&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 4-79-041
June 1979
Research and Development
Air Quality Data for
Nonmetallic
Inorganic Ions
NH4, NOsTSO;; 1976
from the National Air
Surveillance
Networks
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
AIR QUALITY DATA FOR NONMETALLIC
INORGANIC IONS: NH4+, N03~, $04=
1976
FROM THE NATIONAL AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORKS
by
Donald H. Fair, Raymond C. Rhodes, E. Gardner Evans
Statistical and Technical Analysis Branch
John C. Puzak
Quality Assurance Branch
Frank E. Butler, John E. Frazer and Allan Riley
Analytical Chemistry Branch
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Measurement and monitoring research efforts are designed to anticipate
potential environmental problems, to support regulatory actions by develop-
ing an in-depth understanding of the nature and processes that impact health
and the ecology, to provide innovative means of monitoring compliance with
regulations and to evaluate the effectiveness of health and environmental
protection efforts through the monitoring of long-term trends. The Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina is responsible for development of: environmental monitoring tech-
nology and systems; agency-wide quality assurance programs for air pollution
measurement systems; and technical support to the Agency's operating
functions including the Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, the Office of
Toxic Substances and the Office of Enforcement.
Data concentrations of three nonmetallic inorganic ions in particulate
matter from the National Air Surveillance Networks are presented in this
report. It is anticipated that this report will be updated on an annual
basis. Any changes in the introductory material (site descriptions, data
table presentations, laboratory methodology, etc.) made by EPA will be
included in future reports.
Thomas R. Hauser
Director
Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Samples collected during 1976 by the cooperating stations of the
National Air Surveillance Networks (NASN) provided the data for summarizing
the annual urban and nonurban concentrations of three nonmetallic inorganic
ions in suspended particulate matter. The ions are ammonium (NH4+), nitrate
(N03~), and sulfate (S04=). Concentration data are presented as cumulative
frequency distributions. The arithmetic and geometric means and standard
deviations are also reported.
Four previous EPA publications, APTD-0978, APTD-1466, EPA-600/4-
77-003, and EPA-600/4-78-035 list data collected during 1968, 1969-1970,
1971-1974, and 1975 respectively, for the three types of ions.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword Ill
Abstract . 1v
Figures vl
Tables vl
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction 1
Organizational Structure 1
Sample Collection 3
Data Handling and Analysis 6
2. Quality Control 8
Introduction 8
Limits of Detection 9
Blank Filter Analysis and Limits of Discrimination 9
Precision 11
Bias 16
Analytical Quality Assessment . . 26
3. Laboratory Methods 29
Sampling Procedure 29
Nonmetallic Ion Analysis Procedure . 30
4. National Summary of Air Quality Measurements 32
5. Data Tables 37
Appendices
A. Grubb's Statistic for the Detection of Outliers 63
B. Confidence Limits of Measured Values 65
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 EPA Regions and Regional Offices 5
2-1 Mean and Range Control Charts (Low Level S04=) 19
2-2 Mean and Range Control Charts (Middle Level S04=) 20
2-3 Mean and Range Control Charts (High Level S04=) 21
2-4 Mean and Range Control Charts (Low Level N03~) 22
2-5 Mean and Range Control Charts (Middle Level NOa") 23
2-6 Mean and Range Control Charts (High Level NOa") 24
B-l Graphical Representation of Upper and Lower Confidence Limits. 67
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 NASN Networks Modifications 2
1-2 EPA Regions and Locations of Regional Offices 4
2-1 Limits of Detection, Blank Filter Analyses and
Limits of Discrimination 10
2-2 Measures of Precision for 1976 NASN Filters 13
2-3 Summary of Audit Sample Program for N03" and S04= 17
2-4 Analytical Precision and Bias 1976 28
4-1 Urban National Cumulative Frequency Distributions 34
4-2 Nonurban National Cumulative Frequency Distributions 35
5-1 Frequency Distributions of Nonmetallic Ions in
Suspended Particulates 40
Ammonium
Urban 40
Nonurban 46
Nitrates
Urban 48
Nonurban 54
Sulfates
Urban 55
Nonurban 61
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The data in this publication were collected with the generous
support of the many state and local air pollution control agencies that
operate the NASN stations. Also, the 10 EPA Regions have participated in
this program since 1973 by sending the high volume filters to the cen-
tralized laboratory of the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory.
The authors also thank those who contributed their time and effort to
publishing this document.
vn
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance and
cooperation of state and local agencies, conducts a variety of air sampling
activities to obtain information about the air quality in the United
States. One such program, the National Air Surveillance Networks (NASN),
has existed for over 20 years. The networks have grown and undergone many
modifications since their beginning, especially during the last 5 years.
Table 1-1 catalogues these recent changes.
The first change, in sampling schedule, was brought about to encourage
synoptic sampling with state/local ambient monitoring programs. In addi-
tion to assisting in the operation of the EPA sampling network, state and
local air pollution control agencies administer their own air pollution
control programs.
The second change, decentralization, was made to shift air monitoring
responsibility from one centralized laboratory to the 10 EPA regional
laboratories. This modification was implemented over the 14 month period
from December 1972 through January 1974. Moreover, in January 1974, the
responsibilities of the 10 EPA Regional Offices were extended further to
the overall management of the NASN sites. Additional duties included
weighing the sample filters and determining the concentrations of total
1
-------
TABLE 1-1. NASN NETWORK MODIFICATIONS
Month/Year
Change
Impact*
January 1972
December 1972
April 1973
December 1973
January 1974
Sample schedule changed from random All sites
biweekly to 12-day systematic sam-
ples, first sample collected 1/10/72.
Decentralization, Region II
Decentralization, Region I
Decentralization. Regions V, VII,
VIII, IX, X
Decentralization. Regions III, IV,
VI
NJ, NY, PR
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI,
VT
IL, IN, MS, MN, OH,
WI, IA, KS, MO, NE,
CO, MT, ND, SO, UT,
WY, AZ, CA, HI, NV,
AK, ID, OR, WA
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA,
WV, AL, FL, GA, KY,
MS, NC, SC, TN, AR,
LA, NM, OK, TX
*Abbreviations coincide with standard U.S. mail code designations for
states.
-------
particulates (TSP). Table 1-2 and Figure 1-1 indicate the locations of the
Regional Offices and the geographic areas of responsibility.
After completing their tasks, the EPA regional laboratories send the
sample filters to the EPA Filter Bank for routine trace constituent1
analyses. The filters were stored there for non-routine, special analyses
as required.
Although pollutant monitoring was decentralized, the analysis and
publication of the trace pollutant data remained the responsibility of one
laboratory, the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Prior to January 1974, sample
filters also were weighed and analyzed for TSP by EMSL; however, after this
date, the EPA regional laboratories performed these tasks as mentioned
previously.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Samples were collected at approximately 300 urban and 35 nonurban NASN
sites located across the country. The urban sites are generally located
within a city or town or adjacent suburbs. The nonurban sites were
originally located in rural or remote areas, although with the passage of
time, many of these rural areas, especially in the northeast, have become
more heavily populated and thus are subject to increasing influences of
spreading urbanization. Voluntary operation of each site is maintained
through the generous assistance of local or state agencies and individuals
; s as park rangers, firemen, or policemen.
Petals, nonmetallic inorganic ions, and BaP.
-------
TABLE 1-2. EPA REGIONS AND LOCATIONS OF REGIONAL OFFICES
Region Regional Office Location
I Boston, Massachusetts
II New York, New York
III Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IV Atlanta, Georgia
V Chicago, Illinois
VI Dallas, Texas
VII Kansas City, Missouri
VIII Denver, Colorado
IX San Francisco, California
X Seattle, Washington
-------
V ALASKA (REGION X)
VIRGIN ISLANDS
PUERTO RICO
(REGION II)
GUAM TO HAWAII
(REGION IX)
Figure 1-1* EPA Regions and Regional Offices
-------
Prior to 1972, 24-hour samples (beginning at midnight) were collected
according to a biweekly (26 samples per year) modified random sampling
schedule. The schedule was modified to ensure equal representation for
each of the seven days of the week. Since 1972, however, samples have been
collected every 12th day (30 or 31 samples per year). The initial sampling
date was January 10, 1972. This sampling schedule eliminates the need for
redesigning a new sampling schedule each year. In addition, it is easily
implemented in the field.
DATA HANDLING AND ANALYSIS
Beginning with the 1974 samples, the responsibility for managing the
NASN was given to each of the 10 EPA Regions (Table 1-2). Prior to that
time one centralized laboratory located at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, weighed and analyzed the high volume filters. The Regions now
send the total suspended particulate values to the National Aerometric Data
Bank (NADB) and the weighed filters to the EPA Filter Bank (FB) for routine
trace constituent analyses and storage in the Filter Bank for non-routine
special analyses as needed. The resulting data are published by EMSL and
are sent to the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB) for archiving.
The sampling data were analyzed by EMSL to determine those data to
exclude from data summaries because of anomalies. The precision and bias
of the data were determined using statistical analyses. The overall
accuracy of the sampling data was evaluated to assist with interpretation
of the air quality summaries.
The air quality summaries include annual concentration data classified
as urban and nonurban origin and compiled for the nation as a whole and
-------
also for individual site locations. The data are presented as cumulative
frequency distributions, and the arithmetic and geometric means and
standard deviations also are tabulated.
-------
SECTION 2
QUALITY CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the quality control data from which analytical
detection limits and analytical performance were determined. The assess-
ment of analytical performance includes the estimation of precision and
bias. These estimates are combined statistically to determine an overall
measure of analytical quality assessment.
To ensure that only valid data were used, the data were subjected to a
stringent test for outliers. A Grubb's statistical test for multiple
outliers was used as described in Appendix A. The data were compared
within a year and against the previous three years to determine whether the
values were outliers. All outliers were reported to the laboratory for
reanalysis of the sample filters.
Of the samples analyzed, there was only one (1) value for sulfate and
none for nitrate that seemed to be an outlier. The sulfate value was
reported to the laboratory for reanalysis and the new result was no dif-
ferent from the value originally reported.
8
-------
LIMITS OF DETECTION
The "limit of detection" for an instrumental analytical method is the
minimum concentration of the constituent or species of interest which can
be observed by the instrument and distinguished from instrumental noise
with a specified degree of probability.1 The limits of detection were
determined by fitting a linear equation to the instrumental noise level,
expressed as a standard deviation, as a function of concentration and
extrapolating to zero concentration. The limits of detection values given
in Table 2-1 are 3.3 times the extrapolated standard deviation plus the
intercept obtained from the response versus known concentration relation-
ship. These limits, therefore, are the upper 97.5 percent tolerance
limits, at 95 percent confidence* for the instrumental noise at zero
concentration.
It is noted from Table 2-1 that for the sulfate analysis, the limit of
detection has decreased since 1973. This decrease has been attributed to
the replacement of the Autoanalyzer, Technicon I with the Technicon II.
Analyses for nitrate and ammonium ions have also been made with the Tech-
nicon II since 1973. However, the decreases have not been significant.
BLANK FILTER ANALYSES AND LIMITS OF DISCRIMINATION
Prior to the filters being distributed for sampling, at least twenty
clean (unexposed) filters from the filter lot used by the NASN were
"Trace Analysis, Physical Methods," G.H. Morrison, Ed., Interscience
Publishers, (1965), pages 2-3.
2 it
Experimental Statistics," Mary Natrella, NBS Handbook 91, Table T-15,
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIMITS OF DETECTION, BLANK FILTER ANALYSES AND LIMITS
OF DISCRIMINATION
Concentration, yg/m8*
Blank Filter Analyses
Ion
Ammonium
Nitrate
Sulfate
Year
1971-1974
1975
1976
1971-1974
1975
1976
1971-1973
1974
1975
1976
Limits of
Detection
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.6
0.2
0.05
0.07
Average
0.05
0.02**
0.04
0.06
0.02**
0.07
0.8
0.5
0.3**
0.29
Standard Limits of
Deviation Discrimination
0.05 0.12
0.04 0.10
0.16 0.38
*The values were calculated assuming an air volume of 2500 cubic meters
per filter.
**The corresponding values were incorrectly reported in the previous
report, EPA-600/4-78-005.
10
-------
analyzed for NH4+, N03-s and S04=. The average results of these analyses,
given below, were used to correct the raw analyses for the exposed filters.
NH4+ 0.02 yg/m3
N03- 0.02 yg/m3
S04= 0.30 yg/m3
During the analysis of the exposed filters, blank filters were analyzed
with each analysis run for quality control purposes. The averages and
standard deviations of these quality control blanks are presented in Table
2-1.
The "limit of discrimination" is the minimum concentration unique to a
given batch of filters and the measurement methods involved which can with
a specified degree of probability be attributed to the particulate on the
filter and not confused with the combined effect of the filter material
itself and the measurement method.3 The limit of discrimination is deter-
mined from the standard deviation of the analyses of blank filters, which
includes measurement error associated with filter material and the analytical
method. The limit of discrimination is the upper limit of the tolerance
interval (95%-95%) centered at zero concentration (the average blank filter
analysis is subtracted from all determinations). The calculated values for
the limits of discrimination are presented in Table 2-1.
3>Assessment of Arsenic Losses During Ashing: A Comparison of Two
Methods Applied to Atmospheric Particulates," J.F. Walling, et. al.,
JAPCA, Vol. 28, No. 11, November 1978.
11
-------
In earlier reports, separate limits of discrimination were given for
urban and nonurban samples because the portion of each filter used for
analysis of nonurban samples was larger than that for urban samples in or-
der to obtain enough particulate matter for analysis. Beginning with the
samples for 1974, the portions of each filter used for analysis have been
the same for both urban and nonurban samples, the portion being the same as
previously used for urban samples. Therefore, the limits of discrimination
values for 1974, 1975, and 1976 apply to both urban and nonurban samples.
PRECISION
Table 2-2 presents precision estimates for the various analyses. The
measures of precision are expressed as percentages of concentration level
because precision is generally concentration dependent.
Precision estimates are based upon the percent difference between
analysis of extracts from two different filter strips from the same filter.
Thus, the measure of precision includes variation caused by the cutting,
extracting, and analytical processes as well as any actual variability
between filter strips. Precision data were generated throughout the
analysis period. Duplicate strips of every 10th sample were analyzed. For
1976 samples, approximately 200 pairs of duplicate strips were analyzed for
each ion. From analyses of these duplicate strips, precision estimates
have been obtained. In determining the estimates, a number of outlier
values were omitted from consideration. These outlier values resulted when
excessive percentage differences between the paired data were obtained.
For each pair of data, percentage differences were computed by the
following formula:
12
-------
TABLE 2-2. MEASURES OF PRECISION FOR 1976 NASN FILTERS
CO
Concentration
Level (yg/m3 )
Below 1.0
Above 1.0
Below 3
3*6
Above 6
Below 6
6*20
Above 20
Differences Between Dupl
Standard Deviation of
Percent Differences
S%d, (%)
60
37
24
14
18
18.0
9.4
5.8
icate Strip Analyses
99% Control Limits
(±2.576 S%d)
(%)
Ammonium
±155
± 95
Nitrates
± 62
± 36
± 46
Sul fates
± 46
± 24
± 15
Individual
Coefficient of
Variation, Cv
(%)
42
26
17
10
14
12
6.7
4.1
Analysis Values
Approximate 95%
Confidence Limit
(»)
±85
±52
±34
±20
±28
±25
±13
± 8.2
-------
%d - C2(xi-x2) * (xi*x2)](100) (1)
where %d = percentage difference between analyses of duplicate
strips (difference between values divided by the
average of the two values), percent
XL X2 = concentration values of the two analyses of
duplicate strips, pg/ms
For each of the different pollutant concentration ranges as shown in Table
2-2, the average percent difference (fd) and the standard deviation of
percent differences (S%d) were calculated. The standard deviation of
percentages is calculated by the following equation:
0.5
(2)
n-1
The above standard deviation applies to the percentage differences of the
results from the duplicate strips, and provides a basis for control limits
which can be applied to the results of future duplicate strip analyses.
The standard deviations and the 99 percent control limits which are assoc-
iated with the percentage differences between duplicate strips are shown in
Table 2-2.
The standard deviations of Table 2-2 must be divided by \|Tto obtain
the standard deviation (actually coefficient of variation) which measures
the precision of an individual reported pollutant concentration value. It
has been shown that, for normal underlying parent distributions with co-
efficients of variation, T, less than 0.35, the distribution of percent
14
-------
differences is approximately normal with standard deviation, /2r. See "The
Distribution of the Relative Difference of Paired Data," by J.C. Suggs,
Proceedings, Quality Assurance in Air Pollution Measurement, March 11-14,
1979, New Orleans, LA. These coefficient of variation values are also
shown in Table 2-2 and can be used for computing approximate confidence
limits on individual reported pollutant concentration values, considering
precision only, i.e., assuming no bias. Approximate confidence limits* are
computed from the following formula:
Lu = X [1 + kCv/100] (3a)
L£ = X [1 - kCv/100] (3b)
where Lu = upper confidence limit, yg/m3
L^ = lower confidence limit, yg/ms
X = single reported sample value, yg/m1
k = standard normal deviate corresponding to the desired
confidence level
Cv = coefficient of variation of individual analysis
values, percent
As a sample calculation, assume that an individually reported
concentration for nitrate is 5.3 yg/ms. In Table 2-2 the corresponding
value for the coefficient of variation is 10 percent. Assuming that 95
percent confidence limits of the true value are desired, the value of k is
1.96. Substituting these data in Equation 3:
*A more exact formula is presented in Appendix B,
15
-------
Lu = 5.3 [1 + 1.96(10)/100] = 6.3 yg/ms (4a)
L£ = 5.3 [1 - 1.96(10)7100] = 4.3 yg/m3 (4b)
These limits can also be given the following interpretation. If it
were possible to analyze a large number of individual strips from the same
filter having a true nitrate concentration of 5.3 yg/ms, 95 percent of such
results would fall within the stated limits.
BIAS
An independent estimate of bias is obtained for nitrate and sulfate
analyses through an audit program involving the analysis of strips of blank
high volume filters, identical to those used for ambient air sampling, but
which have been spiked with known amounts of nitrate and sulfate. The
percent recovery is calculated as follows:
Percent Recovery = Analyzed Value/Known Value x 100
Bias is equal to the percent recovery minus 100.
The samples used for audits have been developed by the Quality Assur-
ance Branch (QAB) of EMSL as part of its program for assisting analytical
laboratories to improve their inhouse analysis capabilities. Each lot of
samples is analyzed by QAB and a corroborative laboratory before it is
accepted for use in the audit program. The QAB analysis, the corroborative
analysis and the attempted spike must agree to within 5 percent and the
coefficient of variation for a spike level must be less than 2.5 percent or
the samples are rejected. Table 2-3 presents the bias information.
The main use of the audit results is to document chronologically the
precision and accuracy achieved by the analytical laboratory. QAB has
found that a meaningful way to display the precision and accuracy is
through mean and range control charts.
16
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF AUDIT SAMPLE PROGRAM FOR
N03- and 504=
Mean
Concentration
Below 3 yg/mj
3*6 yg/m3
Above 6 yg/ms
All Samples
Below 6 ug/m*
6*20 yg/ms
Above 20 pg/m3
All Samples
Recovery
(%)
96.7
95.5
97.6
96.6
95.7
95.0
94.9
95.2
Bias Standard Deviation Number
(%) of Recovery and Bias of Samples
(%)
Nitrate
-3.3
-4.5
-2.4
-3.4
Sulfate
-4.3
-5.0
-5.1
-4.8
6.3
5.6
3.4
5.3
9.3
3.3
3.0
5.9
59
60
60
179
58
60
60
178
Results of audit samples analyzed with 1976 NASN filters.
17
-------
Every two weeks a set of 10 audit samples is given to the analytical
laboratory to be analyzed with the ambient air samples. One blank and
triplicates in a high, middle, and low range are included in each set. The
analytical laboratory distributes the audit samples as evenly as possible
among the analysis days during the audit period and intersperses the audit
samples throughout their normal analyses of ambient air samples. Mean and
range control charts are constructed and routinely used for the high level,
mid-level, and low-level samples. These control charts for the analyses of
the 1976 filters are presented in Figures 2-1 through 2-6. Figures 2-1,
2-2, and 2-3 show the results of $04 audit samples for the low, middle,
and high levels, respectively. Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 show the results
of N03 audit samples for the low, middle, and high levels, respect-
ively. The low, middle, and high levels correspond to the concentration
levels shown in Table 2-3. The means and the upper and lower control
limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) were based on the results from similar
audit samples for 1975 filters. The control limits are 3-sigma (3 stand-
ard deviation) limits representing the 99.7 percent probability limits. On
the figures, the alphabetical designators along the abscissa scale (week)
represent the set of audit samples given to the laboratory biweekly. Thus,
the plotted values for the "Percent Accuracy" on the bottom figure of each
page represent the average of the three audit samples at each level. The
plotted values for "Percent Range" on the top figure of each page
represents the percentage range of the three audit samples at each level,
computed as follows:
18
-------
H0.00
. 00
s
0.
B0.00 1
UCL= 3B.E3
MEHN= 15.00
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i
LCL= 0.00
UCL= 113.35
MERN= 9B.00
t i i i i i i t i i i t i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t t i t <
LCL= B2.BB
RBCDErEH.IJKLMNDPQR5T
WEEK
LDW LEVEL
Figure 2-1. Mean and Range Control Charts (Low Level S04=)
19
-------
15.00
El. BE!
I0S.00
UCL= I I.S3
M£HN= H.50
i i-i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
LCL= 0.00
UJ
O-
BS.00 1
UCL= 33.B0
LCL= 30.H0
RBCDEFEH.I JKLMNDPQR5T
MIDDLE LEVEL
Figure 2-2. Mean and Range Control Charts (Middle Level $04=)
20
-------
IS. 00
0.00
I0S.00
LJCL= I I. £9
MERN= H.S0
i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
BS.00 1
RBCDEFGH.IJKLMNaPQRST
HIGH LEVEL
WEEK
LCL= 0.00
UCL= 9B.E0
LCL= 90.H0
Figure 2-3. Mean and Range Control Charts (High Level S04=)
21
-------
UCL= 13.31
MEHN= 7.SB
t t t i i i i i li i ) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t t i t t i i i t i i i t i i i i i i
LCL= 0.00
10.00
LJCI_= I0S.E7
1
a
a.
MERN= . .90,1
LCL= 30.33
as.00 1
RBC&EFGH.I JKLMNDPQR5T
LOW LEVEL
WEEK
Figure 2-4. Mean and Range Control Chart? (Low Level N03~)
22
-------
IS. 00
UCL= IZ.BB
MEHN= S.00
i i i i t t i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
0.00
LCL= 0.00
I0S.00
BS.00 1
LJCL= 101.12
LCL= 30.H3
HBCDEFBH.I
MIBDLE LEVEL
MEEK
Figure 2-5. Mean and Range Control Charts (Middle Level
23
-------
15.00
0.00
I0S.00
UCL= I I.S3
MEHN= H.S0
i i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i t i i t i t i i i i i i i t i
LCL= 0.00
as.00 1
LJCL= I 02.60
LCL= 93.H0
RBCDEFGH.IJKLMNQPQR5T
HIGH LEVEL
MEEK
Figure 2-6. Mean and Range Control Charts (High Level
24
-------
Percent Range = [(XH-XL)/X3](100)
where XH = the highest value of each set of 3
X|_ = the lowest value of each set of 3
X*3 = the average of the 3 values of each set
Observations from the control charts reveal that very few of the plotted
points exceed the control limits and those exceeding the limits generally
are isolated values. Hence with few exceptions, the laboratory results of
the audit samples indicate that the analytical process was statistically as
accurate as that determined from the 1975 analyses. The occurrence of
out-of-control points triggered an investigation including re-analysis of
filters for the period represented by the audit samples.
The standard deviation of the analytical results can be used to
estimate the variability due to the extraction and analysis procedures.
Nitrate analyses of audit filters had a standard deviation of 5.3 percent
while the sulfate analyses had a standard deviation of 5.9 percent. These
values are approximately 8.4 percent less for nitrate ion and 1.7 percent
less for sulfate ion than corresponding average values of coefficient of
variation of individual analyses in Table 2-2. These differences represent
the variability of cutting the sample duplicate strips and of heterogenity
across the filter because the cutting operations and actual variations from
strip-to-strip within the same exposed filter were involved in the analysis
of duplicate strips but were not involved in the analyses of the spiked
audit strips.
It may be assumed that the bias estimates for nitrate and sulfate were
no different during the earlier years when audits where not conducted.
25
-------
ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The precision and bias estimates discussed previously have been
combined into an overall estimate of "Analytical Quality." Based on the
estimates of bias and precision, an individual pollutant value (minimum,
maximum or percentile) appearing in the data tables is expected to be
correct (from an analysis standpoint) within the stated interval with a 95
percent confidence.
The approximate upper and lower confidence limits* (Lu and L£,
respectively) are calculated as follows:
Lu = X (1 - B/100 + 1.96 Cv/100) (5a)
LA = X (1 - B/100 - 1.96 Cv/100) (5b)
where X = the individual analysis value
B = bias, percent
Cv = coefficient of variation of individual analysis
For example, the maximum sulfate value for Birmingham, Alabama for
1976 was 24.9 yg/ms. Since from Table 2-4 the bias is -5.1% and the
coefficient of variation for precision is 4.1%, the resulting confidence
limits are:
Lu = 24.9[l-(-5.1)/100 + (1.96)(4.1)/100] = 28.2 (6a)
L£ = 24.9[l-(-5.1)/100 - (1.96)(4.1)/100] = 24.2 (6b)
It is emphasized that the estimates determined by the above formulas
consider only variability from sample preparation (i.e., cutting, extrac-
tion) and analysis. Further, it is assumed that the bias is constant, and
*A more exact equation is presented in Appendix B,
26
-------
that the inherent variability due to sample preparation and analysis
remains unchanged. Furthermore, if additional information were known
concerning variation due to factors such as the flow rate or other vari-
ables of sampling, then these confidence intervals would be wider. As a
result, all confidence limits are under-estimates of the total variability
of the total measurement process, including sampling and analysis.
Estimates of the bias and the precision for 1976 analytical results
are summarized in Table 2-4. Corresponding values for previous years are
presented in earlier reports.
27
-------
TABLE 2-4. ANALYTICAL PRECISION AND BIAS, 1976
Ion
Concentration
Range, v9/ms
Bias
Percent
(from Table 2-3)
Precision
Cv Percent
(from Table 2-2)
Ammonium
Nitrate
Sulfate
<3
3*6
>6
<6.0
6*20
>20
-3.3
-4.5
-2.4
-4.3
-5.0
-5.1
42
26
17
10
14
12
6.7
4.1
28
-------
SECTION 3
LABORATORY METHODS
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The mass of particulate matter per volume of air was determined by
weighing a filter before and after sampling, and measuring the sample air
flow rate. Air was drawn through a preweighed glass-fiber filter with a
high volume air sampler.
The sample air flow rate was set at approximately 1.7 cubic meters per
minute, or approximately 2500 cubic meters of air during the 24-hour
sampling period. A calibrated rotameter was read at the beginning and end
of the sampling period, and the average value was used to obtain the
average sample flow rate. Using the sampling time (24 hours) and the
measured flow rate the total sample volume of air was determined.
The filters, 20.3 by 25.4 cm, were made of flash-fired glass-fiber
selected for low and uniform background concentrations of the pollutants to
be measured. To eliminate filters having pinholes, creases, or other flaws
that could affect air flow, the filters were visually screened for imper-
fections by placing each filter in front of a beam of light. Prior to the
initial weighing, the filters were equilibrated for a minimum of 24 hours
29
-------
at a temperature of 24° Centigrade and a relative humidity of 50 percent
or less. A balance scale was used that permitted weighing the filters
without bending them.
The filters were then distributed unfolded to the cooperating local
agencies for the urban sites and to the designated participant responsible
for operating the nonurban site. After sampling, the filters were folded
in half with the collected particulate matter inside and returned to the
laboratory. The filter with the collected particulates was again equi-
librated for at least 24 hours at a temperature of 24° Centigrade and a
relative humidity of 50 percent or less, and then weighed to determine the
amount of particulate matter that was collected. These suspended partic-
ulate mass values were sent to the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB) on
a routine basis and the filters were sent to the Filter Bank for further
analyses.
NONMETALLIC ION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The analysis for inorganic ions during 1976 was performed by Northrop
Services, Incorporated, under contract no. 68-02-2566. This included the
analysis of blank filters, duplicate strips, and the routine sample fil-
ters. Previously, the analytical work was performed by EMSL.
Analyses for ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate ions were performed with
autoanalyzers on an aqueous extract of an 8.3 percent section of the
particulate filter, i.e., a 1.9 cm strip was cut across the fold. The
filter section was washed twice to obtain the final volume of 50 milli-
liters. This single solution was used for the three analyses. The most
30
-------
effective wave length for determining color for each pollutant was used.
Color values were converted to concentration values in units of yg/m5.
The analysis procedure for each ion is as follows:
1. The ammonium ions extracted from the exposed filters are analyzed
by reacting them with sodium phenol ate and sodium hypochlorite to produce a
blue-colored complex. The reaction is pH dependent; thus, below a pH of
7.0, no color is produced. The color of the complex is determined colori-
metrically at a wavelength of 625-630 nanometers.
2. The extract with water is analyzed for nitrate ion by reduction
of the nitrate to nitrite by a copperized-cadmium reduction column. The
nitrite is reacted with sulfanilamide in acidic solution to form a diazo
compound. This compound then couples with N-1-Naphthylenediamine dihydro-
chloride to form a reddish-purple azo dye which is determined colori-
metrically at a wavelength of 520-540 nanometers.
3. The extract is analyzed for sulfate ion by the methylthymol blue
(MTB) method using a single channel Technicon Autoanalyzer II system
equipped with a linearizer. The MTB method is based on the spectral
difference which exists in basic solution (pH 12.5-13.0), between the
barium complex of MTB and the free MTB. At this pH the barium complex is
blue and free MTB is brownish-red (absorbs light at 460 nm). Thus, the
color of solutions containing both the free MTB and the complex appears as
gray. The amount of free MTB, monitored colorimetrically at wavelengths of
460-480 nanometers, is the measure of the amount of sulfate in the sample.
31
-------
SECTION 4
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
The data in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are cumulative frequency distribu-
tions by ion of individual results by year for urban and nonurban
locations, respectively. Consider, for example, the first line in Table
\
4-1. The number, 3909, is the number of valid 24-hour samples analyzed for
ammonium in 1971. The next entry is the minimum value detected that year
and "LD" means the minimum detectable level of the instrument. The next
seven entries are the 10 through 99 percentile values. For example the 90
percentile value of 0.73 indicates that 90 percent of the 3909 values,
i.e., 0.90 x 3909 = 3518, were equal to or less than 0.73 pg/m3. The next
entry is the maximum annual value. The arithmetic mean and standard
deviation, and the geometric mean and geometric standard deviation are
presented in the last four columns in the table. Comparison among years
for a given pollutant provides a relative indication of trends.
Since typical levels of these pollutants, especially sulfates, may be
geographically dependent, the national frequency distribution is not
helpful for judging the localized contribution and relative severity of
32
-------
these pollutants for an individual site. Therefore, local site analyses
should be performed with data from surrounding sites within the same
general geographical area. Data for each site are presented in Section 5.
Also of consideration is that some of the variability from year to year in
the national summary tables may be attributed to different sets of sites
being used in the summarization depending upon the completeness criteria
for valid data as described in Section 5.
33
-------
TABLE 4-1. URBAN NATIONAL CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Ion Year
NH4+ 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
N03- 1971
co 1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
$04= 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Number
of
Samples
3909
5512
4778
4584
4113
3824
3900
5519
4775
4562
4113
3817
3916
5519
4774
4564
4110
3871
Percent of time concentration (ug/ms ) Arithmetic
is equal to or less than statistics
Min.
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
0.08
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.2
0.2
10
0.01
LD
0.01
0.01
0.20
LD
0.69
0.66
0.81
0.83
0.96
1.07
3.4
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.5
3.1
30
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.20
LD
1.55
1.58
1.71
1.74
2.00
1.99
5.7
6.7
6.3
6.3
6.1
5.4
50
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.20
0.08
2.29
2.47
2.58
2.54
2.91
2.80
8.0
9.4
8.1
8.3
8.3
7.4
70
0.15
0.09
0.17
0.34
0.20
0.25
3.22
3.55
3.65
3.63
4.12
3.83
10.9
12.7
10.9
11.3
11.5
9.9
90
0.73
0.59
0.73
1.36
1.13
0.85
5.02
5.90
6.24
6.46
7.18
6.48
18.0
20.3
17.5
17.9
18.1
16.5
95
1.23
1.20
1.37
2.26
2.18
1.39
6.48
7.88
8.31
8.62
9.90
9.53
22.0
25.4
22.7
22.8
23.8
20.0
99 Max. Mean
3.07 12.72 0.27
3.28 13.91 0.24
3.82 15.50 0.30
5.79 15.30 0.49
5.73 13.65 0.55
4.31 15.48 0.35
11.85 26.17 2.77
13.50 24.99 3.05
14.61 37.36 3.25
17.50 54.89 3.36
17.07 33.71 3.73
20.65 43.16 3.71
33.5 69.2 9.6
37.9 75.9 11.1
35.4 162.0 9.9
34.8 69.1 10.0
35.8 72.6 10.0
29.2 66.7 8.8
Std.
Dev.
0.69
0.72
0.79
1.12
1.06
0.81
2.30
2.61
2.87
3.40
3.31
3.83
6.8
7.7
7.0
6.7
7.0
5.8
Geometric
statistics
Mean
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.20
0.25
0.14
2.13
2.32
2.44
2.36
2.79
2.58
7.84
9.15
8.06
8.34
8.22
7.33
Std.
Dev.
4.14
4.57
4.23
3.85
3.48
3.91
2.06
2.10
2.13
2.32
2.15
2.34
1.89
1.87
1.89
1.83
1.88
1.83
-------
TABLE 4-2. NONURBAN NATIONAL CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Ion
NH4+
N03-
So4=
Year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Number
of
Samples
569
929
832
706
630
493
671
928
831
706
630
467
686
929
831
706
630
493
Percent of time concentration (yg/ms )
is equal to or less than
Min.
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
0.20
LD
0.4
LD
LD
0.1
0.2
0.2
10
0.01
LD
0.01
0.01
0.20
LD
0.06
LD
0.04
0.12
0.20
0.10
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
0.7
0.9
30
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
LD
0.31
0.15
0.28
0.37
0.20
0.36
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.1
1.8
50
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
LD
0.71
0.50
0.71
0.83
0.73
0.82
4.7
5.2
4.4
4.8
4.0
4.0
70 90 95 99 Max.
0.05 0.17 0.44 1.25 3.19
0.01 0.10 0.25 1.57 6.12
0.03 0.23 0.80 3.16 7.80
0.05 0.37 1.12 2.61 9.64
0.20 0.20 0.64 6.14 8.85
0.07 0.32 0.64 1.46 4.87
1.20 2.19 2.67 3.81 6.04
1.01 2.08 2.59 4.19" 6.59
1.26 2.35 2.83 4.47 6.67
1.37 2.52 3.16 5.13 6.65
1.41 2.74 3.28 4.85 11.85
1.51 2.82 3.54 4.73 6.15
7.2 11.8 15.5 23.6 35.4
7.8 13.7 17.4 24.8 42.7
6.3 12.0 17.0 29.8 53.2
7.2 12.2 16.6 27.0 90.0
6.4 11.6 15.2 28.7 48.3
6.5 11.3 13.9 21.3 36.3
Arithmetic
statistics
Mean
0.10
0.07
0.17
0.19
0.34
0.95
0.79
0.99
1.10
1.13
1.18
6.0
6.6
6.0
6.2
5.5
5.3
Std.
Dev.
0.28
0.32
0.65
0.62
0.79
0.92
0.92
1.02
1.07
1.16
1.16
4.9
5.4
5.9
6.2
5.7
4.9
Geometric
statistics
Mean
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.68
0.52
0.69
0.79
0.78
0.84
4.7
5.1
4.2
4.4
3.8
3.8
Std.
Dev.
4.31
5.68
5.28
4.85
3.92
2.26
2.52
2.34
2.25
2.35
2.27
2.03
2.05
2.29
2.30
2.36
2.22
-------
SECTION 5
DATA TABLES
The data are arranged by urban and nonurban sites. Each monitoring
site is assigned a unique code number as described in the SAROAD Station
Coding Manual.*
The data are presented in the same format as that described previously
for the national summaries. Values are expressed in micrograms of pollu-
tant per cubic meter of air. Data are judged to be valid (representative)
if there were at least five valid samples obtained each quarter of the
year. In addition, when no samples were collected during a month of a
quarter, at least two valid samples must have been collected during the
other two months. In order to provide a more comprehensive data summary,
some data which are not valid, as identified by an asterisk following the
year, are presented if three conditions are satisfied, namely:
1. A total of at least 15 samples were collected that year
2. Data for at least two quarters were valid
3. At least one sample was obtained in each of the other two
quarters
*Fair, D.H. SAROAD Station Coding Manual. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Publication No. APTD-0907. February 1972.
37
-------
The minimum detectable concentrations for the three nonmetallic
inorganic ions are presented in Table 2-1. Values below this analytical
limit of detection are reported as "LD's" in the data tables, and a yearly
mean is calculated by replacing the LD's with a value equal to one-half the
value of the LD. If more than 25 percent of the individual values during a
year are below the analytical detection limit, the summary statistics are
not calculated. When more than 50 percent of the individual results during
a year are below the analytical detection limit, only the minimum, maximum
and number of results below the LD are shown.
Data table headings present the bias and precision information from
Table 2-4. For example, the headings for sulfate include the following:
ANALYTICAL QUALITY
Cone. Range Bias Precision
(yg/rn3)
<6.0
6*20
>20
-4.3
-5.0
-5.1
12
6.7
4.1
The bias and precision values can be used in Equations (5a) and (5b)
to compute approximate upper and lower 95 percent confidence limits on the
true concentration for a given reported concentration. For example, the
approximate confidence limits for a reported sulfate concentration of
8.4 yg/ms would be:
Lu = X(1-B/100 + 1.96 Cv/100) (5a)
= 8.4[l-(-5.0)]/100 + 1.96(6.7)/100
= 9.9 yg/mj
38
-------
LA = X(1-B/100 - 1.96 Cv/100) (5b)
= 8.4[l-(-5.0)]/100 - 1.96(6.7)7100
= 7.7 yg/m
Thus, the interval between 7.7 yg/ms and 9.9 yg/m* would be expected
to include the true value with a confidence of about 95 percent.
39
-------
POLLUTANT - 12i01 - A^BOklUB
URBAN
ANALYTICAL OUALITT 951 COKF.
UNITS - 01 - UO
SHE:
ALAbABA
BIRMINGHAM
010380003101
3ADS3EN
KUNTSVILLE
01 1B63001A01
•OPILE
OI23E0001'Cl
0124b0001Aol
ARIZONA
OHOEHIX
030600102AOI
TUCSON
ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK
0>144300UCI
TEXAQKANA
0>2563GOIA01
WEST hEHPHlS
0<2740G01A31
CALIFORNIA
ANAHtIM
05023C001AD1
3ERIIELE<
BURBANK
05090Q002A01
FRE510
LONS BEACH
OS4100001A01
LOS ANGELES
05H83D01A01
OAKLAND
05S330001A01
ONTARIO
OS53BOOD1A01
OASADENA '
055760002A01
SACRAMENTO
ostseoooHoi
SAN BERNARDINO
056680001101
SAN 01E60
056HOD004AO]
SAN FRANCISCO
056860001A01
SAK JOSE
05698Q004AOI
SANTA ANA
057180001101
TORRANCE
058260DD1A01
COLORADO
DENVER
CONNECTICUT
SRIDSCPO'I
070060001 A 01
HARTFORD
07D420002A01
»E« »A«t»
070700001A01
UATEBBURV
071240123A01
/cu
VB
76
76«
7b>
76«
76
7,
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76*
76*
76
76
1
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76*
"CUR
HO.
30
22
2b
23
2C
.,,
30
30
.-T
29
29
28
28
:o
2,
25
28
31
30
26
31
31
30
30
29
28
30
30
23
125 Cl
fit,
LD
LO
LL
LD
LD
LD
LC
LO
LO
LD
ID
LD
LC
ID
LD
LD
LD
LO
LO
LD
LO
LO
ID
LD
LD
LC
LO
LD
10
LO
LO
NO. OF
NO. OF
LD
NO. OF
LO
NO. OF
LD
LO
LD
LO
LD
13
LD
.07
LD
LO
LD
LD
LD
LD
LO
LD
LD
LD
LD
LO
20
LD
LO
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
LO
SAMPLES
LD
SAMPLES
.05
LD
LD
.09
LO
.05
LD
.09
.06
ID
.07
.07
LD
LD
LD
LD
LO
LD
LD
LD
3J
L3
L)
1 16)
1 121
LD
1 121
.07
1 161
.06
LO
LO
.11
LD
.11
LO
.10
.12
LO
.12
.07
to
LO
LO
L3
.07
LD
LD
LD
N H •
40 50
.05 .08
.09 .14
BELOb BIN.
bCLOU KIN.
LD -US
bELOb H1N.
.07 .10
BELOb Bin.
.10 .16
.07 .11
LD .06
.22 .31
.07 .14
.28 .41
LD .08
.24 .29
.18 .26
.05 .08
.15 .30
.16 .20
LO .05
LO .U9
LD .08
LD .06
.10 »17
LD .10
.09 .10
LO .09
1
60 70
.16 .40
.15 .17
DEI. EXCEEDS so»
DEI. ElCEEDS 501
.07 .21)
DEI. EXCEEDS 501
.18 .37
OET. ElCEEDS 50t
.23 .52
.17 .51
.07 .19
.41 .57
.22 .38
.54 .99 1
.09 .17
.52 .85
.39 .50
.11 .15
.74 .94 1
.36 .39
.10 .34
.12 .35
.09 .16
.11 .38
.25 .29
.16 .31
.10 .10
en
.47
.29
.25
.75
.96
.83
.47
.76
.40
.19
.37
.93
.64
.29
.56
.42
.71
.68
.39
.65
.10
.47
.19
90
.77
• 51.
.73
.91
1.61
1.04
1.11
1. 19
2.52
1.69
2.5.
.94
3.53
1.45
.59
4.84
.57
1.20
2.61
.74
1.30
.62
.58
.46
CONC. RANGE b
< 1.0
> 1.0
ARITHMETIC
MAX MEAN 51DCV
1.16
2.16
.30
.78
1.311
.90
2.55 .391 .56
1.09
2.91 ,f32 .75
1.65
6.61
4.10 .599 .84
4. IB
3.59 .(161 1.04
3.92
6.4S 1.184 z.06
3.36 .602 .8]
3.58
9.69 1.366 2.28
2.01 .332 .39
9.40
6.66
3.66
3.03
6.84
6.94
S.18
IAS PRLCISION
Ikt 1*1
•-26. 0
GEOMETRIC
BEAN sio
.156 4.11
.196 4.48
.275 3.9b
.343 4.98
.38b 4.S9
.252 4.31
.388 5.67
.192 3.07
.161 4.13
• INDICATES 1EARLT CRITERIA NOT NET
40
-------
POLLUIAN1 - 12JCJI - AMKONIUH
METHOD - 92 - Hl-«0l SODIU* PHENOLAIt
llll'S - 01 - UG/OJ HE.UB 125 tl
URBAN
N H 4
ANALYTICAL OU«IITT 951 CONF.
CONC. RANEE BUS PRECISION
IUG/H3I 111 III
< 1.0 '-12.0
> 1*0 «-26.0
DELiWARt
YEUARtt
0901<«^EJ01'C1 76 25
.;«««»:, 7t. 2,
FLFRIUA
JACKSONVILLE
1P1963102A01 76» ?2
ST PETERSBURG
GEORGIA
1 TLAUTA
1102GDQ01A01 76* 75
COLUMBUS
SAVANNAH
IDAHO
BOISE CITY
13Q2230D1A01 764 16
ILLINOIS
BLUE ISLAND
KOSOQ001AOI 76* 26
CHICAGO
1412230Q1A01 76« ?3
MOLINt
145123001A01 76 29
NORTH CHICA6C
PLOR1A
146083D01AOI 76 30
ROCK ISLAND
146700001101 76 28
SPRIN6FIELO
147280001IG1 76* 24
INDIANA
EAST CHICAGO
151180001A01 76 28
EIANSVILLE
I5130DD01AOI 76 3G
GAR>
1S1523001AO! 76 29
HAMMOND
1517BOD02A01 76 29
INDIANAPOLIS
15204DOD1AOI 76* IS
NEV ALBANY
152983002A01 76 28
SOUTH BEND
15I88D002AOI 76 30
TERRE HAUTE
154080001101 T6 26
IONA
DUBUQUE
161260Q08A01 76 28
KANSAS
KANSAS C1TT
171800012101 76» 24
LOUISIANA
BATON ROUGE
1902B0002A01 76* 20
IBER01LLE PAH
1912BD002AOI 76 28
LLt LD
LD LD
Id NO.
LD LD
LO NO.
LO LD
LD LD
LD NO.
10 NO.
LU NO.
LO NO.
LO ID
LO LD
LO NO.
LO LD
ID LD
LO LD
ID ID
LD LD
LO NO.
LO LD
ID LO
LO NO.
OF
HF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
20
LD
.»
S««PLtS
LD
SAMPLES
LD
LD
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
LD
LO
SAMPLES
LD
LO
LO
LO
LO
SAMPLES
.05
LO
SAMPLES
33
.07
1
LD
,
L9
LD
,
1
1
•
L3
10
,
LO
LJ
LO
LD
• 06
1
.07
L3
1
121
91
231
201
211
2SI
181
161
181
201
ID
.07
.15
BELOW
.07
BELON
LO
LO
BELOU
BELOU
BELON
BELON
BELOy
LD
.05
BELO*
ID
LD
.06
LO
.08
BELON
-10
.06
3ELOU
50
.24
.19
H1N.
.10
KIN.
.07
.06
HIN.
H1N.
BIN.
M1N.
HIN.
.06
.06
HIN.
.06
.06
.07
.06
.10
MM.
.1*
.06
HIM.
DET
DET
DET
DET
DET
DET
OET
DET
DET
DET
60 70 80 90 MAX
-.?? .42 .50 .98 3.03
.20 .33 .57 2.01. 2.32
. EXCEEDS SOt .52
.12 .24. .31 .45 3.04
. EXCEEDS sot -it
.07 .07 .15 .44 2.39
.07 .17 .22 .50 1.99
. EXCEEDS sot .82
•• EXCEEDS SOt 1.03
. EXCEEDS 50t .47
. EXCEEDS sot LO
. EXCEEDS S0» .57
.07 -ID .13 .20 .54
.08 .16 .26 .71 1.47
. EXCEEDS sot .57
.08 .11 .14 .34 1.78
.06 .16 .57 .70 2.16
.10 .IS .17 .25 .6]
.06 .10 .11 .16 .82
.17 .22 .48 .57 1.44
. EXCEEDS 5DI .29
.IS .26 .46 .78 1.41
.06 .09 .17 .30 1.80
. EXCEEDS SOt 1.34
HEAN STOEV HEAN STO
.464 .67 .193 4.01
.267 .13 .131 3.45
.297 .37 .147 3.42
• INDICATES YEABLr CRITERIA HOI "El
41
-------
POLLUTANT -
MrTHOO - 92
U"ITS - 01 -
SlTt:
LOU1S1INI
NEW OMLE1NS
SHCEYEPOJT
19274300H01
MARYLAND
5ALIJMORE
12301 - AHHON1UM
- UI-VOl SODIUM PHENOL11E
Ut/cl) h£TER (25 Cl
YR
76
76*
76*
NO.
30
»
22
HASS1CHU!ETT<
C APBKlDbC
2?03tn001*GI 76* 21
FALL RIVER
22GSmD01l01
«£>•• gCDFCHD
221500002101
JOPEHESUR
2?2t43004101
MICHIbAN
OETROIT
23118010I10I
76<
76*
76.
76
5R1ND RAPIDS
231H20D01101 76
LANSING
232*40001101
S1G1NAV
234760001101
MINNESOTI
OULUTH
241040301101
ST PAUL
24330003HOI
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON
251260002101
KISSOURI
ST LOUIS
264260001101
NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
OMAHA
261880030101
NEVADA
LAS VEGAS
290320011'01
RENO
290480D01A01
NEW JERSEY
CA»OEN
310720 OBl'Ol
EL12ABCTU
31 1300002101
GLASSBORO
311700 001A01
31232D001101
NEU1RM
PATERSON
314140001101
PERTH AHBOV
11422D001101
TRENTON
31540D001101
• INDICATES
' 76
76
76
76*
76
76*
76*
76«
76*
76*
76*
76*
76*
76*
76*
76*
76.
YEARLY
73
Z2
2.
29
3C
26
26
29
20
31
25
25
26
24
21
23
21
21
23
21
24
24
Mlh
11;
LD
It
LU
LO
Lti
LD
LO
LD
LO
LD
LD
ID
LO
LD
LO
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LO
LO
LO
LD
.05
CRITERIA NOT
10
KO. OF
NO. OF
13
LO
LO
LO
LO
LD
NO. t>F
NO. OF
NO. OF
NO. OF
LO
NO. OF
LD
NO. OF
NO. OF
NO. OF
LO
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
.05
HET
20
S«MPLES
SAMPLES
LD
LO
LO
LD
LD
LO
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
LD
SAMPLES
LD
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
.25
.09
.11
.05
LO
.05
LO
.14
30
1 161
1 151
.09
.06
U
• OS
L3
0
f 161
1 151
1 181
1 211
. LO
1 181
LO
1 151
1 18)
, ,4,
.33
.25
.17
.05
LO
.08
.09
.17
4U
BELOU
BELOk
.12
.06
.07
.07
LO
LO
BELOy
BELOU
BELOU
BELOU
.07
BELOU
LD
BELOU
BELOU
BELOU
.43
.29
.22
.07
LO
.22
.19
.24
USB
N H 4
50
MIN.
HIN.
.22
.11
.11
.11
LO
.06
HIN.
HIN.
HIN.
HIN.
.07
HIN.
.US
HIN.
HIN.
HIN.
.57
.it
.11
.06
.35
.36
.36
A N
60 70 80
OET.
OET.
.
.
•
OCT.
OET.
DET.
DEI.
•
DET.
.
DEI.
OCT.
DET.
.
.
<
.
.
•
•
EXCEEDS 50>
EXCEEDS sos
42 .46 .56
IB .19 .33
12 .15 .24
17 .20 .32
06 .16 .43
07 .09 .15
EXCEEDS 50«
EXCEEDS 501
EXCEEDS 50>
EXCEEDS 50>
09 .12 .13
EXCEEDS 501
06 .18 .24
EXCEEDS 5oi
EXCEEDS 501
EXCEEDS SOX
56 .61 1.31
36 .49 .53
40 .57 .96
06 .06 .13
52 .56 .78
50 .89 1.06
49 .61 .82
ANALYTICAL QUALITY 95> CONF.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
(UG/M3I III l»
< 1.0- «-42.0
> 1.0 .-26.0
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
90 MAX HEAN SIOEV HEAN 5TO
.99
• 74
. .92 4.66 .526 .97 .200 4.35
.53 1.60 .24D .35 .120 3.31
.64 5.49
•71 6<24 .495 1.32 *130 4.26
1.83 5.42
.17 2.10
1.27
.76
1.57
.29
.15 1.69
1.03
.53 2.06
1.26
.55
.62
.82
2.06 6.94 1.045 1.55 .507 3.78
.65 I. 00 .360 .23 .258 2.70
1.19 3.47 .587 .87 .212 4.63
.94 1.07
1.15 3.20 .587 .73 .273 4.18
1.39 4.71 .764 l.]D .269 5.36
.93 1.81 .486 .41 .329 2.65
42
-------
POLLUTANT - 12J01 * AXHOhlUH
H?THOD - 92 - HI-VOL SOD1UN PHENOLATE
U1ITS - 01 - U6/CU PETER 125 Cl
ANALYTICAL OUALITY 9S« CONF.
COIIC. HAN6C BI*S PRECISION
IUe/ftl> l«l It!
< 1.0 «-42.0
> 1.0 «-26.0
NO. HIN 10 20
ABITHHETIC GEOMETRIC
BEAN SIDE* »EAN STD
NEW MEXICO
ALBUOUERCUE
320040E.01A01
HEM YORK
JUFFILO
JJDHDJDl'C!
NEW YORK CITY
334f,eiG14AOI
nlAGARA FALLS
33474DOOUD1
OOCHCStCR
33S76DC01A01
SYRACUSE
316623001101
NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE
310703001A01
OUPHAH
BRE[NSBO»0
HINSTON-SAIEH
344460002A01
OHIO
AKRON
3*0063014101
CANTOh
361000 001A01
CINCINNATI
36122300IA01
CLEVELAND
1S1303001A01
PORISNOUTH
165620002A31
STEUBENVIlll
TOLEDO
366S00001A01
OKLAHOMA
TULSA
171000110ADI
PEWNSYLVINIA
ALLENIOWN
370123DQ1A01
ALTOONA
19014000IAOI
BETHLEHEM
3>07SD002A01
ERIE
191060002A01
HABBISeUBC
3938B0361A01
HA2LEIO*
393960 DOIAol
JOHNSTOWN
19446DBOH01
PHILADELPHIA
I97140004A01
PITTSBUBEH
39726DDD1IOI
BEADINe
39It20001AOI
5COANTON
398010001A01
WABHI11STEO
399I60002ADI
VEST CHESTEB
J59280110A01
71,0 20 LL< HO. OF SA"PLtS 1 161 BELOW HIM. OET. EICCCOS 50»
76« 21 LO .OS .19 .22 .31 .38 .12 .57 1.25
760 21 .C6 -OB .16 .2k .32 .il .57 .(1 .11
7b> 25 .IE! .!» .IS .27 .31 .02 -50 *60 .70
7bo 26 LD .07 .12 .IS .16 .27 .51 .67 .73
7b« 21 LD .05 .11 .23 .27 .33 .36 .<« .57
76 27 LD NO. OF SA1PLES 1 161 BELOW MIN. OET. ElCEEOS 50 »
76« z* LO LO LO .09 .15 .19 .24 .31 .48
76 29 LO 10 .36 .09 .12 .21 .22 .52 .77
76 30 LO LD .06 .11 .11 .14 .22 .27 .45
76« 21 LD LD LD .OS .09 .18 .21 .28 .54
76* 25 LO LO LD 13 LD .06 .09 .21 .41
76« 17 LD LD LD L3 '06 .17 .18 .24 .56
76 30 ID ID .05 .05 .06 .08 .10 .16 .24
76* 22 LD LO LD LD .07 .08 .08 .11 .17
76* 24 LD ID .05 .11 .22 .37 .53 .61 1.0*
76* 21 LD ID .10 .11 .16 .33 .46 .54 .75
76* 24 LO LD LD LD .10 .13 .21 .36 .42
76* 22 LD ID LD .OS .OS .05 .11 .17 .41
76* 24 LO LD .09 .10 .17 .26 .52 .57 .64
76* 21 LD LO .05 .05 .06 .28 J5 .53 1.01
76 28 LD LD .07 .11 .14 .15 .46 .S< .80
76 29 LD LD .07 .11 .19 .40 •*> .50 1.17
76 29 LD .05 .08 .13 .21 .39 .41 .48 .81
76 30 LO LD LD LD .OS .06 .23 .17 .71
76 26 LD LO LO .18 .20 .31 .42 .64 1.30
76* 24 LD ID .07 .09 .18 .12 .38 .56 .58
LD
1.17 1.74
.75 2.11
.94 1.2V
.74 1.16
.67
.74 5.30
.73 .94
1.60 2.30
2.07 2.69
1.20 1.60
1.14 2.03
.91 .««
1.41 10.62
.45 1.7B
.19 .SB
.73 1.37
1.B9 3.36
.89 3.71
.88 4.31
.76 4.67
l.ll 2.38
1.11 2.73
1.17 6.20
1.83 2.95
1.04 2.29
1.14 4.51
2.62 5.58
1.65 4.47
.577 .51 .380 2.79
.506 .43 .378 2.27
.457 .39 .295 2.84
.!B9 .28 .282 2.54
.254 .29 .123 3.59
.289 .27 .165 3.17
.529 .68 .211 4.18
.499 .79 .198 3.74
.389 .51 .169 3.93
.920 2.16 .235 5.11
.231 .37 .110 1.10
.373 .33 .229 3.17
.707 .85 .290 4.77
.55] .'0 .269 3.77
.422 .99 .116 4.35
•476 .54 .250 3.60
.496 .64 .206 4.«2
.670 1.18 .273 4.07
.672 .81 .278 4.60
.517 .55 .277 1.52
.890 1.12 .299 S.29
.626 .96 .256 4.25
• INDICATES YEARLY CBITE01A HOI HE1
-------
POLLUTANT - 1ZJ01 - AKMOMUM
METHOD - 92 - HI-VOL SODIUM PHfNOLATE
UlITs - Dl - Ub'CU PETER 125 Cl
SITE: 1R
PEhNSTLVIhl A
U1LKES-BIRRE
399430001*01 76*
VOPK
3»»S63322*OI 76*
°UEBTO BICO
SUAVUABO CO
431143001*01 76*
PONCE
JAPAN* SECA
132C65001IOI 76
"MODE ISLAND
EAST PROVIOtNC
4IDI23GD1AOI 76
PROVIDENCE
110300001101 76
SOUTH CADOL1KA '
COLUNblA
420769001A01 76
GREENVILLE
SOUTH OAIOTA*
SIOUX FALLS
4314600011)1 76*
TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA
440360001*01 7fc
TEXAS
AUSTIN
450220010*01 76*
CORPUS CHRIST!
451150001*01 76
DALLAS
451310002101 76*
FORT MORTH
45166DD01AD1 76*
LUBBOCK
453340001A01 76*
PASADENA '
151(113002*01 76*
UICHIIA FALLS
455560002*01 76
VIRGINIA
DANVILLE
4B0920001A01 76*
FAIRFAX CO
48101,3001101 76*
HAMPTON
461443001*01 76*
NORFOLK
482140301*01 76
PORTSMOUTH
RICHMOND
462660002*01 76*
ROANDKE
UASHINGION
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
492010001*01 76*
VEST VIREINIA
CHARLESTON
5902600D1A01 76
NO.
21
20
25
?7
26
28
26
26
24
26
21
22
19
22
21
27
22
17
22
21
27
„
27
26
20
26
Mlht
LD
LU
LD
LD
LD
LG
LD
ID
LD
LD
LO
LD
LD
ID
LD
10
LD
LO
10
ID
LD
LD
LD
to
LD
13
LD
LO
LD
LD
LD
.07
.05
NO. OF
LO
no. cr
NO. OF
NO. OF
NO. OF
LD
LD
LD
.05
LO
LD
LD
LO
LD
20
_5
LO
10
LO
LO
.10
.99
SIMPLES
LD
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
SAMPLES
LD
LO
.05
.1 2
LD
LD
LD
LO
33
.12
L>
L3
.07
.17
.13
1 141
.07
1 161
1 171
1 111
1 161
1 211
1 141
1 211
LO
.05
.12
.23
LD
LD
LD
LD
40
.24
LD
LD
LD
.22
.26
.14
BELOU
.10
BELOU
BELOU
BELOU
8ELOU
BELOU
BELOU
.21
.16
.15
.36
LO
LD
LD
LO
U R b
H H 4
SO
.26
.05
•05
.05
.42
.57
.22
HIS.
.24
H1N.
MIN.
KIN.
MIN.
HIN.
MIN.
MIN.
.25
.16
.23
.57
.07
LD
LO
.06
A
6D
OET
OET
DET
DET
DET
DET
DET
OET
.32
.07
.06
.05
.59
.67
.32
70 8D
.51 .56
.12 .20
.06 .06
.OS .10
.70 .SO
.77 .92
.40 .52
. EXCEEDS SOt
.36
.96 .56
. EXCEEDS 501
. EXCEEDS sm
. EXCEEDS SOt
. EXCEEDS SOt
. EXCEEDS SOt
. EXCEEDS SOt
. EXCEEDS SOt
.25
.29
.69
.11
.05
.05
.12
.63 .68
.50 .76
.60 1.19
.14 .17
.07 .12
.05 .OB
.19 .24
ANALYTICAL DUALITY 951 CONF.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
IUG/M3I It) III
< 1.0 «-12.0
> 1.0 «-26.0
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
90 MAX MEAN SIOEV MEAN SID
1.40 1.79 .452 .49 .227 3.85
.44 .60
.09 .15
.11 .24
1.06 2.40 .516 .54 .235 4.63
1.05 7.67 .791 1.43 .370 3.70
.96 4.76 .622 1.11 .258 3.54
.76 1.10 .261 .29 .145 3.S9
.60
•84 1.75 .393 .45 .167 3.94
.39
.27
.92
.32
LO
.24
.45
1.27 3.07 .571 .61 .214 4.70
.69 1.70 ,4]6 .44 .225 3.19
2.02 3.24 .777 .8] .390 4.35
.39 1.13
.17 .27
.10 .10
.73 I. 25
• INDICATES fEARLT CRITERIA NOT MET
44
-------
POLLU1AN! - 12301 - AHhONlUK URBAN ANALYTICAL QUALITY 951 CONF.
HMHOD - 92 - HI-VOL SOUIU* PHENOLMl CONC* RANGE BIAS PRCCISION
UVlTs - 01 - Ut/CU METtP 125 Cl It H 4 luG/NSI 111 t*>
< t.o «-«.o
> 1.0 *-26.0
SITE: VH
rftST VIRGINIA
HUHT1KGTON
5P07QDaoS»Cl fb*
SOUTH CHIRLCS1
5317b:001>Cl It,
-ISCON^IV
E»U CL*IBE
J>) 0640002*01. 7b«
UNOSHA
MADISON
ARI1HHETIC GEOMETHIC
?7 LD LD .35 .10 .16 »2\ .?6 .39 .50 .95 3.13 .«S? .69 .20» 3.57
2? LU LD LO lO .06 .07 .Q7 .08 .IS .2? .27
10 Lt LO LD LD LO >U5 .06 .Q9 .11 .28 1.3f)
SUPt'lOR
51 5<8D)01«OI '(• ?0 ID t.0. CF SlhPLCi I 151 BCLOU KIN. DEI. EXCEEDS 50>
-------
P3LLUTANI - 12301 - AMMONIUM
B'.IHOD - 52 - hl-VOl SODIUM PHENOLAlt
UllTs - 01 - ub/CU PETER I2S Cl
NONURBAN
ANALYTICAL DUALITY 95« CONF.
CONC. BAN6E BUS PRECISION
IUG/H3I Itl ISI
< 1.0 «-12.0
> 1.0 '-2t.il
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SHE: YR no. cm ID 20 33 no so to TO BO *a "*> MEAN SIDEV MEAN STO
ARIZONA
5BIND CANYON N
0:037000)103 76* 21 L[) NO. OF SAMPLES I 111 BELOW (UN. OET. EXCEEDS 50t .37
IRMvSAS
lOUISONEOY CO
Oll7t]001A03 76 30 ID MO. OF SjKPUS I 221 8EIOU H1H- OET. EXCEEDS Sot .86
COLORADO
1ESA VESOE MI
OilS3DIi02>D3 76» ?2 LO NO. OF SAMPLES I 221 BELO» KIN. OET- ElCEEOS 501 LD
3Et«»>BE
•ENT C0
03006^001*03 76* 23 Lb LD 10 LO .07 .09 .11 .17 .25 .B9 I.t6
HAWAII
HAWAII co
1?DC8D)OI"03 76* IS ID NO. (iF SAKPLIS I 131 BELOU KIN. OET. ElCEEOS 50*
.11
INDIANA
10NB3E CD
1S2B03D01AD3 76* 24 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 151 BELOW H1N. OET. EXCEEDS 501 .64
°AP«E CO
15326DD01A03 76 26 LD LO LD LD LD LO .06 .07 .07 .16 .76
MARYLAND
CALVERT CO
2102B0001A03
.62 .81 .85 1.02 .633 1.01 .209 5.31
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON CO
251280001103 76 27 LD NO. OF SAKPLES I 171 BELOU KIN. DEI. EXCEEDS SOX
•ISSOURI
SHANNON CO
26«180D02A03 76 ?t LD 10 LD L3 LD .05 .09 .16
tONTANA
GLACIER NAT PA
270570001A03 76* 26 LD HO. OF SAMPLES I 211 BELOW BIN. OET. EXCEEDS SOS .16
ROSEBUD co
2M360026A03 76 27 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 2" BELOW "IN. DEI. ElCCEDS Sot LD
NEBRASKA
THONAS CO
2B21B0001A03 T6> 19 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 131 BELOU HIM. DET. EXCEEDS SOt .29
NEVADA
WHIIE PIKE CO
2905b30oi'OS '6 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 171 BELOW KIN. OCT. EXCEEDS 501 .IS
PENNSYLVANIA
CLARION CO
J91760001A03 76* IS LD NO. Or SAMPLES I Dl BELOW HIN. DET. EXCEEDS SOt .91
QHOOE ISLAND
WASHINGTON CO
<10360D02AD3 76 26 LD LD LD .07 .10 .12 .20 .30 .66 .81 1.BT .473 .96 .165 «.2<
SOUTH CAROLINA
RICHLANO CO
421900002A03 76 25 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 141 BELOW KIN. DET* EXCEEDS SOt .50
SOUTH DAKOTA
BLACK HILLS N*
430110001A03 76 29 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I 281 BELO* KIN. DEI. EXCEEDS SOt LD
VERMONT
ORANGE CO
•70363001A03 76* 21 LD NO. OF SAMPLES I IBI BELOW MIN. OCT. ElCEEDS SOt 1.15
VIRGINIA
SMENANOOAH NAT
«»28»OD01«03 76* 21 LD LD LD LD LO .06 .09 .15 .17 .IB 1.5V
• INDICATES TEARLT CRITERIA NOT HET
46
-------
P3LIUKN1 - KJ01 - »MH01.]U« NOUURBAN ANALYTICAL OU>LIIT 9St CONf.
METHOD - »r - HI-VOL SOUUM PHCNOLA1' CONC. R«NGC BUS PRECISION
U1ITS - 01 - Ut/CU fLICR 12; Cl N H « IU6/K3I l«l III
< 1.0 ,-«2.0
> 1.0 «-26.0
IRI1NHCTIC GCOntlRIC
SIH: VR MO. M]N 13 Zo 3] «0 SO 60 70 60 90 MAX HCAN STOEV N£AN J1
VIPtlt.U
WVTHE CO
«93«O001'03 76 2} 1C NO. OF S1KPLLS I 1
-------
P3LLUHNI - 12306 - MIRAIE
(IflMOO - 92 - MI-VOl REDUCT10N-01A76
U11TS - 01 - UG/CU KETER 125 Cl
SI IE :
BIRMINGHAM
CIQ363G03I01
OADS3EN
CI148COOHOI
MUNTSVILLE
•OBILE
012380001*01
40NT50HEST
1R123N*
90UGLAS
03024)004*01
OHOEN1X
030603302*01
TUCSON
030B63001»OI
IRKAKSAS
LITTLE ROCK
041443001*01
TEXA3NANA
042563001A01
VEST MEMPHIS
042743001*01
CALIFORNIA
INAHE1H
050233001101
BERKELEY
050743001*01
BURBkNK
050900002*01
FRESNO
052800002*01
LONG 6EACH
0541GOG01A01
LOS ANGELES
054183001*01
OAKLAND
055303001*01
ONTARIO '
055383001A01
KASADENA
055760002AOI
SACRAMENTO
056563001*01
SAN BERNARDINO
OS668000H01
SAN OIEGO
056800004*01
SAN FRANCISCO
OS6863001A01
SAN JOSE
05698000001
SANTA ANA
OS71B0001A01
COLORADO
DENVER
060580001*01
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT
070063001AOI
HARTFORD
070420002AOI
NE« HAVEN
070700001*01
VATERBURf
071240123*01
76
76>
76»
76«
71
76«
76»
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76»
76
76
76*
76*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76*
:o i.os
?2 1.43
26 1.36
?3 1.06
78 .36
22 .35
21 1.00
27 .71
30 .It,
30 .81
27 .15
29 1.75
29 .66
27 1.91
28 1.40
?C 2.93
25 2.23
28 2.12
31 .09
30 .68
31 .56
31 1.53
29 .68
28 1.16
30 .52
30 .95
23 .67
1.59
,.46
1.52
1.13
1.03
.59
2.23
1.30
1.17
.22
3.74
1.35
3.34
2.63
5.25
.97
6.99
2.72
.27
2.07
.66
1.60
.92
1.25
.81
1.14
.92
COUPL 1X3
20
2.15
2.71
I.b2
1.22
1.25
.81
7.55
1.47
1.44
.44
5.03
1.96
3.79
4.36
6.15
1.92
10.96
5.74
1.93
4.39
.96
7.08
1.26
2.04
1.31
1.47
1.80
33
2 .54
2.2«
1.99
1.51
.99
2.79
1 .66
1.61
1.22
6.93
2.29
5.53
5.41'
9.22
2. IK
13.93
6.61
2.59
7.43
1.43
3.82
1.51
2.39
2.03
2.23
2.59
40
2.66
2.52
2.26
2.15
1.50
1.08
3.51
2.04
1.78
1.71
7.96
2.83
6.69
6.73
10. 98
2.61
14.50
7.15
3.27
13.03
1.77
4.35
1.68
2.45
2.68
2.66
7.74
U B 8
N 0 3
50
3.10
2.65
2.47
2.31
1.90
1.12
4.21
2.31
2.00
2.18
6.85
3.46
9.38
7.52
11.57
18.41
7.64
4.57
14.83
2.63
6.45
2.26
2.67
3.09
3.78
3.26
A N
60
3.35
2.67
2.77
2.S9
1.14
4.36
2.42
2.17
2.36
9.41
4.72
10.12
8.23
14.09
19.06
10. BO
5.85
15.53
8^02
2.78
4.00
3.55
4.15
4.14
ANALYTIC*!
CO»C. "A*
4
70
3.56
2.71
2.99
2.72
1.20
4.57
2.91
2.73
2.73
13.19
6.25
12.56
11.29
9.73
15.83
1 9.39
6.70
19.16
9.11
3.30
4.90
3.8B
4.86
4.32
60
3.96
3. tie
3.14
3.05
1.50
4.60
3.10
3.01
3.12
16.88
7.56
13.48
14.12
11.17
20.35
22.07
9.08
70.57
12.07
3.87
5.10
4.70
5.37
4.45
9
4.
3.
3.
3.
2.
4.
3.
3.
3.
18.
16.
14.
19.
13.
21.
25.
10.
26.
30.
5.
7.
6.
6.
5.
36 4.69
54 5.39
25 3.83
31 5.16
11 2.32
84 6.20
40 5.07
34 6.09
43 4.46
37 25.52
4] 31.03
89 22.83
17 32.29
70 35.45
86 33.79
33 42.11
14 26.69
85 43.16
26 38.91
23 11.74
71 9.17
D2 7.31
18 9.11
00 6.38
AB1TH»
3.P75
2.687
2.483
2.799
1.981
1.213
3.778
2.422
2.310
2.C66
10.619
6.991
9.758
10.804
6.826
13.875
17.416
5.781
15.311
9.745
3.056
3.961
3.714
4.033
3.370
. DUALITY 951 CONF.
IGF BIAS PRECISION
131 <&1 Itl
: 3 -1.3 .-17.0
> 6 -Z.4 •-
IETIC
.94
.81
.70
1.07
.77
.50
J.19
1.03
1.42
1.12
1.20
6.34
8.13
5.20
8.17
6.59
7.63
6.12
5.38
10.79
10.18
2.62
2.47
1.83
2.45
1.50
GEOMC'
2.910
2.5B4
2.381
2.178
1.801
1.113
3.546
2.210
1.920
2.093
1.518
9.027
4.313
7.630
8.384
7.101
11.867
15.232
8.120
3.482
10.745
6.272
2.153
3.289
2.645
3.308
2.959
14.0
1RIC
SID
1.42
1.32
1.35
1.57
1.62
1.54
1.49
1.56
2.23
1.56
2,66
1.89
2.62
2.00
2.08
1.98
1.80
1.81
1.79
3.52
2.74
3. 12
2.58
2.03
1.87
2.02
1.95
1.77
* INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA KOT MET
48
-------
POLLU1ANT - 12306 - NITRATE
BEIHOO - 92 - H1->01 REDUC7ION-OIA20
U117S - D! - UG/CU METER (25 Cl
SI If :
9ELAUARE
UF.WARH
QB Q) 43QQ1 601
BUHINGI3N
010263002>01
FLCK1DI
JACKSONVILLE
131963002101
"IAM1
I927G3002A01
ST PE1ERSBUR&
131983002101
SEoRSIA
A1LAHTA
1I0200001A01
COLUH8US
SAVANNAH
114S03001ADJ
IDAHO
BOISE CUT
130223001101
ILLINOIS
BLUE ISLAND
1IOS03001 A01
CHICAGO
I41223001ADI
KOLI4E
145123001101
NORTH CHICAGO
PEORIA
ROCK ISLAND
146700 001AOI
SPRINGFIELD
14I280001ADI
INDIANA
EAST CHICAGO
I51I80001ADI
EtANSVILLE
151300 OOIA01
CART
IS 1523001 AOI
HAMMOND
INDIANAPOLIS
I52040001AOI
HEW ALBAttT
15298Q002A01
SOUTH BEND
IS3883002101
TERBE HAUIE
154080001AOI
10UA
DUBUQUC
161263008AOI
KANSAS
I ANSIS CUT
171800012101
LOUISIANA
BATON ROUGE
190280002101
IBCRI1LLE PAR
I912B0002A01
TR
76
76*
76»
76»
76*
76<
7b
76«
76«
76
76
76*
76
76
76
76*
76
76
76
76
76*
76«
76
NO.
2S
2d
22
23
It
25
27
27
It
23
29
30
28
2>
28
30
29
29
IS
28
30
26
28
2»
20
28
BIN
1 • 1 5
.71
• 96
.80 '
1.16
.39
. 3 7
.37
.it
.71
.63
1 .Bl
,J»
1.03
.82
2.11
1.77
2.27
1.S6
2.28
• •a
1.20
.98
.96
13
1.S6
1.63
1.35
.87
I.«B
1.30
.91
.63
1.1!
1.22
2.01
1.55
1.11
I.8D
2.22
1.63
1.06
2.72
1.99
2.68
1.18
l.«5
l.«0
1.09
COUPLING
20
1.67
3.06
1.B1
1.02
1.52
I.3>
1.31
.79
1.90
1.69
1.62
1.71
1.78
2.68
2.S4
3.12
2.97
2.07
2.7«
1.96
1.97
1.70
1.66
31
2 .29
3. IS
1.97
1.23
2.19
1.56
1 .95
.62
2.6«
2.13
2.12
2.03
l.OS
2.83
>.26
3. IS
2.21
3.07
2. OS
2.23
1.80
1.73
40
3.94
2.0b
1.35
2.26
1.69
2.11
.86
3.04
2.66
2.78
3.16
3.39
S.ll
4.46
3.32
2.83
3.52
2.S6
2.66
2. DO
2.07
U R B
N 0 1
50
4.16
2.11
1.57
2.67
2.06
2.30
1.41
3.49
3.01
3.21
1.S4
3.82
3.25
4.56
3.S3
3.56
4.10
2.91
3.04
2.42
2.17
A H
60
4.44
2.31
1.82
1.17
2.28
2.63
1.65
1.92
1.11
3. tO
1.56
4*27
1.32
4.B4
4.11
4.00
4.78
3.25
1.20
2.59
2.54
ANALTI1CM. OUALIIT 95« CONF.
CONC. DANCE BIAS PRECISION
IUG/H3I III III
< 1 -3.1 »-17.0
1-6 -4.5 *- 10.0
> 6 -?.4 *- 14.0
70
4.48
2.17
2.25
1.38
2.52
3.20
1.94
5.71
3.46
4.26
4.79
4.74
1.60
5.81
4.26
4.24
5.26
1.66
3.83
2.97
2.81
80
4.64
2.65
2.77
4.64
3.07
3.73
3.22
6.35
4.01
4.78
5.21
5. 19
3.95
6.10
4.58
4.66
5.79
4.21
3.94
3.27
2.90
90
5.71
3.47
3.40
5.05
3.66
3.88
4.29
11.62
5.74
6.9D
6.89
6.77
4.66
7.05
4.97
5.51
6.69
4.71
4.95
3.61
3.66
MAX
7.34
4.20
3.95
10.62
5.05
9.21
5.99
14.34
7.17
10.8«
8.64
10.05
6.95
9.06
9.60
7.07
11.01
8.73
10.85
4.45
5.94
AB1THJ
MEAN
4.174
2.326
1.922
3.679
2.275
2.841
2.156
4.223
4.891
3.182
3.604
3.782
4.269
3.559
4.962
4.081
3.664
4.793
3.109
3.376
2. 521
2.46*
IE 7 1C
S1DET
1.50
.73
.96
2.70
1.15
• 60
I.9B
1.80
1 •8't
3.76
1.66
1 »93
2.31
2.08
2.18
l.»l
1. 65
1.79
1.64
1.60
2.36
1.62
l.>7
.92
1.10
6EOHEIRIC
MEAN
3.83>
2.220
1.708
3.049
1.976
1 • 730
2.304
1.S97
1.778
3.788
2.764
2.959
1.142
3.227
3.780
1.362
4.661
3.650
1.160
4.344
2.706
2.985
2.159
2.276
STO
1 . 72
1.61
1.37
1.61
1.81
1.7°
1 . 62
1.98
2.19
1 .66
2.09
1.75
1.96
1.82
1.70
1.38
1 .62
1 * 70
1.48
1.18
1.55
1.54
1.77
1.61
1.46
I.S4
• INDICATES TEAKLT CRITERIA NOT MET
49
-------
P3LLUTAN1 - 123Q6 - NITRATE
METHOD - 92 - Hl-VOL REOUCT IQN-DIA2& COUPLING
UVITS - 01 - UG/cJ "E'ER '25 Cl
Silt: YR NO. "IN 10 20 3j
LOUISIANA
NEW 3HLEANS
1)2020002101 T6 3D 1.53 1.11 2.08 2.03
SHREVEPOM
192703001A01 76» 23 .36 1.01 1.13 1.13
»AB»LANO
3ALT1HORE
OASSACHUSETTS
CAH33IOGE
220363001101 76* 21 .19 .39 .90 1.01
fALL RIVER
2J058300U01 7t> 23 .05 .ei I.DO 1.2*
HEW BEDFORD
221500002>01 76* 22 .21 .02 -Bl 1.18
•JORCHCSKR
22260JOOOA01 76* 20 .31 .34 .76 ,9S
HICHIGAN
DETROIT
2H1B0301 t -2.4 •- 11.0
ARIIMHET1C GEOMETRIC
• 0 50 60 70 80 »0 MI HEAN SIDE* HtAN 510
2.89 3.3} 3.77 4.96 5.36 t.0« «.53 3.90B 1.93 ].«95 1.61
l.<7 2.09 2.2> 2.30 2.60 2.68 0.67 2.0b7 .99 1.815 1.7]
1.37 2.08 2.61 2.90 3.10 3.75 1.11 2.120 1.25 1.67] 2.2]
1.57 1.80 l.<2 3.00 3.12 4.07 5.16 2.213 1.2' 1.B59 1.86
1.27 1.35 1.66 1.73 2.11 3. 25 .55 1.53 1.68 1.90 2.06 2.55 2.69 3.19 3.38 0.36 5.31 2.650 1.10 2.396 1.62
•ICVADA
LAS VEGAS
290320001001 76* 26 .60 .73 1.08 2.28 2.65 3.14 3.65 4.32 4.SB 5.18 5.66 3.152 1.6] 2.608 2.01
REDO
2904B0001'01 76* 24 .32 .45 1.20 1.55 1.97 2.06 2.46 2.77 3.53 5.30 7.35 2.573 1.76 2.006 2.18
«EV JERSEY
CA"OEN
310720001*01 76* 21 .83 1.08 1.51 2.88 3.62 4.10 0.34 4.80 5.17 5.74 8.68 0.085 2.07 3.491 1.87
ELI2ABC1H
3M303002AOI 76* 23 .90 1.13 2.27 2.53 2.86 3.14 3.17 3.58 4.00 0.88 5.29 3.166 1.22 2.891 1.59
ELASSBORO
311700001101 76. 21 .45 .94 1.4] 1.84 1.99 2.12 2.29 2.53 2.75 2.86 4.80 2.232 .90 2.032 1.62
JEPSEV CII»
II2I20001AOI 76* 21 1.23 1.94 2.29 2.69 2.70 3.03 3.39 4.08 4.66 0.78 5.67 3.307 ).15 3.106 1.45
*£WARK
31J48D001AD1 76* 23 .70 1.65 2.40 2.71 2.77 3.22 3.30 3.45 3.51 4.66 4.85 3.073 1.00 2.866 1.52
21 .61 1.18 1.42 1.53 2.92 3.55 3.80 3.8B «.00 4.68 9.72 3.355 1.95 2.802 1.B6
PERTH AH80T
31422D001A01 76* 24 .37 .66 1.20 2.07 2.6B 2.79 2.95 4.23 4.SI 0.93 7.00 3.082 1.70 2.509 2.09
TBENTON
3IS400301AOI 76* 24 .87 .55 1.39 2.01 ?.fll 2.88 2.93 3.37 ).62 5.26 6.11 2.907 1.46 2.573 1.75
• INDICATES tEARLT CRITEDIA NOT BET
-------
PDLLUltNI - I2J06 - NITRATE
H11M03 - 92 - HI-VOl REDUCT10I
U1MS - 01 - UL/CD KEIER 125 Cl
«L» »E»1CO
1LBU3UEROUE
320P43t01A01
vt» TORK
BUFFALO
330663001101
MEW 10RR CI1Y
3346t:)Lil4ADl
NIAGARA FALLS
ROCHESTER
33S76300HOI
SYRACUSE
336622001AOI
NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE
34070300UOI
DURHAM
341163006A01
GREENSBOIO
3»17«3a09>01
V1NSTON-SALEH
344463002A01
OHIO
AKRON
CAN10N
3SID03001AOI
CINCINNATI
36I223001A01
CLEVELAND
PORTSMOUTH
STEUBENVILLE
TOLEDO
36660G001A01
DKLAHONA
TUlSt
37300D110A01
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLENTOU*
390120001AO]
ALTOONt
BETHLEHE"
390TB9002AO]
'DIE
39306aaa2AQl
HARRISSURG
393883 361A01
HA2LE10N
393960 OOUoi
JOHNSTOWN
394460803101
PHILADELPHIA
397I40004A01
PITTSeuRSH
READING
I97620001A01
SCRANTON
398043001AOI
UARH1NSTER
39916D002AOI
VEST CHESTED
3992B0110A01
76s
7(9
7te
760
760
76
760
76
760
76
760
7*,*
' 6*
76
7t«
76«
76*
76>
»6»
76«
76*
76»
76
76
76
76
76.
20
21
21
25
26
21
27
27
26
71
30
21
25
30
22
23
21
20
22
29
21
28
29
2»
30
26
2«
.76
.12
1.1:
• 3C
.26
.27
.13
.22
.06
.6b
.IS
2.11
.SV
1 .64
.99
l.flU
.66
.ev
.13
.6*
1.07
1.23
.20
,5C
.13
.56
i-oi*ro
1?
.78
1.61
1.0
1 . 3B
1.03
.69
• 96
1.23
• 62
1.30
1.91
2.2«
1.19
1.75
1.07
2.03
.71
1.2B
.25
.72
1.35
.91
1.29
.It
.6*
COUPLING
1.16
2.00
2.72
1.15
1.56
1.35
1.27
1.30
1.30
1.07
2.76
2.92
2.00
2.55
2.22
2.17
1.25
1.51
.9*
1.D2
2.79
1.39
I.B1
,B«
1.67
1.31
2.59
2.83
2.16
1.69
1.59
1 .75
I.7S
1.9«
2.9»
2.9b
2.13 "
2.62
2.99
2.6S
2.33
1.45
2.11
1.17
1.5»
3.19
1.71
2.17
1.21
2.2«
1.50
2.69
2.92
1 . 94
2.28
?.26
1.77
1.85
2.07
2.12
3. IB
3.30
3.07
3.02
3.00
2.70
1.97
2.16
1.3*
1.66
3.92
2. OS
2.53
1.70
2.76
U B B
N 0 3
1.78
2.93
3.77
2. 30
2.88
2.52
1.86
2.27
2.36
2. "48
3.64
3.72
3. IB
3.08
3.58
2.67
3.14
2.66
1.7]
1.91
4.17
2.61
2.70
2.03
3.16
A »
1.82
3.16
3.97
3.34
2.7B
2.27
2.52
2.5S
2.S5
3^92
3.B3
3.63
3.26
4«37
3.12
3.15
3.01
Z.07
2.13
4.78
3.112
3.23
2.84
3.31
1.93
3.34
4.51
3.70
2.95
2.36
2.87
2.77
2.90
4.77
4.35
2 .72
3.90
3.49
4.44
1.60
4.61
3.48
2. SI
2.B3
5.21
3.43
3.37
3.25
4.01
2.37
4.S2
5.06
4.13
3.08
2.55
3.00
2.91
3.92
5.17
4. S3
3.99
4.26
1.13
S.29
3.79
4.90
4.12
2.93
3.40
5.79
3.69
3.SS
3.63
4.17
2.55
5.46
5.66
4.27
3.64
3.00
3.01
3.4B
3.73
6.4B
5.66
5. SI
4.63
6.BC
4.54
5.22
5.32
3.03
3.93
6.26
6. 07
4.36
3.80
3.01
S.6S
ANALYTICAL OUALITT 951 CONF.
CONC. BAN6E BIAS PRECISION
IUB/H3I <» Itl
< 3 -3.3 «-17.0
3-6 -4.5 «- 10.0
> 6 -2.4 •- 14.0
•RITHHETIC GEOHETRIc
4.01
7.34
7.41
5.92
5.4B
3.46
3.47
4.00
4.B8
10.44
6.36
9. OB
5.44
7.77
6.63
7.43
6.47
12. SI
IS. 24
9.30
6.70
5.41
6.83
6. SB
1.876
3.304
3.767
2.953
2.4B9
1.968
2.242
2.227
2.531
4.014
3.849
2639
." JZ
3.455
3.334
3. 869
3.185
3.176
3.041
2.239
2.791
4.437
2.760
2.B44
2.490
3.271
.as
l.*3
1.53
I.3T
1.22
.60
.01
1.01
.97
1.91
1.16
i 19
1 . ]'
1.69
.95
l.BB
1.16
1.97
1.S5
2.3'
3. OB
1.9S
1.92
1.49
1.16
1.75
1.S9
1.707
2.867
3.440
2.524
2.107
1.720
2.023
1.832
2.346
3.54B
3.669
3.032
3.19B
3.401
3.004
2. SSI
2.6B1
1.S72
2.067
3.94B
3. SI 1
2.253
2.565
1.799
2.814
1.56
1.60
I.S8
2.03
1.94
1.98
1.91
1.73
2.25
1.50
1 . 99
1.74
1.31
1 .62
1.75
1.35
1.7S
1.41
2.04
1.6B
2.4B
2.06
1.70
1* 67
2.13
1.66
2. SB
1.06
• INDICATES tEABLT CBI1EBIA NOT KEI
51
-------
POLLUTANT - 12306 - NI1RATE
HETHOO - 92 - HI-VOL REOUCT IOH-DIA2C
UIITS - 01 - UG/CU HETER 125 ci
SITE: YR
PENNSYLVANIA
UILKCS-BAR9E
399433CQ1AQ1 76*
VOPK
399560322AQ1 76*
PUERTO RICO
SUAV4ABO CO
PONCE
431923C.02A01 76
SABANA SECA
4D2D65001AOI 76
>HOOE 1SLAHO
CAST PROVIOEKC
4I0123GOM01 76
PROVIDENCE
410303G01I01 76
SOUTH CAROLINA '
COLUMBIA
420760D01A01 76
SREEHV1LLE
SOUTH DAKOTA*
SIOUX FALLS
4314B3DOH31 76*
TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA
4403BDQ01A01 76
TEKAS
AUSTIN
4S0220010A01 76*
CORPUS CHRISM
451153001101 76
DALLAS
4SI310002A01 76*
FORT kORTH
451B83001AOI 76*
LUBBOCK
453343001A01 76*
PASADENA '
454063002A01 76*
SAN ANTONIO
454573034A01 76
UICHITA FALLS
• 1RG1IIIA
DANVILLE
490920001AOI 76*
491060001AOI 16*
HAMPTON
4B1440001A01 76*
PORTS ROUTH
4B2443001AJI 76
RICHNOND
4S2660002A01 76*
»OA«0»E
482703003101 76
SEATTLE
491I40001A01 76
SPOKANE
492043001AD1 76*
VEST HBGIHIA
CHARLESTON
S30280001A01 76
NO.
24
20
25
27
26
28
2.
»
24
26
21
22
19
22
21
18
25
22
17
22
27
25
27
20
28
KIN ID
.35 .7B
1.10 1.J6
.51 .56
.4-, .54
.90 1.07
.63 .94
.58 1.2B
.16 .63
.It 1.74
.75 1.21
.75 .87
1.56 1.92
1.28 2.20
.11 .67
1.73 1.76
1.47 1.61
.59 .84
.23 1.28
.30 1.18
1.07 1.49
.70 1.24
.51 .64
.43 .47
.18 .47
COUPLING
20
1.85
2.51
.60
.57
1.56
1.56
1.P2
.90
2.24
1.52
2.26
2.33
.79
1.98
1.69
1.08
1.38
1.68
1.65
1.20
1.12
.90
33
2.02
3.23
• 64
.81
1.71
1.87
1.93
.99
2.51
1.57
1.53
2.90
2.82
.91
2.13
2. Ob
1.40
1 .97
1.85
1.27
1.!!
1.1D
40
2. 25
3.65
.77
.84
2. 03
2.31
2.36
1.61
2.98
1.78
1.62
3.14
2.85
.96
2.35
2.14
1.64
2.31
2.24
1.70
,.,.
U R B
(.03
50
2.38
3.70
.83
.95
2.26
2.60
2.74
1.82
3.00
2.22
2.15
3.49
3.10
1.23
2.49
2.43
•
2.38
2.67
2.51
1.79
2.14
A N
60
2.8S
4.06
.90
1.00
2.47
2.92
3.01
1.B4
3.11
2.53
3.64
3.51
1.34
2.69
2.68
2.45
3.00
3.44
2.11
2.74
70
3. IB
4.19
.93
1.07
3.06
3.39
2.24
3.36
2.54
3.83
3.92
1.63
3.53
3.67
2.90
3.39
3.95
2.55
3.16
80
3.39
4.77
1.00
1.33
3.46
4.14
3.86
2.68
4.23
4.87
l.BO
3.65
3.84
2.99
3.45
4.10
2.78
3.27
90
3.82
7.64
1.06
1.56
4.06
4.64
3.42
4.31
3. It
5.55
5.67
3.16
5.63
4.56
3.48
4.11
5.21
3.01
3.61
MAX
5.99
12.26
1.52
2.35
5.63
6.92
5.14
5.85
5.14
7.39
7.16
3.99
11.22
5.37
5.01
7.81
6.09
5.93
5.44
ANALYTICAL OUALITY 951 CONf.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
IUG/H3I l>l I>1
< 3 -3.3 «-17.0
3-6 -4.5 .- 10.0
> 6 -2.4 •- 14.0
ABIT HUE 1 1C GEOMETRIC
HE«N STDEV KAN STO
2.614 l.]9 2.285 1.02
4.403 2.74 3.748 1.79
.933 .40 .862 l.SO
.844 .23 .814 1.31
1.-28 .45 .942 1.52
2.595 1.23 2.324 1.62
2.961 1.64 2.507 1.85
1.981 1.27 1.576 2.11
3.070 1.13 2.713 1.93
2.282 .95 2.107 1.51
3.715 1.62 3.410 1.52
3.685 1.50 3.408 1.50
1.523 1.00 1.219 2.13
3.576 2.5] 3.045 1.70
2.P69 1.17 2.652 1.49
2.923 1.21 2.505 2.01
2.175 .99 1.925 1.71
2.797 1.30 2.451 1.80
J. 008 1.43 2.685 1.63
2.331 1.41 1.936 1.90
1.990 .98 1.714 1.85
2.243 1.12 1.73* 2.31
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA HOT HET
52
-------
PULU11NT - 12306 - N11»»TE U B B » N «N«LYT1C»L OUALIIY 9St CONF.
nlTHOJ - 92 - HI-VOl BEDJCMOH-OmO COUPLJNS CONC. RANGE BIAS P8ECISION
UVITi - 01 - UL/CU PEIfR 125 Cl N 0 3 IUG/H3I <*> tt>
< J -3.3 «-17.0
3-6 -«.5 •- 10.0
> 6 -?.« «- 14.0
•OIIHHETIC GCOHETDIc
bll1:: TR NO. K1K 1] 20 30 «0 50 60 70 80 90 H« HEIN SIOCV HC1N STD
W£S1 VIRGIN]*
HUM1 NG10N
S:u7D3ucS«cl >6» ?C ?.)6 i.3J 2.kb 2.>S Z.'» 3.11 3.50 3.85 «.2t 5.B6 6.71 3.675 1.2« 3.192 1.37
••OUlrl CHIRLES1
531763D01I01 76 ^7 .27 .8« 1.00 1.13 1.51 1.69 1.H5 1.99 2.30 2.«« *.5« 1.769 .9« 1.546 l.SO
,i4b .75 .89 1.09 1.11 2.10 2.IB 3.IS 3.86 1.15 1.60 2.197 1.39 l.'si 2.01
KENOSH»
51I51DDOI10] 76* Jb .«( 1.3H 1.51 1.92 2.26 2.82 3.51 5.16 5.B1 6.<9 9.05 3.(03 2.21 2.928 2.01
HAD1SON
511P60001AC1 76 31) *t7 1.06 1.17 1.23 1.57 2.51 2.69 3.24 «.12 4.84 5.59 2.66) 1.51 2.217 1.90
5U»[110R
513463)01101 76« 20 .15 .39 .41 .52 .to 1.2* 1.52 1.71 1.87 2.14 1.19 1.2"> .82 .977 2.28
53
-------
POLLUTANT - 12306 - NITRATE NONUBBAN ANALYTICAL DUALITY 95» cONf.
«T»OD - 92 - Hl-VOt REDUCTION-OIA20 COUPLING CONC. RANGE BUS PRECISION
UlUs - gl - UG/CU HETER 125 Cl NO] 1116/1131 Cjl III
< 3 -3.3 «-17.0
3-6 -4.5 •- 10.0
> 6 -2,% «- 11.0
ARITHMETIC GEOHCTRIc
SMC: YR NO. H1N 10 2D 3D 40 50 60 TO >0 90 ««I HEAN S1DCV RC*N SID
IBHON1
SHIND CANYON h
03037DC01AC3 76» 2] .01 .11 .31 .33 .35 .11 .TO .76 1.09 1.17 1.87 .672 .So .SOI 2.30
IRIUIilS
40NTGQMCQV CO
01176D001A03 76 30 .06 .23 .IS .69 .77 .67 .92 1.00 1.07 1.49 2.It .122 .S3 .112 2.IB
COLORADO
4ESA VERDE NAT
OtlS30a02l03 76* 22 LO LD LD .08 .10 .12 .21 .25 .41 .46 .79 .225 .22 ,]36 3.01
DELAWARE
KENT CO
09006D001A03 761 23 .38 .47 1.66 2.1< 2.17 2.17 2.92 3.21 3.HI 4.54 1.66 2.719 ].2I 2.360 1.66
HAWAII
HAWAII co
1?00»0)01'03 76* 15 ID LD LO .08 .13 .IS .16 .20 .22 .30 .36 .156 .10 .113 2.53
INDIANA
HONROC CO
1S2B00001A03 76* 21 .52 1.3< 2.21 2.31 2.65 2.BT 3.29 J.»l 3.61 1.62 5.57 3.072 1.23 2.780 1.66
PARKt CO
153263Q01A03 76 28 .20 1.10 1.28 1.53 l.St 2.03 2.51 2.85 3.30 4.09 6.15 2.362 1.35 1.901 2.16
1ABILANO
CALVERT CO
2102B3001A03' 76< 16 .07 .20 .90 1.2) 1.91 2.IS 2.22 2.23 2.82 2.B7 3.3B 1.931 .98 ].<3S 2.88
1ISSI&SIPPI
JACKSON CO
251280001103 76 27 LD .58 .89 .95 l.OS 1.35 1.56 1.91 2.11 2.56 «.«0 1.56B .91 1.20B 2.60
4ISSDURI
SHANNON CO
26X80002A03 76 28 .06 .12 .70 ,T2 .87 1.18 1.13 1.62 I .7« 2.07 3.50 1.311 .6. 1.011 2.31
NONIANA
6LAC1ER HAT PA
2TOS73001A03 761 26 LD LD .06 .10 .10 .20
-------
P3LLUMNT - K1DJ - SUIFATI
METHOD - 91 - Hl-VOL COLORIKURIC
UY1TS - 01 - UG/CU METER |2t C(
STTF: YH NO. HIN ID
'.L«BAHA
9 1RM1 NGHAM
5ADSDEN
4UN1SVILLL
DUPbDDOlAOl 76* ?b 2.C D.9
1QBIU
D1238;OD1*D1 7b* ?3 3.2 J.5
MONTGOHE.RY
ARIZONA
QOUGL»S
PHOLN1X
TUCSON
ARKANSAS
t-lTTLE ROCK
TC.KARKANA
WIST MEMPHIS
CALIFORNIA
INAHC1H
0502 33001 >C1 76 29 2.2 2.6
BERKELEY
3URBANK
FRESKO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANSELES
05*160001*01 76 30 1.7 3.0
OAKLAND
ONTARIO '
055360001101 T6* 2S 2.2 3.B
PASADENA
SACRAMENTO
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SANTA AHI
TORRANCE
COLORADO
DENVER
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
070*20002*01 76 30 3.6 6.1
It EH HAVEN
URBAN
S 0 4
70 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
S.6 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.0 9.1 10.« ll.«
S.O 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.4 9.1 9.9 11.1
4.3 t.« 7.4 9.0 10*1 10.7 12.7 17.4
4.0 S.B 6.6 8.9 10.6 12.5 IS. 7 20.5
4.3 5*7 7.3 8.0 10.6 12.0 14.5 20.0
6.S 6.9 7.4 8.2 9.8 10.9 16.3 19.7
ANALYTICAL QUALITY 9S* CONF.
COHC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
IU6/N3I <*| IX)
<6.0 -4.3 *- 12.0
6.0-20.0 -S.O *- 6.7
>20.0 -S.I *- 4.1
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
HAX MEAN STDEV MEAN STD
14.3 7.95 ?.6 7*44 1.49
13.0 7. 5Q 2.7 6.98 1*48
24.9 9.71 6.0 7.97 1*94
23.3 10.30 6.3 8.3B 1.98
28.1 10.19 6.* 8.«3 1.89
30.0 11.15 6.7 9.70 1.67
32.0 11. IS 6.3 10.0ft 1.61
TEABIT CBIICB11 KOI (IEI
55
-------
PDLLUT1NI - 12403 - SULTATE
METHOD - 51 - HI-VOl COLOB 1KEIP 1C
U4IIS - 01 - UG/CU PEUR 125 Cl
Silt: YR HO. NIK |0
CONNECTICUT
« ATEDBURV
071243123101 761 23 4.3 5.3
DELAWARE
dlLMINGlON
FLOCIGI
mini
ST PETERSBURG
GEORGI1
1I020300I10I 76* 75 4.2 4.5
COLU16US
SAVA.1NAH
IDAHO
BOISE CITY
ILLIVOIS
9LUE ISL1NO
140500001A01 76* 26 5.0 5.6
CHICAGO
I4I22000IIOI 76« 23 3.2 3.7
»0l I/IE
10R1H CHICAGO
PEORIA
1460IOOOH01 76 30 4.9 5.9
»OC« ISLAND
INDIANA
151180001101 76 26 7.9 8.2
EVANS VILLE
6ARY
151520001101 76 2« 6.3 6.5
HAMMOND
INDIANAPOLIS
NEW ALBANY
SOUTH BE10
TEBRE HAUTE
154010001101 76 26 4.4 6.2
ION*
DUBUOUC
KANSAS
KANSAS CITY
LOUISIANA
BAT01 ROUGE
I9Q280D02IOI 76* 20 2.9 3.7
• INDICATES YEARLY CRITERIA NOT NET
URBAN
S 0 4
20 3} 40 50 60 70 BO 90
5.6 6.9 7.6 8.4 8.6 9.2 9.4 19.5
5.1 5.4 6.0 6.5 9.5 11.6 12.3 14.9
6.6 7.3 7.4 9.S 11.2 12.4 13.0 15.5
5.1 6.7 7.1 6.8 9.0 11.2 12.0 14.7
7.0 7.7 6.9 10.0 10.9 11.9 13.2 15.4
9.2 9.6 11.0 11.9 12.6 13.9 15.0 16.8
7.6 7.8 9.1 9.6 11.2 12.3 12.6 14.4
6.3 7.6 8.0 9.2 10.4 11.1 1 3. « 13.5
4.3 6.4 6.3 9.3 10.2 10.9 12.2 14.9
ANALYTICAL OUALITY 95> CONF.
CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
1U6/13I III ttl
<6.0 -4.3 •- 12.0
6.0-20.0 -S.O •- 6.7
>20.0 -S.I •- 4.1
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MAK MEAN SIDE* MEAN STD
35.6 10.76 8.0 9.06 1.72
26.4 9.48 6.0 8.16 1.69
25.7 10.78 5.2 9.78 1.54
20.9 9.37 4.5 6.38 1.63
20.0 10.53 3.7 9.91 1.42
20.4 12. S3 3.4 12.09 1.30
21.2 10.72 3.7 10.16 1.38
20.5 10.19 3.9 9.52 1.45
22.5 9.51 4.8 a. 37 1.71
56
-------
PULUIiNI - 12401 - SULFAll
METHOD - 91 - Hl-YOl COLOR1HETR1C
Unlls - 01 - U6/eg «IER 125 Cl
NO. KIN ]0
U B B • N
S 0 4
ANALYTICAL OUALIIT 9St CONF.
CO»C. RANGE BIDS PRECISION
lUG/Nll <*> HI
<6.0 -4.1 •- 12.0
6.0-20.0 -S.O •- 6.7
>20.0 -S.I •- 4.1
«»ItHUE!1C GEOMETRIC
«*« NtAN STOEV HE«N SID
LOUISIANA
IBERH1LLE PAR
191263002*01 It
1CU OILCANS
192C23002I01 76
SHREVEPOPT
1927400.01*01 76*
NAPYLAND
9ALI1IIORE
210120001*01 76*
NASS*CHUSEttS
CARBB1D6E
220360001*01 76*
FALL Bl«tB
220580001A01 76«
NEW 3EDFOBD
221500002*01 76«
UOPCHLSTER
222643004*01 76«
MICHIGAN
DETROIT
231180)01101 76
6BANO RAPIDS
271S20001AOI ' 76
LANSING
212B40001AOI 76
SA6INAV
2K760001AOI 76
NINNESOT*
DULUTK
241040001*01 76
ST PAUL
2<3JOOOJ1"01 76.
KISSISSIPPI
JACKSON
251260002101 76
4ISSOURI
57 LOUIS
264280001*01 76*
NEBRASKA
LINCOLN
2II560002A01 76
OHAHA
2I1880010A01 76>
4EYAOA
LAS Y£6AS
290320001*01 76«
RENO
290460001*01 76*
26 1.1 3.3
30 4.7 5.4
23 3.2 3.5
4.1 4.2 S.2 6.9 B.I 8.6 10.1 11-' 23.4 7.47
6.4 7.D 7.7 S.7 R.2 11.0 12.1 14.7 IT.6 9.53
4.9 5.8 6.3 7.4 7.S 10.3 11.9 17.1 19.1 9.05
4.3 6.46 1.7J
1.6 8.9J !.«•
•.9 7.89 1.10
22 1.2 1.3 5.3 6.1 6.6 7.5 ».4 8.8 10.1 16.5 27.6
21 3.S 4.2
23 2.6 3.1
22 2.1 3.4
24 3.6 4.2
29 4.5 5.0
30 2.8 3.5
26 2.1 3.1
28 2.7 3.0
29 1.4 l.B
20 1.8 2.3
S.O S.3 6.}
«.6 5.b 5.8 7.0 7.6 S.3 9.6 19.S 26.6
K.2 «.b «.9 5.S 7.0 7.2 13.1 II.1 11.2
S.1 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.« 8.3 13.2 20.0 26.0
8.56 5.0 7.58 1.61
9.10 6.4 7.75 1.80
8.90 7.3 7.00 1.9S
9.46 6.4 8*02 1.73
5.4 5.6 6.5 7.B 8.7 10.2 12.7 15.5 23.9 9.SB 5.3 8.4S 1.63
4.7
4.4 5.3 5.2 6.3 7.6 7.9 9.B 12.4 16.5 7.67 4.2 6.75 1.66
3.1 1.9 4.9 5.4 6.7 8.4 9.4 12.9 23.2 7.27 4.6 6.11 1.79
2.0 .3.3 3.S 3.9 4.S 4.7 S.O 5.7 7.6 3.97 1.6 1.62 1.57
2.4 3.4 4.4 4.S 7.1 7.S T.7 8.2 14.1 S.91 3.2 S.IO 1.77
31 2.9 3.2 4.2 5.2 5.9 6.5 6.9 7.4 10.3 11.4 18.9
25 3.6 4.S 5.1 6.5 6.8 7.7 8.7 11.1 11.0 IS.9 18.1
3.5 6.57
31 1.0 1.6
25 1.3 2.2
26 l.S 1.5
24 1.1 1.1
1.9 2.3 2.1 2.9 3.2 3.5 S.6 7.2 20.7
2.3 2.B 1.0 5.6 4.0 4.9 S.S 10.0 19.0
3.7 3.21 1.B8
1.8 3.»6 I.t3
NEH JERSEY
CANOCN
1IOT23001*01 T(,«
ELIZABETH
111300002*01 76«
6LASSBORO
111700001*01 76»
JERSEY CITT
112120001*01 76«
4EVAB«
312660001*01 T6*
PITERSON
314I40001A01 T6>
PERTH AIIBOY
114220001*01 76>
• INDICATES YEARLY
21 4.8 5.3
23 S.S 6.0
21 4.2 5.4
21 S.I 5.1
23 4.2 4.5
21 2.6 S.2
24 6.1 7.2
CRtlERIA NOT RET
1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 1.4 3.7 5.0 2.63 .1 2.SO 1.39
1.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.0 1.2 4.6 S.6 2.54 1.2 2.28 1.60
7.1 7.5 6.T 13.2 14..6 1S.O IB.8 27.4 30.6 ll.94 T.6 12.12 1.T1
6.6 T.6 B.5 9.2 10.T 11.S IT.4 1B.T 28.9 11.55 5.6 10.40 1.5T
5.T 6.1 6.9 8.1 9.0 10.4 11.9 13.2 16.2 B.90 3.4 8.33 1.45
6.S T.3 B.4 10.1 11.6 14.1 17.3 18.3 11.9 12.25 6.5 10.88 1.62
5.2 S.I 6.5 T.2 8.S 9.2 10.2 16.T IT.2 B.T1 4.1 7.93 1.55
T.4 T.I 9.0 9.9 11.6 1S.T IT.6 21.9 11.1 12.8! T.S 10.96 1.T9
8.6 9.5 10.2 10.T 11.0 15.1 IT.9 IB.7 31.5 11.12 S.8 12.10 1.46
57
-------
P3LLUYANY - 12403
UYITS - 01 - ui>/c'J
SHE: VB
«E" JERSEY
IBEKION
HEW 1EXICO
ALguauEROUE
32304D001A01
HEM YORK
guFFALO •
33C6b~G01A01
VCU YORK CUT
3!4tC]OI«IOI
V1AGAKA FALLS
33474C001A01
'OCHESTE'
3?57*:1001I01
SYRACUSE
336123001101
10R1* CAPOIINA
CHARLOTTE
3407030D1ID1
DURHAM
34 HbODObAOl
5REESSB030
3«I740009AOI '
U1NSTON-SALEH
3I4463002AOI
OHIO
IKRON
CANTON
36IOD3D01AG1
CINCINNATI
3bl22D001A01
CLEVELAN9
361300001101
PORTSMOUTH
3S5S2D002A01
STEUBE.NVILLC
3&642D012A01
10LCOO
3666000011(11
OHLAHOHA
TULSA
3730001IDA01
ALLENTOUN
390120001AQI
ALTOOAIA
7b*
7b>
76.
7bl
76»
76>
76
7b»
76
7b«
76
76*
76*
76«
76
76
76*
76>
BCTHLEHt"
3907BD002A01 76»
EB1E
393060Q02A01 76*
HARRI SBURG
J9!«a03bH01 7t«
HAZLETOd
3>396DD01>01 76*
JOUUSIOUU
394*6oeo3Aol 76*
PHILADELPHIA
397KOOO«AOI 76
FI71SBUBEH
397260001AOI 76
REID1N6
39762DDOM01 76
SCRANTON
19aG«0001A01 76
• INDICA1ES YEARLY
- SULFAYE
HE'ER 125 ci
NO* KIN JO
70 1.3 l.<
21 «.6 S.B
?b <•< 5.9
?• 1.1 5.3
23 6. a 7.0
21 7.G 7.1
2« 3.7 H.S
22 «.6 5.2
24 «.3 4.B
21 t.1 1.1
2B «.e 7.0
29 6.1 7.S
29 5.7 6.5
30 6.0 6.!
CRITERIA N07 fl[7
URBAN
SOI
20 33 «0 50 60 70
6.9 7.1 9.5 10.6 12. « 16.5
t.2 7.2 7.5 (.7 IU.3 12.5
B.« 9.2 9.6 10. 8 11.7 12.2
7.9 B.6 9.5 11.5 11. « 16.6
5.5 6.1 8.1 6.4 9.4 13.6
5.5 7.4 7.9 8.9 1Q.6 11.3
6.0 7.2 1.0 7.8 B. 3 9.3
ID. 3 Ida 11.6 13. B 15. 5 17.2
8.2 9.7 9.9 11.6 12.8 13.6
9.0 9.6 11.5 12.3 12.8 15.2
7.3 8.0 8.3 8.6 9.0 IZtl
6.6 7.1 7.7 8.2 B.« 8.9
BO
IB. 9
M.7
13.5
17.3
18.3
16.6
14.7
12.9
17. B
17.6
17.6
13.0
12.0
90
29
IB
19
21
22
22
17
21
23
IB
20
15
IB
.1
.2
.5
.6
.0
.2
.4
.5
.e
.4
.6
.7
.0
HAX
JO. 8
2B.9
17.7
?7.6
30.1
32. B
31.8
31.3
30.6
29.2
29.2
34.0
26.7
US. 7
ANALYTICAL OUALIIY 95t
CONC. RANGE BIA5 PRE
(UG/HJl III
<6.Q -4.3 •
6. 0-20* 0 -5.0 «
>20.0 -5.1 •
ARITHMETIC GEOH
MEAN STOEV MEAN
2.72 .8
13.84 7.9
10.8! 5.7
9.59 7.0
6.15 4.1
12.20 S.I
12.25 7.1
13. BB 6.5
11.83 7.9
11.13 6.5
10.45 6.6
15.17 5.7
13.00 5.7
14.13 6.3
10.84 S.2
11.43 8.9
2
11
10
10
9
8
7
10
10
10
11
5
11
10
12
9
9
9
14
11
12
9
9
.59
.95
.23
.16
.65
.49
.11
.83
.80
.11
.94
.66
.92
.29
.13
.35
.39
.64
.80
.76
.10
.27
.93
.»9
.96
.70
CONF.
CI510N
111
- 12.0
- 6.7
- 4.1
ETRIC
SID
1.64
1.39
1.73
1.60
1.77
1.60
1.57
1.53
1.72
1.50
1.43
1.51
1.59
1.45
1.61
1.87
1.69
1.12
1.45
1.81
1.54
1.84
1.65
1.65
1.41
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.66
58
-------
POLLUIANT - 12*403 - SULFATE
NMMOa - 01 - Hl-VOl COLORIrlETRIC
UVIli - 01 - Ub/CU METER 125 Cl
SHE: 1ft NO. KIN 13
PENNS *LV»NI A
JAPHINS1ER
JEST CHESTER
UILHES-BARRl
YORK
PUEKTO RICO
GUMNABO CO
4!H1«0001AOI 76» 25 5.i 6.1
»ONCE
SACANA SECA
'MODE ISLAND
EAS1 PROVIOLNC
PROVIDENCE
COLUMBIA
42076300IAOI ' 76 28 2.2 3.B
SREENV1LLE
SOUTH DAKOTA
siou» FALLS
H3H8DO)1«01 Tt» 21 LD 1.0
'ENHESSEE
CHATTAN03GA
TEIAS
AUSTIU
1SO?200IO»D1 7t« 21 10 1.3
CORPUS CHRIST1
H51153001101 76 22 1-V 2.3
DALLAS
FORT UORT>4
LUB80O
1S331D001AOI 7b> 21 I.I 1.7
PASADENA
SAN ANTON.IO
ylCHITA FALLS
4S5560002A01 76 27 1.5 1.9
1IR&INIA
DANVILLE
20.0 -5
ARITHMETIC
20 30 ID 50 60 70 80 90 NAX HCAN STDEV
6.3 6.6 6.7 7.Q 7.3 7.7 8.1 9.1 11.6 7.36 ].3
5.0 5.« 6.1 7.1 7.7 8.7 10.3 13.1 35.7 9.Q5 6.8
5.7 8.t 9. B 11.2 11.1 13.2 15.0 IB. 2 26. « 11.05 5.1)
8.5 9.2 9.H 11.3 12.7 14.5 11. B 21.9 21.6 13.01 5.1
6.1 7.1 7.9 9.7 10.8 12.8 10.1 16.3 20.8 10.46 4.6
3.3 1.1 5.1 5.9 6.2 8.0 10.8 12.1 19.1 7.15 4.1
4.4 «.b 5.0 5.8 6.1 6.4 4.5 7.5 14.3 S.93 2.2
951 CONF.
AS PBECISION
» Itl
.3 •- 12.0
.0 •- 6.7
.1 •- 4.1
GEOMETRIC
NEAN STO
12.35 1.79
9.26 1.53
13.40 1.71
7.26 l.U
4.13 1.38
10.03 1.54
7.53 . 1.78
7.52 1.54
2.82 2.30
5.95 1.78
5.23 1.63
3.«3 1.B3
9.98 1-83
10.96 I.S9
8.48 1.49
12.10 1.47
8. BO 1.49
9.53 1.5S
6.07 1.81
5.62 1.37
• INDICATES TEARlT CRITERIA NOT MET
59
-------
P3LIUIANT *
H:IHOO - ">l
Uvl'S - 01 -
SI1F:
SPOKANE
4920«3Q01*01
WES1 WlttKlN
&?G?BCOD1'DI
4 UNI I NG TON
12*01 - SULfATE
• Hl-UOl COLORlhETPIC
ut/cu HETEB 125 ci
Vfi NO. Hlh 19
Tb* 20 1.7 1.6
11
U fi b A tt ANALYTICAL OU«LITV 95S CONF.
CONC. RAN&E BIAS PRCCIStON
SOD (U6/H3* U> IXt
<6.0 -«.3 «- 12*0
6.0-20.0 -5.0 «- 6.7
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
3.66 1.63
13.73 1.65
11.67 1.79
rOUIH CHtRLESI
531763C01>CI 76 27 \.l 6.3 7.3 8.2 9.3 11.4 11.7 13.1 19.3 21.1 24.0 12.51 5.8 11.31 1.57
t«U CHUE
5ICB»]OD2»C1 76* 22 1.5 1-t 2.1 4.] 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.7 7.1 8.4 4.71 1.8 ,.J8 1.61
SI 15I.DOOUC1 76* 25 2.5 3.3 3.7 4.t 5.1 5.9 6.5 8.7 9.5 11.3 15.1 6.84 3.4 6.08 1.64
MOISON
5! 18631:01101 76 !0 2.1 2.6 3.3 3.4 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.7 7.1 10.3 12.8 5.64 ?.9 5.03 1.60
SUPH10R
51J»t:jOI"C] 76* 20 2.8 3.9 4.2 4.S 4.8 5.0 5.8 6.1 6.2 8.7 10.7 5.73 1.9 S.4S 1.37
60
-------
POLLUTANT - 12403 - SULFATE NONURBAN ANALYTICAL OUALltr 95« COBF.
METHOD - ?1 - Hl-VOL COLOBIKEIP1C CONC. RAN6C BUS PRECISION
UNITS - 01 - Ub/Cil MITER (25 Cl S 0 i| IU6/H3I ttl 111
<6.0 -4.3 •- 12.0
6.0-20.0 -5.0 «- 6.7
>20.0 -5.1 •- 1.1
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
SITE: VR NO. HIN n 20 33 40 50 bO 70 BO 90 MAK MEAN StDEV MEAN SID
ARIZONA I
5HAN3 CANYON N
oJo37Dooi'03 70 21 LC< L9 .7 1.3 1.1 i.« i.s i.e 2.0 2.7 3.2 i.si ,s 1.20 2.17
ARKANSAS
10N1C.OHE&Y CO
0» 1763001IO? 76 30 .6 1.1 2.0 3.) 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.5 6.9 10.2 15.4 4.85 3.5 3.71 2.20
:oLG?ADCl
"[•,1, VERDE tJAI
OH53DOC210J 76» 22 II) LO .a .9 .9 1.0 1.. 2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.04 .4 .92 1.78
OCLAbARE
•CUT CO
O'OOtDOOlAO! 7b« ?3 6.D 6.2 7.0 7.3 7.8 8.4 8.6 9.0 12.7 17.7 30.0 10.51 5.7 9.51 1.52
HAUA11
«A"All C=
i?ooB;no]Ao3 76* 15 t-b M>. OF SAIPLLS t BI BELOU HII«. DEI. CXCECOS 5ox 2.6
INDIANA
KONR3C CD
152PD3001A03 76» 24 3.9 4.3 6.4 6.7 7.6 6.4 9.2 11.8 12.6 16.0 18.5 9.42 3.9 6.64 1.53
PABKE CO
153263001A03 76 ?B 2.6 3.3 3.5 4.1 4.4 4.6 6.5 7.8 8.8 10*7 15.8 6.54 3.7 5.72 1.66
1APVLANO
CALVtRT CO
2I0283D01A33 ' 76* 16 4.6 5.2 5.4 (.5 6.9 8.1 8.6 9.3 11.3 12.9 25.1 9.60 5.6 8.71 1.60
IISSISSIPPI
JACKSON CO
25128D001A03 76 27 .9 2.D 3.5 5.1 6.2 7.3 8.0 9.9 11.2 12.7 16.4 7.74 4.1 6.40 2.03
MISSOURI
SHANNON CO
2644eD002A03 76 26 .9 1.6 2.0 2.2 3.4 4.4 5.8 7.5 8.2 10.6 13.3 5.47 3.5 (1.34 2.06
40W1ANA
GLACIER NAT PA
270573001A03 76» ?6 LD 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.1 2.5 5.4 1.61 .9 1.62 1.66
QOSCBUD CO
271360026A03 76 27 .7 1.3 1.2 I.J 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6 3.6 1.90 .7 1.75 1.52
NEBRASKA
THOHAS CO
232460001A03 760 19 .9 .9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.S 2.8 11.2 2.20 2.3 1.70 1.8B
NEVADA
UH11E PIT CO
290560001A03 'b 25 LO LO LD LD .8 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.4 4.0
PENNSYLVANIA
CLARION CO
391760001*03 76> 15 5.2 5.3 5.6 6.4 7.0 9.1 11.5 13.3 13.3 30.3 36.3 12.35 9.1 |0.19 1.82
"HODE ISLAND
WASH1N61DN CO
410383002A03 76 26 2.9 4.1 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.7 7.1 7.7 10.2 11.5 29.0 8.18 5.8 6.96 1.70
SOUTH CAROLINA
SICHL.ND c°
421903002A03 76 25 2.1 2.9 3.3 4.4 4.6 5.0 5.7 6.9 8.0 9.4 10.3 5.78 2.3 5.3] l.SO
SOUTH DAKOTA
4LACK HILLS NO
430113001103 76 29 LD LD .6 .6 .9 1.1 i.l 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.9 1.09 .S .92 1.90
VERMONT
ORANGE CO
470360001A03 760 21 1.4 2.5 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.9 7.0 9.6 11.2 21.3 6.38 4.1, 5.26 1.65
VIRGINIA
SHENANDOAH NAT
4B2B90001A03 76e 23 2.3 3.5 5.0 5.3 5.3 6.5 7.4 7.6 9.5 11.6 18.6 7.51 3.6 6.78 1.58
• INDICATES TEARLT CBI1EBIA ND7 KEI
61
-------
P3LLUTMII - 12103 - SULFAIE NO«URB>N IXUYUCAl QU>LITV 9SI CONF.
NE1U03 - 91 - HI-VOL COLOfilhtTKlC CONC. RANGE BIAS PRECISION
U1ITS - 01 - UU/CJ MLUB 125 Cl
VtIHE CO
«>j«Ot,OHD3
SOD
O 2C 3] 10 5D 6C
IUG/H3)
<6.0
6.0-20.0
"0.0
ARITHMETIC
70 60 90 HAH MEAN SIDEV
It) l>l
-«.J •- 12.0
-5.0 •- 6.7
-5.1 •- «.l
6EOHETRIC
MEAN SIO
62
-------
APPENDIX A
GRUBB'S STATISTIC FOR THE DETECTION OF OUTLIERS
As a final test before data were summarized and released for pub-
lication, Grubb's test* was used to indicate outliers, i.e., questionable
values that seemed to be excessively great. A computer program compiled
the statistics and performed the tests for outliers. As many as three
outliers were rejected for each pollutant at each site.
The procedure is to calculate the variance using all the data in the
data set for a site, then repeat the calculation by eliminating the maximum
value in succession. The calculation of variances continues until a total
of four values of variance have been calculated, i.e., until the three
highest concentration values have been temporarily eliminated from the data
set. Whether to identify any of the maximum values from the data set as
outliers was determined by calculating three ratios of variances and com-
paring these with F statistics in standard texts. The procedure is ex-
plained further by the equations that follow.
*Technometricss 14(3), August 1972,
63
-------
Values of variance were calculated as follows:
S2 = [zX2-(zX)2/n]/(n-l) (A-l)
where S2 = variance of data set about its mean value
using all the data
X = individual concentration values
n = total number of data in the data set
Successive values of variance, labeled S2n, S2n>n_i, and S2n>n_ijn_2, were
calculated by eliminating the maximum value in succession. Thus, the last
value was calculated as follows:
S'n,n-l,n-2 " CzY2-(zY)2/N]/(N-l) (A-2)
where S2n>n_i>n_2 = variance of data set formed by
eliminating the highest three con-
centrations
Y = individual concentration values of the
new data set (Yi = Xj to 1 = N)
N = n-3, three less than the number of data
in the original data set
The three ratios of variance were calculated as follows:
LI = (S2n)/(S2) (A-3)
L2 • (S2n,n-l)/(S2) (A-4)
L-3 = (S2n,n-l,n-2)/(S2) (A-5)
64
-------
APPENDIX B
CONFIDENCE LIMITS OF MEASURED VALUES
The usual formula for computing approximate confidence limits of
individual values when the precision is measured as the coefficient of
variation is:
LU = X[l + t0/2 Cv/100] (B-la)
LA = X[l - ta/2 Cv/100] (B-lb)
where Lu = upper limit
X = the measured value
ta/2 = the t statistic for the desired confidence
Cv = the coefficient of variation expressed as a
percentage
LA = lower limit
As an example, assume that the precision of an air pollution
measurement system as measured by the coefficient of variation is 5.1
percent. An individually measured value of 47.5 yg/ms was observed.
Assuming a 95 percent confidence interval (a=0.05) and a large number of
degrees of freedom, t0.025=l-96. Therefore, the approximate 95 percent
confidence limits for the true value are:
65
-------
Lu = 47.5[1 + (1.96)(5.1)/100] (B-2a)
= 52.3 yg/m1
LA = 47.5[1 - (1.96)(5.1)/100] (B-2b)
=42.8 yg/ms
These limits are symmetric about the observed value.
Since use of the coefficient of variation implies that the precision
1s a function of the concentration level, a more correct formula for
computing the confidence limits is:
LU = X/(l - ta/2 Cy/100) (B-3a)
LA = X/(l + t0/2 Cv/100) (B-3b)
Using the data in the previous example the upper and lower 95 percent
confidence limits are:
Lu = 47.5/[l-(1.96)(5.1)/100] = 52.8 yg/m1 (B-4a)
LA = 47.5/[H-(1.96)(5.1)/100] = 43.2 percent (B-4b)
These limits are asymmetric (as they should be) about the observed
value and they result in a slightly wider confidence interval than given by
B-2a and B-2b.
The graphical representation of the procedure is shown in Figure B-l.
66
-------
Figure B-l. Graphical representation of upper and lower confidence
intervals of an individually-measured concentration value
when precision is evaluated over a range of concentration
levels.
The more exact confidence limits in Equation B-3 were derived from
Figure B-l as follows:
X = Lu(l-t0/2 Cv/100) (B-5a)
X = L4(l+t0/2 Cy/100) (B-5b)
Therefore,
Lu = X/(l-ta/2 Cv/100) (B-6a)
L£ = X/(l-t0/2 Cv/100) (B-6b)
67
-------
The general formula for computing these confidence intervals when both
bias and precision are in percentage of concentration level, and when the
bias varies from time to time in random manner, is as follows:
Lu = [X(l-B/100)]/[l-k\/SB2Kvz/100] (B-7a)
L£ = [X(l-B/100)]/[l+kVSB2+Cv2/100] (B-7b)
where Lu = upper confidence limit
LA = lower confidence limit
X = measured value
B = average percentage bias
SB = standard deviation of percentage bias
Cv = coefficient of variation for precision, percent
k = standard normal deviate for desired confidence level
68
------- |