2001-06-21 Greensboro-High Point, NC and Winston-Salem, NC stagnant mixed-pollution episode
June 21, 2001
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 42.3 µg/m³ near Winston across
2 covered metros home to 1.5 million people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 1.4 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 2.2 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 “Stagnant pollution mixture”
Manual research connected 2 source events to one stagnant mixed-pollution episode using the deterministic grouping rule.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality / U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Feb 26, 2004official
North Carolina's meteorologist-reviewed appendix lists June 21 PM2.5 at the Catawba and Davidson monitors and uses trajectories to assess regional source areas; the report identifies short trajectories, recirculation, and prolonged high-pressure stagnation as the summertime high-PM pattern.
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.
North Carolina's meteorologist-reviewed appendix lists June 21 PM2.5 at the Catawba and Davidson monitors and uses trajectories to assess regional source areas; the report identifies short trajectories, recirculation, and prolonged high-pressure…
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
42.3 µg/m³ near Winston
EPA monitors recorded the event across 2 metros.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 1.9 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 “Stagnant pollution mixture” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Monitor comparison window 2001-06-18 to 2001-06-24
2 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse40.3 µg/m³
77% above nearby days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.540.3 µg/m³
77% higher than surrounding days
Before29.7 µg/m³ Event40.3 µg/m³ After15.2 µg/m³
Ozone0.060 ppm
About the same as surrounding days
Before0.061 ppm Event0.060 ppm After0.038 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.
2 retained sources
Official record
North Carolina PM2.5 boundary recommendation: June 21, 2001 trajectory analysis
North Carolina Division of Air Quality / U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
North Carolina's meteorologist-reviewed appendix lists June 21 PM2.5 at the Catawba and Davidson monitors and uses trajectories to assess regional source areas; the report identifies short trajectories, recirculation, and prolonged high-pressure stagnation as the summertime high-PM pattern.
What it supports
An official source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
The state analysis supports regional accumulation in the Piedmont but not a unique emitter or source-specific daily mass.
Official record
North Carolina PM2.5 boundary recommendation: June 21, 2001 trajectory analysis
North Carolina Division of Air Quality / U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
North Carolina's meteorologist-reviewed appendix lists June 21 PM2.5 at the Catawba and Davidson monitors and uses trajectories to assess regional source areas; the report identifies short trajectories, recirculation, and prolonged high-pressure stagnation as the summertime high-PM pattern.
What it supports
An official source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
The state analysis supports regional accumulation in the Piedmont but not a unique emitter or source-specific daily mass.
What remains uncertain
The state analysis supports regional accumulation in the Piedmont but not a unique emitter or source-specific daily mass.
Status and provenance
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
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.