&EPA
US EPA Office ot Research and Development
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-01/086
January 2002
Preliminary Particulate
Matter Mass Concentrations
Associated with Longitudinal
Panel Studies
Assessing Human
Exposures of High Risk
Subpopulations to
Particulate Matter
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-OJ/086
January 2002
Preliminary Particulate Matter Mass Concentrations
Associated With Longitudinal Panel Studies:
Assessing Human Exposures of High Risk
Subpopulations to Particulate Matter
R. Williams, L. Wallace, J. Suggs, G. Evans, J. Creason, R. Highsmith, L. Sheldon, A. Rea.
A. Vette, R. Zweidinger, K. Leovic, G. Norris, M. Landis, C. Stevens, C. Howard-Reed, and T.
Conner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
C. Rodes, P. Lawless, and J. Thornburg
Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle Park. NC USA
L.-J. S. Liu, D. Kalman, J. Kaufman, J. Koenig, T. Larson, T. Lumley. and L. Sheppard
University ofWashington, Seattle, WA, USA
K. Brown, H. Suh, A. Wheeler, D. Gold, and P. Koutrakis
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
' M. Lippmann
New York University, New York, NY, USA
Project Officers
R. Williams and L. Wallace
Human Exposure Analysis Branch
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free.
-------
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
Report Overview 2
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF PARTICULATE MATTER HUMAN EXPOSURE
LONGITUDINAL PANEL STUDIES 5
Baltimore Summer 1998 Study (NERL/NHEERL/RTI) 10
Fresno Winter and Spring 1999 Studies (NERL/NHEERL/RTI) 12
Winter Study 13
Summer Study ' 13
Summary of Fresno Studies 14
Research Triangle Park 2000-2001 Studies (NERL/NHEERL/RTI) 14
Harvard University School of Public Health 1999-2000 Studies 17
Atlanta Fall 1999 Studies 17
Atlanta Spring 2000 Studies 17
Boston Winter/Summer 1999-2000 Studies 18
Los Angeles Winter/Summer 1999-2000 Studies 18
Summary of HSPH Studies .19
University of Washington 1999-2001 Studies 19
Seattle 1999-2000 19
Seattle 2000-2001 20
Summary of Seattle Results 21
New York University 2000 Studies 22
SUMMARY , 23
Recommendations for Future Work ". .. 23
Literature Cited 25
APPENDIX A A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
APPENDIX C C-l
APPENDIX D D-l
n
-------
List of Tables
Number
1 Summary of PM Exposure Panel Study Designs Conducted by the
NERL/NHEERL/RTI Research Group
Paae
2 Summary of PM Exposure Panel Study Designs Conducted Under Cooperative
Agreement With the NERL -
3 Summary of PM Mass Measurement Methods Used in Panel Studies 8
D-l Summary of Method Performance Data for PM2.5 and PMIO PEM Samplers
(1998 Baltimore Study) •
D-3 Summary Statistics of PM2.5 Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Measure and
Location (1998 Baltimore Study) -
D-4 Summary Statistics of PEM PM10 Mass Concentrations (ng/m3) by Location
(1998 Baltimore Study) • •
D-5 Summary Statistics of PEM PM,0.2.5 Mass Concentrations by Location
(1998 Baltimore Study)
D-6 Summary Statistics of PM2.5 Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Sampling Location
(Fresno 1)
D-7 Summary statistics of PM10 mass concentrations (ug/m3) by sampling location
(Fresno 1)
D-8 Summary Statistics of PM2.5 Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Sampling Location
(Fresno 2)
D-9 Summary Statistics of PM10 Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Sampling Location
(Fresno 2)
D-10 NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTP Panel Study PM2 5 Mass Concentration Summary
(2000-2001) •
D-l 1 NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTP Panel Study PM10 Mass Concentration Summary
(2000-2001) -, •
D-l
D-2 Summary Statistics of Personal PM2.5 Exposures by Date (1998 Baltimore Study) . . D-2
D-3
D-4
D-4
D-5
D-5
D-6
D-6
D-7
D-9
111
-------
List of Tables
(cont'd)
Number
D-12 NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM10.X5 Mass Concentration Summary
(2000-2001) - ; •
Paue
D-ll
D-13 PM, 5 Mass Concentrations from the Atlanta HSPH Studies by Panel D-l 3
D-14 PM, Mass Concentration Summary from the Atlanta HSPH Studies D-13
D-l5 Collected Samples from the Winter 1999-2000 & Summer 2000 Boston Field
Studies
D-14
D-l 6 Collected Samples from Each Season of the Winter 1999-2000 & Summer 2000
Los Angeles Field Study • • LM:>
D-l 7 Summary of PM Measurements from the 1999-2000 Seattle Panel Study D-l 6
D-l 8 Type and Location of Samples Collected in the Seattle Studies (1999-2001) D-17
D-19 Summary of Personal Samples Collected in the Seattle Studies (1999-2001) D-18
IV
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under contract .
numbers 68-D2-0134 (QST Environmental), 68-D2-0187 (SRA Technologies, Inc), 68-D-99-
012, 68- D5-0040 (Research Triangle Institute) and cooperative agreement numbers CR-827159
(Harvard School of Public Health), CR-827177 (University of Washington), CR-827164 (New
York University), CR-820076 (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill), CR-828186-01-0
(Shaw University). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Abstract
A series of longitudinal human exposure particulate matter (PM) panel studies were
conducted from 1997 through 2001 in a number of U.S. cities. These studies were conducted by
the U.S. EPA' s Office of Research and Development (ORD) or by organizations sponsored
through the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL). A primary goal of this research
was to determine the relationships between personal exposures to particles and associated gases
relative to stationary outdoor monitor concentrations in high-risk subpopulations as defined by
the National Research Council's PM research priorities. Validated data from this effort will be
used to assess the contribution of ambient pollution to personal exposure and to identify human
activity patterns that might contribute to personal exposure. Common features of the studies
included use of a single survey questionnaire to assess human activity patterns and repeated use
of a PM monitoring approach that would permit comparison of the data among the investigators.
The investigators varied their study locations, monitoring seasons, and study populations so that
an in-depth characterization of PM exposures among potentially sensitive subpopulations could
be performed.
The panel studies monitored voluntary participants over the course of 7 to 28 day periods.
Each study was defined by the study panel, monitoring season, and locality. The number of
participants in each study ranged from 5 to 63. Susceptible subpopulations of interest included
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients, individuals with cardiovascular
disease, the elderly, asthmatics, and African-Americans having hypertension. Panels ol healthy-
individuals were also included in the assessment. The elderly have been identified as one of the
most sensitive subpopulations in the U.S. to health effects associated with PM exposures;
consequently, while subject age in each study varied, the majority of subjects were over age 65.
The exposure assessment included integrated (24-h) and/or real-time monitoring of PM
size fractions of PM25, PM10 and PMI0.13. The subscripts represent the particle size sampled; for
instance PM2 s represents 50% collection of particles of 2.5 urn in diameter. Personal,
residential indoor, residential outdoor, and community-based PM air monitoring was performed
using a variety of instrumentation. PM-related toxic gases of nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone (O3) also were measured. Monitoring took
place in Baltimore, MD (2 studies); Fresno, CA (2 studies); Atlanta, GA (2 studies); Boston. MA
(2 studies); Los Angeles, CA (2 studies); Seattle, WA (2 studies); New York, NY (1 study); and
Research Triangle Park, NC (2 studies).
This report describes the completion of field measurements associated with the various
studies and their progress to date. Individual study designs and future recommendations are also
reported In excess of 15,000 personal, residential, and community-based PM.mass
concentration measurements have been performed. Combined, these studies have monitored
over 200 individuals and represent over 4000 total monitoring days during the 4-year period
(1998-2001). References to peer-reviewed summaries and presentation abstract titles of data
findings are also included.
VI
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Daniel Vallero, Laura Kildosher, Debra Walsh, Richard
Kwok, Jose Sune, Janet Burke, Haluk Ozkaynak, Antonio Leathers, and Ellen Streib of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for their administrative and technical support
throughout the scope of these studies. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of Mike
Hermann, Elizabeth Rodes, Randy Newman, Jeff Nichols, and Donald Whitaker (Research
Triangle Institute) for their contribution in support of the Baltimore, Fresno, and Research
Triangle Park panel studies. The authors thank Dr. Ademola Ejire (Shaw University, Raleigh.
NC) for his contributions regarding community outreach and Dr. William E. Sanders. Jr.,
(University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC) for his efforts in recruiting cardiac defibrillator
participants in the Research Triangle Park studies. Researchers Gaun Lau and Barbara Turpin.
(Rutgers University-Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Institute) and Barry
Ryan and Czerve Reid (Emory University) are acknowledged for their contribution to the panel
studies performed by the Harvard School of Public Health.
vn
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
In July 1997 the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Administrator issued a
new Participate Matter (PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM:, which
was based largely on epidemiological investigations that indicated increased risks of mortality
and morbidity were associated with concentrations of ambient particles. At the same time.
Congress established a major research initiative to reevaluate the NAAQS. as mandated by the
Clean Air Act As part of this initiative, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted an
independent study to identify the most important research priorities and to develop a conceptual
plan for PM research related to the new PM2, NAAQS (Research Priorities for Airborne
Paniculate Matter I: Immediate Priorities and a Long-Range Research Portfolio, NRC, 1998). A
high priority in the first three years was gaining a better understanding of outdoor measures
versus actual human exposures (NRC Research Topic 1):
" What are the quantitative relationships between concentrations of paniculate-mailer
and gaseous co-pollutants measured at stationary outdoor air-monitoring sites, and
[what are] the contributions of these concentrations to actual personal exposure,
especially for potentially susceptible subpopulations and individuals?"
Additionally, the council directed researchers to gather more information on the toxicological
mechanisms and actual human exposures to PM of ambient origin.
This document fulfills the mandate of the NERL to ".. .Complete ihcfidd monitoring
component of a series of longitudinal panel studies and report upon the preliminary PM mass
exposure data resulting from these efforts" and thus meets the annual performance measure
(APM#1) established in response to the Goverment Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a
summary report, data are reportecLon a preliminary basis and are not discussed in depth.
(Appendix D contains tabular summaries of PM mass concentration data from the completed
studies ) Data summaries associated with the exposure assessment of co-related ^ases time
activity patterns, source apportionment, associated health effects, and other databases developed
(or currently being developed) from the field studies will be reported separately.
This report indicates that ORD has fully completed its 2001 fiscal year goal to conduct
PM human exposure field measurements in response to NRC Research Topic #1. This goal has
been accomplished in both a timely and cost-effective manner. Fourteen peer-reviewed journal
articles summarizing results from studies conducted during 1997-1999 have-aiready been
published, and additional articles are in development for the later-phase (1999-2001) studies,.
Peer-reviewed journal article titles that summarize findings to date, as well as presentations ai
national or international scientific symposia in support of this effort, are **^™*W^*
and Appendix B. This effort has resulted in the collection of a diverse and in-depth database for
characterizing personal exposures to PM in potentially susceptible subpopulations This database
wiU permit 1 extensive analysis of the quantitative relationships between personal exposures to
PM of ambient origin and related co-pollutants and the factors that influence these exposures.
The NERL anticipates that this pooled database will be publically available during 200^.
-------
Report Overview
During the period of 1997-present, NERL's PM Exposure Research Program focused
specifically on NRC Research Topic 1 with the direct support of $6.0 million provided by EPA's
ORD. Approximately $4.7 million supported research conducted by a series of university
research teams (cooperative agreements), while approximately $1.3 million supported NERL-
designed research plans. Longitudinal panel 'exposure studies were conducted to characterize
temporal variation of personal exposure to PM, including that of PM measured at ambient sites.
These studies were fundamental to increasing scientists' understanding of the associations
between personal exposure to PM, PM measured at ambient sites, and health effects, especially
for susceptible subpopulations.
Susceptible subpopulations of interest included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD) patients, individuals with cardiovascular disease, the elderly, asthmatics, and African-
Americans having hypertension. Collaborative efforts between the NERL and the National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) permitted an integrated
approach between exposure assessment and health effects research in the panel studies performed
by these institutions. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) contributed significantly to the field
data collection for the studies performed by these laboratories. Cooperative agreements were
awarded to three University consortia: Harvard University School of Public Health, New York
University School of Medicine, and the University of Washington Department of Environmental
Health. The panel studies were designed to evaluate different susceptible subpopulations,
geographical regions, seasons, and housing conditions. Study designs from each research group
were compared so that duplication or non-duplication of effort was performed to more
completely satisfy the overall goal of the research.
Common approaches used by each research group included measurements of personal
exposure using personal monitors as well as measurements of ambient, outdoor residential, and
indoor residential concentrations using stationary monitors. In addition, based on.
recommendations by the NRC, a concerted effort was made to measure exposures to a number of
gases including SO2, NO2, CO, and O3. For each participant, information on housing
characteristics, time/activity patterns and potential sources of PM exposure was collected using
diaries and questionnaires. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a time-
activity pattern diary and questionnaire for the panel studies in 1999. All of the involved
institutions adopted these survey instruments for the studies conducted during the 1999-2001
time period. (Copies of the questionnaires and diary used to investigate time activity patterns and
sources of PM exposure are provided in Appendix C.) Multiple participants in each respective
panel were monitored over 7-28 days to investigate both longitudinal and cross-sectional
correlations between personal, indoor, outdoor, and ambient measurements. Data from over
15,000 individual PM mass concentration measurements involving more than 200 individuals
and their residences were collected in these studies.
The overall goal of all the longitudinal panel studies was to characterize inter-personal
and intra-personal variability in exposure to PM and to describe the relationship between
personal exposures to PM of ambient origin and ambient concentration measurement based on
-------
central-site monitoring for susceptible subpopulations. Specific objectives that were developed
to meet this goal are the following:
To quantify personal exposures and indoor air concentrations for.PM/gases for potentially
sensitive individuals (cross sectional, inter- and intrapersonal).
To describe (magnitude and variability) the relationships between personal exposure, and
indoor, outdoor and ambient air concentrations for PM/gases for different sensitive
cohorts. These cohorts represent subjects of opportunity and relationships established will
not be used to extrapolate to the general population.
To examine the inter- and intrapersonal variability in the relationship between personal
exposures, and indoor, outdoor, and ambient air concentrations for PM/gases for sensitive
individuals.
To identify and model the factors that contribute to the inter- and intrapersonal variability
in the relationships between personal exposures and indoor, outdoor, and ambient air
concentrations for PM/gases.
To determine the contribution of ambient concentrations to indoor air/personal exposures
for PM/gases.
To examine the effects of air shed (location, season), population demographics, and
residential setting (apartment vs stand-alone homes) on the relationship between personal
exposure and indoor, outdoor, and ambient air concentrations for PM/gases.
This report provides a detailed description of the individual studies conducted in support
of this goal. Data are provided detailing the range of PM mass concentrations observed during
the studies in relation to specific geographical locations, seasons, sensitive subpopulations, and
particle size fraction. The following is a summary of some of the highlighted results from the
studies:
• Data collection was completed in 8 major exposure studies. These were performed in various
east coast and west coast U. S. cities to investigate potential differences in aerosol properties
due to geographical setting. Monitoring took place between 1998 and 2001. These studies
involved multiple season/subpopulation/location variables (total of 14).
• More than 200 people were recruited to participate in the exposure studies from Boston, MA;
Los Angeles, CA; Baltimore, MD; Research Triangle Park, NC; Seattle, WA; Fresno. CA: New
York, NY; and Atlanta, GA. The majority of these individuals had a range of underlying
disease states or other factors (cardiovascular, pulmonary, aged, etc.) that were postulated as
increasing their potential for experiencing adverse health effects from PM exposures.
- In excess of 15,000 filter samples were collected and analyzed for integrated (24-h) PM mass
concentrations. Collocated PM2.5, PM,0 samples were typically collected at the community and
-------
residential locations. PM,0.2.5 was collected or determined by mass differential in many of the
studies.
More than 4000 sampling days of individual human exposure to PM were included in these
studies. In addition to the PM25 and/or PMIO human exposure data, an equivalent amount of
time-activity pattern and PM source data were collected.
Techniques were established, validated, and improved in the recruitment, retention, and
participation of sensitive subpopulations for human exposure assessments. In some instances,
this involved populations with an average age well over 65. This was accomplished by
improved recruitment and retention strategies that involved integrating community concerns
about participant involvement in the study, improvements in personal monitoring equipment
that reduced participant burden, and development of mutually beneficial relationships with
private institutions (such as retirement facilities). Combined, these practices combined
available resources and helped in achieving the study objectives.
• Numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have been published based on the exposure studies.
References are provided in Appendix A. These articles provided integral information used in
the March 31, 2001 draft version of ORD's Ambient Air Quality Criteria Document for
Particulate Matter (2001 PM AAQCD) and summarized some of the personal, residential, and
ambient PM mass concentration findings from specific longitudinal panel studies. In addition,
over 50 abstracts describing the preliminary results from all of the panel studies have been
presented or accepted for presentation at national and international scientific conferences
(Appendix B).
-------
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF PARTICIPATE MATTER HUMAN
EXPOSURE LONGITUDINAL PANEL STUDIES
PM exposure panel studies were performed by NERL/NHEERL/RTI scientists and
scientists at three university consortia (Harvard University School of Public Health. New York
University School of Medicine, and the University of Washington Department of Environmental
Health). The Harvard consortium included Rutgers University, the Environmental and
Occupational Health and Safety Institute (EOHSI), and Emory University. The study designs of
each research group were fundamentally similar although the studies were conducted by different
researchers in cities throughout the U.S. The rationale for similar study approaches was to
produce the largest PM exposure database possible by combining the data from several exposure
studies conducted independently in various geographic regions using panels with differing
characteristics.
The common approach used in each study included measurements of personal PM
exposure and ambient (community), outdoor residential, and indoor residential PM
concentrations. In addition, exposures to SO2, NO2, CO, and O3 were measured at the
recommendation of the NRC. For each participant, questionnaires and diaries were used to
collect information on time/activity patterns and potential sources of PM exposure. Multiple
participants in each respective panel were monitored over time (7-28 days) to investigate both
longitudinal and cross-sectional correlations between personal, indoor, outdoor, and ambient
measurements. Although each research group employed the same basic study design, slightly
different exposure monitoring instruments, study populations, and locations were selected. In
addition to the exposure measurements, study-specific health effect monitoring was performed in
the Baltimore, Fresno, Atlanta, New York, and Seattle studies to help relate certain physiological
responses to personal, indoor, and/or outdoor concentrations of particles and associated gases.
Tables 1 and 2 show a summary of the study designs and the measurements made in all of the
exposure studies. Information concerning the types of PM mass monitors used in the various
studies are summarized in Table 3.
Time activity information, data on housing characteristics, and source usage were
collected using a diary and questionnaires that were developed and reviewed by all consortia and
submitted approved by OMB. Copies of the survey forms are provided in Appendix C.
Approval for these studies was obtained in July 1999, and all studies performed after this date
used these common survey forms to collect time activity pattern and environmental factors data.
OMB approval of the questionnaires and diary were contingent upon their use only for
characterizing the participants involved (non-trahsferrable to the general or specific
subpopulations). Therefore, data associated with the panel studies should be viewed as
representing unique participant pools as defined by each panel's study design. Volunteers
involved in the studies were participants of opportunity and where not selected based upon a
statistical survey design. Individual quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) were developed tor
each panel study, and data quality objectives for the collected data were validated versus these
standards. It was requested that all QAPPS follow EPA quality assurance guidelines (EPA-
QA/G5). More detailed descriptions of the study designs used in each study are provided below.
-------
c.
1
O
•C
JJ
K
1
>— (
H
L/NHEERL/R
p/
C=3
ja
TJ
•«•*
s
t3
e
^
u
V}
II
1 °
\\ "
^l«
«
he
u
"lUa
RTP-1
/ SES neighborhoo
orities with control
hypertension
II *"" CZ
IP's
I | '
II ^
ct
JL
p5
~ -/*-
(D
S s
£ .n "^ < _
00 ^.^ 2- O cu~
5^,c~^ a." "
on —
.S "5
CL^~
00
S'-^
^&
= tr
£ 2 <
E e „ <
- J 5 s o £
SS cu "~
CO —
.= "«
O.
- CO
11 § o- 5
•o S2 CD tiT uT °-
*TS flj c r^ ^ ^
|s £ I: I:
t/3
u
£
Q ~^C -*••
t5 0 < < Q i
.H „• — " o. ,
C ^
en
p
5 <
j= „ <
t3 O < < ,-r 1
^ — — r a." '
" 0.' ~
O
°. 0 0 0 0 °"
U- „„....--
— u. t t fc uT
l/J
"^Z!
-< - D.
X* i £—•>*"«
3 1 fc u "
U- 0
UJ
Cu
'co
•< * ^
0 C fc .1
Qi *T^
_...^ ^^ P— •*
D-T' >^3 UJ
0
_' Q-
O-
^ a:
° o, t b
— — 0. e5
_" E
oT ct
OS
c c
(D O
o o o 9.
u,
E
_3
O
C3 Q.
— X
CO U
II
O" O
13 fc-
il i"
O >
^-s [Jj
^ Ct'
cd ^.
li 'o.
<
Si tu
•— e.
o
o
2 3
O c/>
O ju
ii n.
•S CQ
PH«
V
«
p<
!_
3
M
O
c.
s
•S
e
*s
1
s
3
O)
2
H
£111
till
i
J
H
>
:=
<2 ^
^ . "^
C ^
c u
1
ci
•i
I
?
ci
1 °"
55 a.
i-
VO
o
en
1
Number of Partici
^c
"^
CO
ci
5
£
00
^ ^
sn
o
Seasons (Days/Se
n
oT
•<
o"
uT
i— >
CU
S3
CO
2
Cu
1— H
*-! "
„
O
uT
^-*
CA
CO
i
o
Cu
•^ c S; ts uT -™
" Cu"
^
< < < < < o
l^d.OOOO uT
"^ .— nT u." uT u-" u." _.-
^_ )__( H«^ ^-* *"•*
Cu
: oo
.s
1- C °
QJ — ,*~
uo = ^ .
E 0 o o '
^ a3 $£, r
J3 "g O .J2
1 1 § cr . o 11 1 :
clcIujZOCJooouJt
c
£
^p.
on
3:
1 fe
03
£
•™
Cu
5 W 3
3 OO ^
1 1 1
D * •£=
N .h:
i.
T3
O
C " »
O C U
o- £ .2
* 0 ta
is S co
Crt Q. Crt
§§•§
•s-e-i
O CO J3
.00 "
II 'c
^ (\>
4/3 ' ?n M
• LU 2? '•
C/3 O O
ic
t=
-------
CS
t=3
Z III
s
i
_c
o.
D S -|
U £•
"re
< <
<
O -' °-
_.. o -;
c.
a.
m
C £"te
'1 ^*" r"
°. S: §
(- tu •§
u- c. -°
0. ,«
S
1 < 5
w. d °.
<
0
Q. >%
w o
£ £
'
2 i ^n
I1
o
u
~ ]
g1 •<-.£« < < < < < < . o,-fe
S = T: O
=° ,.
0
C
5
1 1
i
a
„ ..
s s
0
O O
> o
ci a
a 1
II
a a* i j=
<2 S w ^
"ss .ti .— w
co Z < =
1^12
o-^'Ss:
n gal <
gffi ii 5
-------
i i
J2
q>
C
o-o
« 4)
Ion
1 .t: cu
is
3 1
'•5 2
••f f-*-t
•*-* 4)
CA M
1 ll
.S
i
s
"O *-
1 -I
1 1
-*-*
Gi
0
IM
c/3 2 .
« ^ fe
S il
C S 3
S8 t§o
es
S
s
P"<
c^^ ^™ •
o "
t Is
1 11
D
CO
TableS.
Personal
Institution
• -
Q_ ^E
< <* ^
>t"Si
*5 C O OJ
0-2 UJ f-
£ &££"£
llggo.
o
Cu
L-
O
1
CB
Cu
#v
~° *•* -j=
ci '-S ^ o
U- _C 2" 00
w i w fc
Cu o H CJ
ir
2 wf
2 Cu
£ >
ra •s'
•a
c >_
co a)
•"^ *o
yr? •— •
o
03 S"
Cu C
i»
to
-o E
C O
If
a. c
C
NER1-/NHEERL/R'
>—-* . T
-03
[tl lJ-i
Cu ,ir
i1"'
__ T D- frl
ac x £
s2
Cu
o
c
CO
s
Cu
2
Oi
u.
s
5
ft
W
Cu
. _j?
w
Cu
«b
^T^
Cu
S
o.
i
Cu
s
0.
Harvard University
.B
"cj
W-i <"
CL
•^ CO
i c,
Cu ^
s". 1
fll O
li
O v.
"u -S
l«. e-
Cu Cu D-
u. fe
oc". CJ
i § s
Cu — ? Qi
X ^ u.
~-"S.
S S S
IM
1
E
o
1=
Ou
!- _
ac x
fe
•s
o
_ri
Q.
CO
c
X X
IE -o i
o c c
il s*
ll ll
."K
University of
Washington
New York Univers
,
o
"o ^
I I
"«— •" T^
o , -g
» I'O
J~ *o o
•s^^
§ .-Q
t 5 ^
X ^ S
H §.£• '
5 .§ vq
£
B-52 S
^ ^ 0
« OS CO
t- ^Q D-
— 00 S
I||.
J_ C/> .~
"E •£ S o
O QJ CC C
^ p in «
*~ 5 m tj
w -o "C aj
O O ^ Oi
°- fe °- (L>
,?i O- u 0
U3 « .c c
Isl 2
O ^™) ^\
&* [J^ tj Q
™O C~* CO C^
^ ^-o^ o
^ Oi ^*\ '>
T? ^ xio
*5 \O P O,
cu ^r^ ~°
3-0^0
"^ 0 0 P
/-? es "-1 ~
p O-iri ®
I.S-H
t "^ S 2
CN 2 "5 '
u! C d. Ci>
2 ° P T"
o 2 '-C-
-------
Baltimore Summer 1998 Study (NERL/NHEERL/RTI)
This study took place in July-August, .1998, and included measurements of personal,
apartment, indoor residential, outdoor residential, and outdoor central site ambient concentrations
over a 28-day period. This study sought to build upon earlier findings from a 1997 pilot study
conducted in Baltimore using a similar study design. The 1998 study involved 21 ambulatory
elderly (65+) residents of a single 18-story building. The study site was within 3 km of the
retirement facility studied in the initial 1997 pilot study (Williams et al., 2000a). The facility .
used in the 1998 study was selected primarily because it met specific exposure monitoring and
epidemiological study requirements (i.e., an adequate population size for subject recruitment.
minimum number of known indoor, outdoor, or local PM sources, and administrative
cooperation). The all-brick facility was built in 1994 and used a centralized roof-mounted
HVAC system for common and administrative areas of the building (such as hallways). Private
apartments had their own independent thermostats and smaller, self-contained HVAC systems.
All of the apartments within the facility had exterior windows and balconies. Based upon the
1997 study and data from the U.S. EPA's AIRS database, populations living near this location
were expected to be exposed-primarily to regional, rather than locally- generated, outdoor PM25
sources. This was a basic requirement of subject selection for the epidemiological component of
-the study which focused on the day-to-day variability of PM concentrations and observed human
health effects.
The participants were recruited from multiple floors of the facility to determine the spatial
variation of personal and apartment PM mass concentrations. A subgroup of 15 primary
participants were selected for near-daily monitoring (n = 23 days). The remainder of the study
participants were used as replacements when needed. Personal monitoring was performed using
a PM2 5 Personal Environmental Monitor® (PEM; MSP Inc.: Minneapolis, MN ) located near the
individuals' breathing zone and secured to a lightweight cloth vest worn by the individuals.
Personal monitors were operated concurrently with all of the stationary measures beginning at
approximately 8:00 a.m. (± 15 min) each day. Environmental surveys were collected from the
subjects each analysis day to gather information concerning time activity patterns and conditions.
within the facility.
The sampling approach used in the 1998 Baltimore study is outlined in Table 1
(Baltimore 2). Personal and indoor monitoring focused primarily on fine particles; however,
some indoor PM10 samples were also collected every other day. In addition to measurements of
PM mass supplemental measurements were made to better characterize PM including particle
nephelometry, number count, and chemical speciation (EC-OC, elements, SO4, etc.). Continuous
monitoring of criteria pollutants was conducted inside the retirement facility, outside the facility,
and at a central community monitoring site. The additional instrumentation used to characterize
PM included real-time microbalances (TEOMs®), PM2.5 prototype Federal Reference Method
(FRM) monitors, endotoxin collection, personal and stationary nephelometers. and versatile air
pollution samplers (VAPS®). The TEOMs were used so that real-time mass concentrations were
available for the epidemiologic investigation. Locating multiple instruments at the same location
allowed comparison of indoor and outdoor PM mass concentration sampling methodologies and
-------
collection of samples for PM speciation (e.g., individual particle characterization, elemental
analysis).
Repetitive PM2.5 (n = 15) and PMIO (n = 5) monitoring was planned for the apartment of
each subject who participated in personal PM,.S monitoring on at least an every-other-day
schedule following an initial every-day measure (day 1-3). The sampling schedule was
maintained over 28 days and was projected to yield approximately 225 PM23 and 75 PM10
apartment samples. Residential indoor, residential outdoor, and ambient PM25 and PM10 samples
(n = 28 days) were collected daily and operated concurrently with the personal and apartment
monitors (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.). These measurements were critical to the epidemiological
component of the study based on findings from the pilot study which indicated associations
between indoor/outdoor fine PM mass concentrations and some cardiovascular health effects
(Liao et al., 1999). Residential indoor measurements were performed at a central site within the
facility in a 5th floor apartment while,residential outdoor monitoring occurred on the facility's
rooftop. Ambient samples were collected at a community monitoring platform located 11 km
south-southeast of the residential facility where ambient monitoring had been performed during
the 1997 pilot study (Williams et al., 2000a).
A new real-time personal nephelometer (MIE pDR® personalDataRAM, MIE, Inc.;
Bedford. MA) was used to characterize personal PM exposures for a select number of
participants (n= 5). A total of 41 participant monitoring days was performed. The nephelometer
was worn adjacent to the gravimetric PM mass monitor on the vest for comparative purposes.
The data collected using the nephelometers provided some of the first continuous personal
exposure measurements (1-minute averaging time) collected on a high-risk subpopulation
(Howard-Reed et al., 2000; React al., 2001).
All of the PM mass concentration data from this study have been validated and a full
database of this information has been developed. Very low PM mass concentration limits of
detection were established after improved gravimetric analysis techniques were developed by
RTI (Lawless and Rodes, 1999). Based upon 24-h sampling periods and 2.8 mj of collected -air
volume, detection limits of approximately 2 ug/m3 were established for the nearly 900 low-
volume (personal, residential and ambient) samples collected over the 28 days of the study.
Method performance data are summarized in Table D-l. A large number of other filter-based
and real-time PM mass measurements were also performed (Williams et al., 2000b,c). Creason
et al. (2001) have recently reported upon potential health findings from this study.
Data indicates that a relatively low coefficient of variation (<48°/o) existed between
individual personal exposures on a day-to-day basis in this communal setting. PM2.s mass
concentrations for this variable were also relatively low (typically less than 48 ug/mj). It is
believed that human activity patterns (low known incidences of exposures to indoor PM sources
such as cooking aerosols) and little time spent outdoors greatly influenced these results. Both
Howard-Reed et al., (2000) and Rea et al., (2001) have reported upon these activity patterns and
the use of a personal nephelometer that permitted real-time assessment of these influences upon
potential human exposures. Landis et al., (2001) have characterized the relationships between
particles of ambient origin to those observed during personal exposure monitoring in this subject
10
-------
population. Summaries of PM mass concentrations relative to PM25, PM10 and PM,0.3 5 size
• distributions across various spatial boundaries (personal, apartment, residential indoor.
residential outdoor, and ambient locations) are reported in Tables D-3 through D-6. Numerous
peer-reviewed journal articles of this effort not sited here have also been published (Williams et
al., 2000d; Conner et al., 2001; Rodes et al., 2001).
Speciation of the PM mass, source apportionment, and investigation of the relationships
between PM mass and gas-phase co-pollutant concentrations determined during the study have
been performed. Results of these findings have been presented in over 10 presentation abstracts
at national or international symposia. Preparation of peer-reviewed journal articles concerning
these topics is currently being performed. It is anticipated that publication of the majority of
these articles will occur during the 2001-2002 calendar years.
Fresno Winter and Spring 1999 Studies (NERL/NHEERL/RTI)
A residential retirement facility in Fresno, California was selected for these PM exposure
and health studies. The facility consisted of single-story apartment living units (duplexes and
quadruples) spread across a relatively large campus area. The 1999 Fresno studies were
performed to contrast geography (west coast versus east coast), season, housing, and other factors
to the aforementioned Baltimore study. The location of the retirement facility in Fresno provided
ambient and personal PM measurements in a western area of the U.S. typically characterized by
high nitrate concentrations. The demographics of the participants' underlying health status was
similar to that of the participants in the Baltimore study; however, the participants in the Fresno
study were more active as indicated by a preliminary assessment of their activity patterns. This,
as well as housing and other factors, are believed to have affected both their personal as well as
their indoor (apartment) PM2.5,10 mass concentrations (higher exposure potential).
A monitoring platform located about two miles south of the selected retirement facility
was used to collect ambient data. Data from the platform provided regional-scale community
monitoring information to compare with outdoor measurements made on the grounds of the
retirement facility. Outdoor monitoring was performed at a single location on the premises of the
' retirement facility. PM25 was the primary targeted PM species although special measurements
were made of particles in the PM, 0 to PM001 size range outside of one residence using a a Laser
Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS-X®) and a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer®(SMPS; TSI, Inc. St
PaulMN).
.An empty apartment on the retirement campus was used as an onsite central indoor
monitoring site. The outdoor monitoring site was located in a grassy area between several
buildings Both the apartment and its adjoining courtyard were equipped with instrumentation to
monitor particle mass (PM, s and PM10), CO, and O3. In addition to using Marple PEMs for
PM, 5 and PMIO, supplemental instrumentation was used to characterize indoor and outdoor
particle concentrations and characteristics. The additional monitoring equipment included
TEOMs, PM25 FRM samplers and Dual Fine Paniculate Sampling Systems (DFPSS*) for PM25;
a LAS-X and a SMPS particle counter for ultra-fine particles (< 0.1 urn). These samplers were
11
-------
used to provide continuous data on particle mass concentration, reference measurements, samples
for subsequent chemical speciation (e.g., analyses for elements, elemental and organic carbon),
and ultrafme particle count data for indoor/outdoor comparisons. A total of 60 residences
participated and a subgroup of 16 participants was monitored for personal PM exposure. Daily
personal exposures of PM25 and PM10 were alternately measured during the spring study. In
addition, air exchange measurements were made inside each residence during the spring study.
Winter Study
The winter Fresno study was conducted over a 28-day period from February 1 -28, 1999
(Table 1) with the participation of approximately 60 residents of the retirement facility.
Sampling consisted of both integrated and real-time measurements. Twenty-four hour integrated
personal air sampling was conducted on 5 participants using a personal sampling system attached
to PM PEM sampling units. The pump and data logger were placed in the pockets of a short-
waist coat with inlets located near the breathing zone. Integrated monitoring inside the residence
was conducted daily, except Sundays, in about 60 apartments for PM2.5. PM10 samples were
collected in a subset of 12 of these apartments using PEMs. The sampling location within each
residence was standardized to be about 1.5 meters above the floor (the approximate breathing
zone of an average adult), not adjacent to a wall or other flow-obstructing object, and not
immediately adjacent to a potential source such as a stove or heat vent. All integrated samples,
including personal and in-residence samples, were collected over a 24-hour period beginning at
or near 8'00 a m. each day. A baseline questionnaire was administered to all participants at the
beginning of the study to gather information about their individual residences and their persona
activities Also, daily personal activity diaries were kept by each participant wearing a personal
monitor ' Gas-phase co-pollutants, PM mass speciation, and PM size distribution measurements
were performed in this study with additional reports summarizing these findings expected to be
developed and published during the 2002-2003 calendar years. Evans et al., (2000), Rea et al.,
(2001), Vette et al., (2001) and Rodes et al., (2001) have reported upon the PM mass
concentration findings associated with the first study.
Summer Study
The second phase of the Fresno study was conducted during a 28-day period from April
19 to May 16 1999 (Table 1). The main objective of Fresno 2 was to determine the seasonal
variation in personal PM exposures and PM concentrations between winter and spring.
Historical data collected in Fresno indicated that the coarse fraction of PM,0 was higher in the
soring than in the winter. In order to determine if exposures to PM lo were higher in spring, a
PEM sampling unit equipped with a PM10 inlet was added to the daily in-residence monitoring
program for all residences included in the study. Also, the personal monitoring component lor
Fresno 2 was increased to include 16 residents, with 24-hour integrated measurements of
personal exposures to PM, 5 and PMIO collected on alternate days. Fine and coarse particle mass
samples were collected using a dichotomous sampler each day at the outdoor central site and
every third day at the platform site. Twelve participants carried MIE personal nephelometers on
alternate days for two weeks to provide some real-time data on personal exposures to relate with
time activity pattern. Air exchange rates were estimated for each participating residence using a
12
-------
perfluorocarbon tracer (PFT) method (Dietz, 1982). Special studies were also performed to
characterize PM removal efficiency by residential heating and cooling systems (Rodes et al..
2001) as well as the role of season, particle size, and meteorology upon aerosol concentrations
(-Lawless et al 2001). PM mass concentration findings from this study have been reported
(Evans et al., 2000; Howard-Reed et al, 2000; Rea et al., 2001; Vette et al., 2001 and Rodes et
al.,2001).
Summary nf Fresno Studies
Validated databases for all of the PM mass concentration measurements have been
developed. Data provided in Tables D-7 though D-9 summarize statistics associated with some
of the PM mass concentrations from the two Fresno studies. Evans et al, (2000), Howard-Reed
et al (2000) and Rea et al., (2001) have reported upon the preliminary PM mass concentration
findings associated with the two studies. The expected change in PM2 5/PM10 ratio did occur with
ambient PM25 mass concentrations falling significantly between the first (winter) and second
(spring) seasons. Preliminary investigation of the human activity data .associated with the
participants in the two studies suggest that they were significantly more active than elderly
residents of the 1998 Baltimore Study (Howard-Reed et al., 2000; Rea et al, 2001). Personal
exposures of PM2, or PM10, which were at or above mass concentrations found indoors or in
comparison to arnbient measurements, might have been influenced by this higher activity level.
Other factors could also be responsible. Reduction of data from the PM mass speciation, gas-
phase co-pollutant, human activity patterned health effects variable measurements, » currently
underway The human and environmental factors that influenced these results are still being
investigated with additional reporting anticipated for the 2002-2003 calendar year.
Research Triangle Park 2000-2001 Studies (NERL/NHEERL/RTI)
The Research Triangle Park (RTF) studies were conducted to extend and enhance the data
set generated in the Baltimore and Fresno studies. The studies addressed the effect ot housing
cond tTonT(e.g, construction type, ventilation status) and investigated how persona, time activity
patterns and indoor PM sources might affect the relationship between personal PM exposures
and ambient concentrations. The RTF studies greatly expanded monitoring personal exposure
across both the number of participants, as well as the overall period of ™a™em™^°™ ^
calendar year). Additionally, individual homes, rather than a communal apartment building or
communal campus, were monitored for PM mass concentrations across a wide geographical
setting (RTF area, North Carolina).
Table 2 also indicates the variety and depth of the study design with the inclusion of
measurements for elemental-organic carbon, personal nephelometry (real-time PM mass
Exposure measurements) for each participant on a daily basis, as well as air exchange and other
measurements for each residence. These represent significant enhancements of the overall data
flection potential in comparison to the earlier studies. It is believed that the real-time personal
exposure monitoring combined with the daily activity diary across multiple residences and
13
-------
variety of participant characteristics will permit a unique investigation of potential PM sources
(personal, indoor, and ambient) with respect to individual human exposures.
The studies were comprised of two distinct susceptible subpopulations which were
distinct from earlier panels; earlier NERL panel participants were much older and had a much
wider variety of health deficits (respiratory, cardiovascular, healthy, etc). These panels included
an African-American panel (n= 28) with controlled hypertension living in a low socioeconomic
status (SES) neighborhood and a mixed race cardiovascular disease panel (n= 8) who had
implanted cardiac defibrillators (Table 1).
These studies, identified as RT-P 1 and RTP 2 in Table 2, were conducted at the same
time and had exactly the same study design with the exception of the panel inclusion criteria
described above. The 35 participants were non-smoking, 50+ years of age, and living in their
own homes. The participants were monitored for 7 consecutive days during each season over
one calendar year (Summer 2000, Fall 2000, Winter 2001, Spring 2001) for a total of 28 days.
Over 80% of the participants were monitored during all four seasons. The number of participants
was restricted due to the equipment and staffing needed to perform exposure monitoring upon
individual participants living in residences distributed across a relatively large geographical area.
Over 70 km separates the low-moderate SES-classified neighborhood in southeast Raleigh, NC
where the African-American panel lived from the Chapel Hill area where the majority of the
cardiac defibrillator panel lived. However, data indicate that, with only minor exception, there
was very little difference between the two panels in their overall mean personal exposure patterns
regardless of geographical area or season.
Subject recruitment and retention were identified as areas in need of special attention,
especially for African Americans. Procedures were developed that had a very positive influence
upon both recruitment and retention of subjects in both RTP panels. Over 80% of the subjects
initially recruited into the first season of the two studies were retained over the entire course of
one calendar year. Collaborations with institutions having established ties to the African
American community (such as Shaw University, Raleigh, NC) helped to establish trust between
this subpopulation and the research team. A systematic communication plan between the
participants and their primary study contacts (NERL/RTI research group) was highly effective in
establishing rapport and maintaining the interest of the subjects over the study period. The
procedures used to permit this response for recruitment and retention are currently being
summarized, and peer review of these results is expected in the 2002 calendar year.
Twenty-four hour personal exposure measurements of PM,5 mass, PM2S EC-OC, and O3
were collected for all study participants (Table 1). Teflon*' filter media was used in the collection
of PM mass while quartz media was used to collect samples for EC-OC determinations. The
PM,5 PEM inlets were operated at ~ 2 Lpm/channel to collect the PM mass and EC-OC samples.
PEM measurements for PMIO mass were collected at the ambient site (located from 5 - 70 km
from the residences), outdoor residential, and indoor residential locations over the same time
periods. In addition, daily PM, 5 samples were collected using inertial impactor samplers
operated at 20 1pm at the indoo'r residential, outdoor residential, and ambient sites. Select trace
elements (e.g., S, K, Fe, Ca, Zn) will be measured on the PM2.5 filter samples using X-ray
14
-------
fluorescence (XRF). Sulfate concentrations will be estimated using the sulfur concentrations
measured by XRF. Ogawa® badges were used to collect twenty-four hour integrated NO;
samples in each residence and at the ambient site. Similar badges were used to measure personal
exposures to O3. Continuous measurements of CO and O3 were made at the ambient site, and
CO was measured continuously indoors at each residence.
A PM25 FRM and a dichotomous sampler were.operated at the ambient site. The PM23
FRM was collocated with a PM2 5 PEM and operated one out of every 10 collection days. This
allowed for direct comparisons of both PM sampling methods to federal equivalency methods.
TEOMs, operated by the State of North Carolina and located at the ambient site, were used to
collect real-time mass measures of PM2.5 and PM10 and provide data with which to evaluate
temporal variability.
Nephelometers (MIE pDRs) were used to collect real-time PM2 5 data concurrently with
the personal and indoor monitors. Although these instruments did not provide accurate mass
measurements, they provided valuable information on the personal and indoor sources of PM and
on the influence that personal activities have on PM exposures. In selected homes, real-time
particle counts in the fine and ultrafine size range (0.01 to 2.5 urn) were measured both indoors
and outdoors using particle size characterization monitors (SMPS). This instrumentation
provided data for evaluating the influence of temporal variability in particle counts at the
residence. Data from these measurements will be used to estimate particle penetration rates,
decay rates, and source strengths which can be applied to indoor air quality models.
For. each participant, questionnaires and activity diaries were used to collect information
on locations, activities, and potential sources of PM exposure. Information on housing structure,
ventilation system, ventilation parameters, and potential indoor sources was also collected for
each residence. Air exchange rates were measured daily in each residence during momtonng
using a PFT methodology. These data will be used to evaluate the factors that influence
exposure to PM and its relationship to ambient site measurements.
' Simple health effect measurements which consisted of 5-minute real-time measures of
pulse oxygen saturation and heart rate were taken for each participant on each of their monitoring
days (n=28) Daily monitoring of two lung function variables, peak flow (1 sec) and peak
volume was performed using a hand-held spirometer. All of the above health metrics were
collected during the morning home visits concurrent with PM personal, residential, and ambient
monitoring. The filter-based PM mass measurements associated with both studies is summarized
in Tables D-10 through D-12 and typically represent the mean of between 3 and 6 participants
and residences monitored on a given day These tables report the integrated PM2.5, PM10, and
PM10 ,s mass concentrations pertaining to personal, residential indoor, residential outdoor and
ambient (community) settings as appropriate. Data values are divided between the two panels,
seasons, and PM size fractions.
This study is the last of the NERL/NHEERL/RTI performed panel studies in pursuit of
the ORD goal Field data collection was .completed in late May 2001. All of the PM mass
concentration data from all monitoring devices across all seasons and panels have been validated,
15
-------
and a database containing this information has been prepared. Analysis of the associated gaseous
co-pollutants, human activity patterns, PM mass speciation and other components of the study
design is underway. A number of preliminary findings from these studies have been submitted
for presentation at national symposia. It is anticipated that articles summarizing results of both
studies will be prepared and submitted for publication during the 2002 and 2003 calendar years.
Harvard University School of Public Health 1999-2000 Studies
The studies conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) took place in
Atlanta Boston, and Los Angeles from Fall 1999 through Summer 2000 (Table 2), All field data
collection was completed by August 1,2000. As part of the overall study objectives, the HSPH
group developed and evaluated a multi-pollutant personal sampler used to measure exposure to
PM (mass and chemical species) and criteria pollutant gases. The multi-pollutant sampler was
used in each city and season to measure personal, indoor, and outdoor samples. The studies were
conducted over 5 seven-day periods, during which 3 to 5 homes were monitored simultaneously.
The Atlanta study was financially supplemented by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
and the American Petroleum Institute (API) which allowed a total of 24 persons to be monitored
compared to the 15 originally planned and funded through a cooperative agreement with the
NERL.
Atlanta Fall 1999 Studies
Personal, indoor, and outdoor multi-pollutant sampling was conducted on a panel of 15
individuals (8 men and 7 women) with moderate to severe physician-diagnosed COPD and nine
individuals (8 men and 1 woman) with incidences of MI within the previous three to twelve
months A total of 25 participants were recruited into the study, and 24 participated (Table _)
Each individual was monitored over a 24-hour period for exposures, as well as for heart rate and
heart rate variability. Indoor and outdoor measurements were made for seven consecutive days at
24 homes for a total of 168 sample days. During each seven-day panel, five homes were
measured simultaneously. PEMs were used for personal monitoring while multi-pollutant
samplers with Harvard personal exposure monitors (HPEM) were used for indoor and outdoor
samples (Sioutas et al., 1998). Sampling was conducted during September to November 1999.
Staff members conducted morning visits to measure heart rate and service the exposure
monitoring equipment. Each morning a brief questionnaire was completed to document chest
pain doctor's visits, hospital visits, medication changes, and medications taken that morning.
Heart rate was measured using a thirty-minute protocol involving periods of rest, standing,
walking, and slow breathing using a Holter monitor and was used to establish heart rate
variability for each participant.
Atlanta Spring 2000 Studies
During the Spring 2000 study, 22 participants were successfully recruited out of a pool of
25. The study population included 4 men and 9 women with COPD and 7 men and 2 women
16
-------
with a recent MI (Table 2). A total of 9 COPD and 6 MI participants were repeats from the fall
sampling period. Sampling was conducted during April and May 2000. Personal, indoor, and
outdoor measurements were conducted for seven consecutive days at 22 homes for a total of 1 58
sample days during which 860 filter-based PM mass measurements were collected. During each
seven-day panel, five homes were measured simultaneously. The spring sampling protocol
differed slightly from that in the fall, as personal PM10 measurements were also collected and ^
personal exposures were measured using the multi-pollutant samplers with HPEMs instead of the
PEMs Indoor and outdoor samples were collected using the same configuration as in the fall.
Preliminary PM mass concentration data from the Atlanta studies are presented in Tables D-13
and D-14. These data summarize the overall PM mass concentrations from pooling results from
both panel populations.
Boston Winter/Summer 1999-2000 Studies
HSPH staff conducted four seven-day panels in Boston during November 1999 and
January 2000 (Table 2). Due to difficulties in recruiting participants having had recent episodes
of MI the study population was expanded to include individuals with heart disease or COPD.
Individuals with heart disease were recruited into the study if they had an incidence of MI within
the past five years or had by-pass surgery or angina treated by medication.
Eight couples and seven single individuals participated in the winter monitoring for a
total of 161 personal sample days. The winter study population, included 5 individuals with a MI
within the previous five years (4 male, 1 female); 1 male with conjunctive heart failure and a
defibrillator; 4 individuals with COPD (2 male, 2 female); 3 males with a history of by-pass
surgery and 2 males with medication-treated angina. The Boston summer study was conducted
from June 6 to July 25,2000. A total of six couples participated in the summer sampling. This
represented approximately one-third of those from the winter season.
During each season, indoor and outdoor samples were collected for seven consecutive
days at 15 homes for a total of 105 sample days. Three or four homes were measured
simultaneously during each seven-day period, and at least one couple was measured during each
panel. Multi-pollutant samplers with PEMs were used for personal, indoor, and outdoor
monitoring during both sampling seasons.
PM mass concentration data for the Boston studies is currently being validated.
A summary of the data collected during the two seasons is presented in Table D-15.
IMS Angeles Winter/Summer 1999-2000 Studies
The Los Angeles studies involved 15 participants with COPD who were monitored for
seven days in each season (Table 2). In the summer there were 8 repeat participants from the
winter sampling period. The participants were sampled in groups of three. Participants for the
study had a history of respiratory disease (COPD) and lived in the Los Angeles area
neighborhoods including El Segundo, Palos Verdes and Downey, CA.
17
-------
Sampling for the winter Los Angeles study ran from February 8 through March 23, 2000.
The summer Los Angeles sampling ran from June 12 through July 24, 2000. Unlike the Atlanta
and Boston studies, the samples collected in the Los Angeles studies were analyzed for nitrate
instead of sulfate, and measurements of personal PMIO were made in both seasons. Personal
PM,0 was measured only in the spring for Atlanta and in the summer for Boston, but indoor and
outdoor PM10 were measured in all cities during both seasons. Otherwise, the sampling protocols
were identical. Personal samples were collected using PEMs in the winter and HPEMs during
the summer.
The HSPH and its collaborators have also completed all field efforts associated with two
panel studies conducted in the Los Angeles area during the winter of 1999-2000 and the summer
of 2000. A total of 630 personal, residential indoor, and residential outdoor (210 each) filter-
based PM mass measurements were obtained in each season. Table D-16 summarizes the field
data collections completed for the Los Angeles field study.
Summary of HSPH Studies
Field collection of all variables associated with the HSPH studies have been completed.
Validation of PM mass concentration data from all monitors, seasons, and panels is currently
underway. A database containing this information should be completed during the 2001 calendar
year. The summary of ancillary data such as measured gaseous co-pollutants, human activity
patterns, PM mass speciation and other components of the study design is ongoing. Initial
findings from these studies have been submitted for presentation at national symposia during
2001. Summary journal articles are expected to be prepared and submitted for publication during
the 2001 and 2002 calendar years.
University of Washington 1999-2001 Studies
Seattle 1999-2000
This study was conducted on one panel of 32 elderly COPD subjects and one panel of 31
healthy subjects living in group homes and individual residences recruited from the metropolitan
Seattle area. Additional resources from an EPA grant establishing the University as a Particle
Research Center of Excellence allowed for the addition of these 31 healthy control subjects to the
original study population (Table 2). About 45% of the 63 subjects (13 COPD and 11 healthy
subjects) were re-enrolled for monitoring in a second season and 5 COPD subjects were
monitored hi a third season within a year. All of the study participants were over 65 years old
(85% between 71 and 90 years old), non-smoking living in non-smoking households, and spent
more than 30 minutes outdoors each day. All COPD subjects had light to moderate COPD while
healthy subjects were free of COPD, compromised lung function, and heart diseases. An equal
number of subjects lived in group homes and private residences; only 7 subjects lived in private
apartments. The studies were conducted over 13 monitoring sessions, including 6 high wood-
smoke (fall) sessions and 7 low wood-smoke (spring/summer) sessions between October 1999
and August 2000. Each session consisted of 10 consecutive monitoring days starting at 4 PM
18
-------
(±2 h) on Tuesdays and ending at 4 PM (±2 h) on Fridays. Up to 9 subjects were monitored
simultaneously during each session.
Seattle 2000-2001
This second year study was conducted on one panel of 25 elderly subjects with Ml and
one panel of 19 pediatric asthmatics. The addition of the 19 pediatric asthmatics was made
possible through an EPA's Particle Research Center of Excellence grant. Approximately 55% of
these 44 subjects (12 MI subjects and 13 asthmatics) were monitored in both high wood-smoke
(fall/winter) and low wood-smoke (spring) seasons. All MI subjects were over 65 years old.
except for one (56 years old); living in group homes (2), private apartments (15), or private
homes (8). Pediatric asthmatic subjects were aged between 5 and 12 years, living in either
private homes (18) or apartments (1). This study included 13 low and high wood-smoke sessions
between September 2000 and May 2001. Each session consisted of 10 consecutive monitoring
days, starting at 4 PM (±2 h) on Tuesdays and ending at 4 PM (±2 h) on Fridays. Up to
8 subjects were monitored simultaneously during each session. The total number of personal
samples collected in both years represented 1660 subject days (not including fixed site samples).
Unique aspects of these studies included the collection of urine samples to be analyzed
for biomarkers indicative of woodsmoke (methoxyphenols) and gasoline (polycylic aromatic
hydrocarbons-PAHs) exposure. Personal exposures to PM25were measured using HPEMs.
Downstream of the device, a polyurethane filter (PUF) sampler was used to collect the re-
evaporated semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including wood smoke compounds. Each
subject carried the personal monitors continuously for 24 hours (4 PM to 4 PM) in the breathing
zone, except while sleeping, showering, or using the restroom. The monitor was attached to the
shoulder strap of either a backpack or a fanny pack that contained the air pump. .When the
monitoring pack was not worn, it was placed at an elevation of 3-5 feet (e.g., on a table) close to
the subjects. Subject compliance in operation of the monitor was checked using secondary
electronic data loggers. Every subject wore an Ogawa passive sampler for 10 days as a means to
determine NO2 and SO2 concentrations. In addition, a total of 30 subjects during the two-year
studies also carried the MIE pDR nephelometer for up to 10 days. This was the same device that
was used in the Baltimore, Fresno, and RTP-based studies. During the second year of the study,
8 subjects also carried personal HPEM EC-OC samplers.
At each subject's home, two nephelometers (Model M902 & M903, Radiance Research.
Seattle, WA) were used to determine real-time PM, concentrations. Indoor and outdoor PM
concentrations were measured with a Harvard Impactor (HI) (Air Diagnostics and Engineering,
Inc., Naples, ME) for PM10 and PM2 5. One HI2 5 and one HI10 were collocated inside the home
while one HI2 5 and one HI!0 were collocated outside the home. Only Teflon filters were used in
the Year 1 study, while both Teflon and Quartz filters were used in the Year 2 study for weights,
trace elements, and EC/OC analysis. All His were operated continuously for 24 hours (4 PM-
4PM) at a flow rate of 10 Lpm. The indoor monitors were collocated in the main activity room
where the subject spent the most time. In Year 2, Integrated Organic Gas and Particle Samplers
(IOGAPS) were used at the central site and one home site per session for indoor and outdoor
19
-------
monitoring. Home site IOGAPS were operated on a 24 h schedule while the central site
IOGAPS were operated on a 12 h monitoring basis (midnight to midnight).
Urine samples were collected from each subject for SVOC and wood smoke compound
analysis. Exhaled breath samples were also collected for CO analysis. CO concentrations in
exhaled breath were measured using an electrochemical sensor. Bag samples of indoor CO
samples from each home were collected, transported back to the laboratory, and analyzed using
an electrochemical sensor. In addition, a continuous electrochemical CO sensor was placed in
one of the study subject's homes during each of the study sessions. For each participant,
information on housing characteristics, time/activity patterns and potential sources of PM
exposure was collected using diaries and questionnaires.
Indoor CO2 concentrations at a central location of each home were measured as a real-
time surrogate for air exchange rate. To verify the CO2 method, a traditional tracer gas method
was also employed during the first 6 sessions of the study. This method was based upon the PFT
technique developed by Dietz et al., (1982). Continuous temperature and relative humidity
inside the homes were also measured as part of the home environment characterization.
Health effect measures were collected from each subject in this study. A symptom diary
was administered by technicians during their daily visit to obtain information on the severity of
symptoms, including cold, phlegm, shortness of breath, wheeze, sore throat, runny/stuffy/blocked
nose, itching/burning eyes, fever/chills, fatigue, headache, tightness in chest, and fear induced by
asthma attacks as well as to record dosage of prescription medications. Quantitative health
measures included peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second
(FEV,) using Airwatch® monitors (ENACT, Palo Alto, CA). Pulse rates and oxygen saturation
rate were measured using a portable pulse oximeter (Nellcor Model N20), blood pressure with a
digital monitor (Model HEM-705CP,'Omron Health Inc.,Vernon Hills, II), and electrocardiogram.
measurements with a portable Holter monitor (Delmar Co., Stockton, CA).
Summary of Seattle Results
A preliminary data base containing PM mass concentrations has been developed from this
effort. Validation of gas-phase pollutant data, human activity patterns, and other collected data is
expected to be completed during the 2001 calendar year. PM speciation efforts, involving
laboratory analysis for select metals of filter-based samples are expected to begin during 2001
and will continue during 2002. Presentations of preliminary findings from the Seattle Year 1
study have been made in various national symposia, and manuscripts are being prepared and
planned for submission for publications during the summer and fall of 2001. Summary journal
articles for both years 1 and 2 findings are expected to be prepared and submitted for publication
during the 2002 calendar year.
The Year 1 and 2 studies which monitored a total of 107 subjects in four panels during
October 1999 and May 2001 have been completed. Summary of filter-based PM mass
concentration data from personal, residential indoor, residential outdoor, and community
(ambient) monitoring in the Year 1 study is summarized in Table D-17. The type and location ot
20
-------
samples are summarized in Table D-18. A large number of personal PM25 mass measurements
were collected from nearly equal subpopulations of COPD and healthy panels (~ 880 total
measurements). Numerous community-based measurements were performed from multiple
locations. This study is significant because of its depth (nearly 900 filter-based data points were
collected) and because it also focused heavily on assessing exposure to wood-smoke related
semi-volatile organics. A future robust analysis of possible PM-related health effects relative to
simultaneously collected epidemiological data will incorporate these results as well as other data
(gas-phase variables, PM speciation, etc). Laboratory efforts are underway to analyze all
collected samples and summarize the results.
New York University 2000 Studies
The New York City study involved 9 participants with moderate to severe cases of
asthma and COPD who were monitored for 12 days in the summer and 12 days in the winter with
either one or two subjects participating in each successive 12-day period. The participants lived
in apartments in either Manhattan or nearby Brooklyn and, though ambulatory, were not
employed outside of their apartments.
Each participant wore a battery-powered personal sampling pump collecting a 4 Lpm
24-hour personal exposure monitor (PEM) PM filter sample for PMI0. The monitors could be
placed on a fixed mount adjacent to the subject's bed or chair while they were sedentary.
Participants also wore MIE pDR personal nephelometers. Simultaneous PM2 5 and PM10 HI
samples were collected inside their apartment and directly outside their apartment. In addition,
simultaneous PM2 5 and PM10 samples were collected at a central air monitoring site. The
samples will be analyzed for weight, elemental composition (by x-ray fluorescence), elemental
and organic carbon (by white light and UV absorption), and ions (by ion chromatography).
The participants performed expiratory flow maneuvers twice each day to determine FEV,
and peak flow rate using an Airwatch II® pneumotach. Each volunteer performed twice daily
pulse oximetry measurements (Nellcor Model N20) to determine whether pulmonary and/or
cardiac functions were related to their personal PM exposures.
The New York City sampling phase of the study ended in February 2001, laboratory
analyses are continuing, and data validation is currently underway. It is anticipated that results
from this study will be presented at professional society meetings in 2002. Additional new
studies by this research team may be performed in Anaheim, CA and Seattle. WA. Data from the
completed New York study and the proposed future studies are expected to be available by 2003.
21
-------
SUMMARY
NERL's PM Exposure Research Program has focused on the NRC Research Topic 1:
investigating the quantitative relationships between ambient PM and gaseous co-pollutants and
identifying the contribution of these concentrations to measured personal exposures. This
research has focused on potentially susceptible subpopulations, namely, COPD patients, people
with cardiovascular disease, asthmatics, the elderly, African Americans with hypertension, and
asthmatic children. In addition, each study focused on a particular geographical area, season(s)
of the year and housing conditions. Fifteen individual research studies have been carried out in a
collaborative effort between NERL, NHEERL, RTI, and three University consortia: Harvard
University School of Public Health, University of Washington Department of Environmental
Health, and New York University School of Medicine. The data from all of these studies will be
combined into one publicly accessible database.
This report documents completion of the field portion of these research efforts. Study
designs from each panel have been summarized and preliminary PM mass data also have been
included Common approaches used by each research group included measurements ot personal
exposure using personal monitors as well as measurements of ambient, outdoor residential, and
indoor residential concentrations using stationary monitors. In addition, a concerted effort was
made to measure exposures of a number of gases including SO2, NO2, CO, and O3, based on
recommendations by the NRC. For each participant, information on time/activity patterns and
potential sources of PM exposure was collected using questionnaires. Multiple participants in
each respective panel were monitored over time (7-28 days) to investigate both longitudinal and
cross-sectional correlations between personal, indoor, outdoor, and ambient measurements. Data
from over 15 000 individual PM mass concentration measurements involving more than 200
individuals and their residences were collected in these studies. Research products based on this
research including published peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at scientific
conferences are listed in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Recommendations for Future Work
• Complete the ongoing validation of all PM mass concentration data collected during each panel
study and develop panel-specific databases containing this information.
- Complete the statistical analysis for each longitudinal study outlined in the peer-reviewed study
designs using the validated databases for these analyses. This effort will include establishing
the basic relationships between outdoor (ambient) PM mass concentrations and personal
exposures. Likewise, PM mass concentration relationships between ambient, indoor
residential, outdoor residential and personal exposures should be established for as many of the
size fractions as possible.
. Quantify the relationship between ambient site PM-related mass concentrations and personal
exposure to pollutants of ambient origin. This will include evaluating marker pollutants (eg..
22
-------
sulfate) as well as by developing new source apportionment models and characterization
methodologies to differentiate personal exposures t6 pollutants of ambient origin.
Characterize the, relationships between time activity patterns and personal and residential PM
mass concentrations for each susceptible subpopulation studied.
Complete the chemical analyses of PM filter samples (e.g., elements, soluble metals, carbon
species), validate the chemical speciation data, and enter it in panel-specific databases.
Determine the relationships between PM mass, PM composition/speciation, and estimated
source contributions with related co-pollutants (e.g., CO, O3) for each panel study. Examine
the influence of personal and environmental factors on these relationships.
Develop a unified database (across all panel studies) containing validated PM mass
concentrations, co-pollutant concentrations, and other variables collected during each panel
study.
1 Perform statistical analyses upon the unified database to investigate the relationships between
season, geography, age, and health status of the panel on PM mass.
• Develop a database containing pooled data from all of the studies that is accessible to the
general public and other researchers who may conduct additional analyses with the data.
• Develop more sophisticated (lower burden, greater utility) personal monitors and analytical
tools to maximize PM measurement efforts and related co-pollutant source characterization.
Based upon the experiences gained in the present work, PM monitors need to be made smaller,
quieter, and less obtrusive. Analytical methods to speciate PM and related co-pollutants need
refinement, and technological advances that will permit more timely and effective sample
analysis should be developed. These efforts will require funding beyond the $6 million of
original funding.
23
-------
Literature Cited
Conner, T., Norris, G., Landis, M., and Williams, R. Individual particle analysis of indoor,
outdoor, and personal samples from the 1998 Baltimore retirement home study.
Atmospheric Environment, 35: 3935-3946 (2001).
Creason, J., Neas, L., Shy, C.; Williams, R., Sheldon, L., Liao, D., and Walsh, D. Effects of
particulate matter on the heart rate variability of elderly residents in an east coast
retirement community: the Baltimore 1998 PM study. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology, 11: 116-123 (2001).
Dietz, R., and Cote, E. Air infiltration measurements in a home using a convenient
perfluorocarbon tracer technique. Environment International 8: 419-33 (1982).
Evans, G., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., Suggs, J., Williams, R., Zweidinger, R.. Creason, J.,
Walsh, D., Rodes C., and Lawless, P. The 1999 Fresno paniculate matter exposure
studies, comparison of community, outdoor, and residential PM mass measurements.
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 50: 1887-1896 (2000).
Howard-Reed, C., Rea, A., Zufall, M., Burke, J., Williams, R., Suggs, J., Walsh, D., Kwok, R.,
and Sheldon, L. Use of a continuous nephelometer to measure personal exposure to
particles during the U.S. EPA Baltimore and Fresno panel studies. Journal of Air and
Waste Management Association 50: 1125-1132 (2000).
Landis, M., Norris, G., Williams, R., and Weinstein, J. Personal exposures to PM, 5 mass and
trace elements in Baltimore, Maryland. Atmospheric Environment, in press (2001).
Lawless, P., and Rodes, C. Maximizing data quality in the gravimetric analysis of personal
exposure sample filters. J. Air Waste Management Association, 49: 1039-1049 (1999).
Lawless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Sheldon, L., and Creason, J. Aerosol concentrations during
the 1999 Fresno exposure studies as functions of size, season, and meteorology. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 34: 66-74 (2001).
Liao, D., Creason, J., Shy, C., Williams, R., Watts, R., and Zweidinger. Daily variation of
particulate air pollution and poor cardiac autonomic control in the elderly. Environmental
Health Perspectives 107: 521-525 (1999).
National Research Council (NRC)-National Academy of Science. (1998). Research Priorities
for Airborne Particulate Matter I: Immediate Priorities and a Long-Range Research
Portfolio. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
24
-------
Rea, A., Zufall, M., Williams, R., Howard-Reed, C., and Sheldon, L. The influence of human
activity patterns on personal PM exposure: a comparative analysis of filter-based and
continuous particle measurements. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association,
in press (2001).
Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Evans, G., Sheldon, L., Williams, R., Vette, A., Creason, J., and Walsh,
D. The relationships between personal PM exposures for elderly populations and indoor
and outdoor concentrations for three retirement center scenarios. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11:103-116 (2001).
Sioutas, C., Ming-Chih, C., and Seongheon, K. Design and experimental characterization of a
PM1 and a PM2.5 Personal Sampler. J. of Aerosol Science, 30: 693-707 (1999).
Vette, A., Rea, A., Lawless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Highsmith, R,, and Sheldon, L.
Characterization of indoor-outdoor aerosol concentration relationships during the Fresno
PM exposure studies. Aerosol Science and Technology 34: 118-126 (2001).
Williams, R., Watts, R., Stevens, R., Stone, C., and Lewtas, J. Evaluation of a personal air
sampler for twenty-four hour collection of fine particles and semivolatile organics .
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 2: 158-166 (1999). '
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Watts, R., Sheldon, L., and Shy, C. Indoor, outdoor,
and personal exposure monitoring of paniculate air pollution: The Baltimore elderly
epidemiology-exposure pilot study. Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4193-4204, (2000a).
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Zweidinger, R., Evans, G., Creason, J., Kwok, R., Rodes, C., Lawless.
P., and Sheldon, L. The 1998 Baltimore particulate matter epidemiology-exposure study:
Part 1-Comparison of ambient, residential outdoor, indoor and apartment particulate
matter monitoring. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 10:
518-532 (2000b).
Williams, R., SuggsJ., Creason, J., Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Kwok, R., Zweidinger, R., and
Sheldon, L. The 1998 Baltimore particulate matter epidemiology-exposure study: Part 2-
personal exposure assessment associated with an elderly study population., Journal of
Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 10: 533-543 (2000c).
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Zweidinger, R., Evans, G., Creason, J., Kwok, R., Rodes C., Lawless. P.,
and Sheldon, L. Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 10: 497-505 (2000d).
25
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Research Products: Manuscripts
Conner, T., Norris, G., Landis, M., and Williams, R. Individual particle analysis of indoor.
outdoor, and personal samples from the 1998 Baltimore retirement home study.
Atmospheric Environment, 35: 3935-3946 (2001).
Creason, J., Neas, L., Shy, C., Williams, R., Sheldon, L., Liao, D., and Walsh, D. Effects of
particulate matter on the heart rate variability of elderly residents in an east coast
retirement community: the Baltimore 1998 PM study. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
. Environmental Epidemiology, 11: 116-123(2001).
Evans, G., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., Suggs, J., Williams, R., Zweidinger, R., Creason, J.,
Walsh, D., Rodes C., and Lawless, P. The 1999 Fresno particulate matter exposure
studies, comparison of community, outdoor, and residential PM mass measurements.
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 50: 1887-1896 (2000).
Landis, M., Norris, G., Williams, R., and Weinstein, J, Personal exposures to PM2.5 mass and
trace elements in Baltimore, Maryland. Atmospheric Environment, in press (2001).
Lawless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Sheldon, L., and Creason, J. Aerosol concentrations during
the 1999 Fresno exposure studies as functions of size, season, and meteorology. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 34: 66-74(2001).
Liao, D., Creason, J., Shy, C., Williams, R., Watts, R., and Zweidinger. Daily variation of
particulate air pollution and poor cardiac autonomic control in the elderly. Environmental
Health Perspectives 107:521-525 (1999).
Rea, A., Zufall, M., Williams, R., Howard-Reed, C., and Sheldon, L. The influence of human
' activity patterns on personal PM exposure: a comparative analysis of filter-based and
continuous particle measurements. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association.
in press (2001).
Howard-Reed, C., Rea, A., Zufall, M., Burke, J., Williams, R., Suggs, J., Walsh, D., Kwok, R..
and Sheldon, L. Use of a continuous nephelometer to measure personal exposure to
particles during the U.S. EPA Baltimore and Fresno panel studies. Journal of Air and
Waste Management Association 50: 1125-1132(2000).
Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Evans, G., Sheldon, L., Williams, R., Vette, A., Creason, J., and Walsh,
D. The relationships between personal PM exposures for elderly populations and indoor
and outdoor concentrations for three retirement center scenarios. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11:103-116 (2001).
A-l
-------
Vette, A., Rea, A., Lawless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Highsmith, R., and Sheldon, L.
Characterization of indoor-outdoor aerosol concentration relationships during the Fresno
PM exposure studies. Aerosol Science and Technology 34: 118-126(2001).
Williams, R., Watts, R., Stevens, R., Stone, C., and Lewtas, J. Evaluation of a personal air
sampler for twenty-four hour collection of fine particles and semivolatile organics.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 2:158-166 (1999).
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Watts, R., Sheldon, L., and Shy, C. Indoor, outdoor,
and personal exposure monitoring of paniculate air pollution: The Baltimore elderly
epidemiology-exposure pilot study. Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4193-4204, (2000a).
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Zweidinger, R., Evans, G., Creason, J., Kwok, R., Rodes. C., Lawless,
P., and Sheldon, L. The 1998 Baltimore particulate matter epidemiology-exposure study-
Part 1-Comparison of ambient, residential outdoor, indoor and apartment particulate
matter monitoring. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 10:
518-532 (2000b).
Williams, R., Suggs,J., Creason, J., Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Kwok, R., Zweidinger, R., and
Sheldon, L. The 1998 Baltimore particulate matter epidemiology-exposure study: Part 2-
personal exposure assessment associated with an elderly study population., Journal of
Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 10: 533-543 (2000c).
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Zweidinger, R., Evans, G., Creason, J., Kwok, R., Rodes C., Lawless, P.,
and Sheldon, L. Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 10: 497-505 (2000d).
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
Research Products: Presentations
NERL/NHERL/RTI Research Group
Creason, J., Neas, L., Shy, C., Williams, R.,-Sheldon, L., Liao, D., and Walsh. D. Effects of
particulate matter on the heart rate variability of elderly residents in an east coast
retirement community: the Baltimore 1998 PM study. PM2000 Conference, Charleston,
SC, January 25-28, 2000. NHEERL-RTP-HSD-AB-00-100.
Creason, J., Walsh, D., Neas, L., Sheldon, L., and Shy, C. Initial results from two panel studies
of physiological effects of ambient air particles on elderly residents in a west coast
retirement community. PM2000 Conference, Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000.
Creason, J., Soukup, J., Kwok, R., Williams, R., Rhoney, S., and Becker, S. Indoor and outdoor
endotoxin concentrations measured on PM2.5 and PM10 24- hour filter collected during a
four week panel study of the elderly in Baltimore, MD. PM2000 Conference.
Charleston, SC, January 25-28,2000. NHEERL-RTP-HSD-00-128.
Conner, T., Norris, G., Landis, M., and Williams, R. Individual particle analysis of indoor,
outdoor, and'personal samples from the 1998 Baltimore retirement home study. PM2000
Conference, January 25-28,2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a582.
Conner, T., Norris, G., Landis, M., and Williams, R. Chemical and physical characteristics of
indoor, outdoor, and personal particulate air samples collected in and around a retirement
facility. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and
Related Pollutants. Research Triangle Park, NC, September 14, 2000. ISBN# 0-923204-
37-7. NERL-RTP-HEASD-00-183.
Evans, G., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., Suggs, J., Williams, R., Zweidinger, R., Creason, J.,
Walsh, D., Rodes C., and Lawless, P. The 1999 Fresno particulate matter exposure
studies, comparison of community, outdoor, and residential PM mass measurements.
PM2000 Conference, Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-
a0579.
Kwok, R., Creason, J., Shy, C., Williams, R. and Walsh, D. PM2.5 and postural changes to
blood pressure in the elderlyrresults from the US EPA particulate matter study, Baltimore
1998. PM2000 Conference. Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000. NHEERL-RTP-AB-
00-088.
Landis, M., Norris, G., Williams, R., and Creason J. Relationship between a community monitor
and personal exposures to PM2.5 mass and trace elements in Baltimore, MD. PM2000
Conference. Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a643.
B-l
-------
\
x)fris, G., Zweidinger, R., Williams, R., and Suggs, J. Relationship between a
yimunity monitor and personal exposures to PM2 5 mass and trace elements in
Baltimore, Maryland. Inhalation Toxicology, 12: (Supplement 2)140 (2000).
wless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Highsmith, R.5 Sheldon, L., and Creason, J. Aerosol
concentrations during the 1999 Fresno exposure studies as functions of size, season, and
meteorology. PM2000 Conference. Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000.
Leovic, K., Ejire, A., Williams, R., Highsmith, R., and Sheldon, L. Improving the scientific
community's ability to characterize human exposures in low SES areas: participant
recruitment and retention. ISEA 2000, Exposure Analysis in the 21st Century Integrating
Science, Policy and Quality of Life. Monterey, California. October 26. 2000. NERL-
RTP-HEASD-00-101.
Leovic, K., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., Williams, R., Hubal, E., Morgan, M., and Ejire, A.
Recruiting,' retaining, and reporting exposure study results to participants and to the
public. Proposed abstract to the ISEA 2001. Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001 .
NERL-RTP-HEASD-0 1 -a065 .
Leovic K., Williams, R.. Ejire, A., Sanders, W., Thornburg, J., and Rodes, C. Participant
recruitment and retention for the NERL RTF PM Panel Study. Proposed abstract to the
. ISEA 2001." Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001. NERL-RTP-HEASD-0 l-a066.
Liao, Shy, C., Creason, J., Williams, R., and Nestor, J. Level of particulate air pollution is
associated with decreased cardiac autonomic control in the elderly. Society for
Epidemiology Research, Chicago, II, June 24-26, 1998. NHEERL-RTP-HSD-AB-98-
249.
Morris, G., Tolocka, M., Williams, R., and Rodes, C. Particulate organic carbon measurements
collected with low flow personal samplers. Proposed abstract to the ISEA 2001 .
Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001. NERL-RTP-HEASD-0 l-a067.
Rea, A., Zufall, M., Williams, R., Howard-Reed, C., and Sheldon, L. The influence of human
activity patterns on personal PM exposure: a comparative analysis of filter-based and
continuous particle measurements. ISEA 2000, Exposure Analysis in the 21st Century
Integrating Science, Policy and Quality of Life. Monterey, California, October 26, 2000,
NERL-RTP-HEASD-00-084.
Rea, A., Williams, R., Sheldon, L., Thornburg, J., and Rodes, C. Personal particulate matter
exposure monitoring-.sources, activities, and locations based on data from the NERL RTP
PM Panel Study. Submitted abstract to the 2001 AAAR. Portland, Oregon, October 1 5-
1 9, 200 1 . NERL-RTP-HEASD-0 1 -025 .
B-2
-------
Rea, A., Williams, R., Rodes, B., Hermann, M., and Thornburg, J. Real-time personal
nephelometer and time activity? data from the NERL RTF PM Panel Study. Submitted
abstract to the 2001 ISEA. Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001. NERL-RTP-HEASD-
01-041. ..
Howard-Reed, C., Zufall, M., Burke. J.. Williams, R., Suggs. J., Kwok. R.. and Sheldon. L. Use
of a continuous nephelometer to measure personal exposure to particulate matter: a novel
approach tested during the 1998 EPA Baltimore Panel Study. PM2000 Conference,
January 25-28,2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a569.
Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Williams, R., Evans, G., and Creason, J. The Utility of an A PRIORI
Assessment to Predict the Representativeness of a Single Sampling Location to Estimate
Personal PM Exposures in a High-Rise Facility. ISEA/ISEE '99. Athens, Greece,
September 5-8,1999.
Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Evans, G., Highsmith, R.,Sheldon, L., Williams, R., Vette, A., Walsh, D.,
and Creason, J. The relationship between personal PM exposures for elderly populations
and indoor and outdoor concentrations for three retirement center scenarios. PM2000
Conference. Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a575.
Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Thornburg, J., Zweidinger, R., Morris, G., Williams, R.. Evans. G..
Wallace, L.,and Sheldon, L. The potential influences of face velocity on PM artifact
losses for exposure samplers using teflon filter collection substrates. Submitted abstract
to the ISEA 2001. Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001. NERL-RTP-HEASD-01-063. •
Sheldon, L., Williams, R., Highsmith R., Highsmith, Rodes, C., Creason, J., and Walsh, D.
An overview of four human exposure panel studies, the U.S. EPA's particulate matter
studies involving elderly cohorts. PM2000 Conference, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-
RTP-HEASD-99-a639.
Sheldon, L., Rea, A., Vette, A., Howard-Reed, C., Williams, R., Highsmith, R., Rodes, C., and
Lawlesss, O. The contribution of particle resuspension to indoor and personal air
concentrations. ISEA 2000, Exposure Analysis in the 21st Century Integrating Science,
Policy and Quality of Life. Monterey, California. October 26, 2000, 4F-03o. NERL-
RTP-HEASD-00-107.
Shy, C., Creason, Liao, D., Williams, R., Zweidinger, R., Watts, R., Devlin, R.. Hazucha. M..and
Nestor, J. Physiological responses of elderly persons to particulate air pollution.
Presentation at the 14th Annual Conference on Air Pollution:Science and Regulation.
Health Effects Institute Annual meeting, Boston, MA, April 5-7, 1998. NHEERL-RTP-
HSD-AB-98-220.
Shy, C:, Creason, J., Liao, D., Williams, R., and Zweidinger, R. Presentation at the 10th
Conference for Environmental Epidemiology and 8th Conference of the International
Society of Exposure Analysis, Boston, MA, August 15-19, 1998.
B-3
-------
Suggs, J., Williams, R., and Creason, J. Power analysis of linear relationships between personal
exposure and indoor/outdoor PM2.5 concentrations at Baltimore and Fresno. PM2000
Conference. Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a570.
Vette, A., Rea, A., Lawless, P., Rodes, C., Evans, G., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., and Creason, J.
Indoor/outdoor aerosol concentration ratios during the 1999 Fresno particulate matter
exposure studies as a function of size, season, and time of day. PM2000 Conference.
Charleston, SC, January 25-28, 2000.
Vette, A.. Williams, R., Riediker, M., and Thornburg, J. Indoor/outdoor particle size
distributions measured in select homes in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC area.
Submitted abstract to the 2001 AAAR. Portland, Oregon, October 15-19, 2001. NERL-
RTP-HEASD-01-026.
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Suggs, J., Kwok, R., and Sheldon. L. Personal
exposure and ambient air sampling related to an elderly population living in a Baltimore
Retirement Center: Preliminary findings of the 1998 Baltimore Epidemiology-Exposure
Study. ISEA/ISEE '99, Athens, Greece, September 5-8, 1999. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-
a511.
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Watts, R., Shy, C., and Sheldon, L. Results from
Exposure Monitoring Performed During the 1997 Baltimore PM Pilot Study. 1999 III
Colloquium on Particulate Matter and Human Health. Durham, NC, June 6-8, 1999.
NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a520.
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Suggs, J., Kwok, R., and Sheldon, L. Exposure
Analysis from Personal and Ambient Air Sampling: Results of the 1998 Baltimore
Study. 1999 HI Colloquium on Particulate Matter and Human Health. Durham, NC. June
6-8,1999. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-a521.
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Zweidinger, R., Evans, G., Creason, J., Kwok, R., Rodes C., Lawless, P.,
and Sheldon, L. Comparison of various PM2.5 and PM10 particulate matter monitoring
methodologies. PM2000 Conference, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-99-
a583.
Williams, R., Creason, J., Zweidinger, R., Suggs, J., Kwok, R., and Sheldon, L. Exposure
analysis from personal and ambient air sampling: results of the 1998 Baltimore study.
Inhalation Toxicology, 12: (Supplement 2)142 (2000).
Williams, R., Suggs, J., Sheldon, L., Saraiya, N., Evans, G., Creason, J., Rodes, C., and
Lawless, P. Comparison of gaseous criteria air pollutants and particulate. matter
concentrations involving an elderly subject population in a Baltimore panel study.
AWMA International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Pollutants.
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 14,2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-00-051.
B-4
-------
Williams, R., Highsmith, R., Sheldon, L., Rea, A.., Vette, A., Suggs, S., Leovic, K., Howard-
Reed, C., Sanders, G., Ejire, A., R<5des, C., Tht>rnburg, J., and Lawless, P. Preliminary
findings from the NERL Research Triangle Park paniculate matter panel study. ISEA
2000 Exposure Analysis in 'the 21st Century Integrating Science, Policy and Quality of
Life.' Monterey, California, October 26, 2000. NERL-RTP-HEASD-00-091.
Williams R Creason. J., Zweidinger. R., Watts, R., and Shy. C. Results from exposure
monitoring performed during the 1997 Baltimore PM pilot study. Inhalation Toxicology,
12: (Supplement 2) 142 (2000).
Williams, R., Rea, A., Suggs, J., Leovic, K., Vette, A., Sheldon, L., Rodes, C., Thornburg, J..
Ejire, A., and Sanders, W. Mass concentration relationships from the NERL RTP
Particulate Matter Panel Study. Proposed abstract to the ISEA 2001. Charleston, SC.
November 4-8, 2001. NERL-RTP-HEASD-01-045,
Zufall M..Burke, J., Williams, R., Suggs, J., Kwok,R., Walsh,D., Creason,!., and Sheldon. L.
' Effects of human activity patterns on personal PM2.5 concentrations of residents in a
Baltimore retirement facility. PM2000 Conference, January 25-28, 2000. NERL-RTP-
HEASD-99-a571.
University of Washington Research Group-Research Abstracts
Dills R Paulsen, M., Simpson, C., Liu, L.-J. S., and Kalman, D. Urinary biomarkers for
' atmospheric wood smoke exposure -a field study. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA 40'h Annual '
Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov 8-10,2000.
Larson T Allen R and Liu, L.-J. S. Indoor and outdoor contributions to indoor light scattering
'coefficient at'ten residences in Seattle, WA. ISEA 2000 Annual Conference,Monterey,
CA, Oct 24-27, 2000.
T arson T Tuttle T and Liu, L.-J. S. Measurement of indoor and outdoor PM2,andlight
scattering'coe'fficient * selected residences in Seattle, WA. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA
40thAnnual Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov 8-10, 2000.
Larson T Allen R., and Liu, L.-J. S. Indoor and outdoor contributions to indoor light-scattering
'coefficient at 54 residences in Seattle, WA. Proposed abstract to the ISEA 2001.
Charleston, SC, November 4-8, 2001.
Liu-L.-J. S. and Box, M. Particulate matter exposure assessment for compromised elderly
adults. ISEA 2000 Annual Conference, Monterey, CA, Oct 24-27,2000.
Liu L -J S., Larson, T., Koenig, J, Kalman, D., and Sheppard, L. Particulate Matter exposure
' ' assessment for compromised elderly adults. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA 40'" Annual
Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov 8-10,2000.
B-5
-------
Liu, L.-J. S., Kalman, D., Kaufman, J;, Koenig, J., Larson, T., Sheppard. L.. and Lumley. T.
Exposure assessment of particulate matter and co-pollutants for compromised and healthy
elderly adults in Seattle, WA (1999-2000). Submitted abstract to the 2001 AAAR.
Portland, Oregon, October 15-19, 2001.
Liu, L.-J. S., Slaughter, C., and Larson, T. Evaluation of two types of light scattering devices and
impactors for measuring PM2 5 in indoor, outdoor, and personal environments. Submitted
abstract to the 2001 AAAR. Portland, Oregon, October 15-19, 2001.
Lumley, T., Liu, L.-J. S., and Larson, T. Spatial distribution of particulates in Seattle, WA.
ISEA 2000 Annual Conference, Monterey, CA, Oct 24-27, 2000. Larson, T.. and
Claibom, C. Comparison of indoor and outdoor fine particulate organic and elemental
carbon measurements in Seattle. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA 40lh Annual Conference. Victoria.
BC, Canada, Nov 8-10, 2000.
Trenga, C., Slaughter, C., Sullivan, J., Jansen, K., Liu, L.-J. S., Sheppard, L.. and Koenig, J.
Symptoms, medication use and personal particulate matter exposure in subjects with and
without COPD. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA 40th Annual Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada,
Nov 8-10,2000.
Sheppard, L. Application of the random component superposition model to PM2.5 exposure
distributions. ISEA 2000 Annual Conference, Monterey, CA, Oct 24-27, 2000.
Simpson, C., Dills, R., Paulsen, M., Liu, L.-J. S., and Kalman, D. Methoxyphenols as tracers of
atmospheric woodsmoke exposure. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA 40th Annual Conference,
Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov 8-10, 2000.
Sullivan, J., Mar, T., Slaughter, C., Jansen, K., Kaufman, J., Trenga, C., Koenig, J., and Liu,
L.-J. S. Heart rate and. oxygen saturation levels are not associated with personal exposure
levels of PM2.5 in an elderly population with and without COPD. 2000 PNWIS/AWMA
40th Annual Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov 8-10, 2000.
Harvard School of Public Health Research Group-Research Abstracts
Reid, C., Ryan, P.,Wheeler, A., and Suh, H. Human exposures to criteria gases in Atlanta,
Georgia. AWMA 94th Annual Conference and Exhibition, Student Program, Orlando.
FL, June 24-28, 2001.
Wheeler, A., Gold, D., Speizer, F., Koutrakis, P., and Suh, H. Characterization of PM2.5
exposures: composition and health effects. PM2000 Particulate Matter and Health—The
Scientific Basis for Regulatory Decision Making, Specialty Conference and Exhibition
Charleston, SC, January 24-28, 2000.
B-6
-------
Wheeler, A., Suh, H., and Ryan, B. Personal, indoor and outdoor paniculate matter exposures
for two sensitive cohorts in Atlanta;' Georgia. -10th Annual Conference of the International
Society of Exposure Analysis, Monterey, CA, October 24-27, 2000.
Wheeler, A., Suh, H., Zanobetti, A., Gold, D., and Schwartz, J. Effects of ambient air pollution
on the heart rate variability (hrv) of two sensitive cohorts in Atlanta, GA.
13th Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology,
Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. September 2 - 5, 2001.
B-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
Residence Survey, Daily Follow Up Questionnaire, and Activity Pattern Diary
C-l
-------
Residence Survey
Address:
CD'High rise apt. (>3 floors)
CD Trailer
CD Other, please specify: _
Building Characteristics
1. Type of dwelling:
CD Detached house
CD Duplex/triplex
CD Row house
CD Low rise apt. (1-3 floors)
2. Approximate age of building (years): | | |
3. Is the dwelling located within 100 yards of a busy roadway?
4. Is there a dirt road located within 100 yards of the dwelling?
5. Are there any other sources of dust (construction, im
garage, etc.) located within 100 yards of the dwelling
6. What type of garage, if any, is there in the dwelling?
N
CD
N
CD
5. Are there any other sources of dust (construction, industry, commercial y
garage, etc.) located within 100 yards of the dwelling? CD
CD Attached
CD None, detached, or separate carport
6. a. Is this garage used for:
CD Parking one car CD Parking two cars CD Storage only
CD Underneath
Ventilation Characteristics
I. JHow many separate central AC or window/wall units are in the home?
I""] Central AC units , [ | Window/wall AC units
2. What are the heating sources in the home?
CD Radiators (steam or hot water) CD Kerosene space heater
C=> Forced air <=> Wood b"™"nE stove
CD Open stove <=> Fireplace
C=> Electric space heater CD Other, please specify:
CD Gas space heater
C-2
-------
Residence Survey
Address:
3. Is there a whole-house or attic fan?
4. What is the thermostat setting? | | | 00
Y N
5. Are there storm windows?
Ventilation Characteristics (cunt.)
Y N
6. How would you best describe the VENTILATION in this dwelling?
O
-------
Residence Survey
Address:
Room Characteristics
Draw a floor plan of the house in the space provided below. Include windows, curtains/drapcx
and location of_vcnulatipn Astern supplies and_ returns.,
C-4
-------
Presence of
molds, mildew,
water damage
C-5
-------
SBw Daily Follow-Up Questionnaire
£Jf (Technician Administered)
PufliCipJBl ID Start Dulf {vtsterdsy*! date)
i OMUCmml »>. 20)04051
I: ATOTPTI! EABucs 7&JC3
• on tuoaxaiulfarm. Koufjllt tiuiu cartjuity. axiius "*#*» Hie daisuiUfil kaxex.
ttse Hufitary time.
i.B. OtJyau-SQlo&£Cl£3tcUtsoTCi^f^inTcK is&'i 24 naurs.'.' | j ] Cigarexies [ j ; CEBITS
Ib, How taawf pctf>1c, IfiCtitdios: visSlCts. sincfetii cigarctlia cc cigars UKidc yaw home in the fcw 24 b.iur> •' i l_
Ic. Aboul bow mni]
2. Were auy racals cooked using she slovc in yaur hi-x^s in lie LEK 2J haui;''' O Ye,
Ja, HC'iiVJiicui>BKSCsdid}'i5«U5t-l!a:.S!«'veinaicl!i5l24humj? | [ I
5b. Did you use &c save far ar{' cJFrtic follcwng. activities,? Abour wtai lime'?
OFt>inE TinK^ mm
===
Sc. Did ym bum anj-fccd io ths last 24 hoiusV i.tg^ toasS> O Yes O No
3d. Was 4hcodimG££mttscd for esiy cooking actHity? OYcs
ft Aliouz what fame? How loos?
Tim of daj"? Ounitiixi of iutniag ^jnrni:tm;j-?
OY« OK* II "1:1' II II |'"1
IncciM^ TinuMrfdayS Duration, of fccBnsnc.fcumnrs)?
OYO, 01* CD:CD rrri
«o- If 80. ttlurt c^ie of vaaa
-------
fS&\ Daily'Follow-Up Questionnaire
\£^ (TechniciaE Administered)
Partktpam ID Sin
A A B <' it 5,-J M D D Y V
5, Dui>tw hav-cjisy window* tvpcinnibc iaw. 2-1 houi5V ^^'^ *p ^
5A ttsnt nsony -wndowi were open *i Ox* td£t 24 bMift >' •; i j
5b. Abcul hcnv' many «K*to -.viijc v^erc ^cj i^rai?
Window #1 WfaKJttw =C' Wmdow*s WiniuwtSa
ml ' : i ;' "* ' 1
FT i LjJ •
VfindjSW -! Window &2 Vr'jiuJow *3
on cn
6. lh4y<>Vu» * gas or kerosene facJ^ps^hwi^nrgittsMVEittfac^ O Yes O Nv
jiitinv ia>urr. did vou use tfitl
?JL Did yixi or awnivnit «Jw flft- "H^ fe is«i J
Ti*ue«iciiuinan£ Tiax dusliRg
O Svfts^iJr^L i__l__hL_j_J Lft-i—'"I—-i—*
S. Did jxwi use an air dwin&- sn lite f^s: 24 hours? O Yes O Nu
gn. tf sa. "wiMrft of lt» ftvHy winft *ar clcamog daviuc{sj -did jwu tasc?
O FUter
St., AlxKit-afaai lane did >«u uw »i oir^
Jinx air cloriis m«>=3 cm: Tcnc sir cleaner turaoS off
Ml"; ' i I—i—l:LJ—I
*). W«e there au> pels inside your iwnie in liK SB* 24 hours? ,O Ytu O Ni>
>-? g j "]
C-7
-------
fl-flfl
US
:3i
!«
-JiM
•.IS
sia
745
SlM
=15
da
*iS
,.w
:IS
JO
:«
10:0«
sis
fi»
us
11:09
:t*
£30
;45
j
j
r
1
1
•
:
!
i
m
Subject ID
SMrtttelc
WWW
C-8
-------
SabjttllP
...| ___,
«•" Scnc as p,cevl.ptis page "•
C-9
-------
PM6HW
IfcOO
rt
... . ». p
•
4)
s
»
15
_| L [_
_l p
|
C - s-
; '•
mill
— Sane «8 ftvnaus
C-10
-------
AM 13:00
1:00
Z-M
3:6*
4:*t)
5!.«
foO&
:li
30
sIS
-**»
M
am
M
KM
as
•jt
:45
*w
;15
-3D
243
t
L
L
L
i
I
ns
nt
m&
ww
i
L
:
.
iMi
Sahjtcl ED
tillt CD'CD'CD
»* s=aiit «s pi'ftvious page "
C-ll
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
PM Mass Concentration Data and Field Data Collection Summaries.
Table D-l. Summary of Method Performance Data for PMZS and PM10 PEM Samplers
(1998 Baltimore Study)
Statistic
number of samples collected
% samples collected within flow rate
specifications (± 20% of 2 1pm)
% of samples collected within total sampling
parameters (meeting nominal flow rate and MDL)
Mean mass of field blanks
Precision of every 20th filter replicate
Estimated MDL (ug/m3)
RMS differences of duplicate field samples
(ug/m3) ,
Estimated MQL (ug/m3)
% of samples meeting MQL
PM2.5
719
99
97
0.72 ug
± 1.99
0.69
±3.95
2.08
100
PMIO
170
98
98
0.72 ug
±1.99
0.69
±4.30
2.08
100
MDL = method limit of detection, MQL = method limit of quantification, MQL = 3 X MDL.
Values assume 2 1pm flowrate and 1440 minute sample collections.
D-l
-------
Table D-2. Summary Statistics of Personal PM2.S Exposures by Date
(1998 Baltimore Study)
•——•"—•
\lp T")av
/lw j-xt*jr
••.I "••
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
N (subjects)
* \ J '
12
13
14
0
13
14
13
0
14
13
13
11
14
13
0
11
14
13
13
13
14
0
13
14
13
14
13
Mean
14.0
15.9
24.8
— ;
19.0
14.5
6.8
—
11.6
18.3
11.3
11.5
10.7
11.3
- —
9.1
12.4
14.6
11.8
10.0
9.4
—
11.0
15.0
8.1
9.5
18.1
Min
9.6
9.5
14,2
—
14.4
10.3
3.0
—
8.2
8.6
7.4
7.1
5.8
7.5
—
5.0
7.5
8.8
7.8
7.2
,6.2
—
7.0
11.1
2.4
4.2
8.7
.
Max
19.4
30.5
47.8
26.1
20.4
10.9
"•• ~~
20.2
26.1
17.7
14.8
16.7
14.8
™
13.6
19.3
21.9
17.1
15.0
12.9
—
16.4
19.3
11.5
22.6
33.7
CV
22.4
39.7
33.4
18.3
20.1
35.9
28.6
24.2
28.8
26.9
33.5
19.3
29.8
29.0
29.0
26.2
26.1
21.4
23.3
16.1
38.1
47.2
38.0
^number of successful personal exposure samples collected per day. Dates with no vaiues represent scheduled
non-sampling periods
D-2
-------
Table D-3. Summary Statistics of PM2.5 Mass Concentrations (p.g/m3) by Measure and
Location (1998 Baltihiore Study)
Statistic
Sample size
(days)
Arithmetic
(Geometric)
Means
Min
Max
CV
Ratio2 to
matched
ambient
PEMor
FRM PM2.5
monitor
Ratio3 to
co-located
PMIO PEM
Personal
23
13.0
(12.4)
6.8
24.8
32.4
0.70
(n=21)
Apartment
16
10.5
(9-5)
3.8
20.5
47.0
0.49
(n=14)
0.73
(n=15)
PEM
Indoor
26
9.4
(8.5)
3.7
19.2
46.6
0.49
(n=24)
0.92
(n=26)
FRM1
Outdoor
28
22.0
(19.3)
6.7 •
51.6
54.5
1.03
(n=25)
0.71
(n=28)
Ambient
25
22.0
(19.2)
8.4
59.3
58.7
0.72
(n=25)
Outdoor
28
19.7
(16.8)
6.8
49.6
58.9
1.05
(n=26)
— .
Ambient
26
20.4
(17.3)
3.9
55.3
58.9
_
—
'Federal Reference Method Sampler for PM2S. Arith =arithmetric means, geo = geometric means. Descriptive
statistics utlized arithmetric values.
2Ratio of matched instrument mass concentration relative to the ambient PEM or the ambient FRM PM, 5 sampler.
Values in () represent number of daily pairs compared.
3Ratio of PM2 5 measure to that of a co-located PEM PM10 monitor. Values in () represent number of daily pairs
compared.
D-3
-------
Table D-4. Summary Statistics of PEM PM10 Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Location
(1998 Baltimore Study)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic
(Geometric) Means
Min
Max
CV
Ratio1 to matched
ambient PM10 monitor
Apartment
15
13.5
(12.5)
7.1
29.8
44.0 '
0.48
(n=14)
Indoor
28
11.0
(10.0)
3.5
23.2
45.5
0.39
(n=26)
Outdoor
28-
30.0
(27.6)
12.8
65.6
45.6
1.05
(n=26)
Ambient
26
29.9
(27.3)
12.5
73.6
47.5
—
'Ratio of mass concentration relative to the ambient PEM PM10 sampler. Values in () represent number of daily
pairs compared. Descriptive statistics represent arithmetic values.
Table D-5. Summary Statistics of PEM PM10.2.5 Mass Concentrations by Location
(1998 Baltimore Study)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic
(Geometric)
Means (ug/m3)
Min (ng/m3)
Max (ug/m3)
CV (%)
Ratio1 to calculated
ambient PM,0.2 5 variable
Apartment
15
3.5
(3.0)
1.3
9.4
61.9
1.1
(n=13)
Central Indoor
26
1.0
(1.7)
-3.1
4.8
207.9
0.3
(n=24)
Outdoor
28
8.0
(7-7)
-2.0
15.7
46.9
1.0
(n=25)
Ambient
25
8.0
(6.7)
0.6
15.3
46.5
—
PM < is defined as the mass contained within the PM2.5 to PM10 size fraction- 'Ratio of mass concentration relat.ve
to the PNW5 value derived from the ambient PM2, and PM10 PEMs. Values in () represent number of da, y pa.rs
compared. Descriptive statistics (min, max, CV) represent arithmetic values. Apartment values were calculated
from the means from each sample collection day.
D-4
-------
Table D-6. Summary Statistics of Pm2.5 Mass Concentrations (u.g/m3) by Sampling
Location (Fresno 1)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic (Geometric)
Means (ug/m3)
Min (ng/m3)
Max (ng/m3)
CV(%)
Ratio2 to matched outdoor
monitor
Ratio3 to co-located PM,0
monitor
Personal
24
13.3
(11.4)
0.4
23.8
39.6
0.74
(n=23)
—
Apartment
24
9.7
(9-1)
3.8
16.7
34.1
0.54
(n=23)
0.64
(n=24)
Outdoor
28
20.5
(16.7)
3.8
52.0
65.1
0.73
(n=28)
Ambient1
13
21.7
(18.7)
6.1
36.8
48.3
1.32
(n=13)
0.65
(n=10)
Descriptive statistics (mm, max, CV) represent arithmetic values,
PRM instrument 2Ratio of matched instrument mass concentration relative to outdoor PM2.5 PEM. Values i
£±JZ£ of dSy paTrs compared. 'Ratio of PM,5 measure to that of a collocated PM10 momtor. Values m
() represent number of daily pairs compared.
Table D-7. Summary Statistics of PM10 Mass Concentrations (fig/m3) by Sampling
Location (Fresno 1)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic (Geometric)
Means (ug/m3)
Min (ug/m3)
Max (ug/m3)
CV (%)
Ratio2 to matched
outdoor monitor
Apartment
24
15.1
(14.5)
80
.2.
22.8
27.8
0.62
(n=24)
Outdoor
28
28.2
(23.6)
5 6
62.7
56.2
Ambient1
28
34.1
. (27.3)
2.7
76.1
54.4
1.09
(n=28)
Descriptive statistics (mm, max, CV) represent arithmetic values. 'Platform PM10 measurement were made by a
comTnuous TEOM instrument. 'Ratio of matched instrument mass concentration relative to outdoor PM,0 PEM.
VaTues in ( Represent number of daily pairs compared. Apartment values were calculated from the means over
each sample collection day.
D-5
-------
Table D-8. Summary Statistics of Pm^ Mass Concentrations (ug/m3) by Sampling
Location (Fresno 2)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic
(Geometric)
Means (p.g/m3)
Min (|ig/m3)
Max (ug/m3)
CV (%)
Ratio2 to matched
outdoor monitor
Ratio3 to co-located PM10
Personal
12
11.1
(10.8)
7.2
15.8
22.8
1.15
(n=12)
— .
Apartment
24
8.0
(7.8)
4.3
12.0
21.2
0.84
(n=24)
0.47
(n=24)
Outdoor
28
10.1
(9-6)
4.6
20.2
31.9
—
0.36
(n=28)
Ambient1
28
8.6
(8-2)
4.3
1.6.1
34.3
0.83
(n=28) .
0.41
(n=28)
Descriptive statistics (min, max, CV) represent arithmetic values. 'Platform PM2.5 measurements were made by a
continuous TEOM instrument. 'Ratio of matched instrument mass concentration relative to outdoor PM25 PEM.
Values in ( ) represent number of daily pairs compared. 3Ratio of PM2.5 measure to that of a collocated PMIO PEM
monitor. Values in ( ) represent number of daily pairs compared.
Table D-9. Summary Statistics of PM10 Mass Concentrations (ng/m3) by Sampling
Location (Fresno 2)
Statistic
Sample size (days)
Arithmetic
(Geometric)
Means (u.g/m3)
Min(ng/m3)
Max (|J.g/m3)
CV (%)
Ratio2 to matched outdoor
monitor
Personal
12
37.3
(36:7)
27.8
51.6
19.3
—
Apartment
24
16.7
(16.5)
12
22.6
14.4
0.59
(n=24)
Outdoor
28
28.7
(28.0)
17.3
41.4
23.0
Ambient1
28
21.9
(21.0)
8,7
• 36.3
27.2
0.76
(n=28)
Descriptive statistics (min, max, CV) represent arithmetic values. 'Platform PMIO measurements were made by a
continuous TEOM instrument. 'Ratio of matched instrument mass concentration relative to platform PM10 PEM.
Values in ( ) represent number of daily pairs compared. Apartment values were calculated from the means over
each sample collection day.
D-6
-------
Table D-10. NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM2.S Mass Concentration
Summary (2000-2001)
Summer 2000 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
personal
_— ,^— — •— —
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
personal
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
personal
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
personal
n(days)
21
21
21
21
mean
22.7
22.8
23.7
28.4
gmean
21.9
20.1
22.7
26.0
cv
27.3
57.1
29.3
46.6
mm
14.5
7.0
12.4
14.9
max
35.0
64.9
39.1
74.9
Summer 2000 African- American Panel
n(days)
51
51
51
50
n(days)
20
21
21
21 •
mean
20.9
18.8
23.0
25.6
Fall 2000
mean ,
19.5
24.2
19.5
26.8
gmean
. 19.5
17.2
21.3
22.2
cv
37.3
43.2
36.5
67.0 •
min
7.3
6.6
6.4
8.7
max
37.1
45.0
39.9
99.5
Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
gmean
17.2
20.0
17.4
24.5
cv
47.3
69.2
47.2
40.1
min
6.0
7.7
7.5
9.0
max
41.0
80.0
42.4
48.2
Fall 7000 African-American Panel
n(days)
40
. 42
42
42
, mean
19.0
21.5
19.2
23.9
gmean
16.4
19.1
16.9
21.5
cv
, 54.3
50.2
50.9
: . 49.0
min
6.0
5.7
5.9
8.3
max
45.5
49.6
46.9
60.4
D-7
-------
Table D-10 (cont'd). NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM2.5 Mass Concentration
Summary (2000-2001)
Winter 2000 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
personal
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
20
21
21
21
n(days)
41
42
42
42
meari
15.2
16.0
13.6
26.0
Winter 2001
mean
14.8
13.9
16.1
19.4
gmean
14.0 .
12.9
12.4
21.0
cv
40.5
70.1
47.7
• 76.3
min
5.0
4.1
6.2
7.8
max
26.5
49.2
33.8
85.9
African-American Panel
gmean
13.4
12.7
14.9
18.2
cv
44.7
48.1
38.6
38.1
min
5.0
5.2
5.2
9.7
max
32.9
38.4
31.6
36.1
Spring 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
n(days)
21
20
16
19
n(days)
35
35
30
35
mean
15.9
23.9
18.7
29.3
Spring 2001
mean
17
18.1
19.5
21.3
gmean
14.9
20.6
17.6
27.4
cv
31.9
58.3
35.9
36.4
min.
5.8
8.7
7.6
13.3
max
25.0
51.1
36.4
48.1
African-American Panel
• gmean
16.0
16.7
18.4
20.1
cv
34.4
43.2
33.0
35.4
min
5.8
5.9
7.8
9.6
max '
29.3
44.1
31.9
49.9
D-8
-------
Table D-ll. NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM,0 Mass Concentration
Summary (2000-2001)
Summer 2000 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
21
21
21
mean
30.5
28.0
31.5
gmean
29.7
25.2
30,6
cv
22.9
49.2
25.1
min
16.8
8.5
19.0
max
46.4
71.9
53.3
Summer 2000 African-American Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
51
51
51
n(days)
21
21
21
mean
29.6
24.5
31.8
Fall 2000
mean
34.2
30.4
28.6
gmean
27.7
22.7
29.9
cv
34.7
38.8
34.1
min
11.1
9.2
10.4
max
53.2
49.5
61.4
Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
gmean
30.2
27.5
26.4
Fall 2000 African-American
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
42
42
42
mean
32.9
29.5
29.1
gmean
28.1
27.0
26.3
cv
46.8
44.7
38.1
Panel
cv
55.8
42.8
45.6
min
8.1
12.5
10.2
min
8.1
9.3
9.1
max
74.9
51.8
47.1
max
84.7
63.2
67.5
D-9
-------
Table D-ll (cont'd). NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM,0 Mass Concentration
Summary (2000-2001)
Winter 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
21
20
21
n(days)
41
42
42
mean
22.7
34.5
21.5
Winter 2001
mean
23.6
24.1
25.4
gmean
20.9
25.8
20.0
cv
37.0
91.1
38.1
min
4.8
6.5
10.9
max
38.7
147.8
39.1
African-American Panel
gmean
21.8
22.8
24.1
cv
37.3
36.7
33.2
min
4.8
12.4
11.1
max
42.7
48.8
50.1
Spring 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
19
• 20
21
n(days)
33
35
35 .
mean
47.8
36.8
43.9
Spring 2001
mean
42.6
29.4
40.0
gmean
42.1
32.6
38.5
cv
52.0
48.4
48.9
min
14.7
10.2
9.7
max
105.0
71.8
94.8
African-American Panel
gmean
38.8
28.0
38.1
cv
47.6
33.2
30.9
min
14.7
12.6
14.4
max
105.0
58.5
74.0
D-10
-------
Table D-12. NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PMI0.2.S Mass Concentration
Summary (2000^-2061)
Summer 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
6
21
21
mean
6.9
5.5
8.3
gmean
7.8
5.8
8.9
cv
15.6
54.0
31.8
min
5.3
1.5
3.5
max
8.4
11.4
14.2
Summer 2000 African-American Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
13
51
51
n(days)
6
21
21
mean
7.5
5.8
8.7
Fall 2000
mean
14.0
8.5
9.3
gmean
8.3
5.6
9.0
cv
28.8
77.7
48.8
min
4.5
0.1
3.9
max
11.4
19.8
25.0
Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
gmean
14.0
8.3
9.0
Fall 2000 African-American
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
12
42
42
mean
12.1
8.0
' 9.8
gmean
12.2
7.5
9.9
cv
46.9
45.8
55.0
Panel
cv
45.9
59.7
43.8
min
8.4
-0.4
1.3
min
5.8
-0.8
3.0
max
26.3
14.9
20.5
max
26.3
20.9
20.4
D-ll
-------
Table D-12 (cont'd). NERL/NHEERL/RTI RTF Panel Study PM10.2.5 Mass
Concentration Summary (2000-2001)
Winter 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
«—————"
i «• •— — — ~
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
.— — — —
.I _— «•— —
Variable
ambient
indoor
outdoor
___— — ^— •••
Variable
.
ambient
indoor
outdoor
n(days)
5
19
19
n(days)
12
42
42
mean
6.2
. 16.6
8.4
Winter 2001
mean
5.4
10.2
9.7
gmean
6.8
12.4
7.6
cv
45.7
153.7
81.0
min
3.5
-1.1
1.6
max
10.6
116.6
24.7
African-American Panel
gmean
6.1
9.8
9.1
cv
38.3
72.9
65.8
min
2.6
3.3
1.6
max
10.6
39.8
30.0
Spring 2001 Cardiac Defibrillator Panel
n(days)
4
13
13
n(days)
8
30
30
mean
19.1
12.5
26.8
Spring 2001
mean
15.9
10.7
19.2
gmean
18.3
12.3
20.8
cv
51.4
37.4
72.6
min
8.8
3.6
2.4
max
32.1
22.7
58.4
African-American Panel
gmean
14.9
11.1
18.4
cv
48.7
37.4
49.6
min
8.4
5.1
5.8
max
32.1
19.4
47.8
D-12
-------
Table D-13. PM2S Mass Concentrations from the Atlanta HSPH Studies by Panel
Season
Fall
1999
Spring
2000
Panel Sample Type
COPD Personal
Indoor
Outdoor
MI Personal
Indoor
Outdoor
COPD Personal
Indoor
Outdoor
Mean
19.3
17.5
18.0
15.5
14.4
16.2
15.3
18.1
22.4
Median
15.2
12.7
14.5
.12.3
12.2
11.9
13.5-
14.6
21.2
Std. Dev.
15.7
22.9
21.8
8.5
9.4
13.4
8.2 .
13.8
9.8
Count
92
93
81
56
56 .
57 -
87
82
82
GSD
1.79
2.17
1.96
1.76
1.71
1.77
1.76
2.04
1.63
Geomean
16.0
12.6
13.9
13.3
12.4
13.3
13.3
14.3
20.1
MI
Personal
Indoor
Outdoor
13.5
21.2
22.9
13.8
15.4
20.4
6,1
14.9
11.3
63
62
55
2.36
1.82
1.94
11.0
17.6
19.5
GSD= geometric standard deviation. Count= number of independent filter-based samples collected.
Mass Concentration Summary from the Atlanta HSPH Studies
Mean
Median
SD
Count
GSD
Personal
17.9
14.7
13.6
148
1.8
14.9
Fall 1999
Indoor
16.3
12.5
19.0
149
2.0
12.5
Outdoor
17.2
13.8
18.8
138
1.9
13.7
Personal
14.5
13.6
7.4
150
2.1
12.3
Spring 2000
Indoor
19.4
14.9
14.3
144
2.0
15.6
Outdoor
22.4
20.8
10.6
138
1.8
19.9
D-13
-------
Table D-15. Collected Samples from the Winter
Boston Field Studies
1999-2000 & Summer 2000
Personal
Winter n=l 05
Summer n= 105
PM2.S
PM0
(summer only)
EC-OC
Sulfate
Ozone
S02
N02
Time activity
diary
Daily follow-up
questionnaire
Motion sensor
2nd Personal
Winter n=56
Summer n= 56
PM2.5
PM10
(summer only)
EC-OC
Sulfate
Ozone
SO2
N02
Time activity
diary
Daily follow-up
questionnaire
Motion sensor
Indoor
Winter n= 105
Summer n= 105
PM2.5
PMIO
EC-OC
Sulfate
Ozone
SO,
NO2
Air exchange
rate
Continuous
temp, and RH
Continuous CO
Outdoor
Winter n= 105
, Summer n=98
PM2.5
PM10
EC-OC
Sulfate
Ozone
SO,
NO2
Air exchange
rate
Continuous
temp, and RH
Continuous CO
(only 1 location
during summer)
Misc.
n=25
Household
questionnaire
Floor plan of
home
—
—
. —
—
—
—
~
• —
D-14
-------
Table D-16. Collected Samples from Each Season of the Winter 1999-2000 & Summer
2000 Los Angeles Field Study '
Personal
(n= 105)
Indoor
(n=105)
Outdoor
(n=105)
Misc.
(n=23)
PM2.5
PM10
EC-OC
Nitrate
Ozone
SO2
NO2
Time activity diary
Daily follow-up
questionnaire
Motion sensor
PM2.5
PMIO
EC-OC
Nitrate
Ozone
S02
NO2
Air exchange rate
Continuous temp.
andRH
Continuous CO
PMZ5
PMIO
EC-OC
Nitrate
Ozone
SO2
NO2
Air exchange rate
Continuous temp.
andRH
Continuous CO
Household
questionnaire
Floor plan of home
D-15
-------
Table D-17. Summary of PM Measurements from the 1999-2000 Seattle Panel Study
Location
Personal
Indoor
Outdoor
Community
site
Pollutant
PM,5
(ug/rn3)
PM2.5
(ug/m3)
PM10
(ug/m3)
PM2.5
(ug/m3)
PM]0
(ug/m3)
PM,S
(ug/m3)
PM10
(ug/m3)
Subjects
COPD
Healthy
COPD
Healthy
COPD
Healthy
COPD
Healthy
COPD
Healthy
All
All
N
458
419
458
419
458
419
458
419
458
419
880
880
Mean
13.9
12.8
8.2
7.6
13.4
12.5
8.7
9.3
13.8
14.5
8.5
14.5
SD
11.7 ••
12.2
5.2
4.4
6.5
6.6
4.7
4.9
6.7
6.8
4.5
8.2
Min
-1.2
0.8
1.0
0.4
2.5
1.6
1.6
1.4
2.9
2.9
1.4
2.7
Max
81.2
103.3
49.9
38.0
38.6
62.2
25.7
24.6
54.9
54.9
22.4
46.3
D-16
-------
Table D-18. Type and Location of Samples Collected in the Seattle Studies (1999-2001)
Measurements
PM,o
PM2.5
PM,
Personal
' —
HPEM (4 1pm)
Personal
nephelometer
Indoor
HI (10 1pm)
HI (10 1pm)
Nephelometer
Outdoor
HI (10 1pm)
HI (10 1pm)
Nephelometer
Central Site
HI (10 1pm)
HI (10 1pm)
Nephelometer
Aerosol number,
size
EC/OC(1)
Gasoline marker
WS/SVOC(3) •
WS biomarker
CO
NO2/S02
Air exchange
rate
Continuous RH
Continuous
temp
Compliance
Time/activity
and medication
PEF/FEV,
Pulse rate/O2
HRV/BP
HPEM
Urine sample
HPEM/PUF
Urine sample
Breath sample
Ogawa badge
Motor on/off
Diaries
Airwatch
monitor
Pulse oximeter
Holter monitor
DMA. CPCS, DMA, CPCS, DMA, CPCS. APC("
APC(1) APC(I)
HI, IOGAPS'2' HI, IOGAPS(2) HI. IOGAPS'21
HI/PUF HI/PUF HI/PUF & IOGAPS12'
HI/PUF HI/PUF HI/PUF
Langan CO
TelAir/PFT
Onset logger
Onset logger
TECO 48/Dasibi 3
TelAir
(I) Differential mobility analyzer (DMA), condenstaion particle counter sensor (CPCS), and aerodynamic particle
counter (APC) were deployed in the Year 2 study. (2) Integrated organic gas and particle samplers (IOGAPS) were
deployed in Year 2. (3)WS/SVOC represents woodsmoke-semivolatile organic carbon.
D-17
-------
Table D-19. Summary of Personal Samples Collected in the Seattle Studies (1999-2001)
Panel
Year 1 COPD
Healthy
# of subjects
15
12
5
20
11
# of seasons
1
2
3
1
2
Total subject
days
150
240
150
200
220
Year 2
Heart Diseased
Asthmatics
Total
13
11
1
6
13
107
1
2
3
. 1
2
130
220
30
60
260
1660
D-18
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency/ORD
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEREd ;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
S300
EPA/600/R-01/086
------- |