The Investigation of Air Pollution Standing Conference
Meeting report by Jo Barnes
Cornwall College,
ECG Bulletin January 2007
Cornwall College,
ECG Bulletin January 2007
The Investigation of Air Pollution Standing Conference (IAPSC) was held at the NEC, Birmingham on Tuesday 5th December, 2006. More than 150 delegates attended, mostly from local authorities, but also representatives from Defra, the Environment Agency, monitoring and equipment consultants, academia and industry.
The subject of the morning session was particulate matter and was introduced by Richard Maggs (Bureau Veritas) with an overview of the ‘UK Equivalence Programme for Monitoring of Particulate Matter’, published by Defra in June 2006. The research compared a range of particulate monitors measuring PM10 and PM2.5 at four locations representative of suburban, urban background, roadside and rural sites. Four of the monitors passed the equivalence testing without adjustment: Partisol 2025, FDMS (Filter Dynamics Measurement System) (PM10 and PM2.5) and Beta SM 200; whilst the TEOM (Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance), the principal monitor employed by the national AURN (Automatic Urban Rural Network), failed. Defra intend to retrofit the existing AURN TEOMs with FDMS units commencing January 2007. However, local authorities are advised that their own TEOMs may still be used with the 1.3 correction factor until they become due for replacement.
Dave Green (KCL) followed with his ‘Practical and Technical Experience of using the FDMS Unit’ at eight sites in London. The FDMS removes the need for the 1.3 correction factor applied to TEOM measurements by introducing a ‘purge’ filter to the process. Comparison studies of TEOM 1.3, FDMS and gravimetric monitors showed comparable background concentrations. However, at roadside sites the FDMS unit recorded lower concentrations and up to four times fewer exceedences (e.g. Marylebone Road).
The difference in concentration between the FDMS and TEOM is equivalent to the ‘purge’ filter measurement (i.e. TEOM 1.3 = FDMS Base + FDMS Purge) providing a more accurate correction factor than that recommended within the UK Equivalency trial report. Practical limitations of the FDMS unit were identified including potential leakages and the coarse temporal resolution of the data (hourly) which could mask operator error.
Gary Fuller (KCL) reported on ‘Particulate Matter Relating to Waste Transfer Stations’ at sites in London and south-east England, particularly within the immediate vicinity of residential properties. The contribution from waste transfer vehicles entering and leaving the site was observed as the main source, which may be attributable to resuspension of dust from the roads (observable from satellite imaging (Google Earth)) and/or suspension of dust from the vehicles themselves.
Toxicological analysis of the particulate matter revealed similar chemical components to building site waste, but with a greater hazard level. Road-sweeping has proven to be ineffective at reducing airborne particulate matter and the recommendation is to reduce the deposition of dust on to the roadway. It is estimated that in some cases reductions of 90% would be required to reduce particulate matter below National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) guidelines. The EA, as regulators, are aware of the situation but enforcement is difficult.
The focus then moved to Europe where Wolfgang Thiel (Referat fur Information und Marketing im Grazier Umweltamt) (http://www.feinstaubfrei.at) described ‘PM10 Reduction Measures in Graz, Austria’. Situated within a basin in the Austrian Alps and prone to winter inversion events, Graz suffers extreme particulate matter episodes that have a significant health impact. Transport and heating are the main sources of airborne particulates and measures to raise awareness and reduce the contribution from cars have been implemented, including ‘car free’ days and subsidising the retrofitting of filters to diesel vehicles. Despite these efforts, however, it is unlikely that Graz will meet EU guidelines and authorities are currently awaiting the new Euro5 Directive on emissions and exhausts.
Mike Woodfield (AEA Technology) concluded the morning session with his commentary on ‘Sources of PM2.5 in Europe’ as detailed in the updated ‘EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook – 2005’ (http://tfeip-secretariat.org/unece.htm). It was observed that domestic combustion and municipal waste appear to contribute a greater percentage to PM2.5 than PM10 but the contribution from agriculture is less.
The afternoon session focussed on social equity and air quality, commencing with a social history of air pollution ’50 years on from the Clean Air Act’ from Peter Brimblecombe (UEA). The presentation concluded that although London no longer suffers the dense smogs of the 1950s – thanks in part to the measures introduced by the Clean Air Act 1956, but also due to changes in industry and social practices – the ‘Big Smoke’s’ current health problems are now associated with traffic pollution.
This was followed by Ioanna Gegisian’s (UWE) presentation of her PhD research examining ‘Environmental Justice: What does it mean for LAQM?’ This EA-funded project is looking specifically at Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and deprivation indices, examining how social deprivation is addressed in Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs). Through surveys, questionnaires and interviews with local authorities, Ioanna observed that social and wider economic impacts were the two least considered objectives in the selection process used to create Action Plans and that integration of AQAPs with other documents was hampered by a lack of communication between departments and incompatible deadlines.
The subject of the morning session was particulate matter and was introduced by Richard Maggs (Bureau Veritas) with an overview of the ‘UK Equivalence Programme for Monitoring of Particulate Matter’, published by Defra in June 2006. The research compared a range of particulate monitors measuring PM10 and PM2.5 at four locations representative of suburban, urban background, roadside and rural sites. Four of the monitors passed the equivalence testing without adjustment: Partisol 2025, FDMS (Filter Dynamics Measurement System) (PM10 and PM2.5) and Beta SM 200; whilst the TEOM (Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance), the principal monitor employed by the national AURN (Automatic Urban Rural Network), failed. Defra intend to retrofit the existing AURN TEOMs with FDMS units commencing January 2007. However, local authorities are advised that their own TEOMs may still be used with the 1.3 correction factor until they become due for replacement.
Dave Green (KCL) followed with his ‘Practical and Technical Experience of using the FDMS Unit’ at eight sites in London. The FDMS removes the need for the 1.3 correction factor applied to TEOM measurements by introducing a ‘purge’ filter to the process. Comparison studies of TEOM 1.3, FDMS and gravimetric monitors showed comparable background concentrations. However, at roadside sites the FDMS unit recorded lower concentrations and up to four times fewer exceedences (e.g. Marylebone Road).
The difference in concentration between the FDMS and TEOM is equivalent to the ‘purge’ filter measurement (i.e. TEOM 1.3 = FDMS Base + FDMS Purge) providing a more accurate correction factor than that recommended within the UK Equivalency trial report. Practical limitations of the FDMS unit were identified including potential leakages and the coarse temporal resolution of the data (hourly) which could mask operator error.
Gary Fuller (KCL) reported on ‘Particulate Matter Relating to Waste Transfer Stations’ at sites in London and south-east England, particularly within the immediate vicinity of residential properties. The contribution from waste transfer vehicles entering and leaving the site was observed as the main source, which may be attributable to resuspension of dust from the roads (observable from satellite imaging (Google Earth)) and/or suspension of dust from the vehicles themselves.
Toxicological analysis of the particulate matter revealed similar chemical components to building site waste, but with a greater hazard level. Road-sweeping has proven to be ineffective at reducing airborne particulate matter and the recommendation is to reduce the deposition of dust on to the roadway. It is estimated that in some cases reductions of 90% would be required to reduce particulate matter below National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) guidelines. The EA, as regulators, are aware of the situation but enforcement is difficult.
The focus then moved to Europe where Wolfgang Thiel (Referat fur Information und Marketing im Grazier Umweltamt) (http://www.feinstaubfrei.at) described ‘PM10 Reduction Measures in Graz, Austria’. Situated within a basin in the Austrian Alps and prone to winter inversion events, Graz suffers extreme particulate matter episodes that have a significant health impact. Transport and heating are the main sources of airborne particulates and measures to raise awareness and reduce the contribution from cars have been implemented, including ‘car free’ days and subsidising the retrofitting of filters to diesel vehicles. Despite these efforts, however, it is unlikely that Graz will meet EU guidelines and authorities are currently awaiting the new Euro5 Directive on emissions and exhausts.
Mike Woodfield (AEA Technology) concluded the morning session with his commentary on ‘Sources of PM2.5 in Europe’ as detailed in the updated ‘EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook – 2005’ (http://tfeip-secretariat.org/unece.htm). It was observed that domestic combustion and municipal waste appear to contribute a greater percentage to PM2.5 than PM10 but the contribution from agriculture is less.
The afternoon session focussed on social equity and air quality, commencing with a social history of air pollution ’50 years on from the Clean Air Act’ from Peter Brimblecombe (UEA). The presentation concluded that although London no longer suffers the dense smogs of the 1950s – thanks in part to the measures introduced by the Clean Air Act 1956, but also due to changes in industry and social practices – the ‘Big Smoke’s’ current health problems are now associated with traffic pollution.
This was followed by Ioanna Gegisian’s (UWE) presentation of her PhD research examining ‘Environmental Justice: What does it mean for LAQM?’ This EA-funded project is looking specifically at Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and deprivation indices, examining how social deprivation is addressed in Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs). Through surveys, questionnaires and interviews with local authorities, Ioanna observed that social and wider economic impacts were the two least considered objectives in the selection process used to create Action Plans and that integration of AQAPs with other documents was hampered by a lack of communication between departments and incompatible deadlines.
Steve Moorcroft (Air Quality Consultants) spoke about the ‘Exposure Reduction Approach and Implications for Social Equity’. The Café Directive proposed exposure reduction targets for PM2.5 of 20 – 25 µg m-3 (target value 2010/ limit value 2015). The advantage of the Exposure Reduction approach, given that there are no “safe” levels of particulate matter, is that it does not imply a threshold. Exposure-reduction uses a percentage rather than limit values to maximise health benefits and social equity by driving down pollution levels continuously. Reducing the focus on limit values should also reduce the role of local authorities.
Steve observed that traffic pollution problems are often caused by people outside of the affected communities, who can afford to avoid the effects of their actions. In addition people in deprived areas are less likely to have cars and are therefore less likely to be contributing to the problem themselves. It was also suggested that measures to reduce background PM2.5 are ineffective and that it is therefore better to target hotspots. Funding for mitigating measures may be sought from developers under PPS 23 Appendix 1G. It was also noted that further to the AURN upgrades mentioned in Maggs’ presentation earlier, approximately 70 more PM2.5 monitoring stations will be required to supplement the national monitoring network.
The concluding presentation was a given jointly by Steve Simmons and Rebecca Brown representing the five local authorities bidding for the current round of Beacon status (Croydon, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, Sefton and Sheffield). This year air quality is a core feature of the Beacon status award, and these Councils have initiated a number of measures designed to reduce air pollution in their areas.
Web link: Investigation of Air Pollution Standing Conference http://www.iapsc.org.uk/
JO BARNES
Air Quality Unit,
Cornwall College,
December 2006
The concluding presentation was a given jointly by Steve Simmons and Rebecca Brown representing the five local authorities bidding for the current round of Beacon status (Croydon, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, Sefton and Sheffield). This year air quality is a core feature of the Beacon status award, and these Councils have initiated a number of measures designed to reduce air pollution in their areas.
Web link: Investigation of Air Pollution Standing Conference http://www.iapsc.org.uk/
JO BARNES
Air Quality Unit,
Cornwall College,
December 2006
