1 / 51

Exposure and Health Assessment of Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report

Exposure and Health Assessment of Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report. L.-J. S. Liu, T. Gould, D. Kalman, J. Kaufman, C. Marquist, J. Sullivan, C. Trenga, University of Washington C. Claiborn , R. Dhammapala, J. Jimenez Washington State University

sarai
Download Presentation

Exposure and Health Assessment of Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report

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. Exposure and Health Assessmentof Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report L.-J. S. Liu, T. Gould, D. Kalman, J. Kaufman, C. Marquist, J. Sullivan, C. Trenga, University of Washington C. Claiborn, R. Dhammapala, J. Jimenez Washington State University For Pullman Town Meeting (Sept 3, 2003)

  2. of Potential air quality impacts most likely occur at the confluence of these conditions!

  3. Some Terminology • PM10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers in “aerodynamic diameter” • PM2.5 = PM smaller than 2.5 micrometers in AD • Fine PM ~ PM2.5 (mainly combustion) • Coarse PM ~ PM10 – PM2.5 (mainly mineral dust) • Dust in the air may be from ~1 to 100 micrometers

  4. What are the Impacts of Field Burning in Washington State? It has been difficult to quantify the air quality impacts in the rural areas of E. WA • Spatial variability • Short-term PM spikes (both PM10 and PM2.5) • Paucity of continuous monitors • Small populations This is the first study to measure personal exposures to smoke from agricultural burning

  5. Issues • Community exposure vs. ambient concentrations • Health effects of peak exposures • Regulations based upon annual and 24-hr averages • Air monitoring strategy must address all these issues!

  6. What is personal exposure? • Outdoor concentrations • Indoor concentrations • “Personal Cloud” • Can be measured directly or estimated from time-activity diaries coupled with outdoor and indoor monitoring at homes

  7. A Burning Question Are episodes of increased particulate matter air pollution from agricultural burning associated with health effects in asthmatics, as measured by: • Decrement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)? • Increase in exhaled nitric oxide (eNO)? • Increase in asthmatic symptoms and/or use of rescue medications?

  8. Objectives • Characterize the air quality impacts from agricultural field burning in Eastern WA • Characterize community exposure to agricultural smoke • Determine the relationship(s), if any, between particulate air pollution from Ag burning and acute adverse health outcomes in asthmatic adults

  9. Study Location • Washington State University community, Pullman • Population density • Impacted by wheat burning in WA and grass burning in Idaho • Historical data • Infrastructure

  10. Population Density WASHINGTON Spokane – Coeur d’Alene IDAHO Pullman - Moscow Tri-Cities Moses Lake Eastern WA

  11. Study Population • 32 adults, male or female, aged 18-65, in the WSU community, Pullman, WA. • Physician-diagnosed mild to moderate asthma • With or without inhaled corticosteroid use, but prefer those without • Sample size was determined based on power simulations • Many concerns for using children subjects – focus was thus on adults

  12. Subject Locations

  13. Study Period • ~60-day period, between Sept 3 and Nov 1, 2002 • 2 monitoring sessions, each session consisting of 32 subjects and 30 days of monitoring period. • 32 subjects: 16 Active and 16 on-call • Those 16 subjects who are active in session 1 become on-call in session 2. • Vice versa

  14. Health Effect Assessment Active subjects – 3 lab visits/week • Pulmonary function (Micro DL) • Breath samples for CO, eNO • PFT: 4 X/day, 7d/wk: upon awakening, before lunch, before dinner, before retiring • Symptom/medication and time-activity diaries On-call subjects – 3 lab visits/episode • 3 consecutive-day lab visits (eNO, CO, PFT, urine samples) during an episode • Daily self-administered PFT, sym/med, and TAD

  15. Exhaled Nitric Oxide • Non-invasive measure of pulmonary inflammation which increases with asthma exacerbation. • More sensitive in detecting worsening asthma control than standard pulmonary function measures [Spirometry].

  16. Exposure Assessment Central Site Monitoring on WSU campus (rooftop) • 12-hr PM2.5 samples on quartz, Teflon filters with HI • 24-hr aldehydes with DNPH coated Sep-Paks • Real-time Bsp via nephelometer (measure of fine PM) • “Continuous” (half-hour) PM2.5 and PM10 via TEOMs • Continuous CO, CO2, NOx, SO2, T, and RH

  17. Exposure Assessment Outdoor Monitoring • Topologic considerations • 2 nephelometer sites (including DOE site) (indirect measure of fine PM) • 6 24-h PM2.5 samples via HPEMs during episodes

  18. Outdoor Sites

  19. Exposure Assessment - continued • Indoor Monitoring • Real-time T, RH • 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home (indirect measure of fine PM) • Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM

  20. Exposure Assessment - continued • Indoor Monitoring • Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home • Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM • Time-activity diary • From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution • For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM

  21. Exposure Assessment - continued • Indoor Monitoring • Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home • Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM • Time-activity diary • From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution • For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM • Personal sampling: • 2/d, 2 HPEMs/subject (Teflon for XRF, quartz for EC/OC)

  22. Exposure Assessment - continued • Indoor Monitoring • Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home • Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM • Time-activity diary • From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution • For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM • Personal Sampling: • 2/d, 2 HPEMs/subject (Teflon for XRF, quartz for EC/OC) • Urine Sample Collection and smoked food diary • Daily urine samples from the 2 intensive monitoring subj • 2 urine samples per day from all subjects during episodes • House ventilation logs • from intensive subjects

  23. Subject Characteristics Age and drop-out rate Asthma Severity

  24. Samples Collected • 25 lab measures of eNO and 25 paired lab measures of spirometry on each of the 32 subjects. • 190 PM2.5 Teflon samples (12-h) • 118 PM2.5 EC/OC samples (12-h) • 92 EC/OC samples w/ carbon foam (12-h) • 73 personal PM2.5 and 73 personal EC/OC samples (24-h) • 43 home outdoor PM2.5 samples • 93 aldehyde samples (24-h)

  25. Episodes Declaration • An initial criterion was established in which 5 or more 30-min average PM2.5 concentrations (as measured by TEOM) > 40 g/m3 during any 24-hour period. • Sufficient indication of agricultural burning smoke impacts were detected based on • TEOM, DataRAM, and neph, visual observation, current and predicted meteorological conditions, and burn calls in the surrounding region.

  26. Lincoln WASHINGTON Kootenai Spokane Adams Grant Benewah Latah CDA Tribe IDAHO Franklin Walla Walla Whitman Columbia Source: WA DOE

  27. PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations at the central site (Dana Hall) during the present study 10/17-19 episode 9/11-15 2 episodes * 10/9-11 sham

  28. Sources of Smoke in Previous Years

  29. Concentrations of PM2.5 (from DOE nephelometer) and PM10 (from TEOM at the Dana Hall site) during September and October 2000

  30. Concentrations of PM2.5 (from DOE nephelometer) and PM10 (from TEOM at the Dana Hall site) during September and October 2001 10/17-19 episode 9/11-15 2 episodes * 10/9-11 sham

  31. Missed episode? Real episode Real episode Missed episode? “Sham” episode

  32. HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ Night Day Night Day Real episode October 17, 18 & 19

  33. HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ Night Day Night Day ‘Sham” episode October 9, 10 & 11 HIFQ = Harvard Impactor for PM2.5 with Quartz filter HIMQ= Harvard Impactor for PM2.5 with Foam +Quartz filter

  34. Outdoor PM2.5 (g/m3, Oct 17-18)

  35. Personal exposure to PM2.5 Central site

  36. Summary Episodes • 2 real (Sept 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 and October 17, 18 & 19) • 1 “sham” (October 9, 10 & 11) • 2 missed (Sept 24, 25 & 26 and October 24, 25 & 26) Most of the time • PM2.5 correlated to PM10 • Temperature negatively correlated to PM During episodes • NOx correlated to PM • CO2 correlated to PM2.5

  37. Summary • Range of exposures observed was reasonably representative of conditions during Ag burning • Spatial variability was prominent • Sampling scheme allowed for estimations of ambient contribution to personal PM • There is a good likelihood that we can answer the questions regarding extent of health effects under such typical conditions, using the data collected

  38. Data Analysis Status • Data entry and QC: completed • Preliminary data analysis: ongoing • Ag burning smoke characterization: ongoing • Exposure characterization and modeling: Aug-Dec • Health effects analyses: Aug-Dec

  39. Acknowledgement • Study subjects • EPA/Northwest Research Center for Particulate Air Pollution and Health Effects • WA Department of Ecology • U.S. EPA, Region 10

  40. Ozone (ppb) at the central site 10/9-11 10/17-19

  41. SO2 (ppb) at the central site * 9/11-15 10/17-19 10/9-11

  42. CO (ppb) at the central site * 10/9-11 10/17-19

  43. NOx (ppb) at the central site 9/11-15 10/17-19 * 10/9-11

More Related