A presentation for
The San Joaquin Valley Town Hall
March 17, 2004
Thomas A. Cahill
Professor, Atmospheric Sciences/Physics and
Head, UC Davis DELTA Group

• Air quality in California
– California has expended enormous resources with bi-partisan support for the past 35 years.
• Was it worth doing? Need we continue?
– Health
– Welfare
• How are we doing?
– California – Los Angeles, Bay Area
• Ozone and precursors, ROG and NO x
• Particles – Lead, mass
;
,
CO, SO
2
– Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento
• Ozone and its precursors, ROG and NO x
• Particles - Lead, mass
; CO,
,
SO
2
• Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra Nevada
• Where do we go next?

• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Quality Management District
– http://www.valleyair.org
• California Air Resources Board Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality and http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/aqe&m.htm
– Routine monitoring – ADAM http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam
– Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, ….
• US Environmental Protection Agency
– Routine monitoring – AIRS data base
– Special studies – Fresno Super-site,
• US Interagency Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) –
Yosemite and Sequoia NP
– Routine monitoring – http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
– Special studies – Yosemite Study, summer, 2002
• Research Projects –
– Universities – UC Davis http://delta.ucdavis.edu
(I’ll post this talk)
FACES, UN
Reno Desert Research Inst., CORE http://nurseweb.ucsf.edu/iha/core.htm
– Non Governmental Organizations –
ALASET HETF, Valley Health Study and
Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study; HEI www.healtheffects.org
• Federal resources NOAA HYSPLIT http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

• National primary ambient air quality standards, prescribed, under subsection (a) shall be ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health . Such primary standards may be revised in the same manner as promulgated.
– Question: Does “Requisite to protect public health” mean no harm to anyone?
If not, which “anyones” don’t we protect?
– Question: How does “Adequate margin of safety” handle pollutants in which any amount produces some harm?
– Question: What should California's position be to this federal mandate?

• Despite using 1/5 of the world’s energy and about 1/3 of the worlds VMT, the US has much better air quality than most of the developed or developing countries
• Air quality in major international cities outside of Western Europe is usually appalling!
• California leads the nation in cleaning up smog
•
In 1965, Los Angeles was worse than Mexico City in 1995
• The Central Valley lags but still is not bad by global standards
• There is no way that Fresno is really the 4 th most polluted urbanized area in the US (Sacramento is listed the 7 th ) since most forms of “pollution” are not considered in the ranking.
• Blue skies and good visibility in the Sacramento Valley each Fall
(rice stubble burning suppressed); Bakersfield (oil improvement)

• We have spent a gazillion bucks since 1970
– Great successes
• ozone reduction in Southern California, improvement elsewhere
• Carbon monoxide vastly reduced, sulfur dioxide.. Much better
• Lead (and some other toxics) gone!
• Less smoke in Sacramento Valley from rice straw burning,
– Modest improvements –
• Numerous, including particulate matter, most sites
• improved air quality in Kern County from better oil facilities
• Most ozone precursors sharply reduced
• Reduction of many toxic substances

– Stalemate in most of the Central Valley
• 20% increase in population and a 50% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) since 1990
• Ozone at Fresno now worse than Los Angeles
• Particulate matter much worse than Los Angeles and not improving
• Bay Area pollution and Bay Area commuters are and will make things worse
• And here come the feds!
• Geography, topography and meteorology make the Central
Valley and foothills an ozone machine
• The new EPA PM
2.5
particle standard will push almost the entire Central Valley from Sacramento south into massive violation .
• The CAA amendments of 1977 and 1997 require visibility at
Class 1 areas (like Yosemite NP) be protected

• Single chemical
• Well accepted prompt health effects,
• Single major source
• Effective control techniques
• California pioneered,
US follows
• Effect on air
• CO, gas
• Reduced respiration via CO in blood
• Automobiles
• CO → CO
2 converters in catalytic
• Auto manufacture required for sale
• Victory!
(So then why are we paying $1 b/year for
MTBE?)

• Single chemical
• Well accepted delayed health effects
• Two major sources
• Effective control techniques ?
• California pioneered,
US follows
• Effect on air
• Pb, particles
• Persistent poison, nervous system
• Automobiles, old paint
• Remove lead from gasoline, old paint ?
• Lead free gasoline required for sale
• Great victory

• Single chemical
• Prompt health and welfare impacts, delayed effects on health ?
• Single major source, LA, uncertain SJV
• Effective control in LA, ineffective SJV
• California pioneered, US follows
• Effect on air
• O
3
, gas
• Eyes, lungs, etc.; effects on Sierra forests; aging of human membranes
• Automobiles LA, many sources in SJV
• ROG, NO in cars, LA; complex in SJV
• Auto manufacture required for sale
• Victory in LA, stalemate in the SJV

• Many chemicals, size and shape (asbestos) vital
• Prompt health impacts, high levels; low levels ?; delayed health effects ?
• Multiple sources, natural and man made
• Some control in LA, ineffective
SJV
• US pioneered, California in a quandary
• Effect on air
• Dust, sulfates, nitrates, organics , salt, metals, …TSP,
PM
10
, PM
2.5, very fine, ultra fine
• Mortality at high levels, good statistical association at low levels; toxics and carcinogens causal reasons ???
• Automobiles, industry, LA, many sources in SJV
• Cars, industry, LA; many complex area in SJV
• Western particles not the same as eastern US particles
• Improvement in LA, stalemate in the SJV

– Ages all the biological membranes it touches
– Ozone peak values in the Central Valley occur in summer days in foot hill locations at times of very high temperatures
• Consequence: person dose-days reduced versus
Los Angeles, as many get indoors
• Air conditioning greatly reduces ozone, and thus tends to protect sensitive populations - the young, the sick, and the old
– Major impact on agriculture and Sierra forests

• Winter Fine (PM
2.5
) and very fine Particles
– Age the heart and lung; carry carcinogens
– PM
2.5
mass peak values in the Central Valley occur in late Fall and Winter and are valley wide
– Peak values occur in low wind, stable conditions, identified by a hazy “dry fog”
• Summer Fine (PM
2.5
) Particles
– Scatter and absorb light; Valley summer haze
– Transport efficiently into the Sierra Nevada almost every day, May - October
– Major impact on visibility at national parks

2.5
Health and Aerosols in the Central Valley of California
Data Relative to Shasta and Butte counties
Ischemic Heart Mortality Annual PM10 Childhhod Asthma
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sh as ta
B ut te
Su tte r
Pl ac er
Yo lo am
Sa cr en to
Sa n
Jo aq ui n
St an is la us
M ad er a
Fr es no
K in gs
Tu la re
K er n

California Central Valley
200 r2 = 0.56
150
100
50
0
70 80 90 100 110 120
Ischemic Heart Disease (% of state average)
130 140

California Central Valley
0.15
r2 = 0.18
0.1
0.05
0
70 80 90 100 110 120
Ischemic Heart Disease (% of state average)
130 140

• The data on particles and health
– closely match extensive statistical studies in the US and elsewhere
– Are consistent with laboratory and animal studies
• The lack of response to ozone
– The heart not a target of reactive ozone
– Ozone dose day relationships skewed by ozone-high temperature-foothill factors In SJV
• Note: No impact on stroke frequency seen; no impact by carbon monoxide observed

th

th

th

Fresno
Kern
Santa Clara
Contra Costa
Sacramento
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1980 1985 1990
Year
1995 2000 2005

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
NOx Emission Trends in the San Joaquin Valley
Stationary
Area wide
On-road Cars
On road diesels
Mobile other
1980 1985 1990
Year
1995 2000 2005

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
ROG Emission Trends in the San Joaquin Valley
Stationary
Area wide
On-road Cars
On road diesels
Mobile other
1980 1985 1990
Year
1995 2000 2005

th

Valley Ozone Profiles vs. Time
Ozone Trends in the Central Valley
8 hr Average - Average 4th highest day
Yreka
Redding
Red Bluff
Chico
Sacr
Fresno
Visalia
Bakersfield
0.12
0.1
CA standard
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Valley natural background?
Est. Global ozone background
EPA standard
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Ozone at the Fresno 1st Street Super-site
Daily maximum 1 hr
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Prior EPA 1 hr standard
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
Month, 2002

Gaseous pollutants at the Fresno 1st Street Super-Site
Hourly Averages - worst ozone day of the year, 2002
0.2
Prior EPA 1 hr standard
0.15
Ozone
NO x 5
0.1
CO/10
New EPA 8 hr standard
0.05
NO2 x 5
0
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Hour

Ozone Transect - Visalia to Sequoia NP
July 3, 2002 (90th quartile-summer)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Visalia
EPA 8 hr standard
Lower Kaweah Ash Mountain Lookout Point
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Time of Day

• Total Suspended Particulate mass TSP
– < 35 μm
• 35 to 10 μm, mostly natural
– Dust, sea salt, pollen , …
• Inhalable Aerosols PM
10
– < 10 μm
• 10 to 2.5 μm, largely natural
– Dust, sea spray, some nitrates
• Fine Aerosols PM
2.5
– < 2.5 μm
• Very fine aerosols,
< 0.25
μm, ultra fine aerosols, < 0.10 μm
• 2.5 to 0.25 μm, mostly man made
– Fine dust, nitrates, sulfates, organics, smoke
• 0.25 to circa 0.01 μm, almost entirely man made;
– high temperature combustion, heavy organics, soot, metals

Particle Size versus Persent Deposition
Journal of Inhalation Research (1995).
This figure shows the relationship between particle size and what percent is deposited in different parts of the respiratory tract.

age the lung and heart
Statistically, excellent connection between fine particles and health, including mortality
Causally, most of fine particle mass is totally harmless even in massive doses….
• EPA’s current thinking: health effects caused by
1. Biological agents (fungi, bacteria, viruses, spores..)
2. Acidic aerosols
3. Fine metals such as iron in the lung
4. Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles
5. High temperature organic matter

– age the lung and heart
• In the Central Valley
• Biological agents –allergies, Valley Fever, agricultural agents…
• Acidic aerosols – not a problem.
Thank the cows.
• Fine metals such as iron in the lung – very fine soils, transportation, industry?
• Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles – high temperature combustion, diesels, (4 th of July)
• High temperature organic matter – diesels, smoking cars (cigarettes)

“Those who like law or sausage should never watch either one being made”
• CAASAC – 8 of the scientists said no new PM
2.5
average standard was justified annual
• Of the 13 who wanted a standard, 6 said science could not support a numerical standard
• Of the 7 who supported a numerical standard, the choices ranged from 15 to 30 μg/m 3 (average 22 μg/m 3 )
• The EPA staff recommended a standard in the range from 20 μg/m 3 to 12.5 μg/m 3
• The EPA Administrator (in a room with 11 others, none of whom were scientists) chose 15 μg/m 3

2.5
Health and Aerosols in the Central Valley of California
Data Relative to Shasta and Butte counties
Ischemic Heart Mortality Annual PM10 Childhhod Asthma
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sh as ta
B ut te
Su tte r
Pl ac er
Yo lo am
Sa cr en to
Sa n
Jo aq ui n
St an is la us
M ad er a
Fr es no
K in gs
Tu la re
K er n

200
California Central Valley
For winter, 120 ug/m 3 , r 2 = 0.69
r2 = 0.56
150
100
50
0
70
EPA annual fine particle standard
80 90 100 110 120
Ischemic Heart Disease (% of state average)
130 140

Redding
Red Bluff
Chico
PM10 24 hr High Nat'l Average
Sacramento
Stockton
Modesto
Fresno
Visalia
Corcoran
Bakersfield GS
Bakersfield CA
250
200
150
EPA standard
100
50
0
2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994

• Where did they come from?
– Location of sources
– Emission source by types
• Primary – emitted as particles
• Secondary – gas to particle transformation
– Meteorological conditions for dilution, transformation and transport
– Removal rates
• Why are the concentrations so high?
• What are their characteristics?
– Size
– Composition
– Behavior in Time
• Where do they go?

EPA standard
150 ug/m3
PM10, 2002
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
CA standard
50 ug/m3
1
1
2
2
3
4
4 5 7 8 9
5 6 7 8
Month of the year 2002
9
10
11
11
12
12
1

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
PM10 Aerosols at the Fresno 1st Street Super-Site
Potassium x 50 Nitrates Sulfates x 5
2 3 4 5 7
Month, 2002
8 9 10 11 12

0.3
NO at Fresno 1st Street Supersite
2001
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9
August September October November December

SJVUAPCD fine aerosol source inventories:
Summer, 170 tons/day; Winter, 137 tons/day
Fresno fine aerosol mass, 1st Street "Supersite"
PM 2.5 24 hr avg
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Smoke from Oregon forest fires
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
Month of the Year 2002

• Emissions
– Primary – emitted as a particle – lower than summer
– Secondary – gas to particle conversion in fogs - higher
• Dilution
– Height of inversion – low in winter
– Wind velocity – low in winter
• Removal
– Settling – very fine particles (i.e. diesel) don’t settle
– Coagulation and scavenging – if they don’t pick up water, they last a long time in the air and can build up to high concentrations
– Transport away – poor in winter except in storms
• You must know all these parameters to connect emission sources to atmospheric concentrations!

(and even Red Bluff reached PM10 of 55 μg/m 3 on 12/11)
Fine PM2.5 Aerosols at 13th and T Street, Sacramento
2002
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12
1
EPA 24 hr standard
1
2
2
EPA annual standard
3
3
Smoke from Oregon forest fires
4
4
5
5 6 7 8
6 6 7
Month of the Year by week
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
12

Aerosols at the Fresno 1st Street Supersite
PM2.5 Mass, 2001
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
EPA 24 hr standard
EPA annual standard
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12

Silicon Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES Study
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10
14
19
23
27
31
4
8
12
16
20
24
29
3
7
11
15
19
23
27
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
3
March April May June July, 2001
7
11
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
24
28
2
6
10
14
18
July August September October November December, 2001

Strontium Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES Study
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
30
20
10
0
10
14
19
23
27
31
4
8
12
16
20
24
29
3
7
11
15
19
23
27
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
3
March April May June July, 2001
7
11
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
24
28
2
6
10
14
18
July August September October November December, 2001

Potassium Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES Study
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
2500
0
10
14
19
23
27
31
4
8
12
16
20
24
29
3
7
11
15
19
23
27
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
3
March April May June July, 2001
7
11
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
2000
1500
1000
500
0
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
24
28
2
6
10
14
18
July August September October November December, 2001

Copper Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES Study
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
150
100
50
0
10
14
19
23
27
31
4
8
12
16
20
24
29
3
7
11
15
19
23
27
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
3
March April May June July, 2001
7
11
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
24
28
2
6
10
14
18
July August September October November December, 2001

Zinc Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES Study
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
14
19
23
27
31
4
8
12
16
20
24
29
3
7
11
15
19
23
27
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
3
March April May June July, 2001
7
11
DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution
PM10 PM2.5
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
2
6
10
14
18
22
26
30
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
1
5
9
13
17
21
24
28
2
6
10
14
18
July August September October November December, 2001

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-site
PM2.5 elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB
S-XRF analyses via DELTA Group, UC Davis
2000
1500
1000
500
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
November December
Silicon Sulfur Potassium

San Francisco
Bay Area
Napa
Marin
Solano
Contra Costa
San Francisco
Alameda
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Diesel Particulates
(tons/year,
2000)
110
157
174 (part)
656
652
947
360
873
Sacramento
Valley
Shasta
Tehama
Butte
Yuba
Sutter
Glenn
Colusa
Yolo
Placer
Sacramento
Solano
Diesel Particulates
(tons/year, 2000)
227
113
232
78
151
90
75
216
166
793
108 (part)
San Joaquin
Valley
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merced
Madera
Fresno
Tulare
Kings
Kern
Diesel
Particulates
(tons/year, 2000)
675
462
297
200
1071
566
175
693
Sum of Counties
(Bay Area)
3929
(tons/year, 2000)
Sum of Counties
(Sac. Valley)
2249
(tons/year, 2000)
Sum of
Counties
(SJ Valley)
8637
(tons/year, 2000)

Diesel Particles by MOUDI Impactor and S-XRF
S a mple R un # 4, CA Fue l; no gre a se
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
PM 10
PM 2.5
PM 0.25 ?
18
10
5.62
3.2
1.8
1
0.56
0.32
0.18
0.1
0.056
0.032
0.018
0.01
Coa rse MOU D I S ta ge D ia me te r (microme te rs) U ltra - Fine
Mass/ 200
Sulfur
Lead
Z inc x 10
Calcium Phosphorus
For micrograms/m3, times 8.7
DELTA Group, S-XRF, UC Davis

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-site
Very fine (0.26 > Dp > 0.09 micron) elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB
S-XRF analyses via DELTA Group, UC Davis
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
November December
Phosphorus x 10 Sulfur Potassium Zinc x 10

Aerosol size distributions at the Fresno Super-site
November 15 - December 22, 2001
Soil, biomass, and diesel/smoking car elements derived elements
70
60
Ca soil
50
Fine particle
PM2.5 cut
40
K soil
30
20
K diesel and smoking cars
10
K biomass smoke
0
Very fine aerosols
0.09 to 0.26
0.34 to 0.56
0.26 to 0.34
0.75 to 1.15
0.56 to 0.75
2.5 to 5.0
1.15 to 2.5
5.0 to 10.0
Particle aerodynamic diameter in micrometers
Calcium
Potassium
Sulfur

Aerosol size distributions at the Fresno Super-site
November 15 - December 22, 2001
Soil, biomass, and diesel/smoking car elements derived elements
60
K soil
50 K diesel and smoking cars
Fine particle
PM2.5 cut
40 Zinc x 10
Potassium
30
Copper x 10
20
10
K biomass smoke
0
0.09 to 0.26
0.34 to 0.56
0.26 to 0.34
0.75 to 1.15
0.56 to 0.75
2.5 to 5.0
1.15 to 2.5
5.0 to 10.0
Very fine aerosols
Particle aerodynamic diameter in micrometers

Comparisons of trucks and cars from the Tuscarora Tunnel study
Parameter
PM
2.5 mass
PM
2.5
OC
PM
2.5
EC
PM
0.25
Zn
PM
0.25
Cu
Heavy organics
PM
2.5
NH
3
, S
Gasses
CO
2
CO
NO (as NO
2
)
THC
Diesel Trucks
(mg/km)
135 + 18
112 + 43
185 + 66 na na
(g/km)
748 + 73
< 0.6
11.9 + 1.9
1.5 + 0.8
Cars
(mg/km)
14 + 13
Ratio Comment
10 Mass? Truck PM
10
= 181
2.8 + 1.1
3.3 + 1.2
na na
(g/km)
156 + 15
1.9 + 0.7
0.4 + 0.07
0.4 + 0.2
4.8
< 0.3
28
3.7
40
55

10

10 large
< 0.8
2 nd biggest ratio biggest ratio
< 0.25 μm
< 0.25 μm
A few out of 92
1999; Some S in gasoline
Roughly fuel mileage
3 rd biggest ratio

Table 1 Comparison to heavy duty and light duty PM
10 and PM
2.5
emission rates form the Gertler at al 2002 Tuscarora Tunnel studies and other studies.
Parameter Heavy duty
(mg/km)
181 + 13
Light duty
(mg/km)
Mixed
(mg/km)
10 + 11 87 + 54 PM
10
mass Gertler 2002 Tuscarora
PM
2.5
mass Gertler 2002 Tuscarora
PM
10
mass Gillies 2001 Sepulveda
PM
2.5
mass Gillies 2001 Sepulveda
PM
2.5
mass Norbeck 1998 In-use (med)
PM
2.5
mass Norbeck 1998 In-use (high)
PM
10
mass Sagebiel 1997 High CO, HC
PM
10
mass Sagebiel 1997 High CO, HC
135 + 18 na na
14 + 13
Na
Na
18 + 9
185 + 50
346 smoke
32 no smoke
62 + 42
69 + 30
53 + 27
From these results, we see that diesel is about 18 times worse than light duty vehicles for
PM
10
emissions and 10 times worse than light duty vehicles for PM
2.5
emissions, and that the worst case smoking car is about the same as the average diesel. Incidentally, these emission values are sharply lower than occurred only a decade ago.

– Diesel/smoking car smoke contributed roughly 7 times the PM
2.5
mass via organic matter and elemental carbon than did wood smoke via organic matter.
» Turn et al, J. Geophysical research (1997)
» Gertler et al, Final Report to the Health Effects Institute
(2001) on the Tuscarora Tunnel study

ALASET HETF Sacramento I-5 Transect Study
DELTA DRUM very fine particles (0.26 > Dp > 0.09microns) , S-XRF analysis
Possible tracers of diesel exhaust
Sulfur Zinc x 10 Phosphorus x 10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
December, 2002 January, 2003

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-site
Very fine (0.26 > Dp > 0.09 micron) elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB
S-XRF analyses via DELTA Group, UC Davis
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
November December
Phosphorus x 10 Sulfur Potassium Zinc x 10

“It is important to note that the estimated health risk from diesel particulate matter is higher than the risk from all other toxic air contaminants combined ….
“In fact, the ARB estimates that 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics is attributable to diesel particulate matter”.
“The ARB does not routinely monitor diesel particulate matter concentrations”.
ARB Almanac 2001, pg. 346

• Local and down valley, not Bay Area
• Dominated by nitrates and organic matter, with sulfates, soot, and considerable bound water
– Enhanced gas-particle conversion in humid conditions
– Long lifetimes for diesel and smoking car aerosols
– Low inversion heights, weak winds
• Major sources:
– Vehicles, both on road and off road diesels and smoking cars
– Area sources, including agriculture
– Wood smoke, some from foothills
– Not yet determined industrial sources

th

th

• IMPROVE Sequoia
– Visibility
– Gasses
– Particles PM
10 ozone mass
# data
PM
2.5
mass 3
Organic carbon 9
Elemental carbon 3
Nitrates , Sulfates 2
Soil , sea salt, smoke 10
Trace elements 20
• Visalia SJVAQMD
– Gasses hourly ozone,
CO NO, NO
2
, NO x
Note: hourly ozone at
Sequoia NP (3 sites)
– Particles PM
10
PM
2.5
mass mass

Ozone Transect - Visalia to Sequoia NP
July 3, 2002 (90th quartile-summer)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.12
0.1
0.08
Visalia
EPA 8 hr standard
Lower Kaweah Ash Mountain Lookout Point
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Time of Day

Fine aerosols at the Sequoia NP IMPROVE site
P M 2.5 ma ss P M 2.5 ma ss (sum of spe cie s)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
November D ecember January February

Elemental carbon
Soil
Organic aerosols
Ammonium nitrate
Ammonium sulfate
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
November, 2002 December, 2002 January, 2003 February, 2003

Fine aerosols at the Sequoia NP IMPROVE site
PM 2.5 mass PM 2.5 mass (sum of species)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8
June, 2002 July, 2002 August, 2002

15
10
5
25
Fine aerosols at the Sequoia NP IMPROVE site
Elemental carbon
Soil
Organic aerosols
Ammonium nitrate
Oregon forest fires
Ammonium sulfate
20
0
6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8
June, 2002 July, 2002 August, 2002

Fine Aerosols at Yosemite National Park
IMPROVE site at Turtleback Dome
Sulfate (Bay Area oil) Potassium x 10 (soil/smoke) Iron x 10 (soil)
2.4
2.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Valley dust
Forest fires in
Oregon
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10 11
11 11
11 12
12 12
Month of the Year 2001 - 2002

Fresno fine aerosol mass, 1st Street "Supersite"
PM 2.5 24 hr avg
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Smoke from Oregon forest fires
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
Month of the Year 2002

Size Distributions of Aerosols at Yosemite NP, Summer, 2002
UCD DELTA Group slotted DRUM, S-XRF Analysis
40
Sulfates from the Bay Area
30
Potassium
20
Dust from the
San Joaquin
Valley
Sulfur/2
Calcium
10
Wood smoke from Oregon
0
0.09 - 0.26
0.34 - 0.56
0.26 - 0.34
0.75 - 1.15
0.56 - 0.75
2.5 - 5.0
1.15 - 2.5
5.0 - 10.0
Particle Diameter in Micrometers

• We are losing the air quality war in the San
Joaquin Valley because
– We are putting a lot of resources into responding to
“’the usual suspects ” – the federal EPA parameters crafted in the 1960’s for eastern US cities and only rarely and modestly modified since then
– We do not understand adequately the sources of the major valley problems – summer ozone and winter and summer fine particles – and why they have not responded better to prior control efforts
– We are not measuring adequately those parameters most likely to cause the observed Valley health effects in from fine, very fine, and ultra fine particles
– We are not protecting the Sierra Nevada

• Spending another gazillion dollars will not help unless we understand the problem , such as ……
– Summer control measures will not fix winter problems, and vice versa
– Oxygenates like MTBE are a useless and costly scandal!
– Making 2/3 of all cars in California electric or very low emission would barely change air quality at all
• 1% of cars (smokers/gross emitters) contribute about 30% of all automobile highway emissions,
• The 10% of worse cars contribute 2/3 of all automobile highway emissions
• 2/3 of cars (your cars!) contribute only about 10% of all automobile highway emissions
– Paving every dirt road in the valley would not change PM
2.5
violations
– Emission factors are almost useless without removal factors

• We must accept that the California Central Valley is unique , just as California did in the 1970s vs. US EPA
– Summer – winter differences
– Terrain considerations
• We must acknowledge that measures crafted for coastal sites do not work well here
• Need to better learn the sources of our problems
– Upgrade air monitoring with integral analysis; add visibility
– Continuous adaptive research projects – (Fresno Super-site)
• We must craft valley-wide responses
– Seasonally dependent control measures
– Transport from upwind sites needs upwind controls
• We have to include Bay Area, the foothills and the Sierra
Nevada as an integral part of the Valley system

1.
Closer cooperation between federal, state and (strengthened) local agencies – SJVUAQMD, Sacramento, Yolo-Solano AQMDs
At least talk to one another! Example Yosemite 2002 study, Fresno
2001 study, Clean Air Act amendments 1977
ACTION: Annual “State of the Valley Air” briefing SJVUAPCD
ACTION: NPS enlists EPA, sues California on Yosemite visibility
2.
Leadership in valley educational institutions for teaching, research, and public service
A CSU or UC university department for air quality? In your dreams!
ACTION: Annual Valley Air research Symposium; CSU Fresno, then rotate Comm. Colleges, CSU (Valley), and UCD,UCM
ACTION: Collaborative research projects (include high schools)
3.
Upgrade air quality information in news outlets viz. the LA Time’s air quality page; TV weather: “The AQI is very good but we can’t see across the block – ha, ha!”
ACTION: Work with SJVUAPCD and academia; buy mass or visibility instrument; dedicated air quality pages, TV shows; dump AQI and go to specific pollutants O
3
, Fine mass, …

4.
Strong local NGOs with a focus on Valley air, respiratory health, and the Sierra Nevada
ACTION: CUVAQ – Citizens United for Valley Air
Quality; ALA-SET, Fresno; Health Effects Task Force
5. Get involved with your legislators
There have been some excellent recent initiatives
6.
ACTION: Work with your legislators , i.e. New PUC regulation of standby electric rates for water pumps; cell phone call in registry for smoking cars and trucks (with teeth!); CalTrans
Get involved with your executive – Arnold to the rescue!
ACTION: Only California has the legal authority to challenge EPA to get the science right in the Valley!
But the Valley must lead!
a. New PM
0.25
standard to zero in on the harmful combustion component of Valley aerosols from diesels and smoking cars , b. Modify PM
2.5
standard (perhaps to PM
1.0
) to delete soil, c. Establish ozone background in the pre-historic Valley

• Air quality in California
30 years of effort
• Was it worth doing? Need we continue?
– Health
Yes, documented health impacts of aerosols and ozone
– Welfare
Yes, ozone damage to crops, haze from particles
• How are we doing?
– California – Los Angeles, Bay Area
• Ozone Great success
• Particles Removed lead , s ome other success
– Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento
• Ozone Reduced precursors , but no change in ozone
• Particles Uncertain sources, unclear causality to health,
Little progress Exception: rice straw smoke
– Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra Nevada
Still h aze at national parks from aerosols, damage to trees from ozone
• Where do we go now?
ACTION! to a cleaner future

• San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District
– http://www.valleyair.org
• California Air Resources Board Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality and http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/aqe&m.htm
– Routine monitoring – ADAM http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam
– Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, …. Soon?
• US Environmental Protection Agency
– Routine monitoring – AIRS data base …hard to use;
– Special studies – Fresno Super-site … terminated by EPA
• US Interagency Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) –
Yosemite and Sequoia NP
– Routine monitoring – http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
– Special studies – Yosemite Study, summer, 2002
• Research Projects –
– Universities – UC Davis http://delta.ucdavis.edu
FACES, UN Reno Desert
Research Inst., CORE http://nurseweb.ucsf.edu/iha/core.htm
– Non Governmental Organizations –
ALASET HETF, Valley Health Study and
Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study; HEI www.healtheffects.org
• Federal resources NOAA HYSPLIT http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

Sequoia, Yosemite NP
Fresno

"Droplet" M ode Aerosol M ass
1.15 > Dp > 0 .75 micro ns
Crocke r Art ARB 13th & T Sacram ento River
25
20
15
10
5
0
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
January, 2003
5 6 7
Very Fine Mode Aerosol M ass
0.26 > Dp > 0 .09 micro ns
Crocke r Art ARB 13th & T
8
Sacram ento River
9
25
20
15
10
5
0
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
January, 2003
5 6 7 8 9

Aerosols at the Clovis site, Fresno County
PM10 mass, 2002
200
150
EPA standard
150 ug/m3
100
50
CA standard
50 ug/m3
0
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
5 5 6 7 8
5 6 7 8
Month of the Year, 2002
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13