Daily PM2.5 peaked at 46.8 µg/m³ near Houston across
1 covered metro home to 7.8 million people.
1 metro placed a top-ten day in their record.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 1.6 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 12 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 “Wildfire smoke”
A peer-reviewed Houston-area study documents extensive eastern Texas wildfires during August-September 2000 and measured their air-pollution impacts during the supplied date. It does not quantify this individual daily value, so confidence remains possible.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
The study documents 96,100 acres burned in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont-Port Arthur domain during August-September 2000 and evaluates measured wildfire-plume pollution.
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 study documents 96,100 acres burned in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont-Port Arthur domain during August-September 2000 and evaluates measured wildfire-plume pollution.
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
46.8 µg/m³ near Houston
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 2.1 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 “Wildfire smoke” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Observed context · not attribution
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX
Monitor comparison window 2000-09-03 to 2000-09-09 · PM2.5 target: SE OF CALDER DRIVE & FM 518 INTERSECTION
6 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse42.7 µg/m³
189% above nearby days
Air movement4.84 kt
About the same as surrounding days
PM1067 µg/m³
123% higher than surrounding days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.542.7 µg/m³
189% higher than surrounding days
Before17.1 µg/m³ Event42.7 µg/m³ After11.9 µg/m³
PM1067 µg/m³
123% higher than surrounding days
Before30 µg/m³ Event67 µg/m³ After15 µg/m³
Carbon monoxide0.495 ppm
26% higher than surrounding days
Before0.425 ppm Event0.495 ppm After0.388 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide12.1 ppb
9% higher than surrounding days
Before12.7 ppb Event12.1 ppb After9.46 ppb
Sulfur dioxide2.95 ppb
12% higher than surrounding days
Before2.60 ppb Event2.95 ppb After2.65 ppb
Ozone0.051 ppm
26% higher than surrounding days
Before0.049 ppm Event0.051 ppm After0.031 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity59.7 %
About the same as surrounding days
Pressure1012 Millibars
About the same as surrounding days
Temperature83.6 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Wind4.84 kt
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.
1 retained source
Scientific research
Wildfires in eastern Texas in August and September 2000
Atmospheric Environment
The study documents 96,100 acres burned in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont-Port Arthur domain during August-September 2000 and evaluates measured wildfire-plume pollution.
What it supports
A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.
What remains uncertain
The retained evidence is scoped to the places and dates stated; it is not a catalog promotion.
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.