MEASUREMENTS OF OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION
FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE ON THE UMBC CAMPUS
James Repace, MSc.
Repace Associates, Inc.
101 Felicia Lane
Bowie, MD 20720
www.repace.com
June 1, 2005
Introduction.
Individual cigarettes are point sources of air pollution; smoking in groups
becomes an area source. Outdoor air pollutants from individual point sources are subject
to plume rise if the temperature of the smoke plume is hotter than the surrounding air;
however if the plume has a small cross-section, as for a cigarette, it will rapidly cool andlose its upward momentum, and then will subside as the combustion particles and gases
are heavier than air. Thus, in the case of no wind, the cigarette plume will rise to acertain height and then descend, and for a group of smokers, for example sitting in an
outdoor cafe, on a hospital patio, or in stadium seats, their smoke will tend to saturate thelocal area with secondhand smoke (SHS). In the case where there is wind, the amount ofthermally-induced plume rise is inversely proportional to the wind velocity -doubling the wind velocity will halve the plume rise. In this case, the cigarette plume
will resemble a cone tilted at an angle to the vertical. The width of the cone and its angle
with the ground will depend upon the wind velocity: a higher wind will create amore horizontal but wider cone (due to increased turbulence), with uncertain impact on
exposure to SHS for downwind nonsmokers. If there are multiple cigarette sources,
the downwind concentrations will consist of multiple intersecting cones, i.e., overlapping
plumes. As the wind direction changes, SHS pollution will be spread in various
directions, fumigating downwind nonsmokers.
SHS contains a large quantity of respirable particles, which can cause breathingdifficulty for those with chronic respiratory diseases or trigger an asthmatic attack inthose with disabling asthma. For the remainder of nonsmokers, Junker et al. report eye,nasal and throat irritation thresholds for 24 healthy young adult females for repeatedexposures over the course of 2 hours, corresponding to an SHS-PM2.5 concentration of
about 4.4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) (Junker, 2001).
Very few published data are available on outdoor levels of SHS. A California Air
Resources Board study (CARB, 2003), measured 1 and 8 hour time-weighted average
nicotine concentrations outside an airport, college, government center, office complex,
and amusement park, found that at these typical outdoor locations, Californians may be
exposed to SHS levels previously associated only with indoor SHS concentrations.
Concentrations were strongly affected by counts of the number of smokers andmoderately affected by the size of the smoking area and the measured wind speed. The
CARB study indicated that outdoor SHS concentrations are detectable and sometimes
comparable to indoor concentrations, and demonstrates that the number of cigarettes
being smoked (i.e., total source strength), the position of smokers relative to the receptor,

and atmospheric conditions can lead to substantial variation in average exposures.
A more recent pilot study by Klepeis, et al. (2004) reported that mean outdoor
SHS concentrations determined from field surveys of particle concentrations measured inbuildings, at outdoor patios, on airport sidewalks, and in parks and public sidewalks
during time periods spent in locations where smokers were intermittently active thatmean SHS particle concentrations in outdoor settings in some cases can be comparable tothose in indoor settings. However, mean outdoor SHS concentrations appear morevariable than indoors, because outdoor SHS does not accumulate and outdoor transient
peaks are more sensitive to source-receptor proximity and wind conditions.
Long-term means for outdoor SHS concentrations are averaged over a large
number of transient peaks, which only occur when smokers are active, whereas indoor
concentrations remain high long after cigarettes have ended, and the total dose to aperson indoors from each cigarette will be greater than for a cigarette smoked outdoors.
Klepeis, et al. (2004) found from controlled experiments that, during periods of smoking
activity outdoor SHS levels can reach mean concentrations measured indoors, using
either burning cigarettes or CO tracer gas release, and reported a decrease in mean
pollutant concentrations as a function of distance such that a doubling of distance could
result in a concentration reduction of up to 50% or more. At distances of 1-2 m from thesource, mean outdoor SHS particle concentrations declined by about 75%. Klepeis et al.
found that changing wind directions can have a large impact on outdoor SHS exposure as
demonstrated by the differences between concentrations monitored on opposite sides ofan active point source.
The plume is driven in the longitudinal direction by the wind, and in thetransverse directions by diffusion. A highly simplified expression which illustrates thephysics for the downwind concentration C on the plume line for a point source pollutant
emitted at ground level is given by: C = Q/k ykzx, where Q is the pollutant mass emissionrate, x is the longitudinal distance from the source to the receptor, and where the productk ykz represents the diffusion constants in the transverse vertical and horizontal planes
which describe the increasing lateral spread of the pollutant concentration as it proceeds
downwind in the longitudinal direction. There are four key features of most models
which describe the dispersal of emissions from a point source at ground level:
1. The downwind concentration at any location is directly proportional to the massemission rate of the source.
2. The more turbulent the atmosphere, the more rapid the spread of the plume in the
direction transverse to the direction of propagation of the plume.
3. The maximum concentration at ground level is directly downwind on the plumeline, and is inversely proportional to the downwind distance from the source.
4. The maximum concentration decreases for higher wind speeds, even though on
the plume line there is no explicit dependence on wind speed, because thediffusion constants k ykz are inversely proportional to wind speed, due tomechanical turbulence. These empirically-determined constants also depend on
the vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere, which determines the-2-temperature difference between a rising parcel of plume air and the surrounding
air. (Williamson, 1973)
Thus, for each point source, the plume concentration will increase with source strength,and decrease with increasing distance from the source and with increasing wind speed.
However, for a very large area source, while the pollutant concentration downwind will
still decrease inversely as the wind speed, it will increase with downwind distance fromthe source as the square root of distance, or if there is an atmospheric inversion, withincrease linearly with distance.
With these considerations in mind, a field study and two controlled experiments
were designed and implemented on the campus of the University of Maryland at
Baltimore’s (UMBC) Catonsville, MD campus, at the request of UMBC’s University
Health Services, to perform experiments designed to quantify secondhand smoke levels
outdoors in the vicinity of building entrances, in order to provide scientific data relating
to whether limitations on smoking in proximity to campus building entrances were
justified.
Biographical Sketch of the Principal Investigator. I am a biophysicist and aninternational secondhand smoke consultant with more than 60 scientific papers publishedon the hazard, exposure, dose, risk, and control of secondhand smoke. I have received the
Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Distinguished Professor Award, the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation Innovator Award, the Surgeon General’s Medallion, and a
Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Public Health Association. I am a
Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine. I was asenior policy analyst and scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I
served as a consultant to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, on its proposed rule to regulate secondhand smoke and indoor air
quality. I was also a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in the Ocean
Sciences and Electronics Divisions. My full CV may be viewed at www.repace.com.
The UMBC Outdoor Secondhand Smoke Studies.
Equipment and Methodology.
I deployed continuous real-time monitors for respirable particles (RSP), i.e.,
airborne particulate matter in the combustion size range below 3.5 microns in diameter(PM3.5), and carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH), which
are appropriate markers for secondhand smoke and its toxicity. In addition I monitored
carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide, temperature, and relative humidity. For SHS
tracer monitoring, I used real-time battery-powered instruments, including the activemode MIE personalDataRAM (pDR-1200) and the EcoChem PAS 2000CE, a real-time
respirable PPAH monitor. Outdoors, the major sources of PPAH particles are diesel
exhaust and cars with defective catalytic converters. PPAH particles are submicron insize, or “nanoparticles.” The calibration and deployment of these instruments is
described in Repace (2004). The monitoring instruments were synchronized to eachother and to a wrist watch. A time-activity diary was used to record location and clock-3-

time from the watch at that location for comparison to the RSP and PPAH data measured
at various locations on the UMBC campus in the studies described below.
Results.
On April 5th and 14th, I performed one field study and two sets of controlled
experiments, as summarized in the figures below. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of a lightand heavy breeze on a cigarette smoke plume. Figure 2 illustrates the effect of no breeze
on the cigarette plume, which rises and disperses until it cools and subsides (Repace,2000).

Effect of increased wind is to blow
the plume to a more horizontal
position, and narrow the coneangle. Increased wind also increases
turbulence which widens
the cone
me
plu
ette
r
a
cig

Lighter breeze

Heavierbreezecigarette plume

Effect of wind on a smoke plume
JL Repace, 2001

Figure 1. Plume cones in light & heavy breezes.

Figure 2. Plume rises & falls with no breeze.

Figure 3 shows a plot of the real-time data measured on the UMBC campus for RSP(PM3.5) in units of micrograms per cubic meter (µg/ m3) on the left axis, and PPAH
concentrations in nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) on the right axis, as a function ofelapsed time in minutes (lower horizontal axis) and clock time (upper horizontal axis).
The PPAH monitor was housed in a camera bag mounted on top of a small wheeled
suitcase which housed the RSP monitor. The intakes and exhausts of the concealed
monitors were connected to the outdoor environment.
The monitors were deployed about the UMBC campus in a variety of locations on
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, including indoors in the Health Services conference room,
outdoors where smokers were briefly encountered between the Mathematics andPsychology Buildings between 12:45 and 1:00 PM, on the Commons Building Plaza near
the cafeteria entrance, and at various distances in the Plaza. A controlled experimentusing 5 smoldered cigarettes was conducted between 2:20 and 2:40, to simulate the effectof smokers outside the cafeteria entrance to the Commons building. The smolderedcigarettes each emit about 90% of the smoke a smoked cigarette. In all cases, the point
sources of smoking were subject to breezes blowing in various directions from WestSouthwest to North-Northwest from 3 to 7 mph. The study ended at about 3:10 PM. It isseen that in the proximity of smokers, both RSP and PPAH peaks are elevated well above
background concentrations.

-4-

UMBC RESPIRABLE PARTICLE (RSP) AND CARCINOGEN (PPAH) TIME SERIES: OUTDOOR SMOKING
12:15
0 5
100

12:30
1:00
1:15
1:30
2:00
3:15
12:45
1:45
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180
100

TUESDAY,
APRIL 5, 2005

90

RH% = 20% (SD 8%)
To C = 24.7o C (SD 4o C)

80

4 SMOKERSWITHIN 4-6 ft.,OUTSIDECAFETERIAENTRANCE

90

RSP
PPAH

80

COMMONS BUILDING PLAZAOUTDOORSCONTROLLED
EXPERIMENTS:
5 CAMELSSMOLDEREDFOR ~17 MIN.
WITHIN 6 ft

60

50

70

60

50

1-3
SMOKERSOUTSIDE
MATH/PSYCBUILDING
WITHIN
10-30 ft

40

30

INDOORS20

HEALTHSERVICES
CONF. ROOM

1040

PPAH (ng/m3)

RSP µg/m3

70

30

CLOSESTSMOKERS
50 TO 75 ft

1-2 SMOKERS
WITHIN
15 TO 25 ft

0-2
SMOKERS
9 ft

ON
CAMPUS
RETURNTO
HEALTH
BLDG.

20

10

0

0
0

5

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

ELAPSED TIME, minutes

Repace Associates, Inc. 2005

Figure 3. April 5th field study. Winds were light 3-7 mph, blowing WSW-NNW. One indoor locationand several outdoor locations were sampled with smokers in close and distant proximity. A
controlled experiment with cigarettes located at a point source was conducted for comparison.

April 15th Controlled Experiments.
A series of experiments were conducted on Thursday, April 14th to measure theconcentration of SHS as a function of distance from the source. Based on the results ofthe controlled experiment of April 5th, to eliminate variation in concentration due tochanges in wind direction during the time it takes to smoke a cigarette, the source wasarrayed in a ring at 8 -10 points around the compass, so that no matter which way thewind blew, the monitors would pick up the smoke-plume. Up to 10 smokers wererecruited by UMBC Health Services, and they smoked at 3 distances as shown inExperiments I (1-2 smokers only), III (9-10 smokers), and IV (10 smokers). Experiments
II, V, and VI were conducted with smoldered Marlboro Medium Cigarettes only forcomparison. Initially (Experiment I) 2 smokers were set up upwind of the monitors at 2
compass points. The levels are little different from 8 smoldered cigarettes at the same
distance (Experiment II). Similarly, there is little difference between 8 smolderedcigarettes at 1.5 meters and 9.4 smokers at 2 meters. Figure 4 shows the experimental
design overlaid on the smokers sitting in chairs around the centrally-located monitor.

-5-

MONITORS WILL PICK UP SIGNALFROM DIRECTION OF WIND
N

NW

NE

RESPIRABLE
PARTICLE &CARCINOGENMONITORS

radius:1.5, 2, 3,
and 5 meters(5 to 16 ft)

W

WIND

SW

E

SE

S
April 14th Controlled ExperimentthFigure 4. Controlled experiment of April 14 involved simulating an area source, by locatingsmokers or smoldered cigarettes on chairs in a ring around the PAH and RSP monitors. The ringradius was started at 1.5 meters, and increased in steps to 2, 3, and 5 meters. A meter represents 3.28
feet. No matter which direction the wind blows from, the receptor will always be downwind.

UMBC OUTDOOR SMOKING EXPERIMENT: APRIL 14, 2005 - COMMONS BUILDING PLAZA
12:00 PM

1:00 PM

12:30 PM

1:30 PM

1:55 PM

200

200

150

Expt. II

1.8
smokers@ 1.5
meters8 smolderedcigarettes@ 1.5
metersExpt. III

RSP

UMBC Physics Dept. Website:
62 o F; 30% RH; Wind 11 mph (NE);150

Gusts ENE @ 1:04 PM 23 mph
9.4 smokers@ 2 meters

Expt. IV
10 smokers@ 3 meters

100

Expt. V
8 smolderedcigarettes@ 3
meters100

Expt. VI
8 smolderedcigarettes@ 5meters0-2
smokers
@6m

50

50

0

PARTICULATE CARCINOGENS (PPAH) ng/m3

RESPIRABLE PARTICLES (RSP), µg/m3

PPAH

Expt. I

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

ELAPSED TIME, 10 second intervals

550

600

650

700

Repace Associates, Inc. 2005

Figure 5. April 14th field study. The diamonds represent the PPAH data in ng/m3, and the circles
represent the RSP data in µg/m3. One indoor location and several outdoor locations were sampledwith smokers in close and distant proximity. A controlled experiment with cigarettes located at apoint source was conducted for comparison.

-6-

Figure 5 shows the data for RSP and PPAH for each of the experiments as the ring
diameter is increased. Figure 5 shows the data for each of the experiments as a functionof time, numbers of smokers or cigarettes, and ring diameter. RSP is shown on the righthand vertical axis, PPAH on the left-hand vertical axis, and the ring-radius (i.e., thesmoker-to-monitor distance) is shown on the horizontal axis. Figure 6 shows a plot of the
3 smoldered cigarette experiments (II, V, and VI); an approximately inverse dependenceof SHS-RSP concentration with source-receptor distance is displayed, while the PPAH
concentration decays approximately as the square of the distance. In controlled
experiments indoors, Repace (2004) observed that PPAH concentrations decreased
approximately twice as fast as SHS-RSP. Figure 7 plots all of the experiments (I-VI)
together, adding the smokers to the smoldered cigarettes. There is considerably more
scatter in the data, likely due to the more erratic pattern of smoking by real smokers thanfor smoldered cigarettes. Nevertheless the same dependence with distance emerges fromthe curve fits. Neither concentration appears to get close to background until a distance ofgreater than 7 meters is reached.

35

y = 86.001 * x^(-2.4225) R2= 0.99977
3030

y = 13.127 * x^(-1.1159) R2= 0.88175
PPAH smolder

25

25

RSP smolder

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

3

35

Est. SHS Respirable Particulate Concentration, µg/m

Particle-bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, ng/m

3

UMBC2 8-SMOLDERED CIGARETTE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT(background-subtracted data)

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Monitor-to-Cigarette Radius, meters
Figure 6. April 15 Experiment. Smoldered cigarettes (Marlboro Medium 100s, filtered) located at
8 equally spaced compass positions at ring radii 1.5, 3, and 5 meters. Curve fits to the PPAH and
RSP curves are shown, and extrapolated to 7 meters (23 feet). PPAH declines as the inverse squareof the source-receptor distance x, whereas RSP declines inversely as the distance, as expected.
th

-7-

35

y = 101.67 * x^(-2.3883) R2= 0.76007
3030

y = 23.394 * x^(-1.1624) R2= 0.10124

25

25

20

20

PPAH
RSP
15

15

10

10

5

5

0

3

35

Est. SHS Respirable Particulate Concentration,µg/m

Particle-bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, ng/m

3

UMBC2 SMOKED & SMOLDERED CIGARETTE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT(background-subtracted data)

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Monitor-to-Cigarette Radius, meters
Figure 7. Smoked cigarettes at 1.5, 2, and 3 meters overlayed on the smoldered cigarette plot of
figure 5 with curve fits to the combined PPAH and RSP data, extrapolated to 7 meters (23 feet).
Although there is more scatter in the data when the smokers are added, approximately the samedependence of PPAH and RSP with distance is seen.

Discussion. What levels of SHS constitute clean air? PM2.5 is the RSP size rangethat encompasses combustion-related fine particulate by-products such as tobacco smoke,chimney smoke, and diesel exhaust. PM2.5 is legally regulated in the outdoor air. In
1997, the EPA promulgated a 24-hour U.S. Annual National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for RSP for particulate matter PM2.5. The NAAQS for PM2.5 of 65µg/m3, also limited by an annually averaged NAAQS for PM2.5 of 15 µg/m3, based onprotecting human health. The NAAQS for PM2.5 is designed to protect against such
respirable particle health effects as premature death, increased hospital admissions, andemergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary
disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals withcardiopulmonary disease); decreased lung function (particularly in children andindividuals with asthma); and against alterations in lung tissue and structure and in
respiratory tract defense mechanisms in all persons. PM2.5 and PM3.5 (measured in thisstudy) are closely-related RSP fractions, especially for the submicron SHS aerosol. Table
I shows the federal Air Quality Index and the associated color-coded advisories.

-8-

While these have averaging times associated with them, the levels may be used toinfer whether a given peak in figures 2 and 4 represent high or low levels of pollution.
Each of these figures shows levels as high as 100 to 150 µg/m3 outdoors in proximity tosmokers, indicating that the air is in the unhealthy or Code Red range. Moreover,secondhand smoke causes a number of acute symptoms (eye, nose, and throat irritation,
headaches, dizziness, and nausea) and chronic diseases (lung and nasal sinus cancer andheart disease) (CARB, 2003). Levels of irritation begin as low as 4 µg/m3 SHS-RSP andlevels of odor detection are as low as 1 µg/m3 (Junker et al. 2001). Thus SHS odor
would be detectable in our experiments as far as 7 meters from the source, and levels of
irritation would begin at 4 meters from the source.
As for the PPAH carcinogens, Figures 2 through 6 show clearly that for thispollutant, levels close to smokers are elevated above background by up to 2 orders ofmagnitude (a factor of 100), relative to distances beyond 7 meters. Thus, it is clear that
tobacco smoke pollution outdoors at significant distances from smokers must be
considered as significantly unhealthy. Thus, while students or faculty asthmatics passthrough a cloud of smoke, levels might be sufficient to trigger an attack, and certainly arehigh enough to pose a nuisance to all. Moreover, smoking in proximity to doorways or
air intakes might easily be inducted into the building through posing both acute andchronic threats to building occupants.
Table 1. Levels of fine particulate (PM2.5) air pollution and corresponding federal
health advisory descriptors with accompanying simplified color code (US EPA,
1999).
Color CodePM2.5 (µg/m3) AQI Air Quality Index Category
Break-points
0.0 - 15.4
0 - 50Good
Green
15.5- 40.4
51 - 100Moderate
Yellow
40.5 - 65.4
101 -150
Unhealthy SG*
Orange65.5 - 150.4
151 - 200
UnhealthyRed
150.5 - 250.4
201 - 300
Very unhealthy
Violet250.5 - 350.4
301 - 400
Hazardous
Maroon350.5 - 500.4
401- 500
Very Hazardous
Maroon(Significant Harm)**
> 505
500
*SG = sensitive groups; **exists, but is not a part of the AQI. Source U.S. EPA, 1999.
[GUIDELINE FOR REPORTING OF DAILY AIR QUALITY - AIR QUALITY INDEX (AQI) UnitedStates Office of Air Quality EPA-454/R-99-010 Environmental Protection Planning and Standards July
1999 Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711].

Conclusions.
These experiments dispel the common misconception that smoking outdoors canbe ignored because smoke plumes immediately dissipate into the environment. These
controlled experiments with and without smokers show similar results: if a receptor suchas a doorway, air intake, or an individual is surrounded by an area source – and thiswould include an entranceway with a group of smokers standing nearby – then regardlessof which way the wind blows, the receptor is always downwind from the source.
Cigarette smoke RSP concentrations decline approximately inversely with distance
downwind from the point source, as expected, whereas cigarette smoke PPAH
concentrations decline faster, at approximately inversely as the square of this distance.
-9-Based on these measurements, which involve a single ring of cigarettes orsmokers, the smoke levels do not approach background levels for fine particles or
carcinogens until about 7 meters or 23 feet from the source, which is likely to be thesmoke from no more than 1 or 2 smokers. Greater numbers of smokers in the area could
lead to higher concentrations. because a crowd of smokers constitute an area source,
whose plumes may overlap downwind, potentially causing smoke concentrations toincrease locally before dissipating at greater distances. Secondhand smoke causes anumber of acute symptoms (eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, dizziness, andnausea) and chronic diseases (lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease). Students or
faculty passing through the cloud of smoke would encounter detectable levels at about 7
meters (23 feet) from a smoker, and irritating levels at 4 meters (13 feet). Moreover,smokers in proximity to a doorway as persons enter or depart, may result in smoke being
inducted into the building, posing a chronic threat as well as an acute one, to building
occupants. Therefore it makes sense to post signs warning smokers not to smoke closer
than about 20 feet from building entrances, and to place ashtrays at that distance and no
closer. Moreover, because some persons suffer from severe asthma, and secondhand
smoke is a known asthmatic trigger, this is another good reason to keep smokers fromcongregating closer to building entrances than 20 feet.
References.
CARB (2003) "Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification ofEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report.
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Office ofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V19.
Junker MH, Danuser B, Monn C, Koller T. Acute sensory responses of nonsmokers atvery low environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in controlled laboratory settings.
Environ Health Perspect 2001 Oct;109(10):1045-52.
Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real-Time Monitoring of Outdoor Environmental
Tobacco Smoke Concentrations: A Pilot Study. Stanford University Department of
Statistics, Sequoia Hall, Stanford, California 94305-4065. University of California, San
Francisco Contract Number 3317SC, March 1, 2004
Repace JL. Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable. (Invited review)Tobacco Control 9:98 (2000).
Repace JL. Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality
Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 46:887-905 (2004).
Williamson SJ. Fundamentals of Air Pollution. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1973.

-10-