UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

January 12, 2009 

EPA-SAB-09-010 

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Subject: Particulate Matter Research Centers Program Advisory Report: An SAB 

Advisory Report 

Dear Administrator Johnson: 

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers 

Advisory Panel met on October 1-2, 2008 to consider questions posed by EPA on the future 

directions of its PM Research Centers program. The Panel concluded that this program has been 

very successful and that its continuation, especially in a form that would begin to move this area 

of research into assessments of mixtures of air pollutants, would be of great value. This report 

provides the SAB’s advice in response to EPA’s three charge questions, which addressed the 

contributions of the existing program, multiple pollutant strategies and Center structure. 

The SAB concluded that the existing PM Centers continue to advance research on key 

issues relevant to EPA’s mission. The Centers have made critical advances in improving the 

scientific understanding of and reducing and characterizing scientific uncertainty in atmospheric 

particle composition, transformation, exposure, and health impacts. The advances have been 

extensively cited in EPA documents supporting policy decisions and have been influential in the 

scientific community. The SAB recommends that the EPA continue to use a variety of 

performance indicators to assess Center performance and recommends additional measures be 

added to those already used in the Center evaluations. Additional measures should broaden the 

range of indicators of Center impacts on the scientific community and the range of indicators that 

document the extent to which Center work is used in support of Agency decisions. Additional 

measures should also characterize the extent to which Center resources are supplemented by 

research support from other EPA programs and from other governmental and non-governmental 

research programs. 
 

The SAB also concluded that the Centers Program, a component of EPA’s Science to 

Achieve Results (STAR) program, has produced benefits over those that would be expected in 

traditional extramural grant mechanisms involving individual investigators or small teams of 

investigators focusing on relatively narrow topical areas. These benefits included flexibility and 

adaptability in research programs, the creation of large inter-disciplinary teams, the development 

of unique research infrastructures, and the ability to support high risk pilot research. The SAB 

recommends that a substantial fraction of the EPA’s extramural research efforts continue to be 

funded through Centers that are regularly evaluated and re-competed, but also noted that both 

Centers and individual or small team research initiatives are essential. 

The SAB concluded that the Centers have already begun to address broad sets of air 

pollutants that contribute to exposure and health effects and agreed with the agency that more 

could be done to enhance multi-pollutant approaches in the future Center activities. Specifically, 

the SAB recommends that multi-pollutant approaches should be strongly encouraged by EPA in 

applications for PM Research Centers, with clear encouragement of efforts to develop innovative 

methods that address multi-pollutant atmospheric transformation, exposure, toxicology, and 

epidemiology. Although the SAB generally agreed with the Agency’s suggestion that organizing 

its multi-pollutant efforts around sources could be useful, it cautioned that an over-emphasis on 

near-roadway exposures in such efforts could under-represent the importance of other sources 

and the atmospheric transformation of their emissions that are significant contributors to 

exposure. The Panel also concluded that the future Center activities could usefully address 

another important and broad direction; the regional differences in pollutant mixtures, and 

potential differences in health effects. 

Finally, regarding recommendations for advice on changes to the structure of the PM 

Centers, the SAB recognized the successes of the PM Centers program over its history. Because 

of the Program’s success, some panel members questioned the need to make major changes in 

the structure of the program. The SAB offers some comments in this report on the strengths and 

weaknesses of several structural changes that were proposed by the EPA, as well as additional 

comments on important issues identified by the review Panel. Among these are that: a) the 

notion that all Centers should study identical research topics was not supported; b) requiring all 

Centers to have a Regional focus was not supported, though the need to consider regional 

differences in pollutant mixtures by some Centers was considered to be useful; c) requiring both 

large and small Centers within the total program was not supported by the majority of the panel; 

and d) there is a need to have Center structures that support and encourage research partnerships. 

In addition, the SAB endorsed other activities that will enhance whatever structure that the EPA 

decides upon for the continued Centers program. Among these are that: a) Centers must 

continue their use of outside, independent expert reviews of their programs to evaluate their 

progress, and b) Centers should be given the flexibility to change their program content to reflect 

advice obtained from these groups without jeopardizing their continued funding either as a result 

of changing research foci or from completion of specific components of the research. 

Additionally, Centers should continue to coordinate research both among the Centers and with 

the relevant research programs within EPA. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The SAB appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on EPA’s plans to 

continue its Particulate Matter Centers program. We look forward to your response to our 

comments and we would be pleased to continue to work with EPA as it further develops and 

implements this important research program. 

Sincerely, 

/Signed/ /Signed/ 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer Dr. David T. Allen 

Chair Chair 

Science Advisory Board SAB Particulate Matter Research

 Centers Program Advisory Panel 

3
 
NOTICE 

This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), 

a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the 

Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The SAB is 

structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing 

the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the 

contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor 

does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. 

Reports of the SAB are posted on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/sab. 

i 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

SAB Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers Program Advisory Panel
 

CHAIR 

Dr. David T. Allen, Gertz Regents Professor of Chemical Engineering, Department of Chemical 

Engineering, and Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, University of 

Texas, Austin 

PANEL MEMBERS 

Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA 

Dr. Bruce Fowler, Assistant Director for Science, Division of Toxicology and Environmental 

Medicine, Office of the Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ATSDR/CDC), Chamblee, GA 

Dr. Terry Gordon, Professor, Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, Tuxedo, NY 

Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute, Charlestown Navy Yard, 

Boston, MA 

Dr. Steven Kleeberger, Professor and Lab Chief, Laboratory of Respiratory Biology, National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIEHS), 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

Dr. George Lambert [M.D.], Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director, Center for Childhood 

Neurotoxicology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-UMDNJ, New Brunswick/Piscataway, 

NJ 

Dr. Frederick J. Miller, Independent consultant, Cary, NC 

Dr. Peter Scheff, Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public 

Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

Dr. Bryan Shaw, Commissioner, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX 

Dr. Barbara Zielinska, Research Professor, Division of Atmospheric Science, Desert Research 

Institute, Reno, NV 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Officer, US EPA Science Advisory Board, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., (Mail Code 1400F), Washington, DC 20460 

ii 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board 

BOARD 

CHAIR 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 

SAB MEMBERS 

Dr. David T. Allen, University of Texas, Austin, TX 

Dr. John Balbus, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington , DC 

Dr. Gregory Biddinger, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Houston, TX 

Dr. Timothy Buckley, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Dr. Thomas Burke, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Dr. James Bus, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI 

Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, University of Rochester , Rochester, NY 

Dr. Terry Daniel, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

Dr. Otto C. Doering III, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 

Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. James Galloway, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

Dr. John P. Giesy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 

Dr. James K. Hammitt, Harvard University, Boston, MA 

Also Member: COUNCIL 

Dr. Rogene Henderson, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM 

Dr. James H. Johnson, Howard University, Washington, DC 

Dr. Bernd Kahn, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 

iii 
Dr. Agnes Kane, Brown University, Providence, RI 

Dr. Meryl Karol, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. Catherine Kling, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 

Dr. George Lambert, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-UMDNJ, Belle Mead, NJ 

Dr. Jill Lipoti, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ 

Dr. Lee D. McMullen, Snyder & Associates, Inc., Ankeny, IA 

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, University of Georgia, Lopez Island, WA 

Dr. Jana Milford, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Dr. Christine Moe, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. Duncan Patten, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Mr. David Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC 

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Dr. Joan B. Rose, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 

Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 

Also Member: CASAC 

Dr. James Sanders, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, GA 

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 

Dr. V. Kerry Smith, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Dr. Thomas L. Theis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

Dr. Valerie Thomas, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 

Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Stanford University, Stanford, CA 

iv 
Dr. Robert Twiss, University of California-Berkeley, Ross, CA 

Dr. Thomas S. Wallsten, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 

Dr. Lauren Zeise, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Mr. Thomas Miller, Washington, DC 

v 
 

 

 

Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................1
 

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:...........................................................................................................................1
 

1.2 EPA CHARGE TO THE SAB PM RESEARCH CENTERS PROGRAM ADVISORY PANEL .....................................2
 

2. RESPONSE TO CHARGE QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................3
 

2.1 CHARGE QUESTION 1. HOW WELL HAVE THE PM CENTERS CONTINUED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ADVANCING
 

RESEARCH ON KEY PM ISSUES MOST RELEVANT TO EPA’S MISSION? ..................................................................3
 

2.2 CHARGE QUESTION 2. WHAT ADVICE DOES THE PANEL HAVE ON HOW TO MOVE TO A MULTI-POLLUTANT 

APPROACH IN THE PM CENTERS PROGRAM?..........................................................................................................4
 

2.3 CHARGE QUESTION 3. WHAT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES DOES THE PANEL SEE IN DIFFERENT OPTIONS 

FOR A FUTURE CENTERS RESEARCH PROGRAM? ...................................................................................................6
 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................9
 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................10
 

APPENDIX: EPA CHARGE TO THE SAB – MEMORANDUM FROM W.H. SANDERS...................................................11 

vi 
1. INTRODUCTION 

` The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked by the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to conduct a review of its Particulate Matter Research Centers Program (US 

EPA, 2008). EPA was interested in the SAB’s advice on: a) the worth of the PM Research 

Centers past contributions to advancing key particulate matter research in support of EPA’s 

mission; b) the potential for broadening the Centers’ programs to have more of a multi-pollutant 

focus; and c) the strengths and weaknesses of various alternative Center structures that might be 

used in the future. This advisory provides the SAB’s advice to the Administrator as a result of 

an advisory meeting held on October 1 and 2, 2008 in Washington, DC. 

1.1 Background Information: 

In 1998, the Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish as many as 

five university-based PM research centers as part of the expanded Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) PM research program. The first PM research centers were funded from 

1999 to 2005 with a total program budget of $8 million annually (see the following URL: 

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/centers.html). In the original Request for Applications (RFA), 

prospective centers were asked to propose an integrated research program on the health effects of 

PM, including exposure, dosimetry, toxicology and epidemiology. ORD’s PM Research Centers 

program was initially shaped by recommendations from the National Research Council. 

In 2002, ORD requested that the Science Advisory Board conduct an interim review of 

EPA’s PM research centers program, the report from which is found at the following URL: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/6374FD2B32EFE730852570CA007415FE/$File/ec0 

2008.pdf. This review was instrumental in providing additional guidance to ORD for the second 

phase of the program (2005–2010). 

In 2004, ORD held a second competition for the PM Research Centers program. This RFA 

asked respondents to address the central theme of “linking health effects to PM sources and 

components,” and to focus on the research priorities of susceptibility, biological mechanisms, 

exposure-response relationships, and source linkages. From this RFA, five current centers are 

funded for 2005–2010 with the overall 5-year total program budget at $40 million (see: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/centerGroup/19). 

At the request of EPA ORD’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) the SAB 

Staff Office formed an expert panel to comment on the Agency’s current PM research centers 

program and to advise EPA concerning the possible structures and strategic direction for the 

program as ORD contemplates funding a third round of air pollution research centers into the 

future, i.e., from 2010 to 2015 (see Federal Register, 73 FR 5838, of January 31, 2008 which 

announced the formation of an SAB ad hoc panel for this advisory activity and requested public 

nominations of qualified experts to serve on this panel and the SAB Panel Formation record, US 

EPA SAB, 2008). 

1
 
1.2 EPA Charge to the SAB PM Research Centers Program Advisory Panel 

The Agency asked the SAB for advice on the effectiveness of the current Particulate 

Matter Research Centers Program and for suggestions for improved program structures and 

strategic directions for the 2010-2015 program. EPA provided a number of documents to the 

SAB to consider as it responded to the Agency Charge. These included a lengthy memorandum 

from the Director of the National Center for Environmental Research that described the 

program’s history, structure, and a detailed explanation of the EPA charge questions as well as 

background information on each (see Sanders, W.H., 2008 attached). 

EPA asked that the Panel focus on several charge questions during its review. EPA’s 

asked, “...within the context of the current state-of-the-science and the priorities for the EPA Air 

research program:” 

a) How well have the PM Centers continued to contribute to advancing research on 

key PM issues most relevant to EPA’s mission? 

b) What advice does the panel have on how to move to a multi-pollutant approach 

in the PM Centers program? 

One prominent theme of EPA’s multi-year research plan for Air is the need to 

better understand air pollution effects within the context of the entire ambient 

mixture. What advice does the panel have regarding the appropriate balance 

between single-pollutant and multipollutant research? What additional broad 

strategic directions should EPA consider for a future Centers Research Program? 

c) What strengths and weaknesses does the panel see in different structural options 

for a future Centers Research Program? 

Given the strategic directions discussed above, please comment on various 

approaches EPA could consider for the structure of a future air pollution Centers 

program. For example, a future Centers program might continue with a common 

theme for all Centers, or might seek Centers that specialize in different research 

areas. In addition, some Centers might address a broad research portfolio while 

others have a more targeted focus. EPA may consider funding fewer Centers in 

order to maintain appropriate program balance with the individual STAR grants 

and intramural research programs. EPA is seeking the panel’s views on the 

strengths and weaknesses of different approaches for the structure of the program. 

2
 
2. RESPONSE TO CHARGE QUESTIONS 

2.1 Charge Question 1. How well have the PM Centers continued to contribute to 

advancing research on key PM issues most relevant to EPA’s mission? 

The PM Centers continue to advance research on key issues relevant to EPA’s mission. The 

Centers have made critical advances in improving the scientific understanding of and reducing 

and characterizing scientific uncertainty in atmospheric particle composition, transformation, 

exposure, and health impacts. The documentation reviewed by the panel demonstrated that PM 

Center investigators: 

a) are recognized as world leaders in PM health effects research, 

b) have improved understanding of the epidemiology and toxicology of particulate 

matter, 

c) have identified mechanisms for PM health effects, 

d) have improved our understanding of the populations most susceptible to PM health 

risks, 

e) have identified new micro-environments (e.g., roadways) that lead to air pollutant 

exposures, 

f) have developed new technologies and instruments for PM research, 

g) have advanced the understanding of source specific health impacts, and 

h) have enhanced the range of expertise available to the EPA in assessing PM health 

impacts. 

The first set of Centers, funded from 1999-2005, produced more than 500 publications, a rate 

of publications per dollar of funding that is 20% higher than the publication rate per dollar of 

funding for comparable STAR grants. These publications have been influential, as evidenced by 

citation rates that are higher than average citation rates in the fields covered by the publications. 

For example, a 2007 analysis of ORD Air Program publications indicated that about 37% of PM 

Center papers are in the top 10% in overall citation rate, 6% of PM Center papers are in the top 

1%, and 3% are in the top 0.1%. 

The assessments of a variety of expert panels have provided additional endorsements of the 

scientific impact and the relevance of the work of the PM Centers. These have included 

assessments by BOSC (BOSC, 2005) an SAB panel (US EPA SAB, 2002); the National 

Research Council of the National Academies (NAS/NRC, 2004) and professional organizations 

such as the American Heart Association (Brook, 2004), and the American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP, 2004). 

The work of the Centers has also been extensively cited in EPA documents supporting policy 

decisions. The Centers’ work contributed to the 2007 PM NAAQS review and the Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA) for PM. PM Center work has also influenced policy decisions in 

regulatory organizations beyond EPA, such as the California law requiring that schools must be 

at least 500 feet from freeways. 

3
 
The panel recommends that the EPA continue to use a variety of performance indicators to 

assess Center performance, and that additional measures be added to those already used in the 

Center evaluations. 

One set of additional measures should characterize the extent to which Center resources are 

supplemented by other research support. Such supplemental funding from outside of the EPA 

should not become a requirement of the Centers program, but the extent of supplementation can 

serve as an indicator of the interest by organizations outside of EPA in the work of the Centers. 

 A second set of additional measures should broaden the range of indicators that assess 

Center impacts on the scientific community. Current measures are focused on numbers of 

journal publications, citations, and students trained. The Centers could also begin to track the 

impact that program graduates are having on the field after they leave the Centers. 

A third set of additional measures should broaden the range of indicators that document the 

extent to which Center work is used in support of Agency decisions. Current measures focus on 

documents developed in support of setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

Center’s work has also been used in Regulatory Impact Assessments, in assessing the costs and 

benefits of the Clean Air Act (Section 812 analysis), and in other documents developed by EPA 

in support of its regulatory mission. These uses of the Centers’ work should be tracked. 

Finally, the panel concluded that the Centers Program produced benefits over those that 

would be expected in traditional STAR grant mechanisms, which typically involve individual 

investigators or small teams of investigators focusing on relatively narrow topical areas. These 

benefits include flexibility and adaptability in research programs, the creation of large interdisciplinary teams, the development of unique research infrastructures, and the ability to support 

high risk pilot research. The advantages of Center programs, as compared to traditional STAR 

grant funding mechanisms, will be expanded on in response to charge question 3. The panel 

recommends that a substantial fraction of the EPA’s extramural research efforts continue to be 

funded through Centers that are regularly evaluated and re-competed, but also notes that both 

Centers and individual or small team research initiatives are essential. 

2.2 Charge Question 2. What advice does the panel have on how to move to a multipollutant approach in the PM Centers program? 

EPA noted that, “One prominent theme of EPA’s multi-year research plan for Air is the 

need to better understand air pollution effects within the context of the entire ambient mixture.” 

The Agency asked the SAB, “What advice does the panel have regarding the appropriate 

balance between single-pollutant and multipollutant research? What additional broad strategic 

directions should EPA consider for a future Centers Research Program?” 

In reviewing the contributions of the PM Centers program to date, and its potential for the 

future, the Panel found that the Centers have already begun to make contributions to efforts to 

address the broader set of pollutants that contribute to exposure and health effects and agreed 

with the agency that more could be done to enhance multipollutant approaches in the next round 

of Centers. The Panel also found that the next round of Centers could usefully address another 

4
 
 

important and broad direction: the regional differences in pollutant mixtures, and potential 

regional differences in health effects. 

Enhancing Multipollutant Approaches in the Centers Program: In 2004, the NRC’s 

Committees on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter and Air Quality 

Management in the United States (NAS/NRC, 2004) recommended that the nation’s efforts to 

improve air quality should move from its historical single-pollutant-at-a-time regulatory 

approach to a multipollutant approach that provides both the science and the regulatory programs 

to allow for the most cost-effective interventions to reduce exposure and improve public health. 

Although the setting of multipollutant ambient air quality standards is likely well in the future, 

the agency is working with states to develop multipollutant air quality management plans, and 

seeking to move its air quality research program to a multi-pollutant perspective that can 

increasingly identify the effects of the simultaneous co-exposure to many different pollutants 

that humans and the ecosystem face. 

There are hundreds of compounds in the ambient mix of pollutants; the agency has focused 

on a subset of these which have been the main targets of the Clean Air Act: the so-called criteria 

pollutants (especially PM and ozone) as well as some air toxics. As the Centers begin to 

examine mixtures of air pollutants, the Panel agreed that a focus on mixtures of criteria 

pollutants and air toxics is useful (e.g., considering the impacts of exposure to mixtures of PM 

and air toxics). The Panel also noted that there are significant “multipollutant” challenges within 

some pollutant classes, especially PM. For example PM can be viewed as a mixture of ultrafine 

particles and larger particles; PM can also be viewed as a mixture of inorganic acids and salts, 

organic compounds and soot-like material. Current research on differential impacts of PM 

components may also inform questions of effects of multipollutant mixtures. 

The Panel agrees that the Agency should find ways to re-direct the PM Centers program so 

that it is better able to address the broader multi-pollutant context. The development of a more 

robust set of atmospheric chemistry, exposure, dosimetry, toxicology and epidemiology research 

methods will be essential to building the evidence necessary to support both nearer term 

decisions by states and localities about the best integrated intervention strategies, and to laying 

the foundation for the development of multipollutant ambient standards in the future. 

Specifically, the Panel found: 

a)	 Multi-pollutant approaches should be strongly encouraged by EPA in applications for 

PM Research Centers, with clear encouragement of efforts to develop innovative 

methods that address multi-pollutant atmospheric transformation, exposure, 

dosimetry, toxicology, and epidemiology. These new methods could include a range 

of approaches, from computational toxicology and genomics to enhanced statistical 

methods for identifying principal components or factors, to novel analytic chemistry. 

b)	 The Panel felt that while the Agency should provide a strong incentive for 

multipollutant approaches, it should not mandate specific approaches, but rely on the 

skills and innovation of the research community to propose new approaches. 

5
 
 

c)	 The Panel generally agreed with the Agency’s suggestion that organizing its 

multipollutant efforts around sources could be useful, but cautioned that an overemphasis only on near-roadway exposures in such efforts could substantially underrepresent the importance of other sources and the atmospheric transformation of their 

emissions that are also significant contributors to exposure. 

d)	 Finally, it will be important to balance the interest in a multipollutant approach with 

the need to continue answering single pollutant questions that can inform nearer term 

decisions critical to the Agency’s mission to improve public health. This should 

include science to inform standard setting (e.g., better understanding PM exposureresponse and the relative toxicity of PM components). It also should inform 

regulatory strategy (e.g. better tools for source apportionment). But even in these 

instances, the Centers program should emphasize the need to generate such pollutantspecific data as much as possible in a multi-pollutant context to enhance its 

interpretation. 

Addressing Regional Differences: The panel noted the well-known differences in pollutant 

sources and mixtures in different regions, and emerging evidence of differences in health effects, 

and found that exploring, characterizing, and understanding these regional differences in 

exposure and effect should also be a broader direction to be encouraged in a new round of Center 

awards. 

a)	 As with multi-pollutant approaches the Panel felt that systematic approaches to 

addressing regional differences should be strongly encouraged by EPA, with a clear 

indication that such efforts will enhance the applicant’s chances of being selected. 

Here too, the Panel felt that while the Agency should provide a strong incentive for 

addressing regional differences, it should not mandate specific approaches, but rely on 

the skills and innovation of the research community to propose new approaches. 

b)	 The Panel further found that addressing these regional differences could take two 

forms: 

i	 First, individual centers that could demonstrate a systematic approach to 

exploring and understanding differences in exposure and health in two or more 

regions should be encouraged; and 

ii	 Second, once centers are selected, and to the extent that they represent 

geographical differences in their location and focus, EPA should foster 

enhanced collaboration and coordination among the relevant centers on 

regional differences. 

2.3 Charge Question 3. What strengths and weaknesses does the panel see in different 

options for a future Centers Research Program? 

The PM Centers panel recognizes the successes of the PM Centers program over the last 8 

years as discussed in Charge question 1. In addition, the Panel noted that the program has been 

6
 
adaptive, adding and deleting elements in response to reviews and changing scientific 

understanding of key issues. Since the Program is successful, some members questioned the 

need to make major changes, suggesting “if it’s not broken, do not fix it.” However, as the 

Agency redirects the Centers toward more multi-pollutant approaches and examination of 

regional differences, some structural and operational changes should be considered. The panel 

considered both specific structural changes for the Centers program under consideration by the 

Agency, and broader structural and operational features of the Centers. These are described, by 

topic, in paragraphs a) through g). 

a)	 The agency asked the panel to consider whether all Center applicants should address 

the same research topics. 

The panel agreed that the PM Centers should be asked to choose from among a 

described set of priority research topics, as has been the case in the past, however, the 

notion that all Centers should study identical research topics was not supported. The 

RFA should describe the range of desired research and let the applicants decide on the 

exact research topics and approaches. It is then up to the Agency to select an appropriate 

research portfolio, based on quality, relevancy, and the extent to which the applicants 

propose research topics which complement other Intramural and Extramural research 

programs. 

b)	 The agency asked the panel to consider whether all Center applicants should have a 

regional focus. 

The consensus of the Panel was that the requirement of funding Centers based on 

their regional locations would not be a structurally beneficial alteration to the Program, 

despite some benefits in supporting regulatory decisions, such as providing closer links to 

regional, state, and local officials and facilitating identification of regional issues. 

There are important regional differences in atmospheric contaminants and health 

outcomes that need to be studied and understood. The development of regional centers 

may help delineate these differences; however, other scientific approaches may be 

scientifically better and more cost effective. For example, as noted above in response to 

Question 2, individual centers could explore and understand differences in exposure and 

health in two or more regions and EPA could foster enhanced collaboration and 

coordination among the centers on regional differences. 

c)	 The agency asked the panel to consider whether individual Centers should continue to 

be funded at their current level or whether a larger number of Centers, funded at a 

smaller level would be more effective. 

There are advantages and disadvantages to having only Centers funded at or near the 

current level (large Centers) or a mixture of large and small Centers. The funding of both 

large and small Centers was favored by a minority of the panel. The main concern of 

most of the panel was that funding limited or small Centers would diminish the impact of 

7
 
the program and would diminish some of the advantages of large Centers cited in 

response to Charge question 1. 

The funding of small Centers would allow Research Centers that are not as 

comprehensive or developed as the large Centers to be funded and develop their research 

program. The funding of small Centers also provides the agency the opportunity to select 

research programs that may fill a very specific research need. While the funding of small 

centers has advantages the loss of the large Center effect and the transfer of funding from 

large to small Centers were not supported by the majority of the Panel members. 

d)	 The panel encourages the Centers to develop core laboratories that can be shared and 

to pursue supplementary funding 

Other potential structural elements that the Agency is encouraged to entertain is the 

potential use of Core laboratories shared among the Centers; and encouraging the Centers 

to identify complementary research programs that can supplement Center activities. The 

Panel also recommends that the EPA search to find research partners that may help fund 

this Program. NIEHS, NIGMS, ALA, AHA, ATS would be just some of the federal and 

non federal programs that may help fund this research. Other Centers programs of the 

EPA have been successful in developing outside EPA funding to share costs of the 

program. The focus of funding from other agencies should be to augment Center 

research, rather than as a replacement for EPA funding. 

e)	 The panel encourages the Centers to continue their tradition of ongoing evaluation and 

scientific flexibility 

The Centers must continue to have a process for periodic evaluation of research 

programs.The Centers should have the flexibility to end projects that have come to a 

reasonable endpoint and begin new projects. This should be done in consultation with the 

Center oversight committees and the Agency. 

f)	 The panel encourages the Centers to continue their tradition of internal integration and 

integration with the agency. 

The Centers have a strong tradition of integration of science, data, and methodology, 

allowing rapid progress of the state of the art in science and methods within individual 

Centers and within the PM Centers program. Integration with internal agency programs 

should be encouraged to the extent practicable. 

g)	 The panel encourages the Centers to continue their tradition of strong External 

Advisory Panels 

The Centers should continue their use of external advisory Panels. Some panel 

members felt that it may be helpful if the Centers consider community involvement in the 

Panels, particularly if the Center has a regional focus, however there was not a panel 

consensus on this recommendation. 

8
 
REFERENCES 

AAP. 2004. “Ambient air pollution: Health hazards to children.” American Academy of 

Pediatrics; Committee on Environmental Health. Pediatrics: 114:1699-1707. 

BOSC. 2005. “Report of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) review of EPA’s PM and 

Ozone Research Program. US EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, August 11, 2005. 

http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/pm0508rpt.pdf. 

Brook, R.D. 2004. “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: 109:2655-2671. 

NAS/NRC. 2004. “Research Priorities for airborne Particulate Matter-IV-Continuing research 

Progress.” Committee on Research Priorities for airborne Particulate Matter, Board on 

Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Divison of Earth and Life Studies, National Research 

Council of the National Academies. The National Academies Press., Washington, DC. 

Sanders, W.H. 2008. “Particulate Matter Research Centers Program SAB Advisory Panel 

Meeting.” Memorandum from Dr. William H. Sanders to Mr. Fred Butterfield. September 10, 

2008. 

US EPA SAB. 2002. “Interim Review of the Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers: An SAB 

Report,” EPA-SAB-EC-02-008, May 24, 2002. 

US EPA SAB. 2008. “Formation of Science Advisory Board (SAB) Particulate Matter (PM) 

Research Centers Program Advisory Panel.” Memorandum from Mr. Fred Butterfield to Dr. 

Vanessa Vu, June 19, 2008. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AAP American Academy of Pediatrics 

AHA American Heart Association 

ALA American Lung Association 

ATS American Thoracic Society 

BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors to the US EPA ORD Assistant Administrator 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

ISA Integrated Science Assessment of the NAAQS review process 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCER National Center for Environmental Research of the US EPA ORD 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NIGMS National Institute of General Medical Sciences 

NRC National Research Council of the National Academies 

ORD US EPA Office of Research and Development 

PANEL The EPA SAB Particulate Matter Research Centers Program Advisory Panel 

PM Particulate Matter 

RFA Request for Applications (for Grant Proposals) 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

STAR Science To Achieve Results Program 

10
 
Appendix 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, DC 20004 

September 10, 2008 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Particulate Matter Research Centers Program SAB Advisory Panel 

Meeting 

FROM: William H. Sanders III, Dr. P.H. 

Director 

National Center for Environmental Research, Washington, DC 

Office of Research and Development 

TO: Fred Butterfield 

Designated Federal Officer 

SAB Advisory Panel 

EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400F) 

This memorandum provides background information and transmits charge 

questions for the upcoming meeting of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

Particulate Matter Research Centers Program Advisory Panel. The Panel is 

scheduled to meet on October 1-2, 2008 in Washington, DC, to advise the Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) on the Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers 

Program and, subsequently, to provide the EPA Administrator with its advice and 

recommendations on the future directions of this program. Please forward this 

memorandum to the members of the SAB Advisory Panel in preparation for this review. 

Attached to this memorandum is a twelve-page “Explanation of the Charge and 

Supporting Materials.” This document explains the rationale behind ORD’s request for 

this advisory panel and information to assist the panelists in addressing the charge 

questions. In addition to this memorandum, all members of the SAB Advisory Panel will 

receive a CD-ROM containing supporting documents referenced in the following pages. 

Hard-copies of these documents can be provided upon request. These supporting 

materials are also posted on the EPA-NCER Web site at the following URL: http:// 

es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/2008sab/index.html. 
We appreciate the efforts of the SAB Advisory Panel in preparing for this 

upcoming meeting, and we look forward to discussing the PM Research Centers Program 

with the Panel in detail on October 1-2. Should you have any questions regarding the 

attached explanatory document or the CD-ROM of supporting documents, please contact 

Stacey Katz, NCER, at phone: 202-343-9855, or email: katz.stacey@epa.gov, or Gail 

Robarge, NCER, at phone 202-343-9857, or email: Robarge.gail@epa.gov. 

Attachment 

2 
Science Advisory Board Advisory Panel Meeting
 

Particulate Matter Research Centers Program
 

Explanation of the Charge and Supporting Materials
 

Overall Charge Question 

In the context of the current state-of-the-science and the priorities for the EPA Air 

research program, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) seeks advice on the 

possible structures and strategic direction of an Air Research Centers program for 2010 – 

2015. 

Background 

Particulate Matter Research Centers 

EPA established new air quality standards for particulate matter (PM) smaller than 2.5μm 

in 1997 based on findings relating exposure to these fine particles with adverse health 

effects, including increased hospitalizations and premature deaths. In the 1998 EPA 

Appropriations bill, Congress augmented the President’s recommended EPA budget by 

over $22 million to address uncertainties in the evidence on PM health effects. A part of 

the expanded ORD research program was a directive to EPA to establish as many as five 

university-based particulate matter research centers (Tab 4-K). In addition, EPA was 

directed to provide support to the National Academy of Sciences National Research 

Council to develop priorities for a comprehensive PM research program and review of 

research progress over the next five years. The recommendations in the NRC 

Committee’s first report, Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter1, were used 

as a major source of guidance for the PM Centers Request for Applications (RFA). 

Prospective Centers were asked to propose an integrated research program on the health 

effects of PM, addressing a set of research needs in the areas of exposure, dosimetry, 

toxicology and epidemiology (Tab 4-L). The first research Centers were funded from 

1999 – 2005, with a total program budget of $8 million annually (Tab 4-M). Although 

the initial funding was awarded for five years, the Centers were funded for a sixth year, 

so that the final NAS report could be considered in the next solicitation. 

In 2002, with the first PM Centers grants at a midway point, the EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) conducted an interim review that recommended continuing the Centers 

program, while maintaining a balance of Centers and individual grants (Tab 4-N). 

Subsequent to the positive SAB review and the issuance of the 2004 NRC report1, a 

second PM Centers competition was held. The recommendations and conclusions in the 

interim SAB review and the final NRC report were highly influential in the development 

1 http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/de2007.cgi?term=Research+Priorities+for+Airborne 

3 
 

 

 

 

of the second PM Centers solicitation. The 2004 RFA focused on understanding which 

sources and components in the particle mixture, as well as which size fractions or other 

physical attributes are most responsible for observed adverse effects (Tab 4-O). The 

RFA asked respondents to address the central theme of “linking health effects to PM 

sources and components,” and to focus on the research priorities of susceptibility, 

biological mechanisms, exposure-response relationships, and source linkages (although 

applicants were not required to address all four topics). While the 2004 RFA did not 

require specific scientific disciplines to be included in the proposal, the RFA emphasized 

the need for integration, focusing on research strengths, partnering with others who have 

complementary strengths, and showing how integration would occur. From the second 

competition, five current Centers are funded for 2005-2010 (program budget of $8 

million annually). 

Original and Current PM Research Centers 

Harvard University PM Research Center (Director: Petros Koutrakis), 1999-2005 and 

2005-2010 

Johns Hopkins PM Research Center (Director: Jonathan Samet), 2005-2010 

Northwest Research Center for Particulate Air Pollution and Health (Director: Jane Koenig) 

1999-2005 

New York University PM Center (Director: Morton Lippmann) 1999-2005 

San Joaquin Valley Aerosol Health Effects Center at UC Davis (Director: Anthony Wexler) 

2005-2010 

Southern California Particle Center (Director: John Froines) 1999-2005 and 2005-2010 

University of Rochester PM Research Center (Director: Gunter Oberdorster) 1999-2005 and 

2005-2010 

EPA is now seeking the advice of the SAB before announcing a third competition. 

Current plans are for an RFA to be issued in 2009, in anticipation of funding Centers for 

2010 – 2015. 

ORD Multi-Year Plan for Clean Air Research 

ORD’s National Program Director for Clean Air Research led the recent revision of the 

plan that explains goals and priorities in air research. The program is now guided by the 

Clean Air Research Multi-Year Plan2 (MYP), 2008-2012 (see inside pocket of notebook). 

It addresses research in the areas of PM, ozone, and air toxics, combined into a single, 

comprehensive plan, and emphasizes the need to move from a single-pollutant focus to a 

multi-pollutant approach. The plan was reviewed by a panel of external scientists 

through ORD’s Board of Scientific Counselors. The two long-term goals (LTGs) of this 

plan are: 

2 http://www.epa.gov/ord/npd/pdfs/Air-MYP-narrative-final.pdf 

4 
LTG 1: Reduce uncertainties in standard setting and air quality management 

decisions due to advances in air pollution science 

LTG 2: Reduce uncertainties in linking health and environmental effects to air 

pollution sources. 

The MYP envisions a coordinated program of air research, describing goals and 

objectives to be addressed jointly by the EPA intramural research laboratories and the 

extramural research grants program. The current PM Centers are conducting work that 

will contribute to many of the annual performance goals and measures in the plan. 

The intramural and extramural air research programs are highly integrated and

complement each other throughout the MYP. In certain areas, such as epidemiology, the 

extramural program provides the bulk of research, whereas other areas, such as

combustion engineering, are primarily the focus of the intramural program. Significant

research efforts in areas such as toxicology, exposure, controlled human exposure and 

atmospheric science are actively supported in both the intra- and extramural programs

and carefully coordinated to achieve the long-term and annual performance goals

specified in the MYP. 

Coordination with Other Air Research Programs 

As ORD considers future strategic directions, ORD is cognizant that other agencies also 

fund highly relevant research. For ORD, critical considerations are EPA’s unique 

research niche and its mission as a regulatory agency. In research areas where other large 

funders, such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, 

have major initiatives, EPA involvement makes sense if the focus is more related to the 

Agency’s mission. For example, the NIEHS strategic plan (2006-2011)3 emphasizes 

gene-environment interactions; cross cutting problems in human biology and human 

disease; improved community-linked research; and sensitive markers of environmental 

exposure. In this context, EPA is only likely to fund research on gene-environment 

interactions that is very targeted to specific research questions of interest to EPA. EPA 

also coordinates with other sponsors of air pollution research, including the California Air 

Resources Board4 and the Health Effects Institute (HEI)5 – interaction takes various 

forms, such as providing input to strategic plans and research solicitations, participating 

in review of applications, and collaborating on workshops. 

EPA’s Extramural Air Research Grants Program 

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER)’s extramural research is 

conducted principally through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. STAR is 

a competitive, rigorously peer-reviewed program of research grants that solicits proposals 

3 NIEHS strategic plan: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/od/strategicplan/index.cfm 

4 California Air Resources Board strategic plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/apr.htm 

5 HEI strategic plan: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/StrategicPlan2005-2010.pdf 

5 
from scientists at universities and nonprofit institutions in response to targeted Requests 

for Applications (RFAs) issued by NCER. The RFAs address research priorities in 

ORD’s multi-year research plan. They are developed in conjunction with the National 

Program Director and scientific staff from ORD laboratories, regions, and the EPA Office 

of Air and Radiation, considering input from external scientific advisory panels and 

workshops. In recent years, the NCER Air Research program has funded $15-18 million 

in air grants annually, out of the total STAR budget of approximately $55-65 million (Tab 

4-P). Each year, $8 million of the NCER Air budget funds the inter-disciplinary PM 

Research Centers. 

STAR Individual Research Grants 

Each year, $6-8 million from NCER Air budget is awarded through RFAs for individual 

grants. In contrast to Centers, these RFAs can be targeted to very specific research topics 

that require a particular focus. Given the complexity of air research Centers, funding for a 

five year period is needed to accomplish all of the Centers objectives, many of which are 

cross-discipline. Individual grants tend to be three years in duration and allow EPA to 

solicit proposals in response to quickly emerging issues and targeted needs for research 

methods development. In addition, individual grants provide ORD with the ability to 

address a single topic, such as effects of long-term exposures to PM or assessing the 

potential toxicity of coarse PM, with single, dedicated grants. Recent RFAs for 

individual STAR grants have addressed high priority, focused research needs, for 

example: 

•	 A prospective epidemiological study to examine the health effects of long-term 

exposure to PM. The investigators are studying the effects of exposure to air 

pollution on 8700 people aged 50-89 prospectively for ten years. This is the 

largest research grant ever funded by EPA, and it is a joint effort with the 

National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 

(NHLBI). The majority of the study population recruitment and medical 

examinations are conducted through the NHLBI Multi-Ethnic Study of 

Atherosclerosis. The air pollution study, known as MESA-Air6, will provide new 

and critically important information on the role of PM and other air pollutants in 

cardiovascular disease and mortality. 

•	 Atmospheric science studies focused on measurement and modeling methods, 

with a special emphasis on understanding the sources of carbonaceous particulate 

matter. 

•	 Research to understand the sources, composition and effects of coarse 

particulate matter, including research by both atmospheric and health scientists. 

•	 Innovative approaches to using advanced measurement and modeling 

techniques that can strengthen the air quality and exposure aspects of 

6 MESA-Air fact sheet http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/factsheets/mesa_air.pdf 

6 
epidemiologic studies. 

A complete list of STAR RFAs in the Air Program and a description of the process 

through which RFAs are developed and grants awarded can be found in Section 4-Q. 

7 
Specific Charge Questions 

Charge Question 1. How well have the PM Centers continued to contribute to 

advancing research on key PM issues most relevant to EPA’s mission? 

Advancing Research Most Relevant to EPA’s mission 

EPA believes the PM Centers have contributed significantly to the scientific literature on 

exposure to and effects of airborne PM. To support this conclusion, a range of evidence 

is provided in section 2 of the SAB panel notebook and described briefly here. 

From a scientific perspective, the Centers have made major contributions in many areas 

of PM research. At the SAB panel meeting, Dr. Dan Costa, EPA’s National Program 

Director for Clean Air Research, will present some key examples of how the PM Centers 

have played a role in advancing air pollution research, selected from the Centers’ 

integrated summaries of accomplishments and progress reports. Additionally, Dr. Costa 

will provide an EPA scientific perspective on the benefits that have resulted from the 

Centers program, for example: 

•	 Recognized as world leaders in investigating the health effects associated with 

exposure to ultrafine particles and in characterizing the chemical composition, 

sources, and atmospheric processing of ultrafine particles; 

•	 Advanced the theory of oxidative stress as a key mechanism by which PM causes 

adverse health effects, including elucidating the role of reactive oxygen species; 

•	 Developed cutting edge technologies for PM research, e.g., size-specific particle 

concentrators, personal exposure monitors, single particle analyzers; 

•	 Produced unique contributions in epidemiology and biostatistics, areas which 

complement the EPA intramural program; 

•	 Played a key role in research to link health effects of PM to sources, e.g., 

demonstrating that emissions near roadways are of special concern; 

•	 Participated in cooperative efforts among Centers and with EPA, including advances 

in controlled human exposure studies. 

A discussion of these and other outcomes is provided in a brief report by senior EPA 

scientist Dr. Robert Devlin (Tab 1-A). 

Summary Report from Original Centers 

The major scientific findings of the original PM Centers (1999-2005) are summarized in 

a final report to EPA (Tab 1-B)7. This summary report was drawn from three technical 

reports which were prepared by working groups from across the five PM Centers and 

7 A manuscript integrating and summarizing the Centers findings is under review for publication in 

Environmental Health Perspectives. 

8 
 

address the following topics: PM health effects including epidemiology and toxicology, 

mechanisms of PM toxicity, and PM characterization and exposure; all contain extensive 

references to previously published findings (Tab 4-R, and http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/ 

pm/centers.html). 

Current Center Progress Reports 

The productivity of the current Centers is presented in progress reports prepared by each 

Center. Rather than provide only the annual update for this past year, the Centers 

summarized their progress over the last three years, highlighting preliminary findings and 

their significance (Tab 1-C). These reports illustrate the extent to which the PM Centers 

conduct multi-disciplinary research. In addition, the multiple authors of many PM Center 

publications illustrate the multi-disciplinary cooperation within the Centers. 

Research Impacts 

At the SAB panel meeting, the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards’ (OAQPS) 

Director of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Lydia Wegman, will discuss 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAAQS) setting process, and how the PM 

Center science supports air quality regulation and decision-making (Tab 4-S). Of note, 

PM Center publications play prominently in the review of the PM NAAQS and in the 

development of state, local, and public health and air quality policies (Tab 1-D). The 

Centers’ work contributed to the 2007 PM NAAQS review and will certainly impact the 

upcoming EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for PM. As part of the 2007 review, 

ORD prepared a “provisional assessment” of research studies published between 2002 

and 2006 that were of potentially greatest relevance to assessing the health effects of PM. 

Of the 215 national and international citations in this PM provisional assessment, 71 (or 

33%) were PM Center papers. 

Also, the Centers’ work has been cited in policy statements from the American Heart 

Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. For example, the American Heart 

Association issued a scientific statement on air pollution and cardiovascular disease, 

reviewing the literature and addressing the public health indications for clinicians and 

policy implications for regulators. Of the statement’s 108 recent citations (since 2000), 

which include international sources, 18 (or 17%) were PM Center papers. PM Center 

work also influences state and local policy decisions – for example, the California state 

law specifying that schools must be sited at least 500 feet away from freeways. 

Beyond air pollution, the Centers’ work is significantly influencing new directions in 

science. For example, toxicological work by the Southern California Particle Center has 

been cited in a recent NAS report on “Toxicology in the 21st Century” as contributing to 

“a revolution taking place in biology.” Also, studies of ultrafine particles by the 

University of Rochester and Southern California PM Centers are providing a foundation 

for studying the health effects of nanoparticles (Tab 1-D). 

9 
Bibliographic Analyses 

As one aspect of assessing productivity of research programs, ORD has begun analyzing 

publications data. The original PM Centers collectively authored over 500 publications. 

An analysis of these papers with respect to citation rates, publication in high impact 

journals, and other features demonstrates that this program is highly productive and far 

exceeds expectations. For example, when the frequency of citation of PM Center 

publications was compared to that of all publications in their field, 37% of PM Center 

publications ranked in the top 10% (3.7 times as many as expected), and 5.5% of PM 

Center publications ranked in the top 1% (5.5 times as many as expected). As explained 

in the brief report (Tab 1-E), this analysis primarily focuses on publications from the 

original Centers, since the current Centers have not yet reached a critical mass of 

publications. Although the publications analyses show that publication counts do not 

peak until the last year of a Center, the current Centers have published over 100 papers to 

date. 

External Review of PM Research Program 

The PM Centers program is an integral part of the EPA Air Research Program and as such 

has been included in the reviews of the Air Research Program by ORD’s external Board 

of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Conclusions from the 2005 review relating to the high 

quality of the air research program and integration between the intramural and extramural 

programs (Tab 1-F) include: 

“The ORD PM & O3 Research Program has resulted in significant reductions in 

scientific uncertainty in critical areas.” 

“The Subcommittee finds a high degree of integration in the conduct of intramural 

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

disciplines.” 

“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.” 

In September 2007, the Clean Air program underwent a “mid-cycle review” by the BOSC 

and was rated as “exceeds expectations” in the context of performance categories 

established by the Office of Management and Budget. The quality and impact of the Air 

program publications, weighted heavily by Center publications, were specifically cited by 

the BOSC in its report. 

10 
 

 

Interactions, Scientific Training, and External Advice 

In assessing the success of the PM Centers, several other factors are relevant including 

evidence such as: 1) examples of interaction among the Centers, with EPA scientists and 

the broader scientific community and the subsequent benefits of those activities; 2) 

scientific training provided by the five Centers to almost 90 post-doctoral students and 

over 50 graduate students in an interdisciplinary environment, inspiring the next 

generation of air pollution researchers; and 3) guidance and oversight by external 

scientific advisory committees, comprised of highly-respected scientists, including senior 

scientists from other PM Centers and EPA (Tab 1-G). 

Charge Question 2. What advice does the panel have on how to move to a multipollutant approach in the PM Centers program? 

ORD’s Multi-year Plan for Clean Air Research: Moving Towards Multi-Pollutant 

Research 

EPA’s Multi-year Plan (MYP) for Air research recognizes the importance of providing 

research to support the single-pollutant regulatory program at EPA, while moving the 

program toward a multi-pollutant focus that better reflects the complexity of real-world 

air pollution exposures (excerpts, Tab 2-H).8 As noted above, the plan includes two 

major long-term goals (LTGs): 

LTG 1: Reduce uncertainties in standard setting and air quality management 

decisions due to advances in air pollution science 

LTG 2: Reduce uncertainties in linking health and environmental effects to air 

pollution sources. 

The first LTG (LTG 1) supports the following priorities/themes: 

1) Developing the NAAQS and other air quality regulations – includes research 

on health effects of PM size fractions, PM components, effects of long-term 

exposure, biological mechanisms, and susceptibility 

2) Implementing air quality regulations – includes measurement methods, 

emissions factors, modeling, source apportionment, and air quality forecasting 

The second LTG (LTG 2) is more multi-pollutant in nature and is oriented toward three 

research themes 

1) Launching a multi-pollutant research program 

8 EPA is cognizant that air pollution conditions in the future will need to be understood in the context of 

changing global conditions. ORD’s Clean Air MYP does not focus on how climate change will affect air 

quality, as that is currently one of the main focus areas for EPA’s Global Change research program (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ord/npd/globalresearch-intro.htm). 

11 
2) Identifying specific source-to-health linkages, with initial emphasis on “near 

roadway” impacts 

3) Assessing the health and environmental improvements due to past regulatory 

actions 

External Advice on Moving Toward a Multi-Pollutant Focus 

Multiple external advisory committees have encouraged EPA to move to a multi-pollutant 

approach to researching, assessing and managing air pollution risks 

•	 “There is an opportunity and a critical need to shift the focus of the EPA program from a 

single pollutant, PM, to a multipollutant orientation. Because of the momentum that the 

PM research program has generated over the past 6 years, now is an opportune time to 

begin orienting EPA’s air quality research program toward a broader scope that 

specifically considers all components of the atmosphere – PM and the other criteria 

pollutants, hazardous pollutants, and the other nonclassified components of the 

atmosphere. The committee envisions a transformation from a PM-focused research 

program to a multiple air pollutant program (MAPP).” (NRC. Research Priorities for 

Airborne Particulate Matter, IV: Continuing Research Progress. 2004, http:// 

www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10957; See Executive Summary in Tab 2-J) 

•	 “Air quality management should...strive to take an integrated multipollutant approach to 

controlling emissions of pollutants posing the most significant risks.” (National Research 

Council. Air Quality Management in the United States. 2004, http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=10728) 

•	 “For the SIPs States are required to submit over the next several years, EPA and S/L/T 

should promote the consideration of multipollutant impacts, including the impacts of air 

toxics, and where there is discretion, select regulatory approaches that maximize benefits 

from controlling key air toxics, as well as ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze. The SIP 

process provides an opportunity for many urban areas to include key toxic air pollutants 

in a comprehensive, multipollutant air quality plan.” (Air Quality Management Work 

Group. Recommendations to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. January 2005, http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/caaac/aqm/report1-17-05.pdf) 

EPA’s own regulatory Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has 

reorganized to encourage a multi-pollutant focus, rather than its former “stove-piped” 

split between criteria pollutants and air toxics (Tab 2-I). It also is designed to develop 

expertise and leadership in multi-pollutant, sector-based approaches. 

Current PM Center Research Focus 

Currently, the PM Research Centers’ primary goal is to link PM sources and components 

to health effects, emphasizing the following general research areas: 

•	 susceptibility to the adverse effects of exposure to PM of different composition or 

from different sources 

•	 biological mechanisms by which PM and/or PM components cause adverse 

effects 

12 
•	 exposure-response relationships for biologically important constituents/sizes of 

PM and PM from different sources 

•	 relationships between emissions sources and ambient concentrations of PM, its 

components and size fractions. 

The Challenge 

As ORD contemplates the next round of research centers, the challenge is moving from 

PM-focused Centers to broader “air pollution” Centers that will address source-to-health 

effects questions from a multi-pollutant perspective. Yet understanding about PM 

sources and components is just beginning. For example, monitoring data have only 

recently become available to begin assessing the effects of exposure to PM components. 

ORD has just begun to support research specifically on coarse particles, and studies on 

ultrafine particles are still relatively new. Thus, ORD expects to continue PM research 

for the next several years. However, considering the next competition for research 

centers, ORD would like to emphasize moving toward a multi-pollutant program that 

reflects a more realistic view of air pollution science. 

Request for SAB Panel Advice 

Recognizing the importance of anticipating future research priorities, while continuing to 

address the research needs of EPA’s current regulatory program, ORD asks the panel for 

advice on how to address these competing priorities in the future by providing insights on 

strategic directions for the Centers. ORD asks the panel for advice on how to move the 

Centers toward a multi-pollutant program. 

The emphasis on linking health effects to PM sources and components is relatively 

recent. Does it make sense to continue on this path in some capacity? Similarly, as 

research on effects from exposure to specific components and size fractions of PM gets 

underway, do questions of biological mechanisms and susceptibility continue to be top 

priorities? 

If ORD continues some Center work on single pollutant themes, how should the program 

address the growing scientific and technical challenges of complying with new national 

ambient air quality standards? 

Given a multi-pollutant strategic direction, how can Air Research Centers best contribute 

to moving the air pollution science forward using this approach? Are the primary 

questions health-related, compliance-related or both? How should ORD approach multipollutant research? Is it a combination of a few air pollutants that often track together, or 

must it be a large, complex mixture consisting of multiple criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants? What is the appropriate balance of health, exposure and atmospheric science 

research in multi-pollutant Centers? 

13 
ORD believes that the panel’s insights on the questions above will be invaluable in 

charting future directions for the PM Centers program as it evolves into an Air Research 

Centers program. 

Charge Question 3: What strengths and weaknesses does the panel see in different 

structural options for a future Centers Research Program? 

EPA would like to think broadly about how the structure of Research Centers would 

affect the research program. As ORD contemplates changes in strategic direction for the 

program, and in light of declining resources, ORD would also like to consider whether 

the Centers program structure used for the past 10 years should be continued or could be 

improved. In the context of the strategic directions discussed in the second charge 

question, we request the SAB panel discuss and articulate strengths and weaknesses of 

each option below – and as needed, strengths and weaknesses of any additional scenarios 

the Panel suggests. 

Given the different perspectives of panel members, this charge question intentionally asks 

the panel to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of each option below. ORD is not 

requesting that one preferred structural option be recommended. The panel brings a 

breadth of perspectives that could shed light on implications of each option that ORD 

may not anticipate when moving forward with developing the next Research Centers 

RFA. ORD plans to incorporate the feedback received from the panel regarding 

structural options into the RFA writing team’s discussions. All of these perspectives will 

be considered collectively to determine which structure will best meet the objectives of 

the RFA. 

In the current budget climate, ORD is expecting to reduce the size of the Centers 

program. Current Centers are funded at approximately $1.6 million each, or $8 million 

total annually. Given resource projections, a balanced program between the Centers and 

other extramural research would be in the $6-7 million dollar range which would fund 

four Centers of the current size. This would allow ORD to maintain the STAR individual 

grants program in the range of $6-7 million, as well as continuing to provide funding for 

the intramural air research program. ORD will consider whether to continue to fund five 

Centers at a reduced funding level (e.g. $1-1.2 million per year per Center) or whether to 

reduce to four Centers in order to maintain approximately the current funding level. ORD 

welcomes the SAB panel’s views on this issue. 

Research topics mentioned in the options below refer to a general research area, e.g., in 

the last RFA – susceptibility, biological mechanisms, source linkages. Within each topic 

in the RFA, specific science questions are given for the applicant to address. 

14 
Structural Options For Research Centers Program (Tab 3) 

1. Same research topics for all applicants – large Centers 

This RFA would continue with the structure that EPA has used to date. It would include 

several research topics, listing specific science questions within each. All applicants 

would propose interdisciplinary research in response. Usually, each applicant addresses 

most of the questions listed in the RFA. 

Strengths 

o	 When multiple Centers address the same questions using different approaches, 

they produce a rich set of results that can be analyzed and compared at multiple 

levels. Examples include: statistical methods, technological innovations, and 

biological and atmospheric insights. 

o	 Easier to foster collaboration among the Centers as they all would be addressing 

similar issues with different approaches. 

Weaknesses 

o	 With limited resources it may not be most efficient to have all Centers addressing 

the same set of questions. 

o	 Most Centers will not have strong efforts in all areas. 

2. Regional Centers 

This type of RFA would require Centers to have a regional focus, reflecting the 

understanding that air pollution exposures and effects may vary by region of the country 

depending on predominant sources, land use, and atmospheric conditions. The RFA 

would also require specific ties to state and local air quality decision makers and public 

health officials in that region. The topic areas could be loosely defined, in order to allow 

freedom for Centers to choose the air pollution research questions of most importance to 

their regions. The intent would be to develop strong links between health and 

atmospheric science researchers. The assumption with this option is that there could be 

more than one Center in any given region. There would be no pre-determined regions for 

the RFA. Selection of Centers would be based on a combination of scientific excellence 

and regional representation. 

Strengths 

o	 Would promote research on effective implementation strategies to achieve air 

quality goals. 

o	 Ties to state and local air quality decision makers and public health officials in the 

regions will enhance the relevance and outcomes of the research. 

Weaknesses 

o	 Studies addressing national problems or impacts would be less likely to be 

proposed under this option.
 

15 
o	 More difficult to promote collaborations across Centers. 

3. Big and small Centers 

This RFA would solicit a certain number of large and small Centers. One example could 

be 2 large, multi-disciplinary Centers at current size and 3 or 4 smaller Centers at half 

size. The smaller Centers have the option of being multi-disciplinary, but smaller in 

scope. The topics for each size would be defined in the RFA. 

Strengths 

o	 Would make possible both large Centers modeled after the current ones that can 

address broad multi-disciplinary questions, as well as smaller Centers that could 

be targeted to specific areas. 

o	 Would expand the range of applicants to include groups that are excellent in 

limited areas but not large enough to compete for a large Center. 

Weaknesses 

o	 Cross-Center efforts would be more challenging. 

4. Choice of one topic – large Centers 

This RFA would fund large, multi-disciplinary Centers. The RFA would include two 

research topics and applicants would be required to respond to only one. The RFA would 

describe the scientific uncertainties of interest within each topic and present scientific 

questions under each. As an example, EPA might fund one Center studying the first topic 

and three Centers studying another topic (or 2 and 2). 

Strengths 

o	 Would allow applicants to focus the application on areas of strength and expertise 

instead of trying to cover multiple or too broad topics. 

o	 Promotes more focus within a given Center and advances the science in two 

distinct areas. 

Weaknesses 

o	 May not receive strong scientific applications in both areas, resulting in a limited 

scope of the program. 

o	 Cross-Center efforts would be less likely across Centers addressing different 

topics. 

5. Other – Such as a hybrid of any options above 

16