2009-11-09 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA stagnant mixed-pollution episode
November 9, 2009
Daily PM2.5 peaked at 54.2 µg/m³ near New York across
1 covered metro home to 20 million people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 1.9 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 38 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”
An exact-date EPA chemical-speciation sample reconstructed 37.6 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5, close enough to the 54.2 event peak to describe the episode. Secondary inorganic aerosol contributed about 48% and organic plus elemental carbon about 43%, while the metro fingerprint showed simultaneous PM2.5 and combustion-tracer increases. Nearby surface observations recorded haze or mist during ten hours and calm or light wind during nine hours. Together these data support accumulation of a mixed anthropogenic aerosol, but they do not identify a dominant source sector.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
U.S. EPA AirData Chemical Speciation Network corroborates
EPA's exact-date CSN sample at site 36-005-0110 reconstructed 37.6 µg/m³ of PM2.5. Sulfate plus nitrate contributed 48%; organic matter plus elemental carbon contributed 43%.
EPA observations show event-day PM2.5 elevated across 26 FRM monitoring series and 25 hourly series. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide also rose sharply relative to the surrounding comparison windows, with PM10 and sulfur dioxide elevated where available.
NOAA/NWS surface observations via Iowa Environmental Mesonet · Nov 9, 2009hypothesis
New York/LaGuardia, 7.1 km from the target monitor, reported 3 haze hour(s) and 7 mist hour(s). Winds were calm for 8 hours and at or below 3 knots for 9 hours.
Inference, not direct attribution
exact_composition_haze_multimonitor_mixture_possible.v1: This inference is recorded in the catalog methodology.
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's exact-date CSN sample at site 36-005-0110 reconstructed 37.6 µg/m³ of PM2.5. Sulfate plus nitrate contributed 48%; organic matter plus elemental carbon contributed 43%.
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
54.2 µg/m³ near New York
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.5 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
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
Monitor comparison window 2009-11-06 to 2009-11-12 · PM2.5 target: MORRISANIA
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse34.7 µg/m³
410% above nearby days
Air movement172 Degrees Compass
About the same as surrounding days
PM1049 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.534.7 µg/m³
410% higher than surrounding days
Before6.80 µg/m³ Event34.7 µg/m³ After5.30 µg/m³
PM1049 µg/m³
No adjacent-day comparison
Before— Event49 µg/m³ After—
Carbon monoxide1.12 ppm
146% higher than surrounding days
Before0.454 ppm Event1.12 ppm After0.283 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide43.8 ppb
115% higher than surrounding days
Before20.3 ppb Event43.8 ppb After12.3 ppb
Sulfur dioxide5.04 ppb
32% higher than surrounding days
Before3.91 ppb Event5.04 ppb After1.17 ppb
Ozone0.026 ppm
60% higher than surrounding days
Before0.015 ppm Event0.026 ppm After0.024 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity81.6 %
19% higher than surrounding days
Pressure1019 Millibars
About the same as surrounding days
Temperature54 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Wind172 Degrees Compass
About the same as 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.
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
New York/LaGuardia surface conditions on 2009-11-09
NOAA/NWS surface observations via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
New York/LaGuardia, 7.1 km from the target monitor, reported 3 haze hour(s) and 7 mist hour(s). Winds were calm for 8 hours and at or below 3 knots for 9 hours.
What it supports
This source supports a possible mechanism or occurrence; it does not establish the cause by itself.
Limit
The airport and regulatory pollution monitors are nearby but not co-located.
Official record
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA multi-monitor pollution fingerprint on 2009-11-09
U.S. EPA AirData
EPA observations show event-day PM2.5 elevated across 26 FRM monitoring series and 25 hourly series. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide also rose sharply relative to the surrounding comparison windows, with PM10 and sulfur dioxide elevated where available.
What it supports
This source supports a possible mechanism or occurrence; it does not establish the cause by itself.
Limit
The pollutant products were not necessarily measured at the same sites, so the fingerprint describes the metro episode rather than a single collocated source profile.
Official record
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA PM2.5 composition on 2009-11-09
U.S. EPA AirData Chemical Speciation Network
EPA's exact-date CSN sample at site 36-005-0110 reconstructed 37.6 µg/m³ of PM2.5. Sulfate plus nitrate contributed 48%; organic matter plus elemental carbon contributed 43%.
What it supports
A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
Limit
Chemical composition describes the sampled aerosol mixture but does not identify a named source, facility, or origin region.
What remains uncertain
Chemical composition describes the sampled aerosol mixture but does not identify a named source, facility, or origin region.
Haze, mist, and light wind support accumulation but do not identify the emissions source by themselves.
The CSN sample and the event's highest PM2.5 monitor may not be co-located.
The airport and regulatory pollution monitors are nearby but not co-located.
The component shares do not apportion the mixture among local emissions, regional transport, or a named episode.
The fingerprint supports mixed accumulation but cannot distinguish source sectors or prove a temperature inversion.
The pollutant products were not necessarily measured at the same sites, so the fingerprint describes the metro episode rather than a single collocated source profile.
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.