Why urban air quality networks are inadequate for unusual events

Urban air quality networks are designed to handle predictable challenges, not catastrophes. But in our increasingly chaotic, unpredictable world, this is no longer good enough.

Established to analyse tailpipe emissions, industrial activities, and background pollutants like ozone or PM2.5, urban AQ networks have transformed our approach to air pollution.

But when a freak incident occurs, like a plane crash, bombing, chemical spill, refinery explosion, or warehouse fire, the same infrastructure can quickly become inadequate. 

Such contingencies have been thrust back into public consciousness with the crash of Air India Flight 171 in Ahmedabad. 

While these events are rare, their intensity, complexity, and health risks make them disproportionately dangerous.

If you need to monitor air quality, find your next instrument in our international directory of companies supplying air quality monitoring equipment.

So why are our urban air quality networks unprepared?

1. They're built for the usual suspects

Most networks track a narrow group of criteria pollutants defined by regulatory frameworks: nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

This approach suits long-term trends and policy enforcement, but not emergency response.

Unusual events release substances that aren't part of standard monitoring programs, including:

• Ultrafine particles (UFPs)
• Acrolein, formaldehyde, phosgene
• Hydrogen cyanide, isocyanates
• Metals (e.g., titanium, nickel, chromium)
• Dioxins, furans, PAHs
• PFAS from firefighting foams

Most stations simply aren’t equipped to detect them.

Could this novel spectroscopy revolutionise radiation, groundwater and gas sensing?

Helium-3 (³He) may be a rare isotope, but it can play an outsized role in environmental monitoring and radiation detection technologies.  Much recent attention has focused on high-precision spect... Read More

2. Fixed stations can't respond to moving hazards

Airborne contaminants in a fire or explosion can shift quickly with the wind. 

Fixed urban monitors are often sparsely distributed and located far from the incident zone. As a result, they may completely miss exposure hotspots.

Disasters demand real-time mapping of pollution plumes. 

This requires mobile monitoring stations, drones, and handheld samplers, all of which aren't standard in most municipal networks.

3. Instruments are too slow or inflexible

Advanced chemical analysis of rare pollutants usually requires offline lab testing (e.g., GC-MS or HPLC). 

That means sample collection, transportation, and delayed results, which fine for research but not for public health decision-making in a crisis.

There are few plug-and-play instruments for fast, accurate detection of complex pollutant mixtures during emergencies. 

That leaves public officials and responders blind in the early hours, when exposure risks are often highest.

4. No protocol for rare events

Many air monitoring programs lack emergency response protocols or memoranda of understanding with public health, fire, or civil defense departments. They may not have plans for:

• Redeploying sensors
• Sharing data in real-time
• Communicating risks to the public

This bureaucratic gap can delay life-saving interventions, from evacuations to health advisories.

How hyperspectral imaging could transform remote sensing

In the ever-expanding toolbox of environmental monitoring, hyperspectral imaging (also known as imaging spectroscopy) is emerging as a transformative technology.Once the domain of high-budget aeros... Read More

5. Unmonitored indoor environments

Urban networks are overwhelmingly focused on ambient outdoor air. 

But chemical plumes and fire-related particles can infiltrate homes, schools, and hospitals, where people spend most of their time. Indoor exposure pathways go unmeasured, even as residents breathe in contaminated air.

Indoor sampling strategies, HEPA filter testing, and HVAC assessments are rarely part of municipal air quality strategies.

6. Public expectations outpace capability

After a major disaster, the public often assumes "someone" is monitoring the air. But unless agencies specifically plan and equip for these events, no one may be tracking the most dangerous pollutants.

This gap undermines trust, impairs response, and can lead to avoidable health outcomes. Transparency about capabilities and limitations is essential.

How NASA is advancing post-wildfire air quality forecasting

UTA-led project will advance real-time air quality forecasting and health risk communication toolsAs wildfire events become more frequent and far-reaching across the globe, the University of Texas... Read More

Building toward resilience

To face the rising risks of climate-amplified disasters, industrial accidents, and infrastructure failures, air monitoring networks must evolve. 

That means equipping for complexity, planning for mobility, and integrating air data with health, emergency, and communications systems.

Standard networks are designed for normal circumstances. But in abnormal times, we need abnormal tools.