The document discusses proposed revisions to ambient air quality criteria and standards in India. It reviews the health effects and dose-response relationships of several key air pollutants including benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and oxides of nitrogen. For each pollutant, it discusses current levels in India, existing standards, rationale for proposed new standards based on health risks, and comparisons with standards in other countries. The approach focuses on establishing standards to protect human health based on toxicological data and risk assessments.

1. ECRD.IN
Review of Ambient Air Quality Criteria/Standards
MONITORING
FALLOUT
PLUME
RISE
WIND
TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION
IMPACTION
WASHOUT
TRANSFORMATION
Mukesh Sharma
Environmental Engineering and Management Program
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
September 2007

2. ECRD.IN

3. ECRD.IN
1
n
i
i
NOAEL
RfD
UF MF



  
  1
n
i
i
LOAEL
RfD
UF MF



  
 
UF = 10H x 10A x 10S
Long-term Effects

4. ECRD.IN

5. ECRD.IN
Slope factor, Cancer Potency factor or Unit Risk factor
Slope factor = risk/(mg/kg-day)
Unit Risk Factor = risk/(µg/m3)

6. ECRD.IN
• For comparison, Table 5-2 summarizes the risk
of dying from some causes of death.
2 x 10-6, or 1/500,000Air Travel: 1
transcontinental trip/year
10-5, or 1/100,0001,000Bicycling
1.2 x 10-5, or 1/83,33325,000Home accidents
4 x 10-5, or 1/25,000Football (averaged over
participants)
7.7 x 10-5, or 1/13,00016,339Falls
10-4, or 1/10,000400Truck driving
2.2 x 10-4, or 1/4,54546,000Motor vehicle
3 x 10-4, or 1/3,333--Fire fighting
1.3 x 10-3, or 1/770180Coal mining accident
2.0 x 10-3, or 1/500541,532Cancer
2.7 x 10-3, or 1/370724,859Heart attack
8 x 10-3, or 1/1251,135Black lung disease
Individual Risk per Year# of Deaths in Rep. YearCause of Death

7. ECRD.IN
Example
Acceptable Air Concentration = Target Risk /(Unit risk factor)
Target risk = 1x 10-5 ; URF = 1 x10-3 (µg/m3)-1
Concentration = 1x 10-5 / 1 x10-3 (µg/m3)-1 = 0.01 µg/m3

8. ECRD.IN
S.No. Pollutant
1 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
2 Lead (Pb)
3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
4 Ozone (O3)
5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
6 PM10
7 PM2.5
8 Benzene Soluble Fraction (BSF)
9 Formaldehyde (HCHO)
10 Poly-aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
11 Arsenic
12 Nickel
13 Mercury
14 Vanadium
15 Benzene
Pollutants for Standard Formulation

9. ECRD.IN
•general description of the pollutant,
•dose-response based health risk evaluation,
•current levels in the country,
•current standards,
•basis for new standards and associated risk
•comparison
______________________________________________________________
• dose-response relationship developed/published in Indian
•others and WHO.
______________________________________________________________
•cost of implementation of the standards
•implication to development projects
•primary criterion for suggesting the standard is human health.
Approach

10. ECRD.IN
Benzene

11. ECRD.IN
Current Levels

12. ECRD.IN
Current Levels at Kanpur
Industrial Area Commercial area
Average 30 ug/m3

13. ECRD.IN
Current Levels at Kolkota

14. ECRD.IN

15. ECRD.IN
Unit Risk Factor = 6 x10-6
S.no Risk Concentration
1 1/10000 17 ug/m3
2 1/00000 1.7 ug/m3
3 1000000 0.17 ug/m3
proposed annual average standard for the benzene 7.0µg/m3.

16. ECRD.IN

17. ECRD.IN
Carbon Mono-oxide

18. ECRD.IN
Carbon Mono-oxide
Current standards:
8-hr

19. ECRD.IN
Current Levels
Significant Violation but
decreasing trend

20. ECRD.IN

21. ECRD.IN
COHb level is not to exceeded, 2%
The proposed standards are with factor of safety of 2:
· 20.0 mg/m3 (17 ppm) for 1 hour
· 6.0 mg/m3 (5 ppm) for 8 hours.

22. ECRD.IN
Carbon Monoxide Standards (1 hour) of Different Countries
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
European Union Standards
United States Standards
WHO guideline
Bangkok
China
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Seoul
Surabaya
Japan
Vietnam
Hong Kong
Philippines
Australia
Brazil
Canada
New Zealand
Norway
Sweden
India (Proposed)
Countries
conc. (mg/m3)

23. ECRD.IN
Carbon Monoxide Standards (8 hour) of Different Countries
0 5 10 15 20 25
European Union Standards
United States Standards
WHO guideline
Bangkok
China
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Seoul
Surabaya
Japan
Vietnam
Hong Kong
Philippines
Australia
Brazil
Canada
New Zealand
Norway
Sweden
India (Proposed)
Countries
conc. (mg/m3)

24. ECRD.IN
Formaldehyde

25. ECRD.IN
Cancer Risk:
Based on a dose–response model developed by CIIT, the additional risk of
respiratory cancer associated with a lifelong exposure ranging from
1.23 and 123 μg/m3 in non-smokers ranged from 2.3 × 10-10 to 2.7 × 10-8.
The risk of cancer associated with formaldehyde level is negligible.
Non-Cancer
LOAEL for Eye irritation: 1,230 μg/m3 and the NOAEL was 615 μg/m3.
Another study found a subclinical inflammatory response at 615 μg/m3
Health Canada established for short-term (1-hour averaged) exposures
at 123 μg/m3 (100 ppb) (one-tenth of LOAEL).
guideline for long-term (8-hour averaged) exposure based on NOAEL
50 μg/m3 (40 ppb).
WHO guideline value is 100 µg/m3 for 30 minutes.
Significant increases in signs of irritation occur at levels above 0.1 mg/m3

26. ECRD.IN
proposed standards:
· 80 µg/m3 for 1-hour average
· 45 µg/m3 for 8-hours average
The current measured values are: 10 –90 µg/m3

27. ECRD.IN
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON (PAH)

28. ECRD.IN
BaP Is most studied and critical PAH species

29. ECRD.IN

30. ECRD.IN

31. ECRD.IN
A unit risk for BaP is 8.7 × 10-5 (ng/m3)-1 (WHO 1987)
1 1/10000 1.2 ng/m3
2 1/00000 0.12 ng/m3
3 1000000 0.012ng/m3
Air Toxic
Pollutants Standard upto
2010
Ambient Air Quality
Standard After 2010
Benzo(a) Pyrene, 5 ng/m3 1 ng/m3
Compound Limit value Guide value Measuring Period
Netherlands PAH 5 ng/m3 .0.5 ng/m3 annual
WHO-AQG PAH 1.0 ng/m3
annual
Proposed new EU PAH indicator parameter i.e. Benzo(a)pyrene Std. is 6.0 ng/m3.

32. ECRD.IN
ARSENIC
At an air concentration of 1 μg/m3 an estimate of lifetime risk is 1.5 x10-3.
S.no Risk Concentration
1 1/10000 66 ng/m3
2 1/00000 6.6 ng/m3
3 1000000 0.66 ng/m3
NIOSH has recommended air levels c should not exceed 2 µg/m3 during any part of the workday.
Ontario MOE adopted an Ambient Air Quality Criterion (AAQC) of 0.3 μg/m3 as a 24-hour guideline
Proposed annual standard
Annual- 6.6 ng/m3 and
24- hr- 0.2 μg/m3

33. ECRD.IN
Lead
Current Standards
24-hr
Annual Standard

34. ECRD.IN
1. It appears that 1 μg lead per m3
air directly contributes
approximately 19 μg lead per litre blood in children and
about 16 μg per litre blood in adults, although it is accepted
that the relative contribution from air is less significant in
children than in adults.
2. It must be taken into account that, in typical situations,
an increase of lead in air also contributes to increased lead
uptake by indirect environmental pathways. To correct for
uptake by other routes as well, it is assumed that 1 μg lead
per m3
air would contribute to 50 μg lead per litre blood.
3. It is recommended that efforts be made to ensure that at
least 98% of an exposed population, including preschool
children, has blood lead levels that do not exceed 100 μg/l.
In this case, the median blood lead level would not exceed
54 μg/l. On this basis, the annual average lead level in air
should not exceed 0.5 μg/m3
. This proposal is based on the
assumption that the upper limit of non-anthropogenic lead
in blood is 30 μg/l.

35. ECRD.IN
In view of points 1, 2, and 3 – Proposed Standard
•1.0 µg/m3 for 24-hour average
•0.5 µg/m3 for annual average

36. ECRD.IN
Mercury
The LOAELs for mercury vapour are around 15-30 µg/m3. Applying an
uncertainty factor of 20 (10 for uncertainty due to variable sensitivities in higher
risk populations and, on the basis of dose-response information, a factor of 2 to
extrapolate from a LOAEL to a likely NOAEL), a guideline for inorganic mercury
vapour of 1 µg/m3 as an annual average has been established.
An increase in ambient air levels of mercury will result in an increase in
deposition in natural bodies of water, possibly leading to elevated
concentrations of methylmercury in freshwater fish. Such a contingency might
have an important bearing on acceptable levels of mercury in the atmosphere

37. ECRD.IN
Proposed standard (annual): 1 µg/m3
Levels observed in Singurali area was 10 ng/m3
REVISION?

38. ECRD.IN
Nickel
On the basis of one inhalation study, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) classified nickel subsulfide as a class
A carcinogen and estimated the maximum likelihood
incremental unit risk to be 1.8–4.1 × 10-3 (ug/m3)-1. However,
this study involves only exposure to nickel subsulfide. It is not
known whether this compound is present in ambient air, but
since it is probably one of the most nickel potent compounds,
this risk estimate may represent an upper limit. WHO estimated
an incremental unit risk of 4 × 10-4 (μg/m3)-1 calculated from
epidemiological results.

39. ECRD.IN
S.no Risk Concentration
1 1/10000 250 ng/m3
2 1/00000 25 ng/m3
3 1000000 2.5 ng/m3
With unit risk of 4 × 10-4 (μg/m3)-1
Proposed Standard is : 20 ng/m3
EU fixed annual limit as 20 ng/m3.

40. ECRD.IN
VANADIUM
Chronic exposure to vanadium compounds revealed a continuum
in the respiratory effects, ranging from slight changes in the
upper respiratory tract, with irritation, coughing and injection of
pharynx, detectable at 20 μg/m3, to more serious effects such as
chronic bronchitis and pneumonitis, which occurred at levels
above 1 mg/m3.
LOAEL for Vanadium can be taken as 20 μg/m3 and taking a
safety factor of 20, the prposed 24-hr standard is
1 μg/m3

41. ECRD.IN
Oxides of Nitrogen

42. ECRD.IN

43. ECRD.IN
Summer PM10 Variation
Summer NOx Variation
Time Series : 1998-2004 New Delhi
Average PM10: 400 ug/m3
d[NOx]/dt = 10 ug/m3-yr
NOx , SO2and PM10 Interlinked

44. ECRD.IN
WHO has published Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (WHO 2000, 2003, 2005) as
basis for fixing AQS.
The lowest observable acute effect level for NO2 was near 0.2 to 0.3 ppm based on
clinical studies showing increased airway responsiveness in asthmatics.
WHO propose a 50% margin of safety because of additional evidence of possible
effects below 0.2 ppm. These include a statistically significant increase in response
to a bronchoconstrictor (increased airway responsiveness) with exposure to 190
μg/m3 (0.1 ppm) in one study (Orehek et al. 1976) and a pooled analysis suggested
changes in airway responsiveness in asthmatics below 365 μg/m3 (0.2 ppm).
On the basis of these human clinical data, the WHO (2000) proposed a 1-hour
guideline of 200 μg/m3 (0.106 ppm).
The WHO 2000 report stated, “Outdoor epidemiological studies have found
qualitative evidence of ambient exposures being associated with increased
respiratory symptoms and lung function decreases in children (annual average
concentrations of 50–75 μg/m3 (0.026– 0.040 ppm or higher)

45. ECRD.IN
Proposed Standards:
No 1-hr level has exceeded 300 μg/m3 even at ITO
24-hr average : 80 μg/m3
These standards are to provide safety to mild/moderate asthmatics
and children. Healthy individuals have reported no short-term
effects up to 2-4 ppm
NO2 annual average ambient air quality standard
CARB establish a new annual average standard for NO2 at 0.030
ppm (57 μg/m3) , not to be exceeded. The earlier standard was
100 μg/m3.
Proposed Standard: 60 μg/m3 (CPCB current standard is
adequate).

46. ECRD.IN

47. ECRD.IN
Ozone

48. ECRD.IN
Exercise ~ Vol/min has significant bearing

49. ECRD.IN

50. ECRD.IN
Reduction in FEV1 and Ozone Concentration
( <2hr Exposure)
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Ozone Concntraton, ppm
ReductioninFEV1,%
Durng Exercise At Rest
Alexis et al (2000)
Blomberg et al (1997)
Montuschi et al (2002)
McDounell et al (2002)
Proposed Standard (1-hr) = 0.1 ppm or 100 ppb = 180 ug/m3
This also prevents ill effects during exercise and it is conservative enough as it will
be 1-hr standard.

51. ECRD.IN
Reduction in FEV1 and Ozone Concentration
( 6-8 hr Exposure)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Ozone Concntraton, ppm
ReductioninFEV1,%
Proposed Standard (8-hr) = 0.05 ppm = 90 ug/m3

52. ECRD.IN

53. ECRD.IN

54. ECRD.IN
Particulate Matter

55. ECRD.IN

56. ECRD.IN

57. ECRD.IN

58. ECRD.IN

59. ECRD.IN

60. ECRD.IN
PEF = C1 + a1PM10; a1=-.031 at PM10 = 100 PEF
will be less than 5%

61. ECRD.IN
WHO (2000) has not suggested any safe level annual averages. WHO report
indicates that there is no threshold for particulate concentration below which
there is no harmful effect. Considering that background levels of annual PM10
levels itself is 35 µg/m3, the standard should be much above 35 µg/m3. It is
suggested that all efforts must be made to bring down the annual PM10 levels
at least by a factor which should be more than 2. Therefore an annual standard
of 60 µg/m3 is proposed.
Proposed PM10 Standards
24-hr Average: 100 µg/m3
Annual Average: 60 µg/m3

62. ECRD.IN
PM2.5
There are only a few studies in India that have measure PM2.5 (e.g.
Sharma and Maloo 2005). Since measurements of PM2.5 are too few
to draw any meaningful conclusion, it was decided to use the data set
of PM2.5 and take 0.8 fraction of PM10 as PM2.5. The annual
background level of PM2.5 for northern cities is estimated as 28
µg/m3 and for southern cities as 17 µg/m3

63. ECRD.IN
WHO (2000) has not suggested no safe level PM2.5. Considering that
background levels of annual PM2.5 levels itself is 28 µg/m3, the standard should
be much above 28 µg/m3. If we examine Figure 12.5 carefully, we find that at a
concentration of PM2.5 as 60 µg/m3, the average deficit (of about 2 percent) in
PEFR is 5 L/min. Taking average PEFR as 250 L/min for healthy adult this
reduction is only about 2 percent. Further from model (based on 39 persons)
given in Table 12.2, the average deficit in PEFR is about 1.8 L/min at PM2.5
concentration of 60 µg/m3. It is therefore, proposed that 24-hr standard for PM2.5
is set at 60 µg/m3.
PM2.5, PEFvs Time (Cohort - JC Site)
0.00
30.00
60.00
90.00
120.00
150.00
180.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (Days)
PM2.5(mg/m3
)
-15.00
-5.00
5.00
15.00
25.00
35.00
45.00
PEF(L/min)
PM2.5 dPEF

64. ECRD.IN
Relative Risk of Cardiopulmonary mortality for North Zone
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8 Patna
Chandigarh
Bhilai
Raipur
Korba
Delhi
Ahmedabad
Ankaleshwar
Surat
Vadodara
Vapi
Rajkot
Jamnagar
Faridabad
YamunaNagar
Jamshedpur
Bhopal
Indore
Jabalpur
Nagda
Satna
Talcher
Rourkela
Rayagada
Ludhiana
Jalandhar
MandiGobindgarh
Kota
Alwar
Jodhpur
Udaipur
Jaipur
Anpara
Varanasi
Lucknow
Gajraula
Kanpur
Noida
Dehradun
Kolkata
Howrah
Haldia
City
RelativeRisk
Mean Relative Risk Aceptable Relative Risk
To bring mean RR down to 1.05 across all cites for Cardiopulmonary Mortality
Required PM2.5 (annual) = 40 ug/m3 … this also ensures RR for lung cancer at 1.08
Cardiopulmonary mortality is about 15 times higher than Lung cancer mortality

65. ECRD.IN
Proposed Annual standard PM2.5 = 40 ug/m3

66. ECRD.IN
PM 2.5 for India
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
City
PM2.5µg/m^3
Mean PM 2.5 Aceptable PM 2.5
1. Salem …47. Delhi… 63. Jalandhar

67. ECRD.IN

68. ECRD.IN
Mortality Model for PM2.5 (annual) Pope et al. (2002)
Relative Risk (RR) Cardiopulmonary mortality
RR = [(x+1)/(xo+1)]β
β = 0.15515 (0.0562 – 0.2541)
Lung-cancer mortality
RR = [(x+1)/(xo+1)]β
β = 0.2321 (0.08563 – 0.37873)
x = PM2.5 (annual) xo= Background PM2.5 ug/m3

69. ECRD.IN
Overall Death prevention and Deaths Prevented from PM2.5 Std
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Cities
%DeathsPrevented
Overall Death prevented % PM2.5 Deaths prevented with Std, %

70. ECRD.IN
Proposed PM10 Standards
24-hr Average: 100 µg/m3
Annual Average: 60 µg/m3
Proposed PM2.5 standards:
24-hr Average: 60 µg/m3
Annual Average: 40 µg/m3

71. ECRD.IN
BENZENE SOLUBLE FRACTION (BSF)
So Average Chemical Composition of PM2.5
The mutagenicity of air borne PM was shown to depend mainly on neutral and
aromatic compounds. Hideeki et. al. (1991) has reported that the mutagenic activity
of BSF from airborne particles was more in Ames Salmonella system. The study also
revealed that the major portion (about 95%) of the BSF of air filter samples is neutral
and aromatic hydrocarbon. BSF in coke oven emissions have been studied
extensively to represent the aromatic fraction (large fraction being PAH). In fact, for
BSF in PM in coke oven areas, a regulatory limit of 0.2 mg/m3 has been fixed
(Mastrangelo et al., 1996). BSOF of total particulate has been generally accepted as
an index of the health hazard.

72. ECRD.IN
PM10 and BSOF Results of Vikas nagar station during 2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2.01.03
28.01.03
10.02.03
27.02.03
03.03.03
28.03.03
10.04.03
29.04.03
01.05.03
02.05.03
10.06.03
27.06.03
01.07.03
30.07.03
12.08.03
27.08.03
12.09.03
29.09.03
10.10.03
03.11.03
19.11.03
04.12.03
18.12.03
yera 2003
PM10(ug/m3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PM10(µg/m3)
BSOF(µg/m3)
BSOF
IIT VN JC Delhi
Concentrationsintheair(ug/m3)
0
50
100
150
200
250

73. ECRD.IN
Location IIT (clean site) VN (Vikas Nagar)
Residential
JC (Juhi Colony)
Residential
%by w/w mg/m3 % by w/w mg/m3 % by w/w mg/m3
BSOF 9.874.79 9.13 7.03 40.0019.96 106.7162.3 10.327.99 48.4842.35
Proposed Standard for BSF
As seen, BSF can be taken as an indicator of toxic
components of PM. Although the work place standard for
BSF has been reported as 200mg/m3 (Mastrangelo, 1996), the
ambient air quality standard should be much lower. If one
takes a safety factor of 10 (Asante-Duah, 1998 has suggested
a factor of safety of 10 or higher), it gives an acceptable level
of 20mg/m3 for BSF

74. ECRD.IN
Current Standard
Current standard in India for sulfur dioxide, Annual average is
80.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for industrial area,
60.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for residential, rural and other areas
15.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for sensitive areas
and for 24- hours average is
120.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for industrial area
80.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for residential rural and other areas
30.0 µg/m3 (ppm) for sensitive areas.
SO2

75. ECRD.IN

76. ECRD.IN
For long-term exposure, assessments examined were on the prevalence of respiratory
symptoms, respiratory illness frequencies, or differences in lung function values in localities
with contrasting concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, largely in the coal-
burning era. The lowest-observed-adverse-effect level of sulfur dioxide was judged to be
100 μg/m3 (0.035 ppm) annual averages, together with particulate matter. People are in
general exposed to mixture of pollutants due to which WHO had linked its guideline with
corresponding values for particulate matter. That approach led to a previous guideline value
of 125 μg/m3 (0.04 ppm) as a 24-hour average and 50 μg/m3 as an annual average, after
applying an uncertainty factor of 2 to the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level. In more
recent studies, adverse effects with significant public health importance have been observed
at much lower levels of exposure. Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty as to whether sulfur
dioxide is the pollutant responsible for the observed adverse effects or, rather, a surrogate for
ultra-fine particles or some other correlated substance. As there was no basis for revising the
1987 guidelines for sulfur dioxide, WHO has recommended guideline values for 24 hours
average as 125 and for annual average as 50 and this values are not linked with particles.

77. ECRD.IN
proposed standards
80 µg/m3 for 24-hours average
50 µg/m3 for annual average

78. ECRD.IN
Review of Criterion on Area-Classification for Existing AAQS

79. ECRD.IN

80. ECRD.IN

81. ECRD.IN
Proposed Change
In view of the discussions, it is recommended that there is no
need to have area-based classification for air quality standards.
However, no standards for sensitive area is being proposed as this
is not possible to generic or blanket air quality standard without
clearly understanding the sensitivity of the area that needs to be
protected. For example, if a sensitive area shows sensitivity to
contaminant ‘a’, it is only the contaminant ‘a’ for which more
stringent standard is required and standard for other contaminants
need not be redefined. It is recommended that all sensitive areas
may be identified and to ensure full protection, there is a need to
prescribe pollutants) specific standards specific to a sensitive
area.

82. ECRD.IN