A note on the 2008 EU standards for particulate matter
Introduction
In the spring of 2008, the EU decided on the future PM regulations. Details can be found in document P6_TA-PROV(2007)0596 which can be accessed through the internet (EU Web Reference 1).
In this note we first compare existing regulations for PM10 with updated regulations for PM10; then we discuss the decisions on PM2.5; and finally we compare the new EU regulations with US EPA standards for PM2.5.
Section snippets
PM10: old versus new
The existing PM10 regulations can be found in document 1999/30/ec (EU Web Reference 2).
The numerical Limit Values for PM10 are
- •
annual average of 40 μg m−3
- •
daily limit value of 50 μg m−3 not to be exceeded more than 35 days (∼10%) of the year.
Both of these numbers refer to ‘calendar years’, so not an average of multiple years (see below).
The Limit Values became legally binding on January 1, 2005. It has always been clear that the 24 h limit value is more stringent than the annual average limit value in
The new PM2.5 regulations
The new PM2.5 regulations have three major elements, an annual limit value, an annual ‘exposure concentration obligation’, and a ‘national exposure reduction target’ based on an ‘average exposure indicator’. There is no 24 h limit value or target, so establishment of short-term PM exceedances will remain dependent on the 24 h PM10 limit value.
The annual limit value is 25 μg m−3, to be met in 2015. As for PM10, this limit value refers to one calendar year. The measurement requirements are identical
EU and US federal standards
It has often been argued that the new EU annual PM2.5 limit value is much less protective of public health than the US National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 μg m−3. Whereas it is simple to establish that 25 μg m−3 is 1.67 times 15 μg m−3, the comparison heavily rests on where and how the compliance measurements exactly need to be conducted. As regulators have often jokingly said, ‘I don't care what the standard is, as long as I can decide how to make the (compliance) measurements ’!
It
Final remarks
This note does not go into detail about the adequacy of the new EU regulations for PM10 and PM2.5 from a public health point of view. Much has been written about that already (see for instance Annesi-Maesano et al., 2007), and the recent publication of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines – Global Update (http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf) contains a detailed discussion of the reasons for choosing an annual PM2.5 AQG of just 10 μg m−3. It is clear – and recognized by EU in proposing ‘national
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of the manuscript have been critically commented upon by Dr. Martin Williams (UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Dr. Bill Harnett and Dr. Kimber Scavo (U.S. EPA) and Dr. Bart Ostro (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). The maps in the supplementary material were kindly provided by Dr. David Wackter, Connecticut State Bureau of Air Management.
References (17)
- et al.
New directions: why are PM10 concentrations in Europe not falling?
Atmos. Environ.
(2008) - et al.
Speciation and origin of PM10 and PM2.5 in selected European cities
Atmos. Environ.
(2004) - et al.
Particulate matter, science, and EU policy
Eur. Respir. J.
(2007) - et al.
Epidemiological evidence of effects of coarse airborne particles on health
Eur. Respir. J.
(2005)