Help the Government of Canada organize its website!

Complete an anonymous 5-minute questionnaire. Start now.

Long Descriptions

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations (µg m-3) across Canada and the U.S. for the period 2004-2006.

The figure is a map showing the spatial distribution of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentration averaged over the period of 2004 to 2006 over southern Canada and the northern U.S. The concentration ranges, in µg m-3, are 10 to 15; 15 to 20; 20 to 25; 25 to 30; 30 to 35; 35 to 40; 40 to 45 and 45 to 63. Concentrations in southern Canada generally lie in the 15 to 30 µg m-3 range, although large parts of the country are in black, signifying there is insufficient number of sites or incomplete data for mapping.

« Back to figure 1

Figure 2. Mass fractions of PM2.5 component species in the warm season (a) and the cold season (b) sampled in 2003-2006 at selected National Air Pollutant Surveillance (NAPS) network sites

Figure 2 shows the mass composition of PM2.5 at major urban sites across the country in the warm season (on the left panel) and in the cold season (on the right panel). The sites (from left to right) are Halifax, Canterbury, St. Anicet, Montreal, Toronto, Simcoe, Windsor, Edmonton, Golden, Abbotsford and Burnaby. The major constituents in both seasons are sodium chloride (in darker blue), soil (lighter blue), elemental carbon (orange), organic matter (brown), sodium nitrate (dark green), sodium sulphate (light green) and unaccounted mass (grey). In both seasons, the major components are organic matter, ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate, although the composition varies by location and by season.

« Back to figure 2

Figure 3. Trend in composite annual mean and 98th percentile PM2.5 from dichotomous sampler studies

The figure is a line graph that shows the long-term trend in composite annual mean and 98th percentile PM2.5concentrations (along the y-axis at urban sites) for the years 1985 to 2006 (along the x-axis). The line with closed circles is the 98th percentile value, while the line with open circles depicts the annual mean. In general, both the annual mean and 98th percentile have declined by approximately 40% over this time period, with the largest reductions occurring prior to 1996.

« Back to figure 3

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of the three-year average (2004-2006) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr O3 average concentration (ppb) across Canada and the U.S.

This figure shows the spatial distribution of the 4thhighest daily maximum 8-hour ozone values, averaged over the period of 2004 to 2006 over southern Canada and northern U.S. The values range (in ppb) between 47 to 50; 50 to 55; 55 to 60; 60 to 65; 65 to 70; 70 to 75; 75 to 80; 80 to 100. Areas in black are where there is insufficient number of sites or incomplete data for mapping purposes. A high concentration region, greater than 65 ppb, encompasses the entire northeastern U.S. and southern Ontario and southern Quebec.

« Back to figure 4

Figure 5. Seasonal variation in monthly averages of daily mean (>) and maximum (•) O3 concentration at selected sites (both urban and rural) across Canada averaged over the period 2001-2005.

Figure 5 is a composite image of line graphs showing the seasonal variation in daily mean (open circles) and maximum (closed circles) ozone concentrations at twelve urban and rural sites averaged over 2001 to 2005. The sites, clockwise from the top left, are Fort McMurray (Alberta), Bratt’s Lake (Saskatchewan), Egbert (Ontario), L’Assomption (Quebec), St. John’s (Newfoundland and Labrador), Kejimkujik (Nova Scotia), Simcoe (Ontario), Windsor (Ontario), Experimental Lakes Area (Ontario), Kelowna (British Columbia), Abbotsford (British Columbia) and Calgary (Alberta). Each graph shows the concentration in ppb along the y-axis and month of year along the x-axis.

« Back to figure 5

Figure 6. Differences in the meteorologically-adjusted four-year average summer O3 levels from 1997-2000 to 2003-2006 based on daily maximum 8-hr values.

Figure 6 consists of a map of southern Canada and the U.S., with red and blue arrows showing changes in the four-year average summer O3 levels from 1997-2000 and 2003-2006. Red arrows point up and indicate increases, with the increases ranging from less than 4% to between 4 and 8% and between 8 and 13%. Blue arrows point down depicting decreases in the trend, with decreases ranging from less than 4% to between 4 and 8% and between 8 and 15%. The overall trend is downward, especially in southern Ontario, southern Quebec, New Brunswick and northeastern U.S. There are increases in Atlantic Canada, along the Pacific coast, and in some interior locations.

« Back to figure 6

Figure 7. Absolute difference in the annual PM2.524-hour average between the 2015 BAU simulation and the 2002 reference case

The figure is a map of southern Canada and the U.S. It presents the modelled difference in annual PM2.5 24-hour average concentration based on emissions for the 2002 reference case and the projected emissions for the 2015 business as usual case. Blue regions correspond to areas of projected decrease while yellow and red regions correspond to areas of projected increase in PM2.5concentrations. The scale range is from a difference of -20.0 µg m-3 to a difference of +3.0 µg m-3

« Back to figure 7

Figure 8. Absolute difference in the average summertime (June-August) 8-hour daily maximum O3 between the 2015 BAU simulation and the 2002 reference case

The figure is a map of southern Canada and the U.S. It presents the modelled difference in summertime 8-hour daily maximum O3 concentrations based on emissions for the 2002 reference case and the projected emissions for the 2015 business as usual case. Blue regions correspond to areas of projected decrease, while yellow and red regions correspond to areas of projected increase in O3 concentrations. The scale range is from a difference of -40 ppb to a difference greater than +15 ppb.

« Back to figure 8

Figure 9. Historical (1985 to 2006) and projected (2007 to 2015) anthropogenic emissions (including open sources) of smog-forming pollutants (Environment Canada, 2010)

This figure is a line graph showing the trend in emissions from anthropogenic sources of primary PM2.5 (in red), SOx (in blue), NOx (in green), VOCs (in purple) and NH3 (in brown) for the years 1985 to 2006, as well as the projected emission for the years 2007 to 2015. Emissions in kilotonnes are shown on the y-axis while the years 1985 to 2015 are shown on the x-axis.

« Back to figure 9

Figure 10. Key sectors contributing to the 2006 PM2.5emissions inventory.

This figure is a pie chart of the key sectors contributing to emissions of primary PM2.5 in Canada in 2006. The twelve major sources clockwise from the largest source are road dust (48%), construction (19%), residential wood combustion (9.7%), agriculture (5.1%), other transportation (0.9%), non-road transportation (5%), electricity generation (0.5%), wood and pulp and paper (4%), downstream petroleum (0.3%), upstream petroleum (1.1%), other industrial sources (4.8%) and other sources (1.6%). The total emitted in 2006 is 1123 kilotonnes (not including natural sources).

« Back to figure 10

Figure 11. Density map of PM2.5 emissions (kg km-2) including open sources, in Canada for 2006.

Figure 11 is a map of Canada and the northern United States showing the density distribution of PM2.5 emissions in Canada in 2006 in units of kg km-2. The emissions include those from open sources. The density ranges (in kg km-2) are less than 5, from 5 to 25, from 25 to 250, from 250 to 500, from 500 to 2500, from 2500 to 5000, and greater than 5000.

« Back to figure 11

Figure 12. Key sectors contributing to the 2006 NOx emissions inventory

Figure 12 is a pie chart of the key sectors contributing to NOx emissions in Canada in 2006. The total emitted in 2006 was 2307 kt, not including natural sources. The ten major sectors shown, clockwise from the largest contributor, are non-road transportation (27%), residential wood combustion (0.5%), heavy duty diesel vehicles (11%), electricity generation (10%), downstream petroleum (1.6%), upstream petroleum (21%), other industrial sources (11%), other sources (3.2%), marine transportation (4.9%) and other on-road transportation (10%),

« Back to figure 12

Figure 13. Density map of NOx emissions (kg km-2) in Canada for 2006, not including open or natural sources.

Figure 13 is a map of Canada and the northern United States showing the density distribution of NOx emissions in Canada in units of kg km-2. The emissions do not include those from open and natural sources. The density ranges (in kg km-2) are less than 2.5, from 2.5 to 10, from 10 to 50, from 50 to 250, from 250 to 1000, from 1000 to 5000, and greater than 5000.

« Back to figure 13

Figure 14. Key sectors contributing to the 2006 SO2 emissions inventory.

Figure 14 is a pie chart of the key sectors contributing to SO2 emissions in 2006 in Canada. The total emitted was 1972 kilotonnes, not including natural sources. The are nine major sources shown in the pie chart, clockwise from the largest contributor, are non-ferrous smelting (34%), electricity generation (23%), downstream petroleum (4.6%), upstream petroleum (17%), other industrial sources (10%), other sources (2.5%), transportation (5.5%), open sources (0.1%) and aluminium (3.5%)

« Back to figure 14

Figure 15. Density map of sulphur oxide (primarily SO2 and minimal contributions of H2SO3) emissions (kg km-2) in Canada for 2006, not including open or natural sources.

Figure 15 is a map of Canada and the northern United States showing the density distribution of SOx emissions in Canada in units of kg km-2. The emissions do not include those from open and natural sources. The density ranges (in kg km-2) are less than 0.5, from 0.5 to 2.5, from 2.5 to 5, from 5 to 25, from 25 to 50, from 50 to 1000, and greater than 1000.

« Back to figure 15

Figure 16. Key sectors contributing to the 2006 VOC emissions inventory

Figure 16 is a pie chart of the key sectors contributing to VOC emissions in 2006 in Canada. The total emitted was 2210 kilotonnes, not including natural sources. The are ten major sources shown in the pie chart, clockwise from the largest contributor, are upstream petroleum (24%), other industrial sources (3.7%), other sources (3.4%), solvents and printing (16%), residential wood combustion (7.1%), agriculture (13%), other on-road transportation (12%), non-road transportation (14%), wood and pulp and paper (4%) and downstream petroleum (1.9%).

« Back to figure 16

Figure 17. Density map of VOC emissions (kg km-2) in Canada for 2006, not including open or natural sources.

Figure 17 is a map of Canada and the northern United States showing the density distribution of VOC emissions in Canada in units of kg km-2. The emissions do not include those from open and natural sources. The density ranges (in kg km-2) are less than 0.5, from 0.5 to 2.5, from 2.5 to 25, from 25 to 250, from 250 to 1000, from 1000 to 5000, and greater than 5000.

« Back to figure 17

Figure 18. Key sectors contributing to the 2006 NH3 emissions inventory.

Figure 18 is a pie chart of the key sectors contributing to NH3 emissions in 2006 in Canada. The total emitted was 550 kilotonnes, not including natural sources. The are eight major sources shown in the pie chart, clockwise from the largest contributor, are agriculture (90.8%), on-road transportation (3.7%), non-road transportation (0.1%), other non-industrial fuel combustion (0.2%), other industrial sources (1.9%), other sources (1.2%), chemical industries (1.9%) and residential wood combustion (0.2%).

« Back to figure 18

Figure 19. Density map of ammonia (NH3) emissions (kg km-2) in Canada for 2006 with open but no natural sources.

Figure 19 is a map of Canada and the northern United States showing the density distribution of NH3 emissions in Canada in units of kg km-2. The emissions include those from open but not natural sources. The density ranges (in kg km-2) are less than 5, from 5 to 25, from 25 to 100, from 100 to 250, from 250 to 500, from 500 to 1000, and greater than 1000.

« Back to figure 19