&EPA
EPA/600/R-11/048
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
The DEARS Data Analysis Workshops:
Summary of Findings and Discussions
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
-------
-------
The DEARS Data Analysis Workshops
Summary of Findings and Discussions
Ron Williams
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded in whole by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has
been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for us.
-------
Acknowledgements
The Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division in the National Exposure Research
Laboratory thank the Steering Committee and volunteer workgroup participants for their time
and contributions to the workshop. It thanks the NERL administrative support staff who
provided logistical support in conducting the workshop and in the production of this summary.
in
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Acknowledgements iii
1. Background 1
1.1 Overall Goal 2
1.2 Specific Objectives 2
1.3 Approach 2
2. Steering Committee and Workgroups Pre-Part 1 Workshop Discussion 4
2.1 Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty Workgroup 4
2.2 Human Exposure Modeling Workgroup 4
2.3 Atmospheric and Environmental Modeling Workgroup 4
2.4 Health and Epidemiology Workgroup 5
3. Part 1-Workshop Event 5
4. Part 2-Workshop Event 8
5. Common Needs 8
6. Workshop Conclusions 9
7. Attachments 11
Attachment 1-Draft Research Questions 12
Attachment 2-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Workgroup Members 16
Attachment 3-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Agenda 17
Attachment 4-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Invited Attendee List 18
Attachment 5-DEARS Study Objectives Progress Report Presentation 19
Attachment 6-Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty Workgroup Summary 39
Attachment 7-Human Exposure Modeling Workgroup Summary 44
Attachment 8-Environmental and Atmospheric Modeling Workgroup Summary 48
Attachment 9-Health and Epidemiology Workgroup Summary 52
Attachment 10-Common Needs Summary 55
Attachment 11 -Data Analysis Workshop Part 2 Agenda 57
Attachment 12-Overall Workgroup Summaries 58
Attachment 13-DEARS Publication Plan 60
Attachment 14-Common Needs Priorities 62
IV
-------
The DEARS Data Analysis Workshops
Summary of Findings and Discussions
Organizational Sponsor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Chair: Ron Williams, (ORD)
Steering Committee: Val Garcia (ORD), Karen Wesson (OAQPS), Jennifer-Richmond Bryant
(NCEA), Rich Cook (OTAQ)
1. Background
The Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS) was a three-year study conducted
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Office of Research and Development's
National Exposure Research Laboratory (EPA/ORD/NERL). Field data collections were
completed in 2007 and validation of the primary datasets was completed in late 2008. The
study's primary goal was to investigate the relationship of select air pollutant concentrations and
their sources measured at community air monitoring stations in comparison to those measured in
various neighborhoods in Wayne County, Michigan. Six primary data analysis objectives were
components of the original study design (www.epa.gov/dears). These original data analysis
objectives were to: (1) characterize spatial and temporal relationships between pollutants, (2)
determine human exposure factors, (3) determine environmental exposure factors, (4) develop
enhanced human exposure models, (5) establish source contributions, and (6) investigate multi-
pollutant (particulate matter/gases/semi-volatiles) relationships.
The study was designed to significantly contribute to our understanding of how well air quality
information collected at community monitors accurately reflects what neighborhoods and the
individuals living in these neighborhoods are exposed to every day. It would provide needed
information on defining what factors affect an individual's exposure to various particulate matter
and air toxic sources. Exposure-related data from the DEARS can be divided into five main
parts: (1) personal monitoring, (2) residential indoor monitoring, (3) residential outdoor
monitoring, (4) monitoring performed at a central community site, and (5) survey information
related to environmental and human exposure factors. The personal and residential monitoring
involved a total of 145 participants over a three-year period of data collection. A total of nearly
36,000 individual 24-hr based exposure measurements involving particulate matter, criteria
pollutant gases and other air pollutants of interest were obtained during the field measurements.
NERL and its collaborators have been actively analyzing data to support the six original data
analysis objectives. A detailed summary of the six objectives, progress to date, ongoing
analyses, and current data summarization products was recently developed and made available
on the DEARS website (www.epa.gov/dears/findings.html). This summary was useful in
assisting the NERL in determining the overall progress being made on the study as a whole as
well as gaining a perspective on study areas showing potential for unanticipated research benefits
-------
to ORD and its stakeholders. These stakeholders include among others, the National Center for
Exposure Assessment (NCEA), the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS), the
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), US EPA Region 5, and the National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). NERL has been actively sharing
DEARS data with both internal and external collaborators in pursuit of the study objectives.
Significant progress had been made on data analyses during the 2008-2010 calendar periods and
information updating key collaborating institutions of these analyses would be beneficial to all
parties. A workshop setting was proposed where DEARS progress-to-date could be shared and
where potential new uses of exposure data to meet critical EPA needs could be explored.
1.1 Overall Goal
The goal of the effort was to develop a multi-institutional review of critical exposure-related data
gaps and determine the potential value of the DEARS in meeting those needs.
1.2 Specific Objectives
The DEARS Principal Investigator had a charge to:
Develop a multi-institutional steering group interested in exposure-related research to
guide overall workshop development and summarization,
Establish workgroups responsible for identifying exposure-related data gaps in four
primary research areas: (1) measurement assessment and uncertainty, (2) human exposure
modeling, (3) atmospheric and environmental modeling, and (4) health and
epidemiology,
Plan, schedule and conduct a series of developmental meetings to accomplish the
objectives above, ultimately resulting in one or more workshops each involving a report-
out of findings-to-date, and
Develop a summary (report) on the workshops and the ability of DEARS to meet the
identified exposure-related data needs.
1.3 Approach
Senior scientists from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Karen Wesson/OAQPS),
the National Center for Exposure Assessment (Jennifer Richmond-Bryant/ NCEA), the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (Rich Cook/OTAQ), and the Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis
Division (Val Garcia/NERL) were contacted by the DEARS Principal Investigator (Ron
Williams/NERL) and invited to participate on the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee
had the responsibility of examining the four draft exposure research areas of potential mutual
interest proposed by NERL. These research areas were:
(1) exposure assessment and uncertainty,
(2) human exposure modeling,
(3) atmospheric and environmental modeling, and
(4) health and epidemiology.
-------
To facilitate this effort, the Steering Committee developed strawman exposure data gap questions
within each of the four areas (Attachment 1). The Steering Committee recruited other Agency
staff members who could provide expertise on the data gap issues and act as Workgroup
members. To the greatest extent possible, multi-institutional Workgroup member rosters were
developed for each of the four research areas being examined. A total of 23 Workgroup members
were invited to participate in discussions concerning one or more research areas. A listing of the
Steering Committee and invited Workgroup members is provided (Attachment 2).
A series of meetings involving the Steering Committee and the various Workgroups were held
between August 19th and September 29th, 2010. During this time, "champions", or individuals
who would summarize individual Workgroup discussions, were named. These individuals had
the responsibility of reporting back to the Steering Committee what exposure-related data gaps
existed within each research area and then summarizing these findings in a common slide
presentation format. A report-out by these champions was then presented to the Steering
Committee and the other Workgroups to gain input from all involved.
Slide sets meeting the Steering Committee's approval were developed in anticipation of an
invitation-only workshop event to be sponsored by the NERL (Part 1). The Acting Director of the
NERL's Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (Roy Fortmann) made personal
contact with all invitees who he believed would benefit from the workshop discussion as well as
provide valuable input to NERL on the role exposure science must play in advancing the
Agency's goals. This event was held on October 19th, 2010 on the EPA-RTP campus. The agenda
for this event is provided (Attachment 3) as well as the list of invited attendees (Attachment 4).
This event had the goal of providing a summary of the purpose of the DEARS Data Analysis
Workshops, defining the charge given to the Steering Committee and Workgroups, reporting on
the DEARS overall study progress to date (Attachment 5) and providing a report out on each of
the four research areas. In particular, the champion of each research area had the responsibility
to report on exposure data gap issues of importance to the Agency. The individual presentations
associated with these reports are provided (Attachments 6-9). In addition, a "Common Needs"
summary was reported (Attachment 10). This summary reviewed information obtained from all
of the research area discussions. In doing so, it provided a simple tabular means of determining
what exposure data gaps were viewed as essential across the four research areas.
The last segment of the Part 1 workshop event focused on encouraging all present to engage in
future discussions concerning how the DEARS data might have the potential to meet the agreed
upon data gaps. The ensuing November 2010 discussions held between the study's Principal
Investigator (Ron Williams), the Steering Committee, and all Part 1 invitees provided
information ultimately reported out during a November 30th workshop event (Part 2). The
agenda, summary presentations associated with each of the four critical research areas, DEARS
publication plan, and evaluation of the usefulness of the DEARS to potentially meet specific
exposure data gaps associated with this event are included as Attachments 11-14.
-------
2. Steering Committee and Workgroups Pre-Part 1 Workshop Discussions
The draft exposure research areas and strawman data gaps (Attachment 1) provided by NERL to
facilitate the discussions with the Steering Committee proved to be invaluable. Further
discussions indicated that the strawman data gaps should be refined by each of the subsequently-
developed Workgroups rather than the Steering Committee itself. This decision ultimately
resulted in very focused and highly productive meetings concerning each of the four research
areas. Partial summaries of these discussions are reported below.
2.1 Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty Workgroup:
This Workgroup considered what air pollutants were of interest to their respective organizations.
Particulate matter (PM) and its component species were of high interest as well as the multi-
pollutant environment consisting of PM, air toxics, criteria pollutant gases and semi-volatiles.
Workgroup members were interested not only in data gap questions pertaining to pollutant
concentrations but also in how pollutants related to one another in time and space
(spatial/temporal). The degree of error involved in obtaining pollutant measurements was
discussed as well as issues related to understanding source impacts. Concerning source impacts,
Workgroup members raised questions as to how one might summarize source characterizations
using surrogates or select species as identifying tools. The value of non-ambient pollutant
measurements (e.g., personal, residential) were issues deemed worthy of examination.
2.2 Human Exposure Modeling Workgroup:
These individuals examined a series of draft questions concerning what pollutant data was
viewed as critical for development or evaluation of select models (e.g., PMSHEDS). This group
was asked to provide feedback on needed or perceived data needs ranging from PM (various size
fraction), VOCs and air toxics. Draft questions included issues involving human activity and
environmental exposure factors. Of particular interest to the steering committee were the inputs
needed to help advance the Exposure Model for Individuals (EMI), which NERL plans to use in
ongoing near-road field studies. The modelers comprising this workgroup believed that a more
systematic approach was needed to determine the state of the science for this given area rather
than examining the draft questions. Therefore, the majority of the discussions this group held
focused on defining what they collectively felt was the current state-of-the-science pertaining to
advancing human exposure modeling.
2.3 Atmospheric and Environmental Modeling Workgroup:
This Workgroup considered what exposure data was needed to advance current models (like
CMAQ). Specific components of their discussion indicated that multi-pollutant issues were
viewed as critical and that those involved in modeling needed extensive spatial/temporal
exposure datasets. This included draft questions involving meteorology and the need for micro-
scale source information. Two key discussions points included the need for data collections
involving both high frequency and high quality data. In addition, this workgroup decided that a
potentially beneficial approach concerning the subject matter was not a direct examination of the
draft questions, but rather an extensive discussion on what exposure monitoring data was needed
-------
to support CMAQ and other model development.
2.4 Health and Epi demi ol ogy Workgroup:
Members were initially asked to consider draft questions pertaining to what critical needs exist
following the most recent NOx/SOx, PM, and O?, Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs). The
role of multi-pollutant exposure issues was raised as well as how important it is to understand
exposures related to non-ambient spatial settings. Questions related to the PMcoarse (PMio-2.s) size
fraction were proposed, including whether there exists sufficient interest on the role of various
non-ambient PMcoarse sources (e.g., residential indoor) to warrant further discussion. Draft
questions pertaining to the value of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were examined as well
as the value of exposure data of time durations significantly smaller than the normal 24-hr based
metrics often encountered.
Information obtained during deliberations of each Workgroup was then presented to the Steering
Committee for feedback. The goal of the Steering Committee during this review was not to
change the summary from the respective Workgroup, but help each group gain a perspective on
the findings of all other groups and areas of collective agreement. An approach (style) of
presentation was formalized and each Workgroup was asked to develop a slide set to be used for
the October 19th meeting (Part 1 event).
3. Part 1- Workshop Event
An invitation only Workshop reporting event (Part 1) was held on October 19, 2010 on the EPA-
RTP campus. Following introductions and other housekeeping activities, the DEARS Principal
Investigator (Ron Williams) and select DEARS team members (Janet Burke and Gary Norris)
provided a detailed description of the current progress of the study (Attachment 5). This was
viewed by the Steering Committee as an essential part of the Workshop activities because it
would inform all participants about the extensive exposure data collected in the DEARS as well
as progress associated with the six primary (original) data analysis objectives. The latter was
viewed as being extremely helpful in helping Workgroup members understand what data
findings were already available as well as the focus of current or near-future planned analysis
activities. The DEARS Data Analysis Progress presentation was divided into a series of sub-
sections. Each sub-section provided information on one of the six data analysis objectives,
including: (1) data analysis progress during the 2008-2010 time periods, (2) select results
associated with one or more components, and (3) tabular and/or graphical examples of findings
highlighting results of interest to Workshop invitees. Examples of information provided during
this component of the Part 1 event included a thorough discussion of the DEARS study design,
the types of pollutants measured and their frequency, and the types of human
activity/environmental exposure factor survey materials obtained.
DEARS Objective #1 highlights provided a discussion of current exposure assessment
collaborations, the spatial and temporal variability of select exposure measures and the observed
heterogeneity of many of the pollutants with respect to their relationship with a central
-------
community monitor. Progress reported for DEARS objectives #2 and #3 included findings
relating the impact of indoor sources on total personal exposures to PM and the role of exposure
factors on observed residential air exchange rates in the DEARS homes. Proximity effects from
localized line sources (near-roadway and stationary mobile source emissions) were described.
The impact of ambient versus non-ambient source effects and their role in personal exposures
were discussed. The DEARS survey materials and real-time personal PM monitoring appears to
have value in examining these issues.
Human exposure modeling progress (DEARS objective #4) detailed work investigating
meteorological impact on PM spatial relationships and expected DEARS inputs for the planned
EMI-NEXUS model. The ongoing collaborative work involving NERL and OAQPS researchers
and the CMAQ model was reported. In brief, this effort will utilize validated DEARS outdoor
exposure data as a means to compare CMAQ modeling output associated with the 2005 Detroit
airshed. The comparability of National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) modeled VOC results
with actual DEARS measures have been performed and provided to OAQPS. These findings
indicate that modeled human exposures to benzene might be underestimating total air exposures
to this pollutant due to non-ambient source impacts.
Significant progress has been made on obtaining detailed speciation data needed to support
source allocation distributions for the DEARS airshed (Objective #5). Findings associated with
source impacts on the central community monitoring site were reported. A key component of the
ongoing work is trying to understand the impact of biomass-related sources on the airshed. Data
from various marker species (e.g., potassium, levoglucosan, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)
have been obtained using extensive laboratory analyses. These inorganic and organic molecular
markers are being examined for their spatial and temporal variability with respect to the airshed.
The acceptability of various markers to be used in source assessment activities represents a key
component of this effort as it has broad value to not only the DEARS but the source
apportionment community as a whole.
DEARS objective #6 (multi-pollutant relationships), represented an area of high interest across
all of the Workgroups. Progress to date indicated that the survey information and exposure
monitoring data obtained in the DEARS (e.g., PM, VOC, criteria pollutant gases, questionnaires)
had great potential for providing advances in this research area. Findings indicated that use of
canonical correlations as well as mixed modeling analyses had already elucidated the role human
and environmental exposure factors play on total personal exposures to numerous pollutant
groups. As such, data analyses indicated that non-ambient NO2 and VOC sources severely
limited the agreement between total personal exposures to these pollutants and ambient-based
measurement systems (i.e., central community monitoring). It was reported that analyses
examining the spatial relationships between various multi-pollutant groupings with other select
measures (e.g., VOCs, outdoor elemental carbon, NO2) are ongoing and the initial results were
described.
An additional objective of the DEARS data analyses reported on during the Workshop Part 1
event was the epidemiological investigation of select environmental exposures and health
outcomes associated with a companion study performed by the University of Michigan (Dr. Rob
Brook). This collaborative effort has already provided unique findings including the role of PM
-------
of non-ambient origin on select cardiovascular outcomes and the observance of heart rate
changes following personal exposures to fine particulate matter. Speciation data has provided
the means to examine the multi-pollutant environment associated with some personal exposure
scenarios. Personal NO2 exposures would appear to be more highly associated with reduced
brachial artery diameters as compared to select elements (iron, potassium) and their influence on
blood pressure changes. The DEARS exposure datasets and the companion health outcome data
have the potential to examine a wide range of epidemiological research issues.
Each of the four Workgroups provided short summaries of their consensus findings on data gaps
(Attachments 6-9). The Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty Workgroup indicated that
monitoring data on lead (Pb) was of the highest priority due to an upcoming Pb ISA (draft in
2011). The second greatest exposure-related need was the need for summarized and interpreted
information pertaining to the multi-pollutant environment. The Human Exposure Modeling
Workgroup indicated that a number of critical exposure data gaps existed. These included single
and multi-pollutant concentrations and relationships, the impact of source(s) on human
exposures, detailed human and environmental exposure factors, data sets containing widely
varying temporal and spatial scales, and obtaining the determinants for PMSHEDS and
potentially other models supporting the national air quality standards. In similar fashion, the
Environmental and Atmospheric Modeling Workgroup identified data gaps associated with
spatially dense and high temporal frequency collections of PM and other pollutants. In essence,
this group was identifying the need for saturation-style collections in a given location and that
there was a need for this monitoring to be extended over long temporal periods. High quality
meteorology data was identified as being highly valued. This included the need for micro-scale
data collections to capture key topographical features. Data gaps associated with identifying
local emission sources was reported as well as technically challenging efforts to provide data on
nitrogen cycling, free radical production and biogenic contributions to local and regional air
sheds. The Health and Epidemiology Workgroup identified several research areas of interest.
These included the need for more integrated exposure and health outcome research beyond
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, and mortality. This Workgroup indicated that focused
human exposure panel studies involving select subpopulations were needed and that the multi-
pollutant environment should be incorporated in development of future study designs. High
quality exposure data were viewed as being critical in helping to advance epidemiological
research
One of the key products the steering committee produced and reported at the Part 1 event was a
"Common Needs" document (Attachment 10). It quickly became apparent as the individual slide
sets were being reviewed for the Part 1 event that a pattern of commonality often existed
between a given exposure data need (e.g., Os & PM and multi-pollutant measures) and the four
independent Workgroups. To facilitate discussion, a collective total of twenty exposure data gaps
were identified and a tabular format used to list individual Workgroup recommendations for such
data. Results of the Common Needs table were shared at the Part 1 event and indicated that the
greatest number of identified needs were in the exposure assessment and uncertainty area (needs
in 16/20 critical data gaps).
The Part 1 event was closed out by inviting all attendees to participant in an evaluation of the
ability of DEARS data to meet some of the exposure gaps being reported. This discussion would
-------
take place in scheduled meetings involving the Steering committee, the various Workgroups, and
all interested parties, in early November 2010.
4. Part 2- Workshop Event
The final DEARS data analysis workshop event (Part 2) was conducted on November 30, 2010.
These deliberations examined the DEARS study design and its reported (ongoing and planned)
data analysis objectives with each of the data gaps identified during the Part 1 effort. In doing
so, we would determine the extent to which DEARS data: (1) had already provided some benefit,
(2) was expected to provide benefit based upon its planned data analysis scheme and available
data, (3) could provide benefit but not currently targeted due to resource management, or (4) did
not have the ability to be of benefit due to the lack of the specific exposure data requirements.
To facilitate this effort, a summary slide set (Attachment 12) was developed that reiterated the
critical data needs of the various working groups. In additional, the DEARS publication plan
(Attachment 13), a constantly evolving strategy first developed in 2007, was revised to highlight
the latest efforts of NERL researchers and collaborators with respect to peer review publication
status. All attachments were either presented or made available at the Part 2 event.
5. Common Needs
The primary document provided to Part 2 attendees was a revised "Common Needs" document
(Attachment 14). This document now contained new information pertaining to: (1) the degree of
agreement between the various subcommittee working groups on each individual data gap, (2)
specific outputs determined to be needed (publications, databases, models), (3) the date by which
the needed outputs were required to make an impact on the science, (4) the extent to which
DEARS data might be of value in meeting the specific outputs, (5) specific descriptions of the
outputs the DEARS might be able to provide, and (6) the current progress pertaining to the
original six DEARS data analysis objectives and specific publications, models or databases
identified as being needed. The Steering Committee and all subcommittee working groups were
unable to agree upon a priority of critical data needs. However, a simple listing of the number of
groups identifying a given data need did provide a pseudo-ranking of the collective thought. In
particular, data needs associated with the following areas were viewed as highly important by all
groups:
1. high frequency spatial and temporal measurement data (publications and a database
useful for modeling),
2. multi-pollutant measures and establishment of spatial/temporal relationships between and
among these co-pollutants (publications and a database for modeling),
3. regional and local emission source identification (including indoor settings) and the
determination of key species making up each source (publications and a database for
modeling),
4. measurement data of short time resolution (publications and a database for modeling),
and
5. air toxic measurement and relationship data pertaining to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
including but not limited to VOCs. The association of these HAPs with health effects
represents an area of immediate need (publications and a database for modeling).
-------
While the remaining 15 data gaps did not receive unanimous recommendations as key research
areas, this should not be taken as a downplaying of their importance to specific Workgroup
members or the needs of the Agency as a whole. For example, only two groups of the four
groups reported the need for Pb data (publications and/or a database) involving human exposures
to be available by the summer of 2011. This time frame was needed to meet the Pb ISA
publication inclusion criteria. Therefore, each of the research data gaps needs to be viewed
accordingly. In this light, the overall workshop summary document (Attachment 13) might best
serve as a review of data needs as they relate to important timelines rather than just specific data
needs.
A review of the current DEARS data analysis progress (pertaining to its original six exposure
data analysis areas and the additional collaborative epidemiological efforts) indicates progress
supporting fourteen of the twenty identified data gap needs. Much of this progress relates to the
development of databases which have been used to support peer review journal article
development. Examples of DEARS benefits to the state-of-the-science include publications
pertaining to the multi-pollutant environment, PMcoarse exposure assessment, the impact of
various source settings on personal exposure assessment, and the association of PM and gaseous
co-pollutant species on observed human health outcomes. There are, however, areas where the
DEARS will provide little or no benefit to the reported data gaps. These include needs
associated with extensive meteorological monitoring, high frequency (short-time duration)
pollutant monitoring, nitrogen cycling, and data needs from long duration monitoring at a
consistent location.
No study, including the DEARS can be expected to meet all needs, especially when many of
those needs were not a part of its original study design. Even so, this workshop pointed out the
value of conducting intensive, high impact exposure monitoring efforts like the DEARS to meet
a variety of unforeseen exposure-related needs. Part 2 workshop attendees were thanked for
their overall contributions in developing all of the materials for both events. They were invited
to continue independent discussions following the conclusion of the workshop event with the
DEARS Principal Investigator on opportunities for collaborations associated with targeted data
gap needs. While NERL has been consistently releasing DEARS data to all collaborators as
needs have been established, it is adjusting its database management priorities to target public
release of the DEARS data within the 2011-2012 time frame.
6. Workshop Conclusions
The information obtained by NERL during the Workshop events has provided the means to
examine planned data analyses and the development of other key research products for their
overall value to the Agency. This will allow for the establishment of a more refined DEARS
publication plan. It has also provided keen insight as to specific data analysis questions which
should be incorporated into such efforts. This has the potential for enabling future data analyses
to target not only a given research area, but specifically focus on exposure science-related issues
of high relevance to those involved in rule making or supporting risk assessments. In addition,
the Workshops have provided the means to effectively describe the original purpose and potential
-------
value of DEARS to the Agency. This has resulted in enhanced communication between the
NERL and those interested in developing new collaborative research efforts involving the
DEARS. It is anticipated that a number of additional collaborations involving data analyses and
targeted peer-review manuscript development will be established as a result of this
communication. One additional aspect of this communication will be the development of a
summary report (this document) detailing the Workshop events and summary findings. As such,
NERL and non-NERL participants alike will have documentation pertaining to the identified
exposure data gaps and the common needs identified by the various Workgroups. This
information will be of value to each of them as they conduct their own future research planning
activities.
10
-------
Attachment 1-Draft Research Questions
Draft Research Questions
DEARS Workgroup
meeting August 31st, 2010
Assessment and Uncertainty
What pollutants are of greatest interest to
your organization?
Is there a need to establish pollutant
relationships (temporal and spatial)? If so, what
are your interests?
Are there methodological considerations
regarding uncertainty (data collection/analysis)
that your organization is concerned about?
Assessment and Uncertainty
Are concerned about the impact of non-ambient
sources of pollutants and the uncertainty of using just
ambient-based measures for risk assessment? If so, what
pollutants and their non-ambient sources concern you?
What data do you feel is currently lacking in the
published literature concerning pollutant concentrations,
pollutant sources and their impact upon human
exposures. Where are you having to use assumptions in
your research?
Assessment and Uncertainty
What multi-pollutant uncertainties confront
your organization? What combinations are of
greatest interest?
Concerning pollutant sources, what
information is needed to confront science areas of
greatest interest? Are you interested in non-
traditional source categories (residential indoor
sources, local, non-NEI sources)?
11
-------
Assessment and Uncertainty
Are there specific source categories that
you feel deserve special Agency attention at
this time (near-roadway, airports, power
plants)? If so, within this category, what
represents the greatest unknown (e.g.,
general pollutant concentrations and
gradients, impact on surrounding
neighborhoods, spatial/temporal variability)?
Assessment and Uncertainty
Is there a need within your organization for
information on environmental and human
exposure factors? If so, what are they and how
would such information be useful to you?
How would access to actual measurement
data be useful to you in moving specific research
areas forward in your organization?
Health and Epidemiology
What critical data needs exist following the most
recent ISAs for NOx/SOx, O3, and review for PM. Is there
a real need to understand epi implications of PM size
fractions, PM constituents, PM sources? Are there other
pollutant classes that need to be addressed (e.g., VOCs,
SVOCs.carbonyls, carbon)?
Is it important to understand the impact of non-
ambient pollutants (or sources) or just the ambient upon
human health?
Health and Epidemiology
What multi-pollutant mixtures are of
concern? Are there still underlying issues of
surrogacy or confounding with certain pollutants
and PM and resulting health effects?
Are there location (urban,suburban,rural)
specific effects that need to be explored?
12
-------
Health and Epidemiology
PMcoarse would appear to be a
relativelyheterogeneous mass in some airsheds. Ambient
monitoring would appear to be a very poorsurrogate for
total PMcoarse exposures. Is there an interest in trying to
establish PMcoarse health effects at this time?
Is there an interest in trying to establish some
marker of ambient PMcoarse (fresh) versus PMcoarse
mass being retained within residences (resuspended)?
Does it really matter?
Health and Epidemiology
Would you expect to see any impact of VOC or
SVOC (PAH) exposures upon certain cardiovascular
endpoints?
Do source categorized epi findings (regional vs
mobile vs industrial, etc) provide value to issues you are
dealing with?
Are epi outcomes associated with daily measures
all that we need to be concerned about or should finer
resolution (hourly) be investigated? If so, how could
findings related to shorter time domains support existing
24-hr based standards?
Environmental and Atmospheric
Modeling
What measurement data inputs are needed
to support new or improved CMAQ modules? Is
there any particular time domain or spatial scale
that is particularly needed?
Are there specific CMAQ modules or output
in need of evaluation versus actual physical
measurements?
Environmental and Atmospheric
Modeling
What further integration of CMAQ and the
SHEDS (Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose
Simulation) is needed?
Are there other (non-CMAQ) models of
interest needing evaluation?
If you could design a field study meeting
your most critical data measurement need, what
would that study involve (location, duration, time
resolution, grid resolution, pollutant selection)
13
-------
Environmental and Atmospheric
Modeling
What multipollutant mixtures are of the
highest interest?
Is there potential to use micro-scale source
information (eg., presence of local gas station,
freeway distances) relative to neighborhood-based
pollutant measurements in existing or future
models? If so, what type of data would be
needed?
Environmental and Atmospheric
Modeling
Is there environmental factor information
(meteorology, seasonality, etc) on a neighborhood
scale that would benefit current or future modeling
efforts? If so, what inputs would be needed?
How small do we go relative to grid size? Is
there information available that would indicate
grids below 1 km might be needed with respect to
risk assessments in certain localities? If so, what
pollutants?
Human Exposure Modeling
Where do we stand relative to air
toxics modeling? What inputs are needed
and at what spatial and temporal domains?
What pollutant information is needed
to develop a PMcoarse model?
Human Exposure Modeling
What would appear to be the most critical
human exposure factors needed as inputs to
updating the PM-SHEDS? Is there the potential
for developing SHEDS-VOC or some other
variant?
Are there other human exposure models
that need evaluation using physical data
(PNEM?). Who would be the stakeholder?
14
-------
Human Exposure Modeling
Is there a need to collect actual GPS-based
time/location information as an input into human exposure
models? Would coincidental exposure measurements also
be needed (at whattimedomain)? If so, which pollutants
are the most critical at this time?
How do we enhance the integration of human
exposure models and atmospheric models? Whydo such
attempts provide value to risk assessment? What type of
data is needed to move some epidemiologists away from
using only ambient-based monitoring data instead of
integrated human exposure/air quality models in their
studies.
Human Exposure Modeling
Indoor air often contains concentrations of certain
pollutants well above ambient levels (e.g.,VOCs,
carbonyls). Are there critical data analyses needed to
support indoor air quality models in such instances? If so,
for what pollutants?
What inputs are needed to further
develop/evaluate models like the EMI (exposure model for
individuals)? What utility do such models provide to end
users? How can they be applied to risk assessment or
basic epi research?
15
-------
Attachment 2-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Workgroup Members
Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS)
Data Analysis Workshop-Part 1
Workshop Responsibility
Workgroup
Members
Workshop Steering Committee
Ron Williams (NERL), Val Garcia (NERL), Karen Wesson
(OAQPS), Jennifer Richmond-Bryant (NCEA), Rich Cook
(OTAQ)
Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty
Steve McDow* (NCEA); Jennifer Richmond-Bryant
(NCEA); Quingyu Meng (NCEA), Gary Norris (NERL),
Alan Vette (NERL)
Human Exposure Modeling
Janet Burke* (NERL), Michael Breen (NERL), Stephen
Graham (NCEA), Tom Long (NCEA),
Mark Morris (OAQPS), Lindsay Stanek (NCEA)
Environmental and Atmospheric Modeling
Health and Epidemiology
Karen Wesson*(OAQPS), Deborah Luecken (NERL),
Wyatt Appel (NERL), Val Garcia (NERL-AMAD), Brian
Eder (NERL)
Lisa Baxter* (NERL), Ron Williams (NERL), Joe Pinto
(NCEA), George Bollweg (Region 5), Motria Caudill
(Region 5), Tom Luben (NCEA), Rich Cook (OTAQ),
Morta Fuoco (Region 5)
* denotes discussion champion
16
-------
Attachment 3-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Agenda
Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS)
Data Analysis Workshop-Part 1
EPA- RTP Campus-room C112
October 19, 2010
1:00-4:30 pm
Agenda
Welcome and introductions
Workshop overview
DEARS background
and results to date
Break (10 min)
Workgroup charge
and member introductions
Common research
data gaps
Uncertainty and assessment
Human exposure modeling
Break (10 min)
Atmospheric modeling
Health and epidemiology
Part 2 and next steps
Adjournment
Tim Watkins (NHEERL Acting Division Director)
Tim Watkins (NHEERL)
Ron Williams/Janet Burke/Gary Norris (NERL)
Ron Williams (NERL)
Ron Williams (NERL)
Steve McDow (NCEA)
Janet Burke (NERL)
Karen Wesson (OAQPS)
Lisa Baxter (NERL)
Tim Watkins (NHEERL)
Tim Watkins (NHEERL)
17
-------
Attachment 4-Data Analysis Workshop Part 1 Invited Attendee List
NERL Participant
Wyatt Appel
Tim Barzyk
Lisa Baxter
Sarah Bereznicki
Michael Breen
Janet Burke
Fred Dimmick
Rachelle Duval
Brian Eder
Roy Fortmann
Val Garcia
Andrew Geller
BJ George
Davy da Hammond
Kristin Isaccs
Kasey Kolvacik
David Kryak
Deborah Luecken
Gary Norris
John Offenberg
David Olson
Linda Sheldon
Alan Vette
Jon Sobus
Don Whitaker
Ron Williams
NCEA Participant
Jennifer Richmond-Bryant
Stephen Graham
Tom Long
Tom Luben
Steve McDow
Quingyu Meng
Mark Morris
Joe Pinto
Lindsay Stanek
NHEERL Participant
Lucas Neas
Tim Watkins
OAQPS Participant
Karen Wesson
OTAQ Participant
Rich Cook
Region 5 Participant
George Bollweg
Motria Caudill
Marta Fuoco
OAR/ORIA Invitee
Laura Kolb
ACE Interim Program Director Invitee
Dan Costa
18
-------
Attachment 5-DEARS Study Objectives Progress Report Presentation
2010 DEARS Research
Update
EPA's Exposure Research
Provide the link
between
source/regulatory
monitoring and
health outcomes
Goal:
Evaluate/model
the relationship
between PM at
ambient sites and
personal exposure
Exposure Research Focus
Determine the relationships between PM, and select air
toxics measured at the community, residential outdoor,
residential indoor, andpersonal scale,
Determine the chemical and physical factors that
influence these relationships,
Determine the human factors that influences these
relationships,
Develop andimprove human exposure models,
Perform source apportionment using pollutant and
exposure factor data inputs, and
Determine the relationships between PM and criteria
pollutant gases as potential confounders or surrogates of
exposure
The DEARS
Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research
Study
- Multi-pollutant design
- Multi-seasonal in scope
- Fully powered (1200 participant days)
- Randomized participant recruitment
- Integrated exposure and survey data collection
- Varied housing stock
- Varied monitoring settings
- Varied spatial monitoring (census areas)
19
-------
DEARS Monitoring Design
3 year field study initiated in July 2004 and
completed on February 25, 2007
Randomized household purposeful study design
Non-smoking with no health or vocational
exclusion
Each year (winter/summer) had - 40 enrollees
Households were monitored for 5 days in winter
and 5 days in summer (-1200 total sampling
days)
- 36,000 individual 24-hr environmental records
Concurrent monitoring at:
- Central community site
- Residential outdoors and indoors
- Personal
Detroit Was Selected Because...
Was an non-attainment area for PM? 5
Projected non-attainment status after sulfur
reductions in 2010
Large number of industrial point sources
Heavy mobile source impact including diesel
Potential for pollutant spatial variability
Possibility of summer and winter season
variability
Historic Speciation Trends Network site and
National Air Toxics Network Site data
State and local interest
Existing community partnerships
vvEPA Was Detroit a Good Choice?
We believed...
PM2.5 concentrations > 15 ug/m3-
Local impact of industrial sources-
Mobile source impact of certain
areas
Spatial variability of pollutants
might exist
- Seasonal effects might exist for
some pollutants
Historical data would be useful
MDEQ and others would be
interested
Local community groups might .
participate
Data is showing...
> Some means above annual standard
> CRUISER data shows this potential
> Southfield freeway has obvious impacts
from nearby roadway
* VOC, NO2, PAH, elemental variability
observed
» Acrolein, nitrate, sulfate, VOC, ozone,
PAH seasonality
* Provided means to cross-check
> Multiple collaborators and partners
have been established
Local groups formally involved in
recruiting
DEARS Study Sites
(Emphasis on Proximity to Sources)
I
I-Industrial
-Industrial (t.ni,
-Diesel
-Traffic/ Industrial
5-Industrial
-Highway
.'-Regional
20
-------
DEARS Measurements
Air Exchange Rate
DEARS Data Attempted to Capture Ongoing Personal
Exposure, Local and Regional Air Quality
Methods Development
Use of Novel Passive or Active
Samplers
25VOCs (aromatics/HCs
(9) + halogenated HCs (16))
3 carbonyls
Continuous PM2,
O3, NO2, SO2
Indoor & Outdoor Monitoring
Matched to
personal and
ambient
instrumentation
&
21
-------
Central Community Site
Monitoring
Community-based
monitoring at Allen
Park, an MDEQ air site
central to the study area
Environmental and Human Factor Surveys
. t
Jfc*
Data Calendar of Events
Completion of field data collection (March 2007)
Recovery of final season of raw data from
contractor (July 2007)
Primary DEARS datasets released to
collaborators in late 2008 (ongoing).
Completion of season 6 XRF laboratory analyses
(Fall 2009)
Organic markers laboratory analyses (select
samples from select seasons) anticipated to be
completed in 2010
APM 159 completed (September 2010)
DEARS Data Analysis Objectives
Six primary objectives:
1. Determine associations between concentrations at
central site with those from outdoor and personal
monitoring
2. Determine the factors affecting the mass
concentration relationships described above
3. Identify human activity factors influencing personal
exposures
4. Improve and evaluate models used to estimate
residential and personal exposures
5. Investigate and apply source apportionment models
to determine contributions from specific sources
I 6. Determine the associations between ambient
measurement of criteria pollutant gases (like ozone)
with personal exposures to these gases, PM
constituents and other air toxics.
22
-------
Data Analysis Phases
The DEARS data analysis plan had a four tiered
analysis structure. These are:
1. Performing descriptive statistics, searching for
anomalies as a means to validate individual
datasets, and establishing the relationships
between various spatial measurements
Use of various modeling approaches to
integrate factors and ancillary data influencing
the relationships established above
Data from 1 and 2 above will be integrated into
PM and air toxics human exposure modeling
development.
Data from 1 and 2 above, along with original
data will be used to perform source
apportionment modeling
Progress/Results Format
1. Progress of overall effort
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
Objective 1 Progress
Validation and examination of raw data for
outliers
Data release (ongoing) to all
stakeholders/collaborators since 2008
(State of Michigan, SEMCOG, U of
Michigan, Region 5, NERL-HEASD,
OAQPS, OTAQ, NERL-AMAD, NCEA,
EOHSI, NHEERL. Specific datasets
released to meet needs.
Public release scheduled for FYl 2
Objective 1 Progress
Williams et al. Study design publication
with univariate analyses of PM, gases,
demographics and recruiting components
Thomburg et al. Publication of coarse PM
spatial and temporal relationships
Rodes et al. Publication of PM2.5 Spatial
and temporal relationships
George et al. Publication of community
versus outdoor PM2.5 relationships
manuscript
Wheeler et al. Publication of DEARS and
WOEAS PM relationships
23
-------
Objective 1 Progress
Vette et al. Pending draft of VOC spatial
and temporal relationships (Winter 2010).
Philips et al. Publication of DEARS
recruitment/retention strategy.
Stevens et al. Community and outdoor
elemental components relationships.
Pending journal review.
Niu et al. Publication of XRF vs ICP-MS
sample analysis considerations.
Johnson et al. Publication of article
describing indoor/outdoor relationships in
the MICA with DEARS input
Objective 1 Results
Incredibly rich database, high quality and
quantity
Multiple users
Meets the Integrated, multidistiplinary
model
Both spatial and temporal variability
observed. A primary component of the
study design and the reason for selecting
Detroit
PM2 5 mass spatially homogenous outdoors
with respect to mass concentration
Objective 1 Results
PM coarse mass heterogeneous across
study neighborhood. Noted seasonality in
relationships between monitoring sites
Community N03 monitors poor surrogate
for personal exposures. Many indoor
sources
Indoor VOC sources significantly impact
community versus personal relationship
With exceptions, PM2 5 outdoor elemental
and organic component mass highly
variable by season and location
Objective 1 Results
Coarse spatial and temporal variability of
PM composition being determined using
highly sensitive ICP-MS methods
Development of methods needed to detect
organic markers in low volume samples
have been developed.
Biomass markers needed for source
apportionment have been quantified.
24
-------
ftgft
1
Variability of PM and Exposure Factors
Metric Days Season
Personal PM2S 874
Indoor PMM 973
Outdoor PMIS 1347
Ambient PMI5 139
exposure factor
PFT air exchange 916 1-6
(h1)
Min Max Mean Std Dev Median 99%
(ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
-0.5 255.3 20.3 20.9 15.6 113.6
-1.3 297.3 13.7 20.1 14.0 91.2
-1.1 85.6 16.3 9.7 14.5 43.4
2.3 66.4 16.9 10.E 14.0 63.0
0.1 17.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 7.5
H -. -sas»^-- __
oEPA Spatial and Temporal PM Coarse Variability
Spatial and Temporal Elemental Variability
,, T
,ii!
sew
Distribution of Personal PM2.5 Exposures
25
-------
«>FFyV Impact of Housing Stock and Age on Air Exchange Rate
Home ABC
36-70yrs
71-lUOyrs
>100jrs
AERfhr-1)
N
178
100
9
Mean
1.534
i.syi
1 .701
Sid P5 P25
1.6!M 0.257 0.582
1.119 0.366 0.5SJO
1.67S 0 155 0547
Exposure Monitoring Area
3
66 2.227 1.41/7
42 1.583 1.413
4 69 1 629 2261
5 44 1.281 0.8SW
(, 83 1 199 0871
7 19 O.SW8 1.014
AF.R
0.575
0.374
0 ?"S
-., ;/;.
0.257
PSO P7S
1.063 1.918
1.226 2.41/7
1.219 1.72.1
(lir1)
P2S PSO
1.026 1.844
0.695 1.146
0.568 n.979
0.568 0.954
0.471 0986
0.366 0.552
P75
2.266
1 84V
1.726
1.789
0,92t>
pys
3. 683
3.592
5221
pys
5.221
4.119
4244
3.355
a, ass
4.422
=L-a==SB5,,-._-~-.-._
VOC Results - Summer '04 -> Winter '06
Personal and Ambient NO2 Mass
Concentration Relationships (ppb)
»Hft PM2! Spatial Composition Comparison (P-Values)
Comparison of outdoor sites with ambient monitor (summer/winter)
Llcmcn
<_
Potassium
M3tigaii*se
,
Z,nc
Ud
liilA 1
M «
. 001 ''007
,
001 '001
M
liMA 3
049 015
002 001
EMA 4
039 048
«,
,,,
*,«
EMA 5
», M
001 .'001
««,,«0,
, «,
. 001 .' 001
EMA 6
uuw
Oil 0 46
,.
004'0?S
uuu,
LMA 7
me 038
001 005
Maamb^^M^
26
-------
I Progress/Results-Objectives #2 and 3
(factors impacting relationships)
1. Progress of overall effort
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
Objective 2 &3 Progress
Williams et al. Draft manuscript describing
the impact of human and environmental
factors on SO2, NO2 and O3 relationships
Meng et al. Draft manuscript exploring NO2
of ambient origin impact on exposure
Brook, Williams et al. Publication of effects
of short term PM exposures and observable
human health effects (0-4 hrs significant)
Brook, Williams et al. Publication of PM
measures of ambient and non-ambient
exposures versus observable human health
effects. Non-ambient sources impacted
outcomes
Objective 2 &3 Progress
Williams et al. Draft manuscript describing
PM components and gases and their impact
upon health effect linkages
Brook, Williams et al. Submission linking
personal temperatures to alterations in blood
pressure
Hammond, et al. Analyses defining short-
term PM2 5 exposure sources. Will be linked
to health effects
Lawless et al. Draft manuscript on personal
monitoring compliance and why knowledge
of ETS exposures are critical in reducing
measurement uncertainty
Objective 2 & 3 Progress
Isaacs, Burke et al. Completed report defining
factors influencing residential air exchange.
Being converted to manuscript.
Alion, Burke et al. WA to produce repeat on
residential infiltration parameters for PM
species and air toxics (2010). Subsequently will
be converted to manuscript.
Baxter et al. Publication of diesel impacting
residences near the Ambassador Bridge
Barzyk et al. Publication of methods to assess
near road impacts and preliminary findings.
27
-------
Objective'.
Current progress:
& 3 Progress
George, Palma et al. Submission of DEARS
VOCs andNATA modeling comparison
George, Whitaker et al. Publication of
comparison of outdoor PM2 5 to ambient
monitor and impact of meteorological factors
Thoraburg, Williams et al. Draft of participant
compliance and impact on data quality for
multiple pollutants
Whitaker et al. Completion of secondary field
and laboratory work needed to further evaluate
carbonyl methodological considerations
impacting DEARS data
Objective 2 & 3- Results
Diesel emission marker impactedhomes close to
the Ambassador Bridge
- Barzyk et al. Publication of methods to assess near
road impacts and preliminary findings.
- Baxter et al. Publication of diesel impacting residence:
near the Ambassador Bridge
DEARS provided good agreement for benzene
spatiality versus NATA models.
- George, Palma et al. Submission comparing NATA
model predictions for benzene to DEARS
m easurem ents Meteorologic al factors shown to
impact both I'M-,.- and I'M coarse spatiality across the
DEARS areas.
Residential air exchange rate distributions
strongly influenced by temperature and air
conditioning presence
Objective 2 & 3- Results
ETS impacted PM, NO, and VOC measures
Indoor appliances impacted NO2 measures
resulting in poor relationship between community
and personal levels. Community levels of S02 and
O3 reasonable surrogates for personal exposures.
Indoor VOCs impacted VOC measures.
Community monitors often poor surrogate for
personal
Both PM of ambient origin andPM of non-
ambient origin had significant impacts on health
Chronic impact (short duration) impact of PM
exposures determined. Different health effects
versus use of 24-hr based data
10
28
-------
Effective Distance to Roadway (Southfield Fwy.)
i
1
i
M
.
y
:;
r~~>-L_. . ' Concentrations
*^~-~r. (24 -hour)
w«» "rban ,
background
levels at -250 m
; ;*
tWdk**[M«.M «»K,,,,0,,UnI,W,
Homes Near the Ambassador Bridge-Source
Impact
Concentrations
elevated and more
variable when
winds are from the
Bridge
Wind 0-r.t! ro ii
Progress/Results-Objective 4
| (human exposure modeling)
1. Progress of overall effort
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
Objective 4-Progress
Hammond, Burke et al. DEARS PM
coarse mass and components data being
targeted as planned inputs to SHEDS.
Laboratory data currently being pursued
Hammond et al. ME and human exposure
data analyses nearing completion. Planned
input for SHEDS and article preparation on
indoor and personal sources
11
29
-------
Objective 4-Progress
Burke et al. DEARS residential indoor/outdoor
data being used to evaluate SHEDS modeled
exposures to multiple air pollutants
Breen et al. Using DEARS data to further
evaluate residential air exchange model in EMI
Breen et al. Using DEARS data to further
evaluate EMI before developing EMI-based
exposure metrics for NEXUS
Objective 4-Progress
George, et al. DEARS data used in evaluation of
NATA modeled results. Article in review.
Wesson et al (OAQPS). 2005 DEARS PM and
select air toxics data used to evaluate 2005
CMAQ output at 4 1cm and 1 km grid size
resolution for Detroit area. All data sets
developed.
Appel & Leucken et al (AMAD). Direct input of
select 2005 air toxics data into CMAQ model
evaluation tool
L
Objective 4- Results
Analyses for multiple modeling areas are
currently ongoing
DEARS providing data for improving
SHEDS inputs and evaluating model
output
DEARS data being used for evaluating
EMI for use in NEXUS modeling
DEARS being used as important evaluation
dataset for OAQPS and AMAD air quality
modeling for Detroit
Conceptual EMI
12
30
-------
Air Exchange Rate (AER) Distributions
for SHEDS
Factors influencing DEARS AER
Compari son with other recent studi es
LMEACH HT-TECH
DetoftDEARS fiJ.RloPA
Comparison of DEARS and NATA
Results Tor Detroit
Ratio of DE4RS to NATA for be
g Comparison of DEARS with 2005 CMAQ
DE ARS Census TruMs ReSUltS fOr Detroit
.,- Census Tract PM,j using CMAQ
| Progress/Results-Objective 5
(source impacts)
1. Progress of overall effort
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
13
31
-------
Objective 5 Progress
Current progress:
| Completion of initial Allen Park source
apportionment. Determination of appropriate
data and models for use in the DEARS.
Completion of laboratory analyses associated
with select residential samples (2010).
Organic markers analyzed and applied in source
apportionment modeling, improving
understanding of motor vehicle andbiomass
sources (on-going).
Ongoing determination of concentration impact
on data quality, determination of marker
selection for inclusion in future (integrated)
source apportionment associated with EMA
spatial comparison.
Objective 5 Progress
I Current progress:
Baxter et al. published impact of near road
sources from the Ambassador Bridge.
Duval et al. Submission of PM sources
spatiality variability.
Stockburger et al. Implementation of
levoglucosan method. Was needed to validate
biomass contribution to Detroit airshed.
McDow et al. Selection and observations
associated with organic markers for source
apportionment in the DEARS. Source factor
analyses have been completed
Vette et al. Determination of the impact of
sources and environmental factors upon
multipollutant spatial and temporal variability
Objective 5- Results
High biomass source contribution (K
signature) that agrees with other
researcher's findings from Detroit.
Multiple externals have now found similar
impact. This is a very complicated issue.
Substantial spatial variability observed for
organic species (especially PAHs) on some
days, other days are fairly uniform. Spatial
variability appears to be related to patterns
of abundance (i.e.. diagnostic species
ratios)
Objective 5- Results
Integration of both elemental and organic
markers needed to improve source
characterization in Detroit. Multiple
sources having similar profiles complicate
the source apportionment process.
Multiple indoor sources exist. Cooking a
major contribution to total PM exposures.
14
32
-------
Spatial Variability of PM2.S Sources in the DEARS
'.Mb 5\erage sou-re
contributions (In %)for
DEARS Season 3 (Surniner
2005) ana 4 (Winter 2006)
Values in ng'm3 represent
sum of mixed Industrial and
steel manufacturing
contributions
P-values for the Non-parametric One-way Wile oxon Score
Test Comparing Variability of Sources in DEARS Ambient
and Residential Outdoor Samples
j.^sBiirniria
rt Wot Vehicles
;te el Manufacturing
YeV
017
-------
SPATIAL VARIABILITY FOR SEASON 1 OUTDOOR SAMPLES
BENZO [ghi]PERYLENE
July 15, 2004*
ick stripes indicate
Allen Park Central Site
Fraction of Samples with n 25% of ' Most 25%
(n=22)
Most (but <90%) samples agree with
m
/
| I
/if1 J9 *$
& .«p j«*
-? *$* Jr
^F A*
-------
Progress/Results-Objective 6
(nuiltipollutant relationships)
1. Progress of overall effort
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
Objective 6 Progress
Current progress:
Canonical cm-relation analyses of select VOC
data and human/environmental factors
completed by EOHSI. Used as input in George
et al manuscript and input into planned Vette et
al. manuscript
Vette etal., completion of VOC and
copollutant APM report. Basis for planned
manuscript
Williams et al. Completion of mixedmodel
evaluation of factors influencing NO2, S02 and
O3 relationships. Draft manuscript developed
Objective 6 Progress
| Current progress:
Meng, Pinto et al (NCEA). Modeling of
PM and criteria gas copollutants and
human/environmental factors. AAAR
presentation developed into draft
manuscript.
Multipollutant impact upon health
outcomes. Draft manuscript completed by
Williams, Brook, et al.
Objective 6-Results
Significant indoor and personal exposure
factors influencing NO2 spatial
relationships.
Significant NO2 spatiality observed in
various neighborhoods-suspected near road
influence
ETS a major confounder of personal NO3
and VOC'data.
NO2 was detected in a high percentage.
Detection limits impacted some personal
17
35
-------
s=,Ef*
' Variability of Criteria Gas Concentrations
Metric
Personal
°3
Ambient
°3
Personal
NO2
Outdoor
NOj
Ambient
NOj
Personal
SO2
Ambient
SO.,
Days
936
199
891
989
198
928
195
Seasons
1-6
1-6
1-6
3-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
Win
(PPb>
-5.4
-3.0
-1.0
0.0
-4.0
Max
43.2
474.0
65.0
48.0
12.4
Mean
2.1
29.9
20.3
23.9
0.5
STD
(PPb)
3.3
37.4
9.7
8.2
1.7
Median
1.0
23.1
20.0
23.1
0.0
99%
(PPb)
15.0
188.0
48.0
47.5
6.0
=«=«
v>EFV\ Examples of Exposure Survey Variables
season
air exchange
time spent in activities
outdoor temperatures
ets influence
use of fans
use of air conditioning
presence of open windows
cleaning episodes
cooking episodes
age of home
proximity to roadways
attached garages
cooking fuel type
use of clothes dryers
volume of home
use of candles
use of incense
I
Impact of Human and Environmental Factors on Personal NO2 Exposures
Indoor VOC Sources Impact Personal Exposures
V'
4'-
-
\,,
'-,'
- Um
-
1
!.-
00
*-.
.
=£=
^
* li^
,**
0
1
1
*
.i*
..
_ 4{-.}-.r .
".»*
18
36
-------
Multipollutant Comparisons
Correlation with Personal NO
Correlation with Indoor EC
Indoor EC and personal Hu weaMy correlated
Personal MSATs poorly correlated wrth personal NO..; slightly better
with indoor EC
Little seasonal difference observed
Progress/Results-Source to Effects
1. Integration of Cardiovascular Health Study
2. Results
3. Examples of findings
In Home Health Data Collections
Health Measures
4 hour fast prior to measures and reduced physical
activities. Resting state obtained prior to starting.
Systolic blood pressure (SBP)- Omron 780 monitor
Diastolic blood pressure (DBF)- Omron 780 monitor
Heart rate (HR> Omron 780 monitor
Brachial artery diameter (BAD)- lOmHzTerason 2000
ultrasound
Flow-mediated dialation (FMD)- lOrnHz Terason 2000
ultrasound
Nitroglycerin-mediated dilation (NMD)@0.4 mg
sublingual
19
37
-------
Health Effects Versus PM of Non-Ambient Origin
0.23 (0.12) fl)=O.Q73)
-0.24(Q.14Hp=0.096)
Vest compliance (=-60%)
Exposure and Heart Rate
i
T
Multipollutant Effects on Health Outcomes
Model
PFe
PK
PFe
PK
PK
AFe
AZn
PNOj
PNO,
PN02
PK
AK
PNO;
Outcome
SBP
SBP
DBP
DBF
DBP
HR
HR
BAD
BAD
BAD
BAD
BAD
FMD
L>g
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
Gnif
All subjwts
Allsyhjwts
All subjects
V«t
Ailsuhjwts
AUsubjwls
AU$ubjert$
Vest
Vest
Attsubjects
AUsuhjwts
AUmltjefts
Risk
0.0128
0.0084
-0.0 124
-0.0447
-0.0163
0.0296
-0.0049
0.0041
-0.0067
-0.8007
0.0037
0.0468
SE
0.0054
0.0036
0.0056
0.0132
0.0065
0.0145
0.0023
0.0019
0.0029
0.0003
0.0017
0.0174
Rvalue
0.018?
0.0 188
0.0305
0.0016
0.0126
0.0429
0.0366
0.0353
0.0256
0.0442
0.0 3 SO
0.0079
Data Analysis Perspective
DEARS data analyses are primarily being
performed between other maj or tasks by a small
number of researchers. Competing time demands
restricting progress in some areas
Even so, progress across a wide number of
objectives has being maintained.
A large number of manuscripts are under journal
review or draft development stage
Objectives 1.2, and 6 have yielded majority of
publications to date. Significant laboratory work
in support of objective 5 has been performed.
Modeling obj ectives ramping up.
Large number of collaborations ongoing (internal
and external)
20
38
-------
Attachment 6- Exposure Assessment and Uncertainty Workgroup Summary
ASSESSMENT & UNCERTAINTY
Overall Summary
1) We need data on lead sooner than anything else
2) Next we need data and interpretation that will help us
to develop the multipollutant science assessment
What pollutants are of greatest interest to your organization?
In order of priority:
1) Lead is most urgent as the next ISA.
2) More generally, PM and ozone the most important risk drivers. For
PM, specific components, size ranges, and sources are important,
especially elemental carbon, metals, organics. coarse PM, fien PM;
ultrafine PM, traffic, secondary (ozone + SOA), industrial sources in
non-attainment areas (e.g. steel manufacturing).
3) Remaining criteria pollutants for which ISA's will be written. (For
example, DEARS data on NO2 outdoor and personal exposure and
ozone concentrations at Allen Park and from personal exposure
monitors would be useful.)
4) Surrogates of important multipollutant mixtures (e.g. EC or NOx for
traffic)
5) HAPs.
39
-------
Is there a need to establish pollutant relationships? If so, what are your
interests?
Yes, especially for multi-pollutant AQM. The key questions are:
1) what pollutants are can be grouped in reduced for epidemiological and
exposure approaches?
2) what pollutants or groups of pollutants are the best surrogates for regional or
near source exposure environments? 3) What pollutants or groups of
pollutants have similar origin and are likely to benefit from the same control
strategy?
Are there methodological considerations regarding uncertainty
data that your organization is concerned about?
Yes. Using network data for exposure assessment and
epidemiology with increased reliance on using models instead of
measurements to achieve more complete spatial and temporal data
makes high quality measurements even more important. Better
quality measurements would be especially useful for elemental
carbon.
Are you concerned about the impact of non-ambient sources of
pollutants and the uncertainty of using just ambient-based
measures of risk assessment? If so, what pollutants and their
non-abmient sources concern you?
Only to diffrentiate ambient from indoor generated pollutants. Where
data has been obtained, this is useful, but it is not as high a priority as
understanding indoor penetration or spatial and temporal variability of
pollutants from outdoor sources. The outdoor sources are of most
importance to us.
40
-------
What data do you feel is currently lacking In the published literature
concerning pollutant concentrations, pollutant sources and their
impact upon human exposures. Where are you having to use
assumptions in your research?
PM component variability, PM size class variability, PM source
composition, associations between pollutants, indoor penetration, human
activity patterns, intercity differences in both exposure factors and source
apportionment, and the relationship of each of these with meteorology and
land use; better tools for exposure modeling, air quality modeling, source
apportionment, and hybrid and mixed models.
What multi-pollutant uncertainties confront your organization? What
combinations are of greatest interest?
1) what pollutants can be grouped in reduced form epidemiological and
exposure approaches
2) what pollutants or groups of pollutants are the best surrogates for regional
or near source exposure environments?
3) What pollutants or groups of pollutants have similar origin and are likely to
benefit from the same control strategy? The combinations of greatest
interest are: traffic (PM, ultrafines, EC, NOx, CO, BTEX, butadiene,
aldehydes), secondary (SOA, sulfate, ozone), Eastern regional background
(PM, SO2, NOx), urban industrial (PM, EC, metals)
4) Understanding the relative importance of "exposure measurement error" in
a multi-pollutant context for the broad classes of "exposure measurement
error": 1) instrument measurement error, 2) detection limits, 3) spatial
misalignment, and 4) other discrepancies between monitor and exposure
(e.g. activity patterns, micro-environment). Which uncertainty dominates
and how does their relative importance vary between species?
41
-------
What multi-pollutant uncertainties confront your organization?
What combinations are of greatest interest? - Continued
5) Providing data that will help to understand interaction terms between pairs of
pollutants relevant for epidemiological studies.
6) Providing data that will help with data reduction for multipollutant
epidemiological studies, development of optimal pollutant groupings by source,
health outcome, and mode of action; and selection of optimal surrogates to be
measured.
7) Providing information for testing spatial and temporal interpolation
approaches, land use regression, air quality modeling inputs, human exposure
models.
8) Evaluate exposure model performance across pollutants to determine which
are done well, and which are more challenging.
9) Data that will help in the evaluation of synergistic effects in combined
exposure to multiple pollutants.
Concerning pollutant sources, what information is needed to confront
science areas of greatest interest? Are you interested in non-traditional
source categories (residential indoor sources, local, non-NEI sources?)
Continued development of improvement of source apportionment models,
including better characterizing and reducing uncertainty, incorporating
meteorological data and compositional restraints into models, development of
routine practical evaluation procedures for model results, including uncertainty
analysis.
Are there specific source categories that you feel deserve special Agency
attention at this time (near-roadway, airports, power plants)? If so, within
this category, what represents the greatest unknown (e.g., general
pollutant concentrations and gradients, impact on surrounding
neighborhoods, spatial/temporal variability)?
Near-roadway, power plants, industrial sources of PM high in metals and EC,
urban activity such as demolition and construction. Airports are a specific issue
for lead, but from DEARS are not designed for that purpose.
42
-------
Is there a need within your organization for information on
environmental and human exposure factors? If so, what are they and
how would such information be useful to you?
Yes, to reduce exposure misclassification. Better information is needed on
spatial and temporal variability, indoor penetration, and exposures of Pb of
ambient origin, all criteria pollutants, ultrafine PM, coarse PM, EC, metals,
sulfate, nitrate, SOA, as well as human activity patterns and activity levels in
different exposure environments, including indoor-home, indoor-work, indoor-
school, commuting (in vehicle and otherwise). More reliable ventilation and
building related data would be useful. Results of importance for
environmental justice evaluation are especially needed.
How would access to actual measurement data be useful to you in moving
specific research areas forward in your organization?
It would allow us to characterize concentration ranges and spatial patterns
relevant to exposure, and 2) it would allow us to pose and investigate
hypotheses related to exposure and receptor modeling relevant for
understanding exposure to sources.
Suggested Questions for Workshop:
1) What are the patterns and causes of spatial and temporal variability in
outdoor concentrations of lead, PM25, Ozone, NOX, ultrafine PM, coarse PM,
NOX, EC, and metals?
2) What are the relationships between these species, what factors
influence them, and what are their common sources?
3) What are the most important exposure factors for these species and how
do they differ among species? (e.g., spatial and temporal variability, indoor
penetration, human activity, breathing rate, meteorology, built
environment, others?)
4) What urban and regional sources are the most important contributors of
exposure to these species?
S) How can DEARS data help to develop a better multi-pollutant air quality
management strategy?
43
-------
Attachment 7- Human Exposure Modeling Workgroup Summary
Human Exposure Modeling
Data needs for:
- Single pollutants
- Multi-pollutant
relationships
- Individual sources
or relative impacts
of sources
- Other (specific to
human exposure)
Scale
Purpose
- NAAQS ISAs
- NAAQS
Exposure & Risk
Assessment
(APEX model)
- NATA(HAPEM
model)
Spatial scale:
national/regional/state/county/intra-urban
Temporal scale:
annual/seasonal/daily/hourly
Data Need
IN.IIll
NAAQS ISA
& Esp/Risk
Assess.
* for Single
ants?
03
PM^ mass
and species
nitrate, sulfate,
EC, OC, arid
PH0«« mass
TYPE
Amb lent air cone. /Indoorvs
outdoor/ Personal exp / Specific
micro or activity?
Ambient air
Personal exposures for
4 H i H "i i (ME & total)
Ambient ar
Indoor/outdoor & personal exp
For evaluation of exposure model
predicticns
NOT -residential micros, vehicles
for inputs
Hi^i exposure activities near
roadways?
tat**,*
Moorfooldoorfan^oa..^
Personal exp for evaluation
SCALE
Spatial
(national / regional / state-
county / intraurban)
Intra-urbanvaria lity
Intra-urban varia lity
Intra-urbanvana lity
Variability acros regions;
within urban area
Variability across regions;
Variability across regions.
Temporal
(annual / seasonal /
daily/hourly)
Hourly to 8-hour daily
maximum
Daily -hourly
Daily -hourly,
Seasonal
Daily
Daily
Daily , Seasonal
Daily , Seasonal
44
-------
Data Needs for Single
Pollutants?
NAAQSISA
&Exp/Risk
Assess.
CO &, NO2
SO2
Pb
TYPE
Ambient air cone /Ihdoorvs
outdoor /Personal exp / Specific
micro or activity'
Ambia'i: air
High concentration MEs on-
road and near roadways
Indoor/outdoor ME factors for
model inputs
Personal exposures for
evaluation itaE&totaD
Indoor sources for model inputs
(as resources p^Tiiit)
Source emission profiles
Source concentration profiles
Ambient air
Personal exposures for
evaluation (ME AtotaH
Possible data needs forlUBK
combined exposure-dose model
used for children and All-ages
Pb model under development
[IUBK model considers
ingestion and inhalation]
SCALE
tfyatial,
(jiaticnal/ regional /state-
county / intraurban)
Intra-urban v ar lability
Intra-urbanvariability, near-
road cone gradient
In tra -urban variability
Intra-urban v ariability
Regional variability
SES variability
By source type (EGUs,
refineries, etc)
Near source gradient by
source type CEGUs,, etc )
In tra -urban variability
Intra-urban v ariability
Intra-urban v ariability
Temporal
(annual / seasonal /
daily / hourly)
Hourly
Hourly
Hourly to Daily
(concentration linked)
Hourly to 8-hour daily
Hourly to Daily
5-minute to hourly
Longer time scales-
aggregate exposure
o,ernu,liple years
Data Needs for Single
Pollutants?
NATA/
HAPEM
(BTEX)
Aldehydes
Other notional
risk drivers?
Other regional
risk drivers?
TYPE
Ambient air cone /Indoorvs
outdoor / Personal exp /
Specific micro or activity?
Ambient air from monitor or
model
Indoa-Mdoorfc,,,^
Attached garages, other sources
for model inouts
Ambient air
MoaVo^rf,^
Other residential sources'
SCALE
Spatial
(national / regional / state-
county /intraurban)
Nsh'nsl coverage at census
tract/block resolution
Regional
Regional
tract/block resolution
Regional
Regional
Temporal
(annual /seasonal/
daily /hourly)
monthly, diurnal
Annual, seasonal
monthly
Annual, seasonal,
monthly
Annual, seasonal,
monthly, diurnal
Annual, seasonal,
monthly
Annual, seasonal,
monthly
45
-------
Data Needs for Multip ollutant
Relationships?
NAAQS ISA
&Esp/Risk
NATA/
HAPEM
Ozone and PM
PM^ species
hpoT-mcally nitrate,
sulfate, EC, OC,
and crustal]
PMj 5 and air toxics
CO/NG2/OTWEC
(traffic pollutants)
PM^/NCysO,
Criteria pollutants
and toxics'?1?
TYPE
Ambient air cone. /Indoor
vs outdo or / Personal exp /
Specific micro or activity'
Ambient sir relationships
Ambient air relation ships
Indoor/outdoor relationships
Ambient air relationships
Indoor/outdoor & personal
Ambient air relation ships
Indoor/outdoor relationships
Microenv ironments (e g ,
office, school, vehicles)
SCALE
Spatial
(national / regional / state-
county / intraurban)
'} anability across regions,
within urban areas
V ariabiltty across regions,
within urban areas
Variability across regions,
within urban areas
Variability across regions,
within urban areas
National1?1?
Temporal
(annual / seasonal /
daily /hourly)
Daily
Datly
"
Daily "
Hourly to daily
' |. ::;. i.'.y seasonal)
Data Needs for Individual
Sources/Relative Impact or
Sources?
NAAQS IS A
& Exp /Risk
NATA/
HAPEM
Point Scwces(e.g.,
power plants,
industry)
t/fobile Sources
Regional vs. local
sources
Indoor/activity
Others for toxics'"
TYPE
Ambient air cone /Indoor
vs outdoor /Personal exp /
Specific micro or activity?
Ambient air
Indoor/outdoor & personal
Ambient air
Indoor/outdoor & personal
Ambient air
r..,,r- 1, r.*:,Hrt-ona:
Source strength (linked to
-Ch" :M-)
SCALE
(national / regional / state-
county/intraurban)
Variability across regions;
wSmiStia^as
Variability across regions,
within urban areas
Temporal
daily/hourly)
Daily1??
Daily"
Daily??
(sub-)Hourly, Daily
46
-------
Other Data Needs for Human
Exposure Modeling?
NAAQS ISA
& Esp/Eisk
NATA/
HAPEM
Air exchange rates
Sure ey questions
Human activity data
Air quality
modeling output
Others??
TYPE
'!
Direct measures of
residential air exchange
Non -residential (e g , office.
school, vehicles)
Residential window/door
opening and AC use
Non -residential HVAC (e g
office, school)
Vehicle window and
ventilation use
Source activities
Time spent outdoors at
moderate or greater exertion
for asthmatics (O3, SO2) &
outdoor workers (03)
SCALE
Spatial
(national /regional/
state-county / intraurban)
Variability at all spatial
scales
National to regional
Regional to intra -urban
variability
Regional to local-scale
Temporal
(annual / seasonal / daily /
hourly)
Daily -hourly for model
.np..h'. All :emf"Tral scales
for evaluation
Daily
Daily, monthly
Daily
Daily
47
-------
Attachment 8-Environmental and Atmospheric Modeling Workgroup Summary
Environmental and
Atmospheric Modeling
Question: What information from measurement
studies are useful in supporting CMAQ model
performance evaluation?
Response:
Ideally, measurements made for the purpose of model evaluation are spatially dense
and have a high temporal frequency (e.g. hourly). The spatial density is dependent
on the species of interest being measured, but generally air quality model
simulations are performed using horizontal grid spacing of 12km or iess.
Additionally, measurements should be made in one location for an extended period
of time (e.g. a year) in order to assess whether the model is able to capture the
seasonal variations in species concentrations that often occur, which is difficult to
impossible to do when monitoring equipment is frequently moved to different
locations.
Measurements of ozone, PM (total and speciated), and other criteria pollutants as
well as CMAQ modeled toxics would be useful.
In additional to air quality measurements, collocated measurements of
meteorological variables (e.g. temperature, wind speed and direction) are also
critical to assessing the air quality model performance.
Information on any local emissions sources. For example, if the monitor will be
impacted by a local emissions source, for which detailed information will probably
not be available in the emissions inventory (e.g. parked car, gas station), knowing
about this source would be useful.
48
-------
Question: What information would be useful to
help make improvements CMAQ to further allow it
to support exposure modeling?
Response: Information that would help to improve
CMAQ predicted concentrations on finer
temporal and spatial scales. In these terms,
CMAQ would benefit from:
- continuous/hourly measurements,
- measurements for extensive periods of time,
- placement of measurement sites on the
neighborhood-scale throughout an urban area.
Question: Is there potential use of micro-scale
source information (e.g. presence of local gas
station, freeway distance, etc) relative to
neighborhood-based pollutant measurements?
Response: Yes! When evaluating a model, it is important to
understand the quality of the model inputs. Knowing source
information would allow one to understand the quality of the
emissions being used in the model. Though it may be difficult to
report actual source emissions during the measurement period, just
knowing that the source is there and it's location relative to the
measurement site would be useful. The same could be said for
meteorological inputs. If any meteorological measurements are
taken, then they could be compared to those being used by the
model. It is important to determine the difference between poor
model performance because of inadequate model inputs and poor
performance because a change should be made to the algorithms in
the model.
49
-------
Question: If you could design a field study meeting
your most critical data measurement needs, what
would that study involve (location, duration, time
resolution, spatial resolution, pollutant selection)?
Response; While CM AQ performance comparisons with ozone and PM tefl us whether CM AQ is
getting the "right answer", we need more complete set of chemical measurements to determine if
we are properly characterizing the pathways for ozone and PM formation, i.e. the "right reason".
Unless we can ensure the latter, we cannot have confidence that emissions reductions will really
reduce ozone and PM2.5. In addition to a large scale sampling of criteria and toxic pollutants
focused on evaluating CMAQ predictions, it is critical to have a few supersites that sample a more
complete set of precursor and product concentrations. In particular:
Organic nitrates
{including
speciatkm)
Peroxyacyl nitrates
* NO2 and NO
Nitric acid
OH
HO2
- Organic peroxy
radicals
Isoprene and other
alkenes
Oxygenated VOCs
Biogenic SOA
tracers
Anthropogenic SOA
tracers
Question: Are there other models that could
benefit from the measurement data for
model validation?
Response: Yes, other photochemical
models, such as CAMx, would also benefit
from the measurement studies discussed
here. In addition, dispersion models, such
as AERMOD, would also find this data
useful.
50
-------
Question: What multipollutant mixtures are
of the highest interest?
Response: In general, ozone and PM (PM25&
PM10_25) components are of interest. In addition,
toxic pollutants which have high risk and are
also prevalent in most urban areas are of
interest. Until more information is known about
additivities or synergies of toxic pollutants, a
wide range of toxic compounds over consistent
sampling times and locations should be
collected.
51
-------
Attachment 9- Health and Epidemiology Workgroup Summary
Health and Epidemiology
Overall Summary
1) We need more research on health outcomes beyond
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, and mortality.
2) More studies on susceptible populations is needed.
3) Improvements in multi-pollutant modeling are needed.
4) Better characterization of exposure is necessary.
What links between air pollutants and
disease have not been well established?
Developmental and reproductive
outcomes
Cancer
Neurological/CNS outcomes
Inflammatory/Autoimmune diseases (e.g.,
diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis)
Development/Progression of disease (e.g.
asthma) (as opposed to prevalence)
52
-------
What potentially susceptible populations
need further study?
Genetics/Epigenetics
Preexisting disease (e.g., Diabetes)
Obesity/BMI
Socioeconomic status
Race/Ethnicity
Children/Elderly (mechanistic evidence)
What improvements in multi-pollutant
modeling are needed?
Multi-pollutant modeling
- How can we disentangle the effects of individual
pollutants from the ambient mixture?
Example: Health effects with CO are observed at very
low levels. Is the effect due to CO or is CO a marker
for traffic?
- How do we model multi-pollutant exposure in
epidemiological models?
Are all pollutants put into the model as individual
variables?
Can pollutants be combined into some type of indicator
variable?
Can pollutants be combined into source categories?
53
-------
What improvements in characterizing
exposures are needed?
Windows of exposure
- Establishing consistent exposure periods
across studies
- Determining the appropriate windows of
exposure depending on the health outcome
and pollutant chemistry and dispersion
characteristics
Coarse and Ultrafine PM
- Need a better understanding of the spatial
and temporal patterns
What improvements in characterizing
exposures are needed?
PM composition (All size fractions)
- Are certain constituents considered more toxic than
others?
- Is the current monitoring adequate for health studies?
- Characterization of geographic heterogeneity in
composition
Ambient vs. Non-ambient
- Non-ambient concentrations can be greater than ambient
levels
- Assessments of non-ambient exposures are needed in the
context of large epidemiological studies
- Are there differences in ambient vs. non-ambient
exposures with respect to composition and size distribution
(for PM)?
54
-------
Attachment 10-Common Needs Summary
Common Needs
Data need
High frequency spatial and
temporal measurement data of
criteria pollutants
03 & PM and multipollutant
measures and establishment of
relationships, including health
effects
High quality meteorology
Macro and micro emission
source identification and
composition
Short time interval pollutant
measures
Nitrogen
cycling/radicals/biogenics
Application of other models
(CAMx; AERMOD)
Lead findings
Multipollutant groupings
PM component findings
Establishment of source
surrogates
HAPs-VOCs, andnon-HAP-
VOCs, PAHs, findings
including health effects
Improved models using
ambient data
Impact of personal & indoor
air quality on ambient
assessment, including health
effects
Human and environmental
exposure factors
Exposure &
uncertainty
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Atmospheric
modeling
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Human
exposure
modeling
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Health &
epidemiology
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
55
-------
Common Needs (continued)
Data need
exposure misclassification
Measurement uncertainty
error & exposure
misclassification
PMcoarse data findings
Effect of specific
multipollutant sources upon
susceptible subpopulations
Stationary monitoring of long
duration (consistent location)
Exposure &
uncertainty
/
/
/
Atmospheric
modeling
/
Human
exposure
modeling
/
Health &
epidemiology
/
/
/
56
-------
Attachment 11-Data Analysis Workshop Part 2 Agenda
Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study
(DEARS)
Data Analysis Workshop-Part 2
EPA- RTP Campus-room C112
November 3 Oth, 2010
1:00-3:00pm
Agenda
Welcome and introductions Tim Watkins (NHEERL
Acting Division Director)
Workshop overview Tim Watkins (NHEERE)
Part 1 Review Ron Williams (NERL)
Research data gaps Ron Williams (NERL)
and the DEARS
Invitation to participants Roy Fortmann (NERL)
Adjournment Roy Fortmann (NERL)
57
-------
Attachment 12-Overall Workgroup Summaries
ASSESSMENT & UNCERTAINTY
Overall Summary
1) We need data on lead sooner than anything
else
2) Next we need data and interpretation that
will help us to develop the multipollutant
science assessment
Environmental and Atmospheric Modeling
Overall Summary Data Needs
1. Spatially dense and high temporal frequency of
PM, ozone, air toxics, etc
2. Speciation of PM associated with saturation
monitoring
3. High quantity/high quality meteorological data
of a given area
4. Local emission sources
5. Nitrogen cycling/radicals/biogenics
measurements
58
-------
Human Exposure Modeling
Overall Summary Data Needs
1. Single pollutant concentrations
2. Multi-pollutant relationships
3. Individual sources and impacts of sources
4. Exposure factors (human/environmental)
5. Wide range of temporal and spatial scales
measurements
6. Determinants for PMSHEDS and potentially
other models in support of the NAAQS
Health and Epidemiology
Overall Summary
1) We need more research on health outcomes beyond
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, and mortality.
2) More studies on susceptible populations is needed.
3) Improvements in multi-pollutant modeling are needed.
4) Better characterization of exposure is necessary.
59
-------
Attachment 13-DEARS Publication Plan
Draft under devetoprn
linked health effects study with the DEARS Rob Brook
Pending development by Whitaker
Application of models developed for outdoor
spatsal gradients to evaluate residential
Impact of mobile sources on residential concentrations and role of housing characteristics and a;r exchange
an exposures of air pollutants rate on indoor infiltration of MSAPs Possbily NCEA
vith
Thomburg, Rodes
Published 2009
Undergoing final EPA .
60
-------
DEARS Publication Plan, continued
Integration of DEARS and Health Heart
Integration of Health and PM components
61
-------
Attachment 14-Common Needs Priorities
Common Needs
Data need
High frequency
spatial and
temporal
measurement
data of criteria
pollutants
03 & PM and
multipollutant
measures and
establishment of
relationships,
including health
effects
Macro and
micro emission
source
identification
and
composition
Checks
4
4
4
Output
1 .publications
defining
concentration
variablity
2. database
1 .publications
reporting spatial and
temporal
correlations and
impact of multi-
pollutant scenarios
upon health
outcomes
2. database
1 . publications
defining regional
sources. Articles
defining impacts of
non-ambient
sources, including
ETS
2. database
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM 714
DEARS
useful
1. limited
2. limited
l.Yes
2.Yes
l.Yes
2. Yes
Products
1 . Continuous PM
measures and
resulting health
associations
2. available
1. Drafts of
multipollutant
impact on health and
factors impacting
exposures to 03,
N02, S02
relationships to
ambient sources
2. available
1 . Articles on
regional and indoor
sources
2. Database of local
sources
Current
progress
1. Short-term exposures and
health impacts under journal
review. Impact of indoor
sources on total exposures to
be drafted in 2011.
Ultimately to be challenged
versus CV outcomes in 2012.
2. Continuous personal &
indoor & outdoor & ambient
PM2.5 database has been
assembled.
1. Three articles under EPA
review
2. available
1. Submitted or drafted
2. available
62
-------
Data need
Short time
interval
pollutant
measures
HAPs-VOCs,
and non-HAP-
VOCs, PAHs,
findings
including health
effects
PM component
findings
Checks
4
4
3
Output
1 . Publications on
concentration
variability. Pubs on
hourly data from
PM and gases
needed
2. database
1 . Publications on
HAP pollutant levels
and spatial/temporal
relationships.
Factors (sources)
influencing
relationships
important. Impact of
HAPS on health.
2. database
1 . publications on
organic and
inorganic speciation
for all PM size
fractions.
2. database for
model evaluation
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
DEARS
useful
1. Limited
2. Limited
l.Yes
2.Yes
l.Yes
2. Yes
Products
1. Temperature
impact on health.
Short-term PM
impacts on health
2. available
1 . Spatial and
temporal
relationships and
factors influencing
these relationships.
Method
considerations in
selecting organic
markers. Use of
organic markers in
source
apportionment
2. in development
1. PM2.5 and
PMcoarse
speciation. Spatial
and temporal
variability and
relationships.
Factors influencing
component
relationships with
respect to proximity
could be performed
2. in development
Current
progress
1. Articles in final journal
review.
2.temp database being
prepared for NCEA
1 . Articles to be submitted in
F Y 20 11. CV health impacts
analyzed in 2011.
2. database fully assembled
inFY2011.
1 . Articles reporting spatial
and/or temporal N03, S04,
EC & PM2.5 elemental data
in process. Other topics
could be examined.
PMcoarse findings to be
summarized in 2011 and
reported in 2012.
2. PM2.5 data available,
PMcoarse available in 2011.
63
-------
Data need
Impact of
personal &
indoor air
quality on
ambient
assessment,
including health
effects
Human and
environmental
exposure factors
Checks
3
3
Output
1 . Publications on
non-ambient source
impacts to personal
exposures and
resulting health
outcomes.
2. Model evaluation
3. Model
development
4. database
1 . Publications on
factors impacting
use of ambient
monitoring as a
surrogate of
exposure.
2. database
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM 714
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM 714
DEARS
useful
l.Yes
2.Yes
3. Yes
4.Yes
l.Yes
2.Yes
Products
1 . articles on
personal&indoor& a
mbient gas and
PM2.5 speciation as
they relate to
ambient monitoring.
Articles reporting
impact of PM of
ambient and non-
ambient origin.
Articles reporting
impact of PM and
gas source origins
on health
2. PMSHEDS
evaluation
3. EMI development
4. available for
PM2.5 and gases
1 . Articles needed
defining factors and
their impact on
personal exposure
for PM, PM species
and gases.
2. Development of
factors database
Current
progress
1 . Article defining personal,
and non-ambient sources on
total exposures published
(20 10). Article on PM
sources and CV health in
press. Article on PM species
and gas impact on health
submitted. Personal, indoor,
outdoor, ambient elemental
relationships under EPA
review. VOC comparisons
drafted. Two articles on
exposures to 03, N02, S02
under EPA review. Article to
be developed in 2011
defining indoor sources,
ultimately to be linked with
CV outcomes (2012).
2. PMSHEDS evaluation
underway
3. EMI to be developed in
2011
4. PM2.5 and gas data
available
Articles drafted on factors
impacting personal exposure
to ambient and non-ambient
sources of 03, N02, S02.
Similar work proposed for
PM2.5 and its components
(2012)
2. gas and PM data and
factor data fully available
64
-------
Data need
PMcoarse data
findings
High quality
meteorology
Nitrogen
cycling/radicals/
biogenics
Application of
other models
(CAMx;
AERMOD)
Checks
3
2 or less
2 or less
2 or less
Output
1 . Need articles on
spatial temporal
relationships and use
of ambient as a
surrogate of
exposure. Need
articles defining
coarse speciation
and its variability
due to time/space.
Need articles on
personal exposures.
Need pubs on
impact of coarse PM
on health effects
2. database for
model development
1 . Met database of a
given location of
sufficient depth and
duration.
1 . Database needed
as modeling input
1. Database for
model evaluation
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM
714
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
DEARS
useful
l.Yes
2. Yes
l.No
l.No
1. Limited
Products
1 . Article on spatial
and temporal
variability.
2. Development of
speciated database
1 . None anticipated
1 . None anticipated
1 . None currently
planned
Current
progress
1. Article published in 2010.
Laboratory work being
completed on speciation
during 2011.
2. Speciated database
developed in 2011.
1 . No action
1 . No action
1 . No action
65
-------
Data need
Lead findings
Multipollutant
groupings
Checks
2 or less
2 or less
Output
1 . Publications on
spatial/temporal
relationships. Impact
of lead
concentrations at
low levels of
interest.
Establishment of
low dose health
response.
2. panel study
incorporating
biomarker recovery
3. exposure database
1 . Publications on
what pollutants
might be grouped to
represent a source.
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM 714
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM 714
DEARS
useful
l.Yes
2. No
3. Yes
l.Yes
Products
2. Articles on
personal & indoor &
outdoor
concentrations and
spatial/temporal
relationships. Article
on variability
between and within
neighborhoods.
2. No panel study
planned
3. Database released
to OTAQ/NCEA.
More work proposed
relating to PMcoarse
speciation
1 . Examination of
pollutants
representative of a
near-road
environment.
Examination of
HAPS that might be
representative of
select source
categories including
organic and
inorganic profiles.
Current
progress
1 .Articles either under
journal review or being
developed. Anticipate 2011
submission.
2. None
3. All available data released.
1 . 2009 pub on near road
VOCs but did not address
primary issue. Article
describing HAPS as source
markers to be submitted in
2011.
66
-------
Data need
Establishment
of source
surrogates
Improved
models using
ambient data
exposure
misclassificatio
n
Checks
2 or less
2 or less
2 or less
Output
1 . Publications on
identification of
surrogates to
represent an
exposure source
category
1. Database
1 . Publications on
determinants
relating erroneous
source identification
or over/under
representing one or
more source
contributions to
health effect
associations.
Specific discussions
on various error
source terms would
be of value.
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
DEARS
useful
1. Maybe
l.Yes
l.Yes
Products
1 . Sufficient data is
probably available
to examine this issue
in an exploratory
way.
1. Evaluation of
PMSHEDS.
Development of
EMI for NEXUS
using DEARS inputs
1 . Articles reporting
impact of ETS on
total personal
exposures and
impact of ETS on
observed health
effects for PM of
ambient and non-
ambient origin.
Articles describing
non-ambient source
impacts on N02
exposures.
Current
progress
1 . No action
1. PM2.5 and factor data
needed for PMSHEDS.
PMcoarse component inputs
needed. EMI-NEXUS to be
developed in 2011.
1 . Articles published or in
press concerning ETS
impacts (2010). More work
could be performed in this
area if resources permitted.
Non-ambient N02 source
impactions defined in
multiple articles under EPA
review.
67
-------
Data need
Measurement
uncertainty
error &
exposure
misclassifi-
ication
Effect of
specific
multipollutant
sources upon
susceptible
subpopulations
Stationary
monitoring of
long duration
(consistent
location)
Checks
2 or less
2 or less
2 or less
Output
1. Publications
relating imprecision
of a given
measurement to
accurately represent
an exposure metric
1 . Need pubs
dealing with impact
of copollutants on
various
subpopulations
1 . Database needed
for model input and
involving extensive
monitoring in a
given location
Need date
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM
/14
Pb 7/11
03 7/11
NOx/SOx 6/12
Mult Pol 6/12
PM /14
DEARS
useful
l.Yes
l.No.
DEARS
was a
general
population
l.No
Products
1. Ability of an
ambient monitor to
act as an appropriate
surrogate for
personal exposures
to PM, PM
components, gases,
VOCs are being
examined and
summarized.
1. Supported
NEXUS
development
1 . None
Current
progress
1. 2010 publication defining
necessary PM2.5 personal
monitoring to reflect
acceptable error. Impact of
PM2.5 personal monitoring
compliance error on CV
outcomes in press. Articles
onVOCandSVOCerrorto
be reported in 2011.
1 . NEXUS is ongoing study
1 . No action.
68
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |