BBooaarrdd ooff SScciieennttiiffiicc CCoouunnsseelloorrss 

OOffffiicceeooffRReesseeaarrcchhaannddDDeevveellooppmmeenntt

UUnniitteeddSSttaatteessEEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaallPPrrootteeccttiioonnAAggeennccyy

Particulate Matter and 

Ozone Research 

Program Review 

Report of the Subcommittee on 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research 

April 14, 2005 

Revised August 11, 2005
This report was written by the Particulate Matter and Ozone Research 

Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors, a public advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) that provides external advice, information, and recommendations to the Office of Research and Development (ORD). This report 

has not been reviewed for approval by EPA, and therefore, the report’s 

contents and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views 

and policies of the EPA, or other agencies of the federal government. 

Further, the content of this report does not represent information 

approved or disseminated by EPA, and, consequently, it is not subject 

to EPA’s Data Quality Guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute a recommendation for use. Reports of the Board of Scientific Counselors are posted on the Internet at 

http:// www.epa.gov/osp/bosc. 
REPORT OF THE

BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS

PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE 

RESEARCH PROGRAM REVIEW

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

APRIL 14, 2005 

REVISED AUGUST 11, 2005 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE RESEARCH

Dr. Rogene Henderson (Chair)—Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute 

Dr. Juarine Stewart (Vice-Chair)—Morgan State University 

Mr. Bart Croes—California Air Resources Board 

Dr. Kenneth Demerjian—State University of New York 

Dr. Brian Lamb—Washington State University 

Dr. Michael Lipsett—California Department of Health Services 

Dr. Peipei Ping—UCLA School of Medicine 

Dr. Charles Rodes—Research Triangle Institute 

Dr. Christian Seigneur—Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 
Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 

Overall Goals, Charge, and Structure of the Review........................................................ 1 

Background for the Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program............................. 2 

Overarching Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 4 

II. CHARGE QUESTION 1: PROGRAM DESIGN AND DEMONSTRATED

 LEADERSHIP ........................................................................................................................ 8 

III. CHARGE QUESTION 2: SCIENCE QUALITY ........................................................................ 14 

IV. CHARGE QUESTION 3: RELEVANCE................................................................................... 18 

V. CHARGE QUESTION 4: DEMONSTRATED OUTCOMES........................................................ 28 

APPENDIX A: CHARGE QUESTIONS............................................................................................. 34 

APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS......................... 40 

APPENDIX C: AGENDA FOR THE MARCH 30-31, 2005 MEETING ............................................... 47 

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. 53 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overall Goals, Charge, and Structure of the Review 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recommended independent expert review for 

evaluating federal research programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) is committed to independent expert review of its 

environmental research programs for objective evaluation of research at the program level to 

establish “best practices” in federal research program design, management, and evaluation and to 

assist the Agency in preparing performance and accountability reports to Congress under the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. 

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee agreed in September 2004, to 

undertake four program reviews: Human Health Research Program, Drinking Water Research 

Program, Ecological Research Program, and Particulate Matter and Ozone (PM & O3) Research 

Program. The BOSC formed a Subcommittee of experts (see Appendix A) to conduct a program 

review of ORD’s PM & O3 Research Program. This Subcommittee was charged with reviewing 

ORD’s PM & O3 Research Program and providing a report to the BOSC Executive Committee. 

This review differs from previous Multi-Year Plan (MYP) reviews in that it included a 

retrospective, as well as a prospective evaluation, examining progress made to date and the 

future direction of the EPA research in this program. The program review is intended to provide 

guidance that will help ORD to: (1) assess the progress and direction of the PM & O3 Research 

Program; (2) plan, implement, and strengthen the program; (3) evaluate research investment 

decisions over the next 5 years; (4) compare the program with any programs designed to achieve 

similar outcomes in other parts of EPA and in other federal agencies; (5) prepare EPA’s 

performance and accountability reports to Congress under GPRA; and (6) consider options for 

the reporting of outcomes as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review process. 

The objective of the PM & O3 Research Program review was to review the relevance, quality, 

performance, scientific leadership, and resources of the program. The Subcommittee responded 

to a series of questions organized into four broad charges that were framed to solicit comments 

on the program’s: (1) design and leadership; (2) quality of science; (3) relevance; and (4) demonstrated program outcomes (see the charge questions to the Subcommittee in Appendix B). 

The Subcommittee chose to organize the review and report around the four charge questions. 

Following an initial administrative conference call, the Subcommittee met in March by 

conference call to discuss the proposed charge questions and scope of work. The Subcommittee 

members were sent background information on the program, including copies of the integrated 

posters to be presented at the face-to-face meeting, which was to be held March 30-31, 2005, in 

Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. The Chair of the Subcommittee assigned 

specific charge questions to each member and asked them to prepare preliminary comments prior 

to the face-to-face meeting. During the meeting in RTP, EPA researchers and air program 
2 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

managers, as well as university faculty whose research has been supported by ORD, presented 

information to the Subcommittee about PM and ozone research and linkages to the regulatory 

and non-regulatory programs of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), the program’s 

principal client. During the meeting, the Subcommittee members revised the preliminary review 

comments they had prepared before the meeting, and a conference call was convened on April 

12, 2005, to complete the draft review report. The Subcommittee members agreed to forward the 

draft with recommended edits to the Air National Program Director (NPD) and to the BOSC 

Executive Committee for review at its June 2-3, 2005, meeting. A key issue for the 

Subcommittee at the outset of the face-to-face meeting was to reach a clear understanding of the 

difference between a research “output” and an “outcome” within the context of this review. The 

insights described and commentary provided in this report are based on the technical content and 

organizational structure of the EPA PM & O3 Research Program. Detailed resource allocations 

by research program area were not provided to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee concluded 

that although such information might have provided some useful insights in selected areas, it was 

not required to address the charge questions posed to the BOSC by EPA. 

Background for the Particulate Matter & Ozone Research Program 

EPA provided the Subcommittee with voluminous materials related to the charge questions. The 

Subcommittee reviewed the background material for the PM & O3 Research Program and 

extracted the following highlights to provide a context for the remainder of the report. 

Over the last decade, a wealth of studies has underscored anthropogenic air pollution—notably 

PM and ozone—as environmental factors that can adversely impact human health and welfare, 

despite clear evidence that overall air quality has improved.1

 OMB has estimated an annual 

savings of $101 to $119 billion in hospitalizations and emergency room visits, lost workdays, 

and premature deaths averted between 1992 and 2002 that can be attributed to air pollution 

regulations, especially those that resulted in decreased PM.2

 To further increase these benefits, 

the EPA PM & O3 program is focused on reducing the uncertainties regarding the sourceassociated attributes of PM responsible for these impacts and the biological factors that underlie 

susceptibility to them so that even more cost-effective strategies for environmental regulation 

and control can be developed. 

In 1997, EPA promulgated new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particles (PM2.5), based primarily on time-series studies of morbidity and mortality and on two 

long-term cohort mortality studies. At that time, however, there were many uncertainties 

regarding, for example, the relationship of fixed-site monitors and actual human exposures, the 

biological plausibility of the responses to ambient PM, and, assuming a causal relationship 

between PM exposures and the various adverse health outcomes, which PM constituents were 

most likely responsible for these effects. These uncertainties prompted Congress to augment the 

President’s recommended EPA budget of $27.8 million in 1998 with a supplement of $22.4 

 

1

 These data are summarized in the recently released NCEA Air Quality Criteria Documents for PM (10/29/04 – 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903) and Ozone and Related Photochemical Air Pollutants (01/31/05 - 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=114523). Trends in air quality and emissions can be found on the 

OAQPS Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/cleanair.html. 

2

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003_cost-ben_final_rpt.pdf. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 3

million per year and an additional $18.0 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. These additional 

resources became part of the base PM Research Program and have been included in the 

Agency’s budget requests since that time. The charge to EPA was to accelerate investigations of 

the role of PM in air pollution-associated health outcomes, and to implement health risk 

reductions via scientifically defensible regulatory actions. President Clinton emphasized the 

national scope of the issue when he stated, “The EPA, in partnership with other federal agencies, 

will develop a greatly expanded coordinated interagency PM research program. The program 

will contribute to expanding the science associated with PM health effects, as well as developing 

improved monitoring methods and cost-effective mitigation strategies.” To assist in this national 

effort, Congress mandated the formation of a committee of air pollution experts via the NAS 

National Research Council (NRC). This NRC Committee met initially to define the scope of the 

issue and to compile the pressing research needs to advance the science and support the 

regulatory agenda.3

 The Committee met periodically through 2004, completing a series of four 

documents delineating the PM research needs in health, and, beginning with the second report, 

aspects of air quality management. This series of documents also provided, most recently in 

Volume IV published in April 2004,4

 ongoing assessments of progress, both scientific and 

administrative, in reducing the uncertainties associated with the relationships of PM and adverse 

health outcomes, as well as recommendations regarding the direction and implementation of the 

program. 

Following the release of another related NRC report in 2004 entitled Air Quality 

Management in the United States,

5

 the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC)—

established in 1990 to periodically address issues more specific to air quality—formed a work 

group to develop recommendations for improvements to air quality management. This Air 

Quality Management (AQM) Work Group is comprised of representatives from EPA, state and 

local agencies, tribes, industry, and environmental and research organizations. The charge to the 

AQM Work Group was to evaluate the NRC AQM findings and develop its own 

recommendations for consideration by the CAAAC. 

Nearly 7 years of intensive research activity have taken place since the initial NRC 

Research Priorities Report, yielding significant advances in the understanding of PM. In 

February 2004, ORD released Particulate Matter Research Program: Five Years of Progress,

6

which summarized the achievements of EPA’s research program in advancing the understanding 

of both health/exposure and air quality issues. The report, although aimed at the knowledgeable 

public, is the most comprehensive account of the progress in the PM Research Program through 

early 2003. The Report summarized the advances in the PM Research Program over the last 

several years into three broad areas: (1) the credibility and extent of PM-associated health 

effects and the complex roles of PM attributes and human host factors that contribute to the 

health outcomes; (2) the factors determining public and individual exposures, including 

characterization of the sources and atmospheric processes needed to aid implementation of the 

 

3

 http://www4.nas.edu/cp.nsf/Projects+_by+_PIN/BEST-K-98-02-A?OpenDocument. 

4

 http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10957.html. 

5

 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10728.html. 

6

 http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch/pm_research_accomplishments. 
4 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

NAAQS; and (3) the development and improvement of “tools” and state-of-the-art technologies 

needed by the regions, states, and tribes to implement the NAAQS to achieve EPA’s Strategic 

Air Quality Goal (i.e., “Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to 

human health and the environment are reduced.”).7

Overarching Conclusions and Recommendations 

The Subcommittee was generally pleased with the content and progress of the PM dimensions of 

ORD’s PM & O3 Research Program. Based on the review, it was clear that the large group of 

investigators, both within and outside EPA, worked diligently together to present the program in 

an integrated and readily comprehensible manner that facilitated the job of the reviewers. The 

following statements summarize the Subcommittee’s conclusions and recommendations. 

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Subcommittee finds that the PM & O3 Program directly addresses NRC (and OMB) 

concerns in terms of the Agency’s long-term goals, the plans to meet these goals, and the 

ways to measure progress toward these goals. The ORD PM & O3 Research Program has 

resulted in significant reductions in scientific uncertainty in critical areas, especially the 

distribution and dosimetry of inhaled fine and ultrafine particles, the relationship of ambient, 

fixed-site PM monitoring to real-world human exposures, the identification of susceptible 

subpopulations, the identification of biologically plausible mechanisms of PM toxicity 

(including cardiovascular effects), the validity of PM epidemiological studies, including in 

particular confounding and misclassification of exposure, as well as improved emissions 

monitoring and air quality modeling. 

2. The Subcommittee finds that the outputs produced by research to support these reductions in 

uncertainty have provided a sound basis for subsequent improvements in public health 

(outcomes). The current ORD PM program provides a balanced blend of research outputs 

targeted at uncertainty reduction and outcome-directed research to assist OAR in protecting 

public health. The Subcommittee considers that this blend of output- and outcome-directed 

research is critical to the long-term success and relevance of the program. 

3. The Subcommittee finds that the PART process for evaluating the useful outcomes of the 

activities of governmental agencies is difficult to apply in evaluating scientific research. The 

purpose of the EPA research effort is to reduce the uncertainties associated with setting 

regulations to protect public health and the environment. This type of focused, applied 

research is not usually funded by the National Institutes of Health, and proprietary research 

conducted by industry is not available for public use. The metric of success for the ORD 

research effort is the extent to which the outputs of the research are used by the regulatory 

offices to set appropriate regulations for protection of public health and the environment 

(outcome). 

 

7

 EPA Strategic Plan: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 5

4. The Subcommittee finds that the strategic decision to terminate ozone-related health research 

undercuts part of ORD’S first long-term goal (i.e., “In 2012, reduced uncertainties in the air 

pollution sciences will lead to more effective and efficient PM and ozone standard setting 

and air quality management during each regulatory cycle to minimize adverse risks to 

human health and the environment”). The Subcommittee identified two areas of concern if 

the ozone-related research is curtailed: (1) continuing uncertainty around health effects and 

the association with increased mortality, and (2) uncertainties around unresolved issues 

regarding sources of ground-level ozone. 

5. The Subcommittee finds a high degree of integration in the conduct of intramural and 

extramural research across the various laboratories, centers, and scientific disciplines. 

6. The Subcommittee finds that ORD has been responsive to the needs of its primary client, 

OAR, and to its other stakeholders, particularly the EPA Regions and the states. The 

stakeholders have multiple opportunities for involvement in ORD’s assessment and 

prioritization of research needs. 

7. The Subcommittee finds the overall science being conducted by the ORD PM & O3 Research 

Program in both intramural and extramural research laboratories to be of high quality as 

indicated by: (a) scholarship and scientific publications; (b) credentials of participating 

investigators; (c) integrative and outcome-oriented program design; and (d) building of a 

knowledge and information database. 

8. The Subcommittee finds that the funding for extramural research is based on a highly 

competitive, merit-based process. The process for intramural funding is not as transparent 

but is based on the recommendations of the Air Research Coordination Team (RCT), which 

includes the Air NPD, high-level representatives of ORD’s laboratories and the extramural 

research program, a regional representative, senior scientists from OAR, and others. 

9. The Subcommittee concludes that the recent appointment of a permanent director for the Air 

Research Program is a step forward to improve the overall management of the program. 

10. The Subcommittee finds that intra- and interagency communications are excellent. 

Communication of research results is sufficient and is done through regional, national, and 

international presentations at scientific conferences and workshops, through publications in 

peer-reviewed journals, through the EPA Web Site, and through press releases. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Subcommittee recommends that ORD maintain a periodic, formalized process for 

assessing its primary stakeholders’ perceptions of and satisfaction with its role in the sourceto-health outcome process. Such an assessment should provide information needed for the 

PART review. As stated in the conclusions, the metric of success for the program is the 

extent to which the outputs of the research are used by the regulatory offices to set 

appropriate regulations for protection of public health and the environment. 
6 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

2. The Subcommittee recommends that the two long-term goals read as follows: 

(a) By 2012, reduced uncertainties in the air pollution sciences will lead to more effective 

and efficient PM and ozone standard setting and air quality management during each 

regulatory cycle to minimize adverse risks to human health and the environment. 

(b) By 2015, reduced uncertainty in the integrated linkages of pollutant sources to health 

outcomes will ensure that ORD clients target air pollutant strategies most effectively and 

efficiently to best protect human health and the environment. 

3. The Subcommittee recommends structuring the performance of the second long-term goal 

around two to three hypothesis-driven pilot studies that would demonstrate the source-tohealth outcome concept and should provide a reasonable metric to measure the success of the 

program, both from a science and policy perspective. The Subcommittee recommends the 

use of an expert panel or workshop to review the pilot studies and to follow their progress on 

a regular basis. The staff should work with the expert panel or workshop participants to 

define a baseline of the major current uncertainties for each program component on which 

future research efforts should be focused. Then the expert panels can assess the reduction of 

or alterations in uncertainties at regular intervals. 

4. Recognizing that EPA faces serious research resource constraints, the Subcommittee 

nevertheless recommends that ORD reconsider the decision to completely disinvest in ozone 

research. Continuing research is required for effective ozone standard setting to protect 

public health and for improved air quality management in regard to sources of ground-level 

ozone. 

 

5. The Subcommittee reinforces the NRC recommendation that includes the establishment of 

multi-agency goals and measures of success in meeting national goals, preparation of an 

MYP for PM/O3 that incorporates input from other federal agencies, as well as states and 

private organizations, defines the roles of individual agencies, provides for input from 

nonfederal organizations into the federal planning process, and expands communication of 

the planning process to the public. These remain worthwhile recommendations and areas 

where ORD can assume a leadership role. 

6. The Subcommittee recommends that the PM & O3 Research Program maintain the strong 

balance between intramural and extramural research that has resulted in the productive 

program they have today. If funding is reduced, that balance still should be maintained. 

7. The Subcommittee recommends that funding decisions for any active intramural project 

undergo review by the Air RCT. 

 

8. The Subcommittee recommends that the MYP include a discussion indicating how the goals 

set out by the NRC flow into the crosscutting research issues and how these are embodied 

under the two long-term goals. If this discussion is in the Research Strategy for the program, 

the MYP needs to be organized to make obvious the connection between the research and the 

NRC goals. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 7

9. The Subcommittee recommends that funding be set aside for anticipatory research needs, and 

that steps be taken by ORD to identify and highlight key anticipatory research needs to 

inform longer term research and to ensure that current and out-year funded levels of research 

will be consistent with potential long-term regulatory needs. 

The remainder of the report is the more detailed review of the ORD PM & O3 Research Program 

organized according to the four charge questions. 
CHARGE QUESTION 1: PROGRAM DESIGN AND 

DEMONSTRATED LEADERSHIP

Does the new draft PM & O3 MYP structure reflect the identified science needs of 

the program and show integration and leveraging of human and fiscal resources? 

The science needs of the PM & O3 Research Program largely have been identified and refined 

through the NRC review process, culminating in the NRC Volume IV report. The NRC has 

identified several research priorities for the program. In the most recent report, five crosscutting 

issues across the research priorities were identified: (1) an increasing number of adverse health 

outcomes associated with PM and the related susceptible subpopulations; (2) particle toxicity in 

relation to different particle characteristics and emission-source types; (3) increasing emphasis 

on exposure-dose-response relationships; (4) considering PM health effects within the broader 

context of other pollutants in the ambient air; and (5) designing PM research programs to inform 

most effectively the setting and implementation of the PM NAAQS. At the same time and in 

line with crosscutting issue 4, EPA and the science community have begun to crystallize the 

concept of “one atmosphere” when dealing with multiple pollutants; this is particularly true in 

terms of the close correlation between O3 and PM precursor emissions and chemistry. Finally, 

the recent assessment of the EPA PM Program using the OMB PART analysis highlighted the 

need for identified research targets and associated measures of success in achieving these targets. 

Together, the 10 research priorities, the 5 crosscutting research issues, recognition of the value of 

the one atmosphere concept, and the need to develop clear targets and associated measures 

provide the foundation for the PM & O3 MYP. The research priorities and crosscutting issues 

form the science needs that must be addressed in the MYP, whereas the one atmosphere 

approach and the need for program assessment require the integration and leveraging of human 

and fiscal resources. 

Is the PM & O3 MYP structure strategic by design, implementation, and review? 

The structure of the MYP is designed to address two long-term goals (LTGs): 

LTG 1: In 2012, reduced uncertainties in the air pollution sciences will lead to more effective 

and efficient PM and ozone standard setting and air quality management during each 

regulatory cycle to minimize adverse risks to human health and the environment.8

 

8 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

 

8 The Subcommittee has suggested changes in the wording for LTG 1 as follows: By 2012, enhance understanding 

in the air pollution sciences and reduce associated uncertainties leading to more effective and efficient PM and 

ozone standard setting and air quality management during each regulatory cycle to minimize adverse risks to 

human health and the environment. 
LTG 2: By 2015, reduced uncertainty in the integrated linkages of pollutant sources to health 

outcomes will ensure that ORD clients target air pollutant strategies most effectively 

and efficiently to best protect human health and the environment.9

The research needed to address LTG 1 provides the sound, specific science required to develop 

NAAQS for PM and ozone and also the proven tools and support required for implementation of 

NAAQS. An important aspect of this LTG is the need to communicate PM & O3 research results 

to EPA clients to ensure that results are properly interpreted and tools are used effectively to 

implement NAAQS. 

LTG 2 encompasses a shift in approach in proposing to link health outcomes with pollutant 

source attributes. Because LTG 2 explicitly links emissions with health impacts, it inherently 

requires integration across disciplines within the EPA research community. These two LTGs 

explicitly address the science needs identified by the NRC review process, and require that EPA 

adopt full integration of research activities across disciplines and throughout both the intramural 

and extramural research programs. Thus, the MYP provides a strategic plan to address science 

needs and integration of the resources required to achieve results. The LTGs within the MYP 

also provide the targets and a basis for measuring progress toward those goals as highlighted by 

the recent PART analysis. The Subcommittee would suggest that the identified measures to 

track progress in meeting LTG 2 might be better served by identifying two to three hypothesesdriven pilot studies that would demonstrate the source-to-health outcome concept. These 

proposed studies should consider source-health outcome relationships that likely will have the 

largest return on demonstrating cost-effective strategies for improving public health. 

Does the PM & O3 MYP structure provide a reasonable “roadmap” of the program, 

demonstrating a well thought-out plan, identifying critical paths, clear goals, 

priorities, and schedules? 

There are specific measures of success that accompany each LTG. These provide the roadmap 

for the PM & O3 Research Program. Under LTG 1, research results must be provided that: 

(1) establish concentration-effect relationships showing that lower doses of PM lead to lower 

health impacts; (2) show steady improvement in the quality of predictions from and a reduction 

of uncertainty in atmospheric models for both PM and ozone; and (3) document that real-world 

emission reductions lead to improved air quality and reductions in adverse health outcomes. 

Progress toward these goals requires results that will be measured in terms of periodic reviews of 

the program and through compilations of EPA peer-reviewed literature. Under LTG 2, results 

are needed to show: (1) coherence across disciplines that attribute health impacts to sources; and 

(2) these source-health linkages lead to cost-effective strategies for improving public health. 

LTG 2 also specifically requires the full integration across the sciences, including the regulatory 

process, to provide a built-in feedback between science results and regulatory action. The 

 

9 The Subcommittee has suggested changes in the wording for LTG 2 as follows: By 2015, demonstrate the 

integrated linkages of pollutant sources to health outcomes and reduce their associated uncertainties to ensure that 

ORD clients target air pollutant strategies most effectively and efficiently to best protect human health and the 

environment. 

 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 9

 
outcome will be an ability to create flexible and cost-effective strategies for protection of public 

health. As suggested above, structuring LTG 2 performance around hypothesis-driven pilot 

studies that would demonstrate the source-to-health outcome concept should provide a 

reasonable metric to measure the success of the program from both a science and policy 

perspective. 

The overall timeline for the MYP is fixed by the NAAQS review and revision process, which 

specifies the next NAAQS revision cycle begins in FY 2012. Within this timeframe, the MYP 

will establish intermediate Annual Performance Goals (APGs) and associated Annual 

Performance Measures (APMs). Beyond an example of these short-term goals, the draft MYP 

does not appear to include a complete set of APGs and APMs. These will need to be provided in 

the final MYP. 

In the overall structure of the MYP and as part of this review, the Subcommittee has reviewed 

the original 10 research priorities identified in the initial NRC PM review, 5 crosscutting 

research issues identified by the NRC Volume IV report, 2 LTGs that form the center piece of 

the MYP, and, finally, 3 EPA themes within which research results are presented for review. 

These latter themes include: (1) Health and Exposure; (2) Air Quality; and (3) Source-to-Health 

Outcomes. It would be useful in the MYP to have a clear delineation among these different ways 

of addressing the research needs and corresponding research plans. How do the original 10 

research priorities flow into the 5 crosscutting themes? How are these embodied in the two 

LTGs, and how are these addressed in an integrated way within the three EPA research themes? 

It also would be useful to show the linkage between development of integrated teams (via the 

existing laboratories, centers, and extramural projects) and the LTGs. 

Is the extramural program adequately integrated into the program MYP and goals? 

The extramural program includes PM Centers, PM Supersites, and other projects funded via the 

Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants program. These are critical pieces in the overall 

research program because they provide intensive regional efforts across the country, which are 

yielding important new data regarding PM (and ozone) air quality data and health impacts, and, 

thus, the beginnings of linked emissions-health outcomes. The extramural program represents a 

significant fraction of PM and ozone funding by EPA, and there are close ties via relevance 

reviews and project reports reviewed by EPA staff. STAR grant requests are developed through 

a process that specifically addresses EPA research needs. Thus, there appears to be adequate 

integration of the extramural program within the MYP. 

Does the PM & O3 MYP structure reflect an “outcome” orientation that provides measures 

demonstrating the true impact on public health and the environment? 

It seems clear that the LTGs have been written specifically to address the need for an “outcome” 

orientation. The measures of success that accompany each LTG, as described above, are aimed 

at documenting how public health is affected by changes in regulation of PM and O3 and at 

understanding the mechanisms by which these changes occur. Further details regarding shortterm goals are needed. 

10 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
Is the ORD PM & O3 Research Program responsive to the recommendations 

of the NRC in terms of products and outputs? 

Are the near- and long-term visions of the program consistent with 

the NRC-noted “challenges for the future”? 

The PM & O3 MYP appears to address directly NRC (and OMB) concerns in terms of the LTGs, 

the plan to meet these goals, and the ways to measure progress toward these goals. In turn, the 

MYP also addresses the near- and long-term visions in a manner consistent with the NRC 

crosscutting research issues. To a large extent, this effort to be responsive is embodied in the 

source-attribute-health outcome concept that underlies the LTGs. By adopting this source-tohealth outcome concept, it is necessary to have emissions and air quality scientists working 

closely with health outcome investigators. This moves EPA toward integration of efforts across 

disciplines, and it is necessary to develop and apply tools—measurement, modeling, and health 

impact methods—to move beyond PM mass toward PM biochemical properties. The source-tohealth outcome concept will require the development of innovative proximity measurement 

techniques and demonstration studies to evaluate source apportionment modeling approaches. In 

addition, the adoption of the one atmosphere concept that ties PM with ozone as a foundation for 

research will have common threads with air toxics and hazardous air pollutants, which also will 

have linkages with the source-to-health outcome paradigm. 

Is ORD sufficiently coordinating research across categories of the risk assessment 

paradigm (source, exposure, health, assessment, and management)? 

As noted in the MYP, each ORD laboratory is focused on one aspect related to the risk 

assessment paradigm. With the growing emphasis on source-to-health outcome, however, close 

coordination of efforts between various laboratories is essential. Examples of this coordination, 

as noted by EPA, include collaborative work between the National Health and Environmental 

Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) and the National Exposure Research Laboratory 

(NERL) for the study of PM effects on highway patrol troopers and collaborative work between 

NHEERL and the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) to study health 

effects of various combustion sources. In addition, the development of the MYP inherently 

includes input from the laboratories, as well as from the ORD administration so there is feedback 

in research planning among all of the participants. 

Is the work within the ORD laboratories and centers integrated 

to maximize resource investment? 

As noted above, there is coordination of research among the laboratories and centers, and the 

MYP outlines LTGs that require an integrated effort by each specialty area. It is more difficult, 

however, to judge the degree of integration that currently exists and the degree of integration that 

is targeted. It would be helpful in this regard to develop measures of integration and measures of 

success that such integration produces. Documenting the contributions to key findings by 

different disciplines and the mix of disciplines represented by co-authors on peer-reviewed 

papers might help measure the success of these integration efforts. 

 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 11
Is EPA ORD providing evident and appropriate science leadership 

and program management?

The responsiveness of the PM & O3 Research Program to NRC recommendations, the 

development of appropriate LTGs, integration of research across EPA laboratories, and the 

overall structure of the MYP are all indications of successful program management. Science 

leadership comes from the role EPA has assumed as the lead federal agency on PM issues, as 

well as from the quality of the science that has evolved in the EPA PM & O3 Research Program. 

Key steps that will continue to provide science leadership have been the adoption of the one 

atmosphere approach and the incorporation of the emission source-to-health outcome paradigm. 

These are guiding concepts for moving the research program ahead. 

Are there changes or refinements in management or science leadership 

that are needed to improve the Program? 

The NRC Volume IV report noted that there have been frequent personnel changes of the NPD 

and that more stability in this position would improve overall program management. As noted 

by EPA, a permanent director has recently been appointed, which should improve overall 

management stability. EPA also notes that there is close coordination between ORD and OAR; 

this coordination will be critical in meeting the MYP LTGs as they relate to responsiveness 

between science and regulatory action. The NRC also recommended implementation of modern 

computer-based management tools to help track short- and long-term goals, resources, and 

integration of efforts. The Air NPD reports that ORD has established a PM Research Web 

Page10 as a portal to the PM research information available from each ORD laboratory and 

center. The link to ORD’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) Web Site 

provides access to project abstracts, progress and final reports, and publication listings for all PM 

research grants; however, EPA is only in the initial stages of implementing the NRC 

recommendation to develop this resource into a single repository that includes a comprehensive, 

easily accessible database of all ongoing research projects. ORD reportedly plans to develop a 

multipurpose PM & O3 Web site that will be built on information access starting with the latest 

NCER listing of PM and ozone publications, inclusive of reference citation and an abstract for 

each. This database will be maintained in a commonly available commercial bibliographic 

scheme that can be easily downloaded and used by the science community. Similarly, updated 

project descriptions and linkages to other relevant Web sites (e.g., EPA, PM Centers, and other 

federal agencies, etc.) also will be available. 

Is the EPA ORD sufficiently communicating its results to its clients and the 

broader scientific community? 

The NRC recommended implementation of methods to focus on communication of research 

needs from OAR and research results from ORD; EPA responded to this recommendation and 

noted that working groups were formed to address specific issues. In addition, an executive 

steering committee composed of the three Laboratory Directors and the Director of OAR’s 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards was formed. ORD also employs a variety of 

methods to maintain communication with the EPA regions and other OAR offices. These 

 

10 http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch. 

12 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
include annual briefings, assignment of an ORD liaison to each region, and regular electronic 

conferences. 

Communication with the broader scientific community occurs through the peer-reviewed 

literature, via presentations by EPA scientists at national and international scientific conferences, 

and via EPA Web sites. Scientific results also are communicated to the public via the Web and 

through press releases and public documents. 

What can be done to improve communication and access to information 

by regulatory and science communities? 

The NRC recommended development of a PM (and ozone) database that is searchable via the 

Web. EPA plans to implement this database, but it does not yet exist. This kind of database, 

encompassing all of the crosscutting research issues, would promote greater exchange of 

scientific knowledge between EPA and the broader community, and it also would promote 

greater integration of knowledge across disciplines both within and outside the Agency. Within 

the air quality community, there has been an effort to promote the Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) system as a community model through ready availability of the code and 

updates, annual workshops, and limited support for a center of CMAQ activities. This effort is a 

good example of how EPA can communicate results and, in turn, take advantage of independent 

work in the broader community. 

Are there important interagency or extramural collaborations that should and can 

be improved to advance the Agency’s research agenda? 

To what extent has EPA established and utilized other agencies (inside and 

outside the government) in advancing the Agency’s research agenda? 

Is the interaction and leadership role of EPA ORD with other federal agencies 

through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) 

effectively providing national coordination? 

The cross-Agency Particulate Matter Work Group, co-chaired by EPA and the National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has tasks to: (1) integrate health, exposure, 

ecology, atmospheric process, and source characterization research pertaining to PM matter; 

(2) coordinate efforts among U.S. federal agencies and, as feasible, the private sector; and 

(3) address the highest research priorities first to inform public policy choices for standard 

setting and air quality management. Through periodic meetings and a coordinated response to 

the NRC recommendations and other reports, it appears that this group, with leadership from 

ORD, is an effective way to promote a unified federal research response to PM (and ozone). The 

NRC reviewed the situation with respect to a coordinated federal PM research agenda and 

offered several recommendations. These included establishing multi-agency goals and measures 

of success in meeting national goals, preparing an MYP for PM that incorporates other federal 

agencies, as well as states and private organizations, defining the roles of individual agencies, 

obtaining input from nonfederal organizations into the federal planning process, and expanding 

communication of the planning process to the public. These remain worthwhile 

recommendations and areas where ORD can assume a leadership role. 

 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 13
14 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

CHARGE QUESTION 2: SCIENCE QUALITY

Is the science being conducted by EPA ORD research laboratories and centers of 

recognized high quality and appropriate to the perceived needs? 

The Subcommittee review of the research program finds the overall science being conducted by 

the EPA ORD intramural research laboratories to be high quality; the scientific investigative 

activities contracted to individual research laboratories as well as the PM Centers in various 

regions of the nation also are recognized as high quality. These evaluations are formulated on 

the basis of supporting evidence as represented in the following four categories: (1) scholarship 

and scientific publications; (2) credentials of participating investigators; (3) integrative and 

outcome-oriented program design; and (4) building a knowledge base and information database. 

The scholarship and scientific publications have demonstrated their high quality. More than 

1,100 publications between 1998 and February 2005 address various key issues in PM research 

and document high productivity and scholarly activity. These publications received a high 

number of citations (e.g., more than 320 manuscripts are among the top 10 percent being cited—

and the overall average citations of all manuscripts is 10 times higher than the average for the 

entire environmental literature), documenting a strong impact in the scientific community and 

society on PM-related issues. In the most recent iteration of the PM Staff Paper (January 2005), 

approximately 40 percent of the post-1998 citations involve work conducted under the intramural 

PM & O3 Research Program, according to OAR staff. 

The high quality of the science is demonstrated by the credentials of the participating 

investigators. Review of the biographic sketches of the participating investigators finds that 

participating scientists in both the intramural program and the extramural programs possess 

excellent to outstanding scientific credentials. Evidence of their individual scholarly 

achievements includes excellent to outstanding track records, leadership roles in particular 

scientific subjects, and knowledgeable presentations at program review (poster sessions). The 

diversity and the collection of the investigator expertise serve to enhance the overall quality of 

the science. Multiple participating investigators are national- or world-known scholars with 

expertise and specialty in an array of scientific disciplines and communities. The credentials of 

the participating investigators served to assure a high scientific quality; however, members of the 

Subcommittee expressed the opinion that future BOSC reviews would benefit from more 

detailed information on how projects were actually executed, particularly, identification of all 

key investigators, whether EPA staff, partner agencies, or researchers under contract. 

High quality is demonstrated in the integrated and outcome-oriented program design. This is 

evidenced by a comprehensive design of an outcome-based research program with a wellqualified and effective management team; scientific approaches that integrate multiple models 

and utilize validated approaches with the appropriate mix of state-of-the-art technologies; 

scientific goals that link emission sources to health effects; and publications in the scientific 

literature, active Web sites, program calls/conferences, and communication programs. ORD 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 15

promotes communication of its science and strives to enhance the distribution of its information 

database. 

High quality is demonstrated in building a knowledge base in PM and its related information 

database. The building of the scientific knowledge base and the collection of its related 

information database have served to define what was largely unknown. This knowledge base 

and information database have served to identify and characterize the toxic source (physical and 

chemical characteristics and the temporal profile and distributions of PM, e.g., roadways as 

mobile sources and associated PM distributions along the freeway) and its related health effects. 

Thus, these scientific accomplishments have effectively reduced uncertainties in understanding 

the adverse toxicity of PM exposure and informed the regulatory process, contributing to 

improving health outcomes. Scientific discoveries are made in defining and quantifying the 

toxicity of PM, which served to build a knowledge base that previously did not exist. The 

knowledge base and information database are used to build air pollution models to analyze and 

predict exposure outcomes and associated health effects. Scientific progress made in the PM 

Research Program established biological plausibility, linking health effects to components 

toward sources. The knowledge base and information database are used to educate the public 

(e.g., white papers by the American Heart Association formulated on the knowledge base 

provided by EPA PM research), to facilitate prevention, and to minimize disease occurrence 

(e.g., myocardial infarction), linking scientific discoveries to improve human health. The 

scientific progress made has advanced significantly our understanding pertaining to how PM 

contributes to the pathogenesis of various disease phenotypes, documenting that the adverse 

effects of PM are multifaceted in nature and, therefore, providing novel information for potential 

therapeutic regimens. Several projects and centers have attempted to establish potential 

genomic, proteomic, and physiological biomarkers/parameters to assess the sensitivity and 

susceptibility on population subsets to PM exposure. These investigations have the potential to 

aid the identification, monitoring, and regulation of air pollution exposure to humans. They have 

profound implications in serving the EPA goals to improve human health. 

The Subcommittee review of the research program finds that the overall science being conducted 

by the ORD laboratories and centers is targeted to address the perceived needs. These 

evaluations are formulated on the basis of supporting evidence as represented below. 

Three specific themes are organized to comprehensively address the perceived needs. The theme 

on Health and Exposure research addresses the following specific questions: 

1. What are the PM components responsible for its adverse effects? 

2. Who is susceptible to the adverse effects of PM? 

3. How does PM cause adverse health effects? 

4. What are the effects of long-term exposure to PM? 

The theme on Air Quality Management addresses targeted issues, such as: 

1. What is the atmospheric characterization of PM and its co-pollutants; its mass, 

composition, and variability? 

2. What are the sources of PM and co-pollutants and precursors? 

3. What are the processes that govern PM (and co-pollutants)? 
Through research topics and program management, this theme tackles important scientific and 

regulatory issues of PM with respect to atmospheric environment, exposure impacts, and 

regulatory policies. 

The theme on Source-to-Health Outcome recognizes that health outcomes are linked to sources 

by a continuum of interconnected biological, chemical, and physical behaviors. It supports 

research projects to facilitate a greater degree of integration across disciplines and to improve our 

understanding of the overall impact of PM. Insights provided by studies in this theme 

characterized multisource or single-source effects (e.g., Utah Valley), clues to toxic attributes, 

ambient particles in controlled exposures, distribution of pollutants, and air quality models to 

track PM from specific sources; delineated the effects of complex mixtures; and ultimately 

supported decision making. 

NRC research priorities are implemented for PM research to meet the perceived needs. Program 

management and the planning process set research priorities to facilitate the implementation of 

NRC priorities. The program review process assures the directions and quality of the science 

projects. 

There is integration of the LTGs to address the perceived needs. The LTGs are established to 

reduce uncertainty in exposure and health effects and to serve the perceived needs. The LTGs 

are organized to link and integrate source-to-health outcome with more efficient strategies. 

Is program integration across laboratories, centers, and science discipline 

making full advantage of research opportunities? 

The Subcommittee finds that there is high integration across the various laboratories, centers, 

and scientific disciplines. This is evidenced in the information presented below. 

Program integration ensures synergistic interactions. There is a strong interaction, coordination, 

and synergism among various laboratories and centers, as is evidenced in the oral presentations, 

poster presentations, and documents provided to the Subcommittee. It also is apparent that the 

management of these projects includes planning and procedures that ensure vibrant scientific 

communications (such as conference calls, investigator meetings at various locations, and the 

active management of Web site information). 

Resource and information sharing maximize research opportunities. With limited resources, the 

program design has aimed at leveraging resources wherever and whenever possible to maximize 

the research opportunities. A large portfolio on these issues is funded through the global priority 

($30 million over the past 4 or 5 years). Investigators at various laboratories and centers are 

encouraged to share resources. It is clear from the poster presentations that multiple laboratories 

have shared specimens, samples, technologies, scientific discoveries, and an information 

database. The global view of ORD has integrated tightly, and this has transpired in the research 

program across both the intramural laboratories and the extramural centers. The scientific 

information sharing process has stimulated research development and discoveries among 

different centers and laboratories. 

16 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 17

Does the program ensure high-quality research through competitive, merit-based 

funding? If funds are not competitively awarded, what process does the program 

use to allocate funds? Does this process ensure that quality is maintained? 

The extramural programs are funded through Requests for Applications (RFAs), which undergo 

the normal competitive, merit-based review processes. Investigators across the nation are 

encouraged to apply to these grants, and the review process has ensured high-quality research 

that is targeted to NRC priorities. 

The funding priorities for the intramural programs are set according to NRC and ORD research 

priorities for PM, but the exact criteria are less transparent than those for the extramural grants. 

Based on the high productivity and high quality of science that is coming out of these programs, 

however, it is clear that the funding process is highly directed and prioritized, and the decisions 

made were appropriate. The Subcommittee was informed at the meeting that each intramural 

laboratory distributes the resources differently. Principal investigators (PIs) are invited to 

provide proposals, and they are encouraged to be interactive among different laboratories. In 

general, the funds are distributed internally based on the demonstrated ability to deliver the 

products, the productivity, and the credentials of the PI. 
18 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

CHARGE QUESTION 3: RELEVANCE

The OMB PART criteria for relevance are articulated as follows: 

“RELEVANCE” refers to the contextual framework for the identification of priority research 

questions related to EPA’s regulatory mission and is related to the following questions: 

h Is there an overall conceptual framework with clear goals and priorities? 

h Is the program based on Agency priorities and does it include input from potential users of 

the research outputs? 

h Is the core research relevant to problem-driven areas of high priority to the Agency? 

h Does the program leverage its efforts with federal and other laboratories to study high-impact 

environmental questions?” 

The charge questions presented below were posed to the Subcommittee by EPA to address the 

issue of relevance. 

Does the PM & O3 MYP structure and Research Program clearly reflect its focus 

and the rationale behind its research direction and out-year emphasis? 

The BOSC Subcommittee finds that the research directions and rationales for the PM 

components of the MYP are clearly articulated both in EPA documents, such as the 2003 PM 

MYP, and in a variety of assessments undertaken by external organizations, most notably the 

NRC. Congress and EPA requested guidance on PM research from the latter institution, which 

established a blue-ribbon Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter in 

1998. The NRC committee was charged with formulating a research agenda and with 

periodically monitoring progress in reducing the uncertainties in the evidence used as the basis 

for setting the NAAQS for PM. The NRC has undertaken extensive reviews of prior and 

ongoing research and has issued four reports, most recently in 2004. Initially, the NRC proposed 

10 areas of emphasis, focusing mainly on issues related to health research, but, in subsequent 

reports, added 2 additional topic areas to its research portfolio, specifically atmospheric 

measurements and methods and source-to-health outcome assessments. An overarching focus 

for all of these issues was conducting research that would reduce the inherent level of uncertainty 

in each area. In the opinion of the BOSC Subcommittee, the NRC research recommendations 

have formed a central intellectual core around which much of the ORD PM Research Program 

has been structured. Within the compass of the Subcommittee’s review, all of EPA’s PM 

research projects, both intramural and extramural, have been designed to answer questions or 

develop methods within the broad categories recommended by the NRC. 

The most recent NRC assessment of research progress on PM indicates substantial progress in 

some areas and less in others. The NRC recognized that investigations in certain areas would 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 19

have to be addressed serially, which is reflected in part in the sequencing of EPA’s intermediateand longer term research objectives. For other topics, the NRC intimated that it would have 

liked to see greater progress. The Subcommittee, however, finds that, viewed in toto, the EPA 

PM Research Program has resulted in dramatic reductions in scientific uncertainty in critical 

areas, especially (among many others) the relationship of ambient (outdoor), fixed-site PM 

monitoring to real-world human exposures; the identification of susceptible subpopulations; the 

identification of biologically plausible mechanisms of PM toxicity (including cardiovascular 

effects); and the validity of PM epidemiological studies, critically examining the potential effects 

of confounding by co-pollutants and misclassification of exposure. The Agency’s current 

research agenda will build on these achievements and help strengthen the basis for the PM 

standards’ protection of public health. 

The Subcommittee finds that the outputs produced by the research to support these reductions in 

uncertainty have provided a sound basis for subsequent improvements in public health 

(outcomes) in the out-years estimated in the most recent (2005) PM Staff Paper to result from 

revising the PM NAAQS. The current ORD PM program appears to provide an exceptional 

blend of research outputs targeted at uncertainty reduction and outcome-directed research to 

assist OAR in protecting public health. The Subcommittee considers this blend of output- and 

outcome-directed research critical to the long-term success and relevance of the program. 

In contrast to EPA’s strong commitment to multidimensional PM-related research, there is little 

rationale adduced by EPA for the decision to end health-related research on ozone. In 

epidemiological studies examining the relationship of PM with various health outcomes, the 

potential confounding influence of ozone must be considered; however, this is not an optimal 

strategy to investigate ozone’s effects. Although it is clear that exposures to ambient PM impart 

significant risks to public health at and below the levels of the current ambient air quality 

standards, similar considerations also may apply to ozone. During the 1980s and early 1990s, 

ORD researchers demonstrated that controlled, multi-hour ozone exposures of exercising adults 

resulted in lung inflammation, airway hyperreactivity, reduced lung function, and respiratory 

symptoms, even at the lowest concentration tested (0.08 ppm).11 The federal ambient air quality 

standard for ozone of 0.08 ppm, averaged over 8 hours, provides little, if any, margin of safety 

against these and possibly other effects. Moreover, recent epidemiological studies suggest that 

ozone exposure is, like PM, associated with increased daily mortality.12 

Although the importance of continued research emphasis on PM is clear, the strategic decision to 

terminate ozone-associated health research effectively undercuts part of ORD’s LTG 1: “In 

2012, reduced uncertainties in the air pollution sciences will lead to more effective and efficient 

PM and ozone standard setting and air quality management during each regulatory cycle to 

minimize adverse risks to human health and the environment.” The extent to which ozone is 

associated with increased mortality or other health effects (e.g., new cases of asthma13) 

represents an area of scientific uncertainty that impinges on the health-protectiveness of the 

existing ozone NAAQS. These concerns are echoed in the most recent formal peer review of 

 

11 Horstman, et al., 1990 ; Devlin, et al., 1991; McDonnell, et al., 1991. 

12 See, e.g., Bell, et al., 2004. 

13 See McConnell, et al., 2002. 
20 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

ORD’s NERL (September 30 - October 2, 2003): “There are concerns about the yet unresolved 

issues regarding sources of ground-level ozone, the ability to adequately model its formation and 

fate, and to fully understand its effects on human health. It is hoped that research on knowledge 

gaps regarding ground-level ozone can be funded adequately so that important control policy 

questions can be answered.” Therefore, absent a renewed commitment to ozone health research, 

the ozone component of LTG 1 is not adequately addressed in the PM & O3 MYP. Recognizing 

that EPA faces serious research resource constraints, the Subcommittee nevertheless 

recommends that ORD reconsider the decision to completely disinvest in ozone health 

research.14 

Although a stated commitment (in the material provided to the Subcommittee by ORD) has been 

made to fund several key research efforts to completion within the PM & O3 plan (notably the 

Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis-Air Study and the PM Centers), similar guarantees for 

funding out-years of other long-term programs do not appear to exist. EPA staff described an 

internal review process to make focused program reductions, when necessary, but this process 

was not transparent to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee recommends that decisions to 

significantly reduce funding for any activated intramural project within the PM & O3 Program 

should undergo a review by the Air RCT. This would take full advantage of the integrated 

oversight and review mechanism already in place to guide the PM & O3 Program. Such 

structured review is considered critical to ensure long-term funding accountability, especially 

when resource reductions are unavoidable or new scientific findings warrant project redirection 

or reprioritization. 

Are the potential public benefits in terms of public health protection and pollution 

abatement clearly articulated? 

The Clean Air Act directs EPA to set ambient air quality standards with an adequate margin of 

safety “that are requisite to protect public health.” This legislative mandate represents the 

ultimate authority and rationale for EPA’s research program, which is intended to provide the 

scientific support for such standards. Epidemiological research described in the most recent 

(2004) Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) has convincingly demonstrated that ambient PM 

exposures are linked with increased risks of premature mortality, hospital admissions and 

emergency room visits for both cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, asthma attacks, missed 

 

14 Bell ML, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM, Dominici F. Ozone and short-term mortality in 95 U.S. urban 

communities, 1987-2000. JAMA 2004;292(19):2372-2378. 

Devlin RB, McDonnell WF, Mann R, Becker S, House DE, Schreinemachers D, Koren HS. Exposure of humans 

to ambient levels of ozone for 6.6 hours causes cellular and biochemical changes in the lung. Am J Respir Cell 

Mol Biol 1991;4(1):72-81. 

Horstman DH, Folinsbee LJ, Ives PJ, Abdul-Salaam S, McDonnell WF. Ozone concentration and pulmonary 

response relationships for 6.6-hour exposures with five hours of moderate exercise to 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 ppm. 

Am Rev Respir Dis 1990;142(5):1158-1163. 

McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, London SJ, Islam T, Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Margolis HG, Peters JM. 

Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study. Lancet 2002;359(9304):386-391. 

McDonnell WF, Kehrl HR, Abdul-Salaam S, Ives PJ, Folinsbee LJ, Devlin RB, O'Neil JJ, Horstman DH.

Respiratory response of humans exposed to low levels of ozone for 6.6 hours. Arch Environ Health

1991;46(3):145-150. 

National Research Council. Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter. Washington, DC, 

National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 240 pp. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 21

school and work days, long-term effects on children’s lung growth and development, and other 

adverse effects. Studies of the associations of both long- and short-term exposures to ambient 

PM indicate that the risks of adverse effects increase with increased levels of exposure. This 

evidence is presented in encyclopedic detail in the AQCD produced by ORD and applied in the 

Staff Paper, which is compiled by OAR with extensive input from ORD scientists. 

The logical corollary to the increase in health risks associated with increased ambient PM is that 

sustained decreases in pollutant concentrations would result in significant improvements in 

public health. ORD is intent on increasing research to ascertain the extent to which 

improvements in air quality result in improvements in public health, an area that has been 

dubbed “accountability research.” At first blush, this would seem to be a relatively 

straightforward enterprise; however, such research is actually quite difficult to undertake in a 

scripted manner in the absence of abrupt changes in pollution. Nevertheless, there have been a 

few “natural experiments” that have corroborated the notion that reductions in air pollution result 

in observable decreases in adverse health events. One dramatic example involved the Utah 

Valley, where respiratory hospital admissions decreased substantially during a steel mill closure 

in the mid-1980s, increasing again when the mill reopened (Pope, 1989). Recent ORD research 

provided biological support for this epidemiological finding in a toxicological investigation of 

the pro-inflammatory effects of PM collected in the Utah Valley both when the mill was 

operating and when it was not.15 Similarly, after coal distribution was banned in 1990 in Dublin, 

Ireland, nontraumatic mortality, including respiratory and cardiovascular deaths, dropped 

substantially within the next few years, coincident with the decrease in coal combustion 

emissions.16 New, as-yet-unpublished analyses of mortality in the Harvard Six Cities study also 

indicate that there is markedly less PM-associated mortality in cities where there have been 

substantial reductions in ambient PM. 

Until additional accountability research is undertaken, however, the public health benefits of 

pollution control will have to be based on estimates derived from existing epidemiological 

studies. Such benefits are enormous. In 2003, OMB produced a report estimating that air 

pollution regulations resulted in an annual savings of $101 to $119 billion from 1992 to 2002, 

due to avoidance of premature deaths, hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and lost 

workdays.17

An additional public benefit resulting from ORD research has been the provision of tools to the 

general public, health care providers, and certain institutions (e.g., schools) to raise awareness of 

pollution-associated health effects and to allow for nonregulatory, individual actions to reduce 

 

15 Dye JA, Lehmann JR, McGee JK, Winsett DW, Ledbetter AD, Everitt JI, Ghio AJ, Costa DL. Acute pulmonary 

toxicity of particulate matter filter extracts in rats: coherence with epidemiologic studies in Utah Valley 

residents. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109(Suppl 3):395-403. 

16 Clancy L, Goodman P, Sinclair H, Dockery DW. Effect of air-pollution control on death rates in Dublin, Ireland: 

an intervention study. Lancet 2002;360(9341):1210-1214. 

Goodman PG, Dockery DW, Clancy L. Cause-specific mortality and the extended effects of particulate pollution 

and temperature exposure. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112(2):179-185. 

17 See Table 2, p. 8 of OMB report. 

Pope CA III. Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel mill, Utah Valley. Am J 

Public Health 1989;79(5):623-628. 
22 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

personal exposures to ozone and PM. ORD staff members have worked in collaboration with 

their primary client, OAR, to develop a nationally uniform air quality index (AQI), which is 

transmitted via local media and on the Web so that potentially susceptible populations can alter 

their activities to reduce exposures, depending on local air quality. The utility of the AQI has 

been critically dependent on ORD’s continually improving air quality modeling efforts, which 

are used to predict local pollutant concentrations, facilitating the transmission of relevant 

information in a timely manner. Other OAR tools developed with ORD assistance include 

educational materials for health care providers, such as downloadable pollutant fact sheets, a 

Web-based course on air pollution and health, and a medical office poster for patient education. 

During the face-to-face meeting, Dr. Mark Utell clearly illustrated the dramatic strides the PM 

Research Program has made in the past decade in convincing clinicians of the adverse impacts of 

minute quantities of air pollutants. He noted that neither cardiologists nor cardiovascular 

physiologists seriously linked cardiac mortality and morbidity with air pollution in 1999. By 

2004, however, the American Heart Association issued a formal statement acknowledging the 

linkage.18 This change in thinking was accomplished in only 5 years, clearly indicating the 

strength and relevance of the science, as well as the effectiveness of the mechanisms used to 

convey the messages to the medical community, particularly through publication in high-caliber 

medical journals. 

Has the PM & O3 Research Program effectively engaged stakeholders in its 

assessment processes and provided useful information and tools in a timely 

manner? 

ORD’s primary client for the PM & O3 Research Program outputs within EPA is OAR, which is 

responsible for periodically reviewing and, if necessary, revising the NAAQS. In general, the 

Subcommittee believes the primary clients and stakeholders for the PM & O3 Research Program 

(i.e., OAR and the EPA regions) have multiple opportunities for involvement in ORD’s 

assessment of research needs and direction (see response to Charge Question 4) and that ORD 

has provided useful information to these groups. ORD staff and programs play critical roles in 

assisting OAR to fulfill its mission. First and foremost, ORD’s National Center for 

Environmental Assessment and other scientific staff develop AQCDs, encyclopedic compilations 

of relevant scientific results with multiple OAR applications, specifically: (1) providing the 

scientific foundations for air quality standards and other regulations; (2) identifying important 

gaps to be addressed in future research; (3) providing input into assessments of the benefits of air 

quality regulations; and (4) serving as a resource for the development of OAR’s public outreach 

and education efforts, such as the AQI or posters for health care professionals. OAR staff 

members synthesize the materials presented in the AQCD to formulate policy-relevant 

recommendations for the NAAQS. ORD scientists also provide technical peer review and 

consultation in the development of both the staff paper and the NAAQS. 

Regarding the utility of the information developed for OAR, the Subcommittee believes that the 

compass of research sponsored by or conducted intramurally under the auspices of the PM 

 

18 Brook RD, Franklin B, Cascio W, Hong Y, Howard G, Lipsett M, Luepker R, Mittleman M, Samet J, Smith SC 

Jr, Tager I. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Expert 

Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2004;109(21):2655-

2671. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 23

Program since 1997, has been extremely important in reducing major scientific uncertainties 

related to the PM NAAQS. For example, in 1997 the scientific database regarding the biological 

plausibility of serious human toxicity from ambient PM exposures was quite thin. In contrast, 

caused in large part by research sponsored by or conducted intramurally by ORD, there is a 

substantial body of evidence supporting biological plausibility, including major contributions on 

potential mechanisms such as oxidative stress and inflammation (Froines and Ghio posters), 

cellular signal transduction (Samet poster), perturbations of hemostasis and cardiac autonomic 

balance (Cascio poster), alterations of vascular function (Frampton and Dreher posters), focal 

hyperdeposition of particles in individuals with preexisting lung disease (Kim poster), and 

ultrafine particle uptake and reactivity (Froines and Oberdörster posters). Most of this work was 

undertaken directly by ORD scientists or by investigators funded by NCER, notably the Southern 

California and the Rochester PM Centers. In its intramural research, ORD scientists have 

provided many of the important reports utilized by OAR in developing Staff Papers. In the most 

recent iteration of the PM Staff Paper (January 2005), approximately 40 percent of the post-1998 

citations involve work undertaken by the intramural PM Research Program, according to OAR 

staff. 

A number of other research projects highlighted during the Subcommittee Meeting illustrated 

forward-looking efforts to examine source-to-health outcome relationships among the general 

population and among those with the high exposures, including both healthy and compromised 

individuals. In the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study, subjects within the Detroit 

metropolitan area have been selected in part based on their residential proximity to localized 

sources (Vette poster). Other ORD studies examine the impact of high-level experimental 

exposures to mobile source emissions among both healthy adults (the Car-related Occupational 

PM and Air Toxics Exposure to Patrolmen Study) and potentially compromised older subjects 

(the St. Louis bus study; Suh poster). The Baldauf poster described mobile source emission 

characterizations, allowing for the examination of a wide range of source strengths and exposure 

proximity. The latter posters illustrate the relevance of the development of science within ORD 

that will inform OAR’s future regulatory processes. The Subcommittee supports the 

development of research characterizing the intersection of the most exposed with the most 

susceptible subpopulations as important components in evaluating the potential health benefits of 

different regulatory scenarios. 

Throughout the research planning process in ORD, there are frequent opportunities for OAR and 

the other principal EPA internal clients (the regions) to provide input. The Air RCT, which plays 

a pivotal role in all research planning for the air programs, includes a regional representative and 

senior scientists from OAR. The RCT holds weekly teleconferences; another weekly conference 

call is dedicated specifically to PM-related research. The regional representative receives input 

from the various regions and from the states regarding their needs for implementation-related 

research, such as improvements to CMAQ modeling. In addition, ORD representatives attend 

annual meetings of the regional offices, both to provide information about the current state of 

relevant research and to elicit input from the Regions on their needs. In addition, representatives 

of the NCER STAR program go to the regional offices to present information on STAR research 

and to receive regional feedback. Thus, there are many opportunities for ORD’s primary 

stakeholders to provide input to research planning. 

With respect to research intended to assist states and tribes with implementation of standards, the 

Subcommittee believes that EPA has made substantial progress in recent years. Standing 
24 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

committees have been established to provide formal outreach to states and tribes to help assess 

and address the needs of both of the latter groups with respect to measurement technology, 

emissions inventories, and air quality modeling. For instance, EPA staff and extramural grantees 

have been developing measurement technologies for coarse particles, including quality 

assurance/quality control protocols, which will be needed at the local level to implement any 

future coarse particle standard. 

Some Subcommittee members voiced concerns, however, that EPA has not undertaken sufficient 

anticipatory research for coarse particles, as it has been clear for nearly 5 years that an NAAQS 

for PM10-2.5 would be required by the courts. Moreover, the poster by Vanderpool highlighted 

Subcommittee concerns that some aspects of the PM10-2.5 research within ORD and the potential 

monitoring network deployment by OAR should be revisited. Specifically, the apparent absence 

of siting criteria for PM10-2.5 monitors and very limited funding to deploy significant numbers of 

samplers may seriously affect the representativeness of any data collected. PM10-2.5 is known to 

be much more spatially variable in metropolitan areas. The influences of factors such as 

proximity to localized sources (e.g., roadway dust resuspension), ground cloud concentrations by 

height, bluff body biases from nearby obstructions, and so forth, need to be considered. 

Otherwise, the data produced could seriously be biased. Having an insufficient number of 

PM10-2.5 samplers to characterize these potential spatial biases also could produce databases 

lacking the robustness needed to support epidemiological studies or other outcome assessments. 

The organizational integration between ORD and OAR in the PM & O3 Research Program that 

was demonstrated to the Subcommittee should, in principle, facilitate addressing technical issues 

such as these, which require blending research and regulatory requirements to meet multiple 

objectives in the most technically sound and cost-effective manner. 

In addition to its pursuit of policy- and implementation-relevant research objectives, ORD has 

continued to pursue other long-range anticipatory research components to answer questions not 

considered necessary for its primary client’s near-term programmatic needs. With input from 

OAR and other stakeholders, ORD supports research that could play important roles in out-year 

Staff Papers. Examples include research on source and exposure characterization, dosimetry, 

and health effects of ultrafine particles (UFPs). Recent findings now clearly demonstrate that 

UFP can generate significant oxidative stress relative to either PM2.5 or PM10-2.5 and can produce 

adverse responses both in the lung and at distal sites (Oberdörster and Froines posters). Ambient 

concentrations of UFP are markedly elevated on and near roadways (Suh and Sioutas posters) 

and may explain some of the adverse respiratory and other effects associated with residences 

near heavily trafficked streets. As with coarse particles, however, some Subcommittee members 

expressed concern that the timing and magnitude of ORD research funding may not have been 

commensurate with the apparent toxicity of or the breadth of population exposures to UFP. 

Overall, the Subcommittee finds that ORD has been responsive to the needs of its primary client, 

OAR, and to its secondary stakeholders, particularly the Regions and the states. ORD staff 

members and officials regularly interact with these and other stakeholders and make 

conscientious and frequently productive efforts to meet their needs. 

During the Subcommittee’s review, it transpired that there is no institutionalized formal 

mechanism for ORD to assess stakeholders’ perceptions of its performance. Such a mechanism 

could be a useful means for ORD to help gauge its progress in providing relevant information 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 25

and tools to its clients. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that ORD consider 

establishing a periodic formalized process for assessing its primary stakeholders’ perceptions of 

and satisfaction with its efforts. 

Has the program begun to establish a process for using the results of assessments, 

along with stakeholder feedback, to identify key research gaps and to update the 

programs’ research agenda? 

Since the inception of the enhanced PM & O3 Research Program in 1998, ORD has incorporated 

the recommendations of the NRC Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate 

Matter into its research planning process. These general recommendations have formed the core 

of the PM research effort in ORD and are clearly reflected in the PM MYP (2003). These 

research directions have been supplemented by the Fine Particle Assessment of NARSTO19, 

which focused mainly on issues related to standards implementation, and those of the Clean Air 

Act Advisory Committee. In general, the Subcommittee recognizes that ORD seriously 

considers the research recommendations of these independent expert panels. 

Two of the ORD laboratories (NHEERL and NERL) have institutionalized periodic formal peer 

review processes to address not only the technical quality of their scientific programs, but also 

their relevance to EPA needs. Excerpts from the most recent peer review of NHEERL provided 

to the Subcommittee indicate strong support for the Human Studies Division’s (HSD) research 

on PM components, susceptibility, and mechanisms (e.g., “HSD scientists have a proven track 

record of identifying major scientific uncertainties and then designing and carrying out 

appropriate research approaches to address them”), balanced with recommendations for 

improvements. 

Although NCER has not established formal periodic reviews of its programs, the NRC conducted 

an assessment of the STAR program in 2002-2003, including an evaluation of NCER’s PM 

research.20 The NRC review committee provided a highly favorable assessment of the STAR 

program’s research scope, process, and relevance to EPA’s mission, indicating at the same time, 

however, that the STAR program was still too young to assess in terms of its programmatic 

impact. In addition, EPA’s Science Advisory Board evaluated NCER’s PM Center program in 

2002,21 likewise providing positive, complimentary feedback on this program, along with 

guidance for future directions, which EPA has incorporated into its research planning. The 

RFAs issued by NCER are developed with iterative input from the RCTs, and are intended to 

complement EPA’s intramural research program. Proposals submitted in response to NCER 

RFAs are rigorously reviewed by independent scientists; those proposals receiving favorable 

assessments then are evaluated by ORD’s Programmatic Review Panel (including representation 

from OAR and the Regions, as well as ORD), which makes funding recommendations based on, 

 

19 Formerly an acronym for the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, the term NARSTO has 

become simply a wordmark signifying a tri-national (U.S., Canada, and Mexico), public-private partnership dealing 

with multiple features of tropospheric pollution, including ozone and suspended PM. 

20 http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10701.html. 

21 http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02008.pdf. 
26 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

among other things, relevance to EPA’s mission and the addition of balance to the existing 

research portfolio. 

One of the primary venues for the identification of research gaps has been the cyclic 

development of AQCDs by ORD and the Staff Paper by OAR. This process affords numerous 

opportunities for the identification of important research gaps by both ORD scientists and those 

associated with OAR and other stakeholders. The process of compiling an assessment of 

research illuminates not only what is known, but also what is still unknown. One result of the 

Staff Paper development is to identify important research gaps; for instance, Section 5.5 of the 

most recent PM Staff Paper (January 2005) is entitled “Summary of Key Uncertainties and 

Research Recommendations Related to Setting Primary PM Standards,” and includes seven highpriority areas for PM research prior to the next cycle of review. Development of the AQCD and 

the Staff Paper are very public processes, during which there are multiple occasions for input 

from OAR and other stakeholders with respect to the identification of research needs. Toward 

the end of the AQCD/Staff Paper process, EPA holds workshops to provide input into the 

Research Needs Document, with OAR as the lead office. This Research Needs Document is 

incorporated into all aspects of the Air RCT’s planning processes. Thus, OAR plays a large role 

in determining that the allocation of research funding is relevant to its programmatic needs. 

Although the results of research endeavors may reduce important scientific uncertainties, they 

may raise additional previously unrecognized questions. As discussed in the Subcommittee’s 

response to the previous charge question, recent research on UFP deposition and clearance 

indicated that such tiny particles can cross the lung surface into the bloodstream to be transported 

to other organs, elevating the importance of their potential toxicity. Although this finding 

narrowed one aspect of uncertainty about a potential mechanism by which particles in the lung 

could cause systemic effects (i.e., could particles act directly on distant organs?), it also raised 

questions about whether such particles also could cross another tissue barrier to go directly into 

the brain (via the olfactory nerve). Toxicological experiments recently undertaken at the 

University of Rochester PM Center, funded by ORD, have demonstrated that such translocation 

of particles into the brain does indeed occur, resulting in inflammation in the area of deposition. 

This in turn creates additional uncertainties (e.g., can exposure to PM cause chronic, low-level 

neurological inflammation, resulting in brain damage and dementia?). Thus, although research 

can lay to rest some uncertainties, it also can generate new and often highly relevant questions. 

The absence of funding to permit followup on promising lines of research undermines the 

strength of the PM & O3 Research Program, which is at a stage of discovery that would likely 

yield important new understanding from opportunities to expand research in key areas. The 

Subcommittee finds that, were such funds set aside for anticipatory research projects, the PM & 

O3 Research Program would effectively employ them. 

Both the AQCD and the Staff Paper are reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC), which generally includes not only academic experts, but also at least one 

representative each from industry, public health organizations, and the states. The CASAC 

provides advice to the EPA Administrator and essentially has de facto authority with respect to 

the quality and relevance of the science contained in both documents. Given CASAC’s 

institutional prominence and the high visibility of it reviews, ORD must address that committee’s 

concerns regarding research needs. Although other stakeholders are afforded opportunities at 

CASAC meetings to voice their opinions regarding the quality of the science in the AQCD and 

Staff Paper, this does not appear to represent an optimal setting to identify research gaps that 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 27

EPA incorporates into its planning process. A more appropriate public forum would be the 

workshops sponsored by OAR during the development of the Research Needs Document. 

An additional avenue by which ORD identifies research needs is through interactions and 

collaborations with other organizations that fund research on air pollution, including federal 

agencies, the Health Effects Institute (HEI), and industry institutes. Along with NIEHS, EPA cochairs the Particulate Matter Workgroup of the interagency CENR that comprises 22 federal 

agency representatives, including several of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, 

and the Department of Defense, among others. This CENR workgroup meets bimonthly with the 

goals of integrating and prioritizing PM-related research and coordinating their efforts to 

eliminate duplication. One recent outgrowth of this collaboration was the issuance of a joint 

EPA-NIEHS RFA soliciting research proposals to examine the role of PM in cardiovascular 

disease. The explosion of recent research suggesting major health impacts of traffic emissions 

has created an area of common concern to many of the CENR participants that may result in 

cross-agency partnerships to examine traffic-related exposures and health effects. 

The HEI owes its existence to funding provided by ORD, OAR, and industry. A joint OARORD committee coordinates research priorities with HEI, which has funded several major efforts 

that have complemented EPA’s PM research, including the National Morbidity, Mortality, and 

Air Pollution Study of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as detailed reanalyses of the two large longitudinal epidemiological studies that serve as the principal 

foundation of the annual average PM NAAQS. 

ORD also has, on occasion, worked jointly with industry funders on specific research projects, 

such as the extension of the Atlanta Supersite research into the Aerosol Research and Inhalation 

Epidemiology Study, which is largely supported by the Electric Power Research Institute. ORD 

also has partnered with HEI and the Coordinating Research Council on the Advanced 

Collaborative Emissions Study, which was originally proposed by the Engine Manufacturers 

Association to measure emissions and examine potential health effects of new diesel engines 

designed to meet on-road heavy-duty emissions standards. Though somewhat opportunistic, 

these examples indicate ORD’s willingness to leverage its scarce resources by investing with the 

private sector in pursuit of research objectives of mutual interest. Such partnering appears easily 

facilitated through existing linkages to organizations such as HEI and NARSTO and can 

potentially provide significant leveraging of available PM & O3 resources. Neither the criteria 

by which such projects are selected nor the process of prioritization of these efforts relative to 

other research needs, however, was obvious to the Subcommittee. 
CHARGE QUESTION 4: DEMONSTRATED OUTCOMES

The two LTGs of ORD’s PM & O3 Research Program were introduced under Charge Question 1. 

These LTGs are qualitative, and there must be quantitative goals/measures to assess progress and 

success. 

As discussed under Charge Question 1: Program Design and Demonstrated Leadership, some 

minor changes in the wording of the two LTGs identified in the MYP for the PM & O3 Research 

Program have been suggested and, most importantly, the Subcommittee proposes consideration 

of a hypothesis-driven approach in tracking and quantifying progress in LTG 2. The linking of 

health outcomes to sources entails unraveling the complex interactions and contributions of 

primary and secondary pollutants to human exposure and demonstration of the overall toxicity of 

source-specific components. The Subcommittee believes that demonstration of the viability of 

the source-to-health outcome concept would be best served through well-designed hypothesisdriven pilot studies. 

The following questions raised in the “Charge to the BOSC Subcommittee” are aimed at 

assessing whether EPA has developed quantitative goals/measures and how well EPA is doing 

with respect to those goals/measures. 

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance 

measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the 

program? 

The program has defined several specific long-term performance measures that adequately focus 

on outcomes and that are consistent with the purpose of the ORD program. EPA provided 

examples of possible measures to the BOSC Subcommittee on page 11 of Section 2 – Multi-Year 

Plan Development. Those measures are listed below in italics for each LTG. Many of those 

measures are, at this point, qualitative rather than quantitative. EPA acknowledges that “[t]he 

measures require a degree of quantification.” We provide below some guidance to quantify 

those measures so that progress made by the program can be assessed. 

LTG 1 

By 2012, enhance understanding in the air pollution sciences and reduce 

associated uncertainties leading to more effective and efficient PM and ozone 

standard setting and air quality management during each regulatory cycle to 

minimize adverse risks to human health and the environment. 

ORD publications in AQCD will exceed 20 percent. This is a reasonable measure because the 

AQCDs for ozone and PM provide a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-science. Another 

additional measure could be added; for example, 20 percent of citations in the air quality, 

exposure, and health effect literature will correspond to ORD-sponsored publications. Such 

measures (20 percent) seem realistic based on the current level of high-quality research 

sponsored by ORD. 

28 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 29

Atmospheric models will show incremental improvements in predicting real-world ambient PM 

and ozone levels―every 2 years an improved model will be formally released and adopted for 

field use. This measure as currently stated is too vague. The term “improved” should be 

quantified because improvements can range from minor to significant. The performance of 

CMAQ has improved significantly over the past few years because of improvements in model 

formulation and inputs (emissions). The performance of CMAQ (and other similar air quality 

models), however, is still poor for PM components because of our limited understanding of 

atmospheric processes (e.g., formation of secondary organic aerosols from volatile organic 

compounds [VOCs]) and uncertainties in model inputs (mostly meteorology and emissions). 

The CMAQ update cycle, as proposed, will provide a steady stream of “new and better” 

chemical kinetic modules, but unless the essential model inputs also improve (especially 3-D 

meteorology and emissions), state, local government, and tribal entities may construct State 

Implementation Plans that do not reflect the best information. The Subcommittee recommends 

that an independent expert panel be responsible to define the current uncertainties associated 

with the modeling of ozone and PM ambient air concentrations. Those uncertainties could be 

characterized according to a ranking similar to that used in the NARSTO report for PM air 

quality modeling. To better track progress, five uncertainty categories could be used: very high, 

high, moderate, low, and very low. Then, the expert panel would evaluate progress made for 

each of the areas under consideration according to a realistic schedule (e.g., every 2 years). 

Real-world reductions yield less health impacts (accountability. This is an important measure. 

Some examples of progress made over the past several years were provided by EPA using results 

from the Harvard Six Cities study (evolution of annual average PM concentrations and mortality 

relative risk). EPA should propose some quantification of this measure along the same lines. 

EPA also should consider quantifying the health benefits. Research into improved 

methodologies for estimating health benefits may be needed in that regard. 

The accumulated peer-reviewed literature in the air pollution sciences will be compiled and 

interpreted about every 5 years for review in AQCD. This is a valuable measure of the use of 

ORD’s sponsored research for the development of NAAQS. The schedule is consistent with that 

for the AQCD (although some delays will typically be associated with CASAC review for the 

preparation of the final versions of the AQCD). 

At 3-4 year intervals, ad hoc expert review panels assess progress on the NRC Topic Areas or 

through the use of “expert elicitation”-like approaches. This measure is important as it provides 

outside expert judgment on EPA ORD’s progress toward the stated LTG 1. One of the expert 

review panels should address the improvements made in the air quality model CMAQ (see 

recommendation above). The Subcommittee recommends that, in addition to the NRC topic 

areas, those ad hoc expert review panels also address the eight NARSTO “policy questions.” To 

facilitate the evaluation of progress, a baseline of the current uncertainties should first be 

established for each component of the program. The expert panels then can assess the 

uncertainties at regular intervals and measure progress accordingly. The frequency of the 

reviews should be selected to correspond to the pace of anticipated progress in the various 

components of the program (i.e., it should be about 2 years for the evaluation of improvement in 

CMAQ). 
LTG 2 

By 2015, demonstrate the integrated linkages of pollutant sources to health 

outcomes and reduce their associated uncertainties to ensure that ORD 

clients target air pollutant strategies most effectively and efficiently to best 

protect human health and the environment. 

Multi-city approaches show coherence across disciplines attributing health impacts to hazardous 

components/sources―a hierarchy of source risk will be established (10 percent per year). 

Coherence across disciplines is an important point. The Utah Valley smelter study (poster 

presented by Alice Dye) is one example of how coherence among different disciplines can 

provide an answer to a real-world air pollution problem. The EPA goal of one city per year 

seems reasonable. 

Actions lead to most cost-effective strategies for improving public health. This costeffectiveness measure is very valuable as the costs associated with the control of air pollution 

can be significant. EPA needs to develop a methodology to clarify how this cost-effectiveness 

will be quantified. There needs to be recognition that cost-benefit analyses can be biased as 

control costs are frequently overestimated and health benefits are underestimated. 

At regular and frequent intervals, ad hoc expert review panels assess progress on the source-tohealth outcome. The ad hoc expert review panels will play a similar role as for LTG 1. The 

Subcommittee recommends that the frequency of the reviews be less than 5 years (e.g., 3 to 4 

years) to provide for a minimum of three reviews through 2015 and to ensure a continuous 

evaluation of progress toward LTG 2. 

The program will fully integrate from the sciences to the regulatory process to create flexible 

and cost-effective approaches to protecting the public from air pollution. The use of hypotheses 

(e.g., “primary PM causes health effects”) was proposed above as an effective way to measure 

progress toward LTG 2. The Subcommittee recommends that the hypotheses proposed by EPA 

should first be reviewed by an expert panel. EPA then may revise some hypotheses based on 

comments received from the panel. Then, the expert panel will review progress on the work 

conducted to address those hypotheses every 5 years. At the time of those reviews, some 

hypotheses may be confirmed, whereas others may not. New hypotheses then may be proposed 

based on new available information. This approach will provide the flexibility needed for the 

integrated source-to-health outcome process by allowing ORD to adjust its hypotheses (and the 

related research) at regular intervals. 

Has the program made significant progress in the conduct of the planned research 

and in answering the key science questions related to public health and pollution 

abatement? 

Key science questions include the questions raised by the NRC Committee that focus mostly, but 

not exclusively, on health effects and the questions raised by the NARSTO Assessment that 

focus mostly on the emissions/PM concentrations relationships (the NARSTO questions are 

actually called “policy questions,” but they are technical questions meant to address policy 

30 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
issues). One question is similar in the NRC and NARSTO lists (relationship between emissions 

and PM concentrations) that would give a list of 17 questions. NARSTO also raises the key 

question: “How can we measure progress?” that relates to this entire section. 

Based on the review of the work accomplished by ORD’s program (as presented in the oral 

presentations and the corresponding posters), the Subcommittee concluded that significant 

progress has been made in the various areas of the research program. 

Although the PM program has made significant strides in addressing some of the key health 

issues, there remains much that needs to be done. As with any well-designed research program, 

new and unexpected questions have arisen from the findings of research completed to date. 

Based on the funded projects and their timelines, the program seems to have some flexibility to 

follow promising new leads when identified. 

Since the late 1990s, EPA’s research program has focused on PM. Recently, EPA staff has 

recognized that there are still significant questions remaining with reference to the public health 

impacts of ozone. Consequently, the PM research program has been expanded to include ozone. 

The return to investigation of ozone impacts is welcome and overdue. 

In many cases, the questions and data gaps with reference to ozone readily fit into the same 

topics as those that have guided the PM Research Program. Since the beginning of the emphasis 

on PM research, only a few studies have included ozone, and much remains to be done in 

planning an effective ozone research plan to move forward. There does not, however, appear to 

be a developed plan for ozone health research, at least based on the materials presented for 

review. 

The following charge questions in the “Charge to the BOSC Subcommittee” are broken down 

into sub-questions. 

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for long-term goals? 

Has the program made adequate progress in meeting its long-term goals? 

Several independent reviews (e.g., Fourth NRC report) have stated that EPA was making 

significant progress. The Subcommittee review of the posters also suggests that EPA is making 

significant progress. 

Are there baselines and appropriate targets and timeframes for long-term measures? 

Baselines need to be established for the various areas of the programs. The Subcommittee 

recommends that expert panels define the current levels of uncertainties in the various areas of 

the program. Those uncertainties would constitute the baselines. The NARSTO Assessment 

report provides a suitable listing of the current state-of-the-science for the air quality portion that 

can be used to provide the baselines for the emissions/ambient concentration component. 

Perhaps the NRC report can provide baselines for the health and exposure components. EPA 

then can define quantitative targets with associated timeframes to reduce the uncertainties. For 

 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 31
example, what uncertainties are associated with organic PM? The expert panels then would 

review progress with respect to the baselines and those targets. 

Have the research products been consistent with the program’s goals and 

supportive of client needs? 

The overall answer is “yes.” There are, however, some areas where ORD work products have 

been lagging behind the needs of the community because of a lack of resources. One example is 

the development of emission inventories for biogenic VOCs that are PM precursors. Although 

EPA has conducted some excellent research work to characterize emissions of biogenic VOCs 

from vegetation, the incorporation of the resulting information into practical tools (such as the 

emission models) is slow. Although the biogenic emission inventory system, BEIS3, now 

includes monoterpene speciation, it took several years before it became available and it still does 

not include sesquiterpenes. This problem is caused in part by a lack of resources (i.e., not 

enough full-time equivalents) but possibly also in part to insufficient planning across disciplines. 

The Subcommittee recommends that adequate resources be assigned to the timely transfer of 

fundamental research products to practical tools that can be used for air quality management. 

Are the research program findings incorporated into regulation and standards, 

published in the peer-reviewed literature, or do they otherwise 

demonstrate superior scientific quality? 

The overall answer is “yes.” The ORD-sponsored research includes some scientific products of 

high quality (see answer to Charge Question 2). 

Results from EPA-funded research are normally published in the peer-reviewed literature. It 

contributes significantly to NAAQS reviews, review of AAQS in California, and to air quality 

standards abroad as well. 

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the 

program is effective and is achieving results? 

It appears that there are several mechanisms in place for independent evaluations of ORD’s 

research (pp. 19-21 of Response Question 3). Those evaluations seem to focus on the overall 

quality and quantity of the results, the major uncertainties and scientific gaps, and future 

directions. Independent detailed technical reviews could be set up for specific work products; 

for example, independent review of a biostatistical analysis of epidemiological data (such a 

review was done a few years ago for the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society data), 

independent review of the CMAQ computer code, and so on. Such reviews would be expensive 

and would have to be selected carefully.

32 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report
 Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness 

in achieving program goals each year? 

The program demonstrates an effective use of research funding to advance the state-of-thescience with real-world benefits in terms of material that is used by OAR to develop air quality 

standards and manage air quality. 

Do EPA-ORD and program leadership make adjustments in the program’s 

science and emphasis to meet the evolving science and research needs? 

EPA-ORD has shown some flexibility in adjusting to the changes resulting from new standards 

(switch in emphasis from ozone to PM) and from new scientific results (addition of 

cardiovascular PM risk). The review by expert panels of research conducted to address 

hypotheses (see above) at regular intervals will provide the opportunity for EPA to adjust its 

program’s science and emphasis based on the results of the research and comments received 

from the expert panel. It also will provide the opportunity to the expert panel to assess EPA’s 

flexibility. 

Is the program appropriately structured to allow for flexibility in direction and emphasis? 

The program offers some flexibility to adjust to the needs of ORD’s clients. Examples include 

the switch of health science from ozone to PM, the new focus on UFP and coarse particles, the 

new interest in cardiovascular health effects of PM, and the increased interest in source-to-health 

outcomes. 

 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 33
34 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

APPENDIX A: CHARGE QUESTIONS

Charge for the BOSC Subcommittee on 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research 

1.0 Objective 

The objective of this review is to evaluate the relevance, quality, performance, as well as the 

scientific and managerial leadership of Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (PM & O3) Research Program. The Subcommittee’s evaluation and 

recommendations will provide guidance to ORD to help: 

 Plan, implement, and strengthen the Program; 

 Make research investment decisions over the next 5 years; 

 Refine the integration of the ORD Program with those of other federal agencies; 

 Prepare EPA’s performance and accountability reports to Congress under the Government 

Performance and Results Act; and 

 Respond to evaluations of federal research such as those conducted by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB highlights the value of recommendations from independent 

expert panels in guidance to federal agencies1,2). 

2.0 Background Information 

Independent expert review is used extensively in industry, federal agencies, congressional 

committees, and academia. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recommended this 

approach for evaluating federal research programs.3

 

Because of the nature of research, it is not possible to measure the creation of new knowledge as 

it develops, or the pace at which research progresses or scientific breakthroughs occur. 

Demonstrating research contributions to outcomes is very challenging4

 when federal agencies 

conduct research to support regulatory decisions, and then rely on third parties,5

 such as state 

environmental agencies, to enforce the regulations and demonstrate environmental 

improvements. Typically, many years may be required for practical research applications to be 

developed, and decades may be required for some research outcomes to be achieved. 

Most of EPA’s environmental research programs investigate complex environmental problems 

and processes—combining use-inspired basic research6,7 with applied research and integrating 

several scientific disciplines across a conceptual framework8

 that links research to environmental 

decisions or environmental outcomes. In multidisciplinary research programs such as these, 

progress toward outcomes cannot be measured by outputs created in a single year. Rather, 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 35

research progress occurs over several years as research teams explore hypotheses with individual 

studies, interpret research findings, and then develop hypotheses for future studies. 

In designing and managing its research programs, ORD emphasizes the importance of 

identifying priority research questions to guide the research. Similarly, ORD recommends that 

its programs develop a small number of performance goals that serve as indicators of progress. 

Short-term outcomes are accomplished when research is applied by specific clients to strengthen 

environmental decisions or regulations. These decisions and resulting actions (e.g., the reduction 

of contaminant emissions or the reduction of uncertainties in risk assessment) ultimately 

contribute to improved environmental quality and health. 

In a comprehensive evaluation of science and research at EPA, the National Research Council 

(NRC) recommended9

 that the Agency substantially increase its efforts to explain the 

significance of its research products and to assist clients inside and outside the Agency in 

applying them. In response to this recommendation, ORD has engaged science advisors from 

client organizations to serve as members of its research program teams. These teams help 

identify research contributions with significant decision-making value and help plan for their 

transfer and application. 

For EPA’s environmental research programs, periodic retrospective analysis at intervals of 4 or 5 

years is needed to characterize research progress, to identify when clients are applying research 

to strengthen environmental decisions, and to evaluate client feedback about the research. 

Conducting program evaluation at this interval enables assessment of research progress, the 

scientific quality and decision-making value of the research, and whether research progress has 

resulted in short-term outcomes for specific clients. 

In 1998, Congress augmented the budget for PM-related research and mandated the 

establishment of an NRC Committee to assess the research needs for PM. The NRC Committee 

since has published four reports of Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter, with 

Volume IV published in October 2004.10 The four volumes have provided guidance to the PM & 

O3 Research Program in the form of an initial 10 (and eventually 12) priority research areas 

(needs). In these same reports, the NRC has submitted peer-expert evaluations of the Agency’s 

PM & O3 Research Program that identify its strengths, productivity, and shortcomings, as well as 

challenges for the future. Since 1998, ORD has aligned its research program with the NRC 

priorities, evolving the relative emphases on these priorities with the development of the science, 

client needs, and frequent peer reviews of all or selected parts of the program. 

It is essential to appreciate that the ORD PM Program comprises an intramural research program 

in health and implementation, as well as an extramural (grant funded) program that is 

complimentary and integrated by design to meet the needs of its client, the Office of Air and 

Radiation. In completing the final report (Volume IV), the NRC provided its assessment of the 

PM & O3 Research Program and its accomplishments and delineated a series of challenges for 

the years ahead. These challenges were provided in the presentation of the Committee Chair, Dr. 

Jonathan Samet of Johns Hopkins University, to ORD at the completion of Volume IV. The 

charge to the NRC Committee reviewing the PM Program now is complete, and the formal 

Committee will cease to exist; however, it is expected that ad hoc committees will be convened 

at points in the future to revisit the program priorities and directions. 
36 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

Beginning in 1997, ORD gradually redirected its long-standing Ozone Research Program, 

initially focused on health and ecology, to allow for the growth and emphasis in health research 

in PM. Agency-supported ozone-specific research in these areas currently is minimal. More 

recently, an analogous adjustment has occurred in the implementation program as well. In the 

latter case, the atmospheric science research in ozone and PM were merged in research of 

atmospheric processes and modeling, as they are inextricably linked in the air environment. 

With the disinvestment in the ozone-specific research and its emergence in a more integrated 

form within the PM Program efforts in atmospheric chemistry and co-pollutant health research, 

these two largely independent research programs have been fully merged, which is evidenced by 

plans to revise the Multi-Year Plans (MYP) for PM and Ozone into a merged, single MYP. 

In 2003, the PM Program underwent review by OMB using a novel approach to assess program 

success. This approach used the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that, in brief, focused 

on: (1) the relevance of the PM Program to its clients; (2) the clarity and specificity of its longterm goals and resultant outcomes that could be linked explicitly with measurable improvements 

in health and the environment; (3) research progress and performance; and (4) the resource 

management that ensures high-quality research. Overall, the PM Program scored well in this 

process, except in the areas designated in focus (2) requiring demonstrated measurable outcomes 

in public health and the environment. As the PM and Ozone Programs have been merged and 

enter a second PART review, the intent is to use this BOSC assessment of the program’s new 

structure, its management and leadership, as well as its scientific achievements and directions to 

guide preparations for the PART review, which will be conducted in spring/summer 2004. 

3.0 Draft Charge Questions for ORD’s Particulate Matter & Ozone Research Program 

The following charge questions will help evaluate the relevance, quality, performance, as well as 

management and scientific leadership of ORD’s PM & O3 Research Program: 

1. Program Design and Demonstrated Leadership

h Does the new draft PM & O3 MYP structure reflect the identified science needs of the 

program and show integration and leveraging of human and fiscal resources? 

• Is the PM & O3 MYP structure strategic by design, implementation, and review? 

• Does the PM & O3 MYP structure provide a reasonable “road-map” of the program 

demonstrating a well thought-out plan and identifying critical paths, clear goals, 

priorities, and schedules? 

• Is the extramural program adequately integrated into the program MYP and goals? 

• Does the PM & O3 MYP structure reflect an “outcome” orientation that provides 

measures demonstrating the true impact on public health and the environment? 

• Is the ORD PM & O3 Program responsive to the recommendations of the NRC in 

terms of products and outputs? 

• Are the near and long-term visions of the program consistent with the NRC-noted 

“challenges for the future”? 

h Is ORD sufficiently coordinating research across categories of the risk assessment 

paradigm (source, exposure, health, assessment, and management)? 

• Is the work within laboratories and centers integrated to maximize resource 

investment? 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 37

 

h Is EPA-ORD providing evident and appropriate science leadership and program 

management? 

• Are there changes or refinements in management or science leadership that are 

needed to improve the program? 

h Is EPA-ORD sufficiently communicating its results to its clients and the broader 

scientific community? 

• What can be done to improve communication and access to information by regulatory 

and science communities? 

 

h Are there important interagency or extramural collaborations that should and can be 

improved to advance the Agency’s research agenda? 

• To what extent has EPA established and utilized other organizations (inside and 

outside governments) in advancing the Agency’s research agenda? 

• Is the interaction and leadership role of EPA-ORD with other federal agencies 

through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources effectively providing 

national coordination? 

2. Science Quality 

h Is the research being conducted by EPA-ORD laboratories and centers of recognized high 

quality and appropriate to the perceived needs? 

h Is program integration across laboratories, centers, and science disciplines making full 

advantage of research opportunities? 

h Does the program ensure high-quality research through competitive, merit-based 

funding? If funds are not competitively awarded, what process does the program use to 

allocate funds? Does this process ensure that quality is maintained? 

3. Relevance

 

h Does the PM & O3 MYP structure and Research Program clearly reflect its focus and the 

rationale behind its research direction and out-year emphasis? 

h Are the potential public benefits in terms of public health protection and pollution 

abatement clearly articulated? 

h Has the PM & O3 Research Program effectively engaged stakeholders in its assessment 

processes and provided useful information and tools in a timely manner? 

h Has the program begun to establish a process for using the results of assessments, along 

with stakeholder feedback, to identify key research gaps and to update the program’s 

research agenda? 
38 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

4. Demonstrated Outcomes

 

h Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures 

that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program? 

h Has the program made significant progress in the conduct of the planned research and in 

answering the key science questions related to public health and pollution abatement? 

 

h Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for long-term measures? 

• Has the program made adequate progress in meeting its long-term goals? 

• Are there baselines and appropriate targets for the program’s annual measures? 

• Have the program’s research products been consistent with the program’s goals and 

supportive of client needs? 

• Are the research program’s findings incorporated into regulations and standards, 

published in the peer-reviewed literature, or do they otherwise demonstrate superior 

scientific quality? 

 

h Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is 

effective and is achieving results? 

• Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in 

achieving program goals each year? 

 

h Do EPA-ORD and program leadership make adjustments in the program’s science and 

emphasis to meet the evolving science and research needs? 

• Is the program appropriately structured to allow for flexibility in direction and 

emphasis? 

 

4.0 Potential BOSC Approach for Program Review 

h Hold conference call(s) in the month preceding a face-to-face meeting. 

< Goal: Familiarize the Subcommittee with review objectives, introduce review 

materials, and make assignments for the face-to-face meeting. 

1. The Designated Federal Officer distributes background materials and documents 

requested by the Subcommittee 4 weeks in advance of the first conference call. 

2. ORD presents background materials to the Subcommittee during the first call for 

initial orientation. 

3. The Subcommittee reviews and comments on the charge. 

4. The Subcommittee asks clarifying questions about the program under review. 

5. The Subcommittee Chair makes review and writing assignments to Subcommittee 

members in advance of the face-to-face meeting. 

h Hold a 2 to 3 day face-to-face meeting for the program review at a location where a 

critical mass of ORD scientists is located. 

< Goal: A draft Subcommittee report is available for circulation and comment at the 

end of the face-to-face meeting that thoroughly addresses all charge questions. 

1. The first segment of the meeting: ORD presentations and poster sessions, 

Subcommittee questions and discussion, identification of issues for further 

resolution. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 39

2. The second segment of the meeting: the Subcommittee discusses prepared 

written assignments in context of presentations and discussion, identifies and 

agrees to areas for change, elaboration, or other adjustment of the text as 

necessary. 

3. The third segment of the meeting: the Subcommittee revises written assignments 

and assembles them into a draft report. 

h As necessary, hold one to two conference calls to complete the draft report in the month 

following the face-to-face meeting. 

< Goal: A report approved by the Subcommittee is available for BOSC Executive 

Committee discussion/approval at the May 2005 BOSC Executive Committee 

meeting, with a final draft completed within 30 days following the meeting. 

5.0 References 

1 Budget Data Request 04-31. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 

March 22, 2004. “Completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for the FY06 Review 

Process,” pp. 50-56. 

2 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and Budget. June 5, 2003. “FY 2005 Interagency Research and 

Development Priorities,” pp. 5-10. 

3 Evaluating Federal Research Under the Government Performance and Results Act, National 

Research Council, Washington, DC, 1999. 

4 The House Science Subcommittee. Letter to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy 

of Sciences, from F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and George E. Brown. October 23, 1997. 

5 The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide Implementation Will Be 

Uneven. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/GGD), Washington, DC, 1997. 

6 Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions, National Research Council, Washington, 

DC, 1997. 

7 “Renewing the Compact between Science and Government,” Stokes DE, in 1995 Forum Proceedings, 

Vannevar Bush II—Science for the 21st Century. Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995, pp. 

15-32. 

8 Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Research Council, 

Washington, DC, 1983. 

9 Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council, 

Washington, DC, 2000, p. 141. 

10 National Research Council of the National Academies: Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate 

Matter IV, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004 (http://www.nap.edu; Volume IV - 

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091993/html/). 

__________________ 

Note: A PDF file of the OSTP/OMB Research and Development Investment Criteria was included with the 

Charge.
40 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS

Rogene Henderson, Ph.D. Dr. Henderson is Director of the Lovelace Respiratory Symposium at the 

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI), and Clinical Professor 

at the University of New Mexico’s College of Pharmacy. She is a 

National Associate of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and has 

participated on NAS committees and EPA’s Science Advisory Board. 

Her research interests include: biochemistry of the lung; mechanisms by 

which pulmonary inflammation leads to repair or chronic disease; 

pharmacokinetics of inhaled xenobiotics; and chemical-specific 

biomarkers of chemical exposure. Dr. Henderson has studied the use of 

biological markers of exposure and effects to link environmental 

exposure to induced disease. LRRI is an independent research institution 

focused on respiratory health, funded by government agencies, industry 

associations, private companies, health advocacy groups, and private 

donors. 

Juarine Stewart, Ph.D. Dr. Stewart is the interim Dean of the School of Computer, 

Mathematical, and Natural Sciences at Morgan State University in 

Baltimore, Maryland. She received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences 

from the Oak Ridge Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University 

of Tennessee at Knoxville, in 1978. She was a post-doctoral fellow in 

Biochemistry at the Department of Chemistry at Clark Atlanta 

University, Atlanta, Georgia, from 1979 to 1981. She has conducted 

research and published on the subject of complex sphingolipids at the 

enzyme activity, protein, and mRNA levels. Dr. Stewart has served in 

many professional capacities and presently is a member of the Visiting 

Committee, Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges 

and Schools; and Chair of the Department of Defense Review Committee 

for Historically Black Colleges and Universities Prostate Cancer 

Program. Prior to her position at Morgan State, Dr. Stewart was a 

Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Clark Atlanta 

University. 

Bart E. Croes, P.E. Mr. Croes is the Chief of the Research Division of the California Air 

Resources Board. He received his M.S. in Chemical Engineering from 

the University of California at Santa Barbara, and is licensed by the State 

of California as a Professional Engineer (P.E.). His responsibilities for 

the Research Division include: setting California ambient air quality 

standards for particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide; assessing 

personal exposure and indoor air quality for homes, schools, and in 

vehicles; incorporating health impacts, cost/benefit analysis, and model 

of the California economy into the Diesel Risk Reduction Program and 

other major state regulations; managing a research portfolio with $5 to 

10 million in new projects each year; and developing a 10-year strategic 

research plan, annual research plans, and research plan for vulnerable 

populations. Other recent research related activity includes: serving as a 

consultant for projects in Canada (reactivity of alternative fuels), Mexico 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 41

(air quality modeling), Germany (emission inventory reconciliation, 

hydrocarbon reactivity), The Netherlands (emission inventory 

reconciliation, field study design), China (monitoring network design, 

forecasting, modeling), and Thailand (reformulated fuels); serving as a 

Program Manager for the $6 million 1997 Southern California Ozone 

Study (SCOS97)-North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric 

Ozone (NARSTO) and the $1 million SCOS97-NARSTO Aerosol 

Program and Radiation Study (comprehensive efforts to better 

understand the processes involved in the formation of high ozone and 

PM concentrations in southern California); guided development of 

hydrocarbon reactivity scale for California’s Low Emission Vehicle/ 

Clean Fuel regulations; planned modeling and analysis of the $14 million 

Southern California Air Quality Study in Los Angeles and designed the 

data management process; and developed modeling guidelines for New 

Source Review to include impacts of secondarily formed particles on 

PM10 and sulfate standards. His other professional services include: 

invited participant to EPA’s workshops to set national policy for 

modeling in PM10 State Implementation Plans; member of Ambient Air 

Monitoring and Methods Subcommittee of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC), 2004-present; member of the Clean Air 

Technical Advisory Group of the American Lung Association of 

California (ALAC), 2004-present; member of the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Asthma Consortium Advisory 

Committee, 2003-present; member of the SCAQMD Research Advisory 

Committee, 2002-present; Public Sector Co-Chair for NARSTO, 2002-

2004; member of the Haagen-Smit Symposium Steering Committee, 

2001-present; member of the California EPA-Resources Agency–

University of California at Davis Memorandum of Understanding Joint 

Steering Committee, 2000-present; member of NARSTO Executive 

Assembly, 2000-present; member of National Research Council 

Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter, 1998-

2004. 

Kenneth Demerjian, Ph.D. Dr. Demerjian is the Director of the Atmospheric Sciences Research 

Center at the Albany State University of New York. He received his 

Ph.D. from The Ohio State University in Physical Chemistry in 1973 and 

an M.S. in Physical Chemistry in 1970. Dr. Demerjian’s research 

interests include: chemical kinetics and mechanistic pathways of 

elementary atmospheric reactions and the development of reaction 

mechanisms of polluted and clean atmospheres; instrumentation 

development and measurement of atmospheric trace gases and particulate 

matter; development and evaluation of air quality forecast models and 

diagnostic analysis of atmospheric processes within air quality modeling 

systems; experimental and theoretical studies of actinic solar flux and 

atmospheric photolytic rate constants; sources and evaluation of 

uncertainty in theoretical models of atmospheric processes, air quality, 

and pollutant exposures; and the articulation and effective use of 

scientific uncertainty in the decision-making process. His awards include 

the EPA Bronze Medal for Commendable service, and his professional 

service includes: Health Effects Institute Research Committee; CASAC 

National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy Subcommittee; Executive 

Committee, Board on Oceans and Atmosphere of the National 
42 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges; University 

Corporation of Atmospheric Research Members’ Nominating 

Committee; National Research Council (NRC) Committee on 

Atmospheric Chemistry, Co-Chair, Synthesis Team-NARSTO, 1996 to 

2000; Coordinating Committee for the Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Environmental Education in Global Change, 1994 to 1999; Chairman, 

Peer Review Panel – NOx/VOC Science Program, Environment Canada, 

1993; NRC/NAS Committee on Tropospheric Ozone Formation and 

Measurement, 1989 to 1991; International Joint Commission Air Quality 

Advisory Board/Expert Group on Monitoring, 1987 to 1991; Desert 

Research Institute National Science Advisory Committee, 1988 to 1992; 

Office of Technology Assessment, and U.S. Congress Advisory Panel 

on the Assessment of New Clean Air Act Issues, 1987 to 1989. He has 

published widely and recent invited lectures include: United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe EMEP Workshop on Particulate 

Matter Measurement and Modeling sponsored by the U.S. EPA and 

Environment Canada, New Orleans, LA, April 19-23, 2004; EPA 

Carbonaceous PM: The State of the Science (CPM II), Carbonaceous 

PM2.5: Lessons [Being] Learned from the New York Supersite, April 11-

12; and Health Effects Institute, 2003 Annual Conference, Committee on 

Health Impact of Regulations to Improve Air Quality, “What Is 

Accountability?”, Boulder, CO, May 4-6, 2003. 

Brian Lamb, Ph.D. Dr. Lamb is the Boeing Distinguished Professor of Environmental 

Engineering at Idaho State University. He received his Ph.D. in 

Chemistry in 1978 from the California Institute of Technology. Dr. 

Lamb has been involved in atmospheric pollutant transport and 

dispersion studies for more than 20 years. This has involved a 

combination of atmospheric tracer field studies and the development, 

evaluation, and application of a variety of air quality models. Currently, 

Dr. Lamb is directing the development of a real-time urban air quality 

forecast system for the Puget Sound region of Seattle, as well as a project 

to demonstrate the application of the EPA Community Multi-Scale Air 

Quality model to the Pacific Northwest for regional haze. This has 

involved development of detailed emission inventories, incorporation of 

prognostic meteorological modeling, and evaluation of model 

performance using an array of available monitoring data. Dr. Lamb also 

has directed the development of a regional windblown dust air quality 

model for the Columbia Plateau region of eastern Washington. In related 

work, Dr. Lamb has developed atmospheric tracer instrumentation—

portable syringe samplers and real-time continuous tracer analyzers—

that have been widely used at Washington State University (WSU) and 

by others to probe the nature of pollutant transport and dispersion over 

scales ranging from a few meters to hundreds of kilometers. Dr. Lamb 

helped to pioneer the use of numerical 3-D turbulence models applied to 

flow near buildings, and he was responsible for the development of one 

of the first plume models designed to yield concentration fluctuation 

statistics related to the instantaneous behavior of a plume. Dr. Lamb also 

is involved in research concerning biogenic trace gas emissions and their 

role in atmospheric chemistry. The EPA Biogenic Emission Inventory 

System was originally developed under his direction at WSU. Ongoing 

work includes isoprene flux measurements in northern Michigan as part 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 43

 of the National Science Foundation PROPHET program, measurement of 

terpene emissions at an old growth Douglas fir forest using the Wind 

River Crane Research Facility as part of the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) terrestrial carbon exchange research, and development of a 

revised biogenic emission inventory in the Pacific Northwest. These 

studies involve the application of eddy flux, relaxed eddy accumulation, 

ambient sampling, and leaf/needle cuvette measurement methods. 

Michael Lipsett, M.D., J.D. Dr. Lipsett is the Chief of the Exposure Assessment Section in the 

Environmental Health Investigations Branch of the California 

Department of Health Services. He is licensed to practice medicine and 

law in California and Board Certified in Public Health and General 

Preventive Medicine. Dr. Lipsett received his J.D. from the University 

of California at Berkeley in 1976, and his M.D. from the University of 

California at San Diego in 1980. Current and recent research includes: 

childhood asthma prevalence and risk factors at the border funded by the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; air pollution and 

cardiovascular disease in the California Teachers Study, funded by the 

California Air Resources Board; the relationship of ambient particulate 

matter to heart rate variability and cardiac arrhythmias in a population of 

elderly adults with coronary artery disease, supported by EPA; and the 

Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas. 

He has an academic appointment as Associate Clinical Professor in the 

University of California at San Francisco Department of Epidemiology 

and Biostatistics. His awards include: Gold Superior Achievement 

Award (in recognition of exceptional contribution and service to state 

government), Air Resources Board, 2002; Clean Air Award, ALAC, 

1998; Clean Air ENVY (Environmental) Award, American Lung 

Association, San Francisco/San Mateo, 1996; and Phi Beta Kappa, 1971. 

Dr. Lipsett is a reviewer for numerous professional journals, including: 

Environmental Health Perspectives, Environmental Research, Journal of 

Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, American Journal 

of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, New England Journal of Medicine, 

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Inhalation 

Toxicology, Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, International Journal of 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Journal of Environmental 

Medicine, and Thorax. Additionally, he was a reviewer for the National 

Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President of 

the United States, “Interagency Assessment of Potential Health Risks 

Associated with Oxygenated Gasoline,” in 1996; and for the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, “U.S. National Assessment of the Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,” submitted as a report 

to the U.S. Congress in 2000. His professional service includes: MultiEthnic Study of Atherosclerosis External Scientific Advisory Committee; 

American Heart Association, Expert Panel on Population and Prevention 

Science; American Thoracic Society, Environmental and Occupational 

Health Assembly and the Committee to Update the Statement on “Health 

Effects of Tremolite”; the ALAC Clean Air Technical Advisory Group; 

and the Advisory Committee, University of California at Davis, 

Environmental/Occupational Medicine Academic Award. 
44 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

Peipei Ping, Ph.D. Dr. Ping is a professor in the Department of Physiology and Division of 

Cardiology at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and 

Director of the Ischemia Biology Program and Proteomic Laboratory at 

UCLA. She received her Ph.D. in Physiology at the University of 

Arizona in 1990. From 1991 to 1992, she was a fellow at the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Molecular Physiology and at the 

University of California at San Diego from 1992 to 1994 in Molecular 

Cardiology. Dr. Ping has numerous ongoing research projects including: 

PKC and Src protein tyrosine kinase signaling in preconditioning, the 

long-term objective of which is to elucidate the signaling mechanisms 

underlying the early and late phases of ischemia and NO donor-mediated 

preconditioning; signaling mechanisms in pharmacological 

preconditioning, the long-term objective of which is to explore the 

signaling mechanisms of Src tyrosine kinases in pharmacological 

preconditioning; mitochondria and Cardiac Cell death, the long-term 

objective of which is to explore the electrical property and signaling 

event of mitochondrial permeability transition in hypoxia-induced 

mitochondrial injury; and functional proteomic characterization of 

cardiac mitochondria, the objective of which is to identify and 

characterize multiprotein complexes in the cardiac mitochondria. Dr. 

Ping has received many honors including: University Scholar (University 

of Louisville), 2000; Young Investigator Award (American Heart 

Association [AHA]), 1998; Young Investigator Award (AHA), 1993; 

Henry Christian Memorial Award (American Federation for Clinical 

Research [AFCR]), 1993; Trainee Investigator Award (Association of 

American Physicians, American Society for Clinical Investigation, 

AFCR), 1993; Caroline tum Suden Professional Opportunity Award 

(American Physiological Society), 1992; and Excellence in Research 

Award (AHA), 1990. Her professional service includes: Fellow, 

American Physiological Society, Cardiovascular Section, 2001-present; 

Fellow, AHA Basic Science Council, 1999-present; Group Leader, 

Myocardial Ischemia/Basic Science Council AHA, 2002; Founding 

Council Member of Human Proteome Organization (HUPO), 2001; 

Member of Executive Committee, 2002; Co-Leader, Cell Model 

Proteome Initiative, 2002; Human Plasma Proteome Initiative, Member 

of the Executive Committee, 2002-present; Chair of Education/Training 

Committee; Chair of HUPO Award Committee, 2003-2006; Chair of 

Scientific Program Committee, HUPO, 2004 and 2006. Dr. Ping also is 

a consulting and associate editor and on the editorial board of the 

American Journal of Physiology Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 

Charles E. Rodes, Ph.D. Dr. Rodes is a Senior Research Environmental Engineer at the Research 

Triangle Institute (RTI) for planning, conducting, and managing 

technical research covering a wide range of topics and technologies 

associated with multimedia exposure assessment, with a focus on 

aerosols. Dr. Rodes received his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering 

from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1992. He 

received his M.S. in Chemical Engineering from North Carolina State 

University in 1971, and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Clemson 

University in 1966. Dr. Rodes has more than 38 years of experience in 

planning, conducting, managing, and reporting research, developmental, 

and assessment activities across a broad range of environmental insults. 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 45

 Prior to joining RTI, Dr. Rodes worked for 23 years at EPA (1966–1988) 

conducting both laboratory and field “bench” studies and managing 

research. His activities incorporate a diverse range of skills including: 

multimedia/multiroute human exposure assessment; personal, indoor air, 

and microenvironmental air sampling for size-specific aerosols and 

gases; characterization of particle and gas phase collection media 

performance for immune building application; designing sensor systems 

for bio-chem threats; compartmental, receptor, and dispersion modeling 

of contaminants in indoor and urban environments; relating exposures to 

health indicators in panel study settings for adults and children; dermal 

transfer characterization of dusts and residues; activity pattern 

assessments for adults and children; in-vehicle contaminant exposure 

assessment; indoor air velocity and turbulence characterizations; indoor 

aerosol resuspension studies from carpeted flooring; pollution prevention 

from indoor sources, PM2.5, PM10, PMcoarse, and total inspirable aerosol 

sampler evaluations; and PM2.5 and PM10 ambient aerosol sampling 

studies in support of both health and visibility regulations. Presently, Dr. 

Rodes is the Principal Investigator for the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol 

Research Study in Detroit, Michigan, under contract to EPA. The 

contract is supporting an indoor/outdoor/personal exposure study of 

recruited adult participants in a multisource, multiseason metro area to 

assess the relative contributions of sources to selected aerosol and 

gaseous exposures in private residence settings. He has served in a 

number of advisory roles including: a peer reviewer for the Health 

Effects Institute, a topic-area expert (indoor aerosols) for the NRC, an 

invited attendee for EPA workshops in dermal assessment and exposure 

assessment planning for the National Children’s Study, and an invited 

writer for chapters of EPA’s Air Quality Criteria Documents. In addition 

to numerous conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal articles, 

Dr. Rodes has co-authored three book chapters in the area of aerosol 

exposure characterization, the most recent of which focuses on breathing 

zone exposure issues. 

Christian Seigneur, Ph.D. Dr. Seigneur currently is Vice President of the Air Quality Division at 

Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc. (AER). AER was founded 

in 1977 to provide government and industry with research and consulting 

services in the atmospheric and environmental sciences. Dr. Seigneur 

received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of 

Minnesota in 1978, and his M.S. in Chemistry from the Ecole Nationale 

Supérieure de Chimie, in Paris, France, in 1974. Dr. Seigneur has more 

than 20 years of experience in air quality modeling and has developed 

several atmospheric chemical kinetic mechanisms, including 

mechanisms for mercury, chromium, stack plumes, and acid formation in 

droplets and particles. He led the effort that provided the first published 

demonstration of the nonlinearities of the SO2/sulfate and NOx/nitrate 

relationships. He was the Principal Investigator for the development of 

several air quality models that now are used by regulatory agencies in the 

United States and abroad. His experience in the development, 

evaluation, and application of air quality models spans a wide range of 

air pollution issues, including photochemical smog (i.e., ozone and other 

oxidants), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), air toxics (dioxins, 

mercury, volatile organic compounds, chromium, etc.), atmospheric 
46 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

visibility, acid deposition, accidental releases of toxic and hazardous 

chemicals, and indoor air pollution. Dr. Seigneur has about 10 years of 

experience in public health risk assessments. He has conducted research 

for the development of new models and methodologies for risk 

assessment. He was the Principal Investigator for the development of a 

methodology to include uncertainties in risk assessments; this 

methodology provided the basis for the approach recommended by the 

NRC in the report entitled “Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment.” 

He has managed health risk assessments for fossil-fuel fired power 

plants, refineries, oil production facilities, research and teaching 

facilities, incinerators, and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities. Dr. Seigneur was a member of the CASAC Panel on 

Particulate Matter that reviewed the new PM2.5 NAAQS. He also has 

been invited to participate in numerous workshops, including the Expert 

Panel on Atmospheric Processes of Mercury, the Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Workshop on Criteria for 

Persistence and Long-Range Transport of Chemicals in the Environment, 

the Society for Risk Analysis Workshop on Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment, and several DOE and EPA workshops on air quality and 

risk assessment.
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 47

APPENDIX C: AGENDA FOR THE

MARCH 30-31, 2005 MEETING 

U.S. EPA BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Program Subcommittee 

MEETING AGENDA 

March 30, 2005 – April 1, 2005 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 (Room C-111 B/C)___________________________________

8:00-8:30 a.m. Registration 

8:30-8:45 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks Dr. Rogene Henderson 

 Subcommittee Chair 

8:45-8:50 a.m. DFO Welcome and Charge Lawrence Martin (EPA) 

 - Administrative Procedures and FACA Rules DFO 

 - Objective of This Subcommittee and Charge 

8:50-9:00 a.m. ORD’s Welcome Dr. William Farland (EPA) 

 Acting DAA–Science, ORD 

9:00-9:30 a.m. Overview of ORD’s Air Program Dr. Daniel Costa (EPA) 

 ORD National Program 

 Director for Air 

9:30-9:45 a.m. Discussion of General Program Issues Dr. Daniel Costa (EPA) 

 ORD National Program 

 Director for Air 

9:45-10:00 a.m. Break 

Session 1: NAAQS Health and Exposure Research 

10:00-10:30 a.m. Overview: Health and Exposure Dr. Robert Devlin (EPA) 

 ORD/NHEERL 

 

10:30 a.m.-12:00 noon Poster Session (Atrium) Subcommittee 

12:00-12:30 p.m. Discussion Subcommittee 

12:30-1:30 p.m. Working Lunch Subcommittee 
48 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

Session 2: Air Quality Management Presentation 

1:30-2:00 p.m. Overview James Vickery (EPA) 

 ORD/NERL 

2:00-3:30 p.m. Poster Session (Atrium) Subcommittee 

3:30-3:45 p.m. Break 

3:45-4:15 p.m. Discussion Subcommittee 

4:15-5:30 p.m. Working Session Subcommittee 

5:30 p.m. Adjourn 

Thursday, March 31, 2005 (Room C-111 B/C)___________________________________

8:30-8:40 a.m. Review of Wednesday’s Activities Dr. Rogene Henderson 

 Overview of Today’s Agenda Subcommittee Chair 

Session 3: Pollutant Source to Health Outcome: Moving Toward a “One Atmosphere” 

Understanding of Air Pollution 

8:40-9:10 a.m. Overview Dr. Andy Miller (EPA) 

 ORD/NRMRL 

9:10-10:45 a.m. Poster Session (Atrium) Subcommittee 

10:45-11:00 a.m. Break 

11:00-11:30 a.m. Discussion Subcommittee 

11:30-11:45 a.m. General Discussion Across Sessions Subcommittee 

11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m. Working Lunch Subcommittee 

 

Session 4: Perspectives on the Air Program 

12:45-1:10 p.m. Science Perspective Dr. Mark Utell 

 Co-Director PM Center/ 

University of Rochester 

1:10-1:30 p.m. OAR Perspective John Bachmann (EPA) 

 OAQPS/OAR 

1:30-1:50 p.m. Public Perspectives 

1:50-2:00 p.m. Science/Program Wrap-Up Dr. Daniel Costa (EPA) 

 ORD National Program 

 Director for Air 

2:00-5:00 p.m. Break/Work Session Subcommittee 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 49

5:00-5:30 p.m. Debrief Subcommittee 

 Oral Report on Charge Questions 

5:30 p.m. Adjourn 

Friday, April 1, 2005 (Room C-111 B/C)_ __________________________________

8:00-8:10 a.m. Review of Thursday’s Activities Dr. Rogene Henderson 

 Subcommittee Chair 

8:10 a.m.-12:00 noon Work Session 

12:00 noon Adjourn 
50 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

PARTICULATE MATTER 

RESEARCH PROGRAM REVIEW 

 List of Themes and Poster Titles 

SESSION 1: HEALTH AND EXPOSURE RESEARCH 

What Are the Adverse Health Effects Associated With Exposure to PM and How Are 

These Effects Caused? 

What Is the Relationship Between Personal Exposure and Ambient Fixed Site 

Measurements? 

Ron Williams (NERL) 

What Are the Uncertainties Associated With the Epidemiological Estimates of 

PM Health Risks and the Methods Employed in Developing Those Estimates? 

Joel Schwartz 

(Harvard University) 

What Are the Physiological Mechanisms by Which PM Causes Adverse Cardiac 

Effects? 

William P. Watkinson 

(NHEERL) 

Does Inhalation of Air Pollution Particles Affect Vascular Function? 

Mark W. Frampton MD 

(University of Rochester) 

What Are the Physiological Mechanisms by Which PM Causes Adverse 

Respiratory Effects? Steve Gavett (NHEERL) 

What Are the Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms by Which PM Causes Adverse 

Health Effects? James M. Samet 

(NHEERL)

What Are the Long-Term Health Effects of PM? Morton Lippmann (New 

York University) 

What Are the Long-Term Health Effects of PM? Barbara Glen (NCER) 

Joel Kaufman (University 

of Washington) 

ORD Science Contributes to the Development of National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM. 

Mary Ross (OAQPS) 

ORD Research Affects Public Health Action and Community Outreach. Susan Stone (OAQPS) 

Who Is Susceptible? 

What Do Exposure and Dosimetry Studies Tell Us About the Dose to the 

Susceptible Populations? Chong Kim (NHEERL) 

How Does PM Impact Subpopulations with Cardiovascular Disease (Elderly)? Wayne Cascio (East 

Carolina University) 

Does Particulate Matter Cause or Exacerbate Asthma? David B. Peden, University 

of North Carolina Center 

for Environmental 

Medicine, Asthma & Lung 

Biology 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 51

How Does Underlying Cardiopulmonary Disease Influence Response to PM in 

Animals? 

Urmila P. Kodavanti 

(NHEERL) 

How Are Emerging PM Susceptible Populations Being Identified and 

Characterized? 

Kevin Dreher (NHEERL) 

How Do Gene/Environment Interactions Modulate PM-Induced Adverse Heath 

Effects? 

Yuh-Chin Tony Huang 

(NHEERL) 

What Physical/Chemical Attributes of PM Are Responsible for Adverse Health Effects? 

What Are the Effects of Ultrafine Particles? Günter Oberdörster 

(University of Rochester) 

What Are the Bioactive Components in Coarse Particulate Matter? Ian Gilmour (NHEERL) 

What Are the Effects of Metals? Andrew Ghio (NHEERL) 

Chemical Mechanisms of Particulate Matter Toxicity John R. Froines, A.K. Cho, 

A. Nel, C. Sioutas 

(Southern California 

Particle Center and 

Supersite) 

How Can Statistical Approaches (e.g., PCA) Be Used To Link PM Components 

With Health Effects? 

John Godleski (Harvard 

University) 

SESSION 2: AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

What Are the Sources of PM (and Co-pollutants)? 

How Have Recent Advances in Emission Estimation Methods and Models 

Improved Inventories of Primary PM and Precursor Gases That Form Secondary 

PM and Ozone? 

David Mobley (NERL), Sue 

Kimbrough (NRMRL), Bill 

Kuykendal (OAQPS) 

How Can We More Accurately Measure Emission Fluxes of Precursor Gases 

Emitted From Area Sources That Form Secondary PM? 

Bruce Harris (NRMRL), 

John Walker (NRMRL) 

What Are the Contributions to Ambient PM and Ozone From Biogenic and Other 

Natural Emission Sources? 

Chris Geron (NRMRL), 

Tom Pierce (NERL)

What Are the Contributions to Ambient PM and Ozone Concentrations From Onroad Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles? Rich Baldauf (NERL), John 

Kinsey (NRMRL) 

How Well Can We Control Emissions of Multiple PM Precursors From CoalFired Power Plants? Andy Miller (NRMRL) 

How Can Emissions Inventories Be Improved for Source Apportionment and 

Health Associations? 

Ted Russell (Georgia Tech), 

Alice Gilliland (NERL) 

What Is the Atmospheric Characterization of PM (and Co-Pollutants)? 

How Can We Measure Ambient Concentrations of Fine and Coarse PM Mass for 

Regulatory Purposes? 

Bob Vanderpool (NERL) 

How Can We Measure Ambient Concentrations of Speciated Fine and Coarse PM 

Mass To Support Improvements in the Ambient Air Quality Standards? 

Paul Solomon, Tim Watkins 

(NERL) 

ORD Science Supports Air Quality Modeling Rich Scheffe (OAQPS) 

How Can We Measure Rapid Fluctuations in Carbonaceous Aerosol 

Composition? 

Jose Jimenez (University of 

Colorado at Boulder) 

What Are the Processes That Govern PM (and Co-Pollutants)? 

What Are the Precursors to and Formation Processes for Secondary Organic 

Aerosols? Ed Edney (NERL) 

How Are Results From ORD’s Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model 

(CMAQ) Used To Forecast Air Quality? Ken Schere (NERL) 
52 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

How Well Does CMAQ Predict Ambient Concentration of PM Components, PM, 

and Ozone? 

Alice Gilliland, Robin 

Dennis, Brian Eder, Prakash 

Bhave (NERL)

Air Quality Models Are Used To Predict Reductions in Air Pollution Joe Paisie (OAQPS) 

What Characteristics of Source Emissions Can Be Used to Identify the 

Contribution of Different Source Types to Ambient PM Concentrations? 

Mike Hays (NRMRL) 

How Is CMAQ Used To Support State and Tribe Implementation Plans for 

Regional Haze? 

Gail Tonnesen (University 

of California at Riverside) 

How Can Receptor Models Be Applied To Estimate the Contribution of Different 

Source Types to Ambient PM Concentrations? 

Shelly Eberly (NERL) 

SESSION 3: SOURCE TO HEALTH OUTCOME 

Do Exposures to Mobile Source Particles Damage Health? Helen H. Suh (Harvard PM 

Center) 

Physical and Chemical Characteristics of PM Near Freeways Impacted by Heavyand Light-Duty Traffic Constantinos Sioutas, John 

R. Froines (Southern 

California Particle Center 

and Supersite) 

Health Effects Associated With Particulate Matter Near Southern California 

Freeways 

John R. Froines (Southern 

California Particle Center 

and Supersite) 

What Are the Effects From Controlled Exposures to Specific Sources? Michael Madden 

(NHEERL) 

Pulmonary Toxicity of Utah Valley PM: Are Empirical Indices of Adverse 

Health Effects Coherent With the Epidemiology? 

Janice A. Dye (NHEERL) 

Source Apportionment and Multi-City/Multi-Pollutant Studies Lucas Neas (NHEERL) 

Can Laboratory Chambers Be Used To Create a Complex Atmosphere for Use in 

Animal Exposure Studies? 

Tad Kleindienst (NERL) 

How Can Organic Tracers and Source Apportionment Modeling Be Used in 

Health Studies? 

James Schauer (University 

of Wisconsin)

How Can Concentrated Ambient Particles Used in Health Studies Be Tied to 

Specific Source Types? 

Gary Norris (NERL) 

How Can Air Quality Models Provide Detailed Source Attribution and 

Component Distributions for Health Studies? 

Mike Kleeman (University 

of California at Davis) 

How Are Ambient Monitoring, Personal Exposure, and Health Related? Allen Vette (NERL) 

ORD Research Supports Mobile Source Regulatory Decisionmaking Rich Baldauf 

(OTAQ/NERL) 

Accountability: Measuring Improvements in Public Health From Reduced Air 

Pollution 

Susan Stone, John 

Bachmann (OAQPS) 
 

Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report 53

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AER Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc. 

AFCR American Federation for Clinical Research 

AHA American Heart Association 

ALAC American Lung Association of California 

APGs Annual Performance Goals 

APMs Annual Performance Measures 

AQCD Air Quality Criteria Document 

AQI Air Quality Index 

AQM Air Quality Management 

BEIS3 Biogenic Emission Inventory System 

BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors 

CAAAC Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

CENR Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources 

CMAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FY Fiscal Year 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HEI Health Effects Institute 

HSD Human Studies Division 

HUPO Human Proteome Organization 

LRRI Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute 

LTGs Long-Term Goals 

MYP Multi-Year Plan 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NARSTO North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NCER National Center for Environmental Research 

NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory 

NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NPD National Program Director 

NRC National Research Council 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

O3 Ozone 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PIs Principal Investigators 
54 Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program Review Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) 

PM Particulate Matter 

PPM Parts Per Million 

RCT Research Coordination Team 

RFA Request for Applications 

RTP Research Triangle Park 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCOS Southern California Ozone Study 

STAR Science To Achieve Results 

UCLA University of California at Los Angeles 

UFPs Ultrafine Particles 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

WSU Washington State University