||Anchorage carbon monoxide study : November 22, 1982 - February 11, 1983 /
Schweiss, J. W. ;
LaMore, G. ;
Chapple, T. ;
||Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. Region X. ;Anchorage Air Pollution Control Authority, AK. ;Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage.
||U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Carbon monoxide--Toxicology--Research--Fairbanks (Alaska) ;
Air--Pollution--Research--Fairbanks (Alaska) ;
Air quality--Standards--Fairbanks (Alaska) ;
Particles--Health aspects--Research ;
Air Pollution ;
Air Pollutants, Environmental--adverse effects ;
Environmental Exposure ;
Fairbanks (Alaska) ;
Carbon monoxide--Toxicology--Research--Alaska--Anchorage ;
Carbon monoxide ;
Air pollution ;
Gas analysis ;
Chemical analysis ;
Performance evaluation ;
Air pollution sampling ;
Air pollution detection ;
Nondispersive infrared spectroscopy
||Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||ix, 56 p. ; 24 cm.
Typically, levels of ambient carbon monoxide (CO) vary widely among the four existing permanent monitoring sites distributed throughout the city of Anchorage. An ambient air sampling program was designed and implemented to clarify and define, if possible, the relationship of carbon monoxide levels reported from these permanent sites and levels occurring elsewhere in the city. Integrated bag sampling was conducted on weekdays at approximately 50 sites during the interval spanning November 22, 1982 and February 11, 1983. Samples collected from each site were analyzed by the non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) method. Comparisons were then made between data arising from the study sites and the four permanent monitoring sites. A comprehensive quality assurance program was developed and ordered to the study to ensure the collection of data that were of known and appropriate accuracy, precision, representativeness, comparability and completeness. In largely fulfilling the purpose of the study, the primary conclusions arising from analysis of the study data were twofold: (1) The permanent monitoring network does not adequately characterize either the absolute magnitude of CO levels or the frequency of standards exceedances encountered at an array of locations elsewhere in the study area, and (2) The basic or immediate representatives of each permanent monitoring site has largely been established.