Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P 9-98, L 4-11: This section purports to refer to “bioaerosols”, but like the bioaerosols section inChapter *, it only refers to endotoxin. That’s far too narrow a view of bioaerosols, and misleadsa poorly-informed reader.P 9- 98, L 13-20: The criticality of analyzing CAPs composition should be mentioned. Suchstudies place a premium on knowing composition, and are nearly useless without thatinformation, yet CAPs studies often to not. This is an issue sufficiently important to mention.P 9-98, L 22-31: It is not clear why this section is included under links between PM componentsand health. It is a related, but different subject, and warrants its own heading. In fact, it fitsbetter under the next major heading.P 9-101, L 26: Has “COH” been defined?Allan Legge, PhDOVERALL COMMENTS:These comments are restricted to Chapter 1 Introduction and Chapter 4 EnvironmentalEffects of Particulate Matter found in Volume I. The authors of Chapter 9 are to be commendedfor all of their efforts in revising this chapter. The text is significantly improved and expanded inimportant areas over the first draft of October,1999. Much more effort has been made by theauthors to tell the readers what the science ‘says’. This will greatly help in the ‘risk assessment’analysis from the welfare perspective. One very important point emerges a number of times inthe text and that is that welfare responses are very much driven by the history of exposure of thevarious environmental receptors. While there is some repetition of material in the text, it doesnot distract the reader.SPECIFIC COMMENTS:A. Chapter I. Introduction1. Page 1-2,line 11. ‘—sulfate’ should read ‘—sulfur’.B. Chapter 4. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter.1. Page 4-4,line 4. The term ‘runoff’ should be replaced by ‘washoff’.2. Page 4-5,line 17. Should read “Neither nitrate nor sulfate”.3. Pages 4-6 and 4-7,Section 4.2.1.1 Effects of Coarse Particles.The issue of ‘saline aerosol’ due to either road salt or cooling tower drift is missing fromthis section. The following references are suggested:Grattan,S.R.,Maas,M.A. and Ogata,G. 1981. Foliar uptake and injury from saline aerosol.J. Environmental Quality 10(3): 406-409.Hofstra,G. And Hall,R. 1971. Injury on roadside trees: leaf injury on pine and cedar inrelation to foliar levels of sodium and chloride. Canadian Journal of Botany49:613-622.McCune,D.C,Silberman, D.H.Mandl,R.H.,Weinstein,L.H.,Frudenthal,P.C. andGiardina,P.A. 1977. Studies on the effects of saline aerosols of cooling towerorigin on plants. J. Air Pollution Control Association 27(4):319-324.Piatt,J.R. and Krause,P.D. 1974. Road and site characteristics that influence road saltdistribution and damage to roadside aspen trees. Water,Air and Soil Pollution3:301-304.Talbot,J.J. 1979. A review of the potential biological impacts of cooling tower salt drift.Atmospheric Environment 13: 395-405.Viskari,E-L. And Karenlampi,L. 2000. Roadside Scots pine as an indicator of deicing saltuse - a comparative study from two consecutive winters. Water, Air and SoilPollution 122:405-419.A - 33
4. Page 4-7,lines 14-18. Similar thoughts expressed. Suggest that the two sentencesbe combined.5. Page 4-10,lines 2-3. What is ‘tail water’?6. Page 4-14, line 12. Should read “concluded that her studies----“7. Page 4-15, lines 27-28. It is not the ‘particles’ that may be taken up through the leaf surfacebut rather some or all of the chemical constituents of the particle.8. Page 4-17, line 27. Should read ‘saprophytes’ not ‘parasites’.9. Page 4-18, line 22. Should read ‘benzaldehyde’10.-------------, lines 27 and 28. Define ‘POPs’ and ‘SOCs’. While it is true they are defined laterin the text, this is the first time they are mentioned.11.Page 4-19,line 4. Should read “controls the vapor-particle partitioning)–“12. Page 4-19, lines 14-17. A better reference than Smith 1990d is as follows:Geron,C.,Rasmussen,R.,Arnts,R.R. and Guenther,A. 2000. A review and synthesis ofmonoterpene speciation from forests in the United States. AtmosphericEnvironment 34:1761-1781.13. Page 4-24,line 23. Suggest that this read “stressed ecosystems do not recover readily,andmay be further —“14. Page 4-26, line 3. Should this read “–particulate matter” rather “–particulate dust”?15. Page 4-32, line 5. Suggest this read “Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which arechlorinated such as PCBs,PCDFs,and PCDDs,can be”16. Pages 4-39 to 4-41. The following is an additional reference re SUVB and crop plants:Krupa,S.V.,Kickert,R.N. and Jager,H-J. 1998. Elevated Ultraviolet (UV)-B Radiation andAgriculture.Springer-Verlag,Berlin,Germany. 296pp.17. Page 4-39, lines 19-21. This needs to be rewritten. The sentence suggests that “CFCproduction is at a peak level now”. CFC production was halted as a result of the signingof the Montreal Protocol. Perhaps what the author meant to say was that CFC levels inthe stratosphere have reach peak levels and are beginning to fall as a result of the signingof the Montreal Protocol. Refer to text on Pages 4-132 and 4-133.18. Page 4-41, line 28. What is meant by “--informed–“?19. Page 4-46, line 22. Should read “– in field–“ not –“infield–“.20. Page 4-49, line 10. Should read “ – nitrogen saturated–“ not “–nitration saturated–“.21. Page 4-50, lines 16-18. Unclear as worded. Something is missing.22. Page 4-51, line 1. Has “Paerl et al., in press” been published yet?23. Page 4-52, line 11. Should read “--Johnson and Mitchell (1998)–“ not (1988). Also change inreference Page 4-174,line 14.24. --------------, lines 20-22. Needs to be rephrased. The following is suggested. “Thisvegetation had been exposed to chronic low concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) andhydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) for more than twenty years and then was additionally exposed tofugitive elemental sulfur aerosol.”25. Page 4-79, line 14. Should read “ –(e.g., Astragalus is an —“.26. Page 4-81, line 31. Should read “—“bottom line” that is driven by an”.27. Page 4-84, Section 4.2.3. Ecosystem Goods and Services and Their Economic Valuation,lines 12-25.Some mention should be made of ‘organics’ and food chains. It is mentioned inthe Summary on Page 4-158, lines 8-11.28. Pages 4-85 to 4-86,Section 4.3.2.1 Anthropogenic Pollutants. The ‘arctic haze’issue is not mentioned. The following reference is suggested:Barrie,L. 1986. Arctic air chemistry:an overview. In: Arctic Air Pollution, B. Stonehouse(Editor),Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,Great Britain. pp.5-23.29. Page 4-100, lines 22-23. It is noted that there are presently over 70 sites employing theIMPROVE program monitoring methods and that it is anticipated that an additional 80sites will be added in 2000. Since it is now 2001, how many sites are there currentlyemploying the IMPROVE program monitoring methodology30. Page 4-115, line 3. Should read “Metals undergo natural----“31. Page 4-136, line 17. Should read “----and stratospheric ozone depletion.”A - 34
Page 5: known, the potential causes deserve
Page 10: SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFFMr. A.
Page 13 and 14: Page 2-77, line 19-22: Should menti
Page 15 and 16: Page 8-1, lines 26-28: Combustion a
Page 17 and 18: mode vs. the other. In fact, such k
Page 19 and 20: p. 7-49, l. 20 In an effort to make
Page 21 and 22: ambient PM effects. The paragraph d
Page 23 and 24: dominant, one criticism is that “
Page 25 and 26: 6. Susceptible sub-populationsIt is
Page 27 and 28: is OK. But in most settings it stil
Page 29 and 30: 2. There are repetitions of the sam
Page 31 and 32: 15. Page 3-57 and 3-58, line 29-31
Page 33 and 34: P 7- 27, L 15: What does “compara
Page 35 and 36: there is pertains almost solely to
Page 37 and 38: studies, and is presented as observ
Page 39 and 40: P 8-47, L 23-27: These two sentence
Page 41 and 42: also be summarized. Second, the cha
Page 43: P 9-76, L 30: It should be “these
Page 47 and 48: control when it may be possible to
Page 49 and 50: 1990. Reference Lioy, P.J. “The A
Page 51 and 52: document.P. 5-82, Lines 15-30 Need
Page 53 and 54: 7-12 8 insert "that are either very
Page 55 and 56: 8-62 10,11 The preceding discussion
Page 57 and 58: 9-27 17 insert "source and/or" afte
Page 59 and 60: 2. The paper by Künzli et al. on t
Page 61 and 62: 6-243 12 This section (6.4.4.) shou
Page 63 and 64: Chapter 5. Human Exposure to PM and
Page 65 and 66: the chapter. Many of the poor quali
Page 67 and 68: Page 5-17, equation 5-10; the coeff
Page 69 and 70: illustrated using a figure from Kel
Page 71 and 72: tied back to the base-line health s
Page 73 and 74: Page 7-4, Structure of the Respirat
Page 75 and 76: Günter Oberdörster, PhDChapter 7
Page 77 and 78: efficiencies as well as the ratio o
Page 79 and 80: The title of this section is also s
Page 81 and 82: old and young rats and mice used on
Page 83 and 84: passive use values as opposed to us
Page 85 and 86: Specific Comments:Page 5-19, lines
Page 87 and 88: Chapter 9 - General CommentsThis ch
Page 89 and 90: George Taylor, PhDAir Quality Crite
Page 91 and 92: atmospheric stressors associated wi
Page 93 and 94: “At the surface, a variable fract
Page 95 and 96:
that point from this review! “Vis
Page 97 and 98:
6. P 2-86, section 2.2.5.1 - A shor
show all

Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?