Next Article in Journal
Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Wall and Insulation Materials on Green Building: A Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Increasing Weekend Effect in Ground-Level O3 in Metropolitan Areas of Mexico during 1988–2016

by
Iván Y. Hernández-Paniagua
1,
Rodrigo Lopez-Farias
1,
José J. Piña-Mondragón
1,
Juan A. Pichardo-Corpus
1,
Olivia Delgadillo-Ruiz
1,
Arnoldo Flores-Torres
1,
Agustín García-Reynoso
2,
Luis G. Ruiz-Suárez
2 and
Alberto Mendoza
3,*
1
CONACYT—Consorcio CENTROMET, Camino a Los Olvera 44, Los Olvera, Corregidora 76904, Querétaro, Mexico
2
Centro de Ciencias de la Atmosfera, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito de la Investigación Científica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
3
Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey 64849, Nuevo León, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(9), 3330; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093330
Submission received: 28 August 2018 / Revised: 10 September 2018 / Accepted: 10 September 2018 / Published: 18 September 2018

Abstract

:
Here, we present an assessment of long-term trends in the O3 weekend effect (WE) occurrences and spread within the Mexico City (MCMA), Guadalajara (GMA), and Monterrey (MMA) metropolitan areas, which are the three largest metropolitan areas (MAs) of Mexico and concentrate around 33% of the total population in the country. Daytime averages and peak differences in O3 concentrations from weekdays to weekends were used as a proxy of WE occurrence. All MAs exhibited the occurrence of WE in all years at least in one monitoring site. Substantial differences in O3 daytime averages and peaks from weekdays to weekends have decreased over time in all MAs, and since 1998 and 2013 for the MCMA and GMA, respectively, higher O3 levels during weekends are typical during most of the year. The largest variations in the O3 WE were observed at downwind and urban core sites of the MCMA and GMA. Significant increasing trends (p < 0.05) in the O3 WE magnitude were observed for Sundays at all sites within the MCMA, with trends in annual averages ranging between 0.33 and 1.29 ppb O3 yr−1. Within the GMA, for Sundays, fewer sites exhibited increasing trends in the WE occurrence and at lower growth rates (0.32 and 0.48 ppb yr−1, p < 0.1) than within the MCMA, while within the MMA no apparent trends were observed in marked contrast with the MCMA and GMA. Our findings suggest that policies implemented have been successful in controlling weekday ground-level O3 within the MCMA and GMA, but further actions must be introduced to control the increases in the O3 WE magnitude and spread.

1. Introduction

Tropospheric O3 is a secondary air pollutant formed by photo-oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4) in the presence of nitrogen oxides (NOX = NO + NO2). It may cause deleterious effects on human health and vegetation [1,2], and act as an effective greenhouse gas [3,4]. In large metropolitan areas, high levels of tropospheric O3 are typical during seasons with intense photo-chemical processing and stable high-pressure systems that prevent dispersion of precursor emissions. In metropolitan areas of US and Canada, VOC and NOX emissions have decreased significantly during the last two decades in response to the introduction of stricter emission standards for motor vehicles and industries, which has helped to improve the air quality [5,6,7]. Nevertheless, strong weekly patterns with lower emissions of NOX and VOCs during weekends than on weekdays have resulted in the so-called “O3 weekday/weekend effect” (WE) [8], which is the occurrence of higher concentrations in ground-level O3 during weekends than during weekdays.
The O3 WE is explained by non-linearity of the system of O3 production, which may lead to increases in production rates of O3 with increasing NOX, whereas for other conditions the production rates may decrease with increases in NOX and/or VOCs [1]. Such behaviour complicates the effective design and implementation of control strategies for reducing ground-level O3, and highlights the need for conducting periodic evaluations of the results achieved by existing policies. This phenomenon was reported first in the 1970s in the New York–New Jersey region [9] and Baltimore–Washington metropolitan areas [10], and at the Los Angeles basin [11]. Nevertheless, only recently, the combination of the modelling approach, continuous monitoring and field studies has shown the complexity of this phenomenon associated with local meteorology, physiography, and changes in precursor emissions [12]. Thus, ground-level O3 during weekends over time may increase, decrease, or not vary in relation to weekdays from city to city [12,13]. In urban areas with significant O3 precursors emissions from motor vehicles, decreases during weekends of up to 50% and 20% in NOX and VOC emissions, respectively, may result typically in changes of around ±10% in ground-level O3 [14,15].
In the US, a national analysis of weekday/weekend differences in O3 from 1997–1999 to 2008–2010 shown the vanishing of higher concentrations during weekends than weekdays, from around 35% to less than 5% of the sites studied in response to a greater decline in NOX emissions [12]. By contrast, for the Santiago metropolitan area in Chile, Seguel et al. reported a significant increase since 2004 in diurnal average concentrations in ground-level O3 during weekends than during weekdays [16]. Such increase was associated with an increase in the VOC/NOx ambient ratio due to lower NOX emissions from motor vehicles during weekends. In the Mexico City metropolitan area (MCMA), non-significant changes during 2001–2007 in ground-level O3 from weekdays to Saturday and Sunday were reported by Stephens et al. with only occasional higher O3 concentrations during weekends despite relatively lower emissions of precursors [17]. The little change in O3 from weekdays to weekends was attributed to workday O3 production being limited by VOCs and inhibited by NOX and, small or no changes in the VOC/NOX ratio due to simultaneous decreases in VOCs and NOX emissions during weekends.
Ground-level O3 in the MCMA has decreased constantly since the 1990s in response to several primary pollutant emissions reduction initiatives [18,19,20]. By contrast, O3 levels in the Guadalajara metropolitan area (GMA) and Monterrey metropolitan area (MMA), the second and third largest cities in the country, respectively, have remained constant or increased during the same period due to the relatively little attention to control precursor emissions [21]. Nevertheless, O3 pollution episodes are still observed in the MCMA to date. For instance, during March 2016, a high-pressure system caused high O3 concentrations up to 185 ppb. To reduce such high levels, emergency actions implemented included the driving restriction to around 40% of the overall vehicular fleet and, industrial and service cuts, which apparently worsened the event and have been maintained ever since [22]. Additional actions such as the driving restriction on Saturdays for vehicles with plate registration out of the MCMA have contributed also to decrease emissions during weekends, modifying the O3 production system. The observed decrease in ground-level O3 within the MCMA has resulted in lower violations to the national official standard (NOM-020-SSA1-2014), which currently sets the maximum permitted level in 95 ppb O3 as a 1 h average. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the results from the MCMA O3 precursor control emissions policies implemented in order to better understand the atmospheric chemistry and to identify the policies to be applied in other metropolitan areas in Mexico.
Existing studies have addressed the O3 weekend effect within the MCMA [17,23] and O3 sensitivity for the Monterrey Metropolitan Area (MMA) [24]. However, none of those has considered changes in the WE of ground-level O3 in metropolitan areas of Mexico. In this study, we describe trends in the WE occurrence and magnitude within the three major metropolitan areas of Mexico. Long-term and high-frequency measurements of O3 recorded at five air quality stations within the MCMA, Guadalajara (GMA), and MMA were used to assess changes in emission precursors from weekdays to weekends since the 1990s. In order to better assess temporal and spatial changes in the WE from year to year, a time window for the peak occurrence in O3 was defined using an exploratory analysis of the collected data sets. Finally, we describe how decreasing trends in O3 precursor emissions have resulted in lower O3 levels during weekdays but led to higher levels on weekends.

2. Methodology

2.1. Metropolitan Areas Description

The MCMA is located in Central Mexico (19°22′ N, 99°09′ W) and has a surface area of around 9500 km2 (Figure 1). It lies at an average altitude of 2500 m a.s.l. and is surrounded completely by mountains. The MCMA has a population of around 20.1 million inhabitants, which makes it the most populous city in Mexico [25]. The climate is mild with an annual average temperature of 17.5 °C and an annual average rainfall of 846 mm. The predominant wind direction throughout the year at the MCMA (Figure 1). It has the largest vehicle fleet in the country with around 8.9 million motor vehicles and a motorization index of 0.4. In the MCMA, air pollutants emitted primarily from the industrial, transport, and service sectors have led to poor air quality compared with other large cities in Mexico and with other megacities worldwide [26,27].
The GMA is located NW of MCMA (20°40′ N, 103°21′ W; Figure 1), covers an area of 3600 km2 and lies at an average altitude of 1550 m a.s.l. It has around 4.9 million inhabitants, which makes it the second most populous urban area in Mexico [25]. The climate is mild with dry springs and wet summers. The annual average temperature is 19.3 °C, and the annual average rainfall is 868 mm. Westerly winds dominate at the GMA during most of the year (Figure 1). The vehicle fleet is comprised of around 2.1 million motor vehicles, with a motorization index of 0.4. The GMA experiences occasional pollution events during stagnation events due to local emissions from automobiles, industry and commercial and services activities [28].
The MMA is located north of the MCMA, around 200 km south of the US border (25°40′ N, 100°20′ W; Figure 1). It lies at an average altitude of 550 m a.s.l. and is surrounded by mountains to the south and west. It has a population of around 4.2 million, which makes it the third most populous urban area in the country [25]. The climate is semi-arid with an annual average rainfall of 590 mm, and an annual average temperature of 25.0 °C with hot summers and mild winters. At the MMA, the predominant wind direction is east during most of the year (Figure 1). It has a vehicle fleet of around 1.9 million motor vehicles and a motorization index of 0.4. In the MMA, rapid weather changes and enhanced industrial activity may cause recurrent pollution events during spring and winter [21].

2.2. O3 Measurements, Instrumentation, and Calibration

In order to protect the population health in metropolitan areas of Mexico, the environmental legislation makes compulsory the continuous monitoring of ground-level O3 and five additional air pollutants (CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5), along with seven meteorological parameters (wind speed (WS), wind direction (WD), temperature (Temp), rainfall, solar radiation (SR), relative humidity (RH), and pressure). In all MAs, ground-level O3 is measured, in accordance with EPA EQOA-0880-047, using Thermo Environmental Instruments Inc. (TEI) model 49 UV photometric analysers with a stated precision of less than ±2 ppb O3 and a detection limit of 2 ppb O3. The continuous records are summarized as hourly averages and stored in the official air quality department websites of each metropolitan area. Hourly O3 data, valid with a minimum data capture of 75%, were downloaded from the Atmospheric Monitoring System (SIMAT) of the MCMA (http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx), from the Atmospheric Monitoring System (SIMAJ) of the GMA (http://siga.jalisco.gob.mx/aire/), and from the Integral Environmental Monitoring System (SIMA) of the MMA (http://aire.nl.gob.mx/). We used data recorded at monitoring sites representative of different environments within the three MAs, which are not directly influenced by strong emission sources [29].
Measurements, calibration, maintenance procedures, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) followed the protocols established in the Mexican standards NOM-036-SEMARNAT-1993 and NOM-156-SEMARNAT-2012. All data sets have been validated by the Air Quality Research Division of the Environment and Natural Resources Secretariat (SEMARNAT). All data validation protocols follow standards established by the US Environmental Protection Agency [30]. Further details of the MCMA, GMA, and MMA O3 records can be found elsewhere [20,21].

2.3. Calculation of the Weekend Effect (WE)

To assess temporal changes in ground-level O3 from weekdays to weekends during the studied periods, we used two metrics reported in the literature [31] and references therein. First, we calculated differences in O3 daytime averages (06:00–18:00 CDT) by subtracting the average concentrations from Tuesday to Thursday from the Saturday and Sunday average, as:
WEAVG (WEEK, WEEKEND) = AVG(WEEKEND) − AVG(WEEK)
where WEEK = {DTUE, DWED, DTHU} and WEEKEND = {DSAT, DSUN} are a set of O3 concentrations from weekday and weekend reference days, and AVG is the O3 concentration averaged from each O3 set. Thus, WEAVG is the difference between daytime O3 from Saturday to Sunday minus Tuesday to Thursday (Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu).
Second, we calculated differences in O3 highest concentrations (peaks) between reference days within the same week, e.g., weekend (Saturday, Sunday) minus weekday (Wednesday), as:
WE (DNWN, DNWD) = MAX(DNWN) − MAX(DNWD)
where WE is the difference calculated by subtracting the highest value observed on Wednesday (DNWD) from the highest value observed on Saturday (Sat/Wed) or Sunday (Sun/Wed) (DNWN). DNWD and DNWN are vectors expressed in concentration (ppb O3) from the same week with n missing data in the reference days. NWN {Sat, Sun} and NWD {Tue, Wed, Thu} are indexes with values from a given week. Thus, if WE (DNWN, DNWD) > 0, a WE is detected; otherwise, there is no WE.
To discard bias in the WE calculation due to missing data, the O3 time-series were filtered for retaining only reference days with no missing values during the peak occurrence maximum probability time window. The time window was defined from a peak probability distribution for each monitoring site, calculated from days with no missing values, e.g., 24 values per day. Then, the O3 peak timing was determined from the filtered data set for each metropolitan area and site. Finally, the overall peak probability distribution was constructed from the whole data sets with no missing values during the O3 peak timing established from the filtered data set. A 50% data capture threshold was used in order to consider the WE calculation valid. Figure 2 shows the overall peak probability distributions for each monitoring site and metropolitan area, and Table S1 shows the recovered data by monitoring site for the WE calculation.

2.4. Spatial Interaction Calculation

To show the WE spatial extent at each metropolitan area, we assessed the WE spatial interaction among sites per year. The WE spatial interactions were assessed using the graph theory approach [32], which allows the analysis of interactions among monitoring sites over time. We represent the O3 annual averages calculated from differences in O3 peaks in a vector D ; thus, we have a sequence of vectors D i with i { 1 , 2 , , n } , where n is the number of years with WE data for each metropolitan area. The length of each D i is 5, as it corresponds to the number of sites selected for a better spatial representation. We used the vectors D i to build a graph (network) by year with the set of vertices (nodes) representing sites and edges (links), which allows measuring the relation from site to site. A summary of graph theory notation is presented for a better interpretation of the calculation steps. Briefly, a graph G = ( V , E ) consists of a set V of vertices and a set E of edges. n ( G ) = | V | is the number of vertices of G , and m ( G ) = | E | is the number of edges, henceforth referred as n and m , respectively. A graph H = ( V H , E H ) is a subgraph of another graph G = ( V , E ) if V H V and E H E . Thus, let B be a matrix of i × j with entries b i j ( D i ) j when j { 1 , , 5 } . The matrix A is obtained with entries a i j = b i j if b i j > 0 , and a i j = 0 if b i j 0 .
We computed the Euclidean distance between elements in each row in the matrix A , which produces a sequence of symmetric matrices W i . Let m i be the average of the row i of matrix A . Then, we build a sequence of graphs G i for each matrix W i , such that there is an edge between vertex u and vertex v if ( w i ) u v < m i . We compare the distance between two sites for each year, assigning an edge for differences smaller than the averages. The existence of an edge represents similar WE variations between two sites.
The density and largest clique of each graph were calculated to understand the WE structure and spread. We recall that the density of a graph G is
d e n ( G ) = m n ( n 1 ) / 2
where the graph density is the proportion between the number of existing edges and the total possible edges, i.e., the higher the density, the higher the WE spread over the whole metropolitan area. The largest clique is the complete subgraph with the largest number of nodes, representing the number of sites that exhibited similar values in the WE magnitude. We recall that a complete graph is produced when every vertex is joined to all other vertex by edges.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The SIMAT, SIMAJ, and SIMA air pollutant data sets were analysed extensively using the openair package v2.1-5 [33] for R software v3.1.2 [34]. Peak probability distributions were computed using Python 2.7 with Pandas 0.20.3, numpy 1.13.3, and Matplotlib 2.1.1 packages. Long-term changes in the WE were computed with the TheilSen function included in openair, which allows testing the presence of a statistically significant monotonic linear trend. TheilSen relies on the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test to estimate the linear trend slope and intercept, which is quantified with the non-parametric Sen’s test. Further details can be found elsewhere [21]. Statistical analyses were performed with the computational software SPSS 25.0 for Microsoft Windows.

3. Results

3.1. The WE Occurrence

The three MAs studied here have particular tropospheric photochemical environments associated to differences in local precursor emissions sources and meteorology [24,35,36]. Overall, the WE occurrence in ground-level O3 has been defined in Equation (1) as the existence of higher daytime averages (06:00–18:00 CDT) for Sat–Sun than for Tue–Thu [12,31]. Figure 3 shows that all MAs studied here experience the WE occurrence in all years in at least one monitoring site. Higher O3 levels on weekends arise from reduced O3 titration due to lower NOX emissions mostly from diesel powered vehicles than during weekdays [37]. Hernández-Paniagua et al. reported significant decreases in NOX levels for these three MAs during weekends, which explains the WE occurrence incidence [21]. For most of the years, the GMA and MMA show a WE occurrence in >40% of each year weeks, while since 2002 the largest occurrences are observed clearly at the MMA with no apparent trend. By contrast, the MCMA and GMA exhibit large variation in the WE occurrence between 2000 and 2012, and a marked increase since 2013 and 2012, respectively. A comparison made since 1996 when there are data available for all MAs reveals the existence of significant differences (p < 0.05) in the WE occurrence among MAs. Furthermore, the later WE increase at the GMA and MCMA is opposite to the apparent decrease observed since 2013 for the MMA, which suggests significant variations across MAs of Mexico.

3.2. Weekend/Weekday Differences in the O3 Peaks

An additional method in ground-level O3 peaks (1 h averages) for observed differences on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, defined as reference days, was used to test the WE occurrence as shown in Equation (2). O3 peaks may be higher on weekends than during weekdays despite lower levels in traffic and O3 precursor [38]. Therefore, the WE occurrence and magnitude may exhibit variations from city to city. The weekend-to-weekday difference variations may provide insights of changes in O3 precursor emission dynamics over time in response to the introduction of air quality control strategies. Table 1 summarizes the minimum, average (mean), and maximum O3 peak differences for each MA. It should be noted that negative differences correspond to higher O3 peaks during weekdays than during weekends (no WE occurrence), while positive differences correspond to higher O3 peaks during weekends (WE occurrence). Within the MCMA, the largest differences for the no WE occurrence were observed all at PED in 1992 for Sat/Wed (−234 ppb O3), in 1992 for Sun/Wed (−235 ppb O3) and in 1992 for Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu (−106 ppb O3). By contrast, the largest WE occurrence was observed at PED for Sat/Wed in 1988 (205 ppb O3) and Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu in 1997 (65 ppb O3), and at MER in 1992 for Sun/Wed (180 ppb O3).
For the GMA, higher O3 peaks on weekdays than on weekends were observed at VAL for Sat/Wed in 1996 (−190 ppb O3) and for Sun/Wed in 1996 (−169 ppb O3), while MIR showed the largest for Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu in 1997 (−59 ppb O3). The largest WE occurrence within the GMA was observed at CEN for Sat/Wed in 1997 (169 ppb O3), at VAL for Sun/Wed in 1997 (143 ppb O3), and at TLA for Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu in 2010 (58 ppb O3). Higher O3 peaks during weekdays lead to no WE occurrence regularly at STA, with the largest differences observed for Wed/Sat in 1993 (−116 ppb O3) and Wed/Sun in 1993 (−143 ppb O3). For Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu, the largest difference was observed at SNB in 2004 (−47 ppb O3). The largest magnitude in the WE occurrence was observed at STA for Wed/Sat (125 ppb O3) and Wed/Sun (138 ppb O3) in 1994 and 2004, respectively, and at OBI for Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu in 2004 (52 ppb O3). Among the three MAs, the MMA exhibited the lowest differences for the occurrence and no WE occurrence, despite showing the largest number of weeks per year with WE occurrence. These differences suggest that O3 levels change moderately from weekdays to weekends compared to the MCMA and GMA.
It is clear that the largest weekday/weekend differences are observed at sites downwind and close to highly trafficked roads in all MAs. This is consistent with enhanced O3 titration by abundant vehicular emissions during weekdays but reduced during weekends [39]. Such behaviour can be explained by the urbanization degree as proposed by Atkinson-Palombo et al. [31], which suggests that changes in the O3 WE are a function of traffic count, population, and employment within 4 km zones around each site. Although O3 measurements started in different year, most of the largest variations are observed by the beginning of the monitoring at the three MAs. It can be interpreted to indicate large weekday/weekend changes in emissions from motor vehicles during the 1990s prior to the mandatory three-way catalytic converter introduction for all vehicles in 1993 in the country [18]. Furthermore, the O3 WE magnitude is proportional to the O3 and NOX levels observed at each MA, which explains the largest differences in the WE observed for the MCMA, where air pollutants levels are typically higher than in the GMA and MMA [20,21,40].

3.3. Long-Term Trends in the WE

Quantifying the absolute change in the overall O3 levels and WE magnitude is crucial to evaluate the success of air quality policies introduced for controlling precursor emissions. The secular trends in O3 peaks differences and daytime averages were calculated from annual averages, derived from monthly averages, which were filtered with the STL technique to discard meteorological influences on the calculated trends [41]. Although no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between filtered and non-filtered annual averages for all cities, filtered data were used for the trends calculation as reported elsewhere [21,42]. Figure 4 shows the linear fittings for the O3 differences at all sites and MAs, and Table 2 lists the parameterisation of the trends. Overall, only the MCMA exhibits significant increasing trends (p < 0.1) for all sites in the Sun/Wed difference, while only PED shows significant increases for all metrics. Although all sites within the MCMA exhibit year-to-year variations, the range of these decreases over time and shifts to WE occurrence as noted clearly for Sun/Wed (Figure 4). The trend linearization of differences with the Mann–Kendall approach shows increasing rates for Sun/Wed ranging from 0.33 ppb O3 yr−1 (0.03% yr−1) at SAG to 1.29 ppb O3 yr−1 (0.13% yr−1) at PED. The WE increases at PED for Sat/Wed and Sat–Sun/Tue–Thu correspond to growth rates of 0.42 and 038 ppb yr−1 (0.04 and 0.04% yr−1), respectively. Such trends suggest that the magnitude of the O3 WE will continue to increase within the whole MCMA and more strongly at downwind sites.
The MCMA WE trends are compared with those calculated for the GMA and MMA to discuss them in a national context. Only the GMA exhibits significant increases (p < 0.1) in the WE magnitude for the Sun/Wed differences at ATE (0.32 ppb O3 yr−1; 0.03% yr−1), CEN (0.41 ppb O3 yr−1; 0.04% yr−1), and VAL (0.48 ppb O3 yr−1; 0.05% yr−1). By contrast, the MMA shows no increasing trends for O3 levels on weekends for all sites. Furthermore, the SNN upwind site exhibits a significant decrease in the Sat/Wed differences of 0.17 ppb O3 yr−1 in response to larger O3 levels during weekdays. This is consistent with persistent increases in NOX and the higher increase in O3 levels reported for SNN compared to other sites within the MMA [20]. Although apparent but no significant (p > 0.1) decreases for the Sat/Wed differences are noticeable within the GMA and MMA, year-to-year variations could influence the trends significance. Furthermore, opposite trends for the Sun/Wed differences between the GMA and MMA suggest different emission scenarios for them. Nevertheless, STA and OBI at the MMA that show no significant increases for the WE Sun/Wed during 1993–2016 may become significant in future years resembling the behaviour observed currently within MCMA.

3.4. Compliance with the Mexican Official Standards for O3

To standardize the exceedances number per year during weekends, the 95 ppb O3 latest standard was used to determine how the compliance with the official standard has changed over time at the three MAs. Figure 5 shows that at all MAs the O3 1 h official standard was exceeded both on Saturdays and Sundays in all years in at least one monitoring site [40]. Within the MCMA, the largest number of exceedances is seen at the downwind PED site, which is consistent with the largest observed exceedances number in the MMA at the downwind STA site, while in the GMA no clear pattern is observed. The breaches number to the O3 1 h official standard have decreased markedly within the MCMA since the 1990s, while no apparent trends are observed for the GMA and MMA. Nevertheless, there have been years with severe increases in the breaches number within the GMA at all sites, for instance between 2010 and 2011, and within the MMA in 2005 and 2014. By contrast, within the MCMA, only PED exhibits an increase in the breaches number more noticeable on Sundays since 2014. The increase in the annual breaches number to the O3 official standard is explained by the WE increasing magnitude observed at PED.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Air pollutants record levels observed within the MCMA between the late 1980s and early 1990s led to the introduction of numerous strategies to improve the air quality [18]. The strategies to control O3 precursor emissions have been effective notably within the MCMA, as annual averages of ground-level O3 represent around 50% of those observed in the early 1990s [29]. While there have been significant efforts to control the air pollutants levels within the MCMA, the GMA, and MMA have received less attention from the environmental authorities because the typical pollutant levels are lower than within the MCMA [26]. Nevertheless, the three MAs experience frequently recurrent breaches to the 1 h O3 official standard [21]. Indeed, the moderate increase in O3 levels within the MCMA observed since 2013 and markedly in 2016 has resulted in further increases to the breaches number to the O3 official standard at some sites (Figure 5) [22]. Within the GMA and MMA, O3 long-term trends differ from those observed in the MCMA [21]. This highlights the specific strategies need to control O3 levels for each MA, which consider the local air quality scenarios and precursor emissions sources.

4.1. Changes in the O3 Precursor Emissions

Weekend/weekday differences in O3 levels arise from reduced NOX emissions on weekends and vary in magnitude from city to city due to the particular chemical environments [38]. Although meteorology may influence the O3 WE on short time scales [24], the variations occur during periods no longer than weeks and have no significant effects on O3 WE long-term trends [12]. By contrast, long-term changes in the WE occurrence have been associated with the introduction of long-term programs for reducing O3 precursor emissions [16]. In particular, the O3 WE occurrence and spread have been ascribed to larger reduction in VOC emissions than in NOX emissions, which has resulted in environments where O3 production is VOC-limited. For instance, in urban areas of California, Marr and Harley [13] reported the WE spread from few to many monitoring sites from 1980 to 1999 because national control strategies caused larger reductions in VOC emissions than in NOX emissions. By contrast, Wolff et al. reported the WE shift away in urban areas across the US from 35% to less than 5% of monitoring sites that exhibited WE in the late 1990s [12], because changes in control policies favoured larger declines in NOX than in VOC emissions.
In Mexico, the strategies to control O3 levels have been directed to reduce emissions from industrial, commercial, and motor vehicle sources [18,29]. At national scale, the highest annual NOX emissions correspond to motor vehicles that contribute in around 46% of the total, while motor vehicles and commercial sources contribute similarly in around 16% and 20% of total annual VOC emissions, respectively [43]. While motor vehicles have represented a feasible opportunity to control NOX emissions, wider strategies have been required to reduce VOC emissions. A detailed description of all implemented air quality control policies in MAs of Mexico can be found elsewhere [18,21,28,44]. To clarify whether the increasing WE arises from lower decreases in NOX emissions during weekends compared with those during weekdays, we used ground-based measurements for reference days of NOX restricted to the 06:00–09:00 CDT period, when ambient levels are dominated by emissions from motor vehicles [45].
Figure 6 shows the long-term trends for reference days and overall ground-level NOX, and Table 3 lists the parameterization of the trends. Within the MCMA, the larger significant decreases (p < 0.05) are observed for the overall data set at all sites, ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 ppb yr−1 during 1988–2016, apart from SAG. Lower decreases in NOX are observed for the restricted rush hour period. Only on Sundays, all sites exhibit significant trends, with decreases at MER, PED, and XAL and increases at SAG and TLA. The MER and PED sites are predominantly influenced by local emissions both of petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles and aged air masses from the northern area of the MCMA, while SAG is an upwind site relatively away from the urban area with less vehicular influence.
For the GMA, only CEN and VAL exhibit significant decreases in the overall NOX, while only VAL shows a significant decrease on all days. The VAL site is predominantly influenced by emissions from petrol and diesel vehicular activity, mostly from the Mexico and Avila Camacho avenues, which exhibit reduced diesel traffic on Sundays. By contrast, within the MMA, only OBI shows significant decreases on all days in marked contrast to the increases observed at the other sites. Indeed, both the industrials upwind SNN and the downwind STA sites show significant increases for all days during the restricted rush hour period. It is likely that industrial emissions could be offsetting the trends in vehicle emissions despite the period restriction imposed to the analysis. The decreases in NOX determined at OBI are consistent with those observed at sites strongly influenced by vehicular emissions at the MCMA and GMA. This provides evidence that policies implemented to reduce NOX emissions from motor vehicles have yielded significant results nationwide.
Accurate data of long-term changes in VOCs levels can help to unveil the origin for the WE magnitude increase observed at monitoring sites within the MCMA and GMA. Nevertheless, while the outlook for ground-level NOX is clear at the three MAs, no conclusive results have been reported for VOCs. This is partially due to the lack of continuous monitoring of VOCs because these are not criteria pollutants, neither considered in the current legislation. Furthermore, the scarce information of VOC levels over time within the MCMA have been obtained during short field campaigns, while the existing data for the GMA and MMA reported to date do not allow a trend comparison.
Overall, from measurements made at MER and PED for VOCs levels within the MCMA in 2012, Jaimes-Palomera et al. reported reductions in light alkane and aromatic levels during the morning rush hour compared to 2003 levels [46], which were consistent with the decrease in VOCs levels reported by Garzón et al. from 2002 to 2012 [47]. For the same sites, Arriaga-Colina et al. and Velasco et al. suggested an apparent stabilization/decrease in the total levels of around 50 species of VOCs [48,49]. Such studies suggest that strategies to control VOC emissions within the MCMA have been effective to some extent. However, in terms of VOCs level changes, the overall successful decrease in O3 levels within the MCMA has been ascribed to increases in ambient reactive olefins concentrations derived from changes in petrol composition along with reductions in levels of highly reactive VOCs [46]. Unfortunately, the uncertainties in national and local emission inventories estimates for VOCs do not allow to perform a direct comparison with field data [21]. Although the continuous measurements of VOCs that started in 2012 within the MCMA could help to understand the increasing WE, these are not publicly available to date. Nevertheless, emission estimates of VOCs with lower uncertainties are required also for a better design of control strategies.

4.2. Long-Term and Spatial Distribution of the WE Occurrence

We observed variations in O3 WE occurrence intra-cities, which is more widespread within the MCMA. Overall, increases in the WE are observed at downwind and urban core sites within the MCMA and GMA. This is consistent with the study of Atkinson-Palombo et al. made at Maricopa, Arizona, where higher variations in the WE at urban core sites were observed, in contrast with fringe sites that exhibited almost no WE effect [31]. This also agrees with a study made in Ontario, Canada, by Huryn and Gough who reported that urbanized sites, typical of urban cores, experience the WE occurrence recurrently, while fringe and rural sited do not [39]. It is likely that a growth in urbanization parameters such as population and vehicle fleet may have been influencing the WE spread in some regions of MCMA and GMA [18,21,26,28,39]. By contrast, within the MMA, growing emissions from an expanding industrial area may have offset the effect of urbanization on changes in the WE occurrence.
The spread and increase in the WE magnitude within the MCMA are confirmed by the spatial interaction analysis, which is consistent with results from the long-term trends approach. Because the WE spread occurs only within the MCMA; results are presented only for it. Figure 7 shows three annual WE interaction graphs representative cases ( G 6 , G 16 , G 25 ) , constructed following the methodology described in Section 2.4. We recall that the sub-index represents a number in the sequence of graphs; for example, G 6 represents the plot for 1997. It is clear how the interaction among monitoring sites has become stronger over time, with few interactions among sites during the 1990s and all possible interactions in 2016. This can be clearly seen in Figure 8a, where the density of the graph increases with the WE spread over time. High densities are observed from 2007 onwards despite year-to-year variations. Simultaneous increases in the size of the largest clique confirm the increasing magnitude of the WE (Figure 8b).

4.3. Policy Implications

In this section, the successful strategies implemented to control ground-level O3 within the MCMA are presented and used to discuss the potential causes for the rise in the WE. We discuss also how higher levels in O3 during weekdays than during weekends within the GMA and MMA arise from the more stringent air quality control policies lack. Finally, the successful strategies that have helped to reduce the magnitude in the O3 WE implemented at MAs worldwide are presented.
Ground-level O3 decreased significantly within the MCMA during 1990–2016, remained with no significant changes within the GMA during 1996–2016, and increased within the MMA during 1993–2016 [21,22]. However, within the MCMA and GMA, we observed increases in the occurrence and magnitude of the WE that have led to increasing breaches to the 1 h O3 official standard during weekends after 2014 and 2008, respectively. Although control strategies have been effective in reducing O3 precursor emissions simultaneously, larger decreases in VOC emissions in the VOC-sensitive environments existing at the MCMA and GMA resulted in the spread and increase of the WE magnitude [36]. These increases are consistent with those reported in California during the 1990s in VOC-sensitive regions where large reductions in VOC emissions increased the WE in some regions [13]. By contrast, increasing O3 precursor emissions in the VOC-sensitivity environment at MMA have not significantly changed the WE occurrence [24,50]. It is likely that increasing emissions from the growing industrial activity within the MMA may control the WE effect spread. This behaviour was previously reported for the MCMA by Stephens et al., who observed similar or even higher O3 levels during weekdays between 1986 and 2008 when O3 precursor levels were much higher than they are currently [17]. Indeed, we show that at the MCMA, the WE is more noticeable from 2008 onwards after the period addressed by Stephens et al. [17].
Jaimes-Palomera et al. suggested that, although vehicles represent the VOC emissions major share within the MCMA [46], other sources are also significant and must be controlled to continue reducing O3 levels. It is clear also that the mandatory three-way catalytic converters introduction in new vehicles since 1993 have helped to reduce NOX levels at the three MAs [51]. In particular, for the MCMA, the license-plate-based driving restriction, more stringent exhaust emissions inspection programs, and the public transport vehicle fleet replacement/update have been successful strategies in reducing vehicle emissions [18]. While industrial emissions have only been reduced apparently at the MCMA and GMA, further strategies are required at the MMA to control O3 levels.
Although the strategies implemented to date have controlled O3 levels successfully, these have failed to control the WE within the MCMA and GMA. This has resulted in increases in the number of exceedances to the 1 h O3 standard mostly during Sundays in such MAs. Furthermore, the WE spread and magnitude increase observed within the MCMA and GMA demonstrate the complexity of O3 production and control. Finally, environmental authorities must consider that control strategies targeting NOX may result in higher O3 levels in the short term due to the VOC-limited environments within the three MAs.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3330/s1, Table S1. Data capture of weekend and weekday O3 1-h averages during the time window defined from the peak probability distribution for all monitoring sites of the three metropolitan areas.

Author Contributions

I.Y.H.-P. designed the study, analysed the data, and drafted the manuscript. R.L.F. performed the exploratory data analysis, recovery, and validation. J.J.P.-M. compiled all applicable legislation. O.D.-R. downloaded the data and performed the statistical analyses. J.A.P.-C. calculated the spatial variations in the WE. A.F.-T. compiled statistics data and performed data analyses. L.G.R.-S. and A.G.-R. provided data and revised the manuscript. A.M. helped in the study design, revised the manuscript, and provided funding to perform the data analyses. All co-authors re-viewed, revised and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study received partial support from the Tecnologico de Monterrey through grant 002EICIR01.

Acknowledgments

Grateful acknowledgements are made to the Secretariat for the Environment of Mexico City, the Secretariat for the Environment and Territorial Development of the Jalisco State and the Secretariat for Sustainable Development of the Nuevo León State for the public domain records. The authors gratefully thank Manuel Ramírez for helping with the map work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; nor in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Monks, P.S.; Archibald, A.T.; Colette, A.; Cooper, O.; Coyle, M.; Derwent, R.; Fowler, D.; Granier, C.; Law, K.S.; Mills, G.E.; et al. Tropospheric ozone and its precursors from the urban to the global scale from air quality to short-lived climate forcer. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 8889–8973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Lelieveld, J.; Evans, J.S.; Fnais, M.; Giannadaki, D.; Pozzer, A. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 2015, 525, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Stevenson, D.S.; Dentener, F.J.; Schultz, M.G.; Ellingsen, K.; Van Noije, T.P.C.; Wild, O.; Zeng, G.; Amann, M.; Atherton, C.S.; Bell, N.; et al. Multimodel ensemble simulations of present-day and near-future tropospheric ozone. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, D08301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC. Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; 1535p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Parrish, D.D.; Singh, H.B.; Molina, L.; Madronich, S. Air quality progress in North American megacities: A review. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 7015–7025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pusede, S.E.; Cohen, R.C. On the observed response of ozone to NOx and VOC reactivity reductions in San Joaquin Valley California 1995–present. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12, 8323–8339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Pugliese, S.C.; Murphy, J.G.; Geddes, J.A.; Wang, J.M. The impacts of precursor reduction and meteorology on ground-level ozone in the Greater Toronto Area. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 8197–8207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Jiménez, P.; Parra, R.; Gasso, S.; Baldasano, J.M. Modeling the ozone weekend effect in very complex terrains: A case study in the Northeastern Iberian Peninsula. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cleveland, W.S.; Graedel, T.E.; Kleiner, B.; Warner, J.L. Sunday and workday variations in photochemical air pollutants in New Jersey and New York. Science 1974, 186, 1037–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Labron, F. A comparison of weekend and weekday ozone and hydrocarbon concentrations on the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Atmos. Environ. 1975, 9, 861–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Levitt, S.B.; Chock, D.P. Weekday–weekend pollutant studies of the Los Angeles Basin. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1976, 26, 1091–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wolff, G.T.; Kahlbaum, D.F.; Heuss, J.M. The vanishing ozone weekday/weekend effect. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2013, 63, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Marr, L.C.; Harley, R.A. Spectral analysis of weekday–weekend differences in ambient ozone, nitrogen oxide, and non-methane hydrocarbon time series in California. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 2327–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Riga-Karandinos, A.N.; Saitanis, C.; Arapis, G. Study of the weekday-weekend variation of air pollutants in a typical Mediterranean coastal town. Int. J. Environ. Poll. 2006, 27, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tonse, S.R.; Brown, N.J.; Harley, R.A.; Jin, L. A process-analysis based study of the ozone weekend effect. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 7728–7736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Seguel, R.J. Ozone weekend effect in Santiago, Chile. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 162, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stephens, S.; Madronich, S.; Wu, F.; Olson, J.B.; Ramos, R.; Retama, A.; Muñoz, R. Weekly patterns of México City’s surface concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10 and O3 during 1986–2007. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 5313–5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. ProAire-MCMA (Programa para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México 2002–2010), Mexico City Local Government-State of Mexico Government. 2011. Available online: http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/publicaciones/flippingbook/proaire2011−2020/#p=1 (accessed on 28 August 2018).
  19. Jaimes, P.M.; Bravo, A.H.; Sosa, E.R.; Cureño, G.I.; Retama, H.A.; Granados, G.G.; Becerra, A.E. Surface ozone concentration trends in Mexico City Metropolitan Area. In Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association’s Annual Conference and Exhibition AWMA, San Antonio, TX, USA, 19–22 June 2012; Volume 3, pp. 2273–2284. [Google Scholar]
  20. Benítez-García, S.E.; Kanda, I.; Wakamatsu, S.; Okazaki, Y.; Kawano, M. Analysis of criteria air pollutant trends in three Mexican metropolitan areas. Atmosphere 2014, 5, 806–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hernández-Paniagua, I.Y.; Clemitshaw, K.C.; Mendoza, A. Observed trends in ground-level O3 in Monterrey, México, during 1993−2014: Comparison with Mexico City and Guadalajara. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Velasco, E.; Retama, A. Ozone’s threat hits back Mexico city. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 260–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. García-Reynoso, A.; Jazcilevich, A.; Ruiz-Suarez, L.G.; Torres-Jardón, R.; Suárez Lastra, M.; Reséndiz Juárez, N.A. Ozone weekend effect analysis in México City. Atmósfera 2009, 22, 281–297. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sierra, A.; Vanoye, A.Y.; Mendoza, A. Ozone sensitivity to its precursor emissions in northeastern Mexico for a summer air pollution episode. J. Air Waste Manag. 2013, 63, 1221–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. INEGI (National Institute of Statistics and Geography): XIII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2010, México. 2010. Available online: http://www.censo2010.org.mx/ (accessed on 22 August 2018).
  26. INE (Instituto Nacional de Ecologia). Cuarto Almanaque de datos y Tendencias de la Calidad del aire en 20 Ciudades Mexicanas 2000–2009; INE-SEMARNAT: México City, Mexico, 2011; 405p. [Google Scholar]
  27. SEDEMA (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente de la Ciudad de México). Inventario de Emisiones de la CDMX. Contaminantes Criterio, Tóxicos y de Efecto Invernadero. 2014. Available online: http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/publicaciones/flippingbook/inventario-emisiones-cdmx2014−2/IE-CDMX−2014.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  28. ProAire-GDL (Programa para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire, Jalisco 2011–2020), SEMARNAT, Gobierno del estado de Jalisco). 2011. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/69282/ 13_ProAire_Jalisco.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2018).
  29. SEDEMA (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente—G.D.F.). Estimación de las concentraciones de ozono con la simulación de 13 medidas de control de emisiones, incluidas en el PROAIRE 2002−2010. 2005. Available online: http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/publicaciones/gestion-ambiental-aire-memoria-documental−2001−2006/descargas/estimacion_ozono_proaire_dic2005.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2018).
  30. Davis, L.W. Saturday driving restrictions fail to improve air quality in Mexico City. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Atkinson-Palombo, C.M.; Miller, J.A.; Balling, R.C., Jr. Quantifying the ozone “weekend effect” at various locations in Phoenix, Arizona. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 7644–7658. [Google Scholar]
  32. Diestel, R. Graph Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 5th ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, German, 2017; ISBN 978-3-662-53621-6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Carslaw, D.C.; Ropkins, K. Openair—an R package for air quality data analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 27–28, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013; ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available online: www.R-project.org (accessed on 23 August 2018).
  35. Torres-Jardon, R.; García-Reynoso, J.A.; Jazcilevich, A.; Ruiz-Suárez, L.G.; Keener, T.C. Assessment of the ozone-nitrogen oxide-volatile organic compound sensitivity of Mexico City through an indicator-based approach: Measurements and numerical simulations comparison. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2009, 59, 1155–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kanda, I.; Basaldud, R.; Magaña, M.; Retama, A.; Kubo, R.; Wakamatsu, S. Comparison of ozone production regimes between two Mexican cities: Guadalajara and Mexico City. Atmosphere 2016, 7, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gao, H.O.; Niemeier, D.A. The impact of rush hour traffic and mix on the ozone weekend effect in southern California. Transp. Res. Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Heuss, J.M.; Kahlbaum, D.F.; Wolff, G.T. Weekday/weekend ozone differences: What can we learn from them? J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2003, 53, 772–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huryn, S.M.; Gough, W.A. Impact of urbanization on the ozone weekday/weekend effect in Southern Ontario, Canada. Urban Clim. 2014, 8, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. SEMARNAT (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Informe Nacional de Calidad del aire 2014. 2015. Available online: http://sinaica.inecc.gob.mx/archivo/informes/Informe2014.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2018).
  41. Cleveland, R.B.; Cleveland, W.S.; McRae, J.; Terpenning, I. STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on Loess. J. Off. Stat. 1990, 6, 3–33. [Google Scholar]
  42. Salmi, T.; Määttä, A.; Anttila, P.; Ruoho-Airola, T.; Amnell, T. Detecting Trends of Annual Values of Atmospheric Pollutants by the Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates—the Excel Template Application MAKESENS; Publications on Air Quality Report code FMI-AQ−31; Finnish Meteorological Institute: Helsinki, Finland, 2002; Volume 31, pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  43. SEMARNAT (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Inventario Nacional de Emisiones 2008, México, D.F. 2014. Available online: http://sinea.semarnat.gob.mx/sinae.php?steprep=5&process =UkVQT1JURUFET1I=&r=NC4gRnVlbnRlIHkgRW50aWRhZGVzIEZlZGVyYXRpdmFzIDIwMDgu (accessed on 5 August 2018).
  44. ProAire-MMA (Programa de Gestión para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire del Estado de Nuevo León 2016–2025), SEMARNAT, Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León. 2016. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/250974/ProAire_Nuevo_Leon.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2018).
  45. Parrish, D.D. Critical evaluation of US on-road vehicle emission inventories. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 2288–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jaimes-Palomera, M.; Retama, A.; Elias-Castro, G.; Neria-Hernández, A.; Rivera-Hernández, O.; Velasco, E. Nonmethane hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Mexico City: Results of the 2012 ozone-season campaign. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 132, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Garzón, J.P.; Huertas, J.I.; Magaña, M.; Huertas, M.E.; Cárdenas, B.; Watanabe, T.; Maeda, T.; Wakamatsu, S.; Blanco, S. Volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere of Mexico City. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 119, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Arriaga-Colina, J.L.; West, J.J.; Sosa, G.; Escalona, S.S.; Ordunez, R.M.; Cervantes, A.D.M. Measurements of VOCs in Mexico City (1992–2001) and evaluation of VOCs and CO in the emissions inventory. Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 2523–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Velasco, E.; Lamb, B.; Westberg, H.; Allwine, E.; Sosa, G.; Arriaga-Colina, J.L.; Jobson, B.T.; Alexander, M.L.; Prazeller, P.; Knighton, W.B.; et al. Distribution, magnitudes, reactivities, ratios and diurnal patterns of volatile organic compounds in the Valley of Mexico during the MCMA 2002 & 2003 field campaigns. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, 329–353. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  50. Carrillo-Torres, E.R.; Hernández-Paniagua, I.Y.; Mendoza, A. Use of combined observational-and model derived photochemical indicators to assess the O3-NOX-VOC system sensitivity in urban areas. Atmosphere 2017, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. SEMARNAT (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). NOM−042 (Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-042-ECOL-1993, que establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de hidrocarburos no quemados, monóxido de carbono, óxidos de nitrógeno y partículas suspendidas provenientes del escape de vehículos automotores nuevos en planta, así como de hidrocarburos evaporativos provenientes del sistema de combustible que usan gasolina, gas licuado de petróleo, gas natural y diésel de los mismos, con peso bruto vehicular que no exceda los 3,856 kilogramos). Diario Oficial de la Federación, 22 October 1993. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The Mexico City (MCMA), Guadalajara (GMA), and Monterrey (MMA) metropolitan areas in the national context and the monitoring sites in relation to each metropolitan area. The red arrows show the predominant wind direction at each site throughout the year.
Figure 1. The Mexico City (MCMA), Guadalajara (GMA), and Monterrey (MMA) metropolitan areas in the national context and the monitoring sites in relation to each metropolitan area. The red arrows show the predominant wind direction at each site throughout the year.
Sustainability 10 03330 g001
Figure 2. Peak probability distributions by monitoring site calculated from the filtered data sets for the (a) MCMA; (b) GMA and (c) MMA.
Figure 2. Peak probability distributions by monitoring site calculated from the filtered data sets for the (a) MCMA; (b) GMA and (c) MMA.
Sustainability 10 03330 g002
Figure 3. Percentage of weeks by year with weekend effect (WE) occurrence within the MCMA, GMA, and MMA. The WE occur whether at least one of the sites in each metropolitan area (MA) exhibits higher Sat–Sun daytime O3 averages (06:00–18:00 CDT) than Tue–Thu daytime averages.
Figure 3. Percentage of weeks by year with weekend effect (WE) occurrence within the MCMA, GMA, and MMA. The WE occur whether at least one of the sites in each metropolitan area (MA) exhibits higher Sat–Sun daytime O3 averages (06:00–18:00 CDT) than Tue–Thu daytime averages.
Sustainability 10 03330 g003
Figure 4. Long-term trends for O3 peaks and daytime averages of reference days within the MCMA during 1988–2016, GMA during 1996–2016, and MMA during 1993–2016. Each data point represents the annual average that defines the year. The continuous lines show the Sen trend.
Figure 4. Long-term trends for O3 peaks and daytime averages of reference days within the MCMA during 1988–2016, GMA during 1996–2016, and MMA during 1993–2016. Each data point represents the annual average that defines the year. The continuous lines show the Sen trend.
Sustainability 10 03330 g004
Figure 5. Number of exceedances per year to the O3 1 h average Mexican official standard of 95 ppb.
Figure 5. Number of exceedances per year to the O3 1 h average Mexican official standard of 95 ppb.
Sustainability 10 03330 g005
Figure 6. Long-term trends in NOX annual averages calculated constrained to 06:00–09:00 CDT.
Figure 6. Long-term trends in NOX annual averages calculated constrained to 06:00–09:00 CDT.
Sustainability 10 03330 g006
Figure 7. Representative cases of the WE effect spatial interaction among sites within the MCMA.
Figure 7. Representative cases of the WE effect spatial interaction among sites within the MCMA.
Sustainability 10 03330 g007
Figure 8. Graph measures over time. (a) Density for each graph; (b) Number of sites in the largest clique for each graph.
Figure 8. Graph measures over time. (a) Density for each graph; (b) Number of sites in the largest clique for each graph.
Sustainability 10 03330 g008
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the weekend/weekday differences in O3 peaks and daytime averages. Max values correspond to the magnitude of the WE occurrence.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the weekend/weekday differences in O3 peaks and daytime averages. Max values correspond to the magnitude of the WE occurrence.
Metropolitan AreaSiteSat/WedSun/WedSat–Sun/Tue–Thu
MinAverageMaxMinAverageMaxMinAverageMax
MCMAMER−1883186−191−2180−73146
1986–2016PED−2341205−235−10176−106065
SAG−1182123−1560133−44145
TLA−2322190−213−1148−53151
XAL−1923140−1543164−48252
GMAATE−1290131−114−4116−56056
1996–2016CEN−1433169−166−3106−46154
MIR−1451125−145−2105−59057
TLA−1202157−145−2114−53158
VAL−1901144−169−4143−46154
MMAGPE−106−188−134−2102−45044
1993–2016SNN−100−186−104−289−34034
OBI−1150102−1360133−45252
SNB−104−1113−109−284−47045
STA−116−1125−143−3138−41145
Table 2. Summary of rates of change in the O3 WE magnitude at the three metropolitan areas.
Table 2. Summary of rates of change in the O3 WE magnitude at the three metropolitan areas.
Metropolitan AreaSiteRates of Change
Sat/WedSun/WedSat–Sun/Tue–Thu
ppb yr−1% yr−1pppb yr−1% yr−1pppb yr−1% yr−1p
MCMAMER0.080.01 0.640.06***0.110.01
PED0.420.04*1.290.13***0.380.04***
SAG−0.05−0.01 0.420.04+0.080.01
TLA−0.050.02 0.340.04*0.090.01
XAL−0.07−0.01 0.330.03*0.070.01
GMAATE−0.15−0.02 0.320.03+0.070.01
CEN−0.44−0.04 0.410.04+0.050.01
MIR−0.16−0.02 −0.08−0.01 0.100.01
TLA−0.37−0.03 0.260.03 0.050.01
VAL−0.23−0.02 0.480.05*−0.09−0.01
MMAGPE−0.08−0.01 0.000.00 0.020.00
SNN−0.17−0.03+−0.11−0.02 −0.080.01
OBI−0.12−0.01 0.100.01 0.020.01
SNB−0.16−0.03 −0.08−0.01 −0.04−0.01
STA−0.05−0.01 0.330.03 0.000.00
+ Level of significance p < 0.1. * Level of significance p < 0.05. *** Level of significance p < 0.001.
Table 3. Annual rates of change for NOX long-term trend between 06:00–09:00 CDT expressed in ppb yr−1 during the studied periods within the three metropolitan areas.
Table 3. Annual rates of change for NOX long-term trend between 06:00–09:00 CDT expressed in ppb yr−1 during the studied periods within the three metropolitan areas.
Metropolitan AreaSiteRates of Change
WednesdaySaturdaySundayOverall
ppb yr−1% yr−1pppb yr−1% yr−1pppb yr−1% yr−1pppb yr−1% yr−1p
MCMAMER−0.1−0.2 0.00.0 −0.3−0.3*−1.0−1.0***
1988–2016PED−0.6−0.8***−0.4−0.7***−0.3−0.7***−1.0−1.7***
SAG1.01.1 0.30.4 0.40.4**0.00.0
TLA0.30.2 0.60.6***0.20.3*−0.2−0.3*
XAL−1.30.7***−0.2−0.1 −1.0−0.9***−1.1−1.1***
GMAATE−1.1−0.9+−1.6−1.4*0.00.0 −0.9−1.4
1996–2016CEN−2.8−2.0*−3.1−2.2 −2.2−2.0*−2.0−2.1*
MIR1.51.6*0.20.2 0.20.3 0.00.1
TLA−1.2−0.9 −1.5−1.2 −0.8−0.9 −1.0−1.3
VAL−3.2−2.7***−1.7−1.9*−1.1−1.8***−1.6−2.6***
MMAGPE0.61.6*0.41.1*0.41.1*0.20.1+
1996–2016SNN1.13.3**0.82.9**0.82.8*0.41.8***
OBI−1.5−1.9**−0.9−1.6*−0.9−1.6*−0.9−1.8***
SNB1.26.6+0.95.6 0.95.6 0.53.4
STA1.53.5**0.82.2+0.82.2+0.30.8
+ Level of significance p < 0.1. * Level of significance p < 0.05. ** Level of significance p < 0.01. *** Level of significance p < 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hernández-Paniagua, I.Y.; Lopez-Farias, R.; Piña-Mondragón, J.J.; Pichardo-Corpus, J.A.; Delgadillo-Ruiz, O.; Flores-Torres, A.; García-Reynoso, A.; Ruiz-Suárez, L.G.; Mendoza, A. Increasing Weekend Effect in Ground-Level O3 in Metropolitan Areas of Mexico during 1988–2016. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093330

AMA Style

Hernández-Paniagua IY, Lopez-Farias R, Piña-Mondragón JJ, Pichardo-Corpus JA, Delgadillo-Ruiz O, Flores-Torres A, García-Reynoso A, Ruiz-Suárez LG, Mendoza A. Increasing Weekend Effect in Ground-Level O3 in Metropolitan Areas of Mexico during 1988–2016. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093330

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hernández-Paniagua, Iván Y., Rodrigo Lopez-Farias, José J. Piña-Mondragón, Juan A. Pichardo-Corpus, Olivia Delgadillo-Ruiz, Arnoldo Flores-Torres, Agustín García-Reynoso, Luis G. Ruiz-Suárez, and Alberto Mendoza. 2018. "Increasing Weekend Effect in Ground-Level O3 in Metropolitan Areas of Mexico during 1988–2016" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093330

APA Style

Hernández-Paniagua, I. Y., Lopez-Farias, R., Piña-Mondragón, J. J., Pichardo-Corpus, J. A., Delgadillo-Ruiz, O., Flores-Torres, A., García-Reynoso, A., Ruiz-Suárez, L. G., & Mendoza, A. (2018). Increasing Weekend Effect in Ground-Level O3 in Metropolitan Areas of Mexico during 1988–2016. Sustainability, 10(9), 3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093330

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop