 t !
200 4
4 ? ! !
300 4 \
4 *
400 4
500 *
+ S
600 4
4 =
700 4
4 =
300 4
900 4
4 a
1000 »
1100 *
•» :
1200 *
1 3 G 0 <
4 C
1400 *
4 X
1500 *
«• *
1600 *
*-f-f '
1700 4
4 Z
1800 *
4 I '
1900 * /
4*1
2000 4 ]
4 — V — A •
2100 4 \
4 *
2200 *
4 * !
2300 4 /
4m *
?dnn A.--..
7,5
4
'• 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
; 4
4
4
\ . - :„..
:
r
/
*
*
k
; 4
b ^
» 4
4
F
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
; 4
4
; 4
4
4
15,0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 •
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
22.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
' 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
30.
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FIGURE 5.2.2-14
5-238
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKOAVS HYDROCARBON CONC, - IITH FL. OUTSI
HYDROCARBON CONC. (ppM) VS TRAFFIC FLOW RATE (VEH/HR)
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN PPM
DE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
ISO
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
360
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
f\nn
v U U
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
i nnn
,
•
.
,
•
,
.
,
,
,
•
,
•
.
,
,
.
,
•
,
,
,
,
,
,
•
.
,
,
4
.
.
.
.
,
>
«
,
1
»
,
•
,
t
1
,
,
,
»
.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
n n
u u
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Oft
V
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
DO
00
nn
4<
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
£
4
4
4
4
4
+
*
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
»
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4'
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•
*
* •*
4 «
4
* »*
4
4
4 . *
4 *
4
* X
*
* *
*
4
+ *
*
*
* X
« *
* *
*. *
* X
4
* *
4 •
4
+
4
4
*
*
*
*
4
«
4
4
4
*
*
7.5
*
4
*
*
*
*
4
*
«
*
•
*
*
*
I
4
*
*
+
+
4-
+
+
*
*
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
4
*
4
15,0
4
4
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
«
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
4
*
if
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
*
4
4
*
4
4.
4
4
4
22,5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
*
,
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
30,0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
* •
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
*.
»
4
FIGURE 5.2.2-15
5-239
-------
NEW YORK CITY INDOOR/OUTDOOR POLLUTION RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
264 WEST 40TH STREET
NON-HEATING WEEKDAYS HYDROCARBON CONG, (PPM) - 11TH F|. OUTSIDE
HYDROCARBON CONG, <»PM) VS AVERAGE VEHICLE VELOCITY (MPH)
HYDROCARBON CONCFNTRATION IN PPM
0. 7,5 15,0 22,5 30.0
0.60
1.20
1.80
2,40
3.00
3,60
4.20
4,80
5,40
6,00
6.60
7.20
7,80
8,40
9.00
9,60
10,20
10.80
11.40
12.00
12.60
13.20
13.80
14,40
15,00
15.60
16.20
1.7i40
18.00
18,60
19,20
19,80
20.40
21,00
21,60
22,20
22,80
23.40
24.00
24.60
25.20
25.80
26,40
27,00
27,60
28,20
28,80
29.40 *
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
*
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4 *
* X
4
* x«
* «»
4 *x
4 »x
4
+ X
4 *
4 *
* *
*
4 «
4
*
4
4
*
*
*
4
*
4
4
*
*
4
4
*
4
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
»
+
«
4
«
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
*
*
+
+
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
4
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
»
4
•fc
4
+
+
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•I-
FIGURE 5.2.2-16
5-240
-------
5.2.3 Particulates
Four sets of particulate samples were obtained at the West
40th Street site. Two High Volume Air Samplers were located inside the
building on the llth and 18th floors. The llth floor location was inside
the General Electric laboratory. The 18th floor sampler was positioned
ft
inside a closed storage area. Outside the building, one sampler was ,-
positioned on the 3rd floor fire balcony, facing west. The other outside
fr>
sampler was located on the roof and faced West 40th Street :
c<
Particulate samples were obtained at the four locations for 18
days during the heating season and for 6 days during the non-heating season.
i
Table 5.2.3-1 lists the data. Both inside and outside concentrations varied ^
greatly from day to day and there was a great overlapping of concentration ''
ranges. Figure 5.2.3-1 presents this information graphically. Examination
of this figure will show that particulate concentrations at this site are '_'c
V
not directly related to heating or non-heating seasons. Therefore, this
discussion of particulates considers all of the data regardless of season. t
The highest total particulate concentrations at the canyon ."'
structure were recorded outside the building. Both the 3rd floor and roof
locations peaked at 229.8 ug/>T on April 13. The secondary peak for these ^
two locations also occurred on the same day; i.e. May 11. Average concen-
trations at the two outdoor locations were essentially identical. The National:
*5 <\
secondary standard for particulates (150 ug/MJ) was exceeded oa 6 days at each =
of these outdoor locations. The primary standard was not exceeded on any days.
The particulate concentrations outdoors were significantly higher
;, -
than those recorded inside. The llth floor inside concentrations exceeded the \
outside 3rd floor value only four times. The 18th floor inside concentrations ^
«.i.
5-241
-------
TABLE 5.2.3-1
PARTICULATES -ug/M3
WEST 40TH STREET
Date
2/16
2/24
3/ 8
3/11
3/16
3/17
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/29
3/30
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/22
5/ 3
5/ 4
5/12
5/27
5/10
5/11
5/26
6/ 2
6/10
6/30
7/13
7/14
Ave.
Outside
188.5
98.6
122.3
93.1
81.4
93.5
128.0
73.6
75.3
93.0
125.8
229.8
141.2
135.2
159.0
134.2
134.0
112.0
Inside
Roof
191.8
212.0
125.0
156.0
124.0
74.0
129.2
Heating
145.8
113.4
157.5
112.2
105.0
90.9
82.5
76.0
75.6
99.9
142.7
229.8
120.2
159.0
130.2
115.1
150.8
Non-Heating
189.0
213.5
116.0
130.0
71.9
128.5
_U
84.0
68.0
71.7
109.3
66.4
39.8
48.3
58.4
86.2
59.2
43.9
-
79.5
63.2
27.9
57.2
106.7
47.4
93.4
-
59.5
83.7
1O8.O
128.0
85.0
72.8
_18
95o6
53.4
55.4
-
50.1
37.0
40.9
23.1
49.6
56.8
-
111.3
-
-
54.1
-
98.4
143.0
105.7
83.4
54.0
51.5
52.0
87.2
44.4
34.2
65.8
5-242
-------
300
OUTDOOR
200
100
*•*•*
ROOF
en
to
£>•
00
o
cc
200
100
I I I I
INDOOR
18TH FLOOR
2/16 3/8 3/16 3/22 3/24 3/30 4/14 4/22 5/4 5/11 6/2 6/30 7/14
2/24 3/11 3/17 3/23 3/28 4/13 4/15 5/3 5/10 5/27 6/10 7/13
DATE OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 5.2.3-1. Participates - West 40th Street
-------
never exceeded the concentrations at either of the outside locations for the
same time period. Average inside concentrations of 72.8 and 65.8 ug/M^ for
the llth and 18th floors respectively were approximately 1/2 of outdoor
average concentrations.
The total particulates recorded at the two outdoor locations
throughout the sampling period closely duplicated each other. It is apparent
that they have a common source. Indoor total particulates also showed a
close relation to each other. However, indoor concentrations fluctuate dif-
ferently than seen for outdoor concentrations.
5.2.3.1 Analysis Technique
The relationship of the four sets of particulate samples were ex-
plored using the same technique as used at the George Washington Bridge site.
The resultant traffic and meteorological data for the West 40th Street site
is presented in Table 5.2.3.2. It should be noted that significantly dif-
ferent meteorological conditions prevailed at this site than were recorded at
Site 1. At this 40th Street site average roof winds were fairly constant
and always blew from the south or west. In general, the resultant road
level winds always shifted further to the northwest. No north or east winds
were recorded at either roof or road levels.
5.2.3.2 Particulate Relationships
Analysis of the daily total particulates measured at the 3rd
floor outdoor location showed no discernable relation to traffic on West 40th
Street. This is shown on the upper plot on Figure 5.2.3-2. There were two
possible explanations for this. First, the Hi Vol sampler, because of its
location on the fire balcony was not directly exposed to 40th Street concen-
trations. Secondly, the prevailing winds probably masked 40th Street gen-
erated particulates to a large degree by additional particulates from 39th
Street and 8th Avenue.
5-244
-------
Date
Ave. Hourly
Traffic
TABLE 5.2.3-2
SITE ENVIRONMENT
WEST 40TH STREET
Road Level
Temp Az Angle Wd Sp
Heating
Roof Level
Az Angle Wd
2/16
2/24
3/ 8
3/11
3/16
3/17
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/29
3/30
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/22
5/ 3
5/ 4
5/12
5/27
336
343
325
346
344
.
352
382
376
378
355
330
336
362
365
33
41
48
37
42
36
32
.
42
60
43
48
52
52
59
66
61
-
-
-
-
-
296
276
.
279
203
278
-
288
293
299
205
280
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
6.8
-
-
-
6.8
5.4
4.0
2.8
4.0
-
- '
46
35
39
34
31
.
40
57
42
47
51
50
59
63
59
177
233
226
253
196
267
268
.
199
199
264
258
-
218
252
157
222
4.0
8.5
5.3
5.8
8.4
5.3
-
.
.
7.7
6.1
9.0
7.0
-
6.0
4.7
4.4
4.7
Non-Heating
5/10
5/11
5/26
6/ 2
6/10
6/30
7/13
7/14
323
337
358
393
371
65
70
68
66
72
247
183
300
165
203
2.3
1.8
4.4
2.0
2.5
65
68
63
65
70
167
191
252
171
124
2.4
. 3.8
4.7
5.0
3.9
5-245
-------
3RD FLOOR OUTDOORS
250 i-
200
150
100
50
g
<
320
340
360
380
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEHICLES
Hr
400
o
§
o
-------
The 3rd floor outdoor particulate level, as shown on the lower
plot of Figure 5.2.3-2, is responsive to site temperature as measured at
road level. However, examination of the data on Table 5.2.3-2 will show
that site temperature is directly relatable to roof wind azimuth. The
lower temperatures occurred for westerly winds. South winds prevailed for
days of high temperature. Therefore, it is felt that the apparent particu-
late/ temperature relation is in reality a reflection of wind azimuth angle.
Figure 5.2.3-3 shows the particulate proof wind relationship for
the four locations. The upper plots clearly indicate that the outdoor
particulate levels are responsive 'to wind direction. South winds produce high
total particulate concentrations. West winds produce low concentrations
outdoors. Indoor concentrations, as shown on the lower plots, exhibit
random relationship to roof wind direction.
Roof level winds are not as influential on particulate concentra-
tions as can be seen on Figure 5.2.3-4. There is a suggestion, however,
o
that peak particulate concentrations occurred for road winds close to 215
and reduced as the wind shifted in either direction. This would be logical
in view of the site geometry previously shown on Figures 4.2-1 thru -3.
The particulate levels at the two outdoor locations vary dif-
ferently as a function of roof wind direction. Reexamination of Figure
5.2.3-1 will show that 3rd floor concentrations exceed roof concentrations
significantly on February 17 and March 22. Both days were marked with
southerly winds. The difference in particulate levels outdoors, as shown
in the upper left plot of Figure 5.2.3-5, is determined by roof level wind
direction. The outdoor differential, roof to 3rd floor, is negative for
southerly winds and positive for westerly winds. Road winds do not signif-
icantly influence this outdoor differential as can be seen in the upper
right plot.
5-247
-------
250
OUTDOORS
-» to
Ol Q
o s
fe 100
o
DC
50
o
5
^ °«
- 250
•
•
200
CO
DC
. O
- . §150
* h-
. .. • §
- I"
- ec 50
CO
1 1 1 1 0
-
•
•
~ ••
•
•
• ^
• ••
•
• •
• .
—
1 1 1 1
) 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Z
2 Roof Wind Angle
DC
1-
Z
111
o
o
o
LU
1
0
DC
150
oc
O
§ 100
z
oc
O
0 50
u.
I
£ 0
(
I— w 150
• oc
O
O
• • °
- . . ? 100
• oc
o
- • • • '• i 50
* • I
^ H
1 I I I " 0
• •
. . •
• ,
•
1 1 1 I
) 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Roof Wind Angle
Figure 5.2.3-3. Particulates Vs. Roof Wind Angle - Site 2
5-248
-------
250
200
H
O
150
100
O
O
« K 50
be
0
I-H
H
250
90 180 270
cc
K
O 20°
Q
H
t3
O 150
en
K
O 100
•o
CO
50
I I I I o -
360 0
Road Wind Angle
90
I
180 270 360
W
O
Z
O
u
H
H
O
HH
H
§ I150
-1 100
o
J 50
.c
oo 0
I
O
g
5
PH
O
s
fn
X!
+->
^~4
150
100
50
n
—
•
•
• ;
• *
— «
•
•
iiii
90 180 270 360
Road Wind Angle
Figure 5.2.3-4. Participates Vs. Road Wind Angle - Site 2
5-249
-------
50
50
CO
IT
O
CO
cc
O
O
Q
O
-50
r_
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
-50
I I I
90 180 270
ROAD WIND ANGLE
360
cc
LLJ
o
oc
< CO
O. CC
o
DO
100
50
-50
-100
1
1
1
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
100
50
CO
cc
8
o
-50
-100
I
I
I
J
90 180 270 360
ROAD WIND ANGLE
Figure 5.2.3-5. Particulate Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-250
-------
The particulate differential indoors, from the 18th to llth
floors, does not show as clear a relationship to either roof or road level
-winds. Since the 18th floor Hi Vol Sampler was located within a closed
storage area, llth floor concentrations usually exceeded 18th floor partic-
ulate levels. The only two exceptions occurred for days when the roof wind
blew from the south.
Indoor particulates are influenced somewhat by the roof level
wind, however. This can be seen from Figure 5.2.3-6 which shows the dif-
ferentials from roof to 18th floor and 3rd to llth floors as a function of
both roof and road level winds. As shown by the two left plots, the outdoor/
indoor differential shows the same relation to roof wind as seen for outdoor
particulate levels. That is, high differentials for south winds and low
differentials for west winds.
5.2.3.3 Particulate Summation
Total particulates at the four sampling locations at Site 2 are
derived from the same source. This source, however is not West 40th Street
traffic. The source is south of the building. Roof level winds disperse
particulates to the two outdoor locations as a function of azimuth angle.
Concentrations are higher outdoors because the source is outdoors. Indoor
locations receive varying amounts of particulates, reflecting wind direction.
A lesser amount is measured within the storage area than at other indoor
locations.
5-251
-------
- 100
00
O
LL
O
a 50
•&
z
LU
DC
LU
U_
LL
5
LU
I-
o
I-
oc
^
I
h-
O
DC
O
O
O
cc
P5
150 i-
1
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
100,—
50
•
t
D
O
50
I
I
I
90 180 270
ROAD WIND ANGLE
360
100
I
I-
D
O
cc
O
O
LL
Q
CC
CO
50
0 90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
90 180 270 360
ROAD WIND ANGLE
Figure 5.2.3-6. Outdoor/Indoor Particulate Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-252
-------
5.2.4 Lead
The total particulate samples collected at the West 40th Street site
were analyzed for lead content and percent using an atomic absorption
technique. Figures and Tables 5.2.4-1 and -2 present the data obtained.
A comparison of the two figures shows considerable difference between
the quantity and percentage of lead measured on comparable days. It should
be noted that there is a general similarity between lead concentration and
total particulates, see Figure 5.2.3-1, at all locations. This suggests that
the lead quantity is directly related to total particulates. This relation-
ship does not hold, however, for percent lead at any location.
5.2.4.1 Lead Quantity
The highest lead concentration was measured indoors on the llth floor
on May 11. All other locations record high concentrations on that date.
Outdoor average concentrations were somewhat higher than the average indoor
lead levels. The lowest concentration was recordsd at the llth floor indoor
location on March 8. Other locations also were low in lead content on this
date. While there is not a uniform relationship in lead concentration at all
'locations on all dates, the general consistency of data suggests that wind
direction also strongly influences the lead concentrations.
Figure 5.2.4-3 presents the lead concentration at the 3rd floor balcony
location as a function of both 40th Street traffic and site temperature.
The upper plot shows that traffic on 40th Street does not directly influence
the 3rd floor lead level. Lead level appears to increase as a function of
site temperature. It should be noted, however, that the change in site
temperature is directly related to roof wind azimuth.
5-253
-------
OUTDOORS
3RD FLOOR
ROOF
V '
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I
01
to
Q
<
uj
INDOORS
18TH FLOOR / ^
1 \
I \
I
X
*•„
11TH FLOOR
I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
2/16 3/8 3/16 3/22 3/24 3/30 4/14 4/22 5/4 5/11 5/27 6/10 7/13 DATE OF
2/24 3/11 3/17 3/23 3/29 4/13 4/15 5/3 5/10 5/26 6/2 6/30 7/14 MEASUREMENT
Figure 5.1.4-1. Lead - West 40th Street
-------
en
to
Q 0
<
LU
_l
I
H
UJ
CJ
LU 4
a.
I I I
OUTDOORS
ROOF
I I I I
I I I I I I I
3RD FLOOR
I I I I
18TH FLOOR
11TH FLOOR
INDOORS
I I
I I I I I I I II 111 I
2/16 3/8 3/16 3/22 3/24 3/30 4/14 4/22 5/4 5/11 5/27 6/10 7/13 DATE OF
2/24 3/11 3/17 3/23 3/29 4/13 4/15 5/3 5/10 5/26 6/2 6/30 7/14 MEASUREMENT
Figure 5.1.4-2. Lead Percentage - West 40th Street
-------
TABLE 5.2.4-1
LEAD-ug/M3
WEST 4OTH STREET
Outside
Inside
Date
Roof
2/16
2/24
3/ 8
3/11
3/16
3/17
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/29
3/30
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/22
51 3
5/ 4
5/12
5/27
2.24
l.OO
.95
1.53
1.00
1.04
1.00
.96
.75
1.27
1.04
3.13
1.29
1.51
1.40
1.59
2.12
.
1.65
1.71
1.19
1.35
2.02
1.19
1.01
1.08
1.04
.76
1.03
1.02
2.46
1.99
1.74
1.34
1.72
1.94
_
*
Heating
11
.92
.42
.25
.87
.72
.62
.60
.69
.53
.68
.35
1.22
1.18
1.04
1.28
1.27
1.20
18
1.31
.87
.72
.78
.67
.80
.76
.59
.94
1.57
1.07
1.49
1.11
Non Heating
5/10
5/11
5/26
6/ 2
6/10
6/30
7/13
7/14
Ave.
3.25
.87
1.28
1.94
1.55
1.49
2.52
•
3.44
1.80
1.29
1.69
3.47
,56
,86
,38
,57
1.00
1.07
3.28
2.56
1.25
.37
1.07
1.13
.89
1.00
1.15
5-256
-------
TABLE 5.2.4-2
PERCENT LEAD
WEST 40TH STREET
Outside Inside
Date 3 Roof JLJ. _18
Heating
1.10 1.37
.62 1.64
.35 1.30
.80
1.13 1.54
1.55 1.82
1.24 1.95
1.18 3.31
.61 1.18
1.15 1.65
.81 .43
1.37 1.41
1.54
1.86
3.72 1.95
2.22 1.15
1.19 1.52
2.53 .78
Non-Heating
5/10 - .91 - 3.10
5/11 1.53 1.18 3.70 3.06
5/26 - - - 2.32
6/ 2 .70 2.97 .95 .71
6/10 .82 1.57 2.22 2.06
6/30 .91 1.57 2.20 1.30
7/13 1.56 1.39 1.22 2.01
7/14 2.09 1.79 1.18 2.94
Ave. 1.18 1.34 1.56 1.76
2/16
2/24
3/ 8
3/11
3/16
3/17
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/29
3/30
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/22
5/ 3
5/ 4
5/12
1.19
1.02
.78
1.64
1.23
1.11
.78
1.30
1.00
1.37
.83
1.36
.92
1.11
.88
1.18
1.58
-
1.17
1.05
.86
1.80
1.14
1.11
1.31
1.37
1.00
1.03
.71
1.07
1.24
1.09
1.06
1.49
1.28
2.43
5-257
-------
GC
LU
O
8
Q
LU
320
340
360
380
400
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE VEHICLES
HR
4 |—
30
40
50
60
70
TEMPERATURE-
Figure 5.2.4-3. 3rd Floor Lead Vs. Traffic and Temperature - Site 2
5-258
-------
The effect of roof and road wind direction on the lead concentrations
at the four locations is shown on Figures 5.2.4-4 and -5. Again there is a
clear relationship between roof outdoor lead concentration and roof wind
direction. This relationship is not as strong however, for the 3rd floor
outdoor location. Indoor lead concentrations appear to be random with
roof wind. The effect of road winds is not obvious at any location.
Road winds, however, do influence the differential lead concentrations
as shown on the right hand plots of Figure 5.2.4-6. Indoors, the 18th
floor levels are significantly lower than llth floor lead concentration
for road winds from 200 . This differential changes as this wind shifts
in either direction. This road wind effect for the differential outdoors
from the roof to 3rd floor location is similar. The same relationship is
seen between road wind and the differential from the 3rd floor outdoor to
llth floor indoor location, see Figure 5.2.4-7.
It is apparent, therefore, that while the roof level lead concentration
and the differential outdoors are basically controlled by roof wind, lead
concentrations indoors, especially at the llth floor, are influenced by road
winds more than roof winds. This suggests that the lead concentrations at
the site are determined by lead sources prevalent, in the general area of
the canyon structure. Fortieth Street traffic contribution is masked by
other lead sources.
5.2.4.2 Lead Percentage
While there are isolated instances when the percentage of lead reflected
the quantity of lead at a particular location, there is a very random relation-
ship between lead percentage and environmental conditions at all locations. A
more extensive analysis might develop some relationships.
5-259
-------
3
i/j
cc
O
O
5 2
O
LL
8 '
-------
CO
QC
O
O
0
O
§
I
90
180
270 360
CO
DC
O
O
O
D
O
OC
o
0
_i
U-
4
3
2
1
Q
i —
•
h_
^
»
^
• •
_ •
i i i
0 90 180 270 3(
O
oc
1-
z
LU
O
8
D
Road Wind Angle
4 ,—
00
K
O ,
O 3
o
z
§ 2
O
fe 1
I
to
EC
8 3
o
tr
8
0
1
"0 90 180 270 360 , 0 90 180 270
Road Wind Angle
Figure 5.2.4-5. Lead Concentration Vs. Road Wind Angle - Site 2
360
.5-261
-------
C/5
CE
O
o
a
D
O
o
f
a
LU
_l
-1 1
%_ •••
'•> •
I.I 1 1
90 180 270 360
ROOF WIND ANGLE
Gt
O
o
Q
-1
oc
I I I I
90 180 270 360
ROAD WIND ANGLE
V)
DC
O
O
O
.5
-1
I
I
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
.5
oo
oc
O
O
O
z
-1
I
j
90 180 270 360
ROAD WIND ANGLE
Figure 5.2.4-6. Lead Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-262
-------
J
2
2
00
1
1-
O
u- ,
; ^J
O ^5
5: c
°V
2 0
OC
OJ
t c
— J
22
00
I
I-
j o
LL
O
0 1
• C
. . . - •
I I I I n
•
•
0
I - L I I
. 90 180 270 . 360 0 90 180 270 360
° ROOF WIND ANGLE ROAD WIND ANGLE
0
1—
oc
2
LU
0
O
O •
Q
j '
2
0
O
OC
1
- 1
• * • z
* 1 0
h- °
• o
0
OC
• "
1 1 1 1 1
•
•
•
• ^|
•
•
•
1 1 1 1
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
90 180 270 360
ROAD WIND ANGLE
Figure 5.2.4-7. Outdoor/Indoor Lead Concentration Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-263
-------
It is apparent, though, that the 3rd floor lead percentage is
relatively constant for changes in traffic, site temperature and roof
and road winds. This can be seen from Figure 5.2.4-8 and the upper right
hand plots of 5.2.4-9 and -10. Since this is the closest location to ground
level, this suggests that both particulates and lead are ground originated at
the 40th Street site. The larger variation at both indoor locations then
measured at the outdoor locations tend to substantiate this.
The differential lead percentages are presented in Figures 5.2.4-11
and -12. These plots further demonstrate the randomness of percent lead at
all locations.
5-264
-------
320
o
<
h
Z
LU
O
oc
LU
a.
Q
340
360
380
TRAFFIC FLOW RATE - VEHICLES
HR
400
I
30
40 50 60
TEMPERATURE - DEGREES F
70
Figure 5.2.4-8. 3rd Floor Percent Lead Vs. Traffic and Temperature - Site 2
5-265
-------
3
DC 2
O
O
O
D
0
u_
O
O ,
C 1
iu 0
oc
8 2
• 2
^F L_
• A o
• oc
nA ^fc -J
^^L ^ 1
• * Q '
w OC
_ CO
I I I I o
-
• 0
0
• 0
Q ^r A
9
* •*"
I 1 I I
^ 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Z
g Roof Wind Angle
oc
LJJ
0.
o .
U!
3
CO
oc
0
O
O
Z
I2
I
J°
i
0
r 4
* 3
CO
oc
o
o
• Q
Z
_ • . ' § 2
• 3
^
•• * -
• •
— 1
I I I I 0
_
•
A
A
0 0
t
%
•
h- * ***
1 1 1 1
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Roof Wind Angle
Figure 5.2.4-9. Lead Percentage Vs. Roof Wind Angle - Site 2
5-266
-------
59
1
111
O
h-
z
LU
O
CC
LU
Q.
2
Ul
J
co 2
cc
o
O
Q
L
^
O
LL
O
§ 1
Q
- •
•
„•
•
•
• •
• ^.*
•
1 1 1 1
0 90 W> 270 36(
4
3
CO
cc
0
0
0
z
§ 2
o
LL
X
1—
00
*~
1
f\
^
•
, •
•
•
— •
•
•
•
••
•
•
1 1 1 1
0 90 180 270 36
3 r-
CO
§2
O
Q
I-
o
cc
O
o
o
oc
CO
0
0
Road Wind Angle
4 r-
oc
o
§.
cc
8 2
0
I
90
180
270 360
I
I
I
90
180
0
Road Wind Angle
Figure 5.2.4-10. Lead Percentage Vs. Road Wind Angle - Site 2
270
360
5-267
-------
2
1
OUTDOORS
0
-1
I
2
• 1
* w
§ 0
O
- -1
I I I I 2
A
.- *•
—
1 1 1 1
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
ROOF WIND ANGLE ROAD WIND ANGLE
K
IXJ
X
Ul
u.
u_
5
Q
ai
LLJ
LLJ
o
oc
ff 3
2
1
INDOORS
0
-1
9
r 3
2
_ 1
0 ' QC
— • -1
11*11 9
r-
-
\—
*« '
• * •
-
1 1 1* 1
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
90 180 270
ROAD WIND ANGLE
360
Figure 5.2.4-11. Percent Lead Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-268
-------
I
<
LU
OC
LU
LL
LL
5
O
£ 1
00
O
LL
O
-2
I*
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
£ 1
oo
3 0
O
-2
1 •
90 180 270
ROAD WIND ANGLE
360
LU
O
CC
LU
0.
o
cc
§-,
LU
Q
OC
<•> _2
-3
••
1
1
1
90 180 270
ROOF WIND ANGLE
360
2 I-
I
J— o
D
DC
O
q -i
Q
cc
n -2
?
1
!
90 180 270
ROAD WIND ANGLE
360
Figure 5.2.4-12. Outdoor/Indoor Percent Lead Differential Vs. Wind Angle - Site 2
5-269
.1J.U.S. Government Printing Office: 1973—7*6-769/4161 Region No.
------- |