2012-03-07 windblown-dust episode affecting El Paso, TX
March 7, 2012
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 85 µg/m³ near El Paso across
1 covered metro home to 879,392 people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 3.4 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 3.0 million cigarettes.
An awareness illustration of outdoor exposure at 22 µg/m³
per cigarette (Berkeley Earth), counting only the event's ranked days; not a
medical dose.
Why we think this happened
The basis for “Dust”
Qualified frozen evidence supports windblown-dust as the broad root cause of the 2012-03-07 PM2.5 episode affecting El Paso, TX.
EPA monitor flagEPA attached an exceptional-event qualifier to the affected samples. The agency flagged the measurement itself; no separate agency record describes the event.
U.S. EPA Air Quality System and the submitting air monitoring agency · Mar 7, 2012official
EPA AQS carries an agency-submitted request-exclusion qualifier (RJ, High Winds.) on 24 PM2.5 samples in the candidate CBSA on 2012-03-07, identifying windblown or transported dust as affecting the samples. A request-exclusion qualifier is an official submitting-agency causal claim, but this endpoint does not establish EPA concurrence.
A contemporaneous local forecast warned that strong winds and blowing dust were possible in El Paso on March 7. It does not assess the reported PM2.5 observation or establish attribution.
A cause is more convincing when the record connects three things: something happened,
the air mass moved toward the region, and local instruments responded. Here is how much
of that chain is documented for this event.
EPA AQS carries an agency-submitted request-exclusion qualifier (RJ, High Winds.) on 24 PM2.5 samples in the candidate CBSA on 2012-03-07, identifying windblown or transported dust as affecting the samples. A request-exclusion qualifier is an…
The retained record does not yet show how air traveled from the proposed source to
these metros. A trajectory replay or dated plume analysis belongs here.
Research gap
3
Local response
85 µg/m³ near El Paso
A contemporaneous local forecast warned that strong winds and blowing dust were possible in El Paso on March 7. It does not assess the reported PM2.5 observation or establish attribution.
Before, during, and after the episode: nearby pollutant monitors and surface-weather
stations show what changed. This context tests the “Dust” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Observed context · not attribution
El Paso, TX
Monitor comparison window 2012-03-04 to 2012-03-10 · PM2.5 target: El Paso Chamizal
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse85.1 µg/m³
482% above nearby days
Air movement11.2 kt
59% higher than surrounding days
PM10273 µg/m³
492% higher than surrounding days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.585.1 µg/m³
482% higher than surrounding days
Before16.9 µg/m³ Event85.1 µg/m³ After8.87 µg/m³
PM10273 µg/m³
492% higher than surrounding days
Before46 µg/m³ Event273 µg/m³ After22.5 µg/m³
Carbon monoxide0.217 ppm
About the same as surrounding days
Before0.381 ppm Event0.217 ppm After0.170 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide10.1 ppb
About the same as surrounding days
Before23.3 ppb Event10.1 ppb After7.53 ppb
Sulfur dioxide0.771 ppb
About the same as surrounding days
Before1.52 ppb Event0.771 ppb After0.361 ppb
Ozone0.039 ppm
19% higher than surrounding days
Before0.018 ppm Event0.039 ppm After0.033 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity13.6 %
12% lower than surrounding days
Pressure883 Millibars
About the same as surrounding days
Temperature66.3 °F
25% higher than surrounding days
Wind11.2 kt
59% higher than surrounding days
Source: U.S. EPA AirData daily observations and, where available, nearby ASOS/AWOS
surface observations. Values are descriptive medians over the retained monitor set;
missing measurements remain missing. Transport and source evidence remain separate
layers because this instrument pattern does not assign a cause by itself.
Measured daily PM2.5 at EPA monitors, as cigarette-equivalents
EPA monitors sit in metro areas, so the colour clusters there. Land between and beyond
them is unmeasured, not clean: this map shows where IAQng has readings, not the extent
of the smoke.
—
Episode peak
--cigarettes
The smoke map's scale, replayed over this event: the surface interpolates between
covered metros' daily records, framed to the affected region. Hover for a reading,
click a metro to pin it to the card. Days a monitor did not report draw nothing.
Select a metro on the map to see nearby cameras. Where an operator archive reaches
the event, drag the divider to compare two moments, adjust either date and time, or
play the available event-day frames. Camera imagery is visual context, not an
air-quality measurement or proof of smoke.
No useful public camera views are currently available within 80 km of this metro.
"Cigarettes, whole event" totals a metro's ranked event days at 22 µg/m³ per
cigarette: what a person outdoors there breathed across the event, as the
illustration. "All-time standing" is where this episode's days sit in each metro's
ranked record (worst-area measure, since 1999). Full local context is on each
metro's Air Records page.
Public evidence library
What supports this account
Each card states what a source supports—and what it does not. Official records, research, reporting, community observations, and transparent inferences remain visibly different kinds of evidence.
U.S. EPA Air Quality System and the submitting air monitoring agency · Mar 7, 2012officialgovernment
EPA AQS carries an agency-submitted request-exclusion qualifier (RJ, High Winds.) on 24 PM2.5 samples in the candidate CBSA on 2012-03-07, identifying windblown or transported dust as affecting the samples. A request-exclusion qualifier is an official submitting-agency causal claim, but this endpoint does not establish EPA concurrence.
A contemporaneous local forecast warned that strong winds and blowing dust were possible in El Paso on March 7. It does not assess the reported PM2.5 observation or establish attribution.
What remains uncertain
Agency-submitted AQS qualifiers are causal flags but do not by themselves establish EPA concurrence.
Status and provenance
EPA monitor flagEPA attached an exceptional-event qualifier to the affected samples. The agency flagged the measurement itself; no separate agency record describes the event.
This episode was grouped from the monitor record by the catalog pipeline and given
its cause from the evidence listed above. It has not been individually reviewed and
signed off, so its boundaries, cause, and name may change as evidence accumulates.
Grouping policy common_sense_root_cause_grouping.v2. The cause label reflects the
assembled evidence above, not an IAQng detection formula. If it is wrong,
tell us.