2005 ambient air surveillance report [Nov. 1, 2006]

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Air Protection Branch Ambient Monitoring Program
2005 Ambient Air Surveillance Report
2003-2004 Risk Assessment Discussion

This document is published annually by Data Analysis Unit of the Ambient Monitoring Program, in the Air Protection Branch of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division.
Date of Initial Publication November 1, 2006 Revised May 16, 2007

Table of Contents
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................v Glossary ................................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................3 Chemical Monitoring Activities..................................................................................................5
Carbon Monoxide (CO) .....................................................................................................12 Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx and NOy) ....................................................................14 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)..........................................................................................................18 Ozone (O3)........................................................................................................................20 Particulate Matter ..............................................................................................................32 PM10 ..................................................................................................................................33 PM2.5 .................................................................................................................................36 PM2.5 Speciation................................................................................................................45 Acid Precipitation ..............................................................................................................49 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) ......................................................55 Carbonyl Compounds .......................................................................................................61 Air Toxics Monitoring ..............................................................................................................69 Metals ...............................................................................................................................71 Hexavalent Chromium.......................................................................................................81 Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) ..........................................................................83 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................................................93 Meteorological Report ............................................................................................................99 Summary of Meteorological Measurements....................................................................102 Ozone Forecasting..........................................................................................................104 PM2.5 Forecasting............................................................................................................106 Tropical Storm Activity ....................................................................................................107 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................109 Quality Control and Quality Assessment.........................................................................110 Gaseous Pollutants .........................................................................................................111 Particulate Matter ............................................................................................................114 Air Toxics ........................................................................................................................118 NATTS ............................................................................................................................128 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring ..........................................................................134 Meteorology ....................................................................................................................135 Quality Control Reports...................................................................................................137 Standards Laboratory......................................................................................................138 Laboratory and Field Standard Operating Procedures....................................................138 Siting Evaluations ...........................................................................................................138 2003-2004 Risk Assessment Discussion..............................................................................141 Summary and Discussion ...............................................................................................157 Outreach and Education.......................................................................................................163 Media Outreach ..............................................................................................................165 Other Outreach Opportunities .........................................................................................165 Appendix A: Additional Criteria Pollutant Data .....................................................................169 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ...................................................................................................169 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ...................................................................................................169
i

Nitric Oxide (NO) ............................................................................................................ 169 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ............................................................................................... 170 Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen (NOy) ................................................................................ 170 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ....................................................................................................... 171 Ozone (O3) ..................................................................................................................... 172 Lead (Pb) ....................................................................................................................... 174 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) ....................................................................................... 175 Particulate Matter (PM10)................................................................................................ 178 Appendix B: Additional PM2.5 Particle Speciation Data........................................................ 180 Appendix C: Additional Meteorological Data........................................................................ 185 Appendix D: Additional PAMS Data..................................................................................... 189 PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June- August 2005)........................................... 189 PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons ................................................................. 195 Appendix E: Additional Toxics Data..................................................................................... 201 2005 Metals.................................................................................................................... 201 2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds ..................................................................................... 206 2005 Volatile Organic Compounds................................................................................. 213 2005 Carbonyl Compounds, 24-hour ............................................................................. 232 2005 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August) ....................................................... 233 Appendix F: Monitoring Network Survey.............................................................................. 235 Appendix G: Siting Criteria .................................................................................................. 241 Appendix H: Instrument and Sensor Control Limits ............................................................. 243 References .......................................................................................................................... 245
ii

List of Figures
Figure 1: North Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map....................................................................10 Figure 2: South Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................11 Figure 3: Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................13 Figure 4: Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Site Map..................................................................17 Figure 5: Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Site Map .........................................................................19 Figure 6: Typical Urban 1-Hour Ozone Diurnal Pattern ..........................................................20 Figure 7: Ozone Formation Process.......................................................................................21 Figure 8: Ozone Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................23 Figure 9: Ozone Monitors, Southeastern U.S., with 2005 Exceedances ................................24 Figure 10: Georgia's 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Map...............................................27 Figure 11: Metro Atlanta Ozone- Number of Violation Days per Year ....................................28 Figure 12: Metro Atlanta Ozone Exceedance Map.................................................................29 Figure 13: Lead Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................31 Figure 14: PM10 Monitoring Site Map .....................................................................................34 Figure 15: PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean Chart......................................................................36 Figure 16: PM2.5 Reference Method Monitoring Site Map.......................................................38 Figure 17: PM2.5 Monitoring Site Map, Continuous and Speciation Monitors .........................39 Figure 18: Georgia's PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Map.............................................................41 Figure 19: PM2.5 Monitoring Sites, Southeastern U.S., with 2005 Annual Mean Exceeding
NAAQS .............................................................................................................................42 Figure 20: PM2.5 Annual Mean, By Site ..................................................................................44 Figure 21: 2003 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................46 Figure 22: 2004 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................47 Figure 23: 2005 PM2.5 Speciation ...........................................................................................47 Figure 24: Acid Rain Monitoring Site Map ..............................................................................50 Figure 25: Acid Rain Trends, Statewide .................................................................................51 Figure 26: Acid Rain Trends, by Area ....................................................................................52 Figure 27: Comparison of DNR and NADP Acid Rain Averages ............................................53 Figure 28: PAMS Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................................56 Figure 29: Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005 .......................................................................58 Figure 30: Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005 ........................................................................59 Figure 31: Toluene & Isoprene, Typical Urban Daily Profile ...................................................60 Figure 32: Carbonyls Monitoring Site Map .............................................................................62 Figure 33: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Site .........63 Figure 34: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005.............................64 Figure 35: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005 ........................................65 Figure 36: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species ...66 Figure 37: Metals Monitoring Site Map ...................................................................................73 Figure 38: Total Metals Detections, by Species, 2002-2005 ..................................................74 Figure 39: Total Metals Detected Per Site, 2003-2005...........................................................77 Figure 40: Yearly Average Comparison of Lead and Zinc, by Site, 2003-2005 ......................79 Figure 41: Seasonal Variation, Selected Metals, 2004-2005..................................................80 Figure 42: Hexavalent Chromium at South DeKalb................................................................82 Figure 43: Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected, by Compound, 2003
2005 .................................................................................................................................84 Figure 44: Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected by Site, 2003-2005 .......85
iii

Figure 45: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2003................................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 46: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2004................................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 47: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2005................................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 48: Volatile Organic Compounds, Seasonal Effects, 2003-2005 ................................ 89 Figure 49: Total Volatile Organic Compound Loading all Species, by Site, 2003-2005 ......... 90 Figure 50: VOC and SVOC Monitoring Site Map ................................................................... 92 Figure 51: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections, 2004 94 Figure 52: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections, 2005 95 Figure 53: Total Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections, by Site, 2004-2005............. 96 Figure 54: Forecasted and Observed 8-Hour Ozone for Metro Atlanta, May-July 2005 ...... 105 Figure 55: Forecasted and Observed 8-Hour Ozone for Metro Atlanta, August-September
2005............................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 56: Forecasted and Observed 24-Hour PM2.5 for Metro Atlanta, January-March 2005
....................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 57: Forecasted and Observed 24-Hour PM2.5 for Metro Atlanta, April-June 2005 .... 107 Figure 58: Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Accuracy Analysis .................................................. 113 Figure 59: Metals Monitoring, Collocated Precision............................................................. 123 Figure 60: VOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision ............................................................... 124 Figure 61: SVOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision ............................................................. 125 Figure 62: Yearly Summary of Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy, Air Toxics Network............. 127 Figure 63: VOC Monitoring Accuracy Analysis .................................................................... 135 Figure 64: Meteorological Measurements Accuracy Results ............................................... 137 Figure 65: Formulas For Calculating Risk and Hazard Quotient.......................................... 148 Figure 66: The AQI .............................................................................................................. 164 Figure 67: Sample AIRNOW Ozone Concentration Map ..................................................... 167
iv

List of Tables
Table 1: Georgia Ambient Air Standards Summary..................................................................7 Table 2: Georgia Air Sampling Station Locations for 2005 .......................................................9 Table 3: Common Oxides of Nitrogen Species and Terms.....................................................15 Table 4: Rainfall Statistics for Selected Cities ......................................................................100 Table 5: Temperature Statistics for Selected Cities..............................................................101 Table 6: Meteorological Parameters Measured at Statewide Monitoring Sites.....................103 Table 7: Audits Performed for Each Air Monitoring Program in 2005 ...................................110 Table 8: Results for Criteria Pollutants Performance Audits.................................................112 Table 9: Criteria Pollutants Precision Analysis Results for Georgia .....................................114 Table 10: Results for Particulate Sampler Performance Audits............................................115 Table 11: Particulate Sampler Precision Analysis ................................................................116 Table 12: Summary of Unexposed Filter Mass Replicates ...................................................117 Table 13: Summary of Exposed Filter Mass Replicates .......................................................117 Table 14: Air Toxics Laboratory Performance Audit Results ................................................119 Table 15: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network .....................120 Table 16: Yearly Summary of Flow Rate Accuracy Performance Audit, Air Toxics Network 127 Table 17: NATTS Sites with EPA Region Numbers and AQS Site Codes ...........................129 Table 18: Measurement Quality Objectives for the NATTS Program ...................................130 Table 19: MQO Data Sources for the Georgia NAATS Program..........................................130 Table 20: 23 Selected HAPs and Their AQS Parameter Codes...........................................131 Table 21: Percent Completeness of Georgia's 2005 AQS Data, Selected Compounds .......132 Table 22: Laboratory Analytical Precision (CV) Estimate .....................................................133 Table 23: Laboratory Speciated VOC Audit Results for PAMS Network ..............................134 Table 24: Meteorological Sensor Performance Audit Results ..............................................136 Table 25: Compounds Monitored and Screening Values Used in Initial Assessment ..........142 Table 26: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2003 ............................................................143 Table 28: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration in 2003 ...145 Table 29: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration in 2004 ...146 Table 30: Cancer Risk And Hazard Quotient By Location And Chemical In 2003................149 Table 31: Cancer Risk And Hazard Quotient By Location And Chemical In 2004................150 Table 32: Aggregate Cancer Risks And Hazard Indicies For Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls,
2003 ...............................................................................................................................152 Table 33: Aggregate Cancer Risks And Hazard Indicies For Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls,
2004 ...............................................................................................................................153 Table 34: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Network
(Excluding Carbonyls), 2003 ..........................................................................................154 Table 35: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Network
(Excluding Carbonyls), 2004 ..........................................................................................154 Table 36: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS
Carbonyls, 2003 .............................................................................................................155 Table 37: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS
Carbonyls, 2004 .............................................................................................................156
v

vi

Aerosols AM APB AQCR Anthropogenic ARITH MEAN BAM CAA CFR CO CV EPA EPD FRM
GEO MEAN HAP HI HQ IUR LOD g/m3 m/s mean MSA
NAAQS NAMS NATTS NMHC NO2 NOx NOy NUM OBS NWS ODC O3 PAH PAMS Pb PM2.5 PM10 ppm Precursor PUF QTR Rawinsonde

Glossary
A gaseous suspension of fine solid or liquid particles Annual Mean Air Protection Branch Air Quality Control Region Resulting from human activity Arithmetic Mean Beta Attenuation Monitor Clean Air Act Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide Coefficient of Variation Environmental Protection Agency (federal agency) Environmental Protection Division (state agency) Federal Reference Method- the official measurement technique
for a given pollutant Geometric Mean Hazardous Air Pollutant Hazard Index Hazard Quotient Inhalation Unit Risk Limit of Detection Micrograms per cubic meter Meters per second Average Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the US Census
Bureau National Ambient Air Quality Standard National Ambient Monitoring Site National Air Toxics Trends Station Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen Reactive oxides of Nitrogen Number of Observations National Weather Service Ozone depleting Chemicals Ozone Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station Lead Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less Parts Per Million A substance from which another substance is formed Polyurethane Foam Calendar Quarter A source of meteorological data for the upper atmosphere
vii

RfC Screening Value SLAMS SO2 SPMS TEOM TNMOC TRS UV VOC w/m2

Reference Concentration Initial level of air toxic compounds used in risk assessment State and Local Air Monitoring Site Sulfur Dioxide Special Purpose Monitoring Site Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds Total Reduced Sulfur Ultraviolet Volatile Organic Compound Watts per square meter

viii

Executive Summary
The Ambient Monitoring Program of the Air Protection Branch of the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has been monitoring the air quality for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-defined "criteria pollutants" in the State of Georgia for more than thirty years. The list of compounds monitored has grown over the thirty years to more than 200 pollutants using several types of samplers at sites statewide. This monitoring is performed to protect public health and environmental quality. The resulting data is used for a broad range of regulatory and research purposes, as well as to inform the public.
Six (6) pollutants fall within the criteria pollutant list. These pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (10 microns and smaller), and fine particulate matter (2.5 microns and smaller). The ambient concentrations of these pollutants must meet a regulatory standard. The regulatory standard is health based. Concentrations above the standard are considered unhealthy for sensitive groups.
The other monitored chemical compounds do not have an ambient air regulatory standard. These compounds are monitored to aid in understanding the processes that form some of the criteria pollutants in the atmosphere. The sources of these emitted compounds include vehicle emissions, stationary source emissions, and natural sources. An additional 100 compounds are considered "air toxics". An annual risk analysis is performed based on the data generated from the air toxics network and included in the Risk Assessment section.
The Chemical Monitoring Activities, Photochemical Assessment Monitoring (PAMS), and Air Toxics Monitoring sections provide an in-depth discussion of the chemicals that are monitored with maps identifying individual monitoring sites. These sections also contain discussions on health effects, measurement techniques, and attainment designations for the chemicals that are monitored. Additionally, these sections discuss trends and common sources for the monitored pollutants.
The Ambient Monitoring Program also operates an extensive network of meteorological stations. The Meteorological Report section discusses Georgia's climatology based on the meteorological data captured at the PAMS sites and the sites located statewide. The meteorological sites provide, at a minimum, wind speed and wind direction data. Some stations are very sophisticated and provide information on barometric pressure, relative humidity, solar radiation, temperature, and precipitation. A discussion of the Georgia ozone and PM2.5 forecasting effort is also included in this section.
The Quality Assurance section shows the Ambient Monitoring Program's effort in producing quality data. The data has to be collected and measured in a certain manner to meet requirements that are set forth by the EPA. The requirements for each monitored pollutant is provided, including field and laboratory techniques, as well as results of the quality assurance audits.
The Outreach and Education section provides information concerning the efforts of the Clean Air Campaign to change the commuting habits of residents of Atlanta. The voluntary program partners with the public and private sector to reduce vehicle congestion and aid in reducing vehicle emissions. This section includes a description of educational and news media outreach activities, and explains how the Air Quality Index (AQI) is used to offer the public an
1

easy to use indicator of air quality. The appendices of this document contain summary tables for the pollutants measured during 2005. Included in the summary tables is information on the maximums, averages, and number of samples collected. They also indicate where air toxic compounds were detected. This report is the summary of the monitoring data from 2005, and is an assessment of the data in conjunction with previous years' findings. Copies of this and previous annual reports are available in Adobe Acrobat format via the Ambient Monitoring Internet website at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. Select the appropriate year on the Ambient Monitoring Annual Data Report bar. A limited number of print copies are available and may be requested at 404-363-7006. Real time air monitoring information for the criteria pollutants may be found at the above website by selecting the pollutant of concern. In addition, the website also provides links to the Clean Air Campaign and the smog forecast.
2

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Introduction
This report summarizes all air quality data collected by the State of Georgia during calendar year 2005. It is prepared annually by the Data Analysis Unit of the Air Protection Branch's Ambient Monitoring Program. The Air Protection Branch is a subdivision of the state's Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. While many people realize that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air quality standards nationwide through authority granted by Congress in the Clean Air Act, few realize that the air quality monitoring that is required by the Act is performed almost entirely by state and local governments. The Ambient Monitoring Program performs all of the official air quality monitoring in Georgia, both to satisfy Clean Air Act monitoring requirements and to exceed them in cases where additional monitoring proves beneficial to the citizens and industries of the State. Monitoring is performed to facilitate the protection of public health, as well as to protect our natural environment. The data is collected and quality assured using equipment and techniques specified by EPA. Once the data is ready, it is submitted to EPA's national air quality database, where it is available to a broad community of data users. This document is written for the use of legislators, policymakers, regulators, and the general public. Despite the technical nature of the information collected, every effort has been made to make the data relevant and useful to those who do not routinely study air quality data. To provide additional information for those who have interest in more detailed technical information, extensive Appendices are included. Further information about air quality in Georgia and nationwide is available from EPA.
3

4

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Chemical Monitoring Activities
This section is a summary of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), monitoring techniques used to measure ambient air quality for NAAQS, and how determinations of NAAQS compliance are made.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator to identify pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and to issue air quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare that may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in ambient air. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator establishes NAAQS for each pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued. The EPA is to set standards where "the attainment and maintenance are requisite to protect public health" with "an adequate margin of safety." In 1971, the EPA established standards for five "criteria" pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act. The standards and pollutants have changed over time to keep up with improvements in scientific knowledge. The current list is summarized in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, there are primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Primary standards are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in a population. These sensitive individuals include children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses. The secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare or quality of life. This includes visibility protection, limiting economic damage, damage to man-made material, wildlife, or the climate.
The various averaging times are to address the health impacts of the pollutants. Short-term averages, such as the limit for 8-hour ozone averages, are to protect against acute effects. Long term averaging, such as the annual limit for fine particles, is to protect against chronic effects.
In 2004 the Atlanta metropolitan area (Clayton, Fulton, Rockdale, Cherokee, Gwinnett, Cobb, Forsyth, DeKalb, Fayette, Paulding, Douglas, Coweta, and Henry) did not meet the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. In 2005, however, metropolitan Atlanta was declared in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. In order for an area to meet the standard all ozone monitors located in the metropolitan area must have a three year average such that the expected number of exceedance days (determined using a procedure described in 40CFR 50, Appendix H) per calendar year is less than or equal to one.
Also during 2005 a number of counties (Barrow, Bartow, Bibb, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Richmond, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton, and parts of Murray and Monroe Counties) were designated in nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. This standard was intended to replace the previous 1-hour standard. The 8-hour standard requires that the average of the fourth highest 8-hour average concentration for each of three consecutive years must be less than 0.085 parts per million (ppm). The Governor also recommended a number of counties to be declared in nonattainment of the new ambient PM2.5 standard. The affected counties are: Barrow, Bartow, Bibb, Carroll, Catoosa, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Floyd, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Heard (partial county),
5

Henry, Monroe (partial county), Newton, Paulding, Putnam (partial county), Rockdale, Spalding, Walker, and Walton. The Georgia ambient air monitoring network provides information on the measured concentrations of criteria and non-criteria pollutants at selected locations. The 2005 Georgia Air Sampling Network collects data for 2,532 parameters in the form of pollutant concentrations and supporting information at 68 locations in 37 counties. Monitoring takes place year-round, with the exception of ozone, which is sampled from March through October. For a list of all the sites in the monitoring network, detailing what pollutants are monitored at which sites, see Table 2. That information is followed by Figure 1 and Figure 2, which provide a map of all the air monitoring locations in the state. Maps of the monitoring locations for individual pollutants are provided in each pollutant's respective section. The number and location of the individual sites varies from year to year, depending on: availability of long-term space allocation, regulatory needs, etc. Once a site is established, the most common goal for its use is to monitor for long-term trends. All official monitoring performed in support of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) must use U.S.EPA-defined reference methods described in 40 CFR Part 53, Appendix A, or equivalent methods designated in accordance with Part 53 of that chapter. All the data collected in the networks undergoes extensive quality assurance review and is then submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS) database maintained by EPA. In general, the basic monitoring objectives that govern the selection of sites are: 1) to measure the highest observable concentration; 2) to determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density; 3) to determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on ambient pollution levels; 4) to determine the general background concentration levels; and 5) to determine the concentration of a number of compounds which contribute to the formation of ground level ozone. Data from EPD's continuous monitors are published on EPD's web site at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. The data is updated hourly. Specific annual summary data for 2005 may be found in Appendix A of this document.
6

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Criteria Pollutants

Compound Sulfur Dioxide

Primary Standard
0.14 0.03

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone

15.0
98th percentile: 65.0
50.0
150.0 2nd Maximum:
35.0 2nd Maximum:
9.0 0.1251
4th highest0.085

Nitrogen Dioxide

0.053

Lead

1.5

Secondary Standard
0.50
Same as Primary
Same as Primary Same as Primary Same as Primary


Same as Primary Same as Primary
Same as Primary
Same as Primary

Units

Time Interval

ppm
micrograms per cubic meter

3 Hour 24 Hour Annual Mean Annual Arithmetic Mean (3 years)
24 Hour

micrograms per cubic meter

Annual Arithmetic Mean
24 Hour

1 Hour ppm
8 Hour Average

ppm

1 Hour
8 Hour Average
Statewide

ppm

Annual Mean

micrograms per

Calendar

cubic meter Quarter Average

Table 1: Georgia Ambient Air Standards Summary

1 The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by EPA June 15, 2005. Before that date, it applied in Georgia only in the metro Atlanta 13-county nonattainment area.
7

Site ID
130090001 130150002 130210007 130210012
130210013 130510014 130510017 130510021 130510091 130511002
130550001 130590001 130590002 130630091 130670003 130670004
130690002
130730001 130770002 130850001
130890002 130890003 130892001 130893001 130950007 130970003 130970004 131110091
131130001 131150003 131150004 131150005 131210001 131210020 131210032 131210039

Common Name

City

County

O3 CO

PM2.5 24h FRM

PM2.5

PM2.5

NO2 NOy SO2

Cont Speciation

TRS

Baldwin Co. Airport Milledgeville Baldwin

Hwy 113 Stilesboro

Bartow

Allied Chemical

Macon

Bibb

X

Georgia Forestry Comm.
Lake Tobesofkee

Macon Macon

Bibb X Bibb X

X

X

Shuman Middle School Savannah Chatham

Market St. Savannah Chatham

X

E. President St. Savannah Chatham X

Mercer Middle Savannah Chatham

X

W. Lathrop & Augusta Savannah Chatham

X

Ave.

DNR Fish Hatchery Summerville Chattooga X

UGA

Athens

Clarke

X

College Station Rd.

Athens

Clarke X

X

X

Georgia DOT Forest Park Clayton

X

National Guard Kennesaw

Cobb X

X

Macland Aquatic

Powder

Cobb

X

Center

Springs

General Coffee State

Douglas

Coffee

Park

Riverside Park

Evans Columbia X

Univ. of West Georgia

Newnan Coweta X

X

Georgia Forestry Dawsonville Dawson X

Comm.

South DeKalb

Decatur

DeKalb X X X

X

DMRC

Decatur

DeKalb

Police Dept.

Doraville

DeKalb

X

Idlewood Rd.

Tucker

DeKalb X

Turner Elementary

Albany Dougherty

X

Beulah Pump Station Douglasville Douglas

W. Strickland St. Douglasville Douglas X

McCaysville Elementary Georgia DOT

McCaysville Fayetteville

Fannin Fayette X

Coosa Elementary

Rome

Floyd

Floyd Co. Health Dept.

Rome

Floyd

Coosa High School

Rome

Floyd

X

Fulton Co. Health Dept.

Atlanta

Fulton

Utoy Creek

Atlanta

Fulton

E. Rivers School

Atlanta

Fulton

X

Fire Station #8

Atlanta

Fulton

X

X X
X
X X X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X X

Lead PM10

Acid Rain

PAMS VOCS 24-Hour

VOC (TO14/15)

X

X X

X X
X X X

X

X

X

X X
X X

X

X

X

X X X
X X X

SVOC X X X
X X
X X

Carbonyls
X
X X X

Trace Metals
X X X
X X X
X X

131210048

Georgia Tech

Atlanta

Fulton

131210055

Confederate Ave.

Atlanta

Fulton X

X

131210099

Roswell Road

Atlanta

Fulton

X

131270004

Arco Pump Station Brunswick

Glynn

131270006

Risley Middle School Brunswick

Glynn X

X

131273001

Brunswick College Brunswick

Glynn

131350002

Gwinnett Tech Lawrenceville Gwinnett X

X

X

131390003

Fair St. Elementary Gainesville

Hall

X

X

X

X

X

131510002 131530001 131850003

County Extension Office
Robins Air Base
Mason Elementary

McDonough
Warner Robins Valdosta

Henry X Houston Lowndes

X X X

131890001

DNR Fish Hatchery Thomson McDuffie

132130003

Fort Mountain Chatsworth

Murray X

132150001

Health Dept. Columbus Muscogee

X

132150008

Columbus Airport Columbus Muscogee X

X

X

X

132150011

Cusseta Rd. Columbus Muscogee

X

X

Elementary

132151003 Columbus Crime Lab Columbus Muscogee X

132155000 Columbus State Univ. Columbus Muscogee

132230003

Yorkville

Yorkville Paulding X X X

X

X

132450005 Medical College of GA

Augusta Richmond

X

132450091 132450092

Bungalow Rd. Elementary
Clara Jenkins School

Augusta Richmond X Augusta Richmond

X

X

X

132470001

Monastery

Conyers Rockdale X

X

132550002 132611001

UGA Experiment Station
Union High School

Griffin Leslie

Spalding Sumter X

132810001

Lake Burton Hiawassee

Towns

132950002

Health Dept.

Rossville

Walker

X

X

132970001

DNR Fish Hatchery Social Circle

Walton

X

133030001

Health Dept. Sandersville Washington

X

133190001

Police Dept.

Gordon Wilkinson

X

Table 2: Georgia Air Sampling Station Locations for 2005

X X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X
X

Hamilton

Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield

Murray

Floyd

Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson Hall
Forsyth

Haralson Carroll Heard

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Barrow

Douglas Coweta

Fulton

De Kalb

Fayette

Clayton Henry

Spalding

Rockdale

Walton Newton

Butts

Jasper

Madison

Clarke

Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike Lamar
Monroe

Jones

Harris Muscogee

North Georgia Monitoring Sites
Urban BAibbreas
Crawford
MSAs Shown asTwSiggos lid Color
Houston

Figure 1: North Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map

10

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Floyd Bartow

Pickens

Dawson

Cherokee

Hall Forsyth

Paulding Haralson

Cobb

Carroll

Douglas

Fulton

Clayton

Barrow

Gwinnett

De Kalb

Walton Rockdale

Newton

Coweta Heard

Fayette

Henry

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris

Muscogee

Chattahoochee Russell

Marion

Crawford

Bibb

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Lanier

Brooks Lowndes

Echols

Edgefield

Columbia McDuffie
Richmond

Aiken

Burke

Effingham

Bryan

Long

Liberty

Chatham

McIntosh

Brantley

Glynn

South Georgia Monitoring Sites Urban Areas MSA's Shown as Solid Color
Figure 2: South Georgia Air Monitoring Site Map
11

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
General Information Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is a byproduct of the incomplete burning of fuels. The principal source of CO pollution in most large urban areas, including Metro Atlanta, is the automobile, which contributes approximately 60% of CO emissions nationwide. Other sources include fires, industrial processes, cigarettes, and other sources of incomplete burning in the indoor environment. High concentrations of ambient CO tend to occur in the colder months of the year. In cool weather, inversion layers occur more frequently, and they can trap pollutants near the surface. CO is inhaled and enters the blood stream, where it binds chemically to hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is the component of blood that carries oxygen to the cells. When CO binds to hemoglobin, it reduces the ability of hemoglobin to do its job, which reduces the amount of oxygen delivered to all tissues of the body. The percentage of hemoglobin affected by CO depends on the amount of air inhaled, the concentration of CO in air, and length of exposure. At the levels usually found in ambient air, CO primarily affects people with cardiovascular disease. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires as a minimum that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with a population greater than 500,000, as determined by the last census (2000), have two CO National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS). In Georgia, only the Atlanta MSA meets the population requirement. Currently, the NAMS site is located at Roswell Road (Figure 3). The Roswell Road site was established to monitor for CO at a microscale level. The purpose of microscale measurements is to measure peak concentrations in major urban traffic areas. A microscale site monitors an air mass that covers a distance of several meters to about 100 meters. In substitution for the second NAMS monitor, high sensitivity CO monitors have been installed at the Yorkville and South DeKalb sites. The purpose of these monitors is to detect very small concentrations of CO in order to gain a more complete understanding of the background levels of CO and its role in atmospheric chemistry.
12

Floyd

Bartow

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Pickens

Dawson

Cherokee

Forsyth Hall

Yorkville

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett
Roswell Rd

Haralson

De Kalb

Douglas

Fulton

S DeKalb

Carroll

Clayton

Rockdale Newton

Fayette

Henry

Heard

Coweta

Meriwether Pike
Figure 3: Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Site Map

CO Sites
UrbaSnpalAdinrgeas
Butts
MSAs Shown as Solid Color
Lamar

13

Health Effects The health effects of CO include weakening the contractions of the heart, which reduces blood flow to various parts of the body, decreasing the oxygen available to the muscles and various organs. In a healthy person, this effect significantly reduces the ability to perform physical activities. In persons with chronic heart disease, these effects can threaten the overall quality of life, since their systems are unable to compensate for the decrease in oxygen. CO pollution is also likely to cause such individuals to experience chest pain during activity. Adverse effects have also been observed in individuals with heart conditions who are exposed to CO pollution in heavy freeway traffic for one to two hours or more.
In addition, fetuses, young infants, pregnant women, elderly people, and individuals with anemia or emphysema are likely to be more susceptible to the effects of CO. For these individuals, the effects are more pronounced when exposure takes place at high altitude locations, where oxygen concentration is lower. CO can also affect mental function, visual acuity, and the alertness of healthy individuals, even at relatively low concentrations.
Measurement Techniques CO is monitored using specialized analyzers made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of CO in ambient air using the non-dispersive infrared analysis and gas filter correlation methods.
Attainment Designation Data collected from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) 8-hour and 1-hour standard for CO. This standard requires that, for 8-hour averages, no concentration greater than 9 ppm may be observed more than once per year. It also requires that, for 1-hour averages, no concentration greater than 35 ppm may be observed more than once a year. If the data shows that these criteria are met, then the area is considered to be in attainment of the standard.
All of Georgia is in attainment of both the 8-hour and 1-hour standards for carbon monoxide. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx and NOy)
General Information Oxides of Nitrogen (see Table 3) exist in various forms in the atmosphere. The most common is nitric oxide (NO), but other forms such as NO2, HNO3 and N2O5 also occur. High temperature combustion and lightning produce the bulk of these compounds in the atmosphere. Nitrogen is a very stable molecule and is essentially inert unless subjected to extreme conditions. The oxides of nitrogen are less stable, however, and are key participants in atmospheric chemistry, reacting back and forth between numerous states depending on conditions. Many of these reactions involve the conversion of oxygen atoms between their atomic (O2) and ozone (O3) forms. As such oxides of nitrogen are studied more intensely than their direct health impacts would imply; they are precursors of (and alternately byproducts of) ozone formation. The many forms of oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere is the reason that in many cases they are referred to using the generic terms NOx or NOy; depending on the nature of the discussion it may not be important exactly what state the oxides of nitrogen are in. 14

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

NO is changed to NO2 in very rapid atmospheric reactions. During daylight hours, UV solar radiation breaks apart NO2 into NO and free oxygen (O). The free oxygen atom will attach itself to molecular oxygen (O2) creating an ozone (O3) molecule. This is the origin of all ground level ozone. Daytime levels of NO2 and N2O5 are low but their concentration rises rapidly in the evening and night. These "stores" of atomic oxygen give rise to morning spikes in ozone when they are converted to NO again at sunrise. Nitric acid (HNO3) is the most oxidized form of nitrogen in the atmosphere. This species is water-soluble and is removed from the atmosphere in the form of acidic raindrops.

Abbreviation Full Name

Creation Processes

Elimination Processes

NO
NO2
HNO3 PAN NOx NOy

Nitrous Oxide

Result of ozone photochemistry
High-temperature

Reacts with ozone to form NO2 and oxygen

combustion

Nitrogen Dioxide

High-temperature

Reacts with

combustion

oxygen in strong

Reaction of NO and ozone

sun to form ozone plus NO "Washes out" in

rain

Nitric Acid

NO2 + H2O

"Washes out" in rain

Peroxyacetyl Nitrate Oxidation of hydrocarbons Slow devolution to NO2 in sunlight

Catch-all name for NO + NO2

Catch-all name for all atmospheric oxides of nitrogen- mostly NO, NO2, HNO3, N2O5, and PAN

Table 3: Common Oxides of Nitrogen Species and Terms
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of the important oxides of nitrogen, is a light brown gas that can become an important component of urban haze. Nitrogen oxides usually enter the air as the result of high-temperature combustion processes, such as those occurring in automobiles and power plants. Home heaters and gas stoves produce substantial amounts of NO2. NO2 is formed from the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO), which has a pungent odor at high concentrations and a bleach smell at lower concentrations. NO2 is a precursor to ozone formation and can be oxidized to form nitric acid (HNO3), one of the compounds that contribute to acid rain. NO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) can react with other substances in the atmosphere to form acidic products that can be deposited in rain, fog, snow, or as particle pollution. Nitrate particles and NO2 can block the transmission of light, reducing visibility.
Health Impacts Individuals experience respiratory problems when exposed to high levels of NO2 for short durations (less than three hours). Asthmatics are especially sensitive to NO2. Changes in airway responsiveness have been observed in some studies of exercising asthmatics
15

exposed to relatively low levels of NO2. Studies also indicate a relationship between indoor NO2 exposures and increased respiratory illness rates in young children, but definitive results are still lacking. Many animal studies suggest that NO2 impairs respiratory defense mechanisms and increases susceptibility to infection.
Several studies also show that chronic exposure to relatively low NO2 pollution levels may cause structural changes in the lungs of animals. These studies suggest that chronic exposure to NO2 could lead to adverse health effects in humans, but specific levels and durations likely to cause such effects have not yet been determined.
Measurement Techniques Oxides of Nitrogen, and in particular NO2, are monitored using specialized analyzers made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of oxides of nitrogen in ambient air using the ozone-phase chemiluminescent method. There are two major instrument designs. While they are closely related, they do not monitor the same species. NOx analyzers measure NO, NO2, and NOx. NOy analyzers measure NO and NOy, but cannot measure NO2. The NOy analyzers are also specialized for measuring trace-level concentrations; as such they cannot measure higher concentrations. Because of these tradeoffs, it is necessary to operate a network of both instrument types to get a complete picture of local conditions.
Of the oxides of nitrogen, only NO2 is regulated under the NAAQS. As such only the NOx type analyzers produce data directly relevant to the standard. NO2 "NAMS" monitoring is required in urban areas with populations greater than 1,000,000. Atlanta is the only urban area in Georgia that meets that population requirement. Atlanta has two NAMS sites. They are located at the South DeKalb and Georgia Tech sites. The complete oxides of nitrogen monitoring network, including PAMS and NAMS site locations, can be found in Figure 4.
Attainment Designation Data collected from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the NAAQS primary and secondary annual standards for NO2. This standard requires that the annual arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm, rounded to three decimal places. [50 FR 25544, June 19, 1985] The Atlanta MSA, as well as the rest of the nation, is in attainment of the NO2 standard. Los Angeles was the only urban area nationwide that ever recorded violations of the NAAQS for NO2. In July 1998, EPA announced the redesignation of that area to attainment. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A.
16

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Catoosa Whitfield Murray

Walker
Floyd
Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
Hall Forsyth

Paulding
Yorkville
Haralson

Cobb

Carroll

Douglas

Fulton

Barrow

Gwinnett
Tucker GA TechDe Kalb
Rockdale
S DeKalb

Walton

Clayton

ConyersNewton

Heard

Coweta

Fayette

Henry Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris Muscogee

Chattahoochee Russell

Marion

BibbLake Tobesofkee Twiggs
Crawford Houston

Edgefield

McDuffie

Evans

Columbia

Aiken

Richmond

Burke

Terrell

Lee

Long

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Brooks

Lanier Lowndes

NOx/NOy
Urban Areas
Brantley
MSAs Shown as Solid Color

Figure 4: Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Site Map

17

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
General Information Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless reactive gas that is formed by burning of sulfur-containing material, such as coal, or by processing sulfur-containing ores. It is odorless at low concentrations, but pungent at very high concentrations. It can be oxidized in the atmosphere into sulfuric acid. When sulfur-bearing fuel is burned or ores that contain sulfur are processed, the sulfur is oxidized to form SO2, which can react with other pollutants to form aerosols. In liquid form, SO2 may be found in clouds, fog, rain, aerosol particles, and in surface liquid films on these particles. Both SO2 and NO2 are precursors to the formation of acid rain and lead to acidic deposition. SO2 can also be a precursor for sulfate particles. Major sources of SO2 are fossil fuel-burning power plants and industrial boilers.
Health Impacts Exposure to SO2 can cause impairment of respiratory function, aggravation of existing respiratory disease (especially bronchitis), and a decrease in the ability of the lungs to clear foreign particles. It can also lead to increased mortality, especially if elevated levels of particulate matter (PM) are also present. Groups that appear most sensitive to the effects of SO2 include asthmatics and other individuals with hyperactive airways, and individuals with chronic obstructive lung or cardiovascular disease. Elderly people and children are also likely to be sensitive to SO2.
Effects of short-term peak exposures have been evaluated in controlled human exposure studies. These studies show that SO2 generally increases airway resistance in the lungs, and can cause significant constriction of air passages in sensitive asthmatics. These impacts have been observed in subjects engaged in moderate to heavy exercise while exposed to relatively high peak concentrations. These changes in lung function are accompanied by perceptible symptoms such as wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing in these sensitive groups.
The presence of particle pollution appears to aggravate the impact of SO2 pollution. Several studies of chronic effects have found that people living in areas with high PM and SO2 levels have a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses and symptoms than people living in areas without such a synergistic combination of pollutants.
Figure 5 shows the locations of the Georgia SO2 monitoring stations.
Measurement Techniques Sulfur dioxide is measured in the ambient air using EPA-approved "equivalent method" instruments as defined in 40 CFR Part 53, Appendix A. Georgia's network consists of instruments using a pulsed UV fluorescence technique. At one Savannah location, a variation of this instrument is configured to monitor for total reduced sulfur (TRS), which monitors for other sulfur-bearing compounds such as hydrogen sulfide.
18

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Hamilton

Dade Catoosa
Walker

Murray Whitfield

McCaysville

Rome Elem
Bartow
Stilesboro

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
Hall Forsyth

Madison

Haralson Carroll
Heard

Paulding

Cobb

Douglas Fulton

Gwinnett

Barrow

GCAoTneDfecehKdaelbrate

Walton

Rockdale

Coweta

Clayton Fayette

Henry

Newton

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Clarke Oglethorpe
Oconee

Harris

Pike Meriwether

Russell

Muscogee
Columbus Airport
Chattahoochee Marion

Lamar
Monroe Bibb
Crawford

Jones

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Sulfur Dioxide
5 TRS Site
Urban Areas
MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Brooks

Lanier Lowndes
Echols

Edgefield

Columbia McDuffie
Richmond

Aiken

Burke

Effingham

Chatham Bryan

Long

Liberty

Effingham

McIntosh

Bryan

5Lathrop AuGgluynsnta Brunswick
BrantleEy President
Chatham

Liberty Long
McIntosh

Glynn
Brunswick

Figure 5: Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Site Map

19

Attainment Designation To demonstrate attainment, the annual arithmetic mean and the second-highest 24-hour average must be based upon hourly data that is at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block average is considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for the 24-hour period are available [61 FR 25579, May 22, 1996]. To be considered in attainment, a site must have an annual mean less than 0.03 parts per million (ppm), no 24-hour averages exceeding 0.14 ppm, and no 3-hour averages exceeding 0.50 ppm.
All of Georgia is in attainment of the sulfur dioxide standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A.
Ozone (O3)
General Information Ozone is a colorless gas. Ground level ozone, unlike the other gaseous air pollutants previously discussed, is not a primary pollutant. This means that ozone is not directly emitted by any sources, mobile or stationary. Ozone forms through a complex series of chemical reactions, which take place in the presence of strong sunlight (photochemical reactions). For these reactions to take place, certain ingredients (precursors) must be available. Since the reactions must take place in the presence of strong sunlight, ozone concentrations have a strong diurnal pattern (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Typical Urban 1-Hour Ozone Diurnal Pattern The precursors2 to ozone formation are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic substances (sometimes referred to as VOCs or hydrocarbons). Examples of such reactive organic substances include hydrocarbons found in automobile exhaust (like benzene and propane), vapors from cleaning solvents (like toluene), and biogenic emissions (like isoprene). Ozone, when mixed with particles and other pollutants, such as NO2, forms smog, a brownish, acrid mixture (see Figure 7). This type of pollution first gained attention in the 1940's as Los Angeles photochemical "smog". Since then, photochemical smog has been observed frequently in many other cities.
2 For a more complete discussion on ozone precursors, please see the NO2 section and the PAMS section of this report.
20

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report The control of ground-level ozone problems in Georgia has been difficult because many of the fundamental lessons learned in Los Angeles proved not to apply here. As indicated above, ozone is formed when its precursors come together in the presence of strong sunlight. This reaction can only occur as long as both precursors are present, though, and the reaction itself consumes the precursors as it produces ozone. The amount of ozone produced, assuming sufficient sunlight, is controlled by what is known as the "limiting reactant." This limiting reactant can be thought of in terms of household baking. You can only bake cookies until you run out of any one of the ingredients you need. If you run out of flour, it doesn't matter how much milk and sugar you have on hand; you can't make any more cookies without more flour. In the same way, ozone production can only occur until the process has consumed all of any one of the required ingredients. As it turns out, natural background hydrocarbon levels are quite low in Los Angeles, so in that area hydrocarbons are typically the reactant that limits how much ozone can be produced. The control measures that proved effective in reducing smog there involved reducing hydrocarbon emissions. These measures and the science behind them have become relatively advanced because the Los Angeles problem was so severe and developed so early.
Figure 7: Ozone Formation Process As air quality control measures were first implemented in Georgia, the then-standard assumption was made that Georgia was also hydrocarbon limited. However, the initial control measures seemed ineffective in actually reducing ozone levels. In time, researchers discovered that trees naturally emit large quantities of hydrocarbons.
21

The quantity of hydrocarbons emitted by the abundant trees in this region is sufficient that Atlanta could theoretically violate ambient ozone standards even if humans reduced their hydrocarbon emissions to zero3. Even in that impossible case, there would still be plenty of natural hydrocarbons around to react with any oxides of nitrogen that human activities were to produce, and virtually the same amount of ozone would result. The solution to ozone control in Georgia, then, would have to focus on a different limiting reactant. Since there will always be strong sunshine in the summer, and there will always be oxygen, the only effective way left to control ozone production is to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen.
Air quality science had not, and still has not, had time to fully catch up with this discovery. The control technologies that reduce hydrocarbon emissions are generally not effective on oxides of nitrogen, so a whole new set of control technologies had to be developed. This area has been in some ways unable to take full advantage of the technologies developed for Los Angeles, then, because those technologies were not suited to local conditions. With respect to reducing emissions from automobile engines, for example, the addition of relatively simple and inexpensive catalytic converters was a great leap forward in reducing hydrocarbon emissions. Catalytic converters have been used with great success since the early 1970s. Thus far, emissions of oxides of nitrogen have proven more difficult to control than hydrocarbon emissions, especially given that the control measures have not had forty years to mature. Research on the topic continues, and new emissions control equipment is always under development. Solutions for reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen have generally proven more expensive, more complicated, and have required far more reengineering of the engines themselves.
Ozone in Georgia, unlike other pollutants previously discussed, is only monitored during the "summer" months (March through October). The reason for the shorter season is that long periods of strong sunlight and warm temperatures are needed for ozone formation. Many urban areas experience high levels of ground level ozone during the summer months. We also see high ozone levels in rural and mountainous areas. This is often caused by ozone and/or its precursors being transported by wind for many hundreds of miles.
A final difference between ozone and the other pollutants is that ozone is sometimes good. While ground level ozone is considered a hazardous pollutant, the ozone in the upper atmosphere, approximately 10-22 miles above the earth's surface, protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This ozone is gradually being depleted due to manmade products called ozone depleting chemicals, including chloroflourocarbons (CFC), which when released naturally migrate to the upper atmosphere. Once in the upper atmosphere, the CFCs break down due to the intensity of the sun's UV rays, releasing chlorine and bromine atoms. These atoms react with the ozone and destroy it. Scientists say that one chlorine atom can destroy as many as 100,000 "good" ozone molecules. The destruction of this ozone may lead to more harmful ultraviolet rays reaching the earth's surface, causing increased skin cancer rates. This reduction in the protection provided by ozone in the upper atmosphere is usually referred to as the "ozone hole" and is most pronounced in polar regions.
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division monitors ground level ozone at 24 sites throughout the state (Figure 8).
3 Note that this is not to say that trees cause "pollution"; in the absence of emissions of oxides of nitrogen caused by humans, these hydrocarbons would not react to produce ozone.
22

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Sequatchie

Marion

Hamilton

Dade

Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield Murray
Fort Mtn

Summerville

Pickens

Dawson

Dawsonville

Hall

Floyd

Bartow

Cherokee

Forsyth

Madison

Kennesaw Gwinnett Tech

Yorkville Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

HaralsonDouglasville

Tucker

DougClasonfeSdeDFruealtoKtnealb DeKalb

Rockdale

Barrow

Clarke

College Station

Oconee

Walton

Carroll

ClayCtoon nyers

Newton

Fayetteville

Henry

Newnan
Coweta Heard

Fayette

McDonough

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris

Crime Lab Columbus Airport Muscogee

Russell

Chattahoochee Marion

Lake Tobesofkee
Crawford

GA Forestry
Bibb
Twiggs

Houston

Leslie

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Brooks

Lanier

Lowndes

Echols

Ozone Monitors Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Edgefield
Evans
Columbia McDuffie
Bungalow ES
Richmond

Aiken

Burke

Effingham

E President

Bryan

Chatham

Long

Liberty

McIntosh
Glynn Brantley
Brunswick

Figure 8: Ozone Monitoring Site Map

23

Missouri Arkansas
{ {
Louisiana
{

{ {{

Ohio

Maryland District of Columbia

Illinois
{{ {
{{{ {
{

Mississippi
{

{{

{{{{{{{{{{{{{A{{{l{{{a{{b{{Ta{I{{ne{{{mndaniae{n{sa{s{e{e{{{{{{{{Ke{{n{tu{ck{{y {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{W{e{{{st V{S{ir{og{{ui{n{thNi{a{oCr{at{hro{{{C{lianra{o{l{in{{a{{

Virginia
{{{{{{{{ {{

{{

{{{

Georgia

{ { {
{

{

{

{

Delaware

{{{{

{{

{ {{

{{{

{

{

{{

{

{

Ozone Exceedances Ozone Monitoring Sites

{

{{

{{

{{

{{

{{

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Fl{o{rida{{{{

{ {
{

{{{

{{ {{{

{{

Figure 9: Ozone Monitors, Southeastern U.S., with 2005 Exceedances

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Figure 9 shows the location of ozone monitors across the southeastern region, showing which monitors are measured events in 2005 that exceeded the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone.
Health Impacts Ozone and other photochemical oxidants such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) and aldehydes are associated with adverse health effects in humans. Peroxyacetyl nitrate and aldehydes cause irritation that is characteristic of photochemical pollution. Ozone has a greater impact on the respiratory system, where it irritates the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and airways; ninety percent of the ozone inhaled into the lungs is never exhaled. Symptoms associated with exposure include cough, chest pain, and throat irritation. Ozone can also increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. In addition, ozone impairs normal functioning of the lungs and reduces the ability to perform physical exercise. Recent studies also suggest that even at lower ozone concentrations some healthy individuals engaged in moderate exercise for 6 to 8 hours may experience symptoms. All of these effects are more severe in individuals with sensitive respiratory systems, and studies show that moderate levels may impair the ability of individuals with asthma or respiratory disease to engage in normal daily activities.
The potential chronic effects of repeated exposure to ozone are of even greater concern. Laboratory studies show that people exposed over a six to eight hour period to relatively low ozone levels develop lung inflammation. Animal studies suggest that if exposures are repeated over a long period (e.g. months, years, lifetime), inflammation of this type may lead to permanent scarring of lung tissue, loss of lung function, and reduced lung elasticity.
Measurement Techniques Ozone is monitored using specialized commercial instruments made for that specific purpose. The analyzers continuously measure the concentration of ozone in ambient air using the U.V. photometric method and are EPA-approved for regulatory air monitoring programs. Data gained from the continuous monitors is used to determine compliance with the NAAQS 1hour and 8-hour standards for ozone.
Attainment Designation The ozone (1-hour) primary and secondary standards are the same. An area is considered in attainment of the 1-hour standard if the expected number of days per calendar year where the ozone concentration exceeds the maximum hourly concentration of 0.12 ppm (0.125 ppm with the EPA rounding convention) is equal to or less than 1. The Atlanta metropolitan 1-hour nonattainment area ozone monitoring network has been operational since 1980. The 1980 network consisted of two monitors located in DeKalb and Rockdale Counties. Currently the Atlanta ozone network includes eleven monitors located in ten counties.
In July 1997 the US EPA issued a new 8-hour ozone standard intended to eventually replace the 1-hour standard. The ozone concentration for the 8-hour standard is measured using the same reference method used for the 1-hour standard. The standard is attained when the average of the fourth highest concentration measured is equal to or below 0.08 ppm (0.085 ppm with the EPA rounding convention) averaged over three years (see Table 1; 62 FR 38894, July 18, 1997). Areas EPA has declared in attainment of 1-hour standard are immediately exempt from that standard, but thereafter are subject to the 8-hour standard. In 2004, the thirteen counties in the metro Atlanta ozone nonattainment area were still subject to the 1-hour standard; the rest of Georgia was subject to the 8-hour standard. In the summer
25

of 2005, metro Atlanta was declared in attainment of the 1-hour standard. As of the printing of this report, then, only the 8-hour ozone standard remains applicable in Georgia. The Atlanta ozone nonattainment area was officially expanded in 2004. Previously Rockdale, Coweta, Fulton, Cherokee, Henry, Clayton, Fayette, Gwinnett, Paulding, Forsyth, Cobb, Douglas, and DeKalb Counties were included. With new monitoring data, implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard, and the results of the 2000 Census, the following counties have been added to the nonattainment area: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Douglas, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton. Catoosa and Walker Counties are a part of the Chattanooga early action compact area. New basic nonattainment areas have also been declared. The Macon metro area has been declared a new nonattainment area. It includes Bibb County and part of Monroe County. Finally, portions of Murray County have been added to a new Chattahoochee National Forest nonattainment area. Figure 10 shows the boundaries of these nonattainment areas.
26

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

DADE

CATOOSA

WALKER

WHITFIELD MURRAY

CHATTOOGA

GORDON

FLOYD

BARTOW

FANNIN

UNION

TOWNS

RABUN

ChGIaLMttEaRhoochee N.F.

LUMPKIN

PICKENS

DAWSON

CHEROKEE

FORSYTH

WHITE

HABERSHAM STEPHENS

HALL

BANKS

FRANKLIN

JACKSON

MADISON

HART ELBERT

POLK HARALSON

PAULDING

COBB

GWINNETT DEKALB

BARROW WALTON

CLARKE OCONEE

OGLETHORPE

WILKES

LINCOLN

CARROLL HEARD

DOUGLAS COWETA

FULTON CLAYTON
FAYETTE

ROCKDALE

HENRY

NEWTON

MORGAN

GREENE

TALIAFERRO

COLUMBIA MCDUFFIE

WARREN

SPALDING

BUTTS

JASPER

PUTNAM

HANCOCK

GLASCOCK

TROUP

MERIWETHER

PIKE

LAMAR

Monroe - partia

MONROE

JONES

BALDWIN

HARRIS

UPSON

TALBOT

CRAWFORD

BIBB

TWIGGS

WILKINSON

JEFFERSON WASHINGTON
JOHNSON

MUSCOGEE

TAYLOR

CHATTAHOOCHEE

MARION

SCHLEY

MACON

STEWART

WEBSTER

SUMTER

PEACH HOUSTON

BLECKLEY

LAURENS

EMANUEL TREUTLEN

DOOLY

PULASKI WILCOX

DODGE

MONTGOMERY

WHEELER

TOOMBS

TELFAIR

Figure 10: Georgia's 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Map

27

A number of activities to aid in controlling the precursors to ozone formation have been implemented. As new areas are declared in nonattainment, these control measures may be expanded to include them. These activities could include a strict vehicle inspection program, controls on stationary emission sources, and the establishment of a voluntary mobile emissions reduction program. An example of such a program in metro Atlanta is called The Clean Air Campaign (CAC). Activities of The Clean Air Campaign include distributing daily ozone forecasts (produced by EPD) during the ozone season to enable citizens in the sensitive group category as well as industries to alter activities on days that are forecasted to be conducive to ozone formation. In addition to the forecasts, citizens have access to forecast and monitoring data on an as needed basis by either calling 1-800-427-9605 or by accessing our website at http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. For a more detailed discussion concerning the CAC, see the section titled "Outreach and Education".
Metro Atlanta Ozone- Number of Days Violating NAAQS per Year
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0

Violations

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1-Hour

Year 8-Hour Trendline of 8-Hour

Figure 11: Metro Atlanta Ozone- Number of Violation Days per Year
Figure 11 shows how past air quality would relate to the new standard and how current air quality relates to the old standard. This chart was produced by comparing measurement data against both ambient standards. This analysis includes only the days that would count as actual violations (meaning that the three highest values for each year at each site are already excluded). This demonstrates the relative strictness of each standard and shows how our air quality has changed over time. Despite a great deal of fluctuation, over the course of the past twenty years we have seen a gradual reduction in the number of days exceeding either ozone standard. The trendline, produced by regression analysis, shows that the number of days that exceed the current 8-hour ozone standard has fallen by about a half day each year over this time period.
Figure 12 maps each Metro Atlanta ozone monitor that exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard in 2005, and also indicates the monthly breakdown of the exceedances.
28

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Gordon

Floyd

Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
Forsyth Hall

Polk
2 8
Yorkville
Paulding

Haralson Carroll

Douglasville
Douglas

1 Kennesaw
Cobb

1

GwinnettGwinnett Tech

7

2

6

Tucker

DeKalb

Fulton

Confederate S DeKalb

7

4
Clayton

4
Rockdale
Conyers
Newton

Fayetteville
Fayette

Site S DeKalb Conyers ConHfeaArdve Tucker Gwinnett Yorkville Douglasville Fayetteville
Troup
McDonough Kennesaw

May-05 1 2 1 1
1

Jun-05 Cow1eta 2 1

Jul-05 3 2 3 2

Aug-05

1

1

2

3

1

Meriw2ether

3

3

Sep-05 TOTAL

1

6

4

1

7

2

1

2

2

8

1

4

1

7 Pike

1

Henry
McDonough

Spalding

Butts

Exceedance Sites

Lamar

Monroe

Urban Areas

Figure 12: Metro Atlanta Ozone Exceedance Map

29

Lead
General Information In the past the Clean Air Act required extensive lead monitoring in order to detect the high levels of airborne lead that resulted from the use of leaded gasoline. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, lead concentrations decreased to nearly zero by the late 1980s. Since then, the concentrations have hovered just above zero.
In the past, automotive sources were the major contributor of lead emissions to the atmosphere. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts to reduce the content of lead in gasoline, the contribution from the transportation sector declined sharply through the 1970s and 1980s. Today, metals processing is the major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere. Other sources of lead emissions include the combustion of solid waste, coal, oils, and the emissions from iron and steel production.
Based on EPA guidance and the very small amounts of lead pollution remaining in Georgia, the lead monitoring network shrunk in 2005. Two lead monitoring sites in Columbus were closed. There are now two dedicated lead monitors remaining in Georgia for comparison to the NAAQS lead standard. One is in the Atlanta area for monitoring long-term trends in ambient lead levels as part of the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) network. The other is in Columbus for industrial source monitoring, given the historical issues with lead pollution in the area.
The current criteria lead monitoring network is as indicated in Figure 13. For more information on criteria lead monitoring, see Appendix A. In addition to the criteria network sites, lead is also being monitored at 14 sites throughout Georgia as a trace metal in the Georgia Air Toxics Monitoring Network. The equipment used at those sites can detect far smaller concentrations. For additional summary data on lead as collected as an Air Toxics trace metal, see Appendix E.
Health Impacts Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues. Lead can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments, such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ. Recent studies also show that lead may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease. Lead can also be deposited on the leaves of plants, presenting a hazard to grazing animals. Lead deposition in soil puts children at particular risk exposure since they commonly put hands, toys, and other items in their mouths, which may come in contact with the lead-containing dust and dirt.
30

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Sequatchie

Marion

Hamilton

Dade

Catoosa

Walker

Murray Whitfield

Floyd Bartow

Pickens Dawson Hall
Cherokee Forsyth

Haralson Carroll Heard

Paulding Cobb

Gwinnett

Barrow

De Kalb

Walton

Douglas

Rockdale

Fulton

DMRC

Coweta

Clayton Fayette

Newton Henry

Spalding

Jasper Butts

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike Lamar Monroe

Jones

Russell

Harris
Muscogee
Cusseta ES
Chattahoochee Marion

Crawford

Bibb

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Brooks

Lanier Lowndes
Echols

Edgefield

Columbia McDuffie
Richmond

Aiken

Burke

Effingham

Bryan
Liberty Long

Chatham

McIntosh

Brantley

Glynn

Lead Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Figure 13: Lead Monitoring Site Map

31

Measurement Techniques Measurement for ambient air lead concentrations is performed using a manual method, unlike measurements for ozone, SO2, NO2 and CO. Samples are collected on 8" x 10" preweighed fiberglass filters with a high-volume sampler for 24 hours. The filter sample is shipped to a laboratory for analysis using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (commonly known as ICP-MS). Data gained from the lead sampler is used to determine compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead.
Attainment Designation The compliance with the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds is determined based on the assumption that all lead is elemental lead. In order to comply with both the primary and secondary standard, the concentration of lead in the air must have an arithmetic mean no higher than 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over a calendar quarter. (See Secs. 109, 301(a) Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7409, 7601(a)) [43 FR 46258, Oct. 5, 1978].
All of Georgia is in attainment of the lead standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A.
Particulate Matter
General Information Particulate matter is a broad range of material that consists of solid particles, fine liquid droplets, or condensed liquids absorbed onto solid particles. Airborne particulates are not a single pollutant as discussed for the other criteria pollutants, but rather a mixture of many different air pollutants. Primary sources that emit particles include combustion, incineration, construction, mining, metals smelting, metal processing, and grinding. Other sources include motor vehicle exhaust, road dust, wind blown soil, forest fires, open burning of vegetation for land clearing or waste removal, ocean spray, and volcanic activity.
There are two ways that particulate matter is formed. Primary particulate is emitted directly from a source, like a vehicle's tailpipe or a factory's smokestack. But a great deal of particulate matter is not directly emitted from such sources. In fact, the vast majority of primary air pollution is in the form of gases. But those gaseous air pollutants readily react in the atmosphere- with oxygen, each other, and the like. While many of those reactions produce other gases, they frequently produce particles. Particles formed through this process are known as secondary particulate matter. Examples of secondary particulates include:
Atmospheric sulfate particles, formed from the oxidation of gaseous SO2. Atmospheric nitrate particles, such as ammonium nitrate, formed from a complex
series of reactions that transform gaseous NOx. Atmospheric calcium nitrate or sodium nitrate particulates formed from a series of
atmospheric reactions involving gaseous nitric acid (HNO3) reacting with sodium chloride/calcium carbonate.
Particulate pollution may also be categorized by size since there are different health impacts associated with the different sizes. The Ambient Air Monitoring Program monitors for two sizes of particles: PM10 (up to 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (up to 2.5 microns in diameter). Both of these particles are very small in size. For example, approximately ten
32

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
(10) PM10 particles can fit on a cross section of a human hair, and approximately thirty (30) PM2.5 particles would fit on a cross section of a hair.
Figure 14 shows the location of Georgia's PM10 monitoring sites, Figure 16 shows the location of the PM2.5 reference method monitoring sites, and Figure 17 shows the location of the PM2.5 continuous monitoring sites. For information on the makeup of these particles, see the following section (PM2.5 Speciation).
PM10
Particulate matter (PM) less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter is defined as PM10. These particles can be solid matter or liquid droplets from smoke, dust, fly ash, or condensing vapors that can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. PM10 represents part of a broad class of chemically diverse particles that range in size from molecular clusters of 0.005 microns in diameter to coarse particles of 10 microns in diameter (for comparison, an average human hair is 70-100 microns in diameter). PM results from all types of combustion. The carbon-based particles that result from incomplete burning of diesel fuel in buses, trucks, and cars are of particular concern. Another important combustion source is the burning of wood in stoves and fireplaces in residential settings. Also of concern are the sulfate and nitrate particles that are formed as a byproduct of SO2 and NO2 emissions, primarily from fossil fuel-burning power plants and vehicular exhausts.
The U.S. national ambient air quality standard was originally based on particles up to 25-45 microns in size, termed "total suspended particles" (TSP). In 1987, EPA replaced TSP with an indicator that includes only those particles smaller than 10 microns, termed PM10. These smaller particles cause most of the adverse health effects because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs. The observed human health effects of PM include breathing and respiratory problems, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense system against inhaled materials and organisms, and damage to lung tissue. Groups that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of PM include individuals with chronic lung or cardiovascular disease, individuals with influenza, asthmatics, elderly people, and children.
Health Impacts Marked increases in daily mortality have been statistically associated with very high 24-hour concentrations of PM10, with some increased risk of mortality at lower concentrations. Small increases in mortality appear to exist at even lower levels. Risks to sensitive individuals increase with consecutive, multi-day exposures to elevated PM10 concentrations. The research also indicates that aggravation of bronchitis occurs with elevated 24-hour PM10 levels, and small decreases in lung function take place when children are exposed to lower 24-hour peak PM10 levels. Lung function impairment lasts for 2-3 weeks following exposure to PM10.
33

Sequatchie

Hamilton Marion

Dade Rossville Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield

Murray

Summerville

Pickens

Dawson

Hall

Floyd Coosa HS Bartow

Cherokee

Forsyth

Haralson Carroll Heard

Paulding

CobbDoraville Gwinnett

Fire Station 8 GA Tech

E Rivers Sch De Kalb

Douglas

Fulton FCHD Rockdale

Barrow Walton

Clayton

Newton

Coweta

Fayette

Henry

Griffin Butts
Spalding

Jasper

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris

Russell

Muscogee
Cusseta ES
Chattahoochee Marion

Bibb Allied Chem

Crawford

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty

Albany
Worth

Baker

Lanier

Bartow

Cherokee

Forsyth

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Doraville

Fire Station 8 E Rivers Sch

Douglasville

Douglas

Fulton

GA Tech De Kalb FCHD

Clayton

Coweta

Fayette Edgefield

McDuffie

Columbia

Aiken

Bungalow ES
Richmond

Rockdale Henry

Burke
Sandersville

Lathrop Augusta

Shuman MS

Long

Liberty

McIntosh

Brantley

Glynn
Brunswick

Brooks

Lowndes

Echols

PM 10 Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Figure 14: PM10 Monitoring Site Map

34

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Measurement Techniques The Georgia PM10 monitoring network consists of two types of monitors. The first is an event monitor in which samples are collected for 24 hours on a microquartz fiber filter. A specialized sample sorting device is used so that the filter collects only particles 10 microns in size and smaller. The filters are weighed in a laboratory before and after the sampling period. The change in the filter weight corresponds to the mass of PM10 particles collected. That mass, divided by the total volume of air sampled, corresponds to the mass concentration of the particles in the air. Because of the need for manual filter loading and unloading, shipping back to the laboratory, and so forth, there is significant time lag between taking the measurement and obtaining data. The other monitor is fundamentally similar, but has been greatly modernized. It draws particle-laden air through a filter and analyzes how the mass of the filter changes on an hourly or nearly continuous basis. This monitor gives much more information about how PM10 concentrations vary over time, is less labor-intensive, and produces results almost instantly.
Attainment Designation The primary and secondary standards for PM10 are the same. In order for an area to be considered in compliance with the standard, the annual arithmetic mean concentration must be less than or equal to 50 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). The 24-hour standard is met when the 99th percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 150 micrograms per cubic meter [62 FR 38711, July 18, 1997]. For example, if 100 PM10 samples were taken over the course of the year and one sample exceeded 150 micrograms per cubic meter, then the area would meet the standard. If two or more samples were over 150 micrograms per cubic meter, then the area would not be in attainment of the standard. All of Georgia is currently in attainment of the PM10 standard. For additional summary data on this topic, see Appendix A.
35

Average Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10 Annual Arithmetic Means by Metro Area

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000 2001 Year

2002

2003

2004

2005

Albany Augusta Brunswick Columbus Macon Metro Atlanta Metro Savannah Rome Rossville Sandersville Summerville

Figure 15: PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean Chart
As can be seen in Figure 15, several PM10 sites have been added to the network over the course of the past nine years. The overall trend in concentration is downward with the exception of Fulton County during 2000 and 2001. The rise in concentration in Fulton County may be due to increased construction activities during those years. The data generally suggest a slow decrease in PM10 concentrations overall, though 2003 2005 data suggest a minor upturn. It is too soon to tell if this is a change in the trend or normal variation based on changing weather patterns.
PM2.5
Particulate matter including PM2.5 consists of the solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Individually, these particles and droplets are invisible to the naked eye. Collectively, however, they can appear as clouds or a fog-like haze.
Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter is referred to as "fine" particles. In comparison, a human hair is 70-100 microns in diameter. Fine particles are produced by many different sources, including industrial combustion, residential combustion, and vehicle exhaust, so their composition varies widely. Fine particles can also be formed when combustion gases are chemically transformed into particles. Considerable effort is being undertaken by Georgia to analyze the fine PM2.5 particles for the chemical constituents that make up the particles, so pollution control efforts can be focused in areas that create the greatest reductions. We currently monitor fifty-three (53) particle species, which include gold, sulfate, lead, arsenic, and silicon.

36

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Health Impacts Fine particles are of health concern because they can penetrate into the sensitive regions of the respiratory tract and they are linked to the most serious health effects. They can cause persistent coughs, phlegm, wheezing, and physical discomfort.
Several recently published community health studies indicate that significant respiratory and cardiovascular-related problems are associated with exposure to particle levels well below the existing particulate matter standards. These negative effects include premature death, hospital admissions from respiratory causes, and increased respiratory problems. Long-term exposure to particulate matter may increase the rate of respiratory and cardiovascular illness and reduce life span. Some data also suggests that fine particles can pass through lung tissues and actually reach the bloodstream. Children, the elderly, and individuals with cardiovascular disease or lung diseases such as emphysema and asthma are especially vulnerable.
Fine particles can soil man-made materials, making them look sooty and speeding their deterioration. They also impair visibility and are an important contributor to haze.
Measurement Techniques Measurement techniques for PM2.5 are very similar to those for PM10. The official reference method requires that samples are collected on Teflon filters with a PM2.5 sampler for 24 hours. A specialized sample sorting device is used so that the filter collects only particles 2.5 microns in size and smaller. The filters are weighed in a laboratory before and after the sampling period. The change in the filter weight corresponds to the mass of PM2.5 particles collected. That mass, divided by the total volume of air sampled, corresponds to the mass concentration of the particles in the air for that 24-hour period. Only these reference method filters may be used for attainment determinations.
As with PM10, continuous samplers are also used to report "real time" data to support public information efforts. The instrument is identical to that used in PM10 monitoring with the exception that the sample sorting device used allows only the smaller PM2.5 particles to be collected. It is important to note, though, that because EPA does not certify these instruments as being fully equivalent to the reference method when sampling PM2.5, data from the continuous samplers cannot be used for attainment determinations relative to the PM2.5 standards. Continuous PM2.5 data is reported every hour on the Ambient Air Monitoring web page located at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the location of Georgia's PM2.5 monitors.
37

Sequatchie

Hamilton Marion

Dade Rossville
Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield Murray

Pickens

Dawson

Floyd Coosa HS Bartow

Cherokee

Forsyth

Hall
Gainesville

Madison

Haralson

Paulding

Kennesaw

Cobb

Doraville

Gwinnett TechBarrow

Clarke UGA

Yorkville Macland Ctr Gwinnett E Rivers Sch
Fire Station 8 DeKalb

Walton

OconeeColOleggleethSotrapteion

Douglas

Fulton

S DeKalbRockdale

Carroll

Forest Park Clayton

Newton

Fayette

Henry

Heard

Coweta

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Edgefield

McDuffie

Columbia Richmond

Aiken
Bungalow ES GA Med Col

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris
Columbus Airport
Muscogee
Muscogee Cusseta ES
Chattahoochee Marion Russell

Bibb

Gordon GA Forestry

Crawford Allied ChemTwiggs

Warner Robins
Houston

Sandersville

Terrell

Lee

Albany

Dougherty

Worth

Burke

Effingham

Market St

Bryan

Mercer Mid

Chatham

Long

Liberty

McIntosh

Baker

Lanier

Brantley

Glynn
Brunswick

Brooks

Valdosta
Lowndes
Echols

PM 2.5 FRM Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Figure 16: PM2.5 Reference Method Monitoring Site Map

38

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Sequatchie

Hamilton

Rossville
Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield

Murray

Pickens

Dawson

Floyd



Bartow

Coosa HS

Cherokee

Forsyth

Hall

Madison

Yorkville
Paulding Haralson
Douglas

Carroll

Newnan

Heard

Coweta

Cobb

Gwinnett Tech
Gwinnett
DeKalb

Barrow

College Station

UGA

Clarke Oglethorpe

Oconee

Confederate

Fulton

Rockdale

Clayton S DeKalb

Walton
Social Circle

Henry

Newton

Fayette

McDonough

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Pike Meriwether

Harris

Columbus Airport
Muscogee

Cusseta ESChattahoochee
Russell

Marion

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

GA Forestry

Bibb
Allied Chem

Crawford

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Lanier

Edgefield

McDuffie

Columbia

Aiken


Richmond Bungalow ES

Burke


General Coffee

Effingham

Lathrop Augusta

Bryan

Chatham

Long

Liberty

Brantley

McIntosh Glynn

Brooks
PM 2.5 Continuous PM 2.5 Speciation
Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Lowndes

Echols

Figure 17: PM2.5 Monitoring Site Map, Continuous and Speciation Monitors

39

Attainment Designation For an area to be in attainment of the national primary and secondary annual ambient air PM2.5 standard, it must have an annual arithmetic mean concentration of less than or equal to 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter. In addition, there is a 24-hour primary and secondary standard that requires that the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration be less than or equal to 65 micrograms per cubic meter [62 FR 38711, July 18, 1997]. All sample analyses used for determining compliance with the standards must use a reference method based on information in 40 CFR Appendix L or an equivalent method as designated in accordance with Part 53. Because the PM2.5 standard required three years of monitoring data before attainment or nonattainment could be determined, Georgia's attainment status was not determined until late 2004. As was expected, large portions of the United States were found to be in nonattainment of the standard when EPA made its initial attainment determinations. Based on the three years of data, EPA officially declared several areas of Georgia in nonattainment of the standard. Walker and Catoosa Counties may be included in the metro Chattanooga nonattainment area, though their status is still under review. Bibb and portions of Monroe Counties have been included in the Macon nonattainment area. Floyd County itself has been declared a nonattainment area. Finally, the metro Atlanta nonattainment area has been also declared. This includes Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton Counties, along with portions of Heard and Putnam Counties. Figure 18 illustrates the boundaries of Georgia's PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Figure 19 shows all the PM2.5 (FRM) monitoring sites in the Southeastern United States that may be used for comparison with the NAAQS, highlighting the sites whose 2005 annual averages were in excess of the NAAQS.
40

CATOOSA WALKER

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

FLOYD

BARTOW

CHEROKEE

FORSYTH

HALL

PAULDING

COBB

GWINNETT

BARROW

CARROLL

DOUGLAS

Heard partial

COWETA

FULTON

DEKALB ROCKDALE

WALTON

CLAYTON

NEWTON

FAYETTE

HENRY

SPALDING

Putnam partial

Monroe partial

BIBB

Figure 18: Georgia's PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Map 41

Missouri
Arkansas

Louisiana

Illinois








Mississippi






Ohio

New Jersey Maryland District of Columbia Delaware

Indiana












Kentucky







West Virginia

Virginia

Tennessee






















North Carolina























Alabama










Georgia




South Carolina














































Florida

PM 2.5 Exceedances PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites







Figure 19: PM2.5 Monitoring Sites, Southeastern U.S., with 2005 Annual Mean Exceeding NAAQS

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report (this page intentionally left blank)
43

Gordon Sandersville
Rossville Augusta Bungalow Rd.
Augusta Medical Col. Yorkville
Columbus Cussetta Rd. Columbus Airport**
Columbus Health Dept. Valdosta
Warner Robins Gainesville Gw innett Brunsw ick
Site Atlanta Fire Station # 8 Atlanta E. Rivers School Rome Albany Doraville South DeKalb
Pow der Springs, Macland Kennesaw Forest Park
Athens College Station Rd.** Athens UGA*
Savannah Mercer Savannah Market St.
Macon Forestry Macon Allied Chem.
0.0

PM2.5 Mass Concentration Annual Average (Arithmetic Mean)

5.0

10.0

15.0

Concentration (ug/m 3)

Figure 20: PM2.5 Annual Mean, By Site 44

99-01 00-02 01-03 02-04 03-05
Standard: 15 micrograms per cubic meter

20.0

25.0

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report As can be seen in Figure 20, concentrations of PM2.5 have been decreasing, with many sites having a three-year average below the annual standard. The sites exceeding the standard are generally in north and central Georgia. The * for the Athens-UGA site indicates that the sampler was shut down early in 2005. Therefore less data was used when obtaining this average. The ** for the Athens-College Station Road and the Columbus Airport sites indicates that these sites were set up in 2005, and the data used for the average was only from 2005, not a three year average. Specific annual summaries for 2005 may be found in Appendix A.
PM2.5 Speciation
As required by the National PM2.5 Speciation program (40 CFR 58), EPD now monitors not only the mass concentration of fine particulate matter (in micrograms per cubic meter of air) but also for the chemical composition of those particles. Doing so serves a number of important purposes. As controlling fine particulate matter concentrations has now become a national priority through their listing in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, regulations intended to reduce levels of fine particulate matter are now being implemented on a widespread basis. The desired reduction of fine particulate matter concentrations is expected to produce benefits in human health and to improve visibility by reducing the presence of haze. These particles may have varying health effects depending on their size and chemical composition. The fine particles that compose fine particulate matter are not uniform. While they are all smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, their size varies. Some are emitted into the air directly from sources like engine exhaust, fossil fuel combustion, unpaved roads, and the tilling of fields; others are formed in the atmosphere through reactions between gaseous pollutants. Each individual particle, regardless of its source, has a distinct chemical composition. The overall composition of all of the particles that make up the fine particulate matter in a given volume of air may also vary, depending on local sources and a variety of other factors.
45

Georgia currently monitors fifty-three (53) species, which include gold, sulfate, lead, arsenic, and silicon. However, there are only approximately six (6) chemicals that are detected frequently. Of these, sulfate and organic carbon are detected in the highest concentrations. Figure 21, Figure 22, and Figure 23 illustrate the average concentrations of these six chemicals from 2003 to 2005. As can be seen on the graphs, the concentration of each chemical is consistent from year to year. Below the figures is a listing of the most significant chemical constituents of fine particulate matter.

Concentration (g/m3)

2003 PM 2.5 Speciation Parameters Arithmetic Mean

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 Ammonium Ion

Elemental Carbon

Organic Carbon

Sulfate Species

Nitrate

Crustal

Figure 21: 2003 PM2.5 Speciation

Other

Macon Savannah Athens Douglas Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta

46

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Concentration (g/m3)

2004 PM 2.5 Specaited Parameters Arithmetic Mean

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 Ammonium Ion

Elemental Carbon

Organic Carbon

Sulfate
Species

Nitrate

Crustal

Figure 22: 2004 PM2.5 Speciation

Concentration (g/m3)

2005 PM 2.5 Speciated Parameters
6

5

4

3

2

1

0 Ammonium Ion

Elemental Carbon

Organic Carbon

Sulfate
Species

Nitrate

Crustal

Other Other

Macon Savannah Athens Douglas Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta
Macon Athens Douglas Atlanta Rome Columbus Augusta Rossville

Figure 23: 2005 PM2.5 Speciation

47

Sulfate products form from the oxidation of SO2 in the atmosphere. SO2 is primarily produced by coal burning boilers.
Nitrate products are formed through a complex series of reactions that convert NOx to nitrates. Vehicle emissions and fossil fuel burning produce NOx.
Crustal products are those components that are the result of weathering of the earth's crust. They may include ocean salt and volcanic discharges. Crustal products include aluminum, calcium, iron, titanium, and silicon.
Elemental carbon is carbon in the form of soot. Sources of elemental carbon include diesel engine emissions, wood-burning fireplaces, and prescribed burning.
Organic carbon particles consist of hundreds of organic compounds that contain more than 20 carbon atoms. These particles are released directly and are also formed are formed through a series of chemical reactions in the air, mostly as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and wood.
Data on the composition of the particles that make up fine particulate matter is a useful input to scientific models of air quality, and will help scientists and regulators track the progress and effectiveness of new pollution controls that are implemented. The data will also greatly improve scientific understanding of how particle composition relates to visibility impairment and adverse effects on human health.
Monitoring for chemical speciation for fine particles began late in 2001, so there is limited data available. As the data set becomes more robust, other conclusions may be drawn. Some general observations can already be made. The concentrations of sulfate and organic carbon are less at the Douglas site than at the remaining seven (7) sites. This is to be expected since the sulfate and organic carbon fractions are mainly caused by human activities. The Douglas-General Coffee site is considered a rural background site and will be used in future comparisons between rural and urban areas.
For additional PM2.5 speciation data, see Appendix B.
Measurement Techniques Particle speciation measurements require the use of a wide variety of analytical techniques, but all generally use filter media to collect the particles to be analyzed. Laboratory techniques currently in use are gravimetric (microweighing); X-ray fluorescence and particleinduced X-ray emission for trace elements; ion chromatography for anions and selected cations; controlled combustion for carbon; and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) for semi-volatile organic particles.
Attainment Designation Particle speciation measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. There are no ambient air quality standards regarding the speciation of particles.
48

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Acid Precipitation
Acid precipitation was monitored in four counties in 2005. The samples were collected weekly and were weighed and analyzed for acidity, conductivity, and selected compounds. The Air Protection Branch operated three of these sites and the Georgia Forestry Commission operated the fourth. There are no national or state standards for acid precipitation, but it is generally desirable for rain to have a relatively neutral pH. This is in contrast to the rain that falls in many regions of industrialized nations, which absorbs ions from air emissions that make it acidic (lower pH numbers). Most of the culprits of this acidification are sulfur and nitrogen compounds; the result is rain that contains excess acidity from sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The excess acidity in the rain causes damage to buildings and vehicles, and can acidify ponds and small lakes to the point of killing off all life in them. Georgia's Acid Rain monitoring network is shown in Figure 24.
49

Sequatchie

Marion

Hamilton

Dade

Catoosa

Walker

Whitfield

Murray

Hiawassee

Summerville

Floyd

Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson Dawsonville
Hall Forsyth

Haralson Carroll Heard

Paulding

Cobb

Gwinnett

Barrow

Douglas Coweta

Fulton

DeKalb

Clayton

Fayette

Henry

Spalding

Walton

Rockdale

Newton

Butts

Jasper

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris

Russell

Muscogee

Chattahoochee

Marion

Crawford

Bibb
Twiggs Houston

Columbia McDuffie
McDuffie

Terrell Lee
Dougherty

Worth

Figure 24: Acid Rain Monitoring Site Map

Acid Rain Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

50

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
As in Figure 25, analysis of statewide average data back to 1982 indicates a small but significant trend toward pH neutrality. The rate of this increase is a pH gain of 0.007 per year over the period shown.

Average pH

Statewide Acid Rain Trends

5.9

5.7

5.5

5.3

5.1

4.9

4.7

4.5

4.3

4.1

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Monitoring Year

Statewide Avg.

pH of pristine rain

Trendline

Figure 25: Acid Rain Trends, Statewide

51

pH

Acid Rain Trends, by Location

5

4.9

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

Dawsonville

4.2

Hiawassee

McDuffie

4.1

Summerville

4 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure 26: Acid Rain Trends, by Area
Analysis of the same data set for individual areas (Figure 26) shows that while through the 1990s Summerville was the most acidic and McDuffie the most neutral, in recent years the difference between these areas has diminished and all of the sites have rainfall with roughly the same pH.

52

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Figure 27 depicts a comparison between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) acid rain monitoring sites and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP) annual average pH readings for 2005. As discussed above, Dawsonville, Hiawassee, McDuffie, and Summerville are in the DNR network. The sites that met the completeness criteria for 2005 in the NADP network are in Bellville, Chula, and Okefenokee. It appears that the annual averages for the NADP sites are slightly less acidic. These NADP sites are south of the fall line. The less acidic rain in the NADP monitoring areas is interesting. The difference may be related to south Georgia's soil, which has more natural buffering capacity.

p H

2005 pH for DNR and NADP Sites in Georgia

4.95 4.9
4.85 4.8
4.75 4.7
4.65 4.6
4.55 4.5
4.45 Dawsonville

Hiawassee

McDuffie

Summerville Site

Bellville

Chula

Okefenokee

Figure 27: Comparison of DNR and NADP Acid Rain Averages

53

54

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
General Information Ozone is the most prevalent photochemical oxidant and an important contributor to smog. The understanding of the chemical processes in ozone formation and the specific understanding of the atmospheric mixture in various nonattainment areas nationwide was considered essential by EPA for solving the ozone nonattainment problems and developing a suitable strategy for solving those problems. In February 1993, the EPA revised the ambient air quality surveillance regulations in Title 40, Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 58) to include provisions for enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), selected carbonyl compounds, and monitoring of meteorological parameters. The enhanced monitoring was to be implemented in cities that were classified as serious, severe, or extreme for ozone nonattainment. The classifications were based on the number of exceedances of the ozone standard, and the severity of those exceedances. Nineteen areas nationwide were required to implement a PAMS network. In the Atlanta metropolitan area, a network of four sites (Figure 28) was established beginning in 1993. The monitoring sites were selected based on the purpose of the monitors in light of the prevailing winds in the area. The Yorkville site serves as a rural background site, upwind of the city, which aids in determining the role of transport of pollutants into the Atlanta area. The South DeKalb and Tucker sites are the primary and secondary wind directions for an urban core-type site. These sites are expected to measure the highest precursor concentrations of NOx and VOCs in the Atlanta area. The Conyers site is the downwind site where titration of the precursors has occurred and the ozone concentrations should be at their highest.
55

Floyd

Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
Hall Forsyth

Yorkville

Paulding

Haralson Carroll

Douglas

Heard

Coweta

Cobb Fulton Fayette

Gwinnett

Barrow

Tucker

DeKalb

Walton

S DeKalb
Clayton

Rockdale
Conyers

Newton

Henry

Spalding

Butts

Jasper Jasper

Meriwether
Figure 28: PAMS Monitoring Site Map

Pike Lamar

PAMS sites

Monroe

Urban Areas

MSAs Shown as Solid Colors Bibb

56

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report An analysis of the PAMS data finds that the top ten volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for all sites contained the following species consistently across the years: isoprene (which is naturally released by vegetation), m/p xylene, toluene, propane, ethane, isopentane or isopentane/cyclopentane, n-butane and n-pentane. Propane, ethane, isopentane, n-butane, and n-pentane have a limited reactivity for ozone formation and therefore were the most prevalent of the volatile organic compounds measured. However, when the characterization of the top ten species is based upon contributions to ozone formation potential, we find that the list is slightly different. Isoprene, the tracer for VOC emissions from vegetation, is by far the largest contributor to ozone formation at every site. The anthropogenic compounds detected at all sites with the highest ozone formation potential were toluene, m/p xylene, propylene, ethylene, and isopentane. The sources for these five compounds are varied. All five compounds are emitted by mobile sources, with ethylene being an important tracer for vehicle emissions. Toluene, the most abundant species in urban air, m/p xylene, and isopentane also are emitted by solvent use and refinery activities.
57

Isoprene is a 5 carbon organic compound released in large quantities by conifer trees. These trees are very abundant in the Southeastern United States contributing a significant portion to the overall carbon loading of the atmosphere in this region. Isoprene's chemical structure makes it a highly reactive substance with a short atmospheric lifetime and large ozone forming potential. Toluene reaches the air from a variety of sources such as combustion of fossil fuels and evaporative emissions. It has a substituted benzene ring possessing modest atmospheric reactivity. This hydrocarbon is in motor vehicle fuel and is also used a common solvent in many products such as paint. Figure 29 and Figure 30 compare the seasonal occurrence of these two compounds throughout the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. These figures combine the 6-day 24-hour data from the four PAMS sites. Evidence of isoprene's natural origin is shown in Figure 29, where the ambient concentration is essentially nonexistent from November to May. All four sites exhibit the seasonal cycle, with an occasional spike outside the consistent cycle. The site with the highest concentration of isoprene appears to vary year to year. One would expect to see Yorkville or Conyers with the higher levels, considering the rural area or semi-rural area in which these sites are located. As part of the seasonal cycle, in 2003, Conyers had the highest concentration with 16 ppbC, in 2004 Yorkville had the highest with 17 ppbC, but in 2005, South DeKalb had the highest with 18 ppbC. Tucker had a spike of isoprene concentration (18 ppbC) in November of 2003, which did not fit the seasonal pattern seen for the majority of the three years of data.

Concentration (ppbC)

Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005

20

18

16

South DeKalb

Tucker

14

Yorkville

12

Conyers

10

8

6

4

2

0 January-0M3arch-03 May-03 JSuelyp-0te3mbNeor-v0e3mberJ-0a3nuary-0M4arch-04 May-04 JSuelyp-0te4mbNeor-v0e4mberJ-0a4nuary-0M5arch-05May-05 JSuelyp-0te5mbNeor-v0e5mber-05
Date

Figure 29: Isoprene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005 58

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Toluene's atmospheric levels are more or less constant throughout the year suggesting a constant level of emissions year-round (Figure 30). There is an occasional spike in concentration, but no evident high or low pattern over the three years of data. The jaggedness of these graphs is an artifact of the sampling frequency.

Concentration (ppbC)

Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005

50

45

South DeKalb

40

Tucker

35

Yorkville

Conyers

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 January-0M3arch-03May-03 JSuelyp-t0e3mbNeor-v0e3mberJ-0a3nuary-0M4arch-04May-04 JSuelyp-t0e4mbNeor-v0e4mberJ-0a4nuary-0M5arch-05May-05 JSuelyp-t0e5mbNeor-v0e5mber-05
Date

Figure 30: Toluene Yearly Profile, 2003-2005

59

The daily profile plots for toluene and isoprene found in Figure 31, produced using data gathered in the summer, show a constant background of toluene emissions with spikes of toluene resulting from morning and evening rush hour traffic. This graphs depicts the typical diurnal profile for an urban area. During morning hours, when the nocturnal inversion has not yet broken up, emissions become trapped within the boundary layer resulting, in a temporary increase in atmospheric concentration. Nighttime toluene levels are constant from midnight to 5:00 am. From 6:00 am to 7:00 am, enhanced vehicular activity releasing its emissions into an atmosphere with limited dispersing ability produces an increase in the ambient concentration. This behavior is typical of area source anthropogenic emissions with modest to long atmospheric lifetimes. Isoprene, on the other hand, exhibits very different behavior. At night emissions go to zero as photosynthesis ceases. At sunrise (about 6:00 am) concentrations begin to rise and continue to do so throughout the daylight hours. The vertical flux, or mass input per unit area, in the atmosphere of this substance is massive, being only slightly influenced by the enhanced mid-morning mixing. This effect can be seen at 9:00 am when slight drop in concentration occurs followed by a quick resumption in rise.

Typical Urban Diurnal Profile, Toluene & Isoprene

Concentration (ppbC)

12.0 10.0
8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time of Day
Figure 31: Toluene & Isoprene, Typical Urban Daily Profile

Toluene Isoprene

60

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Carbonyl Compounds
Carbonyl compounds define a large group of substances, which include acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These compounds can act as precursors to ozone formation. Tucker is part of the PAMS network and South DeKalb is part of both the PAMS network and the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) network. Both of these sites sample every six days. Savannah, Dawsonville, and Brunswick are part of the Air Toxics network and sample every twelve days. For a map of monitoring locations, see Figure 32.
Acrolein is primarily used as an intermediate in the manufacture of acrylic acid. It can be formed from the breakdown of certain organic pollutants in outdoor air, from forest fires and wildfires, as well as from vehicle exhaust.
Acetaldehyde is mainly used as an intermediate in the production of other chemicals. Acetaldehyde is formed as a product of incomplete wood combustion (in fireplaces and woodstoves, forest fires, and wildfires), pulp and paper production, stationary internal combustion engines and turbines, vehicle exhaust, and wastewater processing.
Formaldehyde is used mainly to produce resins used in particleboard products and as an intermediate in the production of other chemicals. The major sources of emissions to the air are forest fires and wildfires, marshes, stationary internal combustion engines and turbines, pulp and paper plants, petroleum refineries, power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators, and vehicle exhaust.
Acetone is used industrially as a reactant with phenol to produce bisphenol A, which is an important component of polymers. It is used in nail polish removers, superglue removers, and as a drying agent. It is also used to dissolve plastic. Acetone is highly volatile and evaporates quickly. Inhalation of acetone can lead to liver damage.
Benzaldehyde is the simplest form of the aromatic aldehydes. It has an almond scent and is used in the food industry. It is also used as an industrial solvent, and is used in making pharmaceuticals, plastic additives, and aniline dyes. Liquid phase oxidation or chlorination of toluene can form benzaldehyde; so can a reaction between benzene and carbon monoxide. The combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, wood burning and incinerators emit benzaldehyde into the atmosphere.
Butyraldehyde is used in the manufacture of synthetic resins, solvents, and plasticizers. It is emitted into the air by combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, and wood.
Propionaldehyde is a highly volatile compound that is produced or used in the making of propionic acid, plastics, rubber chemicals, alkyd resins, and used as a disinfectant and preservative. It is released into the atmosphere by combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, wood, and polyethylene.
61

Whitfield Murray

Pickens

Bartow

Cherokee

Dawson
DawsonvilleHall
Forsyth

Paulding Cobb

Douglas

Fulton

Carroll

Barrow

Gwinnett
Tucker
De Kalb

Walton

S DeKalb

Rockdale

Clayton

Newton

Coweta

Fayette

Henry Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Madison

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Meriwether

Pike

Lamar

Monroe

Jones

Harris

Muscogee

Chattahoochee Russell

Marion

Bibb Crawford

Twiggs

Houston

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Lanier

Brooks Lowndes

Echols

Edgefield

McDuffie

Columbia Richmond

Aiken

Burke

Long

Liberty

E President

McIntosh

Brantley

Glynn
Brunswick

Carbonyls Sites Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Color

Figure 32: Carbonyls Monitoring Site Map

62

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
As can be seen in Figure 33, when the average concentration of all carbonyls is compared with the total number of detections at each of the measurement sites, the carbonyl detections and concentrations tend to track each other directly. It should be noted that South DeKalb's average carbonyl concentration is about half that of Tucker's. This is unexpected due to the relative proximity of the two sites. That may be a result of their positioning relative to local roads, though. The Tucker site is very close to a secondary road, while South DeKalb farther from any roads, it is in an area dominated by the intersection of Interstates 20 and 285. It should be noted that the South DeKalb and Tucker sites collect data every six days, while Savannah, Dawsonville, and Brunswick collect data every twelve days. All else being equal, by taking twice as many samples at those locations, one would normally expect to see twice as many detections.

Total Average Concentration (g/m3)
Total Number of Detections

2005 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Species

35.0

250

224 30.0

200

200

25.0

20.0

150

15.0

89

10.0

75

5.0

96 100 50

0.0 Savannah Dawsonville S. DeKalb

Tucker

Name of Site

0 Brunswick
Total Average Concentration (g/m3) Total Number of Detections

Figure 33: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Site

63

2005 South D eK alb C arbonyls, 3-H our

Average Concentration (g/m3)

9 8 7 6 5
4 3 2 1 0
6:00

9:00 Tim e

12:00

15:00

Form aldehyde A c e to n e A c e ta ld e h y d e B e n za ld e h y d e P ro p io n a ld e h yd e B u tyra ld e h yd e
A c ro le in

Figure 34: Average South DeKalb 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005
The average concentration value of all 3-hour samples of carbonyls collected during the summer months (June, July, and August) has been combined for a given hour and is shown in Figure 34 for the South DeKalb site and Figure 35 for the Tucker site. The early morning ambient formaldehyde and acetone concentrations at the Tucker site is two times as large as at the South DeKalb site. Actetaldehyde levels differ by a somewhat lesser amount. This difference becomes a bit reduced in the afternoon hours. A strong emissions source appears to be present in the vicinity of the Tucker site.

64

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
2005 Tucker Carbonyls, 3-hour

Average Concentration (g/m3)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

6:00

9:00 Tim e

12:00

15:00

Form aldehyde A c e to n e A c e ta ld e h y d e B e n z a ld e h y d e P ro p io n a ld e h y d e B u ty ra ld e h y d e
A c ro le in

Figure 35: Average Tucker 3-Hour Carbonyls, June-August, 2005

65

Total Average Concentration (g/m3)
Total Number of Detections

2005 Carbonyls, 24-Hour, All Sites

40.0

35.0

182 170

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

67

10.0

5.0

4

0.0

200

170

180 160

140

120

100

80

60

41

50 40

20

0

Formaldehyde AcetaldehydePropionaldehyde Butyraldehyde

Acrolein

Name of Carbonyls Species

Acetone Benzaldehyde
Total Average Concentration (g/m3) Total Number of Detections

Figure 36: Average 24-Hour Carbonyls Concentration vs. Number of Detects, by Species
Figure 36 shows the seven (7) species in the analyte group according to their individual, statewide annual abundance, based on number of detections and average concentration. A rather steep gradient is evident from this graph, with formaldehyde as the most ubiquitous carbonyl. From the graph, it is evident that the average concentration does not indicate accurately the true magnitude of the atmospheric impact. The order of significance when comparing total number of detections versus average concentration is maintained for formaldehyde, acetone and acetaldehyde. With the remaining species that correlation is not maintained; this is likely a result of the limited number of detections for these species.
Measurement Techniques A number of methods are used to conduct the PAMS hydrocarbon portion of the analyses. Throughout the year, 24-hour integrated hydrocarbon samples are taken and analyzed in the EPD laboratory for 56 hydrocarbon compounds. A 24-hour integrated carbonyl sample is taken once every sixth day throughout the year and analyzed. During June, July, and August, four integrated three-hour carbonyl samples are taken every third day. All analyses are conducted at the EPD Laboratory.
During June, July, and August, hydrocarbon samples are analyzed hourly on-site using a gas chromatography unit with a Flame Ionization Detector (FID). The gas chromatograph produces analyses of the ambient air for the same 56 hydrocarbons. Specific annual summaries for 2005 may be found in Appendix D.

66

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Attainment Designation There are no specific ambient air standards for the hydrocarbon and aldehyde species measured under the PAMS program. PAMS measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. By performing these measurements, we can better serve two major goals. First, by studying local atmospheric chemistry, we improve our ability to control the formation of secondary pollutants like ozone and particulate matter. Second, we are monitoring the concentration of pollutants (aside from the defined criteria air pollutants) expected to be harmful to human health, but are not well enough understood to be regulated. By making such data available, scientists who study human health as it relates to air quality can study how these pollutants may affect our health. When this understanding is further refined, their data can serve to guide policymakers toward making decisions that protect public health.
67

68

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Air Toxics Monitoring
General Information The citizens of Georgia have demonstrated a long-term interest in the quality of Georgia's air. Since the 1970's ambient ozone concentrations have been monitored in several communities throughout the state. As the state's population has grown, more compounds have been monitored in ambient air as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. In 1993 the EPD began to monitor a number of compounds that have no established ambient air standard. The monitoring has been conducted under two efforts, the first being the previously discussed Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) project, a federally mandated program for areas in serious, severe, or extreme non-attainment of the ozone standard. The second effort is the EPD-sponsored monitoring activities for ambient concentration of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). That effort was undertaken since monitoring only criteria pollutants would not provide an adequate understanding of the quality of Georgia's air.
In 1994, the EPD conducted an intensive air quality study in Savannah (GADNR, 1996a). In 1996, the EPD conducted an intensive study in Glynn County as part of a multimedia event with EPA (GADNR, 1996b). These studies provided detailed pictures of the air quality in the communities, but the studies were not long-term studies and could not provide information on seasonal variation or trends. A reassessment of the toxic monitoring program occurred, and in 1996 the EPD embarked on an ambitious project of establishing a statewide hazardous air pollutant-monitoring network. The network was not designed to monitor any one particular industry, but to provide information concerning trend, seasonal variation, and rural versus urban ambient concentration of air toxics. To evaluate the rural air quality, two background sites were proposed: one in North Georgia and one in South Georgia. The majority of the other sites were located in areas with documented emissions to the atmosphere of HAPs exceeding one million (1,000,000) pounds per year as indicated by the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory (GADNR, 1993).
By 2002 the Air Toxics Network consisted of sixteen (16) sites statewide, including a collocated site at Utoy Creek and South DeKalb's National Air Toxics Trends site, monitoring for a common set of toxic compounds. The compounds selected for monitoring are from the list of 188 metals and other compounds identified by EPA as being HAPs. These air pollutants can have effects on human health, ranging from causing headaches, nausea, and dizziness to causing cancer, birth defects, problems breathing, and other serious illnesses. These effects can vary depending on how often one is exposed, how long one is exposed, the health of the person that is exposed, and the toxicity of the compound. These air pollutants also affect the environment. Wildlife experiences symptoms similar to those in humans. Pollutants accumulate in the food chain. Many air pollutants can also be absorbed into waterways and have toxic effects on aquatic wildlife. Some of the substances tend to have only one critical effect, while others may have several. Some of the effects may occur after a short exposure and others appear after long-term exposure or many years after being exposed. Exposure is not only through direct inhalation of the pollutant, but also through the consumption of things like fish that have absorbed the pollutant.
Air toxic compounds are released from many different sources, including mobile sources (such as vehicles), stationary industrial sources, small area sources, indoor sources (such as cleaning materials), and other environmental sources (such as wildfires). The lifetime,
69

transportation, and make-up of these pollutants are affected by weather (rain and wind) and landscape (mountains and valleys). They can be transported far away from the original source, or be caught in rain and brought down to waterways or land. The following section discusses air toxic compounds, possible sources, monitoring techniques, findings for 2005 and a comparison of 2005 data to previous years. In 2004, the Air Toxics Network underwent changes to the detection limits and reporting limits of the chemicals in this network. Each of the new limits is discussed more thoroughly in the following respective sections. Lowering the limit of detection helps the data better represent reality. Instead of only seeing the higher numbers that were detected and using those numbers for average concentrations, one is able to see both sides of the spectrum and have a truer average for each chemical. Also, including the lower concentrations for each chemical allows for a better understanding of what levels can cause chronic health problems. Seeing only the higher levels of concentration, or possibly spikes, only yields data useful for identifying acute health effects. However, with the lower concentration levels included in the data, there can be further assessment of potential chronic health effects. With the lower limits included in the data, one is able to see all possible effects of the chemicals analyzed.
70

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Metals
The metals subcategory includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, and zinc.
Antimony is used as a hardener in lead for storage batteries, in matches, as an alloy in internal combustion engines, and in linotype printing machines. Antimony compounds are used in making materials flame-retardant, and in making glass, ceramic enamels, and paints. Forms of the antimony metal are also used in medicines. It is also found in gasoline and diesel exhaust.
Arsenic occurs naturally at trace levels in soil and water. Most people are not exposed to arsenic through air pollution, but it can be found in food. The arsenic found in air comes mainly from the burning of coal or fuel oil, from metal smelters or iron foundries, and from burning of wastes.
Beryllium is a lightweight and rigid metal and used in watch springs and computer equipment. It is used in the production of beryllium-copper as an alloying agent. This strong alloy conducts heat and electricity, and is used in spot welding, electrical contacts, and high-speed aircraft. Until 1949, beryllium was used in fluorescent lighting, when it was determined to have caused berylliosis, a disease that primarily affects the respiratory system and skin. Beryllium in ambient air is mainly a result of the burning of coal or fuel oil.
Cadmium emissions, like beryllium and arsenic, are mainly from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal or oil. The incineration of municipal waste and the operation of zinc, lead, or copper smelters also release cadmium to the air. For nonsmokers, food is generally the largest source of cadmium exposure.
Chromium sources include the combustion of coal and oil, electroplating, vehicle exhaust, iron and steel plants, and metal smelters. The emissions from these sources are a combination of elemental chromium and compounds including chromium ions. The most toxic form is hexavalent chromium.
Cobalt is used as a pigment (blue and green coloring agent), as drying agent for paints, inks and varnishes, and as a catalyst for the petroleum and chemical industries. It is found as an alloy for parts in turbine aircraft engines, corrosion-resistant alloys, magnets, battery electrodes, and steel-belted tires. Cobalt also has a medicinal use as a radioactive metal in radiotherapy. It is also found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. Cobalt is actually necessary to many forms of life, when ingested through the digestive tract, in small amounts, as a micronutrient. It is a central component of vitamin B-12. As with most micronutrients, however, human activity can cause it to accumulate in unnatural locations or in unnatural concentrations. In those cases, it may be harmful and is considered a pollutant.
Lead is used in the manufacturing of batteries. The largest source of lead in the atmosphere used to be from the combustion of leaded gasoline. With the elimination of lead from gasoline, lead levels in the air have decreased considerably. Other sources of lead emissions include combustion of solid waste, coal, oils, emissions from iron and steel production, and lead smelters. Exposure to lead can also occur from food and soil. Children
71

are at particular risk to lead exposure, because they commonly put hands, toys, and other items in their mouths that may come in contact with lead-containing dust and dirt. Leadbased paints were commonly used for many years. Flaking paint, paint chips, and weathered paint powder may be a major source of lead exposure, particularly for children. Manganese is a naturally occurring substance found in many types of rock and soil; it is ubiquitous in the environment and found in low levels in water, air, soil, and food. Manganese can also be released into the air by combustion of coal, oil, wood, the operation of iron and steel production plants. Nickel is found in the air as a result of oil and coal combustion, residential heating, nickel metal refining, lead smelting, sewage sludge incineration, manufacturing facilities, mobile sources, and other sources. Selenium is a byproduct of mining and smelting sulfide ores, such as silver, copper, and pyrite. It is found in soils, and can also be released by burning coal. Selenium has photovoltaic and photoconductive properties and is therefore used in photocells and solar panels. It is used as a pigment (red coloring agent) in enamels and glass. It is also used as a toner in photographs and in photocopying. Selenium is also found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. Selenium is a micronutrient, needed at very low levels for the health of all living creatures. It is normally absorbed through the digestive tract, though, and is not desirable in the air. Zinc is found in gasoline and diesel exhaust. It is used to prevent corrosion of galvanized steel. It is also used in die-casting, and as part of battery containers. Zinc has been used as the primary metal in making the U.S. penny since 1982. Zinc compounds are used in making white pigment, sunscreen, deodorant, calamine lotions, and pigments for glow in the dark items. It is also used in the rubber industry. Like selenium, zinc is also a micronutrient needed for the health of living beings when consumed through the digestive system. When found in the air, though, it may be considered a pollutant. See Figure 37 for a map of monitoring locations for metals.
72

Sequatchie Hamilton

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Catoosa Walker

Whitfield Murray

Rome
Floyd Bartow

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
Gainesville DawsonvilleHall
Forsyth

Madison

Yorkville Paulding Cobb

Gwinnett

Barrow

Haralson

Douglas

Utoy Creek SDDe KeaKlb alb

Walton

Fulton

Rockdale

Carroll

Clayton

Newton

Heard

Coweta

Fayette

Henry

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Milledgeville

Harris

Pike Meriwether

Muscogee
Columbus Univ

Lamar Monroe

Crawford

Bibb

Jones
GA Forestry
Twiggs
Warner Robins

Houston

Russell

Chattahoochee Marion

Edgefield

Columbia McDuffie

Aiken
Augusta

Richmond

Burke

E President

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty Baker

Worth

Brooks

General Coffee

Long

Liberty

McIntosh

Lanier
Lowndes
Valdosta
Echols

Brantley

Glynn Brunswick

Metals Urban Areas MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Figure 37: Metals Monitoring Site Map

73

Total Metals Detections 2002-2005

Number of Detects

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Antimony

Arsenic Berrylium Cadmium Chromium

Cobalt

LeadManganese

Nickel Selenium

Zinc

Name of Metal

Figure 38: Total Metals Detections, by Species, 2002-2005

2002 2003 2004 2005

74

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Figure 38 shows the network's frequency of detection for all metallic species at all sites during 2002 through 2005, including the National Air Toxics Trends Site located at South DeKalb. This site was established January 1st, 2003. Unlike the rest of the network measuring metals, the equipment at South DeKalb collects only the PM10 fraction of the total suspended solids. Lower limits of detection (LOD)4 were introduced in September of 2004, resulting in an increase in the number of observations. While this only represented one third of a year for 2004, the rise in detection frequency was quite dramatic. The abundant species rose about 11% over 2003. The change had its most significant effect on the group least observed. In fact, these species are found roughly 20 times more often than any others, and comprise the bulk of the observations. Beryllium and cobalt were not seen in Georgia during 2003. In 2004, beryllium was still not detected, but in 2005, there were fifteen detections. Cobalt was detected 113 times in 2004, and 245 times in 2005. During 2004, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and selenium detections rose significantly over the previous year. Again in 2005, these compounds doubled. For example, nickel was observed only 11 times in 2002, 60 times in 2003, 249 times in 2004, and up to 465 times in 2005. Antimony was added to the list of metals for the 2005 sampling year and detected 447 times. Arsenic was seen quite a few times (207) in 2004, where it had essentially never been detected in the past (two times in 2002 and two times in 2003). In 2005, arsenic's number of detections went up to 368. In 2005, the majority of metals reached 450 detections, with the exception of arsenic (368), beryllium (15), and cobalt (245). Lead, manganese and zinc were detected far more frequently than all the other monitored metals until the lowering of detection limits. These metals are discussed in more detail later in this section. Overall, it is obvious that the lowering of the detection limits has caused a dramatic increase in the number of detections. Although three and four years worth of data are displayed in the following graphs, there has only been one full year of data collected with the lower detection limits. This change will make it difficult or impossible to determine any trends between the newer and older data. As more data is collected with the lower detection limits, trends should be discernible.

4 Limits of detection (LOD) were reduced according to the table below. In addition, all numbers, including those occurring below the designated detection limit, are being reported and included in the data. Values are expressed in g/filter.

Element
Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Manganese Nickel Lead Selenium Zinc

Old LOD
1.2 6 1.2 1.2 6 6 1.2 6 1.2 6 6

New LOD
0.2 0.9 0.1 0.05 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7

75

Figure 39 shows the total number of metal species detected at each site for the years 2003 to 2005. It should be noted that Gainesville has one extra sampling a month, and South DeKalb samples every six days, as opposed to every twelve days for the other sites. Therefore, it is understandable that these sites have the highest number of detections. Without these sites included in the graph, the distribution across the sites would be relatively similar. Detects have risen in 2004 and 2005 in response to the lower LOD. The overall increase ranges from 30 to 50% more detections from 2003 to 2004, and again from 2004 to 2005. In 2003 detections ranged from a low of 74 at Valdosta to a high of 170 at South DeKalb. In 2004, the lowest number of detections was 130 at Rome, and the highest was 356 at South DeKalb. Then in 2005, the lowest number of detections was 196 at Valdosta, and the highest number was 509 at South DeKalb. Valdosta consistently had fewer detections than most other sites. The variability across the various sampling locations is modest, considering the vast geographic distribution of the sites, and climatological and anthropogenic influences from nearby urban development. By looking at the site-specific yearly average concentration, the significance of the change in limit of detection (LOD) is apparent.
76

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Total Detects

Total Metals Detected Per Site, 2003-2005
600

500

400

300

200

100

0

AugusBtrauCnoswffeicekCounCtoylumDbauwssonvGilaleinesville MMacilolendgeville RomSaevSaonuntahhDeKUatloby CreeVkWaladronsetraRobinsYorkville22000034

Site

2005

Figure 39: Total Metals Detected Per Site, 2003-2005

77

Figure 40 compares the annual averages of lead and zinc among all sites in the network for 2003, 2004, and 2005. In the case of lead, lower detection limits resulted in a small acrossthe-board increase in average annual concentration. Augusta's three fold lead increase and Utoy Creek's slight decrease in 2004 are likely not related to changes in LOD. In 2005, Augusta's average lead concentration went back down to about half of its 2004 concentration, while Utoy Creek went back to about its 2003 average concentration. The Valdosta site saw a two-fold increase of lead from 2004 to 2005, and the Coffee County and Columbus sites went back to their 2003 levels, but most of the other sites were consistent from 2004 to 2005. Zinc is consistently seen at higher concentrations than lead for each of the three years, though when comparing the number of detections (Figure 38), both lead and zinc are detected almost the same number of times each year. This would mean the typical detection of zinc is more concentrated than the typical detection of lead. While most of the sites have seen a decrease, or only a slight increase, in zinc despite the lowering of the detection limits, Utoy Creek's zinc levels have consistently increased from 2003 to 2005 and the Dawsonville site saw a two fold increase from 2004 to 2005.
78

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Yearly Average Comparison of Lead and Zinc

Yorkville

Warner Robins

Valdosta

Utoy Creek

Savannah

South DeKalb

Name of Site

Rome Milledgeville
Macon

2005 Lead 2004 Lead 2003 Lead 2005 Zinc 2004 Zinc 2003 Zinc

Gainesville

Dawsonville

Columbus

Coffee County

Brunswick

Augusta 0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

Average Concentration (ug/m3)

0.050

0.060

Figure 40: Yearly Average Comparison of Lead and Zinc, by Site, 2003-2005 79

The seasonal variation of selected metals statewide in 2004 and 2005 is shown in Figure 41.
Although these materials are not removed chemically from the atmosphere, there appears to
be some seasonal dependence on the ambient levels. This seems to be most evident for
zinc and manganese. In 2004, zinc showed a one-third drop in concentration from the first quarter to third quarter (3.01 g/m3 to 2.07 g/m3). In 2005, the appearance of manganese increased from 0.56 g/m3 in the first quarter to 1.60 g/m3 in the second quarter, almost a three-fold increase, and then back down to 0.82 g/m3 in the third quarter, a two-fold
decrease. The particulate metals can be removed from the air by dissolving in rain droplets
and falling to the ground. Rain events can occur preferentially in a given season in a
particular year. The ambient levels of zinc are by far the highest. This metal is roughly
present at three to six times higher concentrations than manganese, which in turn, is
approximately observed at twice the levels of lead.

Concentration (g/m3)

Seasonal Variation for Select Metals, 2004-2005

3.5 3
2.5

2 1.5

1 0.5

0 2004

2005

2004

2005

2004

2005

Lead

Manganese

Zinc

Metals by Quarter

First Second Third Fourth

Figure 41: Seasonal Variation, Selected Metals, 2004-2005

80

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Hexavalent Chromium
Hexavalent chromium (chromium in its +6 oxidation state) in the environment is almost always related to human activity. The presence of chromium compounds is common at hazardous waste sites. From locations such as these, exposure of populations residing or working nearby can occur through exposure to air containing particulates or mists of chromium compounds. These particles can also find their way into drinking water if soluble forms of chromium leach into groundwater. Human exposure can also occur through skin contact with soil at hazardous waste sites. Hexavalent chromium is absorbed most readily thorough the lungs or digestive tract. Other forms of the metal, such as chromium in the +3 oxidation state, occur naturally in the environment and are not as efficient at entering the body. In general, hexavalent chromium compounds are more toxic than other chromium compounds. The toxicity of hexavalent chromium is in part due to the generation of free radicals formed when biological systems reduce hexavalent chromium to the +3 oxidation state. Effects in humans exposed occupationally to high levels of chromium or its compounds, primarily hexavalent chromium, by inhalation may include nasal septum ulceration and perforation, and other irritating respiratory effects. Cardiovascular effects, gastrointestinal and hematological effects, liver and kidney effects, and increased risks of death from lung cancer may also result from such exposure. In addition to the respiratory effects, exposure to chromium compounds can be associated with allergic responses (e.g., asthma and dermatitis) in sensitized individuals Hexavalent chromium dioxide is a tetravalent chromium compound with limited industrial application. It is used to make magnetic tape, as a catalyst in chemical reactions, and in ceramics. Because of its limited industrial uses, the potential for human exposure is less for chromium dioxide than for the more industrially important hexavalent chromium and chromium +3 compounds.
81

This is the first year hexavalent chromium has been monitored at our South DeKalb site. The
data is presented in Figure 42. Observed concentrations range over an order of magnitude, from 0.01 to 0.12 ng/m3 (nanograms per cubic meter). As the data set grows, we will
investigate the magnitude of its health risk, possible seasonal variation in its concentration,
and which wind directions are most associated with elevated concentrations.

Hexavalent Chromium at South DeKalb 0.12

0.10

0.08

ng/m3

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00 January-05 February-05

March-05

April-05

May-05

June-05

July-05

August-05September-05

Date

October-05 November-05 December-05

Figure 42: Hexavalent Chromium at South DeKalb

82

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15)
Chlorinated compounds are very stable in the atmosphere, with lifetimes of several years. Dichlorodifluoromethane was the refrigerant of choice for automotive cooling. This material has not been manufactured since the mid-1990s (cars now use R-134a), yet it remains ubiquitous in the environment. Chloromethane is a volatile industrial solvent. Toluene is major component of paints, solvents and is also present in gasoline. It reaches the atmosphere by way of evaporative emissions as well as incomplete combustion processes. Carbon tetrachloride and the Freons are generally used as refrigerants, industrial solvents, and as fire suppressants (though generally known as Halon in that application).
The atmospheric reactivity of aromatic compounds is relatively high, with lifetimes in the weeks to months range. Except for the chlorinated compound, all others are byproducts of burning gasoline.
Figure 43 shows the statewide detection distribution of toxic (TO-14/15) type volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 2003, 2004, and 2005. This figure shows only the compounds of the group that were actually detected. Although there are 42 species in this analyte group, only a relatively small subset was typically detected with any regularity until the lowering of the detection limits. With lower limits of detection5 beginning in September 2004, the distribution has become more gradual. A rather steep frequency gradient existed between these compounds in 2003. Three compounds were responsible for 75% of all detections: dichlorodifluoromethane, chloromethane and toluene in 2004. In fact, with this change affecting only the last third of the year, the bulk of the observations are now distributed among 20 species for the 2005 data. Additional detections range from a small percentage in abundant species to significant observation rates on many previously undetected compounds. For example, this increase is seen with Freon 11, Freon 113 and carbon tetrachloride. Freon 11 had only two detections in 2003, while Freon 113 and carbon tetrachloride had no detections. In 2004, Freon 11 went up to 152 detections, Freon 113 went up to 148 detections, and carbon tetrachloride went up to 78 detections. Again in 2005, these compounds had about a threefold increase. Even though three years are displayed in the following graphs, there has only been one full year of data collected with the lower detection limits. This will make it impossible to determine any trends as of yet. Hopefully, as more data is collected, trends will be discernible.
5 Detection limits for this analyte group, TO-14/15 Toxic VOCs, were halved beginning in September 2004. The old detection limit was 0.5 ppbv for all species except methylene chloride, which was 5 ppbv. The new detection limits are 0.25 ppbv for all species except methylene chloride, which is at 2.5 ppbv.
83

Name of Compounds

Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15), 2003-2005

Hexachlorobutadiene Freon 114
1,1-Dichloroethane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroethane 1,3-Butadiene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Trichloroethylene Bromomethane 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Chlorobenzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Chlorof orm Styrene
Benzene, 1-ethenyl-4methyl(4-Ethyltoluene) Methyl chloroform(1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Tetrachloroethylene Ethylbenzene o- Xylene(o-Dimethylbenzene) Cyclohexane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene m/p Xylene(m/p-Dimethylbenzene) Carbon tetrachloride Toluene Freon 113 Trichlorofluoromethane(Freon 11) Benzene Dic hlorodif luoromethane Chloromethane

2003 2004 2005

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Detections

Figure 43: Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected, by Compound, 2003 2005

84

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Figure 44 compares the frequency of volatile organic compound detection across all sites in the air toxics network from 2003 to 2005. The lowering of VOC detection limits in 2004 altered the graph significantly. If South DeKalb is excluded, the distribution is relatively even across the state, with the more urban or industrial sites near the upper extreme and the more rural sites near the lower extreme. Again, the South DeKalb site has samples collected every six days, and Gainesville has an extra monthly sampling, compared to the other sites which have samples collected every twelve days. With the change in detection limit, there was almost a doubling of the number of volatile organic compound detections at every site in the air toxics network from 2003 to 2004, and again from 2004 to 2005. As more data is collected in the future, with a consistent limit of detection, hopefully a trend will be apparent.

Number of Detects

Total Volatile Organic Compunds (TO-14/15) Detected Per Site, 20032005
600

500

400

300

200

100

0

AugustaBrunsCwoicfkfee CountyColumbuDsawsonvillGe ainesville

MacMonilledgeville

RomeSavanSnoauhth

DeKalUbtoy

Creek

ValdWoasrtaner

Robins

Yorkville 2003

Name of Site

2004

2005

Figure 44: Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Detected by Site, 2003-2005

85

Figure 45, Figure 46, and Figure 47 display the relationship between the number of detections and the statewide average concentration for the ten common toxic VOCs in 2003, 2004, and 2005 respectively. While the lowering of detection limits in 2004 has affected the total concentrations of many of the compounds, cyclohexane and toluene remain the largest for 2003 and 2004, with dichlorodifluoromethane added to the top constituents in 2005. The average concentrations are comparable between 2003 and 2004, but the limit of detection effect of the last third of the year resulted in almost twice as many observations as well as the observation of previously undetected species such as carbon tetrachloride and Freon 113. In both 2003 and 2004, chloromethane and dichlorodifluoromethane are seen most frequently, however, a significant portion of the airborne mass of this analyte group resided in cyclohexane and toluene. In 2005, there was a significant increase in average concentration and number of detections for several of the compounds. In 2004, the limits of detection (LOD) were lowered for the volatile organic compounds. At least partly for this reason, the number of detections increased from 2004 to 2005. There was a three to four fold increase for a few compounds, including benzene, trichloroflouromethane, Freon 113, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and m/p Xylene (Figure 46 and Figure 47). There were also a few compounds that had a twofold increase, including ethyl benzene, o-Xylene, cyclohexane, and toluene. Dichlorodiflouromethane and chloromethane each had about one hundred more detections each for 2005.

Statewide Average vs Number of Detections, Selected VOCs, 2003

Average Concentration (ppbv) Number of Detections

3.5

3

2.5

366

2

279

1.5

1 108
0.5

0

24

29

17

2

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

3

0

Cyclohexane

TolCuDehinlcoehrolomroedthimfalu/noperXomyleentheaT(nmriec/phB-loDerionmfzleuetonhreyolmbeenthzeannee)(CoF-areXrboyonlen1nt1ee)(tora-Dchimloeritdheylbenzene)Freon

113
Average(ppbv) Detections

Name of Selected Compounds

Figure 45: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2003

86

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Number of Detections

Average Concentration (ppbv)

Statewide Average vs Number of Detections, Selected VOCs, 2004

3.5

500

3

2.5

384 343

450 400 350

2

1.5

216

1

165

152

300

250

200

148

150

0.5

73

58

78

49

100 50

0

0

Cyclohexane

TolCuDheilncoehrolomroedthimflau/npoerXomyleentheTa(mnriec/ph-BloDerionmfzleuetonhreyolmbeenthzeannee)(CoF-areXrboyonlen1nt1ee)(tora-Dchimloeritdheylbenzene)Freon

113
Average(ppbv) Detections

Name of Selected Compounds

Figure 46: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2004
Statewide Average vs Number of Detections, Selected VOCs, 2005

Average Concentration (g/m3)

Number of Detections

3.5

500

3

464 464 455

452

426

450

430

400

2.5

350

2

300

248

250

1.5

194

200

1

129

0.5

126

150 100

50

0

0

Cyclohexane

TolCuDheilncoherolomroedthimflau/npoerXoymleentheTa(mrnice/hp-lBoDerionmfzleuetonhreyolmbeenthzeannee)(CoF-areXrboyonlen1nt1ee)(tora-Dchimloeritdheylbenzene)Freon

113
Average(g/m3) Detections

Name of Selected Compounds

Figure 47: VOCs Average Concentrations vs. Number of Detections, Selected Compounds, 2005
87

When looking at the make up of compounds, one relationship to consider is that between the concentration observed compared to the number of detections of that compound. Cyclohexane consistently had few detections, but one of the highest average concentrations for all three years. This shows that even though there were fewer detections of cyclohexane, each detection carried more weight, or more concentration, of this compound per detection. For dichlorodiflouromethane, there were more detections in relation to the average concentration for 2003 and 2004, but this relationship changed for 2005, with the numbers nearly matching in relation. This would show that each detection of dichlorodiflouromethane increased in concentration from 2003 to 2005. Toluene also shows the relationship of number of detects to average concentration to be nearly matching for 2005, but this relationship has varied over the past three years. Chloromethane consistently had more detections compared to the average concentration. Benzene, m/p-Xylene, trichloroflouromethane, and o-Xylene each went from lower number of detects compared to their average concentrations in 2003, to having more detections than their average concentration in 2005. This would mean that even though there were more detects in 2005, each detection had a lower concentration compared to 2003 and 2004. Carbon tetrachloride and Freon 113 each went from having no detections in 2003 to several detections in 2005, 248 and 430, respectively.
Figure 48 shows the seasonal concentration of all volatile organic compounds (TO-14/15) throughout the Air Toxics Network for 2003 through 2005. While the graph does not suggest a seasonal trend for 2003, the data would suggest a possible seasonal dependence seen in 2004. Warmer weather leads to enhanced chemical activity in the atmosphere and this in turn works to reduce atmospheric levels of chemically degradable pollutants. However, the limits of detection were lowered in September of 2004, also lending to this trend of higher concentration seen in the last quarter. Then in 2005, this trend changes. While there is an increase of concentration for each quarter of 2005, the higher concentration is found in the third quarter, instead of the fourth quarter as seen in 2004. The second and fourth quarters are identical in concentration for 2005. It is somewhat surprising to see the highest concentration in the third quarter of 2005, since these compounds are usually degraded in chemical activity in the warmer months. It is hard to suggest a trend when there is only one year's worth of data under the newer detection limits. As more data is collected in the coming years, trends should be discernible.
88

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Volatile Organic Compounds (TO-14/15) Seasonal Observations Total Loading
Statewide, 2003-2005

Concentration (ppb)

400 350 300 250 200
150 100
50 0 1st

2nd
3rd Quarter

2005 2004 2003 4th

Figure 48: Volatile Organic Compounds, Seasonal Effects, 2003-2005

89

Concentration (ppb)

Total Volatile Organic Compound (TO-14/15) Loading by Site, 2003-2005

200

180

2003

2004

160

2005

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Augusta BrunswCicokffee County ColumbusDawsonville Gainesville

MaconMilledgeville

Rome SavannaShouth DeKalbUtoy Creek

Site

Valdostaarner Robins W

Yorkville

Figure 49: Total Volatile Organic Compound Loading all Species, by Site, 2003-2005
Figure 49 shows the total volatile organic compound concentration, or loading, at each site for 2003 through 2005. VOC levels at sites located close to or within urban centers (South DeKalb, Utoy Creek) show higher levels of these pollutants, while sites in smaller communities or rural areas (Coffee County, Dawsonville, and Yorkville) show lower levels. In 2003, the statewide range from most to least polluted is about five fold, indicating a significant gradient. In 2004, most sites had a slight increase from 2003, but Rome and Brunswick both had at least a doubling in concentration. While it was expected for the total mass to rise across the board, it is somewhat surprising to see a site such as Rome more than double in quantity. This is likely due to an increase6 in emissions near the site, and not the lower limit of detection used for the last third of the year. In 2005, Rome's total concentration went back down, not to its 2003 level, but suggesting that maybe there were more emissions near this site in 2004. A lower detection limit should have a dramatic effect on the number of detections, but since those are restricted to the lowest of values, the effect on the total mass should be more subtle. In 2005, most of the sites' concentrations continued to increase, except for Columbus, Rome, and Valdosta, which saw at least a slight decrease. Again, it is hard to determine a trend from year to year since the detection limits were changed in late 2004. As more data is collected in the following years, hopefully a trend will be discernible. When considering Figure 49, it is important to note that South DeKalb and Gainesville could
6 The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) gives estimates for emissions for all counties within the state. Release Year 2003 data was frozen on December 28, 2004 and released to the public May 11, 2005.
90

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report appear artificially elevated since these two sites have a larger number of scheduled observations than the rest of the sites in the network. South DeKalb samples on a 6-day schedule, and Gainesville has an additional sample collected per month over the rest of the network's 30 or so scheduled samples. For a map of VOC and SVOC monitoring locations, see Figure 50.
91

Sequatchie Hamilton

Catoosa Whitfield Murray
Walker

Floyd Bartow
Rome

Pickens Cherokee

Dawson
DawsonvilleHall Gainesville
Forsyth

Madison

Yorkville Paulding Cobb

Gwinnett

Barrow

Haralson

Douglas

Utoy Creek De Kalb

Walton

Fulton

{

Rockdale

Carroll

S DeKalb

Clayton

Newton

Heard

Coweta

Fayette

Henry

Spalding

Butts

Jasper

Clarke Oconee

Oglethorpe

Milledgeville

Harris

Pike Meriwether

Muscogee
Columbus Univ

Lamar Monroe

Crawford

Bibb

Jones
GA Forestry
Twiggs
Warner Robins

Houston

Chattahoochee Russell

Marion

Edgefield

Columbia McDuffie

Aiken
Augusta

Richmond

Burke

E President

Terrell

Lee

Dougherty

Worth

General Coffee

Long

Liberty

McIntosh

Baker

Brooks
SVOC / VOC Sites { VOC Site

Lanier
Lowndes
Valdosta
Echols

Brantley

Glynn Brunswick

Urban Areas

MSAs Shown as Solid Colors

Figure 50: VOC and SVOC Monitoring Site Map

92

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, also called semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) are chemical compounds that consist of fused, six-carbon aromatic rings. They are formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel fuel, fat or tobacco. Over 100 different chemicals are comprised within this designation. Many of them are known or suspected carcinogens. Some environmental facts about this class of compounds are mentioned below.
PAHs enter the air mostly as releases from volcanoes, forest fires, burning coal, and automobile exhaust.
PAHs can occur in air attached to dust particles. Some PAH particles can readily evaporate into the air from soil or surface waters. PAHs can break down by reacting with sunlight and other chemicals in the air over a
period of days to weeks. PAHs can enter water through discharges from industrial and wastewater treatment
plants. Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water. They stick to solid particles and settle to
the bottoms of lakes or rivers. Microorganisms can break down PAHs in the soil or water after a period of weeks to
months. In soils, PAHs are most likely to stick tightly to particles. Certain PAHs move through
soil to contaminate groundwater. PAH content of plants and animals may be much higher than the PAH content of the
soil or water in which they live. For a map of SVOC monitoring locations, see Figure 50.
93

Total Mass (g/m3) Number of Detections

2004 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections

0.012

80

70 0.010
60 0.008
50

0.006

40

0.004

25

0.002

13 9

0.000

3

2

1

Benzo(a)anthIrnadceennoe(1-2-3-cd)pyrene Phenanthrene

FlouranthBeneenzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(e)pyBreennezo(b)flouranthene

Name of Compound

30 20 10 10
Total Mass Detections

Figure 51: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections, 2004
Figure 51 and Figure 52 show the total number of times each of the semi-volatile compounds were detected and the total mass of those compounds across the statewide network of sites in 2004 and 2005. In 2003, only benzo(a)anthracene was detected on two occasions at a single site- Augusta. The limits of detection (LOD) for these substances have not been lowered. However, beginning in September 2004 the reporting limit was reduced and now includes all observations above and below the LOD. This had a dramatic effect on the data, multiplying the number of detections. Even so, this analyte group is seen only rarely when compared to any other group in this report. In fact, the most frequently detected semivolatile, benzo(a)anthracence, was only seen 25 times across the network in 2004. That is only a fraction of chloromethane (384 times) or even formaldehyde (160 times) detected in 2004. Phenanthrene had the highest total mass, with 0.0593 g/m3 in 2004, but the compound with the highest total mass in 2005 was acenphthylene with 0.1015 g/m3. This compound, acenphthylene, was not detected in 2004. The number of compounds with detections went from seven in 2004 to twelve in 2005. The compound with the highest frequency of detection was fluoranthene, up to 77 detections in 2005 from only three in 2004. The total mass of fluoranthene went from 0.00079 g/m3 in 2004 to 0.04373 g/m3 in 2005. Again, as with VOCs, the most abundant species in terms of mass is not necessarily the one most commonly detected. In this case, benzo(a)anthracence, the compound with the highest number of detections in 2004, had the third highest total mass and phenanthrene had the
94

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
highest total mass but the third highest number of detections. In 2005, fluoranthene had the highest number of detections, but the fourth highest total mass, and acenphthylene had the highest total mass, but the fourth highest number of detections.

Total Mass (g/m3) Number of Detections

2005 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections

0.120

80

77

70 0.100

60

0.080

56

50

0.060

40

0.040

32

30

0.020

16

3

3

0.000

10

1

1

2

3

20 5 10
0

NaphthaAlecneenphthylene

FluorePnheenanthreFnleuoranthene BenPzyore(an)eaBnetnhzraoc(be)nfleuBoernaznoth(ke)nfleuorantBheennzeoB(ee)npzyor(egn,he,i)perByleennzeo(a)pyrene

Total Mass Detections

Name of Compound

Figure 52: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Total Mass vs. Number of Detections, 2005

95

Number of Detections

Total Semi-Volatile Compounds Detected, Per Site, 2004-2005 25

20

15

10

5

0

AugustBarunCswofifceke CountCyolumbDuaswsonviGlleainesville MacMoinlledgeville RomSeavannUahtoy CreekVaWldaorsntaer RobinsYorkville

Name of Site

2004 2005

Figure 53: Total Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Detections, by Site, 2004-2005
Figure 53 displays the number of detections according to site in 2004 and 2005 for all semivolatile species combined in the air toxics network. While the scarce number of detects precludes making any serious assertions, the new reporting limit has had an obvious effect on the data. Yorkville had no detections in 2004, and in 2005, the site had twelve detections. Rome had only one detection in 2004, and this number went up to 19 detections in 2005. Since the reporting limits changed in the last part of 2004, and there has only been one full year of data collected with the new limits, it is difficult to discern any trends. As more data is collected in the following years with the new reporting limits, trends should become clear again.
Monitoring Techniques In 2005, samples were collected from a total of sixteen sites, including a collocated site (a site that has two monitors of each type and acts as a quality assurance site for precision and accuracy calculations) and two background (rural) sites.
The compounds sampled at the ATN sites are shown in Appendix E. The list was derived from the 188 compounds EPA has designated as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Many of the HAPS do not have standardized ambient air sampling and analytical methods. In order to collect the compounds of interest for the Georgia network, three types of samplers are used at all locations: the HIVOL, PUF, and canister. Also, carbonyls are monitored at three of the air toxics sites (as well as two PAMS sites).
96

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
This equipment samples for metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and volatile organic compounds once every twelve days following a pre-established schedule that corresponds to a nationwide sampling schedule. On the twelfth day the sampler runs midnight to midnight and takes a 24 hour composite sample. The South DeKalb site, which monitors metals and volatile organic compounds, collects samples every six days, as part of the National Air Toxics Trends (NATTS) network.
The HIVOL sampler used for sampling for metals is a timed sampler. The sampler is calibrated to collect 1300 to 2000 liters of air per minute. Particulate material is trapped on an 8" x 10" quartz fiber filter. The particulates include dust, pollen, diesel fuel by-products, particulate metal, etc. The filters are pre-weighed at a remote laboratory prior to use and weighed again after sampling. The filters are subjected to a chemical digestion process and are analyzed on an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer.
The PUF (polyurethane foam) sampler used for sampling for semi-volatile organic compounds is a timed sampler. The sampler is calibrated to collect 198 to 242 liters (L) of air per minute. A multi-layer cartridge is prepared which collects both the particulate fraction and the volatile fraction of this group of compounds. The plug, filter and absorbent are extracted at a remote laboratory and analyzed using a gas chromatograph with an Electron Capture Detector (ECD).
The canister sampler used for sampling volatile organic compounds is also a timed sampler. A SUMMA polished canister is evacuated to a near-perfect vacuum and attached to a sampler with a pump controlled by a timer. The canister is filled to greater than 10 psig. The canister is analyzed using a gas chromatograph with mass spectroscopy detection (GC/MS).
The carbonyl sampler at both PAMS and ATN sites is also a timed sampler. An absorbent cartridge filled with dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) coated silica is attached to a pump to allow approximately 180 L of air to be sampled. The cartridge is analyzed using High Performance Liquid Chromatography.
Some of the chemicals monitored in the Air Toxics Network (ATN) are also monitored at sites in the PAMS network. While the monitoring schedule and some analysis methods are different at the PAMS and ATN sites, the PAMS sites were also evaluated and compared to concentrations measured at nearby ATN sites for this analysis.
Attainment Designation Currently, there are no attainment standards for the air toxics compounds, with the exception of lead, which has its designation as a criteria pollutant. Air toxics measurements are performed to support the regulatory, analytical, and public health purposes of the program. While it is understood that these compounds are toxic, it is not well understood what airborne concentrations of each compound may be harmful. By collecting data about their current concentrations, researchers can later compare our data with health data to determine what levels of each compound may be safe. Eventually, this information can be used in making policy decisions about regulating limits like the NAAQS for these other pollutants.
97

98

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Meteorological Report
According to the National Weather Service office at Peachtree City, Georgia, the climate for north/central Georgia throughout 2005 was variable. January started out warm and dry, with Atlanta, Athens, Columbus, and Macon all reaching at least 71 degrees on the 4th. In fact, the warmth was quite persistent, with Columbus achieving 70 degrees or more in nine of the first twelve days of the month, and Macon accomplishing the feat a remarkable thirteen times in the first fourteen days of the New Year. Temperatures plummeted during the last half of the month, setting the stage for an ice storm January 28th and 29th with accumulations between and of an inch of sleet and freezing rain over a broad area of north and central Georgia (see Table 4 for annual precipitation information).
February experienced moderating temperatures, as Atlanta fell to 32 degrees or lower on just four days. There were warmer temperatures in store for the end of the month, with Columbus setting a record high temperature of 79 degrees on the 22nd. Precipitation-wise, a wetter than normal pattern persisted, as all four cities recorded a surplus in rainfall. A cool March followed, but precipitation continued in abundance at all four locations (Atlanta, Athens, Columbus, and Macon) with excesses ranging from 37% above normal at Athens to 55% above normal in Columbus. The cool, wet trend continued through April. In late April, a polar air mass ushered in near freezing temperatures.
Cooler than normal temperatures continued into May. Monthly precipitation totals were below average in Atlanta, Athens, and Macon. A record amount of rainfall (3.49 inches) on the last day of the month kept Columbus from tallying a substantial monthly deficit. In contrast, Atlanta received less than half its normal monthly precipitation, while experiencing its coolest May since 1997. Also, the cool temperatures were quite prevalent, with Athens and Columbus recording their 8th and 9th coolest May on record, respectively.
June began with very cool temperatures across north Georgia. Persistent easterly winds trapped cool, damp air against the southern Appalachians June 1st 3rd. High temperatures returned to near normal in both Atlanta and Athens on the 4th, but overall both cities were below normal for the month. June also experienced very tropical air, which triggered an abundance of afternoon and evening thunderstorms. This resulted in the third wettest June on record in Columbus with 8.80 inches of rainfall, while Athens was soaked with 10.25 inches, their sixth wettest June ever. Macon followed with 6.49 inches, enough for their tenth wettest June, while Atlanta was the only one to post a deficit (-0.72 inches) for the month (Table 4). Only five ozone violations in June were observed, probably due to the abundance of tropical moisture in place for much of the month. Higher relative humidity (>70%) and cloud cover are typically non-conducive to ozone formation.
99

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D Yearly

+/-

Atlanta

2005 2.57 5.58 7.49 4.36 1.83

1971-2000

30 yr avg

5.03

4.86

5.38

3.62

3.95

2.91 14.63 8.28 0.07 1.98 2.91 3.66 3.63 5.12 3.67 4.09 3.11 4.10 3.82

+5.89

Athens

2005 2.59 4.89 6.85 5.87 2.67 10.25 9.35 5.47 0.17 2.97 2.78 4.55 +10.42

1971-2000

30 yr avg

4.69

4.55

4.99

3.35

3.86

3.94

4.41

3.78 3.53 3.47 3.71 3.71

Macon

2005 2.77 4.85 7.34 3.94 1.84 6.49 7.12 5.54 0.02 2.02 1.78 3.75 +2.22

1971-2000

30 yr avg

5.00

4.79

4.90

3.14

2.98

3.54

4.32

3.79 3.26 2.37 3.22 3.93

Columbus 2005 2.51 5.13 8.94 7.12 4.80

8.80

9.38

6.50 0.50 1.38 5.07 2.38 +13.76

1971-2000

30 yr avg

4.78

4.66

5.75

3.84

3.62

3.51

5.04

3.78 3.07 2.33 3.97 4.40

Table 4: Rainfall Statistics for Selected Cities (Data compiled from National Weather Service at Peachtree City)

During early July, Georgia was significantly impacted by the remnants of tropical systems Cindy and Dennis. Striking the state within days of each other, Cindy arrived on July 6th with flooding rainfall and tornadoes, one of which struck the Atlanta Motor Speedway in Hampton, Georgia. Rainfall ranged between 2 and 6 inches. Following close behind, Hurricane Dennis on the 9th and 10th brought particularly heavy and persistent outer bands of rain that stretched North and South from Americus to the Atlanta metro area. The result was a swath of 4 to 8+ inches of rainfall over a broad area of western Georgia. In their wake, tropical air helped fuel thunderstorms for several more days. The combination of the systems produced the second wettest July on record in Atlanta with 14.63 inches of rainfall. This total was also enough for the fourth wettest month ever in the capital city. July experienced only four ozone violations around metro Atlanta probably due to close proximity of the inland track of Gulf cyclones giving mostly cloudy conditions.
The deluge continued in August due to lingering tropical air and the effects of Hurricane Katrina late in the month. These added substantially to the already hefty summer rainfall amounts. For the second straight month, all the major cities had monthly rainfall totals well above average. Atlanta led the way with 8.28 inches for the month. August rainfall was also sufficient to set some summer season records, with the wettest June through August for
100

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Atlanta and Columbus. High humidity and excessive rainfall for much of August gave metropolitan Atlanta only three ozone violations during the month. These conditions, along with high wind speed, are not conducive to ozone formation.
With a dramatic shift in air mass, tropical air was replaced in September by a dry continental air mass. Atlanta nearly set a new record for its driest September. The record of just 0.04 inches of rain established in 1984 was challenged when 0.07 inches was recorded by month's end. In similar fashion, Macon and Athens witnessed their driest September ever, when only 0.02 and 0.17 inches were recorded, respectively. Along with the dry conditions came an influx of above normal temperatures. Columbus set the warmest average monthly temperature on record with 80.3 degrees, while Macon tied its seventh warmest and Athens recorded its ninth warmest September (Table 5). The drier air mass along with enhanced subsidence over north Georgia during September did manage to give metropolitan Atlanta three ozone violations during the month. Although at times not as extreme, this period of warmer and drier than normal conditions continued through October and November. Additionally, during these two months, Macon nearly equaled its longest streak ever of consecutive days without any measurable precipitation. From October 8th through November 19th, Macon received just a trace of rainfall. That established the second longest dry spell in Macon, with 43 days. The record of 46 days was set in the fall of 1939.

# of days Location greater than or
equal to 90oF

# of days

# of days less # of days less

greater than or than or equal than or equal

equal to 95oF

to 32oF

to 20oF

Atlanta

24

Athens

44

Macon

92

Columbus

74

0

43

4

4

54

4

28

45

2

12

28

1

Table 5: Temperature Statistics for Selected Cities
(Data compiled from National Weather Service at Peachtree City)
In December, the dry, mild conditions were replaced by a series of cold air outbreaks, accompanied by a rather active storm track across the central United States. The result was below normal temperatures. In December temperatures dropped below freezing ten times in the first fourteen days. Sufficient precipitation through most of the month added to the already above-normal totals for the year in Atlanta, Athens, Macon, and Columbus.

101

Summary of Meteorological Measurements
A complete suite of meteorological instrumentation is used to characterize meteorological conditions around metropolitan Atlanta. The basic surface meteorological parameters measured at the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Sites (PAMS) are shown in Table 6. The PAMS sites are Conyers, South DeKalb, Tucker, and Yorkville. All PAMS sensors measure hourly-averaged scalar wind speed and vector-averaged wind direction at the 10meter level, and hourly-averaged surface temperature, relative humidity and barometric pressure at the 2-meter level. Several sites include instruments to record hourly-averaged precipitation, global solar radiation, and total ultraviolet radiation. The standard deviation of the wind direction is also computed at one of the PAMS sites (South DeKalb). In addition to at the PAMS sites, other surface meteorological measurements were made across the state in 2005 and are also shown in Table 6.
102

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Statewide Monitoring
Sites

Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind Dir. (deg)

Sigma Theta (deg)

Relative Humidity
(%)

Solar Radiation
(W/m2)

Total Ultraviolet Radiation
(W/m2)

Barometric Pressure
(mb)

Precip. (in)

Temp (C)

Conyers

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

South

a

a

a

a

DeKalb

a

a

a

Tucker

a

a

Yorkville

a

a

Fort

a

a

Mountain

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Brunswick

a

a

Confederate a

a

Avenue

Dawsonville a

a

Savannah

a

a

E. President

Macon

a

a

Douglasville a

a

Fayetteville a

a

Newnan

a

a

Savannah

a

a

L&A

Table 6: Meteorological Parameters Measured at Statewide Monitoring Sites

103

Ozone Forecasting
Forecasting violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is very important for the protection of public health. Ozone forecasts were made during May through September 2005 by a nine-member team from Georgia Tech and EPD. The team forecasts for the thirteen-county metropolitan Atlanta nonattainment area. This is an area of approximately 4030 square miles. A total of seventeen 8-hour violations were reported for metropolitan Atlanta, three violations for Macon, three violations for north Georgia, two violations for Athens, and one 8-hour violation for Augusta. The forecasting accuracy for the team for the 2005 ozone season was 84.3% on an event to a non-event basis and 64.1% on an air quality index basis for metropolitan Atlanta. The number of observations and predictions for the 2005 ozone season are shown in Figure 54 and Figure 55. The solid-filled circles represent the days the forecast missed violations or predicted violations that did not occur. Much of the season could be characterized in general by humid and unstable conditions. Many of the ozone episodes were characterized by differing synoptic conditions. Two of the more interesting ozone violations occurred around two tropical systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Dennis, and Hurricane Rita, possibly due to enhanced subsidence from outflow of the tropical cyclones. During Hurricane Dennis (July 7th 9th), elevated ozone and PM2.5 readings were observed on July 8th. Hurricane Rita (September 18th 21st) had elevated ozone readings detected at Fayetteville and Yorkville on July 19th that were associated with strong ridging aloft.
104

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Maximun O3 concentrations (ppbv)

2005
110

100

90

80 70

60

50

40 30

110

100 90

JUN

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

120

O3 observed O3 predicted
MAY

100

80

60

40

20

JUL

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Day of the month

Figure 54: Forecasted and Observed 8-Hour Ozone for Metro Atlanta, May-July 2005

Maximun 8-hrs O3 concentrations (ppbv)

2005
100

80

60

40

AUG

20

O3 observed O 3 predicted

100
80
60
40
SEP
20

1

3

5

7

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Day of the m onth

Figure 55: Forecasted and Observed 8-Hour Ozone for Metro Atlanta, AugustSeptember 2005
105

PM2.5 Forecasting
PM2.5 forecasting is conducted year-round for metropolitan Atlanta by the same forecasting team that handles ozone forecasts. The first PM2.5 forecasts were issued for metropolitan Atlanta in October 2003. Figure 56 and Figure 57 show predictions and observations for 2005 using 24-hour rolling averages. As noted in the figures, persistence plays a large role in forecasting PM2.5 levels around metropolitan Atlanta relative to ozone concentrations, since PM2.5 is slower to respond to meso-synoptic changes than is ozone. The longer averaging intervals used for PM2.5 also contribute to this tendency. Some months show more variability relative to ozone forecasts and observations. For example, April shows fairly good agreement between forecasts and observations, but May shows greater variability. The forecasting accuracy for the team for January 2005 through December 2005 was 75.6% based on their ability to predict the following day's AQI category (such as Good, Moderate, etc.). Since PM2.5 behaves differently than ozone and depends on a different suite of meteorological factors, accurately forecasting PM2.5 violations is a difficult task.

24-hours PM2.5 concentrations (ug/m3)

2005
35 30 25 20 15 10
5 0 30

PM 2.5 observed PM 2.5 predicted
JAN

25

FEB

20

15

10

5

0 30

25

MAR

20

15

10

5

0

1

3

5

7

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Day of the m onth

Figure 56: Forecasted and Observed 24-Hour PM2.5 for Metro Atlanta, January-March 2005

106

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

24-hours PM2.5 concentrations (ug/m3)

2005
35 30 25 20 15 10

5 0

35

30

MAY

25

20

15

10

5 50

40

PM 2.5 observed PM 2.5 predicted
APR
JUN

30

20

10

0

1

3

5

7

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Day of the m onth

Figure 57: Forecasted and Observed 24-Hour PM2.5 for Metro Atlanta, April-June 2005

Tropical Storm Activity
The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, shattering previous records on repeated occasions. Several devastating Category 5 hurricanes developed in the Atlantic leaving behind a destructive swath over the Southern US. In addition to flood and tornado damage, several storms influenced air quality across metropolitan Atlanta in advance of the systems.
Hurricane Dennis, an unusually strong July major hurricane, impacted the state from July 7th 9th (Appendix C). The synoptic conditions ahead of the system involved an 850 millibar low pressure system over the Alabama-Georgia border on July 7th, followed by a dry frontal passage the next day. McDonough experienced an ozone violation on July 8th, with N-NW flow downwind of metro Atlanta from the back side of the low pressure system. Newnan also experienced deteriorating air quality with an increase in PM2.5 on July 8th due to recirculation of air.
Hurricane Rita also affected the state's air quality from September 18th 21st (Appendix C). Rita was an intense hurricane that reached Category 5 strength over the central Gulf of Mexico, where it had the fourth-lowest central pressure on record in the Atlantic basin. Although it weakened prior to making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane near the TexasLouisiana border, Hurricane Rita produced significant storm surge along the coastal communities of the Gulf of Mexico. Synoptic conditions over Georgia ahead of the storm included a frontal system south of metropolitan Atlanta on September 18th, with strong ridging behind it as a secondary 850 millibar High built over the Ohio Valley on the 19th. NASA
107

observations showed high aerosol optical depth (AOD) on September 19th on the leading edge of Hurricane Rita with a ridge over the Southeast from subsident outflow. Fayetteville reflected an ozone violation on September 19th, while Douglasville exceeded on the 20th with N-NW to E-SE flow.
108

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Quality Assurance
The purpose of this report is to provide ambient air quality users and the general public with a summary of the quality of the 2005 ambient air monitoring data in quantifiable terms. This is the first edition of the report and presents an overview of various quality assurance and quality control activities. The tables included in this report provide summary data for ambient air monitoring stations in the statewide network.
The Georgia Air Protection Branch mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state. The Ambient Air Monitoring Program provides a key element of that mission through collecting and reporting on quality information on a large number of pollutants and for a vast air-monitoring network. The Ambient Air Monitoring Programs, directed by state law, conducts various monitoring projects in support of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protections Division (EPD), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The monitoring projects include gaseous criteria and non-criteria pollutants, particulate matter, air toxics, non-methane hydrocarbons, and meteorological parameters. Data from these monitoring sources provide the means to determine the nature of the pollution problem and assess the effectiveness of the control measures and programs.
It is the goal of the Ambient Monitoring Program to provide accurate, relevant, and timely measurements of air pollutants and their precursors associated with the corresponding meteorological data to support Georgia's Air Protection Branch for the protection of environment and public health. The Quality Assurance Program conducts various quality assurance activities to ensure that data collected comply with procedures and regulations set forth by the U.S. EPA and can be considered good quality data and data for record.
What is quality assurance? Quality assurance is an integrated system of management activities that involves planning, implementing, assessing, and assuring data quality through a process, item, or service that meets users needs for quality, completeness, representativeness and usefulness. Known data quality enables users to make judgment about compliance with quality standards, air quality trends and health effects based on sound data with a known level of confidence. The objective of quality assurance is to provide accurate and precise data, minimize data loss due to malfunctions, and to assess the validity of the air monitoring data to provide representative and comparable data of known precision and accuracy.
Quality assurance (QA) is composed of two activities: quality control and quality assessment. Quality control (QC) is composed of a set of internal tasks performed routinely at the instrument level that ensures accurate and precise measured ambient air quality data. Quality control tasks address sample collection, handling, analysis, and reporting. Examples include calibrations, routine service checks, chain-of-custody documentation, duplicate analysis, development and maintenance of standard operating procedures, and routine preparation of quality control reports.
109

Quality assessment is a set of external, quantitative tasks that provide certainty that the quality control system is satisfactory and that the stated quantitative programmatic objectives for air quality data are indeed met. Staff, independent of data generators perform these external tasks. Tasks include conducting regular performance audits, on site system audits; inter-laboratory comparisons, and periodic evaluations of internal quality control data. Table 7 illustrates the types of performance audits currently performed by the QA program in 2005. Field and laboratory performance audits are the most common. System audits are performed on an as needed basis or by request. Whole air sample comparisons are conducted for the toxic air contaminants and non-methane hydrocarbons.

Air Monitoring Program
Gaseous Pollutants
Particulate Matter Air Toxic Contaminants

Field Performance
Audit X
X
X

Laboratory Performance
Audit X
X
X

System Audit
X X

Whole Air
Audit
X

Non-Methane Hydrocarbons

X

X

X

X

Meteorology

X

X

Table 7: Audits Performed for Each Air Monitoring Program in 2005
Quality Control and Quality Assessment
The Quality Assurance Program supports all ambient monitoring programs undertaken by Georgia EPD, which in 2005 includes gaseous pollutants, particulate pollutants, air toxics contaminants, non-methane hydrocarbons and meteorological sensors run by the Ambient Monitoring Program. There are approximately 74 air monitoring sites operating in Georgia. Appendix F provides information about the air-monitoring network (i.e., sampling schedules, number of instruments, collection/analysis method, etc.).
The air quality monitors collect data in both real-time and on a time integrated basis. The data is used to define the nature, extent, and trends of air quality in the state; to support programs required by state and federal laws; and to track progress in attaining air quality standards. The precision and accuracy necessary depends on how the data will be used. Data that must meet specific requirements (i.e., criteria pollutants) are referred to as controlled data sets. Criteria for the accuracy, precision, completeness, and sensitivity of the measurement in controlled data sets must be met and documented.
Air Quality Data Actions (AQDA) are key tools used by the Quality Assurance Program to confirm the data set meets the established control limits. They are initiated generally by auditors upon a failed audit and resolved after a review of calibrations, precision checks, and
110

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
audit results. The AQDA must confirm that an analyzer/sampler has operated within Georgia Air Sampling Network's control limits of 15% (10% for PM10 and 4% for PM2.5), or for sitting temperature conditions. Otherwise, further action is taken.
Data without formal data quality objectives (i.e., toxics) are called descriptive data sets. The data quality measurements are made as accurately as possible in consideration of how the data are being used. Quantified quality assessment results describe the measurement variability in standard terminology, but no effort is made to confine the data set to values within a predetermined quality limit.
The Georgia Air Sampling Network's (GASN) Quality Assurance Program is outlined in a sixvolume Quality Assurance Manual. The volumes, listed below, guide the operation of the quality assurance programs used by the GASN.
Volume I: Quality Assurance Plan Volume II: Standard Operating Procedures for Air Quality Monitoring Volume III: Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures Volume IV: Monitoring Methods for the State Ambient Air Quality standards Volume V: Audit Procedures for Air Quality Monitoring
Volume I lists the data quality objectives and describes quality control and quality assessment activities used to ensure that the data quality objectives are met.

Gaseous Pollutants

Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are continuously monitored by an automated network of stations run by the Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring Program. Exposure to these pollutants may cause adverse health effects such as: respiratory impairment, fatigue, permanent lung damage, and increased susceptibility to infection in the general population. Gaseous criteria and non-criteria pollutant data are a controlled data set and are subject to meeting mandatory regulations.

Sampling Cone

Accuracy (field): Annually, EPA conducts field through-the probe (TTP) performance audits for gaseous pollutants to verify the system accuracy of the automated methods and to ensure the integrity of the sampling system.

111

Accuracy is represented as an average percent difference. The average percent difference is the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected accuracy of 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site. Overall, the responses of the individual analyzers indicate that as a whole, the network is providing accurate data. Ninety-five percent of the gaseous pollutant instruments audited in 2005 were found to be operating within the Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring control limits (15%). The most common causes for audit failure are malfunctions within the instrument and leaks in the sampling system. Table 8 and Figure 58 summarize the 2005 performance audit results for the criteria pollutants. UL stands for upper limit and LL stands for lower limit.

Number Average

Pollutant

of

%

Analyzers Difference

Probability Limits

95%UL

95%LL

CO

3

1.9

2.9

-0.9

NO2

5

0.4

1.0

-0.2

O3

24

0.6

1.2

0.0

SO2

9

1.7

3.6

-0.2

Source: Quality Assurance Unit, Accuracy Estimates
Table 8: Results for Criteria Pollutants Performance Audits

112

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Georgia Gaseous Criteria Air Pollutants, Overall Accuracy

Overall Average % Difference

10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8%
-10%
Upper 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit

CO (3 analyzers) 2.9% 1.9% 0.9%

NO2 (5 analyzers)

O3 (24 analyzers)

1.0%

1.2%

0.4%

0.6%

-0.2%

0.0%

Gaseous Criteria Air Pollutants

SO2 (9 analyzers) 3.6% 1.7% -0.2%

Figure 58: Gaseous Criteria Pollutants Accuracy Analysis

In general, the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program satisfied the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) 40 CFR Part 58 and U.S. EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, August 1998. Compliance with these regulations is necessary if the data are to be considered datafor-record.

Precision (field): On a weekly basis, site operators confirm the linear response of the instrument by performing zero, precision and span checks. The zero precision check confirms the instrument's ability to maintain a stable reading. The span precision check confirms the instrument's ability to respond to a known concentration of gas. The degree of variability in each of these weekly measurements is computed as the precision of that instrument's measurements.

Annually, the Quality Assurance Unit conducts a precision data analysis as an overall indicator of data quality. The analysis addresses three parameters: precision data submission, precision data validity, and a combination of the two referred to as data usability rates. The precision performance goal for all three parameters is 85%. The submission rate is the number of precision points submitted for a pollutant divided by the expected number of bi-weekly submissions. Data validity is the percent difference of the actual and indicated values of each precision check. These differences should not exceed 15% for gaseous analyzers.

113

Usable data rates are determined by multiplying the data submission and data validity rates; and indicate the completeness of verifiable air quality data on the official database. Overall, the precision data showed that there was an overall increase in the amount of precision data submitted as well as corresponding improvements in the usable data rates. Table 9 shows the statewide submission, validity, and usable data rates for each pollutant.

Pollutant Submission Validity

Rate

Rate

Usable Rate

CO

98%

100%

97%

NO2

96%

99%

O3

98%

99%

SO2

98%

100%

95% 97% 97%

Source: Quality Assurance Program, Precision Data Analysis

Table 9: Criteria Pollutants Precision Analysis Results for Georgia

The table above shows significant increases in both submission rate and usable rate. The usable rate increases are a direct result of the data submission improvements. The QAU has worked closely to correct differences in the U.S. EPA's AQS database as well as with the reporting of data.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is a mixture of substances that include elements such as carbon, metals, nitrates, organic compounds and sulfates; complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or smaller pose an increased health risk because they can deposit deep in the lung and contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increase the chance of respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.

Particulate matter monitoring is conducted using both manual and continuous type samplers. Manual samplers are operated on a six-day sampling schedule for PM10, and a similar, or more frequent schedule, for PM2.5. The Georgia Ambient Monitoring particulate program also includes total suspended particulates (TSP) sulfate, mass and lead monitoring.

Particulate matter is a controlled data set, and as such is subject to formal data quality objectives and federal and state regulations.

Accuracy (field): The accuracy of particulate samplers is determined by comparing the instrument's flow rate to a certified variable orifice (PM10 and TSP), or a calibrated mass flow meter (TEOM, BAM, and PM2.5 samplers) that is certified against a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable flow device or calibrator. Since an accurate measurement of particulate matter is dependent upon flow rate, the Ambient Monitoring Program conducts annual flow rate audits at each site. The average percent difference between the sampler flow rates and the audit flow rates represents the combined differences
114

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sampler. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected flow rate accuracy for 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site.

Overall, the 2005 flow audit results indicate that the flow rates of samplers in the network are almost all within bounds. Approximately ninety-eight percent of the instruments audited in 2005 operated within the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program's control limits. The 2005 performance audit results are listed below in Table 10.

Pollutant PM2.5

Number of
Samplers Audited
40

Average %
Difference
1.4

Probability Limits

95%UL 95%LL

2.9

-1.8

PM10

12

Partisol

0.4

5.7

-2.7

PM10

5

1.3

1.6

Source: Quality Assurance Program, Accuracy Estimates

-1.5

Table 10: Results for Particulate Sampler Performance Audits

Precision (field): Precision data for non-continuous particulate samplers is obtained through collocated sampling whereby two identical samplers are operated side-by-side and the same laboratory conducts filter analyses. Collocated samplers are located at selected sites and are intended to represent overall network precision. Validity of the data is based on the percent difference of the mass concentrations of the two samplers. In 2005, collocated PM2.5 samplers were operated at Augusta Medical College, Atlanta E. Rivers, Columbus Health Department, Atlanta Doraville Health Department, Savannah Scott School and Macon Allied. Collocated PM10 samplers were operated at Atlanta Fire Station #8 and Macon Allied. Collocated TSP samplers were operated at Atlanta Utoy Creek and Atlanta DMRC.

Particulate samplers (collocated PM10 and TSP) must have mass concentrations greater than or equal to 20 g/m3 to be used in data validity calculations. The difference between the mass concentrations must be no greater than 5 g/m3. If the mass concentrations are greater than 80g/m3, the difference must be within 7% of each other. TSP (lead) samplers must have both mass concentrations greater than or equal to 0.15 g/m3 to be used in data
validity calculations. For collocated PM2.5 samplers, data probability limits validity is based on
the sampler's coefficient of variation, which cannot exceed 10%. Both sample masses must also be greater than 6 g/m3.

115

Precision for continuous PM2.5 monitors is based on the comparison of the sampler's/analyzer's indicated and actual flow rates. The differences between the flow rates must be within 15%. The particulate sampler precision analysis results for 2005 are available in Table 11. Overall, the precision data again showed an increase in the amount of precision data submitted as well as corresponding improvements in validity and usable data rates.

Pollutant PM2.5

Submission Validity Usable

Rate

Rate Rate

98%

99% 97%

PM10 Partisol

96%

98% 94%

PM10

90%

95% 86%

Source: Quality Assurance Section, Precision Data Analysis
Table 11: Particulate Sampler Precision Analysis

Accuracy (lab): Annual performance audits for PM10 and PM2.5 mass analysis programs include an on-site check and assessment of the filter weighing balance, relative humidity and temperature sensors, and their documentation. The performance audits conducted in 2005 found that the Ambient Monitoring Program was operating in accordance with U.S. EPA guidelines and that the data were of good quality and should be considered data-for-record.

Precision (lab): Laboratories perform various quality control tasks to ensure that quality data are produced. Tasks include duplicate weighing on exposed and unexposed filters, replicate analysis on every tenth filter, and a calibration of the balance before each weighing session. Upon receipt of particulate matter filters from the field, laboratory staff has up to 30 days to analyze the PM10 and PM2.5 samples. Filters are visually inspected for pinholes, loose material, poor workmanship, discoloration, non-uniformity, and irregularities, and are equilibrated in a controlled environment for a minimum of 24 hours prior to the filters being weighed. If room conditions are not within the established U.S. EPA control limits, weighing is done only after the proper environment is re-established and maintained for 24 hours.

116

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

In 2005, there were no occurrences in which the Georgia's Ambient Monitoring laboratory balance room was outside of control limits. The analytical precision results indicate that the Ambient Monitoring Program is providing precise particulate matter data. Table 12 and Table 13 show the unexposed and exposed filter replicate results for the Air Protection Branch's (APB) laboratory in 2005.

QC Checks for Preweighed Filters Total # of sample analyzed Total # of replicates Total % replicated Total # out-of-range

PM10
1122 56 5.0 0

PM2.5
5601 560 10 0

Source: Laboratory Section, Quality Control Report

Table 12: Summary of Unexposed Filter Mass Replicates

QC Checks for Preweighed Filters Total # of samples analyzed Total # of replicates Total % replicated Total # out-of-range

PM10
1054 53 5 0

Source: Laboratory Section, Quality Control Report

PM2.5
4861 486 10 0

Table 13: Summary of Exposed Filter Mass Replicates

117

Air Toxics
In 1996, the Air Protection Branch established an ambient volatile organic compound (VOC) Toxic Monitoring Network in major urban areas of the state to determine the average annual concentrations of air toxics. The program was established to assess the effectiveness of control measures in reducing air toxics exposures. Compounds identified as air toxics vaporize at ambient temperatures, play a critical role in the formation of ozone, and have adverse chronic and acute health effects. Sources of air toxics include motor vehicle exhaust, waste burning, gasoline marketing, industrial and consumer products, pesticides, industrial processes, degreasing operations, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and dry cleaning operations. Under the current air toxic sampling schedule, ambient air is collected in a stainless steel canister (or cartridge) every 12 days over a 24-hour sampling period at each of the network stations. Toxic particulate samples are also collected and analyzed for air toxic contaminants to support the Georgia Air Toxic and Control Unit. By using a low-flow multichannel sampler capable of sampling onto filters or cartridges, ambient air is collected and analyzed for carbonyl and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds (also called semi-volatile organic compounds) and toxic metals. The quality of the air toxic data set is governed by a series of quality assurance activities, including audits. However, because this is a descriptive data set, no mandatory corrections are made to the data based on audit results. The laboratory and monitoring staff are made aware of any exceedance found during an audit, and every effort is made to ensure that the data collected is as accurate as possible.
Flow audits of the toxic metal, VOCs, semi-VOCs and carbonyl samplers are typically conducted annually at each site to ensure the accuracy of measuring toxic metals and carbonyl compounds. Flow rates are a determining factor in calculating concentration and are included as part of the Quality Assurance Program. Overall, the 2005 results indicate that the samplers maintained stable flows. Although toxics data are a descriptive data set, completeness is issued based on the operating parameters of the sampler. Corrections are made to the data if an audit is found to be outside the Air Toxic Program control limits.
Accuracy (lab): Laboratory performance audits are conducted annually to determine the accuracy of a laboratory to measure ambient VOC Concentrations. Summary statistics of VOC network's audit results are shown in Table 14. The percent difference presented in the table represents the average difference between the laboratory's measured value and the NIST-certified value. The 2005 audit results were within the audit criteria of 20%.
118

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Analyte
Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Carbon Tetrachloride Chloroform 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,2-Dichloroethane Dichloromethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethelyne (PERC) Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Trans-1,3-Dichloropene

EPD Laboratory % Difference
-2.7 2.2 -0.7 -3.9 -2.7 -7.7 -1.9 1.3 8.9 -9.1 1.3 -8.5 -4.3 -3.4

Table 14: Air Toxics Laboratory Performance Audit Results

Precision (field and lab): As part of the Air Toxic Program laboratory analyses, internal QC techniques such as blanks, control samples, and duplicate samples are applied to ensure the precision of the analytical methods and that the toxics data are within statistical control. Precision data for non-continuous toxics particulate samplers are obtained through collocated sampling whereby two identical samplers operate side-by side simultaneously and the same laboratory conducts filter analyses. The collocated toxic sampler located at Utoy Creek is intended to represent overall network precision.

In 2005, all compounds analyzed were within their respective control limits and results for blanks, spikes, and duplicate samples as established in the Laboratory QC Manual. Duplicate analyses were performed on 10% of the toxic samples. In 2005, all duplicate results (concentrations must be greater than five times the published limit of detection) were within the established limits for all target analytes. Data exceeding duplicate criteria of three times the assigned percent relative standard deviation (from control samples collected during the control limit evaluation) are deleted from the toxics database and samples reanalyzed. Table 15 shows the total precision concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network.

119

Parameter
TSP Metals IO-2.1 Antimony (TSP) Arsenic (TSP) Berrylium (TSP) Cadmium (TSP) Chromium (TSP) Cobalt (TSP) Lead (TSP) Manganese (TSP) Nickel (TSP) Selenium (TSP) Zinc (TSP)

AQS Parameter
Code

Completeness

Overall Avg.

Std. Dev.

Lower Upper

95%

95%

Probability Probablity

Limit

Limit

12102 12103 12105 12110 12112 12113 12128 12132 12136 12154 12167

93.3% 3.2% 25.1% 93.3% 16.6% 43.2% 93.3% 7.1% 37.8% 93.3% -15.9% 32.1% 93.3% 3.7% 19.7% 93.3% 13.4% 64.4% 93.3% 4.1% 18.0% 93.3% 9.1% 33.0% 93.3% 3.7% 31.8% 93.3% 5.3% 14.9% 93.3% -2.2% 31.4%

-31.7% -43.3% -45.2% -60.3% -23.6% -75.9% -20.8% -36.7% -40.5% -15.4% -45.7%

38.0% 76.4% 59.5% 28.5% 31.0% 102.6% 29.1% 54.9% 47.8% 26.0% 41.3%

VOCs TO-14/15 Freon 113 Freon 114 1-3-Butadiene Cyclohexane Chloromethane DiChloroMethane (Methylene Chloride) Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride TriChloroFluoroMethane (Freon 11) Chloroethane 1-1-DiChloroEthane MethylChloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Ethylene DiChloride (1,2-Dichlororethane) TetraChloroEthylene 1-1-2-2-Tetrachloroethane Bromomethane 1-1-2-Trichloroethane DiChloroDiFluoroMethane TriChloroEthylene 1-1-DiChloroEthylene 1-2-DiChloroPropane Trans-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-3-DiChloroPropylene cis-1-2-DiChloroEthene Ethylene DiBromide (1,2-Dibromoethane) HexaChloroButadiene

43207 43208 43218 43248 43801 43802 43803 43804 43811 43812 43813 43814 43815 43817 43818 43819 43820 43823 43824 43826 43829 43830 43831 43839 43843 43844

96.7% 11.1% 53.9% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% -13.8% 51.6% 96.7% -0.7% 8.8% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% -2.0% 54.0% 96.7% -7.9% 65.6% 96.7% -1.9% 7.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 6.9% 37.3% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% -1.0% 9.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 96.7% 6.9% 37.1%

-63.7% 0.0% 0.0%
-85.3% -12.8%
0.0% -76.9% -98.8% -11.6%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -44.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -44.6%

85.8% 0.0% 0.0%
57.7% 11.5%
0.0% 72.8% 83.0%
7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.4%

Table 15: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network

120

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Parameter

AQS Parameter Completeness
Code

Overall Avg.

Std. Dev.

Lower Upper

95%

95%

Probability Probablity

Limit

Limit

VOCs TO-14/15 (continued) Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) M/P Xylene (m- & p-Dimethylbenzene) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene O-Xylene (o-Dimethylbenzene) 1-3-5-TriMethylBenzene 1-2-4-TriMethylBenzene Styrene 4-EthylToluene Chlorobenzene 1-2-DiChloroBenzene 1-3-DichloroBenzene 1-4-DichloroBenzene BenzylChloride 1-2-4-TriChloroBenzene

43860
45109 45201 45202 45203 45204 45207 45208 45220 45228 45801 45805 45806 45807 45809 45810

96.7%
96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7%

0.0% 0.0%
-1.7% 8.5% -3.8% 10.1% -1.9% 7.3% -2.0% 6.7% -3.3% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% -2.8% 8.9% -0.1% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 12.4%

0.0%
-13.5% -17.8% -12.0% -11.2% -13.8%
0.0% -15.1%
-9.6% 0.0% 0.0% -14.9% 0.0% -44.6% 0.0% -14.9%

0.0%
10.0% 10.2%
8.2% 7.3% 7.1% 0.0% 9.6% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 19.5% 0.0% 58.4% 0.0% 19.5%

SVOCs TO-13 Naphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Prrene Chrysene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Dibenzo(a-h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,I)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1-2-3-cd)pyrene

17141 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17201 17204 17208 17215 17220 17223 17224 17231 17237 17242 17243

100.0% 100.0%
96.7% 96.7% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0%

6.0% 36.8% 6.7% 36.5% 6.9% 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% -22.0% 61.3% 0.0% 0.0% -15.6% 105.9% 6.7% 36.5% 6.7% 36.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 36.5% 6.3% 36.6% -6.7% 36.5% 0.0% 0.0%

-45.0% -43.9% -44.5%
0.0% -106.9%
0.0% -162.4%
-43.9% -43.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -43.9% -44.4% -57.3% 0.0%

57.0% 57.3% 58.4%
0.0% 62.9%
0.0% 131.1%
57.3% 57.3%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.3% 57.1% 43.9% 0.0%

Table 15: Total Precision Concentrations for the Georgia Air Toxics Network (continued)

121

Figure 59, Figure 60, and Figure 61 show the yearly precision numbers for the Utoy Creek collocated air toxics site.
122

2005 Georgia Air Toxics TSP Metals Monitoring, Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek Site)
150%

100%

Overall Average % Difference

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

-150%
Upper 95% Probability Limit Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit

Antimony (TSP) 38.0% 3.2% -31.7%

Arsenic (TSP) 76.4% 16.6% -43.3%

Berrylium (TSP) 59.5% 7.1% -45.2%

Cadmium (TSP) 28.5% -15.9% -60.3%

Chromium (TSP) 31.0% 3.7% -23.6%

Cobalt (TSP) 102.6% 13.4% -75.9% Metals

Lead (TSP)

Manganese (TSP)

29.1%

54.9%

4.1%

9.1%

-20.8%

-36.7%

Nickel (TSP) 47.8% 3.7% -40.5%

Selenium (TSP) 26.0% 5.3% -15.4%

Zinc (TSP)
41.3% -2.2% -45.7%

Figure 59: Metals Monitoring, Collocated Precision

123

2005 Georgia Air Toxics VOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek)
100%

50%

Overall Average % Difference

0%

-50%

-100%
FDrieCohnlFo1rr11eo-3oM3n-eB1thu1atC4anydeciC(elMonhheleToetrrhxoiCyamlnheeelnotehroCaCFnahleruMlbooCoerrhinotdhlMoeTyEr)eleotChttfrhhoyaalrlcoemnhrneoleo(fForDi1rrdCmei-Ce1oh(h-n1lDol,o11rioCr1,i1ed)h-telTho(ar1rionc,2Ehe-ltDohrai1Tcon-ehe1etltor-ha2raoC-n2rhee-Tlt)oheraotrnEaecth)hyl1olBe-rD1ornoi-eeC2mthh-oTlaomrnricoeehDthloiaFrnolueeTotrrh1ioCa-Mn1hee-lToDtrhriao1CanE-nh2stel-Eh-oD1ytr-hoil3CecyE-inhlsDteeh-loni1yCre-lo3ehDP-nloDreiBrcoioCiprsPoha-mr1lnoo-eip2rdoy-eDPl(eM1rinCo,/e2pPhV-ylHDoViXlnereiyyobnxlOlEreeaoCntCmhheCehloo(nleomresitrdho&eaB(npCue-thDa)ldoimireoenetehthyelbneOen)-zXeynBleeen)nez(eonTE-1eDoth-li3umy-el5ben-et1eThn-yr2zilM-eb4nee-enTthzryieMlnBeeet)nhzyelBneenz4e-nSEettyh1ryCe-l2nTh-eolDolurioC1eb-nh3eel-onDrzoi1ecB-nh4eel-onDrzoiecBnhe1elon-r2zoe-BB4ne-eeTnnzrziyCelCnhelholroorBideenzene

Upper 95% Probability Limit

Overall Average % Difference

Lower 95% Probability Limit

Figure 60: VOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision

2005 Georgia Air Toxics SVOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision (Utoy Creek)

Overall Average % Difference

200.0% 150.0% 100.0%
50.0% 0.0%
-50.0% -100.0% -150.0% -200.0%
NaphthaAlecneenaphAtcheennaephthylene FluoPrehneenanthrenAenthracFenlueoranthene PyrenBeCenhzryos(aeB)naeenntzhora(bc)efBnlueeonrazon(thk)efnlueoranBtDehenibnzeoen(zeo)p(ay-rhe)nBaenetnhzroa(cge,nhe,I)peBryeIlnnedzneoen(ao)(p1y-2re-3n-ecd)pyrene SVOCs

Upper 95% Probability Limit

Overall Average % Difference

Lower 95% Probability Limit

Figure 61: SVOC Monitoring, Collocated Precision

125

Stainless steel canisters used to collect ambient air samples are also checked for contamination. Canisters are analyzed for aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons. One canister per batch of eight is assayed to ensure individual compound measurements fall below the limit of detection. In the event a compound exceeds canister cleanliness criteria, the canister and all other canisters represented in the batch are re-cleaned until compounds meet the cleanliness criteria. In addition, Xontech 910A air samplers are checked for cleanliness. Failed air collection media are re-cleaned and re-tested until they pass Xontech 910A cleanliness criteria. Overall, the network is providing precise air toxic contaminants data. Accuracy (field): The accuracy of air toxic samples is determined by comparing the instrument's flow rate to a certified variable orifice (PM10 and TSP), or a calibrated mass flow meter (PM2.5 samplers) that is certified against a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable flow device or calibrator. Since an accurate measurement of particulate matter is dependent upon flow rate, the Ambient Monitoring Program conducts annual flow rate audits at each site. The average percent difference between the sampler flow rates and the audit flow rates represents the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sampler. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected flow rate accuracy for 95 percent of all the single analyzer's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site.
126

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Overall, the 2005 flow audit results indicate that the flow rates of samplers in the network are almost all within bounds. Approximately ninety-eight percent of the instruments audited in 2005 operated within the Georgia Air Toxics Network control limits. The total 2005 performance audit results for the Air Toxics Network are listed below in Table 16 and Figure 62 shows the network's sampling flow rate accuracy.

Upper Lower Std.

Air Toxics Network

Average Limit Limit Dev

11 TSP Metals (15 Samplers) 2.6% -3.5% 8.8% 3.0

17 PUF Semi-VOCs (15 samplers) -0.1% -6.4% 6.2% 3.2

42 Canister VOCs (15 samplers) 0.5% -7.0% 8.0% 3.8

7 Carbonyls (3 Samplers)

3.4% 0.2% 6.6% 1.6

Table 16: Yearly Summary of Flow Rate Accuracy Performance Audit, Air Toxics Network

2005 Georgia Air Toxics Network Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy
30%

Overall Average % Difference

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%
Upper 95% Probability Limit Overall Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit

11 TSP Metals (15 Samplers) 8.8% 2.6% -3.5%

17 PUF Semi-VOCs (15 42 Canister VOCs (15

samplers)

samplers)

6.2%

8.0%

-0.1%

0.5%

-6.4%

-7.0%

Speciated Air Toxics

7 Carbonyls (3 Samplers) 6.6% 3.4% 0.2%

Figure 62: Yearly Summary of Sampling Flow Rate Accuracy, Air Toxics Network

127

NATTS
There are currently 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or air toxics, regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). These compounds have been associated with a wide variety of adverse human health and ecological effects, including cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects, and developmental effects. According to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is committed to reducing air toxics emissions by 75 percent from 1993 levels in order to significantly reduce Americans' risk of cancer and of other serious health effects caused by airborne toxic chemicals. Early efforts toward this end have focused on emissions reductions through the assessment of technical feasibility. However, as new assessment tools are developed, more attention is being placed on the goal of risk reduction associated with exposure to air toxics. To meet the GPRA goals, the National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) network has been established, consisting of 23 stations in the contiguous 48 states, with one in Georgia. Having data of sufficient quality is paramount for a network such as the NATTS. As such, Georgia has closely followed the Quality System (QS) for the NATTS, established by U.S. EPA, two aspects of which are Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) and Instrument Performance Audits (IPAs) of each network station and its affiliated sample analysis laboratory. Another integral part of the QS is the quarterly analysis of performance evaluation (PE) samples. Furthermore, the sampling and analytical techniques selected to collect and quantify the air toxics of concern must demonstrate acceptable analytical and overall sampling precision as well as suitable overall method detection limits that are compatible with expected ambient air toxics concentrations.
128

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

There are 23 sites in the NATTS network. Georgia joined the network with one site established in Decatur at the South DeKalb Monitoring Station. The EPA Region in which the sites are located, the location of the sites (site identifier), whether the site is located in an urban or rural area, and the unique AQS identification code (site code) for all the sites are given in Table 17.

Region I I I II II III IV IV IV
IV
IV V V V VI VI VII VIII

Site Identifier Boston-Roxbury, MA Chittenden City, VT Providence, RI Bronx, NY Rochester, NY Washington, DC Chesterfield, SC Decatur, GA Hazard, KY Hillsborough City, Tampa, FL Pinellas City, Tampa, FL Dearborn, MI Mayville, WI Northbrook, IL Deer Park, TX Harrison County, TX St. Louis, MO Bountiful, UT

VIII Grand Junction, CO

IX Phoenix, AZ IX San Jose, CA X La Grande, OR X Seattle, WA

Type Urban Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Urban Rural
Urban
Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban
Rural
Urban Urban Rural Urban

AQS Site Code 25-025-0042 50-007-0007 44-007-0022 36-005-0110 36-055-1001 11-001-0043 45-025-0001 13-089-0002 21-193-0003
12-057-3002
12-103-0026 26-163-0033 55-027-0007 17-031-4201 48-201-1039 48-203-0002 29-510-0085 49-011-0004 08-077-0017, -
0018 04-013-9997 06-085-0005 41-061-0119 53-033-0080

Table 17: NATTS Sites with EPA Region Numbers and AQS Site Codes

129

Several Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) have been established for the NATTS
network in order to ensure that only data of the highest quality are collected by the NATTS
network, and to meet the NATTS Data Quality Objective (DQO): "to be able to detect a 15
percent difference (trend) between two consecutive 3-year annual mean concentrations within acceptable levels of decision error"7. The four compounds of primary importance to the
NATTS program are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and PM10 arsenic. The MQOs for these four compounds are summarized in Table 18 below.

Compound

Precision Completeness (Coefficient
of Variation)

Benzene

> 85 %

< 15 %

1,3-Butadiene

> 85 %

< 15 %

Formaldehyde

> 85 %

< 15 %

Arsenic

> 85 %

< 15 %

Laboratory Bias
< 25 % < 25 % < 25 % < 25 %

Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
0.044 g/m3
0.020 g/m3
0.014 g/m3
0.046 ng/m3

Table 18: Measurement Quality Objectives for the NATTS Program
The MQOs require that (1) sampling occurs every sixth day and is successful 85 percent of the time; (2) precision as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) be controlled to less than 15 percent; and (3) that laboratory (measurement) bias be less than 25 percent. Data acquired to assess compliance with the above stated MQOs are derived from a variety of sources. These sources are given in Table 19.

MQO Completeness Precision Bias Laboratory Bias - Field
MDL

Data Source Air Quality System (AQS)
AQS and Proficiency Testing
Proficiency Testing
Audits of sampler flowrates
Laboratories

MQO < 15 % < 15 %
< 25 %
< 10 % 0.046 ng/m3 to
0.044 g/m3

Table 19: MQO Data Sources for the Georgia NAATS Program

The Air Quality System (AQS) database contains raw data that is used to assess data completeness, and to estimate precision from results of replicate analyses and collocated sampling. In addition, results from the analysis of proficiency testing samples allow one to

7 Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1. Principles. EPA-600/R94/038A, January 1994.
130

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
calculate laboratory precision and bias. Field bias is evaluated by measurement of sampler flow rates during on-site Instrument Performance Audits.
Completeness (of NATTS Data): The AQS database was accessed and the raw data records analyzed 23 compounds having the AQS codes given in Table 20. The completeness of the 2005 AQS dataset was assessed for four compounds: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and arsenic. The results are shown in Table 21. The presence of 61 concentration values in the database indicates 100 percent completeness, since sampling is to occur every sixth day. Furthermore, the completeness data presented here are composite values for both the primary and collocated sampler at the South DeKalb site. Primary and collocated data are differentiated in AQS by use of parameter occurrence codes (POCs).

Compound Name AQS Code

Benzene

45201

1,3-Butadiene

43218

Carbon Tetrachloride

43804

Chloroform

43803

1,2-Dibromoethane

43843

1,2-Dichloropropane

43829

1,2-Dichloroethane

43815

Dichloromethane

43802

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 43818

Tetrachloroethylene

43817

Trichloroethylene

43824

Vinyl Chloride

43860

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 43831

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 43830

Formaldehyde

43502

Acetaldehyde

43503

Arsenic

82103

Beryllium

82105

Cadmium

82110

Lead

82128

Manganese

82132

Mercury

82142

Nickel

82136

Table 20: 23 Selected HAPs and Their AQS Parameter Codes

131

Completeness of Compound by AQS Number and by Name

45201

43218

43502

82103

Site Identifier benzene 1,3-butadiene formaldehyde arsenic

Decatur, GA

90%

89%

95%

90%

Table 21: Percent Completeness of Georgia's 2005 AQS Data, Selected Compounds

132

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Precision (of NATTS Data): The precision of the data in AQS for Georgia was assessed for all 23 compounds identified in Table 20. Replicate data transactions were retrieved from AQS. For a given sampling moment, site, and compound, AQS replicate data can have three separate transactions with Precision IDs of 1, 2, or 3. Concentration information is given in the transaction labeled with Precision ID 1; the value obtained from the replicate analysis of the primary sample is recorded with Precision ID 2; and the replicate analysis of the collocated sample is given in the transaction with Precision ID 3. Thus, both the analytical and overall sampling and analysis precision can be determined. Table 22 reveals that Georgia had large CV values for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and manganese.

Compound Name AQS Code Precision Estimate (CV)

Benzene

45201

0%(3)

1,3-Butadiene

43218

3%(3)

Carbon Tetrachloride

43804

2%(4)

Chloroform

43803

3%(4)

1,2-Dibromoethane

43843

2%(3)

1,2-Dichloropropane

43829

2%(3)

1,2-Dichloroethane

43815

4%(4)

Dichloromethane

43802

2%(3)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 43818

6%(3)

Tetrachloroethylene

43817

1%(4)

Trichloroethylene

43824

6%(4)

Vinyl Chloride

43860

5%(4)

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 43831

7%(4)

Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 43830

7%(4)

Formaldehyde

43502

10%(4)

Acetaldehyde

43503

9%(4)

Arsenic

82103

122%(4)

Beryllium

82105

744%(4)

Cadmium

82110

143%(4)

Lead

82128

124%(4)

Manganese

82132

97%(4)

Mercury

82142

(0)

Nickel

82136

138%(4)

Table 22: Laboratory Analytical Precision (CV) Estimate

133

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring
In 1996, the Air Protection Branch began a routine seasonal sampling program to gather information about non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) species that were precursors to ozone formation in high ozone areas. In 1994, Federal regulations required states to establish photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) as part of their State Implementation Plan monitoring networks in areas designated as serious or higher for ozone. Monitoring is to continue until the ozone standard is reached. The PAMS program is intended to supplement ozone monitoring and add detailed sampling for its precursors. PAMS sites collect data on real-time total NMHC, PAMS speciated VOCs, carbonyls, and various meteorological parameters at ground level and aloft. As this is a descriptive data set, there are currently no mandatory data quality objectives or regulations for the data. However, efforts are made to ensure that accurate data are collected and that the analyzers are operating within PAMS audit standards.
Accuracy (field and lab): Laboratory performance audits are conducted annually to assess the laboratory's ability to measure ambient levels of hydrocarbons. Through the probe sampler performance audits are typically conducted annually at each monitoring site to assess the integrity of the sampling, analysis, and transport system. The 2005 laboratory performance audit results are shown in Table 23 and Figure 63. The 2005 audit results were within the PAM's control limits of 20%, with the exception of isoprene and n-decane.

2005 PAMS Speciated VOCs
Audits
Ethane Propane Isobutane Trans-2-Butene n-Pentane 2-Methyl-Pentane Isoprene n-Hexane Benzene n-Heptane Toluene Ethylbenzene n-Decane 1,2,3-TrimethylBenzene

Number of
GC/FIDs Audited
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5

Average % Difference
11.6% 1.2% -4.9% -2.4% -5.2% -13.8% -36.9% 0.8% -6.8% 1.6% -4.7% -5.4% -22.3%
-10.1%

Probability Limits 95% LL 95% UL

-3.2% -8.4% -22.4% -19.2% -28.4% -50.7% -63.5% -15.4% -16.8% -12.0% -16.7% -17.9% -58.5%
-28.3%

26.4% 10.8% 12.6% 14.4% 18.0% 23.1% -10.3% 16.9% 3.2% 15.3% 7.4% 7.1% 13.9%
8.1%

Table 23: Laboratory Speciated VOC Audit Results for PAMS Network

134

Percent Difference

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
2005 PAMS Speciated VOCs Continuous Monitoring Accuracy
80% 60% 40% 20%
0% -20% -40% -60% -80%
EthanePropanIesoTbruatnasn-e2-Butenne2-P-Menettahnyel-PentaneIsoprenne-HexaneBenzenne-HeptaneTolEuethnyelbe1n,2z,e3n-nter-imDeecthaynle-Benzene
PAMS Speciated VOCs in Audit Standard Upper 95% Probability Limit Average % Difference Lower 95% Probability Limit
Figure 63: VOC Monitoring Accuracy Analysis
Meteorology
The Ambient Monitoring Program monitors meteorological parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, total ultra violet radiation, precipitation and total solar radiation. Real-time meteorological data are generated to characterize meteorological processes such as transport and diffusion, and to make air quality forecasts and burnday decisions. The data are also used for control strategy modeling case study analysis and urban airshed modeling. A state/local meteorology subcommittee of the Air Monitoring Technical Advisory Commission (AMTAC) agreed to define the level of acceptability for meteorological data as those used by the U.S. EPA for both the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) programs. The Quality Assurance Unit audits to those levels.
135

The data variability collected by this element of the monitoring program is generally described as meeting or not meeting the PSD requirements. No mandatory corrections are made to the data. However, station operators are notified whether they passed the audit or not. Most operators make an effort to meet the audit standards. The wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature and relative humidity data sets are controlled data sets, and subject to meeting PAMS objectives. Since the inception of the meteorological audit program, the data quality has improved significantly.
Accuracy (field): The accuracy of meteorological sensors is checked by annual performance audits. Table 24 and Figure 64 summarizes the 2005 audit results. The average difference (average degree difference with respect to ambient temperature) represents the combined differences from the certified value of all the individual audit points for each sensor. The upper and lower probability limits represent the expected accuracy of 95 percent of all the single sensor's individual percent differences for all audit test levels at a single site.

Parameter
Wind speed Wind Direction Ambient temperature Relative humidity Barometric pressure Precipitation Solar Radiation UV Radiation

Number of Sensors Audited

Average % Difference

11

0.8%

10

0.2%

5

-0.3%

5

1.5%

4

0.1%

3

0.0%

3

NA

3

NA

Probability Limits 95% LL 95% UL

-0.8% -0.1%

2.4% 0.4%

-1.4% -1.7%

0.7% 4.8%

-0.1% 0.0% NA NA

0.3% 0.0% NA NA

Table 24: Meteorological Sensor Performance Audit Results

136

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Percent Difference

2005 Meteorological Measurements Accuracy Results

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

-6%

-8% Wind speed

Wind

Direction Ambient

temperature

Relative

humidity Barometric

pressure

Meteorological Parameters

Precipitation

Upper 95% Probability Limit

Average %

Dif f erenc e

Low er 95%

Probablity Limit

Figure 64: Meteorological Measurements Accuracy Results

Quality Control Reports
Quality Control (QC) reports are summaries of the quality control activities conducted by the laboratory to support accurate and precise measurements. These activities include: blanks, duplicates, controls, spiked samples, limits of detection, calibrations, and audit results.

137

Standards Laboratory
The U.S. EPA Region IV Standards Laboratory yearly performs technical support and certification services for Georgia's ozone primary standard. Flow rate transfer standards and certification of compressed gas cylinders are sent to the manufactures for re-certification to ensure that all are traceable to standards of the NIST. A calibration establishes a correction factor to adjust or correct the output of an instrument; a certification establishes traceability of a transfer standard to a NIST-traceable standard; and verification establishes comparability of a standard to a NIST-traceable standard of equal rank.
Laboratory and Field Standard Operating Procedures
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are guidance documents for the operation of quality assurance programs used by the Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program. The SOPs are intended for field operators and supervisors; laboratory, data processing and engineering personnel; and program managers responsible for implementing, designing, and coordinating air quality monitoring projects. Each SOP has a specific method that must be followed to produce data-for-record. The SOPs are developed and published to ensure that, regardless of the person performing the operation, the results will be consistent.
Siting Evaluations
To generate accurate and representative data, ambient monitoring stations should meet specific siting requirements and conditions. It is assumed that the stations meet the siting criteria in place at the time initial operation began. The siting requirements of the AMP Quality Assurance Manual Volume II; 40 CFR 58, Appendix E; U.S. EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook Volume IV: U.S. EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); and U.S. EPA's PAMS guidelines, present siting criteria to ensure the collection of accurate and representative data. The siting criterion for each pollutant varies depending on the pollutant's properties, monitoring objective and intended spatial scale. The U.S. EPA's siting criteria are stated as either "must meet" or "should meet". According to 40 CFR 58, Appendix E, the "must meet" requirements are necessary for high quality data. Any exception from the "must meet" requirements must be formally approved through the Appendix E waiver provision. The "should meet" criteria establish a goal for data consistency. Siting criteria are requirements for locating and establishing stations and samplers to meet selected monitoring objectives, and to help ensure that the data from each site are collected uniformly. There are four main monitoring objectives: to determine highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network; to determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density; to determine the impact on ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories; and to determine general background concentration levels. Typical siting designations are: micro, middle, neighborhood, and regional. These designations represent the size of the area surrounding the monitoring site which experiences relatively uniform pollutant concentrations. Typical considerations for each of these site designations are, for example, the terrain, climate, population, existing emission sources, and distances from trees and roadways. Siting evaluations are conducted annually by the Quality Assurance Unit. Physical measurements and observations include probe/sensor height above ground level, distance from trees, type of ground cover, residence time, obstructions to
138

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report air flow, and distance to local sources. These measurements and observations are taken to determine compliance with 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E requirements.
139

140

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
2003-2004 Risk Assessment Discussion
In 2003 and 2004, ATN samples were collected from a total of fifteen sites. The compounds sampled at the ATN sites are shown in Table 25. The list was derived from the 188 compounds EPA has designated as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Many of the HAPS do not have standardized ambient air sampling and analytical methods. In order to collect the compounds of interest for the Georgia network, three types of samplers are used at all locations: the HIVOL, PUF, and canister. This equipment samples for metals, semi-volatiles, and volatile organic compounds once every twelve days following a pre-established schedule that corresponds to a nationwide sampling schedule. On the twelfth day the sampler runs midnight to midnight and takes a 24 hour composite sample.
In addition, some of the chemicals monitored in the Air Toxics Network (ATN) are also monitored at sites in the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network. While the monitoring schedule and some analysis methods are different at the PAMS sites and ATN sites, several of the compounds from the PAMS sites were also evaluated and compared to values measured at nearby ATN sites for this report.
The air toxics data (volatile organic compounds, semi-volatiles, and metals) collected during 2003 and 2004 were evaluated to assess the potential for health concerns. The data collected for the group of chemicals known as carbonyls (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein) were assessed separately from the other air toxics because those chemicals were only monitored at three of the ATN sites, and two of the PAMS locations.
The initial evaluation consisted of a comparison of the monitored results to "health based" screening values. These values were calculated using procedures recommended in EPA's latest guidance on risk assessment for air toxics (U.S EPA, 2006). Briefly, EPA's prioritized chronic dose-response values for both noncancer (reference concentrations, RfC) and cancer (inhalation unit risks, IUR) were used to generate screening air concentrations. To screen for noncancer effects, the reference concentration was used as a starting point. However, to account for possible exposure to multiple contaminants, the screening air concentration was obtained by dividing the RfC by 10. Screening values for the cancer endpoint were determined by calculating air concentrations equivalent to a risk level of one in one million. Most screening values utilized in this assessment are listed in Appendix A of the previously mentioned guidance document (U.S. EPA, 2006). For a limited number of chemicals, other resources such as toxicity values from EPA's Region IX risk program were used to calculate conservative screening values.
The chemicals monitored and screening values are displayed in Table 25. It is important to emphasize that the screening values were calculated in a very conservative manner. That is, assumptions were made that accounted for the potential for continuous exposure to air toxics for 24 hours per day for 70 years. The conservative screening process was utilized so that the chance of underestimating the potential for health impacts would be minimized, as chemicals were excluded from further quantitative analysis.
141

Chemical

Screen Value Chemical (g/m3)

Metals

Arsenic

0.00023 Cobalt

Cadmium

0.00056 Lead

Chromium

0.00008 Manganese

Semi-Volatiles

Acenaphthene

0.3 Benzo(g,h,I)perylene

Acenaphthylene

0.3 Benzo(a)pyrene

Anthracene

0.3 Benzo(e)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene

0.0091 Chrysene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0.0091 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.0091 Fluoranthene

Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

N/A

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.017

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

0.063

1,1-Dichloroethane

N/A

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

0.2

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

6.2

1,2-Dibromoethane

N/A

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

0.091

1,2-Dichloropropane

0.3

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

N/A

1,3-Butadiene

0.03

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

N/A

4-Ethyltoluene

N/A

Acetaldehyde

0.45

Acetone

N/A

Acrolein Benzene
Benzaldehyde Benzyl Chloride Bromomethane
Butylaldehyde Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroethene Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Cyclohexane

Screen Value Chemical (g/m3)

Screen Value (g/m3)

0.01 0.15 0.005

Nickel Selenium Zinc

0.002 2
N/A

0.3 0.00091
0.3 0.091 0.00083
0.3

Fluorene Ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene

0.3 0.0091 0.029
0.3 0.3

0.020 0.13 N/A 0.02 N/A N/A 0.067 100 N/A N/A 9.8 1.1 N/A N/A 6300

Dichlorodifluoromethane Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde Freon 11 Freon 113 Freon 114 Hexachlorobutadiene Methylene Chloride
Propionaldehyde o-Dimethylbenzene p,m-Dimethylbenzene Styrene Tetrachloroethylene Toluene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

210 100 0.98 730 N/A N/A 0.045 2.10 N/A 10 10 100 0.33 40 N/A

Table 25: Compounds Monitored and Screening Values Used in Initial Assessment

Because results for many of the chemicals assessed were routinely below detection limits of the analytical methods available, the initial review of the data was based on an assessment of the number of chemicals detected and the frequency with which they were detected. That is, determining how often (if at all) a chemical was detected (present), if it was present above detection limits, and if those concentrations were above screening values of concern.

Table 26 and Table 27 show summaries of the total number of chemicals monitored at each site (excluding carbonyls), the number of chemicals detected, and the number of chemicals detected above the health based screening values for 2003 and 2004, respectively. More than 60 chemicals were monitored at the ATN sites. Total numbers of compounds detected at the sites were low, ranging from approximately 10 chemicals in 2003 to 22 in 2004. The number of chemicals that were detected at concentrations above the screening levels was even less, with a mean value of 2 in 2003 and 5 in 2004. Of the three categories of chemicals measured at all sites (VOC, semi-VOC, metals), most of the chemicals that were detected above screening values belonged to the VOC group.

142

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location

County

Number of Compounds Monitored

Number of Compounds
Detected

Number Greater than Screening
Value

Augusta

Richmond

64

14

3

Brunswick

Glynn

64*

6

0

Columbus

Muscogee

64

10

3

Dawsonville

Dawson

64*

9

2

Douglas

Coffee

64

6

1

Gainesville

Hall

64

13

3

Macon

Bibb

64

9

2

Milledgeville

Baldwin

64

10

1

Rome

Floyd

64

12

3

Savannah

Chatham

64*

10

1

South DeKalb

DeKalb

64*

11

2

Utoy Creek

Fulton

64

9

3

Valdosta

Lowndes

64

15

4

Warner Robins

Houston

64

9

2

Yorkville

Paulding

64

10

1

* 7 additional chemicals were monitored at these locations, but that information is summarized in Table 36.

Table 26: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2003

Location

County

Number of Compounds Monitored

Number of Compounds
Detected

Number Greater than Screening
Value

Augusta

Richmond

64

27

7

Brunswick

Glynn

64*

17

4

Columbus

Muscogee

64

24

6

Dawsonville

Dawson

64*

16

4

Douglas

Coffee

64

18

4

Gainesville

Hall

64

21

5

Macon

Bibb

64

22

6

Milledgeville

Baldwin

64

18

5

Rome

Floyd

64

29

7

Savannah

Chatham

64*

21

5

South DeKalb

DeKalb

64*

29

7

Utoy Creek

Fulton

64

28

7

Valdosta

Lowndes

64

23

5

Warner Robins

Houston

64

23

5

Yorkville

Paulding

64

23

5

* 7 additional chemicals were monitored at these locations, but that information is summarized in Table 37.

Table 27: Summary of Chemicals Analyzed in 2004

143

Table 28 and Table 29 show only the chemicals that were detected above screening values at each site in 2003 and 2004, but provide detailed information on how often they were detected (frequency), and the overall average computed using both the detected and nondetected samples. To determine means for risk calculations, non-detected values were assigned of the method detection limit (MDL), and averaged with detected values. Note that Brunswick is not listed in Table 28, as no VOCs, semi-VOCs, or metals were detected above screening values at that site.
144

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location Augusta
Columbus
Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville
Macon Milledgeville Rome
Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek
Valdosta
Warner Robins Yorkville

Chemical
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Arsenic Chromium
Nickel
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese
Chromium
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium
Chromium Benzene
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese
Chromium

Mean (g/m3)
0.00065 0.0083
0.31
0.00041 0.0062
0.28
0.00033 0.00028
0.0043
0.00034 0.0056
0.27
0.00039 0.0064
0.00029
0.00028 0.0058
0.29
0.00064
0.00014 0.35
0.00029 0.0076
0.29
0.00041 0.00058 0.0052
0.34
0.00080 0.0055
0.00029

Detection Frequency
4/25 23/25 2/30
2/30 29/30 3/30
1/28 1/28
16/29
2/38 36/38 2/40
2/29 28/29
1/27
1/30 28/30 3/30
4/29
2/55 12/60
1/30 29/30 2/30
1/23 3/23 23/23 5/30
6/30 29/30
1/28

Table 28: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration in 2003

145

Location Augusta
Brunswick Columbus
Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon
Milledgeville

Chemical
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride

Mean (g/m3)
9.84 x 10-4 1.79 x 10-3 1.41 x 10-2 2.40 x 10-1 2.07 x 10-1 3.33 x 10-1 2.08 x 10-1
5.01 x 10-4 1.59 x 10-3 2.53 x 10-1 2.04 x 10-1
7.36 x 10-4 1.01 x 10-3 8.76 x 10-3 2.40 x 10-1 3.29 x 10-1 2.09 x 10-1
5.75 x 10-4 1.08 x 10-3 2.35 x 10-1 2.02 x 10-1
5.52 x 10-4 1.43 x 10-3 2.16 x 10-1 2.05 x 10-1
5.41 x 10-4 1.32 x 10-3 8.03 x 10-3 2.58 x 10-1 2.05 x 10-1
5.48 x 10-4 9.63 x 10-4 8.21 x 10-3 2.28 x 10-1 2.37 x 10-1 2.02 x 10-1
4.32 x 10-4 7.75 x 10-4 5.43 x 10-3 2.48 x 10-1 2.03 x 10-1

Detection Frequency
11/24 13/24 24/24 1/31 2/31 10/31 4/31
10/25 14/25 10/31 5/31
11/27 12/27 27/27 1/30 10/30 3/30
13/30 17/30 10/31 7/31
11/26 13/26 10/31 5/31
20/41 26/41 41/41 13/42 8/42
12/29 14/29 29/29 1/31 9/31 6/31
9/30 14/30 29/30 11/31 5/31

Table 29: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration in 2004

146

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location Rome
Savannah South DeKalb
Utoy Creek
Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville

Chemical
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Hexachlorobutadiene
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,3-Butadiene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride

Mean (g/m3)
5.79 x 10-4 9.25 x 10-4 7.24 x 10-3 2.12 x 10-1 3.24 x 10-1 2.09 x 10-1 2.11 x 10-1
7.87 x 10-4 1.78 x 10-3 6.03 x 10-3 2.47 x 10-1 2.05 x 10-1
5.64 x 10-4 9.51 x 10-4 2.11 x 10-1 2.35 x 10-1 2.13 x 10-1 3.55 x 10-1 2.08 x 10-1
6.23 x 10-4 2.35 x 10-3 8.42 x 10-3 2.19 x 10-1 2.02 x 10-1 3.77 x 10-1 2.04 x 10-1
6.45 x 10-4 3.13 x 10-3 6.41 x 10-3 3.01 x 10-1 2.10 x 10-1
6.32 x 10-4 9.59 x 10-4 6.64 x 10-3 2.71 x 10-1 2.04 x 10-1
8.19 x 10-4 2.16 x 10-3 3.08 x 10-1 2.64 x 10-1 2.11 x 10-1

Detection Frequency
10/25 11/25 25/25 1/31 11/31 4/31 1/31
13/28 18/28 28/28 10/31 5/31
30/57 36/57 1/58 1/58 4/58 22/58 10/58
19/31 24/31 31/31 1/31 2/31 12/31 3/31
10/24 13/24 24/24 9/31 3/31
12/31 15/31 31/31 10/31 6/31
16/26 18/26 1/29 8/29 4/29

Table 29: Site-Specific Detection Frequency and Mean Chemical Concentration in 2004 (continued)
147

Figure 65 shows the formulas used to calculate cancer risk and non-cancer hazard for chemicals that were carried beyond the screening process into the quantitative assessment. Table 30 (2003) and Table 31(2004) show the theoretical cancer risk and non-cancer hazard that would result from an individual breathing air containing the detected chemicals at the estimated concentrations daily for seventy years, or a full lifetime. These cancer risk and hazard quotient estimates are likely conservative because they were calculated assuming continuous exposure to outdoor air at breathing rates typical of moderate exertion. Real risk cannot be calculated, but may be substantially lower.
Formula For Calculating Risk Using IUR For Carcinogens
Risk = IUR*Conc
Formula For Calculating Hazard Quotient Using RfC For Noncarcinogens
HQ = Conc RfC
Equation Parameters Risk Theoretical lifetime cancer risk (unitless probability) HQ Hazard quotient (unitless ratio) Conc Measured ambient air concentration in g/m3 IUR Inhalation unit risk (1/(g/m3)) RfC Reference concentration (g/m3)
Figure 65: Formulas For Calculating Risk and Hazard Quotient
148

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location Augusta
Columbus
Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville
Macon Milledgeville Rome
Savannah South DeKalb Utoy Creek
Valdosta
Warner Robins Yorkville

Chemical
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Arsenic Chromium
Nickel
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese
Chromium
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium
Chromium Benzene
Chromium Manganese Benzene
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene
Chromium Manganese
Chromium

Cancer Risk 8 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 1 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
4 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 7 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
4 x 10-6

Hazard Quotient
0.006 0.2 0.01
0.004 0.1
0.009
0.01 0.003
0.05
0.003 0.1
0.009
0.004 0.1
0.003
0.003 0.1 0.01
0.006
0.001 0.01
0.003 0.2 0.01
0.01 0.006
0.1 0.01
0.008 0.1
0.003

Table 30: Cancer Risk And Hazard Quotient By Location And Chemical In 2003

149

Location Augusta
Brunswick Columbus
Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon
Milledgeville

Chemical
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese 1,3-Butadiene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Chromium Manganese Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride

Cancer Risk
4 x 10-6 2 x 10-5
7 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
7 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 2 x 10-5
2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
7 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 9 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6

Hazard Quotient
0.03 0.02 0.3 0.1 0.0003 0.01 0.001
0.02 0.02 0.008 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.008 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.007 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.2 0.009 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.008 0.001
0.01 0.008
0.1 0.008 0.001

Table 31: Cancer Risk And Hazard Quotient By Location And Chemical In 2004

150

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location

Chemical

Rome

Arsenic

Chromium

Manganese

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Hexachlorobutadiene

Savannah

Arsenic

Chromium

Manganese

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

South Dekalb

Arsenic

Chromium

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,3-Butadiene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Utoy Creek

Arsenic

Chromium

Manganese

1,3-Butadiene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Valdosta

Arsenic

Chromium

Manganese

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Warner Robins

Arsenic

Chromium

Manganese

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Yorkville

Arsenic

Chromium

1,3-Butadiene

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Cancer Risk
2 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
2.33 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 2 x 10-5
2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
2 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
7 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 3 x 10-5
7 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 4 x 10-5
2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6 1 x 10-5
2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6
4 x 10-6 3 x 10-5 9 x 10-6 2 x 10-6 3 x 10-6

Hazard Quotient
0.02 0.009
0.1 0.0003
0.01 0.001 0.002
0.03 0.02 0.1 0.008 0.001
0.02 0.01
0.1 0.0003
0.01 0.001
0.02 0.02 0.2 0.1 0.0003 0.01 0.001
0.02 0.03 0.1 0.01 0.001
0.02 0.01 0.1 0.009 0.001
0.03 0.02 0.2 0.009 0.001

Table 31: Cancer Risk And Hazard Quotient By Location And Chemical In 2004 (continued)
151

Lifetime cancer risks for the limited number of chemicals exceeding screening values (and excluding that from carbonyls) exceeded 1 X 10-6 or one in one million, a value generally deemed as insignificant. However, lifetime cancer risks for these chemicals individually did not exceed 1 X 10-4 ,or one in ten thousand, for either 2003 or 2004. This value is generally taken as a crude upper limit on "allowable" risk in many regulatory contexts.

Individual hazard quotients (HQs) are ratios that relate daily exposure concentrations, or dose, to a concentration or an amount thought to be without appreciable risks of causing deleterious non-cancer effects in sensitive individuals as well as the general population. That is, values less than 1.0 for the HQ indicate the air "dose" is less than the amount required to cause toxic effects other than cancer. HQs for all individual chemicals (excluding carbonyls) were well below 1.0 at all of the sites monitored in 2003 and 2004.

Table 32 (2003) and Table 33 (2004) show total or aggregate theoretical cancer risk and hazard indices (added hazard quotients) for the chemicals (VOCs and metals) carried through the quantitative assessment. It is considered appropriate to treat the potential for effects in an additive manner and to sum cancer risk and hazard quotients. That is, if cancer risk for two separate chemicals were 1 X 10-4 and 2 X 10-4, then the sum or aggregate cancer risk would equal 3 X 10-4. Likewise, if cancer risk for two separate chemicals were 1 X 10-4 and 1 X 10-5, then total cancer risk for the two would equal 1.1 X 10-4, or rounded to 1 X 10-4. Similarly, if hazard quotients were 0.6 and 0.5 for two different chemicals it would indicate that each chemical alone is not likely to result in detrimental effects. However, summing the two would yield a Hazard Index, or HI, of 1.1 or rounded to 1, suggesting the minimum potential for detrimental effects from the combination of the two chemicals.

Location Augusta Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Rome Savannah South Dekalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville

Cancer Risk 1 x 10-5 7 x 10-6 4 x 10-6
6 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 3 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 8 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 5 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 1 x 10-5 4 x 10-6

Hazard Index 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.1
0.003 0.1
0.006 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.003

Table 32: Aggregate Cancer Risks And Hazard Indicies For Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2003

152

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Location Augusta Brunswick Columbus Dawsonville Douglas Gainesville Macon Milledgeville Rome Savannah South Dekalb Utoy Creek Valdosta Warner Robins Yorkville

Cancer Risk 4 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 3 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 5 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 4 x 10-5

Hazard Index 0.5 0.04 0.3 0.04 0.04 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Table 33: Aggregate Cancer Risks And Hazard Indicies For Each Site, Excluding Carbonyls, 2004
Aggregate cancer risk (excluding carbonyls) for all sites exceeded 1 X 10-6, with risks ranging up to 1 X 10-5 in 2003 and 5 X 10-5 in 2004 at the Augusta site. Benzene was the only cancer causing VOC found consistently at the majority of sites (22 of 30 sites over two years, or 73%) and contributed appreciably to aggregate risk. This finding supports the theory that mobile sources (automobiles) are a significant contributor to overall air pollution. Hazard indices (HIs) were well below 1, with no value exceeding 0.5. These findings suggest little potential for noncancer effects from the chemicals assessed in this study.

Some data collected from the PAMS network was evaluated in conjunction with the ATN data. The PAMS network is a federally mandated network required to monitor for ozone precursors in those areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme for ozone non-attainment. Approximately 54 chemicals are monitored on six-day intervals at the PAMS sites. Sites are located in Conyers, South DeKalb, Tucker, and Yorkville. Of the 54 chemicals monitored at PAMS sites, many are ozone precursors, and are not truly comparable to the chemicals monitored at the ATN sites, or appropriate to evaluate as air toxics. So for this study, only ten chemicals were assessed for their potential to have detrimental effects on human health if present in ambient air. Those ten chemicals were benzene, ethyl benzene, n-hexane, 1,2,3trimethyl benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene, styrene, toluene, m,pxylene, and o-xylene.

153

Of those ten chemicals evaluated from the PAMS network, only benzene, 1,2,4trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene were found in concentrations above the screening values. Table 34 and Table 35 show number of observations, first and second highest values, and averages for chemicals evaluated in the quantitative assessment at each of the four PAMS sites for 2003 and 2004. Benzene was detected consistently and when evaluated as a carcinogen, produced risks as great as 2 X 10-5. The trimethylbenzene compounds were detected at two sites in 2003 and one site in 2004, producing HQs for noncancer ranging from 1 to 2.

Location Conyers

Benzene South DeKalb

Tucker

Benzene

Yorkville

Benzene 1,2,4-trimethybenzene

Benzene 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene

# Obs. 1st Max 2nd Max Mean

55

2.3

2.0

0.90

55

4.9

4.7

1.97

43

7.8

4.8

2.18

43

29.0

28.0

9.74

55

2.1

1.9

1.01

55

44.0

24.0 11.15

HQ
0.03
0.07
0.07 2
0.03 2

CR 7 x 10-6 1 x 10-5 2 x 10-5
8 x 10-6

Table 34: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Network (Excluding Carbonyls), 2003

Location Conyers

Chemical

Benzene South DeKalb

Tucker

Benzene

Benzene 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene

Yorkville

Benzene

# Obs. 58 52 48 48 54

1st Max 2nd Max

2.0

2.0

8.1

8.1

3.5

3.5

49.0

34.0

110.0

6.1

Mean 0.79 2.27 1.71 8.30 2.77

HQ 0.03 0.08 0.06
1 0.09

CR 6 x 10-6 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-5
2 x 10-5

Table 35: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Network (Excluding Carbonyls), 2004

154

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
The carbonyls (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein) were measured at only three of the ATN sites and two of the PAMS sites. For that reason, their results have been segregated from the rest of the data and are displayed separately. Detection frequency, mean concentration, cancer risk, and non-cancer HQs for the carbonyls are shown in Table 36 and Table 37 for 2003 and 2004 data, respectively. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were evaluated as carcinogens, and acrolein as a non-carcinogen. Where acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were monitored and detected, cancer risks exceeded 1 X 10-6, with risks reaching 1 X 10-5. Acrolein was detected at four sites in 2003, and only one site in 2004 (Brunswick). Detection frequencies were relatively low, ranging from approximately 1 to 20%. However, the hazard quotients for acrolein, where detected, were quite high, ranging from approximately 30 to 40.

Location Brunswick Dawsonville Savannah South Dekalb Tucker

Chemical
Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM

Detection Frequency
19/29 23/30
15/46 6/47 26/47
14/34 2/35 25/35
154/195 44/200 190/200
168/184 2/189
185/189

Mean (g/m3)

Cancer Risk

Hazard Quotient

1.46

3 x 10-6

0.2

2.50

1 x 10-8

0.3

3 x 10-6

0.5

0.91

2 x 10-6

0.1

0.57

30

1.61

9 x 10-9

0.2

2 x 10-6

30

1.23

3 x 10-6

0.1

0.57

30

1.91

1 x 10-8

0.2

3 x 10-6

30

3.21

7 x 10-6

0.4

0.83

40

8.69

5 x 10-8

0.9

7 x 10-6

40

2.89

6 x 10-6

0.3

0.56

30

11.93

7 x 10-8

1

6 x 10-6

30

Table 36: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Carbonyls, 2003

155

Location Brunswick
Dawsonville Savannah South Dekalb Tucker

Chemical
Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM
Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde SUM

Detection Frequency
18/28 4/28 28/28
17/31 28/31
27/31 29/31
55/59 59/59
52/55 52/55

Mean (g/m3)

Cancer Risk

Hazard Quotient

1.30

3 x 10-6

0.1

0.71

40

2.43

1 x 10-8

0.2

3 x 10-6

40

3.68

8 x 10-6

0.4

2.11

1 x 10-8

0.2

8 x 10-6

0.6

1.62

4 x 10-6

0.2

2.86

1 x 10-8

0.3

4 x 10-6

0.5

2.51

6 x 10-6

0.3

5.15

3 x 10-8

0.5

6 x 10-6

0.8

4.42

1 x 10-5

0.5

23.93

1 x 10-7

2

1 x 10-5

3

Table 37: Summary Observations, Hazard Quotient, and Cancer Risk From PAMS Carbonyls, 2004

156

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Summary and Discussion
Results from the 2003 and 2004 statewide monitoring effort indicate that only a small number of chemicals were detected in sufficient quantity and frequency to be included in the final quantitative assessment. However, detections overall did double between 2003 and 2004. This was due to the fact that improvements in laboratory methods were incorporated in 2004 that significantly lowered detection limits for many chemicals. This change, while considered a great improvement for the overall monitoring effort, makes direct comparisons between the 2003 and earlier data sets to the 2004 data set somewhat problematic.
Benzene was found at 22 of 30 ATN sites over the two years, and all four PAMS sites both years. Average benzene concentrations at ATN sites in 2003 and 2004 of approximately 0.22 to 0.37 g/m3 were lower than concentrations reported in previous statewide monitoring studies from 1997 to 2002 and earlier studies conducted in Savannah (GADNR, 1996a) and Brunswick (GADNR, 1996b). Average concentrations of benzene measured in the PAMS network ranged from 0.8 to 2.3 g/m3 and are similar to those reported previously from that network. These concentrations correspond to predicted theoretical lifetime cancer risks in the range of 2 X 10-6 for the ATN sites to 1 X 10-5 for the PAMS sites.
Major sources of benzene to the environment include automobile service stations, exhaust from motor vehicles, and industrial emissions (ATSDR, 1997). Most data relating effects of long-term exposure to benzene are from studies of workers employed in industries that make or use benzene, where people were exposed to amounts hundreds or thousands of times greater than those reported herein. Under these circumstances of high exposure, benzene can cause problems in the blood, including anemia, excessive bleeding, and harm to the immune system. Exposure to large amounts of benzene for long periods of time may also cause cancer of the blood-forming organs, or leukemia (ATSDR, 1997). The potential for these types of health effects from exposure to low levels of benzene, as reported in this study, are not well understood. Benzene has been determined to be a known carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 2000) and was evaluated as such in this study.
Several other VOCs were measured in 2004 but not 2003, likely as a result of the lowering of detection limits between the two years. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) was detected at all fifteen sites in 2004 with a detection frequency of approximately 17%. Lifetime theoretical cancer risks calculated from the mean concentrations of CCl4 were in the range of 3 X 10-4. CCl4 was used to produce refrigeration fluids, as propellants for aerosol cans, as a pesticide, in fire extinguishers, as a spot cleaner, and as a degreasing agent (ATSDR, 2005a). Because of concerns regarding CCl4's toxicity, these uses have been stopped or severely restricted. When exposures to CCl4 are relatively large, it can damage the liver, the kidneys, and the nervous system. U.S. EPA has classified CCl4 as a probable human carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 1991a).
1,3-Butadiene was measured at six of the fifteen sites in 2004, but with a very low frequency of detection (only one day) at each site. It is used extensively in the production of synthetic rubber, and to a lesser extent to make plastics and acrylics. 1,3-Butadiene may act as a central nervous system depressant after very high doses, and is also considered a carcinogen in humans (ATSDR, 1992, U.S. EPA, 2002). For this study, the chemical was evaluated as a carcinogen. Cancer risk calculated from the mean ambient air concentrations
157

(accounting for non-detected samples) was approximately 7 X 10-6 for theoretical lifetime cancer risk. While these values contribute approximately 20% to aggregate cancer risk, it should be noted that these contributions arise from measurements made on one day of sampling. That is, the estimate may not be a reasonable estimate of risk considering the low frequency of detection.
Two other VOCs, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroethane, were detected at a limited number of ATN sites with very low frequency. These chemicals have a number of consumer product and/or industrial uses (ATSDR, 2006; ATSDR, 2001). However, due to the limited information regarding potential for exposure, and uncertainties regarding toxicity, the potential risks these chemicals may cause can't be characterized at this time.
Another VOC, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at the Tucker PAMS site in 2003 and 2004, and the closely related 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene was detected at the Yorkville PAMS site in 2003 only. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene occurs naturally in coal tar and petroleum crude oil. It is a component of gasoline, and has other uses in industry as an intermediate in the production of dyes, drugs, and coatings. Exposure to very large amounts of 1,2,4trimethylbenzene may cause skin and respiratory irritancy and nervous system depression. However, risks resulting from exposure to low ambient concentrations of 1,2,4trimethylbenzene have not been studied extensively (U.S. EPA, 1994). For this study, 1,2,4trimethylbenzene was evaluated as a non-carcinogen with potential to cause central nervous system and irritant effects (U.S. EPA, 2004). 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene HQs ranged from approximately 1 to 2 at the Tucker PAMS site. These data are very different from the measurements taken in 2002 where 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected at five ATN sites and all four PAMS sites.
Three metals, arsenic, chromium, and manganese, were evaluated in the quantitative assessment. Manganese was detected at eight sites in 2003 and ten sites in 2004. Manganese is a trace element, and small amounts are needed to support good health. However, exposure to very large amounts through inhalation can result in neurological effects (ATSDR, 2000a). Manganese was evaluated as a neruotoxin, but did not contribute significantly in the quantitative assessment, with HQs of < 0.2. These detection frequencies and HQs suggest that there is little potential for neurological effects from ambient air concentrations of manganese, and are consistent with data reported in the 2002 ATN data set (GADNR, 2006).
Arsenic was found at two ATN sites in 2003 and at all fifteen sites in 2004. This very dramatic difference in number of sites with detections is again due to the change in detection limits that occurred between 2003 and 2004. Detection frequencies in 2003 were very low, with one sample detected at each of the two sites. In 2004, detection frequencies were in the range of 30 to 60%. Arsenic occurs naturally in soil and rocks, and was used extensively in the past as a pesticide on cotton fields and in orchards (ATSDR, 2005c). However, the majority of arsenic found in the atmosphere comes from the burning of coal and oil, incineration, and smelting operations. Arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient times.
Inhalation of large quantities of some forms of arsenic may cause irritation of the throat and upper respiratory tract. Long-term exposure either by inhalation or ingestion may result in a unique pattern of skin changes, and circulatory and peripheral nervous disorders (ATSDR, 2005c). Inhalation of some forms of arsenic may also cause cancer, and arsenic was
158

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
evaluated as a carcinogen in this assessment. Lifetime cancer risks estimated from the data collected in 2004 ranged from 1 X 10-6 to 4 X 10-6 and accounted for approximately 10% of the aggregate cancer risks at ATN sites in 2004.
Detection of total chromium changed dramatically between 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2002, chromium was detected one time at one ATN site. In 2003, it was detected at thirteen of fourteen sites, but with a relatively low frequency of approximately 10%. In 2004, chromium was detected on more than 50% of sampling days at all ATN sites. Chromium is a naturally occurring element and is common in low amounts in foodstuffs (ATSDR, 2000b). Natural processes such as wind generating dust and even volcanoes may release chromium into the atmosphere. However, many human activities such as coal and oil combustion, electroplating, smelting, and iron and steel production release it into the atmosphere also.
The chemistry of chromium is complex. It may occur in different forms or oxidation states in the environment, having very different degrees of toxicity. Chromium III is the form that often predominates in the natural environment, and is also an essential element required for good nutrition. Hexavalent chromium (chromium in the +6 oxidation state) is the most toxic form of chromium and is often related to releases from industrial activities (ATSDR, 2000b). Inhaling large amounts of hexavalent chromium may cause upper respiratory track irritation, and hexavalent chromium has also been shown to be a carcinogen, causing increases in the risk of lung cancer (ATSDR, 2000b).
Studies have shown that in ambient air, even near industrial sites, hexavalent chromium is usually only a small portion of total chromium, with measured values for hexavalent chromium accounting for a range of values from 1 to 25% of total chromium (ATSDR, 2000b). Because the measurements made in this study were for the total form, distinctions cannot be made as to how much of the different states are present. In the interest of conservativeness, chromium was evaluated with the most stringent toxicity index for hexavalent chromium. That is, supposing that all the metal measured was in the most toxic form as hexavalent chromium.
As noted above, chromium was detected with much greater frequency at ATN sites in 2004 compared to 2003. Total chromium concentrations were also higher by approximately 4-fold across all sites, yielding cancer risk values of approximately 5 X 10-6 in 2003 compared to 2 X 10-5 in 2004. While there were no clear cut differences between ATN sites in chromium concentrations or predicted risk within either year, the differences between years in contribution to aggregate risk appears noteworthy. When chromium's contribution to overall or aggregate risk was assessed, its contribution was greater in 2003 (75%) than 2004 (55%). Because chromium concentrations were 4-fold greater in 2004 compared to 2003, this difference in contribution to aggregate risk was not expected and seems counter-intuitive. However, upon further evaluation it was determined that the difference was due to the larger number of chemicals detected in 2004 compared to 2003. That is, there were fewer chemicals contributing in 2003 to aggregate risk, so the chromium contribution appears much more important. Here again is an example of the confounding effect of improved detection limits in 2004 compared to 2003.
Regardless of changes in overall ambient air concentrations of chromium between 2003 and 2004, the ultimate importance of chromium in air can't be fully evaluated at this time. As noted above, our measurements are for total chromium, and a toxicity index for hexavalent
159

chromium was used to estimate cancer risk. Data collected on the ratio of hexavalent chromium to total chromium (ATSDR, 2000c) indicates that this process may appreciably overestimate risk. Further work is needed to better understand chemical forms of chromium in Georgia's air, and determine if chromium is an important contributor to risk.
Carbonyls are monitored at five sites in Georgia. Three sites, Brunswick, Dawsonville and Savannah are ATN sites, while the other two sites, South DeKalb and Tucker, are in the PAMS network. Three carbonyls, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein were detected with sufficient frequency, and have sufficient potential for toxicity to be included in the quantitative assessment.
Formaldehyde, the simplest of the aldehydes, is produced in small quantities by natural processes, and released into the environment as a component of smog, and from fertilizer, paper, and manufactured wood products industries (ATSDR, 1999). Formaldehyde is a health concern because of its respiratory irritancy and potential as a carcinogen. It may cause irritation of the eye, nose, throat, and skin, and has the potential under certain exposure scenarios to cause cancers of the nose and throat (ATSDR, 1999). Acetaldehyde, as an intermediate product of plant respiration and a product of incomplete combustion, is ubiquitous in the environment. Acetaldehyde, like formaldehyde, is also a concern as an upper respiratory irritant, and because of its potential to cause nasal tumors in animal studies. However, research has shown it to be significantly less potent than formaldehyde (U.S. EPA, 1987; U.S. EPA 1991b). Acrolein may enter the environment as a result of combustion of trees and other plants, tobacco, gasoline, and oil. Additionally, it has a number of industrial uses as a chemical intermediate (ATSDR, 2005b). The potential for acrolein to cause health effects is not well understood. At very low concentrations, it is an upper respiratory irritant. At very high concentrations it may produce more serious damage to the lining of the upper respiratory tract and lungs (ATSDR, 2005b; U.S. EPA, 2003).
In 2003 and 2004, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were detected at all five locations where carbonyls were assessed, in concentrations similar to those reported in 2002 (GADNR, 2006). As noted in past studies, concentrations of these aldehydes are much higher at the PAMS sites compared to the ATN sites. The greatest difference is noted in formaldehyde concentrations, which ranged from approximately 1 to 3 ug/m3 at ATN sites over the two years, compared to a range of 5 to 20 ug/m3 at the PAMS sites. The reason for these differences is not clear at this time. However, it may be related to differences in sitting criteria between the two networks. Type II PAMS sites are intentionally located in "urban core" locations to monitor precursors of ozone, but ATN sites are not. Because of this difference, vehicle emissions may play a greater role in measurements made at PAMS sites compared to ATN sites. When the cancer risks for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were evaluated, combined risks for the two aldehydes ranged from 2 X 10-6 to 1 X 10-5.
It should be noted that the current guidance used by EPD for the air toxics evaluation recommends using a cancer toxicity value for formaldehyde developed by U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards. This value, which takes into account physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for formaldehyde, is less restrictive by a factor of 2400 compared to the cancer toxicity value available in U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). If the more conservative toxicity factor were used, it would result in formaldehyde risk values in the range of 2 X 10-5 to 3 X 10-4, with formaldehyde contributing much more significantly to overall risk.
160

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report Acrolein was detected inconsistently, with detections at four sites in 2003 and only one site in 2004. However, when detected, concentrations were sufficiently high to yield values for the annual average (using the detection limit for non-detected samples) ranging from 0.5 to 0.8 ug/m3. These concentrations were sufficient to yield HQs ranging from approximately 30 to 40. Acrolein may enter the environment as a result of combustion of trees and other plants, tobacco, gasoline, and oil. Additionally, it has a number of industrial uses as a chemical intermediate (ATSDR, 2005b). The potential for acrolein to cause health effects is not well understood. At very low concentrations, it is an upper respiratory irritant. At very high concentrations it may produce more serious damage to the lining of the upper respiratory tract and lungs (ATSDR, 2005b; U.S. EPA, 2003). As stated previously, the estimates of risk presented herein are likely overestimates due to conservative assumptions used in this exercise. Conservative assumptions were used to estimate the potential for possible exposures (high inhalation rates and long term exposure) and toxicity values. In the absence of good exposure information this practice is warranted to decrease the potential for underestimating risk. Even with a change in detection limits between 2003 and 2004 resulting in more detection of chemicals in 2004, the results presented herein suggest that the majority of calculated risk is due to a small number of chemicals. The risk values presented in this report should not be interpreted as indicators of true or "real" risk, but for relative comparisons of a chemicals contribution to aggregate risk, or for comparisons of risk between locations within the monitoring network or in other areas of the country.
161

162

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Outreach and Education
One of the most important tasks of the Ambient Monitoring Program is maintaining effective public outreach and education. The program seeks to address the air quality issues that are most vital to the citizens of Georgia by identifying the pollutants that represent the greatest risks, continually monitoring them, and communicating the monitoring results directly with the public. The goal is to provide an understanding of the presence of air pollution throughout the state and to educate the public on the steps they can take to improve air quality. This is done by issuing smog alerts and information provided in the Air Quality Index (AQI), maintaining a partnership with the Clean Air Campaign in the metro Atlanta nonattainment area, and other outreach strategies aimed at keeping the public up to date on air quality issues.
What is the Clean Air Campaign? The Clean Air Campaign (CAC) is a not-for-profit organization that works to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the metro Atlanta nonattainment area through a variety of voluntary programs and services, including free employer assistance, incentive programs, public information and children's education. EPD is a proud sponsor and funder of CAC.
The CAC works with more than 300 public and private sector employers, representing several hundred thousand employees, to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle commuters in metro Atlanta year-round. The program has helped reduce emissions and vehicle miles traveled by encouraging people to alter their commuting habits and to reconsider behaviors-driving in particular.
In addition to addressing commuters' driving habits, CAC utilizes the Air Quality Index (AQI) to relay air quality information to metro Atlanta residents.
The Air Quality Index The AQI was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide easy to understand information about daily levels of air pollution and any associated health risks.
An AQI value of 100 (Figure 66) is the level EPA has set to protect public health. AQI values below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. When AQI values reach levels of 100 or above for ozone, particle pollution, or both, the air quality is considered to be unhealthy and a smog alert is issued. The AQI also advises the public on the steps to take if or when air pollution rises to unhealthy levels.
163

Index Value 0 to 50
51 to 100

Descriptor
Good (green) Moderate (yellow)

101 to 150

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (orange)

151 to 200 Unhealthy (red)

201 to 300

Very Unhealthy
(purple)

301 to 500 Hazardous (maroon)
Figure 66: The AQI

EPA Health Advisory
Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk.
Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to the condition of the air may experience respiratory symptoms.
Members of sensitve groups may experience health effects. "Sensitive groups" means people who are likely to be affected at lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung disease are at greater risk from ozone. People with lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be affected in this range, though.
Everyone may begin to experience health effects in this range. Members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.
AQI values in this range trigger a health alert. Everyone may experience more serious health effects. When the AQI is in this range because of ozone, most people should restrict their outdoor exertion to morning or late evening hours to avoid high ozone exposures.
AQI values over 300 trigger health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected.

164

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
How does Georgia's Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) Cooperate with The Clean Air Campaign (CAC)?
The Ambient Monitoring Program is responsible for measuring air pollutant levels in metro Atlanta and throughout the state. Equipment at fourteen continous monitoring stations across metro Atlanta are used for these measurements of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3). This data is reported on a website which is maintained and updated by the Ambient Monitoring Program. When these levels are reported, AMP utilizes the Air Quality Index (AQI), to forecast the ozone level for metro Atlanta. The Ambient Monitoring Program's website is linked to a website maintained by CAC. The AQI is displayed on The Clean Air Campaign's website as well and is distributed to people who have signed up to receive daily air quality
forecasts via e-mail. When a smog alert is forecasted, an automated fax blast informs all local media as well. Through these connections, thousands of metro Atlanta citizens and businesses keep abreast of current air quality conditions. The Ambient Monitoring Program also encourages the public to access the CAC's website and become aware of what voluntary measures they can take to improve local air quality.
Media Outreach
The Ambient Monitoring Program is in constant touch with citizens as well as the news media through phone calls, the AMP web site and media interviews. At many times throughout the year, the demand for a story puts AMP in the limelight. The program manager and staff of the Ambient Monitoring Program make themselves available to television and newspaper reporters, thus educating the public about the AQI, the statewide air monitors, and The Clean Air Campaign.
Other Outreach Opportunities
Meteorologists In cooperation with The Clean Air Campaign, forecasters from the ambient monitoring program visit the weather centers of Atlanta's top four commercial television stations. During these visits, the group is briefed on how each station's weather team receives and uses ambient monitoring information in their daily smog forecasts. The EPD/Clean Air Campaign team provides input and direction to the weathercasters as to how they can best use the data to maximize the usefulness of this information for their viewers.
Elementary and Middle Schools Educating school children and incorporating air quality information into the classroomlearning environment is also an outreach strategy for the Ambient Monitoring Program. AMP
165

staff visits Georgia classrooms to discuss air quality, forecasting, and monitoring. Each program presented by the AMP is designed to supplement grade-specific curricula. Learning opportunities include meteorological lessons, such as weather patterns and conditions, as well as forecasting techniques. In many situations, these lessons involve hands-on activities and mini-field trips to the monitoring sites. High School students simulate forecasting conditions and use scientific methods to create their own forecasts. AMP Staff also participate in Career Days at both elementary and high schools to draw excitement into environmental and meteorological careers.
Colleges and Universities The Ambient Monitoring Program works with colleges and universities in several capacities. Utilizing a more technical, advanced approach, AMP has participated in several college-level seminars, providing scientific expertise on the subject of meteorology and forecasting. Through this close contact with university staff, AMP staff have co-authored scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. AMP Staff provide technical data to professors as well as students, thus incorporating real-time data into college courses and projects. Additionally, AMP contracts with Georgia Institute of Technology in a joint forecasting effort.
EPA AIRNOW Website Georgia supplies ozone and particulate matter data to the US EPA every hour for pollution mapping activities. AIRNOW is a cooperative effort between EPA, states, and local air pollution control agencies to provide near real time information on ground level ozone and PM2.5 concentrations. EPA uses the data to produce maps that display ozone and PM2.5 contours covering the Midwest, New England, Mid-Atlantic, southeastern, south central and Pacific coastal regions of the country. Color-coded, animated concentration gradient ozone maps are created that show daily ozone formation and transport at various spatial scales. The information is available on the EPA's AIRNOW website at: http://airnow.gov. See Figure 67 for a sample map.
166

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Figure 67: Sample AIRNOW Ozone Concentration Map The AIRNOW Data Management Center evaluated the performance of monitoring agencies that participate in the AIRNOW project based on three criteria:
1. Percent of hourly data files received 2. Average arrival time (earlier in the hour is better) 3. Percent completeness of the data within the submission files The Ambient Monitoring Program is proud to report that during the mid-2004 through early 2005 evaluation period, it was ranked 3rd of 91 agencies with respect to its performance in the AIRNOW ozone program and 7th of 78 agencies participating in the AIRNOW PM2.5 program (AIRNOW DMC, 2005).
167

168

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix A: Additional Criteria Pollutant Data

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1-Hour and 8-Hour Maximum Observations

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

Hours Measured

130890002 Decatur DeKalb 131210099 Atlanta Fulton 132230003 Yorkville Paulding

South DeKalb Roswell Road
Yorkville

8640 8609 8527

Max

1 - Hour

1st

2nd

4.714 3.160

Obs. 35
0

2.700 2.600 0

1.042 1.016 0

Max 8 -

Hour

1st

2nd

2.5 2.3

Obs. 9
0

1.9 1.8 0

0.9 0.8 0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001

Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers

DeKalb DeKalb Fulton Paulding Rockdale

South DeKalb Idlewood Road Georgia Tech
Yorkville Monastery

Hours Measured
8588 8589 8179 8489 8434

Annual Arithmetic
Mean
0.0144 0.0144 0.0174 0.0041 0.0062

Obs. > Std. (0.053)
0 0 0 0 0

Nitric Oxide (NO)

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County Site Name

130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001

Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers

DeKalb DeKalb Fulton

South DeKalb
Idlewood Road
Georgia Tech

Paulding Yorkville

Rockdale Monastery

Hours Measured
8588
8589
8178 8489 8434

1st Max
0.448 0.231 0.591 0.051 0.097

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.0327
0.0103
0.0177 0.0050 0.0059

169

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

130890002 130893001 131210048 132230003 132470001

Decatur Tucker Atlanta Yorkville Conyers

DeKalb DeKalb Fulton Paulding Rockdale

South DeKalb Idlewood Road Georgia Tech
Yorkville Monastery

Hours Measured
8588 8589 8179 8489 8434

1st Max 0.517 0.281 0.693 0.052 0.130

Annual Arithmetic Mean
0.0444 0.0224 0.0329 0.0058 0.0083

Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen (NOy)

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

Hours Measured

130210013 130730001 130890002 130893001

Macon Evans Decatur Tucker

Bibb Lake Tobesofkee Columbia Riverside Park DeKalb South DeKalb DeKalb Idlewood Road

2726* 4220* 8153 8311

1st Max
0.1243 0.0982 0.200** 0.199**

Annual Arithmetic Mean
0.00708
0.00641
0.04401 0.02621

* sampler ran partial year
** The NOy instrument is specialized for measurement of trace concentrations, so its range is only 00.200 ppm. Actual 1st Max appears to have exceeded the instrument's measurement range. Since all ambient concentrations exceeding the instrument's range are recorded as 0.200 instead of the actual (higher) value, the reported annual arithmetic mean may be biased slightly downward from the true concentration.

170

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

3-Hour and 24-Hour Maximum Observations

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

130150002 130510021 130511002 131110091 131150003 131210048 131210055 131270006 132150008

Stilesboro Savannah Savannah

Bartow Chatham Chatham

McCaysville

Fannin

Rome

Floyd

Atlanta Atlanta Brunswick Columbus

Fulton Fulton Glynn Muscogee

Site Name
Hwy. 113
East President St. W. Lathrop & Augusta Ave. Elementary
School
Coosa Elem. School
Georgia Tech
Confederate Ave.
Risley Middle School
Columbus Airport

Hours Measured
4766 8231 8174 8645 8637 8365 8630 7443 8193

Max 24 - Hour

1st

2nd

0.011 0.010

0.023 0.021

0.048 0.040

0.008 0.007

0.018 0.017

0.020 0.019 0.016 0.014 0.011 0.008 0.009 0.008

Obs. 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Max 3 - Hour

1st

2nd

0.063 0.043

0.066 0.061

0.099 0.095

0.051 0.036

0.079 0.078

0.053 0.051 0.048 0.046 0.041 0.035 0.031 0.024

Obs. 0.5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.0023 0.0029 0.0051
0.0018
0.0028 0.0030 0.0032 0.0014 0.0019

Ozone (O3)

1-Hour Averages

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

130210012 130210013 130510021 130550001 130590002 130670003 130730001 130770002 130850001 130890002 130893001 130970004 131130001 131210055 131270006 131350002 131510002 132130003 132150008 132151003 132230003

Macon Macon Savannah Summerville Athens Kennesaw Evans Newnan Dawsonville Decatur Tucker Douglasville Fayetteville Atlanta Brunswick Lawrenceville McDonough Chatsworth Columbus Columbus Yorkville

Bibb Bibb Chatham Chattooga Clarke Cobb Columbia Coweta Dawson DeKalb DeKalb Douglas Fayette Fulton Glynn Gwinnett Henry Murray Muscogee Muscogee Paulding

132450091 Augusta Richmond

132470001 132611001

Conyers Leslie

Rockdale Sumter

Site Name
GA Forestry Comm. Lake Tobesofkee E. President Street DNR Fish Hatchery College Station Rd.
Georgia National Guard Riverside Park
Univ. of West Georgia GA Forestry Comm.
South DeKalb Idlewood Road W. Strickland St. Georgia DOT Confederate Ave. Risley Middle School Gwinnett Tech. County Extension Office Fort Mountain Columbus Airport Columbus Crime Lab
Yorkville Bungalow Road Elementary School Conyers Monastery Leslie Community Center

Days Measured
242 184 245 244 245 245 238 217 235 242 236 244 245 244 242 238 245 235 245 240 244
245
243 244

1st Max
0.105 0.103 0.086 0.099 0.105 0.113 0.089 0.109 0.095 0.124 0.121 0.125 0.119 0.145 0.086 0.104 0.137 0.097 0.096 0.094 0.097
0.097
0.125 0.092

2nd Max 0.099 0.092 0.083 0.098 0.098 0.110 0.087 0.099 0.091 0.116 0.107 0.115 0.111 0.124 0.077 0.102 0.115 0.096 0.095 0.085 0.096
0.096
0.111 0.078

Number of Values 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0
1 0

Ozone (O3)

8-Hour Averages

Units: parts per million

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

130210012 130210013 130510021 130550001 130590002 130670003 130730001 130770002 130850001 130890002 130893001 130970004 131130001 131210055 131270006 131350002 131510002 132130003 132150008 132151003 132230003

Macon Macon Savannah Summerville Athens Kennesaw Evans Newnan Dawsonville Decatur Tucker Douglasville Fayetteville Atlanta Brunswick Lawrenceville McDonough Chatsworth Columbus Columbus Yorkville

Bibb Bibb Chatham Chattooga Clarke Cobb Columbia Coweta Dawson DeKalb DeKalb Douglas Fayette Fulton Glynn Gwinnett Henry Murray Muscogee Muscogee Paulding

132450091 Augusta Richmond

132470001 132611001

Conyers Leslie

Rockdale Sumter

GA Forestry Comm. Lake Tobesofkee E. President Street DNR Fish Hatchery
College Station Road Georgia National Guard
Riverside Park Univ. of West Georgia GA Forestry Comm.
South DeKalb Idlewood Road W. Strickland St. Georgia DOT Confederate Ave. Risley Middle School Gwinnett Tech. County Extension Office Fort Mountain Columbus Airport Columbus Crime Lab.
Yorkville Bungalow Road Elementary School Conyers Monastery Community Center

Days Measured
240 184 245 243 245 245 237 217 234 242 233 243 245 244 242 236 245 230 245 240 244
245
241 244

1st Max
0.096 0.092 0.071 0.085 0.090 0.087 0.080 0.082 0.089 0.104 0.099 0.104 0.097 0.114 0.067 0.085 0.110 0.086 0.085 0.082 0.087
0.088
0.098 0.082

2nd Max
0.085 0.081 0.069 0.081 0.089 0.085 0.076 0.081 0.084 0.101 0.096 0.100 0.087 0.100 0.065 0.084 0.098 0.082 0.079 0.078 0.085
0.084
0.096 0.072

3rd Max

4th Max

0.082 0.076 0.068 0.077 0.084 0.083 0.074 0.080 0.081 0.092 0.086 0.091 0.086 0.094 0.064 0.084 0.095 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.083

0.082 0.076 0.068 0.077 0.082 0.081 0.074 0.078 0.080 0.087 0.084 0.089 0.086 0.092 0.064 0.082 0.089 0.080 0.078 0.073 0.082

0.082 0.081

0.091 0.088 0.072 0.071

Number of Values
0.085 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 7 3 8 4 7 0 1 6 1 1 0 2
1
4 0

Lead (Pb)

Quarterly Composite Averages

Units: micrograms per cubic meter

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

130890003 Atlanta DeKalb DMRC

132150011

Columbus

Muscogee

Cusseta School

Number of Observations
(months)
12
11

1st Quarter Composite
Avg.
0.10
0.10

2nd Quarter Composite
Avg.
0.10
0.10

3rd Quarter Composite
Avg.
0.10
0.10

4th Quarter Composite
Avg.
0.10
0.10

Number of
Values 1.5
0
0

Note: The analysis method used for lead cannot reliably distinguish values smaller than 0.20. This is known as the Method Detection Limit (MDL). In cases where the analysis results in a raw data value less than the MDL for that method, EPA requires us to report a concentration of one half the MDL. For many purposes, however, these values could alternatively be interpreted as "Not Detected".

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Annual Arithmetic Mean Integrated Sampling Using Federal Reference Method

Units: micrograms per cubic meter

Site ID

City

County Site Name

130210007 Macon

130210012 Macon

130510017 Savannah 130510091 Savannah 130590001 Athens

130590002 Athens

130630091

Forest Park

130670003 Kennesaw

130670004

Powder Springs

130890002 Decatur

130892001 Doraville

130950007 Albany

131150005 Rome 131210032 Atlanta 131210039 Atlanta

Bibb Bibb Chatham Chatham Clarke Clarke Clayton Cobb
Cobb DeKalb DeKalb Dougherty Floyd Fulton Fulton

Allied Chemical
GA Forestry Comm.
Market St.
Mercer School UGA College Station
Rd. Georgia
DOT GA National Guard Macland Aquatic Center South DeKalb Police Dept. Turner Elem. School Coosa High E. Rivers School Fire Station 8

Days Measured
119 117 105 110 13* 93* 112 115
111 335 307 111 114 329 109

98th Percen-
tile

Values 65

32.6

0

32.1

0

30.6

0

29.6

0

20.0

0

33.2

0

37.1

0

36.2

0

30.8

0

33.3

0

36.9

0

34.9

0

36.0

0

34.3

0

30.5

0

Annual Arithmetic
Mean 16.66
14.31 14.42 14.89 13.01 15.50
16.65
16.33
15.54
15.45 15.80
14.62
16.63 15.86 16.98

175

Days

98th

Site ID

City

County

Site Name

Meas- Percen-

ured

tile

Risley

131270006 Brunswick

Glynn

Middle

114

26.2

School

131350002 Lawrenceville Gwinnett

Gwinnett Tech

53

31.7

131390003 Gainesville

Hall

Fair St. Elem.

112

34.4

131530001

Warner Robins

Houston

Robins AFB

56

27.9

S.L.

131850003 Valdosta

Lowndes Mason

55

24.1

Elem.

132150001 Columbus

Muscogee

Health Dept.

109

29.1

132150008 Columbus

Muscogee

Columbus Airport

56

29.7

Cusseta

132150011 Columbus Muscogee

Rd.

115

29.6

School

132230003 Yorkville

Paulding Yorkville 109

35.1

132450005 Augusta

Richmond

Medical College

111

31.2

Bungalow

132450091 Augusta

Richmond

Rd.

107

30.8

School

132950002 Rossville

Walker

Health Dept.

58

32.6

133030001 Sandersville Washington

Health Dept.

57

31.6

133190001 Gordon

Wilkinson

Police Dept.

116

36.5

*sampler ran partial year Arithmetic mean in bold indicates values above the 15.0 g/m3 standard.

Values 65

Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0

12.81

0

16.13

0

14.46

0

13.86

0

12.11

0

15.02

0

14.94

0

13.67

0

14.63

0

15.89

0

16.07

0

16.55

0

14.71

0

15.67

176

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Annual Arithmetic Mean Semi-Continuous Measurements

Units: micrograms per cubic meter

Site ID

City

County Site Name

130210012 130511002 130590002 130770002 130890002 131210055 131350002 131510002 132150008

Macon Savannah
Athens Newnan Decatur Atlanta Lawrenceville McDonough Columbus

Bibb Chatham
Clarke Coweta DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett Henry Muscogee

GA Forestry Comm. Market Street
College Station Rd.
Univ. of West
Georgia South DeKalb
Confederate Avenue
Gwinnett Tech County
Extension Office
Columbus Airport

Hours Measured
7820 8386 8612
7921
8149 4271 8621
8584
8582

98th Percentile
39.3 31.3 33.3
41.5
33.4 39.5 35.6
39.6
33.8

Number Values
65 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0

Annual Arithmetic
Mean 13.52 13.64 13.54
14.82
14.31 18.26 14.15
14.81
13.30

132230003 Yorkville Paulding Yorkville

8668

41.7

0

14.06

132450091

Augusta

Richmond

Bungalow Rd. School

8676

36.7

0

14.55

132970001 Social Circle Walton

DNR Fish Hatchery

6703

36.9

0

14.33

Arithmetic mean in bold indicates value above the 15.0 g/m3 standard. These semi-continuous methods for measuring PM2.5 are not approved for use in making attainment determinations.

177

Particulate Matter (PM10)
24-Hour Integrated Measurements

Units: micrograms per cubic meter

Site ID

City

County Site Name

130210007 Macon 130510014 Savannah

Bibb Chatham

130550001 Summerville Chattooga

Allied Chemical Shuman
School
DNR Fish Hatchery

Days Measured
59

1st Max
74

Number Values
150
0

Annual Arithmetic
Mean
28.4

57

65

0

24.3

50

44

0

16.4

130892001 Doraville

DeKalb Police Dept.

58

58

0

23.8

130950007 Albany

Dougherty

Turner Elementary

60

59

0

23.2

Beulah

130970003 Douglasville Douglas

Pump

59

57

0

21.5

Station

131150005 Rome

Floyd

Coosa High School

58

56

0

24.6

131210001 Atlanta

Fulton

Fulton Co. Health Dept.

56

60

0

22.8

131210032 Atlanta

Fulton

E. Rivers School

61

67

0

25.0

131210039 Atlanta

Fulton

Fire Station #8

60

70

0

27.3

131270004 Brunswick

Glynn

Arco Pump Station

55

73

0

22.3

Cusseta Rd.

132150011 Columbus Muscogee

Elem.

51

89

0

22.6

School

Bungalow

132450091 Augusta Richmond Rd. Elem.

55

58

0

19.7

School

Univ. of GA

132550002 Griffin

Spalding Experiment

59

71

0

19.6

Station

132950002 Rossville

Walker Health Dept.

9

28

0

16.8

133030001 Sandersville Washington Health Dept.

60

68

0

25.0

178

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Particulate Matter (PM10)

Hourly Averages of Semi-Continuous Measurements

Units: micrograms per cubic meter

Site ID

City County Site Name

Hours

1st

Measured Max

130511002

Savannah

Chatham

W. Lathrop & Augusta Ave.

6884*

64

131210048 Atlanta Fulton

Georgia Tech

8208

61

*sampler ran partial year

Annual Arithmetic
Mean
24.7
25.1

179

Appendix B: Additional PM2.5 Particle Speciation Data

Particle Speciation- 2005 Statewide Average

Crustal 2%
Nitrate 5%

Other 14%

Ammonium Ion 9%
Elemental Carbon 4%

Sulfate 32%

Organic Carbon 34%

180

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Crustal 3%
Nitrate 4%

Particle Speciation- Macon 2005

Other 13%

Ammonium Ion 8% Elemental Carbon 5%

Sulfate 30%

Organic Carbon 37%

Crustal 1%
Nitrate 7%

Particle Speciation- Athens 2005

Other 13%

Ammonium Ion 11%
Elemental Carbon 4%

Sulfate 31%

Organic Carbon 33%

181

Crustal 2%
Nitrate 3%

Particle Speciation- Douglas 2005

Other 15%

Ammonium Ion 8% Elemental Carbon 3%

Sulfate 33%

Organic Carbon 36%

Crustal 1%
Nitrate 5%

Particle Speciation- Atlanta 2005

Other 13%

Ammonium Ion 9%
Elemental Carbon 7%

Sulfate 31%

Organic Carbon 34%

182

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Crustal 3%
Nitrate 5%

Particle Speciation- Rome 2005

Other 14%

Ammonium Ion 9% Elemental Carbon 4%

Organic Carbon 33%

Sulfate 32%

Crustal
2% Nitrate
3%

Particle Speciation- Columbus 2005

Other 14%

Ammonium Ion
8% Elemental Carbon
4%

Sulfate 33%

Organic Carbon 36%

183

Crustal 1%
Nitrate 5%

Particle Speciation- Augusta 2005

Other 13%

Ammonium Ion 9% Elemental Carbon 4%

Sulfate 30%

Organic Carbon 38%

Crustal 1%
Nitrate 4%

Particle Speciation- Rossville 2005

Other 14%

Ammonium Ion 10%
Elemental Carbon 4%

Sulfate 36%

Organic Carbon 31%

184

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix C: Additional Meteorological Data
Hurricane Dennis July 7-9, 2005
185

186

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Hurricane Rita September 18-21, 2005
187

188

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix D: Additional PAMS Data

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June- August 2005)

Name PAMSHC TNMOC Ethane Ethylene Propane Propylene Acetylene n-Butane Isobutane

(concentrations in parts per billion Carbon (ppbC))

Site # Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

S. DeKalb 1911

65.87

411.2

347.7

Tucker

1800

54.99

350.8

315.8

Conyers

1795

29.35

553.2

159.7

Yorkville

1713

20.44

70.4

70.3

S. DeKalb 1911

74.09

479

394.1

Tucker

1800

75.51

947.7

448.6

Conyers

1795

44.6

667

550.7

Yorkville

1703

22.04

84.2

83.8

S. DeKalb 1883

3.873

18.19

15.35

Tucker

1798

3.204

25.39

18.54

Conyers

1704

2.592

14.97

10.82

Yorkville

1703

1.622

6.02

5.11

S. DeKalb 1883

2.071

34.23

13.95

Tucker

1798

1.838

14.84

11.45

Conyers

1704

0.736

7.81

5.6

Yorkville

1703

0.295

1.93

1.88

S. DeKalb 1883

4.766

49.57

42.72

Tucker

1798

3.451

98.77

20.83

Conyers

1703

2.447

13.42

11.85

Yorkville

1703

2.419

16.73

13.38

S. DeKalb 1883

1.391

11.84

10.84

Tucker

1798

0.995

9.14

5.81

Conyers

1704

0.484

4.89

4.2

Yorkville

1703

0.305

1.27

1.11

S. DeKalb 1883

0.79

34.5

15

Tucker

1798

0.45

4.1

3.3

Conyers

1704

0.28

5.5

2.2

Yorkville

1703

0.23

1.3

1.1

S. DeKalb 1883

2.95

27.06

24.11

Tucker

1798

2.379

40.14

17.48

Conyers

1704

1.21

21.41

7.54

Yorkville

1703

0.855

5.81

4.74

S. DeKalb 1883

1.571

10.17

9.76

Tucker

1797

1.11

26.66

8.77

Conyers

1704

0.486

9.57

4.05

Yorkville

1703

0.365

2.15

1.79

189

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2005)(continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site # Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

trans-2-Butene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.101

1.56

1.2

Tucker

1798

0.05

1.2

1.12

Conyers

1704

0.009

2.61

0.77

Yorkville

1703

0.008

4.31

0.23

cis-2-Butene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.071

1.31

0.93

Tucker

1797

0.048

1.76

1.39

Conyers

1704

0.009

3.69

0.54

Yorkville

1703

0.005

0.01

0.01

n-Pentane

S. DeKalb 1883

3.51

25.38

24.89

Tucker

1798

2.498

36.46

35.15

Conyers

1704

1.358

23.64

18.71

Yorkville

1703

0.666

4.11

4.07

Isopentane

S. DeKalb 1883

6.273

56.48

52.82

Tucker

1798

4.866

44.3

42.02

Conyers

1704

2.467

40.57

17.16

Yorkville

1703

1.319

10.16

9.53

1-Pentene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.165

1.59

1.4

Tucker

1798

0.043

1.65

1.46

Conyers

1704

0.009

1.74

1.05

Yorkville

1703

0.006

0.33

0.24

trans-2-Pentene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.239

3.18

3.18

Tucker

1798

0.061

1.86

1.23

Conyers

1704

0.009

2.02

1.08

Yorkville

1703

0.006

0.62

0.33

cis-2-Pentene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.09

1.44

1.4

Tucker

1798

0.026

6.67

0.82

Conyers

1704

0.007

2.51

0.53

Yorkville

1703

0.005

0.33

0.21

3-Methylpentane

S. DeKalb 1883

1.182

10.55

10

Tucker

1709

0.612

35.95

6.2

Conyers

1704

0.237

10.59

3.11

Yorkville

1703

0.133

13.42

1.24

n-Hexane

S. DeKalb 1905

1.355

12.96

11.47

Tucker

1791

1.189

8.27

7.9

Conyers

1794

0.277

7.59

3.12

Yorkville

1713

0.189

1.64

1.35

n-Heptane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.657

8.25

6.02

Tucker

1790

0.716

6.52

3.88

Conyers

1794

0.177

7.64

2.47

Yorkville

1713

0.054

0.93

0.83

190

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2005)(continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site # Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

n-Octane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.247

5.45

2.27

Tucker

1791

0.24

11.84

1.78

Conyers

1794

0.029

4.13

2.98

Yorkville

1713

0.011

0.48

0.32

n-Nonane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.177

1.91

1.62

Tucker

1791

0.253

5.73

4.91

Conyers

1794

0.04

2.72

2.33

Yorkville

1713

0.007

0.35

0.33

n-Decane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.175

1.74

1.74

Tucker

1791

0.462

9.2

8.94

Conyers

1793

0.053

2.68

2.5

Yorkville

1713

0.029

3.11

3.03

Cyclopentane

S. DeKalb 1883

0.191

2.01

1.99

Tucker

1798

0.235

7.42

7.03

Conyers

1704

0.072

2.02

1.91

Yorkville

1703

0.011

5.59

0.38

Isoprene

S. DeKalb 1883

5.764

28.33

28.23

Tucker

1798

3.034

103.23 23.52

Conyers

1704

6.13

52.22

51.16

Yorkville

1703

6.831

59.54

55.1

2,2-Dimetylbutane

S. DeKalb 1883

0.445

9

7.93

Tucker

1798

0.112

6.96

1.82

Conyers

1704

0.025

2.84

2.55

Yorkville

1703

0.026

0.61

0.5

2,4-Dimetylpentane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.279

3.92

3.52

Tucker

1791

0.266

3.59

3.01

Conyers

1794

0.078

4.38

4.18

Yorkville

1713

0.007

0.51

0.4

Cyclohexane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.163

2.53

2.16

Tucker

1791

0.197

11.5

2.66

Conyers

1794

0.054

4.09

2.99

Yorkville

1713

0.011

0.51

0.44

3-Methylhexane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.802

9.49

7.11

Tucker

1790

1.022

7.81

6.74

Conyers

1794

0.225

9.9

2.08

Yorkville

1713

0.084

1.08

1.04

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1905

1.873

13.13

11.46

Tucker

1179

3.092

9.49

9.25

Conyers

1794

0.529

13.36

4.73

Yorkville

1713

0.262

2.01

1.86

191

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2005)(continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site

# Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

2,3,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1905

0.614

4.38

4.25

Tucker

1791

0.502

6.02

3.15

Conyers

1794

0.126

4.25

2.46

Yorkville

1713

0.037

0.6

0.56

3-Methylheptane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.159

3.04

2.93

Tucker

1791

0.203

4.82

2.52

Conyers

1794

0.021

2.81

2.49

Yorkville

1713

0.007

0.33

0.26

Methylcyclohexane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.291

3.05

2.47

Tucker

1790

0.366

3.34

3.11

Conyers

1794

0.083

6.3

3.13

Yorkville

1713

0.013

0.35

0.35

Methylcyclopentane S. DeKalb 1905

0.602

6.16

5.82

Tucker

1791

0.451

3.63

2.48

Conyers

1794

0.145

5.5

2.19

Yorkville

1713

0.031

1.01

0.67

2-Methylhexane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.661

9.08

6.08

Tucker

1790

0.542

8.04

4.1

Conyers

1794

0.131

6.69

2.01

Yorkville

1713

0.031

0.82

0.82

1-Butene

S. DeKalb 1883

0.341

2.57

2.15

Tucker

1798

0.276

2.11

2

Conyers

1704

0.137

3.07

1.78

Yorkville

1703

0.009

2.27

0.26

2,3-Dimetylbutane

S. DeKalb 1883

0.566

5.62

5.13

Tucker

1755

0.158

13.83

1.83

Conyers

1704

0.046

4.33

0.86

Yorkville

1703

0.105

2.73

1.39

2-Methylpentane

S. DeKalb 1883

1.826

16.91

16.31

Tucker

1732

0.64

54.61

4.46

Conyers

1704

0.281

13.77

3.17

Yorkville

1703

0.27

1.91

1.89

2,3-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb 1905

0.475

6.4

4.62

Tucker

1790

0.596

5.53

5.21

Conyers

1794

0.143

5.7

5.66

Yorkville

1713

0.024

0.7

0.59

n-Undecane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.338

4.04

3.71

Tucker

1791

1.116

14.36

13.61

Conyers

1792

0.068

2.54

1.89

Yorkville

1118

0.095

4.27

4.11

192

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2005)(continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site # Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

2-Methylheptane

S. DeKalb 1905

0.087

2.31

2.26

Tucker

1791

0.2

3.51

2.87

Conyers

1794

0.019

2.41

2.37

Yorkville

1713

0.006

0.24

0.22

m & p Xylenes

S. DeKalb 1905

2.664

24.67

23.75

Tucker

1791

2.501

23.31

14.88

Conyers

1794

0.634

29.76

7.22

Yorkville

1713

0.353

2.43

2.32

Benzene

S. DeKalb 1905

1.601

29.71

12.79

Tucker

1791

1.497

13.26

7.03

Conyers

1794

0.591

15.27

4.23

Yorkville

1713

0.317

1.38

1.36

Toluene

S. DeKalb 1905

5.621

55.36

38.1

Tucker

1791

5.078

43.29

35.62

Conyers

1794

1.864

47.41

13.82

Yorkville

1713

0.943

4.84

4.64

Ethylbenzene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.87

7.51

7.06

Tucker

1791

0.81

6.82

4.97

Conyers

1794

0.203

10.13

2.16

Yorkville

1713

0.082

0.88

0.85

o-Xylene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.989

9.3

9.19

Tucker

1791

1.089

8.91

5.93

Conyers

1794

0.28

10.51

2.93

Yorkville

1713

0.114

0.92

0.89

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1905

0.355

3.64

2.99

Tucker

1791

0.513

7.8

5.25

Conyers

1794

0.144

4.61

2.39

Yorkville

1713

0.014

0.62

0.56

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1905

1.382

13.99

10.89

Tucker

1791

1.633

13.23

12.08

Conyers

1772

0.306

9.51

3.69

Yorkville

1713

0.102

1.33

1.22

n-Propylbenzene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.199

2.31

1.9

Tucker

1791

0.261

2.54

2.27

Conyers

1794

0.048

1.77

0.68

Yorkville

1713

0.009

0.38

0.38

Isopropylbenzene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.067

0.77

0.67

Tucker

1791

0.043

1.25

1.02

Conyers

1794

0.008

3.08

1.02

Yorkville

1713

0.006

0.32

0.32

193

PAMS Continuous Hydrocarbon Data (June-August 2005)(continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site # Samples Avg.

1st Max 2nd Max

o-Ethyltoluene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.299

3.06

2.64

Tucker

1180

0.363

2.8

2.78

Conyers

1794

0.158

3.13

1.55

Yorkville

1713

0.029

0.81

0.56

m-Ethyltoluene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.666

8.45

4.84

Tucker

1791

1.357

13.7

9.67

Conyers

1794

3.187

35.7

19.1

Yorkville

1713

0.068

3.16

3.06

p-Ethyltoluene

S.DeKalb 1905

1.458

15.47

7.83

Tucker

1791

0.538

6.38

6.27

Conyers

1794

0.131

6.30

6.07

Yorkville

1713

0.795

4.71

4.63

m-Diethylbenzene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.021

1.19

0.98

Tucker

1791

0.124

5.35

4.57

Conyers

1793

0.035

3.41

2.6

Yorkville

1713

0.008

0.77

0.77

p-Diethylbenzene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.124

2.15

1.34

Tucker

1791

0.3

9.32

7.26

Conyers

1793

0.02

2.29

2.05

Yorkville

1713

0.007

0.6

0.56

Styrene

S. DeKalb 1905

0.482

3.37

3.12

Tucker

1791

0.681

30.96

14.96

Conyers

1794

0.143

4.34

1.2

Yorkville

1713

0.073

1.03

0.88

1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb 1905

2.679

12.03

11.81

Tucker

1791

2.184

19.77

10.91

Conyers

606

4.394

57.21

52.09

Yorkville

1713

1.442

9.79

8.47

194

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons
(concentrations in parts per billion Carbon (ppbC))

Name PAMSHC TNMOC Ethane Ethylene Propane Propylene Acetylene n-Butane Isobutane

Site
S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville S. DeKalb Tucker Conyers Yorkville

#Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max

54

54 85.31 290.0 220.0

48

48 80.92 320.0 180.0

57

57 52.63 220.0 190.0

53

53 23.65 85.0 42.0

54

54 182.81 500.0 350.0

48

48 170.35 490.0 320.0

58

58 178.67 420.0 380.0

55

55 96.58 140.0 140.0

54

53

6.06 23.0 17.0

48

48

6.17 26.0 14.0

58

48

4.51 26.0 10.0

55

55

3.70 8.5 8.4

54

26

1.18 6.7 4.7

48

22

1.08 5.5 3.9

58

30

0.63 2.6 2.0

55

25

0.41 2.3 1.7

54

54

6.84 21.0 19.0

48

48

6.33 24.0 16.0

58

58

4.68 19.0 10.0

55

55

3.91 9.4 9.0

54

53

1.59 7.0 5.2

48

48

1.25 4.3 2.6

58

47

0.52 3.1 1.1

55

16

0.18 1.2 0.7

54

53

3.12 15.0 8.9

48

48

2.48 7.7 5.5

58

54

1.31 9.6 2.4

55

49

0.78 2.7 2.2

54

54

8.06 34.0 32.0

48

48

8.19 31.0 26.0

58

57

3.07 14.0 9.3

55

53

1.94 12.0 5.8

54

53

2.81 14.0 11.0

48

48

2.59 8.6 6.6

58

48

0.96 5.9 2.3

55

38

0.60 3.8 1.9

195

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued)

Name

(concentrations in ppbC)
1st Site #Samples #Detects Avg. Max 2nd Max

trans-2-Butene

S. DeKalb

54

11

0.19 1.5 0.7

Tucker

48

9

0.15 1.1 0.4

Conyers

57

1

0.10 0.4

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.3

cis-2-Butene

S. DeKalb

54

11

0.17 0.8 0.8

Tucker

48

5

0.16 2.2 0.3

Conyers

57

2

0.11 0.6 0.4

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.4

n-Pentane

S. DeKalb

54

54 4.14 11.0 11.0

Tucker

48

48 4.84 23.0 20.0

Conyers

58

57 1.96 7.4 5.1

Yorkville

55

50 0.76 4.0 2.2

Isopentane

S. DeKalb

54

54 8.07 26.0 22.0

Tucker

48

48 7.84 29.0 25.0

Conyers

58

57 3.24 11.0 8.2

Yorkville

55

53 1.60 8.0 3.8

1-Pentene

S. DeKalb

54

25 0.27 1.0 1.0

Tucker

48

15 0.31 6.6 0.5

Conyers

58

8

0.15 1.4 0.6

Yorkville

55

3

0.11 0.7 0.3

trans-2-Pentene

S. DeKalb

54

26 0.45 3.5 2.2

Tucker

48

20 0.37 3.3 2.4

Conyers

58

6

0.17 1.7 0.8

Yorkville

55

4

0.19 2.4 1.4

cis-2-Pentene

S. DeKalb

54

16 0.21 1.0 0.9

Tucker

48

8

0.17 1.3 0.9

Conyers

58

5

0.20 3.0 1.0

Yorkville

55

10 0.50 3.6 3.3

3-Methylpentane

S. DeKalb

54

52 1.57 4.5 3.6

Tucker

48

48 1.49 5.5 2.8

Conyers

58

50 0.80 4.2 2.4

Yorkville

55

27 0.34 2.4 1.2

n-Hexane

S. DeKalb

54

53 1.63 4.6 4.2

Tucker

48

48 1.86 11.0 8.7

Conyers

58

51 0.85 2.9 2.3

Yorkville

55

32 0.59 2.4 2.0

n-Heptane

S. DeKalb

54

46 0.69 2.2 2.1

Tucker

48

47 0.83 4.7 3.2

Conyers

58

28 0.24 1.2 0.7

Yorkville

55

4

0.12 0.7 0.3

196

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued)

Name

(concentrations in ppbC)
Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max

n-Octane

S. DeKalb

54

21

0.21 0.9 0.6

Tucker

48

17

0.21 1.4 0.5

Conyers

58

6

0.13 1.0 0.4

Yorkville

55

27

0.45 2.1 1.9

n-Nonane

S. DeKalb

54

17

0.19 0.8 0.6

Tucker

48

20

0.22 0.7 0.6

Conyers

58

5

0.11 0.4 0.2

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.3

n-Decane

S. DeKalb

54

23

0.22 0.9 0.8

Tucker

48

27

0.26 0.9 0.8

Conyers

58

9

0.13 0.4 0.4

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.3

Cyclopentane

S. DeKalb

54

18

0.24 1.7 1.1

Tucker

48

13

0.22 1.7 1.6

Conyers

58

3

0.14 1.4 1.2

Yorkville

55

6

0.12 0.7 0.3

Isoprene

S. DeKalb

54

38

2.86 18.0 17.0

Tucker

48

35

2.00 8.6 7.9

Conyers

58

43

2.93 15.0 13.0

Yorkville

55

34

2.85 15.0 14.0

2,2-Dimethylbutane

S. DeKalb

54

25

0.32 1.3 1.1

Tucker

48

30

0.30 1.0 1.0

Conyers

58

25

0.83 12.0 8.2

Yorkville

55

1

0.11 0.5

2,4-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb

54

23

0.28 1.1 1.0

Tucker

48

22

0.22 1.0 0.6

Conyers

58

1

0.10 0.4

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.2

Cyclohexane

S. DeKalb

54

19

0.19 0.8 0.6

Tucker

48

12

0.18 0.8 0.7

Conyers

58

7

0.15 1.3 0.7

Yorkville

55

5

0.12 0.3 0.3

3-Methylhexane

S. DeKalb

54

50

1.3 3.5 3.4

Tucker

48

47

1.10 4.3 3.7

Conyers

58

37

0.37 2.8 1.2

Yorkville

55

19

0.23 0.9 0.9

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb

54

53

2.09 7.0 5.9

Tucker

48

48

1.69 4.7 3.2

Conyers

58

46

0.63 3.3 1.9

Yorkville

55

16

0.19 1.3 0.6

197

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax

2,3,4-Trimethylpentane S. DeKalb

54

34

2.3 1.9 1.6

Tucker

48

37

0.42 1.7 1.0

Conyers

58

11

0.27 7.3 0.9

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.4

3-Methylheptane

S. DeKalb

54

11

0.16 0.8 0.7

Tucker

48

9

0.18 1.3 1.2

Conyers

58

4

0.14 1.7 0.8

Yorkville

55

33

0.25 0.7 0.6

Methylcyclohexane

S. DeKalb

54

23

0.25 1.0 0.8

Tucker

48

22

0.27 1.3 1.0

Conyers

58

7

0.12 0.4 0.4

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.3

Methylcyclopentane S. DeKalb

54

39

0.60 2.5 2.0

Tucker

48

40

0.54 3.6 1.3

Conyers

58

17

0.18 1.2 0.5

Yorkville

55

2

0.11 0.6 0.2

2-Methylhexane

S. DeKalb

54

43

0.75 2.7 2.2

Tucker

48

46

0.83 4.0 2.4

Conyers

58

26

0.27 1.2 1.1

Yorkville

55

3

0.11 0.7 0.3

1-Butene

S. DeKalb

54

28

0.41 2.1 1.7

Tucker

48

25

0.33 1.5 1.0

Conyers

58

8

0.15 0.8 0.6

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.4

2,3-Dimenthylbutane S. DeKalb

54

33

0.52 2.1 1.6

Tucker

48

36

0.46 1.9 1.2

Conyers

58

14

0.19 1.1 0.9

Yorkville

55

7

0.20 1.4 1.4

2-Methylpentane

S. DeKalb

54

53

2.05 7.0 6.4

Tucker

48

48

1.98 8.9 4.8

Conyers

58

51

0.71 3.5 1.8

Yorkville

55

24

0.27 1.7 1.1

2,3-Dimethylpentane S. DeKalb

54

41

0.57 1.7 1.5

Tucker

48

38

0.45 1.4 1.2

Conyers

58

23

0.22 0.7 0.6

Yorkville

55

6

0.12 0.4 0.3

n-Undecane

S. DeKalb

54

12

0.16 0.7 0.5

Tucker

48

14

0.16 0.6 0.5

Conyers

58

6

0.11 0.3 0.3

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.2

198

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax

2-Methylheptane

S. DeKalb

54

13

0.16 0.7 0.5

Tucker

48

12

0.17 1.2 0.6

Conyers

58

5

0.12 0.5 0.3

Yorkville

55

3

0.11 0.3 0.3

m & p Xylenes

S. DeKalb

54

53

3.19 10.0 8.6

Tucker

48

48

3.33 21.0 7.6

Conyers

58

57

1.17 5.3 2.4

Yorkville

55

26

0.28 0.8 0.8

Benzene

S. DeKalb

54

54

2.75 8.5 6.6

Tucker

48

48

2.58 16.0 4.1

Conyers

58

58

1.49 4.7 2.7

Yorkville

55

52

0.72 2.1 1.5

Toluene

S. DeKalb

54

54

8.55 21.0 20.0

Tucker

48

48

7.84 41.0 16.0

Conyers

58

57

4.24 9.8 7.5

Yorkville

55

55

1.48 6.6 5.1

Ethylbenzene

S. DeKalb

54

47

0.84 2.8 2.6

Tucker

48

46

0.88 6.0 2.3

Conyers

58

29

0.28 1.5 1.0

Yorkville

55

4

0.12 0.8 0.3

o-Xylene

S. DeKalb

54

51

1.16 3.8 3.1

Tucker

48

48

1.15 7.0 2.2

Conyers

58

36

0.37 1.9 1.1

Yorkville

55

4

0.12 1.0 0.3

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb

54

33

0.40 2.5 1.4

Tucker

48

34

0.38 1.9 1.0

Conyers

58

17

0.21 1.0 1.0

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.4

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb

54

53

3.22 14.0 11.0

Tucker

48

48

3.13 16.0 13.0

Conyers

58

50 14.38 230.0 180.0

Yorkville

55

31

1.28 4.1 4.0

n-Propylbenzene

S. DeKalb

54

13

0.17 1.1 0.5

Tucker

48

11

0.16 1.1 0.5

Conyers

58

4

0.18 4.7 0.3

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.2

Isopropylbenzene

S. DeKalb

54

1

0.10 0.3

Tucker

48

ND

Conyers

58

ND

Yorkville

55

ND

199

PAMS 2005 24-hour Canister Hydrocarbons (continued)

(concentrations in ppbC)

Name

Site #Samples #Detects Avg. 1st Max 2ndMax

o-Ethyltoluene

S. DeKalb

54

31

0.43 2.1 1.6

Tucker

48

32

0.36 1.4 0.8

Conyers

58

22

0.24 3.0 0.6

Yorkville

55

4

0.12 0.4 0.4

m-Ethyltoluene

S. DeKalb

54

45

0.87 5.0 2.7

Tucker

48

47

0.91 4.7 1.7

Conyers

58

27

0.27 1.4 1.0

Yorkville

55

2

0.11 0.7 0.2

p-Ethyltoluene

S. DeKalb

54

35

0.51 2.3 1.4

Tucker

48

34

0.39 2.2 1.0

Conyers

58

43

0.58 1.8 1.7

Yorkville

55

2

0.11 0.6 0.2

m-Diethylbenzene

S. DeKalb

54

1

0.10 0.2

Tucker

48

ND

Conyers

58

ND

Yorkville

55

ND

p-Diethylbenzene

S. DeKalb

54

18

0.21 0.8 0.8

Tucker

48

15

0.20 1.1 0.7

Conyers

58

9

0.13 0.7 0.3

Yorkville

55

1

0.10 0.3

Styrene

S. DeKalb

54

32

0.51 2.5 1.7

Tucker

48

21

0.28 1.6 1.0

Conyers

58

24

0.42 4.8 2.2

Yorkville

55

8

0.14 0.6 0.6

1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene S. DeKalb

54

29

0.37 1.3 1.1

Tucker

48

30

0.30 1.4 0.8

Conyers

58

17

0.20 1.1 0.9

Yorkville

55

4

0.30 6.4 4.3

ND indicates there were no detections.7

200

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix E: Additional Toxics Data

2005 Metals

(concentrations in micrograms per cubic

meter (g/m3))

Total

# of

Name

Site

Samples Detects Avg.

Antimony

Milledgeville

30

29 0.00090

Macon

29

29 0.00064

Savannah

28

27 0.00057

General Coffee

29

26 0.00033

Dawsonville

29

28 0.00061

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00191

Rome

30

30 0.00144

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.00151

Brunswick

25

24 0.00040

Gainesville

41

41 0.00096

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00068

Valdosta

27

15 0.00037

Columbus

30

28 0.00096

Yorkville

29

29 0.00068

Augusta

27

26 0.00540

Arsenic

Milledgeville

30

21 0.00064

Macon

29

22 0.00070

Savannah

28

23 0.00088

General Coffee

29

25 0.00092

Dawsonville

29

24 0.00084

South DeKalb*

55

50 0.00070

Rome

30

28 0.00116

Utoy Creek

30

29 0.00106

Brunswick

25

12 0.00057

Gainesville

41

41 0.00080

Warner Robins

30

23 0.00070

Valdosta

27

8 0.00082

Columbus

30

21 0.00083

Yorkville

29

26 0.00127

Augusta

27

23 0.00099

Beryllium

Milledgeville

30

2 0.00003

Macon

29

ND

Savannah

28

1 0.00003

General Coffee

29

2 0.00004

Dawsonville

29

1 0.00003

South DeKalb*

55

ND

1st Max 0.00984 0.00227 0.00174 0.00142 0.00124 0.00882 0.00371 0.00412 0.00146 0.00226 0.00240 0.00206 0.00214 0.00166 0.07106 0.00139 0.00178 0.00198 0.00266 0.00189 0.00149 0.00265 0.00239 0.00317 0.00176 0.00213 0.01227 0.00291 0.00455 0.00214 0.00010
0.00008 0.00046 0.00014

2nd Max 0.00155 0.00135 0.00153 0.00089 0.00102 0.00556 0.00243 0.00371 0.00068 0.00176 0.00217 0.00129 0.00192 0.00147 0.03156 0.00136 0.00150 0.00189 0.00250 0.00162 0.00147 0.00204 0.00232 0.00105 0.00167 0.00185 0.00150 0.00242 0.00445 0.00186 0.00007
0.00006

201

2005 Metals (continued)

(concentrations in g/m3)

Total # of

Name

Total Samples Samples Detects Avg.

Beryllium

Rome

30

1 0.00004

(continued)

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

25

2 0.00004

Gainesville

41

2 0.00003

Warner Robins

30

1 0.00003

Valdosta

27

1 0.00003

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

29

1 0.00003

Augusta

27

1 0.00004

Cadmium

Milledgeville

30

29 0.00017

Macon

29

29 0.00015

Savannah

28

27 0.00023

General Coffee

29

29 0.00019

Dawsonville

29

29 0.00013

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00011

Rome

30

30 0.00019

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.00057

Brunswick

25

25 0.00020

Gainesville

41

41 0.00017

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00014

Valdosta

27

19 0.00008

Columbus

30

28 0.00014

Yorkville

29

29 0.00020

Augusta

27

26 0.00018

Chromium

Milledgeville

30

30 0.00152

Macon

29

29 0.00182

Savannah

28

27 0.00392

General Coffee

29

28 0.00158

Dawsonville

29

29 0.00529

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00150

Rome

30

30 0.00175

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.00263

Brunswick

25

25 0.00206

Gainesville

41

41 0.00705

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00191

Valdosta

27

26 0.00144

Columbus

30

28 0.00148

Yorkville

29

27 0.00169

Augusta

27

26 0.00206

1st Max 2nd Max 0.00042

0.00020 0.00016 0.00005 0.00007

0.00009 0.00015

0.00006 0.00041 0.00087 0.00081 0.00033 0.00030 0.00073 0.00039 0.00081 0.00064 0.00028 0.00026 0.00055 0.00026 0.00081 0.00041 0.00294 0.00230 0.00043 0.00043 0.00085 0.00060 0.00061 0.00023 0.00045 0.00026 0.00034 0.00032 0.00084 0.00080 0.00038 0.00034 0.00546 0.00238 0.00611 0.00484 0.05096 0.00238 0.00367 0.00318 0.10703 0.00358 0.00391 0.00304 0.00268 0.00223 0.00681 0.00622 0.00643 0.00397 0.12033 0.10299 0.00664 0.00535 0.00265 0.00260 0.00238 0.00215 0.00509 0.00442 0.00838 0.00363

202

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Metals (continued)

(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Site

Total

# of

Samples Detects Avg.

Cobalt
Hexavalent Chromium8 Lead

Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb* Rome Utoy Creek Brunswick Gainesville Warner Robins Valdosta Columbus Yorkville Augusta
South DeKalb* Milledgeville Macon Savannah General Coffee Dawsonville South DeKalb* Rome Utoy Creek Brunswick Gainesville Warner Robins Valdosta Columbus Yorkville Augusta

30

9

0.00014

29

13 0.00010

28

17 0.00014

29

14 0.00017

29

15 0.00013

55

19 0.00007

30

25 0.00016

30

25 0.00018

25

6

0.00010

41

31 0.00020

30

10 0.00008

27

4

0.00006

30

16 0.00012

29

11 0.00014

27

20 0.00018

49

35 0.00003

30

30 0.00410

29

29 0.00338

28

27 0.00302

29

29 0.00170

29

29 0.00246

55

55 0.00240

30

30 0.00420

30

30 0.00523

25

25 0.00212

41

41 0.00307

30

30 0.00290

27

27 0.00146

30

28 0.00367

29

29 0.00239

27

26 0.00689

1st Max
0.00171 0.00023 0.00066 0.00093 0.00097 0.00022 0.00042 0.00036 0.00070 0.00130 0.00016 0.00014 0.00043 0.00136 0.00050

2nd Max
0.00047 0.00021 0.00027 0.00060 0.00021 0.00020 0.00031 0.00030 0.00026 0.00118 0.00014 0.00013 0.00028 0.00035 0.00044

0.00012 0.03521 0.01487 0.00621 0.00358 0.00465 0.01206 0.00765 0.02317 0.00552 0.00785 0.01624 0.00589 0.00889 0.00559 0.08053

0.00008 0.00879 0.00907 0.00609 0.00343 0.00404 0.00478 0.00685 0.01476 0.00488 0.00763 0.00562 0.00402 0.00769 0.00434 0.00827

8 Hexavalent Chromium- sample collected every 6 days

203

2005 Metals (continued)

(concentrations in g/m3)

Total

# of

Name

Site

Samples Detects Avg.

Manganese

Milledgeville

30

30 0.01339

Macon

29

29 0.00767

Savannah

28

27 0.00821

General Coffee

29

29 0.00395

Dawsonville

29

29 0.00907

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00392

Rome

30

30 0.01457

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.01195

Brunswick

25

25 0.00485

Gainesville

41

41 0.01235

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00636

Valdosta

27

27 0.00233

Columbus

30

28 0.00862

Yorkville

29

29 0.00551

Augusta

27

26 0.01381

Nickel

Milledgeville

30

30 0.00148

Macon

29

29 0.00156

Savannah

28

27 0.00447

General Coffee

29

29 0.00209

Dawsonville

29

29 0.00479

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00226

Rome

30

30 0.00232

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.00242

Brunswick

25

25 0.00295

Gainesville

41

41 0.00590

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00127

Valdosta

27

27 0.00134

Columbus

30

28 0.00193

Yorkville

29

29 0.00181

Augusta

27

26 0.00354

1st Max
0.19654 0.02433 0.06647 0.01304 0.10703 0.01528 0.16723 0.03530 0.02897 0.12033 0.01320 0.00740 0.02166 0.01604 0.04602 0.00355 0.00351 0.03988 0.00538 0.06811 0.01380 0.00653 0.01031 0.00689 0.07405 0.00396 0.00265 0.00681 0.00551 0.02120

2nd Max
0.06772 0.01897 0.01449 0.00686 0.02565 0.01197 0.01508 0.03071 0.00826 0.11770 0.01278 0.00726 0.01809 0.01362 0.03643 0.00319 0.00339 0.00802 0.00466 0.01128 0.01217 0.00648 0.00811 0.00568 0.06866 0.00265 0.00245 0.00517 0.00502 0.01161

204

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Metals (continued)

(concentrations in g/m3)

Total

# of

Name

Site

Samples Detects Avg.

Selenium

Milledgeville

30

29 0.00107

Macon

29

29 0.00106

Savannah

28

28 0.00073

General Coffee

29

28 0.00055

Dawsonville

29

28 0.00101

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.00084

Rome

30

30 0.00157

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.00167

Brunswick

25

24 0.00052

Gainesville

41

41 0.00105

Warner Robins

30

30 0.00082

Valdosta

27

15 0.00026

Columbus

30

28 0.00066

Yorkville

29

29 0.00169

Augusta

27

26 0.00168

Zinc

Milledgeville

30

30 0.01304

Macon

29

29 0.02626

Savannah

28

27 0.01987

General Coffee

29

29 0.01517

Dawsonville

29

29 0.02330

South DeKalb*

55

55 0.01319

Rome

30

30 0.02878

Utoy Creek

30

30 0.05746

Brunswick

25

25 0.01591

Gainesville

41

41 0.02337

Warner Robins

30

30 0.01640

Valdosta

27

27 0.01280

Columbus

30

28 0.02278

Yorkville

29

29 0.01534

Augusta

27

26 0.02311

1st Max
0.00361 0.00331 0.00203 0.00140 0.00258 0.00250 0.00628 0.00537 0.00099 0.00309 0.00230 0.00128 0.00155 0.01708 0.00891 0.02672 0.09115 0.03415 0.02769 0.13011 0.03951 0.05611 0.15741 0.03125 0.05598 0.05829 0.04962 0.07946 0.03368 0.07106

2nd Max
0.00300 0.00204 0.00198 0.00109 0.00242 0.00227 0.00492 0.00430 0.00092 0.00270 0.00159 0.00067 0.00135 0.00300 0.00607 0.02005 0.04714 0.03243 0.02634 0.07096 0.02511 0.05502 0.13803 0.02490 0.05395 0.02842 0.03000 0.04595 0.02947 0.04841

* Hi-Vol PM10 selected Total Suspended Particulates- sample collected every 6 days

205

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter)

Total # of

Name

Site Samples Detects Avg.

Acenaphthene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

Acenaphthylene

Milledgeville 29

1

40.11

Macon

27

1

40.27

Savannah

23

General

Coffee

28

1

40.33

1

40.00

Dawsonville 28

Rome

29

Utoy Creek

29

1

39.06

1

39.66

1

38.48

Brunswick

28

1

39.62

Gainesville

38

Warner

Robins

29

1

39.02

1

40.31

Valdosta

27

3

38.48

Columbus

28

1

38.98

Yorkville

28

1

39.01

Augusta

28

1

38.77

Anthracene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

1st Max 2nd Max

41.9 42.4 41.2

42.5 41.4 41.0 39.9 41.2 41.0

41.8

39.6

39.2

39.5

42.2

40.6

206

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter) Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Anthracene (continued)

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

Benzo(a)anthracene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General Coffee

29

1

0.08

0.1

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

1

0.08

0.1

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

1

0.13

1.4

Gainesville

40

2

0.08

0.1

Warner Robins

30

1

0.08

0.1

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

1

0.08

0.1

Augusta

28

3

0.08

0.1

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Milledgeville 29

ND

Macon

27

ND

Savannah

23

ND

General Coffee

28

ND

Dawsonville 28

ND

Rome

29

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

28

1

0.08

0.1

Gainesville

39

ND

Warner Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

27

ND

Columbus

28

ND

Yorkville

28

ND

Augusta

27

ND

2nd Max
0.1 0.1

207

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter) Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Milledgeville 30

1

0.08

0.1

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

1

0.08

0.1

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

Benzo(a)pyrene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

1

0.32

0.3

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

1

0.32

0.3

Utoy Creek

30

1

0.30

0.3

Brunswick

29

1

0.36

1.4

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

1

0.32

0.3

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

Benzo(e)pyrene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

1

0.08

0.2

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

1

0.08

0.1

2nd Max

208

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter) Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Benzo(e)pyrene (continued) Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

1

0.08

0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Milledgeville 29

4

0.08

0.1

Macon

27

2

0.08

0.1

Savannah

24

2

0.08

0.1

General

Coffee

28

3

0.08

0.1

Dawsonville 28

4

0.08

0.1

Rome

29

1

0.08

0.1

Utoy Creek

29

1

0.10

0.8

Brunswick

29

1

0.08

0.1

Gainesville

39

4

0.08

0.1

Warner

Robins

29

3

0.08

0.1

Valdosta

27

3

0.08

0.1

Columbus

28

1

0.08

0.1

Yorkville

28

2

0.08

0.1

Augusta

27

1

0.08

0.1

Chrysene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

2nd Max
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

209

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter) Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

Fluoranthene

Milledgeville 30

5

0.32

0.3

Macon

28

3

0.32

0.3

Savannah

24

7

0.32

0.3

General

Coffee

29

1

0.32

0.3

Dawsonville 29

2

0.31

0.3

Rome

30

9

0.32

0.3

Utoy Creek

30

9

0.31

0.3

Brunswick

29

3

0.32

0.3

Gainesville

40

8

0.31

0.3

Warner

Robins

30

6

0.32

0.3

Valdosta

28

4

0.31

0.3

Columbus

29

7

0.31

0.3

Yorkville

29

5

0.31

0.3

Augusta

28

8

0.31

0.3

Fluorene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

2

8.06

8.2

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

ND

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

39

ND

2nd Max
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
8.2

210

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter)

Name

Site

Fluorene (continued)

Warner

Robins

Valdosta

Columbus

Yorkville

Augusta

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Milledgeville

Macon

Savannah

General

Coffee

Dawsonville

Rome

Utoy Creek

Brunswick

Gainesville

Warner

Robins

Valdosta

Columbus

Yorkville

Augusta

Naphthalene

Milledgeville

Macon

Savannah

General

Coffee

Dawsonville

Rome

Utoy Creek

Brunswick

Gainesville

Warner

Robins

Valdosta

Columbus

Yorkville

Augusta

Total Samples
30 28 29 29 28 30 28 24
29 29 30 30 29 40
30 28 29 29 28 30 28 24
29 29 30 30 29 40
30 28 29 29 28

# of Detects
1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND 1 ND ND
1 ND ND ND 1

Avg. 8.06
38.47 40.31 38.77

1st Max 8.4
39.9 41.8 40.6

2nd Max

211

2005 Semi-Volatile Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in nanograms

per cubic meter) Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Phenanthrene

Milledgeville 30

1

3.21

3.4

Macon

28

3

3.22

3.4

Savannah

24

6

3.22

3.3

General

Coffee

29

2

3.20

3.4

Dawsonville 29

3

3.12

3.3

Rome

30

6

3.17

3.3

Utoy Creek

30

7

3.08

3.2

Brunswick

29

3

3.17

3.3

Gainesville

40

3

3.13

3.3

Warner

Robins

30

6

3.22

3.3

Valdosta

28

2

3.08

3.2

Columbus

29

5

3.12

3.2

Yorkville

29

3

3.12

3.4

Augusta

28

6

3.10

3.2

Pyrene

Milledgeville 30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

24

ND

General

Coffee

29

ND

Dawsonville 29

ND

Rome

30

ND

Utoy Creek

30

1

2.99

3.2

Brunswick

29

ND

Gainesville

40

ND

Warner

Robins

30

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

29

ND

Yorkville

29

ND

Augusta

28

ND

ND indicates no detection

2nd Max
3.4 3.3
3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
3.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2

212

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds

(concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3))

Total # of

Name

Site Samples Detects Avg.

Freon 113

Milledgeville

30

28 0.6518

Macon

28

26 0.6518

Savannah

28

26 0.6518

General Coffee

27

26 0.6901

Dawsonville

29

26 0.6518

South DeKalb* 53

48 0.5135

Rome

28

26 0.5368

Utoy Creek

29

26 0.5751

Brunswick

27

25 0.6518

Gainesville

41

38 0.6518

Warner Robins

29

27 0.6518

Valdosta

28

27 0.6518

Columbus

30

28 0.6135

Yorkville

27

25 0.6135

Augusta

30

28 0.6901

Freon 114

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,3-Butadiene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

1st Max 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502
1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502
1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502

2nd Max 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 0.7668 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 0.7668 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502 0.7668 1.1502 1.1502 1.1502
213

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,3-Butadiene

Rome

28

ND

(continued)

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Cyclohexane

Milledgeville

30

29 3.4097 18.2597

Macon

28

9

2.6462 55.1055

Savannah

28

13 2.8356 58.5496

General

Coffee

27

9

0.3329 2.3535

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

13 0.2813 1.6072

Rome

28

9

2.6347 29.6192

Utoy Creek

29

2

0.1378 0.4592

Brunswick

27

5

1.7335 41.3292

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

7

0.3214 3.3923

Valdosta

28

7

0.4592 6.1994

Columbus

30

9

0.7749 14.8096

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

17 1.9918 20.3202

Chloromethane

Milledgeville

30

30 1.0744 1.6530

Macon

28

28 1.0538 1.6530

Savannah

28

28 1.2191 1.6530

General

Coffee

27

27 1.1984 1.6530

Dawsonville

29

29 1.0124 1.2397

South DeKalb* 53

53 1.0744 1.4463

Rome

28

28 1.0124 1.4463

Utoy Creek

29

29 1.0124 1.2397

Brunswick

27

27 1.3244 1.8596

Gainesville

41

41 1.0331 1.2397

Warner

Robins

29

29 1.0951 1.8956

Valdosta

28

28 1.1364 1.6530

Columbus

30

30 1.0538 1.4463

2nd Max
12.0543 11.0211 8.2658
0.8036
1.4924 18.9425 0.2870 1.0906
0.6314 1.1480 1.6072
9.6435 1.2397 1.2397 1.6530
1.6530 1.2397 1.4463 1.2397 1.2397 1.6530 1.2397
1.4463 1.4463 1.2397

214

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Chloromethane

(continued)

Yorkville

27

27 1.0124 1.2397

Augusta

30

30 1.1984 2.6861

Dichloromethane

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Chloroform

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1954 0.9771

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

2

0.2443 0.4885

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

16 0.3908 0.9771

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Carbon tetrachloride Milledgeville

30

14 0.4406 0.6295

Macon

28

15 0.5036 0.6295

Savannah

28

16 0.5036 0.6295

2nd Max 1.2397 2.0662
0.4885 0.9771
0.6295 0.6295 0.6295

215

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

General

Carbon tetrachloride Coffee

27

16 0.5036 0.6295

(continued)

Dawsonville

29

18 0.5036 0.6295

South DeKalb* 53

28 0.5036 0.6295

Rome

28

12 0.4406 0.6295

Utoy Creek

29

17 0.5036 0.6295

Brunswick

27

16 0.5036 0.6295

Gainesville

41

25 0.5036 0.6295

Warner

Robins

29

17 0.5036 0.6295

Valdosta

28

14 0.4406 0.6295

Columbus

30

14 0.4406 0.6295

Yorkville

27

14 0.4406 0.6295

Augusta

30

12 0.4406 1.2590

Trichlorofluoromethane Milledgeville

30

29 1.2368 1.6865

Macon

28

28 1.2930 1.6865

Savannah

28

28 1.2930 1.6865

General

Coffee

27

27 1.3492 1.6865

Dawsonville

29

28 1.2368 1.6865

South DeKalb* 53

53 1.5178 2.8108

Rome

28

27 1.3492 1.6865

Utoy Creek

29

28 1.3492 1.6865

Brunswick

27

25 1.1805 1.6865

Gainesville

41

40 1.5741 2.2486

Warner

Robins

29

29 1.2930 2.2486

Valdosta

28

28 1.2930 1.6865

Columbus

30

28 1.2368 1.6865

Yorkville

27

25 1.2368 1.6865

Augusta

30

29 1.2930 1.6865

Chloroethane

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

2nd Max
0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295
0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 0.6295 1.6865 1.6865 1.6865
1.6865 1.6865 2.2486 1.6865 1.6865 1.6865 2.2486
1.6865 1.6865 1.6865 1.6865 1.6865

216

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Warner

Chloroethane

Robins

29

ND

(continued)

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,1-Dichloroethane

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Methyl chloroform

Milledgeville

30

30 7.2607 16.3775

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

1

0.2730 1.0918

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

4

0.6278 3.8214

2nd Max 15.8315 3.5485

217

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Ethylene dichloride

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Tetrachloroethylene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

1

0.2375 1.0179

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.2036 1.0179

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

10 0.3054 1.3573

Rome

28

17 0.6447 2.3752

Utoy Creek

29

8

0.3054 1.3573

Brunswick

27

1

0.2375 1.0179

Gainesville

41

9

0.3393 1.3573

Warner

Robins

29

3

0.4072 4.4111

Valdosta

28

1

0.2036 1.0179

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

1

0.2375 1.0179

Augusta

30

1

0.2375 1.0179

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

2nd Max
1.0179 1.6966 1.1079 1.0179 1.3573

218

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

South DeKalb* 53

ND

(continued)

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Bromomethane

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1166 0.3885

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

1

0.1943 1.5541

Valdosta

28

2

0.3108 5.8279

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

2nd Max

219

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Warner

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Robins

29

ND

(continued)

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Dichlorodifluoromethane Milledgeville

30

30 2.1771 3.4636

Macon

28

28 2.2761 3.4636

Savannah

28

28 2.2266 2.9688

General

Coffee

27

27 2.4245 3.4636

Dawsonville

29

29 2.2761 2.9688

South DeKalb* 53

53 2.4740 3.9584

Rome

28

28 2.2761 3.4636

Utoy Creek

29

29 2.2266 2.9688

Brunswick

27

27 2.2266 2.9688

Gainesville

41

41 2.2761 2.9688

Warner

Robins

29

29 2.3256 3.9584

Valdosta

28

28 2.2266 2.9688

Columbus

30

30 2.2266 2.9688

Yorkville

27

27 2.2761 2.4740

Augusta

30

30 2.3256 3.4636

Trichloroethylene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

3

0.2151 0.8065

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

2nd Max
2.9688 2.9688 2.9688 2.9688 2.9688 3.9584 2.9688 2.9688 2.4740 2.9688 2.9688 2.9688 2.9688 2.4740 2.9688
0.8065

220

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,1-Dichloroethylene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,2-Dichloropropane Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

2nd Max

221

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropylene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropylene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

2nd Max

222

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Ethylene dibromide

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Hexachlorobutadiene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

2nd Max

223

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)

(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Site

Total # of Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Hexachlorobutadiene Rome

28

ND

(continued)

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Vinyl chloride

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

m/p Xylene

Milledgeville

30

4

0.1629 0.5431

Macon

28

5

0.1901 0.6517

Savannah

28

10 0.3313 2.0638

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1684 1.3034

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

43 0.9287 4.1276

Rome

28

23 0.5920 1.6836

Utoy Creek

29

16 0.5159 1.7922

Brunswick

27

6

0.2498 1.0862

Gainesville

41

26 0.4616 1.7379

Warner

Robins

29

8

0.2227 0.7603

Valdosta

28

15 0.3041 0.9776

Columbus

30

15 0.4508 1.6293

2nd Max
0.5431 0.5431 0.7603 3.5845 1.6293 1.4664 0.9776 1.3034 0.5431 0.7060 1.6293

224

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

m/p Xylene (continued) Yorkville

27

3

0.1629 0.5431

Augusta

30

19 0.7440 3.2586

Benzene

Milledgeville

30

30 0.4582 0.9590

Macon

28

27 0.4795 0.9057

Savannah

28

27 0.5647 1.3852

General

Coffee

27

24 0.4262 1.3319

Dawsonville

29

28 0.4209 0.7991

South DeKalb* 53

53 1.2999 3.1965

Rome

28

28 0.9270 1.8646

Utoy Creek

29

29 0.9590 3.0900

Brunswick

27

26 0.5967 1.3319

Gainesville

41

41 0.5150 2.2999

Warner

Robins

29

29 0.7725 1.9712

Valdosta

28

28 0.5647 1.0655

Columbus

30

30 0.8897 1.8114

Yorkville

27

25 0.3996 0.9590

Augusta

30

30 0.9163 2.9834

Toluene

Milledgeville

30

28 0.5710 1.8315

Macon

28

26 0.4633 1.3467

Savannah

28

26 1.0289 4.1477

General

Coffee

27

17 0.8888 18.0992

Dawsonville

29

23 0.3232 0.5925

South DeKalb* 53

51 3.2805 10.5579

Rome

28

27 1.7938 4.5248

Utoy Creek

29

29 13.2943 71.6426

Brunswick

27

25 0.6949 2.4240

Gainesville

41

40 1.1635 3.7707

Warner

Robins

29

27 0.5387 1.4544

Valdosta

28

28 0.8026 2.8549

Columbus

30

30 2.0200 23.7552

Yorkville

27

21 0.4686 1.4544

Augusta

30

28 1.5998 7.5413

2nd Max 0.5431 2.6612 0.8524 0.9057 1.2253
1.0655 0.7459 3.0900 1.7581 2.2376 1.0122 1.9166
1.8114 1.0655 1.5450 0.8524 3.1965 1.2389 0.9157 3.0165
0.7003 0.5925 10.1808 4.1477 41.4773 2.0469 3.7168
1.4544 1.8315 3.7707 1.1851 5.2789

225

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Ethylbenzene

Milledgeville

30

1

0.0978 0.5431

Macon

28

1

0.1032 0.5431

Savannah

28

7

0.1358 0.5431

General

Coffee

27

1

0.0978 0.5431

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

32 0.3150 1.3034

Rome

28

11 0.1847 0.5431

Utoy Creek

29

13 0.1847 0.5431

Brunswick

27

3

0.1195 0.5431

Gainesville

41

14 0.1684 0.5431

Warner

Robins

29

3

0.1141 0.5431

Valdosta

28

5

0.1086 0.5431

Columbus

30

9

0.1684 0.5431

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

12 0.2172 0.7060

o- Xylene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

2

0.1141 0.5431

Savannah

28

8

0.1575 0.7060

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1086 0.5431

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

33 0.3693 1.4664

Rome

28

15 0.2281 0.6517

Utoy Creek

29

13 0.2118 0.5431

Brunswick

27

3

0.1303 0.5431

Gainesville

41

14 0.1792 0.5431

Warner

Robins

29

4

0.1249 0.5431

Valdosta

28

8

0.1303 0.5431

Columbus

30

11 0.2172 0.6517

Yorkville

27

1

0.1141 0.5431

Augusta

30

13 0.2553 0.8690

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.0984 0.6012

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

10 0.1694 1.0930

2nd Max
0.5431
1.0319 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.2716 0.5431 0.6517
0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 1.3034 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.5431 0.3259 0.5974 0.8690
0.6012

226

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Rome

28

2

0.1257 0.6012

(continued)

Utoy Creek

29

1

0.0984 0.6012

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

1

0.1148 0.6012

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

2

0.1257 0.6012

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Milledgeville

30

3

0.1093 0.6012

Macon

28

2

0.1093 0.6012

Savannah

28

5

0.1366 0.6012

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1093 0.7651

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

37 0.5192 1.8581

Rome

28

18 0.2842 0.9837

Utoy Creek

29

12 0.2350 0.8198

Brunswick

27

4

0.1312 0.6012

Gainesville

41

18 0.1967 0.6012

Warner

Robins

29

4

0.1202 0.6012

Valdosta

28

10 0.1476 0.6012

Columbus

30

12 0.2459 0.7651

Yorkville

27

1

0.1038 0.6012

Augusta

30

15 0.2896 1.2750

Styrene

Milledgeville

30

3

0.1119 0.5328

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.1066 0.5328

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

8

0.1332 0.5328

Rome

28

1

0.1066 0.5328

Utoy Creek

29

4

0.1438 0.8524

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

2nd Max 0.6012
0.6012 0.6012 0.6012 0.6012
3.7709 0.7651 0.7651 0.6012 0.6012 0.6012 0.3826 0.7651 1.2023 0.5328
0.5328 0.5860

227

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Styrene

Warner

(continued)

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

7

0.1811 0.8524

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

1

0.1119 0.5328

Benzene, 1-ethenyl-4-

methyl

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

1

0.2149 1.1822

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

11 0.3332 1.7196

Rome

28

4

0.2687 1.1822

Utoy Creek

29

2

0.2149 1.1822

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

1

0.2149 1.1822

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

4

0.2579 1.1822

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

3

0.2687 1.1822

Chlorobenzene

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

2nd Max 0.7459 0.5328
1.1822 1.1822 0.4299
1.1822 1.1822

228

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

Chlorobenzene

Valdosta

28

ND

(continued)

Columbus

30

10 0.2610 0.6142

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

3

0.1996 0.6142

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,3-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

2nd Max 0.6142 0.6142

229

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

5

0.2306 0.8021

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

Benzyl chloride

Milledgeville

30

ND

Macon

28

ND

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

Rome

28

ND

Utoy Creek

29

ND

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Milledgeville

30

1

0.2104 0.9901

Macon

28

1

0.2104 0.9901

Savannah

28

ND

General

Coffee

27

ND

Dawsonville

29

ND

South DeKalb* 53

ND

2nd Max 0.8021

230

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Volatile Organic Compounds (continued)
(concentrations in g/m3)

Name

Total # of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Rome

28

ND

(continued)

Utoy Creek

29

1

0.1980 0.9901

Brunswick

27

ND

Gainesville

41

ND

Warner

Robins

29

ND

Valdosta

28

ND

Columbus

30

ND

Yorkville

27

ND

Augusta

30

ND

ND indicates no detection

*sample collected every 6 days

2nd Max

231

2005 Carbonyl Compounds, 24-hour

(concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter)

Name

Total

# of

Site

Samples Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max

Formaldehyde

Savannah

26

Dawsonville

28

S. DeKalb*

58

Tucker*

54

Brunswick

28

Acetaldehyde

Savannah

26

Dawsonville

28

S. DeKalb*

58

Tucker*

54

Brunswick

28

Propionaldehyde Savannah

26

Dawsonville

28

S. DeKalb*

58

Tucker*

54

Brunswick

28

Acrolein

Savannah

26

Dawsonville

28

S. DeKalb*

58

Tucker*

54

Brunswick

28

Butyraldehyde

Savannah

26

Dawsonville

28

S. DeKalb*

58

Tucker*

54

Brunswick

28

Acetone

Savannah

25

Dawsonville

27

S. DeKalb*

56

Tucker*

53

Brunswick

27

Benzaldehyde

Savannah

25

Dawsonville

26

S. DeKalb*

54

Tucker*

51

Brunswick

26

ND indicates no detection

*sample collected every 6 days

24 2.955 11.278 5.056

21 2.142 5.428 4.833

58 7.539 25.824 15.059

54 16.572 47.471 43.588

25 4.368 19.167 14.588

18 1.521 4.500 3.739

18 1.131 3.389 2.600

56 3.062 7.824 7.118

53 3.798 7.706 7.647

25 2.937 14.500 10.706

2

0.592 1.017 0.883

9

0.716 1.711 1.526

20 0.729 2.535 1.818

25 0.914 2.412 2.165

11 0.873 2.567 1.729

ND

ND

2

0.568 0.788 0.700

2

0.567 0.700 0.682

ND

3

0.594 1.000 0.926

4

0.643 1.822 1.094

6

0.636 2.265 1.306

20 0.884 10.235 1.735

8

0.815 2.735 2.633

23 2.816 7.111 5.121

26 2.839 5.833 5.111

47 4.525 10.353 10.294

51 5.391 30.353 10.471

23 8.657 90.000 31.059

5

0.796 2.706 2.358

11 1.146 3.722 3.683

11 0.755 2.376 2.347

19 1.136 5.424 3.424

4

0.791 3.411 2.947

232

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

2005 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August)

Name

(concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter) Site Time # Samples # Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max

Formaldehyde

S. DeKalb 0600

29

28

3.17 7.58 7.11

Tucker

0600

29

28

6.29 13.06 11.22

S. DeKalb 0900

25

24

6.63 12.95 12.74

Tucker

0900

27

26

8.09 16.61 14.61

S. DeKalb 1200

28

27

7.75 14.74 14.26

Tucker

1200

29

28

8.77 13.72 13.56

S. DeKalb 1500

28

25

6.45 14.32 10.67

Tucker

1500

27

26

8.56 15.50 14.56

Acetaldehyde

S. DeKalb 0600

29

28

1.70 4.32 4.11

Tucker

0600

29

28

2.02 4.31 3.70

S. DeKalb 0900

25

24

2.52 5.89 4.21

Tucker

0900

27

26

2.50 4.04 3.94

S. DeKalb 1200

28

26

2.79 6.21 5.32

Tucker

1200

29

28

2.85 5.67 4.78

S. DeKalb 1500

28

25

2.41 6.21 4.18

Tucker

1500

27

26

2.69 5.72 4.63

Propionaldehyde

S. DeKalb 0600

29

8

0.61 1.04 0.79

Tucker

0600

29

10

0.78 1.88 1.66

S. DeKalb 0900

25

10

0.65 1.35 0.90

Tucker

0900

27

12

0.73 1.56 1.37

S. DeKalb 1200

28

9

0.65 1.70 1.11

Tucker

1200

29

16

0.79 2.07 1.97

S. DeKalb 1500

28

9

0.66 1.08 1.02

Tucker

1500

27

14

0.74 1.84 1.48

Acrolein

S. DeKalb 0600

29

1

0.57 0.65

Tucker

0600

29

3

0.58 0.72 0.68

S. DeKalb 0900

25

1

0.57 0.69

Tucker

0900

27

1

0.57 0.72

S. DeKalb 1200

28

2

0.57 0.66 0.63

Tucker

1200

29

3

0.58 0.79 0.78

S. DeKalb 1500

28

2

0.57 0.71 0.70

Tucker

1500

27

4

0.58 0.78 0.75

Butyraldehyde

S. DeKalb 0600

29

5

0.61 1.22 0.89

Tucker

0600

29

16

0.84 1.83 1.66

S. DeKalb 0900

25

10

0.68 1.29 1.15

Tucker

0900

27

17

0.91 2.09 1.38

S. DeKalb 1200

28

12

0.69 1.10 1.08

Tucker

1200

29

19

0.89 2.30 1.82

S. DeKalb 1500

28

9

0.69 1.63 1.43

Tucker

1500

27

20

0.93 1.82 1.76

233

2005 Carbonyl Compounds, 3-hour (June-August) (continued)

Name

(concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter) Site Time # Samples # Detects Avg. 1st Max 2nd Max

Acetone

S. DeKalb 0600

29

26

2.43 6.00 5.89

Tucker

0600

29

28

4.30 8.22 7.67

S. DeKalb 0900

25

18

2.93 9.16 8.05

Tucker

0900

27

26

5.02 11.06 10.28

S. DeKalb 1200

28

21

3.14 8.95 8.53

Tucker

1200

29

28

5.68 14.78 10.61

S. DeKalb 1500

28

21

2.80 8.84 7.33

Tucker

1500

27

26

5.28 15.33 10.22

Benzaldehyde

S. DeKalb 0600

29

7

0.72 1.97 1.63

Tucker

0600

29

15

1.30 4.28 3.86

S. DeKalb 0900

25

13

1.20 3.47 2.85

Tucker

0900

27

15

2.02 5.78 5.45

S. DeKalb 1200

28

12

1.07 2.69 2.67

Tucker

1200

29

22

2.24 6.94 6.06

S. DeKalb 1500

28

17

1.43 3.79 3.67

Tucker

1500

27

19

2.75 10.44 8.00

234

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix F: Monitoring Network Survey

Georgia Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Monitoring as of January 2005

Parameter Measured
Sampling Schedule Number of GASN Sites
Method Used
EPA Reference
Method
Data Availability

Ozone

Nitrogen Dioxide

Carbon Monoxide

Continuous hourly average

Sulfur Dioxide

25

5

1

8

Ultraviolet photometry
Ultraviolet photometry

Ultraviolet photometry
Ultraviolet photometry

Nondispersive
Infrared photometry
Nondispersive
Infrared photometry

Ultraviolet fluorescence detector
Spectrophotometry (pararosaniline method)

Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

235

Georgia Ambient Air Particulate Matter Monitoring as of January 2005

Parameter Measured
Sampling Schedule
Collection Method Sampling Media
Number of Sites
Analyzed Number of Collocated
Sites
Analysis Method
Data Availability

PM10 (0-10)

Mass

Nitrate, Sulfate, Chloride,
Ammonium, Potassium

Every 6 days (24-hour samples), TEOM & BAM (continuous 24-hour)

High volume selective size inlet sampler
Quartz microfiber 8 x 10 inches, Teflon filter 46.2mm

PM2.5

Mass (fine)

Speciated

Every 3 days, BAM
(continuous 24hour)
Mass sequential, single channel &
continuous
Teflon filter 46.2mm, BAM
filter tape

1 in 6 days 1 in 3 days for South DeKalb
Speciation air sampling system
(SASS)
Teflon, nylon & quartz filter
46.2mm

20

0

29

8

2

0

5

0

Method 016 Electronic analytical balance

Method 007 & Method 023 ion chromatography

Method 055 Electronic analytical balance

Method 055 Electronic analytical
balance Method 014 x-ray
fluorescence Method 062 filter
preparation Method 064 Ion chromatography
Method 065 Thermal/optical
carbon

Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

236

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report

Georgia Organic Air Toxic Contaminant Monitoring as of January 2005

Parameter Volatile Organic Measured Compounds (VOCs)

Carbonyls

Semi - VOCs

Metals

Method

TO-14A/15

TO-11A

TO 13A

10-2.I

Sampling Schedule

Every 12 days, 24-hour
1 in 6 day schedule for South DeKalb

Every 12 days, 24-hour

Every 12 days, 24-hour

Collection Equipment

AVOCS or ATEC2200

ATEC100

PUF sampler

Sampling Polished stainless DNPH-coated Polyurethane

Media

steel canister

silica cartridges Foam filter

Number of

Sites

15**

3

15**

Analyzed

Number of

Collocated

1

0

1

Sites

Data Availability

Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

* Sampler at this site is a PM10 Hi-Vol ** 14 GA ATN sites, 1 NATTS (South DeKalb)

Every 12 days, 24-hour 1 in 6 day
schedule for South DeKalb* High volume
TSP Quartz microfiber filter 8 x 10
inch
15**
1

237

PAMS Monitoring as of January 2005

Parameter
Sampling Schedule
Collection Equipment Sampling
Media Number of
Sites
Analysis Method
Data Availability

54 PAMS-Speciated VOCs & Total NMHC

Continuous 54-PAMS Speciated
VOCs & Total NMHC

Carbonyl Compounds

24-hour 1 in 6 day schedule (all year)
ATEC 2200
Polished stainless steel canister

Continuous hourly average
(Jun, Jul & Aug)
Perkin-Elmer HC GC
Direct injection

3-hour sample (Jun, Jul & Aug)
24-hour, 1 in 6 day (all year)
ATEC 8000
DNPH coated silica gel cartridge

4

4

2

PAMS GC/FID

GC/FID

High performance liquid chromatograph/ultraviolet
detector

Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

238

Georgia Meteorological Monitoring as of January 2005

Parameter Wind Speed

Measured

(m/s)

Sampling Schedule

Wind Direction (degrees)

Ambient Relative Atmosphere

Temperature Humidity Pressure

(C)

(%)

(mb)

Solar
Radiation (w/m2)

Continuous hourly average

Precip (in)

Sig. Theta (deg)

Total Ultraviolet Radiation

Number of Sites

17

17

7

6

5

3

5

1

Method Used
Data Availability

Propeller or cup
anemometer

Wind vane potentiometer

Aspirated Thermocouple or thermistor

Thin film capacitor

Pressure transducer

Thermopile or Tipping Wind pyranometer bucket direction

Planning and Technical Support Division, Air Quality Data Branch, U.S.EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

3
Eppley TUVR

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix G: Siting Criteria

Instrument PM10, AISI Nephelo-
meter Dichot, TEOM, PM2.5
Lead, TSP
O3
CO
NO2

Height Above Ground
Micro Other
2-7m 2-15m
2-7m 2-15m

207m 2-15m

3-15m 3-15m

2.5 3.5m

3-5m

3-15m 3-15m

Space Between Samplers
2m 1m
2m
1m

Height Above Obstructions
1m
2 times height of obstacle
above inlet
1m

Distance From
Obstacles
2 times height or obstacle
above inlet
2 times height or obstacles
above inlet
2 times height of obstacles
above inlet
2 times height of obstacles
above inlet
Micro: must be no trees between sampler and road Others: must be 10m if trees, 5m above sampler
2 times height of obstacle
above inlet

Distance From Tree
Dripline
Should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction Should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction Micro and middle: no
trees between sampler and source Neighborhoo d: should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction Should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction
Micro: must be no trees
between sampler and
road Others: must
be 10m if trees, 5m
above sampler
Should be 20m, if
individual tree 5m above probe, must be 10m from dripline

Distance from Walls,
Parapets, etc. 2m 2m
2m
1m
1m
1m

Airflow Arc
270
270
270
270, or on side
of building
180
270, or on side
of building
180
270, or on side
of building
180
241

Instrument

Height Above Ground
Micro Other

Space Between Samplers

SO2

3-15m 3-15m

H2S

3-15m 3-15m

CH4, THC, NMHC, PAMS

3-15m

3-15m

Toxics: Gaseous 910, 910A, 929, 920

3-15m

3-15m

Temperature and Relative 1.25-2m
Humidity

2.252m

Wind Speed and
Direction
Solar Radiation

Height Above Obstructions
1m
1m
1m
2m

Distance From
Obstacles
2 times height of obstacle
above inlet
2 times height of obstacle
above inlet
2 times height of obstacle
above inlet 2 times height of obstacle above inlet 4 times height of obstacle above sensor
1.5 times height of obstacle
above sensor

Distance From Tree
Dripline
Should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction Should be 20m, must be
10m if considered
an obstruction Should be 20m, must be
10m in direction of urban core
1 tower width from tower side
2 tower widths from tower side, 1 tower width from tower
top

Distance from Walls,
Parapets, etc. 1m
1m
1m
4.5m

Airflow Arc
270, or on side
of building
180
270, or on side
of building
180
270, or on side
of building
180

242

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
Appendix H: Instrument and Sensor Control Limits

ARB'S CONTROL AND WARNING LIMITS

Control 15%
15%
10%

LIMITS
Warning 10%
10%
7%

4% (Flow) 5% (Design) 20%

None None None

INSTRUMENT
All gaseous criteria and non-criteria analyzers Total suspended particulate (TSP) samplers PM10 Dichotomous (Dichot), Lead (Pb), Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalalance (TEOM), Toxic Air Contaminant (XonTech920) Samplers, Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAM), and Carbonyl (XonTech9250) Samplers
PM2.5
Laboratory audits (Toxics, PAMS, Motor Vehicle Exhaust and Total Metals)

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR METEOROLOGICAL (MET) SENSORS

LIMITS
1.0 Celsius (0.5C PAMS only) 2.25 mm of Mercury (Hg) 3% RH for 10-90% RH 5% RH for <10% or >90% RH 5% Watts/m2 Less than or equal to 5 combined accuracy and orientation error 0.25 m/s between 0.5 and 5m/s and less that 5% difference above 5 m/s Less than or equal to 0.5m/s
0.25 m/s between 0.5 and 5 m/s and less than 5% difference above 5 m/s Less than or equal to 0.5 m/s

SENSOR
Ambient Temperature Barometric Pressure Relative Humidity Solar Radiation Wind Direction
Horizontal Wind Speed Horizontal Wind Speed Starting Threshold Vertical Wind Speed Vertical wind Speed Starting Threshold

243

244

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report
References
http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.aqi. "Air Quality Index (AQI) - A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health."
AIRNOW DMC. Data Polling Summary for 2004-05. Sonoma Technology, Petaluma, California.
ATSDR, 1992. Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Butadiene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 1997. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2000a. Toxicological Profile for Manganese. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2000b. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2001. Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethane. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2005a. Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2005b. Toxicological Profile for Acrolein, Draft for Public Comment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2005c. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic, Draft For Public Comment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR, 2006. Toxicological Profile for Dichlorobenzenes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Volume 2, Parts 50 to 51, Revised as of July 1, 1998.
245

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, September 2006.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Ambient Monitoring Network Plan.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Assurance Plan.
GADNR, 1993. Toxic Release Inventory Report, 1991. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
GADNR, 1996a. The 1994 Chatham County Air Toxics Study, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
GADNR, 1996b. 1996 Glynn county Initiative: air Toxics Dataset Ground Level Measurements, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
GADNR, 2006. 2005 Ambient Air Surveillance Report. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Health Assessment Document for Acetaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1991a. Integrated Risk Information System, Carbon Tetrachloride. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1991b. Integrated Risk Information System, Acetaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1994. OPPT Chemical Fact Sheet, Chemicals in the environment: 1,2,4trimethylbenzene (CAS No. 95-63-6). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1994. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1: Principles. EPA-600/R-94/038A, January 1994.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement System. Volume 1: Principles. EPA-600/R-94/038B, April 1998.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Integrated Risk Information System, Benzene. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 2002. Integrated Risk Information System, 1,3-Butadiene. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 2003. Integrated Risk Information System, Acrolein. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 2004. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
246

2005 Georgia Annual Air Quality Report U.S. EPA, 2006. A Preliminary Risk-Based Screening Approach for Air Toxics Monitoring Data Sets. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
247