Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

6-243 12 This section (6.4.4.) should not end without a discussionof which approaches might resolve this important issue.6-267 2,10 insert "thoracic" before "fraction".6-267 15 insert "well" before "beyond".6-268 20 insert "thoracic" before "fraction".6-268 28 change "may not yet be" to "are not yet".Jane Q. Koenig, PhDChapter 6I complement the authors on an ambitious and generally successful job of summarizingrecent studies in the field of epidemiology. I do have some major concerns.Major1) In my opinion, this chapter includes an unacceptable amount of editorial comment. It ismy understanding that the purpose of the CD is to summarize the scientific literature andthat comments and critiques of that literature are reserved for the Staff paper.2) I know of at least two important papers that were not included in the document. This isof concern as there may also be others that I didn’t notice. What was the process forinclusion of studies?3) It is disturbing that the health effects of exposure to PM from wood smoke or othervegetative combustion sources are not mentioned. Wood smoke health effects shouldhave been included in section 6.5. I believe this is a major oversight that should becorrected.4) Apparently there is no discussion of potential associations between PM exposure andcancer. This may be an oversight.Other general commentsTable 6-1 contains too much text. I think it detracts from the usefulness of the table (which is toprovide an easily read comparison of data). This problem is present in the other large tables inthe chapter as well. Would Table 6-1 be more useful if there were columns for lag times, RR,etc that are easy to scan? A table of significant associations between gaseous pollutants andmortality would be useful. I suggest notation of effects seen at concentrations below the currentPM10 and proposed PM2.5 standards throughout the chapter.5-1 2 nd sentence, I think cardiac dysfunction should be mentioned right up front5-45 Mar et al. gases were more highly correlated with PM2.5. PM2.5 and CO corr =0.85, withNO2 corr = 0.79 than noted in the CD5-45 bad idea to use county for the unit. Certainly in King co people in gold Bar are notexposed to what Beacon Hill measures!! This is an example of using quick and easy toobtain data sets. Maricopa county appears to give very different outcomes than Phoenix.5-46 -recommend that composition comments here be moved to 6.2.2.4Table 6-16 This table would be more useful if the Emergency Dept studies were separated fromHospital Admissions. Also in general the tables in the Morbidity section are much easier to usethan those in the Mortality sections.A - 50