(CASAC) Peer Review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment

eosinophils in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid does not mean that SO2 induced an allergicresponse. In addition, the Gong et al. (2001) study is not listed in the References.p. 3-30, line 11 The Gong et al. (2001) study is both not listed in the Referencesand is not a sheep study.p. 3-31, lines 8-14 The two studies cited in this paragraph did not show that SO2“enhanced sensitization to the allergen in asthmatic individuals.” Rather, these twostudies showed enhanced airway responses to inhaled allergen in asthmatic individualwith preexisting sensitization to house dust mite.p. 3-31 , line 7 The word “preexisting” should be deleted from this sentence.Increased morbidity with infection does not necessarily mean that there was preexistingdisease.p. 3-32, lines 24-25 For clarity, the sentence should read “…and was also higher in thewinter months (mean 25.7 ppb [SD 15.8]) than in the summer months (mean 10.6 ppb[SD 15.1].”p. 3-39, line 11 The Ito et al. (2003) study is not listed in the References.p. 3-39, line 13 This sentence should be revised as follows: “A study conducted inNew York City…” In addition, this study is not listed in the References.p. 3-42, line 25 For clarity, this sentence should be revised as follows: “Insummary, only a few studies provide results for respiratory health outcomes other thanasthma and COPD, and these results are mixed.”p. 3-45, lines 14-15 I would delete “and to a more limited extent the human clinicalstudies” from this sentence.p. 3-46, lines 24-26 This sentence should be revised as follows: “These findings ofincreased airway resistance are in concordance with the limited epidemiological studyresults of Taggart et al. (1996) that showed SO2-induced increases in AHR amongasthmatic adults.p. 3-46, line 31 I would add “non-elderly” before adults in this sentence.p. 3-48, line 4 “bronchial responsiveness” should be changed to lung functionresponses. A decrease in FEV1 is not necessarily a bronchial response.p. 3-49, lines 1-3 The dog study discussed in the 1982 AQCD should be cited.p. 3-51, line 25 and p. 3-52, line 1 For clarity, this statement should be split into twosentence as follows: “…of sulfite. Dose-dependent decreases… and above were alsoobserved.”6