← Air events

Stagnant pollution mixture Possible

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.

Possible This 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, 2004 official

North Carolina PM2.5 boundary recommendation: June 21, 2001 trajectory analysis

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.

See every retained source and limitation ↓

Sequence: Winston (Jun 21) → Greensboro (Jun 21)

Evidence path

From source to city

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.

Open the evidence ledger ↓
  1. 1

    Source or mechanism

    Stagnant pollution mixture

    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…

    View supporting source ↗
    Documented
  2. 2

    Air-mass movement

    The transport path has not been reconstructed

    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. 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.

    Inspect the pollutant and weather signals ↓
    Documented

Event autopsy

What the instruments saw

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.

Observed context · not attribution

Winston-Salem, NC

Monitor comparison window 2001-06-18 to 2001-06-24 · PM2.5 target: Hattie Avenue

6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse 41.2 µg/m³

73% above nearby days

Air movement 2.97 kt

17% lower than surrounding days

PM10 53 µg/m³

56% higher than surrounding days

Pollution fingerprint

Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.5 41.2 µg/m³

73% higher than surrounding days

Before32 µg/m³ Event41.2 µg/m³ After15.5 µg/m³
3 monitors · 24 HOUR
PM10 53 µg/m³

56% higher than surrounding days

Before41 µg/m³ Event53 µg/m³ After19.5 µg/m³
2 monitors · 24-HR BLK AVG
Carbon monoxide 0.628 ppm

29% higher than surrounding days

Before0.487 ppm Event0.628 ppm After0.439 ppm
4 monitors · 1 HOUR
Nitrogen dioxide 18.2 ppb

71% higher than surrounding days

Before10.7 ppb Event18.2 ppb After6.25 ppb
1 monitor · 1 HOUR
Sulfur dioxide 2.67 ppb

15% lower than surrounding days

Before3.25 ppb Event2.67 ppb After1.08 ppb
1 monitor · 1 HOUR
Ozone 0.071 ppm

10% higher than surrounding days

Before0.069 ppm Event0.071 ppm After0.043 ppm
5 monitors · 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR

Atmospheric conditions

Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity 66.1 °F

About the same as surrounding days

Temperature 77.6 °F

About the same as surrounding days

Wind 2.97 kt

17% lower 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.

Views from the selected metro

Camera views near

Browse the camera map →

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.

Affected metros

MetroPeak PM2.5Cigarettes, whole eventPeak dayAll-time standing
Winston-Salem, NC 42.3 µg/m³ 1.9 Jun 21, 2001 #21 of its top days
Greensboro-High Point, NC 40.3 µg/m³ 1.8 Jun 21, 2001 #18 of its top days

"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

Status and provenance

Possible This 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.