Mobile Sensors - Air & Waste Management Associationpubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Nov-2016/emnov16.pdf · Mobile Sensors: Making the Most of New Air Quality Monitoring Technology by Susan

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

MobileSensors

Making the Most of New Air Quality Monitoring Technology

MobileSensors

Making the Most of New Air Quality Monitoring Technology

November 2016

Table of Contents

em • The Magazine for Environmental Managers • A&WMA • November 2016

Columns

EPA Research Highlights: LivingClose to Roadways: Health Concerns and Mitigation Strategiesby Michaela Burns

Etcetera: RCRA Citizen Suit:EPA Faulted on RCRA Subtitle DRegulationsby Anthony B. Cavender

Association News

Message from the President: Giving Thanksby Brad Waldron

In Memoriam: John S. Irwin(1945–2016)

Departments

Canadian Report

Calendar of Events

JA&WMA Table of Contents Vol. 66, No. 11

Whether you are an air quality regulator, researcher, or advisor to business owners and concerned citizens, your work will beaffected by the growing use of the new air monitoring technology known as sensors. In this issue of EM, you will find usefultips on how to ensure that sensor data quality is sufficient for the anticipated use of the data, learn about projects federal andstate agencies are undertaking to prepare for more frequent use of sensors, and explore an approach for interpreting the significance of one-minute sensor readings.

Mobile Sensors: Making the Most of New Air Quality Monitoring Technologyby Susan S.G. Wierman

Air Sensor Study Design—Details Matterby Tim Dye, Ashley Graham, and Hilary Hafner, Sonoma Technology Inc.

Advanced Monitoring Technology: Opportunities and Challenges — A Path Forward for EPA, States, and Tribesby David Hindin, George Wyeth, Kristen Benedict, and Tim Watkins, U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency; George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Megan Ulrich, Steve Lang, and BenGrumbles, Maryland Department of the Environment; Kelly Poole and AlexandraDapolito Dunn, Environmental Council of the States

Interpreting and Communicating Short-Term Air Sensor Databy Martha Keating, Kristen Benedict, Ronald Evans, Scott Jenkins, Elizabeth Mannshardt,and Susan Lyon Stone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Message from the President


November to me is challenging month. I never set out for it to be, but it always ends up that way. Annual budgets arecompleted and approved. Goals are set for the coming year,though that is always enjoyable. The body and mind want torelax heading into the holidays, yet, somehow that isn’t thecase. Something always comes up to fill the time.

Here in the United States, the end of the month brings usThanksgiving. Taking history out of it, and while I am biasedbecause it is my favorite holiday, the idea of taking time tothink about everything for which we are grateful is a nicereason to celebrate.

This year, I will be sure to express my thanks and gratitudefor a number of things.

My family is a rock in my life. I am so fortunate to have theworld’s most forgiving and understanding wife. Betweenwork, A&WMA, and travel, she still makes it possible for us to have fun and spend time together. My children teachme something new every day—it isn’t always productive orimportant—but it comes from them. Not a day goes by whensome lesson from my childhood doesn’t play a role in a decision. Mom and dad were always there to help me develop the character I carry with me each day.

My career has run a crazy arc from biotech research and development to an executive at the world’s largest gamingand entertainment company. The pressure and expectationshave grown exponentially along the way, but I am truly fortunate to be surrounded by amazing people. My leadershipis truly world-class talent who are continuously supportingand helping me grow. My team is completely dependableand comprised of the most amazing professionals I’ve everhad the privilege to call colleagues. Most astounding is thatall of the 64,000 employees care about one another.

There is no chance I could forget A&WMA. So much of mygrowth professionally and personally is because of this Asso-ciation. The people I have met, interacted with, and developedlifelong friendships cannot be replaced or held in higher regard. While November signifies that my term as Presidentis coming to a close, it doesn’t mean that my time giving tothe organization is ending. I am looking for new opportunitiesto help the Association move forward and give back to thestructure that has been so integral to me professionally.

You have all read my words about getting involved before,so I’m going to make one more plea here. Our lives and experiences are shaped by the people around us. The bestpart is that we have the power to choose those people andthe types of experiences we undertake. Choose wisely andenjoy the result. em

by Brad Waldron » [email protected]

GivingThanks

Cover Story by Susan S.G. Wierman


Making theMost ofNew

Air QualityMonitoringTechnology

Whether you are an air quality regulator, researcher, or advisor to business owners

and concerned citizens, your work will be affected by the growing use of the new

air monitoring technology known as sensors. In this issue of EM, you will find useful

tips on how to ensure that sensor data quality is sufficient for the anticipated use

of the data, learn about projects federal and state agencies are undertaking to

prepare for more frequent use of sensors, and explore an approach for interpreting

the significance of one-minute sensor readings.



Sensor technology began affecting how we measure airquality many years ago. As pointed out in 2012 by a U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory panel chargedwith identifying needs for technologies to help address envi-ronmental problems in vulnerable communities, “Data gatheredby residents can start a powerful, constructive process ofcommunity-driven environmental change.”1

Responding to the growing challenge, in 2013 EPA publishedits “DRAFT Roadmap for Next Generation Air Monitoring.”2

In a 2014 EM article, Robert Judge and Chet Wayland, bothof EPA, called upon “EPA and the states, as well as the public,[to] seize the opportunity to better understand the qualitycontrol and quality assurance issues associated with these newdevices and embrace their strengths, as well as recognizetheir weaknesses.”3

Several years of effort by EPA and the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD) have yielded important

resources for those considering the use of sensors. EPA tookseveral actions to follow up on recommendations in itsRoadmap, including evaluating sensor performance, postinga Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists, and developing theReal-time Geospatial Data Viewer (RETIGO) tool to analyzeand display sensor data.4,5

In their 2014 EM article, Philip Fine and Andrea Polidori ofSCAQMD described components of a potential website forsensor information.6 The Air Quality Sensor PerformanceEvaluation Center they envisioned, AQ-SPEC, is online(http://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec/evaluations) and provides information about sensor design and the results of numerousperformance tests conducted by SCAQMD.

EPA recently issued grants to promote both scientific researchabout and public engagement with sensor technology (see “EPAGrants Promote Research and Community Engagement”). Atthe time this issue was in preparation, EPA had also announced

EPA Grants Promote Research and Community Engagement

On August 9, 2016, EPA announced grants to six research organizations to develop and use low-cost air pollution sensor technology while engaging communities to learn about local air quality.

1. Carnegie Mellon University will study the accuracy of air pollution sensors and the usefulness of the data. Air quality modelingwill be combined with sensor data to develop maps and other tools for displaying air quality information. Researchers willcollaborate with local community groups in Pittsburgh to help them understand the data and how the findings might beused to reduce exposure to air pollutants.

2. Kansas State University will create a partnership with local organizations in South Chicago to evaluate the effects of community-led research on the community’s understanding of air pollution. Researchers will develop sustainable, local strategies tomonitor, analyze, and share measurement results about air pollutants.

3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology will create the Hawaii Island Volcanic Smog Sensor Network using air pollution sensors to track air quality changes caused by emissions from the Kilauea volcano and affecting health and agriculturalcrops. The project will emphasize community engagement in collaboration with the Kohala Center in Waimea, Hawaii, and with local schools and health centers.

4. Research Triangle Institute will create a framework to empower communities near Denver, Colorado, to design and conductair quality monitoring studies. Researchers will use low-cost sensors to address local concerns in collaboration with NationalJewish Health in Denver and the communities of Globeville and Elyria Swansea, Colorado.

5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District in collaboration with the University of California, Los Angeles will engageCalifornia communities on the use, accuracy, and application of low-cost air monitoring sensors. The project will also developa toolkit with best practices for data collection and data interpretation from these sensors.

6. The University of Washington will use low-cost, next-generation air particle sensors to address wood smoke exposureswithin Yakima Nation and Latino populations in rural Washington State. Researchers will work with local students to understandand help reduce the community’s exposure to wood smoke. In collaboration with Heritage University in Toppenish, WA, the team will also create a curriculum adaptable for other settings.



an additional grant opportunity, the “Smart City Air Challenge”to provide partial funding for two U.S. communities to deployand manage data from hundreds of air quality monitors.

The following three articles in this issue continue to advanceour understanding of the appropriate use of sensors:

• “Air Sensor Study Design—Details Matter” by Tim Dye,Ashley Graham, and Hilary Hafner provides useful tips onhow to tailor study designs to ensure data quality is suffi-cient to meet study objectives.

• “Advanced Monitoring Technology: Opportunities and Challenges…A Path Forward for EPA, States andTribes” by David Hindin and coauthors describes five proj-ects to help EPA and state environmental agencies preparefor advances in monitoring technology.

• “Interpreting and Communicating Short-Term Air SensorData” by Martha Keating and coauthors explains an approach EPA is testing to help interpret the significance of1-minute sensor readings for ozone or particulate matter.

Effective control of air pollution requires a congruence of science, technology, and political will. Modern technologyprovides the ability to rapidly deliver large amounts of data, anda matching ability to verify, organize, analyze, and interpretthat data is critical. A scientific approach to understanding thecauses and effects of air pollution requires high quality data.In a recent article in Nature Alastair Lewis and Peter Edwardsstress the importance of independent testing and verificationof sensor performance. They call upon sensor manufacturersand regulators to verify performance and define appropriateuses “…so that these technologies can realize their huge potential.”7 The development, testing, and improvement oflow-cost easily operated air quality sensors along with bettermethods for interpreting sensor data continue to expand opportunities for what Rebecca French, AAAS Science &Technology Policy Fellow at EPA’s Office of Research and Development, has called “a new paradigm for environmentalprotection, one where air quality data is accessible and usable by everyone.”8 em

Susan S.G. Wierman is executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association Inc., Towson, MD. She is anA&WMA Fellow, a long-time member and past chair of EM’s Editorial Advisory Committee, and a member of A&WMA’s PublicationCommittee. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. “Technologies for environmental Justice Communities and Other Vulnerable Populations.” Letter/report to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, February 15, 2012.2. “DRAFT Roadmap for Next Generation Air Monitoring;” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 2013. See http://www.eunetair.it/cost/newsroom/

03-US-EPA_Roadmap_NGAM-March2013.pdf.3. Judge, R.; Wayland, R.A. Regulatory considerations of Lower Cost Air Pollution Sensor Data Performance; EM, August 2014, p. 37.4. “Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists;” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-sensor-toolbox-citizen-scientists-resources.5. “Real-time Geospatial Data Viewer (RETIGO): An Environmental Protection Agency Web-based Tool for Researchers and Citizen Scientists to Explore their

Measurements;” Science in Action Fact Sheet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2016. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2016-01/documents/retigo-fact-sheet3.pdf.

6. Fine, P.M.; Polidori, A. Designing a Sensor Information Clearinghouse; EM, August 2014, p. 28.7. Lewis, A.; Edwards, P. Validate personal air-pollution sensors; Nature News & Comment, July 6, 2016; available online at http://www.nature.com/news/validate-

personal-air-pollution-sensors-1.20195.8. French, R. Public Participation in Air Quality Monitoring: A New Frontier in Citizen Science; EM, August 2014, p. 21.

In Next Month’s Issue…

Freight Transport and the EnvironmentThis issue will look at emissions, regulations, technology, and environmental management approaches to manage theenvironmental concerns associated with trucks, ships, trains,planes, and their supporting infrastructure.

Also look for…PM FileIPEP Quarterly

Air Sensor Study DesignDetails Matter

Careful study design is vital for ensuring that data collected using sensors are of

sufficient quality to meet study objectives. Here, we describe three important

steps to follow when designing a sensor study.

Air Sensor Study Design by Tim Dye, Ashley Graham, and Hilary Hafner




The availability of and interest in small, inexpensive, easy-to-use, portable air sensors continue to grow rapidly. The lowercost and portability of these sensors compared with traditionalair quality monitors mean that they can be deployed withgreater ease and can be used by individuals in novel ways,such as on vehicles or in dense networks. Many users are excited by the new technology and opportunities to measureair quality, and are eager to get out in their communities andstart collecting data. However, in the midst of this excitement,vital study design steps (summarized in Figure 1) are oftenrushed or overlooked, leading to disappointment and missedopportunities. Beyond setting objectives and planning study

citizen-scientists) and the South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict (SCAQMD) (http://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec) provideinsight into sensor performance. Currently, there are manyparticulate matter sensors and several ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide gas sensors that arecapable of detecting ambient concentrations; however, sulfurdioxide and volatile organic compound sensors are not yetsensitive enough to measure ambient conditions and sufferfrom many interferences.

Whenever possible, sensor selection should be based on theobjectives of the study. Important considerations include the

logistics, there are three important sensor-specific study designconsiderations: (1) selecting a sensor system(s), (2) siting thesensor(s), and (3) performing field and data activities.

Selecting a Sensor SystemSensor technology is evolving rapidly. There are dozens of airsensors on the market that cost between US$5 and US$500,and many more are currently in development. While theavailability of an array of different sensors is exciting, it is oftendifficult to understand how a sensor will perform based onmanufacturers’ specifications and laboratory evaluations. Recent efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) (https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-sensor-toolbox-

target pollutant, the expected range in concentrations, andthe sensor’s ease of use, sampling frequency, interferences,and maintenance requirements. EPA’s Air Sensor Guidebook1

is a useful resource; it provides summaries of common pollu-tants, examples of sources, and concentration ranges thatone might expect in ambient air.

Equally important considerations are the hardware and soft-ware components of the sensor system, which incorporatesdata storage, processing, transfer, and visualization capabilities.These sensor system components are critical and often over-looked when selecting a sensor. For example, some sensorsystems come equipped with Bluetooth and data management

Figure 1. Sensor study design process.

Figure 2. The AirBeam system (left) includes a particulate matter sensor, Bluetooth data communications, and the AirCasting app and website for data visualization. The Alphasense OPC (right) is a particulate matter sensor with a hardware-to-computer interface. These are two selected air sensor systems among many available.



and visualization capabilities, while others require the user tointegrate other technologies into the system to achieve thesefunctions (see the example in Figure 2). Data management canbe particularly challenging due to the high temporal resolution(i.e., 1 second to 1 minute) of data collected by sensors, whichresults in the collection of large volumes of data that can beon the order of 60 to 3,600 times larger than the hourly data sets reported by traditional monitors.

Many of the current air sensors on the market are subject tosizable interferences from other pollutants, or from meteoro-logical conditions such as relative humidity or temperature.2

Sensor developers typically disclose whether there are any interferences that may influence a sensor measurement; however, it can be difficult to anticipate how significantly asensor may respond to an interferent. It is important to

identify the potential interferences exhibited by a sensor ofinterest and determine if the effects can be minimized. It maybe possible to collect additional measurements of interferingpollutants or meteorological variables so that the relationshipbetween the target pollutant and the interfering pollutant can be determined and the data can be corrected duringpost-processing. When using additional measurements topost-process data, it is important to keep in mind that thosemeasurements have their own uncertainties that must also be characterized.

Siting the SensorsThe relatively small size and portability of low-cost sensorsmakes them suitable for deployment in almost any environ-ment, offering unique opportunities to monitor air quality innovel locations and under conditions where traditional

Figure 3. Examples of air sensor deployments.

TIPS: For Selecting a Sensor System

• Identify potential inferences and ensure those parameters are measured.

• Consider all of the factors involved in getting the data from the sensor to a computer for analysis and interpretation.

• If using a cloud data service and data ownership is important, determine who will own the data (the user or the sensor company).



monitoring equipment–limited by physical space, power, security, and other infrastructure requirements–cannot be easilyinstalled. Air sensor devices have been deployed in a varietyof ways, including at a traditional monitoring site, secured ona tripod in a field or on the side of a building, or carried by aperson walking, on a bike, or in a vehicle (see Figure 3).

Siting considerations for low-cost sensor devices include manyof those that are important for siting traditional, regulatorymonitors—the measurement scale of interest, environmentalexposure, and security. In addition to these considerations,low-cost sensor users are faced with challenges related to interferences and sensor mobility, such as the need to ensureproper airflow to the sensor inlet during measurement collec-tion. Channeling of air around a sensor shelter or aroundnearby structures can radically impact concentration readings.Furthermore, unlike traditional air quality instruments thathave pumps to draw large volumes of air into them, sensorsoften have weak fans or no forced airflow at all. Blocked orrestricted airflow can result in measurement artifacts and/orbiased data. Personal safety (particularly

during mobile deployments) may also be an important consideration, especially for devices with visually engagingreal-time data displays.

Performing Field and Data ActivitiesOnce the sensor and siting location appropriate for the studyobjectives have been selected, data collection steps need to becarefully planned. Unlike traditional monitors that are routinelyadjusted by calibration activities, many of the low-cost sensorscurrently on the market cannot be calibrated by the user. Asan alternative, users can assess sensor accuracy by comparingmeasurements to data from a local air quality agency orAirNow.gov (https://airnow.gov/), collocate a sensor with aregulatory-grade instrument to ensure measurements co-varyand are the right order of magnitude, or collocate multiplesensors to examine precision.

Once data collection has begun, it is important to periodicallyreview the collected data to identify and correct any problemsthat arise and routinely inspect and service the sensors accord-ing to the manufacturer’s specifications. Data assessment earlyin the study is necessary to make any needed adjustments tothe study design to better meet the objectives. Commonfindings that may require study design changes and relatedconsiderations include

• Substantial interferences—consider measuring tempera-ture and humidity at a minimum, in addition to interferingpollutants.

• Drift—consider collocation with another instrument.

• Fouling—periodically collocate the sensor with a sensorthat has not been exposed to the same environment to assess whether fouling may have occurred over time. Forexample, some gas sensors have a tendency to degradeover time and PM sensors may accumulate dust on theiroptical systems.

Post-study activities include data validation, analysis, and interpretation. As described above, data validation is typicallymade easier by periodic data review and study design evalua-tion. Even so, data analysis challenges may include accountingfor interferences and sensor drift; Figure 4 shows an example

TIPS: For Siting Sensors

• For mobile deployments, consider the frequency of the sensor measurement relative to the speed of the mobile platform.

• Ensure that the sensor inlet is exposed to consistent airflow over the course of the study, regardless of wind direction.

Figure 4. Hourly ozone from a sensor exhibiting driftover time versus a reference monitor.3 Colors and symbols show hours since the start of the study in increments of approximately 10 days.



of drift exhibited by an ozone sensor. Drift can be correctedby applying a time-dependent correction factor, provided areference is available to verify the true value. The large volumeof data and greater variability associated with high time-resolution measurements can make it more challenging toidentify outliers or events.

Finally, sensor data interpretation can prove challenging, especially when comparing short-term measurements to airquality standards or other health benchmarks. Most healthstandards, such as the Air Quality Index, are based on exposuretimes of 1-hr, 8-hr, or 24-hr duration. Health messaging for

1-second or 1-minute concentrations collected by non-regulatorysensors is currently focused on planning personal activitychoices, such as messaging developed by EPA as part of theVillage Green (https://www.epa.gov/air-research/village-green-project) project.

SummarySmall, low-cost sensors provide opportunities for exploring air quality in ways never before possible by such a broad audience. As in any air pollution study, it is imperative tofocus on the details of the study design so that results aremeaningful and meet the project goals. em

TIPS: For Collecting Data

• If a sensor cannot be user-calibrated, deploy several sensors side-by-side for several days, operate them over a range of pollutantconcentrations and weather conditions, and compare the measurements among sensors to examine data consistency.

• Trends in sensor measurements are generally more reliable than the absolute values, as long as drift and known temporalvariability (e.g., temperature sensitivity) are accounted for during data analysis.

• Follow ongoing sensor evaluation and sensor messaging efforts by EPA (http://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-sensor-toolbox-citizen-scientists) and SCAQMD (http://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec).

Tim Dye is a senior vice president, Ashley Graham is an air quality scientist and project manager, and Hilary Hafner is a senior vice president and the manager of the Environmental Analysis Division at Sonoma Technology Inc. in Petaluma, CA. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. Williams, R.; Kilaru, V.; Snyder, E.; Kaufman, A.; Dye, T.; Rutter, A.; Russell, A.; Hafner, H. Air Sensor Guidebook; EPA 600/R-14/159; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 2014; available online at http://epa.gov/research/docs/air-sensor-guidebook.pdf.2. Lewis, A.C.; Lee, J.D.; Edwards, P.M.; Shaw, M.D.; Evans, M.J.; Moller, S.J.; Smith, K.R.; Buckley, J.W.; Ellis, M.; Gillot, S.R.; White, A. Evaluating the performance

of low-cost chemical sensors for air pollution research; Faraday Discussions 2016, 189, 85-103.3. MacDonald, C.P.; Roberts, P.T.; McCarthy, M.C.; Rutter, A.P.; Dye, T.S.; Vaughn, D.L.; Minor, H.A.; Smith, K.M.; Henshaw, G.; Nester, S.; Morrow, D.; Winegar,

E.; Sweet, J. Measuring spatial variability in ozone concentrations using a small-sensor network. Presented at the A&WMA Air Quality Measurement Methods andTechnology Conference, Sacramento, California, November 19–20, 2013, by Sonoma Technology, Inc.; Aeroqual Ltd.; Providence Engineering and EnvironmentalGroup, LLC; and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Rapid changes in monitoring technology have the potential to dramatically improve

environmental protection by providing industry, government, and the public with

more complete and real-time information on pollution releases and environmental

conditions. With more real-time monitoring, we will have a much richer understanding

of environmental conditions, and will be able to identify and fix environmental

problems sooner. These developments may change not only how environmental

programs operate, but also the roles played by citizens, researchers, industry, and

others. We recently recognized this possibility in a 2013 article.1 Now, we need

to act to ensure we are able to take full advantage of the opportunities while

addressing the challenges.2

Advanced Monitoring Technology:Opportunities and Challenges

Advanced Monitoring Technology:Opportunities and Challenges

A Path Forward for EPA, States, and Tribesby David Hindin, Ben Grumbles, George Wyeth, Kristen Benedict, Tim Watkins, George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Megan Ulrich, Steve Lang, Kelly Poole, and Alexandra Dapolito Dunn

Advanced Monitoring Technology: Opportunities and Challenges by Hindin et al.




Some of the challenges from new monitoring technologyrelate to the use of devices by citizens. The ability of individualsusing low-cost sensors to gather information previously requiringhighly expensive government equipment could greatly enrichour knowledge of environmental conditions, especially at alocal level. At the same time, uncertainties about the quality ofthese devices and the interpretation of the data they generateare limiting their impact (see “Interpreting and CommunicatingShort-Term Air Sensor Data” by Keating et al. elsewhere inthis issue). For example, we do not currently have uniform dataexchange standards that are needed to allow information frommultiple sources to be compiled, analyzed, and understood,especially when the data is for short-term readings (e.g., 1minute) but the federal standards and the Air Quality Indexare grounded in studies based on longer pollution exposure(e.g., 1, 8, or 24 hours).

At the same time, new technology could transform the workof agencies, giving them richer and more current informationon environmental conditions, and assessing compliance. Thesetools can also allow industry to be more proactive in anticipatingand preventing problems. But agencies are hard pressed tokeep up with these developments (e.g., determining whethera new monitoring technology should be considered for aparticular use). The question of for what purposes the newtechnology will be used is a central challenge.

In short, there is a compelling need to come together to addressthese challenges and take advantage of the opportunities touse advanced monitoring to improve environmental protection.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, andtribes have come together to do just that.

Citizen Science: Possibilities and QuestionsMembers of the public can easily browse the Internet andpurchase low-cost monitoring devices. Areas like Chicago,Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Los Angeles are deeply engagedin or just getting started with a new breed of research drivenby the development of low-cost air monitoring or sensortechnology (see Figure 1).

Further, several high-profile information technology giantsare showing interest in hosting data generated by advancedmonitoring technologies, which is likely to speed up, not slow down the process. In addition to air monitoring, similartechnologies are becoming critical to the water qualitymonitoring network and a high priority for water qualityagencies across the country.

This revolution in advanced monitoring technology raisesmany questions:

• “How well do these devices work?”• “Which ones work best for which purposes and which

ones need more work?”• “With the data often varying by quality, time, space and

unit of measurement, what do the data mean, and howcan we make sure users understand the data?”

• “How do we analyze reams of new data? Can we makeuse of lots of imperfect data taking statistical advantage ofthe wealth of embedded information potential?”

• “What are the potential uses of the data? Better understandingexposure? A tool for industry to avoid complianceproblems by tracking early indicators? How to best locatehigh end, higher cost monitoring equipment? Integratedexposure and risk assessments?”

Figure 1. South Coast Air Quality Management District AQ-SPEC Program.

Leading the Way: The SCAQMD’s AQ-SPEC ProgramIn an effort to inform the public about the actual performance of commercially available “low-cost” air quality sensors, theSouth Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established the Air Quality Sensor Performance EvaluationCenter (AQ-SPEC) program. The AQ-SPEC program aims to perform a thorough characterization of currently availablelow-cost sensors under ambient (field) and controlled (laboratory) conditions. For more information, visit the website(http://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec/home).

The main goals and objectives of the AQ-SPEC program include:• Evaluating the performance of commercially available low-cost air quality sensors.• Providing guidance and clarity for ever-evolving sensor technology and data interpretation.• Catalyzing the successful evolution, development and use of sensor technology.



Responding to the ChallengesEPA has been assessing the changing paradigm of air pollutionmonitoring for the past few years.3 As predicted, the revolutionhas continued to grow and the agency recently partnered withstate and tribal environmental agencies—organized under theauspices of E-Enterprise for the Environment—to form a teamto address the challenges and opportunities presented byrapidly changing monitoring technology.4 For more information,visit the website (http://e-enterprisefortheenvironment.net/).

Under the direction of the E-Enterprise Leadership Council,an Advanced Monitoring Team was formed in April of 2015to lead the joint effort (see Figure 2). The E-Enterprise Advanced Monitoring Team includes state environmentalcommissioners, state and local technical experts, and repre-sentatives from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance (OECA), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Officeof Water (OW), Office of Environmental Information (OEI),Office of Research and Development (ORD), and EPA RegionalOffices. Recommendations from the team to move forwardon five projects have been approved by the E-EnterpriseLeadership Council and are described here.

An Opportunity and Challenge of Great Interest to States, Tribes, and EPAAdvanced monitoring technology refers to a broad range ofsampling and analytical equipment, systems, techniques,practices, and technologies for enhancing detection andmeasurement of environmental conditions. This new

technology is generally defined by one or more of thefollowing factors:

• It is not yet in widespread use in a particular sector or particular regulatory program.

• It provides data by monitoring pollutants on a real-time or near-real-time basis, often without lengthylag times forlaboratory analysis.

• It is less expensive, easier to use, and/or more portablecompared to technologies currently in widespread use.

• It provides acceptable data quality that is more complete or easier to interpret and can meet a specific need.

• It is a new technology or an existing technology that isbeing used in a new way to provide better information onpollutants, pollution sources, or environmental conditions.

Environmental agencies have a longstanding role as leadersin developing monitoring methods and procedures and incollecting, storing, and communicating the meaning ofenvironmental data to the public. EPA is uniquely qualified to convene organizations to leverage evaluation and pilotprograms to address market shortcomings. The E-Enterpriseinitiative on advanced monitoring is designed to begin theprocess of addressing the most common hurdles associatedwith new technologies.

A common thread in our preparation for the future ofadvanced monitoring is recognition that the technology canbe used in a variety of applications, including (but not limitedto) environmental research; personal exposure monitoring;science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education;site screening; compliance monitoring; and hotspotidentification (see Table 1). These different applications mayhave different performance and quality requirements for theequipment. For example, some applications may require atop-of-the-line, lab-quality instrument, while other applicationsmay be able to meet needs with data from simple, low-costsensors. As data are increasingly generated by the public and other non-governmental parties, we need to define thelevel of data quality required if the data are to be used forregulatory purposes, for less rigorous screening purposes, or for personal use. Our work across all the projects willrecognize these differences.

The Priority ProjectsThe E-Enterprise initiative on advanced monitoring has identifiedand begun to work on five specific projects to prepare for thechanges in environmental programs resulting from advancesin new monitoring technology.

Project 1: Options and Feasibility Analysis for an Inde-pendent Third-Party Evaluation/ Certification ProgramWithout trustworthy information on new technologyperformance used in combination with well-developed

Figure 2. E-Enterprise Leadership Council (EELC). TheEELC is composed of 10 State Environmental Commis-sioners and 10 EPA Senior Executives. The EELC hashad tribal participation for its most recent meetings. E-Enterprise is managed through joint governance, inwhich the states, territories, tribes and EPA jointly identifyand define problems and opportunities, and jointly develop and implement solutions and approaches thereto.This joint governance model is driving transformativereforms across the national enterprise of environmentalprotection.



evaluation methods, there is significant risk that poor-qualitydata will proliferate and be indistinguishable from reliabledata. This effort is designed to determine the feasibility ofcreating an independent third-party program to evaluate the performance of new sensors. This kind of a certificationprocess will ensure that new technology is marketed andused in ways that are consistent with the capabilities of thenew technologies and will generate data that will be useful to the public and governments.

Such evaluation and potential certification of a particular deviceshould be done by a competent and independent entity: thatis, not the manufacturer nor anyone associated with thedevelopment, production, distribution, sales, financing, ormarketing of the device. Government agencies will play animportant role in setting data standards and/or initiating athird-party evaluation/certification program.

Project 2: Technology Scan, Screen, and User Support NetworkEPA, state, tribal, and local agencies currently lack anestablished, coordinated way to determine whether a newtechnology has potential for use in environmental programs

(on an informal basis that does not replace the “gold standard”procedures used to approve regulatory monitors). This effortwill develop a process that can rapidly assess new technologiesthat are available now or that may be coming to market soonto determine the utility of each technology for variouspurposes, and recommend specific sensors for further andmore rigorous evaluation. The network of EPA, state, tribal,and local experts can screen whether a new technologyappears to be scientifically sound and relevant for furtherconsideration based on all readily available data, includinginformation provided by the manufacturer.

This network will not officially endorse technologies butrather will support environmental agencies in understandingthe opportunities for how to use the new technology. Thenetwork will provide user support to EPA and state, tribal,and local agencies. to help them decide which equipmentthey should purchase or pilot for a particular use. Thisnetwork will also help state, local, and tribal environmentalagencies and EPA respond to citizen and community groupsby providing screening-level information on the quality ofselect sensors.

Table 1. Potential uses and use tiers of advanced monitoring data. (Performance and quality requirements for these uses may vary.)

Directly Support Regulatory Programs

Permitting: Part of record for issuance of rules or permits

Regulation and Compliance: Identification of nonattainment areas/impaired waters; removal of designations when conditions improve; self-monitoring pursuant to a permit or an applicable rule

Enforcement: Evidence in an enforcement action

Aid or Supplement Regulatory Action

Action Prioritization: Targeting, development, and prioritization of enforcement actions

Problem Identification: Hot-spot identification and characterization, or analysis for program planning purposes or future regulatory action

Additional Data: Supplement current regulatory monitoring for planning

Emergency Response: Pollutant identification, characterization of conditions and risks, response action planning, and status assessment following a response

Temporary Source Monitoring: Temporary monitoring (e.g., construction sites)

Educate/Inform the Public (Non-Regulatory)

Program Evaluation: Evaluation of research, programs, and other policy outside of regulatory actions

Transparency: General information made available to the public about their environment

Other Uses

Facility Self-Monitoring: Use to inform operational control by facilities (e.g., drinking water systems)

Personal Health: Personal exposure monitoring and crowdsourced networks

Education: Use of technology as a teaching tool (e.g., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math [STEM] education)

Research: Use by universities and others for research purposes

Hazard Alert Systems: Alert building occupants of a problem



Project 3: Data InterpretationAs advanced technologies producing real-time data (reportedby the minute or second) become more widely available,these data are often being misunderstood by users, especiallywhen compared to public health standards based on longer-term exposure. To help address such misunderstandings,environmental agencies and the public would benefit from abetter understanding of how to interpret and respond to the data.

This effort is designed to provide context and interpretationof advanced monitoring data as it relates to potential adverseenvironmental and health effects or regulatory compliance.This context will help mitigate stress on government resourcesthat may otherwise be spent responding to public confusionor concern over erroneous information.

This project will build on current efforts to communicateshort-term data (see “Interpreting and Communicating

Short-Term Air Sensor Data” by Keating et al. elsewhere inthis issue) (see Figure 3).

Project 4: Data Exchange StandardsWith the proliferation of new technology, data are beingcollected in inconsistent formats and at varying levels of quality.Uniform standards for the exchange of data are needed sothat information collected by different parties, using differentdevices, can be shared and analyzed, and so that users willknow how and under what circumstances the informationwas gathered.

Therefore, this project will develop data standards definingthe representation, format, definition, structure, transmission,and management of data for each tier. From these efforts, aminimum set of metadata and data quality descriptions willbe proposed and then evaluated through several pilotprojects. This standardization will provide a foundation forthe development of data tools to maximize the value of large yet imperfect databases.

Figure 3. EPA’s Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists.

EPA’s Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen ScientistsEPA’s Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists provides information and guidance on new low-cost compact technologiesfor measuring air quality. Since citizens are interested in learning more about local air quality where they live, work, and play,EPA scientists created the toolbox to provide citizens resources to effectively collect, analyze, interpret, and communicateair quality data.

Advanced monitoring technology refers to a broad

range of sampling and analytical equipment, systems,

techniques, practices, and technologies for enhancing

detection and measurement of environmental

conditions.



Project 5: Lean the Current Technology Approval ProcessIn addition to the four projects described above, anothercritical element of the E-Enterprise advanced monitoringinitiative is to simplify the regulatory approval process fornew monitoring methods to be more timely, efficient, andtransparent. This will primarily be implemented through eachof the EPA program offices involved in methods developmentand approval using EPA’s “Lean” initiative for streamliningagency processes. State, local and tribal agencies will provideinput as part of this effort. EPA’s Lean initiative is describedonline (https://www.epa.gov/lean/lean-government).

Next Steps and the FutureOn April 13, 2016, the E-Enterprise Leadership Councilvoted unanimously to move forward with the five projectsdescribed above. The Steering Committee for this effort hasestablished a set of initial action items and target completiondates that phase in the initiative over the next two years. Routineupdates will be provided on the status of the advancedmonitoring initiative through the E-Enterprise website (http://e-enterprisefortheenvironment.net/our-projects/advanced-monitoring-projects/advanced-monitoring/). em

David Hindin is the Director of the Office of Compliance at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ben Grumbles is the Secretaryof the Maryland Department of the Environment. George Wyeth is a senior attorney with the Office of Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance; Kristen Benedict is with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and Tim Watkins is Deputy Director of theNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, all with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., is Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration; Megan Ulrich is a regulatory and policyanalyst; and Steve Lang is a senior regulatory and compliance engineer, all with the Maryland Department of Environment. AlexandraDapolito Dunn is Executive Director & General Counsel and Kelly Poole is a project manager, both with the Environmental Councilof the States. Contact E-mail: [email protected].

References1. Snyder, E.G.; Watkins, T.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Williams, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shelow, D; Hindin, D.A.; Kilaru, V.J.; Preuss, P.W. The Changing Paradigm

of Air Pollution Monitoring; Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369-11377.2. Lewis, A.; Edwards, P. Validate Personal Air Pollution Sensors; Nature 2016, 35, 29-31.3. Snyder, E.G.; Watkins, T.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Williams, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shelow, D; Hindin, D.A.; Kilaru, V.J.; Preuss, P.W. The Changing Paradigm

of Air Pollution Monitoring; Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369-11377.4. Burack, T.S.; Meiburg, A.S. Collaborative Federalism; The Environ. Forum 2016, 33(3), 23-27.

Low-cost, portable air quality sensors that report air pollutant concentrations in

increments as short as one minute are becoming readily available. The potential

for widespread data collection by individuals presents opportunities to better

understand patterns of pollution and human exposure; however, both technical

and policy challenges need to be addressed, including the quality and reliability

of sensor data, as well as how to interpret and communicate the relationship

between a short-term sensor reading and health effects that may be experienced

only after exposure over longer time periods.

Interpreting and Communicating Short-Term Air Sensor Data

by Martha Keating, Kristen Benedict, Ronald Evans, Scott Jenkins, Elizabeth Mannshardt, and Susan Lyon Stone

Interpreting and Communicating Short-Term Air Sensor Data by Keating et al.




This article describes the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) efforts to analyze, interpret, and communicateavailable short-term data for ozone and fine particles (PM-2.5).Our goal is to guide the interpretation and communication ofsensor data in ways that are consistent with available healtheffects evidence and air quality information.

Providing Direction on Interpreting Short-Term DataEPA’s primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)are set at levels that protect public health, including the healthof at-risk populations. Consistent with the available health evidence, the NAAQS are based on an averaging period ofeight hours for ozone and 24 hours for the daily PM-2.5NAAQS. Health studies do not support linking 1-minute ozoneor PM-2.5 exposures to adverse health effects, thus a 1-minutesensor reading is not directly comparable to either the levelof the NAAQS or to the related Air Quality Index (AQI) categories.

To help guide the interpretation of sensor data, EPA is devel-oping a communication tool consisting of “sensor scales” andvarious background materials to help both users and sensordevelopers understand what 1-minute sensor readings forozone and PM-2.5 may suggest in terms of local air quality.1,2

As EPA receives feedback on this initial effort, we may refinethe scales as appropriate. The sensor scales are informed bystatistical analyses3 of short-term data (1-minute data for ozoneand 1-hour data for PM-2.5) from regulatory monitors andVillage Green Project stations4 and by an understanding ofthe broad body of health evidence for the two pollutants. The quality of the data from the regulatory monitors andfrom the Village Green sites is well-characterized; however,the relationships observed between these readings and

longer-term averages may not hold for readings from a device that has not been validated or has been shown to produce poor results.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the sensor scales establish “Low,”“Medium,” and “High” categories based on a range of sensorreadings; corresponding messages suggest actions a usercould consider in planning outdoor activities. We encourageusers to consider both the sensor measurement and the AQIwhen making judgments about local air quality. A “VeryHigh” range for both pollutants is also noted. However, “VeryHigh” readings (i.e., higher than 150 parts per billion [ppb]for ozone and higher than 500 µg/m3 for PM-2.5) would beexpected only rarely and could instead indicate a malfunc-tioning sensor. As more data are collected, we may consideradditional language for other situations that may indicate amalfunctioning sensor, such as readings that don’t vary overtime or low readings that occur next to an apparent source.

In addition to a lack of evidence linking 1-minute ozone orPM-2.5 exposures to adverse health effects, variability inmeasured data, regional differences in air quality, and uncer-tainty in sensor accuracy and reliability precluded the consid-eration of more refined ranges or messages beyond thoserepresented by a Low–Medium–High scale. Because the sensor scales are based on analyses of U.S. air quality data, they are appropriate only for the U. S. The scales also do not represent regulatory limits.

Approach for Determining the Ozone Sensor ScaleTo inform the ozone sensor scale, we first conducted a statisticalanalysis to examine the relationship between 1-minute ozonedata and corresponding 8-hour average concentrations.

The Ozone Sensor ScaleFor ozone, EPA determined that:

• 1-minute sensor readings in the range of 0 to 59 ppb best represent a “Low” sensor message, because they almost always

occur when the corresponding 8-hour average concentration is below the level of the ozone NAAQS and in the “good” or

“moderate” AQI category.

• 1-minute sensor readings in the range of 60 to 89 ppb best represent a “Medium” sensor message, because while they

can occur when the corresponding 8-hour average concentrations are either above or below the ozone NAAQS, they most

frequently correspond to 8-hour average concentrations in the “moderate” AQI category.

• 1-minute sensor readings in the range of 90 to 149 ppb best represent a “High” sensor message, because they almost

always occur when the corresponding 8-hour average concentrations are above the level of the ozone NAAQS and in the

“unhealthy for sensitive groups” or “unhealthy” AQI category.



Then, to select numerical breakpoints and messages for theLow–Medium–High ranges, we examined how the corre-sponding 8-hour average concentrations related to the levelof the ozone NAAQS and to the ozone AQI categories. Wedetermined that it was appropriate for the “Low” category torepresent 1-minute sensor readings that primarily occur aspart of a 8-hour average ozone concentration that is belowthe level of the NAAQS, and that the “High” category shouldrepresent 1-minute sensor readings that primarily occur aspart of a 8-hour average ozone concentration above the levelof the NAAQS. “Medium” and “High” messages for ozoneencourage users to be aware of air quality trends over thecourse of the day. Messages reflect consideration of thehealth evidence as it relates to different exposure levels andsensitive populations, and the uncertainty in relating a short-term sensor reading to health effects that may be experiencedonly after exposure over much longer time periods.

Approach for Determining the PM Sensor ScaleTo develop the PM-2.5 sensor scale, we followed the sameconceptual approach used for ozone. However, 1-minute datafor PM-2.5 are limited and vary considerably by location andsource influence (e.g., wildfires). So, for PM-2.5, rather thanrelying on limited 1-minute monitoring data, we used a robustdataset of high-quality 1-hour monitoring data to examinethe relationships between 1-hour and 24-hour PM-2.5 averageconcentrations. Again, the relationships observed between thesereadings and longer-term averages may not hold for readingsfrom a device that has not been validated or has been shownto produce poor results. As more data become available fromother types of sensors, this will be an area to further evaluate.

Corresponding messages for the PM-2.5 categories are similarto ozone in that users are encouraged to consider sensor

The PM Sensor ScaleFor PM-2.5, EPA determined that:

• Sensor readings in the range of 0 to 29 µg/m3 that continue for an hour or more would best represent a “Low” sensormessage, because they almost always occur when the corresponding 24-hour average concentrations would be below thelevel of the 24-hour PM-2.5 NAAQS and in the “good” AQI category for PM-2.5.

• Sensor readings in the range of 30 to 69 µg/m3 that continue for an hour or more would best represent a “Medium”sensor message, because they can occur when corresponding 24-hour average concentrations are either above or belowthe PM-2.5 NAAQS, but would generally be in the “moderate” or “unhealthy for sensitive groups” AQI categories.

• For the “High” PM-2.5 sensor category, EPA took a different approach in recognition that, unlike ozone, PM-2.5 can be directly emitted. PM-2.5 concentrations can vary widely near emission sources, for example from less than 100 µg/m3 toseveral thousand µg/m3. For that reason, for the “High” sensor message, EPA focused on the PM-2.5 concentrations thatcan occur near common emission sources (e.g., diesel buses). To reflect the lower end of the range of PM-2.5 concentrationsoften found near emission sources, EPA determined that 1-minute sensor readings for PM in the range of 70 to 499 µg/m3

best represent a “High” sensor message, because a user may encounter this range of PM levels near sources.

Table 1. Draft sensor scale for ozone.1-Minute ozone readingsa (Not for regulatory purposes)

Low 0–59 ppb Enjoy your outdoor activities.

Medium 60–89 ppb If medium readings continue, use the Air Quality Index to plan outdoor activities.

High 90–149 ppb If high readings continue, consider adjusting outdoor activities, especially if you are sensitive to ozone. Check the Air Quality Index to find out.

Very High>150 ppb If high readings continue, consider adjusting outdoor activities. Check the Air Quality Index to find out. Very high readings may mean the sensor is not working properly.

Sensor may be offline. Check the Air Quality Index.

aCategories may be refined as data sources are periodically updated.



readings in the context of longer-term air quality trends.However, the PM-2.5 messages are different from ozone inthat EPA took into account both the longer 1-hour data andthe possibility that a nearby source could influence a sensorreading (e.g., see Medium and High categories in Table 2).

Observations and Next StepsThe ability to interpret and communicate short-term data isexpected to evolve as sensor technologies improve. The initialproject described in this article relies on quality-assuredmeasurements. As more data become available from othertypes of sensors and users provide feedback, the sensor

scales described here will be further evaluated. Also, thisproject does not address all of the potential differences in airquality patterns that a personal or mobile sensor might registercompared to a fixed site like a regulatory monitor or VillageGreen site. These differences may introduce additional uncer-tainty in the measurement and interpretation of short-termreadings. Nevertheless, we anticipate that these sensors scaleswill be useful for applications involving personal or mobilesensors as well. Future efforts may include providing guidanceto sensor developers, for example guidance related to aver-aging readings over longer time periods, and development of sensor scales for additional pollutants. em

Martha Keating, Kristen Benedict, Ronald Evans, Scott Jenkins, Elizabeth Mannshardt, and Susan Lyon Stone are all withthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. Communicating Instantaneous Air Quality Data: Pilot Project. See http://bit.ly/SensorScalePilot.2. Note: The effort described in this article to interpret and communicate very short-term sensor data is part of EPA’s broader effort to meet the opportunities and

challenges posed by advanced monitoring technologies as described in a companion article in this issue of EM. See “Advanced Monitoring Technology: Opportunities and Challenges” by Hindin et al.

3. The ozone and PM2.5 data and statistical analyses are described in Communicating Instantaneous Air Quality Data: Pilot Project. See http://bit.ly/SensorScalePilot.4. The Village Green Project is a community-based activity that makes 1-minute data available online and by smartphone. Village Green Project stations provide

1-minute data of known quality in seven U.S. cities. See https://www.epa.gov/air-research/village-green-project.

Table 2. Draft sensor scale for PM2.5.1-Minute PM2.5 readingsa (Not for regulatory purposes)

Low 0–29 µg/m3 Enjoy your outdoor activities.

Medium 30–69 µg/m3 If medium readings continue (for an hour or more), use the Air Quality Index to plan outdoor activities.

High 70–499 µg/m3 You may be near a source of particle pollution like dust, smoke or exhaust. Check the Air Quality Index to plan outdoor activities.

Very High> 500 µg/m3 You may be near a source of particle pollution like dust, smoke or exhaust. Check the Air Quality Index to find out if you should adjust outdoor activities. Very high readings may mean the sensor is not working properly.

Sensor may be offline. Check the Air Quality Index.

aCategories may be refined as data sources are periodically updated.

EPA Research Highlights


Living Close to Roadways:Health Concerns and Mitigation Strategiesby Michaela Burns

Over forty-five million Americans are estimated to live, work,or go to school within 300 feet (or approximately 100 m) ofa major roadway or transportation facility, potentially puttingthem in close contact with high concentrations of traffic-generated air pollutants. Exposure to emissions from mobilesources like cars and trucks can result in higher incidenceand severity of a variety of health effects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conductedand funded research over the past 15 years that has shownthe health risks of spending time in very close proximity to amajor road. The research has also provided more knowledge

on the composition of air pollutants near roads, who is atgreater risk, and strategies for effectively reducing the impacton public health.

A large body of scientific research has shown that air pollutantsnear roadways can worsen respiratory and heart conditionsand cause other health problems, explains Jan Dye, an EPAscientist who has studied health effects from air pollutionnear roads.

Recent research findings by EPA’s Science to Achieve Results(STAR) program indicate that several populations are at greater



risk for traffic-related health impacts than other groups. Forexample, school-age children living in close proximity to hightraffic roadways were shown to have poorer asthma controlthan their peers. A follow-up study showed that poverty further increased the impact of traffic pollution on asthma.

Exposure to high concentrations of traffic-related pollution wasalso associated with adverse outcomes for pregnant womensuch as reduced fetal growth and preterm birth. Other epi-demiological studies have identified older people, people withpreexisting heart and lung conditions, and minority groupsas populations especially vulnerable to the risks of traffic-related health impacts.

air-quality). According to current research, roadside vegetationcan be effective at reducing air pollution when barriers arethick with full coverage from the ground to the top of thecanopy and extend or wrap around an area so that pollutantscannot flow around the edges.

Roadside barriers include walls built alongside roadways toreduce traffic noise and roadside vegetation made up of treesand shrubs. Study findings demonstrate that vegetation andnoise barriers can reduce downwind pollution concentrationsnear roadways if designed properly by altering air flow andintercepting airborne particles. Using a vegetation barrier inparticular may remove some of the smallest particulate pollu-

Reducing ImpactsEPA has used both regulatory and voluntary programs tomitigate the effects of roadway pollution and improve publichealth. By setting stricter emission and fuel standards for on-road and non-road vehicles, EPA has helped to reduce theemissions of common traffic-related pollutants such as partic-ulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide on a national level. Another local and regional mitigation approachis an urban planning technique called Smart Growth thataims to eliminate long vehicle trips by situating schools, work places, and homes closer together.

EPA has developed several resources to address ways to reducepollution at schools, homes, and work facilities, includingguidelines and recommendations to help reduce pollution atexisting schools in the report, Best Practices for Reducing Near-Road Air Pollution Exposure Near Schools (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ochp_2015_near_road_pollution_booklet_v16_508.pdf).

In addition, EPA has compiled relevant roadside barrier researchand recommendations for designing and planting roadsidevegetation in the recent report Recommendations for Con-structing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-RoadAir Quality (https://www.epa.gov/air-research/recommendations-constructing-roadside-vegetation-barriers-improve-near-road-

tants from the near-road environment. Other research suggeststhat combining roadside vegetation with noise barriers canreduce downwind pollution more than just vegetation or asolid noise barrier alone.

These roadside features can be a good addition to emissioncontrol techniques and other voluntary efforts because theycan address existing air quality problems in a shorter timeperiod than most other strategies, says Richard Baldauf, anEPA scientist who studies mitigation strategies for near-roadwayair pollution. Solid barriers and roadside vegetation can alsoprovide other benefits to the community such as noise reduction and water runoff control.

EPA developed recommendations to help support two com-munities in building and evaluating the capabilities of vegetationbarriers. Two locations were selected for their proximity tomajor roadways with significant diesel traffic: an elementaryschool in Oakland, CA, and a community park in Detroit, MI.Partners leading the planting of the roadside vegetation includeUrban Releaf and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in Oakland and The Greening of Detroit and Depart-ments within the City of Detroit.

These will be the first known studies to plant roadside vege-tation for air quality mitigation. Previous studies used existing

Study findings demonstrate that vegetation and noise

barriers can reduce downwind pollution concentrations

near roadways if designed properly by altering air flow

and intercepting airborne particles.



vegetation to conduct research on near-road pollutant con-centrations. These studies are bringing together communityorganizations, local agencies, and EPA to design, plan, andmeasure air quality before and after the planting of the vegetation.

The highway near the elementary school is bordered by asolid noise barrier and provides an opportunity to investigatethe ability of solid and vegetative barriers used in combinationto reduce pollution. The location of the park offers the oppor-tunity to compare the performance of a noise barrier withvegetation to a vegetation barrier alone.

Near-road mitigation strategies can be critical to reducingtraffic-related pollutants and protecting the public from exposure. EPA is expanding its air pollution research to includeother sources besides major roadways such as rail yards,ports, and wildfires that can impact air quality in a community.Studies are characterizing the sources of air pollution, deter-mining how they are dispersed, identifying their health impacts,and evaluating ways to reduce their impacts on communities.The work will contribute to better protection of public healthand the environment. em

Michaela Burns is an Oak Ridge Associated Universities Contractor in Science Communications with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development.

Learn more online at:• Research on Near-Road and Other Near-Source Air Pollution (https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-near-road-

way-and-other-near-source-air-pollution)• Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality

(https://www.epa.gov/air-research/recommendations-constructing-roadside-vegetation-barriers-improve-near-road-air-quality)• Near-Road Air Pollution and Mitigation Strategies Webinar Presentations (https://www.epa.gov/research/near-road-

way-air-pollution-and-mitigation-strategies-webinar-0)• Best Practices for Reducing Near-Road Air Pollution Exposure at Schools (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/

2015-10/documents/ochp_2015_near_road_pollution_booklet_v16_508.pdf)• Smart Growth (https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth)• Healthy Heart Toolkit and Research (https://www.epa.gov/air-research/healthy-heart-toolkit-and-research)• Asthma Research (https://www.epa.gov/healthresearch/asthma-research)

For more information on the research discussed in this column, contact Ann Brown; phone: 1-919-541-7818; e-mail: [email protected].

DisclaimerThe views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the official views of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Etcetera


RCRA Citizen Suit:EPA Faulted on RCRA Subtitle D Regulations

Does the recently filed RCRA Citizen Suit mean that more federal regulations

of oil and gas exploration and production waste are on the horizon?

by Anthony B. Cavender

On May 4, 2016, a group of public interest environmentalorganizations filed a RCRA Citizen Suit in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory rulingthat the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violatedthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by “repeatedly failing” to meet the statutory guidelines for com-pleting the required regulatory reviews of the agency’s RCRASubtitle D regulations affecting oil and gas exploration andproduction waste and state plan guidelines for these wastes.

The ComplaintThe case is Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. McCarthy.The plaintiffs allege that EPA has a nondiscretionary duty underRCRA Section 2002(b) to review, and revise if necessary, atleast once every three years the RCRA Subtitle D rules thatare located a 40 CFR Part 257 that apply to oil and gas wastes.It is alleged that EPA last conducted these statutory reviewson July 6, 1988, when the agency issued a determination thatmost exploration and production wastes (the bulk of which

Etcetera


are produced water, drilling fluids, and cuttings) should notbe regulated under EPA’s rigid RCRA Subtitle C hazardouswaste rules, but treated as non-hazardous wastes fallingunder the Subtitle D rules. See 53 FR 25446 (July 6, 1988).In that determination, the agency stated that “EPA believes itcan design and implement a program specific to crude oil andnatural gas wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA that effectivelyaddresses the risks associated with these wastes.”

EPA also stated that it would work with the states to improvetheir existing state oil and gas regulatory programs. However,as the plaintiffs argue, the periodic review required by thelaw has not resulted in any new direct federal regulation ofoil and gas waste under Subtitle D although this regulatorydetermination was made almost 30 years ago. Section 2002(b)of RCRA on which the plaintiffs rely, is fairly terse: “Each regulation promulgated under this chapter shall be reviewedand where necessary, revised not less frequently than everythree years.”

Since RCRA was enacted in 1976, EPA has promulgatedvery few non-hazardous solid waste management rules thatare not almost wholly concerned with municipal landfills. The most recent rule, regulating the management of coalcombustion residuals, was issued in April 2015.

For the most part, by design, the regulation of non-hazardoussolid waste is primarily a responsibility of the states, and eachstate has its own solid waste management and permittingprogram. For example, 40 CFR Part 256 of the EPA rules established federal guidelines to assist the states in their de-velopment of effective regulatory programs, and 40 CFR Part257 establishes criteria to assess whether certain solid wastemanagement facilities in fact pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment in violationof RCRA.

Nevertheless, EPA conducts some oversight of state oil andgas programs. In 2014, the agency prepared report on 27 separate state oil and gas programs, and appeared to findthem generally adequate to protect the environment. Thestate programs commonly require that production pits belined, that secondary containment of tanks be provided, andthat inspections and closure and reclamation activities be followed. On the other hand, the report concluded thatgroundwater monitoring was not typically required by thesestate programs. EPA acknowledges the role played by agroup known as STRONGER (The State Review of Oil

and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations), an independentbody created by EPA and the Oil and Gas Compact Commis-sion to improve the state regulation of the oil and gas industry.

EPA’s AnswerOn July 29, 2016, an answer to the complaint was filed onbehalf of EPA Administrator McCarthy. The agency admitsthat it has not reviewed the Subtitle D regulations for oil andgas waste since July 6, 1988, nor has it sought comments orproposed changes to these regulations since that time. In addition, the agency concedes that EPA has not revised itsstate plan guidelines since September 23, 1981, as alleged in the Citizen Suit.

On the other hand, the government preserved its legal defenses, including any appropriate statute of limitations defenses. Since this litigation is still in its preliminary stage,more pleadings and requests to intervene can be expectedbefore the court is able render any kind of ruling, A similarmatter was before an another judge of this court a few yearsago. In Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F. Supp. 2d 30(DDC 2013), the court held that RCRA Section 2002(b) required EPA to issue Subtitle D regulation affecting themanagement of coal ash waste. As noted above, these ruleswere eventually promulgated in 2015.

New Regulations on the Way?Will new federal rules be the result of this litigation? It is difficult to assess the likelihood of this prospect at this time.Unlike the coal ash matter, EPA has been directly engagedwith the development of state oil and gas regulatory pro-grams, which have been a fixture of state government formany years. Also, it will be interesting to see how the court in this case addresses the statute of limitations issue; after all,it has been many years since the existing rules were promul-gated, and claims against the United States are subject to the six year statute of limitations set forth in 28 USC Section2401(a). In Appalachian Voices, that court held that EPA hada “continuing obligation” to periodically review all RCRA reg-ulations; if that obligation applies here, the statute of limitationsdefense would not be available to EPA. Even so, EPA may be able to demonstrate that it has, in fact, conducted periodicreviews and determined that no additional federal regulationwas necessary. If the court agrees that EPA has a non-discre-tionary duty under RCRA to engage in a new rulemakingproceeding, this will provide an opportunity for all interestedparties to participate in this proceeding. em

Anthony B. Cavender is Senior Counsel for Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources at Pillsbury Law. E-mail: [email protected].

In Memoriam


John S. Irwin, A&WMA member and 30-year career researchmeteorologist with the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(NOAA-EPA), has passed away after a 13-year battle withmantle cell lymphoma.

Irwin served in the U.S. Air Force for four years, received abachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Maryland,and then a master’s degree in meteorology from North Carolina State University in 1974.

During his tenure with NOAA-EPA, Irwin was a vital participantin NOAA’s partnership with EPA. He helped improve our understanding of the processes relating to the transport anddispersion of pollutants released into the atmosphere. Hepublished numerous research papers on atmospheric modeling,contributing toward the evaluation and application of disper-sion models for supporting regulatory policies. Irwin servedas chair of the subcommittee on meteorology of ASTM Inter-national and collaborated with many national and Europeanscientists on atmospheric modeling research.

Irwin reviewed many manuscripts for the Journal of the Air &Waste Management Association (JA&WMA) and receivedJA&WMA’s Outstanding Reviewer Award. His other interestsincluded duplicate bridge, shag dancing, and studying astronomy with the Raleigh Astronomy Club. He had manyfriends who enjoyed his wit and humor. He never said an unkind word about anyone and saw only the best in people.In recognition of his lifetime commitment to the advancementof science and its application to environmental policy-making,a “John S. Irwin Scientific Excellence Award” will be given outeach year to an outstanding meteorology student at NorthCarolina State University by the Central North CarolinaChapter of the American Meteorological Society.

—Respectfully submitted by S.T. Rao, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor,Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences NorthCarolina State University, and Editor-in-Chief, Journal of theAir & Waste Management Association

John ShearerIrwin (1945–2016)

Canadian Report


Ontario is out of the market for large-scale green energyprojects. It has suspended its Large Renewable Procurementprogram, which it launched in 2015 to support renewableenergy projects larger than 500 kilowatts. The program supported Ontario’s objective of having renewables compriseapproximately half of its installed electricity generation capacity by 2025.

The first phase of the program concluded in April 2016 withcontracts signed for almost 455 megawatts (MW) of new wind,solar, and water power. The suspension kills the second phase,which was launched July 29, 2016, and sought almost 1,000MW of additional renewable energy. Ontario’s IndependentElectricity System Operator (IESO) had issued a Request forQualifications, but the process had not proceeded beyondthat point.

According to Ontario’s energy ministry, the most recent Ontario Planning Outlook from the IESO indicated that theprovince’s electricity supply as it currently stands is sufficientto meet the province’s needs for the next decade.

The suspension of the program won’t bring relief to Ontario’selectricity consumers, who pay among the highest electricityrates in Canada. But it will spare them future pain. The energyministry says consumers will avoid a hike of another CD$2.45per month on their electricity bills.

The decision was welcomed by the growing number of windfarm opponents, but the Canadian Wind Energy Associationwarns that Ontario might find itself at risk if the nuclear refur-bishment program goes awry. Ontario currently relies on nuclear energy for 36 percent of its power, and over the next 15 years it intends to refurbish 10 of its 18 reactors.

If the government intends to meet its objective of approximately50-percent renewable energy by 2025, more action will berequired. Currently, Ontario’s installed capacity generates 36 percent of its energy supply from wind, solar, bio-energy,and hydro-electric sources, according to the most recent figures from the IESO.

The energy ministry says consultations will begin in fall 2016on a new Long-Term Energy Plan, which is scheduled to bereleased in 2017. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Ontario Ends Large-Scale Green Energy Procurement

Canadian Report is compiled with excerpts from EcoLog News and the EcoCompliance.ca newsletter, both published by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a division of STP Publications LP. For more Canadian environmental information, visit www.ecolog.com.

Nova Scotia has relaxed environmental assessment (EA)requirements for waste-to-energy facilities, effective September13, 2016. The change defines waste-to-energy facilities sepa-rately from incinerators.

The change is found in amendments to Nova Scotia’s SolidWaste-Resource Management Regulations (N.S. Reg. 25/96)and Environmental Assessment Regulations (N.S. Reg. 26/95).Prior to the amendments, waste-to-energy facilities weretreated as incinerators and subject to Class II environmentalassessments.

Class II assessments include a referral to the Environmental

Assessment Board, a second public review period and, possibly,public hearings. It is an onerous process that, according toNova Scotia Environment, can take 275 days to navigate.

The amendments move projects using waste-to-energy technologies, such as pyrolysis, gasification, and plasma-arcgasification to Class I environmental assessments, requiringonly a 30-day public review period. The process takes approximately 50 days to complete.

The amendments also ensure that items that are bannedfrom landfills and incinerators are also banned from waste-to-energy facilities. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Canadian Report


The Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment has releasednew environmental siting guidelines for wind energy projects.

The Wildlife Siting Guidelines for Saskatchewan Wind EnergyProjects, dated September 2016, set a 5-km buffer zone arounddesignated environmentally-sensitive avoidance areas, suchas national and provincial parks, ecological reserves, importantbird areas, and key Saskatchewan rivers. Proponents are stillrequired to evaluate wind energy project siting at areas outside

of avoidance zones to ensure any potential environmentaland wildlife impacts are mitigated.

The same day the ministry released the new siting guidelines,it did not approve a wind energy project near Chaplin to proceed in its proposed location. The Chaplin Wind EnergyProject was the first wind electricity project to undergo an environmental impact assessment. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

New Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Projects in Saskatchewan

Nova Scotia Relaxes EARequirements for Waste-to-Energy Facilities

Canadian Report


The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and ClimateChange is seeking public comment on a draft guide it recentlyreleased that advises project proponents how to include climatechange considerations in the preparation of environmentalassessments (EAs).

The draft guide, Consideration of Climate Change in Environ-mental Assessment in Ontario, helps proponents of projectsand undertakings under the province’s Environmental Assess-ment Act, as well as the public at large, to better understandthe ministry’s expectations about how to include climatechange in an EA.

To assist proponents with considering climate change in EAs,the draft guide

• advises how to consider climate change and resilience duringthe planning phase of projects;

• describes the use of self-assessment tools, such as climatelenses and vulnerability assessments;

• provides approaches to characterizing a project’s greenhousegas emissions and its climate resilience; and

• includes case studies and sources of climate modelling information.

The draft guide is meant to be a companion to the EA program’s several codes of practice. It provides guidance notonly on how to consider a proposed project’s potential impacton climate change, but also the possible impact of climatechange on the project.

The draft guide has been posted on Ontario’s EnvironmentalBill of Rights (EBR) Registry (http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca, EBRRegistry Number: 012-5806) for public comment. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Ontario Drafts Guidance on How to Include Climate Change in EAs

Reach decision-making environmental professionals with EM Magazine

Distributed monthly to A&WMA’s general membership,

EM explores a range of issues affecting environmental

managers with timely, provocative articles and regular

columns written by leaders in the field. More than 75%

of members are involved in purchasing decisions, and

represent 45 countries and all 50 states. EM is a key

resource that keeps readers abreast of important

developments in the air and waste management industry.

Topics covered include regulatory changes; research;

new technologies; environment, health, and safety issues;

new products; professional development opportunities;

and more. EM covers a wide range of topics, including air

quality and air pollution control, pollution prevention,

climate change, hazardous waste, and remediation.

Ensure that your business receives maximum exposure among environmental professionals worldwide by reserving your space today. Opportunities are available for every budget and frequency package discounts are available.

For more information please contact Meredith Schwartz at (410) 584-1993 or [email protected].


2016 Calendar of Events

Events sponsored and cosponsored by the Air & Waste Management Association(A&WMA) are highlighted in bold. For more information, call A&WMA Member Services at 1-800-270-3444 or visit the A&WMA Events Website.To add your events to this calendar, send to: Calendar Listings, Air & WasteManagement Association, One Gateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort DuquesneBlvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. Calendar listings are published on a space-available basis and should be received by A&WMA’s editorial offices at leastthree months in advance of publication.

2016NOVEMBER2–4 New York State Recycling ConferenceCooperstown, NY

16 Webinar: NOx, NOx Who's There? UnderstandingNOx Formation and Control 1:00 PM - 2:30 PMRegister online

DECEMBER1 Joint A&WMA East Michigan and West Michigan Chapters-ELS ConferenceLansing, MI

6–7 41st Annual A&WMA Information ExchangeDurham, NC

7–8 Vapor Intrusion, Remediation, and Site ClosureSan Diego, CA

2017JANUARY19–22 2017 A&WMA Intercouncil, Board of Directors, and ACTP MeetingsPittsburgh, PA

APRIL13 Rocky Mountain States Section Technical ConferenceDenver, CO

JUNE5–8 A&WMA's 110th Annual Conference & Exhibition:Bridging Environment, Energy, and HealthPittsburgh, PA

JOURNALListed here are the papers appearing in the November 2016issue of EM’s sister publication, the Journal of the Air &Waste Management Association (JA&WMA).Visit our website for more information.

November 2016 • Volume 66 • Number 11

Technical PapersUnregulated greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions fromcurrent technology heavy-duty vehicles

A case study of potential human health impacts from petroleum coke transfer facilities

Mercury in dental amalgam: Are our health care workers at risk?

Translating landfill methane generation parameters amongfirst-order decay models

Experimental and simulation study on bake-out with dilutionventilation technology for building materials

Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric methodwhen measuring particulate matter in a residential building

AERCOARE: An overwater meteorological preprocessor forAERMOD

Radon emissions from natural gas power plants at the Pennsylvania State University

Novel insights into enhanced dewatering of waste activatedsludge based on the durable and efficacious radical generating

Keep informed about the latest research and sign up for newcontent e-mail alerts.

To order your print copies of JA&WMA, visit us online.

BRIDGINGENVIRONMENT, ENERGY & HEALTH

A&WMA 110th Annual Conference & Exhibition

June 5-8, 2017Pittsburgh

PA

The Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (JA&WMA) Announces a

New Page Charge Scholarship

JA&WMA is pleased to announce a new page charge scholarship program with funds generously provided bythe China Section of A&WMA.

Corresponding authors, who are members in good standing with A&WMA, are invited to apply for a scholarshipto cover page charges of new journal papers not yet submitted via the online manuscript submission systemif they meet either of the following criteria:

1. Young Professionals, who meet A&WMA’s criteria for this membership category (i.e., the correspondingauthor should be 35 years of age or younger at the time of submission of the manuscript and can providea valid membership ID), and/or

2. Members from “developing countries”. We will use the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) World EconomicOutlook classification to qualify for this criterion and any corresponding author who is NOT from theIMF’s list of “Advanced Economies” will be eligible to apply for this scholarship (this list is available athttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/groups.htm#ae).

The chair of A&WMA’s Editorial Review Board will consider all applications for the PageCharges Scholarship and make the final decision on accepting/rejecting theapplications based on the above criteria.

Please note approval of page charge scholarship funding does not guaranteethat the manuscript will be accepted for publication. All manuscripts must beformatted as directed in the guidelines, will be assessed via the standard reviewprocess, and will only be accepted if the reviewers deem it worthy of publication.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ISSN 1096-2247

For more information and to download a copy of the application form, please go to http://pubs.awma.org/docs/application_for_China_Section_funds.pdf.

0

Journal of the Air & Waste

Welcomes Special IssuesSpecial issues of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management

provide a unique venue for grouping and publishing select papers from environmental conferences and research projects. They are a valuable resource to libraries and

the most current thinking on important environmental topics.

Visit tandfonline.com/UAWM

In print since 1951, the JA&WMA environmental journal in the world. The JA&WMA is widely recognized as one of the premier publica

Flexibility. The size of the JA&WMA can be scaled to accommodate the size of the conference/project and the number of manuscripts that pass the JA&WMA’s

Guest Editorial. The conference chair, project leader, or whoever else is serving as the Coor dinator is

manuscripts included and their importance to the understanding of the topic. Note: this could

paid by individual authors

Types of special issues or groupings


A&WMA HeadquartersStephanie M. GlyptisExecutive DirectorAir & Waste Management AssociationOne Gateway Center, 3rd Floor420 Fort Duquesne Blvd.Pittsburgh, PA 15222-14351-412-232-3444; 412-232-3450 (fax)[email protected]

AdvertisingMeredith [email protected]

EditorialLisa BucherManaging [email protected]

Editorial Advisory CommitteeJohn D. Kinsman, ChairEdison Electric InstituteTerm Ends: 2019

John D. BachmannVision Air ConsultingTerm Ends: 2017

Robert BaslEHS Technology GroupTerm Ends: 2019

Leiran BitonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Gary Bramble, P.E.AESTerm Ends: 2017

Prakash Doraiswamy, Ph.D.RTI InternationalTerm Ends: 2017

Ali FarnoudRamboll EnvironTerm Ends: 2017

Steven P. Frysinger, Ph.D.James Madison UniversityTerm Ends: 2018

Keith GaydoshAffinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2018

C. Arthur Gray, IIIWhiteWave FoodsTerm Ends: 2019

Mingming LuUniversity of CincinnatiTerm Ends: 2019

Dan L. Mueller, P.E.Environmental Defense FundTerm Ends: 2017

Brian Noel, P.E.Trinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2017

Blair NorrisAshland Inc.Term Ends: 2017

Teresa RaineERMTerm Ends: 2017

Anthony J. Sadar, CCMAllegheny County Health DepartmentTerm Ends: 2018

Golam SarwarU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Anthony J. Schroeder, CCM, CMTrinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2019

Susan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional Air Management AssociationTerm Ends: 2018

James J. Winebrake, Ph.D.Rochester Institute of TechnologyTerm Ends: 2018

Layout and Design: Clay Communications, 1.412.704.7897

EM, a publication of the Air & Waste Management Association, is published monthly with editorial and executive offices at OneGateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435, USA. ©2016 Air & Waste Management Asso-ciation (www.awma.org). All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced, redistributed, or translated in any form withoutprior written permission of the Editor. A&WMA assumes no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by contributorsto this publication. Views expressed in editorials are those of the author and do not necessarily represent an official position ofthe Association. A&WMA does not endorse any company, product, or service appearing in third-party advertising.

EM Magazine (Online) ISSN 2470-4741 » EM Magazine (Print) ISSN 1088-9981

Staff and Contributors

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

Documents

Mobile Sensors - Air & Waste Management Associationpubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Nov-2016/emnov16.pdf · Mobile Sensors: Making the Most of New Air Quality Monitoring Technology by Susan