Particulate and Lung DiseaseDavid Brown Sc.D.

EHHI

How should the Public Health system work with uncertain but

plausible health hazards?

Can We Assume That Compliance With Federal Clean Air Standards Protects Against

Short Term Health Impacts?

• Standards are set by expert committees• There are safety factors built in standards• Standards must have a bright line for

attainment• Compliance is monitored

18 Feb 2004 Environment Northeast 7

Public Health Risks Are SignificantParticles are linked to: Premature death from heart and lung disease Aggravation of heart and lung diseases

Hospital admissions Doctor and ER visits Medication use School and work absences

And possibly to Lung cancer deaths Infant mortality Developmental problems,

such as low birth weight in children

DIESEL PARTICLE

PM 2.5 RANGE

WATER ADSORBED

IRRITANT GAS ABSORBED IN WATER

Irritantgases Deep lung exposure

to irritants

How particles increase exposure of irritants to the deep lungs

Results from the Harvard Six-cities study: All Cause Mortality Rates most exposed to

least exposed City Fine Particles

• All cause death 1.26 (1.08-1.47)• Lung Cancer 1.37 (0.81-2.31)• Cardio pulmonary 1.37 (1.11-1.68)• Other causes 1.01 (0.79-1.30)• Range of exposure 11-29.6 ug/m3• Dockery, NEJM 1993; 329: 1753-1759

Health actions from exposures of 2 hours or less.

• Peters etal. pm 2.5 & myocardial infarction– 1.48 odds ratio 2 hr after 25ug/m3 increase– 1.69 odds ratio 1 day after 20ug/m3 increase

• Gent etal. Severe asthma & O3, pm 2.5– 35% increase wheeze 1 hr after 50ppb O3 inc.– 47% increase in chest tightness 1 hr after.– 1.24 odds ratio Chest tightness 12-18ug/m3 pm

Moral stewardship in search of an intellectual framework.

Theories of Deontology and Utilitarianism 1) Value of an act is found within the act. 2) The value of an act is found in the outcome.

Four ideas 1600-1700:Bacon…..A new scienceNewton…Reductionism a new approachKant…….The whole is more than the sum of the partsBentham….Charity- science serves the needs of men.

Uncertainty paradox of Good Science in Public Health

• Science- Assume something is not true until proven at a level of statistical certainty.– Preferred action is to collect more data

• Public Health- Assume something may be true based on suggestive but statistically inconclusive evidence– Preferred action is to intervene to prevent

potential health effect.

Result of application of “Good Science” is loss of time,

lives and treasure• Smoking• Dioxin• Asbestos• Chordane• Mercury• Particulate• Asthma at the end of the 20th century

Health events that occur to students and teachers in

schools• Accidents• Colds, flu and headaches• Asthmatic attacks/ treatment• Others• Could any of these be environmental?

Health events are rarely linked with environmental exposures

• Most health events have multiple causes• Only a small part of the group responds• The exposures are not known sufficiently• Investigations are complex and data is sparse• The cause of the effect is other than environmental

but there may be an environmental role

But there are environmentally induced diseases and responses• Some are related to molds and other factors

in buildings• Some have been found to be related to 6 to

12 pollutants found in outside air• Two agents, Ozone and PM, are linked to

short term asthmatic and cardiac responses• How do we respond to these agents?

It is necessary to understand the following

• The Health Effects that are related to air quality

• Pollutant sources• Movement of air into and within the school• Ways to reduce the potential for exposures

“Bad” Air Quality

• Ozone• Particulate Matter• Nitrogen Dioxide• Sulfur Dioxide• Hazardous Air Pollutants (Toxins)• Lead• Carbon Monoxide

Ozone

Adverse effects following low-concentration exposure:– chest pains, – coughing, – nausea, – throat irritation, and – congestion.

It also can worsen bronchitis, heart disease, emphysema, and asthma, and reduce lung capacity.

Studies conducted in the northeastern United States and Canada that show that ozone air pollution may be associated with 10-20 percent of all of the summertime respiratory-related hospital admissions.

US Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria Document in support of proposed 8-hour ozone standard

Particulate Matter

• Premature death; • Respiratory related hospital admissions and emergency

room visits; • Aggravated asthma; • Acute respiratory symptoms; • Chronic bronchitis; • Decreased lung function; and • Work and school absences.

Particulate Matter

• EPA has revised the primary (health-based) PM standards by adding a new annual PM2.5 standard set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard set at 65 µg/m3.

• EPA is retaining the current annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3 and adjusting the PM10 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 by changing the form of the standard.

1

EPA’s AQI for PM-2.5

AQI Index Values

AQI

Descriptor

Concentration

range (24-hour ave.)

Color

0 to 50

Good

0 g/m3 to 15.4 g/m3

Green

51 to 100

Moderate

15.5 g/m3 to 40.4 g/m3

Yellow

101 to 150

Unhealthy

for Sensitive Groups

40.5 g/m3 to

65.4 g/m3

Orange

151 to 200

Unhealthy

65.5 g/m3 to 150.4 g/m3

Red

201 to 300

Very

Unhealthy

150.5 g/m3 to

250.4 g/m3

Purple

What does this mean?• Air exposures induce plausible health

risks from short term elevation during regulatory attainment of clean air standards.

• Science should be brought to the legal decision making.

• Investigation of the quantitative health risk from localized short term air exposures is needed.

Question: How to use existing information to assess environmental exposures?

• Attainment model approach• Evoked response model approach• Statistical analyses

– Expected spatial distributions– Expected temporal distributions– S plus approach– Cluster analysis– Edge theory analysis

Hourly Fine Aerosol

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ug/m

3

As part of the process to determine whether an area meets the EPA particulate matter standard, this 3-month long series of hourly observations would be collapsed to a single value… 9.2 ug/m3… Totally obscuring any “structure” or other “content” within the data set (Carmine Dibattista, CT DEP).

Hfd da ave NH da Ave Wby da ave HFD max NH max Wby max5/23 6.00 0.08 1.70 5/23 8.33 0.60 2.775/24 8.09 3.49 4.17 5/24 11.90 7.73 8.205/25 8.52 4.60 5.12 5/25 16.33 7.90 7.935/26 8.87 4.42 4.60 5/26 11.97 5.67 6.235/27 6.96 4.32 4.50 5/27 10.23 8.03 8.775/28 12.60 11.87 13.00 5/28 15.13 15.63 16.935/29 11.85 12.67 10.37 5/29 15.67 16.97 12.975/30 4.10 1.78 3.35 5/30 6.73 2.40 5.135/31 5.68 2.40 5.20 5/31 11.87 4.03 11.306/1 7.40 5.99 5.74 6/1 12.10 9.47 10.306/2 7.51 8.48 8.66 6/2 11.47 9.87 12.576/3 9.08 6.24 7.40 6/3 14.00 14.40 13.806/4 7.79 10.03 10.20 6/4 12.47 20.47 16.976/5 8.98 7.24 9.88 6/5 12.13 14.30 12.206/6 7.10 5.26 7.46 6/6 8.97 9.73 11.606/7 7.39 5.99 7.65 6/7 10.60 9.97 20.176/8 7.92 9.23 7.08 6/8 10.27 21.63 9.576/9 8.32 6.07 5.41 6/9 11.33 13.13 8.43

6/10 9.41 7.95 6.04 6/10 14.13 15.03 10.576/11 19.03 23.03 12.58 6/11 25.33 27.07 17.406/12 13.52 14.94 9.43 6/12 18.03 20.63 15.706/13 26.58 35.21 28.76 6/13 44.43 53.87 43.636/14 30.15 28.81 22.66 6/14 35.87 35.30 30.806/15 23.90 18.33 15.85 6/15 32.33 29.27 20.436/16 13.35 11.26 11.98 6/16 15.43 16.03 15.436/17 7.36 3.27 4.05 6/17 14.70 7.83 11.176/18 12.46 9.10 9.49 6/18 18.27 15.63 13.576/19 19.25 22.88 16.13 6/19 31.93 29.67 29.476/20 27.71 23.72 21.57 6/20 45.33 36.37 38.406/21 11.18 14.67 7.86 6/21 18.63 25.13 16.436/22 10.60 10.39 6.34 6/22 22.53 22.17 12.976/23 8.73 9.45 6.25 6/23 12.00 14.10 10.876/24 6.41 5.80 5.03 6/24 9.80 11.03 7.976/25 9.71 7.33 4.54 6/25 22.30 14.13 8.006/26 13.36 12.54 8.85 6/26 18.27 19.43 13.336/27 22.21 22.36 17.70 6/27 33.90 34.97 31.436/28 33.57 32.86 30.01 6/28 43.43 39.53 39.336/29 8.06 7.71 6.31 6/29 17.70 16.50 12.876/30 3.06 3.06 1.34 6/30 12.10 12.10 7.47

PM 2.5 New Haven, Hartford and Waterbury (ug/m3)

June daily average

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.00

5/29 6/3 6/8 6/13 6/18 6/23 6/28 7/3

Fine particles, or haze, restrict our ability to see long distances

HartfordOct. 8, 20024 p.m. EDT

Unadjusted Hourly conc. of fine particles – 4 g/m3

HartfordOct. 2, 20024 p.m. EDT

Unadjusted Hourly conc. of fine particles – 24 g/m3

33 Air Toxics in Connecticut

43%

20%

29%

8%

Highw ay

Off Highw ay

Area

Point

Consider the different sources of toxics in outdoor air separately

• Transport from other regions– Fossil fuel and ozone

• Transport from the within the region– Utilities, fossil fuel and transportation

• Local sources such traffic and area sources– Transportation, off road commercial

• Immediate sources near the buildings– Vehicles diesel, pesticides and construction

School child exposure, continuous nephelometer15 minute averages

00.020.040.060.080.1

Bus 7:30 to 8:40 and 2:30 to 3:40

mg/

m3

School child exposure, continuous nephelometer

Central Ct. town, PM 10, 5 min. moving average

00.020.040.060.08

0.10.12

Wai

t

BU

S

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

BU

S

8:30 am to 3:35 pm

mg/

m3

School Child Exposure Continuous Nephelometer

PM 2.5 Ct. Coastal Town ( 5min moving average) 17 minute bus ride

00.020.040.060.08

Wai

t

BU

S

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

Sch

ool

8:15am to 3:20 pm

mg/

m3

Individual Student Exposure to Particulates (PM 2.5 ug/m3)

Maximum

Mean

25th %

Minimum

75th %

Comparing ambient pm with School and Buses

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

24 hr aveMax hr

0.020.0

40.060.080.0

100.0120.0

Feb 27

Mar 8'

Mar 15

Mar 20

Mar 29

Apr 24

Apr 26

May

14

May

15

ave school

ave Bus

Compare Bus to School and Ambient monitor for PM.

0

20

40

60

80

100

24 hr ave

Max hr

Ave school

Ave bus

Difference in amount of exposure between times of day

8/27/99 PM 2.5 exposure ug

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Pm 2.5 exposure for 3 hr periods

0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00

100.00120.00140.00160.00

8/27/99

24.00

21.00

18.00

15.00

12.00

9.00

6.00

3.00

Actual inhaled dose varies between day, time of day, activity and location for child

Ug PM/day shown by 3 hr dose indoor and outdoor ( based on ambient levels and normal activity)

0.00100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00700.00800.00900.00

1000.00

8/20/9

9

8/22/9

9

8/24/9

9

8/26/9

9

8/28/9

9

8/30/9

99/1

/999/3

/999/5

/999/7

/999/9

/99

24.00

21.00

18.00

15.00

12.00

9.00

6.00

3.00

One half the volume in each hour

One half the volume out each hour

School

0

50

100

150

200

250

inside

outside

Buildings have memories of outside exposuresA 400 ppm diesel particulate emission from a bus that idles for one hour next to the school exposes the students for over 3 hours

Possible diurnal influence on school air

25% air change in building (ug/m3)out door contribution only

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8

10 12

2 4 6 8

10

outdoor

indoor

Possible diurnal influence on school air

50% exchange rate outdoor contribution only

01020304050

outdoor

indoor

Analyzing fine PM data by comparing 3-hr exposure distributions to daily and annual averages reveals significant underestimation of potential health risk.

Comparison of PM2.5 24-hr avg and 3-hr max avg for New Haven CT site, 2001

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.001 16 31 46 61 76 91 106

121

136

151

166

181

196

211

226

241

256

271

286

301

316

331

346

361

PM2.5 values ascending by day, 2001

ug/m

3

24 hr avg 3 hr max avg

Effect of ‘morning’ decrease in local wind-speed and mixing volume during sun rise

Hourly average pm 2.5 Jan/jun 2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

PM 2.5

0

10

20

30

40

501 4 7

10 13 16 19 22hour

NH6/27

H6/27

W6/27

Local air quality events that are seen inside the school

• Buses idling• Morning traffic• Commercial vehicles• Construction• Sun rising and sun setting• Nocturnal Jet• Sun rising and sun setting• Changes in the weather • Pesticide applications

Information from existing data

• Vt. monitoring data shows 11 compounds drive most of risk.

• Using CEP and NATA, EPA characterized types of risk and sources at county levels.

• Multi-city studies determine level of health risks from PM and ozone nationally.

• Levy shows local and regional risk from two power plants.

Fine ParticulatesPM2.5 Spatial Distribution in NE

• Current monitoring network analyses average away PM2.5 variability.

• Are spatial and temporal factors (local sources, unique terrain, meteorology) influencing concentrations and creating PM gradients?

• If so, micro-scale exposure assessments must be refined.

• May reveal downward bias of health effects estimates: are missing populations at risk?

Lessons learned or hints• Short term local exposures are

disproportionate, 5 to 15% of days in NE.• Sources of variability are:

– Location– Season– Time of day– Sources– Meteorology, weather patterns in NE

Six ways to reduce the potential for exposures

• Identify sources near the building• Restrict emissions during periods of poor

air mixing• Reduce idling of engines during the 3 hours

prior to student occupancy of building• Increase ‘make up’ air during clean periods• Prevent stagnation of air within the school• Adjust student activities

Conclusions• A more robust reporting statistic is needed

in addition to attainment levels.• The weather variable is discontinuous

existing in 4 forms in the NE.• National analyses do not characterized NE

risk.• Averaging time is critical for understanding

health risk• Health outcome should drive the risk

analysis