1 / 7

Some consideration

Some consideration. Any new proposed metric should be poorly correlated with PM10/2.5 Additional indicator does not necessarily have to be promoted to a standard to guide policy in reducing health effects

libra
Download Presentation

Some consideration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Some consideration • Any new proposed metric should be poorly correlated with PM10/2.5 • Additional indicator does not necessarily have to be promoted to a standard to guide policy in reducing health effects • Not per se temperal but spatial. E.g. soot, black smoke shows more spatial variability which is needed for observational studies

  2. ZW= black smoke

  3. Some consideration • Any new proposed metric should be poorly correlated with PM10/2.5 • Not per se temperal but spatial. E.g. soot, black smoke shows more spatial variability which is needed for observational studies • Consider other dimensions than mass, e.g. oxidative or genotoxic potential that are presumingly more health relevant • Are there components that are not capture by routine PM monitors that are still health relevant, e.g. semi volatile organics

  4. Scenarios • A Yes, supporting evidence from toxicology (and epidemiology) that low mass components can induce significant toxicity, UFP, There are dosimetric reasons to classify UFPs as a separate fraction and also that UFP can induce different health effects than larger PM • B Difficult with changing source composition in time but also while being transported to a receptor. Yet important to know what are the most toxic source emissions: is woodsmoke just as toxic as diesel soot? • C Little evidence apart from adjuvant action of bioaerosols and diesel exhaust or PM in general. Tox studies are usually not designed to detect synergy

  5. Scenarios • D Sulfate itself may not be very harmful but it is still a result of anthropogenic emissions and might be good indicator. Recent studies using other constituents suggest that sulfate is less relevant. • Sea salt: allowed to subtract from measurements in Europe; this opens opportunities to increase level of the more toxic fraction

  6. Standard Abatement strategy: focus on toxic part of PM

  7. Scenarios • D Sulfate itself may not be very harmful but it is still a result of anthropogenic emissions and might be good indicator. Recent studies using other constituents suggest that sulfate is less relevant. • Sea salt: allowed to subtract from measurements in Europe; this opens opportunities to increase level of the more toxic fraction • E. Gas – PM interactions? Very little information. Suggestion NO2 increase due to catalic particle traps cause increased tox. Yet, also evidence for the opposite effect.

More Related