Elsevier

Atmospheric Environment

Volume 42, Issue 26, August 2008, Pages 6425-6430
Atmospheric Environment

A note on the 2008 EU standards for particulate matter

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.04.036Get rights and content

Abstract

In the spring of 2008, the EU decided on the future PM regulations. 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.

The conclusions are that PM10 regulations have been somewhat relaxed despite the fact that the numerical values of the Limit Values have not changed; that the annual PM2.5 Limit Value is at the upper end of exposure response curves from major epidemiological studies, and hence not protective of public health as major adverse effects on health have been observed at levels well below the adopted PM2.5 limit value; that the newly introduced instrument of the ‘exposure concentration obligation’ is unlikely to improve this; that the US EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 are lower than the EU limit values; and that, contrary to what is often suggested, the EU requirements for assessing compliance with the Limit Value for PM2.5 are not more stringent than the US EPA requirements for assessing compliance with the annual and 24 h PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

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)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text