Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7-52 31 This chapter is incomplete without a summation indicatingthe most critical dosimetric unknowns and those amenableto resolution by further research.CHAPTER 8Page Line(s) Comments8-3 13-14 The cited references refer to silica. Where can the reader gofor an update on asbestos? The most recent ATSDRToxicological Profile, or Lippmann (Environ. Toxicants, 2ndEdition, 2000) could be cited.8-4 7,8 This sentence is redundant, and should be deleted.8-6 4,5 This sentence is a real reach. The least that is needed here isa citation to the chapter section that attempts to justify thisconclusion.8-6 11-14 A reference citation should be provided to indicate wherethese data come from.8-6 27 This discussion should be a separate paragraph.8-6 31 Change "deposition" to "retention".8-9 2 insert "is" before "present".8-10 8 insert "some of" after "investigating", and "may" before"cause".8-10 22-24 This sentence is far too definite a statement!8-19 4-10 There should be a citation here to the later discussion of the"overload" issue in this chapter.8-21 23 This discussion beginning here and extending to p. 8-23, line11 provides strong evidence that transition metals may notbe as important as repeatedly stated elsewhere in thischapter, and should signal a more general reassessment ofmany of the statements made elsewhere in this chapter.8-25 19 insert ", but growing," before "number".8-29 5 change "human" to "humans with".8-29 26 change "health" to "healthy".8-30 28 The statement ".... and that PM metal content was a betterindicator than PM mass" is clearly not supported by thepreceding discussion! There must have been more transitionmetal content in the ROFA than in the Ottawa ambient PM.8-32 13,14 The preceding discussion of Godleski's research wasrestricted to concentrated ambient PM, not to ROFA.A - 43
8-62 10,11 The preceding discussion does not provide an adequatebasis for such a firm conclusion.8-62 13 change "subject" to "subjects".8-62 17 change "side" to "sides".8-65 29,30 How does the preceding discussion provide a basis for thisconclusion? It could be made in any case without citing thepreceding discussion.8-67 5 If, in fact, the 94 mg/m3 was not an erroneous value, it isdifficult to understand why such an outrageous andirrelevant exposure was worth citing in the CD.8-70 23 change "time" to "times".8-70 29 change "scrutinization" to "scrutiny".8-72 29 change "to" to "that was".8-73 7 insert "some of" before "the pulmonary".8-73 8-10 If a contrast is to be drawn, then the concentrations at issueshould be cited. If the work of Amdur and colleagues wereincluded, the conclusion drawn would be quite different.8-73 20-22 What does the 10,000 :g/m3 refer to? It clearly was not toacid. Was it to carbon?8-75 1 What relevance can an exposure at 15,000 :g/m3 have to thediscussion? Inclusion of citations to such ridiculousexposures do not belong in this CD.8-75 10-13 What exactly are the authors saying here? Is there a seriousintent here? If so, it should be justified and elaborated.8-85 14 What implications? We, the readers, are at least entitled tosome elaboration on what the implications in the authors'minds may be.8-86 1 delete "However," insert "low concentrations of sulfuricacid on" before "ultrafine", and insert "metal oxide" before"particles".8-86 2 change "focussed largely on" to "demonstrated"; change". and" to "However,".8-86 3 insert "also" before "have".8-86 25 Add the following: "However, ambient diesel particleconcentrations have decreased during the time of increasingasthma prevalence."8-87 12 change "has" to "can have".A - 44
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 and 44: P 9-76, L 30: It should be “these
Page 45 and 46: 4. Page 4-7,lines 14-18. Similar th
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: 7-12 8 insert "that are either very
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

Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?