DOCSLIB.ORG

Ozone Bioindicators and Forest Health: a Guide to the Evaluation, Analysis, and Interpretation of the Ozone Injury Data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Agriculture Ozone Bioindicators and Forest Forest Service Health: A Guide to the Evaluation, Northern Research Station Analysis, and Interpretation of the General Technical Report NRS-34 Ozone Injury Data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Gretchen C. Smith John W. Coulston Barbara M. O’Connell Abstract In 1994, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and Forest Health Monitoring programs of the U.S. Forest Service implemented a national ozone (O3) biomonitoring program designed to address specific questions about the area and percent of forest land subject to levels of O3 pollution that may negatively affect the forest ecosystem. This is the first and only nationally consistent effort to monitor O3 stress on the forests of the United States. This report provides background information on O3 and its effects on trees and ecosystems, and describes the rationale behind using sensitive bioindicator plants to detect O3 stress and assess the risk of probable O3 impact. Also included are a description of field methods, analytic techniques, estimation procedures, and how to access, use and interpret the ozone bioindicator attributes and data outputs such as the national ozone risk map. The Authors GRETCHEN C. SMITH, National Ozone Field Advisor, University of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Amherst, MA. [email protected] JOHN W. COULSTON, National Ozone Advisor and Supervisory Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Knoxville, TN. [email protected] BARBARA M. O’CONNELL, Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. [email protected] Acknowledgments The ozone biomonitoring program began in the early 1990s and has succeeded due to the persistent efforts of numerous investigators, regional trainers, and state forest health coordinators. The authors wish to extend special thanks to the following individuals: Ed Jepsen, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Bill Smith, Dan Stratton, and John Simpson, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station; Melissa Patterson and Joel Thompson, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Vicki Sanderford and Jeff Herrick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC; and Patrick Temple, Ecological Systems Group, Riverside, CA. We also thank the regional field crews and quality assurance staff for their efforts and commitment to data quality, and the many private landowners who generously allow us on their land. Without them the national ozone biomonitoring program would not be possible. We thank Sally Campbell, Don Davis, Ed Jepsen, and Will McWilliams for reviewing the manuscript; and Chris Bergweiler, Dan Duriscoe, Ron Kelley, Bob Kohut, Bill Manning, Howie Neufeld, Jim Renfro, and Pat Temple for providing excellent photographs of ozone injury. Cover Photos Front top right courtesy of Pat Temple, U.S. Forest Service; all others courtesy of Gretchen Smith, University of Massachusetts. Front Top left: ozone injury assessment along a field edge at a biosite in New Hampshire. Top right: ozone chlorotic mottle on ponderosa pine in California. Bottom left: field evaluation of black cherry at a biosite in Vermont. Bottom right: leaves with obvious injury collected in the field for quality assurance purposes. Back Left: plant press used in the field to preserve leaf samples for later examination by regional experts. Right: hand lens used in the field for close examination of leaves for ozone injury. Manuscript received for publication 10 April 2008 CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................................1 . Program.History...............................................................................................1 Ozone the Air Pollutant.....................................................................................2 . Ozone.Formation,.Sources,.and.Transport......................................................2 . Ambient.Concentrations.and.Exposure.Patterns.............................................3 . Ozone.Uptake.and.Plant.Response................................................................5 Evidence that Ozone Injures Trees..................................................................7 . Foliar.Injury......................................................................................................8 . Growth.and.Vigor.............................................................................................9 Western.Pines.and.Associated.Species....................................................10 Eastern.White.Pine....................................................................................11 Trembling.Aspen.and.Aspen.Clones.........................................................11 Black.Cherry..............................................................................................12 Other.Eastern.Species..............................................................................12 . Ecosystem.Effects.........................................................................................13 Ozone Biomonitoring and Forest Health Assessment................................15 . The.Conceptual.Model...................................................................................16 . Assessment.Questions..................................................................................18 . Issues.of.Uncertainty.....................................................................................18 . Forest.Health.Assessment.at.the.State.and.Regional.Levels........................19 Data Collection and Estimation......................................................................20 . National.Protocol...........................................................................................20 . Field.Methods................................................................................................22 . Quality.Assurance..........................................................................................24 Performance.Evaluations.and.MQOs........................................................25 . Estimation.Methods.......................................................................................26 Database Structure and Documentation.......................................................27 . Field.Data......................................................................................................27 . Standard.Summary.Tables.and.Derived.Ozone.Data....................................28 Ozone.Biosite.Summary.Table..................................................................28 Ozone.Plot.Summary.Table.......................................................................28 Ozone.Species.Summary.Table................................................................29 . Population-level.Core.Tables.and.Maps........................................................30 . Validation.Data.Table.....................................................................................30 Crosswalks and Site Identification Data........................................................31 Data Summaries..............................................................................................31 . National.Program.Summary..........................................................................31 Regional.Summaries.and.State.Reports...................................................37 Analytical Procedures and Risk Assessment...............................................46 . Population.Estimates.....................................................................................46 . The.National.Ozone.Risk.Map.......................................................................47 . Link.to.Evaluation.Monitoring.........................................................................50 . Link.to.Air.Quality.Standards.........................................................................51 . Advantages.and.Disadvantages.of.the.Data.................................................53 Summary and Recommendations.................................................................55 . Summary.Comments.....................................................................................55 . Recommendations.........................................................................................56 References.......................................................................................................58 Appendix I.—Key Resources and Web Sites................................................73 . Air.Quality.Data.and.the.2008.Revised.Ozone.Standard..............................73 . Air.Quality.Indices..........................................................................................73 . Research.Studies.and.Educational.Material..................................................73 . Peer-reviewed.Journals.................................................................................74 . Air.Pollution.Workshop...................................................................................74 . Climate.Change.Issues.and.Links.................................................................75 Appendix 2.—National Maps of Ozone Air Quality.......................................76 Appendix 3.—Field Images of Ozone Injury on Eastern and Western Bioindicator Species...................................................................................78 Appendix 4.—Ozone Sensitivity of Tree and Shrub Species......................83
Recommended publications
  • Do We Need to Use Bats As Bioindicators?

    Do We Need to Use Bats As Bioindicators?

    biology Perspective Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators? Danilo Russo * , Valeria B. Salinas-Ramos , Luca Cistrone, Sonia Smeraldo, Luciano Bosso * and Leonardo Ancillotto Wildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università, 100, 80055 Portici, Italy; [email protected] (V.B.S.-R.); [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (L.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (L.B.) Simple Summary: Bioindicators are organisms that react to the quality or characteristics of the environment and their changes. They are vitally important to track environmental alterations and take action to mitigate them. As choosing the right bioindicators has important policy implications, it is crucial to select them to tackle clear goals rather than selling specific organisms as bioindicators for other reasons, such as for improving their public profile and encourage species conservation. Bats are a species-rich mammal group that provide key services such as pest suppression, pollination of plants of economic importance or seed dispersal. Bats show clear reactions to environmental alterations and as such have been proposed as potentially useful bioindicators. Based on the rel- atively limited number of studies available, bats are likely excellent indicators in habitats such as rivers, forests, and urban sites. However, more testing across broad geographic areas is needed, and establishing research networks is fundamental to reach this goal. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators exist, such as difficulties in separating cryptic species and identifying bats in flight from their calls.
  • Biomonitoring Aquatic Ecosystem.Pdf

    Biomonitoring Aquatic Ecosystem.Pdf

    analytica chimica acta 606 (2008) 135–150 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aca Review Biomonitoring: An appealing tool for assessment of metal pollution in the aquatic ecosystem Qunfang Zhou, Jianbin Zhang, Jianjie Fu, Jianbo Shi, Guibin Jiang ∗ State Key Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China article info abstract Article history: Wide occurrence of aquatic metal pollution has caused much attention. Biomonitoring Received 17 August 2007 offers an appealing tool for the assessment of metal pollution in aquatic ecosystem. The Received in revised form bioindicators including algae, macrophyte, zooplankton, insect, bivalve mollusks, gastro- 7 November 2007 pod, fish, amphibian and others are enumerated and compared for their advantages and Accepted 7 November 2007 disadvantages in practical biomonitoring of aquatic metal pollution. The common biomon- Published on line 19 November 2007 itoring techniques classified as bioaccumulation, biochemical alterations, morphological and behavior observation, population- and community-level approaches and modeling are Keywords: discussed. The potential applications of biomonitoring are proposed to mainly include Biomonitoring evaluation of actual aquatic metal pollution, bioremediation, toxicology prediction and Metal pollution researches on toxicological mechanism. Further perspectives are made for the biomoni- Aquatic ecosystem toring of metal
  • Biomonitoring a Best Practices Report for State Legislators

    Biomonitoring a Best Practices Report for State Legislators

    Biomonitoring A Best Practices Report for State Legislators BIOMONITORING A BEST PR A CTICES RE P ORT FOR ST A TE LEGIS la TORS By Scott Hendrick Doug Farquhar William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, CO 80230 (303) 364-7700 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 www.ncsl.org May 2010 The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the inter- ests of the states in the American federal system. Its objectives are: • To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures. • To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures. • To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system. The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. This publication was developed with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. NCSL graciously acknowledges their support. This publication was supported by the Association of Public Health Laboratories and Cooperative Agreement Number #U60/CD303019 from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC. Printed on recycled paper © 2010 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-978-58124-596-8 Biomonitoring iii CONTENTS About the Authors....................................................................................................................................
  • Biomonitoring of Lead and Cadmium Preliminary Study on the Added Value for Human Exposure and Effect Assessment

    Biomonitoring of Lead and Cadmium Preliminary Study on the Added Value for Human Exposure and Effect Assessment

    Biomonitoring of lead and cadmium Preliminary study on the added value for human exposure and effect assessment RIVM Letter report 2016-0215 B. Tiesjema │ M. Mengelers Biomonitoring of lead and cadmium Preliminary study on the added value for human exposure and effect assessment RIVM Letter report 2016-0215 B. Tiesjema│M. Mengelers RIVM Letter report 2016-0215 Colophon © RIVM 2017 Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, along with the title and year of publication. B. Tiesjema (author), RIVM M. Mengelers (author), RIVM Contact: [email protected] This investigation has been performed by order and for the account of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Office for Risk Assessment and Research, within the framework of the project ‘Indicators for human body burden’, research question 9.1.62. This is a publication of: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment P.O. Box 1 | 3720 BA Bilthoven The Netherlands www.rivm.nl/en Page 2 of 49 RIVM Letter report 2016-0215 Synopsis Biomonitoring of lead and cadmium Preliminary study on the added value for human exposure and effect assessment People are exposed to all kinds of substances (for example via food) , which can be harmful to their health. To accurately estimate the health effects, it is important to determine to what extent these substances actually harm the body. In order to do so it may be helpful to measure concentrations of these substances in body fluids and/or tissues (biomonitoring). RIVM chose the substances lead and cadmium to investigate to what extent such measurements show a relationship with the exposure as well as the health effects of these substances.
  • Bioindicator

    Bioindicator

    Bioindicator INTRODUCTION A bioindicator is any species (an indicator species) or group of species whose function, population, or status can reveal the qualitative status of the environment. For example, copepods and other small water crustaceans that are present in many water bodies can be monitored for changes (biochemical, physiological, or behavioural) that may indicate a problem within their ecosystem. Bioindicators can tell us about the cumulative effects of different pollutants in the ecosystem and about how long a problem may have been present, which physical and chemical testing cannot. A biological monitor or biomonitor is an organism that provides quantitative information on the quality of the environment around it. Therefore, a good biomonitor will indicate the presence of the pollutant and can also be used in an attempt to provide additional information about the amount and intensity of the exposure. A biological indicator is also the name given to a process for assessing the sterility of an environment through the use of resistant microorganism strains (eg. Bacillus or Geobacillus). Biological indicators can be described as the introduction of a highly resistant microorganisms to a given environment before sterilization, tests are conducted to measure the effectiveness of the sterilization processes. As biological indicators use highly resistant microorganisms, any sterilization process that renders them inactive will have also killed off more common, weaker pathogens. The advantages associated with using Bioindicators are as follows: (a) Biological impacts can be determined. (b) To monitor synergetic and antagonistic impacts of various pollutants on a creature. (c) Early stage diagnosis as well as harmful effects of toxins to plants, as well as human beings, can be monitored.
  • Biological Monitoring of Chemical Exposure in the Workplace Guidelines

    Biological Monitoring of Chemical Exposure in the Workplace Guidelines

    WHO/HPR/OCH 96.2 Distr.: General Biological Monitoring of Chemical Exposure in the Workplace Guidelines Volume 2 World Health Organization Geneva 1996 Contribution to the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Layout of the cover page Tuula Solasaari-Pekki Technical editing Suvi Lehtinen This publication has been published with the support of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. ISBN 951-802-167-8 Geneva 1996 This document is not a formal publication Ce document n'est pas une publication of­ of the World Health Organization (WHO), ficielle de !'Organisation mondiale de la and all rights are reserved by the Organiza­ Sante (OMS) et tous Jes droits y afferents tion. The document may, however, be sont reserves par !'Organisation. S'il peut freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced and etre commente, resume, reproduit OU translated, in part or in whole, but not for traduit, partiellement ou en totalite, ii ne sale nor for use in conjunction with .com­ saurait cependant l'etre pour la vente ou a mercial purposes. des fins commerciales. The views expressed in documents by Les opinions exprimees clans Jes documents named authors are solely the responsibility par des auteurs cites nommement n'enga­ of those authors. gent que lesdits auteurs. Preface This is the second in a series of volumes on 'Guidelines on Biological Monitoring of Chemical Exposure in the Workplace', produced under the joint direction of WHO's Of­ fice of Occupational Health (OCH) and Programme for the Promotion of Chemical Safety (PCS). The objectives of this project was to provide occupational health professionals in Mem­ ber States with reference principles and methods for the determination of biomarkers of exposure, with emphasis on promoting appropriate use of biological monitoring and as­ sisting in quality assurance.
  • Fact Sheets for HBM4EU Priority Substances

    Fact Sheets for HBM4EU Priority Substances

    POSITION PAPER MARCH 2020 Cefic position on human biomonitoring • European chemical industry companies are convinced of the benefits of adequately performed human bio- monitoring (HBM) studies and are supportive of the HBM4EU initiative • Validated and harmonized analytical methods should form the basis of any HBM study to get reliable results • HBM can contribute to the assessment of potential health risks provided a scientifically-derived health- based guidance value and contextual information on exposures are available • Communications on HBM results must be fact-based and objective • Cefic will support further endeavours to develop HBM under Horizon Europe Summary Human biomonitoring (HBM) comprises the analysis of human samples (for example blood or urine) to measure how workers or the general population are exposed to chemicals. The detection of a sub- stance identifies exposure, but does not allow conclusions regarding its effects on health. HBM can contribute to the assessment of potential health risks by comparing measured exposure concentra- tions, provided a scientifically-derived health-based guidance value and contextual information on exposure sources are available. Chemical industry companies in Europe are convinced of the benefits of adequately performed HBM studies. As done for decades with implementing HBM programmes for workers, industry is supportive of HBM programmes for the general population, like the HBM4EU project. Communications on results is a key but sensitive element of HBM and must be fact-based and objective. Points to consider in this respect are mentioned below. Introduction For decades, human biomonitoring (HBM) has been an established method for the detection and identification of chemical substances and/or their metabolites in biological materials of humans (e.g.
  • Vocs) in Residential Indoor Environment Using the Canadian Health Measures Survey (Cycle 2: 2009-2011) and a Multiple Receptors Based Approach

    Vocs) in Residential Indoor Environment Using the Canadian Health Measures Survey (Cycle 2: 2009-2011) and a Multiple Receptors Based Approach

    AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN RESIDENTIAL INDOOR ENVIRONMENT USING THE CANADIAN HEALTH MEASURES SURVEY (CYCLE 2: 2009-2011) AND A MULTIPLE RECEPTORS BASED APPROACH by Marianne I. Parent Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia April 2018 © Copyright by Marianne I. Parent, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ........................................................................................................ v List of Figures ..................................................................................................... viii Abstract ................................................................................................................ix List of Abbreviations used .................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................xi Chapter 1. Introduction: Exposures and health effects of VOCs........................... 1 1.1 VOCs – Exposures and sources ..................................................................... 1 1.2 What are VOCs? ............................................................................................ 3 1.2.1 What are sources of VOCs in residential indoor environments? .......... 4 1.2.2. Indoor sources of VOCs from building materials and products ............ 6 1.2.3 VOC emissions from smoking, cooking, gas and oil combustion
  • The Amphipod <I>Orchomenella Pinguis</I>

    The Amphipod <I>Orchomenella Pinguis</I>

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Valery Forbes Publications Papers in the Biological Sciences 2009 The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic Lis Bach Aarhus University, [email protected] Valery E. Forbes University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Ingela Dahllöf Aarhus University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Other Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Toxicology Commons Bach, Lis; Forbes, Valery E.; and Dahllöf, Ingela, "The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic" (2009). Valery Forbes Publications. 47. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes/47 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valery Forbes Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:11 (November 2009), pp. 1664–1670; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.07.001 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Used by permission. The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic Lis Bach,1,2 Valery E. Forbes,2 and Ingela Dahllöf 1 1. Department of Marine Ecology, National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark 2. Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Corresponding author — L. Bach, email [email protected] , [email protected] Abstract Indigenous organisms can be used as bioindicators for effects of contaminants, but no such bioindicator has been estab- lished for Arctic areas.
  • Ozone Bioindicator Plants (Combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011

    Ozone Bioindicator Plants (Combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011

    Phase 3 Field Guide – Ozone Bioindicator Plants (combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011 Section 20. Ozone Bioindicator Plants 20.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3 20.1.1 Scope and Application ................................................................................................................ 3 20.1.2 Summary of Method .................................................................................................................... 4 20.1.3 Summary of PDR Screens and Tally Procedures ....................................................................... 4 20.1.4 Equipment And Supplies ............................................................................................................. 4 20.1.5 Training and Quality Assurance .................................................................................................. 5 20.1.6 Voucher Specimens .................................................................................................................... 5 20.1.7 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 5 20.2 Ozone Biomonitoring Procedures ..................................................................................................... 7 20.2.1 Evaluation Window ...................................................................................................................... 7 20.2.2
  • Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals

    Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals

    Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals Measuring chemicals in human tissues is the "gold standard" for assessing people's exposure to pollution Ken Sexton, Larry L. Needham and James L. Pirkle hat chemicals in your d aily rou­ mine the precise agent, the details of sure also requires complex detective W tine should you be most con­ contact and the full extent of the affect­ work to discover all kinds of d etails, ce rn ed about? Th e vo latile orga ni c ed population. Complicating matters, incl uding the chemical identity (for ex­ compounds from your ca rpet? The ex­ th e scie ntific unde rstanding of the ample, the pesticide chl o rpy rifos), haust fumes on the road to work? The mechanisms of exposure, sud1 as how source (nearby agricultural use), medi­ pesti cide residues in the apple in your various compoWlds are ca rried through um o f transport (ground water) and lund ,? Most of us are exposed to low the air and changed along the way, is route (drinking contaminated well wa­ levels of thousands of toxic chemicals oft en incomplete. As a result, epidemi­ ter). Scientists must consid er this infor­ every day. How can a person-or a na­ ologists oft en find it difficult to estab­ ma tion on exposure against the back­ tion-decide which substances should lish cause-and-effect relationships for ground of people's acti vity patterns, be controlled most rigorously? environmentally induced sickn esses. eating and drinking habits, and lifestyle, One strategy is to go after the largest With out reliable information some pol­ and they must also evaluate the influ­ sources of pollution.
  • Use of Leaves As Bioindicator to Assess Air Pollution Based on Composite Proxy Measure (APTI), Dust Amount and Elemental Concentration of Metals

    Use of Leaves As Bioindicator to Assess Air Pollution Based on Composite Proxy Measure (APTI), Dust Amount and Elemental Concentration of Metals

    plants Article Use of Leaves as Bioindicator to Assess Air Pollution Based on Composite Proxy Measure (APTI), Dust Amount and Elemental Concentration of Metals Vanda Éva Molnár 1 ,Dávid T˝ozsér 2, Szilárd Szabó 1 ,Béla Tóthmérész 3 and Edina Simon 2,* 1 Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] (V.É.M.); [email protected] (S.S.) 2 Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] 3 MTA-DE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Research Group, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 October 2020; Accepted: 7 December 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: Monitoring air pollution and environmental health are crucial to ensure viable cities. We assessed the usefulness of the Air Pollution Tolerance Index (APTI) as a composite index of environmental health. Fine and coarse dust amount and elemental concentrations of Celtis occidentalis and Tilia europaea leaves were measured in June and September at three sampling sites (urban, × industrial, and rural) in Debrecen city (Hungary) to assess the usefulness of APTI. The correlation between APTI values and dust amount and elemental concentrations was also studied. Fine dust, total chlorophyll, and elemental concentrations were the most sensitive indicators of pollution. Based on the high chlorophyll and low elemental concentration of tree leaves, the rural site was the least disturbed by anthropogenic activities, as expected. We demonstrated that fine and coarse dust amount and elemental concentrations of urban tree leaves are especially useful for urban air quality monitoring.