Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

P. 5.43, Lines 21-29 Please eliminate, the section does not add anything to discussion.P. 5.45 There is an assumption that there is no cross linkage betweenaccumulation due to chemistry outdoors, and chemistry indoors. Ozone ispresent indoors and outdoors. Thus part of the PM assumed to penetrateindoor could be a mischaracterization of new particle accumulationindoors, due to reactions between ozone and VOC. The reason: ozoneusually varies with PM 2.5 , in the summertime.P. 5.45, Lines 21-30 Agree with statement.P. 5-47, Lines 1-10 However, the baseline PM from primary indoor PM sources may stillaccount for the mass burden to the lung that is built upon by the variableportion caused by the outdoor concentration and exposure.P. 5-48 These analyses are consistent with other previous studies. Need areference to previous document, AQCD (1996).P. 5-49, Line 10 Need to add the BaP data in THEES. Outdoor BaP was the same at alloutdoor sites across 3 sampling periods. (See attached article byWaldman et al.). Is a good study of BaP indoor/outdoor/personalexposure. It indicates seasonal differences due to sources and activities.P. 5-51 to 5-56 These are very good sections. However, the results are discounted orignored when the authors try to construct mean linear relationshipsbetween E og , and E ig , etc.P. 5-59 Indoor air chemistry is discounted and/or ignored. If we were to put itinto an appropriate context for exposure there would be an E ov-rxn-iv orE (ioRn) exposure variable for particles generated by gases outdoors, reactingwith gases indoors to produce fresh particles.P. 5-61 Good section.P. 5-61 to 5-63 Ignored in mass balance representations. The chapter authors lean towardaveraging everything to point estimates. I would recommend sensitivityanalyses to begin understanding and presenting a distribution of exposure.P. 5-67 Lines 18-19 need to be at beginning of the paragraph.P. 5-73 Need to add the BaP exposure results from THEES (see attached article,pg. 211-215). A very comprehensive analysis, which shows a lot aboutseasonal variability of indoor/outdoor sources and resultant changes inpersonal exposure to BaP.P. 5-78 Oglesby et al 2000, lines 11-14 is a very good analysis, and is an honest“qualitative” discussion about the uncertainties. But still ignores the factthat “association does not make the poison.”P. 5-79 (5.5.4) Ignores freshly generated aerosol indoors.P. 5-80 (5.5.5) Good except for the lack of E ov-rxn-iv or E(ioRn) .P. 5-81 (5.6.1), Lines 8-15 Should bring to beginning of the chapter. All of page 81 isexcellent, and should be moved closer to the front of theA - 39