Philip H. Abelson's editorial “Airborne particulate matter” (11 Sept., p. [1609][1]) raises timely questions about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed standards regarding airborne particulate matter (PM). The EPA is preparing an expensive program to sample and weigh particulates having a size of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5) at 1500 locations ([1][2]). Chemical analysis of particulates will be performed at only 300 sites. As observed by Abelson, the weight of sampled particulates reveals nothing about their composition and origin. Thus, considerable inequities will arise when the EPA begins to enforce its proposed PM regulations. For example, almost daily aerosol optical thickness measurements from South Texas since 1989 reveal various particulate events of distant origin superimposed on the seasonal cycle. These events, which are confirmed by satellite images, include haze from the south central United States, volcanic eruptions, significant smoke from Mexico and Central America, and dust events from Africa, China, and Mexico. During May 1998, smoke from major forest fires in Mexico caused severe air pollution over much of Texas and other states. The smoke, which at my site caused significant optical depth (4.2 at 540 nanometers on 14 May) and reduced visibility (less than 1.5 kilometers on 14 May), was associated with increased tropospheric ozone, a phenomenon that caused violations of EPA air-quality standards in San Antonio and elsewhere. Although tropospheric ozone increases have been observed during burning seasons in Africa ([2][3]) and Brazil ([3][4]), officials in Texas have thus far failed to persuade the EPA to discount the ozone violations over which Texas cities had no control. How will a single national PM 2.5 standard affect communities that have no control over the particulates that arrive from distant sources? Will Florida and Texas be penalized by the EPA when dust arrives each spring from the Sahara? Will Hawaii and the western states be penalized when dust arrives from the Gobi desert? Will Texans be penalized when smoke arrives from Central America? In short, will citizens downwind of forest fires, volcanic eruptions, dust storms, and coal-fired power plants be penalized for PM 2.5 violations beyond their control? When the lives and commerce of citizens are regulated by scientific measurements, the citizens and businesses who are taxed to pay for such observations have every right to expect that the science behind the measurements will be appropriate. As Abelson observes, the EPA's plan to measure PM 2.5 particulates is inadequate. It is time that Congress follows Abelson's suggestion that the National Academy of Sciences address the matter. 1. [↵][5]Overview of National PM 2.5 Network, 1998 (Washington, DC, 1998) (Environmental Protection Agency, [www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/supsites.html][6]). 2. [↵][7]1. A. M. Thompson 2. et al. , J. Geophys. Res 101, 793 (1996) 23,. [OpenUrl][8] 3. [↵][9]1. J. Fishman, 2. V. G. Brackett, 3. E. V. Brownell, 4. W. B. Grant , ibid p. 24,069. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.281.5383.1609 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/supsites.html [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BGeophys.%2BRes%26rft.volume%253D101%26rft.spage%253D793%26rft.atitle%253DJ%2BGEOPHYS%2BRES%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text
Read full abstract