EPA/600/A-97/044
A Closer Look at Our Neighbors to the South: Air Quality Trends, Standards,
and Monitoring Programs of Latin American Countries
Leonor Ortiz Childers, Myriam Medina-Vera, William J. Mitchell
United States Environmental Protection Agency
79 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA
ABSTRACT
Air monitoring data from over 50 countries throughout the world are collected and analyzed
as part of the Global Environment Monitoring System for Air (GEMS/Air). The GEMS/Air
program is sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Health
Organization (WHO). Several countries in Latin America participate in the GEMS/Air program.
As part of a technical systems agreement between the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the UNEP/WHO, collaborative reviews of eighteen Latin American cities were
conducted over the past two years. The countries visited include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador,
and Venezuela. The findings of these reviews and the future direction of air pollution monitoring
programs in these countries will be presented.
INTRODUCTION
Urban air pollution is a threat to human health and the environment. To develop control
strategies and methods that will mitigate the damages associated with urban air pollution, it is
necessary to determine the sources of pollutants, and their levels and distribution in an area. To
meet these and other objectives, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) developed, in 1975, the Global Environment Monitoring System for
Air (GEMS/Air). Since its inception, the GEMS/Air program has achieved the following:1
1) establishment of a global network of over 270 monitoring sites in over 50 countries;
2) support of monitoring and assessment operations through training, expert advice, and
logistic support;
3) support of quality assurance procedures through auditing of city monitoring networks;
4) development and publication of methodology handbooks;
5) publication of global assessments of monitoring data;
6) establishment of Regional Support Centers throughout the world; and
7) development and maintenance of a global data base housed at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards in Research Triangle Park, NC.
The USEPA is closely aligned with the GEMS/Air program and provides technical support in
a number of areas. In 1993, the USEPA entered into an interagency agreement with the WHO and
UNEP to continue this support. Under this agreement, the USEPA's National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL) agreed to do the following:
1) assess the current status of the air monitoring stations in Latin America that are part
of the GEMS/Air program;
2) identify the existing and anticipated needs (equipment, facilities, training, etc.) of the
organizations operating these stations; and
3) establish a long-term technical cooperative effort with these organizations to address
the needs identified.
-------
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
The USEPA/NERL effort in Latin America involved a two-member scientific team with
technical expertise, as well as language and cultural knowledge. This team visited selected
organizations in various countries operating GEMS/Air stations. During these visits the USEPA
team determined the availability of equipment, facilities, and trained staff to operate the GEMS/Air
stations; any short- and long-term needs of the organization; the extent of their quality assurance
programs; and the future direction of their air monitoring programs. Upon completing the review,
the USEPA team submitted findings and recommendations ttyWHO.
To better accomplish the goals of the project, the USEPA team used a different approach
than was used by other GEMS/Air audit teams in otherjjarts of the world. First, the USEPA team
adopted the phrase "collaborative reviews" — instead el-wing the woi'd "audit" ~ to denote a
cooperative, rather than a policing, effort. This approach promoted a free exchange of information
and a high degree_of cooperation. Secondly, the USEPA team used the data collection requirements
* followed by th£_"US: "State and Local Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) only as guidance, not as strict
assessment criteria. The emphasis was on blending sound science and quality assurance with the
economic, political, and social conditions of the area, not to enforce USEPA methods, per se.
Thirdly, the USEPA team considered the broad situation of the region: geographical location;
possible language and cultural barriers; available resources, infrastructure, and technical staff;
access to spare parts and repair facilities; access to associations with other countries, universities,
scientists, and donor funds; political support for environmental programs; and current and potential
sources of pollutants. And lastly, the USEPA team continued their involvement with each
participating agency once the reviews were completed. The USEPA team assisted each country in
implementing the agreed-upon strategies for improving their air monitoring networks.
As shown in Table 1, the USEPA team first visited Latin America in 1994 and then again in
1996.2 3 The collaborative reviews conducted during this two-year period were arranged through the
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) - the Latin American branch o^WHO. The PAHO
Country Engineers served as the official hosts for the USEPA team.
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Primary Sources of Pollution
Without exception, each of the cities visited attribute their air pollution problems to two
primary sources: mobile and industrial. Major cities such as Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos
Aires, Santiago, Caracas, and Quito have high levels of vehicular traffic. For instance, Avenida
Brasil in Rio de Janeiro is travelled by more than 206,000 vehicles per day. In areas where leaded
gasoline is still used, vehicular traffic contributes to blood-lead levels. In Quito, a 1991 study
reported levels of 28.8 /xg/dl and 28.2 /xg/dl, for school-age children and road-side vendors,
respectively.4 These values are almost three times above the acceptable limit.4 Other cities, such as
Cubatao (located 28 miles from Sao Paulo), San Lorenzo, Rio Tercero, Mendoza, Maracaibo, and
Puerto Ordaz, have large industrial areas. Some of the industries located in these cities are:
petrochemical plants; coal refineries; steel manufacturers; toxic-waste incinerators; and cement,
glass, wood, and fertilizer companies. Both vehicular and industrial sources contribute to the levels
of particulate matter, volatile organics, and gaseous pollutants. Coupled with these pollutant
sources, many of the areas have topographical features and climatic conditions that prevent adequate
pollutant dispersion. For example, Sao Paulo, Santiago, Quito, and Mendoza are affected by
mountainous terrain and stable inversion layers. In addition to these factors, some areas do not have
adequate zoning laws that separate industrial areas from residential areas. Rio Tercero and
Maracaibo are prime examples of this situation.
-------
Environmental Programs
The primary organizations that coordinate, manage, and operate air monitoring programs in
Latin American countries are under the federal, state, or local government, or are closely affiliated
with them. The federal agencies often have satellite offices or state and local agencies that assist
them with the air monitoring in a specific location. Table 2 shows the primary organizations which
participated in the collaborative reviews and their designations. Some of the issues facing these
organizations are limited technical staff, training, and resources. Within these organizations it was
common to find a small group of scientists that were responsible for a wide variety of activities,
such as overall coordination of the program; maintenance and calibration of equipment; air
sampling, collection, and analysis; data collection and management; and report dissemination.
Air Quality Standards
Each of the countries visited have federal legislation that establishes national air quality
standards to protect human health. In most cases, the individual states and municipalities follow the
federal standards and guidelines, as well as their own environmental regulations. Table 3 shows the
primary air quality standards for each country as established by federal law. It may be worth noting
that while Argentina has a federal law for air quality (Ley N° 20.284, 4/16/73), it has not yet been
sanctioned. For Venezuela, the table gives a range of values corresponding to an upper and lower
limit. In this system a percentage is assigned to each limit. For example, in the case of total
suspended particles (TSP), only 50% of the samples collected can exceed 75 ptg/m3, only 5% can
exceed 150 /xg/m3, only 2% can exceed 200 /ag/m3, and only 0.5% can exceed 260 /xg/m3. Their
complete set of standards is given in Reference 12. The air quality standards of the USEPA and the
air quality guidelines of the WHO are also given for comparison purposes.5"12 In some cases, where
a country does not have a standard for a particular pollutant, a city may adopt a value as a "working
standard." For example, Santiago, Chile uses the USEPA standard for inhalable particles (PM-10),
while Quito, Ecuador uses a local standard of 58.8 /xg/m3 for smoke.
Air Monitoring Networks
All of the countries visited are currently operating manual air monitoring networks. These
networks may include High-Volume Samplers, sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen dioxide impingers,
smoke shade filter samplers, and sedimented dust pails. Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santiago
also have automated monitoring networks, which include continuous monitors for gaseous pollutants
and meteorological parameters.2,3,6,13 Table 4 shows the number of stations managed by each agency
for the primary pollutants measured. Where this information is known, a superscript is placed next
to each number to denote the sampling method(s) used. The stations included in this table are those
that routinely operate and report data. Those stations not yet included in the GEMS/Air program
are in the process of being added to the global data base.
Quality Assurance Programs
The quality assurance programs followed by the air monitoring organizations include routine
calibration checks; maintenance and repair of equipment; and verification and validation of their
data. They also have standard operating procedures for routine activities. A recurring deficiency in
all of the countries was insufficient transfer standards for use in calibrating or auditing their
equipment and laboratory instruments. Most of the countries do not have a reference lab from
which they can obtain transfer standards that are traceable to a primary standard. Some of the
countries do not have certified gas suppliers or a way to check the accuracy of what is provided.
Air Quality Data/Trends
Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 show actual air monitoring data for TSP, PM-10, smoke, sulfur
dioxide (S02), and nitrogen dioxide (N02). For each data set, the city is listed first with the name
of the station below it. Also noted in these figures are the Air Quality Standards (AQS) as given in
-------
Table 3. The stations were chosen based on the highest concentration levels in that citv. For
example, of all the stations in Rio de Janeirg^ the station BonsucessoTfeported in FieurelXonsistent-
ly showed the highest values of TSP over the 11-year period. iim Sgure does-«etHfejMm data for
a particular yea^, it is because the dafa were unavailable or because the station was inactive during
that year. For example, Guayaquil did not measure TSP until 1994. Therefore, only two values are
given in Figure 1.
Figures 2, 4, and 6 show the percent of stations in a given city that exceeded the AQS in a
given year. For example, in 1985, nearly 70% of the air monitoring stations in Rio de Janeiro
exceeded the AQS of 80 /xg/m3. The number of stations reporting data for a given year in a given
city varied. For TSP (Figure 2), Rio de Janeiro had 3-16 stations reporting data during the given
time period; Cubatao had 2 stations; Sao Paulo had 8-9 stations; Santiago had 6-9 stations; and
Guayaquil had 1 station. For PM-10 (Figure 4), Cubatao had 2-3 stations; Sao Paulo had 14-21
stations; and Santiago had 4-5 stations. For smoke (Figure 6), Mendoza had 2-5 stations; SIo Paulo
had 7 stations; Santiago had 1-2 stations; and Quito had 2-3 stations.
Each station that reported levels of particulate matter (Figures 1, 3, and 5)aexceeded the f
designated AQS for every year except for 1988, when station Cerqueira Cesar was below the AQS
for PM-10. Some stations showed a declining trend, but still exceeded the AQS. In other parts of
the same city, levels were also consistently high for TSP, PM-10, and smoke, except for some year;
when less than 50% of the stations in Rio de Janeiro, Cubatao, and Sao Paulo were above the AQS.
On the other hand, the stations reporting S02 and N02 (Figures 7 and 8) are consistently
below the AQS. The two exceptions occur in 1990 for S02 and in 1986 for N02, when stations
Tatuape and #6 exceeded the AQS, respectively. The other stations reporting S02 and N02 through-
out the same cities during these same years had equal or lower values than the ones shown.
CONCLUSIONS ^
Mitigating the environmental and health hazards of air-born pollutants is important toAWHO.
Therefore^WHO, with the support of^UNEP, established the GEMS/Air program. Through this
program and its Regional Support Centers, like the USEPA, the over 50 participating countries have
received technical support and access to the GEMS/Air global data base. Various Latin American
countries have also participated in collaborative reviews. These collaborative reviews, conducted by
a scientific team from USEPA/NERL, were designed to assess the current air monitoring programs
in each country and to recommend and implement improvements.
Based on ttecollaborative reviews conducted in 1994 and 1996, the USEPA/NERL team
recommended thatjwHO: provide technical assistance in specific areas; simplify the data reporting
system of GEMS/Air; and continue regular contact with each participating city. The USEPA/NERL
team has since provided technical assistance to all of the cities in the following areas: siting
criteria; dispersion modeling; air pollution data bases, monitoring systems, and measurement
methods; passive sampling; quality assurance/quality control programs; and audit devices.
Since the collaborative reviews, many of the cities have reported continued growth and
improvements in their air monitoring programs. Sao Paulo (CETESB) recently remodeled their
automated network through funding by the World Bank. Rio de Janeiro (FEEMA) is improving
their data management and computer systems and will perhaps join with the city government to
increase their monitoring efforts. Buenos Aires (MSyAS) was planning an air quality assessment
campaign through the local university and private companies. Venezuela (MARNR) was being
evaluated by a private company to assess the potential for expanding their network. The City of
Quito was planning another eight stations based on funding from the Inter-American Development
Bank.
Air monitoring and control strategies continue to improve in Latin America. The GEMS/Air
program has assisted in this growth. The WHO hopes to continue this program and to focus on the
other countries throughout Central and South America that are now in the beginning stages of air
pollution monitoring and control.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the following groups and individuals for their assistance with this
project: Dieter Schwela, David Calkins, Luiz Galvao, Felipe Solsona, Paulo Cezar Pinto, Marco
Rondon, Victor Arauz, Patricio Hevia Rivas, Jonathan Miller, and the staff members of PAHO,
CETESB (Sao Paulo), SESMA (Santiago), FEEMA (Rio de Janeiro), MSyAS (Buenos Aires),
MARNR (Caracas), ICLAM (Maracaibo), and MIDUVI (Quito).
REFERENCES
1. United Nations Environment Program/World Health Organization; GEMS!Air - A Global
Programme for Urban Air Quality Monitoring and Assessment, WHO/PEP 93.7, UNEP/GE-
MS/93.A.1; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 1993.
2. Mitchell, W.J. and Childers, L.O.; Preliminary Assessment of the Status of Air Pollution
Measurement and Data Use in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Santiago, Chile; and Quito, Ecuador, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994.
3. Childers, L.O., Medina-Vera, M. and Mitchell, W.J.; Assessment of the Status of Air
Pollution Measurement and Data Use in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela-, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC, in preparation.
4. Bossano, F. and Oviedo, J.; Contaminacionpor Plomo; Comision Asesora Ambiental de la
Presidencia de la Republica, Quito, 1996.
5. Schwela, D; WHO (1997) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe-, World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland, personal communication, 1997.
6. United Nations Environment Program/World Health Organization; GEMS!Air Methodology
Review Handbook Series. Volumes 3 and 4, WHO/EOS/94.3; UNEP/WHO: Nairobi,
Kenya, 1994.
7. United Nations Environment Program/World Health Organization; City Air Quality Trends
(GEMS!Air Data) Volume 3, WHO/EOS 95.17, UNEP/EAP/95.A2; UNEP/WHO: Nairobi,
Kenya, 1995;p 5.
8. Ley Nacional N°20.284; Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1973.
9. Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental; Relatorio de Qualidade do Ar no
Estado de Sao Paulo - 1995, ISSN 0103-4103; CETESB: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1996.
10. Contaminacion Atmosferica de Santiago, Estado Actual y Solucidnes; H.L. Sandoval, M.B.
Prendez and P.U. Ulriksen, Eds.; Cabo de Hornos S.A., Chile, 1993; pp 265, 279.
11. Registro Oficial N°726, 15 de Julio de 1991; Quito, Ecuador; pp 12-14.
12. Gaceta Oficial de la Republica de Venezuela, N°4.899 Extraordinario, 19 de mayo de 1995,
Decreto N°638; Caracas, Venezuela, 1995; pp 1-3.
13. World Health Organization; Selected Methods of Measuring Air Pollutants, Publication No.
24; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1976.
-------
Table 1. Itinerary of the Collaborative Review^.
Date
Country
Cities
Feb. 1-4, 1994
BRAZIL
Sao Paulo
Feb. 5-8, 1994
CHILE
Santiago
Feb. 9-12, 1994
ECUADOR
Quito
April 8-12, 1996
BRAZIL
Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro
April 13-20, 1996
ARGENTINA
Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Rosario, San Lorenzo,
Cordoba, Rio Tercero, Mendoza
June 3-9, 1996
VENEZUELA
Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia, Puerto Ordaz
June 10-15, 1996
ECUADOR
Quito, Cuenca, Guayaquil, Ambato
Table 2. Primary Organizations that Participated in the Collaborative Reviews.
Agency/Organization
Location of Main Office
Designation
Ministerio de Salud y Action Social
(MSyAS)
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Federal
Municipalidad de Cordoba,
Subsecretarfa del Ambiente
Cordoba, ARGENTINA
Local
Companhia de Tecnologia de
Saneamento Ambiental (CETESB)
Sao Paulo, BRAZIL
State
Fundagao Estadual de Engenharia do
Meio Ambiente (FEEMA)
Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL
Technical Advisors to
State government
Servicio de Salud del Ambiente de la
Region Metropolitana (SESMA)
Santiago, CHILE
Federal
Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano y
Vivienda (MIDUVI)
Quito, ECUADOR
Federal
Distrito Metropolitano de Quito,
Direction de Medio Ambiente
Quito, ECUADOR
Local
Ministerio del Ambiente y los
Recursos Naturales Renovables
(MARNR)
Caracas, VENEZUELA
Federal
Instituto Para el Control y la
Conservacion de la Cuenca del Lago
de Maracaibo (ICLAM)
Maracaibo, VENEZUELA
State (once affiliated
with MARNR)
-------
Table 3. National Air Quality Standards for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
Pollutant
Sampling
Period
Primary Standard /xg/m3 (ppm)
Measurement Methods
USEPA
WHO
AR
BR
CH
EC
VE
TSP
24-hour average*
30-day average
AGM"
260
150-230
240
260
250
75-260
High-Volume
Sampler/ Gravimetric
150
75
60-90*"
80
75
80
PM-10
24-hour average
AAM"*
150
50
150
50
Weight Separation/
Filtration
Smoke
24-hour average
AAM
100-150
40-60
150
60
Reflectance
SP
30-day sample
1 mg/cm2
1 mg/cm2
Gravimetric
so2
10-min average
3-hour average
24-hour average
AAM
500 (0.19)
#
Pararosaniline
Fluorescence
1500 (0.57)
400 (0.15)
80 (0.031)
365 (0.14)
80 (0.031)
125 (0.047)
50 (0.019)
365 (0.14)
80 (0.031)
365 (0.14)
80 (0.031)
80-365
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
40,000 (35)
10,000 (9)
30,000 (26)
10,000 (9)
*-
40,000 (35)
10,000 (9)
40,000 (35)
10,000 (9)
40,000 (35)
10,000 (9)
10,000-40,000
Nondispersive infrared
03
I-hour average
8-hour average
235 (0.12)
*
160 (0.082)
160 (0.082)
200 (0.10)
240 (0.12)
Chemiluminescence
120 (0.061)
no2
1-hour average
AAM
200 (0.11)
40 (0.021)
*
320 (0.17)
100 (0.053)
Sodium Arsenite
Chemiluminescence
100 (0.053)
100 (0.053)
100 (0.053)
100-300 (0.16)
Pb
24-hour average
3-month average
AAM
1.5-2.0
Atomic Absorption
1.5
1.5
0.5
Short-term standards (24 hours and less) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Long-term standards are maximum permissable concentrations that
are never to be exceeded.
Annual Geometric Mean
*** Annual Arithmetic Mean
TSP=Total Suspended Particles; PM-10=Inhalable Particles; SP=Sedimented Particles; S02=SuIfur Dioxide; CO=Carbon Monoxide; 03=Ozone;
N02=Nitrogen Dioxide; Pb = Lead
-------
Table 4. Monitoring Stations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
Agency/Cities
# of Stations Measuring each Parameter and Methods Used
TSP
PMi0
Sm
SP
S02
CO
o3
no2
Met
MSyAS:
Buenos Aires
Mendoza
Rosario
Santa Fe
San Lorenzo
-
-
13R
2R
4G
13p
4P
4P
4E
-
9Gs
4s
1
Municipalidad de Cordoba:*
Cordoba
Rio Tercero
2H
2H
-
-
2F
2n
2Ch
2Ch
2
CETESB:
Sao Paulo
Cubatao
Other Cities
9H
2H
23B
3B
7R
18R
-
7A/24CF
3cf
18A
7N
6Ch
2Ch
6Ch
15
1
FEEMA:**
Rio de Janeiro
Other Cities
16"
5H
-
-
-
1A/2F
1A
2
2
ls/2
Is
2
SESMA:
Santiago
7H
5bdt
1R
5G
6P/5F
5N
^ChU
6s/5Ch
6
MIDUVI:
Ambato
Cuenca
Guayaquil
Quito
1H
2H
1"
1R
1R
2R
1G
1G
1°
3G
1A
1A
2A
-
-
-
-
MARNR:
Caracas
Puerto Ordaz
Valencia
Other Cities
4H
1H
2H
5H
-
-
-
41
-
-
4s
-
ICLAM:
Maracaibo
6H
-
-
-
-
-
The two stations owned and operated by Cordoba are state-of-the-art mobile stations?" ,
" The manual stations for S02 and N02 reported data only for a special study in 1994.
Parameters:
TSP=Total Suspended Particles; PM10=Inhalable Particles; Sin-Smoke; SP=Sediment ed Particles; S02 = Sulfur
Dioxide; CO=Carbon Monoxide; 03=Ozone; N02=Nitrogen Dioxide; Met=Meteorological Parameters
Methods:
A=Acidimetric Method; B=Beta gauge; C=Coulometric; Ch=Chemiluminescence; D=Dichotomous Sampler;
E=Electrochemical cell; F=Fluorescence; G=Gravimetric; Gs=Griess-Saltzman Method; H = High-Volume Sampler;
I=Ion chromatography; N=Nondispersive infrared; P=Pararosaniline Method; R = Reflectance; S = Sodium Arsenite;
T=TEOM; U=Ultraviolet
-------
V
i-
Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP)
Annual Geometric Mean
53 300
0>
s 250
O
| 200
§ 150
CQ
U
W)
O 100
£ 50
90 91 92 93 94 95
86
Year
Rio de J Cubatao Sao Paulo Santiago Guayaquil USA/CH BR/EC
Bonsucesso Vila Parisi Pedro II #11 #1 AQS AQS
—B— —•— —©— X —~— ———
f|<$uA£ Z
Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP)
Percent of Stations that Exceed Annual Standard
c
-------
ft£url€ 3
Inhalable Particles (PM-10)
Annual Arithmetric Mean
% 200
U 150
£S
100
Year
Cubatao Sao Paulo Sao Paulo Sao Paulo USA/BR
Vila Parisi Cerqueira Cesar Guarulhos S.C. do Sul AQS
Inhalable Particles (PM-10)
Percent of Stations that Exceed Annual Standard
mm
*42 IWM BUM HSW MM WfUVl MHWI
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
111 Cubatao El Sao Paulo I Santiago
-------
B
Smoke
Annual Arithmetric Mean
5 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Mendoza Sao Paulo Santiago Quito WHO AQG
#9 Campos Elfseos #3 Sur BRAQS
I p | (r (A; (Z& Qy
! Smoke
Percent of Stations that Exceed Annual Standard
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
0 Mendoza 0 Sao Paulo H Santiago H Quito
-------
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Annual Arithmetric Mean
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Mendoza Sao Paulo Sao Paulo Santiago Quito USA/BR
#9 Lapa* Tatuape #3 Sur CH/ECAQS
_0_
'Automated station
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
Annual Arithmetric Mean
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Mendoza Sao Paulo Santiago Santiago USA/AR
#9 Pedro II* #3 #6 BR/CHAQS
* Automated station - the '92 and '93 data were reported as non-representative.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO, 2.
EPA/600/A-9 7/044
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Closer Look at our Neighbors to the South; Air Quality Trends,
Standards, and Monitoring Programs of Latin American
Countries
5.REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S!
Leonor Ortiz Childers, Myriam Medina-Vera, William J.
Mitchell
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Branch
Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10.PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13.TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS/Air) is a program in which air monitoring
data from over 50 countries throughout the world are collected and analyzed. The GEMS/Air program is
sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Health Organization
(WHO). Several countries in Latin America participate in the GEMS/Air program. As part of a
technical systems agreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
UNEPAVHO, collaborative reviews of eighteen Latin American cities were conducted over the past two
years. The countries visited include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Venezuela. The findings of
these reviews and the future direction of air pollution monitoring programs in these countries will be
presented.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/ OPEN ENDED
TERMS
C.COSATI
Quality Assurance, Latin America, World Health
Organization, Global Environment Monitoring
System, GEMS/Air, Air Pollution Monitoring
Programs
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21.NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This
Page}
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
------- |