Yevgen Nazarenko1, Devendra Pal1, Parisa A Ariya2. 1. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 2. Department of Chemistry, McGill University, 801 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ambient air quality standards for the mass concentration of aerosol particles smaller than approximately 2.5 μm (PM2.5) and exposure to these particles in national and regional jurisdictions worldwide. METHODS: We did a review of government documents and literature on air quality standards. We extracted and summarized the PM2.5 concentration limits effective before July 2020, noting whether standards were enforced, voluntary or target. We compared averaging methods and permitted periods of time that standards may be exceeded. We made a descriptive analysis of PM2.5 standards by population, total area and population density of jurisdictions. We also compared data on actual PM2.5 air quality against the standards. FINDINGS: We obtained data on standards from 62 jurisdictions worldwide, including 58 countries. Of the world's 136.06 million km2 land under national jurisdictions, 71.70 million km2 (52.7%) lack an official PM2.5 air quality standard, and 3.17 billion people live in areas without a standard. The existing standards ranged from 8 to 75 µg/m3, mostly higher than the World Health Organization guideline annual limit of < 10 µg/m3. The weakest PM2.5 standards were often exceeded, while the more stringent standards were often met. Several jurisdictions with the highest population density demonstrated compliance with relatively stringent standards. CONCLUSION: The metrics used in PM2.5 ambient air quality standards should be harmonized worldwide to facilitate accurate assessment of risks associated with PM2.5 exposure. Population density alone does not preclude stringent PM2.5 standards. Modernization of standards can also include short-term standards to unmask PM2.5 fluctuations in high-pollution areas. (c) 2021 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.
OBJECTIVE: To compare ambient air quality standards for the mass concentration of aerosol particles smaller than approximately 2.5 μm (PM2.5) and exposure to these particles in national and regional jurisdictions worldwide. METHODS: We did a review of government documents and literature on air quality standards. We extracted and summarized the PM2.5 concentration limits effective before July 2020, noting whether standards were enforced, voluntary or target. We compared averaging methods and permitted periods of time that standards may be exceeded. We made a descriptive analysis of PM2.5 standards by population, total area and population density of jurisdictions. We also compared data on actual PM2.5 air quality against the standards. FINDINGS: We obtained data on standards from 62 jurisdictions worldwide, including 58 countries. Of the world's 136.06 million km2 land under national jurisdictions, 71.70 million km2 (52.7%) lack an official PM2.5 air quality standard, and 3.17 billion people live in areas without a standard. The existing standards ranged from 8 to 75 µg/m3, mostly higher than the World Health Organization guideline annual limit of < 10 µg/m3. The weakest PM2.5 standards were often exceeded, while the more stringent standards were often met. Several jurisdictions with the highest population density demonstrated compliance with relatively stringent standards. CONCLUSION: The metrics used in PM2.5 ambient air quality standards should be harmonized worldwide to facilitate accurate assessment of risks associated with PM2.5 exposure. Population density alone does not preclude stringent PM2.5 standards. Modernization of standards can also include short-term standards to unmask PM2.5 fluctuations in high-pollution areas. (c) 2021 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.
Authors: Henry Gong; William S Linn; Constantinos Sioutas; Sheryl L Terrell; Kenneth W Clark; Karen R Anderson; Lester L Terrell Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2003-04-11 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Aaron J Cohen; Michael Brauer; Richard Burnett; H Ross Anderson; Joseph Frostad; Kara Estep; Kalpana Balakrishnan; Bert Brunekreef; Lalit Dandona; Rakhi Dandona; Valery Feigin; Greg Freedman; Bryan Hubbell; Amelia Jobling; Haidong Kan; Luke Knibbs; Yang Liu; Randall Martin; Lidia Morawska; C Arden Pope; Hwashin Shin; Kurt Straif; Gavin Shaddick; Matthew Thomas; Rita van Dingenen; Aaron van Donkelaar; Theo Vos; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad H Forouzanfar Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 79.321