at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 683e686

Contents lists available

Atmospheric Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/atmosenv

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Intra-urban correlation and spatial variability of air toxics acrossan international airshed in Detroit, Michigan (USA) and Windsor, Ontario(Canada)” [Atmos. Environ. 44 (2010) 1162e1174]

Lindsay Miller a, Lawrence D. Lemke b,*, Xiaohong Xu a, Shannon M. Molaroni b, Hongyu You c,Amanda J. Wheeler c, Jason Booza d, Alice Grgicak-Mannion e, Richard Krajenta f, Phillip Graniero e,Helene Krouse g, Lois Lamerato f, Delbert Raymond h, John Reiners Jr. i, Linda Weglicki g

aDept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, CanadabDept. of Geology, Wayne State University, 0224 Old Main, 4841 Cass, Detroit, MI 48202, USAcAir Health Science Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadadDept. of Family Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USAeGreat Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, CanadafHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USAgCollege of Nursing, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USAh School of Nursing, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USAi Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

The Miller et al. article reports results from a September 2008 air quality study in Detroit and Windsor for NO2, VOCs, PAHs, andParticulate Matter (PM) in three size fractions. Our research team has concluded that the PM1-2.5 and PM2.5-10 data reported by Miller et al.(Atmos. Environ. 44, (2010), 1162-1174) were mislabeled (i.e. switched).

Table E1Changes to text, tables and figures.

Page Error location Correction

Text 1162 Abstract, first sentence of second paragraph “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5”

Text 1166 Second sentence, second paragraph, Section 3.3 “PM10” should read “PM1”

Text 1166 Second and third paragraphs, Section 3.3 “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5”

Text 1166 Third paragraph, Section 3.3 “PAHs (26.9 vs. 9.5 mg m-3)” should read “PAHs (26.9 vs. 9.5 ng m-3)”Table 3 1166 First column “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10” and “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5”

Text 1167 Second sentence, first paragraph, Section 3.4.1 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Text 1167 Third sentence, first paragraph, Section 3.4.1 “The two smaller size fractions of PM are also correlated” should read “PM1 and PM2.5e10

are also correlated”Text 1167 First sentence, second paragraph, Section 3.4.1 “(0.56 and 0.59, respectively)” should read “(0.59 and 0.56, respectively)”Text 1167 Second sentence, second paragraph Section 3.4.1 “.in Windsor only the two smallest PM fractions are correlated.” should read “.in Windsor,

only the PM1 and PM2.5e10 fractions are correlated.”Table 4a 1167 First row (header) “PM1e2.5” and “PM2.5e10” should be switchedTable 4a 1167 Second column “PM1e2.5” and “PM2.5e10” should be switched in all three occurrencesText 1168 First paragraph in Section 3.5 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Text 1168 Second paragraph in Section 3.5 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Fig. 3 1169 Bottom row “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10” in all three occurrencesText 1170 Second sentence, last paragraph in Section 3.5 “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5” and “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Text 1170 First sentence, first paragraph, Section 3.6 “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5”

Text 1170 Fourth paragraph, Section 3.6 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10” in all four occurrencesText 1170 Last paragraph, Section 3.6 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Table 6 1170 First column “PM2.5e10” should read “PM1e2.5” and “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Fig. 4f 1171 Figure legend and caption “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Fig. 5f 1172 Figure legend and caption “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

Text 1173 Third paragraph, second sentence, Section 4 “PM1e2.5” should read “PM2.5e10”

DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.030.* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 313 577 6412; fax: þ1 313 577 0517.

E-mail address: ldlemke@wayne.edu (L.D. Lemke).

1352-2310/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.10.010

Table 3Statistical summary of pollutant concentrations, for both cities combined (all) as well as for individual cities.

Pollutant (unit) Sites N Mean SD CV (%) Min Med Max

NO2 (ppb) All 98 15.3 2.9 19.2 7.3 15.7 25.2Detroit 66 16.5 2.4 14.3 11.6 16.6 25.2Windsor 32 12.8 2.4 19.0 7.3 12.7 16.7

Total VOC (mg m�3) All 98 13.8 5.7 41.1 3.8 13.8 46.6Detroit 66 16.0 5.4 34.0 4.3 15.2 46.6Windsor 32 9.3 2.8 30.0 3.8 9.1 14.9

Total BTEX (mg m�3) All 98 8.9 3.9 44.6 1.0 8.9 30.9Detroit 66 10.3 3.8 37.3 1.0 9.6 30.9Windsor 32 5.9 2.1 35.5 2.2 5.7 10.2

Total PAH (ng m�3) All 38 20.1 13.7 68.3 3.3 19.3 53.5Detroit 23 26.9 12.4 46.1 4.1 24.9 53.5Windsor 15 9.5 7.6 79.6 3.3 6.1 28.5

PM1 (mg m�3) All 38 5.6 0.8 14.2 2.7 5.5 7.4Detroit 23 5.9 0.6 11.0 4.7 5.9 7.4Windsor 15 5.1 0.7 14.0 2.7 5.2 6.1

PM2.5e10 (mg m�3) All 38 5.1 2.2 42.5 0.6 4.8 13.0Detroit 23 5.6 2.3 40.4 3.9 5.1 13.0Windsor 15 4.5 1.8 40.4 0.6 4.2 7.6

PM1e2.5 (mg m�3) All 38 2.1 1.3 60.9 0.02* 1.9 7.8Detroit 23 2.1 0.4 19.0 1.7 2.1 3.1Windsor 15 2.1 2.0 94.8 0.02* 1.7 7.8

* Minimum values reported at ½ detection limit values.

Table 6Omnidirectional variogram model parameters.

Pollutant Sites Model Nugget Range(km)

Sill Standardized Slope (x 10�5)

NO2 All Spherical 0.75 15.2 9.6 9.0Detroit Spherical 0.75 16.0 7.2 8.4Windsor Spherical 0.75 7.0 5.0 17

Total VOC All Exponential 2.1 30.0 42 8.2Detroit Spherical 2.1 7.0 26 19Windsor Spherical 2.1 9.0 6.5 12

Total BTEX All Exponential 0.57 22.0 19 10Detroit Spherical 0.57 6.0 14 22Windsor Spherical 0.57 7.5 3.6 16

Total PAH All Spherical 75 15.6 130 5.9Detroit Spherical 75 5.28 100 14Windsor Spherical 5.0 9.12 66 15

PM1 All Spherical 0.1 10.0 0.57 12Detroit Spherical 0.1 15.0 0.4 7.9Windsor Spherical 0.1 6.5 0.43 17

PM2.5e10 All Spherical 1.0 27.0 9.0 5.0Detroit Spherical 1.0 15.0 8.0 8.8Windsor Spherical 1.0 11.2 3.5 10

PM1e2.5 All Spherical 1.0 6.0 1.2 13Detroit Spherical 0.01 30.0 4.0 4.9Windsor Spherical 1.0 8.0 3.8 14

Table 4aCorrelation coefficients (combined and for individual cities) of active sites.

Total PAHs Total VOC BTEX NO2 PM1e2.5 PM2.5e10

Both Cities (N ¼ 38) Total VOCs 0.472BTEX 0.459 0.992NO2 0.603 0.529 0.521PM1e2.5 0.018 �0.020 �0.056 0.160PM2.5e10 0.305 0.147 0.139 0.555 0.099PM1 0.332 0.193 0.156 0.400 0.150 0.679

Detroit (N ¼ 23) Total VOCs 0.111BTEX 0.108 0.992NO2 0.314 0.232 0.259PM1e2.5 0.262 �0.052 �0.026 0.592PM2.5e10 0.211 �0.036 �0.011 0.561 0.909PM1 0.185 �0.103 �0.105 0.255 0.702 0.728

Windsor (N ¼ 15) Total VOCs 0.663BTEX 0.672 0.913NO2 0.435 0.545 0.408PM1-2.5 �0.068 �0.049 �0.246 0.135PM2.5-10 0.048 0.024 �0.140 0.364 �0.193PM1 �0.309 L0.546 L0.636 �0.062 0.065 0.540

Bold number indicates significant at p < 0.05.

L. Miller et al. / Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 683e686684

Fig. 3. (part). Omnidirectional experimental variograms (points) and variogram models (lines) for PM2.5e10 by area.

Fig. 5f. PM2.5e10 concentration map interpolated using ordinary kriging with omnidirectional variogram model.

Fig. 4f. PM2.5e10 concentration map interpolated using inverse distance weighting.

L. Miller et al. / Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 683e686 685

L. Miller et al. / Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 683e686686

Corrections to rectify this error (i.e., changing “PM1e2.5” to read “PM2.5e10” and vice versa) affect all references to PM1e2.5 and PM2.5e10that are present throughout the manuscript (Table E1 above). Corrected versions of Table 3, Table 4a, and Table 6 are given above. Correctedversions of the affected portion of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 and 5f are also presented above. These changes do not affect the substance of the paper’sdiscussion or conclusions. The authors regret any inconvenience this error has caused.