[33]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
State ofAir Qualityand Noise Pollution
[34]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
AIR QUALITY
The status of air quality problems in Thailand in 2003continued to be particulate matter in size smaller than 10 micron(PM
10), which exceeded standards in many locations similar to the
preceding year. Most of these were the same places, such asSamutprakarn, Bangkok, and Chalerm Prakeat District, Saraburiprovince.
Secondary issues were ozone gas1 (O3), which was found to exceed standards in some areas, i.e.,
Bangkok and surrounding provinces, and eastern region. Carbon monoxide gases (CO) exceeded standards in
areas located near certain Bangkok roadsides. Other air pollutants, i.e., sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), were within limits.
Air Quality in BangkokAir pollutants found to have exceeded standards in the City of Bangkok were particulate matter (PM),
ozone gases, total suspended particles (TSP) and carbon monoxide. Compared to the previous year, these
problems became more degraded. Other pollutants were within limits, however. The main cause of PM has
always been vehicular traffic, which increases every year. Data obtained from Department of Land Transportation
indicate that the total number of registered vehicles until 2002 was 5.4 million. In 2003 alone, there were 514,530
new registrations. As a result, locations by major streets experienced worse air pollution problems than residential
areas.
1. General Areas
Bangkok-wide there were 10 air quality monitoring stations in total. Continuous monitoring showed
that particulate matter and ozone gases had increased compared to the previous years. Other pollutants, such
as TSP, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, were within limits (see Table 1 in Index).
The 24-hour particulate matter averages, measured at 20.5 - 189.0 µg/m3, exceeded standards
36 times from a total 1,680 readings, or 2.14% (standard of 120 µg/m3. Locations with the most serious PM
problem were Bangkhuntien District and Singharaj Pittayakom School.
The 1-hour ozone averages, measured at 0 - 169.0 parts per billion (ppb), exceeded standards 155
times from a total 61,789 readings, or 0.25% (standard of 100 ppb). The highest levels found were near
Ramkamhaeng University, frequently exceeding the standard limits.
1 Ozone gas is the secondary pollutant that formed in the chemical reactions between hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides sunlight as catalyst.
[35]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
2. Roadside Locations
There were 7 monitoring stations, plus an additional 21 temporary stations, monitoring air quality
around Bangkok roadsides. Field measurements showed that major problems of roadside areas were PM and
TSP. Furthermore, carbon monoxide and ozone gases also exceeded standards at times around particular
streets. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, on the other hand, remained below standards (see Table 2 in Index).
2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Air quality near roadside locations sampled and measured continuously all year round at 7
stations found 24-hr particulate matter averages at 12.7 - 208.9 µg/m3, which exceeded standards 108 times from
2,152 readings in total, or 5.02%. The highest levels were detected on Rama IV Road next to the Ministry of
Science and Technology.
The 1-hr ozone averages were detected at 0 - 145.0 ppb, which exceeded standards
13 times from 24,905 total readings, or 0.05%. Most exceedances were near Indrapitak Road, Thonburi power
sub-station.
2.2 Temporary Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Field measurements of air quality by roadsides with heavy traffic using 21 temporary stations,
conducted 2-3 times a week on 3 parameters, namely PM, TSP and CO, found particulate matter to exceed
standards at several locations. TSP and CO exceeded standards on some streets (see Table 3 in Index).
The 24-hr PM averages was detected at 39.2 - 241.0 µg/m3. The highest levels measured
were by Sukhumvit Street close to Soi Onnuch. In addition, Rama III at Tok intersection had PM exceedances
daily. Furthermore, several other streets had PM problems, i.e., Lanluang at Man-sri Intersection, Rajavithi at
Victory Monument, Pitsanulok at Yommaraj Intersection, Samsen at Sri-yan Intersection, Yaowaraj at Rajawong
Intersection, Sathupradit at Sathupradit Post Office, Rama I at Mahboonkrong. All were due to heavy and
congested traffic (Figure 1).
The 24-hr TSP averages were detected at 0.06 - 0.48 mg/m3. The highest levels were found
at Sathupradit Road near the post office. In addition, exceedances were detected at times on some streets
(standard of 0.33 mg/m3), i.e., Sukhumvit at Soi Onnuch, Rama I at Mahboonkrong, Ratchaprarop at Pratunam,
Samsen at Sri-yan, Rama III at Tok Intersection, and Pitsanulok at Yommaraj Intersection (Figure 2).
The 1-hr CO averages were within limits. However, the 8-hr averages exceeded standards
at times on some roadsides due to heavy traffic resulting in a collection of this gas. Concentration readings
were 0.3 - 13.0 parts per million (ppm). Locations where exceedances were found (standard of 9 ppm)
were Prachatipok Road at Taksin Monument, Sukhumvit near Onnuch, Bangkok-Nonthaburi Road at
Wongsawang Intersection, Si-praya Road at Si-praya Intersection, Lanluang at Man-sri Intersection, and Rama I at
Mahboonkrong.
[36]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
Considering the air pollution trend in Bangkok, it is evident that PM has continued to be a major problem
in roadside locations more than in other areas. Though data show that PM quantity has been clearly declining,
however in 2002-2003, the trend has started to rise once again (Figure 3). It is also expected to pose a serious
threat in the future if not seriously handled.
Pitsa
nu
lok R
d.
Ma
xim
um
24
-hr
PM
Ave
rag
e(
g/m
3)
Su
kh
um
vit R
d.
Art
-na
ron
g R
d.
Sa
mse
n R
d.
Ra
ma
IX
Rd
.
Ra
ma
IX
Rd
.
std = 120 g/m3
Su
kh
ap
iba
l 1
Rd
.
Sa
thu
pra
dit R
d.
Ra
jpra
rop
Rd
.
Ya
ow
ara
j R
d.
La
nlu
an
g R
d.
La
nlu
an
g R
d.
(Ma
nsri)
Pra
su
ma
in R
d.
Pra
ch
atip
ok R
d.
Bkk-N
on
tha
bu
ri R
d.
Ra
ma
III
Rd
.
Silo
m R
d.
Ra
ma
I R
d.
Ra
mkh
am
ha
en
g R
d.
Ph
ah
oly
oth
in R
d.
Ra
jvith
i R
d.
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 1. The highest 24-hr averages of PM10 detected by temporary monitoring stations in Bangkok, 2003
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Pitsa
nu
lok R
d.
Su
kh
um
vit R
d.
Art
-na
ron
g R
d.
Sa
mse
n R
d.
Ra
ma
IX
Rd
.
Ra
ma
IX
Rd
.
Su
kh
ap
iba
l 1
Rd
.
Sa
thu
pra
dit R
d.
Ra
jpra
rop
Rd
.
Ya
ow
ara
j R
d.
La
nlu
an
g R
d.
La
nlu
an
g R
d.
(Ma
nsri)
Pra
su
ma
in R
d.
Pra
ch
atip
ok R
d.
Bkk-N
on
tha
bu
ri R
d.
Ra
ma
III
Rd
.
Silo
m R
d.
Ra
ma
I R
d.
Ra
mkh
am
ha
en
g R
d.
Ph
ah
oly
oth
in R
d.
Ra
jvith
i R
d.
std = 0.33 g/m3
Maxim
um
24-h
r T
SP
Ave
rag
e(
g/m
3)
Figure 2. The highest 24-hr averages of TSP detected by temporary monitoring stations in Bangkok, 2003
R d idRoadside G l AGeneral Area
Std = 50 g/m3
1000
900
00
100
3)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure 3. Annual PM Concentrations in Bangkok, 1992-2003
[37]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
200
188
166
144
122
100
88
66
44
00
R d idRoadside OthOthers
22
Annual O
zone (
pp
b)
19961996 19971997 19981998 19991999 20002000 20012001 20022002 20032003
Ozone gases posed another significant air pollution problem since they exceeded standards several times
in the various areas of Bangkok, and were also increasing continuously (Figure 4). Thus, protective and control
measures are needed to keep within standards.
Solutions to air pollution from vehicles, another major source for Bangkok, are more stringent emission
standards for new and old motor vehicles, petrol improvement by means of reducing sulfur content, inspection
and law enforcement of violations, and enhanced emission control on public buses, etc.
Air Quality in Surrounding ProvincesContinuous monitoring in the Bangkokûs 4 surrounding provinces - Samutprakarn, Samutsakorn, Patumthani
and Nonthaburi - at 10 stations found that PM and ozone gases posed significant problems, and that they were
more serious than the previous years. Other pollutants remained within standards, however (see Table 4 in Index).
The 24-hr PM averages were measured at 11.6 - 331.4 µg/m3. The most problematic location was
Samutprakarn with exceedances of 458 times from a total of 1,533 readings, or 29.9%. This figure is higher than
the previous year of 18.4% exceedance rate (Figure 5). In addition, comparing the annual averages indicates
that there is also an increasing trend (Figure 6).
Figure 4. Annual ozone concentrations in Bangkok, 1996-2003
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
35.9
15.1
27.3
19.3
16.7
18.4
29.9
Exce
ed
an
ce
Ra
te (
%)
Figure 5. Percentage of PM exceedances in Samutprakarn, 1997-2003
[38]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
The 1-hr ozone averages were higher than standards several times at all monitoring stations with readings
at 0 - 187.0 ppb. Maximum readings were at Samutsakorn Highway Department Office, Kratumban District,
Samutsakorn.
Air Quality in other ProvincesOuter provinces of Thailand had PM as the main problem.
Compared to the previous years, most locations did not change very
considerably, except Chalerm Prakeat District, Saraburi, whose PM
problem became slightly more severe. Secondary pollutant was ozone,
with all others remaining within standards (see Table 5 in Index).
The 24-hr averages of PM were measured at 10.9 - 388.5
µg/m3. The highest readings were recorded at Chalerm Prakeat
District, Saraburi with 46 exceedances of all 307 readings, or 15.0%.
This was because the area features a lot of stone crushing and
grinding facilities, and cement plants, which may have been the
main PM contributors. In light of the situation, responsible agencies
have proposed action plans to alleviate the problem. Other locations
with less severe PM problems included Sriracha District, Chonburi,
Lampang, Nakorn Ratchasima, and Chiang Mai, etc.
The 1-hr averages of ozone gases were measured at
0 - 134.8 ppb. Most exceedances were found in the eastern region
of Chonburi and Rayong provinces. The provinces of Ratchaburi,
Saraburi, Chiang Mai and Nakon Sawan, however, had exceedances
at a few intervals only.
1200
1000
800
600
400
00
200
Annual P
M-1
0 C
oncentr
ations (
g/m
3)
1997 1998 1999
Std = 50 g/m3
2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure 6. PM Concentrations in Samutprakarn, 1997-2003
[39]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
Figure 1. Inspection and ban of black-smoke emittingvehicles
Figure 2. Numbers of vehicles inspected and banned for emitting black smoke on Taksin Road accordingto requirements under Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act,B.E. 2535 (1992)
18-30 September 2003 Oct-03 Nov-30 1-17 December 2003 Total
104
63
223
106
203
117101
35
631
321
288
Nuber of Vehicles (Unit)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Inspecterd Vehicles
Banned Vehicles
Bans Removed
Inspection and Ban ofBlack-Smoke EmittingVehicles
The Traffic Police Department in cooperation with BangkokMetropolitan Administration and Pollution Control Departmentconducted inspections and issued bans on vehicles emitting blacksmoke in accordance with the Enhancement and Conservation ofNational Environmental Quality Act B.E. 2535 (1992). Only vehiclescovered by the Law on Motor Vehicles, i.e., pickup trucks and passenger vans, were tested. Inspections werelaunched on Taksin Road for 3 months from September 18 - December 17, 2003 in order to prepare relatedagencies and publicize measures to the general public. In conclusion, from all 631 vehicles inspected, 321 were
temporarily banned from use. These vehicles would have to be re-tuned and brought in for re-inspections within
30 days. Should they be caught again without removing temporary bans, permanent use prohibited orders will
take effect. Records obtained from the re-inspection checkpoints at the Elevated Highway Police Station, Barom
Ratchachonani Road, during the period of September 18 - December 31, 2003, show that a total of 288 vehicles,
or 90%, came back in for re-inspection and successfully removed the temporary bans. Thus, there are 33 vehicles,
or 10%, remaining to be followed up. Pollution Control Department has issued warrants to the owners of those
remaining vehicles for prompt re-inspection. So far there have been no permanent bans issued as no vehicles
have been found in use with temporary violations.
[40]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
In addition, Land Transportation Department and Bangkok Metropolitan Administration along with Pollution
Control Department conducted inspections and issued bans in accordance with the Land Transportation Act B.E.
2522 (1979) on large vehicles, particularly public buses, 3 times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
çUse Prohibitedé marks were sprayed onto the vehicles with black smoke emissions exceeding standards. During
the period of Sep. 18 - Dec. 17, 2003, of all 953 vehicles inspected, a total of 120, or 12.6, were spray-painted
with çUse Prohibitedé. In all, there were 111 public buses, 2 trans-province buses, and 7 others. Follow-up did not
find second-time violations.
In 2004, to comply with the Enhancement and Conservation
of National Environmental Quality Act B.E. 2535 (1992), related agencies
set up plans to expand the scope of inspections to cover the entire
city of Bangkok at approximately 30 traffic police inspection points.
Re-inspection points were also added to as many as seven at Pollution
Control Department, Elevated Highway Police Station, and all 5
Mechanical Department offices of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
With regard to compliance with the Land Transportation Act B.E. 2522
(1979), Pollution Control Department solicited additional cooperation
from Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA). With Land Transport
Department orders to prohibit use, public buses commissioned by
private parties who are contracted by BMTA would have to re-tune the
engines, or otherwise risk getting operation contracts revoked.
Figure 2. Spraying çUse Prohibitedé mark onlarge vehicles emitting black smoke
[41]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
Figure 3. PM compositions emitted from diesel vehicles
Sulfur Reductionin Diesel Fuel
Bangkok and its outlying provinces still experienced air pollution problems, specifically PM matter,with vehicles being the main sources responsible for as much as 54% of total PM emission (Figure 1). Dieselvehicles, in particular, emit PM as much as 83% of all vehicular emissions (Figure 2).
53.9%
9.8%
36.3%
Non-point Source Vehicles Point Source
3%
83%
14%
Diesel Benzene Vehicles Motorcycles
Figure 2. Vehicular PM emissions from vehicles
Õπÿ¿“§§“√å∫Õπ¢π“¥ 0.01-0.0 ¡‘≈≈‘‡¡µ
‰Œ‚¥√§“√å∫Õπ®–√«¡µ—«°—∫ ‰Œ‚¥√§“√å∫Õπ∑’Ë∂Ÿ°¥Ÿ¥´—∫‡¢â“¡“‡ªìπ Õπÿ¿“§¢π“¥¢Õ߇À≈«
‰Œ‚¥√§“√å∫Õπ ∑’ËÕ¬Ÿà„π√Ÿª ‰Õ√–‡À¬
Õπÿ¿“§§“√å∫Õπ ∑’ˇªìπ¢Õß·¢Áß
‰Œ‚¥√§“√å∫Õπ∑’Ë°≈—Ëπµ—« ‡ªìπÕπÿ¿“§¢Õ߇À≈«
´—≈‡øµ∑’Ë¡’‚¡‡≈°ÿ≈¢ÕßπÈ” ‡ªÁπÕߧåª√–°Õ∫
Figure1. PM emissions from various sources
Vehicular particulate matter is produced
by incomplete combustion of carbon and
hydrocarbon atoms, components in diesel fuel.
These atoms form larger molecules, agglomerate
and become sulfate compounds, a result of
sulfur in the fuel and liquid hydrocarbon, turning
into small soot particles (Figure 3).
Studies on the effects of sulfur content
in diesel fuel as manufactured according to
EURO II and EURO III standards (the latter of
which is more stringent and will be in effect in
mid-2004) on pollution from diesel vehicles found
that levels of all pollutants tend to decline when
sulfur content is reduced (Figure 4).
Volatile
Cabon particles,0.01-0.08 mm.
Carbon particlescombine with sorbedhydrocarbons, 0.05-1.0mm. in size.
Liquefied hydrocarbonmolecules
Sulfates with watercomposition
[42]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
S 500 ppmS 350 ppmS 50 ppm
CO/10CO/10
-30.5%-29.1%
-47.4% -25.3%-4.6%
-12.7%%-24.8%-4.2%
-48.4%
-22.7%
-38.3%
-1.8% -4.5%
-15.6%
%-27.9%
-52%
HCHC NONOx PMPM CO/10CO/10 HCHC NONOx PMPM
G /KilGrams/KilometerGrams/KilometerGrams/Kilometer
EURO II EURO III0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Nonetheless, the aforementioned study had procedural limitations as it was not able to find test vehicles
with the same engine system. EURO II vehicles employ direct injection engines with higher compression ratios,
which result in very high level of heat in combustion, producing a large quantity of NOx and very low CO.
Hence, CO from EURO II test vehicles was much lower than indirect injection EURO III engines.
In light of enforcing EURO III standards on diesel vehicles, the National Environment Board at its 6/2546
convention on October 30, 2003, agreed to raising emission standards for new vehicles. Small-size, level-6
diesel and level-7 gasoline vehicles would have to comply with EURO III standards later to be promulgated by
Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI). In order to comply with new EURO III standards, small-size, level-6 diesel
vehicles would require fuel to have sulfur content reduced from 500 ppm to 350 ppm. Therefore, the Department
of Energy Business must require sulfur content in commercial diesel fuel to be below 350 ppm and to take
effect on January 1, 2004.
Reducing sulfur content in diesel fuel from 500 ppm to 350 ppm will have the following benefits on
the environment and human health:
1. Environment: Particulate Matter Reduction
1.1 It is estimated that vehicular emissions of particulate matter in Bangkok and its surrounding
provinces are 13,985 tons in 2003. However, because 83% of particulate matter was produced by diesel vehicles,
they generated 11,608 tons of particulate matter a year. A decrease in sulfur content in diesel fuel will help
reduce particulate matter emitted by diesel cars, most of which comply with EURO II standards, by 15.6%, or
1,741.3 tons per year.
1.2 From 1997 baseline data, emissions of particulate matter from various sources in Bangkok
and surrounding provinces were 38,192 tons, and the 24-hr average concentrations along roadside in Bangkok
was 89.32 µg/m3. Therefore, if PM emissions are reduced by 1,741.3 tons a year from limiting 500 ppm of sulfur
content in diesel fuel to 350 ppm, atmospheric concentrations of PM will reduce to 85.29 µg/m3. (This equals to
a reduction of 4.07 µg/m3).
Figure 4. Effects of sulfur in diesel on pollutant emission from EURO II and EURO III
[43]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
2. Human Health: Decreasing the human health impacts
The 1998 study on effects of PM to the health of population living in Bangkok and surrounding
provinces found that every 10 µg/m3 reduction of PM would significantly lower health problems. Nonetheless,
decreasing sulfur content in diesel fuel from 500 ppm to 350 ppm and having 4.07 µg/m3 less PM would also
lower health problems of the population. Table 1 compares health benefits received from PM reduction.
Table 1 Comparison of Health Benefits from Particulate Matter Reduction
Health Benefits PM Reduction PM Reduction
by 10 µg/m3 by 4.07 µg/m3
- Reduced premature death rate 700-2,000 cases per year 285-814 cases per year
- Reduced chronic 3,000-9,300 cases per year 1,221-3,785 cases per year
respiratory patients
- Reduced admission rate 560-1,570 cases per year 228-638 cases per year
in respiratory and
coronary problems
- Fewer days with severe An average of 0.52-16.29 days per An average of 0.21-0.66 days per
respiratory problems that person per year, or 2,900,000- person per year, or 1,180,300-3,703,700
hinder daily activities 9,100,000 days/year days/year
- Fewer days with mild An average of 3.9-13.25 days per person per An average of 1.6-5.39 days per person per
respiratory problems year, or 22,000,000-74,000,000 days/year year, or 8,954,000-30,118,000 days/year
Monetary costs of health 56,000-140,000 million baht/year 22,792-56,980 million baht/year
[44]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
NOISE POLLUTION
Levels of noise in 2003 along roadsides in Bangkok andsurrounding provinces mostly exceeded standards as a result oftraffic. Other areas in general did not have exceedances. Nonetheless,the average noise levels in 2003 did not differ from the previous year,except areas with new activities, which caused more noise. Noisemeasurements along roadsides and canals in Bangkok, surroundingprovinces and 9 provincial centers were as follows:
Noise Levels in Bangkok and Surrounding ProvincesThe 24-hr average roadside noise levels were 66 - 86 decibel A (dBA) with a mean value of 73 dBA. It
also had an exceedances rate of 88% (70 dBA standard). Locations most seriously affected are Chokchai Police
Station, Ladprao Rd. with the 24-hr average measuring 86 dBA, and temporary checkpoints on Mahaisawan,
Rama IX, Arunamarin-Prannok, Sukhumvit, and Bamrungmaung having a 24-hr average exceeding 80 dBA daily
(Figure 1 and Table 6). Compared to data collected in 2003, the 24-hr noise level average differed slightly (Figure
2). On the other hand, areas located 50 meters away from main roads had a 24-hr average of 54 - 71 dBA and
a mean value of 60 dBA. Exceedances were less than 1% at Ramkhamhaeng University and Singharaj
Pittayakom School (Table 7). Comparing data collected in 2003 to the previous years found that the 24-hr
average was slightly lower (Figure 3).
Communities along Saensab Canal had a 24-hr average of 57 - 63 dBA, which met the standard. The
mean 24-hr average was at 61 dBA with Eakamai Soi 30 having the highest noise level.
Noise Levels in other provincesThe 24-hr roadside average measured 54 - 90 dBA with a mean of 64 dBA and an exceedances rate
of 11%. Location most seriously affected was Na Pralan School, Saraburi with 93% exceedances rate. The highest
24-hr reading of 90 dBA was found at Had Yai Municipality Office, Songkhla Province, which had a combination
of traffic and construction noises of nearby sites (Figure 4 and Table 9). Comparing 2003 data to the previous
year, it was found that 24-hr averages were similar (Figure 5). Other locations, on the other hand, had a 24-hr
average of 52 - 72 dBA, and a mean of 59 dBA. The exceedances rate was less than 1% (Figure 4 and Table
10). Comparing 2003 data to the previous year, the 24-hr averages were not different (Figure 6).
[45]THAILAND STATE OF POLLUTION REPORT 2003
POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
√–¥—∫
‡ ’¬ß
24™—Ë«
‚¡ß
(dBA
)
´‘‡∫≈‡Õ´‘‡∫≈‡Õ
æ◊Èπ∑’Ë∑—Ë«‰ªæ◊Èπ∑’Ë∑—Ë«‰ªŸ ÿŸ ÿ
’Ë’Ë
µ”à ÿ¥µ”à ÿ¥
Ë
∫‡ ’¬ß
∂“π
π’µ”√
√‘¡√—È«
°
¡À“«
‘∑¬“≈
90
80
70
60
5
24-h
r A
vera
ge N
ois
e L
evel
√–¥∫
‡ ¬ß
24
-hrA
ve
24ra
ge™«
‚¡ß
Nois
e(dBA
)e
Leve
(dB
A)
Other AreasMaximum Ÿß ÿ¥ Ÿß ÿ¥Maximu
Average‡©≈¬‡©≈¬Avera
Minimumµ” ÿ¥µ” ÿ¥Minim
ng Sites∑’˵√«®«—¥ng Site
24
-hr
No
ise
Le
ve
ls (
dB
A)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Max
Ave
Min
Year
90
79.7
71
60.4
79.3
71
64
78.4
72
64.7
80.5
73
65.2
88.7
72
61.4
83.7
72
62.7
86.3
73
66.1
80
70
60
65
75
85
50
55
90
73.4
61
49.5
76.4
62
52.1
80.9
62
48.2
87.8
62
53
74.6
61
53.2
85.6
61
54.2
70.6
60
54.3
70
60
50
80
40
24
-hr
No
ise
Le
ve
ls (
dB
A)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Standard = 70 dBAMax
Ave
MinMi
Year
Figure 2. Roadside 24 hour average Noise level in Bangkok Metropolitan area 1997-2003
Figure 1. Noise Level in Bangkok Metropolitan area 2003
Figure 3. General area 24 hour average Noise level in Bangkok Metropolitan area 1997-2003
[46]
THAILA
ND STA
TE OF
POLLU
TION REPO
RT 2003
POLLU
TION CONTR
OL
DEP
ARTM
ENT
‚√߇√’
√–¥—∫‡ ’¬ß‡©≈’ˬ 24 ™—Ë«‚¡ß (dBA)
∫â“
»Ÿπ¬å‡¬“
”π—°ß“π‡∑»∫“≈µ”∫≈·À≈¡©∫—ß ™≈∫ÿ√
∂“πÕπ“¡¬¡“∫µ“æÿ¥ √–¬Õß
¡“µ√∞“π√¥—∫‡ ’¬ß
70‡¥´‘‡∫≈‡Õ
æ◊Èπ∑’Ë√‘¡∂ππæ◊Èπ∑’Ë∑—Ë«‰ª
ÿ ÿ¥
‘’Ë
—
√–¥—∫‡ ’¬ß
‚√߇√’¬π¬ÿæ√“™«‘∑¬“≈—¬ ‡™’¬ß„À¡à
»Ÿπ¬å∫√‘°“√ “∏“√≥ ÿ¢®—ßÀ«—¥¿Ÿ‡°Áµ
„π‡¢µæ◊Èπ∑’ˇ∑»∫“≈‡¡◊ÕßÀ“¥„À≠à ߢ≈“
™ÿ¡ “¬‚∑√»—æ∑å®—ßÀ«—¥√–¬Õß
»“≈“°≈“ß®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß„À¡à
¡À“«‘∑¬“≈—¬∏√√¡»“ µ√å«∑¬“‡¢µ≈”ª“ß
10080 9070604 50
24-hr Average Noise Level –¥∫‡ ¬ß‡©≈¬24-hr Averag24ge N™«‚¡ßoise L (dBALevel
(dBA)
Distr
Laem Chabang Municipality, Chonburi”π—°ß“π‡∑»∫“≈µ”∫≈·À≈¡©∫—ßLaem Chabang Municipality, C ™≈∫√’honbu
Mabtapud Health Center, Rayong ∂“π’Õπ“¡—¬¡“∫µ“æ¥abtapud Health Center √–¬ÕßRayon
Yupparatch Wittayalai, Chiang Mai‚√߇√’¬π¬æ√“™«‘∑¬“≈—¬Yupparatch Wittayalai, C‡™’¬ß„À¡àhiang Ma
erå∫√‘°“√ “∏“√≥ ¢®—ßÀ«—¥¿‡°ÁµPhuket Provincial Health Cente
y, Songkla∑»∫“≈‡¡◊ÕßÀ“¥„À≠àHad Yai Municipality ߢ≈“Songkl
Rayong Telephone Office“¬‚∑√»æ∑®ßÀ«¥√–¬ÕßRayong Telephone Offic
Governor's Quarters, Chiang Mai»“≈“°≈“ß®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß„À¡àrnor's Quarters, Chiang Ma
Dhammasat Univ. Lampang Branch¡À“«∑¬“≈¬∏√√¡»“ µ√
t U i L B«‘∑¬“‡¢µ≈”ª“ßLampang Branc
Ro
ad
sid
es
π∑√¡∂ππR
oa
dsid
Nois
e s
tandard
= 7
0 d
BA
¡“µ√∞“π√–¥∫‡ ¬ße
sta
ndard
=70 70dB
‡¥AO
the
r Are
as
æπ∑∑«‰ªh
erA
re
Maxim
um
ß ¥M
axim
um
¥mu
Mo
nito
ring
Site
s∫√‘‡«≥
∑’µ√«®«—¥o
nito
ring
Site
100
82.3
6554.9
81.4
6555.5
77.3
6353.9
73.8
6456.3
86.8
6453.2
81.7
6554.9
90.5
6454
8060 70 9040 50
19971998
19992000
20012002
2003
Sta
nda
rd =
70
dB
AM
ax
Ave
MinY
ea
r
24-hr Noise Levels (dBA)
90
75.9
6049.7
72.2
6049.8
72.5
5951
74.8
6148
84.3
6151.8
68.8
5751.7
71.3
5951.6
8060 7040 50
19971998
19992000
20012002
2003
Sta
nda
rd =
70
dB
AM
ax
Ave
MinY
ea
r
24-hr Noise Levels (dBA)
Figure 4.Noise Level in outer provinces 2003
Figure 5.Roadside 24 hour average noise level in the outer provinces 1997-2003
Figure 6.General area 24 hour average noise level in the outer provinces 1997-2003