Exposure and Health Assessment of Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report L.-J. S. Liu, T. Gould, D. Kalman, J. Kaufman, C. Marquist,

Exposure and Health Assessmentof Agricultural Field Burning Smoke – a Study Progress Report

L.-J. S. Liu, T. Gould, D. Kalman, J. Kaufman, C. Marquist, J. Sullivan, C. Trenga, University of Washington

C. Claiborn, R. Dhammapala, J. JimenezWashington State University

For Pullman Town Meeting (Sept 3, 2003)

Potential air quality impacts most likely occur at the confluence of these conditions!

of

Some Terminology PM10 = particulate matter smaller than

10 micrometers in “aerodynamic diameter”

PM2.5 = PM smaller than 2.5 micrometers in AD

Fine PM ~ PM2.5 (mainly combustion) Coarse PM ~ PM10 – PM2.5 (mainly

mineral dust) Dust in the air may be from ~1 to 100

micrometers

What are the Impacts of Field Burning in Washington State?

It has been difficult to quantify the air

quality impacts in the rural areas of E. WA Spatial variability

Short-term PM spikes (both PM10 and PM2.5)

Paucity of continuous monitors Small populations

This is the first study to measure personal exposures to smoke from agricultural burning

Issues Community exposure vs. ambient

concentrations Health effects of peak exposures Regulations based upon annual

and 24-hr averages Air monitoring strategy must

address all these issues!

What is personal exposure?

Outdoor concentrations

Indoor concentrations “Personal Cloud” Can be measured

directly or estimated from time-activity diaries coupled with outdoor and indoor monitoring at homes

A Burning Question

Are episodes of increased particulate matter air pollution from agricultural burning associated with health effects in asthmatics, as measured by:

Decrement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)?

Increase in exhaled nitric oxide (eNO)? Increase in asthmatic symptoms and/or use

of rescue medications?

Objectives Characterize the air quality impacts from

agricultural field burning in Eastern WA

Characterize community exposure to agricultural smoke

Determine the relationship(s), if any, between particulate air pollution from Ag burning and acute adverse health outcomes in asthmatic adults

Study Location Washington State University

community, Pullman Population density Impacted by wheat burning in WA and

grass burning in Idaho Historical data Infrastructure

Eastern WA

Tri-Cities

Spokane – Coeur d’Alene

Pullman - Moscow

Moses Lake

IDAHO

WASHINGTON

Population Density

Study Population 32 adults, male or female, aged 18-65,

in the WSU community, Pullman, WA. Physician-diagnosed mild to moderate

asthma With or without inhaled corticosteroid

use, but prefer those without Sample size was determined based on

power simulations Many concerns for using children

subjects – focus was thus on adults

Subject Locations

Study Period ~60-day period, between Sept 3 and

Nov 1, 2002 2 monitoring sessions, each session

consisting of 32 subjects and 30 days of monitoring period.

32 subjects: 16 Active and 16 on-call Those 16 subjects who are active in session

1 become on-call in session 2. Vice versa

Health Effect AssessmentActive subjects – 3 lab visits/week

Pulmonary function (Micro DL) Breath samples for CO, eNO PFT: 4 X/day, 7d/wk: upon awakening, before

lunch, before dinner, before retiring Symptom/medication and time-activity diaries

On-call subjects – 3 lab visits/episode 3 consecutive-day lab visits (eNO, CO, PFT, urine

samples) during an episode Daily self-administered PFT, sym/med, and TAD

Exhaled Nitric Oxide Non-invasive measure of

pulmonary inflammation which increases with asthma exacerbation. More sensitive in detecting worsening

asthma control than standard pulmonary function measures [Spirometry].

Exposure Assessment

Central Site Monitoring on WSU campus (rooftop)

12-hr PM2.5 samples on quartz, Teflon filters with HI

24-hr aldehydes with DNPH coated Sep-Paks

Real-time Bsp via nephelometer (measure of fine PM)

“Continuous” (half-hour) PM2.5 and PM10 via TEOMs

Continuous CO, CO2, NOx, SO2, T, and RH

Exposure Assessment

Outdoor Monitoring Topologic considerations

2 nephelometer sites (including DOE

site) (indirect measure of fine PM)

6 24-h PM2.5 samples via HPEMs during

episodes

Outdoor Sites

Exposure Assessment - continued Indoor Monitoring

Real-time T, RH 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each

home (indirect measure of fine PM) Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution

to indoor PM

Exposure Assessment - continued Indoor Monitoring

Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home

Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM

Time-activity diary From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM

Exposure Assessment - continued Indoor Monitoring

Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home

Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM

Time-activity diary From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM

Personal sampling: 2/d, 2 HPEMs/subject (Teflon for XRF, quartz for

EC/OC)

Exposure Assessment - continued Indoor Monitoring

Real-time PM, 1 nephelometer or pDR at (nearly) each home

Recursive modeling for outdoor contribution to indoor PM

Time-activity diary From every subject everyday, 10-min resolution For estimating exposures to ambient originated PM

Personal Sampling: 2/d, 2 HPEMs/subject (Teflon for XRF, quartz for

EC/OC) Urine Sample Collection and smoked food

diary Daily urine samples from the 2 intensive monitoring

subj 2 urine samples per day from all subjects during

episodes House ventilation logs

from intensive subjects

Subject Characteristics

Age Group 18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-52 TotalStart 9 17 5 3 2 36dropped out 3 1 0 0 0 4total 6 16 5 3 2 32

Asthma Severity Male Female 18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-52 TotalMild 7 8 4 6 3 1 1 15Moderate 3 6 1 5 1 2 0 9Mod-severe 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 4Severe 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 4Very Severe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 12 20 6 16 5 3 2 32

Age and drop-out rate

Asthma Severity

Samples Collected 25 lab measures of eNO and 25 paired lab

measures of spirometry on each of the 32 subjects.

190 PM2.5 Teflon samples (12-h) 118 PM2.5 EC/OC samples (12-h) 92 EC/OC samples w/ carbon foam (12-h) 73 personal PM2.5 and 73 personal EC/OC

samples (24-h) 43 home outdoor PM2.5 samples 93 aldehyde samples (24-h)

Episodes Declaration An initial criterion was established in which

5 or more 30-min average PM2.5 concentrations (as measured by TEOM) > 40 g/m3 during any 24-hour period.

Sufficient indication of agricultural burning smoke impacts were detected based on TEOM, DataRAM, and neph, visual observation,

current and predicted meteorological conditions, and burn calls in the surrounding region.

Acres Burned Fall 2002

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

County

# a

cre

s

Total 129,055 acres

Columbia

Walla Walla

Whitman

Adams

Latah

Benewah

Kootenai

Franklin

Lincoln

GrantSpokane

IDAHO

WASHINGTON

CDA Tribe

Temporal Distribution of burns in Washington State During Fall 2002

10/99/11 10/17

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

9/1 9/6 9/11 9/16 9/21 9/26 10/1 10/6 10/11 10/16 10/21 10/26 10/31 11/5 11/10

date

# a

cre

s

Source: WA DOE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9/1/02 9/11/02 9/21/02 10/1/02 10/11/02 10/21/02 10/31/02

PM

2.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

PM

10

TEOM PM25 DR PM25 TEOM PM10

PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations at the central site (Dana Hall) during the present study

9/11-15 2 episodes

10/9-11 sham

10/17-19 episode

*

Smoke Episode Complaints Source

June 29, 2000 0 wildfire

July 22, 2000 0 wildfire

August 23, 2000 2 wildfire

September 14, 2000

2 Ag. burning

October 9, 2000 0 Ag. burning

October 26, 2000 0 Stagnant weather

September 12, 2001

8 Ag. Burning

September 19, 2001

11 Wildfire from Ag. burning

Sources of Smoke in Previous Years

Concentrations of PM2.5 (from DOE nephelometer)

and PM10 (from TEOM at the Dana Hall site) during September and October 2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9/1 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 10/13 10/20 10/27

Date

PM

2.5

(ug

/m3 )

0

100

200

300

400

500

PM

10

(u

g/m

3)

1-hr PM2.51/2 hr PM10

Concentrations of PM2.5 (from DOE nephelometer) and PM10 (from TEOM at the Dana Hall site) during September and October 2001

9/11-15 2 episodes

10/9-11 sham

10/17-19 episode

*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9/1 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 10/13 10/20 10/27

Date

PM

2.5 (

ug

/m3)

0

100

200

300

400

500

PM

10 (

ug

/m3)

1-hr Neph PM2.5

1/2 -hr TEOM PM10

OC/EC concentration in the PM2.5 BC1(12-h average)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

9/320:00

9/520:00

9/720:00

9/920:00

9/1120:00

9/1320:00

9/1520:00

9/1720:00

9/1920:00

9/2120:00

9/2320:00

9/2520:00

9/2720:00

9/2920:00

10/120:00

date

ug

/m3 OC

EC

OC/EC Concentration in the PM2.5 BC2 (12-h average)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10/320:00

10/68:00

10/820:00

10/108:00

10/1120:00

10/1220:00

10/148:00

10/158:00

10/1620:00

10/1720:00

10/198:00

10/208:00

10/2120:00

10/2220:00

10/248:00

10/258:00

10/2620:00

10/2719:00

10/297:00

10/307:00

10/3119:00

date

ug

/m3 OC

EC

Real episode

Real episode

“Sham” episode

Missed episode?

Missed episode?

Real episode October 17, 18 & 19TEOM Dana Roof PM data Oct 17-18, 2002

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

10/1618:00

10/170:00

10/176:00

10/1712:00

10/1718:00

10/180:00

10/186:00

10/1812:00

10/1818:00

10/190:00

10/196:00

day/time

PM

ug

/m3

0

50

100

150

200

250

NO

x &

SO

2 p

pb

PM10 PM2.5 Neph PM2.5 NOx SO2

OC/EC Concentration in the PM2.5 days 45- 46

0.868 1.082 0.666 0.802-0.001 0.336

7.7635.883

5.076 4.687

1.621

2.603

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10/1720:00

10/1720:00

10/188:00

10/188:00

10/1820:00

10/1820:00

10/198:00

10/198:00

ug/m

3

OC

EC

Night Day Night Day

HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ

TEOM Dana Roof PM data Oct 17-18, 2002

0.00

40.00

10/1618:00

10/170:00

10/176:00

10/1712:00

10/1718:00

10/180:00

10/186:00

10/1812:00

10/1818:00

10/190:00

10/196:00

day/time

PM

ug

/m3

SO

2 p

pb

0

50

100

150

200

250

300N

Ox

pp

bC

O p

pm

x 1

0-2

Neph PM2.5 SO2 NOx CO

Dana Roof Oct 17-18, 2002

0.00

40.00

10/1618:00

10/170:00

10/176:00

10/1712:00

10/1718:00

10/180:00

10/186:00

10/1812:00

10/1818:00

10/190:00

10/196:00

day/time

PM

ug/

m3

400

420

440

460

480

500

CO

2 pp

m

Neph PM2.5 CO2

‘Sham” episode October 9, 10 & 11TEOM Dana Roof PM data Oct 9-10, 2002

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

10/818:00

10/90:00

10/96:00

10/912:00

10/918:00

10/100:00

10/106:00

10/1012:00

10/1018:00

10/110:00

10/116:00

day/time

PM

ug/

m3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

NO

x &

SO

2 pp

b

PM10 PM2.5 Neph PM2.5 NOx SO2

OC/EC Concentration in the PM2.5 days 37- 38

0.472 -0.019 -0.001 0.085 -0.001 -0.011 -0.001 -0.016

3.716

2.230 2.0680.963 1.445 0.989 1.462

0.5350

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10/920:00

10/922:08

10/108:00

10/108:00

10/1020:00

10/1020:00

10/118:00

10/118:00

ug/m

3

OC

EC

Night Day Night Day

HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ HIFQ HIMQ

HIFQ = Harvard Impactor for PM2.5 with Quartz filter HIMQ= Harvard Impactor for PM2.5 with Foam +Quartz filter

TEOM Dana Roof PM data Oct 11-12, 2002

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

10/1018:00

10/110:00

10/116:00

10/1112:00

10/1118:00

10/120:00

10/126:00

10/1212:00

10/1218:00

10/130:00

10/136:00

day/time

PM

ug

/m3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NO

X &

SO

2 p

pb

PM10 PM2.5 Neph PM2.5 NOx SO2

Outdoor PM2.5 (g/m3, Oct 17-18)

Personal exposure to PM2.5

Central site

Summary

Episodes 2 real (Sept 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 and October 17, 18 & 19) 1 “sham” (October 9, 10 & 11) 2 missed (Sept 24, 25 & 26 and October 24, 25 & 26)

Most of the time PM2.5 correlated to PM10

Temperature negatively correlated to PMDuring episodes NOx correlated to PM CO2 correlated to PM2.5

Summary Range of exposures observed was reasonably

representative of conditions during Ag burning Spatial variability was prominent Sampling scheme allowed for estimations of

ambient contribution to personal PM There is a good likelihood that we can answer

the questions regarding extent of health effects under such typical conditions, using the data collected

Data Analysis Status Data entry and QC: completed Preliminary data analysis: ongoing Ag burning smoke

characterization: ongoing Exposure characterization and

modeling: Aug-Dec Health effects analyses: Aug-Dec

Acknowledgement

Study subjects EPA/Northwest Research Center for

Particulate Air Pollution and Health Effects WA Department of Ecology U.S. EPA, Region 10

Ozone (ppb) at the central site

TECO_PPB_O3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10/3 10/8 10/13 10/18 10/23 10/28 11/2

10/17-1910/9-11

SO2 (ppb) at the central siteTECO_PPB_SO2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

9/2 9/7 9/12 9/17 9/22 9/27 10/2 10/7 10/12 10/17 10/22 10/27 11/1

9/11-15 10/17-1910/9-11

*

CO (ppb) at the central siteML_PPB_CO

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

9/17 9/22 9/27 10/2 10/7 10/12 10/17 10/22 10/27 11/1

10/17-19

10/9-11*

NOx (ppb) at the central siteT42_PPB_NOx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9/2 9/7 9/12 9/17 9/22 9/27 10/2 10/7 10/12 10/17 10/22 10/27 11/1

9/11-15 10/17-19

10/9-11*

Carbon species (mass) in PM2.5 at the central site needs new slide

OC/EC Mass (HIFQ filters)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

9/3 9/8 9/13 9/18 9/23 9/28 10/3 10/8 10/13 10/18 10/23 10/28 11/2

OC

Mas

s

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

EC

Mas

s

OC mass EC mass

9/11-1510/17-19

10/9-11

*