# Preliminary Results of a Study to Assess Air Quality Impacts Associated with Outdoor Wood Boiler Use

Judy Abbott Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment NYS Department of Health December 11, 2009

# Presentation Overview Overview of OWB Study

– Objectives & design

– OWB data analysis

– Preliminary conclusions and study limitations 

# Public Health Nuisance Action

# Study Objectives

• To describe air quality (PM 2.5 

# ) at residences near OWB vs. residences away from OWB

• To assess influence of meteorological conditions (wind direction and speed) on measured PM levels

# Study Design Identify OWBs (non - complaint)

– OWBs with building permits in capital region

– Additional OWBs identified during field reconnaissance 

# Evaluated data from a PHN action case

# Nearfield Sites

<1500 ft radius around OWB 

# Reference Sites >2500 ft radius away from OWB Similar setting 

# Study Locations

# Materials and Equipment PM monitors (real - time nephelometric PM 2.5 

### )

– Thermo DataRAM 4000

– Used inlet heaters to reduce influence of humidity

– Retrofit DataRAMs with thermoelectric coolers for constant temperature and weather protection 

### Meteorological station - Davis V antage Pro2 portable and solar powered wind direction, speed, temperature, rainfall, relative humidity

# Some Glitches

• Equipment malfunction (e.g., inlet heaters)

• Data loss

– Daylight saving time

– Power outages



## • Ice storm - met station iced

• Residential observation logs

# Preliminary Results and

Data Analysis

• Five non - complaint OWB deployments; one complaint OWB (PHN) • 2007 - 2008 heating seasons • Data cleaning and time - matching **Data analy sis**  • Descriptive statistics • For each deployment, were case and control datasets different? • Influence of wind direction and speed/calm?

# Site **1**

Non - complaint Permitted OWB Rensselaer County

### Site 1. **Aerial V iew** **o f Nearfield site and OWB** 
**OWB Nearfield** 

### Site 1. T

**opographical Map of Nearfield (N) and Reference (R) sites** 

### Site 1. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Concentrations

### Site 1. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Differences

Dif ference = [PM] Nearfield - [PM] Reference

### Site 1. Mean Difference in PM **2.5** 

### by**W ind Direction** 

# Site **2**

Non - complaint Permitted OWB Washington County

### Site 2. **Aerial V iew** **o f Nearfield Site and OWB** 

**Nearfield OWB** 

### Site 2. T

**opographical Map of Nearfield and Reference sites** 

### Site 2. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Concentrations

### Site 2. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Differences

Dif ference = [PM] Nearfield - [PM] Reference

### Site 2. Mean Difference in PM **2.5** 

### by**W ind Direction** 

# Site **6** Public health nuisance complaint Non - permitted OWB Ontario County

### Site 6. **Aerial V iew** **o f Nearfield site and OWB** 

**Nearfield OWB** 

### Site 6. T

**opographical Map of Nearfield and Reference Sites** 

### Site 6. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Concentrations

### Site 6. Longitudinal **Graph of PM 2.5**  

### Differences

Dif ference = [PM] Nearfield - [PM] Reference

### Site 6. Mean Difference in PM **2.5** 

### by**W ind Direction** 

## Summary**o f Preliminary** **A ir Monitoring**  **Results**

# Odd Ratios (OR) Concept Compares whether the probability of a certain event is the same for two groups

• OR = 1: the event is equally likely in both groups

• OR > 1: the event is more likely in the first group

• OR < 1: the event is less likely in the first group

# Preliminary Results

***** Nearfield geomean PM minus reference geom ean PM **“NC”** indicates that no odds ratio was calculated because no pollution events were observed when the condition (downwind or calm) was present

**“ --**  **”** indicates that no tim e - ma tched me teorological data were available for the monitor pair

“ **Infinite”** indicates that no odds ratio was not calculated because all PM spikes were observed when the condition (downwind or calm) was p resent Mo nitor Dis ta nce

from OWB (ft) Me an paired

di ffe re nce* (ug/m 3 ) Student's

adj p va lue (m atched T- te st) 99th

Pe rce nt ile OR [n ear fi eld mi nus re fe re nce] 99t h

Pe rce ntile OR (D ownwind) [n ear fi eld] 99th Pe rce ntile OR (C alm ) [n ear fi eld] N1 580 4. 3 0. 01 1. 9 NC in fi ni te N2 260 6. 6 <0 .0 001 33. 5 8. 5 3. 2 N3 681 5. 4 <0 .0 001 6. 5 1 5. 2 N4 1, 270 0. 2 0. 59 0. 6 -- -- N5 350 2 0. 0001 3. 1 8. 3 4. 4 N6 150 5. 2 0. 0001 19. 4 in fi ni te NC

# Preliminary Results Overview

• PM levels significantly elevated at 5 of 6 monitoring locations near OWBs relative to away from OWBs (p  0.01)

• For these five locations:

– Mean PM level increase 2.0 - 6.6 ug/m 3 near OWBs

– PM impacts were observed during late night and early morning hours

– Greatest mean differences when closer to and downwind of OWB (flat terrain) or during calms (varied terrain)

– Higher chance of observing extreme PM levels (>95th & 99th percentiles)

– Alternative sources did not appear to be significant sources of PM 2.5 spikes

# Study Limitations

• Limited # OWBs cannot generalize to NYS OWB population

• Cannot compare measurements to PM NAAQS

• Cannot control for all potential confounders

• Target analytes limited to PM

# Huge Thanks!!!

Kevin Gleason Dan Luttinger **Kevin Malone Kim Mazor**  **Gerry McDonald**  **Agnes Mukasa Gregg**  **Recer** Dan Sharron **Steve Shost Emily**  **Shusas Randi Walker**  DEC Dirk Felton Leon Sedefian Bob Waterfall Regional staff OAG Judy Schreiber NESCAUM George Allen