Daily PM2.5 peaked at 57.9 µg/m³ near Cleveland across
1 covered metro home to 2.2 million people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 2.1 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 4.5 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 “Temperature inversion”
The same-day NWS discussion described the lower atmosphere over northern Ohio as a cold dome capped by a strong inversion. The retained scope and limitations support possible confidence for this local episode.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
National Weather Service Cleveland via Iowa Environmental Mesonet · Mar 1, 2003hypothesis
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 catalog has a grouping hypothesis, but no retained source directly establishes the proposed cause.
Open question
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
Local response
57.9 µg/m³ near Cleveland
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.6 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 “Temperature inversion” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
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.
1 retained source
Official record
Area Forecast Discussion: cold dome capped by a strong inversion
National Weather Service Cleveland via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
The same-day NWS discussion described the lower atmosphere over northern Ohio as a cold dome capped by a strong inversion.
What it supports
This source supports a possible mechanism or occurrence; it does not establish the cause by itself.
Limit
The discussion documents a trapping layer but does not directly connect it to the measured PM2.5 or identify the emissions source.
What remains uncertain
The discussion documents a trapping layer but does not directly connect it to the measured PM2.5 or identify the emissions source.
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.