2022-07-04 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY fireworks episode
July 4, 2022
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 46.2 µg/m³ near Buffalo across
1 covered metro home to 1.2 million people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 1.7 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 2.0 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 “Fireworks”
Qualified supplied evidence supports fireworks as the root cause of this event. The supplied record does not establish a coherent shared occurrence with neighboring candidates, so the episode remains event-specific.
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 · Jul 4, 2022official
EPA AQS carries an agency-submitted request-exclusion qualifier (RH, Fireworks.) on 1 PM2.5 sample in the candidate CBSA on 2022-07-04, identifying fireworks as affecting the sample. A request-exclusion qualifier is an official submitting-agency causal claim, but this endpoint does not establish EPA concurrence.
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 (RH, Fireworks.) on 1 PM2.5 sample in the candidate CBSA on 2022-07-04, identifying fireworks as affecting the sample. A request-exclusion qualifier is an official submitting-agency…
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
46.2 µg/m³ near Buffalo
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.1 cigarette-equivalents at the outdoor daily rate.
Before, during, and after the episode: nearby pollutant monitors and surface-weather
stations show what changed. This context tests the “Fireworks” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Observed context · not attribution
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY
Monitor comparison window 2022-07-01 to 2022-07-07 · PM2.5 target: BUFFALO
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse20.4 µg/m³
85% above nearby days
PM1056 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.520.4 µg/m³
85% higher than surrounding days
Before11 µg/m³ Event20.4 µg/m³ After5.80 µg/m³
PM1056 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Before— Event56 µg/m³ After—
Carbon monoxide0.232 ppm
28% higher than surrounding days
Before0.182 ppm Event0.232 ppm After0.146 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide8.80 ppb
14% higher than surrounding days
Before5.91 ppb Event8.80 ppb After7.69 ppb
Sulfur dioxide1.11 ppb
389% higher than surrounding days
Before0.388 ppb Event1.11 ppb After0.077 ppb
Ozone0.040 ppm
10% higher than surrounding days
Before0.036 ppm Event0.040 ppm After0.034 ppm
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 · Jul 4, 2022officialgovernment
EPA AQS carries an agency-submitted request-exclusion qualifier (RH, Fireworks.) on 1 PM2.5 sample in the candidate CBSA on 2022-07-04, identifying fireworks as affecting the sample. A request-exclusion qualifier is an official submitting-agency causal claim, but this endpoint does not establish EPA concurrence.
Agency-submitted AQS qualifiers support attribution 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.