Pt. 58, App. E
Appendix E to Part 58
—Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement.
3. Spacing from Minor Sources.
4. Spacing From Obstructions.
5. Spacing From Trees.
6. Spacing From Roadways.
7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path.
8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length.
9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample Residence Time.
10. Waiver Provisions.
(a) This appendix contains specific location criteria applicable to SLAMS, NCore, and PAMS ambient air quality monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths after the general location has been selected based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scale of representation discussed in appendix D to this part. Adherence to these siting criteria is necessary to ensure the uniform collection of compatible and comparable air quality data.
(b) The probe and monitoring path siting criteria discussed in this appendix must be followed to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that there may be situations where some deviation from the siting criteria may be necessary. In any such case, the reasons must be thoroughly documented in a written request for a waiver that describes how and why the proposed siting deviates from the criteria. This documentation should help to avoid later questions about the validity of the resulting monitoring data. Conditions under which the EPA would consider an application for waiver from these siting criteria are discussed in section 10 of this appendix.
(c) The pollutant-specific probe and monitoring path siting criteria generally apply to all spatial scales except where noted otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are phrased with a “must” are defined as requirements and exceptions must be approved through the waiver provisions. However, siting criteria that are phrased with a “should” are defined as goals to meet for consistency but are not requirements.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement
The probe or at least 80 percent of the monitoring path must be located between 2 and 15 meters above ground level for all O3 and SO2 monitoring sites, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale Pb, PM 10, PM 10-2.5, PM 2.5, NO2, and CO sites. Middle scale PM 10-2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. Microscale Pb, PM 10, PM 10-2.5, and PM 2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. Microscale near-road NO2 monitoring sites are required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. The inlet probes for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. Those inlet probes for microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways in downtown areas or urban street canyons must be between 2.5 and 3.5 meters above ground level. The probe or at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be at least 1 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If the probe or a significant portion of the monitoring path is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.
3. Spacing From Minor Sources
(a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular location in order to interpret this particular requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO2, lead, or particles, can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site is likely to be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would in all likelihood be a microscale type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitor probe, path, or inlet near local, minor sources. The plume from the local minor sources should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site. Particulate matter sites should not be located in an unpaved area unless there is vegetative ground cover year round, so that the impact of wind blown dusts will be kept to a minimum.
(b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 in the vicinity of probes and monitoring paths for O3. To minimize these potential interferences, the probe or at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be away from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.
4. Spacing From Obstructions
(a) Buildings and other obstacles may possibly scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, the probe, inlet, or at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must have unrestricted airflow and be located away from obstacles. The distance from the obstacle to the probe, inlet, or monitoring path must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the probe, inlet, or monitoring path. An exception to this requirement can be made for measurements taken in street canyons or at source-oriented sites where buildings and other structures are unavoidable.
(b) Generally, a probe or monitoring path located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to possible removal mechanisms. A probe, inlet, or monitoring path must have unrestricted airflow in an arc of at least 180 degrees. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential. For particle sampling, a minimum of 2 meters of separation from walls, parapets, and structures is required for rooftop site placement.
(c) Special consideration must be given to the use of open path analyzers due to their inherent potential sensitivity to certain types of interferences, or optical obstructions. A monitoring path must be clear of all trees, brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other optical obstructions, including potential obstructions that may move due to wind, human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, particles, fog, or snow, should be considered when siting an open path analyzer. Any of these temporary obstructions that are of sufficient density to obscure the light beam will affect the ability of the open path analyzer to continuously measure pollutant concentrations. Transient, but significant obscuration of especially longer measurement paths could occur as a result of certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are of a sufficient density to prevent the open path analyzer's light transmission. If certain compensating measures are not otherwise implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., shorter path lengths, higher light source intensity), data recovery during periods of greatest primary pollutant potential could be compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or high particulate levels are coincident with periods of projected NAAQS-threatening pollutant potential, the representativeness of the resulting data record in reflecting maximum pollutant concentrations may be substantially impaired despite the fact that the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, even exceedingly high overall valid data capture rate.
(d) For near-road NO2 monitoring stations, the monitor probe shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitor probe, between the monitor probe and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
5. Spacing From Trees
(a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, or NO2 adsorption or reactions, and surfaces for particle deposition. Trees can also act as obstructions in cases where they are located between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the probe, inlet, or monitoring path. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, the probe, inlet, or at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be at least 10 meters or further from the drip line of trees.
(b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.
(c) For microscale sites of any air pollutant, no trees or shrubs should be located between the probe and the source under investigation, such as a roadway or a stationary source.
6. Spacing From Roadways
Table E-1 to Appendix E of Part 58
—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes or Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood and Urban Scale Ozone (O3) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)
|Roadwayaverage daily traffic,vehicles per day
||Minimumdistance 1 2(meters)
|1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
|2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.
6.1 Spacing for Ozone Probes and Monitoring Paths
In siting an O3 analyzer, it is important to minimize destructive interferences form sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe or, where applicable, at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site having a point analyzer probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent the middle scale. If an open path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For those situations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference from automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from the Table E-1 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
6.2Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes and Monitoring Paths. (a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.
(b) Microscale CO monitor inlets probes in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.
(c) Microscale CO monitor inlet probes in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection and preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.
Table E-2 of Appendix E to Part 58
—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes or Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood Scale Carbon Monoxide
|Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per day
||Minimum distance 1 (meters)
|1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
6.3Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM 2.5, PM 10, Pb) Inlets. (a) Since emissions associated with the operation of motor vehicles contribute to urban area particulate matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway criteria are necessary for ensuring national consistency in PM sampler siting.
(b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot sites in areas of highest concentrations whether it be from mobile or multiple stationary sources. If the area is primarily affected by mobile sources and the maximum concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic corridor or street canyon location, then the monitors should be located near roadways with the highest traffic volume and at separation distances most likely to produce the highest concentrations. For the microscale traffic corridor site, the location must be between 5 and 15 meters from the major roadway. For the microscale street canyon site the location must be between 2 and 10 meters from the roadway. For the middle scale site, a range of acceptable distances from the roadway is shown in figure E-1 of this appendix. This figure also includes separation distances between a roadway and neighborhood or larger scale sites by default. Any site, 2 to 15 meters high, and further back than the middle scale requirements will generally be neighborhood, urban or regional scale. For example, according to Figure E-1 of this appendix, if a PM sampler is primarily influenced by roadway emissions and that sampler is set back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be classified as microscale, if the sampler height is between 2 and 7 meters. If the sampler height is between 7 and 15 meters, the site should be classified as middle scale. If the sample is 20 meters from the same road, it will be classified as middle scale; if 40 meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 meters, an urban scale.
6.4Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Probes and Monitoring Paths.
(a) In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in paragraph 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitor probe shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment; but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
(b) In siting NO2 monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe or, where applicable, at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site having a point analyzer probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale. If an open path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For those situations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference form automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined form the Table E-1 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path
(This paragraph applies only to open path analyzers.) The cumulative length or portion of a monitoring path that is affected by minor sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length
(This paragraph applies only to open path analyzers.) The monitoring path length must not exceed 1 kilometer for analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring path length must not exceed 300 meters. In areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, rain, or snow, consideration should be given to a shortened monitoring path length to minimize loss of monitoring data due to these temporary optical obstructions. For certain ambient air monitoring scenarios using open path analyzers, shorter path lengths may be needed in order to ensure that the monitoring site meets the objectives and spatial scales defined in appendix D to this part. The Regional Administrator may require shorter path lengths, as needed on an individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS sites meet the appendix D requirements. Likewise, the Administrator may specify the maximum path length used at NCore monitoring sites.
9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample Residence Time
(a) For the reactive gases, SO2, NO2, and O3, special probe material must be used for point analyzers. Studies 20-24 have been conducted to determine the suitability of materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon ®, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, Pyrex ® glass and Teflon ® for use as intake sampling lines. Of the above materials, only Pyrex ® glass and Teflon ® have been found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA 25 has specified borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon ® as the only acceptable probe materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, borosilicate glass, FEP Teflon ® or their equivalent must be the only material in the sampling train (from inlet probe to the back of the analyzer) that can be in contact with the ambient air sample for existing and new SLAMs.
(b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon ® is unacceptable as the probe material because of VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon ®. Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or its equivalent are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that the sample residence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.
(c) No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material is initially, after a period of use reactive particulate matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet to the sampling device is also critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO) will show significant losses even in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. 26 Other studies 27 28 indicate that a 10 second or less residence time is easily achievable. Therefore, sampling probes for reactive gas monitors at NCore and at NO2 sites must have a sample residence time less than 20 seconds.
10. Waiver Provisions
Most sampling probes or monitors can be located so that they meet the requirements of this appendix. New sites with rare exceptions, can be located within the limits of this appendix. However, some existing sites may not meet these requirements and still produce useful data for some purposes. The EPA will consider a written request from the State agency to waive one or more siting criteria for some monitoring sites providing that the State can adequately demonstrate the need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing a monitoring site at that location.
10.1For establishing a new site, a waiver may be granted only if both of the following criteria are met:
10.1.1The site can be demonstrated to be as representative of the monitoring area as it would be if the siting criteria were being met.
10.1.2The monitor or probe cannot reasonably be located so as to meet the siting criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., inability to locate the required type of site the necessary distance from roadways or obstructions).
10.2However, for an existing site, a waiver may be granted if either of the criteria in sections 10.1
.1 and 10.1.2 of this appendix are met.
10.3Cost benefits, historical trends, and other factors may be used to add support to the criteria in sections 10.1
.1 and 10.1.2 of this appendix, however, they in themselves, will not be acceptable reasons for granting a waiver. Written requests for waivers must be submitted to the Regional Administrator.
Table E-4 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for probe and monitoring path siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. It is apparent from Table E-4 that different elevation distances above the ground are shown for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitor, probe, or monitoring path. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For CO and near-road NO2 monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a single manifold or monitoring path for monitoring more than one pollutant.
Table E-4 of Appendix E to Part 58
—Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
||Scale (maximum monitoring path length, meters)
||Height from ground to probe, inlet or 80% of monitoring path 1 (meters)
||Horizontal and vertical distance from supporting structures 2 to probe, inlet or 90% of monitoring path1 (meters)
||Distance from trees to probe, inlet or 90% of monitoring path 1 (meters)
||Distance from roadways to probe, inlet or monitoring path 1 (meters)
|1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and regional scale NO2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring SO2, O3, and O3 precursors.
|2 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
|3 Should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction.
|4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90 percent of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).
|5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a wall.
|6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
|7 For micro-scale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
|8 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference, unless a waiver is in place as approved by the Regional Administrator pursuant to section 3 of Appendix A.
|SO23 4 5 6
||Middle (300 m) Neighborhood Urban, and Regional (1 km)
|CO 4 5 7
||Micro [downtown or street canyon sites], micro [near-road sites], middle (300 m) and Neighborhood (1 km)
||2.5-3.5; 2-7; 2-15
||2-10 for downtown areas or street canyon microscale; ≤50 for near-road microscale; see Table E-2 of this appendix for middle and neighborhood scales.
|O 33 4 5
||Middle (300 m) Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)
||See Table E-1 of this appendix for all scales.
|NO23 4 5
||Micro (Near-road [50-300 m])
||≤50 for near-road micro-scale.
||Middle (300 m)
||2-15 (all other scales)
||Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)
||See Table E-1 of this appendix for all other scales.
|Ozone precursors (for PAMS) 3 4 5
||Neighborhood and Urban (1 km)
||See Table E-4 of this appendix for all scales.
|PM, Pb 3 4 5 8
||Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban and Regional
||2-7 (micro); 2-7 (middle PM 10-2.5); 2-7 for near-road; 2-15 (all other scales)
||>2 (all scales, horizontal distance only)
||>10 (all scales)
||2-10 (micro); see Figure E-1 of this appendix for all other scales. ≤50 for near-road.
1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. Comparison of High Volume Air Filter Samples at Varying Distances from Los Angeles Freeway. University of Southern California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-158.)
2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. January 1971.
3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 1978.)
4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. Quantification of Relationship Between Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto, Canada. June 20-24, 1977. APCA 77-13.4.)
5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-161.)
6. Study of Suspended Particulate Measurements at Varying Heights Above Ground. Texas State Department of Health, Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7.
7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-77-034. June 1977.
8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, National Assessment. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-024. June 1976.
9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1978.
10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-018. June 1977, revised December 1977.
11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-013. April 1977.
12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-077. September 1975.
13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-013. April 1978.
14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66-02-2515, June 1977.
15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater London Council. August 1976.
16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970.
17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/1-78-055, August 1978.
18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA-600/8-83-028 aF-dF, 1986, and supplements EPA-600/8-89/049F, August 1990. (NTIS document numbers PB87-142378 and PB91-138420.)
19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 1972.
20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40-54, 1976.
21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide Adsorption On and Description From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976.
22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971.
23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Reference Material for Air Quality Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281-291, 1975.
24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., 4:70-78, 1961.
25. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 part 53.22
, July 1976.
26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971.
27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., 24:245, 1974.
28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969.
29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter, GEOMET Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3584. EPA 450/4-87-009. May 1987.
30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-600/4-84-070 September 1984.
31. Technical Assistance Document For Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/8-91-215. October 1991.
32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/4-90-0003. August 1989.
33. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 450/4-87-013. June 1987F.