Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5708, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2012 Sep 30;107:110-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.006. Epub 2012 May 16.
In 1997, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) introduced a percentile form of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). Studies had shown that a specified percentile in the frequency distribution of measured values of PM increased the probability of detecting non-attainment areas (power) and decreased the likelihood of misclassification of attainment areas as being non-attainment (type 2 error). However, this new NAAQS used a percentile form that was different from a standard percentile in a distribution. Instead of taking the percentile of the distribution of the required 3 years of measurements, the PM(2.5) values for the selected percentile for each year were determined and the average of these 3 values was used as the NAAQS indicator value. However, no studies have been made of this average of the 3 years method and compared to a standard percentile in the multiyear data. The relationships between the values obtained using these two approaches have been explored. PM data measured at selected US EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) website from January 2004 to December 2008 at 20 sites in 20 different states in United States were utilized. PM samples were collected for 24-h periods from midnight to midnight every third day for PM(2.5) and every sixth day for PM(10). At some sites, continuous measurements of PM(2.5) were made and averaged to provide 24-hr values. Using these data, the NAAQS percentile values were compared with the actual 98th percentile values of the three years of data. Regression and t-test analyses were used to compare these two methods and found high correlation coefficients and no significant difference in most cases. Overall, the two methods showed substantial agreement such that either of the two approaches could serve as the statistical form of the 24-h standard. In exploring the PM(10) standard, an arbitrarily chosen standard value of 85 μg/m(3) was used to explore the development of more stable implementation programs and provide better protection to public health against short term exposures.
1997 年,美国环境保护署(US EPA)为颗粒物(PM)引入了国家环境空气质量标准(NAAQS)的百分位形式。研究表明,在 PM 测量值的频率分布中指定的百分位增加了检测不达标的区域的概率(效力),并降低了将达标区域错误分类为不达标的可能性(第二类错误)。然而,这种新的 NAAQS 使用的百分位形式与分布中的标准百分位不同。它不是取所需 3 年测量值分布的百分位,而是确定每年选定百分位的 PM(2.5)值,并将这 3 个值的平均值用作 NAAQS 指示值。然而,尚未对这种 3 年平均值方法进行研究,并将其与多年数据中的标准百分位进行比较。已经探讨了使用这两种方法获得的值之间的关系。利用美国环境保护署空气质量管理信息检索系统(AIRS)网站在 2004 年 1 月至 2008 年 12 月期间在美国 20 个不同州的 20 个站点测量的 PM 数据进行了研究。PM 样品每 3 天采集一次 24 小时 PM(2.5)和每 6 天采集一次 PM(10)。在一些站点,进行了 PM(2.5)的连续测量并取平均值以提供 24 小时值。使用这些数据,将 NAAQS 百分位值与三年数据的实际第 98 百分位值进行了比较。回归和 t 检验分析用于比较这两种方法,发现大多数情况下相关系数较高且没有显著差异。总体而言,这两种方法具有高度一致性,因此两种方法都可以作为 24 小时标准的统计形式。在探索 PM(10)标准时,使用任意选择的 85μg/m(3)标准值来探索更稳定的实施计划的发展,并为公众健康提供更好的短期暴露保护。