Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Particle

Xiamen to extend monitoring areas of PM2.5 to the whole city in 2012

http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news22714.html

The grey smog that blanketed most cities in the north and south China in the past few days has brought the PM2.5 to the spotlight, which is mainly to be blamed for the fog that not only disrupted traffic, but also decreased air quality.

PM 2.5, or particulate matter under 2.5 micrometers in size, refers to the fine airborne particles that are considered extremely hazardous to people’s health as they go deeper into the lungs than the larger particles that exist in the air.

But, China currently uses PM10, or particular matter under 10 micrometers, to measure air quality.

Despite the fact that many cities in China now do not monitor PM 2.5, Xiamen, however, has started keeping track of PM 2.5 since 2010, said Xiamen Environmental Monitoring Central Station.

“At present, two of the 4 state-controlled environment & air monitoring stations in Xiamen has already started monitoring PM2.5 in real time, and another eight automatic air monitoring stations will join the monitoring of PM2.5 next year. By then, Xiamen will cover the monitoring of PM2.5 to the whole city.” said Zhuang Mazhan, chief engineer of the Xiamen Environmental Monitoring Central Station.

But the monitoring data is now only used for scientific research and will not be made available to the public until introduction of new national standards.

Click to read Chinese version

SOURCE: WOXnews.com

EPA sets air quality rules

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/print/2011/12/15/2003520788

TIGHT CONTROL::The new standards for air quality are the strictest in the world and aim to reduce the amount of small particle pollution that causes heart and lung disease

By Lee I-chia / Staff Reporter

Thu, Dec 15, 2011 – Page 2

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) yesterday announced the strictest standards in the world for fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), which will be included in the nation’s evaluation of air quality.

The EPA said the permitted amount of particles smaller than PM2.5 will be limited to a yearly average of 15 micrograms per cubic meterand a daily average of 35 micrograms per m3, through a two-phase implementation of the new regulations.

PM2.5 — known for its health risks — will be tightly controlled under the stricter regulations, the EPA said.

“Taiwan will be only the third country in the world to adopt these air quality control measures,” said Hsieh Yein-rui (謝燕儒), director-general of the EPA’s Department of Air Quality Protection and Noise Control.

Cheng Tsun-jen (鄭尊仁), a professor at National Taiwan University’s Institute of Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene, said studies have shown that PM2.5 pollution can cause health problems such as heart or respiratory diseases.

Chang Ken-Hui (張艮輝), a professor at the Department of Safety Health and Environmental Engineering at National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, said the sources and effects of PM2.5 were complicated, with the effects often originating from long-range transport of air pollutants from abroad.

Chang also suggested that a more aggressive approach is needed in terms of dealing with China, because as much as 37 percent of the PM2.5 recorded in Taiwan is borne on the wind across the Taiwan Strait.

Additional reporting by CNA

Published on Taipei Times :

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/12/15/2003520788

Taiwan enacts new regulations on air particulates

http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aSOC&ID=201112140013

http://focustaiwan.tw/WebEngPhotos/CEP/20111214/2011121400131.jpg

Taipei, Dec. 14 (CNA) New regulations on the allowable amount of fine particles in the air will help the nation’s air quality meet stricter standards within the next decade, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said Wednesday.

The EPA said the permitted amount of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5, will be limited to a yearly average of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and a daily average of 35ug/m3, through a two-phase implementation of the regulations.

PM2.5 — known for its health risk as it tends to penetrate the respiratory system and lead to chronic disease — will be controlled under the regulations, which have been adopted only by the United States and Japan, the EPA said.

“Taiwan will be only the third country in the world to adopt these air quality control measures,” said Hsieh Yein-rui, director-general of the EPA’s Department of Air Quality Protection and Noise Control.

According to Hsieh, the EPA will work with the nation’s heavy industries, such as the petrochemical and the iron and steel sectors, to cut down the precursor gases that can form PM2.5.

Joint efforts with other government branches will also be carried out to develop a public transport system using hybrid-electric vehicles as well as to reduce the use of synthetic fertilizer, Hsieh added.

“I am optimistic that we could catch up soon with Japan and the U.S. in terms of air quality control,” said Chang Ken-Hui, a member of an EPA task force set up to implement the move.

Chang said the amount of PM2.5 in Taiwan was reduced by 7.5 percent between 2006 and 2010 and maintained a yearly average of 20.8 ?g/m3, or 1.4 times the average in the U.S. and Japan.

Chang also suggested that a more aggressive approach is needed in terms of dealing with China, because as much as 37 percent of the PM 2.5 recorded in Taiwan is borne on the wind from China.

“The seasonal winds usually carry fine particles from China to Taiwan in spring and winter,” he said, adding that “multinational cooperation is needed to address the problem.” (By Lee Hsin-Yin) ENDITEM/J

PM2.5

DIABOLICAL ! PM2.5 (RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER LESS THAN 2.5 MICRONS IN DIAMETER)

Clear the Air now reveals the ambient PM2.5 levels in Hong Kong’s air – district by district (in micrograms per cubic meter of air)

(excluding the roadside measurements which are even worse)

The US EPA has legal Standards on PM2.5 which are: 24-hour fine particle standard 35 µg/m3 and  annual fine particle standard 15 µg/m3

The HK EPD is examining this data to try and establish the sources of the pollution i.e.

Is it mainly Transboundary / Shipping / local Vehicular / Construction ? – no doubt they will eventually tell us.

Meanwhile we have to breathe this lethal muck whilst our Government prevaricates.

PM2.5 enters into the lungs without hindrance by nose hairs or tracheal cilia.

One must query how the HKZM bridge managed to pass its Environment Impact Assessment given the data of the lethal PM2.5 ambient levels in Tung Chung already.

Well, watch this space ! Clear the Air has received a brand new Dust Trak II particulate sensor so we will be taking roadside PM2.5 measurements in January 2012 and revealing the true roadside levels on our site for the World to see.

Download PDF : PM2 5 Allstns (2011) Middleton

CE accused of lying over air timetable

RTHK – 1 Dec. 2011

The Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, has been accused of lying to the public about the timetable for implementing new air quality objectives. The environmental group, Friends of the Earth, and Civic Party legislator Audrey Eu, delivered a petition to Mr Tsang’s office, calling on him not to drag his feet on the matter.

Ms Eu says Mr Tsang has told her that new air quality targets will be implemented before the end of his term, after previously saying they would be set by the end of this year.

Don’t leave index hanging in the air

South China Morning Post – 30 Nov 2011

Hong Kong does not include fine particles in its air pollution index, let alone aim to meeting the World Health Organisation’s recommended standard for them. This is a serious public health issue. Studies have shown that exposure to high concentrations of these specks of pollutants from vehicle exhausts, power stations and factories can lead to heart problems, asthma attacks and bronchitis, especially in the elderly and children and those with pre-existing conditions. Data obtained by Friends of the Earth from readings by the Department of Environmental Protection at the junction of Chater and Des Voeux roads in Central puts it into perspective. This shows levels exceeded by only seven of 565 cities surveyed by the WHO. Hong Kong also rated worse than 869 other cities for concentrations of larger particles.

A single-location reading may not be a fair basis for comparison with other places, but there seems no question there are grounds for serious health concerns. Medical specialists say these fine particles can penetrate deep into the respiratory system and pose serious health risks. This makes nonsense of officials’ references to Hong Kong having one of the world’s highest rates of life expectancy. These rates were set by people who did not have to breathe today’s air for a lifetime. Anecdotal evidence from paediatricians of the number of today’s children with respiratory complaints is a worry. People do not expect much of an administration with only a few months to run. The current one is an exception. Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has promised to introduce new air-quality objectives to replace the city’s outdated, 24-year-old standards. A spokeswoman for the department has reiterated that it will be done before this government’s mandate runs out in June. Even then, it proposes an annual mean standard of 35 micrograms of fine particles per cubic metre compared with the WHO’s 25, Singapore’s 15 and Australia’s eight. But it is important that the government gets it done and sets the bar higher for its successor

Unlucky eight as city chokes on air placing

Hong Kong Standard

Alice So

Friday, November 25, 2011

Hong Kong is the eighth worst among 566 cities worldwide when it comes to dangerous air pollutants, the Friends of the Earth claimed yesterday.

A recent World Health Organization survey of particulates called PM2.5 – very small but dangerous particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less – did not include Hong Kong.

However a survey by the green group found the city’s PM2.5 concentration in 2010 was 36 micrograms per cubic meter.

This was more than 20 times that of the cleanest city, Whitehorse in Canada, with 1.7 micrograms per cubic meter. As a result, this would put Hong Kong at 559 in WHO rankings.

“Ironically, Hong Kong as a world city cannot even regulate its ever-increasing roadside air pollution,” said Thomas Choi Ka- man, senior environmental affairs officer.

It also means Hong Kong is more polluted than developed cities such as Canberra, Sydney, Singapore, and developing cities like Manila, Sao Paulo and Lima.

“It is a hard-earned notoriety to be ranked more polluted than developing cities like Manila. Even Guangzhou is planning to regulate PM2.5 in 2016, according to the Ministry of Environmental Protection,” Choi said.

Control measures are non- existent here, he said.

“The Environmental Protection Department should speed up efforts to replace diesel-run vehicles with electric ones, and ease heavy traffic by launching more low-emission zones,” said Choi, adding the government is too slow in tackling the problem.

The consultation on Air Quality Objectives Review has been going on for almost two years but there have been no amendments to its 1987 version.

Choi said Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen pledged at a Legco meeting in May that objectives would be renewed next month.

PM2.5 is roughly one twenty- eighth the diameter of a human hair. It is so small that it can penetrate a mask, travel through the nose, and reach the heart and lungs.

Choi cited US studies that claim death rates from lung cancer increase by 8percent for every rise of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5

Greens put HK air ‘shame’ on the map

South China Morning Post- 25 Nov. 2011

CLEAR THE AIR SAYS: Clear the Air constructed this report by locating the WHO document the same day it was released then adding to the report Hong Kong EPD data for the past five years’ levels of PM2.5. The marked up report was passed to the Legco Panel on the Environment and later, to FOE amongst other green groups for their information.

The level of fine particles – specks of pollutants that can penetrate the lungs – in Hong Kong’s air is among the worst in more than 500 cities and at least 20 times that of the cleanest metropolis.

Only seven cities of 565 surveyed by the World Health Organisation have a higher level than that found in Central, which also has the greatest concentration of larger particles among more than 1,000 cities.

The annual mean roadside reading of fine particles in Central – 36 micrograms per cubic metre – is exceeded only by Dakar in Senegal, Zabrze in Poland, Accra in Ghana, Kuwait City, Mexicali in Mexico, Antananarivo in Madagascar, and Ulan Bator in Mongolia.

The roadside reading in Central was used as a benchmark to compare with the cities in the WHO report, which did not make clear how many readings were taken in each city, but some were roadside or general.

Friends of the Earth said it was “disappointing and shameful” that Hong Kong fared worse than developing cities. “Despite being a top class world financial hub, people in Central are breathing third-world-class air,” said Jo Chan Chun-yim, assistant environmental affairs officer of the green group.

The rankings, released by the WHO in September, did not include Hong Kong because fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 microns are not listed as a statutory air pollutant in the city.

But Friends of the Earth obtained data from the Environmental Protection Department showing the levels at the junction of Chater Road and Des Voeux Road Central was at least 20 times higher than the top ranking city, Whitehorse in Canada, with an annual average reading of 1.7. It was worse than Singapore with 19, Manila with 21, and Lima in Peru with 34.

Medical specialists have warned that the fine particles – a micron is one-millionth of a metre – can penetrate deep into the respiratory system and cause severe health risks.

In the same ranking exercise by the WHO for concentrations or larger particles, Hong Kong came 870 on a list of 1,100 cities.

Dr Lau Ngai-ting, from the environment division at the Polytechnic University of Science and Technology, said a single spot reading might not be indicative, while a comparison with another city might be too generalised. But this should not obscure the serious health concerns raised. “Given the heavy traffic and people flow at this localised spot, there is definitely a health impact since many people will be exposed to the pollution,” he said.

He said poor ventilation and dispersion of pollutants might also contribute to the pollution that was believed to be primarily caused by diesel vehicles, especially those that were old and poorly maintained.

Friends of the Earth said even more frustrating was that the government was aiming to introduce a new fine particle standard not matching its status as an advanced metropolis.

The Environmental Protection Department proposes an annual mean standard of 35 micrograms compared with the WHO’s 25, Thailand’s 25, Singapore’s 15 and Australia’s much more stringent eight.

Even this modest standard has yet to be formally introduced even though the public consultation on updating the 24-year-old air quality objectives ended two years ago.

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen pledged earlier to get the task done this year.

“Donald Tsang is going to look like Pinocchio, with his lies stretching his nose so long that he will no longer be able to cover it with a mask to shield the air pollution,” Thomas Choi Ka-man, the green group’s senior environmental officer said.

A department spokeswoman said the proposed standard, which referred to WHO guidelines, was a “very challenging” one. She said new air quality objectives would be introduced in this government’s term.

chifai.cheung@scmp.com

It’s definitely time for some ‘clear the air’ talks

South China Morning Post

Nov 25, 2011

The Environmental Protection Department had a letter published in yesterday’s South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583announcementsnews) in which it sought to “clarify” some of the air quality issues that we’ve raised over the past few months. The letter’s initial point is that “improving air quality sits at the heart of the government’s environment policy”.

If that is the case, you have to wonder why it is that the Ombudsman upheld a complaint earlier this year saying the government was dragging its heels over setting new air quality objectives (AQOs). It’s been two years since the government concluded its public consultation. The Ombudsman urged the government to set out a timetable and explain to the public the progress and difficulties. That would be an interesting exercise. Let’s see, problems of dealing with franchised bus companies, difficulties of getting environmental impact assessments approved for government infrastructure projects, and so on.

In its letter, the EPD produces a list of “improvement measures” without indicating how effective they have been. It makes great play of reducing the levels of sulphur dioxide, which it achieved by forcing the power companies to fit scrubbers. It’s now on the rise again, thanks to the marine sector. While it is good that it has been sharply reduced, it doesn’t impact on us as much as roadside pollution, which is getting worse. Many other measures have had a negligible impact.

The government tells itself air quality is not really a problem, since Hong Kong has one of the world’s highest rates of life expectancy. This, however, is a lagging indicator. At the other end of the scale, the number of children with respiratory complaints seen by paediatricians has risen dramatically. But fortunately for the government, they don’t belong to a functional constituency and can’t vote.

Choking: pedestrians cover up in Causeway Bay.

Defending cleaner air measures

The AQMS of the EPD are set at heights far above the noses of the public and wheelchairs and children!

They only release Central PM2.5 data – why is that ?

SCMP 24 Nov 2011

Defending cleaner air measures

Lai See has taken the government to task over air quality, most recently in the piece (“Light to be shed on air quality”, November 3). These comments require clarification.

Improving air quality sits at the heart of the government’s environment policy. We are now finalising our proposal for updating the air quality objectives (AQOs).

They provide not only air quality yardsticks, but also offer statutory standards to be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable. They are also the legal benchmarks for assessing the air quality impacts of major projects. It is imperative for us to identify the necessary improvement measures and draw up a realistic plan for updating the AQOs.

The AQO Review has proposed several measures for attaining the new objectives. Many of them, such as revamping the fuel mix for electricity generation and rationalising bus routes, are controversial and complicated. We must work with stakeholders to find the best ways to take them forward.

Meanwhile, we continue to introduce improvement measures supported by the community.

We have further tightened power plants’ emission caps; enacted the law against idling vehicles; provided incentives to replace polluting vehicles; embarked on a trial of retrofitting selective catalytic reduction devices on franchised buses; set up pilot low-emission zones; set up the Pilot Green Transport Fund to encourage green innovative technologies; and subsidised trials of hybrid and electric buses. We will also strengthen control of petrol and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles and propose raising the quality of marine fuels.

The November 3 article accused us of using outdated equipment to measure air quality. The equipment and procedures deployed in our monitoring network meet the US Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements.

The University of Science and Technology project on air pollution diffusion within traffic streams cannot offer direct comparison with measurements by the Environmental Protection Department’s stations, which are more representative of the public’s air pollution exposure.

As for environmental impact assessments (EIA), the department has considered all EIA reports in accordance with the statutory requirements. Air quality impacts are assessed using sophisticated computer models comparable to those of advanced countries.

All EIA reports are critically examined and comments by the public and the Advisory Council on the Environment fully considered before deciding whether to grant approval.

The merger of the department and the Environment Bureau has not brought any changes to practices or standards in approving EIA reports.

Pang Sik-wing, principal environmental protection officer (air policy), Environmental Protection Department

Locations of roadside PM2.5 monitors undergoing test run

Roadside Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) Location PM 2.5 sampling inlet height*
Central Junction of Chater Road and Des Voeux Road Central, Central, Hong Kong 4.5 m
Causeway Bay On pedestrian walkway outside 1 Yee Wo Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong 2.5 m
Mong Kok Junction of Nathan Road and Lai Chi Kok Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon 5.5 m

*The relevant USEPA requirement (for microscale PM2.5 sites) is between 2 to 7 m