PB 212 478'
A STUDY OF CORRELATIONS OF OZONE AND
SULFUR DIOXIDE
L. F. Ballard, et al
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
September 1972
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
-------
A N G L E I N S T I T U T E
FINAL REPORT
RTI PROJECT 41U-98-93
A STUDY OF CORRELATIONS OF
OZONE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
by
L. F. Ballard
L. K. Matus
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-02-0257
September 1972
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
I. Report No.
EPA-R3-72-013
3. Recipient's Accession No
~^
47Title and Subtitle
A Study of Correlations of Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide
5. Report Date
September 1972
6.
7. Author(s)
L. F.
Ballard and L. K. Matua
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No- 4217-90-93
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
10. Projecc/Task/Vork Unit No.
27709
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-02-0257
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Division of Chemistry S Physics
Research Triangle Park, north Carolina
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
27711
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
i 1 1
16. Abstract ^ne report describes the results/of a data analysis study to
determine the correlation between ozone'' 10-3) and sulfur dioxide J(SO2)
concentrations in ambient air using data that had been obtained in
Los Angeles and St. Louis. Sulfur dioxide concentrations were deter-
mined by the flame photometer detector method. Ozone concentrations
were determined by the chemiluminescent reaction between ozone and
ethylene. Not having an established gas phase reaction model as a
basis for relating SO2 and Oj in tnis study, a series of simple linear
regressions were performed to test or determine the significance of a
relationship if it exists. Data sets consisted of hourly averages
obtained at the same time each day.f
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Air Pollution
Correlation
Ozone
Sulfur Dioxide
Tables (data)
Data Analysis
Linear Regression
17b- Idencifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Ambient Air
17c. COSATI Fie Id/Group
23B
18. Availabiiicy Statement
Unlimited
19. Security Class (This
Report}
UNCLASSIFIEt
OSSIFIED
Ilass (Thi<
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
is
22. Price
°ORM NTIS-38 (REV. 3-72)
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-OC I4982-P7Z
-------
A STUDY OF CORRELATIONS OF OZONE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
This report describes the results of a data analysis study to
determine the correlation between ozone (0_) and sulfur dioxide (S02)
concentrations in ambient air using data that had been obtained
previously in Los Angeles and St. Louis (Refs. 1-3). Sulfur dioxide
concentrations were determined by the flame photometric detector
method. Ozone concentrations were determined by the chemiluminescent
reaction between ozone and ethylene. These methods are assumed to
have a high degree of specificity under the prevailing ambient air
conditions and no corrections for instrument interferences are applied.
Wilson et al. (Ref. 4) demonstrated the effect of S02 on oxidant
formation in environmental chambers. The effect was small but statistically
significant. The mechanism was postulated to be the slow reaction
involving SO- and oxides of nitrogen.
Not having an established gas phase reaction model as a basis for
relating S02 and 0- in this study, a series of simple linear regressions
were performed to test or determine the significance of a relationship
if it exists. Data sets consisted of hourly averages obtained at the
same time each day. A normal distribution of error was assumed.
Results of a linear correlation of the form
[S02] - a1[03] + a2 '
are shown in Tables I-III for data obtained in Los Angeles and St. Louis,
Phase I and St. Louis, Phase II. The upper part of the tables includes
each of the 24 hourly averages using all the data with no constraints.
The lower part includes data for 1000 to 1700 hours only when the
-------
TABLE I
CORRELATION BETWEEN SULPHUR DIOXIDE AND OZONE
Hour
IN LOS
Correlation
Coefficient
ANGELES: [SO ]= a [0,
4 SEP 70 TO 1 DEC
Slope
>1+a2
70
Intercept
(ppm • ozone)
Case
Count
NO STIPULATIONS:
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
STIPULATIONS
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
.103
.017
-.060
-.041
-.044
-.103
-.104
-.110
-.238
-.284
.102
.406
.398
.241
.463
.449
.377
.420
.277
.342
.280
.215
.128
.153
- .020
-------
TABLE II
CORRELATION BETWEEN SULPHUR DIOXIDE AND OZONE
IN ST LOUIS I: [S0_]= a,[0 1 + a
213 2
13 MAY 71 TO 17 AUG 71
CORRELATION
HOUR COEFFICIENT
SLOPE
INTERCEPT
(ppm • ozone)
CASE
COUNT
NO STIPULATIONS:
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
STIPULATIONS
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
.037
-.020
.169
.076
.172
.099
.070
-.231
-.330
-.268
-.138
-.130
-.011
-.101
.015
.203
.294
.172
.101
.066
.040
.149
.055
-.020
- .020
-------
TABLE III
CORRELATION BETWEEN SULPHUR DIOXJDE AND OZONE
IN ST. LOUIS II: [50^ ^[Q } + a
7 OCT 71 TO 20 DEC 71
CORRELATION CASE
HOUR COEFFICIENT SLOPE INTERCEPT COUNT
NO STIPULATIONS:
0000 -.046 -.079 .007 64
0100 -.112 -.188 .007 64
0200 -.124 -.129 .005 64
0300 -.185 -.180 .005 64
0400 -.119 -.110 .004 64
0500 -.203 -.149 .005 64
0600 -.185 -.406 .007 64
0700 -.159 -.322 .005 59
0800 -.165 -.374 .007 55
0900 -.150 -.373 .011 51
1000 -.252 -.590 .019 55
1100 -.286 -.591* .022 62
1200 -.184 -.216 .014 63
1300 -.072 -.085 .012 63
1400 -.288 -.271* .0]5 63
1500 -.333 -.342* .015 63
1600 -.284 -.280* .012 64
1700 -.227 -.225 .0<"i« 64
1800 -.146 -.203 .006 64
1900 -.173 -.275 .006 64
2000 -.146 -.130 .005 64
2100 .003 .004 .005 64
2200 -.038 -.043 .005 64
2300 .131 .174 .00* 64
STIPULATIONS - .020
-------
relative humidity was less than 70 percent and the NO, concentration
was between 0.02 and 0.04 ppm. These added constraints increase the
correlation coefficient, but the reduction in the number of cases gives
a net loss of significance. Asterisks are placed beside those coeffi-
cients significantly different from zero at the 5% level. The relatively
poor reliability of the S02 Instrument response during the St. Louis
operation would be expected to limit the maximum correlation that could
be observed (Ref. 3). High correlation requires that the variability
due to Instrument error be small compared to the average value and
range of SO- concentration. In Appendices A, B, and C the hourly
averages and standard deviations are given for 0-, S0«, N02» solar
radiation, and relative humidity. SO^ averages are in the neighborhood
of 0.01 ppm. The instrument reproducibility as determined by calibra-
tions at two-day intervals was much greater than 0.01 ppm so that low
correlations can be expected.
The marginal significance of the correlation and the difference
in the sign of the coefficient from morning to afternoon are the
dominant features of Tables I-III. To provide additional insight into
this correlation a multiple linear regression analysis was performed
including the five variables indicated above. The regression equation
is written as a. linear prediction model for 0_ using these variables
The multiple correlation coefficients and standard error of estimates
for this predictor are given in Table IV. The highest correlation
and the lowest prediction error are obtained for the St. Louis II data.
-------
This is largely attributed to improved measurements of NO. concentration
by the chemiluminescent method. In this case the error of estimate varies
from .006 to .014 ppm which is comparable to the reproducibility of many
ozone instruments.
The correlation of this predictor with ozone concentrations is
significant in most cases at the 1% level (indicated by two asterisks
in Table IV). The solar radiation coefficient is the most significant
term, achieving the 1% level in all cases. The SO. coefficient is
not significantly different from zero at the 5% level in any of the
St. Louis data. In Los Angeles the SO- coefficient is significant
at the 5% level at 1200, 1400, 1500, and 1700 hours; the coefficient
ranges between 0.33 and 0.68.
Several other prediction models were tested as Indicated in
Table V and Table VI. In model II the SO. term was removed. In
model III the NO. term was removed. Models IV and V make use of the
ratios SO^/NO. and SO./RH. None of these variations in the model form
resulted in a significantly better predictor of the 0. concentrations.
Individual regression coefficients other than solar radiation were
significant at the 5% level at only one or two hours of the day.
Greatest significance was usually found near the middle of the day.
In summary, a linear relation between the concentration of 0,
and SO. in ambient air is suggested by the LA data only. The multiple
correlations attempted are not consistently significant. Interpretation
of the relation is difficult because of the dependence of these variables
upon gas phase reactions involving NO., water vapor and other gases
as well as the variabili'•/ of instrumentation response and the uncertainty
of SO. emission source distribution effects.
-------
TABLE IV
MULTIPLE CORRELATION ANALYSES
HOUR
J.OOT
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
°3 = al[S02]+ a2[Nn21+ a
CORRELATION
LOS ANGL'LKS
4 SEP 70 TO 1 DEC 70
.459
.561*
. 709**
.724**
.717**
.738**
.746**
.740**
3[RII] + a, [SOL RAD] f- a
COEFFICIENT
ST. LOUIS I
13 MAY 71 TO 17 AUG 71
.449*
.506**
.393
.444*
.305
.428*
.502**
.494**
ST. LOUIS II
7 OCT 71 TO 20 DEC 71
.725**
.749**
.741**
.719*'"'
.715**
.836**
.832**
.774**
ERROR OF ESTIMATE
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
.017
.025
.029
.029
.032
.027
.024
.015
.015
.014
.017
.017
.021
.021
.019
.018
.006
.008
.012
.012
.014
.010
.010
.009
* Significant at the 5% level.
** Significant at the 1% level.
-------
TABLF. V
MULTIPLE CORRKLATTON ANALYSES
ST. LOUIS IT
7 OCT 71 TO 20 nKC 71
CORRELATION
HOUR
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
* I:
II:
III:
IV:
V:
I
.725
.749
.741
.719
.715
.836
.832
.775
°3 = al[S07.
°3 • aiX
II
.607
.754
.840
.891
.750
.816
.782
.728
]+ a0[NO.]+ aJRV]
2. 2. j
]+ a [RH]+ a [SOL
]+ a2[RH]+ a3[SOL
/N02]+ a2[RH]+ a3I
/N02]+ a2[SO?/RH]+
III
.609
.792
.733
.791.
.704
.785
.781
.728
iv.njH- a
4
SOL ^.\))1 + a,
4
.-i3[SOL RAD]+'
IV
.573
.771
.750
.753
.731
.794
.792
.728
ha5
a4
V
.587
.700
.700
.768
.730
.818
.796
.711
-------
TABLE VI
MULTIPLE CORRELATION ANALYSES
ST. LOUIS I]
7 OCT 71 TO 20 riEC 71
STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE*
(ppm . ozone)
HOUR
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
I
.006
.008
.011
.012
.014
.010
.010
.009
II
.008
.008
.009
.008
.013
.010
.011
.009
III
.007
.007
.012
.011
.014
.012
.011
.010
IV
.007
.008
.012
.012
.014
.012
.011
.010
V
.007
.009
.013
.011
.014
.011
.011
.010
* I: 0^ = n, fSO 1+ a,JNO,,l+ a,[RH]+ a. [SOL RAD1+ ac
3 1 ZJ i 2 3 4 ->
III: 0 = a [SO ]+ a,[RH]+ a-[SOL RAD] + a.
J J. eL fL J '^
V: 03 = a1[S02/N02]+ a2[S02/RH]+ a^SOL RAD]+ a^
-------
Future efforts to understand this relationship should include the
development of a prediction model based on postulated gas phase reactions.
Recognizing that ambient air data is the true test for such a model,
field data such as that in this study should be utilized. High correlation
is not to be expected if the variability due to instrument error is large
relative to the average value and range of SO- and 0_ concentrations.
Significance of the statistical comparison of the model and instrumental
data would be enhanced by independent tests indicating both the nature
of the distribution function and magnitude of the expected deviation
attributable to the error in instrument output.
10
-------
REFERENCES
1. L. F. Ballard, J. B. Tommerdahl, C. E. Decker, T. M. Royal, and
D. R. Nifong, "Field Evaluation of New Air Pollution Monitoring
Systems: Los Angeles Study," Interim Report, April 14, 1971,
Research Triangle Institute, NAPCA Contract CPA 70-101.
2. L. F. Ballard, J. B. Tommerdahl, C. E. Decker, T. M. Royal,
and L. K. Matus, "Field Evaluation of New Air Pollution Monitoring
Systems: St. Louis Study, Phase I," Interim Report, August 18, 1971,
Research Triangle Institute, EPA Contract CPA 70-101.
3. C. E. Decker, T. M. Royal, J. B. Tommerdahl, and L. K. Matus,
"Field Evaluation of New Air Pollution Monitoring Systems: St.
Louis, Phase II," Interim Report, December 20, 1971, Research
Triangle Institute, EPA Contract CPA 70-101.
4. W. E. Wilson, Jr., A. Levy, and D. B. Wimmer, "A Study of S0«
in Photochemical S TT "«--- -* «n — «—-j —- » ^_. _2
in Photochemica] S
27 (January 1972).
in Photochemical Smog. II.Effect of SO on Oxidant Formation
in Photochemica] Smog," J. Air Pollution Control, Vol. 22, No. 1,
11
-------
STATISTICAL AIR
4 SEP
APPENDIX A
QUALITY rtATA IN LOS ANRELES
70"~TO i~f!EC 7~0----
HOu^S —
"0000"" 0100 "0200 0300 " 0400 f)500' 0600" 0700 0800" 090H 1000 "HOD
~ G20\E AVfAT.E '(PJM)
SU'D.\Rn DEVIATION
C/. Sc rQtj.M
' S02 AVL'-AGc (P?H)" '
£7;. ,D/.;4-« ~E V i a T ION
SOL. RAD. AVL'JA.' d (LA.NGLEYS) '
CAS- rciif.T
— ^ — ~-AVE"irc "(PE3CE.VT) ~
_, " S'A1 jA^T rE'lA7IOM
"» c..S = rL;j\T
HOU=S --
3-C\- AVc'-A'-E
b T A '. !i A R n '. E V I A T I 0 N
CASE COUNT
S02 AVE'-'AOt (PpM)
CAST rc;i.\"
ST t':U,'.sn i =V I AT ION "
CASE C3Uf»T
SOL. RAD. AVERAGE (LANCLEYS)
1 bTA \jAHH TE VI AT I ON
CAS)1- COUNT
KH *Vt?*C![ (P23CESIT)
CASF COUNT
.002
.007
76
.007
.008
.046
70
-.001 -.
.003
a£-
18.1P1 17.
86
1200
.066
.047
66
.016
.021
73
".055 "" .
59
.696
87
41.493 4?.
15.913 16.
87
"002""
008
76
007
008
82
034
046
70
000 -
C03
86
12* 5«
630 17
36
1300
061
045
69
014
016 "
74
080
044
63
614
243" '
40^ 44
070 16
87
.003
.000
76
.007
.008
.045
70
.000
.002
66
."1 1 1
.720
66
1400
.049
.040
72
.010
.012
PI
.0*0
.039
66
.463
.238
R7
.303
.475
87
""TO 03 .
.010
76
' "HO 7" ""-"
• 035
6?
.070" 1
-045
70
-.QUO -.
• 002
13.6-;? 18.
56
1500
-O.J3
.035 " ".
75
• OOfl
• 010" .
e?
.Oo6
.040
• 277
"".215 ~.
87
46.7U3 49.
16.769 17.
67
003 ;
009
75
007 ' .
0.18
077 " .
043
69
ooo
003
852 57'.
845 ifl.
1600
0?0
025
76
006
fl?
0/>3
7]
109
105 i
f!7
416 51.
60=: 18.
87
OO'l
005
75
(lO 7
OOfl
Si
043
69
004
006
85
85
1700
014
020
76
005
no?
82
OflJ
040
71
022
034'
87
232
87
."000 ~
.003
75
.009 '
" Moo •
.052
69
.083
.059
05
57'.9r,6 56
18.455 1ft
ft 5
1800
.007
.013
76
.004
.008
.O'<0
.036
71
-.001 -
-.003
53.840 55
18.861 1Q
07
.nor"
.003
73
.•in'
.009
80
.121
.?55
..123
84
.725 19
84
1900
.005
.on
76
.005
.003
.000
.039
70
.001 -
.004 -
67
.1-07 56
.077 18
87
.006 "
.007
70
• Oil
.009
79
.078
58
.439
• 173
-125 47
-431 19
2000
.004
.009
76
.005
.008 "
P2
• OP1
.042 '
70
.001 -
.004 "
.742 57
.592 18
.018
• 016
63
.010
.009
74
61
• 588
• 199
87
.793
. 580
87
2100
.004
.008
76
.005
• TOR
8?
. 181
.J40
70
.001
.003
.?7H
. 5)4
• C38
.029
65
" .Cl2
• C12
74
" -112
.069
5*
.699
.210
"7
43-714
17.793
220C
.003
.007
76
.006
"2
.CC3
.Oil
70
-.001
" .003
"6
18.4?2
.058
.039
65
" .013
.014
71
.004
56
.746
.220
40.735-
l7.2>jG
2300
99.9/0
99.999
0
99.9V5
99.999"
(l
99.09"*
99.9y9
G
99.999
99.999
n
99.09-:
<59.9?3
0
-------
STATISTICAL AIR
13
APPENDIX
QUALITY
B
DATA IN ST.
!7~AUG7f
LOUIS I
HOlRS -'•
OZQ\E
S02
0000"" 0100 020C""0300" "0400"" 0500 "0600 " 0700 0=»00 " 0900 1000* "1130
AVENGE (PPM)'
STAMDASD PEVIATJON
CASE COi.'N"
AVE-^ARE (PPM) ~ "
STA'.D^n DEVIATION
CASE rci
SOL." RAD":
CAbF COUNT
"AVE^A:E (LA:;GLEYS)
STANDARD TEVIATION
CAS= COUNT
"AVdPAGE (PERCENT)
STA':3,'.R-j DEVIATION
CASF CCUNT
~~;oi5
.018
89
"'.003
.013
91
04o
• U ~ V
.040
62
' o.oco
0.000
96
69.026
1 5 . b 3 7
96
•" .015
.019
59
" ".302
.011
91
341
• «J 1
.037
62
O.C'JG
0.000
96
70.493
16.096
96
.014
.020
89
.002
.012
91
029
• U £ 7
.032
62
0.000
0.003
96
71.527
15.986
96
:oi4
.020
tfQ
" .004
.015
91
. 02?
.029
62
0.000
0.000
96
72-670
16.C24
96
~ .013
.019
19
" -.022
.254
91
~ 017
• W L '
.0?7
62
o . c n o
0.000
96
74.250
15.952
<56
"" "."012" """.
.019
39
~ "ill 03" ".
.01?
91
' "019' ~
9 11 ± r |
.025
62
' .000
.002
96
75.10* 75.
l5.9od 16.
9o
009
015
89
003
013
91
034
W 1 ~
032
62
054
0?8
96
594
26-J
96
".111""
.Oi-j
7<,
.006
. ll*
7 A
ft * 3 "
• i \*
• n ^ 'TI
41
. ?1 ^
.094
9',
7,1.96.;
15.T44
9s
"' .021
.017
«5
"-.010
.in?
OQ
"* ?5
.036
59
,3'»7
.155
96
64.3?3
15.4'J7
96
" .034
.017
81
~.009
.017
04
— p pn
..(23
60
.•>58
• 215
96
5B.-11-1
15.1-17
96
.044
.018
B2
.013
.023
Rl
0 1 ?
.0?3
sa
.731
.247
96
54.9=.:
1 4 . e *. 6
96
~. 0 4 5 "
.DIC-
KS
.01* '
.02*
. 3*
~. C 0 '- ~ •
.02-=
5 =
".83? "
.280
96
51". 53 4 ~"
1 4 ,9i 5
90
1200 1300
1400
15CO 1600 1700
1900 2noo ?ion 2200
2303
3Z3\e
AVEHA3E (PPM)
-STA^DAP.n T'EVIATION
CAS- COUNT
AVC:J/.GE (Pc«)
S31. SAD.
CAST COUNT
Ai'E-'Ar-F- (PPM)
STA-.C4RH DEVIATION
CASb COUNT
AVERAGE (LA:-TCLEYS)
-STAVUtRn PEVIATIO.V
CASF ro.jN'i
AVEPAUE (PERCENT)
CASF COUNT
.057
— .020
86
.010
• '.019
«8
.006
" .023
59
.876
-- .307
95
48.928
14.303
95
.059
.021
65
.006
" '.016
S9
.004
.022
59
.371
- .313
95
46. fill
14.238
95
.062
.021
S3
.007
.015
H7
.003
.019
55
.620
.276
95
45.434
l4.?09
95
.062
".023
85
.005
.009
69
.00*
. 0^1
56
.722
.?67
96
44.564
14.400
96
.058
~ .023
84
.005
'" .OlG
91
.014
.024
58
.5flO
" .2/3
96
44.3«7
15.543
96
.051
.022
87
.00')
..H4
91
.01°
.il26
5*3
,403
" .I6fl
9(>
45.63)
16. 30S
96
.047
.021
H9
.007
.015
91
.019
.029
62
.227
.100
96
47.308
16.262
96
.03-i
.019
6°
. 0 (J i,
.oir;
91
.02-;
.03S
6?
.07?
.03-1
9'
50. Si'.
16. OH?
9<>
• 0
-------
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL AIR DUALITY DAJA IN ST. LOUIS II
7 OCT 71 TO"20"DFC71
0000 0100 0200 0300
"0500 0*00 0700 0800 0900 100P "1100
OZONE
S02
"AVt^ACE (P?M)
STA'.D/SP, TEVIATION
C;.Sc COUNT
"A'.'c-'ACE (P?M)
STAV Dir.n DEVIATION
N02
SOL. RAD.
(LAXCLCYS)
STA'.O'RO rEV!ATION
Cib'1 CCi.l\'r
"Al.'i':.^E" (PERCENT)
ST*-5i?n FEVIATION
.005
.008
69
'.006
.013
65
.033
.020
66
"~o".ooo
o.ooo
7£.
"7V.697
13.660
73
""" .005
.008
69
.006
.012
6?
" .030
.019
66
o.ooo
o.ooo
74
75^323
13.783
' 73
.007
.010
69
.005
.011
65
. Olfl
<>6
o.ono
o.ooo
74
75.976
14.033
73
.007"
.009
69
.01'*"
• Oil
66
" . C! 2 4
.017
66
o.ooo
O.OGO
74
77.441
13. £45
73
.007
.010
69
.004
.010
65
".072
.016
66
0.003
0.000
74
7&.7?0
14.075
73
.007
.012
69
"" ."004
.C09
60
.021
.015
66
0.000
0.000
74
78.ROH
14.293
73
.004
.006
69
".Of)6
.014
68
".027
.Ol'p
66
".001
.002
74
78.7-J6
14.188
73
.H03
.006
65
.P04
.Til 2
61
.034
.019
66
.036
.C39
74
79. T!*
14.*60
73
.003
.005
60
.006
.012
5V
.OJS
.025
bb
.149
-105
74
"75.249
15.387
73
.007
.007
55
.011
.020
58
" .03fl
.031
63
.270
-172
73
7ft. 797
16.558
73
.012
.010
59
.012
.023
59
" .032
.031
52
.363
.228
73
73.65C
17.9R7
73
.016
.012
6?
.Cl2"
.025
64
— :o£r
.027
47
" .450"
.259
72
53.5c7"
17.755
!l.
1200
1300 1400 1500 1600 l?flO 18CO V900 2000 2100 2200__2300
OZONE
S02
CASE: COUNT
AVc^AGE (PPM)
'STA .C-^FiO LEV I ATIO-N'
\02
DASS PEVI ATION
AVEHAGE (L/us'CLEYS)
a»hn TEVUTION
ir COUNT
A V fc ? A C E- (PERC-ST)
CASF COUNT
.019
.015
69
.010
""".018
65
.025
.018
48
.450
" .271
72
56.245
19.336
72
.022
.017
69
.011
.021
65
.022
.012
55
.415
.271
71
73.864-67
16.469 10
72
.022
.019
69
.009
.018
64
.0?3
.011
59
.349
.243
72
.943
.358
73
.019
.018
67
.oce
.ris"
b-y
.G'c6
.012
61
• 240
.194
/I
72-349
16.139
72
.013
.017
68
.008
"." C 2 6
f.7
.3'2
.015
61
.1C9
:i34
74
54.512
21.539
73
.008
.013
69
.006
".013
67
.039
.OIF-
62
.032
.055
74
57.703
20.694
73
.005
.008
69
.005
.012
68
.044
" .022
65
.001
.004
74
61.912
18.548
73
.no4
.007
69
.106
.014
68
.P43
.124
66
n.rno
n . n o o
74
6S.486
16. "60
73
.004
.008
69
.004
.003
68
.0"!
.0?5
*6
o.ono
0.000
74
67.943
15.633
73
.005
.008
69
.005
.010
5«
• 03f<
.02?
66
o.ooo
0-000
74
69.95ft
15.342
73
.C04
.007
69
.005
.009
r>6
• CJ6
.0?2
*6
o.coo
O.ono
74
71.4C.7
15.023
73
.004
.007
69
.005
' . o : o
'.n
.C>?5
.021
f>6
0.000
o.coo
7<
7?.*5«
14.622
73
------- |