| Significant Findings: *Marine background particles from the Pacific Ocean make the single largest contribution to the light extinction coefficient. They act as a site for the accumulation of secondary particulate species, such as ammonium nitrate, producing transformed particles with a size and composition that scatters light very efficiently. *The particles who have a diameter in the range of 0.1 mm � 10 mm are the ones who contribute to light scattering. Smaller or larger particles do not have a significant contribution to light scattering. |
||||||||||||||
| 3 emissions control programs and how they fared: Control 1: The complete elimination of all anthropogenic primary particle emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, surrounding L.A. All other emissions sources are held constant. Results of Control 1: There was accumulation of secondary particulate matter onto the marine background particles, which caused significant light extinction. The visual range increased from 9.5km, (under 1987 historical conditions), to 14.5 km under controlled conditions; an increase in visual range of 53%. Control 2: Background sulfate particles that are advected into the South Coast Air Basin from the marine environment are removed before entry, holding other emissions sources constant. Results of Control 2: Caused redistribution of secondary aerosol mass to smaller particle sizes. However, only improved visual range by 11% at Claremont, Aug 28, 1987. Control 3: Balanced control: reductions in the emission rate of anthropogenic particles, gaseous oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, VOC�s, and ammonia. Results of Control 3: Caused significant reductions in primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations at all particle sizes. The light extinction coefficient was significantly reduced. In conclusion, this emissions control program could more than double visual range at Claremont on Aug. 28, 1987. |
||||||||||||||
| In conclusion, the best way to start cutting emissions would be by Emissions Control 3. It will be difficult to persuade industries to comply with a control such as this, since industry will have to employ green technologies and their profit will decrease in the short run. However, it would be a very effective step towards a future of clean air, and could definitely be applied to other locations of severe air pollution. Industry needs to start looking at the long run because the long run effects of the pollution may be drastic if controls are not implemented soon to prevent destruction. Also, profits in the long run balance themselves out. To find out more about more recent developments in emissions controls, click here, or go to the Environmental News Service. | ||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||
| <--- Return to Home | ||||||||||||||
| From: Kleeman, Eldering, Hall, and Cass. "Effect of Emissions Control Programs on Visibility in Southern California," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 23, 2001. | ||||||||||||||