pollution control, regulatory services€¦ · pollution control have undertaken pm 2.5 particle...

PM2.5 Monitoring in

Barnsley 2014-15

Report to Barnsley MBC, Public

Health

Pollution Control, Regulatory Services

PM2.5 Monitoring in Barnsley 2014-15

1

Any comments regarding this report can be sent to:

Chris Shields

Technical Officer (Pollution Control)

Regulatory Services

Barnsley Council

Telephone: 01226 772452

Mobile: 07795 305865

Email: [email protected]

Mail: PO Box 602, Barnsley, S70 9GG

Executive Summary

Pollution Control have undertaken PM2.5 particle monitoring on behalf of Barnsley MBC Public Health in order to establish representative

concentrations in the Barnsley MBC area, and provide evidence to confirm the previously estimated health burden for the borough.

PM2.5 air pollution is now a serious public health issue. In 2008, particulate air pollution was estimated nationally to be equivalent to nearly 29

000 deaths at typical ages, and an associated loss of population life of 340 000 life years lost1. The economic cost from the impacts of air

pollution in the UK is estimated at £9-19 billion every year2.This is comparable to the economic cost of obesity (over £10 billion3).

In order to ascertain the local impact therefore, PM2.5 Monitoring was undertaken during 2014-15 at two locations (one within the Barnsley

urban area relatively close to a busy road, the other in a more suburban-rural location). As expected, the monitoring confirmed slightly more

elevated concentrations recorded in the Barnsley urban area, compared to the suburban-rural location, with recorded data broadly consistent

with the results of PM2.5 monitoring undertaken elsewhere in the Yorkshire and Humber region.

1 The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP, 2010).

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69340/pb13378-air-pollution.pdf

3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69340/pb13378-air-pollution.pdf


2

The monitored data also confirmed that concentrations in the borough are also meeting the relevant UK air quality limit values (although there

is no safe concentration threshold for PM2.5).

Previous work by Public Health England to quantify the health burden of PM2.5 within local authorities had used nationally modelled data to

estimate the local burden on health (previously estimated to be equivalent to 124 deaths per annum in the borough, or 5.0% of total mortality

per annum). Comparison between the monitored and modelled data confirms that the predicted health burden from modelled data appears to

be realistic.

Although there are many sources of PM2.5, reduction in local emissions would have a local health benefit. Therefore, any local actions

designed to control or reduce PM2.5 should be promoted where appropriate. The Barnsley MBC Air Quality Action Plan, whilst primarily written

to improve concentrations of nitrogen dioxide gas in the borough’s air quality management areas (AQMAs), contains actions which should also

reduce PM2.5 concentrations. The current local air quality management regime does not require local authorities to have regard to reducing

PM2.5 concentrations. However, Central Government (Defra) are currently reviewing this regime, with a view to implementing the revised

regime from April 2016 onwards. Within the new regime, there will be a role for local authorities to deal with PM2.5, and, following release of the

draft version of this guidance, future local authority duties for PM2.5 are discussed in this report. There now needs to be further discussions

between relevant Council departments (especially Public Health and Regulatory Services) on how these duties shall be undertaken, in relation

to other Council priorities.

.This report subsequently makes the following recommendations:

• Public Health note the contents of this report and consider, along with Regulatory Services (and other stakeholders), how PM2.5 may be

tackled in future, and report on this within the June 2016 Barnsley MBC annual status report.

• Public Health continue to report on PHOF indicator 3.01 – Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution

• Public Health and Pollution Control continue their ongoing dialogue so that Public Health can offer assistance when appropriate in

promoting actions to reduce PM2.5 concentrations and improve air quality in general


3

Table of Contents Page

1. Introduction 4

2. Purpose of the Monitoring 6

3. Deployment and Operation of the Monitors 7

4. Results 7

5. Comparison with Air Quality Standards 8

6. Discussion of Monitoring Results 10

7. Comparison with Modelled Concentrations 11

8. Control of PM2.5 emissions 13

9. Future of PM2.5 within Local Air Quality Management 14

10. Conclusions and Recommendations 15

Appendices 16

Appendix A – Monitoring Locations – Maps and Photographs

Appendix B – E-Sampler technical specification

Appendix C – Graph of monthly means

List of Tables

Table 1: Public Health Air Quality Toolkits 5

Table 2: Monitoring Results 8

Table 3: Air Quality Standards 9

Table 4: Comparison of Modelled and Monitored data 11

Table 5: Source Contributions to PM2.5 Concentrations 12


4

1. Introduction

Fine respirable particle (referred to as PM2.5 particles)4 air pollution has been recognised as a major public health issue. This health impact is

now very well documented and accepted by scientific, health and regulatory communities.

In 2010, the Governments’ Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated an effect on mortality in 2008 from PM2.5,

equivalent to nearly 29,000 deaths in the UK at typical ages, and an associated loss of total population life of 340,000 life-years. This health

burden can also be represented as a loss of life expectancy from birth of approximately six months.5

Following this, Public Health England (PHE) applied the impact of fine particle air pollution to local communities6. For Barnsley, specifically, this

comparison to local mortality was calculated as having an impact equivalent to 5.0% (2012 figures) of the total mortality in the borough (PHOF

indicator 3.01) or 124 attributable deaths in the 25 and older age bracket, per annum (it should be noted however that air pollution is likely to

contribute a small amount to the deaths of a larger number of exposed individuals, rather than being solely responsible for the number of

deaths equivalent to the calculated figure of attributable deaths). Further information on this indicator can be obtained from Public Health

England’s public health outcomes framework website.

The impact of PM2.5 air pollution should not be seen solely regarding its impact on local mortality. The Defra publication “Getting to grips with

Air Pollution”7 states the following:

• “Long term exposure to PM2.5 contributes to development of cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and respiratory disease.”

• “Short term exposure to PM2.5 over a period of a few hours to weeks can cause respiratory effects such as wheezing, coughing and

excerbations of asthma and chronic bronchitis.”

4 PM2.5 is defined as the mass per cubic metre of airborne particles passing through the inlet of a size selective sampler with a transmission efficiency of 50% at an

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm. In general terms it is the mass per cubic metre of particles of less than 2.5 µm aerodynamic diameter. 5 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, 2010, ISBN 978-0-85951-685-3, The Mortality Effects of Long term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United

Kingdom 6 Public Health England, April 2014, PHE publications gateway number 2014016, Estimating Local Mortality Burdens associated with Particulate Air Pollution

7 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Getting to grips with air pollution – the latest evidence and techniques, A Briefing for Directors of Public Health

February 2015


5

• “There also is emerging - but currently insufficient - evidence of links between long term PM2.5 exposure and the health of the

central nervous system, the progression of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, developmental outcomes in children, and such

reproductive health outcomes as low birth weight, as well as other chronic conditions such as diabetes.”

In 2013 Defra published an air quality briefing note to inform public health professionals of the public health impacts of PM2.5 air pollution, along

with the sources of this pollution, health effects, and measures available to reduce air pollution. This document is available here, as an

excellent and easily understandable summary of the background to this report. The report also outlines a role for local authority public health

professionals to raise awareness of health impact of PM2.5. It should be noted however, since publication of this advice note, the evidence

base for the health effects of PM2.5 continues to develop (as detailed above), and also be associated with a widening range of health related

conditions.

Following this, in February 2015, Defra published a number of toolkits to assist Public Health professionals in their air quality duties8. These

toolkits are:

Table One: Public Health Air Quality Toolkits

Title Purpose

Getting to Grips with Air Pollution – the latest evidence and techniques. A Briefing for Directors of Public Health A briefing for Directors of Public Health

This briefing is to provide Directors of Public Health with the information they need to help them consider the appropriate public health response to air pollution in their area.

Understanding air pollution in your area – A guide for Directors of Public Health

This guidance provides simple steps required in understanding the health impacts of air pollution in Local Authority areas. These ranges from the most basic assessment to more detailed options to identify key locations of concern, sources of pollution and how to correctly rank air pollution in Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs).

Engaging local decision makers - A guide for Directors of Public Health

This guidance discusses the process to ensure that local air pollution is appropriately assessed and prioritised, based on the scale of the problem locally.

Communicating with the public about air pollution - A guide for Directors of Public Health

This guidance follows consultation with participants at workshops on the most effective way on communicating this message.

Air pollution: an emerging public health issue – a briefing for elected members

To enable elected members to understand the most important aspects of local air quality and to request action.

8 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18580


6

These documents follow on from Defra’s 2013 publication discussed earlier, and are essential reading for Public Health practioners as they

consider their role in tackling PM2.5.

2. Purpose of the Monitoring

As PM2.5 monitoring is only routinely undertaken in a minority of local authorities (most of this monitoring undertaken by Government networks),

the local mortality impact discussed above for local authorities throughout the UK has been calculated from modelled concentrations

undertaken by Defra, based on assessing the sources and emissions of PM2.5 in every 1 km by 1 km grid square within the country. Although

this modelling has been verified against national monitoring data, no monitoring has been undertaken within the Barnsley borough. There are

inherent potential inaccuracies in modelling (accuracy of emission factors, estimation of the impact of local sources etc.).

There was subsequently scope to undertake PM2.5 monitoring within the borough to confirm the modelling data, and, as funding was

forthcoming in 2013 from Public Health for the purchase of two portable indicative PM2.5 monitors, it was decided to initially locate one of the

monitors in an urban area relatively close to urban sources of PM2.5, such as traffic emissions from heavily trafficked roads. Therefore a

suitable monitoring location was established at the rear of the Roundhouse Medical Centre at Athersley, (see map and site photographs in

appendix A). This location is approximately 40 metres from the A61 Wakefield Road (a main arterial road into Barnsley town centre), but also

considered to be representative of general human exposure in the area.

The other monitor was located at the rear of Penistone Town Hall (see map and site photographs in appendix A) in the more rural portion of the

borough, west of the M1 motorway. This site was chosen to assess typical suburban and rural exposure in the borough to PM2.5.

A procurement exercise was then undertaken, in consultation with Barnsley MBC public health officers, with a major identified requirement

being that any purchased equipment should be portable, to in order to have the capability of being moved around the borough, in the event of

identification of future PM2.5 “hotspots” or specific pollution issues.

The procurement exercise subsequently identified the PM2.5 e-sampler as monitoring equipment able to produce representative PM2.5 data, and

also able to be transported around the borough if required (technical details available in appendix B). The equipment was subsequently

purchased in early 2014. Due to siting issues, the monitors were then operational later that year, from September 2014 onwards.


7

3. Deployment and Operation of the Monitors

Both monitors were deployed at their respective locations for the beginning of September 2014, and then operated for twelve months. Data

capture was very good for both sites, being in excess of 98%, with no significant operational issues being reported.

4. Results

The monthly and annual averages for Penistone and Athersley are detailed in the below table. All concentrations are expressed in

microgrammes of PM2.5 particles within each cubic metre of air (µg/m3). These data have also been tabulated with corresponding data from the

Government’s national PM2.5 particle monitoring network in the Yorkshire and Humber region.


8

Table Two: Monitoring Results

Month Hull Freetown

µg/m3

Leeds Headingley Kerbside

µg/m3

Leeds Centre µg/m

3

Sheffield Devonshire

Green µg/m3

York Bootham µg/m

3

York Fishergate

µg/m3

Penistone µg/m

3

Athersley µg/m

3

Sep-14 17.3 21.9 19.9 20.3 17.4 20.2 24.4 25.8

Oct-14 9.3 11.7 11.1 9.4 10.2 11.8 6.1 8

Nov-14 15.4 23.5 21.9 20.3 17.9 20.1 15.4 20.6

Dec-14 8.67 11.11 10.38 9.85 11.31 12.36 6.69 8.05

Jan-15 9.35 10.97 10.75 9.7 12.55 - 8.48 10.76

Feb-15 13.9 8.9 13.3 12.9 15.5 17.2 13.9 16.6

Mar-15 17.0 17.6 15.0 7.4 16.6 17.5 20.5 21.7

Apr-15 13.9 15.4 12.9 - 14.3 15.2 12.1 14.1

May-15 6.9 9.0 6.7 - 7.8 8.6 4.4 4.5

Jun-15 8.6 10.9 8.3 9.3 9.8 12.0 5.4 6.1

Jul-15 7.9 8.8 8.4 7.2 5.4 6.9 3.2 3.9

Aug-15 8.0 9.8 9.2 7.7 5.1 6.3 3.3 4.1

12 Month Average (µg/m3)

11.3 13.3 12.3 11.4 12.0 13.5 10.3 12.0

12 Month Data Capture (%)

91.84 92.90 96.08 67.67 96.85 94.73 99 98

The monthly means are presented graphically in appendix C. These data appear to show a seasonal trend with the highest readings recorded

in the winter and spring months.

5. Comparison with Air Quality Standards

The following table details the air quality standards for PM2.5 particles:


9

Table Three: Air Quality Standards

Legislator Time Period Standard To be achieved by (year)

UK

Annual mean Objective of 25 µg/m3 2020

Three-year running annual mean

15% reduction in average urban background concentration against a 2010 baseline

2020

EU

Annual mean Target value of 25 µg/m3 2010

Annual mean Limit value of 25 µg/m3 2015

Annual mean Stage 2 indicative Limit

value of 20 µg/m3 2020

Exposure Concentration Obligation (ECO)

20 µg/m3 at urban background stations (measured as a three year average)

2015

Currently, it is the responsibility of member states to meet these standards, rather than individual local authorities within member states.

However the annual means obtained from Penistone and Athersley for the twelve month monitoring period (10.3 and 12 µg/m3 respectively)

suggests that the standards are currently being met. It should be noted that it is considered that there is no safe threshold for PM2.5, with

regard to health effects.

In addition to the UK and EU air quality standards discussed above, in 2005 the World Health Organisation proposed non-statutory air quality

guidelines for PM2.59. These guidelines are:

Annual mean: 10 µg/m3

24-Hour mean: 25 µg/m3

9 World Health Organisation, 2005, WHO/SDE/PHE/OEH/06.02, WHO Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005


10

Our monitoring at Penistone and Athersley shows twelve month means of 10.3 and 12 µg/m3 respectively. It is interesting to note that the

Scottish Government has previously set an air quality objective of 12 µg/m3 for PM2.5. Further to this, the Scottish Government has very

recently launched its revised air quality strategy, “Cleaner Air for Scotland – the Road to a Healthier Future” (The Scottish Government,

November 2015)10. This strategy proposes that the WHO annual mean guideline of 10 µg/m3 for PM2.5 will be included in legislation as a

Scottish objective.

The comparison between PM2.5 concentrations recorded within Barnsley and the Scottish PM2.5 standards is interesting, as Barnsley’s

concentrations are relatively close to the proposed Scottish standards.

Furthermore, the DPH “Getting to grips with air pollution”, states that “any improvement in air quality will have positive health

consequences”11 and the UK has a target to reduce average concentrations of PM2.5 at urban background locations by 2 µg/m3 by 202012

6. Discussion of Monitoring Results

Several conclusions can be drawn from the monitoring data:

1. The concentrations recorded at Athersley are slightly higher than that those recorded at Penistone. This is considered to be due to the

proximity to typical urban pollution sources at the Athersley site. The concentrations recorded at Penistone and Athersley are broadly

similar to those recorded elsewhere in the Yorkshire and Humber region. This would indicate that the impacts are not just confined to

pollution “hot spots”, with therefore a potential but lesser impact on locations away from pollution hot spots.

2. All monitoring stations show a similar seasonal trend, with more raised concentrations recorded in the winter and spring periods.

3. Leeds Centre is classed as an urban background site, whilst Leeds Headingley is classed as an urban traffic site. Similarly, York

Bootham Centre is classed as an urban background site, whilst York Fishergate is classed as an urban traffic site. The concentrations

recorded at these sites exhibit the same characteristics as Penistone and Athersley, with the slightly higher concentrations recorded

nearer roadside in urban areas.

10

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00488493.pdf 11

Review of evidence of Health Aspects of Air Pollution – REVIHAAP: final Technical Report, World Health Organisation Office for Europe, 2013

(http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/publications/2013/review-of-evidence-on-health-aspects-of-air-pollution-revihaap-

project-final-technical-report 12

This is called the National Exposure Reduction Target (NERT), and is determined on the basis of the population’s Average Exposure Indicator (AEI). Urban background

sites are measurement sites in towns and cities that are not significantly influenced by emissions from specific local major roads, industry, or other pollution sources.


11

As representative monitored concentrations have now been established in the borough, there are currently no plans to repeat the monitoring

exercise, unless there are future specific issues which require monitoring.

7. Comparison with Modelled Concentrations

The monitored data can be compared to the modelled data for the relevant 1 km by 1 km grid square that each sampler was located within.

These data are detailed within the below table. It should be noted however, that there cannot be a direct comparison, as the modelled data are

based on calendar years (i.e. predicted modelled concentration for 2015 for instance), whilst the monitoring at Athersley and Penistone was

undertaken for the twelve month period from September 2014 to August 2015. Nevertheless, an indicative comparison can be made:

Table Four: Comparison of Modelled and Monitored Data

Monitoring location Monitored concentrations Sept 14 to Aug 15

(µg/m3)

Predicted concentrations (modelled) for 2015

for relevant 1 km by 1 km grid square (µg/m3)

Penistone 10.3 9.6 Athersley 12.0 10.3

The monitored data is greater than the modelled data in both cases, with the largest difference (1.7 µg/m3) being recorded at Athersley. It must

be noted that also that 1 km by 1km data are an average of the grid square, whilst the monitored data represent one fixed monitoring point

within the grid square, which may be located near to localised pollution sources within that grid square.

The modelled data has been further broken down (or disaggregated) into their constituent contributions to the total concentration. These data

are detailed in the table below, but as the data are based on national modelling at a coarse resolution (i.e. 1 km by 1 km), the relative

contributions should be treated with some caution. Furthermore, for each grid square, the contributions from sources outside of the grid

square are included, as well as sources within the grid square.


12

Table Five: Source Contributions to PM2.5 Concentrations

Source Contribution (µg/m3) Penistone grid square

Contribution (µg/m3) Athersley grid square

Motorway 0.005627 0.032685

Trunk Road 0.005486 0.001873

"A" Road 0.009189 0.028268

Minor Roads 0.057439 0.061314

Brake and Tyre wear 0.088929 0.130956

Road Abrasion 0.033557 0.059289

Industry 0.230556 0.374405

Domestic 0.384955 0.240058

Rail 0.001856 0.009756

Other 0.100419 0.205833

PM Secondary 4.59117 4.62118

Residual + salt 3.994265 4.281549

Point Sources 0.05994 0.203276

Total (predicted concentration for 2015) 9.563388 10.25044

Some explanation of the above data is required. The relative contribution from “secondary” sources is significant. Secondary sources occur as

a result of atmospheric chemistry acting on emissions, resulting in the eventual formation of fine particles. These initial emissions can be

emissions from traffic, industry, domestic and agriculture, and will be gaseous (e.g. oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ammonia etc.). Over

time, these gases react with each other to form this secondary fine particle pollution. These secondary particles are classed as man made or

anthropogenic.

The source of the residual component is not known (although a proportion of the residual will be naturally occurring PM2.5), and is classed as

non-anthropogenic, and again forms a significant contribution towards the total PM2.5 within each of these grid squares. When calculating the

mortality burden (and other health related indicators) for PM2.5, the non-anthropogenic contribution is not included. As there is no control over

the residual component, it is considered that no health benefit can be achieved by reducing (or eliminating) this particular contribution.


13

8. Control of PM2.5 emissions

At a local level, there is only a proportion of the total PM2.5 which can be potentially controlled. These are primary emissions from local

industrial, domestic and traffic sources. Industrial and domestic PM2.5 emissions are generally controlled by existing legislation (Clean Air Acts,

Environmental Protection Act etc.), with the Environment Agency and local authority Pollution Control sections responsible for the regulation of

these sources. A good example of this is the past creation of smoke control areas (smokeless zones) within the borough (the entire borough is

“smoke controlled”), which has significantly reduced emissions from solid fuels fires. This legislation can also be used to control emissions

from domestic biomass appliances, which are becoming increasingly popular. As the whole of Barnsley has been declared a Smoke Control

Area, this means that everybody living in Barnsley will be committing an offence unless the fuel they use in their biomass heater is an approved

smokeless fuel, or their solid fuel appliance has been tested to ensure it can burn ordinary fuels without creating smoke. It is therefore

important that this control of local industrial and domestic sources continues.

The control of traffic related PM2.5 emissions has to be considered differently, due to the lack of regulation. Typical measures to reduce

emissions from local sources include traffic management, encouraging the uptake of cleaner vehicles, increased use of public transport and

active travel (cycling and walking). The impact of these measures can be assessed for their effectiveness, other benefits (e.g. reduction in

emissions of other air pollutants, carbon reduction etc.), and timescales (whether the emission reduction benefits will occur in the short,

medium or long term).

Barnsley MBC has an air quality action plan (AQAP)13, designed to improve air quality within Barnsley’s air quality management areas

(AQMAs). These AQMAs have been declared due to the exceedance of European Union annual mean limit value for the polluting gas nitrogen

dioxide, primarily due to traffic emissions. The actions contained within this plan are essentially the same as those listed in the preceding

paragraph, so it expected that these will also assist in reducing emissions of PM2.5. The current local air quality management regime does not

require local authorities to have regard to reducing PM2.5 concentrations. However, Central Government (Defra) are currently reviewing this

regime, with a view to implementing the revised regime from April 2016 onwards. Within the new regime, there will be a role for local

authorities to deal with PM2.5, and this is discussed later in this report.

13

Barnsley MBC Air Quality Action Plan, Regulatory Services, Barnsley MBC, 2012


14

Public Health’s role in reducing emissions is stated in 2013 Defra advice note as “…to raise awareness of the health impact of poor air quality,

support measures to reduce air pollution and encourage lifestyle adaptations to reduce the risk to individuals and their families…”14. Barnsley

MBC currently undertakes two air quality related campaigns.

Within the air quality advice note, under mitigation and local authority duties (section 6), the “ECO Stars” scheme is mentioned by Defra as a

scheme other local authorities should consider implementing. This scheme was conceived and is led by Barnsley MBC, and is now expanding

to other local authorities throughout the UK. We believe that this scheme is a good example of locally developed “good practice”, which is now

being used elsewhere. The ECO Stars website can be found out http://www.ecostars-uk.com. In addition, Barnsley MBC contributes to the

South Yorkshire Care4Air campaign (http://www.care4air.org), an air quality awareness raising campaign. Both ECO Stars and Care4Air have,

in the past, received national recognition.

The Councils’ twitter feed is updated when there are raised concentrations of air pollution in the borough, with links to health advice for

susceptible groups. Although these alerts are activated in the event of raised concentrations of NO2 or PM10 (PM10 – essentially the mass per

cubic metre of particles of less than 10 µm aerodynamic diameter), it is likely that PM2.5 concentrations will be raised at the same time, ensuring

that the health advice will be pertinent for periods of elevated PM2.5 concentrations as well.

In order to fund, develop, and implement emission reduction actions, Barnsley MBC has been working with its South Yorkshire partners in order

to secure ongoing funding for these local and countywide actions. This work will continue when opportunity arises. There may be a role for

Public Health to offer support for these funding bids.

9. Future of PM2.5 within Local Air Quality Management

In December 2015, Defra published its final consultation into the revision of the duties required of local authorities in undertaking local air

quality management (LAQM)15. Essentially, LAQM will move even further towards mitigation of air pollution, with less emphasis on

assessment. This consultation clarifies local authorities’ role with regard to PM2.5. These duties are summarised below:

“Local authorities are expected to work towards reducing emissions and concentrations of PM2.5 in their local areas”

“It is for the local authority in consultation with its public health officials and others to consider how it wishes to define this role”

14

Defra, 2014, Public Health Air Quality Note, page 5, Section 8, Role for Public Health Professionals 15

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-air-quality-management-review-changes-to-guidance-and-reporting


15

“Local authorities are expected to set in their (air quality) annual reports how they have chosen to fulfil their role to work towards reducing PM2.5

and any actions they are taking or will take, including any linkages to the PHOF”

“Decisions should be based on local need and priorities”

It is intended that the new LAQM regime will start in April 2016, with the first annual status report under the new regime to be presented to

Defra at the end of June 2016. Local Authorities are expected to include some commentary within their annual status report on how they are

tackling PM2.5 in their boroughs.

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

Indicative PM2.5 monitoring has been successfully undertaken in the borough for twelve months in 2014-15, with the monitoring locations being

representative of urban locations near to Barnsley town centre, and a suburban location in the west of the borough. The resulting data has

been compared to similar monitoring elsewhere in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and has been found to be broadly similar.

The data were then compared to air quality standards for PM2.5. Current concentrations within the borough are meeting the statutory

standards. Following this, the monitored data were compared against the modelled data for the same location – the monitored data being

slightly higher than the modelled data for both monitoring locations. As the health impact indicators for PM2.5 are based on the modelled data,

the monitored data confirm that the health burden for PM2.5 may be at least the same as predicted by the modelling and reported previously to

Public Health by Public Health England. It is therefore important that PM2.5 emissions are reduced wherever practicable, so that the health

burden can reduce. It is therefore recommended that:

• Public Health note the contents of this report and consider, along with Regulatory Services (and other stakeholders) how PM2.5 may be

tackled in future, and report on this within the June 2016 Barnsley MBC annual status report.

• Public Health continue to report on PHOF indicator 3.01 – Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution

• Public Health and Pollution Control continue their ongoing dialogue so that Public Health can offer assistance when appropriate in

promoting actions to reduce PM2.5 concentrations and improve air quality in general


16

Appendix A – Monitoring Locations - Maps and Photographs

Athersley PM2.5 Monitoring Location


17

Athersley PM2.5 Monitoring Location


18

Penistone PM2.5 Monitoring Location


19

Penistone PM2.5 Monitoring Location


20

Appendix B - E-sampler technical specification


21

Appendix C – Graph of monthly means

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15

Penistone µg/m3 Athersley µg/m3 Hull Freetown µg/m3

Leeds Headingley Kerbside µg/m3 Leeds Centre µg/m3 Sheffield Devonshire Green µg/m3

York Bootham µg/m3 York Fishergate µg/m3

pollution control, regulatory services€¦ · pollution control have undertaken pm 2.5 particle...

Documents