2004-08-04 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC, Greensboro-High Point, NC, and 1 other metros stagnant mixed-pollution episode
August 4, 2004
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 43.6 µg/m³ near Winston across
3 covered metros home to 2.1 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
≈ 2.9 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 3 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.
National Weather Service Raleigh via Iowa Environmental Mesonet · Aug 4, 2004corroborates
The same-day Raleigh forecast discussion says high pressure stifled central North Carolina with heat and haze, limited atmospheric mixing, and produced widespread haze with three-to-six-mile visibility.
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.
The same-day Raleigh forecast discussion says high pressure stifled central North Carolina with heat and haze, limited atmospheric mixing, and produced widespread haze with three-to-six-mile visibility.
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
43.6 µg/m³ near Winston
EPA monitors recorded the event across 3 metros.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.0 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.
Observed context · not attribution
Winston-Salem, NC
Monitor comparison window 2004-08-01 to 2004-08-07 · PM2.5 target: DAVIDSON CO
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse42.6 µg/m³
277% above nearby days
Air movement3.10 kt
29% lower than surrounding days
PM1053.5 µg/m³
197% higher than surrounding days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.542.6 µg/m³
277% higher than surrounding days
Before10.5 µg/m³ Event42.6 µg/m³ After11.3 µg/m³
PM1053.5 µg/m³
197% higher than surrounding days
Before16 µg/m³ Event53.5 µg/m³ After18 µg/m³
Carbon monoxide0.637 ppm
22% higher than surrounding days
Before0.458 ppm Event0.637 ppm After0.521 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide14.5 ppb
57% higher than surrounding days
Before5.17 ppb Event14.5 ppb After10.3 ppb
Sulfur dioxide5.70 ppb
754% higher than surrounding days
Before0.667 ppb Event5.70 ppb After0.583 ppb
Ozone0.049 ppm
66% higher than surrounding days
Before0.023 ppm Event0.049 ppm After0.034 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity68.4 °F
10% higher than surrounding days
Temperature79.3 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Wind3.10 kt
29% lower than surrounding days
Greensboro-High Point, NC
Monitor comparison window 2004-08-01 to 2004-08-07 · PM2.5 target: Mendenhall School
2 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse39.4 µg/m³
230% above nearby days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.539.4 µg/m³
230% higher than surrounding days
Before7.60 µg/m³ Event39.4 µg/m³ After11.9 µg/m³
Ozone0.054 ppm
92% higher than surrounding days
Before0.022 ppm Event0.054 ppm After0.034 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity77.5 %
6% lower than surrounding days
Temperature78.6 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Monitor comparison window 2004-08-01 to 2004-08-07
4 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse36.6 µg/m³
373% above nearby days
Carbon monoxide0.617 ppm
58% higher than surrounding days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.536.6 µg/m³
373% higher than surrounding days
Before5.20 µg/m³ Event36.6 µg/m³ After11.1 µg/m³
Carbon monoxide0.617 ppm
58% higher than surrounding days
Before0.361 ppm Event0.617 ppm After0.391 ppm
Sulfur dioxide4.43 ppb
About the same as surrounding days
Before1.70 ppb Event4.43 ppb After5.29 ppb
Ozone0.036 ppm
49% higher than surrounding days
Before0.019 ppm Event0.036 ppm After0.028 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.
3 retained sources
Official record
Area Forecast Discussion: high pressure, limited mixing, and widespread haze
National Weather Service Raleigh via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
The same-day Raleigh forecast discussion says high pressure stifled central North Carolina with heat and haze, limited atmospheric mixing, and produced widespread haze with three-to-six-mile visibility.
What it supports
A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
The discussion identifies the accumulation mechanism but not the emitting sources or source-specific PM2.5 mass.
Official record
Area Forecast Discussion: high pressure, limited mixing, and widespread haze
National Weather Service Raleigh via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
The same-day Raleigh forecast discussion says high pressure stifled central North Carolina with heat and haze, limited atmospheric mixing, and produced widespread haze with three-to-six-mile visibility.
What it supports
A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
The discussion identifies the accumulation mechanism but not the emitting sources or source-specific PM2.5 mass.
Official record
Area Forecast Discussion: high pressure, limited mixing, and widespread haze
National Weather Service Raleigh via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
The same-day Raleigh forecast discussion says high pressure stifled central North Carolina with heat and haze, limited atmospheric mixing, and produced widespread haze with three-to-six-mile visibility, including a Raleigh-Durham pilot report.
What it supports
A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
The discussion identifies the accumulation mechanism but not the emitting sources or source-specific PM2.5 mass.
What remains uncertain
The discussion identifies the accumulation mechanism but not the emitting sources or source-specific PM2.5 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.