← Air events

Stagnant pollution mixture Possible

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.

Possible This is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.

See every retained source and limitation ↓

Sequence: Winston (Aug 4) → Greensboro (Aug 4) → Durham (Aug 4)

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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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 2004-08-01 to 2004-08-07 · PM2.5 target: DAVIDSON CO

6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse 42.6 µg/m³

277% above nearby days

Air movement 3.10 kt

29% lower than surrounding days

PM10 53.5 µg/m³

197% higher than surrounding days

Pollution fingerprint

Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.5 42.6 µg/m³

277% higher than surrounding days

Before10.5 µg/m³ Event42.6 µg/m³ After11.3 µg/m³
5 monitors · 24 HOUR
PM10 53.5 µg/m³

197% higher than surrounding days

Before16 µg/m³ Event53.5 µg/m³ After18 µg/m³
2 monitors · 24-HR BLK AVG
Carbon monoxide 0.637 ppm

22% higher than surrounding days

Before0.458 ppm Event0.637 ppm After0.521 ppm
3 monitors · 1 HOUR
Nitrogen dioxide 14.5 ppb

57% higher than surrounding days

Before5.17 ppb Event14.5 ppb After10.3 ppb
1 monitor · 1 HOUR
Sulfur dioxide 5.70 ppb

754% higher than surrounding days

Before0.667 ppb Event5.70 ppb After0.583 ppb
1 monitor · 1 HOUR
Ozone 0.049 ppm

66% higher than surrounding days

Before0.023 ppm Event0.049 ppm After0.034 ppm
5 monitors · 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR

Atmospheric conditions

Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity 68.4 °F

10% higher than surrounding days

Temperature 79.3 °F

About the same as surrounding days

Wind 3.10 kt

29% 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 43.6 µg/m³ 2.0 Aug 4, 2004 #19 of its top days
Greensboro-High Point, NC 39.4 µg/m³ 1.8 Aug 4, 2004 #23 of its top days
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 36.7 µg/m³ 1.7 Aug 4, 2004 #21 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.

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

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.