Air Quality of Stockton Universitys Campus

Zoey Dodson
ENVL 4300
Stockton University
Spring 2016

Abstract
The EPA sets specific standards for six criteria pollutants in the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air quality around various locations on Stockton
Universitys campus was tested using a TG501 Toxic Gas Probe and IQ610 IAQ Probe
on a Wolfpack Area Monitor and Advanced Sense Environmental Test Meter. Readings
were taken for the four of the six criteria pollutants along with other parameters. The
objective of this paper is to discuss and compare differences in air quality between
locations on campus and with the NAAQS. There were no detectable levels in sulfur
dioxide or ozone, likely due to a lack of emissions or sunlight for ozone. Nitrogen
dioxide levels were either non detectable or relatively low. It was detected in places
where emissions from cars are nearby compared with places further away from such
sources where it was not detected. CO levels in Steves car were the highest. All CO
levels were lower than the NAAQS limits. CO2 varied between locations and was mainly
dependent on the amount of people nearby and the area of the space.
Table of Contents
Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Introduction
Indoor air quality (IAQ) is the quality of the air inside and around buildings and
structures (EPA, 2016). The condition of air is important because polluted air can be
hazardous to health. According to the World Health Organization, there are over 2
million premature deaths caused by the pollution of urban outdoor air and indoor air
around the world every year (World Health Organization, 2005).
The EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to create National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants deemed hazardous to human health and the
environment. Pollutant standards are categorized as primary, secondary, or both.
Pollutants categorized as primary are considered dangerous for public health. Secondary
pollutants are those that do not affect human health. They may have negative effects like
decreased visibility or building, vegetation, and animal damage. The following pollutants
are four of the six criteria pollutants, which were tested for on campus. The average level
of carbon monoxide should not exceed an average of 9 ppm over 8 hours or 35 ppm for
one hour. Carbon monoxide is ranked as a primary pollutant. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
which has primary and secondary standards, should not exceed an average of 100 ppb
over an hour or an average of 53 ppb over a year. Ozone (O3), primary and secondary,
should not have levels higher than 0.070 ppm over 8 hours. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is
considered a primary pollutant if it exceeds an average of 75 ppb over one hour. If it
exceeds 0.5 ppm for a duration of 3 hours, it is considered a secondary pollutant (EPA,
2016).
The air quality around Stockton Universitys campus was tested for the six criteria
pollutants (except for PM and lead) along with other parameters in numerous sites, both

indoors and outdoors. The purpose of this paper is to make comparisons of different
parameter levels between locations and discuss the possible reasons for these differences.
Comparisons will also be made between the pollutant levels around campus and the
NAAQS.
Materials and Methods
Air quality readings were taken in nine different locations. These locations were
Arts and Sciences Building 209, B wing 008, campus center, campus center bus stop, C
wing atrium, I wing gym, Lake Fred, parking lot, and Steves car. The Advanced Sense
Environmental Test Meter and the Wolfpack Area Monitor, which are both from
GrayWolf Sensing Solutions, were used for data collection. Both monitors were equipped
with the TG501 Toxic Gas Probe and IQ610 IAQ Probe. Readings were taken for sulfur
dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, ozone, temperatue, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and relative humidity. At each location, data was
collected for three minutes resulting in sixteen to nineteen readings for each parameter.
The following results and discussion will not include any data attained by the
Wolfpack Area Monitor, because it was not calibrated. Its readings are unreliable. Box
and whisker plots were created for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide using the data
collected by the Advanced Sense Environmental Test Meter. For nitrogen dioxide, the
means were calculated for two different locations and an unpaired t-test was used.
Results
In all locations and for all readings, SO2 was 0 ppm. Ozone also only had readings
of 0 ppm. Nitrogen dioxide was either not detectable or relatively low in all of the
locations. In the locations where there was NO2, the levels were either 10 ppb or 20 ppb.

The means of the parking lot and Lake Fred were taken. The parking lot had a mean of
16.84 ppb and Lake Freds mean was 0 ppb. An unpaired t-test resulted in a P value of
less than 0.0001, meaning that the difference between the means is statistically
significant.

Carbon Monoxide

Parking Lot
Steve's Car

10

12

14

16

mg/mg3

Figure 1. Box and whisker plot for carbon monoxide levels tested inside of Steves car
and in the parking lot right outside of his car.
The carbon monoxide levels inside of Steves running car was the location with
the highest CO levels out of all of the locations. Even the minimum concentration
recorded in his car, which was 6.4 mg/mg3, was higher than any of the other
concentrations recorded in any of the other locations. The parking lot right outside of his
car had significantly lower levels.

Figure 2. Box and whisker plot for carbon dioxide levels recorded at Lake Fred, C wing
atrium, B008, and I wing gym.
Carbon dioxide levels varied between the different locations, as can be seen in
figure 1. It should be noted that there were at least 26 people near the monitors at each of
the locations. The carbon dioxide emitted from the students in the class affect these
results.
Discussion
Sulfur dioxide was not detected in any of the tested locations. Fossil fuel
combustion from power plants and industrial buildings is one of the main sources of
sulfur dioxide. Point sources include electric power plants and refineries. Non-point
sources include small stationary sources like dry cleaners, gas stations, and wood burning
along with wildfires and agricultural tilling (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2012).
The level of 0 ppm SO2 is likely due to the campus being located in the Pinelands and
being distant from industrial facilities. There would likely be detectable levels of SO2 if
there were controlled (or uncontrolled) burning of the woods occurring.

6
Ozone was not detected in any of the locations. Ground level ozone is developed

when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) chemically react
with sunlight. Some of the main sources of NOxs and VOCs are emissions from industrial
buildings, electric utilities, gas vapors, car exhaust, and chemical solvents (EPA, 2016). It
is logical that the air quality of the locations tested inside had no detectable levels of
ozone, since there is virtually no sunlight and little NOx and VOC emissions. Because the
day that the air quality was monitored was a sunny day, it would be expected that the
parking lot would have detectable ozone concentrations. The reason there werent any
detectable concentrations though, was likely because at the time the data was recorded,
there were no running cars in close proximity to the monitors.
Nitrogen dioxide concentrations were not detected in many of the locations, and
where it was, it was either 10 ppb or 20 ppb. The detectable concentrations are relatively
low. They fall well below the NAAQS limits of 100 ppb for an hour and 53 ppb for a
year. Lake Fred resulted in an average of 0 ppb. The parking lot had a mean of 16.84 ppb.
Nitrogen dioxide originates from vehicle and power plant emissions. This would explain
why Lake Fred had no detectable levels of NO2 and the parking lot did.
CO levels were detected in all of the locations. In all of the locations, except for
inside of Steves car, the CO concentrations were well below the NAAQS limits of 9 ppm
for 8 hours and 35 ppm for one hour. Although Steves car has CO levels that are
significantly higher than any of the other locations, the highest level recorded, 15 mg/mg3
(0.015 ppm) is still significantly under the NAAQS limits. It should be noted that
recordings were only taken for three minutes and his car doors were open. If all of the
doors and windows were shut, the concentrations of CO would definitely be higher,

which is potentially hazardous to health. The source of carbon monoxide is emissions

from mobiles (EPA, 2016). The higher levels of CO in Steves car are likely due to a leak
in his exhaust system (CDC, 2015).
Carbon dioxide is not one of the six criteria pollutants of the NAAQS. It is a
primary greenhouse gas that comes mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels (EPA,
2016). Humans also release CO2 while breathing. None of the locations in figure 2 are
outdoors, so it is unlikely that the CO2 levels are coming from combustion of fossil fuels.
The I wing gym likely had the highest levels because of the people exercising in a small
area. Because they were exercising, they released more CO2. B008 is also a small space
that had 26 people sitting it all releasing CO2. The C wing atrium, at the time it was
tested, had many people walking by. This area probably had the most people but because
it was in a larger area, the concentrations were lower. Lake Fred had some of the lowest
levels because it was in a very open space, with only the classmates nearby.
Conclusion
On the day the sulfur dioxide and ozone concentrations were recorded, both had
levels of 0 ppm at all of the sampled locations. Non-detectable levels of sulfur dioxide are
likely attributed to the campus being distant from industrial facilities. As the campus is
situated in the woods, it is also shows that there were no wildfires occurring nearby.
Ozone concentrations were at 0 ppm because the conditions needed to create ground
ozone was lacking in either sunlight or NOx or VOC emissions. Nitrogen dioxide
concentrations were either not detected or relatively low. The detectable levels were
under the NAAQS limits. Lake Fred had a mean of 0 ppb and the parking lot had a mean
of 16.84 ppb, which can be attributed to the emissions from vehicles.

8
CO levels were significantly higher in Steves car than outside in the parking.

This is probably because of a leak in his exhaust system. Still, all levels recorded were
below the NAAQS limits for CO. CO2 data had the highest variability between the
different locations. The levels were largely dependent on the amount of people and the
area of the space the monitors were in.
A long-term study should be conducted on the air quality of both indoor and
outdoor locations on Stockton Universitys campus. This would be essential in
determining trends in the six criteria pollutants, as well as other parameters. Air quality is
vital to human health, and thus should be monitored, especially in locations where many
people visit frequently.
References
CDC. (2015). Carbon monoxide poisoning. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
EPA. (2016). An introduction to indoor air quality. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/introduction-indoor-air-quality
EPA. (2016). Carbon monoxide. Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide/
EPA. (2016). National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html
EPA. (2016). Nitrogen dioxide. Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/
EPA. (2016). Overview of greenhouse gases. Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

EPA. (2016). Ozone pollution. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012). Sulfur dioxide. Retrieved from
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/sulfur-dioxide
World Health Organization. (2005). WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69477/1/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_
eng.pdf