2012 Edition
Air Quality in Latin America:
An Overview
Produced by the Clean Air Institute
Air Quality In Latin America:
An Overview
PRODUCED BY: Clean Air Institute
USA, Washington D.C. -Updated version May 2013.
Authors
Joanne Green
Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist, Clean Air Institute
Sergio Sánchez
Executive Director, Clean Air Institute
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Sofía Villarreal for all her efforts assisting with data collection and her support to the author for preparing the figures and tables in the
report.
We would like to thank all of the individuals from the cities who provided data on
request and those who reanalyzed their data to provide the statistics we needed. Special thanks also go to the reviewers: Freddy Koch (Swiss Contact), Leyla
Zelaya Alegría (Proyecto MesoAmérica), Roberto Martínez (Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente, Chile), Guadalupe Tzintzun Cervantes (Instituto Nacional De Ecología y
Cambio Climático, Mexico), Gerardo Sanchez (World Health Organization), Luis Cifuentes (Universidad Católica de Chile) and Hilda Martinez (CTS EMBARQ México),
as well as many other individuals and organizations from Latin America and elsewhere who provided information, comments and ideas for improvement.
The Clean Air Institute thanks the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the World
Bank, and the SFLAC Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean and for its generous financial support for carrying out this work and for related activities with its
design and development.
This report is part of a series of documents being produced under the Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program efforts. The Clean Air Institute thanks the
authors and staff, as well as all institutions and organizations that have made it
possible.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are based on information collected by the Clean Air Institute (CAI) and its consultants, partners and other participants from the sources indicated. All opinions, omission and remaining errors are the CAI’s
alone.
More information:
[email protected]
The Clean Air Institute
1100 H Street N.W. Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20005, USA.
The Clean Air Institute
The Clean Air Institute (CAI) is a non- profit organization with
the vision of bridging knowledge, capacity and resource gaps to
effectively address air pollution and climate change challenges.
CAI assists nations and cities to provide healthy, enjoyable and
productive environments for their residents through cleaner air,
reduced greenhouse emissions and improved quality of life.
CAI works with leading organizations across the public, private
and social sectors to build consensus, and design, adopt and
implement air quality and climate change strategies, policies,
programs and projects to increase access to sustainable and
clean transportation, energy and urban development choices.
CAI is based in Washington DC with major activities focused in
the Latin American region. CAI is also playing a leading role in
key initiatives to catalyze decisions, solutions and investments
at a global level.
CAI implements its vision by providing policy, program and project development assistance coupled with access to state-ofthe-art knowledge and expertise; delivering capacity development and knowledge exchange opportunities; opening doors
for financing and other resource opportunities; facilitating
policy dialogue and knowledge exchange; fostering alliances
and partnerships among public, private and social entities; and
catalyzing decision making, consensus building and investment
processes. CAI articulates and is in process to expand the Clean
Air Initiative for Latin America, a unique region-wide multistakeholder network on air pollution and climate change. CAILAC was originally launched by the World Bank and a group of
the largest Latin American cities in 1998, and transferred to the
CAI in 2006.
More Information:
http://cleanairinstitute.org/index.php
http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/ial/
Vision
Assist cities and nations to provide healthy,
productive environments for their residents
through cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, and high quality, low impact transportation and energy choices.
Mission
Facilitate and enable efforts to effectively address climate change, air pollution and urban
sustainability challenges.
Contents
1Introduction
1
3
1.1 Key air pollutant information
2Objetives
4
3Methodology
5
3.1
Air Quality Data Collection
5
3.2
National Air Quality Standars
4
Standards and Limit Values
11
5
Air Quality Concentrations in Latin America and the Caribbean
13
5.1Particles
14
5.2Ozone
16
5.3
Nitrogen dioxide
18
5.4
Sulfur dioxide
19
6
Discussion and Recommendations
20
6.1
Air Quality Standards
20
6.2
Air Quality monitoring data
21
6.3
Data analysis
21
6.4
Recommendations based on this analysis
22
6.5
Broader recommendations for the region
22
6.6
Final conclusions
23
10
7References
24
Annex 1 – Graphical summary of National Air Quality Standards in Latin America 25
1. Introduction
25000
2004
A
2008
20000
15000
10000
Uruguay
Peru
Mexico
Ecuador
Colombia
Chile
Brazil
0
Bolivia*
5000
Argentina
Both WHO and the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) have highlighted outdoor air pollution as one of their
key strategic focus areas to tackle root causes of death and disease globally. The WHO states in a 2011 press release that “For
2008, the estimated mortality attributable to outdoor air pollution in cities amounts to 1.34 million premature deaths.” Similarly, a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) (OECD, 2012) which looks forward to
the year 2050 to estimate the impact on the environment if the
world does not adopt more ambitious green policies states:
Figure 1. Number of deaths attributable to air pollution (A)1;
Number of years of life lost as a result of premature death from
air pollution (B)1; and Number of deaths as a function of urban
population (C)3 .
Number of deaths per country
In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), at least 100 million
people are exposed to air pollution above World Health Organization (WHO) recommended levels (Cifuentes et al, 2005). The
groups most vulnerable to the harmful health effects of poor air
quality include children, the elderly, those with existing health
conditions and people from lower socioeconomic classes.
200000
B
160000
120000
80000
Uruguay
Peru
Mexico
Ecuador
Colombia
Chile
Brazil
0
Bolivia
40000
Argentina
Within its Global Health Observatory data repository, WHO provides access to datasets on priority health topics including mortality and burden of diseases . Figure 1 displays data from this
Observatory. Graph A shows the nine Latin American countries
with the highest numbers of deaths and, as shown in Graph C,
the countries with the highest death rates in 2008 mirror those
with the highest urban populations. The number of deaths in
the majority of countries has also seen an increase from 2004
to 2008. Graph B shows the number of years of life lost due to
premature death from air pollution in those countries. The total
for the nine countries displayed is over 434 million disability life
years lost due to premature death from air pollution in 2004.
C
180000
Urban Population 2010 ('000s)
“air pollution is set to become the world’s top environmental cause of premature mortality, overtaking dirty
water and lack of sanitation” with “the number of premature deaths from exposure to particulate matter
(PM)…projected to more than double worldwide, from
just over 1 million today to nearly 3.6 million per year
in 2050”.
Disability -Adusted Life Years
2004 ('000)
* no data for Bolivia in 2008
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Number of deaths (2008)
1
2
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/air_pollution_20110926/en/
Global Health Observatory, http://apps.who.int/ghodata
1
Poor air quality impacts negatively on social and economic development, affecting a country’s economic competitiveness.
Poor health resulting from air pollution costs billions of dollars
annually in medical costs and lost productivity. In assessing air
pollution impacts in LAC countries such as Bolivia, Guatemala,
Ecuador, Peru and El Salvador, the World Bank estimates that
the portion of the economy affected by such emissions represents up to 2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Cifuentes et al, 2005). According to this analysis, between $2.2
billion or $6.2 billion per annum in social cost of illness savings
might be realized, with the implementation of pollution control
scenarios.
A lack of action to improve air quality also inhibits progress towards the UN Millennium Development Goals that include as
Target 7.A “Integrate the principles of sustainable development
into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources”4. This Target incorporates Resolution
66/288 adopted on September 11, 2012 by the United Nations
General Assembly entitled “The Future We Want” (UN, 2012)5 .
This resolution commits to promote sustainable development
policies that support “a safe and healthy living environment for
all” which includes “healthy air quality” amongst other actions.
During the last two decades, important efforts have been made
to curb air pollution in several Latin American urban areas. Actions implemented in Mexico City, Bogotá, Sao Paulo, and Santiago, to name some of the most active and successful examples,
have been extensively documented. However, air pollution remains an issue in Latin America’s established but growing urban
centers and is becoming an issue in the Regions emerging cities. Air pollution in urban environments is primarily a result of
the burning of fossil fuels and the key sources are the transport
sector, electricity generation, the industrial and manufacturing
sector and domestic fuel use for heating/cooling and cooking.
Activities which are contributing to an increase in emissions
include uncontrolled land-use and transport planning, use of
poor fuel quality, energy-intensive productive activities, and
limited air quality management capacity. Exposure to air pollutants is generally higher around high trafficked and congested
roads, as well as industrial areas and regions reached by secondary pollutants formed downwind such as tropospheric ozone.
As stated by the American Lung Association “ozone and particle
pollution are the most widespread air pollutants—and among
the most dangerous”6. A document published by the US National Research Council in 2008 concluded from a review of
health-based evidence that “short-term exposure to ambient
ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths” (NRC, 2008)
and the American Lung Association present scientific findings
which report that elevated levels of ground-level ozone can
cause “more immediate problems, in addition to increased
risk of premature death, including: shortness of breath; chest
pain when inhaling; wheezing and coughing; asthma attacks;
increased susceptibility to respiratory infections; increased sus-
2
ceptibility to pulmonary inflammation; and increased need for
people with lung diseases, like asthma or chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD), to receive medical treatment and
to go to the hospital.” 7 A joint UNEP and WHO report states
that “elevated levels of fine particulates in ambient air – typically
emitted by vehicles, industry and energy generation – are associated with increases in daily and long-term premature mortality due to cardiopulmonary diseases, acute respiratory infections and cancers” (WHO, 2008). These two pollutants have also
emerged over the last few years as major contributors to global
climate change within a suite of short-lived climate pollutants.
As mentioned, the Region has made many in-roads into addressing these issues. For example, the implementation of
integrated air quality management plans in several cities over
the last two decades and sectoral interventions like sustainable urban transport policies and strategies such as Bogotá’s
TransMilenio bus rapid transit system, Mexico City’s Metrobús
and Santiago’s Transantiago integrated public transport system,
among others.
However, current and projected increases in levels of air pollution and emissions rates of greenhouse gases in Latin American and Caribbean cities confirm that there is a critical need for
more integrated, forward-looking, comprehensive measures to
improve air quality, protect public health and welfare, and minimize risks associated with climate change at the local, national,
Latin American, and global levels. For this reason monitoring,
revising, analyzing and communicating air quality is essential
to improve the air quality in Latin America, by enhancing risk
perception, motivating action and measuring results.
Population data from UN World Urbanization Prospects, 2011 Revision. http://esa.un.org/
unpd/wup/CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm
4
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml
5
Approved by world leaders at Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 123rd Plenary Meeting, July 27th, 2012.
6
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/health-risks/
7
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/health-risks/health-risks-ozone.html
3
1.1
Key air pollutant information
This study considered the following pollutants:
•
•
•
•
Particulate Matter (both PM10 and PM2.5)8 Ozone (O3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) is a mix of very tiny solid
and liquid particles that are in the air we breathe. Of particulate matter the “fine” or smaller particles (those with an aerodynamic diameter lesser than 2.5 micrometers or PM2.5) are particularly harmful as they are able to penetrate deepest into the
lungs where the particles can cause inflammation and worsen
of heart and lung diseases, which can lead to premature death.
Particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of
hundreds of different chemicals, some of which can have carcinogenic properties. Some particles, known as primary particles,
are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites,
unpaved roads, smokestacks, cigarette smoke or fires. Others,
termed secondary particles, form in complicated reactions in
the atmosphere from other chemicals that are emitted from
power plants, industries and automobiles. In addition to their
health impacts, PM10 and PM2.5 contain a large proportion of
Black Carbon (BC) which has emerged over the last few years
as a major contributor to global climate change. Black carbon
is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate
matter, and, as with the other pollutants affecting health, BC is
formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels,
and biomass9. When suspended in air, BC absorbs sunlight and
generates heat in the atmosphere. Because BC is a short-lived
pollutant, i.e. it remains in the atmosphere for only one to four
weeks, its climate effects are strongly regional. Due to the similar emissions sources a reduction in emissions of particles, particularly PM2.5, also has an additional benefit of reducing black
carbon and thus contributing to reducing the impacts of shortlived climate pollutants.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a gas which at higher concentrations
can irritate the airways of the lungs, increasing the symptoms of
those suffering from lung diseases. It also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, and fine particle pollution. It is
formed as a result of combustion of fossil fuels at high temperatures. Major emission sources include automobiles, and other
mobile sources, and power plant boilers. Other sources may
include industrial boilers, incinerators, diesel engines in stationary sources, iron and steel mills, cement manufacture, glass
manufacture, petroleum refineries, and nitric acid manufacture.
Biogenic or natural sources of nitrogen oxides include lightning,
forest fires, grass fires, trees, bushes, grasses, and yeasts.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2), like NO2, is a gas which can exacerbate
the symptoms of those suffering from respiratory or heart disease. It is primarily formed from fossil fuel combustion at power
plants and other industrial facilities, as well as from mobiles
sources to a lesser extent, and hence is an issue in some urban
and industrial areas.
In order to try to control concentrations of these pollutants
at levels where there is minimal impact on health, the World
Health Organization produces air quality guidelines designed
to offer guidance on reducing the health impacts of air pollution. These air quality guidelines are based on expert evaluation of current scientific evidence related to the health impacts
of the individual pollutants. They were first developed in 1987
(WHO, 1987) and were updated in 1997 (WHO, 2000). A further
update for particulate matter, ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide and
sulfur dioxide was also undertaken in 2005 (WHO, 2006).
8
PM10: particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less. PM2.5: particles with a diameter
of 2.5 micrometers or less.
9
http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/effects.html
Ozone (O3) is a gas which can adversely affect the respiratory
system even at relatively low levels. Ozone is the most complex
of the criteria pollutants, and therefore the hardest to reduce, as
it is not emitted directly from any source. Instead it is formed in
the atmosphere by photochemical reactions in the presence of
sunlight and precursor pollutants, such as the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It is also destroyed by reactions with NO2. Measures to control tropospheric
ozone levels focus the emissions of its precursor gases, which
are also likely to control the levels and impacts of a number of
these other precursor pollutants. As with black carbon tropospheric (ground level) ozone is a contributor to global climate
change. Ozone makes a significant contribution to the radiative
balance of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, such
that changes in the distribution of O3 in these atmospheric regions affect the radiative forcing of climate.
3
The WHO air quality guidelines (AQGs) are intended for worldwide use and have been developed as guidance to establish
national and/or local air quality standards, supporting actions
to achieve air quality that protects public health in different
contexts. The guidelines are updated periodically following
reviews of the latest scientific knowledge and research on the
health impacts of the pollutants. Air quality standards, on the
other hand, are set by each country to protect the public health
of their citizens and are usually embedded into law and as such
are an important component of national risk management
and environmental policies. Primary standards provide public
health protection, including protecting the health of “sensitive”
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including
protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals,
crops, vegetation, and buildings. National standards will vary by
country as they will need to balance health risks, technological
feasibility, economic considerations and various other political
and social factors, which in turn will depend on, among other
things, the level of development and national capability to implement air quality management. These standards are usually
also subject to periodic review to take into account the latest
scientific information and recommendations from WHO.
2. Objetives
The Clean Air Institute, working with the Iniciativa de Aire Limpio para América Latina (Clean Air Initiative for Latin America),
recognizes the deficiency of consistent, available data on current air quality concentrations in some cities and countries in
the region. Similarly, there are widely heterogeneous Air Quality Standards, which set target limits of pollutant concentrations designed to protect human health and the environment
from the harmful effects of pollution. Procedures to set, update,
measure, process and report compliance with those air quality
standards also differ widely.
This report represents the first attempt to collect, analyze and
present data from air quality monitoring being undertaken in
the region to provide an overview of the current status of air
pollution in Latin America cities and recent trends in concentration. The study also brings together the latest information on Air
Quality Standards across the region.
10
4
http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/ial/?id_sitio=1&p_idioma=ESP&idp=43
The objectives are:
1. Present the Status and Trends of Air Quality – pro
viding a snapshot of air quality levels in 2011 and trends in air quality since 1997.
2. Present and compare the Status of Air Quality Standards across the region.
This is a challenging objective due to the variability in air pollution monitoring practices across the region and the difficulty
in accessing the necessary information. Not all cities monitor
air pollution effectively or at all, and those cities that do use different measuring methods and rarely document whether there
are any quality assurance or quality control practices in place,
which hinders a robust scientific comparison. However, the
data that are available will provide the best guidance as to the
current status of air pollution concentration in the region.
3. Methodology
To provide a representative indication of concentrations of the
studied pollutants in the region, annual average statistics were
collected. Due to the difficulty in obtaining data from a large
number of locations this was deemed the most straight forward
metric to request and the one most likely to be available from
the cities. For ozone, more complex data analysis is required
to compare concentrations to the WHO AQG due to the need
to calculate 8-hour averages (see Section 4). As the countries
have different methods of analyzing and presenting their data
against their own ozone standards, sourcing data to do a comparison against this WHO metric across the region was complex.
The study presents ozone data from three cities where hourly
data was provided to allow the calculations to be undertaken.
3.1
Air Quality Data Collection
Due to the large number of cities in the region and a shortage
of readily available information, a shortlist of cities and metropolitan areas in the region was selected for investigation based
on the population of urban area and location. Cities with more
than 1 million inhabitants in the urban area were initially selected for the study (60 cities) and from this a short list of 42 cities
was decided based on a spread of the largest cities across the
region.
The information requested from the air quality agencies of each
city was:
a) Description of the monitoring network, including number, location and description of the station, the pollutants measured,
methods and meteorological parameters registered.
b) Annual averages of SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for each monitoring station for 2011 and all previous years.
c) Percentage of valid data measured each year in each monitoring station.
Various techniques were used to gather information from the
cities including internet searches, email and telephone contact.
An exhaustive process of data collection resulted in information
received from 21 cities, which included three cities not included
in the original shortlist (Cochabamba, Bolivia; León, México; and
Curitiba, Brazil). The sample of 22 urban centers is not necessarily representative of the entire region; however it accounts
for 24.3% of the total regional population and includes six cities
from within the top 10 most populous LAC cities. Table 1 shows
the cities from which data was obtained, please note that not all
pollutants were collected for all years.
5
Table 1. Countries and cities from where data was successfully obtained
Country
City
PM 2.5
PM 10
SO 2
NO 2
O3
X
X
Ecuador
Quito
X
X
X
Puerto Rico
San Juan
X
X
X
Uruguay
Montevideo
X
X
X
Belo Horizonte
Brazil
X
Curitiba
Colombia
Bolivia
X
X
X
Sao Paulo
X
X
X
X
X
Monterrey*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Puebla
X
X
X
X
Juarez
X
Leon
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalajara *
Mexico
Mexico City *
X
X
Bogota
X
X
X
X
Medellin
X
X
X
X
Cochabamba
X
X
X
X
La Paz
X
X
X
Santa Cruz
X
X
Peru
Lima-Callao
X
X
X
X
Chile
Santiago
X
X
X
X
El Salvador
San Salvador
X
X
Dominican Republic
Santo Domingo
X
Panama
Panama City
X
* Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.
6
X
X
The Clean Air Institute (CAI) endeavored to include all of the
information obtained from each city. However, the monitoring technique was not always clear and there were few quality
control procedures available. CAI recorded all the information
available regarding monitoring networks. Each city used different instruments, some of them manual, automatic or both. All
the data obtained was used except from the monitoring stations that recorded less than 75% of the yearly data to avoid an
incorrect representation of the data throughout the given year.
An exception to this was data from Santiago, Chile and from
Panama City where official annual average data were provided
but the data underlying the calculations were not obtained. It
is also important to recognize and thank the efforts of cities
that recorded information, even if they did not reach the 75%
threshold. For this reason, Tables 2 to 5 show, for each pollutant,
the number of monitoring stations present in each city, for each
monitoring year and indicate the ones that provided more than
75% data capture. Please also note that datasets from a small
number of other cities in the original shortlist were also known
to be available due to monitoring reports from the cities being
identified but the actual data values were not successfully obtained. Similar evidence of monitoring was also found in some
cities but no data was identified.
The colors in the Tables 2 to 5 describe the monitoring method
or methods from the stations of each city as described below.
An [N] indicates that the number of monitoring stations exceeding 75% data capture is unknown.
manual
manual and automatic
automatic
no monitoring
Methods were classified as automatic where monitoring is continuous and no intervention is required to receive data, i.e. the
data is polled remotely, usually on an hourly basis, 365 days per
year. This included R&P TEOM for particulates; chemiluminescent NOx analyzers; pulsed and UV fluorescence SO2 analyzers; UV absorption O3 analyzer etc. Methods were classified as
manual when intervention is required to derive the data, such
as filter weighing or chemical analysis. This included Partisol
Plus 2025 analyzers and high volume samplers for particles.
The number outside the brackets represents the total number
of active stations during a specific year and the number inside
the brackets represents the number of stations that were used
for our analysis, in other words the stations that had 75% or
more of the yearly data recorded.
7
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2011
1999
2010
1998
2009
City
1997
2008
monitoring stations
2007
PM
2006
Table 2.
Table 2.PM2.5 monitoring stations2.5
Quito
San Juan
Montevideo
Belo Horizonte
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
Monterrey*
Guadalajara*
Mexico City*
Puebla
Juarez
Leon
Bogota
Medellin
Cochabamba
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Lima-Callao
Santiago
San Salvador
-
1[1]
-
3 [2]
3 [3]
3 [3]
3 [3]
3 [3]
3 [2]
5 [4]
3 [3]
5 [5]
3 [3]
3 [3]
5 [0]
8 [8]
1[0]
-
5 [5]
3 [3]
1 [0]
3 [3]
5 [1]
9 [9]
1[1]
-
5 [5]
2 [2]
1 [0]
3 [3]
5 [3]
9 [9]
1[0]
1 [1]
5 [5]
2 [2]
1 [1]
3 [3]
7 [1]
9 [6]
1[0]
3 [2]
5 [5]
1 [1]
1 [1]
3 [3]
7 [3]
9 [8]
1 [1]
4 [3]
5 [5]
3 [2]
1 [1]
4 [4]
7 [5]
11 [8]
1 [1]
7 [4]
1 [0]
1 [0]
1 [0]
1[1]
-
1[N]
-
-
-
3 [2]
5 [0]
8 [0]
-
2 [2]
5 [2]
8 [8]
-
2 [1]
5 [0]
8 [8]
-
-
-
-
4[N]
-
5 [5]
4[N]
-
3 [3]
4[N]
-
5 [5]
4[N]
-
5 [5]
4[N]
-
5 [5]
4[N]
-
-5 [5]
4[N]
-
5 [4]
4[N]
-
5 [5]
4[N]
-
5 [5]
11[N]
-
4[4]
11[N]
2 [2]
4[4]
11[N]
2 [2]
Dominican R.
Panama City
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monitoring
stations
fromtheacross
the whole area
metropolitan
of these
cities
are included in the analysis.
**Monitoring
stations
from across
whole metropolitan
of these citiesarea
are included
in the
analysis.
City
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
monitoring stations
1997
Table
3.10 monitoring stations
PM10
Table
3.PM
Quito
San Juan
Montevideo
Belo Horizonte
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
Monterrey*
Guadalajara*
Mexico City*
Puebla
Juarez
Leon
Bogota
Medellin
Cochabamba
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Lima -Callao
Santiago
San Salvador
7 [6]
-
7 [5]
-
7 [3]
-
8 [5]
-
7 [7]
-
7 [6]
-
7 [7]
-
7 [7]
-
4 [2]
7 [5]
-
3 [2]
6 [5]
-
4 [1]
6 [6]
3 [1]
4 [4]
6 [3]
3 [1]
4 [4]
3 [1]
3 [1]
7 [7]
3 [3]
4 [2]
7 [6]
3 [2]
6 [2]
5 [5]
7 [5]
5 [4]
8 [5]
5 [3]
8 [7]
4 [4]
6 [5]
5 [2]
6 [5]
5 [5]
8 [6]
5 [5]
8 [7]
5 [5]
8 [5]
5 [5]
8 [6]
5 [5]
9 [6]
5 [5]
9 [8]
5 [5]
3 [2]
9 [9]
7 [5]
3 [1]
9 [8]
7 [7]
9 [9]
7 [7]
8 [5]
8 [8]
8 [8]
8 [8] 8 [8]
8 [8]
10 [7] 10 [10] 10 [10] 16 [9] 15 [13] 15 [12]
4 [4]
4 [3]
4 [0]
5 [2]
5 [2]
5 [2]
9[0]
-
8[8]
-
8[8]
-
8[N]
-
11[N]
-
7 [N]
7 [N]
7 [N]
5 [5]
7 [N]
5 [5]
7 [N]
-
-
-
-
-
8 [7]
8 [7]
15 [12] 14 [13]
4 [4]
4 [3]
4 [1]
4 [1]
8 [7]
8 [8] 8 [8]
8 [8]
8 [7]
8 [7] 9 [6]
14 [13] 14 [11] 15 [13] 14 [12] 15 [11] 15 [13] 17 [11]
4 [0]
4 [2]
4 [1]
3 [0] 2 [0]
4 [2]
8 [2] 8 [2]
3 [1]
1 [1]
-
3 [2] 3 [3]
3 [3]
2 [1] 2 [2]
11[11] 12[10] 11[6] 11[5] 12[11] 12[11] 12[7] 14 [11] 14 [11]
5 [5]
3 [3] 10 [10] 7 [7]
1
[0]
1
[0]
2
[0]
2
[0]
2
[0]
3
[1]
1 [1]
3 [0]
4 [0]
4 [0] 4 [0]
4 [0] 5 [1]
5 [1]
4 [0]
4 [0]
4 [0]
4 [0]
4 [0] 5 [1]
5 [1]
5 [3] 4 [4]
5 [5]
5 [5]
-5 [5] 4 [3]
5 [5]
5 [5]
4 [4]
7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N]
7 [N] 7 [N] 8 [N] 11 [N] 11 [N]
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dominican R.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 [2]
Panama City
5 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
2 [N]
3 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
4 [N]
* Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.
* Monitoring stations from across the whole metropolitan area of these cities are included in the analysis.
8
3 [3]
14 [11]
6 [4]
1 [1]
5 [1]
1 [1]
4 [4]
11 [N]
2 [2]
2 [2]
-
2 [2]
-
4 [N]
4 [N]
5 [N]
2009
2010
2011
8 [8]
8 [8]
8 [8]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 [3]
5 [3]
5 [5]
5 [5]
5 [5]
5 [4]
6 [3]
5 [4]
6 [4]
9 [7]
9 [7]
5 [4]
8 [8]
19[15]
3 [2]
5 [2]
8 [8]
19[19]
3 [1]
5 [2]
5 [4]
5 [4]
5 [5] 5 [5]
8 [7]
8 [7]
8 [8]
8 [8] 8 [7]
19[19] 20[19] 20[20] 20[20] 20 [19]
4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [4]
4 [4]
3 [0]
3 [1]
3 [2]
3 [1] 3 [2]
5 [5]
8 [7]
2[19]
4 [4]
3 [2]
5[0]
5[5]
5[5]
7[N]
7[0]
7[7]
7[7]
7[7]
1 [0]
7[7]
2003
8 [8]
-
7 [7]
-
8 [7]
-
7 [6]
-
8[N]
2002
2001
2000
1999
2008
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Lima -Callao
Santiago
San Salvador
2007
Leon
Bogota
Medellin
Cochabamba
2006
Guadalajara*
Mexico City*
Puebla
Juarez
2005
Belo Horizonte
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
Monterrey*
Ozone monitoring stations
2004
Quito
San Juan
Montevideo
1998
City
1997
Table
4. Ozone
Table
4. monitoring stations
6[0]
6[0]
4[2]
5 [5]
5 [5]
8 [7]
8 [8]
21[18] 20[18]
4 [3] 4 [3]
3 [2]
3 [1]
2 [1]
6[1]
6[4]
1 [0]
7[7]
1 [0]
7[7]
1 [1]
7[7]
1 [1]
7[7]
1 [1]
7[7]
1 [1]
1 [1]
9 [8]
9 [8]
9 [9]
7 [7]
8 [7]
22[22]
3 [2]
3 [3]
12[6]
7 [7]
9 [8]
29[14]
3 [2]
3 [2]
12[10]
5 [5]
5 [5] 7 [7]
8 [7]
8 [7] 8 [7]
22[19] 22[22] 22[16]
4 [2] 3 [1]
3 [1]
3 [2]
3 [2] 3 [1]
2 [2] 3 [2 ] 3 [3 ]
4[4]
12[8] 12[11]
1 [0]
1 [0]
7[7]
1 [0]
2 [1 ] 2 [2]
2 [2] 2 [2]
1 [1]
1 [1] 1 [1]
1 [1]
7[7] 11[11] 11[11] 11[11]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dominican R.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panama City
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
**Monitoring
stations
from across
theacross
whole metropolitan
of these cities are
included
in thecities
analysis.
Monitoring
stations
from
the wholearea
metropolitan
area
of these
are included in the analysis.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
City
dioxide monitoring stations
1997
Table
5. dioxide monitoring stations
Sulfur
Table
5.Sulfur
3 [ 3]
3 [2]
3 [1]
4 [3]
4 [4]
4 [4]
4 [4]
6 [3]
5 [4]
6 [5]
5 [5]
4 [4]
5 [5]
4 [4]
5 [5]
4 [4]
6 [6]
4 [3]
6 [6]
4 [2]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 [6]
3 [2]
2 [1]
Quito
San Juan
Montevideo
Belo Horizonte
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
Monterrey*
Guadalajara*
Mexico City*
Puebla
Juarez
Leon
Bogota
Medellin
Cochabamba
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Lima -Callao
Santiago
San Salvador
-
2 [0] 2 [2] 2 [2]
2 [2]
2 [2]
8 [8]
5 [4] 5 [2] 5 [3]
5 [4]
4 [0]
4 [4] 5 [1]
8 [8] 8 [8] 8 [7]
8 [8]
8 [7]
8 [7] 7 [7]
26[22] 26[21] 26[26] 26[25] 25[24] 25[23] 25 [22]
4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [4]
4 [4]
10[0] 10[10] 10[10] 10[N] 10[N] 10[N] 8[2]
7 [N]
7 [N]
7 [N]
5 [5]
7 [N]
1 [0]
5 [5]
7 [N]
1 [0]
3 [3]
7[N]
1 [0]
5 [5]
7 [N]
1 [1]
5 [5]
7 [N]
1 [1]
5 [5]
7 [N]
1 [0]
4 [4]
8 [8]
8 [8] 8 [8]
8 [8]
5 [5] 7 [7]
7 [7]
7 [7]
8 [8] 8 [6]
8 [6]
9 [7]
26[15] 26[18] 26[21] 31[16]
3 [1]
3 [1]
3 [2]
3 [3]
3 [3]
3 [2]
10[10] 10[4] 11[5] 11[6]
4 [4] 4 [3] 4 [4]
3 [0]
1 [1]
1 [1 ] 1 [1]
1 [1] 1 [1]
5 [4] 5 [5]
5 [5] 4 [4]
4 [4]
7 [N]
7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N] 7 [N]
8 [8]
8 [8] 8 [8]
8 [7]
5 [5] 5 [5]
5 [5] 5 [5]
7 [6] 8 [5]
8 [5] 8 [6]
24[19] 25[21] 24[19] 26[19]
4 [4]
4 [2] 4 [2]
4 [3]
2 [1] 2 [2]
9[4]
9[5] 11[6] 10[10]
1 [0]
4 [4]
7 [N]
1 [0]
4 [3]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dominican R.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panama City
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
** Monitoring
stations
fromthe
across
whole metropolitan
of these
cities
are included in the analysis.
Monitoring stations
from across
wholethe
metropolitan
area of these citiesarea
are included
in the
analysis.
9
Dominican R.
-
-
-
-
2 [2]
-
2 [1]
-
1 [0]
-
2 [1]
-
6 [4]
2 [1]
-
6 [6]
1 [0]
-
-
4 [3]
5 [1]
4 [2]
5 [4]
5 [4]
5 [3]
5 [2]
4 [1]
5 [2]
5 [5] 5 [2] 5 [3]
5 [5]
5 [1]
5 [2] 5 [0]
8 [2] 8 [7] 8 [8]
8 [8]
8 [7]
8 [5] 8 [7]
18[15] 318[18] 18[18] 19[18] 19[19] 19[18] 19 [19]
4 [0] 4 [4] 4 [3]
4 [3]
10[0]
10[8] 10[10]
3[N]
3[N]
3[N]
10[N] 10[N]
5[5]
3[N]
2 [0]
5 [5]
3[N]
2011
2 [1]
-
2010
1 [0]
-
2009
2 [0]
-
2008
1 [0]
-
2007
2006
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
2005
San Juan
Montevideo
Belo Horizonte
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
Monterrey*
Guadalajara*
Mexico City*
Puebla
Juarez
Leon
Bogota
Medellin
Cochabamba
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Lima -Callao
Santiago
San Salvador
Dioxide monitoring stations
2004
Quito
1998
City
1997
Table
6.Nitrogen
Dioxide monitoringNitrogen
stations
Table
6.
6 [6]
1 [0]
6 [6]
6 [6]
6 [6]
6 [6]
-
-
6 [5]
6 [5]
1 [0]
2 [2]
1 [0]
2 [2]
6 [6]
7 [7]
12[N]
11[3]
6[1]
8[1]
2 [0]
3 [3]
3[N]
2 [0]
5 [5]
3[N]
8 [0]
7 [0]
11[0]
4 [4]
3[N]
9 [2]
7 [0]
11[0]
5 [5]
3[N]
2 [0]
6[3]
2 [1]
6[2]
3 [1 ]
8[7]
4 [4]
8 [1] 6 [0]
8 [0]
10[1]
121[0] 11[0]
5 [5] 5 [4]
3[N] 3[N]
3 [3]
8 [0]
10[1]
12[1]
5 [5]
3[N]
3 [1 ] 3 [2]
3 [3]
9 [4] 9 [4] 10[2]
4 [4]
3 [3]
4 [4]
8 [2]
2 [2] 2 [2]
10[1] 10[1] 1 [1]
12[1] 12[1] 1 [1]
5 [5] 4 [4] 4 [4]
11[N] 11[N] 11[N]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
National Air Quality Standards
As discussed in Section 1.1 each country should have its own
set of air quality standards which the country is working toward
achieving or has already achieved and is working to maintain
them. In the first instance this research seeks to establish which
countries in the region do have air quality standards and secondly how these compare to the WHO Air Quality Guidelines.
The information on air quality standards for LAC countries was
collected from primary sources such as official government
websites and their air quality reports (República de Colombia
(2006), Gobierno de Chile (2003, 2011), República de Perú (2001,
2008), República de Panamá (2006), República de Nicaragua
(2002), USEPA (2010), PRONAR (1990), INE (2011), República de
Guatemala) and through secondary sources including the Vulnerability to Air Pollution in Latin America and the Caribbean Region
(della Maggiora et al, 2006) and the Normativa y regulaciones sobre
calidad del aire ambiental en Centro América (CCAD, 2007).
10
7 [7]
5 [4] 5 [4]
5 [4] 5 [5]
5 [5] 7 [7]
7 [7]
7 [7]
8 [7] 8 [6]
8 [5] 8 [3]
8 [5] 8 [4]
8 [4]
9 [7]
19[19] 19[18] 18[16] 18[17] 18[16] 18[15] 17[16] 29[12]
4 [2]
4 [0] 4 [1]
4 [1] 3 [0 ] 3 [0 ]
-
Monitoring
stations
fromtheacross
the wholearea
metropolitan
area
of these
are included in the analysis.
** Monitoring
stations
from across
whole metropolitan
of these cities are
included
in thecities
analysis.
3.2
2 [2]
4. Standards and Limit Values
As discussed in Section 1.1 the WHO air quality guidelines
(AQGs) are designed to support and guide countries in development of their own national air quality standards. In addition
to the guideline values, interim targets are given for each pollutant. These are proposed as incremental steps in a progressive reduction of air pollution and are intended for use in areas
where pollution is high. These targets aim to promote a shift
from high air pollutant concentrations, which have acute and
serious health consequences, to lower air pollutant concentrations. The WHO states that progress toward the guideline values
should, however, be the ultimate objective of air quality management and health risk reduction in all areas. Given that there
is no known safe threshold for inhalable particles, guidelines are
a pragmatic approach to facilitate progress.
American countries have National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Honduras, Belize, Haiti, Cuba, Paraguay, Guatemala and Uruguay do not have any standards in place as far as
our research could ascertain, or the information is not accessible. However, Uruguay has submitted a proposal for approval.
Of the countries which do have standards, there is some variation across the region as well as in comparison to the WHO
guidelines. Some local standards also exist such as in Argentina, where standards are set at the provincial level, and La Paz
in Bolivia. It is possible that other local standards exist in the
region although these have not specifically been sought during
this study. However, the standards in La Paz have been included
as they are particularly progressive and in line with WHO guidelines which is in contrast to the national standards which are
lagging somewhat behind the WHO guidelines.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, various) and the European Union (EU) (EC, 2008) have set their own
standards which consider the WHO AQGs as well as local issues
and circumstances. These standards have been considered as
additional reference standards to compare the region’s air quality standards against. Table 6 presents the WHO AQGs and the
USEPA and EU standards11. A graphic comparison of the national
and reference guidelines is shown in the Annex 1.
Table 7 presents current national ambient Air Quality Standards
in LAC countries. The information is also presented graphically
for each pollutant in Annex 1. About two thirds of the Latin
The conversion factors used to convert from ppb to μg/m3 are defined by the WHO at
25˚C and 1013 mb. For Ozone 1ppb = 1.96 μg/m3, Nitrogen dioxide 1ppb = 1.88 μg/m3,
Carbon monoxide 1ppb = 1.15 μg/m3, and Sulfur dioxide 1 ppb = 2.62 μg/m3.
11
11
Table
7. Ambient
Air Quality Guidelines
and Standards
Table
7.
Ambient
Air
-
1310
d
8-hr
-
c
1-hr
3-hr
147
Annual
10 min
-
24-hr
Annual
-
a
-
100
40
10
g
-
40
-
10
1-hr
8-hr
150
1-hr
b
15
CO
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
1-hr
European Union
(EU)
a
SO2
(µg/m3)
Ozone2
(µg/m3)
Annual
35
24-hr
24-hr
United States
(US)
Annual
Averaging Time
PM10
(µg/m3)
24-hr
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Pollutant
Quality Guidelines and Standards
-
197
188
f
-
25
b
50
40
-
120
-
-
-
125
e
350
200
World Health
Organization (WHO)
25
10
50
20
-
100
-
500
-
20
-
200
-
40
-
-
Interim target 1
Interim target 2
Interim target 3
75
50
38
35
25
15
150
100
75
70
50
30
-
160
-
-
-
-
125
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
h
a
98th percentile averaged overb 3 years; baveragedc over 3 years; cAnnual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration
averaged e
a
98th percentile averaged
over 3 years; averaged over
3 years; Annual fourth highest
daily maximum 8-hr concentration
averaged over 3 years; d 35 exceedences
allowed; 3 exd
e
f
g
h
35
exceedences
allowed;
3
exceedences
over
3
years;
f
g
h allowed; 24 exceedences allowed; 18 exceedences allowed; 25 days
ceedences allowed; 24 exceedences allowed; 18 exceedences allowed; 25 days exceedences allowed averaged over 3 years.
exceedences allowed averaged over 3 years.
Table
8. Summary
of National
Ambient
Air QualityAmbient
Standards inAir
Latin
AmericaStandards in Latin America
Summary
of National
Quality
Table
8.
Rep. Dominicana
Venezuela
Honduras
Belize
Haiti
Cuba
Paraguay
Guatemala
Uruguay
150
50
-
150
150
150
50
50
50
150
120
150
50
50
50
150
150
150
150
50
50
50
150
50
20
-
-
65
15
100
400
200
320
150
-
100
100
200
150
80
400
365
350
365
80
80
80
-
365
288
365
365
806
367
150
80
66
80
80
1300
365
-
-
-
-
1300
-
365
365
20
80
80
-
-
-
750
365
250
80
80
120
-
-
-
250
160
-
-
160
235
120
120
60
-
1500
-
235
216
235
235
-
157
160
157
120
-
235
147
-
250
160
-
700
524
450
200
160
-
-
8-hr
15
15
-
Panama
Peru
Puerto Rico
5
80
-
-
1-hr
35
65
-
Nicaragua
120
150
100
Annual
15
15
-
60
-
24-hr
65
65
506
El Salvador
Jamaica
Mexico
100
-
1-hr
Costa Rica
Ecuador
50
50
160
-
Annual
50
-
CO
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
24-hr
Chile4
157
-
50
50
20
3-hr
10
25
196
235
236
150
150
50
1-hr
Brasil
Colombia
25
50
Annual
-
8-hr
-
Bolivia
La Paz3
SO2
(µg/m3)
Ozone2
(µg/m3)
1-hr
15
Argentina1
Buenos Aires2
Annual
65
Averaging
Time
PM10
(µg/m3)
24-hr
Annual
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
24-hr
Pollutant
58
40
40
0.03
12
10
10
0.01
100
40
40
10
10
-
100
30
10
400
-
150
150
100
100
100
40
40
10
10
100
395
-
100
40
40
-
10
10
13
150
300
100
100
100
100
100
40
30
10
10
79
100
400
200
188
400
30
40
10
10
80
367
300
100
40
35
10
10
No standards
No standards
No information available
No information available
No standards
No standards
No standards
Provinces in Argentina set their regulations, including own standards. Therefore Buenos Aires is included in the table to demonstrate the
2
Provinces
in Argentina
set their
regulations, including
own standards.
Buenos
Aires is included
the tableallowable
to demonstrate
the more advanced
status of standards at the
Various
averaging
periodsinand/or
exceedences
are adopted.
more
advanced
status
of standards
at the province
level.Therefore
2
province
periods and/or allowable exceedences4are adopted. 3 La Paz also has a 10 minute limit for SO2 of 500 μg/m3. 4 For Chile all pollutant annual averages
3
La Pazlevel.
alsoVarious
has a averaging
10 minute
limit for SO2 of 500 μg/m3. For Chile all pollutant annual averages are the average of 3 consecutive previous years,
are the average of 3 consecutive previous years, 24-h standard for particles is the annual 98th percentile and 1-hr standard for gases is annual 99th percentile (Gobierno de Chile (2011).
andcurrent
1-hr 24-hour
standard
for gases
is annual
(Gobierno
deμg/m
Chile
524-h standard for particles is the annual 98th percentile
3 (2011).
Draft laws only - available via website (República de Panamá (2006). 6 The
standards
for PM
and SO2 99th
in Perupercentile
will drop to 25
μg/m3 and 20
respectively in 2014.
2.5
5
Draft laws only - available via website (República de Panamá (2006)). 6 The current 24-hour standards for PM2.5 and SO2 in Peru will drop
to 25 μg/m3 and 20 μg/m3 respectively in 2014.
1
1
12
The key observations from Table 7 are:
• PM2.5: Approximately half of the countries do not have standards for PM2.5 despite this being an important pollutant. The
countries that have national standards mostly follow limits equivalent to WHO Interim Target 3 for the annual mean, as
opposed to the recommended WHO Air Quality Guideline, but this is the lowest Interim Target and achieving this value
would be a significant step toward achieving the full AQG. This is a key pollutant which other countries should consider
as part of their national standards.
• PM10: All countries that have standards have a standard for this important pollutant. However, all of the countries have
standards equivalent to the WHO Interim Target 1 for the 24 –hour limit and Interim Target 2 for the annual limit (except
Colombia which is still using Interim Target 1). Scientific evidence suggests that for both PM10 and PM2.5 there is no safe
ambient particulate matter threshold level below which health damage does not occur (WHO, 1987; WHO, 2006). More
efforts are therefore needed in order to reach the WHO AQG to minimize the extent of exposure effects.
• O3: Eleven of the sixteen countries with standards include an 8-hour ozone standard in line with the WHO guidelines.
Most of these are between the Interim Target and the optimal limit of the WHO 8-hour guideline with Colombia having a
standard even stricter than the WHO. Conversely all countries have set an hourly limit despite there being no guideline
for this from the WHO or any standard for a 1-hour mean within the USA or in Europe. This is likely to be due to the USEPA
previously having a 1-hour standard which was revoked in 200512 . It would be optimal for the countries to have an 8-hour
standard instead of, or as well as, a 1-hour standard to allow for comparison to international WHO standards and to provide a standard more in line with the current knowledge on health effects and exposure times.
• NO2: The annual standards for NO2 for all countries are higher than the WHO guideline but follow the USEPA NAAQS. The
effects of NO2 are most significant with short term exposure and so the short-term standards are of particular importance.
Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Peru and Colombia have standards the same or close to the WHO guideline limits, but the other
countries either have much higher standards or no standards at all.
• SO2: The LAC standards for SO2 24-hour in almost all countries are significantly higher than the WHO guidelines. This is
a cause for concern due to direct effects of SO2 on health being observed at considerably lower concentrations (as low as
5μg/m3) (WHO, 2006). There are not any countries with standards for the 10 minute WHO Guideline but this is likely to be
associated with the equipment required to allow such measurements to be obtained. However, LAC countries have set
annual standards that are not suggested by the WHO, but that aim to reduce the emission of SO2.
• CO: Most LAC countries have standards for 1-hour and 8-hour standards, in line with the USEPA standards.
5. Air Quality Concentrations in Latin America and the Caribbean
The overall purpose of this report is to highlight the current
general air quality problem across the LAC region, not to emphasize those cities where pollution levels are high. The fact
that the few cities presented in this report are monitoring air
pollution at all and have made their data available is a hugely
positive point regardless of the concentrations found.
The following sections for each pollutant present three different graphs:
1.
2.
Annual average concentrations for each city for 2011 in which each city has been assigned a letter to pro-
vide anonymity.
A histogram showing the number of cities represent-
ed in a number of pollutant concentration ranges. 3.
This provides a visual representation of the spread of concentrations across all the cities and may provide an idea of likely ranges across the region.
The annual average concentrations of the annual averages from all cities for each year from 1997 to 2011 (where data permits) to demonstrate the year-on-year trends across all 21 cities.
These analyses have some intrinsic inaccuracies due to the averaging and comparing of data from different types of monitoring techniques, different monitoring locations and, for the third
analysis, varying numbers of monitoring stations in each city
year to year. However, the data provide a valuable indication of
the current status of air pollution.
http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/oindex.html
12
13
5.1Particles
Figure 2 shows the annual averages for PM10 and PM2.5 whilst
Figure 2 shows the spread of concentrations found across the
region. Of the 16 cities that measured concentrations of PM10 in
2011 all exceeded the WHO annual guideline of 20 µg/m3 and
9 of them exceeded the EU annual guideline of 40 µg/m3. All
but 1 city exceeded the Interim Target 3 (30 µg/m3); 7 exceeded
the Interim Target 2 (50 µg/m3); and Monterey and Guadalajara
also exceeded the Interim Target 1 (70 µg/m3) with a maximum
concentration of 85.9 µg/m3, more than four times greater than
the WHO guideline value. Figure 2 shows that the majority fall
within the range 30 to 40 µg/m3. This is above the WHO Guideline, but shows that cities are moving toward this value.
From the 11 cities that recorded concentrations of PM2.5 in 2011,
10 exceeded the WHO (10 µg/m3) and the US (15 µg/m3) annual
guidelines and eight of them exceeded the EU (25 µg/m3) annual guideline. All of the exceedences were also over the Interim
Target 3 (15 µg/m3); eight of them exceeded Interim Target 2 (25
µg/m3); and one exceeded the least stringent target, Interim Target 1 (35 µg/m3). If the pattern in Figure 2, with the majority (6)
of cities in the range 25 to 35 µg/m3, is common to the region, it
suggests that that the majority of cities are likely exceeding the
WHO Interim Target 2 ( 25 µg/m3), but that less are exceeding
the Interim Target 1 (35 µg/m3).
Figure 2. Annual average concentrations for PM10 and PM2.5 – 2011.
PM10
Panama City
Santo Domingo
San Salvador
San Salvador
39.5
Santiago
Lima
69.7
Bogotá
Juarez
Puebla
Mexico City
57.0
Guadalajara
Monterey
Curitiba
Curitiba
Belo Horizonte
20
28.0
San Juan
40
60
PM10 concentration (μg/ m3)
NB: There is no USEPA Annual Standard for PM10
5.5
Quito
37.8
0
20.3
Montevideo
45.0
24.5
Quito
25.9
Sao Paulo
Belo Horizonte
San Juan
14
Monterey
85.9
36.5
Montevideo
26.2
Guadalajara
70.1
Sao Paulo
35.1
Leon
EU
40 μg/m 3
Mexico City
29.0
Bogotá
39.0
WHO
20 μg/m 3
EU
25 μg/m 3
Medellín
52.9
Juarez
US
12 μg/m3
Cochabamba
49.0
Puebla
WHO
10 μg/m3
La Paz
Cochabamba
Leon
31.5
Santa Cruz
30.2
Medellín
26.0
Lima
62.2
35.9
La Paz
28.0
Santiago
67.0
Santa Cruz
PM2.5
Panama City
Santo Domingo
80
100
17.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
PM2.5 concentration (μg/m3)
35
40
Figure 3. Summary showing the distribution of cities in relation to annual average concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5
6
6
PM10
WHO Annual
AQG
20 μg/m 3
5
5
4
4
Number of cities
Number of Cities
PM2.5
WHO Annual
AQG
10 μg/m3
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
PM10 concentration
70 - 80
80 - 90
0
0 - 10
10 - 20
(μg/m 3)
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
PM2.5 concentration (μg/m 3)
Figure 4 shows the annual trends. The concentrations of PM2.5
have not decreased consistently over the time period 2001 to
2011. There was a decrease in concentrations from 2007 to
2010 but 2011 has reversed this pattern. The low concentration
recorded in 2006 may be a factor of the analysis method as this
year is an average of just five stations. PM10 concentrations in
LAC have seen a slow decreasing trend from 66.0 µg/m3 in 1998
to 50.1 µg/m3 in 2011. As with PM2.5 there is an increase in con-
centration in 2011 compared to the previous year. These trends
may reflect the efforts of environmental programs to decrease
emissions and meet the established air quality standards. These
efforts need to continue and expand to ensure that the concentrations across the region fall below WHO recommended concentrations.
Figure 4. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5.
58.1
60
54.4
59.6
PM10 concentration (μg/ m3)
PM2.5
31.0
58.4 58.9
53.0
30
55.3
53.0
27.5
54.0
50.1
49.3
50
46.5 46.6
40
30
20
35
PM10
65.1 66.0
WHO
20 μg/ m3
28.7
29.5
28.5
27.2
24.8
24.3
22.5
21.6
20
15
10
10
28.7
25
PM2.5 concentration (μg/ m3)
70
WHO
10 μg/ m3
5
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
15
5.2Ozone
Figure 5 shows the annual averages for ozone, Figure 6 shows
the spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure 12 shows the annual trends. Ozone has no annual standards
or guidelines due to the impacts on health seen at shorter exposure times but the annual average data was the most accessible
metric to obtain from across the region and so are presented as
a way to look at differences in concentrations across the region
and temporal trends.
Figure 5. Annual average concentrations for O3 – 2011.
Santiago
O3
28.8
Lima
Santa Cruz
La Paz
31.9
Cochabamba
62.4
Medellín
Bogotá
21.1
Leon
68.9
Juarez
46.3
Puebla
Mexico City
59.4
Guadalajara
69.3
Monterey
55.2
Sao Paulo
36.0
Curitiba
Belo Horizonte
Montevideo
San Juan
Quito
44.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
O3 concentration (μg/ m3)
Figura 6. : Distribution of cities in relation to annual average
concentrations of O3.
4
Figura 7. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations – O3.
O3
O3
54
52
51.7
3
50.5
O3 concentration μg/ m3
Number of cities
50
2
48.3
50.0
48.1
48
46
50.9
48.0
47.5
46.1 46.0
45.9
47.6
45.6
45.2
44.6
44
1
42
0
40
20 - 30
30- 40
40- 50
O3 concentration (μg/m3)
16
50 - 60
60 - 70
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
The wide variety of ozone concentrations across the region,
as seen in Figure 5, suggests that this is an issue in some cities
and maybe not others. This variation is due to differences in
the key drivers of ozone formation: the prevalence of sunshine
and the emissions of ozone precursors in the locality. The effect
of topography and meteorology on the dispersion of the precursor pollutants as well as the availability of ozone depleting
substances will also impact on this complex equation of ozone
production and depletion. Although it is not possible to deduce
eight hour mean concentrations from the annual averages, the
annual average concentrations presented in Figure 5 and Figure
6 strongly suggest that ozone is a significant issue in a number
of cities across the region. Figure 7 also suggests that concentrations of ozone have seen little reduction in the region over
the last decade.
As ozone is a key pollutant across the region it was deemed by
CAI important to undertake some analysis against the WHO
8-hour AQG. However, the different countries have different
methods of analyzing and presenting their data against their
own standards and so sourcing data to do a comparison against
this WHO metric across the region was complicated and time
intensive. Instead, the analysis was undertaken on three cities
where hourly average data was supplied for 2011, allowing the
Figure 8. Maximum annual average and maximum 8-hour
average concentrations for ozone recorded three cities – 2011.
O3 Concentration (μg/m 3)
250
Figure 9. Maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations as monitored by stations across Mexico City - 2011.
Annual Average
Maximum 8-hour
Average
300
270
270
200
162
150
WHO 8-hr
100 μg/m3
148
100
50
59
44
0
To look in further detail at ozone concentrations across Mexico City, Figure 9 shows the ozone concentrations from all the
monitoring stations across the city. As shown in Figure 8 the
maximum 8-hour concentration in the city during 2011 was in
fact 270 μg/m3 and Figure 9 shows that this is a typical concentration at monitoring stations across the city and all monitoring
stations were located in areas exceeding the WHO AQG.
29
Quito
Mexico City
City
Santiago
Maximum 8-hour average concentration (μg/ m3)
300
maximum 8-hour average to be calculated. Figure 8 presents
the annual average for each city averaged across all monitoring stations and the maximum 8-hour average recorded in
each city during 2011. This is only a small data set but Figure 8
demonstrates that even those cities with a low annual average
concentration can produce short-term concentrations of ozone
close to concentrations deemed unsafe for public health by
WHO. This also suggests that the majority of cities with annual
average concentrations presented in Figure 5 are likely to have
exceeded the 8-hour WHO AQG during 2011.
250
200
192
270
265
246
248
234
248
204
237
230
212
232
207
183
150
100
WHO
100 μg/m3
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Avg
Monitoring Stations in Mexico City
17
5.3 Nitrogen dioxide
Figure 10. Annual average concentrations for NO2 – 2011.
Figure 10 shows the annual averages for NO2, Figure 11 shows
the spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure 12 shows the annual trends.
Panama City
NO2
WHO
40 μg/m 3
Santo Domingo
EU
40 μg/m 3
41.0
41 0
San Salvador
Santiago
Lima
12.8
Santa Cruz
40.6
La Paz
40.3
Cochabamba
30.6
Medellín
32.0
Bogotá
32.8
Leon
45.5
Juarez
Puebla
Mexico City
54.2
Guadalajara
57.2
Monterey
29.0
Sao Paulo
39.9
Curitiba
Belo Horizonte
Montevideo
70.0
San Juan
Quito
23.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NO2 concentration (μg/ m3)
Figure 11. Distribution of cities in relation to annual average
concentrations of NO2.
4
Figure 12. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations –
NO2.
70
NO2
WHO Annual
AQG
40 μg/m3
60
57.5
54.6
52.7
3
NO2 concentration μg/ m3
50
Number of cities
NO2
63.1
2
40
49.7
39.3
40.9
42.4
44.1
WHO
40 μg/m3
41.0 41.9
39.5
39.2
35.8 36.4
30
20
1
10
0
0 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
NO2 concentration (μg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide, as expected, seems to be a lesser issue than
particles with approximately half (7 of the 13) of the cities exceeding WHO guidelines and EU standard both of 40 µg/m3. If
the pattern in Figure 11 is representative of the whole region,
this suggests that the majority of cities will fall around the WHO
guideline value. However, this figure suggests that this pollutant
is still a bigger issue in some cities. A more detailed analysis of
the 1-hour concentrations should be carried out if data are available as compliance with the annual average WHO guideline does
not guarantee that the hourly concentrations are below the WHO
1-hour guideline.
18
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
The annual trend in NO2 is less conclusive than for particles. The
concentrations in 1997 and 1998 are higher than later years but
there is no clear trend from 2001 to 2011. The first two years of
higher concentrations are due to these data points being comprised of only four cities, including the three most polluted cities
in the study. From 2001 to 2011 concentrations of NO2 have been
very slowly reducing and for the last four years the average concentration in this data set has been just below the WHO air quality
guideline. This suggests that across the region actions may have
been contributing to a reduction in NO2, but this limited dataset
does not allow us to suggest that the whole region is achieving
the WHO AQG.
5.4
Sulfur dioxide
Figure 13. Annual average concentrations for SO2 – 2011
Figure 13 shows the annual averages for SO2, Figure 14 shows
the spread of concentrations found across the region and Figure 15 shows the annual trends. There are no WHO guidelines
or USEPA or EU standards to compare the annual mean data to
however the annual mean concentrations are not excessively
high. Nonetheless, a more detailed analysis of the 24-hour concentrations should be carried out if data are available to do such
an analysis.
SO2
Panama City
Santo Domingo
San Salvador
Santiago
4.0
Lima
8.0
Santa Cruz
La Paz
Cochabamba
8.4
Medellín
16.0
Bogotá
9.2
Leon
23.4
Juarez
The annual trend shows that the concentration of SO2 in LAC
has decreased significantly from 28.3 µg/m3 in 2000 to 10.5 µg/
m3 in 2011. Figure 14 shows the spread of concentrations found
across the region and Figure 15 shows the annual trends. The
annual trend shows that the concentration of SO2 in LAC has
decreased significantly from 27.4 µg/m3 in 2000 to 10.0 µg/m3 in
2011. Thus, efforts to reduce SO2, such as improved fuel quality,
seem to be a good example of success in improving air quality
in the region.
Puebla
Mexico City
15.3
Guadalajara
8.6
Monterey
13.1
Sao Paulo
4.4
Curitiba
Belo Horizonte
Montevideo
12.0
San Juan
3.0
Quito
4.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
SO2 concentration (μg/ m3)
NB. There are no WHO, USEPA or EU annual standards for SO2.
Figura 14. Distribution of cities in relation to annual average
concentrations of SO2.
4
Figura 15. Regional Mean Annual Average Concentrations –
SO2.
SO2
SO2
30
27.4
25.6 25.8
24.7
25
22.7
22.7
3
SO2 concentration μg/ m3
Number of cities
20.6
2
20
20.1
18.8
15
13.2 13.0 13.5
10.7
9.4
10
10.0
1
5
0
0-5
5 - 10
10 - 15
SO2 concentration
15 - 20
(μg/m3)
20 - 25
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
19
6. Discussion and Recommendations
6.1
Air Quality Standards
It is a positive finding that many countries and cities in the region have set official air quality standards to protect health. In
particular, La Paz (Bolivia) is notable for having local standards
in line with WHO guidelines. However at a national level there
are many possible improvements:
20
·
Many Latin American countries do not have national
PM2.5 standards. This is a key pollutant both with respect to its severe health implications but also due to
the fact that reducing this pollutant will also result in
reductions of black carbon. Introducing a standard will
also mean that countries have to introduce some monitoring capacity.
·
Both the annual and 24-hour PM10 standards for all
countries are higher than the WHO Air Quality Guidelines.
·
With scientific evidence suggesting that there is no
safe ambient particulate matter threshold level below
which health damage does not occur (WHO, 1987;
WHO, 2006) the standards for both PM10 and PM2.5 are
of utmost importance.
·
The annual standards for NO2 for all countries are higher
than the WHO guideline but follow the UESPA NAAQS.
·
The effects of NO2 are most significant with short term
exposure but all countries, except Jamaica, Puerto Rico,
Peru and Colombia, have standards set significantly
higher than the WHO 1 hour AQG or have no standard
at all. Introducing a 1 hour standard is important to protect the health of citizens.
·
The standards for SO2 24-hour in all countries are significantly higher than the WHO guidelines. This is a
cause for concern due to direct effects of SO2 on health
recorded in some scientific studies being observed at
considerably lower concentrations (as low as 5μg/m3)
(WHO, 2006).
·
Eleven of the sixteen countries with standards have an
8-hour ozone standard in line with the WHO guidelines.
It would be optimal to see all the countries have an
8-hour standard instead of a 1-hour standard.
·
There are currently no identified standards in Honduras, Belize, Haiti, Cuba, Paraguay, Guatemala and Uruguay (although Uruguay has submitted a proposal for
approval).
It is also important that these standards are legally mandatory and not simply used as guidelines. If the standards are
not legally enforceable there is no incentive for compliance.
Air quality standards should also be part of a sound air quality
management system involving both national and sub national
responsibilities.
6.2
Air quality monitoring data
The presence and availability of data in the region was a key
issue highlighted by the research. Although there were some
excellent examples of monitoring, data availability and regular
reporting, most notably in México (and México City in particular), this was not common across the region. Data were only
successfully collected from 20 of the 42 largest cities in the region (based on search criteria taking into account no more than
four cities from a single country). It is possible that monitoring
is undertaken in the other cities but that we were not able to
locate or get access to the data. However, if this is not the case it
suggests that some cities may not be undertaking any air quality monitoring despite having national air quality standards in
place.
Anticipating the difficulty in obtaining data, the research was
restricted to collecting annual average concentration. However
even these data were, in most cases, difficult to locate and to acquire, particularly the most recent information. In the majority
of cases the data had to be obtained through personal emails
or phone calls which had its own set of issues with identifying
individuals responsible who would be able to provide the information we required. Where websites existed most were not
user friendly and provided no analysis against the country’s
standards. Online data sources also contained insufficient information on the instruments and monitoring practices. This lack
of transparency raises issues such as public accessibility to important information.
The data itself was also of variable quality. There are no standardized monitoring techniques or data collection or averaging
protocols across the region. There is also limited evidence for
quality control or assurance activities ensuring optimum data
quality although personal communication has highlighted
some good practices such as in Bolivia, which has internal national standards and a reference laboratory that performs the
quality control procedures for monitoring networks to verify the
quality of their data. It is likely that other countries have similar
systems but these are not transparent. Some countries are also
likely to be carrying out less than optimum monitoring practices. It is therefore clear that the region would benefit from
capacity building and training activities in this area. Implementing a knowledge exchange and harmonization platform would
be of a great value to speed up an air quality and public health
improvement process.
6.3
Data analysis
The data analyzed in this report strongly suggests that particulate matter, especially PM2.5, and ozone are the pollutants of
most concern. Most cities exceed the WHO AQG for PM10 and
PM2.5 and the data suggests cities are also likely to be exceeding
the WHO AQG for ozone. In addition, despite some cities successfully achieving some decreases, at a broader regional level
no real reduction trend is evident for either finer particles or
ozone over the last decade. As particles and ozone are important for both health and climate this should be a priority area of
focus for the region.
The annual mean concentrations of NO2 were exceeded at a
number of locations but there were more cities with concentrations below the WHO AQG compared to particle concentrations.
The report recommends a more in-depth investigation into the
shorter term exposure to NO2 which would allow a fuller picture
of the impacts of this pollutant on health in each city.
The annual mean concentrations of SO2 were not excessively
high and concentrations over the last decade have reduced
considerably, however a more detailed analysis of the 24-hour
concentrations is recommended.
6.4
Recommendations based on this analysis
Based on the observations and findings of this report the Clean
Air Institute puts forward the following recommendations:
1. Countries in the region should adopt a harmonized
set of standards (i.e. WHO Air Quality Guidelines), even
if countries adopt interim target values and different
compliance dates based on their individual circumstances as they progress in reducing emissions. This
will allow for regional reporting, analysis and benchmarking as well as to start strengthening a regional
focus on improving air quality.
2. All countries should adopt a PM2.5 standard for both
health and climate change assessments, preferably
within a framework suggested above. Funding should
be made available to expand monitoring of this pollutant. This is important from a health perspective and
also with respect to providing proxy information on
potential black carbon reductions which contribute to
climate change.
3. The shortage of PM2.5 monitoring is noted which is
important from both a health perspective, to assess
compliance against a standard, and also with respect
to providing proxy information on potential black carbon reductions. Funding should be made available to
expand monitoring of this pollutant.
4. For future assessment and monitoring of air pollution
concentrations in the region, and for robust assessments against national air quality standards, it is essential that countries and/or cities initiate monitoring or,
where it exists but it is not optimal, improve their monitoring practices. Activities to strengthen capacities in
this area include:
a. Training and technical assistance.
b. Regional communities of practice on air quality
standards, monitoring and air quality management
good practices.
c. Further in-depth review of existing monitoring
practices and recommendations.
d. Provision of funding to ensure robust monitoring at
key locations now and in the future.
e. Utilizing existing international knowledge to establish region-wide guidance and best practice as
to how to undertake effective monitoring, quality
control and assurance, and the collection, processing and analysis of data would be invaluable to improving the quality of data from the region.
f. Harmonization in measurement is also vital to ensure consistency in sampling periods, calculation
methods and comparable sampling techniques.
g. Identification of alternative funding mechanisms to
support air quality monitoring network implementation and operation, including analysis of good
practices and successful cases.
5. Each country should improve accessibility to the data
and improve the visibility of the information they are
collecting. The Clean Air Institute recommends that a
central database of the monitoring data from key pollutants across the region be established to formalize
and harmonize data presentation and analysis. This
would be a more cost effective option than each country developing their own database systems and data
dissemination tools. In addition, it would be of a great
value to implement an integrated regional online platform on air quality, which could be hosted by UNEP
and/or other regional organizations, to report air quality information in a standardized fashion.
6. Highlight and disseminate good practice and encourage capacity building in activities associated with
good air quality monitoring, such as efficient data
management, effective dissemination of air quality
data, successful public information dissemination, and
implementation of air quality indices to easily communicate current pollution levels to the public and sensitive populations.
21
6.5
Broader recommendations for the region
It is clear that all urban areas in the region share some common air pollution issues. Improved monitoring and adoption
of air quality standards are key to addressing these issues but
there is also a broader suite of activities and actions required to
move towards improved air quality. This can be encompassed
in an overall Air Quality Management planning process. Such
a strategy would consider the following stages and actions in
combination with a strong communication and stakeholder engagement plan:
·
Setting local air quality goals based on National Air
Quality Standards.
·
Ensuring robust air quality monitoring to assess compliance against the goals or standards.
·
Establishing detailed emissions inventories to understand and quantify the emission reductions needed
from key sources to accomplish air quality goals.
·
Definition of strategies to achieve emission reductions
from identified sources, such as sustainable urban
transport interventions; industrial permitting, enforcement and auditing; reduction in wood burning for
domestic heating; reduction in emission from energy
production facilities.
·
Implement strategies by means of a combination of
policy instruments at national and sub national levels
to enforce or encourage emission reduction activities,
including, among others:
-
­
-
·
Regulations (emission standards, fuel quality specifications, fuel efficiency standards, etc.)
Economic instruments (taxes, levies, surcharges, etc.)
Information dissemination and public engagement/
awareness.
Establish institutional arrangements and capacities including dedicated government structures, budget and
other resources.
Others.
Implementation of an air quality management monitoring, reporting and verification system.
Many Air Quality Management plans are already in place across
the region, such as Mexico’s PROAIRE 2011-2020 program for
improving air quality in the Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of
Mexico (Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México) (ZMVM)13 and
seven other Mexican cities with a further five under preparation.
Other examples include Peru’s “Plan integral de saneamiento atmosférico para Lima y Callao 2005-2010”14 (General air quality
22
improvement plan for Lima and Callao 2005-2010), and Bogotá’s Plan Decenal de Descontaminación del Aire para Bogotá
(Ten Year Air Decontamination Plan for Bogotá)15 to name just a
few. However, the prevalence and comprehensiveness of such
plans across the region is unclear, as is the extent to which plans
are being successfully implemented. Assessing and continuously enhancing the capacity of national/federal and local governments to manage air quality to this extent is key to targeting
assistance and effort to improve air quality across the region.
6.6
Final conclusions
Poor air quality is having serious impacts on health, social welfare and economic development worldwide and in the Latin
American and Caribbean (LAC) region. Concentrations of harmful air pollutants are exceeding, in many cases excessively, World
Health Organization recommended guidelines across the LAC
region. These high concentrations of air pollutants are impacting citizens by reducing quality of life and causing premature
death and illness, whilst in turn directly impacting the national
economies of the LAC countries and their economic and social
development.
This situation is preventable and reversible. Air Quality Management planning is essential for governments to build successful
strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality. As
part of this wider planning process, air quality standards and effective air quality monitoring is a necessity. Governments must
be encouraged and supported to take on this responsibility and
must understand the importance of this issue. This should also
be considered a major mechanism and opportunity to make
real national commitments to the UN Millennium Development
Goals; protect public health; advance social and economic development for all; increase competitiveness; mitigate climate
change; and open up investment opportunities.
http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/proaire2011_2020/index.php?opcion=2
http://cdam.minam.gob.pe:8080/handle/123456789/173
15
http://ambientebogota.gov.co/plan-decenal-de-descontaminacion-del-aire-para-bogota
13
14
23
7. References
CCCAD (2007). Diagnostico de la Normativa Tecnica sobre Calidad del
Aire en Centroamérica, San Salvador. Comisión Centroamericana de
Ambiente y Desarrollo: Sistema de Integración Centroamericana.
Cifuentes, L A, Krupnick, A J, O’Ryan R and Toman M A (2005). Urban
Air Quality and Human Health in Latin America and the Caribbean. Pan
American Health Organization, Washington DC.
Della Maggiora, C and López-Silva, J A (2006). Vulnerability to Air Pollution in Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 28. The World Bank, Latin America and the
Caribbean Region Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department. September 2006. Available at: http://irispublic.
worldbank.org/85257559006C22E9/All+Documents/85257559006C
22E9852572810068B623/$File/LAST0FINAL0VERSION1AirQuality1SDWP.pdf
EC (2008). Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. European Commission Environment. Available at http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0050:EN:NOT
and summarized at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/
standards.htm.
Gobierno de Chile (2003). Normas Ambientales. Dictadas bajo la ley
de bases del medio ambiente No. 19.300. Comisión Nacional del Medio
Ambiente. Available at http://sinca.mma.gob.cl/uploads/documentos
/71196ec2a22baa2e7e8444df6a40d8ab.pdf
Gobierno de Chile (2011). Establece Norma Primaria de Calidad Ambiental Para Material Particulado Fino Respirable MP2 ,5. Ministerio del
Medio Ambiente. Available at http://sinca.mma.gob.cl/uploads/documentos/20120409_NORMA%20MP2,5_9969.pdf
INE (2011) Cuarto almanaque de datos y tendencias de la calidad del
aire en 20 ciudades mexicanas. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Available
at. And at http://www.ine.gob.mx/calaire-informacion-basica/585-calaire-val-normados.
Miranda J (2006). Impacto Económico en la Salud por Contaminación
del Aire en Lima Metropolitana. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Setiembre, 2006.
NRC (2008). Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. Committee on Estimating
Mortality Risk Reduction Benefits from Decreasing Tropospheric Ozone
Exposure. National Research Council. ISBN: 978-0-309-11994-8. Executive summary available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=12198.
OECD (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The
Consequences of Inaction. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264122246-en
PRONAR (1990) RESOLUÇÃO CONAMA nº 3, de 28 de junho de 1990
Publicada no DOU, de 22 de agosto de 1990, Seção 1, páginas 1593715939. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Available at http://www.mma.
gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=100.
República de Colombia (2006). Resolución Número 601. Ministerio de
Ambiente Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. República de Colombia.
24
Available at http://www.acaire.org/doc/normas/resolucion601de2006Minambiente.pdf
República de Guatemala (unknown). Programa de Calidad del Aire
de INSIVUMEH para la República de Guatemala. NORMAS Y REGULACIONES. Available at http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt:8080/calidadaire/
regulaciones.htm.
República de Nicaragua (2002). Secretaría Ejecutiva de la Comisión
Nacional de modernización Técnica y Calidad: Norma Técnica Obligatoria Nicaragüense de Calidad del Aire. Available at http://legislacion.
asamblea.gob.ni/Normaweb.nsf/%28$All%29/A7D9462EF09F1931062
571320055ED61?OpenDocument.
República de Panamá (2006). Anteproyecto de Norma de Calidad Ambiental. Gobierno Nacional: República de Panamá. Available at http://
www.anam.gob.pa/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id
=28&Itemid=399&lang=es.
Républica de Perú (2008). DECRETO SUPREMO N° 003 -2008 –MINAM.
APRUEBAN ESTÁNDARES DE CALIDAD AMBIENTAL PARA AIRE.
Républica de Perú (2001). Decreto Supremo N˚ 074-2001-PCM. Reglamento de Estandares Nacionales de Calidad Ambiental del Aire. Républica de Perú. Available at https://www.miraflores.gob.pe/Gestorw3b/
files/pdf/5104-1266-ds_-074_2001_pcm-_eca_aire.pdf
UN (2012). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 66/288. The
future we want. United Nations A/RES/66/288*, 11 September 2012.
Available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html
USEPA (2010). Puerto Rico’s Air Quality in 2010 and New EPA Initiatives.
Available at http://cohemis.uprm.edu/planetatierra/pres/08_trodriguez.pdf.
USEPA (various). US Environmental Protection Agency - National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Available at http://www.epa.gov/
air/criteria.html.
WHO (2008). Health and Environment: Managing the Linkages for Sustainable Development. A tool for Decision Makers. World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Program. Health and Environment Linkages Initiative (HELI). 2008.
WHO (2006). WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005. Summary of
risk assessment. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe,
2006 (WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91).
WHO (2000). Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd ed. Copenhagen,
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2000 (WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91).
WHO (1987). Air quality guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen, World
Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 1987 (WHO Regional
Publications, European Series, No. 23).
Annex 1
Graphical summary of National Air Quality Standards in Latin America
Argentina (B Aires)
Belize
Bolivia
Brasil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haití
Honduras
Jamaica
México
Nicaragua
Panamá
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Venezuela
Figure A2. Annual PM2.5 Standards in Latin American countries
Countries
Countries
Figure A1. 24 –Hr PM2.5 Standards in Latin American countries
WHO
25 μg/m 3
0
10
20
US
35 μg/m 3
30
40
50
60
Argentina (B Aires)
Belize
Bolivia
Brasil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haití
Honduras
Jamaica
México
Nicaragua
Panamá
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Venezuela
EU
25 μg/m 3
0
70
5
US
150 μg/m 3
WHO
50 μg/ m3
0
20
40
60
80
100
15
20
25
30
120
24 -hr PM10 Standard (μg/m3)
140
Figure A4. Annual PM10 Standards in Latin American countries
Countries
Countries
Figure A3. 24 –Hr PM10 Standards in Latin American countries
EU
50 μg/m 3
10
Annual PM2.5 Standard (μg/m 3)
24 -hr PM2.5 Standard (μg/m 3)
Argentina (B Aires)
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
US
12 μg/m 3
WHO
10 μg/m 3
160
Argentina (B Aires)
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
EU
40 μg/m 3
WHO
20 μg/m 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Annual PM10 Standard (μg/m3)
25
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
WHO
20 μg/m 3
0
50
Figure A6. Annual SO2 Standards in Latin American countries
Countries
Countries
Figure A5. 24 –Hr SO2 Standards in Latin American countries
EU
125 μg/m 3
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
24 -hr SO2 Standard (μg/m 3)
0
50
100
150
EU
200 μg/m 3
WHO
200 μg/m 3
200
250
300
1 -hr NO2 Standard (μg/m 3)
26
40
60
80
100
120
Figura A8. Annual NO2 Standards in Latin American countries
Countries
Countries
US
188 μg/m 3
20
Annual SO2 Standard (μg/m 3)
Figure A7. 1 –Hr NO2 Standards in Latin American countries
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
350
400
450
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
EU
40 μg/m 3
US
99.6 μg/m 3
WHO
40 μg/m 3
0
20
40
60
80
Annual NO2 Standard (μg/m 3)
100
120
Figura A10. 1 -Hr Ozone Standards in Latin American countries
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
Countries
Countries
Figure A9. 24 -Hr NO2 Standards in Latin American countries
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
0
350
50
100
150
200
1 -hr O3 Standard (μg/m 3)
24 -hr NO2 Standard (μg/m3)
Figure A11. 8 -Hr Ozone Standards in Latin American countries
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
50
Countries
Countries
0
EU
120 μg/m 3
100
150
8 -hr O3 Standard (μg/m 3)
200
300
Figure A12. 1 -Hr CO Standards in Latin American countries
US
147 μg/m 3
WHO
100 μg/m 3
250
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
US
40.25 μg/m 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 -hr CO Standard (μg/m3)
40
45
27
Countries
Figure A13. 8 -Hr CO Standards in Latin American countries
Argentina (B Aires)
Belice
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
US
10.35 μg/m 3
EU
10 μg/m 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
8 -hr CO Standard (μg/m 3)
28
12
14
Full report and Summary available at:
http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/
calidaddelaireamericalatina/
Air Quality in Latin America: An Overview
Produce by The Clean Air Institute
1100 H Street NW, Suite 800, Washington D.C., 20005 USA.
Phone: +1 (202) 464 5450, Fax: +1 (202) 785 4313
http://www.cleanairinstitute.org | [email protected]
The Clean Air Institute would like to thank all of the local, national and international institution and individuals who
contributed data, other information and support for the preparation of this document.
The Clean Air Institute thanks the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and the SFLAC Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean and for its generous financial support for carrying out this work and for related activities with its
design and development. This report is part of a series of documents being produced under the Sustainable Transport
and Air Quality Program efforts.