Scribd
Upload
9 views5 pages

Comparative Analysis of Air Quality Index Calculat

This report compares the Air Quality Index (AQI) calculation methodologies of the United States, India, and Japan, highlighting their mathematical formulations, pollutant coverage, and interpretation frameworks. The US and India utilize maximum sub-index approaches with piecewise linear interpolation, while Japan employs a normalized aggregation method that aligns with WHO guidelines. Each system reflects different environmental priorities and may benefit from future hybridization to enhance public health communication.

Uploaded by

abdelrahmanrefaat2122
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views5 pages

Comparative Analysis of Air Quality Index Calculat

This report compares the Air Quality Index (AQI) calculation methodologies of the United States, India, and Japan, highlighting their mathematical formulations, pollutant coverage, and interpretation frameworks. The US and India utilize maximum sub-index approaches with piecewise linear interpolation, while Japan employs a normalized aggregation method that aligns with WHO guidelines. Each system reflects different environmental priorities and may benefit from future hybridization to enhance public health communication.

Uploaded by

abdelrahmanrefaat2122
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Comparative Analysis of Air Quality Index

Calculation Methodologies Across


Countries
Air Quality Indices (AQIs) serve as critical tools for translating complex pollution data into
actionable public health information. This report analyzes three distinct methodological
approaches to AQI calculation employed by the United States, India, and Japan, focusing
on their mathematical formulations, pollutant coverage, and index interpretation
frameworks.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method

The US EPA's AQI calculation method remains the global benchmark for air quality
assessment. This system monitors five criteria pollutants:

 PM₂.₅ (24-hour average)

 PM₁₀ (24-hour average)

 Ozone (O₃, 8-hour average)

 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂, 1-hour average)

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂, 1-hour average)

 Carbon Monoxide (CO, 8-hour average)[1][2]

The index calculation follows a piecewise linear interpolation formula:

(I high −I low )
IP= ×(C P −Clow )+ I low
(C high −C low )

Where:

 IP = Index value for pollutant P

 C P = Truncated concentration of pollutant P

 C low /C high = Concentration breakpoints bracketing C P

 I low / I high = Corresponding index breakpoints[1][2]


For example, a PM₂.₅ concentration of 30.1 µg/m³ falls within the 12.1-35.4 µg/m³ range
(Moderate category). Applying the formula:

(100−51)
IP M 2.5= ×(30.1−12.1)+51=88.85≈ 89
(35.4−12.1)

The final AQI equals the maximum individual pollutant index, categorized into six levels
from Good (0-50) to Hazardous (301-500)[1][2]. This approach prioritizes simplicity but
faces criticism for ignoring synergistic pollutant effects.

India's National Air Quality Index (NAQI)

India's system, launched in 2014, incorporates eight pollutants including unique


parameters:

 PM₂.₅

 PM₁₀

 NO₂

 SO₂

 CO

 O₃

 NH₃

 Pb[3]

The sub-index calculation uses similar piecewise linear interpolation:

(I upper −I lower )
S I P= ×(C P−C lower )+ I lower
(Cupper −C lower )

With concentration breakpoints specific to Indian ambient standards. For instance, PM₂.₅
thresholds range from 0-30 µg/m³ (Good) to 250+ µg/m³ (Severe) [3]. The NAQI categorizes
air quality into six levels:

1. Good (0-50)

2. Satisfactory (51-100)

3. Moderately Polluted (101-200)

4. Poor (201-300)
5. Very Poor (301-400)

6. Severe (401-500)[3]

A unique feature is the inclusion of ammonia (NH₃) monitoring, reflecting agricultural


emission patterns. During severe pollution episodes like Delhi's 2024 crisis (AQI 1,081),
the maximum sub-index dominance becomes particularly evident [3].

Japan's Clean aIr Index (CII)

Japan's innovative Clean aIr Index (CII) adopts a normalized aggregation approach based
on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines:

N
1 x [i]
CII=1− ∑ ❑
N i =1 s [i]

Where:

 x [i] = Measured concentration of pollutant i

 s[i] = WHO Air Quality Guideline value

 N = Number of pollutants (4: O₃, PM₂.₅, NO₂, SO₂) [4]


The CII ranges from 0 (pollutants at guideline limits) to 1 (pristine air). This method
differs fundamentally from threshold-based systems by:

1. Considering cumulative pollutant impacts

2. Using continuous scaling rather than discrete categories

3. Aligning with international health standards [4]

Validation against atmospheric observations showed strong correlation (R²=0.91) with


measured pollution levels, demonstrating operational viability [4].

Methodological Comparison

Mathematical Formulations

Countr Approach Formula Type Key Characteristics


y

US Maximum Sub-index Piecewise Linear Focus on worst pollutant


India Maximum Sub-index Piecewise Linear Expanded pollutant
coverage

Japan Normalized Continuous Cumulative pollutant


Aggregation Summation impact

The US and Indian methods share mathematical DNA but differ in parameterization.
Japan's CII represents a paradigm shift from threshold-based systems to continuous,
additive assessment.

Breakpoint Analysis

The US EPA defines 10 concentration ranges for PM₂.₅ (0-500 µg/m³), while India uses 6
ranges (0-250+ µg/m³)[1][3]. Japan eliminates breakpoints entirely through continuous
normalization[4].

Health Correlation

 US/India: Discrete categories map to specific health advisories

 Japan: Continuous scale enables granular risk assessment

The WHO estimates 4.5 million annual premature deaths from ambient air pollution [5],
highlighting the critical need for accurate AQI systems. While maximum-subindex
methods effectively highlight acute risks, aggregation approaches better capture chronic
exposure impacts.

Conclusion

National AQI methodologies reflect distinct environmental priorities and technical


philosophies. The US EPA's maximum-subindex approach offers operational simplicity,
India's expanded pollutant coverage addresses local emission profiles, while Japan's CII
pioneers integrated risk assessment. Future systems may hybridize these approaches,
potentially combining acute risk signaling with cumulative impact assessment.
Standardization efforts must balance technical sophistication with public comprehension
needs to maintain AQI's role as a vital public health tool.

1. https://engage-csedu.org/sites/default/files/Air Quality Index Calculator.pdf


2. https://areacalculators.com/air-quality-index-calculator/

3. http://www.arthapedia.in/index.php/National_Air_Quality_Index

4. https://gc.copernicus.org/preprints/gc-2019-16/gc-2019-16.pdf

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_pollution

You might also like