Portable Real-Time Measurement of Air Quality

I recently purchased a Uni-Trend Air Quality Meter.

It measures VOCs (both natural and man-made), PM2.5, and temperature and humidity.

Coarse particles (PM10) have a diameter of between 10 micrometers and 2.5 micrometers and settle relatively quickly whereas fine (PM2.5) (0.1 to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) particles remain in suspension for longer. To put things into perspective, human hair has a diameter of 50-70 micrometers and a grain of sand has a diameter of 90 micrometers.



Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion activities (motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning, etc.) and certain industrial processes.  Sources of coarse particles include crushing or grinding operations, and dust from paved or unpaved roads.

PM2.5 is made up of sulfates, nitrates, carbon, and soil.


Albuquerque reports the Air Quality Index for daily pollen and Fine/Coarse Particulates:



 But these numbers are reported as "Index" values, and have to be converted to ug/m3 to compare to measured values:

Over the last week, Albuquerque has reported AQI for PM2.5 of almost 50, which should be about 15 micrograms per square meter, whereas my unit typically reports 30-50 micrograms per square meter, indoors and outdoors.  It is possible that ABQ measures air quality higher from the ground than my unit, or that PM2.5 is lower during the night when I don't check it.

Here is an excellent resource for more information.  Most of the graphics on this page are from this source.

Air Quality in New Mexico

The New Mexico Environment Department maintains a network of 22 air quality stations scattered across the state in high-risk areas.  Stations are color-coded to reflect air quality, and currently it looks like all stations are green, representing "good" air quality.

(Albuquerque has their own air quality monitoring data)

The Carlsbad station shows levels of common pollutants over the last week:

And here is the Hobbs station data for the same time period (note the different y-axis scales):

Carlsbad has had much worse air quality over the last week, especially in the early mornings, when nitrate and nitrite spike.  Ozone and PM2.5 are not visible on the Carlsbad graph because of the large NO spikes.  In Hobbes, increases in ozone (O3) are associated with winds blowing more pollution over the sensor.

These time periods experienced moderate wind and rain.  It will be interesting to check back in during a temperature inversion.

For good national data, check out the U.S. Air Quality Smog Blog

Is Organic Agriculture Healthier for the Environment and the Consumer?

This deceptively simple question is difficult to prove.  In a widely-read science blog post, Dr. Christie Wilcox (her PhD is in marine biology, not agriculture) argues that the supposed benefits of organic farming are all myths.

While some of her specific claims, such as that organic farmers are allowed to use the incredibly toxic natural compound rotenone, are off-mark, much of her critique appears to stand.  The reasons are various, but telling:  there are costs and benefits to different agricultural systems, and organic farms face many of the same challenges of conventional farming.  For example, herbicides allow no-till farming, with myriad benefits for soil structure and water quality.  It is extremely difficult to practice no-till without some means of removing weeds.

Certified organic farms may not use synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.  But if organic farmers choose to use a natural compound to kill weeds or pests there is nothing to guarantee that such a compound would be less toxic to the ecosystem and to humans. Natural compounds on organic farms may be more toxic than their synthetic analogues!

Unfortunately, while there are comprehensive databases of the type and amount of pesticides found on conventional food (see the Environmental Working Group's annual Dirty Dozen list), no such testing of natural compounds on organic produce is conducted.  Apparently synthetic compounds are investigated more than natural compounds, perhaps due to an unstated belief in the Naturalistic Fallacy, i.e. that natural chemicals must be healthier than synthetic chemicals.  But many plants (for example, nightshades) contain totally natural compounds... that are totally toxic as well.

A good take-home message would be to wash all of your fruit and veggies, whether they are organic or not.  And learn which plants are poisonous.  I'm not even going to get into all of the (natural and synthetic) chemicals and preservatives in grains, let alone refined flours, etc.

Chemical Use and Abuse in Agriculture: What's the Problem?

Peter Lehner's recent blog post on ACOEL was inspiring, but also puzzling, because he mentions three problems with agriculture, but only 2 are real problems.

While I agree with the need for a renewed emphasis on environmental contaminants in farming, the issue of 2,4-D seems out of place in his discussion.  Certainly the role of unregulated chemicals in our food supply needs to be brought up to international standards (*cough* Europe).  And certainly the disastrous role of factory farming in harming the environment and, through the over use of antibiotics, breeding new antibiotic-resistant diseases urgently needs to be addressed.

But 2,4-D and glyphosphate are some of the least toxic herbicides available, having been subjected to more scrutiny than any other compound in agriculture. They have been used for decades in both agricultural and turf and domestic garden applications, and the licensing of genetically engineered (GE) crops resistant to these herbicides really doesn't change anything.  2,4-D is already used as a pre-emergence and post-harvest weed control, and the new GE crop gives farmers the option of using it once or twice during the growing season.

These common weedkillers have been used, are currently being used, and will be used, whether or not our country goes down the GE crop road.  What's more, EPA has used the licensing of Dow's Enlist Duo GE soybeans to significantly increase regulation of herbicide use, with the option to review in 6 years.  It should be pointed out that the outcome of GE crops resistant to 2,4-D will likely be the same as it as for glyphosphate: industry will shoot itself in the foot by overusing single-chemical herbicides to the point that weeds evolve resistance.

While other areas of environmental regulation are woefully lacking (antibiotic overuse and GRAS chemicals), the use of herbicides is well-regulated and not a major risk to human or environmental health. NRDC would be well to focus on the important agricultural issues and let settled issues alone.

Smoke from Jemez Mountains Controlled Burn Impacts Albuquerque

The fire was caused by lightening in the foothills of the Jemez Mountains more than two weeks ago. Instead of suppressing the fire, managers have used the smoldering blaze to burn out undergrowth and unhealthy Ponderosa thickets. While the forest is moist enough to preclude any danger of catastrophic fire, that moisture may also increase the amount of smoke.

Last night smoke from the fire drained down the Jemez River valley and into the Albuquerque metro area. By this morning the smog was visible as a distinct haze in the valley. Clear skies and dry air probably helped establish an inversion that contained the smoke within the valley. The smoke quickly dissipated once daytime convection began.

ABQ Journal Photo

The Albuquerque branch of the National Weather Service noted that the "smoke event" this morning was "dense" and "impactful".  Some politicians have used the smoke to argue against this type of forest restoration.

 The NWS does not expect smoke to be as bad today as it was yesterday. But on a recent update to Inciweb, fire managers note that "hand and aerial ignitions will be used again today to direct the wildfire over an area similar in size to yesterday’s activity. Large columns of smoke from this ignition will be visible..."

Current air quality information can be found at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/PinoFireInformation.htm.

Keystone pipeline presents environmental quandary

This was a boreal forest.

Domestic energy production would be a boon to our economy and security, but mining coal sands in environmentally horrific.

Mining proponents point out that the tar sands oil will be mined even without the pipeline.  Trains would carry tar sands oil if Obama denies the pipeline.   But trains are (apparently) more risky than pipelines in terms of frequency of spills (what about size of spills?).  So not building the pipeline could actually result in worse environmental consequences.  Catch 22?

What if....instead of building the keystone pipeline, we reduced the equivalent amount of energy (negawatts) by guaranteeing loans or rebates or tax incentives on geothermal systems.  Solar panels on roofs are nice, but electric technology has a shorter lifespan, whereas geothermal heating and cooling is a truly long-term infrastructure investment.  Cutting off supply only works if we reduce demand.

More photos.  Video presentation.

Biogenic VOC emissions

Trees and natural vegetation release air pollutants (biogenic), just like people (anthropogenic).

Figure from a great website by Dr. Wilson from Duke University, with lots of information.

The overall amount of this pollution can be modelled:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005000907

Its important to put this into perspective: human (anthropogenic) emissions of VOCs can be 40 times greater than the highest modelled biogenic emissions.  But the compounds plants produce may be more effective in generating hazardous compound Ozone.  Atmospheric chemistry is complex, and it is ironic that the highest biogenic pollution emissions occur in the same areas that high anthropogenic pollution also occurs, compounding the problem.  

Air Ions and Indoor Air Quality

     Having researched air ions before, I can attest that the subject is extremely technical and, worse, often prone to contradiction and obscurity depending on who is writing (and who is selling) various ideas.  It is another of those interdisciplinary areas with different and competing claims, in this case, from fields as divergent as air chemistry, ecology, and human health.  The following article, from Townsend Letters, does an admirable job of introducing most of the major competing health claims and sifting the evidence:

Static Electricity and Respiratory Infections
More times than not, shaking out a blanket on a cold night generates the crackle and sting of static electricity and a flurry of sparks. Synthetic materials, low humidity, and ungrounded electrical equipment are producing an unprecedented amount of electrostatic charge indoors, and these electrical fields may be contributing to increased risk of respiratory illness and other infections, according to a 2007 article in Atmospheric Environment. Indoors, most particles, including microbes and allergens, are so small (less than 1 microgram) that they could float in the air indefinitely; but electrical charges cause these miniscule particles to settle on surfaces and stick. These surfaces include skin and lungs. High electrostatic levels and increased deposition of airborne particles on skin have been linked to facial rashes, especially when humidity is low. Charged particles in the lungs increase the risk of infection and asthma. 

Keith S. Jamieson, H. M. ApSimon, and J. N. B. Bell advocate several ways to decrease indoor static electricity and the accompanying health effects. One recommendation is to reduce electrical charges by grounding laptop computers and other electrical equipment. They also recommend unplugging equipment when it's not in use. 

Another option is bipolar air ionization. (Long-term unipolar air ionization with negative ions has shortened lifespan of laboratory animals.) Air ionizers produce varying amounts of ozone, which damages the lungs, according to the EPA. Jamieson et al. urge people to use passive air ionization measures, such as grounding electrical equipment and choosing materials and furniture finishes that do not conduct electrical charges.

Another way to combat electrostatic is to use humidifiers. Indoor heating and cooling systems often reduce humidity levels. Low humidity encourages high electrostatic levels and decreases beneficial small air ion levels. (Small air ions kill microbes and reduce employee fatigue in the office workplace.) Humidifiers are often used to make breathing easier during respiratory infections; but humidifying indoor air, especially in winter months when furnaces are running, may prevent illness as well. 

Jamieson KS, ApSimon HM, Bell JNB. Electrostatics in the environment: how they may affect health and productivity. Electrostatics 2007 Journal of Physics: Conference Series. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/142/1/012052. Available athttp://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/142/1/012052. Accessed September 18, 2012.
Jamieson KS, ApSimon HM, Jamieson SS, Bell JNB, Yost MG. The effects of electric fields on charged molecules and particles in individual microenvironments [abstract]. Atmosph Environ. August 2007;41(25):5224–5235. Available at www.sciencedirect.com. Accessed April 27, 2011.
Reeves D. Electrical fields from everyday equipment and materials could increase infection risk [press release]. Imperial College London. July 20, 2007. Available atwww3.imperial.ac.uk. Accessed September 18, 2012.

Coal-tar sealants contain PAH

source: "Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the New York/New Jersey Harbor" by the New York Academy of Sciences

An interesting debate has arisen over an emerging contaminant of concern, PolyAromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAHs. These compounds are produced whenever organic materials are heated in the absence of oxygen and water. This can occur whenever combustion is incomplete, such as smoky campfires, flickering candles, incense sticks, cigarettes, poorly functioning gasoline and diesel combustion engines, forest fires, and charcoal and tar production. PAHs form a large and diverse family of compounds, some of which are known to be potent genotoxic carcinogens.

Regulators are cracking down, but they don't know where to turn first, because these compounds are ubiquitous in modern, industrialized, civilization. Washington State and Washington DC have become two of the first areas in the US to begin taking action by banning coal-tar sealants. These sealants are typically applied to parking lots and driveways to make them black and pretty, and they also contain high levels of PAHs.

But are driveway sealants really the culprit? The coal-tar sealant industry points out that some shampoo bottles contain as much PAH as 100 acres of sealed parking lot. Indeed, a basic understanding of aromatic chemistry indicates that these compounds should be extremely water insoluble; they are most hazardous when they are volatilized in fires and the soot is inhaled. So the debate continues, with both industry, government, and citizen action groups trying to make sense of the science.

Ohio Agricultural Production

Ohio agricultural production has declined, so why hasn't fertilizer pollution?

EPA Pollution Standards

EPA Where You Live

Air

Drinking Water

Point Source Discharge

Glossary of EPA terms

USDA NRCS Phosphorus Index

Nutrient Pollution Management in 2011: New Regulations

Dr. Larry Antosch, Senior Director, Program Innovation and Environmental Policy, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation presented "Water Quality and Agricultural Nutrient Management – Many Forces Converge" to finish up the seminar series theme of Water Quality here in the School of Environment and Natural Resources. Dr. Antosch is well-placed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date view of nutrient management and water quality, having worked in the field for 30 years, first for the EPA and now for the FBF, which recently sued the EPA over pending nutrient restrictions in the Chesapeake Bay (CB) watershed. Dr. Antosh pointed out that since Ohio is in the CB "airshed" (some of our air pollution is deposited in the CB watershed) these regulations could impact us directly. They could also impact Ohio indirectly as EPA gears up for an even bigger watershed nutrient reduction program for the entire Mississippi.

In Dr. Antosh's opinion, some of the regulatory impetus is misplaced, because science does not have all the answers yet. For example, the increased of dissolved Phosphorous (rather than particulate phosphorous) entering Lake Erie and causing harmful algal blooms, is a mystery. Farmers or cities? Which techniques could best eliminate excess nutrients? Some have even pointed to no-till as a possible source, because nutrients are applied to the surface rather than mixed in.

Although Dr. Antosch emphesized the uncertain nature of water quality science, I believe there is enough information to act today. Several simple examples come to mind: (1) Regulations against applying manure and fertilizer in the winter, when plants are not growing and hence don't absorb any of the nutrients; (2) Existing steps to eliminate phosphorous fertilization of residential lawns; (3) Creating new wetlands to filter the runoff that does occur.

Economic Incentives and Water Quality in Ohio

Brent Sohngen, a professor in Ohio State University’s Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, presented “Economic Incentives and Water Quality in Ohio”, an interesting talk about paying farmers for the reductions in runoff pollution they deliver. This economics-inspired approach differs from that typical of Soil and Water Conservation grants that pays for specific installations like riparian buffer strips, containment ponds for sewage, and conservation research program fallow fields.

Dr. Sohngen experimentally signed a contract that would pay farmers for pollution reductions in a small watershed in West Ohio. Unfortunately pollution increased when one of the farmers in the watershed decided to double his hog production. Still, Dr. Sohngen thinks the technique has promise, given that the farmers were responsible for more pollution than a nearby town's wastewater treatment plant. Given what we are willing to pay to upgrade the plant, shouldn't we be willing to pay a similar amount to the farmers?

I like the idea, but the economic logic seems to falter because it is based only on what society is willing to pay, not the cost to the farmer. I would have liked to ask about how much money, given the farmer's decision to invest in additional hogs, it would actually take for the farmer to pollute less. What is the opportunity cost of reduced pollution?

Planetary Boundaries: Safe Operating Space

More information:

+http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/fig_tab/461472a_F1.html

+http://planetsave.com/2010/04/12/nine-%E2%80%98planetary-boundaries%E2%80%99-cited-as-crucial-for-human-survival/

+http://postgrowth.org/safe-operating-limits/

+http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/planetaryboundariespresentedattedglobal2010.5.40d64f1b129b2c781e0800098.html

Ship Pollution

Large ships continue to use old, polluting diesel engines, with disasterous health effects for people living close to the ocean. The EPA's proposed plan would greatly alleviate this largely unregulated source of pollution, which is currently equal to about 120 coal power plants running continuously in our nation's harbors and waterways. (source: President's Cancer Commission report, 2010)

EPA Website on large ship pollution.

Interestingly, ships also affect cloud formation: the soot in their exhaust creates nuclei for water droplets to condense and form clouds: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44517

Do Trees Pollute?

Plants produce VOCs as part of normal respiration. These, along with anthropogenic VOCs can produce ozone smog in the lower atmosphere.

In the South, pine plantations used for their fast-growing supplies of timber have proven to be havens for sweetgum trees, which are major producers of VOCs. Indeed, virtually every tree that grows fast -- a desirable quality for forestry production -- is a heavy emitter of VOCs.

"It's just one of those biological correlations," said Purves. "What you want is a fast-growing tree that doesn't produce a lot of VOCs, but that doesn't seem to exist."

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0927-trees.htm

The debate continues: "... trees were reported to contribute to ozone formation. This misleading fact contains only part of the truth. Most trees do emit biogenic VOCs such as isoprene and monoterpenes which can contribute to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide. The other side of this story is that in areas with low nitrogen oxide concentrations, such as more rural areas, VOCs are believed to remove ozone. Additionally, since trees lower air temperature, the net effect of increased trees in urban areas is an overall lowering of VOC emissions and therefore ozone formation.

Trees in urban areas require energy inputs for planting, maintaining and removing. Because we burn fossil fuels (which emit CO2, SO2, N, CO and VOCs) in all these activities, we also need to factor that into the Trees + Air equation. In this case, it tips the scale a bit to the net loss side… but not for long!"

http://ecology.com/features/trees-air-quality/trees-clean-air.html

A gigantic experiment with all living things...

I have become increasingly skeptical of the safety of common chemicals. It is not that they are untested, but that they may be fundamentally untestable. Results showing changes in the grandchildren of exposed rats and hormone mimics having effects at doses almost too low to measure persuade me that the Precautionary Principle should be applied. At present, "we are running a gigantic experiment with humans and all other living things as the subject."

I talked to a Nalgene sales representative who swore there was no danger from Bisphenol A. Turns out there's quite a body of literature to the contrary, Canada's environmental agency is reviewing its grandfathered status and San Francisco has already banned it. Here's the letter I wrote after doing my research:

Mr. _____,
We spoke at the University of Arizona vendor fair on Tuesday the 24th of April briefly about BPA in Nalgene products. As I indicated, our lab is very concerned about any and all hormone mimics. We recently had an incident, unrelated to BPA, involving possibly paper products or wheat that may have been contaminated with some sort of juvenile growth hormone, leading to the virtual eradication of our colony animals (Manduca sexta) and a slow down over several months in our ability to conduct research.

As you can see, we are very concerned about possible extraneous factors affecting our research. Despite your assurances to the contrary, I do not find the peer-reviewed research on BPA to show it to be conclusively safe for use in our lab. (CF. Murray TJ (2007). "Induction of mammary gland ductal hyperplasias and carcinoma in situ following fetal bisphenol A exposure." and Frederick S. vom Saal (2006). "Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A.") Therefore, we will continue to seek out alternatives to Nalgene plastic containers in our purchasing.

If you are aware of any new research showing the safety of Nalgene products I would be happy to hear about it. In the meantime, this letter is simply to express my concerns and my conclusions based on the information you gave me and the information I have available to me.

Thank you.


Related Articles:
Man-made Chemicals Detected In Newborns